January 1880 A.D. William Francis Taylor and “Real Presence”—J.C. Ryle’s Canon of
Liverpool Addresses Church of England’s View versus Tractobates,’ Ritualists’
& Lutherans’ Issues—Cannibalism, Bone-Chewing & Blood-Swilling
THE REAL PRESENCE
Church Association Tract 025
BY REVD WILLIAM FRANCIS TAYLOR, D.D., LL.D.
I. It is of the
utmost importance that we rightly understand the meaning of the expression “the
Real Presence;” as otherwise we may be contending against what is not
maintained, or rejecting what ought to be embraced most firmly.
II. The Church of England nowhere uses the phrase, “The Real Presence”
in reference to the Lord’s Supper. It was an expression equivalent in the minds
of the Reformers to the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation. Thus Cranmer
speaks of “The Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the real presence of
CHRIST’s flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar, as they call it.”
Still, a real presence of CHRIST not only may be, but must be
maintained by every true Christian; a real presence, that is of “CHRIST and his
Holy Spirit by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, not in or
under the form of bread and wine, but in all them that worthily receive the same.”
Nor is this real presence confined to the right use of the Lord’s Supper. It is
also to be maintained in the right use of all the rdinances of CHRIST’S Church,
and all the means of grace whether public or private.
III. The Ritualists, however, use the expression, if not exactly in
the Popish sense as equivalent to transubstantiation yet to express
substantially the same doctrine; and to deny this is a mere juggle of words
without meaning. Their doctrine is this: “That by virtue of consecration the
Body and Blood of our Saviour, CHRIST, are present really and truly, but
spiritually and ineffably under the form of bread and wine.” “This presence is
conferred by the word of CHRIST, as spoken by the priest, through the operation
of the HOLY GHOST, irrespective of faith and of any personal qualification,
either in the consecrator or receiver.” (Declaration of twenty-one priests: and
Mackonochie’s pastoral.)
This language is plain. It matters not whether it be called
transubstantiation or consubstantiation; superlocal or supralocal; ineffable,
transcendental, mysterious or spiritual. The meaning is plain, viz., that the
real Body and Blood of CHRIST are really and truly present on the table, under
the form of bread and wine.
IV. It is not necessary at present to point out that if this be so,
the Adoration of the Host, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are but legitimate
consequences of the doctrine; but the object of this paper is to prove that the
doctrine of the Real Presence, as thus defined, is contrary to the Church of England.
1. In the Prayer of Consecration, we ask GOD to grant that “we
receiving these his creatures of bread and wine, according to our Saviour JESUS
CHRIST’S holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be
partakers of his most blessed body and blood.”
This petition would be wholly needless if CHRIST were really present
under the form of bread and wine; for in that case he that received the one
must also receive the other. The petition therefore would be, not that we may
be partakers, but that we may be worthy partakers.
2. In the second post communion prayer, we thank GOD for that he
does “vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries (i.e.
sacred emblems) with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of
our Saviour, CHRIST.”
Here the reception of the Body and Blood is confined to those who
“duly receive.”
Not so, however, if the Real Presence be under the form of bread and
wine, irrespective of any personal qualification on the part of the receiver.
3. In the declaration, at the end of the Communion Service, we are
told that “no adoration ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of CHRIST’S
natural Flesh and Blood. For the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour, CHRIST,
are in Heaven, and not here;” it being against the truth of CHRIST’S natural
Body to be at one time in more places than one.
Note here—any Corporal Presence is denied by the Church. The word
corporal means bodily, and can mean nothing else. So that the Church rejects
any bodily presence of CHRIST: no matter what words are used to mystify plain
people, such as supra-local, ineffable, and mysterious; to all such we reply,
the Church rejects any bodily presence whatever.
The Ritualists try to evade the force of this by saying, that,
whilst the natural Body of CHRIST is in heaven, the spiritual Body is on the
table. What ridiculous absurdity, and heretical withal. Has CHRIST two bodies,
a natural and a spiritual: one in heaven and the other on earth? It would be an
insult to the understanding of a child to attempt to refute that, which carries
its own refutation with it; just as much to assert that one and one make three.
4. In the Communion of the Sick we are told that “if the sick man do
truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe in the Blood of CHRIST
shed for his redemption, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ
profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with
his mouth.”
Here we have Real Presence in the soul of the penitent believer
independent of the Sacrament altogether.
The Catechism teaches us “that the Body and Blood of CHRIST are
verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the LORD’S Supper.”
This limitation of the reception to the personal qualification of the receiver,
the faithful, is fatal to the idea of a real presence independent of faith.
The faithful, and the faithful only, i.e. those, who are indeed
believers in CHRIST, find a real presence; a real presence of CHRIST within
their hearts, not in the elements.
6. The 28th Article declares that “the Body of CHRIST is given,
taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And
the mean whereby the Body of CHRIST is received and eaten in the Supper is
Faith.”
This would not be true if the Body is eaten by the mouth; for this
is not spiritual, but natural and carnal. Nor is it true, that the Mean—the
one, only, mean of reception is Faith, if we receive it also in the hand. The
doctrine of the 28th Article is therefore against the notion of the Ritualistic
Real Presence, and agrees with the beautiful expression of Hooker, that “Faith
is the only hand which putteth on Christ to justification, and Christ the only
garment which being so put on covereth the shame of our defiled natures.”
7. The 29th Article is “of the wicked who eat not the Body of CHRIST
in the Lord’s Supper.”
This one Article is conclusive, if even it stood alone; for it
declares that “the wicked, and such as be void of a living faith, although they
do carnally and visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of CHRIST, yet in no wise are partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation,
do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.”
Note here—those, that are destitute of a living faith, are in no
wise partakers of CHRIST, although they do eat and drink the outward sign or
Sacrament. This would not be true if there were a Real Presence irrespective of
faith; for then they would in some wise, even if to their condemnation, receive
CHRIST. But now they “in no wise” receive the Body, but only the sign of the
Body.
Observe, too, the contrast between the statements in the Catechism
and in this place.
The faithful receive the Body and Blood of CHRIST verily and indeed
in the Lord’s Supper; yea, whether they receive the Lord’s Supper or not. (Vide
Communion of Sick.)
The faithless are in no wise partakers of CHRIST, whether they eat
the Sacrament or no. (Art. xxix.)
It is evident, therefore, that the doctrine of the Church is in
perfect accordance with that of Holy Scripture on this subject. CHRIST is the
bread of life. He that cometh to me, saith the Saviour, shall hunger; he that
believeth on me shall never thirst. Therefore, to come is to eat; to believe is
to drink. Again: “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life; and whoso
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life.” The same
result—everlasting life—is connected with believing on
CHRIST, or eating his flesh and drinking his blood. These
expressions then are equivalent—mean the same spiritual action; unless indeed
we maintain, that we can have eternal life by eating without believing, or by
believing without eating.
V. The Ritualistic Real Presence is contrary to the views of the
Reformers.
Cranmer says—
“They say that CHRIST is corporally under or in the form of bread
and wine, we say that CHRIST is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually;
but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine he is spiritually,
and corporally in heaven. (P.S. p. 5.)
Hooker says—
“The Real Presence of CHRIST’S most blessed Body and Blood is not
therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.”
(Vol. ii. p. 5.)
Jeremy Taylor—
“CHRIST is present in the Sacrament to our spirits only, i.e. not
present to any other sense but that of faith. CHRIST is present as the Spirit
of GOD is present in the hearts of the faithful by blessing and grace.” (p.
522.)
Where, now, is the difference? Here by ‘spiritually,’ they mean
present after the manner of a spirit; by ‘spiritually,’ we mean present to our
spirits only; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that
of faith, a spiritual susception.” (Real Presence, p. 15.)
Again—
“But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand
Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the
faithful by blessing and grace.” (Ibid.)
Lastly—to quote the Judgment of the Privy Council in the Bennett
case, delivered June 8th, 1872—
we read,
“Any other presence than this—ANY PRESENCE WHICH IS NOT A PRESENCE
TO THE SOUL OF THE FAITHFUL RECEIVER—the Church does not by her Articles and
Formularies affirm, or require her ministers to accept. This cannot be stated
too plainly.”
Protestant Churchmen, enough has now been written, not merely to
assert, but to prove that the doctrine of the Real Presence as taught by the
Ritualists of our day, is unscriptural, anti-Reformational, and expressly
condemned by the formularies of the Church.
Wherever this doctrine is held, it is accompanied by the blasphemous
Sacrifice of the Mass and the idolatrous worship of the Host. Already, this is
the case in countless churches throughout the land. If the plague be not
arrested and eliminated from the National Church, it must lose its hold on public
opinion and fall. Let us make an effort to prevent such a catastrophe.
No comments:
Post a Comment