May the Holy Ghost lead us calmly, seriously, and dispassionately to
learn the truths of his own most holy word!
I. The language of Scripture with reference to the sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper.
The doctrine is supposed to rest upon the words of our blessed Saviour,
“This is my body,” or as they were revealed to St. Paul, “This is my body
which is broken for you.”
This sentence is thought to contain a plain, literal, absolute, assertion
that the bread was changed into his body; changed so completely that
while the Saviour spoke the words, that bread which he held within his
hand, was his real, natural, whole, and substantial person. The belief
of the Church of England is that the words have no such literal meaning;
but were employed to teach that the bread and wine were signs, figures,
or emblems of his body broken, and his blood shed upon the cross. {58a}
He says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” “I am the door:” but none
suppose that he was a real vine, a real door, or his people real branches
of a growing tree. St. Paul says “That rock was Christ:” but none
believe that the flinty rock was in very fact a living man. {58b} In all
these passages we never doubt for a single moment what was the meaning of
the Holy Ghost. The vine and the rock represented Christ, and the door
was a figure of him. Just so we believe it to be with the words of
consecration; the bread was a figure of his body and the wine of his
blood.
That this is the true meaning of the passage seems to lie upon its very
surface. Let us turn to 1st Corinthians xi. We shall there find that
1st. It is inconsistent to take the words literally; for they are quite
as explicit and literal when spoken of the wine as of the bread. “This
is my body which is broken for you.” “This cup is the New Testament in
my blood.” But in this one passage there are no less than three figures.
The cup stands as the emblem or figure of the wine contained in it; the
new covenant is said to be the New Testament _in_ his blood, because it
was sealed and ratified by his blood; and the cup itself is declared
positively to be the testament. This must be figurative, it must mean
that the cup is a sign, emblem, or figure of the testament. Thus the
warmest advocate of the doctrine of transubstantiation is compelled to
allow the use of figure with reference to the cup. Is it consistent? is
it defensible or any principle of scriptural interpretation to deny it
with reference to the bread? ought they not to be interpreted on the same
principles? Here are two sentences, spoken at the same time, by the same
person, under the same circumstances, to the same company, and for the
same purpose. But there must be a figure in the one, who shall deny it
in the other? The cup must be an emblem of the testament, can we be
wrong in believing also that the bread is an emblem of the body?
2d. But this is not all. We have besides the direct testimony of the
Holy Ghost that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine after
consecration. Of the wine our Lord spoke in terms which it is quite
impossible to mistake or misinterpret. In Matthew xxvi. 29, he expressly
says, “I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine until that day when
I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” These words were spoken
_after_ the consecration, and they seem uttered with especial caution as
if he had foreseen the error which was about to creep into his professing
church. He does not rest content with the name of “wine,” but calls it
“fruit of the vine,” as if to prove beyond the possibility of a doubt
that it had gained no new substance, but remained as it was before, the
natural produce of the vine, the simple unaltered juice of the grape.
Nor is the evidence less positive with reference to the bread. Again and
again do we read of the breaking of the bread, never once of the
sacrifice of the body. Nor is this merely accidental, for in the 10th
and 11th chapters of 1st Corinthians we have the bread called bread by
the Holy Ghost, no less than four times after consecration. In 1 Cor. x.
17, the Christian communicant is said to partake of bread, not of flesh
with bones and nerves; “We are all partakers of that one _bread_.” In 1
Cor. xi. 26, “For as often as ye eat this _bread_, and drink this _cup_,
ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” In 27, “Whosoever shall eat
this _bread_, and drink this _cup_ of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty
of the body and blood of the Lord;” and 28, “But let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat of that _bread_, and drink of that _cup_.”
We do not, therefore, rest on human reason only when we deny the doctrine
of transubstantiation. We boldly cast ourselves upon the teaching of the
Bible, yea, upon the teaching of the Son of God himself, and believe the
bread to be still bread, and the wine to remain as the fruit of the vine.
We behold in them the signs and symbols of the passion of our Lord; and
beholding the sign, we feed in faith on the reality. They are the
figures of himself; the representations of his passion; the emblems and
signs of his atoning death. As such we value, we receive, we honour
them: but we live on Christ himself; we rest on the passion itself, on
the atonement itself; and so by a strong, spiritual, realizing faith we
are made partakers of his flesh and blood. “The words that I speak unto
you they are spirit, and they are life.”
3rd. But if the words were to be taken literally, they would not even
then furnish the slightest proof of the doctrine taught by Rome: for you
will remember the canon {61} already quoted, which says, “If any man
shall say that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with
his soul and divinity, and in short that a whole Christ is not contained
in the Sacrament, let him be accursed.” The utmost that the words of
Jesus can be understood as teaching is, that the bread is
transubstantiated into the body. The narrative is given by three
Evangelists and one Apostle; but in no single instance is there the least
mention made of his soul or spirit. He did not say, “This is my body,
soul, and divinity.” He said simply, “This is my body.” They refer to
it exclusively, and this exclusiveness is marked in them with a peculiar
and distinctive point. If he had simply said, “This is my body,” it
might have been possible for a lively imagination to clothe them with
some reference to all the properties of his sacred person; but by adding
the words “Which is broken for you,” he has given a definite fixedness to
their meaning; he has tied them down to a distinct and exclusive
application; he has showed that they refer simply and solely to the real,
human body; to that flesh through which the nails were driven, to that
human frame which was seen hanging on the cross, which was embalmed by
the women, and which lay buried in the tomb of Joseph.
There is not, therefore, the faintest appearance of the least shade of
scriptural evidence, in support of the canon that the bread is changed
into the soul and divinity of our Lord. It is an addition made by the
church of Rome on her own simple, unsupported, authority. {62} There is
not one single passage, which, on any principle of interpretation, can be
forced or twisted into the most distant reference to such a change. The
Saviour said “This is my body.” Rome adds, “it is his soul and
divinity.” And what an addition have we here! The soul shudders at the
thought that men dare presume to make it! Had we the tongue of angels we
should utterly fail to describe the unutterable glory of the majesty of
God. As well might the insect swallow up the ocean as any finite
creature exhibit truly the unbounded vastness of an infinite Jehovah. In
Majesty incomprehensible he dwelleth in the light which no man can
approach unto: in power omnipotent he created all things without one
single atom of material substance: in life eternal he dwelt alone from
the beginning, filling with his own self the vast regions of unbounded
space; and now that he has peopled a universe with the countless
creatures of his skill, he is present everywhere, exhausted no where.
“Do not I the Lord fill earth and heaven?” Yet does Rome venture on the
unsupported authority of man to ascribe all this to the unleavened wafer,
and fearlessly to hurl her curses against those who tremble at the
thought of kneeling down to the bread and wine, and adoring them with the
worship which belongs to the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace. “If any man shall say that, he (i.e. the
transubstantiated wafer) is not to be adored with the worship due to God,
let him be accursed.” {63}
II. We may pass then to our second point, and compare the doctrine of
transubstantiation with the teaching of Scripture concerning both the
life and work of Jesus.
And first we may remark that, according to the Bible, he now lives and
reigns in his complete and perfect manhood. This appears very plainly in
the language of our text. “But this man, after he had offered one
sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” The
same that made the offering is now seated at the right hand of God. Yes!
that same human person that was born of the Virgin, that grew in stature,
that was wearied at the well, that slept in the ship, that thirsted on
the cross, that was laid in the new tomb of Joseph; that same person is
the triumphant King seated as a conqueror on the throne of God. “I am he
that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen, and
have the keys of hell and death.” {64a}
And this explains the language of Scripture, which describes him in one
defined and determined place, seated at the right hand of God. In his
divine nature he is God himself, and fills earth and heaven. To the Son
may we say as to the Father, “If I ascend up into heaven thou art there;
if I make my bed in hell thou art there.” But in his human nature he is
perfect man, and as man limited. As Jehovah he is omnipotent and created
all things, but yet as man he was dependent, and prayed for strength; so
as Jehovah, he is omnipresent, watching everywhere over the most hidden
of his scattered children, as man he has his one abiding place, and is
seated at the right hand of God. He was always omnipresent, but when he
went to Bethany he left Jerusalem. So too he is as God now omnipresent
everywhere, but when he went to the Father, as man he left the presence
of the church below. “It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I
go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will
send him unto you.” {64b}
Hence it is that he speaks of his ascension as a leaving of the world; in
the body he went to God, though in divine power he never left his church
on earth. Hence his second advent is described as a coming back to his
people; “This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so
come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” {65a} Hence,
also, we are expressly taught that until the appointed day shall dawn his
habitation will be heaven, and his seat the throne of God. {65b} “Whom
the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things.”
We dare not, therefore, admit the thought that before his advent his
human person can be present with his church on earth. The language of
sacred scripture is plain and oft repeated, that he has left the world,
and is not to be seen in person here; it leaves no space for doubt or
imagination, but teaches the believer to look on his risen Saviour in one
place and one alone; “in heaven itself now to appear in the presence of
God for us.” There he sits in triumphant peace, having fought the fight,
having won the victory, having gained the crown. Thousand thousand
saints attend him, ten thousand times ten thousand bow before him, and
not a murmur, not a whisper, ever breaks for a moment the cheerful peace
of his dominion. Nothing there prevails to ruffle the calm surface of
that sea of glass, which, clear as crystal, reflects the countenance of
its reigning Lord. And though the troubled passions of this lower world
may be lashed into fury by the action of universal sin; though the waters
thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the
swelling thereof, it cannot disturb the lowest pediment of his footstool;
for “The Lord sitteth above the water-flood, the Lord sitteth king for
ever.” And yet shall Rome tell us that we are to adore in that piece of
bread the very person of our reigning Lord? that the wafer which can
neither save itself from the insect, from the reptile, or from
putrefaction; and which, to protect it, the Priest must shut carefully in
the casket, is in very truth the reigning Jesus, with all his life and
all his attributes? We might believe them possibly if they were to tell
us that they had plucked up Vesuvius by the roots, and cast the huge
mountain like a pebble into the deep. We might perhaps listen to the
tale, if the priest were to tell us that he was about to stretch forth
his bold hand, and tear down the sun from its high place amongst the
stars of heaven; but we will never believe that any man, or set of men,
on earth, can hold within their hand, can shut within their casket, can
carry in their procession, or can kill at their pleasure, that living,
reigning Saviour, whom the Holy Ghost declares to be seated triumphantly
on the right hand of God.
(2) But the worst yet remains. Christ passed to glory through the
grave; his kingdom was bought by blood. “After he had made one offering
for sin, he for ever sat down at the right hand of God.” See how that
one offering is affected by the doctrine of the mass. You will remember
the canon already quoted which declared that when the mass was offered, a
propitiatory sacrifice was made for the sins both of the dead and of the
living. Now what does that imply? Nothing short of this, that the
atonement made by Christ was neither complete, nor final: not complete,
else where the need of further sacrifice? not final, else where the
possibility of a repetition? But if there be any one point on which the
Holy Ghost has spoken more explicitly than another, that one point is the
final sufficiency of the work of Jesus.
It was complete.
By his one oblation of himself once offered, he made a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world. He paid the whole price, he bore the whole curse. He left
no room for further payment, for any sacrifice in application of the one
offering to the sinner’s case. That one atonement itself reached to the
lowest depths of the sinner’s fall; it broke down every barrier between
the soul and God; it so completely blotted out the curse that the Gospel
message is, “Believe and live.” “By one offering he hath perfected for
them that are sanctified,” v. 14. When Christ died the veil of the
temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; not half-way only.
The way into the holiest was then laid completely open. There was no
second rending needed; no drawing aside the curtain. There stood the
mercy seat in full view of the adoring multitude. So it is with “the new
and living way which Christ has consecrated for us through the veil, that
is to say, his flesh.” It lays the way of life completely open to the
sinner; and we only honour God, when we believe, to our inexpressible
joy, that a poor, guilty, broken-hearted penitent, may, without money,
without price, and without sacrifice, enter in boldly, and through the
simple look of faith find life and peace to his soul. “Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”
It was final.
The passage from which our text is taken seems written with prophetic
reference to this very subject. It could not have spoken with more
plainness if we Protestants had composed it for ourselves. No less than
five times in these few verses does the Holy Ghost declare that the
propitiation made by Christ was offered once, and once alone.
IX. 26. “But now _once_ in the end of the world hath he appeared to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”