heb. x. 12.
“but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of god.”
we live in very anxious times. different phases of error are following each other with great rapidity, like waves before the gale on a stormy sea. a very short time ago we were deeply distressed by the sceptical tendencies of certain able writers,—tendencies still in rapid progress, though public attention has been recently directed into another channel. now we are startled by the open declaration of romish doctrine, and open practice of romish ceremonial, by men who have accepted office in a church which declares these very doctrines to be “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” it has become, therefore, absolutely necessary that we p. 4should understand the reasons why the church of england has separated from that of rome, and why it is that we raise our voice against these innovations. i am well aware that such a subject is distasteful to many minds. some shrink from the trouble of controversy, and would rather have their whole attention fixed on that which they find helpful to their own souls. others think it uncharitable; and maintain that, provided a person be conscientious in his practice, we need feel no anxiety about the truth or error of his creed. but i am persuaded that it will not do so to deal with truth. these are days in which we must know what we believe, and why we believe it. if we desire to stand fast, we must know our standing-ground. and if we desire to see our young people growing up as witnesses for the lord jesus christ, we must not merely strive to call forth in them a religion of feeling, but must train them in sound scriptural principles, that they may be able to give an answer to every one who asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them. the romish question is forced upon us by the enormous efforts which the church of rome is making for the recovery of its ancient supremacy in england; and i must say, and say it with the p. 5deepest grief and humiliation, i fear we have been betrayed, in many cases, by men who, as clergymen of the church of england, have pledged themselves to the very principles they are betraying. it is high time, therefore, that we should understand the ground of our solemn protest against rome, and that we should not merely study truth in its simplicity, but study it likewise in its opposition to romish error. i purpose, however, god helping me, to direct your thoughts this morning to one point of the controversy. i cannot attempt the many points on which we are at issue. i confine myself, therefore, to one; and that is, the teaching of the word of god with reference to our exalted saviour, in opposition to the teaching of rome in the doctrine of transubstantiation. may the lord direct our studies, and write his own truth most deeply on our hearts!
a glance at the text will show us that it refers to two subjects; the completeness of the sacrifice offered on the cross, as in the words, “after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever,” and the present session at the right hand of god; as in the words, “sat down at the right hand of god.” it is the second of these that we shall study this morning.
p. 6the words teach us that at the present time our blessed lord and saviour is at the right hand of god, and they suggest two subjects, his place, and his employment.
his place, then, is heaven itself; and his seat at the right hand of the throne of the father. in his real human body he has ever been like ourselves, in one place at one time. when he was here he passed from place to place; from galilee to jerusalem, and from jerusalem to galilee. so when lazarus died he was absent from bethany, and after his death he went there. just so in his ascension he passed into the heavens, and, being there, he is as much absent from us in the body as he was absent from martha and mary in their deep anxiety about their brother. when present here, in his human person, he was absent there. being present there, he is now absent here. [6]
then, again, with the place there has been a complete change in his employment. he was here to found his kingdom and to make atonement. he is there to carry out the results of that atonement and to reign. his office was represented by the high priest of old, who first in the outer court offered the sacrifice, and p. 7afterwards went in before the mercy-seat to sprinkle the blood. so christ jesus here on earth offered himself as the sacrifice, and now he is gone into the holy of holies there to present the blood before the mercy-seat of god. thus he is described by st. peter (acts, v. 31) as being exalted to be a “prince and a saviour;” a prince, because he is exalted as king of kings and lord of lords; a saviour, because as a living friend, he is saving those whom, when on earth, he redeemed by his blood. every passage, therefore, which describes him in his present condition, represents him as in the possession of living power. sometimes he is said to be reigning, as (1 cor. xv. 25), “he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” sometimes we see him as the priest (heb. iv. 14), “seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, jesus the son of god.” sometimes he is the advocate (1 john, ii. 1, 2), “if any man sin we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous;” and sometimes he is the loving friend, watching the struggles of his faithful disciples, and waiting to welcome his dying servant in the solemn moments of his rough and stormy martyrdom. p. 8“behold,” said stephen, “i see the heavens opened, and the son of man standing at the right hand of god;” and so, having seen it, he followed up the vision by the dying prayer, “lord jesus, receive my spirit.” (acts, vii. 56.)
here, then, is our delightful assurance. we look back to the work of the cross, and there see the whole burden of all our sin borne by him, and so put away for ever. we ask no further sacrifice, for we know that he made there upon the cross “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;” and we now look to our blessed saviour as reigning and saving. because he reigns we know that all is rightly ordered, and because he saves we believe that we ourselves shall be safe for eternity. we see many things in the world that are altogether opposed to what we think best; but we know that god has put all things under his feet, and given him to be the head over all things to his church; and, therefore, that all is in his hand, and all will work together for good. we find deep sin in ourselves, and we know how hard a thing it is really to walk with god. we find defect in our prayers, defect in our faith, defect in our service, defect in our best efforts, p. 9defect everywhere; but we look up to yonder throne, and there we find a loving saviour; one who knows our deep need,—one who has died for us,—one who loves us,—one who can feel with us, and who vouchsafes to act as our priest and advocate, so that in the midst of all our shortcomings and deficiencies we may, in his name, and through his most precious blood, “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
let any one search the scriptures, and they must be convinced that this is the truth there plainly taught. but what can be more palpably contradictory to it than to suppose that he is present, in body, soul, and divinity, in the form of the small piece of lifeless bread which we receive in the lord’s supper? in other words, that there is not only the one saviour in heaven at the right hand of god; but that there are two or three hundred living saviours collected together on the table every time that the lord’s supper is administered. i am not surprised if some of you feel shocked at such a statement, and i know that there is enough to shock any religious mind. i am shocked at it myself, and am sorry to have to make it. but this is the real teaching of p. 10the church of rome. the decree of the council of trent is as follows:—“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.” (sess. xiii. can. 1.) another decree goes on to declare, “if any man 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 latreia, 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!” (sess. xiii. can. 6.) [10]
p. 11the wafer, therefore, or the piece of bread, is here said to be after consecration nothing less than a real, living saviour, with body, soul, and divinity, to be worshipped with that holy, reverential worship which belongs exclusively to the god of heaven and earth, for that is the meaning of the word latreia. there is something very awful in such a statement. it shows that there can be no peace with rome—no compromise, no middle path. if they are right, we are awfully wrong. if we are right, they are guilty of idolatry. if all these pieces of bread are living saviours, we have been terribly guilty in never worshipping any one of them; but if, on the other hand, they have remained bread still—plain, simple, unchanged bread—then we have idolatry of the most unquestionable character when that bread is exalted by the priest for adoration, and men fall down and worship it as the living god.
now, on what does all this tremendous fabric rest? what is there in the word of god to warrant it? what is there in the scriptures of truth to give a sanction to such a system? so far as the word of god is concerned all hangs on the one text, “this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” p. 12to these words romanists appeal again and again, as if they taught the doctrine, whereas the most cursory study of the different passages in which they are contained is sufficient to show that they mean nothing of the kind.
let me briefly give you four reasons.
1. the words themselves prove that they are figurative. turn to 1 cor. xi. 25, where we read: “this cup is the new testament in my blood.” is there any one blind enough to suppose that the cup was changed into the new testament? the words must mean that the cup was an emblem of the covenant. when our lord said, “i am the vine,” “i am the door,” “i am the bread of life,” he did not mean that he was changed into a vine, into a door, or into bread, but that all these things were emblems of his work. so he says of the cup, that it is an emblem of the covenant; and if we would be consistent interpreters, we must believe also of the bread that it was declared to be an emblem of the body.
2. the bread is called bread, and the wine wine, after consecration, both by our lord himself and his apostles.
in matt. xxvi. 29, our lord calls the wine the fruit of the vine after consecration.
in 1 cor. x. 17; xi. 26, 27, 28, we are all p. 13said to partake of bread: “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”
3. even if these words were taken literally, they would not teach the doctrine of rome.
i have quoted the passage from rome in which it says there is “body, soul, and divinity.” but what does any one of those passages say about soul and divinity? if he had meant to teach us that the bread was changed into his broken body, what one word is there about the soul, or the godhead? all that is added by rome, and the whole fabric of superstition based upon it is without a shadow of foundation in the word of god. it is a vast superstructure, but, as far as the teaching of holy scripture is concerned, utterly baseless.
4. nay more, it is contrary to the words of our lord. the words, as given by st. matthew (xxvi. 26–28) were: “and as they were eating, jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, take, eat; this is my body. and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” of the bread, therefore, p. 14he said, “this is my body;” and of the wine, “this is my blood.” the bread did not represent the body and blood together, but the body only, and the wine the blood; or, if the doctrine of transubstantiation were taught, the passage would teach that the bread was changed into the body, and the wine into the blood. but the teaching of rome defies all such distinctions, though thus plainly laid down by no less an authority than our lord himself, and fearlessly hurls her anathemas against all who do not believe that the bread, and the bread alone, is changed into body, blood, soul, and divinity, and becomes, to use their own expression, “a whole christ,” to be exalted, carried in processions, and adored as a living god. the words themselves, taken literally, are dead against such a doctrine. i am not surprised, therefore, when i read our 28th article, which says: “transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture.” but i am surprised that christian people in the church of england should sit so light as some seem to do to a heresy of so fearful a character, and that men p. 15should be so indifferent to truth as even to speak of the possibility of peace with rome.
but now, believing that there is no change whatever in the bread and wine—that the bread remains bread, and the wine wine, what shall we say of the practice of adoring the bread as god himself? what can we say of it? what is our duty to say of it? i doubt not that some may think me very uncharitable and bigoted, but these are days in which the truth must be spoken, and that truth i firmly believe to be that such worship is idolatry. i do not doubt that many are sincere and conscientious in adopting it. but that does not touch the question. sincerity does not prove truth. are there none sincere when they sacrifice their lives under the car of juggernaut? was not saul of tarsus sincere when he persecuted the lord jesus in the persons of his people? i fully admit likewise that the worship may in some be based on a deep sense of love and reverence for our blessed lord. but, again, that does not touch the question. if it is bread, it is idolatry to worship it as god. if it be still a lifeless wafer, it is idolatry to adore it as a living saviour. god forbid that i should speak harshly of many who have set us an example of self-denial; and p. 16it is in no harsh spirit that i speak as i do. we should rather feel the most tender compassion for conscientious persons, who have been thus misled. but whatever we may think of motives, it is impossible to alter the facts, and i see not how we can avoid the conclusion that such worship is an awful sin in the sight of god. it is almost impossible to turn aside the stern reproof of god by the ministry of his prophets, isa. xliv. 16, 17: “he burneth part thereof 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 worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me; for thou art my god.”
the sense of reverence may take a wrong as well as a right direction. it led john himself to worship an angel, and to bring on himself the severe reproof which he has so faithfully recorded, and it may lead misguided men to give that which is not god the worship due to god alone. but while we think this, let none fall short in the deepest reverence. none can adore him enough; none can be holy enough in his presence and at his feet. but it p. 17is the living saviour at the right hand of god whom we will adore. it is the prince on the throne, the priest at the right hand of the father. it is the living, reigning, triumphant saviour, “far above all principalities and powers, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come;” and not a small piece of lifeless bread, which is said to have been turned into god by the miraculous powers of a priest.
