Of Real Presence.
from "A Reformed Catholic"
[In 1597 when this was written, William Perkins(1558-1602) was England's most respected theologian and "fountainhead of Elizabethan pastoral theology". He had an international reputation second to none and was published in many lands and languages. He uses several words in a technical sense which give added weight when understood. Ideas like father and son are relatives because the existence of one implies the other. Similarly pastor and flock, and so there is a relation between these relatives, which is what they are called. Importantly, a sacramental sign implies the existence of the thing signified. Another point is that Contraries are statements which cannot both be true, if one is true the other must be false.]
[Click here for the full extract]
Short Extract:
Of Real Presence: our consent.
We Hold and believe a presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that no feigned but a true and real presence which must be considered two ways: first, in respect of the signs; secondly in respect of the communicants.
For the first [way], we hold and teach that Christ's body and blood are truly present with the bread and wine, being signs in the sacrament.
But how? When a word is uttered, the sound comes to the ear and at the same instant the thing signified comes to the mind and thus the word and the thing spoken of are both present together.
[To be a symbol representing something, it cannot be the thing represented]
Even so at the Lord's table bread and wine must not be considered barely as subsistences, but as outward signs in relation to the body and blood of Christ. And this relation arising from the very institution of the sacrament, stands in this, that when the elements of bread and wine are present to the hand and to the mouth of the receiver, at the very same time the body and blood of Christ are presented to the mind.
The second presence is in respect of the communicants to whose believing hearts he is also really present. It will be said, what kind of presence is this?
Answer: Such as the communion in the sacraments is, such is the presence, and by the communion we must judge of the presence. Now the communion is on this manner. God the Father, according to the evangelical covenant, gives Christ in his sacrament as really and truly as anything can be given unto man, not by part and piecemeal as we say, but whole Christ, God and man, on this sort.
In Christ there be two natures, the godhead and manhood. The godhead is not given in regard of substance or essence, but only in regard of efficacy, merits and operation conveyed thence to the manhood. And further in this sacrament, Christ's whole manhood is given both body and soul in this order.
First of all is given the very manhood in respect of substance and that is really. Secondly, the merits and benefits thereof, are given wholly and jointly together. For the two distinct signs of bread and wine signify not two distinct givings of the body apart and the blood apart, but the full and perfect nourishment of our souls.
Again, the benefits of Christ's manhood are diversely given: some by imputation, which is an action of God accepting that which is done by Christ as done by us; and thus it hath pleased God to give the passion of Christ and his obedience. Some again are given by a kind of propagation, which I cannot fitly express in terms, but I resemble it thus.
As one candle is lighted by another and one torch or candlelight is conveyed to twenty candles, even so the inherent righteousness of every believer is derived from the storehouse of righteousness which is in the manhood of Christ. For the righteousness of all the members is but the fruit thereof, even as the natural corruption in all mankind is but a fruit of the original sin which was given in Adam. Thus we see how God for his part gives Christ and that really.
To proceed, when God gives Christ he gives withal at the same time the Spirit of Christ, which Spirit creates in the same the heart of the receiver the instrument of the true faith by which the heart doth really receive Christ given of God, by resting on the promise which God hath made that he will give Christ and his righteousness to every true believer.
Now then, when God gives Christ with his benefits and man for his part receives the same as they are given, there riseth that union which is between every good receiver and Christ himself: which union is not forged, but a real, true and near conjunction, nearer than which none is or can be, because it is made by a solemn giving and receiving that passeth between God and man, as also by the bond of one and the same Spirit.
To come then to the point, considering there is a real union, and consequently a real communion between us and Christ as I have proved, there must needs be such a kind of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him and receives the sacrament in faith. And thus far do we consent with the Romish Church touching real presence.
Of Real Presence: our dissent.
We differ NOT touching the presence itself, but only in the manner of the presence. For though we hold a real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, yet we do not take it to be local, bodily or substantial, but spiritual and mystical, to the signs by sacramental relation and to the communicants by faith alone.
Our reasons.
Reason I. This corporal presence overturns sundry articles of faith. For we believe that the body of Christ was made of pure substance of the Virgin Mary and that but once, namely when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born. But this cannot stand if his body was made of the substance of the Virgin and not of the Virgin; made once and not once, but often.
Again if his body and blood be under the forms of bread and wine, then he is not as yet ascended into heaven, but remains still among us. Neither can he be said to come from heaven at the day of judgement, for he that must come thence to judge the quick and the dead, must be absent from the earth.
And this was the ancient faith. Augustine saith that Christ according to his majesty and providence and grace is present with us to the end of the world, but according to his assumed flesh he is not always with us. Cyril saith he is absent in body and present in virtue, whereby all things are governed.
Reason II. This bodily presence overturns the nature of a true body, whose common nature or essential property is to have length, breadth and thickness, which being taken away a body is no more a body. And by reason of these three dimensions a body can occupy but one place at once.
The property of a body is to be seated in some place, so as man may say where it is. They therefore that hold the body of Christ to be in many places at once do make it no body at all, but rather a spirit, and that infinite.
Reason III. [Again, a sign cannot be the thing signified] Transubstantiation overturns the very Supper of the Lord. For in every sacrament there must be a sign, a thing signified and a proposition or relation between them both: but [Roman] real presence takes all away, for when the bread is really turned into Christ's body and the wine into his blood then the sign is abolished and there remains nothing but the outward forms or appearance of bread and wine.
Again, it abolisheth the ends of the sacrament, whereof one is to remember Christ till his coming again, who being present in the sacrament bodily needs not to be remembered, because helps of remembrance are of things absent.
Reason V. The fathers of the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the rock which was Christ (I Cor. 10:3).
Now they could not eat his body which was crucified, or drink his blood shed bodily but by faith, because then his body and blood were not in nature. [Rome] answer that the fathers did eat the same meat and drink the same spiritual drink with themselves, not with us. But their answer is against the text, for the apostle's intent is to prove that the Jews were every way equal to the Corinthians, because they did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with the Corinthians, otherwise his reason proves not the point which he hath in hand, namely that the Israelites were nothing inferior to the Corinthians.
Reason VII. The judgement of the ancient church. Theodoret saith, The same Christ who called his natural body food and bread, who also called himself a vine, he vouchsafed the visible signs the name of his own body not changing nature, but putting grace to nature, whereby he means consecration.
And, the mystical signs after sanctification lose not their proper nature. For they remain in their first nature and keep their first figure and form and, as before, may be touched and seen: and which they are made in understood, believed and adored Gelasius saith, Bread and wine pass into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, yet so as the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. And they are turned into the divine substance, yet the bread and wine remain still in property of their nature. Lombard saith, If it be asked what conversion this, whether formal or substantial, or of another kind, I am not able to define.
And that the fathers held not transubstantiation, I prove it by sundry reasons.
First, they used in former times to burn with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lord's Supper.
Secondly, by the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ they used to confirm the personal union of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against the heretics, which argument they would not have used if they had believed a popish real presence.
Thirdly, it was a custom in Constantinople that if any parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended that young children should be sent for from school to eat them, who nevertheless were barred the Lord's table. And this argues plainly that the church in those days took the bread, after the administration was ended, for common bread.
Objections [from Rome].
I. The first reason is John 6:55. My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. Therefore (say they) Christ's body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunk accordingly.
Answer. The chapter must be understood of a spiritual eating of Christ. His body is meat indeed, but spiritual meat and his blood spiritual drink, to be received not by the mouth, but by faith.
This is the very point that Christ here intends to prove, namely that to believe in him, to eat his flesh and drink his blood are all one. Again, this chapter must not be understood of that special eating of Christ in the sacrament, for it is said generally, Except ye eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you (v. 53). And if these very words (which are the substance of the chapter) must be understood of a sacramental eating, no man before the coming of Christ was saved, for none did bodily eat or drink his body or blood, considering it was not then existing in nature, but only was present to the believing heart by faith.
II. Another argument is taken from the words of institution. This is my body (Luke 22:19).
Answer. These words must not be understood properly, but by a figure, his body being put for the sign and seal of his body. It is objected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speak as plainly as they can. Now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament and therefore he spake plainly without any figure.
Answer. Christ here speaketh plainly and by a figure also, for it hath always the usual manner of the Lord in speaking of the sacraments to give the name of the thing signified to the sign: as Gen. 17:10 circumcision is called the covenant of God and in the next verse in way of exposition, the sign of the covenant; and Exod. 12:11 the paschal lamb is called the angels passing by or over the houses of the Israelites, whereas indeed it was but a sign thereof; and I Cor. 10:4 the rock was Christ, I Cor. 5:7 the Passover was Christ.
Again, the time when these words were spoken must be considered and it was before the passion of Christ whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed and consequently neither of them could be received in bodily manner, but by faith alone.
Again, Christ way not only the author, but the minister of this sacrament at the time of the institution thereof. And if the bread had been truly turned into his body and the wine into his blood, Christ with his own hands should have taken his own body and blood and given it to his disciples.
Nay, which is more, he should with his own hands have taken his own flesh and drunken his own blood and have eaten himself. For Christ himself did eat the bread and drink the wine that he might with his own person consecrate his last supper, as he had consecrated Baptism before.
To conclude, seeing there is a real communion in the sacrament of between Christ and every believing heart, our duty therefore is to bestow our hearts on Christ, endeavouring to love him and rejoice in him and to long after him above all things.
All our affiance must be in him and with him. We being now on earth must have our conversation with him. We being now on earth must have our conversation in heaven. And this is the true real presence, which the ancient church of God hath commended unto us, for in all these liturgies these words are used and are yet extant in the [Roman] mass, Lift up your hearts: we lift them up unto the Lord.
By which words the communicants were admonished to direct their minds and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Thus saith Augustine, If we celebrate the ascension of the Lord with devotion, let us ascend with him and lift up our hearts. Again, They which are already risen with Christ in faith and hope are invited to the great table of heaven, to the table of angels where is the bread.
A Reformed Catholic, by William Perkins, Cambridge 1597.