no more? Did St. Paul think it did no more, when he addressed the Galatians (iii. 1) in words already referred to (See p. 352)? Is not the Sacramental Picture rather the REpresentation, i. e., the presentation of the RES the THING

=

between themselves and us, and with the universal Church of Christ. I cannot discover any more speedy and certain method of persuading all, who are not contentious, and who can be edified in this matter, to [adopt this.-Ed.] consent,-than this, since we agree in sentiment with the Word of the Lord, and with the whole of the ancient Church, that we should freely use the words of Scripture and of the ancient Church; and so, that we should both express and proclaim, in very full and certain words, that which is the principal thing in this sacred [matter.-Ed.]; as we see in the holy Fathers was the custom of the early Church. Now in the words of Christ, of the Apostle, and of the holy Fathers, we observe that the very [ipsam.-Ed.] exhibition of Christ is everywhere most fully expressed; and the presence, not the signification [That is, the representation of Christ by a Sign.-Ed.] and absence, of the Lord. When, indeed, we are treating of the Bread and Wine,-they are properly called signs to them this term is properly attributed, yes, even to the whole celebration. But neither the signs themselves, nor the signification of Christ, is the principal thing which is here in discussion; but the very exhibition and spiritual eating of Him. On this account the holy Fathers used the word, Represent (which is the same as the word Exhibit), rather than Signify.

"Moreover, since here we all acknowledge that by faith we verily take Christ and have Him present; and that this taking and presence, not feigned, and verbal only, but real, and of the very substance of Christ; I see no reason why [the proposition-Ed] that Christ is not taken really and substantially, should be defended as if it were a dogma of the Christian religion. It is far better, I think, that these terms [Signification and Absence.-Ed.] should be discontinued, which method of concord was lately adopted with great advantage in the German Churches; since they are not [the words.-Ed.] of Scripture; nor do they even, as I believe, conduce very much to express the truth of Scripture; nor are they taken in the same sense. For,-when those points are so much contended, that Christ is so in heaven, that He is really and substantially absent from the Sacred Supper, and is only present by signification,—I have found one result,-that there has been a wonderful confirmation of the impious profanation of the Sacraments by those who acknowledge only naked signs in the Eucharist. [I have found, also,-Ed.] that those who are truly on our side, but who are oppressed by a certain superstition with respect to words, and by the obscurity of the matter itself, are much disturbed by this disputation, and are too much led away [from us. - Ed.] by those who deny a real presence of Christ in the Supper, and admit nothing more than its significatory character. [I have found.-Ed.] that those, moreover, who have a more full understanding of this Mystery, and are not held [in bondage.-Ed.] by a superstition with respect to words, are not a little offended; because they see how many,-through this negation of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and through the establishment of a signified presence,-are either precipitated by Satan into an absolute contempt of Sacraments, or are armed by him [to a battle.-Ed.] against the Church of God, by the pernicious crime of Christ excluded from the Sacrament. "Well weighing these considerations, I am truly unwilling that Christ should not be [allowed to be.-Ed.] really in the Sacred Supper; I am unwilling, also, that against those [your opponents.-Ed.] the matter should be urged by the arguments-Christ is in heaven, circumscribed by place; therefore He is not in fact [Re ipsa vel realiter.-Ed.] or really, (which two expressions are, I think, equivalent,) in the Sacred Supper :- but rather, therefore He is not locally in the Supper. For thus this argument ought to be concluded, unless it become an empty sophism. But, if it be so concluded, against whom is the contest?

of the Sacrament (Sacramentum), i.e., Christ Himself? Bishops Latimer and Ridley shall answer the question; the former declares (See p. 40) "this same [spiritual presence may be called most fitly a real presence; that is, a presence

For even the Schoolmen did not affirm, that Christ was in the Supper or in the signs locally; and who would tolerate antagonists who should affirm such a proposition? Indeed, I know that this argument has given grave offence to an innumerable multitude of the holiest brethren; who think that they are defamed by that false accusation; as if, in truth, they included Christ locally in the Bread, or even in the celebration of the Supper. You [now. -Ed.] have the reason why I could have wished that you had not placed in your second Proposition, nor defended as a necessary dogma of our religion,-That Christ is not in the Supper, nor given and taken really; and I should have preferred that all those words,-Really, Substantially, Carnally, Corporally,-had been omitted.

"The reason why I could have wished that, in your third Proposition, you had more distinctly expressed the exhibition of Christ in the Supper, - is this; that I cannot desire that either yourself (who have a very great name among the Churches of Christ in every land, and who are among the dearest of my acquaintance) or that the Church of England should anywhere fall under suspicion, as if you acknowledged nothing in the Lord's Supper besides empty signs of Christ through which the remembrance of Christ now absent ought to be excited. For, although you say, in your subsequent responses, that you maintain an efficacious signification and exhibition of Christ; yet nearly the whole Disputation runs on in such a manner, that I fear too many who may read the Acts of this Disputation will come to the conclusion that you maintain that Christ is absent altogether from the Supper, and that whatsoever is done in it has no further result than that faith, excited concerning Christ truly absent, is increased through the Spirit of Christ, by His benefits brought to mind and by meditation; and that you do not acknowledge that the very Christ, (beginning [to do this.-Ed.] in Baptism, and continuing [to do it.-Ed.] more and more in the Eucharist,) exhibits and communicates Himself present to His own by that communication, by which they verily are and remain in Him, and have Him being and remaining in themselves. To sum up: they will think you maintain the presence, not of Christ, but only of the Spirit of Christ, and of His influence; although I know that you acknowledge that Christ exhibits Himself present to faith."

Then, having given P. Martyr his advice as to the publication of his Disputation, he goes on to say :-"Moreover, I could desire (you will certainly find a suitable place, possibly in your Peroration,) that you would very clearly define those words, Esse in Sacramento Christi Corpus realiter,' [That the body of Christ is really* in the Sacrament,-Ed.] and in such terms as shall point out the altogether absurd and impious sense of those words; and that you would then add, that some persons go astray into that absurd and impious sense; in order that it might more distinctly appear that you here by no means wish to traduce any Churches or brethren who are most averse from that sense which you oppose. Lastly. [I wish that.-Ed.] you would confess (if you can do so with a safe conscience,) that Christ undoubtedly is (since we must speak with simplicity) in His Sacraments, and present † in them, not absent from them';

* That is carnally, organically: this was contended for by some on the Roman side, as P. Martyr's Disputation proves, and as I have shewn throughout.

+ Bucer's anxiety on this point is further shewn in the following passage from his Letter a year later to Theobald Niger, dated Cambridge, April 15, 1550: in it he says "Dr. Peter Martyr's Disputation was planned, and his Propositions communicated, before I came into England. I could have wished a modified Proposition, composed in words altogether different, and those [the words-Ed.] of Scripture. I am well assured, however, that he by no meaus wished that the Supper of the Lord should be [viewed as-Ed.] a mere administration of Bread and Wine; he acknowledges the presence and exhibition of Christ; but, since the FFF

not figured, but a true and a faithful presence:" the latter says, distinctly enough as it seems to me (See p. 186) :—“ in the Sacrament is a certain change, in that, the bread, which was before common bread, is now made a lively presentation* but that you would always add, that we may enjoy † Him by Faith,' as Paul says, that He dwells in our hearts by Faith." For though we should grant you, that He is circumscribed even in heaven by a physical place, how is that inconsistent with His being now truly present to us by faith; even as the Sun, in whatever part of the world we behold him, is truly present to us by sight. Certainly all errors which can possibly arise from the name Presence,' may be altogether excluded by such words, which can neither disturb any of the brethren, nor arm our enemies against us by false criminations: I mean,-if we deny, together with transubstantiation, both a local presence, and any [presence-Ed.] of this world's character."-Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, pp. 83-90.

These last words are especially noteworthy as shewing how large a liberty of belief Bucer was willing to accord, and so they may with the utmost probability be accounted a valuable indirect confirmation of what was said, at p. 4 and elsewhere, as to the like freedom which the Authorities in the Church of England designed to allow Bucer's statement ought, moreover, to have especial weight with those who hold that he influenced the changes in the 2nd Prayer Book of Edw. VIth to a much greater extent than (as I have already pointed out) Historical statements seem to warrant us in believing. In further proof of this last remark may be quoted the following passage of a Letter from P. Martyr to Bucer, written at Oxford early in February 1551 :-"On the 1st of February I received your letter dated January 22nd. Concerning the Reformation of the Rituals [Rituum-Ed] I cannot write anything else as to what will be [done-Ed.] except that the Bishops have agreed among themselves on many emendations and corrections in the published Book. Indeed, I have seen the alterations on which they have decided, noted in their places; but as I am ignorant of English, and could not understand them, so I am unable to give you any certain information about them. However, I do not think they have gone so far as to determine on adopting the whole of your and my suggestions. To our [Archbishop - Ed.] indeed, I said, more than once, that, having undertaken this correction of the Rituals, they ought to

* Even P. Martyr, in his "Confession of the Lord's Supper, exhibited to the Senate of Strasburgh, about the middle of May, 1556, when he was called to Zurich," could thus speak :-"I would grant, moreover, that the bread itself is, in its own peculiar manner, the Body of Christ, and is so called because, namely, it is its Sacrament. For both Scripture and the Fathers often so speak of the Sacraments. But they who hold the opposite opinion will themselves, too, perhaps, concede a trope in the words cited; or rather, being compelled of necessity, they thus explain that phrase:-This is my Body,'-i.e., 'With this-namely, bread-is my Body given.' And I, too, should not object to admit this interpretation, if they would understand that the Body of Christ is given without a substantial or corporal presence. But, since they will not allow this, I, for the avoiding of ambiguity, abstain from that kind of trope, and am contented with the common and received one of signification, which the Fathers, too, of old employed."— Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p. 362. Zurich people have here many and great followers, this excellent man was drawn, I hardly know how, to consent to use the word, 'Signification,' although he added, 'efficacious,' by which he understands the exhibition of Christ, as he himself explains it in the Preface to his Disputations; in which [Preface-Ed.], by my advice, he added many observations to his own, and withdrew some -the Disputations were already published-); for he is most desirous of a pious concord."-Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p. 142.

I notice this word as being something like an answer to the following complaint which Mr. Goode makes against Dr. Pusey.-"... he then seeks to strain in a similar way a very

of Christ's body, and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth his body. . . . which the eyes of faith see, as the bodily eyes see only bread." What is this, too, but in part the language of Art. xxv., "Sacraments ordained of Christ...

look well to it; that the restoration they make should be so simple, chaste, and pure, that there may be no further need for emendations: for, if frequent changes should take place in these matters, it might at length easily come to pass that they would fall into general contempt." And I am persuaded that, if the business had been committed to his individual hand, purity of ceremonies + would without difficulty have been attained by him: but he has colleagues who offer resolute opposition. Cheke is the only person there, who openly and earnestly favours simplicity "-Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p. 231. The following passage from Mr. Fisher is also in place here: -"... although foreigners, and belonging to a school of theology different in many respects from his own-they [i.e., Bucer and P. Martyr] are, nevertheless, supposed to have swayed materially the mind of our great Reformer [Cranmer] in his treatment of the Service-book. This, however, it should be observed, is mere surmise; and a surmise, too, based upon the purest assumption. Probably both Bucer and P. Martyr-at least the former-might be consulted by the Archbishop; but we have no proof that he was really influenced by either of them in his preparation of the Liturgy. (See Lawrence's Bampton Lectures, p. 247). Indeed, there are letters extant which seem to shew very clearly, that P. Martyr himself was by no means deeply in the confidence of Cranmer...."-Lit. Purity, 2nd Ed., 1860, p. 136.

With regard to the doctrinal questions, of "transubstantiation," and "a local presence," mentioned at the end of Bucer's Letter, and also as supporting the allegation made throughout these pages-that Transubstantiation was the main point of attack by the English Reformers-it is desirable to cite the following passage from Bucer's letter to Niger, April 15th, 1550, already quoted from at p. 401: "Up to this time nothing further is established in this kingdom concerning that controversy, than that Transubstantiation is not to be affirmed. In the Public Prayers, however, at the Lord's Supper, a true exhibition of the Body and Blood of Christ is expressed in words exceedingly clear and weighty."- Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p. 143. The Editor remarks in a Note "The words in Edward VIth's first Liturgy, 1549, which Bucer so highly approved were:'With Thy Holy Spirit and word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.' In the Second Liturgy, 1552, they were expunged, and the following substituted: Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our plain passage of one of the Homilies. The words of the Homily being,-'so that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding.' Dr. Pusey actually fixes upon the words enjoy' and 'fruition' as shewing that the writer meant that we may eat and drink thereof,' but not 'enjoy' that eating and drinking! He says that the writer of the Homily lays down, that faith is essential, not to any reception of our Lord's Body, but to the fruition' of it, or the benefits resulting from it. In that he denies, that eating without faith' is the fruition of it,' he even implies, that it may be a reception of it, although not the fruition of it. He lays the emphasis upon the words enjoy,' 'fruition.' (p. 219.) Faith is the mean,' according to him, by which a man healthily receives the spiritual food' of the Body and Blood of Christ.' (ib.); where the word healthily' is put in by Dr. Pusey, so as to change entirely the character of the doctrine delivered. Such is the way in which the plain statement of the Homily is explained away!"-Supplement, p. 28.

* Cranmer's Letter (See p. 77) plainly shews that he thought so too, and that he considered there was "no further need for emendation" after the changes which had been made in the revisions embodied in the 2nd Book.

+ This seems plainly to imply that neither Martyr nor Bucer were dissatisfied with the doctrine of the First Book.

be.

.. effectual signs of grace

..

Can any one truly say of a PICTURE what Latimer, Ridley, and the Article here say of the Sacraments? Surely not.

But having thus noticed the one, what can be said of the

Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.'"

Now if Mr. Gorham is correct, though I think he is not, in supposing that Bucer referred to the words of Invocation, then the commonly received notion-that they were altered at his instance-is unfounded. Judging from Bucer's language as to P. Martyr's Eucharistic Statements, the probability is that if either of them induced the alteration it was P. Martyr; especially as Bucer died seven months before the completion of the Book, and P. Martyr was one of those whom the Privy Council wished Cranmer to consult touching the proposal to omit the Rubric on kneeling at receiving the Sacrament. Mr. Goode, however, (Work on the Eucharist, p. 618) takes the opposite view to Mr. Gorham; speaking of the Invocation he says:-"Now, no doubt, these words may be so explained as not to countenance the doctrine of a real presence in the Consecrated Elements, but they are very open to an interpretation of that kind. And accordingly we find Bucer, in his remarks on the Prayer Book, written at the request of Archbishop Cranmer for his use in the revision of the Book, taking particular exception to them, as open to an interpretation involving the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, and he proceeds to use words which exclude Archdeacon Denison's doctrine as much as that of the Romanists. He says,

"The holy Fathers understood no other change of those elements from these words, than that, by which the bread and wine, remaining in every respect in the properties of their own nature, were then so changed from their vulgar and common use, and as it were translemented, as to be symbols (symbola) of the same Body and Blood, and so of Christ himself, God and man, the bread which came down from heaven to give life to the world: so that whoever should take them according to our Lord's institution, and with true faith in Him, should be partakers of a fuller communion with the Lord, and enjoyt Him for the meat and drink of eternal life, by which they might more and more live in Him, and have Him living in themselves.'-Buceri Censura in Ordinat Ecclesiast. Op. ed. Basil, 1557, p. 471.

Accordingly these words were altered, and remain altered, to the very words which we have seen Dr. Brett‡ quoting as proof that the Church of England * But not, as he says (See p. 401), "Empty signs of Christ, through which the remembrance of Christ now absent ought to be excited."

The same expression as I have noticed at p. 402.

The passage which Mr. Goode cites from Dr. Brett is the following:-"I was and am very desirous to believe that the Church of England holds the doctrine so plainly taught by our Saviour. But I know not how to reconcile the Consecration prayer in the present established Liturgy to this doctrine, for that makes a plain distinction betwixt the Bread and Wine and our Saviour's Body and Blood, when, as Mr. Spinckes shows, and the words will bear no other construction than that, it was the Bread which Christ said was His Body; whereas the Consecration Prayer evidently supposes them to be two distinct things. Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine, may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood. Which manifestly implies the Bread and Wine to be distinct or different things from the Body and Blood. For if the Bread be Christ's Body, as Mr. Spinckes proves the words of Institution teach, then he that receives or partakes of the Bread must be a partaker of the Body. And except they are supposed to be two things, then the Prayer is, that we, receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be partakers of His Body and Blood. This nonsensical interpretation must be given of this Petition, if the Prayer is understood in the sense which Mr. Spinckes de lares and proves to be the necessary inevitable consequence of our Saviour's words, and which I verily believe to be so. But the ancient Church, as appears from all the Liturgies, never prayed in this manner. They never prayed, that, receiving Bread and Wine, they might be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood, but that they might be worthy partakers, that they might partake of it to their benefit, and not to their condemnation."-" Brett's Discourse concerning the necessity of discerning the Lord's Body in the Holy Communion. London, 1720. Preface, pp xix.-xxi."