Articles

The term ‘articles’ was used by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (2a2ae 1.7) to mean a revealed doctrine containing salvific truth (O’Collins, 1987: 43).  This same meaning was taken up during the time of the Reformation when the reformers also had a desire to list fundamental ‘articles of faith’ to form an agreed profession of faith (O’Collins, 1987: 44).  In the Anglican tradition the Thirty-Nine Articles, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer (1662), were adopted by the Convocation of the Church of England in 1571 as the doctrinal standard of the Church (Sykes, 1987: 567) however the Thirty-Nine Articles were not the first such set of articles.  In this case study the historical development of the various sets of articles in the Anglican tradition will be considered in relation to the Eucharist.

The Ten Articles – 1536

The Ten Articles were issued in 1536 by the authority of Henry VIII and were signed by many of the bishops, including some of the reforming party, such as Cranmer and Latimer.  The Ten Articles were the first attempt by the English Church to state its doctrinal position in the period of transition from the power of Rome to that of the English Church (Gibson, 1910: 3 and Bicknell, 1963: 8) being formulated just two years after the separation (Griffith Thomas, 1930: xxxvii).  They were a compromise between the conservative theological position and that of the Reformers, being essentially “an attempt to formulate a statement upon which the moderate advocates of the traditional doctrines and the more conservative adherents of the Lutheran theology could agree” (Stone, 1909: II, 114).  The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was strongly asserted, but there was no mention of transubstantiation.  The Ten Articles declared in relation to the Eucharist:

“… that under the form and figure of bread and wine, which we there presently do see and perceive by the outward senses, is verily, substantially, and really contained and comprehended the very self-same body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross for our redemption; and that under the same form and figure of bread and wine the very self-same body and blood of Christ is corporally, really, and in the very substance exhibited, distributed, and received of all them which receive the said sacrament.” (The Ten Articles of 1536, in Stone, 1909: II, 114).

Clearly The Ten Articles of 1536 express an immoderate form of realism where the historic body and blood (‘very self-same body and blood’) is identified with the eucharistic bread and wine.  Despite this some commentators make mention of the lack of any reference to transubstantiation (e.g. Gibson, 1910: 3 and Bicknell, 1963: 8) as being suggestive of an attempt to distance the articles from Medieval abuses.  It has also been suggested that the lack of reference to transubstantiation indicates the transitional nature of the articles, in that they were a movement towards a more reformed position (Gibson, 1910: 4).  In view of the immoderate form of realism used in the articles, both of these suggestions seem implausible.  The words of the articles are clearly more extreme than transubstantiation, since they do not express the moderate form of realism advocated by this doctrine, but rather suggest an immoderate form of realism where the historic body and blood is instantiated in the eucharistic bread and wine (‘the very self-same body and blood of Christ’), even though the words ‘form’ and ‘figure’ are used.  One writer has described this as ‘impanation’ (Griffith Thomas, 1930: xxxvii).

The Thirteen Articles – 1538

The Thirteen Articles of 1538 may have resulted from a conference between Lutheran and English divines (Stone, 1909: II, 115) and were found among Cranmer’s papers (Maclear and Williams, 1896: 12).  They express a realism regarding the Eucharist which is less extreme that The Ten Articles of 1536, saying:

“Concerning the Eucharist we firmly believe and teach that in the Sacrament the body and blood of the Lord, the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially and actually present under the species of bread and wine; and that under the same species they are really and actually present (exhibentur) and administered to those who receive the sacrament, both good and bad.” (The Thirteen Articles of 1538, in Stone, 1909: II, 115).

The Thirteen Articles declare that the body and blood of Christ are present but do not specify the presence to be the very self-same body and blood as was present in Jesus Christ.  The use of immoderate realism cannot be sustained since there is no suggestion of the historic body and blood being instantiated in the bread and wine.

The Six Articles – 1539

The Six Articles of 1539 resulted from Henry VIII’s wish to have the House of Lords consider different opinions concerning religion.  Some (Maclear and Williams, 1896: 13) argue that the conservative tone of The Six Articles was Henry’s direct response to the more reforming nature of The Thirteen Articles.  The Act itself however, suggests that the purpose of The Six Articles was a desire for unity (The Six Articles Act, 1539, in Gee and Hardy, 1896: 303).  Concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Articles stated:

“… that in the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word (it being spoken by the priest), is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary; and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread or wine, nor any other substance, but the substance of Christ, God and man.”  (First Article, in Gee and Hardy, 1896: 305).

The article in using the words, ‘natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary’, points to an instantiation of the historic body and blood in the Eucharist.  The article thereby teaches an immoderate realism, more extreme than transubstantiation.  Transubstantiation was in no way was suggestive of an instantiation of the historic body and blood in the Eucharist.  Commentators have not always appreciated this point, since they argue that The Six Articles taught transubstantiation (e.g. Maclear and Williams, 1896: 13 and Griffith Thomas, 1930: xxxix) when clearly they teach a corruption of transubstantiation or something more extreme. 

The King’s Book – 1543

The King’s Book or more fully titled A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, was a revision of the earlier work entitled The Bishop’s Book.  The material related to the Eucharist in The Bishop’s Book was essentially that of The Ten Articles of 1538 (Stone, 1909: II, 115).

In relation to the Eucharist The King’s Book stated the moderate realism of transubstantiation, without using the word.  It said:

“The Sacrament of the altar … among all the Sacraments is of incomparable dignity and virtue, forasmuch as in the other Sacraments the outward kind of the thing which is used in them remaineth still in their own nature and substance unchanged.  But in the most high Sacrament of the altar the creatures which be taken to the use thereof, as bread and wine, do not remain still in their own substance, but by the virtue of Christ’s word in the consecration be changed and turned to the very substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesu Christ.  So that, although there appear the form of bread and wine after the consecration as did before, and to outward senses nothing seemeth to be changed, yet must we, forsaking and renouncing the persuasion of our senses in this behalf, give our assent only to faith, and to the plain word of Christ, which affirmeth that substance there offered, exhibited, and received to be the very precious body and blood of our Lord, as it is plainly written by the Evangelists and also by St Paul, where they entreating of the institution of this Sacrament, show how our Saviour Christ sitting at His Last Supper with His Apostles took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it unto His disciples and said, ‘Tale ye and eat; this is My body’.  And also when He gave the cup, He said, ‘This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins’.  By these words it is plain and evident to all them that with meek, humble and sincere heart will believe Christ’s words, and be obedient unto faith, that in the Sacrament the things that be therein be the very body and blood of Christ in very substance.”  (The King’s Book, in Stone, 1909: II, 118-119).

This article is careful to avoid any reference to the ‘self-same body and blood’ as found in the person of Jesus, thereby rejecting any immoderate realism where the historic body and blood was instantiated in the Eucharist.  The view expressed is that of transubstantiation, without the use of the word, whereby it is the substance of Christ that is found in the bread and wine, with the accidents or outward appearance of the bread and wine remaining.  As such The King’s Book expresses a moderate realism concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, more realist that the view expressed in The Thirteen Articles, but less extreme than that expressed in The Six Articles.

The Articles of Religion – 1551 and 1553

In 1551 Edward VI and his council ordered Cranmer to draw up articles of religion.  A draft of forty-five articles was supplied by Cranmer to the bishops for their consideration.  Over the next year further amendments were made.  The articles referring to the Eucharist were four in number and said in part:

“xxix. 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 it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death.  And therefore to such as duly and 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.

xxx. Of Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the Eucharist cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and has given occasion to many superstitions.

xxxi. Of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Forasmuch as the truth of man’s nature requires that it cannot be at the same time in many places but in some certain and fixed place, therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at the same time in many and divers places.  And because as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and will there remain until the end of the world, no one of the faithful ought either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist.”  (Articles of 1551, in Stone, 1909: II, 144).

These articles represent a significant shift in thinking about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Not only is transubstantiation denied (Article xxx) but ‘the real and bodily presence’ (Article xxxi) is also denied.  This denial precludes any instantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist as moderate realism.  Further Article xxix states that there is ‘a partaking’ of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but makes no statement about whether or not Christ is present.  In fact Article xxxi states that the body of Christ cannot be present at the same time in different places and it is on this basis that the ‘real and bodily presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist is denied.  The articles therefore introduce a nominalist view of the presence of Christ, where the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist are self-enclosed entities, having no identity one with the other – Christ’s body and blood is in heaven and on earth we have bread and wine.  Each of the entities – Christ’s body and blood and bread and wine – are self-enclosed entities.  In such a nominalist view there is no instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.  The presence of Christ is dependent upon the ‘partaking’ in a worthy and faithful manner by the communicant.  Moderate realism, where Christ’s nature is instantiated in the bread and wine as a eucharistic presence, but not as an historical presence, seems absent from these articles. 

The Forty-Five Articles of 1551 were the basis of the Forty-Two Articles of 1553.  The four articles on the Eucharist in 1551 articles were combined into one, called ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’.  The partaking, duly, worthily and with faith of the body and blood of Christ was affirmed in the articles of 1553 and transubstantiation and ‘the real and bodily presence’ were condemned.  The statement that “it cannot be at the same time in many places” (The Forty-Five Articles of 1551, Article xxxi) was altered to “the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in diverse places”.  The change in wording affirmed the nominalist view, where an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the Eucharist was not seen as possible.

Convocation of Canterbury, October, 1553

Edward VI died in July, 1553 and Mary became queen.  Her accession meant that the theological position of England was significantly changed.  The changes that had occurred during the reign of Edward were reversed, the Latin Mass was restored and the doctrinal position prior to the reforms under Edward VI was re-established.  The doctrine of the Eucharist was by both the Upper and Lower House of the Convocation Canterbury in October, 1553.  The statements concerning the Eucharist presented a realist view, both in the moderate and immoderate sense.  They said in part:

“Concerning the Sacrament of the altar.

In the Sacrament of the altar duly administered we teach that by the words of Christ the real and actual substance of the body and blood of Christ are present and contained under the species of the bread and the wine mixed with water.  And since Christ can no longer be divided, or His blood separated from His flesh, because He dieth no more, therefore, we believe that the whole Christ, God and Man, is contained under either species.

Concerning Transubstantiation.

Since Christ declared that the one sacrifice and unique mystery, which he instituted at the Last Supper and commanded to be received by the faithful, is His body which was betrayed for us, we do not believe that this is only bread, or that the body of Christ is with the bread or in the bread, apart from our calling it the Bread of life who came down from heaven.  And since the manner of the existing there is by the Transubstantiation and transition of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord, the accidents of bread and wine meanwhile remaining for the sake of our weakness and the signification of the mystery, the pastors of the Church lawfully assembled in the Lateran Council fittingly expressed the ancient truth of the Catholic faith by the new word Transubstantiation.”  (Convocation of Canterbury, October 1553, in Stone, 1909: II, 159-160).

Transubstantiation is clearly affirmed by the Convocation.  The words ‘real and actual substance’ are usually interpreted as moderate realism in any discussion of transubstantiation, however the words ‘His body which was betrayed for us’, suggest a reference to the historic body, apart from the substance, and so indicate a degree of immoderate realism.

Further statements from the Convocation said in part:

“Concerning the adoration and reservation of the Eucharist.

Since we confess that the real body and real blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are in the Eucharist, how shall we do otherwise than adore Him who never has been and never ought to be without adoration among Christians?”  (Convocation of Canterbury, October 1553, in Stone, 1909: II, 160).

The use of the words ‘real body’ and ‘real blood of Christ’ and ‘the whole Christ’ without the qualification of the word ‘substance’ further suggest immoderate as opposed to moderate realism.

Concerning eucharistic sacrifice, the Convocation stated:

“We celebrate the holy and life-giving and bloodless offering in the churches, not believing that what is offered is the body of some ordinary man, but that it is the body which the Word who gives life to all things made His own, being at once the medicine for healing weaknesses and the burnt offering for cleansing offences; and we hold that on the Holy Table is placed the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, who is sacrificed by the priests without shedding of blood.  And this new offering of the new covenant instituted and commanded by Christ, the Church. Receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the whole world ….”  (Convocation of Canterbury, October 1553, in Stone, 1909: II, 160-161).

Once again there is a mixing of moderate and immoderate realism in the discussion of eucharistic sacrifice.  The sacrifice is described as ‘bloodless’ and one that is ‘sacrificed by the priests without shedding of blood’ (moderate realism) but the sacrifice is also described as being ‘a new offering of the new covenant’ (immoderate realism) where the implication of a re-immolation is apparent.

Declaration and Confession  – 1559

Following the death of Mary I in 1558, Elizabeth I became queen.  Elizabeth was sympathetic to the Reformers.  A Declaration and Confession was presented to the queen by some of the Reformers in 1559.  This consisted of a series of articles largely based on the Forty-Two Articles of 1553.  In regard to the Eucharist the articles declared:

“ … to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ.  Likewise the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ.  So that in the due administration of this holy Supper we do not deny all manner of presence of Christ’s body and blood; neither do we think or say that this holy sacrament is only a naked and a bare sign or figure, in which nothing else is to be received of the faithful but common bread and wine, as our adversaries have at all times most untruly charged us.  And yet do we not allow the corporal, carnal, and real presence which they teach and maintain, affirming Christ’s body to be sensibly handled of the priest, and also corporally and substantially to be received with the mouth as well of the wicked as of the godly.  For that were contrary to the Scripture, both to remove Him out of heaven where concerning his natural body He shall continue to the end of the world, and also by making His body bodily present in so many sundry and several places at once to destroy the properties of His human nature.  Neither do we allow the fond error of Transubstantiation or the change of the substances of bread and wine into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, which, as it is repugnant to the words of the Scriptures and contrary to the plain assertions of the ancient writers, so doth it utterly deny the nature of a Sacrament.  But we affirm and confess that, as the wicked in the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament eateth and drinketh his own damnation, so to the believer and worthy receiver is verily given and exhibited whole Christ, God and Man, with the fruits of His passion.  And that in the distribution of this holy Sacrament, as we with our outward senses receive the sacramental bread and wine, so inwardly by faith and through the working of God’s Spirit we are made partakers vere et efficaciter of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and we are spiritually fed therewith with everlasting life.  And we also confess, and ever have done, that by the celebrating and right receiving of this mystery and holy Sacrament we enjoy divers and singular comforts and benefits.  For herein we are assured of God’s promises of forgiveness of sins, of the pacifying of God’s wrath, of our resurrection and everlasting life.  Herein also by the secret operation of God’s Holy Spirit our faith is increased and confirmed, we are made one with Christ and He with us, we abide in Him and He in us, we are stirred up to unity and mutual charity, to joyfulness of conscience and patient suffering for Christ’s sake, and finally to continual thanksgiving to our merciful heavenly Father for the wonderful work of our salvation purchased in the death and bloodshed of our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ.”  (Declaration and Confession, 1559, in Stone, 1909: II, 206-207).

This statement maintains a nominalism concerning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist but does so in a moderate way.  Christ’s natural body is seen to be in heaven, clearly separated from the bread and wine, each being self-enclosed entities, but there is a partaking of Christ in the due and right administration of the Eucharist with faith.  Christ’s presence is an effectual one, with the benefits of his passion being received and renewed in the Eucharist, but there is not realist presence, where the nature of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine as a real presence.

The article referring to the ‘perfect oblation of Christ made upon the cross’, maintains a nominalist separation of the historic oblation from the Eucharist in an immoderate way.  There is no sense of a ‘partaking’ of the historic sacrifice in the Eucharist.  It condemns any immoderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice, but says nothing of a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice.  The articles states:

“Of the perfect oblation of Christ made upon the cross.

The offering of Christ made once for ever is the perfect redemption, the pacifying of God’s displeasure, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual;  and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masses, in which it is commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or sin, are forged fables and dangerous deceits.”  (Declaration and Confession, 1559, in Stone, 1909: II, 207).

The Eleven Articles – 1559/1560

The Eleven Articles were compiled by the bishops in 1559 or 1560 as a temporary statement of doctrine until more formal and permanent articles could be drawn up.  The Eleven Articles were framed in order that clergy give their assent to each of the articles.  The articles denied that the sacrifice of the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, but most surprisingly made no mention of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563

In 1563 Convocation considered the Forty-Two Articles of 1553, revised them and reduced their number to thirty-eight.  These articles received the assent of Convocation and were ratified by the queen.  Significant changes were made in relation to the Eucharist.  The article in the Forty-Two Articles entitled ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ had condemned belief in ‘the real and bodily presence’.  These words were omitted in the articles of 1563 and the following was put in its place:

“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.”  (Article ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ in Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, in Stone, 1909: II, 208).

Whereas the article of 1553 had denied “the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ’s flesh and blood” in the sacrament, the article of 1563 affirmed that the body of Christ was given, taken and eaten in a heavenly and spiritual manner.  The words denying a ‘real and bodily presence’ were removed.  Whereas the article of 1553 seems to exclude a realist conception of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the article of 1563 does not preclude such a conception.  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.  Such a view is not universally accepted with the Anglican tradition.  Dimock argues that the whole idea of a ‘real presence’ is foreign to the English Use (Dimock, 1910a and 1910b).  Griffith Thomas rejects the argument that there is a change in doctrine from the article of 1553 to the article of 1563 (Griffith Thomas, 1930: 400-403).  He maintains the position of the Black Rubric, arguing that the ‘the natural body and blood … are in heaven and not here’ (Griffith Thomas, 1930: 403).  This argument, based on a nominalist conception of the Eucharist, mistakenly equates ‘natural’ with ‘real’.  Natural presence refers to the historic body and blood of Christ, present in the person of Jesus.  Such an immoderate realism is rejected by Anglicans in relation to the Eucharist.  Real presence however, in a moderate realist sense, means that the nature of Christ, as Word or logos, is instantiated in the Eucharist as a moderate realism.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571

The articles of 1563 were revised in 1571, ratified by the queen and issued with the twenty-ninth article, entitled ‘Of the Wicked which do not Eat the body and blood of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper’, inserted, making a total of thirty-nine articles.  It is in this form that the articles presently exist in the Anglican Communion (e.g. The Book of Common Prayer, 1662 and A Prayer Book for Australia, 1995).  The change in the article ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ introduced in the articles of 1563 was maintained in Article XXVIII of 1571 (see above).  The denial of ‘the real and bodily presence of Christ’s flesh and blood’ (present in the articles of 1553) was not present in the articles of 1563 and 1571.  Edmund Guest, the Bishop of Rochester, comments in a letter to Sir William Cecil how the Bishop of Gloucester, Richard Cheyney, objected to the use of the word ‘only’ in the twenty-ninth article (in Stone, 1909: II, 210-211).  Guest comments that the use of this word was seen to exclude the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however he concludes that:

“ … this word ‘only’ in the aforesaid article did not exclude the presence of Christ’s body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof.  For I said unto him though he took Christ’s body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally, as the doctors do write, yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it.  And therefore I told him I would speak against him therein, and the rather because the article was of mine own penning.  And yet I would not for all that deny anything that I had spoken for the presence.  And this was the sum of our talk.  And this that I said is so true by all sorts of men that even D. Harding writeth the same, as it appears more evidently by his words reported in the Bishop of Salisbury’s [i.e. John Jewell] book, pagina 325, which be these, ‘Then ye may say, in deed; substantially, that is, in substance; and corporally, carnally, and naturally; by the which words is meant that His very body, His very flesh, and His human nature is there, not after corporal, carnal, or natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way unto Him only known’.”  (Letter of Guest, 1566, in Stone, 1909: II, 210-211).

What Guest seems to be arguing for, in a somewhat confusing manner, is moderate realism.  He specifically excludes immoderate realism (‘grossness and sensibleness’), where the historic body and blood is instantiated in the Eucharist, but at the same time affirms moderate realism, where Christ nature is instantiated in the Eucharist.  Guest is affirming a real and spiritual presence (moderate realism) and denying any carnal presence (immoderate realism) and at the same time rejecting any nominalist view.

Article XXVIII also states that: “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped”.  At first sight this seems to limit any suggestion of a moderate realism in relation to the elements, but as Gary Macy points out, despite the earlier rejection of transubstantiation, this final claim is fairly moderate.  Macy says that: “It does not state, for instance, that the sacrament cannot be reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped, but only that this was not decreed by Christ himself” (Macy, 2005: 218).  The implication of this statement is while Christ did not order these actions, they are nonetheless possible actions under such a reading of Article XXVIII.  If this is allowed then the assumption of moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist is strengthened in regard to the elements since these actions suggest the real presence of Christ in the elements being reserved, carried about, lifted up and worshipped.  This implication, it needs to be admitted, is not supported by some Anglican theologians (e.g. Griffith Thomas, 1930) who do not accept realist assumptions concerning the Eucharist.