ended. But the like might be said of the Liturgy of the Early Church, for the Bishop's Benediction preceded the post-communion consumption; and yet there can be no doubt, I suppose, that then that consumption was never regarded as a mere supplementary act which had no connexion with the Office itself: moreover it seems inconceivable that the Christians, and especially the Clergy, of that day, should have drawn a distinction between what was reserved and what (not being needed for reservation) was consumed; therefore, treating with the like reverence, as they did, what they received in their public Communion and what was reserved for the Communion of the Sick, it follows that they must have paid the same regard to what the Communicants alone were allowed to partake of in the post-benediction manducation. And if this be so, is there the slightest ground for supposing that the Reviewers of 1662 contemplated a procedure different from that ancient practice which they took for their principal guide, when there was nothing in the nature of the case to call for such divergence, but, on the contrary, a Doctrinal agreement which summoned them to take pattern by primitive antiquity, and by the custom of the unreformed English Church, so far as it coincided therewith? To me it seems not, especially when we find Cosin, whose Eucharistic views were certainly not higher than some of his most influential co-revisers, writing thus in the 1st Series of those Notes which we have been considering; unless, indeed, it can be proved that this language is at variance with his latest exposition of Doctrine in his History of Transubstantiation: his words are p. 155):

"The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken, etc.] Neither need there any fault be found with our Church for thus distinguishing the outward sign from the thing signified, the bread from the Body of Christ; for Maldonate affirms that the Church of Rome never said otherwise, de Sacram., p. 125: Respondendum est, nos nunquam dicere, idem esse Sacramentum et rem significatam; nam Sacramentum vocamus signum quod videtur, rem significatam, Corpus Christi quod non videtur; which approves of our doctrine, and condemns that gross conceit of the ignorant papists, that think they see, and taste, and chew the very Body of

Christ, corporally, which every man abhors to conceive, even the best learned among the papists as well as we. I cannot see where

any real difference is betwixt us about this real presence, if we would give over the study of contradiction, and understand one another aright. Maldonate, de Sacr., p. 143, after a long examination of the matter, concludes thus at last with us all, so the words be not taken exclusive, as the Puritans will take them, Corpus Christi sumitur a nobis sacramentaliter spiritualiter, et realitur, sed non corporaliter; and as I have heard my Lord Overall preach it an hundred times.

There is one other objection which some might perhaps advance against this view for which I am contending-viz: that, if what is consumed "immediately after the blessing" by "the Priest and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him" be as much the Sacrament as what they received before the Benediction, then they make a second Communion in one day, and this is forbidden by the Canons of the Church, at least to the Laity.

*

But one (and a sufficient) answer to this plainly is-that, as the old English Liturgies distinctly provided for the consumption of the remains of the Sacrament by the Celebrant in just as reverent a way as they ordered his communion to be made, and that too at a period when the authority of the then (and still existing) Canons was recognized and acted upon, which forbade a Priest to Celebrate (and therefore to Communicatet twice in one day without necessity; so, to receive at any given Celebration of the Lord's Supper, a second portion of the Heavenly Food there set forth is not to make a second Communion. Moreover, since whatever the Consecrated Elements were to the Celebrant under either action, that also they must have been to those who united with him in those actions, it follows that if he did not then make a second Communion, neither did they; and because the nature of the

viz: The Canons made in King Edgar's reign, A.D. 960; Hubert Walter's Canons at Westminster, A.D. 1200; Archbishop Langton's Constitutions, A.D. 1222; Archbishop Langham's Constitutions, A.D. 1367.

+ The old Law of the Church of England, "that it never be that a priest celebrate mass, and do not eat the housel himself," (Edgar's Canons, A.D. 960) is expressly re-enacted in Canon 21, A.D. 1603, which orders "that every Minister, as oft as he administereth the Communion, shall first receive that Sacrament himself;" and also by the Rubric in the present Communion Office, "Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself."

Eucharist remains unchanged, whatever changes are made in the mode of its Celebration, therefore the like argument holds good now; and thus, (to make the comparison with all reverence) as he who partakes a second time of the same food at any repast (though he has returned thanks) is not thereby accounted to make more than one meal, so, he who (subsequent to thanksgiving) eats and drinks again of " that [Bread and Wine] which was consecrated," does not repeat his formal act of Sacramental Communion, but only continues to partake of that one "Supper" in which he is receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Having regard, therefore, to these various considerations which have now been urged, especially, viz: the language of Cranmer's Letter; the Order of Communion 1548; the probable traditional practice through Edward 6th's reign, and in considerable part, at least, of Elizabeth's reign; the increasingly reverential character of later Rubrics; the known opinions, on the Real Presence, of the leading Reviewers of 1661; Bishop Cosin's Notes and Suggestions; the comparison of terms in the present Book; the directions of the Old Offices to which the Reviewers were referred, and the practice of the Early Church; the terms of the Rubric touching those whom the Celebrant is to call to him; the time at which they are to be called: it seems to me that a sufficiently conclusive argument is furnished to sustain the theory here advanced-That, in ordering the remains of the Sacrament to be "reverently" consumed, the Church of England means them to be partaken of in that posture which belongs to the act of formal Sacramental manducation.

II. Having thus considered at some length Cranmer's Letter, and examined all the points of it which appear to touch the Declaration on Kneeling, as well as some other incidental questions which spring from the Eucharistic Office; I proceed now to search for any other evidence calculated to sustain the position I have ventured to take up in my own Letter: this is the more necessary, since Archbishop Cranmer's Letter to the Privy Council (though of much value, as throwing a needful light upon the History of the Declaration)

is so far disappointing that it does not furnish any Theological arguments in favour of that rule of Kneeling at Communion for which he was contending. Knowing, however, as we now do, the basis on which he urged the opposed practice, we must be satisfied to look for the grounds of its support in Cranmer's known views at that time on the Eucharistic Presence. We have already seen that Prelate's opinions in the extracts given from his controversial language used contemporaneously with the publication of the Declaration. It is indeed, as I remarked when quoting it, a difficulty to reconcile some of his language with the rest, so as to make him speak consistently. It cannot be denied that he did frequently employ expressions which seem to contradict the Doctrine of what has been aptly termed The Real Objective Presence: but then it must always be borne in mind (1) that he did not scruple to adopt all the high language of Antiquity: (2) that he was most jealous of all attempts to use Patristic statements as a covering for the prevalent Roman Doctrine: (3) and that, owing to his desire of comprehending the Foreign Reformers, he may have been under the continual temptation of resorting to a phraseology which should not be obnoxious to the leading men in the several Reforming Schools.

These considerations seem to suggest that it is due to the Archbishop to interpret his lower by his higher language, rather than to resort to the opposite course.

Now it must be allowed, I think, that (whatever expressions be suffered himself to use in controversy) Cranmer would well weigh the language he used or sanctioned as the medium of Catechetical Instruction for the Youth of the Kingdom in the Doctrines of the Church: we cannot fairly suppose that in such a Formulary he would permit statements or definitions at variance with what he believed to be the truth.

It was, then, in 1548 (the very year, be it remembered, in which the preparation of Edward's first Prayer Book was completed) that a Catechism, designated by Burnet "an easy, but most useful work,"* (Hist. Ref., vol. 2, book i., p. 67.)

* Strype calls it "a very useful Catechism;" and says that "The substance of this book is grave, serious, and sound doctrine."-Ann. book ii., c. 5.

appeared under Cranmer's immediate authority, indeed apparently revised if not translated by him, which must be held to express the Archbishop's belief at that time. It is a small volume, and is entitled:

"CATECHISMUS, THAT IS TO SAY, A SHORTE INSTRUCTION INTO CHRISTIAN RELIGION FOR THE SYNGULAR COMMODITIE AND PROFYTE OF CHILDREN AND YONG PEOPLE. SET FORTH BY THE MOOSTE REUERENDE FATHER IN GOD THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITANE. Gualterus Lynne excudebat. 1548.

The following are all the passages which bear materially upon the subject of the Real Presence :

[a] "Secondarily Christ saieth of the breade, this is my bodye, and of y cuppe he sayeth this is my bloud. Wherefore we ought to beleue y' in the Sacrament we receyue trewly the bodye and bloud of Christ. For God is almyghtye (as ye hearde in the Crede): He is able therefore, to do all thynges what he wil. And as saint Paul writeth he calleth those thinges whiche be not, as yf they were. Wherefore when Christe taketh breade, and saieth, Take eate, this is my body, we ought not to doute but we eat his veray body. And when he taketh the cuppe, and sayeth, Take drynke, this is my blod, we ought to thynke assuredly, y' we drynke his veray blode. And this we must beleue, yf we will be counted Christen men. And wher as in this perellous tyme, certayne deceitful persons be founde in manye places, who of very frowardnes, wil not graunt, that there is the body and bloude of Christ, but denye the same, for no other cause, but that they compasse by mans blynde reason, howe this thinge shoulde be broughte to passe, ye good children, shall with all dilygence beware of suche persons, that ye suffer not yourselues to be deceaued by them...... Wherefore eschewe such erroneous opinions, and beleue the words of our Lord Jesus, that you eate and drynke his veray body and blode although mans reason cannot comprehend how and after what manner ye same is ther present."-Fol. ccxxxv.

[b]Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but ther is the bodye and bloud of our Lorde, which we receaue in the lorde's supper. For he hath sayed so, and by the power of his worde hath caused it so to be. Wherefore seying Christ saieth do this as often as ye do it, in remembrance of me, it is euident hereby, that Christe causeth even at thys tyme, his bodye and bloude to be in the sacrament, after that maner and fashion, as it was at tyme, when he made his maundye with his disciples.......... And let not the foulyshe talke of unbeleuers moue you, who are wont to aske this question, How can the pryest or minister make the bodie and bloud of Christ? To the whiche I answer that the minister doth not this of himself, But Christ himselfe doth gyve unto us his fleshe and blode, as his wordes dothe euidently declare."- Fol. ccxxxvi.