Gibson on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

too much to say that they completely transform it and alter its character. In order to make this clear, it will be necessary to remind the reader briefly of the course of thought on the subject of the Eucharist in the Church of England during the sixteenth century.

In all the formularies put forth in the reign of Henry viii. the doctrine of the real presence is strongly asserted,^ as also in the abortive series of Articles agreed

(1) The Ten Articles of 1536. “As touching the Sacrament of the Altar, we will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed by us unto their spiritual charge, that they ought and must constantly believe, that under the form and figure of bread and wine, which we there presently do see and perceive by outward senses, is verily, substantially, and really contained and comprehended the very self-same body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered upon the cross for our redemption ; and that under the same form and figure of bread and wine the very self-same body and blood of Christ is corporally, really, and in the very substence exhibited, distributed, and received of all them which receive the said sacrament. ”—^<7rmt*/aritf« of Faith, p. 11.

(2) “The Institution of a Christian man” (the “Bishops’ Book”) of 1537 repeats this almost word for word.— Op. cU, p. 100.

(3) The “Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man” (the King’s Book) of 1543, not content with this, substitutes a passage which clearly teaches the doctrine of transubstantiatiou. ” In the other sacraments the outward kind of the thing which is used in them remaineth still in their own nature and substance unchanged. But in this most high Sacrament of the Altar, the creatures which be taken to the use thereof as bread and wine, do not remain still in their own substance, but by the virtue of Christ’s word in the consecration be changed and turned to the very substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. So that although there appear the form of bread and wine, after the consecration, as did before, and to the outward senses nothing seemeth to be changed, yet must we, forsaking and renouncing the persuasion of our senses in this behalf, give our assent only to faith and to the plain word of Christ, which affirmeth that substance there offered, exhibited, and received, to be the very precious body and blood of our Lord. … By these words it is plain and evident to all them with meek, humble, and sincere heart will believe Christ’s words, and be obedient unto faith,’ that in the sacrament, the things that be therein be the very body and blood of Chiist in very substance.” — Op. cit. p. 262.

IJ

^’

upon by the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 1538.^ But about the year 1545 Ridley came across the book of ” Bertram,” or rather Ratramn of Corbie (840), Dt Corpore et Sanguine Domini} By this he was greatly impressed. ” This Bertram,” he said, ” was the first that pulled me by the ear, and that brought me from the common error of the Romish Church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the writings of the old ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter.” ^ Nor did the influence of Ratramn’s book end here ; for Ridley, having been convinced by it himself, never rested till he had won over Cranmer also, and under his influence Cranmer was led definitely to abandon the medieval theory of transubstantiation.* Even so, however, he wavered and hesitated as to what his positive belief was, and for a considerable time appears to have inclined to something like the Lutheran tenet of con-substantiation ; 5 though finally, after the death of Bucer

• Art. VIL De Eucharistia: “De Eucharistia constanter credimus et docemus, quod in sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini, vere, snbstantialiter, et realiter adsint corpus et sanguis Christi sub speciebus panis et vini. Et quod sub eisdem speciebus vere et realiter exhibentur et distribuuntur illis qui sacramentum accipiunt, sive bonis sive malis.” This is decidedly stronger than the Article in the Confession of Augsburg, which in the original edition of 1530 runs as follows : “De ccena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vera adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in ccena Domini, et improbant secus docentes.” This was altered in the edition of 1540 to ” De coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in ccena Domini”— See Sylloge Confessionum, pp. 126 and 172.

^ In 1548 he issued an English translation of a Lutheran Catechism, and great was the dissatisfaction and disappointment among the more

early in 1551, he seems to have fallen completely under the influence of the Polish refugee John a Lasco, who sympathised entirely with the Swiss or Zwinglian school on the subject of the Eucharist. The result is seen in some of the changes introduced into the Book of Common Prayer in 1552, and in the publication of the Twenty-ninth Article, De coena Domini, in 1553. It will be remembered that in the Prayer Book of 1552, among other changes, the words of administration were altered,

ardent spirits at the position which he took up. “The Archbishop of Canterbury, moved, no doubt, by the advice of Peter Martyr and other Lutherans, has ordered a Catechism of some Lutheran opinions to be translated and published in our language. This little book has occasioned no little discord ; so that sightings have frequently taken place among the common people, on account of their diversity of opinion, even dunng the sermons. “-Burcher to BuUinger, Oct. 29, 1548 (Oriqi’nal Letters, p. 642). […] John ab Ulmis to the same correspondent (Aug. 18, 1548), “has fallen into so heavy a slumber that we entertain but a very cold hope that he will be aroused even by your most learned letter. For he has lately published a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the Papists in the Holy Supper of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well grounded, perspicuous, and lucid ” {ib. p. 380). Towards the end of the year a change was noticed for in November the same correspondent wites: ‘*Even that Thomas himself about whom I wrote to you when I was in London, by the goodness of God and the instrumentality of that most upright and judicious man Master John a Lasco, is in a great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy” (p. 383). In 1549 he was apparently again inclined to higher views than were acceptable to the extreme men. Bucer had “very great influence with him”; he was with him “like another Scipio, and an mseparable companion ” (pp. 64, 67). But by the end of the year he had taken a decided step. “The Archbishop of Canterbury” wrote Hooper to Bullinger on December 27, “entertains right views L to the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supjier, and is now very friendly towards myself. He has some Articles of religion, to which all preachers and lecturers in divinity are required to subscribe, or else a licence for teaching is not granted them, and in these his sentiments respecting the Eucharist are pure and religious, and similar to yours in Switzeriand” (p. 71). In the following year no room for doubt was left, as Cranmer’s own Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of tlie Sacrament was published.

V<

’< .

” Take and eat (drink) this in remembrance,” etc., being substituted for ” the body (blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given (shed) for thee,” etc., and that there appeared at the end of the Communion Office the ” black rubric ” or declaration concerning kneeling, which asserted that ” thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, — it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.” ^ In the Article as published in the following year, 1553, the first, second, and fourth paragraphs were the same as those in our present one (save that the words ” overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” were added in 1563). But the third paragraph was widely different from that which the Article now contains. It stood thus :

” Forasmuch as the truth of man’s nature requireth, that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place: therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places. And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s flesh and blood, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”

^ On the history of this rubric, which was added at the last moment, see Dixon, iii. 475 seq.

Exactly in accord with this teaching is the language of the BeformcUio Legum JScdesiasticarum, which, it will be remembered, dates from the same period. In this a violent and rather coarse attack is made on both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, or ” impanation,” as it is called; and the “real presence” is positively denied.1 On a review of these and other facts, there can be little doubt that in 1552 and 1553 the formularies of the Church in this country were (to say the least) intended to be acceptable to those who sympathised with the Swiss School of Reformers in regard to the Eucharist, and who held that the Presence was merely figurative. But happily the accession of Elizabeth, after the Marian reaction, brought with it a return to wiser counsels, and a great and marked change in the language of our formularies. In the Prayer Book (1559) the words of administration used in the first Prayer Book of Edward vi. were restored, in addition to the formula of the second book, so that there might be once more a definite recognition of the Presence at the moment of administration to each individual; and the “black rubric” was altogether omitted.^ In the Article, when it was republished a few years later (1563), the third paragraph, denying the “real and

» He/ornuUio Legum Ecclts., De Hocres. c. 19 ; cf. De SacraTrventis, c. 4: “Cumautem ad haec omnia nee transubstantiatione opus sit, nee lUa quam fingere solebant reali praesentia corporis Cbristi, sed potius hsec cimosa hominum inventa primum contra naturam humanam sint a Filio Dei nostra causa sumptara, deinde cum Scripturis divinis pugnent, et pneterea cum universa sacramentorum ratione confligant, ista tanquam fnvola quaedam somnia merito desecanda curavimus, et oblivione obruenda, praesertim cum magnum ex illis et pemiciosum agmen superstitionum in ecclesia Dei importatum fuerit.” This may well be contrasted with the much more sober condemnation of transubsUntiation in the Articles.

2 The rubric was restored in 1662 with the very important substitution of •* corporal ” for “real and essential.”

V .I

bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s flesh and blood,” was also deleted,* and in its place was inserted our present third paragraph, asserting in careful and accurate language that ” the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.” The author of this paragraph was Edmund Guest, Bishop of Rochester, who says in a letter to Cecil that is still preserved, that it was of ” mine own penning,” and that it was not intended to ” exclude the Presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof.” ^

Naturally these changes were not agreeable to the Puritan party in the Church,* for they amounted to a complete change. Whereas in the latter years of Edward VI. ’s reign the formularies had seemed to exclude the doctrine of the real Presence and to incline to Zwinglianism, they were now (at the lowest estimate) patient of a Catholic interpretation, and contained nothing under cover of which the Zwinglianizing party could honestly

The letter quoted in full in G. F. Hodge’s Bishop Oucsi Articles XXVIII. and XXIX. p. 22.

shelter themselves. Moreover, they have since been supplemented by the clear teaching of the Church Catechism (1604). It follows from all this that the opinions of the Edwardian Reformers, such as Cranmer and Ridley, on the subject of the Holy Communion, have nothing more than an historical interest for us. Destructively they performed a task for which we owe them a great debt, in courageously attacking the medieval teaching on transubstantiation. But the positive character impressed upon the Articles in regard to Eucharistic doctrine is not theirs ; nor have their writings any claim to be regarded even as an expositio contemporanea of formularies, which, in their present form, belong to a later date, and to a time when much greater respect was shown to the ancient teaching of the Church.

We are now in a position to consider the substance of the Article as it stood unchanged since 1663. It contains four paragraphs dealing with the following subjects :

1. The description of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

2. The doctrine of Transubstantiation.

3. The nature of the Presence, and the ” mean whereby it is received.”

4. Certain practices in connection with the Eucharist. I The Description of the Sacrament of the lord’s Supper.

(a) It is a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another.

So much was admitted by the Anabaptists, who regarded it as an outward sign of our profession and fellowship, but nothing more. The Article admits that it is this,’ but it is not only this. Far more important is it to remember that it is rather

{b) A Sacrament of our Redemption by

Christ’s death. It was instituted ” for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby,” and by it we ” proclaim the Lord’s death till He come ” (1 Cor. xi. 26).

(c) To such as rightly (rite), worthily, and with faith reoeive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking (communicatio) of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. This clause

is entirely founded on S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. x. 16, the words of which it follows very closely : ” The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion (Kotpavla, Vulg. communicatio) of the Blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion with the Body of Christ ? ” This passage forms an inspired commentary upon the account of the institution, when (to follow S. Paul’s own narrative of it) our Lord ” took bread ; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said. This is My body, which is for you : this do in remembrance of Me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying. This cup is the new covenant in My blood : this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” The value of the words of the Apostle cannot be overestimated as interpreting the meaning of our Lord’s words: “This is My body.” They seem conclusive against transubstantiation on the one hand, and against a merely figurative presence on the other. The bread, he says, which we break,^ is it not a Koivcovla with the body of Christ ? ie, that which coming between unites us with and makes us partakers of the body; for so we

It is noteworthy that S. Paul’s words are “the bread which we break” and ” the cup of blessing which we bless,” not simply “which we ecu and driiik.* Thus he seems to lay the stress on the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup, i.e. on the consecration with which the Church has always connected the fact of the Presence.

may paraphrase the word. Thus the heavenly part of the Sacrament is conveyed to us through the earthly symbol consecrated by Christ’s word of power ; and the ” inward part or thing signified ” is, in the emphatic words of the Catechism (rightly emphatic, because the Presence had been explained away by some), ” the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” Thus the Eucharist is, as Article XXV. maintains, an ** effectual sign.” It not only typifies, but also conveys ; for all who ” duly receive these holy mysteries ” are fed ” with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood ” of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

So far the Article has spoken only of the fact of the Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood, teaching us that it is conveyed to us through ” the bread which we break,” and ” the cup of blessing which we bless.” But questions had been raised, and much controversy had taken place with regard to the manner and nature of the Presence ; and these could not be altogether passed by without notice. To them, therefore, the next two paragraphs are devoted.

:|’

II. TransubstaTvtiation,

In considering this it will be well to treat separately —

(a) The history of the doctrine, and

(6) The grounds on which it is condemned.

(a) Hie history of the doctrine. — During the first eight centuries there are singularly few traces of controversy on the subject of the Eucharist, and as a consequence the teaching of the Fathers concerning the Presence is informal and imsystematic. It is, however, quite clear from the language used by them, as well as

I!

from the expressions employed in the Liturgies of the Church, (1) that they believed in the Real Presence, and yet (2) that they were not committed to any formal theory of the manner of it such as that which was afterwards elaborated, and (3) that they held the permanence and reaKty of the elements even after consecration. The ninth century made a change, as the doctrine then became a matter of controversy. The first, so far as we know, to write a formal treatise on the subject was Paschasius Radbert of Corbie, in 831. In his work, De Corjpore et Sangicine Domini, a carnal theory, involving practically the destruction and annihilation of the elements, was boldly taught. Again and again he asserts that after consecration there is ” nihil aliud quam corpus et sanguis Domini” ^ The work of Paschasius was answered among others by Ratramn, whose treatise, denying the carnal presence, and maintaining a spiritual view, had such an influence on Ridley, and through him on Cranmer.^ Others, however, as Hincmar (c. 850) and Haimo of Halberstadt (c. 850), wrote in favour of the teaching of Paschasius; Haimo, indeed, expressly teaching that “the invisible priest changes His visible creatures into the substance of His flesh and blood,” and that ” though the taste and figure of bread and wine remain, yet the nature of the substances is altogether changed into the body and blood of Christ.” ^ After this, however, the controversy died down, till the days of Lanfranc and Berengar, Archdeacon of Angers,

in the eleventh century. Berengar, who had attacked the popular doctrine with great vigour, was forced to recant at the Council of Eome under Nicholas ii. (1059), and the form of recantation to which he was compelled to assent will show more clearly than anything else what was now the belief of the dominant party in the Church.

” Ego Berengarius indignus Sancti Mauritii Andegavensis ecclesiae Diaconus cognoscens veram, Catholicam, et apostolicam fidem, anathematizo omnem hseresim, praecipue eam, de qua hactenus infamatus sum : quae astruere conatur panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solummodo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostii Jesu Christi esse, nee posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri. Consentio autem sanctae Komanae et apostolicae sedi ; et ore et corde profiteor de sacramento Dominicae mensae eandem fidem me tenere, quam dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et haec sancta Synodus auctoritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit: scilicet panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri: jurans per sanctam et homoousion Trinitatem, per haec sacrosancta Christi evangelia. Eos vero, qui contra banc fidem venerint, cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis aeterno anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego ipsse aliquando contra haec aliquid sentire aut praedicare praesumpsero, subjaceam canonum severitati. Lectio et perlecto sponte subscripsL” ^

if

This asserts definitely that after consecration the bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that they are ” sensibly,” not only sacramentally, but really handled by the priest, broken, and ground by the teeth of the faithful. Practically this amounts to saying that the Body and Blood have taken the place of the elements ; and it is very difficult to think that the expressions used can have been intended to be taken in any but a material sense of a sort of physical carnal presence.^ But an obvious difficulty occurs here. If this is so, how is it that the appearances of bread and wine are there still ? It was said that these were allowed to remain in order to test our faith, and to prevent the horror which would result were the Body and Blood to be openly manifested.2 And further, advantage was taken by the schoolmen of the distinction drawn by the philosophy of the day between ” substance ” and ” accidents.” It was taught that the ” accidents ” remain, and that therefore taste, appearance, smell, etc. are unchanged, but that the ” substance ” of bread and wine had been annihilated and replaced by the “substance” of the Body and Blood, i.e. that the bread and wine had been tran-substantiated into the Body and the Blood. The actual word by which this theory is commonly known, ” transubstantiatio,” appears to have been first used during the eleventh century ,3 and was definitely adopted by Innocent m. at the Fourth Lateran Council in

• So Paschasius, x. xi.

« It has been generally stated that the first known occurrence of the word is in the work of Stephen, bishop of Autun, De Sacramento Altaris (c. 1100). It appears, however, before this in the Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, by Peter Damien (who died in 1072), first published by Cardinal Mai, Script, vet. nova CoUeetio, vol. vi. p. 211 seq.; see c. vii.

1215, when a decree was promulgated, laying down that the Body and Blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the Body, and the wine into the Blood, by Divine power.^

From this time onward the word was commonly employed in the Western Church.^ But it is no more free from ambiguity than is the word “substance” itself. This, taken in its philosophical sense, is nothing that is tangible, or that the senses are cognizant of; these can only come in contact with the ” accidents ” or qualities. The ” substance ” is the underlying something which constitutes the thing, which makes it what it is, in which the ” accidents ” cohere. But, taken in its ordinary popular sense, ” substance ” suggests to plain, untrained, and unphilosophical minds something material and tangible, something which they can see, and with which the senses can come in contact. Hence it will be seen that even after it had been laid down that the elements were ” transubstantiated ” into the Body and Blood, there was still room for wide difference of opinion as to the nature of the change involved. By instructed Theologians it was understood of a change

ft

I ’.

•I

that was spiritual and entirely free from any gross or carnal sense. But to those to whose minds the ordinary associations of the word ” substance ” clung, it could only suggest a material physical presence. The great schoolmen of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from Peter Lombard onwards, had done something to free the doctrine from the terribly materialistic ideas in which it had originated,^ but after their days a period of decadence set in ; the clergy of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were for the most part not well-instructed Theologians ; and there can be no doubt that the doctrine commonly accepted at the beginning of the sixteenth century was a grossly carnal and material one. There is abundant and painful evidence of this, not only in the language of those who (often coarsely and in ill-considered language) assailed the popular theory, but also in the language of its defenders. Thus one of the forms of recantation submitted to Sir John Cheke under the direction of Cardinal Pole reasserts in plain terms the view contained in the recantation of Berengarius, cited above.^

^See, e.gr., the language of Peter Lombard, Libri Senient. IV. dist. xi. xii. xiii.

2 See Strype’s Life of Sir John Cheke, p. 123 : ” * I, Sir John Cheke, Knight,’ etc… . The tenor of which was, that he pretended with heart and mouth to profess that he acknowledged the true Catholic and Apostolical faith, and did execrate all heresy, and namely that wherewith he lately Iiad been in famed, as holding that the bread and wine upon the altar, after the consecration of the priest, remained only a sacrament, and were not the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither could be handled or broken by the priest’s hands, or chewed with the teeth of the faithful, otherwise than only in manner of a sacrament That he consented now to the holy and ai>ostolical Church of Rome, and professed with mouth and heart to hold the same faith touching the sacrament of the Lord’s Mass, which Pope Nicholas with his Synod at Rome, anno 1058, did hold, and commanded to be held by his evangelical and apostolical authority ; that is, that the bread and wine upon the altar, after consecration, are not only a sacrament, but also are

In spite, however, of the popular superstitions encouraged by the use of the term, it was authoritatively reasserted at the Council of Trent. The whole question of the Eucharist was there considered at the thirteenth session in October 1551, more than a year before the promulgation of the English Articles of 1553. At this session it was laid down — (1) that “in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the form of those sensible things ” ; ^ and (2) that “because Christ our Eedeemer declared that which He offered under the form of bread to be verily His own Body, therefore it has ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion takes place of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood : which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, conveniently and properly called Transubstantiation.^ Further, the

the very true and self-same Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, felt and broken with hands, and chewed with teeth : swearing by the holy Evangelists that whosoever should hold or say to the contrary, he should hold them perpetually accursed ; and that if he himself should hereafter presume to teach against the same, he should be content to abide the severity and rigour of the Canons,” etc.

[…]

first two Canons passed at this session were the following : —

” If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are verily, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently whole Christ ; but shall say that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure or virtue : let him be anathema.

” If any one shall say that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, the form only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation : let him be anathema.” ^

Thus the scholastic theory was formally sanctioned by the Roman Church, and is regarded as an Article of faith in that communion to this day.

(h) The grounds on which the doctrine is coTidemned.

The Article gives fo2ir grounds for rejecting the

in substantiain Sanguinis Ejus ; quae conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata.” — lb. cap. 4.

1 *’ Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter et snbstantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et Divinitate Domini nostii Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum : sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute, anathema sit.

“Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucharistise Sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini, una cum Corpore et Sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi ; negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiie panis in Corpus, et totius substantiee vini in Sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebiis panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat : anathema sit.” — lb. Canons 1 and 2.

doctrine. It says that Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord —

(1) Cannot be proved by Holy Writ. It is hard

to see how a philosophical theory such as Transubstantiation confessedly is, can ever be ” proved by Holy Writ.” Romanists point to the words of institution, Tovto ioTi TO (r&fid fiov. But though they can certainly be claimed in favour of the real Presence, yet to bring into them a theory of ” accidents ” remaining while the “substance’* is changed, is to read into the text that which is certainly not contained in it, and what we deny can reasonably be inferred from it.^

(2) It is repugnant to the plain words of

Scripture. According to the theory now under consideration, what remains after consecration is no longer ” bread,” and has no claim to be so called. But Scripture freely speaks of that which is received as ” bread,” e.g. ” As often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till He come. • . . Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. xi. 26, 28).

(3) It oYerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament. It is of the essence of a sacrament that there

should be in it two parts — the ” outward visible sign ” and the ” inward spiritual grace.” But if ” bread,” the outward visible sign in the Eucharist, no longer remains after consecration, one of the two essential parts has been destroyed, and the “nature of a sacrament” is ” overthrown.”

I\

ij

’ Both Scotus and Bellarmine hare allowed that there is no passage of Scripture so plain as to compel belief in Transubstantiation, apart from the decree of the Lateran Council. See Bellarmine, De Eucharistiae IIL xxiii., where Scotus is referred to [In IV. (list. xi. q. 3]. Cf. Forbes, Considerationts ModesUXy vol. ii. p. 446.

(4) It hath given occasion to many superstitions. These words are only too painfully true, and in support of them reference may be made to the medieval stories of alleged miracles, such as those freely instanced by Paschasius Eadbert,^ in which the Host has disappeared, and the Infant Christ Himself been seen, or where drops of blood have been seen to flow from the consecrated wafer. Of these none is more to the point than the so-called miracle of Bolsena, which led to the institution of the Festival of Corpus Christi in 1264. According to one account, the miracle, in which the corporal was suddenly covered with red spots in the shape of a Host, actually happened to remove the priest’s doubts concerning Transubstantiation.

These four arguments brought forward in the Article appear to be perfectly satisfactory, as directed against the coarse and carnal form of the doctrine which was present to the minds of those who compiled the Article. But it must be admitted that they scarcely touch the subtle and more refined and spiritual form in which it is held by thoughtful and well-instructed Romanists. With regard to the first two arguments, they may fairly point to the fact that the consecrated Host is actually termed ” panis ” in the Missal, and therefore may claim that they recognise it as in some sense ” bread,” and give it the same term as does S. Paul.^ As to the third, they reply that ” what we see, feel, or taste in the Blessed Sacrament is real, for the accidents are real entities, and the accidents are all that the senses ever do perceive. … It is, moreover, because the accidents remain that the Eucharist is a sacrament. They constitute the outward part — they are the sensible sign of

that refreshment of the soul which follows from a worthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament.” ^ The fourth argument is obviously inconclusive as an argument. If everything that ” hath given occasion to many superstitions ” is to be rejected, then Christianity itself must go, for there is scarcely a doctrine which has not been so perverted and abused. But even with regard to the more refined and spiritual form in which the doctrine is capable of being presented, we cannot but feel compelled to resist it when it is pressed as an Article of faith, and our assent to it is required as a condition of communion. At best it is but a theory of the schools, a philosophical opinion which is ” destitute and incapable of proof,” 2 as well as “involved in tremendous metaphysical difficulties.” ^ As such we decline to be bound by it. But as an “opinion,” hard as it is to free it altogether from materialistic conceptions,* it has been conceded by Anglican divines, representing very different schools of thought, that it need be no bar to communion, provided no assent to it were demanded from us.^

• Gore, Dissertations, p. 269.

[…]

De Eucharistia, § 151.

» So Hooker, E. P. V. Ixvii. 6 : ” * This is My body,’ and * This is My blood,’ being words of promise, sith we all agree that by the sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform His promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first possessed with Christ or no ?— a thing which no way can either further or hinder us however it stand, because our participation of Christ in this sacra-

III. The Nature of the Presence and the ” Mean whereby

it is received”

On the nature of the Presence the teaching of the Article is this. The Body and Blood are in no way carnally and corporeally present, ie, after the manner of a body, physically, and according to the laws which govern a local and material presence, for the body

of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual

manner; that is, it is present in a manner above sense and nature, by the power and working of God’s Holy Spirit, and for the highest spiritual ends. It has been noticed by a thoughtful writer that in this clause “the body of Christ is not said in a general way to be * received,’ but to be * given, taken, and eaten’; as if there were a solicitude, in correcting the abuses of the sacrament, explicitly to maintain the union between the heavenly and spiritual blessing

ment dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the elements such as they imagine, we need not greatly to care nor inquire.” Cf. the MS. note in which Hooker defends these words, quoted by Mr. Keble (Hooker’s Works, vol. ii. p. 363). Bp. Andrewes : ’* 2) Hoc est, fide firma tenenms, quod sit : De, Hoc modoest (nempe, Transubstantiato in corpus pane), de modo quo fiat ut sit, per, sive (/, sive Con, sive Sub, sive Trans) nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul : inter Scita Sehola fortasse, inter Fides Artieulos non ponimus. “—i2p. ad Bellarm, p. 13 (A. C. Lib.). So Archbp. Bramhall places Transubstantiation ” among the opinions of the schools, not among the Articles of our (Aith.”— Answer to MilUiere, p. 1. Burnet also says : ** We think that neither consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, however iU-grounded we think them to be, ought to dissolve the union and communion of Churches.”— On Art. XXVIII. And Bp. Harold Browne, in speaking of the teaching of Roman divines, admits that **by the more learned and liberal, stotements have been made perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a carnal presence ; and such as no enlightened ProtesUnt would cavU at or refuse.”— JEcpo7io of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 701.

and the outward and visible sign. … To use these precise expressions, therefore, respecting the Body of Christ is, by clearest implication, to combine that ‘heavenly and spiritual’ blessing with the given and taken symbol.” > The words of the whole paragraph imply that the Presence is what is now commonly called ” objective,” i.e. that it is there, in virtue of consecration, as something external to ourselves, in no way dependent on our feeling or perception of it. It is ” given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and

spiritual manner.” But the mean whereby the body of Christ is receiYed and eaten in the

Sapper is faith. It is ” given, taken, and eaten ” (datur, accipitur, et manducatur). It is ” received and eaten” (accipitur et manducatur). Three words are employed in the first sentence ; only two in the second ; and this designedly, for the Presence is not due to faith! Faith receives. It cannot crecUe or hestow. The Presence must be there first, or it cannot be received. As Thomdike said, ” the eating and drinking of it in the sacrament presupposes the being of it in the sacrament … unless a man can spiritually eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ in and by the sacrament, which is not in the sacrament lohen he eats and drinks it, but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there.” ^ If, however, it is clearly implied that the Presence is there first, before it is ” received,” it seems to be no less clearly taught in the last part of the clause that faith is a necessary condition to the reception of it, for ” the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.” So much is practically confessed by Bishop Guest, the author of the clause, in a remarkable letter addressed to Cecil in 1571. Guest was very anxious

I I

that Article XXIX. ” Impii non manducant,” which had been withdrawn before publication in 1563, should not now be restored, or receive any sanction “because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and the Fathers ” ; and in order to make the Twenty-eighth Article harmonise with the view that the wicked do partake of the body, though not fruitfully, he suggested that the word ” only ” should be removed, and that the word “profitably” should be inserted, and that the words should run, “the mean whereby the body of Christ is profitably received and eaten in the Supper is faith.” i The Article was, however, left untouched, and the Twenty-ninth was, against his wish, inserted ; and, if the words of the Articles are to be taken in their plain literal and grammatical sense, the whole paragraph would seem to indicate, (1) that the Presence is there independent of us, and thus that it is offered to all ; but (2) that the faithful, and the faithful only, are able to receive it.

The subject will require some further consideration under the next Article, but so much it seemed necessary to say here, for the right understanding of the words

before us.

All the positive statements of the Article with regard to the Presence in the Eucharist have now been discussed (for the fourth paragraph which still remains is concerned only with certain practices in connection with the sacrament), and if the exposition that has been given is a fair one, the result of it will be this : that while the doctrine of the real Presence is distinctly taught, and the theory of Transubstantiation is condemned, there is an entire absence of any counter theory of the manner of the Presenca And in this lies the real strength of the position taken up by the Church of England. She

devoutly accepts her Lord’s words. She does not attempt to explain them away or to resolve them into a mere figure. But, on the other hand, she is content to hold them as a mystery. Her Lord has not explained them. He has nowhere revealed ” how ” His Body and Blood are present ; and therefore she declines to speculate on the manner, and rejects as no part of the Church’s faith all theories on the subject presented to her, whether that of Transubstantiation, or the Lutheran tenet of Consubstantiation, or that associated with the name of Calvin, the theory of a ” virtual ” presence only in the heart of the faithful recipient.^

To the present writer it appears that on this mysterious subject we may well be content to make our own the words of Bishop Andrewes in the sixteenth century, and of Bishop Moberly in the nineteenth —

[…]

” The Body and Blood of Christ are present, not corporeally (for that we know from our Lord’s words

1 This, it must be remembered, is a distinct ” theory ” quite as much as Transubstantiation. It is probably largely owing to the belief that it was the view of R. Hooker that it has obtained such ^vide acceptance in this country. It cannot, however, be fairly said that it represents the w}u)le of Hooker’s teaching on the subject. See Book V. c. Ixxvii. § 1, where very strong language is used on “the power of the ministry of God,” which ” by blessing visible elements maketh them invisible grace ” (a phrase which is scarcely reconcileable mth a merely “receptionist” theory), and ’* hath to dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world, and that blood which was poured out to redeem souls.” The arguments in c. Ixvii. by which Hooker seeks to justify his conclusion that ” the real Presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament,” cannot be deemed convincing, and the reader will find an able criticism of them in Freeman’s Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. Introd. p. 202 seq. - Jiesponsio ad Btllami. p. 13.

II

n 1 ""

II’

in John vi. 63), but spiritually, in and with the elements. We know no more … Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, is a theory of the manner of the Presence, whereas the Church only knows the Presence as a fact, respecting the manner and mode and extent of which she is not informed.” ^

IV. Certain Practices in connection vnth the Eucharist,

The sacrament of the Lord’s Sapper was not by Christ’s ordinance reser¥ed, carried about,

lifted up, or worshipped. Of the practices here spoken of, at least three are directly enjoined by the Council of Trent, and it is possible that to the promulgation of the decrees of the thirteenth session of that Council (October 1551) the paragraph before us is due. The decrees in question lay down, (1) that ” there is no room left for doubt that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, exhibit in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament ” ; (2) that ” very piously and religiously was this custom introduced into the Church, that this most sublime and venerable sacrament should be, with special veneration and solemnity, celebrated every year on a certain day, and that a festival ; and that it should be borne reverently and with honour in processions through the streets and public places ” ; ^ and (3) that

2 ” Nullus iteque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quia omnes Christi fideles pro more in CathoUca Ecclesia semper recepto latrise cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione exhibeant… . Declarat praterea sancU Synodus pie et religiose admodum in Dei ecclesiam inductum fuisse hunc morem, nt singulis annis peculiari quodam et festo die pracelsum hoc et venerabile sacramentum singular! veneratione ac solemnitate celebraretur, utque in processionibua rever-

“the custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the * sacrarium * is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicoea recognised it. Moreover, as to the carrying of the sacred Eucharist itself to the sick, and carefully reserving it to this purpose in churches, besides that it is conformable with the highest practice, equity, and reason, it is also found enjoined in numerous Councils, and observed according to the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Wherefore this holy Synod ordains that this salutary and necessary custom be by all means retained.” ^ These chapters are followed as usual by canons condemning with an anathema those who deny the lawfulness of these practices.

The statement made in the Article is worded with the utmost care, and with studied moderation. It cannot be said that any one of the practices is condemned or prohibited by it. It only amounts to this: that none of them can claim to be part of the original Divine institution. The Sacrament

• . • was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. That

is all that is said; and in a formulary, such as the Articles, that was sufficient. The four practices in question, belonging mainly to the ritual use of the Church, came more directly into consideration in connection with the arrangements for public worship in the Book of Common Prayer.

enter et honorifice illud per vias et loca publica circumferretur.” — Cone. Trid. Sessio xiii. cap. 5.

}i^^

1. Reservation for the sick, undoubtedly a primitive practice,^ was permitted, under certain restrictions, in the First Prayer Book of Edward vi.^ In the Second Book (1552), in view of the danger of superstitious reservation,’ the provision for it was omitted altogether. At the last revision in 1662 an express direction was inserted in one of the rubrics at the end of the Order for Holy Communion, that ” if any remain of [the bread and wine] which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink

the same.”

2. The festival of Corpus Christi was removed from the Calendar in 1549, and the “carrying about “lof the Eucharist in procession through the streets and public places is forbidden by the rubric that has just

been quoted.

3. The Elevation of the East for purposes of adoration is said to have been introduced about the year

[…]

• The sick were communicated with the reserved sacrament if there was a celebration of the Holy Communion on the same day ; but if the day was ” not appointed for the open Communion in the church,” provision was made for a special consecration. See the rubrics before “the Communion of the Sick ” in the book of 1549.

^ The danger of such superstitious reservation is very clearly indicated by the last rubric at the close of the Order of the Holy Communion in the Prayer Book of 1549 : ” Although it be read in ancient writers that the people many years passed received at the priest’s hands the sacrament of the body of Christ in their own hands, and no commandment of Christ to the contrary : Yet forasmuch as they many times conveyed the same secretly away^ kept it with thtin^ arid diversely abused it to sicperstition and wickedness : lest any such thing hereafter should be attempted, and that an uniformity might be used throughout the whole Realm, it is thought convenient the people commonly receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, in their mouths, at the priest’s hand.”

1100,^ and (like the institution of the festival of Corpus Christi) was a direct consequence of the growth of a belief in Transubstantiation. It was distinctly prohibited in the First Prayer Book of Edward vi., though the prohibition is not repeated in the Second Book.^

4. Adoration of Christ present in the sacrament is not and cannot be prohibited. But it is one thing to worship Christ there present, and quite another to find in the sacrament a distinct localised object of worship ; and the “Declaration concerning Kneeling,” restored (with the important modification previously mentioned) in 1662, expressly says that by the posture of kneeling ” no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.” *

• “These words before rehearsed [i.e, the words of consecration] are to be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation, or showing the sacrament to the people.” — Rubric after Consecration in the Prayer Book of 1549.

• Reference may be made in general on this subject to Mozley’s Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 210 seq.

De manducatione Corporis Christie et impios illiid non rrumducare,

Impii, et fide viva destituti, licet carnaliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinus loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi sacramentum dentibiis premant, nullo tamen modo Christi participes efficiuntur. Sed potius tantae rei sacramentum, seu symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt.

Notes

• Ratramn’s book was written in answer to questions addressed to him by Charles the Bald, in consequence of the work of Paschasius Radbert, in which a theory of transubstantiation had been plainly put forward. As against this, Ratramn strongly asserts that there is no change in the elements. See below, p. 650.
• See Moule’s Bishop Ridley on the Lords Supper ^ p. 11.
• lb. p. 13.
• What makes the omission more noteworthy is that the following clause was presented to the Synod and rejected by it: “Christus in coelum ascendens, corpori suo Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit, humanae enim naturae veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo retinet, quam uno et definite loco esse, et non in multa, vel omnia simul loca difFundi oportet, quum igitur Christus in calum sublatus, ibi usque ad finem seculi sit permansurus, atque inde non aliunde (ut loquitur Augustinus) venturus sit, ad judicandum vivos et mortuos, non debet quisquam fidelium, camis ejus et sanguinis, realem et corporalem (ut loquuntur) presentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.” See Lamb’s Historical Account of the XXXIX. ArticlM^ p. 12.
• See the letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger, quoted in vol. i. p. 41, and the notice in Strype of the controversies concerning the Real Presence, and of Parker’s supposed […] vol. i. p. 334 ; cf. Zurich Letters, p. 177.
• See ec. ii. viii. xi. xii. xvi. xx., and cf. Gore’s Dissertatums, p. 2S68eq. The work of Paschasius is given in Migne, Patrologia, vol. cxx.
• On the teaching of Ratraran, see Gore, op. cit. p. 240 seq.
• Migne, Patrol, vol. cxviii. p. 817. It is generally stated that John Scotus Erigena joined in this controversy and wrote a work on the Eucharist. But this does not appear to have been the case, for the work ascribed to him by later writers has been shown by Cauuu Gore to be really the work of Ratramn. DisscrtcUimis, p. 240.
• Mansi, vol. xix. p. 900,
• See the summary of the conclusions of Witmund, De Corporis tt Sanguinis Christi VerUate, in Gore, DisstrUUionSf p. 259.
• “In qua [ecclesia] idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, ctgus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguincm potestate divina.” — Labbe and Cossart, vol. vii. p. 18.
• The Eastern Church accepts the corresponding term fierowrluxris. It is doubtful, however, whether any instance of its use occurs earlier than the sixteenth century. The older words used for the change effected by consecration were […] and fieraWayifl ; and Archbishop Platon of Moscow lays down that the word fierowrluxns is to be taken in the sense in which the Fathers used these other terms, and is not to be understood of a physical and carnal transubstantiation, but of one that is sacramental and mystical. See Palmer’s Treatise on the Churchy vol. i. p. 172 ; but see the Confession of DosUhevs {lk\mm%\ p. 457 seq.\ and cf. Winer, Confessions of Christen- do7n, p. 282.
• “Principio docet sancta Synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur in almo sanctae Eucharistiae Sacramento, post panis et vini consecrationem, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum atque hominem, vere, realiter, ac substantialiter sub specie illanim rerum sensibilium contineri.” — Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. 1.
• A considerable number of such ** miracles” are related in his work, De Corpore et Sariguine Domini, c. xiv. - Cf. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I. c. xi.
• Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 347. 3 Bp. Thirlwall, Charge, 1866, Appendix B.
• Cf. Gore, op. cit. p. 271, where it is pointed out that the accepted teaching of the Roman Church holds that the real Presence is withdrawn as soon as the process of digestion commences ; and the following is quoted from Perrone, PraUectiones Theologicce: **Etenim cum species eo devenerint ut corpus sive materia dissolvi seu corrumpi deberet, cessante reali corporis Christi praesentia, Deus omnipotentia sua iterum producit materialem panis aut vini substantiam in eo statu quo naturaliter
• A. Knox, Essays, vol. ii. p. 173.
• Laws of the Church, c. ii. § 12.
• State Papers, ” Domestic,” Elizabeth, vol. Ixxviii. No. 37. Cf. vol. i. p. 45.
• Bampton Lectures^ p. 172 (ed. 1).
• “Consuetude asservandi in Sacrario sanctam Eucharistiam adeo antiqua est ut eam saeculum etiam Nicaeni Concilii agnoverit. Porro deferri ipsam sacram Eucharistiam ad infirmos, et hunc usum diligenter in ecclesiis conservari, prasterquam quod cum summa aequitate et ratione conjunctum est ; tum nmltis in Conciliis praeceptum invenitur et vetustissimo Catholicae Ecclesiae more est observatum. Quare sancta haec Synodus retinendum omnino salutarem hunc et necessarium morem statuit.”— 76. cap. vi.
• See Scudamore’s Notitia JBueharistiea, p. 546 seq. (ed. 1). And on the earlier elevation connected with the proclamation t4 dyia rots aylois, which was certainly not for purposes of adoration, see the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 605.