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 manner or under the conditions in and under which material bodies are present or exist in space; that it must mean or include any presence whatever in the elements, as contradistinguished from a presence to the spiritual apprehension of the receiver. There can be no question, it was argued, as to the mode or manner of the presence; for no mode or manner of presence is conceivable which would 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 inferences, 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 reasoning 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 reception 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 means 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 equivalent 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 introduced 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 condemnation 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 respondent has nowhere alleged in terms a 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,' 'mystical,' 'ineffable.' The next charge against the respondent is, that he has maintained that the Communiontable 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 maintained by the respondent. That she has deliberately ceased to do so would clearly appear from a comparison of the present Communion Office with that in King Edward's first book, and of this again with the canon in the mass in the Sarum missal. This subject was fully discussed before their Lordships in Westerton v. Liddell, when it was de

cided 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 communicants were to partake of the Lord's Supper.' The 31st Article of Religion, after laying down the proposition (which is adopted also in words nearly the same, in the Prayer of Consecration), that the offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemp tion, 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 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 propitiatory or atoning sacrifice, effectual as a satisfaction for sin, but of a rite which calls to remembrance and represents before God 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 determined, for so He was but once offered, but commemoratively only; and this commemoration is made to God the Father, and is not a bare remembering 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, therefore, 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 represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us.' (Bull's Works, vol. ii. p. 22.)

66

The distinction between an act by which a satisfaction 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. Το 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. 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 affirms 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 of 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 of Kneeling. The passages relied on as the ground of these charges are the following:

"The reader will observe that in the first two editions, at page 3, the words were:-"The real actual and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches." 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 :-"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 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 vestments, 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 that 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 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, O, and S, hereinbefore set forth in the seventh preceding article you have maintained or affirmed and promulgated 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 respondent's writings above set forth are necessarily repugnant to or contradictory 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 sacramental 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.' It was laid down in Martin v. Mackonochie that such acts as the elevation of the cup and paten, and kneeling 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 the 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. Mackonochie 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. Mackonochie, which established the unlawfulness of introducing 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 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 conclusion 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 Communion. 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 contradictory of the language of the Articles and Formularies, 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 sentence (Works,' vol. x., p. 41), which gives to the whole passage a meaning 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 this 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.' ('Works,' vol. ix., p. 611.)

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 Religion, introduces as 'a contemporanea expositio, from the compiler of this Article, which cannot, I think, be gainsaid,' a letter from Bishop Gheast to Cecil, under 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 written for a personal purpose ('for mine own purgation'), 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 corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally . . . . yet did he not for all that 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 acknowledging the learning that has been brought to bear upon this case, the principle which this Committee

....

P