« PoprzedniaDalej »
than a natural Presence "under the form of Bread and Wine."
Before quitting this Letter of Cranmer's there are two other points upon which it suggests observations. First, it corrects a statement made by Dr. Cardwell (and commonly adopted) as to the insertion of the Declaration on Kneeling in Edward's 2nd Book; he says that this "Rubric"
"had been added to the Communion Service by that King on his own authority after the publication of his second liturgy Hist. of Conferences, p. 34.
But, if by is meant, as would seem-that the Bishops were not consulted-then the Archbishop's Letter, by reciting that the King desired him with others to reconsider the Rubric on Kneeling, leads to the inference that whatever was done had their concurrence. The, then recognized, authority of the King in Council would, in Cranmer's judgment, warrant an act which did not contravene anything that the Parliament had done in authorizing the Book: and as to the Doctrinal statement in the Royal Proclamation (for such it virtually was) the Archbishop had already the authority of his Synod for that, and in fact had more than a fortnight before (on Sept. 19th) written to Mr. Secretary Cecil saying:
"I have sent the book of articles for religion unto Mr. Cheke, set in a better order than it was, and the titles upon every matter, adding thereto that which lacked. I pray you consider well the Articles with Mr. Checke; and whether you think best to move the King's majesty therein before my coming, I refer that unto your two widoms."Cranmer's Remains. Parker Society. Letter cccv. p. 439.
Most likely it is this identical" book of articles," in Latin, or a corrected copy of it, signed by Knox and the five other Royal Chaplains, which is still extant in the State Paper Office, (Domestic Edw. vi. Vol. xv. No. 28) dated October 20th, 1552 at all events that copy contains the 29th Article as cited in English, at p. 32; and the order to insert the Declaration was not issued until October 27th. This fact therefore confirms the conjectures made in pp. 31 and 36.
Further, in a Note (Hist. of Conf. p. 34), Dr. Cardwell
"This rubric does not appear in either of the Editions printed by Whitchurch in 1552, copies of which are now in the Bodleian; but it does appear in each of two editions by Grafton, printed in August 1552, copies of which may also be seen in the same library. The act of Parliament, which ratified the second Service-book, was passed in April 1552; and the order of Council requiring the insertion of the rubric bears date on the 27th of October, only four days before the book was to be generally used throughout the kingdom. It is found accordingly to have been inserted by cancelling the leaf, or some similar contrivance; and the issuing of this order is a strong evidence of the alarm in which Cranmer and the Council were held on the subject of the real presence, even after the great alteration they had made respecting it in the service of the Communion."
Upon this I would remark (1.) that the copies of the Whitchurch editions which Dr. Cardwell mentions, may likely enough have got into circulation before the order of Sept. 27th "came to Grafton the printer in any wise to stay from uttering any of the books of the new service." Mr. Pickering's reprint is, however, from one by Whitchurch of 1552 and contains the Declaration: and there is in the British Museum (468. a. 7.) an old copy of the Whytchurche Book, with the Declaration: it is printed on a separate leaf, and follows the Rubrics at the end of the Communion Office. But indeed, as the Editor of the Parker Society's edition of the Two Liturgies observes, "Several copies are without it" of Grafton's edition: though there are two copies containing it in the British Museum, both evidently the same Ed. 1552; one imperfect, viz. (468. a. 6.) where it occurs at fol. 97 (clearly a misprint for 102 as it occurs between 101 and 103); the other perfect (468. b. 6.) has it on p. 102; in both copies it is found between the Rubric, beginning," And if there be not above XX persons in the Parish," &c., and that commencing "And to take awaye the superstition which any person hath, or might have, in the bread and wine," &c.
2. With regard to Dr. Cardwell's remark that the Order in Council is evidence of the "alarm in which Cranmer and the Council were held on the subject of the Real Presence,” I must, with all respect to so great an authority, profess my total inability to discover any grounds for his opinion. At pp. 35 and 36 I had sketched what I conjectured to be the
real history of this Declaration: Cranmer's Letter to the Council, now produced, entirely supports that view: and certainly the tone of that Letter indicates anything but "alarm:" it implies a settled conviction in the Archbishop's mind of the Doctrine to be maintained and indicates a resolution to maintain it-nay, it affirms that, so far as a prescribed act sustained the Doctrine, it had been "with just ballance waied" by himself and "a greate menny bushops and other of the best learned" men "at the makinge of the boke.” The Declaration to which he now assented-probably preparedwas the deliberate judgment of the Church of England by representation, and no suddenly extemporized statement to meet a supposed new phase of a state of terror.
(3.) For the reasons already assigned at pp. 33 to 35 and elsewhere, I must venture to deny that there was any, much less "any great alteration," on the "subject of the real presence," in the Prayer Book of 1552.
The Second remaining point which the Archbishop's Letter leads me to notice is this,―That the way in which he regards "kneelinge" as the synonym for reverence may fairly suggest the true interpretation to be put upon the Rubric, in the present Communion Office, which directs that "if any
At p. 89, I have ventured to reject the opinion held by someearlier part of this Rubric, as it stood in the Book of 1552 (“if any of the bread and wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use") referred to the consecrated Bread and Wine. It was not until long after those remarks were printed off that I noticed the following passages in Bp. Cosin's Notes on the Common Prayer, which, it will be seen, entirely support the opinion I had
1st Series, p. 130 Cosin's Works, Ang. Cath. Lib.-" And if any of the bread and wine remain, &c.] Which is not to be understood of the bread and wine already consecrated, but of that which remains without consecration; for else it were but a profanation of the Holy Sacrament to let the Curate have it home to his own use. Quam indigne faciunt, qui hac rubrica ad tantum facinus excusandum abutuntur, ipsi viderint. It was Nestorianism once to think, that the consecrated bread, if it were kept in crastinum, became common bread again, if St. Thom. p. 3, q. 72, a. 11, ad 2, (a) quoteth St. Cyril of Alexandria right, Ep. ad Calen. Vide Maldon, de Sacram. p. 120. There was order taken for it of (a) "[This reference is incorrect. The passage intended is in S. Thom. Aquinas, Summa Totius Theologiæ, pars. iii. quæst. 76, art. 6, ad secundum, where he speaks of 'quidam ponentes quod Corpus Christi non remaneat sub hoc sacramento, si in crastinum reservetur. Contra quos Cyrillus dicit,' etc. The same passage of S. Cyril is cited by him in the Aurea Catena on S. Luc. c. xxii. with the reference Ep. ad Calosyr. 'Insaniunt quidam dicentes mysticam benedictionem cessare a sanctificatione, si quæ ejus reliquiæ remanserint in diem subsequentim: non enim mutatur sacratum Corpus Christi, sed virtus benedictionis et vivificativa gratia jugis in eo est.' The Greek was found by Cardinal Mai in the Vatican MS. which contains S. Cyril's Commentary on S. Luke, and it is printed by him in the Classici Auctores, tom. x. p. 375, note.... ]"-Editor's Note.
remain of that [Bread and Wine] which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.'
In Edward's 2nd Prayer Book (as indeed in the 1st) no direction whatever was given for the disposal of the remaining Consecrated Bread and Wine; the reasons are obvious, viz. (1) That, owing to the notice then practically as well as Rubrically required from those who proposed to communicate, not more probably remained of what was consecrated than could conveniently be consumed by the Celebrant: (2) That it must have been wholly unnecessary to prescribe a rule on this point for a body of Clergy who had been accustomed to follow those careful directions of the old Office Books which made even the cleansing of the Paten and Chalice a part of the Public Service; and so (though they should be considered as needlessly minute) guarded against a negligence and carelessness which (it must be confessed) is too commonly to be found in our own day among Clergy and Parish Clerks.
The similar absence of any Rubric in Elizabeth's Book (1559) may be accounted for on the like ground; for, could it even be shown that any general lax practice had grown up in the last year of Edward's reign, the restoration of the Missal by Mary must have corrected it; while the fact that James's Book (1604) made no alteration in this respect, may
old in the Church, which were well to be observed still, that No more should be brought, at least consecrated upon the altar, than would suffice to communicate the people, and if any remained, that the priests should reverently receive it. Tanta in altari holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debeant. Quod remanserit (nimirum ex holocaustis et elementis consecratis) non servetur in crastinum, sed cum timore et tremore clericorum diligentia consumetur. Clem. P. P. Ep. 2. de Consecrat, distinct. 2. c. tribus gradibus." (b)
P. 131.-"To his own use.] We read in Clemens, (c) that after the Communion was done, the deacons took up that which was left, and carried it in Pastophorium, the room where the priests were lodged. In Origen, (d) that it was not (b) ["Ap. Decretum, pars iii. de consecratione, dist. ii. c. 23, apud Corp. Jur. Canon., tom. i. The passage is taken out of a spurious Epistle of S. Clement, Epist ii. ad Jacobum fratrem Domini de sacratis vestibus et vasis, printed in the Concilia, tom. i. p. 99, A. B.] "— Ed. Note.
Concilia, tom. i. col. 485. A]"-Ed. Note.
well lead to the belief that, though the objectors to kneeling at the reception of the Sacrament were increasing, no novel practice as to consuming the remains had crept in among those who adhered to and defended the Rubric.
But when the Scotch Prayer Book was prepared in 1636-7 the following Rubric was appended to the Communion Office:-" And if any of the Bread and Wine remain, which is consecrated, it shall be reverently eaten and drunken by such of the Communicants only as the Presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it shall not be carried out of the Church." What is the legitimate inference from this? Surely, that in the preceding 30 years a growing Puritan irreverence in all that concerned the ministration of the Eucharist had shown the necessity of such a provision in a Book intended for use among a people who were deeply imbued with Knox's prejudices against Kneeling, and who were using his "Book of Common Order." If it be asked -why did not Abp. Laud then add a similar Rubric to the English Book? the answer is plain-that Ecclesiastical affairs were far too perilous at that time in England to adventure what would certainly have been denounced as a Popish innovation.
kept till the next day. In St. Jerome, (e) that after the Communion, they that had eaten it in the Church spent all that remained of the oblations. In Hesychius, (f) that after the example of the old law, all that was left was cast into the fire. In Evagrius, (g) that it was an ancient custom at Constantinople, that if any of the Sacrament remained, young children were called from the school to eat it up; which was retained in France, (h) as in Concil. Masticon et Turon., held under Charlemagne." () _See also Cosin's other Notes quoted infra. So, too, Sparrow (whose language I had not before noticed) says-" If any of the Bread and Wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use. [Rub. 5. after the Communion Service] that is, if it were not consecrated: for if it be consecrated, it is all to be spent with fear and reverence by the Communicants, in the Church. Gratian de Consecr. dist. 2. c. 23. Tribus Concil. Constant. Resp. ad. Qu. 5. Monachon. apud Balsam. Theophil. Alexand. Cap. 7."-Rationale p. 241. Ed. 1672.
(e) "[In ecclesia convenientes oblationes suas separatim offerebant, et post communionem quæcunque eis de sacrificiis super fuissent, illi in eeclesia communem cœnam comedentes pariter consumebant.-Pseudo-Hieron. in 1 Cor. xi. 20. S. Hieron. Op. tom. xi. col. 9, 31, D. E.] "-Ed. Note.
(f) "[Hesychius in Levit., lib. ii. (in c. viii. 32.) ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. xii. p. 86. C. Lugd. 1677.]"-Ed. Note.
(g) "[.. Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., lib. iv. c. 36, p. 416.]"-Ed. Note.
(h) "[. -Ed. Note. (i) "[.
Conc. Masticonense II. A. D. 585. can. 5, Concilia, tom. vi. col. 675, C.D."
Con. Turouense III. sub Carolo Magno A. D. 813, can. 19; ibid, tom. ix., col. 351, D.]"-Ed. Note.