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 said 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, He 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 should 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 it 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 is 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.
THE MASS.
Heb. x. 12.
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
When I drew your attention to this text on Sunday last, I pointed out the two great subjects contained in it, viz. the work of atonement completed by our blessed Lord on earth, and His present session at the right hand of God. The latter of these we studied on Sunday last, but the former is of such vast importance to every one of us that it would be wrong to leave the passage without devoting this morning to the careful examination of it.