Do the Articles teach a real presence in bread, and do only the worthy eat it with their mouths?

PLEASE NOTE: THE POLL IS FOR ANGLICANS ONLY

The Articles of Religion are one of the foundational documents of Anglicanism, and the relationship of Christ's body to the Eucharist bread is one of the most important topics that it discusses.
At the same time, numerous educated, sincere Anglican scholars have interpreted the Articles in different way. My question in this thread is what do the Articles teach on the question of Christ's body having an objective or direct presence in bread?

When King Charles I republished the Articles in the 17th century, he noted in his Preface that Anglican clergy were in support of the Articles. In order to lend clarity to interpreting the Articles, he announced in his Preface to the Articles that they should be read in their "literal and grammatical sense":


Bearing in mind the importance of the literal, grammatical interpretation of the Articles, let's now turn to two Articles concerning the Eucharist bread, highlighting some key statements:

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper


XXIX. Of (D) the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper


I found some Anglican commentaries on the Articles and will post some excerpts.

I. Let me introduce the Anglican commentaries on the Articles by saying that I found three Anglican theologians who took the Articles to mean that Christ has an objective or direct presence in the bread - Bicknell, Pusey, and Moss. Bicknell and Pusey especially discussed the statement that "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ", while Moss focused on the intent of Bishop Guest, a co-author of the Articles.

Bicknell listed the two views his saw in the Church of England as follows, and he preferred the view of the Real Presence:

The attempts made to state the relation of gift in Holy Communion to the outward elements may be summed up as follows:
(a) The “Receptionist” view. ... Christ is present only in the hearts of the faithful recipients. His coming is connected not with the consecration of the elements but with the reception. This view was taught by Calvin: it was the necessary corollary of his doctrine of grace. If grace is given only to the few elect, it clearly cannot be possible for all to receive it who receive the bread and wine. So its reception must be essentially independent of the reception of the visible elements. The theory has been largely held in the Church of England and was expounded at length by Waterland... It is perfectly tenable by loyal members of the Church of England. There is nothing in the Prayer-Book that definitely contradicts it.
(b) The Real Presence. On this view we hold that we receive through the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ, because... He has brought the elements into a mysterious union with Himself. He has, as it were, taken them up into the fullness of His ascended life and made them the vehicle of imparting that life to His members. Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated elements. ... The Presence is spiritual, not material.
This, in some form, is the teaching of the Roman and Eastern Churches, of Luther, of the Fathers and early liturgies, and has always been held by many within the Church of England.

Click to expand...

Bicknell asks about the phrase "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ":

What is meant by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ?
(i) We turn first to Jn 6. ... Throughout, the thought is of identity of life between the believer and Christ. His “body and blood” primarily represent His perfect humanity. The living Christ bestows upon His members the strength of a perfect human life, offered in sacrifice and triumphant over sin and death, in order to cleanse and refresh our weak and tainted lives. In eating and drinking by a deliberate and voluntary act we take into ourselves something that is outside ourselves, in order that it may become part of ourselves and so our bodies may be strengthened. So in the Holy Communion by a deliberate and voluntary act we receive the life of Christ into our souls that it may become our life.

http://newscriptorium.com/assets/docs/anglican/39-articles/bicknell5.htm

Click to expand...

So for Bicknell, "partaking" of Christ's body means a communion and uniting with that body. Bicknell's definition of "partaking" is reflected later in the Articles when Art. 29 asserts that the unfaithful do not "partake" of Christ's body. As Bicknell writes: "It is universally agreed that the unworthy communicant does not enter into that union with Christ which is the ultimate end of receiving the sacrament."

The Anglican theologian Pusey, a leader of the Oxford movement, taught what he called the "Real Objective Presence". Carol Herringer wrote in his book on Pusey's teachings that:

Pusey explained the addition of the word "Objective" thus: "Finding that the words 'Real Presence' were often understood of what is in fact a "Real Absence", we added the word 'Objective', .... to express that the Life Giving Body.... is, by virtue of the consecration, present without us...."
[Pusey] "condemned... Calvin for having explained away Christ's presence.... In Pusey's view the doctrine of the Real Presence differed from Protestant views in that Christ was present to the worthy and unworthy alike, during as well as after the church service. [Pusey wrote:] "It is not a Presence simply in the soul of the receiver, as 'Christ dwells in our hearts by faith'..."
To explain how the bread and wine could become Christ's body and blood, Pusey and other supporters of the Real Presence posited that Christ had a spiritual body, which was the spiritual manifestation of his resurrected and ascended body, which was in heaven.
[Pusey wrote about the communion elements:"]The Body and Blood of Christ are not present there, after the manner of a body. Yet it would not be true to say, 'This is mere bread'.... But it is true to say, 'This is the Body of Christ'. For this does not deny that it is bread as to its earthly substance; but speaks of it, as to its heavenly."

SOURCE: Edward Bouverie Pusey and the Oxford Movement edited by Rowan Strong, Carol Herringer

Click to expand...

Turning to the Articles' declaration that "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ", Pusey reasoned that this statement entails that bread itself must be united with Christ's body. He cites the Articles' words, noting:

The words of the English Article are indeed so plain that they can hardly receive either illustration or proof. Our Article explains communion by "partaking of;" and says, with the Apostle, that "the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ"... The Apostle [Paul in Corinthians] expresses the way in which we become "partakers of Christ." He says "the bread" ... "is a communion or partaking of the Body of Christ." ... We become partakers of Christ, because we are partakers of His Body and Blood. "According both to the declaration of our Lord", says S. Hilary, "and our faith, it is truly Flesh and truly Blood. And these, received and drunk into us, cause that both we are in Christ, and Christ is in us."... But "the bread" would not be "the communion of the Body of Christ", unless, through it, that Body was conveyed to us.

SOURCE: The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ By Edward Bouverie Pusey

Click to expand...

Anglican theologian Claude Moss contrasts the view of Real Presence with those of Virtualism and Receptionism in his book AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY:

IV. The Real Presence

The result of the change effected by the consecration of the bread and wine is commonly called the REAL PRESENCE... That the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is implied by Scripture and was explicitly taught by the Fathers. ...
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/LVIII.htm

THE HOLY EUCHARIST: SPECULATIVE THEORIES
First there are the theories that agree with the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence.
The most famous of these is Transubstantiation. ...
Consubstantiation is the theory of Luther that the substance of bread and wine is partly changed and partly remains the same.

IV. Virtualism
We now turn to the theories of those who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence - that is, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

VIRTUALISM, the theory held by Cranmer and Waterland, is the theory that what we receive is not the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but its virtue or power. We receive the outward sign and the effect but not the Body and Blood themselves. This theory has been held by many in the Anglican Communion

V. Receptionism (Calvin)

RECEPTIONISM is the theory that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive the bread and wine, but that they are not identified with the bread and wine, which are not changed. It is of minor importance who the minister is, and Calvinists allow a layman to provide at their communion services in exceptional cases.
... it has been widely held in the Anglican Communion since the Reformation, and at some periods it has been completely dominant.
As we have seen, it is not consistent with the word "given" in Article 28... But it has always been regarded since the Reformation as a tenable opinion in the Anglican Communion.

Click to expand...

http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/LIX.htm

To show that the Articles teach an objective presence in bread, Moss notes the intention of Bishop Guest, an advocate of the objective presence in bread, in inserting the word "given" in the Articles:

Article 28 says: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner"...
The author of this article, Bishop Guest, has left it on record that he inserted the word "given" in order to assert that the bread and wine become by consecration the Body and Blood of Christ
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/LVIII.htm

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when I researched this, I wasn't able to confirm this with a quote wherein Bp. Guest specified that he added the word given to teach a presence in bread, only that the word "given" implies an objective presence in the ritual.

An Anglican case study notes that Art. 28 was updated in 1563 to say that Christ's body is given and received spiritually, but that it is received by faith without being "given" by faith. The case study notes that some scholars see this as entailing that the real presence is objectively "given" and present regardless of the communicants' faith:

This change made in the article of 1563 has been interpreted as an affirmation of the great truth that safeguards the doctrine of the real presence (Bicknell, 1963: 399). Bishop Gibson argues that whereas the body of Christ is ‘given, taken and eaten in the Supper’, it is ‘received and eaten’ by faith. The body of Christ is ‘given’ not by faith, but there first, or else it cannot be received (Gibson, 1910: 661). This analysis fits well with Bishop Guest’s argument for a real presence. It also fits well with a view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist based on moderate realism.
http://anglicaneucharistictheology....24_The_Articles_Concerning_the_Eucharist.html

Click to expand...

It is important to note here that Bp. Guest wrote about that these words in Article 28 (ie. that "Christ's body was given, received, and eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean is faith") that it was "of mine own penning". And in connection with his authorship, it's important to note how Rev. Enraght describes Bp. Guest's views on the real presence in bread:

BISHOP GESTE, the author of the 28th Article, says of the Real Presence,—not merely that "Christ’s Body is in the Sacrament," or that It is present "under the form of bread and wine ;" but he says that – "Christ’s Body" "is undoubtedly in the bread," and that "It is presented in the bread (as questionless It is)," and that "It is presented in the accidents of the bread." He says the "Presence of Christ’s Body in the Bread" may be explained by "the personal presence of Christ’s Godhead in His Manhood," and "the presence of the soul in the body."

Click to expand...

http://anglicanhistory.org/england/enraght/realpresence.html

In case you believe that that the Articles do not teach an objective or direct presence in the Eucharistic bread, how would you address the two challenges that these Anglican theologians raise:

1) Since the Articles' Preface instructs us to take them in their "literal and grammatical sense", and since "partake" in the Articles means to unite and commune with (as in Art. 29), how do we avoid taking the statement that "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ" to mean that the physical bread itself is literally united with and "partakes of" Christ's body, just as a faithful communicant "partakes" of it?

That is, if the physical bread lacked Christ's direct presence, then how is the physical bread itself an objective literal communion and "partaking" of Christ's literal body?

2) What role and importance does the intent of the co-author Bp. Guest have in ascertaining the meaning of Article 28 as to the real presence in bread? For example, would you note that Moss has not actually given a direct quote by Bp. Guest saying that he intended to teach an objective presence in bread when he added the word "given"?

Further, since Bp. Guest did believe in an objective presence in bread, and since he authored the declaration that Christ's body "is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith", could we still read that declaration as intended to be a denial of an objective, direct presence in the bread, and if so, how?

CanadianAnglican said:

I voted for the first option. When it talks about receiving in faith, it's meaning the benefits of God's grace, whereas when it speaks of the wicked eating and drinking to their condemnation.

Basically, the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood is an objective reality, but how it is received determines whether or not you participate in it as the Body and Blood to your benefit or receive it to your condemnation.

I can certainly see a more receptionist interpretation being promoted that says that it only becomes the Body and Blood for those who receive in faith, but that seems to ignore the consistent referral the objective nature of the bread and wine as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood in both cases.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, Canadian Anglican! I think that the Anglican scholars in my last message would agree with your view. It will be interesting to see your comments on the Anglican scholars I've found who take a different view.

Peace.

Once one takes a position that the Eucharistic food on the table actually has or is Jesus' body, then the next question is whether that is true for the food that both the worthy and the unworthy physically consume.

II. Let's consider why some Anglicans might consider the Articles to teach that the bread that the unworthy swallow does objectively contain Jesus' presence.

In Article 29, it says that the unworthy "carnally and visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, [and] do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." Is this not a statement that the unworthy carnally press the Body with their teeth? The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a ritual involving Christ's body in bread, and so when the press the Sacrament with their teeth, are they not by extension pressing Christ's body with their teeth?

One potential objection I see to the idea that eating the Sacrament necessarily entails a physical eating of Jesus' body is that an Anglican writer may not necessarily equate the Sacrament with the Body. Thus, perhaps Article 29 does not equate the two and does not imply that the unworthy eat the body.

For example, Moss writes:

V. Different Uses of the Word "Sacrament"

The word sacrament is applied to the Eucharist in different senses. It may mean the outward visible sign
as when Article 29, quoting St. Augustine, calls the bread and wine "the sign or sacrament of so great a thing".
It may mean the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Or it may mean both together as when the Lord's Supper is defined in the Church Catechism as having two parts. (In fact, it has three, as we have seen.) It is important that the sense in which the word is being used should always be explained.

Click to expand...

http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/LVIII.htm

Anglican John Ellis also distinguished the body from the Sacrament in his Defense of the Articles. There Ellis asserts that: "it is a Contradiction to say, that one and the same Body should be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament at the same time." (http://www.anglican.net/works/john-ellis-defensio-fidei-defence-thirty-nine-articles)

In order to address Article 29's denial that the unworthy partake of Christ's body, Fr. Jonathan takes the view that Article 29 teaches that both the worthy and unworthy eat the body with their mouths, but that only the worthy "partake" in the sense of achieving spiritual communion:

Those who are evil or who lack faith are not partakers of Christ even though they do receive Christ’s Body and Blood. Rather, by receiving the Sacrament, they receive condemnation, which would be a strange result if all they were doing was munching on a light snack.

Click to expand...

Do you see a potential objection to Fr. Jonathan's assertion that the unworthy "do receive Christ's body", since Article 28 says that it is "insomuch 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"? Does this part of Article 28 make worthiness a precondition for even receiving a piece of bread that partakes of Christ's body?

In order to address the title of Article 29 that the unworthy do not eat Christ's body, Fr. Jonathan proposes that the title of Article 29 is only denying that they have spiritual eating, not denying that they chew bread with the real presence:

you ask what is meant by “eat,” which takes on a different meaning in the title than in the body of the article and which is contingent on that other phrase, “in the use of.” In the article itself, we’re told that the wicked are condemned because they “eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.” So they eat, but they don’t partake. In the title, it’s just the opposite. They don’t eat in the fullest sense of the word – they don’t receive the nourishment or benefits – because they are merely going through the motions, not approaching with faith. This, as you say, would be to make “eat” in this context synonymous with “partake” in the previous article, even though in the body of Article XXIX eat will not mean “partake.”

Click to expand...

A critical question I see for Fr. Jonathan would ask how he knows that "eating in the use of the Lord's Supper" only refers to "spiritual eating"? After all, "eating in the use of the Lord's Supper" can be both with the mouth and with faith.
Likewise, when he reads in the body of the Article 29 that the wicked do eat the "Sacrament" of the Body, how does he know that it means that the wicked do eat the body itself, if the "Sacrament" or ritual could be conceived as distinct from the Body itself?

Rev. Hassert takes the same view as Fr. Jonathan and points to Thomas Aquinas' teaching that the unworthy physically eat the body with their mouths but do not perform spiritual eating, which he finds to be the same as the Articles' teaching:

we must read the content of the Article itself, and take note that... this same quote and manner of speaking is used by Saint Thomas Aquinas... Let us examine the writings of Aquinas and determine how he can state that the wicked "eat the Sacrament" and yet "eat not."

...in De Sacramento Altaris, cap. XVII., Aquinas writes that:

"The first mode of eating the Body of Christ is Sacramental only, which is the way wicked Christians eat it, because they, receiving (sumentes) the venerable Body into mouths polluted by mortal sin, close their hearts with their unclean and hard sins, as with mire and stone, against the effect which conies from the influence of His virtue and goodness. . . These eat, and yet they do not eat. They eat because they receive (sumunt) sacramentally the Body of the Lord, but, nevertheless, they eat not, because the spiritual virtue, that is, the salvation of the soul they do not partake (non percipiunt). . . .​

Aquinas mentions two manners of "eating" as well, as do other sacramental theologians.

Click to expand...

anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2007/01/articles-of-religion-of-church-of.html

One of the critical questions that arises regarding Rev. hassert's explanation is that while it is clear that Aquinas taught that the unworthy received the Body into their mouths and yet do not eat in a spiritual sense, where do the Articles clearly express that the unworthy do receive the Body into their mouths?

The Anglican theologian Bicknell writes similarly on Article 29:

“The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.”
Just as Christ’s body and blood are present without being made subject to space and movement, so when we eat and drink them they are not made subject to any physical process. We can no more eat and drink them physically than we can eat bread and butter by faith.
...
Article XXIX, “Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.” The phrase “eat the body” clearly refers to the spiritual eating spoken of in Article XXVIII.
...
The wicked and the faithful alike receive the elements that have been brought into union with the body and blood of Christ. Neither wicked nor faithful carnally and visibly press with their teeth more than the bread and wine. But only the faithful receive the body and blood of Christ, since only they possess that faith which is the indispensable means of receiving them. This Article does not in any way deny the “real presence”, it only rules out any carnal view of it.
http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/assets/docs/anglican/39-articles/bicknell5.htm

Click to expand...

Bicknell's idea is that whenever Articles 28 and 29 speak of "eating" Christ's body, they only ever refer to a spiritual eating because it's impossible to press Jesus' body with one's teeth. Bicknell concludes that when the Articles deny that the unworthy "eat" the body, the Articles only deny that the unworthy "spiritually eat" it, even though Bicknell asserts that they swallow consecrated elements with Jesus' presence in them.

A critical question that arises about Bicknell's proposal is:
If Jesus' body is united directly to the physical bread and the physical bread is swallowed, why doesn't that mean that the body united to the physical bread has also passed to the belly of the communicant? Instead of being in/under bread on a plate, hasn't it gone in/under bread in a belly, and doesn't that practically amount to swallowing Jesus' body?

For those who accept a real objective presence in bread but disagree that the unworthy swallow bread with that presence, my question to you is:

How exactly do you conceive of the unfaithful failing to swallow bread with the real presence during a sacrament that you believe contains the real presence in bread?
For example, when Jesus says "Take, eat, this is my body", what happens to His body in the bread that the unworthy take and swallow? Does Jesus secretly remove himself from the bread pieces of the unworthy before they put it in their mouths?

III. Why some Anglicans might think that the Articles teach an Objective Presence in bread but that only the worthy succeed in swallowing bread with that presence

In my research on the Articles, I found a modern Protestant scholar (an Anglican I think) who took the view that the Articles teach a real, objective presence in bread but that this is only true for the bread that the worthy eat. In his understanding of the Articles, the bread that the unworthy eat lacks the body and they do not swallow bread with the presence.

One of the earliest Anglican commentaries, Thomas Rodgers' 1586 "The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England", quotes Article 29 to the effect that the wicked do not eat the body and writes:

The adversaries of this doctrine are The Ubiquitaries, both Lutheran and popish; they saying the very body of Christ, at the Lord's supper, is eaten as well of the wicked as of the godly; these affirming, that all communicants, bad and good, do eat the very and natural body of Christ Jesus; they saying that the true and real body of Christ, in, with, under the bread and wine, may be eaten, chewed, and digested, even of Turks, which never were of the Church...

Click to expand...

For those who consider the Articles as teaching a real presence in bread that both the worthy and unworthy swallow, my question for you is how you interpret the limitation in the declaration that it is:
"insomuch 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."

In other words, if the bread is a partaking of Christ to the extent that the faithful receive the Sacrament, then how is that bread is a partaking of Christ for the unfaithful too? Doesn't the phrase "insomuch" limit the bread's partaking in Christ to the worthy? And where else but this statement in Art 28 about the reception by the faithful do the Articles assert a presence in the bread itself?

IV. Why some Anglican theologians interpret the Articles as rejecting a Real Presence directly or objectively in the bread itself

Those who believe that the Articles reject an objective presence in the bread itself often focus on their declaration that Christ's body is given, received, and eaten "only after a heavenly and spiritual manner" and that "the mean" (singular) of eating and receiving "is faith".

One example is Rodgers' 1586 commentary, which being contemporary with the era of the Articles is a helpful guide to understanding them. Rodgers' commentary reads into Article 28 the following proposition: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual, not after a carnal sort". Rodgers wrote that this teaching stood in opposition to some other Christians' views at the time, noting:

Jointly we withstand the adversaries thereof whosoever... The Synusiasts or Ubiquitaries [Rodger's name for Lutherans], which think the body of Christ so is present in the supper, as his said body, with bread and wine, by one and the same mouth, at one and the same time, of all and every communicant, is eaten corporally and received into the belly.

Click to expand...

A report by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney cites the Bishop of North Sydney as also rejecting the real presence in bread based on the concept that the eating is in a heavenly, spiritual manner, as opposed to eating in a physical manner on earth:

“Everyone is excited about moving forward as brothers and sisters in Christ. However there was also a recognition that there are differences over our understanding of the Holy Communion. The Lutheran position is that Christ’s presence in Holy Communion is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine while the Anglican position understands Christ’s body is in heaven and that we eat and drink after a ‘heavenly and spiritual manner’” (Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney, 2001b: 2)​

For Davies it seems that there can be no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in the sense that Christ’s body is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine. He adopts what is essentially a cranmerian position, arguing for the presence of Christ’s body in heaven alone in an empirical sense, without any suggestion of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the elements in a mystical or spiritual, but nonetheless real sense. It is this empirical separation of the body of Christ in heaven from the bread and wine of the Eucharist that expresses an underlying nominalism in the eucharistic theology of Davies and in many Anglicans within the Diocese of Sydney and explains why liturgical worship seems to be less valued than what is seen to be other more essential aspects, such as the words of Scripture and the preaching of Scripture.
http://anglicaneucharistictheology....es/2005/12/28_Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney.html

Click to expand...

Another Anglican case study finds that the Anglican theologian Parsons rejects the concept of a real presence in bread that is physically eaten because according to the Articles, the mean of eating Christ's body is faith:

In chapter 16 entitled The Prayer of Humble Access, Parsons considers what is meant by ‘eating and drinking by faith’. He states clearly that “the Bread of Life is there [in the Holy Communion] for all to receive, as the Word of Life is there for all to hear” (Parsons, 1961: 95) yet for Parsons it is only there by faith. He quotes from Article XXVIII which states that “the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith” to support his argument.

Click to expand...

http://anglicaneucharistictheology....rsons1907-1997Anglican_Priest_and_Author.html

An excerpt from The Works of the Rt. Rev. Charles C. Grafton (Volume 7) explains that "heavenly and spiritual" eating means eating that does not occur in the natural world, by which he rejects that Christ's body is in/with/under the form of bread:

It would greatly aid concord amongst Churchmen of all schools if they would realize what these words "heavenly and spiritual" signify.
They mean in their deepest, fullest sense that the whole transaction of the Eucharist takes place in the Kingdom of Heaven and by the power of the Holy Spirit. The whole transaction is done—not in the material, natural world, but in the spiritual organism or Kingdom of Christ. Every person and thing and act and word connected with the Oblation, Consecration, Reception belongs to this spiritual Kingdom and makes the whole transaction, from first to last, in all its processes and gift, a divinely spiritual one....

The Gift cannot properly be assented to be "under" or "in" or "below" or "above," or by any like terms which necessarily denote locality.

Click to expand...

The Anglican theologian Bennett used the word "spiritual manner" in a similar way, declaring:
"The Bread and Wine signifying, not being in reality, but signifying in a spiritual manner, the Body and Blood of the Saviour of the World."
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/bennett/bio/03.html

Next let's look at the issue of the authors' understanding of the text. Rev. Henry Ryder writes in his Essays (published 1911) that Bp. Guest, one of the authors of Art. 28, objected to Article 29 as denying the real presence in bread:

Mr. Hodges, in his monograph, Bishop Guest and Articles XXVIII. and XXIX. (p. 34), admits that in Article XXIX. " the Elizabethan Reformers condemned by implication the doctrine of a Real (objective) Presence, and that thus the insertion of Article XXIX. was tantamount to a rejection of Article XXVIII., in the sense attached to it by Guest ".

Guest recognised as much, and denounced Article XXIX. as "contrary to Scripture and the doctrine of the Fathers," in a third letter to Cecil early in May, 1571, and yet on the llth of this same month did not hesitate to affix his signature thereto.

Click to expand...

Bp. Gibson wrote the same thing about Bp. Guest's understanding of Article 29:

“So much is practically confessed by Bishop Guest, the author of the clause, in a remarkable letter addressed to Cecil in 1571. Guest was very anxious that Article 29, ‘Impii non manducant’, which had been withdrawn before publication in 1563 should not now be restored, or receive any sanction ‘because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and the Fathers’; and in order to make the twenty-eighth article harmonize with the view that the wicked do partake of the body, though not fruitfully, he suggested that the word ‘profitably’ should be inserted, and that the words should run, ‘the mean whereby the body of Christ is profitably received and eaten in the Supper is faith’. The article was, however, left untouched, and the twenty-ninth was, against his wish, inserted

SOURCE: Gibsons's book, excerpted at:
https://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-christmas-articles/

Click to expand...

Anglican theologian T.P. Boultbee, principal of the London College of Divinity, argued that the Articles taught a "spiritual presence" and denied a "corporal presence" or real presence in bread because the English Church was part of a larger European movement against those doctrines, and because Article 29 says that only the faithful actually partake of the Eucharist. He writes on the broader Christian history:

III. The Spiritual Presence.
German writers acknowledged two main divisions in Protestant Christianity, the Lutheran and the Reformed... From the sixteenth century [the German scholar Mosheim] groups together under the latter name the Swiss, Belgic, French, English, and Scotch Churches, the dividing line being manifestly their adherence to the spiritual as against the corporal presence. The reception of this doctrine in the English Church was due in the first place to Ridley, who satisfied himself by independent historical and scriptural enquiry as to its antiquity and truth By his influence Cranmer was led to study, and ultimately to adopt, the same opinion.
...
With these views the confessions of the principal Reformed Churches the Swiss, Dutch, Scotch Presbyterian, and the Church of England will be found to be in substantial accordance. For example, the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland thus sets forth the doctrine of the presence :

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all benefits of his death :​

Click to expand...

Turning to words in the Articles directly, Boultbee writes:

The Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken, but only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. 1 The natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here. 1 Nor is there any corporal presence of Christ s natural Flesh and Blood.

This Article [29] is therefore a great difficulty with those who maintain a real objective presence in or with the consecrated elements. If the body of Christ is in anywise brought into union with the matter of the elements themselves by the act of consecration, then in some sense all who partake of them must be partakers of Christ. So not only the Catechism of the Council of Trent,- but most of those who maintain a
corporal presence, assert.

Click to expand...

That is, Boultbee sees in the reference to taking the body only in a heavenly manner to refer to the idea that Christ's body is only in heaven, not on earth. The underlined words above ("...in Heaven, and not here") match those below in the 1662 BCP:

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. For... 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."

Click to expand...

https://archive.org/stream/thirtyninearticl00bouluoft/thirtyninearticl00bouluoft_djvu.txt

This brings up a final argument against the Articles teaching the real presence in bread. Namely, that by banning lifting up, reserving, and adoring the host, one of the rationales is that this bread does not actually have Jesus' body in it. Thus, it is itself only bread when outside the ceremony. And lacking an objective presence and being only a ritual vehicle or instrument for communion, it is not something that to be reserved outside the mass or adored like Christ-God Himself would be.

For those who disagree with these theologians and find that the Articles do teach an objective presence directly in the bread itself, I would ask:

1) If communicants use their physical mouths to chew bread with Jesus' body in it, would that mean that there is a major physical aspect to their eating of Jesus' body? If so, wouldn't their eating and receiving of Jesus' body be performed not only spiritually but also earthly and physically? How should one then interpret the teaching that Christ's body is received and eaten only in a heavenly and spiritual manner?

2) If communicants chew and swallow the bread with Jesus' body in it and the bread with Jesus' body goes to their belly, doesn't that practically amount to swallowing Jesus' body?

3) If communicants chew and eat bread with Jesus' body in it with their mouths, how is "the mean" (singular) for receiving and eating Jesus' body faith? Wouldn't chewing with the mouth also be a mean to achieve this, and not only faith?

4) What importance should we give to the fact that the theologians Rodgers, Guest, and Cheyney, living in the time of the Articles' creation, considered the Articles to be denying the real presence in bread?

5) What do you think of Boultbee's idea that the English Church was part of a larger camp in Christian thought on the Eucharistic presence that included the Reformed Churches, and his comparison of the Articles to a Reformed Confession on the question of the presence in bread?

6) If Christ's body is actually objectively in the bread, what is the conceivable problem with preserving the host, lifting it up, or adoring it? Wouldn't it be reasonable to preserve bread with Jesus' body in it for later occasions and needs that might arise? In the New Testament, people bowed before Jesus, so what would be the problem with bowing before and adoring Jesus' actual body?

Mockingbird0 said:

Two pitfalls to avoid:

Don't speak of an "objective" presence of Christ in the Housel. Our Lord is not an object in the Eucharist, he is its subject.

Click to expand...

Thanks for writing back, Mockingbird.
When people say that the Lord's presence is objective, they don't mean it in a sense of subject-verb-object, or that the Lord is being forced into a piece of bread by other people.

They mean that His presence in the bread is objectively factual, independent of outsiders' beliefs. That is, the presence is not arbitrary and subjective or only exists in the mind and heart of the beholder. This is why Canadian Anglican writes above about "the objective nature of the bread and wine as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood".

You write: "I suspect that Anglicans would probably agree in part or in whole with the English Nonjurors".
The passage that you cited basically seems to take the position that they find "no sufficient ground from Scripture or tradition to determine the manner of it, [and] are for leaving it indefinite and undetermined".

That seems to be the position of NT Wright too.

On the other hand, how should I address the fact that the numerous Anglican commentaries I found practically all state that the Articles of Religion take one position or the other on the question of the real presence of the Body being itself directly in bread?

Philip_B said:

Dom Gregory Dix, in chapter 9 of the Shape of the Liturgy says

The eucharist is an action - 'do this' - with a particular meaning given to it by Our Lord himself - 'for the anamnesis of me'. The action is performed by the rite as a whole, the meaning is stated by the eucharistic prayer​

The chapter is entitled 'The Meaning of the Eucharist'. Dix has been extremely influential in the 20th Century for Anglican thought and practice, and especially liturgical practice.

It is this understanding of anamnesis that I thinks brings Anglicans closer to the Orthodox position of the one table set in heaven and on earth at the doorway. Here in time and space we encounter all that is beyond time and space.

I was going to be a good Anglican and not vote, however I relented and went for option 7, as anything else seemed to limiting.

Click to expand...

Hello, Philip.
The passage that you quoted doesnt explain anamnesis as a single table set in heaven and on earth.
But you are right that the E. Orthodox teach that the two meals are united through time and that the Last Supper is directly made present.

Still, making present the meal doesn't clarify to me whether Jesus is made present in bread.

Paidiske said:

Don't underestimate the motivating power of a personal agenda.

Click to expand...

I think it's not a coincidence that many Anglican scholars reach conclusions that match their personal views on the presence.

But if educated Anglican scholars are collectivrly very divided on this queston of what the Articles teach, maybe the Articles are not clear or consistent about this?

FireDragon76 said:

If I really wanted to circumscribe a mystery, I would talk about what the mystery was not. Being charitable, maybe the authors were not that philosophically sophisticated (it's possible, at least I'd like to believe we have made some progress in the clear use of language in the centuries). For this reason I find referring to the 39 Articles to talk about Eucharistic doctrine very frustrating indeed. What I see doesn't seem to circumscribe mystery so much as provide justification for any Eucharistic theology higher than memorialism and lower than transubstantiation.

The objective presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is critical for the Lutheran understanding of good Evangelical preaching and teaching, it really isn't a case of metaphysical speculation on Christ's ubiquity (though some Lutherans certainly did so due to rationalistic tendencies and polemics with Reformed Christians). Without it, the sacrament is not an unconditional promise for me. If it's conditioned on my faith at all, then it becomes something I can actually doubt, which in Luther-land is never a good thing. Then we are left with more of a Reformed approach where I am expected to look within myself and try to discern faith via my feelings or perceptions. It takes the focus away from a justifying God and turns it inwards towards my own experience of God. It also makes faith disembodied, which as far as I'm concerned, is not a good thing.

Now, I'd be the first to say a teaching of the objectivity of the sacraments doesn't tie up all loose ends and eliminate all spiritual struggle, it certainly did not for Luther. But making the Lord's Supper a potential struggle of faith doesn't seem like a good thing if we want to have sacraments have any meaningful place in the Christian life (hence some Presbyterians in the US, influenced by pietism, being known derisively as "wet-baby Baptists").

I found it very frustrating to go to a church where an essentially receptionist or memorialist view of the sacrament was taught, if at all. Because there was a lot of times that I would hear a sermon that left me feeling disheartened, "Where is God for me, then?" But even in a Lutheran church, even if I hear a bad sermon, I have a personal sermon in a sacrament that never fails, "This is the true Body of Christ given for you".

I think a great many Anglicans either assume the sacrament is chiefly about bringing the things Christ has done to memory, or they go the Anglo-Catholic route and believe there is an objective presence that is there whether or not you believe it is, the middle ground is very thin indeed. And I think that goes back to the comment I made earlier on Presbyterian pietism.

Click to expand...

Fire Dragon,
The bishops who wrote and voted on the Articles were sophisticated for their time, but they were divided on the real presence in bread. Bps Guest and Cheyney believed in the real presence, but they had opponents who didnt. Take for example the debate overy the black rubric.

It sounds like you are saying that the Lutheran view is better bc it makes Christ's presence an objective fact, whereas you find Receptionism weaker bc it means Jesus is only there if you think he is, which sounds weaker and arbitrary and more whimsical to you.

You write: "I think a great many Anglicans either assume the sacrament is chiefly about bringing the things Christ has done to memory,".
By the way, as Philip has told me before, in early Christian thinking, remembering sacramentally was more than just mentally thinking back to an earlier time.

Albion said:

It's right there in the Article about the Lord's Supper, FD. And it's also in the BCP's order for Holy Communion itself.

Click to expand...

Dear Albion,
If you believe that the Articles teach that Christ's body itself is not directly in the Eucharist bread, how do you answer the two questions I posed at the end of the second letter I wrote in this thread, the letter that began:

《《 I. Let me introduce the Anglican commentaries on the Articles by saying that I found three Anglican theologians who took the Articles to mean that Christ has an objective or direct presence in the bread - Bicknell, Pusey, and Moss.》》

And can you please remind me where exactly does the BCP say clearly that Jesus' body is not actually or objectively in the bread? The 1979 BCP is not part of the Church of England, only the Episcopal Church USA, so do you know of the English BCPs teaching this, minus the Black Rubric?