10TH THOUSAND. r

**'
*

FOND DU LAC TRACTS.

No. 2.

The Holy Eucharist

in the New Testament.

BY THE

BISHOP OF FOND DU LAC.

MILWAUKEE, WIS.:

THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO.

* —— — %
15 CENTS EACH; 60 COPIES FOR $3.50.





A£Q.3.2 12.

FOND DU LAC TRACTS.

No. 2.

The Holy Eucharist

in the New Testament.

BY THE

BISHOP OF FOND DU LAC.

MILWAUKEE, WIS.:

The young Churchman Co.



tSessMisd



the Real Presence of Christ in the

Cucharist.

i.

O
NE great difference between Chnrchmen is
that some believe in the Beal Presence of

Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and

others do not. The latter believe that the conse-

crated elements are mere symbols or pledges or

signs of Christ's Body and Blood. Some of them

hold that at the time of reception Christ feeds

with His Body and Blood those who have faith,

but they do not hold that the elements are any-

thing more than sacred symbols or ordained signs.

They would perhaps say that Christ is present “in

the sacrament," i.e in the use of the sacrament.

The others believe that by the act of consecration

the elements or outward signs, and the inward

part of the sacrament, viz., the Body and Blood

of Christ, are sacramentally united.

This Presence is called Keal, because it is the

Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. It is called

an objective Presence, because it is not a mere sub-

jective Presence in the heart of the receiver, but,

'

&



4 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

being occasioned by the act of consecration, is

there before it is received. We will consider in

this tract, which is the truer view, according to

the New Testament.

First, let ns remove some popular misunder-

standings or objections. Some have tried to puzzle

simple Christians by asking, With which Body do

you communicate; the Body on the cross, or the

glorified Body of our Lord ? The answer is, that

Christ had only one Body, and that the Body

which is now in a glorified condition is the same

Body that hung on the cross. We are to be in-

corporated into that one Sacred Humanity, whose

Blood was shed for our redemption, and which

rose for our justification.

Others, when doubting, have puzzled them-

selves with questions concerning the character of

the change wrought in the elements or the mode

of union between the inward and the outward

parts. We content ourselves with saying that the

change is not after any natural law, or like any

change that takes place in the material world. For

the whole transaction takes place in the new king-

dom or creation which has laws of its own. It

takes place in that spiritual organism which is the

Church, the mystical Body of Christ. Every-

thing connected with that organism, priests, ele-

ments, people, are partakers of its spiritual char-

acter, and are governed by its spiritual laws.

“How,” it is asked again, “if the doctrine of

the Beal Presence be the true one, can Christ's

Body be in Heaven and at the same time be on



XN THE EUCHARIST. 5

earth and on so many altars at the same time ?”

The answer is, onr Lord does not need to move,

to do this. He is the center of the spiritual or-

ganism which is His Body, the Church. His own

Body is not ubiquitous, but by reason of its union

with His omnipresent Divine Nature, He can

make It manifest in His Church where He will

and at many altars at the same time. He gave us

a proof of this after His ascension to the Bight

Hand of the Father, where He permanently abides

by appearing and talking to St. Paul in the road-

way.

It is sometimes asked by loyal Churchmen,

Wherein does our doctrine differ from Transub-

stantiation? The answer is that that word has

meant different things at different times. The

kind of Transubstantiation which is repudiated in

our Articles, viz., the change of bread and wine

into flesh and blood, happily was repudiated by the

Council of Trent. The present doctrine of Borne

was formulated after our Article was written. We

hold the ancient faith of the Beal Presence. The

Anglican Church asserts it as a fact. The

Boman tries to explain it. It puts the statement

of it in the terms of the Aristotelian philosophy

which makes a distinction between accidents and

substance. Our Church does not teach the Boman

view, but we do believe in a Beal Objective Pres-

ence.

Another difficulty has presented itself to some

minds rightly jealous of the one, full, perfect, and

sufficient sacrifice and oblation made on Calvary.



6 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

They say that Christ made one offering on the

cross, and this doctrine of the Beal Presence in-

volves that of altar and sacrifice. So it does. But

it in nowise impairs or detracts from the one Sac-

rifice offered once for all. Christ on the cross

offered a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice for

all mankind. He offered it for humanity. He
took away, by His act of reparation on behalf of

humanity which He represented, the barrier which

hindered the full, free action of God’s Love to His

creature man. He took upon Himself our sins.

“He became sin,” i.e., the sin victim, for us. He

became our substitute. The chastisement of our

peace was laid upon Him. He made an atonement

for us. That atoning work is done. “It is fin-

ished.” But does not every individual need to

plead, in the way Christ has ordained, that sacri-

fice to make it avail for his own sins and his own

personal acceptance ? As at the end of every

prayer by saying “through Jesus Christ our Lord,”

we plead by word this sacrifice and its merits, so by

the breaking of the Bread and the blessing of the

Cup, we set it forth and plead it by the Act He has

ordained.

Another difficulty sometimes presents itself to

devout believers. They fear, and rightly, a me-

chanical religion. They fear what seems like a

judasizing spirit, a reliance on externals or forms

of any kind. They know that a living faith is nec-

essary to a saving union with Christ. They may

have seen Church members who gave no sign of an

evangelical spirit, persons who were resting on the



IN THE EUCHARIST. 7

fact of their Baptism or Confirmation; nominal

Christians, who had never seemingly corresponded

to the convicting and converting power of the

Holy Spirit
;
in whom the seed-principle implant-

ed in Baptism had lain dormant and who had

never been consciously born again
;
or if once with

God, had ceased to walk with him, and whose life

was one of mere outward conformity to certain

Church requirements. Need we say that we agree

with the spirit of this objection? Sacraments are

means by which God offers to us His gifts of grace.

They will, however, do us no good, but increase

our condemnation, unless we receive them with

faith and love.

We have stated the above as preparatory to the

consideration of the truth of Christ’s Objective

Presence in the Sacrament under the visible forms

of Bread and Wine. If the faithful of the Angli-

can Church would only grasp and realize this, not

as a speculative belief and giving it a mere intel-

lectual assent, but as a heartfelt and practical con-

viction, the lives of her children would develop

into most fruitful sanctity. Indeed, there would be

kindled such a fire of enthusiastic love for Jesus

as would energetically advance the Master’s King-

dom. Jesus would be our all, and our all for

Jesus.

We purpose to consider this great fact of
Christ’s Presence only in the light of Holy Scrip-

ture. Much that we may say will be taken from
others. We do not claim to be original. We only
ask our readers sincerely to pray for Divine guid-



8 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

ance and humbly submit themselves to the Holy

Word of God. We pray Him to arouse the Episco-

pal Church as He did the luke-warm Israelites at

the time of Ezra, and set its members on fire with

Divine love and zeal for the advancement of His

Kingdom,



II.

The Eucharist in St. John.

C
ET us now consider together, with the aid of

the Holy Spirit,

What Holy Scripture says about the Eeal Pres-

ence of Christ in the Eucharist.

First we will examine the account as given in

St. John’s gospel.

St. John is the acknowledged evangelist of the

Incarnation. He begins with, “the Word was God”

and “the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among

us.” He especially bears witness to the Incarna-

tion and the extension of its grace through the

Sacraments. The other evangelists record the in-

stitution of the two great sacraments. But St.

John’s gospel, being written after the “Revela-

tion,” and coming to the established Church, re-

cords for its benefit, not the institution of the sac-

raments, for this had been done, but our Lord’s

discourses explaining them. Thus we find in this

gospel our Lord’s discourse to Mcodemus explain-

ing Christian Baptism, and that on the Eucharist

after the feeding of the five thousand. This lat-

ter discourse is recorded in the sixth chapter.

Opponents to the belief of the Real Presence



10 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

have held that this chapter does not refer to the

Eucharist. Among these are Luther, Calvin, Me-

lancthon, Beza, Bullinger, Barnes and others of

modern times. Their arguments are these: first,

that at the time our Lord pronounced these words,

the Holy Communion was not instituted, and so

He could not be understood as referring to it. The

same argument, however, would apply to our

Lord’s discourse on Baptism to Mcodemus which

most admit relates to that Sacrament. Also this ob-

jection would seemingly apply as well to our

Lord’s crucifixion, to which these opponents claim

our Lord’s wx>rds refer. It must be allowed that

those who heard our Lord could not then under-

stand the means by which Christ was to give them

His Body to eat. It does not follow, however, that

the discourse was not intended to teach the doc-

trine. The means were to be revealed afterwards

by the Last Supper. Whether there is reference

to the sacrament in this discourse must be deter-

mined by internal evidence.

A second objection raised is, that no conditions
concerning the reception are given, so that no mat-

ter with what dispositions one would eat the Flesh

and drink the Blood, he would be saved. Hence

it is argued there can be no reference here to the

Eucharist, but to Christ’s death in which we must

have evangelical faith, in order to be benefited.

Undoubtedly it is true, one must have an evangel-

ical faith in Christ’s death to be profited by it;

but the text says nothing about a “true evangelical

faith” as the condition of a saving appropriation



IN THE EUCHARIST. 11

of Christ’s death, any more than it gives the

proper disposition for a worthy reception. The

fact being that the proper conditions for the re-

ception of Christ’s gifts are necessarily implied

and are stated elsewhere in their proper place in

God’s Word. It is the same with Baptism as

with the Eucharist.

A third argument is based on the different
words used in the discourse and in the institution.

Here, Christ says we must eat of His Flesh and

drink His Blood. There, our Lord says, “This is

My Body
”

He uses the word “Flesh” in the one

case and “Body” in the other. The argument will

no doubt seem weak and trivial to our readers, we

state it because we wish them to know all that is

said on that side. The answer indeed is a very

simple and easy one. Our Lord in the upper

chamber referring to His death in which His Body,

as one whole thing, was to be broken, says appro-

priately of the bread in His hand, “This is My

Body.” But in teaching the sacramental feeding.

He as appropriately does not say “eat My Body,”

but My “Flesh.” True in eating Christ’s Flesh

we receive Christ wholly. But Christ properly

uses the word “Flesh” when referring to reception,

and “Body” when referring to His death.

Fourthly it is said that the chapter could not

refer to the Communion because its reception would

then be made an absolute condition for salvation

for all men. Ho one could be saved, it is argued,

save those who received it. The answer is that

the same objection might be raised against Bap-



12 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

tism. For it is written, “Whoso believeth and is

baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not

shall be damned.” But Christ in regard to each

sacrament is speaking to His disciples; not to

those under the law, or in heathen lands. And

does not our Prayer Book directly answer the ob-

jection when, referring to the necessity of Bap-

tism, it says, “where it may be had”? So, too, it

speaks of our reception of the Communion, when

by reason of any just impediment one is unable

to receive the consecrated elements, yet if he do

truly repent and believe, he doth eat and drink the

Body and Blood of His Saviour Christ profitably

to his souks health.

There is another set of commentators, who,

while holding that the chapter refers to the spir-

itual union with the Saviour by faith, as we also

do, yet hold that indirectly it refers to the Sacra-

ment. Among these are Doddridge, Alford, Ben-

gal, Stier, Godet, Dr. Schaff . Dean Alford says

:

“The question whether there is any reference to

the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper has been in-

accurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in

terms it will mean. Is the subject here dwelt upon,

the same as that which is set forth in the ordi-

nance of the Lord’s Supper? And of this there

can surely be no doubt.” Another of these com-

mentators thus states this position: “What our

Lord said at this time He afterwards expressed in

a permanent form by the Sacrament of His Body

and Blood.”

It will be sufficiently convincing to Churchmen



IN THE EUCHARIST. 13

to know that for the most part the ancient fathers,

St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. . Cyril, and all

that cohort of holy men, who to our Church are

dear, refer this discourse to the Holy Eucharist. It

is so referred to in the third General Council held

at Ephesus, A. D. 431. In the Epistle of St. Cyril

to Nestorius he quotes this chapter: “When the

Son of God became united to His Flesh, He made

it also to be Life-giving, as also He said to us:

‘Verily, verily, I say unto you except ye eat the

Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood/
”

Our own Anglican Church likewise did this in her

old form of exhortation to receive the Holy Com-

munion, where she quoted this sixth chapter of St.

John as applicable to it.

For us the question seems to be settled, by the

prayer of Humble Access, in which the words of

this chapter are quoted as referring to the Sacra-

ment : “Grant us so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear

Son, Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood.” We
here apply the most crucial words of our Lord in

this chapter, the eating the Flesh and drinking

the Blood, to the Communion. We quote also His
very words, “dwelleth in Me and I in him,” pray-

ing that “we may evermore dwell in Him, and He

in us.”

Our great Anglican Divines, Hooker, An-

drewes, Wordsworth, and many others, hold this

view. Keble, whose saintliness and balanced wis-

dom is recognized by all, said: “I assume that
the sixth chapter of St. John really and primarily

relates to the sacrament of Holy Communion; ac-



14 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

cording to the well-known interpretation of

Hooker, which is the interpretation of all an-

tiquity, and lies so obviously on the surface of

Scripture, that one can hardly conceive a simple,

unlearned reader giving any other turn to the dis-

course in that chapter, unless he were prepossessed

by a theory/'



III.

The Two Parts of Christ's Discourse.

O
UE Lord was wont to give a setting or frame

to His discourses by some circumstance or

miracle which would be illustrative of them. He

connects His teaching of Himself as the Resurrec-

tion and the Life, with the raising of Lazarus.

He restores the man born blind and then reproves

the blindness of the Pharisees who will not come

to Him for light. He tells Mcodemus of the new

birth by the Spirit, which is to take us out of our

natural state of darkness, as the Ruler comes to

Him by night, and the wind coming and going as

it will is heard surging without. It is at Samar-

ia’s well, to the sin-convicted heart-sore woman

He declares Himself the Living Water. In like

manner He lays the foundation of His teaching

concerning Himself as the Bread of Life. He

gives the blessed loaves into the hands of the Apos-

tles and the bread lessens not in their hands as

they distribute it to the multitude. It grows as

they give. He comes walking upon the waves and

joins His disciples in the ship and the ship is im-

mediately at land. Christ thus declares how His

bodily Presence with His disciples in the ship of

the Church is not controlled by natural laws.



16 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

Bishop Wordsworth has embalmed this truth

for us in one of his poems

:

“Lord, in Thy Sacraments

Thou walkest on the sea

;

Let us not ask—how dost Thou come ?
But gladly welcome Thee.

“Then will the winds he hushed,

The waves no longer roar

;

When Christ is with us in the ship,

The ship is at the shore.”

These miracles are not only a proof of Christ's

ability to be present in the Eucharist, but are

moreover one proof of His Presence. For if the

consecrated elements are only empty symbols, there

is nothing of a supernatural character about them,

and so these miracles, which form the framework

of our Lord's teaching on the Eucharist, would

be inappropriate and unmeaning. These mir-

acles, so full of the sovereignty of Christ over the

natural world, are full of joy and assurance to the

believer's heart. Christ's blessed Body is not con-

trolled as ours are by the conditions of space and

time, but is capable for moral purposes of dom-

inating them. Within the spiritual organism of

His Church we sit, as famishing children at His

feet, and are being fed with Himself as the Living

Bread from Heaven.

The first and most important thing to notice

concerning the discourse itself in the sixth chap-

ter of St. John is that it is divided into two parts.

It was delivered in the Synagogue at Caper-



IN THE EUCHARIST. 17

naum. The remains of the beautiful white Syna-

gogue built of white limestone, show that there

was a large pot of manna sculptured on it. Doubt-

less excitedly pointing to this, His hearers said,

“What sign shewest Thou then, that we may see,

and believe Thee ?—Our fathers did eat manna in
the desert; as it is written. He gave them bread

from Heaven to eat.” Jesus then began His in-

struction with this powerful exordium: “Verily,

verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that

bread from Heaven

;

but My Father giveth you the

true Bread from Heaven. Dor the Bread of God

is He which cometh down from Heaven and giveth

life unto the world.”

Having thus begun His great discourse, He

lays down His basic proposition: “And Jesus

said unto them, I am the Bread of Life.”

It would be well for our readers here to take

their New Testaments, and mark the 32nd verse

with the figure one. It will help them much to have

their New Testaments before them and to read this

section. This part ends probably with the 47th

verse. It ends with this very appropriate perora-

tion: “Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that

believeth in Me hath everlasting life.”

The second part begins with verse 48. It

would be well to mark this with the figure two in

Roman numerals. It is not without interest in

examining our Lord’s discourses to find that He

not unfrequently makes such a division. Thus

in St. John xv. He begins : “I am the true vine,”

and states the consequences of not abiding in Him-



18 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

self. Then He begins the second part (v. 5), and

repeating nearly the same words, “I am the vine/’

declares the fruits that ensue from abiding in

Him.

So in His discourse on Himself as the Good

Shepherd we find Him (ch. x. v. 11) saying “I am

the Good Shepherd,” and of His laying down His

life for the sheep, and then (v. 14) repeating His

text, “I am the Good Shepherd,” going on to state

the relation existing between the sheep and Him-

self.

So we find Him here in the sixth chapter of

St. John, saying in an early part of the first di-

vision of His discourse, “I am the Bread of life,”

and bringing out one set of truths, and then be-

ginning the second part at v. 48 with the very

same words, “I am the Bread of life,” and bring-

ing out another and quite different set of truths.

“Christ,” says an able writer, “speaks of two

things in this chapter
;
first of the general fact of

His Mediation and that His Humanity was the

medium through which Divine graces found their

way to mankind; secondly, that the eating His

Body and drinking His Blood was the method in

which this gift was to be participated in by in-

dividuals.”

Now it is from persons not noticing this di-

vision that most of the misunderstanding about

this discourse has come. Not seeing that entirely

different truths are treated of in each portion of

the discourse, persons have arbitrarily applied

texts in the first part to the interpretation of those

in the second, and so have failed of the right



IN THE EUCHARIST. 19

meaning. Let ns therefore analyze these two parts

and learn the differences between them.

In each there are three points. The Donor of

a great gift, the Gift itself, and then the exhorta-

tion and practical Duty enjoined in respect of it.

In the first part the Donor is the Eternal Fa-

ther. It is said (v. 32) “My Father giveth you

the true Bread from Heaven.” Six times the Fa-

ther is mentioned; and our Lord twice declares,

that it is the Father who hath sent Him.

The Gift in this part is Christ Himself. “For

the bread of God is He which cometh down from

Heaven and giveth life unto the world.”

The Duty inculcated is to believe in Him.

“Verily, verily, he that believeth in Me hath ever-

lasting life.”

In the second part all this is changed. How it

is not the Father who is the Donor, but Christ. The

Giver is seen to be another person. Christ says

again, “I am the Bread of Life.” Previously He

had said this, and then shown how He was this

Bread of Life as sent from Heaven. How He says,

“I am the Bread of Life,” as having Life in Him-

self and capable of communicating It. “I am the

Living (or Live-giving) Bread.” But, notice the

change of Donor of the gift : “The Bread that I

will give is My Flesh.” Hot only is the Donor a dif-
ferent person, but so is the Gift a different thing.

The Gift in the first place was Christ, given or

sent by the Father. How it is Christ's Flesh and
Blood, given by Himself. Again, the duty first

inculcated was that of faith, to believe in Him



20 ,THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

whom the Father had sent. The duty in the second

is to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Of this

nothing was previously said. It presents a new

and unique duty. “Except ye eat the Flesh of the'

Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life

in you. Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My

Blood hath eternal life.” “He that eateth My

Flesh and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me and

I in him.” “He that eateth Me, even He shall

live by Me.”

Again a fourth difference is this: The duty

first declared, was one immediately to be per-

formed. Then and there they were called on to

believe in Him. The duty in the second place

was remote. “The Bread that I will give is My

Flesh for the life of the world.” “The participa-

tion,” says the Speakers Commentary, “is spoken

of as still future, since it followed in its fullness

on the completed work of Christ.” Dean Alford

also declares “it is His Flesh which He will give

on behalf of the world.” “Thrice had it been

said,” says Stier, “I am Myself the Bread, and

now is added with a change—the bread which He
will give. He distinguishes from Himself who is

Bread, the Bread which he will give/' In the first

part there is an immediate duty to be performed,

in the second it is future and remote.

Moreover a fifth difference is to be seen in that

the effects produced in the two cases are of a dif-

ferent character. Christ’s hearers were first called

on to come to Him, to believe in Him. Yet as

Stier well says : “With all the believing of those



IN THE EUCHARIST. 21

who believed in Him,He came not as yet unto their

souls . So that the Apostles could only avow, stand-

ing as yet without and as it were over against Him,

Thou hast the words of Eternal Life.” But the

fruit of the faithful reception of His Flesh was

that He would come into them and abide with

them. He that eateth Me shall live by Me. He

speaks in the last section of that wonderful incor-

poration into His Humanity by which we are

made partakers of the divine Nature.

A further proof that the subject has been
changed is thus seen in the different effects assigned

to the respective gifts. To each is attributed (vv.

40, 44, 47, 54, 58) ,in general, the being raised at

the last day, and eternal life. But while resurrec-

tion and life are the result of our union with

Christ, we are united to Him both by faith and

sacramental grace. By faith we lay hold of Him,

by sacramental grace He lays hold of us. In the

first part of the discourse, we are called on to come

to Christ and believe in Him whom the Father

hath sent. We lay hold of Him. In the second

part, we are to eat the Flesh of Christ and drink

His Blood, that He may abide in us and we in

Him. The effects assigned to the respective gifts

are thus seen to be different, and the division in

the discourse yet more clearly marked.

Lastly, it must be noticed that in the first

division of His sermon, Christ never uses the word,

"eat.” Although He uses the metaphor of Bread,

and says He is the Bread that came down from

heaven, yet He never says, “Eat this Bread.” He



99 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

might have done so conformably to the duty

He sought to inculcate. If He had used this word

and figure in the first part, we should have under-

stood Him of faith. The receiving of wisdom,

under the figure of eating Bread, as we shall pres-

ently show, was a common one. The disciples

would have readily understood this figure of

speech. But it is very significant that our Lord

there avoids using it. Even when His hearers, on

His proclaiming Himself to be the true Bread

given by the Father from heaven, said, ‘‘Lord,

evermore give us this Bread,” He avoids bidding

them “eat” of this Bread. He will only repeat

again and again the duty of believing in Him.

Xow the contrast between this careful avoidance

of the word eat in the first part, and the continued

repetition of this injunction to eat in the second

part, shows again that the subject is changed.

From what has been said, the fact is now easily

recognized by our readers, that our Lord's dis-

course is divided into two parts. There could

hardly be internal evidence more decisive or com-

plete. There are five differences between the two

sections, and these affect their whole character and

meaning. The Donors of the separate Gifts, the

Gifts themselves, their modes of appropriation,

the times when they are to be made ours, and the

spiritual effects of either, are all unlike. How-

ever cautious in giving our assent, we may, there-

fore, accept this division of the discourse as now

demonstrated.

There are two corollaries, or consequences.



IN THE EUCHARIST. 23

that follow from this fact. Our readers can

now see for themselves how those miss the

correct meaning, who, not discerning the division,

apply texts from the first part, which most prop-

erly inculcate faith in Christ as our duty, to the

command in the second part to eat His Flesh and

drink His Blood. Yet how often have we heard

or read of such a strange mixture of texts to elu-

cidate the meaning. A preacher will take for his
text, “The bread that I will give is My Flesh,” or
“except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and

drink His Blood ye have no life in you,” and then

give, as an explanation, a passage from the first

discourse: “He that believeth in Me hath ever-

lasting life !” We all know we are to believe in

Him, and so by the uncritical ear and mind, the

explanation passes and is accepted, without exam-

ination. When we do pause to think, we see that

the preacher is stringing texts together, taken out

of their context, and which, though found in the

same discourse, have no real connection with one

another. It is just as illogical, and the result just

as absurd, as if we combined any other two diverse

texts together. It would be equally convincing if

we should say: It is written, “Judas went out

and hanged himself,” and then quote the text, “Go

thou and do likewise.”

The other deduction from the fact that the dis-

course is a dual one, is, that the last section relates

to the Eucharist and declares the Real Presence

in a most solemn and emphatic manner. Con-

vinced that here we have Christ’s own teaching



24 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

about His Sacrament, we can but be awed in the

presence of His divine utterances and plainness

of speech. Who are we, specks of dust, upon a

planetary speck, and where all is marvelous, to

stumble at a marvel? Without good reason none

should change their opinions, but not to change

on fair showing, is to be most unreasonable. The

wise man rectifies his opinions by the wisdom of

the wise. Let us sit at the feet of no human mas-

ters nor make idols of times or men. We must

not exalt reformers into deities, nor take medie-

valism as a model. Let us go back to Christ. Let

us accept His word in all its plainness and literal

meaning. “What the Truth hath spoken, that for

Truth I hold.”

“Christ was the Word who spake it.

He took the Bread and brake it.

And what that Word did make it.

That I believe and take it.”



IV.

The Two Metaphors.

C
HE popular argument for disbelief in the Eeal
Presence is that since our Lord, in the thirty-

fifth verse, says, “I am the Bread of Life ; he that

cometh to Me shall never hunger ; and he that be-

lieveth on Me shall never thirst,” He means noth-

ing different when He subsequently says,

“The Bread that I will give is My Flesh,” and

“Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and

drink His Blood, ye have no life in you.”

In the first instance Christ calls on us to be-

lieve in Him whom the Father has sent, and so

it is assumed very superficially that all that is in-

tended by the second injunction is to do the same

thing. How we have destroyed any logical force

that might belong to such an argument, by proving

that the discourse consists of two distinct parts;

the Giver, and the Gift, and the Duty in each case

being different, consequently what is said in one

part cannot be applied to the other.

But in addition to all these arguments there

is a further one which we think must be convincing

to every reasonable mind. The two parts of the dis-

course are separated by a very remarkable change

of language. If, for the sake of argument, we re-



26 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

gard them both as metaphors, as we are obliged to

do, if we deny that our Lord’s words in the latter

part of His discourse are to be taken literally, we

must also take into account the fact that these two

figures of speech are absolutely unlike and have

two different significations. And yet this is so

seldom pointed out in our popular commentaries

that it is but little known. It is not often dwelt

upon in sermons. Very few of our communicants

have had the opportunity given them of consider-

ing it. This is one cause of the ignorance of the

Church’s children on the subject.

The two expressions used by our Lord are

these: In the one case He speaks of Himself as

the Bread of Life and says, “He that cometh to Me

shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me

shall never thirst.” In the other case He speaks

of “eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood.”

Now these, regarded as metaphors, were, as such,

well known to the Jews to whom Christ was speak-

ing, and they meant two entirely different and dis-

tinct things.

Under the first metaphor our Lord speaks of

Himself, who was the Eternal Wisdom, as bread or

food. This figure of speech is found in Isaiah

(ly: 1
, 2): “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come

ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come

ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk,

without money and without price; .

Hearken diligently unto Me and eat ye that which

is good.” The same image is found in Jeremiah

(xv. 16) : “Thy words were found and I did eat



IN THE EUCHARIST. 27

them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and re-

joicing of mine heart.” In Proverbs (ix. 5), we

have wisdom personified saying, “Come eat of My
bread and drink of the wine which I have min-

gled.” So in Ecclesiasticus (xv. 3) : “With

the bread of understanding she shall feed him,

and give him the water of wisdom to drink.” The

same figure is used by the prophet Amos (viii.

11) : “Behold, saith the Lord God, that I will send

a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a

thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the

Lord.” These examples show that it was a com-

mon and well understood figure of speech to rep-

resent truths or doctrines under the image of

bread.

This was the figure used by our Lord in the

first part of His instruction. He asserted that

He was the Bread from heaven, but made it par-

ticularly plain that what He called on the Jews to

do, was to believe in Him. It is also evident that

His hearers had no difficulty in so understanding

Him. They raised no objection to this figure,

which presented no difficulty to their minds or

hearts. What they did object to was the claim He

made of having Himself been sent by the Father

and of “coming down from heaven.” “Is not this

Jesus the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother

we know? How is it then that He saith, I came
down from heaven ?”

But our Lord, having summed up that portion

of His sermon with a solemn “Verily, Verily, I

say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath ever-



28 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

lasting life,” proceeded to change the language,

and now says, “Whoso eateth My Flesh and drink-

eth My Blood hath eternal life.”

Let us now consider the meaning of His new

phrase.

It is a sound rule in the interpretation of a

speaker’s language, to consider how he would

necessarily be understood by those whom he ad-

dressed. How just as wisdom might be called

bread, and acceptance be regarded as feeding, the

figures of “eating one’s flesh,” “drinking one’s

blood,” had, at the time of our Lord, to the Jews,

a recognized and established meaning. This meta-

phor, assuming it to be such, had its own signifi-

cation, just as the other had. It was indelibly

stamped upon it by Jewish literature and common

use. What was it?

“To eat one’s flesh,” meant to do an injury to

a person.

“In every instance,” says Dr. Cleaver, formerly

Bishop of Chester (Sermon, p. 29) “in which to

eat a person’s flesh is spoken of in scripture, to

injure or destroy the party referred to, is the idea

conveyed. So it is in Psalm xxvii. 2: ‘When

the wicked came upon me to eat up my flesh, they

stumbled and fell.’ And so does St. James use it

:

‘The rust of them shall eat your flesh, as it were

fire.’ Ho single case can be produced either from

classical or oriental sources in which this phrase

is used in any other sense than that of consuming

or preying on the person spoken of. Gesenius,

who was a great authority in Semitic languages.



IN THE EUCHARIST. 29

gives these as the sole interpretation of the

phrase, ‘to eat any one’s flesh/ Nor is this extra-

ordinary; for metaphorical language is the lan-

guage of nature, and must have a counterpart in

those realities of which it is the expression. Now

to ruminate upon and digest the instructions of

another is an easy and obvious metaphor, but to

eat the body and drink the blood of your teacher

bears no conceivable analogy to any benefit to be

received from thence/’

We will quote one other learned authority. Dr.

Wiseman, noted for his oriental learning: “The

expression in the twenty-seventh psalm, eat My
flesh,’ describes the violent rage of David’s enemies

and the lengths they were ready to go against him.

'Again in Micah iii. 3, we have, ‘Who also eat the

flesh of My people/ InEcc. iv. 5, we find the mis-
chief which a foolish man does to himself des-

cribed by the same figurative phrase: ‘The fool

foldeth his arms together and eateth his own

flesh/ .... ‘Among the Arabs to this day
and from time immemorial, to eat the flesh of a

person means figuratively to calumniate him/ We

find the same meaning in the language which our

Saviour Himself spoke and which was vernacular

among the Jews whom He addressed. In Chaldaic

the most common expression to accuse falsely or

calumniate, is to eat a morsel of the flesh of a

person. In Syriac it is exactly the same. Whether,

therefore, we consult the phraseology of Scripture,

the spirit and ideas of the Semitic nations, or the

current use of language employed by our Saviour,



30 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

we find the expression to eat the flesh of a person

had an established metaphorical meaning.”

The argument to be drawn from the change of

language in the two parts of the discourse we sub-

mit is most clear and convincing. For while in

the first part we find our Lord using a phrase per-

fectly adapted to convey the idea that His hearers

were to believe in Him, in the second part, if faith

is still his subject, He is found needlessly changing

the metaphor. He brings in an entirely new one.

Why should He do this if His meaning in the sec-

ond part was only the same as, or an amplification

of, the first ? He had clearly and urgently taught

them the duty of accepting and believing in Him.

Why, if the same duty of faith was, in both parts

of His discourse, being inculcated, did he change

the metaphor? Having once made His meaning

perfectly clear, as their reply to Him showed, why

should He obscure it? No earthly teacher pos-

sessed of common sense would commit such a

rhetorical blunder. “The Lord never explained,”

says the Protestant, Stier, “any more than any

reasonable man among ourselves, a figurative say-

ing by a new figure.”

And why, moreover, would He take a metaphor

which would be so misleading? The metaphor

to eat a person’s flesh had a fixed, determinate sig-

nificance. His hearers were therefore forced to do

one of two things. They were forced either to

understand Christ—who just before was telling
them that He was sent by the Father, sent from

Heaven itself, sent to give life to the world, and



IN THE EUCHARIST. 31

who was pleading with them with all the force of

a divine entreaty, to come to Him and believe

—

they were forced now to understand Him as say-

ing they must reject Him, and hate Him, and

calumniate Him,, with the rage of those who, in

their bitterest language, would eat His flesh! or,

they must take His words in their plain, literal

sense. So evident is this that Stier says: “By

the words ‘My flesh,’ Christ does not mean, My
Person, My power and influence, My Spirit, yea

not even My Body, but absolutely and no other

than what it says, ‘My Flesh/
”

Can we Churchmen doubt which of the alterna-

tives Christ intended His hearers or us to take?

Consider this further fact. The idea of drinking

blood was something abhorrent to the Jewish

mind. It was something criminal, forbidden by

God’s express command. “Whatever man there be

of the house of Israel that eateth any manner of

blood, I will set My face against that soul and will

cut him off from among his people/’ It was not

only an abhorrent idea, but a criminal act of the

greatest magnitude. Can we then suppose that

our Lord, having stated one of His most beneficent

doctrines, that of coming to Himself by faith,

should now turn round and put it in the most re-

volting form possible, and that in a way that in-

volved the committing of crime? You exclaim,

Impossible

!

What then are we to conclude? Either our

Lord intended here to teach that actual feeding

involved in the doctrine of His Beal Presence in



32 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

the Sacrament, or He did not. If He did not, He

violated all the laws that govern intelligible teach-

ing. He put unnecessary obstacles in the way of

His hearers' understanding Him. He put His

most loving doctrine of faith in a most repulsive

form. He acted also contrary to the known princi-

ples of His character. He never repelled nor drove

away any whom He could reach. Most loving

invitations again and again had He issued to poor,

and sick, and halt, and blind, and heavy laden,

and sin-bound, to come to Him and only believe.

Now, according to this theory, He is no longer the

consistent Teacher and loving Shepherd
;
He is by

a harsh and unnecessary metaphor putting a

stumbling-block in the way of belief, when, on be-

lief, His hearers' everlasting life depended

!

Against such a conclusion every Christian in-

stinct revolts. We must all say, It is impossible

!

If He changed from the earlier metaphor, He does

so because the truth He had to teach compelled

Him to do so
;
because in the supreme interests of

truth and men's souls, He must declare in plain

language the necessity of an actual incorporation

into His humanity, that we might thereby be par-

takers of His divine nature, and rise through

[union with Him into the Eternal Life.



Y.

How Christ Meant to be Understood.

771 E NOW proceed to another and most de-W cisive proof that our Lord in the latter part
of His discourse spoke of the gift of His Body and

Blood to be partaken of in the Eucharist. We have

in the discourse itself a most certain proof as to

how our Lord intended His words to be under-

stood. Let us see what the proof is.

The object of any teacher is to convey his

meaning as lucidly as possible, and he will be care-

ful according to the importance of his subject not

to be misunderstood. When a body of earnest

listeners all agree as to what a speaker has taught,

there is little doubt as to what he said. But when

the speaker is a Divine Teacher and knows per-

fectly what He wants to convey, and is possessed

of the best possible means of making it clear and

intelligible, and moreover sees into the minds of

His hearers and is thus aware of the impression

given, then their agreement as to His teaching

shows what most probably He purposed to teach.

But further, when the hearers publicly declare to

the Teacher Himself the sense in which they have

understood Him, we can arrive at a demonstration

as to what He taught and meant by His words.



34 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

For either they have understood Him rightly, or

they have not. And the Teacher has then the op-

portunity either of correcting them if they have

misunderstood His doctrine, or of confirming

their impression regarding it.

Now in the present case we find that the Jews

had perfectly understood our Lord in the first part

of His discourse. They found no difficulty in

the common metaphor which made wisdom to be

bread. Their objection, then, was that Christ

claimed to have been sent by the Father and to

have come from heaven. But now He has said He

would give them His Flesh to eat. They, under-

standing Him literally, now ask this question:

“How can this Man give us His flesh to eat ?” It

is plain, therefore, how they understood Him.

They understood Him to speak literally and to

refer to an actual manducation. The question,

then, is whether they were right or wrong in so

doing. This question is answered by Christ Him-

self. Let us see how He answered it.

Every teacher has his own methods of convey-

ing his instruction, and so had Christ. Let us

in the interest of truth examine His general

method of teaching and see if we can extract any

rule from it that will guide us here to a solution.

How then did He act in similar circumstances?

When He meant to be taken figuratively and His

hearers misunderstood Him as speaking literally,

how did He ordinarily reply ? When, on the other

hand, He meant to be taken literally, and they

took Him figuratively or objected to the literal



IN THE EUCHARIST. 35

meaning; how then was He wont to act? If we

can find any rule that governs His teaching in

such cases, it will greatly help us to determine the

question how Christ intended to be understood.

Now it appears, that when our Lord intended

to be understood figuratively and His hearers gave

a literal meaning to His words, His custom was,

like that of any wise teacher, to explain them.

One example of this is found in the case of Laz-

arus. Christ said to His apostles, “Our friend

Lazarus sleepeth.” The apostles, mistaking His

meaning and taking Him literally, replied, “Lord,

if he sleep, he shall do well.” Then our Lord

corrected them. It was not of natural bodily sleep

He spoke. Then said Jesus plainly unto them,

“Lazarus is dead.” Again our Lord said to His

disciples, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of

the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They supposed He

was speaking literally and “thought within them-

selves saying, Because we have taken no bread.”

Then our Lord explained His meaning. It was

not of natural food He was speaking. “Why do ye

not understand that it is not concerning bread I

said to you, Beware, but of the doctrine of the

Pharisees and Sadducees ?” At the Samaria well,

our Lord said, “I have meat to eat that ye know

not of.” Here again the disciples took His words

literally. They asked one another, “Hath any man

brought Him aught to eat” ? Then Jesus corrected

their error and put the moral truth involved in

His figurative language before them. “My meat

is to do the will of Him that sent Me and to finish



86 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

His work.” When on another occasion Jesus said,

“Whither I go ye cannot come,” the Jews fell into

the same mistake. They took His words as imply-

ing that He would “kill Himself.” Then Christ

removes their gross material conception of His

words. “You are from beneath; I am from above;

you are of this world, I am not of this world.”

Again, our Lord said to Mcodemus, “Verily,

verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born

again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Tak-

ing Him literally, the ruler replied, “How can a

man be born when he is old? Can he enter the

second time into his mother’s womb, and be born ?”

Then Christ did away with the mistaken literal

sense and answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto

you, except a man be born of water and the Spirit

he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” From

these and other like examples we see that when

our Lord speaking in a figurative sense, was taken

in a literal one. He removed the mistake by ex-

plaining His meaning.

Kow let us consider the other class of cases.

We will suppose Him to have spoken literally and

meant to be so understood. How does He now act

when objection is made? We shall find that His

ordinary rule is to state the truth right over again

and even in more forcible language. The follow-

ing examples are illustrative of this.

Christ had said to the Jews, “Your father Abra-

ham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was
glad.” Taking His words literally and declarative

of his being coeval with their great patriarch, they



IN THE EUCHARIST, 37

scornfully replied, “Thou art a&. yat fifty years

old, and hast Thou seen Abiaham?” Our Lord

had not meant that Abraham only in prophetic

vision had gazed down the ages and seen His ad-

vent. He meant to assert what His auditors

understood Him to claim, that He was contem-

poraneous with Abraham. He therefore does not

explain, as He does when His words have been mis-

understood. But with solemn grandeur declares

what, if not true, would be blasphemy, “Verily,

verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Again, when the roof had been removed and

the palsied man let down before Him, Jesus said,
u
Son, be of good cheer

;
thy sins be forgiven

thee.” The Jews were shocked at the tremendous

claim this utterance involved. They very natur-

ally said, “This man blasphemeth.” In what sense

was He uttering those words? What was the ex-

planation of them? Our Lord meant what He

literally said. He therefore repeated the obnox-

ious language as it was : “Which is easier to say.

Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say. Rise up and

walk? But that ye may know that the Son of

Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then

saith He to the sick of the palsy). Arise, take up

thy bed, and go into thine house.”

When our Lord purified the Temple, they

asked Him, “What sign showest Thou unto us?”

Our Lord referred to the one Jonah-like sign of

His Resurrection. Pointing perhaps to His Body

which by a common figure He called a temple,

He said, “Destroy this temple and in three days



38 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

I will raise it up,” for “He spake of the temple of

His Body.” They said perversely, it took forty

and six years to erect that building before them.

But our Lord makes no explanation. He meant

concerning His Resurrection to be taken literally.

We have another instance of our Lord’s method

in the very discourse before us. He had asserted

that He “came down from heaven.” Literally

taken, the Jews said this was impossible and un-

true. “Is not this Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose

father and mother we know ?” How is it then that

He saith, “I came down from heaven” ? Our Lord

bids them not murmur at this. He asserts again

and again that He is “the living Bread which

came down from heaven,” and that as a proof of

it, “Ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where

He was before.”

We have discovered Christ’s method of teach-

ing. Let us apply it to the present case. He has

asserted that He will give His Flesh for the life

of the world. The Jews, taking Him literally,

strove among themselves, saying, How can this

man give us His flesh to eat ? What was the Lord’s

reply? Did He say. Do not understand Me liter-

ally ? Did He put His teaching in some other less

objectionable form? Did He act as He did in all

those other cases where His hearers, taking Him

literally, made a mistake in so doing ? Or did He

act as in those cases where, having spoken liter-

ally and objection being made. He intended to be
taken literally? He replied, as in these latter

cases. He answered, saying, “Verily, verily, I say



IN THE EUCHARIST. 39

unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of

Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you
”

Put the following three parallel cases side by

side. They illustrate our Lord’s method. They

leave no doubt of our Lord’s meaning in the pres-

ent case.

St. John iii. 3.

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see

the Kingdom of God.”

St. John viii. 56.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day;
and he saw it and was glad.”

St. John vi. 51.

“If any man eat of this bread, he shall live

forever; and the bread that I will give is My

Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

In each of these cases, objections were raised.

In the first, Nicodemus understood our Lord

literally. Yerse 4: “Kicodemus saith to Him,

How can a man be born again when he is old ?”

In the second case, “then said the Jews unto

Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast

Thou seen Abraham ?”

In the third, “the Jews therefore strove

among themselves saying, How can this man give
us His Flesh to eat?”

In the first case where our Lord’s words were

taken literally, and He meant to be taken other-

wise, He explained: “Jesus answered, Verily,

verily, I say unto you except a man be born of

water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the

Kingdom of God.”



40 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

In the second case, where His words were taken

literally and He meant them so to be taken. He

repeated His statement: “Jesus said to them,

Yerily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham

was, I am.”

In the third case, in answer to the objection,

like as in the second, He repeated His teaching

and in the most solemn way: “Then Jesus said

to them, Yerily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye

eat the Elesh of the Son of Man, and drink His

Blood, ye have no life in you.”

There are three other points that may be

noticed in regard to His reply.

Eirst, Christ not only asserts the literal mean-

ing, but confirms it with a solemn asseveration,

or as some commentators call it, an oath, by a

twice repeated Yerily, verily.

Secondly, He enforces the literal meaning and

the necessity of an actual reception of His Body

and Blood in both a negative and positive form.

One can but be struck by the similarity of this

double negative and positive form of precept with

that given in respect to the other great sacrament

of Baptism. “He that believeth and is baptized

shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be

damned.” So in regard to the Eucharist, first,

the injunction is put negatively : “Except ye eat

the Flesh and drink the Blood, ye have no life in

you.” There is thus first stated the awful loss of

not doing so. Then there is positively stated the

benefits ensuing on reception : “Whoso eateth My



IN THE EUCHARIST. 41

Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life;

and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Thirdly, We must notice that Christ not only

repeats and re-alhrms His words and does it with

a Verily, verily, but declares that His Flesh is true

meat and His Blood true drink: “For My Flesh

is meat indeed and My Blood is drink indeed.”

Could any re-assertion be possibly more distinct

or more emphatic?

Tested, therefore, by the divine Master’s own

method of teaching, we find that the Jews under-

stood Him rightly as proposing to give them His

very Flesh for food, and by His answer He con-

firmed them in their belief. He meant to be thus

understood by them.

And so too, within the Church He founded

and which His Spirit guides, for all these centur-

ies, His words have been so received by the great

majority of all His followers. It is a terrible di-

lemma, but a decisive one, that here presents

itself to us. He could not have been a Teacher

sent from God, if He so badly taught His doc-

trine as to lead so great a number of His disciples

into serious error ! Again, there is no Holy Spirit,

if He has not safeguarded the words of Christ and
guided the Church into the right understanding

of them. Between the multitudinous and conflict-

ing opinions of human wisdom, the trembling

magnet of Catholic consent points securely to the

pole-fixed star of Truth. The result of Christ’s

teaching shows how Christ intended to be under-

stood.



VI.

The Eeal Issue.

O
UR LORD was struggling with all the in-
tensity of His divine love to win those whom

He addressed. He needed to win them to a com-

plete surrender to Himself if their conversion was

to be worth anything. Simply to gain their intel-

lectual assent to any truths He might promulgate

would be of no spiritual profit unless there was the

submission of their whole nature. It will be of no

profit to us, to believe in Christ’s life and

death as if they were mere facts of history, or in

the scheme of redemption as we might accept a

theory of light or sound. Such belief can never

unite to Christ nor save a soul.

Hor will it save us to try and be Christ-like.

The copyist of Christ does not thereby become a

Christian. Oh, the folly of this self-improvement

religion, with Christ for a model only ! He must

be the Moulder and we the clay in His hands.

Christ seeks to bring our whole being into this

entire captivity to Himself. To be savingly His,

we must on our part surrender ourselves wholly to

Him, and believe all He says, because He says

it. We must be ready to do all He calls us to do,

because He bids it. To be savingly His, on His



IN THE EUCHARIST. 43

part, we must be incorporated into Him by His

gifts of grace. He is the Head and Beginning of

a New Creation. We must, to share in it, be in

Him and He in us. We in Him, and so saved by

Him. He in us, and we re-made by Him.

Now Christ in this contest for His hearers’

souls, was struggling first to bring them to the

submissive temper of heart and mind that would

accept Him. If saving faith was to be developed

within them. He must not demonstrate His truths

beyond the possibility of a mental rejection. But

He must so teach and with all His suggestive wis-

dom as to compel them to make a choice. They

must, in the presence of the difficulty as to how He

could perform His promise, choose or reject Him.

They must, as we all must, to become His, make a

venture of faith. They must surrender heart and

mind and will to Him and let Him own them

wholly. The issue He now presented was either to

reject Him, or to accept Him by believing what

He said.

We know what the result was. All the apostles,

save Judas, a most significant and dreadful warn-

ing, believed. They heard Christ’s promise to

give them to eat of His Flesh and to drink His

Blood. Mysterious words indeed, but clearly

understood. When our Lord turned in Love’s

great anxiety and put the final test: “Will ye

also go away?” Simon Peter, their spokesman,

answered for them and said : “Lord, to whom

shall we go? Thou hast the words of Eternal

life.” They could not understand how it could



44 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

be, but they were ready to believe everything and

anything He said. Oh! what joy thrilled the

heart of Jesus as they reached this triumphant

act of faith.

With Judas and others it was not so. That

they understood Him literally is clear. It is clear

also that He meant so to be understood. Turning,

however, away from the Christ, they said : “This

is a hard saying.” It was not hard in the sense

that they could not understand what He said, but

hard as being repulsive, harsh, revolting. Yet our

Lord, with all His persistent tenderness, will not

thus let them depart. He will yet strive, and to

the utmost, to win them to a self-surrendering

trust in Himself. He knows in Himself how they

are murmuring at His teaching. He will make a

final effort to overcome their deep-rooted objec-

tions. Let us see how He does this.

In this final effort, Jesus in His conclusion

deals with their two great objections made during

the progress of this whole discourse. The objec-

tion they raised to the claim made under the first

head of this discourse was that He had come down

from heaven
;
and the objection made to His state-

ment, under the second head, that having so come

He could give them His Flesh to eat, was its seem-

ing impossibility.

Replying in His summary to both, Jesus said

:

“Doth this offend you ?” Then He takes up their

objections seriatim. He replies to their first ob-

jection by saying He will give them an ocular

demonstration of His coming down from heaven.



IN THE EUCHARIST. 45

“What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend

up where He was before ?”

He here by this statement asserts His pre-

existence, “where He was before.” And He states

that He will prove His descent from that position

or condition by a visible return to it. They did

not believe Pie had entered the world in any man-

ner different from their own. “Is not this Jesus,

the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we

know ? How is it then that He saith, I came down

from heaven?” To have previously existed and

have come down from heaven was to make claim

to a supernatural entrance into this world. To be

also the Son of Man implied a supernatural hu-

man birth. All that our Lord’s words involved

they did not comprehend, but the bare claim to

have come down from heaven was what troubled

them. Our Lord, therefore, says He will remove

their difficulty by giving them an ocular proof and

visibly ascend in the presence of His disciples.

His supernatural exit would thus be a proof of

His claim to a supernatural entrance. When they

saw it, what would they then say? Then they

would assuredly say what He desired them to be-

lieve now
;
that He had come from heaven.

To their second objection, “How can this man

give us His Flesh to eat?” our Lord replies, “It

is the spirit that (juickeneth, the flesh profiteth

nothing.”

There are three interpretations proposed for

the text, and it is but fair to give them all.

The one given by those who deny the Real



46 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

Presence is that this text shows onr Lord’s words

are to be taken spiritually, not literally. It is true

that “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.”

It is true that Christians “are not under the let-

ter, but serve in newness of spirit.” But the term

;

flesh, which is the word here to be interpreted,

never in Holy Scripture means the letter or literal

sense of words. There are thus two fatal objec-

tions to ‘ the exegesis. The word flesh is never

employed as synonymous for the literal meaning,

and again our Lord does here refer to His flesh.

Our Lord, to quote Alford, does not say “My Flesh

profiteth nothing, but the flesh. To make Him

say My Flesh as the anti-sacramentalists do is to

make Him contradict His own words.”

The second interpretation is given by a number

of Protestant and Catholic commentators. Flesh

and spirit when opposed in Holy Scripture are

found referring to our unregenerate human

nature, and our spiritually enlightened one. Our

Lord discriminates between the two : “That which

is born of the flesh is flesh
;
and that which is born

of the spirit is spirit.” These are opposed to each

other. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit and

the spirit against the flesh, and they are contrary

the one to the other.” There is the mind of the

flesh, “Ye judge after the flesh,” says our Lord.

There is the mind of the spirit, by which alone

spiritual things are discerned. The result of the

two operations is thus contrasted: “To be car-

nally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded

is life and peace.” Our Lord, according to this



IN THE EUCHARIST. 47

interpretation is telling His auditors that His

words cannot be understood by the dim light of

human reason, but only by it as it is spiritually en-

lightened. This interpretation is consistent with

belief in the Real Presence.

The third interpretation is more simple, and it

is far better designed to meet the objection raised.

By the word “flesh,” Christ means human flesh,

just such as His hearers had. By “spirit” He re-

fers to man’s spirit. Elsewhere in Holy Scripture

(II. Cor. vii. 1) the two, “flesh and spirit,” are

joined together. Christ thus bases His reply on a

fact of which they are cognizant: They are com-

posed of flesh and spirit, and He says it is the

spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.

The flesh by itself, as they knew, had no quicken-

ing or life-communicating power. Without the

spirit within it, it would be lifeless or dead. It

is the spirit that makes flesh, living flesh, and

capable of communicating, in the natural order,

life.

It is the same He asserts in regard to His

nature. Only My nature. He would say to them,

is not like yours. I came from heaven. Your

mistake arises from not believing what I had first

to teach you. You take Me for a man like one of

yourselves. But My Flesh is united to My divine

Spiritual Nature. Just as your ordinary human

flesh is made life-giving in the natural order, be-

cause of the soul or spirit with which it is con-

nected, so My Flesh and Blood can communicate

life of a higher and spiritual order, on account



48 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

of the Eternal Spiritual Nature with which they

are connected. St. Cyril says: “For after the

Life-giving Word of God made His dwelling in

our flesh, He transformed it to His own Virtue,

that is, Life. Thereupon the Body of Christ

quickens those who partake in it.”

And here let us point out a common mistake

which has been the occasion of much misunder-

standing. In our English version we have the

phrase, “The words that I speak unto you are

spirit and life/' It is to be noted that the Greek

has two uses, logos, a word, and ta remata, things

spoken or done. The use here is not logos
,
but

ta remata
,
the things about which I have been

speaking.

This makes plain our Lord’s response and

shows how completely and fully He met His

hearers’ objections. He said, The things that I

have been speaking about to you, viz.. My Body

and My Blood, by virtue of their connection with

My Divine Spiritual Nature, They are spirit and
They are life. The first man, as St. Paul tells us,

is of the earth, earthy. The second man, the Head

of the New Creation, is the Lord from heaven.

“The first man Adam was made a living soul” and

could only communicate natural life. “The last

Adam” by virtue of union with Divinity, “was

made a quickening Spirit,” capable of communi-

cating to us divine spiritual life.

We can now better understand why Christ laid
such emphasis on receiving both the Flesh and

Blood. If faith was all He wished to form within



IN THE EUCHARIST. 49

us, it could have been developed by an act of recep-

tion in one kind. But if we are to be incorporated

into Him who both died and rose again, the fitness
of a reception in both kinds is manifest.

It may not be deemed prolix if we dwell on

this blessing so lovingly preserved to us in our

communion. Under the law the Israelite was for-

bidden to taste of blood. For the blood was, he

was told, associated with the animal life principle.

“The blood is the life thereof.” Man being by

transgression under the law of sin and death, was

forbidden to take of that which was the symbol

of grace and life. But when Christ, the Life,

came, the command was changed. Now it is,

“Drink ye all of it.” For the Blood of Christ by

its union with His Eternal Spiritual Nature is

possessed of a quickening power. He, through

His own “Eternal Spirit,” (which does not here

mean the Holy Spirit), “offered Himself without

spot to God.” His Blood therefore was by reason

of its union with His Spiritual Nature,

endued with a spiritual power. Its power

is capable of penetrating, as we read, to

the innermost portion of man’s spiritual nature.

It can purge his conscience from dead works,

works done without grace, and make it serve ac-

ceptably the Living God. Such is its mighty and

spiritual power ! May we not be thankful that we

can separately partake both of that Blessed Blood

that was shed and that Flesh that was triumphant

over death ?

We can in conclusion draw a comparison be-



50 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

tween the character and conduct of our Lord as

presented to us by the two views we have been

considering. In Christ all virtues are wonder-

fully blended. None are wanting in their highest

excellency. None but what is balanced by other

excellencies. As a Teacher He is the most wonder-

ful the world has seen, for He is Wisdom Itself.

He is the Truth inflexible in His condemnation

of error, most tenderly skilful in enlightening

the ignorant. He is the Good Shepherd who will

leave naught untried that love can suggest to win

the sinners* heart and mind.

We have seen Him, if His object was to teach

the reception of His very Body and Blood, acting

consistently with the usual method of His teach-

ing and with His character. With what clearness,

what firm reiteration, what solemn asseveration,

what merciful severity, He declares His doctrine

!

How wisely He stoops to His hearers* infirmities

and meets their real objections. How majestically
He prophesies His coming Ascension as the

demonstration of His heavenly descent. How con-

vincingly He declares His Body to be unlike com-

mon flesh (which would profit nothing), because

it is possessed of Spirit and Life.

His loving toil was successful. Many might go

back whom He did not win. But the great heart of

St. Peter stood rock-like and firm, and the apostles

were with him. The foundation of belief in that

transcendent gift of Christ to the Church, her joy

and treasure, the support of her children in their

warfare and toil, their comfort and viaticum in



IN THE EUCHARIST. 51

the hour of death, was then securely and forever

laid.

But if Christ made no such promise of a veiled

but abiding Presence, if the Church is to wander

through the world’s wilderness without even Isra-

el’s shekinah, if Christ’s words are not to be taken

in their plain, literal sense, how does His conduct

conform to the otherwise known features of His

character ? We find Him endeavoring to teach His

followers that He has come from heaven and is

the Bread of Life. They make no objection to the

metaphor. But then to their astonishment He

needlessly changes it. He substitutes one of a

most revolting and criminal kind. When they

naturally object, He, but in more painful terms,

reiterates it. He leaves them in their misunder-

standing of His teaching and lets them go away

from Him. Is such conduct consistent with His

Mission as the Light of the World? With His

method as the “Great Prophet and Teacher”?

With His character as the Good Shepherd?

Which then of the two interpretations shall

we take ? That which is consistent with the course

of any wise teacher, or that which contradicts

ordinary common sense ? That which is consistent

with the whole life of our beloved Lord and Mas-

ter, or that which convicts Him of having led, not

only those who heard Him, but the great propor-

tion of His followers, into a fatal, if not idola-

trous, error?

The real issue to-day is just what it was when

Christ spoke this discourse. It is : Do we believe



52 THE REx\L PRESENCE OF CHRIST

in Him and all He says, because He says it ? Or,

do we reject Him in rejecting His words? Shall

we go away and continue in our misbelief, or shall

we submit with blessed St. Peter and the apostles ?

Bending from His throne on high, Jesus puts the

question to each one of us. Belief in the Beal

Presence of Christ’ s Body and Blood is now the

test of a living faith. What shall be our answer to

the Lord? May the response go up from our

whole Church, like the sound of mighty waters,

gladdening the Divine Heart of our dear Master,

and Lord, “0 Lord ! we believe in Thee, and Thy

Sacramental Presence with us, for Thou hast the

words of Eternal Life
”



VII.

The Corroborative Testimony of St. Paul.

T
INT THE Gospel of St. John we have the teach-
ing concerning the Real Presence of Christ’s

Body and Blood in the Eucharist before its formal

institution. We naturally ask how it was regarded

by the Apostles after Christ’s Ascension. At

Pentecost they received the abiding gift of the

Holy Spirit, who was to bring to their remem-

brance all things that they had heard of Christ

and to lead them into all truth. Of the import-

ance they assigned to the Eucharist and its recog-

nized position as the great act of Christian wor-

ship, there can be no question. We find the

Apostles at the founding of the Church, in that

fair upper chamber “in the house” (not from

house to house), celebrating daily. At Antioch,

the next prominent centre after Jerusalem, the

great missionary movement towards the Gentile

world is inaugurated by a special manifestation of

the Holy Ghost, “as they ministered unto the

Lord,” or were celebrating the Holy Communion.

Very soon the Eucharistic liturgy began to be

developed and the first day of the week came to be



54 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

called the Lord’s Day, and was solemnized by this

act of worship. ’IJpon the first day of the week

we read that the disciples came together “to break

bread/’ and the “Breaking of Bread” was one of

the earliest titles of the Sacrament.

For the received belief of the Apostles we have

concerning it the remarkable testimony of St.

Paul. It is remarkable because, not being one of

the original Twelve, he is an independent witness.

To him the ascended Lord appeared on the Damas-

cus highway, and as He had called and commis-

sioned the others, called and commissioned him to

be an apostle. As upon the Twelve the Holy Ghost

at Pentecost came and consecrated those previously

called, so did the Holy Ghost specially manifest

Himself at Antioch, and said : “Separate Me

Barnabas and Saul.” Thus St. Paul, not as an

apostle of men or as empowered by man, but as

called and commissioned by Jesus Christ and the

Holy Ghost, was set apart with laying on of hands

and received into the apostolic fellowship.

To him our Lord made a special communica-

tion concerning the Holy Communion. He must

have learned from the other apostles how to bap-

tize with water and in the Name of the Blessed

Trinity, for we know on occasions he did so. But

the ascended Lord did not reveal this unto him;

and perhaps to this he alludes when he says, “The

Lord sent me not to baptize.” But so transcendent

was the divine institution of the Blessed Sacra-

ment, that Christ after His Ascension made a

special revelation concerning it. Just as Christ



IN THE EUCHARIST. 55

and the Holy Ghost had called an apostle after

Pentecost to show that They abode in the Church,

and that the apostolic order was to be continued,

for like reasons Christ made a revelation concern-

ing the Eucharist. Christ would ever abide in His

Church, and He would abide in it in that human

nature which He had assumed and from which He

would never be separated. If He had laid aside

that nature, it would not have been possible for

His priests to continue to say, “This is My Body”;

for that Body would have ceased to exist. The

Church after the Ascension was by these words to

bear witness to the continuance of the Incarna-

tion, and of Christ’s Body and Blood being the

source of His people’s life.

Again, the Communion was not something in-

stituted for a loving remembrance of Himself by

those who had been with Him when visible in the

flesh. It was to be continued. It was to be a sol-

emn memorial made before God by all Christians

and for all time, to show forth the Lord’s death

“till He come.”

St. Paul declares with great solemnity the com-

mand he had received from Christ: “For I have

received of the Lord that which also I delivered

unto you. That the Lord Jesus, the same night

in which He was betrayed took bread: And when

He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take,

eat; this is My Body, which is broken for you;

this do in remembrance of Me. After the same

manner also He took the cup, when He had

supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in



56 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

My Blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in

remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this

bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s

death till He come.”

Here we have an independent testimony of our

Lord’s fulfilment of His promise in St. John, to

give to all the disciples to the end of time His

Flesh to eat and His Blood to drink. The account

of the institution of the Communion agrees with

that given in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St.

Luke. We will fully consider the words of Insti-

tution later. Here let us note three most helpful

statements that are peculiar to St. Paul.

First, we note with interest that while evi-

dently referring to the consecrated element, he

speaks of it as “this bread.” He says, “as often as

ye eat of this Bread.” We thus find him calling

the Sacrament bread . This agrees with the teach-

ing of Christendom. The elements are not des-

troyed or annihilated by the consecration. If

they were, the character of a sacrament would be

gone. There is an outward sign, as well as an

inward part. They both truly exist. The assertion

of the existence of the one does not imply the non-

existence of the other. Speaking of the Sacra-

ment we may say with the Fathers, It is the Body

and Blood of Christ, or we may say referring to

it, “This Bread,” or “This Cup.” It does not,

however, follow from this ordinary use of language

that no change has been effected by the consecra-

tion and that our Lord’s Body and Blood are not



IN THE EUCHARIST. 57

sacramentally identified with the outward and

visible signs.

No better proof of this can be found than in ~~

the Eoman Liturgy itself. No one questions but

that the Eoman Church believes in the Eeal Pres-

ence. It states that doctrine in the strongest

possible way. “Yet it is their custom,” says

Cardinal Wiseman, “to call the sacred elements by

the names of their appearances after the consecra-

tion. In the canon of the Mass, we call them

‘Panem sanctum via aeternae
, et calicem salutis

perpetuae/ Again we say,
e

panem coelestem ac-

cipianif Now would any one seriously argue that

we do not believe in the Eeal Presence and in

Transubstantiation, because, we speak of bread

being still upon the altar after the consecration?

Certainly not
;
for it is natural to call by this name

the sacred Gift, both from its appearance and its

properties. It can therefore be no more inferred

from similar phraseology in St. Paul that he ex-

cluded our belief.”

It may be further observed, that this usage is

to be found in Holy Scripture which, in our tract,

is our standard of appeal. In the ninth chapter

of St. John we have a very full account given of

our Lord’s miracle in opening the eyes of one born

blind. After his eyes were opened, he was brought

before the Sanhedrim, and the judges, we read

after his account, “say again to the blind man.”

Who would argue, because he was still called

‘Tilind,” that no change had taken place and his

eyes were not opened ? Again, after our Lord had



58 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

changed the water into wine, we find it still called

water. “When the ruler of the feast had tasted the

water that was made wine

,

and knew not whence

it was; but the servants which drew the water

knew.” jSTo one, because it was called water after

the miracle, doubts but that it became wine. In

like manner St. Paul may designate the Sacrament

as “This Bread,” while at the same time he

affirms it to be the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Another most instructive peculiarity in St.

PauTs account is, that he implies that the change

wrought is due to the act of consecration. If no

change was wrought we should expect that it could

be made evident by some explanatory words that

the elements were symbols or signs only. But not

only is it affirmed that what we eat is the Body

of Christ, and what we drink is the new covenant

in ChrisPs Blood, but the cause is given. It is not

referred to the faith of the receiver. It is not said

to be a Presence merely in the heart of the com-

municant. St. Paul says : “The Cup of Blessing

which we bless,” “the bread which we break,” is

it not the communion (or partaking) of the Blood

and the Body of Christ ? It is by the act of con-

secration the change is effected.

But more clearly yet does St. Paul teach the

truth of ChrisPs Eeal Presence. Occasion arose

at Corinth for the Apostle most severely to

animadvert on the order of the celebration. Unit-

ing the Agape or Love Feast along with the Sacra-

ment, some had behaved disorderly and been

drunken. This profanation of the sacred mystery



IN THE EUCHARIST. 59

had been most signally rebuked by a punishment

sent directly by Almighty God. A grievous sick-
ness had broken out among them. “For this

cause many are weak and sickly among you and

some sleep/* i. e or had died. This is the inter-

pretation given of sleep by many commentators of

the thirtieth verse. It is indeed noticeable that

in the Hew Dispensation as well as in the Old,

first transgressions are severely punished. If the

two witnesses spoken of in Eev. xi. 3 are the Min-

istry and Sacraments, we read that if any man

wrong them “fire proceedeth out of their mouth.**

Ananias and Sapphira and Elymas and Simon

Magnus and these Corinthians sinned against holy

Persons and holy things and their punishment

came.

How what was the nature of the sin of the un-

worthy Corinthian communicants ? So far as the

Agape was concerned, it had been no love feast at

all. Persons had brought, as in heathen times to

their temples, their own provisions, and feasted

on them apart or shared them with their own social

circle to the neglect of others. The element of

Christian fellowship, of brotherhood and charity

among all, rich and poor, had been wanting. In

eating every one had taken before other his own

supper, and one was hungry and another

drunken. “What !** says the Apostle in scorching

rebuke; “have ye not houses to eat and drink in?

or despise ye the Church of God ?** Then he turns

to the other and far more serious matter, the

profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. It was



60 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

“for this cause many are weak and sickly among

you, and many sleep.” Let the punishment have

been whatever it may have been, there is no ques-

tion as to the sin they had committed. These are

St. Paul’s words concerning it. “Whosoever shall

eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, un-

worthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of

the Lord.” “He that eateth and drinketh un-

worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or con-

demnation) to himself, not discerning the Lord’s

Body.”

If our Lord’s Body was not present, St. Paul

might have arraigned them, as he did above, for

their want of reverence to the holy symbols. He

might have censured them for not respecting the

church building, or for their committing an of-

fense against God’s condescension. He might

have reproved them for their want of apprehen-

sion of the death of Christ of which the Sac-

rament was but a memorial. But no; their sin

was of another and more heinous nature. They

had received unworthily because they had “not

discerned the Lord’s Body,” and receiving un-

worthily, had been “guilty of the Body and

Blood of the Lord.” It was so grievous an

offense, because it was an offense against Christ’s

own Person. The Body and Blood are stated

as the object against which the wrong has

been committed. By not discerning the Lord’s

Body, the unworthy communicant commits, St.

Paul says, a personal offense. He. is “guilty of the

Body and Blood of the Lord.” It is a transgres-



IN THE EUCHARIST. 61

sion like that in the civil law known as Lese

Majeste, a sin against majesty. In this case it

is so terrible a degree of that crime in the Apos-

tle’s estimation, because it is a personal insult

to Christ. This is St. Paul’s account of the na-

ture of their sin.

What is the natural inference? If the Lord’s

Body and Blood were not actually there by the act

of consecration, then that special sin could not

have been committed. If the elements are simply

symbols or signs, with whatever irreverence they

might be treated, it could not be called a sin

against Christ’s Person. Defacing the statue of a

King may, in monarchical countries, be a treason-

able action, but it is not of like enormity as a

personal insult. The Arians tried to arouse the

Emperor’s anger by pointing to his statue whose

face his enemies had disfigured. Passing his hand

quietly over his face, Constantine soberly ob-

served, “I do not feel anything.” If the Lord

Himself was not really present in the Eucharist

and the elements were but symbols, He could not

by the Corinthians have been personally wronged.

He was indeed there, but because His Presence

was so humbly veiled and hidden, He was not hon-

ored or discerned.

Alas ! how often this is so now. Hidden, God

is in nature. “Thou art a God that hidest Thy-

self.” Hidden is He in His Providence, that

guides us from the cradle to the grave. Hidden

was His divine nature behind the garment of His

humanity. Hidden is He in His operations of



62 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

grace in the soul, and hidden is He in the Blessed

Sacrament of His Love. We stumble most at the

greatness of God’s condescensions and the mir-

acles of His loving kindness. Therefore we fail

to discover His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament

and fail to give Him the honor that is His dne.

The same punishment indeed does not now ensue

as broke out upon the guilty Corinthians. God

speaks but once in punishment, that we may see

how great the sin is, but He forbears in love that

His mercy may win us to repentance.

We conclude then that the language of St.

Paul, who is here the organ of the Holy Spirit,

tells us that Christ’s Body and Blood are really

present, not by the act of reception, but by

virtue of the Breaking and Blessing, and ob-

jectively so present, that the non-recognition with

due reverence and faith is a grievous sin against

that Body and Blood. 0 Blessed Jesus, forgive

and spare us for our coldness, unbelief, and irrev-

erence ! We know not what we have done. Kindle

within us, priests and laymen, a desire to make

some worthy reparation for our neglect and that of

our Church. May it be by more worshipful and

better prepared receptions and by bearing wit-

ness by advancing holiness to Thy abiding Pres-

ence.

On the golden stairway reaching heavenward,

Christ has left the footprints of His pierced Feet,

and life is our one opportunity of doing that for

Him which costs us something. What, dear

Christian soul, shall it be?



VIII.

The Institution of the Lord's Supper.

IZ AVIHG considered our Lord’s prophetic dis-

1/ course delivered before His Ascension, on the

great gift He was to bestow, and His revela-

tion of it made subsequently to St. Paul, let

us now turn to the Institution itself. It is re-

corded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, in

almost identically the same words. It may be well

to have the English texts before us. This is the

record in chapter xxvi. 26-28 of St. Matthew:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,

and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the

disciples, and said. Take, eat; This is My Body.

And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave

it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is

My Blood of the Hew Testament, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins.”

In St. Mark xiv. 22-24 we read

:

“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and

blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said.

Take, eat: This is My Body. And He took the

cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to

them : and they all drank of it. And He said unto



64 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

them. This is My Blood of the New Testament,

which is shed for many.”

In St. Luke xxii. 19, 20, the record runs thus

:

“And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake

it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My Body

which is given for you : this do in remembrance of

Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying.

This cup is the New Testament in My Blood,

which is shed for you.”

The accounts in St. Matthew and St. Mark are

practically identical. The same may be said of

that in St. Luke, but as he gives us some helpful

and suggestive additions, we will first consider

them. It is not necessary for us to enter into the

disputed question whether Christ spoke the words

of Institution over the third paschal cup—that of
blessing—or not. St. Luke carefully discriminates
between the cup of the paschal supper and that of

the sacrament. This is clearly recorded

:

“And He said unto them, With desire I have

desired to eat this Passover with you before I

suffer
;
for I say unto you, I will not any more eat

thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of

God. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and

said. Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

Por I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of

the vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come.”

This evidently was the cup of the paschal sup-

per.

Our Lord says He will not drink of it. He will

not drink till the type be fulfilled in the Kingdom

of God. He does away with the type and pro-



IN THE EUCHARIST. 65

ceeds to its fulfilment. For St. Luke goes on to

say that He took the cup after supper and pro-

nounced the sacred words over it, saying, “This

cup” (in contrast with the other) “is the New

Testament or Covenant in My Blood.” The for-

mer covenant was in the blood of animals.

It was animal blood. The new covenant

was in His blood. “And Moses took the

blood and sprinkled it on the people and

said, Behold the blood of the Covenant”

(Ex. xxiv. 8). “He sprinkled all the people, say-

ing, This is the blood of the Testament” (Heb.

ix. 19, 20). The blood, we may observe, of the

original paschal lamb, was sprinkled on the lintel

and doorposts, and real lambs were slain at every

yearly renewal of the great observance. Now

Christ, the true Paschal Lamb, says. This is My

Blood. My Blood is the Blood of the New Cove-

nant. In both cases, under the old and new cove-

nants, it is real blood. Under the Old Dispensa-

tion it could only be put on the houses or sprinkled

upon the people. Now they could receive It into

themselves.

We do not know in what way the saying in St.

Matthew xxvi. 29 is best harmonized with this

fuller account given by St. Luke. In St. Mat-

thew, following the words of Institution, our Lord

says : “But I say unto you, I will not drink hence-

forth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when

I drink it new with you in My Father’s Kingdom.”

This general statement in St. Matthew may be

interpreted by the more full and particular one in



66 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

St. Luke and so refer, as that in St. Luke, to the

paschal supper and its cup. If so, this remark

of our Lord* has no bearing on the question of the

Real Presence.

On the other hand, the difference in language

ascribed to our Lord may show that the words do

refer to two different things
;
one being the paschal

cup, spoken of as the fruit of the vine, the other

to the cup of the sacrament, spoken of as This

Fruit of the Vine. Christ had, in His discourse

that night to the disciples, declared Himself to be

the true and real Vine. “This fruit of the Vine,”

would consequently signify His own Blood. And

in His Father’s Kingdom and at the marriage

supper of the Lamb, Christ is said, by His mys-

tical body the Church, to feed with His beloved

on that that He imparts.

To the Twelve spake Truth eternal,

To the branches spake the Vine:

“Never more from this day forward

Shall I taste again this wine.

Till I drink it in the Kingdom

Of My Father, and with Mine.”

While we give both of the above interpreta-

tions of the verse in St. Matthew, we do not insist

on either. The investigation we are pursuing does

not require the acceptance of either exegesis. Our

readers must make their own selection. It is pos-

sible to take the words in St. Matthew as referring

to the consecrated chalice, yet be speaking of it as

the fruit of the vine. We have, however, previ-

ously shown that to call the Sacrament bread or



IN THE EUCHARIST. 67

wine after the consecration, does not imply that

it is not Christ’s Body and Blood, any more than

calling the man whose eyes were opened, the blind

man, proves Christ had not worked a miracle.

This disposes of any objection to the Beal Pres-

ence arising from the saying, I will not drink of

this fruit of the vine.

Let us notice another peculiarity in St. Luke’s

record. He alone of the Evangelists records the

words: “This do in remembrance of Me.” St.

Paul, from whom he probably learned them, also

adds the words of the command given for the con-

tinuance of the Sacrament: “For thereby ye do

show the Lord’s death till He come.” It is inter-

esting to observe why these words “This do” are to

be found in the gospel according to St. Luke.

While it was the province of St. John in his gospel

to set forth especially the Divinity of Christ, and

that of St. Mark, His Manhood, St. Matthew does

the same for the Kingdom and the King, while St.

Luke is fuller of the temple and the priesthood and

Christ as the victim and the priest. In conform-

ity with this spirit that runs throughout his gos-

pel, St. Luke records Christ’s command to the

Apostles, “This do in remembrance of Me.” Por

the word which is here rendered “do,” is the same

word that in the Old Testament in a sacrificial

connection is translated, “offer.” Here we have

our Lord as the High Priest after the order of

Melchisedec with the mystical oblation of bread

and wine. Here we have the breaking of the

bread and the separate blessing of the cup, with



68 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

the sacrificial words, My Body and My Blood.

Here, too, is the sacrificial term of Remembrance

or Memorial to be made before God. Thus this

expression which is connected with the idea of

sacrifice and priest, is most fittingly recorded by

St. Luke.

It will probably be helpful to some of our

readers to give a further explanation of the word

remembrance . The word remembrance means

calling to mind of oneself or another. It had to

Jewish ears a liturgical signification. It was asso-

ciated with the blowing of trumpets over the sacri-

fices “that they be to you for a Memorial before

God” (Hum. x. 10). It was connected with the

incense placed on the Shew Bread (Lev. xxiv. 7)

“for a Memorial, an offering made by fire unto the

Lord.” It was the portion of the meat offering

burned on the altar by the priest to bring the

offerer into remembrance before God (Lev. vi. 15).

“When therefore,” says Bishop John Wordsworth,

“our Lord said T)o this for My Memorial/ He

spoke words which fell certainly upon no unpre-

pared or inattentive ears. Those who heard Him

knew the sense of the Hebrew intuitively. They

knew He did not mean ‘Do (or offer) this to re-

mind yourselves of Me/ but ‘by this make a sol-

emn commemoration of Me to God.’
”

Our own Church puts this interpretation on

the words of the Institution and incorporates

them into her Communion service. “Wherefore

0 Lord and Heavenly Father, according to the

Institution of Thy dearly beloved Son Our Saviour



IN THE EUCHARIST. 69

Jesus Christ, we, Thy humble servants, do cele-

brate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty,

with these Thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto

Thee, the Memorial Thy Son hath commanded us

to make.” The words “This do” mean then, to

make this as a Memorial of Me before God and

also, as was commanded through St. Paul, “Show

forth My death till I come.”

And now notice the difference in our Lord’s

language in His discourse to the people, given in

the sixth chapter of St. John and at the time of

the Institution. When He was speaking to those

who were to be His followers, He commanded them

to eat His Plesh and drink His Blood. They were

to be receivers. Speaking to them in this their

character of communicants He bade them eat His

Plesh and drink His Blood. He said nothing to

them about their making a Memorial of Him. He

did not say to them, “This do.” He said nothing

to them about their remembering Him in any way.

They were addressed as receivers of a gift. That

is clearly His teaching.

But when He instituted the Sacrament, it must

be observed, no laymen were present. There were

no women and no laymen. He never said to any

layman, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Save

as sharers in the priesthood, and so participating

in offering the sacrifice, these words cannot be

quoted or claimed by them. Ho layman can say,

in denial of the Real Presence, that our Lord bade

us receive in remembrance of Him. In the first

place He never uttered such words to anyone.



70 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

What He said to His Apostles, as His representa-

tives, was, Do this as a Memorial of Me. What

He said to all as receivers was, “My Flesh is meat

indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed ;** and “Ex-

cept ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink

His Blood ye have no life in you.”

We now come to the words of Institution.

Our Lord knew of the struggle in the Apostles*

minds when He had announced His doctrine and

forced them to accept it or break with Him. Had

any mistake been made, now was the time to cor-

rect it. If His words then did not necessarily

imply His Real Presence in the Eucharist, now

was the time to make manifest His true meaning.

It would have been such a simple and easy thing

to do. Surely He would not have left His Apos-

tles and a greater part of the Church in grievous

error, when it could so readily and lovingly have

been avoided. But what did he do ? In a manner

most solemn and significant, after the type of the

paschal supper with its religious accompaniments

were over, our Lord, whose every action was in-

stinct with divine meaning, prepares Himself for

the celebration. “And supper being ended/*

or if as some think this be a mis-trans-

lation, at some point in it, “Jesus know-

ing that the Father had given all things

into His Hands, and that He was come

from God, and went to God; He riseth from sup-

per, and laid aside His garments
;
and took a towel,

and girded Himself. After that He poureth water

into a basin, and began to wash the disciples* feet,



IN THE EUCHARIST. 71

and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He

was girded.”

He was hereby gathering the Apostles into

union with His own priestly office as He had before

united them by commission to His prophetical one,

and would after His Resurrection with His

kingly. This washing of their feet was part of

the ceremony of their ordination, who were to

break and bless the bread and offer the Memorial

of Christ’s Body and Blood. Very solemn and

significant are the actions of Christ in laying aside

His garments, symbolizing thereby His laying

aside the glory He had with the Father before the

world was, and the girding Himself with the towel

of our human nature by His Incarnation. In

most loving manner He washes the disciples’ feet,

and, symbolizing thereby the means of their in-

ward purification, wipes them with the towel with

which He is girded. We must not pause on the

great liturgical prayer He uttered, as our great

High Priest.

When we come to the Institution itself, the

words are without ambiguity
,
or metaphor, or

figure

:

“Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake

and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat;

this is my body. And He took the cup, and gave

thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all

of this
;
FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTA-

MENT, which is shed for many for the remission of

sins.”

What, we may ask, could be more confirma-



72 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

tory of His former teaching, what more clear,

what more absolutely affirmative? That which

He takes in His hands He declares to be His Body.

This, He says of the Cup, is My Blood. He is the

Omnipotent God and all things exist by His power

and are what the Lord declares them to be. He

is the Truth itself and cannot err, neither can He

deceive nor be deceived. He declares that which

He designates, to be His Body and Blood.

While the vast majority of Churchmen from

the earliest times have so held and found in it

their greatest comfort and highest joy, there are

some in these latter and darker days who have lost

faith in Christ’s objective Presence. They have

not followed the traditions of the Church as Christ

bade us to do, saying, “Hear the Church,” but

have been made the unconscious victims of the

traditions of men. They have followed some great

man, like Luther or Calvin or Wesley or Channing.

They have made him their guide and master,

which is what Christ forbade us to do. They have

taken for granted the forced and manufactured

arguments of those wise in their own wisdom, who

have broken with the wisdom that speaks through

the consent of the Church.

But with all love to those who oppose the an-

cient faith, let us fairly consider their argument.

They admit that Christ says “This is My Body,”

but they reply the word “is” must sometimes be

taken as meaning “represents”
;
so that all Christ

meant was “This represents My Body.”

We must, therefore, examine the alleged cases



IN THE EUCHARIST. 73

where the word "is” has the sense of representss

and see if they are parallel to the case of the In-

stitution. For we might reply, there are ten thou-

sand more instances where the word “is” has its

positive meaning, and why should the few cases it

has not, govern our interpretation here? It will

be at once admitted that it is not sufficient for our

friends to find some cases where the word “is” may

be taken as synonymous for meaning “represent,”

but the cases must be parallel to the one we are

honestly seeking to interpret. We will make this

clearer as we go on.

But first let us look at the cases cited. Here

are most of them. “The seven good kine are

seven years” (Gen. xii. 26, 27). “The ten horns

are ten kingdoms” (Dan. vii. 24). “The field is

the world; the good seed are the children of the

Kingdom
;
the tares are the children of the wicked

one; the enemy is the devil; the reapers are the

angels” (St. Matt. xiii. 38-39). “The Rock was

Christ” (I. Cor. v. 4). “For these are the two

covenants” (Gal. iv. 24).

Now in these instances it is granted the word

“is” may be taken to mean represent. But then

none of these cases are similar to that of the words

of Institution, and so in no way affects its inter-

pretation. They are all, as a child may see, ex-

planations of visions, or an allegory, or a parable.

In Genesis the king has a vision of seven lean

cattle and seven fat cattle. Joseph interprets the

vision picture and says the seven good kine are

seven years. The beast seen in the vision picture



74 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

in Daniel has ten horns, and the explanation is,

that the ten horns are ten kingdoms. In St. Mat-

thew onr Lord gives ns some word pictures or par-

ables, and then points out what the things in them

stand for, i.e the field is the world, the reapers

are the angels. St. Paul declares that he is relat-

ing an allegory, and when he says the Rock was

Christ, he is careful to explain that it was a spir-

itual rock whereof he spoke.

Now the difference between explaining an alle-

gory or vision or parable, and the case in hand is

obvious. If any one, for example, should point

to a picture and say that is George Washington, it

would be perfectly well understood that the

speaker meant that it was a portrait of him. So

when any word picture, by way of allegory, or

parable, or vision is explained, the word "is” in

the explanation means represents. The field in

the parable is or represents the world. But except

in these cases of parable, vision, or allegory, the

word "is” has its ordinary signification, and con-

nects the subject and predicate together by way of

identity. It was on that solemn night that the

Apostles said, "Now Thou speakest plainly and

speakest no parable”
;
so when our Lord said. This

is My Body, the phrase must be taken in its literal
signification and must mean it is His Body.

Again, some have tried to explain away the

plain meaning of our Lord’s words by quoting such

texts as these: "I am the Door,” "I am the

Vine.” But these are not parallel constructions.

Nor does the verb in either case signify represent .



IN THE EUCHARIST. 75

Our Lord is not saying that He represents the

Door or the Vine; nor that He is like a Door.

Nor is He pointing to any particular door or vine,

and saying, “It is I.” But He is saying that He

Himself, in His humanity, is the Way or the

Door. He is the Door through which we must

pass by partaking of that humanity. As it is

written, “He has opened a new and living way

through the veil, that is. His Flesh.” Again He

is saying, not that He represents a vine, or that

a vine is like Himself, but that He is indeed the

True Vine, and with His Humanity we must be

united, that the life-giving sap of His Divine Na-

ture may flow into us.

So also the very foolish attempt to parallel our

Lord’s words in the Institution by the phrase,

“This is the Lord’s passover,” has ceased to de-

ceive anyone. In the phrase, “This is the Lord’s

passover,” the word passover may here mean the

feast or day, as when we say. This is Easter, or it

may by a common Jewish usage of speech mean the

paschal lamb. In either case the word does not

mean represent. We are, therefore, now obliged,

all these futile objections the product of old con-

troversy being swept away, to rest on the plain,

literal meaning of Christ’s words. He said, This

is My Body and My Blood
;
and what He said must

be true.

Before leaving the Institution, let us point to

one further confirmatory argument. Our Lord did

not, in the words used by Himself, compare to-

gether or contrast two things. He did not name



76 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

the two things of Bread and Wine. He carefully

avoided this construction. He did not say this

Bread is My Body, this Wine is My Blood. If He

had done so, it had then been open to argument,

that the word “is” might have had a representa-

tive signification. But our Lord did not do this.

He took bread and the cup into His Hands and

said, referring to that He so held and the cup con-

tained, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood of

the New Testament.” In other words, our Lord

simply named that to which lie referred . The

Greek, by the use of the neuter pronoun, makes

this clear. He named each in turn, saying, This

is My Body, this is My Blood. Now when Al-

mighty God names anything, it is different from a

man’s doing so. All that we men can do when we

name things is to classify them. We paste a label

on them. We put them into a class. But when

Almighty God names anything, it becomes what

He names it. His word does not classify nor put

things into a category, but it makes them what

they are. So when He said, “This is My Body”

and “This is My Blood,” they became what His

words declared them to be. The first test of man’s

obedience was given in the simple command, “Eat

not.” To eat was to die. He was to obey, though

his reason could not fathom the mystery. The

test of obedience to-day is given in the command

to “Eat”; though the mystery be great, let us

believe and eat and live.

We must here leave the matter with our read-
ers, asking for them the Spirit’s guidance, and for



IN THE EUCHARIST. 77

ourselves their prayers. The chains of prejudice

are hard to break. Our inherited traditions hold

us as the Jews, in their iron grasp. The old are

most unwilling to receive new truths. Few have

the courage to achieve the freedom of faith. The

spirit of the age is impatient of aught that re-

quires acceptance of the supernatural. The fear

of a dreaded Romanism warps the understanding.

Party spirit is seemingly stronger with many than

the Holy Spirit. The name of an advocate, how-

ever humble, is allowed to prejudice Christ’s cause.

Yet how can we brother Churchmen defend our-

selves against the Unitarian if we reject the literal

meaning of Christ’s words ? Christ says, This is My

Body, and we explain it away, saying it only means

This represents My Body. We turn to the Uni-

tarian and quote to him the text, “The Word was

God.” And on our own lines of argument he re-

plies, That does not mean that the Word was actu-

ally God and one with Him, but only that He rep-

resents Him. Consistency adds its strength to the

argument for accepting the^ literal meaning of our

Lord’s words.

It is not only for the honor of our dear Lord

we write, nor merely that His great act of love

should be recognized. Our Church is just now

under the lash of partisans like a troubled sea.

The peril is that good men of all sides do not

understand and trust each other. If a wider ac-

ceptance of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist

could obtain among us, the waves of this con-

troversial sea would subside in obedience to



78 THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

Christ’s word of Peace. The disputes over Ritual

would dwindle into small and manageable quan-

tities. Not that one party would triumph over

another, but all would be willing that our Lord’s

Presence should be honored by a reverent ritual,

while but very few would desire an excess which

would take from the honor due Him by an atten-

tion attracted to itself.

If this great central truth of Christ’s Presence

were more widely and practically accepted, it

would be the rallying point of the devout and ear-

nest minded. Christ with us could unite us.

The differences which seem like widening gaps

between us would be considered of less importance

in contrast with the great vital bond of faith in the

Eucharist which would bind us together.

If the belief that our Lord is really present

filled our hearts, how would not our churches be

full again with devoted worshippers ! Can we over-

estimate, either, the development of the spiritual

life that would ensue ? Eor as of old the prophet

stretched himself on the body of the dead child,

and put his hands on the child’s hands and his

feet on the child’s feet, so does our Blessed Lord

come in contact with our bodies, souls, and spirits.

The virtues in Him as we open our minds and

hearts by faith and love, pass into us. We are no

longer striving to copy Him, but He is in us, ex-

tending the virtues of His own life. The meek-

ness, humility, unselfishness, faith, fortitude, zeal

of Christ, is extended into the lives of those who



IN THE EUCHARIST. 79

believe in His Presence in the Sacrament, and

make room for Him in their hearts.

“0 Jesu, pierced for love of me,

How can this poor heart grateful be?

Would that my burning heart might be

Even as is Thy love to me.

“I cannot love Thee as I would

Yet pardon me, O highest Good

;

My life and all I call mine own

I lay before Thine Altar-throne.”