sublatus, ibi usque ad finem Seculi sit premansurus, atque inde, non aliunde, (ut loquitur Augustinus) venturus sit ad judicandum vivos & mortuos, non debet quisquam fidelium, Carnis ejus & Sanguinis realem & corporalem (ut loquuntur) præsentiam in Eucharistia, vel credere vel profiteri. In English thus: Christ, when he ascended into Heaven, made his Body immortal, but took not from it the Nature of a Body: For still it retains, according to the Scriptures, the Verity of a human Body; which must be always in one definite place, and cannot spread into many, or all places at once. Since then Christ being carried up to Heaven, is to remain there to the end of the world, and is to come from thence, and from no place else, (as says St. Austin) to judge the quick and the dead; none of the faithful ought to believe or profess the real, or (as they call it) the corporal Presence of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist.'

"But this in the original is dasht over with minium: yet so, that it is still legible. The secret of it was this; the Queen and her Council studied, (as hath been already shewn) to unite all into the Communion of the Church and it was alledged, that such an express definition against a Real Presence, might drive from the Church many who were still of that persuasion; and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation, and to say, that Christ was present after a Spiritual manner, and received by Faith; to say more, as it was judged superfluous, so it might occasion division. Upon this, these words were, by common consent, left out and in the next Convocation, the Articles were subscribed without them, of which I have also seen the original.

"This shews that the Doctrine of the Church subscribed by the whole Convocation, was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real or Corporal Presence in the Sacrament; only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it. Though from this silence, which flowed not from their opinion, but the wisdom of that time, in leaving a liberty for different speculations, as to the manner of the Presence; some have since inferred, that the chief pastors of this Church, did then disapprove of the definition made in King Edward's time, and that they were for a Real Presence."-Hist. Ref., Pt. ii., Bk. iii., p. 375. See also Hardwick on the Articles, p. 375.

Mr. Harold Browne thinks that "the clause in the Article" of 1552 was "omitted in Elizabeth's reign; lest persons inclined to the Lutheran belief might be too much offended by it; and many such " he adds "were in the Church, whom it was wished to conciliate."-Exposition of the 39 Articles, p. 708.

Bishop Burnet was quoted as stating that the DECLARATION was left out of Elizabeth's Prayer Book for the sake of those "inclinable to the Communion of the Church, who yet

retained the belief of the Corporal Presence:" Mr. Browne (p. 100) assumes that, as with the Clause in the Article, "it was omitted. . . . . from a wish not to offend the many persons of Lutheran sentiments then in communion with the Church." If, moreover, Mr. Hallam's statement be correct (and there is much reason for thinking it true) that "Pius IVth...despatched a Nuncio to England, with an invitation to send ambassadors to the Council of Trent, and with powers, as is said, to confirm the English Liturgy, and to permit double Communion.... (Const. Hist. i. p. 155. See also Strype Ann. i. p. 221) it is likely enough that this* circumstance may have had its weight in determining the course to be followed with regard to both Clause and Declaration.

But though the Clause disappeared from the Article and the Declaration from the Prayer Book, it would seem that the object of them was not disregarded and that the Declaration was in some other way kept before the Members of the Church of England: for in a joint Letter from Grindal, Bishop of London, and Horn, Bishop of Winchester, addressed to Henry Bullinger and Rodolp Gualter, "dated at London, Feb. 6, 1566-7," they write thus:

"We allow of Kneeling at the receiving of the Lord's Supper, because it is so appointed by law; the same explanation however, or rather caution, that the very authors of the Kneeling, most holy men and constant martyrs of Jesus Christ, adopted, being most diligently declared, published and impressed upon the people. It is in these terms: Whereas it is ordained in the book of prayers, that the Communicants should receive the holy Communion Kneeling; yet we declare, that this ought not so to be understood, as if any adoration is or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine, or to any real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood there existing. For the sacramental

Mr. Fisher indeed goes so far as to say that "the new alterations [in the Prayer Book of 1559] were all, without exception in a Romeward direction ..

How then was this effected? Not of course by sanctioning directly, and in terms, the doctrine of Transubstantiation; but by removing every previous protest against the doctrine of a real or corporeal presence, so as to leave the Service open in this respect, to a Papistical interpretation.

"We say real or corporeal presence; for it must be plain to every unsophisticated mind, that these two terms, as employed in the Eucharistic controversy, mean virtually the same thing; [?].... Obviously there cannot be a 'real presence of Christ's human nature in the elements, without a local presence of the same being necessarily implied."-Liturgical Purity, pp. 281-2.

bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were horrible idolatry, to be abborred of all Christians; and as to the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of the true natural body of Christ, to be at one and the same time in more places than one.'"-Zurich Letters, 1st Series, p. 180.

It will be found, by a comparison of this statement with the form of the Declaration in Edward's 2nd Book (see p. 3) that there is some little difference in the language: whether this arises from mere accident on the part of the writers of the Letter, or from their quoting some other then recognized version of the Declaration, seems only matter for conjecture. But, however that may be, the fact of the Declaration being then recognized mainly in the form which it originally had, notwithstanding its exclusion and the exclusion of the Clause of the Article containing the words "reall and bodillie" from the public Formularies out of regard for those who held (what Burnet calls) "the Corporal Presence," is strong evidence that (as I have all along contended) "real and essential" simply meant what was then commonly understood by "corporal," and were not the equivalents of the "verily and indeed" of our present Catechism.

The order of dates brings me now to a Document of considerable importance on the question of the Real Presence, and therefore on the meaning to be attached to the Declaration on Kneeling as it appears to have been used in Elizabeth's days-I mean the, now well known, Letter of Bishop Geste to Secretary Cecil on the 28th Article which it will be convenient here to reprint.

The Letter of Edmond Geste [or Gheast], Bishop of Rochester, to Cecil, Secretary to Queen Elizabeth, 22nd December, 1566.

"Greeting in ye Lord.

"Right Honourable-I am verye sorye yt you are so sicke, GOD make you whole, as it is my desyer and prayer. I wold have seen you er this, accordinge to my duetye and good will,

State Paper Office, Orig. Domestic Elizabeth, Vol. xli. No. 51.

but when I sent to knowe whether I might see you it was often answered yt you were not to be spoken with.

"I suppose you have hard how ye Bisshop of Glocestre [i.e. Cheney] found him selue greeved with ye plasynge of this adverbe onely in this article, The body of CHRIST is gyven taken and eaten in ye Supper after an heavenly and spirituall maner onely,' bycause it did take awaye ye presence of CHRISTIS Bodye in ye Sacrament, and prively noted me to take his part therein, and yeasterdaye in myn absence more playnely vouched me for ye same. Whereas betwene him and me, I told him plainelye that this word onely in ye foresaied Article did not exclude ye presence of CHRISTIS Body fro the Sacrament, but onely ye grossenes and sensiblenes in ye receavinge thereof: For I saied vnto him though he tooke Christis Bodye in his hand, receaved it with his mouthe, and that corporally naturally reallye substantially and carnally as ye doctors doo write, yet did he not for all that see it, feale it, smelle it, nor taste it. And therefore I told him I wold speake against him herein, and ye rather bycause YE ARTICLE WAS OF MYN OWNE PENNYNGE. And yet I wold not for all that denye therebye any thing that I had spoken* for ye preAnd this was ye some of our talke.

sence.

"And this that I saied is so true by all sortes of men that

Compare the following passage from his "Treatise against the Prevee Masse," 1548. "The last argument that ys alledged for tornekynd is thys, If Christes bodye be in thee bred (as undoubtedly it is), then it is enbreaded and his bloude enwyned, which was alway taken for a great heresy, In respect whereof transubstantiation nedes must be graunted as ryght true and belevable. To thys I answer in sorte thus, Notwythstandinge CHRISTES Body be presented in thee bred (as questionles it is) not placely as ther placed spaced and measured, but ghostly; as ther unplaced unspaced, and not measured; Howbeit, it is not enbreaded no more then the deytie is recompted enfleshed for that it is substancially in us. No more then the sayde Godhede is demed enbreaded, for yt is entirely in eche bred. No more then the HOLY GHOST is accompted enbreathed for that He was presented in CHRISTES breathe. No more then the sayd HOLY GHOSTE is adjudged embodied or enharted, for yt He is wholly in us and in oure hartes. CHRISTES Body is adjudged of no man to be accidented notwythstanding it is presented in the accidentes of the bread. Why then shuld it be adjudged enbreaded for Hys presence in ye bread. The one is as reasonable as gatherable as thother is. Some are fule deceyved in the meanynge of these wordes thimpanacion of CHRISTES Bodye, whyche is not in simple any presence indeferently of ye sayd Body in ye bred: No more than the incarnation or enfleshing of CHRISTES Godhede is indifferently any presence therof in mans fleshe and nature. But only soch a presence of CHRISTES Body in the bread wherewyth they both shuld be unseverably personed and have al theyr condicions and properties common and mutuall betwixt them. Soch a presence is the personal presence of CHRISTES Godhede in Hys Manhode. Soch is ye presence of ye soul in ye bodye. In respect whereof as CHRISTES Body is not enpersoned in us, notwithstanding it be enbodied to us: Semblable though the sayd body be presented in ye bred, how beit it is not become one person therewith which is properly termed ye impaning or enbreding thereof."-p. 86, ed. 1840.

C C

even D. Hardinge writeth ye same as it appeareth most evidently by his wordes reported in ye Busshoppe of Salisburie's [i.e. Jewel's] booke pagina 325, wich be thees: Then ye maye saye, yt in ye Sacrament His verye Body is present yea really that is to say in deede, substantially that is in substance, and corporally carnally and naturally, by ye wich words is ment that His verye Bodye His verye flesh and His verye humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise, but invisibly unspeakably supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waye unto Him onlye knowen.'

"This I thought good to write to your honour for myn own purgation. The Almightye GOD in CHRIST restore you to your old health, and longe kepe you in ye same with encrease of vertue and honour.

Yours whole to his poore pow "EDM. ROFFEN." "To ye right Honourable and his singler good friend Sir Willm Cecil Knight Principall Secretaire to ye Queens Matie. "

It would have been unnecessary for my purpose to do more than quote this Letter, but from the circumstance that Mr. Goode (Supplement to Work on the Eucharist, 1858) has endeavoured to deprive it of the value which it seemed to possess, by producing "another letter of the same Bishop, which" he has "found in the same repository," viz., The State Paper Office. I agree so far with Mr. Goode as to think that a "comparison" of the two Letters and "the internal testimony" of the latter, leave no reasonable ground (I cannot say no "possibility") for "a doubt that both are by the same hand." Mr. Goode has only printed the first paragraph, and so much besides of the Document as deals directly with the 28th and 29th Articles; I now print the whole (distinguishing by brackets [[ ]]the portions given by Mr. Goode,) for two reasons. (1) First, because I think other parts of the Document will help to clear up the difficulty which Mr. Goode has raised: (2) Next, because the entire Document, not having been hitherto printed, may prove interesting on other grounds. The Document is No. 37, Vol. lxxviii. of the State Papers "Domestic-Elizabeth," it is supposed to be

*The extract is here taken from Jewel's controversy with M. Harding, Art. v., Divis. v., p. 455, ed. P.S.