Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

our Lord wherever he is present, whether in accordance with his promise in the sacrament or by his ascension at the right hand of the Father."1 "The Reformers had no intention of refusing worship to Christ present in the sacrament. Christ present in the sacrament is to be worshiped, for, as God (and the Manhood has been taken into God) worship is due him, under whatever conditions he manifests himself. The worship is not directed to the outward sign, the substance of bread and wine; it is obvious that no adoration ought to be done unto the sacramental bread and wine bodily received." These quotations show divergence from the Article.

The Church of England has for nearly a century past failed to antagonize the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and turned its back upon the doctrines of the Reformation, especially in relation to the Holy Communion. It seeks to change its classic literature to make it accord with its changed views. Keble in his Christian Year wrote: O come to our communion feast; There present in the heart,

Not in the hands, th' eternal Priest
Will his true Self impart.3

Thus it appeared until 1866, then "Not in the hands," was changed to "As in the hands." When Keble wrote he did not believe in the "real objective presence"; that is a modern view in the Church of England, and the lines are made to include it.

When the Prayer of Consecration is believed to bring the real presence of the glorified Christ into the bread and wine, and it is elevated to the gaze of the people for

1 Kidd on the Articles, vol. ii, p. 234.

2Green on the Articles, p. 238. The question has been raised whether the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the "real objective presence," with its subsequent doctrines of sacrifice and worship, can be lawfully taught in the Church of England, and was ruled affirmatively by the Judicial committee in the Bennett case. See Dollinger's Lectures on the Reunion of the Churches, p. 131.

Found in the Section for "Gunpowder Treason."

"

their adoration, it will be difficult for them to distinguish between the practices of the English clergyman and those of the Roman priest. Adoration of Christ in the elements comes dangerously near to idolatry. Why not direct the mind up to the Christ at the right hand of God, rather than to the Christ supposed to be in the elements? We look through nature up to nature's God without worshiping God in the flower or tree. So we can look through the elements, which represent Christ, up to the Son of God now glorified, and feel in our hearts the cleansing, strengthening power of the Holy Ghost.

The Anglican Prayer of Consecration and that of the Methodist Episcopal Church are identical; so are the Articles "Of the Lord's Supper." The Methodist Episcopal Church believes in the real spiritual presence of the glorified Son of God in the heart of every worthy communicant, concurrent with the reception of the emblems of his broken body and shed blood; that by the Holy Spirit the benefits of the atonement are applied, and the believer rejoices in a knowledge of the remission of sin, and by faith feeds on Christ in his heart with thanksgiving.

ARTICLE XIX

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 Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike.

I. THE ORIGIN

This Article was prepared by Archbishop Parker, of the English Church, in 1562. It was laid before the Convocation and accepted, and has kept its place in the Thirty-nine Articles until the present time. It was adopted by Wesley without change.

II. THE AIM

Its object was to condemn the practice of the Church of Rome in withholding the wine from the laity in the Holy Communion. This custom was not known in the primitive Church, nor did it prevail before the twelfth century. Cardinal Bona says: "The faithful always and in all places, from the first beginning of the Church till the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine, and the use of the chalice began little by little to drop away in the beginning of the century, and many bishops forbade it to the people to avoid the risk of irreverence and spilling."

When the custom began of denying the wine to the laity it was severely condemned by the Popes as "a human and novel institution." The Council of Clermont in 1095 condemned it. The twenty-eighth canon says

1 Quoted by Gibson, Thirty-nine Articles, p. 677.

that "no one shall communicate at the altar unless he receive the body and the blood separately and alike, unless by the way of necessity and for caution." Notwithstanding, however, that the practice was condemned by the authority of the Church, it spread rapidly and widely. In the latter half of the fourteenth century it was one of the great abuses of the Church. This was one of the corruptions of popery so much complained of by Wickliffe, Huss, and Jerome of Prague.

When the Council of Constance assembled in 1414 it was thought the evil would be condemned. Instead of condemning, the Council approved, justified, and enjoined it as the law of the Church. "On the fourteenth day of June, 1415, the assembled fathers passed the famous decree which took the cup from the laity in the celebration of the Eucharist, ordered that the Lord's Supper should be received by them in one kind, that is, the bread, and vigorously prohibited the communion in both kinds." The ignominy of the action is intensified by the fact that the early Reformers, who complained of this withholding from the faithful of what they claimed as a portion of their birthright, were also condemned. The ashes, writings, and memory of Wickliffe were branded with infamy by a decree of the Council; John Huss was burned at the stake, and a year later Jerome of Prague was martyred.

The erroneous practice was the outgrowth of the doctrine of transubstantiation; it was the fruit of a superstitious fear that the wine, the real blood of Christ, might be spilled by carelessness or accident, and thereby great indignity and evil be wrought.

The same doctrine naturally led to that of concomitance. Inasmuch as the elements were wholly changed

1 Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Cent. XV, part ii, chap. ii.

into the substance of Christ, therefore the whole Christ, body and blood, was contained in either element; and hence if only one element was received, Christ was fully received under that one element.

This doctrine was fully asserted by the Council of Trent at its thirteenth session (October, 1551): “Jesus Christ is entire under the species of bread, and under the smallest particle of that species, as also under the species of wine, and under the smallest portion of it."

2.

In conformity with this doctrine three canons were read: 1. Against those who maintain that all the faithful are under obligation to receive in both kinds. Against those who maintain that the Church has not sufficient grounds for refusing the cup to the laity. 3. Against those who deny that our Lord is received entire under each species.

The Council anathematized any who should say that "by the precept of God, or by the necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist." The Article, written a year later, may be regarded as a reply to the challenge.

III. THE EXPOSITION

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay People; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper as instituted by Christ was duly observed in the early Christian Church both in substance and form. The words of institution are explicit: "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks,

« VorigeDoorgaan »