List | next: The imitation of Christ
The doctrine of the real presence
by Edward Bouverie Pusey
- Login or register to forward title to your Kindle or delivery email
- download the converted book to your desktop.
- Enter rr2.mobi/bxI in your Kindle browser to download
- Click on cover to see Google Books preview
- There is a used print copy of this title at alibris.com
Excerpt:
The doctrine of the Real Presence was stated in the first German Confession in words resembling those used in our Homilies. "Of the Supper of the Lord, it is taught that the very Body and Blood of Christ are verily present in the Lord's Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are distributed and taken in it." In the Confession of A.d. 1530, the important words "under the form of bread and wine" were omitted, but the Real Presence was still stated. "Of the Supper of the Lord, they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to Communicants [vescentibus] in the Supper of the Lord, and they disapprove of those who teach otherwise."
The "Apology for the Confession" added the word "substantially," and defended the doctrine by Holy Scripture, and by the consent of the Latin and Greek Churches'.
"The tenth Article is approved, in which we confess that we think, that in the Supper of the Lord, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly exhibited with those things which are visible, the bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament. This judgment we, having diligently considered and agitated the matter, steadfastly maintain. For whereas Paul says, that the bread is the communion of the Body of Christ, it would follow that it is a communion, not of the Body, but only of the Spirit of Christ, unless the Body of the Lord were truly present. And we learn that the Roman Church is not alone in affirming the corporal presence of Christ, inasmuch as the Greek Church both now so holdeth, and held so formerly. For the Canon of the Mass among them so attests, wherein the priest distinctly prays, that the bread being changed, it may become the Body of Christ. And the Bulgarian, [Theophylact,] no mean writer, (we think,) says plainly, that the bread is not a figure only, but is truly changed into flesh. And S. Cyril teaches at length, on John, chap. 13, that Christ is exhibited to us corporally in the Supper. For he saith, 'We do not deny that we are spiritually united with Christ by faith and sincere love; but we deny altogether, that there is no union with Him according to the flesh. This, we say, is altogether alien from the Divine Scriptures. For who doubts but that Christ is thus also the vine, we the branches, who thence gain life to ourselves? Hence Paul's saying, that we are all one body in Christ, because, although many, we are yet one in Him. For we are all partakers of that one bread. Thinketh he that the virtue of the mystical blessing [Eucharist] is
1 Tittman, Libri Symbolici, p. 123.
D
unknown to us? But this, coming to be in us, doth it not, by the communication of the Body of Christ, cause Christ to dwell in us, corporeally, too?' And a little afterwards, * Whence we ought to consider that Christ is in us, not only by that relation which is through love, but also by a natural participation.' These things we have recited, that whoever reads may clearly perceive that we maintain the doctrine received in the whole Church, that in the Supper of the Lord, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly exhibited together with the things which are seen, bread and wine. We speak of the Presence of living Christ. For we know that death shall no more have dominion over Him."
In the Articles of Smalcald, A. D. 1537, it is said, "vi. Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we think that the bread and wine are the very Body and Blood, and are given and taken not only by pious, but also by impious Christians." Communion under one kind is rejected, as not being "the whole ordination and institution, made, delivered, and commanded by Christ," although it is admitted that "it may perhaps be true that there may be as much under one kind as under both." Transubstantiation is rejected, as stating that "bread and wiue quit and lose their natural substance, and that only the appearance and colour of bread,and not true bread remains2."
