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

+. Agave

See Fulke in answering Rhemists on John vi. 58. where he

mentions from Tertullian a superstitious woman keeping the Sacrament in a chest, to eat fasting, = Also Art, xx v. Sect. vii.

BOOK Iv. ART. XX1X, SECT. 1. 355

have been given to Infants, have been kept for medical purposes, and even buried with the dead”, Heathent and Fews have“ run into similiar super- stitions. Such folly ought to be opposed ; but our present Article was aimed chiefly at the Roma- nists; who are accused of saying, that the mere receiving of the Lord’s Supper, merits remisston of fins, ex opere operato, (translated in the Article of 1552, answering to our twenty-fifth, Of the work wrong is,) that is, mechanically”; without any good disposition of the communicant*.—W hat was said of Sacraments in general, at the close of the twenty-fifth Article, 1s applied here to the Lord’s Supper 1n particular. This Article is not in the set of 1552; from whence one may presume, that the early Reformers did not think such particular application necessary. What the Romanists say of the efficacy of Sacra- ments in general, was stated under the twenty- fifth Article; what they say of the efficacy of the Eucharist in particular, must be mentioned here. The Rhemish annotators say, “Ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ, be they infidels or ill livers :” their answerer Fulke says, „Wicked men receive not the body and blood? of Christ.” — But the Romanists have three ways of receiving. The first, sacramental, the second-spiritual, and a

third

» Bingham, 15. 4. 19.—lt appears from 11. 5. 8. and 16, 5, 6. that care was taken to prevent such follies.

© Potter speaks of @agpaxe cwrngia, Book 2. Chap. 18, or Vol. 1. page 353. Amulets, page 355-— The Jews had Phy- lacteries. These are mentioned together in the Saxon Con- session, Syntagma, page 104.— Heathen and Christian Holye reuter; Middleton’s Letter from Rome, page 136.

4 Some author says, magically ; but I do not recolle& who.

Saxon Confession, page 103, Synt.

f See Rhemists on 1 Cor. xi. 27, and Fulke’s answers on the fame; and on John vi. 27.

Z 2

356 BOOK Iv. ART, XXIX. SECT. 11,

third made up of these two conjoined®, — They who receive only sacramentally, only eat the consecrated wafer, without due preparation or disposition. They who only receive after the second manner, spiritually, do nothing but what we should call hearing Mass, or in the words of the Trent Cate- chism, eat the © heavenly bread in desire and wwi/h;” that is, as I understand, they do not eat it at all. But they who both eat the wafer, and eat it with a good dispo/ition, after sacramental confession, receive in the third way.

It is possible that our church, by z/erting this Article here, might intend it as an argument against Transub/antiation, in the way of a reductio ad absurdum; for if all who eat the consecrated wafer eat Christ’s Body, then mice and flies, any animals or insects, eat Christ’s Body, as much as the most pious Christian.

Our Article might be aimed also at the Lulle- raus; because according to the Doctrine of Con- substantiation, all receivers of the Lord’s Supper, receive the Body of Christ: and Dr. Bennet“ argues, that Archbishop Parker could not be a Lutheran, because he subscribed this Article; and that the reason why other Prelates did zo sign it, was, probably, because they were Lutherans.—l do not, however, perceive anything in the Luthe- ran Confessions, which our Church would wish to oppose, as bringing on the same evils with the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation; indeed I {ee nothing allied to the Romish Doctrine, either in the Confession of Wittemberg, or in that of Augsburg. The Saxon Confession calls it“ por-

| | tentosum

E Trent Catechism, page 224, or Sect. 77, of Eucharist. The Council, Sess. 13. Cap. 8. Canon 8. |

b Essay on the Articles, page 185,-Bishops Gest and Cheney did not sign. |

BOOK IV. ART. XXIX, SECT. 11. III. 357

tentosum errorem Monachorum.” —These are all the historical remarks which it seems necessary to make.

11. Nor need the Explanation be long.

The zizle sounds more like French phraseology than English. Le voila qui vient, see he is coming. We should commonly express the meaning of the Title thus; © Of the Wicked not really eating the Body of Christ.” The Latin is, De Manduca- tione Corporis Christi, et impios illud non man- ducare. The Vine is not mentioned; probably for the fake of simplicity and perspicuity*.

The chief part of the Article is expressed in the words of Augustin, as a Father much vene- rated by the Romanists. The passage 1s in his twenty-sixth Tract on St. John.—lt is quoted at length by Bennet* and Welchman.

As all men are © wicked” in some degree, it may be proper to observe, that worthiness 1s here opposed to the opus operatum, or the supposed mechanical effect of the Lord’s Supper, — The Wicked” who eat “to their condemnation,” —are the decidedly wicked, the abandoned, ** such as be void of a lively Faith.” The meaning is, to oppose the notion, that a man eats the Body of Christ how wicked foever he be.—A lively, or living Faith was explained under the twelfth Article!

111. We have here but one proposition. * Chris- tians do not get the benefits annexed to what 1n Scripture, is called eating the Body of Christ, merely by partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

For

i Art. xxviII. Sect. xx. the same. q

• 1794. Mr. Person, page 229, calls this passage of Augustin sturicus ; that should be inquired into. It is in the Catholicus consensus prefixed to Syntagma, page 207.

Art. X11, Sect. xiv. xxiv.

358 BOOK 1V. ART, XXIX. SECT. IV.

For Proof, L will only cite Hab. ii. 4. with the New Testament applications of it“; John vi. 35. 54. and 1 Cor. xi. 29. which last is alluded to in the Article; and 1 John1. 7. which intimates, that we must walk ! in the Light, before the Blood of Christ cleanses us from Sin.

Iv. Our Application may be confined to mutual concessions. And for these I think there 1s greater room in this Article than in any other. The dif- pute between the Romanists and the Reformed is merely * verbal; I mean about the present Article as separated from all others. They say, the Bread after consecration, is the Body of Christ, even in substance; it follows, supposing this true, that ro- ever eats that substance, eats the Body of Christ; that is, it is not desecrated by one mouth more than by another. We say, that the bread continues bread after consecration, and therefore, that every receiver eats bread ; but that he who does what the scripture requires, may be said, in the pro- phetic, strong, figurative language of Scripture, to eat the Body of Christ; as he eats what is appointed to represent that Body, and what the Scripture calls briefly that Body itself. — The Romanists, therefore, and we ule a phrase, eating the Body of Christ, in two different senses; and we ule this proposition, * The wicked eat Christ’s Body,” in two different senses : consequently to dispute about its truth, is idle and childish. They too ule it as a corollary from a proposition which we think false, though we own the corollary to be rightly deduced. Now it must always be trifling to > dis- pute about such a coroliary, as if it were an inde— pendent proposition. — We both require preparation

tor m Art, XIII. end of Section 11.

n Might this be the reason why Cranmer made no > Article on this subject?

BOOK flv. v. 359

for the Sacrament, indeed Romanists more than we; we both say, that unworthy receivers may. draw puni/hment upon themselves ; we both quote the passage of Augustin which is in our Article, In short, we both mean; that the consecrated Bread is not desecrated by the unworthiness of the Receiver; and that worthiness is required in order to obtain benefit.

Dupin says*®, that the Body and blood of Christ « are truly and really received by all, though none but the Fai7hful partake of any benefit from them.“ What can we dispute here? The former part of his affirmation is true, upon his supposition, of Transubstantiation ; but that we think false; yet we might ule the fame words, with a different dea. The latter part agrees with our opinions. The former is the same thing as if he had said, * Supposiug Transubstantiation, the Body and Blood of Christ are received by all communicants.“ This could not be disputed; why then should not the Roma- nists now express themselves so, if it comes to the same thing? why should we discuss a doctrine an hundred times over, in an hundred consequences deduced from it ?

I am apt to think, we take the Romanists too strictly about the Sacrament producing Virtues“ or Graces : that which is to be expefed of course, is ipoken of, in human language, as a consequence, and no uncertainty is expressed about it. Luke xvii. 1.— 1 Cor. xi. 19,— What Protestant teacher would scruple to tell his hearers that attending the - Sacrament would make them better men? Our Homily* describes the Graces and Virtues […] (operate)

Trent Catech. Sect. 57. — See also Sect. 58, 59. P Third Append. to Mosheim. 2 % An admirable and /zre virtue to cure our souls.” From Trent Cat. page 145. | On worthy receiving, page 350, 8vo.

360 BOOK IV. v.

gd by the Sacrament ; and I have done the ame in explaining* the expreshon, * spiritual grace.” — If the Romanists held what they are charged with, they must hold, that a// persons re- ceive the same benefit from the same Sacrament.— But this is contrary to many passages of the Trent Catechism *.

v. I shall conclude what I have to observe on this Article, by reading Dr. Balguy’s* account of our obligation to prepare ourselves for the worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. And may that scripture comfort the feeble-minded, which says, that we may trust we have a good conscience if we are in all things willing to live honestly, = Heb. x11. 18.

s Art. x xv. Set. 11.

On the Euch. Sect. 51, &c. And 57, 58, 59. „Charge 7th, page 315.

BOOK IV. AKT, xxx. ser. 1. 361

ARTICLE: XXX.

Notes

• . In the way of Hiffory, we may observe, that people have always been much inclined to provide themselves with Charms, Amulets, &c. in order to drive away evils. Often, to use a thing which was ordinarily efficacious, if rightly managed, as mechanically efficacious. Sometimes indeed things used as Charms, may seem to be no way naturally efficacious; but to use such is the extreme of superstition ; and such things may originally have been esteemed natural medicines. We have already mentioned, that people have taken home the water used in Baptism, and applied it to bodily sores; in like manner, consecrated bread* and wine