We have seen that the distinct teaching of scripture is, that the one sacrifice of Christ has brought in eternal redemption; that it perfects forever; that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins (Heb. 9; 10).
We would now inquire, Is there any ground in scripture for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper into the real body and blood of Christ; or, as others express it, the doctrine of the Real Presence in the holy Eucharist?
We will turn to all the scriptures quoted as supposed proof. John 6 is quoted by some, though many ancient writers did not believe it referred to the Lord’s Supper. We will examine whether it does so, or not. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, &c.” (Read the whole context, vers. 27-63.) The question is simply this—Is the Lord Jesus speaking figuratively or literally in this chapter? And in answering this question, we would take this ground: in every instance in scripture, where it is intended to be a figure, it cannot be understood to be literal. “Except a man be born again;” “I am the vine, ye are the branches;” “that rock was Christ;” and hundreds more, could not possibly be meant to be literal. The manna was evidently real food, as we learn in Exodus. But when Jesus says, “I am the bread which came down from heaven,” it could not possibly mean that He was literally a loaf of bread from heaven. Was not bread used here as a figure of Jesus sent from heaven, as seen incarnate amongst men? He says, “I am the bread of life.” This He says while He was here a living Man. No change into bread, or bread into Himself, but “I am the bread of life.” Then He says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” To take this literally, then, would be without any change, to say Jesus was then a piece of bread that might be eaten!! and that bread would become flesh—His flesh—and be given for the life of the world. Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine, as to say “I am the bread” was intended to be literal?
As a figure of the incarnate Jesus, bread was very striking. As we receive bread for the nourishment of the body, so we by faith receive the Person of Christ as the incarnate word. But, not only so, we must also receive Him offered on the cross for the life of the world. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” We will look at this literally, and what would follow? If eating the flesh and drinking the blood means eating the wafer, or the wafer, turned into, or changed into, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, then what would the following words mean: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day?” Mark, these words are absolute, without any conditions whatever. “Whoso” would teach that any wicked man unrepentant, or unbelieving, living in sin, yet, if he only ate the Eucharist, had eternal life, and was sure to be raised up by the Lord.
We need not say no Christian can believe this to be the meaning. Therefore the words cannot be intended to be literal, but spiritual, as Jesus says, “What and if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.” Now take them spiritually. We thus see Jesus come down to earth, the incarnate Son of God. He would give Himself the sacrifice, the shedding of His blood, for the life of the world, and then ascend up again on high; and that he who thus receiveth Himself, according to this revelation, hath eternal life. All is perfectly clear, and in this way no Christian would have a shadow of a difficulty—indeed, this is in perfect harmony with all scripture. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and (believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, &c.” (John 5:2424Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)). But we must not only by faith receive Him as the bread, but drink His blood. We must receive the solemn word of His atoning death—the shedding of His blood, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Thus, the more we study this scripture, the more we see the impossibility of, as in every other figure, applying the words in a carnal, or literal way. To put the Eucharist, then, in the place of receiving Christ Himself, by faith, would be a fatal mistake. “I am the bread” meant Himself surely; and so, “my flesh,” “my blood,” meant Himself offered the sacrifice for sins—then to be offered -“I will give for the life of the world.”
We will now turn to the institution of the supper. Let us dismiss every preconceived thought, and look simply at what we do find in scripture. Turn to Matt. 26:26-2926And 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. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:26‑29). Jesus was here sitting with His disciples, eating the passover—the commemoration really of the passover, the slaying of that lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, which shielded Israel from divine judgment. Did not that passover point forward to the death of the Lamb of God, which has brought in eternal redemption for all who believe? In a few hours that great redemption would be accomplished. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it [or, gave thanks], and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”
There can be no mistake that He took literal bread—that He gave thanks, and broke IT, and gave IT. Then can the words, “this is my body,” be intended to be literal? If so, would not the Holy Ghost have said, He changed it—the bread—into His body? But there is no such statement, no such thought. He took bread, broke it, and gave it, and then said, This is my body, meaning either as a figure, or that it was so literally. Mark, He held it in His hands after giving thanks. He could not mean that He held Himself—His body—in His hands, or that He brake His own body. But more. “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. But I say unto you, I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Now He could not possibly mean that this was His literal blood, for it was not yet shed. And mark, He positively set aside the thought that it—the wine—was changed or turned into His blood literally; for He says, after, “this fruit of the vine.” So that, just as it is impossible for such a sentence as this, “that rock was Christ,” and many like it, to be literal, so these words of Christ, “This is my blood... which is shed,” could not possibly mean His precious real blood, as that blood was then in His body, and not shed at all yet. It was the constant manner of Christ to speak in figures, as He said in John 16:2525These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. (John 16:25). Hear the breathings of His sorrows to the Father in dark Gethsemane: “O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” Was that a literal cup? Yet he uses the same figure in Luke 22:2020Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20): “Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” It is evident the Lord had no thought of meaning His very blood, but used the cup, and the wine poured into it, as a figure of that death in which His own blood must be shed.
Mark, in each of the Gospels there is no mention of the bread or wine being changed into the body and blood; and not a word about giving His apostles, or their successors, power to do so; if there be, let it be shown.
If we look at the Lord’s supper as taking the place of the passover, nothing could be more touching or instructive. It was no longer the paschal lamb that had to be eaten, but the Lord was now just about to give Himself. His own blood was about to be the fulfillment of every type and sacrifice that had been offered. That the Lord only meant the words, “This is my body,” and “This is the cup of the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” as figurative instruction is evident, for it was not shed yet out of His body. Figuratively it set forth that great truth, that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Neither can there be a question as to whether the Lord intended the institution of a continuous sacrifice, or the commemoration of His one sacrifice, as He settles that question by the words, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:1919And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19)). Plainly it cannot both be the sacrifice and the remembrance of it. Nothing could be more dissimilar than a sacrifice for our sins, and the remembrance of that one sacrifice which has purged and cleansed us from all our sins.
If the Lord’s supper be a sacrifice for sins for the living and the dead, then undoubtedly it will be the one great thing set forth in the Acts and the Epistles, just as it is the one great thing with Ritualists and Romanists. Holy Communion, or the Mass, is the great sum and substance of both. Millions are trusting in it for forgiveness of sins and eternal life—in the real presence in the Eucharist, and as a true sacrifice for sins.
Now, where in the Acts did the apostles once preach the Eucharist for remission of sins, or as a sacrifice? Where is it once put as a means of salvation?
At Pentecost Christ was preached—His death, His resurrection, repentance, and remission of sins, preached in His name; and we find those saved “breaking of bread from house to house.” But Peter gives not the most distant hint that this is the true body and blood of Christ, or a propitiatory sacrifice for sins; and Luke simply records it, “breaking of bread.” Why should we add to the word of God?
Search through the preachings of Stephen, Paul, Peter, Philip, in every place. Not a word about this sacrifice for sins, or the real blood or body of Christ. Did it never strike a Roman Catholic that Peter never said a word about the Mass: or the Ritualist, that Peter, or any other, in all their preachings never once preached the Eucharist, never as a means of salvation? Not a word either about a priest offering the sacrifice. No, the only one place in which the Lord’s supper is named in the Acts, after ch. 2, is in Acts 20:77And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7); and though Paul, and many other servants of Christ, happened to be there, at Troas, yet we find all that is said is, that “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” No priestly act, but the disciples came together to break bread. No thought of its being anything but bread—no hint whatever of its being a sacrifice for sins. How could it be, when we are assured there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins?
But surely, if it be what the Church of Rome believes, we shall find it in the Epistle to the Romans. There the righteousness of God, in justifying and saving the sinner, is fully explained, but positively not a word in the whole epistle about the Mass, or the real presence in the Eucharist!! Not a word in that epistle which specially treats of God’s great salvation—God’s way of bringing the sinner to Himself. And in the epistles to the young converts in the assembly at Thessalonica, not a word; in the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, not a word; to Timothy or Titus, not a word. Is it not strange that neither Peter nor John should once name it in their epistles? But there is one epistle devoted to the questions of priesthood, and offerings, and sacrifices for sins. Surely, then, if there be continual sacrifices for sins instituted for the church, we must find them in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but not one word about either the real presence in the Eucharist, or that it is a continual sacrifice for sins—no, over and over again, the assurance that there is no such thing, that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
As there is, then, only one epistle in which the subject of the Lord’s supper is explained, let us give it our most careful attention. The question is this—Is it a commemoration of the death of Christ, or is there a thought that it is a continual, or repeated, sacrifice for sins? “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread [or loaf] and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:1616The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)). Here it is the cup which is blest, and the bread that is broken, but no intimation of any change. Would it not be quite as consistent to say all Christians are changed into bread—“For we, being many, are one bread”—as to say that bread is changed into the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity? As a figure it is most striking. As the twelve loaves signified the twelve tribes of Israel, so the one loaf is a striking figure of the one body of Christ, every particle of that bread forming one loaf, so every Christian forming the one body of Christ.
What, then, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ? The context explains this. Just as those who ate the sacrifices, that is, that part which was not consumed on the altar, whether Jewish sacrifices to God, or of the heathens to demons, became identified with the sacrifice, partakers of it; so we, by this act at the table of the Lord, show that we have fellowship, communion, or identification with the death of Christ. The Jew did not surely eat Jehovah, or the Gentile eat a demon. No, it was left for a darkened Christendom to give birth to such an absurdity.
It is impossible, then, that this communion, or fellowship, can mean either literally eating Christ, or eating devils, but eating that which shows identification with Christ or with demons. “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.” Surely the Lord’s table would teach us separation from a world that lieth in the wicked one.
We will now turn to the principal explanation in the scriptures of the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:20-3420When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:20‑34)).
There is not a thought here of the assembly at Corinth coming to offer a sacrifice, but simply to eat the Lord’s supper. That which gave occasion to these remarks and explanations was a most sad sin, even drunkenness at the Lord’s supper. Mark, then, what would be involved in the gross blunder of supposing that the wine was changed into the blood of Christ? Could anything more distinctly prove that it remains wine, than this -that it still intoxicates? Not the most distant thought is there of any change of the elements. “For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. Now, we have seen that this could not be literally true, as His body had not yet been pierced—His blood had not yet been shed. He did not take His own body in His hands, and break His body, but He took bread, and three times it is shown to be unchanged bread. “For as often as ye eat this bread (v. 26)” “Whosoever shall eat this bread (v. 27)” “So let him eat of this bread (v. 28).” This, mark, is after the words, “This is my body,” therefore, since it thus remained unchanged, and was to be, not offered a sacrifice for sins, but eaten—literal bread—by all believers, it follows that these words, “This is my body,” could not mean literally so, but as a figure, taking the place of the flesh of the paschal lamb at the old passover. And mark further, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” The Lord did not say, this blood, or this wine, is the blood, but this cup. Evidently this is figurative; call it chalice, or what we may, it is, without a question, figurative, as the Lord used the same expression when speaking to the Father—“If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
If we were to pervert the figures of scripture as men have perverted this, it would turn the whole scriptures into ridicule. Could any man be so blind as to say that Christ meant that He was a true loaf of bread that came down from heaven, or that He was literally a rock in the wilderness?—“and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10). Would any man say that Christ was literally a rock, and Peter a literal stone, or rock, if you wish? The slain Christ taking the place of the paschal lamb is a fact, and the words, “this is my body,” contain a most impressive figure of it. And so the wine, as separate from the loaf, shows the absolute necessity of His blood being once and forever shed—never, never, surely to be shed again.
Then the only question that remains is this: Did the Lord institute this supper as a sacrifice for sins; or for a remembrance of His death? Could the answer be more distinct, both as to the bread, and as to the cup? “This do in remembrance of me; For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” This is the plain teaching of Christ. All Christians are to do this in remembrance of Himself; they are not to do it for a sacrifice for sins, but to show forth that death which has made an infinite sacrifice for sins, and which cannot be repeated, for He dieth no more (Rom. 6:99Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (Romans 6:9)). And He assures us there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But some may say, If you believe Christ, that it is a memorial, and not a true sacrifice for sins, the Council of Trent will curse you, and does curse you, in its canons I., II., III. It is even so; and we prefer to be cursed, believing Christ, rather than blest, believing the Council of Trent. It is exactly so: the plain teaching of the word of God is the bread is to be eaten, the wine drunk, simply in remembrance of Christ, the showing forth of that death by which we have eternal redemption; that Christ dieth no more; that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Crowds of men are now teaching the very opposite of this—that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sins does not forever purge the conscience—that it did not fully expiate for sins, and that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for those whose sins were not fully expiated. Thus souls are persuaded to give up the infinite and eternal efficacy of the one sacrifice, and taught to believe in the many sacrifices offered by men, which never can take away sins. Oh, reader, take heed that you are not deceived to everlasting destruction. If we willfully sin by rejecting the one sacrifice of Christ, there remaineth no other, no more sacrifice for sins; there can be nothing but everlasting judgment (Heb. 10:2626For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:26)).
Do you say, We do not reject the one sacrifice for sins, but we believe that that same Jesus is offered continually, the same sacrifice, on the altar; that the bread is changed by the priest into the whole Christ,—body, blood, humanity, and divinity -and that He is still offered the true propitiatory sacrifice for sins? You cannot possibly have reflected that this would entirely destroy the gospel of God. If this were true, no soul could be saved. “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15). Now it must be acknowledged that in the modern doctrine of the Eucharist—the real body and blood of Christ, the true Christ still offered—there is no resurrection. If Jesus is still on the cross, He is still bearing the wrath of God due to sins—for that is expiation—still made sin. Did He make a mistake, then; when He said, “It is finished”? Is it true, or false, that He made peace by the blood of the cross? If He did, it cannot be made again. If He did not, it never can be made. Has God raised Him from the dead to deceive us, or for our justification?
But it is said the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, and its being a sacrifice for sins, has been the doctrine held by all the Fathers and the whole church, until a few hundred years ago. If this were the case, would this be a sufficient reason why we should reject the distinct statements of scripture? Surely not. We will, however, in our next paper inquire whether this has been so, or not. In the meantime we commend every anxious inquirer to read carefully Heb. 9; 10
The Roman Catholic reader is earnestly requested to read the Rheims translation of those chapters. “By his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained ETERNAL redemption.” “And without shedding of blood there is no remission.” “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies every year with the blood of others.” “In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ.” “For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” “There is no more an oblation for sin.” “There is now left no sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 9:12, 22, 25; 10:10, 14, 18, 2612Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12)
22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; (Hebrews 9:25)
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:18)
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:26)).