[124] "Bucer thought, that for avoiding contention, and for maintaining peace and quietness in the church, somewhat more ambiguous words should be used, that might have a respect to both persuasions concerning the presence. But Martyr was of another judgment, and affected to speak of the sacrament with all plainness and perspicuity." Strype, ii. 121. The truth is, that there were but two opinions at bottom as to this main point of the controversy; nor in the nature of things was it possible that there should be more; for what can be predicated concerning a body, in its relation to a given space, but presence and absence? [125] Burnet, ii. 105, App. 216; Strype, ii. 121, 208; Collier, etc. The Calvinists certainly did not own a local presence in the elements. It is the artifice of modern Romish writers, Dr. Milner, Mr. C. Butler, etc., to disguise the incompatibility of their tenets with those of the church of England on this, as they do on all other topics of controversy, by representing her as maintaining an actual, incomprehensible presence of Christ's body in the consecrated elements; which was never meant to be asserted in any authorised exposition of faith; though in the seventeenth century it was held by many distinguished churchmen. See the 27th, 28th, and 29th articles of religion. An eminent living writer, who would be as useful as he is agreeable, if he could bring himself to write with less heat and haste, says, that at Elizabeth's accession, among other changes, "the language of the article which affirmed a real presence was so framed as to allow latitude of belief for those who were persuaded of an exclusive one." Southey's _Book of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 247. The real presence was not affirmed, but denied, in the original draft; and as to what Mr. S. calls "an exclusive one" (that is, transubstantiation, if the words have any meaning), it is positively rejected in the amended article. [126] It appears to have been common for the clergy, by licence from their bishops, to retain concubines, who were, Collier says, for the most part their wives. P. 262. But I do not clearly understand in what the distinction could have consisted; for it seems unlikely that marriages of priests were ever solemnised at so late a period; or if they were, they were invalid. [127] Stat. 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 21; 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 12; Burnet, 89. [128] 2 Strype, 53. Latimer pressed the necessity of expelling these temporising conformists.--"Out with them all! I require it in God's behalf: make them _quondams_, all the pack of them." _Id._ 204; 2 Burnet, 143.