Bishop Jewel will come in to help me there: for where Harding names divers ceremonies and particularly bowing themselves and adoring at the Sacrament-I say adoring at the Sacrament, not adoring the Sacrament; there Bishop Jewel (that learned, painful, and reverend prelate) approves all, both the kneeling and the bowing, and the standing up at the Gospel (which, as ancient as it is in the Church, and a common custom, is yet fondly made another of their innovations). And further, the Bishop adds, That they are all commendable gestures and tokens of devotion, so long as the people understand what they mean and apply them unto God.' Now with us the people did ever understand them fully and apply them to God, and to none but God, till these factious spirits and their like, to the great disservice of God and His Church, went about to persuade them that they are superstitious if not idolatrous gestures; as they value everything else to be where God is not served slovenly.”Speech in the Star Chamber June 14, 1637-pp. 43, 52. Cited in Hierugia Anglicana, pp. 55-6. This, then, may be regarded with moral (I can scarcely doubt with absolute) certainty as Abp. Laud's explanation of that "bowing "gesture" of the Canon which Mr. Goode inaccurately cites in proof-that "Kneeling is not an act of adoration to Christ ["whole Christ, God and man "] as so present" i.e. in, what he calls, "an immaterial” manner. What the Abp. thought of kneeling "at the Sacrament" is abundantly clear from this same passage: why he thought adoration kneeling due then, is plain from what he says of the "Altar" where It is celebrated and of the "Body" which "is usually present" there. It will tend to complete his view of the point if his opinion of Christ's Presence in that Sacrament is here added; and this may be satisfactorily gathered from the following passages in his celebrated controversy with Fisher the Jesuit. The Italics &c. are mine. Thus he says: : "Thirdly, A.C. [i.e. Fisher] doth extremely ill to join those cases of the Donatists for baptism and the protestants for the Eucharist together, as he doth. For this proposition in the first, concerning the Donatists, leads a man (as is confessed by himself) into known and damnable schism and heresy; but, by A. C's. good leave, the latter, concerning the protestants and the Eucharist, nothing so. "Bishop Jewell's Reply to Harding's Answer, Art. 3, Div. 29." For I hope A. C. dare not say, that to believe the true, *substantial presence of Christ is either known or damnable schism or heresy. Now as many and as learned† protestants believe and maintain this, or do believe the possibility of salvation (as before is limited) in the Roman Church: therefore they, in that, not guilty of either known or damnable schism or heresy, though the Donatists were of both. "Fourthly, whereas he imposes upon the protestants 'the denial or doubting of the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,' he is a great deal more bold than true in that also; for understand them aright, and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it. For as for the Lutherans, as they are commonly called, their very opinion of consubstantiation makes it known to the world, that they neither deny nor doubt of His true and real presence there; and they are protestants. And for the Calvinists, if they might be rightly understood, they also maintain a most true and real presence, though they cannot permit their judgment to be transubstantiated; and they are protestants too. And this is so known a truth that Bellarmine confesses it; for he saith, Protestants do often grant that the true and real body of Christ is in the Eucharist." But he adds, 'That they never say (so far as he hath read) that it is there truly and really, unless they speak of the supper which shall be in heaven.' Well; first, if they grant that the true and real body of Christ is in that blessed sacrament, (as Bellarmine confesses they do, and it is most true,) then A. C. is false, who charges all the protestants with denial or doubtfulness in this point. And secondly, Bellarmine himself also shews his ignorance or his malice; ignorance, if he knew it not, malice, if he would not know it. For the Calvinists, at least they which follow Calvin himself, do not only believe that the true and real body of Christ is received in the Eucharist, but that it is there, and that we partake of it vere et realiter, which are § Calvin's 's own words; and yet Bellarmine boldly affirms that to his reading 'no one protestant did ever affirm it.'...... Nor can that place by any art be shifted, or by any violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the presence of Christ in and at the blessed "Cæterum his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis a sunguinis Domini communicationem, quæ sub sacris cœnæ symbolis, fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio. Calv. Inst. lib. iv. c. 17. §. 19.-In cœnæ mysterio per symbola panis et vini Christus vere nobis exhibetur, &c. Et nos participes substantiae ejus facti sumus. Ibid. §. 11." + "Sect. 35. numb. III." "Bellarm de Euchar, lib. i. c. 2. §. Quinto dicit. Sacramentarii sæpe dicunt reale corpus Christi in cœna adesse, sed realiter adesse nunquam dicunt, quod legerim, nisi forte loquuntur de cœna quæ fit in cœlo, &c. "And that he means to brand protestants under the name of sacramentarii is plain. For he says the council of Trent opposed this word realiter, figmento Calvinistico, to the Calvinistical figment. Ibid." § "Calv. in 1 Cor. x. 3. vere, &c. Et in 1 Cor. xi. 24. realiter. Vide supra num. III." one. Sacrament of the Eucharist, to any supper in heaven whatsoever.. And for the Church of England, nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the *Eucharist, unless A. C. can make a body no body, and blood no blood, (as perhaps he can do by transubstantiation) as well as bread no bread, and wine no wine and the Church of England is protestant too. So protestants of all sorts maintain a true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and then, where is any known or damnable heresy here? As for the learned of those zealous men that died in this cause in queen's Mary's days, they denied not the real presence simply taken, but as their opposites forced transubstantiation upon them, as if that and the real presence had been all Whereas all the ancient Christians ever believed the one, and none but modern and superstitious Christians believe the other .... Now that the learned protestants in queen Mary's days did not deny, nay, did maintain the real presence, will manifestly appear. For when the commissioners obtruded to Jo. Frith the presence of Christ's natural body in the Sacrament, and that without all figure or similitude, Jo. Frith acknowledges,† 'That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's body as the outward man receives the sacrament with his mouth.' And he adds, 'That neither side ought to make it a necessary article of faith, but leave it indifferent.' Nay, Abp. Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it than Frith. 'For if you understand,' saith he,§ by this word really, reipsa; that is very deed and effectually; so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of His passion, is indeed and truly present, &c. But if by this word really you understand || corporaliter, ¶corporally in His in "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper (of the Lord) only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith.' Eccl. Ang, Art. xxviii. So here is the manner of transubstantiation denied, but the body of Christ twice affirmed. And in the prayer before consecration thus: Grant us, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood' &c.-And again in the Second Prayer or Thanksgiving after Consecration, thus: 'We give Thee thanks, for that Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, which have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood, of Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ' &c." "Jo. Fox. Martyrolog. tom. ii. London, 1597, p. 943." § "Cranmer apud Fox, ibid. p. 1301." "I say corporaliter, corporally; for so Bellarmine hath it expressly: Quod autem corporaliter et proprie sumatur sanguis et caro, &c., probari potest omnibus argumentis, &c. Bellarm. de Eucharist. lib. i. c. 12. §. Sed. tota. And I must be bold to tell you more than that this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome; for I must tell you too, that Bellarmine here contradicts himself: for he that tells us here, that it can be proved by many arguments that we receive the flesh and the blood of Christ in the Eucharist corporaliter, said as expressly before, (had he remembered it,) that though Christ be in this blessed sacrament vere et realiter, yet (saith he) non dicemus corporaliter, i.e. eo modo quo sua natura existunt corpora, &c. Bellarm. de Eucharist. lib. i. c. 2. §. Tertia regula. So Bellarmine here is a notorious contradiction: or else it will follow plainly out of him, that Christ in the sacrament is existent one way and received another, which is a gross absurdity. . . This expression, "corporally," should be especially noticed by those who 6 natural and organical body, under the forms of bread and wine, it is contrary to the holy word of God." *And so likewise bishop Ridley. Nay, bishop Ridley adds yet further, and speaks so fully to this point, as I think no man can add to his expression and it is well if some protestants except not against it. Both you and I,' saith he, agree in this; that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ, even that which ascended into heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead: only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being. We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I confess Christ's natural body to be in the Sacrament by spirit and grace, &c. You make a grosser kind of being, inclosing a natural body under the shape and form of bread and wine.' So far and more, bishop Ridley. And Archbishop Cranmer confesses that he was indeed of another opinion, and inclining to that of Zuinglius, till bishop Ridley convinced his judgment and settled him in this point...."-Laud. v. Fisher. Cardwell's Ed., Oxford, 1839, pp. 245-49. III. I have now produced fully, though not, I hope, at greater length than was needed, such additional Authorities and Arguments as seem to me fairly to support the Opinions maintained in the Letter; it will be well, however, to complete or explain, so far as I can, any other statements which were unavoidably left imperfect. Thus, at p. 65, I alluded to a statement of Strype's, which I was then unable to find, touching a Puritan proposal, in Elizabeth's reign, of prostration at the Holy Communion: I have now recovered the passage, which is as follows: : "Another whose name was Snagg, entered into discourse of some of the Articles, which Strickland had laid down before. Whereof find a great difficulty in those words of the Declaration "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here": it is often argued by such-that these words (1) either deny any real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist (2) or affirm Him to have two bodies: but, as there can be no reasonable doubt that Cranmer is responsible for the terms of the original Declaration so, the Archbishop's language in the above quotation must, in all fairness, be taken as their true exponent: consequently when Christ's "natural Body and Blood" are said to be "not here," it must be understood that they are not here 66 corporally" i.e. naturally=organically. * See also the passage as given above p. 46. "Apud Fox, ibid. p. 1598."-See also the passage as given above, p. 61. "Apud Fox, ibid. p. 1703." EEE one was, not to kneel at the receiving of the holy sacrament; but to lie prostrate (to shew the old superstition) or to sit, every man at his own liberty. And the directions were thought fit to be left out of the book [of the Office of Communion] for that posture. Which should be a law; and every man left to do according to his conscience."-Strype Ann. II., p. 93. It is quite in place here to commend that proposal to the attention of devout persons amongst ourselves, whose vivid belief of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar has drawn them into acts of prostration and other supposed reverential postures, which are a departure, not only from the established practice (which with us might have become very lax), but from the recognized rule of Western Christendom: that rule, which is even more accurately defined in the Latin Communion than in the Church of England, makes KNEELING the external expression of the honour due to Christ in the Sacrament: and it is plain from the Puritan proposition, which described it as "the old superstition," that those religionists accounted it a distinct mark of Adoration. Variations in the mode of Kneeling were, of course, meant to be allowed; if for no other reason, at least, because it would be no less impossible than unnatural to prescribe any uniform angle which the worshipper's body must present when in that position; but, in appointing a definite posture whereby to manifest a thankful allegiance to the Heavenly King, clearly all self-chosen ways of doing Him homage were as much designed to be excluded, as are marked departures from that manner of approaching an earthly Monarch which the forms of his Court provide. Such gestures, while regarded as pardonable extravagancies resulting either from ignorance or from good intentions, are not accepted by a temporal Sovereign as tokens of any deeper loyalty than is felt by those who conform to the rules of his Presence Chamber: still less may it be presumed that He, who fully knows and entirely accepts the hidden homage of the devoutest heart, regards more favourably any self-appointed tokens of it, however lowly and reverend they are designed to be, than |