yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, nor yet of the parts or whole reserved, as the Papists teach......we be as truly fed, refreshed, and comforted by Christ, receiving a piece of bread at the Lord's holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. For.... whole Christ and the Holy Spirit, sacramentally, ..be..in every part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally, as the Papists teach."

The noticeable thing in these words is the marked connexion which the Abp. makes between the breaking of the bread and the presence of "whole Christ....in every such "part of" it: and this, to say the least, involves an objective presence in what "is received," not merely a subjective presence in the receiver: but as the fraction of the bread is a formal part of the act of Consecration, it seems to me to follow from Cranmer's own reasoning-that the Presence exists in the Sacramentum before the Communion of the Priest; therefore irrespective of the Communion of the People and this, I must think, admits the whole Doctrine of a Real Objective Presence, due to Consecration, in with or under the Elements. In the words of Bp. Cosin:

"So, then, (to sum up this controversy by applying to it all that hath been said,) it is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be

:

alludes and it seems to me that "the context", which Mr. Fisher refers to, sustains my objection; for P. Martyr (after saying, as above quoted, “that the Book or Order of Ecclesiastical Rites and the Administration of the Sacraments is reformed, for all things are removed from it which could nourish superstition") adds-"But the chief reason why other things which were purposed were not effected, was that the subject of the Sacraments stood in the way; not truly as far as regards transubstantiation or the real presence (80 to speak), either in the bread or in the wine, since, thanks be to God, concerning these things there seems to be now no controversy as it regards those who profess the Gospel; but whether grace is conferred by virtue of the Sacraments, is a point about which many are in doubt."—Gorham's Ref. Gleanings, p. 281.

It can scarcely be doubted (especially recollecting the terminology of that period already so fully examined in these pages) that P. Martyr means here by real, a carnal presence, whether or not in this place he only employs the word as the equivalent of Transubstantiation. And, as I have already proved, I think, (in the passages referred to, Note, p. 381) that Cranmer had distinctly abandoned this doctrine of a carnal presence before the publication of the 1st Book in 1549; so, therefore, the change of language in the Communion Office of 1552 could not have been "on that account," as Mr. Fisher says: the alteration only goes to prove the identity of doctrine in the two Books on this point; though verbal changes were admitted to content, apparently, those who feared that certain expressions in the 1st Book might still be quoted as favouring (what I may call) popular Roman belief.

absent from the Sacrament duly administered according to His institution, which we protestants neither affirm nor believe; for, it being given and received in the communion, it must needs be that it is present, though in some manner veiled under the sacrament, so that of itself it cannot be seen. Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the bread and wine, by the power of God and a supernatural virtue, be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use, and raised to a higher dignity, than their nature bears; for we confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change, and that the signs cannot become sacraments but by the infinite power of God, whose proper right it is to institute sacraments in His Church, being able alone to endue them with virtue and efficacy. Finally, we do not say that our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of His Body, neither do we deny a sacramental union of the Body and Blood of Christ with the sacred bread and wine, so that both are really and substantially received together; but (that we may avoid all ambiguity) we deny that, after the words and prayer of consecration, the bread should remain bread no longer, but should be changed into the substance of the Body of Christ, nothing of the bread but only the accidents continuing to be what they were before. And so the whole question is concerning the transubstantiation of the outward elements, whether the substance of the bread be turned into the substance of Christ's Body, and the substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; or, as the Romish doctors describe their transubstantiation, whether the substance of bread and wine doth utterly perish, and the substance of Christ's Body and Blood succeed in their place, which are both denied by protestants."-Hist. of Transubstantiation. Ch. iv. § 6. Oxford Trans. p. 175.

There remains to be further noticed one other point which was mentioned in the Letter at p. 70, viz. the statement of the Bishops in 1661-that there was not "any great need of restoring" the Declaration on Kneeling, "the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry;" and the opinion which, evidently, they were also careful to express at the same time-that "the sense of it is declared sufficiently in the 28th Article of the Church of England." It will be well to consider how that " sense, then, "is declared" there. An analysis of the Declaration shews that it mainly contains Four Propositions which correspond with the Four Clauses of the Article; this will be best seen by placing them in parallel columns thus:

DECLARATION.

1. "... it is ordained in this office... that the communicants should receive. . . . kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers . . .)"

2. "It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received."

3. "For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ;)"

4. "[...no adoration is intended, or ought to be done,] . . . untc any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For . . . the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here;"

Clause 2. "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

Clause 3. "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

Now of these Four Clauses the 2nd and 4th give "the sense" in which the Bishops thought the Declaration no longer needed as a Protest and Safeguard touching Practice: for they "declared " against "the change of the substance of Bread and Wine" and therefore "sufficiently" against that" adoration" of the Sacramentum which the Declaration said "were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians." The 1st and 3rd Clauses describe the "sign," the "manner," and the "mean" of the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ; all three necessarily excluding "any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood," as the Decla

ration said, "unto" which "adoration is intended or ought to be done; not because, like "the Sacramental Bread and Wine," It is not adorable, but because It is not there to be adored.

66

But this question now arises-Whether these exclusive terms of the Article are not necessarily inclusive, or do not admit, of a sense" which does not contradict them: whether in fact they do not imply and assume an Objective Presence quite as Substantial and Real, though Spiritual and Invisible?

The Article, using the language of St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 16,) distinctly connects Koria = the imparting of the Res Sacramenti ("the inward part or thing signified") with the Bread broken and the Cup blessed-it declares that each "is a partaking" or "a communion" (as in the English Article of 1552) of What it signifies: that they have become, by that Consecrating action, the Vehicle carrying the Gift of the Body and Blood of Christ; and not merely, in Legal language, the Deed conveying It-a term utterly inadequate to express and wholly foreign from the idea of receiving "the Supper of the Lord" of which the Article treats. It follows, therefore, that (to say the very least) the Gift is present with the Sign at the time that Sign is given* to "such

Compare the following passage of a Letter from Calvin to Bullinger, dated Geneva, June 26, 1548." we say that that which is figured by them [Sacraments] is exhibited to the Elect; lest God should be believed to mock our eyes with a fallacious sight When, in the Supper, the signs of the flesh and blood of Christ are held out [porrigi-Ed.] to us, we say, that they are not held out in vain so that the Thing itself also is not actually before us [Res nobis ipsa constet. Ed.] Whence it follows that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ."

But it might be thought one-sided not to add what follows: he goes on to say "Thus expressing ourselves, we neither make the thing out of the Sign; nor do we confound each of them in one; nor again do we imagine that it is infinite [? without limits-Editor]; nor do we dream of a carnal transfusion of Christ into us; nor do we lay down any other such fancy.

"You say, that Christ is in Heaven as regards His human nature: we acknowledge the same.-The word, heaven, conveys to your ears the impression of distance of place: we, also, willingly embrace that [opinion-Ed.]; that Christ is at a distance from us by the interval of places.-You deny that the body of Christ is without limits; but [affirm-Ed.] that it is contained within

Editor's Note.-"Infinitum esse fingimus" the sentence seems a little obscure, but probably alludes to the Ubiquilarian doctrine of Brentius, the unlimited diffusion of the Body of Christ."

as "under the conditions named "receive the same;" and being so present to these, how can It be otherwise than present before all others who are where they are? What is this but an Objective Presence whether men have Faith to discern it or not? If, then, such a Presence be recognized in, what I may call, the donative act of "The Administration; " need there be or is there any real difficulty in recognizing a like Presence in, with, or under "the Communion" before "the Minister first receive " It "himself" or "proceed to deliver the same to others? It cannot be said there is not, for the very fact of the controversy proves the contrary; but it is hard to see why the difficulty should exist.

If what has been now said does not inaccurately represent the meaning of the 28th Article (as I hope and believe it does not) then, on the dictum of the Bishops at the Savoy Conference, this is "the sense" of the Declaration on Kneeling; and therefore that Declaration does not forbid but allows the belief of a Real Objective Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and consequently the Adoration of Christ as so Present. I do not say it defines whether that Presence is "in the Supper," as some express it; or, as Abp. Cranmer (its Author) appears to have held, "in the forms of bread and wine [in but not] out of the ministration " (See p.

its own circumference: we assent; aye, and we, undisguisedly and openly, declare this. You deny that the Sign is to be mingled with the Thing: we diligently inculcate that the one is to be distinguished from the other.-You sharply condemn [the notion of-Ed.] impanation: we subscribe [to your decision-Ed.].-To what, then, does our opinion amount? [To this.-Ed.] Since here upon earth we see Bread and Wine, [we hold.-Ed.] that our minds are to be lifted up into heaven, that we may enjoy Christ; and that then Christ is present to us, when we seek Him above the elements of this world. For it is not permitted us to suspect that Christ is deceiving us; which would be the case, unless we hold that truth is exhibited to us together with the Sign: and even you yourselves allow that the Sign is by no means an empty one. It remains only for us to define what it contains. To this we briefly answer:We are made partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, so that He dwells in us and we in Him, and in this way enjoy all His good things. I ask, what is there either absurd or obscure in these expressions? especially since we exclude, in express words, whatever wild imaginations might enter the mind. And yet we

are severely criticised, as though we had departed from the simple and pure doctrine of the Gospel. But I should like to know, What is that simplicity to which we are challenged to return? .."-Gorham's Reformation Gleanings. London. 1857. p. 49.