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 it 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.
by Drew Nathaniel Keane
The Articles of Religion of the Church of England reached their final form (in English) in 1571 and were approved by Convocation, Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth. Convocation had consented to a slightly different text in 1563 (from which the authorized Latin text of the Articles dates). You will find the 1571 English text (with updated spelling) in the 1662 prayer book.
In the Edwardine edition of the Articles (the Forty-Two Articles, of which this was the XXIXth) written (primarily) by Cranmer in 1552, the second and third paragraphs read:
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and has given occasion to many superstitions.
Forasmuch as the truth of man’s nature requires that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place, the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places. Because (as Holy Scripture does teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not, either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.[1]
The motivation for the revision seems to have been strategic not doctrinal. The explanation spelled out there is implied by Articles II and IV,[2] but the revised explanation draws instead from what is implied in Article XXV; namely, if the signs of bread and wine cease to be present in substance but only seem to be present, then the very nature of a sacrament is contradicted, since it requires both sign and signified. This revision would make the Article less offensive to a Lutheran understanding; though, even in its revised form, it pushes against the Lutheran view. Article XXIX was completely suppressed until 1571, not because the Elizabethan Bishops disbelieved it, but because of its offensiveness to Lutherans. From 1555 Lutheranism enjoyed legal protection within the Holy Roman Empire (a status Calvinism did not obtain until 1648) and the Pope could not excommunicate the Lutheran princes without provoking the Emperor. Elizabeth used this to her advantage, successfully avoiding excommunication until 1570; the papal bull excommunicated Elizabeth for embracing “the impious constitutions and atrocious mysteries of Calvin” (qtd. from Lindsay, 1913, p. 415).
Article XXVIII consists of four parts, divided into four paragraphs: (1) a statement or description of what the Lord’s Supper is; (2) a rejection of the Roman explanation of the mode of communion with Christ in the sacrament; (3) a statement of the mode of communion with Christ in the sacrament; (4) a corollary prohibition.
As I explore these paragraphs, I turn to four English divines as conversation partners: Thomas Rogers, Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, William Beveridge, Bishop of St. Asaph, and Harold Browne, Bishop of Winchester. Each of them wrote a highly-regarded Exposition of the Articles: Rogers (1607) represents the Elizabethan era, Burnet (1699) and Beveridge (1716) both represent the post-Restoration but different parties: one is a Latitudinarian, Arminian, and Whig, while the other a High-churchman, Reformed, and a Tory. Finally Browne (1860) represents the 19th Century after the Tractarian movement. A conesus is visible; nevertheless, none of them merely repeats a settled position. Each engages in original investigation of the scriptures and fathers (not as independent authorities, but to consider how the fathers interpreted scripture) in order to test the soundness and explore the meaning of the Articles.
First Paragraph
The article begins with a description: the Lord’s Supper is a sign of Christian unity in charity but not only that; it is, moreover, a means of partaking in Christ’s body and blood. This description echoes Article XXV: sacraments are not only “badges or tokens” (though they are that) but “sure witnesses,” “effectual signs,” and, through their due use, God uses them to work within us. This explanation aligns with Article VII of the Consensus Tigurinus:
The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life; in short, to be contracts binding us to this. But among other ends the principal one is, that God may, by means of them, testify, represent, and seal his grace to us. (Trans. by Henry Beveridge)
The whole Article aligns with the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus or Zurich Accord drawn up by Calvin in consultation with Bullinger, representing the Zwinglian or Zurich party among the Swiss churches. The Consensus, twenty-six articles on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, obtained official approval by most of the Swiss churches and earned the respect of Melanchthon, who agreed to stop writing against the Reformed doctrine after reading it. The Consensus Tigurinus and English Articles share the aim of fostering greater unity among Protestants, a theme that Rogers (1607) highlights throughout his commentary on the Articles.
The word “partaking” in the English edition of the Articles corresponds to communicatio in the Latin edition. Bishop Beveridge (1716) notes that the English word “partaking” and “communion” both answer to the Greek κοινωνία from I Corinthians 10:16; though in a footnote, he points to Chysostom’s Homily XXIV, which distinguishes the intimacy of κοινωνία from μετέχω, which commonly referred to partaking, participation, or sharing in a meal (p. 490).
The Article places emphasis on the activity of receiving: those who receive aright, with faith, partake of Christ’s body and blood by means of eating and drinking the consecrated bread and wine. This active emphasis echoes the end of Article XXV, “in such only as worthily receive the [sacraments], they have a wholesome effect or operation” and is reiterated in the third paragraph of Article XXVIII.
The focus does not fall on the bread and wine, but on the act of receiving them with faith. Christ is present “after an heavenly and spiritual manner” to the faithful as they participate in the sacrament. The sacrament as such, then, is not simply the consecrated objects, not the signs only, but an activity involving the signs. As Bucer wrote to Cranmer in his Censura of the first edition of the prayer book, “Sacraments exist in their use, they are actions, and apart from this use, as with the bread and wine so also with the water, they remain what the Lord has determined that all bread and wine and water shall be” (qtd. From Amos, 2000, p. 121). The faithful actions correspond to the verba Domini – the giving, taking, and eating of the bread and cup in remembrance of Christ’s death – and facilities communion with Christ, which results in (per Article XXV) the animation and strengthening of faith, the means of communion.
The structure of the 1552 Communion (retained in 1559, 1604, and 1662) expresses this emphasis by placing the act of reception immediately after the Words of Institution. As the verba Domini are spoken, the faithful obey them, without any intervening commentary or supplication. This design reflects the Augustinian insight that sacraments are verba visibilia, the divine Word made visible in action.
The Second Paragraph
Transubstantiation is next defined and four reasons are given for its rejection. First, the scriptures do not teach it; second, it conflicts with what scripture does teach; third, it defies the definition of a sacrament; fourth it generates superstition.
The definition, “the change of the substance,” simply translates the Latin word. First used in the 12th Century, Lateran IV defined it as an article of faith in 1215 (in Canon I). The philosophical category, substance, essence, or being (derived from Platonic and Aristotelian discussion of οὐσίαι [ousia]) is not found in scripture; οὐσίαι is used in the NT only in the common sense of property or worldly goods. The scriptures say nothing of the οὐσίαι of the bread and wine used for the Communion ritual. Beveridge observes, “this doctrine…cannot be proved from the holy Scriptures, is plain from the insufficiency of those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution” (p. 495). Burnet and Browne likewise examine these passages. Though not found in scripture, the application of Article VI leads to another question question: does it follow from or conflict with what scripture reveals?
The second, more significant objection is that it is “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” Rogers, Buret, Beveridge, and Browne all devote many pages to substantiating this claim (demonstrating the seriousness with which they held to Article VI). They all survey Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:2 (Jesus refers to the contents of the cup he had blessed as “the fruit of the vine,” a falsehood if the substance of wine was no longer present); Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:14 (prohibition on drinking blood); Acts 3:21 (Jesus will remain in heaven until his second coming); I Corinthians 11:20 (Paul says the eating of the bread – not the body – exhibits Christ’s death until he comes, indicating he has not yet).
Third, transubstantiation conflicts with the Augustinian definition of a sacrament: an outward and visible sign that conveys an inward and spiritual grace (reflected in Article XXV). This definition was accepted by Romans and Protestants. A sacrament is a sign that, when duly used, exhibits a spiritual grace. Transubstantiation teaches that the signs cease to be substantially present but only appear to be present.
Fourth, transubstantiation generates superstitions. The trouble with mistaken beliefs is not simply the beliefs – for perfect knowledge is impossible in this life – the trouble lies in the dangerous practices that arise from them. Burnett argues:
We can very well bear with some opinions, that we think ill grounded, as long as they are only matters of opinion, and have no influence neither on men’s morals nor their worship…. and therefore we think that neither consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, how ill grounded sever we take both to be, ought to dissolve the union and communion of churches: but it is quite another thing, if under either of these opinions an adoration of the elements is taught and practiced.
This reasoning aligns with the teaching of the Homily Against Strife and Contention (1547); the aim of the disciple of Christ ought to be living obediently, not victory in theological disputes. The sort of superstitions indicated here are mentioned more specifically in the last paragraph of the Article, which prohibits them. To these four arguments, Rogers adds the agreement of all the Protestant Churches, while Bishops Burnet, Beveridge, and Browne survey patristic sources.
The Third Paragraph
Having rejected transubstantiation, paragraph three returns to a positive statement of the manner by which communion or participation in Christ is facilitated. Emphasis falls on the word “only.” The mechanism that activates this spiritual giving, taking, and eating of the Body of Christ is faith. This statement opposes not only transubstantiation but consubstantiation. Those who participate in the ritual without faith do not interact with Christ at all. The Broken Body and Shed Blood are not present in, with, or under the creatures of bread and wine, but only present to, with, and in the faithful in the act of reception. As for Hooker “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament (i.e., in the elements); but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament” (Lawes V.xvii.6) – a passage Browne approvingly cites. Similarly Burnet says “they are a sacrament only as they are distributed and received” (p. 447). This teaching aligns with Article XXV:
And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves Damnation, as St. Paul saith.
Article XXIX spells out the logical implication:
The wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith, altho’ they do carnally & visibly press with their Teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body & 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.
Though not explicitly so, by implication Articles XXV, XXVIII, and XXIX together with II and IV also exclude a localized, objective presence in the signs. The rubric concerning kneeling found at the end of the Communion liturgy (first in 1552, excluded in 1559 to avoid offense to Lutherans, restored in 1662) makes this implication explicit:
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.
The Fourth Paragraph
Finally, Article XXVIII, proscribes the superstitious practices that follow from transubstantiation: “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was not by Christ’s Ordinance Reserved, Carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” This reiterates the prohibition already made in Article XXV: “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be Carried about, but that we should duly use them.”
Rogers explains “the Lord’s supper was ordained that the bread should only be broken, and eaten, the cup should only be given, and drunken; and all this done in remembrance of Christ” (p. 290); therefore, to do otherwise is misuse and disobedience. Rogers continues,
the Papists abuse the holy sacrament…. hence the adoration of the bread, even as God himself… hence the carrying about, in pompous procession, of the wafer-god; and hence the popish feast called Corpus Christi day. The right consideration hereof hath moved all the churches reformed to shew their detestation hereof, both by their sermons and writings” (p. 286).
Burnet agrees with Rogers and the Protestant consensus, calling such practices “gross idolatry” (p. 445). Like Rogers he reasons, “consuming the elements is a part of the institution” (p. 447). Though Rogers is stirred up with indignation of an Elijah, the Restoration Bishop gives generous space to a counterargument: “since the declared object of worship is Jesus Christ, believed to be there present, then, whether he is present or not, the worship terminates in him.” (p. 445). To this counter the Bishop replies, first, “we do not pretend to determine how far this may be pardoned by God; whose mercies are infinite, and who does certainly consider chiefly the hearts of his creatures, and is merciful to their infirmities, and to such errors as arise out of their weakness, their hearts being sincere before him” (p. 446); second, by this argument all idolatry is excused, since those who practice it sincerely believe their worship is directed to deity; yet the scriptures do not excuse idolatry on account of sincerity. He acknowledges it is “a sin of ignorance” rather than viciousness, but “there being no command for it [in the scriptures], no hint given about it, nor any insinuation given of any such practice in the beginnings of Christianity.” Regarding elevation Burnet comments, “there is not a word of it in the gospel; nor is it mentioned by St. Paul: neither Justin Martyr nor Cyril of Jerusalem speak of it; there is nothing concerning it neither in the Constitutions, nor in the Areopagite. In those first ages all the elevation that is spoken of is, the lifting up of their hearts to God” (p. 448).
Beveridge advances three arguments against these “sad superstitions, yea, transgressions” (p. 501). First, like Rogers and Burnet, he observes these practices defy the verba Domini — “[n]ot take and reserve it, not take and carry it about, not take and worship it, but ‘take and eat” (p. 510). Second, they overthrow the nature of a sacrament, an argument not made by either Rogers or Burnet. This argument differs from that made in the second paragraph, which concerns the elimination of the sign; here Beveridge focuses instead on the loss of correspondence between sign and signified. The Bishop explains,
according to Augustine’s rule, ‘If sacraments have not a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they are no sacraments at all.’ Now, wherein is there any resemblance betwixt the body of Christ and bread, but only in the eating? Even because the one received by faith nourisheth and preserveth the spiritual, as the other received into the stomach doth the natural life. The bread itself hath no resemblance at all of his body, neither hath the bread, as reserved, or carried about, or worshipped, any such resemblance: all the resemblance it hath is in its feeding the body as Christ doth the soul. Christ is the nourishment of our souls, as bread is the nourishment of our bodies; and therefore doth he sometimes call his body bread, and at other times bread his body (ibid).
His third line of argument is a survey of patristic arguments against reservation. Then, like Burnet, though not at so great length, he responds to a counterargument:
I wish them to consider what Gregory Nyssen long ago said, ‘He that worshippeth a creature, though he do it in the name of Christ, is an idolater, giving the name of Christ to an idol.’ And therefore, let them not be angry at us for concluding them to be idolaters… and for asserting that the sacrament ought not to be reserved, carried about, or worshipped. (p. 512-513).
More than a century later, Browne gives far less space to the prohibition than do the earlier divines; indeed, he relegates it to a brief footnote at the end of his discussion of this Article. Nevertheless, he agrees the practices should be rejected because they are based on an erroneous doctrine (transubstantiation), lack biblical warrant, and are unknown to the early church.
The Homily Against Strife and Contention (from the
First Book of Homilies, 1547) urges, “Let us read the Scripture, that by
reading thereof, we may be made the better livers, rather than the more
contentious disputers.” The same aim animates the Articles. Rather than a
tangle of theological niceties, they are written in plain, direct language and
leave aside all sorts of questions debated by divines Roman, Lutheran, and
Reformed. Not “bind heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s
shoulders” (Matt. 23:4) nor “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which
minister questions, rather than godly edifying” (I Tim. 1:4), rather, the
Articles seek after that which is prayed for in the Communion liturgy, that the
Church may be filled with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord, that all who
confess the name of Christ may agree in the truth of God’s holy Word and live
in unity and godly love. In other words, the articles are an instrument both of
reform and of comprehension. The aim is ultimately pastoral, not polemical. Article
XXVIII perfectly illustrates this aim. It does not seek to explain away the
mystery of the sacrament; neither to pry into the manner by which communion
with Christ occurs, nor bind the church to a particular theory of metaphysics.
The Article seeks simply to affirm what the scriptures reveal concerning the
Lord’s Supper without contradicting anything else taught by them, so that those
who participate in the sacrament would not profane nor abuse it, which would
cause them great harm, but in obedience to the Lord’s institution duly use it,
and enjoy the great benefits offered therein.
[1] I have been unable to track down a copy with original spelling. This is how the text appears in Vol. II of Gibson’s (1897) The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England and Green’s (1898) The Christian Creed and the Creeds of Christendom.
[2] Article II former affirms the Chalcedonian doctrine that our Lord’s human and divine natures are two natures are whole, entire, and unmixed, yet are permanently, indivisibly joined together in one person; Article IV affirms that, following his resurrection, Christ ascended into heaven and remains there until his second advent to judge the world.
Drew Nathaniel Keane is a Lecturer in the Department of Writing and Linguistics at Georgia Southern University. You can read more of his work at drewkeane.com.