BETH. the Church, is a privilege which always has belonged, and ought ELIZAto belong to the hierarchy, and not to the laity; the Holy Spirit having given a commission to the former for these functions. These articles being put into bishop Bonner's hand, were presented by him to the lord keeper Bacon: and, in the next session, Bonner acquainted the lower house of convocation, that an instrument was sent up from both the universities, attested by a public notary, in which the articles were all subscribed, excepting the last. Liber A. D. 1559. Convoca Westmin All the effect this declaration had with the house of Lords Synod. and the queen, was the bringing on a disputation between the Journal of Roman Catholics and the Reformed. This conference was, by tion. the queen's order, begun on the thirty-first of March, in the Ibid. A disputaAbbey-church at Westminster. The archbishop of York, being tion between the Papists one of the council, was required, in her majesty's name, to in- and Protimate her pleasure to some of the bishops: and to make testants at choice of eight, nine, or ten, of their own party, to manage a ster. dispute with an equal number of the other persuasion. Archbishop Heath, and the other bishops, consented to the motion, and the points proposed to be argued. Upon this, at the queen's instance, it was mutually agreed, that, to prevent wrangling, the debate should be managed in writing: that the bishops, being persons of the best quality, should give in their papers in the first place: and that the other party should return them their answer in writing the same day that the papers which were mutually exchanged one day, should be reciprocally answered another. And that this method should be kept till they had gone through all the articles. And because the issue of this dispute might give some measures to the parliament, the lords desired the papers might be penned in English. This motion was likewise agreed by the bishops and the reformed. And thus the preliminaries being all settled, the conference began at the time and place above-mentioned; the privy-council, a great part of the nobility, and some of the house of Commons, being present. : Paper-office. Journal. The persons made choice of to engage in the controversy D'Ewe's were these for the Roman Catholics, White, bishop of Winchester; Bayn, bishop of Lichfield; Scott, bishop of Chester; Watson, bishop of Lincoln; Dr. Cole, dean of St. Paul's; Dr. Harpsfield, archdeacon of Canterbury; Dr. Chadsey, prebendary of St. Paul's; and Dr. Langdale, archdeacon of Lewes. The questions. Dr. Cole argues for the bishops, &.c. Those for the Reformation were, Dr. Scory, late bishop of Chichester; Dr. Cox, late dean of Westminster; Mr. Horn, late dean of Durham; Mr. Elmer, late archdeacon of Stow; Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Grindal, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Jewel. The points to be argued were these three: "First, Whether it is against the word of God, and the custom of the ancient Church, to officiate and administer the sacraments in a language unknown to the people. Secondly, Whether every Church has authority to appoint, to change, or set aside, ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites, provided the same be done to edification. Thirdly, Whether it can be proved, by the word of God, that there is offered in the mass a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead." The Papists were to defend the negative of the first, and the affirmative of the last question, and the Protestants were to make good the affirmative of the second. And, that the disputation might be managed in form, and the order observed, the lord-keeper took the chair: not that he had any commission from the queen to determine between the parties, or over-rule any point in the controversy. Notwithstanding things had been thus thoroughly adjusted, the bishops broke the method, and came unprovided with their paper; they pretended they had mistaken the agreement. However, they were prepared, they said, to argue the first proposition by word of mouth. The lord-keeper, after a reprimand for departing from their preliminaries, gave them liberty to proceed in their own way; they having promised to put their arguments in writing afterwards, and deliver them to the other party. Matters being thus far recovered, the Papists appointed Dr. Cole to represent them, and deliver their sense upon the first question. This doctor discharged his commission sometimes by speaking off hand, as it was pretended, sometimes by reading authorities out of a paper, and sometimes he spoke what was prompted by his party: but what he delivered does not appear. For it is plain, his argument upon the first question, preserved in Bennet's College library, was not his first discourse, but a reply to Horn's paper: this is evident from Cole's speech, introductive to his argument. His words are these: "Most honourable, "That whereas these men here present, have declared here BETH. 415. openly, that it is repugnant and contrary to the word of God, ELIZÁto have the common prayers and ministration of the sacraments in Latin here in England; and that all such common prayer and ministration ought to be, and remain in the English tongue; Ye shall understand, that to prove this their assertion, they have brought in as yet only one place of Scripture, taken out of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter the fourteenth, with certain other places of the holy doctors, whereunto answer is not now to be made: but when the book which they read shall be delivered unto us, according to the appointment made in that behalf, then, God willing, we shall make answer, as well to the Scripture as other testimonies alleged by them, so all good men may evidently perceive and understand the same Scripture to be misconstrued, and drawn from the native and true sense." From hence he proceeds to reply to Horne's paper upon the first question; and here he asserts, first, that Divine service in an unknown tongue is no contradiction to any plain declaration of Scripture; and secondly, supposing there were any plain text against this usage, the constant practice of the Church ought not to be condemned. This bold proposition he endeavours to make good by the following arguments: ing the service in a First he takes notice, that notwithstanding the keeping His reasons the Sabbath, or Saturday, was expressly commanded by God for justifyAlmighty, yet the Church, without any warrant from written Church revelation, has changed the festival to Sunday. That this language not alteration having passed all along without scruple or contest, understood is a good reason to rely on the authority of the Church in other people. matters. He observes, farther, that when our Saviour washed his disciples' feet, he told them it was "for their example; John xiii. that they should do as he had done." Notwithstanding which 15, express words, the Church had, without breach of duty, omitted the imitation. And in the blessed sacrament of the altar, the practice of our Saviour mentioned in Scripture is not followed in every circumstance, for he celebrated this mystery after supper. Now, if a man should quarrel with the present usage, and insist upon the institution, he may receive an answer from St. Austin, who tells him, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that in honour to so great a sacrament, the body of our Lord should is prius be received before any other nourishment." From hence his Dominicum inference is, that the Church is governed by the direction of cbi. VOL. VI. P In os Chris tiani homi intret corpus quam exteri the Holy Spirit; and that, in virtue of this privilege, she is empowered to change a custom, even recommended by our Saviour himself; and that, by our Saviour's promise, the authority of the primitive is continued down to the present Church. And upon this ground the Church has barred the laity receiving under both kinds, and pronounced those guilty of heresy who affirm that whole Christ is not contained under either species. He reinforces his reasoning from a text in the Acts, where the council of Jerusalem published their decree in these words: Acts xv. 28. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meat offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Here is a plain precept from the apostles, and other persons unquestionably inspired, for abstaining from eating blood, no less than from other things, which are unalterably unlawful. And yet this branch of the decree has not been kept; the Church for many ages has dispensed with the command; neither is she blamed by the reformed for indulging this latitude. To this he adds another instance from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said, "the Christians sold their estates, lodged the purchase money with the apostles, and had all things common." But this charitable precedent was never reckoned binding to succeeding ages. From all these instances his conclusion is, that supposing the Protestants had the Scripture on their side in the case contested, supposing this, which he will not grant; yet since the Church is always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, her decisions are no less to be regarded than those of the apostles. That this assertion is a plain consequence of our Saviour's promise, that the Holy Ghost "should teach his disciples all things, and guide them into all truth; and that himself would be with his Church to the world's end." To this purpose he cites a passage from St. Austin, where it is said, that, "though the Church tolerates a great many things, yet she neither approves, nor connives at, nor practises, any thing contrary to faith or moral duty." Epist. ad After this attempt to establish the Catholic Church in this extent of authority, his next effort is to prove the see of Rome the seat of this authority, and the centre of unity; but for this he offers nothing but the testimony of Irenæus, where that Church, or probably the city of Rome, is called "potentior ELIZA principalitas." From hence he proceeds to show the danger of schism, that St. Paul conjures the Corinthians "that they all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst them; that neither knowledge, faith, good works, nor martyrdom itself will signify any thing to those who are out of the communion of the Church; for, as St. Austin speaks, "let a man's pretensions be what they will, whoever is separated from the Church of Christ, can be no Christian." From hence Cole argues, that the translating the Common Prayer into the mother-tongue is a breach upon the custom of the universal Church; and that such an alteration must of necessity be introductive of a horrible schism. His next essay is, to prove that prayer in an unknown language has been all along the custom of the Western Church. And here, by a common mistake, he makes Dionysius the Areopagite the first preacher of Christianity in France; he mentions Martialis, and Austin the monk, for the conversion of the Spaniards and Saxons; he takes notice of the Britons and Germans being brought over to the belief of the Gospel; but when he comes to make out his point, that the service was performed in these Churches in a language not understood by the people, he offers nothing but the silence of historians. However, to give something of the face of an argument, he affirms the Protestants can never prove the Church service in the vulgar tongue was generally practised, either with respect to place or time. From hence he proceeds to argue from the permanency of the Latin, that the phrase and construction of this language keeps steady and fixed, whereas the rest spoken by the common people are strangely floating and uncertain; insomuch, that one age is scarcely intelligible to another. Now, if the Church liturgy should be always reformed to the modern style, and change as often as language wears and words grow out of fashion, such frequent alterations would lessen the veneration for holy things, strike off the advantage of antiquity, and disserve the majesty of religion. He endeavours to fortify his reasoning, that the laity amongst the Jews were not permitted to enter either the holy of holies, or the body of the temple: and yet the priests officiated in the latter, and the high priest in the former. That in the Greek BETH. 416. |