These Records it must be recollected, perished in the great fire of London; and therefore Mr. Goode is not quite warranted in saying so positively (p. 26), in contradiction of Dr. Pusey's statement gathered from Strype, that "Neither [Cheney nor Geste] signed those Articles [of 1562], and the Articles of 1571 were never signed by Cheney. This is an important fact in relation to our present subject."

At p. 66 I suggested that it might be useful to examine the language of Bishop Jewel, as being a leading Elizabethan Prelate, to ascertain whether his arguments touching the Real Presence were not, like those of the Edwardine Divines, directed chiefly against the prevalent popular belief of a carnal, physical presence: this I proceed now to do, especially as Guest's reference, in both Letters, to his contemporary, makes it all the more important to learn what he held on the Doctrine for which Guest quotes him; the controversy with Harding furnishes numerous passages to support this opinion: Jewel, in his "Sermon at Paul's Cross," 1560, had challenged the Roman party to "bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic doctor, or father, or out of any old general council, or out of the holy scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church. . . . For the space of six hundred years after Christ," to prove the truth of twenty-five several Doctrines or Practices which they used or held. Harding took up the challenge in 1563; and Jewel replied in 1565: the following are a few out of many passages which might be cited as shewing the language which runs throughout the disputation.

One proposition which Jewel denied to be proveable from the first six centuries was :-

"that the people was then taught to believe that Christ's body is

so cut off much matter of variance which the Lutherans and Zwinglians do hatefully maintain, yet because we will have some matter of dissension, we will quarrel in a small circumstance of the same, neither regarding God in His Word, who earnestly driveth us to charity, neither regarding the love and subjection we should have to our prince, who zealously would wish the devout administration of the Sacrament, nor yet consider what comfort we might receive ourselves in the said Sacrament, if dissensions were not so great with us." - Parker Correspondence, No. 286.

really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament."

Harding began his proof by saying that:

"Christian people hath ever been taught that the body and blood of Jesus Christ,.... is present in this most holy Sacrament, and that verily and indeed."

And he adds:

... that the words of institution of this Sacrament admit no other understanding, but that he giveth unto us in these holy mysteries his self-same body and his self-same blood in truth of substance, which was crucified and shed forth for us."-Of Real Presence; Works, Parker Society, Vol. 1, p. 44-5.

Jewel (though indeed he seems here somewhat to overlay Harding's language by his own interpretation of it) says in reply :

"The question is here moved, whether Christ's body be really and corporally in the Sacrament.' His answer is, that Christ's

body is joined and united really and corporally unto us."

Then he proceeds to argue thus:

"And, albeit M. Harding lay such hold upon these words of Christ, as if they were so plain, yet others of his friends, by their diverse and sundry constructions touching the same, have made them somewhat dark and doubtful, and cannot yet throughly agree upon them. Some of them say, Christ's natural body is in the Sacrament, howbeit not naturally; some others say, 'It is there both naturally, and also sensibly:' some of them say precisely, 'Never man used either of these two terms, naturally or sensibly, in this case of Christ's presence in the Sacrament.' Yet others of them put the matter out of doubt, and say, 'Christ is there present naturally.' And in the council holden in Rome under Pope Nicolas the Second, it was determined, and Berengarius forced to subscribe, that Christ is in the Sacrament sensibly; or as they then grossly uttered it in Latin, sensualiter. Some of them say, 'Christ's body is not divided or broken in the Sacrament, but only the accidents.' But Pope Nicolas with his whole council saith, Christ's body itself is touched with fingers, and divided, and broken, and rent with teeth, and not only the accidents.'. . .

"Now, if this article cannot be proved, neither by any words of the Scriptures, as Doctor Fisher saith, and as it further appeareth by the dissension of the teachers, nor by any one of all the old doctors and fathers, as M. Harding granteth by his silence, then may godly and catholic christian people well stay their judgments, and stand

in doubt of this carnal and fleshly presence. Indeed the question between us this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christ's words, for they are known and confessed of either party; but only of the sense and meaning of his words, which, as St. Hierome saith, is the very pith and substance of the Scriptures. ... If it be true that M. Harding saith, that this is the only sense and meaning of Christ's words, that his body is in such gross sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament, and that, unless Christ mean so, he meaneth nothing; it is great wonder that none of the ancient catholic doctors of the Church, no, not one, could ever see it; or, if they saw it, yet, being so eloquent, lacked words, and were never able to express it.-Ibid. pp. 446-7.

"And whereas M. Harding thus unjustly reporteth of us, that we maintain a naked figure and a bare sign or token only, and nothing else; . . . he knoweth well that we feed not the people of God with bare signs and figures, but teach them that the Sacraments of Christ be holy mysteries, and that in the ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the cross; and that therein we may behold the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation unto God; and as Chrysostom briefly saith, 'Christ's great benefit and our salvation.' Herein we teach the people, not that a naked sign or token, but Christ's body and blood indeed and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it; that we verily drink it; that we verily be relieved and live by it; that we are bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh; that Christ dwelleth in us and we in Him. Yet we say not either that the substance of the bread or wine is done away; or that Christ's body is let down from heaven, or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament. . . . .

"To conclude, three things herein we must consider: first, that we put a difference between the sign and the thing itself that is signified.

Secondly, that we seek Christ above in heaven, and imagine not him to be present bodily upon the earth.

Thirdly, that the body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and none otherwise.

"Now consider then, good Christian reader, with thyself, whether it be better to use this word 'figure,' which word hath been often used of Tertullian, St. Augustine, and of all the rest of the ancient fathers, without controlment; or else these new-fangled words, 'really,' 'corporally,' 'carnally,' etc., which words M. Harding is not able to shew that, in this case of being really in the Sacrament, any one of all the old fathers ever used."—Ibid. pp. 448-9.

Harding continued thus:

"Again, we cannot find where our Lord performed the promise he had made in the sixth chapter of John, The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,'

but only in his last Supper: where if he gave his flesh to his Apostles, and that none other but the very same which he gave for the life of the world, it followeth that in the blessed Sacrament is not mere bread, but that same his very body in substance. For it was not mere bread, but his very body, that was given and offered up upon the cross."

To which Jewel replies:

"This principle is not only false in itself, but also full of dangerous doctrine, and may soon lead to desperation. For if no man may eat the flesh of Christ, but only in the Sacrament, as here by M. Harding it is supposed, then all Christian children, and all others whosoever depart this life without receiving the Sacrament, must needs be damned, and die the children of God's anger. For Christ's words be plain and general: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye shall have no life in you.'. . . . But our doctrine, grounded upon God's holy word, is this, that as certainly as Christ gave His body upon the Cross, so certainly He giveth now the self-same body unto the faithful; and that, not only in the ministration of the Sacrament,.... And therefore St. Augustine saith, (De. Civ. Dei. Lib. xxi. c. xx.) They eat Christ's body, not only in the Sacrament, but also in very deed.' Here St. Augustine saith, contrary to M. Harding's doctrine, that we eat Christ's body, not only in the Sacrament, but also otherwise; yea, and so far he forceth this difference, THAT HE MAKETH THE EATING OF CHRIST'S BODY IN THE SACRAMENT TO BE ONE THING, AND THE VERY TRUE EATING THEREOF INDEED TO BE ANOTHER THING. .... To be short, of Christian children, and other faithful that never received the Sacrament, he writeth thus (in Serm. ad Inf. Citat. a Beda 1 Cor. x.), 'No man may in any wise doubt, but that every faithful man is then made partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in baptism he is made a member of Christ: and that he is not without the fellowship of that bread and cup, although before he eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, he depart this world, being in the unity of Christ's body. For he is not made frustrate of the Communion and benefit of that Sacrament, while he findeth that thing which is signified by the Sacrament.'"-Ibid. pp. 449-50.

Again, Harding had said:

*

"If the words spoken by Christ in St. John of promise, that he performed in his holy Supper, The bread that I will give is My flesh,' had been to be taken, not as they seem to mean, plainly and truly, but metaphorically, tropically, symbolically, and figuratively, so as the truth of our Lord's flesh be excluded, as our adversaries

The words which I have printed in Capitals are very observable as shewing Jewel's opinion of the language of St. Augustine, and may fairly be appealed to in support of Guest's language, touching reception by the wicked, in his Letter, § 11, p. 200.

do understand them, then the Capernaites had not any occasion at all of their great offence."-Ibid. p. 450.

To this Jewel, quoting St. Augustine, St. Basil, Origen, Tertullian, and St. Chrysostom, replies:

"Hereby it is plain that Christ's meaning is spiritual, as Christ Himself and all the old fathers and doctors of the Church have expounded it; not real, carnal, gross, and fleshly, as M. Harding imagineth. M. Harding will say, that the eating with the mouth and the grinding with the teeth is a work spiritual. By this sense he is a good proctor for the Capernaites, and must needs say, that they had a spiritual understanding. . . . .

"Now let us see what sense the Capernaites gathered hereof. Origen saith,.... 'It happeneth sometime that simple men, being not able to put difference between those things in the Scriptures that pertain to the inner man, and those that pertain to the outer man, are deceived by the likeness of words, and so fall into foolish fables and vain fantasies.' So saith St. Hierome, . . . . Whereas they are taken for the elders in the Church, and the chief of the priests, by following the plain letter, they kill the Son of God.' Even thus it happened unto the Capernaites: that Christ spake spiritually of eating with faith, they understood grossly of eating with the teeth; as though they should swallow down His flesh into their bodies, as other meats; even in such gross sort as M. Harding would now teach the people to eat Christ's body."—Ibid. p. 452.

The better to sustain his position Harding said thus:

". . . . if Christ would have been so understanded, as though He had meant to give but a figure only of his body, it had been no need for him to have alleged his omnipotency and almighty power to his disciples, thereby the rather to bring them to belief of his true body to be given them to eat. ..Doth this offend you?'

saith he. . . . ."

Upon which Jewel remarks:

"And again, would M. Harding make all the world believe, if Christ's body be not fleshly and grossly in the Sacrament, according to his fantasy, that then God therefore is not omnipotent? Verily the old catholic fathers acknowledge God's omnipotency in the water of baptism; yet is not Christ therefore really present in the water."Ibid. pp. 453-4.

Then instancing SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, and Leo, he concludes:

"It appeareth by these authorities, that Christ in the water of baptism sheweth his invisible and omnipotent power. Yet will not M. Harding say that Christ is therefore really and fleshly present in the water of baptism.