Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

:

must consist of two parts-the outward and the inward: take away either part, and you take away the Sacrament: in the Eucharist the outward part is Bread and Wine, the inward, the Body and Blood of CHRIST; the outward part signifies and exhibits the inward: the inward is that very thing so signified and exhibited. "Such as CHRIST is signified to us in this Sacrament, such also is He exhibited to us, for it is inconceivable that the Mystery should signify CHRIST under one aspect to us, and exhibit Him to us under another." "Of this therefore we may not doubt, that the outward signs of the Sacrament do remit us to the Flesh crucified, and to the Blood shed and flowing from the wounds of CHRIST, and therefore to His Passion and Death; otherwise this Sacrament would not be a commemoration of the Death and Passion of the LORD, and as it were, a certain representation of Him." Such are Saravia's arguments, when with some warmth refuting the "Roman doctrine" that it is the Body and Blood in glory that the Sacrament contains that it is "the Body and Blood," the Body and Blood that hung and flowed on the Cross, he observes, "this is a matter beyond the reach of all controversy." So he cites S. Cyprian, "We cling to the Cross, and we suck the Blood, and we press our tongue into the very wounds of our Redeemer."' Those then, who believe a mere figurative presence, in reality believe none at all; they make the Sacrament to be a sign of a sign: and the parts to be a sign, and a sign; in short, they reject the inward part altogether and so destroy the very existence of a Sacrament, for "one part of the Sacrament without which the Sacrament hath no existence is the Flesh and Blood of the LORD.”2 As for the argument to justify the Figure from the passages, "I am the Door, I am the Vine," it is needless to expose the utter absence of analogy between the cases; Dr. Pusey has effectually disposed of the matter in one little sentence "AM does not in these cases signify being the figure of' but the converse."3 Bossuet, with singular concision, unanswerably observes, "JESUs, in the institution of this rite was neither propounding a parable nor explaining an allegory."4

[ocr errors]

With regard to the second idea of the Real Presence, that CHRIST is really present to the faithful, but not to the unworthy communicant, much that we have said above applies to this. If it be true that the unworthy, as they admit, receive the Sacrament of so great a thing, they must according to the preceding argument receive the inward as well as the outward part. The two parts are not merely united, they are inseparable, else the Sacrament ceases to be. Where is there any authority for saying that under a cer

1 Saravia on the Holy Eucharist, Pp. 41, 47.

2 Saravia, p. 41.

3.Presence of CHRIST in the Holy Eucharist, Sermon, &c., p. 31.

Quoted with exultation by Bishop Warburton, "His reason is solid." Doctrine of Real Presence since Reformation, Part I., p. 155.

tain contingency, viz., an unworthy person presenting himself at the Altar, a miracle is wrought, and the Sacrament is dissolved, and the sign only is given? All analogy and all authority is directly the contrary; the analogy of the Old Testament types, the distinct statements of Scripture, the assertion of the very Article itself on which the idea is founded, totidem verbis contradict it.

To take the article first. "Although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth, as S. Augustine saith, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, yet in no ways are they partakers of CHRIST, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." There are here two propositions, the one affirmative, "They do press with their teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; they do eat and drink the Sacrament," the other negative, "they do not in any wise partake of CHRIST." They do then eat the Sacrament, that is-for a Sacrament is this, and other than this is not a Sacramentthey do eat an outward part and an inward part, the sign and the thing signified-Bread and wine, and the Body and Blood of CHRIST: to deny this is to deny either the universally accepted definition of a Sacrament, or the statement of the article; but that definition of a Sacrament, as authoritatively stated in the Catechism and articles, was never disputed, but formally adopted, and with deliberate exegesis opened up and applied, by the framers of the articles and their contemporaries; and therefore no one can escape disbelief of that very article, who denies the reception of the inward part by unworthy communicants, even though to reconcile the article to himself he resort to a rejection of the definition and constitution of a Sacrament.

But the wicked are not "partakers of CHRIST," the article adds. We need not repeat Archdeacon Denison's comparison of the 25th and 29th Articles, and his argument on it with regard to this proposition. We will adduce a passage from the authority he has just brought before the public, conclusive as it is on all points of this

statement.

S. Augustine himself is quoted as the authority of this article. Now what are really the opinions of that Father, and in what direction upon this very point were they considered to tell by the Confessor of Hooker, "who knew the very secrets of his soul," and who wrote within thirty years of the framing of the article? Decisive as to his own opinion on the particular "novel idea" of Archdeacon Denison, it strongly bears upon the article itself. Saravia writes, "In these days a dispute hath arisen among divines touching the wicked, in what manner these can be said to eat the Flesh and to drink the Blood of the LORD, when our LORD saith, 'Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life,' and these do eat and drink judgment and condemnation to themselves. Now we read in the Holy Scripture of three kinds of

eating of the Body of CHRIST. 1. The Capernaitic and Cyclopean, such as that which the Jews had in their minds when the LORD said, 'Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life in you.' The LORD was here teaching them the necessity of that Spiritual eating which taketh place by faith; they understood Him to speak of a carnal eating. There is therefore also a certain Spiritual eating of the Flesh of the LORD. There is further again, the third kind, according to the Institution of the LORD, the one of which we are now treating the Sacramental eating-and it is the office of faith to make this latter the cause of the former. The good and the bad alike eat sacramentally with their mouths the Body of CHRIST and drink His Blood, but the good alone do this spiritually. Now to eat the Body of CHRIST sacramentally and to drink His Blood, is to receive the Sacrament of His Body and Blood; that is, the bread and the Body of CHRIST, the wine and the Blood of CHRIST, for in no other way are the Bread and the Wine Sacraments. And he who thinketh it possible that the outward signs can be partaken of apart from those things signified, WHICH ARE A NECESSARY PART OF THE SACRAMENT, divideth, or rather dissolveth the Sacrament. For the outward symbols be only one part of the Sacrament. The attempt to elude this argument per synecdochen hath been the parent of many a grievous and unhappy controversy amongst us." "Now all these things which I lay down touching the Spiritual eating and the Capernaitic be the truths of Scripture, nor can they be denied by those who hold the true doctrine of the Sacraments. So Augustine teacheth upon S. John, 'He is therefore that Bread which came down from Heaven, that if any one shall eat of it he shall not die.' But this is spoken of what pertaineth to the virtue of the Sacrament, not of what pertaineth to the visible Sacrament. And in the same treatise, 'And therefore he who doth not dwell in CHRIST, and in whom CHRIST doth not dwell, doubtless neither eateth Spiritually His Flesh, nor drinketh His Blood, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST.""

Now here is Saravia's distinct statement of the universal orthodox teaching a few years subsequent to the articles. "The Sacrament is received whole and perfect or not at all," the article says, "the wicked do receive the Sacrament of so great a thing." "Now that Sacrament is the Bread and the Body, and the Wine and the Blood." Again, to support this view he quotes S. Augustine-that very S. Augustine, and that very passage taken by the article for its source, its interpreter, its authority. And the interpretation is transparent. An objection has constantly been raised-it now is, it had been in S. Augustine's time, it was when the articles were framed-if the unworthy eat the Body and Blood of CHRIST at all, they must eat it 1 Saravia, p. 88, 89.

unto life, for CHRIST said, "Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life;" some therefore denied the reception, some insisted on grace being given. To meet both errors S. Augustine particularly addressed himself. He reminded both that "the Sacrament is one, the virtue of the Sacrament another." The Sacrament consisted of the Sacramentum and res Sacramenti, the outward and the inward, the elements and the Body and Blood of CHRIST. This, he told one class of objectors, all receive.

"How many receive from the altar and die, yea, by receiving, die! Whence the Apostle saith, 'Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.' It was not that the sop of the LORD was poison to Judas, and yet he received, and when he received the enemy entered into him, not that he received an evil thing, but that he being evil, did in evil wise receive what was good." Calling the bread "angels' bread," "How many Judases, he exclaims, does Satan fill, unworthily receiving the morsel to their damnation." "CHRIST was carried in His own hands, when commending His own Body He said, 'This is My Body."' This, the Sacramentum and res Sacramenti, to all is given, worthy and unworthy, "Judas and Peter."

This is the "sacramental eating" enforced by Saravia, and expressly declared in the article; the Bread and Wine, the Flesh and Blood. "But it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." The virtus will not take effect, the Spirit will not quicken, therefore there will be no partaking unto life by him who unworthily, and therefore not Spiritually, but sacramentally communicates. Hence S. Augustine to the other class observes, "Those words also of His, 'He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him,' how must we understand? Can we include in these words those too of whom the Apostle says, that they eat and drink judgment to themselves, when they eat this Flesh and drink this Blood?" Here the only question he will allow is not whether the unworthy eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, that is an admitted fact of his thesis, but whether so eating and so drinking they are to be "included" amongst those of whom CHRIST said, "dwelleth in Me and I in him?" and so he proceeds," What did Judas the impious seller and betrayer of his Master, (though as S. Luke the Evangelist declares more plainly, he ate and drank with the rest of His disciples this first Sacrament of His Body and Blood, consecrated by the LORD's hands,) did he 'dwell in CHRIST, and CHRIST in him? Do so many, in fine, who either in hypocrisy eat that Flesh and drink that Blood, or who after they have eaten and drunk become apostate, do they dwell in CHRIST or CHRIST in them ?"

Here S. Augustine distinctly speaks of those who in hypocrisy "eat that Flesh and drink that Blood," and yet a little after asserts

1 Quoted by Dr. Pusey in "Doctrine of Real Presence from the Fathers," pp. 510, 519, 524, &c.

"The wicked are not to be said to eat the Body of CHRIST," quoting the very words of our SAVIOUR, "Whoso eateth," &c. The reconciliation is simple, he supplies the mode himself, there is a sacramental eating of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in which all communicants engage; there is a spiritual sacramental eating of His Flesh and Blood in which only the worthy engage. The question being with regard to the unworthy, the former reception is what the Father speaks of affirmatively, the latter negatively; the former is what the article admits, the latter what it negatives; by "partakers of CHRIST" are meant those in whom He dwells, and who dwell in Him by a Spiritual reception of the virtus. There is a broad distinction between receiving the Body of CHRIST, and partaking of CHRIST; the former may be to life, may be to death; the latter must be to life, just as there is a distinction between a worthy fidelis and an unworthy fidelis. "What is it to eat CHRIST?" S. Augustine solemnly asks. "It is not only to receive His Body in the Sacrament, for many unworthily receive, of whom saith the Apostle, Whoso eateth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the LORD unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.' But how is CHRIST to be eaten? How? He that keepeth My commandments abideth in Me and I in him.'" Here in a breath He asserts an unworthy reception of the Body of CHRIST, and a non-partaking of CHRIST, just as in the next sentence, "See then, brethren, that if ye who are faithful be separated from the Body of the LORD," &c., he draws the distinction between the obedient and the disobedient fideles, he asserts the identity of the terms fideles and communicants; a distinction and an identity, that if remembered might have precluded many grave errors respecting even the doctrine of the Sacrament itself.

[ocr errors]

We have not alluded to or quoted the passage from S. Augustine appealed to in the article, for though as a deferential appeal to a Father by the framers of the article it is important, and in itself corroborates our argument, it happens not to be S. Augustine's at all, but an annotation by Bede, and by the Benedictines was inclosed in brackets to denote interpolation.

The fact is, half the arguments against the true doctrine of the Sacraments rely on the basis of a false interpretation of authorities or words. The articles are appealed to in all sorts of controversies -religious, semi-secular, political. "Thus it is written," the scroll that Bible Christians have engrossed, to place them above the Scriptures and the Fathers-and here are they appealing to an authority that never speaks as they cite! "As S. Augustine saith :"-"As S. Augustine never said." And so with the terms "faithful:" "spiritual:""real :" "corporal :" "carnal." The body and blood of CHRIST is only received by the "faithful," in the LORD's Supper Dr. Pusey's "Doctrine of the Real Presence from the Fathers," pp. 524,

525, 533.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »