ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



mularies of the United Church of England and 

 Ireland in relation to the sacrament of the 

 Lord's Supper." The doctrines which he was 

 thus charged with supporting were: 1. That 

 the body of Christ is present in the elements 

 upon the altar. 2. That the priest makes a 

 real offering of Christ to God in the Eucharist. 

 3. That adoration is due to Christ in the con- 

 secrated bread and wine. Mr. Bennett had, 

 in a third edition of one of his works, modified 

 the language in which the doctrine of the real 

 presence had seemed to be implied. The 

 phrase " the real, actual, and visible presence 

 of our Lord upon the altars of our churches " 

 was changed so as to read, " the real, actual 

 presence of our Lord, under the form of bread 

 and wine, upon the altars of our churches." 

 So, also, while Mr. Bennett, in his first edition, 

 had used the words, "who myself adore, and 

 teach the people to adore, the consecrated 

 elements, believing Christ to be in them," he 

 said in his third edition, " who myself adore, 

 and teach the people to adore, Christ present 

 in the elements under the form of bread and 

 wine." He had further explained that his 

 meaning in writing the original passage was 

 the same as that which was conveyed in the 

 words substituted, and that he had willingly 

 adopted a new form of expression in order to 

 avoid the different construction to which the 

 words first used were liable. 



The Dean of Arches held in his decision of 

 July 23, 1870, that the original language of 

 Mr. Bennett's works, standing by itself, would 

 have rendered him liable to conviction of of- 

 fence against the laws of the Church, but that 

 his subsequent corrections and explanations 

 altered its bearing to a sufficient degree to re- 

 lieve him from penalty. Concerning the doc- 

 trine of sacrificial worship, the dean decided 

 that Mr. Bennett had not exceeded the liberty 

 which the law allows on that subject. The 

 complainant appealed against the decision to 

 the judiciary committee of the Privy Council. 



The final arguments in the case were heard 

 by the committee in November, 1871. The 

 decision was read by the Archbishop of York, 

 in behalf of the Lord Chancellor, on the 8th of 

 June following. In regard to the charge that 

 Mr. Bennett had taught the doctrine of the 

 real presence of the body of Christ in the ele- 

 ments upon the altar, the court first showed 

 that the articles and catechism of the Church 

 teach that the body of Christ is " given, taken, 

 and eaten in the supper, after a heavenly and 

 spiritual manner," and that the mean whereby 

 it is received and eaten is faith. It then de- 

 clared that, although the assertion by Mr. Ben- 

 nett of a " real, actual, objective " presence, 

 did indeed introduce terms not found in the 

 articles or formularies, it did not appear to as- 

 sert expressly, or by necessary implication, a 

 presence other than spiritual, nor to be neces- 

 sarily contradictory to the 28th Article of Re- 

 ligion. 



It was urged for the appellant that the 



VOL. XII. 2 A 



Church recognizes only one body of Christ, 

 the natural and glorified body, which is " in 

 heaven, and not here ; " that, therefore, the 

 only presence which can be held consistent 

 with the declaration is a presence to the soul 

 of the communicant; and that "no mode or 

 manner of presence is conceivable, which can 

 reconcile the proposition that the true body 

 of Christ is in the elements, with the propo- 

 sition that the natural body is in heaven, and 

 not here." The court replied: "Their lord- 

 ships 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 un- 

 derstanding; the province of reasoning as ap- 

 plied 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 ; " and add- 

 ed: "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 con- 

 trary, he has denied this, and he speaks of the 

 presence in which he believes as 'spiritual,' 

 'supernatural,' 'sacramental,' 'mystical,' 'in- 

 effable.' " 



On the second charge, namely, that Mr. 

 Bennett had taught that the priest makes a 

 real offering of Christ in the Eucharist, the 

 Council decided that the doctrine of the real 

 sacrifice is not taught in the articles or formu- 

 laries of the Church, and remarked : 



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. 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. ( A passage was then read from Bishop 

 Bull in illustration.) To apply the word sacrifice in 

 the sense in which Bishop Bull has used it to the or- 

 dinance of the Lord's Supper, though it may be lia- 

 ble to abuse and misapprehension, does not appear 

 to be a contravention of any proposition legitimately 

 cleducible from the Thirty-ninth 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. 



On the charge that Mr. Bennett had taught 

 that adoration is due to the consecrated bread 

 and wine, the court ruled that the doctrine so 

 described is contrary to law, and must be con- 

 demned. But they admitted, as the Dean of 

 Arches had done, Mr. Bennett's explanation of 

 his language, and did not consider themselves 

 called upon to condemn him. 



One charge yet remained, in the form of a 

 specification, that Mr. Bennett had maintained 

 that adoration is due to Christ, present upon 



