On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: 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.
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, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
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.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 The nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Lord’s Supper, is one which has caused massive divisions among Christians and even been a cause for the shedding of blood during the Reformation and years subsequent to it. Article XXVIII continues in the series of Articles defining the sacraments by laying out some basic Anglican understandings of the Eucharist. Even among Anglicans, however, these Articles have found themselves open to interpretation.

This Article is divided into three main clauses. The first section defines what the Eucharist is. The Second explains the error of the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Third provides two clarifications relating to questions arising specifically during the times in which the Article was written.

The first section begins with the affirmation that, “the Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves to one another.” At the time of the Reformation, several different groups had sprung up on the Continent who began to argue that the Sacrament was not a sacrament, but simply an ordinance. Christ had ordered us to memorialize the actions, and so the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a shared agape meal that symbolized unity between Christians. This Article makes it clear that to Anglicans, in the Catholic tradition, we recognize it as more than just a symbolic memorial of unity, “but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” The Sacrament is Christ’s Body by which we are granted eternal life. It is not simply a symbol, but God actually does something (conferring grace) through the Sacrament. There is a limit on this, though, with the final part of this section stating that it is only those that, “rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same” in which case the receiving becomes an anamnesis, a participation in or, as the Article states, “partaking of,” the Body and Blood of Christ in his perfect sacrifice for our sins.

The second section deals with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In brief, Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Christian doctrines with the recently re-discovered works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In particular he sought to use Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory to describe the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In the hylamorphic dualism, everything has a substance and an accident. Most generally, the substance refers to inherently what its nature is, while the accidents are its characteristics. For instance, the substance of a tree is wood while its accidents are that it is tall, has branches, a rough bark and so on. To Artistotle, something’s accidents could change but its substance would not. So again, in the case of the tree, one could take the tree, cut it down and turn it into a desk. Its accidents have changed—it no longer maintains the same characteristics—but its substance remains wood. To St Thomas Aquinas, the explanation of the Eucharist was found in this: the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in the Eucharist, its substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Article XXVIII provides several objections. First, it cannot be proven by “holy Writ,” which is to say it is not clear from Scripture that is what happens, therefore the Church cannot compel someone to believe it by virtue of Article XX. Second, it says that the doctrine of Transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” by which it means it is contrary to the definition of a Sacrament. The basis for that claim is the incarnational nature of sacraments. If a Sacrament is the grace of God working in and through creation, in a way similar to Christ himself being fully God and fully man, apart from sin, then transubstantiation cannot allow for that because the change in substance means that the created order is being eradicated and replaced by Christ’s divinity. Finally, it notes that this doctrine has led to several superstitions throughout the medieval Church.

This leads directly into the last two paragraphs which stem from this rejection of Roman Eucharistic doctrine. Firs it states that by faith, the Eucharist nourishes us in a spiritual manner, it is a meal of grace. Because this section does not explicitly deal with the issue of Real Presence, some have argued that it denies a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, really what it affirms is the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist. That, by faith, as St Paul warns in I Corinthians, those who have worthily prepared themselves and discern the Body of Christ will receive God’s spiritual grace. This section is ultimately affirming that even if the doctrine of Transubstantiation is rejected, it does not mean that you do not receive grace. This was the doctrine of the early Church and even of Rome up until St Thomas Aquinas defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 13th century.

The final section deals with the question of veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. In medieval times, a number of practices became normative in the Western Church as its teachings diverged from the teaching of the united Catholic Church of the first millennium. There were often good intentions with many of these. As a result of the seriousness with which the Eucharist was held, the practice of Eucharistic Adoration or Veneration arose, in which a consecrated host would be lifted up and displayed for all to see. Over time, there arose a common understanding that the veneration was a sufficient replacement for the grace received when actually partaking the Eucharist, only it did not bear the threat of penalty for those who received unwarily. Many Christians began no longer receiving the Eucharist and substituted the veneration instead. The stress in this Article suggests that Christ did not order the Eucharist to be venerated in this manner, a reminder that Christ instituted it for us to partake in it!

All told, the Article outlines a high view of the Sacrament that runs rather counter both to Roman Catholic doctrine as well as later protestant doctrines, though is relatively consistent with some of the earlier views of Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther along with that of the Eastern Churches.