“And yet Holy Scripture, taken in its plainest meaning, affirms both that the outward elements remain, and still that there is the real Presence of the Body of Christ. And I may, in the outset, say, that when the Articles reject Transubstantiation, they themselves explain what they mean to reject, —a doctrine which " is repugnant to the plain words of Holy Scripture," i.e. those words in which our Lord and St. Paul speak of the natural substances as remaining. The Articles call it also " a doctrine which overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament," in that the outward and visible part is supposed to have no real subsistence. They except against no statement which does not imply that the natural substances cease to be.

To remove, in the outset, a misconstruction likely to occur. It will be said, " If the Church of England teaches that the consecrated elements remain in their very natural substances, and yet that the Body and Blood of Christ are present under those outward forms of bread and wine, then we are pledged to what is called Consubstantiation." This is altogether a mistake. The very term Consubstantiation is a mere term of reproach used against the Lutherans by those who denied any Sacred Presence at all.

In the indivisible Unity of God, we adore the Consubstantial Word which is the Son. Our Blessed Lord in His Divine Nature is Consubstantial with the Father; in His Human Nature, Consubstantial with us, as we confess in the Creed: " God, of the Substance of the Father, Begotten before the world, and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, Born in the world." His Body is Consubstantial with ours, of one common substance. Consubstantiation or Impanation would be but physical explanations of the union of two substances.

 

 

 

Comment