in another: Besides many others the like inconsistencies and contradictions, which you may see demonstrated at large in Dr. Whitaker, Bishop Morton, and Mr. Chillingworth. Now that whatsoever implyes a Contradiction cannot be done, no not by miracle, is their doctrine, as well as ours; because, this would rather argue an impotency than an omnipotency in God.

"To conclude all, Whereas the Author of this Pamphlet saith that all Catholics, he means Romanists, hold that Christ's body and blood have a spiritual presence in the Sacrament; and that (saith he) being once granted, there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviour's body and blood may be in many places at the same time, because it is granted to all Spirits.

"I answer, supposing it were true (as it is not) that all Romanists hold Christ's body to have a spiritual presence in the Sacrament, and supposing it were true likewise, that a true humane body (as Christ's is) could have a spiritual presence, that is, (as I suppose his meaning to be) could be present as Spirits are present without_filing_the place, or space wherein they are; which is most false. For a Body cannot be a body and no body, as it must be if it were a Spirit; and nothing can have the presence or propriety of a Spirit but a Spirit: and consequently nothing can be anywhere as a Spirit but a Spirit. But supposing (I say) it were true, that Christ's body were in the Sacrament in a Spiritual manner, or after the manner of Spirits, yet would it not follow that Christ's body could be in diverse places at the same time. For no created Spirit can be in many, or in more places than one at the same time, no more than a Body can. Indeed there is a difference between the presence of a Spirit, and the presence of a Body, the former being where it is, definitivè, and the other circumscriptive; But that which is definitivè, where it is, cannot be anywhere else than where it is at one and the same time, no more than that which is circumscriptivè; and consequently, to be in many places at once, is as inconsistent with the nature of a Spirit, I mean of a finite and created Spirit, as it is with the nature of a Body. For the Angel Gabriel was not with the Blessed Virgin at the same time that he was in Heaven, nor in heaven at the same time that he was with the Blessed Virgin; and it was one of the Arguments whereby the Ancient Fathers prove the Holy Ghost to be God, because He may be, and is, in many places at the same time, which no Spirit can be but He only.

"There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstantiation, it being not only a useless thing if it were so, but an impossible thing that it should be so."-pp. 23-27.

Neither of these passages contains, indeed, any direct statement of Bishop Morley's belief on the Real Presence; indirectly, however, they furnish some clue to it, and to the sense in which he must have sanctioned the Declaration on

Kneeling for, in the first place, the argument drawn (in the passage, p. 323) from the (erroneously alleged*) rule of the Primitive Church and the custom of the "Protestant Churches" in his own day, to prove that "both the Sacraments may be and are called Mysteries, but especially the Lord's Supper," implies the belief of something more distinct and peculiar about the Eucharist than pertains to the other Sacrament; if not, how could Bishop Morley account for the fact that Baptism was not as secretly administered as he states the Eucharist to have been in the ancient Church? What could account for the desire to secure the Eucharist from risk of profanation (for that it was which led to the actual practice of the Early Church) but the belief of Christ's true Objective Presence therein? Else surely it mattered little then, and matters less now that our congregations are not divided into "Catechumeni and others," who was or is present at an Office which claimed to be no more than a memorial of an absent Christ.

But, again, his argument against Transubstantiation, while it supports the language of the Declaration on Kneeling, (especially in the 4th passage, which is a contemporaneous commentary on the final clause which condemns Ubiquitarianism), is in no way adverse to such language concerning the Presence, as I have all along contended the Declaration did not design to exclude; for the 2nd passage (p. 324) shews that what he objected to was any notion of a Real Presence after what he calls a "gross and carnal manner," such as the Capernaites misunderstood our Lord's words to mean; and his remark that any oral reception "of Christ's body" "in the very flesh or corporeal substance of it was both impossible and unbeneficial," shews that he must have understood the words of the Declaration-"any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood,"-to be simply the equivalent of gross and carnal, i.e., Capernaiacal.

But in the absence of any more direct proof of Bishop Morley's belief, from his own language, it is most natural to

On this point I venture to refer the reader to "The Anglican Authority for the Presence of non-communicants during Holy Communion."- Masters, 1858.

quote the words of Bishop Morton, the only one of his three authorities whose language, in the lack of any more distinct reference, I can satisfy myself he may have referred to in the 3rd passage (p. 325). The Book to which Bishop Morley seems to refer, is the Treatise of Bishop Morton, intitled, Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Blessed Bodie and Blood of Christ (by some called) The Masse of Christ," LONDON, 1631; where, at p. 148, he writes as follows:

66

"That Protestants, albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament; yet hold they a true Presence thereof in diverse respects, according to the judgment of Antiquitie.

"Sect. II.

"There may be observed four Kindes of Truthes of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament: one is Veritas Signi, that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body; the next is Veritas Revelationis, Truth of Revelation; the third is Veritas Obsignationis, that is a Truth of Seale, for better Assurance; the last is Veritas Exhibitionis, the Truth of exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants. The truth of the Signe, in respect of the thing signified, is to be acknowledged so farre, as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ, which Truth and Reality is celebrated by us, and taught by ancient Fathers, in contradiction to Manichees, Marcionites, and other other old Heretikes; who held that Christ had in himself no true Body, but merely Phantasticall, as you yourselves well know. In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius (as your Cardinall witnesseth) called the Eucharist itself, the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius, in the sence of Theodoret (by whom he is cited against the Heresie of his time) doth call it the Flesh and Blood of Christ, because (as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe) it is a true signe of the True and Reall Body of Christ: and as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himself [this is my Body] that is (saith hee) this Bread is a Sign or Figure of my Body. Now because it is not a Signe, which is not of some Truth (for as much as there is not a figure of a figure) therefore Bread being a signe of Christ's Bodie, it must follow that Christ had a true Body. This, indeed, is Theologicall arguing, by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Hereticks, that denied the Truth of Christ's Body. Which controlleth the Wisdome of your Councell of Trent, in condemning Protestants, as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament, because, they say, he is there present in a Signe, or Figure; which were to abolish all true Sacraments, which are true Figures, and Signes of the things which they represent."

Here, again, we have another illustration of the meaning of

the word corporal in the Declaration, i.e., if, as it cannot be reasonably doubted, Bishop Morley (who was, it must be remembered, one of the Reviewers of 1662) accepted the language of Bishop Morton as written thirty years before; for the latter clearly advocates "a true" in distinction from a "Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament," basing his judgment upon the teaching of primitive antiquity, and deprecating the Roman condemnation of those who, "because they say, that Christ is there [i.e., in the Sacrament] present in a Signe," are alleged to deny that He is "truly present in the Sacrament."

This, however, is not the only statement of Bishop Morton on the Real Presence; and as Bishop Morley has only given a general reference to him, it is desirable to know what he elsewhere says: thus, in another work of his, the "Catholic Appeal," (p. 93, ed. 1610), he writes (the italics here, too, as before, are his):—

".... the question is not absolutely concerning a Reall Presence, which Protestants (as their own Jesuits witnesse) do also professe; Fortunatus (a Protestant) holding that Christ is in the Sacrament most really; Calvin teaching that the presence of Christ's bodie in respect of the soules of the faithfull, is truly in this Sacrament, and substantially received: with whom (they say) Beza and Sadael (two other Protestants) do consent, which acknowledgment of our adversaries may serve to stay the contrarie clamours and calumnious accusations, wherein they used to range Protestants with those heretickes, who denied the true Bodie of Christ was in the Eucharist, and maintained only a figure and image of Christ's Bodie: seeing that our difference is not about the truth or realitie of the Presence, but about the true manner of the being and receiving thereof."

Such is Bishop Morton's language towards the Roman side of the Eucharistic controversy: now let us see how he speaks to the Puritan opponents of the Church of England. In a book called, "A Defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England, viz., the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament:" London, 1619:-he thus says (p. 299):—

"Sect. xl.

"Our fourth Confutation of the non-conformists, and justification of ourselves, issueth from the non-conformists owne Practise.

"First, by their Intentional Reverence.

"You would account it an extreme injury to bee censured as contemners or prophaners of these holy mysteries; or not to celebrate and receive them reverently, with the truely religious affections of your hearts and mindes: which you professe will be the dutie of every worthy Communicant that shall rightly discerne in this Sacrament the Lords body. This being granted (which without impietie cannot be denied) it ministreth unto us an argument, whereby you may be comforted (as I suppose) without all contradiction.

"First, I may reason thus: that manner of Reverence, which it is lawful for a Christian to conceive in his mind, the same is as lawful for him (the case of scandall excepted) to expresse in his outward gesture of bodie. But it is lawfull for a Christian to conceive such a Relative Reverence; as from the sight of the Sacrament (being Objectum à quo) to raise his thoughts to a contemplation of the mysticall and spirituall object of faith, signified thereby and upon the understanding of the mysticall, even the body and blood of Christ really (albeit not corporally) exhibited unto us in this Sacrament, to receive these visible pledges of our redemption, by the death of Christ, (as the Objectum propter quod) with all holy and reverent devotion of heart and mind. Therefore it is lawful to perform a sensible and bodily reverence at our outward receiving thereof."

There are two other Publications by Bishop Morton* which I have not had the opportunity to examine; but those already quoted are, I think, sufficient for the purpose: viz., to ascertain whether he held the Doctrine of the Real Objective Presence in the Eucharist: the language cited seems to shew that he did if so, then, I think, it must be allowed that Bishop Morley held it too; for it is at least a fair presumption that he did not disapprove the language of Bishop Morton, considering the general way in which he refers to him as one of those who demonstrated the "inconsistencies and contradictions" of the Roman doctrine: consequently, Bishop Morley may well be claimed as one of those Reviewers who, therefore, could have had no further design in urging the republication of the Declaration on Kneeling, than to guard against a belief in Transubstantiation, which his own language shews him to have opposed.

Viz. (1) "Apologia Catholica," etc., and (2), "Totius doctrinalis controversiæ de Eucharistiæ decisio," etc.

+ Though Mr. Goode (Nature of Christ's Presence, &c. p. 831) says, "It would be difficult to name any one who has more expressly, fully and learnedly refuted the doctrine he is here [viz. The Doctrine of the Real Presence as set forth in the works of Divines and others in the English Church since the Reformation. Parker, Oxford, 1855.] cited in support of." To prove this he quotes from the "Catholic Appeal" pp. 113, 118, 121-131; but the extracts seem to me not to the purpose.

U U