other "alternative" which Mr. Goode presents? He states it to be that" This is my Body" must necessarily seem to mean "This is really and substantially my Body." The admission or rejection of this must, however, turn upon the

holds, that the consecrated Bread and Wine may be received where the Body and Blood of Christ are not received. and therefore do not include in themselves a real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ; namely, the words, 'Grant that we, receiving,'" &c.

With respect to Dr. Brett's difficulty it is enough to say here-that it seems to me fully met by the fact of the different language employed in the Prayer of Access and in the Consecration Prayer: the former, simply contemplating the approach of Communicants after the act of Consecration, says, "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean," &c.: the latter necessarily contemplates the Elements in a two-fold aspect, (1) what they alone are before the recital of the words of Institution-"creatures of bread and wine" (2) what they also become after such recital-Christ's "most blessed Body and Blood."

An examination of the "Censura" shews, I think, that Mr. Gorham was wrong and that Mr. Goode is right in supposing that Bucer's commendatory words referred to the Invocation: the following passage seems to prove that it must have been the Frayer of Access to which he referred :

"Postremò sunt verba in hac præcedenti precatione, quæ incipiunt, Vue doe not presume to come to this, &c., verba de vera perceptione & manducatione bibitionemque; corporis & sanguinis Domini, quæ oro Dominum, ut det ita ut posita sunt, retineri, illa scil. in hac quidem oratione, Humblye beseechinge thee, &c. Valde namque; pura hæc verba sunt, & verbis spiritus S. consentientia. Omnino enim instituit Dominus hanc sui communionem novaviar corporis & sanguinis sui, ut eam vocat spiritus S. 1 Corint. 10. ut ea recipiamus, non panem tantum & vinum, dicenda alio qui fuisset uno corporis & sanguinis Domini, sed panis ac vini communio. Tum, nec causa fuisset, ut Dominus, cum distribuendo panem & vinum discipulis dixisset, Accipite & manducate & bibite, subjiceret, Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus. Recepimus ergo hic non panem tantum & vinum, sed simul corpus & sanguinum ejus: & non quidem hæc sola, verum una totum Christum, Deum & hominem. At quia verum hominem, & sinul verum Deum, ideo & carnem & sanguinem recepimus. Est emim hæc caro, quia est filiii Dei, sic & sanguis (worosos, ut D. Cyrillus, contra Nestorium pulchrè explicat, & probat, & ex eo, quòd Dominus contra Capernaitas affirmauit de carne & sanguine suo, cum ipsi indignum putarent, quòd dixisset, se panem esse qui descendisset de cælo, vitamque: daret mundo: quando quidem ipsi eum, ut filium que Josephi, ita nihil amplius existimabant, quàm alium quemque; hominem constantem carne & sanguine."-Scripta Anglicana. Basileæ, p. 473.

But when Mr. Goode says "Accordingly these words [i.e., the Invocation] were altered and remain altered to" the words "Grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night," &c., he seems to me to represent inaccurately that they were adopted from Bucer, though his suggestion may have led to them: his proposition was to "change" the Invocation "into these or similar words," viz.-"Hear us, O merciful God our Father, and bless us, and sanctify us by Thy word and Holy Spirit, that we may receive the Body and Blood of Thy Son from His own hand in these mysteries by a true faith for the meat and drink of eternal life, which Thy Son, in the same night in which He was betrayed," &c.

sense in which he uses, or others receive, these terms; for that they have been used in opposite senses for Three Centuries these pages have, I think, abundantly shewn. If, therefore, by Really is not mean-carnally, sensibly, na

Now it will be seen, I think, that between Bucer's language and the language of the Prayer Book might be found the whole doctrine of the objective presence in the Elements or in the Mysteries irrespective of the Faith of the Receiver; even though it may have been, judging from the Letter just quoted and other statements, that Bucer intended no more than the exclusion of a local organical Presence.* The Consecration Prayer as altered in 1552 makes the participation, and therefore the presence, depend upon receiving according to the Institution: Bucer's language apparently makes it to depend upon the receiver's sanctification and his true faith-conditions which need not in the least imply an objective, but only a subjective presence. The change, then, as made by Cranmer and his co-revisers, while avoiding the doubtful terminology of Bucer, met his objection (which, whether forcible or not, was, in part, as we have seen, common enough then)-"that we are not taught by any precept of Christ our Saviour, by any word or example of His Apostles, to ask for such a benediction and sanctification of the bread and wine as that they may be to us the Body and Blood of the Lord; and we know that this prayer is still, at this day, wrested by Antichrist to the retaining and confirming of that dogma of infinite impiety and contumely against God, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For by that chiefly subsists the aproλarρsia, bread being adored as Christ; resorted to as a present deity in all emergencies."

These considerations also answer, I think, Mr. Goode's remark that Bucer's words (which he quotes) "exclude Archdeacon Denison's doctrine as much as that of the Romanists."

* Compare remarks on P. Martyrs's Letter, Note, p. 402: also the following passage from Bucer's Letter to P. Martyr, June 20, 1549,-"One thing, however, has very much astonished me; that you seem to fear I shall be offended at your denying, That Christ is at the same moment in many places; and that it has escaped you that I, with Master Philip [Melancthon-Ed.], abominate from my whole heart that Ubiquity (as Philip calls it,) of Christ as man which some have laid down [as a dogma-Ed.]. I have never felt disposed, nor am I up to this moment disposed, to come forward in that controversy, Whether Christ is circumscribed by any Physical place in the heavens. He sits at the right hand of God; He has left the world; He is conversant with those good things which have not entered into the heart of man here [below-Ed.]. I refrain, therefore, from transferring our modes of existence and Physical conditions to this subject, further than this;-that I always acknowledge and confess both the true nature of a human body and also soul to be actually in my Head and Saviour, and glory that I am flesh of His Flesh and bone of His Bones And certainly if you have told anyone that I maintain that Christ is at the same time in many places, I mean locally,-I, who in these Mysteries exclude all idea of place,-I intreat you to have the kindness to explain to such an one my sentiment more correctly: which is this: that Christ exhibits Himself at the same moment and truly, by the Word and by His Sacraments, present to us, although we are existing in many places; but that we see and apprehend Him, present, by faith only, without any idea of place."-Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, p 91. See, too, his Letter to Calvin, August, 1549, Ibid., pp. 99-108; and the testimony of A. Lasco to Bullinger, April 10, 1551:-"D. Bucer began a Treatise on the Sacraments, a little before his death, but did not finish it. He was preparing, as I hear, answers to my [observations-Ed.]; but I saw nothing of them, though I could have wished to see them. However, as far as I can understand, he remained firm in his sentiment concerning the presence, and the real exhibition of the Body and Blood of Christ, in the signs, or through the signs."-Ibid., p. 248.

The following short extract of a Letter from P. Martyr to Calvin, Strasburgh, March 8, 1555, is worth inserting here:-"He [i. e., Marback] got so far as not to include the Body of Christ in the bread, but he insists that an actual and most real presence must be asserted, so far as the communicants are concerned, of the Body and Blood of Christ, and sach a presence that even the wicked and they that eat unworthily do partake it; which clearly shows that he does not attribute the reception to faith, unless we speak of a living and salutary reception; as though there were a certain other true and (as they say) real eating of Christ's Body: which even the wicked may share."-Ibid., p. 341.

turally; and if by Substantially is not meant-materially, corporeally, organically: then, but not otherwise, there need be no hesitation in accepting this interpretation, and supporting it by Bishop Ridley's authority (See p. 18), "These words, 'This is My Body,' are meant thus: by grace it is My true Body, but not My fleshly Body, as some of you suppose:" or, again, by Abp. Cranmer's words "Marry, to be present in bread might be some sentence, but this speech you [Gardiner] will in no wise admit," (See p. 181.) It seems to me, then, that we may accept both the one and the other "alternative" of Mr. Goode, if only we receive them in the sense wherein I have tried to shew they can be rightly understood. Indeed, in one place Mr. Goode seems unwilling to commit himself to a doctrine of mere "representation" or "picture;" for he says (Work, p. 215, the Italics are mine.) "We maintain a real spiritual presence of Christ's body and blood to the faithful communicant as much as they [Archdeacons Denison and Wilberforce and Dr. Pusey] do. as the body and blood of Christ are food for the soul only, so their presence is vouchsafed, primarily at least, only to the soul, and for this there is no need of local proximity." I cannot but ask-how do we know that "there is no" such "need"? and I must add-that what has just been said in reference to the sense of Mr. Goode's alternative is, I think, also an answer to the following (somewhat harshly-worded) passage in his Supplement (p. 46):

But

... . men who have not given themselves over to a spirit of delusion on such matters, will, I suspect, agree with me, that if there is a real substantial presence of the body of Christ in the bread, there is a bodily presence, and that the presence of Christ's human body involves the presence of a material substance; and that we are not to be deterred from saying so, because these authors [Archdeacon Denison and Dr. Pusey] finding inconvenient articles and rubrics in their way, deny in one form of words, what they assert in another."

In connexion, too, with those same remarks above made upon the Nature of the Presence, it may be useful to notice this observation in Mr. Goode's Supplement (p. 41); where, referring to his Work, he says:

"I have stated that all those expressions in the Prayer-Book of 1549, which might seem to indicate that the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ was to be looked for in the consecrated elements, are carefully expunged or altered in the subsequent Prayer-Books to the present time,......"

The "expressions" themselves, as altered in the Book of 1552, are thus given by Mr. Goode in pp. 617 to 619 of his Work; they will be most conveniently compared when placed in parallel columns; the Italics are his :

1549.

1. "... he hath left in those holy mysteries, as a pledge of his love, and a continual remembrance of the same, his own blessed Body and precious Blood, for us to feed upon spiritually, to our endless comfort and consolation."

2. "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."

3. "...beseeching thee that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ."

4. "... so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, in these holy mysteries."

5. "... hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and hast assured us (duly receiving the same) of thy favour and goodness towards us."

1552.

1. “he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love and and for a, in Ed. of 1662] continual remembrance of his death to our great and endless comfort;"

2. "Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

3. "... beseeching thee, that all we who are partakers of this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction."

4. "... so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood."

5. 66 .. 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, and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us."

The following portion of a Rubric of 1549 was omitted in 1552:

6. "And men must not think less to be received in part, than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ."

Now to say that the changes made in the first Five passages do not appear to me to exclude the doctrine which Mr. Goode says they "might seem to indicate" would be merely to set my own* opinion (uselessly to say the least) in opposition to his. It is much preferable therefore to refer to the citations already tendered at pp. 33-35 in proof that, at the time of the publication of the 2nd Book of Edw. VIth, these changes were not designed or regarded in the sense which Mr. Goode attaches to them. And this is, I think, materially supported by the evidence that, whatever Doctrine was taught by it, the omitted portion of the Rubric of 1549 (No. 6) was distinctly maintained by Abp. Cranmer when he prepared the revised Book of 1552. For in his Answer to Bp. Gardiner, published at that particular time, he quotes this very Rubric (See p. 22) remarking that "although it say, that in each part of the bread broken is received the whole body of Christ,

But it may be useful to quote the following opinion of Mr. Fisher-" Reformatio in Anglia ob rem Sacramentariam obtineri nequit :- We have quoted these memorable words, in order to shew, what was the opinion of a foreign divine [Peter Martyr], highly distinguished for learning as well as piety respecting the progress which the Protestant movement had already made in England at the time when Edward the Sixth's second Prayer Book was enacted The 'res Sacramenturia' of the Anglican Establishment is not to be considered now, as it was in the sixteenth century, a mere impediment to the progressive advance of Protestant Principles. On the contrary, it is confessedly the very life and soul of a vigorous retrogressive movement within the Church "-Liturgical Purity., p. 151.

1

In his 2nd Ed., 1860, the passage stands thus:-"He [P. Martyr] says emphatically — Reformatio in Anglia ob rem sacramentariam obtineri" nequit." (Hess. Cat. p. 60.) True, he admits in another letter-quod Liber seu ratio rituum ecclesiasticorum atque administrationis sacramentorum est emendatus, nam inde omnia sublata sunt quæ superstitionem fovere poterant! (Letter, ed. by Goode, p. 15.) But then it appears from the context, that he is here alluding to certain errors of the Communion Office which the Primate himself had but recently repudiated, and which had been, on that account, very carefully removed from the Prayer Book upon its second revision in 1552." - Lit. Pur. p. 137. I have already ventured to express (Note, p. 381) my entire dissent from Mr. Fisher's (apparently altered) view as to Cranmer having "but recently repudiated" the "certain errors of the Communion Office" to which he

GGG