« PoprzedniaDalej »
Mr. Goode (vol. 1, p. 46) claims the Archbishop's statement, as to his change of opinion, in proof that when he put out the first Book of Homilies (in 1547) "he had not then embraced the true doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist," and that, consequently, we are bound to consider him as having subsequently abandoned the language of his Advertisement at the end of that Book, where a Homily is promised "of the due receiving of his blessed Body and Blood, under the form of Bread and Wine." Mr. Goode contends that the expression, "under the form of bread and wine," necessarily "expresses the doctrine of Transubstantiation;" though Cranmer (in 1551) distinctly states that he had, in 1548, "many years past," abandoned that error: but Mr. Goode presses the same phrase into covering what he calls "the doctrine of the Bodily Presence," which doctrine he argues, from Cranmer's language, the Archbishop "held. . . . till after" the publication of the Homilies in 1547. Dates, however, prove, I think, that the words, "not long before," do not carry down Cranmer's belief of a " Bodily," i. e., a carnal presence to the time of their publication, unless, indeed, it can be shewn that the Archbishop's opinions underwent a most material change within three or four months of that time. For the Homilies were prepared on purpose to be lodged in the several Dioceses, with the Royal Injunctions of 1547 by the King's Visitors as they proceeded through the kingdom that year: that Visitation was to have commenced in May or June, but was delayed until August; a delay which, it may be, was partly caused by the difficulties which Cranmer had to encounter from Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, whose countenance and assistance he was anxious to obtain in the preparation of the Homilies, which, however, was ultimately refused, though he complained much of some parts of them when they were finished, pretty much because, as Cranmer thought, "he liked nothing unless he did it himself," (Strype's Cranmer, bk. ii., c. 3.) Now there was barely time for the Homilies to be distributed by the Visitors, before the Statute 1 Edw. VI., c. i., was passed on Nov. 4th.-" An Act against such as shall unreverently speak against the Sacrament
of the Altar, and of the receiving thereof in both kinds :" to that Statute the Archbishop was clearly a consentient party, for in the contemporaneous Convocation, "Session V. November ult. . . . . Mr. Prolocutor exhibited. . . . a form of a certain ordinance, delivered by the most reverend the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the receiving of the Body of our Lord under both kinds, viz., of bread and wine.” (Ib. c. 4.) This Act was followed up by the Royal Proclamation of Dec. 27th, already quoted (see p. 6), the language of which, while expressly affirming "that the body and blood of Jesus Christ is there," leaves no room for doubt that one object which Cranmer aimed at, in procuring the passing of the Statute, was to suppress the " unreverent" belief then popular, of a gross carnal presence, whether held in connexion with Transubstantiation or not; though it was also directed generally against those who "go about in their sermons or talks arrogantly to define the manner, nature, fashion, ways, possibility or impossibility of those matters." Mr. Goode may probably have mistaken Cranmer's views at this time from having, apparently, lost sight of the fact of this popular belief; for he says (p. 19), "That neither Romanists nor Lutherans have ever held a gross, visible, material presence, or a presence of the natural body after a natural manner." That this is an error, as regards the Romanists, an examination of the passages at pp. 6 and 28 will, I think, sufficiently demonstrate. Supposing it, however, to be even true that this sudden change of opinion did occur, (though, as I have argued, the evidence seems wholly against it,) it would be no proof that Cranmer repudiated the phrase, “Under the form of bread and wine;" on the contrary, in the Catechism of 1548, which was published shortly after the occurrences just referred to, he actually employs the same language, (see § d, p. 155) so that one of two conclusions must follow-(1) Either he maintained the same doctrine at the publication of the First Book of Homilies, as well as when the Catechism appeared; or (2) that he accounted the phrase, “Under the form of bread and wine," alike suited to express the doctrine which he held when he abandoned any notion of a carnal
Presence. To my own mind, the evidence proves-that the Archbishop did not hold the doctrine of what Mr. Goode calls, "the Bodily presence," when he published the First Book of Homilies; that as he used the phrase in question then, so he employed it in his Catechism; and that, he neither had occasion, nor intended to disuse or to disown it afterwards;-for as to Cranmer's language to Gardiner, upon which Mr. Goode mainly relies for proof that the Archbishop did repudiate the phrase, it seems to me foreign to such an intention, as I have already suggested at p. 21; and moreover, such statements of Cranmer's doctrine as those furnished at p. 22 and elsewhere, are anything but inconsistent with a retention of the phrase.
It has, indeed, been suggested by a Prelate (who, like Mr. Goode, apparently desires to free Cranmer from the responsibility of the phrase) that it may have been "surreptitiously introduced: but it seems inconceivable that this should have occurred, considering Cranmer's personal superintendence of the publication of the Homilies. Yet if it were so, it is no less difficult to imagine that the Archbishop should have been silent on the matter, when Gardiner wrongly quoted the language as being in the Communion Office of 1549, if a phrase which he is now said to have repudiated had found its way into an Advertisement of forthcoming Homilies, both without his knowledge and against his distinct convictions. But the same Prelate has further suggested-that "if we are to refer to the notice at the end of the one book, let us take with it the title page at the beginning of the second, and the titles of the two parts of the Homily itself. Neither here, nor in the words of the Homily, does the expression 'under the form of bread and wine' occur." If, however, there exists an apparent inconsistency, such as is here meant to be indicated, it may arise from insufficient attention to the earlier words of the Advertisement, which perhaps have hardly received due notice, on either side, in the controversy touching the disputed formula.
The terms, then, of the Advertisement imply that the object of the promised Homily was to treat "of the due re
ceiving," rather than of the Presence in the Sacrament; consequently, while the Title of the Second Book recognizes the Notice of the First Book, there need be no surprise (rather it was to be expected) that the Title of the promised Homily should convey the specific purpose of it; and so in "The Table of Homilies ensuing," the 15th is called "Of the worthy Receiving of the Sacrament," while the "Homily" itself is intituled not merely "of the worthy receiving," but of the "reverent esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ :" as if in part to fulfil the promise of the PROCLAMATION just noticed to "declare and set forth an open doctrine thereof, [i. e., of the Sacrament], and what terms and words may justly be spoken thereby, other than be expressly in the Scripture contained in the act before rehearsed,”—a promise which Cranmer may have found it the more needful to redeem, considering the then growing irreverence on the subject. If, moreover, the Title be Cranmer's then it would seem that we may fairly read the word, "Reverent," by the light of the same language in his letter to the Privy Council already commented upon; and, too, may consider these and the following statements of the Homily as being mutually expletive :
Part I. (a.) We must address ourselves to frequent the same [Table] in reverent and comely manner, lest as physic provided for the body, being misused, more hurteth than profiteth; so this comfortable medicine of the soul, undecently received, tend to our greater harın and sorrow. And St. Paul saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” (b.) "We must then take heed. . . . lest of two parts we have but one."
(c.) "For this table is not, saith Chrysostom, for chattering jays, but for eagles, who flee thither where the dead body lieth."
(d.) ... Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is .... no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent."
(e.) "And truly, as the bodily meat cannot feed the outward man, unless it be let into a stomach to be digested, which is healthsome and sound; no more can the inward man be fed, except his meat be received into his soul and heart, sound and whole in faith."
(f) "It is well known that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly refection,
and not earthly; an invisible meat, and not bodily; a ghostly substance, and not carnal; so that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding, basely objecting and binding ourselves to the elements and creatures."
(g.) ". . . . The unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious body."
(h.) "Wherefore let us prove and try ourselves unfeignedly, . . . . so that at this His table we receive not only the outward Sacrament, but the spiritual thing also; not the figure, but the truth; not the shadow only, but the body; not to death, but to life; not to destruction, but to salvation. . . . .
Part II. (i.) "You have heard with what constant faith we should clothe and deck ourselves, that we might be fit and decent partakers of that celestial food."
(k.) "St. Basil saith, it behoveth him that cometh to the body and blood of Christ, in commemoration of Him that died and rose again, to be pure from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, lest he eat and drink his own condemnation. . . . .
(7.) "Dost thou neither fear God, the maker of this feast; nor reverence his Christ, the refection of meat; . . . .? "
(m.) "For surely, if we do not with earnest repentance cleanse the filthy stomach of our soul, it must needs come to pass, that as wholesome meat received into a raw stomach, corrupteth and marreth all, and is the cause of further sickness; so shall we eat this wholesome bread, and drink this cup to our eternal destruction."
(n.) "If they be worthy blame which kiss the prince's hand with a filthy and unclean mouth, shalt thou be blameless which, with a stinking soul, full of covetousness, fornication, drunkenness, pride, full of wretched cogitations and thoughts, dost breathe out iniquity and uncleanness on the bread and cup of the Lord ?"
Now it is quite true, that neither in these passages, nor in the rest of the Homily, is the expression used, "under the form of bread and wine;" but the point to be considered is, whether the same thing is not taught in other words—whether a Real Objective Presence in the Sacrament is not distinctly set forth in the language of these extracts. It may well
* Is not this precisely the same idea as that conveyed in the Prayer of Access, contained in all the Prayer Books, from 1549 to 1662, "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, SO to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood [1549, in these holy Mysteries, that we may continually dwell in Him and He in us] that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood. [1552-1662, and that we may evermore dwell in Him and He in us]. Amen." Of what use is the word, SO, unless it means that there is a right and a wrong way of partaking of the same thing-that Thing being the Body and Blood of Christ?