PAGE. 130 etc. 131-4 134-5 The Instructions to the Commissioners shew this; and point to Ancient II. Cranmer's Letter does not furnish Theological Arguments for His Catechism of 1548 teaches the Real Objective Presence 136 137-52 153 155 157-8 Cranmer held the same Doctrine of the Presence in 1548 and 1551 158-9 160-2 162-5 Cranmer not in, what he himself calls, the "error of the real presence" Yet, if so, Bucer would have led him towards Objective Presence Cranmer's own statements as to the nature of the Presence, when (in Further proofs from his contemporaries-that the Physical Presence, held Proceedings in 1559, at the review of the 42 Articles under Elizabeth, as The retention in it, at that time, of "real and essential,” implies that it Doubt thrown by Mr. Goode on the value of that Letter, in producing portions of another (supposed) Letter from the same Bishop to Lord 195-204 The entire Document now printed in order to clear up the difficulty Mr. Goode's remarks upon the Letter of 1566 not supported, as he alleges, by §§ 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Letter of 1551: for:- No proof that Bp. Guest and the Convocation passed the Articles Art. xxix, as understood by Guest, not, as Mr. Goode says, irreconcilable with his view of the Presence"-there is a difference 207-8 Parker perhaps removed Guest's objection to its language, for Guest re- 210-11 Guest's consideration for Cheney, no proof that "Parker and the Bishops" 212-14 The non-insertion of "profitably," proposed by Guest, no proof that it 214-15 Unlikely that, as Mr. Goode thinks, Bp. Guest was the objector to Art. An error to suppose, as Mr. Goode does, that the absence of the names Bp. Guest's objections to other Articles which nevertheless were not Cheney perhaps availed himself of the apparent freedom of the Bishops 217-20 220-4 224 Further light thrown upon Guest's opinions then, in the rest of the The withdrawal of the Bill an indication that his Doctrine of the Real 226-9 229-30 Mr. Goode's accusation disproved—that Dr. Pusey has made "a double Reply to Mr. Goode's complaint of Dr. Pusey's Eucharistic "terminology" 255-7 Observations upon Mr. Goode's remark that the Bp. of S. David's has noticed condemningly Dr. Pusey's Work on the testimony of the 257-9 Examination of Mr. Goode's complaint that Dr. Pusey in his “discussion of the meaning of the Advertisement at the end of the first Book of Homilies" does not "notice" a passage which he had cited from Answer to Mr. Goode's assertion that "it cannot be supposed that Bp. Jewel's use of the phrase in the Advertisement, coupled with the 260-2 262-4 264-70 The employment of the Phrase, though with variations, in the Reformed Primers 1545-75, a forcible reason for believing that it was fully re- The fact that the Editions from 1545 to 1551 were issued during Cran- The Primer sanctioned by Statute 1549-50 The harmony of language between the Advertisement of 1547 and the The Reformed Primer not being reprinted in Q. Mary's reign, though an Unreformed one was, implies that the Phrase in the Prayer was Its re-issue in 1559, under Abp. Parker, together with a new Ed. of the Homilies containing the Advertisement, an argument that Abp. Parker The fact that Jewel was not then (1559) Bishop, no proof that he would have objected; for he did not disown it in his publications of 1565 and This omission of it in the Primer though not in the Advertisement, no Necessity of noticing the additions to the Catechism under K. James i.- Examination of Mr. Goode's objection to the allegation that "the faith- ful" in the Catechism "merely means every body who comes Analysis of his quotations from twenty one Commentaries, 1623-1790, Mr. Goode's definition of “the faithful" opposed to its use in the Apos- 286-90 And to passages in the Ancient Liturgies 291-3 And to the testimony of Ecclesiastical Writers or Historians 293-4 Resumption of Enquiry at p. 72 whether Bp. Gauden "did not hold Yet, though the "Counsell" and the "Answer" both maintain Kneeling But afterwards Gauden "pressed" and it was inserted: apparently only as a protest against Transubstantiation Bp. Gunning's proposal to alter "real and essential" had probably met Bp. Gauden's Eucharistic belief not at variance with this change in the Declaration, shewn from his "Whole duty of a Communicant" &c. 303-6 307-8 308 308-9 Eleven Propositions, drawn from the above passages, involving the ques- Examination of the opinions of Bp. Morley who supported Bp. Gauden when pressing the restoration of the Declaration-his "Vindication of the Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation." 1683 322-6 His belief further tested by his general reference to Bp. Morton-Ex- tracts from his (Morton's) "Institution of the Sacrament of the Blessed Bodie and Blood of Christ" &c. 1631; his "Catholic Appeal " and his "Defence of the innocencie of . . . . Kneeling at the Dr. Heylin's statement that the Declaration was omitted in 1559 "lest 330-1 Comparison of his language with the Declaration Examination of Mr. Goode's statement that the Church of England, by the Declaration forbids "the doctrine that there is a presence of Christ's natural body in the Supper, either in a natural or super- natural or spiritual manner, and either adjoined to the elements or The illustration, from the Presence of the Sun, used by Mr. Goode (and Enquiry Can the Presence of the Sun in the earth be truly regarded as 341-47 347-55 Examination of the reason assigned by Mr. Goode for the exclusion of Examination of Mr. Goode's quotations from Abraham Woodhead to prove that those post-reformation Divines of the Church of England "who held the highest doctrine of the Real Presence Presence to the receiver, but not to the Elements." Reply to Mr. Goode's notice of Dr. Pusey's argument—that the Rubrical direction as to the remains of the Sacrament teaches the Objective Investigation of Mr. Goode's statement that "the whole object of the 380-3 383-6 386-8 His reference to the 7th Canon of 1640, in support of this opinion, shewn His seeming implication-that as the Canon was presidency of Abp. Laud" he concurred in this meaning of it, dis- III. Notice and application of the Puritan proposal, in Q. Elizabeth's 393-4 Fallacy of Mr. Goode's argument- that "if Christ" and "the Bread" 395-6 Answer to his statement-that Bread "is the Body of Christ" only as a picture is the person whom it represents" Bucer's Letter to P. Martyr, June 20, 1549, on P. Martyr's Propositions, in his Disputation at Oxford, touching the " REAL and SUBSTANTIAL P. Martyr's "Confession . . . to the Senate of Strasburgh, . . . May 1566," on the mode in which the Body of Christ is given in the |