Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 92, No. 4.

THE WORK AND THE WORKERS
Earlier text: THE WORK AND THE WORKERS

The “Sacrifice of the Mass”

By C. M. S.

“Rome Never Changes”—No. 10

The “Sacrifice of the Mass”

(Continued)
It is claimed by the Roman Church that the mass is necessary to make effective the sacrifice on Calvary. That is an astonishing claim. If it were true, then there was no effective sacrifice for sin until the service of the mass was officially adopted by the Roman Church on Sept. 17, 1562. In that case the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour was ineffective from the time he was crucified until the Council of Trent established the sacrifice of the mass. The question naturally arises, What of those who died believing in Christ and the efficacy of his sacrifice between the time of the crucifixion and the year 1562? Did they trust in an ineffective sacrifice? Was their faith vain?
That we may not be accused of making an unjust charge, let us examine the declaration of the Council of Trent in reference to that proposition:—
Forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory (canon 6), and that by means thereof this is effected that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” sess. 22, chap. 11, authorized translations.
In the above we note the following claims: That in the “sacrifice of the mass” (in the wafer and the wine) “the same Christ is contained and immolated” that was offered “on the altar of the cross;” that the “sacrifice is truly propitiatory;” that through the mass “we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid;” that the Lord is “appeased by the oblation thereof;” and that because of and through the “sacrifice of the mass” the Lord “forgives even heinous crimes and sins.” In a work by Di Bruno, entitled “Catholic Belief,” it is stated that the purpose of the mass is “to apply practically to the soul the merits and graces of the sacrifice of the cross.” —Page 77.
If these claims are true, or if any one of them is true, then it must be admitted that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was inefficient without the “sacrifice of the mass.”
But we hold that the sacrifice on Calvary was efficient and sufficient, and against the above claims we set the plain declarations of the Inspired Word of God. The Council of Trent teaches that the same Christ who was offered on Calvary is offered again in the “sacrifice of the mass.” But the Inspired Word says:—
“He, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Heb. 10: 12.
That is a very plain and very specific denial and contradiction and refutation of the very first proposition of the Council of Trent regarding the mass. He offered but one sacrifice for sins, and offered that sacrifice forever, and “sat down.” It is most difficult to understand how a great council of ecclesiastics could make such a declaration in spite of such a scripture. But there stand the two facing each other, the claim of men and the Word of the Almighty. Each is a denial of the other; and surely we are excusable if we choose the declaration of God in preference to the declaration of men. That scripture alone overturns every feature of the mass and every claim made by the Roman Church concerning the mass.
Another scripture which teaches the same thing is found in Rom. 6:9, 10:—
“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”
If the declaration of the Council of Trent were true, Christ would die on every altar of every Roman Church in the world at every celebration of the mass. But he tells us in his Inspired Word, as above quoted, that “he died unto sin once.”
The Council of Trent teaches that the “sacrifice of the mass” is “truly propitiatory.” If that were true, the sacrifice on Calvary was unnecessary. The Bible claims for the sacrifice on Calvary that it was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. The following scriptures make that plain:—
“He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” 1 John 2:2.
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 4:10.
“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime.” Rom. 3:24, 25.
“Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.” Heb. 9:28.
The Word of God admits of no repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Once done, it was done forever. It was sufficient for the sins of the whole world; and any repetition of it on the part of man is an intimation, nay, an open declaration, that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. When Rome claims that the “sacrifice of the mass” was necessary in order “to apply practically to the soul the merits and graces of the sacrifice of the cross,” she claims that the sacrifice of the cross was a dead and ineffective thing without her invention to make it complete. But, on the other hand, the Bible sets forth the sacrifice of Calvary as complete in itself and able to cleanse the believer from all sin.
More than that, in making so much of the mass, Rome does despite to the teachings of her own cardinals and canonized saints. For instance, let us consider the comment of Cardinal Cajetan on Heb. 9:18:—
The apostle’s argument is of this kind. From the fact that by the new law remission of sins is made by the one offering of Christ, he argues that no other offering for sins remains. For in such a case an injury would be done to the offering of Christ, as though it were insufficient.—“Pauli Epp.,” Paris edition, 1540, page 201.
This cardinal, in the same connection, adds: “It is one thing to repeat the passion of Christ, and another to repeat the commemoration and application of his passion.” He argued against considering the Eucharist as a sacrifice, declaring the Lord’s Supper to be what our Lord said it should be, a commemoration only of his sacrifice for the sins of the world. Cardinal Contarini affirms that “no Christian author, either ancient or modern, of any name, hath said that the mass is a sacrifice of the priest ex opere operantis, whereby, as if in rivalry of the sacrifice of Christ, the priest obtains for us remission of sins. Nay, Ambrose and Augustine affirm that in the mass there is a remembrance and commemoration of that one sacrifice which Christ offered.”—“De Sacram. Opp.,” page 359. So we find that Rome, in her teaching and practice concerning the mass, contradicts both the Bible and the teachings of her most authoritative Fathers.
The Council of Trent declares that the “sacrifice of the mass” is a propitiatory sacrifice, and in the same breath makes the declaration that that “sacrifice” is an “unbloody sacrifice.” A propitiatory sacrifice is one that makes propitiation for sin, removing from the sinner the condemnation which his sin had caused to rest upon him. But sin cannot be removed by an “unbloody sacrifice.” The Word declares, “Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” Heb. 9:22. We find the same thought in the Old Testament:—
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” Lev. 17:11.
In declaring that the “unbloody” “sacrifice of the mass” is “propitiatory” in its nature, the Roman Church squarely contradicts both the Old and the New Testament. The shedding of blood in the sacrificial act proclaimed the giving of a sinless life to wash away the sins of the repentant sinner. In substituting a sacrifice without the shedding of blood for the one in which the blood of Christ was shed, or in adding the “sacrifice of the mass” to the sacrifice on Calvary to make that one complete, Rome declares God’s arrangement incomplete without the assistance of the human arrangement. She does what Cain did, when, instead of bringing a lamb to typify Christ and shedding its blood to typify his that was to be shed on Calvary, he brought of the fruit of the field—an arrangement of his own, which is perpetuated in the “sacrifice of the mass.” God rejected Cain’s “unbloody” offering, and accepted Abel’s offering, the blood of which was shed in the act of offering it. So Cain rose up and slew his brother, mingling Abel’s blood with that of his sacrifice. In that was typified the martyrdom of the millions of Christians who have gone to their death because of their faith, mingling their blood with that of the Lamb slain on Calvary. It is more than a coincidence that the church which substitutes the “unbloody sacrifice” for the true sacrifice, has shed the blood of many millions of conscientious human beings for worshiping God as they believed God required and rejecting the system of worship instituted and enforced by the church.
The Council of Trent declares that through the mass “we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid.” If that be so, what do we obtain through the sacrifice on Calvary? The mass purports to bring to us what the Calvary sacrifice is declared by the Word to bring to us. If it does, then Christ’s blood was shed in vain; and that we can never assent to.
The Council of Trent declares that God is “appeased” by the “sacrifice of the mass.” The idea of appeasing an angry god runs through all heathen religions. The sacrifice of Christ was made that the guilt of sin might be washed away from the repentant human soul. It brings man and his Maker together again—a sin-cleansed soul returned to the household of righteousness. There is nothing in that “unbloody sacrifice” to “appease” God. Instead, it must displease him by putting the human arrangement in place of the divine and making the divine seem insufficient without the support and help of the human.
The Council of Trent declares that through the “sacrifice of the mass” the Lord “forgives even heinous crimes and sins.” But, we ask, what then is there left for the sacrifice on Calvary to accomplish? The inference must be that without the mass “heinous crimes and sins” would not be forgiven. That would be a fearful charge to bring against the One who gave his life and shed his blood for the sins of “the whole world.” We read in 1 John 1:7 that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” What does that leave for the mass to accomplish? We learn through Eph. 1:7 that we have “redemption through his blood.” Do we need something besides redemption which Christ’s sacrifice cannot accomplish for us, and only the mass can accomplish? We learn from Rev. 1:5 that he has “loosed us from our sins by his blood.” When that is done, what is there left for the mass to do? The “unbloody” mass is declared by the Council of Trent to be a true propitiatory sacrifice. But we learn from Rom. 3:25 that propitiation is accomplished “through faith, in his blood,” and nothing is said as to any propitiation coming through any kind of “unbloody” sacrifice. We learn by Rev. 7:14 that the faithful children of God are made “white in the blood of the Lamb.”
We certainly must conclude that, if the blood of Christ “cleanseth us from all sin;” if we have “redemption through his blood;” if he has “loosed us from our sins by his blood;” if we enter into the benefits of that propitiation which is accomplished “through faith, in his blood;” if we are made “white in the blood of the Lamb,”—we must conclude that the blood of Christ shed on Calvary has secured for us all we need, and that there is no place in the plan of salvation for the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass. C. M. S. (To be concluded)

“Even in Troublous Times”

By William Ambrose Spicer

In Daniel’s prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem he said, “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Dan. 9:25.
The Lord’s work does not stop for troublous times. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah we have the story of earnest work accomplished in rebuilding Jerusalem amid tumult and difficulty and opposition, the Lord’s providence overruling all, and his blessed gift of courage and assurance filling the hearts of the workers. So ever the work of God has moved forward in the earth, never stopping, never halting.
We find in the organ of the Church Missionary Society, of England, the evangelical mission board of the great Church of England, a report of the decision arrived at by the mission committee as to the shaping of their work during the crisis in Europe. Very earnest councils were held on the outbreak of the war, just at the season when new missionaries were to be sent out and plans laid for another year of missionary endeavor. As a result of the councils the Church Missionary Review for November reports the decision was,—that the right course was to carry on God’s work as much as possible as it would have been carried on if there had been no war. . . . On the strength of the former decision, the arrangements for sending out the autumn reenforcements had been completed, and some two hundred missionaries, including fifty-two new recruits, had been taken leave of on October 1 and 2.
This shows the spirit in which the great missionary societies are pushing forward their work. The whole missionary movement has assumed great proportions in this generation, in the direct providence of God, as we very well know. These agencies are spreading abroad the light of his Holy Word, and preparing the way everywhere for the message of Christ’s soon coming.
It will be noted that the new recruits in this great society, with an income, we believe, of upward of two million dollars a year, are listed at fifty-two for the year. It may be that some others had been sent out earlier in the year, though the general custom of the society is to gather the reenforcements of the year for departure to the fields in the autumn. It is surely a testimony to the vigorous development of our own missionary movement that an even yet larger list went out to our mission fields from the North American Division alone during the year 1914, the number being sixty-seven. All this is made possible by the devoted missionary giving throughout our churches, and by the increased resources developed in the mission fields.
We may find inspiration, too, in the testimony from the fields as to the prosperity attending the preaching of the message “even in troublous times.” Again and again during the last two or three years, while Mexico has been in almost a continual state of revolution, the reports from that field have told of ever-increasing interest in the truth. Never was such progress known in our work in Mexico as that which has come during these days of tumult. The hearts of the workers, even amid trials at times, have been filled with joy and courage at the evidences that souls were turning to God as never before.
From other lands, not immediately involved in the great struggle going on at present, we have heard continually reports of renewed interest among the people, and of a greater power attending the preaching of the message to convert souls. The times are troublous in many countries far removed geographically from Europe. Commercial connections are broken, financial affairs are passing through a crisis, the hearts of the people are troubled, yet the work of God moves ever forward.
And from our workers in the countries directly involved in Europe we have word that in a remarkable way the tithes and offerings of our brethren are keeping up, and they are finding ways of service and of pushing the message forward that we could scarcely have anticipated. From every one of these countries comes the word of courage, notwithstanding the fearful struggle going forward. Naturally there must be in the parts which are the scene of conflict great loss and trouble and distress to our believing brethren and sisters, as well as to others, but even in these regions we hear of their continued effort to hold together and to bear witness to God’s truth. These things are an encouragement to us as we look toward the future of this world’s troubled history. We hope and pray that the angels of God may yet gather up the winds of strife, and that comparative peace may come for a time at least; yet we cannot tell what the future has in store, save that the times will become increasingly troublous. Long years ago we were told by the earnest warning of the spirit of prophecy that the work not done in times of peace would have to be done amid war and great difficulty.
But one lesson we get out of the experiences thus far is that God’s work will not stop, even though trouble fills the earth. The assurance of Daniel’s prophecy regarding the Lord’s work at the beginning of the great prophetic period of the twenty-three hundred years is an assurance that the special work begun at the close of that great period will be carried through to completion. “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” W. A. S.

Getting Rid of the Sabbath

By P. M. W.

The Sabbath controversy at the present time presents some striking anomalies. It is amusing if not ludicrous to read some of the arguments put forth in support of first-day observance. These writers will argue with logic and emphasis that the law of the ten commandments is of perpetual obligation, that the principle of Sabbath observance has never been set aside; and yet, after all, they deny the conclusion to which their logic inevitably drives them; namely, that if the law of ten commandments is of perpetual obligation, and if the Sabbath institution exists today as in the old dispensation, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” now as then, and should be so observed by Christians.
The New York Weekly Witness for Sept. 9, 1914, contains a reply by the editor to a correspondent with reference to the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists. Crediting Seventh-day Adventists with being “a very sincere and earnest people,” and denying that they make light of the atonement, he takes occasion to argue wherein their teaching with reference to the Sabbath leads them to minimize other important Bible doctrines. In doing this he falls into the error suggested at the outset of this article.
The ten commandments embody the fundamental principles of personal and communal morality, and these principles are as sound today as they were when the commandments were proclaimed from Horeb, but the commandments as commandments were not addressed to us.
In all his teaching about the Sabbath, Jesus condemned the strict interpretation of the Sabbath law which the Jews had adopted. The law itself was in full force during his lifetime, of course, but he taught that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” In other words, the purpose of the Sabbath law was to give man a rest and an opportunity to turn aside from the things of this life and seek communion with God.
But even that is not all. There were disputes about the Sabbath as early as the time of Paul, and he, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, carefully refrained from laying down any law on the subject, but said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.” “Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day.” Rom. 14: 5; Col. 2: 16.
Sabbath keeping as a divine thought for man is a perpetual obligation. The Sabbath was given to man at the creation, and is one of God’s best gifts to man. The Sabbath was made for man’s benefit, and no man can afford to neglect or to misuse the opportunity. But the day of the week is a matter of no consequence whatever except that it is a great help to keep the same day that others are keeping, and love to Christ naturally inspires a desire to keep the day on which he rose from the tomb, the day which has been commemorated by Christians ever since his resurrection.
Does the editor of the Witness insist upon the literal interpretation of the first commandment, of the sixth, of the seventh, of the eighth? Undoubtedly. Did the great Lawgiver mean literally what he said when he declared that human life should not be taken, and that the property and chastity of our neighbor should be regarded? Assuredly he meant this, and the principle involved even more than the outward act, for our Saviour declares that hatred of our brother is murder, and that the lustful desire is a violation of the seventh commandment. Matt. 5: 21, 22, 27, 28. If these precepts should be understood literally as they read, by what law of logic should the fourth commandment be made to teach what it does not say?
It is true that the Jews in the time of Christ failed to appreciate the true spirit of Sabbath observance. To them the outward form wholly appealed. By their traditions they made the Sabbath institution a burden grievous to be borne, instead of the joy and benefit which God designed it to be to all mankind. Mark 2: 27, 28.
The attitude of Christ toward the Sabbath as related both to his teaching and to his practice was to reveal the true spirit of the institution, and to bring man back to its proper observance. While we find no direct command on the part of either Christ or his apostles for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, in the teaching and practice of these Christian teachers the Sabbath institution was recognized as an existing institution, and the incidental reference to it in this way affords the strongest possible evidence of the manner in which it was regarded not alone by the Jewish people, but by the Christian church in the first century. And both Christ and Paul emphatically declare that the claims of the gospel do not abrogate the claims of the law. Matt. 5: 17-19; Rom. 3: 31.
There were many things which were done away in Christ. In him type met antitype; the shadow met the substance. There were certain holy days on which feasts were held and sacrifices made which were clearly typical of the coming Christ. In the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus these holy days are enumerated, but in this enumeration a plain distinction is made between them and the Sabbath of the Lord. Says the divine record: —
“These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, . . . beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Lev. 23: 37, 38.
The prophet of the Lord declares that there should come a time when these feast days and sabbath days would cease because the great Sacrifice to which they pointed forward would come and their significance would be lost.
“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” Hosea 2: 11.
Some there were in the early Christian church who still held to these ordinances, and they criticized those who refused to observe them. Of these the apostle Paul speaks in Col. 2: 16, 17: —
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
The Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not ceremonial. It did not point forward to Christ. Rather it pointed back to creation, and was given by the Creator as a memorial of his great creative act. He rested on it himself, thus making it his own rest day, and then gave it to the human family as a Sabbath because it had been his Sabbath. Gen. 2: 2, 3. While the apostle Paul taught that the ceremonial celebrations pointing forward to Christ were abolished at the cross, he recognized in his own practice, as distinct from these, the rest day of Jehovah. Acts 17: 1-3; 18: 4, 11.
In the new covenant relationship in Christ Jesus the apostle Paul declares that the law of God will be put into the minds of the believers and written in their hearts. And to the extent that the divine principles of the ten commandments are brought into the heart will they be expressed through the power of the indwelling Christ in the lives of the believers. Love for Christ will lead to the careful observance of the law of Christ. 1 John 5: 1-3.
If it really makes no difference after all, as the editor of the Witness declares, which day is observed, and if the question is one of convenience rather than of Bible instruction, why should issue be taken with Seventh-day Adventists because they prefer to believe literally what God declares with reference to the day to be observed? Surely if the Word of God does enjoin the observance of the seventh day, as our Sunday friends admit, and if there is no positive command in the sacred record for the observance of the first day, as they must also admit, why should Seventh-day Adventists be charged with being literalists and legalists because they choose to believe that God said what he meant and meant what he said with respect to the day which he set apart as his holy rest day?
It is begging the question to argue that the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath in the literal observance of that day should not kindle a fire in their habitations, and that they should refrain absolutely from the performance of “any” labor. Christ, by example, taught the true spirit of Sabbath observance in performing deeds of mercy for the relief of the sick and suffering. Matt. 12: 1-12. And this principle would not preclude the building of fires on the Sabbath day if these were necessary for comfort. In the warm climate through which Israel passed, and protected as they were by the covering of God for forty years, with their food rained directly from heaven, the building of fires was evidently not necessary to their comfort. This local national restriction imposed upon that people for a particular time and occasion need not be read into the requirements of the command designed for all ages and for all nations.
It is strange to what lengths men will go in order to avoid the claims of the fourth commandment. They will abolish in their arguments the whole law of ten commandments, and then rehabilitate it with the exception of the Sabbath commandment. This sort of juggling with the truth the prophet likens to the building of a wall and daubing it with untempered mortar. The wall, he declares, shall fall, and they who seek protection under its shadow shall fall with it. Eze. 13: 10-15. “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” “He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”
P. M. W.
Continue reading: A Visit to New Zealand