Obrazy na stronie

submitted for their consideration by the Privy Council on the 21st October; and in this Latin copy, which is in the State Paper Office, the Articles (with no very material and chiefly verbal differences) are found as finally published by Royal Authority in May, 1553.

Now of these Articles two only, the XXIXth and XXXth treat specifically of the Holy Eucharist; the latter being intitled (in Latin) "De unica Christi oblatione iu cruce perfecta,' (in English) "Of the perfeicte oblacion of Christe made upon the crosse"; the former being headed (in Latin) "De Cœna Domini", (in English) "Of the Lord's Supper." The English version of the XXIXth Article has been already given at p. 32, and consists of four Clauses: in the State Paper Office Latin version the last three parts are treated as separate Articles and denominated thus* (2) Art. XXX. de Transubstantiatione; (3) Art. XXXI. de Corporali Christi præsentia in Eucharistia; (4) Art. XXXII. Sacramentum Eucharistiæ non asservandum.

But it seems plain from an inspection of this Article that its whole aim and drift was against the Roman doctrine: with this it apparently contents itself: paragraphs 2 and 3 give no passage in King Edward's journal must not be relied upon in proof of his appointment. So far indeed as anything I can find in Burnet applies he does not seem to have had any doubt who the Chaplains were; for he says (Part ii. bk. 1, p. 162, fol. 1715) "These were Bill, Harley, Pern, Grindal, Bradford, and Knox" and this list corresponds with that which he furnishes in his copy of the King's journal. And though Strype says "Burnet could not read" Knox's name because it was "so dashed," he does not imply that Burnet was in error. It is not unlikely that Burnet's rendering may have been founded upon some contemporaneous evidence. Indeed if the erased name, in the journal of Dec. 18, 1551, was "Eastwick" this need only prove that another was selected in his stead why may not Knox have been that other? That one alteration was made in the List seems plain, for Strype, in quoting from the Council Book of Oct. 2, 1552, the names of the Chaplains to whom the Book of Articles was sent for revision, gives Horn instead of Bradford as one of the six-a reference "verified" as the Editor states (p. 394).


But whatever may be the history of the erasure in Edward's journal, it does not in the least detract from the evidence that Knox was a Royal Chaplain at the time of Edward's second Book receiving the sanction of Parliament: this is all that is necessary to identify him with the objection to the new Rubric on Kneeling. Not indeed that I think Mr. Barnes's remark at all discredits Burnet's original List which, it is well to observe, is (except in the case of Horn) identical with the Council's List of Oct 2, 1552, and with the names signed to the State Paper Office Copy of the Articles of 1552-a fair presumption, at all events, that Knox was one of the six Chaplains appointed in December 1551.

See also Hardwicke on the Articles p. 300.

indication of being intentionally directed against two several views of the Real Presence; "the reall and bodelie [realem et corporalem] presence (as thei terme it) of Christ's flesh and bloude" deprecated in the 3rd Paragraph, seems neither more nor less than the "Transubstantiation" condemned in the 2nd Paragraph. It may, indeed, have been that the language of the 3rd Paragraph of the Article, asserting that "the bodie of Christe cannot bee presente at one time in many and diverse places", was meant to condemn a supposed ubiquitarian doctrine involved in Transubstantiation; if so, it of course tacitly pronounced likewise against Lutheran ubiquitarianism: though, whether or not its authors contemplated any allusion to Lutheran doctrine (while an immaterial question here) will be best determined by asking-to whom do the words "as thei terme it" allude? There can hardly be a doubt, I think, that they referred exclusively to the Roman party, considering with whom the Eucharistic controversy in England had been carried on and recollecting that the language which has been already quoted shows "real and corporal" to have been the current phrase which was therein maintained and opposed.

One other view of Eucharistic Doctrine besides the Roman seems indeed to have been designedly referred to in the First paragraph of the Article: of this probably it may be said (as Mr. Hardwick, p. 104, remarked of Art. xxvi.) that it was "directed....against the prevailing Zwinglian notion, that sacraments were no more than empty rites and external badges" but, as we have seen, the language of Knox alike condemns this. The object of the Article, then, seems limited to a denial of the doctrine of Christ's absence from this His Sacrament; and to a refutation of such a Presence as Transubstantiation was accounted to imply in Mr. Hardwick's words

[ocr errors]

"The twenty-ninth, Of the Lord's Supper', while avoiding the errors of the Zwinglian School, condemns the opposite dogma of a physical transubstantiation in the elements, as repugnant to the Word of God, and as inconsistent with the true humanity of our Saviour and his local residence in heaven."-p. 104.

Having regard, therefore, to all these considerations it may with some certainty be assumed, I think, that Knox's objection to kneeling at the Sacrament was not at all founded upon doctrinal grounds and that consequently any question of the worship due to Christ therein, or of kneeling being the expression of it, was foreign to his purpose in opposing the requirement of the Rubric; and this will further account for the entire absence of theological argument in Cranmer's Letter to the Council: he, as I think has been proved, had at that time mainly to resist an innovation ostensibly based upon a theory of purely Ecclesiastical Order which, in common with his co-advisers and most of (if not all) the Council, the Archbishop refused to recognize.

But, reasonably or not, the objection had been raised; raised, too, by one who was not likely to abandon his opposition but would probably use his opportunities to repeat it in public with the vehemence which had already attracted attention in high quarters and would be certain to secure him a favourable hearing from others also. Further, his indiscriminate charges of superstition, inapplicable though they were to the First Prayer Book, and most inappropriate to the revised English Office, were sure to draw towards the Second Book, that disaffection which had been already exhibited to the earlier Ritual by those who had but little sympathy with Knox save in his denunciation of the Mass.

To yield to Knox's objection was impossible without sacrificing that principle of deference to Antiquity which was a main feature in the English Reformation movement: Cranmer's Letter to the Council shews how hopeless he regarded the attempt; "If such men should bee hearde," he says, "although the boke were made everye yere anewe, yet should it not lacke faultes in their opinion": he declares that upon their theory it were best and necessary to "take awaie the hole boke of service. For what should men travell to sett an ordre in the forme of service, if no ordre can bee sett, but that is alreadye prescribed by the Scripture." This was his answer to Knox's theory of Church Polity; and consistently therewith the Archbishop and his coadjutors dismissed Knox's objection and decided, as the fact of the retention of the

"prescription of kneelinge," shews, that it was "fitt to remayne as a commandement" and ought not "to bee left out of the boke." That the Scotch Chaplain was not satisfied with their resolution of the Privy Council's question is clear from the complaint two years afterwards, in his "Admonition" (see p. 104), that this "parte of superstitions" had not been taken away.

Yet with the prospect before them of a renewed strife when the revised Prayer Book should make its appearance; and looking to the probability that the new Rubric commanding

kneeling at the tyme of receavinge of the Sacrament" would be perversely identified with the "decrees respecting the worship of the host" which the Archbishop lamented to learn were being passed by the "adversaries....at Trent;" the natural inference is-that, though Knox's complaint was unheeded, it was deemed prudent that the "some" who were "offended", and all others who might join their ranks, should be deprived of any such pretence as this for attacking the new Eucharistic Office. Accordingly it was resolved that neither by "ignorance and infirmitie" nor by "malice and obstinacie" should the order to kneel be "mysconstrued, depraued, and interpreted in a wrong parte," as though the Church of England's rule coincided with the Tridentine Canon then lately enacted (see page 90) "Tips til àproλarpsías”—concerning the worshipping of the bread with LATRIA, i.e., divine honour— for such Cranmer evidently feared would be a sort of popular "idolatry" resulting from the Decree. "And yet because brotherly charitie willeth, that so muche as conveniently may be offences should be taken away:" therefore it was determined to issue with the Rubric an explanatory Declaration of its object.


To whom, then, was the explanation to be addressed ? Not, certainly, to the general mass of the worshippers: for, first, they were not the complainants: and, next, it would practically be useless to them, placed as it was to be in a Book of Public Offices, the price of which alone (though fixed at a low rate by Royal Authority) limited its purchase, for the most part, to just the number of copies required by the

Parish Priest and his Clerk or Clerks. Plainly, therefore, the intended exposition of the Rubric on Kneeling was meant to disarm the theological critics of the day, of whatever class, and to furnish the Clergy with an authoritative reply to any cavillers in their parishes who might invent objections, or be incited to urge them by some of those disaffected spirits whose position or attainments gained them more or less notoriety.

Such a manifesto, however, needed to be clothed in authorized language if it was to have weight with clergy and people: this in Cranmer's view would, no doubt, be the more necessary as it had to be issued with the Prayer Book which had already received the sanction of Parliament. The obvious resource, if it furnished the requisite materials, was that Book of " Articles

[ocr errors]

...for the avoiding of controversie in opinion, and the establishement of a godlie concorde, in certeine matters of Religion" which was then about to be imposed upon the Clergy it had already undergone the criticism of the Prelates, if indeed it had not been formally submitted to the Convocation (though this is not clear); and at that very time it was in the hands of Knox and the other Royal Chaplains for revision. If the Articles were not returned to the Privy Council by the 27th October, the day on which the Lord Chancellor was directed to add the Declaration, Cranmer had probably learned, during the five-and-twenty days that had elapsed since they were sent to the Chaplains, what was their judgment of them; though, indeed, it is extremely likely that the views of the six revisers on the points discussed in the Articles were previously well known. Any explanation, therefore, of the Rubric on Kneeling, based upon the language of the Articles, was a course to which Knox could not object, however dissatisfied he might be at the retention of the Rubric itself; and if the theological criticism of the principal objector was thus disarmed, no plan would be so likely to prove an effective defence against all other probable assailants from kindred quarters.

Now, in the XXIXth of these Articles (see p. 32) language would be found fully adequate to exclude every misinterpre

« PoprzedniaDalej »