.

tation of the act of kneeling at reception which, so far I think as we can gather from their expressions, the Archbishop and his associates thought it of any moment to shut out. Was it feared that that token of adoration (for such in itself it really was) might be held to countenance Transubstantiation? Then, as the second paragraph of the Article condemned that dogma, it was only needful to import its teaching into the Declaration; this was done in the words "as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wine, they remayne styll in their verye naturall substaunces, and therefore may not be adored."

Again: would it be thought that this posture of worship (for no one could doubt it to be such) implied a belief in that notion of a natural, organical, local presence of Christ's humanity which the reforming theologians of that day had been so vigorously opposing? The third paragraph of the Article taught the contrary, and, too, in an epitome of scholastic language, which could hardly be unfamiliar to

S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Pars 3, quæst. 75, art. 1, "Utrum in hoc Sacramento sit Corpus Christi secundum veritatem."

It is objected, he says

"3. Præterea. Nullum corpus potest esse simul in pluribus locis, cum nec Angelo hoc conveniat: eadem enim ratione posset esse ubique. Sed corpus Christi est verum corpus, et est in cœlo. Ergo videtur quod non sit secundum veritatem in sacramento altaris, set solum sicut in signo.'

To which he answers:

"Ad tertium dicendum, quod corpus Christi non est eo modo in hoc sacramento, sicut corpus in loco. quod suis dimensionibus loco commensuratur; sed quodam speciali modo, qui est proprius huic sacramento. Unde dicimus, quod corpus Christi est in diversis altaribus, non sicut in diversis locis, sed sicut in sacramento: per quod non intelligimus quod Christus sit ibi solum sicut in signo, licet sacramentum sit in genere signi; sed intelligimus, corpus Christi hic esse, sicut dictum est (in corp. art.) secundum modum proprium huic sacramento." Quæst. 75, art. 4. "Utrum panis possit converto in Corpus Christi.”

hæc conversio non est formalis, sed substantialis; nec continetur inter species motus naturalis, sed proprio nomine potest dici transubstantiatio."

Quæst. 76, art. 5. "Utrum Corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento, sicut in loco." "Respondeo dicendum, quod sicut jam dictum est (art. 3, hu. quæst.)† Corpus Christi non est in sacramento sccundum proprium modum quantitatis dimensivæ, sed magis secundum modum substantiæ. Omne autem corpus locatum est in loco secundum modum quantitatis dimensiva, inquantum scilicet commensuratur loco secundum suam quantitatem dimensivam. Unde relinquitur quod Corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco sed per modum substantia eo scilicet modo quo substantia continetur a dimensionibus: succedit enim sub+"Præterea. Sicut dictum est (art. præc. and Art. 3. hu. quæst.) in sacramento est Corpus Christi cum sua quantitate dimensiva, et cum omnibus suis accidentibus. Sed esse in loco est accidens corporis: unde et ibi connumeratur inter novem genera accidentium. Ergo Corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter."

most Priests then-which must have been well known to Knox, trained, as he was, in the disputations of the Schoolmen: therefore (when the Declaration embodied this statement, and said, "it is against the trueth of Christes true naturall bodye, to be in more places then in one at one tyme") the Catholic and the Protestant party would probably alike rejoice that they were bidden to defend the Church of England's view, as against the Papal party, by an appeal to such a witness as St. Thomas Aquinas, who had said that "in no manner is the Body of Christ in this Sacrament locally."

Once more did any dread lest this new command to "deliver" the Sacrament "to the people in their hands, kneeling," (an order needless when the 1st Book was prepared, as then neither Clergy nor Laity presumed to do otherwise) should contribute to that very danger which Cranmer apprehended from the Trent "decrees respecting the worship of the host," how was their alarm subdued? The Archbishop made no attempt to disguise a posture which, when employed in Public Worship, all knew to imply no less honour than that due to the Unseen though Present God: indeed he had himself pointed out in his Letter to the Council that "the people praying and geavinge thanckes, do kneele" in the "two praiers wch go before," and the "two" which "ymmediatlie followe" the "receavinge of the Sacrament"; and, moreover, he had expressly defended kneeling, in the act of reception, on the ground, that to abstain from it then "should rather import a contemptuouse then a reverent receavinge of the Sacrament"-words which surely can have but one natural meaning, viz., that such a change of posture would, at the least, be equivalent to a verbal denial of that Divine Presence at that time which stantia Corporis Christi in hoc sacramento substantiæ panis: unde sicut substantia panis non erat sub suis dimensionibus localiter; sed per modum substantiæ, ita nee substantia Corporis Christi. Non tamen substantia Corporis Christi est subjectum illarum dimensionum, sicut erat substantia panis: et ideo substantia panis ratione suarum dimensionum localiter erat ibi, quia comparabatur ad locum illum mediantibus propriis dimensionibus; substantia autem Corporis Christi comparatur ad locum illum mediantibus dimensionibus alienis ; ita quod e converso dimensiones propriæ Corporis Christi comparantur ad locum illum mediante substantia; quod est contra rationem corporis locali. Unde nullo modo Corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter."

was attested to be there, immediately before and directly after, by the customary (and uncomplained of) act of kneeling.* But while maintaining this (and therefore necessarily holding that in whatever way Christ was present in the Sacrament, external worship was due to Him therein) the Primate had concurred in the 4th paragraph of the XXIXth Article which taught that "The Sacrament [Sacramentum) of the Lordes Supper was not commaunded by Christes ordinaunce to be worshipped [adorabatur] "—language this which most charitably and carefully avoids passing judgment upon those who, upon their view of the Sacramentum being only the accidents and not the substance of bread and wine, adopted a different conclusion. Here, too, then, was a warrant for anticipating the objection by saying in the Declaration (at no real risk of offending other Churches) that "the Sacra

While I am engaged upon this sheet the Bishop of St. Andrew's publishes his "Opinion on the Appeal of the Rev. P. Cheyne, delivered at the Episcopal Synod holden at Edinburgh, Nov. 4, 1858." As this is the "opinion" of the majority of that Synod (for the Bishops of Glasgow and Moray expressed their entire concurrence in it) it becomes the more important to notice a remark therein touching this act of Kneeling which the Declaration defends, especially as among the three "passages more particularly objected to", and which the Bp. of St. Andrew's expressed his earnest hope that Mr. Cheyne would "not refuse to recall . . . and express his regret for," was this: "2. When he [the appellant] further declares that in the Lord's Supper we kneel to the Lord Himself, invisibly present under the form,' or 'under the veils of bread and wine.'" (p. 36.)

One argument advanced for this judicial request occurs at p. 29 where the Bishop says "To order us to kneel in grateful acknowledgment of benefits received those benefits being the Sacramental Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ-this is natural, this we can understand. But in the actual, substantial Presence of Christ Himself, both God and man, we should expect to be directed to fall down and worship, not solely nor chiefly out of gratitude, but from those simpler motives of reverence and awe, which lie at the foundation of all the Divine honour which we pay to Almighty God."

Here the Bishop denies that the "REVERENCE" due to God was a motive for ordering the communicant to kneel when he received the Holy Sacrament: but Cranmer's Letter appears plainly to teach the very reverse of this; he uses the precise word "REVERENT" as the equivalent of that "KNEELINGE" posture used by "the people praying and geavinge thanckes" immediately before and directly after the act of receiving; therefore when he argues that not to kneel at that time "should rather importe a contemptuouse then a reverent receavinge of the Sacrament," he could surely mean nothing less than that to omit at such a moment the recognized posture of WORSHIP would be to withhold then that "Divine honour," proceeding from "motives of reverence and awe," which, the instant before and the instant after, they did not refuse as due to the Presence of God: in fact, while not touching upon the question of the Real Presence in the Sacrament, he points out the more than inconsistency of doing homage to God as present in devotions at the Sacrament, and refusing the like homage when partaking of "the Sacrament" itself.

mentall bread and wyne . . . may not bee adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians."

This comparison of the Article and the Declaration seems to leave no reasonable doubt whence the language was derived of this explanation of the Rubric on Kneeling which the Archbishop and his co-advisers deemed it desirable to publish. And the consideration that it was, evidently, drawn from a Doctrinal Formulary which was about to be imposed upon the Clergy, suggests that such a source would be, at once, a warrant for the acceptance of the Declaration itself and a guarantee that it contained nothing contrary to Catholic belief. For, when we recollect that the Articles of 1552 had undergone the criticism of the Prelates, and, as there are good grounds for believing, of the Convocation also; it is extremely unlikely, considering how many of these revisers (though not insensible of prevalent corruptions) were jealous of changes in the accustomed Theological language, that they would have assented to Definitions which were opposed to really ancient doctrine; and their watchfulness must naturally have resulted in part from the known views and tendency of some Bishops and leading Divines and from the operating influences of the foreign Reformers. Mr. Hardwick, speaking of the preparation of these Articles, has observed:

"... that the original draft of this document was made by Archbishop Cranmer, and by him submitted to a number of revisions during an interval of eighteen months. In what particulars it was modified or augmented by this long and varied criticism we are unable to ascertain precisely; and yet the letter of the King to Ridley, bearing date June 9, 1553, as well as that of the Archbishop to Cecil in the previous September, would lead us to suppose that the amount of alteration had been very considerable; for it describes the Articles, which were then publishing in their final form, as 'devised and gathered with great study, and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of our Bishops of this realm and sundry others of our Clergy?' (Strype, Eccl. Mem. ii. 421.) We cannot, therefore, resist the conclusion, that they had been exposed to a searching review, and freely discussed and amended by a number of auxiliary hands, before the date of their general circulation." -Hist. of the Articles, p. 83.

The "Visitation Book" of Bishop Hooper, 1551-2 furnishes a body of Articles which he endeavoured to enforce in his own Diocese prior to the promulgation of the 42 Articles by Royal Authority in 1553: Hooper seems to have drawn them mainly from those which the Archbishop sent out for review, though they were apparently adapted to the Bishop's own doctrinal notions: perhaps some of the other Prelates took a similar course: a comparison of the two sets of Articles serves to illustrate the jealous caution, just referred to, which determined the ultimate choice of phraseology. The XXIXth Article is that with which I am alone concerned here: it so far corresponds with Hooper's Xth Article as to deny plainly the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but it is much more guarded in treating of the Presence; it contents itself with saying that "a faithful man ought not either to believe or openlie to confesse the reall, and bodilie presence (as thei terme it) of Christe's fleshe, and bloude, in the Sacramente of the Lorde's Supper," whereas Hooper's Article denies "any manner of corporal or local presence of Christ, in, under, or with the bread and wine." These words need not perhaps (as I have supposed at p. 30) mean more than the rejection of a carnal and natural presence, but (apart from the fact that Hooper also speaks of what we receive as being "the confirmation and augmentation of all the merits and deservings of Christ) obviously they are sufficiently open to misconstruction, to have presented a formidable obstacle to the general acceptance of the XXIXth Article, had it been couched in the same language.

Upon a careful consideration, then, of Cranmer's Letter, combined with the illustrations it derives from the contemporary circumstances here related, the conviction is strengthened in my own mind-that the original Declaration was not designed to be more than a denial of such Presence in the Sacrament as was held, by the maintainers of Transubstantiation, to be the legitimate conclusion from that Doctrine; though the words "reall and essenciall," if taken in their usual acceptation and irrespective of their controversial meaning in 1552, seem to condemn a supernatural no less