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

by Edward Hoare

But there is another passage sometimes quoted from the Homily, and quoted with great assurance by those who desire to represent the Church of England as teaching the doctrine of the real presence. I once heard an advanced Ritualist preaching on the subject, and with the utmost boldness he challenged us to listen to the Homilies, and then he quoted the words, ‘Thus much we 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, a marvellous incorporation.’ Oh! how did my heart burn, as I sat in that church, to cry aloud from my seat ‘Read the whole passage,’ but I was obliged to sit in silence, and endure. Oh! how I pity laymen, who have no power of contradiction, when they hear gross error preached to themselves and their families! But I may read it now: ‘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’ (why was all that left out?), ‘In a marvellous incorporation.’ Now what is the meaning of this marvellous incorporation? Does it mean the incorporation of our blessed Lord and Saviour in the bread? Or does it refer to the work of the Holy Ghost in the soul? Let the question be decided by the words which conclude the sentence: ‘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.’

But that is not all. The Homilies were written by men deeply impressed by the truth of God: by men who loved the Gospel, and who earnestly desired to see others partakers of their joy. So they did not merely speak in the language of accurate theology, but they appealed to souls with the fervour of loving hearts. Let us listen, in conclusion, to the glowing words with which they wind up the first part of their address, ‘It is well known that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food; the nourishment of our soul; a heavenly refection and not an earthly; an invisible meal and not bodily; a ghostly substance and not carnal; so that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding, basely objecting and binding ourselves to the elements and creatures.’ . . . ‘That when thou goest up to the reverend Communion to be satisfied with spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy body of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it with the mind, thou receive it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man. Thus we see, beloved, that resorting to this table, we must pluck up all the roots of infidelity, all distrust in God’s promises, that we make ourselves living members of Christ’s body. For the unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious body. Whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding in Him, their union, and, as it were, their incorporation with Him. Wherefore let us prove, and try ourselves unfeignedly without flattering ourselves, whether we be plants of that fruitful olive, living branches of the true vine, members indeed of Christ’s mystical body, whether God hath purified our hearts by faith, to the sincere acknowledging of His Gospel, and embracing of His mercies in Christ Jesus, so that at this, His table, we receive, not only the outward Sacrament, but the spiritual thing also; not the figure, but the truth; not the shadow only, but the body; not to death, but to life; not to destruction, but to salvation; which God grant us to do through the merits of our Lord and Saviour: to whom be all honour and glory for ever. Amen.’

CHAPTER II.
ADORATION.

Thus far I have examined into the teaching of the Church of England with reference to nothing but the bare doctrine of transubstantiation, or, as it is now more frequently called, of the real objective presence of the body and blood of our blessed Saviour in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. I have not discussed the question whether the elements of bread and wine remain either in their substance or their accidents, for these questions are not discussed by the Church of England. The point maintained by the Church is that the most precious body and blood of Christ are not in the bread and wine at all, but are given by the direct action of the Holy Ghost to the soul of the believer, and received by him through faith. But we cannot leave the subject there, for, as we are taught in the twenty-eighth Article, that doctrine ‘has given occasion to many superstitions,’ and to two of these, adoration and sacrifice, we must, if we would gather the real teaching of the Church of England, direct our careful study.

Adoration.—When we speak of adoration, let it not be for one moment supposed that we refer to the adoration of the Lord Jesus, as now seated at the right hand of God, for with the whole heart, and the most profound reverence, we would fall at His feet, and say, in the language of our Communion Service, ‘Thou only art Holy, Thou only art the Lord; Thou only, O Christ, art most high in the glory of God the Father.’ The adoration against which we protest is the adoration of the Lord Jesus Christ as supposed to be localised in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. Such adoration must, of course, involve the belief that He, as a living Lord, is actually present in each piece of consecrated bread, and also in the consecrated wine, and for such a belief there is not one word in Scripture. The doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are made to rest on what is called the literal interpretation of the words, ‘This is My body,’ ‘This is My blood;’ but the utter inconsistency of the whole system is shown by the fact that while its advocates maintain that these words must be taken literally, and that their doctrine of the real presence is the necessary consequence, they themselves completely depart from their own principle of literal interpretation, and make a bold assertion which the words, taken literally, distinctly contradict. The words taken literally could certainly teach nothing more than that the bread becomes the body, and the wine the blood of our blessed Redeemer; but Rome teaches, and as far as I can learn the modern Ritualists teach the same, that not only do the bread and wine each separately become the body and blood, but that each of them becomes by the act of consecration a complete living Saviour, with Body, Soul, and Divinity; so that there is a living Saviour in each piece of consecrated bread, and a living Saviour in the cup, and that these living Saviours are to be adored or worshipped with the same worship as is given to our blessed Redeemer at the right hand of the throne in Heaven. I could give scores of passages in proof of my statement; but the well-known words of Mr. Bennett are sufficient: ‘I am one of those who have lighted candles at the altar in the day-time, who use incense at the holy sacrifice—who use the Eucharistic vestments—who elevate the blessed Sacrament—who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them—believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Such is the fabric raised on what is called the literal interpretation of the words of our blessed Saviour, a fabric for which those words taken literally give no foundation of any kind whatever. But how is it with the Church of England? Are men true Churchmen when they elevate the elements for worship? Are they teaching the doctrines of the Church of England when they teach that we are to worship the living Lord in the bread and in the cup which the priest raises above his head for adoration? It certainly does not seem as if they were, for as far as I have been able to discover, not one word from all our Church’s documents is ever quoted in support of the practice. The only position taken up is that it is not expressly forbidden, and this position I believe to be, like the rest of the system, without foundation. It is quite true that comparatively little is said, for the doctrine of transubstantiation being denied and disproved, all the rest follows as a matter of course. If there is no real objective presence there can be no adoration. If a living Saviour be not in the elements He cannot therein be adored. The whole controversy turns on the doctrine of the Real Presence as the key-stone of the system. But though the subject has not been so fully discussed in our Church documents, there is quite enough to show very clearly the mind of the Church of England. The concluding words of Article xxviii. are quite enough to settle the question: ‘The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.’ How, with that Article before them, clergymen of the Church of England can presume to elevate the sacramental elements for worship I am at a loss to explain. But this is not all that has been said, for the practice of kneeling at the Lord’s Supper occasioned at one time a certain amount of anxiety in the minds of some persons, as they feared that it might be mistaken for adoration of the host. To prevent the possibility of any such mistake a most important note was added in the year 1552, which, after having been omitted in 1559, was restored with a slight alteration in 1662. It is as follows: ‘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. The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and, therefore, may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.’ Such words as those need no comment, and I should be only wasting time if I were to stop to discuss them. Of course people endeavour to evade them; but the attempts at evasion only tend to show the utter helplessness of the undertaking. The memorialists already referred to, say, ‘We repudiate all adoration of a corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood, that is to say, of the presence of His body and blood as they are in Heaven.’ They admit it, therefore, in some other way. But the Church of England denies it altogether. It draws no nice distinction as to the mode, but simply denies the fact, and settles the question once and for ever for all honest men whose honest desire it is to teach its doctrines and adopt its worship.

But as we really desire to ascertain the truth, it is well to refer to the statements of those who differ from us. I turn, therefore, to those of Dr. Pusey, as I believe he is the person who above all others would be regarded as the best exponent of the theory of the Real Presence and its consequences. In his book, The Real Presence, p. 311, he says: ‘The Church of England has maintained the same reserve as to the practice of adoring our Lord present in the Eucharist.’ And again: ‘With regard to the adoration we are rather told that the Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be adored, but to be received.’ I could not wish for a plainer statement of truth than those last words, but I confess myself at a loss to understand how the writer can teach adoration, and yet continue in his position as a clergyman of the Church of England. But with the former words I cannot agree, for the Church of England has not exercised reserve. To exercise reserve is to keep in the background a truth which we believe, but which from motives of expediency we think it better not to make known. But there is no such reserve in the Church of England. She is plain, honest, and outspoken for the truth; and when she struck all trace of adoration from her worship she did so, not from any crafty policy of reserve, but because she believed that the whole thing was a gross superstition, and with a firm, bold, and unsparing hand she cut away the whole fabric, and left no trace of it in the whole system of her worship. There was no reserve in the Reformers, whatever there may be in those who are striving to undo the Reformation.

CHAPTER III.
SACRIFICE.

But adoration is not all, for there is yet a further result of the doctrine of the real objective presence, if possible, more dangerous even than adoration; I mean the assertion of a continued sacrifice. It is extremely difficult to ascertain exactly what is held by the Ritualistic party, for there is no document to which they all subscribe or for which they can be held responsible; but there is quite enough to show that a great number amongst them are teaching without reserve that there is in the Lord’s Supper a continuation, or repetition, of the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Lord. The extent to which this is carried may be gathered from a book called the Eucharist Manual, to which Archbishop Longley drew the attention of the Church in the year 1867, in which it is said that ‘a real, true, and substantial sacrifice is offered to God the Father, and not merely a spiritual or metaphorical sacrifice;’ that the Holy Eucharist is ‘a true, real, and substantial sacrifice offered to God the Father, offered for the quick and the dead;’ the meaning of which statement is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt by the following prayers: ‘Eternal Father, I offer thee the precious blood of Jesus Christ, in expiation of my sins, and for the wants of the whole Church;’ and ‘I now join Thy minister in offering Thee this oblation of the body and blood of Thy Son, in propitiation for my numberless sins, and for the salvation of all bound to me by kindred or affection.’ Nothing would be easier than to bring together almost any number of similar passages, and I feel persuaded that I am not misrepresenting the principles of the writers when I say that they teach the continuation or repetition of the sacrifice of our blessed Lord Himself as a propitiation for sin. Now is this the teaching of the Church of England, or is it not? Dr. Pusey’s own language may, I think, decide the question. In his book, on the Real Presence, p. 311, he says of the Church’s documents: ‘Although the great act of Eucharistic Sacrifice remains in the consecration itself, and it has been all along an object of belief in the Church of England, it is mentioned only when we pray to God to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.’ This then is the only passage in all the documents of the Church of England which we may presume can be produced as being in favour of this teaching, and I venture to say that Dr. Pusey is far too good a theologian not to know that the passage is dead against the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice. Is it possible to suppose that such a learned man as he is does not know the distinction between a sacrifice of expiation and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, between an atonement for sin and the free-will offering of a thankful and loving heart? And is it possible that there should be one moment’s doubt as to the teaching of the Church of England, when the words, which he himself acknowledges, are the only words which he can discover in support of the one are words which beyond all controversy refer exclusively to the other?

But is the Church of England as silent as he appears to consider it on this important subject? Are we left to gather its great principles from that one passage in the Communion Service? Does it teach nothing on the subject of propitiatory sacrifice but in that one short sentence which has in fact no connexion with it? The whole of the Church of God depends on a completed propitiation, and we might well tremble for the Church of England if that one great central fact were altogether out of sight in its teaching. But, thanks be to God! it is not thus ignored, for this is just one of those points for which our Reformers were called to suffer, and respecting which they were most explicit.

To begin with the Articles. The thirty-first consists of three parts. (1.) The perfect sufficiency of the great propitiation for sin. ‘The offering of Christ once made’ (observe the once) ‘is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.’ (2.) The declaration that in consequence of that sufficiency there can be no further propitiation. ‘There is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.’ (3.) The condemnation of the pretended sacrifice of the mass. ‘Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of past guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.’ I am not ignorant that an attempt has been made to represent this Article as referring to the abuses which had gathered around the sacrifice of the mass, and not against the principle of sacrifice itself. As I should be extremely sorry to misrepresent the opinions of those who differ from me, I quote Dr. Pusey’s words as I find them in his Eirenicon, p. 25: ‘The very strength of the expressions used, of “the sacrifices of masses,” that they were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits, the use of the plural, and the clause “in which it was commonly said,” show that what the Article speaks of is not the sacrifice of the mass, but the habit (which, as one hears from time to time, still remains) of trusting to the purchase of masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy life, or repentance, and the grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus while in health.’ To what desperate shifts are persons driven who would endeavour to represent the Church of England as teaching the sacrifice of the mass! The Article declares the sufficiency and finality of the one sacrifice of our blessed Lord and Saviour, and because that one sacrifice is sufficient and final, it condemns in the strongest possible language the opinion current at the time, that in some form or other there was a repetition of sacrifice in the mass. But because the language is strong, because there is an allusion to the current opinion, and because the plural number is employed so as to comprehend the numberless sacrifices supposed to be offered on the numberless altars of the Church of Rome, therefore it is argued that the Article does not refer to the doctrine of sacrifice at all, but simply to the purchase of the mass in the dying hour, instead of repentance and faith during the life. If the Article were meant to condemn the purchase of masses, it is very strange that it makes no allusion to the subject; and if it aimed at the neglect of repentance and faith, it is most extraordinary that neither repentance nor faith is once mentioned in its words. Our Reformers were very plain-spoken men, and it appears from the strength of their language that they meant to be plain-spoken in the Article. It is very strange if, after all, while they appeared to condemn one thing, they were really condemning another, and did it in such unintelligible language that their meaning was not discovered till three hundred years after the Article was written.