Maclear and Williams on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

ii. The Form and Language of the Article, how- ever, differ in several respects from the shape in which it originally appeared. As we have it now, it consists of four clauses. The first and second of these are the same as in the draft of 1553, save that the expression, ” overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament1” was then wanting2. The third clause was a new one composed in 15633, and took the place of a long paragraph4, which was withdrawn as suggestive of interpretations favourable to the school of Zwingli, and savouring of his tenets. The fourth clause remains as originally drafted.

iii. The Object of the Article is twofold. It repudiates

(i) The errors of the Zwinglian School, which taught that the Eucharist was merely “a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among them- selves one towards another” ;

(ii) The opposite dogma of physical transubstan- tiation of the Eucharistic Elements by con- secration.

iv. Analysis. Like the preceding Article it begins

1 ” Sacramenti naturam euertit.” 4 The paragraph which was with-

The phrase, however, was not new. drawn ran: ” Quum natur.x humanae

We find its equivalent ” a natura Veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdemque

sacramenti discrepat” in the Reform. hominis corpus in multislocissimulesse

Legum, De Hares., c. 19. Again, in non posset, sed in uno aliquo et definito

the ” Declaration of Christian Doc- loco esse oporteat, idcirco Christi

trine,” drawn up in 1559, we have the corpus, in multis et diversis locis,

[…]

denye the nature of a sacrament.” potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt

[…]

1859. sublatus, et ibi usque ad finem sreculi

3 It was added on the motion of est permansurus, non debet quisquam

Bishop Guest, as is proved by a letter fidelium camis ejus et sanguinis

found amongst the State Papers from Realem et Corporalem (ut loquuntur)

Guest to Cecil, Dec. 22, 1566. See pnesentiam in Eucharistia vel credere

below, p. 343. vel profited.”

with negativing the low conceptions of the Sacrament entertained by some, and

(i) Lays down (a) negatively, and (b) positively, what is the true nature of the Holy Eucharist ;

(ii) It condemns the mediaeval doctrine of a physical transubstantiation of the Elements ;

(iii) It sets forth the true doctrine of the Real Presence ;

(iv) It affirms, in opposition to prevalent practices, the true object for which the Sacrament was ordained by Christ.

v. The Account of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist is itself sufficient to remove a low conception of its nature and object. It comes to us from three Evangelists’ and from the Apostle Paul. Our earliest authority is the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who in the year A.D. 57 reminds the Church of Corinth of what he had himself told them respecting the institution of the Holy Eucharist, even as he had received it by direct revelation from Christ, his Ascended Lord2 (1 Cor. xi. 23). Combining the narra- tives together we learn that

(a) The Holy Eucharist was instituted by our Lord on the eve of His Passion in an upper room at Jerusalem, during a Paschal Meal, for which He Himself had made special preparation, and

1 Matt. xxvi. 26 — 29 ; Mark xiv. head to give the readers an assurance 22 — 25 ; Lk. xxii. 14—20. of the truth of the narrative. This is

2 ’ E7U) yap irapi\aliov dtri rod K vpiov what / hold, / from a good source, S Kal wapiSuKa vp.ii>. The Apostle from the Lord Himself… If the account establishes on an immoveable founda- of the Institution of the Supper really lion the authority of his narrative. ” It came to Paul from the Lord, it could comes from the Lord, and without any only be in the way of direct revela- other middle party than the Apostle tion.” Godet on I Cor. xi. 23. himself. The eyo>, ’ I,’ is put at the

respecting which He had given the most minute instructions to His Apostles1;

(|S) As part of the ceremonial of the Passover, it was the custom for each household to partake of, amongst other things prescribed, some flat unleavened Passover cakes, while four cups of red wine mingled with water were handed round at different stages of the feast2;

(7) On this occasion our Lord on reaching the upper room took the place of Celebrant, or Pro- claimer of the Feast, and as the solemn meal proceeded, while we read nothing of any Paschal lamb being eaten, He took one of the unleavened cakes, that had been placed before Him, and, after giving thanks, He brake it, and then gave it to His Apostles, saying, Take, cat3, This is My Body’, Wltich is given for you5; Do This in remembrance of Me6;

1 He reminds them of the approach of the Festival of the Passover (Matt, xxvi. 2); (ii) He sends two of the Apostles to make ready (Mk xiv. 13) ; (iii) He describes the guide who would direct them as dvdpwTos Kepa- (icov iidaros §ao-Td^ttiv (Mk xiv. 13; Luke xxii. 10); (iv) He prescribes the words they were to address to the owner of the house whither he would lead them (Matt. xxvi. 18 ; Mk xiv. 14; Lk. xxii. 11); (v) He even par- ticularizes the size and aspect of the room which he would show them, dvwyeov niya iarpw/xhov (Mk xiv. 1 5 ; Lk. xxii. 12).

• “Omnes in ccena Paschali oportet quatuor pocula bibere.” Buxtorf de Ca rta Domini, pp. 299, 300 ; Light- foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. xxvi. 27 ; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. p. 485.

3 Adhere, (pdyere, Matt. xxvi. 26. These words are peculiar to S. Mat-

thew. See R.V.

[…]

(8) Afterwards He took a cup of wine, probably the third cup, or ” Cup of Blessing,” and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of This1 ; for This Cup is My Blood of the \Ncw\ Covenant*, Which is shed for many for tlie remission of sins3; Do This, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of Me*. Thus calmly and deliberately, with His eyes fixed on His approaching death upon the Cross on the morrow, at one of the greatest historical Festivals of the Jews, our Lord instituted the Holy Sacrament of His Body and Blood. ” What He was in no position to testify to the world on the following day, when the soldiers laid their rude hands upon Him, and bound Him — that His death was really an offering, a freewill surrender of Himself — that He testified now; ‘What I give you to eat is My Body which is broken for you, what ye drink is My Blood which I shed for you5.’”

a contrast between the sacrificial com- memoration of sins under the Law, and the Eucharistic commemoration of the Redemption wrought out for us by our Lord. The Vulgate renders it ” hoc facite in meam commemora- tionem,” and the Rhemish Version, following it, translates, ” Do this for a commemoration of Me.”

1 Iliere &■ avrov names, Matt. xxvi. 27. These words again are peculiar to S. Matthew.

[…]

3 To irepl woW&v ficxvvbiJ.evov els acpeaiv ap-apriQiv, Matt. xxvi. 28. S. Luke xxii. 20 has to vrrep iifxCiv {Kxwb- nevov ; S. Mark xiv. 24 has virtp voWdv ; This is My Blood of the [New] Covenant, which is /iei>ig, or, is on the point of being, poured out for you, for

many, unto remission of sins.

4 Touto TToacTc, offa/cis civ TrhrjTe, els tt]v ifi^v ara/xPTjcrix, 1 Cor. xi. 25. This occurs only in S. Paul’s narra- tive. Tyndale and Cranmer render the words, “This do as often as ye drink it, in the remembrance of Me.” Thus, at this historic Festival, He enshrines in a unique and significant Rite the mysterious destruction of the temple of His Body, of which He had before darkly spoken, and not only recalls to the minds of His Apostles all that He had said respecting His Body as ” true flesh,” and His Blood as “true drink,” but He actually sup- plies the mode of that mysterious eating and drinking, which He had before so marvellously demanded as essential to true life. See Maclear, The Evidential I ‘alitc oj lite Eucharist, pp. 223 sq. 3rd Ed. S.P.C.K.

■’ Dollinger, First Age of the Church, i. p. 53. E.T. ed. 1866.

vi. The Eucharist no mere Sign. If, then, we deem the Institutor of this unique and unexampled Rite to have been all that He is declared to be in the Second Article, “the very and eternal God1,” and as He is described in the Fifteenth Article, ” the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world2”; if we reflect on the solemn and un- paralleled circumstances under which He ordained it, and the elaborate preparation He made for its Institution3 as the culminating point of all previous announcements, whether figurative or specific, respecting His coming Passion, it is impossible to regard the Rite as ” only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another.” The solemn words and actions, which accompanied the Institution, testify of themselves to the surpassing dignity of this Holy Mystery, and to His death as the source of an inestimable benefit to all mankind.

vii. The Eucharist a Sacrament of our Redemp- tion. Having declared what the Holy Eucharist is not, the Article proceeds to affirm what it is. It states that it is “a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” The Passover, as often as it was celebrated by the Jews, recalled, as in a living drama4, the great story of the de- liverance of the nation from cruel and oppressive bondage in Egypt (Deut. xvi. 2, 3)5; a deliverance, which elevated them from the condition of slaves to that of a ransomed people, and gave them the hope of entrance into the Promised Land of Canaan. So the Eucharist is the con- tinued setting forth of the death of Christ as the means of the deliverance, not of a single nation, but of the whole world from the bondage of sin and Satan. In the Feast

p. 104. Ed. 1870.

of the Passover the first place had been occupied by the lamb. It had been selected with scrupulous care (Exod. xii. 5). It had been slain with solemn ceremony. Its blood had been sprinkled on the brazen altar in the outer court of the Temple, and on the side posts and upper part of the door, and it had then been roast with fire and eaten by the Paschal company with thankful commemoration of redemption from degrading bondage in Egypt. But now that ” the very Paschal Lamb ” was come1, and was about to offer Himself on the Altar of His Cross, no word is said of the Jewish Paschal victim. The Bread and Wine, hitherto subordinate, now take the first place. The lamb had been eaten as a type of Him. He now ordains the Elements of Bread and Wine to be taken and received in remembrance of Him, who,

” Himself the Victim and Himself the Priest,” was about to offer the one “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice… for the sins of the whole world.”

viii. The Inward Grace of the Sacrament. So much for the outward part or sign of this ” Sacrament of our Redemption.” Respecting ” the inward part, or thing signified2,” the Article states that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith” receive the Elements ordained by Christ, “the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a par- taking of the Blood of Christ.” The truth of this state-

1 As on the tenth day of Nisan the ternal “Signum,” is an assured token Paschal Lamb was selected to be kept of the presence of the inward part or till the fourteenth day, so our Lord ” Res Significata,” for it was ordained had “taken care that Ilis entry into by Christ Himself as a means whereby Jerusalem should fall on the very day we receive, and a pledge to assure us when, according to the ordinance of that we do truly receive, His Body and Moses, the Paschal Lamb was chosen.” Blood. See the Church Catechism. See Dollinger, First Age of the The mysterious union of the outward Church, i. p. 51. E.T. 1866. anil inward parts is brought about by

2 In the Holy Eucharist the out- the act of consecration, ward part, the Sacramentum, or ex-

ment is sufficiently confirmed by the words of our Lord Himself. For while, on the occasion of the first Passover of His Public Ministry, He had declared to Nicodemus that as Moses lifted up t/ie serpent in tlie wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted np (John iii. 14)1, and on the occasion of the second Passover He had declared to the Jews in the synagogue of Capernaum that His Flesh was true meat, and His Blood true drink2 (John vi. 55), at this last Passover He gathered up in action all that He had then expressed in words. For, when He gave the Bread to His Apostles, He said, Take eat; this is My Body, and when He gave them the Cup, He said, This is My Blood of the Covenant. Thus as the Jewish Passover was a feast of Redemption, so He made this transfigured Passover to be for His Church the Sacrificial Feast of an infinitely greater Redemption not of a single nation, but of the whole world3.

ix. Feasts on Sacrifices were common alike to the Jews and to the Gentile nations. They were means of ratifying covenants between God and man. They were especially characteristic of the peace-offerings of the Jews, and indicated that what had separated the sacrificer from

1 At the same Passover He had uttered in the hearing of the deputa- tion from the Sanhedrin, Avaare tov vabv tovtov, ko.1 iv Tpifflf rjfiipait iyfpu) ainbv, John ii. 19. The sign is one of the most remarkable. Asa Rabbi He answers the Rabbis. The words in- dicate a destruction, which comes from dissolution, from the breaking of that which binds the parts into a whole, or one thing to another. They ” spring from an immeasurable depth. They illustrate domains then completely un- explored by any other consciousness than His own.” Godet in lee,

[…]

as it is inconceivable that any mere man could have uttered. On the lips of any merely human teacher they have no meaning whatever. Nowhere in any literature, not even in the luxuriant imagery of the East, do we find an instance of a teacher speaking of the reception of his doctrine under so astounding a metaphor as ” eating his flesh ” and “drinking his blood.”

Jehovah was now covered and cancelled, that the Most High now welcomed him to His table, and in this feast gave him a pledge of reconciliation and restoration to His favour1. So at this sacrificial feast of the New Covenant, our Lord assures us that He has become our peace (Eph. ii. 14 ; Col. i. 20), and invites us to receive ” the spiritual food ” of His own precious Body and Blood. At this Holy Table we arc His guests, and receive Him under the earthly veils of Bread and Wine. The old Passover was a Feast upon a Sacrifice, the Holy Eucharist is a Feast upon a Sacrifice. ” The one on the lamb ; the other on the Lamb of God. The one true ; the other true. The one carnally true ; the other spiritually, and, therefore, even more true2.” And thus in this holy Feast “we are one with Christ, and Christ with us,” and ” the Bread, which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”

x. Transubstantiation. The exact way in which Christ is present at this sacred Feast, and gives His Body and Blood to the faithful communicant, has occasioned great controversy. The early Church3 did not attempt to explain the Mystery. The doctrine of the manner of Christ’s Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and the precise

1 Compare the scene on Sinai, when to God, […] Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Ahihu “appoint,” “make.” The Liturgy with the seventy elders, after the rati- of S. Chrysostom, and others follow- fication of the covenant between ing it, use the words, “change by Jehovah and His people by solemn Thy Spirit.” There are also other sacrifices and sprinkling of blood, ate more emphatic yet rare words, occur- and drank in His presence at a ring once or twice only in each Father covenant feast, and therein received a who uses them, ” transmute, ” trans- pledge of reconciliation and pardon […] trans- (Exod. xxiv. 9 — 11 ; Heb. ix. 19, 20). figure.” WlcTawoidadai is once used

3 The change in the elements OTceuafeii’, each by S. Chrysostom ; through consecration was in the oldest ” transfiguro,” twice by S. Ambrose; times expressed by the simplest terms, ” transfero,” in the Gallican Sacra- […] It becomes” ; or in prayer mentary.

M. 22

nature of the relation in which the consecrated Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ stand to one another, never came into serious debate, and thus never were the subject of authoritative definition. Men were content with the blessing, and did not care to define it. That Christ was present in the Sacrament, that in that sacred Feast He fed the faithful with the precious food of His own most blessed Body and Blood, in this all the Fathers of the Early Church were agreed1. As yet however, there was but little speculation as to what was meant by this Presence.

xi. Paschasius Radbert. But matters could not always continue in this state, and in the ninth century Paschasius Radbert, a learned monk2, afterwards Abbot of New Corbey, well skilled in all the theological learning of his age, put forth a treatise On the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. In this he maintained that by virtue of the priestly consecration and the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, the material elements were so transformed as to retain no more than an appearance (” figura ”) of their natural substance, being truly, though invisibly, re- placed by Christ Himself in every way the same as He was born and crucified3. This view was opposed by another monk of Corbey, Ratramnus4, who put forth a counter treatise at the request of the Emperor Charles the Bald. He favoured a real, while he disbelieved in a corporal, or material presence in the Eucharist. The con- troversy slumbered during the whole of the tenth century, but was revived by Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers, A.D.

2 He was born A.D. 786, and died sqq., E.T. 1859.

A.D. 865. See Hardwick’s Middle J For his connection with the Pre- Age, p. 166. destinarian Controversy, see Hard-

1040, who re-asserted the view expounded by Ratramnus. This exposed him to much opposition, and he was twice compelled to sign a formula of faith, in which the physical conversion of the Elements was stated in the most re- volting terms1. The view, to which he subscribed, that Christ’s Body is ” sensibly ” present in the Eucharist, that it is broken by the priest, and this not sacramentally only, but really and without any figure, was the doctrine generally held by the people and also by many of the clergy at the era of the Reformation2.

xii. The Scholastic Doctrine. On the overthrow of Berengarius the views he opposed gained complete posses- sion of the leading teachers of the West. As years went on the exact intention of the phrase “transubstantiation3” was much discussed by the Schoolmen. They taught that every object we can take cognizance of by the senses possesses two invariable properties (i) the ” accidents4 ” or

1 In A.D. 1059 ne subscribed to a formula which stated “verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter in solo sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et fidelium dentibus alteri.” Lanfranc, Opp. p. 233. The Formula which he signed in a.d. 1079 ran ” Corde credo et ore confiteor, panem et vinum, qua? po- nuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis et verba nostri Redemptoris substantial iter converti in veram et propriam vivificatricem Carnem et Sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri, et post consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi… et verum Sanguinem Christi, qui de latere Ejus efTusus est, non tantum per signum et virtutem Sacramenti, sed in proprictate naturce et veritate substantia.” Lanfranc, ut supr.

4 Accident, from accidere to fall, to happen, denotes (1) anything that happens, any occurrence, or incident ;

(ii) that which is present by chance, and therefore non-essential ; a pro- perty or a quality not essential to our conception of a substance ; an attribute;

(iii) in Scholastic Theology the ma-

external properties, as shape, form, colour, size, material, and (ii) the “substance,” the internal, invisible essence, the true reality, of which the “accidents” were the out- ward clothing. Their doctrine, a refinement of the theory of Paschasius, was that, after consecration, while the acci- dents remained the same as before, the invisible substance or essence of the bread and wine was transfigured or tran- substantiated into the substance or essence of the Body and Blood of Christ1. Thus transubstantiation was defined at the Council of Trent, and this is the definition of the Roman Church held now.

xiii. The First Objection which the Article makes to this refinement on the teaching of Paschasius is that it “cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” When He instituted the Sacrament, our Lord did not say “This represents My Body,” or ” This has the power and efficacy of My Body,” but ” This is My Body.” Thus He indicates a deep mystery, whereby what was bread is called and is His Body, and what was the cup is called and is His Blood. And yet S. Paul uses the word ” Bread ” and the word “the Cup “to describe these Elements after consecration. He says to the Corinthians, As often as ye eat this Bread and drink tlie Cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till He come (i Cor. xi. 26). The bread is still called “the Bread.”

terial qualities remaining in the Sacra- mental Bread and Wine after conse- cration. Comp. Wyclif, A.D. 1380, Eng. Wks., “No man durste seye til nou )>at accident is Goddis body, for J>is newe worde may haue no ground ”; Caxton, Golden Leg., ” Whan the breed is converted into the precious body of our Lord the accidents aby- den ”; Lydgate, Pylg. Sowle, A.D. 1483, ” Quantitie is an accident only appro-

pred to bodylie thynges.”

The cup is still called ” the Cup.” No annihilation of the outward sign is hinted at or indicated.

xiv. The Second Objection taken in the Article is that the doctrine ” overthroweth the nature of a Sacra- ment1.” A Sacrament, as we have seen, consists of two parts, the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual ‘grace. There must exist in a valid Sacrament the ” signum,” the sign, and the ” res significata,” or thing signified. Now if after consecration the outward form is virtually annihilated, and ceases to have any real exist- ence, the thing signified alone remains, and the nature of a sacrament is overthrown, and the visible sign of that which is invisible vanishes.

xv. The Third Objection is that it has “given rise to many superstitions.” This alludes to the superstitions, which a gross and material view of the physical change after consecration too often produced. Such, for instance, were the stories of the appearances of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as a little child2; of drops of blood flowing, when Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, broke the Host; and other instances alluded to by ^lfric in his Homilies3. Such ideas were the result of a coarse and unguarded propagation of the views set forth by the teaching of Paschasius, which led to the idea that such appearances were appearances of the Body of our Lord under such conditions as were realized during His earthly life.

1 “Naturam sacramenti evertit.” Evertere = (i) to turn out, to drive out ; (ii) to overthrow, as ” si] vis ever- tere pinum,” Virg. Georg. i. 256; (iii) to overthrow, completely destroy, as “evertere funditus amicitiam,” Cic. Fin. ii. 25 ; ” evertere… disciplinam militarem,” Livy viii. 30. The Eng- lish translation “overthroweth” is

rendered in some MSS. ” perverteth.” See Hardwick, Hist, of Articles, p. 313, ed. 1859. .

2 As to Plecgils, a priest of the fifth century, see Blunt’s Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, Art. Transubstantiation.

xvi. The View advanced in the Article. In primi- tive times, as we have said, we trace no such subtle specu- lations as these, we find no exact statement as to the nature and extent of the change effected by consecration in the Holy Eucharist. Men were content to maintain a reverent reserve in respect to so great a mystery. They believed that in the words of S.Justin Martyr, the Eucharist- is no longer ” common bread or common drink ” ; that in this sacred Feast Christ feeds us with the precious food of His Body and Blood, but they did not attempt to define the mode or the manner of His Presence1. Similarly cautious and guarded is the language of the Article. It states that the Body of Christ is ” given, taken, and eaten in the Supper,” and herein it agrees with the language of the Catechism2. But repudiating the idea of a corporal presence of Christ’s Flesh and Blood, it affirms that He is given and received “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.” Christ’s Body is now a glorified Body3, and no longer subject to the conditions of its earthly state. Flcsli and blood, writes S. Paul, cannot inherit the kingdom of God (i Cor. xv. 50). Any Presence of Christ, therefore, in the Blessed Sacrament, must have reference to His glorified, heavenly, Body. But His Presence is not less

1 “All things considered, and com- by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” pared with that success which truth The use of the word “taken” implies hath hitherto had by so bitter con- that what is received has its existence flicts with errors in this point, shall I apart from the recipient.

wish that men would more give them- 3 ” His human substance in itself is

selves to meditate with silence what naturally absent from the earth, His

we have by the Sacrament, and less to soul and body not on earth but in

disputeof the manner how?” Hooker, heaven only Vet as the manhood of

Eccl. Pol. v. lxvii. 3. Christ may after a sort be everywhere

2 Compare the words of the Church said to be present, because that Person Catechism, “What is the inward part is everywhere present, from whose or thing signified ? The Body and divine substance manhood nowhere is Blood of Christ, which are verily and severed ; so the same universality of indeed (vere et reipsa),” i.e., truly and presence may likewise seem in another actually, not in a mere metaphorical respect appliable thereunto, namely, by sense, not only in a figure, “taken and cooperation with Deity, and that in all received (sumuntur et percipiuntur) l/iings.” Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. lv. 7, 8.

but more real1 because it is spiritual and ineffable, and passes all human comprehension2. The Article does not, to use the words of Bishop Guest3, ” exclude the Presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament, but only the gross- ness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof.” It simply refuses to define what passes all definition, and what it finds a mystery it leaves a mystery under the shadow of God’s throne4.

1 The word ” real ” as applied to Presence is often confounded with the word carnal or corporal. It does not bear that meaning at all. Real, from the Latin rea/is, is derived from res, a thing. It denotes (i) actually being or existing, not fictitious or imagi- nary. Compare Milton, Par. Lost:

” Whereat I waked, and found Before mine eyes all real, as the

dream Had lively shadowed”: it denotes (ii) true, genuine, not arti- ficial or counterfeit, as a real fact ; (iii) as a law-term, real estate, real property, e.g. lands, tenements as opposed to personal or moveable property. A real presence denotes the presence of a reality, a true, actual presence as opposed to an un- true, counterfeit, unreal presence.

2 That the compilers of the Articles did not reject the Scholastic theory of Transubstantiat ion because they shrank from a full belief in the Sacramental Presence is clear from many state- ments of the leading divines of the sixteenth century. Thus Bishop Ridley writes, “The true Church of Christ doth acknowledge a Presence of Christ’s Body in the Lord’s Supper, but yet sacramentally and spiritually, not carnally or corporally giving life, and in that respect really, that is, according to I lis benediction, giving life.” Ridley’s Works, P. Society, p. 736 ; again he writes ” That heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) on the Table ; but by a spiritual presence, and not after any corporal presence,” Works,

p. 249 ; ” Thus much we must be sure to hold,” we read in the Second Book of the Homilies, ” that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent”; First Pt. of the Ser- mon concerning tlie Sacrament, p. 378, ed. 1802. Again Bishop Jewel, the chief writer of the Second Book of Homilies, says, ” Diserteque pronun- ciamus, in Ccena credentibus vere ex- hiberi Corpus et Sanguinem Domini, carnem Filii Dei,” Jewel, Apologia, Pt. 11. xi. i.

3 Bishop Guest, who was chiefly concerned in penning this Article, writes, ” I told the Bishop of Glou- cester plainly that the word only in the aforesaid Article did not exclude the Presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving there- of.” Guest’s Letter to Cecil, Dec. 22, 1566. So also Bishop Andrewes writes, ” As to the Real Presence we are agreed ; our controversy is as to the mode of it. The Presence we believe to be real as you do. As to the mode we define nothing rashly, nor anxiously investigate, any more than in Baptism we enquire how Christ’s Blood washes us ; any more than in the Incarnation of Christ we ask how the human is united to the divine nature in One Person.” Bp. Andrewes, Responsio, p. 13 ; comp. his Sermon on the Resurrection, ii. p. 302.

4 One most powerful argument against Transubstantiation is found in the use made of the Blessed Sacra-

xvii. The Last Clause of the Article deals with various points connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, such as reservation, carrying about, elevation, and adoration of the Elements. These ceremonies it affirms are no parts of Christ’s original institution. They may be omitted without breaking our Lord’s enactment respecting the celebration of the Sacrament. He did not ordain it in order that they should be observed ; they are not essential to the validity of the Sacrament ; and their omission leaves the whole of the original institution untouched.

xviii. Reservation was allowed in primitive times for the sake of carrying a portion of the consecrated Elements to the sick. Thus Justin Martyr in his First Apology, describing the celebration of the Eucharist says, “The Deacons communicate each of those present, and carry away to the absent of the blest Bread and Wine and Water1.” Again Eusebius, near the beginning of the fourth century, tells of a man, who on his death bed sent at night for a priest to communicate him, and, the priest being ill, the Eucharist, which must have been reserved, was taken to him by a layman2. S. Chrysostom relates how in a tumult at Constantinople soldiers entered the place, where the holy vessels were stored, and the most Holy Blood of Christ was spilt on their garments3. The practice was subsequently still further developed, and resorted to in the case of long journeys by land and by sea4. The custom,

ment by, e.g. Theodoret, S. Gelasius, see Smith’s Diet. Christian Antiqq.

and S. Chrysostom, as an illustra- ii. 1787.

tion of the Catholic doctrine of the 4 Travellers by sea had the body

Two Natures of our Lord ; if Tran- and blood of the Redeemer with

substantiation had been the doctrine them, Greg. Mag. Dial. iii. 36.

of their day it would have supported ” Iiccket carried the Sacrament round

not the Catholic, but the Monophy- his neck on the occasion of his going

site view. in search of Henry II. When the

1 S. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65. ordeal by fire was proposed to decide

2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vi. 44. whether the Pope was right in ex-

[…]

however of reservation, is one of permission not of obliga- tion, its observance forms no part of the original institution of the Sacrament, and each independent Church, as posses- sed of power “to decree rites or ceremonies,” may adopt or disallow the practice as it may be judged to be expedient.

xix. The Carrying about of the Blessed Sacrament in solemn processions was a ceremony introduced into the Church during the Middle Ages. It does not exist in the orthodox Eastern Church, neither do any of the Eastern heretical Churches practise it. It is difficult to fix the date of its first1 introduction. The Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted by Pope Urban IV. in 1264, and subse- quently commanded by Clement V. in 131 1, but it formed no part of the original institution or of Apostolic practice.

xx. Elevation. S. Paul in his Epistle to the Gala- tians speaks of Christ as being “placarded” or “visibly held up” as crucified before the eyes of the Galatians2 (Gal. iii. 1). This passage has sometimes been regarded as an indica- tion of the contemporary practice of the Elevation of the Sacrament. But the custom cannot be traced back to such an age. There is no allusion to it in the early Sacramentaries3 of Gelasius, Leo, or Gregory, or in the ancient writers4 on the ceremonies of the Church. It is

Fr. Dominic, who was to make the 1171a aylois, and before the Fraction,

fiery trial, held the Sacrament in his Thus in the Liturgy of S. James,

hand.” See Bp. Forbes, Articles, p. 570. ” then he elevates the gifts and saith

1 S. Carlo Borromeo, in the Acts ‘Holy things to holy persons’”; in of the Council of Milan, puts restric- the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, “the tions on the public exposition of the priest, elevating the holy bread ex- Blessed Sacrament. The Feast of claims, ’ Holy things for holy per- Corpus Christi did not become univer- sons.’” But the rite took place with- sal till after the Council of Vienne in in the Bema, while the doors were 131 1. closed and the curtains drawn. The

2 Oh k<it’ 6ffa/ious ‘I-qaous XpitTT&s original intention, therefore, was irpoeypaipr) iaravpuiixtvos. Gal. iii. I. clearly not that the Host might be

3 In all early Oriental Liturgies an adored by the people. Smith’s Diet. elevation of the Host by the cele- Christian Antiqq. i. 605.

brating Priest is prescribed contem- 4 Roman writers on ceremonial poraneously with the proclamation confess their inability to find any trace

not till we come to A.D. 1 136 that we find any mention made of it.

xxi. Adoration. In reference to this point the Article is worded very carefully and with great modera- tion. As it is stated in Art. xxv. that the object for which Christ ordained the Sacraments was not that they might be “gazed upon” or “carried about,” so here it is laid down that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was not by Christ’s ordinance. . .to be worshipped or adored. The Article deals with the adoration of the Sacrament, that is, of the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or of any Corporal Presence of Christ’s Flesh and Blood1. It says nothing whatever about the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament. It deals with the adoration of the outward Elements, not of Him, Who is present under these earthly veils.

of the practice in the ancient Sacra- mentaries, or the codices of the Ordo Romanus, or in any of the writers on ritual, Alcuin, Amalarius, Walafrid. There is little doubt that the custom of Elevation owes its introduction to the spread of the tenets of Berengarius in A.D. 1050, against which it was regarded as a public protest. It had little or no authoritative sanction before the 13th century. See Smith’s Diet. Christian Antiqq. i. 606; Bing- ham, Orig. Eccl. xv. 5, 4.

1 The “Black Rubric” or “Decla- ration of Kneeling” at the close of the Communion Service was introduced into the Second Prayer-Book of 1552, but it was removed from Q. Elizabeth’s

Prayer-Book. The wording of it was altered at the Caroline Settlement. On its first appearance it ran thus : ” We do declare (i.e. by kneeling) no adoration is intended. ..unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s Natural Flesh and Blood.” On its re-introduction at the Caroline settlement it was worded, “unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.” Thus the words ” Corporal Presence ” take the place of “real and essential Presence.” Procter, Book of Common Prayer, pp. 122, 239. “We allow ‘Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere et adorandtim ’. ” Bp. Andrewes, Kesponsio, p. 266.

Notes

• Tovt6 e<m to <run& p.ov (Matt.,Mk, Luke, 1 Cor. xi. 24).
• To VTrip ifiuiv &i5l>p.(vov (Luke xxii. 19) ; KKup-evov (1 Cor. xi. 24), but n\u>iitvov is omitted by L. T. Tr. \VH. R.V. AiSinf “ov means wh ieh is being,oi, is on (he point of being, given for you.
• See above, p. 48. 4 Compare Deut. xvi. 5,6:2 Chron.
• See above, p. 193. xxx. 16, xxxv. 10, 1 1.
• See above, p. 332, n. 5 See Stanley, J wish Church, i.
• ” The communion of the Paschal lamb, as the characteristic offering of the Old Law, had formed the founda- tion and centre of the whole sacri- ficial system of the Old Testament.” Dollinger, First Age of the Church, i. p. 58. E.T. 1877’.
• Bp. Browne On the Articles, p. by S. Gregory of Nyssa, and once by 713, ed. 1854. Theodoret, utTappvdfilfriv and pera-
• See Abp. Trench, Mediccval Neander, iv. pp. 2 jo sqq., E. T. 1852 ; Church History, p. 182. Gieseler, Church History, ii. pp. 284
• Haidwick, Middle Age, p. 166; wick, Middle Age, p. 163.
• See the form of recantation framed by Cardinal Pole and signed by Sir John Cheke. Strype’s Life of Sir John Cheke, p. 123.
• Transubstantiation is formed from (a) trans, which = (1) across, beyond, and (2) in composition denotes a change from one state to another, as in the words […] and (/3) substantia, which denotes not what we ordinarily under- stand by substance, but what is ex- pressed by the Greek ovaia, essence. Hence the Greek word iitrovaliaait corresponding to transubstantiation. The word is first found in an exposi- tion of the Canon of the Mass by Peter Damian, A.D. 988 — 1072, cap. vii. It first appears as a term ac- cepted and recognised by the Church at the fourth Council of Lateran, A.D.
• ” Sancta haec Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini con- versionem fieri totius substantia; panis in substantiam corporis Christi Do- mini nostri, et totius substantive vini in substantiam sanguinis Ejus ; quae conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transub- stantiatio est appellata.” Concil. Tri- dent., sec. xiii., cap. iv.
• Bp. Forbes On the Articles, p. 553.