the recognized one; it may very fairly be thought that, as I have already argued, his advice upon those Articles was only not adopted, except, apparently, as to the important alteration in the Title of Art. xxix. (see p. 207), because the changes he proposed were not needed to bring them into harmony with the Theological belief of himself and of his brethren, who unitedly signed them on May 11th, 1571.

The concluding paragraph of this Letter ([IV.]) suggests that some "other mattier " was also under discussion at that time, and that Bishop Guest's opinion was asked or offered in reference to it: the passage does not afford the means of deciding what the precise point was; but, from the apparent reference to those words of the prayer of access in "y" Communion" Office, "grant us, therefore (gracious Lord), so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body ..." it would seem that some question had been raised touching the corporal relation between Christ and Christians in virtue of the Incarnation. But, whether this conjecture is right or not, the answer shews the writer's belief-that in the reception of the Eucharist there was a participation of Christ so real as to affect not the soul only, but the body also a belief which he might well treat (for his words imply it) as being the received doctrine, considering the language of the Homily* then in circulation. Yet, does not this further involve the same writer's belief of a Real Objective Presence in that Sacrament? And, if so, have we not here Bishop Guest again proclaiming, in fact, (in no hesitating manner, as if it were merely his own opinion) that belief, with all its consequences, just as he had done before in treating specifically of the 29th Article ?

If this supposition be true respecting this last portion of the Letter, it confirms what I have said concerning Guest's

"... thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is.... the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation.... wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality."-Hom. of Set., part I.

opinions as developed in the previous portions: yet, if this be not its purport, there is nothing in the passage at variance with the rest of the Letter, or calculated to weaken what he had before advanced.

Before passing, however, from this Document, it seems desirable to notice Mr. Goode's thrice repeated assertion (pp. 7, 11, 26), that Bishop Guest* did not Subscribe the Articles of 1562; it makes no difference, indeed, whether he did or not, to the preceding remarks upon that Prelate's two Letters; though, if it were absolutely certain that Guest did sign in 1562, those remarks would be so far strengthened as Mr. Goode's argument would be weakened, in the disproof of the allegation (that Guest did not then subscribe) by which he endeavours to sustain his opinion as to the rejection of Guest's opinions in the Convocation of 1571.

It must be admitted, indeed, that there are grounds for doubting whether Guest did subscribe before 1571: Bennet certainly has shewn (Essay ch. 5) that there are reasons for thinking that Strype was mistaken in asserting that he "did," upon the authority of "extracts" taken "out of the Registers of Convocation" (Ann. i. 325-326) before their destruction in the Fire of London: but it does not seem to me that he has produced sufficient evidence to warrant his conviction that Guest (as well as Cheney) was "stedfastly resolved

* In considering this question of Guest's Subscription it should not be forgotten that no less a person than Dean Nowell did not sign the copy of the Articles subscribed by the Lower House of Convocation in 1562, of which he was then Prolocutor; that copy, like the one Guest did not sign, contained the 29th Article. In 1571, he like Guest, did sign; but the printed copy of the Articles attached to the Bodleian MS.,† where his name appears, does not contain the 29th Article: yet as there seems to have been a second subscription of the Lower House to the Articles, as finally settled, including the 29th, he may, likely enough, have subscribed that. But this places Nowell and Guest in exactly the same position: is there any thing to show that Archbishop Parker and Nowell disagreed in the Real Presence? I think not: yet, if so, how would Mr. Goode account for Nowell's non-subscription in 1562? Perhaps, what would explain Nowell's course then, would explain Guest's also at that time.

Dr. Lambe (p. 40) has a curious note about this Bodleian MS. he says, "There is one copy, of which I ought to make some mention, viz., that of Wolfe's edition of 1563, with the names of the Convocation of 1571 on a sheet of parchment sewed on to its cover. It is not at all clear that these names were subscribed to any Articles. If they were, they must have been attached to an English copy in 1571, from which they have been separated and sewed to this book." But there is nothing about the book to indicate this; and what reason can be assigned for such a surmise? It would seem that Dr. Lambe had not taken into account the second subscription mentioned by Bennet, pp. 273 and 315.

against it." There is nothing to shew, so far at least as I can discover, that Guest changed his belief on the Real Presence between 1562 and 1571; on the contrary, the two Letters of 1566 and 1571, which have been here considered, strongly attest his persistence in it. It is likely enough, therefore, that he had the same objection to the wording of Art. xxix., in 1562, which he stated to Lord Burghly when it was proposed to publish it in 1571: probably enough, therefore, Guest did hesitate to sign, as, indeed, the absence of his sig. nature from the Parker Latin MS. of January 29, 1562-63 attests. It by no means follows, however, that he would have refused to sign, had it been then determined to promulgate that Article with the rest: but the fact that it was allowed to remain dormant among the Convocation Records; that it did not appear in the Latin MS. (State Papers, Dom. Eliz., Vol. xxvii. 41a) apparently sent to the Secretary Cecil; and that, as the English contemporary MS. states of it, "this in y orynal book not prynted" (Ibid. 40, January 31, 1563) would furnish adequate reasons for Guest continuing to decline Subscription, indeed for his having no occasion to further consider the subject until it was re-opened by the proposal to publish this Article with the rest in 1571. Though, however, these considerations would obviate any necessity for his Subscription in 1563, they do not prove, nor does it by any means follow, that he did not subscribe it is not improbable that, as has been suggested, he may have done so in some subsequent Session: but perhaps the Original Records themselves would not have determined the point any more than the Extracts which have been preserved; for it does not follow that any notice of additional Subscriptions would have been entered in the Convocation Register: if the Parker MS. had remained with the Convocation Records, instead of being taken, apparently, to Lambeth by the Archbishop, it would in all likelihood have shared their fate; in that case what evidence would there have been as to who subscribed or who did not? Possibly, then, Guest (it might also be true of Cheney) subscribed some other copy of the Articles which was destroyed with the Records themselves.

:

For the reasons above stated, however, I need not pursue the inquiry further; indeed it would seem nearly profitless to do so in the absence of other Documents than those known to exist in fact, it does almost appear that the point could only be finally settled by the discovery of another copy of the Parker MS., with the Signatures lacking in that original. I close these observations therefore with the following remarks, which shew Mr. Hardwick's latest (published) opinions on the subject:

"But formidable doubts have been excited as to the supreme authority of the Parker Manuscript, by collating portions of it with an extract taken from the actual Register of Convocation in the time of Archbishop Laud, and formally attested by a public notary to satisfy or silence his accusers. Besides exhibiting a different version of one Article On the authority of the Church,' . . . . the extract from the Convocation-records has preserved a catalogue of the assentient prelates, varying in some noticeable points from that surviving in the Parker Manuscript :* and fresh perplexity is added to

....

"This MS. contains the subscriptions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Chichester, Ely, Worcester, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, Salisbury, St. David's, Bath and Wells, Coventry and Lichfield, Exeter, Norwich, Peterborough, and St. Asaph,- besides the three abovementioned [Young of York, Pilkington of Durham, Downham of Chester] who belonged to the other province. The copy of the Record produced by Archbishop Laud omits the three northern prelates, as well as those of Chichester, Worcester, and Peterborough. It, however, includes the name of Guest, Bishop of Rochester, although some persons have doubted whether he subscribed or not (Bennet, p. 184),--a suspicion which is somewhat strengthened, so far as Parker's draft is concerned, by what is known of Guest's opinions on the Eucharist. But when the 3rd clause in the Art. 'De Cœna Domini' ['Forasmuche as the trueth of mannes nature requireth,' etc., see p. 32] appearing to favour Zwinglian views as to the nature of the Presence, was struck out by the Convocation, Guest might be entirely satisfied, and so might subscribe;-which strongly favours the conclusion that the extract produced at Laud's trial was taken from a later and more authoritative document. On the other hand, Cheynie, Bishop of Gloucester, though occasionally present at meetings of the Synod, never acquiesced in some of the decisions, which explains the omission of his name in all the lists, (Strype, Annals, I. 563). The Bishopric of Oxford was not full; and Kitchen of Llandaff (apparently from want of sympathy) took no part in the proceedings."

This fact of the withdrawal of the Clause of Art. 29 here referred to by Mr. Hardwick, tends to shew (if his argument about Guest is well-founded, as it would seem to be) that there was not that great discrepancy between the opinions of Archbishop Parker and Bishop Guest, which Mr. Goode maintains to have existed, and which I have ventured to doubt. It confirms, too, I think what I have all throughout this Letter contended for-that "real and essential" in the Declaration of 1552, "reall and bodelie" [Realem et Corporalem] in the Article of 1552, meant no more than carnal and physical-else how could Archbishop Parker have consented to abandon so important a clause as this, which he had inserted in his draft of the Article of 1562, as copied from that of 1552?

H H

this question by the circumstance that both the series of episcopal signatures are said to have been appended to the Articles on the same day, and in the same place.

"If one may safely hazard a conjecture in the midst of these clashing statements, it is possible that after the House of Bishops had subscribed the Primate's copy on the 29th of January, it was transmitted to the northern Convocation, without waiting for the criticism of the lower house, who had continued their discussions for another week; and that on its return it was deposited, like other private papers, with the Parker Manuscripts, where it is now surviving; while the copy of the Articles as left when finally authorized by the whole Synod on the fifth of the following month had found its natural place among the other records of Convocation, viz., in the registry belonging to the See of Canterbury, at St. Paul's Cathedral." -Hist. of Art., p. 135. 2nd Ed.

For if the language was intentionally Zwinglian, and Parker knew it so to be, then he must have been a Zwinglian in re-producing it: but no one, that I am aware, has ever accused him of holding this view of the Eucharistic Presence: it follows, therefore, that in proposing to re-impose that part of Article 28 of 1552, which denied "the reall and bodilie presence (as thei terme it) of Christ's fiesh and blood," he knew full well he was only excluding a carnal presence. It is, however, quite consistent with this to suppose that the Archbishop consented to abandon the paragraph because the language might be (and was by some) misunderstood to favour Zwinglian doctrine.

That some were dissatisfied with the change is plain from the Letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger, in July, 1566, where, speaking of "some blemishes which still attach to the Church of England" they say, "13. Lastly, the Article composed in the time of Edward the Sixth respecting the spiritual eating, which expressly oppugned and took away the real [realem] presence in the Eucharist, and contained a most clear explanation of the truth, is now set forth among us mutilated and imperfect."-Zurich Letters, I., p. 165.

After all, however, was this the reason for the alteration in the Article? Is it not much more likely that the paragraph was omitted because the Declaration, which corresponded with it, had already been omitted in Elizabeth's Prayer Book? This seems to me to be the true explanation of the change; for though, as I have noticed at p. 191, the Declaration seems to have been in some way used; yet the omission of its language from the Prayer Book and the Article implied an intention not to constrain opinions too much on this point, by any publicly imposed formulary. The following extract from a Letter of Archbishop Parker to Sir William Cecil, on Feb. 6, 1570-71, will serve to shew what opinions the Archbishop did not hold, and also that there was a considerable unanimity of belief upon the Eucharistic question only two months prior to the opening of the Convocation, on April 3rd.-"Sir, As you desired, I send you here the form of the bread used, and was so appointed by order of my late Lord of London and myself, as we took it not disagreeable to the injunction. And how so many churches hath of late varied I cannot tell; except it be the practice of the common adversary the devil, to make variance and dissension in the Sacrament of unity. For where we be in one uniform doctrine of the same, and

*The allusion is to Grindal, who, acting with Parker upon the Queen's Injunction, and the 26th Section of Eiizabeth's Act of Uniformity (which gave power to the Queen by advice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Metropolitan "to publish such further ceremonies" as tended to "the due reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments ") had advised the substitution of Wafer Bread for Common Bread. The instance is not favourable to those who now propose to revive this power to suppress or control Ceremonial or Ritual developments.