is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in His name? And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the Sacrament, because that in the celebration of the Sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present? Have not you confessed yourself that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spiritual manner? And after that manner He is also among them that be assembled togethether in His name. And if they that say so do abolish the mystery of the Sacrament, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament, after which manner you say also that He is in them that be gathered together in His name, as well as I do, that say He is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumniate all things, what can be spoken so plainly, or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it unto a wrong sense? I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in His supper as He is when two or three be gathered together in His name, meaning that with both He is spiritually, and with neither corporally; and yet I say not that there is no difference. For this difference there is, that with the one He is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in His name to receive the Sacrament. Nevertheless, the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the Sacrament be rightly received. But that is only spiritually, as I say, and only after a spiritual manner, as you say. "And you say further, that before we receive the Sacrament, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with Him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ whole both God and man, or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is Christ present as well in Baptism as in the Lord's Supper. For in Baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with Him, as well as in his Holy Supper we eat and drink Him.-Ibid pp. 91-2. The illustration here used is Ridley's also: I am not competent to decide the nice philosophical question which alone. seemed to divide the belief of Cranmer and Gardiner at that time: but it appears to deserve a careful consideration. Absolute lack of time hinders any pursuit now of the thoughts which it involves and of the enquiries which I have only just been able to indicate in these latter pages: they have been thrown hastily together, as possibly furnishing some few suggestions which may shew the importance of further examination and serious deliberation before arriving at any conclusions, supposed to be deducible from the Declaration on Kneeling, adverse to recently promulged and now con tested statements on the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. In this crude shape and with all their imperfections I have ventured, my Lord, to address these remarks to your Lordship, in an unpublished and very incomplete form: thinking that if they do perchance contain any new fact or argument they may not be unacceptable to your Lordship at this seemingly critical time; and beliving also that in so doing I am not wanting in due respect to your high and responsible Office in the Church of Christ. I have the honour to be, my Lord, Your Lordship's faithful Servant in Christ, *** P.S. Wholly too late to examine it, and much less to have it copied and printed in time to accompany this letter, I noticed in looking through Mr. Lemon's recently published Calendar of State Papers, an apparently important Document in "Vol. xv. Domestic. Edward VI. No. 15, Oct. 7, 1552," intitled "Archbp. Cranmer to the Council. Has received their directions that the Book of Common Prayer should be diligently pursued, and the printer's errors therein amended. Arguments defending the practice of Kneeling at the Sacrament?" It will be seen that the date of this letter coincides with the dates from which I have argued at p. 37 that resistance was probably made by the Bishops to the demand for withdrawing the order for Kneeling at Communion. I need scarcely say that Cranmer's Arguments for Kneeling, contained in this State Paper, may throw light upon the purpose of the original Declaration: and this is a strong ground for suspending judgment upon it. I hope to produce this State Paper with as little delay as may be and at the same time to complete this letter. May 25th, 1858. POSTSCRIPT, No. 2. Since the above Letter was printed I have been endeavouring to collect any other materials which might confirm or further elucidate the views and position therein taken: the result of such searches as time and opportunity afforded, together with some observations unavoidably omitted in the Letter, I now submit for consideration in this Postcript; only making this further preliminary remark,—that it would probably be an error to suppose that a longer investigation would not furnish new or additional facts and arguments of the like character and tendency. I. And, first of all, it will be best to produce and notice the State Paper mentioned in my former P.S. The following is an accurate transcript of the original Document remaining in the STATE PAPER OFFICE, and marked : "Domestic. Edward VI. Vol. 15, No. 15.” "After my right humble commendations unto yo1 good Lordshipps-Where I understaunde by your L. ltres that the Kings Matie his pleasure is that the boke of commen service shoulde bee diligentlye perused and therin the prynters errourse to bee amendid: I shall travaile therin to the uttermost of my power albeit I had neade first to have had the boke written wch was passed by acte of Parliament and sealed w the greate seale wch remaynith in the handes of Mr Spilman clerke of the Parlament, who is not in London nor I cannot learne where he is. Nevertheles I have gotten the copie wch Mr Spilman delivered to the printers to printe by, wch I thinke shall serve well enough. And where I understaunde further by yo' L. ltres, that some bee offended wt kneeling at the tyme of the receavinge of the Sacrament, and woulde that I callinge to me the bushop of London and some other learned men as Mr Peter Martyr or suche like should wt theim expend and waye the said prescription of kneelinge whether it bee fitt to remayn as a commaundement or to bee left out of the boke. I shall accomplish the Kings Matie his commaundement albeeit I trust that wee wt just ballaunce waied this at the makinge of the boke, and not onlie wee but a greate menny bushops and other of the best learned wtin this realme and appoincted for that purpose. And nowe the boke beinge read and approved by thole state of the Realme in the high courte of Parlament wt the Kings Matie his roiall assent, yt this shoulde bee nowe altered againe w'out Parlament, of what importaunce this matter is, I referr to your L. wisdome to considre. I knowe yo' L. wisdome to bee suche, that I trust ye will not bee moved wt thes gloriouse and unquiet spirites wch can like nothing but that is after their own fansye and cease not to make troble and disquietnes when thinges bee most quiet and in goode ordre. If suche men should bee hearde although the boke were made everye yere anewe, yet should it not lacke faultes in their opinion. But (saie thei) it is not commaunded in the scripture to kneele, and whatsoever is not commaunded in the scripture is against the scripture and utterly unlaufull and ungodlie. But this saing is the chief foundation of therror of thanabaptists and of divers other sectes. This sainge is a subvertion of all ordre aswell in religion as in common pollicye. If this sainge bee true, take awaie the hole boke of service. For what should men travell to sett an ordre in the forme of service, if no ordre can bee sett, but that is alreadye prescribed by the scripture. And because I will not troble yo' L. wt recitinge of manny scriptures or proves in this matier, whosoever teacheth anny suche doctrine (if yo' L. will geave me leave) I will sett my fote by his to bee tried by fier, that his doctrine is untrue, and not onlie untrue but also seditiouse and p[er]illouse to bee hearde of anny subjectes, as a thinge breakinge the bridle of obedience and losinge theim from the bonde of all princes lawes. My good L. I praye youe to considre that there bee two praiers wch go before the receavinge of the Sacrament and two ymmediatlie followe all wch tyme the people praying and geavinge thanckes, do kneele; and what inconvenience there is that it may not bee thus ordered I knowe not. If the kneelinge of the people shoulde bee discontynued for the tyme of the receavinge of the Sacrament, so yt at the recept therof thei shoulde rise up and staunde or sitt, and then ymmediatlie kneele downe againe, it should rather importe a contemptuouse then a reverent receavinge of the Sacrament. But it is not expreslye conteigned in the scripture (saie thei) that Christ ministred the sacrament to his apostles kneelinge. Nor thei finde it not expresly in scriptur that he ministered it staundinge or sittinge; but if wee will followe the plaine wourdes of scripture, wee shall rather receave it lyinge downe on the grounde, as the custome of the wourlde at that tyme almost every where, and as the Tartars and Turkes use yet at this daie to eate their meate lying upon the grounde. And the wourdes of the Evangelist importe the same, weh bee ανάκειμαι and ἁναπίπτω whiche signifie properlie to lie downe upon the floure or grounde and not to sitt apon a forme or stole. A [nd] the same speache use thevangelists where thei sh [ew] that Christ fead five thowsaunde wt v loves, wh [ere] it is plainlie expressede that thei satt down upon the grounde and not upon stoles. I beseche yo' L. to take in good parte this my longe babelinge wch I write as of my self onlie, because the bushop of London is not yet come, and yo1 L. required aunswer wt speede, and therfore ame I constrayned to make some aunswer to yo' L. afore his coming. And thus I praye god longe to preserve yo1 L. and to increase the same in all prosperitie and godlines. At Lambieth This vijth of Octobr 1552. 66 "You Lordeshipps to commaunde "T. Cantr (Indorsed) "To my veray goode Lordes of the Kings most honorable councell. "7, octob. 1552 Bish. of Cant'b. to ye Cll. de gennaflect in communio. ευχαριστ.” Now it will be seen that this Letter of Archbishop Cranmer most entirely confirms the suggestions I have offered in p. 36: for although it makes no allusion to any intended Declaration on Kneeling to be added to the Book, it proves distinctly, as I surmized, that "objections were urged upon the Council against the direction" to kneel at receiving the Sacrament, "and that its omission was pressed for." It further attests the conviction there expressed, that "the considerations which" had "prompted the Direction" to kneel at receiving "were doubtless equally weighty in inducing the Bishops and the Privy Council to determine on retaining it in the Book." Nothing can be plainer than that Cranmer was deeply impressed with the necessity of not yielding this point, as well as other points, to the "gloriouse and unquiet spirites" of that day; and his language in this Letter ought to have considerable weight with those in our own time who, while professing their great reverence for the Archbishop, are treading in the very steps of that extreme Reforming party in 1552 whose conduct the Primate thus severely censures. That Ridley and the other leading Bishops concurred with Cranmer in this determination as to kneeling at Communion might be inferred from the consideration that the Archbishop was probably disposed to go beyond them in consulting the prejudices of those whom they were all desirous to comprehend if they could in the Church of England: but here is Cranmer's testimony that "at the makinge of the boke" this "prescription of kneelinge" was determined upon by "a great menny bushops and other of the best learned": we may be sure, therefore, that they, like him, refused to alter it. That the King and Council deferred to the Bishops even if they differed from |