pose of bringing the sacramental doctrine of the East into the closest possible approximation to that of Rome."-p. 299. In proof he quotes from Neale's Hist. of the Eastern Church, and Palmer's Dissertations, the Decree of the Council of Bethlehem, 1671—2. It will not be out of place to insert here an extract from one of the "Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the rest of the Clergie of Ireland, in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year of our Lord God 1615, for the avoyding of Diuersities of Opinion: and the establishing of consent touching true Religion." The passage is as follows: "Of the Lord's Supper. "In the outward part of the Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Christ is in a most lively manner represented: being no otherwise present with the visible Elements, than things signified and sealed are present with the signes and seales, that is to say, symbolically and relatively. But in the inward and spirituall part, the same Bodie and Bloud is really and substantially presented unto all those, who have grace to receive the Sonne of God, even to all those that beleeve on His Name. And unto such as in this manner doe worthily and with Faith repaire unto the Lorde's Table, the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is not only signified and offered, but also truely exhibited and communicated."-Eccl. Injunctions, 15591732, in B. Museum. The rest of the Article is composed of the English Articles 28, 29, 30, and 31, with some slight variations. I quote the passage as an instance of the authoritative use of the words, "really and substantially" in reference to the inward part of this Sacrament-the "Bodie and Bloud" of Christ-which the Article seems to teach is thus "presented" to the worthy communicant only, though They are "represented" by "the outward part" to all "in a most lively manner." The definition is curious, making, apparently a Symbolical and Real Objective Presence to one class of Communicants—the worthy a Symbolical Objective Presence only to another class the unworthy. Here it will be convenient, as I am referring to the Church Catechism, to notice Mr. Goode's objection to the sense at tached to the words "the faithful" by the writers he is opposing he says (Supplement, p. 24) that: : "....where the common sense of every impartial reader tells him, that the words were meant to indicate that the Body and Blood of Christ were taken and received by the faithful only,* ...Dr. Pusey would fain have us suppose, that the Catechism maintains with him, that all receive the inward part, the Body and Blood, in receiving the outward; but the faithful alone receive the grace that flows from them. But this is directly contrary to what the Catechism really says, for it clearly limits the reception of the Body and Blood to the 'faithful.' "The only possible mode of explaining away this statement of the Catechism is, either to say with Archdeacon Denison, that the statement does not mean to deny that the Body and Blood of Christ may be received by the unfaithful just as much as by the faithful; or with one of his defenders, that the phrase 'the faithful' merely means here all the baptized, that is, in fact, everybody who comes to communicate; both which explanations I willingly leave in the hands of the reader." This last sentence of course means, that no "reader" is likely to give any credence to these "explanations.' But, as it would be worse than useless to pen a Catechism in language of a loose and unauthorized character so, we may be sure that the terms employed in 1604 were such as had a definite Theological import. Whether either of these "explanations" indicates the true meaning of the words seems, at least, worth considering; and it might have been more to the purpose if, instead of thus remitting them to his readers, Mr. Goode had suggested some mode of determining who are meant by "the faithful" in the Catechism. Perhaps Mr. Goode might reply that he has examined this point in the "Work" to which the "Supplement " belongs; but, except a short passage in p. 754, I cannot find anything that really touches the question: Mr. Goode says: "I observe that an attempt has been made to affix to the words 'the faithful,' in that portion of the Catechism commented upon in pp. 668 et seq., above, the meaning of all baptized Christians as distinguished from the heathen. To this, indeed, Archdeacon Denison himself alludes in his Sermon; but as he declined to * I omit some rather uncourteous language. 'insist' upon it, I did not think it worth while to detain the reader to discuss it. In reply to such an argument, I think it sufficient to point out, that all the numerous Commentaries on the Catechism that have ever been written by Archbishops, Bishops, and Divines of all views and parties, have agreed in interpreting the words as referring to true believers;....”. -p. 754. Mr. Goode had previously given (pp. 697-726) a series of extracts from twenty-one such Commentaries, ranging from 1623 to 1790: they appear to me, however, to contribute barely anything towards the settlement of the points which he notices in the above passages: an examination of them seems to furnish the following results: EIGHT, not to the purpose, viz. : "Dr. Comber, 1683; Bp. Ken, 1685; Bp. John Williams, 1690; Revd. John Lewis, 1700; Dr. Edwd. Wells, 1707; Bp. Burnet, 1710; Revd. James Salter, 1753; and Bp. Mann, 1790. FOUR, inadequate, viz. :— 66 Bp. Nicholson, 1655; Dr. Simon Ford, 1684, who only says that none but believers thus [i.e., spiritually and by faith] receive them [i.e., the Body and Blood of Christ]"; Bp. Beveridge, 1704; and Revd. John Olyffe, 1710. THREE, only speak of worthy receivers, viz. :— The Oxford Catechism, 1679; Rev. Joseph Harrison, 1718; and Archn. Waterland, 1730. THREE support, in different degrees, Mr. Goode's view, viz. : .... Dr. Mayer, 1623, who speaks of faith making Him [Christ] present unto the worthy receiver; Abp. Wake, 1697, who says, "that which is given by the Priest The very Body and Blood of Christ as yet it is not. But being with faith and piety received by the Communicant, it becomes to him.... the very Body and Blood of Christ;" and Rev. Peter Newcombe, 1712, who, denying "Christ's Body and Blood" to be " carnally present in these elements," asserts "that a real Presence is not to be sought in" them, "but in the worthy communicants." The remaining three seem to me to be favourable to those whom Mr. Goode is opposing, viz. : Revd. James Stillingfleet, 1787; Abp. Secker, 1771, who says, "....in one sense, all communicants equally partake of what Christ calls His Body and Blood, that is, the outward signs of them; yet in a much more important sense, the faithful only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats His flesh, and drinks His Blood; shares in the life and strength derived to men from His incarnation and death: In appearance the Sacrament of Christ's death is given to all alike; but verily and indeed, in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant He is present, as He is wherever we meet together in His name; but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul; becoming, by the inward virtue of His Spirit, its food and sustenance.” * Dr. Sherlock, 1660, is the remaining one of these three; Mr. Goode quotes him as stating that : ".... as the bread and wine are truly taken and received corporally, so verily and indeed is the Body and Blood of Christ taken and received spiritually of every true faithful soul in the Lord's Supper if rightly administered." But, as such language does not necessarily exclude a belief that those who are not "true faithful" communicants receive in some way the Body and Blood of Christ so, Sherlock's own words, published thirteen years later in his "Practical Christian" (1673) shew that he saw no contradiction in the two views; especially as his Catechism was reprinted during his lifetime (1677): the following passages from the "Practical Christian (Ed. 1846) seem to me to leave no doubt as to what he held : "The Sacramental Body of Christ is the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Sacrament. This is expressly affirmed by our Lord saying, 'This is My Body, This is My Blood.' Who then dare say, (as the Fathers frequently observe,) This is not His Body, but a figure of His Body only? "He discerns not this Body of our Lord, 1. who sees not with the eye of faith, Christ really present, under the species of Bread and Wine, though he conceive not the manner thereof. . . ." "Those old verses, expressing the faith of the wisest of our first It is desirable to record here Archbishop Secker's opinion of the meaning of The Declaration in what it says as to kneeling :-"It is true, we also kneel at the Sacrament, as they [the Romanists] do: but for a very different purpose: not to acknowledge any corporeal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood; as our Church, to prevent all possibility of misconstruction expressly declares; adding that His body is in Heaven, and not here: but to worship Him, who is everywhere present, the invisible God......" Compare the Note, p. 117, on the "Opinion" of the Bishop of St. Andrews. Reformers, may satisfy every modest, humble, and sober-minded good Christian in this great mystery of godliness: 2. 'It was the Lord that spake it, He took the Bread and brake it; "3. He discerns not this Sacramental Body of the Lord, who prepares not himself to receive the same with all reverence and godly fear;' with 'hands washed in innocency;' and into a 'pure and clean heart;' into a soul'cleansed from all filthiness, both of flesh and spirit;'* and perfumed (as was our Lord's crucified Body) with the sweet odours of humility and compunction, of love and devotion, of obedience and charity. "And he that receives Christ's holy Body and Blood into his soul, not first emptied of all his sins by holy faith, and all the sacred offices of true repentance, doth, with Judas, betray his Master into the hands of His enemies which crucified Him: for those were our sins. And therefore it is said of such unworthy receivers, that 'they are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ.'"-Vol. I., pp. 182-4.+ If, then, Bishop Sherlock could write thus when dealing expressly with this question (though Mr. Goode's citation of his Catechism might lead to an opposite inference) it may well be that, many at least of, the other writers just noticed would have coincided with Bishop Sherlock if they had felt themselves obliged to discuss the point which he considered. It was one thing for them to write explicitly on, The following Prayer (which I do not quote as of any authority now, but only as an old explanation of the being "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord) occurs in the Sarum Primer of 1541 and in Thomas Petyt's Editions of 1543 B. M.-C. 35 c. 1544 B. M. C. 35 b. "When thou hast receyved the sacrament. "The verye true receyuynge of thy gloryous body of flesshe and bloode: my soueraygne lorde omnypotent is, that I caste it not forthe agayne to my dampnacyon and judgement but that I may optayne thereby remyssyon of my synnes: and that I may lyue in charytable lyfe whyles I am here lyuynge, so that I maye hereafter comme to eternall lyfe, by the vertue and grace. So be it." † Mr. Goode (pp. 864-6) tries, ineffectually as I think, to reconcile this language with his own views. The This Primer (with other Books and a super-altare) was found, August 5, 1857, in the North wall of the (now rebuilt) Chancel of St. Mary the Virgin, Addington, Bucks. only other copy, I believe, of this Edition is preserved in the Library of Stonyhurst College. In the first Prayer of the Dirige are the words, "and forgive them all their sins," which Mr. Maskell says (Mon. Rit., Vol. II., p. 121, Note) do not occur in any of the Editions of Henry VIIIth's Latin and English Primers which he had seen. P P |