The third reference to the Eucharist is in Sibbald’s Second Sermon upon the VI
Chapter of St. John, v.44, 45.This sermon was preached at a celebration of the Lord’s Supper as the last two paragraphs suggest. There Sibbald sets out the means set forward in the New Testament to be ‘taught of God’. He says, ‘God hath ordained
meanes, whereinto although he hath not tyed himself, yet he hath tyed us to these
meanes, to wit, hisWord, hisSacraments,Prayer and Meditation… If thou neglect themeanes, thou temptest God, & deceivest thine own soul’.241Reading the Bible, receiving Holy Communion, and personal prayer are the appointed means by which the Christian can draw close to God. Sibbald then uses the five physical senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting to suggest spiritual counterparts242; ‘But why do I insist so much upon this [the spiritual counterparts to the physical senses]? to shew … [the] many ways to communicate himself to us, and make us so many ways able to receive him... [to see] his beauty, to heare his voice, smell the sweet savour of his precious oyntments, taste his sweetness, or embrace him in that armes of our love…’243It is in discussing the spiritual counterparts to the senses of sight and hearing that Sibbald mentions the Eucharist.
‘I have insisted upon this at this time to move you, to stirre up all thepowersand
facultiesof your souls, to receive him who offereth himself at this time most
abundantly to bee participated by us in these sacredmysteriesboth as God and man. [Spiritual sight:] Here we may see him by the eye of faith as God, not simply as God, but as God made man, and as made a man ofsorrowesfor us, and as made the bread of life unto us. What a wonderfullsightis this! How can the Angels of heaven but admire toseethe only begotten Son of God, who is in the bosome of the Father,The brightnes of his glory and the express image of his person, eternal and omnipotent as the Father is, Infinite in Majesty, Wisdome, Goodnesse, &c., How can they, I say, but admire to see him demitt himself so farre for us and to us? As man also he offereth himself tobe seenby us spiritually. Here we mayseehim and should look upon him as hesufferedand wascrucifiedfor us. Here thou mayest see his Head crowned with thorns, as should have been, and now is crowned withGlory. HisFace spitted on and
241
Sibbald, James, op. cit., p. 167.
242Ibid., pp. 170—171. 243Ibid., p. 171.
buffeted, which should haveshinedand dothshinewith the beams of heavenlyLight: His Hands and Feet piercedand in a wordall wounded for our iniquities, and now giving hisBodythat was broken, and hisBloodthat was shed as the food of our souls unto eternal life. O what a wonderful and sweet sight this is! What reverence and humility, what love and thanksgiving, should it raise up in us. Dost thou see what thou receivest in these sacred mysteries, and from whom? And wilt thou who art but dust and ashes refuse to humble thy self in body and soul? Or can thou consider his infinite love to thee , which made him to give himself for thee when thou was his enemie & to exchange, as it were, theThroneof hisGlorywith the ignominy of thecrosse, canst thou, I say, consider this and not be inflamed with love and breake out in
thanksgiving?’ Although one can but see bread and wine by physical sight, by spiritual sight one can behold Christ crucified in the Sacrament, as being the offering of his death.
[Spiritual hearing:] ‘...he speaketh to us in these sacred mysteries most sweet and comfortable words, which we should heare and answer unto. He sayeth,I am the bread of life&c. that we may answer,LORD, evermore give us this bread. He sayethI am the water of life, that we may answer,LORD, give us this water that we may never thirst again. He sayeth,This is my Body which is broken for you. This is my Blood which is shed for you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him,that we may answer,Whence is it that our Lord cometh unto us. O LORD we are unworthy that thou should enter under the rooffe of our unclean souls, let it be unto thy servants according to thy word’.244In the Words of Institution, Christ speaks to the communicant of the Eucharist as the memorial of his death, and as the offering of his body and blood to the faithful that there may be the mutual indwelling in Christ.
Sibbald says that by the spiritual sense of sight ‘Christ offereth himself to us to be seen by us in these sacred mysteries at this time most abundantly to bee participated by us in these sacredmysteriesboth as God and man. Here we may see him by the eye if faith as God, not as God alone, but as God made man’, Sibbald describes the
Eucharist, ‘these sacred mysteries’, as revealing Christ in his passion and death, who ‘offereth himself to be seen by us spiritually’, by way of enabling the communicant to
recognise that there is a true participation in Christ by receiving his body and blood. Sibbald describes the spiritual sight to be seen. ‘…a man of sorrows for us, and as made the bread of life to us….As man also he offereth himself to be seen by us spiritually. Here we may see him as he suffered and was crucified. Here thou may see his head crowned with thorns… His face spitted on and buffeted…His hands and feet pierced…and now giving his Body that was broken, and his Blood that was shed as the food for our souls unto eternal life. O what a sweet sight this is!’ Sibbald is preaching to his congregation ‘to stirre up all the powers and faculties’ of his hearers. The gloss in the margin beside this paragraph, states its content, ‘16. Sight of Christ in the holy mysteries’.
Sibbald urges his hearers in graphic visual terms to see in the bread and wine as proclaiming the Lord’s death before the congregation in such a way that the worshippers beholding the bread and wine set forth, behold the very sight of our Savour’s self-oblation, his death, his wounds, his bleeding: the display of the propitious death of Christ, suffering in his humanity, saving in his Godhead. ‘Dost thou see what thou receivest in these sacred mysteries…’ The physical eye sees bread and wine, but Jesus Christ, his body broken in death and his blood shed, upon the Cross is seen by the faithful spiritual eye. The physical is the type of the spiritual. Also, what Sibbald does not say explicitly, but is implied, is that the offering of Christ in his death is not only to the people; considering the ideas about the Eucharist already encountered in Sibbald’s sermons, he sees the Eucharist as the offering of the death of Christ to the Father. This idea is stated explicitly in the writings of both John Forbes of Corse and of William Forbes, both of whose theological ideas Sibbald would have known intimately.
Sibbald’s words ‘…wounded for our iniquities, and now giving hisBodythat was broken, and hisBloodthat was shed as the food of our souls unto eternal life’,245 suggest the connection between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, everywhere vehemently urged in the New Testament’, in his sermon on Psalm 65. The suggested image is that as the animal victims of the sacrifices of the Old Testament were slain and consumed, so Christ in his death, God and man, the one only propitious victim, is offered in type and symbol, in the bread
and wine by thanksgiving, and consumed by the faithful communicant as his body and blood, ‘as the food of souls unto eternal life’. The sacrifice is the offering of bread and wine which the Holy Spirit discloses to the faithful eye as Christ crucified.
The final paragraph of the sermon, Sibbald turns from spiritually seeing Jesus crucified in the Holy Mysteries, to ‘the hearing of him therein’,246he conceives a dialogue between the Lord, who speaks in verses of Scripture, and the communicant who responds similarly. ‘He speaketh to us in these sacred mysteries, most sweet and comfortable words, which we should hear and answer unto. He sayeth,I am the bread of life &c. that we may answer,LORD, evermore give us this bread. He sayeth,This is my Body which is broken for you, this is my Blood which is shed for you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, that we may answer,Whence is it that our Lord cometh unto us; O LORD, we are unworthy that thou should enter under the rooffe of our unclean souls, but let it be unto thy servants according to thy word’.247
While ‘spiritual sight’ has a somewhat static quality, in describing the Eucharist as auditory and as a dialogue, Sibbald ascribes to the Eucharist a dynamic quality. Christ is dynamically present and engaged with the faithful communicant. By participating in the Eucharist, and receiving Holy Communion, eating his body and drinking his blood is a true participation in Christ ‘…who offereth himself at this time most abundantly to bee participated by us in these sacredmysteriesboth as God and man’, that is by participation.
William Forbes, Sibbald’s friend and mentor, describes the Eucharist as a true participation in the living Christ, ‘the Body and Blood of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present and taken in the Eucharist, but in a way, which is
incomprehensible to the human understanding, and much more, beyond the power of man to express; which is known to God alone, and not revealed to us in Scripture, a way indeed, not corporeal or by oral reception, but not by the mere understanding and simple faith either, but by another way, known (as has been said) to God alone and left to His omnipotence’.248And again, ‘In the Supper, moreover, by the wonderful
246
Ibid., p. 172, gloss in margin of page.
247Ibid., p. 172.
power of the Holy Ghost we invisibly communicate with the substance of the Body [and Blood] of Christ, of which we are made partakers, no otherwise than if we visibly ate and drank His Flesh and Blood…’.249
Both Sibbald’s tableau of Christ crucified and his dialogue with Christ suggest Christ’s presence, not locatable or definable, but transcendently present by the operation of the Holy Spirit, who makes the bread and wine upon the holy Table the true body and blood of Christ, as John Forbes of Corse discussed extensively in his fourth argument against transubstantiation, especially in his exposition of Cyril of Alexandria.250
Conclusion.
Sermons are by their nature an entirely aural medium, and cannot be precise and extensive doctrinal statements, none the less one must ask, does Sibbald’s doctrine of the Eucharist in these sermons coincide with the Representative and Commemorative Sacrifice, and as it can be determined in the work of John Forbes of Corse and of William Forbes?
1) The Eucharist is the offering of bread and wine as the memorial of Christ’s unique sacrifice: the sermon on Psalm 65 discusses the Eucharist as A) in continuity with the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and B) as the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, ‘The proper sacrifice of Christians is the sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving,
everywhere vehemently urged in the New Testament. Our Blessed Lord did institute the blessed sacrament of his body and blood giving thanks, and for this end that we may give thanks to God, as for all his benefits, so especially for that of our
Redemption’.
2) The Eucharist is exhibiting the Lord’s death, not only before those present at the Eucharist, but also before God as a supplicatory commemorative sacrifice. In the sermon on Psalm 65, Sibbald says, ‘Our Blessed Lord did institute the blessed sacrament of his body and blood giving thanks, and for this end that we may give thanks to God, as for all his benefits… Besidethanksgivingfor former benefits [it] is
249Ibid., op. cit., pp. 421—423. 250Low, W. L., op. cit., pp. 85—110.
a secret and real prayer drawing down new benefits, it preserveth the benefits we have received, and procureth the increase of them’.
3) The Eucharist is propitiatory, in that it is applicative of the Christ’s propitiation on the Cross to the communicants. In the funeral sermon for Bishop Patrick Forbes, Sibbald quotes Chrysostom: ‘For whyle thou beholdest the Lord sacrificed, the priest performing that sacrifice… and the people dyed, as it were, and made red with that precious blood’ is an clear statement of the Eucharist bringing the porpitiation of the Cross to the communicant. Also quoting Nazianzen in the same sermon, ‘[the ministry of the priest is to] send sacrifice to the altar that is above, and to discharge Priesthood with Christ… and to renew his image…’. In the Eucharist the image of Christ is renewed in the communicants by the forgiveness of their sins, and by their participation in is death and resurrection.
4) In the Eucharist the offered bread and wine do not change substance to become the ‘real’ body and blood of Christ. Sibbald does not explicitly mention transubstantiation or argue against it. However particularly from the sermon of John 6: 44, 45, the discussion of the relationship between the communicant and Christ is clear evidence that while the bread wine become the body and blood of Christ, but do not change substance because A) Sibbald specifically suggests that receiving the body and blood of Christ is one of three ‘meanes’: ‘hisWord, hisSacraments,Prayer and Meditation; these are, as it were the conduits of hisgrace& as it were, theveinsby which we must search after the heavenlyWisdom’, and B) in the same sermon Sibbald suggests the presence and communication of Christ is real and efficacious, but is also
transcendent.
5) In the Eucharist, the bread and wine become body and blood of Christ in death. What is received is not the whole Christ, but his body and blood. That the Eucharist is the commemoration and representation of Jesus Christ in his death Sibbald makes explicit in the sermon on John 6: 44, 45. ‘Here we may see him by the eye of faith as God, not simply as God, but as God made man, and as made a man ofsorrowesfor us, and as made the bread of life unto us…’. Not only is Christ represented in death in the Eucharist, but he is also ‘made the bread of life unto us’. A little further on in the same sermon he says, ‘…and now giving hisBodythat was broken, and hisBloodthat was shed as the food of our souls unto eternal life…’. What is given in the Eucharist is the body of Christ broken, his blood shed to be the ‘food of our souls unto eternal life’.
6) Jesus Christ is not ‘present in’ the Eucharist because he is superior to locality. He in his risen and ascended body is at the right hand of the Father where remains until his return. He is transcendently present in his Church by the Holy Spirit. The quotation from Nazianzen in the Funeral Sermon, is certainly a statement of the Eucharist being the memorial of the Cross, Christ the High Priest pleading his all- sufficient sacrifice at the right hand of the Father in heaven, ‘and sending sacrifice to the altar that is above, and to discharge Priesthood with Christ’, The memorial made on earth, at Christ’s command is a supplication to the Father, that the efficacy and benefits of the Cross may be heard on high, and as Christ pleads his sacrifice before the Father in heaven, so the priest leads the people on pleading Christ’s sacrifice, by means of the offering of the bread and wine. Sibbald also comments, ‘The proper sacrifice of Christians is the sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving…Our Blessed Lord did institute the blessed sacrament of his body and blood giving thanks, and for this end that we may give thanks to God…for all his benefits…especially for that of our Redemption. By the right performance of this duty, we begin our heaven on earth for the proper exercise of heaven is praise’. This is a statement that those present at the eucharistic celebration is are in union with Christ in glory, by virtue of the memorial of his death, for which is thanksgiving and praise for Redemption.
The academic community at Aberdeen, as the evidence shows, was close knit and warmly affected. It was not a community of competing or conflicting ideas, but of like-mindedness, co-operation, mutual encouragement, and support. The eucharistic ideas of William Forbes, John Forbes of Corse, and James Sibbald are the same theology expressed through the minds of these three men.