05.04.2013 Views

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1. Our Saviour does not say "would be broken," “would be shed,"<br />

but uses the present participle in both cases: "is broken," "is shed." If the<br />

critic insists that the present participle has a future sense, he is bound to<br />

give reason for his departure from the letter. Till the critic proves this, he<br />

has against him the very letter of our Lord's word, testifying that he did not<br />

compare that present breaking of the bread with the future breaking of his<br />

body. 2. <strong>The</strong> sacred text, if we assume that the language is figurative, gives<br />

no warrant for the idea that the breaking of Christ's body, <strong>and</strong> the shedding<br />

of his blood, refer as their distinctive object to the mode by which his life<br />

was terminated, but both refer to the impartation or communication of the<br />

body <strong>and</strong> blood, as the applying organs of the, redemption wrought<br />

through them. In other words, they are, in the Lord's Supper, contemplated<br />

distinctively in their sacramental application, <strong>and</strong> in their sacrificial<br />

character only as the sacrificial is to be presupposed, either in fact or in<br />

God's unchanging purposes, as the necessary antecedent <strong>and</strong> ground of<br />

the sacramental. Bread is broken in order to be communicated, <strong>and</strong> wine is<br />

poured out in order to be imparted. If these acts, then, are symbolical as<br />

regards the body <strong>and</strong> blood of Christ, they contemplate the one as broken,<br />

the other as shed, in order to communication <strong>and</strong> impartation; <strong>and</strong> then<br />

there is a parallel in the words of Paul: <strong>The</strong> cup of blessing, is it not the<br />

communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we break, is it not the<br />

communion of his body?<br />

V. None of the Evangelists connect the Breaking of the Bread with<br />

the Breaking of the Body.<br />

3. Matthew says our Lord brake the bread, but does not think it<br />

necessary to record at all that our Lord said, My body broken--that is,<br />

according to the false theory, he failed to note the only resemblance which<br />

our Lord has authorized. Mark is guilty, on the same theory, of the same<br />

omission--not a word about the breaking of the bread as the point of<br />

comparison with the breaking of the body. Luke has: He brake it, <strong>and</strong><br />

gave unto them, <strong>and</strong> said: This is my body which is given for you. Not a<br />

word about the breaking as a symbol of the crucifixion; but, as if the<br />

breaking were merely a necessary part of the communicative

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!