Trollope on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

In speaking of the Eucharist, St. Paul describes the Sacramental bread as an emblem of that love and unity, which ought to subsist among Christians, and incorporate them into one undivided body, of which Christ is the spiritual head. * For we, being many, are one bread and < one body ; for we ai*e all partakers of that one bread.’ (1 Cor. X. 17.)

2. Shew that the Lord’s Sapper is also a Sacra- ment of our Redemption by Christ’s death.

As the Lord’s Supper was instituted ’ for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of ’ the benefits which we receive thereby,’ so, in accordance with the ti*ue character of a Sacrament, the elements of bread and wine are an outward si^n of the spiritual bless- ings obtained for us by the body of Christ broken, and his blood shed upon the cross for our salvation ; insomuch that the worthy recipient of the appointed symbols becomes through faith a partaker of the thing signified. With a view to avoid any attempt to explain the mvsterious nature of this participation, our Church has, with her usual mode- ration, oonveved her meaning in terms which are strictly Scriptural. ^The cup of blessing which we bless,’ aslu

St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 16.), ^s it not the communion of the ’ blood of Christ ? The oread which we break, is it not the ’ communion of the body of Christ/

3. Explain the nature and design of the Eu- charist, by means of the analogy observable in the sacrifices both of Jews and Heathens.

Among the Jews, some of their sacrifices were entirely consecrated to God, as being typical qf the ftUlj perfect , and ai^fficietit sacrifice of the promised Redeemer ; and of the tr&ipcue-qfferingf a portion was eaten by the priests only, as mediators Mtween God and the person who made the offering ; but in peace-qfferingSf which were a token of reconciliation between God and man, part was offered to Qod, and the rest consumed by the priest and people, who were thereby reinstated in covenant with Jehovah. To this latter class the Paesover, and consequently the Lord’s Supper, manifestly belong ; and thus our Lord declares in John vi. 53. * Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, ’ and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.^ Hence this Sacrament is not a eacrifioef but Afeagt upon a gacrifiee, to wit, the sacrifice once offered by Christ upon the 01*088 : and such were not only these feasts which accompanied the Jewish sacrifices, but those among the heathen upon things offered to idols, which St. Paul contrasts with tne agaptXj or Eucharistic feasts of the early Christians (1 Cor. x. 13. sqq.). Now these epula sacri/malee under the Law were regarded as federal rites between Gcd and the parties who partook thereof; just as covenants were ratified in early times by the contracting parties eating and drinking to- gether. Those present were regarded as God^s guests, who entered into covenant with him by eating their portion of the victim, while his was consumed ; and, in like manner, the Christian’s participation in the Holy Communion is a visible pledgee of Christ’s love to his faithful followers, as well as a Dondof unity among themselves.

4. How is the death of Christ represented in the New Testament ; and by what term is the sacri- fice expressed ?

The Sacrifice of Christ is represented in the New Testa- ment as an offering for Sin ; and that, by means of the same sacrificial term which the LXX. apply to the sin-

ABTiCLB xxvni. 126

[…]

5. In what light does the Church of Rome regard the celebration of the Eucharist ?

The Romanists believe that the sacrifice of the death of Christ is repeated every time the Lord’s Supper is admin- istered, and an atonement thereby made both for the living and the dead. Accordingly they regard the service of the Mass as a lively representation of the several circumstances of his death and passion. The error has obviously arisen out of the doctrine of IVannibstantiation, [See on Art. XXXI.]

[…]

. The doctrine is thus stated in the 14th Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV : — * In the Sacrament of the Eu- ’ churist there is tndyy really, and tvJbstantiaUy ^ the body ’ and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our

• Lord Jesus Christ ; and there is a conversion of the whole

• substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole ‘substance of the wine into his blood; which conversion

• the Holj Catholic Church calls Transubttantiation.* In explanation of the term, the Trent Catechism teaches that, ’ because in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole sub- < stance of one thing passes into the whole substance of ‘another, the word Iratuubgtantiation was rightly and ’ wisely invented by our forefathers.’

7. Shew that the argument from Scripture, upon which the doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded, is invalid.

The doctiine is mainlv built upon the solemn words em- ployed by Christ at the institution of the Sacrament (Matt, xxvi. 26. 28.), and his exhortations to his disciples m the sixth chapter of St. John’s Oospel. Of these last, in order to prevent misapprehension, he distinctly asserted the spiritual nature. * The words that I speak unto you, they

m2

126 QUBBTIOirs AND AKSWEBS ON

*are Spirit ^ and they are life’ (John vi. 63.). It is also manifest that the words ‘This is my body’ and * this is my * blood,’ could only be meant to imply that the bread repre- sented his body, and the wine his olood ; and are no more to be understood literally, than we are to suppose our Lord himself to have been actually a door, a vine, a lamb, or a way. Besides, as the blood of the Paschal Lamb was a symbol, so by antdogy are the Eucharistic elements. Indeed there is no word in Hebrew which expresses to signify or represent ; and consec^uently it is, was employed for it signijies, by a common Oriental idiom. Examples of this usage abound. Compare Gren. xli. 26. Dan. vii. 24. Matt. xiii. 31. 39. Luke viii. 9. xv. 26. John vii. 36. x. 6. Acts X. 17. 1 Cor. x. 4. Gal. iv. 24. Rev. i. 20.

8. Does it not appear that this doctrine is alike impossible and absurd ?

It is impossible that the bread, which Christ gave to his disciples, snould have been his natural body, while he was then alive, and in the act of breaking it ; nor could the wine in the cup be the blood still flowiug in his veins. In fact, the elements are still called bread and ivtne after consecration H Cor. x. 27.) ; and it is moreover absurd to suppose that Christ can be corporeally present to different congregations of communicants at the same time.

9. Point out the inconsistency of Transubstanti- ation with the nature of miracles, and the evidence on which they invariably rest.

The reality of the miracles of the Old and New Testa- ments was in all cases established by the evidence of the senses : and whenever change of property or substance was effected, similar to that which is alleged of Transubstanti- ation, such change was obvious and readily discernible. When, for instance, our Lord turned water into wine at the Marriage-feast in Cana, the attributes of the wine took place of those of the water ; whereas the consecrated bread and wine remain, as far as the senses can discover, bread and wine still. Moreover, the acoidents of the miracle are plainly inverted ; for instead of Christ’s body and blood oeing changed into bread and wine, as the words of institu- tion are made to indicate, it is the bread and wine that are transubstantiated into Christ’s body and blood.

10. Shew that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.

In the Gospel narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, it is plainly related that * Jesus took bread, and * brake it, and ^ave it/ t. e. the bread, to his disciples. So likewise of the Cup. He also spake of the wine after con- secration as being still ^the fruit of the vine’ (Matt. xxvi. 26 — 29.). Neither is it possible to reconcile the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the assurance that he is at the the right of God in heaven, there to remain ^ until the times of the restitution of fill things.’ See Acts iii. 21. Eph. i. 21.

11. In what respect does Transubstantiation overthrow the nature of a Sacrament ?

Inasmuch as a Sacrament has an outward visible sign, as well as an inward and spiritual grace, the conversion of the bread and wine in Christ’s bod^ and blood, by which the sign is changed into the thing signified, must at once destroy the Sacramental character of tlie Ordinance.

12. What are the Superstitions, to which the doctrine of Transubstantiation has given rise ?

Those which are enumei’ated in the last clause of the Article. Under the absurd persuasion that the consecrated wafer, or, as it is called, the Jlitstf has become the actual body of Christ, Romanists worship it on their knees, as it is

Christi Day, is set apart, on which the Host is * carried * about ’ in procession, * lifted up,’ and ’ worshipped.’

13. Does the Ordinance of Christ give any sanction to these superstitions ?

At the institution of the Sacrament, our Lord’s command was simply this: — *Take, eat, this is my body which is ’ given for you ; do this in remembrance of me’ (Matt. xxvi. 2o. Luke xxii. 19.). From these words no sanction can be elicited either for the reservation, perambulation, elevation.

}28 QUESTIONS AND ANSWKB8 ON

or worship of the Host ; whereas the practice is manifestlj superatitious and idolatroas, and consequently at variance hoth with the spirit and the doctrine of Holy Writ.

14. What is the derivation and meaning of the word Host F

The word is, in fact, an abbreviation of the Latin hostia^ ’ a victim ;’ and it is employed to convey the idea that Christ is offered np anew, as a propitiatory sacrifice, at every celebration or the Eucharist.

15. When was the doctrine of Transubstantiation first mooted ; how was it received ; and may not its erroneous tendency be thence argued?

In the first ages of the Church it seems to have been universy believed that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the Lord’s Supper, but the nature of that presence gave rise to no serious discussion, prior to the publication of a treatise ’ on tbe Sacrament of the bod and * blood of Christ/ by PascJicutius RddbertuSy a Benedictine monk, in the year 831. Nor indeed did this treatise attract any geat degree of attention until, fourteen years after- wards, it was presented, in an enlarged and amended fbnn to Charles the Bald. Radbert maintained that, after con- secration, nothing remains of the bread and wine ezoepi their outward appearance ; and that the bod of Christy which then becomes reaUy and locally present, is the same identical body which was bom of the Virgin, which suffered on the cross, and which rose from the dead. Charles disapproved of the work ; and, in order to settle the ques- tion, directed two of his ablest writers to exftmine the argu- ments on which it rests. Thus not only does the late origin of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but the manner in which it was received, me strongly against its truth ; though, without the warranty of Scripture, it must have been equally rejected as an error, even if it had dated from the earliest times.

16. To whom was the examination of the new doctrine particularly entrusted ; how did they execute their task; and in what light was the worship of the elements regarded ?

John Scott, an Irishman, and RtUram, a monk, were the persons selected by Charles to investi^te the opinioos of Radbert. The work of the former, which seems to have been a concise and perspicuous exposition of the symbolic and commemorative import of the rite, is unfortunately lost; while the real o|nuions of the latter are, perhaps intentionally, concealed in a maze of perplexing suotleties. Others also engaged in the dispute, among whom was JRabantis Maurus, the most learned divine of the ninth Century ; and it is worthy of remark that the .wortkip of the elements is not mentioned by any of the writers on either side of the question.

17. Did the Anglo-Saxon Church hold the doc- trine of Transubstantiation ?

It appears from the Canons of ^fric that no such belief was entertained by our Saxon ancestors : for he uses language not only irreconoileable with a belief in Transub- stantiation, but has made g^eat use of Ratram’s treatise against it. Neither was any profession of belief then required from the Clergy at ordination, or any enquiry made with respect to it.

18. Give a brief view of the history of the doctrine in its subsequent stages.

Before the end of the ninth century the controversy had subsided ; on its revival in the eleventh, it was opposed by the celebrated Berenger ; in the twelfth century, however, it was very generally received as a doctrine of tne Church, though tne word Transvhstantiation, which the Trent Catechism ascribes to the wisdom of our * forefisithers,’ was only first stamped upon the doctrine by the fourth Council of Lateran (a. d. 1215.), having been then recently invented by Bishop Stephen of Aries, with the sanction of Pope Innocent III. ; and at length the Council of Trent enrolled both the name and the doctrine among the peculiar tenets of the Romish communion.

19. What doctrine was substituted by Luther for Transubstantiation J and by what arguments is it shewn to be untenable ?

130 QUBSnOlTB AND ANSWSB8 ON

By Zuingle and Calvin, and indeed b^ the Reformers in general, the doctrine of Trantubgtantiatum was rejected tit toto ; but Luther and his followers admitted that the suft- itanee of Christ’s body and blood is present in the Eucharist. together with the tubetance of the bread and wine: and accordingly the modified doctrine of Consubstantiatian was inserted by Melancthon in the Augsburgh Confession; although he seems to have entertained considerable doubt respecting it, and subsequently, indeed, to have discarded it altugether. It is manifest that the same reasons hold against the Lutheran, as against the Romish, doctrine.

20. Does the Church of England offer an un- qualified contradiction to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Unquestionably the Church of England recognizes a real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of tte Lord*B Supper ; out it is a spiritual, not a corporeal, presence. While she declares that ’ the bread and ue wine remain unchanged,’ and that they are merely ‘a Hgn of Christ’s body and ’ blood,’ which are g^ven and received ’ only in a heavenly ‘and spiritual manner,’ she still asserts that they are ’ verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.’ lu other words, without incurring tue risque of being wise beyond that which is written, she affirms that those who worthily partake of the appointed emblems, bread and wine, are fed with the epiritual Jbod of the most precious body and blood of Christ to the strengthening and refreshing of their souls: and this is in strict accoraance with the re- peated declaration of our Lord himself. ’ Whoso eateth ‘my flesh,’ he solemnly assures his disciples^ ’ and drinketh ‘my blood, hath eternal life ; for my flesh is meat indeed, ’ and my blood is drink indeed.’ But, he adds, ’ it is the ’ spirit that quickeneth, Hiejlesh profiteth nothing’ (John vi. 64. 68.).

21. By what means then are the body and blood of Christ taken and received in the Lord’s Supper ?

Since the body of Christ is not actually, but spiritually eaten, it fbllows of necessity that the means whereby it is so eaten, is a true and lively fiuth in the benefits pnrohaMd

I

ABnCUB XXYIII. 131

to mankind by his all-sufficient saorifioe on the cross. Thus eaten, * Christ becomes one with us, and we with him ;’ we are nourished, strengthened, and supported by the heavenly food ; and we go on firom grace to grace imtil we lay hola on eternal life.

22. What are the opinions of the early Fathers touching the nature of this Sacrament, and the manner in which it is received ?

Although Justin Martyr (Apol. I. o. 66.) and Irenseus llser. IV. M.) affirm that the bread, after consecration, is no onger common bread, but heavenly food ; yet the Fathers n general constantly speak of the consecrated elements as 9ign8, symbols t figures, typeSy commnemorative and mystical representations; and while theyaflfbrd numerous testimonies ■ to the figurative import of the Sacrament, there is not a single authority on the other side. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Myst. rv. 3.) teaches that under the type qf bread, Chrises body is given, and under the type qf mine, his blood ; so that those who partake qf the body aTtd blood qf Christ may be qf one body and blood ivith Sim, Origen eays (Hom. vii. m Levit.) that to understand our Saviour’s words, qf eating his flesh and drijiking his blood, according to the letter, is a letter that kiUeth. Thus also Aug^tine (De Doctr. Chr. ill. 16.) : — These words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, seem to command a heinous wickedness; and thertfore the commandment is figurative. See also Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 40. Cyprian. JBpist. 63. Augustin. in Psal. xoviii. c. 9. It may be remarked also incidentally, that in answer to the calumny which charged the primitive Chris- tians with eating human flesh, the martyr Ittlandina argued its impossibility firom the fact, HhaXfor the purpose qf reli- aious abstinence, they forbore to eat even suchj(esh as might oe lanfuUy eaten (Iren. ap. (Eoumen. Comm. in 1 Pet. iii.)

QUESTIONfi AKD ANSWERS ON