« PoprzedniaDalej »
ceive of Archbishop Parker having satisfied him that there was nothing in the language of the Article which contradicted. the authorities he had referred to, or the view which he had expressed in § 11 of his Letter. For it is clear from Guest's language in this very Section that he never could have regarded "all men which be of churche, and of the profession of Christ, whether they be good or bad, faithfull or unfaythefull," as "partakers of Christ," in the Sacrament, in that sense wherein our Lord spake when He said to Simon Peter, "If I wash thee not thou hast no part with Me." If, then, the Archbishop could convince Guest (as surely was not difficult) that this expression of the Article was not inconsistent with his belief-that "Judas as evill as he was did receave Christis bodye, because Christ saied unto him take eate this is my bodye "-seeing that the very same Father (St. Augustine) who was cited in the Article held the same belief respecting Judas-Guest might naturally and consistently withdraw his opposition, and unite in a statement which had obtained the concurrence of his brethren.
Mr. Goode asserts that "Bishop Geste's own testimony proves the 29th Article "to be entirely irreconcileable with his view of the presence" and one "which therefore excludes his interpretation of the 28th" (p. 7) and is "fatal to his mode of" explaining it (p. 11). But, first of all, it must be observed that Guest distinctly repeats in § 9 of this Letter the precise explanation of the words "after a spirituall and heavenly maner only" which he had given in his former Letter; and he speaks of their introduction into the Article, in such a way as entirely to destroy Mr. Goode's, not exactly charitable, theory that "he himself penned " them "with the secret intention of understanding them as he has explained them in his Letter to Cecil of December 22, 1566." For it seems utterly beyond belief that his former assertion should have remained unnoticed, so far as anything appears to the
"The Lord Himself endureth Judas, a devil, a thief, and His betrayer: He allows him to receive among the innocent disciples, what the faithful know to be our Ransom."-Ep. 43, ad Glor. Eleus., § 23, p. 99. Dr. Pusey's Catena, p. 503.
contrary, and that he should have ventured to assert again (in a Document obviously not designed merely for the Secretary's own private perusal) that "it was putt in onely to this ende, to take awaye all grosse and sensible presence "-thereby, in fact, as it seems to me, claiming for that interpretation of it the assent of the Convocation-unless he well knew that such a statement did not admit of contradiction. If however, this later Letter was not written by Bishop Guest, then it much increases the very difficulty which Mr. Goode seeks to remove; for the writer, whoever he was, becomes a most important witness to the truth of that positive statement made by Bishop Guest, but which Mr. Goode ventures to deny.
This consideration alone seems to warrant us in drawing, from Guest's language about the 29th Article, a conclusion materially different from that which Mr. Goode has furnished: for if, as I venture to maintain, the silence of the Bishops admits the truth of Guest's allegation respecting the 28th Article; then if it does not disprove Mr. Goode's assertion -"that the meaning attached to the words of the 28th Article by Bishop Guest was not that in which they were passed by Convocation" (p. 11)-it shows that it was a meaning not designed to be excluded; and therefore I submit that, whereas Mr. Goode says (p. 7) "no sense can be placed on Article 28, which is not consistent with the doctrine delivered in Article 29," it would be truer and more pertinent to state-that to disallow an interpretation of Art. 29 which is consistent with Guest's explanation of Art. 28, is to ignore the mind of the Convocation of 1571 which passed them both.
In further defence, however, of his theory Mr. Goode contends (p. 11) that
"Even irrespective of that addition [of Art. 29] it would seem that the words [of Art. 28] appeared to others to enunciate so clearly a different doctrine from that which Bishop Geste ascribed to them, that even Bishop Cheney, who would have been glad to have subscribed them in that sense could not conscientiously do so. And Bishop Geste himself, on second thoughts, would have liked to eliminate the word only,' in order to save Cheney from con
demnation; which shows that Parker and the Bishops before whom he was convened did not interpret the word in the sense attached to it by Geste."
Upon this passage I remark (1) First, that if it be meant that Cheney concurred with "others" in construing the disputed words differently from Guest, it by no means follows that he and they spoke the mind of those who passed the Article: from the little that seems known of Cheney's opinion it appears that he held a somewhat physical notion of the Real Presence, though not maintaining Transubstantiation: for Strype (Cranmer p. 461) says, that, in the Convocation of 1553, he "owned the Presence with the Papists, but denied the Transubstantiation;" and again (Ann. 1. 282), after remarking that Goodman accused him of being a Papist, says, "But I do not find anywhere that he was indeed of that faith, any further than that he was for the real, that is the corporal, presence of Christ in the Sacrament." This seems confirmed by Guest's words in his letter of December 22, 1566, where he states that he told Cheney he "wold speake against him herein," i.e., apparently, for advocating that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament was in some kind of way cognizable by the senses as distinct from faith; and his remarks in § 9 of the letter of 1571 seem to imply the same opinion as being still held by Cheney: for he observes, "And whereas it is saied bycause y mouthe receavethe Christis body, therefore it is sensibly receaved; the consequent is not true bycause y mouthe in receaving Christis bodye, doeth not feel it nor taste it, nor we by any other sense do perceave it." Moreover Campian the Jesuit, writing to Cheney in Nov., 1571, exhorted him to return to the Church for "that he was more tolerable than the rest of the heretics, because he held the presence of Christ in the Sacrament" (Strype Ann. i. 282) i.e. his, Campian's, view of the Presence.* If this were so it would sufficiently account
* A consideration this which surely suggests how Mr. Goode really answers himself when he says (p. 16), "Another testimony that the Bishops of that day did not hold the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the elements, may be found in the fact that Campian, one of the Romish divines of
for Cheney's objection to the phrase and for his continuing still to oppose it, notwithstanding Guest's explanation of its design: he "could not conscientiously" subscribe it in Guest's "sense" if, as would seem, he held a notion of grosseness and sensibleness in y' receaving" of the Sacrament, which Guest told him the words were meant to exclude."
That Cheney did (about the date of Guest's Letter of 1566) hold some opinion on the Eucharistic Presence materially different from the opinions of his Episcopal brethren,* seems clear from a Letter written by Jewel to Bullinger on Feb. 24, 1567, in which he says-"One alone of our number, the bishop of Gloucester, hath openly and boldly declared in Parliament his approval of Luther's opinion respecting the Eucharist, but this crop will not, I hope, be of long continuance." (Zurich Letters, 1st Series, p. 185.) But as Guest, both in 1566 and 1571, quotes Jewel's language as being confirmatory of his own statements touching the Real Presence, we are necessarily led to conclude that there was a difference between the belief of Cheney and Guest on this subject.
(2.) Next, I would observe that Guest's willingness" to eliminate" the word "onely" or, as Mr. Goode also expresses it (p. 7) "to modify the phraseology of Art. 28," on Cheney's account, is no proof at all that "Parker and the Bishops" held a different interpretation of it from Guest; rather I conceive it shews their agreement. Because (a) though he thought (§ 9) "if this worde onely were put out of y' booke for his [Cheney's] sake it were y' best," he clearly held that
that period, speaks of Cheney as more tolerable than the rest of the heretics, and distinguished from them as holding the true presence of Christ on the altar
"The Italics are Mr. Goode's. Compare Ridley (p. 60)-"That Heavenly Lamb is" etc. See also Bishop Guest's "Treatise against the Preevec Masse," 1548 ". . . the worthy counsayle of Nice wryteth to the disalowance of transubstantiation in sorte thus, let us not grossely beholde the bread and wyne proposed and set before our eyes but in faythe consider the Lambe of God in that hys sacred table having our heartes elevated and uplifted. . . .”—P. 82. Ed. 1840.
Mr. Goode himself allows this, for he says (p. 16). "And Camden speaks of Cheney as distinguished from his brethren by being Luthero addictissimum, a warm adherent of Luther."
it made no real difference to the meaning of the Article, for in this same section he repeats distinctly that interpretation which Mr. Goode denies to be the true one. Again (b) there is nothing to shew, so far as I know, that Cheney was in danger of "condemnation" by the Bishops' for holding Guest's interpretation of the Article, though he may have been cited for teaching the doctrine which I just now suggested that he maintained: he had been excommunicated in Synod, in April, " for absence and contumacy" (Strype Ann. i. 281); but I have failed to discover anything to shew what were the "certain errours whiche he is accused to holde" and which Guest says he was to "be cited to answer before the Archbishop and other bishoppes."
It may, further, be noticed that § 8 also manifests Guest's real object in proposing any alteration in the terms of the 28th Article, though he himself was fully content with its wording his design clearly was to obviate the difficulties of others by using language which, while not obnoxious to them, should yet convey the sense in which he declared the Article to have been framed: thus "bycause some men for a more playnes wold have added this word truely or in-dede," he said "it were well to putt it in" thus-" The body of Christ is in dede gyven taken and eaten in y° supper;" and he quotes the language of Calvin and Jewel as a reason for admitting the proposed phrase. Probably, in this suggestion, he designed also to meet the objection of Bishop Cheney.
Mr. Goode still further endeavours to fortify his position by the following observation (p. 12):
"It is worthy of remark, also, that the very word which Archdeacon Denison would wish us to suppose is to be understood in the interpretation of the words, that we receive the body of Christ by faith only, namely profitably,' was proposed for insertion by Bishop Geste, but was not inserted."
But the non-insertion of this word is no proof that it was rejected; if, indeed, it could be shewn that this was done, and done on the plea-that to insert it would alter the sense of the Article-some ground would be furnished for the