|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 28
After thus giving them the words of institution, Paul goes on to
instruct them about worthy and unworthy communing. In these
instructions we cannot help but notice how he takes the real presence
of Christ's body and blood for granted all the way through. Notice his
language. Verse 27: _"Whosoever shall eat of this bread and drink of
this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord."_ Verse 29: _"For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord's body."_ Going back to chapter ten, verse sixteen, we
find the Apostle giving the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in a few
words thus: _"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ?"_
We have now noted all the passages that speak directly on this
subject. There are other strong passages that are often quoted in
defence of the doctrine of the real presence, and which we doubtless
have a right to use in corroboration of those above quoted. We refer
to John vi. 53-56: _"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ... for
my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him."_
As it is a disputed point, however, whether this passage refers
to the Lord's Supper or not, we are willing to waive it here. We are
content to take those passages quoted above, which every one
acknowledges as referring directly to our subject. These we would have
the reader carefully examine. Note particularly the language, the
words employed. In the four accounts given of the institution, three
by the Evangelists and one by Paul, we have the same clear, plain
words concerning the bread and wine--words of the last will and
testament of the Son of God, our Saviour--"_This is my body." "This is
my blood of the New Testament_;" or "_the New Testament in my blood_."
Note the language of Paul: _"Guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord." "Not discerning the Lord's body."_ The cup is called _the
communion of the blood_, and the bread, _the communion of the body_ of
Christ. The word communion is made up of two Latin words, _con_ and
_unio_, meaning union with, or connection with. The marginal reading
in our family Bibles, as well as in the revised version, is
"participation in." The plain English of the verse then is, the bread
is a participation in, or a connection with Christ's body, and the
wine with His blood.
We are now ready to take all these passages together, to compare
them one with another, and to ask, What do they teach? What is the
Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper? Is it transubstantiation? Is it
consubstantiation? Is it that the bread and wine are mere
representations or memorials of the absent body and blood of Christ?
Or do these passages teach "That the body and blood of Christ are
truly present under the form of bread and wine and are communicated to
those that eat in the Lord's Supper?" (Augsburg Confession, Art. X.)
CHAPTER XV.
THE LORD'S SUPPER--CONCLUDED.
We have quoted, noted, collected and compared the words of
Scripture that speak of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We now
wish to ask and examine the question: What do these passages taken
together and compared with one another teach? Or, in other words, what
is the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper?
Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as held
and confessed by the Roman Catholic Church? If our investigation of
the teachings of the Holy Scriptures convinces us that they teach
Transubstantiation, we will be ready to believe and confess that
doctrine, no matter who else may believe or disbelieve it. What we
want to know, believe, teach and confess, is the _Bible
doctrine_.
What is Transubstantiation? The word means a change of substance.
The doctrine of the Romish Church is that after the consecration by
the priest, the bread in the sacrament is changed into the material
body of Christ, and the wine into His blood--so entirely changed in
substance and matter, that after the consecration there is no more
bread or wine there; what was bread has been converted into the flesh
of Christ, and what was wine has been converted into His blood. Is
this the doctrine of God's word? Does the Word anywhere tell us that
the bread and wine are thus changed? Does it call the bread flesh,
either before or after the consecration? Let us see. "Jesus took
_bread_." "I will not drink of the _fruit of the vine_." "The _bread_
which we break." "For as often as ye eat this _bread_ and drink this
cup." Such is the language of inspiration. Now we ask, if the Holy
Spirit desired that plain and unprejudiced readers should find the
doctrine of Transubstantiation in His words, why does He call the
earthly elements _bread_ and _wine_ before, during and after the
consecration Why does He not say, "as often as ye eat this flesh and
drink this blood?" Evidently because the bread is, and remains plain,
natural bread, and so with the wine. There is no change in the
component elements, in the nature, matter, or substance of either.
Transubstantiation is not the doctrine of God's word; neither was it
the doctrine of the early Church. It is one of the human inventions
and corruptions of the Church of Rome.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|