Articles 1-5. Articles 6-8. Articles 9-13. Articles 14-19. Articles 20-26. Articles 27-31 below on this page. Articles 32-39. Home.
Article XXVII
Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
De Baptismo.
Baptismus non est tantum professionis, signum, ac discriminis nota, qua Chriatiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed etiam est signum regenerationis, per quod, tanquam per instrumentum, recte Baptismum suscipientes, ecclesiae inseruntur, promissiones de remissione peccatorum, atque adoptione nostra in filios Dei per Spiritum sanctum visibiliter obsignantur, fides confirmatur, et vi divinae invocationis gratia augetur.
Baptismus parvulorum omnino in Ecclesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi institutione optime congruat.
Section I – Definition Of Doctrine
It is, unhappily, well known to every one, how much discord has arisen on the subject of baptismal grace. On the one side, men, perceiving that in Scripture the new birth of the Spirit is closely coupled with new birth by water, and that the ancient Church ever identified baptism with regeneration, have unhesitatingly taught that regeneration is the grace of baptism, never separated from it but when the recipient places a bar against it by impenitence. On the other side, it has been observed that the grace of regeneration is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; that it extends to an entire renewal of the moral nature of man, restoring him to the image of Him who created him; that no such change as this can be attributed to the washing with water; that such a change can only result from the influences of God’s Spirit, subduing the perverse will, and bringing the whole man into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and that as a matter of fact and experience the vast majority of the baptized never have undergone, and never do undergo, a change so momentous and unmistakable.
The difference of opinion has often been considered to depend on the different tenets of the opposing parties concerning predestination; the Calvinist denying that baptized infants are regenerate, because grace once given can never be forfeited; the anti-Calvinist explaining the apparent anomaly that the baptized are often practically unregenerate by saying that the grace has been given but lost by unfaithfulness. Something beyond this, however, must be at the root of the disagreement; for St. Augustine, and a large number of zealous predestinarians, have held high doctrine on baptismal grace; whilst many, who reject the tenet of absolute predestination, have been as strongly opposed to the doctrine of baptism which Augustine and many of his followers have allowed.
It is perhaps too much to say that the diversity is dependent on mere difference of definition. Yet accurate definition is no doubt very desirable; and it is probable that if both parties understood either their own or their opponents’ principles better, they would find many more points of contact and many fewer grounds of disagreement than at present. As it is, both sides see one important aspect of truth, and both perhaps often overlook its opposite, and equally necessary phase. On the one hand, the importance of training up children as heirs of immortality and recipients of the seed of life is much and rightly insisted on; on the other side, too much overlooked. But again, the belief in the race of baptism at times has led to some degree of formalism and neglect of spiritual vitality; whilst those who deny that grace have exhibited a greater zeal for conversion of souls from sin and error, because putting no trust on the supposed existence of a spark of grace derived to all professing Christians in the initiatory Sacrament.
May there not be a possibility of holding the truth which there is on both sides without the error of either ?
Baptism is confessedly an embracing the service of God, an enlisting into the army of Christ, to fight under His banner, the Cross. Every one, therefore, who is baptized is thenceforth bound to be a faithful follower of Him whose soldier he has professed himself. But it is not God’s plan to entail responsibilities on us without giving us the power to fulfill them. Hence naturally we might expect that when He has called us to His service, He would furnish us with arms and strength to the contest. It is better therefore to begin with God’s gifts to us: for we can only give Him of His own: Εκ Διος αρχώμεσθα.
1. We know then, first of all, that God, in Christ, has made with man a covenant of grace. The terms of that covenant are on God’s part, that He, for Christ’s sake, not for our merit, freely, fully, graciously pours down upon undeserving sinners, (1) pardon of sin; (2) the aid of the Spirit; (3) in the end, everlasting life. All this is given us in Christ. No terms are in the first place required from us, for we have none to give. We have but to accept the offer of free pardon made to rebellious subjects, and, with pardon, of strength for the future to obey.
Now baptism is the formal act by which we are admitted into covenant with God. It is the embracing of God’s covenant of grace in Christ: in the case of adults, by their own deliberate choice; in the case of infants, by God’s merciful appointment, and according to the election of grace.
We cannot doubt of the truth of God’s promises. Hence we may be assured that He will make good His covenant to all that are brought within the terms of it: i.e. to all who are baptized. Hence again, we infer that the promises to the baptized, and therefore the blessings of baptism, are: –
(1.) Pardon of sins.
(2.) The aid of the Spirit of God.
(3.) If not forfeited, everlasting life.
2. But, moreover, baptism is the engrafting into the Church to which belong the covenant and the promises. The Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is its covenanted Head. Hence we see another relation consequent on baptism, namely, that we thereby become members of Christ. And indeed without this we could not receive the blessings of the covenant. For pardon and grace can only flow to us from Christ. It is in Him that God gives us both – that God will give us everlasting life. “In Him is life.” “He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
So too, the Church is the family of God, as well as the body of Christ. Hence by baptism we become not only members of the mystical body of the Lord, but adopted children of our heavenly Father. God thenceforward looks on us as united, according to covenant, to His Son, and hence as His children by grace; and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.
Thus, in the language of the Catechism, we are made in baptism members of Christ, children of God, and therefore inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. {Inheritance, be it observed, implies not certainty of possession, but the possibility of being disinherited. Thus St. Paul: “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it “ (Heb. 4:1). There may be a promise of future blessing which may be forfeited by sin (Comp. Heb. 12:15, 16, 28).}
All this results from the nature of a covenant and the nature of the Church.
But here a great practical question has arisen which it is of the utmost importance not to disregard. Does all this merely indicate a new outward federal relation of the baptized to God? or does it imply a spiritual change in the soul itself and a moral change of disposition? A federal relation it undoubtedly points out, for the soul is by baptism taken into covenant in Christ. But a covenant on God’s part implies the faithfulness of the Covenanter. Hence, undoubtedly, baptism guarantees a spiritual change in the condition of the recipient. But we must not confound a spiritual change in the condition of the soul with a moral change of the disposition and tempers. It is a great spiritual change to be received into Christ’s Church, to be counted as a child of God, to obtain remission of sins, and to have the aid and presence of the Spirit of God. But a moral change can only be the result of the soul’s profiting by the spiritual change. If the presence of the Sanctifier does not produce sanctification, no moral change has been effected. If the pleadings of the Spirit have been rejected, and the soul has remained unmoved under them, it cannot be said that there is a moral renovation of the character. {[A change of the spirit is a different thing front a change in the spirit, and yet each is a spiritual change. – J W.]}
We may therefore define the internal grace of baptism to consist rather in the assured presence of the Renovator, than in the actual renovation of the heart. The latter is indeed the natural result of the influence of the former; but it requires also another element, namely, the yielding of the will of the recipient to the previous influences of the Sanctifier.*
{*Hooker (though rather practical and devotional, than formal and logical in his statements) seems to say much the same as I have said in the text. “Baptism is a Sacrament which God hath instituted in His Church, to the end that they which receive the same might be incorporated into Christ, and so through His precious merit obtain as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future newness of life.” – Eccl. Pol. V. ix. 2. Waterland more accurately defines the distinction (in the case especially of infant baptism) between the grace given in baptism called regeneration, and the effects of it when cultivated in the heart and life called renovation. “Regeneration is a kind of renewal, but then it is of the spiritual state considered at large; whereas renovation seems to mean a more particular kind of renewal, namely, of the inward frame or disposition of the man. ... Regeneration may be granted and received (as in infants) where that renovation has yet no place at all for the time being.” Again, “Regeneration and renovation differ in respect to the effective cause or agency; for one is the work of the Spirit in the use of water, that is of the Spirit singly, since water really does nothing, is no agent at all; but the other is the work of the Spirit and the man together.” Again, “It may reasonably be presumed that from the time of their new birth by water and the Spirit (which at that very moment is a renewal of their state to Godward) the renewing also of their heart may come gradually in with their first dawnings of reason, in such measure as they shall be capable of; in a way to us imperceptible, but known to that Divine Spirit who regenerates them, and whose temple thenceforth they are, till they defile themselves with actual and grievous sin. In this case it is to be noticed that regeneration precedes, and renovation commonly follows after.” – Waterland, On Regeneration.
Bishop Bethell appears to adopt the same view: “Regeneration is a spiritual grace; and, in a certain sense, every spiritual grace may be said to be moral, because it effects a change in a man’s moral nature. But the word Moral, to speak more properly, implies choice, and consciousness, and self-action, and faculties or dispositions expanding themselves into habits; and hence moral graces or virtues are, as Waterland expresses himself, ‘the joint work of the Spirit and the man.’” – Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism. Fifth Edition, p. 247.
I must venture to say that, agreeing fully in the general statement of all these passages, I should rather speak of the “yielding of the man’s will to the Spirit of God,” than of “the joint work of the Spirit and the man”. The latter sounds to me too much like a claim of independence for weak and sinful humanity.
It is unnecessary to inquire here, whether the presence of God’s Spirit is not vouchsafed to others besides the baptized. We have instances of such in Cornelius, whose prayers and alms were accepted, whilst he was yet in ignorance of the Gospel; and upon whom the Holy Ghost fell, before he had received the baptism of water (Acts 10:4, 44, 47). The point to be remembered is this, that to the baptized the aid of the Spirit is promised by covenant; and therefore to them it is assured. Others may receive it according to the will of God, but cannot claim it according to His promise.
Now this fact, that baptism, from the very nature of the covenant, carries with it an assurance of pardon for sins, of adoption into the Church, and of aid from the Spirit, is sufficient to warrant the term, “Baptismal Regeneration.” Birth into the Church and adoption into the family of God, remission of original sins in infants, and of all past sins in worthily receiving adults, and the gift of the Spirit to renew and sanctify, comprise the elements of the new birth, the germ of spiritual life. Hence they are called by the Church “Spiritual Regeneration.” Yet, as God’s gifts of grace are not compulsory, it follows that the baptized, by his own perverseness, may reject them all. Whether then he received baptism in infancy or in maturity, if he has not profited by its blessings, he has never received such a renovation of heart and nature that he can be called practically regenerate. Nay! his heart is unregenerate, although his outward state and his covenanted privileges be never so great. He yet needs conversion and renewal of spirit. And hence it comes to pass that many of our greatest divines (e.g. Hammond, J. Taylor, Beveridge), who held distinctly the doctrine of baptismal grace, or baptismal regeneration, yet constantly spoke of some of the baptized as still unregenerate; because, though God could not be supposed to have failed to make good His promise to them, yet they had not yielded to His Spirit’s gracious influences; and so their hearts had never been renewed “after the image of Him that created them”; and they had continued in darkness and in the bondage of corruption, though “called to the glorious liberty of the children of God.”
If we take this as the explanation of the great doctrine in question, we may see at once: –
1. That the absence of practical results, and of anything like practical spiritual life in many of the baptized, is not to be accounted for merely and solely by the theory that such have early fallen away from grace and from a state of holiness once effected; for from the first they may never have yielded to the gracious workings of the Spirit, and so real practical holiness may never have been produced.
2. Nor, again, must it be accounted for by the hypothesis that their regeneration is in a state of abeyance until their own will rises to meet and cooperate with the grace bestowed upon them. For this hypothesis seems to savour of Semi-pelagianism, making the will, as it were, an independent agent, coordinate and equally efficient with the Holy Spirit; and allowing it a spontaneous movement towards good. Whereas, sound evangelical truth will teach us to consider the will utterly incapable of moving towards holiness, till first quickened to it by the grace of God.
3. But the real solution of the difficulty will appear to be that though God never failed of His promise, and though the aid and presence of His Spirit were ever vouchsafed to the recipients of baptism, yet their wills had never yielded to be renewed by it; and therefore, though subjects of the grace of God, they had never brought forth the fruits of holiness.
Yet all baptized persons, though not personally sanctified, have a relative holiness: For, –
1. They are members of the Church, which is holy; branches therefore of the true Vine, even if they are fruitless branches, and so withering and dying. They have a covenanted relation to, and a spiritual union with Christ who is the Head of His Body mystical.
2. They are adopted into the family of God; and, though they be from the first rebellious and prodigal sons, yet they have a covenanted title to be regarded as children, and moreover, if they return from their wanderings, to be received and welcomed as children.
3. They have been solemnly set apart and dedicated to God, consecrated to be temples of the Holy Ghost: and as such, have a real, even though it may be a rejected presence of the Spirit assured to them. That presence will, if they cultivate and obey it, truly sanctify them, but, if not cultivated, but resisted, it will leave them in unfruitfulness. {Whether the Spirit ever finally leaves in this life the soul which has been consecrated to Him, and utterly ceases to plead with it, is a question too hard to answer. God’s covenant is to give His Spirit; and if we do not drive Him away, he will abide with us forever and lead us daily onward. Thus our baptism may be called a lifelong work. Even when resisted and grieved, we may hope that He does not soon “take His everlasting flight.” Yet we cannot say that there may be no period of impenitence, when God shall swear in His wrath, “My, Spirit shall no longer plead.”}
A distinction must be drawn between adult and infant recipients.
1. In the case of adults, faith and repentance are necessary prerequisites; and without them we must not expect the blessings of the Sacrament. But then the reason why these graces are requisite is not because they contribute their share to the production of the grace of baptism. That would be to derogate from the free gift of God, and from the bounty of the Giver. On the contrary, we must ever esteem the grace of God to be free and unmerited, and not attracted to us by any good which is in us. It is not the active quality of our faith which makes us worthy recipients. That would be to make faith a fellow worker with, and in itself independent of the Spirit of God, which is closely bordering on Semi-pelagian heresy. But, though our faith cannot be of that meritorious character that it should elicit grace from above, yet our impenitence and unbelief are permitted to act as obstacles to the free-working of the grace of God; and by our own obstinacy and hardness of heart we may “quench the Spirit”.
Hence, that there may be no impediment to their regeneration, a believing and penitent spirit must be cultivated in those who are to be baptized, lest, like Simon Magus, they receive the washing of water but still remain, as regards their hearts and consciences, “in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.”
2. Concerning infants the case is different. Active faith in them is not possible; nor is it even to be desired. It is not the active character of his faith which seems to qualify the adult. It is rather that it implies and assures an absence of that repelling obstinacy and hardheartedness which makes sinners reject the mercy of the Lord.
The very helplessness of infants is, in this case, their protection. We cannot too much remember, that God’s gifts come from Him and not from us; from His mercy, not our merits, our faith, or our obedience. The only obstacle which infants can offer to grace is the taint of original corruption. But to say that original sin is a bar to receiving remission of original sin (which is one chief grace of this Sacrament) is a positive contradiction in terms.
Again, the theory that the faith of parents or of sponsors is necessary to give effect to baptism in infants, is not to be maintained for an instant. {That is to say, beyond the fact that without an act of faith on the part of parents or sponsors, infants would not come to baptism at all.} This were to cross the whole principle of evangelical mercy. It would be to make the child’s salvation hinge on its parent’s faithfulness. It would make God’s grace contingent, not even on the merits of the recipient, but actually on the merits of the recipient’s friends. Sponsors, after all, are probably of human institution, and therefore cannot affect a divine ordinance. And this theory does sadly derogate from the grace of God which acts ever freely and spontaneously; and grievously magnifies the office of human faith, which is humbly to receive mercy, not arrogantly to deserve it. {It is quite another question how far any but the children of Christians and believers are proper subjects of baptism. This may be the case from God’s appointment, not because of an imputation to the infant of the parent’s fitness for grace.}
Once more, the theory that infants have need of a “prevenient act of grace” to make them meet for remission of sins is evidently founded on a low appreciation of God’s pardoning love. The very thing which makes them meet for pardon is their helpless sinfulness. This is their very plea for mercy and cannot therefore be the bar opposed to it. If they were not sinful, they would need neither pardon nor grace. Active hostility and willful obstinacy they cannot exhibit. And God’s mercy in Christ extends to the pardon of all sinners who do not willfully reject it. Hence the Church has ever held that there is nothing in the character of infants (whose sinfulness is inevitable and not willfully contracted) which can offer an insuperable obstacle to receiving the grace of remission of sin, or the aid of the Spirit of God.
But, though it be true that infants can, at the time of their baptism, oppose no obstacle, lest they should receive pardon and grace; and though therefore, in case of their death before actual sin, we believe in the certainty of their salvation; yet we must bear in mind that the pardon of sin and the aid of the Spirit, assured (and therefore surely given) at baptism, will not have produced an entire change of their nature, eradicating the propensity to sin, and new creating a sanctified heart. The grace of the Spirit, we may believe, will, as the reason opens and the will develops, plead with their spirits, prompt them to good, and warn them from evil; and, if not resisted, will doubtless lead them daily onwards in progressive holiness. But the power too to resist, which they did not possess in infancy, will daily increase with their increasing reason and activity; and their actual and internal sanctification will result only from an obedient yielding to the grace of the Sanctifier; and will be utterly abortive, if, through sinful propensities and sinful indulgence of them, that grace be stifled, disregarded, or abused.
Thus, though we may not define the grace of the Spirit, vouchsafed in infant baptism, to be a “mere potential principle,” and, until it be stirred up, “dormant and inactive”, yet we may define it so as to understand that its active operations are only to be expected when the dawning reason and rising will themselves become active and intelligent; and that anything like a real moral renovation of disposition and character can only be looked for where the adolescent will does not resist and quench the gracious influences of the Spirit of God, but suffers itself to be moulded and quickened into a state of subjection to the good pleasure of the Lord and of likeness to the character of Christ.
Yet this need not prevent us from believing that the aid of the Spirit has been vouchsafed, even to those who have never profited by it. It is possible for a branch to be grafted into a vine, and a stream of nourishment to flow from the root to it; and yet, if a knot or obstacle exist in the branch, the life of the vine may never reach the engrafted member; from no fault in the parent stem, but from the hardening of the bough itself. It is in like manner possible that the infant grafted into the true Vine, a member of the Body mystical of Christ, may, through its own fault as it grows to maturity, fail of deriving grace from the life of the Spirit, and yet there be no unfaithfulness on the part of the Giver, no want of liberality in the Fountain of goodness. And this seems sufficiently to account for the well-known and familiar fact that so many millions of baptized Christians grow up to manhood with no profit from their baptism, and when grown up can be considered in their spiritual condition as no better, if not worse, than heathen men: except at least that they are in the formal covenant of grace, and are therefore admitted to its outward ordinances; have probably from time to time the Spirit’s warnings and pleadings; and have the assurance too, that on their repentance and conversion, God will ever receive them to His mercy, and welcome them as prodigal sons returning to their Father, as sheep coming back to the Shepherd of their souls.
SECTION II – SCRIPTURAL PROOF
Having thus defined the doctrine, we may proceed to consider the Scriptural evidence for its truth. {The principal heads or divisions of the subject considered in this section are:– I. The light to be derived from the old Testament. II. Baptism considered as admitting us to a Covenant; involving a promise, 1, of pardon; 2, of spiritual aid; 3, of eternal life. III. Baptism considered as admitting to the Church; which is, 1, the Body of Christ; 2, the Family of God; 3, the Kingdom of Heaven; 4 the Temple of the Holy Ghost. IV. Baptism as related to spiritual regeneration. V. Objections considered and answered.}
I. First let us see what aid we can derive from the old Testament and from Jewish rites and language.
1. It is an acknowledged fact that circumcision among the Jews was the typical and corresponding rite to baptism in the Church. It admitted into the Mosaic covenant, as baptism admits into the Christian. It was given to Abraham for that very end, that it might be the initiatory rite, the seal and token of the covenant between God and the posterity of Abraham. (See Gen. 17:9–14; Acts 7:8.) The person who had received circumcision was a partaker of God’s promises to the Israelites. (See Exod. 12:48.) The person who neglected it was to be cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14, Exod. 4:24, &c.) St. Paul himself draws the parallel between this Jewish rite and the Christian rite of baptism; which latter he calls “circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11, 12). And from his language it is plain that the parallel altogether holds good, allowing for this important difference, that circumcision admitted to a legal or carnal covenant, baptism admits to a spiritual covenant.
2. In addition to circumcision thus given by God, it is well known that the Jews, in admitting proselytes from heathenism, ever added a form of washing or baptism. They baptized all, men, women, and children, of any proselyted family; and then they esteemed them as newborn from their Gentile heathenism into the Church or family of Israel. The language which they used concerning such was very remarkable. “If any one become a proselyte, he is like a child newborn.” “The gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child newborn; and all those relations which he had while either a gentile or a servant, they now cease from being so.” Nay! they even taught that men might legally marry those who had been their former relations; though, for edification and propriety, it was forbidden. {See Lightfoot, H. H. on John 3:3.}
This well accounts for the way in which the Jews understood the baptism of John. They knew that baptism implied admission into a new covenant or faith; and when he baptized, they thought he did so because the age of Messias was come, and that he himself must be either the Messiah, or else Elias, who was to prepare the way for Him. (See John 1:19, 25.) Those, too, who were baptized of him, came confessing their sins, because in the baptism of proselytes it had been always the custom to examine into the spirit and motives of the converts before they were admitted to the rite of initiation. {See at length Lightfoot, H. H. on Matt. 3:6. See also Wall, On Infant Baptism, Introduction, passim.}
Our Lord was ever pleased to adapt His teaching and ordinances to the habits and understanding of the people whom He taught. The Lord’s Prayer is a collection from familiar Jewish forms. {Lightfoot, on Matt. 6:9.} The cup in the Lord’s Supper was taken from the wine cups used by ordinary custom at the ancient Passover, one of which was called “the cup of blessing.” {Lightfoot, on Matt. 26:27.} These were but human institutions; yet our gracious Saviour, stooping to man’s infirmities, sanctioned with His approval, and sanctified with His blessing, things which before had but earthly authority. There can be little or no doubt that it was so with baptism. Washing was a common mode of typical purification, in use on all occasions with the Jews: especially it was ordained for the ceremonial purification of proselytes. And accordingly, our Lord adopts and authorizes it as the means for the admission of proselytes or converts from Judaism or heathenism into the Gospel and the Church: for admitting to a participation of the covenant of grace, as circumcision had admitted to the covenant of works.
Circumcision then, and Jewish baptism, were both types and precursors of Christian baptism; and from the signification and use of them we may infer somewhat concerning the signification and use of baptism.
3. Besides these, there were certain great events in old Testament history to which the Apostles point as typical of baptism, especially the ark of Noah, and the passage of the Red Sea. In the ark of Noah, God’s chosen people were saved, so as by water, from the destruction of a perishing world. The ark was, as it were, the body of the Church, in which all who entered it might be safe. To this, St. Peter tells us, baptism is the counterpart (αντίτυπον) (1 Pet. 3:21); because by baptism we have access to the Church and to that salvation which God has ordained in the Church.
4. The passage of the Red Sea was the first step of the Israelites from the land of their bondage. Before they passed it, they were slaves; after they had passed it, they were free, their enemies were overthrown, and they were delivered. Yet it was a passage, not into Canaan, but into the wilderness; deliverance from inevitable bondage, but not deliverance from fighting and toil. They had yet forty years to wander, before the passage of Jordan should lead them into rest. In these forty years’ wanderings they had contests, temptations, and dangers. Though saved from Pharaoh, their disobedience and unbelief overthrew most of them in the wilderness; and but few of those who had passed through the sea, ever reached the home of their inheritance. St. Paul (1 Cor. 10:1–12) sets this before us, as a type of Christian baptism and Christian life. Baptism is to us a rite ordained for our deliverance, – deliverance from sin and the slavery of sin; but it is only our first step in the course of our profession; and if we, like the Israelites, though bathed in the waters and fed from the manna and the rock, yet lust, and murmur, and tempt Christ, and commit idolatry and impurity, we must expect to fall under the power of the serpent, to be destroyed of the destroyer, and never to enter into that promised land which is nevertheless the inheritance prepared for us of God.
II. Baptism then is admission into the Christian covenant, as circumcision was admission into the Jewish covenant. Now a covenant implies two parties and certain stipulations. In the case of enemies it requires a mediator. In the old covenant the parties were God and the Jews: the Mediator was Moses: the stipulations were, “This do”: and then the promise was, “Thou shalt live”. The whole dispensation was worldly and legal. It had no promise of eternal life, but only of temporal prosperity. It had no sacrifice which could take away sin (Heb. 10:4). It had no assurance of the aid of the Spirit of God. {See some reflections on this subject above, Art. VII. sect. II.}
But the new covenant is widely different: a covenant of grace, not a covenant of works; not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Its promises are not earthly, but heavenly. Its Mediator is not Moses, but Jesus Christ. In Him there is forgiveness of sins. From Him flows the Spirit of grace. By Him is an everlasting inheritance. And so God Himself describes the blessings to those within the new covenant to be, that He would be “merciful to their unrighteousness,” and no more remember their sins; and that He would “put His laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts “ (Heb. 8:10, 12).
We may see at once therefore, wherein circumcision and baptism differ; why neither remission of sins nor spiritual aid were promised to the recipients of the former; why both are promised to the recipients of the latter. Neither could belong to a covenant of works; neither could flow from their Mediator Moses. Both are parts of the covenant of grace; both flow to us from our Mediator Christ. In short, God’s part in the new covenant is this: He assures to us pardon, the Spirit, life eternal. This, however, involves a response on our parts. We promise renunciation of sin, faith in the Gospel, obedience to the commands. This is the covenant between God and man, made in Christ. But God’s part must come first. We cannot move a step till He gives us life. We are helpless, but in His strength. Hence God must first move to give us grace, before we can move to do Him service. He will not break His part of the covenant. He will not keep back His promise. Therefore, when we are baptized, being received into the covenant, we may be sure that God will give us, 1, pardon in Christ, 2, help through Christ: if we reject both, we shall fail of the final promise, which is, 3, eternal life. But the failure will be from us, not from Him: from our will not responding to His motions; from our spirit not yielding to the influence of His Spirit; not from a keeping back on His part of pardon or grace. All this seems to be the necessary result of the striking of a covenant, which is done at the baptismal font between us and God.
To this view of the subject belong the questions and answers made at Baptism. The Church recounts God’s promise, “to receive the person baptized, to release him of his sins, to sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of Heaven, and everlasting life”: and adds, “which promise He, for His part, will most surely keep and perform.” But then she goes on to require that the person to be baptized (or his sureties, if he be an infant) shall respond to God’s promises, by engaging to fulfill his part of the covenant, namely, to renounce the devil, to believe all the articles of the Christian faith, and obediently to keep God’s commandments. This custom has existed from the very earliest times. It is mentioned by Tertullian (who wrote but a hundred years after the Apostles) as having prevailed in the Church by immemorial tradition. {De Coron. Milit. C. 3.} The ancients very generally understood St. Peter to allude to this in the famous passage concerning the ark of Noah (1 Pet. 3:21). {See Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. I. ch. X. p. 315; Bingham, H. E. Bk. XI. ch. VII. sect. 3; Neander, Church History, I. sect. III.} There, having spoken of the deliverance of Noah and his family from the deluge, which overwhelmed the wicked, he goes on to say that baptism is the counterpart of (αντίτυπον, that which actually corresponds with and resembles) the ark. For, as the ark saved Noah, so baptism saves us. {Ωι και ημας αντίτυπον νυν σώζει βάπτισμα.} But then, lest it should appear as if he taught baptism to act as a charm or incantation, ex opere operato, he adds, “not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.” {επερώτημα properly signifies question or questioning. So the Vulgate, conscientae bonae interrogatio in Deem; which is too literal to be intelligible. We must probably understand a metonymy of question for answer. So the Syriac renders it “Not when you wash the body from filth but when you confess God in a pure conscience.” So the fathers evidently interpret it, as Tertullian: Anima responsione sancitur. – De Resurrect. c. 48. So more modern interpreters, for the most part, e.g. Erasmus: Quo fit, ut bona conscientia respondent aped Deum. And Beza: Stipulatio bonae conscientiae aped Deum.} That is to say, the mere washing with water will not save the soul. It is the appointed ordinance for bringing the soul into the ark of the Church, into covenant with God, and therefore into a state of salvation. God’s Spirit and blessing too are assured to its recipients. But in order that it may be a truly saving ordinance, the conscience of the recipient must respond to the mercy of God; just as the catechumen is required to make answer to the interrogations then proposed to him. “The answer of a good conscience” most probably alludes to the pledge given by the baptized in reply to the questions; but it seems still farther to indicate that as the lips then move in answer to the questions of the minister, so, if the ordinance is to be truly life-giving, the heart of the respondent must move in obedience to the grace received by it, must spring up in response to the good motions of the Spirit of God.
To return then to what was said above; God’s part in the covenant is to give, (1) pardon or remission of sins, (2) the aid of the Spirit, and (3) (in the end, and our part of the covenant not being violated) eternal life. Now these are just the blessings which are not only the obvious promises of the baptismal covenant, but which moreover Scripture couples immediately with the actual rite of baptism.
1: Remission of sins is promised to the baptized.
Even John the Baptist preached “the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4); although he constantly pointed to “One mightier than himself, who should baptize with the Holy Ghost” (Mark 1:7, 8). But Christian baptism is far more distinctly spoken of as bringing this grace with it. St. Peter told the multitude convinced by his preaching, to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Ananias bade Saul of Tarsus, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16). In allusion to this doctrine of God’s pardoning love assured to those who come for it in baptism, we find St. Paul mentioning as one of the requisites for drawing near to God through our great High Priest that we should have “our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). Again he tells us, that Christ cleanses the Church “by the washing of water” (Eph. 5:25, 26). And when he reminds the Corinthians of their past lives of sin and impurity, he comforts them by adding, “But ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified,” &c. (1 Cor. 6:11). In which passage, it is true, that “washed” may be to be taken figuratively; yet at least the figure is borrowed from baptism, and the more literal and obvious interpretation of it would apply it directly to baptism. In another place, we find, “the washing of regeneration” put as the correlative of justification (see Tit. 3:5, 7). According to such words of Scripture, the Constantinopolitan Creed contains the clause, “I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins”; where, although some lay all the stress on the word “one,” as intended to prohibit the iteration of baptism, yet it cannot be denied, that the words “for the remission of sins” indicate the belief of the council that that grace was annexed to baptism, a belief which the fathers of that council repeatedly have expressed in those works of theirs which have come down to us.
2. The aid of the Holy Spirit is promised to the baptized. This is the express declaration of St. Peter in the passage just quoted. “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” And lest it should be thought that this meant but the temporary, miraculous gifts of the Spirit, he continues, “for the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38, 39).
It is scarcely necessary to add proofs to so plain a statement; yet we find direct evidence in the history of the Acts that the presence of the Spirit accompanied the administration of baptism. Thus, in the case of Cornelius and his household who had received the Holy Ghost by direct effusion from above, St. Peter immediately enjoined that baptism should be administered to them, that the outward rite should not be wanting to whom the inward grace was already given (Acts 10:47, 48). Certain Ephesian converts had not received the Holy Ghost. St. Paul, finding this to be the case, then asked them, “Unto what they were baptized?” and they said, “Unto John’s baptism.” Whereupon, the Apostle enjoined them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and when they had been so baptized, he laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:2, 6). It is probably true that in both these instances the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given; yet the connection between the gift of the Spirit and the Sacrament of baptism is plainly pointed out by them, confirming the doctrine which the words of St. Peter so distinctly have laid down.
3. Eternal life is promised to the baptized.
Here indeed we must qualify the promise. Eternal life is not so much a present gift as a future contingency. It is a treasure laid up for us, not a deposit committed to us. Both pardon and grace may be forfeited, yet they are present possessions. Heaven is not a present possession, but a promised inheritance. Still it is part of the promise of the covenant, and therefore one of the blessings of the baptized. The very commission to admit into the covenant by baptism expressed this.
The Apostles were to make disciples of (μαθητεύσατε) all nations (Matt. 28:19). The Gospel was to be preached to every creature. He that so believed it as to be baptized, was to be saved; he that disbelieved and rejected it, was to be damned (Mark 16:15, 16). Salvation then was promised us to follow on belief and baptism; where plainly we must understand, not eternal life, but the way to life – a state of salvation. So it is said that “the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved” (τους σωζομένους): the Lord, that is, brought into His Church by baptism all those who were being saved, or placed in the way of salvation. And so St. Peter says that, like the ark of Noah, “baptism doth now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). In all such passages (and many might be added looking the same way) baptism is declared to be a saving ordinance: salvation appears to be attached to it. Yet it is evident from the whole tenor of Scripture that the title to such salvation is defeasible; that the promise of eternal life, though sure on God’s part, may be made of none effect by us; so that “a promise being left us of entering into His rest, we may come short of it.”
Yet thus we see that, as we are admitted to covenant by baptism, so baptism has the promise, 1, of pardon; 2, of spiritual aid; 3, of everlasting life.
III. The Ark then, into which we are thus admitted by baptism, is the Church. The Church is the great company of baptized Christians, the number of those who are within the covenant.
Here we have another relation to consider; the baptized not only embraces the covenant, but he is formally grafted into the Church. Now the Church in Scripture is called, 1, the Body of Christ; 2, the Household or Family of God; 3, the Kingdom of Heaven.
1. Christians therefore by baptism are made members of the Body of Christ.
St. Paul tells us, that the Church is one Body of which Christ is the Head, and all Christians the different members (1 Cor. 6:15, 12:12–27. Eph. 4:15, 16. Col. 2:19). “Ye,” he says, addressing the whole Church of Corinth, “are the Body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Cor. 12:27). And he shows us how we become members of that Body when he says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body” (1 Cor. 12:13). By a very similar figure our Lord calls Himself the Vine, and His disciples the branches; and as St. Paul tells us that the Body of the Church derives strength and vigour from the Head (Eph. 4:16), so our Lord says that the branches of the Vine derive life and nourishment from the Vine (John 15:1–8). Yet it is plain enough that in both the Lord’s and His Apostle’s teaching it is not meant that none but the devout believer can be a member of Christ; for St. Paul reasons with the Corinthians against causing divisions in the one Body, and so losing the blessing of belonging to it (1 Cor. 12) and against making their bodies, which are members of Christ, to become members of an harlot, and so liable to be destroyed (1 Cor. 6:13–20). And our blessed Lord explains to His hearers that those branches of the true Vine which do not bear fruit, or do not abide in Him, shall be cast forth and withered and burned (John 15:2, 6).
Another expression of Holy Scripture, concerning the union of the Christian to his Saviour, is especially applied by St. Paul to baptism: “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,” (Χριστον ενεδύσασθε, put on Christ as a garment). And again, referring to his favourite figure of the Head and the Body, he tells the Christian Church that they are complete, “in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands”. ... “buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him, through the faith of the operation of God, who bath raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:10–12. Comp. Rom. 6:3, 4).
On such authority it is that the Church has ever taught its children to say that in baptism they were made “members of Christ”; that is, members of that mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, and to which He communicates grace and strength, as the head communicates vigour to the body, or the vine sends forth life and strength into its several branches.
The question which has been raised, whether this union be real and vital, or merely formal and federal, seems altogether inadmissible. It is plainly real and life-giving, except the fault of the individual renders it ineffectual. The branch grafted into the Vine is really united to it; yet it may fail of deriving life from it. Though it die, it will still be a dead branch. Then, indeed, it may be that its attachment to the Vine cannot be strictly called vital union. Yet all the language of our Lord and of St. Paul shows that the members of Christ, the branches of the Vine, are really privileged to draw life and strength from Him, and may surely receive that life and strength, unless they reject or disregard it. (See John 15:4. Eph. 4:16, 17. Col. 2:18, 19). If they reject or disregard it, they will then, but by their own fault, lose the benefit of membership, and in the end be cut off (John 15:6).
2. The Church is also called the Household or Family of God (Gal. 6:10. Eph. 2:19, 3:15).
Accordingly, when persons are baptized into the faith of Christ, they are said to be made children of God; and that, by right of their union with Christ, who is the true only-begotten Son of God. Thus the Apostle tells us that all who have embraced the faith of the Gospel are made children of God, because they put on Christ in baptism. “Ye are all the children of God by the faith in Jesus Christ (δια της πίστεως εν Χριστω Ιησου): for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27. Compare 4:5).
Hence the Church says that in baptism we are made, not only “members of Christ,” but also “children of God.” Baptism is the seal of our adoption. We are brought into God’s family, God’s household, the Church; and thus “to all, who receive Him, does Christ give power to become the sons of God” (John 1:12). Yet here again we must make the same reservation. Though the baptized have a covenanted title to be God’s children, and hence are permitted to approach Him as their Father; there is nothing which says that they shall not be prodigals, that they shall not even “go astray from the womb,” and so lose all the privileges and blessings of sonship. As there may be an union to the true Vine, which, because the branch draws not its own nourishment, ends in cutting off and casting into the fire; so there may be a sonship, which leads only to disinheriting.
If the privileges vouchsafed in baptism be profited by, the sonship will be real, living, lasting. If the privileges be neglected or despised, the sonship will become but nominal, and to be done away. For “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they” only are the true “sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (1 John 3:10).
3. The Church is called a kingdom, “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 3:2; 5:19, &c. &c). It is the spiritual reign of Christ upon earth; the Israel, of which He is the King.
Accordingly, all Christians by baptism are admitted into the earthly kingdom of Christ; and “except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into this kingdom” (John 3:5). The baptized then are the subjects of Christ here. They may prove rebellious subjects, and so be cast out of the kingdom, but still they are enrolled among His subjects; and if they are faithful, they shall continue His subjects in the eternal kingdom of His glory.
Nay! this right results to them from another title, namely, that they are sons. “If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). And so the Church, having taught us that we are “children of God,” teaches us also that we are “inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.” We are “begotten again to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us” (1 Pet. 1:3, 4). Yet heirs may be disinherited. The inheritance is sure, but the heirs may be prodigal. And, as the branch may wither, and the child may be an outcast, so the heir may be cut off, and the inheritance never be attained.
4. There is one more character of the Church to which we may refer, namely, that it is set apart to be a temple of the Spirit of God.
St. Paul describes the whole Church as “fitly framed together, growing into an holy temple in the Lord”; and speaks of individual Christians, as “builded together” in it, so that the whole should become “an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21, 22. Comp. 1 Pet. 2:5). So again, he calls the whole Corinthian Church “the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16). Hence the individual Christian, when brought into the Church, becomes a portion of that sacred building, which is consecrated for the Spirit to dwell in.
But moreover, St. Paul speaks of Christians as in like manner set apart to be individually God’s temples; and urges this upon them as a motive why they should keep their bodies holy and not pollute them with sin, lest they should defile the temple of God, and be destroyed for desecrating so sacred an abode. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are “ (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). “Flee fornication ... What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?” &c. (1 Cor. 6:18, 19).
This seems to teach us that as the whole Church is God’s temple, so every member of the Church is consecrated to be a temple of the Holy Ghost – as a member of Christ, so a temple of the Spirit. But, as unholiness will defile the member of Christ and spoil the blessedness of membership, so sin will pollute the temple of God, and bring destruction rather than salvation on such as walk after the flesh, not after the Spirit. The Holy Ghost, if not repelled, will come and dwell with, and sanctify every member of the Church; but if dishonoured, not only may He take His flight, but the guilt will be aggravated by the holiness of the heavenly Visitor thus driven from His dwelling place.
IV. We come, lastly, to speak of what has been most commonly called the special grace of baptism, namely, Regeneration or the new birth.
We have indeed anticipated the consideration of this already. If by baptism we are all made “members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven,” then are we newborn in baptism; for therein we are joined to Christ, cut out of the wild olive tree, and grafted into the good tree, born into the Church, into the family of God, as children of our Father which is in heaven. Moreover, if then the Spirit of God becomes our assured guest and present help, the first germ of spiritual life must be ours: and this is all that is meant by new birth.
The theology of later days among the Zuinglians and Calvinists, but still more among the Arminians, has attached a different sense to regeneration, identifying it with conversion or renovation and denying its existence, except in such persons as attain to a state of true sanctification. Enough has already been said in the way of definition. It is merely needful here to show, that as Scripture assigns certain graces to baptism, so it speaks of those graces under the name of regeneration. In John 3 our Lord especially seems to refer to the Jewish language concerning the baptism of proselytes. Of them the Jews were wont to say that at their baptism they were born anew and had entered on a new life. So our Lord says of proselytes to the Gospel or Kingdom, that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (ver. 5). And when Nicodemus expresses his astonishment, our Lord says, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” (ver. 10): as though the language of his own nation and of the masters in it might have taught him some understanding of the words of Christ. The Calvinistic divines have followed the Zuinglians in denying that baptism is here alluded to at all. They think that by “water and the Spirit” we must understand only “the Spirit which washes as with water.” {Calvin. Institut. IV. xvi. 25.} But it is a strong argument against this interpretation which is brought by Hooker, and was before him admitted by Zuingle, {Opera, Tom. I. fol. 60, De Baptismo.} that “of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise expound or allege the place than of external baptism.” {Hooker, Bk. V. sect. 68.} “When the letter of the law hath two things plainly and expressly specified, water and the Spirit; water, as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit, as a gift which God bestoweth; there is danger in presuming so to interpret it, as if the clause which concerneth ourselves were more than needeth. We may by such rare expositions attain perhaps to be thought witty, but with ill advice.” {Ibid. sect. 59.}
Confirmatory of the meaning of these words of our Lord is that expression of St. Paul where he speaks of us as “saved by the washing of regeneration,” λουτρον παλιγγενεσίας, (Tit. 3:5); a passage which, like the last, the whole ancient Church understood of the laver of baptism.
So much has been said already concerning our becoming children of God, clothed in Christ, and members of Christ – concerning our being buried with Christ and rising again with Him – concerning our being baptized into the Church by the Spirit of God, (see Gal. 3:26, 27. Rom. 6:4. Col. 2:12. 1 Cor. 12:13), all bearing on the subject of our new birth, that it is scarcely necessary to do more than again refer to such expressions here, in confirmation of the just cited passages, which distinctly speak of being born again in baptism. {We may especially compare St. Paul’s teaching that we are buried with Christ and raised again with Him in baptism (Rom. 6:4. Col. 2:12), with St. Peter’s teaching that “God hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). St. Paul’s exhortation consequent on such doctrine is, “If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above” (Col. 3:1). St. Peter’s is, “Laying aside all malice, &c., as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:1, 2).}
I have purposely delayed this part of the subject to the last, because here we meet with the chief difficulty and the greatest diversity of opinions. Many, who perhaps will concede that baptism admits to covenant with God and to the Church of Christ, and therefore to a participation in the blessings of the covenant, namely, remission of sins, the aid of the Spirit, and the promise of eternal life, will yet refuse to call these blessings by the name of regeneration. To them that name bears a deeper signification. It implies renovation of the whole man or, in the school language, an infused habit of grace. We so naturally identify the thing signified with the name by which we have been used to signify it, that we almost as readily part with a truth, as with the word by which we have known that truth. It is like the name of one dear to us, dear almost as the bearer of that name.
At all events, then, let us understand that it is the word in which the difference lies, rather than the substance. Let us remember that regeneration is itself a figure of speech. I do not mean that the birth of the Spirit is an unreality. God forbid! it is as real as, if not more real than, natural birth. But when we call it a birth, or regeneration, we adopt natural images to express spiritual truths. In figures there is always a likeness, but not an identity, between the image and that which it represents. Now the term or figure, regeneration, has been applied in various languages to many things. We saw that the Jews applied it to the manumission of a slave, to the conversion and reception into their Church of a proselyte. Heathens too have used like terms to express initiation into their mysteries, and the like. But it is obvious that a much greater change than any of these takes place in the condition of a person who is grafted into the Christian Church, pardoned of his sins, and with the grace of the Spirit bestowed to quicken him. And hence, with great propriety, such a person may be said to be newborn. However, the fathers often used glowing terms of the blessings thus given to the baptized; so that it might be easy to suppose that with them regeneration signified far more than this, and involved of a certainty newness of life and sanctification of heart. The schoolmen followed to its consequences the language which had been used by their predecessors; making it to include an entire eradication of original corruption, and an infused habit of holiness in the heart. Thus the term “regeneration” came to signify far more than its original force implied; and hence Zuingle, and after him the Calvinists, and still more strongly the Arminians, adopting the scholastic view of regeneration, saw clearly that such an extent of grace was not the grace of baptism, and were so led to deny that regeneration took place in baptism at all, and to assign it to a different, and generally subsequent, period of life.
No little difficulty again may probably have arisen from want of observing that the figure, regeneration, may not unreasonably have a twofold significance. For first, it may be used of the time when the new-creating grace is bestowed upon us, secondly, it may be applied to the hearty reception of that grace by the subject of it, and to the springing up and growth of it in his heart and life. So, the person baptized may be said to be newborn, because the quickening Spirit is given to him; and yet, afterwards, the same person may be called unregenerate, because the life of the Spirit (rejected and uncultivated) has never grown up in him. This we have already seen in the language of St. Paul. In one place he says, we are all made children of God by being baptized into the faith of Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27). In another, that only they can truly be called sons of God, who are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14).
Does not the very same reasoning explain the often objected language of St. John? He it is who records the discourse in which the Lord Jesus tells us that a man must “be born again of water and of the Spirit,” – a passage which all antiquity expounded of the new birth of baptism. Yet he too tells us, that “he who is born of God sinneth not” (1 John 3:9); and that faith is the evidence of new birth; for that “he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1). He too tells us, that in “this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (1 John 3:10). The distinction between the one and the other set of passages seems still the same – the distinction namely between the germ and the expanded blossom – between the principle calculated to produce holiness, and the actual renewal and sanctification of the heart.
We may add that the different objects in view in the different passages explain the difference in the use of terms. Our Lord was instructing Nicodemus how a man must first come to Him and be admitted into His kingdom; and so He points out to him baptism by water, to be accompanied by its covenanted grace of God’s Holy Spirit. St. John, on the contrary, was plainly combating the errors of certain heretics who prided themselves on their Gnosis or illumination, and who claimed to be born of God, though neglecting holiness and the fruits of the Spirit. The Apostle therefore tells them that real new birth showed itself in a renewal of the heart, that a sound faith and an active obedience manifested the true sons of God, and that to pretend to know God and yet not to keep His commandments was to act the part of a liar and dissembler (1 John 2:3, 4, 6, 22; 3:7–10, 24; 4:2; 5:1, 2, 4).
It is said, probably with justice, that the past tenses used by St. John show that he meant to speak not only of those who had once been regenerate, but of those who yet retained their new life of the Spirit and had not fallen away from it by sin. {e.g. πας ο γεγεννημένος εκ του Θεου αμαρτίαν ου ποιει. – 1 John 3:6. The exposition of this passage by St. Jerome and reflections upon it may be found under Art. XVI.} Yet it seems to me that, apart from all questions of grammatical nicety, it may be correct enough to admit the doctrine of regeneration in baptism in the acceptation already expounded, and yet to say that regenerate Christians, true children of God, live a life of faith, overcome the world, and keep themselves by the Spirit from the commission of willful sin. And this will exactly explain the language of St. John: and will furnish an unfailing key to those passages which seem to differ with each other, because some speak of us as born anew in baptism, whilst others deny the grace of regeneration to any but such as walk after the Spirit, and live the life of the Spirit.
V. Some objections considered.
The chief objections which have been made to the statements of the Church concerning baptismal grace apply to an imaginary view of the subject, rather than to that stated in the foregoing pages.
1. On the hypothesis that “regeneration” always means a real change or renovation of the moral character, a conversion of the heart from sin to godliness, it is urged that such grace cannot be given in baptism. As a matter of fact, we see a large proportion of baptized infants growing up with no sign that their natural corruption has been subdued, and a new heart created within them. If all the change that is to be looked for in our souls be such as we see daily exhibited in the life of the baptized, then we must sadly dilute and explain away the language of the Scriptures concerning the new birth, the new creation, the regenerate and converted soul. The belief that this language applies merely to what takes place in baptism, is calculated to lower our standard of Christian holiness and our estimate of the effects of the operations of the Spirit. In our actual experience we know that many mere formalists have taken shelter under the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, satisfied to believe that all the necessary change had passed upon them then, and that they need look for no more.
I am fully prepared to go all lengths with those who would protest against such mere heartless formalism as this. But such protest applies to a totally different view of the doctrine of baptism from that which has been taken above. It is a most important truth that if we would enter into the kingdom, we must undergo a great moral change of heart and nature; and it is most true, that many have grown up from baptism, and gone down to the grave, without ever undergoing such a change. Such (as has been already observed) are practically unregenerate. Still they may have had given them all the grace, which has been above defined to be the grace of baptism. Yet, though God made good His promise, they may never have embraced it. He may, at baptism, have received them to His Church and favour, and have bestowed on them the grace of His Spirit. Yet they may never have responded to the grace, never have yielded to the influence, and so never have profited by the aid of the Spirit. Though grafted into the Vine, they drew no life from it. They were dead branches and in the end were to be burned.
Still the grace which they derived from their baptism may be correctly called regeneration because, if it had been accepted instead of being rejected, it would have gone on springing up in them as a well of life. The new creation, like the natural creation, is progressive. Strong men are first helpless infants. A particular period must be fixed as the moment of birth. None can be so truly pointed out as that when first by covenant the Spirit is given, and the soul is counted in Christ, and not in Adam. Now that period is baptism. It is the starting post of the Christian race, the seed time of spiritual growth, the moment when the Spirit of God breathes into the nostrils the breath of life. Yet it by no means is meant that the race always is run because he who should run it is at the starting-post; nor that the seed grows up because it is then sown; nor even that the infant quickens into life because God’s Spirit is there to kindle it. And if it be so, still it is but the first beginning of life. The new creation goes on through life. It is first the seed, then the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4:28). Thus Luther, whilst admirably stating his views of baptismal grace, observes, that the grace of baptism is not a thing transient and confined to the moment, but which if cultivated remains and renovates through the whole course of life. {De Sacramento Baptismi, Op. Tom. I. p. 72. The marginal heading is Baptismus durat per vitam.}
If then a person has been baptized but still remains with his carnal nature unrenewed, we are not to conclude that God was unfaithful, though the man has been unfruitful. But we are still to look upon that person as practically unregenerate, and we ought to try to bring him to conversion of heart, to a real change of soul and spirit. We may indeed still hope that God’s Spirit, promised in baptism, will be ever ready to aid him, when he does not continue obstinately to resist. But we must look that “Christ should again be formed in him,” – that he should “be converted and become as a little child,” before we can pronounce that he is a true son of God. It has been the custom of the Church to call such a change, when wrought after baptism, not regeneration but conversion or renewal; but the practical effect is the same: namely, that at conversion that change is really and practically wrought upon the soul, which actually was not produced at baptism, but which, except for his own fault, would have been wrought by the Spirit assured to the baptized. {We must not, however, deny that true renovation or conversion is at times the immediate effect of God’s grace given in infancy. John the Baptist was not the only one that ever was “sanctified from his mother’s womb.” Nor would our Lord have said concerning children that “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” if they were never both the subjects of God’s renewing grace, and themselves obedient to that grace. Too generally, alas! the dew of God’s Spirit is early wiped from the heart. But there have many pious men who have grown up from childhood in the faith and fear of God; many of whom we read in the lives of God’s servants; some whom we ourselves have been privileged to know been and esteem.}
2. Another objection is drawn from the Calvinistic scheme. Baptismal grace is supposed to contradict the doctrine of final perseverance. The Calvinistic scheme teaches, that grace is always irresistible, and that grace once given always abides. The soul, once in a state of grace, is always in a state of grace. If therefore grace was given at baptism, it can never fail.
The most rigid form of Calvinism might make this inevitable. Yet very high predestinarians have thought otherwise. Augustine held that persons might be predestinated to grace but not to perseverance; nay, that they might be ordained to persevere for a time, yet not to the end. {See his statements under Art. XVI.} Calvin himself does not seem to have held his doctrine of perseverance so rigidly as to make it impossible that God should give some degree of aid to such as reject it. At all events many who have followed him a great way in his predestinarianism have believed that grace might be given in baptism, yet rejected and forfeited by sin. Of such was our own Hooker and many other of our most eminent divines. It has been already shown that the more extreme and exaggerated forms of the doctrine of final perseverance are not sanctioned by our own formularies nor, it is believed, by the word of God. (See Art. XVI.)
3. A third objection is that all the promises of God are to faith; that it is by faith we embrace Christ, and through faith receive the Spirit of God; that therefore to make baptism the means of receiving grace is to put it in the place of faith.
It is undoubtedly true that an adult should not come to baptism without faith; and that if he comes in an unbelieving spirit, he cannot expect to find grace in the Sacrament. But the objection, to the extent to which it has been urged, would magnify the office of faith beyond all reason and utterly beside the teaching of Scripture. It cannot be that faith is requisite before any grace can be given; for it is quite certain that there can be no faith unless grace has first been given to generate faith. Otherwise we are inevitably Pelagians. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” Therefore, it is quite clear that there must be some quickening from the Spirit before there can be any faith. To magnify faith so as to make it essential to the first reception of grace is to take away “the free gift of God.” If God cannot give till we believe, His gift is not free, coming down from the bounty of Him “who giveth liberally and upbraideth not,” but is attracted (that we say not merited) by our faith.
Besides, this would go near to damn all infants. They cannot have faith. Yet unless they be regenerated, they are not within the promise of eternal life (John 3:3, 5). This is Calvin’s argument against impugners of infant baptism. Infants, he contends, must be capable of regeneration, though they are not capable of faith; else they could not receive purgation from innate corruption. “How,” ask they, “can infants be regenerate who know neither good nor evil?” We reply, “God’s work is not of none effect, though not down to our understanding. It is clear that infants who are saved must first be regenerate. For, if they bear a corrupt nature from their mother’s womb, they must be purged of it before entering God’s kingdom, where nothing entereth, polluted, or defiled.” {Institut. IV. xvi. 17.}
Luther, who of all men spoke most earnestly of the importance of faith and its office in justifying, uses still stronger language in condemnation of this opinion. He complains that Papists and Anabaptists conspire together against the Church of God, “making God’s work to hinge on man’s worthiness. For so the Anabaptists teach that baptism is nothing unless the person baptized be believing. From such a principle,” he says, “ it needs must follow that all God’s works are nothing, unless the recipient be good. Baptism is the work of God; but a bad man maketh that it is not the work of God.” We may add, though not subscribe to, his vehement conclusion, “Who sees not in such Anabaptists, not men possessed, but demons possessed by worse demons?”*
{*Praefatio in Epist. ad Galat. Opera, Tom. V. p. 271. One school of divines amongst us is supposed to insist very much on this necessity of faith, as though without it God could not act. I am sure the better instructed and more pious among them would shrink from any such extreme statement. Let me instance the justly venerated names of Cecil, Scott, Wilberforce, Simeon. They, and such as they, may have used language unlike the Church’s language on holy baptism, but I feel no doubt they would have repudiated the language which Luther in the text quotes as the arguments of the Anabaptists. To speak of one of them; Mr. Simeon’s views of baptism do not appear to have been very distinctly propounded. Perhaps he varied a little in his views at different times. I hardly see any difference between many of his statements and my own. In his Sermons on the Holy Spirit, indeed, he asserted that “Baptism was a change of state, but not a change of nature”; but this probably meant no more than a denial that baptism necessarily involved an actual moral change, a real internal renovation; for in his sermons on the Liturgy he has expressed himself in terms almost as clear in favour of properly explained baptismal grace as any of the Fathers or Anglican reformers could have used. –See Excellency of the Liturgy, Sermon II.}
4. A fourth objection is as follows. In the case of adults it is admitted that baptismal grace will not be bestowed on such recipients as come in an unbelieving and impenitent spirit. But if there be already repentance and faith, there must be already regeneration; and therefore regeneration cannot be given in baptism.
Here again the misunderstanding results from difference of definition. The Church calls the grace of baptism by the name of regeneration for reasons already specified; but she does not deny that God may work in the souls of men previously to their baptism; nay! she does not deny that there may be true spiritual life in them before baptism. But that spiritual life she does not call the new birth till it is manifested in the Sacrament of regeneration. We must remember that the terms new birth and regeneration are images borrowed from natural objects and applied to spiritual objects. In nature we believe life to exist in the infant before it is born, – life too of the same kind as its life after birth. Nay! if there be no life before it is born, there will be none after it is born. So, the unbaptized may not be altogether destitute of spiritual life; yet the actual birth may be considered as taking place at baptism; when there is not only life, but life apparent, life proclaimed to the world; when the soul receives the seal of adoption, is counted in the family of God, and not only partakes of God’s grace and mercy, but has a covenanted assurance and title to it.
5. One more objection we may notice. It is said that Sacraments and all outward ordinances are but the husk and shell: the life of God in the soul is the kernel arid valuable part of religion. Let us regard the latter, and then we may throw the former away.
But we may reply that He who has made the kernel has made too the husk and the shell. In the natural creation He has ordered that no seed shall grow to maturity if the husk and shell are untimely stripped off from it. If we have a treasure in earthen vessels, we may not rashly break the vessels, lest the treasure be lost. In God’s kingdom of nature he has created for man a body as well as a spirit; we must not think to insure the life of the spirit by disregarding and despising the body. Such conduct seems precisely that of Naaman the Syrian who refused to bathe in the waters of Jordan as seeing no natural virtue in them to heal his leprosy. But had he persisted in his refusal, he would have returned to Syria a leper as he came. It was not the waters of Jordan that healed him: it is not the water of baptism which heals us. But God appointed both them and it; and to despise His appointment may be to forfeit His grace.
6. There is indeed one difficulty which I cannot solve, which Scripture has not solved. How is it that if God’s Spirit is given to every infant baptized, some profit by the gift, and others profit not? It cannot be that God is faithful to His promise in one case and not in others. Nor again, can we believe that there is some inherent merit and excellence in the one child but not in the other. This is one of the deep things of God – of the secret things which belong to the Lord our God. Why one heart responds to the calls of grace, one steadily resists them, we inquire in vain. If we gain a step in the inquiry, we only find a new inquiry beyond it. The Calvinistic theory cuts the knot, but it leaves harder knots uncut. It is safer to admit the difficulty – to acknowledge the impotence of our own intellects to disentangle it – and humbly to rest satisfied with adoring, reverent, trusting, patient faith. We may feel assured concerning our God that though clouds and darkness are round about Him, yet righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His seat.
Section III – History
It has generally been considered that on the doctrine of baptismal grace the testimony of primitive antiquity is more than ordinarily clear, uniform, and consentient. A very high esteem of the Sacraments pervades the writings of all the fathers, and is especially apparent in their respect for baptism. The controversies of later days, of course, had never arisen. Many of the early writers were rather eloquent rhetoricians than accurate reasoners. We may therefore expect to find extreme and exaggerated statements. Yet such language (allow what you will for it) is the index to something more solid than itself. It would never have been used concerning things of little moment or low estimation.*
{*I have been induced to enter more fully into the question of the patristic doctrine of Baptism than I should otherwise have done, owing to the doubts which have lately been thrown upon it by various writers, and especially by Mr. Faber, in his Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration. Whatever comes from Mr. Faber deserves consideration. There is one argument which appears of weight in his treatise, namely, that the fathers ever identify baptism with circumcision. Yet the careful reader will observe that every passage from the fathers which Mr. Faber adduces to this purpose speaks of circumcision as a type of baptism, not as identical with baptism. We have already seen that the fathers distinguished between the Sacraments of the old Testament and those of the new. “The sacraments of the new Testament give salvation; those of the old Testament promise a Saviour” (August. In Ps. lxxiii. Tom. IV. p. 769, quoted under Art. XXV. The same distinction is constantly referred to: “The former carnal circumcision is made void; and a second spiritual is assigned” (Cyprian. Testimon. I. 8.) “No other advantage attended on circumcision, except that by it the Jews were distinguished from other nations. But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, has a healing free from pain, procures us myriads of good things, and fills us with the grace of the Holy Spirit” (Chrysostom, Homil. XI in Genesin., quoted by Bishop Beveridge on this Article). It may well be doubted whether one single passage from the fathers can be found in which circumcision is made of the same force as baptism, or in which any legal ordinance is placed on a level with the Sacraments of the Gospel.}
The most obvious example of this is to be found in the fact that the fathers ordinarily call the Sacraments themselves by the name of the grace of the Sacraments. Thus baptism is perpetually called regeneration or illumination; not the Sacrament of regeneration, but simply regeneration. So the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Christ. And again, to be regenerated is used for to be baptized. All this is without qualification. And if these expressions stood alone, we should naturally infer that the primitive Christians believed the grace of the Sacraments to be inseparably tied to the Sacraments, and to be wrought by them ex opere operato. Happily, however, abundant testimonies exist to prove that they esteemed unworthy recipients partakers of the Sacrament, but not partakers of its life-giving power. This has already appeared by what was said on the subject under Article XXV. It is very difficult to convey a correct impression of the teaching of four or five centuries on such a subject as this by the quotation of a few isolated passages. I will endeavour to exhibit it as well and as honestly as I can in the small space which must necessarily be allotted to it. And, I believe, we shall see every reason to conclude that the fathers held that conversion of heart did not accompany baptism, when unworthily received, or not duly profited by; but that they did hold that remission of sins and the grace of the Spirit were promised to accompany baptism, and that that grace, if yielded to and cultivated, would regenerate and new create the soul. Hence, they assigned the name of regeneration to the Sacrament to which regenerating grace was promised; and sometimes, no doubt, they spoke as if regeneration were tied to that Sacrament. Yet still we shall see that when they explained themselves accurately, it always appeared that the Sacrament did not work ex opere operato; but that the effect was to be attributed to God’s Spirit acting according to covenant on the soul, when the soul did not harden itself against His grace.
We may remember then, that Ignatius calls baptism the Christian’s arms, {Ad. Polyc. c. 6, quoted under Art XXV.}meaning probably that as the Christian at baptism enlists as Christ’s soldier, so then he is furnished with armour from above to fight in His service. We may remember also the strong statement of Barnabas or the writer under his name: “We descend into the water full of sins and pollutions, and ascend out of it full of good fruits.” {Epist. Barnab. C. 11; also quoted, Art. XXV.} So Hermas speaks of our “life being saved by water”; {Hermas, Lib. I; Vision. III. C. 3.} and again he says, “Before a man receives the Name of the Son of God, he is destined to death; but when he receives that seal, he is freed from death and delivered to life. That seal is water into which men descend bound over to death, but ascend out of it assigned to life.” {Lib. III. Similitud. IX. C. 15.} Justin Martyr, professing to give to the heathen emperors an account of the Sacraments and ordinances of the Christian Church, thus describes to them the rite of baptism: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to lead lives agreeable to the same, are brought by us to a place where there is water, and are regenerated after the same manner of regeneration in which we ourselves were regenerated; for they are washed in the water, in the name of the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.” {έπειτα άγονται υφ ημων ένθα ύδωρ εστι, και τρόπον αναγεννήσεως, όν και ημεις αυτοι ανεγεννήθημεν, αναγεννωνται, κ. τ. λ. – Apolog. I. p. 93.} The reason of this, he says, is that, as in our first birth we, without our own knowledge and of necessity were born in sin, “so we should no longer remain children of necessity and ignorance, but become children of choice and knowledge, and should receive in the water remission of all our former sins.” {αφέσεως τε αμαρτιων υπερ ων προημάρτομεν τύχωμεν εν τω ύδατι. – Apolog. I. p. 94.}
Irenaeus, in like manner, puts regeneration as a synonym of baptism, – “baptism, which is regeneration to God.” {του βαπτίσματος της εις Θεον αναγεννήσεως. – Lib. I. C. 18. Edit. Grabe, p. 88.} So, when speaking of the commission given by our Lord to baptize, he says, “Committing to His disciples the power of regeneration, He said to them, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them,” {“Et iterum potestatem regenerationis in Deum demnandans discipulis, dicebat eis, Euntes docete gentes, baptizantes eos,” &c. – Lib. III. C. 19, p. 243.} &c. Accordingly, he speaks of infants as born anew by Christ to God. {“Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos, et juvenes, et seniores.” – Lib II. C. 39, p. 160.} Yet, on the other hand, he appears not to have esteemed the mere reception of baptism as a proof that there would be newness of life. It was the Sacrament of regeneration, but it would be life-giving only if its grace was cultivated, and so productive of faith. Therefore he describes the Christian as by nature like a wild olive branch which is grafted into a good olive; not losing the nature of the flesh, but suffering a transmutation from the carnal to the spiritual man. But the good olive, neglected, becomes wild; so the negligent Christian ceases to be fruitful and returns to his old condition of a mere natural man. He, who does not by faith obtain and keep the grafting in of the Spirit, will be but flesh and blood, not capable of inheriting the kingdom of God. {See at length, Lib. V. C. 10. p. 413.}
In the time of Irenaeus some Gnostic heretics had rejected Sacraments on the ground that they were material, and that all matter was impure. {Irenaeus. Lib. I. C. 18, p. 91.} Soon after, we find Tertullian ascribing this error to the Cainites. {De Baptismo. C. 1, 13.} Against them he wrote his treatise De Baptismo. He begins it thus: “ Happy the Sacrament of our water, whereby being cleansed from the sins of our former blindness we are made free unto eternal life! ... We, as lesser fish, after our ΙΧΘΥΣ, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor are we safe, except we abide in the water.” {Ibid. C. 1. See under Art. XXV.} “Water first brought forth that which had life; so that there may be no wonder if in baptism the waters should be life-giving.” {C. 3.} “Thus the nature of water, sanctified by the Holy One, itself also received the power of sanctifying.” {C. 4.} “Wherefore all waters obtain, after prayer to God, the Sacrament of sanctification. For the Spirit straightway cometh down from the Heavens above, and is over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and they so sanctified acquire the power of sanctifying.” {De Baptismo.} He shortly afterwards explains his belief, that the Spirit is not given in the water, but that in the water the angel cleanses and purifies, and prepares for the Holy Spirit to be given in the imposition of hands, which anciently formed a part of the baptismal ordinance.* So, speaking of water flowing from the Rock, he says, “If that Rock was Christ, without doubt we see baptism blessed by the water in Christ. How great is the grace of water for the confirmation of baptism before God and His Christ! Never is Christ without water, forasmuch as He Himself is washed in water.” {Ibid. C. 9.} Again he calls baptism “the most holy laver of new birth”; {“Sanctissimo lavacro novi natalis.” – c. 20; comp. De Anima, C. 41; Cont. Marcion. Lib. I. C. 28; De Poenitentia, C. 6.} and declares that none can be saved without baptism. {“Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo competere salutem, ex illa, maxime, pronunciatione Domini, qui ait, Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non habet vitam” – De Baptismo, C. 10. }
{*“Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequamur; sed in aqua emundati per angelum, Spiritui Sancto praeparamur.” – C. 6, conf.. C. 7. Of the imposition of hands following immediately on baptism, and considered as a part of it, see under Art. XXV. Mr. Faber quotes this passage thus: “Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit in the mere water, but, being cleansed under the angel in the water, we are prepared by the Holy Spirit.” – Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, p. 138. There is nothing about mere water in Tertullian. What he means is obvious enough. Alluding to the stirring of the pool of Bethesda by the angel, he considered that water baptism was appointed for remission of sins; but that the grace of the Holy Spirit did not come upon the recipient until the bishop had laid his hands on him.}
Yet, on the other hand, very strong as these expressions appear, we must judge that Tertullian did not teach the opus operatum; for we find him exhorting the candidates for baptism to prepare for it with the most earnest and frequent prayers, fastings, and watchings, and with confession of all past sins; evidently, that they might not miss the grace to be expected in it. {C. 20.} And to unworthy receivers he believed that the Sacrament would be, not the fountain of life, but the sign of death. {“Symbolum mortis.” – De Poenitentia, c 6. See above, Art. XXV. Tertullian’s inclination to deny remission to deadly sins after baptism (see on Art. XVI, sect. I.) originated partly from his high esteem fur baptism, partly from his own highly ascetic temper.}
The doctrine of Clement, Tertullian’s great contemporary at Alexandria, and of Clement’s still more illustrious pupil and successor, Origen, seems to have been just the same. “The Paedagogue,” i.e. Christ, says St. Clement, “forms man from the dust, regenerates him with water, gives him increase by the Spirit, and instructs him by the Word.” {Paedagog. Lib. I. C. 12, p. 156, line 18.} “ Being baptized, we are illuminated; being illuminated, we are adopted as sons; being adopted, we are perfected; being perfect, we are rendered immortal ... This work (i.e. baptism) is called by many names, grace, illumination, that which is perfect, and the laver. Laver, because by it we are washed from sins; grace, because the punishment due to our sins is remitted; illumination, because by it we see that holy and saving light, i.e. by it we are clear-sighted to behold the Divine; that which is perfect, for what is lacking to him who knoweth God? {Ibid. Lib. I. C. 6, p. 113, line 27.} “Our sins are remitted by one sovereign remedy, baptism according to the word (λογικω βαπτίσματι). We are washed from all our sins, and at once are no longer evil. This is one grace of illumination, {φωτίσματος – this is a common name for baptism among all the fathers.} that a man is no longer the same in manners as before he was washed. For knowledge rises along with illumination, shining around the mind; and immediately we, who were unlearned, are called learners (μαθηται); this learning having at some former time been conferred on us ; for it is not possible to name the precise time:* for catechetical teaching leads to faith, and faith, at the very time of baptism, is instructed by the Spirit.” {Paedogog. Lib. I. C. 6, p. 116, line 13.}
{*ου γαο αν έχοις ειπειν τον χρόνον. Mr. Faber (Prim. Doc. of Regeneration, pp. 131, 144) puts this clause in capitals, and cites it as proving that Clement did not hold God’s grace to be given in baptism, but at any time before, in, or after baptism. The force of his argument, however, entirely depends on his having dissociated the passage from its context; for the context in which it stands exactly disproves his position. Clement is explaining the great blessings of baptism; but he also explains that catechumens were regularly trained for it, and that they had reason to expect that their previous preparation, with which they came to the Sacrament, would be specially blessed, and their faith instructed, άμα τω βαπτίσματι, “at the very moment of baptism.” Bishop Bethell has some good remarks in reply to this argument of Mr. Faber. Bethell, On Regeneration, pp. 254–260. Fifth edition.}
It may be remembered that under Article XXV Origen was quoted as saying that some who receive baptism unworthily receive not the Spirit of God with it; as Simon Magus, “not being baptized to salvation, received water, but not the Spirit of God.” {In Numeros, Homil. III. num. I; Ezechiel. Hom. VI. num. V. cited under Art. XXV.} Yet Origen distinctly asserted that baptism was ordained for remission of sins and spiritual regeneration. “Children,” says he, “are baptized for the remission of sins ... By the sacrament of baptism the uncleanness of our birth is put away; and therefore even infants are, baptized ... In the regeneration of baptism, the Sacrament is received that as Jesus, according to the dispensation of the flesh, was purified after His birth by an oblation, so we should be purified by spiritual regeneration.” {“Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum ... Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli. ... In regeneratione baptismi assumitur sacramentum et quomodo Jesus secundum dispensationem carnis oblatione purgatus est, ita etiam nos spiritali regeneratione purgamur.” – Homil. XIV. in Lucam.} We have already spoken of the error into which Origen fell of believing that deadly sin after baptism was the sin against the Holy Ghost. {See under Art. XVI. sect. I.} Such a notion would have been impossible, had not a very high esteem of the blessings of baptism been prevalent when he wrote.
This brings us to the age of Cyprian. Thenceforth it would be far easier to convict the fathers of holding the opus operatum than of doubting that grace was given in baptism. Cyprian himself says, “All who come to the Divine laver by the sanctification of baptism put off the old man by grace of the saving laver and, being renewed by the Holy Spirit, are purged of the filth of the old contagion by a second birth.” {De Habitu Virginum. Oxf. 1682, p. 103.} “Thence begins the origin of all faith, and a salutary entrance to hope of eternal life.” {Epistol. LXXIII. p. 203.} His own experience of the blessings of baptism he sets forth in the enthusiastic language of a young convert. {Ad Donatum de Gratia Dei, circ. init. p. 2.} We perhaps need not attribute very much weight to such a glowing picture, for the passage was written soon after his baptism; and Augustine has expressed his opinion that it was in the taste of a young writer, not of a matured divine. {S Augustine, De Doctr. Christ. IV. 14. The passage from Cyprian is quoted by Bishop Bethell. – Fifth edit. p. 127.} Cyprian appears to have followed Tertullian in considering chrism, or the imposition of hands, essential to the completion of the grace of baptism. {See Ep. LXXII. p.196; Epist. p. 207, quoted under Art. XXV. Mr. Faber quotes, as of great consequence to his own theory, the former of these passages: “Tum demum plene sanctificari et esse filii Dei possunt, si sacramento utroque nascantur, cum scriptum sit, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ox aqua et Spiritu,” &c. – Prim. Doct. of Regener. p. 68. He strangely infers that Cyprian held water to be one sacrament, and the Spirit the other; as though any Divine could really call God’s Holy Spirit a Sacrament: i.e. an outward sign of an inward grace. So common a book as Bingham’s Antiquities will tell us that the two sacraments by which Tertullian and Cyprian believed regeneration to be bestowed upon us were water and imposition of hands, both then considered parts of baptism. – See Bingham, XII. i. 1, 4.}
From Cyprian we may pass to the great Athanasius. A few words will express his doctrine. “He who is baptized puts of the old man and is renewed, being born again of the grace of the Spirit.” {Ο δε βαπτιζόμενος του μεν παλαιον αποδιδύσκεται· ανακαινίζεται δε άνωθεν γεννηθεις τη του Πνεύματος χάριτι. – Epist. ad Serapion. 13. The passage is given more at length by Bishop Bethell, p. 211.}
It is natural, on this subject, to turn with much interest to the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem; whose Catechetical Lectures were addressed to catechumens preparing for baptism. His prefatory lecture sets forth at once the great blessings of baptismal grace, and the great need of duly preparing the mind of the adult recipient, lest by unbelief or hypocrisy he should miss the benefit. To those who were training for it he says, that already “the savour of blessedness was upon them, and they were gathering spiritual flowers, to wreathe heavenly crowns. The blossoms of the trees have budded; may the fruit be brought to perfection.” But he adds that an honest intention was necessary to blessing; “for though the body be present, yet if the mind be absent, it is of no avail.” {Praefat. Catech. 1.} He then goes on to speak of Simon Magus, as brought to baptism, but not enlightened; “dipping his body in the water, but not permitting the Spirit to illuminate him.” {Ibid.} He therefore bids his catechumen to look, “not on the bare water, but to salvation from the working of the Spirit.” {Μη τω ψιλω του ύδατος πρόσεχε, αλλα τη του αγίου Πνεύματος ενεργεία την σωτηρίαν ενδέχου. – Catech. III. 2. See Beveridge on this Article.} The blessings, however, of the Sacrament, if duly accepted, he rates at the highest value. “Great is the baptism which is set before you. Liberty to the captives; remission of sins; death of sins; regeneration of the soul; garment of light; holy seal, indissoluble; chariot to heaven; delight of Paradise; procuring for us the kingdom; the free gift of the adoption of sons.” { Μέγα το προκείμενον βάπτισμα. αιχμαλώτοις λύτον· αμαρτημάτων άφεσις· θάνατος αμαρτίας· παλιγγενεσία ψυχης· ένδυμα φωτεινόν· σφραγις αγία ακατάλυτος· όχημα προς ουρανόν· παραδείσου τρυφη· βασιλείας πρόξενον· υισθεσίας χάρισμα. – Catech. Praefat. 10. St. Basil has almost word for word the same sentence. – Exhortat. ad Baptism. Tom I. p. 413.} “Jesus sanctified baptism by being Himself baptized.” {Catech. III. 8.} “By baptism the sting of death is destroyed.” {Ibid.} “Thou descendest into the waters dead in sins; thou risest again quickened in righteousness.” {Catech. III. 9: νεκρος εν αμαρτίαις καταβας, αναβαινεις ζωοποιηθεις εν δικαιοσύνη.– Comp. Catech. XX. 4, 5.}
Gregory Nazianzen sums up the blessings of baptism in words which bear a striking resemblance to those above quoted from Cyril. “Baptism (το φώτισμα) is the splendour of souls, the change of life, the answer of the conscience to God. It is the aid of our infirmity, the putting off of the flesh, the following the Spirit, the participation of the word, the correction of images (πλασμάτων επανόρθωσις), the drowning of sin, the participation of light, the destruction of darkness, the chariot of God, the travelling with Christ, the confirmation of faith, the perfecting of the mind, the key of the kingdom, the change of life, the destruction of slavery, the loosing of chains, the conversion of the constitution (συνθέσεως μεταποίησις), the most beautiful and glorious of the gifts of God ... It is illumination, more holy than all other illuminations It is called gift, charisma, baptism, unction, illumination, the clothing of incorruption, the bath of regeneration, the seal,” {Greg. Naz. Orat. XL. Opp. Tom. I. p. 638. Colon.} &c. &c. Elsewhere he speaks, like Cyril, of the need of diligent preparation, and counsels: “Let the laver wash, not thy body only, but thine image.” {Ibid. p. 661.} And, in one place he seems to consider that all the graces of baptism might possibly, though not probably, be given before the reception of the Sacrament, to which the Sacrament itself would then be the seal; for of his sister Gorgonia he says, that “to her almost alone baptism was not the gift of grace, but the seal only.” {και μόνη σχεδον, ιν είπω τόλμησας, σφραγις αλλ ου χάρισμα ην το μυστήριον. – Orat. XI. Tom. I. p. 188.}
St. Ambrose in the West, contemporary with St. Gregory in the East, calls the dividing of the waters of Jordan by Elijah (whereby some of the water must have flowed back to its source) “a type of the Sacrament of salutary laver; by which infants, who have been baptized, are reformed from a state of wretchedness, to the primitive state, in which they were created.” {“Significat salutaris lavacri futura mysteria; per quae in primordia naturae suae qui baptizati fuerint parvuli a malitia reformantur.” – Comment. in Evangel. Luc. Lib. I. § 37. The passage is given more at length by Wall, Infant Baptism, pt. I. C. 13.}
One word more from St. Chrysostom. Comparing God’s pardon to us with the pardon granted to criminals by earthly rulers, he says that if kings were to pardon and even to invest their offending subjects with their own royalty, they still could not free them from their sins. “It is God only who does this; which He will accomplish in the laver of regeneration. For His grace touches the soul, and eradicates its sins” ... “As when iron, or gold is recast, it is made pure and new again; so the Holy Spirit, recasting the soul in baptism, as in a furnace, consumes its sins, and makes it shine with more purity than the purest gold.” {Chrysost. Homil. in 1 Epist. ad Corinth. Homil. XL.}
If we stopped here, might we not conclude that the fathers uno ore affirm that baptism, rightly administered and duly received, is an ordinance appointed by God, in which He promises to receive the sinner to Himself, to give Him for Christ’s sake pardon of his sins, and to bestow upon him the gift of the Spirit? And, although some rhetorical language may obscure their meaning, is it not yet clear that this grace is not to be looked for from baptism as though it worked as a charm, but that baptism is to be diligently prepared for and its grace made use of; and that the unbelieving and the hypocrite may receive the water without receiving the Spirit of God, enhancing his condemnation rather than obtaining remission of his sins?
We have yet to consider the views of St. Augustine. No one speaks more fully, no one has a juster claim to be heard. Perhaps the greatest of uninspired divines, he has influenced, more than any, the opinions of all succeeding generations. The reformers especially drank deeply from the fountain of his thoughts. He writes, not with the rhetoric of an orator, but with the logic of a thoughtful reasoner, and yet with the eloquence of an earnest and devoted Christian.
His predestinarian sentiments may, doubtless, have affected his views of baptismal grace. It has been asserted that in one point only he materially differed from Calvin. Both believed that God’s predestination was irrespective of individuals and to eternal life. But Calvin held that once regenerate a person could never finally fall; and so taught that none but those elect to glory could receive regeneration in baptism. Augustine, on the contrary, held that all infants are regenerate in baptism; and therefore, that the regenerate may fall away. It has, however, been said that this difference is not real, but apparent only; for that by regeneration Calvin meant a moral change of disposition, but Augustine meant only a beneficial federal change of relative condition. {Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, Bk. I, ch. VII. p. 81, &c.}
If we remember what was said of Augustine’s predestinarianism (under Arts. XVI, XVII), we shall see that this statement falls short of the truth. We there saw that St. Augustine distinctly taught not only that persons regenerate in baptism might finally fail of salvation, but even that persons might believe and live for some years in a state of piety and godliness, and yet fall away and be lost. He distinguished between predestination to grace, and predestination to perseverance. He said indeed, that persons could not with the strictest propriety be called elect who had not the gift of perseverance; but yet that persons might be baptized, regenerate, believing, and for a time persevere – “that a man might live for ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall away and be lost.” {See quotations and references under Art. XVI. sect. I. Art. XVII. sect. I; especially De Corrept. et Grat. §§ 16, 20, 22; De Dono Persev. 1, 19, 21, 32, 33.} “We call those elect,” he writes, “and Christ’s disciples, and children of God, because they are to be so called, whom we see having been regenerated, living piously; but then only are they truly to be called so, if they continue in that for which they so are called.” {De Corrept. et Grat. § 22, p. 762.} “They were then in a good state, but because they did not continue in it, i.e. did not persevere unto the end, therefore the Apostle says, they were not of us, even when they were with us, that is, they were not of the number of sons even when they had the faith of sons.” {Ibid. § 20, p. 761.} &c. He takes the case of two godly men: to one perseverance is given, to the other not. This is God’s inscrutable decree (inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei). One, no doubt, was of the predestinated; the other, not. “Yet were not both created by God, born of Adam, made out of the earth, and received souls of like nature? Nay! had not both been called, and had followed Him that called them? Had not both been justified, though before ungodly, and both by the laver of regeneration made new creatures?” (utrique ex iniquis justificati, et per lavacrum regenerationis utrique renovati). “Whence then,” he asks, “this distinction?” and he resolves it into the decree of God. {De Dono Persev. § 21, Tom. X. p. 831.}
Now here is the great difference between Augustine and Calvin. Whatever the latter may have held, the former certainly did not hold that grace inevitably leads to glory.
With respect to the meaning which Augustine attached to the term regeneration as applied to baptism, it is, perhaps, not incorrect to say that he held that it was not conversion of heart or “a moral change of’ disposition,” but rather, “a beneficial federal change of relative condition.” His own words clearly prove that he did not believe the necessary consequences of baptism to be conversion of heart, nay, that in infants conversion of heart could not be the immediate consequence of baptism.* Yet we may venture to say, that he was too profound a thinker and too sound a divine to have believed that baptism admitted us into a new federal relation with God, or, in plainer words, that it brought us into a new covenant of grace, without also believing that it made us partakers of the blessings of that covenant. He could never have taught that under the dispensation of the Gospel, God would bring us into a covenanted relationship with Himself, thereby saddling us with fresh obligations to obey Him, without also bestowing upon us the power which would enable us to fulfill those obligations.
{*“Quibus rebus omnibus ostenditur aliud esse sacramentum baptismi, aliud conversionem cordis, sed salutem hominis ex utroque compleri; nec si unum horum defuerit, ideo putare debemus consequens esse ut et alterum desit; quia et illud sine isto potest esse in infante, et hoc sine illo potuit esse in latrone, complente Deo sive in illo, sive in isto, quod non ex voluntate defuisset; cum vero ex voluntate alterum horum defuerit, reatu hominem involvi. Et baptismus quidem potest inesse, ubi conversio cordis defuerit: conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo, sed contempto non potest.” – De Baptismo contra Donotistas, Lib. IV. C. XXV. § 82, Tom. IX. p. 141.}
The view which he takes of the difference between baptized and unbaptized infants clearly shows his high estimation of baptismal blessing. We need not herein follow his teaching, but it is quite certain that he held that all unbaptized infants, if they died in infancy, would perish everlastingly; and, on the other hand, he clearly held that if they died in infancy, having been baptized, they passed at once into eternal life.* The distinction between the state of the baptized and the unbaptized infant he thus clearly marks: “In infants, born but not baptized, Adam may be recognized; in infants, born and baptized, and hence born again, Christ may be recognized.” {“In parvulis natis et nondum baptizatis agnoscatur Adam: in parvulis natis et baptizatis et ob hoc renatis agnoscatur Christus.” – Serm. 174, C. 8, Tom. V. p. 834.} He identifies baptized with believing infants (fidelibus infantibus, id est, in Christo baptizatis); and says of them that “though infants, they are members of Christ, partakers of His Sacraments, that they may have in them life.” {“Infantes sunt, sed membra ejus sunt. Infantes sunt, sed sacramenta accipiunt. Infantes stint, sed mensae Ejus participes fiunt, ut habeant in se vitam.” – Ibid. c. 6.} When they are baptized, nothing less is done than that they are incorporated into the Church, that is, are joined to the Body and members of Christ; and this, he says, is so important, that without it they would be damned.{De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Lib. III. C. 4, Tom. X. p. 78.} However holy their parents may have been, they themselves cannot be free from the taint of original sin, but by baptism. {Ibid. C. 12, p. 83.} But in baptism it is effected by God’s grace, that all original sin is made void. Yet it is not so made void that concupiscence is also destroyed with it, but only so that, if the child dies, it shall not operate to his destruction. If, however, the infant lives and grows to an age of understanding and responsibility, he will have need to fight against that concupiscence and, by God’s help, he may overcome it unless he have received God’s grace in vain.** Those then who are baptized, receive remission of all their sins. {De Civit. Dei, Lib. I. C. 27, Tom. VII. p. 25.} Infants cannot believe, when they are baptized, nor make responses and stipulations for themselves. Therefore the response of others is sufficient for their consecration. {De Baptismo c. Donatist. Lib. IV. C. 24, Tom. IX. p. 141.} In Cornelius, spiritual sanctification preceded the Sacrament of regeneration; but in baptized infants the Sacrament of regeneration precedes; and if they hold fast Christian piety, conversion in heart will follow, the Sacrament of which preceded in body. {“Ita in baptizatis infantibus praecedit regenerationis sacramentum; et si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequetur etiam in corde conversio; cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore.” – Ibid. p. 140.} But how is such conversion of heart to follow? If baptism be a mere outward change, nothing in it could give hope of future conversion of heart. Accordingly, St. Augustine teaches that “in baptized infants, though they know it not, the Spirit of God dwelleth.” {“Dicimus ergo in baptizatis parvulis, quamvis id nesciunt, habitare Spiritum Sanctum.” – Epist. 187 ad Dardan. C. VIII. Tom. II. p. 586. So also, “Ad templum Dei pertinent parvuli, sanctificati sacramento Christi, regenerati Spiritu Sancto.” – Ibid. C. VI. 684.} And again, that “a power is given them, by which, from the sons of this world, they may become the sons of God.” {“Frustrata potestate captivatoris sui, et data potestate qua fiant ex fil is hujus saeculi filii Dei.” – De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Lib. I. C. 22, Tom. X. p. 292.}
{*“Absit ut causam parvulorurn sic relinquamus, ut esse nobis dicamus incertum. utrum in Christo regenerati si mortantur parvuli, transeant in aeternam salutem, non regenerati autem transeant in mortem secundam.” – De Dono Persever. § 30, Tom. X. p. 837. “Cum videant alios parvulos non regeneratos ad aeternam mortem, alios autem regeneratos ad aeternam vitam tolli de hac vita.” – Ibid. § 32. “Cum moriuntur infantes, aut merito regenerationis transeunt ex malis ad bona, ant merito originis transeunt ex malis ad mala.” – De Praedestinat. § 24, Tom. X. p. 806. “Quia parvulus non baptizatus non intrat in regnum coelorum, et tu dicis et ego.” – Serm. 294, C. 7, Tom. V. p. 1186.}
{**“In parvulis certe gratia Dei per baptismum ... id agitur ut evacuetur caro peccati. Evacuatur autem non ut in ipsa vivente carne concupiscentia conspersa et innata repente absumatur et non sit; sed ne obsit mortuo, quae inerat nato. Nam si post baptismum vixerit, atque ad setatem capacem praecepti pervenire potuerit, ibi habet cum qua pugnet, eamque adjuvante Deo superet, si non in vacuum gratiam Ejus susceperit, si reprobatus esse noluerit.” – De Peccat. Meritis et Remiss. Lib. I. C. 39, Tom. X. p. 39.}
I believe these quotations give a faithful representation of the general teaching of St. Augustine on baptism. They are not garbled extracts; but, on the contrary, if consulted at length, will be found to give only more fully the same impression of the writer’s meaning. Is it not plain then that his meaning is as nearly as possible coincident with the doctrine laid down in the two preceding sections?
He teaches that baptism is not in itself conversion of heart; and of adults he says that a person may be baptized with water, but not born of the Spirit. {He asserts that one of two things must be determined: either that adults receiving unworthily, like Simon Magus, are born of water and of the Spirit, but to their destruction, not to their salvation; or else that the hypocritical, and those not converted in heart, must he esteemed to have been baptized, but not born of the Spirit. – De Baptismo c. Donatist. Lib. VI. C. 12, Tom. IX. p. 169.} In infants also, he says that the Sacrament of regeneration precedes conversion of heart. He considers that the regeneration of baptism consists in a grafting into the Church, the body of Christ; a remission of all original sin, so that baptized infants dying in infancy are sure of salvation; and, moreover, in an assured presence of the Holy Spirit which, if not obeyed, will profit them nothing; but which, if held fast and not received in vain, will lead with the opening reason to that faith and conversion in heart of which in unconscious infancy they had been incapable. Accordingly, he uses the term “child of God” in a twofold signification. At one time he speaks of all the baptized as regenerate in Christ, and made children of God by virtue of that Sacrament. At another time he speaks of baptismal grace as rather enabling them to become, than as actually constituting them God’s children; and says that in the higher and stricter sense persons are not to be called sons of God unless they have the grace of perseverance and walk in the love of God. {See the passages quoted above. See also In Epistol. Johann. c. 3, Tract. VI. 6, 7, Tom. III. par. II. pp. 859, 860, where he argues that though a man may have received the Sacrament of baptism, so great a thing that it makes a new man by remission of all his sins (“ut novum hominem faciat dimissione omuium peccatorum”); yet if he have not charity, he must not say that he is born of God. (“Habeat caritatem: aliter non se dicat natum ex Deo.”) The sons of God are distinguished from the children of the devil only by charity. Those who have charity are born of God. Those who have not charity are not born of God.}
It has very justly been observed, concerning this teaching of St. Augustine, that over and above the great value of his own judgment and testimony, he appeals to the uniform voice of antiquity, and declares that, in his baptismal doctrine, he proceed upon principles which from the earliest ages have been admitted in the Church.*
{*“Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum, rectissime creditur.” – Lib. IV. C. 24, Tom. IX. p. 140. On this Mr. Faber remarks: “Thus by this remarkable attestation he becomes as it were a host of witnesses in himself.” (Prim. Doct. of Regeneration, p. 324.) I am much pained at being obliged to express decided dissent from some of the positions of Mr. Faber, a writer for whom I entertain much respect, and in whose writings I have taken great interest. I believe that his view of the subject cannot be so different from that which I have taken above as might at first appear. His great argument is that the fathers did not believe moral renovation or conversion of heart to be the necessary concomitant of baptism. Of this I think there can be no doubt. Mr. Faber himself fully admits that “all sin is pardoned in baptism” (p. 321). He also holds that God’s predestination, as revealed to us in Scripture, is not as Arminians teach, ex praevisis meritis; nor yet, as Calvinists teach to eternal glory; but as the fathers teach to baptismal blessing; and that all baptized persons may, if they will, become elect to glory. (See Prim. Doct. of Election, passim.) Surely, then, he must consistently hold that all baptized persons are entitled to the aid of God’s Holy Spirit. I am therefore quite at a loss to understand him, when I find him stating that infants, from original sin, “cannot be worthy recipients of baptism ... without an antecedent operation to make them worthy” (p. 345). Surely original sin is not a bar to God’s pardoning mercy in Christ, nor to the grace of His Spirit, to quicken us from such sin. And how to believe that an antecedent operation is necessary to make them worthy, except on Arminian or Calvinistic principles, I cannot imagine.}
It is needless to trace the chain of fathers beyond St. Augustine. The scholastic discussions too may have had a sufficient interest in themselves, but we have neither need of, nor space for, them here and must at once pass to the period of the Reformation.
The Council of Trent declared that in baptism not only remission of original sin was given, but also all, which properly has the nature of sin, is cut off. In the regenerate there is nothing which God hates. Concupiscence indeed remains; but has not the nature of sin, and will never hurt those who fight against it. {Sess. V. De Pecc. Origin. See also under Art. IX.} As a general principle the Council decided (Sess. VII. can. VIII.), that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato.
Luther and the Lutheran reformers are clear and express in their assertion of baptismal grace. Luther lays great stress on Gal. 3:27 which he says “is much to be observed against fanatical spirits who lower the dignity of baptism and speak impiously concerning it. St. Paul, on the contrary, adorns it with glorious titles, calling it the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And here, he says, all baptized persons have put on Christ; as though he would say, Ye received not by baptism a sign or watchword (tesseram), by which you were enlisted into the number of Christians, as many fanatics of our day think, who make baptism a mere watchword, i.e. a short and empty sign. ‘But as many,’ he says, as have been baptized have put on Christ,’ that is, Ye have been snatched from the Law into a new nativity, which was effected in baptism. Therefore ye are no longer under the Law, but are clothed with a new garment, i.e. Christ’s righteousness. St. Paul therefore teaches that baptism is not a sign, but a clothing in Christ, yea, that Christ Himself is our clothing. Wherefore baptism is a most potent and efficacious rite.” {Luther In III. ad Galat. Tom V. p. 370.} “To be baptized in God’s name, is not to be baptized by man, but by God. Wherefore, though it be done by man’s hands, we must believe and hold that it is the work of God.” {Catecismus Major, Tom V. p. 657.} “God Himself honours baptism with His Name, and confirms it with His own power (sua virtute).” {Ibid.} “Separated from the Word, it is but water. Joined with the Word, it is Christ’s Sacrament.” {Ibid.} “The effect of baptism is remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” {Ibid.} Some had urged that to ascribe such blessings to baptism was to attribute salvation not to faith, but to works. Luther replies that one of the objects of faith, and one of those things on which faith rests, is the grace of God in baptism. Besides, baptism is not our work, but God’s. On God’s work we rely for salvation, not on men’s. And baptism is not the work of the bather, but of God. {Ibid. p. 638.}
He denies that in the case of infants there is any need of faith. God’s work is not rendered ineffectual because they have no power to believe. {Ibid. p. 639.} The work of God is then begun in the soul, but the effect of baptism is a thing which remains through the whole of life. {Ibid.} For the mortification of the body of sin, which is part of the grace proper to baptism, is a work which we are constantly to experience through life, till the sin be altogether abolished and we rise and reign with Christ. {Praefat. in Epist. ad Romanos. Tom. V. p. 100.} “This life therefore is a perpetual spiritual baptism till we die.” {De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. I. p. 72.} “Baptism is the deluge of grace, as Noah’s deluge was the deluge of wrath.” {Ibid. p. 72.} Baptism does not take away sin. “But in it God makes a covenant with you.” “Immediately from your baptism God begins to renew you. He bestows on you His Spirit, and the Spirit begins immediately to mortify your nature and sins, and so to prepare you for death and resurrection.” “God pledges Himself not to impute to you the remains of sin, which still cleave to you, nor to condemn you on their account.” {Ibid. p. 74.} A baptized person may therefore humbly say: “I know my works to be impure and defiled; but I am baptized, and I know that God, who cannot lie, has bound Himself to me in baptism, not to impute my sins to me, but rather to mortify them in me and abolish them.” {Ibid.} All this, however, on God’s part, Luther considers to involve a corresponding obligation on ours to use the grace so assured to us, and to mortify by its help the deeds of the body. {De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. I. p. 73. Melancthon speaks exactly like Luther: “Quod Deus approbat baptismum parvulorum, hoc ostendit, quod Deus dat Spiritum Sanctum sic baptizatis.” – Melancthon. Opp. Tom. I. p. 61. “Sentimus eos (h. e. parvulos) in baptismo fieri filios Dei, accipere Spiritum Sanctum, et manere in gratia tamdiu, quoad non effundant eam peccatis actualibus ea aetate, quae jam dicitur rationis compos.” – Tom. IV. pp. 664. See Bethell, On Regeneration, p. 155; Laurence, Doctrine of the Church of England on Baptism. Third edit. p. 89.}
Zuinglius took a view the exact opposite to Luther’s, on this Sacrament, as on Sacraments in general. He begins by stating, that almost all, whoever went before him, from the very times of the Apostles, have erred concerning baptism. {“Illud mihi ingenue circa libri initium dicendum est: fere omnes eos, quotquot ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus de baptismo scribere instituerunt, non in paucis (quod pace omnium hominum dictum esse velim) a scopo aberravisse.” – Zuinglius, De Baptismo Oper. pars 2, Tigur. 1581, Tom. I. fol. 60.} He states his own opinion to be that a person who is signed by the sign of baptism promises that he will be a hearer and disciple of God, and that he will obey His laws. “ If,” he says, “the sacraments were the things they signified, then could they not be signs. For the sign and the thing signified cannot be the same. Baptism, therefore is the sign which binds and initiates us to Jesus Christ.” {Ibid.} “External baptism with water contributes nothing to the washing away of sin.” {“Externus baptismus ergo qui aqua constat, ad peccatorum ablutionem nihil facit.” – Ibid. fol. 71.} To get rid of a difficulty which naturally presented itself, he says that “Original sin does not deserve damnation if a person have believing parents. ... Original sin is a disease, which yet is not blameworthy in itself, nor can bring with it the pain of damnation ... until a person corrupted by its contagion transgresses God’s law; which then mostly happens when he sees and understands that law.” {“Peccatum ergo originale damnationem non meretur, si modo quis parentes fideles nactus fuerit. ... Unde colligimus peccatum originale morbum quidem esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, nec damnationis poenam inferre potest ... donec homo contagione hac corruptus legem Domini transgreditur, quod tum demum fieri consuevit, cum legem sibi positam videt et intelligit.” – Tom. I. fol. 90.} Accordingly, he argues for the undoubted salvation of infants, baptized or unbaptized. {Compare his De Peccato Originali Declaratio, Tom. I. fol. 116, seq.}
Calvin, in his general view of Sacraments, was in accord neither with Luther nor Zuinglius. It is by no means easy to define his doctrine of baptism. Inconsistency is very little his character, yet on baptism he appears to have been somewhat inconsistent with himself. His peculiar predestinarian system made it difficult for him to believe that infants received grace because, according to him, grace given was always effectual, not to be resisted, never to be lost. Yet his sacramental system led him to teach that Sacraments were effectual means of grace by which God acted on the recipient, unless the recipient opposed an impenitent and unbelieving heart. If we took only his famous work, the Institutes, (which was a youthful production, but from the general principles of which he never departed) we might think his views of baptism scarcely higher than Zuingle’s. He argues indeed, against the Anabaptists, that infants must be proper recipients of baptism because they can be saved, and can only be saved by being regenerate; and therefore they must be fit to receive the Sacrament of regeneration. {Instit. IV. xvi. 17.} He objects to the statement that baptism is a mere badge or watchword (tessera) whereby Christians, like soldiers, may be distinguished among men. {Ibid. IV. xv. 1.} Yet he seems to make baptism little more than a figure or sign of an inward blessing, not a means also whereby that blessing may be conferred. “Baptism is a sign of our initiation, whereby we are admitted into the society of the Church; that being grafted into Christ, we may be counted among the sons of God. Moreover, it was given us, that it might serve for our faith with Him, and for our confession before men.” {Ibid.} We must not suppose that water can wash away our sins. St. Paul connects the word of life and baptism of water together (Eph. 5:26), signifying that the promise of our ablution and sanctification is brought by the word and sealed by baptism. {IV. xv. 2.} Still, he says that those who receive baptism with a right faith perceive the efficacy of Christ’s death in mortifying their flesh, and of His resurrection in renewal of the spirit; as the branch derives nourishment from the stock into which it is grafted. {IV. xv. 5.} Original sin, which of itself would bring certain damnation, is by no means abolished by baptism; but the elect and believers are assured by baptism that the guilt of original sin will not condemn them. {IV. xv. 10.} Ananias, when he exhorted Saul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins” (Acts 22:16), did not mean that in baptism, or by virtue of baptism, sins were remitted; but that by baptism he might have testimony and assurance that his sins had already been remitted. {IV. xv. 15.} As regards infants: the children of faithful parents, dying before the age of reason, are certainly saved, whether baptized or not baptized. Therefore the children of faithful parents are not baptized that they may then first become sons of God, but rather are by a solemn sign then received into the Church, because by virtue of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ. {“Unde sequitur, non ideo baptizari fidelium liberos, ut filii Dei tunc primum fiant, qui ante alieni fuerunt ab ecclesia; sed solenni potius signo ideo recipi in ecclesiam, quia promissionis beneficio jam ante ad Christi corpus pertinebant.” – Instit. IV. xv. 22. Comp. Epist. 193.} He denies that John 3:5 has any reference to baptism; {IV. xvi. 25.} and on the whole seems to teach that elect children (among whom are all children of the faithful dying before the age of reason) receive from God the grace of remission and regeneration, and therefore are sealed with the seal of baptism, the effect of which is not to be confined to the period of baptism, but endures throughout life. {See IV. xv. xvi. passim; especially xvi. 22, xv. 3, &c. Comp. III. iii. 9.}
Here, then, notwithstanding some difference of expression, and a material difference about the guilt of original sin, {Zuinglius held that original sin would not damn any in whom it had not broken out in actual sin. Hence that all infants, dying in infancy, were saved. Calvin held that it was of its own nature fraught with damnation, but that in the case of elect infants the curse was reversed.} there is no considerable disagreement between Calvin and Zuinglius on the grace of baptism. I do not know that Calvin ever retracted any of the opinions which he thus expressed. I will not say that he ever materially modified them. Perhaps other expressions which he used afterwards may be reconciled with all that has just been referred to. Yet certainly in some of his later works he speaks much more favourably of the grace of baptism; as though, when off his favourite system, he were constrained by the evidence of Scripture to attach more importance to it. In the Catechism which he composed for the children of the Church of Geneva, (which bears date A. D. 1545) he teaches it to be “certain that pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism.” {“M. Verum, annon aliud aquae tribuis, nisi ut ablutionis tantum sit figura?” “P. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul annexa sit veritas. Neque enim, sua nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frustratur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam et vitae novitatem offerri nobis in baptismo et recipi a nobis certum est.” “M. Quomodo per baptismum nobis haec bona conferuntur?” “P. Quia nisi promissiones illic nobis oblatas respuendo infructuosas reddimus, vestimur Christo, Ejusque Spiritu donamur.” – Catechismus Ecclesiae Genevensis, J. Calvino Authore. Calvini Opuscula. Geneva. 1552.} It is possible enough that this Catechism was itself designed for the use of (presumed) elect children. It must therefore be read with some allowance. Yet in other of his works somewhat similar statements may be found. In his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (in Acts 2:38), he says that we cannot indeed receive miraculous gifts, as the Apostles; yet the promise, “Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost,” applies to all ages of the Church in a more exalted sense than any promise of mere miraculous gifts. “To baptism therefore the grace of the Spirit will ever be annexed, unless an impediment from us occurs.” {“Baptismo igitur semper annexa erit Spiritus gratia, nisi a nobis impedimentum occurrat.” – J. Calvin. Commentar. in Act. Apostol. c. ii. v. 38.} Again he says, “We must take notice that no mere figure is proposed to us in baptism, but that an exhibition of the thing signified is annexed to it; for God never fallaciously promises, but really fulfills, what he signifies by figure. But then again, we must take heed not to tie God’s grace to the Sacraments; for the administration of baptism profits nothing, except where God thinks fit.” {Ibid. in c. xxii. 16.} In another place after bidding us direct our minds in baptism, not to the water, but to Christ, he adds: “But if any one, relying on this, should make baptism a mere frigid spectacle, and void of all grace of the Spirit, he will be much deceived.” {Ibid. c. xi. 16.} And again he tells us that in Sacraments the sign is joined with the word, and then there is grace received by the faithful. “So Christ breathed on His Apostles. They received, not only the breathing, but the Spirit too. Why? Because of Christ’s promise. So in baptism, we put on Christ, are washed with His blood; our old man is crucified, and God’s righteousness reigns in us. ... Whence so great a power, but from Christ’s promise, who effects and makes good by His Spirit what He witnesses by His word!” {“Flat Christus in Apostolos: hi non flatum modo, sed Spiritum quoque recipiunt. Cur? nisi quia illis Christus promittit? Similiter in baptismo Christum induimus, abluimur Ejus sanguine, crucifigitur vetus homo floater, ut regnet in nobis Dei justitia. In sacra Coena spiritualiter Christi Carne et Sanguine pascimur. Unde tanta vis, nisi ex Christi promissione, qui Spiritu suo efficit ac praestat, quod verbo testatur?” – J. Calv. In Johann. c. xx. 22.}
Notwithstanding these statements, which are certainly very different from those of Zuingle, it is probable that Calvin limited the reception of sacramental grace to the elect. There can be little doubt that he was not always consistent on this head ; yet I think it cannot be denied that he did believe some grace to be promised in baptism. But then God’s promises he limited to the elect. Hence, he probably believed that the elect received an accomplishment of these promises, and therefore remission of sins, and God’s Spirit in baptism ; but that the non-elect received the sign only, without the grace. {“Neque enim quicquam prodest externa baptismi administratio, nisi ubi ita Deo visum est.” – In Act. Apostol. xxii 16.}
The followers of Calvin have for the most part been purely Zuinglian in their views of baptism: not indeed all predestinarians since Calvin’s time; but those who have expressly adopted Calvin’s predestinarianism. It may be added that the Arminians, who sprang from the Calvinists, though on one point at least widely separated from them, not only agreed with them in their Zuinglian view of baptism, but far more decidedly repudiated baptismal grace than the Calvinists themselves, calling baptism by the name to which Calvin had specially objected, a mere watchword, or badge of profession (Tessera). {“Baptismus ritus est, quo fideles tanquam sacra tessera confirmantur de gratiosa Dei erga ipsos voluntate.” – Limborch. Theol. Lib. IV. C. 67, § 5. “Baptismum non esse lavacrum regenerationis satis ... constare potest.” – Ibid. § 10. See Bishop Bethel, p. 171, seq.}
Our own English reformers seem to speak very strongly and plainly. It has been said of late that it is impossible they could hold the doctrine that infants uniformly receive remission of sins and the assured help of God’s Spirit in baptism, because they were all Calvinists. It cannot be meant that they were in all respects followers of Calvin, for such an assertion would be obviously and notoriously untrue. The statement probably implies no more than that they were predestinarians, i.e. believers in an absolute and irrespective predestination of individuals to eternal glory. There is very slight, if any, foundation, even for this. Yet allowing it to be true, it is by no means a consequence that Cranmer and Ridley must have followed out to its natural conclusions this doctrine of irrespective decrees. Calvin did, no doubt, though even he appears to have had some misgivings about baptism. But much greater men than Calvin held the same doctrine of irrespective personal election to glory, but did not follow it out to what may seem its inevitable consequences, – for instance, St. Augustine and Luther; though the latter appears ultimately to have shunned all discussions on predestination. If the English reformers were absolute predestinarians, it is quite certain that they took Augustine’s, not Calvin’s view. Now Augustine’s, as has been shown, did not in any way influence his baptismal doctrines. There can therefore be no propriety in disposing at once of the opinions of the Anglican reformers by saying that they were predestinarians, and that they therefore could not but have coincided with Calvin on baptism.
Here, as elsewhere, Cranmer and Ridley must be our great authorities, because they were the chief compilers both of the Articles and the Liturgy. It was their genius which directed the Reformation, and their spirit which is infused into its formularies.
Cranmer, in 1548, published his Catechism, translated and modified from the Latin of a Lutheran divine, Justus Jonas. In that Catechism the statements are remarkably like Luther’s. It is said, that “without the word of God water is water, and not baptism; but when the word of the living God is joined to the water, then it is baptism, and water of wonderful wholesomeness, and the bath of regeneration, as St. Paul writeth.” {Cranmer’s Catechism, pp. 191, 192.} Again, “We ought not to have an eye only to the water, but to God rather, which did ordain the baptism of water, and commanded it to be done in His name. For He is Almighty, and able to work in us by baptism, forgiveness of our sins, and all those wonderful effects and operations for the which He ordained the same, though man’s reason is not able to conceive the same. Therefore, consider, good children, the great treasures and benefits whereof God maketh us partakers, when we are baptized, which be these. The first is that in baptism our sins be forgiven us, as St. Peter witnesseth. Let every one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. The second is that the Holy Ghost is given us ... according to this saying of St. Peter, Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Christ, and then ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The third is that by baptism the whole righteousness of Christ is given us. ... Fourthly, by baptism we die with Christ.” {Ibid. p. 186.} It is then said that before baptism we cannot have peace or quietness of conscience. “But, after our sins in baptism be forgiven us, and we believe the promise of God, and so by our faith be justified, then our consciences be quieted.” {Ibid. p. 187.} A sinner that is not baptized, “although he had the Holy Ghost to this effect to help him to fight against sin, yet oftentimes he is overcome and falleth into sin. ... But when in baptism the righteousness of Christ is given and imputed to him, then he is delivered from all those perils. For he knoweth for a surety that he hath put upon him Christ, and that his weakness and imperfection is covered and hid with the perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ.” {Ibid. pp. 188, 189.} Once more, “The second birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calls the bath of regeneration, because our sins be forgiven us in baptism, and the Holy Ghost is poured into us as God’s beloved children.” {Ibid. p. 182.} “He that is baptized may assuredly say thus, I am not now in the wavering opinion that I only suppose myself to be a Christian man, but I am in a sure belief that I am made a Christian man; for I know for a surety that I am baptized, and I am sure also that baptism was ordained of God ... and the Holy Ghost doth witness that he which is baptized hath put on him Christ.” {Cranmer’s Catechism, p. 184.}
So completely is this Luther’s language that similar statements, word for word, may be taken from all parts of his writings. But it nevertheless appears exactly to exhibit the sentiments of Cranmer, who adopted it; for the same tone pervades all his subsequent writings; and I know of no single contrary statement, though I have carefully read and noted all his remains with special reference to this doctrine. He attributes no holiness to the water itself; {Works, III. p. 490.} denies the grace of baptism to those who come feignedly, “who be washed with sacramental water, but be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ.” {Ibid. II. p. 439. See also III. pp. 322, 323.} But as to others (infants or worthily receiving adults) he teaches that “Through baptism in this world the body is washed and the soul is washed: the body outwardly, the soul inwardly; the work is one”; {IV. p. 39.} and that “that doctrine is not to be suffered in the Church which teacheth that we are not joined to Christ by baptism.” {Ibid. p. 42.} “As in baptism we must think that as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water; so must we think that God putteth to His hand inwardly, and washeth the infant with His Holy Spirit, and moreover, that Christ Himself cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with His own self.” {Ibid. III. p. 553. See also II. pp. 302, 340; III. pp. 65, 118, 171, 276, 490, 534, 553; IV. pp. 39–44, 55, &c.}
His great friend and contemporary, Bishop Ridley, calls baptism by the name of “regeneration”; {Works, Park. Soc. p. 57.} says that “the water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration”; {Ibid. . 12.} that “the water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given; not that grace is included in water, but that grace cometh by water.” {Ibid. p. 240.}
There was little dispute in England at the time of the Reformation about baptism. Most of the passages above cited occur in controversy with Romanist divines; and it is truly remarkable that Cranmer, instead of maintaining lower ground than the Romanists on baptismal grace, maintains rather higher ground; for the Romanist divines were inclined to derogate from the dignity of baptism in order the more to elevate the importance of the Communion. {See this especially in the “Disputation with Chedsey,” Cranmer’s Works, IV. pp. 41, 42. Latimer has been much referred to as having in one passage denied the connection between baptism and regeneration. Archbp. Laurence (Doctrine of the Church of England on Baptism, Third Edition, pp. 43–45) has shown that Latimer’s general teaching coincided with Cranmer’s. I have not quoted Bp. Latimer, because there is nothing to connect him with the drawing up either of the Articles or the Liturgy; and therefore his testimony is no more important than that of any other divine of the period.} The most systematic statements are to be found in Cranmer’s Catechism which, as noticed above, uses the very language of Luther. Luther appears exactly to have followed on this head his great master, St. Augustine. We may therefore naturally infer that the sentiments of Cranmer and Ridley were nearly those of Augustine. Certain it is they were not those of Zuinglius nor of Calvin. A few quotations can never bring out the full force of an author’s meaning. The works of Cranmer are readily to be obtained. In the notes I have put a considerable number of references. It is easy to turn to them, and each reader may convince himself whether the context does not fully bear out the impression which the extracts convey.
If from the reformers who first drew up our services and Articles, we turn to those of the reign of Elizabeth, who adopted and slightly modified them, we shall find no different language. Jewel’s Apology says, that “Baptism is the Sacrament of remission of sins, and of our washing in the Blood of Christ.” {Juelli Apologia, Enchirid. Theolog. p. 127.} “We assert that Christ exhibits Himself truly present in His Sacraments: in baptism, that we may put Him on,” {Ibid. p. 129.} &c. In Nowell’s Catechism, a work like Jewel’s Apology, to be esteemed semi-authoritative, the child is taught thus: “M. what is the hidden and spiritual grace in baptism? A. It is twofold: namely, remission of sins and regeneration. ... M. You seem to make the water only a certain figure of divine things? A. A figure indeed it is, but by no means empty and fallacious; but such, that to it the verity of the things themselves is joined and tied. For, as God truly offers to us in baptism pardon of sins and newness of life, so are they certainly received by us. Far be it from us to suppose that God would mock us with vain images! M. Do we then receive remission of sins by mere outward washing and sprinkling? A. By no means! For Christ alone washes off the stains of our souls with His own Blood. It were impious to attribute this honour to an outward element,” {Noelli Catechisms Enchirid. Theolog. pp. 314, 315; cf. p. 321.} &c.
If we pass to the formularies themselves, we may begin with the Articles agreed on between the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 1538. In them it is said, that “in baptism remission of sins and the grace of Christ is offered to infants and adults ... that infants in baptism attain remission of sins and grace, and become children of God, because the promise of grace and life eternal extends not only to adults but also to infants. ... But because infants are born with original sin, they need remission of that sin, and this is so remitted that its imputation is taken away. Howbeit the corruption of nature or concupiscence remains in this life, although it begins to be healed, because the Holy Spirit, even in infants, is efficacious and cleanses them.”* If we refer to the Articles of 1536, the Bishops’ Book, A. D. 1537, and the King’s Book, A. D. 1543, we shall find them all agreeing to teach, that “infants by the Sacrament of baptism receive remission of sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby very sons and children of God”; {Formularies in the Reign of Henry VIII. pp. xix. 7, 93.} that “the effect and virtue of this Sacrament is forgiveness of sins and grace of the Holy Ghost”; {Ibid. p. 253.} that infants, “being offered in the faith of the Church, receive forgiveness of their sins, and such grace of the Holy Ghost, that, if they die in the state of their infancy, they shall thereby undoubtedly be saved.” {Ibid. p. 254.}
{*“Et quod per baptismum offerantur rernissio peccatorum et gratia Christi, infantibus et adultis ... et quod infantes per baptismum consequantur rernissionem peccatorum et gratiam, et sint filii Dei, quia promissio gratiae et vitae aeternae pertinet non solum ad adultos, sed etiam ad infantes ... Quia vero infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, habent opus remissione illius peccati, et illud ita remittitur ut reatus tollatur, licet corruptio naturae seu concupiscentia manet in hac vita, etsi incipit sanari, quia Spiritus Sanctus in ipsis etiam infantibus est efficax et eos mundat.” – See Cranmer’s Works, IV. pp. 279, 280.}
The First Book of Homilies is the earliest public document of the reign of Edw. VI. In the “Homily of Salvation” (Part I) it is stated, “that infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God’s favour, and made His children, and inheritors of His kingdom of heaven”; and that “we must trust only in God’s mercy and the sacrifice ... offered on the cross to obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed after our baptism, if we truly repent.”
The Second Book of Homilies was not published till the reign of Elizabeth, yet it now is united with the First; and we may therefore quote them together. In a former Article we saw that baptism and the Supper of the Lord were described as the two Sacraments having “visible signs, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ.” {Hom. of Common Prayer and Sacraments.} The “Homily of repairing of Churches” says of the Church that “The fountain of our regeneration is there presented unto us.” The “Homily of the Passion,” that “We be therefore washed in our baptism from the filthiness of sin, that we should live afterward in the pureness of life.”
The next authoritative document, after the First Book of Homilies, was the First Service Book of Edw. VI. This was compiled in the same year (1548) that Cranmer’s Catechism was put forth. The Baptismal Service in that Book differs from our present serice for infant baptism, in that the latter lacks some of the ceremonies which were retained in the former. The doctrinal statements (if prayers can be said to contain statements) are the same. It is, however, desirable to postpone the consideration of these till the last. Yet one portion of the First Service Book we must not omit. It is the Catechism. Here we have (drawn up by Cranmer and set forth in the same year with his larger Catechism already cited) all the portion of our present Church Catechism, down to the end of the Lord’s Prayer. The latter part concerning the Sacraments was not added till after the Hampton Court Controversy in the reign of James I, more than fifty years later. The teaching in the earliest questions, however, was, as it still continues: “Who gave you that name? My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” The child is taught to call this “a state of salvation,” and to speak of himself as “sanctified by God the Holy Ghost,” like “all the elect people of God.”
Immediately before the Catechism in the First Service Book there is a rubric, which now stands in the baptismal service, to the following purport: “It is certain by God’s word, that children being baptized, if they depart out of this life in their infancy, are undoubtedly saved.” {Archbishop Laurence (Doctrine of Church of England on Baptism, p. 98) quotes a passage from the Reformatio Legum, a document drawn up by Cranmer which most satisfactorily shows that the English reformers by no means adopted the opinions of the later fathers and of the schoolmen that all unbaptized infants must inevitably perish. “Quod longe secus habere judicamus,” are the words used. See also Laurence, B. L. p. 70.} These were the principal public documents put forth at the period of the Reformation in which baptism is treated of, with the exception of the Articles and the services for Infant Baptism. Let us then next take the Articles. These were published A. D. 1552, four years after the First Service Book and Cranmer’s Catechism, and the same year as the Second Service Book. Those Articles which treat on baptism were not altered in the reign of Elizabeth.
Besides the Article on Baptism itself, one or two expressions occur in the earlier Articles. Thus, in that on original sin (now the IXth), we read in the English, “although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized.” In the Latin the word rendered “baptized” is renatis, “born again”. And the Article “Of Christ alone without sin” (now the XVth) says: “All we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ.” In both these there appears an identification of baptism and regeneration.
To proceed to our present Article, the XXVIIth. It is difficult to find any exact model on which it is framed. It bears little resemblance to any former Article, in any other confession, either English or foreign. It is evidently penned with considerable caution. It begins with a denial of the Zuinglian notion that “baptism is a mere sign of profession or mark of difference.” It continues that it is “a sign of regeneration or new birth”. So far, however, its statement is not much more than Zuinglius’s. But then it adds, “whereby, as by an instrument, they, who receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the church; the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed.” The concluding words of the paragraph contain considerable difficulty. “Faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God,” vi divinae invocationis. The Latin and the English do not correspond, and appear to convey different ideas. The former would indicate that the invocation of God, which accompanies the act of baptism, confirms faith and increases grace. The latter would imply that the prayers of the congregation might, over and above the ordinance of God, be blessed to the recipient’s soul, so that, whereas he might receive grace by God’s appointment, whether prayer accompanied baptism or not; yet the addition of prayer was calculated to bring down more grace and to confirm faith. Whence the confusion sprang, if such it were, it may be hard to say. The Latin and English have both authority; but one does not explain the other. Perhaps they rather supply than explain each other.
The Articles then speak the same language as the other formularies of our Church on the subject of baptismal grace. Yet it has been truly observed that the Article which expressly treats of baptism speaks less distinctly than any other authorized document and is more easily explained away. Why this should have been is not apparent. The primate, and his coadjutor Ridley, perpetually, both before and after the publication of the Articles, expressed their own views in strong and unmistakable language. It is certain that the bishops and clergy in general were not more disposed to Zuinglian doctrines than the primate; but, on the contrary, were rather more favourable to Romanism and doctrines verging on Romanism. The Article could not therefore have been softened to please them. It is not impossible that the king himself, young as he was, may have had some leaning to the Swiss reformers, and that to please him, and perhaps to satisfy some foreign divines, a certain degree of ambiguity may have been admitted.
We must remember, that the office for Infant Baptism was put out nearly at the same time with the Articles, that it was enjoined by the same authority, that it is of equal obligation on the clergy, and of still greater interest to the laity of the Church. Its meaning has been a fertile source of trouble in the present century. Yet, if fairly considered, its sense can scarcely be ambiguous.
It perhaps would be conceded that if the sentiments of the reformers were clearly known and fully established, the natural sense of the service would be no longer doubtful. We have had copious extracts from their works, and their own doctrine has been given in their own words. Most of their statements must have concerned infant baptism; for so little was adult baptism known in their day, that no office for adult baptism was appointed till nearly a hundred years after them. We know that they speak of infants as regenerated in baptism. The only questions which can occur are these: Did they believe all baptized infants to be regenerated, or only some? And, if so, what did they mean by regeneration?
A considerable number of men, whose piety forbids us to doubt their honesty, suppose that the reformers believed some, but not all, infants to be regenerated in baptism. Such persons therefore say that the well-known strong expressions in the baptismal service must be interpreted with some reservation. They adopt the notion of a charitable hypothesis. The Church charitably hopes that a particular child may be regenerate, and therefore fearlessly expresses its conviction that he is regenerate. In special confirmation of this theory they adduce the office for Adult Baptism, where nearly the same expressions are used, and where it is impossible to be sure that regeneration is bestowed; for confessedly to adults grace is given only when there is sincerity and faith. To this they add the Burial Service; where we give God thanks for taking our departed brother out of this world, evidently on the charitable supposition that he is fit for a better.
Now it is quite plain that the office for Adult Baptism cannot explain the office for Infant Baptism for this reason. The office for Adult Baptism was not drawn up till a hundred years after that for Infant Baptism, i.e. in the reign of Charles II. It was so worded as to be as like as possible to the more ancient office for infants; and as few alterations as could be were adopted. An office drawn up A. D. 1661 cannot interpret one drawn up in 1552. Or if it be supposed that the bishops of 1661 were likely to understand the language of their predecessors in 1552, then we may listen to their explanation of the office for Infant Baptism, the strong terms of which were objected to by the puritans. “Seeing,” say these very bishops, who compiled the office of Adult Baptism, “that God’s Sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not ponere obicem put any bar against them (which children cannot do), we may say in faith of every child that is baptized that it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism,” {Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences, p. 356.} &c.
The Burial Service does not seem a case in point. There is there no positive assertion of the certainty of the individual’s bliss, as there is of the certainty of the infant’s regeneration in the baptismal service. Concerning the individual, we indeed give thanks that God has “been pleased to deliver him from the miseries of this sinful world.” But, as regards his resting in Christ, we only say, “as our hope is this our brother doth.” The expression, “in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life,” is a general proposition, affecting all men, and not specially the individual. The very words then of the Burial Service express plainly a charitable and comfortable hope. Those of the baptismal service, on the contrary, contain a positive assertion and a consequent thanksgiving. The one therefore cannot explain the other.
But is it in any manner likely that the reformers should have intended a charitable hope, where they express an undoubting confidence? The belief that some were regenerate in baptism, and others were not, was, to say the most of it, a perfectly new notion in their day. The fathers believed all infants to be regenerate; so did the schoolmen; so did the whole mediaeval Church; so did Luther and the Lutherans. Zuingle and the Zuinglians, on the contrary, believed that no one was regenerate in baptism; with them baptism was a mere outward sign. With Calvin and his followers originated the idea that the elect might receive grace, but the non-elect be left unblessed, in the Sacrament of baptism. It is quite certain that early in their career our reformers could have known nothing of this theory. It was not until late that they had any connection whatever with the Calvinistic divines. But if at any period in their lives they obtained from Geneva a perfectly new light on the subject of infants receiving baptismal grace, is it not most strange that their writings should exhibit no trace of this? From 1536 to 1555 we have their documents and disputations. The same tone and statements concerning baptism and the grace of baptism prevail from first to last. In the Articles of 1536, in the Bishops’ Book of 1537, in the Articles of 1538, in the King’s Book of 1543, in Cranmer’s Catechism, the Baptismal Service, the Church Catechism of 1548, in the Second Service Book and the Articles of 1552, in the Answer to Gardiner 1551, and the Disputation with Chedsey 1554, exactly the same general assertions occur. There is nothing said about all infants, still less is anything said about excluding any. Unworthy adults are excluded, but infants never. Is it not most probable that the utter silence concerning the inclusion of all, or the exclusion of some, resulted from the fact that Calvin’s theory, which is not very apparent even in his own published works, had never been brought to their notice? that they therefore used the ordinary language of those who went before them, speaking in the general of infants as the subjects of the grace of God, and not caring to specify all, because not dreaming that some could be excluded?* In fact their own sentiments, to any one who will fairly examine their writings, must seem plainly to have been these. All men, infants as well as elders, are subject to original sin, and as such, subject to the wrath of God. But all too are subjects of the redeeming love of God. He would have all to be saved. He freely offers pardon and grace to all. Thus, even of unbaptized infants we may hope that they shall share the blessings of the atonement and, dying in infancy, shall be saved from the curse of sin. But baptism is God’s special ordinance for bringing them into covenant with Him. Of those infants therefore who have been baptized, we do not hope, but we know, that as they are partakers of the covenant of grace, so they are partakers of the assurance of pardon, and moreover have a right to those graces of the Holy Spirit, which, if cultivated, as they grow up, will surely new-create in them a sanctified nature, mortifying and destroying their old and corrupt nature, and making them sons of God indeed. Hence, as they are by baptism entitled to regenerating grace, we do not scruple to use the language of Scripture and antiquity, and to call them regenerate in baptism. Yet we do not thereby intend that original corruption is quenched in them, or that their whole moral disposition is changed; but only that they are newborn into the Church, that their sin of nature is not imputed to them, and that they have an assurance of that spiritual aid, which, if not hindered, will renew, convert, and restore them.
{*It will be remembered that Calvin’s difficulty was this. His theory was, that grace was never given but irresistibly, and once given, never was withdrawn. Hence, if given to an infant, it must, sooner or later, renew his nature, and save his soul. Hence, again, if grace was given in baptism, the child must be saved. The predestinarians before him had not this idea. Augustine, and probably all predestinarians from him to Calvin, held that grace might be bestowed, but not profited by. Hence God’s Spirit and aid might be given to an infant, but he never grow up the holier for it, because he resisted and quenched the Spirit; and even if he were renewed at first, if not predestinated to perseverance, he might fall away. Unless it can be proved, that our reformers had adopted Calvin’s theory of irresistible grace and final perseverance, it cannot be probable that they should have entertained his difficulties about baptism.}
It will be no small confirmation to the belief that this was their sentiment concerning baptism, if we learn that the model on which their baptismal services were formed was not Calvinistic, nor Zuinglian, but Lutheran. Archbishop Laurence has shown that on the subject of our formularies in general, there was much correspondence between the English and the Lutheran divines. {See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, passim.} But it has been proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the sources of our present office for Infant Baptism were, first, the Service in common use in the mediaeval Church, and still in the Church of Rome; secondly, a formulary adopted by Luther for his own followers in Germany; thirdly, a Service composed by Melancthon and Bucer for the use of the Archbishop of Cologne, which was itself adapted from the ancient Liturgy of Nuremburg. {Appendix to Laurence’s Doctrine of the Church of England on Baptism.} This fact directly associates our own formularies with those, first of the ancient Church, secondly, of the Lutheran reformers. The parts of the more ancient services which were deemed superstitious, such as chrism and exorcism, were omitted. But the doctrine involved is evidently the same as that held by Luther and Melancthon who, it has been seen, followed and symbolized with St. Augustine.
Section IV – Infant Baptism
So much space has been occupied on the earlier part of this Article, that the latter part must be very briefly considered; especially as some of what has been already said may bear on the question of infant baptism.
We have already traced the analogy between circumcision and baptism. The latter indeed excels the former, as the new covenant excels the old; but both were alike initiatory rites, the means of entering into covenant with God, and the seal of that covenant. If children could be admitted into the covenant of works, why not, a fortiori, into the covenant of grace? If, before they knew good from evil, they were capable of being bound by an obligation to do good and to renounce evil, and that without the assurance of quickening grace, how can they be incapable of admission to the promises of pardon, to the offer of life eternal, to the mercy and love of Him “who came to seek and to save that which was lost”? In that case, the blessings of the old covenant, instead of being more limited, must have been more extended than those of the new; and the Law, which was given by Moses, must have been more merciful than the grace and truth, which came by Jesus Christ. The parallel too is the more exact if we remember that to adults circumcision was “the seal of the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:11); and so was not given to Abraham, till he had believed. But this prerequisite in adults was no prerequisite in infants. The infant children of the Israelites, and of the converts to Judaism, were all circumcised, though they could have no faith to qualify them.
We saw in a former Section that not only circumcision, but baptism, was practiced among the Jews; and that when they admitted proselytes into their communion, they not only circumcised all the males, but baptized all, male and female, infant and adult. {See Lightfoot on Matt. 3; Wall, Infant Baptism, Introduction, quoted in sect. II.} When therefore our Lord sent out His disciples to “make proselytes of all nations by baptizing them” (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τα έθνη, βαπτίζοντες αυτους, Matt.28:19), He addresses persons who had been ever used to the mode of proselyting, or admitting of proselytes, which He commanded; and as they had always seen infants, as well as adults, baptized for such proselytism, they could only have understood that they too were to practice infant baptism. Unless therefore there were a special bar put upon such a practice, our Lord’s words naturally implied that the practice was according to His will. The omission to specify infants is only analogous to the omission of commands to perform other obvious duties which were well understood before, and which the first teachers of Christianity took naturally for granted.
The necessity of baptism has constantly been inferred from our Lord’s declaration, “Except a man {τις, any one} be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). But the same supreme authority declared too concerning infants that “of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14). If so, they must be capable of baptism, both by water and the Spirit. Otherwise, one would think, they cannot be capable of entering into that kingdom, which is said specially to appertain to them. The whole of our Lord’s teaching, on that occasion, when infants were brought to Him, seems to show as plainly as possible the propriety of infant baptism. If young children ought to be brought to Christ, and He has peculiar pleasure in and love for them, then can there be no possible reason why we should keep them from the Sacrament of His love. It may be said that we thereby bind them, without their own consent, to obligations which they might be unwilling to contract. But every human being, created by God, and redeemed by Christ, is, baptized or unbaptized, bound to believe, to love, to obey Him; and hence, whether acknowledged or not, the obligation exists. And, moreover, if in baptism responsibility is undertaken, far greater is the blessing than the responsibility: for let it ever be remembered that it is admission not to a covenant of works and to a bargain, “This do, and thou shalt live”; but that it is to a covenant of grace, to pardon, and mercy, and spiritual aid, and the promise of eternal life. Great therefore are the blessings of baptism; and, though of course there are consequent obligations, yet they are only such as, more or less, would exist for the unbaptized.
Again, the statement of St. Paul that the children of Christian parents are holy (1 Cor. 7:14) is fairly alleged as a proof that Christians’ children are fit recipients of the first Christian Sacrament. The other Sacrament, which is a renewal of the covenant made in the first, may be fitter for the adult and intelligent; but there can be nothing to keep the infant from the first. If it be said that he has original sin, this, so far from keeping him from baptism, is his very reason for needing it. For though we may hope that under the Gospel of the grace of God, sin will not be imputed where it has not been actual and willful; yet baptism is “for the remission of sin” (Mark 1:4); and there is no way but baptism whereby we can place the infant in formal covenant with God, and therefore within the terms of the covenant, and having the assurance that his sins shall not be imputed to him, and that, if he go hence, his soul shall be safe.
The words of St. Peter, again, sound much like an encouragement to bring the young to baptism. For when he had exhorted those who asked what they should do, to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” and assured them that then they should “receive the Holy Ghost”, he added, “For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38, 39).
Lastly, though it is true that we read nothing of infants being baptized by any of the Apostles, it being on every account far more likely that we should hear of the baptism of adults, yet we do find that whole households were baptized by them in more cases than one (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16); and in households it is most likely that there must have been children.
If we consult the records of antiquity, we shall find every reason to believe that the practice of infant baptism prevailed from the very first. Justin Martyr wrote his Second Apology about A. D. 148 (i.e. 48 years after the death of the last Apostle). He there speaks of persons 60 and 70 years old who had been made disciples to Christ in their infancy. {πολλοί τινες και πολλαι εξηκοντουται και εβδομηκοντουται, οί εκ παίδων εμαθητευθήσαν τω Χριστω, άφθοροι διαμένουσι. – Justin. Apol. II. p. 62.} How can infants be made disciples, but by baptism? And if these had been baptized in their infancy, it must have been during the lifetimes of the Apostle St. John and of other apostolic men. Irenaeus, next in succession to Justin, says: “Christ came to save all by Himself; all, that is, who by Him are regenerated to God, – infants and little ones, and boys and youths and old men. Therefore He went through every age, being made an infant for infants, that He might sanctify infants.” {“Omnes venit per semetipsum salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per Eum renascuntur in Deum; infantes et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores,” &c. – Irenaeus, Lib. II. C. 39, p. 160.} &c. If we consider that Irenaeus like other of the fathers commonly calls baptism by the name of regeneration, this passage will seem conclusive of the custom and doctrine in his day.
Tertullian is an important though unwilling witness. He shows that in his day (about a century from the Apostles) the custom of baptizing infants prevailed, and that sponsors were wont to answer for them; but he himself advocated a delay in baptism; for he thought the innocent age of infants could scarcely need the haste of bringing them to baptism; he thought also that sponsors might, from death or other causes, be unable to fulfill their duties, and he considered it better to seek remission of sins later in life, when temptations were less likely to make men fall away. {De Baptismo, C. 18.} This was his own reasoning against the custom of the Church, showing what that custom of the Church against which he reasoned was. His own view arose from his fear of the heinousness of sin after baptism, which we have already considered.
Origen a few years later bears ample testimony to the custom of infant baptism. “Infants,” he says, “are baptized for the remission of sins”; and he gives the reason that “none is free from pollution, though his life be but of one day on the earth.” {Origen. In Luc. Homil. XIV.} He tells us also, that “the Church received a custom handed down from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants.” {“Pro hoc (i.e. propter peccatum originis) Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare.” – Origen. In Epist. ad Roman. Lib. V. 9.} Origen, it is observed by Wall, was born about 85 years after the Apostles, and his family had long been Christian.
The next father of note is Cyprian. In his day (circ. A. D. 250) there arose a question as to what day a child should be baptized. Fidus, an African bishop, wrote to him to inquire whether baptism, like circumcision, should be always deferred till the eighth day; or whether, if need required, it might be administered at once. An answer was returned by Cyprian and a council of sixty-six bishops. The unanimous judgment of the council was that there was no need of such delay, for “the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that is born.” {“Universi potius judicavimus nulli homini nato misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam.” – Cyprian. Epist. 64 ad Fidum.} If anything could be an obstacle to persons obtaining the grace of baptism, they argue, adults would be rather hindered by their grievous sins. But if no one is so kept from baptism, how much less infants, who have no sins but such as they derived by inheritance from Adam. {Ibid. See this part of the passage quoted under Art. IX.}
The foregoing testimonies all occur in the first century and a half from the Apostles. It would be easy, but in this brief sketch it is unnecessary, to carry the chain further down. For a moment we may notice the view taken by Gregory Nazianzen, as it seems remarkable and indeed unaccountable. He gives his judgment that in case of danger baptism ought to be administered without delay; but if there be no danger, he advises that it be deferred for about three years. {Greg. Naz. Orat. XI. Tom. I. p. 658, A.} Why deferred at all, if to be deferred but three years, he does not explain.
That among the later fathers baptism was not so universally administered in infancy as amongst ourselves, there does indeed seem reason to conjecture. The great potency which many attached to it, and the fear of the contraction of heinous sin after it, appear to have induced some to delay its administration. Thus Constantine was not baptized till he was dying. {Euseb. Vita Constantin. Lib. IV. C. 62.} St. Augustine, though his mother was a Christian, did not receive baptism in his infancy. He himself deplores the delay, but says it was owing to his mother’s fear of the great temptations which seemed impending over his boyhood, to which she thought it better “to expose the clay, whence her son might afterwards be molded, than the cast when made.” {August. Confess. Lib. I. C. 11.}
Such instances resulting from peculiar scruples are no proofs that the custom of baptizing in infancy did not prevail from the first. Augustine himself clearly asserts that the Church both held the custom, and believed the efficacy of infant baptism, from all times, and so universally that it could only have received it from the Apostles. {De Baptismo, c. Donatistas, Lib. IV. C. 24, Tom. IX. p. 140, cited in the last section.}
Article XXVIII
Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
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.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
De Coena Domini.
Coena Domini non est tantum signum mutuae benevolentiae Christianorum inter sese, verum potius est sacramentum nostrae per mortem Christi redemptionis. Atque adeo, rite, digne et cum fide sumentibus, panis quem frangimus est communicatio corporis Christi; similiter poculum benedictionis est communicatio sanguinis Christi.
Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eucharistia ex sacris literis probari non potest; sed apertis Scripturae verbis adversatur, sacramenti naturam evertit, et multarum superstitionum dedit occasionem.
Corpus Christi datur, accipitur et manducatur in Coena tantum coelesti et spirituali ratione. Medium autem, quo Corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur in Coena, fides est.
Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex institutione Christi non servabatur, circumferebatur, elevabatur, nee adorabatur.
Section I – History
This Article treats generally of the Lord’s Supper, but more especially of the presence of Christ in that Sacrament, and of the mode in which He is received there. On this mysterious doctrine there have been four principal opinions: 1, Transubstantiation; 2, Consubstantiation; 3, The real spiritual presence; 4, The denial of any special presence altogether.
1. Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. As stated by school authors, and other more subtle reasoners among them, it means that in the Eucharist after the words of consecration the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; so that the bread and wine no longer remain, but the Body and Blood of Christ are substituted in their places. This, however, is said to be true only of the substance, not of the accidents. The accidents (such as colour, shape, taste, smell, consistence, &c.) all remain unchanged. The substance, which is interior to, and not necessarily dependent on these external accidents, is that which is converted. Yet we are not to call it a mere spiritual change (though some of their writers have allowed even this) but the change is a real and miraculous conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the very Body of Christ, which was born of the blessed Virgin and crucified on Calvary.
2. Consubstantiation is considered to be the doctrine of Luther and the Lutherans. It differs from transubstantiation in that it does not imply a change in the substance of the elements. Those who hold this doctrine teach that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine; but that with, and by means of the consecrated elements, the true, natural Body and Blood of Christ are communicated to the recipients.
3. The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of the English Church, and was the doctrine of Calvin and of many foreign reformers. It teaches that Christ is really received by faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper; but that there is no gross or carnal, but only a spiritual and heavenly presence there; not the less real, however, for being spiritual. It teaches, therefore, that the bread and wine are received naturally; but the Body and Blood of Christ are received spiritually. “The result of which doctrine is this: it is bread, and it is Christ’s Body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are: each as they can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and the wine as they can; and to the same real purposes to which they were designed; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul as the elements the body.” {Jer. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. I. 4.}
4. The fourth opinion is that of Zuinglius, who taught that the Eucharist is a bare commemoration of the death of Christ, and that the bread and wine are mere symbols and tokens to remind us of his Body and Blood.
The subject on which we are entering is one which has produced folios of controversy; alas! what should have been for our peace becoming to us an occasion of falling. But a brief view is all that is here possible.
When we consider the language of the fathers, one or two cautions are necessary. Of course their words were not measured and guarded, as ours have been in our times of trouble. Their writings are often rhetorical, that we say not sometimes turgid. They treat such questions as these practically, not argumentatively. Now in such writings it may be very difficult to tell the exact intention of the writer when subsequent ages have drawn subtle distinctions.
Thus much we must premise as unquestionable. The whole primitive Church evidently believed in a presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All spoke of feeding there on Christ; eating His Body and drinking His Blood. But then was it a spiritual presence or a carnal presence? Did they teach a carnal eating and drinking of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood? or did they intend a spiritual manducation, – an eating spiritually and a drinking in by the soul of the life-giving efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood shed? Did they believe the bread and wine to be actually and literally transmuted into Flesh and Blood? or did they think the bread and wine still to remain bread and wine, though constituted Sacraments of Christ, means in God’s hand of conveying to us Christ’s Body and Blood, and so, after Christ’s own example, to be called by the name of His Body and Blood?
Here is the question; and it must be carefully noted. If there were no other alternative, but that the fathers must have been either Papists or Zuinglians, – must have held either a carnal presence, or none at all; then we must perforce acknowledge that they believed in a carnal presence, and were transubstantialists. For some presence they undoubtedly taught; some mode of feeding on Christ they undeniably believed in. But another alternative is possible, and has been acknowledged as possible, even by eminent scholastic and Romanist divines. They may have believed a spiritual presence. They may have thought that the Eucharist conveyed Christ really, and yet spiritually, to the recipient; and they may have taught that the soul was truly nourished by spiritually feeding on His Flesh and Blood, as truly as the body is nourished by carnally feeding upon bread and wine.
Whichever they held, a carnal or a spiritual presence, they may easily have used language which would sound like the carnal presence. There can be little doubt that their faith and feelings inclined them to the mysterious, and there was no controversy, no apparent need of caution. But then we may observe that one clear statement that the presence was spiritual, or that the substance of the bread and wine remained, must outweigh statements innumerable, which merely sound like a belief in transubstantiation or in a carnal presence. For the latter would naturally occur where people believed in a real presence, and had never learned the necessity of guarding their words, lest they should be thought to teach a carnal and natural presence; but the former could never come from the lips or pens of those who acknowledged a literal change of the elements, and that the natural Body of the Lord was actually eaten by all who communicate.
For instance, Roman Catholics will never say that the bread and wine remain unchanged, and that the feeding is only spiritual. But Protestants of many different communions have freely declared that Christ’s “Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken.” Nay! it is acknowledged by them that the Body of Christ then received is the very Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead, and buried. For there is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ. Christ’s Body is now glorified, but still it is the same Body, though in its glorified condition. It is not even denied that we receive that Body really, substantially, corporally: for although the word “corporally” seem opposed to “spiritually,” yet it is not so of necessity. And, as we acknowledge that it is a Body which we receive, so we cannot deny its presence corporally, i.e. after the manner of a Body. Only, when we come to explain ourselves, we say, that, though it be Christ’s very Body we receive in the Eucharist, and though we cannot deny even the word corporal concerning it; yet as Christ’s Body is now a spiritual Body, so we expect a spiritual presence of that Body; and we do not believe, that we naturally and carnally eat that which is now no longer carnal and natural; but that we spiritually receive Christ’s Spiritual Body into our souls, and spiritually drink His life-giving Blood with the lips of our spirit. {See this excellently laid down by Bp. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. I. 9–11.} Moreover, it has been abundantly acknowledged, not only by our English divines, but by Protestants of all sorts, that the elements after consecration may be called by the name of those things which they represent. But then we call them so, not because we believe them to have lost their original nature and to have ceased to be what they were, but because, being hallowed to a new and higher purpose, they may be called that which they are the means of communicating.
It was necessary to say thus much, that we might not be startled by strong terms ; and so conclude at once that we had found a doctrine, before it had yet entered even into men’s dreams. With this precaution, we shall readily see in the fathers abundant evidence that the carnal doctrine of transubstantiation had not risen in their days. Let us take one or two of the strongest expressions, and which, if not explained and qualified by other statements, would seem conclusive for transubstantiation and a natural presence.
St. Jerome and others speak of the clergy as making the Body of Christ. {“Absit ut de his quidquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi Corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos et nos Christiani sumus; qui claves regni coelorum habentes,” &c. – Hieron. Ad Heliodorum, Epist. V. Tom. IV. part II. p. 10.} Yet, as the words of consecration make the bread the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, and so the means of conveying His Body to the communicant, and as it was an acknowledged mode of speech and fully sanctioned by the language of our Lord to call the consecrated bread by the name of that of which it was the type and Sacrament; it was not unnatural that the priest by his consecration should be said to make Christ’s Body and Blood, even by those who believed no more than a spiritual and sacramental communication of them to the faithful.
St. Chrysostom writes, “When you behold the Lord sacrificed and lying, and the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, and the congregation sprinkled with that precious Blood (και πάντας εκείνω τω τιμίω φοινισσομένους αίματι) ... are you not immediately transported to Heaven, and dismissing from your soul every fleshly thought, do you not with naked spirit and pure mind see the things which are in Heaven? Oh wonderful! Oh the love of God! who, seated with the Father above, is held at that moment by the hands of all; and who gives Himself to those who desire to receive Him. And all see this by the eyes of faith.” {De Sacerdot. III. § 4.} “Behold thou seest Him, thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. He gives Himself to thee, not only to see, but to touch, to eat, and to receive within ... How pure should he be who partakes of that sacrifice! the hand that divides His Flesh, the mouth filled with Spiritual fire, the tongue empurpled with His awful Blood!” {Ιδου αυτον ορας, άπτη, αυτον εσθίεις ... αυτος δε εαυτόν σοι δίδωσιν, ουκ ιδειν μόνον, αλλα και άψασθαι και φαγειν και λαβειν ένδον ... τίνος ουν ουκ έδει καθαρώτερον ειναι τον ταύτης απολαύοντα της θυσίας; ποίας ηλιακης ακτινος την χειρα την ταύτην διατέμνουσαν την σάρκα, το στόμα το πληρούμενον πυρος πνευματικου, την γλωσσαν την φοινισσομένην αίματι φρικωδεστάτω. – Chrys. Hom. 83 in Matt. C. 26.} Now these expressions are so strong that even believers in transubstantiation could hardly use them without a figure. The Roman Catholics allow that the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged; and would hardly therefore in literal language speak of the tongue as assuming the purple colour of Christ’s Blood. But hyperbolic expressions are common with St. Chrysostom and his contemporaries; and they use such language, that they may exalt the dignity of the blessed Sacrament; that they may induce communicants to approach it with devotion and reverence; that they may turn their minds from the visible objects before them to those invisible objects which they represent, and which as St. Chrysostom says, they may “see by the eye of faith”.
Still more remarkable perhaps are the expressions used by others of the Greek, especially the later Greek fathers, concerning the change (μεταβολη, μεταστοιχείωσις) in the Sacraments. So Gregory Nyssen says, “These things He gives by virtue of the benediction upon it, transmuting the nature of the things which appear.” {ταυτα δε δίδωσι τη της ευλογίας δυνάμει προς εκεινο μεταστοιχείωσας των φαινομένων την φύσιν. – Gregor Nyssen. In Orat. Catechet.} And Theophylact (the last of the Greek fathers, A. D. 1077), “Therefore the merciful God, condescending to us, preserves the form of bread and wine, but transforms them into the virtue of His Flesh and Blood.” {Δια τουτο συγκαταβαίνων ημιν ο φιλάνθρωπος· το μεν ειδος άρτου και οίνου φυλάττει· εις δύναμιν δε σαρκος και αιματος μεταστοιχειοι. – Theophyl. In Evangel. Marc. cap. CXIV.} Those who translate μεταστοιχειουν by transelementare think that we have here the very word made use of, which exactly answers to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, namely, a change of the elements into something different from their original substance. Yet first of all transelementare is not certainly, nor probably, a right translation. { Suidas has μεταστοιχείουσα, μετασχηματίζουσα, μεταπλάτουσα. Suicer argues at length that transelementare will not properly express its sense. (See Suicer, II. pp. 363, 364.) Jer. Taylor (On the Real Presence, sect. XII. num. 5) adduces the words of Suarez, the learned Jesuit, in acknowledgment that μεταστοιχείωσις does not properly convey the meaning of transubstantiation.} Secondly, Gregory Nyssen is speaking not only of a change in the Eucharist, but in the Sacraments generally; and whatever sanctifying efficacy may have been attributed to the water in baptism, no change of its substance was ever believed to take place. Thirdly, Theophylact only says that the elements are changed into the virtue or efficacy, not into the substance of Christ’s Flesh and Blood – a very notable distinction. Fourthly, he uses the same word (μεταστοιχείωσις) of changes very unlike transubstantiation, e. g. the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united to Christ. {Theophyl. In Luc. xxiv. et in Joh. VI apud Jer. Taylor, ubi supra.} Lastly, we shall find abundant proof from Greek fathers, centuries before Theophylact, to show that a conversion of substance was not believed by the early Greek Church; and therefore, that Theophylact’s transelementation must have meant something else, or that he himself must have adopted comparatively modern views.
The same observations apply to the passages cited from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, where he speaks of Christ’s changing the water into wine, and then adds, “Let us therefore with full assurance receive Christ’s Body and Blood; for His Body is given to thee in the figure of bread, and His Blood in the figure of wine.” {εν τύπω γαρ άπτου δίδοταί σοι σωμα, και εν τύπω οίνου δίδοταί σοι το αιμα. – Cyril Heiros. Catec. Mystagog. IV. 1.} But here St. Cyril happily explains himself; for soon after he speaks of the Capharnaite Jews as offended at our Lord’s sayings in John 6:53. And this, he says, was from their carnal interpretation of His words: “They, not receiving His saying spiritually, being offended went backward, thinking that He invited them to the eating of flesh.” {εκεινοι μη ακηκοότες πνευματικως των λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες, απηλθον εις τα οπίσω, νομίζοντες ότι επι σαρκοφαγίαν αυτους προτρέπεται. – Ibid.} He then compares the Eucharist to the shewbread, and says that, “as the bread is fitted for the body, so the Word for the soul. Look not therefore as on bare bread and wine, for they are, according to the Lord’s saying, His Flesh and Blood.” {Μη πρόσεχε ουν ως ψιλοις τω άρτω και τω οίνω· σωμα γαρ και αιμα Χριστου κατα την δεσποτικην τυγχάνει απόφασιν. – Cat. Myst. IV. 2} The context plainly shows the conversion to be spiritual, not as the Jews had understood our Lord, as indicating a literal σαρκοφαγία or banquet upon flesh.
There is a famous passage which the Roman Catholic controversialists coupled with the last from St. Cyril and much insisted on as plainly in their favour. It comes from the tract De Coena Domini, in former times attributed to St. Cyprian, but which the Benedictine editors assign to Arnoldus, of Bona Vallis, a contemporary of St. Bernard. It speaks of the bread as “changed, not in form, but in nature.” {“Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura, mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro.” – De Coena Domini. The tract is usually printed in the Appendix of the works of Cyprian. In the Oxford edition it is in Appendix, p. 39, and the above passage, p. 40. In the edition of Venice, 1729, it is App. p. xcix. There is also a famous passage from St. Ambrose, De Myst. IX. § 52, where he speaks of Christ’s words as changing the properties of the elements: “valebit Christi Sermo ut species mutet elementorum”: and again, mutare naturas. The answer in the text to the passage from the Pseudo-Cyprian equally applies to this from St. Ambrose. See also Bp. Cosin, Hist. of Transubstant. ch. VI. 14.} The words of our own reformer shall explain that, even if the language were (as it is not) St. Cyprian’s, it would not prove him a supporter of transubstantiation. “The bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, as Cyprian truly saith; not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God’s word there is added thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far passing the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the bread doth show unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be partakers of the Spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with His Flesh and Blood: so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul.” {Cranmer, Remains, II. p. 340; Defence of the Catholic Doctrine, Bk. II. ch. XI.}
We must not omit one passage from St. Hilary which contains certainly some startling expressions. He is arguing against heretics who held that the Unity of the Father and the Son was unity of will, not unity of nature. He quotes against them John 17:21, 23: “That they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.” And he contends that the unity of the Father and the Son must be an unity of nature, not merely of will; inasmuch as the indwelling of Christ in His people is not by concord of will, but by verity of nature; for He took the nature of our flesh, on purpose that He might dwell in us according to that human nature; and by His human nature He dwelleth in us and we in Him. Hence our union with Him is by unity of nature, i.e. human nature. So in like manner, His union with the Father is by unity of nature, i.e. Divine nature. In the course of this argument he says, “If Christ therefore really took flesh of our body, and He is truly that Man who was born of Mary, and we truly under the mystery receive His Flesh by means of which we shall be one; for the Father is in Him and He in us; what room is there for mere unity of will, when the natural property effected by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of perfect unity? Christ Himself says concerning the truth of His nature in us, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth, in me, and I in him. Concerning the truth of His Body and Blood there is no room for doubt; for now by our Lord’s witness and our own faith, it is truly Flesh, and truly Blood. And these received and taken in by us make that we be in Christ and Christ in us.”*
{*“Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse; quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum in his esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus; (et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et Ille in nobis;) quomodo voluntatis unitas aperitur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas, perfectae sit sacramentum unitatis: De naturali in nobis Christi veritate ipse ait: Caro mea vere est esca, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Qui edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinern meum, in me manet, et ego in eo. De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus: nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra, vere caro, et vere sanguis est. Et haec accepta et hausta efficiunt ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis sit.” – Hilar. De Trinitate, Lib. VIII. § 13, p. 222. Edit. Benedict.}
The passage, strong as it is, does not stagger those who admit a true but spiritual presence of Christ’s Body in the receiving of the Eucharist, and a true but spiritual union of Christians to the human nature of their Lord. “For as concerning the word truly,” they say, “it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial presence; for Christ is truly in all His faithful people, and they truly eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but by a spiritual and effectual presence.” {Cranmer’s Answer to Gardiner, Works, p. 254.} “And although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in Him. And nevertheless in so saying, he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s Body and of ours; for as our bodies be not after that sort within His Body, so is not His Body after that sort within our bodies ... And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual ... so likewise our union with Christ in His holy Supper is spiritual ... and therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the Sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism and our union with Him in His holy Supper.” {Cranmer’s Defence of the Catholic Doctrine, &c. Works, II. pp. 406, 407. N.B. Just before the passage above quoted, Hilary had spoken of the union of Christians to Christ in baptism, as he speaks afterwards of their union in the Eucharist: “Docet Apostolus ex natura sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scribens, Quotguot enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis,” &c. – De Trin. Lib. VIII. p. 218. Ed. Ben.}
Now, although such passages admit of an explanation, whether we adopt the transubstantialist theory or the doctrine of a true but spiritual presence in the Eucharist; yet it must be conceded that if all the language of the fathers was similar to the above-quoted sentences, there would be just reason to suspect that from the first transubstantiation, or something near akin to it, was the doctrine of the Church. But it is easy to bring a chain of testimonies, from the very earliest ages through many centuries which cannot be interpreted to mean transubstantiation or a carnal presence, but which declare, though plainly for a real, yet as plainly for a spiritual feeding upon Christ.
The apostolical fathers for the most part speak in terms so general that it is often almost doubtful, whether they speak of the Eucharist or of that spiritual feeding upon Christ as the bread of life, which all allow to be possible even without the Eucharist. Thus Ignatius, “I delight not in the food of corruption, nor in the pleasures of this life; I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Christ, and His Blood I desire as drink, which is love incorruptible.” {Ignat. Ad Roman. VII. The passage is in the Syriac.} Again, “Let no one be deceived; if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.” {Ignat. Ad Ephes. V.} His high esteem for the grace of this Sacrament he shows in general expressions, e. g. “breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, our antidote that we die not, but live forever in Christ Jesus.” {Ad Ephes. XX.} One passage in this early father alludes to certain sects of the Gnostics or Docetae, who not believing that the Saviour had ever taken real human flesh, refused to receive the Eucharist, because they would not acknowledge it to be the Body of Christ. “They abstain from the Eucharist and public prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised from the dead.” {Ad Smyrn. VII. The passage is not in the longer epistles, but it is in the shorter (esteemed the genuine) epistles of Ignatius, and it is cited by Theodoret (Dial. 3) and is maintained to be genuine by Cotelerius, Tom. II. p. 37, note in loc. The Greek is ευχαριστίας και προσευχης απέχονται, δια το μη ομολογειν την ευχαριστίαν σάρκα ειναι του Σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου, την υπερ αναρτων ημων παθουσαν, ην χρηστότητι ο Πατηρ έγειρεν.} From which we may fairly conclude, that the fathers called the consecrated bread the Body of Christ, and that some early heretics did not admit the language, or perhaps even the Sacrament, because they disbelieved in the existence of Christ’s Body. But even Bellarmine allows that the question between Ignatius and the heretics was not the doctrine of the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Incarnation. {De Eucharistia, I. 1, cited by Bp. Cosin, Hist. of Transubstantiation, ch. VI. 11.} Whatever may have been the belief of the Church as to the mode of receiving Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, the heretics would have been equally likely to reject the Eucharist, as not acknowledging that Christ had a body at all. For the Eucharist, which symbolizes, and is the means of receiving His Body, presupposes its reality. Another passage from Ignatius is as follows: “Hasten therefore to partake of the one Eucharist; for there is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the unity of His Blood; one altar, as also one bishop,” {Σπουδάσατε ουν μια ευχαριστία χρησθαι· μία γαρ σαρξ του Κυρίου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, και εν ποτήριον εις ένωσιν του αίματος αυτον, εν θυσιαστήριον ως εις επίσκοπος, κ. τ. λ. – Ad Philadelph. IV.} &c. Here the exhortation is to avoid schism, partaking of the one Eucharist, where is exhibited to us the oneness of the Saviour we receive, and so the unity of the Church.
Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic feast to the heathen emperor. He speaks first of the bread and wine as blessed by the presiding presbyter; and then says, “This food is called by us Eucharist, which no one is allowed to take but he who believes our doctrines to be true, and has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for the remission of sins, and lives as Christ has enjoined. For we take not these as common bread and common drink. For like as our Saviour Jesus Christ, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we are taught that this food, which is blessed by the prayer of the Word that cometh from Him, by conversion of which our flesh and blood are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus.” {ου γαρ ως κοινον άρτον, ουδε κοινον πόμα ταυτα λαμβάνομεν, αλλ ον τρόπον δια λόγου Θεου σαρκοποιηθεις Ιησους Χριστος ο Σωτηρ ημων, και σάρκα· και αιμα υπερ σωτηρίας ημων έσχεν, ούτως και την δι ευχης λόγου του παρ αυτου ευχαρισθεισαν τροφην εξ ης αιμα και σάρκες κατα μεταβολην τρέφονται ημων, εκείνου του σαρκοποιηθέντος Ιησου και σάρκα και αιμα εδιδάχθημεν ειναι. – Justin. Apol. I. p. 98. “As it appears to me, Justin in this passage does not intend to compare the manner, in which Jesus Christ being made flesh by the Word of God hath flesh and blood for our sake, with that in which the bread and wine ... became the Flesh and Blood of Christ; but only to say that as Christians were taught that Christ had flesh and blood, so were they also taught that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ; ον τρόπον is merely equivalent to as.” – Bishop Kaye, Justin Martyr, pp. 87, 88, note.} There is manifestly in this passage what may be called High Eucharistic doctrine. Justin was plainly no Zuinglian. The Christians of his day took not the consecrated elements “for common bread and common wine.” But, if Justin was no Sacramentarian, neither was he a transubstantialist. Whereas he says it is not common bread, he evidently believes it to be yet bread; otherwise he would naturally have left out the epithet common, and have said, that they esteemed it no longer bread at all. Moreover, he speaks of the elements as changed into the nourishment of our flesh and blood. But he would never have said this had he believed them to have literally become the unchangeable and incorruptible Body of the Lord. It is evident, therefore, that he held no change in the elements, but a Sacramental change; although he undoubtedly declares that in the Eucharist the Christians were taught that there was a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. Dr. Waterland argues, that consubstantiation is as much excluded by this passage as transubstantiation, {Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. VII.} though Bishop Kaye appears to admit that it sounds not unlike the former. {Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 74.} Still he has justly added, that in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin states the bread to be in commemoration of Christ’s Body, and the cup of His Blood; {περι του άρτου ου παρέδωκεν ημιν ο ημέτερος Χριστος ποιειν εις ανάμνησιν του τε σωματοποιήσαθαι κ. τ. λ. – Dialog. p. 296.} and in another place applies to them the expression “dry and liquid food”; {της τροφης αυτων ξηρας και υγρας, εν η και του πάθους ο πέπονθε δι αυτου ο Θεος του Θεου μέμνηται. – Dial. p. 345.} and such language would scarcely have been used by a believer in the natural, though the language of the former passage might be readily adopted by a believer in the spiritual presence.
Our next witness is Irenaeus. “As the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have hope of eternal resurrection.” {Ως γαρ απο γης άρτος προσλαμβανόμενος την έκκλησιν του Θεου, ουκέτι κοινος άρτος εστιν, αλλ ευχαριστία, εκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυια· ούτως και τα σώματα ημων μεταλαμβάνοντα της ευχαριστίας μηκέτι ειναι φθαρτα, την ελπίδα της εις αιωνας αναστάσεως έχοντα. – Irenae. Lib. IV. 32 (Lib. IV. 18. Bened.)} Here we have evidently the substance of the bread remaining, still an earthly element. Yet it is no longer common bread, for by consecration there is a heavenly or spiritual grace united to it, which makes it not mere bread, but the Eucharist.
Irenaeus had to contend against the Gnostics who denied the reality of the Body of Christ. In more than one place he argues, from the real substantial character of the Eucharistic elements, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ, of which they were the representatives, must be substantial and real. This will make his language sometimes sound as though he believed in a natural presence of that Flesh and Blood; yet, if we remember his object and attentively observe his words, we shall think otherwise. “That cup,” he says, “which is a creature, He recognized to be His Blood which is shed, with which He imbues (δεύεί) our blood; and the bread which is a creature, He affirmed to be His own Body, by which our bodies grow. When, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God and become the Eucharist of Christ’s Blood and Body, and by them the substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, namely of life eternal, when it is fed by Christ’s Body and Blood, and is a member of Him?” {Adv. Haer. v. 2. Of this passage we may observe that if Irenaeus had meant that the elements were changed in substance into Christ’s Body and Blood, he would never have spoken of them as nourishing our bodies, which implies the idea of digestion acknowledged to be blasphemy.}
In a fragment edited by Pfaff, we have a clear explanation of Irenaeus’s view that by the Holy Spirit descending on the Eucharist, the Elements become so the Body and Blood of Christ, that though they yet remain figures or emblems, still the partakers of those emblems obtain pardon and eternal life. {και ενταυθα την πρόσφοραν τελέσαντες εκκαλουμεν το Πνευμα το άγιον, όπως αποφήνη την θυσίαν και του αρτον σωμα του Χριστου· ίνα οι μεταλάβοντες τούτων των αντιτύπων της αφέσεως των αμαρτιων και της ζωης αιωνίου τύχωσιν. – Irenaei Scripta Anecdota, fragmen. 2. p. 29.} In another fragment quoted from him by OEcumenius, we read, that during persecution some slaves had informed against their masters, having misinterpreted the language used concerning the Eucharist, and so supposing that their masters fed on human flesh. This, Irenaeus says, arose from their having heard the divine Communion called the Blood and Body of Christ; “and they, thinking it was in reality flesh and blood, gave information accordingly.” {οι δουλοι ουτοι, μη έχοντες πως το τοις αναγκάζουσι καθ ηδονην ερειν, παρ όσον ήκουον των δεσποτων, την θείαν μετάληψιν αιμα και σωμα ειναι Χριστου, αυτοι νομίσαντες τω όντι αιμα και σάρκα ειναι, τουτοεξειποντοιςεκζητουσι. – Fragmentum ab OEcumenio in Comment. ad 1 Petri Epist. cap. 3, p. 498, allegatum; Irenai Op. Grabe, p. 469.} The inference obviously is that Irenaeus did not think the bread and wine to have become really Flesh and Blood. So he, like Justin Martyr, is a witness against the Roman doctrine, and yet perhaps, as Waterland observes, still more against the mere figurists or memorialists. For it is certain, that he believed the Body and Blood of Christ to be verily and indeed taken in the Eucharist; but still he gives no indication of a belief in a change of the elements, acknowledging them to be emblems (αντίτυπα), and not thinking that those who partook of them were indeed feeding upon flesh and blood. {There is an excellent chapter in Beaven’s Irenaeus on the subject of Irenaeus’s statements concerning the Eucharist.}
Tertullian says, “The petition, Give us this day our daily bread, may be spiritually interpreted. For Christ is our bread. I, said He, am the bread of Life: and just before, The Bread is the Word of the Living God, who came down from Heaven: and also because His Body is understood in Bread, This is My Body. (Tum quod et Corpus Ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est Corpus Meum.) Therefore, by asking our daily bread, we seek perpetuity in Christ and to be undivided from His Body.” {De Oratione, c. 6.} Again he writes, “Our body is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that our soul may be fattened of God.” {“Caro Corpore et Sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur.” – De Resur. Carn. c. 8.} He speaks of Christ, as calling bread His Body. {“Christus ... panem corpus suum appellans.” – Adv. Judae. C. 10.} “Bread,” again we read, “by which He represents His very Body.” {“Panem, quo ipsum Corpus suum repraesentat.” – Adv. Marcion. Lib. 1. C. 14. “Reprasento – to exhibit as present; υποτυπόω, praesentem esse facio, ob oculos pono, refero. Repraesentare dicuntur pictores. Item oratores graphice quippiam describentes.” – Facciolati.} So also, “Having taken bread and distributed it to His disciples, He made it His body by saying, This is my Body, i.e. the figure of My Body. But there would be no figure if there were no true Body. A mere phantom, without substance, would admit no figure.” {“Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est Corpus Meum, dicendo, id est, figura Corporis Mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset Corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasms, figuram capere non posset.” — Adv. Marcion. Lib. IV. C. 40.} In the last passage, he is arguing, like Ignatius and Irenaeus, against those who denied a Body to our Lord. Now surely this testimony is plain. The bread is not really Christ’s Body but a figure of His Body with which however He is pleased to recall (repraesentare) His Body to His followers. In this bread His Body is understood (censetur) or accounted; and so our bodies are fed with His Body, that our souls may be nourished of God. Though the bread then is a figure; yet the feeding on Christ is not merely figurative, but real, and spiritual. He is the Bread of life; and by feeding on Him we receive perpetual and indivisible union to His Body.
Clement of Alexandria, of the same date with Tertullian, says, “The Blood of the Lord is twofold: the one natural or carnal, whereby we are redeemed from corruption; the other spiritual, whereby we are anointed; and this is to drink the Blood of Jesus, to be partakers of the Lord’s incorruptibility. Also the Spirit is the power of the Word, as the Blood is of the flesh.” {Διττον δε το αιμα του Κυρίου· το μεν γαρ εστιν αυτου σαρκικον, ω της φθορας λελυτρώμεθα· το δε πνευματικον, τουτέστιν ω κεχρίσμεθα· και τουτ έστι πιειν το αιμα του Ιησου, της Κυριακης μεταλαμβάνειν αφθαρσίας· ισχυς δε του Λόγου το πνευμα, ως αιμα σαρκός. – Paedag. Lib. II.C.2, p. 177.} He then goes on to speak of the wine mingled with water; and says that the mixture of the drink and of the Logos is called the Eucharist – “Blessed and glorious grace, by which those who partake in faith are sanctified both body and soul.” “Christ,” he says a little farther on, “partook of wine; for He was a man. He blessed it too, saying, Take, drink, this is My Blood, the blood of the vine. He thus calls allegorically the Word, who was poured forth for many for the remission of sins, the sacred stream of gladness ... He showed that what He blessed was wine, by saying to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it with you in My Father’s Kingdom.” {Ευ γαρ ίστε, μετέλαβεν οίνου και αυτος· και γαρ άνθρωπος και αυτός. Και ευλόγησέν γε τον οινον, ειπων, λάβετε, πίετε· τουτό μου εστι το αιμα, αιμα της αμπέλου· του Λόγον, τον περι πολλων εκχυνόμενον εις άφεσιν αμαρτιων, ευφροσύνης άγιον αλληγορει ναμα ... ότι δε οινος ην το ευλογηθεν, απέδειζε πάλιν, προς τους τους μαθητας λέγων. Ου μη πίω εκ του γεννήματος της αμπέλου ταυτης, μέχρις αν πίω αυτο μεθ υμων εν τη βασιλεία του Πατρος ημων. – Paedag. Lib. II. C. 2, p. 186.} Clement was a very mystical writer; but we can discern this much at least from the foregoing passages that whilst he attached great spiritual blessings to the Eucharist; he yet believed the substance of the wine to remain in it, and the Blood received therein to be spiritual, not natural Blood.
In Origen, as in his predecessors, we perceive at the same time deep reverence for the Body of Christ received in the Eucharist, and yet a belief that the reception of that Body was spiritual and heavenly, not carnal and natural. “When ye receive the Body of the Lord, with all caution and reverence ye preserve it; lest any, the least thereof, be lost, or any portion of the consecrated gift pass away.” {“Cum suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum onmi cautela et veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur.” – In Exod. Hom. XIII.} “Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes ; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Testament is there a letter which killeth; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth.” {“Agnoseite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales et non tanquam carnales examinate et intelligite quae dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, laedunt vos et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis litera quae occidit. Non solum in veteri Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur; est et in novo Testamento litera quae occidat eum qui non spiritaliter quae dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinein meum, occidit litera.” – In Levit. Hom. VII. n. 5.}
St. Cyprian, in his 63d Epistle, is very full on the subject of the cup in the sacrament. He is writing there against the Aquarii, who rejected wine as evil, and so used water at the communion. He argues that the tradition of the Lord should be preserved; and that nothing should be done but what Christ did before: that therefore “the Cup, which is offered in commemoration of Him, be offered mixed with wine. For whereas Christ says, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ is surely wine, not water. Nor can it appear that in the cup is His Blood, with which we are redeemed, if wine be absent, by which Christ’s Blood is represented.” {“Ut calix, qui in commemoratione Ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur. Nam cum dicat Christus; Ego sum vitis vera; sanguis Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis Ejus, quo redemti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.” – Cyprian. Epist. LXIII; Coecilio Fratri, p. 148. Oxf.} There is much there to the same purpose. But these words alone prove that Cyprian, whilst calling the consecrated wine the Blood of Christ, and believing (as is abundantly evident through his writings everywhere) that there was in the Sacrament a real partaking of Christ, yet considered that there was still remaining the substance of the wine; for, says he, “The Blood of Christ is wine,” i.e. that cup which We drink, acknowledging it to be the Blood of Christ, is wine. Moreover, he considered the wine to be a representation or means of showing Christ’s Blood, and the cup to be offered in commemoration of Him.
St. Athanasius, quoting John 6:16–63, observes, “Christ distinguished between the flesh and the spirit, that believing not only what was apparent, but also what was invisible, they might know that what He spake was not carnal but spiritual. For to how many could His Body have sufficed for food that this might be for nourishment to all the world? But therefore He made mention of His ascension into heaven, that He might draw them from understanding it corporally; and that they might understand that the Flesh He spoke of was heavenly food from above, and spiritual nourishment given them by Him. For, says He, the things that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life. Which is as though He had said, My Body, which is shown and given for the world, shall be given in food, that it may be spiritually distributed to every one, and become to each a preservative unto the resurrection of eternal life.” {το πνευμα προς τα κατα σάρκα διέστειλεν, ίνα μη μόνον το φαινόμενον, αλλα και έ[?] λέγει ουκ έστι σαρκικα αλλα πνευματικά· πόσοις γαρ ήρκει το σωμα προς βρωσιν, ίνα και του κόσμου παντος τουτο τροφη γένηται; αλλα δια τουτο της εις ουρανους διαβάσεως εμνημόνευσε του υίου του ανθρώπον, ίνα της σωματικης εννοίας αυτους αφελκύση και λσιπον την ειρημένην σάρκα βρωσιν άνωθεν ουράνιον, και πνευματικην τροφην παρ αυτου διδομένην μάθωσιν. α γαρ λελάληκα, φησιν, υμιν πνευμα εστι και ζωή. ισον τω ειπειν, το μεν δεικνύμενον και διδόμενον υπερ του κόσμου δοθήσεται τροφη, ως πνευματικως εν εκάστω ταύτην αναδίδοσθαι, και γίνεσθαι πασι φυλακτήριον εις ανάστασιν ζωης αιωνίου. – Athanas. In illud Evangelii, “Quicumque dixerit,” Op. Tom. I. p. 979.}
We have already heard St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the contemporary of Athanasius, declare his belief, that the Body and Blood of Christ are given us under the figure of bread and wine, and that the Capharnaites were misled by interpreting our Lord carnally, as though He meant a banquet upon flesh, not, as He ought to be interpreted, spiritually. {Cyril. Cateches. Mystag. IV. 1, cited above.} So, in a former lecture, speaking of the unction, which was given with baptism, figuring the anointing of the Holy Ghost, he writes, “Beware of supposing this bare unction. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer mere bread (ουκ έτι άρτος λιτος), but the Body of Christ; so also this holy ointment is no longer simple ointment, nor common, after the invocation, but the gift of Christ .... While thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy, life-giving Spirit.” {Cat. Myst. III. 3.} Here is a denial that the bread is mere bread, not that it still continues really bread; and a statement that it is the Body of Christ, but so the Body of Christ, as the unction was believed to be the Holy Ghost; i.e. not in a natural change of the substance, but in spirit, and power, and life.
St. Jerome clearly distinguishes between the natural Body and Blood of Christ, which were crucified and shed, and the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunken by the faithful.* And so we must explain that language of his which, as we saw above, appeared to savour of the later doctrine of the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom too, who used such glowing terms of the real presence of Christ, elsewhere explains himself that we should look on all Sacraments not outwardly and carnally, but spiritually and with the eyes of our souls. {τί δέ εστι το σαρκικως νοησαι; το απλως εις τα προκείμενα οραν, και μη πλέον τι φαντάζεσθαι. τουτο γάρ εστι σαρκικως. χρη δε μη ούτω κρίνειν τοις ορωμένοις, αλλα πάντα τα μυστήρια τοις ένδον οφθαλμοις κατοπτεύ[?]ειν. τουτο γάρ εστι πνευματικως. – Chrysost. In Joann. c. vi.; Homil. XLVII. Tom. VIII. p. 278.} And in the Epistle to Caesarius, which is mostly esteemed to be his, and if not his, was certainly by a contemporary of his, we read that “before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread; but, when it is consecrated, it is no longer called bread, but is held worthy to be called the Body of the Lord, yet still the substance of the bread remains.”**
{*“Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa et divina, de quo Ipse dixit: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus: et, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: vel caro et sanguis quae crucifixa est et qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta hanc divisionem et in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis et carnis accipitur, ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro et sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere.” – Hieronym. In Ephes. cap. i. v. 7. Tom. IV. pt. I. p. 328.}
{**“Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum Corpus Filii praedicamus,” &c. – Chrysost. Ad Caesarium Monach. Tom. III. p. 743. On the history and genuineness of this Epistle see Cave, Histor. Literar. Tom. I. p. 315; Routh’s Scriptor. Eccles. Opuscula, p. 479; Jenkyns’s Cranmer, II. p. 325, note.}
We must now proceed to St. Augustine whom all agree to honour. He has so much to the purpose that how to choose is difficult. “Prepare not thy teeth, but thy heart.” {“Noli parare fauces, sed cor.” – De Verbis Domini, Serm. 33, Tom. V. p. 566.} “Why make ready thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” {“Quid paras dentes et ventrem Crede et manducasti.” – In Joann. Tract. 25, Tom. III. pars. II. p. 489.} “Our Lord hesitated not to say, This is my Body, when He gave the sign of His Body.” {“Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus Meum, cum signum daret Corporis sui.” – Contra Adimantum, Tom. VIII. p. 124.} “Spiritually understand what I have spoken to you. You are not to eat that Body, which you see, and drink that Blood, which they will shed, who will crucify me. I have commended to you a Sacrament. Spiritually understood, it will quicken you. Though it must be visibly celebrated, yet it must invisibly be understood.” {“Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc Corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri stint qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis cornmendavi. Spiritaliter intellectum, vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi.” – In Psalm. xcviii. Tom. IV. p. 1066.} “What you see is bread and the cup. But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ’s Body, the cup His Blood. How is the bread His Body? and the wine His Blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What appears has a bodily form: what is understood has a spiritual fruit.” {“Quod videtis, panis est et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant: quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est Corpus Christi, calix sanguis Christi ... Quomodo est panis corpus Ejus? et calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis Ejus? Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia an eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritalem.” – Serm. 272 ad Infantes, Tom. V. pars I. p. 1103.} “The Body and Blood of Christ will then be life to each, if what is visibly received in the Sacrament be in actual verity spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk.” {“Vita unicuique erit Corpus et Sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur.” – Serm. 2, De Verbis Apostoli, Tom. V. pars I. p. 64.}
Theodoret may be our last witness, a witness against transubstantiation, but not against the truth of Christ’s presence, nor the real participation in His Body and Blood. “Our Saviour,” he tells us, “changed the names of things; giving to His Body the name of bread, and to the bread the name of His Body. His object was that those who partake of the mysteries should not have regard to the nature of the visible elements but, by the change of names, might believe that change which is wrought by grace. For He, who called His own Body food and bread, and again called Himself a vine, He honoured the visible symbols with the name of His Body and Blood, not changing the nature, but adding to the nature grace.”* And afterwards he says, “The mystic symbols depart not after consecration from their own nature, for they remain in the former substance; yet we understand what they have become, and believe and adore, as though they were what they are believed to be.”**
{*Ο δέ γε Σωτηρ ο ημέτερος ενήλλαξε τα ονόματα· και τω μεν σώματι το του συμβόλου τέθεικεν όνομα, τω δε συμβόλω το του σώματος. ούτως άμπελον εαυτον ονόμασας, αιμα το σύμβολον προσηγόρευσεν.
Δηλος ο σκοπος τοις τα θεια μεμυημένοις. εβουλήθη γαρ τους των θείων μυστηρίων μεταλαγχάνοντας, μη τη φύσει των βλεπομένων προσέχειν, αλλα δια της των ονομάτων εναλλαγης πιστεύειν τη εκ της χάριτος γεγεννημένη μεταβολη. ο γαρ δε το σωμα σιτον και άρτον προσαγορεύσας, και αυ πάλιν εαυτον άμπελον ονομάσας, ουτος τα ορώμενα σύμβολα τη του σώματος και αίματος προσηγορία τετίμηκεν, ου την φύσιν μεταβαλων, αλλα την χάριν τη φύσει προστεθηκώς. – Dial. 1. ed. Sirmond. Tom. IV. p. 17.}
{**Ουδε γαρ μετα τον αγιασμον τα μυστικα σύμβολα της οικείας εξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γαρ επι της προτέρας ουσίας και του σχήματος και του είδους, και ορατά εστι και απτα, οια και πρότερον ην, νοειται δε άπερ εγένετο και πιστεύεται, και προσκυνειται ως εκεινα όντα άπερ πιστεύεται. – Dial. 2, ed. Sirmond. Tom. IV. p. 85.}
Space and time will not allow us a longer list of authorities. Those already adduced have been fairly chosen and should be fairly weighed. The Christian student must not argue for victory but search for truth. That search is seldom unattended by difficulties. Yet may it not in this case be safely concluded that, weighing all considerations and notwithstanding some remarkable phrases, the doctrine of the early ages was not in favour of a miraculous change in the consecrated elements, not in favour of a carnal presence of the natural Body of the Lord, but in favour of a real, effectual, life-giving presence of Christ’s spiritual Body communicated to the faith, and feeding the souls, of His disciples?
There is, perhaps, another possible alternative. The early Church held firmly Christ’s presence in His Sacraments. The tendency was for the most part not to explain but to veil such subjects in a reverential mystery. It may therefore have been that, whereas a spiritual presence was originally and generally recognized, yet some may have suffered their reverence to degenerate into superstition, and have spoken, and perhaps thought, as though there were a carnal presence. There was probably a vagueness of apprehension on the subject among some. Their very religion tended to foster this. But one thing is certain, namely, that the doctrine of a carnal presence was never the ruled doctrine of the primitive ages, was not received, or rather was emphatically denied, by many of the greatest of the fathers, and that it does not come down to us with the sanction and authority of that which was always, everywhere, and by all men, anciently acknowledged (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est). And another thing is most certain, namely, that if any of the fathers did contemplate any beside a spiritual presence, it was not in the way of transubstantiation, but rather of consubstantiation. For, let us take the example of St. Hilary, who, if any one, used language most like the language of later ages. Still the very object of his reasoning was to prove that in Christ’s Person there are two natures: one not extinguished because the other is added. He illustrates this by the bread of the Eucharist which still retains the nature of the bread unchanged, although the nature of Christ’s Body is added to it. Now, interpret this how we may, it is a plain witness against transubstantiation. It may mean consubstantiation; it may mean a spiritual presence; but transubstantiation it cannot mean: for it was an error of Eutyches, not of the orthodox St. Hilary, that the human nature of the Saviour was absorbed and transubstantiated into the Divine. {See above under Article II.}
We must now pass on to the controversies of the Middle Ages. About A. D. 831, Paschasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie, maintained the corporal presence. {Cave places him A. D. 841.} Whether even he taught the full-grown doctrine of transubstantiation, or only consubstantiation, our divines have questioned. Certainly he speaks some things very unlike the former, and even more resembling the doctrine of spiritual feeding. {“Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, et sacramentum hoc vere caro ipsius et sanguis, quam spiritualiter manducat et bibit homo.” – De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, C. 5.} Yet he says that “after the consecration nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ are to be believed”; an expression nearly approaching, if not fully expressing, the Roman doctrine. {“Quia voluit (Dominus), licet in figura panis et vini, haec sic esse, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt.” – Ibid. cap. 1. Bishop Cosin gives several specimens of his language (Hist. of Transubstantiation, ch. XXV. s. 29), and argues, that there is nothing in his whole book “that favours the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction or removal.” However, he quotes Bellarmine and Sirmondus as esteeming him so highly, that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had written to the purpose concerning the Eucharist; but there are some spurious additions to his book, which speak a stronger language than the hook itself. See also Cave, H. L. Tom. I. p. 535.}
Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, a divine of the highest credit in the Church, wrote against the statements of Paschasius. The work is lost indeed; but the evidence of its former existence is strong and clear. {See Cave, H. L. p. 542.}
Johannes Scotus Erigena, who at this period lived at the court of Charles the Bald, and sometimes with our own king Alfred, and who at his death was esteemed a martyr and placed in the Roman Calendar, wrote a book by the command of the Emperor Charles, against the substantial change in the Sacraments; a book which, two hundred years afterwards, was condemned at the council of Verceil upon the ground that it made the bread and wine to be mere empty signs. {Ibid. Tom. I. p. 549.}
Bertram too, or Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, wrote, also at the desire of Charles the Bald, concerning this doctrine which now began to agitate the Church. The book is still extant and is well worthy to be read. Its genuineness has been attacked by the Roman Catholic writers but with little success. Others have charged him with heresy; whilst others again have allowed him to be Catholic, but yet, like other Catholics, not free from some errors. {Index Expurgator. Belgic. jussu et auctoritate Philip. II., cited by Aubertin. De Eucharist. p. 930; Cosin’s Hist. of Transubst. ch. V. § 35; Bishop Taylor, On the Real Presence, § XII. 32.} The book was finally prohibited by the Council of Trent. Bertram’s statements are clear for the spiritual and against the carnal presence in the Eucharist. “The change,” he says, “is not wrought corporally, but spiritually and figuratively. Under the veil of the material bread and wine the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ exist. ... Both (the bread and wine), as they are corporally handled, are in their nature corporal creatures; but, according to their virtue, and what they become spiritually, they are the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood.”* “By all that hath been hitherto said, it appears, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the mouths of the faithful in the Church, are figures in respect of their visible nature; but in respect of the invisible substance, that is the power of the Word of God, they are truly Christ’s Body and Blood. Wherefore, as they are visible creatures, they feed the body; but as they have the virtue of a more powerful substance, they do both feed and sanctify the souls of the faithful.”**
{*“At quia confitentur et Corpus et Sanguinem Christi esse, nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est ut jam figurata facta esse dicatur: quoniam sub velamento corporei panis, corporeique vini, spirituale corpus Christi, spiritualisque sanguis existit ... Secundum namque quod utrumque corporaliter contingitur, species sunt creaturae corporae; secucdum potentiam vero, quod spiritualiter factae sunt, mysteria sunt Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.” – Ratramnus, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. London, 1686, p. 24.}
{**“Ex his omnibus, quae sunt hactenus dicta, monstratum est quod corpus et sanguis Christi, quae fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur figurae sunt secundurn speciem visibilem: At vero secundam invisibilem substantiam, i.e. divini potentiam Verbi, Corpus et Sanguis vere Christi existunt. Unde secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, juxta vero potentioris virtutem substantiae, mentes fidelium et pascunt et sanctificant.” – Ibid. p. 64.}
The Middle Ages, if favourable to a reverent, were not less favourable to a superstitious spirit. Hence the principles of Paschasius were more likely to gain ground than those of Bertram; yet there are not wanting testimonies for some time later in favour of the spiritual and against the carnal presence. Especially it has been observed that the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon Church was more than others in accordance with the primitive truth. The famous AElfric was born probably about A. D. 956, and died about 1051. He was abbot, some say of St. Albans, others of Malmesbury or Peterborough; and afterwards Archbishop of York. {See Cave, H. L. Tom I. p. 588; Soames’s Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. IV. pp. 218–229. There appear to have been two AElfrics, one Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other of York. The latter, a friend and disciple of the former, is generally supposed to have been the author of the Homilies. See Hardwick, Ch. Hist. of the Middle Ages, p. 187.} Some valuable fragments of his writings remain in Latin and Anglo-Saxon, full of clear statements on the doctrine in question. “This is not,” he says, “that Body in which He suffered for us, but spiritually it is made His Body and Blood.” {“Non sit tamen hoc sacrificium Corpus Ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, ueque Sanguis Ejus, quem pro nobis effudit: sed spiritualiter Corpus Ejus efficitur et sanguis.” – AElfrici Epistola ad Wulfstanum; Routh. Opuscula, p. 520.} “That housel” (i.e. the Eucharist) “is Christ’s Body, not bodily but ghostly: not the Body which He suffered in, but the Body of which He spake, when He blessed bread and wine to housel, a night before His suffering,” {From AElfric’s Epistle to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherburn, Routh. p. 528. The passage quoted is from the Old English translation of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Anglo-Saxon is given by Dr. Routh (loc. cit.) with the English and Latin versions.} &c.
Not much later than AElfric was Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers, who appears to have been a man of great piety. He strenuously maintained the doctrine, which had been taught by Bertram, Scotus, and AElfric, teaching that the bread and wine remained in their natural substance, yet not denying the invisible grace of the Sacrament. It is probable that many of the Gallican Church sided with him. He was condemned, however, and with him the writings of Johannes Erigena, by a Council at Verceil under Leo IX, A. D. 1050, on the ground. that they taught the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be only bare signs. Under Victor the Second, another Council was held at Tours, A. D. 1055, at which Hildebrand presided as legate, where Berengarius freely declared that he did not believe the bread and wine to be mere empty shadows. Under Nicholas II a new council was called at Rome (A. D. 1059); where Berengarius was forced to recant and to declare that the “bread and wine after consecration became the very Body and Blood of Christ, and that they are touched and broken by the hands of the priests, and ground by the teeth of the faithful, not sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly.” After a time, however, he again maintained the doctrine of the spiritual presence; and Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, entered the lists of controversy against him, in whose work are fragments preserved to us of the writings of Berengarius. At length Hildebrand came to the papal chair, as Gregory VII. He summoned another council at Rome, A. D. 1078; and another A. D. 1079. At the former Berengarius acknowledged that the real Body and Blood of Christ were present at the Eucharist without saying anything of transubstantiation; and it is supposed that the Pope was satisfied with this and unwilling to proceed further. But at the latter, the enemies of Berengarius prevailed, and he was forced to declare that the bread and wine are substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, which Body after consecration is present, not only sacramentally, but in verity of substance.*
{*“Corde credo et ore profiteor panem et vinum quae ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrm orationis et verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram ac propriam et vivificatricem carnem et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et post consecrationem esse verum Christi Corpus, quod natum est de Virgine, et quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruce pependit – non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed et in proprietate naturae et veritate substantiae.” – Concil. Tom. X. p. 378. See Cosin’s Hist. of Transubst.; also Mosheim, E. H. cent. XI. part II. ch. III.}
It is very doubtful when the term transubstantiation was first used. It is said to have been invented by Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100, in his book De Sacramento Altaris. {In B. Patrum, Tom. x. p. 412. See Jer. Taylor On the Real Presence, sect. /HI. 32.}
Under Innocent III, A. D. 1216, sat the famous Council of Lateran, by which that term and the full form of the doctrine were sanctioned and made authoritative. Seventy chapters were drawn up by Innocent himself. When proposed to the Council, they were received without debate, and silence was supposed to imply consent. The first chapter is directed against the Manichaean heresy, and among other things, declares that in the sacrifice of the Mass, “Christ’s Body and Blood are really contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His Body, and the wine into His Blood.” {Concil. Tom. XX. p. 117.} It has been acknowledged by the Schoolmen and Romanists that before this Council the doctrine of transubstantiation was not an article of the faith. {See Bramhall’s Answer to M. de la Milletière, pt. I. disc. I; Works, Anglo-Cath. Lib. I. p. 14; Jer. Taylor, On the Real Presence, § I. 2.} From this time, however, it became established as part of the Creed of the Roman Church. The Council of Constance, A. D. 1415, in the eighth session, condemned Wicliffe for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the corporal presence. The Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, at which Greek bishops and deputies were present, left the doctrine untouched. But the instruction to the Armenians, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius and was not submitted to the Council, but which Roman Catholic authors often cite as a synodical decree, says that “by virtue of the words of Christ, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of His Body and Blood.” {See Cosin, On Transubstantiation, Bk. VII. § 30.} At length the Council of Trent, A. D. 1551, decreed that by “consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.” {Sess. XIII. cap. iv.} An anathema is pronounced against all who deny such change of the substance (the forms yet remaining), a change which the Church Catholic aptly calls transubstantiation. {Sess. XIll. De Eucharist. can. IV.} Finally in the Creed of Pope Pius IV (A. D. 1563) there is a profession of faith that the Body and Blood of Christ, together “with His Soul and Divinity, are truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist, and that 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 Church Catholic calls transubstantiation.” {“Profiteor pariter in missa offerri Deo, verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiationem appellat.”}
The doctrine then of transubstantiation, and (as it is improperly called) the real presence, is the established doctrine of the Roman Church. There is still, however, a room for difference of statement and difference of thought upon the subject. It appears to be ruled that the substance only, not the accidents, undergo a change. Now it is almost questionable whether the accidents do not comprise all the properties of matter. If so, the change may still be spiritual rather than material. And here we get a phenomenon by no means without parallel in other Roman Catholic articles of faith. For, as in saint worship some only ask departed friends to pray for them, whilst others bow down to the stock of a tree; so in the Eucharist, the learned and enlightened appear to acknowledge a far more spiritual change than is taught to the equally devout but more credulous multitude. For the latter all kinds of miracles have been devised, and visions, wherein the Host has seemed to disappear, and the infant Saviour has been seen in its room; or where Blood has flowed in streams from the consecrated wafer, impiously preserved by unbelieving communicants. But on the other hand, by the more learned and liberal, statements have been made perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a carnal presence; and such as no enlightened Protestant would cavil at or refuse.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the immediate forerunner of the schoolmen (A. D. 1115), acknowledged no feeding but a spiritual feeding. {“Eadem Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter utique, non carnaliter exhibeatur.” – Sermo. De S. Martino. See Jer. Taylor, Real Presence, § I. 8; Cosin, On Transubstantiation, ch. VII. § 13, who gives several quotations from St. Bernard to this effect.} Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the Sentences (A. D. 1141), though speaking of the conversion of the bread and wine, declines to determine whether that conversion be formal or substantial, or of some other kind. {“Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio, an formaliter an substantialiter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non sufficio.” – Sent. IV. Dist. 10. See Cosin, as above, § 15.} Aquinas (A. D. 1255) spoke of Christ’s Body as present, not bodily but substantially; {See Jer. Taylor, as above, § XI. 20.} a distinction not easy to explain. Durandus (A. D. 1320) said that though we believe the presence, we know not the manner of the presence. {“Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus.” – Neand. Synops. Chron. p. 203, quoted by Jer. Taylor, as above, § I. 2.} Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of Durham, said that “Before the Lateran Council it was free to every one to hold as they would concerning the manner; and that it would have been better to leave curious persons to their own conjectures.” {Tonstal, De Eucharist. Lib. I. p. 46; Jer. Taylor, as above.} Cardinal Cajetan writes, that “The real Body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, yet not corporally but spiritually. Spiritual manducation, which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ, which is in the Sacrament.” {“Manducatur verum Corpus Christi in sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter. Spiritualis manducatio, quae per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sacramento existentem pertingit.” – Opusc. Tom. II. Tract. 2, De Euch. C. V; Jer. Taylor, as above, § VII. 8.} And Gardiner, in his controversy with Cranmer says, “The Catholic teaching is that the manner of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, nor perceptible, but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God knoweth.” {Cranmer’s Works, III. p. 241, Answer to Gardiner.}
Let us now pass to the doctrines of the Reformation, merely observing by the way, that the dogma of transubstantiation, though formally decreed by the Roman Church, has never been adopted by the Greek. Luther, if not the inventor, has been esteemed the great patron of the doctrine of consubstantiation. Whilst rejecting the idea of a change in the substance of the elements, he believed in a presence with the elements, of the material substance of Christ’s Body and Blood. He appears to have had recourse to the same illustration which had been used to explain the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ; namely, that, as in red-hot iron there is the nature both of iron and fire, so in the Eucharist there is both the bread and the Body of the Lord. Strong as are his expressions in the arguments which he used with the Sacramentarians, still from his less controversial statements, we may almost be led to think that Luther did not much go beyond a faith in the spiritual presence. Controversy often produces extreme statements: and it may have been so with him. {See, for instance, De Sacramento Altaris, Opp. Tom. I. p. 82.} He does indeed say in a comparatively uncontroversial tract that there are “the real Body and Blood of Christ in and under the bread and wine.” {“Esse verum corpus et sanguinem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, in et sub pane et vino per verbum Christi.” – Catechimus Major, Tom. V. p. 641.} But then he speaks of faith as the means whereby we obtain the benefits of the Sacrament, as that to which they are exhibited. {Ibid.}
As to the public documents of the Lutherans, the Confession of Augsburg simply declares that the Body and Blood of Christ are really given with the bread and wine. {“De Coena Domini docent quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi, vescentibus in Coena Domini.” – Confess. August. Art. X; Sylloge, p. 172.} But the Saxon Confession says that “In this communion Christ is truly and substantially present, and His Body and Blood are truly exhibited to those who receive.” {“Vere adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguine Christi” – Sylloge, p. 282.}
The great leader among the reformers, of those who took an opposite view to Luther, was Zuingle. He was not satisfied to reject a material presence; but he even denied a presence of any sort. With him the bread and wine were empty signs. Feeding on Christ was a figure for believing in Him. The Communion was but a ceremony to remind us of Him. Spiritual manducation was resting upon the mercy of God.* He probably may have modified these statements afterwards; yet they thoroughly belonged to his system.
{*“Sacramentaliter edere esse aliud non potest quam signum aut symbolum edere.” – De Vera et Falsa Religione, Opera Zuinglii, pars 2, Tom. I. fol. 215. He denies that there can be any spiritual Body of Christ, except His Church, fol. 216. Again: “Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. Cum ergo Sacramentum Corporis Christi Domino, non quicquam aliud, quam panem, qui Corporis Christi pro nobis mortui figura et typus est, intelligo.” – De Coena Domini, Ibid. fol. 274. “Spiritualiter edere Corpus Christi nihil est aliud, quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate Dei, propter Christum.” – Fidei Christianae Expositio, Ibid fol. 555.}
Calvin took a middle course between Luther and Zuingle. With the former he acknowledged a real presence of Christ in His Supper; with the latter he denied a corporal or material presence. Having stated the view of the Sacramentarians that to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ is merely to believe on Him, he says, “But to me Christ appears to have intended something more express and sublime in that famous discourse of His, where He commends to us the eating of His flesh; namely, that by a real participation of Him we be quickened; which He therefore designated under the words eating and drinking, lest any should think that the life we derive from Him is received by simple cognition. For as not the sight, but the eating of the bread gives nourishment to the body, so it is needful that, for the soul to be wholly partaker of Christ, it should be quickened by His virtue to life eternal.” {Institut. IV. xvii. 5.}
The elements, according to him, receive the name of Christ’s Body and Blood, “because they are, as it were, instruments whereby Christ distributes them to us.” {“Corporis vero et sanguinis nomen eis attributum, quod sint velut instrumenta, quibus Dominus Jesus Christus nobis ea distribuit.” – Calvinus, De Coena Domini, Opuseula. Genevae, 1552, p. 133.} And, “if we believe the truth of God, we must believe that there is an inward substance of the Sacrament in the Lord’s Supper joined to the outward signs; and so, that as the bread is given by the hands, the Body of Christ is also communicated, that we be partakers of Him.”* “That Body, which you see not, is to you a spiritual aliment. Does it seem incredible that we are fed by the Flesh of Christ which is so far from us? We must remember that the work of the Spirit is secret and wonder-working, which it would be profane to measure by our intelligence.” {“Corpus, quod nequaquam cernis, spirituale est tibi alimentum. Incredibile hoc tibi videtur, pasci nos Christi carne, quae tam procul a nobis distat? Meminerimus, arcanum et mirificum esse Spiritus Sancti opus, quod intelligentiae tuae modulo metiri sit nefas.” – Calvin. In 1 Cor. 11:24, cited by Waterland, On the Eucharist, C. VII.} Thus then to receive Christ in the Eucharist is not merely to believe in Him; yet it is by faith we are enabled to receive Him. By believing we eat Christ’s Flesh, because by faith our feeding on Him is effected; and that feeding is the fruit of faith. “With them,” (i.e. the Zuinglians,) he writes, “the feeding is faith: with me the power of feeding comes as a consequence of faith.” {“Illis manducatio est fides, mihi ex fide potius consequi videtur.” – Institut. IV, xvii. 5.}
{*“Ita in communione, quam in Christi corpore et sanguine habemus, dicendum est, mysterium spirituale esse, quad nec oculis conspici, nec ingenio humano comprehendi potest. Figuris igitur et signis, quae sub oculorum sensum cadunt, ut naturae nostrae imbecillitas requirit ostenditur; ita tamen ut non sit figura nuda et simplex, sed veritati sum et substantire conjuncta ....
“Necesse est igitur nos in Coena vere corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere, cum utriusque communionem Dominus repraesentet. Quid enim sibi vellet, nos panem comedere ac vinum bibere, ut significent carnem ipsius cibum esse nostrum, et sanguinem potum, si veritate spirituali praeterrnissa, vinum et panem solummodo praeberet ....
“Itaque fatendum est si vera sit repraesentatio quam adhibet Deus, in coena substantiam interiorem sacramenti visibilibus signis conjunctam esse, et quemadmodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita Corpus Christi, ut Ejus participes simus, nobis communicari. Hoc certe etiam, si nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere deberet, cum intelligimus Christum nobis in Coena veram propriamque corporis et sanguinis sui substantiam nobis donare – ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et possidendo in omnem bonorum suorum societatem vocemur.” – Ibid. pp. 133, 134.}
Melancthon, the disciple, friend, and successor of Luther, is supposed to have hesitated between a material and a spiritual presence. In the Confession of Augsburg, which is due to him, we have already seen strong words which sound like consubstantiation. He is said to have used in earlier days the word corporaliter to express the mode in which Christ communicates His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, but to have avoided such expressions after much intercourse on the question with OEcolampadius. {See Jer. Taylor, On Real Presence, § I. 9.} After Luther’s death, he had the chief voice and influence among the Lutherans; and through his peaceful counsels in Germany, and Calvin’s sound views in Switzerland, much greater concord prevailed on this question among the continental Protestants than had existed during the lifetime of the great reformer of Wittemberg; the Lutherans and Zuinglians both consenting to modify their views and statements. {See Mosh. E. H. Cent. SVI. sect. III. pt. II. ch. I. 27, and ch. II. 12.} Insomuch that Hooker observed concerning them: “By opening the several opinions which have been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides, at the length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of Christ, and of life in His Body and Blood by means of this Sacrament.” {Hooker, E. P. Bk. V. ch. LXVII, 2.}
From the continental Protestants, we must turn to England. Cranmer and Ridley appear to have retained the doctrines of the corporal presence and of transubstantiation throughout the reign of Henry VIII. The formularies of that reign all seem to teach it. Ridley is said to have been converted to a belief in the spiritual (instead of the natural) presence by reading the treatise of Bertram or Ratramn, probably about the year 1545. {Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 166.} At this time Cranmer was zealous for transubstantiation. But Ridley communicated to the Archbishop what he had discovered in the writings of Ratramn; and they then set themselves to examine the matter with more than ordinary care. {Burnet. Hist. of Reformation, pt. II. Bk. I. p. 107.} Ridley indeed refused to take the credit of converting Cranmer; {Ridley’s Life, p. 169.} but Cranmer himself always acknowledged his obligations to Ridley. {Cranmer’s Remains, (Jenkyns) IV. p. 97.} It has been thought that Cranmer went through two changes: to consubstantiation first, and then to the spiritual feeding; and most probably there may have been some gradual progress in his convictions. {The subject is discussed by Dr. Jenkyns, note to Cranmer’s Works, IV. p. 95.} Yet it was constantly affirmed by him that before he put forth the translation of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, commonly called Cranmer’s Catechism, he had fully embraced the spiritual doctrine, and that the strong phrases there used concerning the real presence and the real feeding on Christ, were intended of a spiritual presence and a spiritual feeding, not of consubstantiation. {Cranmer’s Works, II. p. 440, III. pp. 13, 297, 344.}
After this both Cranmer and Ridley, to whom we are chiefly indebted for our formularies, maintained a doctrine nearly identical with that maintained by Calvin, and before him by Bertram. With the latter Ridley expresses his entire accordance. {See Enchiridion Theologicum, I. p. 56.} He constantly declares that whilst he rejects all presence of the natural Body and Blood in the way of transubstantiation, he yet acknowledges a real presence of Christ, spiritually and by grace, to be received by the faithful in the Communion of the Eucharist.* Cranmer has by some been thought to incline nearer to Zuinglianism; yet, if fair allowance be made for hasty expressions in the irritation of controversy, it will probably appear that he, like Ridley, followed the doctrine of the ancient Church and held a real reception of Christ in the Spirit. Certainly we find him writing as follows: “I say (as all the holy fathers and martyrs used to say) that we receive Christ spiritually, by faith with our minds eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood: so that we receive Christ’s own very natural Body, but not naturally nor corporally.” {Remains, III p. 5.} “It is my constant faith and belief that we receive Christ in the Sacrament, verily and truly ... But ... you think a man cannot receive the Body of Christ verily, unless he take Him corporally in his corporal mouth ... My doctrine is that ... He is by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all them that be gathered together in His Name; and this feeding is spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far passing all corporal and carnal feeding, in deed and not in figure only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my saying to be.” {Remains, III. pp. 288, 289.} “I say that the same visible and palpable Flesh that was for us crucified, &c. &c., is eaten of Christian people at His Holy supper ... The diversity is not in the Body, but in the eating thereof; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively.” {Ibid. p. 340. See also II. p. 441, IV. p. 16.}
{*“I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, but yet sacramentally and spiritually (according to His grace) giving life, and in that respect really, that is, according to His benediction, giving life. ... The true Church of Christ doth acknowledge a presence of Christ’s Body in the Lord’s Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually, as I have often showed, and by a sacramental signification, but not by the corporal presence of the Body of His Flesh.” – Works, Parker Society, p. 236.
“That heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) on the table: but by a spiritual presence, and not after any corporeal presence of the Flesh taken of the Virgin Mary.” – Ibid. p. 249.
“Both you and I agree in this, that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Christ, even that which is born of the Virgin Mary ... We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I confess Christ’s natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and grace ... You make a proper kind of being, inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of bread and wine.” – Fox, Martyrs, II. p. 1598. Lond. 1597, cited by Laud against Fisher, § 35.}
These sentiments of our reformers are undoubtedly embodied in our Liturgy and Articles. One thing indeed has been thought to savour of a tendency to Zuinglianism. The first Service Book of Edward VI, drawn up undoubtedly after Cranmer had embraced the doctrine of the spiritual presence, contained, as did all the ancient Liturgies, an invocation of the Holy Ghost to bless the bread and wine; “that they might be unto us the Body and Blood of Christ.” This was omitted in the second Service Book, probably lest the grace of the Sacrament should thus seem to be tied to the consecrated elements. But a still more remarkable departure from the ancient forms was this. Whereas in the first Service Book the words of administration were, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life”; in the second Service Book they were merely, “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” {Two Liturgies of Edward VI. p. 297. Oxf. 1838.} This seemed to imply that the reformers believed in no real spiritual reception of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, but only in a remembrance of His death and passion. Accordingly, in the reign of Elizabeth the two forms were combined together, and have ever since continued in use in the Church. But though this change looked like an inclination on the part of the earlier reformers to the doctrine of the mere figurists, yet it is by no means certain that some of the alterations in the Service Book were agreeable to our leading divines; {See above, Introduction, note on Strype’s Cranmer.} and notwithstanding this alteration, there remained numerous statements in our formularies to prove that a real but spiritual presence of Christ was and is the doctrine of the reformed Church of England.
Thus we are told in the exhortation to communion that God “hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament.” It is said that “if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament ... we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood.” In what is called the “prayer of humble access”, we ask that God would “give us grace so to eat the Flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious Blood.” In the prayer of consecration we speak of being “partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood”; and in the post-communion we thank God that He doth “vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.” So likewise in this Article it is professed that “to them who worthily receive, ... the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” All these are expressions in the second Service Book of Edward VI, and in the Articles drawn up in that reign. The latter part of the Catechism is of later date but in strict accordance with the earlier documents. Its words are that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.”
In this XXVIIIth Article, as first drawn up A. D. 1552, there was a clause stating that Christ in bodily presence is in Heaven, and therefore that we ought not to confess “the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” This nearly corresponds with the statement of the rubric at the end of our present communion Service.* Both the clause in the Article and the rubric were omitted in Elizabeth’s reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran belief might be too much offended by it; and many such were in the Church, whom it was wished to conciliate. The rubric was again restored in the reign of Charles II. The meaning of it clearly is not to deny a spiritual, but only a “corporal presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood,” “and a consequent adoration of the elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural substances.”
{*Concerning that rubric see above, notes under Article IV.
Luther much insisted on the ubiquity of the human nature of our blessed Lord, derived to it from the union with the Divine nature. But we must not believe the human nature transubstantiated into the Divine, as Eutyches taught.
St. Augustine observes that Christ, according to His human nature, is now on God’s right hand, and thence shall come to judgment; and according to that nature He is not everywhere. “Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem Corporis auferamus.” – Epist. 187, Tom. II. p. 681, quoted above, note under Article IV. See this subject most admirably handled by Hooker, E. P. V. 55.}
The Homilies are very express. “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent (Matt. 26); but as the Scripture saith, The table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of His death, yea, the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality” (1 Cor. 10). {Second Book of Homilies, “First part of the Sermon Concerning the Sacrament.”}
Bishop Jewel, who perhaps was the chief writer of this Second Book of Homilies, says in his Apology: “We plainly pronounce in the Supper the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Flesh of the Son of God, to be truly exhibited to those who believe.” {“Diserteque pronunciamus in coena credentibus vere exhiberi Corpus et Sanguinem Domini, carnem Filii Dei.” – Juelii Apologia. Ench. Theolog. p. 126.} And again, after protesting against transubstantiation, he says, “yet when we say this, we do not lower the Lord’s Supper nor make it a mere frigid ceremony. We assert that Christ exhibits Himself really present in the Sacraments; in baptism that we may put Him on, in His Supper that we may feed on Him by faith and in spirit ... and this we say is not done perfunctorily, nor frigidly, but in very deed and truly.” {“Non tamen cum ista dicimus, extenuamus Coenam Domini aut eam frigidam tantum caeremoniam esse docemus. ... Christum enim asserimus, vere sese praesentem exhibere in sacramentis suis; in baptismo, ut Eum induamus, in coena, ut Eum fide et spiritu comedamus, et de Ejus cruce et sanguine habeamus vitam aeternam; idque dicimus non perfunctorie et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere fieri.” – Ibid. p. 129. Compare Noel’s Catechism, Ench. Theol. p. 320, where the same doctrine is propounded.}
It appears, then, that our reformers symbolized herein with Calvin, though it is not likely that they learned their doctrine from him. Points of difference may be discovered between them; but in the main, Calvin, Melancthon in his later views, and the Anglican divines, were at one. There have, no doubt, been different ways of explaining the spiritual presence among those who have agreed to acknowledge such a presence. But perhaps the safest plan is to say that because it is spiritual, therefore it needs must be mystical. And so Bishop Taylor concludes that our doctrine differs not from that of ancient writers, who acknowledged Christ’s presence but would not define the manner of His presence. For he observes that we say, “the presence of Christ is real, and it is spiritual; and this account still leaves the Article in its deepest mystery; because spiritual perfections are indiscernible, and the word “spiritual” is a very general term, particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural.” {Jer. Taylor, § I. 2.}
It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much concerning our divines since the Reformation. Some perhaps, who have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed, not him, but Zuingle, upon the Sacraments. And this too may have been the bent of those who afterwards more especially followed Arminius, both here and on the Continent. {There is a very pious work by one of the Arminian writers in the English Church (Horneck’s Crucified Jesus). It has much to edify and spiritualize, but if I understand it, its doctrine is purely Zuinglian.} But from the time of the Reformation to the present, all the great luminaries of our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears in the face of our formularies; agreeing to deny a corporal, and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Usher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland. All these have left us writings on the subject, and all have coincided, with but very slight diversity, in the substance of their belief. They have agreed, as Hooker says, that “Christ is personally present; albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent”; {Book V. lxvii. 11.} that “the fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ” – but that “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament (i.e. in the elements); but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.” {Book V. xvii. 6.}
Section II – Scriptural Proof
I. The Words of Institution.
We know that almost all the sacrifices among both Jews and Gentiles were succeeded by a feast upon the body of the sacrificed victim; the persons who thus fed upon the sacrifice declaring their interest in the sacred rite, and through it entering into covenant with the God. {See Cudworth, True Notion of the Lord’s Supper, ch. I.} Now the Passover was the most solemn and significant of all the sacrifices of the Law, the most remarkable of all the types of our redemption. In its first institution it was ordained that the lamb should be slain, evidently in the way of a propitiatory offering, {See the true sacrificial nature of the Passover proved, Cudworth, as above. ch. 11.} in order that the destroying angel, which smote the Egyptians, might not destroy those for whom this offering was made. Yet no one had a claim to exemption from the destruction except those on whose lintels and doorposts the blood of the lamb was sprinkled, and who had partaken of the feast upon the lamb slain, – they and all their households. {Exod. 12:2–13.} The feast was, as it were, the consummation of the sacrifice; the efficacy of the latter being assured only to those who partook of the former.
It is not a little observable then that our blessed Saviour, the night before He suffered, or (if we take the Jewish reckoning from evening to evening) the very day on which He suffered, superseded the typical feast of the Passover by the commemorative feast of the Eucharist. He first, according to the Law, ate the Passover with His disciples. Then, supper being ended, {μετα το δειπνησαι, Luke 22:20.} and probably after He had washed the feet of His disciples, {John 13:2, seq.} He instituted a new rite appropriate to the New Covenant, but with peculiar reference to the rite under the Old Covenant. With the Passover, by Divine ordinance, there had been always eaten unleavened bread; and by immemorial custom there had been four cups of wine poured out; over each of which thanks were offered up, “and of which the third cup was specially called the cup of blessing.” {Buxtorf, De Coena Dom. § 22; Lightfoot, H. H. on Matt. 26:26, 27.} Now the bread and the wine, thus eaten and drunk solemnly at the Passover, our Lord adopts as the signs or elements for the institution of His new Sacrament. The bread at the Passover was blessed and broken, the wine was blessed and poured out. {Lightfoot, Ibid.} These same ceremonies our Lord now uses. He breaks the bread and blesses it; He pours out the wine and blesses it. In the feast of the Passover the bread and wine had been but subordinate; the latter not even of Divine authority. Our Lord makes them now the chief. Before, the chief place had been occupied by the Paschal Lamb. It was slain and eaten in commemoration of the first Passover, in type and anticipation of the Saviour Himself. But now that the type was succeeded by the antitype, and that the feast must therefore be commemorative, not anticipatory, our Lord puts the bread and wine in place of the flesh of the Lamb; that, as the latter had been eaten as a type of Him, so the former should be eaten and drunk in remembrance of Him.
It has been observed, that the lamb, when set on the table to be eaten at the Passover, was commonly called by the Jews “the body of the Paschal Lamb”; and it seems not unnatural to suppose that our Lord, as adopting otherwise on this occasion their customs and language, should here also have alluded to their common phrase. They had spoken of eating “the body of the lamb” (הַפֶּסַח כֶּבֶש שֶׁל נּוּפוֺ), and when He blessed the Bread, He said of it, “This is My Body”; as though He would say, “Heretofore you ate the body of the Lamb, a type of Me to be delivered to death for you. Now I abrogate this forever; and instead, I give you My Body to be crucified and broken for you; and so hereafter, when you eat this bread, think not of the Paschal Lamb, which, like all types, is now done away in Me; but believe that you feed on My Body broken, to deliver you, not from Egyptian bondage, but from the far worse bondage of death and hell.” {Buxtorf, De Coena Dom. § 25; Lightfoot, H. H. on Luke 22:19.}
Again, when our Lord had broken and blessed the bread, and giving it to His disciples, had called it His Body, He then took the cup, poured it out, blessed it, and called it His Blood. And it is observable that, as when Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of the sacrifice, he said of it, “Behold the blood of the Covenant”; {Exod. 24:8; Heb. 9:20.} so our Lord and Saviour, in giving His disciples this cup to drink, said of it, “This is My Blood of the New Covenant” (Matt. 26: 27; Mark 14: 24).
In almost all respects then, the institution of the Eucharist was likened to the sacrificial feasts of the Jews; most especially to the feast of the Passover.* It had only this point of difference: that, whereas in all the ancient feasts the victim was actually killed, and then its natural body was eaten; here the feast was instituted (though on the day of His death, yet) before our blessed Lord was crucified, and bread and wine were substituted in the room of His natural Flesh and Blood. Yet the bread and wine He called His Body and Blood; even as the flesh of the lamb was called the body of the Paschal lamb. And we can scarcely fail to infer that, as the flesh of the old sacrifice was never called the Body of Christ, but (what it really was) the body of the lamb, and as on the contrary the elements in the newly founded feast were called the Body and Blood of Christ, so the new festival must have had a closer connection with the great and true sacrifice than had the slaughtered victim, which represented Him in the old festival. The bread and wine were His Body and Blood, in a sense beyond that in which the Paschal lamb was Christ; that is to say, not merely in a figure, but in more than a figure.
{*A question has been raised whether our Saviour and His disciples had been eating the Paschal lamb or not, before He instituted the Eucharist; the ground for the question being that other well-known doubt, namely, Was the Thursday or the Friday the day on which the Passover ought to be eaten? However this latter may be solved, there seems no possibility of evading the force of Luke 22:15: “With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Comp. Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16). The true solution of the difficulty has always appeared to me to be this. The commandment was that the Passover should be slain on the 14th day of the month, “between the two evenings,” בֵּיןהָעַרְבַּיִם (Exod. 12:6); that is to say, from the evening of the 14th to the evening of the 15th day of the month, according to the common Jewish mode of counting time. Thus our Lord ate the Passover on the right day, i.e. on the evening of the 14th; yet He was crucified on the same day; for from evening to evening was but a single day. And this will solve all the difficulty in John 18:28; for many of the Jews may not have eaten the Passover on the morning of the Friday, though our Lord had eaten it on the evening of the Thursday. See Duty of Observing the Christian Sabbath, by Samuel Lee, D. D.. &c. note 16; where he quotes the Gemara on the Jerusalem Talmud in confirmation of this interpretation of Exod. 12:6.}
Now this the very nature of the case would lead us to expect. Under the Law were mere lifeless ceremonies; but under the Gospel there is substance, instead of shadow. Under the Law there were sacrifices of slain beasts; and the feast was therefore on the flesh of slain beasts. But under the Gospel there is no sacrifice, but of the Lamb of God; and a feast upon the sacrifice must therefore be a feeding upon Him; and we may add, that though the Law were true as coming from God, yet emphatically and peculiarly the Gospel is the truth. Hence, if in the legal ceremony there was a true feeding upon the victim, we cannot doubt that in the Gospel Sacrament there is a true feeding on the Saviour. And yet once more, the Law was carnal, but the Gospel is spiritual. And so, whereas the Paschal festival involved a carnal eating of the typical sacrifice, we infer that the Eucharistic festival would involve a spiritual eating of the true Sacrifice. And hence, as in all respects the Passover squared well with the place it occupied in its own dispensation, the Eucharist would fall into its place in the higher dispensation. The one a feast on a sacrifice; the other a feast on a Sacrifice. The one on the lamb; the other on the Lamb of God. The one true; the other true. But the one carnally true; the other spiritually, and therefore even more true.
There are three things especially to be observed in the form of institution: 1, the blessing; 2, the declaration; 3, the command.
1. The blessing. “Jesus took bread and blessed it”: so say St. Matthew (26:26) and St. Mark (14:22). This was the custom with the Jews. The master of the house pronounced over the bread a form of benediction, placing both his hands upon it. And this blessing, we are told, was by them called קִדּוּשׁ i.e. sanctification. {Buxtorf, as above, § 46.} Whether or not our Lord adopted the common form of words, we cannot tell. At all events, He gave utterance to some words of blessing, whereby He set apart the bread from its common use to a new, sacramental and sacred purpose.
For blessed (ευλογήσας) St. Luke (22:17) and St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:24) have gave thanks (ευχαριστήσας). The words seem nearly synonymous. They are so used concerning the blessing of the bread, when our Lord fed the four thousand with the seven loaves (Mark 8:6, 7): the Vulgate translates (ευχαριστια) by benedictio (1 Cor. 14:16): and the Hebrew word בֵּרֵדּ to bless, is rendered indifferently by words which signify either blessing or thanksgiving. And so, no doubt, our Lord and Saviour, when consecrating this bread to a sacred ordinance, gave thanks to God His Father, and with the thanksgiving joined a blessing; which changed the bread, not in substance, not in quantity, not in quality – but in use, in purpose, in sanctity; so that what before was common, now became sacramental bread; even the sacrament and mystery of the Body of Christ. {Ibid. § 48. Compare Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. V. 3.}
2. From the blessing we pass to the declaration: –
“Take, eat; this is My Body.” So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. Paul. St. Luke adds, “which is given for you” (22:19). St. Paul, “which is broken for you” (1 Cor. 11:24).
There is a little more difference in their account of the cup. St. Matthew and St. Mark say, “This cup is My Blood of the new Testament which is shed for many.” St. Luke and St. Paul say, “This cup is the new testament in My Blood.”
We have already compared these phrases with the Jewish form of speech, and have seen how the one throws light upon the other. We have seen also reason to infer, that the ordinance thus instituted was for the purpose of a spiritual feast upon the one true Sacrifice, a feeding on the Body and the Blood of Christ. But we have now come to a point, where those who believe in the verity of the feeding upon Christ, branch off from each other into two opposed and unhappily hostile divisions. The Protestant admits that the words of institution assure us of the blessing of feeding upon Christ, and give us ground to call the consecrated elements Christ’s Body and Blood. But the Romanist maintains that they moreover assure us that the bread, when blessed, no longer remains bread, but has become the very natural Flesh of Christ, and in a like manner the wine His natural Blood. The Romanist reasons from the plain meaning of the words and the duty reverently to believe what Christ has spoken. “This is My Body”; therefore it is no longer bread. And to make it clearer, they say that whereas the substantive “bread” (άρτος) is masculine, the relative “this” (τουτο) is neuter; and that therefore the word this means not, “This Bread is My Body”; but on the contrary means, “This, which is no longer bread, is My Body.” {Bellarmine, Lib. I. De Eucharistia, ch. X.} The grammatical argument is too futile to keep us long. Bread, being a thing without life, though in Greek and Latin it is expressed by a masculine substantive, in well-nigh all languages might be referred to by a neuter pronoun; and though we could not say Hoc est frater meus; yet we may say Hoc est aqua, or Hoc est panis. Nay! would it not have been a more singular mode of speech, if our Lord, when He took the bread in His hand, instead of saying concerning it, τουτο, hoc, this thing, had said, ουτος, hic, he?
But more weight lies in the verb εστι, is; and yet, if no better argument than its use could he adduced, we must admit that the mere figurists have almost as strong ground as the transubstantialists. If the simple use of the substantive verb proves an absolute change of substance, how are we to interpret “The seed is the word; the field is the world; the reapers are the angels; the harvest is the end of the world; I am the door; I am the vine?” {See Taylor, Real Presence, sect. VI.} We cannot here understand a substantial change, but must admit a figure of speech. And so, in truth, we must admit in the Eucharist; for though we acknowledge Christ’s presence, and not only acknowledge but rejoice in it; yet we hold not that presence to be in the material bread; nor can these words prove that it is there. The passage which perhaps most nearly corresponds to this is that wherein St. Paul says that “That Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). It is indeed generally contended that the Rock was Christ by a mere figure of speech; and hence the illustration is urged to support the doctrine of the figurists. But this is scarcely true. If the illustration be correctly interpreted, it will prove the real but the spiritual presence of the Body of Christ. The Apostle’s argument is strictly this: The Israelites, in their pilgrimage in the wilderness, were like Christians, subjects of grace. Christ followed, and Christ fed them. They had bread from Heaven, and drank out of the rock; and as the literal manna fed their bodies, so there was a heavenly manna prepared for their souls. And as from the rock of stone Moses called forth the stream of water; so there was with them also a spiritual Rock, by which their souls were watered; and that spiritual “Rock was Christ.” It was not then, we may observe, that the spiritual Rock was a figure of Christ. The rock of stone was a figure of Christ; but the spiritual Rock – “that Rock was Christ”. So it is in the Eucharist. The bread in the Eucharist is an emblem of the Bread of life: but that Bread is Christ. As with the natural rock in the wilderness there was present the Spiritual Rock, which is Christ: so with the natural bread in the Sacrament there is present the Spiritual Bread, which is Christ’s Body.
And next for the cup. Our Lord calls it, “My Blood of the new Covenant”; or, according to St. Luke, “The new Covenant in My Blood {I unhesitatingly translate Covenant, not Testament, believing that διαθήκη should always in the Bible be rendered Covenant. The only apparent exception is in Heb. 9:15–20. Even here, however, Covenant will probably make the more pertinent sense. See Professor Scholefield’s Hints for a New Translation, ad h. l.} which is shed for you.” The reference here to the language of the old Testament and to the rites of sacrifice has been already noticed. {τουτο το ποτήριον η καινη διαθήκη εν τω αιματί μου, το υπερ υμων εκχυνόμενον (Luke 22:20). The participle properly agrees with ποτήριον, though it may by a solecism refer to αιμα. Lightfoot H. H. in loc. says, “This seems to have reference to that cup of wine which was every day poured out in the drink offerings in the daily sacrifice, for that also was poured out for the remission of sins. So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily sacrifice, and the cup to the wine of the drink offering.”} If we take the words as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, “This is My Blood of the new Covenant,” they will mean, “As in the old dispensation God made covenant with Israel with the blood of beasts, so now He makes covenant with Christians through the Blood of Christ; and this wine is the emblem of that Blood, and the means of partaking of its benefits.” If we take St. Luke’s version (which is also St. Paul’s), then we must understand, “The blood of old was the sign and pledge of the Covenant, the medium of its ratification. This cup is the sign and pledge of the new Covenant, which is now to be ratified in My Blood.”
In either case we see obviously in the Eucharist a federal rite. As sacrifices, and especially feasts on sacrifices, were the means of ratifying covenants between man and man, or between man and God; so the Eucharistic feast upon the Sacrifice is the means of ratifying the covenant between the Lord and His people. The Blood of the covenant was shed upon the cross. So peace has been made. But the peace is accepted, and the covenant assured by this sacred banquet; where we are God’s guests, and where the spiritual food spread for us is the Lamb slain for our sins, and where our souls may be washed by His most precious Blood. {See Cudworth, as above, ch. VI.}
3. The third thing to be observed in the institution of the Eucharist is the command, “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25).
This do, τουτο ποιειτε. Hoc facite. Do what? Make My Body? Sacrifice Me? If our Lord had commanded them to make His Body, why did He say “in remembrance of Me”? Remembrance and actual bodily presence are scarcely compatible ideas. Besides, did our Lord then sacrifice Himself? Surely not. It was the next morning that He offered up Himself a Sacrifice; not then, when He sat with them at meat. But, just as when the first Passover was instituted the Israelites were commanded “to keep this feast by an ordinance for ever” (Exod. 12:14, 13:10), – to sacrifice the lamb and eat it, as they had been instructed by Moses: so the disciples are commanded to observe this new feast, even as they were instructed by their Master and Lord. “Do this,” i.e. “Do what you now see Me do.” Break the bread, bless it, and consecrate it; then distribute among yourselves, and eat it; and likewise with the wine. And this all is to be done “in remembrance of Me”. The Passover was in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt and from the destruction of the first-born; and when it was kept, the Israelites were to tell their children what the ordinance meant (Exod. 13:8). But this Sacrament is a remembrance of greater deliverance, and of that gracious Master who wrought the deliverance; and “as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do shew the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. 11:26). In all ways therefore it may be a remembrance of Christ; but specially it is a remembrance of His death. It is a memorial, a showing forth of that sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and which we feed upon in our souls. As it is a commemoration of the sacrifice, so may it be called a commemorative sacrifice. But, as Christ was Himself present alive when He instituted the ordinance, and as He did not then offer up Himself a sacrifice on the cross, nor hold in His own sacred hands His own crucified Body; so we believe not, that we are commanded to offer Him up afresh, or that we are to expect to feed upon His natural Flesh and Blood. His Body has been offered up once for all, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice. We may present the remembrance of that sacrifice to God, may tell it out to the world, may believe that whilst we eat the symbols with our mouths, we feed upon the Saviour in our spirits; but we have no warrant to believe, and we could find no greater comfort in believing, that Christ was to be newly sacrificed every day, and His very Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk by our bodily mouths.
II. Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum. John 6.
A great many, both of the Roman Catholic divines and of the mere figurists, have denied that the discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John has any reference to the grace of the Eucharist. The motive of such denial is obvious; for it is next to impossible to admit that the Eucharist is there referred to, without also admitting that no material presence is tenable, and at the same time that some real spiritual feeding of the soul is promised. It is said indeed that the discourse was delivered before the Eucharist was instituted, and therefore could not have applied to it: an argument which must surely seem very strange if we consider how very much our Lord’s discourses are anticipatory and prophetic. Indeed almost all His teaching seems suitable to instruct His followers in “the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” the things that were to be in His Church and reign upon earth, rather than suitable to the time of His bodily presence. So His discourse with Nicodemus was as much anticipatory of the institution of baptism, as this discourse at Capernaum was of the institution of the Holy Communion. And, to bring but one more example, if our Lord be never supposed to speak and to teach but concerning things already revealed and manifested, what could have been His meaning in His many declarations that Christians “must take up their Cross, and follow Him”; {See Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34, 10:21; Luke 9:23, 14:27.} when as yet all those who heard Him knew not for certain that He would die at all, and most assuredly understood not “what death He should die”?
It is quite clear then, that the mystery of the discourse in St. John 6 required something to make it intelligible. Many even of our Lord’s disciples were so offended at it that they at once “went back, and walked no more with Him” (ver. 66). What so sorely puzzled them must doubtless have sunk deep into their memories; and when next our blessed Saviour used the same language as He had used on this memorable occasion, is it not certain that His first words would recur with all their force, and that the teaching of the first discourse would be coupled with that of the second? Now the only occasions on which we read that Jesus said anything about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood were first in this instance at Capernaum, secondly at the last Passover when He instituted the Eucharist. How the disciples who heard both discourses could fail to couple them together it is hard to conceive. In the former, inestimable blessings were said to accompany the eating and drinking of Christ’s Body and Blood: in the latter, a special mode appeared to be pointed out by which His Body and Blood might be eaten and drunken. Both, no doubt, sounded strange and wonderful. Those who wondered at them both would naturally compare the one with the other to see if the one would not explain the other.
And surely the one does explain the other. In the sixth chapter of St. John we read that our Lord had just fed five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes. They who had seen the miracle on the next day followed Jesus; but as He well knew, not for spiritual blessing, but that they might again be fed and be filled (v. 26). To this carnal and unbelieving multitude He enjoins “that they should labour not for earthly, but for spiritual food, which endureth unto everlasting life” (v. 27); and taking occasion of their own reference to the manna in the wilderness (v. 31), He tells them, that, as God gave their fathers manna, so now He would give them “true bread from Heaven” (v. 32). He then declares Himself to be “the Bread of life”: and adds, “he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst” (v. 35), i.e. neither hunger nor thirst, because, thus coming and believing, he shall be fed upon the Bread of life. The Jews who were present now begin to murmur. They disbelieve the Saviour’s saying that He had come down from Heaven, supposing that they knew both His father and His mother. He then goes on, not to explain His statements, but to enforce, and rather put them with more mystery and difficulty. He tells them that, not only had He come down from Heaven, that not only was He the Bread of life, but that, whereas the fathers ate manna and died, yet those who should eat that Bread should never die. And then most startling words of all, He says that the bread which He should give was His Flesh, which he would give for the life of the world (v. 51). And when this saying caused fresh striving amongst them, He adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. ... My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. ... As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me “ (vv. 53–57).
Now those who tell us that this had no reference to the Eucharist say that nothing is here meant but that faith in the death of Christ is the great means of union to Christ, and that which raises us to life and immortality. But surely Calvin’s belief that something more express and sublime is intended by such striking language must commend itself to our reason. It is not the way of Scripture to expound to us simple doctrines by such mysterious language; but rather by simple figures and analogies to bring down deep doctrines in some degree to the level of our capacities. Yet, if all this discourse be merely to teach us that we must believe in the death of Christ, we have an example of most difficult language, and, we may add, language most likely to give offence, in order to express what requires no figures to make it intelligible when simply and plainly stated. But if it be true that to those who believe in Christ, to those who come to Him believing, He in some manner far above our comprehension so communicates His blessed Self, so joins them to Him by an ineffable union, that they may be said to be one with Him, and He with them, that He dwelleth in them and they in Him, that as He liveth by the Father so they live by Him; – if this and the like of this be true, then can we understand that some deep language, some strong metaphors, may be needful to express the doctrine, and that the greater and more mysterious the blessing, the stranger and more hard to understand may be the language.
Now, certainly it is true that the faithful Christian lives by union to the glorified, divine humanity of His Lord. Christ, who is one with the Father by His Godhead, becomes one with His disciples by His manhood: and by an union with us, which is ineffable, and to be comprehended only by a devout and reverent believing, He supports, sustains, and feeds that spiritual life which He creates in us. That this is one chief fruit of His incarnation, all Scripture bears witness. That this, and perhaps much more than this, is taught in the chapter we are considering, there can be no reasonable question. And, although faith is an essential instrument for enabling us to receive such blessing (see v. 35), yet something much deeper and sublimer than the mere act of believing is plainly intended by it, – even that in spirit we are truly joined to the Man Christ Jesus, our great Head and Lord; that our whole spiritual man is sustained and nourished by Him; that by His life we live; by His might and power our weakness is upheld and strengthened. We do not presume to say that this is all the mystery conveyed to us by the language of our Lord. But this we may boldly affirm is the character, though it be not the sum of the mystery. And when we come to find the like language used by Him concerning the holy ordinance which He established at His passion, can we fail to infer, that with that ordinance, rightly and faithfully partaken of, are communicated those very blessings which in the discourse at Capernaum are so marvelously expressed?
Such thoughts must free us from the frigid notions of the disciples of Zuinglius; but will they lead us to the carnal notions of the transubstantialists? Most surely, No! There are two statements in the chapter we are considering quite fatal to the doctrine of the material presence. One is, where our Lord tells us that whosoever eats of the bread of life shall “not die” (ver. 51), “shall live for ever” (ver. 58): that “he who eateth His Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life” (ver. 54). Now, if the bread and wine in the communion are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood, then every unworthy partaker, notwithstanding his unworthiness, partakes of Christ’s Body and Blood; and hence, according to this chapter, eating the bread of life shall “not die” – “shall live for ever” – “hath eternal life.” He cannot, as St. Paul says, eat to condemnation, but must eat to salvation. The other statement is stronger still. When those who heard murmured at our Lord’s promise to feed them with His Flesh and Blood, Jesus said unto them, “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see (εαν ουν θεωρητε) the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (vv. 61–63). Do my words offend you? If ye see Me ascend where I was before, how then will ye judge? Will ye then be still more offended, thinking my words still more impossible? Or will ye then begin to understand the truth, and to know that they must be spiritually interpreted? The mistake ye have made, is that ye have interpreted them carnally. But it is the spirit which profiteth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Such was the obvious meaning of our Lord’s reply; and it penetrates to the very depths of the difficulty. The meaning of the discourse was all spiritual. The feeding on Christ’s Body and Blood is a spiritual feeding. No other feeding profits. It would do no good. To eat the material substance of His Flesh and drink the material substance of His Blood would be useless. It is the spirit only which gives life, and the words which He had spoken were spirit and life. And be it noted, whether the discourse did, by anticipation, concern the Eucharist, or whether it did not, yet this much is clear: we have it revealed in the unfailing and unerring words of our Redeemer, that carnally to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood would profit us nothing; and therefore we may be assured infallibly, that such a carnal feeding, being profitless, would never have been ordained by Him in a Sacrament for His Church.
III. The statements of St. Paul.
These occur in 1 Cor. x. and 1 Cor. xi.
The argument from the former chapter (1 Cor. 10) is of this nature. The Christians of Corinth, living among idolaters, were tempted to join in idol-feasts, at which meats that had been offered in sacrifice were solemnly and religiously eaten. However innocent it may be to eat meat of any kind, St. Paul points out that it is no longer innocent when the eating it implies a participating in an idolatrous ceremony, especially an idolatrous sacrifice. He that partakes of a sacrificial feast declares thereby his respect for the sacrifice, and his interest in it. He claims to be a partaker of the sacrifice. The Apostle illustrates this in three ways: first, by our participation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist (vv. 16, 17); secondly, by the Jews’ participation in the sacrifices of which they eat; thirdly, by the heathen’s participation of the sacrifices of demon gods. To take the last two illustrations first. He observes with regard to “Israel after the flesh,” that “they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers (κοινωνοι) of the altar.” That is to say, by eating of the meat of the sacrifice they have a share, a participation in the benefit of that which is offered on the altar (v. 18). As for the Gentiles, he says, that they offer sacrifice, not to God, but to demon gods (δαιμονίοις); and it is unbecoming in Christians to be partakers or communicants (κοινωνοι) of demon gods. Nay! it is altogether inconsistent to drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of demon gods; to partake of the Lord’s table, and the table of demon gods (vv. 20, 21); the “table of demon gods” here meaning the feast upon the heathen sacrifices, “the table of the Lord” meaning the banquet of the Holy Communion, and probably alluding to Malachi 1:7, 12; where the expression “table of the Lord” is used in immediate connection with the word “altar,” and refers to the sacrificial feasting connected with the Jewish sacrifices. In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s table. But more than this, he asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint partaking of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vv. 16, 17). The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense deducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint partaking or joint participation. {κοίνος common, κοινόω to make common, impart, κοινωνος a partaker, κοινωνία participation. This is the natural meaning. κοινωνία means also close communion or joint partnership. St. Paul ordinarily uses κοινωνία for partaking. See 2 Cor. 8:4, 9:3. Comp. κοινωνοι 9:18. In Rom. 15:26, Heb. 13:16, κοινωνία is communication.} The parallel is between partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i.e. Christ. And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church.
Now, what must we infer from this teaching? Does it not plainly tell us that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol feasts. That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ’s Body and Blood! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The bread and wine are to us means or instruments whereby through God’s grace we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially? The very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real change of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word κοινωνία participation. If the bread be literally and substantially the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the bread which we break, Christ’s Body?” And the inference would be immediate; Can we eat Christ’s Body and demon sacrifices together? The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partaking, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent. They are ordained that we may partake of Christ; but they are not Christ themselves.
The other passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:19–30) has the same object as that which we have just considered; namely, to increase our reverence for “the dignity of this holy mystery.” The early Christians appear to have joined with the reception of the communion an agape or love feast. In such a feast it was seemly that the rich should provide for the poor, and that all things should be in common. But in Corinth, a city long famous for luxury, the richer Christians appear to have overlooked the Christian principle, and to have made their feasts of charity minister to their own indulgence, rather than to their poor neighbours’ wants. This was in itself wrong; it was not, as the Apostle says, to eat the Lord’s supper;* and it was despising the church of God, – shaming those who had no houses to feast in. And what made it worst of all was this, that with these feasts of charity was joined a reception of the Holy Communion; and to receive that at a time when some were feasting gluttonously, and others suffering from hunger, was to treat contemptuously the most sacred and blessed ordinance of the Lord. It was receiving that Sacrament unworthily. It was not only treating the agape as a private feast, and one in which self-indulgence was permissible, but it was making the Eucharist itself a common thing.
{*κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν, v. 20. This probably does not refer to the Eucharist, but to the Agape, the feast of charity, which was joined with it. See Hammond and Whitby, in loc.; Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. I. 3; Suicer, s. v. Αγαπαι; Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. I. ch. II; Bingham, E. A. Bk. XV. ch VII. §§ 6, 7, 9.}
To enforce his lesson on this subject, the Apostle reminds the Corinthians of the mode and the words in which our Lord had instituted the Eucharist. This part of his teaching we have already considered. But he goes on to reason that as our Lord had instituted bread and wine as Sacraments of His Body and Blood, “therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,” ver. 27. He then exhorts to self-examination, ver. 28, and adds, ver. 29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh to himself condemnation, not setting apart as holy the Body of the Lord” (κρίμα εαυτω εσθίει και πίνει, μη διακρίνων το Σωμα του Κυρίου). {διακρίνων, discernens, separating, setting apart as holy. So the Syriac, [letters uncertain]. To discern, as we in modern English use that word, is only a secondary and improper sense of διακρίνειν, as it is also of discernere. The natural meaning is to separate, to make a distinction of one thing from another. It is used in classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek, with the sense of to set apart for holy purposes. So Pinder, Olymp. X. 54–56: Περι δε πάξαις άλτιν μεν όγ εν καθαρω διακρίνει. The plain meaning therefore of St. Paul is, that people who mixed up the Eucharist with a profane feast, treated the Lord’s Body, which is given us there, as no better than a common thing, not as sacred and holy.} The Lord’s own words of institution pointed to this Sacrament as the means of participating in His Body and Blood; he therefore who received that Sacrament, not as a thing most sacred and venerable, but as part or adjunct of a common feast, was guilty of great and heinous impiety, because he did not set apart as a holy thing the Body of the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the passage, according to the obvious rendering of the original; and it certainly teaches a lesson of deep reverence, and speaks home plainly to our faith. It seems an unanswerable argument against those who esteem the Eucharist as “a bare sign of a thing absent”. We of the Church of England who believe Christ really present in His Sacraments and spiritually there feeding our souls, as much as those who look for a natural reception of Him, can feel the truth and awfulness of such apostolic warnings. We do not differ with the believers in transubstantiation, so far as their statement goes, that in the Eucharist there is a real presence of the Lord. And therefore we feel, as they do, that to receive unworthily is to do dishonour to the Body of Christ. Our difference with them is not concerning the truth of Christ’s presence, which the Apostle’s words seem forcibly to teach us; but we differ with them only concerning the mode. That they define carnally, whilst we believe it mystically. And herein we can scarcely use words more apposite than the words used long ago by Calvin: “If any ask me concerning the mode, I am not ashamed to confess the mystery to be more sublime than my intellect can grasp, or than words can tell; and, that I may speak more openly, I essay rather than understand. Therefore here I embrace without controversy the truth of God, in which I may safely acquiesce. He pronounces His Flesh the food of my soul, His Blood the drink. I offer my soul to be fed with such aliments. In His sacred Feast He bids me, under symbols of bread and wine, to take His Body and Blood, to eat and to drink. I doubt not but that He really offers, and that I receive. All I reject is what is in itself absurd, unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, or alien from the verity of His nature as man.” {Institut. IV. xvii. 32.} So Calvin; and so our own Hooker: “What these elements are in themselves it skilleth not. It is enough that unto me that take them they are the Body and Blood of Christ. His promise in witness hereof sufficeth. His word He knoweth which way to accomplish. Why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant; but, O my God, Thou art true: O my soul, thou art happy?” {E. P. Bk. V. ch. LXVI. 12.} It is in this way that the Scriptures have left it: so the devout soul has ever embraced it: and so we may safely and thankfully receive it, – not speculate curiously, nor expound carnally; but believe and live.
NOTE.
I have confined myself in this Article almost wholly to the presence in the Eucharist, and the mode of receiving Christ’s Body and Blood. The latter part of the Article has thereby been deprived of its due attention. It is, however, but a simple corollary. Elevating the host resulted from a belief in transubstantiation. If that doctrine be rejected, we shall not believe the water to have been really transformed into Christ’s Body, and so shall not worship it, nor elevate it for worship. There is evidently no Scriptural authority for the elevation of the Host, the command being, “Take, eat.” The Roman ritualists themselves admit that there is no trace of its existence before the 11th or 12th centuries; and no certain documents refer to it till about A. D. 1200. See Palmer, On the Church, Vol. I. part I. ch. XI. p. 311.
[Two particulars of the Tridentine doctrine of Transubstantiation are especially to be noted for their contrast to the Anglican doctrine of the real Spiritual Presence in the Eucharist.
(1) The annihilation of the elements. With regard to which, remember:
(a) The absence of Scriptural proof.
(b) The patristic teaching that the elements remain in their original substance; especially the use by Gelasius and others of the accepted Eucharistic doctrine as an argument against the Eutychians. See Pearson On the Creed, p. 247, and note.
(c) That if this view is correct, it is a solitary instance of a miracle which contradicts the senses, instead of appealing to them.
(2) The identification of the consecrated elements not with the Body and Blood of Christ, but with His entire Personality by affirming the presence in them of His Human Soul. With regard to which, remember: –
(a) The absence of Scriptural proof. The language is, “this is my Body,” “this is my Blood,” not “this is I-myself”; the sole exception being St. John 6:57: “He hat eateth me, even he shall live by me,” where the manner of feeding upon Christ had been explained in the preceding verse to be the eating of His flesh and drinking of His Blood.
(b) The language of the Fathers is similar.
(c) So also is the statement of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Guettée, Exp. a la Doctrine, p. 135.
On the subject of the Eucharistic Presence, see the invaluable Introduction to Part II of the Principles of Divine Service by Archdeacon Freeman. – H. A. Y. – J. W.]
Article XXIX
Of the Wicked which eat not 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.
De manducatione Corporis Christi, et impios illud non manducare.
Impii, et fide viva destituti, licet carnaliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinum loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi Sacramentum dentibus premant, nullo tamen modo Christi participes efficiuntur.
Sed potius tantae rei Sacramentum, seu symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt.
Section I – History
If the last Article be true, this most probably follows on it. There are but two possible views of the question. Either the wicked and unbelieving do not eat Christ’s Body and Blood, but only their sacred symbols; or they eat the Body and Blood, but to condemnation, not to salvation. The former alternative has generally been held, in latter times, by the advocates of a spiritual feeding; the latter, by the believers in transubstantiation, and, I suppose, by most believers in consubstantiation. The fathers’ teaching is naturally obscure on this point. They so constantly called the symbols by the name of that they symbolized that they would commonly speak of eating the Body of Christ when they meant only the consecrated bread, the Sacrament of His Body. Yet plain passages occur which are strongly in favour of the view taken by our reformers in this Article.
Origen speaks concerning “the Word who was made flesh, the true food, which no wicked man can eat. For, if it were possible that one continuing in wickedness should eat Him who was made flesh, the Word, the living bread; in vain would it have been written, whoso eateth this bread shall live forever.” {Πολλα δ αν περι αυτου λέγοιτο του Λόγου, ος γέγονε σαρξ και αληθινη βρωσις, ην τινα ο φάγων πάντως ζήσεται εις τον αιωνα, ουδενος δυναμένον φαύλου εσθίειν αυτήν ει γαρ οιόν τε ην έτι φαυλου μένοντα εσθίειν τον γενόμενον σάρκα Λόγον όντα, και άρτον ζωντα, ουκ αν εγέγραπτο, ότι πας ο φάγων τον άρτον τουτον ζήσεται εις τον αιωνα. – Origen. In Matt. XV. Comment.} Cyprian tells a story of the Eucharistic bread becoming a cinder in the hands of one who had lapsed, as a proof that Christ could not be received by the unworthy communicant. {“Et quidem alius, quia et ipse maculatus saerificio a sacerdote celebrato partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere, sanctum Domini corpus edere et contrectare non potuit: cinerem ferre se, apertis manibus invenit. Documento unius ostenditur, Dotninum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus ad salutem prodesse quod sumitur, quando gratia salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate fugiente, mutatur.” – Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 133, Fell.} So St. Hilary, “The bread that came down from Heaven, is not taken but by him who hath the Lord, and is a member of Christ.” {“Panis qui descendit de coelo, non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, et Christi membrum est.” – Hilar. De Trinit. Lib. VIII.} St. Augustine is quoted in the very words of the Article. Some part of the passage is thought by the Benedictine editors to have been interpolated; which I will put between brackets. What remains, however, is fully sufficient to serve the purpose for which it is adduced. “By this, 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.” {“Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat [spiritualiter] carnem Ejus, nec bibit Ejus sanguinern carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi:] sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.” – In Joan. Tract. 26, Tom. III. pars II. p. 500.} So elsewhere, he clearly distinguishes between sacramental eating and real eating: “Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh, My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. Here our Lord shows what it is, not only sacramentally, but really, to eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood; even to dwell in Christ and Christ in him. And He said this, as much as to say, Whosoever does not abide in Me and I in him, let him not say, nor think that he eats My Body or drinks My Blood.” {“Denique Ipse diceps Qui manducat Carnem meam, et bibit Sanguinem meum, in Me manet, et Ego in eo; ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus, sed re vera Corpus Christi manducare, et Ejus sanguinem bibere: hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquant diceret, Qui non in me manet, et in quo Ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare Corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum.” – De Civitate Dei, Lib. XXI. c. 25, Tom. VII. p. 646.} So Jerome also says, that “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God eat not the Flesh, nor drink the Blood of Jesus.” {“Omnes voluptatis magis amatores, quam amatores Dei ... nec comedunt carnern Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem Ejus; de quo Ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam, et bibit sanguine meum, habet vitam aeternam.” – Hieronym, In Isai. c. 66, ver. 17. Tom. III. p. 506.}
It has been argued indeed, that the prayer in the ancient Liturgies for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements implied of necessity a belief that after that descent the elements of themselves become so truly the Body and Blood of Christ, that the communicants, whether worthily or unworthily receiving, must necessarily partake of the Body and Blood. This, if it means anything of the kind, means the full doctrine of transubstantiation. But no such conclusion can be deduced from the fact of the invocation. For first, the like invocation of the Spirit was made in baptism; and of this we hear much earlier than of the invocation in the Eucharist. {Tertull. De Baptismo, c. 4.} Now, though the fathers believed, as the English reformers did, that the Holy Ghost “would sanctify the water to the mystical washing away of sin”; {Office of Public Baptism.} yet they neither believed in a change of the substance of the water, nor in an admixture of the Holy Spirit with the water; {μιγνύντων τα άμικτα, says Basil, of those who spoke of the mixture of the Spirit and water. Basil, De Sp. S. Tom. III. p. 30. See Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. X.} nor that an unworthy recipient obtained the blessing of the Spirit’s sanctification. We must suppose the same principle to apply to the sanctification of the symbols in the Eucharist. As the minister was to consecrate, so the fathers looked for the Spirit to bless the elements to a sacred use. “We beseech the merciful God,” says St. Cyril, “to send the Holy Ghost upon the elements; that He may make the bread Christ’s Body and the wine His Blood. For, undoubtedly, whatever the Holy Ghost touches, that is sanctified and changed.” {Cyril Hierosol. Catech. Mystag. V. C. 7. This is the oldest certain mention of the custom; i.e. in the middle of the fourth century. The next oldest form is in the Apostolical Constitutions, Lib. VIII. C. 12: “We beseech Thee, O God, to send Thy Holy Spirit on this Sacrifice ... that He may make this bread to become the Body of Thy Christ, and this cup to become the Blood of Thy Christ.” – See Waterland, as above.}
But, though the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes, it follows not that the change is a change of substance. The sanctification of the elements is to a sacred use and office, – to a new relation, not to a new nature. Accordingly, St. Cyril speaks afterwards of the illapse of the Holy Spirit, as making the elements holy, and at the same time making the communicant holy. “Holy also are ye, being now endowed with the Spirit.” {Ibid. C. 19.} So, some of the ancient Liturgies have a prayer for the descent on the communicants first, and then on the elements.{“Super nos et super haec dona.” (See the Liturgies in Fabricius and Renaudotius, cited by Waterland, as above.)} And so, in several Liturgies, and especially in the Gregorian Sacramentary, {“Quam oblationem Tu, Deus, in omnibus quaesumus benedictam facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat,” &c – Cited by Waterland.} from thence derived to the canon of the mass, the words “to us,” are inserted, thereby restricting the blessing upon the elements to their effects on the recipient. Nay! that transubstantiation could not have been intended has been admitted by many Romanist divines; inasnurh as in the Greek Liturgies the invocation of the Spirit followed the words of institution. Now, the Latin divines fix the consecration to the words of institution. Hence, if there be any truth in transubstantiation, the change must, according to them, have taken place before the invocation, and could not therefore be the effect of the invocation. {Waterland, as above, p. 407. (Cambridge, 1737.) The subject is very fully discussed in this place by Dr. Waterland.} In short, “all circumstances show that the true and ancient intent of that part of the service was not to implore any physical change in the elements, no, nor so much as a physical connection of the Spirit with the elements, but a moral change only in the elements, as to relation and uses, and a gracious presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants.” {Ibid.}
But, when a belief arose in the opus operatum, and in the absolute change of substance in the elements, then naturally it was held that not only the faithful, but even the unbelieving, must receive the very Body and Blood of Christ, though of course the latter only to condemn them. And then too, the fathers (who spoke freely of the elements under the name of that they signified, and, no doubt, believed in a sanctification of them to holy purposes) were cited as holding the same language, and as witnesses to the same doctrine.
It seems by no means necessary that the like result should follow from the doctrine of consubstantiation. Indeed Luther greatly abhorred the opus operatum. Still, I suppose, the Lutherans rather inclined to the belief that the wicked eat the Body of Christ, yet impiously, and to their ruin. And so this Article was, for a time, expunged by Queen Elizabeth and her Council; {See above, Introduction.} probably as not agreeable to those members of the Church who were of Lutheran sentiments. All other branches of the Reformation seem to have agreed that, as the presence of Christ was not in the elements, but only vouchsafed with the elements “to the faithful,” so His presence would be withheld from those who were unfaithful and impenitent.
Section II – Scriptural Proof
In one sense of the words, then, we may admit that every communicant eats Christ’s Body and drinks His Blood, because he eats the symbol which is called His Body (corpus, h. e. figura corporis), and drinks the symbol which is called His Blood. But all that has been said in former Articles to disprove the doctrine of the opus operatum, applies here. The actual reception of Christ’s Body and Blood is the reception, not of the outward sign, but of the inward grace. Now, the inward grace of the Sacraments belongs only to the faithful, not to the impenitent and unbelieving. Of course, if we admit a physical change in the elements, we must believe Christ’s Body to be eaten, not only by the wicked, but, as has been often argued, by mice or dogs, or any other animal, that may accidentally devour a portion of the consecrated bread. Hence the contrary position to the statement of this Article follows, of necessity, on the doctrine of transubstantiation. But then, the opposite doctrine of an efficacious, spiritual presence, and that rather in the recipient than in the element, seems inevitably to issue in the doctrine here propounded.
As for the direct statements of the new Testament, we must lay aside the words of institution which will not aid us until we have determined whether they imply a spiritual or a carnal presence, and confine our attention to the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. and to the sixth chapter of St. John. In the former we are told, that “whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (ver. 27); and that “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not setting apart as holy the Lord’s Body” (ver. 29). Perhaps the first view of this passage rather appears to favour the doctrine of the opus operatum. The unworthy communicant is “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,” which he pollutes; and he eats and drinks condemnation because he does not set apart and treat with reverence the Lord’s Body. At least, candour may oblige us to admit that there is nothing in St. Paul’s words thus cited, which will not square with the hypothesis that every recipient equally eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, we are justified in contending that there is nothing inconsistent with our own belief that the wicked do not eat Christ. In the former case we can see how great the profanation would be; but in the latter, it is still very fearful. The feast provided for the faithful is doubtless a spiritual feast on the Lord’s Body and Blood; hence, the profane receiver is unquestionably “guilty concerning Christ’s Body and Blood” (ένοχος του σώματος, κ. τ. λ.). And again, as the bread and wine are the means of communicating to us the Body and Blood of Christ; so he, who treats the Eucharist as part of a mere common feast, (which the Corinthians did,) does clearly refuse to treat with reverence, and to set apart as holy the Body of the Lord.
But if there be any ambiguity in the words of St. Paul, there can be none in the words of our Lord. He plainly tells us, “He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him” (John 6:56). “He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me” (ver. 57). “He that eateth of this bread shall live forever” (ver. 58). “Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (ver. 54). Now all this is plain that the real feeding on Christ is to salvation, not to condemnation. All are agreed that the wicked do not profit, but rather suffer loss by eating in the Eucharist. But then, if they do not profit, we inevitably infer from the words of our Lord that they have not eaten His Flesh nor drunk His Blood; for those who do so “live by Him,” – “live forever,” – “have eternal life,” – have Him dwelling in them, – “have eternal life, and are raised up at the last day.”
The only escape from the inference seems to be in an assertion, that John 6 does not refer to Eucharistic feeding, but to spiritual feeding apart from the Eucharist. But whatever conclusion we may come to on that head, the statement seems clear and general, “He that eateth Me shall live by Me “ (ver. 57). Now, granting that this eating of Christ may be apart from the Eucharist, yet is it not quite clear that, howsoever it be, it is life-giving? The proposition is perfectly universal. Though, therefore, we may admit that it may be applicable to a mere spiritual feeding by faith, yet we must contend that, if in the Eucharist it be real, then it must bring life with it. “He that eateth shall live.” The only question is therefore – who eateth? Whosoever eateth, if the eating be real eating, eateth life. If, therefore, in the Eucharist a man really feeds on Christ, he lives by Him. Hence, those who eat and drink unworthily, cannot really feed on the Lord’s Body; though, “to their condemnation, they do eat and drink the Sacrament of so great a thing.” And this seems, at the same time, to prove the proposition of our Article, and to disprove the whole theory of transubstantiation and of the natural presence.
Article XXX
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.
De utraque Specie.
Calix Domini laicis non est denegandus, utraque enim pars Dominici Sacramenti ex Christi institutione et praecepto, omnibus Christianis ex aequo administrari debet.
Section I – History
It is not so much as pretended by the more candid Roman Catholics, that there is patristic authority for withdrawing the cup from the laity.
In the earliest account we have of the ministration of the Eucharist, that of Justin Martyr, we read that “ the deacons gave to every one that was present to partake of the bread, over which thanks had been offered, and of wine mixed with water, and that they carried them also to those not present.” {Ευχαριστήσαντος δε του προεστωτος και επευφημήσαντος πάντος του λαου, οι καλούμενοι παρ ημιν διάκονοι διδόασιν εκάστω των παρόντων μεταλαβειν του ευχαριστηθέντος άρτου και οίνου και ύδατος, και τοις ου παρουσιν αποφέρουσι. – Justin. Apol. I. p. 97.} This is fully confirmed by St. Cyprian, who speaks of the deacons as “offering the cup to those who were present.” {“Ubi solennibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit.” – Cyp. De Lapsis, p. 94, Fell.} St. Chrysostom especially notices, that there was no distinction between priests and laymen in this respect: “Whereas under the old Covenant the priests ate some things, and the laymen others; and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things, of which the priest partook; it is not so now, but one Body is placed before all, and one cup.” {Ου καθάπερ επι της παλαιας τα μεν ο ιερευς ήσθιε, τα δε ο αρχόμενος· και θέμις ουκ ην τω λαω μετέχειν ών μετεχεν ο ιερευς, αλλ ου νυν, αλλα πασιν εν σωμα προκειται και εν ποτήριον. – Chrysost. Homil. XIV in 1 Cor.}
These and similar expressions of the fathers are fully borne out by the language of the ancient liturgies; from which we infer, not only that both elements were administered alike to clergy and laity, but that they were ministered separately. The fear of spilling the consecrated wine (of right to be regarded reverently, but in the course of time regarded superstitiously) led to the administering the two elements together, by dipping the consecrated bread into the cup, which custom still continues in the Eastern Churches. But the doctrine of transubstantiation naturally led to the belief that inasmuch as the elements were wholly changed into the substance of Christ, therefore whole Christ, Body and Blood, was contained in either element; and hence that if only one element was received, yet Christ was fully received under that one element.
It was not at first without opposition, both from councils and from eminent divines, that the custom which this belief gave rise to, gradually gained ground. Thus the XXVIIIth canon of the Council of Clermont (A. D. 1095) decrees, that all who shall communicate at the altar shall receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under both kinds, if there be no provision to the contrary. {See Dupin, Cent. XI. Vol. IX. p. 74.} And in the next century Geoffrey, Abbot of Vendome, censures the custom of a certain monastery, where both species were not administered separately, but the bread was steeped in the wine. {Dupin, Cent. XII. Vol. X. p. 138.}
In the time of the schoolmen, however, the question was pretty much discussed whether it was lawful to receive in one kind only. They were by no means agreed that either element could be dispensed with. But the temptation to withhold the cup was great. Thereby the danger was avoided of spilling on the ground the sacred Blood of Christ. Thereby too, it was left in the power of the priesthood to dispense only so much as they chose, even of the ordinance of Christ.*
{*It is a remarkable acknowledgment of Cardinal Bona, that “ always, everywhere, from the very first foundation of the Church to the 12th century, the faithful always communicated under the species both of bread and wine.” “Certum est omnes passim clericos et laicos, viros et mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitus sumpsisse, cum solemni eorum celebrationi aderant, et offerebant et de oblatis participabant. Extra sacrificium vero, et extra ecclesiam semper et ubique sub una specie in usu fuit. Primae parti assertionis consentiunt omnes, tam Catholici quam sectarii; nec eam negare potest, qui vel levissima rerum Ecclesiasticarum imbutus sit. Semper enim et ubique, ab ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum, sub specie panis et vini communicarunt fideles: coepitque paulatim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere, plerisque episcopis eum populo interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentiae et effusionis.” – Bona, Rev. Liturg. Lib. II. C. 18, n. 1, quoted by Bingham, E. A. XV. V. 1.}
There was scarcely any corruption of Popery so much complained of by Wickliffe, Huss, and other early reformers as this withholding from the faithful what they cherished as a portion of their birthright. It was one of the abuses which, it was fondly hoped, the Council of Constance (A. D. 1415) would reform and eradicate. But so far from reforming it, that famous Council decreed that as the reception of one element was sufficient for the receiving wholly both the Body and Blood of Christ, so the Eucharist should be received by the laity in one kind only. {Concil. Constant. Sess. XIII. See also Mosheim, Cent. XV. ch. II. § 8.}
This decree led to serious results in Germany. The sects of the Calixtines and Taborites sprang up in opposition to it; the former protesting against the depriving them of an inalienable right and privilege, the latter not satisfied with protesting, but having recourse even to arms and violence. {Mosheim, Cent. XV. pt. II. ch. III. §§ 5, 6.}
It is only further necessary to add that whilst every reformed Church in Christendom restored to the laity the cup in the Eucharist, the Council of Trent, following the Council of Constance, decreed anathemas against all who held, that both kinds were necessary to all the faithful – against all who denied that the Catholic Church had been led by just causes to order the laity and the non-ministering clergy to communicate under the species of bread alone – and against all who denied that whole Christ was received according to His own institution under one kind. {Sess. XXI. Cap. I. II. III.}
Section II – Scriptural Proof
The only passages in Scripture which can be appealed to, are those which relate to the institution of the Eucharist. In all of these there appears no difference between the bread and the cup, save only this: that in St. Matthew (26:27) our Lord is specially related to have used, concerning the latter, the words “ Drink ye all of it,” and in St. Mark (14: 23) it is specially recorded that “they all drank of it”; whereas, concerning the bread, it is only said, “Take, eat.” If therefore we can at all infer that one should be of more universal extent and applicability than the other, our inference should surely be rather in favour of the cup than in favour of the other element.
But I believe it is never argued that Scripture gives authority for the withdrawing of the cup. The mode of argument is this. It is true, all the Apostles received both elements. But then all were priests. This therefore is not sufficient ground for assuming that the laity are of necessity to receive both elements. It is granted that it is not a matter de fide and of absolute obligation to withdraw the cup from laymen, but merely a Church ordinance for greater decency and edification. It is indeed necessary to consecrate both bread and wine in order to follow our Lord’s example; and for the same reason necessary that some one should receive them both. Hence the officiating priest always communicates in both kinds. But it is no injury to the rest that they receive but in one kind, for whole Christ (Body and Blood and Spirit and Godhead) is received perfectly under either species; and therefore he who receives but one, has no need to receive more. It is a similar case to that when our Lord said to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit” (John 13:10).
Now this is surely very unsafe reasoning. It is true, the Apostles were all ministers of Christ. But if this be ground for withdrawing the cup, it might be as well pleaded for withdrawing the Sacrament altogether from the laity. There were at that memorable Passover none present but our Lord and His Apostles. But surely the example was intended for all the Church. Besides which the Church of Rome withholds the cup not only from the laity, but even from all the clergy except the consecrating priest; which clearly is inconsistent with the original institution wherein our Lord did not drink of it Himself alone, but said, “Drink ye all of it,” and “they all drank.”
If we take St. Paul’s statements and reasonings in 1 Cor. 10, 11, we shall find much ground to conclude that not only presbyters, but the people too, partook of the two elements. His addresses, warnings, exhortations in those two chapters are evidently general. We should almost infer that they were rather to the laity than to the clergy. It is more likely that laymen, than that clergymen, should have been guilty of partaking of idol feasts and of neglecting to hallow the feast of the Eucharist. Now one argument by which he tries to persuade the Corinthian Christians not to eat what had been offered to idols is, “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21). This would be no great argument to laymen unless they were permitted to drink “the cup of the Lord”. And in the following chapter he presses on them the duty of self-examination before communion, and of reverently partaking of that holy Sacrament, in terms which show clearly that all those whom he addresses, i.e. both clergy and laity, were wont to receive both the bread and the cup: “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come; wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall, be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man (i.e. any man, whosoever receives the Sacrament) examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:27–29).
With such strong evidence that the cup was not only instituted by our blessed Lord, but also received by all His people, it is surely very hazardous to conclude from certain inductions of reason that one half of His ordinance may be withheld from the great body of His Church. On what do we rest as an assurance that we shall receive blessing in the use of Sacraments but on our knowledge that we are acting in obedience to our Lord’s commands, doing as He has ordained that we should do, and therefore have a right to expect that He will give that grace which He has promised to give in the due administering of his ordinances? But if we, resting on our own fallible judgments, curtail His ordinances, and administer but half of what He has enjoined, what right have we to expect a blessing to rest upon us? A Sacrament is no Sacrament without these three requisites: the minister, the ordained elements, and the words of consecration. We should not think baptism valid if we substituted sand for water; nor the Eucharist valid if we substituted water for wine, or meat for bread; although the rite which of old answered to the Eucharist, was celebrated with the flesh of lamb. It leaves therefore a very serious question, whether the Sacrament is a valid Sacrament when there is only ministered one half of what Christ ordained, of what the Apostolic Christians received, and of what the Catholic Church administered for very many centuries after the Apostles.
It is quite clear that only one thing can give even a colour of pretence for this mutilation of the ordinance: namely, the hypothesis that the elements are transubstantiated, each element into the entire substance of the Saviour. If this hypothesis fail, the alternative remains that the Sacrament is not as Christ ordained it, and that (unless He, of His mercy, supplies the deficiency) it is not such as to warrant us in the assurance that it is more than a piece of will-worship and human invention. We do not indeed wish to deny that those who, in faith and ignorance, receive a mutilated Sacrament, may receive the full blessing. We trust that such is the case, because we believe our gracious Lord will give the food of everlasting life, His own blessed Body and Blood, even through imperfect means (or, it may be, without means at all) to those who come to Him in faith and penitence, not with perverse neglect, but in unwilling ignorance. But this does not prevent us from saying, that the Eucharist without the cup is not the Eucharist ordained of Christ.
[It is worthy of remark that the Councils of Constance (Sess. XIII) and Trent (Sess. XXI. chaps. I. III.) both admit that our Lord instituted and administered in both kinds.
Constance also admits that the Primitive Church exhibited in both kinds; while Trent (Sess. XXI. chap. 11) says, that the use of both species has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent.”
Constance appears to justify its action on the ground that as our Lord instituted after supper, and it was afterwards the rule to receive fasting, so the Church may also change Christ’s actual institution, and – quoad recipientem – the matter of the Sacrament. Surely, to state such reasoning is to answer it.
See Sir Humphrey Lynde’s Via Tuta, Sec. IX. Par. 6. – J. W.]
Article XXXI
Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfitction, 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.
De unica Christi oblattone to cruce perfecta.
Oblatio Christi semel facta, perfecta eat redemptio, propitiatio et satisfactio pro omnibus peccatis totius mundi, tam originalibus quam actualibus; neque praeter illam unicam est ulia alia pro peccatis expiatio: unde missarum sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem offerre Christum in remissionem poenae, aut culpae, pro vivis et defunctis, blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosae imposturae.
Section I – History
It cannot be doubted that, from the very first, the fathers spoke of the Eucharist under the name of an offering or sacrifice. Clement of Rome writes of the bishops of the Church, as “unblamably and holily offering the gifts”; {αμέμπτως και οσίως προσενέγκοντας τα οωρα. – Clem. 1 Ad Corinth. c. 44.} where he is evidently alluding to the Eucharist. The gifts were the bread and wine, and the other offerings presented on the table of the Lord. The verb made use of is προςφέρειν; so that Clement calls the Eucharist by the name προςφορα, offering. Justin Martyr not only calls it προςφορα, offering, but moreover θυσία, sacrifice. He quotes Malachi (1:10, 11) as prophesying, “Of the sacrifices to be offered by us Gentiles in every place, i.e. the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of the Eucharist.” {Περι των εν πάντι τόπω υφ ημων των εθνων προσφερομένων αυτω θυσιων, τουτέστι του αρτου της Ευχαριστίας και του ποτηρίου ομοίως της Ευχαριστίας, προλέγει τότε ειπων, και το όνομα δοξάζειν ημας. – Dial. c. Tryph. p. 260 ; cf. pp. 344, 345.} Irenaeus cites the same prophecy, and applies it to the same Sacrament; saying that the prophet foretold “the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God.” {“Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo.” – Lib. IV. C. 32, p. 323, Grabe. So quoting Matt. 5:23, 24: “Cum igitur offers munus tuum ad altare,” &c., he says, “Offerre igitur oportet Deo primitias ejus creaturae”; Lib IV. C 34, p. 325.} Tertullian constantly speaks of oblations and sacrifices, using the word offer (offerre), {“Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec offerre.” – De Veland. Virginibus, c. 9.} and so probably oblation {“Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus.” – De Corona Militis, C. 2.} of the Eucharist ; though the word sacrifice is applied by him rather to the sacrifice of prayer or praise. {“Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro et ipsius, sed quo modo praecepit Deus, pura prece. Non enim eget Deus, Conditor universitatis, odoris aut sanguinis alicujus.” – Ad Scapulam, C. 2. Cf. Cont. Marc. Lib. IV. C. 1, where he calls Sacrificium mundum .... simplex oratio de conscientia pura. So De Orat. 28. “ Haec (i.e. oratio) est hostia spiritualis, quae pristina sacrificia delebit.”}
These are all authorities of the first two centuries; all witnesses within little more than a century from the Apostles. The question which occurs concerning them is, in what sense do they speak of offering and sacrifice?
Justin Martyr says: “The offering of fine flour, for those who were cleansed of leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist which the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to offer in remembrance of His suffering.” {Η της σεμιδάλεως προσφορα η υπερ των καθαριζομένων απο της λέπρας προσφέρεσθαι παραδοθεισα, τύπος ην του άρτου της ευχαριστίας, ον εις ανάμνησιν του πάθους Ιησους Χριστος Κύριος ημων παρέδωκε ποιειν. – Dial. pp. 256, 260.} Clemens Romanus speaks of “offering the gifts”. Justin and Irenaeus both refer to the “pure offering” of Malachi, which, though Justin after the LXX translates it by θυσία, sacrifice, is in the Hebrew מִנְחָה, mincha, i.e. an oblation. Now the mincha was an offering of meal or flour baked, or of parched corn. It is a “meat offering,” according to the English version; but, as Joseph Mede observes, we might more correctly call it a bread offering. {Mede, On the Christian Sacrifice, ch. III.} Again, Tertullian speaks of the Christian sacrifice as a sacrifice of “pure prayer”, as Justin Martyr also had done before him. {Ότι μεν ουν και ευχαι ευχαριστίαι υπο των αξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι μόναι και ευάρεστοί εισι τω Θεω θυσίαι και αυτος φημι. – Dial. p. 345.}
We have very similar witness from Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The former calls the sacrifice of the Church, “Speech exhaled from holy souls, whilst the whole understanding is laid open before God together with the sacrifice.” {Η θυσία της εκκλησίας, λόγος απο των αγίων ψυχων αναθυμιώμενος, εκκαλυπτομένης άμα της θυσίας και της διανοίας απάσης τω Θεω. – Clem. Strom. VII. p. 848.} And the holy altar, he says, is the righteous soul. {βωμον δε αληθως άγιον, την δικαίαν ψυχήν. Ibid.} Origen, in like manner, frequently spiritualizes; but specially concerning the Eucharist he says, that “Celsus would give first-fruits to demons, so we offer first-fruits to God.” {Contra Celsum, Lib. VIII. C. 33.}
In all these fathers, then, we find no certain reference to any offering in the Eucharist, except the offering of the bread and wine in the way of gifts or oblations to the service of God; as the fine flour and the meat or bread offerings were presented by the Jews, and with them a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving. The use of the word θυσία, sacrifice, gives no contradiction to this statement: for besides that it is the rendering of the Hebrew mincha by the LXX translators, it has been clearly proved that the word by no means of necessity implies an offering of a slain victim, though such was its primary signification; but that it is also applicable to all other kinds of offerings and oblations, whether it be in classical or biblical Greek. {See Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. I. sect. 1. He shows, from classical authorities, that “to sacrifice is to give to the gods” (θύειν δωρεισθαι εστι τοις θεοις); and especially, that θυσία in the Greek, and sacrificium in the Latin, are the common rendering of מִנְחָה in the Hebrew. The Apostle calls Cain’s offering of fruits a sacrifice, θυσία; as well as Abel’s offering of cattle. Heb. 11:4. Hence, the Christian and theological application of the term, not only to animal, but also to inanimate offerings.}
Very early we have express mention of a Christian altar. {θυτιαστηρίου. See Ignat. Ad Ephes, I. 5; Magnes. 7; Trall. 7; Philadelph. 4, &c.} But we can infer no more from the use of the word altar than from the use of the word sacrifice. A sacrifice (θυσία) implies an altar (θυσιαοστήριον). If the offering of the bread and wine, as first-fruits to God, be esteemed a sacrifice, then that whereon it is offered would be esteemed an altar. If the offering of prayer and praise be a sacrifice, the soul from which they rise up to God would be the altar. We need not question that these early fathers, as undoubtedly those after them believed that the bread and wine offered to the Lord were offered in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, and so, that the Eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice. But it is remarkable that even this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice does not expressly appear before the time of Cyprian. If the earliest fathers really believed that Christ in the Eucharist was offered afresh for the sins of the quick and dead, it is certainly a most extraordinary example of silence and reserve that, for two centuries after Christ, they should never once have explained the sacrifice of the Eucharist in any manner, but either as an offering of first-fruits to God, like the mincha or fine flour of the Israelites, or else as an offering of praise and thanksgiving and spiritual worship.
In Athenagoras indeed (A. D. 150) occurs, I believe, the first example of that remarkable expression so universally adopted by later fathers, the unbloody sacrifice. “Of what service to me are whole burnt offerings, of which God has no need? Although it be right to offer an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring ,the reasonable service.” {τι δέ μοι ολοκαυτωμάτων ων μη δειται ο Θεός; και τοι προσφέρειν δέον αναίμακτον θυσίαν, και την λογικην προσάγειν λατρείαν. – Legatio pro Christianis, 12.} Mr. Johnson sees “no occasion to doubt. that he means the oblation of material bread and wine.” {Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. II. sect. 1.} It may be so; though we cannot with certainty say that he had the Eucharist in view at all. If he had, the very term, “unbloody sacrifice,” takes us back to the distinction among the Israelites between offerings of slain beasts, bloody sacrifices, and offerings of bread, flour, and fruits, unbloody sacrifices. And so the very name by which the Eucharist was so constantly called afterwards, and which possibly Athenagoras first applied to it, seems to place it as a material offering rather with the mincha or bread offering than with the ολοκαύτωμα, the burnt offering or bloody sacrifice of the Jews.
From the time of Cyprian, however, it is a fact too plain and notorious to need demonstration that the fathers speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice with special reference to the Body and Blood of Christ commemorated and spiritually present in that holy sacrament. St. Cyprian, referring to the priesthood of Melchizedek as a type of Christ’s priesthood, says that “in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the Sacrament of the Lord’s sacrifice.” {“Item in sacerdote Melchisedec sacrificii Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus.” – Epist. 63, p. 149. Oxf. 1682.} “Who was more a priest of the most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the Father? and He offered the same which Melchizedek had offered, i.e. bread and wine, even His own Body and Blood.” {“Num quis magis sacerdos Del Summi quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus? qui sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit; et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem.” – Ibid.} He then goes on to argue for the use of wine in the Eucharist, and not of water merely, which he considers essential for the perfect following of Christ in His first institution of the sacrament. He says, that “therefore Christ’s Blood is not offered if there be no wine in the cup.” {“Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici.” – Ibid. p. 151.} “If Jesus Christ our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself a sacrifice to His Father, and then commanded this to be done in remembrance of Him, then that priest truly performs the part of Christ, who imitates what Christ did and then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so begin to offer as he sees Christ to have offered before.” {“Nam si Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos Dei Patris; et sacrificium Patri se sum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit; utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur; et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse.” – Ibid. p. 155.}
This is the first use of such language; but it was common from this time. The Roman Catholics claim it as clearly proving that a true sacrifice and offering up anew of Christ in the Eucharist was believed in the earliest time. Protestants have, on the contrary, asserted that no material sacrifice is intended at all; that there is allusion only to a spiritual sacrifice wherein the whole Church considered as Christ’s Body is offered to God. {This undoubtedly was one of the views which the fathers took of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. “Hoc est sacrificium Christianum; multi unum Corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus nota frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstrator, quod in ea re quam offert, ipsa offeratur.” – Augustin. De Civit. Dei, Lib. X. C. 6, Tom. VII. p. 243.} We may be so said symbolically to offer up in sacrifice ourselves; and that is all. {This seems to be Waterland’s opinion. See On the Eucharist, ch. XII.} Time and space will not permit a full investigation of the many passages which would elucidate this question, nor a full examination of the arguments. Against the Romanist theory the following facts appear to me fatal. First, there is the already noticed silence of all the fathers till the middle of the third century on so essential a part, if it be a part, of the Eucharistic doctrine. That Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, should never have known of it, or, knowing, should never have mentioned it, seems utterly incredible if the doctrine were from the beginning. Secondly, if there were always offered in the Church a real sacrifice of Christ Himself, then no other sacrifice could be compared with it. It must far exceed in glory and in value everything besides. Yet we find the fathers preferring spiritual sacrifices even to the oblation in the Eucharist. “Will they drive me from the altars?” says Gregory Nazianzen. “But I know there is another altar, whereof these visible altars are but the figures To that will I present myself; there will I offer acceptable things, sacrifice and offering and holocausts, better than the one now offered, as much as truth is better than a shadow. From this altar no one can debar me.”* Is it possible that any one should prefer an altar and a sacrifice, “all,” as he says, “the work of the mind” (όλον του νου το έργον), before the very offering up of the Saviour of the world? We may add, that the fathers too frequently speak of the sacrifice of Christians as spiritual sacrifices,** for us to imagine that they held a literal offering up of a literal sacrifice (that sacrifice being Christ’s Body and Blood) on the altar in the Eucharist.
{*Θυσιαστηρίων είρξουσιν; αλλ οιδα και άλλο θυσιαστήριον, ου τύποι τα νυν ορώμενα. ... τούτω παραστήσομαι τούτω θύσω δεκτα, θυσίαν και προσφοραν και ολοκαυτώματα, κρείττονα των νυν προσαγομένων, όσω κρείττον σκιας αλήθεια. ... τούτου μεν ουκ απάξει με του θυσιαστηρίου πας ο βουλόμενος. – Greg. Nazianz. Orat. XXVIII. Tom. I. p. 484, cited by Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. XII.}
{**See for instance Euseb. Dem. Evangel. Lib. I. C. X, cited by Waterland, as above. Cyril of Jerusalem calls the Eucharist “a spiritual sacrifice, an unbloody service,” την πνευματικην θυσίαν, την αναίμακτον λατρείαν. – Cat. Mystagog.V. C. 6. St. Augustine describes the Christian sacrifice as the Sacrament or sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice. “Sacriflcium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, hoc est, sacrum signum est.” – De Civitate Dei, Lib. X. C. 5, Tom. VII. p. 241. All such language is quite inconsistent with the notion of an actual offering up of Christ afresh for the sins of the world.}
But, on the other hand, it seems to me that we cannot at once dismiss the whole question without farther inquiring in what sense the fathers did see in the Eucharist the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, for the propitiation of our sins. Their language from the time of Cyprian is both too uniform and too strong, for us to doubt that it had a pregnant significance.
The Eucharist undoubtedly succeeded to, and corresponded with the Passover. The latter was the type; the former is the memorial of the death of Christ. One typical of the great sacrifice; the other commemorative of the same. The one was the great federal rite of the Jews; the other is the great federal rite of the Christians. In this view the fathers much considered it. And so, as they viewed the Passover as a typical sacrifice, they viewed the Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice. We have already heard Chrysostom imagining and depicting, in his own fervid language, “ the Lord sacrificed and lying, the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, {Chrysost. De Sacerdotio, III. quoted under Art. XXVIII.} &c.” And it is admitted by most persons that the Lord’s Supper, if not a sacrifice, is yet (spiritually of course) a feast upon a sacrifice. Now the sacrifice feasted on is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God. Our ordinary idea of offering a sacrifice, when that sacrifice is a living victim, is that it must be slain when it is offered. But the early Christians appear to have understood that, although Christ was once for all slain and so did once for all offer up Himself to God, yet, that every time His sacrifice is commemorated, and that sacrifice spiritually fed upon, we do, as it were, present before God, plead before the Father, the efficacy of that great offering, the all-prevailing merits of His precious Blood. The same is true, more or less, in every act of devotion. No well-instructed Christian ever prays to God, without pleading the atonement and the death of Christ. So, in effect, at every prayer we present to the Father the sacrifice of His Son. But more especially, and with most peculiar significance, we may be said to plead His merits, to present His efficacious passion, and so, in a certain sense, to offer His all-prevailing sacrifice before the mercy seat of God, when with the consecrated symbols of His Body and Blood before us, we approach the Table of the Lord to be fed by Him with the food of everlasting life.
In this sense then, most especially, the fathers seem to have esteemed the Eucharist not only a sacrificial feast, but also a sacrifice. It was indeed by a metonymy. The Eucharist was a remembrance (ανάμνησις) of the great sacrifice on the cross. And so it was called by the name of that which it recorded. But it was not only a remembrance to ourselves; it was also esteemed a special mode of pleading it before God, and therefore it was named a sacrifice. And as the sacrifice of the cross was the propitiatory sacrifice, so this too was called a sacrifice of propitiation both because of its recalling that great propitiatory sacrifice, and because by enabling us spiritually to feed on, and to take the blessed fruit of that sacrifice to ourselves, it was the means of bringing home to our souls the pardoning efficacy of Christ’s death, the propitiation for sins which He has wrought. {Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the passage just cited. Cat. Mystaaog. V. C. 6, speaks of the “spiritual Sacrifice, and the bloodless service over that sacrifice of protitiation,” επι της θυσίας του ιλασμου.}
No doubt, the other notions concerning the oblations in the Eucharist were kept in constant view. First, the fathers esteemed it an offering or presenting of the gifts of bread and wine, and of the alms of the faithful to the service of God; secondly, as an offering of the sacrifice of prayer and praise; thirdly, as a presenting of ourselves, our souls and bodies, and so of the whole mystical body of the faithful, to the Lord; but, fourthly, they esteemed it a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, a recalling of the efficacy of that sacrifice, and a pleading of its efficacy for the salvation of their souls.
This last notion it is which makes them use such solemn and awful language concerning it, which could not be applicable to the other views of it. Thus the Liturgy of St. James calls it the “tremendous and unbloody sacrifice”. St. Chrysostom calls it “the fearful and tremendous sacrifice.” {φοβερα και φρικώδης θυσία. – Homil. XXXIV in 1 ad Corinth.} So also “most tremendous sacrifice.” {φρικωδεστάτη θυσία.} Yet the same father, when he enters into an explanation, tells us that it is not a new sacrifice, or an offering up of Christ afresh; for he says, “There is but one sacrifice; we do not offer another sacrifice, but continually the same. Or rather we make a memorial of the sacrifice.” {Ουκ άλλην θυσίαν, αλλα την αυτην αει ποιουμεν· μαλλον δε ανάμνησιν εργαζόμεθα θυσίας – Homil. XVII in Epist ad Hebraeos. See Suicer, a. v. θυσία, II. 2, Tom. I. p. 1421.} And so St. Augustine, “Christians celebrate the memorial of the same fully finished sacrifice, by sacred oblation and participation of Christ’s Body and Blood.” {“Hebraei in victimis pecudum quas offerebant Deo ... prophetiam celebrabant futurae: victimae, quam Christus obtulit. Unde jam Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, sacrosancta oblatione, et participatione Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.” – Contra Faustum, Lib. XX. C. 18, Tom. VIII. p. 345.}
It is easy to see that, when the doctrine of transubstantiation had once been invented and defined, the doctrine of the fathers concerning the commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist would be perverted into the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. That doctrine is plainly enough expressed in the canons of the Council of Trent. Therein it is forbidden to deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered to God, – that Christ made His Apostles priests, on purpose that they might offer His Body and Blood, – that there is a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, – that it profits others as well as the partakers,* &c.
{*Sess. XXII. Can. I. “Si quis dixerit in missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium ... anathema sit.” Can. II. “Si quis dixerit ... in illis verbis Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse Apostolos sacerdotes, aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi aliique sacerdotes offerrent Corpus et Sanguinem suum; anathema sit.” Can. III. “Si quis dixerit missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere; anathema sit.” The Creed of the Council has: “Profiteor in missa offerri Deo verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacriflcium.”}
From the belief that in the mass there was a true offering up of Christ, not only for the benefit of the receiver, but anew for the sins of all the world, came naturally the custom that the priest should offer the sacrifice, but the people should not communicate. Among the early Christians, all who did not communicate left the Church. But, when the doctrine of the mass was once established, the people stayed to witness the offering up of the sacrifice, which they believed to be profitable both to them and to all the world, though the priest alone offered it, and the priest alone received. The Eucharist had in fact ceased to be a Sacrament. It had become, in the belief of the majority, a propitiatory offering, not a covenanting rite.
There was perhaps nothing against which the reformers generally were so strong in their denunciations as against this. They deemed it derogatory to the one, full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, once offered on the Cross. “Christ,” says Luther, “once offered Himself; nor did He will to be offered up anew by any; but He willed that a memorial of His sacrifice should be observed.” {“Christus semel seipsum obtulit, non voluit denuo ab ullis offerri, sed memoriam sui sacriflcii voluit fieri.” – De Abroganda Missa Privata, Tom. II. p.249.} Calvin, after explaining the meaning of the word sacrifice as applied to the Eucharist by the fathers, does not blame them for the use of that term, but still regrets that they should have approached too near to Jewish notions. “Now that the sacrifice has been offered and completed,” he says, “God gives us a table where we may feast, not an altar on which the victim is to be offered. He has not consecrated priests to immolate, but ministers to distribute.” {“Mensam ergo nobis dedit in qua epulemur, non altare super quod offeratur victima; non sacerdotes consecravit, qui immolent, sed ministros qui sacrum epulum distribuant.” – Instit. IV. 3. iii. 12.} He calls the sacrifice of the mass, the greatest abomination of all those erected against the Eucharist. {Inst. IV. xviii. 1.}
The language of the English reformers is of still more interest to us. Let us hear Ridley, the most esteemed among them. “The whole substance of our sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord’s Supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving of thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of that sacrifice upon the altar of the Cross; that the same might continually be had in reverence by mystery, which, once only and no more, was offered as the price of our redemption.” {Disputations at Oxford, Works, Parker Society, p. 211.} Elsewhere he acknowledges that “the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice, if it be rightly understood”; which he explains by saying that “It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice.” {Ibid. p. 250.} But the mass he calls “a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice, to satisfy and pay the price of sins, both of the dead and of the quick, to the great and intolerable contumely of Christ our Saviour, His death and passion; which was and is the only sufficient and everlasting, available sacrifice, satisfactory for all the elect of God, from Adam the first, to the last that shall be born to the end of the World.” {A Piteous Lamentation, Works, p. 52. Compare Cranmer, Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine, Bk. V., Works, pp. 447–463.}
The dread of the mass, which has prevailed generally among the reformed Churches, has made the majority of their members fear to speak at all concerning an Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet there have not been wanting, in the English Church especially, men of profound learning, deep piety, and some of them by no means attached to peculiar schools of doctrine, who have advocated the propriety of speaking of the Christian sacrifice, and of adopting, in some measure, the language of the primitive Church concerning it.
The first who spoke strongly and clearly to this effect, was the learned Joseph Mede (A. D. 1635). His discourse was originally a Sermon on Malachi 1:11 which he maintained to be prophetic of the Eucharistic offering. And the offering in the Eucharist he defines to be an oblation of prayer and praise, of bread and wine, analogous to the mincha of the old Testament, and a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. {See Mede’s Works, p. 355. London, 1677. The discourse is most valuable, and deserving of all attention.} Dr. Cudworth shortly after wrote his treatise on The true notion of the Lord’s Supper, wherein he denied to the Eucharist the name of a sacrifice, but especially insisted that it was “a feast upon a Sacrifice.” Grabe, in the notes on his edition of Irenaeus (A. D. 1702) maintained the sentiments of Joseph Mede; for which he was attacked by Buddeus, a learned Lutheran, {Buddeus, De Origine Missae Pontificiae.} who accused him of advocating the sacrifice of the mass, and afterwards by others, though he was defended by Pfaffius, also a Lutheran. {Pfaffius, Irenaei Fragm. Anecdot.} Sentiments in accordance with Mede’s and not much diverse from Grabe’s were undoubtedly adopted by a large number of our divines: e. g. by Hammond, { Practical Catechism, p. 413. London, 1700.} by Archbishop Bramhall, {Epistle to M. De la Milletière, Works, I. p. 54, Edit. Anglo-Cath. Library. “We do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of prayers and praises; we profess a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross; and, in the language of Holy Church, things commemorated are related as if they were then acted ... We acknowledge a representation of that action to God the Father: we acknowledge an impetration of the benefit of it: we maintain an application of its virtue. So here is a commemorative, impetrative, applicative sacrifice ... To make it a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the only true Sacrifice of the Cross, I hope both you and I abhor.”} by Bishop Patrick, {On the Christian Sacrifice.} by Bishop Bul1, {Answer to the Bishop of Meaux, Lect. III. Works, II. p. 251. Oxf. 1827.} by Hickes, {Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, ch. II.} by John Johnson, {On the Unbloody Sacrifice.} and many others.
Bishop Bull’s words may express the view which most of these divines have taken: “It is true, the Eucharist is frequently called by the ancient fathers an oblation, a sacrifice; but it is to be remembered that they say also, it is θυσία λογικη και αναίμακτος, a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood: which how can it be said to be if therein the very Blood of Christ were offered up to God ? ... In the holy Eucharist we set before God bread and wine, ‘as figures or images of the precious Blood of Christ, shed for us, and of His precious Body’ (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy); {Constitut. Apostol. VII. 25.} and plead to God the merit of His Son’s Sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessing on us. ... The Eucharistical sacrifice thus explained is indeed λογικη θυσία, a reasonable sacrifice, widely different from that monstrous sacrifice of the mass taught in the Church of Rome.” {Bishop Bull, as above.}
Section II – Scriptural Proof
I. We have seen that in the mass the priest is said to offer up Christ afresh as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of quick and dead. That is to say, the mass is a repetition or iteration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
This is in direct contravention of a large portion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There (from ch. 5:1 to the end of ch. 10) St. Paul is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of the Levitical priests; the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ over the sacrifices offered under the Law. Now the very line of argument which he takes all rests upon the permanency of Christ, His priesthood, and His sacrifice. “They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood ... who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for His own sins, and then for the people’s: for this He did once for all (εφάπαξ) when He offered up Himself” (Heb. 7:23, 24, 27). So, again, having observed that the Jewish high priest entered into “the Holiest of all once every year, not without blood” (Heb. 9:7): he adds, that Christ, “not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood entered in once for all (εφάπαξ) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (ver. 12). And again, “Christ is not entered into the holy places .... that He should offer Himself often ... but now once for all (άπαξ) in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” &c. (Heb. 9:24, 26, 27, 28).
The first twenty-two verses of the 10th Chapter are devoted to farther insisting on this truth. The repetition of the Jewish sacrifices, St. Paul tells us, resulted from their imperfection. If they could have made “the corners thereunto perfect ... would they not have ceased to be offered?” (vv. 1, 2). But “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin” (v. 4). Hence, “every priest” under the Law “standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But He, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God ... For by one offering He hath perfected FOREVER them that are sanctified” (vv. 11, 12, 14). And the conclusion which is drawn is, that, as Christ has obtained remission for our sins, and “where remission of these is there is no more offering for sins” (v. 18); therefore we may “draw near with a true heart with a full assurance of faith” (v. 22); plainly, as being assured, that the one sacrifice, once offered, has been fully sufficient for all our sins.
Now, nothing can be plainer than this argument; and if it proves anything, surely it must prove that to believe in the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice is to believe in its imperfection. And if it be imperfect, in what a state are we! – we, who are lost sinners, and who have no hope but in the efficacy of the atoning Blood of Christ. If that atoning Blood be not of infinite value, we are of all creatures most miserable. But if it be of infinite value, and if the Sacrifice be perfect, and “able to make the comers thereunto perfect,” then the Apostle assures us that it cannot need, that it will not admit of, repetition. “The worshippers once purged shall have no more conscience of sins” (ch. 10:2). “We are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all” (ver. 10). There is “a new and living way consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His Flesh” (ver. 20). And not only may we know, to our eternal comfort, that the one sacrifice has been full, perfect, and all-sufficient; but to our warning too we are told that “if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (ver. 26). All combines to assure us, that the one Sacrifice has been once offered, that it admits no addition, that it can never be renewed. It is once for all, as man’s death is but once. It is one and forever, as God’s judgment is one and to eternity (Heb. 9:28).
We may therefore confidently adopt the strong language of our Article, that “the sacrifices of masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”
II. Yet the Christian Church is said to be “an holy priesthood:; and is “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). Those spiritual sacrifices are, 1. The sacrifice of prayer and praise: “By Him let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of the lips, giving thanks to His name” (Heb. 13:15). 2. The sacrifice of alms and of the first fruits of our substance: “To do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb. 13:16). 3. The sacrifice of ourselves to the Lord: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (την λογικην λατρείαν υμων), Rom. 12:1.
Hence, though the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Saviour has been offered once for all, never to be repeated, it is still our privilege and duty to offer Eucharistic sacrifices or thank offerings – “a reasonable ministration” – “acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Such Eucharistic offerings correspond, as we have already seen, with the thank offerings, the wave offerings, the meat offerings, the unbloody sacrifices of the Jews; not with the bloody sacrifices, or offerings of atonement.
It was the belief of the whole ancient Church that the Lord’s Supper consisted of two parts: one from God to us, God feeding us with the spiritual Body and Blood of His dear Son; the other from us to God, we sending up to Him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, consecrating to Him of the fruits of our increase, and “presenting ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Him.” Hence the whole ordinance was esteemed, not only as a feast, but also as an Eucharistic sacrifice, or thank offering.
And moreover the Apostle has declared it to be a “showing forth (καταγγελία) of the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. 11:26). It was therefore, as we have seen, esteemed by the fathers a commemoration, or “continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.” And, not only did they think of it as reminding themselves of God’s infinite mercy to their souls, but also they believed it a proper occasion for pleading the greatness of that mercy before Him, from whom it comes down. It was a telling forth of Christ’s sacrifice to man, a supplicatory representing of it to God.*
{*There has been much questioning as to the propriety or impropriety of calling the Lord’s Table an Altar. The word appears to have been used by the fathers, even from the time of Ignatius. See Ign. Ad Ephes. V; Tertullian, De Orat. XIX. &c. The only name by which we are certain that it is called in the new Testament, is τράπεζα Κυρίου, “the table of the Lord,” 1 Cor. 10:21. This, however, is put in opposition to the “table of demon gods,” which was probably an altar. Also in Mal. 1:7, 12, “altar” and “table of the Lord” seem to be synonymous. In Matt. 5:23, whether our Lord speaks of things as they were under the Jewish economy, or prophetically of what should be in the Christian Church, cannot certainly be resolved; and therefore it cannot be concluded whether he calls the Eucharistical table an altar or not. In Heb. 13:10, St. Paul says, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” This is by many thought conclusive in favour of the use of the term altar for the Lord’s table; for, though we may speak of the cross, on which the great Sacrifice was offered up, as the Christian altar, yet the Apostles could not have spoken of eating of the cross. The Christian feast is at the Eucharist, though the great Sacrifice was offered at the crucifixion. Hence it is contended, that the altar, at which Christians have a right to eat, must be the table of the Lord. The English reformers seemed, latterly at least, determined to give up the word altar, for fear of appearing to give sanction to the sacrifice of the mass. But the general language of Christians, both early and late, has been favourable to the use of it.}
Lastly, they believed the prophecy in Malachi (that “among the Gentiles, in every place, incense should be offered to God’s name, and a pure offering,” mincha purum, Mal. 1:11) to have especial reference to the spiritual sacrifices thus offered in the Holy Communion. And we, in accordance with the saints of old, and with the chief lights of our own communion, adopt such language in such a sense; though the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, as suppletory to the sacrifice of the cross, we may reject as monstrous, and fear as profane.