PRESENTED BY THE Cfmrci) of €nglant> 11, ADAM STREET, STRAND, LONDON. fatron. The Right Hon. the Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. The Lord Bishop of Ripon. The Lord Bishop of Liverpool. The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. foasimr. Frank A. Bevan, Esq. Sftrrtarg. John Shrimpton. Esq. ftite-fatrons. BX 51A9 .C5 G66 Goode, William, 1801-1868. The nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/natureofchristsp02good THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE EUCHARIST. LONDON : PRINTED BY C. P. UUIXidON, 1, OOUOll 6QUARF, FLEET ST1USET. THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE IN TEE EUCHAEIST: OR, THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE VINDICATED IN OPPOSITION TO THE FICTITIOUS REAL PRESENCE ASSERTED BY ARCHDEACON DENISON, MR. (LATE ARCHDEACON) WILBERFORCE, AND DR. PUSEY: WITH FULL PROOF OF THE REAL CHARACTER OF THE ATTEMPT MADE BY THOSE AUTHORS TO REPRESENT THEIR DOCTRINE AS THAT OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND HER DIVINES. By WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of St. Margaret Lothbury, Londou. " To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood moans Hie receiving bis natural manifestly a forced and late interpretation'; not heard of for oiej/t hundred years or more, and besides absurd, contradictory, and impossible To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood means the receiving bis natural flesh and blood into our mouths, together with thr symhnls, would be running intn the like absurdities with the fanner?— Archdeacon Watebland. " While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, ami went his way." VOL. II. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY T. HATCIIARD, 187, PICCADILLY. 1856. j J TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. II. CHAPTER VI. The testimony of tiie Authorized Formularies of the Cnuucn of England, on the subject of tiiis work 613—765 Section I. Testimony of tho Book of Common Prayer 613 — 637 Section II. Testimony of the Homilie3 . . . » s 637—641 Section III. Testimony of the XXXIX Articles 641—687 Review of the Articles themselves 641 — 665 Extracts from the Expositions of the Articles by Thomas Rogers (665 — 668), John Elis (669, 670), Bp. Bin-net (670—676), Bdw. Welcliman (676, 677), Dr. Bonnet (677), Bishop Beveridge (677—680), Ralph Ford (680—683), J. Veneer (683, 684;, Bp. Tomline (684—687). Section IV. Testimony of the Catechism 687—727 Review of the Catechism Itself 687— 696 Extracts from the Commentaries on the Catechism by Dr. Mayer (697— 701), Dr. R. Sherlock (702), Bp. Nicolson (702—704), The Oxford Cate- chism (704, 705), Dr. Comber (705, 706), Dr. Simon Ford (706), Bp. Ken (706-710), Bp. Williams (710, 711), Abp. Wake (711—713), J. Lewis (713, 714), Bp. Beveridge (714—716), Dr. E. Wells (716, 717), Bp. Burnet (717, 718), J. Ollyffe (718—720), P. Newcome (720, 721), J. Harrison (721, 722), Archd. Waterland (722, 723), Abp. Seeker (723, 724), J. Salter (725), J. Stillingfleet (72&, 726), Bp. Mann (726). Section V. Testimony of tho Formularies of secondary authority in our Church. . 727—732 Jewel's Apology 727—732 Nowell's Catechism 732 Section VI. Testimony of certain works that have at different times received public sanction and authority in our Church 732 738 Edward VI. Catechism 732 733 Reformatio Legnni Kecles 733 735 Bullinger's Dccads 735—738 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PACE Section VII. Testimonies to the agreement of tlic doctrine of onr Formularies with that of the Continental " Reformed Churches," and the early Non- conformists, and its opposition to that of the Papists and Lutherans, on the subject of this work 738—741 Section VIII. Comparison of the expressions in our Formularies, cited by the Authors under review as favorable to their doctrine, with those of the Con- fessions of the Foreign Reformed Churches, and our early Noncon- formists 711—749 Confession of Helvetia of 1566 742 Franco 742 Scotland 742, 743 Belgic Confession 743 Calvin 744, 745 Westminster Confession 746, 747 Catechism 747 Directory for public worship 747, 748 Additions to previous Sections 7 19—755 Iley's Exposition of the Articles 749—754 Ken's Exposition on the Catechism 754 On the words " the faithful" in the Catechism, the word " sign" in Art. XXIX. and the Latiu title of Art. XXIX 754, 755 CHAPTER VII. TnE TESTIMONY OF THE DIVINES OF OUR CHUBCII ON TTTE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK; SHOWING THEIE UNQUALIFIED DEJECTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF A REAL PRESENCE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE P.ODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, EVEN IN A SUPERNATURAL MODE OF EXISTENCE, OR A SPIRITUAL AND IMMATERIAL FORM, IN OR UNDER THE CONSECRATED BREAD AND WINE, OR UNDER THEIR FORMS 756—972 Section I. Preliminary Remarks 756 765 On the phrase " Real Presence" 756, 757 Points on which the testimonies are quoted 758 Authors quoted from, those selected by Archdeacon Denison for his defence 759 Necessity of caution in determining the meaningof the phrases used by an Author 759, 760 On the nature of Aiv'idt'acnn IVnison's doctrine 701, 762 Misapplication of the " Gorham Judgment" to Archdeacon Denison's case 762—764 Section II. Extracts from divines who flourished during the reign of Edward VI. 765— 78S Bishop Ridley 765 -768 Archbishop ( ranmcr 768-777 Bishop Ponet 777—787 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section III. Extracts from the divines who flourished during the first fifty years after the establishment of the Reformation on the accession ol Queen Elizabeth 788-841 Bishop Bilson 769- 806 Bishop Jewel S06-814 Bishop Andrewes , „ 814-822 Richard Honker 822— S26 Bishop Overall Bishop Morton 831—835 Bishop Lake 635-839 Dean Field 639-841 Section IV. Testimony of subsequent Divines 841 — 955 Bishop Jeremy Taylor 842—851 Bishop Cosin 851-856 Bishop Beveridge 856—859 Bishop Patrick 859—864 Dr. Richard Sherlock 864—867 Archbishop Bramhall 867—871 Bishop Forbes 871, 872 Dean Jackson 872- 877 Bishop Field 877— 879 Dr. John Donne 879 - 883 Rev. George Herbert 883 Dean Comber 684—889 Archbishop Tillotson 889, 890 Bishop Ken 892—696 Dean Brevint 897—904 Rev. Herbert Thorndike 904—908 Archdeacon Yardlcy 908—910 Archbishop Wake, including Bishop Stillingfleet 910—912 Archbishop Wake's vindication of our divines from an attempt made by a Romanist, to fix upon them the maintenance of the same doctrine as is imputed to them by Archdeacon Denison 912—916 Remarks on the extracts cited from I>r. Hampden, Bishop of Hereford, the Rev. W. Palmer, and the Rev. H. Brown 917—919 Bishop Burnet, already cited 919 Bishop Bayly 919—923 Dr. Christopher Sutton 923—926 Dr. Henry Hammond 926—932 Robert Nelson, Esq 932— 935 Bishop Thomas Wilson 935-937 Dr. William Nicholls 937, 938 L'F.strange, Sparrow, and Wheatly 933— 939 Dr. Brett 939—942 Rev. John Johnson 942-945 Dr. Felling 945-919 Bishop Warburton 949—952 Archbishop Sharp 952—955 Section V. Remarks on the foregoing testimonies 055— "Sii General remarks showing their opposition to the doctrine of the Authors under review 955— 95S Doctrine maintained by them as a body 958— 960 Remarks on peculiar doctrines of some of them l,6J — 963 APPENDIX. APPENDIX. A. On the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice maintained by Archdeacon Wilherforcc, with evidence of its inconsistency with that of the Fathers 973—978 B. The Communion Service contained in what are called "The Constitu- tions of the Apostles," preserved in the Abyssinian Church 978—981 c. On the subscription to the Augsburg Confession required of Germans ordained by the Anglican Bishop at Jerusalem 981 — 987 613 CHAPTER VI. THE TESTIMONY OF THE AUTHORIZED FORMULARIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. SECTION L Testimony of the Book op Common Prater. I now proceed to point out what is the doctrine of our Church on the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, as manifested in its authorized Formularies, and to show that it is entirely opposed to that of the Authors under review. The first Formulary which I shall consider is, — "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Com- munion," in the Prayer-Book, with its accompanying Rubrics. Archdeacon Wilberforce wishes us to suppose, that it was expressly intended, that this Service, as drawn up for the Prayer- Book of Queen Elizabeth, should be consistent with the doctrine of the Presence which he maintains ; and his proof is, that " it is " theun willing testimony of Burnet, that the ' Communion Book' " was ' so contrived, that it might not exclude the belief of the " corporal presence ; for the chief design of the Queen's Council " was, to unite the nation in one faith, and the greatest part of " the nation continued to believe such a presence.' Elizabeth, " therefore, as he affirms, ordered those statements to be ex- " eluded, by which the worship of Christ's Body, as present in " the Holy Eucharist, might seem to be forbidden." And in order to get rid of the objection derived from the insertion, in 1662, of the Rubric taken from the Second Prayer- Book of Edward VI., he adds, — "And when the Rubric after the Communion Office was intro- 614 duced from Edward Vlth's Second Book, at the last review, (a.d. 1GG2), its words were altered, at the instance of Dr. Gunning, afterwards Bishop of Ely, on purpose that the question might he left as amhiguous as before." 1 Now, even supposing that the Service was so drawn up, it would merely prove, that our Reformers, anxious not to prevent the attendance of the Romanists at church by anything that might unnecessarily offend their prejudices, abstained from inserting in the Communion Service any direct denial of the corporal presence of Christ. But this would afford no evidence that our Church, even in this Service, sanctions the Archdeacon's views. It would merely show, that there is no direct condemnation of them in this particular Service. But the place to which we are to look for a definite statement of the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject is the Thirty-nine Articles; to the reception of which, every minister of our Church is pledged. And what the testimony of those Articles is, we shall consider hereafter. If what he had to prove had been, that persons holding the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, could conscientiously attend this Service of our Church, inas- much as it contained no express condemnation of their doctrine, and had not the rubric forbidding the worship of the body of Christ as present, then his quotation from Bishop Burnet would have been relevant. But beyond that it is useless. But, in fact, though we may readily admit that there is no direct denial of such a presence as the Archdeacon contends for in the Service, exclusive of the rubric, (where, indeed, it was not to be expected,) yet there are passages clearly inconsistent with the maintenance of it, and circumstances connected with the drawing up of the Service which decisively prove the views and intentions of our Reformers on the subject. What these are, I will presently point out. His criticism on the Rubric, re-introduced in 1662 from Edward's Second Prayer-Book, I shall also consider presently. Its omission in the Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth may very probably have been caused by an unwillingness to insert in that 1 Charge of 185 J, at the end of Sermons on the Holj Communion, pp. 297 t 298. 615 book a formal denial of the doctrine of the real substantial presence of Christ's Body. Archdeacon Denison alleges, — This Service " not only con- ** tains no single expression which can be wrested by the most " perverse ingenuity into a denial of that portion of the doctrine " of the Real Presence which is stated in my Proposition, but " it contains very many expressions which have no meaning, " unless it be assumed and allowed that what my Proposition " states is the Truth." 1 Now I will not reply to this in my own words, but in those of the learned Nonjuror, Dr. Brett, whose views were, to a certain extent, similar to those of the Archdeacon. The re- marks of Dr. Brett are founded upon a passage to which Arch- deacon Denison, throughout his whole examination of the Service, never once alludes, namely this j — " 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." Here is a solemn prayer to God, that when we partake of the consecrated elements, we " may be partakers of " Christ's most blessed Body and Blood;" necessarily implying, that we may partake of the elements without being made partakers of Christ's Body and Blood. In fact, if all who par- take of the elements do, as the Archdeacon maintains, neces- sarily partake of Christ's Body and Blood, this prayer becomes a mere mockery. For it is not a prayer for their worthy recep- tion of Christ's Body and Blood, or their reception of them so as to be benefited by them, but merely a prayer that they may receive them. And upon these words Dr. Brett makes the following remarks : — " I was and am very desirous to believe that the Church of Eng- land holds the doctrine so plainly taught by our Saviour. But I know not how to reconcile the Consecration Prayer in the present established Liturgy to this doctrine, for that makes a plain distinc- tion betwixt the Bread and Wine and our Saviour's Body and Blood, when, as Mr. Spinckes shows, and the words will bear no other con- struction than that, it was the Bread which Christ said was his Body ; whereas the Consecration Prayer evidently supposes them to be two distinct things. ' Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures 1 Serin. 2. p. 87; 3rd ed. p. 58. 016 of Bread and Wine, may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood.' Which manifestly implies the Bread and Wine to be distinct or different things from the Body and Blood. For if the Bread be Christ's Body, as Mr. Spinekcs proves the words of Institution teach, then he that receives or partakes of the Bread, must be a partaker of the Body. And except they are supposed to be two things, then the Prayer is, that We, receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be partakers of His Body and Blood. This non- sensical interpretation must be given of this Petition, if the Prayer is understood in the sense which Mr. Spinckes declares and proves to be the necessary inevitable consequence of our Saviour's words, and which I verily believe to be so. But the ancient Church, as appears from all the Liturgies, never prayed in this manner. They never prayed, that, receiving Bread and Wine, they might be par- takers of Christ's Bcdy and Blood, but that they might be worthy ■partakers, that they might partake of it to their benefit, and not to then - condemnation." 1 Such is the statement of a learned divine, holding the doctrine, not of the presence of the natural body and blood of Christ, but of their life-giving virtue, in the consecrated bread and wine, so as to constitute a virtual presence of that body and blood in them, and desirous of finding that the Church of England, in her Communion Service, sanctioned this modified view of the doctrine of a Real Presence. He declares it utterly impossible to reconcile this passage with that view, while Archdeacon Denison informs us, that the Service "contains no single expression which can be wrested by the most perverse ingenuity into a denial" even of his doctrine of the Real Presence. Which of the two is in the right, I leave the reader to judge, and cannot but add, that not only is this passage fatal to the supposition that the doctrine here opposed is that of the Church of England, but Archdeacon Denison's prsetermission of it, in his examination of our Formularies, shows how superficial or partial his examination of them has been. I might add other passages from the same Service, which, though not so decisive, still show clearly, though indirectly, that it was drawn up on principles opposed to those of the Authors under review. 1 Bbett's Discourse concerning the necessity of discerning the Lord's Body in the Holy Communion. London, 1720. Preface, pp. xix — xxi. G17 For instance, in a prayer at the conclusion of the Service, those who drew it up evidently intended to intimate that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is limited to those who have " duly received" the holy mysteries. For the words are, — " We . . . thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe " to feed ms, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with " the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy " Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." And what renders this pas- sage much more significant is the fact (which I shall presently notice more particularly), that it was altered to the expressions now found in it from words that might seem to imply that all received the Body and Blood of Christ. But the most significant evidence derivable from the Com- munion Service on this subject, is, I think, to be found in the alterations made from the first Liturgy of 1549 in the revision of 1552, and continued in subsequent revisions ; to which therefore I shall now proceed to direct the attention of the reader. It will be found that in the Second Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. (that of 1552), and the subsequent ones, all those expressions in the first Prayer-Book, published in 1549, which might see?n to indicate, that the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ was to be looked for in the consecrated elements, or as so present that all the communicants indiscriminately partook of that Body and Blood, are carefully expunged or altered. Thus, in the Liturgy of 1549, in the address commencing, — " Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind," &c. are the words, — " And to the end that we should alway remember the " exceeding love of our Master and only Saviour, Jcsu Christ, " thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his " precious blood-shedding he hath obtained to us, he hath left " in those holy mysteries, as a pledge of his love, and a continual " remembrance of the same, his own blessed Body and precious " Blood, for us to feed upon spiritually, to our endless comfort " and consolation." But in the Liturgy of 1552, and the sub- sequent ones, instead of the words, " he hath left," &c. are these, — " he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love and [and for a, in ed. of 1G62] continual remem- brance of his death, to our great and endless comfort;" — G18 evidently to avoid the use of words which might be interpreted to signify a real presence in the Bread and Wine. But the most important alteration is in the Prayer of Conse- cration. In the Liturgy of 15 i9 occur these words : — " With " thy Holy Spirit and word 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." Now, no doubt, these words may be so ex- plained as not to countenance the doctrine of a real presence in the consecrated elements, but they are very open to an inter- pretation of that kind. And accordingly we find Bucer, in his Remarks on the Prayer-Book, written at the request of Arch- bishop Cranmer for his use in the revision of the book, taking particular exception to them as open to an interpretation involving the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, and he proceeds to use words which exclude Archdeacon Denison's doctrine as much as that of the Romanists. He says, — " The holy Fathers understood no other change of those elements from these words, than that by which the bread and wine, remaining in every respect in the properties of their own nature, were then so changed from their vulgar and common use, and as it were trans- elemented, as to he symbols (symbola) of the same Body and Blood, and so of Christ himself, God and man, the bread which came down from heaven to give life to the world : so that whoever should take them according to our Lord's institution, and with true faith in him, should be partakers of a fuller communion with the Lord, and enjoy him for the meat and drink of eternal life, by which they might more and more live in him, and have him living in themselves." 1 Accordingly these words were altered, and remain altered, to the very words which we have seen Dr. Brett quoting as proof that the Church of England holds, that the consecrated Bread and Wine may be received where the Body and Blood of Christ are not received, and therefore do not include in themselves a real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ ; namely the words, — " 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." 1 Buceei Censura in Ordinat. Ecclcsiast. Op. cd. Basil. 1577. p. -471. 619 Again, immediately after the Prayer of Consecration in the Prayer- Book of 1549, occur the words, — " beseeching thee that " whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may " worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son "Jesus Christ" — words which might be interpreted to imply the possibility of the wicked and faithless receiving them. But in the subsequent revisions of the Book, this Prayer is altered into, — " beseeching thee, that all we who are partakers of " this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and " heavenly benediction." So again in the Prayer, — "We do not presume," &c. were the words, — " so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, in these holy mysteries," &c. These words might convey the idea, that we ate Christ's flesh and drank his blood in eating and drinking the bread and wine, as I just now remarked, and accordingly, in the subsequent re- visions, the words "in these holy mysteries" were omitted. More especially observable is the following alteration in the Prayer at the end, beginning, — "Almighty and everliving God," &c. In the Prayer-Book of 1549, we find in that Prayer the following words, — " hast vouchsafed to feed us in " these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most " precious Body and Blood of thy Sou our Saviour Jesus " Christ, and hast assured us (duly receiving the same) of thy " favour and goodness towards us." In the first and all subsequent revisions these words were changed into the follow- ing, — " dost vouchsafe to feed us which have duly received these " holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious " Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and " dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards " us." A more expressive alteration there could not be. Once more, in the Rubric at the end of the Service as it stood in the Prayer-Book of 1549, occurred the following words respecting the division of the bread : — " And men must not " think less to be received in part, than in the whole, but in " each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ." In the next and all subsequent revisions these words were omitted. Thus, all the passages in the Prayer-Book of 1549, which 020 might 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 consecration to, the consecrated Bread and Wine, or that the faithless receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper as well as the faithful, have been altered in ail the subsequent revisions, so as no longer to countenance that view; and no passage can be found in our present Prayer- Book that intimates more than the presence of Christ in the rite to the faithful, and the spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood, in the act of communion, by the faithful. Still further evidence of the doctrine of our Church on this subject, to be found in this portion of its Formularies, i3 derivable from the Rubrics. The first to which I would call the attention of the reader is, that at the end of the Office for the Communion of the Sick, which is as follows : — "But if a man, " either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of " warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to " receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not " receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, the Curate " shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, " and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ has suffered death " upon the Cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemp- " tion, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, " and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and " drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to " his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament " with his mouth." Now in these words it is clearly admitted, that, under the circumstances here spoken of, a man may eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ without receiving the sacrament at all. Thus much, therefore, is certainly proved by it, that our Church holds, that the Body and Blood of Christ may be received independently of a reception of the consecrated ele- ments, and therefore that there may be a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, though they may not be in the elements. But the argument raised from this passage, that such is the nature of the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in that rite, is met by the argument, that the case contemplated in the 621 Rubric is a peculiar case, in which we may suppose communion with our Lord's Body and Blood to be given in an extraordinary way. And we are reminded 1 of a somewhat similar passage in the Salisbury Manual 2 of Romish times, in which a sick man, unable to communicate, is told in the words of St. Augustine, "Believe and thou hast eaten." Now these considerations, no doubt, abate the force of the argument from this passage as to the doctrine of our Church, but certainly do not wholly destroy it. The Rubric in the Salisbury Manual was probably inserted there before the doc- trine of the Romish Church was fixed according to its present form, and would not probably be received, much less inserted, by the present Church of Rome. The Rubric inserted in our own Prayer-Book w T as placed there in opposition to the com- monly received notion of the time, that actual communion in the Eucharist was necessary to enable a man to feed on the Body and Blood of Christ. Moreover, the admission, that under certain circumstances the Body and Blood of Christ may be received without a participation of the Eucharist, goes a long way to prove, that even when the consecrated elements are partaken of, the Body and Blood of Christ are not supposed to be partaken of as in the elements. I am quite ready, however, to admit that the case treated of in the Rubric is a peculiar case, and that consequently any general argument raised out of it is not conclusive ; and therefore I do not put it forward as a decisive evidence on the subject. But a much more important Rubric is that which occurs at the end of the ordinary Communion Service, which I will first quote entire : — " Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the communicants should receive the same kneeling ; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ 1 See Wilberforce's Charge, p. 281. 3 The following Rubric at the end of the Form of Communion for the Pick; — " Deinde communicatur infirmus, nisi prius communicatus fuerit, et nisi de vomitu, vel alia irrevcrentia probabiliter timeatur : in quo casu dicat sacerdos infirmo: Frater, in hoc casu sufficit tibi vera fides, et bona voluntas; tamtam crede et mandueasti." Man. Sarisb. fol. 97. I cite, the passage from Palmer's Origincs Liturgies;. 4th ed. 1845. vol. 2. pp. 233, 234. 622 therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might other- wise ensue ;) yet, lest the same kneeling should hy any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and ob- stinacy, be misconstrued and depraved : It is here declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and 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 of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." Now here we find the mind of our Church distinctly declared on two points ; — first, that in the Eucharist there must be no adoration paid, either to " the sacramental bread and wine," or to "any corporal [which is equivalent to, bodily] presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood," and that the posture of kneeling used in our Church is only " 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 as might otherwise ensue;" — secondly, that "the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here," because it is " against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." In both these points the doctrine of the Authors under review is directly opposed to this Rubric. For these Authors hold, that there is a real substantial presence of Christ's natural body and blood in a supernatural way, in or under the Bread and Wine, to which a doration is due ; and that they are so joined to the elements as to be received by the mouth of all the communicants, and therefore are present here at the same time that they are in heaven, in direct opposition to the statement of the Rubric that they are not here. And the mode in which it is endeavoured to make this view consistent with the doctrine of the Rubric, namely, by avoiding the use of the phrase "corporal presence," and saying that the presence is the presence of the body in a supernatural way, or, a spiritual and 623 immaterial form, is utterly futile. For, whatever words may be used, it is undeniable that a presence of the Body of Christ, such that it is swallowed by the mouth of the communicant, is a corporal presence. In fact, the substantial presence of Christ's body is a bodily or corporal presence, for the word corporal is not more limited to the sense of something material than the word body is. And if a human body can be present in an im- material form, there can be a corporal presence of an immaterial kind. And as to the notion of a natural and a supernatural presence of Christ's Body, by the former of which it is in heaven, and by the latter in the Eucharist, the Rubric admits of no such distinction. Its statement is perfectly general, that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be in two places at the same time. To limit this statement to the mean- ing, that it cannot be so in a natural way, but that, while it can only be present in one place in a natural way, it may be present in an infinite number of places in a supernatural way, is a mode of interpretation which would make all dogmatic statements perfectly useless. It is clear, indeed, that the Body of Christ would be in two places at the same time, if it was both in heaven, and at the same time in the mouth of a communicant on earth. Nor will it be denied, I suppose, that this Rubric was in- tended to oppose the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Now the Church of Rome does not mean by corporal presence a gross material presence, but precisely that sort of presence which is imagined by the Authors under review, namely, a substantial presence of the body after a supernatural manner in a spiritual and immaterial form. For the Council of Trent admits, that our Saviour, " according to his natural manner of existence," is always seated in Heaven, but maintains that he is present in the Eucharist " sacramentally, in his own sub- stance," in a supernatural way of existence. 1 And this is the doctrine of all the Romish writers of any authority on the 1 Nec enira haec inter se pusrnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram Patris in coelis assideat, juxta modum existeudi naturalem ; et ut multis nihilo- minus aliis in locis sacranientaliter prasens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione, quain etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus, et eonstantissime credere debeinus. Co.ncil. Tbid. Sess. xiii. cap. 1. 624 subject. 1 " They apprehend," says Bishop Burnet, 2 " that Christ's Body is present after the manner of a Spirit, without extension or the filling of space." But this presence they all maintain to be a corporal presence, a real bodily presence, though vouchsafed in a supernatural way. Thus also the Lutherans, while they of course maintain, that the Body of Christ is received "not in a Capernaite way, but in a supernatural and heavenly manner," 3 yet nevertheless, con- tending for a presence of that Body like that advocated by the Authors under review, call it, as a matter of course, a corporal presence. And, pleading for it, they say, " We find not only that the Roman Church affirms the corporal presence of Christ, but that the Greek Church both now holds, and also formerly held, the same view." 4. And this presence the Rubric rejects, on the ground that, our Saviour's body being a natural body, it cannot be really and substantially present in two places at the same time. Archdeacon Denison has omitted to notice this Rubric. And the explanation of it given by Archdeacon Wilberforce is as follows. Endeavouring to obtain some support for his argu- ment from the fact that the posture of kneeling is retained among us in the reception of the Eucharist, which he tells us " is a fact of great moment, by which the Church of England is allied to the ancient faith," 5 he adds, that "this fact is not neutralized by the somewhat ambiguous Rubric which was affixed to the Communion Office in 1662 6 urging that instead of the words "real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood," (which were the words of this Rubric in the Prayer-Book of 1552,) were substituted in the revision of 1662 the words "corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and 1 See for instance, — Bellarm. De Euch. lib. i. c. 2, 3, 5, 10, &c. ; Holdex. Anal, fid.; Berington and Kirk's, "The Faith of Catholics," 3rd ed. vol. 2. p. 383; Gother's Papist misrepresented and represented; &c. 5 Btonet's Comment, on XXXIX. Articles, Art. 28. 3 Non Capernaitice, sed supernaturali et coelesti modo. Form. Concord. Pt. 1. loc. vii. aff. 6. Libr. Symb. Eccl. Luth. ed. Hase, 1846. p. 600. * Compcrimus non tantnm Romanam Ecclesiavn affirmare corporalem Christi prssentiara, sed idem et mine sentire, et olim etiam sensisse, Gracam Ecclesiain. Ibid. Pt. 2. loc. vii. ib. p. 728. 5 Wilb. Dootr. of Ench. p. 299; 3rd ed. p. 257. e lb. 025 blood," and therefore that we are not forbidden now to hold, that " though no adoration be due to the bread and wine, or to any such corporal presence as the senses can take cognizance of, yet that Christ's Body and Blood, really present under the forms of bread and wine, as the inward part or res sacramenti, are en- titled to and receive adoration," and " that the presence of his Body and Blood is witnessed by the adoration to which they are entitled." 1 Now here, as in other cases, if the Archdeacon, instead of quoting a few words of the Rubric, calculated only to cloud the matter, had told the whole truth, the reader would at once have seen that his inference is unfounded. For the Rubric in another part expressly tells us, why the posture of kneeling was retained, namely, " 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 otherwise ensue." This posture, therefore, is not retained as an act of adoration to any supposed real presence of Christ under the elements ; for, if this had been the case, it would have been the special reason why kneeling was requisite. In fact, to condemn kneeling to the consecrated elements because of a supposed corporal presence of Christ in them, and at the same time to advocate kneeling to them on account of a real presence of Christ in them, called " supernatural," " essential," and " substantial," is a distinction which, I trust, will ever be left in the hands of those who have invented it. And as to the alteration of the words " real and essential presence " into " corporal presence," (to which the Archdeacon again refers in his Charge, p. 298) whatever may have been the reason for it, the change will certainly not justify the Archdeacon's views ; because the presence he supposes is a corporal presence ; as much a corporal presence as that contended for by the Romanists. In his view of the phrase " real presence," it is equivalent to " corporal presence. " 3 1 Ibid. pp. 300, 301 ; 3rd ed. pp. 258, 259. 1 The Archdeacon will find this expressly maintained by the Romanists. Thus Woodhead, in speaking of this change in the Rubric, says, — " If we do not take pnesealia eorporalis or pnesentia naturalin in such a sense as they [that they] S S G2G The reason for the change of the words " real and essential " into " corporal," I humbly take to be, that the communicant may properly adore Christ as, in one sense of the words, really and essentially present in the Lord's Supper, but not as cor- porally present; and therefore that it was thought better to substitute tbat word for the other two. It will be observed, that in both Rubrics, the question is as to the presence in the Lord's Supper, not specially in or under the elements. The words in the first Rubric were, that no adoration is " done or ought to be done," "either unto the sacramental bread and wine there [i. e., " in the administration of the Lord's Supper "] bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence, there being, of Christ's natural flesh and blood." Now it might reasonably be thought, that these words, applying to all that took place in the administration of the Lord's Supper, went a little too far ; as in one meaning of the words "real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood," Christ might be considered as present to the faithful receiver in the administration of the rite, and therefore the word corporal was substituted for them. imply the presence of some corporal or natural accidents or properties by Divine power separable (as some are, the essence still preserved, and who knows exactly how many : in which respect Christ's Body is denied, as hy the English, so BY the Rojian and Lutheran Churches, to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo or naturali) : but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body ; thus will real or essential presence be the same with corporal and natural." And then he adds, very justly, that " the essential or substantial" presence is denied as much as "the natural," "when- ever this reason in both is added for it, viz., because Idem corpus non potest esse siimd in diversis locis ; for this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one as well as the other, the real and essential presence as well as corporal and natural." And therefore he points out that this change in the Rubric cannot justify any in holding the real bodily presence, seeing that the same reason is retained ; ob- serving, "Let them express this essential or substantial presence of Clirist's Body in the Eucharist how they please, by calling it mystica, spiritualis, symbolica, sacramentalis, or the like ; yet if the presence of the essence or substance be still retained, they are eased no more thus from maintaining that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis (or ubi) simul, than any other party which hold any grosser presence there." " In my apprehension either these our English divines must affirm this proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; or must cease to assert any real, essential, or substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, eontradistinct to [what he, like the Archdeacons, is pleased to call] the sense of the Zuinglians." — (Woodhead's Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist. Oxf. 1687. 4to. pp. 18—20.) 627 Let us now proceed to notice the passages to which the Authors under consideration refer as supporting their doctrine. First, Archdeacon Denison's references. He first adduces the fact, that there is a warning against receiv- ing the sacrament unworthily ; and he hesitates not definitely to assign as the reason for this, that there was held to be a " real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist ' under the form of Bread and Wine.' " 1 Such is his first proof ! Will the reader expect me to take any further notice of it ? I presume not, especially after the proof I have given above, 3 that our Church is not responsible for the phrase here referred to. He next proceeds to the Rubrics, and he quotes those that order persons who wish to be partakers of the Communion to send their names to the Curate the day before, &c. And he tells us that they imply : " 1. That all come to partake of a Holy Thing. " 2. That all may partake of that Holy Thing as they ought " not. 3. That the Holy Thing of which they come to partake " is the same in all cases." 3 No doubt, setting aside an ambiguity in the phraseology of the third point here mentioned, these statements are perfectly true. All come to partake of " a Holy Thing," namely, that which has been set apart and consecrated as sacred symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ ; and all may partake of that " Holy Thing" unworthily; and that Holy Thing of which the communicants come to partake orally aud outwardly, is the same in all cases. And it is an awful desecration of holy things and sacred mysteries when the wicked partake of them. The wicked and the faithful equally partake of the sacrament, but not of that which the sacrament represents, as Augustine over and over again testifies. But, so far as concerns spiritual eating and drinking, the wicked and unbelieving do not come to partake of the same Thing as believers come to partake of ; for the latter come to eat spiritually of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which they are by faith made partakers, while the unbelieving do not come for any such purpose. 1 Scrm. 2. p. 91 ; 3rd ed. p. 60. 2 Sec pp. 40—48 above. 3 p. 94; 3rd ed. p. 62. s s 2 628 And yet Archdeacon Denison tells us, that these Rubrics " appear to" him "to be conclusive upon the matter !" He proceeds to the " Exhortation," and argues at some length, that " it is the same Holy Sacrament which is ' so divine " and comfortable a thing to them who receive it worthily,' " which is ' so dangerous to them that will presume to receive " it unworthily.' " 1 No doubt it is : because both the faithful and the faithless receive the same Holy Sacrament, but it is a divine and comfortable thing only to those who receive it worthily, because, in the language of the same Service else- where, God vouchsafes to feed those who duly receive these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son Jesus Christ. But to this the Archdeacon replies, that the word " sacra- ment" means more here than the outward part or sign, and attempts to prove it, first, because it is called " that Holy Sacra- ment," as if the elements were not to be considered holy after consecration except his doctrine were true ; secondly, because it is used to denote the same thing in all cases, so that those who affirm this " cannot maintain it upon their own principles," when in fact what we contend for is, that all do receive the same thing orally and outwardly, and it is of this outwardly received sacrament that the " Exhortation" is speaking, admonishing us so to receive it as that we may receive also the thing signified by it. And he adds, that, besides the word " sacrament," the words " mystery," " communion," and " table" are all similarly used, and to all the word " holy" is prefixed, which he thinks is another conclusive proof of his doctrine. Of this I leave the reader to judge. He admits that in the Catechism the word " sacrament" is used to express "the outward part or sign," but he says, — " What I contend for is, that the word * sacramentum' or " ' sacrament,' when used apart from the above distinction,— " [i.e. the distinction between the " sacramentum," the " res " sacramenti," and the "virtus sacramenti,"] and a fortiori the " words ' Holy Sacrament' — is neither in this, nor in any other " place, either in the Catechism or elsewhere, used by the Church " to denote 'the outward part or sign' only."- But I must 1 p. 98 ; 3rd o.l. p 66. * p. 101 ; 3rd ed. p. 67. 629 remind the Archdeacon, that it is not what he " contends for," but what he proves, that will alone benefit his cause. The con- strained admission of the Archdeacon, that the Catechism does in one place speak of the word " sacrament" as denoting " the outward part or sign only," is fatal to his cause, because the word is not applicable at all to the bread and wine until they are consecrated ; and, therefore, as the term sacrament, when used of the elements, must refer to the consecrated elements, and yet the term, when used iu the Catechism with reference to the elements, is (by the Archdeacon's admission) said there to denote " the outward part or sign only," it follows, that the consecrated elements are the outward part or sign only. The Catechism distinctly says, that by the word " sacrament" is meant " an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," and that the outward and visible sign in the Lord's Supper is " bread and wine." But they are not so until they are consecrated, and set apart as the sacrament. And in the other parts of the Catechism, where the word " sacrament" is used, it is used, not with reference to the elements, but to the whole rite ; as when it says, that there are two sacraments, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, and that there are two parts in a sacrament, " the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace." In the former case the difference in the usage of the word is manifest ; in the latter it is equally undeniable, because the word had been before defined as meaning "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." And this use of the word in a twofold sense is common to all treatises on the subject. 1 And it is evident that the Catechism follows this double use of the word, and that, according to it, when the word is used of the thing received, it denotes the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace ; and when it is used of the rite it means a rite in which there are two parts, " the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace." And that these two parts properly belong to the rite, no one denies ; but it does not follow, that if men come unworthily to it, the grace is given by God. If it were so, it would follow, that adults coming in vice and hypocrisy to baptism, necessarily receive the " inward and spiritual grace" of baptism, namely, "a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness," and are made " the children of 1 See Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, Pref. Works, P. S. ed. Pt. i., p. 3. The passage will be found below, chap vii. § 2, under " Cranmer." 630 grace." And to this awful assertion has the Archdeacon been driven in order to uphold his doctrine of the sacraments. 1 But before I quit the Archdeacon's remarks upon this " Ex- hortation," I must point the reader's attention to another illus- tration of his mode of dealing with these matters. The " Ex- hortation," it will be remembered, is addressed to the "re- ligiously and devoutly disposed," stating that the sacrament is " to be by them received in remembrance of Christ's meritorious death and passion;" and with reference to them it is stated, that God has given his Son " to be our spiritual food and suste- nance in that holy sacrament." The Archdeacon, omitting all notice of the fact that the parties spoken of are the "religiously and devoutly disposed," says that the Exhortation declares that the Sacrament " is to be received by Christ's people ' in remem- brance of his meritorious cross and passion ;' " and then having identified " Christ's people" with " all the baptized," infers that the doctrine of this Exhortation is, that Christ " gives himself for the food of all the baptized," and that "for all the baptized is provided in the Holy Communion the gift of his Body and Blood, to be their ( spiritual food and sustenance,' and all who come to the Lord's Table receive his Body and his Blood." 2 This needs no comment. The objection more than once urged by Archdeacon Denison, that because a sacrament is said to consist of two parts, therefore if a person does not receive both parts he does not receive a sacrament, is such a manifest verbal quibble, that I can hardly conceive any one to be deceived by it. The oppor- tunity of getting it is obtained by that double use of the word, which the Archdeacon does not seem to have yet recognized. As our Catechism tells us, the thing received as the sacrament is the outward and visible sign ; and therefore, whenever that outward and visible sign, set apart as the sacramental repre- sentative of the Body and Blood of Christ, has been received, the sacrament has been received. And when men are said to receive " the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ " (as in the "Exhortation," in which notice is given of the mini- stration of the Lord's Supper,) it is evident that what is spoken of is the thing received. And from the use of these words we obtain another argument against Archdeacon Denison's view; 1 See Adv. to Serin. 2. p. 66 note ; 3rd ed. p. 43 ; and Serm. 2. pp, 126, 127 ; 3rd ed. p. 86. ; Semi. 2. pp. 97, &8 ; 3rd ed. pp. 65, 66. G31 for if the word " sacrament" meant in this place what he de- clares it to mean, there would be the most absurd tautology, for they would be equivalent to the words, — the bread and body of Christ, and the wine and blood of Christ, of the Body and Blood of Christ. Archdeacon Dcnison has ventured here, in his Notes, to refer to Jewel, Cranmer, and Nowel. That he can have read either of them is utterly irreconcilable with such a reference; and painful it is to see any one in his position so utterly ignorant of the views of these Fathers of our Reformed Church, who have so learnedly and largely entered upon the topics discussed by the Archdeacon in his Sermons, and utterly refuted and over- thrown the doctrine he is attempting to establish as the doctrine of our Church. But I add no more respecting them here, as I shall hereafter give a full account of their statements on the subject. The Archdeacon proceeds to the "Exhortation," used "at the time of the celebration of the Communion," and still more clearly shows his misapprehension of the whole matter, and his total ignorance of the views of those to whom we are indebted for our Formularies, as clearly and frequently expressed in their works. He tells us, that " it assumes that the Bread and " the Cup of which these [i. e. unworthy receivers] may ' pre- " sume to eat and drink' — the Holy Sacrament which these " may receive unworthily — are the same with that Bread and " that Cup of which those eat and drink who eat and drink " worthily." 1 No doubt they are. The Bread and Wine, that is, all that is outwardly and orally received, are just the same things in all cases, whether received by the faithful or the faithless. All receive the same sacrament, but not that which it signifies and symbolizes. And now comes a passage, showing that the Archdeacon is utterly unconscious of the nature of the controversy into which he has thrown himself, utterly unconscious of the doctrine formally and laboriously maintained against the Romanists by (to mention no others) Cranmer, Ridley, and Jewel. He says, — " In what respect the same ? Is it meant that in both " cases that Bread and that Cup — that Holy Sacrament — are " simply Bread and Wine after consecration, as before ? No — 1 Scrm. 2. pp. 103, 104; 3rd ed. p. C'J. 632 " it is confessed that this cannot be what is meant — it is con- " fessed upon all hands, that to those receiving worthily they " are certainly not simply Bread and Wine after consecration " as before : that, after consecration, they are to these the Body " and the Blood of Christ." 1 Nothing of the kind. No such confession would be thought of (that is, in the sense in which the Archdeacon uses the words 2 ) by those who hold the doctrine of Cranmer, Ridley, and Jewel. The consecrated elements are in themselves simply Bread and Wine, as they were before con- secration. The only change that has taken place respecting them is, that they are now set apart and made sacred as the signs and symbols of the most holy Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore, as so consecrated according to the Divine precept, are holy things, of which he who partakes unworthily is guilty of doing dishonour to the Body and Blood of Christ, which they represent; and of which he who partakes worthily is, through their instrumentality, brought int^ ^