by Lukas Stock
“Principled Ecumenism”
Point eleven of the Center for Baptist Renewal’s Manifesto for Evangelical Baptist Catholicity states: “We believe that all Christians should pray for and seek Christian unity across ecclesial and denominational lines and that Baptists should not reflexively reject principled, ecumenical dialogue with other Christian traditions.”[1] What follows is an attempt at just this sort of principled ecumenism, using the respective eucharistic theologies of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion[2] (hereafter “the Articles”) and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689[3] (hereafter “the 1689”) to explore the possibility of unity between Anglicans and Baptists around what has been called the sacrament of Christian unity but has so often divided Christ’s Church. Both the Articles and the 1689 will be surveyed below for their teachings on the Lord’s Supper. Then, their teachings will be compared and contrasted, followed by some closing remarks on the role the Lord’s Supper can play in Anglican-Baptist unity.
Sacrament/Ordinance Defined
One of the most striking differences between the 1689 and the 39 Articles is likely expected to be a difference in sacramentology. Immediately, even the vocabulary used is different (the 1689’s “ordinance” and the Articles’ “sacrament”). This vocabulary difference reflects a divergence between the two traditions in how they understand the rites of baptism and communion and their significance. Typically, Baptists tend to fall closer to the memorialist position that the ordinances are symbolic acts that merely memorialize something and are to be performed as obedience to Christ’s command. This is often less true for those Baptists who have a more broadly Reformed outlook than Baptists generally (such as the Reformed Baptists of the 1689). Anglicans affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and often treat the specifics as to how that is precisely worked out during the celebration of communion as an open question. As we shall see, these documents reveal much more unity than these generalizations, or the use of different terminology, might indicate.
Both the 39 Articles and the 1689 share the view that sacraments or ordinances are ordained by Christ and therefore to be maintained and practiced by the Church.
“Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world” (1689 28.1).
“Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him” (Article 25).
While the paragraphs defining ordinances in the 1689 do not get into details beyond defining the establishment of ordinances by Christ, those details are discussed in the chapters on each specific ordinance. In regards to the Supper, as will be seen below, the 1689 confesses that communion offers “confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits” of Christ’s death, language which is quite close to what the Articles define as what sacraments offer to the one receiving them. It is therefore appropriate to say that the “sacraments” of the Articles and the “ordinances” of the 1689 are described in ways that indicate general theological agreement. These rites can be called “means of grace;” they are ordained by Christ and communicate some spiritual benefit to those receiving them. Below, we will see what each document has to say in more detail regarding the Lord’s Supper.
39 Articles on the Lord’s Supper
Administration
“It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same” (Article 23).
The Articles here clearly establish ordained ministers as the appropriate administrators of the Lord’s Supper.
What the Supper Is
According to the 39 Articles of Religion, the Lord’s Supper “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” (Article 28). The Lord’s Supper is an “effectual sign of grace” (Article 25) by which communicants partake of Christ’s Body and Blood in the elements of bread and wine. According to question 121 of the Anglican Church in North America’s approved catechism, “A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.”[4] In the case of the Lord’s Supper, the outward signs are the bread and wine, and the inward grace is Christ’s Body and Blood. This is what is meant in Article 28 when it states, “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.” When God gives a sacrament, “he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him” (Article 25). The sacramental reception of Christ’s Body and Blood is meant to nourish the believer’s soul.[5]
What the Supper Is Not
The Articles also mention specific things that the Lord’s Supper is not. The doctrine of transubstantiation is explicitly denied along with other “superstitions” in Article 28. It is stated that transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” and practices related to a superstitious understanding of the elements are condemned.
Usefulness/Benefits
As a sacrament, the Lord’s Supper communicates the benefits of the Body and Blood of Christ. “The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ” (Article 28).
This Article is seemingly vague on what exactly it means to participate in Christ’s Body and Blood, but ultimately its meaning is clear in its description of what a sacrament means in general, as well as its allusions to St. Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 10. Believers mystically participate in Christ’s suffering and redemption of the world by receiving the sacrament, which is a means whereby the grace of Christ’s work is given to the receiver.
The Wicked
Article 29 clearly states that there is a distinction between the wicked and the righteous in the reception of communion, and condemns the unworthy reception of the Supper.
1689 on the Lord’s Supper
Administration
Chapter 28.2 of the 1689 clearly states ordained ministers are the appropriate celebrants of the Supper.
What the Supper Is
“The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, in other words, the body and blood of Christ” (30.5). The elements of bread and wine are intimately tied to the Body and Blood of Christ according to this paragraph. So intimate is that relationship that the elements are able to be honestly referred to as the Body and Blood. This is important to note as it not only represents a much higher sacramentology than bare memorialism, but it also makes other claims the 1689 makes regarding the Supper intelligible.
“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses” (30.7). The Supper is a reception of Christ’s Body and Blood in the elements. This only makes sense given the view outlined previously, wherein the elements are identified with what they signify rather than being merely memorial representations. So the Lord’s Supper is a reception of Christ’s Body and Blood that presents to the communicant “the benefits of his death.”
What the Supper Is Not
In Chapter 30.2, 4, and 6 the 1689 enumerates various doctrines and practices and rejects them, including eucharistic sacrifice and transubstantiation, which is seen as unscriptural and as going against “the nature of this ordinance.” The confession is concerned with what is taught by Scripture and, importantly, how going against that teaching compromises the actual ordinance itself. The ordinance is important enough that there is concern not merely for bald obedience to the commands about it, but concern as well that the “nature” of it is jeopardized when those commands are infringed upon.
Usefulness/Benefits
The Lord’s Supper was ordained by Christ “for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other” (30.1). The 1689 lists the use of the Supper as being a remembrance, nourishment of their faith and duties to Christ, and unity within the Church, clearly expressing much more than mere memorialism.
The Wicked
The 1689 states that “whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves” (30.8). Reception of the elements by faithful and unfaithful persons is condemned.
Comparison
There are major similarities between the Articles and the 1689 on the Lord’s Supper.
Both documents operate under the assumption that in communion, God communicates grace to the recipient in the reception of the physical elements of bread and wine.
Both the Articles and the 1689 share the view that the sacraments or ordinances are to be administered in the church only by ordained ministers.
The Articles and the 1689 agree on what the Lord’s Supper is: a participation by faith in the Body and Blood of Christ, and thereby a reception of the benefits of his redemption (Article 28; 30.7). They both describe the Supper in sacramental ways and not bare memorialist ways, recognizing the real spiritual grace present in the Supper.
The two documents are also agreed on what the Supper is not. Many of the same improper practices and beliefs are condemned in similar if not identical language. Transubstantiation in particular is worth noting here. Both documents explicitly condemn the doctrine of transubstantiation on the same grounds. First, transubstantiation cannot be proved by Scripture. Second, it has led to superstitions. Third, and most importantly, it “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” (Article 28) or “overthrows the nature of the ordinance” (30.6).
The virtually identical criticism of transubstantiation as “overthrowing the nature” of the Lord’s Supper is striking. Without offering specific detail, both documents indicate the same problem with transubstantiation. This is highly suggestive that they are in fact operating with a very similar if not identical understanding of the Supper. They share a concern with the nature of the Supper being compromised by the explanation offered by transubstantiation. Based on other statements made by each document, it is also clear that the concern is not the fact that transubstantiation posits a real presence of Christ in the elements. Both documents present a view wherein the elements really communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to the communicant. Working backwards from the identical denial of transubstantiation reveals close agreement on the Supper between the 39 Articles and the 1689 Confession.
Both documents also share a view of the wicked’s reception of the Lord’s Supper. The wicked who partake of the Supper are not in fact receiving Christ but are instead receiving judgment.
The biggest area of difference in the way that the Articles and the 1689 speak about the Lord’s Supper is the difference in sacramental vocabulary. The Articles are abundantly clear that the Lord’s Supper is a “sacrament” and take time to explain what it means for something to be a sacrament. The 1689 prefers the term “ordinance,” and is content to simply say ordinances are ordained of Christ.
What is interesting about this divide is the way that it disguises the unity that these two documents share by immediately distancing them from each other in terminology. That is not to say the only difference in sacramental theology in the Articles and the 1689 is the terminology. However, when it comes to the sacrament of Christian unity, the Lord’s Supper, it is striking to see how similar these two documents sound and the agreement present in their respective eucharistic theologies.
Anglican-Baptist Unity?
What does this mean for unity between Anglicans and Baptists? For those Anglicans and Baptists who hold to the 39 Articles and the 1689 Confession, the agreement on the Lord’s Supper in these documents offers a chance for the “principled ecumenism” mentioned above. By returning to these documents that are foundational for these two traditions only to find so much agreement on the most important rite in Christian worship, believers from both camps ought to see the unity we share despite our diversity on so many other issues. Both Anglicans and Reformed Baptists have possession of rich eucharistic theologies in their founding documents, theologies which agree far more than they disagree. Agreement on the Lord’s Supper offers a doorway to brotherly discussion about other disagreements and shared ministry opportunities as we are better able to see and recall that “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). This truth is more abundantly clear when we recognize those other believers with whom we share a recognition of the grace given to the Church in the Lord’s Supper.
By no means does this unity magically erase other areas of disunity. Rather, this unity enables us to better love one another in our discussion and recognize brothers and sisters where we might not have before. Being united in the pinnacle of Christian worship brings seemingly disparate members of Christ’s Church into closer fellowship as we recognize each other as needed fellow members of the Body of Christ and are better able to love, serve, and minister with each other.
___
[1] R. Lucas Stamps and Matthew Emerson, “Evangelical Baptist Catholicity: A Manifesto” Center for Baptist Renewal. http://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/evangelical-baptist-catholicity-a-manifesto accessed 28 May 2020.
[2] ACNA, Book of Common Prayer (2019) (Huntington Beach, CA: Anglican Liturgy Press) 772-790.
[3] “The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith” Doctrine and Devotion. https://www.the1689confession.com/1689/chapter-26 accessed 28 May 2020.
[4] ACNA, To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism Approved Edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020) 55.
[5] Ibid., 58-59.
