Book was not, so far as I am aware, held at the time to teach a doctrine contrary to that of the former Book: (2) Secondly, that it was the same Book, with no material alterations, which satisfied the Roman party in England for the first ten years of Elizabeth's reign, and which, as we have strong ground for believing, would have received the Pope's confirmation, had the Queen chosen to acknowledge his Supremacy.

I say with no material alterations; because it cannot be seriously contended, I imagine, that the terms used in delivering the Sacrament destroyed its orthodoxy in 1552, and revived it in 1559; or were so designed by the revisers at those periods.

Now, it was in this 2nd Book of Edward VI. that the Declaration on Kneeling first appeared. The history of its introduction plainly shews that the revisers did not contemplate its being there. The book, as settled by Convocation. and authorized by Statute, did not contain it: many of the copies apparently were printed+ without it; nor was it until "the 27th of October, 1552," four days before the Feast of All Saints, the day on which its use was to begin, that, as Burnet states

"The Council Book mentions also a letter written to the Lord Chancellor to add in the Edition of the new Common Prayer Book, a Declaration touching Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion." -Hist. Refor. Part 3, Bk. 4, fol. p. 210.

It is not difficult, I think, to account for this step: the

The Rubric in Edward's 2nd Book declaring what Bread "shall suffice" to be used in the Celebration, has often in our own times been appealed to as demonstrating that those who inserted it made altogether light of Consecration, because of the concluding words "And if any of the bread or wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use," which they assume to refer to the Consecrated elements. But this is wholly a mistake. The new practice permitted [apparently in 1550 (see passage from p. 64 of Cranmer's "Defence"-sup. p. 22) and now recognized as a permission,] by the earlier part of the Rubric, no doubt created the need for this latter part: [since it would naturally become a question-how to dispose of such consecrated Bread as had been offered, seeing that it, unlike Wafers, could not be kept for future Celebrations.] The Clergy of that day could be at no loss what to do with the remaining Consecrated elements when not reserved for sick Communions, as I apprehend, from the Office for Communion of the sick, they still were when needed.

Be it observed, too, that the same Rubric was continued in Elizabeth's Book. "Sept. 27th an order came to Grafton the printer in any wise to stay from uttering any of the books of the new service. And if he had distributed any of them among his company (of stationers) that then he give strait commandment not to put any of them abroad until certain faults therein were corrected."— Strype, Memorials, Ed. vi.

tide, which in the reign of Elizabeth it was found so almost impossible to stem, had already set in against Ceremonies, and in particular against external reverence in the ministration of the Holy Communion: Cranmer and others could not but perceive this, and may easily have foreseen the evils which might arise in the use of a Book which, to allay prejudices, had been shorn of all which it could safely part with consistently with preserving at least a decent ministration of its Offices, and especially that of the Holy Communion. Remembering, too, the objections which had been made to "knocking and kneeling," at the celebration of the Eucharist, it was a likely supposition that the accustomed gesture would be sought to be abandoned by many of the people who, perhaps, would be encouraged in not a few cases by their Clergy. To place a direction for "kneeling" before words of delivery which certainly sounded less reverential than the old form, would be a probable security for the continuation of an external reverence which we must believe the Bishops had every intention to preserve.

But then, the very fact that this direction was an addition, and had no counterpart in the Office which had been censured as too Ceremonial, would easily excite suspicion, and promote criticism. What more probable, then, than that objections were urged upon the Council against the direction, and that its omission was pressed for? This may have been the occasion of the order to the Printer to stay the issue, on the plea of correcting "certain faultes." Yet the considerations which I have surmised to have prompted the direction were doubtless equally weighty in inducing the Bishops and the Privy Council to determine on retaining it in the Book. To explain however to the objectors that it was not to be construed as in any way countenancing TRANSUBSTANTIATION, was a natural resort; and what terms so likely to suggest themselves as those of the xxixth. Article which had then been prepared. Accordingly, as I think a comparison of the Article and the Declaration must show, the latter was framed upon that model and added to the Book upon the Council's authority to meet the case of the objectors.

We know that one of Bucer's Censures was that the Consecration Prayer in the 1st Book "favoured Transubstantiation too much:" I can conceive nothing so probable as that the objectors to the Rubric for "kneeling" thought the same. The Bishops were most desirous to eliminate that Doctrine: this, as I have already urged, seemed to be their ONE aim with regard to the Eucharistic controversy. Did they mean anything more when they sanctioned this new Declaration? I most entirely believe that they did not.

This persuasion derives some strength from such an occurrence as the following, which happened only three months afterwards.

During the reign of Edward VI. (viz. about January, 1553-4) there were, as Foxe relates, certain "Articles and Informations to the King's Honourable Council, put up and exhibited by Hugh Rawlins and Thomas Lee, against the blessed man of God, Master Ferrar, Bishop of St. David's." Among these were some which charged him with "Maintenance of Superstition contrary to the King's Ordinances and Injunctions." The Charges were preferred by some members of his Cathedral. To the XXIst Article, which charged that "He, being often in Carmarthen, and other places in the Chancel, at the time of Holy Communion, not only tarried there himself, neither communicating nor ministering, bareheaded and uncoiffed, reverently kneeling; but also permitteth the people there to continue, the chancel and choir full, kneeling and knocking their breasts: which manner is yet used in all the Diocese, without any reformation or gainsay of him or any of his officers :-'

"....he saith, that he hath been divers times in the Choir of Caermarthen, and hath tarried there in the communion-time, not communicating himself; and that in every church where he cometh on the holy-day to preach, or to pray, he kneeleth in the choir, bareheaded, as well at Matins before the communion, as at Evensong after, without any superstition: he thinketh it not necessary for the Communion's sake to leave kneeling to Christ, But he hath diligently taught the people not to kneel nor knock to the visible show, or external show of the Sacrament. And the choirs of Caermarthen and other places there, are not close at the sides, so that the people may come in and forth at their pleasure.

Moreover the King's ordinances do not authorize him to rebuke the people for knocking on their breasts, in token of repentance of their sins; nor for kneeling in token of submission to God for mercy in Christ."-Foxe, vol. vii., pp. 6 and 13.

as

It is just worth while to remark that Foxe speaks of Ferrar "the virtuous and godly Bishop," and calls the charges "the quarrelling and frivolous articles of his present adversaries:" also that through various delays upon these charges, he "was detained in prison till the death of King Edward, and the coming in of Queen Mary and popish religion, whereby a new trouble rose upon him, being now accused and examined for his faith and doctrine," (pp. 16 and 21,) for which he was ultimately put to death.

Still more to the purpose, as showing the continuous identity of language on the Eucharistic Presence with that used alike in 1549 and 1552, are the Writings and Examinations of such of the Prelates and other Clergy as were put on their trial during the reign of Mary. It will be found that then, as before, it was the doctrine of Transubstantiation which was the key to all their statements against what continued to be known as the REAL Presence.

Upon the Accession of Mary, a Disputation was held in the Convocation House at London, commencing Oct. 18, 1553. On the fourth day, Oct. 25, John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, being the Disputant, prefaced his argument with an oration, in which he said thus:

"But before I bring forth any argument, I will, in one word, declare what manner of presence I disallow in the Sacrament, to the intent the hearers may the better understand to what end and effect mine arguments shall tend not to deny utterly the presence of Christ in his Sacraments, truly ministered according to His institution; but only to deny that gross and carnal presence, which you of this house have already subscribed unto, to be in the Sacrament of the Altar, contrary to the truth and manifest meaning of the Scriptures: That by transubstantiation of the sacramental bread and wine, Christ's natural Body should, by the virtue of the words pronounced by the priest, be contained and included under the forms or accidents of bread and wine. This kind of Presence, imagined by men, I do deny,' quoth Philpot, and against this I will reason.'"

401.

6

Dr. Chedsey, in reply, contended for an "invisible presence"

of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament; and that Christ's Flesh is visibly ascended into Heaven, and invisibly abideth still in the Sacrament of the Altar"-p. 403.

In the argument on the 30th of October, Philpot said thus:

"But bodily to be present, and bodily to be absent; to be on earth and to be in heaven, and all at one present time; be things contrary to the nature of a human body: ergo, it cannot be said of the human Body of Christ, that the selfsame Body is both in heaven, and also in earth at one instant, either visibly or invisibly." -p. 408.

Again, take the following extract from

"A Conference between NICHOLAS RIDLEY, sometime Bishop of London, and SECRETARY BOURN, with others, at the Lieutenant's table at the Tower." A.D. 1553.

"Mr. Fecknam perceiving whereunto my talk went, Why,' quoth he,' what circumstances can ye shew me that should move you to think of any other sense, than as the words plainly say, Hoe est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur? This is My Body which shall be betrayed for you.'

"Sir,' said I, 'even the next sentence that followeth : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Do this in My remembrance. And also by what reason ye say the bread is turned into Christ's carnal Body; by the same I may say, that it turned into His mystical Body. For as that saith of it, 'Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur:' so Paul which spake by Christ's spirit saith, Unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus omnes, qui de uno pane participamus. We being many are all but one bread, and one body, in as much as we are partakers of one bread.'"-p. 157.

Afterwards Ridley refers them to Bertram's Book, professing his agreement with it.

So, too, the same expressions are to be gathered from

"The Disputation had at Oxford the 18th day of April, 1554, between Master Hugh Latimer, Answerer, and Master Smith and others, Opposers." I extract the following. To the first Conclusion, viz:

"That in the Sacrament of the Altar, by the virtue of God's word pronounced by the Priest, there is really present the natural Body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, under the kinds of the appearances of bread and wine: in like manner His Blood."