Exactly in accord with this teaching is the language of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which, it will be remembered, dates from the same period. In this a violent and rather coarse attack is made on both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, or "impanation," as it is called; and the "real presence is positively denied.1 On a review of these and other facts, there can be little doubt that in 1552 and 1553 the formularies of the Church in this country were (to say the least) intended to be acceptable to those who sympathised with the Zwinglian School of Reformers in regard to the Eucharist, and who held that the Presence was merely figurative. But happily the accession of Elizabeth, after the Marian reaction, brought with it a return to wiser counsels, and a great and marked change in the language of our formularies. In the Prayer Book (1559) the words of administration used in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. were restored, in addition to the formula of the second book, so that there might be once more a definite recognition of the Presence at the moment of administration to each individual; and the "black rubric" was altogether omitted. In the Article, when it was republished a few years later (1563), the third paragraph, denying the "real and

1 Reformatio Legum Eccles., De Hares. c. 19; cf. De Sacramentis, c. 4: "Cum autem ad hæc omnia nec transubstantiatione opus sit, nec illa quam fingere solebant reali præsentia corporis Christi, sed potius hæc curiosa hominum inventa primum contra naturam humanam sint a Filio Dei nostra causa sumptam, deinde cum Scripturis divinis pugnent, et præterea cum universa sacramentorum ratione confligant, ista tanquam frivola quædam somnia merito desecanda curavimus, et oblivione obruenda, præsertim cum magnum ex illis et perniciosum agmen superstitionum in ecclesia Dei importatum fuerit." This may well be contrasted with the much more sober condemnation of transubstantiation in the Articles.

2 The rubric was restored in 1662 with the very important substitution of "corporal" for "real and essential."

bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and blood," was also deleted,1 and in its place was inserted our present third paragraph, asserting in careful and accurate language that "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." The author of this paragraph was Edmund Guest, Bishop of Rochester, who says in a letter to Cecil that is still preserved, that it was of "mine own penning," and that it was not intended to "exclude the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof." 2

Naturally these changes were not agreeable to the Puritan party in the Church, for they amounted to a complete change. Whereas in the latter years of Edward VI.'s reign the formularies had seemed to exclude the doctrine of the real Presence and to incline to Zwinglianism, they were now (at the lowest estimate) patient of a Catholic interpretation, and contained nothing under cover of which the Zwinglianizing party could honestly

1 What makes the omission more noteworthy is that the following clause was presented to the Synod and rejected by it: "Christus in cœlum ascendens, corpori suo Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit, humanæ enim naturæ veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo retinet, quam uno et definito loco esse, et non in multa, vel omnia simul loca diffundi oportet, quum igitur Christus in cœlum sublatus, ibi usque ad finem seculi sit permansurus, atque inde non aliunde (ut loquitur Augustinus) venturus sit, ad judicandum vivos et mortuos, non debet quisquam fidelium, carnis ejus et sanguinis, realem et corporalem (ut loquuntur) presentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri." See Lamb's Historical Account of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 12.

2 The letter quoted in full in G. F. Hodge's Bishop Guest, Articles XXVIII. and XXIX. p. 22.

* See the letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger, quoted on p. 41, and the notice in Strype of the controversies concerning the Real Presence, and of Parker's supposed "Lutheranism," Annals, vol. i. p. 334; cf. Zurich Letters, p. 177.

shelter themselves. Moreover, they have since been supplemented by the clear teaching of the Church Catechism (1604). It follows from all this that the opinions of the Edwardian Reformers, such as Cranmer and Ridley, on the subject of the Holy Communion, have nothing more than an historical interest for us. Destructively they performed a task for which we owe them a great debt, in courageously attacking the medieval teaching on transubstantiation. But the positive character impressed upon the Articles in regard to Eucharistic doctrine is not theirs; nor have their writings any claim to be regarded even as an expositio contemporanea of formularies, which, in their present form, belong to a later date, and to a time when much greater respect was shown to the ancient teaching of the Church.

We are now in a position to consider the substance of the Article as it has stood unchanged since 1563. It contains four paragraphs dealing with the following subjects:

1. The description of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

2. The doctrine of Transubstantiation.

3. The nature of the Presence, and the "mean whereby it is received."

4. Certain practices in connection with the Eucharist.

I. The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

(a) It is a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another. So much was admitted by the Anabaptists, who regarded it as an outward sign of our profession and fellowship, but nothing more. The Article admits that it is this, but it is not only this. Far more important is it to remember that it is rather

(b) A sacrament of our redemption by Christ's

death. It was instituted "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby," and by it we" proclaim the Lord's death till He come" (1 Cor. xi. 26).

(c) To such as rightly (rite), worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking (communicatio) of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. This clause is entirely founded on S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. x. 16, the words of which it follows very closely: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion (rowvwvía, Vulg. communicatio) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion with the Body of Christ?" This passage forms an inspired commentary upon the account of the institution, when (to follow S. Paul's own narrative of it) our Lord "took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of Me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me." The value of the words of the Apostle cannot be overestimated as interpreting the meaning of our Lord's words: "This is My body." They seem conclusive against transubstantiation on the one hand, and against a merely figurative presence on the other. The bread, he says, which we break,1 is it not a кowwvia with the body of Christ? i.e. that which coming between unites us with and makes us partakers of the body; for so we

It is noteworthy that S. Paul's words are "the bread which we break," and "the cup of blessing which we bless," not simply "which we eat and drink." Thus he seems to lay the stress on the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup, i.e. on the consecration with which the Church has always connected the fact of the Presence

may paraphrase the word. Thus the heavenly part of the Sacrament is conveyed to us through the earthly symbol consecrated by Christ's word of power; and the "inward part or thing signified" is, in the emphatic words of the Catechism (rightly emphatic, because the Presence had been explained away by some), "the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Thus the Eucharist is, as Article XXV. maintains, an "effectual sign." It not only typifies, but also conveys; for all who " duly receive these holy mysteries" are fed "with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood" of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

So far the Article has spoken only of the fact of the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, teaching us that it is conveyed to us through "the bread which we break," and "the cup of blessing which we bless." But questions had been raised, and much controversy had taken place with regard to the manner and nature of the Presence; and these could not be altogether passed by without notice. To them, therefore, the next two paragraphs are devoted.

In considering

separately

II. Transubstantiation.

this it will be well to treat

(a) The history of the doctrine, and

(b) The grounds on which it is condemned.

(a) The history of the doctrine.-During the first eight centuries there are singularly few traces of controversy on the subject of the Eucharist, and as a consequence the teaching of the Fathers concerning the Presence is informal and unsystematic. It is, however, quite clear from the language used by them, as well as