The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-12-22
Entered at the Post Office at Richmond Va, as
second-class matter
For the Central Presbyterian
Rome and the "Sacred Cup"
PETERSBURG, VA, Dec. Is, 80.

PETERSBURG, VA, Dec. Is, 80.
Messrs. EditorS,-I have been greatly
surprised to find that in the two long and
elaborate treatises of Father Muller"
on the Mass, one of which covers $50
pages and the other 800, there is no at
tempt to explain the strange custom of
his church in withholding from the com
municants in the sacrament that "Sacred
Cup" which, as he tells us, contains the
blood of Christ for the redemption of the
world l am the more surprised because
he holds, what many writers of his church
are not bold enough to avow, that when
our Lord said except ye eat the flesh Of
the Son Of man and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you" He had direct re-
ference to the sacramental eating of His
flesh under the appearance of bread, and
of His blood under the appearar ce Of
wine, and meant to teach that without
such communion in the sacrifice of the
Mass there can be no Inheritance Of eter-
nal life. Now surely if the cup is to be
withheld from us which contains the blood
that we must drink in order to be saved,
the author might have devoted few Of
those multtudinous pages to statement
of the reason for refusing US so invalua-
BILE blessing.
l find too that in describing the first
communion, at which our Lord presided,
and which was intended to be pattern
for all succeeding ones, he not only ad-
mits that all the communicates partook
of the cup, but adds these portentous
words, (Holy Mass, page 39,) "It was the
will of Jesus that from that moment for
ward, all His poor creatures, should
everywhere freely eat His flesh, and drink
HIS blood, to make them holy before
God" And yet the will of Jesus, it
seems, is not his will, for every time he
administers the Sacrament he withholds
from all Christ's poor creatures present,
ercept himself, that cup which he declares
to contain the blood which they are to
drink to make them holy before God.
Surely he might have made some expla-
nation of such an act of deprivation which
he practices every time he administers
the Sacrament
This omission of his has led me into an
investigation of the subject which has de-
veloped the following strange facts.
First, the Roman Catholics admit that
in all four Of the inspired records which
are given of the original institution of the
Lord Supper, it is distinctly stated that
the cup was given to all the communi-
cants. Matthew says, He took the cup
and gave thanks and gave it to them.
Mark says, " He took the cup and when
He had given thanks he gave it to them. y
Luke says not only that He took bread
and brake and gave to them, but like
wise also the cup" Paul says, After
the same manner also He took the cup
saying, this do ye as often as ye drink it
in mbrance of me-" And yet the
Roman Catholic priest takes the cup and
blesses it and drinks of 1t himself and
then puts it away, and refuses to let a
single communicate taste Of it. Nor will
it answer to say that the apostles were
all priests, and therefore Christ gave to
them for in the first place they were not
priests-and in the second place the
Romish Church does not give the cur
eUen TO priests when they are present as
communicates. Only the officiating priest
Is permitted to partake Of the chalice
They have therefore utterly departed
from the practice Of our Lord and His
apostles.
Second, Not only have we thus the ex-
ample of Christ, we have also as the Ro-
man Catholics admit, His express com.
mand, Drink ye all Of it, Matt XVI
2T, and the assurance Mark xiv 23)
that in obedience to this command "they
all drink Of it" And it is remarkable
that the word all is introduced in speak
ing Of the cup. Drink ye ALL of it.
They ALL drink Of it" as if our Lore
foresaw that some such mutilation o
the sacrament would be proposed, anC
desired to guard his people against it
Nor will it answer to say, as Romanist
DO, that since the body and blood ar,