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

by Edward Hoare

But we have not yet done with this important answer, for there are two more most important points to be noticed in it. In the first place it is clearly stated that it is ‘Verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful.’ One ingenious writer endeavours to make out that the word ‘faithful’ is here intended to include the wicked. I suppose that we are bound to give him credit for believing what he writes; but it is very difficult for those to do so who read common English in the light of common sense. And still more difficult is it when the Catechism is read in the light of the twenty-eighth Article, from which it was in all probability constructed, and which says, ‘To such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ.’ Can any reasonable man compare these passages, and doubt for a moment that by the words ‘the faithful,’ are intended those persons who ‘approach in faith whereby alone they can feed on Christ.’

But there is another point in that same answer which claims our careful consideration. The words are, ‘which are received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.’ It does not say, ‘in the Sacrament,’ for if it did it might have been misunderstood. In the use of the word ‘Sacrament’ there is a risk of confusion, for it is employed in three different senses. It is sometimes employed to denote the whole act, or sacramental service, as in Article xxv., where Sacraments are described as badges, witnesses, and signs. It is sometimes used to express the outward sign and the inward gift, regarded as forming together one perfect whole, as in the third question and answer of the Catechism, by which we are taught that there are two parts in a Sacrament—the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. But sometimes it is used for the outward sign alone, unaccompanied by the spiritual grace, as in Article xxix., where we read that the wicked are in no wise partakers of Christ, ‘but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign, or Sacrament, of so great a thing.’ It is my conviction that this looseness in the use of the word ‘Sacrament’ had led to great confusion; for when those who hold the great doctrines of the Reformation have declared their belief in the presence of their blessed Redeemer in the Sacrament, they have used the word in the sense of the sacred feast, and expressed their assurance that He, a living Lord, is present in the midst of His waiting people. But others, taking the word ‘Sacrament’ to mean simply the consecrated elements, may quote such words from the staunchest reformers, as proving that even they taught the presence of the Lord in the bread and wine. Happily, in the Catechism this danger is avoided, for in this important answer the word ‘Sacrament’ is not used at all. The sacred feast is there called the ‘Lord’s Supper,’ respecting which there is no confusion, and the result is that there is not even the misuse of a word to encourage the idea of anything like a presence in the elements.

But if there were any room for doubt as to the meaning of the Church of England in this passage, it would surely be removed by the next question and answer, ‘What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?’ ‘The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.’ It is difficult to imagine language which could preserve the distinction of the outward and the inward parts more clearly than this does. The outward is for the body, and strengthens it; the inward for the soul, and does the same for it. The one food is material for a material body; the other is spiritual, for the spiritual sustenance of the soul. The one is external, to be received into the body by bodily organization; the other is internal and invisible, received into the soul by faith. To identify the two, or to shut up the one within the other, is to violate the whole principle of the passage; it is to confuse material and spiritual things, and utterly to depart from the teaching of the Church of England by giving a material character to the most spiritual act of which the soul is capable.

The Communion Service.—But there is yet another most important document, and one inexpressibly precious to the heart of every devout communicant amongst us: I mean the Communion Service, or ‘Order of Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion.’ How often have those sacred prayers expressed the deep feeling of our inmost soul, as we have knelt in holy faith before the Table of the Lord? Now there cannot be a moment’s doubt that we are taught in that most precious Service to feed on the body and blood of our most blessed Saviour, and to expect that the most sacred food will be given to the soul. If this were not expressed, the bread which we break would not be presented to us as a partaking of the body of Christ. But while we are taught in living faith to partake of His most precious body and blood, the whole service has been so carefully worded that the spiritual grace is never identified with the outward sign. As in the Articles and Catechism, the two things are kept perfectly distinct. In simply reading the Service as we now have it, this care is not always apparent, for the language of devotion is never the language of controversial theology, and the spirit of fervent prayer does not admit of the expression of theological distinctions. Full hearts do not stop to define when they are pleading before God. But the utmost care was taken, and we profit from the results. This is easily seen by a comparison of the two Prayer Books of Edward VI. The Reformation was a gradual process, so that the Prayer Book of 1549 is less distinct than that of 1552. In the latter book there were important changes made, and these changes indicate very plainly the real teaching of our present Prayer Book. In the Prayer Book of 1549, there were some passages which might have been understood as teaching that the most precious body and blood of our Lord was to be received in the consecrated elements of bread and wine; but in the book of 1552, these passages were all changed so as to render such a sense impossible.

For example: in the exhortation to communicants, it was written in the book of 1549, ‘He hath left in these holy mysteries, as a pledge of His love, and a continual remembrance of the same, his own blessed body and precious blood for us to feed upon spiritually to our endless comfort and consolation.’ If the word ‘mysteries’ was understood of the consecrated elements, this passage might have been understood as teaching that the spiritual food was actually in the consecrated bread and wine. So in 1552, the passage was changed to the well-known words, ‘He hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of His love, and continual remembrance of His death, to our great and endless comfort,’ and all possibility of misapprehension was removed.

Again, in the prayer of consecration in 1549 we find the words, ‘Hear us, O Merciful Father, we beseech thee; and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.’ These words might fairly be taken as praying for a change in the elements, and therefore in the next version the passage was completely changed, and the unmistakable language of our present Prayer Book introduced in its stead: ‘Grant that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed body and blood.’

So in the prayer before consecration. In the first book the words were, ‘Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood in these Holy Mysteries.’ But this was liable to the same danger as the passage in the exhortation already referred to, and therefore the words, ‘In these holy mysteries,’ were struck out, and the prayer left as it now stands in our Prayer Book.

And so once more, in the words of administration in the first book there was only the first portion of the present sentences. The words were: ‘The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.’ But though not necessary, it was possible to understand this as if the bread presented to the communicants were declared to be the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. To prevent this, the following words, ‘Take and eat this, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving,’ were substituted in 1552, and combined with the original form in 1559. Nothing can be clearer, or more important, than the teaching of this passage. In it the distinction is perfectly clear between the bread which we eat, and the blessed Saviour on whom we feed. Of the bread it says, ‘Eat this,’ this bread which I put into your hand. But of the inward and spiritual grace it says, ‘Feed on Him,’ on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this feeding is described as the act of the heart through faith, for the words are, ‘Feed on Him—in thine heart—through faith—with thanksgiving.’

Homilies.—But there is another rich mine of truth from which those who are anxious to learn the mind of the Church of England may obtain most abundant information. I observe that as a general rule those who teach the doctrine of the real presence in the elements refer very little to the Homilies. They treat them as if they were not aware of their existence, and I am not surprised at their silence, for they certainly can find nothing in them to support their system. You may search the Homilies from one end to the other, and you will find nothing there to support the doctrine of a real presence of our Lord and Saviour in the consecrated elements. They are in perfect harmony with the Articles. The definition of a Sacrament is the same, and preserves with equal clearness the distinction between the outward sign and inward grace—as e.g., in the ninth Homily of the second book, where we read the following reference to the words of Augustine ‘He calleth Sacraments holy signs, and . . . saith “if Sacraments have not a certain similitude of these things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at all. And of this similitude, they do for the most part receive the names of the same things they signify.” By these words of St. Augustine, it appeareth that he allowed the common description of a Sacrament, which is that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, that is to say, that setteth out to the eyes, and other outward senses, the inward working of God’s free mercy, and doth as it were seal in our hearts the promises of God.’

But I must be careful with reference to the Homilies, for there are two passages which are sometimes quoted in order to show that the doctrine of the real presence in the elements is the doctrine taught in them. One of these passages is quoted by Dr. Pusey in his book on the Real Presence, viz., the Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies: ‘Hereafter shall follow sermons of fasting, praying, almsdeeds, &c, of the nativity, passion, resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour Christ; of the due receiving of His blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine,’ &c. Now I am quite prepared to admit that when this Advertisement was written, the writer of it did believe that the body and blood of our blessed Lord was present under the form of bread and wine; but even the Advertisement was no part of any Homily, and can never be regarded as having been at any time a portion of the authoritative teaching of the Church of England. I am willing, however, to admit that, although not authoritative, it may be regarded as indicating what was the opinion of the writers at the date of the First Book of Homilies. All, therefore, turns upon the date, and when I remember that the First Book of Homilies was published in 1547, two years before the first revision of the Communion Service, viz., that in 1549, and five years before the second, viz., that in 1552, when the alterations to which I have referred were made in the Communion Service; when, moreover, I find that when the promised Homily was published, it was headed by a different title, viz., ‘The worthy receiving, and reverend esteeming; of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ;’ when, moreover, I find on its first page the passage just quoted respecting the sign and thing signified, I am altogether at a loss to understand how a person of the learning of Dr. Pusey should have quoted the Advertisement, as if it were the teaching of the Church of England in her Homilies. He must have known the date, and must have been perfectly acquainted with the changes which took place five years after it.