Much controversy has arisen around the question as to whether Christ is objectively present in the Sacrament, or merely subjectively present in the faithful recipient.  Those who hold the former view assert that Christ, Who is present in the Sacrament, ‘imparts to the communicant His Body and Blood, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful’.  Here is an objective gift which is not made by our faith because it is ‘given before we receive it’.  Our Lord offers in the Sacrament the gift of Himself; He gives, we take and receive by faith.  He has taken the Elements into mystical union with Himself, and made them the vehicle of imparting His life to His members.  Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated Elements.  The presence, however, is ‘spiritual’ not ‘corporal’ or ‘bodily’, but it is none the less real on that account.  Hence to receive the Body and Blood of Christ does not mean to receive physical and spatial objects, but to receive His life into ourselves ‘that we may evermore dwell in Him and He in us’.  In substance the Elements remain bread and wine.  But they are no longer ordinary bread and wine, for by them God ‘doth work invisibly in us’.  The language of the Prayer Book and Articles certainly lends considerable support to this interpretation.

The history of Christian doctrine shows how realistically the Words of Institution were interpreted in the Primitive Church.  The emphasis on the Eucharistic Presence is so strong among early Church writers that their language might sometimes be mistakenly thought to support the belief in Transubstantiation.  Because they bring about the believers’ union with Christ, Ignatius calls the Elements in the Holy Communion ‘the medicine of immortality’,^[1] and Irenaeus tells us how they have their effect: ‘Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial and a celestial one, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the Eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity’.^[2]  Augustine explained that the Lord’s Supper is a proper Sacrament, since in the bread and the cup ‘one thing is seen, another understood’.^[3]  ‘The Body and Blood of Christ will then be life to each, if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in very truth spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk.’^[4]

Those who dislike the objective view of the Sacrament, generally hold the Receptionist view.  They believe that ‘though the Body and Blood of the Lord are really received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper, yet their presence is real in the hearts of the recipients only, and not in the Elements prior to reception.  According to this doctrine the consecrated bread and wine are said to be the Lord’s Body and Blood only in a figure’.^[5]  Dr. Bicknell asserts that there is nothing in the Prayer Book to prevent an Anglican from holding the Receptionist theory.  Bishop McAdoo, on the other hand, declares that ‘it certainly seems that the Church in her liturgy stresses beyond cavil the objectivity of the gift’.^[6]  In the absence of any authoritative statement by the Anglican Church on the subject, we may conclude that both the objective and subjective theories of the Real Presence may be held and taught in our Communion.  On this subject, the Faith and Order Theological Commission declared, ‘It is necessary to guard against language which is occasionally used, which suggests that the only requisite for a valid Sacrament is the faith of the recipient, and ignores completely the divine action.  We experience the benefits of a Sacrament, they are not made efficacious by our experience’.^[7]  The Commission accepted the doctrine of the Real Presence, though they held different views as to how the Presence is realized and manifested in the Sacraments.