man, combining the requisite Theological and Scientific knowledge, and enable him so to explain this long-contested, and too often uncharitably disputed subject, as shall tend to Peace and Unity among His Mystical members, and so to His own greater glory in His Church and in the World.

These remarks are partly connected with that portion of a long Note quoted at p. 340 from Mr. Goode's Work on the Eucharist: but it is necessary to notice also the other statements contained in that Note: adverting to the exclusion of the Declaration on Kneeling, from all the Editions of the Prayer Book between 1552 and 1662, he says:

"The reason for this exclusion may have been that it was not felt desirable to be rigidly strict at that time against all notions of a bodily presence. The great point was to exclude the carnal notion of an oral eating of the Body of Christ present in the Elements, and all the evil consequences resulting from such a doctrine; and to establish the doctrine that the mean by which the Body of Christ was eaten was faith.' The notion of a bodily presence in the Supper to the faith of the receiver was one of a more harmless speculative nature, and therefore was left open to those who chose to entertain it. But the revival in our present Prayer Book of the Rubric of the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. clearly put an end even to this doctrine."

....

One error in this statement seems to me to lie in Mr. Goode's assuming that "the notion of a bodily presence IN THE SUPPER to the faith of the receiver .. was left open" yet not that of "the Body of Christ present IN THE Elements:" but here, at all events, he stands opposed to Bishop Burnet and Mr. Harold Browne (see above, pp. 63, 189, 190-1; and further, Browne on the Articles, p. 708*) the latter of whom

"The meaning of it [the Rubric] clearly is, not to deny a spiritual, but only a 'corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood, and a consequent adoration of the elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural substances."'

"There may be a difficulty in reconciling this doctrine [viz., of Christ's natural having become a spiritual, His corruptible an incorruptible body'], which is the plain doctrine of Scripture and the Primitive Christians, with the language of the Rubric at the end of the Communion Service quoted above. If they be at variance, the language of a not very carefully-worded Rubric, adopted not without some hesitation by the Reformers, ought not to be pressed: but it is plain, that the writers of the Rubric did not mean by the words 'natural body' to convey the same idea as St. Paul attaches to the term in 1 Cor. xv. The doctrine, which they meant to teach, was only, that we must not consider the manhood of Christ changed into His Godhead." I must venture so far to differ from Mr. Browne as to express my belief that what has been advanced in these pages shews that the "Rubric " was carefully-worded."

considers that the Declaration and its corresponding Clause in the 28th Article of 1553 were omitted out of regard to the Lutherans; the former perhaps referring the act to a like consideration for the Roman party as well: if, however, as certainly was the case, the suppression was designed to conciliate one or both of these; then, clearly, the belief of a Presence in, with, or under the Elements was not forbidden, for the Lutherans held it; nor can we suppose it was meant to be denied to the Romanists if they were content to allow the protest of the Article against Transubstantiation.

Again, Mr. Goode contends that "the great point” at that time was to determine against "the carnal notion of an oral eating of the Body of Christ present in the Elements” and in favour of manducation by "faith" but it is obvious from

At p. 34 Mr. Goode says "The Article maintains that the Body and Blood of Christ are received only by faith, and therefore not by the mouth of the communicant, and consequently they are not in or under or substituted for the consecrated elements; and the Rubric asserts, that there is no substantial presence of the natural Body of Christ at all in the Supper; and therefore the words ' verily and indeed taken and received' do not mean that the substantial Body and Blood of Christ, whether we suppose them present in a natural or a supernatural way, are received by the communicant."

But, unless Mr. Goode holds that Eucharistic reception and manducation of the Body and Blood of Christ are nothing more than a kind of mental contemplation, there seems no purpose to be answered by his argument, even if it were a Bound one. For if, as surely is the case, there needs to be a real Union and Communion between man and his Incarnate God, there must be some means of effecting them; Christ has provided this in the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; though we know they are not absolutely essential to this end: but Mr. Goode is here speaking of the ordained means of Communion, viz., Eucharistic feeding: now seeing that He, Who could have fixed upon any other mode of Communion, chose to appoint this, it may well be thought to have a designed significance, and to have been meant to teach us-that so far as any organ or sense at all is the instrument by which faith effects its purposes, the mouth is that organ in the case of Sacramental Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. The 28th Article does not say, as Mr. Goode represents, that "the Body and Blood of Christ are received only by faith;" its words are "the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith." But the mention of an agent does not necessarily exclude an instrument; and so the mouth of a Christian may be the VISIBLE instrument by which an INVISIBLE faith effects Communion between his soul and Christ: just as, when in His risen Humanity He appeared to the disciples, Thomas in touching Him touched GOD (See p. 50); though it is as true to say that no man ever touched God, as to say that "No man hath seen God at any time" (St. John i. 18). I have already (at pp. 143–146) ventured a suggestion as to the compatibility of oral manducation with a Real, yet not carnal, Presence: here, therefore, it will be enough humbly to express my conviction that such a theory may suffice to correct that, perhaps not needless, dread of a gross and material conception of Eucharistic feeding which apparently runs through Mr. Goode's observations and arguments on this point.

the Article of 1563 and 1571 that an equal prominence was given to the condemnation of Transubstantiation and, what is more, the very Clause which declares that "faith" is "the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten," also declares that It "is given....only after an heavenly and spiritual manner "-terms which Bishop Guest tells us as emphatically in his Second Letter (p. 199), as in the First, were designed "to take away all grosse and sensible presence"a statement to which, it has been proved I think, we are bound to give the fullest credit.

But, further, Mr. Goode says that the restoration of the Declaration in 1662 "clearly puts an end even to this doc

A reference to some extracts already given will shew that such a dread is not new, and will at the same time support, I think, what has been advanced in this note. Thus (See p. 12) though P. Martyr held "that we are incorporated into " Christ "by communication.... of the matter of the Sacrament, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ; but he meant it in mind and faith," such language does not necessarily exclude oral "communication;" the ground, for this expression of the mode, being his anxiety "that they mixed not the Body and Blood of Christ carnally with the bread and wine by any corporeal Presence"-a then not unpopular corruption which it was deemed needful to guard against.

Again: Dr. Redman (see p. 28) when distinctly asked "his opinion, whether we received the very body of Christ with our mouths and into our bodies, or no?" did not deny such reception, but said "It is a hard question," adding "but surely we receive Christ in our souls by faith," and expressing his fear lest "When you do speak of it otherways, it soundeth grossly, and savoureth of the Capernaites."

Once more: Cranmer though, in answer to Weston (see p. 49), he denied that we receive "the Body by the mouth;" taught in his Catechism (See p. 155) that a rightly prepared communicant "doth... with his bodyly mouthe receaue the bodye and bloude of Christ;" the seeming contradiction being reconciled by the language of his "Defence" (See p. 159), and especially by his comment upon Gardiner's use of the word " verily" (See p. 181), which he says "is so Capernaical, so gross, and so dull in the perceiving of this mystery, that you think a man cannot receive the body of Christ verily, unless he take Him corporally in his corporal mouth, flesh, blood, and bones, as he was born of the Virgin Mary." Looking at these statements and considering the prevalence at that time of carnal notions on the Presence, it is not difficult, I think, to understand the admission "that Christ entereth into us both by our ears and by our eyes" (See p. 49)language which was hardly capable of a carnal construction--yet to comprehend the evident reluctance to endorse oral reception: though no one surely will deny that Christ can enter the soul by the mouth as well as by any other organ.

I will only further remark upon the above extract from Mr. Goode-that it is of the utmost importance in this controversy (especially if it is to become profitable by promoting any agreement) to be accurate in the use of language: Mr. Goode says "the Rubric asserts, that there is no substantial presence of the natural Body of Christ at all in the Supper:" but what is denied is " "any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood:" unless Mr. Goode can prove that a substantial Presence must be a Corporal Presence this interchange of terms is not permissible.

trine" of a bodily presence in the Supper to the faith of the receiver,” which he thinks may have been allowed to be held during the exclusion of the Declaration.* Now it is immaterial to consider whether the statement of Bullinger and Gualter in their Letter of Feb. 6, 1566-7 (see p. 191) strictly represents the general practice at that time, when they say that that "same explanation" was then "most diligently declared, published and impressed upon the people:" though, of course, if, as there seems no reason to doubt, such was the case, its absence from the Prayer Book was of no practical importance. It is a complete answer, I think, to Mr. Goode's assertion to refer to the reply of the Bishops in 1661 (see p. 70) when the restoration of the Declaration was demanded: they said that "the sense of it is declared sufficiently in the 28th Article of the Church of England;" for if, as the Bishops in effect say, the Declaraand the Article mean the same thing; then, if the Article without the Declaration did not condemn the Presence of which Mr. Goode speaks, it follows that the Article with the Declaration does not now condemn it. Nay, more, by the same reasoning, if the Article minus the Declaration did not "take awaye y presence of Christe's Bodye in ye Sacrament," as Bishop Guest asserted (See p. 193) how can the Article plus the Declaration have a precisely opposite effect? There is but one answer, let him accept it who will,—that two statements substantially alike when separate, produce one essentially different when they are united.

In support of these three statements upon which I have been commenting, Mr. Goode refers to "the able Roman

Yet Mr. Goode had said just before (p. 29) "There may be a real presence of Christ, even in the sense attributed to the words by the Archdeacon [who, Mr. G. says, "has confounded two things entirely distinct, the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament or rite to the worthy receiver, and His real presence in the consecrated elements; as also a real spiritual with a real bodily presence], in the Supper, though it be not in the elements. And, in the true sense of the words, our Church no doubt holds a real spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament or rite to every faithful communicant, but not in the sacramental bread and wine."

So again (p. 12) "The Body might be present even materially, and yet not in the Bread."

Catholic writer, Abraham Woodhead,"* quoting passages from his "Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist. Oxf. 1687, 4to., pp. 18, 24:" where the writer argues that the " reason of the Declaration-viz., that the same body cannot be at the same time in different places-" seems necessarily to exclude .... the real and essential presence, as well as corporal and natural;" and contends that "the same objections, absurdities, etc.," are thus presented to those who "say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist, .... not to the Elements, but to the receiver; and that not to his body, but to his soul," as they "afflict others" with, "for making it present with the signs." Upon Woodhead's reasoning, which he quotes at length, Mr. Goode says (Note p.31):

"These remarks are perfectly true. The denial that our Saviour's body can be in two places at the same time, is a denial that there can be any real bodily presence of our Saviour at all in the Eucharist, either in the Elements, or apart from them . . . . . The restoration, therefore, of this Rubric to our Prayer Book at the last revision precludes those who have subscribed it from holding any bodily presence at all in the Eucharist, even apart from the consecrated elements. While it was excluded, such a view might no doubt be held by our Divines, and some of them, perhaps, who lived at that time did maintain it. But even these give no countenance to the doctrine opposed in this work, because that doctrine is, that the presence is by priestly consecration IN THE ELEMENTS, and to be adored as in the elements; a notion which was decidedly opposed, as I shall show hereafter, by those who held the highest doctrine of the Real Presence ever maintained in our Reformed Church. And this is distinctly admitted by the Roman Catholic author just cited, even when endeavouring to show how near these authors come to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. He is obliged to admit that this notion of the Real Bodily Presence was that it was a Presence to the receiver, but not to the elements. (See work already cited in various places; and his Compendious Disc. on Euch., Oxford, 1688, p. 30, et seq., and App. 2, p. 212.)"

*He was born in 1608; educated at University College, Oxford; fellow in 1633; soon after took Holy Orders; was Proctor in 1641; subsequently went to Rome with pupils, where he is thought to have joined the Church of Rome; was deprived of his Fellowship in 1648, by the Parliamentary Visitors, on the ground of absence; died at Hoxton, May 4, 1678.