A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist by Darwell Stone M.A.

II

On 28th January, 1547, King Henry VIII. died, and was succeeded by his son under the title of King Edward VI. Edward’s reign was marked by great changes in theological belief among prominent men, and in the formularies of the Church of England. The transition of opinion which can be traced in the case of Archbishop Cranmer may have been representative of what took place in many minds. When Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533 he is not known to have dissented in any way from the customary doctrines about the Eucharist. In that year he tried to persuade John Frith to give up his opinions on this subject; and, on failing to do so, appears to have regarded it as a matter of course that Frith must be burnt. In 1536 and 1538 and 1539 and 1543 he assented to documents which asserted the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements, of which the Six Articles in 1539 and the King’s Book in 1543 maintained that the substance of the bread and wine does not remain after consecration. While it is probably the case that during the latter part of this period his own mind was more in the direction of a doctrine of the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements which did not require the cessation of the existence of the substance of bread and wine, he was able to continue to hold his office while persons were being burnt for denying the conversion of the substance at consecration. Largely owing to the influence of Ridley, he abandoned the belief that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ.

In 1548 Cranmer published a Catechism which was translated from a Latin Catechism, which again had been translated in 1539 by the Lutheran Justus Jonas from an unknown German Catechism. It was entitled, Catechismus. That is to say, A Short Instruction into Christian Religion for the singular commodity and profit of Children and Young People. Set forth by the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and Metropolitan. There is nothing in this Catechism to deny the doctrine that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, and the body and blood are said to be taken by the “bodily mouth”; but there is no assertion of more than that they are received by the communicants, and a statement in the Latin Lutheran Catechism that the Sacrament “is really the body and blood” of Christ is altered to the statement that “in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ”. The chief passages bearing on Eucharistic doctrine are the following:—

“By the Communion of the Holy Supper of the Lord we are preserved and strengthened, that we may be able steadfastly to stand and fight against the violent invasions of sin and the power of the devil. Wherefore, good children, forasmuch as ye be already planted in Christ by Baptism, learn also, I pray you, how ye may continually abide and grow in Christ, the which thing is taught you, in the use of the Lord’s Supper.… We ought to believe that in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ. … Believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that you eat and drink His very body and blood, although man’s reason cannot comprehend how and after what manner the same is there present.… Doubt not but there is the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive in the Lord’s Supper.… Christ causeth, even at this time, His body and blood to be in the Sacrament after that manner and fashion as it was at that time when He made His Maundy with His disciples.… Christ hath commanded us to do the self same thing that His disciples did, and to do it in the remembrance of Him, that is to say, to receive His body and blood, even so as He Himself did give it to His disciples.… Christ Himself doth give unto us His flesh and blood as His words doth evidently declare.… When ye do thus [that is, communicate after self-examination, acknowledgment of sin, penitence, forgiveness], then ye worthily receive the body and blood of Christ. And he that so receiveth it, receiveth everlasting life. For he doth not only with His bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth also believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that His blood was shed for us. And he that this believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.… When ye be asked, What is the Communion or the Lord’s Supper? ye may answer, It is the true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was ordained by Christ Himself to be eaten and drunken of us Christian people under the form of bread and wine.”

By the year 1550 or possibly earlier Cranmer had reached the position maintained in his A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, and more fully explained in his An Answer unto a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner, Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester, against the True and Godly Doctrine of the most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, published in 1551. In these treatises Cranmer’s ultimate belief about the Eucharist is very clearly stated, and is defended at great length. He denies Transubstantiation both in its more carnal and in its more spiritual form; he rejects the belief that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; and he repudiates any sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. He allows that the bread and wine may be called the body and blood of Christ; that Christ may be said to be present in the Sacrament; and that the word sacrifice may be applied to the Eucharist. But he shows that the meaning which he attaches to this terminology is, in his mind, consistent with the denials which have been mentioned. According to that meaning, the faithful communicant receives the virtue and grace of Christ’s body and blood, which are themselves absent; Christ is present in the Sacrament as He is present in Baptism or during prayer, or as the sun is present wherever its warmth is felt; and the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is that there are in it a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and an oblation of those who take part in the service. Consequently, Cranmer rejects the opinions of Luther and Calvin and Bucer as well as those of the theologians of the middle ages and the adherents of the papal doctrine in the sixteenth century. On the other hand, he is opposed to the teaching contained in some parts of the writings of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, which made the Eucharist a merely commemorative rite. By au intermediate position between any kind of assertion of the reception of the actual body and blood of Christ and any merely figurative view, he maintained the opinion which had sometimes been described as Virtualism, namely, that the faithful communicant sacramentally receives those effects of Christ’s life and death which would be conveyed if there were a beneficial reception of His actual body and blood. When his phraseology is carefully examined, and his statements viewed in their context, and his general line of argument observed, this teaching is found throughout his books; and it is expressed with great clearness in the preface to the Answer to Gardiner.

“Where I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do) that Christ is in the Sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter; that is to say, not of Christ’s carnal presence in the outward Sacrament but sometimes of His sacramental presence. And sometime by this word Sacrament I mean the whole ministration and receiving of the Sacraments either of Baptism or of the Lord’s Supper; and so the old writers many times do say that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the Sacraments, not meaning by that manner of speech that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine, which be only the outward visible Sacraments, but that in the due ministration of the Sacraments according to Christ’s ordinance and institution Christ and His Holy Spirit be truly and indeed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, in all them that worthily receive the same. Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive the Sacrament, lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean that, although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the reader that I mean no such thing; but my meaning is that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ’s body that was crucified for us and of His blood that was shed for us be really and effectually present with all them that duly receive the Sacraments; but all this I understand of His spiritual presence, of the which He saith, ‘I will be with you until the world’s end,’ and ‘Wheresoever two or three be gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them,’ and ‘He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him’. Now no more truly is He corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lord’s Supper than He is in the due ministration of Baptism.”

The history of Cranmer’s opinions in regard to the Eucharist has much more than a merely individual importance in view of the changes made in the formularies of the English Church during the reign of Edward VI. On the death of Henry VIII. the official statement of belief was the King’s Book, which in regard to the Eucharist, without using the word Transubstantiation, affirmed that the substance of bread and wine does not remain after consecration but is converted at the consecration into the substance of the body and blood of Christ; and the prayers and ceremonies of the order and canon of the Mass were unaltered, and implied throughout the doctrines that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.

The Convocation of Canterbury met on 5th November, 1547. On 30th November Archbishop Cranmer sent down to the Lower House an “ordinance” “for the receiving of the body of our Lord under both kinds, namely, bread and wine”; and on that day this ordinance was accepted by the prolocutor, John Taylor, the Dean of Lincoln, and some other members of the Lower House. On 2nd December “this session, all this whole session, in number sixty-four, by their mouths did approve the proposition made the last session of taking the Lord’s body in both kinds, nullo reclamante”. In the same month an Act of Parliament was passed and received the royal assent, by which the authority of the State was given for the administration in both kinds. This Act made provision for the punishment of those who despised or reviled the Sacrament; and enacted that it was to be administered in both kinds to the people.

“The institution of which Sacrament being ordained by Christ, as is beforesaid, and the said words spoken of it here before rehearsed being of eternal, infallible, and undoubted truth, yet the said Sacrament (all this notwithstanding) hath been of late marvellously abused by such manner of men before rehearsed, who of wickedness or else of ignorance and want of learning, for certain abuses heretofore committed of some in misusing thereof, have condemned in their hearts and speech the whole thing, and contemptuously depraved, despised, or reviled the same most holy and blessed Sacrament, and not only disputed and reasoned unreverently and ungodly of that most high mystery, but also in their sermons, preachings, readings, lectures, communications, arguments, talks, rhymes, songs, plays, or jests, name or call it by such vile and unseemly words as Christian ears do abhor to hear rehearsed: For reformation whereof, Be it enacted by the king’s highness with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that whatsoever person or persons from and after the first day of May next coming shall deprave, despise, or contemn the said most blessed Sacrament in contempt thereof by any contemptuous words, or by any words of depraving, despising, or reviling, or what person or persons shall advisedly in any otherwise contemn, despise, or revile the said most blessed Sacrament, contrary to the effects and declaration abovesaid, that then he or they shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the king’s will and pleasure.”

“Forasmuch as it is more agreeable both to the first institution of the said Sacrament of the most precious body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and also more conformable to the common use and practice both of the Apostles and of the primitive Church by the space of 500 years and more after Christ’s ascension, that the blessed Sacrament should be ministered to all Christian people under both the kinds of bread and wine; and also it is more agreeable to the first institution of Christ, and to the usage of the Apostles and of the primitive Church, that the people being present should receive the same with the priest than that the priest should receive it alone: therefore be it enacted by our sovereign lord the king, with the consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within this Church of England and Ireland and other the king’s dominions under both the kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine, except necessity otherwise require; and also that the priest which shall minister the same shall, at the least one day before, exhort all persons which shall be present likewise to resort and prepare themselves to receive the same.”

A week after the giving of the royal assent to this Act of Parliament, a royal proclamation was issued on December 27, which referred to the continuance of “contentious and superfluous questions,” and went on to say—

“which persons, not contented reverently and with obedient faith to accept that the said Sacrament, according to the saying of St. Paul, ‘the bread is the communion,’ or partaking, ‘of the body of the Lord; the wine,’ likewise, ‘the partaking of the blood of Christ,’ by the words instituted and taught of Christ: and that the body and blood of Jesu Christ is there; which is our comfort, thanksgiving, love-token of Christ’s love towards us, and of ours as His members within ourselves, search and strive unreverently whether the body and blood aforesaid is there really or figuratively, locally or circumscriptly, and having quantity and greatness, or but substantially and by substance only, or else but in a figure and manner of speaking, whether His blessed body be there, head, legs, arms, toes and nails, or any other ways, shape and manner, naked or clothed; whether He is broken or chewed, or He is always whole; whether the bread there remaineth as we see, or how it departeth; whether the flesh be there alone, and the blood, or apart, or each in other, or in the one both, in the other but only blood; and what blood, that only which did flow out of the side, or that which remaineth: and other such irreverent, superfluous, and curious questions, which, how and what, and by what means, and in what form, may bring into them.… The king’s highness, by the advice of the lord protector and other his majesty’s council, straitly willeth and commandeth that no man nor person from henceforth do in any wise contentiously and openly argue, dispute, reason, preach, or teach, affirming any more terms of the said blessed Sacrament than be expressly taught in the Holy Scripture, and mentioned in the aforesaid Act, nor deny none which be therein contained and mentioned, until such time as the king’s majesty, by the advice of his highness’s council and the clergy of this realm, shall define, declare, and set forth an open doctrine thereof, and what terms and words may justly be spoken thereby other than be expressly in the Scripture contained in the Act before rehearsed. In the mean time the king’s highness’s pleasure is, by the advice aforesaid, that every his loving subjects shall devoutly and reverently affirm and take that holy bread to be Christ’s body, and that cup to be the cup of His holy blood, according to the purport and effect of the Holy Scripture contained in the Act before expressed, and accommodate themselves rather to take the same Sacrament worthily than rashly to enter into the discussing of the high mystery thereof.”

The condemnation in this proclamation of those who talked irreverently about the Sacrament was evidently directed primarily against the successors of the Lollards and the shocking profanities of which they were guilty in their ridicule of the doctrine of the Eucharist held in the Church. But it appears to have been intended also to discourage any explicit teaching or defence of Transubstantiation, and to have aimed at there being as little definition as possible in regard to the Eucharist until further action had been taken by the king and the council.

In January, 1548, a commission of six bishops and six divines with Cranmer as president was appointed by the council to compose an Order of Communion in English which might give effect to the determination of Convocation and Parliament that the Sacrament was to be administered in both kinds. This Order was not submitted either to Convocation or to Parliament, and was therefore without any proper authority either from the Church or from the State. It was authorised on its publication in March, 1548, by a royal proclamation. No change in doctrine was asserted or implied in it. Though doubts as to the doctrine of concomitance may have been in the minds of some who were responsible for it, the desirability of Communion in both kinds had been based in the documents already quoted not on any matter of doctrine but on the facts of the method of the institution of Christ and of the usage of the primitive Church. The prayers and ceremonies of the order and canon of the Mass were for the present left unaltered; and the new Order was simply to be inserted, after the communion of the priest, for use in communicating the people. And in the Order itself, while there was no elaboration of doctrinal teaching, the consecrated Sacrament was regarded and described as the body and blood of Christ. In one of the exhortations it was said:—

“To the end that we should always remember the exceeding love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ thus doing for us, and the innumerable benefits which by His precious blood-shedding He hath obtained to us, He hath left in these holy mysteries, as a pledge of His love and a continual remembrance of the same, His own blessed body and precious blood, for us spiritually to feed upon, to our endless comfort and consolation”;

the prayer before Communion included the words:—

“Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, in these holy mysteries, that we may continually dwell in Him, and He in us, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood”;

the consecrated bread and wine were called “the Sacrament of the body of Christ” and “the Sacrament of the blood” as well as “the bread” and “the wine”; the words of administration, closely following the old form, were:—

“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body unto everlasting life”;

“The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy soul unto everlasting life”;

and in the rubric directing that each one of the “consecrated breads” should be broken into two pieces or more, it was said:—

“Men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ.”

The retention of the order and canon of the Mass of the old rite and the character of the Order of Communion alike show that up to this point no doctrinal change about the Eucharist was made in the formularies. Yet it should be noted that, though it was explicitly ordered that no “other rite or ceremony in the Mass” should be varied except what was provided for the communion of the people, it was directed that, in the event of a necessity for the consecration of more wine, there was not to be “any elevation or lifting up” of the chalice at this additional consecration.

The use of the Order of Communion together with the order and canon of the Mass was only intended as a temporary expedient; and in September, 1548, a number of bishops and divines met at Chertsey and Windsor to compile a complete book for public worship. In December, 1548, a debate took place in the House of Lords concerning the Eucharist. Besides some discussion as to the extent of the agreement of the bishops to the “book which was read touching the doctrine of the Supper,” the debate went on for three days on the general subject of Eucharistic doctrine. A contemporary manuscript giving an account of this debate still exists, from which it is clear that very distinct differences of opinion were expressed. The arguments used by Cranmer do not appear to have been much nearer the traditional theology than his treatise published in 1551. In a discussion which sprang out of a statement of Bishop Tunstall of Durham that “there is the very body and blood of Christ both spiritual and carnal,” he maintained that “the spirit and body are contrary”; and the contentions ascribed to him include that “our faith is not to believe Him to be in bread and wine, but that He is in heaven”; “Christ when He bids us eat His body it is figurative; for we cannot eat His body indeed”; “to eat His flesh and drink His blood is to be partaker of His passion, as water is water still that we are christened withal or that was wont to be put into the wine”; “the change is inward, not in the bread but in the receiver. To have Christ present really here, when I may receive Him in faith, is not available to do me good. Christ is in the world in His divinity, but not in His humanity. The property of His Godhead is everywhere, but His manhood is in one place only”; “it was natural bread, but now no common bread for it is separated to another use. Because of the use it may be called bread of life. That which you see is bread and wine. But that which you believe is the body of Christ. We must believe that there is bread and the body.” The statements ascribed to Ridley include “Communicatio is the true mystery and sign of the body that was given for us”; “concerning the outward thing it is very bread. But according to the power of God is ministered the very body”; “the manhood is ever in heaven; His divinity is everywhere present”; “Christ sits in heaven and is present in the Sacrament by His working”; “the bread” “is converted into the body of Christ” as we are “turned in Baptism”; “the bread” “is more than a figure, for besides the natural bread there is an operation of divinity”; “of the common bread before it is made a divine influence”. On the other hand, Bishop Tunstall of Durham maintained that “His body is in bread and wine”; Bishop Day of Chichester that “the verity of Christ’s body” “is in the Sacrament,” that “the form and accidents of the bread” “remain, but not very bread,” that “like as in the humanity of Christ the Godhead was, even so the presence of His very body is in the Sacrament”; Bishop Thirlby of Westminster that “the adoration to be left out he never consented”; and Bishop Sampson of Lichfield that he “thought the doctrine of the book very godly. For he never thought it to be the gross body of Christ, so grossly as divers there alleged; nevertheless he took it to be the glorified body of Christ”; that the right word was not “Transubstantiation” but “Transmutation”; and that “it is no gross body, but a natural body that is glorified and not only in virtue and spirit; but faith receiveth both the virtue and the natural body also”.

On the day after this debate in the House of Lords was over, the first Act of Uniformity, giving legal effect to the book which had led to the debate was introduced into the House of Commons. On 21st January, 1549, this Act had passed through all the stages in both Houses of Parliament; it received the royal assent on 14th March; it authorised the use of the book on Whitsunday, which in that year fell on 9th June, or earlier if copies could be procured. Whether the book, the use of which was thus made the law of the land, had been submitted to Convocation is a disputed point, as to which there is something to be said on both sides. A suggestion of Mr. Frere, that, though not formally passed through the proper stages in Convocation, it “was held to have the assent of the bishops by their votes in the House of Lords, and was further submitted to the Lower Houses of Convocation, and won the assent of the clergy through their representatives there,” is perhaps more likely to be correct than either the view that it was not in any way brought into touch with Convocation or that it had the full and formal sanction of that body. As regards the action of the bishops in the House of Lords, eighteen bishops took part in the division, of whom ten voted for the Act and eight against it.

The new book, with the addition of the Ordinal published a year later, was intended to be a complete manual of public worship in the English language. It was entitled The Book of the Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church: after the Use of the Church of England. The office for the Eucharist was headed, The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass. This new office did not contain any sign of a change of doctrine. It was directed that “the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope”. The phrases “Lord’s Table” and “altar” are both used. The exhortations contained the sentences:—

“the benefit is great, if with a truly penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, we be made one with Christ, and Christ with us”;

“He hath left us in those holy mysteries as a pledge of His love, and a continual remembrance of the same, His own blessed body and precious blood, for us to feed upon spiritually, to our endless comfort and consolation”;

“He hath not only given His body to death and shed His blood, but also doth vouchsafe in a Sacrament and mystery to give us His said body and blood to feed upon spiritually.”

In the prayer of consecration, the recital of the institution was preceded by the invocation:—

“Hear us (O merciful Father) we beseech Thee; and with Thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to blKess and sancKtify these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.”

The prayer of oblation contained the words:—

“Humbly beseeching Thee that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with Thy Son Jesu Christ, that He may dwell in them, and they in Him.”

The prayer before Communion, as in the Order of Communion of 1548, had the petition:—

At the administration the consecrated elements are called “the Sacrament of the body of Christ,” and “the Sacrament of the blood”; and the words of administration remained unaltered except that “thy body and soul” was said in connection with the administration in both kinds instead of “thy body” with the species of bread and “thy soul” with the species of wine. In the thanksgiving after Communion are the words:—

“We most heartily thank Thee for that Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

As in 1548, the rubric directing the dividing of each piece of the consecrated bread into two or more parts stated:—

“Men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ.”

As regards the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, the prayer of oblation included the passages:—

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesu Christ, we Thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before Thy divine majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make: having in remembrance His blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, rendering unto Thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, entirely desiring Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching Thee to grant that by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion. And here we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Thee.… And, although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto Thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, and command these our prayers and supplications, by the ministry of Thy holy angels, to be brought up into Thy holy tabernacle before the sight of Thy divine majesty.”

In the order for the Communion of the Sick the ordinary mediæval teaching about Spiritual Communion was repeated in the rubric:—

“If any man either by reason of extremity of sickness or of lack of warning given in due time to the curate, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, then the curate shall instruct him that, if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he path thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink spiritually the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.”

In all these respects the Prayer Book of 1549, in spite of the differences of belief among the bishops and clergy and the divisions of opinion as to the advisability of the use of the Book, would be naturally understood as giving expression to the same doctrine as that contained in the order and canon of the Mass, while, like the order and canon of the Mass and liturgical works generally, it did not commit those who used it to one opinion or to another as to whether the substance of the bread and wine remains after consecration or as to the exact nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. On the other hand, the prohibition of “any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people” at the consecration was a prominent and important departure from a usage closely connected with the doctrine of the Sacrament.

It is probable that the Prayer Book of 1549 represented rather what it was thought safe to put out at the time than what Archbishop Cranmer and those who were acting with him wished, and that at the time of the publication of the Book they already had in view a revision of it which would approach much more nearly the position of the extreme Reformers. At any rate projects of revision went on from this time; and in 1552 the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was completed. There is no evidence that this Book was ever submitted to Convocation; it had the authority of Parliament in the second Act of Uniformity, which passed both Houses of Parliament in April, 1552, the five peers who voted against its third reading in the House of Lords including Bishop Thirlby of Norwich and Bishop Aldridge of Carlisle. This new Book bore evident marks of the opinions to which Cranmer was now committed. The word “Mass,” which had been retained in 1549, was omitted from the title of “The Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion”. Instead of the provision of the 1549 Book that at the Holy Communion the priest should wear “a white albe plain with a vestment or cope” was the rubric that—

“the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon he shall have and wear a surplice only.”

The office was broken up with obviously controversial intentions, so as to interrupt the action of the rite. The words preceding the recital of the institution were altered to—

“Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech Thee: and grant that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesu Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed body and blood.”

The order that the priest was to “take the bread into his hands” and to “take the cup into his hands” in connection with the words of institution was omitted, an omission which, if designed, may imply that the recital of our Lord’s action at the Last Supper was regarded rather as a mere historical account than as an act of consecration, although it must be observed that the recital was still embedded in a prayer. The old words of administration, which with slight additions had been preserved in the Order of Communion of 1548 and the Prayer Book of 1549, were abandoned; and in their place were substituted the sentences:—

“Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving”;

“Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee; and be thankful.”

The descriptions of the consecrated elements as “the Sacrament of the body of Christ,” “the Sacrament of the blood,” and as having “in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ” were omitted, as was the sentence “we” “do celebrate and make here before Thy divine majesty with these Thy holy gifts the memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance His blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension”. The phrase in the prayer of humble access, “so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood,” still remained, and still by the word “so” implied that the consecrated Sacrament was the flesh and blood of Christ, independently of the faith of the communicant; but, while in 1549 this phrase had been harmonious with the whole office of which it formed part, in the new Book it stood alone as a survival. There was nothing indeed explicitly to deny the doctrines which were preserved in the Book of 1549; but the new Book, as a revision of that of 1549, could hardly have been the work of men who believed those doctrines, and the general impression conveyed by it is well represented by the changes made in the prayer of consecration and in the words of administration. Thus the Book may be regarded as having been designed to teach some form of receptionist or even virtualist doctrine, such as that now held by Cranmer.

After the Prayer Book of 1552 had been printed, but before most of the copies had been issued by the printer, a declaration on kneeling when receiving the Holy Communion was added on the authority of the council. This declaration was as follows:—

“Although no order can be so perfectly devised but that it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: and yet because brotherly charity willeth that, so much as conveniently may be, offences should be taken away: therefore we willing to do the same, Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion: which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder which about the Holy Communion might else ensue: lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or to any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. For, as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they 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, as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body to be in more places than in one at one time.”

Very much of the phraseology used in this declaration is capable in itself of being explained in harmony with the belief that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ. That “it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body to be in more places than one at one time” might not be more than an acceptance of the Thomist and Dominican philosophy as against the speculations of the Scotist and Franciscan divines. That “the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ” “are in heaven and not here” might not amount to more than such a distinction between the natural method of our Lord’s being in heaven and the supernatural and sacramental method of His being in the Eucharist as was frequently made in the middle ages and as had been insisted on a year before at the Council of Trent. That “the sacramental bread and wine” “remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored” might not be more than a denial of Transubstantiation and a repudiation of adoration of the bread and wine which would be entirely consistent with an assertion that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ Himself there present is to be adored. Even the statement that no “adoration is done, or ought to be done,” “to any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood,” can be interpreted so as not to be inconsistent with a belief that the consecrated Sacrament is the spiritual manhood of our Lord’s risen and ascended life, and that He Himself is there to be adored. Such an explanation of the declaration would be following lines of thought and of language which were very customary in the middle ages and must have been familiar to theologians in the sixteenth century. But, when the declaration is viewed in relation to the known opinions of Cranmer, to the whole character of the Prayer Book to which it was affixed, and to the object of the addition as described in the declaration itself as being to assure the extreme Reformers of the innocence, from their point of view, of kneeling when receiving the Holy Communion, a method of interpretation, which as a mere matter of language is in the abstract possible, becomes incredible. Historically considered, the declaration added by the council to the Book of 1552 must be regarded as a denial of the doctrine that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ.

The two Acts of Uniformity passed in 1549 and 1552 in connection with the First and the Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI. were characteristic signs of the intolerant and persecuting spirit of the age. The formation of a series of articles, dealing both with central and with very many subordinate doctrines, to which assent was to be required as a condition of ministering in the Church of England and of holding certain positions, was similarly in harmony with the time. On December 27, 1549, John Hooper, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, wrote to Henry Bullinger, one of the Swiss Reformers, who had succeeded Zwingli as chief pastor at Zurich in 1531:—

“The Archbishop of Canterbury entertains right views as to the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself. He has some articles of religion, to which all preachers and lecturers in divinity are required to subscribe, or else a licence for teaching is not granted them; and in these his sentiments respecting the Eucharist are pure and religious and similar to yours in Switzerland.”

Six weeks later, in another letter to Bullinger, Hooper wrote:—

“The Bishops of Canterbury, Rochester, Ely, St. Davids, Lincoln, and Bath are all favourable to the cause of Christ; and, as far as I know, entertain right opinions in the matter of the Eucharist. I have freely conversed with all of them upon this subject, and have discovered nothing but what is pure and holy. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is at the head of the king’s council, gives to all lecturers and preachers their licence to read and preach: every one of them, however, must previously subscribe to certain articles, which, if possible, I will send you; one of which, respecting the Eucharist, is plainly the true one, and that which you maintain in Switzerland.”

In 1551 the king and the council ordered Cranmer to draw up articles of religion, to be published with the authority of the State; and Cranmer’s articles, still in a tentative stage, were submitted by him to other bishops; a year later he laid them before the council; and on their being returned made some additions and sent them to Sir William Cecil and Sir John Cheke and to the king, and subsequently to the six royal chaplains. At this stage they were forty-five in number, and were written in Latin. The following are those which relate to the Eucharist:—

“xxvi. Of the Sacraments.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people with Sacraments most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification. As is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which two only have been ordained in the Church by Christ the Lord as Sacraments, and which alone have the proper nature of Sacraments.

“Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in those only who worthily receive them, they have a wholesome effect, and yet not that of the work wrought (ex opere operato), as some men speak, which word, as it is strange and unknown to Holy Scripture, so it engenders no godly but a very superstitious sense. But they that receive unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.

“Sacraments ordained by the word of God are not only marks of profession among Christians, but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also strengthen our faith in Him.”

“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 diverse 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.”

“xxxii. The Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be kept.

“The Sacrament of the Eucharist was not by Christ’s ordinance kept, or carried about, or lifted up, or worshipped.”

“xxxiii. Of the one perfect offering of Christ made on the cross.

“The offering of Christ made once for all is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual, and there is no other expiation for sins but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead are fables and dangerous deceits.”

In 1553 a series of articles known as the Forty-two Articles was issued with a title stating that they had received the approval of Convocation. This statement appears to have been an “official fiction”; and there is no reason to suppose that this document had any other explicit authority than that of the king and the council. In June, 1553, a royal mandate was issued, requiring the subscription of clergy, schoolmasters, and members of the universities on taking their degrees to the Forty-two Articles. They differ little from the forty-five articles of the draft already mentioned. In the case of those concerning the Eucharist, the sentence “which two only have been ordained in the Church by Christ the Lord as Sacraments, and which alone have the proper nature of Sacraments,” was omitted; the four articles “Of the Lord’s Supper,” “Of Transubstantiation,” “Of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” and “The Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be kept,” were combined into one article under the title “Of the Lord’s Supper”; the statement “it cannot be at the same time in many places” was altered to “the body of one and the self same man cannot be at one time in diverse places”; and the words “to have remission of pain or sin” were added after “did offer Christ for the quick and the dead”. Both in the draft and in the articles as officially issued, the extreme form of Zwinglianism, Transubstantiation, and belief in “the real and bodily presence” were condemned; “a partaking of the body of Christ” and “of the blood of Christ” by those who “duly and worthily and with faith receive” was affirmed, probably rather in the sense of the Virtualism which Cranmer had by this time come to believe than in the sense of an actual reception of the body and blood of Christ by the faithful communicant according to the view of Calvin. A result of the combination of four articles in the draft into one article in those eventually decided on was the omission of the heading “The Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be kept,” so that there was no explicit prohibition of the reservation of the Sacrament but only the statement that “the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” (in the Latin text “Sacramentum Eucharistiœ”) “was not commanded by Christ’s ordinance to be kept,” which did not necessarily mean more than that reservation was not an essential part of obedience to the institution of Christ. As to the Eucharistic sacrifice, both the draft and the official form condemned any opinion which might conflict with the complete efficacy of “the offering of Christ made once for ever,” and in particular any view that the sacrifice of the cross was offered for original sin only, and that the sacrifice of the Mass was a distinct and parallel sacrifice for actual sins; when it is remembered how easy it would have been to find phraseology which would have unmistably repudiated any doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, it appears probable that this article was intended to leave open any further questions than those necessarily involved in the explicit condemnations which it contains.

Some copies of the Forty-two Articles had added to them a brief treatise entitled A Short Catechism; or Plain Instruction, Containing the Sum of Christian Learning. This Catechism appears to have been the work of John Poynet, who had succeeded Gardiner as Bishop of Winchester on the deposition of the latter in 1551. The printing of it was authorised by royal letters patent dated 25th March, 1553. The part relating to the Eucharist conveys either a receptionist or a virtualist doctrine.

“Master. What is the use of the Lord’s Supper?

“Scholar. Even the very same that was ordained by the Lord Himself.… This was the manner and order of the Lord’s Supper, which we ought to hold and keep, that the remembrance of so great a benefit, the passion and death of Christ, be alway kept in mind; that, after that the world is ended, He may come, and make us to sit with Him at His own Board.

“Master. What declareth and betokeneth the Supper unto us, which we solemnly use in the remembrance of the Lord?

“Scholar. The Supper, as I have showed a little before, is a certain thankful remembrance of the death of Christ, forasmuch as the bread representeth His body, betrayed to be crucified for us, the wine standeth in stead and place of His blood, plenteously shed for us. And, even as by bread and wine our natural bodies are sustained and nourished, so by the body, that is, the flesh and blood of Christ, the soul is fed through faith and quickened to the heavenly and godly life.

“Master. How come these things to pass?

“Scholar. These things come to pass by a certain secret mean, and lively working of the Spirit, when we believe that Christ hath once for all given up His body and blood for us, to make a sacrifice and most pleasant offering to His heavenly Father, and also when we confess and acknowledge Him our only Saviour, high Bishop, Mediator, and Redeemer, to whom is due all honour and glory.

“Master. All this thou dost well understand. For methinketh thy meaning is that faith is the mouth of the soul, whereby we receive this heavenly meat, full both of salvation and immortality, dealt among us by the means of the Holy Ghost.”