......i ARGUMENT F ARCHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS Q.C THE JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIA MM I 5HEPPARD V. BENNETT (clerk) w^^ r-^i^ ir"^ t_i>^r*t; ^ -^^ i! "% .^frjrrff; . _j» ; l< PRESENTED TO ^2^^^ COUNCIL OF THE CHUllCH ASSOCIATION, Established to Uphold the Doctrines, Principles and Order of the United Church of England and Jrelarul, and to counteract the efforts now t>,-ing made to pervert her teaching on essential points of the Christian faith, or assimilate her Services to tliose of the Chinch of Home, and further to encourage concerted action fur the advancement and progress of Spiritual Religion. 14, Bt'CKiNaHAM Stu^et, Stra-nj), London. I ^NAL P^ess No. BaakNe. i^ ritf'at? m'OniiL CLUB l^ f^8.A1M|liili*4HnS Ma-'wan tamtam THE ARGUMENT OF AECHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS, LL.D., Q.C, IN SHEPPARD V. BENNETT, Clerk RIVINGTONS: iLflntr0n Waterloo Place. ^Vi^Xti High Street. CarnirOfSt T7imty Street. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AEGUMENT DELIVERED BEFORE Cfje Jutricial (tommitm of tf)e ilcibg Otounctl BY AEOHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS, LLJ). ONE OF HER MAJESTY'S COUNSEL, IN THE CASE OF THOMAS BYARD SHEPPARD, AGAINST WILLIAM JAMES EARLY BENNETT, Clerk, WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THEIR LORDSHIPS' JUDGMENT THE CHURCH ASSOCIATION: BUCKINGHAM STREET, STRAND, LONDON. 1872. [A/l Kio/iH Rcserv:d.\ S5 ^ 53S/7 SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENT. PAGE Interlocutory Order appealed against 1 Main Issues 3 Visible Presence 4 Abjuration and Revocation 5 Substitution is neither Abjuration nor Revocation 8 The Real Presence 9 Substantial Point of the Charge 9 Propositions to be sustained 10 The phrase " real Presence " defined 11 Lawful and unlawful Sense of Real Presence 12 Definitions, importance of, p. 14 ; Sacrament, p. 15 ; Eucharist, p. 17 ; Objective and Subjective, p. 18 ; External and Internal, p. 20 ; Natural, Spiritual, and Corporal, p. 23. Under the Form of Bread and Wine 24 Real Presence distinguished from Transubstantiation and from Consubstantiation 25 Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies .. .. 28 Six Articles Act repealed 29 This Formula abandoned by the Church of England 30 Comments of the Judge on this Formula 33 The Augsburg Confession and Jerusalem Bishopric Act .. .. 38 Use of this Formula by Divines examined — Nicholson, p. 41 ; Sherlock, p. 42 ; Sutton, p. 43. Figurative sense of the Formula shown by Jewel 44 Historical Examination of the Formularies .. 45 Accession of Edward VI. Reformation commenced 45 Summary of the Doctrine of the Undivided Catholic Church .. 46 First Book of Homilies and Order of Communion 47 The First Prayer Book of Edward VI 47 The Sarum Missal altered 48 The Order of Communion incorporated 53 External Real Presence eradicated 54 285 ii Synopsis of Argtiment, PAGK The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI 54 Influence of Cranmer and Ridley 55 Alleged Lntheranism of Cranmer 56 Justus Jonas' Catechism . . .. .. 57 Progressive Changes of Cranmer's opinions . . . . 59 Changes of Eidley's opinions 60 Disputation in Parliament on the Eucharist 61 " In Heaven and not here," the germ of the Second Prayer Book 61 The Second Act of Uniformity . . . . 62 Causes for the enactment of a new Prayer Book 62 '1.) The Service had been mistaken 63 [2.) The Prayers needed to be made more fit 65 Eeal Presence in the Elements eradicated 68 The Declaration on Kneeling, 1552 68 The Articles of 1552 69 % Accession of Elizabeth: her Act of Uniformity 69 The Second Prayer Book preferred 70 The two Forms of Administration combined 70 The Declaration on Kneeling omitted 72 The Thirty-nine Articles: Article 28 73 Positive teaching of the First Section 74 Negative teaching of the Third Section - . . 77 " Given " by God and not by man . . . . • 79 Authorities for this construction 81 Comments of the Judge on Article 28 83 The Judge considers Geste's letter a contemix>ranea expositio .. 85 Geste's Letter of no authority 86 Faith is the only mean of reception 87 Interpolation of the word " beneficial " 89 Nowell's Catechism 92 Declares the whole doctrine of the Eucharist , , 93 Synodical authority of Nowell's Catechism 94 The Second Book of Homilies 94 Eucharistic teaching of the Homilies 95 Canons of 1603. Canon LVII 98 The Catechism 99 " Sacrament " means in every place " the Ordinance " 100 " Inward " and " outward " have reference to the recipients , . . . 102 " Faithful " means those who receive rightly 104 Doctrine of the Catechism identical with that of the Articles and Prayer Book 105 True reception held by Foreign Protestants 106 Their statements collected in Dr. Blakeney's " Book of Common Prayer" 106 The Catechism does not favour Presence in the Elements .. .. 107 Act of Uniformity of 1662 100 The Declaration on Kneeling - .. 109 " Corporal" substituted for " real and essential there being" .. 110 Synopsis of Argument, iii PAGB The terms equivalent 110 Change of the aspect of the Eucharistic Controversy Ill Consequent change of controversial language Ill " Eeal and essential Presence," ambiguous 113 "Corporal" exactly equivalent "to Keal and Essential," &c. .. 115 Corporal Presence defined 116 The meaning the same in Eoman and Protestant writers . . , . 116 "Corporal Presence" means Presence of Christ's Body in the Elements 116 Does not mean Presence after a gross or carnal manner .. .. 116 Spirit and substance of the Declaration unaltered 118 Comments of the Judge on this substitution 119 The Judge's construction makes the Declaration unreasonable . . ] 23 The phrase " Natural Body " examined 125 " Natural " expresses contrast to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church 125 Natural Body and true Body the same .126 Language of the 7th Canon of 1640 128 Spiritual Body defined 129 Spiritual Presence defined 130 The Eoman Doctrine involves two Heresies 132 Mr. Bennett's Doctrine closely resembles that of Eome .. .. 134 Doctrinal Importance of the Declaration on Kneeling 134 Scope and intention of the Declaration 135 Contrast between Natural and Spiritual Body untenable .. .. 136 Consistency of the Declaration on Kneeling with Catechism .. 137 The principle of Harmony supplied by Nowell's Catechism . . 138 And by Cranmer 139 And by Second Book of Homilies 141 This principle decisive of all the Issues 148 Summary of the Doctrine of the Formularies 143 Eeceptionist Doctrine 144 Bishop of Exeter's Letter to Butler 145 True Body and Natural Body th^ same 146 Articles 11, 17, and 24 proved 147 The Judge confuses Natural Body with Natural Presence . . . . 149 Wide distinction between the two phrases 149 The Judge supports two manners of the Presence of the Body . . 150 That which Mr. Bennett calls the true Body is the Natural Body 151 Christ has not two true Bodies 152 Summary of Mr. Bennett's Doctrine on Eeal Presence.. .. 153 Supra-local Presence unreasonable 163 Mr, Bennett holds actual Presence of the true Body in the Elements 155 Proved by his Doctrine of Sacrifice and Adoration 156 The Hypostatic Union .. 156 Under the veil of Bread and Wine 157 Authorities on Eeal Presence quoted by the Judge .. .. 158 Formularies declared by the Judge not definite 159 Principle of references to Authorities 160 Authorities examined. Eatramn and ^Elfric, p. 160 ; Bishop of St. David's, p. 162; Eidley, p. 162; Homily, p. 164; Jewel, iv Synopsis of Argument, FAOK p. 164 ; Overall, p. 165 ; Herbert, p. 167 ; Laud, p. 167 ; Andrewes, p. 168; Donne, p. 168; Cosin, p. 169; Rubric in Communion of the Sick, p. 171; Forbes, p. 172; Dean Jackson, p. 172'; St. Cyril, p. 173 ; Council of Ephesus, p. 174; Ken, p. 175; Jeremy Taylor, p. 176 : Hey, p. 178 ; Pearson, p. 179 ; Saravia, p. 180; Andrewes, p. 180 ; Brevint, p. 180 ; Thorndike, p. 181 ; Bramhall, p. 183 ; Sparrow, p. 184 ; Tillotson, p. 184 ; I'ardlev, p. 185 ; Beveridge, 185 ; Dr. Moberly, p. 186. Summary of the doctrine of the Church on the Lord's Supper . . 188 The Argument from Article 29. Reception by the Wicked 190 Theory of Withdrawal suggested by the Judge 191 St. Cyprian and Bishop Ken 192 This theory unknown to the Church of England 192 Comment of the Judge on the 29th Article 193 Meaning of the phrase " to eat the Body of Christ " 194 Authority of Dr. Pusey relied on by the Judge 195 A Hymn from the Roman Missal relied on 196 Authorities quoted by the Judge on Reception by the Wicked — Ridley, p. 196 ; St. Augustine, p. 198 ; Jackson, p. 199 ; Seeker, p. 200; South, p. 201; Poynet, p. 203; Thorndike, p. .203 ; Hey, p. 204. Construction of the words " the faithful " 205 Barrow and Beveridge referred to 206 The Burial Service referred to - .. 207 True construction of Article 29, condemns Mr. Bennett's doctrine 208 The Doctrine of Sacrifice in the Eucharist 208 Articles of Charge on the subject of Sacrifice 208 Incense symbolizes Mediation and Propitiation 209 The 31st Article of Religion on Sacrifice 210 Asserts two doctrines and condemns two errors 211 The Canons of the Council of Trent on Sacrifice 212 Jewel distinguishes the two errors 212 Date of the Canons of Trent on Sacrifice 213 The First Prayer Book dealt with the Sacrifice of the Mass , . . . 214 All Prayers and actions constituting that Sacrifice omitted , . .. 215 The Missal had no verbal oblation of the Body of Christ .. .. 216 Such offering unknown to any Liturgy 216 Preface prefixed in 1549 to Prayer of Consecration 217 Elevation forbidden . . . . : 218 Sacrificial Commemoration introduced 218 The Second Prayer Book dealt with Sacrifice 219 The necessity of doing so, the chief cause of framing a new Prayer Book 219 Opportunities of visible Sacrifice removed 220 Judgment of Sir Her l)ert Jenner Fust 220 The Homilies condemn the substitution of Sacrifice for " Memory " 221 No Sacrifice offered by Christ in the Upper Chamber 222 The Hour of Institution an hour unlawful for Sacrifice . . . . 222 The Posture at Institution no posture of Sacrifice 222 The Catechism on memorial character of the Lord's Supjxjr .. .. 222 Synopsis of Argument. PAGE No well's Catechism on Sacrifice in the Lord's Suj)per 222 Decisions on Eucharistic Sacrifice 224 Judgment in Liddell V. Westerton.. 224 Comment of the Judge on this decision 225 Alleged new information on the subject by Dr. Pusey, &c 226 Lawful and unlawful use of the word " Sacrifice" 228 Sacrifice in a metaphorical sense lawful 228 Sacrifice in a real sense taught by Mr. Bennett 229 Dr. Hook on Eucharistic Sacrifice 230 Dean Waterland denies the offering of Christ by man 231 Authorities on Sacrifice quoted by the Judge not necessary to be examined in detail 232 Quotation from Bishop Bull examined 233 Dr. Hey misunderstood by the Judge 235 Decision of the Judge on Sacrifice 236 The words " real " and " living " in regard to the offering not noticed by the Judge 237 Mr. Bennett proved to teach a propitiatory Sacrifice 238 Archbishop Longley on Sacrifice 241 Mr. Bennett's doctrine on Sacrifice contrary to the Formularies.. 242 Sacramental Adoration 242 Adoration of Christ in the Elements 243 The same Distinction relied upon by the Romanists 243 The First Prayer Book dealt with Sacramental Adoration .. .. 243 Elevation forbidden 244 The place of the " Agnus Dei " changed 244 The Second Prayer Book took away the manual acts, and omitted the " Agnus Dei " 245 The Thirty-nine Articles prohibit Sacramental Adoration . . . . 245 Bishop Geste condemns it as Idolatrous 246 The Declaration on Kneeling prohibits it 247 Misunderstood by the Judge 247 Disallows all adorable Presence in the Elements 248 Commented upon by the Rev. E. Garbett 248 Bishop Taylor and Bishop Bull on Adoration 248 Doctrine of the Church of England on Adoration 249 Teaching of Mr. Bennett on Adoration 250 Judgment of the Dean of the Arches on this teaching . . . . 251 Indistinctness of the Judge's decision ,. 252 Authorities on Adoration quoted by the Judge — Ridley, p. 253 ; Poynet, p. 254. The Diallacticon wrongly attributed to Poynet, p. 254 ; Thorndike, p. 256 ; Brevint, p. 256 ; Andrewes, p. 256 ; Jeremy Taylor, p. 257 ; Keble, p. 258 ; Chemnitz, p. 258. Sacramental Adoration decided by the " Declaration " 259 Beveridge on Adoration of the Sacrament 259 vi Synopsis of Argument. FAGK The Judge's Conclusions of Fact examined 259 The Ridley Memorial and Keble College 260 No Divines of authority shown to hold Mr. Bennett's views . . 261 The Judge's Conclusions of Law examined * 261 Vagueness of Judgment 262 Articles of Charge, not distinctly dealt with 262 Conclusion of the Argument 263 Two Schools of Religious thought have existed in the Church of England since the Reformation 263 Neither of them interfered with by this Argument 263 Both of them contrariant to Mr. Bennett's Doctrine 264 The Affirmation of Mr. Bennett's Doctrine would make the Protestant Reformation an act of schism 264 AUTHORITIES, CASES, STATUTES, ETC., CITED OR REFEEEED TO. JElfric, Abbot, 160, 101. Andrewes, Bisliop, 168, 180, 2.56. Arundel, Constitutions of, 6. Augsburg, Confession of, 38. Augustine, St., 138, 198, AylifFe's Parergon, 6. Barrow, Dr., 206. Barry, Dr., 232. Bennett, Rev. W. J. E., History, &c., of the Eucharist, 232. Beveridge, Bishop, 185, 186, 206, 232, 259. Bla'keney, Dr., 106, 219. Bramhall, Archbishop, 183, 184. Brevint, Dean, 180, 232, 243, 256. Browne, Dr. Harold, 46, 144, 232. Bull, Bishop, 233, 249. Bullinger, 9, 103. Burnet, Bishop, 29, 60, 120, 123. Buiion's Three Primers, 31. Cranmer's Catechism, 32, 57. Cardwell's Conferences, 65, 70, 110, 181. Docum. Annals, 64, 149. Synodalia, 92, 128, 215 note. Two Liturgies, 47. Carlisle, Bishop of, 19. Cases cited : Bishop V. Stone, 8. Burder v. Heath, 7, 8. Faulkner v. Litchiield, 220, 241. Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, 15, Liddell V. Westerton, 29, 54, 66, 224, 225, 2,39. Martin v. Mackonochie, 245, 249. Parker v. Leach, 225, 240. Shore v. Wilson, 15, 160. Williams v. Bishop of Salisbury, 160. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 9, note, 210. Chemnitz, 258. Chrysostom, St., 184. Church Press, Sarum Missal, 243. Churton, Archdeacon, 226. Cleaver, Bishop, 232. Coleridge, Mr. Justice, 15. Constitutions of Arundel, 6. Cosin, Bishop, 112, 169, 170. Cosins, Dr. Richard, 6. Council of Ephesus, 174. Council of Lateran, 27. Council of Trent, 37, 40, 79, 212, 233, 250. Coverdale, Bishop, 142. Cranmer, Archbishop, 7, 15, 27. 32, 57, 59, 61, 83 note, 103, 115, 125, 132, 1.33, 140, 149, 194, 232. Cudworth, 224. Cyprian, St., 191. Cyril, St., 173, 174. Denison, case of Archdeacon, 90, 191. Diallacticon, see Poynet. Donne, Dr., 48, 168, 169. Donovan, Cat. Council of Trent, 9 note, 210. Dugdale's Life of Geste, 246. Durham, Bishop of, 22, 45, 107. Edward VI., 60. Elrington's Life of Ussher, 112. Ely, Bishop of, see Browne, Dr. Harold. Ephesus, Council of, 174. Exeter, IBishop of, 145. Field, Dean, 232. Forbes, Bishop, 172. Formularies of Faith, by Lloyd, 34. Foxe's Actes and Monuments, 119, 127, 142. Francke's Lutheran Formularies, 79. Fust, Sir Herbert Jenner, 220, 241. B Vlll Authorities^ Cases, Statutes, &c.. Garbett, Kev. Edward, 248. Gardiner, Bishop, 27, 116, 149. Gauden, Bishop, 112, 123. Gelasius, Bishop, 179. Geste, Bishop, 70, 85, 114, 246. Goode, Dean, 66, 88, 90, 167, 183, 184, 192, 254. Griffiths' edition of the Homilies, 28 note, 97. Grindal, Archbishop, 142. Hall's Harmony of Confessions, 118. Hammond, Dr., 81, 117. Hampden, Bishop, 160. Harding, 117, 129, 243. Hardwick's Articles, 17, 39, 77. Herbert, George, 167. Hey, Dr., 124, 178, 204, 232, 235. Hook, Dean, 7, 12, 60, 72, 92, 181, 192, 230. Hooker, Eichard, 11, 20, 127, 144, 150. Hooper, Bishop, 64, 65, 82, 220, 245. Institution of a Christian Man, 33, 45. Jackson, Dean, 82, 172, 173, 199. Jacobson, Bishop, 94, 103. Jenkyns' Life of Cranmer, 39. Jerusalem Bishopric Act, 38. Jewel, Bishop, 9, 44, 102, 129, 130, 142, 164, 165, 212, 213. John, St., chap, vi., 194. Johnson's Canons, 6. Justus Jonas' Catechism, 32, 57. Keble, Eev. John, 11, 12, 226, 229, 232, 258. Reeling's Liturg. Britan., 70. Ken, Bishop, 175, 191. Killaloe, Bishop of, 141. Lamb, Dr., on the Thirty-nine Articles, 86. Lateran, IV. Council of, 27. Latimer, Bishop, 217, 238. Laud, Archbishop, 167, 168. Laurence, Archbishop, 56. Liturgies of Edward VL, 48, 50, 52, 53, 63. 65, 67, 68, 114, 217, 218, 219, 220, 244. Lloyd's Formularies of Faith, 34.- Longley, Archbishop, 11, 144, 175, 178, 241. Lushington, Dr., 90. Lutheraiifle Eccles. Lib. Symbol., 79. Maskell's edition of Sarura Missal, 244, note. Missale Romanum, 196. Missal, Sarum, 48, 49, 50, 51, 65, 171, 215, 216, 217, 244. Moberly, Bishop, 144, 186, 188, 226, 232. Morton, Bishop, 82. Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, 34, 45. Nicholls' Book of Common Prayer, 165. Nicholson, Bishop, 41, 81. Nowell's Catechism, 92, 93, 94, 99, 103, 138, 139, 222. Oldcastle, Sir John, 36. Order of the Communion, 1548, 47, 53. Original Letters, Parker Society, 61. Ossory, Bishop of, 11. Overall, Bishop, 165, 166. Oxford Calendar, 172. Palmer's Origines Liturgicae, 216. Patrick, Bishop, 52. Pearson, Bishop, 179. Perry, Rev. 'J\ W., 31, ll.S, 115. Peter Martyr, 127. Philpot, Archdeacon, 111. Placcius, 254. Pojnct, Bishop, 203, 254, 255. Presbyter, English, 82. Primer of Henry VIII., 31. ofEdward VI.. 31. of Elizabeth, 31, 35. Private Prayers in reign of Elizabeth, 31. Proceedings against Archdeacon Deni- son, 90, 191. Pusey, Dr., 25, 37, 195, 226. 227. Ratramn, 36, 38, 160, 161, 232. Ridley, Bishop, 34, 64, 65, 127, 161, 162, 164, 196, 217, 220, 232, 245, 253. Rogers, Samuel, Martyr, 119. St. David's, Bishop of, IGO, 162. Saravia, 180. Sarum Missal, see Missal. Scaliger, 254. Seeker, Archbishop, 200, 201. Sharp, Archbishop, 232. Sherlock, Dean, 42. South, Dr., 201, 202. Sparrow, Bishop, 184. Statutes cited : 31 Hen. VIH. c. 14 . . 29, 34, 36 1 Edward VI. c. 12 . . . . 29 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1 . . . 47 cited or referred to. IX 5 & 6 Edward VI. c. 1 . . . 62 1 Elizabeth, c. 1 . . . G9, 174 1 Elizabeth, c. 2 69 13 Elizabeth, c. 12 5, 7, 73, 215 note. 13 & 14 Charles 11. c. 4 . . .109 3 & 4 Victoria, c. 33 .... 38 5 Victoria, c. 6 38 Stephens' Book of Common Prayer, 57. , Ecclesiastical Statutes, 62. Stowell, Lord, 8. Sumner, Archbishop, 90, 191. Sutton, Dr., 43. Tanner, Bishop, 254. Taverner's Postils, 30. Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 131, 136, 176, 177, 178, 248, 257. Thompson, Arclibishop, 19. Thorndike, Prebendary, 181, 182, 203, 232, 256. Tillotson, Archbishop, 184, 185. Tmheron, Bartholomew, 61. Trent, Council of, 37, 40, 79, 212, 21 note, 233, 238, 241, 250. Trevor, Canon, 18, 255. Ussher, Archbishop, 27, 112. Wake, Archbishop, 182, 256. Walker's Sarum Missal, see Missal. Waterland, Dean, 13, 14, 144, 152, 191, 228, 231, 232. Waterworth's Decrees and Canons of Trent, 79, 212, 215 note, 238, 250. Westminster Confession, 118. Whitgift, Archbishop, 71, 72. Wickliffe, 36. Wilberforce, Archdeacon, 155. Wilson, Bishop, 232. Yardley, Archdeacon, 185. Zwingli, 158, 189. AN APPEAL FROM THE ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY. In the office of the Judge promoted hy Thomas Byard Sheppard, of thei Parish of Frome Selwood, in the County I Appellant ; of Somerset, Esquire . . . . j Against The Reverend William James Early! Bennett, Clerk, the Yicar of the s^idK Bespondent. Parish of Frome Selwood . The Members of the Judicial Committee present on the 28th, 29th, and 30th of November, and on the 1st and 2nd of December, 1871, were — The Loud Chancellor. The Archbishop of York. The Bishop of London. Lord Eomilly. Sir James Col vile. Sir Joseph Napier, Bart. Lord Justice James. Lord Justice Mellish. Sir Montague Smith. Dr. Mountague Bernard. The Argument. Mr. A. J. Stephens,* — Before I direct your Lord- ships' attention to the main issues in this case, it will be requisite to discuss the validity of cer- tain omissions from the Articles, which the learned Dean of the Arches made, when he finally reformed them. * The other Counsel retained on behalf of the AppoUant, were Dr. Tristram, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. B. Shaw. 2 l7iterloc7itory Order, Mr. Bennett was cited for maintaining false doc- trine in three different works, viz., in an Essay in " The Church and the World,'' and in the second and third editions of a publication intituled " A Plea for Toleration^ The Articles brought in, specified the nature of the false doctrine contained in these three works in reference to — (1.) The actual and true Presence of our Lord under the form of Bread and Wine upon the altars of our churches : (2.) The Visible Presence of our Lord upon the altar : (3.) Sacrifice offered by the Priest : (4.) Adoration of the consecrated elements, and the adoration of Christ in the consecrated elements : (5.) Eeception by the Wicked. The learned Dean of the Arches rejected the charge on the subject of Eeception by the Wicked, assigning two grounds for so doing : (1.) That this charge was not preferred before the Commissioners under the Church Discipline Act, and was not covered by the citation ; and (2.) That it was not proved, that Mr. Bennett maintained the doctrine of Reception by the Wicked, as charged in the 12th, 18th, and 25th Articles. His Lordship therefore directed, that the Articles should be " reformed by striking out all that relates " to the charge of contravening the 29th Article of " Religion, as to the reception of the Eucharist by the " Wicked." From this Judgment there was an Appeal to your Lordships, and your Lordships held, that the first ground assigned by the learned Judge for rejecting this charge was untenable. But as to the second ground, your Lordships held, that the learned Judge was justified in directing the Articles to be reformed, " because they did not set forth any passages from " Mr. Bennett's work in which Mr. Bennett main- " tains any doctrine impugning the 29th Article." The Main Issues. 3 It appears, therefore, that the reformation of the Articles extended, only to the charge of Eeception by the Wicked, and did not apply to the other charges contained in the Articles. When the case came before the learned Dean of the Arches for the final admission of the Articles, his Lordship not only struck out everything that related to the charge of Eeception by the Wicked, but he also struck out certain passages in Articles 5, 6, 7, and 32, which related to the Real Presence and Adoration, It is against such exclusion, which ap- plies to Real Presence and Adoration^ that an appeal is now made to your Lordships, because it is in excess of the judgment of your Lordships. [Upon this point a legal argument was entered into respecting the validity of this Interlocutory Order or Decree, and the result was, that their Lordships gave Counsel permission to argue the case on the assump- tion, that the passages struck out by the Dean of the Arches were restored, so far as they bore upon the subjects of " The Real Presence " and " Adoration."] The Main Issues, Mr. Stephens, — I will now proceed to direct your Lordships' attention to the main issues in this case. The learned Judge, at p. 2G of his Judgment,* having disposed of Articles 15 and 16 as teaching " the Visible Presence," and having rejected Articles 11, 17, and 24 because they were not proved, says of Articles 8, 9, 10, 14, 21, 22, and 23 : " 1 think that they do fairly represent the opinions of the * In the Argument the references to the Judgment of the Dean of the Arches were made to " The Appendix" of which only a few copies were printed for the use of their Lordships, Counsel, etc. Therefore, in the following pages, the passages quoted from the Judgment, will be given with references to the octavo edition of his Lordship's Judgment edited by Walter G. F. Phillimore, Esq., B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law' on don : Riviiigtons. 1870. 4 The Visible Presence. defendant contained in the passages set out, with one excep- tion, namely, the words ' irrespectively of the faith and * worthiness of the communicant,' which appear to point to an offence against the 29th Article of Eeligion, which was charged in the original Articles and struck out by the Court. It may, however, be that these words are merely used in the sense of prior to and separately from the act of * reception * by the communicants,' and if so, they seem to me to fairly represent the opinion of the defendant." The learned Judge is correct in assuming, that there is no intention to raise by the phrase, on which his Lordship comments, the question of any offence against the 29th Article of Religion. Eespecting Articles 15 and 16, which contain the charges on the subject of the Visible Presence^ it is proposed in a few minutes to deal with them apart from the other Articles, in consequence of their exc^ep- tional character. As to Articles 11, 17, 24, which the learned Judge has decided have not been proved, I trust that your Lordships will permit me to deal with them, when I come to discuss the Declaration on Kneeling^ because the question, whether those Articles are proved or not, will depend upon the construction of the language of that Declaration. The Visible Presence. The question upon the subject of the Visible Pre- sence, is limited to the consideration of what consti- tutes Abjuration or Revocation. And, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will now deal with it. In Articles 15 and 16, Mr. Bennett is charged with teaching the '' Visible Presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches." Upon this charge, the learned Dean of the Arches says : " Of the impropriety of his language the defendant seems to have been made aware, but unfortunately not until he had committed the vejy rash act of publishing it to the world. I have no hesitation in pronouncing that the expression ' visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches' is in its plain meaning at variance with all the formularies of our Church upon the subject, at variance with the language Abjuration and Revocation. 5 of the service of the Holy CommunioD, of the 28th Article, and of the Catechism. " The doctrine which it expresses, to use the language of our Articles, * overthroweth the nature of a sacrament,' even more than transubstantiation. " I may add also, that whatever figurative language may be found in the sermons of eastern fathers before controversy arose on this subject, I have not been able to find that such a doctrine has ever been maintained in the dogmatic teach- ing of our own or of any other branch of the Church. " I will consider presently the legal effect of the substitu- tion in a later edition of other language than that which I have here condemned." {Judgment, pp. 23, 24.) The learned Judge in his sentence says : " With respect to the first and uncorrected edition of his pamphlet, I pronounce that Mr. Bennett, by his language respecting the visible presence of our Lord and the adoration of the consecrated elements, has contravened the law of the Clmrch. " If Mr. Bennett had not renounced this language, and substituted other for it, I must have considered whether I ought not to pass a sentence of suspension upon him, accompauied by a monition to abstain for the future from such language. *' The question is not now before me whether this retrac- tation of Mr. Bennett would have sufficed to satisfy the severe provisions of the statute of Elizabeth (13 Eliz. c. 12), but whether this retractation, however ungraciously made, be not sufficient under the general law to indicate that he has finally abandoned the unlawful expressions which he had used. " I think, on the whole, they are sufficient for this pur- pose." {Judgment, p. 135.) The question is, whether the substitution made by Mr. Bennett, in the third edition of the Plea for Toleration, is under the general law an Abjuration or a Revocation of — adopting the language of the learned Judge — " the unlawful expressions " which Mr. Bennett had used in the second edition.* It is sub- mitted that it is not, and that the learned Judge was * 2nd Edition — " The Eeal actual and Visible Presence of our Lord upon the Altars of our Churches." 3rd Edition — "The Eeal and actual Presence of our Lord under the form of Bread and Wine upon the Altars of our Chm-ches." 6 Abjuration required by the general Law, bound to require a formal Abjuration or Revocation from Mr. Bennett, or to pronounce sentence. One short extract from Johnson's Canons and a reference to Ayliffe's Parergon will show, what was the general law in regard to Clerks convicted of Heresy. In the second volume of Johnson's Canons (p. 463), will be found the 3rd canon of the Constitu- tions of Arundel, which were published in 1408. It is there said : " We decree and ordain that no preacher of the Word of God or other person do teach, preach or observe anything in relation to the sacrament of the altar, matrimony, confession of sins, or any other sacrament of the Church or article of faith, anything but what hath been determined by holy mother Churcli, nor call in question anything that has been decided by her ; nor let him knowingly speak scandalously either in public or private concerning these things ; nor let him preach up, teach, or observe any sect or sort of heresy contrary to the sound doctrijie of the Church. Let him incur the sentence of excommunication i^so facto who know- ingly and pertinaciously attempts the contrary after the publication of these presents ; from which let him not be absolved except at the point of death, unless he reform him- self (by first abjuring heresy generally or simply in the accustomed form of the Church, at the discretion of the ordi- nary in whose territory he is convicted of having committed the offence) and have received salutary penance for what he has done." At p. 292 of Ayliffe's Parergon, the second edition of which was published in 1734, the law, in reference to " Abjuration," is laid down in the like terms from the Constitutions of Archbishop Arundel. I may, perhaps, parenthetically remark, that Ayliffe incor- porated, without the slightest acknowledgment, the most valuable portions of a very learned work by Richard Cosins, who was Dean of the Arches in the reign of Elizabeth. Many subsequent authors do not even seem to have known of this work, valuable as it is, in showing the state of the ecclesiastical law immediately after the Reformation. It therefore appears, that under the (jeneral Imv, a clerk who had taught heresy, could not purge himself 3 Eliz.^ c. 12, a beneficial relaxation. by Abjuration until after conviction, and sentence of Excommunication passed. And that his Abjuration must be made *'.in the accustomed form of the Church." That is, he was bound in solemn form to renounce the heresy of which he had been convicted. In the second volume of Hook's Lives of the Arch- bishops (New Series, p. 401), we find the form of Abjuration used by Archbishop Cranmer in 1555 to have been as follows : " I, Thomas Cranmer, late Archbishop of Canter- " bury, do renounce, abhor, and detest, all manner of " Heresies and errors of Luther and Zuinglius, and " all other teachings, which are contrary to sound *' and true doctrines." And after professing his faith in the special doctrines of the Church of Rome, the Archbishop adds, " I am sorry that I ever held or thought otherwise." Here is abjuration, renun- ciation, and the expression of regret. The learned Judge says — speaking of the Substitu- tion made by Mr. Bennett — " It is to be regretted " that these material alterations are unaccompanied " by any expressions of regret or self-reproach for " the mischief which his crude and rash expressions " have caused " (Judgment, p. 133). His Lordship here admits, that mischief has been caused by this publication, and that Mr. Bennett has expressed no regret for such mischief. The learned Judge has spoken of " the severe pro- visions'' of the 13 Eliz. c. 12, but that statute (which is the only direct legislation since the Reformation for the punishment of Clerics for heresy) was a beneficial relaxation of the general law ecclesiastical ; and your Lordships, in Burder v. Heath (15 Moore, 76), spoke of Revocation as a benefit provided by that Act. Under such statute, a Clergyman can free himself from punishment by Revocation, before sentence has been pronounced. Under the general ecclesiastical law, as I have already stated, a Clergyman could not free him- self from punishment by abjuring, until after sentence had been pronounced. But the abjuring under the canon 8 Stibstittition is not Adjuration. law and the revocation under the statute of Elizabeth, were both of them the formal renunciation of error. The only two cases under the statute of Elizabeth in which the construction of the phrase, " revoke his error, '^ was determined, were Bishop v. Stone (1 Consist. 424), and Burder y. Heath (15 Moore, 76). In the former case. Lord Stowell held, " that a pro- " mise of future silence was not a revocation of the " past." And in Burder v. Heath, your Lordships held, that the mere expression of regret was not a suf- ficient Revocation ; but that there must be a formal Revocation. Mr. Bennett has in his third edition of the " Plea for Toleration," simply substituted in each case, another form of expression in lieu of that, which he had used in the first and second editions. A substitution is neither an Abjuration nor a Revocation, for the fol- lowing three reasons : (1.) It is no admission of error : (2.) It is not even an expression of penitential regret : and, (3.) It is not even a promise of future silence. Assuming that a judgment was only obtained against Mr. Bennett upon the substituted Formula, that, would not preclude him at any future time from reverting to the Formula in the second edition ; and such judgment could not prevent him from adopting it. It is submitted, that the alterations that have been made by Mr. Bennett in the third edition of his " Plea for Toleration," are neither an Abjuration to satisfy the general law, nor even a Revocatio7i to satisfy the statute of Elizabeth, and do not release him from the liability to formally retract the erroneous doctrine of " the Visible Presence of our Lord upon " the altars of our Churches," which he has main- tained. It may be remarked, that Mr. Bennett did not publish his third edition of the " Plea for Toleration" until the 5th of May, 1868, a Rule Absolute for a Mandamus liaving been on the 17th The Real Presence of the Body of Christ. 9 of the previous month, issued to the then Bishop of London, to inquire into the charge preferred by the Appellant in this case against Mr. Bennett. It is therefore submitted, that Mr. Bennett has neither abjured nor revoked his language, respecting the Visible Presence of our Lord upon tlie altars of our Churches. And consequently the Appellant is entitled to a judgment on the 15th and 16th Articles ; and to have a formal abjuration by Mr. Bennett of the language, that he has used in the second edition of his '* Plea for Toleration."* The Real Presence of the Body of Christ. I will now, my Lords, proceed to discuss the ques- tion of the Eeal Presence. In speaking of the Real Presence, it should be borne in mind, that the only question in issue is, respecting the Presence of the Body of Christ. By His Divine nature Christ is pre- sent everywhere, and of this Presence no question has been raised ; in fact, adopting the language of Bullinger, in the fifth volume of his Decades (p. 454), '' All men do willingly admit, the catholic sense of ^' the Catholic Church, gathered out of the Word of " God, viz., that Christ in His Spirit is present in " His Church, even to the world's end, but absent in " Body." Or, in the language of Jewel, in his Apology (p. 486), " Thus is Christ both absent and " present : present in Majesty, absent in Body." The short and substantial point of the charge is this : Mr. Bennett maintains, that after Consecra- tion there is in the Elements on the Altar, and in the hand of the Priest, and tlierefore irrespective of the Communicant, a real and actual Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ — not a figurative, * It was urged in the Court of Arches, that Mr. Bennett's assertion of a Visible Presence of our Lord upon the altar, was not only con- trary to the formularies of the Church of England, but also would be inadmissible in the Church of Eome, as on this subject the Eoman Catechism says, " Corpus Domini quod in Eucharistia occulte latet." Donovan's Cat. Trident, i. 488. 1 Propositions to be sustained. mystical, or sacramental Body. That doctrine is by the Appellant absolutely denied. To this one charge the issues in this case, so far as they relate to the Real Presence., will be strictly confined ; and it is not intended to raise any discussion as to the doctrine of a Presence in the Elements on or after Reception, And it may likewise be remarked, that between the enactment of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity and 1662, the doctrine of the Real Presence, which is contained in this one charge against Mr. Bennett, was never maintained by any school of Divines in the Church of England. Your Lordships will thus be saved, an extensive field of laborious research and protracted discussion at this bar. This discussion is further limited by the fact, that the Church in the Declaration on Kneeling states expressly that, " The Body of Christ is in heaven and NOT HERE." This absolute statement denies any actual presence of the Body of Christ on earth, and excludes all subtle refinements, as to the mode or manner of such actual Presence. Propositions to he sustained. It may perhaps assist your Lordships, if I now state six propositions, which I shall endeavour to sustain during the course of my argument. (L) The Body of Christ when on earth was a human body, such as is born into the world in the case of every man naturally engendered of the off- spring of Adam, sin alone excepted. (2.) At His Resurrection, Christ (as the 4th Article of Religion states) " took again His Body, with fleshy '' bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of " man's nature; wherewith He ascended into heaven, " and there sitteth until He return to judge all men *' at the last day." (3.) At His ascension, the selfsame or true Body in which He suffered, passed into the heavens, and there exists in a glorified or spiritual condition. Real Presence^ defined. 11 (4.) This same glorified or spiritual Body, being His true Body of our nature, is (as declared by the Declaration on Kneeling) " Christ's natural Body," and is " 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." (5.) Although the Divine Nature or Grodhead of Christ is present everywhere, yet since the Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here, they are not present in the Elements. (6.) Upon due reception of the Consecrated Ele- ments, the Body and Blood of Christ are, in a heavenly and spiritual manner, communicated to the Soul of the faithful Communicant, and are verily and indeed taken and received by such. The phrase " Real Presence^'' defined. The phrase, " Real Presence," does not occur in the Formularies of the Church. But orthodox Divines have spoken of a Real Presence in the Sacrament, and have so explained their meaning, as to be quite in harmony with the teaching of the Church. Dr. Longley, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Charge prepared by him shortly before his death, at p. 26, says : " It cannot be denied, that the doctrine " of the Real Presence is, in one sense, the doctrine " of the Church of England." And at p. 27, the Archbishop declares what this sense is — " as to a " presence elsewhere than in the heart of the Believer, " the Church of England is silent, and the words of " Hooker therefore represent her views : ' The real " ' Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood " ' is not to be sought in the Sacrament, but in the "'worthy receiver of the Sacrament.'" These words occur at p. 352 of the second volume of Keble's edition of Hooker^ first published in 1836, and reprinted in a fourth edition in 1863. And it may be observed, that the Bishop of Ossory, in a note to his Charge of 1866 (p. 82), having quoted this 12 Laivftd and unlawful Sense. passage from Hooker's works, as edited by Mr. Keble, remarks : ** Upon this passage .... the editor expresses no dissent from his author. And in his preface to the work he discusses Hooker's views on the Sacrament fully, bestowing every high praise upon them, and even contrasting his doctrine with that of some of the earliest Keformers, as Cranmer and Jewel, to show how much higher and truer his sacramental views were than theirs. But in no part of the discussion does he intimate, that upon this important point, there was any dif- ference between him and his author." It is not, therefore, the doctrine of a Real Presence in the abstract, that is the subject of tlae charge against Mr. Bennett, but the particular kind of Real Presence which Mr. Bennett maintains. This distinc- tion receives a forcible illustration from an author, who has had very recently to consider this subject, in connection with the Life of Oranmer, and .whose language I avail myself of, on account of its per- spicuity. Dr. Hook, in the second volume of his Life of Cranmer (New Series, p. 152), thus writes : " The English Keformers did not accept Luther's view of the manner in which our Lord is present, that is, through consubstantiation ; they simply, and without explanation, asserted the fact. They did not hold that the sacrifice con- sists in the offering of Christ, therefore they did not require a belief in transubstantiation, nor, as regards the sacrament, did their system require the Lutheran or strictly Protestant doctrine of consubstantiation. Without this they believed that Christ can be really present to the worthy recipient. They admitted that the Lord's body is in heaven, in like manner as they admitted that the sun is in the firmament. As the sun, though in the firmament, may be present on earth by its rays, and though in one sense present \\ herever there is solar light, yet may be present more in one place than in another, so by His Spirit Christ the Sun of Kighteousness, though in heaven, may be still on earth, and in one place on earth more than in another, in the heart of a saint more than in the soul of the careless. In the Lutheran system the Kes Sacramenti, as in the Komish system, is created by the con- secration ; our Reformers considered the Res Sacramenti to depend on consecration and on the worthy receiving ; not the Dr. Hook : Dean Water land. 13 receiving without the consecration, but the consecration with the receiving." Here Dr. Hook states that the Reformers did not deny a real presence, because they believed that, without either Transubstantiation or Consubstantia- tion Christ can be reallypresent to the worthy recipient, and this though His Body is in heaven. For it is a presence by His Spirit and in the heart of the faithful recipient. Hence Dr. Hook correctly asserts, that the presence of the Res Sacramenti, according to our Reformers, depends, not on Consecration, but on Consecration and worthy receiving. From this variety in the use of the phrase, " The Real Presence," it is plain that writers, who have maintained the doctrine of the Real Presence, cannot be cited as authorities in support of Mr. Bennett's opinions, unless it can be shown, that they used that phrase in a sense not distinguishable in substance, from that in which Mr. Bennett has used it. Having directed your Lordships' attention to the opinions of Hooker, the late Archbishop Longley, and Dean Hook, as to the doctrine of the Church of England in reference to the Real Presence, I will now venture to cite one other authority, viz.. Water- land. The writings of this author on the " Doctrine of the Eucharist," were lately reprinted, in 1868, by the present Bishop of London, then Bishop of Lincoln. His Lordship states in his preface (p. 5) : " This volume has been issued at the request of the Arch- bishops of Canterbury and York, with the view of placing within the reach of those who may not be able to procure the collected works of Dr. Waterlaud, and especially of candi- dates for holy orders, a treatise which was once considered almost as the text-book of tlie Church of England on the subject of the Eucharist, but which, in common with many of the works of the great Anghcan Divines, has been somewhat cast into the shade by the lapse of time and the rapid issue of modern theological literature, and is, there is reason to fear, far less known at present than it deserves." The greatest weight is due to the testimony of c 14 Consecration. Definitions. Waterland for the construction of the Act of Uni- formity of Charles II., because he wrote this work on the Eucharist in 1737, which was 75 years after the enactment of that Act, and he reviewed the whole Eucharistic Controversy, which that statute had finally settled for the Church of England. Dean Waterland (p. 308), speaking of the objec- tions of certain Lutheran authors to the notes of Dr. Grabe in his edition of Ireneeus, which he pub- lished in 1702, says : " And the complaint now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the Sacrifice of the Mass (which he heartily abhorred), but that he rejected the real, local, or corporal presence, such as the Papists or Lutherans contend for ; in which most cer- tainly he judged right." At pp. 88 and 89 Dean Waterland states, what he considers the true effect of Consecration. He says : " The sum is, that the consecration of the elements makes them holy symbols, relatiyely holy, on account of their rela- tion to what they represent, or point to, by divine institution ; and it is God that gives them this holiness by the ministry of the word. The sanctification of the communicants (which is God's work also) is of distinct consideration from the former, though they are often confounded ; and to this part belongs what has been improperly called making the symbols become our Lord's body, and which really means making them His body to us ; or more plainly still, making us par- takers of our Lord's broken body and blood shed, at the same time that we receive the holy symbols." With the views of these eminent Divines, my argument will be in the strictest accordance. Definitions, Before I proceed with my argument, I may per- haps be permitted to remark, that I shall in the course of it, have to refer to^ or make use of, certain phrases and expressions, which occur in the Formu- Ambiguity of the zuord "'Sacrament.'" 15 laries of the Church, or in his Lordship's Judgment, and the precise meaning of which your Lordships will, I apprehend, have to ascertain when considering your Judgment. In giving, as I now propose to do, definitions of these expressions, I disclaim any theo- logical discussion, i.e., any discussion as to what is doctrinally true or false ; such a discussion being foreign to the issues raised in this case, which are exclusively confined to the legal construction of certain language in the Thirty-nine Articles, and other Formularies of the Church. The principal of such phrases and expressions are the following : — (L) The Sacrament. (2.) The Eucharist. (8.) Objective and Subjective. (4.) Spiritual and Corporal. The importance of such definitions appears in a very short passage in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Coleridge in Shore v. Wilson (9 CI. and Fin., p. 527) : *' No one can be in the least degree familiar with the divines or historians of the 17th century without being aware of their using a large number of common words in a different sense from that in which they are now received. When, therefore, we are called on to construe deeds of the years 1704 and 1707, it seems to me that we are not only at liberty but are bound to inquire what at that time was the meaning of the phrases used in them ; not taking for granted, because they bear a certain clear meaning now, that they did so then ; and we are also, 1 conceive, bound to inquire whether at that time they bore any technical or scientific sense, and if so we must judge from the context whether in the particular instance they were used in that sense." — (See also Gor ham's Case, Moore, p. 462.) 1. — Ambiguity of the word " Sacrament. ^^ Respecting the word " Sacrament," it is desirable to point out, that there is an ambiguity in the use of that word. This has been stated by Cranmer in the following language : " I think it good, gentle reader, here in the beginning to admonish thee of certain words and kinds of speeches, which c 2 16 Incorrect division of the Sacrament. I do use sometimes in this mine answer to the late Bishop of Winchester's book, lest in mistaking thou do as it were stumble at them. "First, this word * sacrament' I do sometimes use (as it is many times taken among writers and holy doctors) for the sacramental bread, water, or wine; as when they say that sacramentum est sacrse rei signum, ' a sacrament is the sign * of an holy thing.' But where I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do) that Christ is in the sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter ; that is to say, not of Christ's carnal presence in the outward sacrament, but sometimes of his sacramental presence. And sometime by this word ^sacrament' I mean the whole ministration and receiving of the sacraments, either of baptism or of the Lord's Supper : and so the old writers many times do say, that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the sacraments ; not meaning by that manner of speecli that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine (which be only the outward visible sacraments), but that in the due ministration of the sacraments according to .Ciirist's ordinance and institution, Christ and his Holy Spirit be truly and indeed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, in all them that worthily receive the same." This distinction between the Sacrament as meaning the Elements^ and the Sacrament as meaning the Ordinance^ or the whole ministration, is of essential importance, and should be carefully borne in mind throughout this inquiry. In fact, this distinction embodies the most important point in issue, because it is the presence in the Elements that is denied by the Appellant. The Presence in the Ordinance is not denied. The learned Judge in his Judgment (p. 27), has noticed this distinction of the two meanings of the word "" Sacrament ;" one^ as the " Sacrce rei signum ,•" the other^ as the entire " Ritus'' But the learned Judge has applied to the former meaning the words of the 25th Article; but in that Article the words apply to the second meaning, viz., the entire Ritus, His Lordship further states, that the Sacrament " as a Kite consists of three parts!' This is at va- Ambig7iity of the word '^ Eucharist r 17 riance with the Catechism, which declares, that a Sacrament consists of two parts, viz., " the outward Visible Sign," and " the inward Spiritual G-race." The learned Judge names the three parts, viz. : (1), the Signum; (2), the Res; and (3), the Virtus, His Lordship explains the Virtus to he " the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby." But the benefits are not a part of the Sacrament, but a result of the Sacrament to those who receive it worthily. Other- wise, there would be a fourth part of the Sacrament, viz., the injurious effect which those receive who partake of it unworthily. The Catechism, therefore, only makes two parts : (1), the outward sign ; and (2), the inward grace ; which inward grace is by the Catechism explained to be the Body and Blood of Christ. 2. — Ambiguity of the word " Eucharist'^ The word, " Eucharist," also requires to be cleared from ambiguity. This word properly applies to the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and expresses the fact, that the Lord's Supper is a service of thanks- giving.* Another sense is sometimes, and especially by Eoman Catholic writers, put upon this word " Eucharist," viz., as meaning the Consecrated Ele- ments. But in the Formularies of the Church there is no authority for using the word in the latter sense. In the Judgment (p. 96) the learned Judge ap- pears to use the word Eucharist in the sense of the Consecrated Elements, Mr. Bennett is charged for maintaining " actual and objective presence in the " Consecrated Elements,'' The learned Judge refers to this Charge, as describing the presence in the Holy Eucharist as actual and objective. Thus substituting " the Holy Eucharist " for '' Consecrated Elements." * The word, " Eucharistia/' only occurs in the Homilies (p. 448), and in the Latin form of the 'iSth Article (Hardwick's Articles, p. 813) ; and in both instances it is used in the sense of the Ordinance or Lord,'s Supper. \%Objective and subjective 7iot mithoritative expressions, 3. — " Objective " and " Subjective " 7iot authoritative expressions. The iwrds " ExternaV and " Internal^'' defined. In order to distinguish between the two doctrines of " Real Presence," that defined by Hooker, Water- land, Archbishop Longley, and Dr. Hook^ viz., a Presence in the Ordinance to the Soul of the faithful Communicant, and that maintained by Mr. Bennett, viz., a Presence in the Elements on Consecration irre- spective of the Communicant, it is proposed in the course of this argument to use the phrases. External Real Presence and Internal Real Presence, Before defining these phrases, so far as is requisite for de- termining the issues raised in this case, it may be desirable to make a few comments upon the terms " objective " and " subjective," by which this contrast between Presence to outward or material objects, and Presence to our Spirits is sometimes expressed. These expressions are unknown to the Formularies of the Churcli. They never entered into the theo- logical controversies during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles II. They are to the English mind difficult of comprehension, fruitful of endless dis- putation as to their exact meaning, and pregnant by implication with meanings and inferences inapplicable to the legal bearings of the pleadings in this case. Canon Trevor, in his Essay on the Holy Eucharist (Lond. 1869), thus alludes to these ambiguous expressions : " What the * Keal objective Presence ' precisely means no one has distinctly explained ; but as the word is not to be found in any of our elder divines, nor any equivalent to it in the fathers, it cannot escape the suspicion which justly attaches to every innovation on the terminology of the Church. We are not now to learn that new and unauthorized words imply new and unauthorized conceptions " (p. 82). Again : " The term itself is a metaphysical one, imported into External and Internal Real Presence defined, 19 Englisli theology within our own recollection. It was coined by the German philosophers to indicate an object existing independently of the observer, in opposition to an idea within his own mind, which they call a subjective impression" (p. 83). And Again : " What is Catholic is the Keal Presence to the devout receiver : if the Objective Presence mean the Presence of Christ's Person, either in the material elements or ' under * their forms ' irrespective of communion, it is neither Catholic nor true " (p. 92). The inexpediency of using these terms in a legal argument, from their not having an invariable or fixed meaning, seems to be conclusively established by the statement of Archbishop Thompson in his " Laws of Thought," that, " Tlnese words have undergone great changes of meaning, excellently traced out in Sir William Hamilton's Eeid, p. 806, in a note which only the editor of that work could have written " (in note, p. 19). This view of the unfitness of these words for use in the Eucharistic Controversy, is supported by the Bishop of Carlisle, in a passage which the learned Judge has quoted at page 70 of his Judgment. The Bishop says, " What right have we to say that the *' Presence of Christ must be either objective or " subjective ? Why may it not in some sense be " both ? or how do we know that that mysterious " Presence of which we speak, is capable of being " described under such a Formula at all ?" It is for these reasons that I object to use the terms Objective and Subjective, as authoritative ex- pressions. I will now proceed, having exclusive regard to the actual issues in this case, to define the phrases, External and Liternal Real Presence, which are phrases free from metaphysical entanglements, and amply sufficient for the discussion of these issues. Respecting External Real Presence, it may be 20 External and Internal Real Presence, defined as a Presence of the Body of Christ outside of and independent of the communicant. Thus, it is a Presence, (1) in the Elements; (2) upon the altar or holy table ; (3) in the hand of the Priest ; and generally any Presence in relation to outward objects, as distinguished from a Presence to the soul of the communicant. From Mr. Bennett's writings it is submitted, that he holds such a Presence as can be spoken of in relation to outward material objects, e. g., in the Elements, upon the altar ; and can admit of acts being directed towards it, and done with it, e. g., adoration and offering, externally to the commu- nicant ; and all this unconditionally, and without reference to, or dependence on, the spiritual state of such communicant. Having already stated that the Charge against Mr. Bennett is confined to External Real Presence^ it is only in contrast to that term, that I need define Internal Real Presence, It may be defined as a Presence not in the Elements, nor upon the altar, nor in the hand of the Priest ; but within, that is to say, in the heart of the communicant : a Presence which, concurrently with the reception of the bread and wine, is imparted by the Spirit of God to the souls or spirits of the faithful communicants ; a Presence which depends on spiritual conditions, belongs to the sphere of spiritual life and perception, and can only be spoken of in relation to things spiritual. Yet this Presence is not created by the mere act of the soul itself, but is really given and imparted from God. That these definitions of External and Internal Real Presence are strictly justifiable, when dealing with the facts of this case, will be established by two authorities to whom I will venture to refer : Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, says : " Tills was it that some did exceedingly fear, lest Zuingliiis and CEcolampadius -would bring to pass, that men should Hooker uses the word " externally T 2 1 account of tin's sacrament but only as of a shadow, destitute, empty and void of Christ. But seeing that by opening the several opinions which have been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides at the length to a general agree- ment concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of this sacrament ; wherefore should the world con- tinue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is ? Yea even in this point no side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ's presence. Whereby the question is yet driven to a narrower issue, nor doth anything rest doubtful but this, whether when the sacrament is administered Christ be whole within man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves ; which opinion they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental, or to transub- stantiate and change their substance into his ; and so the one to hold him really but invisibly moulded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof as they imagine is abolished and his succeeded in the same room." — Book v., ch. 67, s. 2. Here Hooker, while maintaining a real partici- pation of Christ, by means of this Sacrament, states that the whole controversy lies between a Presence " within man only ;" i.e., Internal Real Presence^ and a Presence " seated in the elements themselves," i.e., External Real Presence ; and it will be remarked, that the word " externally " is applied by Hooker to this subject. Hooker likewise holds, that the Presence in the Elements can have bat one of two forms, either Lutheran Consubstantiation, or Roman Transubstan- tiation. Hooker's decision as to the true doctrine is in section 6 of the same chapter, where he states, " The real presence of Christ's most blessed Body *' and Blood is not, therefore, to be sought for in " the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the " Sacrament." The second and only further authority to which reference need be made, is that of an eminent Prelate, 22 Bishop of Durham : New School of Theology. who has lately discussed the terms Subjective and Objective Presence, as used by Eoman writers, and by writers holding the like doctrines that Mr. Bennett does ; I allude to the Bishop of Durham, who, in his Charge of October, 1870, says (p. 23), " The doctrine of the Church of Rome, as laid down by the Council of Trent, is that ' the substance of the bread and * wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood * of Christ not naturally, but truly, really, and sacramentally ; * so that whilst the accidents remain in appearance, the * elements are substantially the body and blood of Christ.' The doctrine of the New School of Theology in our Church is that the elements are changed by consecration, and become after a spiritual manner the body and blood of Christ ; so that Christ is not only present in the ordinance subjectively in the hearts of the faithful, but objectively also in the natural substances of the bread and wine, which become in some ineffable way through the consecration of the priest * not * mere channels through which Christ is conveyed to" those * who properly receive Him, but there and then Christ him- * self whether received or not.' Kow, there is, of course, a verbal difference in these two statements, but they are one and the same in their essence and in their results. The whole doctrine which can be logically derived from the one can be as logically derived from the other. Each confers on the consecrator the power of changing the elements into the body and blood of Christ ; each exalts the officiating minister into a priest to offer to God an unbloody sacrifice ; each demands of the communicant a worship of the elements, the one on the plea that they are changed into, the other that they contain, the body of Christ. It may be said that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a rite so solemn and devotional that it should never be the subject of controversy, and that it is a matter of no great moment w^hat may be the views of a Church or of individuals as to the nature of Christ's presence in His Supper. This was not the judgment of those brave and well-instructed reformers who, three hundred years ago, earnestly contended for the faith. It was on account of their abhorrence of the doctrine, now commonly termed the objective presence, or in other words the actual presence of Christ in the elements, whether by transubstantiation or consubstantiation or impanation, that they resolutely laid down their lives. And why this, but because they clearly discerned in the history of the past that this doctrine was ''Natural;'' " Spirituar a7td '' Corporal r 23 the keystone of the whole fabric of Papal error. And now that three centuries have passed away, notwithstanding all the Scriptural knowledge vouchsafed to us during that period, it would seem as though that fundamental error respecting the nature of our Lord's presence which had been so boldly resisted and amply refuted by the reformers, and which has been well described as ' the central power which binds the * Koman system together and regulates every motion and * acts upon every particle, and invests the priesthood with * more than human character,' is again being openly taught in all its essential corruption by the school of ultra-ritualists ; and the battle won of old must again be fought, if our Church is to preserve its Scriptural light and liberty, and not fall back again into the darkness and slavery of mediaeval Sacer- dotalism." 4. — Meaning of the phrases^ " Natural Body of Christ ,•" ''Spiritual Body of Christ;'' "Spiritual Pre- " sence of Christ;'' " Corporal Presence of " Christ:' There are four other expressions, which have an important bearing upon the Issues of this Case, viz. : (1) The Natural Body of Christ; (2) the Spiritual Body of Christ ; (3) Spiritual Presence ; and (4) Cor- poral Presence. It is proposed, with your Lordships' permission, at this point of the argument to do no more than to state, what I consider to be the legitimate meaning of those phrases, in order to afford your Lordships, as it were, a Glossary of the language which I shall have occasion to use. It will conduce to the clearness of my Argument, if the fuller investigation of those phrases be deferred, until the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Declaration on Kneeling shall be discussed. It is submitted that, (1.) The Natural Body of Christ signifies His true Body of our nature, now in heaven and not here, as distinguished from His Mystical Body, the Church or Congregation of faithful men : and that, (2.) The Spiritual Body of Christ signifies the same true Natural Body of Christ, now in heaven, and 24 " Under the Form of Bread and Wine'' declares the risen and glorified condition of that Body. Thus the true Body of Christ, that in which He suffered upon the Cross, is now in heaven — Natural in the perfection of man's nature, Spiritual in its risen, ascended, and glorified condition. (3.) Spiritual Presence is of two kinds : (a) the Spiritual Presence of Christ, which signifies the Presence of Christ in His Divine nature, as He is God ; and (b) the Spiritual Presence of the Body of Christ, which signifies the Presence of the Body of Christ to our Spirits, and does not signify the Presence of the Body of Christ after the manner of a Spirit, which is a plain contradiction of terms, for a Spirit cannot be a Body, and a Body cannot be a Spirit. (4.) Corporal Presence is of two kinds : (a) the Corporal Presence of Christ, which is the Presence of Christ in the truth of His human Nature, in His true or natural Body, as distinguished from His Presence in His Divine Nature ; and (b) the Cor- poral Presence of the Body of Christ, which is, when used in reference to the Lord's Supper, the Presence of the true or natural Body of Christ in the Elements. ''Under the Form of Bread and Wine.'' I will now proceed to discuss the legal force of the Formula, which Mr. Bennett has introduced in both the alterations in his third or amended edition of the '' Plea for Toleration." Mr. Bennett states, in his Preface to the third edition of the '' Plea for Toleration," that in the first two editions of that work he had used the phrase, " the real actual and visible presence of our Lord " upon the Altars of our Churches." And that in the third edition he had substituted the following words, " the real and actual presence of our Lord, " under the Form of bread and wine, upon the Altars " of our Churches." Transtibstantiation and Consubstantiation, 25 This is a phrase of such importance in its bearing upon the questions at issue, that it requires careful examination, — the more especially as Mr. Bennett has put this phrase forward as his more matured opinion, and relies upon it, as expressing the doctrine of the Church of England. Mr. Bennett adds, in the same Preface : " The " formula now adopted, and which, without any " doubt, will convey the doctrine of the Real Pre- " sence, as the Church w^ould teach it, has been " suggested to me by him whose name stands at the " head of this Pamphlet [Dr. Pusey], one to whom " the whole Church would implicitly bow and all " revere." The Formula thus introduced in order to express the Real Presence in the elements, is one not only adopted by Mr. Bennett but by the Roman Church and the Lutherans. A great part of the intricacy of this case will be removed by bearing in mind, the distinction which exists between, (1) the doctrine on the subject of the Real Presence, and (2) the doctrines of Transub- stantiation and Consubstantiation. The distinction is this, the doctrine of the Real Presence deals with the actual Presence by Consecration of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements. On this point the doctrines of Rome, of the Lutherans, and of Mr. Bennett, do not substantially differ. But Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation deal with the results of that Presence upon the elements. 1. The Roman Church holds, that while the ele- ments retain their outward form and appearance, their substance is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. This conversion is called Transubstantiation, 2. The Lutherans hold, on the contrary, that not only the form of the bread and wine remains, but their substances also remain, the Body and Blood of Christ being also present by Sacramental Union under 26" Under the form^' &c. , an unauthorised formn la. the same form. This conjunction is generally called Consuhstantiation, 3. Mr. Bennett has not committed himself to any statement, respecting the operation of the Real Presence on the elements. The result is this : on the point of the Real Presence, the actual Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements on consecration is held by the Church of Rome, by the Lutherans, and by Mr. Bennett ; and all these several doctrines adopt the same Formula, viz., " under the form of bread and wine." But from this point of agreement in regard to the Presence, the three doctrines diverge in regard to the elements. 1. The Church of Rome holds, that there is a con- version of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. " 2. The Lutherans hold, that the substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged. 3. But Mr. Bennett refrains from stating in what manner, the bread and wine are affected by the Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ, which he holds to be in the elements upon conse- cration. The learned Judge has discussed this formula at great length in pp. 71-75 of his Judgment, and has decided (p. 124), that the jDhrase, as it has been used by Mr. Bennett, may be lawfully used. I will now proceed to establish that this Formula is not now authorised. This Formula was adopted by the Church of Rome, as the precise expression of Roman doctrine on the Real Presence. It occurs in the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the Third ; " the Body and Blood of Christ are truly " contained under the forms of bread and wine, the " bread being substantiated into the Body, and the " wine into the Blood by the power of God." Thus this Council used these very words, " under the forms Repudiated by Cranmer, 27 ** of bread and wine," when Transuhstantiation was for the first time decreed (iv. Lat. Cone. a.d. 1215, in Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit, p. 74). We also find in Cranmer's "" Lord's Supper " (p. 51) tliis Formula used, as the exact expression of Roman doctrine by Bishop Gardiner, in his defence of Roman doctrine. " The true faith is, that Christ's " most precious Body and Blood is in his Holy Supper, '' present under form of bread and wine.'' It will be observed that these are the very words that Mr. Bennett has now substituted, viz., Christ present '' in the Sacrament under the form of bread and " wine." Cranmer, therefore, in 1551 declared it to con- tain Popish doctrine, and as such repudiated it. In his treatise on the Lord's Supper (p. 54), he says, " They [the Papists] say, that Christ is " corporally under or in the forms of bread and *^ wine : We say that Christ is not there, neither " corporally nor spiritually ; but in them that " worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, He is " spiritually, and corporally in hea.ven." And in a marginal note to this passage he calls this, " the differ- ence^'' that is, the very point of difference between the Romish and the English doctrine in 1551 — the very year in which the second book of Edward VI. was in preparation. When in 1551 an attempt was made by Bishop Gardiner to fix the doctrine involved in this Formula upon the Church of England, it was warmly repu- diated by Archbishop Cranmer. It appears from Cran- mer's "Lord's Supper" (p. 51), that Bishop Gardiner had objected to Cranmer, that the Church of England taught at that day, that Christ is in the bread and wine, in that it was said in the distribution of the Holy Communion, " The Body and Blood of Christ " to be under the form of bread and wine." To this Cranmer replied (page 53), "As concerning " the Form of doctrine used in this Church of Eng- 28 Advertisement at end of First Book of Homilies, " land, in the Holy Communion, that the Body and " Blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and " wine, when you shall show the place where this " form of words is expressed, then shall you purge " yourself of that, which in the mean time I take to " be a plain untruth." There can be no doubt about the source from which it would be said, that this Formula, ''under the form of bread and wine,'"' has been derived. It occurs m 07ie place only in documents connected with the Church of England. It is found at p. 147 at the end of the First Book of Homilies ;* not in any Homily ; but in the notice or advertisement placed at the end of the first volume, in which additional sermons were promised at some future time, and the proposed subjects were named ; among them one to be entitled, " Of the due receiving of Our Saviour's Blessed Body " and Blood under the form of bread and wine'' If this phrase, used only here, is to be claimed as an authority, it is evident that its authority cannot be pleaded, beyond the extent to which it is here used. This advertisement speaks exclusively of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine. It therefore gives no authority to the assertion, that Our Lord is ''present upon the Altar under the form of bread and wine ;" nor to the Ado- ration of Christ present " in the Sacrament, under " the form of bread and wine." There is an appre- ciable and very important difference between being " received under the form," and being "present upon the Altar under the form." This latter, is the external Real Presence. The former is only a Presence in reception. But this Formula cannot be legitimately claimed, as of any authority in the Church of England. It has been abandoned by her, and has ceased to be the expression of her doctrinal views. This Formula * The Oxford edition, edited by Griffiths, 1859, is the edition to which the references thi-oughout tins ai-gument have been made. Six Articles Act repealed : Burnet, 29 survives, as we have seen, only as a mere advertise- ment, at the end of the First Book of Homihes. That book was pubhshed in the month of July in 1547, a time at which, as your Lordships have stated in Liddell v. Westerton (Moore, 179), the doctrine of the Enghsh Church, as to the Real Presence, was unde- cided. At that time the Six Articles Act (31 Hen. 8, c. 14), was in force. ^^ that Act, the doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, were enforced under penalty of death, being expressed in this very Formula, " under the form of bread and wine!' (3 Stat, of the Realm, p. 739. Ed. large folio, Lond., 1817.) The existence of that law, at \)(\Q time of the publication of the First Book of Homilies, sufficiently accounts for the use of the enforced Formula. Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, informs us how entirely the existence of that Act restrained the free expression of opinion. Speaking of the Statute that repealed it, he says (vol. ii., p. 93), " This act was occasioned by a speech that Archbishop Cranmer had made in convocation, in which lie exhorted the clergy to give themselves much to the study of the scripture, and to consider seriously what things were in the Church that needed reformation, that so they might throw out all the popish trash that was not yet cast out. Upon this some intimated to him that as long as the Six Articles stood in force, it was not safe for them to deliver their opinions. This he reported to the Council, upon which they ordered this act of repeal." The Six Articles Act was on the 24th of December, 1547, repealed by Stat. 1 Edward YT, c. 12. The Second Book of Homilies was subsequently prepared by Cranmer, shortly before the death of Edward ^\./1535." And this is the very Article, which the learned Judge has quoted. These Con- ferences took place, five years after the Augsburg Confession had been, by the Protestant German princes, presented to the Emperor. They were held between certain delegates of Henry YII I., and the Lutheran Princes and Divines, for the purpose of bringing England into union with the German .Pro- testants. Articles were then drawn up, but were never of legal authority, as the learned Judge very accurately observes. It is therefore submitted, that his Lordship, has failed to show from the Augsburg Confession, or from the Jerusalem Bishopric Act, that the Formula, *' under the form of bread and '* wine," is part of the Formularies of the Church of England. In page 74 of his Judgment, the learned Judge says : " It may be well to compare this doctrine, that " the Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually pre- " sent under the form of bread and wine, with the " doctrine of Transubstantiation, as laid down by the " Council of Trent." It is difficult to deal with this statement of doctrine, because the learned Judge has not, from the commencement of his Judgment to its end, defined, what his Lordship means, by *^ Spiritual " Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ." And, further, the phrase, " Spiritual Presence," does not occur in any of the charges against Mr. Bennett. But, further, the learned Judge proposes to compare the doctrine of Spiritual Presence with the Eoman Authorities cited : BisJwp Nicholson. 41 doctrine of Transuhstantiation. But this comparison cannot be legitimately made, because, as already shown, the doctrine of Real Presence is entirely distinct from the doctrine of Transuhstantiation. The learned Judge says, if the comparison, which he proposes, between the doctrine of Spiritual Presence, and the doctrine of Transuhstantiation, be made, " the difference between the two doctrines is at '' once apparent." This of course would be the result of their being on two different subjects. But if the comparison be made in pari materia^ i.e., if Mr. Bennett's doctrine of Real Presence, be compared with the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence, the substantial agreement between the two doctrines, will be at once apparent. The Roman doctrine has already been stated — viz., that the true Body and Blood of Christ are present under " the forms of " bread and wine," after a spiritual manner. And it is difficult to distinguish this, from Mr. Bennett's doctrine of a Real Presence. And upon the subject of Transuhstantiation he is not charged. The learned Judge then proceeds, to quote instances of the use of this Formula by Protestant Divines. It may be conceded, that since the reign of Eliza- beth, Orthodox Divines may have occasionally used this phrase. But the fact of such Divines using this phrase is unimportant, unless it can be established, that they used it in the same sense, as that in which Mr. Bennett has used it. The learned Judge, at p. 74 of his Judgment, has quoted a passage from Bishop Nicholson, viz. : ' ' Christ is there under the forms of bread and wine, " not changed in substance but in use." This extract has been taken by his Lordship from p. 178 of Nicholson's work on the Catechism. (Ang. Cath. Lib.) In this place, Nicholson is not so much giving his own opinion, as endeavouring to put a favourable construction, or, as he terms it, a '^candid interpre- tation," upon the expressions used by various Divines in the Sacramental Controversy. Attempts of this 42 Authorities cited: Sherlock, kind often lead to the use of unguarded expressions. But in the next page, Bishop Nicholson's own views are expressly stated, where he maintains a presence of efficacy. At p. 179 of his Exposition of the Catechism, he says : " The word really is diversely taken ; for sometimes (1) it is opposed to that which is feigned, and is but imaginary, and imports as much as truly ; (2) it is opposed to that which is merely figurative, and barely representative, and imports as much as effectually ; (3) it is opposed to that which is spiritual, and imports as much as corpondly or bodily. " We then believe Christ to be present in the Eucharist divinely after a special manner, spiritually in the hearts of the communicants, sacramental ly or relatively in the ele- ments. And this presence of His is real, in the two former acceptations of real, but not in the last, for He is truly and effectually there present, though not corporally, bodily, car- nally, locally." It is therefore clear, that Bishop Nicholson did not use the phrase, " under the form of bread and wine," to express that actual Presence in the elements of the true Body of Christ, that Body in which he suffered ; which is Mr. Bennett's doctrine. At p. 75 of the Judgment, the learned Judge has referred to Sherlock's " Practical Christian." In the extract given by his Lordship, Sherlock uses the expression, '' He discerns not this Body of our Lord ;" evidently pointing to some particular sense, in which the Body of our Lord is spoken of And, accordingly, we find, that the extract given by the learned Judge is immediately preceded by a definition, in which Sherlock states the sense, in which he uses the phrase, " this Body of our Lord." At pp. 120, 121, of this work (Oxford, 1849), Sherlock says, " To understand ** this fully and clearly, we must use the light of a ** distinction. For there is a threefold Body of Christ " abstracted from that of his personal subsistence ** as Man of a reasonable Soul and human flesh sub- " si sting : (1) Mystical-^ (2) Doctrinal'^ (3) Sacra- " mentair (1.) " The mystical Body of Christ is his Church." Authorities cited : Sutton. 43 (2.) " The doctrinal Body of Christ is the doctrine " of Christianity or the body of faith." (3.) " The sacramental Body of Christ is the " consecrated elements of bread and wine in the " Sacrament. This is expressly affirmed by our * * Lord saying, ' This is my Body ;' ' This is my " Blood.' Who then dares say, as the Fathers '' frequently observe, this is not his Body, but a " figure of his Body only ?" Then follows the passage, which has been extracted by the learned Judge, and beginning, " He discerns not this Body of our Lord." It is evident, that Sherlock is careful to distinguish this Sacramental Body of our Lord, which he says is veiled under the species of bread and wine, from the true actual Body of our Lord, that Body in which he suffered — the Body of our human nature " in human flesh sub- " sisting," as Sherlock expresses it. Sherlock's doc- trine is therefore expressly contrary to that of Mr. Bennett, who maintains, that " under the form of bread and wine," is the true Body of our Lord, that Body in which he suffered, which he expresses by the words " in human flesh subsisting :" the very Body, the Presence of which Sherlock denies. Dr. Sutton, at p. 75 of the Judgment, has been quoted by the learned Judge, as using the expres- sion, "the Son of God hath conveyed unto us His " Body and Blood after a divine and spiritual manner " under the form of bread and wine." Sutton does not say, as Mr. Bennett does, that the Body and Blood of Christ are present upon the Altar, under the form of bread and wine. All that Sutton main- tains is, a Presence in Reception, a communicating of the Body and Blood of Christ "to us." The sense in which Sutton understands the Presence, appears from a passage in this same treatise, where he teaches, that the words of our Lord, " This is my Body," " This is my Blood," are to be understood in a figurative sense. At the end of the treatise, he gives " an Admonition to the Godly reader concerning 44 Figurative sense 0/'' Under the fo7^m^' &c. " the Controversy about the Holy Eucharist," where he says (p. 277), " And here first let the devout " Christian call to mind that he that said of the wine " 'this is my Blood,' and of the hread 'this is my " Body/ said also of St. John the Baptist, ' this is that " Elias,' and of himself, ' I am the door, the trueYine,' " &c. These, he adds, '^ are usual jjhi^ases in Holy Writy This figurative sense explains the figurative use of the expression, " under the form of bread and wine," and makes the use of that phrase different, fiom that in which Mr. Bennett uses it. Bishop Jewel in his argument with Harding (pp. 617, 618, 619, 796, 797), has proved, that the like phrase, " covered with the form of bread,'' as used by ancient writers, is to be understood figuratively, as meaning " privily " signified," for, he says, " Christ's Body is not there " really and indeed." But the doctrine of Jewel is directly opposed to that of Mr. Bennett, who main- tains the real and actual Presence of our Lord, under the form of bread and wine, upon the Altars of our Churches. This passage from Bishop Jewel's writings is important, because that Prelate had a great share in the compilation of the Second Book of Homilies, of which he is generally supposed to have been the editor. If this advertisement was not left in merely j??er incuriam, it is quite clear, that Jewel dealt with this Formula in a merely figurative sense. It is therefore submitted, that not a single Pro- testant Divine of the English Church has been cited, who has used the Formula, " under the form of bread and wine," to express the real and actual Presence of our Lord, upon the Altars of our Churches, which Mr. Bennett teaches under that phrase. And, further, even assuming, that the advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies was now in force, it would not justify Mr. Bennett's doctrine, because that advertisement does not assert, as Mr. Bennett does, a real and actual Presence of our Lord " under the form of bread and wine," upon the Altars of our Churches, but only applies to Reception. Examination of the Formtilaries. 45 Historical Eocainination of the Formularies. To substantiate the Articles of Charge against Mr. Bennett, it now becomes necessary, to ascertain the doctrine of the Church of England, in reference to the questions in issue, and for this purpose, it is pro- posed to trace, as briefly as possible, the steps by which her doctrine was fixed, from the beginning of the reformation of her Communion Office in the reign of Edward YI., to its final settlement in 1662. The Judgment of the learned Judge, is prefaced by a like historical notice of the Formularies (pp. 8-13). The Reign of Edward VI. The reformation of the Office of the Holy Com- munion did not commence, until after the accession of Edward YI., because, as already stated, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was in full force under the Six Articles Act. The learned Judge, in the seventh and following pages of his Judgment, deals with the Formularies of the reign of Henry YIII., and likewise with " the " Doctrine of the Primitive Catholic Undivided " Church." Mr. Bennett is charged with maintaining doctrine, contrary to the Acts of Uniformity and the Thirty- nine Articles. I therefore presume your Lordships will hardly wish me to deal with the following docu- ments, referred to by the learned Judge — viz. : (1) the Ten English Articles issued in the reign of Henry YIII. ; or (2) the Institution of a Christian Man; or (3) the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man ; or (4) the Thirteen Articles compiled in 1538 ; or with (5) the Doctrine of the Primitive Catholic Undivided Church. If I thus pass by the teaching of the Primitive Church, " it is not," adopting the language of the Bishop of Durham in his Charge of October, 1870, " because I deem the testimony of antiquity of little value, or as favourable to the unscriptural teaching of the objective E 46 Dochine of Primitive Catholic Undivided Church, school ; but because the formularies of our Church are the embodiment of the faith of primitive Christianity, and are the authoritative documents to which all loyal members of the Church of England, and above all the clergy, should yield a full and hearty consent." While I thus refrain from discussing the writings of the Fathers, respecting the doctrine of the u Primitive Catholic Undivided Church," I cordially accept that comprehensive summary of their doctrine, which the learned Judge has given in page 13 of his Judgment — viz., " The whole undivided Church '* believed in the great mystery of a Presence of our " Lord in the Eucharist." That is a Presence of our Lord in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper. That this is the true construction of the learned Judge's language, is apparent from the authority, which he cites in sujoport of this statement —viz., the Bishop of Ely on the Articles (pp. 679, 680). At page 679 the Bishop says : " Thus much we " must premise as unquestionable, the whole Primi- " tive Church evidently believed in a Presence of " Christ in the Eucharist. All spoke of feeding there " on Christ ; eating His Body and drinking His " Blood." The Bishop of Ely by using the word there^ makes it evident, that he uses the word " Eucharist " in its proper sense, as the Ordinance, not the Elements. The Bishop goes on to ask : " But " then was it a Spiritual Presence or a Carnal Pre- " sence ?" and his answer to this question is summed up on p. 680 — the page to which the learned Judge refers — where the Bishop says : " We do not believe that we naturally and carnally eat that which is now no longer carnal and natural ; but that we spiritually receive Christ's spiritual body into our souls, and spiritually drink His life-giving blood with the lips of our spirit. Moreover, it has been abundantly acknowledged, not only by our Englisli divines, but by Protestants of all sorts, that the elements, after consecration, may be called by the name of those things which they represent. But then we call them so, not because we believe them to have lost their original nature, and to have ceased to be what they were, First Prayer Book of Edward VI. 47 but because, being hallowed to a new and higher purpose, they may be called that, which they are the means of com- municating." The first work, pertaining either to the Public Worship or to the teaching of the Church of England, which was put forth in the reign of Edward YI., was the First Book of Homilies. That Book touched no Romish errors, except the Papal Supremacy and Claim to Universal Obedience, Image Worship, Beads, Eelics, Monastic Vows, with a slight allusion to Purgatory and Masses Satisfactory. It appears from Card well's Two Liturgies (p. 427), that in March, 1548, the Council issued a form of service, called " the Order of the Communion," to be added to the Office of the Missal, which was still in use, and not yet reformed. The object of this Order of the Communion, was to change the character of the old service, from a private Mass of the Priest to be a Communion of the People. This Order of the Communion was not to be found in the old Mass Books ; but it embodied the progressive views of the Church authorities of that day, upon the subject of the Eucharist. This Office was incorporated in the First Prayer Book, and will be fully discussed, when dealing with that Book. The First Prayer Book of Edwai^d VL In 1548, a Royal Commission was issued to Cranmer and others, " to draw an Order of Divine Worship," with instructions not to innovate, but to remove innovations. Whatever was sanctioned by Scripture and by primitive usage was to be retained, and nothing was to be rejected, but that which savoured of Super- stition, or tended to encourage erroneous notions, either of doctrine or of religious worship. The labours of these Commissioners, were embodied in the First Prayer Book of Edward YL, which became the law of the land by the First Act of Uniformity (2 & 3 Edward YI.c. 1). E 2 48 What was superstitious and unsafe^ alone omitted It will not in the course of this argument be requisite, to discuss any part of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., beyond the Office of the Holy Communion. That Office was compiled from two sources: (1) by the modification of the Popish Missal; and (2) by the incorporation of the Com- munion Form of 1548. (1.) Respecting the first source, the First Book of Edward YI. made as little change as possible, on the principle stated in the Book itself, that " innovations '' and new fangleness " . . " as much as may be with " the true setting forth of Christ's Religion, is " always to be eschewed." (Liturgies, Edward YI., This principle is asserted by Dr. Donne, in a passage much relied upon by the learned Judge, in p. 7 of his Judgment, where his Lordship says : " It was, perhaps, never more clearly stated than in the quaint but vigorous language of the very learned Donne, when, preaching on the observance of Trinity Sunday, he said, * which day our Church, according to that peaceful * wisdom, wherewithal the God of peace, of unity, and con- * cord had inspired her, did in the Keformation retain and * continue, out of her general religious tenderness, and holy * loathness to innovate anything in those matters which might * be safely, and without superstition, continued and enter- * tained. For our Church, in the Reformation, proposed not ' that for her end, how she might go from Rome, but how * she might come to the truth ; nor to cast away all such * things as Rome had depraved, but to purge away those de- * pravations, and conserve tlie things themselves so restored * to their first good use.' " This principle which the Judge relies upon, that " the Reformers retained, whatever could be retained " safely and without superstition^' justifies the con- clusion, that whatever they omitted^ was unsafe and superstitious. The Sarum Missal was, in 1549, the chief Service Book of the unreformed Church of England ; and that Missal was made the basis of the reformed Communion Office. The frame-work of the old Com- Omissions from the Sarum Missal, 49 munion Office was retained ; little or notliing was transposed, but the passages containing error were omitted. These omissions were as follows : (1) all passages which inculcated Saint Worship ; (2) all passages that contained the Sacrifice of the Mass ; (3) all pas- sages which related to Elevation and Sacramental Adoration ; and (4) all passages that referred to the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, without, or external to, the Communicant. Of these omissions, some will have to be discussed hereafter. At present it will only be needful to discuss those passages in the Sarum Missal, which refer to such external Real Presence^ and which were omitted in the reformed Communion Office. I propose to quote, very briefly, from Walker's Sarum Missal, pages 75 to 78 both inclusive, showing the character of the omissions from the Eoman Office, which were made in compiling the First Book of Common Prayer, on account of their containing the doctrine of the External Real Presence. (1.) The Prayer on uniting the consecrated bread and wine, '' May this Holy admixture of the Body " and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be to me and " to all partakers thereof, health of mind and body, " and a salutary preparation to the obtaining of " eternal life" was omitted (p. 75). (2.) Also, the Prayer after Consecration in which the Priest prayed, " Grrant that I may so v^orthily " receive this most Sacred Body and Blood of Thy " Son Jesus Christ our Lord^ that by It, I may obtain ** remission of all my sins '* (p. 75). (3.) Also, the words addressed to God the Father: " Who didst will that Thy only-begotten Son should " descend for us to this lower world, and take our flesh, " which I unworthy here hold in my hands "(p. 76). (4.) Also, the Prayer to Christ : " Lord Jesus " Christ, deliver me, I pray Thee, by this Thy most '' Holy Body and Blood from all mine iniquities, and " from every evil " (p. 77). 50 TransMbstantiation not contained in the MissaL (5.) Also, the Address to the consecrated bread before reception : Rubric — " This he says to the " Body, bowing down, before reception : ' Hail " ' through all eternity, most Holy Flesh of Christ ' " (p. 77). (6.) And also the Address to the consecrated wine before reception : Rubric — " Then he says to the Blood *' with great devotion : * Hail through all eternity, " ' Heavenly Beverage ' " (p. 78). Besides these omissions, two alterations must be noticed, which were made in the reformed Com- munion Office. The Sarum Missal had a Rubric, preceding the act of reception by the Priest, in these words : '' Here he receives the Body ;" again, " Here he communicates himself in the Blood " (p. 78). The reformed Communion Office, of 1549, omitted these Rubrics, and inserted the following — as appears in the Liturgies of Edward YI. (p. 92) :—" Then shall " the Priest first receive the communion in both kinds " himself . . . And when he delivereth the Sacra- " ment of the Body of Christ, he shall say," &c. And again — " And the Minister delivering the Sacrament of the Blood, shall say," &c. Thus, in lieu of the words of the Missal : " The Body," and " the Blood," which had asserted the external real Presence in the elements themselves in the hand of the Priest, the Reformers substituted the phrases, ^' The Sacrament " of the Body," and " The Sacrament of the Blood," which contained no such doctrine ; but on the con- trary, taught, as the 29 th Article of Religion now teaches, that the consecrated elements, are " the Sacra" " ment or Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ^ These were the only passages in the Sarum Missal, asserting the External Real Presence ; and every one of them was omitted or altered, in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. It may be here remarked, that the reformed Com- munion Office did not throw out the doctrine of Transubstantiation, because that doctrine found no place or expression in the Sarum Missal itself. Al- Material Presence not co7itained in the Missal. 51 though the Missal embodied the doctrine of the Corporal Presence^ viz., that on consecration by a Priest, there occurs a real and actual Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements on the altar ; it did not contain the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation, because that doctrine was a figment of a later invention, than the time when the Roman Liturgy was fixed. The reason is obvious, the canon of the mass dates from a comparatively early period of the Christian era, and, for many centuries, has been maintained unchangeable ; whereas the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not decreed, until the Council of Later an in 1215. It may also be here remarked, that these omitted and altered passages, from the Sarum Missal, did not contain any material or carnal statement of the Pre- sence. The Presence, which those passages asserted, was none other than Invisible, Spiritual, and Divine. But it was enough, that they asserted an external Real Presence in the elements on the altar ; and upon that account, they were rejected. This is the very doctrine for which Mr. Bennett has been charged. It now becomes necessary to consider the mode, in which the Reformers, when settling the First Prayer Book, dealt with the Consecration Prayer in the Communion Office of the Sarum Missal. The words of the prayer, as they appear in Walker (p. 65), were as follows : " Which oblation do Thou, Al- " mighty God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, " approve, ratify, and accept, that it may be to us " the Body and Blood of Thy most well-beloved Son " our Lord Jesus Christ." This very ancient prayer contained a doctrine, much earlier than the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and even earlier than the doctrine of external Real Presence. It did not teach, an absolute external change of the elements into the true Body and Blood of Christ, nor the presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements on consecration, 52 Consecration Prayer Modified, external to, and independent of reception by, the communicants ; but it taught a relative change of the elements in relation to the communicants. This was expressed by the words *' to us," the prayer being, " that it may be to us, the Body and Blood of Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ." This view is supported by Bishop Patrick in his Christian Sacrifice (ipip. 55, 56, London, 1720). After quoting the words of the Prayer of Consecration in the ancient Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. James, the Bishop says : " The meaning of which words " (make this bread the Body of Thy Christ, etc.) are " so well expounded in the service of the Roman " Church by the addition only of these two words " (to us) as if their forefathers had studied to pre- " vent that gross conceit which now they have enter- " tained." The Bishop here inserts a note : . " Our " writers have shown often enough, that the fancy of " Transubstantiation is not countenanced by the " Service of that Church which teaches it." The Bishop then proceeds in the text : ^' For the "■ prayer there, concerning the bread and wine, is, ** that ' they may become to us the Body and Blood " * of Thy well-beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.* " God doth not make them so in themselves by chang- " ing their substance ; but u7ito us — by their change *' from the common to this spiritual use." It appears, from the Liturgies of Edward YI. (p. 88), that the Reformers adopted this Prayer of Consecra- tion, with the following modification. They omitted the words, " Which oblation do Thou, Almighty God, " vouchsafe in all respect to bless, approve, ratify, *' and accept," and inserted, in their place, the follow- ing words : " Hear us, Merciful Father, we beseech " Thee, and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouch- *^ safe to bless and sanctify these Thy gifts and " creatures of bread and wine." Then follow the words common to both Prayers : — " That they may *' be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly " beloved Son Jesus Christ." In which words there Communio7i Form 0/1^4.8 ; Hofy Mysteries. 53 is taught no presence in the elements externally on the altar ; but at the utmost a Presence in the elements, of the Body and Blood of Christ, on vecep- tion. (2.) I will now proceed to discuss the second source, from which the First Prayer Book of Edward YI. was compiled, viz., by the incorporation of the Com- munion Form of 1548. The passages added by the compilers to the Communion Office, from that earlier Communion Form of 1548, are not to be found in the Missal. That Form was composed for temporary use, while the older mass service was still in use. It is of importance, as indicating the doctrinal views of the Reformers, on the subject of the Holy Com- munion, at the time of the compilation of the First Prayer Book, viz., that there was no Presence in the elements, except in connexion with reception. In this document, an expression occurs three times, which embodies the doctrines of the Reformers, re- specting the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. That expression is, " in these Holy Mysteries.'' These words, " Holy Mysteries," are susceptible of two constructions : they are used to express, sometimes the Consecrated Elements in the Lord's Supper, and sometimes the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, or other sacred rites and ceremonies. In the Communion Office of 1548, the words " Holv " Mysteries " appear to be used to signify the conse- crated elements. The first of these three passages occurs in the Liturgies of Edward YL, at p. 80 : " Christ has left " in those Holy Mysteries . . . His own blessed " Body and precious Blood for us to feed upon '^ spiritually." The second, at p. 92 : " Grant us, therefore, so " to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ and " to drink His Blood in these Holy Mysteries." And the third, at p. 94 : " We most heartily thank " Thee, for that Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in " these Holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the 54 Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, " most precious Body and Blood of thy Son, our " Saviour Jesus Christ/' In all these passages, while the Presence is spoken of as in the elements, it is solely and exclusively in connexion with Reception^ that it is so mentioned. There is no external Corporal Presence on the altar ; and the Body of our Lord is only spoken of, as Spiritual Food. From these omissions and insertions it will be per- ceived, that the doctrine of the First Prayer Book, relating to the Real Presence, was essentially different from that contained in the Sarum Missal. The Missal liad taught an external Real Presence of the true natural Body and Blood of Christ in the elements and on the altar, independent of Reception. The First Prayer Book taught no Presence, except in con- nexion with Reception. The Second Prayer Boole of Edward VI. It will now be requisite to direct attention to the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., in order to show the progressive steps of the Reformation, in regard to the doctrine of the Holy Communion. Your Lordships, in Westerton v, Liddell (Moore, p. 179), said : " At the date of the First Prayer Book of Edward YI. the doctrine of the English Church as to the Eeal Presence and the nature of the Holy Communion was undecided : the book, therefore, enjoined no change in the form of the altar, but spoke of the rite itself as the Lord's Supper, commonly called the High Mass, and of the structure indifferently by the names of the * AUar' and the * Lord's Table.' It contains a prayer for the consecration of the sacred elements, in which tlie sign of the cross is to be used. The bread is to be un- leavened, and round as it was aforetime. The corporas, the paten, the chalice, the vestments, are all articles directed to be used in the Eoman Catholic Kitual, and spoken of by those names in the Missal. " But by the time when the Second Prayer Book was in- troduced a great change had taken place in the opinion of the English Church, and the consequence was, that on the Influence of Cranmer and Ridley. 55 revision of the service these several matters were completely altered." The carrying out of this great change which, your Lordships state, had in 1552 taken place in the opinion of the English Church, since the enactment of the First Prayer Book, was confided principally to Cranmer and Kidley. The learned Judge in the Court below, in pp. 10 and 11 of his Judgment, speaks of the great influence of Cranmer and Ridley, in the compilation of the Second Prayer Book and of the Articles of 1552. This statement cannot be legi- timately disputed. But the learned Judge, throughout his Judgment, is very desirous to establish, that in the compilation of the Formularies of the Church, the tendencies of Cranmer were strictly Lutheran. The conviction, which the learned Judge entertains, that the opinions of Cranmer continued to be Lutheran down to the conclusion of his life, has exercised such a powerful influence over his Lordship's construction of the Formularies, that it is of the utmost importance to ascertain, whether this conviction can be justified by the authorities relied upon by the learned Judge. In the historical notice of the Formularies given by the learned Dean of the Arches, his Lordship speaks, at p. 8, of the adhesion of Cranmer and Ridley to " the new learning ;" which phrase, the learned Judge applies to the Lutheran doctrine of ^' the Con- '' fession of Augsburg." At p. 11 of his Judgment, the learned Dean states : " The subject of the Holy Eucharist presented the greatest difficulty to the compilers of our Formularies. Whether regard was had to the expediency of uniting Reformed Churches abroad or members of the Church at home, Cran- mer's opinion on this subject inclined to that of Luther, but his erudition was chiefly, if not entirely, derived from Ridley." At p. 10,- his Lordship says : " In the meanwhile, however, it appears that with a view to effect an agreement between the Augsburg Reformers and the Church of England, thirteen Articles were compiled in 56 Error of Jitdge m regard to Cranmers opiniori. 1538 under the influence of Cranmer. They never obtained any legal status, but it seems certain that they had great influence on the present Articles, if indeed they were not their groundwork." At p. 11, his Lordship also says : " In 1548 Cranmer put forth on his own authority a Cate- chism translated from the original of Justus Jonas. It was of a decidedly Lutheran character. In 1552 the Second Prayer Book was published. In the same year appeared the forty-two Articles of Keligion ; and Cranmer, in this com- pilation, made great use of the Augsburg Confession." And at p. 130, his Lordship further says : " I have noticed the historical fact that Cranmer 's ten- dencies became strongly Lutheran before he died, and that the Council of Augsburg very materially influenced the language of our Articles." For these last two statements, the learned Jud^e has, in foot notes, referred to Archbishop Laurence, in his Bampton Lectures, as his authority. Archbishop Laurence, at p. 17 of his Bampton Lectures, speaking of Cranmer's opinions before the First Prayer Book, says : — " The opinions, therefore, of the Primate were ^' at this time perfectly Lutheran ; and although he '' afterwards changed them in one single point, in " other respects they remained unaltered." The learned Judge has not stated, what this one single point was, on which Cranmer ceased to be Lutheran. The explanation of this exception, his Lordship might have found, at the subsequent pages 45 and 240 of these very Bampton Lectures. At p. 45 the Archbishop, speaking of the Articles of Eeligion of 1562, says, "Of the tendency, however, of these we " cannot doubt, when we learn that, with the exception " of one obvious topic alone, they were not original ; "but," his Grace adds, ''were borrowed from a Lutheran Creed." At p. 240, the Archbishop adds a note upon this passage at p. 45 : " The Articles, " either partly or wholly copied from the Wurtemburg '' Confessions " . . . " contain the principal additions Catechism of Justus Jonas. 57 " Mild elucidations upon doctrinal points (that of the "- Eucharist alone excepted) adopted at that period." Thus it appears, according to Archbishop Laurence, that " the one obvious topic " alone excepted from Lutheran influence, '' the one single point " on which Cranmer ceased to hold Lutheran views, was the doc- trine of the Eucharist. Thus Archbishop Laurence, whom the learned Judge relies upon, to prove the Lutheran tendencies of Cranmer to his death, proves, on the contrary, that on the subject now in question, viz., the doctrine of the Eucharist^ Cranmer changed his opinion, and ceased to hold Lutheran doctrine. In p. 11 of his Judgment, the learned Judge espe- cially relies upon the Catechism put forth by Cranmer in 1548, as "of a decidedly Lutheran character." This Catechism was translated from the Latin Lutheran Catechism of Justus Jonas, which however was not^ as the learned Judge states, the original, but was itself a translation from the Grerman, of which original Dr. Burton states in the preface to Cranmer's Catechism (p. 8, Oxford, 1829) : " No copy has as yet " been discovered." I may however observe, that since 1829, the late Dr. Todd found a copy of the original German Catechism, and deposited it in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. An account of this book will be found in Stephens' edition of the Book of Common Prayer, vol. i., pref. xl. This Catechism was, as the learned Judge states, " of a decidedly Lutheran chaiacter." But his Lord- ship has failed to observe, that in every passage, which contained the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence in the elements on consecration, Cranmer has changed the language, so as to express only the presence upon reception. This alteration by Cranmer occurs in many places ; but for the purposes of this argument, one passage only need be referred to. In Burton's Cranmer's Catechism, at pp. 176, 177, at end, the words of Justus Jonas, when treating on the Lord's Supper, are : 58 Cranmers Corrections of Jonas Catechism, " Deinde de pane dicit, hoc est corpus meum, et de calice, hie est sanguis mens. Ideo credere debemus quod vere corpus et sanguis ejus sit." At pp. 207, 208, of Burton's Cranmer s Catechism it will be found, that Cranmer altered these last words as follows : " Wherefore we ought to believe that in the Sacrament we receive truly the Body and Blood of Christ." Here the Latin word *' sit " is represented by the words " we receive," thus changing the external Pre- sence to a presence in receiving. At p. 177 of Cranmer's Catechism, Justus Jonas goes on to say : " Ergo quando accipit panem, et dicit hoc est corpus meum, turn mox ibi est corpus Domini ; et quando calicem accipit, et dicit, hie est sanguis mens, tunc mox adest sanguis ejus. Hoc credendum est nobis, si modo volumus esse Christiani." This passage Cranmer, in his Catechism, at p. 208, altered thus : "Wherefore when Christ taketh bread and saith *Take * eat, this is my Body,' we ought not to doubt but we eat his very Body ; and when he taketh the cup and saith * Take * drink, this is my Blood,' we ought to think assuredly that we drink his very Blood, and this we must believe, if we will be counted Christian men." Here the Latin words " mox ibi est " are represented by the English words " we eat," and the words '*mox adest" by the words " we drink," thus again changing the external Presence to a presence in receiving. It appears therefore, that upon this point, which Cranmer considered vital to the Christian faith, he deliberately rejected the Lutheran doctrine of ex- ternal Real Presence following immediately on con- secration, and substituted the doctrine of an internal Presence on faithful reception. And this was in 1548, the very time, at which he was also rejecting from the Eoman Missal, the Reman doctrine of ex- ternal Real Presence following upon consecration. ] Stages in Cranmers advance to truth. 59 It will therefore be perceived, that " the decidedly Lutheran character" of Justus Jonas' Catechism, of which the learned Judge speaks, was by Oranmer, in his translation and correction of that work, entirely changed^ as regards the subject of the Lord's Supper, by the omission of the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence. This agrees with Cranmer's own state- ment upon the subject. In his answer to Smith's Preface, at p. 374 of his " Treatise on the Lord's Supper," Cranmer says : "Dr. Smith understood not my book of the catechism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me that I, in that hook, did set forth the Keal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacra- ment. Unto which false report I have answered in my 4th book, the 8th chapter ; but this I confess of myself that not long before I wrote the said catechism I was in that error of the Keal Presence, as I was many years past in divers other errors, as of tran substantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome, being brought up from youth in them." The opinion of the learned Judge, that Cranmer maintained his Lutheran opinions to the end of his life, makes it important, to mention the dates of the gradual changes of Cranmer's opinion on the doctrine of the Eucharist ; and such a statement, at this stage of the argument, will likewise dispense with the necessity of following the learned Judge, on this point, through the entire of his Judgment. Down to 1536, Cranmer held the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements. From 1536 to 1547, Cranmer, giving up Transub- stantiation, still held the Real Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements — which is the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation. From 1547 to 1549, Cranmer giving up, what he calls above " that error of the Real Presence," held a Presence in the elements only on reception. This is the doctrine implied in the words at the end of 60 Changes of Ridley s doctrinal opinions. the First Book of Homilies '' receiving under the " form of bread and wine," (1547), and is the doc- trine of the First Prayer Book (1549). From 1549 to the time of his martyrdom in 1556, Cranmer held no Presence in the elements, and no Corporal Presence, but a Spiritual Presence to the soul of the faithful receiver in tlie Sacrament or Ordinance at large. These last doctrinal views will be found incor- porated in the Second Prayer Book of Edward YI., and in the Forty- two Articles of 1552. The learned Judge has stated, that Cranmer and Eidley were the chief " compilers of this Prayer Book and these " Articles." Notwithstanding which, his Lordship appears to consider, that Cranmer was strongly Lutheran until his death, as appears from his state- ment, that Cranmer 's tendencies became strongly Lutheran before he died. Respecting Ridley, to whom the learned Judge refers, it may be shortly remarked, that at no period of his life does he appear to have held Lutheran doctrines. Down to 1545 he was, as Dr. Hook states (8 Biog. Diet., p. 219), a believer in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In 1545 he adopted the views of Ratramn. About 1549 the views of Ridley un- derwent a further change : and it appears from Ridley's Works (p. 240), that at his examination at Oxford before his martyrdom, he, like Cranmer, had adopted the doctrine, that no Presence of the Body of Christ is given to the elements, but only to the worthy receivers, and that " Grace is not transfused " into the bread and wine " (p. 241). Before proceeding to examine the character of the important alterations made in the Second Prayer Book, it will be desirable to direct attention to one or two facts, which will tend to throw light upon the nature of the alterations then made. It is stated in the Journal of King Edward YI., given in the fifth volume of Burnet's History of the Reformation (page 7) that : " In the debate in Traherons letter to Bullinger. 61 " Parliament in 1548, on the then proposed Act of " Uniformity, ' a notalDle disputation ' respecting the '* Sacrament took place." Of that disputation we find an account in the first volume of Original Letters (Parker Society, p. 322), where Bartholomew Traheron, then a Member of the House of Commons, writes on the 31st December, 1548, to Bullinger, at Zurich, to tell him of a great and sudden change in the opinions of Cranmer and Ridley. He says : " I cannot refrain, my excellent Bullinger, from acquaint- ing you with circumstances that have lately given us the greatest pleasure, that you and your fellow ministers may participate in our enjoyment. On the 14th of December, if 1 mistake not, a disputation was held at London concerning the Eucharist, in the presence of almost all the nobility of England. The argument was sharply contested by the bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury, contrary to general expectation, most openly, firmly, and learnedly maintained your opinion upon this subject. His arguments were as follows: The Body of Christ was taken up from us into heaven ; Christ has left the world ; ye have the poor always with you ; but Me ye have not always, &c. Next followed the Bishop of Kochester [Kidley], who handled the subject with so much eloquence, perspicuity, erudition, and power, as to stop the mouth of that most zealous Papist, the Bishop of Worcester [Heath]. The truth never obtained a more brilliant victory among us. I perceive it is all over with Lutheranism, now that those, who were considered its prin- cipal and almost only supporters, have altogether come over to our side." The doctrine here so unexpectedly maintained by Cranmer and Ridley, that '' the Body of Christ is in " heaven and not here," was the germ of the Second Prayer Book. In 1 550 Cranmer expressed his matured views in his great Treatise on the Lord's Supper -. this was answered by Bishop Gardiner, which caused the reply by Cranmer, in the enlarged edition of his Treatise in 1551. It is remarkable that the learned Judge, in his historical notice, has not made any mention of this great work of Cranmer on the Lord's Supper. F 62 Causes for the enactment of a new Prayer Book. In 1551, the year in which Cranmer's work was published, he and the other reforming bishops were engaged by Edward YI. in the preparation of the further Eeformed Prayer Book, to be enforced by the Legislature in a new Act of Uniformity. In 1552, the Second Act of Uniformity was passed with a new Prayer Book annexed and joined to it. By this Act, any person who was present at any form of service, other than that prescribed by this Second Book, was liable to imprisonment. The objects, which the Legislature had in view in the enactment of the Second Act of Uniformity, are stated in the fifth section of that Act, which will be found in the first volume of Stephens' Ecclesiastical Statutes (p. 332). " And because there hath arisen in the use and exercise of the aforesaid common service in the church heretofore set forth, divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the minis- tration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause ; therefore, as well for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof, as for the more perfection of the said order of common ser- vice, in some places, where it is necessary to make the same prayers and fashion of service more earnest and fit to stir Christian people to the true honouring of Almighty God ; the Idng's most excellent majesty, with the assent of the lords and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, hath caused the aforesaid order of common service, entitled * The Book of Common * Prayer,' to be faithfully and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect, and by the aforesaid authority, hath annexed and joined it, so explained and perfected, to this present statute." Two causes are here assigned for the enactment of a new Book of Common Prayer : (1) that the fashion and manner of the ministration of the service in the Church under the first Prayer Book had been mistaken ; and (2) that it was necessary in some places to make the prayers and fashion of service more fit for the honouring of Almighty God. Evasions of the Provisions of First Prayer Book. 63 The only portion of this Second Book to which attention need be directed is the Office of the Holy Communion. This office, when compared with the Communion office in the First Book, is perhaps the most important document, that can be referred to in order to ascertain, what were the doctrinal views of the Reformers, when, adopting the language of the Second Act of Uniformity, the Second Book was " made fully perfect." It becomes especially im- portant, when it is borne in remembrance, that the Communion office of the Second Book was sub- stantially re-enacted in the Acts of Uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II. Respecting the first cause for having a new Prayer Book, viz., that the Service^had been mistaken under the First Book, it appears that the Romish-inclined priests, still ministering in the Church, availing themselves of dubious language, contrived to intro- duce their old errors and superstitions even into the revised offices of the First Prayer Book. This will be shortly shown in regard to the doctrines of — (1) the External Real Presence ; (2) the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and (3) the Adoration of the Wafer. This appears in the Liturgies of Edward VI. (p. 87), in regard to the words, " Blessed is He that *' cometh in the name of the Lord," which had been retained from the ancient missals in the First Prayer Book before the Prayer of Consecration. In that place they were capable of being used to teach the doctrine, that on consecration Christ came with real presence into the elements on the altar. In the Second Book of Edward YI. these words were omitted, not from any error in themselves, for they are words of Scripture, but in consequence of their being thus liable to be misused. Again, the First Prayer Book, in the Prayer of Consecration (p. 89), ordered the priest to take the Bread and the Cup into his hands, but "without any '' elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people."' Then there followed a Prayer of Oblation, containing F 2 64 Manual Acts removed. a memorial Sacrifice or Commemoration. But the Romisli-inclined priests violated the injunction of this Eubric, and practised Elevation, so bringing back the action by which the Romish sacrifice of the mass had been carried out. It should be borne in mind, that "Elevation" is the act by which the sacrifice of the mass is performed ; in fact. Eleva- tion is intended to present the sacrifice to Grod the Father. That this was the practice of the priests in 1550 and 1551, is proved by the Yisitatoriallnjunctions of Ridley and Hooper in those years, which will be found in Cardwell, (Doc. Ann., vol. i., p. 93,) re- quiring that, " no minister do counterfeit the Popish " mass by elevating the Sacrament." In consequence of this evasion, the Second Prayer Book omitted this Prayer of Commemoration or Memorial Sacrifice, and further, prohibited all manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration, by which pro- hibition, all opportunity of Elevation was taken away. This satisfactorily accounts for the omission in the Second Prayer Book of the Rubric forbidding Elevation, which had occurred in the First Prayer Book, because, all manual acts being now forbidden, Elevation was impossible. Lord Justice Mellish. — Was there no direction to break the bread ? Mr. Stephens. — There was no direction. Archbishop of York. — Your argument would prove too much. Lord Chancellor. — There must, ex necessitate, here be some manual acts. Mr. Stephens. — My contention is, there were none ; and your Lordships have already ruled, that " omission is prohibition." Archbishop of York. — Then in 1 552 the minister could not take the paten or the chalice in his hands ? Mr. Stephens. No. — And, in point of fact, the clergy did not do so. If they had done it, they would Worship of Wafer practised in the " Agnus Dei'' 65 have been liable to punishment.* — \_See CardweH's Conferences, pp. 112 — 114] One other instance may be given. In the Sarum Missal, the idolatrous worship of the wafer was per- formed in the hymn called "Agnus Bei," which was ordered in the Mass to be sung after consecration, and some time before the reception by the priest (Walker, p. 74). It is an act of adoration addressed to Christ, supposed to be present in the consecrated elements upon the altar. It appears from the Liturgies of Edward YI. (p. 92), that in the First Prayer Book of Edward YI. this hymn was retained, but its place was altered. It was postponed until reception had begun — so that it could not be addressed to any supposed Presence of Christ in the elements on the altar. It appears from the Yisitation Articles of Bishops Ridley and Hooper, in 1550-51^ that the Romish-inclined priests, while using the reformed Communion Office, contrived to re-introduce the practice of Sacramental Adoration, and for this purpose put the hymn " Agnus Dei " back to its former place, before the distribution of the Communion. The Reformers, therefore, in the Second Prayer Book, to prevent this abuse of the First Book of Service, omitted the hymn "Agnus Dei." Thus, in three instances, " the manner of the *' Ministration" of the Communion Service was changed, because, by the ingenuity of the priests, the three cardinal errors of Rome — (1) the external Real Presence ; (2) the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and (3) the Adoration of the Wafer — had been re-intro- duced into the reformed Service of the First Prayer Book. Respecting the second cause assigned by the Act of Uniformity of 1552, for the enactment of a new Prayer Book, viz., "that it was necessary in some * The foregoing interpellation has been taken from the Report in the Guardian of November 29, 1871. 66 Doctrinal alter atio7is in the Second Prayer Book. '^ places to make the prayers and fashion of service '* more fit for the honouring of Almighty Grod," this was the natural consequence resulting from the more distinct views, which the Reformers had now attained, " as to the Real Presence and the nature of '^ the Holy Communion," as stated by your Lordships in Liddell v, Westerton. It is sufficient for the pur- poses of this argument to show, that the language used in some places in the First Prayer Book "might," adopting the language of the late Dean Goode, at pp. 619, 620, of the second volume of his work on the Eucharist, "' be taken to imply that the " Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ was to " be looked for in, or as annexed and bound by con- ^' secration to, the consecrated bread and wine." The doctrinal alterations made in 1552 from the Communion Office of the First Book, were chiefly the following : (1.) In that Book, as already shown {amie^ p. 53), the expression, " in those Holy Mysteries,'' had been used three times in regard to the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament. Although those words only spoke of the Presence inwardly for re- ception and for spiritual food, yet, as they might be taken to imply the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated elements, they were, in the three parallel passages of the Second Book of Edward VI., either changed, so as no longer to imply that doctrine, or altogether omitted. (2.) The Rubric in the First Book, which had declared, that the whole Body of Christ was received in each broken piece of bread, and so might be taken to imply the Presence of the Body of Christ in the element itself, was in the Second Book omitted. (3.) In the First Book the words of the Consecration Prayer had been : " 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." " Presence in the Elements " thrown out, 67 These words, as it appears from the Liturgies of Edward YI. (p. 279), were omitted in the Second Prayer Book, and the following words substituted in their place : " Grant that we, receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesu Christ's holy- institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood." It will be perceived, that these two consecration prayers are substantially and essentially different. In the consecration prayer in the |^First Book it is prayed, that the elements may become the Body and Blood of Christ. In the consecration prayer in the Second Book, a plain distinction is made between the elements and our Lord's Body and Blood. The con- clusion is inevitable, that the consecration prayer in the Second Book excludes from the elements all Presence of the Body and Blood of our blessed Lord and Saviour. This is in accordance with the Judgment of the learned Judge (p. 95,) that the Second Prayer Book of Edward YI. excluded the " real and essential Presence." By thus substituting the later form of consecration in the place of the earlier form, the Legislature affirmed of that, which is received by the hand or the mouth of the communicant, no more than that it is bread and wine, and that the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood is ordy to the faithful receivers in the act of Reception. That prayer was continued by the Acts of Uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II., and is part of the statute law of the land. It is important to observe, that the doctrinal changes thus made in the Second Book of Edward VI., were not made in that part of the office, which had been derived from the ancient missals, but in that part, which the Reformers tlieniselves had introduced as new matter^ in 1549. The First Book of Edward YI. had effectually repudiated the distinctive errors of Romanism, viz. : (1) all external Real Presence on 68 The Declaration on Kneeling of 1552. the altar ^ or in the hand of the priest ; (2) the sacri- fice of the Mass; and (3) Adoration of, or towards, the elements. The object of the Second Book was to make *' fully perfect " the partial Reformation, which had been effected by the First Prayer Book. And this result was obtained by throwing out all the passages, which contained any allusion to any Presence in the elements, or which seemed to convey that idea. This review of the principal points of the Com- munion Office in the Second Prayer Book, has established, that every trace of the doctrine of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, was deliberately eradicated from the Com- munion Office of the Church of England. The prin- ciple which induced the Reformers, thus to reject all Presence in the elements becomes evident, when we consider, as we must now do, a most important document, which was added in 1552 to the Com- munion Office. The Declaration on Kneeling 0/ 1552. The Prayer Book of 1552, enjoined the posture of kneeling at the reception of the Holy Communion. But fears arose lest this posture should be mis- understood or abused, as sanctioning sacramental adoration. Accordingly, a Declaration was added, by the authority of the Crown, to the Communion Office in the Second Book, in order to explain the meaning of the posture, and to clear it from super- stition. In the Liturgies of Edward Y I. (p. 283), this Decla- i-ation will be found. It is not, however, proposed to enter at the present moment, upon a discussion re- specting the effect of this Declaration, because it will have to be dealt with, in its somewhat modified form, in our present Prayer Book. I will now only read the concluding lines of this Declaration, which contain the important doctrinal principle to which I have A r tides ofi^^i. Elizabeth's Prayer Book. 6 9 adverted, viz. : " As concerning the natural Body and *' Blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, " and not here. For it is against the truth of *' Christ's true natural Body to be in more places than " one at one time." This was the principle enunciated by Cranmer and Ridley, in the notable disputation in Parliament, already referred to. This great doctrinal principle explains all the doctrinal alterations, that have been traced in the Second Prayer Book, for it excludes all real and essential Presence in the elements^ because the Body of Christ is in heaven, and not here. The Articles of Religion 0/ 1552. In 1552, in the Convocation of London, certain Articles of Religion were agreed upon, which were published by the king's authority in 1553. These articles were never confirmed by Parliament ; and I only allude to them in order to remark, that the 29th Article of this series, which is on the subject of the Lord's Supper, contained \\iQ like declaration respecting the Body of Christ, viz., that It is in heaven, and not here, as that found in the Declaration on Kneeling, which I have just read. Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity and Prayer Booh, No observations need be made, respecting the laws ecclesiastical during the reign of Mary, because all such laws, that had been enacted during her brother's reign, were then repealed, and everything in matters of religion, was remitted to the last year of the reign of Henry YIIL The first statute after the accession of Elizabeth, reinvested the Crown with jurisdiction in ecclesi- astical and spiritual matters, like to that, which it possessed in the reign of Edward YI. The next legislative measure was Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 2, 70 Alterations in the Communion Office, commonly called Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity. Before the enactment of that statute, the Queen appointed a Committee of Divines, who were di- rected to review the two books of Common Prayer of Edward YI. A question then arose, whether the First or Second Prayer Book of Edward YI. should be restored. It appears from Cardwell's Conferences (p. 21), that Geste, one of the Committee, received instructions from Secretary Cecil in favour of the First Service Book, The Committee reported in favour of the Second Book, and Geste wrote to Cecil assigning the reasons, why the Second Book was recommended, in preference to the First. The principal reason assigned by Geste was thus stated by him, as given in Cardwell's Conferences (p. 53): " Of the Prayer in the First Book for Consecration. " The second cause wliy the foresaid prayer is to be refused is, for that it prays that the bread and wine may be Christ's Body and Blood, which makes for the Popish Transubstanti- ation, which is a doctrine that hath caused much idolatry." It will be perceived, that the objection taken by Geste to the consecration prayer of the First Book, was like that, which led the Peformers to reject it in the Second Book, viz., that it was at least liable to be taken in an erroneous sense. The Second Prayer Book was ultimately restored, with certain alterations, by Elizabeth's Act of Uni- formity. Among these alterations, there are only two, which are important upon the present occasion : the first, relating to the words used in adminis- tering the Holy Communion to the Communicants ; and the second, relating to the Declaration on Kneel- ing at the end of the Communion office. (1.) The alteration in the words of Administration, combines the two distinct forms used in the first and second books of Edward YI. It will beseeninKeehng(Liturg.Britan.p. 217) that the First Book had these words at the Administration Whitgifis comment on words of Administration. 71 of the bread : " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, " which was given for thee, preserve thy body and " soul unto everlasting life." And that the Second Book {Ihid., p. 219), had these words: " Take and " eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, " and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanks- " giving." In Queen Elizabeth's book these two forms were combined. And at the Administration of the Cup, the like combination of the two forms was made. These alterations did not, in the slightest degree, change the doctrine of the Holy Communion, con- tained in the Second Prayer Book. The language of this amendment did not embody any statement of doctrine ; it was simply a prayer for beneficial re- ception by the worthy Communicants, and contained no assertion of any presence of the Body of Christ in the elements ; but only served to bring out more prominently the benefits of the Sacrament to faithful Communicants. This construction is fortified by Whitgift, who was Archbishop of Canterbury, from 1583 to 1604. It appears from Whitgift's Works (vol. iii._, p. 98), that in his Answer, written in 1572, to the book of the Puritans, called " The Admonition," he notices their objection, which was in these words : **They [the early Christians] used no other words but such as Christ left. We borrow from Papists * the Body of * our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee.' " Whitgift replies : " From wheresoever these words were borrowed, they were well borrowed ; for it is a godly prayer, and an apt applica- tion of that Sacrament, and putteth the Communicants in mind of the effect of Christ's passion exhibited unto them by that Sacrament, and sealed with the same, if it be worthily received." It is worthy of remark, that this work, the Answer to the Admonition, was suggested to Whitgift by Archbishop Parker, who gave him considerable 72 Omissio7i of the Declaration on Kneeling. assistance during its progress. Dean Hook, in his Life of Whitgift, in the eighth volume of his Biographical Dictionary (p. 745), says : "AYhitgift was ncm [August, 1572], by particular appoint- ment from the Archbishop of Canterbury, writing his Answer to the Admonition. . . . Before the expiration of the year came out his Answ^er to the Admonition. As Archbishop Parker was the chief person that set Whitgift about this work, so he gave him considerable assistance therein ; and the several parts of the copy, as it was finished, were sent to him to revise ; and Cooper, Bishop of Lincoln, another of the most learned bishops of that time, together with other bishops and learned men, were consulted." The learned Judge, in page 93 of his Judgment, speaks of this alteration in the Communion Ser- vice of the Second Prayer Book in the reign of Elizabeth, as " certainly not unfavourable to those " who maintained a real, or, as it is not uncom- " monly designated, an objective Presence in the '- Eucharist." It is to be regretted, that the learned Judge has used, v^ithout definition, the ambiguous phrase " in the " Eucharist." The word " Eucharist," in its common acceptation, is, as I have already stated, the Ordi- nance of the Lord's Supper ; but the learned Judge seems to use it in the Eoman sense of the Eucha- ristic elements, and his Lordship claims to put upon the alterations made in Elizabeth's Prayer Book, a construction favourable to " the real objective Pre- " sence in the elements." But the words introduced possess no such force ; they make no statement of real Presence, but are, as Archbishop Whitgift states, a Prayer for benefit from the Body and Blood of Christ on faithful reception, when worthily received. (2.) The second alteration in Elizabeth's book, had reference to the omission of the Declaration on Kneel- ing, which had been added at the end of the Com- munion Office in the Second Book of Edward VI. This Declaration had been added without the au- The Thirty -nine Articles. Article 28. 73 tbority of Parliament, and only, as has been stated, derived its authority from an order of the King in Council. Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity restored the Second Prayer Book of Edward YI., as enacted by Parliament, and, consequently, the Declaration was not revived. The learned Judge says at p. 94 of his Judgment : " Queen Elizabeth omitted this Declaration altogether " from her Prayer Book. There can be no doubt " that she did so, because it was an obstacle to the " communion of the Lutheran and Eoman Catholics " in our Church, as well as because, rightly or " wrongly, she interpreted it as adverse to the " doctrine of the Presence." It will not be requisite to trespass upon your Lord- . ships' time by discussing the reasons here suggested, for two reasons : (1) the learned Judge does not state, what doctrine of the Presence was opposed by the Declaration ; and (2) the omission to restore this Declaration is unimportant, since it was sub- stantially restored by the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. The Thirty -nine Articles of Religion : Article 28. In 1562, the Convocations of both provinces were convened, when a draft of Articles of Eeligion was presented by Archbishop Parker. The ultimate result of the proceedings of Convocation on this subject, was the enactment by Parliament of Stat. 13 Eliz., c. 12, which required subscription to, and public reading of, the Articles of Religion. Of the Thirty-nine Articles thus enacted, the only Article which it will now be requisite to deal with is the 28th. That Article was founded upon the 29 th Article of the Articles of 1552, which consisted of four sections : — The first related to the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper; the second related to the error of Transubstantiation ; the third related to the error of real or corporal Presence ; and the fourth related to the 74 The Sacrament an " effechial Sign'' erroneous practices of Reservation, Procession, Eleva- tion, and Adoration of the Sacrament. The effect of these sections, may be thus stated. The first section set forth the doctrine of the Church of England on the Lord's Supper in s, positive form, declaring what is to be believed respecting it. The other three sec- tions set it forth in a negative form, declaring what things are not to be believed or done respecting it. The 28th Article in Elizabeth's Articles, retained these four sections of 1552, of which the first, second, and fourth remain unaltered, with the exception of an addition, by which the error of Transubstantiation was still further condemned, by the declaration, that it " overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament." This further condemnation of Transubstantiation is scarcely consistent with the suggestion of the learned Judge, at p. 94 of his Judgment, that, Elizabeth .desired to remove all obstacles to the communion of Roman Catholics in our Church. The second section of this Article does not come into the present case, because no charge is made against Mr. Bennett in respect of Transubstantiation. The fourth section need not be dealt with at the present stage of the argument, because it is more intimately connected with the subjects of Sacrifice and Adoration. It is now proposed to consider the first and third sections, of which the first declares positively what is to be believed, and the third declares negatively/ what is not to be believed, on the subject of, the Lord's Supper. The first section declares, " that " the Supper of the Lord is a sign of the love that '' Christians ought to have among themselves one to " another." But it is " not only" that (which was the doctrine of Anabaptists and others), nor is it chiefly that, "but," as the Article continues, "rather is a " Sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death." Here the word "Sacrament" is used in its proper sense, as an ordinance, which is a sign, yet not a bare sign, but, as defined by the 25th Article of Religion, " an eifectual sign " — a sign which, under right The " Body of Christ'' defined in the Articles. 75 conditions, produces its appointed effects. And therefore the 28th Article goes on to say : " Inso- " much that to such as rightly, worthily, and with ^' faith receive the same, the bread which we break is " a partaking of the Body of Christ ; and likewise the " cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of " Christ." Upon this authoritative statement of the Church of England upon the Lord's Supper, it may be observed : First. That the Church speaks of the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ, simply and absolutely, without any epithet or qualification ; without any distinction of different kinds of Body, or different manners of the Presence of that Body ; because the Church of England knows of but one JBody of Christ, and of but one condition or manner of actual Pre- sence of that Body, viz.. His true natural Body of our humanity, now glorified and spiritual, and present in heaven, and not here. The Body of Christ is spoken of seven times, and only seven times, in the Thirty-nine Articles, and in every case simply and absolutely without epithet or distinction. The phrase so occurs, three times in Article 28, twice in Article 29, once in Article 35, in the title of the Homily on the Sacrament, and once in Article 4. And it is this 4th Article, which defines the meaning of the phrase, wherever used in the Thirty-nine Articles, viz. : " Christ's Body, with all things appertaining " to the perfection of man's nature ;" — a definition which excludes all subtilties about different Bodies of Christ, or different manners of the presence of the Body of Christ. Secondly. The Church declares of " the bread " which we break," i.e., the consecrated bread, not that it contains the Body of Christ in it, or under its form, or under its veil, nor that it becomes the Body of Christ, either in itself absolutely, or to us relatively, but that it is " a partaking of the Body of Christ." Now, since hr^ead is a substance, and partaking is 76 " Partaking'' substituted for '^ communicatior an action, it is evident that the phrase, "the bread " which we break is a partaking," signifies, that it is a means or occasion of partaking of the Body of Christ. Thirdly. The Article does not say, that the bread which we break, is a communication of the Body of Christ ; which might have been taken to imply, that already in the hands of the minister the consecrated bread was a means of communicating Christ's Body. But the Article says — to those who are rightly pre- pared, it is a partaking of the Body of Christ, teach- ing a participation of the Body of Christ by the recipients, not a communication of the Body of Christ by the Priest. Fourthly. In this Article this efficacy of the con- secrated elements to be a means or occasion of the Body of Christ being received, is made to depend, not upon consecration alone, but upon consecration and the right disposition, worthiness, and faith, of the recipients ; for the words of the 28th Article are, " to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, " receive the same, the bread which we break is a " partaking of the Body of Christ." Lord Justice Mellish. — I have the Latin Articles before me, and there the words are " panis quem frangimus est communicatio corporis Christi," does not " communicatio " mean " communication ?" Mr. Stephens. — I submit that the EngHsh version, is the only version, which is authoritative. No doubt the Latin version of 1562 had the word " communi- catio," and the English form of the same year had " communion," but this was changed to " partaking " in 1571, when the Thirty-nine Articles were enacted by statute. Lord Justice Mellish. — Was the Latin never altered ? Mr. Stephens. — No ; the reason of the change was this : the word " communicatio " was capable of a right meaning as the communication by God. But it might have been understood as a communica- Real and Corporal Presence excluded. 77 tion by the priest, and therefore " partaking " was a safer expression.* It is submitted, that the result arrived at by this examination of the 1st section of the 28th Article of Religion, is conclusive against the teaching of Mr. Bennett on the subject of the Lord's Supper. That section of the Article confines the eflScacy of conse- cration, or the breaking of bread and the blessing of the cup, to reception, and makes it dependent upon the right disposition of the communicant. I submit, my Lords, that this positive enactment is irreconcil cable with Mr. Bennett's doctrine, that there is upon and by virtue of consecration, a real and actual presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated elements, on the altar, and in the hand of the priest, independent of reception, and irrespective of the dis- position of the communicants. I will now proceed to discuss the third section of this Article. The third section of the earlier Article of 1552 also related to the error of real or corporal Presence, and was, as given in Hardwick's Articles (p. 312, London, 1859), in these woi'ds : " Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in some one certain place : therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places. And because (as holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven and there shall continue until the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess tlie real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." This section was omitted, and the following lan- guage was substituted in its place in the 28th Article of the Thirty-nine Articles : " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the * The foregoing interpellation has been taken from the Guardian, December 6th, 1871. G 78 Manner of Pi^esence not spoken of by Art. 28. mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." This substitution was merely one of phraseology, and not a change of doctrine ; because the words of the 28th Article, equally with the words of the Article of 1552, exclude that corporal Real Pre- sence, which makes the Body of Christ to be : (1) given by the hand of the priest ; (2) taken by the hand of the communicant; (3) eaten by his mouth. It is important to observe, that this section of the 28th Article, does not speak of the Body of Christ being present after an heavenly and spiritual manner. But it speaks of the Body of Christ being given^ taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual manner. This distinction is important, for the Article does not speak of a spiritual manner of the presence of Christ's Body, as distinguished from any other supposed manner of presence : but it speaks of (1) a spiritual manner of giving Christ's Body, as distinguished from a corporal manner of giving; (2) a spiritual manner of taking Christ's Body, as distinguished from a corporal manner of taking ; and (3) a spiritual manner of eating the Body of Christ, as distinguished from a corporal manner of eating. That is to say, the Article declares that the giving, taking, and eating of the Body of Christ are only heavenly and spiritual ; (I.) Given by Grod, not by the priest. (2.) Taken by faith, not by the hand. (3.) Eaten by the soul, not by the mouth. And therefore the Article adds : " The mean whereby " the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the " Supper is faith.'' This declaration expressly excludes the Roman and Lutheran doctrines, that the Body and Blood of Christ are taken and received by the mouth, by a corporal manner of giving and receiving ; the giving and receiving being only spiritual according to this 28th Article. Accordingly we find, that both the ^^rd Section decisive against Mr. Ben7iett. 79 Council of Trent, and the Lutheran Formularies, directly condemn the doctrinal statement of the Church of England in this Article. Thus, \hQ Canon of the Council of Trent, given in Waterworth (p. 83), says : " If any one saith that " Christ given in the Eucharist is eaten spiritually " only, and not also sacramentally and really, let " him be anathema." * In the Lutheran Formula Concordise (Francke, Lib. Symbol. Eccles. Luther., vol. iii., p. 184,) the Lutherans reject " the error of the Sacramentaries," in denying an " oral taking of the Body and Blood *' of Christ in the Supper," and in opposing to that doctrine the opinion, that " the Body of " Christ in the Supper is received spiritually only " by faith."t It is therefore clear, that this 3rd section of the 28th Article, by denying any corporal manner of giving, receiving, or eating the Body of Christ, and asserting that faith is the one only means by which the Body of Christ is received or eaten, as opposed to the corporal receiving by the hand, and the cor- poral eating by the mouth, is decisive against that external presence in the elements, on and by conse- cration, which Mr. Bennett teaches. The Lord Chancellor. — The Body is given ; it is not simply received, but it is given, taken and eaten. Mr. Stephens. — It is given after a spiritual manner. The Lord Chancellor. — Still it is given. Mr. Stephens. — No doubt it is given ; but, as I have previously stated, it is given by God, not by the priest ; taken by faith, not by the hand ; eaten by the soul, not by the mouth ; therefore the Article * This Canon was passed in 1551, and must therefore have been known to the English Convocation, when this clause was added to the Article in 1562, and enacted in 1571. t As this Formula Concordise was drawn up and published in 1577, the compilers must have had before them this section of the 28th Article, which was enacted in 1571, and the terms of which they directly reject. G 2 80 Given by God, and not by man, goes on to say : " and the mean whereby the Body *' of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is '' faith." Sir Montague Smith. — But the word " given " is omitted in that last sentence. Mr. Stephens. — How could it be otherwise ? The article is dealing with the mode in which the Body of Christ is received. That Body is given by God, and it would be incorrect to speak of faith on the part of Grod. Bishop of London. — Have you any authority in support of your interpretation ? Mr. Stephens. — I am only discussing the con- struction of this language. The Lord Chancellor. — But on other points you have given us the opinions of Hooker, Longley, Dean Hook, and other divines, as confirmatory, of your interpretation of certain words, and we should like a similar set of authorities for the construction you have now given. Mr. Stephens. — As your Lordships wish it, I will produce them to-morrow. Lord Justice Mellish. — The real question is, do the words admit of two constructions ? The ques- tion is, not whether your construction is right or wrong, but may not another construction be admitted ? Mr. Stephens. — I submit, that any other construc- tion would not be in harmony with the other for- mularies. Bishop of London. — The word "given" may mean given by the officiating minister, or it may mean given by God ; the question is, are there any authorities in favour of your interpretation ? * Mr. Stephens.! — The following authorities may * This interpellation is taken from the Quardian, December 6th, 1871. t These authorities were given on the following morning, but are inserted here in order to preserve the order of the argument. Authorities for this construction: Hammond. 81 be given in support of the statement, that "the " giving of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament " is by Grod, and not by the priest." Dr. Hammond, in his Practical Catechism (Anglo- Catholic Library, p. 396), when explaining the Church Catechism, puts the question : " What is the full importance of that which follows, * that * the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken * and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper? " And he gives the answer in the following words : " It is this. In that Sacrament God really bestows, and every faithful prepared Christian as really and truly receives, the body and blood of Christ. As truly as the bishop or presbyter gives me the sacramental bread and wine, so truly doth God in heaven bestow upon me on eartli the body and blood of Christ, i. e., the crucified Saviour ; not by local motion, but by real communication ; not to our teeth, but to our souls." Thus, the Bishop or Presbyter gives only the Sacramental bread and wine — it is Grod in heaven who bestows the Body and Blood of Christ. At p. 385, Dr. Hammond also says : " That the faithful do receive the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament ; which implies not any corporal presence of Christ on the table or in the elements, but God's commu- nicating the crucified Saviour (who is in lieaven bodily and nowhere else) to us sinners on the earth ; but this mystically and after an ineffable manner." Bishop Nicholson, in his Exposition of the Cate- chism of the Church of England (Anglo-Catholic Library, p. 183), on the words, " the Body and Blood " of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re- " ceived," says : " This, then, the apostle intends to assert, and assure a w^orthy communicant, that as verily as he eats the bread with his mouth, and takes down the wine, so verily God in heaven bestows on him and communicates unto him the body and blood of his Saviour, and the benefits of that body and blood, which in two words are pardon and grace." 82 Bishop Morton : Dr. Jackson : Bishop Hooper. This is that heavenly and spiritual manner of giving, which the 28th Article declares, is the only manner of giving the Body of Christ. Bishop Morton, in his Catholic Appeal for Protes- tants (London, 1610), says (p. 131) : "How much more real is the gift and receipt of that benefit which, exhibited unto us in corporal elements, hath the donor Christ, who is the eternal Son of God ; the gift, his precious and glorious body, which is the everlasting ransom of his elect, and is received by faith (which is the peculiar gift of the Holy Ghost) into the souls of the faithful, which are the immortal spirits of his election." Here the gift is the precious Body of Christ, and the Don OK is Christ Himself. In a work intituled " Papers on the Doctrine of the " English Church concerning the Eucharistic Presence," by an English Presbyter (London, 1870) — a work of vast learning and research — quotations are given from upwards of twenty authorities to prove that '' the " Res Sacramenti is received not from the hands of ih^ " earthly minister, hut from above, and from a Divine " Person." Among these quotations there is, at p. 382, one from the works of Dean Jackson, whom the learned Dean of the Arches characterises as " perhaps " the most learned of our divines." Dr. Jackson says: "The food of life is no other than Christ's " Body and Blood, and it is our High Priest " Himself, which must give us this food " (Dean Jackson's Works, vol. ix., p. 594, Oxford, 1844). Here it is Christ Himself, that must give us His Body, for no one else can give it. Bishop Hooper says, in his Early Writings (Parker Society, p. 191) : " When the minister delivereth unto me the thing that is in his power to deliver, that is to say, the bread and wine, rehearsing the words of Christ's institution, the Holy Ghost delivereth unto my faith, which is mounted and ascended into heaven, the precious body and blood of my Saviour Jesus Christ, spiritually and not corporally. So doth the merits of this precious body in heaven feed my poor wretched soul upon the earth ; and no contradiction or impossibility Comments of the Dean of the Arches on Art. i'^. 83 for Christ's body so to do. It may be in heaven and yet extend his virtue by the operation of the Holy Ghost into my soul, by the means of faith, which at the time of the receiving of this Sacrament is in my soul and out of my soul, as the Spirit of God is in every godly heart and out of the heart in heaven with God ; so was God, at the creation of man unto his own likeness, in man and out of man." I will only add a short quotation from the Homilies (p. 445) : " By the advice of the Council of Nicene we ought to lift up our minds by faith, and leaving these inferior and earthly things, there seek it, where the Sun of Kighteousness ever shineth. Take then this lesson, thou that art desirous of this Table, of Emissenus, a godly Father, that * when thou * goest up to the reverend Communion to be satisfied with ' spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy Body * and Blood of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, thou * touch it with thy mind, thou receive it with the hand of thy ' heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man.' " This "lifting up of our minds by faith " and " re- " ceiving the Body of Christ with the hand of our '' heart," is that spiritual and heavenly manner of taking, spoken of in the 28th Article, and excludes the corporal and earthly manner of giving by the hand of the priest.* Comments of the Dean of the Arches on the 28 th Article of Beligmi. The learned Judge, at p. 91 of his Judgment, has commented upon this 28th Article of Eeligion. His Lordship says : " Having cited all these authorities, I will now recur to the very words of the 28th Article. ' 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.' I be- lieve that the position of those who agree with the opinions of the Defendant would take this form of argument, or some- thing like it. They say, What is given? The Body of * A passage to the like effect occurs in Cranmer's Treatise on the Lord's Supper (p. 182). 84 By the hands of Priests an earthly manner of giving. Christ. Who gives it ? Our Lord the Great High Priest in heaven, by the hands of His priests, ministering, as the 26th Article says, by ' His commission and authority ' on earth. What is taken ? What has been before given, the Body of Christ. What is eaten ? What has been before given and taken, the Body of Christ." The learned Judge has here suggested a form of argument, which those who agree with the opinions of Mr. Bennett might take. It is important to observe, that in this suggested argument on the 28th Article, the learned Judge, answering his own ques- tion, " Who gives it?" replies, "Our Lord, the Great " High Priest in heaven." No doubt this reply is correct, for this is that spiritual and heavenly manner of giving, which the Article declares is the only manner, in which the Body of Christ is given in the Lord's Supper. But his Lordship adds, " By the hands of His " priests ministering, as the 26th Article says, by his " commission and authority on earth." This giving of the Body of Christ by the hands of the priests on earth, constitutes an earthly and corporal giving, and, as such, is expressly excluded by the 28th Article. The learned Judge has not produced any authority in support of this suggested argument^ either from this 28th Article or from any other formulary of the Church. His Lordship refers to the 26th Article. That Article speaks of " minis- " ters," that they minister, by Christ's " commission " and authority," the " Word and Sojcramentsr But the 26th Article does not say, that the ministers give the Body of Christ. Nor does that Article justify his Lordship in suggesting, that the Body of Christ is given " by the hands of His priests." His Lordship having concluded this suggested argu- ment, goes on to say : " The manner, indeed, of the " giving, the taking, and the eating is only hea- " venly and spiritual, but not the less, on that "account, is something given, taken, and eaten, " external to, and apart from the giver, taker, and " eater." Bishop Geste not the Compiler of Art. i.^, 85 The learned Judge here admits, that the manner of giving, the taking, and the eating, is only hea- venly and spiritual. This admission does, as already established, destroy the suggested argument, that the giving is by the hands of man. His Lordship's further statement, that " something is given, taken, " and eaten, external to, and apart from the giver, " taker, and eater," maybe admitted, if it only means — a communication by the Spirit of God, of the Body of Christ, to the soul of faithful receivers. The further statement of the learned Judge, that the " whole manner of the Presence is indeed super- " natural, but not the less true ; spiritual, but not " the less real ; heavenly, but not the less actually '•' there to cleanse the body and to wash the soul of " the communicant," has no bearing upon the inter- pretation of the Article, for, as already established, the Article is concerned, not with the manner of the Presence^ but with the manner of giving., taking., and eating the Body of Christ, as the learned Judge had correctly put it in the previous sentence. There is, seemingly, an ambiguity in the statement of the learned Judge respecting the Presence, that it " is actually there." If by this language is meant a Presence in the ordinance, it will not be objected to ; but if by this language is meant, a Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, it cannot be admitted, and such a statement is not justified by the 28th Article. The learned Judge, at p. 92 of his Judgment; in support of his construction of the 28th Article, relies upon a letter of Bishop Geste, which he introduces as a contemporanea expositio, " from the compiler " of the 28th Article, which cannot, he thinks, be gain- said. The learned Judge has given in extenso the letter of Geste, to which it is proposed to direct your Lordships' attention. In that letter, Geste does not say, that he was the compiler of the 28th Article, but that " the Ai'ticle ivan of myn own pennynge^' which words the learned Judge has printed in italics. I 86 Gestes letter not a '^ contemporanea exposition need not trespass upon your Lordships' attention by pointing out the difference, between " compiling'' and " penning " one of the Thirty-nine Articles. I may, perhaps, be permitted to remind your Lord- ships, that in the MSS. of Archbishop Parker, pub- Hshed by Dr. Lamb, in his Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, it appears (p. 12), that the 28th Article was prepared by Archbishop Parker, and was subsequently amended and approved of by the Convocation of 1562. It is possible, that the " pennynge^' or transcribing of this amended Article, was entrusted to Bishop Greste ; or he may have made suggestions upon the subject; or he may have collected together in writing the general results of the deliberations of the Prelates ; but he had no authority to compile it. That was exclusively the province of Archbishop Parker and the Convocation. The learned Judge, in introducing the letter of Geste, has claimed for it the authority of a contempo- ranea expositio. It is submitted, upon the clearest principles of law, for which it would be idle to quote an authority, that a mere private letter, not published in the life-time of the writer, nor in any way publicly recognised by him, cannot, under any circumstances, be dealt with as a contemporanea expositio. Again, a private letter cannot claim to explain, what the Legislature meant by the adoption of certain lan- guage ; otherwise, any statute might be overturned by the discovery of a private letter from one of its fratners. If Geste was the framer, the question is not what he meant by its language, but what the Legislature meant when they enacted it. The Lord Chancellor intimated that their Lord- ships would not determine anything upon Dr. Geste's private opinion, so that the learned Counsel need not waste time upon that letter.* * The Guardian, December 6, 1871. Dr. Pulling, the Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, has kindly examined the MS. draft The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received. 87 Mr. Stephens.— At p. 93 of his Judgment, the learned Judge discusses the important clause in the 28th Article, respecting the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received. The 28th Article says, " The mean, whereby the Body of Christ is received " and eaten in the Supper, is faith." On this, his Lordship remarks, "The Homily * concerning the *' Sacrament ' speaks of faith being ' a necessary in- *' strument;' the Article had spoken of it as 'a mean.' " May it not be said to have this signification — a " necessary instrument, or ' a mean,' of beneficial re- " ception, or, what the Homily calls, ' fruition ' of ' a " ' ghostly substance.' " The learned Judge says that the 28th Article speaks of faith as " a mean,'' but this expression is inexact. The Article states that faith is the mean, recognising no other mean ; excluding, therefore, reception by means of the hand, and by means of the mouth, which the Roman and Lutheran doctrines maintained. This is a grave inaccuracy, because it suggests, that the Article allows other means of reception of the Body of Christ besides faith. Whereas, the Article explicitly states, that faith is the mean, thereby excluding all other means of reception. Lord Justice James. — Do you mean that " faith " is the only mean by which it is taken ? Mr. Stephens. — Yes. Lord Justice James. — If the bread and wine were given by a layman, would the Body of Christ be given, in any sense of the word, according to the doctrine of the Church of England ? of the Articles presented by Parker to Convocation, which exists among the Parker MSS. in the library of that College ; and from this examina- tion it appears, that after this clause had been settled by Parker and the Bishops, it was written out fair by the hand of a scribe, in connection with the earlier clause of the Article of 1553, as a supplement, not as a substitution, and was so submitted to Convocation. It also appears from the MS. that it was at one time proposed to make the two clauses in their combined form, a distinct or 29th Article, since a summary of the new clause stands, in the Archbishop's own writing, inserted, as a heading to such proposed Article. 88 Receptio7i by faith only, the touchstone of controversy . Mr. Stephens. — There must be consecration. Lord Justice James. — Then faith is not the only mean ? Mr. Stephens. — Faith is the mean, and conse- cration is a condition precedent.* It should be borne in mind that, when the Article was drawn up in 1562, the controversy between Rome, the Lutherans, and the Church of England was, whether reception was by means of the mouth or by faith only. This, in fact, was the touchstone of the controversy. This has been pointed out by the late Dean Goode at pages 646 and 647 of the second volume of his work on the Eucharist. The Dean says : " Another point, apparent on the surface, is how and by whom alone the Body and Blood of Christ are received. * The Body of Christ,' we are told, * is given, taken, and eaten * in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.' It is given only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. It certainly therefore is not given by the hand of the officiating minister, but by Cod himself, according as in the latter part of the service we thank Him for it in the words * for that * Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received * these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most * precious Body and Blood of thy Son,' &c. And it is taken and eaten only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and therefore it certainly is not taken into the fingers and eaten with the mouth as the Archdeacon maintains. * And the * mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in * the Supper is faith.' Now, if there is any meaning in words, it follows from this, that where there is no faith there the Body of Christ cannot be received and eaten, for * the mean ' by which it is received and eaten is wanting. " Any one who has even the slightest acquaintance with the Sacramentarian controversy knows that this statement involves the very touchstone of the school of doctrine to which a man belongs. For the great question which has always divided the two main schools of doctrine in this • This interpellation is taken from the Guardian, December 6th, 1871. Suggested interpolation of " beneficial T 89 matter, that is, those who have held a substantial presence of the Body of Christ in, or with, or under the form of the elements, and those who have denied it, has been, whether the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith only or the mouth. The former have held it to be the mouth, considering faith to be only neces- sary for securing certain benefits from the reception, not for the reception itself ; the latter, with the Article, have held it to be faith." Having thus established the importance, that at- taches to the statement of the article — that faith is the mean, that is, the onli/ mean by which the Body of Christ is received and eaten, it is remarkable that, in the three editions of his Lordship's Judgment, the inexact phrase "a mean,'' is printed within quo- tation marks, as if that phrase was extracted from the 28th Article. The learned Judge, at p. 93 of his Judgment, suggests a construction of the 28th Article, in the shape of a question, and there leaves it; which is very unsatisfactory, because his Lordship raises a question which goes to the very root of this contro- versy, and then refrains from giving any decision upon it. The learned Judge says, " May it not be said to ** have this signification, a ' necessary instrument ' or " ' a mean ' of beneficial reception, or what the Homily ^' calls ' fruition ' of a ghostly substance ? Is such a " construction, at all events, wholly inadmissible, " and does it subject the holder of the theory to " punishment?" This word " beneficial " is an unauthorized inter- polation, and essentially changes the meaning of the 28th Article, making it to support that very doctrine, which it was the intention of the Legislature to prohibit, viz. : reception of the Body of Christ with- out faith. In 1562 the controversy was, whether all Communicants received the Body of Christ — the faithful beneficially, the faithless unprofitably ; 90 Archbishop Sumner on Articles 28 a7id 29. or whether the Body of Christ was received by the faithful only^ while the faithless received no more, than the Sacrament or sign of the Body. The result of this controversy was, that the 28th Article declared, that only the faithful receive the Body of Christ. By declaring that faith is *' the ^' mean'' by which the Body of Christ is received, it decided, that where there is no faith, the Body of Christ is not received at all. But if the 28th Article had used the words, " beneficial reception," the result would have been — that the wicked, although devoid of faith, receive the Body of Christ, which was the very doctrine prohibited by the 28th and 29th Articles. Archbishop Sumner (with his assessors, among whom was Dr. Lushington), in the Denison Case at Bath in 1856, put the following construction upon the 28th and 29th Articles, which will be found in the Proceedings against the Archdeacon of Taunton (p. 225, London, 1857) : " that the true and legal exposition of the said Articles is, that the Body and Blood of Christ are taken and received by the worthy receivers only, who in taking and receiving the same by faith do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood, while the wicked and unworthy, by eating the bread and drinking the wine without faith, do not in any- wise eat, take, or receive the Body and Blood of Christ, being void of faith, whereby only the Body and Blood of Christ can be eaten, taken, and received." These views are corroborated by what occurred in 1571. It appears from the second volume of Goode on the Eucharist (Supplement pp. 9, 10), that, in that year, Bishop Cheney, whose avowed Lutheranism has already been mentioned, was in danger of deposition by the Archbishop. A letter was written to Lord Burleigh on behalf of Bishop Cheney. The letter is preserved among the Domestic State Papers, but it is anonymous^ or rather the signature is wanting. The writer discussing the words, " after a spiritual Suggested interpolation of ^ ^profitably, " 91 and heavenly manner only^' in the 28th Article, " My Lord of Gloucester is pronounced excommunicate by my Lord of Canterbury, and shall be cited to answer before him and other bishops to certain errors which he is accused to hold. I think if this word ' only ' were put out of the book for his sake it were the best." The writer then makes, at p. 10, a further sug- gestion : " It followeth in the book, * but the mean whereby the Body * of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith' If this word ^ 'profitably^ wqyq put hereunto in this sort, * but ' the mean whereby the Body of Christ is jprofitahly received * and eaten in the Supper is faith^ then should the occasion of this question, whether the evil do receive Christ's Body in the Sacrament, because they lack faith, which riseth of the foresaid words, and causeth much strife, be quite taken away, for that hereby is not denyed the unfruitful receiving of Christ's Body without faith, but the fruitful only affirmed." It should be borne in mind, that, at this time, the 29 th Article had not been confirmed ; if therefore the two alterations here suggested had been made in the 28th Article, the whole doctrine of the Church would have been changed. Reception of the Body of Christ by all Communicants would have been admitted, and room left for the Lutheran doctrine of corporal presence irrespective of reception. But these suggestions were not accepted, and the further petition of the writer, whoever he may have been, that the Queen would be pleased not to confirm the 29th Article was disregai-ded, and the 29th Article was confirmed by the Queen. It is scarcely necessary to point out, that the insertion of the word '' jyrojit- ahly,'' suggested by this writer, has the same effect, as the insertion of the word " beneficial,'' suggested by the learned Judge. It is therefore submitted, that the introduction of the word " beneficial " into the language of the 28th Article, as suggested by the learned Judge, would reverse the provisions of the 28th and 29th Articles of 92 Now ell's Catechism. Eeligion ; I therefore venture in answer to the learned Judge's question to reply — that such a construction is wholly inadmissible, and would subject the holder of the theory to punishment. NowelVs Catechism, It will now be desirable to make a few observa- tions upon Nowell's Catechism, a work of the greatest importance, the Convocation, in 1562, having sanctioned this publication, as containing their pro- fessed doctrine. It appears from Dr. Hook's Life of Dean Nowell, which will be found in the seventh volume of Hook's Biographical Dictionary (p. 441) : that, "The Dean was induced to compose this Catechism by Secretary Cecil and other great men in the nation, on pur- pose to stop a clamour raised among the Roman CathoHcs that the Protestants had no principles. When it was finished the Dean sent it with a dedication to Secretary Cecil. The Convocation that met in 1562 did it so much honour as dili- gently to review and interline it in some places, and unani- mously to approve and allow it as their own book and their professed doctrine." This approval was given at the same time, that the Convocation of 1562 settled and approved of the Thirty -nine Articles. This work was first published in 1570, and reprinted in 1571, the year that the Thirty-nine Articles became part of the statute law of the land. It appears from Card well's Synodalia (vol. i., p. 128), that the Convocation of 1571, in the Canons then passed, required that Nowell's Catechism should be taught in all schools. This publication, so deliberately authorised in 1562, and by both houses of Convocation in 1571, is of the utmost importance, as enabling us to judge of the meaning, effect, and intention of the language used in the Thirty-nine Articles. This publication, which bears so strongly upon the issues raised in this case, declares the whole doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 93 was prominently brought before the learned Judge in the court below ; his Lordship, however, has not, in his Judgment, alluded, directly or indirectly, to this most important document. The following extracts from Nowell's Catechism will show, the doctrines on the subject of the Sacra- ments contained in that book, and approved of by Convocation. Speaking of the Sacraments, Nowell says (p. 207) : " We must determine that the outward element hath neither of itself nor in itself enclosed the force and efficacy of the Sacrament, but that the same wholly floweth from the Spirit of God, as out of a spring head, and is by the divine mysteries, which are ordained by the Lord for this end, con- veyed unto us." Here any presence in the outward element, in either Sacrament, is expressly denied. At pages 215 and 216, Nowell writes ; " Q. Are, then, the only faithful fed with Christ's Body and Blood ? " A. They only, for to whom he communicateth his Body, to them, as I said, he communicateth also everlasting hfe. " Q. Why dost thou not grant that the Body and Blood of Christ are included in the bread and cup ; or that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of his Body and Blood? "^. Because that were to bring in doubt the truth of Christ's Body ; to do dishonour to Christ himself; and to fill them with abhorring that receive the Sacrament, if we should imagine his Body either to be enclosed in so narrow a room, or to be in many places at once, or his flesh to be chawed in our mouth with our teeth, and to be bitten small, and eaten as other meat. " Q. Wliy, then, is the communicating of the Sacrament damnable to the wicked, if there be no such change made ? **' A, Because they come to the holy and divine mysteries with hypocrisy and counterfeiting ; and do wickedly profane them, to the great injury and dishonour of the Lord himself that ordained them." In these passages, the whole doctrine of the Lord's Supper is declared. (1) It is asserted, that the ^^Body of Christ is communicated and given by 94 NoweWs Catechism decisive against Real Presence. " Christ himself;" this is that heavenly and spiritual manner of giving which is spoken of in om^ 28th Article ; (2) It is asserted, that the " Body of Christ " is communicated to the only faithful ;'* this ex- cludes all reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked ; (3) It is asserted that " there is no change " of the bread and wine into the substance of the '* Body and Blood of Christ ;" this denies transubstan- tiation ; (4) It is also asserted that " the Body and " Blood of Christ are not included in the bread and " cup ;" this denies all Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements ; and, (5) It is also asserted that " to imagine the Body of Christ to be " in many places at once, is to bring in doubt the " truth of Christ's Body ;" this doctrine is in direct opposition to any kind of real and actual presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, or any fancied existence of two kinds of the Body of Christ. These statements of doctrine are decisive against (1) any form of Real Presence of the Body of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the elements ; (2) any cor- poral communication or reception ; (3) any recep- tion of the Body of Christ by the wicked ; and these statements were, as I have previously remarked, adopted and authorized by the House of Convocation in 1562, and by both houses in 1571. And, lastly, the 79th Canon of the Canons of 1603, requires all schoolmasters to teach " the larger or shorter Cate- chism heretofore by public authority set forth," meaning thereby, the Catechism of Dean Nowell, as shown by the late Archdeacon Churton in his Life of Nowell (p. 191, Oxford, 1809), and by Bishop Jacob- son in his preface to No well's Catechism (p. xxiii., Oxford, 1844). The Second Book of Homilies, In 1563 was issued the Second Book of Homilies, together with a reprint of the First Book of Homihes, which had beeu issued in 1547. The Second Book of Homilies. 95 By the 35th Article of the Thirty-nine Articles, this Second Book of Homilies is declared to contain " a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for " these times, and therefore are judged to be read in " churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly, ** that they may be understanded of the people." In these Homilies the reformed doctrine of the Church of England is set forth, not dogmatically as in the Thirty-nine Articles, but rather homiletically^ as in Sermons to the People. The doctrine, however, in these Homilies is that, which has been already traced in the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, and the Thirty-nine Articles. The Second Book of Homilies contains (pp. 439- 446) a sermon intituled, " An Homily of the worthy " receiving and reverent esteeming of the Sacrament " of the Body and Blood of Christ." The learned Judge, at p. 28 of his Judgment, has quoted the following passage from this Homily : " Neither need we to think that such exact knowledge is required of every man, that he be able to discuss all high points in the doctrine thereof; but thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent." And upon this last phrase his Lordship adds the following comment : " That is, we ought to hold *^ affirmatively, that it is the true figure of a thing " present." This comment is not a necessary in- ference from the language of the Homily. But, ac- cepting the comment of the learned Judge, it must be observed further, that the statement in the Homily is on the subject of the Sacrament or Ordinance of the Lord's Supper ; and the statement, that the Lord's Supper is *' the true figure of a thing present," goes no further than to assert a presence in the Ordinance, which is not denied. It does not affect the question, whether there is, or is not a presence in the elements. At pp. 43 and 44 of his Judgment, the learned Judge quotes the same passage from the Homilies and continues it further. His Lordship has made no com- H 2 96 Incorporation in the Souls of the Faithful. ment upon this extract, but it is important to observe the language made use of by the Homily. It is there stated, that '^ in the Supper of the Lord there is . . . " the communion of the Body and Blood of our " Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which by the " operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our " conjunction with Christ) is through faith wrought "in the souls of the faithful." In this passage, no Presence in the elements is spoken of, but only, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is the " incorporation of the Body and Blood " of Christ in the souls of the faithful, wrought by '' the Holy Ghost through faith." That is no Ex- ternal Presence, but an Internal Presence. Looking at the results of this Judgment, it is rather difficult to understand, with what object this passage has been quoted by the learned Judge. At p. 93 of his Judgment the learned Judge says : " The Homily concerning the Sacrament speaks of " faith being a necessary instrument." This, the learned Judge suggests, " may have ihe signification " of a necessary instrument of beneficial reception." The word " heneficiaV' here inserted by the learned Judge has no authority in the Homily. The effect of such insertion is, to make the Homily declare, that without faith the Body of Christ is received, though not beneficially. On the contrary, the Homily shortly afterwards states (pp. 445, 446,) that — *' The unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious Body : whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding in Him ; their union, and, as it were, their incorpo- ration with Him. Wherefore let us prove and try ourselves unfeignedly, without flattering ourselves, whether we be plants of that fruitful Olive, living branches of the true Vine, members, indeed, of Christ's mystical Body ; whether God has purified our hearts by faith to the sincere acknow- ledging of His Gospel and imbracing of His mercies in Christ Jesu : that so at this His table we receive not only the outward Sacrament, but the spiritual thing also ; not the figure, but the truth ; not the shadow only, but the body ; A Ghostly Sustenance. 97 not to death, but to life; not to destruction, but to sal- vation." Therefore the Homily teaches, that the faithless receive only the outward Sacrament — the figure^ the shadow only. The learned Judge, in support of this theory of beneficial reception, quotes the Homily again in the following words : " Or what the Homily calls fruition '' of a ghostly substance" This quotation is inexact. In the Homily, the word ^''fruition" is not con- nected with " ghostly substance,'' but refers to the fruition of the Lord's Supper. It may be remarked, that the phrase, " ghostly substance," is not to be found in the original edition of the Homilies. Griffiths, at p. 445 of his Oxford Edition of the HomiHes, gives the original reading as " ghostly " sustenance,'' This reading is in accordance with the language that precedes it, whereas the phrase, " ghostly substance," is not in accord with that language. The Homily says (pp. 444, 445), " It ** is well known that the meat we seek for in " this Supper is spiritual food — the nourishment of " our soul, a heavenly refection and not earthly — an " invisible meat, not bodily — a ghostly sustenance, " and not carnal." Meaning thereby, a sustenance for the soul and not for the flesh. The occurrence in the second edition of the word, " substance" may have arisen from an error of the press, and it may have been copied into later editions without proper collation. But even if " substance " be the correct reading, the Homily refers only to Presence in reception, and not to Presence in the elements. Having dealt with all the passages, that the learned Judge has quoted from the Homily on the Sacra- ment, it may be observed, that his Lordship has omitted to quote several passages in the same Homily, which declare most plainly the doctrine of the Church in regard to the questions in controversy. Immediately after the quotation in reference to "ghostly sustenance," the Homily proceeds : 98 Doctrine of the Homilies. Canons of 1603. ** So that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding, basely abjecting and binding ourselves to the elements and creatures; whereas, by the advice of the Council of Nicene, we ought to * lift up * our minds by faith,' and leaving these inferior and earthly things, there seek it, where the Sun of Kighteousness ever Bhineth. Take then this lesson, thou that art desirous of this table, of Emissenus, a godly father, that * when thou * goest up to the reverend Communion to be satisfied with * spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy * Body and Blood of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, ' thou touch it with thy mind, thou receive it with the hand * of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inw^ard man." —The Homilies, by Griffith (pp. 445 and 446.) The foregoing passages, from the Homily on the Sacrament, support the following propositions as the doctrine of the Church of England : (1) That in the Lord's Supper, " the incorporation of the Body ** and Blood of Christ " is " in the souls of the faithful " through faith " (Homily, p. 442). (2) That in the Lord's Supper, the meat we seek for is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul — a heavenly refection, not earthly (p. 444). (3J That this spiritual food is to be received and enjoyed by faith alone (p. 445). And (4), That " unbelievers and faithless cannot feed ** upon that precious Body," but receive only '* the " outward Sacrament " (pp. 445 and 446). The Canons of 1603. The learned Judge, in page 94 of his Judgment, refers to the Canons of 1603, in the following words : "In the Canons of 1603 it is said (Canon 57), that *' the doctrine both of Baptism and the Lord's Supper "is so sufficiently set down in the Book of Common " Prayer to be used at the administration of the said " Sacraments, as nothing can be added unto it that " is material and necessary." This is the only extract, which the learned Judge gives from the Canons of 1603, and as his Lordship has refrained from making any comment upon this 57th Canon, it The Catechism of 1603, on the Eucharist, 99 is difficult to understand, how he applies it to the doctrinal questions at issue. I am, however, indebted to his Lordship for having directed my attention to this 57th Canon, as otherwise it might have escaped my observation. This 57th Canon has an important bearing upon the doctrinal questions now in issue, because it states, " that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is sufficiently '' set down in the Book of Common Prayer." It has been already noticed, that the 79th Canon required Nowell's Catechism to be taught by all schoolmasters. It is evident, therefore, that the Convocations in framing the Canons of 1603 considered, that the Communion Office in the Prayer Book contained the Sacramental doctrine, taught in Dean Nowell's Cate- chism. That doctrine has been already shown to be opposed to the decision of the learned Judge, respecting (I) any Beal Presence in the Elements ; and (2) the reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked. The Catechism of 1603. The next important document applicable to the questions at issue, is the Catechism of the Church of England, as authorized in 1603. The earlier part of this Catechism had appeared in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. The only part of it that need now be dealt with, is the part added by James I. in 1603, after the Hampton Court Conference. At page 94 of his Judgment, the learned Judge says : *' The part of the Catechism introduced in the reign " of James I., relative to the Holy Eucharist, accord- " ing to the plain meaning of the words, favours the " doctrine of theKeal Presence in the Holy Elements." Although this addition was, in the reign of James I., only authorized by the Crown, it was, with- out any alteration in reference to doctrine, incor- porated by the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. into our present Book of Common Prayer. It therefore becomes of grave importance to ascertain, 100" Sacrament ' ' as used in Catechism means ordinance. whether by this Formulary, our present Book of Common Prayer favours the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Elements, especially as his Lordship has not specified the words upon which he relies to support that construction. Before discussing the doctrine contained in this part of the Catechism, it will be desirable to remove an important misconception, which has arisen in the construction of the word Sacrament, when it occurs in the Catechism. It has been erroneously supposed, that the word Sacrament, as used in the Catechism, means sometimes the Ordinance, and sometimes the consecrated elements ; whereas the word Sacrament, in every instance in which it is used in the Catechism, means the Ordinance only. The word Sacrament occurs only in the concluding part of the Catechism, and there it occurs jive^ times. The first question is : " Q. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His Church ?" " A. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." Here it is evident that Sacraments are Ordinances — viz., the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The second question is : " Q, What meanest thou by this word Sacrament ?" It is evident, that the word here again means ordinance as in the first question, to which this refers. The answer follows in these words, " A, I mean an outward and visible sign.'' The expression, *' visible sign" here applies to the Ordinance, in the same manner as the 25th Article declares, that " Sacraments are effectual signs " — speaking of them as Ordinances ; for it adds that they are '' two. Baptism and the Lord's Supper." Having thus defined what a Sacrament is, in the sense of an Ordinance, the Catechism goes on to ask in the third question : Inward and Outward as used in the Catechism, 101 " Q. How many parts are there in a Sacrament f The word, Sacrament^ is here used in the same sense as in the first and second questions, that is, as an Ordinance, and not as the element. The word. Sacrament^ occurs again in the answer to the sixth question : " Q. What is required of persons to be baptized ?" "-4. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacramento The promises of God are made in the Ordinance of Baptism, which is the Sacrament here spoken of — not in the element. The word only occurs again in the eighth ques- tion : '* Q. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper or- dained ?" It will be here perceived, that the word, Sacra- ment, signifies, in the clearest language, the Ordi- nance. Thus in every place, where the word Sacrament is used in the Catechism, it is to be under- stood of the Ordinance, and never of the element. This fact clears away all the ambiguity which has been thought to surround the teaching of the Cate- chism respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is also important to ascertain, what is the mean- ing of the words, inward and outward, as used in the Catechism. In the second answer in the Catechism it is said, that by the word Sacrament is meant, " an outward and visible sign of an inward and " spiritual grace." The third question is in these words : " How many " parts are there in a Sacrament ?" And the answer is : '^ Two ; the outward visible sign and the inward " spiritual grace." It will be observed, that it is not said that the consecrated element has two parts — viz., an inward 102 Outward and Inward have reference to recipients. part and an outward part ; but it is stated, that the Sacrament or Ordinance consists of two parts — viz., an inward and an outward part. ''Outward'' has reference to the />er5(?n5 receiving the Sacrament or Ordinance. ''Inward " also refers to the recipients of the Ordinance. Thus in Baptism, the outward part is water, being external to the recipient ; the inward part is, " a death unto Sin, " and a new birth unto Righteousness," being in- ternal, or in the recipient. Again, in the Lord's Supper^ the outward part is bread and wine, being external to the recipient. The inward part is " the " Body and Blood of Christ," being internal^ in the recipient. This construction that the word, " Inward^' is to be understood as relating to the recipient of the Sacrament, is confirmed by the language pf the 25th Article of Religion, in which it is said of the Sacraments, that "they be certain sure witnesses " and effectual signs of grace, and God's good-will " towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in " us'' Here are the two parts of the Sacrament mentioned in the Catechism, the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace ; the grace being, God's working " invisibly in us ;" and, therefore, inward grace is grace in us. This construction is also supported by the words of the Homily, "Concerning Prayer and Sacraments." The Homily says (p. 357 :) "To administer a Sacra- " ment is, by the outward word and element, to " preach to the receiver the inward and invisible " grace of God." And at p. 358 the Homily, speaking against the use of a tongue unknown to the hearers, asks : " Who shall in the ministration of the *' Sacraments understand, what invisible grace is to " be craved of the hearer, to be wrought in the " inward man ?" Jewel, drawing the distinction between the out- ward and the inward part of Sacraments, shows that So tised by Jewels and Now ell. 103 the inward part is in the recipients, whether of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper. He says, at p. 793 of his Controversy with Harding : " Yet must there be a certain likeness in effects between the Sacrament and the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament. Of which effects the one is sensible, and wrought outwardly to the body ; the other is spiritual, and wrought inwardly in the mind. As, for example, in the Sacrament of Circum- cision the outward visible cutting in the flesh was a resem- blance of the inward spiritual cutting of the heart. In the Sacrament of Baptism the outward washing of the Body is a resemblance of the inward spiritual washing of the soul. Likewise in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, as the bread outwardly feedeth our bodies, so doth Christ's Body inwardly and spiritually feed our souls." That the word " inward '* is to be understood, as 3'elating to the recipient of the Sacrament, is con- firmed by the language of Nowell's Catechism, of which the Church Catechism is known to be an abridgement — (Bishop Jacobson's Preface to Nowell's Catechism, p. xxxvii.) Nowell says (p. 212) : *' Question. Dost thou say that there are two parts in this Sacrament also, as in Baptism ?" " Scholar. Yea ; the one part bread and wine, the outward signs, which are seen with our eyes, handled with our hands, and felt with our taste ; the other part Christ himself, with whom our souls, as with their proper food, are inwardhj nourished." Passages to the like eifect occur in Cranmer's Lord's Supper (p. 408), and in Bullinger (vol. v., p. 251J. Mr. Bennett says : " Who myself adore and teach " the people to adore, Christ present in the Sacra- " ment under the form of bread and wine, believing " that under their veil is the Sacred Body and Blood " of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." With reference to these words the learned Judge, at p. 135 of his Judgment, says : " With respect to " the second and corrected edition of his pamphlet, and 104 Verily and indeed taken and received. " the other work for which he is articled, I say, that " the objective, actiial, and Real Presence, or the ** spiritual Real Presence, a presence external to the " act of the communicant, appears to me to be the " doctrine, which the formularies of our Church " duly considered and construed, so as to be har- " monious, intended to maintain." This doctrine of Mr. Bennett, thus judicially sanc- tioned by the Dean of the Arches, makes two outward parts in the Lord's Supper — viz. : (1) the bread and wine external to the communicant ; and, (2) the Body and Blood of Christ also external to the communicant, under the veil of the bread and wine. But the Catechism declares, that there is only one outward part in the Lord's Supper. And, further, Mr. Ben- nett asserts, that the Body and Blood of Christ are outward in the Lord's Supper; but the Catechism declares, that they are the inward part of the Lord's Supper. The most important language of the Catechism on this subject, is contained in the following answer : " Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified ? " A, The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Here there is no presence in the elements or in the hand of the priest. It is not said, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed given^ but only that they are verily and indeed taken and received, which is a plain limitation to reception ; and this reception is further limited to the faithful, thus answering to the words of the 28th Article, " such as '' rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same," and excluding those, whom the 29th Article excludes, as *' the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith." By this interpretation of the words of the Cate- chism — viz.: (1) that the word '' Sacrament'^ vaQ^ins in every instance the Ordinance and not the elements ; (2) that "outward'' and "inward'' are used in Catechism agrees with A rts. and Comm union Office. 105 reference, not to the elements, but to the communi- cants; and (3) that 'Hhe faithful,'' as established by the Homily on the Sacrament (p. 445), are those only who " rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive " the Sacrament — the Catechism is found not to sanction the error of the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, while, at the same time, it asserts a true participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in the faithful reception of the ordinance : thus distinguishing the two parts of the Lord's Supper : (1 ) the outward part, bread and wine, which are received by all communicants; and, (2) the m- ward part, the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the faithful only. The Doctrine of the Catechism identical with that of the XXXIX. Articles and Booh of Common Prayer. The doctrine of Sacraments, contained in the Catechism, is identical with the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles and the Communion office. The 25th Article declares that, ** Sacraments are '^ effectual signs of grace and God's goodwill towards " us, by the which He does work invisibly in " us." And the 28th Article declares that, '' the " Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love " that Christians ought to have among themselves " one to another, but, rather, it is a Sacrament of our " Redemption by Christ's death ; insomuch that to " such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive '' the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking " of the Body of Christ ; and likewise the cup of " blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." Here it is declared, that while all the Communicants receive the bread and wine, to such only as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, is there a partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, the Church of England, in the Thirty-nine Articles, while denying all presence in the elements, asserts a spiritual participation of the Body and 106 True reception asserted by Foreign Protestants. Blood of Christ, in the faithful use of the Sacra- ment, that is of the Ordinance, This is the very doctrine of the Catechism, viz., " the Body and Blood *' of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received " by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." The Communion office makes the like distinction and the like assertion of true participation : " 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." In this place, while all the communicants receive the bread and wine, it is a matter of prayer that they may he par- takers of His Body and Blood, receiving rightly worthily, and by faith. The statement in the Catechism, that in the Xord's Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received, does not assert any external Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, but only a true participation and reception by the soul of the faithful communicant. Such a doctrine of true reception was held, not only by the Reformers in England, but also by foreign Pro- testants. Dr. Blakeney, in the 3rd edition of his learned and valuable Treatise upon the Book of Common Prayer, has presented (pp. 601, 602,) in a collected and classified form, proofs of this doctrine having been thus held. He says : " The expressions of the Catechism are in perfect harmony with those of the Reformers and of the reformed churches. The Reformers, accused of making the Sacrament * a bare * figure, took care to refute the charge. Cramner uses the words * really and effectually,' * indeed and truly ;' Ridley, * vere et realiter,' * indeed and really,' * most effectuously ;' Hooper, * verily and indeed ;' Jewel, ' verily and indeed,' to describe the reception by the worthy of Christ's Body and Blood. We might refer to all our Reformers who have written upon the subject, to the same effect. The Helvetian and ZwingUan Churches use the same phraseology. The Helvetian Confession says : * By spiritual meat we mean not Catechism does not teach Presence in the Elements. 107 * any imaginary thing, but the very Body of our Lord Jesus ' given to us.' The Confession of France states: * We be- * lieve, as was said before, that as well in the Supper as in * Baptism God doth indeed truly and effectually (vere et * efficaciter) give us whatsoever He doth there sacramentally ' represent.' The Belgic Confession states : ' We say, there- * fore, that that which is eaten is the very natural Body of * Christ, and that that which is drunk is His true Blood ; but * the instrument or means by which we drink these things is * not the bodily mouth, but our spirit itself, and that by faith.' " Not only the foreign Churches, but the English Puritans employ the same modes of expression. The Westminster Confession uses the words * really' -and * indeed,' and the larger Catechism of the same, the words ' truly ' and * really ' to represent the believer's spiritual feeding upon Christ." This construction of the Catechism is opposed to that, which the learned Judge at p. 94 of his Judg- ment has put upon such formulary, viz,, that it " favours the doctrine of the Eeal Presence in the " holy elements." It has been, my Lords, established, that there are no words in the Catechism to favour such doctrine. I will now sum up this examination of the Cate- chism by adopting as my own, the language of the Bishop of Durham in his Charge of October, 1870 (pp. 48-51) : " It will be found, on examination, that the language of the Catechism is in entire harmony with that of the Articles. The addition made to the Catechism in 1601 commences with a most important definition of the word Sacrament, equally applicable to both Sacraments which * Christ or- * dained in His Church.' It is an * outward and visible sign * of an inward and spiritual grace,' and therefore distinct from the grace of which it is the sign. It is more than this ; it is a means whereby we receive the * grace,' yet still itself a means, not the end. It is a pledge to assure us of that grace ; yet still itself a pledge, not the precious gift itself. The sign may remain a bare sign, if the heart be not in a fit state to receive the spiritual grace ; the means may be in- effectual if the soul be unprepared to feed on the heavenly food ; the pledge will remain unfulfilled, if there be no faith to lay claim to it. And whilst each of these expressions 108 The Bishop of Durham on the Catechism. indicate that the saeramentum and the res sacrament% the sign and the thing signified, are not one and the same, but are distinct as cause and effect, the fact that the definition of a Sacrament in the Catechism is equally applicable to that of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, proves how inconsistent is the doctrine that in one Sacrament — and one only — the visible signs are changed in their nature. In Baptism water is the outward sign ; by prayer it is consecrated to a holy purpose ; it becomes a means and pledge of the cleansing grace of the Holy Spirit, and of a new birth unto righteous- ness. But there is no change in the nature of the water. It remains precisely what it was before, though hallowed to God's service. The Holy Spirit descends not into the water, but into the heart of the child of grace. In like manner, in the other Sacrament, the bread and wine are not changed in their nature by consecration. They remain in every respect the same as they were before, as the evidence of the senses, of sight, and touch, and taste unitedly testify. But in obedience to the Lord's command they are appropriated to a holy use, and thus become, not themselves the Lord,- whose dying love they exhibit, but certain sure signs, means, and pledges of the benefits which believers receive through the sacrifice of the death of Christ. The Lord enters not into the bread. The very thought is so degrading to His glori- fied Body as to seem almost blasphemous, but He dwells spiritually in the heart of the believer, and witnesses, to His great comfort, that he is one with Christ, and Christ with him. And thus the Catechism says that the inward part — the thing signified by the elements not existing in them — is the Body and Blood of Christ, verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. The only way in which the KituaJists are able to bring for- ward any passages in the Church Catechism in support of their doctrine is by a most unwarranted perversion of two expressions. They assert, first, that the words * inward part ' have reference to the elements, and not to the grace received by the communicant. But this is at variance with the analogous statement respecting the inward part in Baptism. If the inward part in one Sacrament is in the recipient, and not in the sign, it is equally so in the other Sacrament. The other assertion is, that by the word * faithful,' who are stated to receive verily and indeed the Body of Christ, is meant the whole body of baptized Christians, whether bad or good ; and that consequently if the bad, and those void of faith, receive the Body of Christ, that Body must be in the ele- ments. But this interpretation is altogether arbitrary, and Act of Uniformity^ 1662. Declaration on Kneeling. 109 is the more unjustifiable, inasmuch as the Catechism gives a clear description of the faithful, who verily and indeed feed on Christ, when in its concluding words it describes them to be * they who repent them truly of their former sins, stead- * fastly purposing to lead a new life, have a lively faith in * God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance * of His death, and be in charity with all men.' " The Act of Uniformity of 1662. It is now proposed to discuss the provisions of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, by which the doctrine of the Church of England, as it now stands, was determined. That Act ratified the Thirty-nine Articles, and enacted the Book of Common Prayer, and so authorised the Communion Office and the Catechism now in use. Attention will now be directed to the Communion Ofiice. In the Communion Ofiice only three alterations, made in 1662, need be noticed : (1) the introduc- tion of the rubrics ordering the manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration ; (2) the rubric ordering that the unconsumed portion of the elements should be covered with a linen cloth ; (3) the restoration, with alterations, of the Declaration on Kneeling, at the end of the Communion Ofiice. The first two alterations do not embody or affect doctrine, but only tend to reverence and order ; con- sequently, they have no substantial bearing upon th^ questions at issue. The Declaration on Kneeling of 1662. The third alteration, which related to the Declara- tion on Kneeling, requires to be carefully considered. It has been already remarked, that in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., a Declaration had been added by the authority of the Crown to the Commu- nion Office, for the purpose of explaining the posture of kneeling at reception, and of clearing it from superstition. In the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, this 110 Change in the language of Eucharistic Controversy , Declaration had been omitted. It appears from Cardwell's Conferences (p. 322), that in the Savoy Conference, the Puritan Divines had made the follow- ing request : "We desire that the following rubric in the Common Prayer Book in 5 and 6 Edward VI., established by law, as mnch as any other part of the Common Prayer Book, may be restored for the vindicating of our Church in the matter of kneeling at the Sacrament." The Bishops replied {Ihih, p. 354) : " This rubric is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by law. Nor is there any great need of re- storing it, the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry. Besides, the sense of it is declared suffi- ciently in the 28th Article of the Church of England." This reply of the Bishops had reference, it must be remembered, to the Declaration of 1552, before it had undergone any alteration : and, therefore, their assertion of its agreement in sense with the 28th Article of Religion is of importance, as showing, what will be presently established, that the alteration made in this Declaration in 1662 was merely verbal and not doctrinal. At the Revision of the Prayer Book in 1661, which followed this Conference, the doctrinal importance of the Declaration was recog- nised, and it was therefore substantially restored. The Declaration on Kneeling in 1552 had con- tained a denial of " any real or essential Presence, " there being ^ of Christ's natural flesh and blood." In the Declaration on Kneeling in 1662 the words, "real and essential Presence, there being," were omitted, and the words, " corporal Presence," were substituted. This alteration did not make any doctrinal change. The change was exclusively one of phraseology, and was rendered necessary by the change, which had taken place in the language of the Eucharistic controversy between 1552 and 1662. This change of controversial language arose from a change in the direction of the controversy. In 1552, Change in the aspect of the Eucharistic Controversy, 111 the Church of England was contending against the doctrines of Rome ; that controversy was exhausted by the writings of Cranmer and Jewel. . About 1570, the Church of England had to contend against lower defective views in respect of Sacramental Grace, then prevalent in this country and on the Continent ; and therefore her Divines felt it incumbent upon them, to assert the reality of the Presence of Christ in the ordinance^ which had not been the point in controversy in 1552. This change in the aspect of the Eucharistic ^controversy caused a corresponding change in the language used in the controversy. The Eeformers, in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, being engaged in the denial of the Presence in the elements against Rome, used the phrase, "real and essential Presence, there being," in the sense of ^'corporal Real Presence, external to the commu- *' nicant," and so denied it in the Declaration on Kneeling. The divines in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. and II., commonly called the Caroline divines, being engaged in the assertion of a true participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in the ordinance, against the defective views which then prevailed, used the phrase, "real and substantial " Presence," in the very different sense of " internal "spiritual Presence in the ordinance," and so accepted it, and declined to deny it or its equivalent, '''real and essential,'' in the Declaration on Kneehng. This use of the phrase is illustrated by the lan- guage of Protestant divines between 1552 and 1662. (1.) In the Examinations of Archdeacon Philpot (Parker Society, p. 130), it appears, that in his Twelfth Examination, in 1555, the following lan- guage occurs : His examiner the Bishop of Worcester said — " The Catholic Church doth acknowledge a real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and so will not you ? " Fhiljpot answered — That is not so, for 1 acknowledge a very essential Presence in the Sacrament duly used. *' Worcester. — What, a real Presence ? I 2 112 Langtiage of Protestant Divines, *' Philpot — Yea, a real Presence, by the Spirit of God, in the right administration." (2.) This view is farther illustrated, by the lan- guage of Archbishop Ussher in the 94th Article of the Irish Articles of Religion 1615, which will be found in Elrington's Life of Ussher (Appendix, p. xlix.) : " In the outward part of the Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Christ is in a most lively manner represented, being no otherwise present with the visible elements than things signified and sealed are present with the signs and seals, that is to say, symbolically and relatively. But in the inward and spiritual part the same Body and Blood is really and substantially presented unto all those who have grace to receive the Son of God, even to all those that behove in His name. And unto such as in this manner do worthily and with faith repair unto the Lord's table, the Body and Blood of Christ is not only signified and offered, but also truly exhibited and communicated." Here, any presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, other than symbolical and relative, is expressly denied ; while a real and sub- stantial Presence in the ordinance to the faithful is expressly asserted. (3.) In 1656, Cosin, one of the prelates engaged in the revision of the Prayer Book of 1662, says, at page 170 of the fourth volume of his works, in his History of Transubstantiation : " Where is the " danger, and what doth he fear, as long as all they *' who believe the Gospel own the true nature and the ** real and substantial Presence of the Body of Christ " in the Sacrament." Here the " real and substan- " tial Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacra- " ment " is maintained by Cosin, sio) years before the alteration of the language in the Declaration on Kneeling. (4.) Bishop Gauden, to whose influence, the re- introduction of the Declaration on Kneeling in our present Prayer Book was ascribed by Lord Chan- cellor Sheldon, says in his book intituled, " The Summary of Eticharistic Controversy^ ^55^^ 1 662. 113 " Whole Duty of a Communicaut," which has been quoted by that learned and elaborate writer, Mr. Perry, in his work on " The Declaration on Kneeling " (p. 313) : "We deny not a true and real Presence " and perception of Christ's Body and Blood in the " Sacrament," — an expression exactly agreeing with the refusal to deny a real and essential Presence, as it had stood in the Declaration of 1552. Thus we find the terms, real and substantial, were applied by the Protestant divines to that real commu- nication of the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful in the ordinance, which they maintained, and which the Catechism of the Church of England had asserted. These various views of this Eucharistic controversy, between 1552 and 1662, may be thus summarised: The Eoman Church held both an external Eeal Presence in the elements, and an internal Beal Presence to the soul of the communicant. Those who held the lower defective views, such as the Anabaptists, and others, held neither an external Real Presence in the elements, nor an internal Real Presence to the soul of the communicant. The Church of England, from Elizabeth's first Act of Uniformity, has denied an external Real Presence in the elements, and has maintained an internal Real Presence to the soul of the faithful communicant in the ordinance. This change, which has been shown to have taken place in the language of Eucharistic controversy, between the years 1552 and 1562, affords an expla- nation of the substitution of corporal for real and essential, when the Declaration on Kneeling was restored in 1662, and proves, that that alteration was exclusively verbal. The " real and essential Pre- *' sence," which had been denied in 1552, was the corporal Presence in the elements, as expressed by the words, " there being ,•" and this was still denied in 1662. But the true participation in the ordinance by the faithful, which the Church all along main- 114 " CorporaV equivalent to '' real and essential.''' tained, had come to be commonly called ''real and " essential." The denial^ therefore, oi real and essen- tial Presence was liable to be misunderstood, as though it denied the internal Real Presence as well as the external. The words were therefore omitted, and the word *' corporal," their exact equivalent, as they were used in 1552, was substituted in their place. That the word " corporal " is the exact equiva- lent of the words " real and essential," as used in the Declaration of 1552, is proved by referring to the third clause of the article on '' the Lord's Supper," as drawn up in 1552, in the same month as the Declaration was drawn up. That clause contained precisely the like argument, respecting the Presence of " Christ's Body in heaven and not here," as this Declaration contained. These Articles of 1 552 will be found in the Liturgies of Edward Yl., the English form at p. 534, and the Latin form at p. 579. The Presence in the elements which is denied in. the 29th Article of that series, is there termed the "Eeal and Bodily Presence;" in the Latin, " Realem et corporalemr The same Pre- sence, when denied in the Declaration on Kneeling, in the same year, is there termed, " real and essential!' So that ''real and essential," and "real and bodily," or " corporal," conveyed one and the same idea in the phraseology of 1552. In fact, the reformed divines designated the Roman doctrine of the Presence of the true Body of Christ by various terms, indifferently, and by accumulation ; they called it '' real," " corporal," " substantial," "essential," "carnal," "true," "natural," etc.: all meaning the same thing, viz., the Presence of the very actual Body of our Lord in the truth of His human nature in the consecrated elements. An illustration of the accumulation of such epithets occurs at p. 92 of the Judgment, where the learned Judge quotes the letter of Bishop Geste, to which the attention of your Lordships has been already directed. It is there said, "corporally, naturally, Reason of the substitution being made, 115 " really, substantially, and carnally, as the doctors do " write." One other illustration of this accumulation of epithets may be given in a short passage from Cranmer's Treatise on the Lord's Supper (p. 47) ; a passage of great importance, because it deals with the subject treated of in this Declaration, and contains a summary of the sacramental doctrine for which I am contending. Cranmer says : " And although Christ in His " human nature, substantially, really, corporally, " naturally, and sensibly be present with His Father, *^ in heaven, yet sacramentally and spiritually He is "- here present. For in water, bread, and wine He is ^' present as in signs and sacraments ; but He is *' indeed spiritually in those faithful Christian people '^ which, according to Christ's ordinance, be baptized, " or receive the Holy Communion, or unfeignedly '* believe in Him." Mr. Perry, in his work on the Declaration on Kneeling (p. 368), maintains the like opinion. He says, that he has *' alleged throughout, that the * real " ' and essential Presence ' of the first Declaration " was designed to mean exactly the same as the^ " corporal Presence of the second Declaration." Sir Montague Smith. — If " corporal " was the exact equivalent of" real and essential," why was the substitution made ? Mr. Stephens. — The reason is simply this : the phrase, " real and essential," had been applied, by general usage, in 1552 to the corporal Presence in the elements^ which the Church of England denied. But before 1662, that phrase had, by a change of usage, come to be applied to the Real Presence in reception, which the Church of England held. In fact, the language had changed, not in meaning but in application. It was, therefore, no longer safe to deny the corporal Presence in those terms, " real and '* essential," in which it had been denied in 1552, as they were now. ambiguous, and might be taken to 116 Corporal Presence^ deny the internal Real Presence, as well as the external Real Presence. ''''Corporal Presence^' defined. At this stage of the argument, it will be desirable to define the phrase, " corporal Presence," in con- nection with the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. From the beginning of the Reformation down to at least 1662, the phrase, "corporal Presence," bore one definite meaning in theological language, and was used both by those who maintained, and by those who denied that doctrine, in one and tTie same sense. The Roman writers meant by the phrase, " corporal " Presence," the Presence of the Body of Christ in the consecrated elements — and declared that doctrine true. The Protestant writers also understood by the phrase "corporal Presence," the Presence of the Body of Christ in the consecrated elements — and declared that doctrine /a/s^. But neither of these par- ties used the phrase, " corporal Presence," as meaning present after a bodily manner, i. e., after a gross or carnal manner — a mode of Presence which Romanists themselves denied, and which they declared was not involved in corporal Presence. It would be needless to multiply authorities for this construction, and it is therefore proposed merely to refer to Gardiner and Harding — two Roman Catholic authorities, and to Hammond and the Westminster Confession — two Protestant authorities, in order to illustrate the meaning of this phrase, thus covering the period from 1550 to 1662. Gardiner, writing in 1550 against Cranmer (Cranmer's Lord's Supper, p. 155), maintains "cor- poral Presence " under these words : " Christ is in " the Sacrament indeed, that is to say really, and " then is He there substantially, because the sub- " stance of the Body is there, and is there corporally " also, because the very Body is there." And yet in different from Corporal manner of Presence. 117 the same passage Gardiner denies any corporal manner of Presence : " The Catholic teaching is, that the " manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament is "' spiritual and supernatural, not corporal, not carnal, "not natural." Harding, writing in 1564 against Jewel, says (Sermon and Harding, p. 455) : " These places of the Scripture, and many other reporting plainly that Christ at His Supper gave to His disciples His very Body, even that same which the day following suffered death on the cross, have ministered just cause to the godly and learned fathers of the church to say, that Christ's Body is present in this Sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, and naturally. By use of which adverbs they have meant only a truth of being, and not a way or mean of being. And though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the Scripture, yet it is deduced out of the Scripture. For if Christ spake plainly, and used no trope, figure, nor metaphor, as the Scripture itself sufficiently declareth to an humble believer, and would His disciples to understand Him, so as He spake in manifest terms when He said, ' This is my Body which is given for you,' then may we say that in the Sacrament His very Body is present, yea, really, that is to say, indeed ; substantially, that is, in sub- stance ; and corporally, carnally, and naturally ; by which words is meant that His very Body, His very Flesh, and His very Human Nature is there, not after corporal, carnal, or natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, miraculously, super- naturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way to Him only known." Thus, both these Roman writers assert " corporal " Presence," while they are careful to disclaim corporal or carnal manner of Presence. Dr. Hammond, who died bishop designate of Worcester in 1660, states, in his Practical Catechism (p. 385) : "That the faithful do receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which implies not any corporal presence of Christ on the table, or in the elements, but God's communicating the crucified Saviour, who is in heaven bodily, and nowhere else, to us sinners on the earth, but this mystically, and after an ineffable manner.'* 118 Spirit and substance of Declaratio7i remained intact. In the Westminster Confession, which was ratified in 1649, and continued in force until the Restoration, the 7th Article respecting the Lord's Supper is given in Hall's Harmony of Protestant Confessions (p. 601), as follows : "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this Sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death : the Body and Blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." The result of these authorities is, that the meaning attached to " corporal Presence," was the Presence of the very Body C)f Christ in the consecrated elements, and that phrase did not mean, that the Body of Christ was present after a bodily or gross and carnal manner. The learned Judge, however, in the Court below, at p. 95 of his Judgment, explains "corporal " Presence as that gross mode of Presence which is " called TransuhstantiationJ' For this definition the learned Judge has cited no authority ; and it is clear that it is not in accordance with ihe four authorities that have been cited, either Eoman or Protestant. That the alterations of this formulary in 1662, from that which was used in 1552, were verbal and not doctrinal is proved by the fact, that the spirit and substance of the Declaration of 1552 remained intact. This is evident in three points : First. The object and intention remains the same, viz., to prevent the posture of kneeling being mis- construed into any authorization of Sacramental Adoration, either of the elements, or of Christ in the elements. Secondly. The doctrinal principle remains the same, viz., that the true natural Body of Christ cannot be " in more places than one at one time, that " it is in heaven and not here,'' Comments of the Judge on this alteration. 119 Thirdly. The conclusion drawn from this principle remains the same, viz., as stated in both the Declara- tions on Kneeling in 1552 and 1662, that the posture of kneeling, is "for a signification of our humble and " grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ " therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the " avoiding of profanation and disorder." The learned Judge, at pp. 94, 95, of his Judgment, discusses the effect of this Declaration, and especially the alteration made in 1662. His Lordship states : " This Declaration contains an apology for the kneel- '' ing posture of the communicants." Now, in point of fact, the object of this Declaration was to prevent the posture of kneeling being misconstrued, as though it authorized a return to the rejected superstition of Sacramental adoration, either of the elements, or of the Body of Christ supposed to be present in the elements. At p. 95, the learned Judge says : " ' Corporal ' is " not equivalent to ' real and essential ' (as Mr. Keble " truly remarks). It is not only associated with " grosser and more carnal ideas, but in its strict " philosophical meaning implies also something " local, in the sense of filling a certain space, oiKeiav " Trepiypacjyyv, the form of His glorious Body. ' Eeal,' " ' substantial,' * esscDtial,' imply nothing of the kind. " They express our faith in the miracle, without in " the least pretending to indicate the manner of it." The argument that " corporal " bears a more gross meaning than " real and essential/' is con- tradicted by the fact, as already shown, that the epithets "real," "corporal," "substantial," and " carnal," were used in the Eoman controversy inter- changeably and by accumulation : one further example cannot but suffice. John Rogers, the martyr, vicar of St. Sepulchre, said in his examination : " I cannot " understand ' really ' and ' substantially ' to signify " otherwise than ' corporally ' " (vi. Foxe's Actes and Monuments, p. 598). Indeed the learned Judge's own words show, that " real and essential " in the 1 20 Corporal implies something local, Declaration of 1552 meant " corporal r His Lord- sliip says, at p. 94 of his Judgment, that " Queen " Elizabeth omitted this Declaration altogether from " her Prayer Book . . . because it was an obstacle to " the communion of the Lutherans and Eoman " Catholics in our Church." Now it is certain, that their doctrine was the corporal Presence, and this they understood to be denied, by the denial of " real and essential Presence," which were the words then nsed in the Declaration on Kneeling. And Burnet, whom the learned Judge quotes, proves the same. Burnet says : " The Queen inclined to have the " manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left '* in some general words_, that those who believed the " corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church ;" thus proving that the " real and essen- tial Presence " was the "coiporal Presence." At p. 95, the learned Judge, quoting Mr. Keble's language, says, that ''^corporaV is not equivalent to *' real and essential^'' but that " it implies also some- " thing local." If the learned Judge be correct^ the *' word corporal " will be equivalent, not to " real " and essential " simply, but to " real, essential, and local." In accordance with this it may be observed, that in the revision of the Declaration in 1662, the word "corporal" is substituted not for "real and " essential " only, but for " real and essential there " being,'' which were the words of the original Declaration ; i.e , there, in the Sacramental elements. So that the corporal Presence which the Church here denies is " real and essential Presence, in the " elements, of the natural Body and Blood of Christ," i. e., in other words, the actual Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements — the very doctrine which Mr. Bennett teaches. This construction explains the controversial lan- guage which has already been remarked upon. The Presence of Christ's Body may be a "rm/ and " essential " Presence to the spirits of the faithful, then it is termed not " corporal Presence," but " there being'' implied local Presence. 121 " spiritual Presence.'* But when it is real and essential Presence in the elements^ i. e., " real and " essential Presence there being,'' then it is " corporal '' Presence," and is denied by the Church. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, '' cor- " poral Presence " means Presence of the Body, with the further idea of " local Presence filling a certain " space," that is. Presence in the elements. Presence on the altar. Presence in the hand of the priest — i.e., as the first Declaration in 1552 termed it, " Presence there being ;" the latter two words being omitted in the second Declaration, because they were, as the learned Judge asserts, contained in the word corporal. And the Church of England has carefully included all these meanings of the word "corporal,' by denying " any corporal Presence :" thus denying " corporal Presence " in any sense, of which these words admit. Hence, refinements are precluded, and the phrase, in any signification of it, is declared to be inadmissible in reference to the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. At p. 95 the learned Dean says : " At the Savoy Conference, in 1661, the Presbyterians desired the restoration of the Declaration, and the Bishops opposed it, but eventually consented to its restoration, with an alteration of the most material character, namely, the substitution of the words ''corporal Presence of Christ's * natural Flesh and Blood,' for the words * real and essential * Presence there being,' &c." The learned Judge here states, that the substitution of the words, '* corporal Presence of Christ's natural " Flesh and Blood," for the words ** real and essential " Presence, there being," &c., is " an alteration of the " most material character," But it has been shown, that the alteration is simply verbal, being a substitu- tion of the phrase, " corporal Presence," in place of the ambiguous phrase, " real and essential Presence," used in 1552. This substitution did not affect doctrine. But the learned Judge holds, that this substitution had a ''grave " effect upon the doctrine of the Church 122 The alteration did not deal with Transubstantiation, of England : " that it was a deliberate alteration " intended to exclude, in conformity with the Articles, " that gross mode of presence which is called Tran- " substantiation, but to admit the real and essential '* Presence, which the Second Prayer Book of '' Edward YT. had excluded." Two points are here raised, which require serious consideration : First. It must be' observed^ that the clause in the Declaration on Kneeling, which the learned Judge is discussing, does not deal with the question of Tran- substantiation. That question is dealt with in the next paragraph : ^' Vot the sacramental bread and " wine remain still in their very natural substances." The clause however dealt with by his Lordship, deals with the subject of corporal or Real Presence, which is very different from the question of Trail- substantiation ; since the one deals with the presence of the Body of Christ, the other with the absence of the substance of the bread and wine. Secondly. The learned Judge has here held, that the alteration made in this clause has admitted '' the '* real and essential Presence, which the Second " Prayer Book of Edward YI. had excluded." Now, what is the real and essential Presence, which the Second Prayer Book of Edward YI. had excluded in the Declaration of 1552, on which the learned Judge is commenting ? It is the '* Real and " essential Presence," there being, of Christ's natural " Flesh and Blood," i.e., the corporal Presence of the natural Body and Blood of Christ in the elements. And this, his Lordship says, is now admitted. It is alleged that, by omitting the words " real and essential,'' the Church evinced, that it was no longer prepared to deny the idea, which those words con- tained ; but if this be admitted, it would onl^ follow, that the Church allowed some real and essential Presence ; and that a presence such as is consistent with the Body and Blood of Christ being in heaven, and not here. Such a presence is a spiritual Pre- The Declaration conclusive against Real Presence, 123 sence to the soul of the worthy communicant, as distinguished from an actual presence of the Body in the elements. And accordingly, the Church denies a corporal Presence. That this Declaration is destructive of the doctrine of "Real Presence," as distinct from the doctrine of Transuhstantiation, was felt to be the case at the time, when the Act of Uniformity in 1662 restored it to the Prayer Book. Burnet tells us, in his History of his own Times, (vol. i., p. 333), that : " Bishop Gawden 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 be again 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 in- structed 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." Hence it is plain, that the Declaration, as altered in 1 662, was understood to declare against not only Tran- suhstantiation (for that was known to be no doctrine of the Church of England), but also against that " Real Presence " in the elements, which some had attempted to prove to be her doctrine. But it is this " Real Presence," which the learned Judge says, has been admitted by the alteration of the words of the Declaration in 1662. The learned Judge has failed to perceive, that the construction which his Lordship has put upon this Declaration, militates against its intention and object. The object of this Declaration is, as previously stated,' to disallow all sacramental adoration, as the motive or intention of the posture of kneeling. But if there be, as the learned Judge holds, a real and essential * James, Duke of York, afterwards James II. 124: A real and esse7itial P r esence would claim adoratio7i. Presence of the natural Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, then that Presence would necessarily claim adoration ; and it would become the duty of every communicant to kneel for the purpose, and with the intention of adoration. But, on the contrary, the Declaration alleges, that the object and purpose of kneeling, is something altogether different from sacramental adoration, viz., for the signification of gratitude and prevention of disorder. The learned Judge draws a distinction between a gross mode of presence in the elements, which is excluded, and a real and essential presence in the elements, which his Lordship considers is admitted by the Church. But this construction makes the lan- guage of the Declaration illogical, for the result would be, that adoration is to be withheld, because the gross mode of presence is not there, although the real and essential Presence of Christ's body and blood be there. But it is evident, that this real and essential Presence would be at least as adorable, as the gross mode of presence of which the Judge speaks. This construction therefore makes the language of the Declaration unreasonable. At p. 117 of his Judgment the learned Judge has quoted Dr. Hey. The language of that Divine there quoted, shows the sense in which he understood the argument of the Declaration on Kneeling, as excluding the Bodily Presence of Christ upon earth. Dr. Hey says : " Christ was our victim ; on His Body we do not feast literally, because it is in heaven ; but He appointed bread to represent it. On that we can feast, and so partake of His Body; that is, feast upon the Victim. Such bread is the Bread of Life, because, by His own appointment, it repre- sents His Flesh. This appears to me plain and simple." This language of Dr. Hey, quoted by the learned Judge, is, indeed, ''plain and simple;' and, in fact, disposes of all the doctrinal conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge in this case. The Natural Body of Christ : Cranmer, 125 The Natural Body of Christ, Another important expression in this Declaration requires examination, viz., " Christ's natural Flesh " and Blood ;" and again, " the natural Body and " Blood of our Saviour Christ." The question is, what is the force of the epithet " natural " as here used? When dealing with the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, it was remarked, that in those Articles the Body of Christ is mentioned seven times ; and in every instance simply, without any epithet or dis- tinction, signifying the true Body of Christ's humanity. In the Declaration on Kneeling, the epithet " natural " has been prefixed to '' the Body of Christ ;" but still the same true Body of Christ's humanity is signified. The object of the insertion of the epithet " natural," was to distinguish the true Body of Christ from His mystical Body, viz., the Church or Congregation of faithful men. This distinction was not necessary in the Articles on the Sacrament, which speak of eating the Body of Christ ; for in that connection, no suggestion of the mystical Body of Christ, viz., the Church, was possible. But in the Declaration on Kneeling, the distinction was necessary, because the statement that the Body of Christ is in heaven, and not here, might have been met by the suggestion, that the mystical Body of Christ, the Church, is here upon earth. Therefore we find, that in the Declarations on Kneeling, in 1552 and 1662, the phrase, " natural Body of Christ," was used to exclude any such suggestion of the mystical Body. This is supported by Cranmer, the principal author of the Declaration on Kneeling in 1552, who, in his Treatise on the Lord's Supper (p. 180), says : "And therefore the bread is called Christ's Body after consecration, as St. Ambrose saith, and yet it is not so really, but sacramentally. For it is neither Christ's mystical Body K 126 Natural Body of Christ same as His true Body, (for that is the congregation of the faithful dispersed abroad in the world) nor His natural Body (for that is in heaven), but it is the Sacrament both of His true natural Body and also of His mystical Body, and for that consideration hath the name of His Body, as a Sacrament or sign may bear the name of the very thing that is signified and represented thereby." It thus appears, that the natural Body of Christ is the same, as His true Body. Accordingly, in the Declaration of 1552, as originally drawn by Cranmer and others, the phrases used are, the ' ' natural Body " and Blood of our Saviour Christ ;" and again, *^ Christ's true natural Body." This word " true^' being superfluous and used by accumulation, was omitted in 1662. This meaning of the word " natural " is supported by the use of the word in the same sense, in reference to the bread and wine, in the context. The Decla- ration says, " The sacramental bread and wine remain " still in their very natural substances ;" meaning thereby, the very true substances which belong to their nature as bread and wine. In like manner, the " natural Flesh " and the " natural Body " of Christ is, that very true Body, which belongs to His nature as man. It is of this true natural Body of our Lord, that the fourth Article of Religion says : •' Christ did " truly rise again from death, and took again His " Body, with flesh, bones, and all things apper- " taining to the perfection of man's nature ; where- " with He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth " until He return to judge all men at the last day." It is this true natural Body that is spoken of in the passages quoted by the learned Judge, at p. 41 of his Judgment, from the trial of Bishop Ridley : " In his examination at Oxford it was articled against him — * first, that thou Nicholas Kidley, in this High University * of Oxford, anno 1554, in the months of April, May, June, * July, or in some one or more of them, hast affirmed, and * openly defended and maintained, and in many other times So used by Ridley and Peter Martyr, 127 * and places besides, that the true and natural Body of Christ, * after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in * the Sacrament of the altar/ " Ridley, in his reply, given in the same page, uses the phrases, " the natural Body and Blood of Christ ;" " the very true and natural Body and Blood of "Christ;"* and "the very true Body of Christ;" applying these phrases, indifferently, to the same subject matter, viz., Christ's actual Body of our human nature ; that very Body in which He suffered for us on the cross. These words, "true and natural," are applied, in the like manner, to the Body of our Lord to identify it, as the very Body of our humanity, by Peter Martyr, in his Disputation at Oxford. Peter Martyr's argument, which will be found in Foxe's Actes and Monuments (vol. vi., p. 302), takes this logical form : " Every true natural body requireth one certain place : " Augustine saith, Christ's Body is a true natural Body : " Ergfo, Christ's Body requireth one certain place." In support of these views, I will quote from the writings of a divine, whose statements on the nature of Christ have invariably been received by divines of the Church of England as authoritative. I allude to Hooker, who, in the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical Polity, chapter 55, says : " The substance of the Body of Christ hath no presence, neither can have, but only local. It was not therefore every- where seen, nor did it everywhere suffer death, everywhere it could not be entombed, it is not everywhere now being exalted into heaven. There is no proof in the world strong enough to enforce that Christ had a true Body but by the true and natural properties of His Body. Amongst which properties definite or local Presence is chief. 'How is it * true of Christ (saith TertulUan) that He died, was buried, * and rose again, if Christ had not that very flesh the nature ' whereof is capable of these things, flesh mingled with * blood, supported with bones, woven with sinews, embroi- * dered with veins ?' If His majestical Body have now any such new property, by force whereof it may everywhere really, even in substance, present itself, or may at once be K 2 128 Hooker on the verity of our Lord's nature. in many places, then hath the majesty of His estate extin*- guished the verity of His nature. * Make thou no doubt or * question of it (saith St. Augustine) but that the man Christ * Jesus is now in that very place from whence He shall come * in the same form and substance of flesh which He carried * thither, and from which He hath not taken nature, but * given thereunto immortality.' According to this form He spreadeth not out Himself into all places, for it behove th us to take great heed, lest while we go about to maintain the glorious Deity of Him which is man, we leave Him not the true bodily substance of a man. According to St. Augus- tine's opinion, therefore, that majestical Body, which we make to be everywhere present, doth thereby cease to have the substance of a true Body." These authorities support the proposition which I have submitted to your Lordships, viz., that "the " true Body " and '' the natural Body of Christ " are one and the same Body. The learned Judge, at p. 95 of his Judgment, when quoting the language of the Declaration, italicises the word " natural " in the phrase, '* Christ's natural " Flesh and Blood f but beyond the contrast, already pointed out, with the mystical Body or Church, the word " natural " has no special force, and might have been omitted without affecting the sense. This appears from the language of another docu- ment, drawn up only twenty-one years before the incorporation of this Declaration in our present Prayer Book, and by some of the same divines as revised that Prayer Book — viz., the Canons of 1640. These Canons, it is true, have no binding force ; they are only here referred to, as illustrating the language used by theologians of that period. In the 7th Canon, which will be found in the first volume of Cardwell's Synodalia (p. 406), an attempt was made by Laud and his party to introduce the custom of obeisance on entering and leaving church. The Canon says : *' The reviving, therefore, of this ancient and laudable custom we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any " The Spiritical Body of Christ^' defined. 129 religious worship to the Communion Table, the East, or Church, or anything therein contained, in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, upon any opinion of a corjporal Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Holy Table, or in mystical elements, but only for the advancement of God's majesty, and to give Him alone that honour and glory that is due unto Him, and no otherwise." The argument of this Canon is exactly parallel with the argument of the Declaration on Kneeling. In the one case, the gesture of bowing, in the other the posture of kneeling, are alike declared 72ot to be intended to be done to any corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is to be observed, that the expression used in the Declaration is, " corporal Pre- " sence of the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ." The expression in the Canon is, " corporal Presence " of the Body of Christ," where the word natural is not nsed ; no suggestion of the mystical Body, the Church, being possible here. Hence it appears, that in the Declaration on Kneeling, the v^ordi natural might have been omitted without loss of force, except as regards the contrast with the mystical Body of Christ — His Church. The suggestion, that the denial of the presence of a natural Body, is not a denial of the presence of a spiritual Body, has no foundation in the theological language of the time. This appears from the words of Harding (Jewel, Sermon, p. 459), where he speaks of the " true Body of Christ, taken of the " Virgin Mary, of man's nature, and now, by " Divine gifts and endowments, a spiritual and a " Divine Body ,•" thus showing, that in his opinion also, the true or natural Body of our Lord, now in glory, is a spiritual Body. To this view Jewel fully assents (p. 460). ^ " The Spiritual Body of Christ^' defined. Having quoted the phrase, " spiritual Body," I may perhaps be permitted to state, what I venture to 130 '^ Spiritual Presence,'' defined. consider the exact and correct sense of that phrase*. The spiritual Body of Christ means onr Lord's very true natural Body, risen from the grave and now in glory in heaven ; any other sense of those words is mystical or figurative. The learned Judge has no where defined, what he understands by the " spiritual Body of Christ." But the sense in which his Lordship appears to understand that expression — viz., as a Body of some undefined supernatural qualities ; a Body distinct from his natural and true Body now in heaven ; and more spiritual than that glorified Body, is a sense unknown to the Church of England, and destructive of the truth and unity of our Lord's humanity. It is of some such imaginary Body that Jewel (Sermon, p. 484), speaks, as maintained by his Roman adversary Harding : " When Mr. Harding saith, ' The Body of Christ is in * heaven as in a place, and in the Sacrament without place/ he seemeth secretly to say that Christ's Body in the Sacra- ment is more glorious, more spiritual and Divine, than is the very Body of Christ indeed that is in heaven, in the glory of God the Father. Which conclusion, how well it may stand either with the rest of his own doctrine, or with the truth of our Christian religion, I leave it in consideration to the reader." " Spiritual Presence,'' defined, I will now venture to define the phrase, " spiritual " Presence," so far as it may be applicable to the present case. It should be remarked, that Mr. Ben- nett is not charged in the Articles with maintaining a spiritual Presence ; but he is charged with main- taining an actual presence of the true Body or the natural Body of Christ in the elements. The learned Judge has, however, at p. 74 of his Judgment, re- presented Mr. Bennett's doctrine to be, " that the " Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually present " under the form of bread and wine." And at pages 135 and 136, tlie learned Judge in his Sentence spiritual Presence, a presence to our Spirits. 131 implies, that Mr. Bennett is articled for maintaining " spiritual Eeal Presence," and he decides, that to describe '' the mode of Presence as spiritual is not " contrary to law." The learned Judge has not, however, stated in any part of his Judgment or Sentence what he means by spiritual Presence. This omission is a source of per- plexity, because the phrase, spiritual Presence, does not occur in any of the Formularies of the Church of England, at least so far as my researches have ex- tended. Some Divines of the Church of England have used this phrase in the Eucharistic controversy, and from their writings it appears, that by the spiritual Presence of the Body of Christ is to be understood, the presence of the Body of Christ to our spirits, as distinguished from any presence to outward or corporal objects — and to that definition of spiritual Presence no objection is raised. Thus, Bishop Jeremy Taylor (Works by Eden, vol. vi., p. 17,) speaking of the difference between the Romish and Protestant views upon this subject. " This caution and exactness in the use of the word ' spiritual ' is therefore carefully to be observed, lest tlie contention of both parties should seem trifling, and to be for nothing. We say that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really, but spiritually. They say it is there really, but spiritually. For so Bellarmine is bold to say, that the word may be allowed in this question. Where now is the differ- ence ? Here : by ' spiritually ' they mean ' present after the ' manner of a spirit ;' by spiritually we mean * present to * our spirits only,' that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith, or spiritual susception. But their way makes His Body to be present no way but that which is impossible and implies a contradiction ; a body not after the manner of a body, a body like a spirit ; a body without a body ; and a sacrifice of body and blood, without blood: corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus. They say that Christ's Body is truly present there as it w^as upon the cross, but not after the manner of all or any body, but after that manner of being as an angel is in a place, that is there * spiritually ;' but we, by the ' real spiritual Presence ' of 132 Romandoctrine of presence after a spiritual mmmer. Christ, do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present iD the hearts of the faithful, by blessing and grace ; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative Presence." Jeremy Taylor here asserts, that by " spiritually present," we Protestants mean " present to our spirits only ;" and this he regards, as the one great distinction between the Eomish and Protestant views. The erroneous and, when used by clergymen of the Church of England, unlawful meaning of spiritual Presence^ is that which is attached to the phrase by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome teaches, that the very true natural Body of Christ, that in which He suffered^ is present in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, not after a natural, but after a spiritual manner of Being. This doctrine of the Romanists is founded upon a fiction of their own invention, by which they erroneously attribute to the Body of Christ, two natures, or two different modes of exist- ence ; feigning that His Body has both a natural or corporal mode of existence in heaven, and also a supernatural or spiritual mode of existence in the Sacrament on earth. The doctrine, that the Body of Christ is both here on earth and also in heaven, is declared by Cranmer to be a new faith invented by the Papists, and to involve two heresies. Cranmer, in his Treatise on the Lord's Supper (p. 100), says : " Wherefore the Papists (which now of late years have made a new faith, that Christ's natural Body is really and naturally present both with us here in earth and sitteth on the right hand of His Father in heaven) do err in two very horrible heresies ; the one, that they confound His two natures, His Godhead and His manhood, attributing iinto His humanity that thing which appertaineth only to His Divinity — that is to say, to be in heaven, earth, and in many places at one time ; the other is, that they divide and sepa- rate His human nature or His Body, making of one Body of Christ two Bodies and two Natures, one which is in heaven, The Roman doctrine involves two heresies, 133 visible and palpable, having all members and proportions of a most perfect natural man ; and another, which they say is in earth here with us in every bread and wine that is conse- crated, having no distinction, form nor proportion of mem- bers ; which contrarieties and diversities, as this holy martyr, Yigilius, saith, * cannot be together in one nature.' " This argument of Cranmer disposes of all the questions in issue. The doctrine held by the Roman Catholics, and by others who sympathised with them, viz., that the very true Body of Christ is in heaven and also is, after some other manner, upon earth, in the consecrated elements, does give to Christ two different Bodies^ which Cranmer says is a heresy ; and it does also attribute to the humanity of Christ the quality of ubiquity, which belongs only to His Divine nature, which Cranmer declares to be a second heresy. On this point Cranmer (pp. 95, 96) quotes St. Augustine and adds — " Of these words of St. Augustine it is most clear that the profession of the Catholic faith is that Christ (as concerning His bodily substance and nature of man) is in heaven, and not present here with us in earth. For the nature and pro- perty of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place, and not to be everywhere, or in many places at one time. And though the Body of Christ, after His resurrection and ascension, was made immortal, yet this nature was not taken away ; 'for then,' as St. Augustine saith, 'it were no * very Body.' And further St. Augustine showeth, both the manner and form, how Christ is here present with us in earth, and how He is absent, saying that He is present by His divine nature and majesty, by His providence, and by grace; but by His human nature and very Body He is absent from this world and present in heaven." Mr. Bennett speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ, as " being really present after an immaterial '' and spiritual manner in the consecrated bread and *' wine." This manner of presence is not the Spiritual Presence held by the Church of England, for that is a Presence to our spirits only, and this is a Presence in the consecrated elements. 134 Doctrinal importance of the Declaration, The language used by Mr. Bennett closely re- sembles that of the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome holds, that the natural Body and Blood of Christ are really present, after an immaterial and spiritual manner in the consecrated elements. Mr. Bennett refrains from using the phrase, " natural " Body," because that phrase would have brought him within the express language of the Declaration on Kneeling. But he does use the phrase, " the true Body of Christ," which signifies the same Body of Christ, that in which he suffered, and which is now in a spiritual condition glorified in heaven. Relying upon these authorities, I venture to de- fine the Spiritual Presence of the Body of Christ as the Presence of the Body of Christ to our spirits, and not as the Presence of the Body of Christ after the manner of a spirit, which, as I have before observed, is a plain contradiction of terms. Doctrinal Importance of the Declaration on Kneeling. Having now ascertained the meaning of the words, natural Body and corporal Presence, used in this Declaration, it is desirable to consider the general scope of the Declaration itself, in order to ascertain its doctrinal importance. The intention and purport of the Declaration is to remove all scruples and misrepresentations, by declaring that the posture of kneeling, at the receiving of the Holy Communion, has no connection with Sacra- mental adoration in either of its forms : that is, neither with the adoration of the elements, nor with the adoration of the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. For this purpose it assigns the reason, and therefore excludes all other reasons, for kneeling at this time, viz., that it is " for a signification " of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of " the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy " receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation " and disorder in the Holy Communion as might The intention and purport of the Declaration, 135 " otherwise ensue." The Declaration then asserts, that the object for which it is published is, " lest the " same kneeling should by any persons, either out of " ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy, " be misconstrued and depraved." Here two classes of persons are contemplated: (1) persons of a scrupu- lous mind, who might fear that the old superstition of Sacramental adoration was intended by the posture of kneeling, and so " out of ignorance and infirmity " might "misconstrue" that posture; (2) persons in- clined to bring back the old superstition of Sacra- mental adoration, who would interpret the posture of kneeling, as an authority for such adoration, and so " out of malice or obstinacy " might " deprave " the order to kneel. Thus the only misconstruction and depraving of which the posture of kneeling was capable, was connecting it with Sacramental adora- tion, instead of confining it, as the Declaration does, to gratitude, reverence, and order. To meet this danger, " It is hereby declared, that thereby no adora- " tion is intended or ought to be done, either unto '' the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily re- " ceived, or unto any corporal Presence of Christ's " natural flesh and blood." Here, in the first place, adoration of the elements is forbidden^ and the reason is afterwards assigned : " 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 " by all faithful Christians; and, in the second place, adoration of the Presence of Chrisfs Body in the elements or " Corporal Presence " is forbidden ; and the reason is assigned : " For the natural Body " and Blood of our Saviour Christ are 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 has already been established that the word " natural," as applied to our Lord's Body now glorified, can only express a contrast with His mystical Body, the Church, or His figurative Body. It means 136 Body of Christ ca7inot be adored m the Elements, therefore, His very Body of our human nature, which has but one condition, or manner of existence, a Spiritmxl Body^ hut still truly a Body ; and, there- fore, the Declaration says, not able '' to be at one " time in more places than one." The argument of the Declaration on Kneeling therefore is, that as the Body of Christ is in heaven and heaven only^ it cannot have any corporal Pre- sence — ^that is, ayiy actual presence of the Body itself in the elements^ here upon earth. And as the Body of Christ is not present in the elements, it may not therein be adored; and, therefore, Sacramental adora- tion is unlawful, and the posture of kneeling is not, either by " ignorance " or '^ malice," to be connected with Sacramental adoration, either of the consecrated elements or of a supposed presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. In the one case, the sub- stance of the bread and wine is there, and may not be adored ; in the other case, the Body and Blood of Christ are not there^ and therefore may not be therein adored. Jeremy Taylor says (Works by Eden, vol. vi., p. 669) : " We may not render divine worship to " Him as present in the blessed sacrament accord- " ing to His human nature without danger of " idolatry, because He is not there according to His " human nature, and therefore you give divine wor- *' ship to a non ens^ which must needs be idolatry." The words of Jeremy Taylor, " according to his *' human nature," are the equivalent of the expres- sions used in the Declaration, " Christ's natural " Body," because the presence of "the natural Body " of Christ " is His presence " according to His " human nature." It is vain to object, that the Declaration on Kneel- ing, in denying the Presence of the natural Body of Christ on earth, or in the elements, leaves room for the Presence of the Spiritual Body of Christ, or is designed to allow that doctrine. For this division of the natural and Spiritual Body of Christ, is destruc- Consistency of Declaration with the Catechism. 137 tive of the argument and object of the Declaration itself. For, if there be a Presence of the Spiritual Body of Christ in the elements, adoration ought to be addressed to that Presence. Whereas, the whole purport of the Declaration is to disavow sacramental adoration, as any motive for the posture of kneeling. The Declaration therefore proves, that the Church of England denies, that there is any presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, on the broad ground, that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here. The Declaration also proves, that the Church of Eno'land does not admit the fancied distinction between two conditions of our Lord's Body, viz., a spiritual manner of Presence, and a corporal manner of Presence. Christ has but one Body, and but one condition of that Body, viz.. His glorified and spiritual Body of our human nature, which the Declaration calls His natural Body, which is in heaven and not here. Consistency of the Declaration on Kneeling with the Catechism, Having thus established the doctrinal importance of the Declaration on Kneeling^ I will now proceed to show the consistency of this Declaration with the Catechism. The Declaration on Kneeling, thus re- stored, acquired statutable authority in 1662 ; and the Catechism of the Church of England obtained at the same time a like authority. The doctrinal principle of the Declaration, that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here, and the statement of the Catechism, that " the Body of Christ is verily and *' indeed taken and received " in the Sacrament are consistent, because the reception spoken of by the Catechism, is a reception by the souls or spirits of the faithful through faith, and requires no presence •on earth. The doctrine of this part of the Cate- chism is, that there is a real presentation of the Body of Christ, by the powder of the Spirit of God, to the soul or spirit of man ; that which the Homily 138 Their consistency established by NowelVs Catechism, " concerning the Sacrament " terms (p. 442), " the " Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in " a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation " of the Holy Grhost, the very bond of our conjunc- " tion with Christ, is through faith wrought in the " souls of the faithful ;" words strictly in accordance with the teaching of the Catechism, that " the Body " and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken " and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." This consistency is further established in Nowell's Catechism (p. 213) ; where the following language is used in reference to the Lord's Supper : " Q. Is there then not an only figure, but the truth itself of the benefits that thou hast rehearsed, delivered in the Supper ? *' A. What else ? For sith Christ is the truth itself, it is no doubt but that the thin^ which He testifieth in . words, and representeth in signs, He performeth also in deed, and delivereth it unto us ; and that He as surely maketh them that believe in Him partakers of His Body and Blood, as they surely know that they have received the bread and wine with their mouth and stomach. " Q. Sith we be in the earth, and Christ's Body in heaven, how can that be that thou say est ? " A. We must lift our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up by faith to heaven, where Christ is." Here, under the words, " He as surely maketh them " that laelieve in Him partakers of His Body and " Blood," Nowell's Catechism asserts the like doctrinal principle, which is asserted by the Church Catechism — viz., that " the Body and Blood of " Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by " the faithful in the Lord's Supper." And under the words, " Sith we be in the " earth and Christ's Body in heaven," Nowell's Catechism asserts the like doctrinal principle, which is asserted in the Declaration on Kneeling — viz., that *' Christ's Body is in heaven and not here." Nowell then raises the question, how can these two truths be reconciled ? The consistency between these two principles is The Body of Christ received by lifting up the heart. 139 thereupon explained by the answer, put into the mouth of the scholar, in these words : " We must lift " our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up " by faith to heaven, where Christ is!' This is the reply, which I venture to give to the question that the Lord Chancellor put to me yester- day, raising the very difficulty which Nowell raises and disposes of. It has been my contention during this argument, that Christ has but one true Body, natural, in the per- fection of man's nature ; and spiritual^ in its risen and glorified state. That Body is in heaven and not here. Yet is that spiritual and natural Body, verily and indeed taken and received in the Lord's Supper by way of spiritual communication, which the 28 th Article declares, is only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and this agrees with the doctrine of Nowell, that the Body of Christ is received by lifting up the soul and heart by faith to heaven. The like views were entertained by Oranmer, in 1554, in his Disputations at Oxford, immediately before his martyrdom, and will be found in Cranmer's Lord's Supper (p. 398). When discussing the words of our Lord, " this is my Body," he said : " The old doctors do call this speaking of Christ tropical, figurative, analogical, allegorical; which they do interpret after this sort, that although the substance of bread and wine do remain, and be received of the faithful, yet, notwithstand- ing, Christ changed the appellation thereof, and called the bread by the name of his flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood, * not that it is so in very deed, but signified in a ' mystery.' So that we should consider, not what they be in their own nature, but what they import to us and signify ; and should understand the Sacrament not carnally but spiritually ; and should attend not to the visible nature of the Sacraments, neither have respect only to the outward bread and cup, thinking to see there with our eyes no other things but only bread and wine ; but that, lifting up our minds, we should look up to the Blood of Christ with our faith ; should touch him with our mind, and receive him with our inward man ; and that being like eagles in this life 140 This Doctrine supported by Cranmer, we should fly up into heaven in our hearts, where that Lamb is resident at the right hand of his Father, which taketh away the sins of the world ; by whose stripes we are made whole ; by whose passion we are filled at his table, and whose blood we, receiving out of his holy side, do live for ever, being made the guests of Christ, having Him dwelling in us through the grace of His true nature, and through the virtue and efficacy of His whole passion." Here we find Cranmer holding a real participation of the Body of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, at the same time, that that Body of Christ is, as Cranmer says, " resident at the right hand of His Father." And the 7^esult of that participation he states to be, that Christ " dwelleth in us, through the grace of ** His true nature, and through the virtue and efficacy " of His whole passion." This view is further supported by the following explanation given by Cranmer in his preface to the reader (p. 3) : *•' Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book, that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive the Sacrament, lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, that is to advertise the reader that I mean no such thing ; but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ's body that was crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually present with all them that duly receive the Sacraments ; but all this I understand of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith, * I will be * with you until the world's end ;' and ' wheresoever two or * three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the * midst of them ;' and * he that eateth my flesh and drinketh * my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him.' Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due ministra- tion of the Lord's Supper than he is in the due ministration of baptism [that is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And wheresoever in the Scripture it is said that Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is in any man, the same is understood spiritually by grace.]" * * The passage within brackets is only found in the edition 1580. This Doctrine supported by the Homilies » 141 The like argument occurs in the Second Book of Homilies, in the Sermon " Concerning the Sacrament " (p. 445) : " By the advice of the Council of Nicene we ought to lift up our minds by faith, and leaving these inferior and earthly things, there seek it, where the Sun of Rigliteousness ever shineth. Take, then, this lesson, O thou that art desirous of this table, of Emissenus, a godly father, that when thou goest up to the reverend Communion to be satisfied with spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy Body and Blood of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it with thy mind, thou receive it Avith the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man." This consistency of the sacramental doctrine of the Catechism, with the other formularies of the Church of England, has been most learnedly established by the Bishop of Killaloe, in his Charge of 1867. His Lordship, speaking of the discussions which had recently been raised on the subject of the Eucharist, by an active party in the Church, says (p. 27) : "With respect to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sum of their doctrine seems to be this — that in or with the elements, the substance of our Lord's Body and Blood is so present that it is received in or with them into the hands of all the communicants, taken into their mouths, and swallowed into their stomachs ; and that, in consequence of the hypostatic union, the person of our Lord is so present in or with the elements, that He is to be adored with divine worship addressed to Him as so present under the veil, as it were, of the outward Sacrament. "The question is, whether this doctrine is part of the authoritative teaching of our Church ? And after the most careful search that I can make, I really cannot find anything that can even colourably be alleged for the affirmative with- out a manifest begging of the question, except the well- known words in the catechism, which tell that * the Body * and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re- * ceived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.' Now, with respect to these words, it is remarkable that, until compara- tively recent times, no party in the Church seems ever to have taken offence at tliem. There is no trace of any objec- tion to them in the Memoranda of the Committee under 142 This spiritual receptio7i the only trtie reception. Archbishop Williams, which met just before the Grand Eebellion to remove causes of offence from the Liturgy ; and ev(n wlien the morbidly-sensitive minds of the Puritan divines at the Savoy Conference were ransacking the Common Prayer Book for topics of complaint, these words seem never to have occurred to any of them. Nor is there anything surprising in this, except upon the strange assumption that nothing which is spiritual can be true and real, than which nothing can be more opposed to the whole tenour of language as used in the Scripture and by the Primitive Church. Tliat there is a spiritual reception of Christ's Body and Blood, the mean whereof is faith — when we * receive them with the * hand of the heart, touch them with the mind, and take ' them fully with the inward man' — nobody, I suppose, will deny ; and why it should be doubted that those who thus receive Christ receive him verily and indeed I cannot imagine. I should myself be inclined to say that it is only such as these who do receive him verily and indeed, and that all else, however they may press with their teeth, carnally and visibly, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ. In saying this I have been, as you well remember, doing little more than reciting the very words of the Church in other parts of her formularies." This authoritative statement of the Church of England in the Declaration on Kneeling, that the true Body of Christ, now in its spiritual condition, which is the only true Body which Christ has, and the only condition in which that Body now exists, is in heaven and not here, supported as it is by Cranmer (6 Foxe's Actes and Monuments, p, 447), and Cover- dale (Fruitful Lessons, pp. 464, 465), in the reign of Edward YL, by Jewel (Sermon, p. 12. Jewel Harding, p. 1124), Grindal (Eemains, pp. 44-46), and the Second Book of Homilies (p. 445), in the reign of EHzabeth, and by the adoption of NowelTs Catechism by the Convocation of 1603 in the reign of James I., and proved by those authorities to be entirely consistent with the other authoritative statement, that " the Body and Blood of Christ are " verily and indeed taken and received by the " faithful in the Lord's Supper," was, in 1662, finally incorporated in our present Prayer Book. Summary of the Doctrine of the Formularies. 143 This principle has a general application to all the questions at issue, and when so applied, is found to decide them all : (1.) It applies to every branch of the question of the Real Presence in the elements ; and is decisive against such presence : (2.) It refutes the error of reception by the wicked, which only stands upon the supposed presence in the elements : (3.) It excludes the error of the sacrifice of Christ by the priest : and (4.) It destroys the foundation, upon which the erroneous practice of Sacramental adoration in all its forms, has been sustained. Summary of the Doctrine of the Formularies, Respecting the Presence of the Body of our Lord, it has been established, that the Church of England teaches the following four propositions, exclusive of her teaching of the non-reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked : (1.) That the natural Body of Christ, that is. His true actual human Body, now in a glorified and spiritual condition, is in heaven, and not here. (2.) That consequently, there is no presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements at any time. (3.) That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present upon consecration in the elements on the " altar," or in the hand of the minister. And (4.) That the Body of Christ is received only in an heavenly and spiritual manner, by the means of faith alone ; that is to say, the Body of Christ is given- by Grod only, and not by the priest ; is taken by faith only, and not by the hand ; is eaten by the soul only, and not by the mouth. These propositions may be briefly stated, as con- stituting, what the learned Judge terms the recep- tionist doctrine^ which his Lordship discusses at pages L 2 144 The Receptionist Doctrine, 89-91 of his Judgment, where he says: "There is " a doctrine as to the mode of the Presence which " has obtained the name of the Receptionist Doc- " trine. It is thus expressed by Hooker, * the Real " ' Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and " ' Blood is not, therefore, to be sought for in the " ' Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the " ' Sacrament.' " The learned Judge suggests, that Hooker did not in- tend to maintain, that no other mode of the Presence could be lawfully holden by clerks of our Church. But it is remarkable, that, at p. 68 of the Judg- ment, in the passage there quoted by the learned Judge from Moberly's Bampton Lectures, the Bishop states, that Hooker and Waterland " limit authorita- " tively that presence to the heart of the receiver y Archbishop Longley, in his Posthumous Charge, to which the learned Judge refers at p. 90, speaks still more decidedly on this point. It will be found in a passage at pp. 26, 27 of that Charge, which I have already read to your Lordships, in which the Arch- bishop fully adopts the doctrine of Hooker, as the doctrine of the Church of England. Dr. Harold Browne, to whom the learned Judge has referred four times in his Judgment, sums up his discussion of the History of the 28th Article in these words : " It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much concerning our divines since the Eeformation Some, perhaps, who have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed not him but Zuingle upon the Sacra- ments ; and this, too, may have been the bent of those who afterwards more especially followed Arminius, both here and on the Continent. But from the time of the Reformation to the present all the great luminaries of our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears on the face of our formularies, agreeing to deny a corporal and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosiu, Bramhall, Ussher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland. All these have left us writings on the subject, and have all coincided, with but very Bishop of Exeter s Letter to Charles Butler. 145 slight diversity, in the substance of their belief. They have agreed, as Hooker says, that ' Christ is personally present, * albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent,' that * the fruit * of the Eucharist is the participation of the Body and Blood * of Christ,' but that ' the Keal Presence of Christ's most * blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacra- * ment (i. e., in the elements), but in the worthy receiver of * the Sacrament.' " The doctrine, therefore, of the Church of England is definite — viz., a Presence in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament, and not in the Sacramental elements. And in further support of this construction, I will only cite the deliberate opinion of an eminent prelate lately deceased, whose theological learning is uni- versally respected — viz., the late Bishop of Exeter, especially as it embodies the views upon the subject of the Real Presence, which have been arrived at in the course of this argument. The Bishop of Exeter, in his Letters to Charles Butler (p. 120, London, 1866), says : '* Dr. Milner's argument rests on two sophisms, which it will be found worth while to expose, as they are commonly adopted by the modern advocates of your Church. "The first is a petitio principii: he begs, or rather he boldly runs away with, the very matter in dispute. He assumes that the Bjeal Presence is, and can only be, the corporal and material presence of the crucified Saviour ; such a presence as can only be effected by changing the sacra- mental elements into the Body and Blood of Christ, or by making both substances to be united in one ; whereas, as shall be shown presently, and as Dr. Milner perfectly well knows, the Church of England holds a Beal Presence of a very different kind. " The other sophism rests on an ambiguous meaning of the word Sacrament, a word sometimes and more strictly applied to the sign or matter, sometimes to the whole sacred rite. Now it is in the former sense that the Church of Eome holds the Keal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament ; it is in the latter that the Keal Presence in the Sacrament, maintained by the Church of England, must be sought. " The Church of Kome holds that the Body and Blood of 146 Identity of the true and the natural Body, Christ are present under tlie accidents of bread and wine ; the Church of England holds that their Eeal Presence is in the soul of the communicant at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. " Having thus cleared our way, I prooeed to state more fully what is indeed the doctrine of our Church on this sub- ject. She holds, then, that after the consecration of the bread and wine they are changed, not in their nature, but in their use ; that instead of nourishing our bodies only, they now are instruments by which, when worthily received, God gives to our souls the Body and Blood of Christ to nourish and sustain them ; that this is not a fictitious or imaginary exhibition of our crucified Eedeemer to us, but a real though spiritual one, more real indeed because more effectual, than the carnal exhibition and manducation of him could be (for the flesh profiteth nothing). " In the same manner, then, as our Lord himself said, * I * am the irue Bread that came down from heaven' (not mean- ing thereby that he was a lump of baked dough or manna, but the true means of sustaining the true life of man,"wluc]i is spiritual, not corporal), so in the Sacrament, to the worthy receiver of the consecrated elements, though in their nature mere bread and wine, are yet given truly, really, and effec- tively, the crucified Body and Blood of Christ, that Body and Blood which were the instruments of man's redemption, and upon which our spiritual life and strength solely depend. " It is in this sense that the crucified Jesus is present in the Sacrament of his Supper, not in nor with the bread and wine, nor under their accidents, but in the souls of commu- nicants, not carnally, but effectually and faithfully, and there- fore most really." The True Body of Christ and the Natural Body of Christ are the same. Respecting the doctrine of the Real Presence, the learned Judge^ at pp. 24, 25 of his Judgment, has given a summary of the charges on this subject. Upon this summary the learned Judge remarks : " The first question for consideration is, whether the pas- Rages extracted from the work of the defendant do contain the opinions which are so charged against him. After an attentive perusal of the passages extracted, I have arrived at Dr, Puseys words adopted by Mr, Bemtett. 147 the conclusion that they do not contain the opinions relating to the presence of the natural Body and Blood of oar Saviour which are charged in the 11th, 17th, and 21th Articles. " The passage which makes the nearest approach to the support of this charge is, I think, in the extract lettered D in the 5th Article, where he speaks of ' the fact that here * before God's altar is something far higher, far more awful, ' more mysterious, than aught that man can speak of, namely, * the presence of the Son of G-od in human flesh subsisting/ It seems to me that the author, whose language is lamentably loose and inaccurate, did not mean by these words any more than the presence of the Incarnate Son of God, and did not mean to express any opinion as to the presence of his natural flesh and blood. And this opinion is confirmed by a com- parison of the passage cited with other passages in his work, such as, for instance, one of the passages cited in the Articles before me, lettered G, * a living real spiritual offering of ' Jesus Christ upon the altar,' and the often-repeated ex- pression that the Presence of which he speaks is one under the veil of the elements of bread and wine, and various other passages which upon the whole lead me to the conclusion that he did not contemplate a physical or natural Presence of our Lord. I therefore consider the criminal Articles on this point, 11, 17, and 24, not to be proved." It will be my duty to submit to your Lordships, that Articles 11, 17, and 24, have been proved. The 11th Article charges Mr. Bennett with teach- ing, " that in the Holy Communion the natural Body " and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in " heaven, but here, to wit, upon or before the altars, " thereby referring to the communion tables of the " churches of the said Church, under the form of " Bread and Wine." This Will Avticle is founded upon the language of Mr. Bennett in his Essay in " The Church and the " World ;" and more especially upon the words, at p. 11 of that Essay, which Mr. Bennett has adopted from a sermon of Dr. Pusey's, and also upon the words of Mr. Bennett at p. 13 of that Essay. Article 17, which is substantially like Article 11, is supported by the language of Mr. Bennett, in the second edition of the '' Plea for Toleration," especially by the words at p. 14 of that edition. 148 Mr. Benneti speaks of the true Body. Article 24, which is also substantially like the 11th Article, is supported by the language of Mr. Bennett in the third edition of the " Plea for Toleration," especially by the words at p. 11 of that edition. The substantial question in reference to these articles is — Whether Mr. Bennett, in these passages, maintains the Presence of the natural Body of Christ on the altars of our churches ? I am ready to admit, that Mr. Bennett does not use the phrase, " the " natural Body of Christ." But he uses the phrase, " the true Body of Christ, that which was given for " us on the cross." And it is submitted, that, as already shown, " the true Body of Christ," and " the natural Body " of Christ," are one and the same : the " true " Body of our Lord" is his ''''natural Body,"-^once crucified, now in heaven, and none other. I will now proceed to deal with the Judgment of the learned Judge, in reference to these three Articles. The fallacy of his Lordship's Judgment consists in this — Mr. Bennett has been charged in the 11th Article with maintaining, that " the natural Body *' and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in " heaven but here." But the learned Dean of the Arches has dealt with the Article, as if Mr. Bennett had been charged with maintaining '' a physical or " natural Presence of our Lord." When the learned Judge uses the language, ** a " physical or natural Presence of our Lord," his Lordship can only mean such a Presence of the Body of our Lord. But Mr. Bennett has not been charged with maintaining a physical or natural Presence of the Body of our Lord. His Lordship has likewise been inexact upon another point, when dealing with the 1 1th Article. Mr. Bennett is charged with maintaining, that " the " natural Body and Blood of Christ are here upon the Natural Body and natural Presence distinct, 149 " altars." At. p. 25 of his Judgment, his Lordship accurately represents this charge, as " relating to the *' Presence of the natural Body and Blood of our " Saviour." But at p. 26, his Lordship deals with the charge under the very different phrase of " the natural " Presence of our Lord ;" language not used by Mr. Bennett, nor charged against him. In this substituted phrase, his Lordship omits the words " Body and Blood/' and attaches the word "Natural" to the word "Presence," instead of to the word " Body " to which it had belonged. The distinction between the two phrases is this : "the natural Body and Blood of Christ" means His " true Body of our nature ;" whereas the phrase substituted by the learned Judge, viz., " the natural " Presence of our Lord," alludes to the manner of the Presence of the Body, and suggests the existence of different modes of Presence ; such as a material kind of Presence, as opposed to an immaterial kind of Presence. That contrast is not raised in the 11th Article. It appears that his Lordship considers, that the "natural Body of Christ" means, "the Body of " Christ present after a natural manner." But this is inexact : both by Roman (Gardiner, 1 Card. Doc. Ann. pp. 195, 196; Cranmer's Lord's Supper, pp. 155, 180 ; Jewel, Sermon, pp. 455, 460, 464, 480, 522) and Protestant (Ridley, quoted in Judgment, p. 41) writers, the words " Natural Body" were always used in this controversy to signify the true very Body of Christ, that in which He suffered, as distinguished from His mystical Body, the Church ; and did not mean the physical or natural mode of the Presence of that Body, which was always expressed by the very different phrase, "present after a natural " manner." The wide distinction between these two phrases is proved by the fact, that the Church of Rome main- tains the one and denies the other. She maintains the presence of the " natural Body of Christ," and at 150 Different manners of Presence not recognised. the same time denies, that it is " present after a '' natural manner." Hooker (Works, vol. ii., p. 359 ; Book v., ch. 67, s. 12), stating, that there are hut three exposi- tions of the words, " this is mj Body/' viz., the Lutheran, the Roman, and that which he himself adopts, describes the Roman view to be, " this is " itself and before participation, the very true and " natural substance of my Body ,•" and at the same time, as already shown, the Church of Eome teaches, that the Body of Christ is present, not after a natural manner. The learned Judge, in this and other places of his Judgment, seems to support the doctrine, that there are two manners of the Presence of the true Body of our Lord, i. e., that the very true natural Body of Christ is present in heaven after a natural manner, and also present in the elements after a spiritual, but yet true and real manner. But this doctrine is, as already shown, excluded by the language of the Declaration on Kneeling, which asserts, that the natural Body of Christ is in heaven and not here. This language is absolute, and precludes the possi- bility of any manner of Presence of the Body of Christ here upon earth. In fact, the Church of England has nowhere in any of her formularies, recognized any distinction of different manners of the Presence of the Body of Christ. The 28th Article of Religion, as already proved, does not speak of different manners of the Presence of the Body of Christ, but different manners of giving and receiving that Body. The true Body of Christ, that in which He suffered on the cross, is now in heaven — natural, in the per- fection of man's nature ; spiritual, in its ascended and glorified condition. It is of this true natural Body of our Lord, that the Declaration on Kneeling asserts, '* that it is in heaven and not here." Mr. Bennett asserts that it is here, viz., " on the True Body of Christ is nahtral and spiritual. 151 " altars, under the form or veil of bread and wine." It is, therefore, submitted, that although Mr. Bennett does not use the expression " the natural Body of '-' Christ," yet, since he speaks of the Presence of " the " true Body of Christ — that Body which was given " for us on the cross," he asserts the presence of that which the Declaration on Kneeling calls, " the natural " Body of our Saviour Christ." When, therefore, Mr. Bennett speaks of " the true Body of Christ," he must be held to maintain, the Presence of "the natural " Body of Christ," for Christ has no other true Body. And when Mr. Bennett maintains " the Presence of " the Son of God in human flesh subsisting," he must be held to maintain the Presence of the very true natural Body of our Lord's humanity ; and Mr. Bennett is therefore rightly charged in the 11th Article. The language of Mr. Bennett — " Who myself adore, " and teach the people to adore, Christ present in the " Sacrament under the form of bread and wine, " believing that under their veil is the sacred Body "" and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," proves that Mr. Bennett holds the Presence of the very true natural Body of Christ in the elements ; because he pays to the Body there present, worship and adoration. It is therefore evident, that it is not the mystical body, nor the sacramental or figurative body of which he speaks, because no adoration could be paid to either of such bodies, but only to the very true natural Body of Christ; and therefore Mr. Bennett is rightly charged in Article 24. The matter is thus brought to a very narrow issue. The true Body, which Mr. Bennett says is given to us in the Sacrament, and which he states is under the veil of bread and wine, whereby, he says, there is '' a real and actual Presence of our Lord, under the " form of bread and wine, upon the altars of our " churches," is either the same Body as that spoken of as the " natural Body " in the Declaration on Kneeling, or it is not the same. If it is the same 152 Our Lord has not two true Bodies. Body, then Mr. Bennett's doctrine directly contra- dicts the Declaration on Kneeling, which asserts, that that Body is in heaven and not here. If, on the other hand, it is not the same, then onr Lord has two true Bodies, one in heaven, and the other upon earth ; which doctrine the Church of England does not hold. Upon this subject, I may perhaps be allowed to quote the language of Waterland, at p. 513 of his Treatise on the Eucharist, to which work allusion has been made. The Dean, speaking of the strange opinions of a book called *' De Divinis OfHciis," ascribed to Alcuinus, says : " The sum is, that because one of the three is truly Christ's body in a symbolical sense, and the other truly his body in a mystical sense, and the third in a true and proper sense, therefore all the three are severally a true body of Christ, and together one true body. Such were the ravings of men bewildered in their ways, after they had deserted the old paths. It is, however, worth the observing, that this author was very solicitous to avoid the suspicion of making two true bodies of Christ, which Christian ears could not bear." Waterland (pp. 494 and 495), speaking of the words of the Apostle, '* that Rock was Christ," says : " And as it would not be right to say that the Eock was a spiritual Christ distinct from the real Christ, making two Christs, so neither can it be right to say or conceive that the bread in the Eucharist is a spiritual body of Christ, making two true bodies of Christ. But as the Kock was a symbol of the one true Christ, so is the sacramental bread a symbol exhibitive of the one true Body of Christ, viz., the natural or personal Body, given and received in the Eucharist. I say given and received spiritually, but truly and really, and the more truly because spiritually, as the spiritual sense, and not the literal, is the true sense." It is, therefore, submitted, that since the true Body of Christ is but one, and that Body is His natural Body, Articles 11, 17, and 24 have been proved. Mr. Bennett's teaching on the Real Presence. 153 Summary of Mr, Bennett's teaching on the Real Presence, With the doctrine of the Church of England thus ascertained, it will now be necessary to compare the statements of Mr. Bennett in regard to the Real Presence, gathered concisely from the passages of his works, which are set out in the Articles of Charge. Mr. Bennett, speaking of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, says : ^' It is a Presence without us, " not within us only." And again : " Since, then, it " was His true Body that was given for us on the " Cross, it is His true Body which is given to us in " the Sacrament. The manner of the Presence of the *' Body is different. The Body which is present is '* the same." This is an assertion of the Presence of the true Body of Christ, that which suffered on the cross. His natural Body, without us : i. e., external to the communicant. Mr. Bennett says : " Here, before God's altar, is '' the Presence of the Son of God in human flesh *' subsisting." This is an assertion of a local Pre- sence of Christ in human flesh, agreeing with and illustrating the previous assertion of the Presence of the true Body of Christ, without us : i. e., external to the communicant. Lord Justice James. — What do you mean by " local Presence ?" A Presence limited to a particular place, or a Presence in that place, which is consistent with a Presence elsewhere ? Mr. Stephens. — Presence in a place. Lord Justice James. — Confined to that place ? Mr. Stephens. — Certainly. Lord Justice James. — Could there not be a supra- local presence ? Mh. Stephens. — A body is local, a spirit is non- local ; what then becomes of supra-local ? The Bishop of London. — How does that apply to the case of a spiritual body ? 154 Real^ Actual^ and Visible Presence on the Altar, Mr. Stephens. — It is still a body.* The Lord Chancellor. — \¥ould you say our Lord was not present to St. Stephen at liis mar- tyrdom ? Mr. Stephens. — That was in a vision. f Mr. Bennett asserts, in the second edition of his " Plea for Toleration," " the real, actual, and visible " Presence of our Lord upon the altars of our " churches." In the third edition of his " Plea for " Toleration," Mr. Bennett has substituted for these words the following : " The real and actual Presence " of our Lord, under the form of bread and wine, " upon the altars of our churches." But Mr. Bennett says, "My meaning, and that " which passed through my mind in writing the '^ original passages, was precisely the same as that " which is now conveyed in the words substituted." This can only be the case on the ground that, both in the original and in the substituted phrase, Mr. Ben- nett meant to assert the real and actual Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements ; and that Presence so certain, that to see the elements was to see Christ, which he therefore in his first phrase expressed as " the visible Presence " of Christ. This original phrase, "visible Presence," Mr. Bennett tells us was " liable to a different con- " struction from that in which he used it." This phrase, taken literally/, would imply that Christ was visible in His own foim. He therefore changed the phrase, but maintained the same doctrine of the actual Presence of Christ upon the altars of our churches — not under His own form, but " under the " form of bread and wine." That the phrase, under the " form of bread and wine," thus adopted by * This interpellation is taken from the Guardian, December 6th, 1871. t This interpellation has been taken from the shorthand writer's notes. That our Lord was not present on earth at the martyrdom of St. Stephen, is proved by the words of St. Stephen, Acts vii. 56 : " Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on " the right hand of God." Actual Presence in the Elements. 155 Mr. Bennett, expresses the real and actual Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, appears from the language of the late Archdeacon Wilberforce, in his work upon the Eucharist (pp. 164, 165). . That writer says : " And yet there is one way in which our Lord's body may be said to be present with form and place in the Holy Eucha- rist ; for there is a connection between the Sacramentum and Kes Sacrament], and form and place belong to the first, thouo^h they do not belong to the second. So that though the Kes Sacramenti in itself has neither place nor form, yet it has them in a manner through the Sacramentum with which it is united. Christ's body, therefore, may be said to have a form in this Sacrament, namely, the form of the elements, and to occupy tliat place through which tlie ele- ments extend. As tlie spirit may be said to be present in that place where the body is situated, and as light may be said to assume the shape of the orifice through which it passes, so it may be said that the Kes Sacramenti borrows place and shape from the Sacramentum, with which it is united by consecration." Mr. Bennett, in the second edition, says, that he is "one of those who elevate the blessed Sacrament ; " who, myself, adore, and teach the people to adore, " the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in " them, believing that under their veil is the sacred " Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus *' Christ." In the third edition, Mr. Bennett omitted the words, " the consecrated elements, believing Christ " to be in them," and substituted in lieu of them, " Christ, present in the Sacrament, under the form of " bread and wine." In this case, likewise, Mr. Bennett says, that his meaning in both phrases was precisely the same. The difference lies in the asser- tion, in the one case, of the adoration of the elements, believing Christ to be in them, for which he substi- tutes the adoration of Christ in the elements. On the subject of the Real Presence, there is no substan- tial difference between the two passages. The first spoke of Christ present in the consecrated elements. 156 Adoration proves actual Presence of the trtie Body. the second speaks of Christ present in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine ; but this last must, equally with the first, be an assertion of the presence of Christ in the elements, for the following reasons : First; because Mr. Bennett says, his meaning is precisely the same in both passages. Secondly; because he gives precisely the same reason in both cases, viz., " believing that under " their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of Christ." Thirdly; because his statement, that he "elevates " the blessed Sacrament," shows that he is using the word " sacrament," as meaning the consecrated elements, for it is the elements that he elevates. And this is the construction which the learned Judge puts upon this language at p. 133 of his Judgment, where he quotes Mr. Bennett as saying, "Who " myself adore, and teach the people to adore, Christ " present in the elements, under the form of bread and " wine." This language of Mr. Bennett, in both the editions of the " Plea for Toleration," proves, that he main- tains the actual presence of the true or natural Body and Blood of Christ in the elements upon the altar, or in the hands of the priest, for the following reasons : First ; because the adoration which he pays, and teaches his people to pay, can be given only to the actual Presence of the true or natural Body and Blood of Christ, and not to any mystical, figurative, or sacramental body. Secondly; because the Body and Blood, which Mr. Bennett believes to be present in the elements, are such as draw with them, by necessary conse- quence, the Presence of Christ Himself. For Mr. Bennett speaks of " the Presence of our Lord upon " the altars ;" and again, " Christ present in the " Sacrament ;" and again, of " adoring God in that " blessed offering." This is by the personal or hypo- static union, by which, wheresoever the true natural " Under the veil of Bread and WineP 157 Body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and Man, which consequence would not follow from the presence of any mystical, figurative, or sacramental body, but only from the presence of the very true natural Body of Christ in the elements. Mr. Bennett's statement, that he believes that *' under • " the veil of bread and wine is the sacred Body and " Blood of Christ," is a plain assertion of an actual presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated elements. This expression, " under the " veil," is not to be found in the Formularies of the Church of England. The idea intended .to be con- veyed by this expression is, that the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is only slightly hidden and covered by the elements, as by a thin veil, which scarcely conceals them ; and thus it expresses the actual Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements, in a manner, which stands a stage nearer to " the visible Presence," than even the formula " under the form of bread and wine." It is of this Pre- sence that Mr. Bennett speaks, as the " real objective " Presence of our blessed Lord," which the learned Judge, at p. 69 of his Judgment^ explains "to mean *' that the Presence of Christ is mysteriously, but " really, in the consecrated elements, apart from the "act of reception by the communicant." It is therefore submitted, that Mr. Bennett has been shown to teach : (1.) That the natural Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are not only in heaven, but here, to wit, upon or before the altars of our churches under the form of bread and wine. (2.) That there is an actual Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the consecrated bread and wine. (3.) That there is an actual Presence, called by him at one time a visible Presence, at another time an objective Presence, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, without or external to the communicant, by virtue of or uj3on the words M 158 Authorities quoted by the Judge^ examined, of consecration, irrespective of the faith of the com- municant, — a Presence by which the Body and Blood of Christ are given to all who receive the elements. And, (4.) That there is an actual Presence of the true Body and Blood of our Lord in the consecrated bread and wine, without or external to the communicant, prior to and separate from the act of reception. It is submitted, that this teaching is contrariant to the plain and definite teaching of the Church of England on this subject. Authorities quoted hy the Dean of the Arches^ as to the Construction of the Formularies relating to the Holy Eucharist, examined. The learned Judge, in relation to the Holy Eucha- rist, has taken an opposite view of the construction of the Formularies of the Church, to that which has just been stated. At p. 30 of his Judgment, his Lordship says : " I hold it to have been the intentioD of the Formularies to exclude the Zwinglian doctrine of bare commemoration with respect to the Lord's Supper, although that error be not expressly mentioned. The next error is, however, by name prohibited, transuhstantiation. .... This is the only mode of the Presence which is eo nomine proscribed by the Articles." Thus the learned Judge has decided, that the Formularies of the Church exclude no other form of doctrine than these two, viz.: (1) transuhstantia- tion, and (2) the denial of all grace in the Sacra- ment, which the Judge attributes to Zwingli. With the exception of these two errors, the learned Judge considers, that any doctrine on the subject of the Presence is compatible with the Formularies. If this be the true construction of the Formularies of the Church of England, the Lutheran doctrine is tole- rated, that is, the corporal Presence of the natural Body and Blood of Christ united with the elements. This would be in direct contradiction to the state- Formularies incorrectly pronounced indefinite. 159 ment in the Declaration on Kneeling, that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here. At p. 135 of his Judgment, the learned Judge says : " Now I have shown that no mode of the Presence is de- fined by the Formularies, and by a large induction of instances, that the present opinions, for which Mr. Bennett is articled, are not, however loosely expressed, distinguishable in substance from those, which have been maintained for many years by many great divines of our Church and by many learned men." His Lordship here relies upon two points ; (1) that the language of the Formularies is not definite upon the subject of the Presence; (2) that consequently upon this indefinite character of the Formularies, the language of great divines of our Church may be appealed to, and that, when so appealed to, they support the doctrine maintained by Mr. Bennett. As to the first point thus raised, it has been established, that the Formularies do definitely exclude that actual Real Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements, or on the altar, which Mr. Bennett teaches, by the clear and de- finite principle, that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here. If this be clear, it is unimportant, for the decision of the issues in this case, what divines and learned men may have taught, because nothing can control the plain grammatical sense of a statute. Respecting the second point, viz., the reference, which the learned Judge has made, to the writings of divines, it becomes imperative upon me to examine, whether the opinions which they have maintained are^ as the learned Judge states^ " not distinguish- *' able in substance from those for which Mr. Bennett *' is articled." In pages 31 to 68 of his Judgment, the learned Judge quotes from the writings of thirty divines, *'as," using his Lordship's language, '^au- " thorities as to the construction of the Formularies " relating to the Holy Eucharist." Before entering upon a brief examination of these authorities, it may be desirable to remind your Lordships of the prin- M 2 160 Principles of reference to Authorities. ciples, by whicli a reference to this class of authority for the construction of statutes is governed. It is submitted that, if there be in the Formularies of the Church any words of a technical or peculiar hind, or indeed any expressions which at the time had acquired any appropriate meaning, it is com- petent by evidence of a general kind to show such meaning. But the mere fact of certain divines having enunciated certain views, without meeting with positive censure, does not prove per se that those views can lawfully be maintained and taught. Such evidence may be confirmatory of, and ancillary to^ conclusions derived from a legitimate investiga- tion of the Formularies; it cannot supersede such investigation, nor be permitted to contradict its clear results. (Williams v. Bishop of Salisbury, 2 Moore, P.C. (N.S.), p. 424. Shore v. Wilson, 9 CI. and Fin., p. 555.) I will now proceed to discuss Eatramn and ^Ifric. The learned Judge, at page 31 of his Judgment, says : " And first let me begin with those two authorities to whom I have already referred, and wlio demonstrate the identity of the present doctrine of the Church of England with that, which she has maintained from Anglo-Saxon times, upon the subject of the Presence in the Eucharist." The two authorities to whom the learned Judge here alludes are Batramn and ^Ifric. Batramn lived about 700 years, and ^Ifric about 600 years, before the accession of Edward VI. The extracts from these writers, and the comments of the learned Judge upon them, extend over rather more than nine pages of the octavo edition of his Lordship's Judg- ment. It would be a serious encroachment upon your Lordships' time, if I were to discuss the subject matter of these pages in extenso. I therefore propose simply to quote the opinions of the late Bishop Plampden and the Bishop of St. David's, in order to show what doctrine Batramn held. Ratramn and ^Ifric, 161 It is important to remember, that the writings' of Ratramn can have no authority in regard to the construction of the Formularies of the Church of England, except so far as they were adopted by Eidley. What Ridley considered to be Ratramn's doctrine is evident from his own statement in his dis- putation at Oxford (Ridley's Works, 202) : '' Finally, " with Bertram, I. confess that Christ's Body is in " the Sacrament in this respect, viz., as he recite th, '' there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the " power of the word of God, which not only feedeth *' the soul, but also cleanseth it." It may likewise be remarked, that the sense in which the Legislature used certain words and phrases in the Acts of Uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II. and the 39 Articles, cannot be illustrated or con- trolled by the opinions of Ratramn and ^Ifric, who lived about six or seven hundred years before the reign of Edward YI. Archbishop of York. — Why should Ratramn be quoted as an authority by the learned Judge ? Mr. Stephen^s. — ^The best answer I can make to your Grace is, " Davus sum, non (Edipusr Lord Romilly. — Where did he live, not in England ? Mr. Stephens. — No, he was a German [or Frenchman]. Lord Justice James. — You contend, I suppose, that the learned Judge ought not to have placed the slightest reliance on Ratramn ? Mr. Stephens. — Of course. Ratramn cannot be an authority for the interpretation of the For- mularies of the Church of England. Sir James Colvile. — He is relied on, because English divines — Bishop Hampden, the Bishop of St. David's, and others — have quoted him.* Mr. Stephens. — The doctrine of Ratramn has been stated by the Bishop of St. David's in his * This interpellation is taken from the Guardian oi December 6tb. 1871. 162 Bishop of St. Davias 07i Ratramn, Charge of October, 1857* This Charge the learned Judge quotes from, at p. 35 of his Judgment, as giving an account of Ratramn's book. But his Lord- ship has omitted to observe the passage I am about to read, although it immediately precedes that, which his Lordship has quoted. The Bishop says at p. 134 of his Charge : " Ratraran, on the other hand, denies that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ otherwise than as a fledge and an image. And let it be carefully observed, not as some would wish such language to be understood, a pledge and image of a thing present, but of a thing absent and to come : c. '^^^ * apparet quod hoc corpus et sanguis pignus et * imago rei sunt futurse.' And, c. 87, * Qua de re et corpus * Christi et sanguis est quod ecclesia celebrat, sed tanquam * imago. Yeritas vero erit, cum jam nee pignus nee imago, * sed ipsius rei Veritas apparebit.' It seems impossible to say, that this is a difference of views, which only relates to the * mode of manifestation or existence of the same Body,' as if both admitted the same Body to be present, only in different modes, unless it might be truly said, that the whole difference between a portrait and its original consists in * the mode of manifestation or existence of the same ' * persoij." As it seems that your Lordships do not attach much weight to the opinions of Ratramn, I shall not trespass upon your attention by referring at greater length to the Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, nor shall I trouble your Lordships with any extracts from the writings of Bishop Hampden. At p. 41 of his Judgment the learned Judge quotes Bishop Ridley. I must express my surprise, that his Lordship should have relied upon one of the greatest lights of the Reformation, in support of the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, when his Lordship must have known, from the works of Ridley, which he quotes, that it was for the denial of the like doctrine that Ridley suffered martyrdom. Now, let us see what support Mr. Bennett's doc- trines obtain from the language thus quoted from Ridley, 163 Eidley's examinations, extorted from him during his imprisonment, and when pressed with passages from the Fathers, then considered decisive of faith, he was prevented from having recourse to his books (Ridley, Works, p. 272). The charge against Ridley is given by the learned Judge, viz., that he maintained " that '' the true and natural Body of Christ, after the " consecration of the Priest, is not really present in " the Sacrament of the Altar." No doubt this was the doctrine of Ridley, for the maintenance of which he suffered death ; but it is directly opposed to the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, that the true Body of Christ is in the elements on the altar. Ridley, in his answer, maintains a Real Presence in a certain sense, and explains it to be only "spiritually by grace and efficacy." This sense of the Presence Mr. Bennett rejects. Such being Ridley's doctrine, it would be a mere waste of time to discuss all the passages quoted by the learned Judge from Ridley ; but I must draw attention to one other passage, quoted by his Lord- ship, as there has been an important omission made in quoting it from the original. At p. 43 Ridley is quoted as saying : " Even so likewise, the cup is called the blood also, which flowed out of Christ's side, because it is the Sacrament of that blood which flowed out of his side, instituted of the Lord himself for our singular commodity, namely, for our spiritual nourishment, like as baptism is ordained in water to our spiritual regeneration. " Curtojp. — The Sacrament of the blood is not the blood. " Bidley. — The Sacrament of the blood is the blood, and that is attributed to the Sacrament, which is spoken of the thing of the Sacrament. ***** " Weston. — That is very well. Then we have blood in the chalice ? '* Bidley. — It is true ; but by grace, and in a sacrament." The learned Judge has by asterisks denoted an omission ; that omission I will venture to supply. 164 The Homily concerning the Sacrame^it. In the case of this particular passage of Ridley, the learned Judge has not given the reference. It will be found at p. 238 of Ridley's Works : " Weston repeateth Curtop's argument in English. . . . " Bidley. — The Blood of Christ is in the chalice indeed, but not in the Real Presence, but by grace, and in a Sacra- ment." This important expression, ''not in the Real Pre- " sence,'^ the learned Judge has refrained from quoting, although the passage omitted only consists of eight short lines, and is a part of the continuous argument quoted by the learned Judge. At p. 43 the learned Judge next quotes the Homily " concerning the Sacrament ;" but that Homily speaks, not of any incorporation of the Body of Christ in the elements, wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the act of consecration, inde- pendent of the faith of the recipient, which is Mr. Bennett's doctrine, but of " the Communion of the " Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous in- " corporation, which by the operation of the Holy " Ghost is, through faith, wrought in the souls of " the faithful " The whole of the passage quoted by the learned Judge, does not contain one word, as to the presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. The learned Judge next quotes Bishop Jewel. What is Jewel's doctrine ? In the first passage quoted. Jewel states two propositions as the doctrine of the Church of England. First he says : " Panem ^ et vinum dicimus esse sacra et cselestia mysteria *' corporis et sanguinis Christi." Here the elements are not said to be the Body and Blood of Christ, nor to contain the Body and Blood of Christ, but to be mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. Secondly, he says : " Illis Christum ipsum verum ^' panem aaternse vitae sic nobis proesentem exhibcri, " ut ejus corpus, sanguinemque per fidem vere ymveli OvemlL 165 '' sumamus/' Here Jewel maintains, not that Christ is present in the elements^ and is communicated to them, but that He is present to us^ and communicated to us by or through the elements, to this end, that we may receive His Body and Blood by faith. This is not Mr. Bennett's doctrine of a Presence in the elements, external to the communicant. In the second passage, Jewel, after stating that the Church of England does not hold the Lord's Supper to be a mere frigid ceremony, as her calumniators asserted, says : " Christum enim asserimus, vere sese *' prcesentem exhihere in Sacramentis suis^ in Baptismo '^ ut eum induamus; in Ccena, ut eum fide et spiritu " comedamus, et de ejus cruce ac sanguine habeamus *' vitam aeternam ; idque dicimus non perfunctorie, " et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere fieri "... In these words Jewel maintains the Presence of Christ in the Sacraments, that is, the ordinances, which at the same time he names. Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but this language gives no support to Mr. Bennett's doctrine of the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. Upon reference to Jewel's Apology, at p. 13, will be found the words which the asterisks, inserted by the learned Judge after the word " fieri," show to be omitted. These omitted words are not unimportant : " Etsi enim Christi Corpus dentibus et faucibus non '^ attingimus, eum tamen fide, mente, spiritu tenemus " et premimus." In these words Jewel denies the Corporal reception of the Body of Christ, and holds the Spiritual reception of Christ by faith, and by the mind and spirit. Mr. Bennett's doctrine receives no support from the writings of Bishop Jewel. The next authority is cited by the learned Judge at p. 45, as '^ Bishop Overall, in his Additional Notes to " the Book of Common Prayer,'^ In support of this statement, a reference is given by his Lordship to " Appendix to Nicholls on the Book of Common " Prayer." On referring to Nicholls it is found, that 16*6 The Notes of Overall are not evidence, the notes published in the Appendix are intituled by him, *' Additional Notes on the Common Prayer, " many of which are supposed to have been collected " by the Right Rev. Dr. John Overall, Bishop of " Norwich." On the next page Nicholls explains the marks by which he distinguishes the authors of the different notes. He explains the star and the dagger to mean : *' MSS. Notes, written in an interleaved Common Prayer Book, in the Bishop of Dukham's Library. Printed in the year 1619, supposed to be made from the Collections of Bishop Overall^ by a Friend or Chaplain of liis ; a copy of which MSS. is in the Hands of the Keverend Dr. Hicks, some Part thereof being Printed by him, in his Preface to his Christian Priesthood.'' On referring to pp. 46 and 54 of these additional notes, it will be found, that the passages quoted by the learned Judge, are marked with a star and a dagger. On refering to pp. 49 and 60 of these additional notes, marked with a star and dagger, it will be found, that the notes in question were not written by Bishop Overall. At p. 49 the writer of that note speaks of Dr. Overall, as " his lord and master, '^ And at p. 60 he says, on some point of doctrine : "So have I heard 7?zy Lord Overall preach it a " hundred times." In reference to these notes the facts appear to be as follow: Bishop Overall died in 1619; some of these notes were published by Dr. Hickes in his preface to his Christian Priesthood in 1707; and Nicholls published them in extenso in 1710. There is not an atom of evidence, that these notes were ever written by Bishop Overall, or even seen by him. They were not even published until about ninety years after his death. I therefore respectfully decline to recognise these anonymous notes, as sanc- tioned by Bishop Overall, or as legal evidence for the construction of the formularies of the Church. George Herbert : Laud, 167 The learned Judge next quotes, at p. 46^ George Herbert, who, his Lordship says, has been called '' the Saintly r Mr. George Herbert speaks of the country parson, as having at communion time " not " only to receive God, but to break and administer " him." Upon this language I will only quote the comment of the late Dean Goode, in the second volume of his work on the Eucharist (p. 883) : " Now either this language is highly figurative or *' it is blasphemous. Do we break God in the '' Eucharist T The learned Judge next quotes Archbishop Laud. Before examining the statements of that prelate, it must be borne in mind, that the doctrines and opinions of Archbishop Laud do not come under the description of authoritative documents, defined by your Lordships in Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, and in Burder ?;. Heath ; for they were not " propounded " and maintained without censure or reproach, ^' unblamed and unquestioned," nor *'held without " offence." Now what does Laud say ? A very few words will dispose of the passages cited by the learned Dean. Laud maintains " the true and Real Presence of " Christ in the Eucharist." This is not Mr. Bennett's doctrine of an external Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements, but a presence of Christ in the ordinance. In the remainder of these ex- tracts from Laud, which are now before your Lord- ships, Laud adopts the doctrine of Cranmer and Ridley, of the Presence of Christ by the grace and efficacy of his passion — denying the Presence of " a " natural Body under the shape and form of bread " and wine." This is stated in p. 47, where Laud adopts Ridley's words as follow : " I confess Christ's " natural Body to be in the Sacrament by spirit and " grace, &c., you make a grosser kind of being " inclosing a natural body under shape and form " of bread and wine." This last is Mr. Bennett's 168 Andrewes : Dojine. doctrine, which Laud, so far from supporting, ex- pressly condemns. Bishop Andrewes is next quoted by the learned Judge at p. 47. But this prelate affords no support to Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The Bishop, speaking of the words of Christ, " This is my Body," says : " Whether in or witli^ or under or transubstantiated^ " there is not a word in the Gospel ;" thus disallow- ing Mr. Bennett's definition of the Presence of the Body of Christ, as "in the elements," and "under " the form of bread and wine ;" . the second extract contains no special doctrine, and the third extract deals only with mutation and transmutation, and is therefore irrelevant to the present discussion, as Mr. Bennett is not charged with any doctrine re- specting change in the elements. The learned Judge, at pp. 48 and 49, quotes Dr. Donne at considerable length ; but Dr. Donne does not support Mr. Bennett's doctrine. In the extracts cited from Dr. Donne the question discussed is that of transmutation or change in the nature of the elements. There is no charge against Mr. Bennett on this subject ; he has said nothing about change in the elements ; in fact, Mr. Beimett has publicly stated, that what tran substantiation means he could never understand.* The doctrine of Dr. Donne, regarding the Real Presence in the Sacra- ment, appears from the concluding lines of the passage quoted by the learned Judge : " Since Christ *' forebore not to say, ' This is my Body,' when He " gave the sign of His Body, why should we forbear ** to say of that Bread, This is Christ's Body, which ^' is the Sacrament of His Body ?" This is not Mr. -Bennett's doctrine ; Dr. Donne holds that the Bread is called " the Body of Christ," not because the Body * First Report of Ritual Commissioners, p. 79. Donne: Cosin, 169 of Christ is in the Bread, but because it is the sign or Sacrament of the Body of Christ. There is a passage at p. 248 of Dr. Donne's Works, which has not been quoted by the learned Judge, but which plainly expresses the doctrinal opinions of that eminent divine. When speaking against Transub- stantiation, and the opinion of the " Omnipresence " or " Multipresence " of the Body of Christ, he says : '' Because He is ascended, He cannot be here, here in "the Sacrament, so as you may break or eat that "Body." It is difficult to understand, how the learned Judge can claim Donne as an authority for Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The learned Judge has given, at pp. 49 to 52, long extracts from Bishop Cosin. The observations which I have made respecting Archbishop Laud, apply with the like force to Bishop Cosin. His opinions were not held "without censure or reproach," " unblamed and " unquestioned," or " without offence ;" in fact, Cosin for his opinions was arraigned before the House of Lords, and fled the country. Without attaching any great authority to the opinions of Bishop Cosin, it may be remarked, that there cannot be found in the extracts cited by the learned Judge, any words to justify the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, viz., that the actual Body of Christ is upon the altar, irrespective of reception. The doc- trine of Cosin clearly appears from a passage in the 5th vol. of his Works (p. 345), which has not been quoted by the learned Judge. It is as follows : " True it is that the Body and Blood of Christ are sacra- mentally and really (not feignedly) present when the blessed bread and wine are taken by the faithful communicants; and as true is it also that they are not present, but only when the hallowed elements are so taken, as in another work (the History of the Papal Transubstantiation) I have more at large declared. Therefore, whosoever so receiveth them, at that time when he receiveth them, rightly doth he adore 170 Cosin teaches Presence in reception only, and reverence his Saviour there together with the sacra- mental bread and cup, exhibiting His own Body and Blood unto them. Yet, because that Body and Blood is neither sensibly present (nor otherwise at all present, but only to thera that are duly prepared to receive them, and in the very act of receiving them and the consecrated elements together, to which they are sacramentally in that act imited) the adoration is then and there given to Christ Himself, neither is nor ought to be directed to any external sensible object, such as are the blessed elements." This doctrine is a Presence in reception only, and by the faithful only, meaning thereby the duly pre- pared ; and that the sacramental union of the Body and Blood of Christ witb the elements takes place in the act of reception. And Cosin declares, that this is the doctrine of his earlier work on Transubstan- tiation, which is tbe very work, from which the learned Judge has quoted these extracts. Accordingly we find, that the extracts, given by tbe learned Judge, speak of tbe Presence in connection with reception only. It is said, at p. 49, *' We believe a Presence and union " of Christ witb our soul and body.*' Again : " That " the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be " our food!' Again, at p. 50 : " We do invisibly " receive tbe substance of Christ's Body and Blood." Again : "The Body and Blood of Christ are sacra- " mentally united to the bread and wine, so that '* Christ is truly given to the faithful ; and yet it is " not here to be considered witb sense or worldly " reason, but by faith, resting on the words of the '* Gospel." Here Cosin limits tbe effect of the sacra- mental union to the giving of the Body of Christ to the faithful^ and all by faith. Again Cosin says : " In the celebration of tbe Holy " Eucharist, the flesb is given together with tbe *" bread." Here Cosin only speaks of reception. Again, at p. 51, Cosin says : '*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." Rubric in the Communion of the Sick, 171 Here Cosln's argument is founded on reception in the Communion. Again Cosin says : ** Neither do we deny, a sacra- " mental union of the Body and Blood of Christ with " the sacred bread and wine, so that both are really *^ and substantially received together." Here, again, the Presence is regarded only in connection with reception. But whatever Cosin's opinions may have been, I cannot recognise them as of great authority in decid- ing the doctrine of the Church of England. And had not the learned Judge placed such reliance upon the writings of that Prelate, I should not have trespassed upon your Lordships' time with any observations upon them. At p. 50 of his Judgment, the learned Judge, in the middle of his extracts from Cosin, introduces a comment upon the Eubric in the Communion of the Sick. It is difficult to understand, what bearing this comment of his Lordship's has upon the present Case, because this Rubric does not state any doctrine, apply- ing to Presence in the elements. If this Rubric had been relied upon as a proof, that there can be no Presence in the elements, because the Body and Blood of Christ may, according to this Rubric, be received without the Sacrament being received, then there would have been some force in the learned Judge's reply, that the Sarum Missal has a like Rubric ; and yet the Church of Rome confessedly believes a Presence in the elements. No argument was addressed to the Court below founded upon this Rubric. Had it been so, the argument would have assumed this form : — the fact, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received in the Lord's Supper, is not^ as sometimes urged, a conclusive proof, per se, that the Body and Blood of Christ must be m the elements, otherwise they could not be received ; because this Rubric teaches, that the Body and Blood 172 Sarum Missal : Forbes : Dean Jackson, of Christ are truly received, even when the Sacra- ment is not received. The argument in this form is not affected by the Rubric in the Sarum Missal. At pp. 52, 53, the learned Judge gives extracts from a work by Bishop Forbes, intituled Consider ationes Modestce et Pacijicce. I must object to the reception of this work, for the authoritative construction of the Formularies of the Church of England, The learned Judge says : " That Bishop Forbes was Professor of " Hebrew at Oxford," but it does not appear that the Bishop was ever Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. In the Oxford Calendar of 1862, in which a list is given of the Regius Professors of Hebrew, during the last 400 years, his name does not occur. Although, therefore, Bishop Forbes may have been a private teacher of Hebrew in Oxford, it does not appear, that he held any office in that University, requiring him to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, and it should be borne in mind, that in 1633, the Scotch Bishops were not required to subscribe those Articles. It must be further remarked, that it appears from the preface at the third page of the second volume of Forbes' work, published in the Anglo-Catholic Library, which is the edition cited by the learned Judge, that this work was not published until twenty- four years after the Bishop's death, and that it had been left by him in an unfinished and imperfect state. I therefore submit, that Bishop Forbes cannot be cited as an authority in this case. At p. 53, the learned Judge quotes Dr. Jackson in the following terms : '' Jackson, President of Corpus " Christi College, Oxford, and Dean of Peterborough '* (1638), perhaps the most learned of our divines, *' says : " This distillation of life and immortality from His glorified human nature, is tliat which the ancient and orthodoxal Church did mean in their figur-ative and lofty speeches of Dean yackson: St. Cyril. 173 Clirist's real presence, or of eating Tlis very flesh, and drink- ing His very blood in the Sacraments. And the sacramental bread is called His body, and the sacramental wine His blood, as for other reasons, so especially for this, that the virtue or influence of His bloody sacrifice" — the distinction to which I have adverted, must be here borne in mind, between the res and the virtus sacramenti, — " is most plentifully and most effectually distilled from heaven unto the worthy receivers of the Eucharist, and unto this point and no further will most of the testimonies reach." Here Dr. Jackson says : " that life is distilled frora the glorified human nature of Christ. . . . from heaven unto the worthy receivers of the Eucharist ;" and that most of the ancient testimonies would go no further than this. This is the doctrine of the Church of England, that the human nature of Christ is in heaven, and not here, not in the elements^ nor upon the altar, as Mr. Bennett teaches. Dr. Jackson gives the special reason why the Sacramental bread is called the Body of Christ — viz., because the virtue of Christ's death is given to worthy recipients, not because the Body of Christ is in any way with, or in, or under the ele- ment of bread, as Mr. Bennett teaches. Dr. Jackson is, therefore, no authority for Mr. Bennett's doctrine. It will be observed, that his Lordship has inserted in the body of this passage a running comment upon the words of Dr. Jackson, in which the learned Judge desires, that the distinction between the res and the virtus sacramenti may be borne in mind ; the force of this remark is not very clear, except it be, that Dr. Jackson has not drawn the distinction. Dr. Jackson maintains the presence of thet'iWz^-s, and says nothing of the presence of the res sacramenti^ i. e., the true Body of Christ, which is Mr. Bennett's doctrine. At pp. 54 and 55, the learned Judge has quoted a letter written by St. Cyril to Nestorius, before the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is submitted, that such a letter written 1127 years before the 174 The Council of Ephesus. accession of Elizabeth, and 1229 years before the accession of Charles II., cannot be dealt with as any authority, in order to ascertain, the sense in which certain phrases or words were used by the Legislature in the Acts of Uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II., and the Thirty-nine Articles. The letter of St. Cyril does not, however, support Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The learned Judge says : ** One of the arguments adduced in this letter for " the true doctrine is derived from, the admitted " presence and partaking of our Lord's Body in the " holy Eucharist." But the doctrine of a Presence in the Eucharist is in no way disputed. The only question is about the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements \ St. Cyril says nothing about any presence. He says : " IJLeTO')(0i f^evofievoi T7J<; re ayia<; aapKo^;, koX tov rtfiiov " aifiaro^i rov Trdvrcov tj/hmv XcoTr]po<; lipLaTOv, koX ou% 009 " adpKa Koivrjv Se'^o/juevoi,^^ This doctrine goes no further, than a true recep- tion of the Body of Christ in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper ; and does not assert a Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ m the elements, which is Mr. Bennett's doctrine.* The learned Judge, in connection with this letter of St. Cyril, has referred to the Council of Ephesus, as " one of the first four General Councils referred to " in 1 EHz., c. 1, s. 35." His Lordship does not state, what bearing the * It is not necessary to repeat the whole quotation from St. Cyril which the Judge has set out at length in Greek. The greater part of the ixissage relates only to the life-giving power of the flesh of Christ, which is not denied, nor in question. The following part alone relates to the Eucharist : KarayyeWovTes yap tov Kara aapKa Odvarov rov fxovo, yfvovs Ylov TOV Qeov, TovTecrriv ^Irjaov XpiaTOV, ttjv re €K veKpcov dva^ioyaiv Kal TT]V fls ovpavovs dvaKT]\^iu 6fjLo\oyovvT€S, rrjv dvalfiaKTOV iv Tals *EKKkr](riais TcXovfiev Ova-lav' Trpoaifxev re ovr(o Ta7s p.v(TTiKais eiiXoyiais Ka\ Ayia^ofieda, fxeroxoi yevofifvoi ttjs t6 dylas aapKos, Kal rov rip-lov alfiaros rov ndvr(ov fjfxcov loirfjpo^ Xpiarrov, Kal ovx ois aapKa kolvt]v d(xdp-fvoi' firj yevoiro. The word "Presence " does not occur, nor any equivalent to it. The elements are not so much as mentioned. Ken : Longley. 175 Council of Ephesiis has upon the Articles of Charge in this Case. The letter of St. Cyril is not an act of the Council of Ephesus, but was, the learned Judge says, the basis of the decree of the Council of Ephesus. The learned Judge has quoted no decree of the Council of Ephesus bearing upon the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements ; nor has his Lord- ship shown, how that Council can control proceedings instituted under the Acts of Uniformity and the Thirty-nine Articles. At p. 55, the learned Judge quotes from Ken's Exposition of the Church Catechism. In the passages quoted, Ken speaks of " the " Communication to our Souls," by Christ, of His own "most blessed Body and Blood," the ''''inward " and invisible grace ,*" but nothing is said, as to the actual Presence of the true Body of Clirist in the elements, irrespective of reception. In the posthumous Charge of Archbishop Longley (p. 40), his Grace, relies upon Ken as supporting the doctrine of the Presence of Christ in the heart of the believer, and not in the elements on the altar. His G-race says : " I will bring forward one more witness only, and that shall be the pious Bishop Ken. In the first edition of his Practice of Divine Love (1685), he bad used these words: * Oh God * incarnate, how Thou who art in heaven art present on the * altar, I can by no means explain ; but I firmly believe it * all.' Finding that this passage had given offence, ho altered it in this wise : * Oh God incarnate .... after what * extraordinary manner Thou who art in lieaven art present * throughout the whole sacramental action, to every devout * receiver, how Thou canst give us Thy flesh to eat and Thy * blood to drink .... I can by no means comprehend ; but I * firmly believe all that Thou hast said.' " This important alteration, rejecting a Presence of Christ in the elements on the altar, and substituting for it a Presence in the whole Sacramental action, i. e., the Ordinance, to every devout receiver, occurs N 'I 176 Jeremy Taylor. in a passage, intervening between the first and second extracts given by tbe learned Judge. This important passage is not referred to by the learned Judge, although the edition, from which his Lordship quotes, notices the alteration, which Archbishop Longley has commented upon. At pp, 56 and 59, Bishop Jeremy Taylor is quoted by the learned Judge. His Lordship re- marks, that Jeremy Taylor's authority was much relied upon by the Counsel for the Promoter. I did rely upon that eminent Prelate, and still rely upon him. The learned Judge has refrained from quoting the passages from Jeremy Taylor on which I relied, nor has he even given a reference to them. This omission I shall venture to supply, because the direct and decisive language of those passages, will explain the figurative language of the extracts given by the learned Judge. In the first passage quoted by the learned Judge, Jeremy Taylor says : " We must at no hand doubt, but that it is Christ's body. Let the sense of that be what it will, so that we believe those words and (whatsoever that sense is, which Christ intended) that we no more doubt in our faith, than we do in our sense, and then our faith is not reprovable." Here the Bishop recognises, that there are different senses in which the elements are believed to be Christ's Body ; such senses we know to have been sacramental^ or figurative, or mystical, or real. The Bishop does not say, which of these senses he holds to be right, and no conclusion can be drawn from such indefinite language. Jeremy Taylor, however, in another passage clears up this indefiniteness, and declares the sense in which the words of our Lord are to be understood. In his work on the Eeal Presence (p. 480 of the ninth volume of Heber's edition, and p. 59 of the sixth volume of Eden's edition), the Bishop says : *' The sum of all is this : if of bread Christ said, this is My Breads the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body. 177 Body, because it cannot be true in a proper natural sense, it implying a contradiction, that it should be properly bread, and properly Christ's Body — it must follow that it is Christ's Body in a figurative improper sense." In the second passage quoted by the learned Judge, Jeremy Taylor says : " In the Sacrament, that Body, which is reigning in heaven, is exposed on the Table of Blessing ; and His Body, which was broken for us, is now broken again, and yet remains impassable." This language is highly figurative, and nothing more. If this language is to be construed literally^ it is not only in direct contradiction to Jeremy Taylor's own statement, that has just been quoted; but what is much more important, it is in direct contradiction to the " Declaration on Kneeling," which says, " The Body of Christ is in heaven and " not here." It is however clear, that the language is of a highly figurative character, because it speaks of our Lord's Body being now broken again, which plainly means the Bread, which is the sign or figure of His Body. At pp. 57 and 58, the learned Judge gives another extract from Jeremy Taylor, and stops at the word " Confession ;" which is a word in the middle of a sentence, with only a semicolon after it. Had the remainder of the sentence been quoted by his Lord- ship, the language of Jeremy Taylor would have been free from its present obscurity. The sentence proceeds thus ;* " and this is the manner of speaking which St. Bernard used in his Sermon of St. Martin, where he affirms, *In Sacra- * mento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed spiri- * tualiter non carnal iter ' — in the Sacrament is given us the true substance of Christ's Body or flesh, not carnally but spiritually ; that is, not to our mouths but to our hearts, not to be chewed by teeth but to be eaten by faith." * The learned Judge gives the reference " Life of Christ," p. 427. It should be " The Real Presence," vol. ix., id. 427. 178 Jeremy Taylor holds Presence to our spirits only. In the passage, the omission of which is marked by the asterisks in p. 58, will be found, the extract which I brought before the learned Judge in the Court below, in which these important words occur, and which will be found in Jeremy Taylor (vol. ix., p. 428) : " By spiritually, they (the Komanists) mean present after the manner of a spirit ; by spiritually, we mean present to our spirits only, i.e., so as Christ is not present to any other sense, but that of faith or spiritual susception." And again, at p. 429 : " This is all which we mean besides the tropical and figu- rative presence." In the posthumous Charge of Archbishop Longley (p. 38), his Grace has cited this same passage, as containing Jeremy Taylor's " matured and settled *' opinions ;" remarking at the same time, that, *' Bishop Taylor is a divine who gives reins to his imagina- tion, and with respect to whose writings the same caution would seem to be necessary which he himself gave to those, who would study the fathers with advantage, namely, against putting unwise dependence on their hyperbolical expressions." Eespecting the rest of the extracts from Jeremy Taylor quoted by the learned Judge, it will only be requisite to remark, that if understood, as the Bishop indicates that they are to be taken, in a " tropical *' or figurative sense," they afford no support to Mr. Bennett's doctrine of an actual Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. Dr. Hey is the next authority relied upon by the learned Judge (p. 59). Eespecting Dr. Hey, it may be remarked, that he is giving an historical ac- count of different phases of the Eucharistic doctrine. He states that Latimer, Seeker, and Wheatly, while denying a corporal Presence, held a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Such Eeal Presence in Dr, Hey : Pearson, 179 the Ordinance is not denied. " Fulke," Dr. Hey says, speaking of that reformer, " denies reality of Christ's " corporal Presence ;" but Mr. Bennett maintains it. Dr. Hey says, "that Queen Elizabeth wished to " comprehend as many as possible in the new English " Church," and Dr. Hey thinks, that by omitting the language of the 28th Article respecting the corporal Presence, "she comprehended all Lutherans and " some Papists." It is not necessary to discuss this opinion, because the language so omitted by Queen Elizabeth from the Articles of 1552, was substantially restored in the Declaration on Kneeling in 1662; and, moreover^ the subsequent authorization of the 29th Article excluded all Lutherans and Roman Catholics. At p. 60 the learned Judge quotes Bishop Pear- son. In this extract. Bishop Pearson says, that the ancient fathers used, as an illustration of their argu- ment, " the Sacramental union between the bread and " wine and the Body and Blood of Christ." But Bishop Pearson does not say in what sense he uses the words " Sacramental union," whether as a real, or mystical, or figurative union. Neither does he say, whether such union occurs irrespectively of reception, or on reception only ; this extract, there- fore, concludes nothing in support of Mr. Bennett's doctrine. It should be remarked, that Bishop Pearson adds a note to this passage, in which he quotes the language of Grelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d. 492) : " Certainly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, because through them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mys- teries." There is no presence in the elements here declared ; they are the Sacraments, the image, and similitude 180 Saravia : Andrewes : Dean Brevint. of the Body and Blood of Christ, wliich does not support Mr. Bennett's doctrine. Saravia is the next authority quoted by the learned Judge. Saravia was born in Flanders, and was the son of a Spaniard ; having served as a pastor in Hol- land, he came to England and received preferment. Saravia died in 1612, and his work, from which the learned Judge quotes, was not published until 1855. Therefore this is a work which was not published until 243 years after the death of the author. It is fiaid, at p. 11 of the preface, that the MS. was given by Saravia to James I., in 1604 or 1605, and ulti- mately passed, with the other MSS. of the Eoyal Library, to the British Museum in 1753. Arch- deacon Denison,the editor and translator of this MS., -states, at p. 4 of the preface, that he was not-awar^ of the existence of this treatise until 1855. I decline to recognise such an authority. At p. 61 the learned Judge again quotes Bishop Andrewes ; all the passages here given deal with the subject of transmutation or change, on which point, as already stated, no charge is made against Mr. Bennett. But it appears from the words here quoted, that the Bishop's doctrine of the Presence is, — that the divine Spirit of Christ enters the elements, and makes them, in a mystical sense, Christ's Body and Blood. Andrewes says : " The divine essence, the " visible Sacrament enters," this is altogether dif- ferent from Mr. Bennett's doctrine — viz., that the true Body of Christ, that in which He suffered, is in the elements of bread and wine, and it cannot be legitimately contended, that " Divine Essence " is the true or natural " Body of Christ." At p. 62, the learned Judge quotes Brevint. In the extract relied upon, the doctrine of Dean Brevint is exactly that, which Mr. Bennett repudiates ; Brevint maintains " that a Christian elevates his soul to that Thorndike, 181 " Body, which by Christ's institution the Sacrament " representsr And again, " that the Body and " Blood of Christ are the signification of the holy " mysteries." Brevint here maintains nothing re- specting the Body of Christ in the elements ; but holds that they signify the Body of Christ, which is not Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The learned Judge, in pp. 62 to 64, quotes Thorn- dike at considerable length. His Lordship could scarcely have relied upon an author more to be distrusted than Thorndike, who has always been suspected of strong tendencies towards Roman doctrine. Ur. Hook, in his Biographical Dictionary (vol. 8., p 563), sayc; ci Thorndike : *' There was also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to the Church of Rome ; so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency ; but that he was a man of great learning and an able Oriental scholar seems indisputable." The learned Judge says : " Thorndike, Master of Sidney Sussex College, Prebendary of Westminster, one of the Commissioners at the Savoy Con- ference for revising the Book of Common Prayer." It appears from Card well's Conferences (p. 257), that Thorndike was not a Commissioner at the Savoy Conference, he was only a coadjutor to the Episcopal Divines at that Conference. That appointment is accounted for by his reputation as an Oriental scholar, especially when it is borne in mind, that the Com- missioners were directed to compare the Book of Common Prayer with the most ancient Liturgies. But the doctrine, maintained by Thorndike, is not the doctrine for which he is quoted by the learned Judge. Thorndike appears to have held the Presence not of the Body of Christ, but of the spirit or divine power of Christ in the elements ; such 182 Thorndikes doctrine different from Mr, Bennett's, Presence of the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, making them, in a mystical sense, Christ's Body and Blood. This is stated by Archbishop Wake, who — in his Discourse upon the Holy Eucharist (p. 70, London, 1687), when replying to a Romanist, who had claimed Thorndike, as maintaining doctrine resem- bling that of the Church of Rome, rather than that of the Church of England — says : " Thus Mr. Thorndike expresses himself as to the Real Pre- sence ; but yet, after all, I will not deny but that this learned person seems to have had a particular notion in this matter, and which is far enough from what our author would fix upon hiuL He tliought that the elements by consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ, much after the same manner as his natural body was by incarnation ; and that so the very elements became after a sort his body." That Archbishop Wake accurately represented the peculiar notions of Thorndike in regard to the Presence in the Eucharist, is proved by Thorndike's own language in the passage quoted by the learned Judge, at p. 83 of his Judgment : " For one part of our common Christianity being this, that our Lord Christ instituted this Sacrament with a promise to make by His Spirit the elements of bread and wine sacra- mentally His Body and Blood, so that His Spirit that made them so {dwelling in them as in his natural body) should feed them with Christ's Body and Blood that receive the Sacra- ment of them with living faith." Here Thorndike maintains, that the Spirit of Christ, dwelling in the elements as in His natural Body^ makes them sacramentally His Body and Blood. Thorndike did not hold the Presence of the true natural Body of Christ — that in which He suf- fered — therefore his doctrine is different from that maintained by Mr. Bennett, which is the actual Presence in the elements of the true Body of Christ, that in which He suflfered. BramhalL 183 At p. 64 the learned Judge quotes Archbishop Bramhall, whom his Lordship describes, as " a prelate " of considerable erudition." In the passage quoted, Bramhall, maintains indeed " a true real Presence,'' as that " which no genuine son of the Church did " ever deny;" but he refuses to accept "c6>?2," "52/6," or " trans^' which are the doctrines of Luther, of Mr. Bennett, and of Rome. Bramhall does not define, in what sense the Real Presence is true, and there- fore his words give no support to Mr. Bennett's special view of that doctrine. In the second passage quoted, Bramhall rejects Transubstantiation, and fur- ther^ " those things which are consequent of their " determination of the manner of Presence ;" thus rejecting corporal Presence, which Mr. Bennett holds, and the consequences of *' sacrifice " and " ado- ration," which Mr. Bennett draws from it. I may remark, that in quoting this latter passage, the learned Judge has stopped at the word " present," and has placed a period after that word. Upon this quotation, I am bound to make a few observations. It appears, that in the Catena of authorities published in support of the case of Archdeacon Denison in 1855, this passage from Bramhall was quoted in the like manner as the learned Judge has quoted it. On this. Dean Groode, in the second volume of his work on the Eucharist, p. 869, comments in the fol- lowing language : " Now first, I ask, why this last sentence is garbled at the concluding and important part of it ? For Bramhall's words are, * that is to make them present after such manner as they * were present at the first institution.' These words were not added by Bramhall for nothing, and carry us back to that original celebration of the rite in which our blessed Lord was sitting at the table ; and though the Archbishop has unfortunately not explained his meaning, it is not difficult to understand it, as the very omission of the words in the Catena shows, for it is clear that the compiler thought the passage told better for his doctrine without them than with them, otherwise he would not have stopped, where not even a comma divides the words from those that follow." 184 Sparrow: Tillotson, Archbishop Bramhall gives no assistance to Mr. Bennett for the support of his doctrine. At p. 65, Sparrow will be found, as the next authority, upon which the learned Judge relies. In the first passage quoted, Sparrow is citing the lan- guage of St. Chrysostom, in which these words occur : " It is not man that makes the Body and Blood of Christ by consecrating the holy elements, but Christ that was cru- cified for us." This expression, "makes the Body and Blood of " Christ," here used by St. Chrysostom, is in accord- ance with the figurative language of that writer and of that age. Nothing is said in these words of the sense, in which the elements are made the Body and Blood of Christ ; but whatever the sense — figurative, mystical, or otherwise — it does not support Mr. Bennett's doctrine, which is, that " the true Body of " Christ, that Body in which He suffered, is in the " elements," and not that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ. When Sparrow uses his own language on this subject, he says : " professing " his faith of the Presence of Christ's Body and " Blood in that Sacrament ;" thus speaking of a Presence not necessarily in the elements , but in the ordinance, and at the time of reception. Archbishop Tillotson is, at p. 66, the next au- thority cited. Eespecting the passage from Tillotson here relied upon by the learned Judge, it will be sufficient to read the comment upon it, from the second volume of Dean Goode on the Eucharist (p. 889): " Among other authors, the compiler of the Catena has had the courage to quote Archbishop Tillotson, and the passage cited in the Catena was produced on the defence of Arch- deacon Denison. A more decisive proof of the recklessness, with which this evidence has been got up, could hardly be Yardley : Beveridge, 185 conceived, as any one acquainted with Archbishop Tillotson's works must be aware. I will first give the passage quoted as it stands in the Catena. " I deny not but that the fathers do, and that with very great reason, very much magnify the wonderful mystery and efficacy of the Sacrament, and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction, which we also readily acknowledge." This is the very passage which the learned Judge has quoted. Dean Goode continues : " Now let us read the very next words to these. * They say, * indeed, that the elements of bread and wine do by the divine * blessing become to us the Body and Blood of Christ ; but * they likewise say that the names of the things signified are * given to the signs ; that the bread and wine do still remain * in their proper nature and substance, and tliat they are * turned into the substance of our bodies ; that the body of * Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural body, but the * sign and figure of it ; not that body which was crucified, * nor that blood which was shed upon the cross ; and that it * is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son ' of man, and drinking his blood, literally. And in the con- * text he proves, at large, that the words, " This is my body," * &c., must be understood in a figurative sense.' " At the same page Yardley is quoted by the learned Judge ; that divine says : " that the elements are " changed in their value and efficacy into the Sacra^ " mental Body and Blood of Christ," thus expressly distinguishing it from the true Body of Christ — that in which He suffered — which Mr. Bennett holds to be present in the elements. Bishop Beveridge is next quoted; that prelate speaks of the Presence of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, " offering His own Body and Blood to us." No one denies the Presence of Christ as God in the ordinance, and this is that " heavenly and spiritual " manner " of giving, which is mentioned in the 28th 186 Dr, Moberly. Article of Religion. Beveridge goes on to speak of the adoration due to Christ thus present in the ordi- nance, but it is Christ the giver that is to be adored, not any Presence of His Body in the bread and wine. Beveridge, at p. 604 of the eighth volume of his works, the page next but one preceding this quota- tion, speaks of the Presence in the Holy Communion, limiting it to its effects in reception : " When we hear the words of consecration repeated, as they came from our Lord's own mouth, * This is my body ' which is given for you, and this is my blood which is shed * for you and for many for the remission of sins,' we are then steadfastly to believe that, although the substance of the bread and wine still remain, yet now it is not common bread and wine as to its use, but the body and blood of Christ in that sacramental sense wherein He spake the words; insomuch that whosoever duly receives these His creatures of bread and wine, according to Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, are partakers of His most precious body and blood, as- it is expressed in the prayer of consecration." Bishop Beveridge, in his sermon on " The Presence " of Christ in religious assemblies of Christians," speaks, in the 5th volume of his works (p. 322), of the Body of Christ as being " in heaven and not " here." The Bishop says: " But though our blessed Lord thus showed himself some- times before His ascension to His disciples, when met to- gether, in His very body, so that they might be eye-witnesses that He was risen from the dead, yet now that He is sat down in that at the right hand of God, in heaven, we must not think that His body also is present in any of the assem- bhes of His saints on earth, much less in all ; for then it must be in many places at the same time, which is contrary to the nature of a body, and therefore cannot be suj3posed of His, at least as to the substance of it." Bishop Beveridge, therefore, is no authority to sup- port Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The next and last authority, upon which the learned Judge relies, is Dr. Moberly, the present B amp t 071 Lectures by Dr. Moberly. 187 Bishop of Salisbury. The learned Judge, at p. 07 of his Judgment, says : " I cannot more fitly conclude this catalogue than by a reference to the high authority of the present Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Moberly, who, in one of his Bampton Lectures, observes upon the Holy Eucharist as follows." It will not be necessary to read, for the present argument, any portion of the extracts on p. 67, but at p. 68 the Bishop says : " The simple doctrine of the redl^ and as in our modern mode of speech we call it, the objective presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacred elements." On the same page the learned Judge proceeds : " And then this learned prelate adds the following words, which deserve the most careful attention, both from the great weight due to the authority which uttered them, and from their bearing upon the present case :" " * I will therefore only say that the ancient doctrine of the * Church, and, as I read it, the unquestionable doctrine of the * Church of England, is that the spiritual presence of the Body *an(l Blood of our Lord in the Holy Communion is objective * and real. I do not see how we can consent, as with Hooker * and Waterland, to limit authoritatively that presence to the * heart of the receiver : for the words of the institution (and * these are cases in which we are rigidly and absolutely bound * to the exact words of the revelation), the words, I say, of the ' Lord in the institution, seem to forbid such a gloss.' " It is impossible to read this extract, without being struck by the fact, that Dr. Moberly plainly confesses that his doctrine of the Real Presence^ is exactly opposed to that of Hooker and Waterland. The learned Judge has given a catalogue of no less than thirty authorities, " as to the construction " of the formularies relating to the Holy Eucharist." It is a very remarkable fact, that Dr. Moberly is the only one of these authorities who adopts Mr. Bennett's phraseology, viz. : " The objective Real Presence of the " Body and Blood of Christ in the sacred elements ^ These quotations, thus given by the learned Judge, correctly represent the language of Dr. Moberly 188 Summary of the Doctrine of the Church. in the first edition of his Bampton Lectures, preached and published in 1868. It is, however, but an act of justice to Dr. Moberly to state, that in the second edition of his Lectures, pubhshed on the 22nd of December, 1869, and since he became Bishop of Sahsbury, his Lordship has withdrawn the term *' objective " in both the passages quoted by the learned Judge. The Bishop, at p. 163, states in a note the reason for this omission : " I have omitted the word * objective/ which in the first edition stood in this place, on the ground whether the grace of the Holy Eucharist come to our souls by and through the elements or no, alike it is objective, as coming to us from without ourselves, and having existence independently of our own thought. Everybody holds the presence to be * objec- * tive' except the merest Zuinglian." The effect of this note is, not only to withdraw the word " objective," but also to change materially the Eucharistic doctrine asserted by Bishop Moberly. He now uses the phrase, " by and through the elements," and not the phrase, " in the sacred elements ;" and the Bishop speaks, not of the Presence of the Body of Christ, but of the grace of the Holy Eucharist coming to our souls. The effect of this note is, to teach a Presence in reception, and not in the elements irre- spective of reception. The effect of these alterations by Dr. Moberly is, that all the reasoning of the learned Judge, founded upon the authority of the Bishop of Salisbury, falls to the ground. Summary of the definite Doctrine of the Church of , England on the Lord's Supper, I have now dealt with all the extracts given by the learned Judge, as authorities for the construc- tion of the Formularies of the Church. Of those which are authorities in the Church of England, not one has been found to maintain Mr. Bennett's doctrine. I recur to my former proposition, viz., that the For- Definite Doctrme of the Format laries. 189 raularies of the Church of England do contain, a definite doctrine on the subject of the Presence of the Body of Christ ; that against Rome, she denies the corporal real Presence, or any real actual Presence in the elements, on the altar, or in the hands of the priest. While, against what is called Zuinglianism, she asserts a true communication of the Body of Christ to the faithful in the ordinance. It is sub- mitted, that this definite doctrine has been proved from the following principal Formularies : (i.) In our Communion Office the compilers care- fully rejected all passages asserting the Presence in the elements, which had been contained in the Sarum Missal ; and even those passages of the First Prayer Book, which might seem capable of bearing, or imply- ing, a meaning in any degree supporting a Presence in the elements, were removed in the Second Book. On the subject of Doctrine, the principle of our re- formers in the compilation of the First and Sejcond Prayer Books was this, to retain everything from the ancient liturgies that could be retained, consistently with the Word of God ; and therefore rejection amounted to protest and denial. (2.) The Thirty-nine Articles, in the 28th Article, exclude real Presence in the elements irrespective of reception, by limiting the efficacy of consecration, or the breaking of bread and the blessing of the cup, to reception^ and making it depend upon the right dis- position of the communicant. That article further excludes all real Presence in the elements, by deny- ing all corporal giving, or corporal taking, or corporal eating of the Body of Christ, which must have resulted from corporal Presence in the elements ; and, by limiting reception of the Body of Christ to the operation of faith, the 28th Article rejects all external real Presence. (3.) The Homilies maintain, " the communion of " the Body and Blood of Christ/' and even an " in- " corporation " thereof. But it is not an incorpora- tion with the bread and wine, but with the souls of o 190 The i^th A rticle of Religion . the faithful, wrought by the Holy Ghost, through faith. (4.) The Catechism asserts, that the Body and Blood of Christ are not outward, i.e., external to the communicant, but inward — that is, in the inward and spiritual being of the recipient ; and, accordingly, limits reception of the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful, by whom they are verily and indeed taken and received ; and, above all, speaks merely of a Presence to the faithful in the ordinance^ not in the elements, (5.) The Declaration on Kneeling denies the corporal Presence of the Body of Christ, and asserts the great principle that governs this whole question, viz., that the true Body of Christ, that Body in which He suffered. His natural Body, is in heaven, and not here ; and that to be here would be contrary to the truth of that Body. In none of these Formularies does the Church of England recognise any distinc- tions of different Bodies of Christ, nor any different modes or manners of the Presence of His Body. All this definite doctrine of the Church of England, the learned Judge has overlooked, or has not dealt with as authoritative. The 2Wi Article of Religion. In pp. 76 to 88, of his Judgment, the learned Judge has discussed the effect of the 29th Article upon the doctrine of the Eeal Presence. Before entering upon a consideration of that question, I am desirous to make a few observations, as the result may be a saving of your Lordships' time. This part of his Lordship's Judgment stands upon a different footing from the rest of the Judgment, as it doals \^^th an argument, which was used by Counsel in the Court below, not as a direct argument upon the question of the real Presence, but rather as an inferential argument. The short point of my argument was : that if, as Theory of withdrawal sttggested by the Judge. 1 91 tlie 29th Article teaches, those who are void of a lively faith, do not receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, when they receive the elements, it follows, that the true Body and Blood of Christ are not in the elements in the hand of the priest. In support of my construction of the 29th Article, I greatly relied upon the construction of Archbishop Sumner in the Denison Case, to which I have already adverted, and the substance of which I will express in the words of Waterland (p. 140, in note) : ** The wicked receive the signs of the Lord's Body and Blood, not the Body and Blood, i. e., not the things signilied." The learned Judge, however, has put an opposite construction upon this 29th Article, which will be found at p. 76 of the Judgment, in these words : ** the object of the Article was to assert that the wicked who received the holy elements received them to their condemna- tion." At p. 87 of his Judgment, his Lordship has decided : " that the doctrine of the real spiritual or of the objective Presence maintaiDcd by the defendant is not by necessary implication at variance with this 29th Article." I am fully prepared to contend against the decision of the learned Judge upon this branch of the subject ; but if your Lordships be of opinion, that this inferen- tial argument would unnecessarily occupy your Lord- ships' time, I will not urge it. Lord Romilly. — Take your own course. Mk. Stephens. — Then I will proceed with the argument. The learned Judge, at p. 87, says : " Before, however, I leave the question as to whether the manducation by the wicked of the elements without eating Christ, be or be not an argument for the absence of the Pre- sence from the consecrated elements, I must observe, that an opinion has been maintained by great divines, such as Cyprian and Bishop Ken, that the Presence is miraculously with- drawn from the elements in cases where the wicked or a beast have devoured them." 2 192 This Theory unknozvn in E^tcharistic Controversy, The learned Judge has here relied upon only two authorities — St. Cyprian and Bishop Ken. In reference to St. Cyprian, his Lordship has not quoted any words, nor has any reference heen given. It is difficult to comprehend, how St. Cyprian can be made an authority for the construction of the Thirty- nine Articles, especially as he died 1314 years before their enactment. In reference to Bishop Ken, it may be remarked, that it appears from Dr. Hook (Biog. Diet., vol. vi., p. 427), that his Poetical Works, from which his Lordship has made this extract, were not published until 1721, which was eleven years after his decease. Consequently, these works are not evidence, inasmuch as the death of the Bishop precluded him from being censured for any error they might contain, nor can he be held responsible for their publication. . Thus, the learned Judge has brought forward no authority for the supposition, that the Body of Christ is withdrawn from the elements, when the wicked receive the Sacrament. There is no trace of any such theory in the controversy in lo71, respecting this 29th Article. In the letter written to Cecil, to which reference was made, when I was discussing the 28th Article, it appears from Dr. Groode^ in the Supplement to the second volume of his work on the Eucharist (p. 10), that the writer of that letter urged Cecil to dissuade the Queen from authorizing the 29th Article, and argued that Judas did receive Christ's Body, because Christ said unto him, " Take, eat, this is my Body." " It is not said, if " thou be a good or faithful man. Take, eat, this is '* My Body — but simply, without any such condition, " Take, eat, this is my Body." No suggestion is here made of such withdrawal of the Body of Christ, as is supposed by the learned Judge ; although such a theory of withdrawal would have removed the difficulties presented by the 29th Article. But, on the contrary, it is con- Comments of the Judge on Article 29. 193 tended, that the wicked must receive the Body of Christ by the force of the words of institution. It may be remarked, that the suggestion of this anony- mous writer was not acted upon, and the 29th Article was confirmed by the Queen. The learned Judge, having set out the 29th Article, says, at p. 76 of his Judgment : *' It seems to me, however, that it can be reasonably and fairly argued that the object of the Article, which must be construed as a whole, and not, as has been strangely sup- posed, by the title alone, was to assert that the wicked who received the holy elements received them to their condemna- tion ; that is, that they did not become s]^iritually partakers of Christ, though they saeramentally received his body and blood." His Lordship speaks of its having been strangely supposed, that the Article is to be construed by the title alone. That argument was not urged by myself, nor by my friend. Dr. Tristram, in the Court below. No doubt the title and the Article must, as the learned Judge says, be construed as a whole. It appears to me, that they are entirely consistent. The learned Judge says, it may be " fairly argued, " that the object of the 29th Article was to assert, " that the wicked who received the holy elements, " received them to their condemnation." But if this was the object of the Article, then the 29th Article was superfluous and mere surplusage, because the 25th Article had already determined that question. Article 25, speaking of the Sacraments, says : " They " that receive them unworthily, purchase to them- " selves damnation, as St. Paul saith." Again, if this was, as the learned Judge says, the object of the 29th Article, why was that Article so strenuously opposed, during nine years, by men who freely accepted and subscribed the 25th Article ? The learned Judge further explains the Article in these words : " that is, that they " [meaning thereby the wicked] " did not become spiritually partakers of 194 S/. yokn, chap, vi.^ quoted by the Judge, '* Christ, though they sacramentally received His Body " and Blood." His Lordship uses the word " sacramentally^' but does not state in what sense he uses it. The word " sacramentally " has been used by divines in two senses : (1 ) the Eeformed divines mean by it, figuratively only. Thus Oranmer states, that the word ** sacramentally " Bigni^es figuratively. He says, at p. 141 of his Treatise on the Lord's Supper, " Now " as concerning the word 'figuratively,' what need " this any proof, that Christ is in the Sacrament " figuratively, which is no more to say, but sacra- " mentally ;" (2) the Eoman writers mean by " sacra- *' mentally^' really in the Sacrament, that is to say in the elements. If the learned Judge uses it in the former sense, then his statement comes to this — that the wicked. figuratively receive the Body of- Christ; and this will not be disputed. But if his Lordship uses it in the other sense, then his statement comes to this, that the wicked really in the Sacrament receive the Body and Blood of Christ ; and this is oj)posed to the 29th Article. The learned Judge says that the phrase, " * eat '' ' Chris fs Body^ is a phrase of theology capable of " various interpretations. It is taken from the sixth " chapter of St. John, and may be, as it has been, by *' high authority, interpreted to mean so to eat the " Body of Christ as to dwell in Christ; or, in other *' words, to be * partakers of Christ.' " In the Court below, when I was about to make a few observations upon a passage in Scripture, the learned Judge, while expressing, that it was his duty to hear me upon passages in Scripture, suggested for my consideration, whether the discussion of such matters in a court of justice was desirable. I acted upon that suggestion, and offered no argument from passages in Scripture. The learned Judge has, however, argued upon passages from Scripture both in this place and at p. 85 of his Judgment. It is not my wish to press such a discussion upon Dr. Pusey relied upon by the Jtidge. 195 your Lordships ; but I cannot allow that the sixth chapter of St. John supports the learned Judge's state- ment, that " * to eat Christ's Body ' is a phrase of " theology capable of various interpretations." I am prepared, if your Lordships desire it, to contend that in that chapter, the word ** eat " has but one interpre- tation, viz., a faithful feeding on the Body of Christ; from which it follows, that whosoever eateth the Body of Christ, eateth profitably : the doctrine of the Church of England being, that without faith'the Body of Christ cannot be eaten ; and imth faith, is eaten profitably.* The learned Judge says, that the phrase, ^' eat '* Christ's Body," inay be interpreted to mean, so to eat the Body of Christ as to dwell in Christ. But the fact is, it must be so interpreted and is capable of no other meaning. The learned Judge has cited no instance, in which the phrase is used in any other sense, and therefore he has not shown *' various " interpretations." It is confidently submitted, that there is only one interpretation, viz., the faithful feeding upon Christ. The learned Judge refers to high authority in support of his interpretation, and refers to Pusey on the Real Presence (p. 255). Dr. Pusey says, that the phrase, " eat the Body of " Christ," in the sixth chapter of St. John, " is always " used of such eating whereby a man dwelleth in " Christ and Christ in him ; whereby he shall live for '' ever ;" which is quite true ; but then Dr. Pusey (pp. 255, 256), suggests, that as there are those who " eat the Body of Christ " so as " to dwell in ''Christ," there are others who "do not so eat the " flesh of Christ as to dwell in Him." This sug- gestion of Dr. Pusey's is gratuitous, and unsupported by the sixth chapter of St. John, which only speaks of 07ie manner of eating. The learned Judge, at pp. 76 and 77, using the lan- ♦ Their Lordships not having dissented from this construction of the sixth chapter of St. John, no further comments were made on the language of that chapter. 196 Hymn from the MissaL guage of Dr. Pusey to express his construction of the 29th Article, says, speaking of the wicked, " They do '' not eat Christ's Body to any purpose or effect for " which it was offered to them ; they eat it o their *' damnation." This is in direct contradiction of the 29 th Article, which, in the title, says, that " the " wicked do not eat the Body of Christ." But the learned Judge says that " they do eat it,'' though " to " their damnation :" thus making two manners of eating, while the Church of England recognises but one. At p. 77, the learned Judge cites, as an authority for his opinion, a hymn, which occurs in the Roman Missal, forming a prominent part of the service for the Feast of Corpus Christi — a feast instituted in 1264, by Pope Urban lY., for the special adoration of the wafer. The language of the learned Judge is as follows : " They eat a judgment to themselves, but still in one sense they eat it, or rather as it is expressed in the old hymn, * Sumunt boni, summit mali,' " &c. It will be observed, that the hymn, upon which the learned Judge here relies, says, that the " good "take," and the "bad take;" but it does not say what they take. If it means that both good and bad take the Sacrament, the meaning is good ; but it does not support the learned Judge's position. If it means that both good and bad take the Body of Christ, it supports the Judge's position ; but it is the Roman doctrine, and directly opposed to the 29th Article. The learned Judge endeavours to justify the con- struction, which he has placed upon the 29th Article, by reference to several divines of the English Church. He first quotes Bishop Ridley ; that prelate, in the course of his disputation at Oxford, says : "Evil men do eat the very true and natural body of Christ sacrarnentallj/, and no further, as St. Augustine saith ; but Ridley. 197 good men do eat the very true body both sacramentallij and S'piritually by grace." The passage quoted from Ridley, does not support the construction for which the learned Judge quotes it. By " sacramentallij " Ridley means "figuratively^'' not, " really." His statement therefore is, that " evil " men do eat the very true and natural Body of " Ghri^t figuratively^ and no further f' This statement is directly opposed to the learned Judge's position. If the learned Judge had referred to the question, to which this is Ridley's answer, lie would not have cited Ridley in support of his position. It appears from Ridley's Works (p. 246), that the Romish Inquisitor, Tresham, had put this argument to Ridley : ** Evil men do eat the natural Body of " Christ ; ergo, the true and natural Body of Christ is " on the altar." Ridley avoids the conclusion by explaining the premiss. His answer : " Evil men do eat the very " true and natural Body of Christ sacramentally, and '' no further," only meets the argument of his oppo- nent on the ground, that " sacramentally " means "figuratively,''' and not really. If it meant, as the learned Judge construes it, really in the Sacrament^ then it was no contradiction to Tresham's premiss. In the next passage quoted by the learned Judge, it will only be necessary to read the words marked by his Lordship in italics : " For without the spirit to eat the Sacrament is to eat it unprofitably, for whoso eateth not spiritually he eateth his own condemnation." It will be observed, that Ridley only speaks of eat- ing the Sacrament, although his interrogator, Watson, had spoken of eating Christ's *^true and natural " flesh." Thus, Ridley's answer strictly accords with the 29th Article, which says, that "the wicked *' do eat the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." Ridley does not say, that without the Spirit men can eat the Body of Christ unprofitably, an exposition 198 S^, Attoustine. ^> which the learned Judge defends ; but they eat the Sacrament unprofita,bly, which is the doctrine of the Church of England in the 25th and 29th Articles. The learned Judge next cites, as an authority, St. Augustine, and seems to justify such citation by adding the remark, " upon whose authority the '' 29th Article professes to be founded." This remark is inexact. The 29th Article does not profess to be founded on the authority of St. Augus- tine. The facts are these : the Article makes use of the peculiar expression, " They do carnally and *' visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of the " Body and Blood of Christ." And to justify this expression, tlie compilers appeal to St. Augustine as an authority for it, inserting parenthetically, " as '* St. Augustine saith." This is all for which St. Augustine has been cited, for the words which next follow, '•' yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ," are not St. Augustine's words. The learned Judge says : "St. Augustine fre- " quently states, that the wicked do, in^the sense " which I have mentioned, receive the Body of *' Christ;" and his Lordship then quotes a passage from St. Augustine. It may be remarked, that the passage which the learned Judge thus quotes is the same as that, which the Popish Inquisitor Tresham relied upon against E-idley, and to which Kidley (Works, p. 247) replied : "It is the body to them, that is, the Sacrament of the body, and Judas took the Sacrament of the Lord to his con- demnation. Augustine hath distinguished these things well in another place, where he saith, ^ the bread of the Lord and * the bread the Lord. Evil men eat the bread of the Lord, * but not the bread the Lord ; but good men eat both the * bread of the Lord and bread the Lord.' " Here Ridley directly rejects the position, that evil men eat the Body of the Lord, for which St. Augus- tine was quoted by Tresham and by the learned Judge, and relies upon St. Augustine for an exactly Dean Jackson. 199 opposite view ; and it is remarkable, that this passage occurs in the very next line to the passage quoted from Ridley by the learned Judge. There will be no necessity to examine in this Court the writings of St. Augustine, who has thus been quoted as an authority upon both sides of this question. At p. 78 the learned Judge proceeds to quote Dr. Jackson, the Dean of Peterborough in 1638. It will not be requisite to follow the learned Judge through all the extracts which he has given from Dr. Jackson's works, because those extracts show, that Dr. Jackson's views concerning Real Presence were different from those, which Mr. Bennett maintains. Dr. Jackson's teaching respecting the Real Pre- sence will be found at pp. 78, 79 : " May we say then that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, as well to the unworthy as to the faithful re- ceivers ? Yes, this we must grant ; yet we must add withal, that He is really present with them in quite a contrary manner ; really present He is, because virtually present to both; because the operation or efScacy of His Body and Blood is not metaphorical, but real in both." Thus Dr. Jackson maintains, that the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is virtual, not actual ; not by the corporal Presence^ but by the '* operation or efficacy " of his Body and Blood. Dr. Jackson further explains his view of the Real Presence in the same passage : " Now, when we say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, our meaning is, that as Cod He is present in an extraordinary manner ; after such a manner as He was present (before His incarnation) in His sanctuary, the ark of His covenant ; and by the power of His Godhead, thus extraor- dinarily present, He difiuseth the virtue or operation of His human nature either to the vivification or hardening of their hearts who receive the sacramental pledges." Here Dr. Jackson maintains the Presence, not of Christ's Body and Blood, but of the power of His 200 Seeker denies the Bodily Presence, Grodliead — by which He diffuseth the virtue or ope- ration of His human nature, either profitably or un- jjrofitably to all, who receive the Sacramental pledges. When^ therefore, he speaks of '* eating Christ's Body '* merely sacramentally ^' he does not mean that the wicked receive the Body of Christ, but they receive only the sign or " Sacramental pledge " of that Body. Dr. Jackson therefore, so far from adding the weight of his great authority in support of the learned Judge, is an authority against him. Archbishop Seeker is next quoted by the learned Judge, as "expressing himself in pretty much the " same sense " as Dr. Jackson. Dr. Seeker, like Dr. Jackson^ does not hold any actual Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. This appears plainly from the passage upon which the learned Judge relies. Archbishop Seeker says (p. 80) : " in one sense all communicants equally partake of what Christ calls his Body and Blood, that is, the outward signs of them." It is therefore evident, that the Archbishop, so far from thinking that evil men receive the Body of Christ, teaches that all communicants equally receive the signs or figures which Christ calls His Body and Blood ; that is, as the Archbishop explains, '' the out- '' ward signs of them." It is remarkable, that the learned Judge italicises this passage — it being in direct opposition to the reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked. His Lordship also italicises the following language of Seeker, viz. ; " Even to the unworthy communicant He is present, as He is whenever we meet together in His name." Here it is evident, that the Archbishop is speaking of the Presence of Christ in His divine nature^ and not of the Presence of the Body of Christ, The Archbishop proceeds : " But in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy Dr. South. 201 soul, becoming by the inward virtue of Plis spirit its food and sustenance." Thus the Archbishop teaches, that even to the worthy there is not an actual Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, but a Presence of Christ to the soul by the inward virtue of His Spirit. And his Grace adds — " This real Presence of Christ in " the Sacrament His Church hath always believed." At this point the learued Judge concludes his quota- tion. It is however important to read the words that immediately follow this passage, at p. 371 of the sixth volume of Seeker's Lectures (London, 1825): " But the monstrous notion of His bodily Presence, '' was started 700 years after his death." And the Archbishop goes on to show how the error of corporal Presence, and the idolatrous practice of the worship of the Sacrament grew in the Church. In fact, this 36th lecture to which the learned Dean of the Arches has appealed, is a direct refutation of the views of the learned Judge on (1) the Real Presence of the Body of Christ ; (2) the reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked ; (3) the sacrifice or offering of Christ by the Priest ; and (4) the Adoration of the Sacrament. The learned Judge next quotes Dr. South. His Lordship says : " South did not scruple to speak of his horror when he con- sidered ' the pure and blessed body of our Saviour passing * througl I the open sepulchre of such throats ' (i. e., of the wicked)." The learned Judge seems to be surprised, that South did not scruple to use such language. His Lordship ends his quotation in the middle of a line, where there is not even a comma. But as all the words of the passage so illustrate its character, it becomes advisable to read them from the first volume of South's Sermons (pp. 332, 333). " Nevertheless, as custom in sin makes people blind, and blin(hiess makes them bold, none come more confidently to 202 Dr. South against Mr, Bennett's doctrine, the Sacrament than such wretches. But when I consider the pure and blessed body of our Saviour passing through the open sepulchres of such throats into the noisome recep- tacles of their boiling, fermenting breasts, it seems to me a lively, but sad, representation of Christ's being first ' buried * and then descending into hell.' Let this diabolical leaven therefore be purged out ; and while such pretend to be so busy in cleaning their hearts, let them not forget to wash their mouths too." That passage occurs in a sermon preached by Dr. South on the 8th April, 1688. This was a period of our history, when the minds of all men were excited upon religious subjects, being the year of the Revo- lution which deposed, and justly deposed, James II. The language of Dr. South is merely the language of rhetorical exaggeration, adapted to this period of violent and exceptional excitement. It is rather ex- traordinary, that such language, uttered under such circumstances, should be quoted as an authority upon such a grave theological discussion as the pre- sent. But in the following passage from a sermon by Dr. South, in which he is discussing the theological question of the omnipresence of Christ's divine nature, as compared with the local presence of His human nature in heaven, and which will be found in the third volume of his Sermons (p. 178), that divine speaks directly against Mr. Bennett's doctrine of the actual Presence of the true Body of Christ upon the altars of our churches. Dr. South says : " But what I say of Christ as to his divine nature, should I assert the same of his human, it would be both an error in divinity and a prodigious paradox in philosophy. Yet the Komanists will have Christ's whole body to be in ten thou- sand places together, and at once, namely, wheresoever their host is celebrated, and in every particle of that host, which certainly is the greatest absurdity and most pretentious piece of nonsense that ever was owned in the face of the rational world. And the Lutherans, who by a dough-baked reforma- tion striking off from the Komish errors, have rather changed than corrected this grand absurdity, they assert a consub- stantiation, and the consequent of it, the ubiquity of Christ's human nature." Poynet : Thorndike. 203 Poynet is the next authority cited by the learned Judge. Respecting the Diallacticon here ascribed to Poynet, it will be established, that that anonymous wovh was not written by Bishop Poynet. This will l:)e proved when the subject of Adoration comes to be discussed. At pp. 83 and 84, the learned Judge quotes at great length from the writings of Thorndike. As already stated, Thorndike has never been recognised as a rehable authority for the doctrine of the Church of England. It has also been shown, that he held a 'peculiar doctrine in relation to the Lord's Supper. His Lordship has italicised the word '^ sacra- " mentally " in this passage, as though it supported Mr. Bennett's views ; but, on the contrary, the word, as used by Thorndike, points out the distinction be- tween the true natural Body and Blood of Christ, and this Sacramental Body and Blood, which, Thorn- dike supposed, was formed by the indwelling of the Godhead of Christ in the elements. It is plain, therefore, that the arguments used by Thorndike, respecting the reception by the wicked or others of this supposed Sacramental Body of Christ, can have no bearing upon the very different question of the reception by the wicked of the true Body of Christ, that Body in which He suffered, supposed by Mr. Bennett to be present in the elements. It is of this true Body of Christ that the 29th Article speaks, without any qualification of " sacra- " mental,'' or otherwise ; but simply " the Body of " Christ ,•" for the Church of England knows nothing of any other Body of Christ, nor of any variety of the condition of the true natural Body of Christ, that Body in which He suffered, and which is now a glorified and spiritual Body in heaven and not here. The language of Thorndike, cited by the learned Judge, does not deal with the question determined by the 29th Article, and therefore need not be further dis- cussed. 204 Dr. Hey, Tlie next authority cited by the learned Judge (p. 85), is Dr. Hey. The doctrine of Dr. Hey, on the subject of the Presence in the elements, is plain from this passage. Having spoken of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the bread is the Body of Christ, even in substance, and that whoever eats that substance eats the Body of Christ, Dr. Hey then gives the doctrine of the Reformed Church in these words : " We say, that the bread continues bread after consecra- tion, and therefore that every receiver eats bread ; but that he who does what the Scripture requires may be said, in the prophetic, strong figurative language of Scripture, to eat the Body of Christ ; as he eats what is appointed to represent that Bodv, .and what the Scripture calls briefly that Body itself." In these words Dr. Hey maintains, that " to eat '' the Body of Christ," is figurative language. That the elements represent the Body of Christ, and though not the Body of Christy they are so called by Scrip- ture for brevity s sake. The learned Judge has cited Dr. Hey as using remarkable language in support of the Judge's position. But what does Dr. Hey main- tain ? He maintains, that there is no presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, either to the wicked or to the w^orthy, but that both the worthy and the wicked receive the signs or representations of the Body of Christ, which are called the Body of Christ for hrevitys sake. Dr. Hey says indeed, ''We also use this proposition, " the wicked eat Christ's Body." But in what sense are these words used by Dr. Hey ? Not in the sense which the learned Judge puts upon the phrase — viz., that the wicked eat the true Body of Christ unpro- fitably indeed and to their own injury ; but in the very different sense, that the wicked eat the signs or representations of the Body of Christ. Having thus examined all the authorities, quoted by the learned Judge, in support of his Lordship's Authorities do not support Judges construction. 205 construction of the 29th Article, it has been found, that, putting aside the unauthorized and anonymous work the Diallacticon^ and the rhetorical language of Dr. South, no one of such authorities supports the position, that the wicked receive or eat the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The learned Judge, at p. 85 of his Judgment, says : ^' In truth, the construction placed by all these " authorities on the 29th Article, brings it into har- " mony, with the words of the 25th Article." But the 29th Article does not require to be brought into harmony with the 25 th Article, for there is no con- trariety between them ; they deal with different subjects. The 25th Article denies beneficial recep- tion of the Sacraments by the wicked, whether in the case of Baptism or the Lord's Supper, and does not deal with the reception of the Body of Christ. The 29 th Article denies, further^ any reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked in the Lord's Supper. The construction, for which the learned Judge con- tends, does more than bring the 29th Article into harmony with the 25th Article; it makes them identical. And if identical, it is difficult to compre- hend why the introduction of the 29 th Article caused such bitter theological contention during nine years. The cause of this contention was as follows : the Eomanists, Lutherans, and some persons in the Church of England, maintained the reception of the Body of Christ by the wicked. But a vast majority of the Church of England maintained, that the wicked do not receive the Body of Christ. This latter view prevailed, and in 1571 was by the Legislature incorporated in the 29th Article. In pp. 85 to 87, the learned Judge at great length argues, that the words " the faithful^'' have been often interpreted to mean, " baptized members of the " visible Church." It will not be denied, that the words are often used in that, among other, senses. p 206 Barrozv : Beveridge, No reference has been given by the learned Judge to the place, where such words have been used in the formularies. They do not occur in the 29th Article, wdiich is the subject of discussion ; but they do occur in the Homily of the Sacrament, where this subject of reception by the wicked is discussed. The passage occurs in pp. 445 and 446 of the Homilies, which I have read to your Lordships in a previous part of the argument. In that Homily, the word ''faithful " is used in a sense directly opposite to that put upon it by the learned Judge, for it is there contrasted with the "faithless " among Christians. The contrast thus drawn by the Homily between " the faithless " and " the faithful," among the mem- bers of the Church, shows the recognised fact, that in the controversy during the reign of Eliza- beth respecting the reception by the wicked, the words, " the faithful," bore the special meaning of " worthy or duly prepared communicants^' those whom the 28th Article terms " such as rightly, worthily, " and with faith receive the Supper of the Lord," as contrasted with those, whom the 29th Article terms " the wicked and such as be void of a lively "faith." The learned Judge has quoted Barrow and Beve- ridge for the use of the word, '' faithful," as meaning baptized Christians. These quotations have no re- ference to *' reception by the wicked'' Barrow is dis- cussing " the doctrine of universal redemption," and Beveridge is discussing " the visible Church of Christ." The 19th Article, which Bishop Beveridge is inter- preting, may use the word " faithful' ' of the members of the visible Churchy but the 19th Article has no connection with the special controversy, respecting the reception by the wicked. But in another passage, Bishop Beveridge ex- pressly explains the words, " the faithful," as used in the Catechism, in regard to this question of reception of the Eucharist, The Bishop says, at Meaning of the words ^^ the faithful ^ 207 p. 546 of the eighth volume of his works (Anglo- Cath. Lib.) : " And this is that which our Church teacheth in her Cate- chism, saying that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. By the faithful ; by such as have and act true faith, which, as the apostle saith, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By such the Body and Blood of Christ is verily and indeed received, and only by such." At p. 87 of his Judgment, the learned Judge refers to our Burial Service, as constructed on the presump- tion that all who are baptized, except excommunicates and suicides, " are to be considered as belonging to the " Church of Christ." The object of this comment upon the Burial Service is difficult to ascertain, in con- nection with the subject which the learned Judge is discussing — viz., the effect of the 29th Article. The object seems to be, to adduce our Burial Service as evidence, that all baptized persons are the faithful. But the evidence afforded by the Burial Service supports the view, that the words, " the faithful," have a special reference to the good only among Christians. The words only occur in the Prayer to be said by the Priest at the Grrave-side : " Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and with whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burthen of the flesh, are in joy and felicity." Here the words, '^ the faithful," express those that " depart hence in the Lord " — or, as it is paraphrased in a later part of the same prayer — " those that are " departed in the true faith of Thy holy name." Here, therefore, the words, "the faithful," do not mean all members of the visible Church, nor all baptized persons. But they exclude those, whom the 29th Article excludes as " the wicked, and such " as be void of a lively faith." p 2 208 TiU Do^irime qf JSmcAarisiu: Sacrifite. The 29th Article thereibre declares, that the wicked do not rec^Ye the Bod j of Christ in the use of the Lord's Sapper; and, therefore, the doc- trine of theBeal Presence in the Eneharist, as main- tained by Mr. Bennett, is opposed to the 29th Article of Beligion. The Daetrine of Eueharistie Sacrifice. The next charge against Mr. Bennett is for main- taining, in **The Chnrdi and the World,** and in the **Plea for Toleration,** felse doctrine in respect of Saenfice, At p. 97 of the Jndgmen^ the learned Judge has set ont the charges against Mr. Bennett on this sobject in the following langoage : **(L) That the Holj Commiiiiioii TMb is an Altar of Sacnfice, at which tiie mimstj^niig priests of the Ghoreli ^pewr in a 8ao»dotal positicMiat the cdebrati(Mi d the Hdj Gbmmunioii, and tiiat at such odelnation there is a great Sacrifioe or Offering c^ Jesus Ghrist by the minlsterbig priefisl, and that in saeh Sacrifice or Offenng the Mediatioin of JefSDS aao^fids firom such altar to plead for the sins of men. ** (2.) That the Holy Commnnion TaUe is an altar <^ a eanifiisial charaeter, at whidi the miniBtering priests of the Orardi disdiaige a saceidofcal office at the oelebiaticm of the Holy Oommnnian, and that at sach celdbration there is a lirin^ real, and sj^ritnal (Bering of Christ hj the ministering These are the 13th and 19th Articles of Charge. The 26tli Article is like the 19^. In pp. 98 and 99 of the Judgment^ the learned Judge takes exception to one part of these charges and oondades his objection in these words : *' And therefore that part of the charging article, which, omitting all mention of incense, applies the words as to the IfffwHafinn of Jesos ascffiMJing fitinn uie altar to tiie doctrine of a Sacrifice IS firanded on a constniclion of tiie words of the Defiendant which they do notneceasarily bear. This part of Incense connected with Sacrifiee, 209 jdie dttige, idat&Bdase, w, I timii^ Bo(t wA hud; UKt if it woe, it would be onlj aa aggnvaticMi of l9ie dnige witik leipeet to liie doetnne ni n.JImenBteJ' The learned Judge flioiadds: ^B :^eanto ^ihatibeAjiicieBef Chaige alexin ou^ leipeete, ^ well bandedT This iAjeeticfa of ilie learned Jiid^ is gioanded i^cm die fust, diai Mr. BsmettTs hsagaag^ ie^ ''The '^ jDc&om IS the MeiSa&m of Jesus, asiynding fiam ''tiheallarto^eadfiH-thesiiis<^iiiao.'' HislOTdBli^ ooosideiSy that Mr. BennettTs aUmioii to ineoiae is not oomiected with the doetrine of a aamSe^ hot rather with tibe dodnne of Ae Pmeooe; and, tibat, theiBlore^ Aat part of the dhaiging artide whidi, omittiiig all menlioa. cf meemaR, af^dies the wofd% as to the Mediation of JoBOi aai»Bdiiig^ fiont the ahar, to the dociziiie of saerifioey is fimnded on a cQDstnictioii of the words of iSbe BeepoDdent, which thejr do not neoesBSiity bear. But it is snhmitted, fliat Mr. Benny's lesfeitraiee to incense, is specialbjr eooneeted with nenSce, The whole sobjeet of Eitiaet D, given at p. 98 of his Lordfihip s Jndgmait^ is sacnfioe ; and rf ineense, it is said, *^ihe smoke of ibe incense ^jfoes ^ befcie '^GqAJ^ The aseendwg incawe has no emneetion wilh the descending Presence, hot wiih the saoi- fice, ndiich is always said to be cfered vp^ and in offbring idnch, the priest derates the wafisr as hi^ as poBsible abore Ins head; ihe priest fltinding^ erect, and die elevation being a symbol of tibe The reliaienceto incense, if connected with fioe, woold, the learned Judge sajs, at p. 99, "* be ^ cMity an aggravation of the diaige^ wiih respect to *^ the doctrine oi a samfioeL" Bat it is sobmitted, it is mcRe than tins, it amoontB to die asBertian ni a prepitiaUnry saayke^ made bj the priest, idien pua- gra^ D is consbned as a lAde. Mr. Bennett, after speaking of the aUar, of the sacerdotal pooiion isi the pskst, (tf tihe great sacrifice vrincfa he cffm^ aaJi^ 210 3^"^^ Article of Religion condemns two errors, that " the incense is the Mediation of Jesus ascend- " ing from the altar to plead for the sins of man." This ascending mediation, which pleads for sin, di- rectly declares the propitiatory character of the sacri- fice then supposed to be offered^ because propitiation is, under the 31st Article of Religion, that which obtains remission of sin. This symbolic character of incense^ as representing the sweet-smelling sacrifice or acceptable propitiation, appears from the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, where it is said : " The pastor will teach with absolute certainty that, as the Holy Council has also explained, the holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice of the cross, but also a truly propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with pure hearts, a lively faith, and an inward sorrow for our trans- gressions, we immolate and offer this most holy Victim, we shall, no doubt, * obtain mercy ' from the Lord, * and grace in * seasonable aid ;' for so delighted is the Lord with the odour of this Victim, that, bestowing on us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins." — (Donovan's Catechism of Trent, i., p. 493.) It is therefore submitted, that this part of the charge is well laid. TJie ^\st Article of Religion, At p. 99 of his Judgment, the learned Judge says, " The law on this subject is mainly contained in the " 31st Article of Religion." His Lordship then sets out the 31st Article, but has omitted to set out the title^ although the learned Judge, at p. 76, has held, that the Article and title must be construed as a whole, applying that principle for the construction of the 29th Article. The title of the 31st Article is, " Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the " Cross." This 3 1st Article asserts two doctrines^ but his as " blasphemous fables " and " dangerous deceits ^ 211 Lordship seems to have dealt with it, as if it contained only one doctrine. The two doctrines contained in this Article are : (1.) That the oifering of Christ was made once for all. And, therefore, the title says, " The one " oblation of Christ,'' and the Article saj^s, " the " offering of Christ once made',' (2.) The second doctrine is, that that offering of Christ was a perfect propitiation for all sins and the only propitiation. And therefore the title says, " finished upon the Cross^' and the Article says : " is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satis- " faction, for all the sins of the whole world, both " original and actual, and there is none other satis- *' faction for sin, but that alone." From this language it appears, that redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, are cumulative terms, signifying in each case, " satisfaction for sin ;" that which obtains " remission of pain or guilt," as ex- pressed in the latter part of the Article. I shall endeavour to establish, that the object of this Article was to meet two errors : (1.) That the priest offers Christ : and, (2.) That such offering is propitiatory for the living and the dead. And the Article contains two condemnations, one for each error : (1.) Such claims to offer Christ are blasphemous fables: and, (2.) Such claims to atone for sins are dangerous deceits, (1.) The claim of man to offer the Son of God in sacrifice, is blasphemous against God ; and is always so called by our Reformed divines ; and it is a false and fabulous claim^ and therefore is termed by the Article a blasphemous fable, (2.) The second claim, that such assumed sacrifice can obtain for the quick and the dead remission of pain or guilt, is dangerous in regard to man, inducing men to trust their salvation to this untrue 212 The Canons of the Council of Trent. and unavailing atonement. And so it is termed by the Article a dangerous deceit. The Canons of the Council of Trent, The Council of Trent, the Canons of which the learned Judge has quoted at p. 99 of his Judgment, has divided the subject into the two like separate doctrines, and asserts in each case that, which the Church of England denies. In the first Canon which the learned Judge quotes, the Council of Trent declares, that there is a true and proper sacrifice offered to God in the mass. The second Canon of the Council of Trent, which the learned Judge does not quote, states what that sacrifice is, viz., as appears from Waterworth (Canons and Decrees, p. 158), " That the priest should offer *' Christ's own Body and Blood ;" which is the very doctrine maintained by Mr. Bennett. In the third Canon, which the learned Judge does quote, the Council of Trent declares, that this sacri- fice of the mass is propitiatory, thus distinguishing between the sacrifice, which is the subject of the first and second Canons, and the propitiatory character of the sacrifice, which is the subject of this third Canon. This distinction, by which it is shown that the offering of Christ, and the propitiatory character of that offering, are separate doctrines, can be clearly established by a short extract from Jewel's Challenge Sermon at Paul's Cross (p. 24). Jewel supposes St. Paul to be now alive, and to ask these, among other questions, of the Roman priests : " Did I ever teach you to offer up the Son of God " unto His Father ? " Did I ever teach you any other propitiatory " sacrifice for sin, than that Christ once offered upon " the Cross ?" Art. 31 directed against the Canons of Trent, 213 These two questions indicate two separate doc- trines, like the 31st Article of Eeligion. The 31st Article of Religion is further illustrated by a passage from Bishop Jewel — a prelate who took a prominent part in the settlement of these articles. At p. 336 of Jewel's Apology the following passage occurs : " You will say ye [Protestants] offer not up Christ unto God His Father. No, Mr. Harding, neither we nor you can so offer him ; nor did Christ ever give you commission to make such sacrifice. And this is it, wherewith you so foully beguile the simple. Christ offereth and presenteth us unto His Father, for by Him we have access to the throne of grace. But no creature is able to offer Him." Here are the two points, the claim to "offer " Christ," and " beguiling the simple." The one a blasphemous fable^ the other a dangerous deceit. Lord Justice Mellish. — As a matter of fact, is this 31st Article taken exactly from the previous Articles ? Mr. Stephens. — Not quite. Lord Justice Mellish.^ — ^I wanted to know whether this Article can be taken, as having been made expressly against these Canons of the Council of Trent, or whether it was not framed earlier ? Mr. Stephens. — As a matter of fact, it was framed expressly against the teaching of the Council of Trent. The date of the particular session of the Council of Trent, at which those Canons were passed, was October, 1551, and the 31st Article was first drawn up in 1552.* * This interpellation is taken from the Guardian, December 6, 1871. The answer given to Lord Justice Mellish, was, after the close of the argument, found to be incorrect. In consequence of this, on the first occasion of their Lordships' meeting again after the recess, a communi- cation was laid before them through Mr. Reeve, the Registrar, to the following effect: My Lords, — In the course of my recent argument before your Lordships in the case of Sheppard v. Bennett, Lord Justice Mellish asked me, whether the 31st Article was framed expressly against 214 The First Prayer Book of Edward VL The First Prayer Booh of Edward VI. The subject of sacrifice in the Eucharist was also dealt with by the Reformers in the compilation of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. They rejected from the office of the mass in the Sarum Missal all the Canons of the Council of Trent. The answer, given at the moment, was, that the Canons of Trent on the subject of the Sacrifice were decreed in 1551, and the 31st Article drawn up in 1552. This answer was, I have since found, incorrect, a mistake having been made between the Trent Canon on Adoration in the Mass (1551), and the Canons on Sacrifice in the Mass, which were not decreed till September, 1562. The facts of the case are as follows : the English Article was drawn up in 1552, in which the Sacrifices of Masses were termed " figmenta " — " forged fables." This Article must have been known to the Council of Trent, when they, in 1562, decreed the Sacrifice of the Mass, and anathematized all who applied the word " blasphemy " to such Sacrifice. The English Articles were revised the next year (1562-3); and in direct oppositions to the Canons of Trent, the Convocation inserted the forbidden word, terming Masses Uasphema figmenta, in the revised Latin version ; but the word was not introduced into the English version, the words of which still remained " forged fables." The reason of this is obvious : the Latin version would come into the hands of scholars, the clergy, and foreigners ; the English version would come into the hands of the public in general, among whom it might have been, in some instances, hazardous to use so strong an expression against Roman doctrine. But when the throne of Elizabeth and the Protestant religion had become securely established, and the last struggle in favour of Eomanism had been quelled in the northern Eebellion of 1569, the words, " blasphemous fables," were, in 1571, inserted by the Legislature in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and this in direct defiance of the Anathema of Trent. The correct answer to Lord Justice Mellish would, therefore, have been, that the 31st Article, as finally settled^ was directed expressly against the Canons of Trent. I regret having made this mistake ; but I may add, that the facts, stated above, do not weaken the argument I submitted to your Lordships. I am, my Lords, with sincere respect. Your Lordships' faithful servant, A. J. Stephens. 61, Chancery Lane, Jan. 13, 1872. P.S. I venture to send herewith a Table of the Articles and Canon referred to. To the Lords of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, &c., &c., &c. Table of the Articles and Canon referred to. The 31st Article of 1552 had these words, in the Latin version. Prayers of the Sariim Missal omitted. 215 the prayers and actions that constituted the sacrifice of the mass. They were the following : (1.) The prayer of the priest that the oblation which he offers for his sins and offences, and for the repose of the dead, may be accepted (Walker, Sarum Missal, p. 51). (2.) The prayer that the sacrifice may be accepted {lUd,, p. 53). (3.) The exhortation to the congregation to pray, that the sacrifice may be accepted {Ibid,), (4.) The prayer to be made by the priest, while regarding the host with great veneration, that this oblation may be graciously accepted (Ibid., p. 65). (5.) The prayer in which the priest offers the host after consecration (Ibid., p. 67). (6.) The memorial made on the sacrifice of the host in behalf of the dead {Ibid,, p. 68). And, (7.) The prayer that the sacrifice which has been offered may be propitiatory (Ibid., p. 81). These seven prayers, which were in the Sarum Missal at' the death of Henry VIII., and which con- stituted the oblation and sacrifice of the mass, were omitted from the Communion Office in the First Prayer Book. The result of such omission was this, that the sacrifice of the mass was obliterated from the offices of the Church of England. "Missarum Sacrificia figmenta sunt;" in the English version, " The Sacrifices of Masses were forged fables " (Card well's Syno- dalia, i., pp. 14, 29). The fourth Canon of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent, September, 1562, had these words : " If any one saith that by the " Sacrifice of the Mass, a Uasphemy is cast upon the most holy " Sacrifice of Christ, consummated on the Cross ; or that it is " thereby derogated from : let him be anathema " (Waterworth, Canons and Decrees, p. 159). The 31st Article of 1563 had these words, in the Latin version, "Missarum Sacrificia Was/;Aema figmenta sunt" (CardwelFs Syno- dalia, i., p. 48) ; in the English version, " the Sacrifices of Masses " were forged fables " (Ibid., p. 68). The 31st Article of 1571 had these words, in the Latin version (as in 1563), " Missarum Sacrificia blasphema figmenta sunt " (Ibid., p. 86) ; in the English version, " the Sacrifices of Masses were "blasphemous fables" (Ibid., p. 102). It was in this form enacted by Stat. 13 Ehz., c. 12. 216 Missal does not contain any Offering of Christ, It will hardly have escaped notice, that none of these seven prayers contain any mention of that, which according to the Canons of the Council of Trent, already referred to, constitutes the true sacrifice of the Eucharist, viz., the offering by the priest of the Body and Blood of Christ. The reason is, that this erroneous doctrine was of later inven- tion than the formation of the Canon of the Mass. Palmer, in his Origines Liturgicae (vol. ii., p. 85), speaking of the oblations in ancient liturgies, says ; " None contain a verbal oblation of Christ's Body " and Blood. This is not found in the Roman " Liturgy, nor is it a form that has at any time been " used in the Christian Church." The ancient Roman Liturgy differed from other ancient liturgies in placing the oblation of the elements after, as well as before, consecration ; but it was still as an oblation of God's creatures and gifts. The later doctrine of the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, caused this oblation after consecration to be regarded as an oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ to God. By the time that the erroneous doctrine of offering the Body and Blood of Christ came to be received by the Church of Rome, the Canon of the Mass had come to be con- sidered too sacred to be altered, so that this new oblation of Christ by the priest was not made in express words, but only by the intention of the priest, while offering the oblation of the host or con- secrated elements. This fact explains the phrase in the 3 1st Article, viz., " In the sacrifices of masses, in " the which it was commonly said, that the priest did " offer Christ for the quick and the dead." '^ It was '' commonly said,'' because no such statement occurred in the Missal, but it had been, by common knowledge, the doctrine of the unreformed Church. It has been correctly argued, that the words of the Prayer of Oblation, praying God to look propitiously upon the host or sacrifice, as He did of old upon the sacrifices of Abel and Abraham, are inconsistent with Ridley and Latimer. 217 the belief, that it is the very Body and Blood of Christ, which the priest is offering to God. Ridley and Latimer, in their discussions during their im- prisonment, used this argument from the words of the Canon of the Mass, as given in Ridley's Works (pp. 109, 110). " Bidley, quoting the words of the mass, ' upon the which * vouchsafe to look with Thymerciful and cheerful countenance ;' puts the question to Latimer, What meaneth this prayer for the Sacrament itself, if it be, as they say, the Body of Christ, if it be God and man ? How should the Father not look with a cheerful countenance upon His only well-beloved Son ? Why do not we rather pray for ourselves, that we, for His sake, may be looked upon of the Father with a cheerful countenance ? " H. Latimer. — To this let them answer that so pray ; except, peradventure, this prayer was used long before it was esteemed to be the Body of Christ really and corpo- really. And then this prayer maketh well to destroy the popish opinion, that it is not the opinion of the Church, nor so ancient as they babble. There be other prayers of the mass which, peradventure, be of like effect; but I have forgotten all massing matters, and the mass itself I utterly detest and abhor." So that the Missal itself, not only contains no offering or sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ by the priest to God, but, in fact, witnesses against that innovation. Not only did our Reformers exclude these prayers on the subject of sacrifice, but they also made a most important insertion in the central part of the office, viz., in the Prayer of Consecration. As this had been the place at which the sacrifice of the mass had been made in the Romish service, the Reformers introduced the following preface immediately before the act of consecration, as given at p. 88 of the Liturgies of Edward YI. : " Oh, God, heavenly Father, which of Thy tender mercy didst give Thine only Son Jesu Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by His one 218 Protest prefixed to the Prayer of Consecration. oblation once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to celebrate a perpetual memory of that His precious death until His coming again." Of this preface no trace can be found in the Sarum Missal. It is the protest of the Church of England against the sacrifice of the mass. The language is like that which was afterwards embodied in the 31st Article, and substantially remains in the Con- secration Prayer of our present Prayer Book. By asserting the one oblation once offered by Christ on the cross, and the full perfect and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction made thereby, this protest disclaimed both the offering of the Son of God by the priest, and the propitiatory character of such supposed offering. This protest further describes the character of the Holy Communion, as instituted by Christ for a perpetual memory of his death ; thus opposing " memory " to sacrifice. The doctrine, condemned in this preface to the Prayer of Consecration, is that which the 31st Article also condemns, and terms a " blasphemous fahle^' viz., that man shall pretend to offer Christ in sacrifice to God. In 1549 elevation of the consecrated elements was forbidden. In the rubric following the act of con- secration, at p. 89 of the Liturgies of Edward YI., it was ordered, that " these words before rehearsed " are to be said, turning still to the altar, without " any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the *' people." The result of these omissions and the insertion of this rubric was this, that the sacrifice of the mass in all its parts — anything approaching to the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ to God by the priest — was rejected in the Prayer Book of 1549. In the place of the passages constituting the sacrifice in the missal, omitted in 1549, the Eeformers substituted the following Sacrificial Commemoration, which was inserted immediately after the act of con- The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. 219 secration. The words will be found, as follows, in the Liturgies of Edward YI. (p. 89) : " Wherefore, Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesu Christ, we Thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial which Tliy Son has willed us to make ; having in remembrance His blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, rendering unto Thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, entirely desiring Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. The alterations in the Communion Office, which were made in the Second Prayer Book,were very considerable. They not only decided the doctrine, but also to a very great extent changed the structure of the office in the earlier Book ; so that any substantial resemblance to the Sarum Missal was obliterated. It has, however, by some persons been erroneously assumed, that a great resemblance still remains between our present Office and the Sarum Missal. That this assumption is incorrect, appears from the authorities collected in the third edition of Dr. Blakeney's learned and accurate work on the Book of Common Prayer, in which, at pp. 450 and 451, the writer shows in a tabu- lated view, how large a proportion of the Sarum Missal has been omitted, and how little retained in our reformed service. The considerable alterations made in the Second Prayer Book were chiefly due to the necessity of dealing with the question of Sacrifice. Abuses had arisen under the cover of the simple Prayer of Com- memoration, which had been introduced into the Communion Office of 1549. The Romish-inclined priests violated the injunctions of the Rubric^ forbid- ding elevation, and the spirit of the Commemoration Prayer. This appears, as previously established. 220 The Alterations in the Second Prayer Book. from the Yisitation Articles of Eidley and Hooper in 1550 and 1551. In 1552, on the publication of the Second Prayer Book, the Reformers omitted the Prayer of Commemoration^ which had been thus abused. They likewise omitted all manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration, by which omission all oppor- tunity of elevation was taken away, and consequently the rubric forbidding elevation was no longer neces- sary, and was removed. From the Liturgies of Edward VI. (pp. 89-92), it will be perceived, that in the Communion Office of the First Book of Edward YI. a large number of prayers had been placed between the consecration of the elements and their reception. In the Second Book of Edward YI. all these prayers were removed from this place, and the result was, that reception was made to follow immediately after consecration ; by which arrangement all opportunity of re-intro- ducing the Sacrifice of the Mass was taken away. And, lastly, the only prayers of a sacrificial character, which were retained in the Second Prayer Book, had reference to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and the offering of themselves to God on the part of the communicants. And even these prayers, which in the First Book had been placed immediately after consecration, were in the Second Book removed from their connection with that prayer, and placed after reception was finished. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in giving judgment in Faulkner v, Litchfield (1 Robertson, p. 285), said : " The object in framing the Second Prayer Book was the removal of old superstitious ; and when one of the modes of carrying that object into effect was to be the aboHtion of all altars, and the substitution of tables for those altars, it must be that something more than a mere alteration of name was intended. It would not have satisfied the purpose for which the alteration was made merely to change the name of altar into table. The old superstitious notions would have adhered to the minds of the simple people, and would have continued, so long as they saw the altar on which they had been used to consider a real Sacrifice was offered." The Homilies on Sacrifice. 221 Again, at p. 253, the learned Judge said : " Added to this there is a declaration made after the hist rubric in the Communion Service, not to be found in the Prayer Book as revised in the reign of Elizabeth, respecting the meaning of the posture of kneeling prescribed in re- ceiving the Holy Communion, which goes to subvert the notion that a real Sacrifice is intended, and is consequently at variance from the proper meaning of * altar.' " These alterations made in 1552 in the Communion Office, have been maintained, without any variation whatever, in all subsequent revisions of the Book of Common Prayer. The Homilies on Sacrifice, In the Criminal Articles several passages have been set out from the Book of Homilies, declaring the doctrine of the Churcli of England in regard to Sacrifice. Of these it will only be necessary to refer to two passages. The first is an extract from the 22nd page of the First Book of Homilies; viz. : " He is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, of whom only it may be truly spoken that He did all things well, and in His mouth was found no craft or subtilty. None but He alone may say, * The Prince of the ' World came, and in Me He hath nothing.' And He alone may say also, * Which of you shall reprove Me of any fault ?' He is that high and everlasting Priest, which hath offered Himself once for all upon the altar of the cross, and with that one oblation hath made perfect for evermore them that are sanctified." From the Homily concerning the Sacrament in the Second Book of Homilies, the following extract, from p. 440, has been likewise set out : *' But, before all other things, this we must be sure of specially, that this Supper be in such wise done and minis- tered as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as His holy Apostles used it, and the good fathers in the primitive Church frequented it. For as that worthy man St. Ambrose saith, * He is unworthy the Lord that other- ' ways doth celebrate that mystery than it was delivered by Q 222 The Catechism : NowelVs Catechism. * Him ; neither can he be devout that otherways doth pre- * sume than it was given by tlie Author.' We must then take heed, lest of the memory it ba made a Sacrifice." In these words, " lest of the memory it be made a *' sacrifice," the Church of England declares the character of the Holy Communion to be a memory or remembrance, and not a real offering, of Christ ; and rejects the Sacrifice of the Mass, on the ground, that it is contrary to the institution of Christ. And in requiring, that " the Lord's Supper shall be done ** and ministered in such wise as our Lord and ** Saviour did and commanded to be done," the Church of England excludes from the Holy Com- munion all approach to real or propitiatory sacrifice for sins ; for no sacrifice was offered by Christ at the Institution of the Supper in the Upper Chamber. It was no place of sacrifice. There was no altar of sacrifice. It was an hour unlawful for sacrifice. The posture as they reclined at meat, was no posture of sacrifice. And Christ uttered no words of sacri- fice, beyond the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which are the only sacrifices, that the Church of Eng- land ofiers in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The Catechism. The same memorial character or office is declared to be, the end and design of the Lord's Supper in the Catechism of our Church : " Q. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper or- dained. ** A. For the continual remenibrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ and of the benefits which we receive thereby." NowelVs Catechism, In Nowell's Catechism (p. 215), the sacrifice of Christ in the Lord's Supper by the priest is thus spoken of : " Q. Of this that thou hast said of the Lord's Supper, me The Doctrine of the Church of England. 223 seems I may gather that the same was not ordained to this end, that Christ's Body should be offered in sacrifice to God the Father for sins. "^. It is not so offered. For He, when He did institute His Supper, commanded us to eat His Body, not to offer it. As for the prerogative of offering for sins, it pertaineth to Christ alone, as to him whicli is the Eternal Priest ; which also, when He died upon the cross, once made that only and everlasting sacrifice for our salvation, and fully performed the same for ever. For us, there is nothing left to do but to take the use and benefit of that eternal sacrifice bequeathed us by the Lord Himself, which we chiefly do in the Lord's Supper. " Q. Then, I perceive, the Holy Supper sendeth us to the death of Christ, and to His Sacrifice once done upon the cross, by which alone God is appeased towards us. "^. It is most true." In all these authoritative statements sanctioned by the Lower House of Convocation in 1562, and by both Houses of Convocation in 1571 and 1603, it is declared, that there is no manner of sacrifice or offer- ing of Christ made in the Lord's Supper. The only sacrifice by which " Grod is appeased towards us," is the sacrifice once made and fully perfected by the death of Christ upon the Cross. To Christ alone belongs *' the prerogative of offering for sins ;" for us there is nothing left to do but to take the benefi.t of that sacrifice. I therefore submit, that the doctrine of the Church of England respecting sacrifice in the Eucharist is, that since the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in the elements, on the altar, nor in the hand of the priest, there can be no offering or sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ made by the priest to God ; and that such supposed sacrifice of Christ, by the priest, is derogatory to the one single and all-sufl5cient sacrifice of the death of Christ made once for all upon the Cross. Q 2 224 Decisions on Eucharistic Sacrifice, Decisions on Eucharistic Sacrifice. That the doctrine of sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, by the priest, in the celebration of the Holy Communion is no part of the doctrine of the Church of England, has been decided by your Lordships in Liddell v. Wester ton (Moore's Report, pp. 176, 177). Your Lordships there said : " The question is, whether this structure is a communion table within the meaning of the law. *'The appellants in their pleadings, term these tables * altars or communion tables,' and in the argument they have referred to two recent statutes, in wliich the word ' altar ' is used to signify the * communion ' table. WJien the same thing is signified, it may not be of much importance by what name it is called ; but the distinction between an * altar ' and a * communion table,' is in itself essential and deeply founded in the most important difference in matters of faith between Protestants and Romanists ; namely, in the different notions of the nature of the Lord's Supper which prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reforma- tion, and those which were introduced by the Reformers. By tlie former it was considered as a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Saviour ; the altar was the place on which the Saciifice was to be made ; the elements were to be con- secrated, and being so consecrated, were treated as the actual body and blood of the victim. The Reformers, on the other hand, considered the Holy Communion not as a sacrifice, but as a feast, to be celebrated at the Lord's Table ; though, as to the consecration of the elements, and the effect of this consecration, and several other points, they differed greatly amongst themselves. " This distinction is well pointed out in Cudworth's Dis- course concerning the True Notion of the Lord's Supper, ch. v., p. 27. * We see, then, how that theological contro- * versy, which hath cost so many disputes, whether the Lord's * Supper be a sacrifice, is already decided, for it is not " sacri- * '* ficium " but '* epulum," not a sacrifice, but a feast upon sacri- * fice ; or else, in other words, not "oblatio sacrificii," but, as * Tertullian excellently speaks, '* participatio sacrificii ;" not * the offering of something up to God upon an altar, but the * eating of something which comes from Cod's altar, and is * set upon our tables. Neither was it ever known among the * Jews or heathens that those tables upon which they did eat Distinction between Lord's Supper and Sacrifice. 225 ' their sacrifices should be called by the name of altars. i Tlierefore he (St. Paul) must needs call tlie communion i table by the name of the Lord's table, i.e., the table upon i which God's meat is eaten, not His altar upon which it is t offered.' " In a subsequent part of the same Judgment, your Lordships likewise said (pp. 180, 181) : " The distinction between the Supper of the Lord and the sacrifice of the mass, is set forth with great precision in the Articles agreed upon in Convocation in the year 1562, soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and which still form the Articles of the Church of England. " Article XXXI., entitled, ' Of the one oblation of Christ * finished upon the Cross,' declares that * the sacrifice of * masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did * offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission * of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous * deceits.' This change in the view taken of the nature of the Sacrament, naturally called for a corresponding change in the ancient altar. It was no longer to be an altar of sacri- fice, but merely a table, at which the communicants were to partake of the Lord's Supper." In Parker v. Leach (1 Law Eeports, Privy Council, p. 326), your Lordships stated : " In a Roman Catholic Church there is an altar or place where the priest offers sacrifice. In a Protestant Church there is no altar, in the same sense ; but there is a communion table, on which bread and wine are placed, that the parish- ioners may come round it to partake of the Sacrament, the Supper of our Lord. " It is impossible to derive from language applicable to a Roman Catholic altar a conclusion of law applicable to a Protestant Church, which conclusion cannot be drawn unless you hold the communion table to be in all respects equiva- lent to the altar of a Roman Catholic Church." These authorities were relied upon in the Court below for the purpose of estabhshing, that it had been held by your Lordships, that the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Communion Office, is not the doctrine of the Church of England. At p. 100 of his Judgment the learned Judge comments upon 226 Sacrifice of Christ in L ord's Supper, not to be held, this reference to Liddell v, Westerton. His Lord- ship says : " I have been referred to the case of Liddell v. Westerton as a judgment of the Privy Council upon this point. It is said that this decision established, that the use of the term * sacrifice,' as applied in any way to the Eucharist, was un- lawful. I am unable to take that view of the Judgment, for various reasons." His Lordship says, "- It is said that Liddell v, " AYesterton established^ that the use of the term " ' sacrifice,' as applied in any way to the Eucharist, " was unlawful." The learned Judge does not say by whom this was said. It was not said either by my learned friend, Dr. Tristram, or by myself. So far from my stating, that the word sacrifice could not lawfully be applied in any way to the Eucharist, I referred, on the contrary, to the words of the Communion office, in which the ordinance is spoken of, as " this our sacrifice of praise and thanks- " giving." But I did contend, and do contend, that a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, or, as Mr. Bennett terms it, " a real " offering of Christ by the priest," is unlawful in the Church of England, and so decided by your Lord- ships in Liddell v. Westerton. His Lordship thinks, that the Judgment of your Lordships in Liddell v, Westerton should be re- considered, in consequence of certain treatises written by Dr. Pusey, Mr. Keble, Dr. Moberly (now Bishop of Salisbury), and Archdeacon Churton. His Lordship says : "Since the observations on this point in Westerton v. Liddell, a flood of learning has been poured out upon the subject by the very learned treatises of Dr. Pusey, Mr. Keble, the Bampton Lectures of Bishop Moberly, the Essay of Archdeacon Churton, and other works ; and when I remember how much effect was ascribed by the Privy Council to a treatise of Dr. Story, which examined with great learning the law as to bills of exchange, and disapproved of former decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench on this subject, I yudge holds such decisions should be reconsidered, 227 am sure not less effect would be ascribed by that tribunal to the treatises which have since examined, with at least equal learning, this difficult subject, then, perhaps, as in the case of the Bills of Exchange, by comparison, but superficially con- sidered "(p. 100). At p. 132 of his Judgment the learned Judge says, he is ^' not trying Mr. Bennett alone, but also " Divines eminent for piety, learning, and elo- " quence." It seems beyond doubt, that his Lord- ship intends this language to apply to the eminent Divines, mentioned in the Judgment at p. 100, to which attention has been directed. In addition to this, it must be remarked, that of these Divines, whose opinions are so authoritatively relied upon, three are living at the present moment ; the other only died shortly before the proceedings against Mr. Bennett were commenced ; and every one of these Divines have been mixed up in the present controversy. In order to test the claim which these writers can possess to disturb the Judgment of your Lordships in Liddell v, Westerton, I will only make two short remarks upon the author whose name stands first upon this list, and under whose advice Mr. Bennett states, that he made the alterations in the third edition of his "" Plea for Toleration." I allude to Dr. Piisey : First. At p. 1 1 of his Essay in the " Church and '' the World," Mr. Bennett states " that Dr. Pusey " was absolutely condemned by the University of " Oxford, and suspended for two years," for his doctrinal opinions on the Real Presence. Secondly. Dr. Pusey, having published a work entitled " An Eirenicon,'' which was reviewed in a Roman Catholic paper, called the Weekly Register^ addressed, on the 22nd of November, 1865, a letter to the editor of that publication, in which he says : " I have long been convinced that there is nothing in the Council of Trent, which could not be explained satisfactorily to us, if it were explaiaed authoritatively, i.e., by the Eoman 228 Lawful and unlawful use of word " Sacrifice!' Church itself, not by individual theologians only. This involves the conviction on my side, that there is nothing in our Articles, which cannot be explained rightly, as not con- tradicting any things held to be de fide in the Eoman Church." (A copy of this letter will be found, in Dr. Elakeney's work on the Book of Common Prayer, at p. 125 of the second edition.) LaiL'ful and unlawful use of the word " Sacrificed At p. 101 of his Judgment liis Lordship says further : " Thirdly, the Judgment of the Privy Council did not, in fact, pronounce even any obiter dictum as to the lawful- ness of the use of this term, in a particular or metaphorical sense." This opinion of the learned Judge is not disputed. It has already been conceded that the term '" sacri- " fice " is in some sense applicable to the ordinance of the Holy Communion. The real question is (1) what that sense is, according to the Formularies of the Church, and (2) whether Mr. Bennett uses the word "sacrifice " in a lawful sense. First. The Church of England allows, that the Holy Communion is a ** sacrifice of praise and thanks- " giving " in "remembrance of the sacrifice of the " death of Christ, and of the benefits which we " receive thereby." This, by some Divines, is called a commemorative sacrifice^ i.e., a sacrifice commemorative of the death of Christ — a sacrifice in a metaphorical sense. The learned Judge then refers to Waterland on this subject : "Even Waterland, whom Archdeacon Churton describes as not impressed with the ' higher and deeper sacramental * truths,' observes : * Nevertheless, the Sacrament of the * Eucharist has more particularly obtained the name of sacri- * fice, partly on account of the offerings to Church and poor * in the ante -oblation, which are pecuhar to that Sacrament, * and partly on account of the commemorated sacrifice in the * post-oblation. For though baptism commemorates the Metaphorical sense of the word " Sacrifice V 229 * death and burial, and indirectly the grand sacrifice, yet it * does not so precisely, formally, and directly represent or * commemorate the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the Eucharist * does.' " In this metaphorical sense the word ''sacrifice" may be accepted. But the question arises, secondly, whether Mr. Ben- nett uses the word " sacrifice " in this lawful sense. At p. 5 of the " Plea for Toleration," Mr. Bennett states, that our Eucharistic office " has become a living, " real^ spiritual offering of Jesus Christ upon the " altar." Here, instead of a commemorative or a metaphorical sacrifice, Mr. Bennett holds a real offer- ing of Christ upon the altar. Mr. Bennett calls it a " living " " spiritual " offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar, because he believes, as he states at p. 14, that Christ " is in the consecrated elements ;" that is, the living spiritual Body and Blood of Christ — ** believing that under their veil is the sacred Body " and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." And it is this, which Mr. Bennett claims to offer to God. The reality of the offering, which Mr. Bennett claims to make, is not diminished by the fact, that he calls it also a spiritual offering, because that which Mr. Bennett claims to offer is the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, the true Body of Christ now in a spiritual condition ; and, as the learned Judge has remarked (p. 91), it is not the less real because it is spiritual. This view is supported by the language of Mr. Keble, quoted by the learned Judge at p. 118 of his Judgment. In that work on Eucharistic Adora- tion, to which Mr. Bennett has referred with appro- bation, Mr. Keble says : *' The true oblation in the Christian sacrifice is in no sense earthy or material. It is altogether spiritual ; the chief of those spiritual sacrifices, in the offering whereof consists the common priesthood of us all. The Eucharist comprehends them all in one ; and has, besides, peculiar to itself, that 230 Keble: Dean Hook. which alone causes any of them to be acceptable. For the true oblation in the Eucharist is not the bread and wine ; that is only as the vessel which contains or the garment which veils it ; but that which our Lord by the hands of the priest offers to His Father in the Holy Eucharist is His own Body and Blood, the very same which He offers and presents to Him." Thus, Mr. Keble calls the sacrifice altogether spiritual, and yet at the same time maintains, that it is the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, the very same Body which Christ, he says, now offers in heaven. And Mr. Bennett's own language, where, speaking of the Eucharistic sacrifice, he says, " Adore " God in that blessed offering," shows that he does not mean, by the word " spiritual," a figurative offering, but a real offering founded upon the, Real Presence of the Son of Grod in the consecrated bread and wine ; and this is supported by the language of Mr. Bennett when, having spoken of the Real and actual Presence of our Lord under " the form of " bread and wine " upon the altars of our churches, he adds, *' without that doctrine as containing and " inferring the sacerdotal office of the priest, and the " sacrificial character of the altar, there would seem to " me no church at all ;" thus attaching the sacrifice to the " Real and actual Presence of our Lord." There is a lawful and there is an unlawful use of the word sacrifice in relation to the Lord's Supper. In order to illustrate this proposition, I will again avail myself of the language of Dr. Hook, on account of its perspicuity. That learned Divine, in his Life of Cranmer (vol. ii., IN'ew Series, pp. 150, 151), states that, "Before the year 1533, the public attention of England was almost exclusively directed to the question of the royal supremacy ; and Cranmer took little interest, when he was in Germany, in the discussion of a dogma which he, for a long time, regarded as of only secondary importance. It was indeed the opinion of most of the men of the * new learning ' in England, as expresiied by Tyndale, that it was expedient Water land, 231 to leave the Presence as an indifferent thing to be discussed in peace, and at leisure of both parties. But it was gradually discovered that the whole controversy turned upon this fact Protestants of all shades of opinion were united on this one point, that the mass should be turned into a communion. The mass was regarded as a sacrifice of our Lord for the quick and the dead : this the Eeformers, one and all, denied ; they maintained that it was a communion, through which the faithful were united to God ; and that the sacrifice was the offering of themselves, their souls and bodies, to God's ser- vice in common with the hosts of heaven. The controversy was perplexed, as it still is, by the fact that the Eeformers did not deny that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice ; but the question is, what kind of sacrifice ? It is one thing to offer Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and another thing for those who have been accepted through Christ as God's servants, to offer themselves as a sacrifice, a body of persons prepared to serve God in body and soul. The Church, from the begin- ning, had regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice in the last sense of the word — a memorial before God of the great work once, and once for all, done upon the cross, and at the same time a dedication, a Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church, as a whole and in all its parts, to the service of God. In process of time the Western Church, instead of offering itself as a sacrifice on the merits of the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, once, and once for all, made upon the cross, regarded itself as offering the Lord Jesus Christ himself." The language of Dean Waterland upon this subject, entirely accords with that of Dean Hook. Waterland says (p. 338) : *' that no one has any authority or right to offer Christ as a sacrifice (whether really or symbolically), but Christ Him- self. Such a sacrifice is His sacrifice, not ours ; offered for us, and not by us, to God the Father. If Christ, in the insti- tution offered himself under those symbols (which, however, does not appear), he might have a right to do it. We have none, and so can only commemorate what He did, and by the same symbols. If we symbolically sacrifice anything in the Eucharist, it is only in such a sense as St. Austin (here- after to be quoted) speaks of, where he considers the bread and wine as symbols of the united Body of the Church. We may so symbolically offer up or sacrifice ourselves, and that is all ; more than that cannot comport with Scripture or with 232 Atithorities on Sacrifice quoted by the Judge, the principle of the ancients, that all our sacrifices are made in and by Christ. He is not the matter or subject of our sacrifices, but the Mediator of them ; we offer not Him, but we offer, what we do offer, by Him." This lawful language of Waterland and Dr. Hook, in reference to Sacrifice, presents the strongest con- trast to what I venture to call, the unlawful language of Mr. Bennett, that the Eucharistic Service is a real offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar. In support of this statement of the doctrine of sacrifice by Waterland and Dr. Hook, I adopt as my own language, the words of Mr. Bennett at pp. 20 and 21 of his work on " The Eucharist, its History, Doctrine, and Practice," (London, 2nd Ed., 1846) : ** And here the distinction arises between the Roman and the Anglican Church. The former makes the Eucharist a sacrifice of the actual Body of Christ. They affirm that the Body of Jesus is again offered up to God by the hands of the priest; but w^e affirm that it is only a commemorative or representative sacrifice — that Jesus has been once offered, that He can never be offered again ; but that, after the custom of a sacrifice, we present unto God bread and wine before His altar ; and that upon bread and wine so offered we make a feast, recording the original and real sacrifice." In this language will be found a conclusive refuta- tion of the doctrine, for which Mr. Bennett is now charged. Authorities on Sacrifice, quoted hy the Judge, examined. The substantia] question is, whether the phrase, " a real offering of Olirist upon the altar," is contra- riant to tlie Formularies of the Church. At pages 102 to 122 of his Judgment, the learned Judge lias given extracts from the writings of seven- teen divines on the subject of Sacrifice : Dr. Barry, Hatramn, Bidley, Thorndike, Brevint, Beveridge, Field, Cranmer, Sharp, Bull, Wilson, Waterland, Hey, Keble, Cleaver, Moberly, Harold Browne. Not one Bishop B^ill condemns Mr. Bennetfs doctrine, 233 of these divines, with the possible exception of Mr. Koble, mentions a real Sacrifice of Christ, except to cojidemn it. Out of this long list of authorities, T need only examine in detail the quotation at pages 112 to 114 from Bishop Bull, whom the learned Judge desig- nates as the " great luminary of our Church." Bishop Bull proposes to examine certain articles of the Trent Creed, which, the Bishop says, are " mani- " fest untruths, yea, gross and dangerous errors." The first of these erroneous articles, Bishop Bull, quoting the words of the Eoman Creed, gives as follows : " that in the mass is offered to God a true, *' proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and " the dead." The second erroneous article is, " that in the most " holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, " and really and substantially, the Body and Blood, " together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord " Jesus Christ." This is precisely Mr. Bennett's doctrine on the subject of the Real Presence, and is termed by Bishop Bull, a " manifest untruth and a " gross and dangerous error." The Lord Chancellor. — You must not; omit Transubstantiation, which Bishop Bull speaks of also. Mr. Stephexs. — I am coming to that, my Lord, directly ; but I must remark, that Transubstantiation has no connection with the doctrine of Sacrifice. The third erroneous article is, '' that there is " wrought a conversion of the whole substance of the " bread into the Body and of the whole substance *"' of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the " Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation." This third erroneous article does not arise in connection with the present case, — Mr. Bennett not having maintained any change in the elements. Neither does this question of Transubstantiation affect the doctrine of Sacrifice. And accordingly Bishop Bull, without any further notice of Transubstantiation, goes 234 Bishop Btill holds a Commemorative Sacrifice, on to discuss the question of Sacrifice, as founded upon the first two erroneous articles. The Bishop says : " Where this proposition (that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for the hving and the dead), having that other of the ' substantial presence * of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist ' imme- diately annexed to it, the meaning of it must necessarily be this, that in the Eucharist the very Body and Blood of Christ are again offered up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of men. Which is an impious proposition, dero- gatory to the one full satisfaction of Christ made by His death on the cross, and contrary to express Scripture ' (Judgment, p. 113). Here Bishop Bull stigmatises as an impious pro- position, and contrary to express Scripture, the pro- position, that in the Eucharist the very Body and Blood of Christ are again offered up to God, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. This doctrine, so emphatically condemned by Bishop Bull, is not distinguishable in substance from the teaching of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett maintains the real Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ; and thus holds, that he offers Christ, thus present, to God, making thereby, " a living, real, '* spiritual offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar," and, in this '' great Sacrifice,'' ..." the mediation " of Jesus ascends from the altar to plead for the sins *' of man." This doctrine does not differ in any point from the doctrine condemned by Bishop Bull. Bishop Bull goes on to say : " It is true the Eucharist is frequently called by the ancient Fathers irpoa^opa, Ovaia, an oblation or sacrifice. But it is to be remembered, that they say also it is Ovcrla XoyoKT) Kol avaifjbaKro<;, a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice with- out blood, which, how can it be said to be, if therein the very blood of Christ was offered up to God ? They held the Eucharist to be a commemorative sacrifice, and so do we " (Judgment, p. 113). Here Bishop Bull having condemned the real offering of Christ in the Eucharist, asserts a com- Dr. Hey misunderstood by the Judge. 235 memorative sacrifice, which is clearly not the doc- trine of Mr. Bennett ; but is the doctrine of the Church of England, that there is in the Eucharist, *' the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving " in comme- moration or " remembrance of the death of Christ." The rest of the passage quoted from Bishop Bull deals with this commemorative sacrifice. He says : ** In the Eucharist Christ is offered, not hypostatically, as the Trent Fathers have determined, for so he was but once offered ; but commemoratively only." And at p. 114 the extract concludes thus: " The ancient doctors, yea, and Liturgies of the Church, affirm the Eucharist to be * incruentum sacrificium ' — * a * sacrifice without blood,' which it cannot be said to be if the very blood of Christ were therein present and offered up to God." Here Bishop Bull condemns both Mr. Bennett's doctrine of the real Presence of the Blood of Christ in the elements, and his consequent doctrine of the real offering of Christ to God upon the altar. It will be advisable to notice briefly a quotation at p. 117 from Dr. Hey's Lectures, since the learned Judge seems to have misapprehended this passage. It contains not the slightest reference to the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice. Dr. Hey is combatting the Socinian view, which makes the Lord's Supper a mere commemoration of the fact of Christ's death. He insists that it is more, — that it is a real participa- tion of and feeding upon Christ, that it is a feast on a sacrifice, and a partaking of the spiritual benefits of that sacrifice. The learned Judge italicises the words, " a mere commemoration," as though Dr. Hey would assert a sacrifice more real than a commemorative sacrifice. But Dr. Hey is not dealing with the Eucharistic sacrifice at all^ but is asserting a real participation of Christ, as opposed to a mere com- memoration of the fact of his death. Dr. Hey, how- ever, in another passage speaks expressly on the 236 ytidgment on the subject of Sacrifice. subject of sacrifice in the Eucharist, viz., in his com- ment on the 31st Article, at pages 371 and 372 of the fourth volume of his Lectures. He there says : " The Protestant notion of the Lord's Supper has been explained ; all that some Protestants do, is to commemorate the death of Christ ; others join in a ceremony which may represent a feast on a sacrifice — that is, those "who consider the death of Christ as a sacrijice. The farthest any Pro- testant goes, is to offer a symboHcal commemorative sacri- fir^e. But Bomanists, by consecrating bread, make it, in their opinion, the real Body of Christ, and they use it in two different ways ; they not only administer it as a Sacrameniy but they offer it up to God the Father as a real sacrifice ; they have one form for offering up the bread, another for offering up the consecrated cup. Tlie sacrifice here offered is not said to be symbolical, but a real, literal, ;pro;pitiatory sacrifice." Dr. Hey thus describes and condemns the real offering of Christ, which Mr. Bennett maintains. It will not be necessary to examine more in detail these numerous authorities, because the learned Judge does not deduce from them more than a commemo- rative sacrifice, or a Sacrament of commemoration. They do not, therefore, support Mr. Bennett's doc- trine of a real offering of Christ in the Eucharist. Judgment on the Subject of Sacrifice, The learned Judge having quoted all these autho- rities, proceeds, at p. 122, to give his Judgment on the subject of Sacrifice. His Lordship says : " The language of Mr. Bennett upon the subject of Sacri- fice is consistent with the doctrine of a Sacrament of com- memoration, and does not necessarily imply a sacrifice of propitiation ; and it does not, in my opinion, necessarily or directly conflict with the Articles of Keligion, nor with the 82nd Canon, nor with the passages selected from the Office of the Holy Communion set forth in the Criminal Articles ; nor has it exceeded that liberty of expression which has been used by the divines whom I have cited." The ytidges comment on Mr. Bennett's language. 237 Upon this decision it is to be remarked, that the learned Judge has neither here, nor in any other place of his Judgment, made the slightest comment npon the word '* real^' which Mr. Bennett applies to that offering of Christ, which he claims to make, although that is the most important word in the charge against Mr. Bennett, upon the subject of Sacrifice. Nor has he commented upon the word " living^' which Mr. Bennett applies to the offering, and by which he declares the Presence of Christ in His living person in the sacrifice, which he claims to offer. His Lordship here decides, that the language of Mr. Bennett is consistent with the doctrine of a ^* Sacrament of Commemoration." But this is the very view of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which Mr. Bennett most strongly repudiates. In his Essay in "The Church and the World" (p. 10), Mr. Bennett says : "Secondly — The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Two questions are here involved ; the doctrine of sacrifice and of the Real Presence. Dr. Newman tells us, in his Apologia, * when ' a correspondent, in good faith, wrote to a newspaper to say * that the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, spoken of in the ' tract, was a false print for Sacrament, I thought the mistake * too pleasant to be corrected before I was asked about it ' (Apologia, p. 115). This may be a fair representation of the doctrine held by the general average of the bishops and clergy at that time ; and of course, therefore, in the Worlds any idea of a sacrifice in the blessed Eucharist would have been a chimera. An act of memorial — an agape or love feast, a solemn record of Jesus' passion and death — that would have been the sum total of the general idea of the holy Eucharist in those days." Thus, Mr. Bennett repudiates the view, that a " Sacrament of Commemoration," is an adequate description of the Lord's Supper. If his Lordship had intended in his Judgment to say, that the language of Mr. Bennett is consistent with the doctrine of a Sacrifice of Commemoration, 11 238 Mr, Bennett asserts a real offering of Christy then it is submitted, that Mr. Bennett's assertion of a real living offering of Christ upon the altar is contrary to, and intended to exclude the figurative or meta- phorical sense, viz., a commemorative sacrifice. The 31st Article denies the offering of Christ by the priest. Mr. Bennett is even more emphatic, and asserts a real offering of Christ. It is difficult to under- stand, how a real offering of Christ can be consistent with the doctrine of a sacrifice of commemoration. The learned Judge decides, " that the language of " Mr. Bennett does not necessarily imply a sacrifice " of propitiation." But it is submitted, that a real offering of Christ to the Father must be propitiatory, for it is the offering of the Lamb of Grod, that taketh away the sins of the world. Latimer said to Ridley in their Conferences in prison, as recorded in Ridley's Works (p. 112), " Christ could not he offered -hut pro- '-'' pitiatoryT The decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. xxii., cap. 2) is to the like effect (Water- worth, Canons and Decrees, p. 154) : " Forasmuch as in this Divine Sacrifice, which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated^ in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the Holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is irvly propitiatory.'^ I may remark that the Council of Trent, through- out the whole chapter on the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not mention Transubstantiation. Further, Mr. Bennett attributes a propitiatory effect to what he terms the great Sacrifice, offered by the priest at the altar with music and incense, when he says, the incense is " the Mediation of Jesus " ascending from the altar to plead for the sins of man." Here mediation and pleading are, under the symbol of incense, attributed to the sacrifice offered by the priest upon tlie altar, thus constituting it a propitiatory sacrifice.* * That this is the riglit interpretation of Mr. Bennett's views on Sacrifice in the Holy Communion, appears from the answers given by and holds ^ that he offers a Propitiatory Sacrifice. 239 The learned Judge has also decided, that the lan- guage of Mr. Bennett does not necessarily or directly conflict with the Articles of Religion. It has been submitted, that the 31st Article of Religion condemns two errors : First, the claim of the priest to offer Christ to the Father. And this condemnation is absolute without any distinction being made between any different manners of offering Christ, whether by mactation or presentation, or oblation, or otherwise ; any claim to offer Christ to the Father is condemned. Mr. Bennett's claim to make a real offering of Christ upon the altar directly conflicts with this Article ; and this direct conflict, is not affected by the further and separate question, whether Mr. Bennett teaches, or does not teach, a propitiatory effect of that offering. Secondly, on that further point the 31st Article of Religion condemns, the doctrine that this supposed offering of Christ is propitiatory ; Mr. Bennett, both by implication and by his asserting that the media- tion of Christ ascend from the altar, maintains, that he offers a propitiatory sacrifice. The learned eTudge has decided, that Mr. Bennett's language does not conflict with the 82nd Canon, nor with the passages, selected from the office of the Holy Communion, set forth in the Criminal Articles. The 82nd Canon was set forth in the Criminal Articles, because that Canon orders a Communion table to be set up in every Church. In Liddell that Divine before the Eitual Commissioners, on July 4th, 1867, in reply to questions put to him by the Archbishop of Armagh. " Archbishop of Armagh. — Do you consider yourself a sacrificing priest ? " 31r. Bennett. — Yes. " Archhishop of Armagh. — In fact, Sacerdos, a sacrificing priest ? " Mr. Bennett. — Distinctly so. "Archhishop of Armagh. — What authority have you in the Prayer Book for that ? " Mr. Bennett. — That again would involve a long answer. It has been so interpreted by our Divines, the Divines of our Church from the time of the Eeformation, downwards. " Archhishop of Armagh. — Then [you think you ofifer a propitiatory Sacrifice ? " Mr. Bennett. — Yes ; I think I do offer a propitiatory Sacrifice. (First Rexx)rt of Ritual Commissioners, p. T'J ) u 2 240 Mr, Bennetfs language conflicts with Formularies. V. Westerton (Moore, pp. 176, 177), and in Parker V. Leach (1 Law Reports, Privy Council, p. 326), it was held, that the setting up of Communion tables, is a protest against the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that required an altar ; and Mr. Bennett's doctrine of a real offering of Christ upon the altar, is not distinguishable from the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is very true, that the Communion table is some- times spoken of as " the Altar." But this is said in a secondary or metaphorical sense. But Mr. Bennett rejects a metaphorical sacrifice and maintains a real offering of Christ ; and this reality of the offering, gives reality to the sacrificial character of the altar, and to the sacerdotal character of the priest, and is therefore contrariant to the doctrine of the Church of England, and conflicts with the 82nd Canon. The passages from the office of the Holy Com- munion were set forth in the Criminal Articles, because, like the 31st Article, they set forth " the " one oblation of Christ by Himself once offered as a " full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of ** the whole world." Mr. Bennett's doctrine does conflict with the Communion office, because he claims to make " a real offering of Christ upon the altar," to " plead " for the sins of man." The learned Judge has decided, that the language of Mr. Bennett has not exceeded that liberty of expression, which has been used by the divines whom he has cited. It is submitted, that where the formu- laries are express, no appeal can be made to the opinions of divines, and in this case, the formularies are express, imperative, and susceptible of but one interpretation. But even if appeal could be made to the divines, whom the learned Judge has relied upon, not one of them supports Mr. Bennett's doctrine of a real offering of Christ, with the possible exception of Mr. Keble. In fact, the question of the claim on the part of the priest to make a real offering of Christ, present under the form of bread and wine, is settled by the Declaration decides the question of Sacrifice, 241 principle of the Declaration on Kneeling, that " the " natural Body of our Saviour Christ," i.e., His true, actual, spiritual Body, and He has none other, is in heaven and not here ; and therefore cannot be offered as a liviug, real, spiritual offering to God by the priest. This construction of the effect of the Declara- tion on Kneeling, on the doctrine of a real sacrifice, has been laid down by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in Faulkner v, Litchfield (1 Eobertson, p. 253) : " There is a Declaration made, after the last rubric in the Communion Service, respecting the meaning of the posture of kneeling prescribed in receiving the holy communion, which goes to subvert the notion that a real sacrifice is intended, and is consequently at variance with the proper meaning of * altar.' " This argument cannot be better illustrated, than by referring to a passage in the Posthumous Charge of Archbishop Longley (p. 26). Dr. Longley says : " The Romish notion of a true, real, and substantial sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, as it is called in the Council of Trent, entailed the use of the term altar. But this term appears nowhere in the Book of Common Prayer, and was, no doubt, omitted, lest any countenance should be given to the sacrificial view. The notion, therefore, of making in the material elements a perpetual offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, is as" foreign to the spirit and the letter of our service as I hold it to be to the doctrine of the early fathers, as well as of the leading divines of our Church." In conclusion, this argument upon the subject of Sacrifice may be thus concisely summed up. Mr. Bennett claims to offer the Son of God, as a living, real, and spiritual offering, upon the altar ; claiming thereby to offer the living Body, the real Body, the spiritual Body of Christ. He calls it a " living " offering," therefore more than a memorial or com- memoration of the sacrifice made on Calvary. He calls it, a " real offering ;" therefore not a figurative or metaphorical offering, but a true offering of Christ ; and, therefore, propitiatory and atoning for sin. He 242 Sacramental Adoration, calls it, a ** spiritual offering ;" yet it is a manual and local sacrifice, for he says, it is made by the priest upon the altar. It is therefore submitted, that this language does conflict with the Articles of Eeligion and the Book of Common Prayer, because the Consecration Prayer declares, that the one oblation of Christ was made hy Himself; and the Article declares that it was finished upon the Cross. Any other Sacrifice of Christ by any other priest, upon any other altar, derogates from the honour of Christ, and from the perfection and sufficiency of the one completed and all-sufficient atonement ; for it declares, as imperfect and insufficient, the one Offering of Himself, by Him- self, upon the altar of the Cross. Sacramental Adoration, The third and last charge against Mr. Bennett is for maintaining, in the second and third editions of the "Plea for Toleration," false doctrine in respect of Sacramental Adoration. This charge is contained in Articles 20 and 27. Article 20 is founded upon the language of Mr. Bennett in the second edition of his " Plea for Tolera- " tion," and charges him with maintaining the doc- trine, that adoration or worship is due to the conse- crated bread and wine. In the third edition of that work, a substitution has been made, like to that made in regard to visible Presence. After the intimation which I have received from your Lordships, in respect of the effect of the substitution in the third edition, on the subject of the visible Presence, I will not trespass upon your Lordships' time by making any observations upon the 20th Article of Charge, but will leave it in your Lordships' hands. I will now proceed to discuss the 27th Article, which is founded upon the third edition of the " Plea " for Toleration," and in which Mr. Bennett is charged with maintaining, the adoration of " Christ present The First Praye^^ Book of Edward VI, 243 "in the Sacrament under the form of bread and " wine." The distinction drawn by the substitution here made, is exactly that to which the Eomanists have recourse to defend their practice in this matter. They contend that they do not worship the elements of bread and wine ; but Christ truly present under the form of bread and wine. Dean Brevint, a protege of Bishop Cosin, and an ecclesiastic who had laboriously investigated the differences between the English and Roman Churches, says at p. 109, of his work on the "Depth and " Mystery of the Roman Mass " (Oxford, 3rd. Ed., 1673): " The last refage of Koman Catholics is to defend them- selves by pleading good intention, and say they directly worship what is contained in this wafer, because they take it for their Saviour. So might they plead who worship the sun and moon, &c." The Roman Church disclaims, as Mr. Bennett does, the adoration of the Sacramental elements them- selves, and say that they worship the Presence of Christ in the elements. Thus, Harding (Jewel, Sermon, p. 523), says : " We, that remain in the Catholic Church, believe verily that it is our bounden duty to adore the Sacrament and to worship it, with all godly honour. By which word Sacra- ment, notwithstanding, in this respect we mean not the out- ward forms that properly are called the Sacrament, but the thing of the Sacrament, the invisible grace and virtue therein contained, even the very Body and Blood of Christ." The First Prayer Book of Edward VT The worship of the Sacrament as the worship of Ghrist pi^esent therein — i. e., in the elements, was the practice in the unreformed Church of England at the death of Henry YIII. In the Sarum Missal of 1519 and 1527 (Church Press edition, p. 311, London, 1868), the rubric which follows upon the words used 244 . The ''Agnus Deir by the priest in consecration, " for this is my Body," gives the following order : *' Let the priest incline to the host, and with bowed head adore it, and afterwards elevate it above his forehead, that it may be seen by the people."* This rubric was omitted from the First Prayer Book of Edward YI., and a new rubric inserted after the Prayer of Consecration, in the following lan- guage, as found in " Liturgies of Edward VI. " (p. 89): *' These words before rehearsed are to be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people." This rubric in the Communion Office of the Pirst Prayer Book, expressly forbids the action enjoined in the rubric in the Sarum Missal. In the Sarum Missal (Church Press edition, p. 317), the hymn called " Agnus Dei " is ordered to be sung in the Mass between consecration and reception by the priest. It is an act of adoration addressed to Christ, supposed to be present in the consecrated elements on the altar. In the First Prayer Book of Edward VL, this hymn was postponed till the time of reception^ called the " communion time^^ by the following rubric (Liturgies of Edward VI., p. 92) : " In the communion time, the clerks shall sing, * O Lamb * of God. . . .' beginning as soon as the priest doth receive the holy communion." The object of the Reformers in thus postponing this hymn was, that it should no longer be addressed to any supposed presence of Christ in the elements on the altar ; and, therefore, it was not to be used, until the elements were in the process of consumption. * In the edition of the Sarum Missal of 1492, which is the edition that Mr. Maskell reprints in his Collection of Ancient Liturgies, the words, "Let the Priest incUne to the host, and with bowed head adore it," do not occur. The Thirty-nine Articles, 245 The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. It has already been shown from the Yisitatlon Injunctions of Bishop Eidley in 1550, and Bishop Hooper in 1551, that the Eomish-incHned priests contrived to reintroduce the practice of Sacramental Adoration by the two following violations of the rubrics of the reformed office : first, elevating the consecrated elements ; and secondly, saying the " Agnus " before the communion or distribution. In the following year, namely, 1552, the Reformers in the Second Prayer Book prevented this abuse of the provisions of the First Prayer Book, by the following two alterations : (1) they took away all manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration, conse- quently the rubric, which had forbidden elevation, or showing the Sacrament to the people, was omitted ; because, as no manual acts were now permitted, there was no opportunity of elevating the Sacrament or showing it to the people, and therefore it was no longer necessary to forbid such elevation ; (2) they removed the hymn " Agnus Dei " from the Com- munion Office. The Thirty-nine Articles. The Church of England has, in the Thirty-nine Articles, expressly condemned the practice of the Adoration of the Sacrament. In the last section of the 28th Article, relating to the Lord's Supper, it is declared, that " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was " not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, *' lifted up, or worshipped." The reference being here to the Roman practice, the phrase the "Sacrament" of the Lord's Supper is used, in accordance with the Roman custom, in the sense of the consecrated elements. In Martin v, Mackonochie (3 Law Reports, Privy Council, p. 413) your Lordships held, that this section of the 28th Article, was a direct prohibition 246 Declaration excludes all Sacramental adoration. of the practices therein specified. Your .Lordships said : " The 28th of the Articles of Keligion jprohtbits all elevation of the elements, declaring, that ' the Sacrament of the Lord's * Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried * about, lifted up, or worshipped/ " The prohibition of the worship of the Sacrament applies both to the adoration of the elements, and to the adoration of any supposed Presence of Christ in the elements. In fact, the 28th Article prohibits any adoration addressed towards the sacramental elements. This construction is supported by Bishop Geste, who, writing against the worship of Christ in " the priest's hands," and praying to Him in the Mass sacring, says (Dugdale's Life of Geste, p. 119) : " Forsomuch as He is now become unvisible among us, and resident in heaven, on His Father's right hand. He is both honourable and pray able ; but in lieaven alone, and not in the earth and consecrate bread and wine. For whi, to worship Him in, under, or before the said bread and wine, is to worship the same bread and wine ; as to worship God, in. Tinder, or before an image is to reverence thee image self, which is an insufferable idolatry." In this passage Bishop Geste contends that, to worship Christ in the elements, is the same as to worship the elements themselves; and both practices he condemns as idolatry. The Declaration on Kneeling. The Church of England having thus forbidden the practice of the worship of the Sacrament, has been careful to guard the reverent posture of kneeling, which she enjoins at the time of reception, from being misconstrued and depraved, as though it in- tended, or allowed, adoration to or towards the consecrated elements. For this purpose, she has introduced at the end of the Communion Office the Disallows all Presence that can claim Adoration. 247 Declaration on Kneeling. In this Declaration, the posture of kneeling is declared to be, for the purpose of expressing gratitude, for the benefits received by the worthy communicants in the Lord's Supper, and of avoiding profanation and disorder ; and all reference to adoration of, or towards the consecrated elements is disclaimed for these two reasons : (1) that the true substances of the bread and wine are there present, and may not be adored ; (2) that the true Body and Blood of Christ are not therein present, and therefore may not therein be adored. At p. 124 of his Judgment, the learned Judge says of Mr. Bennett's doctrine in teaching the Adoration of Christ present in the Sacrament : ** Such a doctrine is not at variance with the Declaration of [on] kneeling, which discountenances the worship of the elements and of the corporal Presence of Christ. Nor is it repugnant to the 28th Article of Keligion, as suggested by the promoter, for it [that Article] contains no declaration against the Adoration of the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist." The learned Judge therefore appears to think, that while the Declaration on Kneeling denies a corporal Presence of the Body of Christ, it admits a spiritual Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements. But such spiritual Presence, if it were there, would be at least as adorable, as the corporal Presence, which the learned Judge understands to mean a gross or physical Presence. Such spiritual Presence would demand adoration. But on the contrary, the Decla- ration declares, that the posture of kneeling is for gratitude, and therefore not for sacramental adoration in any form. The reason given in the Declaration on Kneeling against sacramental adoration, viz., that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, excludes the Presence in the elements, in any sense, of the true Body of Christ, that in which He suffered, whether such Presence be called " spiritual," or " corporal," " real," 248 Bishop Jeremy Taylor and Bishop BulL " actual," or "natural." The Declaration on Kneeling disallows all Presence of Christ in the elements^ that can claim adoration. In consequence of its perspicuity, I will adopt as my own, the language of the Rev. Edward G-arbett, in his learned publication, entitled " Voices of the Church of England against Modern Sacerdotalism." Speaking of the Declaration, he says (pp. 41, 42) : " The explanatory rubric at the end of the Communion Service carefully denies any * corporal (bodily) Presence of * Christ's natural Flesh and Blood.' If the Body and Blood of Christ are in the consecrated elements, they must be a natural Body and Blood, or a supernatural Body and Blood. If they are said to be natural, then the assertion directly contradicts the language of the rubric, * The natural Body * and Blood of our Saviour Christ are 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.' If -they are said to be supernatural, Christ must have two bodies, one natural, which is in heaven ; one supernatural, w^hich is in the elements. This would involve the heresy constantly charged by the writers of the Eeformation, on this ground, upon the Church of Kome, of dividing the Body of Christ into two, and directly contradict Article lY." ....*•" In no one place do the authoritative documents of the Church of England ever recognise a spiritual Body of our Lord, or a spiritual Presence, or a real Presence in any way. These phrases are invariably applied to the recipients, not to the ele- ments. Thus in Article 28 the words ' heavenly and spiritual ' are^not used to denote the manner of the Presence but the manner of the receiving. In the Catechism, it is not said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed present, but that they are * verily and indeed taken and * received by the faithful.' " Bisliop Jeremy Taylor and Bishop Bull on Sacramental Adoration, The practice of Adoration to or towards the elements has been condemned by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, writing in the year 1658. At p. 669 of the 6th volume of Eden's edition of his works, that Prelate answers the following question put to him by '-''Divine Worship to a non ens, must be idolatry Tl^ a gentleman, who " was tempted to the Communion " of the Church of Eome :"— " Whether, without " danger of superstition or idolatry, we may not " render divine w^orship to our blessed Saviour, as " present in the blessed Sacrament or Host, according " to His human nature in that Host ?" Jeremy Taylor answers : " We may not render divine worship to Him (as present in the blessed Sacrament, according to His human nature) without danger of idolatry ; because He is not there accord- ing to His human nature, and therefore you give divine worship to a non ens, which must needs be idolatry. For * Idolum nihil est in mundo,' saith St. Paul ; and Christ, as present by His human nature in the Sacrament, is a non ens, for it is not true ; there is no such thing. He is present there by His divine power, and His divine blessing, and the fruits of His Body, the real effective consequents of His passion ; but for any other Presence it is idolum — it is nothing in the world. Adore Christ in heaven ; for the heavens must contain Him till the time of restitution of all things." On this subject of Sacramental Adoration, the opinion of Bishop Bull will perhaps be conclusive, especially as the learned Dean of the Arches, in Martin v, Mackonochie (2 Law Eeports, Ecclesias- tical, p. 208), after describing Bishop Bull as one of the greatest divines in our Church, cited the follow- ing proposition from Bishop Bull's Answer to the Bishop of Meaux : " But the worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the host to be adored by the people as very Christ Himself, under the appearance of bread, whole Christ, ^edvOpcoiro^;, — ' God * and man ' — while they neglect the old sursum corda, the lifting up of their hearts to heaven, where whole Christ indeed is." It is therefore submitted, that the doctrine of the Church of England respecting Sacramental Adoration is, that since the true substance of bread and wine remains in the consecrated elements, and may not be adored without idolatry, and since the true Body and Blood of Christ are in heaven, and not in the 250 Mr. Bennett's teaching on Sacramental Adoration. elements, and, therefore, may not therein be adored, no adoration is due, or ought to be done, to or towards the sacramental elements. Mr. Bennett's teaching on Sacramental Adoration, This teaching of the Church of England, must now be compared with the teaching of Mr. Bennett on this subject. Mr. Bennett says, " who myself " adore, and teach the people to adore, Christ " present in the Sacrament under the form of bread " and wine ; believing that under their veil is the *' sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour " Jesus Christ." The local character of this Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, which Mr. Bennett adores, is proved by Mr. Bennett's own words, where he says : " that very adoration, which we now teach " our people to use, as due and right to give to the " Presence of our blessed Lord upon our altars'' Again Mr. Bennett says : '' Is it really the case, " that the Church of Home is the only communion " in which men may hold the doctrines of the real " Presence and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and be in " proportion reverential in their devotions, and adore " God in that blessed offering?" Mr. Bennett's phrase, " adore God in that blessed " offering," agrees with the language of the Council of Trent, in chapter 5 of session 13, and seems to have been borrowed from that chapter. That chapter will be found at p. 79 of the Canons and Decrees of Council of Trent, by Waterworth, and is entitled, " On the Cult and Veneration to be shown to this " most holy Sacrament :" " Wherefore there is no room lel't for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Churcli, render in veneration the worship of Latrirt, which is due to the true God, to this most holy- Sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on tliis account, that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received, for we believe that same God to be Judgme^it of the Dean of the Arches on Adoration. 251 present therein of whom the eternal Father, when intro- ducing Him into the world, says, ' And let all the Angels of * God adore Him/ " It is important to observe, that the adoration practised and taught by Mr. Bennett is shown, by himself, to depend upon the Presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements by consecration. This doctrine is irreconcileable with the formularies of the Church of England ; because, the Church of England denies an actual Presence of the true or natural Body of Christ in the elements on the altar ; and the adoration which the Church of England pays to Christ is independent of sacramental consecration. Judgment of the Dean of the Arches on Adoration, The learned Judge proceeds, at pp. 123 and 124 of his Judgment, to deal with the charge against Mr. Bennett, on the subject of the Adoration of Christ present in the elements. His; Lordship having stated, that Mr. Bennett has only a " slight acquaintance " with the subject " upon which he has written, notices the fact, that Mr. Bennett having been apprised of his error respecting the adoration of the elements^ has, in the third edition, withdrawn the reprehensible lan- guage, and substituted for it the adoration of " Christ " present in the Sacrament under the form of bread " and wine." His Lordship goes on to say : " I have " dealt with the question as to the expression, ' under " ' the form of bread and wine/ and have decided " that it may be lawfully used. It remains to be " considered, whether to profess and teach the " adoration of Christ present in the Sacrament, is " unlawful." The learned Judge thereupon immediately pro- ceeds to give Judgment upon this point. His Lord- ship says, " Such a doctrine is not at variance with " the Declaration of Kneeling, which discountenances " the worship of the elements, and of the corporal " Presence of Christ. Nor is it repugnant to the 252 The issue raised on Adoration misapprehended. " 28th Article of Religion, as suggested by the " Promoter, for it contains no declaration against the "adoration of the spiritual Presence "of Christ in " the Holy Eucharist." The learned Judge seems to have misapprehended the issue raised in this case, upon the question of adoration. No question is raised against " the ado- " ration of the spiritual Presence of Christ in the " Holy Eucharist." But the charge is against the, adoration of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements^ which is the corporal Presence, and this doctrine of the worship of the corporal Presence of Christ is, as the learned Judge says, discountenanced by the Declaration on Kneeling. The learned Judge has only given a Judgment, upon the doctrine of " the adoration of the spiritual " Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist," a doc- trine never denied, if Eucharist means the Ordi- nance. But, in that case, no Judgment has been given upon the 27th Article, which charged Mr. Bennett with maintaining adoration due to Christ present upon the altar ; " His Body and Blood " being " under the veil of bread and wine." If the learned Judge has used the word Eucha- rist^ as meaning the elements, then his Lordship's decision is in favour of the adoration of the spiritual Presence of Christ in the elements. It is not clear, what the learned Judge means by the spiritual Presence of Christ. No such expression occurs in the Articles of Charge, which only apply to the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. If the learned Judge means by that expression, the Presence of Christ in his spiritual nature as God, the Judgment does not then touch Mr. Bennett's doctrine, but raises an entirely new question, viz., the Presence of the Godhead of Christ locally in the elements. If by the spiritual Presence of Christ the learned Judge means, the Presence of the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, then that is, that true Body of Christ Authorities cited by the J ttdge : Ridley. 253 in Glory, which the Church of England terms his natural Body., and declares, that it is in heaven and not here, and, therefore, not in the elements. Authorities cited by the Dean of the Arches examined, I will now proceed to examine the authorities cited by the learned Judge, at pp. 124 to 131 of his Judgment. Ridley is again quoted by his Lordship for language used before his accusers shortly before his martyr- dom. If any ambiguity exist in this language, it will be removed by my reading the passage, which immediately precedes the extract cited by his Lord- ship. Ridley (Works, pp. 235, 236), says : "And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because He is included in the Sacrament ; like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because He is really in- cluded in them. Notwithstanding I say, that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament; but yet sacrameutally and spiritually (according to His grace) giving life, and in that respect really, that is, according to His benediction, giving life. Farthermore, I acknowledge gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper, in such sort as the Church of Christ (which is the spouse of Christ, and is taught of the Holy Ghost, and guided by God's word) doth acknowledge the same. But the true Church of Christ dotli acknowledge a Presence of Christ's Body in tlie Lord's Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually, as I have often showed, and by a sacramental signification ; but not by the coi'poral Presence of the Body of His Flesh." So far from Ridley supporting Mr. Bennett's doc- trine of a Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, he is repudiating that doctrine, for he expressly states, as the doctrine of the Churchy " a " Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper, "to be communicated to the godly by grace, and " spiritually, and by a sacramental signification." How strongly Ridley repudiated the Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, appears at p. 240 s 254 Poy7ieL in the same examination, four pages after tlie ex- tract given by the learned Judge. Ridley says : " I grant also that there is no promise made to hread and wine- But inasmuch as they are sanctified, and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of the Lord, they have a promise of grace annexed unto them ; namely, of spiritual partaking of the Body of Christ to be communicated and given, not to the bread and wine, but to them which worthily do receive the Sacrament." At pp. 125 and 126 of his Judgment, the learned Judge quotes Bishop Poynet in his Treatise on the Eucharist. This work is called the Diallacticon, and has been previously quoted by the learned Judge at pp. 81 to 83. When commenting upon that part of his Lordship's Judgment, I asked to defer the con- sideration of this work until now. This work was, according to Dean Goode, in the second volume of his work on the Eucharist (p. 777), published anonymously at Strasburg, in 1557, the year after the death of Bishop Poynet. No evidence has been adduced, that the Bishop ever recognized or adopted the MS. as his own. This publication has been attributed to, at least, two authors, Sir Anthony Coke, tutor to Edward YI., and Bishop Poynet. Dean Goode has established that Poynet was not the author of this work. He gives the testimony of Placcius, in his Catalogue of anonymous works, published in 1708; who says, " hujus libelli auctor fuisse creditur Ant. Cookus ;" and he refers, among other authorities, to Scaliger, who says, " Cooki, preceptoris Edwardi Sexti, Dial- " lacticon." Bishop Tanner, under the name, ^* An- " tonius Cookus," says, " ei attribuitur Diallacticon," and refers to Scaliger and Placcius as before ; and under the name of Poynet, Bishop Tanner says, " whether this work is to be ascribed to Poynet or " Cook is doubtful." Dean Goode points out that the title, which describes the Diallacticon as the work " viri boni et literati," goes far to prove, that Poynet 7iot the author of the Diallactico7i. 255 the author was not of the clerical order. These words would be descriptive of a layman. On the title page of a book, no one would think of describ- ing a prelate, as " vir bonus et literatus." A prelate would be designated as " vir doctissimus et reveren- " dissimus." The Dean further proves, that the Diallacticon was translated, in 1605, into English, by Lady Elizabeth Eussell, a daughter of Sir Anthony Coke, who, in her preface, speaks of the author as one '' to whom from " her part most honour and service was due ;" and also states, that the author had approved of her trans- lation from Latin into English, which, according to Dean Goode, proves the author could not have been Poynet, as he died in 1556. Respecting Sir Anthony Cook, Strype, in the second volume of his Annals (Part XL, p. 86), states, that he lived until 1576. Dean Goode further shows the contrariety, between the Eucharistic doctrine maintained in the Diallac- ticon, and that maintained by Bishop Poynet in his acknowledged works, viz., the Catechism called Edward YI.'s Catechism, of which Poynet was the author, which was published in 1553 ; and a Sermon expressly upon the subject of the Eucharist, preached before Edward YI. and his Council in 1550, and published with Poynet's name affixed to it. Dean Goode, in 1856, published these statements in his work upon the Eucharist ; and I am not aware that any satisfactory answer has been given to this evidence, by which it is established, that Bishop Poynet was not the author of the Diallacticon. And I may perhaps remark, that Canon Trevor, at p. 58 of his work on the Eucharist, coincides with Dean Goode respecting the authorship of the Diallacticon. Under these facts and circumstances, I unhesi- tatingly decline to recognise the Diallacticon as the work of Bishop Poynet ; and if it be the work of Sir Anthony Coke, it speaks without authority, for that laic is unknown as a theological writer. s 2 256 Thorndike : Brevint : Andre. zues. Thorndike is the next authority to whom the learned Judge refers (pp. 126, 127). The ques- tionable authority of Thorndike has been already stated, and also that he did not hold Mr. Bennett's doctrine of the Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements ; bat, as Archbishop Wake says of him, at p. 70 of his work on the Eucharist, " had a '' particular notion in this matter, viz., that the " elements were united to the Godhead of Christ." This also appears from p. 173 of the fifth volume of Thorndike's works. I therefore submit that Thorn- dike, who held neither the doctrine of the Church of England, nor the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, ought not to be received as an authority in the present case. Dean Brevint has been quoted by the Jearned Judge (p. 128). In this quotation Brevint says nothing of any Presence of the Body of Christ in the elements, nor of any adoration of such supposed Presence. His argument is simply this, that the consecrated elements represent Christ, bring Him to mind, and so furnish an occasion to worship Him. I need only read the last three lines of the extract : " as " soon as I see them used in the Church to that holy " purpose that Christ hath consecrated them to, / " will not fail both to remember my Saviour who con- " seer at ed those Sacraments, and to worship also my " Saviour whom those Sacraments do represent'' The learned Judge italicises this passage, but it does not support the doctrine maintained by Mr. Bennett. Dean Brevint's condemnation of Sacramental adora- tion, as similar to the idolatrous worship of the sun and moon, has already been quoted above. Bishop Andrewes is next quoted by the learned Judge. Bishop Andrewes says nothing of Pre- sence in the elements, he only speaks of " Christ in " the Sacrament,'' and " Christ truly present in the " Eucharist," He says, Christ is to be adored, ** Ubi, Jeremy Taylor, 257 " uhi est adorandus est,'' which words the learned Judge itahcises, but the statement contained in them all Christians would allow; Christ, wherever He is, is to be adored. But this does not determine that the Body of Christ is in the elements, nor that such supposed corporal Presence is to be adored, which are the questions in this case. The next authority cited by the learned Judge is Bishop Jeremy Taylor. The first extract is taken from that Prelate's work, entitled " The Worthy Com- " municant ;" in this extract the Bishop says nothing of the true Body of Christ in the elements, he speaks of the worship of Christ at the time of receiving the Holy Communion, on the ground that Christ is " present not in mystery only, but in blessing also." This is not an assertion of an actual Presence of the Body of Christ, but a Presence of Christ by significa- tion and efficacy. The opinion of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, respecting Sacramental adoration, is placed beyond doubt by his words in the sixth volume of his works, p. 669 (Eden's edition), a passage on two occa- sions already referred to, viz., that Christ is not pre- sent in the elements according to His human nature, and therefore may not be adored as present in them. The second extract given by the learned Judge is to be found in the fifth volume of Bishop Jeremy Taylor's works by Eden, p. 317, but is not to be found in Heber's edition. This extract is taken from a work first published in 1848, i.e., 181 years after the death of the Bishop ; the work is printed from an anony- mous MS. discovered in the library of Queen's College, Oxford. This MS. may or may not be by Jeremy Taylor, but there is no proof of its ever having been recognised by him. Archbishop of York. — The MS. is in Taylor's handwriting, but was not published in his lifetime. He may have wished it not to be published. Mr. Stephens. — That hypothesis is very probable. This tract, however, cannot claim any authority in 258 Keble : Chemnitz, the present case ; but at tlie same time it may be remarked, that, in the extract given by the learned Judge, no reference is made to the Presence of Christ in the elements, nor to the subject of the Holy Communion in any form. The author speaks of the Presence of God, and of Christ, at the altar and in sacred places. At p. 130 the learned Dean of the Arches quotes Mr. Keble ; but the evidence of Mr. Keble is not authoritative in this case, since, as the learned Judge says, the opinions of that writer are now upon their trial ; and more especially as Mr. Keble was mixed up in this present controversy. Mr. Bennett states in his " Plea for Toleration," that the work of Mr. Keble entitled, *^ Eucharistical Adoration," " sets " forth that very worship which he follows and "teaches;" and it is from this work the learned Judge states, that he has made his extract. The next authority quoted is Chemnitz, whom the learned Judge introduces as a " very stout Lutheran." I object to this authority. The writings of any " very stout Lutheran," cannot be legitimately cited as an authority for the construction of the Formu- laries of the Church. The ground upon which the learned Judge claims to admit Chemnitz as an authority is, " that Cranmer's tendencies became strongly Lutheran before he died." As a matter of fact, it has been shown, that in 1552 Cranmer had finally abandoned his Lutheran opinions in regard to the Lord's Supper. But, supposing Cranmer had died a Lutheran, that would not justify the admission of all " very stout Lutherans," as authorities for the construc- tion of the Formularies of the Church of England. Having thus examined the authorities cited by the learned Judge, I submit that no writer of authority in the Church of England suppoi'ts the doctrine of Mr. Bennett. And further, that the question of Beveridge : Conclusions of Fact, 259 Sacramental Adoration is, in fact, settled by this one principle, viz., that the natural Body of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His true^ actual, spiritual Body (and He has none other) is in heaven, and not here ; and therefore His true Body is not present in the Consecrated Elements. Therefore it is submitted, that it cannot be adored as present in them. In support of these views, I will venture to cite one other authority, viz.. Bishop Beveridge. In his work, entitled " Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Catho- ^' lica," '' a Discourse upon the Thirty-nine Articles,'* (vol. vii., p. 490), the Bishop, commenting on the last clause of the 28th Article, which prohibits the worship of the Sacrament, says : " And if the primitive Church was against the reservation, surely it was much more against the adoration of tlie Sacra- ment, holding, as we have shown before, that no person or thing, under any pretence whatsoever, ought to be wor- shipped besides God. I know it is not bare bread our adver- saries say they worship, bat Christ in the bread, or the bread in the name of Christ. But I wish them to consider what Gregory Nyssen long ago said, ' He that worshippeth a crea- * ture, though he do it in the name of Christ, is an idolater, ' giving the name of Christ to an idol.' And therefore let them not be angry at us for concluding them to be idolaters, whilst they eat one piece of the bread and worship the other ; and for asserting that the Sacrament ought [not] to be reserved, carried about, or worshipped." Conclusions of Fact, The learned Judge, at pages 132 to 135, gives what his Lordship designates, as '' conclusions of fact." At pages 133, 134, the learned Judge, speaking of the third edition of the " Plea for Toleration," says : " I '^ do not, however, sit here as a critic of style, or an " arbiter of taste, or a censurer of logic. I have not to " try Mr. Bennett for careless language, for feeble '' reasoning, or superficial knowledge." Mr. Bennett is not personally present, nor is he represented by Counsel ; and therefore I cannot 260 The Judge s Slatemenis inexact. refrain from remarking, that I have read, if not all, at least every important work published by Mr. Bennett, and, so far as my judgment extends, he is a scholar, a man of very deep theological learning, a careful, and often powerful, reasoner. The learned Judge proceeds : " It is my duty to decide whether the words in which he now expresses himself, and which he professes to have since borrowed from a profound theologian, occupying one of the highest positions in the University of Oxford, do or do not contravene the Formularies of our faith. If I were to pronounce that they did so, I should he passing sentence, in my opinion, upon a long roll of illustrious Divines, who have adorned our Universities, and i'ought the good fight of our Church, from Kidley to Keble, from the Divine whose martyrdom the Cross at Oxford commemorates, to the Divine in whose honour that University has just founded her last college." To the two most important statements of fact contained in this passage I must demur : The doctrines of Mr. Bennett are not supported by Eidley; they are, on the contrary, the very doctrines which that Prelate opposed, and for oppo- sing which, he suffered that martyrdom, to which the learned Judge so feelingly alludes. The statement of his Lordship respecting Mr. Keble is inexact. The University of Oxford has not founded a college in honour of Mr. Keble. Cer- tain eminent individuals have founded a college bearing Mr. Keble' s name, but it is no act of the University ; and down to this time that college has not, as far as I am aware, and certainly, when the learned Judge pronounced this Judgment, had not been admitted as a component or integral part of the University of Oxford. At p. 135 the learned Judge, having previously referred to the cases of Mr. Gorham, Mr. Heath, and Essays and Reviews says : " Now I have shown that no mode of the Presence is defined by the Formularies, and by a large induction of Conclusions of Law : Sentence. 261 iiivStances, that the present opinions, for which Mr. Bennett is articled, are not, however loosely expressed, distinguish- able in substance from those which have been maintained for many years by many great Divines of our Church, and by many learned men." It again becomes my duty, in regard to this passage also, to demur to the two most important statements contained in it. I respectfully submit, that the Church of England has nowhere recognised, that there are any varieties or modes of the Presence of the Body of Christ ; but she has taken care expressly to exclude that particular doctrine of Presence, contended for by Mr. Bennett, viz., the actual Presence of the true Body of Christ in the elements on the altar ; and this slie has done by declaring, that the Body of Christ is in heaven, and not here. And I likewise submit, that none of the great Divines of our Church of recognized authority, whom the learned Judge has quoted, have held the doctrines of Mr. Bennett on these three points : — 1. the actual presence of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the elements on the altar : 2. the real offering of the Son of God by the Priest in the Eucharist : and, 3. the adoration of Christ present on the altar under the veil of bread and wine. Conclusions of Law : Sentence, At pp. 135 and 136, the learned Judge states the conclusions of law, at which he has arrived in this case, and likewise pronounces his sentence thereon. Having already discussed that part of the Judgment which applies to the second and uncorrected edition of the '' Plea for Toleration," it will not be requisite for me to make any further observations, upon the language of the learned Judge in regard to that edition. The learned Judge proceeds to give his conclusion of law upon the Keal Presence in these words : 262 The yudges Se7itence mdefinite, " With respect to the second [third] and corrected edition of his pamphlet, and the other work for which he is articled, I say that the Objective, Actual and Real Presence, or the Spiritual Real Presence, a Presence external to the act of the Communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the formularies of our Church, duly considered and con- strued so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this as a position of law, nor do I say that what is called the Receptionist Doctrine is inadmissible ; nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the mode of Presence. I mean to do no such thing by this Judgment. I mean by it to pronounce only, that to describe the mode of Presence as Objective, Real, Actual, and Spiritual, is certainly not contrary to the law." This language seems intended to contain a formal summary of the points decided. But it does not, in terms, decide the 9th and 10th Articles of Charge ; because no mention is made by the learned Judge of the Presence of the Body of Christ in the conse- crated bread and wine. The learned Judge speaks of " the mode of Presence ;" but this is an indefinite phrase, exclusive of which, it cannot be found in the formularies of the Church, and is not ^contained in the Articles of Charge. That phrase does not state, what Presence his Lordship describes, as " objective, " real, actual, and spiritual." It does not appear from this formal summary of the Judgment, whether his Lordship is speaking of (1) the Presence of Christ ; or (2) the Presence of the Spirit of Christ ; or (3) the Presence of the jBocIt/ and Blood of Christ. The Judgment is further indefinite, because it does not state (4) where the Presence is ; nor (5) whether it is, or is not, a Presence in the elements and on the altar. Articles 9, 10, 22, 23, raise these points, but not one of them is dealt with in this summary of the points decided. The 9th Article charges Mr. Bennett with main- taining " an actual Presence of the true Body and " Blood of our Lord in the sacramental bread and " wine." Of these definite words, " the true " Body and Blood of our Lord in the sacramental The Conclusion. 263 " bread and wine," the learned Judge has taken no notice in his Judgment : although these words contain the substance of the charge against Mr. Bennett. In reference to the charges on the subject of Sacrifice and Worship, the learned Judge has only pronounced, " that Mr. Bennett has not exceeded the " liberty which the law allows upon these subjects." It is, however, submitted, that Mr. Bennett's claim to make a '' real offering " of the Son of God under the form of bread and wine, is that doctrine which the Church of England has pronounced against in the 3 1st Article of Eeligion. And Mr. Bennett's teaching of adoration of Christy present under the form of bread and wine on the altar, is declared by the Church, in the Declaration on Kneeling, to be against the truth of Christ's natural Body, that Body being in heaven, and not here. The Conclusion, I have now, my Lords, brought my Argument to a close. But before retiring from this Bar, I desire to remark, that one fact becomes evident from the authorities cited by the learned Judge, and from those, which I have ventured to bring under the con- sideration of your Lordships ; viz., that the Church of England has, from the commencement of the Refor- mation, contained two distinct schools of thought upon religious subjects, widely divergent the one from the other, yet both of them fairly comprised within her defined limits. These schools of thought have at different periods of our history been represented by Jewel and Overall ; Andrewes and Tillotson ; Robert Nelson and William Wilberforce ; Dean Hook and the late Dean G-oode. And these divergences of opinion will probably continue, as long as the Church of England continues to exist. It should be dis- tinctly understood, that with neither of these schools of religious thought does this Argument in any 264 The Conclusion, degree interfere. The doctrine maintained by Mr. Bennett, is as contrariant to the doctrine of these two schools of thought, as it is contrariant to the Formu- laries of the Church of England. If your Lordships affirm the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, viz., — (1) that the true Body of Christ is present in the elements upon the altar : (2) that the priest makes a real offering of Christ to Grod in the Eucharist : and (3) that adoration is due to Christ present in the consecrated bread and wine : Then, there is no substantial distinction between the doctrine of the Church of England, and the decrees of the Council of Trent, in reference to (1) the real Presence : (2) the sacrifice of Christ by the priest : andj (3) the adoration of Christ in the elements. Then Cranmer, Eidley, and Latimer, can no longer be regarded as martyrs who suffered for the truth : and the Reformation itself, becomes neither more nor less, than an unjustifiable, and therefore sinful, act of schism. INDEX. Abjuration of Heresy, 4 ; require cl under the general law, 5 ; not allowed till after conviction, and sentence j^assed, G ; solemn form of, 7 ; not made by Mr. Bennett, 9. Actual Piescnce, see Presence. Administration, two forms of, com- bined, 70 ; no doctrine changed thereby, 71 ; so explained by Whit- gift, ih. Adoration, S.icramcntal, 2; of the elements, ih.; of Clirist in the ele- ments, ih. ; the third and last charge against Mr. Bennett, 242 ; Adoration of the elements left in their Lord- ship's hands, ih. ; distinction drawn by Mr. Bennett drawn also by Eomanists, 243 ; shown by Brevint, ih. ; and by Harding, ih. ; the First Pra^^er Book lejected worship of the sacrament, 244 ; by forbidding ele- vation and showing to the people, ih. ; by postponing the " Agnus Dei," ih. ; the Second Prayer Book prevented the opportunities of Sacramental adoration by removing the Manual Acts, 245 ; and by omitting tbe "Agnus Dei," ih.-. Article 28 pro- hibits Sacramental adoration in either manner, 246 ; Bishop Geste supports tl)is construction, ih. ; the Declaration on Kneeling declares that posture not to imply Sacramental adoration in either of its forms, ih. ; disallows any Presence in the elements tliat can claim adoration, 247 ; Rev. Edward Garbett on the " Declaration," 248 ; Bishop Jeremy Taylor and Bishop Bull on Sacramental adoration, ih. ; Mr. Bennett's teaching, 250 ; Judg- ment of the Dean of the Arches on adoration, 251 ; the issue misappre- hended by the .Judge, 252 ; authorities cited by tiie Judge examined, 253 ; no writer of authority supports Mr. Bennett, 258 ; question settled by the '■ Declaratiun " tliat the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here, 259 ; comment of Bishop Bcveridge, ih. Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies, 28 ; preserved as an historic link, 3G. See Under the Form. iElfric, Abbot, referred to by the Judge, IGO ; of no authority in tlie Church of England, 161. Agnus Dei, in the Sarum Missal, 65 ; misused under thu First Piayer Book, ih. ; removed from the otKce in the Second Prayer Book, ib. \ an act of sacramental adin-ation, 244 ; postponed in the First Prayer Book, ih.', omitted in the Second, 245. Altar, applied sometimes to the Com- munion Table, 240 ; but in a meta- phorical sense, ih. : appears no where in tlie Prayer Book, 241. Andrewes, Bishop, quoted by the Judge, 1G8; disallows Mr. Bennett's lan- guage, ih. ; quoted again by the Judge, 180 ; his doctrine not that of Mr. Bennett, e7>. ; quoted by the Judge on adoration, 256. Articles of 1536, 33. Articles of 1538, 39, 45. Articles of 1552, 60, 69, 73, 114. Articles, tlie Thirty-nine, enacted, 73 ; Article 4 defines tlie Body of Christ, 75, 126. Article 25 teaches that Sacraments in the sense of oidinances are ciftctual signs, 100 ; shows the meaning of "inward," 102; teaches the same doctrine as the Catechism, 105. Article 26, relied on by the Judge, 84 ; but does not teach that the Body (jf Christ is given by the hand of the priest, ih. Article 28 tounded on the 29th Article of 1552, 73 ; contains four sections, 74 ; first section positive, the others negative, ih.; adds a further con- demnation of Transubstantiation, ih. ; 266 Index, speaks of the Body of Christ without epithet, 75; conclusive against Mr. Bennett, 77 ; third section rewritten, ?6. ; but without cl)ange of doctrine, 78 ; does not speak of manner of Presence, but manner of giving, &c., i&. ; given by God, not by the priest, ib. ; reception by the mouth excluded, ih. \ the Article penned or transcribed by Bishop Geste, 86; the original examined by Dr. Pulling, «&., note; alterations suggested, 91 ; but not adopted, ih. ; teaches the same doc- trine as the Cateoljism, 105 ; pro- hibits any adoration towards the Sacramental elements, 246. Article 29, confirmed by Elizabeth, 91 ; discussed by the Judge, 190 ; affords an inferential argument on tlie Eeal Presence, ih. ; teaches that the wicked do not receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, 191 ; lience it follows that the true Body and Blood of Christ are not in the elements, ih. ; so ex- plained by Archbishop Sumner, ih. ; and byDtanWaterland,i&.; the Judge holds an opposite construction, ih. ; suggests theory of withdrawal, ih. ; on autliority of St. Cyprian and Ken, 192 ; no authority afforded by these writers, z6. ; no trace of such theoiy in tlie Controversy of 1571, ih. ; Judge gives a construction of the Twenty-nine Articles, 193 ; which is ambiguous, 194 \ Judge comments on the phrase, " eat Christ's Body," ih. ; quotes St. Jolm, chap, vi., ih. ; relies upon Dr. Pusey, 195 ; with that author contradicts Article 29, 196; authorities cited by the Judge, ex- amined, ih. ; Article 29 does not pro- fess to be founded on authority of St. Augustine, 198; does not re- quire to be brought into harmony with Article 25, 205 ; they deal with different subjects, ih. ; reception by the wicked held by Rome and by Lutherans, ih. ; finally rejected by Church of England, ih. ; meaning of the word " faithful," examined, ih. ; meant in the controversy, tlie worthy communicants, 206; proved by tiie Homily, ih. ; and by Beveridge, ih. ; and by the Burial Service, 207 ; Article 29 disproves Mr. Bennett's doctrine of the Real Presence, 208. Article 31, see Sacrifice. Article 35, orders the Homilies to be read, 31, 95. Articles, Irish, of 1615, 112. Articles of Charge (11, 17, 24) proved, 147. Arundel, Constitutions of, 6. Augsburg, Confession of, 38 ; error of the Judge respecting, 39. Augustine, St., on the true natural Body of Christ in heaven and not here, 133 ; quoted by the Judge on Article 29, 198; relied upon by Ridley for the contrary, ib. Authorities cited by the Judge, ex- amined : On Real Presence, 158-188. On Tlieory of withdrawal, 192. On Reception by the wicked, 196- 204. On Sacrifice, 232-236. On Sacramental Adoration, 253- 258. Authorities, principles on which they may be referred to, 159, 240. Ayliffes Parergon, 6 Barrow, Dr., quoted by the Judge, 206. Barry, Dr., on Sacrifice, 232. Bennett, Rev. W. J. E., History, &c., of the Eucharist, 232. Beveridge, Bishop, quoted by tlie Judge on Real Presence, 185 ; does not sup- port Mr. Bennett's doctrine, 186; explains the word "fa-'thful," 206; on Sacrifice, 232 ; on Adoration, 259. Blakeney, Dr., on the Book of Com- mon Prayer, 106, 219. Blasphemy, constantly applied to the claim to offer Christ, 211. * Body of Christ, the, spoken of in the Thirty-nine Articles seven times, and always absolutely and without epithet, 75, 125; the same as the natural Body, 125 seq. , the Mystical, is His Church, 23, 42, 149 ; or congregation of faith- ful men, 125 ; intended to be ex- cluded by the words, " natural Body," ih. ; such, exclusion the only force of the word " natural," 128. , the Natural, defined, 23 ; so called to distinguish the true Body of Christ from His mystical Body, the Church, 125 ; the same as the true Body, 126, 146 ; defined by the 4th Article, 126 ; the same as the spiritual Body, 24, 129 ; distinct from natural Presence, 149 ; Mr. Bennett holds the presence of the natural Body, 151 ; as proved by his doctrine of adoration, ih. , the Sacramental, defined by Sherlock, 43 ; spoken of by Yardley, 185. , the Spiritual, defined, 23 ; tlie same as the true Body and the natural Body, ih.; risen from the giave and Index, 267 now in glory, 130 ; no where defined by the Jud^e, ih.\ offered \vj Mr. Bennett as a living sp'ritual offering, 229 ; termed by the Clmrch of Eng- land, Christ's natural Body, 253. Body, the True, the same as the natural Body of Christ, 126; proved by Rid- ley, 127 ; by Peter Martyr, *&. ; by Hooker, t&. ; by Canons of 1G40, 128 ; that in which Christ suffered, 43, 132 ; same as the natural and the spiritual Body, 150 ; Christ has not two true Bodies, 151; shown by Waterland, 152. Bramhall, Archbishop, quoted by the Judge, 183 ; quotation not completed, t&. ; does not support Mr. Bennett, 184. Brevint, Dean, quoted by the Judge, 1 80 ; his doctrine is that which Mr. Bennett repudiates, ih. ; on Sacrifice, 232 ; on Sacramental adoration, 243 ; quoted by the Judge, 256. Browne, Dr. Harold, on the Eucharist, 46 ; on the " receptionist doctrine," 144 ; on Sacrifice, 232. Bull, Bishop, on Sacrifice, 233; ex- amines Articles of the Council of Trent, ih. ; condemns Mr. Bennett's doctrine, 234 ; asserts a commemora- tive Sacrifice, 235 ; condemns Sacra- mental adoration, 249. Bullinger, on the Presence, 9 ; on the word " inward," 103. Burial Service, the, illustrates the words, " the Faithful," 207. Burnet, Bishop, on the repeal of the Six Articles Act, 29 ; on the debate of 1548, 60 ; on corporal Presence, 120 ; on the Declaration on Kneeling, 123. Burton's Three Primers, 31 ; Cranmer's Catechism, 32, 57. Canons of 1603, confirm the Eucharistic doctrine of the Prayer Book, and of No well's Catechism, 99 ; order Communion Tables as a protest against Sacrifice, 239. Canons of 1640, on corporal Presence, 128. Cardwell's Conferences, 65, 70, 110, 181. Docum. Annals, 64, 149. Synodalia, 92, 128, 215, note. Two Liturgies, 47. Carlisle, Bishop of, on the word *' ob- jective," 19. Cases cited : Bishop v. Stone, 8. Burder v. Heath, 7, 8. Faulkner v. Litchfield, 220, 241, Gorham v. Bisliop of Exeter, 15. Liddell v. Westerton, 29, 54, 66, 224, 225, 239. Martin v. Mackonochie, 245, 249. Parker v. Leach, 225, 240. Shore v. Wilson, 15, 160. Williams v. Bishop of Salisbury, 160. Catechism, the early part in 1552, the later part in 1603, 99 ; always uses the word " Sacrament" in the sense of " Ordinance," 100 ; applies " in- ward and outward " to the recipients, not to the Elements, 101 ; intends by "the Faithful," the worthy re- cipients, 104 ; does not sanction the error of the Presence of the Body of Christ in the Elements, 105 ; doc- trine identical witli the Thirty-nine Articles and the Communion oflSce, t&. ; also with confessions of foreign Protestants, 106 ; known to be an abridgement of No well's Catechism, 103 ; commented on by the Judge, 107 ; and by the Bishop of Durham, ih. ; doctrine on Sacrifice, 222. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 9 note, 210. Chemnitz, a Lutheran writer, relied on by the Judge, 258 ; carries no authority in the Church of England, ih, Cheney, Bishop, his avowed Lutheran- ism, 90. Chrysostom, St., quoted by Sparrow, 184. Church Press Edition of Sarum Missal, 243, 244. Church, Primitive Catholic Undivided, referred to by the Judge, 45 ; by the Bishop of Durham, ih. ; its doctrine must be held to be expressed in our formularies, 46 ; held a Presence in the Eucharist or ordinance, ih. ; so stated by Dr. Harold Browne, ih. Churton, Archdeacon, on Sacrifice, 226. Citation, charges not named in the, 2. Cleaver, Bishop, on Sacrifice, 232. Coke, Sir Antony, the probable author of the Diallacticon, 254. Coleridge, Justice, on Definitions, 15. Combination of the two forms of Ad- ministration, 70. Commemoration, a Sacrificial, inserted in the First Prayer Book, 218 ; mis- used by some priests, 219; omitted in the Second Prayer Book, 220. Commemorative Sacrifice, held by some Divines, e.g.: Waterland, 228; by Bishop Bull, 234; repudiated by Mr. Bennett, 273. 268 Index, " Communication distinguished from "partaking," 76. Communion Tables, ordered by the 82nd Canon, 239; held to be a protest against the Sacrifice of the Mass, 240. Conclusions of Fact, the Judge's, ex- amined, 259. Conclusions of Law, the Judge's, ex- amined, 261. Conclusion of the Argument, 263. Confessions of Foreign Protestants, 106. Consecration, joined with worthy re- ception, 13 ; Waterland on the true efi'ect of, 14; its efficacy dependent upon right disposition of the recipi- ent, 76 ; a condition precedent to reception, 88; followed immediately by reception, 220. Consecration Prayer, altered in the First Prayer Book, 51; further altered in the Second Prayer Book, 67 ; a preface prefixed in the First Book, 217. Constitutions of Arundel, 6. Consubstantiation, Lutheran doctrine of, 25. Controversy, change in the aspect of the Eucharistic, 110 ; summary of, 113. Corporal Presence, see Presence. Cosin, Bishop, asserts real and substan- tial Presence, 112 ; quoted by the Judge, 169; his opinions not reliable, ih. ; holds only a Presence in Recep- tion, 170. Cosms, Dr. Richard, on Ecclesiastical Law, 6. Council of Ephesus, 174. of Lateran, 27. of Trent, 37, 40,79, 212, 233, 250. Coverdale, Bishop, on manner of re- ception, 142. Cranmer, Archbishop, abjured in so- lemn form, 7 ; explains the word Sacrament, 15; repudiates "under the form," &c., 27 ; publishes Justus Jonas' Catechism, 32; corrects Lu- theran expressions in it, 57 ; denies that his Catechism taught the real Presence, 59 ; embraced in 1548 the principle, " In heaven, and not here," 61; embodied ii in liis Treatise on the Lord's Supper, *&. ; that treatise nowhere noticed by the Jud^e, ib. ; teaches that the Body of Christ is not given by man, 83, note ; illus- trates the word "inward," 103; uses accumulated epithets of the Presence, 115; speaks of the natural Body ns distingui.shed from the mystical Body, 125; shows that the Roman doctrine of Presence involves two heresies, 132 ; quotes St. Augustine in support, 133; explains reception by the heart uplifted, 140 ; .Christ's presence in man is spiritual, ih. ; on natural Body, 149 ; by " sacrament- ally," means " figuratively," 194 ; on sacrifice, 232. Cudworth, on the Lord's Supper, 224. Cyprian, St., relied on by the Judge, 191 ; no authority in this case, 192. Cyril, St., quoted by the Judge, 173 ; has no authority in the Church of England, 174 ; and does not support Mr. Bennett's doctrine, ih. Decisions on Sacrifice, 224. Declaration on Kneeling, added to the Second Prayer Book, 68 ; contained the principle that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not here, 69 ; omitted in the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, 72 ; comments of the Judge on this onii:?sion, 73 ; restored in 1662, 109 ; on the request of the Puritan Divines, 110; alteration made in it, iib. ; " Corporal " substi- tuted for " real and essential there being," ih.; a change, not of doctrine but of phraseology, ih. ; rendered necessary by change in the aspect of controversy, ih. ; illustrated by the language of Protestant Divines, 111 ; change only verbal, 113; language of the first Declaration liable to be misunderstood, 114; Mr, Perry holds that the change is only verbal, 115 ; language auibiguous and no longer safe, «■&. ; spirit and substance re- niained the same, 118; argument and conclusion unaltered, ih. ; the Judge denies the equivalence of these terms, 119 ; considers that " corpo- ral" implies "local," 120; so did the words " tliere being," ih. ; the Declaration, as altered, held at the time to be destructive of the real Presence, 123; disallows adoration as motive of kneeling, 123; general scope to remove scruples and mis- representations, 134 ; forbids adora- tion of the elements, 135 ; and ado- ration of the Presence of Christ's Body in the elements, ih. ; because the Body of Christ is in heaven, and not here, ih. ; denies any actual Presence in the elements, 136; dis- proves distinction between two con- ditions of the Body of Christ, 137; consistent with the Catechism, ih.\ Index. 260 proved so by Nowcll's Catechism, 138; by Cranraer, 139; by Homily on the Sacrament, 141 ; by the Bishop of Killiiloe, ih.\ finally enacted in 1662, 142 ; appli( s to, and decides all the questions in issue, 143; settles the question of Sacrifice, 240 ; so in- terpreted by Sir H. J. Fust, 241 ; as- signs the reasons for kneeling, 247 ; disclaims Adoration as a motive, ih. ; (li.>?allows Presence in the elements that can claim Adoration, 248. Definitions, importance of, 15, Definition of Sacrament, 15 ; Eucharist, 17 ; objective and subjective, 18 ; externai and internal, 19-22 ; Natu- ral, Spiritual, and Corporal, 23. Denison, Archdeacon, edited and trans- lated Saravia, 180; Archbishop Sum- ner in tiie ca^e of, 90, 191. Diallacticon, the, see Poynet. Disputation in Parliament on the Sacrament, 1548, recorded by King Edward VI., 6U ; described by Tra- lieron, 61 ; was the germ of the Second Prayer Book, ih. Doctrine of the Church of England on tlie Holy Communion was undecided in 1549, 54; influence of Cranmer and Ei lley in settling it in 1552, 55 ; shown to be now definite, 145, 261. Donne, Dr., on the Reformation, 48 ; quoted by the Judge on real Pre- sence, 168; does not hold Mr. Ben- nett's doctrine, 169. Donovan's Calechism of the Council of Trent, 9 note, 210. Dngdale's Life of Ge,-te, 246. Durham, Bishop of, on Objective Presence, 22 ; on the doctrine of the P) itiiitive Church, 45 ; on the Cliurch Catechism, 107. Edward VI., gives in his journal an account of the Debate on the Sacra- ment, 60. Effectual Signs, explained, 74. Elevation, prohibited in the First Prayer Book, 49, 63 ; practised in evasion of that prohibition, 64 ; pro- hibited in the Second Prayer Book by omission of Manual Acts, «&. ; a symbol of the Sacrifice being made, 209 ; forbidden in the First Prayer Book in order to remove the Sacritice, 218 ; and to prevent Sa Tamental Adoration, 244. Elizabeth, Queen, accession of, 69. Ellington's Life of Ussher, 112. Ely, Bishop of, see Browne, Dr. Harold. Ephosus, Council of, relied upon by the Judge, 174. Eucharist, an ambiguous term, 17 ; defined, ih. ; means the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, 46 ; used by tlie Judge ambiguously, 252. Exeter, Bishop of, on real Presence, 145. Exteinal Real Presence, see Presence. Faith, tlie mean of recejition, 78 ; he'd by the Judge to be " a mean," 87 ; reception by faith only, the touch- stone of the ccmtroversy, 88. Faithful, reception by the, 106; "the faithful " explained by the Judge, 205 ; contrary interpietation given by the Homilies, 206; by Bishop Beveridge, and by the Burial Service, I 207. False Doctrines, charged, 2. Field, Dean, on Saciitice, 232. Forbes, Bishop, quoted by tlie Judge, 172; has no authority in the Church of England, ih. Foreign Protestants, confessions of, lOo. Form of Abjuration, 7. Form, under the, see Under the Form. Formula Concordife Lulher., 79. Formularies of Faith, by Lloyd, 34. Foxes Actes and Monuments, 1 19, 127, 142. Francke, Lib. Symbol. Luther., 79. Fust, Sir H. J., Judgment on Real Sacrifice, 220, 241, Garbett, Rev. E., on cori^oral Presence, 248. Gardiner, Bishop, uses the words "under the form," &c., 27; on cor- poral Presence, 116; on natural Body, 149. Gauden, Bishop, maintains a true and Real Presence, 112; caused the re- storation of the Declaration, 123. Gelasius, Bishop, quoted by Pearson, 179. General Law, punishment of Heresy under, 6. Gci-te, Bishop, alleges reasons for pre- ferring the Second Prayer Book, 70 ; his letter, 85 ; uses accumulat( d epithets of the Real Prtsence, 114; condemns Sacramental adoration, 246. Given by God, 78 ; the true interpreta- tion of Article 28, 80; authorities for this construction, 81 ; the heavenly and spiritual manner of giving, 82. Goode, Dean, on the doctrinal altera- tions made in the Second Prayer T 270 Index. Book, QQ ; on reception by faith only, 88 ; on Bishop Cheney, 90 ; ou the languao^e of Herbert, 167; on the garbled qiiotation from Braraliall, 183; on tlie incomplete quotation from Tillotson, 184 ; on the Twenty- ninth Article, 192 ; on, the author- sliip of the Diallacticon, 1~A. Griffiths, his edition of the Homilies re- ferred to, 28, note ; prints, " Ghostly sustenance," 97.* Grinddl. Archbishop, on the manner of reception, 142. Hall's Harmony of Confessions, 118. Hammond, Dr., leaches that the Body of Christ is given by God, not by man, 81 ; dy, 129 ; on tlie worship of Christ in the elements, 243. Hard wick's Articles, 17, 39, 77. Herbert, George, quoted by the Judge, 167; the language quoted is either figurative or blaspheramis, ih. Heresy, punishment of clerks for, 6. Hey, Dr., on the Declaration on Kneel- iiig, 124; quoted by the Judge on Real Presence, 178 ; denies the corporal Presence, ih. ; quoted by the Judge on Article 29, 204 ; but d<>es not support him, ih. ; on Sacrifice, 232, 235. Historical examination of the Formu- laries, 45. Holy Mysteries, defined, 53 : the term used in the First Prayer Book, ih. ; modified or omitted in the Second Prayer Book, 66. Homilies, First Book of, publisln^d in 1547, 47 ; points of controversy touched by it, ih. ; advertisement at end of the Book, 28 ; the unity and perfection of Christ's Sacrifice de- clared, 221. • , Second Book of, uses the word ♦' Eucliaristia,' 17, note ; rejects the formula '* under the form," &;c., 30, 35; t> ai-hes that the spiritual food of the Eucharist must be sought in heaven by minds lifted up, 83; ordered to be read, 95; sermon oa the Sacrament, quoted by the Judge, 87,97; teaches Incorporation of tlie Body and Blood of Christ in the soul', 96; speaks of no Presence in the elements, ih. ; teaches that tlie faithless receive only the outward Sacrament or ^figure, 97 ; reception by faith alone, 98 ; shows the mean- ing of " inward " and " outward," 102 ; proves real reception by the faithful, 138 ; by lifting up our minds by faith to heaven, 141 ; says nothing of Presence in the elements, 164 ; contrasts the faithful with the faith- less, 208; declares the Holy Com- munion to bo a memory, not a sacri- fice, 222. Hook, Dean, his Life of Cranmer, 7 ; on Real Presence, 12 : Life of Ridlov, 60; Life of Whitgift, 72; Life of Nowell, 92; on Thorndike's sus- pected popery, 181 ; Life of Ken, 192 ; on Eucharistic Sacrifice, 230. Hooker, Richard, on Real Presence, 11 ; on external Presence, 20 ; shows the identity of the natural with the trne Body of Ciirist, 127; holds the receptionist doctrine, 144; sl.ows the difference between natural Body and natural Presence, 150. Houper, Bishop, his visitation articles, 64, 65, 220, 245; teaches that the Body of Christ is given not by man, but bv the Holy Ghost, 82. Hour of Sacrifice, 222. Hymn from the Roman Missal, quoted by the Judge, 196. Incense is connecte. : the Missal witnessed against sucli offering, ih. ; Ridley and Latimer, 217 ; preface inserted belore the Consecration Prayer as a protest against the Sacri- fice, ih. ; the Saciiticial Act of Ele- vation forbidden, 218 ; a Prayer of Sacrificial Commemoration inserted ih. ; the Second Prayer Book dealt with Sacrifice, 219; Sacrifice the chief cause of the Second Prayer Book being drawn up, ih. ; all op- portunities of Sacrifice removed, 220 ; Manual Acts prohibited for this pur- pose, ih. ; reception made to follow immediately after consecration, ih. ; Judgment of Sir H. J. Fust, ih.\ Sacrifice in the Eucharist condemned by the Homilies, 221 ; no Sacrifice ortered by Clirist in the Upper Chamber, 222; tlie Catechism on Sacrifice, ih. ; Nowell s Catechism on the same, ih. ; summary of tiie doe- trine of the Cliureh, 223; dtcisions on Eucharistic Saer.fiee, 224; the Judge comments on tin se decision?, 225 ; suggests that tliey should ho reconsidered, 226 ; on authority of Dr. l^usey and others, ih.\ lawful and unlawful use of the word, " Sacri- fice," 228; metaphorical sense lawful, ih ; a real offering unlawful, 229 ; hehl by Mr. Bennett, ih.\ spiritual, but yet real, ih. ; so held by Mr. Kcble, iih. ; real offering of Christ, denied by Dr. Hook, 230 ; by Dean Waterland, 231 ; by Mr. Bennett in 1846, 232 ; authorities on Sacrifice quoted by the Judge, examined, ih. ; Bishop Bull, 233 ; Dr. Hey, 235 ; the Judge's de- cision on Sacrifice, 236; the Judge does not notice the words, "real offering," 237 ; nor the words, " living offering," ih. ; the Jirdge's comment examined, ib.\ the question settled by the "Declaration," that the Body of Christ is in heaven and not hei e, 240 ; Judgment of Archbishop Long- ley, 241 ; Mr. Bennett's doctrine conflicts with the Formularies, 242 ; and with the perfection of Christ s one Sacrifice, ih. St. David's, Bishop of, on Ratramn, l6t), 162. Saravia, quoted by the Judge, 180 ; a posthumous work and of no authoritv, ih. Sarum Missal, see Missal. Scaliger, on the authorship of the Diallactieon, 254. Schools of Religious Thought, two dis- tinct, in the Church of England, 263 ; the doctrines of Mr. Bennett contrariant to them botii, 264. 276 Index. feocLer, Archbishop, quoted by the J udge ou Article 29, 200 ; condemns tho Judge's doctrine, 201. Sharp, Arclibiishop, on Sacrifice, 232. 'Slierlock, Dean, uses the words '• under the form," &c., 42 ; but not of Keal Presence, 43. Six Articles Act, in force when the Adveitisement was added to the First Book of Homilies, 29 ; repealed, ib. ; distin^iuishes between Iteal Pre- sence and Transubstautiation, 34 ; uses th>! formula, " under the form of breatl and wine,'' ih. ; inaccurately quoted by the Judge, 36, 37. South, Dr., quoted by tiie Judge on Article 29, 201 ; his language rhe- torical, 202 ; his real opinions shown, ih. Sparrow, Bishop, quoted by the Judge, 184 ; does nut speak of Presence in the elements, ih. Spiritual Body, see Body. Spiritual Pi-esence, see Presence. Statutes cited : 31 Henry VIII., c. 14 . 29, 34, 36 1 Edward VI., c. 12 . . . 29 2 & 3 Edward VI., c.l . . 47 5 & 6 Edward YI., c. 1 . . 62 1 Elizabeth, c. 1 . . .69, 174 1 Elizabeth, c. 2 . . . . 69 13 Elizabeth, c. 12 5, 7, 73, 215 n. 13 & 14 Charles II., c. 4 . . 109 3 & 4 Victoria, c. 33 . . . 38 5 Victoria, c. 6 . . . .38 Stephens' Book of Common Prayer, 57; Ecck^siastical Statutes, 62. Stowell, Lord, on Eevocation, 8. Subjective, see Objective. Substantial point of the Charge, 9. Substitution is not Abjuration nor Re- vocation, 8. Summary of the doctrine of the For- mularies on the Presence, 143; of Mr. Bennett's doctrine on the same, 153 ; of the definite doctrine of the Church on the Lord's Supper, 188; of the doctrine of the Church on Sacrifice in the Eucharist, 223; on Sacramentnl Adoration, 249. Sumner, Archbishop, on Article Twenty- nine, 90, 191. Supra-local Presence, unreasonable, 153. Sustenance, not Substance, the original reading of the Homily, 97. Sutton, Dr., uses the phrase "under the form," Hr.c., 43 ; but in a figura- tive sen=e, 44. Tanner, Bishop, on the Diallacticon, 254. Taverners Postils, 30. Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, defines Spiri- tual Presence, 131 ; on the natural Body of Christ, IH6 ; quoted by the Judge, 176 ; use^ figurative language, 177 ; holds a presence to our spirits only, 178 ; condemns Sacramental Adoration. 248; quoted by the Judge in favour of it, 2.57. Theological discussion, disclaimed, 15. Thompson, Archbishop, on Objec- tive, 19. Thorndike, Prebendary, quoted by the Judge on real Presence, 181 ; a mos^t unreliable witness, ih. ; his peculiar doctrine described by Archbishop Wake, 182 ; entirely different from Mr. Bennett's doctrine, ih. ; quoted by the Judge on Article Twenty- nine, 203; but does not deal with the question, ib. ; on Sacrifice, 232 ; quoted by the Judge on Adoration, 256. Tillotson, Archbishop, quoted by the Judge, 184; but with important omissions, 185. Traheron, Barthol., on debate of 1548, 61. Transubstautiation, defined, 25 ; not found in the Missal, 50 ; thought to be favoured by the First Prayer Book, 70; condemned by Article Twenty-eight, 74; not charged a- gainst Mr. Btnnett, ih. ; only mode of the Presence held by the Judge to be proscribed, 158; has no con- nection with Sacrifice, 233, 238. Trent, Council of, distinguishes be- tween real Presence and Transub- stautiation, 37; referred to by the Judge, 40 ; condemns the doctrine of the Twenty-eighth Article, 79 ; on the Sacrifice of the Mass, 212; date of these Canons, 213, and note; condemned by Bishop Bull, 233 ; on propitiation, 238 ; holds a real sacri- fice, 241 ; on Adoration, 250. ■ Catecliism of the Council of, 9, note, 210. Trevor, Canon, on Objective, 18 ; on authorship of the Diallacticon, 255. True Body, see Body. Under the form of Bread and Wine, used by Mr. Bennett to express the real Presence, 24 ; used by the Roman Church and by Lutherans, 25; ex- presses the actual Presence in the elements, 26 : used iu the Council of liateran. win n Transubstantiation was decit-cd, ib. ; used by Bishop Index. 277 Gardiner, 27; repudiated by Cranmer, ih. ; occurs in the Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies, 28 ; there applied only to Reception, ih. \ has been abandoned by tlie Church of England, «6. ; was en- forced by the Six Articles Act under penalty of death, 29 ; rejected in the Second Book of Homiiie:^, 30 ; re- moved from the Primers, 31 ; incon- sistent with the fully-reformed doc- trine, 32 ; commented on by the Judge, 33 8eq. ; used by Orthodox Divines : Bishop Nicliolson, 41 ; Sher- lock, 42; Sutton, 43; but not in the sense in which Mr. Bennett uses it, 44 ; figurative sense proved frorm Jewel, ih. ; the formula has no au- tliority in the Church of England, ih. ; pronounced by the Judge to be lawfully used, 251. Under tlie veil, 157, 252. Uniformity, Acts of: Edward VI. 's First Act, 47- Second Act, 62. Elizabeth's Act, 69. Charles II.'s Act, 109. Upper Chamber, Christ ofiered no sacri- fice in the, 222 ; it was no place of Sacrifice, ih. Ussher, Archbishop; Answer to a Jesuit, 27 ; asserts a real and sub- stantial Presence, 112. Veil, under the, 157, 252. Wake, Archbishop, on Thorndike's ♦'particular notion," 182, 256. Walker's Sarum Missal, see Missal. Waterland, Dean, on the Eucharist, 13 ; on Real Presence, 14 ; on conse- cration, ih. ; holds the Receptionist doctrine, 144 ; rejects two true Bodies, of Christ, 152 ; on reception by the wicked 191 ; holds a commemorative Sacrifice. 228, 231, 232. Waterworth's Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, 79, 212, 215, note, 238, 250. Westminster Confession, on corporal presence, 118. Whitgift, Archbishop, explains the woi ds of administration, 71 ; wrote under the supervision of Archbishop Parker, 72. Wicklifie, referred to by the Judge, 36. Wiliierforce, Archdeacon, on Presence with form and place, 155. Wilson, Bishop, on Sacrifice, 232. Withdrawal, Theory of, suggested by the Judge, 191 ; not known in the Controversy of 1571, 192. Yardley, Archdeacon, quoted by the Judge, 185 ; distinguishes the Sacra- mental Body from the true, ib. ; in contradiction to Mr. Bennett, ih. Zwingli, held by the Judge to deny all grace in the Sacrament, 158 ; the only error besides Transubstan- tiation held by the Judge to be ex- cluded, ih. ; doctrine of, opposed by the Church of England, 189. THE JUDGMENT. [REPRINTED FROM AN OFFICIAL COPY.] JUDGMENT OF THE EIGHT HONOUEABLE THE LOEDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PEIYY COUNCIL ON THE APPEAL OF SHEPPARD v. BENNETT, FROM THE COURT OF ARCHES : DELIVERED JUNE 8th, 1872. Present at the hearing of the Appeal — LoBD Chancellor. Sir Joseph Napier. Archbishop of York. ^ Lord Justice James. Bishop of London. Lord Justice Mellish. Master of the Rolls. Mr. Mountague Bernard. Sir James W. Colvile. Sir Montague Smith. This is an Appeal from the final Sentence or Decree pronounced by the Dean of the Arches Court of Canterbury on the 23rd day of July, 1870, and also from two Interlocutory Orders made by the same Judge, in a cause of the office of the Judge promoted by Thomas Byard Sheppard, the Appellant, against the Rev. WilHam James Early Bennett, Yicar of the parish of Frome Selwood, in the Diocese of Bath and Wells, the Respondent, for having offended against the laws ecclesiastical by having, within two years from the date of the insti- tution of the Cause, caused to be printed and pub- lished certain works in which he is alleged to have advisedly maintained or affirmed doctrines directly contrary or repugnant to the Articles and Formularies of the United Church of England 282 The yiidgnient. and Ireland in relation to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, such works being entitled respec- tively " Some Results of the Tractarian Movement of 1833," forming one of the Essays contained in a volume entitled "The Church and the World," edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, Clerk, printed and published in London in the year 1867: "A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in a Letter addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 2nd edition," printed and pub- lished in London in the year 1867; and ''A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in a Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 3rd edition," printed and published in London in the year 1868. The Cause was instituted in the Arches Court of Canterbury by virtue of Letters of Request of the late Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, in accordance with the provisions of the Act 3rd and 4th of the Queen, cap. 86. The Respondent was duly cited on the 26th of July, 1869 ; and the Citation, with Affidavit of Service, will be found in the Appendix at page 6. No appearance was given to the Citation, and in default of Appearance Articles were filed in accord- ance with the practice of the Court. On the 30th October, 1869, the Judge, having previously heard Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, directed the Articles to be reformed by omitting such parts thereof as charge the Respondent with contravening the 29th Article of Religion, entitled *' Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper." From such Decree or Order, a Petition of Appeal was presented, with the permission of the Judge, and the Appeal came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the 26th day of March, 1870, when the Lords of the The Judgme^it. 283 Committee, having heard Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, agreed to report to Her Majesty their opinion against the Appeal, and that the Decree or Order appealed from ought to be affirmed, and the Cause remitted, with all its incidents, to the Judge of the Court from which the same was appealed. An Order in Council, confirming the Report of the Judicial Committee, was afterwards made. The Cause was accordingly remitted to the Arches Court of Canterbury, and on the 3rd day of June, 1870, in default of appearance on the part of the Respondent, tlie Judge of the Court, having heard Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, himself re- formed the Articles, and admitted the same as so reformed, notwithstanding that the Counsel for the Promoter objected to the reformation of the Articles so made by the Judge as being at variance with, and exceeding the reformation directed by, the Order of the 30th October, 1869. On the 16th day of June, 1870, the Cause came on for hearing, and an application was then made by Counsel that the passages in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 32nd Articles, which had been struck out by the Judge in his reformation of the Articles, on the 3rd day of June, might be reinstated. The Judge, however, made no further Order thereon, and the hearing of the Cause was continued. On the 23rd day of July, 1870, the Judge, by his Interlocutory Decree, having the force and effect of a definitive sentence in writing, pronounced that the Proctor for the Appellant had failed in sufficiently proving the Articles, and dismissed the Respondent from the suit. The present Appeal is from so much of the Inter- locutory Decree or Order of the 3rd day of June, 1870, as in effect directs the passages in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 32nd Articles to be struck out; also from the Interlocutory Decree or Order of the 16th day of June, 1870, whereby, in effect, the Judge declined to allow such passages to be reinstated, and 284 The Jtidgrnent. from the final Sentence or Decree of the 23rd day of July, 1870. The Respondent has not appeared upon the hear- ing of the Appeal, and the Court has not had that assistance from the argument of Counsel in his hehalf which is especially desirable in cases like the present, where the Committee are called upon to advise Her Majesty on matters of grave importance as a Tri- bunal of Ultimate Appeal. The Counsel for the Appellant first opened the Appeal from the Interlocutory Order of the Judge of the 3rd day of June, 1870, whereby he adhered to the reformation that he had made in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 32nd Articles of Charge. With regard to the reformation of the Articles, the course originally taken seems to be sanctioned by usage ; but it appears to their Lordships to be a course attended with considerable inconvenience, and one which might lead to great delay, if not to a miscarriage. The original Order of the Arches Court directed the Articles of Charge to be reformed, by omitting all such parts thereof as charged the Respondent with contravening the 29th Article of Religion, and this Order was affirmed on Appeal, on the recom- mendation of this Committee. The form of the Order leaves open to further determination by the Court what parts of the Articles of Charge do, in effect, charge the Respondent with contravening the 29th Article of Religion, and thus opens the door to further dis- cussion and (as in this case) to a further Appeal. In the mean time the Judge himself strikes out such parts of the Articles of Charge as he conceives to be within the previous Order of the Court, and then proceeds to hear the cause with the record so altered. If he should have erroneously struck out parts not affected by the Order, the attention of the accused, in his answer or evidence, will not have been called to the parts struck out, for he The ytidgment. 285 would be entitled to consider them as no longer forming part of the charge ; but if the Promoter, on Appeal, should succeed in restoring the passages in question, it would obviously become necessary to allow the Eespondent an opportunity of meeting the restored charges. In the present case their Lordships have thought it best to allow the Appellant to conduct his argu- ment, as if the passages which he avers should not have been struck out still remained part of the record, and to found any argument upon such passages as he might be advised, provided the argument did not seek to establish a contravention by the Respondent of the 29th Article of Religion. But their Lordships think it right to observe that it would be proper, in future, that before any Appeal be presented to Her Majesty in Council, in respect of an Order directing the reformation of Articles of Charge or other pleadings, the actual reformation which appears to the Judge to be required, should be made by him on the face of the Order, so that on Appeal the very passages omitted should be clearly brought under the judgment of this Committee, instead of an Order directing, by general reference, the nature of the alteration required. On proceeding to the consideration of the Appeal from the final Decree of the Court of Arches, there is one point which was prominently brought forward in the opening of the case by the Counsel for the Appellant, which it appears to their Lordships may be separately disposed of. The Articles of Charge set forth several passages from the 2nd and 3rd editions of a work published by the Respondent, called " A Plea for Tolera- tion in the Church of England, in a letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey." Now the 2nd edition of this work was published in 1867, and the 3rd edition in 1868. The 3rd edition contains important correc- tions of expressions in the 2nd edition, which expres- sions form part of the charge against the Respondent. 286 The Judgment. The original expressions and their correction are fairly stated and set forth by the Appellant in the 7th Article of Charge. (Appendix, page 18.) The learned Judge, in the Court below (Appendix, page 117), has stated that he has no doubt that the expressions originally used by the Eespondent, viz., " the real actual and visible presence of the Lord upon the altars of our Churches," and again, " Who myself adore and teach the people to adore the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them — believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," — " contravened the plain and clear intent of the Formularies of the Church." And the learned Judge has also set forth the alterations of these state- ments made in the 3rd edition of the Respondent's work, and on the passages so altered has found that the Respondent has not been guilty of a contravention of the Articles as alleged by the Promoter. Mr. Bennett's own words, in adopting the altered words, are as follows : — " My meaning and that which passed through my mind in writing the original passages was precisely the same as that which is now conveyed in the words substituted, but as the original words were h'able to a different construction from that in which I used them, I therefore most willingly in this edition adopt another formula to express my meaning." The learned Judge has (Appendix, page 117) re- gretted that these alterations made by Mr. Bennett in his 3rd edition are unaccompanied by any expres- sion of regret or self-reproach on the Respondent's part, for the mischief which his crude and rash expressions have caused. Their Lordships feel obliged to adopt the censure of the learned Judge on this point. Upon this state of facts the learned Counsel urged that there had been no retractation of the original user^ and that, in default of actual retractation, the learned Judge should have condemned the Respondent in respect of the words used by him in the 2nd edition The Judgment. 287 of his work, though varied by the substituted words in the 3rd edition, and he cited several authorities for the purpose of supporting this argument. But, without regarding the Respondent's language as a retractation, their Lordships think that it is competent for them to take into consideration any explanation that an accused person may give of the language used by him, and to determine whether such explanation is made bona fide and is entitled to credit. They attach great importance to the fact that the 3rd edition was published before suit, and they think that they may accept his later words as the more correct expression of the Respondent's meaning. In proceeding to consider the substance of the charges against the Respondent, their Lordships think it desirable to recall to mind the principles on which former decisions in similar cases have proceeded. In the cases of Wilhams and Wilson (2 Moore's Reports, New Series, p. 423), their Lordships laid down as follows v — *' These prosecutions are in the nature of criminal proceedings, and it is necessary that there should be precision and distinctness in the accusation. The Articles of Charge must distinctly state the opinions which the Clerk has advisedly maintained, and set forth the passages in which those opinions are stated ; and further, the Articles must specify the doctrines of the Church which such opinions or teaching of the Clerk are alleged to contravene, and the particular Articles of Religion or portions of the Formularies which contain such doctrines. The accuser is, for the purpose of the charge, confined to the passages which are included and set out in the Articles as the matter of the accusation ; but it is competent to the accused party to explain from the rest of his work the sense or meaning of any passage or word that is challenged by the accuser." So in the judgment in the Gorham case — " The question which we have to decide is, not u 2 288 The Judgment. whether the opinions are theologically sound or unsound, not whether upon some of the doctrines comprised in these opinions, other opinions opposite to them may or may not be held with equal or even greater reason by other learned and pious ministers of the Church ; but whether these opinions now under our consideration, are contrary or repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by its Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, requires to be held by its ministers, so that upon the ground of those opinions the Appellant can lawfully be excluded from his benefice." . . . ''This question must be decided by the Articles and the Liturgy ; and we must apply to the construction of those books the same rules which have been long established, and are by law applicable to the con- struction of all written instruments. We must endeavour to attain for ourselves the true meaning of the language employed, assisted only by the con- sideration of such external or historical facts as we may find necessary to enable us to understand the subject-matter to which the instruments relate, and the meaning of the words employed." .... " There were different doctrines or opinions pre- vailing or under discussion at the times when the Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the law ; but we are not to be in any way influenced by the particular opinions of the eminent men who propounded or discussed them, or by the authorities by which they may be supposed to have been influenced, or by any supposed tendency to give preponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles and Liturgy, as we now have them, must be considered as the final result of the discussion which took place ; not the repre- sentation of the opinions of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, or any other ; but the conclusion which we must presume to have been deduced from a due consideration of all the circum- stances of the case, including both the sources The Judgment. 289 from which the declared doctrine was derived, and the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected.'* '' This Court has no jurisdiction or authority to settle matters of faith or to determine what ought in any case to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Its duty extends only to the consideration of that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church of England upon the true and legal construction of the Articles and Formularies." Lord Stowell had long before said, in the case of King's Proctor v. Stone, " If any Article is really a subject of dubious interpretation, it would be highly improper for the Court to fix on one meaning and prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation. It is a very different thing where the authority of the Articles is totally eluded, and the party deliberately declares the intention of teaching doctrines contrary to them." To the principles thus laid down their Lordships will adhere in the present case. The attention of the Court has been directed to the successive revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, and to alterations or omissions which have been made in it at different times. Changes by which words or passages inculcating particular doctrines, or assuming a belief in them, have been struck out, are most material as evidence that the Church has deliberately ceased to affirm those doctrines in her public services. At the same time it is material to observe that the necessary effect of such changes, when they stand alone, is that it ceases to be unlawful to contradict such doctrines, and not that it becomes unlawful to maintain them. In the public or common prayers and devotional offices of the Church all her members are expected and entitled to join ; it is necessary, therefore, that such forms of worship as are prescribed by authority for general use should embody those beliefs only which are assumed to be generally held by members of the Church. 290 The yudgment. In the case of Westerton v, Liddell (and again in Martin v, Mackonochie) their Lordships say, " In the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions con- tained in it must be strictly observed ; no omission and no addition can be allowed." If the Minister be allowed to introduce at his own will variations in the rites and ceremonies that seem to him to inter- pret the doctrine of the service in a particular direction_, the service ceases to be what it was meant to be, common ground on which all Church people may meet, though they differ about some doctrines. But the Church of England has wisely left a certain latitude of opinion in matters of belief, and has not insisted on a rigorous uniformity of thought which might reduce her communion to a narrow compass. Dealing only with the 3rd edition of the Ee- spondent's work, and having regard to their former decision, that the charge of contradicting the 29th Article of Eeligion as to reception by the wicked should be struck out, their Lordships may consider the remaining charges against the Respondent under three heads : — 1. As to the presence of Christ in the Holy Com- munion. 2. As to sacrifice in the Holy Communion. 3. As to adoration of Christ present in the Holy Communion. The Respondent is charged with maintaining under these three heads the following propositions : 1. That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is an actual presence of the true Body and Blood of our Lord in the consecrated bread and wine, by virtue of and upon the consecration, without or external to the communicant, and irrespective of the faith and worthiness of the com- municant, and separately from the act of reception by the communicant ; and it was contended by the Counsel under this head that the true Body of Christ meant the natural Body. The Judgment. 291 2. That the Communion Table is an altar of sacrifice, at which the priest appears in a sacerdotal position at the celebration of the Holy Communion, and that at sucb celebration there is a great sacrifice or offering of our Lord by the ministering priest, in which the mediation of our Lord ascends from the altar to plead for the sins of men. 3. That adoration is due to Christ present upon the altars or communion tables of the churches, in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil is the Body and Blood of our Lord. The several positions so maintained are averred, each and all, to be repugnant to the doctrines of our Church, as set forth in the Articles and Formularies in that behalf specially alleged. Their Lordships are bound to consider, in the first place, what has been affirmed and what has been denied, in reference to the doctrine to which these three statements relate. The 4th Article of Religion affirms : — 1. That Christ did truly rise from death and took again His Body, with flesh and bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven ; and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the Last Day. In the 28th Article of Religion it is affirmed : — 1. "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death : insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of bless- ing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." 2. '' Transubstantiation (or the change of the sub- stance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the 292 The Judgment. nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." 3. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." 4. ** The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith." 5. " The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." By the 29th Article of Rehgion it is affirmed : — 6. '' The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith^ although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their con- demnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing." By the 31st, it is affirmed : — 7. " The offering of Christ once made is that per- fect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone." And — 8. " The sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." 9. In the Catechism it is stated that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Their Lordships proceed, with these passages before them, to examine the charges made against the Respondent. The first relates to the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Com- munion. The Church of England in the passages just cited holds and teaches affirmatively that in the Lord's Supper the Body and l>lood of Christ are The Judgment. 293 given to, taken, and received by the faithful commu- nicant. She impHes, therefore, to that extent, a presence of Christ in the ordinance to the soul of the worthy recipient. As to the mode of this presence she affirms nothing, except that the Body of Christ is " given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner," and that " the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten is faith." Any other presence than this — any presence which is not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver — the Church does not by her Articles and Formularies affirm or require her ministers to accept. This cannot be stated too plainly. The question is, however, not what the Articles and Formularies affirm, but what they ex- clude. The Respondent maintains a presence which is (to use his own expression) " real, actual, objective," a presence in the Sacrament, a presence upon the altar, under the form of bread and wine. He does not appear to have used the expression, '' in the consecrated elements," in his 3rd edition ; this is one of the points on which the language of the 2nd edition was altered. And the question raised by the Appeal is, whether his position is contradictory or repugnant to anything in the Articles or Formularies, so as to be properly made the ground of a criminal charge. Setting aside the Declaration at the end of the Communion Office, which will be presently con- sidered, we find nothing in the Articles and Formu- laries to which the Respondent's position is con- tradictory or repugnant. The statement in the 28th Article of Religion that the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, excludes undoubtedly any manner of giving, taking, or receiving which is not heavenly or spiritual. The assertion of a " real, actual, objective " presence, introduces, indeed, terms not found in the Articles or Formularies ; but it does not appear to 294 The Judgment. affirm, expressly or by necessary implication, a presence other than spiritual, nor to be necessarily contradictory to the 28th Article of Eeligion. The 29th Article of Religion, which is entitled, " of the wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper," and which affirms that the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith *' are in no wise partakers of Christ," may suggest, indeed, an infereuce unfavourable to the Respondent's statements, but cannot be said to be plainly contra- dictory of them or necessarily to exclude them. The two propositions, that the faithful receive Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that the wicked are in no wise partakers of Christ, when taken together, do not appear to be contradicted by the statement that there is a real, actual, objective presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament after a heavenly and spiritual manner. The " Declaration of Kneeling " should now be considered. It is as follows : — " Whereas it is ordained in this office for the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the com- municants should receive the same kneeling (which order is well meant for the signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue), yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance or infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved, it is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood, for the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural sub- stances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians), and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth • The Judgment. '• 295 of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." This Declaration originally appeared in the second Prayer Book of Edward YI., a.d. 1552, in which book the position of kneeling was positively enjoined upon those who received the Sacrament. It w^as issued by the King, and was ordered by the Council to be appended to the Prayer Book, but after the book had received the sanction of Parliament, so that it was not of statutory authority. From the Prayer Book of Elizabeth (1559) the Declaration was omitted. In 1662 it was inserted in the present Prayer Book, and became of equal authority with the rest of the Prayer Book. The form of the De- claration was somewhat altered ; the words " Unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood " were altered to " unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood/' and the words " true natural Body " became " natural Body." It was urged for the Appellant that, since the Church recognizes only one Body of Christ, the natural and now glorified Body which is spoken of in the Fourth Article of Religion, and since the Declaration asserts that this Body is " in Heaven and not here," the only presence in the Sacrament which can be held consistently with the Declaration is a presence to the soul of the communicant. It was insisted that the word " natural " applied to the Body of Christ can convey no additional meaning, unless it be used to distinguish the true Body of Christ, which is His natural Body, from the Church, which is His Body in a mystical or figurative sense ; and that the expression " corporal presence " cannot mean a presence in the manner or under the con- ditions in and under which material bodies are pre- sent or exist in space ; that it must mean or include any presence whatever in the elements, as contra- distinguished from a presence to the spiritual appre- hension of the receiver. There can be no question, 296 The Judgment. it was argued, as to tlie mode or manner of the presence ; for no mode or manner of presence is conceivable which wonld reconcile the proposition that the true Body of Christ is in the elements, with the proposition that the natural Body is in heaven and not here. Their Lordships are of opinion that these infer- ences, whether probable or not, are by no means of that plain and certain character which the conclusion they are asked to draw from them requires. The matters to which they relate are confessedly not comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the human understanding ; the province of rea- soning as applied to them is therefore very limited; and the terms employed have not, and cannot have, that precision of meaning which the character of the argument demands. Concerning the mode of recep- tion of the Body and Blood of Christ by the faithful communicant, the Church affirms nothing more than that it is heavenly and spiritual, and that the mean whereby we receive is faith. Nor can their Lordships accede to the argument that the words " Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood" must be understood as the Appellant understands them, and the phrase " Corporal Presence " regarded merely as an equi- valent for the different expression in lieu of which it was substituted. On the contrary, it is at the least probable that, as the Declaration itself was intro- duced in order to conciliate scruples in one quarter, the alteration made in it was designed to remove objections entertained against it in another. Their Lordships could not advise the condem- nation of a clergyman for maintaining that the use in 1662 of the word "corporal" instead of the words " real and essential " in the Declaration of Kneeling was an intentional substitution, implying that there may be a real or essential presence as distinguished from a corporal presence. The Hespondcnt has nowhere alleged in terms a The Judgment . 297 corporal presence of the natural Body of Christ in the elements ; he has never affirmed that the Body of Christ is present in a " corporal " or " natural " manner. On the contrary, he has denied this, and he speaks of the presence in which he believes as " spiritual," " supernatural," '* sacramental," " mys- tical," " ineffable." II. The next charge against the Respondent is, that he has maintained that the Communion Table is an altar of sacrifice, at which the priest appears in a sacerdotal position at the celebration of the Holy Communion, and that at such celebration there is a great sacrifice or offering of our Lord by the ministering priest, in which the mediation of our Lord ascends from the altar to plead for the sins of men. The Church of England does not by her Articles or Formularies^ teach or affirm the doctrine main- tained by the Respondent. That she has deliberately ceased to do so would clearly appear from a com- parison of the present Communion Office with that in King Edward's First Book, and of this again with the Canon of the Mass in the Sarum Missal. This subject was fully discussed before their Lordships in Westerton v, Liddell, when it was decided that the " change in the view taken of the sacrament naturally called for a corresponding change in the altar. It was no longer to be an altar of sacrifice, but merely a table at which the communi- cants were to partake of the Lord's Supper." The thirty-first Article of Religion, after laying down the proposition (which is adopted also, in words nearly the same, in the Prayer of Consecra- tion), that " the offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual," and that '^ there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone," proceeds, on the strength of these propositions, to say that " the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the 298 The y^idgment. priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It is not lawful for a clergyman to contradict, expressly or by inference, either the proposition which forms the first part of this Article, or any proposition plainly deducible from the condemnation of propitiatory masses which forms the second part of it, and is stated as a corollary to the first. It is not lawful for a clergyman to teach that the Sacrifice, or offering of Christ upon the Cross, or the redemption, propitiation, or satisfaction, wrought by it, is or can be repeated in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper ; nor that in that ordinance there is or can be any sacrifice or offering of Christ which is efficacious in the sense in which Christ's death is efficacious, to procure the remission of the guilt or punishment of sins. It is well known, however, that by many divines of eminence, the word Sacrifice has been applied to the Lord's Supper in the sense not of a true pro- pitiatory or atoning Sacrifice, effectual as a satisfac- tion for sin, but of a rite which calls to remembrance and represents before Grod that one true Sacrifice. To take one example. Bishop Bull says : — *'In the Eucharist then Christ is offered, not hypostatically, as the Trent Fathers have deter- mined, for so he was but once offered, but com- memoratively only; and this commemoration is made to God the Father, and is not a bare remem- bering or putting ourselves in mind of Him. For every Sacrifice is directed to God, and the oblation therein made, whatsoever it be, hath Him for its object, and not man. In the Holy Eucharist, there- fore, we set before God the bread and wine, ' as figures or images of the precious Blood of Christ shed for us, and of his precious Body ' (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead to God the merit of his Son's Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for us sinners, and in this Sacrament The Judgment, 299 represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us."— Bull's Works, vol. ii., p. 22. The distinction between an act by which a satis- faction for sin is made, and a devotional rite by which the satisfaction so made is represented and pleaded before God, is clear, though it is liable to be obscured, not only in the apprehension of the ignorant, but by the tendency of theologians to exalt the importance of the rite till the distinction itself well nigh disappears. To apply the word sacrifice in the sense in which Bishop Bull has used it to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, though it may be liable to abuse and misapprehension, does not appear to be a contravention of any proposition legitimately deducible from the 39th Article. It is not clear to their Lordships that the Respondent has so used the word " sacrifice " as to contradict the language of the Articles. in. Their Lordships now proceed to the third charge^ which relates to the adoration of Christ present in the Sacrament. The 20th and 27th Articles of Charge contain the false doctrines alleged to be held by Mr. Bennett. The 20th charges that he afSrms the doctrine that adoration or worship is due to the consecrated bread and wine. The 27th, that he affirms that adoration is due to Christ present upon the altars of our churches in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil is the Sacred Body and Blood pf our Lord (the passages referred to for proof are set out in the 7th Article). The 31st Article charges that these doctrines are contrary to the 28th Article of Religion, and the Declaration on Kneeling. The passages relied on as the ground of these charges are the following : — " The reader will observe that in the two first editions, at page 3, the words were : ' The real 300 The Judgment. actual and visible Presence of our Lord upon the Altars of our Cliurches.^ In the present edition he will find at page 2 the following words substituted : ' The real and actual Presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine upon the Altars of our Churches' He will also observe that, at page 14 in the former editions, the words were : — ' Who myself adore and teach the people to adore the consecrated Elements, believing Christ to be in them — believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' He will now find the following words substituted : — ' Wio myself adore and teach tlie people to adore Christ present in the Sacra- ment, under the form of Bread and Wine, believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ''' " The three great doctrines on which the Catholic Church has to take her stand are these : — I, The Real Objective Presence of our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist ; II, ' The sacrifice offered by the Priest ;' and III, The adoration due to the Presence of our Blessed Lord therein." "- Well, I do not know what others of my brethren in the Priesthood may think, — I do not wish to compromise them by anything that I say or do, — but seeing that I am one of those who burn lighted candles at the Altar in the daytime ; who use incense at the Holy Sacrifice ; who use the Eucharistic Vest- ments ; who elevate the Blessed Sacrament ; who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine ; believing th^t under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ : — seeing all this it may be conceived that I cannot rest very much at ease under the imputations above recited." Their Lordships agree with the learned Judge of the Court below that the doctrine charged in the 20th Article, namely, that adoration is due to the consecrated elements, is contrary to law, and must be i The Judgment. 30] condemned. But they have admitted, as the learned Judge has done, Mr. Bennett's explanation of that language, and therefore they are not called upon to condemn Mr. Bennett under the 20th Article. The 27th Article of Charge therefore alone remains for decision ; it is as follows : — " That in or by the passages lettered N, 0, and S, hereinbefore set forth in the seventh preceding Article, you have maintained or affirmed and promul- gated the doctrine that adoration is due to Christ, present upon the Altars (thereby referring to the Communion Tables) of the Churches of the said United Church of England and Ireland in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Their Lordships have now to consider whether or not the passages from the Eespondent's writings above set forth are necessarily repugnant to or con- tradictory of the 28th Article of Religion, or of the Declaration of Kneeling, as alleged in the 31st Article of Charge. The Declaration of Kneeling states that, by the direction that the communicants shall receive the consecrated elements kneeling, " no adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the Sacra- mental bread and wine there bodily received, or to any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." According to this declaration, neither the elements nor any corporal presence of Christ therein ought to be adored. The 28th Article lays down that " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped." In the 25th Article it had been affirmed that " the Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.'* X 302 The Judgment. It was laid down in Martin v, Mackonocliie that such acts as the elevation of the cup and paten, and kneehng and prostration of the minister before them, were unlawful, because they were not prescribed in the Rubric of the Communion Office, and because acts not prescribed were to be taken as forbidden.. Their Lordships in that judgment adopted the words of tlie Committee in Westerton v. Liddell ; "for the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed ; no omission and no addition can be permitted." It follows then that the Church of England has forbidden all acts of adoration to the Sacrament, understanding by that the consecrated elements. She has been careful to exclude any act of adoration on the part of the minister at .or after the consecration of the elements and to explain the posture of kneeling prescribed by the Rubric. If the charge against Mr. Bennett were that he had performed an outward act of adoration on any occasion in the service, the principles laid down in Martin v, Mackonocliie would apply to this case. Such an act could not be done except in the service, because the Sacrament may not be " reserved." But even if the Respondent's words are a confession of an unlawful act, it is questionable whether such a confession would amount to false doctrine. And it is also fair to remember, in the Respondent's favour, that the judgment in the case of Martin v, Macko- nocliie, which established the unlawfulness of intro- ducing acts of adoration, was not delivered until December 23, 1868, after the publication of the words that are now impugned. Some of their Lordships have doubted whether the word " adore," though it seems to point rather to acts of worship, such as are forbidden by the 28th Article, may not be construed to refer to mental adoration, or prayers addressed to Christ present spiritually in the Sacrament, which does not necessarily imply any adoration of the The Judgment, 303 consecrated elements or of any corporal or natural presence therein. Upon the whole, their Lordships, not without doubts and division of opinions, have come to the con- clusion that this charge is not so clearly made out as the rules which govern penal proceedings require. "Mr. Bennett is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may exist. His language has been rash, but as it appears to the majority of their Lordships that his words can be construed so as not to be plainly repugnant to the two passages articled against them, their Lordships will give him the benefit of the doubt that has been raised. Their Lordships having arrived at the conclusion that they must advise Her Majesty that the Appeal must be dismissed, feel bound to add that there is much in the Judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below with which they are unable to concur. The learned Judge has endeavoured to settle by a mass of authorities what is the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Holy Com- munion. It is not the part of the Court of Arches nor of this Committee, to usurp the functions of a Synod or Council. Happily their duties are much more circumscribed, namely, to ascertain whether certain statements are so far repugnant to, or contra- dictory of, the language of the Articles and Formu- laries, construed in their plain meaning, that they should receive judicial condemnation. Their Lordships will not attempt to examine in detail the catena of authorities which the Judge of the Arches has brought together, nor that of the learned Counsel: who appeared for the Appellant. No mode of argument is more fallacious on a subject so abstruse and of so many aspects ; short extracts, even where candidly made, as in this case, give no fair impression of an author's mind. Thus Dean Jackson is quoted in the Judgment; but the quotation omits the preceding 304 The Judgment. sentence,* which gives to the whole passage a mean- ing difficult to reconcile with the purpose for which it is used ; while the opinion of this eminent divine would have been more correctly represented by referring also to the following remarkable passage in a previous chapter of his work : " What need then is there of His bodily presence in the Sacrament, or of any other presence than the influence or emission of virtue from His heavenly sanctuary into our souls ? He has left us the consecrated elements of bread and wine, to be unto us more than the hem of His garment. If we do but touch and taste them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hem of His garment, our same faith shall make us whole/'t Several of those who are cited by the learned Judge are living persons of greater or less note, who cannot rank as authorities for the history of a great controversy. One of the authorities is so questionable, that it requires a passing examination. The learned Judge, after quoting the 28th Article .of Eeligion, introduces as " a * contemporanea exposition from the compiler of this article, which cannot, I think, be gainsaid," a letter from Bishop Gheast to Cecil, imder the date 1556 (probably a mistake for 1566) explaining the sense which he put upon the word '' only " in the 28th Article. Gheast does not say that he was the '' compiler " of the 28th Article, all but one sentence of which had been in substance in the Articles of 1552 ; and the context shows that he used the word " Article " only of this sentence, which, he says, was " of mine own penning." Upon the faith of this letter, genuine or not, avowedly w^ritten for a personal purpose (" for mine own pur- gation ") is founded an exposition of the words " only after a heavenly and spiritual manner," as meaning that though a man " took Christ's Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that cor- porally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally * AYorks, vol. x., p. 41. f Works, vol. ix.^ p. 611. The ytidgment. 305 . . . yet did he not for all tliat see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it." Upon this alleged exposition their Lordships feel themselves free to observe that the words " only after a heavenly and spiritual manner," do not appear to contain or involve the words '' corporally, naturally, and carnally," but to exclude them ; and that it is the Article, and not the questionable comments of a doubtful letter written for personal motives, which is binding on the Clergy and on this Court. Their Lordships recall once more, in acknow- ledging the learning that has been brought to bear upon this case, the principle which this Committee has long since laid down. " There were different doctrines or opinions prevailing or under dis- cussion at the times when the Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the law ; but we are not to be in any way influenced by the particular opinions of the eminent men who pro- pounded or discussed them, or by the authorities by which they may be supposed to have been in- fluenced, or by any supposed tendency to give pre- ponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles and Liturgy, as we now have them, must be considered as the final result of the discussion which took place ; not the representation of the opinions of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, or any other; but the conclusion which we must presume to have been deduced from a due considera- tion of all the circumstances of the case, including both the sources from which the declared doctrine was derived, and the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected."* Citations from established authors may be of use to show that "the liberty which was left by the Articles and Formularies has been actually enjoyed and exercised by the members and ministers of the Church of England."* But, to say the least, very few of the quotations in the Judgment exhibit the * Judgment of Privy Council, Gorliam Case. 306 The Judgment. same freedom of language as do the extracts from Mr. Bennett. And after every authority had been examined, there would still remain the question that is before this Committee, whether the licence or liberty is really allowed by the Articles and Formu- laries — whether anything has been said by the Respondent which plainly contradicts them. If the Respondent had made statements contradicting the Articles or Formularies, the citation of great names would not have protected him ; if he has not done so, he is safe without their protection. There is one passage in the Judgment which seems especially to call for comment : — " With respect to the second and corrected edition of his pamphlet, and the other work for which he is articled, I say that the objective, actual^ and real presence, or the spiritual, real presence, a presence external to the act of the communicant, appe'ars to me to be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly considered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this as a position of law, nor do I say that what is called the Receptionist Doctrine is inadmis- sible ; nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the mode of presence. I mean to do no such thing by this judgment. I mean by it to pronounce only that to describe the mode of presence as objective, real, actual, and spiritual, is certainly not contrary to the law." Their Lordships regret that the learned Judge should have put forth this extra-judicial statement, in which he adopts words that are not used in the Articles or Formularies as expressing their doctrine. The word " receptionist " is as foreign to the Articles as the word " objective." Their Lordships have already said that any presence which is not a pre- sence to the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church does not by her Articles and Formularies affirm. They need not ask whether there is really any doubt as to the admissibility of the doctrine of Hooker and The Judgment. 307 Waterland, who appear to be described as " Eecep- tionists," in the Church of which they have been two of the greatest ornaments. Their Lordships have not arrived at their decision without great anxiety and occasional doubt. The subject is one which has always moved the deepest feelings of religious men, and will continue to do so. There might have been expected from a theologian dealing with this subject, if not a charitable regard for the feelings of others, at least a careful prepa- ration and an exactness in the use of terms. The very divine whose opinions Mr. Bennett seems to have sought to represent, was obliged himself to point out how erroneous was his statement of those opinions. The Eespondent corrected the manifest error without an expression of regret at the pain he may have caused to many by his careless language. Even in their maturer form, his words are rash and ill-judged, and are perilously near a violation of the law. But the Committee have not allowed any feeling of disapproval to interfere with the real duty before them, to decide whether the language of the Respondent was so plainly repugnant to the Articles and Formularies as to call for judicial condemnation ; and, as these proceedings are highly penal^ to con- strue in his favour every reasonable doubt. There will be no order as to costs, as the Respon- dent has not appeared. INDEX TO JUDGMENT. Adoration, charges respecting, 299 ; of i consecrated bread and wine held by I the Kespondent in the 2nd edition | of the " Plea," ib. ; contrary to law, but sufficiently explained, 301 ; of Christ present in the Sacrament, ib. ; may refer to mental adoration, 302 ; held not to be repugnant to the Formularies, 303. Altar of Sacrifice, 297 ,* condemned in Westerton v. Liddell, ib. ; not con- demned in present Judgment, 299. Alterati(ms in the Prayer-Book, effect of, 289. Alterations in the 3rd edition of the "Plea ''.considered, 285; accepted in place of Ketractation, 287. Appeal, circumstances of, recited, 281. Articles of Religion cited : Article 4, 291, 295. 25, 301, 28, 291, 293, 301, 302. 29, 292, 294. 31, 292, 297. Articles, language of, on Sacrifice, not contradicted by the Respondent, 299. Authors, limits of the use of citations from, 305. Belief, latitude in matters of, allowed, 290. Benefit of doubts given to the Re- | spondent, 303. Body of Chritt, one only, 295 ; the natural as opposed to the mystical, ib. Bull, Bishop, on Sacrifice, 298. Cases cited : Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, 287, 305. King's Proctor v. Stone, 289. Martin v. Mackonochie, 290, 302. Westerton v. Liddell, 290, 297, 302. Williams v. Bishop of Salisbury, 287. Wilson V. Fendal, 287. Catechism cited, 292. Catena of Authorities a fallacious mode of Argument, 303. Charges, stated under three heads, 290 ; not clearly made out, 303. Common Prayer, requisites of, 289. Consecration, Prayer of, 297. Corporal Presence, 295 ; not equivalent to real and essential, 296 ; nowhere alleged in terms by the Respondent, 297; used by their Lordships as equivalent to a corporal or natural manner of Presence, ih. Costs, no order respecting, 307. Declaration on Kneeling, cited at length, 294; appeared in 1552, but without statutory authority, 295 ; in 1662 made of equal authoiity with the rest of the Prayer Book, ib.; altered to conciliate scruples, 296; arguments deduced from it by the Appellant, dismissed, ib.; forbids Adoration of the Elements or of any corporal Presence of Christ in them, 301. Definitive sentence of the Dean of the Arches, appealed against, 283. Doubts and division of opinions among their Lordships, 303. Exclude, the question is, what the For- mularies exclude, 293. Formularies not contradicted by the Respondent on the Presence, 293. Gheast, Bishop, his letter relied upon by the Dean of the Arches, as a contemporonea expositio, 304 ; a very questionable authority, ib. ; written for a personal purpose, ib. ; his sup- posed exposition not binding upon the Clergy or on this Court (Com- mittee), 305. Hooker, Richard, defended against the Dean of the Arches, 306. 310 Index to Judgment. Inferences drawn by the Appellant not \ plain and certain, 296. ; Interlocutory Order, appealed against, I 284. I Jackson, Dean, imperfectly quoted by i the Dean of the Arches, 303 ; quoted \ by their Lordships to the contrary \ effect, 304. I Judgment of the Dean of the Arches j censured, 303 ; the functions of a j Synod or Council must not be usurped by the Court of Arches, ih. ; i Catena of Authoiitiis a fallacious | mode of argument, ih. ; concluding portion of the Dean's Judgment cen- sured, 306. Language of the Eespondent censured as rash, but not plainly repugnant to the Articles and Formularies, 307. | Latitude of opinion in matters of belief, allowed, 290. Ijiving persons cited by the Dean of the Arches cannot rank as autho- rities, 304. Majority of their Lordships consider the language of the Eespondent capable of a lawful meaning, 303. Manner of Presence confused with man- i ner of giving, taking, &c., 293, 294. Natural meaning attributed to the word by the Appellant, 295. i Objective Presence, 293 ; the word un- | known to the Formularies, 306. j Only after an heavenly and spiritual j manner, 293. j Order of the Court of Arches appealed against, 282 ; confirmed. 283. Outward acts of Adoration forbidden, 302; no such acts charged against the Respondent, ih. Pleadings staled, 282. Presence in the ordinance to the soul of the worthy recipient, alone affirmed by the Church, 293. , of Christ, stated to be the first head of the Charges, 290. , Corporal, see Corporal. , Spiritual in the Sacrament, spoken of by their Lordships, but neither term defined, 294, 302. , what kind affirmed by the Re- spondent, 293. , in the consecrated Elements, not asserted in the 3rd edition of the " Plea," 293. Presence, Visible, held by the Respon- dent, 286; but sufficiently explained, 287. Principles on which such cases are to be decided, 287, 305. Propitiatory Masses condemned, 298. Propositions charged agaiust the Re- spondent, recited, 290. Receptionist, a term unknown to the Formularies, used by the Dean of the Arches, 306 ; applied to Hooker and Waterland, 307. Reformation of the Articles ordered by the Dean of the Arches, 282 ; mode of Reformation inconvenient, 284 ; a more exact mode recommended, 285. Regret, absence of expression of, cen- sured, 286. Retractation, argued by the Appellant that none had been made, 286; alterations accepted by their Lord- ships in place of, 287. Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, 289 ; effect of alterations and omissions, ih. Rites and Ccremonii s intFoduced alter the Service, and are unlawful, 290. Sai-rament, the term used, but not defined by their Lordships, 294, 302. Sacrifice, charge respecting, 297; the doctrine of the Respondent not taught by the Church of England, ih. ; Article 31, on Sacrifice, ih. ; Prayer of Consecration on the same, ih. ; as a remembrance or representation held by eminent Divines, 298 ; Bishop Bull cited, ih. ; the doctrine of the Respondent docs not contradict the Articles, 299. Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross can- not be repeated, 298. Satisfaction for sin, distinction between being maout7iess which per^'ades the book C077i77ie7ids it to our /wart. There is 7)iuch to i7istruct a7id help tlie believer in the Chri.\- tia7i life, 710 77tattcr to what section of tlte Chu7xh he may belo7tg." — Watchman. MtBsxs, ^iDittgtcrn'B fublk^tion^ THE GUIDE TO HEAVEN : A Book of Prayers for every Want. (For the Working Classes.) Compiled by a Priest. Edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A,, Rector of Clewer, Berks. Crown 8vo, limp cloth, is.; cloth extra, is. 6d. THE VICTORY OP DIVINE GOODNESS ; Including— I. Letters to an Inquirer on Various Doctrines of Scripture ; II. Notes on Coleridge's Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit ; III. Thoughts on the Nature of the Atonement and of Eternal Judgment. By T. R. Birks, M.A., Incumbent of Holy Trinity, Cambridge. Second Edition, with Reply to Recent Stric- tures. Crown 8vo. 5^. CONSOLING THOUGHTS IN SICKNESS. Edited by Henry Bailey, B.D., Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. Large type. Fine Edition. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d. Also, a Cheap Edition, is. 6d. ; or in paper cover, is. CONSOLATIO ; or, Comfort for the Afflicted. Edited by the Rev. C. E. Kennaway. With a Preface by Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3^. 6d. "A c/iarmiug- collectioti from the best " We are hound to admire the extreme writers of passages suitable in seasons of beatity a?td the warm devotion of the majority sickness and affliction." — Church Review. of passages here collected to smooth the soul "A very valuable collection of extracts that sorrows, even thotigh penned by men from writers of every school. The volume is from whom we differ so imcch in doctrine.'" — a7t elegant one." — Church Times. Rock. "A very usefod collection of devotional ex- "A work which we feel sure will find a tracts f -0771 the histories of good me7t of very welco7ne a7id also prove a soothitig guest itt variants schools of tho2ight." — John Bull. the chamber ofi7ta7iy a7i invalid." — Record. THE HAPPINESS OP THE BLESSED CONSIDERED as to the Particulars of their State : their Recognition of each other in that State : and its Differences of Degrees. To which are added Musings on the Church and her Services. By Richard Manx, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3^.6^. " A welco77te rep7iblicatio7i of a treatise once " All recog7iise the attthority of the com- highly valued, and which cafi never lose its viand to set the affections oti thi7igs above, value: Ma7ty of our readers already know and such works as the 07ie now before us will the fd7tess a7iddiscri77ti7iatio7t with which the be foU7id helpful to7vards this good end. IVe a7(thor treats his SJibject, which 77iust be 07ie are, therefore, si7icerely glad that Messrs. of the 77wst delightfil topics of meditatio7i to Rivingt07t have brozight out a 7ie7u edition all %vhose heart is where the 07ily true trea- of Bishop Ma7ifs valuable treatise." — Re- S7tre is, a7td particularly to those who are cord. e7tterifig up07i the evetti7ig of life." —Church "This beautifd a7td devotiotial treatise. Review. which it is i77tpossible to read witho74t feeling " The value of this book needs 7tot to be re- a more deepe7ted i/iterest i7i the eter7talblessed- ferred to, its sta7tdard character havi7ig bee7t fiess which awaits the triie servants of 07ir for 77ia7iy years past established. The editio7i God, co7ichides very appropriately with ' M71S- in which it reappears has evide7itly been care- i7tgs 071 the C/mrch a7id her Services,' which fdly prepared, a7id will be the 77iea7ts of 772ak- ive cordially reco77i77ie7id to our readers." — i7ig it 77iore generally known." — Bell's Mes- Rock. SENGER. MATERIALS AND MODELS POR GREEK AND LATIN PROSE COMPOSITION. Selected and arranged by J. Y. Sargent, M.A., Tutor, late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford ; and T. F. Dallin, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 7j-. dd. MzBBXS, p.tbingt0n'0 f ublkati0n0 JOHN WESLEY'S PLACE IN CHURCH HISTORY, deter- mined with the aid of Facts and Documents unknown to, or unnoticed by, his Biographers. By R. Denny Urlin, M.R.I. A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, etc. "With a New and Authentic portrait. Small 8vo. 5^. 6d. "A book of real and permanent value, ivritteti by a tnan who can think and arrange his thoughts, as well as merely investigate, and 7vho has also a good deal of the historic faculty as well. Moreover, he has the art of saying what he has to say in a few words witJwjit any sacrifice of clearness; so that although tfiere is a large amount of informa- tion conveyed, and although very considerable readiftg has gone to its composition, the book is comparatively short, and very easy to read. . . . We should say that Mr. Urlin' s book will take its place as a standard book of re- ference on the Wesley subject." — Literary Churchman. " We commend to our readers the lucid and interestifig chain of argument by which Mr. Urlin makes it plain that the real place of John Wesley in Church History is that of a * Church Revivalist,'' forming and fully car- rying out a grand design for the renovation oj the English Church of the eighteenth century. . . . The author has alloived himself but a small space for his work, but he has done it most effectively, and in a literary style at oncefoftible and refined." — Examiner. "Mr. Urlin has brought together all the evidence that he can discover of Wesley's ad- herence to tJie doctrine and discipline of the Primitive Church; and out of these materials, some of which were unknotvn to former bio- graphers, has produced a strongly marked portrait of a High Churchman, and one in •which we think modern Wesleyans will have some difficulty in recognizing the features of their founder. . . We freely accord all praise to Mr. Urlin for the spii-it and temper which have prompted and controlled his work '^ — Athenaeum. THE ILIAD OP HOMER, from the Text of Dindorf. With Preface and Notes. By S. H. Reynolds, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Books I. to XII, Crown 8vo. 6s. the "Catena Classicorum." '* Adopting tJie usual plan of this series, and giviftg references to standard works rather than extracts from them, Mr. Reynolds is able to find space for miich comment that is purely Homeric, and to show that it is not only a theory but a working pri7iciple with him, to make Homer his own i?ite7preter and com- mentator. ' Ex ipso Honiero Hoinerus optime intelligitur,' is a dictum which no student of Homer 7>jould question for a moment ; but to acknowledge its truth is one thing, and prove it in practice is another, and the mafiner in •which Air. Reynolds has effected this will go far to show his capacity for tJie difficult task he has executed. The tiotes are by no means overloaded, but seem to us to contain all that they shotild, in order to carry out the editor's prcrpose of assisting begitiners, while there is much that "will proz'e valuable to advanced students. We heartily commend the book to our readers' notice." — St.^ndard. "Mr. Holmes and Mr. Bigg deserve the gratitude of all scholars for the ' Catena Classicorum' which is coming otct tinder their superintendence, cend which includes such works as the 'Sophocles' of Mr. Jebb, and the ' Persius ' of Mr. Pretor. The series suf>plies so completely a longfelt want, tJiat •we can scarcely tinderstand why it is we waited so long for a really good and cheap edition of these classical authors, which we hazie been obliged to read either in foreign editions, orfrotn English texts with worthless notes, or else from editions like the ' Bibli- othcca Classica,' the expense of which is a serious drawback to their general use. The standard set up by the earlier volumes was Ikigh, and we can hardly feel surprise if, executed as they are by different hands, sotne of the succeeding ones should show somefalling tffin excellence ; but so far as we have gone, all, or nearly all, have been good, and some I n-eminently so ; and we only hope that the same care and scholarship will be bestowed on the volumes which are yet to come. The pre- sent volume we should be disposed to reckon as good. The notes display both scholarship and carefd research." — Educational Times. "Mr. Reynolds shows in his short preface ho7v genial scholarship like his can be, and be made to seem. Every note in the book is valuable. His selection is as admirable as his scholarship. At the same time, the notes are so ample tJuit we hope this text-book will displace much of the crude annotation and bad printifig which trouble the eye and the mind's eye, in certain editions of the classics from across the Atlatitic. The short preface is an extract essence of all Homeric ques- tions and answers." — Edinburgh Evening COURANT. "The new z'olume of Messrs. RtT'ington's admirable ' Catena Classicortim ' contains the first tzvelve books of the ' Hiad,' edited by Mr. Reynolds, Eellow and 'Tutor of Brasenose. The text, which like all the series is printed in a clear bold type, is that of Dindorf, and Mr. Reynolds has added some iiseftd explana- tory notes, not too numerozis or too abstruse, but well suited for school use." — John Bull. " We have already more than once ex- pressed a very high opinion of tJw reprints of classical autlwrs under the title of * Catena Classicorutn ' which Messrs. Holmes and Bigg are no7v issuing. Part I. of Homer's 'Iliad,' comprising the first twelve books, is now before us, and it is sufficient for us to say that it is ajnost scholar like and excellent edition that is here presented. The notes are of medium, length, neither too long to make the book in- conveniently bitlky, nor too brief to be useful. , . . Of Mr. Reynolds' Oxford reptitation as a philosophical scholar it is needless to speak, and his 7tame is a sufficient guarantee for the soundness and importance of this work." — English Churchman. MtBBXB. '^Mnqion's l^nblxmixom RIVINGTON'S MATHEMATICAL SERIES. Mr. Hamblin Smith's Works on Elementary Mathematics have been so favourably received by many who are engaged in tuition in the University of Cambridge and in Schools, that it is proposed to make them the foundation of a Series to include most of the Mathematical Subjects required in the Cambridge Course. The following have been already published. ELEMENTARY ALGEBRA. Part I. By J. Hamblin Smith, M.A., Gonville and Caius College, and Lecturer at St. Peter's College, Cambridge. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 4J. dd. EXERCISES ON ALGEBRA. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. ( Copies may be had without the Anszuers. ) ELEMENTARY TRIGONOMETRY. Part I. By the same Author. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 4?. 6d. ELEMENTARY HYDROSTATICS. New Edition. Crown Svo. 3J. By the same Author. "// is evident that Mr. Haniblitt Sinith is a teacher, and has 7vritien to meet the special wants of students. He does not carry the stude7it out of his depth by S7idden plutiges, but leads him gradiially onward, never be- yojid his depth front ajiy desire to hjirry yor- ward. The examples appear to be particu- larly welt arranged, so as to afford a means of steady progress. With such books the ju- dicious teacher will have abutidant supply of examples and problems for those who need to have each step ensured by fai7iiliarity, and he will be able to allow the more rapid learner to travel o?nuard with ease and swiftness. We ca7i confidently reco7nmend Mr. Ha7nbli7i S^nith's books. Candidates preparing for Civil Service exai7iinations Ji7tder the neiv syste77i of open competition, will find these works to be of great value." — Civil Service Gazette. ARITHMETIC, THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL. By W. H. Girdlestone, M.A., of Christ's College, Cambridge, and Principal of the Gloucester Theological College. Second Edition, Revised and En- larged. Crown Svo. 6j. 6^. Also, a School Edition, without the Appendix. Small Svo. 3^-. dd. {Copies may be had without the Answers to the Exei'cises. ) " We i7tay congratulate Mr. Girdlesto7te on haviftg produced a thoroughly philosophical book 071 this 77iost useful subject. It appears to be especially sitited for older stude7its, 7vho, having bee7i taught i77tperfectly a7id irratio/t- ally i7i the earlier part of their school career, desire logo over the whole gro7i7td agai7i from the begi7ini7ig ; but /« the ha7ids of a7i i7itelli- ge7it a7id discri7ni7iati7ig teacher, it i7iay also be perfectly adapted to the coi7ipre/iensio7i of you7ig boys. " — Ti m es. "Mr. Girdlesto7ie' s Arithmetic is ad77iir- ably siiited to the requireme7tts of higher for7its in schools, a7id for 77ie7i at the ihii- versities. Mr. Girdlesto7ie shows hi77iself a thorough teacher ; processes are lucidly ex- plai7ted, a7td practical solution of proble}7is wellgive7t." — Guardian. " We 77iust co7tte7it ourselves with this brief ge7ieral notice of the work, which we co7isider 07ie of the highest order of its ki7td—far, very far stiperior to those of forjner days." — Nautical Magazine. "Mr. Girdlestone' s definitio7is are coftcise but explicit, a7id quite plai7i to 77todest under- sta7idi>igs. So successful a work has rapidly W071 favour, and the first editio7i havi7ig been exhausted, a seco7td has 7io%v bee7i issiced, bear- i7ig further ma7-ks of the ajethors comprehe7i- sive ability. A 7t Appe7idix C07itains exa7ni7ia- tio7i papers of Oxford, Caj/tbridi^e, Wi7iches- ter, Eton, &-V. , a7id will befojmd 7nost useful to stude7its prepari7ig for public exa7ninatio7is. This book sho7ild ra7ik as a sta7idard one of its class. " — Exam iNEK . ifies^rB. |iibmgton'0 f ublimtions A DOMINICAN ARTIST ; a Sketch of the Life of the Rev. Pere Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. By the Author of the "The Tales of Kirkbeck," " The Life of Madame Louise de France," Szc. Crown 8vo. 9^. " Tke aiit]ior of the Life of Pere Besson ivritcs with a grace and refinement of devo- tio7ial feeling pemliarly suited to a siihject- 1/iatter which suffers beyorid most others fvm any coarseness of touch. It would be diffictdt to find ' the sifnplicity and purity of a holy life' more exgtiisitely illustrated thati. in Fatlier Besson' s career, both before and after his joining the Domitiican 0?-der under the auspices of Lacordaire. . . . Certainly ive have never come across what could itiore strictly be terTned in the truest sense ' the life of a beautiful soul.'' The author lias done ivell in presenting to English readers this singularly graceful biography, in which all wJio can appreciate ge7i7tine simplicity and nobleness of Christian character will find much to adtnire atid little or 7iothing to con- demn." — Saturday Review. "// would indeed have been a deplorable omission had so exquisite a biography been by any neglect lost to English readers, and had a charcuter so perfect in its simple and com- plete devotion been withheld fro7n 07ir admira- tion. . . . But we have dwelt too long already on this fascinating book, and must 710W leave it to our readers." — Literary Churchman. ^' A beautiful aftd most interesting sketch of the late Pere Besson, an artist who forsook the easel for the altar." — Church Times. "A book -which is as pleasatit for readitig as it is profitable for meditation." — Union Re- view. " We are indebted to the graceful pen of the translator of Madame Louise de France for anotJier Catholic Life, beatitifdly written, and full of tJie spirit of love." — Tablet. " This tastefully bound volume is a record of the life of Pere Besson. From childhood to his premature death in April 1861, at the age of forty-five, he was pre-emifiefitly suited to a life of self-denial, arid so fill of love and charity, that his saintly character calls forth the warrnest admiration, and we feel sure the perusal of it will give pleasure to our readers." — Church Herald. " Whatez'er a reader may think of Pere Besson's profession as a mo7ik, no one will doubt his goodness ; no one can fail to profit who will patiently read his life, as Jiere written by a frierid, whose sole defect is in being slightly unctuous. " — Athen^um. " The life of the Rev. Pere Besson, who gave up att- artist's career, to which he was devotedly attached, and a mother xvfwse affec- tiotifor him is not ifiaptly likened to that of Alonicafor St. Augustine, must be read in its entirety to be rightly appreciated. And the luhole tenour of the book is too de%>otional, too fdl of expressions of the most touching de- pendence 071 God, to i7iake criticist/i possible, ciie7i if it was called for, which it is 7iot." — John Bull. " TJie story of Pere Besso7Cs life is one of j7ttich i7iterest, a7td told with si77iplicity, ca7i- dour, a7idgoodfeeli7ig." — Spectator. ^^ A beautiful book, describing the t7iost sai7itly and very i7idividual life of 07ie of the co77ipa7iio7is of Lacordaire." — Monthly Packet. ' ' We stro7tgly reco77i77ie7id it to our readers. It is a char77ii7ig biography, that will delight a7id edify both old a/id you7ig." — Westmin- ster Gazette. MEMOIR OP THE RIGHT REV. JOHN STRACHAN. D.D., LL.D., First Bishop of Toronto. By A. N. Bethune, D.D., D.C.L., his Successor in the See. 8vo. \os. " We have z« this volume a most i7tteresti)ig ine77torial of one of the fore77iost i7ie7t i/i the Colo7iial Church : the well-told story of a 77tost iinporta7it period i/t the a7i7ials of Ca7tada. The Ca7tadia7i Church 7/iust always be very dead to A 7iglica7is as a branch of their co77t- i7iu7iio7i, that 7nore tha/i a7iy other reproduces the special traits of t/ie 7not/ter Church. A 7id to Bisliop Stracha7i, ttie subject of this 77te77toir, it was give7i to gai7i a7ul exercise a wide i7tfiu- ence over the Church of Upper Canada, a7id to leave his 77iark 07i the ecclesiastical history of the period I so t/iat the story of his life, told gracefully a7id well by Bishop Bethime as we have it here, will, we hope, e7igage the wari7i t7iterest of ma7ty of our readers But we have exceeded our li7nits, a7id i7tust perforce take leave of the book, war77ily re- C077t77ie7idi7ig it as the life-history of a i7ia7i of sterli7ig 7vorth, whose lot was cast in busy and stirring ti77ies, arid the worse side of which vtakes us thi7ik sadly ofrnuch that we have had to go through, a7id of 7nore that see7/is i77ipe7id- irig." — Literary Churchman. " Written /« a si7iiple, straightfoT^vard, dig7iified 77ta7i7ier, being wa7iti7ig just a little in the colouring that 7night 7iow andthe7t have bee/i givert to it. But it is readable, arid there is 7nuch to i7iterest a7id profit iu tJte busy, fruitful life of a 77ia7i like Dr. Stracha7i." — Contemporary Review. THE RELIGION. DISCIPLINE, AND RITES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By John Cosin, Bishop of Durham. Written at the instance of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. Now first published in English. By the Rev. Frederick Meyrick, M.A., Rector of Blickling and Erpingham ; Prebendary of Lincoln ; Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Small 8vo. 2s. i^e$j5r0» ^ibington'js f ublkatiertB EXAMINATION OP CONSCIENCE UPON SPECIAL SUBJECTS. Translated and Abridged from the French of Tronson. Formmg a Vohime of THE ASCETIC LIBRARY : A Series of Transla- tions of Spiritual Works for Devotional Reading from Catholic Sources. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, M.A. Square Crown 8vo. Sj. " // is a ninch larger and more elaborate work than is icsiially devoted to this sjibject, ' and arranged on a different plan. The chief virtues and sins have each a section given to thejn, and the exatnen is cast in the form of a meditation, with first, second, and third points. The enquiries made of the sorU are very searching, and are so framed that self- knowledge, and as a conseqicence self-con- demnation, most necessarily resjdt from the conscientious use of the book. It is especially adapted for those who find a difficulty in usifig the ordinary mafiuals, and who are yet aijuing at a higher life than common. For Religious Houses it will be found invaluable, tnore especially, perhaps, to mistresses of novices. It strikes us as a book highly sugges- tive to those who conduct retreats." — Chukch Times. " This is volume IV. of the series known as the * Ascetic Library,'' and of all the volumes of the series yet published it strikes us as by far the most usefoil. . . . Singularly practi- cal and judicious, so that it is difficult to say to what class of persons it will be vtost useful — those luJto take it for personal use , those wfio adopt it as a guide in receiving confessions, or tlie preac/ier who uses it as a Iielp in tlie cofu- position of sermons addressed to tfie C07iscience rather tftan to the i7itellect. Tltere are sojue exec lien t pages on Devotio?ia I R eading ; w/iile INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OP CANDIDATES POR HOLY ORDERS, And of the Parochial Clergy ; with Acts of Parliament relating to the same, and Forms proposed to be used. By Christopher Hodgson, M.A., Secretary to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. Ninth Edition, Revised and Enlarged. 8vo. i6s. THE CHURCH OP GOD AND THE BISHOPS : An Essay suggested by the Convocation of the Vatican Council. By Henry St. A. Von Liano. Authorized Translation. Crown 8vo. 4^-. 6d. as to the subject of penitence it inay give some idea of tfte method of tJie book to mentioti tfie Jieadings of its successive sections ' Fruits of Penitence,' viz.: — Hatred of Sin, — Self-Ab- fiorrence, — Love of tfte Cross, — Peace of Heart." — Literary Churchman. "// is a pleasing sign to see sjicfi books as these re-edited for the supply of so great a jieed. No otte bid a master of tfie spiritual life could fiave compiled a set of reflections so searchittg and yet so exalting as tfte book be- fore us. We kfiow ofnotfiing more calculated to lay open to itself tfte mind of tfte juost spiri- tual, to reveal the svlf deceptions and stiares lying in its zvay, and tfte subtle forms by wfticft perfu7ictoriness insi7tuates itself. Tfte book will be foujid beyond measure icseful to all wfio desire to fi7toiv tftei7iselves i7i so77te degree as God k7tows the77i, wftile to religious a7id to the clergy it must be an i7iestii7iable booji." — Church Review. "Louis Tro7iso7t^s selfqtiestio7ti7igs a7id vieditatio7is ra7tge over a wide field— froi/i faith and love to God, dow7i to the de77iea7iotir practised i7t worki7ig a7id risi7ig, co7iversatio7t, a7td travelli7ig. We sfiould be far fro77t as- serti7ig that fiis book C07itai7is 7iotfii7ig good; 071 tfie C07itrary, much tftat is excelle7it z« se7iti7iie7it a7id devout z« expressio7i i7iay be fou7id iti it." — Record. "Writte7t by a devout Ro77ia7t Catfiolic, a7td is at 07ice tfiottgfitful a7id re7iere7tt. It is a •volu77ie which acquires a sig7iifica7tcy beyo7id its literary 77terit fro77t the positiott of the ii.iriter, a7td is a7t i7idex of tvfiat is i7iovi7tg i7t tfte fiearts of 77ie7t wftose attach77ie7it to tfteir 0W71 Cfturch cati7tot be doubted.'" — John Bull. " Tfte author of tfiis work is a Spanisfi Catholic of noble fa77tily noiv reside7it at Munich, where he is well k7iown for his de- vout and ascetic life, his deep religious co7i- victio7ts, a7td fiis zealous attacfi7ne7it to ftis cfiurcft, which he believes to be just passi7tg tfirough a peculiarly tryi7ig a7td perilotis crisis. It is a brief but excelle7tt su77t77iary of tfie chief l>eari7igs of the case agai7ist the Church of R077te."—^OCK.. '' T fit's book is full of coTide7ised tftougfits 07t tfte subjects wftich 7iow 7/iost press 07i the 77ti7tds of Church77ie7i. They are delivered with a deptfi a7td piety wfticft approaches to the pro- phetical spirit; a7id we are told tfiat the pri- vate cftaracter of tfte writer corresp07ids with this descriptio7i, tttid tftat it is acfc7iowledged wit ft revere7itial defer e7ice by tftose Cftristiatts who have tfte ftappi7iess to k7tow fti7n" — Chukch Review. THE PRAYER BOOK INTERLEAVED ; With Historical Illus- trations and Explanatory Notes arranged parallel to the Text. By the Rev. W. M. Campion, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, and Rector of St. Botolph's, and the Rev. W. J. Beamont, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With a Preface by the Lord Bishop of Ely. Fifth Edition. Small Bvo. 7^. dd. MzBBXQ. ^ibingtmt's f ublimticns A PLAIN ACCOUNT OP THE ENGLISH BIBLE. From the Earliest Times of its Translation to the Present Day. By John Henry Blunt, M.A., Vicar of Kennington, Oxford; Editor of "The Annotated Book of Common Prayer," &c. Crown 8vo. ^s. 6(/. THE HOLY BIBLE. With Notes and Introductions. By Chr. Words- worth, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln. Volume V. Imperial 8vo. 32i-. 6d. Containing Isaiah, I2s. 6d., Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel, 2is. THE CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE OP THE AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, with the Text Revised by a Col- lation of its Early and other Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Marginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduc- tion prefixed. By the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, M.A,, Rector of St. Gerrans, Editor of the Greek Testament, Codex Augiensis, &c. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press. Crown 4to. Part I.— GENESIS to SOLOMON'S SONG, 15J. Part II.— APOCRYPHA AND NEW TESTAMENT, 15^. Part III.— Containing the PROPHETICAL BOOKS, and the CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, 6s. In the Press. * The Syndics of the University Press de- "Mr. Scrivener has carefully collated the serve great credit for this attempt to supply text of our tnoderti Bibles ivith that of tfie biblical students and general readers with a first edition of i6it, restoring the original copy of the Bible, which presents the arrange- reading in most places, and marking every Tnent of an Jinbroken text in paragraphs ac- place where an obvious correction has been commodated to the sense {the 7nimerals, indi- made; he has inade the spelling as u7iiforvt eating the chapters and verses, being removed as possible; revised the puncttiation {punc- to the margin) ; %vith the broad distinction tuatioft as those who cry out for the Bible between the prose and poetical portions of without note or comment sliould retnember. Scripture duly maintained, and with such is a continuous commentary on the text); passages of the Old Testament as are quoted carried out consistently the f>lan of marking in the New being marked by the use of open with italics all words not found in the origi- type. . . . After this ftotice of the natitre nal, and carefully exatnined the marginal and objects of the Catnbridge Paragraph references. The name of Mr. Scrivener, the Bible, it is needless to say one word as to its learried editor of the ^ Codex Augiensis,^ great value and ijnportance." — Notes and guarantees tJie quality of the ivork." — Spec- Queries. TATOR. An edition has also been printed, o\\ good writing paper, with one column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes. Parts I. and II. 20s. each. Part III. \os. In the Press. THE DOCTRINE OP RECONCILIATION TO GOD BY JESUS CHRIST. Seven Lectures, preached during Lent, 1870, with a Prefatory Essay. By W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Rector of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square. Small 8vo. 2s. THE TREASURY OP DEVOTION : A Manual of Prayers for Gene- ral and Daily Use. Compiled by a Priest. Edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Rector of Clewer, Berks. Third Edition. i6mo, limp cloth, 2s.; cloth extra, 2s. 6d. Bound with the Book of Common Prayer, 3^. 6d. MtBBXB, ^^.tbiirgtou'^ f ublkatioitB LETTERS FROM ROME ON THE COUNCIL. By Quirinus. Reprinted from the " Allgemeine Zeitung," Authorised Translation. Crown 8V0. I2S. " The great interest 7vhich these communica- tions excited during their periodicalpublication in the A ugsburg paper, not only in Germany, but everywhere throughotit the Continent where interest was felt in the proceedings of the Council, is well known, and their reproductio7i in this country is calculated to open the eyes of Englishmen not a little to the way in which things are managed at Rome under the pre- sent system of Curialistic domination. Per- haps the most remarkable thing abottt the Letters is that they should have been published at all, for, after a few numbers had appeared, the most stre7tuous efforts were made by the Papal authorities to discover their author, but in vain. We believe that the secret is pre- served even now." — Church Times. " Their cabn criticism of the proceedings o/ the Council, their dignified remonstrance against the proceedings of the Roman Curia, and their outspoken fears as to the results which will follow upon the proclamation of the dogma of I ?ifallibility , must have done much to strengthen and consolidate the Op- position (as it is callcii) in the Council. . . . A word as to the translation. It reads like an English work — the similarity between this and '■jfanus^ will stiggest itself at once." — AtHENyEUM. "The ' Letters frojn Rome'' are already world famous. In Italy and in Germany they have created a great sensation. Their revela- tions, their plainness of speech, the vigour and incisiveness of their style, all combine to make them amon^ the most retnarkable productions which this CEctinienical Council has called forth. They are easy and pleasant reading, and are essential for all who wish to know the secrets of this great conspiracy." — Freeman. " It is not 7nuch more than a twelvemonth since we noticed at some length the English translation of the remarkable %vorkof'' Janus ' on the Pope and the Council, which has since passed rapidly through three editions, and has commanded hardly less attention in this country than in Germany. ' fanus^ closed with a sorrozvfd prediction that, whatever else might be said of the Vatican Synod, it would have no claim to be considered a free assembly, and the volume now before us is one lo7tg illustratioft from begin- ning to end of the justice of that anticipation. The two books, though evidently emanating from differefit authorship, have much in com7non. Both, as we are assured, are 'ex- clusively the work of Catholics ; ' both repre- sent the same school of religious thought ; both give evidence of deep lear7nng, though there is ofcojirse more scope for its direct applica- tio7i i7i the earlier vobime ; both are written with consu7n7nate ability and un77tistakeable ear7iestness, and i7i a clear and lucid style ; and both, we 77tay add, are ad7nirably trans- lated. The English reader, if he had not refeT^^ed to the title page, tnight easily suppose that the Letters were from the pen of a country7na7t of his own. But it is not i7t graces of style, still less on any artificial orname7it, that the book depends for its grave and per7nane7tt interest. It tells a plain un- vartiished tale, the more impressive from its severe and terrible si77iplicity, which inti- mately concer7ts the credit and prospects of the Papacy a7td RoTnan Catholic hierarchy, and bears i7tdirectly, but 7tot less really, on the future, 7iot only of the vast organization U7ider their rule, but of U7tiversal Christen- do77t. . . . Several points of interest we have been compelled to pass over for want of space, but this is the less to be regretted as the * Letters of Quiri7ttis^ are pretty sure by this time to be in the hands of very many of our readers. Whatever may be the final upshot of the conflict evoked by the Vatican Synod i7t the boso7n of the Ro7na7i Catholic Church — a7td it will probably take years before we see the end of it — this collection will retain a perman- ent value as a faithful record of one of the most remarkable pheno7fie7ia of the present eve7itful century, which imtst inevitably leave its mark for good or for evil, though in a very differe7it way fro77t ivhat its promoters de- signed, 07t the future of Christianity and the Christia7t Chttrch." — Saturday Review. " The history of the Vatican Cou7icil will ere long be atte77ipted by tnany pe7is, but by whomsoever its proceedings tnay be narrated, we are firTnly convinced that there will not, amid all the diversity of record, be found one to excel this volu7ne in its vividly interesting descriptions of scenes and persons. A reco7-d written while events are going on, lacks, of course, the cahn deliberate style of the his- torian, who at his leisure iveighs a7td measures bygone eve7its, and chronicles thcTn all accord- ing to the relative importance in which he holds thcTn. But here we have the narrative of events acttially being enacted while the writer zuas employing his pen, he having all the advantage of direct intercourse with the chief actors in the eve7its he is recording." — Church Herald. A MANUAL OP LOGIC; Or, a Statement and Explanation of the Laws of Formal Thought. By Henry J. Turrell, M.A., Oxon. Square crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. THE ATHAN ASIAN CREED,' and its Usage in the English Church : an Investigation as to the Original Object of the Creed and the Growth of prevailing Misconceptions regarding it. A Letter to the Very Reverend W. F. Hook, D.D., F.R.S., Dean of Chichester, from C. A. Swainson, D.D., Canon of the Cathedral, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Chichester ; Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. lO MtBBXB. ^ibingtcn'^ ^xiblixatiottjef ARISTOPHANIS COMOEDIAB. Edited by W. G. Green, M.A., late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Classical Lecturer at Queen's College. THE ACHARNIANS AND THE KNIGHTS. This Edition of the Archarnians and the Knights is revised and especially adapted for Use in Schools. Crown 8vo. 4s. " The utmost care has been taken ivith this edition of the most sarcastic aiid clever of the old Greek dramatists, facilitating the means of Uftderstanding both the text and iiitention of that biting sarcasjn which will 7ie%>er lose either point or interest, and is as well adapted to the present age as it was to the times when first p7it forward." — Bell's Weekly Mes- senger. " We should have stated before, perhaps, that there is a thonghtfnl atid intelligent in- trcdnction prefixed to this edition of the ' Clouds.^ 1 1 goes over the old grojcnds, of course, and deals with the question, ' IVas Aristo- phanes honest in his attack on Socrates and his teaching?' Mr. Green is of tlie nttmber of tJwse who think he was ; biit that, withal, he was somewhat narrow and bigoted; ^vio- lently Conservative or a thorough Tory.' He too hastily identified Socrates with what he held to be a dangerotts class, the Sophists ; and caricatured the vian wlien he wanted to ridi- cule the class. Mr. Green betrays a secret inclination to palliate this misrepresentatio?t of the greatest of Greek teachers, but he does not allow it to weigh so far with him as to re- lieve the satirist or comic poet of all blame, although he suggests exctises for it in his dis- tinction betwee?i the earlier teaching and tJu later doctrines of Socrates.'" — Contempokary Review. " Mr. Green has dischaiged his part of the work with uncommon skill and ability. The notes show a thorough study of the two Plays, a7i indepe7ident judgment in the interpreta- tion of the poet, and a wealth of illustration, from which the Editor draws whenever it is necessary. " — Museum. " Air. Green presumes the existence of a fair amotint of sc/iolarship in all who read A ristophanes, as a study of his works gene- rally succeeds to S07ne considerable k7tozuledge of the tragic poets. 'The 7iotes he has ap- pe7ided are therefore brief, perhaps a little too brief. We should say the t&/tde7tcy of most modern editors is rather the other way ; but Mr. Gree/i 710 doidd k7ioi.vs the class for ivhich he writes, and has bec7i careful to sup- ply their wa7tts." — Spectator. "Mr. Green's ad7/tirable httrodjiction to * The Clouds ' of t/ie celebrated co77tic poet de- se7^'cs a perusal, as it contai7is a7i accurate analysis and ma7iy origi7ial C07ii7ne7its 071 this rc7narkable play. The text is prefaced by a table of readi7igs of Di7tdorf ajid Mei7ieke, which will be of g7-eat ser7.iice to stude7its who wish to i7idulge /« verbal criticis77t. TJie fiotes are copious a7td lucid, a7id the vobi77ie ivill be fou7id usef7il for school a/td college purposes, and admirably adapted for private ri?rtaf/«^. "— Ex AMINEK. P. TERENTII AFRI COMOEDIAE. Edited by T. L. Papillon, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford, and late Fellow of Merton. ANDRIA ET EUNUCHUS. Forming a Part of the "Catena Classi- corum." Crown 8vo. /^. 6d. "An excellent attd supremely useful edition of the well-k7iow7t plays of Tere7tce. It7nakes no prete7isio7i to ordi/iary critical research, a7td yet perhaps, withi7i. the li77iits, it is all that could be desired. Its ai77i bei7ig 7nerely ' to assist the ordi7'.ary students in the higher for77ts of schools a7td at the Universities^ nu77terous, a7id upo7i the whole z'ery scholarly notes a7id 7-efere7ices have bee7i give7i at the botto7/t of each page of the text. Perhaps they are a little on the side of excess, seei7ig that but two of the six extant plays zvith which Terence is credited are co77iprised /« this vtoderate sized octavo. We trust that the text of the plays will be edited i7t a like neat and able 77ta7tner, and heartily C07n777end the pre- se7tt instal7ne7it to the 7iotice of the heads of ,sr/-r^tf/j."— Westminster Review. " A7tother vobnne of tJie 'Catena Classi- t^rwn,' contai7ii7ig the first portiofi of a7t %litio7t of Tere7ice, deserves a word of ivel- C07ne; a7id though Mr. Papillo7i's labours catmot clai7n ' the tnerit of critical research, or i7idepe7ident collation of MSS .,' they exhibit a fair pro77iise of usefubiess as a school and college editio/t. The footnotes are, in the main, lielpful a7id approp7^ate."—ConTKiAVOKAKV Review. " This first i7istal7ne7it of a school edition of Tere7ice gives prontise of a re7iewed vigour in the ' Cate7ta Classicor7i77t ' series, to which it belongs. Mr. Papillo7i is a very C077tpete7it Lati7i scholar, trained under Dr. Bradley at Marlbo7-ough, a7id yoimg C7i07igh to k7io7vwhat schoolboys 7ieed ; a7id we hail as a proof of this his advice to the stnde7it of Tere7ice to fa77ti- li arize himself collaterally with such store- houses of Lati/i scholarship as Lach77ian7i's or Alwiro's Luc7-etius, a7id Forbiger's or Co7i- ingto7i's Virgil. He has hi77tself 7/iade refer- e7ice to these ; and, as to gra7n77iatical refer- e7ices, li7nited himself i7tai7tly as is the rule with editio7is in the Cate7ia series to the gra7n7nars of Madvig. There is a short but serz'iceable i7itroductio7i, deali7ig xvith tlie life, style, a7id literary 7/terits of Tere7ice. We wish success to this 7iew co7npetitor for the tioiionr of i7it7oduci7ig schoolboys to Tere/tce." — English Churchman. " We have before us a7iot/ter li/ikin that ex- celle7it chai7i of classical authors produced U7ider the ge/tetal superi7ite7tde7ice of Mr, Hohnes a7id Mr. Bigg. Although Mr. Papil- lo7i, in his apologetic preface, clai7ns 710 7tierit of critical research or i7idepe7tde7it collation of MSS., we do 7iot think that7/ta7iy readers will C07/iplai7i of the editor' siva7it of i7idustry. We must ad7nit that Mr. Papillon has succeeded ad/>tirably /« producing a thorough useful a7id reliable edition of two of Terence's mostpopular comedies. We Jind not only an introduction devoted to the life and writings, the style and literary merits, of the great Roman coinic poet, but also a complete account, and analysis of each of the plays here printed. . . . Al- together we can pronounce this volume 07te admirably suited to tJie wants of students at school and college, and forming a -useful in- troduction to the works of Terence."' — Ex- aminer. " Mr. Papillon's ' Terence' strikes us as a thoroughly satisfactory school-book. The notes are all that notes should be. They are clear, and give just the help tieeded, yet without pandering to laziness. There is often a crisp- ness and raciness about the cotnments, which is the very thing needed to attract attoiiion to the text, and many of the little construes given are marvels of close-fitting idiomatic rendering. The general critical introduction we have read with a great deal of i7iterest. It gives a singt^larly clear and vivid view of the character and literary merit attaching to the Terentian writings, and a conspecttts of an- cient criticisms upon them, which we have not seen done, or at all events not so completely elsewhere." — Literary Churchman. CLASSICAL EXAMINATION PAPERS. Edited, with Notes and References, by P. J. F. Gantillon, M.A., sometime Scholar of St. John's College, Cambridge ; Classical Master in Cheltenham College. Crown 8vo. *]$. 6d. Or interleaved with writing-paper for Notes, half-bound, los. 6d. " If any of our readers have classical pupils they will find this a most serviceable vobime, alike for their ozun and for their pzipils use. The papers are mostly Cambridge or Oxford scholarship papers, and they are most carefully edited and annotated, so as to make their use as easy and as profitable as possible. The papers chosen are of the very highest order, and we can only say that such a help would have been invaluable to ourselves when en- gaged in such work as to require it." — Liter- ary Churchman. " The papers are well selected, and are fairly representative of the principal classi- cal examinatiotis of the presettt day." — Athenaeum. "All who have had anything to do with examinatiofts, especially as exaininees, will recognise the ntility of a well-selected and xvell-edited collection of exa7nination papers. It is a sort of scholastic chart, and marks the rocks and quicksands on which carelessness or ignoratice may sjiffer shipwreck. Mr. Gan- tillon' s book is a judicious collection of papers. His notes convey information in cases where it is not easily accessible, and where it is, metition the sources at which it may befoj4nd. In the notes to the philosophical papers, he takes freqtient opportiaiities of stating coti- cisely the opiniofts of the ancient philosophers, and of referritig to the writings of their 7nore 7noderfi s7iccessors. ' '—Scotsman. THE OBER-AMMERaAU PASSION PLAY. Reprinted by permission from the Times. With some Introductory Remarks on the Origin and Development of Miracle Plays, and some Practical Hints for the use of Intending Visitors. By the Rev. Malcolm MacColl, M.A., Chaplain to the Right Hon. Lord Napier, K.T. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d. " To those 7vho77t the war has deprived of an opportu7iity to see that most ctirious relic of for/ner days, this little book will prove highly i7tteresting. . . . It gives a highly interestifig sketch of i7tiracle plays itt the 7Jiiddle ages, tracing the77i fro77i a very early period, a7id also givi7ig 77tuch practical i7ifor- mation." — Church Herald. " The Rev. Malcol77i MacColl has repri7tted fro77t the ' Ti77tes ' his graphic 7iarrative of the A 77t7nergau Passion Play. It will serve as a pleasant 77te7norial to those who were fortunate e7iough to be spectators of that dra77ta this year, a7id also as a useful guide to sicch as purpose a futtire visit." — Union Review. " Those who were disappointed this year i7t their inte7tded expeditio7i to the Tyrol, and they are to be 7tu77tbered by thotisa/ids, will do well to procure the Rev. Malcolm MacColVs graphic account." — Church Times. " A7t extre77rely able a7id inte7-esting ac- co7i7it of this year's Passioi Play. Our 7-eaders will 7iot regret buyi7ig this little sketch." — Literary Churchman. " A7t interesti7tg accorint of the Passio7i Play e7iacted every te7ith year at Ober-A77t- i7iergau i7i Bavaria. /;« this little volu7/ie %ve are fur7iished with all the particu- lars i7t refe7'ence to goi7tg to, and stayi7tg /«, the 7tozv classical regio7i of A77i77iergau. In fact, Mr. MacColl gives us a sort of half guide, half history, a7td a g7'aphic and highly enlighte7ied criticis77i of the cha7-acters a7id features of the play." — Westminster Re- view. THE COMMENTARIES OP GAIUS : Translated, with Notes, by J. T. Abdy, LL.D., Regius Professor of Laws in the University of Cambridge, and Barrister- at-Law of the Norfolk Circuit, formerly Fellow of Trinity Hall ; and Bryan Walker, M.A., M.L., Fellow and Lecturer of Corpus Christi College, and Law Lecturer of St. John's College, Cambridge, formerly Law Student of Trinity Hall ?ind Chancellor's Legal Medallist. Crown 8vo. 12... 6d. 12 MtB&XB, P^ibington'^ JpublkatixiniE JV£IV THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY. DICTIONARY OP DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. By 'various writers. Edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, M. A., F.S.A. Editorof the Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Complete in one voliune of 833 pages, impe7'ial Svo {equal to six Svo vohnnes of 400 pages each), arid printed itt large readable type, 42^. or half-bound in morocco, 52J. dd. 1. Nature of the work. This Dictionary consists of a series of original Essays (alphabetically arranged, and 575 in number) on all the principal subjects connected with the Doctrines of the Christian Church. Some idea of the subjects, and of the length of the articles, may be formed from the following titles of those which occupy tlie work from page 700 to page 5^20. SiCxN. Spinozism. Suffragan. Simony. Spirit. Sunday. Sin. Spirit, The Holy. Supererogation. SiNAiTic Codex. Sponsors. Supernatural. Socinianism. Subdeacons. Superstition. Solifidianism. Sublapsarianism. Supralapsarianism. Soul. Substance. Supremacy, Papal. 2. Object of the Work. The writers of all the Essays have endeavoured to make them sufficiently exhaustive to render it unnecessary for the majority of readers to go further for information, and, at the same time, sufficiently suggestive of more recondite sources of Theological study, to help the student in following up his subjects. By means of a Table prefixed to the Dictionary, a regular course of such study may be carried out in its pages. 3. Principles of the Work. The Editor and his coadjutors have carefully avoided any party bias, and consequently the work cannot be said to be either "High Church," "Low Church," or "Broad Church." The only bias of the Dictionary is that given by Revelation, History, Logic, and the literary idiosyn- cracy of each particular contributor. But the Editor has not attempted to assist the circulation of the book by making it colourless on the pretence of impartiality. Errors are freely condemned, and truths are expressed as if they were worth ex- pressing ; but he believes that no terms of condemnation which may be used ever transgress the bounds of Christian courtesy. 4. Part of a Series. The Dictionary of Theology is complete in itself, but it is also intended to form part of a Series, entitled, "A Summary of Theology," of which the second volume, "A Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, and Schools of Thought," is in a forward state of preparation for the press. " Taken as. a whole the articles are the is the work of a single 7nind. We have here work 0/ practised writers, and well in/ortned a zvider range 0/ thought from a greater and solid theologiatis. . . . JVe know no variety of sides. IVe have here also the work book of its size and bulk which supplies the of men who ez'idently know what they 7vrite information here givett at all ; far less which about, and are somewhat more profound {to supplies it in an arrangement so accessible, say the least), than the writers of the current with a completeness of information so thorough. Dictionaries of Sects and Heresies. " — Gu a r- and with an ability in the treatfnent of pro- dian. found subjects so great. Dr. Hook's most " Mere antiquarianism,hcnvez>er interesting, useful volume is a work of high calibre, but it has little place in it. But for all practical MtBBXB. |S.ibingtott'j3 f ublixattcrns 13 purposes its historical articles are excellent. They are of course, and 0/ necessity, a good deal condensed, yet they are wonderfully complete ; see for example such articles as 'Atheism,' ' Caddala,' ' Calvinism,' 'Can- onization,' 'Convocations' 'Evangelical' ' Fatliers' ' Infant Baptism,' ^t'c, ^'c. Btit the strength of the book lies in the theology proper, and herein vtore particularly in what one may call the tnetaphysical side of doctrine : — see the articles on ' Conceptualisin,' ' Dottbt,' 'Dualism,' ' Election," Eterttity,' 'Everlast- ing Punishment,' 'Fatalism,' and the like. We mention these as characteristic of the book. At the same time other more practical mailers are fully dealt with. There are ex- cellent and elaborate papers on such words as 'Eucharist,' 'Confession,' 'Blood,' 'Cross,' 'Antichrist,' tosay nothing of the hostoj viinor matters on which it is viost convenient to be able to turtt to a book %vhich gives you at a glance the pith of a whole library in a column or a page. Thus it will be obvious that it takes a very much wider range than any jindertaking of the sa77te kind in our langicage ; and that to those of our clergy who have not the fortune to spend in books, and would not have the leisure to use them if they possessed them, it will be the most serviceable and re- liable substitute for a large library we cart think of. A nd in many cases, while keeping strictly withiti its province as a Dictionary, it contrives to be marvellously suggestive of thought and reflections, which a serious viinded man will take with him and ponder over for his own elaboration and future use. As an example of this we may j-efer to the whole article Oft Doubt. It is treated of under the successive heads of, — (r) its nature; {2) its origin ; (3) the history of the principal periods of Doubt; (4) the conscioustiess — or actual experience of Doubt, and how to deal with its different phases a7td kitids ; (5) the relations 0/ Doubt to action and to belief. To explain a little we will here quote a para- graph or two, which may not be unacceptable to our readers. . . . The variety of the references given in the cojirse of this article, and at its conclusion, show hozu carefully the 7vriter has thought ojit and studied his subject in its various manifestations in many various minds, and illustrate very forcibly how much leading goes to a very small amou7it of space in afiy thing ivorth the name of 'Dictionary of Theology.' We trust vtost sincerely that the book may be largely used. For a present to a clergyman on his ordination, or from a par- ishioner to his pastor, it would be vtost appro- priate. It may indeed be called 'a box of tools for a worki^ig clergy tnan.'" — Literarv Churchman. " Seldoin has an English work of equal ynagtiitude been so permeated with Catholic instincts, ajtd at tlie sa7ne ti77ie seldo7n has a work on theology bee7i kept so free fro7n the d>-ift of rhetorical i7tcrustation. Of cozirse it is 7iot 77teant that all these re7narks apply in t 'leirfdl extent to every article. In a great Dictionary there are compositio7is, as in a g7'eat house there are vessels, of various kinds. So77ie of these at afitiire day 7nay be replaced by others more substantial in their build, 7nore p7-oportio7iate in their outline, a7id i7iore elaborate i/t their detail. But adt7iitting all this, the zvhole remains a ho7ne to which the student will constantly recur, sure to Ji7id spacious cha77tbers, substantial fur7titure, and {which is 77tost i//tporta7it) no sti/ited light." — Church Review. " The second and final tTtstalment of Mr. Blu7it's useful Dictionary, itselj but apart of a 77iore C077tprehensive plan, is ftow before the pub- lic, a7td fully sustains the 77iai7ily favourable i77tpression created by the appeara7ice of the first part. Withi7t the sphere it has Tnarked out for itself, 710 equally useful book ofrefere7ice exists in E7iglishfor the elucidatio7t of theolo- gical proble7ns. . , . E7itries which dis- play 7/tttch care, research, a7id judgment in co7npilation, and which will 77take the task of the parish priest who is brojight face to face with any of the practical questions which they i7ivolve far easier than has bee7t hitherto. TJie "jry fact that the 7itterances are }u7-e and tltere S077iewhat 7)tore guarded a7id hesitating tha7i quite accords with our judg>7te7tt, is a gain in so far as it protects the work fro77t the charge of i7iculcati7ig extre77ie views, a7td will thus secure its admission i)t 77ta7ty places where 7/toderation is accou7ited tJie crowni/ig grace.' — Church Times. " The writers who are at wo7-k on it are scholars a7id theologia7is, a7td earnest de- fenders of the Christian faith. I hey evi- de7itly holdfast the fu}ida7ne7ital doctri7ies of Christianity, and have the religiojis i7tstruc- tion of the rising 77ti7iistry at heart. More- over, their schei7te is a 7ioble 07ie ; it does credit 7iot only to their learni7ig atid zeal, but also to their tact a7td discretion. ' — London Quar- terly Review. " Infi7titely the best book of the kind in the la7tguage ; a7id, if 7iot the best co7iceivable, it is perhaps the best we are ever likely to sec withiti its co7/ipass as to size atid scope. Accu- rate and succi7ict z« state77te7it, it 7nay safely be tr-usted as a handbook as regards facts, while in our judgi7ie7it, this seco7id part still 77taintai/ts the character we gave the first, 7iamely, of shcnvitig 7nost ability itt its way of treatitig the viore abstract a>id 7netaphysicaL side of theological questions. The liturgical articles also i7i this part dese7-ve especial 77te7i- tio7i. 'I' lie book is sure to 7nake its ow7i way by sheer force of usefuhtess." — Literary Churchman. " It is 7iot open to doubt that this work, of which the seco7id a7id C07icluding part has just been issued, is in every se7ise a valuable a7id iinporta7it 07ie. Mr. Blu7tt's Dictio7iary is a 7>iost acceptable addition to English theological literature. Its ge7ieral style is terse a7id vigorous. Whilst its pages are free fro77t wordi7iess, there is no7te of that U7tdue C07iden- sation which, U7ider the plea of judicious bre- vity, veils a 77iere e7npty jotti7ig dozutt of fami- liar state me7its {andmis-state7nents), at second or, it 7nay be, third handfrotn existing works. Dean Hook's well-know7t Dictio7iary 77iakes the nearest approach to the one now before us, but Mr. Blunt' s is decidedly the better of tlie two." — English Churchman. " It will befou7id of admirable service to all students of theology, as advancing a7id 7nai7t- taini7tg the Ch^trcfts views on cill subjects as fall withi7i the ra7ige of fair argu77ient and ittquiry. It is not often that a zuork of so comprehettsive attd so profound a nature is 7narked to the very etid by so 7nany signs of wide and caref^il research, soii7id criticis77t, a7id wellfou7ided a7td well-expressed belief." — Standard. 14 McBBvs, flibtitgton'^ ^ubliaitioiTi SERMONS. By Henry Melvill, Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. 5^. each. Sold separately. "Messrs. Rivingtoti have published very Opportwtely, at a time ivhen Chierchvte7i are thinking; luith satis/action of tfie new blood infused into the Chapter of St. Paul's, sertnons by Henry Melvill, who in his day was as cele- brated as a preacher as is Canon L iddon ftaiu. The sermons are not only couched in elegant language, bJit are replete with matter which the yonnger clergy would do -veil to study." — John Bull. " Henry MelvilFs intellect was large, his ttnagination brilliant, his ardour intense, and his style strong, fervid, and picturesque. Often he seemed to glow with tlie inspiration of a prophet."— Ai,mRicAn Quarterly Chukch Review. "// zuould be easy to quote portiofis of ex- ceedittg beauty and power. It was not, however, the charm of style, nor wealth of words, both which Cafwn Melvill possessed in so great abundan<:e, that he relied on to win souls; but thepo^cver and spirit of Him who said, ' I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to Me.'" — Record. '''Every one who can remember the days when Ca7ton Melvill was the preacher of the day, will be glad to see these four-ajid-t^uenty of his sermons so tiicely reproduced. His Ser- B.D., late Canon of St. Paul's, and New Edition. Two vols. Crown 8vo. mojis were all the result of real study and geftuitte reading, with far tnore theology in them than those of7nany who jnake much more profession of theology. There are sertno?i; here which we can personally remember ; it has been a pleasure to us to be reminded (f thejn, and we are glad to see them broiigLi before the present generation. We hope that they 7nay be studied, for they deserve it tho- roughly." — Literary Churchman. " Few preachers have had more admirers thafi the Rev. Henry Melvill, and the ne-: ' edition of his Sermotis, in two volumes, wi. : doubtless find plenty of piirchasers. The se-i - mo7is abound ift thought, and the thoughts a7j couched i?t Efiglish which is at once elegant hi cojtstruction and easy to read." — Church Times. " The ScT-mons of Canon Melvill, now re- published in two handy vohimes, need only i.i be 7nentio7ted to be S7i7-e of a hearty welco7ne. So7(7id Iea7-7ti7tg, well-weighed words, cal77i and kee7i logic, and sole77i7i devout7iess, tnark the ivhole series of 7nasterly discojirses, 7vhich em- brace so77te of the chief doctri7ies of the Church, a7id set the/7t forth ifi clear a7id Scriptural strength." — Standard. A KEY TO THE NARRATIVE OP THE FOUR GOSPELS. By John Pilkington Norris,M. A., Canon of Bristol, formerly one of Hei Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. (Forming the Fourth Volume of Keys to Christian Knowledge.) Small 8vo. 2.s. 6d. " This is very jnuch the best book of its ki/td we have see7t. The 07tlyfaidt is its short7tess, which p7-eve7its its goi7ig i7ito the details which •would support a7id illustrate its state7/ie7tts, a7id which z« the process of illustrati/tg the77t ivouldfix the7/t iip07t the 77ti7tds a7td 7neniories of its readers. It is hower'cr, a g7-eat i77i- prove77te/it up07i a7iy book of its kind zue k7tozv. It bears all the 77zarks of bei}ig the conde7tsed work of a real scJtolar, a7id of a divine too. The bulk oj the book is taken tip zvith a 'Life of Christ' C077ipiled fro7n the Four Gospels so as to exhibit its steps and stages a7id salie7tt poi7tts. The rest of the book C07isists of i7tde- pe7tde)it chapters 07i special poi/its." — Liter- ary Churchman. " This book is 710 ordi/tary C077tpe7idiu77i, 710 mere ' cra>7i-book' ', still less is it an ordi7iary reading book for schools ; but the schoolmaster, the S7inday-school teacher, and the seeker after a comprehensive k7iowledge of Divine truth 'willfi7id it worthy of its 7ta 77ze. Ca7t07i N orris ivrites simply, reverently, without great dis- play of lear/ii7ig, givi7ig the result of 77t7ich careful study /« a short C077ipass, a7id ador7i- ing the subject by the te7ider7tess a7id ho7testy with which he treats it. . . , IVe hope that this little book will haz>e a very wide circulntio7t a7id that it will be studied ; a7ii we cn7ipro7nise that those who take it 7ip will not readily p7it it dow7i again." — Record. " This is a golde7i little volu7ne. Hax>ing ofte7i to criticise U7isparingly volu7nes puo- lished by Messrs. Rivi7igto7i, and beari7ig the deep High Church bra7id, it is the greater satisfactio7i to be able to C077t77tend this book so e77tphatically. Its desig7t is exceedi7igly 77iodest. C a 71071 N orris writes pri77iarily to help ' you7tger stude/its' i7i studying the Gospels. But this U7iprete7idi7ig volu7ne is 07ie which all stude7tts 77iay study with advantage. It is a7i ad77iirable 77ta7tual for those who take Bible Classes through the Gospels. Closely sifted in style, so thai all is clear a7td weighty ; fill of U7ioste7itatio7iS lear7iing, a7td preg7tant with suggestio7i ; deeply revere/tt /« spirit, a7id altogether Eva7tgelical in spirit ; Ca7ioii Norris' book supplies a real wa7it, a7id ought to be welco77ted by all ear7iest a7id devout stude7its of the Holy Gospels." — Londcjn Quarterly Review. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CATHEDRAL SYSTEM VINDICATED AND FORCED UPON MEMBERS OF CATHEDRAL FOUNDATIONS. Eight Sermons, preached in the Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Norwich. By Edward Meyrick Goul- BURN, D.D., Dean of Norwich, late Prebendary of St. Paul's, and one of Her Majesty's Chaplains. Crown 8vo. ^s. THE LYRICS OF HORACE. Done into English Rhyme. By Thomas Charles Baring, M.A., late Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox- ford. vSmall 4to. 'js. " The most jealous regard to the true tnean- paper, sharply cut type, and avtple margin, a iftg of the poet, and, in general, a spirited a7id high place amo?ig the English representations graceful rendering throiighout, claim for this of the Roman lyric poet.'" — Recokd. volume, elegant in its accidents of tinted THE ILIAD OP HOMER. Translated by J. G. Cordery, late of Balliol College, Oxford, and now of H.M, Bengal Civil Service. Two vols. 8vo. i6j-. " A new translation of the Iliad, marked reprodticing Homer s terse, vigorous sitnpli- by certainly more than average ability, im- city in readable blank verse." — Examinek. parts more than usual i?iterest to the classic " There is a great masculine vigour in the element. We believe that few of those who translation, and noiv and then, though rarely, read Mr. Cordery' s version will not conctir in a great felicity of expression. That Mr. Cor- 07ir opinion that it gives, on the whole, a very deiy's version is always direct maybe at once fair English copy of the grand Homeric poem, admitted, and in sojne passages, especially the can always be read with pleasure, and con- wrathful passages, this directness attains a tains many passages of great merit. . . . very high order of Hotneric force. If, how- Mr. Corderfs merits see7n to be a sitnplicity ez>er, we compare Mr. Cordery with two of his which does 7wt, as is too often the case, verge principal blank verse predecessors, Cozvperand on puerility; faithfulness and care without the late Lord Derby, we should say he has, stiffness, and scholarship without pedantry. oti the whole, greatly the advaritage of both. His notes, though short, are thoroughly well — of Coiofer {zvhose Iliad was far inferior to weighed and well written, and testify to the his Odyssey), because he is both closer to his thought which he has bestowed oft every aspect original, and far more vigorous and direct, — of his task. In conclusion, we repeat that of Lord Derby, because Mr Cordery has taken both those who can and those %uho cannot read 7Hore utiiforfn paitis, and tiot so often merged the original may turn to Mr. Cordery' s ver- the rich Homeric detail in the woode7i co7i- sio7t, and be sure offi7tdi7ig i7i it both pleasure ve7itionalis77is of general ph7-ases. Mr. Cor- a7td profit." — Standard. dery's versio7i is by far the best blank verse " Mr. Cordery has bee7i very successful ift translation as yet k7iow7i to us." — Spectator. A PROSE TRANSLATION OP VIRGIL'S ECLOGUES AND GEORGICS. By an Oxford Graduate. Crown 8vo. 2s.6d. ESSAYS ON THE PLATONIC ETHICS. By Thomas Maguire, LL.D. ex S.T.C.D., Professor of Latin, Queen's College, Galway. 8vo. $s. THE ELEGIES OP PROPERTIUS. Translated into English Verse. By Charles Robert Moore, M.A., late Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Small Bvo. 2s. 6d. HISTORIu^ ANTIQUE EPITOME : Founded on the Two First Portions of the Lateinisches Elementarbuch, by Jacobs and Doering. By the Rev. Thomas Kerchever Arnold, M.A,, formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Eighth Edition. i2mo. ^s. SACRED ALLEGORIES. Illustrated Edition. By the Rev. W. Adams, M.A., late Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. The SHADOW of the CROSS. Illustrated by Birket Foster and G. E. Hicks. The DISTANT HILLS. Illustrated by Samuel Palmer. The OLD MAN'S HOME. Illustrated by J. C. Horsley, A.R.A"., and Birket Foster. The KING'S MESSENGERS. Illustrated by C. W. Cope, R.A. New Editions, square crown Bvo., 2s. 6d. each. The Cheap Editions may still be had, i8mo., is. each, or 6d. in Paper Covers. The Four Allegories in one Volume. Presentation Edition. Small 4to. los. 6d. i6 MzBQXB. ^ibington'js ^ublkati0tt0 THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. Translated into English, with an Introduction and Notes. By Charles H. Hoole, M.A., Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Small 8vo. 4J-. 6d. " Mr. Hoole, we think, has acted rightly in translating from the Greek text [even no%v 7iot quite complete) as edited by Hilgenfeld. His translation runs-Jiuently enough, and enables any English reader who is curious about the 'Shepherd' to read it through in two or three hours?' — Saturday Review. " lite ' Shepherd o/ Herutas,' that singular relic of the sub-apostolic age, afid fruitful parent of the long series of Christian alle- gories which has since appeared, has just been published in a ne7v translation, with an in- troduction and notes by Mr. Charles H. Hoole, of Christ Church, Oxford. The version is careful and fluent, and the forjn of the book more convenient than that of any other Eng- lish edition we know." — Union Review. " To our thinking the 'Shepherd of Her- mas ' is practically one of the most valuable and important of all the early pieces of Chris- ::ian literature. Of course we do not mean that it is important ifi the same way that the Ignatian letters are important, or that the elaborate theological writings of Ire?ta'us are important. But for the general reader, for those who are not professional theologians, it has always seemed to us that the 'Shepherd' is exactly the book to open their eyes to the tone of mind and circle of ideas of ordinary Christian folk of the sub-apostolic age, and thereby to clear away the absjird accumula- tion of prejudices ivhich encrust the mind of the ordinary British Christian of the nine- teenth ce7ttury. For our own part, we can never forget its effect on our own minds, when ift tJie I'ery outset of our acquaintance with Christian antiquity, we came upon it un- awares and unguided in a7i unassisted at- tempt to read ' The Fathers.' We wish it •were placed ift all school libraries. Sojne boys, at least, would be interested in its simple vigour aftd earnestness, attd, at any rate, it luould serve to takeaway that sense of stiffened unreality and separatio?i fro7n co7n77ion hu7tian life and interests which e7tcu77ibers their 7to- tio7is of Church history. The edition before ■us has a thoroughly good literary i7itroduc- tion a7id so77ie good 7iotes. It is a scholarly i7ttroductio7i, a7id has our war77test reco77i- 77te7tdation."- — Literary Churchman. " This translatio7i of ' The Shepherd of Her77ias ' is the first 77tade fro77t the Greek origi7ial, as edited by Professor Hilgenfeld. Ift it Mr. Hoole has give7t a« excelleftt repre- sefitatiofi of the origiftal. The version is faithfil, reads well, a7id 77tay therefore be co77i- 77ie7ided to the atte7itio7i of all who are inte7^ ested in early patristic literature. The tran- slator has prefixed a7i ititroduction of thirty 07te pages, a7id added 7iotes at tlj-e close, ^ohich are creditable to his Iear7ii7ig a7idJ7idg77te7it." — Athen^um. PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS FOR THE HOLY COM- MUNION. With a Preface by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Glouces- ter and Bristol. With rubrics and borders in red. Royal 32mo., 2s. 6d. " Devout beatity is the special character of this 7teiu 77tanual, a7id it ought to be afavotir- ite. Rarely has it happened to us to 7neet ivith so re77tarkable a co7nbi7iation of thorough practicabiess with that ahnost poetic war77ith which is the highest fiower of ge7tui7te devo- tio7i. It deserves to be placed alofig with the 7na7i7ial edited by Mr. Keble so shortly before his decease, not as supersedi7ig it, for the scope of the two is differe7tt, but to be takefi alo7ig with it. Nothi7tg ca7t exceed the beauty a7id fubtess of the devotio7is before co7ft7/tu7tio7t i7t Mr. Keble' s book, but we think that z« so77ie points the devotio7is here givefi after Holy Co77t7nu7iio7t are even superior to it." — Liter- ary Churchman. "Bishop Ellicott has edited a bqok of ' Prayers and Meditatio7ts for the Holy Co77t77ui7iio7i,' which, a77tong Eucharistic 77tan- uals, has its cnv7t special characteristic. The Bishop reco7)t77ie7ids it to the nezvly co7ifir7ned, to the te7ider-hearted aftd the deiiojit, as havittg bee7t co7/tpiled by a youthfd perso7i, and as beiftg 7/ta7-ked by a peculiar 'fresh7iess.' Having looked through the vol7477te, we have pleasure z'« seco7tdi7tg the reco77t77te7idatio7is of the good Bishop. We k7tow of no tnore suit- able ma7tual for the 7iewly co7tfir7ned, a/id 7iothing 77tore likely to efigage the sy77ipathics of youthful hearts. There is a 7i7tio7t of the deepest spirit of devotion, a 7Hch expressio7i of experi/ftental life, with a due 7-ecog7iitio7i of the objects of faith, such as is 7tot always to be fo7i7id, but which characterises this ma7iual in an e7nifient degree." — Church Review. " The Bishop of Gloucester's i77tprif7tatur is attached to ' Prayers and Meditatio7isfor the Holy C 0771777 ji7iio7t.' i7ite7tded as a 77ta7tualfor the recetttly co7tfir77ted, nicely pri7tted, and theologically sou7id." — Church Times. " 1 7t freshness a7idferziour of devotio7i, few i7ioder7t 77ta7tuals of prayer a7-e to be co77tpared zvith it. Its fatbits are a too exclusive sub- jectiz>e7tess, a7id a wa7it of realisifig the higher Catholic teaching. Th^is, the Holy Sacrifice has ftot its due pro77ii7ie7tce, the sacra77ie7it of Pe7ia7i.ce is ig7tored, our full co77i7mmio7i with the sai7its departed is obscured, a7id the Catholic Church on earth as afi o7itward orga7iisatio7t is p7tt too 77iuch /'« the back- gro7i7id. The book, /« short, is strictly A7tglica7t, Imt with a stro7tg te7ide7icy to 97tysticis7n. For all that, it has a war77tth of feeli7ig aftd a reality of devotio7t 7vhichwill e7idearit to the hearts of 77ia7iy Catholics, and will 77iake it especially a 7nost welco7ne co7n- pa7tion to those a77i07ig the yo7i7tg who are ear7iestly striving after the spiritual life. " — Church Herald. " A7no7ig the supply of Eucharistic Manu- als, 07te deserves special atte7itio7i afid co7n- jnefidation. ' Prayers afid Meditations' merits the Bishop of Gloucester's epithets of ' war77t, devo7it, and fresh.' A 7td it is thoroughly £7tg- lish Ch7irch besides." — Guardian. " We are by 710 7nea7is sttrprised that Bishop Ellicott sho7ild have bee7i so t7tuch str7tck with this little work, 07i accidetitally seei7tg it z« >nan7iscript, as to urge its publica- tion, a7id to preface it with his co77t77ie7idation. The devotio7i which it breathes is truly fer^ie7it, a7id the la7iguage attractive, afid as proceed- ifigffofn a youfig persoft the work is altogether not a little strikifig." — Record. Mz^BXs. IXtbington's ^ubl}i:ati0n0 17 THE HIDDEN LIFE OP THE SOUL. From the French. By the Author of "A Dominican Artist," *' Life of Madame Louise de France," &c. Crown 8vo. 5^. "• T/te Hidden Life of the Soul,' by the author of 'A Dominican Artist,' is from the ivritings of Father Grou, a French refugee priest ofi-]g2, who died at Lulworth. It well deserves the character given it of being ^ear- nest and sober,' and 7iot 'sensational.'" — Guardian. '''■ Between fifty and sixty short readings on spiritual stibjects, exquisitely expressed, and not merely exquisite in expression, Imt pre- senting a rare combination of spiritual depth and of strong practical comiiion sense. ^Ve have read carefully a large nu7nber of thejn, for, after reading a feiu as texts, we could not lay it doivn without going much further than was sufficient for the 7ne7'e purpose ofre- porti7ig 071 the book. The a7ithor was 07ie Pere Grou, a 7iative of Calais, bor7t i7t 1731, who /« 11^2 found a7i asylu77tfro7/i the trou-blcs of the French Revobitio7i at Lulworth Castle, k7io%v7i dojcbtless to 77ta7iyofour readers as thea7icestral ho7neoftheoldRo77ia7iCatholicfa77iilyofWeld, where he died /« 1 803. There is a wo7iderfil chnr77t about these readi^igs — so cah7i, so trjie, so thoroughly Christia7i. We do 7iot k7iow where they would co77ie a77tiss. As 77iaterials for a consecutive series of 77ieditatio7is for the faithfid at a series of early celebratio7is they would be excelle7it, or for private readi7tg duri7ig A dve7itorLe7it. " — Literary Ch u kch- MAN. ' ' Fro77t the Fre7tch of Jean Nicolas Grou, a iious Priest, whose works teach resig7iatio7t to the Divi7ie will. He loited, we are told, to ittC7ilcate si77iplicity, f7-eedo7/t fro7n all affectaiio7i a7id U7ireflity, the patie7ice a7id hu77tility which are too surely grou7ided in self-k7iowledge to be surprised at a fall, but withal so cillied to co7ifide7ice z« God as to 7) lake recovery easy and sui'e. 'Phis is the spirit of the volui7ie which is i7ite7tded to fur- 7ilsh advice to those who would ciiltivate a quiet, 7neek, a7id childlike spirit." — Public Opinion. " The work is by yean Nicolas Groji, a Fretich Priest, who, d7-ive7t to E7igla7id by the first Revobitio7i,fou7id a ko77te with a Ro7na7t Catholic fa77tily at L2dwo7-th far the te7i re- 7nai7ti7tg years of a retired, st7(dio7is, devout life. The work bears i7iter7ial evide7ice of bei7ig that of a spirit which had bee/ifed on such works as the ' Spiritual Exercises' the ' l7nitatio7i of C hrist ,' a7id the ' Devout Life' of St. Fra7icis of Sales, a7id which has here reproduced them, tested by its 0W7i life-experi- e)tce, a7id cast i7i the 7noidd of its ow7i i7idivi- duality. How 7)uich the work, z« its prese7it f 07-771, 77tay owe to the Judicious care of the Editor, we a7-e 7iot aware; but as it is pre- sented to tts, it is, while deeply spiritual, yet so ea7'7iest a7id sober i7i its ge7ieral to/te, so free fro77t doctri/ial error or 7cn7vholeso77ie se7iti- 7iient, that we C07ifide7itly recoi7i77ie7id it to E7iglish Ch7irch people as 07ie of the 77iost iialuable of this class of books which we Jiave 7iietwith." — Church Builder. THE WITNESS OF ST. JOHN TO CHRIST; being the Boyle Lectures for 1870. With an Appendix on the Authorship and Integrity of St. John's Gospel and the Unity of the Johannine Writings. By the Rev. Stanley Lexthes, M.A., Minister of St. Philip's, Regent Street, and Pro- fessor of Hebi-e\v, King's College, London. Svo. \os. bd. "Mr. Leathes could scarcely have chose7t a 7nore ti77iely the77te, for 7iever were the gen- ni7ie7iess a7id authority of the P'ourth Gospel more vehe77te7ttly assailed tha7i 7i.ow. He is well 7-ead 07i tJie literature of his sjibj'ect, a7id h^ dlsc7isses it with 77iuch thorough7iess a7id ability. The book is a7i appropriate sequel to hisfor77ter Leci7ires on the wit7iess of the Old Testa77ie7it a7id of St. Paid to Christ, and it 2oell deserves to take its place i7i the series to which it belo7igs. Mr. Lenthes' book is 07ie of those which %ve shall keep by 7is for future refere7icea7id Jtelp." — Literary Churchman. "Mr. Sta7iley Leathes is si/igularly clear a7id forcible in his la7iguage, a7id his thoughts aiid argu77ie7tts «;■o lit tie volwftes stand very high in 07ir regard. And in these days ivhe7i special fashions in 7-eligion are so rife, and force themselves ifi almost every- where, it is like getting into harbour after a rongh passage to give oneself np for a while to such thoroughly peaceful books as these." — Literary Churchman. " We can -with confidence reco7njnend both these little volianes to our readers as -worthy of being ranked amotig the best of the dez'o- tional books of the day. For young persons especially they will be found 7uost valuable, as the teaching contained in each is so thoroughly earnest and so well shows how religion should be brought to lead on the concerns of every day life with its various cares, trials, afid tempta- tions."— 'EtiGi.iSH Churchman. "In two very exquisitely bound little volumes Messrs. Rivi?igton republish a couple of coinpaniofi vohtmes with which the presefit generation are scarcely acquainted, but which can never be out of date as expositions of the highest and purest tone of what may be called Church of England piety. . . . We do not know whether 7ve would tiot prefer putting them into the hands of ordinary Christians — and most Christians fall ufider this category — than almost anything we kfiow of" — Church Review. " Lady Charlotte Pepys' style is calculated to attract the class for whom she writes, being lively in e.xpression as well as de^wut in tone. Both her volumes are, generally speaking, sound in doctrine and wise in their practical suggestions, and 7nay be safely reco77Z7nended as useful prese7its to you7ig people. The tiew editio7i called for z« each case shows that they have already 7net with so7ne accepta7ice, to which they are justly e7ititled. " — Record. " Two 77ia7iuals of deziotio7i 'which hazie ma7iy 77ierits, but especially that of supplying questio7is of self-exa77ii7iation of the most searching ki7id to souls a7ixious to k/tow their duty to God, and to do it in the daily round of life."— Rock. THE STORY OP THE GOSPELS. In a single Narrative, combined from the Four Evangelists, showing in a new translation their unity. To which is added a like continuous Narrative in the Original Greek. By the Rev. William Pound, M.A„ late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Principal of Appuldurcombe School, Isle of Wight. 2 Vols. 8vo. 36 j. COUNSELS ON HOLINESS OP LIFE. Translated from the Spanish of "The Sinner's Guide," by Luis de Granada. Forming a Volume of TJ/£: ASCITIC LIBRARY, a Series of Translations of Spiri- tual Works for Devotional Reading from Catholic Sources. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, M.A. Square crown 8vo. 5j. " The Do77iinica7i friar, wJiose "work is here translated, was 07ie of the 77tost re7narkable 77ie7i of his time, celebrated as a 77tost powerful a7id popular preacher, as a wrtw of the 7710s t devoted and self denyi7ig piety, and of very ex- tensive erudition. It was 710 1 we are justly told, ' eloquence a7id Iear7ii7ig alo7ie that gave Fray Luis his great i7iflue7ice. It was his pure a7td holy exat7iple, his zeal for souls, a7id his perfect devotio7i to God's ser^iice. He i7iculcated purity by bei7ig hi77tself pure, hu77iility by being hiwible, conte77ipt of tfie world by refusing ho7iours a7id dig7iities, poverty by bei7tg hi7nself poor' . . . We can speak with co7tfde/ice of the deep spirit of devotion breathed throughout the general body of the work." — RocK. " The book is richly studded with quotatio7is from the Fathers."— Ekgi^ish Churchman. "// is ear7iest, ferve7it, and practical ; it shows a 77tost i7itimate knowledge of Holy Scripture, arid 7nuch skill i/i its applicatio7i ; a7td it deals with the great fu7ida77te7ital truths of religion rather than with tnatters of controversy or private opi7iio7i. The life specified is 7vell writte7i a7id ititeresting." — Literary Churchman. THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST ; being the Bampton Lectures for 1866. By Henry Parry Lid- don, .D.C.L., Canon of St. Paul's, and Ireland Professor of Exegesis in tlie University of Oxford. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 5^. THE PURSUIT OP HOLINESS: a Sequel to "Thoughts on Per- sonal Religion," intended to carry the Reader somewhat farther onward in the Spiritual Life. By Edward Meyrick Goulburn, D.D., Dean of Nor- wich, and formerly one of Her Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary. Second Edition. Small Svo. 5^. BIBLE READINGS FOR FAMILY PRAYER. By the Rev. W. H. Ridley. M.A., Rector of Hambleden. Crown Svo. Old Testament — Genesis and Exodus. 2s. ■\T„ -r^.*. >.,«. ^ St. Luke and St. John. 2s. New Testament, | g^^ ^^.^^^j^^^^ ^^^^ J^_ ^^^^^ ^^^ The Four Gospels, in one volume, y. 6d. HOUSEHOLD THEOLOGY : A Handbook of Religious Information respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, the -Ministry, Divine Worship, the Creeds, &c., &c. By John Henry Blunt, M.A. New Edition. Small Svo. 3^. 6d. SERMONS FOR CHILDREN ; being Thirty-three short Readings, ad- dressed to the Children of S. Margaret's Home, East Grinstead. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, D.D., late Warden of Sackville College. Second Edition. Small Svo. 3^-. 6d. DEAN ALFORD'S GREEK TESTAMENT, with English Notes intended for the Upper Forms of Schools and for Pass-men at the Universi- ties. Abridged by Bradley PL Alford, M.A,, late Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. Crown Svo. los, 6d. THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR ENGLISH READERS : containing the Authorized Version, with a revised English Text ; Marginal References ; and a Critical and Explanatory Commentary. By Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, Two volumes, or four parts. Svo, 54J. 6d. Separately, Vol. I, Part I. — The Three first Gospels. Second Edition. 12^-. Vol. I, Part XL — St. John and the Acts. Second Edition. los. 6d. Vol, 2, Part I. — The Epistles of St. Paul, Second Edition. i6j-. Vol. 2, Part II, — Hebrews to Revelation, Second Edition. Svo. i6j-, A MANUAL OF CONFIRMATION, Comprising— l. A General Account of the Ordinance. 2. The Baptismal Vow, and the English Order of Confirmation, with Short Notes, Critical and Devotional. 3. Meditations and Prayers on Passages of Holy Scripture, in connexion with the Ordinance. With a Pastoral Letter instructing Catechumens how to prepare themselves for their first Communion. By Edward Meyrick Goulburn, D.D. Dean of Norwich. Eighth Edition. Small Svo, is. 6d. THE CHURCH BUILDER. A Quarterly Journal of Church Extension in England and Wales. Published in connection with The Incorporated Church Building Society, With Illustrations. Volumes for 1869 and 1870. Crown 8vo. is. 6d. each, SELECTIONS PROM MODERN FRENCH AUTHORS. With English Notes. By Henry van Laun, Master of the French Lan- guage and Literature at the Edinburgh Academy, Crown Honore de Balzac, H. A. Taine. " T/izs selection answers to the require- ments expressed by Mr, Lowe in one of his speeches on education, ivliere lie recomfnettded that boys should be attracted to tJie study of French by jneans of its lighter literature. M. van Laun has executed tlte task of selection luith excellent taste. The episodes lie has cliosen from tJie vast ' Human Comedy ' are naturally such as do not deal with passions and experiences that are proper to mature age. Even thus li7nited, he had an ovenvhehning variety of material to choose frofn ; and his selection gives a fair impression of the terrible P>07ver of this wonderful writer, the study of wJtojn is o?ie of tlie 7nost i7nportant means of self-education open to a cultivated man in the nineteenth century." — Pall Mall Gazette. " This is a volufne of selections from the works of H. A. Taine, a celebrated contem- porary French author. It forms an itistal- ment of a series of selections from modern French aut/iors Messrs. Riznttgton are now issuing. The print, the extracts, attd the notes, are as excellent as in a previous publi- cation of the same kind we lately noticed con- taining extracts from Balzac. T/ie notes, in particular, evitice great care, study, and erudition. The works of Taine, frojn which lengthy quotations are given, are, ' Histoire de la Litterature Anglaise,' ' Voyage en Italie,' and ' Voyages aux Pyrenees.'' These compilations would form first-rate class-books for advanced French students'^ — Public Opinion. WALTER KERR HAMILTON : Bishop of Salisbury. - A Sketch Reprinted, with Additions and Corrections, from "The Guardian." By H. P. Liddon, D.C.L., Canon of St. Paul's. 8vo. 2j. dd. Or bound with the Sermon "Life in Death," 3^. dd. THE MANOR FARM : A TALE. By M. C. Phillpotts, Author of " The Hillford Confirmation. " With Illustrations. Small 8vo. y. 6d. The Manor Farjn, by Miss Phillpotts, and gentle daughter. T/ie story is a capital author of the 'Hillford Confirtnation,^ is a pious story, which amongst other things shows tJie dawning of light in superstitious minds .^^ — Morning Post. '''The Ma/ior Farm^ relates Jiow, under good influoice, a selfish girl became a useful illustration of the value of perseverance, and it is a book that will be very useful in parochial reading libraries" — John Bull. "A prettily got-up and prettily written little book above the average of the class it be- longs to." — Edinburgh Courant. A PLAIN AND SHORT HISTORY OP ENGLAND FOR CHILDREN : in Letters from a Father to his Son. By George Davys, D.D., formerly Bishop of Peterborough, New Edition, With Twelve Coloured Illustrations. Square Crown 8vo. 3J-. dd. SKETCHES OF THE RITES AND CUSTOMS OF THE GRECO-RUSSIAN CHURCH. By H. C. Romanoff. With an Intro- ductory Notice by the Author of "The Ileir of RedclyfTe." Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 'js. 6d. " The twofold object of this work is ' to present the English with correct descriptions of the ceretnonies of the Greco-Russian Church, a7id at the same time with pictjires of domestic life i?t Russian homes, especially those of the clergy and the middle class of nobles ; ' and, beyond question, the authoi-'s labour has been so far successful that, whilst her Church scenes may be comtnended as a series of most dramatic and picturesque tableau.x, her social sketches enable us to look at certain points be- neath tfie surface of Russian life, and ma- terially enlarge our knowledge of a country concerning which ive have still a very great deal to learn." — Athem/eum, " The volume before us is anything but a formal liturgical treatise. It might be more valuable to a few scholars if it were, but it ivould certainly fail to obtain perusal at the hands of the great majority of those whom the voriter, not unreasonably, hopes to attract by the na rra live style she lias adopted. IV/ia t she has set before us is a series of brief outlines, which, by their simple effort to clothe the information giz>en us in a living garb, reminds us of a once-popular childs' book ivhich we remember a generation ago, called 'Sketches of Human Manners,^" — Church Times. PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS.: By John Henry Newman, B.D., formerly Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford. Edited by the Rev. W. J. CoPELAND, Rector of Famham, Essex. From the Text of the last Editions published by Messrs. Rivington. In 8 vols. Crown 8vo. 5^. each. Sold separately. SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OP THE DAY. By John Henry Newman, B.D. Edited by the Rev. W. J. Copeland, Rector of Farnham, Essex. Printed uniformly with the " Parochial and Plain Sermons." With an Index of Dates of all the Sermons. Crown 8vo. 5j-. SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. By Henry Parry Liddon, D.C.L., Canon of St. Paul's, and Ireland Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford. Third Edi- tion, revised. Crown 8vo. ^s. NEW VOLUMES OF RIVINGTO.VS DEVOTIONAL SERIES. Elegantly Printed with Red Borders, i6mo., 2s. 6d. each. THOMAS A KEMPIS, OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. A carefully revised Translation. Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, u., or in paper cover, 6d. THE RULE AND EXERCISES OP HOLY LIVING. By Jeremy Taylor, D.D., Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore. Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, is. THE RULE AND EXERCISES OP HOLY DYING. By Jeremy Taylor, D.D,, Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore. Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, is. The Holy Living and Holy Dying may be had bound together in One Volume, 5^'. ; or without the red borders, 2s. 6d. A SHORT AND PLAIN INSTRUCTION FOR THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LORD'S SUPPER; to which is annexed the Office of the Holy Communion, with proper Helps and Directions. By Thomas Wilson, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Complete Edition. Also a Cheap Edition, without the red borders, is. , or in paper cover, 6d. INTRODUCTION TO THE DEVOUT LIFE. From the French of Saint Francis of Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva. A New Translation. A PRACTICAL TREATISE CONCERNING EVIL THOUGHTS : wherein their Nature, Origin, and Effect are distinctly con- sidered and explained, with many Useful Rules for restraining and suppressing such Thoughts ; suited to the various conditions of Life, and the several tem- pers of "Mankind, more especially of melancholy Persons. By William Chilcot, M.A. THE ENGLISH POEMS OP GEORGE HERBERT, together with his Collection of Proverbs, entitled Jacula Prudentum. 22 J:T:cBj5r5. p^ibington's ^ublixations CURIOUS MYTHS OP THE MIDDLE AGES. By S. Baring- Gould, M.A., Author of ''Post-Mediaeval Preachers," &c. With Illustra- tions. New Edition. Complete in One Vol. Crown 8vo. 6s. " These Essays will be found to have sotne- thing to satisfy most classes of readers ; the lovers of legends proper, the curious in popular delusions, tJie initiated in Darwinian and Monboddoan theories ; and if, in the chapters on Tell and Gellert, we are a little struck with the close following of Dasent's track, in his preface to t/ie Norse tales, it tniist be owned that there are chapters — e.g., those on tJie Divining Rod, the Matt in the Moon, and tJie Seven Sleepers — which present neiv matter, and deserve the praise of independent research." — Quarterly Review. " T/ie aiithor, itideed, is sometimes fanciful and overbold in his conclusions ; btit he con- ducts us thro7tgh marz'ellous 7vays — ways which he has studied well before Jie undertook to guide others; and if we do not always acquiesce in his descriptiotis or argutnents, we seldom differ from him. without hesitation.'" — Athen^um. " We have no space to linger longer about a book which, apart from its didactic pretensions, is an exceedingly amusing and interesting collection of old stories and legends of the middle ages." — Pall Mall Gazette. " That, on his first visit to tJie variea fie id of mediceval mytlwlogy, Mr. Baring-Gould should have ctilled as samples of its richness the most brilliant of the florvers that bloomed in it, is scarcely to he W07idered at. Bttt it shows how fertile is the soil when he is enabled to cull from it so goodly a second crop as that which he here presents to lis. The mytJis treated of in the present volume vary in in- terest — they are all curious and well worth reading." — Notes and Queries. THE LIFE OP MADAME LOUISE DE PRANCE, daughter of Louis XV. Known also as the Mother Terese de St. Augustin. By the Author of *' Tales of Kirkbeck." Crown 8vo. 6s. ' Svch a record of deep, earnest, self sacri- ficing pietj, beneath the surface of Parisian life, during wJiat we all regard as the worst age Of French godlessn.ess, ought to teach us all a lesson of Jwpe and faith, let appearances be what they may. Here, from out of the court and family of Louis XV . there issues this Madame Louise, wJwse life is set before us as a specimen of as calm and unworhily devotion — of a devotion, too, full of shre^vd sense and practical administrative talent — as any we Jiave ever met with." — Literary Church- man. " On the TSth of July, 1737, Marie Leczin- ska, the 7uife of Louis XV., and daughter of the dethroned King of Poland, which Prussia helped to despoil and plunder, gave birth to her eighth feittale child, Louise Marie, kno7vn also as the Mother Terese de St. Augustin. On the death of the Queen, the princess, w/to had long felt a vocation for a religious life, obtained t/ie cottsent of her royal father to withdraiv from the world. The Carmelite convent of St. Denis was the chosen place of retreat. Here tJie novitiate was passed, Jiere the final vows were taken, and here, on t/te death of the Mere Julie, Madame Louise be- gan and terminated Iter experiences as prior- ess. The little volume which records the simple incidents of her pious seclusion is designed to edify those members of the Church of England in ivhovt the spirit of religious sclfde-jotion is reviving. TJie substance of t lie memoir is taken from a soinewhat diffuse ' Life of Madame Louise de France,' compiled by a Cartnelite nun, and printed at Autun." — Westminster Review. " This 'Life' relates the history of that daughter oj Louis XV. who, aided by the example and instructiofis of a pious mother, lived an uncorrupt life in t/te midst of a most corrupt court, w/iic/i s/ie quitted— after longing and waiting for years to do so^^to enter t/ie severe order of Mount Carmel, w/iic/t s/ie adorned by /ler strict and /toly life. IVe can- not too highly praise t/ie present work, whic/i appears to us to be written in t/te most excellent good taste. We /tope it may find entrance into ez'ery religious House in our Co77tmunion, and it s/iould be in t/ie library of every young lady." -Chvrch Review. " The Life of Madame Louise de France, t/ie celebrated daug/iter of Louis XV., w/io became a religieuse, and is known in t/u spiritual world as Mof/ier Terese de St. Augustin. T/ie substance of t/te memoir is taken from a diffuse life, compiled by a Car- melite nun, a7id printed at Autufi ; and the editor, t/ie aut/tor of Tales of Kirkbeck,' was prompted to t/te task by t/te belief, that ' at the present time, when t/te spirit of religious self- devotion is so greatly reviving in t/te C/turc/i of England" t/ie records of a priticess who quitted a dazzling and profligate court to lead a life of obscure piety will ineet wit/t a cordial re- ception. We may remark, t/mt s/iould t/il event prove ot/ter^vise, it will not be from any fault of workmans/iip on t/ie part of t/te editor." — Daily Telegraph. " T/ie annals of a cloistered life, tinder ordinary circumstances, would ?iot probably be considered very edifying by t/te reading public of t/te present getteration. When, /towever, such a history presents t/ie novel spectacle of a royal princess of modern times voluntarily renounc- ing /ter /tig/i position and t/ie splendours of a court existence, for t/ie purpose of enduring t/te asceticism, poverty, and austerities of a se7ne, practical lessons." — English Church- man. " Evidefitly the product of a vigorous mind. It contains matiy sensible observations" — Watchman. " The most simple, the richest, and the most perfect sacred poem which recent days have produced." — Morning Advertiser. ''A poem worth reading, worthy of atten- tive study ; full of noble thoughts, beautiful dic- tion, and high imagination." — Standard. " Mr. Bickersteth writes like a tnan who cultivates at once reverence and earnestness of *^*^ught." — Guardian. "In these light miscellany days there is a spiritual refrcshfnent in the spectacle of a ttian girding up the loins of his mind to the task of producing a genuine epic. And it is true poetry. There is a definiteness, a crispness about it, which in these moist, viewy, hazy days, is no less invigorati7ig than 7iovel." — Edinburgh Daily Review. BRIGHSTONE SERMONS. By George Moberly, D.C.L., Bishop of Salisbury. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7^-. ()d. 24 MzBBXB. ^ibinqton's fnhlmtiom A MEMOIR Ob' THE LATE HENRY HO ARE, M.A. With a Narrative of the Church Movements with which he was connected from 1848 to 1865, and more particularly of the Revival of Convocation. By James Bradby Sweet, M.A. 8vo. 12s. THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL. By Janus. Authorized trans- lation from the German. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. ys. 6d. " A profou7id and learned treatise, evidently the work of one of the Jirst theologians of the day, discussing' with the scientific ftilness and precision proper to German investigation, the great doctrinal questions expected to come before the Council, and especially the proposed dogma of Papal Infallibility. There is pro- bably no work in existence that contains at all, still less within so fiarroiu a compass, so complete a record of the origin and growth of the infallibilist theory, and of all the facts of Church history bearing upon it, and that too in a form so clear and concise as to put the argument within the reach of any reader of ordinary intelligence, while the scrupulous ac- curacy of the writer, and his constant reference to the original aicthorities for every statement liable to be disputed, makes the inoiiograph as a whole a perfect storehouse of valuable i?ifor- mation for the historical or theological stu- dent." — Saturday Review. " Beginning with a sketch of the errors aftd contradictions of the Popes, a}ui of the position which, as a matter of history', they held in the early Church, the book proceeds to describe t/ie three great forgeries by which the Papal claims were upheld — the Isidorian decretals, the donation of Constantine, and the decretum ofGratian. T/ie last subject ought to be care- fully studied by all wht zvish to understand the frightful tyranny of a complicated systejn of laius, devised not for the protection of a people, but as instruments for grinding them to subjection. Then, after an historical out- line of the general growth of the Papal power in the tzvelfth attd thirteenth centuries, the writers enter upon the peculiarly episcopal and clerical qitestiofi, pointing out hozv 7nar- vellously every little change worked in one direction, invariably tending to throw the rule of the Church into the poiver of Roine ; and /tow the growth of fiew instituiio7is, like the monastic orders and tlie Iiiquisition, gradtt- ally withdrew the coitduct of affairs from tlie Bishops of tJie Church in general, and consoli- dated tfte Papal itifluence. For all this, houu- exier, unless we could satisfy ourselves with a mere magnified table of contents, the reader must be referred to tlie book itself, in which he will find tlie ititerest sustained zvithout flag- ging to the end."— Pavi. Mall Gazette. "In Prance, in Holland, and in Germany, th-ere has already appeared a m.ultitude of dis- quisitions Oft this subject. A mong these seve- ral are the ackno7vledged compositio7ts of men of /tigh standing i/t the Roman Catholic world, — fnen admittedly entitled to speak with the autliority that must attach to establisJted re- putatioti : but not o?ie of them fins hitfierto produced a work more likely to create a deep impression than tfte anonymous German pub- lication at the head of tfiis notice. It is not a piece of tnerely polejnical writing, it is a treatise dealing wit ft a large subject in an iinpressive thoughpartisan manner, a treatise grave in to7ie, solid in matter, and bristling with forcible and novel illustrations." — Spec- tator. ^^ Rumour will, no doubt, be busy with its . conjectures as to tfte name whicfi lurks beneath tfie ni to each statement by quotatioji of evidence. And Mr. Blu7it has given greater effect to his 7iarrative by a skilful divisio7i a7id groupi7ig of his subjects. Undoubtedly, he writes upoti very defi7iite views a7id pri7iciples, 6s. but those views a7id pri7iciples are tiot forced ■up07t the facts, but are educed fro7/i the77i as their 7iecessary results. The t7'ue accou7it, i7i- deed, of his book is, that it is a sketch of the reig7i of He7iry VIII. i7i its theological changes, which proves i/i detail the Church view of those cha7iges. A7id if that vieiu is the true view, hozv ca7i a true history do otherwise ? The 7/ierit of a history is, that it allows facts to evolve views, a7id does 7iot pervert or con- ceal facts in order to force upo7i the77i precon- ceived views of its 0W71. A7id whe7i we cha- racterize I\Ir. Blunt' s volu7ne as stati7ig the Churclis case throughout, we co7iceive it to be a/i a77iple justifcatio7t to say that if he is to relate the facts fairly he could 7iot do other- wise ; that he fairly alleges the facts, a7id the facts prove his case. We hold the book, then, to be a sot-id a7id valuable additio7i to our Chiirch history, just because it does i7i the niai7i establish the Church case, a7id bri7ig it ably a7id clearly before the p'ublic, up07i n7ia7i- szverable e%>ide7ice, i]7ipartially a7id 071 the whole cor7-ectly stated." — Guardian. CATECHETICAL NOTES AND CLASS QUESTIONS, Lite- ral and Mystical ; chiefly on the Earlier Books of Holy Scripture. By the kte Rev. J. M. Neale, D.D., Warden of Sackville College, East Grinstead. Crown 8vo. 5^. " U7tless we are 7nuch 77tistake7i this will be one of the 77tost practically useful of the various postliu77ious 7vo7-ks of Dr. Neale, for the publi- cation of which we are i7idebted to the S. Margaret's Sisters and Dr. Neale' s literary executors. Besides ' class 7totes ' — lectjcre 7wtcs as 71 tost people would call them — 071 the earlier books of Holy Sc7-iptu7-e, there are so77ie most excellent si7!iilar 7ictes 071 the Sacra77tents. and then a collectio7i of notes for catechizi/ig chil- dre7i. Iliroughout these 7wtes are supple77ie7ited from other of Dr. Neale' s papers, and in particular ivc 7uould specify an adi7tirable appe7idix of extracts fro77i Dr. Neala s ser77tons (chiefly U7ipidylished) beari7ig upon points touched on i7i the text." — Literary Church- man. " The writer's wide acquai7ita7ice with Medicpval theology 7-e7iders his 7iotes 071 the Old Testament peculiarly valuable" — ^John Bull. HERBERT TRESHAM. A Tale of the Great Rebellion. By the late Rev. J. M. Neale, D.D. New Edition. Small 8vo. 3^-. 6^. " We cordially welco7iie a 7iew editio7iofDr. Neale' s ^Herbert Tresham.' T he sce7ie is laid /■« the ti7ne of the great civil war, a/id vivid pictures are drawn of so7/ie of the start li7ig eve7its that the7i disgraced the history of this cou7tt7'y. The 7/iartyrdo77t of A rchbishop Laud is described /« a 77ia7inerfew besides its author could equal, while the 7iarratio7t of the disas- trous battle of Naseby, a7id the disgra<:eful surrender of Bristol by Pri7ice Rupert, afford p roof of t fie versatility of his genius. " — Church Times. " A pleasant ChristT7tas prese7it is Dr. Neale' s ' Herbert Tresha77i.' Such a book is well calculated to correct curre7it views of x^th century history." — Church Review. " Nothi7ig could be more admirable as a Christmas presefit." — Church News. THE ANNUAL REGISTER : A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad, for the Year 1869 ; being the Seventh Volume of an Improved Series. 8vo. i8j. V ^^^^ Volumes for 1863 to " Well edited, excelle7it type, good paper, a7id in all respects ad7nirably got up. Its re- view of affairs. Home, Colo7iial, a7id Foreig7i, is fair, co7icise, a7id complete." — Mining Quarterly. " We are so used at the prese7ii day to epi- to7nised books of refere7ice 07i every variety of sidiject, that this work, which is a7i abstract of co7ite77iporary history, excites perhaps 710 great ad77tiration or surprise. It is i77ipossible, however, to gla7ice through its multitudi7ious 1868 may be had, \Zs. each. C07ite7its, so syste7natically arra7tged, without derivi7ig so77ie idea of the labour of co7npilatio7t a7id authorship i7ivolved. The care with which it is co77ipiled a/id produced reflects the highest credit on the ivell k7iown firi7i of pub- lishers. " — Examiner. ^^ Solidly valuable, as well as ijiteresting." — Standard. *' Co7np7-ehe7isive a7id well executed." — Spectator. 28 ilTcBBrB. I^^ibington'^ |lublirfrti0ns BOOKS FOR THE CLERGY Bhmfs {Rev. J. H) Directorhtm Pastorale, Principles and Practice of Pastoral Work in the Church of England. Crown 8vo. ()s. Hodgso7is {Chr) Instnictions for the Use of Candidates for Holy Orders, and of the Parochial Clergy, as to Ordination, Licenses, Induction, Pluralities, Residence, &c., &c. ; with Acts of Parlia- ment and Forms to be used. 8vo. i6j-. Exto7is {Rev. R. B) Spectditm Gregis; or, The Parochial Minister's Assistant in the Oversight of his Flock. Oblong i2mo. The Priest to the Altar ; or, Aids to the D^ vout Celebration of Holy Communion ; chiefly after the Ancient Use of Sarum. Second Edition, enlarged, revised, and re-arranged with the Secretce, Post-Communion, &c., appended to the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels throughout the Year. 8vo. ']$. 6d. B arret fs {W. A) Flowers and Festivals ; or, Directions for Floral Decoration of Churches. With Coloured Illustrations. Square Crown 8vo. 5^. yoiiess {Rev. Harry) Priest and Parish . , Square Crown 8vo. 6j-. 6^. Nix Oils {Bp) Feet tires. Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical, on the Catechism of the Church of England. 8vo. i8j. Neales {Rev. y. M.) Catechetical Notes and Class Questions, Literal and Mystical ; chiefly on the Earlier Books of Holy Scripture. Crown 8vo. ^s. Wordsworth's {Bishop Charles) Catechesis ; or. Christian Instruction preparatory to Confirmation and First Communion. Small 8vo. is. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer; being an Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England, Edited by John Henry Blunt, M.A., F^S.A. Imperial 8vo. 36^-. The Prayer Book Fit er leaved ; with Historical Illustrations and Explanatory Notes arranged parallel to the Text, by W. M. Campion, B.A. , Fellow and Tutor of Queens' College, and W. J. Bea- mont, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With a Preface by the Lord Bishop of Ely. Small 8vo. 7^. ()d. The First Book of Common Prayer of Fdward VI. and the Ordinal of 1549; together with the Order of the Communion, 1548. Reprinted entire, and Edited by the Rev. Henry Baskerville W^al- ton, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. With Introduction by the Rev. Peter Goldsmith Medd, M.A., Senior Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford, Small 8vo. 6j-. Liber Precimi Ptiblicarnm FcclesicE Anglicance, a Gulielmo Bright, A.M., et Petro Goldsmith Medd, A.M., Presbyteris, Collegii Universitatis in Acad. Oxon. Sociis, Latine redditus. With all the Rubies in Red. Small 8vo, 6j. MtBBXB. ^ibingt0n'0 f ublkatbns 29 VOLUMES OF SERMONS Adams's (Rev. W.) Warn- ings of the Holy Week ; being a Course of Parochial Lectures for the Week before Easter, and the Easter Festivals. Small 8vo. 4s. 6d. Body's (Rev. G.) The Life of Justification. A Series of Lectures delivered in Substance at All Saints, Margaret Street, during Lent 1 870. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. Goulburn's (Dean) Fare- well Counsels of a Pastor to his Flock, on Topics of the Day. Small Svo. 4s. Goulburn's (Dean) Ser- mons preached on Various Occasions during the last Twenty Years. Small Svo. 6s. 6c/. Harris's (Rev. G.C.) Church Seasons and Present Times : Ser- mons preached at St. Luke's, Tor- quay. Small Svo. 5^. Heygate's (Rev. M^. E.) Care of the Soul ; or, Sermons on Points of Christian Prudence. i2mo. Ss. 6d. Liddon's (Canon) Sermons preached before the University of Oxford. Crown Svo. 5^. Moberly's (Bishop) Brigh- stone S( Crown Svo. 7^-. 613'. Moberly's (Bishop) The Sayings of the Great Forty Days, between the Resurrection and Ascen- sion, regarded as the Outlines of the Kingdom of God : in Five Sermons. Uniform with the Brighstone Ser- mons. Svo. 7^. 6d. Melvill's (Canon) Sermons. Two Vols. Crown Svo. 5^. each. Melvill's (Canon) Selection from the Lectures delivered at St. Margaret's, Lothbury, 1S50-52. Small Svo. 6^. Moore's (Rev. Daniel) Aids to Prayer : a Course of Lectures de- livered at Holy Trinity Church, Pad- dington, on the Sunday Mornings in Lent, 186S. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. Moore's (Rev. Daniel) The Age and the Gospel : Four Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. Crown Svo. ^s. Neale's (Rev. J. M.) Ser- mons to Children : being Short Read- ings, addressed to the Children of St. Margaret's Home, East Grinstead. Small Svo. y. 6d. Newman's (J. H.) Paro- chial and Plain Sermons. Edited by the Rev. W. J. Copeland, Rector of Fai-nham, Essex. S vols. Crown Svo. 5J-. each. Newman's (J. H.) Sermons bearing upon Subjects of the Day. Edited by the Rev. W. J. Copeland, Rector of Farnham, Essex. Crown Svo. 5j". Pigou's (Rev. Francis) Faith and Practice ; Sermons at St. Philip's, Regent Street. Small Svo. 6s. Shipley's (Rev. Orby) Six short Sermons on Sin. Lent Lec- tures at S. Alban the Martyr, Hol- born. Small Svo. is. Williams's (Rev. Isaac) The Characters of the Old Testa- ment. In a Series of Sermons. Crown Svo, 5^. Williams's (Rev. Isaac) Female Characters of Holy Scripture. In a Series of Sermons. Crown Svo. 5J-. Williams's (Rev. Isaac) The Holy Days throughout the Year. Small Svo. 5^. 6d. 30 4Hcssvs. flibington's f ubikations FAMILY PRAYERS Goulburn's (Dean) Family Prayers, arranged on the Liturgical Principle, Large type. Crown Svo. 3J-. 6d. Cheap Edition. i8mo. IS. Hook's (Dean) Book of Family Prayer. i8mo. 2s. Medd's (Rev. P. G.) Household Prayer, from Ancient and Authorized Sources : with Morning and Evening Readings for a Month. Small Svo. 4J. 6d. Duncombe's (Hon. Augustus) Manual of Family Devo- tions, arranged from the Book of Common Prayer. Small Svo. 3^. 6d. Gierke's (Archdeacon) Dally Devotions ; or, Short Morning and Evening Services for the use of a Churchman's Household. iSmo. is. The Hours of the Passion; with Devotional Forms for Private and Household use. i2mo. 6r. Family Prayers from '' The Guide to Heaven." For the Working Classes. Compiled by a Priest. Edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Rector of Clewer. Crown Svo. 2d., or cloth limp, 4//. SACRED POETRY Lyte's (H. F.) Miscellaneous Poems. Small Svo. ^s. Bright's (Canon) Hymns and other Poems. Small Svo. 4?. 6d. Monsell's (Rev. Dr.) Parish Musings; or, Devotional Poems. Small Svo. ^s. Also a Cheaper Edition, iSmo. Limp cloth, is. ()d. ; or in cover, is. Mant's (Bishop) Ancient Hymns from the Roman Breviary. For Domestic Use every Morning and Evening of the Week, and on the Holy Days of the Church. To which are added, Original Hymns, principally of Commemoration and Thanksgiving for Christ's Holy Ordinances. New Edition. Small Svo. $s. Hymns and Poems for the Sick and Suffering ; in con- nection with the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. Edited by the Rev. T. V. Fosbery, M.A. Small Svo. 3^. 6d. BIckersteth's (E. H.) Yesterday, To-day, and For Ever : a Poem, in Twelve Books. Small Svo. 6s. BIckersteth's (E. H.) The Two Brothers, and other Poems. Small Svo. 6s. BOOKS FOR CHURCH SCHOOLS, PAROCHIAL LIBRARIES, Etc. Bright's (Canon) Faith and Life ; Readings for the greater Holy- Days, and the Sundays from Advent to Trinity. Compiled from Ancient Writers. Small 8vo. 5^-. Thomas k Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ. i6mo. is. Staley's (Bishop) Five Years' Church Work in the Kingdom of Hawaii. With Map and Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo. 5^-. Taylor's (Bishop Jeremy) The Holy Living and The Holy Dying. One Volume. i6mo. 2s. 6d. James's (Canon) Comment upon the Collects. i2mo. 3^-. 6d. Goulburn's(Dean)Thoughts on Personal Religion. Small 8vo. 6s. 6d. Goulburn's (Dean) The Pursuit of Holiness : a Sequel to "Thoughts on Personal Religion," intended to carry the Reader some- what further onward in the Spiritual Life. Small 8vo. 5j-. Goulburn's (Dean) Intro- duction to the Devotional Study of the Holy Scriptures. Small 8vo. y. 6d. Goulburn's (Dean) The Idle Word : Short Religious Essays upon the Gift of Speech. Small 8vo.. Goulburn's (Dean) Office of the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer. Small 8vo. 6s. Blunt's (Rev. J. H.) House- hold Theology ; a Handbook of Re- ligious Information respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, the Ministry, Divine Wor- ship, the Creeds, &c., &c. i8mo. 3^. 6d. Phillpotts's (M. C.) The Manor Farm : a Tale. Small 8vo. With Illustrations. 3^. 6d. Phillpotts's (M. C.) The Hillford Confirmation : a Tale. i6mo. is. Adams's (Rev. W.) Sacred Allegories :— The Shadow of the Cross— The Distant Hills— The Old Man's Home— The King's Mes- sengers. With numerous Illustra- ' tions. Small 8vo. 55-. Soimeme : a Story of a Wilful Life. Small 8vo. 3^. 6d Neale's (Rev. J. M.) Her- bert Tresham : a Tale of the Great Rebellion. Small 8vo. 3^. 6d. Romanoff's (H. C.) Sketches of the Rites and Customs of the Greco- Russian Church. Crown 8vo. "js. 6d. Keys to Christian Know- ledge. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d. each. The Book of Common Prayer. The Holy Bible. Church History (Ancient). The Narrative of the Four Gospels. Christian Doctrine and Practice. (Founded on the Church Cate- chism.) The Acts of the Apostles. Davys's (Bishop) Plain and Short History of England for Chil- dren. With Twelve Coloured Illus- trations. Square Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d. Gould's (Rev. S. Baring) Curious Myths of the Middle Ages. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. The Life of Madame Louise De France, Daughter of Louis XV., also known as the Mother Terese de S . Augustin. Crown 8vo. 6s. A Dominican Artist : A Sketch of the Life of the Rev. Pere Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. Crown 8vo. 9^. Trelawny's (Rev. C. T. Collins) Perranzabuloe, the Lost Church Found. Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d. 32 McsBxs. IS^ibington's J3ubIimtions CATENA CLASSICORUM a ©cries of ClaSie^ical 3iutf\oxgy EDITED BY MEMBERS OF BOTH UNIVERSITIES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF The Rev. ARTHUR HOLMES, M.A. SENIOR FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND PREACHER AT THE CHAPEL ROYAL, WHITEHALL, And The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, M.A. PRINCIPAL OF BRIGHTON COLLEGE, LATE SENIOR STUDENT AND TUTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD. Crown 8vo. The following Parts have bee?t already published : — SOPHOCLIS TRAGOEDIAE, edited by R. C. Jebb, M.A., Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Public Orator of the University. The Electra. 3^. 6d. The Ajax. 3^. 6d. JUVENALIS SATIRAE, edited by G. A. Simcox, M.A., Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Queen's College, Oxford. Thirteen Satires, y. 6d. THUCYDIDIS HISTORIA, edited by Charles Bigg, M.A., Principal of Brighton College; late Senior Student and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. Books I. and II. 6s. DEMOSTHENIS ORATIONES PUBLICAE, edited by G. H. Heslop, M.A., late Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford ; Head Master of St. Bees. The Olynthiacs. 2s. 6d. The Philippics. 3J-. ARISTOPHANIS COMOEDIAE, edited by W. C. Green, M.A., late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Assistant Master at Rugby School. The Acharnians and the Knights. 4^. The Clouds. 3^. 6d. The Wasps. 3,?. bd. ISOCRATIS ORATIONES, edited by John Edwin Sandys, B.A., Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Cambridge, Ad Demonicum et Panegyricus. 4.^. 6d. PERSII SATIRARUM LIBER, edited by A. Pretor, M. A., of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Classical Lecturer of Trinity Hall. 3.-. 6d. HOMERI ILIAS, edited by S. H. Reynolds, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Books I. to XII. 6s. TERENTII COMOEDIAE, edited by T. L. Papillon, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford, and late Fellow of Merton. Andria et Eunuchus. /[s. 6d. Ki