PAGE. Comparison of remarks by Mr. Gorham and Mr. Goode on Bucer's opinion of the Invocation in the Liturgy of 1549 Bucer's observations on Ubiquity, Letter to P. Martyr, June 20, 1549 Mr. Goode's statement-that "This is my Body" must mean "This is 404-7 408-10 Mr. Fisher's remarks on the hindrance to the Reformation caused by the Note 409-10 The statements of the Bps. in 1661-"That the sense of " the Declaration "is declared sufficiently in the 28th Article,"―supported by com- The comparison sanctions Objective Presence and Adoration Alleged danger of localizing Christ's Presence on earth, not real Nine Propositions (with References) as to Historical belief in the Church of England, on the Real Presence, drawn from the preceding Testi- General Statement gathered from these Propositions Examination of a Note (pp. 479-82) in Mr. Freeman's "Principles of 420-21 421-42 SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS, ETC. MY LORD, Scarcely a fortnight ago I heard, with much concern, that a Synod of the Scottish Bishops had been specially summoned for the 27th of this month, to consider whether any and what steps should be taken by their Lordships in consequence of grave complaints which have been made imputing heterodoxy to certain statements in the Bishop of Brechin's Primary Charge. In common with others I was aware that these charges (which, as is publicly known, were brought before the Synod of Bishops by the Bishop of Glasgow some months ago) threatened to occupy their Lordships' attention in the coming September: though, indeed, we indulged a hope--that the excitement and agitation, so strangely caused, becoming allayed and the Bishop of Brechin's own explanations and proofs of his statements in his recently published 2nd Edition being attentively considered, either the promoter or promoters of the Charges might be led to withdraw them, or that the Synod would deem it best not to entertain them. In this hope we have been unhappily disappointed; and we cannot but be doubly anxious as to any statement which may be put forth by the Synod now summoned, so unexpectedly and suddenly, to debate certain Propositions, which it is understood the Bishops are to be asked to affirm, condemnatory of points in that Charge. B There seems reason to think that the questions to be discussed may be materially affected by the meaning which the Synod might attach to the well known Declaration on Kneeling which is appended to the English Communion Office. Some little time since I happened to mention to a friend that I had reason to think there were grounds for forming an opinion of this Declaration different from those usually held; my observation having been quoted by him at a meeting of gentlemen assembled in consequence of the announcement of the coming Synod, I was asked by them to put together at once any statements or facts which had led to that opinion. This, my Lord, I now proceed to do in the form of a Letter to yourself: only premising that the very limited time allotted to me will I fear prevent so ample an examination of the subject as its great importance demands. The Declaration in question, as it originally appeared in the 2nd Prayer Book of Edw. VI., A. D. 1552, commences thus: "Althoughe no ordre can be so perfectlye deuysed, but it may be of some, eyther for theyr ignorance and infirmite, or els of malice and obstinacie, mysconstrued, depraued, and interpreted in a wrong parte. And yet because brotherly charitie willeth, that so muche as conueniently may be offences should be taken away: therefore we willing to dooe the same." Then follows the form which (with such verbal changes as will be seen by a comparison of the two texts) also appeared in the revised Book of Charles II., A. D. 1662. The words printed here, and throughout the following pages, in Egyptian type, indicate the expressions on which the present controversy turns. 1552. "Whereas it is ordeyned in the Booke of Common Prayer, in the administracion of the Lordes Supper, that the Communicantes kneelynge should receiue the Holye Communion whiche thynge beynge well mente for a sygnificacyon of the hum 1662. "Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which Order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits ble and gratefull acknowledgeyne of the benefites of Christe, given unto the woorthye receyuer, and to auoyde the prophanacion and dysordre whiche about the Holye Communion myghte elles ensue. Lest yet the same kneelynge might be thought or taken otherwyse, we dooe declare that it is not mente thereby, that any adoracion is doone, or ought to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodelye receyued, or unto any reall and essencial presence there beeyng of Chrystes naturall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces and therefore may not bee adored, for that were Idolatrye to be abhored of all faythfull Christians. And as concernynge the naturall bodye and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, they are in heauen and not here: for it is agaynst the trueth of Christes true naturall bodye, to be in moe places then in one at one tyme." --- of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation, and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue ;) Yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either, unto the Sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored: (for that were idolatrie to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." Two opinions have, more or less, prevailed with regard to this Declaration; the one-that, in both its forms, it was designed to exclude any doctrine of a Real Presence: the other that the earlier form had this object, but that the later, by the substitution of the word "corporal," for the words "real and essential," was meant to maintain the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, as opposed to that doctrine of the Real Presence which is held to be involved in the dogma of Transubstantiation. I venture to think that neither of these views is the true one: but (1) That both forms of the Declaration were intended to express the same thing; and (2) That the precise object of both was, neither more nor less than-To disclaim for the Church of England a belief in any VISIBLE or INVISIBLE Presence of Christ's NATURAL Body and Blood LOCALLY in the Eucharist. Any tone of faith, however strong; any terms conveying it, however exalted; these, I humbly believe, were designed to be allowed; provided they did not involve that Doctrine which, I allege, was disavowed in the Declaration; while a definite Corporal Act was prescribed, adequate to express the highest belief, and that THE ACT OF KNEELING. Now, the real question to be considered is not,-What can this Declaration be fairly made to mean by strict, much less by ingenious, criticism? but-To what conclusion shall we be led by an induction of Historical facts and opinions connected with its promulgation at both periods? It is my present conviction that the interpretation I have alleged is that interpretation which Documentary evidence goes to prove; and this is what I purpose now to endeavour to establish in the following Historical enquiry.. I have suggested that the earlier, equally with the later, form of the Declaration was designed only to exclude any doctrine of a LOCAL NATURAL (i.e. a carnal, physical, organical) Presence in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The question then obviously arises, and must first be answered, Was such a Presence maintained by any in the Church of England in 1552, when this Declaration was put forth? History proves that it was; and moreover it also proves that the Declaration under consideration (though issued, as will be seen hereafter, by way of explanation to the Puritan, rather than as a protest against the Roman party) was only one in a series of endeavours to extirpate a doctrine which had taken root, and had propagated itself widely among both clergy and people. The period which this enquiry must embrace commences naturally with the reign of Edward VI.; but it may be useful to notice the doctrine which was authoritatively insisted upon just prior to his Accession; perhaps this may be conveniently done by referring to the test then applied to Shaxton, Bishop of Salisbury. This Prelate, as his Injunctions of 1538 prove, was in the matter of Ceremonies, a Reforming Bishop; and Burnet, writing of 1546, says : "Nicholas Shaxton, that was bishop of Salisbury, had, been long prisoner; but this year, he had said in his imprisonment, |