Hebrews x. 12.

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.

There was never a more tremendous judgment than that uttered by the voice of Malachi, [52] “I will curse your blessings.” There can be no scourge more heavy than a blessing cursed. The more choice the gift, the more fatal is the misuse of it; the richer the blessing, the deadlier its corruption. So it was with Christ himself. He was the most precious gift that could be found even in the treasuries of heaven—the well beloved Son of God; but to those who rejected him he became a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. So it has been with that sacred feast, which he left as a parting legacy to his church. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is one of the richest blessings in the church’s birthright. It is a sacred opportunity of feeding in faith upon the body and blood of the Lamb, a perpetual remembrance of his boundless grace, a bond of holy fellowship with our brethren in the faith, a sacred pledge of our union and communion with the Lord. Yet even this has been corrupted. As with the Jews of old, so with professing Christians “their table has become a snare before them, and that which should have been for their welfare has become a trap.” [53a] We allude, of course, to the doctrine of transubstantiation, of which the Council of Trent decrees as follows:

“By the consecration of the bread and wine there is effected a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.” [53b] Here we have the bread and wine transformed into the actual substance of the person of our blessed Lord: so transformed that according to the Catechism [53c] there are “bones and nerves in it.” Nay, more! so changed that there is actually his whole person, not excepting his soul and his divinity, for the Council declares [53d] “If any man shall say that the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and, in short, that a whole Christ, is not contained truly, really, and substantially in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, but shall say that he is in it only in sign, or figure, or power, let him be anathema.”

There is no misunderstanding such words as these. And if there were, the 6th canon shows how Rome herself interprets them, for she not only acknowledges the fact, but follows it consistently to its conclusion, and declares plainly that we are to worship it with the worship due to God. [54]

“If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, and that outwardly with the worship of Latria (the worship paid to God), and that he ought not to be . . . carried solemnly about in processions, or that he ought not to be set before the people that he may be worshipped, and that the worshippers of him are idolaters, let him be anathema.”

But even this is not all: for not merely do they claim the power of thus making the bread into the very person of the only begotten of the Father, they add yet this also, that they can put that Saviour to death, and by that sacrifice make a propitiation for the sins of the dead and living. The Council of Trent declares [55a] “In the sacrifice of the mass, that same Christ is sacrificed without blood who once with blood offered himself upon the cross.” And in Canon iii. [55b] it adds that “If any man shall say that the sacrifice is not propitiatory and profits the receiver only, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities, let him be anathema.”

Such is the doctrine of transubstantiation as taught by the Church of Rome. According to it by a few words of consecration a wafer of unleavened bread is transformed into the very person of the Son of God: a man may be worshipping with divine honour in the afternoon a morsel of that same wheaten flour on which he made his breakfast in the morning: the one half he may bake for the sustenance of his children, the other he may be bound to adore when the priest has transubstantiated it into God. On reading such a doctrine it is impossible altogether to forget God’s cutting language against the sin of Israel.“He burneth part of it in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire: and the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me for thou art my god.” [56]

Surely, then, it is reasonable to ask that the truth of such a principle should be tried by the word of God alone. It is opposed to the evidence of our senses, it is opposed to reason, and it is no less opposed to the general tenor of the sacred scriptures. It is a case, therefore, in which no human evidence can avail any thing; the best, the wisest, the holiest of men, are wholly insufficient witnesses to prove, that what is apparently a piece of bread, lifeless, motionless, and powerless, is the very person of Christ himself, the only begotten of the Father, reigning triumphantly at the right hand of the throne of God. Such a fact, if it be a fact, must be taught by God himself.

At the same time, if God has said it we are bound cheerfully to believe it. It is condemned by every faculty which God has given us; it is opposed to experience, and to every pre-existent principle of religion, yet so complete should be our submission to the Bible, so absolute and unquestioning our conviction of its certain truth, that if we clearly find even transubstantiation there, we must believe without a murmur, we must abandon all human thoughts in submission to his all perfect wisdom. Yea though our revered church declares it plainly both “a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit;” [57] though the martyred fathers of the Reformation chose rather to die in agony than admit its truth; yet if God says it we will joyfully believe it, “for God is in heaven and we upon earth, therefore must our words be few.”

By the word of God, then, let us proceed to try the question, and we will examine the language of Scripture,

I. With reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper;

II. With reference to the life and work of our blessed Lord.

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.”

IX. 28. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

X. 10. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

X. 12. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”

X. 14. “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

If there were any possibility of mistaking these plain and oft repeated words, even that would be removed by the slightest glance at the pointed argument in which we find them. The Apostle is drawing a contrast between the gospel and the law; between the priesthood of Christ and that of the sons of Levi. Now mark the especial point of contrast; their sacrifices being imperfect require frequent repetition, his being perfect was made once, and for ever, upon the cross.

IX. 25 and 26. “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The whole argument turns upon the impossibility of repetition in the sacrifice of our Lord. If that can be repeated the whole contrast falls to the ground.

There is, therefore, the most complete, clear, and explicit proof that Christ could be no more offered, and that propitiation could be no more made for sin. Yea, verily, so complete is that perfect work already finished by Christ as our substitute; so perfect is that satisfaction which he made upon the cross for the sins of man, that if the whole of that sad scene were once more enacted upon Calvary; if the crown of thorns were once more placed on his head; if his holy frame were once more broken and bowed down by death; neither his agony nor death could avail one jot, or one tittle, to the blotting out of one single sinner’s sin. Who can whiten that which is already white as snow? What can cleanse the garment that is already washed in the Lamb’s most precious blood? Who can take away the curse which is already blotted out for ever? What new atonement, what second sacrifice, what fresh victim, can avail anything to the perfect acceptance of that believer’s soul who is already made the righteousness of God in Christ?

No more then of the awful thought that, that piece of bread is the very person of our reigning Lord! No more of the tremendous principle that there can be a second sacrifice of the sacred life of Jesus; a second propitiation for the sins which the Son of God has borne! We will adore our blessed Saviour himself, as he is now seated at the right hand of God. We will adore him as our Advocate, adore him as our king, adore him as our accepted substitute. We will trust him for his grace, we will praise him for his glory; we will believe in the perfection of his perfect and all sufficient-work. He has taken the burden of every sin for which conscience ever can condemn us. He has endured the curse of every transgression of which Satan ever can accuse us. He has washed unto spotless whiteness the most sin-stained garment of his most sin-polluted child. So scorning the thought of any second sacrifice, we will go direct to Christ himself; and there in faith lie waiting before his footstool, feeding on his grace, rejoicing in his love, triumphing in his power, till he come again in glory and welcome to his kingdom the whole multitude of his ransomed saints. Even so, come Lord Jesus!! Come quickly.