Green on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

Forasmoche as the trueth of mannes nature requireth, that the bodie of one, and theself same manne cannot be at one time in diuerse places, but must nedes be in some one certeine place : There¬ fore the bodie of Christe cannot bee presente at one time in many, and diuerse places. And because (as liolie Scripture doetli teaclie) Christe was taken vp into lieauen, and there shall continue vnto thende of the worlde, a faithful man ought not, either to beleue, or openlie to confesse the reall, and bodilie pre¬ sence (as thei terme it) of Christes heshe and bloude, in the Sacra- mente of the Lordes supper.

Quum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdemque ho- minis corpus in multis locis simul esse non posset, sed in uno aliquo et definito loco esse oporteat, id- circo Cliristi corpus, in multis et diversis locis, eodern tempore, prae- sens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt Sacrae literae, Christus in Coelum fuit sublatus, et ibi usque ad finem seculi est perman- surus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus et sanguinis Realem et Corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesen- tiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.

The present paragraph beginning “The Body of Christ is given” was substituted for this in 1563.

While the theory of the Roman Church as to the manner of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was rejected as emphatically as ever, and an additional difficulty in the way of its acceptance stated, the new paragraph guards the truth from perversions of an opposite character. The paragraph of 1553 which it replaced must have suggested a view of the Sacrament in accord with that of Zwingli and his successors in the Swiss Reforma¬ tion ; it expressly excluded the presence of our Lord’s humanity in any way whatever at the celebration of the Eucharist. The present wording of the Article declares, on the other hand, that the Body of Christ is given (by the minister), taken, and eaten (by the communicant) ; in other words, that there is a Real Objective Presence.1

We are able to show very clearly that in substituting the new paragraph it was intended to recognise the ‘ Real Presence.’ The fact that the wording is due to Bishop Geste of Rochester

1 See the Exposition of this part of the Article, given below.

has been established by the discovery among the State papers of a letter from Geste to Cecil (dated December 22, 1566), in which he expressly states “ ye article was of myn own pennynge,” and defends the use of the adverb “ only ” in the clause “ The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner,” saying that by it he did not intend to “ exclude ye presence of Christis Body from the Sacrament, but only ye grossenes and sensiblenes in ye receavinge thereof ” ; adding besides, “ I wold not for all that denye thereby any thing that I had spoken for ye presence.” 1

It is, moreover, abundantly clear that the change made in the wording of the Article in 1563 was most distasteful to those who sympathised with the views of the Swiss Reformers on the Eucharist. Cf., e.g., a letter written by Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger (July 1566), in which are pointed out what the writers conceive to be the blemishes still remaining in the Church of England : —

“Lastly, the Article composed in the time of Edward the Sixth respecting the spiritual eating, which expressly oppugned and took away the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and contained a most clear explanation of the truth, is now set forth among us mutilated and imperfect” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 165).

§ 2 .— OBJECT.

The Article is divided into four clearly defined paragraphs, each having its own object : —

(a) The Sacrament is declared to be more than a bare sign.

(b) The Roman theory as to the manner of Christ’s Presence in the Sacrament is repudiated.

(c) The opinion that there is no Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is repudiated.

(d) Certain practices common in pre-Reformation times are declared to be not traceable to Christ’s institution.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

Names given to the Sacjrament.

(i.) The Breaking of Bread.

This is apparently the earliest designation of all ; see Acts ii. 42 ( fjcav Se 7rpocrKapT€povvT€$ … t7] k\ dcrei rov

1 The text of the Bishop’s letter is given in full in Appendix V,

aprov , where the Peshitto Syriac Version renders by “Eu¬ charist ”), xx. 7 (ev Se Tfl /uua rwv craft ftdrwv, crvvrjy gevvov f//jt.(jov K:\dcrai aprov : — Peshitto, “ to break the Eucharist ”). The name is derived, of course, from the action of breaking the Bread, which has from the first, in imitation of the Lord’s own action (Xafticv aprov evyapicrryicras EKAACE, S. Luke xxii. 19; cf. parallels), formed part of the Eucharistic Celebration.

(ii.) The Eucharist.

S. Paul speaks of 77 evyapirria in 1 Cor. xiv. 1 6, and the same word is most likely also used with special reference to the Holy Eucharist in 1 Tim. ii. 1. Cf. the account of the Institution, “ ko.1 EYXAPICTHCAC e/cAacre, ical elref k. r. A (1 Cor. xi. 24.; and see also S. Matt, xxvi. 27; S. Mark xiv. 23; S. Luke xxii. 19). This is the name most usual in the primitive Church ; e.g., see the “ Didache,” chap, ix., where the section dealing with the Sacrament is headed “ 7re pi Se rijg evyapLarrLasft and cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. c. 66, “ kcll fj rpoepS avrrj KaXeirai irap rj/JLiv evyapicrria

It is a matter for much regret that the name “Eucha¬ rist,” which, in addition to being Scriptural and primitive, so well expresses the character of the Sacrament as our “ sacri¬ fice of praise and thanksgiving,” should to a great extent have fallen into disuse ; a disuse traceable in the case of our own Church, no doubt, to the fact that the only titles directly given to the Sacrament in the Prayer Book are “The Lord’s Supper” and “The Holy Communion,” or “Tie Communion.” For the use of the title “ Eucharist ” we have the sanction of this twenty-eighth Article, the Latin text of which has “ Eucharistia ” in two places where the English version gives “ The Lord’s Supper.”

(iii.) The Communion.

S. Paul uses this word in connection with the Sacrament in I Cor. x. 16 (to 7 roWjpiov rrjs evXoyia ? o ev\ oyovjuev, ovyl KOINONIA rov a’l/aaro? rod Xpicrrov ecrn ; rov aprov ov /cAw/xer, ov%l K0INT2NIA rov crwuaros rod Xpicrrod ernv ;). The name properly denotes the act of participating, and in this sense only it was used with reference to the Sacrament in early times, but in post-

22 r

Reformation times it has been very largely used to designate the whole Office.

(iv.) The Lord’s Supper.

i Cor. xi. 20 is the only passage in the New Testament where the expression K vpiaKov Seiirvov occurs ; it is there used of the Agape or Love-Feast, with which, at that early period, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist was joined. It can scarcely, however, be fairly claimed that Holy Scripture sanctions the appropriation of the title “ Lord’s Supper ” to the Holy Eucharist, now that it has been separated from the Agape. As a title of the Eucha¬ rist the name dates from the Reformation period, since which time it has been in more or less common use by those separated from the Church of Rome. In some of the earlier symbolic writings of the sixteenth century ‘ Eucharist ” is the title given to the Sacrament, as, e.g ., in Zwingli’s “ Fidei Ratio,” and in the Tetrapolitan and First Helvetic Confessions ; but it is at the same time spoken of as “ sacrosancta Christi coena ” (Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. xviii.) and “ coenam mysticam ” (First Helvetic Confession, Art. XXIII.). “ Lord’s Supper ” is the title adopted in the Augsburg Confession (Art. X.), and the great majority of subsequent formularies, both of the Saxon and Swiss schools, followed its lead1 — Bohemian Confession (Art. XIII.), First Confession of Basle (Art. VI.), Calvin’s Institutes (IV. xvii.), Confessio Variata Art. X.), Saxonica (Art. XV.), Czengerina, French Con¬ session (Art. XXXVI.), Scotch (Art. XXI.), Belgic (Art. XXXV.), Second Helvetic (Art. XXI.), Catechesis Heidel- bergensis (§§ lxxv.— lxxxii.), Consensus of Sandomir, and the Formula of Concord. Of the formularies issued during the course of the English Reformation, the earlier ones speak of “ the Sacrament of the Altar ” (X. Articles, Bishop’s Book, and King’s Book), while in the XIII. Articles the Sacrament is spoken of under the title of “The Eucharist.” It is in the reign of Edward VI., when the teaching of the Continental Reformers began to have more influence upon the theology of our own Re-

1 Of the later Continental formularies, the Wurtemburg Confession retains the title “Eucharist,” adding in a parenthesis, “sic enim libuit majoribus nostris Coenam Dominican! vocare” (Art. XIX.).

formers, that we first meet with the title “ Lord’s Supper ” in authoritative formularies of our Church (First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI. and XLII. Articles).

(v.) The Liturgy.

The word Xeiroygyla has passed through the following stages of meaning : —

(a) In classical Greek it denoted a civil or political ser¬ vice performed by an individual, or by a few, for the good of the many.

(i b ) In the Septuagint it is regularly used, together with its cognate words, of the service of Priests and Levites in the Tabernacle or Temple (see, e.g ., Exod. xxviii. 3 1 , 39 ; Rum. iv. 12 ; I Chron. ix. 28, xvi. 4 ; and cf. in the New Testament, S. Luke i. 23; Heb. ix. 21).

(c) In the terminology of the Christian Church the word was used to denote any ministerial function, but soon became narrowed in meaning so as to refer especially to the Service of the Altar.

In this last sense f] Xetrovpyla, or the fuller rj Oela Xeirovpyla , is the usual name of the Eucharistic Office in the Eastern Church at the present day.

(vi.) The Mass.

This name for the Sacrament had been most widely used in the Western Church for many centuries previous to the Reformation.1 Its origin is lost in obscurity, and many derivations have been suggested, the one now generally accepted being that which traces the origin of the term “ Missa ” to the words pronounced by the deacon at the dismissal of the catechumens, “ Ite, missa est.” The title has in itself no doctrinal significance, but since the Church of Rome has retained it to the practical exclusion of all other names of the Sacrament, it is not unnaturally associated in the popular mind with Roman doctrine.

We now proceed to consider the statements of the Article in detail.

(1.) The Sacrament is not a bare sign, but a partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another,

1 In the Prayer Book of 1549 the Communion Office was headed, .“The Supper of the Lorde, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Masse,”

but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s Death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a par¬ taking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. (See I Cor. x. 16.)

Cf. the Church Catechism: —

“ Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified 1

“ Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.”

See also the Homily for Good Friday ( 1 st Part) : —

“ Yea, and we shall be hereby the more ready to receive our Saviour and Maker in his blessed Sacrament to our everlasting comfort and health of soul” (p. 445 ; ed. S.P.C.K.) ;

and the Homily of the worthy receiving, &c., of the Sacrament : —

“ But thus much he must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent, but, as the Scripture saith, the table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his death, yea the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost, the very bond of our conjunction with Christ, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality” (p. 476).

The contrast between the teaching of our Church and that of the Swiss Reformer Zwingli with regard to the nature of the Sacraments, and their place in the spiritual life of Christians, which we have already had occasion to note (see on Article XXV., p. 179), appears again markedly in the present Article, which plainly declares that the Sacrament is not merely a love-feast, but a means of grace. Contrast Zwingli’s statement of the import of the Eucharist given in his book, <c De vera et falsa religione ” : —

“Est ergo sive eucharistia sive synaxis sive coena dominica nihil aliud, quarn commemoratio, qua ii, qui se Christi morte et sanguine firmiter credunt patri reconciliatos esse, banc vitalem mortem annunciant, hoc est laudant, gratulantur et praedicant. Jam ergo sequitur, quod qui ad hunc usum aut festivitatem con-

veniunt mortem domini commemoraturi, hoc est annunciaturi, sese unius corporis esse membra, sese unum panem esse ipso facto testentur” (Work’s, vol. iii. p. 263).

We should note that in this first paragraph of the Article the Sacrament is declared to be “ a partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ to such as rightly (rite), worthily (digne), and with faith (cum fide) receive ” it. Of the qualifying words here used, the first, rite, refers to the objective conditions, the due administra¬ tion of the Sacrament “ according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same ” (see on Article XIX., p. 131, and Article XXV., p. 200).

Digne and cum fide refer to the subjective conditions. The meaning of these two qualifications, which are not to be con¬ sidered as identical, is well illustrated by a reference to the Latin Version of the Exhortation in the Communion Office (1560)

“ Nam sicut magnum beneficium est spiritualiter manducare corpus, et bibere sanguinem Christi, manere in Christo, et habere Christum in se habitantem, ac unum effici cum ipso ; quod con- tigit illis qui digne accedunt, id est corde contrito et humiliato, cum vera fide ac fiducia certa misericordiae promissae per Chris¬ tum ; ita praesens periculum est, si indigne accedamus, quia effici- mur rei corporis et sanguinis Domini, et ad judicium et condemna- tionem manducamus, quod non discernimus corpus Domini, nec ei debitum habemus honorem.”

The qualifications referred to, therefore, seem to be : —

(a) Reverence for Christ’s Body sacramentally present (digne).

(b) Faith in the promise attached to the Sacrament by God (cum fide).

That by digne we should understand “ with reverence ” also appears from Cranmer’s use of the word : —

“ And here is to be diligently noted that we ought not unrever- ently and unadvisedly to approach unto the meat of the Lord’s table, as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread lest we should come to the holy table unworthily , wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us very Christ Himself” (Works, vol. ii. p. 402).

(2.) Transubstantiation repudiated.

The Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was asserted (circ. 830) by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk (and afterwards

abbot) of Corbey. A controversy followed, in which Radbertus was opposed by Bertram (Ratramnus), a monk belonging to the same monastery, as well as by some of the foremost scholars of the time, amongst them Rabanus Maurus (Archbishop of Mentz) and Johannes Scotus, and at a later period by Berengarius (Archdeacon of Angers).1 In the succeeding centuries, however, the doctrine seems to have made way, as is indicated by the fact that Berengarius was condemned by a Council at Verceil in 1050, the writings of Johannes Scotus being also condemned at the same time. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the doctrine of Transubstantiation was expressly decreed in the following terms : —

“Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub specie- bus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis, accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro” (Cap. 1).

Finally, the Council of Trent laid down (Session XIII., October 1551) : —

“ Quoniam autem Christus redemptor noster corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit : ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus, quae con- versio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia Trans- substantiatio est appellata.”

Cf. Canon II. of the same Session : —

“ Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento re- manere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat specie- bus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transsubs tantiationem appellat ; anathema sit.”

The terminology connected with the theory of Transubstantia¬ tion is that of the scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages, and

1 Lanfranc, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070 to 10S9, took up the controversy against Berengarius.

2 f

philosophical opinions of the schoolmen underlie the doctrine. It is stated that, after the Consecration, the “ substantia ” of the Body and of the Blood of Christ altogether take the place of the “ substantia ” of the Bread and of the Wine respectively, although the “ species ” ( i.e ., appearance) of bread and wine remain. The opinion that the “ substance ” of a thing is separable from its “ accidents ” (viz., appearance, touch, taste, smell, by which it is apprehended by our senses as existing in a certain place) necessarily underlies this theory, because, after Consecration, the “ accidents ” of bread and wine remain, whereas it is held by Romanists that the “ substance ” of the Elements is wholly changed. It is evident that the truth of the doctrine does not admit of demonstration, since we have no sense by which the “ substance ” of a thing may be appre¬ hended apart from its “ accidents ” ; it is, moreover, of course open to question whether the “ substance ” of anything can be said to exist at all apart from its “ accidents.”

Concerning this doctrine of Transubstantiation our Article declares 1 : —

{a) Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ : but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.

Cf., e.g ., i Cor. xi. 26—28, where S. Paul speaks of the consecrated Elements as “ this bread,” “ this cup.”

(b) It overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.2

For a Sacrament consists of two parts,3 the outward part

1 The same three objections to Transubstantiation are stated in the Refer¬ matio Legum, “De Haeresibus,” Cap. 19 : —

“ Peregrinum enim est, et alienum a sacris literis … et a conditione sacramentorum longe dissidens ; postremo communis quaedam sentina super- stitionum multarum in Ecclesiam Dei comportatarum.”

2 Cf. Calvin’s Institutes, IV. xvii. 14

[…]

WURTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XIX. : —

“ Necessitas ipsa veritatis sacramenti exigere videtur, ut cum vera praesentia corporis Christi verus panis maneat.”

We have seen that several additions made at the Elizabethan revision (1563) are traceable to the Wurtemburg Confession ; possibly, therefore, the clause, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” which was inserted at that revision, may have been suggested by the passage quoted above from the same formulary.

3 Cf. the Church Catechism : —

“ Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament ?

“ Answer. Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.”

( signum ), and the inward part (res) ; but according to the Transubstantiation theory, the signum is altogether changed into the res , and thus the Sacramental character of the rite is destroyed.

(c) It hath given rise to many superstitions.

E.g., the use of the reserved Sacrament as a charm, processions of the Sacrament, &c. (see notes on the last paragraph of the Article).

(3.) There is a real Objective Presence in the Eucharist.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper.

The precise wording of this paragraph of the Article, when fairly considered, is only consistent with the doc¬ trine of an Objective Presence. It is not said that the “ sign ” or “ symbol ” of the Body, but that the very Body of Christ Itself, is in the Sacrament —

(a) given, i.e., by the Priest. It is the Body of Christ before the communicant receives it ; the Presence of Christ’s Body is objective.

(b) taken, by the communicant ; and that which is taken must be external to him who takes it.

(c) eaten. See the quotations from the Homilies under head¬ ing (1) above, and note that it is not there said that in the Sacrament we receive ‘ symbols of Christ,5 1 but Christ Himself.

Very many passages might be quoted from the writings of the Fathers which testify to the belief of the Primitive Church in the Beal Presence. Of these a few examples are here given : —

S. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (martyred a.d. ioo— i i 8),1 2 ad Smyrn. vii., writes with reference to the Docetrn :

[…]

1 This is the teaching of Zwingli. See his “Expositio fidei Christianae,” §§ 63-66 : —

“ Spiritualiter edere corpus Christi, nihil est aliud quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate dei per Christum … Verum cum ad coenam domini cum hac spirituali manducatione venis, et domino gratias agis pro tanto beneficio, pro animi tui liberatione, qua liberatus es a desperationis pernicie, et pro pignore, quo certus es de aeterna beatitudine, ac simul cum fratribus panem et vinum, quae jam symbolicuin Christi corpus sunt, partici- pas, jam proprie sacramentaliter edis, cum scilicet intus idem agis quod foris operaris, cum mens relicitur hac fide quam symbolis testaris.”

2 This is the date assigned Ly Lightfoot. Harnack gives the date as ‘ ‘ soon after 130.”

[…]

w j?

vyyecpev.

Justin Martyr (martyred A.D. 165), Apol. i. 66 : —

[…]

Irenseus (circ. 180 A.D.), arguing against the Gnostics, thus writes (Adv. Haer., v. 2) : —

[…]

S. Cyril of Jerusalem, “ Lectures on the Mysteries ” (delivered A.D. 386), iii. 3 : —

[…]

Amongst the words of our own English Reformers, who so constantly professed to hold by the doctrines of the Primitive Church, we find statements as to the Real Presence in the Eucharist as strong as those just quoted ; e.g. : —

Ridley says :

“In the Sacrament is a certain change, in that that bread, which was before common bread, is now made a lively presen¬ tation of Christ’s Body, and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth His Body ; that even as the mortal body was nourished by that visible bread, so is the internal soul fed with the heavenly food of Christ’s Body, which the eyes of faith see, as the bodily eyes see only bread. Such a sacramental mutation I grant to be in the bread and wine, which truly is no small

change, .but such a change as no mortal man can make, but only that omnipotency of Christ’s Word” (Works, pp. 274, 275).

“We behold with the eyes of faith Him (the true Lord and Saviour of the wrorld) present after grace, and spiritually set upon the table ; and we worship Him which sitteth above, and is wor¬ shipped of the angels. For Christ is always assistant to His Mysteries, as the said Augustine saith” ( Ibid ., p. 251).

Latimer :

“And the same presence may be called the real presence (because to the faithful believer there is the real or spiritual body of Christ), which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me with the Anabaptist to make nothing else of the Sacrament but a bare and naked sign ” (Works, vol. ii. p. 252).

Jewel :

“We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mys¬ teries of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that by them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us [sic nobis praesentem exhiberi] as that by faith we verily receive His Body and His Blood” (Apol., Part ii. p. 32; ed. S.P.C.K.).

It is sometimes urged that by the Declaration on Kneeling (commonly called the “ Black Rubric ”), which is inserted in the Prayer Book after the Communion Office, the English Church is committed to a denial of the Real Presence. In considering the Declaration, however, the following points should be carefully borne in mind : —

(a) It was inserted in 1552 as an afterthought,1 and solely on the Royal authority ,2 so that the Church was not in any way committed to it in its original form.

(b) At the Elizabethan revision (1559) the Declaration was altogether suppressed.

1 The Frayer Book passed both Houses of Convocation on April 14, 1552, and it was decided that it should come into use on All Saints’ Day following. On September 27, when three editions had been completed, the printing was suddenly stopped, on the ground that many printer’s errors had crept in, and at the last moment (October 27) the Declaration was added.

2 An entry in the Privy Council Register (October 27, 1552) orders —

“ A letter to the Lord Chancellor to cause to be signed unto the Book of Common Prayer, lately set forth, a certain Declaration signed by the King’s Majesty, and sent unto his Lordship, touching the kneeling at the receiving of the Communion” (Burnet’s “Reformation,” ed. Pocock, iii. 368, note 76).

( c ) When reintroduced in 1661 a very significant change was made in the wording : —

[…]

“It is hereby declared, That thereby 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.”

It thus appears that the Church would not have the “ Black Rubric ” in the Prayer Book until the words which might be taken for a denial of the truth of the Real Presence had been removed.

(d) Further, what is said in the Declaration with respect to “ the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ ” being “ in Heaven, and not here ” is not inconsistent with Roman doctrine, and may be paralleled from the decrees of the Council of Trent. Cf. Session XIII. (October 1551): —

“ Neque enim haec inter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram Patris in coelis assideat, juxta modum exis- tendi naturcdem, et ut multis nihilominus aliis in locis sacramen- taliter praesens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per fidem illustrata assequi possumus et con- stantissime credere debemus.”

(4) The Body of Christ is present after an heavenly and

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

While the doctrine of a corporal Presence, such as is implied in the theory of Transubstantiation, is excluded, the Church of England holds the doctrine of a spiritual and real Presence. The use of statements with regard to the natural Body and Blood of Christ when speaking of the Sacrament is rather misleading ; for Christ present in His Sacrament is Christ Crucified and Risen, so that His Body is a spiritual Body (crco/xa 7rvevjuLaTiKov , I Cor. xv. 44), i.e.f a Body fully indwelt in and solely animated by irvev/jia ,

and hence, though material (S. Luke xxiv. 39), possessing powers and capabilities which do not belong to the natural body (S. John xx. 19). It should also be remembered that the Body of Christ, of which we speak, is the Body united everlastingly to the Deity of the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity (cf. Article II.), so that the capabilities of other bodies, whether natural or spiritual , can be no mea¬ sure of the capabilities of the glorified Body of Him Who fills all things (Eph. iv. 10). We are not, therefore, called upon to choose between an obsolete scholastic philosophy (implied in the definitions of the Church of Rome)1 and a merely figurative interpretation of our Lord’s words (as given by Zwingli) ; but, in accordance with the teaching of the formularies of our Church, we hold a real spiritual Presence of the Body of Christ, acknowledging that to define further the manner of that Presence is beyond the reach of our knowledge.

We may here notice the doctrine expressed by the formu¬ laries of the Lutheran type. They emphatically assert the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament : —

Augsburg Confession, Part I. Art. X. :

“ De coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini, et improbant secus docentes.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XV. :

“ Sed in usu instituto in hac communione vere et substan- tialiter adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguinem Christi.”

1 The doctrine of a Real though Spiritual Presence (as opposed to the con¬ ception involved in the doctrine of Transubstantiation) was held by some of those divines of the sixteenth century who were on the whole opposed to a doctrinal Reformation ; e.g. : —

Cardinal Cajetanus (Papal Legate in Germany, before whom Luther was cited to appear in 1518) writes :

“ Manducatur verum Corpus Christi in Sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter. Spiritualis manducatio, quae per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sacrainento existentem pertingit ” (Opusc., Tom ii. Tract. 2 ; “ De Euch.,” Cap. v.).

Gardiner (Bishop of Winchester 1531-51 ; 1553-56, a great upholder of the Royal Supremacy, but otherwise an opponent of the Reformers), says :

“The Catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God knoweth ” (Quoted in Cranmer’s Answer to Gardiner, Works, vol. iii. p. 241).

Wurtemburg Confession, Art. XIX. :

“ De substantia Eucharistiae sentimus et docemus, quod verum corpus Cliristi et verus sanguis ejus in Eucharistia distribuatur, et refutamus eos qui dicunt panem et vinum Eucharistiae esse tantuni absentis corporis et sanguinis Cliristi signa.”

Formula of Concord :

“ Credimus, quod in coena Domini corpus et sanguis Christi vere et substantialiter sint praesentia, et quod una cum pane et vino vere distribuantur atque sumantur. Credimus, verba testa- menti Christi non aliter accipienda esse, quam sicut verba ipsa ad literam sonant, ita, lie panis absens Cliristi corpus et vinum absentem Christi sanguinem significent, sed lit propter sacra- mentalem unionem panis et vinum vere sint corpus et sanguis Christi” (p. 599).

“ Docent, queniadmodum in Christo duae distinctae et non mutatae naturae inseparabiliter sunt unitae, ita in sacra coena duas diversas substantias, panem videlicet naturalem et verum naturale corpus Christi in instituta sacramenti administratione hie in terris simul esse praesentia ” (p. 736).

With regard to the Eucharist, therefore, the Reformers of the Saxon school, though rejecting ‘ private masses,’ were much more conservative than the Swiss Reformers. Cf. : —

Augsburg Confession, Part II. Art. III. :

“ Falso accusantur ecclesiae nostrae, quod missam aboleant, retinetur enini missa apud nos, et sunima reverentia celebratur. Servantur et usitatae ceremoniae fere omnes.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XV. :

[…]

Luther met Zwingli in conference at Marburg (1529), but could come to no agreement with him on Eucharistic doctrine, and always vehemently opposed the teaching of the Swiss Re¬ former on this point. He himself rejected scholastic dogmas on the subject, and in his reply to Henry VIII. of England spoke of Transubstantiation as “ impious ” and “ blasphemous.” He held strongly, however, to the Real Presence, while refusing to define the precise manner of that Presence. “ Consubstantia- tion ” is the name generally used to designate Luther’s own theory, and the Lutheran doctrine as finally set forth in the Formula of Concord.

( .) The means of reception is Faith.

The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

This clause of the Article refers to the subjective part of the Sacrament, the inward reception and eating by the i .dividual. The means whereby this takes place is faith. It is not, of course, the case that the Sacrament derives its ►Hi cacy from our faith, or that faith produces the Presence of Christ within the heart ; but He is present externally, and faith appropriates Him. During Christ’s sojourn upon ea th in the flesh, the power of the Lord was present to he il (S. Luke v. 1 7), but only those who had faith were ab e to appropriate the healing grace which flowed from His sacred Body. So now in the Eucharist we acknow¬ ledge a real Presence of Christ external to ourselves from which the Sacrament derives its efficacy, and we confess that this Presence is also s spiritual, because the medium by which the external Presence affects us, and is with us, is not material contact but spiritual efficacy.

Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist should be particularly noted. He rejected Transubstantiatiou,1 and also objected to the Lutheran view as involving the ubiquity 2 of our Lord’s risen Body ; s but, on the other hand, he rose far above Zwingli’s teaching as to the nature and use of the Sacrament, maintaining that while the Bread and Wine are symbols or representations 4 to which no

1 “ Mira enim astutia hie lusit Satan, ut mentes hominum e coelo abstractas, perverse errore imbueret, ac si panis elemeuto affixus esset Christas. Ac primo quidem praesentia Christi in sacramento minime talis somnianda nobis est qualem Romanae curiae artifices confinxerunt ; ac si locali praesentia, corpus Christi manibus attrectanduin, atterendum dentibus, ore deglutiendum sisteretur” (Institutes, IV. xvii. 12).

2 Hence those in Switzerland avIio held Luther’s view were called TJbiqui- tarians.

[…]

Presence of Christ is attached, yet those who receive in faith 1 2 do really and truly partake of the Body and Blood of Christ,’ which are thus in effect communicated to the faithful simul¬ taneously with the Bread and Wine. It is usual to speak of this teaching as the doctrine of the Virtual Presence.

After the acceptance of the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), which embodied Calvin’s doctrine on the Eucharist, that doctrine was generally adopted throughout Switzerland, and appears in the Confessions subsequently issued by, or under the influence of, Reformers of the Swiss school. Cf.> e.g. : —

French Confession, Art. XXXYI. :

“ Quamvis enim nunc sit in coelis, ibidem etiam mansurus> donee veniat munduni judicaturus : credimus tamen eum arcana et incomprehensibili spiritus sui virtute per fidem apprehensa, nos nutrire et vivificare sui corporis et sanguinis substantia.”

Scotch Confession, Art. XXI. :

“Atque etiam quod in Coena Domini rite usurpata, Christus ita nobis conjungitur, quod sit ipsissimum animarum nostrarum nutrimentum et pabulum.”

Belgic Confession, Art. XXXV. :

“ Ut autem panem hunc spiritualem et coelestem Christus nobis figuraret, sive repraesentaret ; instituit Panem et Vinum terrenum et visibilem in Corporis et Sanguinis sui Sacramentum : ut iis nobis testificetur, quam vere accipimus et tenemus manibus nostris hoc Sacramentum, illudque ore comedimus (unde et postmodum vita haec nostra sustentatur), tarn vere etiam nos fide (quae animae nostrae est instar et manus et oris) recipere verum corpus et verum sanguinem Christi, in animis nostris, ad vitam spiritualem in nobis fovendam.”

[…]

“ Quod si liumanitus excogitata symbola, quae imagines sunt rerum absen- tium potius quam notae praesentium, quas etiam ipsas fallaciter saepissime adumbrant, earum tamen titulis interdum ornantur : quae a Deo sunt instituta, multo majori ratione rerum noniina mutuantur, quarum et certain minimeque fallacem significationem semper gerunt. etadjunctam babent sccum veritatem” {Ibid., IV. xvii. 21).

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XXI. :

“ Ergo accipiunt fideles quod datur a miiiistro domini, et edunt panem domini, ac bibunt de poculo domini : intus interim opera Cbristi per spiritum sanctum percipiunt etiam carnem et san- guinem domini, et pascuntur his in vitam aeternam.”

Of the German Reformers, Melancbtbon approximated to Cal- vinistic doctrine on the Eucharist. In the Confessio Variata (1540) he substituted for the wording of the Augsburg Con¬ session (“quod Corpus et Sanguis Christi vere adsint, et dis- tribuantur in coena ”) the following clause : —

“ Quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur Corpus et Sanguis Christi.” 1

(6.) Certain practices common in mediaeval times are de¬ dared TO BE NOT TRACEABLE TO CHRIST’S INSTITUTION.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordi¬ nance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

A few words must be said concerning each of the practices here referred to : —

(i.) ‘Reservation.

In pre-Reformation times the Reserved Host was some¬ times worn round the neck,2 held in the hand when under¬ going the ordeal of fire,3 or buried with the dead.4 Such practices were not by the ordinance of Christ, Who in¬ stituted the Sacrament that it might be received. See the last paragraph of Article XXV., which states : —

“The Sacraments were not ordained.of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about : but that we should duly use them.”

Cf. Council of Trent (Session XIII.) : —

“ Fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum ” (Cap. v.).

There can scarcely, however, be any objection to Reser¬ vation of the Sacrament, when the express purpose of such

1 This wording agrees with Calvin’s manner of speaking ; e.g. :

“ Dico igitur, in Coenae mysterio per symbola panis et vini, Christum vere nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem ejus” (Institutes, IV. xvii. n).

2 Thus Pope Benedict XIII., when he fled in disguise from Avignon, for his special protection bore upon his breast a little box containing the consecrated Element.

3 E.g., Fra Domenico, when going* forth to the ordeal of fire on behalf of Savona¬ rola, refused to enter the flames without bearing in his hand the consecrated Host. The incident will be familiar to readers of George Eliot’s “Bomola. ’

4 This practice must have spread to some considerable extent, since we find it forbidden “ to give the Eucharist to the bodies of the departed ” by the Council of Carthage (397), and again by that of Auxerre (578).

Reservation is that those may receive who otherwise would be unable to do so. E.g., it is often impossible, and at all times difficult, to secure a reverent celebration of the Holy Communion, or indeed any celebration at all, in the crowded dwellings of the poorest in our large cities, in cases of dan¬ gerous infectious diseases, or in critical cases of accidents. The communicating of such special cases with the Reserved Sacrament would be quite in accord with the practice of the Primitive Church.1

Cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. : —

[…]

In the Prayer Book of 1549 Reservation for the Com¬ munion of sick persons was allowed, though with certain restrictions : —

“And yf the same daye there be a celebracion of the holy comunion in the churche, then shall the priest reserue (at the open communion) so muche of the sacrament of the body and bloud, as shall serue the sicke person, and so many as shall communicate with hym (yf there be any). And so soone as he conueniently may, after the open communion ended in the church, shall goe and minister the same.

“ And yf there be moe sicke persons to be visited the same day that the curate doth celebrate in any sicke mas house ; then shall the curate (there) reserue so muche of the sacramente of the body and bloud : as shall serue the other sicke persons, and such as be appoynted to communicate with them (yf there be any). And shall immediately cary it, and minister it unto them.”

In the second Prayer Book (1552) permission to reserve the Sacrament was withdrawn; but in the Latin Prayer Book authorised by Queen Elizabeth (1560) Reservation for the sick was again permitted.2

1 In the Eastern Church at the present day, as in primitive times, the Sacra¬ ment is reserved for the purpose of Communion only.

2 Calvin altogether opposed Reservation, even for the purpose of communi¬ cating the sick. Cf. Institutes, IV. xvii. 39 : —

“ Quorsum igitur evadet altera (scil. consecratio),cujus vis ad aegrotos usque non pervenit ? Sed enim qui sic faciunt, habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum. Fateor, verum in re tanta, et in qua non sine magno periculo erratur, nihil tutius est quam ipsam veritatem sequi.”

The rubric which now stands at the end of the Com¬ munion Service directing that the Consecrated Elements shall be reverently consumed immediately after the Blessing has historically no connection with Reservation. It was inserted at the revision of 1661, a century after the practice of Reservation had ceased in the English Church, and its purpose was to guard against any profane use of the Con¬ secrated Elements.

(ii.) Closely connected with the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament are the Carrying about and Worshipping of the Consecrated Elements.

In East and West alike, in primitive times, the Sacra¬ ment was reserved for purposes of Communion only ; but in the Middle Ages we find a development in the Western Church, the Reserved Host being treated as an object of worship. The events of Holy Week were dramatised, the Host being carried in possession on Palm Sunday, placed in a sepulchre on Good Friday, and carried in the pro¬ cession on Easter Hay. After the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi (in the thirteenth century) a procession of the Host soon became the characteristic observance of the Festivals At first the Host was always veiled when thus carried, but by degrees the custom obtained of placing It in a vessel of glass or crystal fitted into a case of precious metal (called the Monstrance), and it was thus exposed to the veneration of the faithful.2 Thus in pre- Reformation times men professed great reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by worshipping, whether at a celebration, or when the Host was carried in procession, and yet at the same time neglected the very end of the Institution of the Sacrament — its constant reception by all the faithful — so that it had come about that the people communicated very rarely. At the Reformation a reaction set in. Our Re¬ formers, seeing that the purpose for which Christ instituted

1 M. Thiers has~shown (“Traite.de l’Exposition du S. Sacrament”) that the origin of the procession is not to he traced to this Festival, because instances of the procession are on record before the Festival was instituted.

2 The exposition of the Sacrament at other times than the Festival of Corpus Christi dates from the seventeenth century ; and in the present day, with some form of service, it is a matter of very frequent occurrence in the Roman Church. Such service concludes with the Blessing pronounced by the priest, who makes the sign of the Cross over the people with the Monstrance ; hence the rite has sained the name of “ Benediction.”

O

the Sacrament had been obscured, emphasised the Com¬ munion aspect of the Eucharist, and drew attention to the fact that the worshipping of the Sacrament, which had for so long held a prominent place in the devotions of the Western Church, was not “ by Christ’s ordinance.”

While the Reformers thus found it necessary for those times to protest against the worshipping of the Sacrament, which had taken the place of frequent participation, they had no intention of refusing worship to Christ present in His Sacrament. E.g., Ridley says : —

“We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Saviour of the world … we behold with the eyes of faith Him present after grace, and spiritually set upon the table; and we worship Him which sitteth above, and is worshipped of the angels” (Works, p. 251).

Christ present in the Sacrament is to be worshipped, for, as God (and the Manhood has been “ taken into God ”), worship is due to Him, under whatever conditions He mani¬ fests Himself. The worship is not directed to the outward sign, the substance of Bread and Wine ; it is obvious that no adoration ought to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine bodily received (Black Rubric).

(iii.) Elevation.

The Elevation referred to in the Article is the lifting up of the Consecrated Elements for the adoration of the people, a practice usual in the West in pre-Reformation times, though not formally authorised before the thirteenth cen¬ tury, and now occupying a prominent place in the celebra¬ tion of Mass in the Church of Rome.

Such Elevation was expressly forbidden in the Prayer Book of 1549, by a rubric inserted immediately after the Consecration : —

“These wordes before rehersed are to be saied, turning still to the Altar, without any eleuacion, or shewing the Sacrament to the people.”

This prohibition was, however, removed in 1552, and has not since been revived.

The statement of the Article should not be taken as covering the Elevation of the Sacrament in presenting the Sacrifice to the Father, a ritual action almost universal in

early times,1 and traced, in primitive Liturgies, to the action of our Lord Himself at the Institution of the Sacrament. Gf.y e.g ., the Greek Liturgy of S. James : —

[…]

The Elevation of the Sacrament (corresponding to the typical heaving and waving of the Peace Offering) was thus in primitive times a representation on earth of the continual showing forth of Christ’s Sacrifice before the Father in heaven (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 26), and was avowedly “ by Christ’s ordinance,” for the elevation, no less than the blessing and the breaking, of the Bread was stated to be done in imita¬ tion of His own action.

The connection in which the words “ lifted up ” stand in the Article justifies us in limiting their application to the “ shewing to the people,” for there is in the present Article no question as to the Eucharistic Sacrifice ; but the para¬ graph in which the words occur is concerned with those devotions to the Sacrament which had so largely taken the place of Communion, and had thus obscured the great end of its institution.

The great moderation of the wording of this last paragraph of the Article is very noticeable. It is not asserted that the prac¬ tices referred to are contrary to Christ’s ordinance, but simply affirmed that such uses do not come within the scope of what has been Divinely ordained. In dealing with the same subjects the Continental Confessions speak much more strongly. Cf., e.g.: —

Saxon Confession, Art. XV.:

“Est et manifesta profanatio, partem coenae Domini circum- gestare et adorare.”

WUUTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XIX. !

“Alius error est, quod una pars Eucharistiae soleat in singu-

1 It is found in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, the Arme¬ nian and Coptic Liturgies, and others. It occurs in the modern Roman Service, as well as the Elevation for the adoration of the congregation.

[…]

See also Scotch Confession, Art. XXII. :

“Adoratio, veneratio, circumgestatio per plateas urbium, con- servatio panis in pixide, vel capsnla, non sunt legitimus usus Sacramenti corporis Christi, sed mera ejusdem profanatio.”

Westminster Confession, XXIX. 4:

“Worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pre¬ tended religious use ; are all contrary to the nature of this sacra¬ ment, and to the institution of Christ.”

Notes

• “ Itaque sub pane et vino repraesentantur : quo discamus non modo nostra esse, sed nobis destinata in spiritualis vitae alimentum. Id est quod antea admonuimus, a rebus corporeis quae in sacramento proferuntur, quadam analogia nos ad spirituales deduct Sic quum panis nobis in symbolum corporis Christi datur, haec statim concipienda est similitudo, Ut corporis nostri vitam panis alit… . Quum vinum in symbolum sanguinis propositum intuemur : cogitandum quos corpori nsus vinum afi’erat (Ibid., IV. xvii. 3).
• “Quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis ac san¬ guinis Domini communicationem, quae sub sacris Cocnae symbolis fidelibus exbibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio : atque ita ut non imaginatione dun- taxat aut mentis intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vitae aeternae intelligantur ” {Ibid., IV. xvii. 19).