Gibson on Article XXIX: Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper

The first appearance of this Article (to which there is nothing corresponding in the series ofl553)i8in Parker’s MS., which was signed by the bishops on January 29, 1563.^ It is also found in two English MSS. of almost the same date, now in the Eecord Office, in one of which there is a marginal note : ” This is the original, but not passed.” * In a Latin MS. in the same office it is altogether wanting,^ as it is in the published edition issued a few months later by Wolfe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen. It must, therefore, have been omitted either in the passage of the Articles through the Lower House of Convocation, or else at an even later stage by the direct interposition

3 Ih. No. 4lA.

of the Queen herself, the reason for its omission evidently being a desire to avoid needlessly offending some of those who sympathised with medieval belief and feeling, whom it was desked, if possible, to retain within the limits of the Church. Since it lacked all authority it is naturally wanting in the printed copies up to 1571, when we meet with it again. On May 11th of that year the Articles were considered by the Upper House of Convocation, and a copy was subscribed by Parker and ten other bishops. In this the Twenty-ninth Article is contained.^ A few days later we find Bishop Guest, by an appeal to Cecil, making a determined effort to prevent the ratification of it on the ground that it ” will cause much business.” ^ His efforts were, however, unavailing, as it is contained in the copy which was ratified by the Sovereign,* and from this time forward it finds its place in all printed copies, both Latin and English. It will be remembered that by this date (1571) the Anglo- Roman schism was complete, and therefore there was not the same reason as there had been eight years earlier for withholding the Article.

The language of the Article has been traced to no earlier formulary ; but it is throughout suggested by a

1 A copy of this is given in Lamb’s Historical Account of the Thirty- Nine Articles, No. iv,

• Guest’s letter in May 1571 had, however, apparently led to the interview between Cecil and Parker on June 4, referred to in Strype’s Parker, pp. 331, 332, when Cecil questioned the reference to S. Augustine. The interview was followed by a letter from Parker on the same day, in which he told the Treasurer that he was ** advisedly ” still in the same opinion concerning the authority of S. Augustine, “and for further truth of the words, besides S. Austen, both he in other places and Prosper in his ‘Sentences wrote of Austen’ (Senten. 338 and 339), doth plainly afhrm our opinion in the Article to be most true, howsoever some men vary from it.” (Parker’s CorresponcUnce, p. 381.)

It.

.(

passage in the works of Augustine on S. John’s Gospel. In the printed editions the text stands as follows : ” Qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nee manducat [spiritualiter] carnem ejus, nee bibit ejus sanguinem [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi] : sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.” ^ It is thought, however, that the text has been interpolated, and that the words placed in brackets are due, not to Augustine, but to Bede, in whose Commentary they are also found.

Coming now to the consideration of the substance of the Article, it may be noticed that the phrase employed in the title is not repeated in the Article itself. In the former, it is said of the wicked that they do not eat

the body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s

Sapper. In the latter, the phrase used is that in

no wise are they partakers of Christ. It has

been thought that the heading is in itself inexact, and must be interpreted by the phrase in the Article itself, as many have held that though the wicked do actually receive the Body and Blood, and therefore in some sense ” eat ” it, yet since they receive it not to their soul’s health, but to their condemnation, they are “in no wise partakers of Christ.” ^ There can be no doubt that the medieval Church did thus teach that what the wicked receive in the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Christ being present in the sacrament in their case to judge, as in the case of the faithful He is present to bless.^ But it may be doubted whether so

• In Joann. Trad. xxvi. § 18.

much would have been allowed in the early Church,^ or whether it can be proved from Scripture. Two passages of the New Testament directly bear upon the question, (1) S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. xL 27-29, and (2) S. John vi 51-59. In the former passage the Apostle says: ” Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the

1 On tlie teachin<r of Augustine, see the interesting correspondence between Pusej and Keble, quoted in vol. iii. of Pusey’s Life, Appendix to c. xviii. ; but see also Gore, IHssertations, p. 232, where it is admitted that Augustine’s language, while “probably somewhat inconsistent,” “may fairly be interpreted on a receptionist theory like Hooker’s.” Even so late and so materialistic a writer as Paschasius Radbert is not really clear as to what the wicked receive. De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, c. vi., and cf. the following from Mozley, Lectures, etc. p. 203 : “The language of the Fathers is not indeed free from some real and much more apparent disagreement on this subject. On a subject where language has so many nice distinctions to keep, it will not always^keep them ; nor avoid indiscriminateness, saying one thing when it means something else close and contiguous to it, but still quite different from it. Thus the rule or custom by which the bread itself was called the Body, as being the figure of the Body ; and by which the whole sacrament, not distinguishing its material part from its spiritual, was called the Body, as containing the Body, necessarily led to occasional confusion of language ; writers saying that the Body was always, and in any case, eaten together with the reception of the sacrament, without any condition, when they really meant that the bread, which was the sacrament of the Body, was eaten. Where, however, this distinction was in the writer’s mind, a large mass of language shows that the true Body of Christ in the sacrament could not be eaten except by the medium of faith. S. Augustine, who is quoted in our Article on this point, has frequent similar statements. S. Hilary says, “The bread which cometh down from heaven is not received except by him who is a member of Christ” [De Trinitate, Lib. viii.]. S. Jerome says, “Those who are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, neither eat His Body nor drink His Blood.” [in Esai. Ixvi. 17] ; though he also speaks of the polluted and unworthy approaching the altar and drinking His Blood. But the connection which this latter assertion has with the visible altar and the open reception of the sacrament gives the body and blood here rather the open and sacramental sense just mentioned, than the true sense. ” He who obeys not Christ,” says Prosper, ” neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood” [Sent. 139]. “He receives who approveth himself,” says Ambrose. “The wicked cannot eat the word made flesh,” says Origen [in Matt. xv.].

I’l

blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.” These words beyond question teach us that the Body and Blood are so present that the unworthy communicant is guilty of their profanation. How could he fail to ” discern ” the Body, unless it was there ? But it is by no means clear that S. Paul means to say that the unworthy communicant receives the Body. It is therey and he is so brought into contact with it as to be “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” But if it be true, as Article XXVIII. has asserted, that ” the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith,” then, although it is offered to him, he is incapable

of receiving it, and thus the wicked and such as be Yoid of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth […] the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their own condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a

thing. This view of the meaning of S. Paul’s words derives support from our Lord’s own statements in S. John vi. 51-59. There throughout He speaks of ” life ” as the gift imparted by ” eating His Flesh ” and “drinking His Blood.” No doubt the discourse has a wider reference than only to the Holy Commimion. Our Lord is speaking primarily of the Incarnation, and faith therein as the means of life. But from this He proceeds to speak of the way in which men can be united with Him and thus made sharei-s of His life, especially by ” eating His Flesh ” and ” drinking His Blood.” And when it is remembered that exactly a year after this discourse was spoken He took bread and

gave it to His disciples, and said, ” Take, eat, this is my Body,” and gave them to drink of the cup, saying, ” This is my Blood,” it seems impossible to doubt that the Holy Communion is intended to be in ordinary cases the means of that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood of which He is speaking ; and if this is so, since the wicked are certainly not made to ” have life ” through participation in the sacrament, it would not appear to be safe to assert that they do ” eat the Body of Christ in the sacrament.”

It cannot be maintained that it follows as a necessary inference from the doctrine of the real Presence ; for if the connection of the Presence with the elements be of such a nature that of necessity all those who receive the outward elements mtcst thereby also receive the ” inward part,” ulterior consequences will follow: such as the reception of the Body of Christ by birds or mice, which might through some deplorable accident eat a portion of the consecrated bread.^ To this it may be added that “nowhere in Scripture do we hear of an eating and drinking of the true Body and Blood of our Lord which is not profitable. The Body and Blood are of that nature, that they are in the reason of the case, by the simple fact of being eaten and drunk, beneficial ; and no such thing is contemplated as a real eating of them, which is not a beneficial eating of them also. ” Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood,” saith the Lord, ” hath eternal life. … He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him… . He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.” The spiritual food of our Lord’s Body and Blood cannot, as has been said, be eaten except spiritually ; it cannot be

• For the extraordinary shifts to which the medievalists were driven in order to explain what really happens under such circumstances, see Witmund, De Corporis a Sanguinis Chridi VerUate, ii. ^7 seq.

eaten carnally by the mere natural mouth and teeth; such an idea is a discord and a contradiction in reason. But if it cannot be eaten except spiritually, how does the carnal man supply the spiritual mediimi and instrumentality of eating? The carnal man has only the natural mouth and teeth to apply ; all this he has ; but this is totally irrelevant to spiritual food.” ^

On the whole, then, even if, as many have thought, the view that the wicked do actually receive the Body and Blood without being thereby made ” partakers of Christ,” 2 be capable of reconciliation with the terms of this Article, yet it appears to be more in accordance with Holy Scripture and the mind of the primitive Church, as well as with the most obvious and natural meaning of Articles XXVIIL and XXIX.,^ to hold that the wicked, though brought (so to speak) in contact with the Body and Blood, are through want of faith unable to receive that spiritual food which is offered to them. Thus they are ” in no wise partakers of Christ,” because, lacking “the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper,” they ” eat not the Body of Christ.” *

• This phrase which is used in the Article is taken from Heb. iii. 14.

3 It ought to be stated that Bishop Guest, in spite of his criticisms of this Article, felt himself able to sign it ; for his signature is contained with those of other bishops in the MS. of May 11, 1671.

• It should be added that it was freely admitted by both Crannier and Ridley that in s(me sense the wicked may be said to “eat the Body.” And their language is verbally identical with that of the Council of Trent, where it was said that “some receive it sacramen tally only, viz. sinners, others sacramentally and spiritually” (Sess. xiii. cap. Ndii.). So Cranmer : ” I say that the same visible and palpable flesh that was for us crucified … is eaten of Christian people at His holy Supper … the diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof ; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively.” — (hi tJie Lord’s Supper (Parker Society), p. 224. So Ridley: “Evil men do eat the very true

and natural body of Christ sacramentally and no further, as S. Augustine saith ; but good men do eat the very true body both sacramentally and spiritually by grace. ”— ^orA:* (Parker Society), p. 246. In these two extracts ” sacramentally ” is equivalent to “figuratively,” or rather eating the body sacramentally is equivalent to “eating the sacrament of the body ” (cf. the remarks on the language of the Fathers in the extract from Mozley on p. 671, note 1). This may throw some light on the wording of the “Prayer of Humble Access” in the Book of Common Prayer: “Grant us … so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, t?uU our sinful bodies,” etc.

Notes

• See vol. i. p. 30.
• Stale Papers, “Domestic,” Elizabeth, vol. xxvii. Nos. 40 and 41.
• See above, p. 662, and G. F. Hodge’s ^w/m^p auest, Articles XX Fill, and XXIX. p. 24.
• See Pusey, JReal Presence, p. 261 seq.
• It is suflacient to refer to S. Thomas, Summa, iii. 80. 3 : ” Cum corpus Christi in sacramento semper pormanet donee species sacra-men tales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur.” For the Tridentine teaching, see Sess. xiii. cap. viii.
• Mozley, op. cit. p. 205.