« НазадПродовжити »
If further proof that Transubstantiation is repugnant to Scripture be needed, it may be found in the sixth chapter of St. John, for we are there told that all who feed on Christ have eternal life ; if therefore the bread be Christ, then all who feed on the bread have eternal life; and this we know is not true, for wicked people have often fed on the hallowed bread.
The Article declares, moreover, that Transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament." For it is the nature of a Sacrament to consist of two parts, the one being a sign of the other. If the two are merged in one, then there cease to be two parts. And, moreover, how can one thing be a sign of another thing if it be that other thing?
Lastly, it “hath given occasion to many superstitions :" and some are mentioned, the reservation, elevation, adoration, of the consecrated elements. If they are still, as Scripture declares, bread and wine, and therefore created things (“these Thy creatures of bread and wine," as our Prayer Book calls them at the moment of their reception), how can it be other than idolatry to adore them ?-See the Protestation inserted in 1552, and again in 1661, after the Rubrics at the end of the Communion Service.
Of the Wicked which eat not of the Body of Christ in
the use of the Lord's Supper. The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great' a thing.
Notes.—"As St. Augustine saith.” The Article is almost word for word taken from St. Augustine's 26th Treatise on St. John :
“He who abides not in Christ, nor Christ in him, without doubt eats not spiritually His Flesh, nor drinks His Blood, though he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of His Body and Blood; but rather, he eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing.” In this passage the word “Sacrament," it will be observed (as usual in those days), stands for what we now call the outward and visible part of the Sacrament.
Of course a believer in Transubstantiation believes that all who eat the bread eat the Body of Christ ;eat it either to their condemnation (so they interpret 1 Cor. xi. 29) or to their eternal life. But as Origen says, “ If it were possible for the wicked to eat the Living Bread, in vain would it have been written, 'Whoso eateth this bread shall live for ever' (John vi. 58)."
In truth that passage in John vi. forbids the notion that wicked communicants feed on Christ. And the passage in i Cor. xi. clearly means that he who comes profanely to the Lord's Table, so far from feeding on the Lord, shares the Jews' sin of rejecting Him.
Origen in Matt. xv.
Of both Kinds. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
The Romanists allow the clergy to receive both elements, but to the laity they give the bread only. They defend this practice by saying that each element is transubstantiated, and the whole Christ is contained in the bread. That this is unscriptural is clear, for Christ said expressly“ Drink ye all of it," and St. Mark adds, “And they all drank of it” (xiv. 23).
We do not deny that a Romanist who is only allowed the bread may receive the full blessing ; but this does not justify those who mutilate Christ's institution.
Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satis. faction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
Notes.—“The Offering of Christ once made." -That “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” and that, beside this, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (Heb. ix. 28, x. 26), is the clear teaching of Scripture, repeated in our Prayer Book, “Who made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” What then is the meaning of the early Fathers when they continually speak of the Eucharist as “an Offering”
Sacrifice”? The Fathers themselves answer the question : Clement, Justin, Irenæus, explain that in the Eucharist there is, first, a thank-offering of the fruits of the earth made when we place the bread and wine on the Holy Table, quoting Malachi i. 10, 11 ; and, secondly, “the sacrifice of praise and fruit of our lips” enjoined in Hebrews xiii. 15.
In the third century Cyprian began to speak of our presenting to God the sacrifice of His Son, but clearly he meant a pleading of the sacrifice once offered, not for one moment any repetition of it; he meant, in short, what St. Paul meant, when he tells us that in the Lord's Supper we “show” or announce “the Lord's Death till He come” (1 Cor. xi. 26); and what our Prayer Book means by the words, “For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the Death of Christ.” In this sense it is in truth not a sacrifice, but rather a feast upon a sacrifice.
OF THE RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE,
Of the Marriage of Priests. BIS ISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not
commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
Notes. It is plain from Scripture that some of the Apostles were married (Mark i. 30;
Cor. ix. 5); plain also that St. Paul assumed that most of those whom Timothy ordained would be married, bidding him prefer for the ministry those who brought up their children well (I Tim. iii. 2, 4). In Hebrews (xiii. 4) we read that “marriage is honourable in all men ;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 3 heretics “forbidding to marry” are specially condemned. Holy Scripture therefore abundantly justifies the assertion of this Article that God's law leaves it open to the Clergy to marry or not, as they shall judge most conducive to godliness.