It was not until the Revision of 1662 that the Declaration again found its way into the Prayer Book. The Nonconformist party at that time desired these two things, among others, with reference to the Administration of the Holy Communion; first:-(1) ".... that the kneeling at the Sacrament (it being not that gesture which the Apostles used, though Christ was personally present amongst them, nor that which was used in the purest and primitive times of the Church) may be left free, as it was 1 and 2 Edw., 'As touching kneeling, &c., they may be used or left as every man's devotion serveth without blame."" (2) Next the restoration of the Declaration on Kneeling.

99

The Bishops in their "Answer" to these "Exceptions of the Ministers defended the "position of Kneeling,' assigning their reasons in §§ 10 and 15: to the other demand they replied:

$ 12. This Rub. is not in the liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by law; nor is there any great need of restoring it, the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry. Besides the sense of it is declared sufficiently in the 28th Article of the Church of England."-Card. Hist. Conf. p. 354.

After this refusal on the part of the Bishops how came it then to be inserted? Burnet, who as a near contemporary must be accounted a competent witness, thus answers the question: he is replying to Collier's criticism on his History:

"The next, and indeed the last particular that out of many more I will mention, is the setting down the explanation that was made upon the order for kneeling at the Sacrament in King Edward's time, wrong in a very material word: For in that, the words were : That there was not in the Sacrament any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood: but he instead of that puts Corporal Presence. It seems in this he only looked at the Rubrick, as it is now at the end of the Communion Service, upon a conceit that it stands now as it was in King Edward's Book; though it was at that time changed; and we know who was the author of that change, and who pretended that a Corporal Presence signified such a presence as a body naturally has, which the assertors of Transubstantiation itself do not, and cannot pretend is in this case, where they say the body is not present corporally, but spiritually, or as a spirit is present. And he who had the chief hand in procuring this alteration, had a very extraordinary subtilty, by which he reconciled the opinion of a Real Presence in the Sacrament with

the last words of the Rubrick, That the Natural Body and Blood of Christ were in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's Natural Body, to be at one Time in more Places than one. It was thus: a Body is in a Place, if there is no intermediate Body, but a Vacuum between it and the place. And he thought that by the Vertue of the Words of Consecration, there was a Cilinder of a Vacuum made between the elements and Christ's Body in Heaven; So that no body being between, it was both in Heaven and in the elements. Such a solemn Piece of Folly as this, can hardly be read without Indignation. But if our Author favors this conceit, yet when he sets down that which was done in King Edward's reign, he ought not to have changed the word, especially such an important one. I shall say no more of that work, but that there appeared to me quite through the second volume, such a constant inclination to favour the Popish doctrine, and to censure the Reformers, that I should have had a better opinion of the author's integrity, if he had professed himself not to be of our communion, nor of the communion of any other Protestant Church.-Burnet, Hist. Ref. Part iii. preface p. 5. vol. 1715.

The words "real and essential" of the original Declaration were, however, changed into "corporal," and it will be seen that Burnet says 66 we know who was the author of that change:" in the margin he puts the letters " D. P. G," meaning I suppose Dominus, or Doctor Peter Gunning, and then he tells us why the change was made-a statement which beyond all question leads to a persuasion amounting almost to certainty, (1) first, that the term now substituted was meant to remove any doubt which might hang upon the original words; (2) next, that the Declaration not only was not designed to exclude a very high doctrine of the Real Presence, but was purposely intended to include those who held it, if only they disallowed Transubstantiation.

But there is another piece of evidence furnished by Burnet in this matter in the following passage :

"[Some other lesser additions were made. But care was taken, that nothing should be altered, so as it had been moved by the Presbyterians; for it was resolved to gratify them in nothing.] One important addition was made, chiefly by Gawden's means; he pressed that a declaration, explaining the reasons of their kneeling at the Sacrament, which had been in King Edward's Liturgy, but was left out in Queen Elizabeth's time, should again be set where it had once been. The Papists were highly offended, when they saw such an express declaration made against the Real Presence,

and the Duke told me that when he asked Sheldon how they came to declare against a doctrine, which he had been instructed was the doctrine of the Church, Sheldon answered, ask Gawden about it, who is a Bishop of your own making; for the King had ordered his promotion for the service he had done.-Hist. of his own time. Vol. 1, p. 183, fol. ed. 1724.

"Now who was "the Duke" thus speaking to Burnet? I suppose the Duke of York, afterwards James II: if so, did his views of the Real Presence incline to the Roman or to the Anglican phase of that doctrine? His subsequent history will probably answer that it was to the Roman aspect: in that case it is easy to understand that he should suppose the Declaration to be directed "against a doctrine, which he had been instructed was the doctrine of the Church [of England]:" but this would tend to shew that it was aimed at Transubstantiation and nothing more, and this was quite enough to account for the fact that "the Papists were highly offended." Is there any evidence to shew that Gawden did not hold high views of the Real Presence though denying Transubstantiation? I am unable at present to answer this question. If he did, then we must suppose that he and Gunning (if it was Gunning, as I believe, to whom Burnet referred in the other passage) co-operated in clearing the old Declaration of what probably they thought a misleading term, and substituting a definition not liable to the same objection and withal only denying Transubstantiation. If he did not, then we may imagine that though Gawden pressed for the re-insertion of the Declaration, he only gained his point by conceding the use of an expression which Gunning

[For Burnet, writing of the authorship of Eixwv Baciλinn, says ".... I was not a little surprised, when in the year 1673, in which I had a great share of favour and free conversation with the then Duke of York, afterwards King James the Second, as he suffered me to talk very freely to him about matters of religion, and as I was arguing with him somewhat out of his father's book, he told me that book was not of his father's writing, and that the letter to the Prince of Wales was never brought to him. He said, Dr. Gawden writ it: after the restoration he brought the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Southampton both to the King and to himself, who affirmed that they knew it was his writing; and that it was carried down by the Earl of Southampton, and shewed the King during the treaty of Newport, who read it and approved of it as containing his sense of things. Upon this he told me, that though Sheldon and the other Bishops opposed Gawden because he had taken the Covenant, yet the merits of that service carried it for him, notwithstanding the opposition made to it."-(Hist. of Own Time, Vol. I. p. 51, fol.; or Vol. I. p. 81, 8vo. Oxford, 1823.)]

"the [supposed] author" of it intended to admit his view of the Presence.

But we cannot fairly presume that either of these courses was adopted without the sanction of the rest, or at least the major part, of the Bishops: which of the two views represented their own, makes no material difference to the conclusion which seems to follow from it, and which has been already stated, namely, That the Declaration is nothing more than a negation of Transubstantiation.

If, indeed, I have at all succeeded in shewing that this was all that was designed by the original Declaration, the circumstances attending its revision and re-introduction, so far as we seem to know them, cannot possibly make it to mean Then comes the very natural question-What license is to be allowed, what limits are to be imposed, in enunciating the Doctrine of the Real Presence? Again, I venture to repeat, that the one cardinal point of TRANSUBSTANTIATION seems to have been meant to decide it.

more.

The expressions used by Cranmer, Ridley, and others whom I have quoted: the way in which they professed to accept the high language of Antiquity: these alike appear to say that they had no wish to pare down any statement which should invest the Sacrament of the Altar with the greatest possible dignity and should secure for it the deepest reverence, if only it did not run up into an admission of that particular belief against which they were contending. Indeed considering some of their staments, especially those of Ridley, it is hard to say why they were burned for their alleged recusancy. Can it be shewn that the statements of the Bp. of Brechin and others, now complained of, exceed them? How near Cranmer and Gardiner approached in 1550 may be seen from the following passage:

In his reply to the "Defence" Gardiner quoted a passage from Bucer, which he thus translated:

"As the sun is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet is truly and substantially present by means of his beams elsewhere in the world abroad; so our Lord, although He be comprehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of His father, yet, nevertheless by His

L

word and holy tokens He is exhibit present truly whole God and man, and therefore in substance in His holy supper; which presence man's mind, giving credit to His words and tokens, with no less certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see, and have the sun present, exhibited, and shewed with his corporal light. This is a deep secret matter, and of the New Testament, and a matter of faith; and therefore herein thoughts be not to be received of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of this life transitory, and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve the default of our senses.'" -Answer p. 90.

To this appeal on Gardiner's part, Cranmer thus answers:—

"In this comparison, I am glad that, at the last, we be come so near together; for you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands together. For we be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ's Body is present, and the same Body that suffered; and we be agreed also of the manner of His presence. For you say that the Body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little, and in this point only; that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament, and you say that he is but after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament. And yet you say that he is corporally in the Sacrament, as who should say that there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner; and that it were not all one to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only spiritually.

man,

"But if the substance of the Sun be here corporally present with us upon earth, then I grant that Christ's Body is so likewise: so that he of us two that erreth in the one, let him be taken for a vain and to err also in the other. Therefore I am content that the reader judge indifferently between you and me, in the corporal Presence of the Sun, and he that is found to err, and to be a fool therein, let him be judged to err also in the corporal Presence of Christ's Body.

"But now, Master Bucer, help this man at need: for he that hath ever hitherto cried out against you, now being at a pinch, driven to his shifts, crieth for help upon you: and, although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity to help him in his necessity. But Master Bucer saith not so much as you do; and yet if you both said that the beams of the Sun be of the same substance with the Sun, who would believe either of you both? Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire? Or is the beams of the Sun anything but the clear light of the Sun? Now, as you said even now of me, if you err so far from the true judgment of natural things, that all men may perceive your error, what marvel is it if you err in heavenly things?

"And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ