The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. As Taught by the Church of England

by Edward Hoare

This lies at the foundation of the whole controversy, and to this our first and chief attention must be directed. Now, there can be no doubt on the minds of those who take the Word of God as their true and only guide that it is the sacred privilege of the Children of God to feed by faith on the most precious body and blood of our blessed Saviour. I am not now discussing in what way we feed on Him, or whether His words in the 6th chapter of St. John refer, or do not refer, to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is my own belief that they do not; but that is not the present question. My present concern is with the fact that, however we explain His words, we are taught by our Lord Himself that such a feeding is essential to our life: ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ Nor can there be any doubt that in 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, the partaking (κοινωνία) of the body and blood of Christ is connected with the Lord’s Supper. I am not now making any assertion as to the way in which it is connected, for that is the great point to be determined. All that I now say is that there clearly is a connexion, for the words are: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.’

Two things, therefore, seem plain from Scripture: that there is a feeding on the body and blood of our most blessed Saviour, without which none can live, and that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is in some way or other connected with that sacred privilege. Thus far, I presume, we are all agreed. But as to the nature of the connexion, there is the widest possible divergence. Rome teaches that by the act of consecration the bread and wine become Christ Himself; that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and that both the bread and wine become each of them a whole Christ, body, soul, and divinity. The advocates for the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Church of England differ, as far as I can understand them, from Rome in one respect, and one only; namely, that they maintain that the bread and wine do not cease to have the accidents of bread and wine, so that they may still be spoken of as bread and wine, although they have become the body and blood of Christ, or rather Christ Himself. This slight difference is of no practical importance in the discussion, and appears to have been introduced only to avoid the conclusion drawn from those texts which speak of the bread as bread, and the wine as wine, after consecration. The practical conclusion is the same, viz. that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is in the bread and in the wine. This is what is meant by the expression, ‘The real objective presence.’ It means that He is present in the elements as a real independent object, without any reference to the character of the recipient, as a book is an independent object in the hand of the man who holds it, without any reference to his state of mind or character. In opposition to this, it is maintained by us who cling to the great principles of the Reformation, that there is no change whatever in the bread and wine, that they are solemnly set apart for sacramental use by means of consecration, but that they remain exactly the same as before consecration, in substance, and accidents, and everything else. That the most precious body and blood of Christ is altogether spiritual food, and that the soul feeds on it by faith, and faith alone. That there are two perfectly distinct kinds of food, the one material, and the other spiritual; the one for the body, the other for the soul; and two perfectly distinct actions; the one of the body eating the bread, the other of the soul feeding on Christ Himself by faith. That the material food is an emblem of the spiritual; and that the act of eating by the body is an emblem of the act of feeding by the soul; and the manner of the two are so far connected by sacramental appointment, that when we receive the emblem we are warranted to expect the enjoyment of the reality. When the body feeds materially on the one, the believer’s heart feeds spiritually on the other; but the two acts are distinct, and the one must not be confounded with the other. From this statement it will appear that the point at issue is, whether the precious body and blood of our blessed Lord and Saviour are in the bread and in the wine, so as to be eaten and drunk whenever, and by whomsoever, the elements are received, or whether the spiritual food described in this expression is received by the soul alone without being localised in the consecrated elements. And my object is to endeavour to ascertain which of these two systems is taught by the Church of England. That dear old Church is at this present time in a position to call forth the deepest anxiety and the most earnest prayers of all those who love the truth. Some are endeavouring to destroy it, some to corrupt it, and some to uphold it in its integrity. In such a state of things it is not fair that the Church should be held responsible for the assertions even of its friends. Its own voice ought to be heard, and its own clear statement carefully studied. I have no intention, therefore, of endeavouring to confuse the subject by a mass of quotations from collateral writers, but will turn at once to those authoritative documents for which the Church has made herself responsible. These are the Articles, Catechism, Liturgy, and Homilies; and these, if it please God, we will examine in order.

The Articles.—There are seven Articles—xxv. to xxxi.—bearing more or less upon the subject; and from these we may gather the real teaching of our Church. The first of them, the twenty-fifth, refers to sacraments in general. ‘Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s professions, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him.’ In other words, before men they are badges of our profession, and before God they are signs or witnesses by which God works invisibly in the soul. In this definition there is no idea of any change in the substance of the sign. The sign is not described as being changed into the thing signified, but as being accompanied by it, so that when the believer with the hand and lip visibly receives the sign, it pleases God in His own great grace invisibly to feed the soul and confirm the faith. The visible sign and the invisible gift are therefore kept quite distinct. The one is mercifully granted in connexion with the other, but never said to be incorporated with it, for the sign would cease to be a sign if it were changed into the thing signified. With this definition of a Sacrament, the 27th Article—which describes that of baptism—exactly agrees. It describes it not merely as a badge of a Christian man’s profession, but also declares that it is a sign and means of grace. ‘A sign of regeneration or new birth;’ a ‘means whereby as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly (1) are grafted into the Church; (2) the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; (3) faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.’ But no change is here described as taking place in the water. It is nowhere said to be changed into regeneration. The gifts described are God’s direct gifts to the soul, and are never said to be infused into the element of water. The water is sanctified, or set apart for sacramental use, but the consecration produces no change in its quality or substance. The new birth is not in the water, but is the act of the Holy Spirit moving in the soul. The minister on earth visibly administers the visible sign to the body, and we trust that God in heaven invisibly bestows the invisible gift on the soul. It is not my business now to discuss the connexion between the visible sign and the invisible gift. It is enough for my present purpose to point out that the one is not changed into the other, but that the water remains water, or, in other words, that the sign does not cease to be a sign, as it would do if it were changed into the thing signified.

Now it would be strange indeed if after having first given so perfectly clear a general definition of the general nature of a sacrament, and having so clearly defined baptism, in perfect harmony with that general definition, our Church were afterwards to teach a doctrine respecting the Lord’s Supper, altogether at variance with the general definition, and with her own explanation of the other sacrament. The Church of England includes both sacraments in one definition, and in that definition she never alludes to any change in the sign or elements. In the sacrament of baptism, no one, I believe, would for a moment assert the existence of such a change, even if there were no special Article on the subject. Our conclusion therefore must be, that, according to the Church’s teaching, there is no change in the elements in the Lord’s Supper. As the water in baptism remains water still, so the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper remain what they were before, plain, simple bread and wine; dedicated, it is true, to the Lord’s service, but altogether unchanged by such dedication.

But we are not left to depend altogether on such conclusions, for there is a special Article on the subject, viz., the twenty-eighth. In the first clause we find the Lord’s Supper described as both sacraments were described in the twenty-fifth, and baptism in the twenty-seventh, as a sign and means of grace. ‘The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love which Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death, inasmuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, 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.’ Having gone thus far in harmony with their general definition, and having quoted the words from 1 Cor. x., our Reformers were clearly brought to the consideration of the very point under discussion, viz., in what way does the soul of the believer partake in the Lord’s Supper of the body and blood of his blessed Lord and Saviour? This question they boldly and clearly answer, declaring in the first place, what is not, and in the second place, what is, the truth respecting it. They first declare that it is not by transubstantiation. ‘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, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament’ (because if the sign is changed into the thing signified, it ceases to be a sign), ‘and hath given occasion to many superstitions.’ It would be fruitless to endeavour to trace the sophistry with which those who desire reconciliation of the Church of England with Rome, have endeavoured to avoid the clear statements of this pungent Article. But their conclusion is one which is such an outrage on common sense that it would be utterly ludicrous if it were not inexpressibly melancholy, to see men who, we hope, are devout men, embracing it. We are now deliberately told that the Article was not directed against the doctrine of transubstantiation at all, but against a change for which the name of ‘transaccidentation’ has been recently adopted. Now I know we live in an age of discovery, but it is difficult for any person of plain common sense, to believe in such a discovery as this. No one who knows anything of the history of the Reformation can be ignorant of the intense eagerness with which the doctrine of transubstantiation was discussed. In books, in sermons, in public disputations, it was argued again and again, by all the most learned theologians of the day. The speculations of the schoolmen as well as the writings of the early fathers were largely quoted. The very distinction now revived between substance and accident was carefully discussed. And men felt so deeply the wide difference between the teaching of Rome and the teaching of Scripture that they could not yield even to save their lives. The stake was before them as the certain issue of their confession, and liberty and honour was the promised reward if only they would yield. But they had that deep conviction of the deadly error of the doctrine of transubstantiation that they counted it a privilege rather to die than to deny the truth of God. And I put it to any man of common sense and common honesty: is it possible to believe that, after all, there was no real difference between Rome and the Reformers? That Bonner and Gardiner, and Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley did, in fact, agree; that there might have been a little confusion in some of their minds as to the difference between substance and accident, so that they used the word transubstantiation without knowing its real meaning, but that in all essential points they were agreed, so that the fires of Smithfield were lighted all by mistake, and men who were burned agreed with them that burned them. Clever men and learned men may put forth such a theory, but common sense revolts against it; and all thinking men must agree that, if this be the only theory on which it can be maintained, the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence is not the doctrine of the Church. Plain honest men will be ready to cry ‘shame’ on those who by theological sophistry are endeavouring to evade the plain and incontestable evidence of the great facts of the Reformation. The Reformers knew well enough what Rome meant by ‘transubstantiation,’ and the twenty-eighth Article is decisive on the point that there is no such change in the Supper of the Lord.

But the error having been denied, the next clause of the Article is employed to assert the truth: ‘The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; and the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.’ It is most important to observe that word ‘only,’ for it is exclusive of all material feeding. If it were not there it might have been possible to have argued that the Article admits the idea of a material in addition to a spiritual feeding—a feeding with the mouth as well as a feeding with the heart. But the word ‘only’ renders any such theory impossible. There is ‘only’ one manner in which He is received, and that one manner is heavenly and spiritual. With equal clearness it is declared that as there is only one mode in which the body of our blessed Saviour is received, and that heavenly and spiritual; so there is only one mean whereby it is received and eaten, and that one mean is faith. The Article does not speak of a means, as if it was one of many but of ‘the means’ in order to show that it stands quite alone, that it is only spiritual food, and received only by faith. The lips receive the bread, and the believing heart receives the spiritual food of Christ Himself. The body feeds on the material food, the soul on the spiritual. The means whereby the body feeds is the same as in common eating, and the means on which the soul feeds is faith.

This important distinction of the outward and inward action is taught with equal clearness in Article xxix.:—‘Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.’ It may seem strange at first sight that any persons should be eager to maintain that the wicked receive so sacred a gift as the body and blood of our blessed Saviour; but a very slight reflection will show the reason, for on this question hinges the whole controversy. If the bread and wine have become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, or if after consecration He is in them, then it must follow as a matter of certain consequence that whoever eats them eats Him. But if, on the other hand, He is not in the bread and wine at all, but is received by the heart as the bread and wine are by the body, then it follows that if the heart be not right with God, a person may eat the bread, but never feed on the body and blood of our most blessed Lord and Saviour. The whole question whether there is any independent, localized presence of our blessed Redeemer in the elements is involved in the decision whether the wicked in receiving those elements do or do not receive Him. On this point the language of the twenty-ninth Article is perfectly clear:—‘The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.’ In quoting this Article I am not ignorant of the attempt that has been made to represent it as teaching that, although the wicked do eat the body of Christ they do not receive His life-giving blessings. But the Article does not say one word of blessings. It is headed with the words, ‘Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ.’ It describes the bread as being a sign of the body, and it affirms as clearly as language can affirm that a wicked person may press the sign with his teeth, but still be in no wise either materially, spiritually, with the body or with the soul, a partaker of Christ. According to this Article a person may eat the bread without eating the body of Christ, and receive the wine, but never drink the blood of Christ. If the bread and wine had by consecration become the body and blood, this clearly would be impossible, for the one being changed into the other, the two would be inseparable, or rather, they would cease to be two, they would be one. It is clear, therefore, that no such change is taught here; and this conclusion is remarkably confirmed by the Rubric at the close of the Service for the Communion of the Sick, for there the same great principle is maintained with equal clearness, only from a different point of view, when it says, ‘If a man . . . by just impediment do not receive the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent himself of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, profitably to his soul’s health, although he doth not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.’ I venture to say that nothing can be clearer than the combined testimony of these two most important documents. The Article says, ‘That a bad man may receive with his mouth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, but not be partaker of Christ.’ The Rubric says that a believer may under certain circumstances eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth. And if this is not a sufficient proof that according to the teaching of the Church of England, the sign or Sacrament is not changed into the thing signified, I can imagine no proof that can be given. If they are made one by the act of consecration, neither one nor the other can be received alone.

Summing up, then, the teaching of the Articles, we shall arrive at five important conclusions: (1.) A Sacrament is a sign, and a sign would cease to be a sign if it were changed into the thing signified. (2.) In the Sacrament of baptism there is no change in the water. (3.) The doctrine of transubstantiation is condemned as clearly as words can condemn it. (4.) The body of Christ is said to be received only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. (5.) The wicked are declared to be in no wise partakers of the sacred body and blood of our blessed Lord, though with the mouth they eat the sign. And yet, notwithstanding all this, there are those who boldly affirm that the doctrine of the real presence of our blessed Lord and Saviour in the elements is the undoubted teaching of the Church of England.

Catechism.—But is not the doctrine taught in the Catechism? And if we look carefully, shall we not find it there? One writer is so confident that we shall, that he boldly affirms that the Catechism is the final and authoritative decision of the Church on the subject, and must supersede all previous documents; as if five short questions and answers, drawn up for the use of children, were to override the full, dogmatic, and controversial decisions of the Articles. I am not surprised at his wish to draw attention from the Articles, but I am persuaded he will gain nothing by directing it to the Catechism. I have no doubt that the portion of the Catechism relating to the Sacraments is simply an abbreviation, or adaptation, of the Articles. The same arrangement is adopted, and the same definitions occur, in both documents. The first three questions refer to Article xxv., the next to Article xxvii., the next to Article xxviii. The two Sacraments are first included in one common definition. The Sacrament of baptism is then discussed separately, and I presume that no one would venture to affirm that either in the general definition of a Sacrament, or in the particular definition of baptism, the outward sign is ever said to be changed into, or confounded with, the thing signified. In these two definitions they are kept distinct, and if the Catechism teaches any such change in the Lord’s Supper, it must make a marked and most important distinction between the two Sacraments, and so neutralize its own general definition, which is carefully drawn to include them both. It would, indeed, be strange if there were such an inconsistency in so short a passage. But, thanks be to God, there is nothing of the kind, and the whole is in perfect harmony both with itself and with the Articles. It is difficult to imagine a clearer and more marked distinction than that expressed in the second and third questions, ‘What is the outward part, or sign, of the Lord’s Supper?’ and ‘What is the inward part or thing signified?’ The distinctness between the two parts is here more clearly marked than even in the Articles, for in these two questions there is not merely the distinction which we have in them between the sign and the thing signified, but the one is described as outward and the other inward. The one is a material thing, which the recipient may take in his hand, and which is altogether external to himself; the other is inward and invisible, something within the soul, and only seen by the inner man. It is, therefore, utterly contrary to the teaching of these two questions to suppose that both parts of the Sacrament are outward, and that the inward and spiritual grace has a localized, outward presence external to the soul of the recipient.

But though the questions are thus distinct, can we say the same of the answers? The third answer is often boldly appealed to as deciding the question in favour of what is termed the real presence, and as finally settling the whole controversy. But nothing is easier than to make bold assertions of the kind, to persuade men to receive them without the trouble of investigation. But such a system will not satisfy those who desire to know the truth. Let us then examine the answer carefully. ‘What is the inward part or thing signified?’ ‘The body and blood of Christ; which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.’ Great stress is sometimes laid on the words, ‘Verily and indeed,’ as if they meant something more than a spiritual feeding on Christ. But there is nothing in them to convey any such idea. All they teach is that there is a real, true gift, really enjoyed and received by the devout communicant; and this we all thankfully believe. The question between us is not whether there is such a gift; but what is its character, and how is it received. The reality of the gift does not prove that it is material, external, or connected in any way with the natural elements. To maintain this would be to deny the reality of anything spiritual and internal. Nothing, therefore, can be proved either way from the words, ‘Verily and indeed.’ They cannot be quoted in opposition to the question to which they are intended as an answer, or in deciding that the inward part is outward. They do assert that the gift of the Lord is no mere fiction or idea, but they do not teach in any way whatever that the sacred gift is in the elements, and external to the soul.