THE EUCHARIST NOT A SACRIFICE, BUT A COMMEMORATION OF A COMPLETED SACRIFICE. THE Eucharist is beheld from two opposite points of view. From one, a belief is engendered that it is an emblem or symbol: from the other, that it is a continuous reality. Thus two opposing theories are raised. Within the range of these two theories are found many diverse minor opinions, but these may be classed with one or other of the opposing theories. The Romanists and High Churchmen hold the bread and wine to be the real body and blood, and to manifest the corporal presence. Protestants of every hue hold them to be emblems, and symbolically to represent the body and blood. The former class believe in transubstantiation, or, the Real Presence in transmuted elements; the latter, in unchanged elements, and in sacramental or spiritual presence. The former hold the Eucharistic rite to be a true sacrifice; the latter, a commemoration of the one true sacrifice. The opinion of the latter I shall attempt to maintain. It is my purpose to show that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice but commemorative of a finished completed work-the sacrifice "once offered once for all." دو It is not denied that the rite is commemorative by those who advocate it to be a true sacrifice, but they contend that besides being commemorative it is a true propitiatory sacrifice. And, necessarily, great importance is attached to the main-. tenance of this opinion. For not only, if it be true, are the consequences flowing out of it momentous, but it follows that a sacrificial priesthood is essential. If the bread and wine be changed by consecration there needs a consecrating medium. Well, therefore, is the doctrine of transubstantiation, or, the Real Presence, called "the hinge of the question between the two religions."* On this very important subject, it is needful that we fully comprehend the doctrines that flow out of the two theories. For this purpose we will place before our readers the published declarations of the Roman Church, and of one of her earnest living advocates; and with these the doctrines of a Protestant, though not as we think fully, reformed Church—the Church of England. A reason for giving the doctrines of the Anglican Church, is, not only because they are opposed to the Roman, but because, through misconception of her doctrines, and by reason of what there is yet left of the levitical element in her constitution, some of her members are advocating the doctrine of a true Eucharistic sacrifice. We shall, therefore, present our readers with the opinions of these apostate members. The canons of the Church of Rome concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, as decreed at the Council of Trent, are CANON I.-If any one shall deny, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are verily, really, and substantially contained the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. say CANON II.-If any one shall say, that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine Lectures on the Eucharist, Dr. Wiseman, p. 102. remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema. CANON III.-If any one shall deny, that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema. CANON IV.-If any one shall say, that after the consecration is completed the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which after communion are reserved or remain, the true body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema. CANON V.-If any one shall say, either that the chief fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that from it other effects do not result; let him be anathema. CANON VI.-If any one shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, with even the worship external of latria,* and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church; or is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be worshipped, and that the worshippers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema. CANON VII.—If any one shall say that it is not lawful for Worship of the highest order. See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Chap. v., on the Worship and Veneration to be shown to the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. the sacred Eucharist to be received in the Sacrarium, but that immediately after consecration it must necessarily be distributed amongst those at hand; or that it is not lawful that it be carried honourably to the sick; let him be anathema. CANON VIII.-If any one shall say that Christ, presented in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.* That it may not be supposed we bring forward exploded bygone doctrines of a former age, or those peculiar to ultra Italian Romanism, we give the declared sentiments of one of the Church of Rome's living Anglican advocates. Cardinal Wiseman has delivered a series of lectures on the Eucharist, with a view to prove from Scripture the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he concludes them in these words : "In concluding these lectures on the Scriptural proofs of the Real Presence, I will simply say, that throughout them, I have spoken of the doctrine as synonymous with Transubstantiation. For as by the Real Presence I have understood a corporal presence, to the exclusion of all other substances, it is evident that the one is, in truth, equivalent to the other. On this account I * I have preferred giving the whole of the Canons which have relation to transubstantiation. This paper may fall into the hands of Protestants and Romanists who may not be fully aware of the tendencies of this doctrine. Unreflecting, they may not have heeded its awful consequences. It leads, necessarily, to the belief, as we see, that the whole Christ is contained in every separated particle of the consecrated elements; and settled in this belief, Romanists demand that veneration and worship be paid to each and every part. With principles based on this opinion, it is idle to suppose that Popery can be moderate, quiescent, and contented sectarianism. It may seem to repose amid hostile sects, where the arm of the law is strong enough to preserve order; but sincere Popery, if it be true to itself, must demand pre-eminence. If her priests really elevate in the consecrated bread or wafer the very body, soul, and divinity of Christ, or God Himself, they are bound to demand that the very highest worship be paid. In this we find a partial explanation of the earnestness of the intolerant creed. |