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 statements 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 liable 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 regretted that these alterations made by Mr. Bennett in his 3rd edition are unaccompanied by any expression 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 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 boni 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 Williams and Wilson (2 Moore's Reports, New Series, p. 423), their Lordships laid down as follows:

666

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.'

66

So in the judgment in the Gorham case

"The question which we have to decide is, not 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. . . . The 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 construction of all written instruments. We must endeavour to attain for ourselves the true meaning of the language employed, assisted only by the consideration 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 prevailing 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 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 consideration 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. . . . 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

666

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. 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 contained 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 which seem to him to interpret 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 with the 3rd edition of the respondent's work, and having regard to their former decision, that the charge of contradicting the 29th Article of Religion 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 Communion. 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 communicant, and separately from the act of reception by the communicant, and it was contended by counsel under this head that the true Body of Christ meant the natural body. 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 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. 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.

"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 blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. 2. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance 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 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 a 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 Religion 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 condemnation 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 perfect 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 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.'

6

"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 Communion. The Church of England in the passages just cited holds and teaches affirmatively that in the Lord's Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are given to, taken, and received by the faithful communicant. She implies, 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 a 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 exclude. 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 considered, we find nothing in the Articles and Formularies to which the respondent's position is

contradictory 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 assert expressly or by necessary implication, a presence other than spiritual, nor to be necessarily contradictory to the 28th Article of Religion. 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 inference unfavourable to the respondent's statements, but cannot be said to be plainly contradictory 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 communicant 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 substances, 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.' This declaration originally appeared in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., A.D. 1552, in which book the position of kneeling was positively enjoined upon those who received the Sacrament. It was 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 declaration 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 4th 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