« PoprzedniaDalej »
It would seem, however, that Mr. Goode is not satisfied with the doctrine even as he interprets it; for he says, "This is not precisely the doctrine of our best divines," quoting Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V., lxvii. 6, and then he adds "But it is very different from what is called the doctrine of the Real Presence, and the difference between it and the sounder doctrine delivered by Hooker, is comparatively of secondary importance." Yet if this Homily is, as Mr. Goode says, a testimony of Archbishop Parker's views;" if its doctrine is spoken of "in the way of commendation" by him and the other fourteen Bishops who signed the Preface; if, moreover, the doctrine so approved is to be taken, as Mr. Goode implies, as explanatory of the meaning of that 28th Article which these Bishops agreed upon-what is this but saying that Hooker held "a sounder doctrine," touching the Eucharistic Presence, than the Elizabethan Bishops delivered in the Article which they Subscribed themselves and put forth to be Subscribed by all the Clergy of the Realm? Would Hooker have admitted this? Can the answer be doubtful?
Having thus considered at some length, and I hope satisfactorily answered, Mr. Goode's remarks upon those passages in this Letter, which relate to the 28th and 29th Articles, I now proceed to notice some other statements in the same Letter, which, I think, further tend to shew the fallacy of those conclusions which Mr. Goode has drawn from it.
It will be seen that Bishop Guest, (the supposed writer) does not confine his objections to these two Articles; for the xviith and xxvth are alike the objects of his censure: he commences his Letter (§ 1) by urging that "Thees wordes (suo consilio nobis quidem occulto)* are to be put out of y book for three causes" which he then mentions: again, (§ 2) he complains that the words "Furthermore we must receave Goddes promises in such wise, as they be generally set forthe to us in holy Scripture," which occur in the last clause of the Article, "be not playne ynoughe;" and, once more, (§ 3) he expresses his opinion that the words "In our doyenges that
These words are not in the English version, in the Fac-simile of the "Little Booke," printed by Dr. Lambe.
will of God is to be folowed wiche we have expressly declared unto us in ye worde of God," forming part of the same clause, "be dangerous." But all these three expressions (which are found in our present 17th Article) were retained in that English copy of the Articles which Bishop Guest signed on May 11th, 1571.
So, too, in regard to the 25th Article, the Bishop wished (§ 4) to insert the word "salvation" in the sentence "By the which he dothe work invisibly in us." Again, he proposed (85) that the second clause-" There are two Sacraments ordeyned of Christ our Lorde in ye gospel "-should read thus: "In this sort there be but two sacraments, baptisme and y' Lordes supper." Further (§ 6) he considered it was "not true in all poyntes" to declare, as stated in the third clause, "that thees fyve commonly called sacramentes that is to saye confermation penance orders matrimonie and extreme annoyling are not to be accompted for sacramentes of the gospell; and (§ 7) he also saw it "not to be true" to speak of them as "Beinge suche as have growen partely of y corrupt folowynge of y apostles" if "thees wordes" were "ment" to refer to "confirmation* penance orders matrimonie." This clause of the Article he therefore wished to be altered in the form he gives at the end of § 7, "Confirmation," etc.
But, as in the case of the 17th Article so, in this, the phraseology was adhered to, and Guest signed the Articles notwithstanding the objections put forward in the Letter.
Now how are we to account for this? Mr. Goode's solution of the difficulty, in respect of Articles 28 and 29, has been already noticed (pp. 205, 208); I must presume he would
It is worth observing that the same objection, so far as regards Confirmation, was made by the Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference, 30 years later. (Cardwell Hist. Conf., p. 181.)-" In the third point (which was about Confirmation) was observed either curiosity or malice, because the Article which was then presently read, in those words: These five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, etc., are not to be accounted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles,' etc., insinuateth that the making of confirmation to be a sacrament is a corrupt imitation; but the Communion Book, aiming at the right use and proper course thereof, makes it to be according to the Apostles' example; which his Majesty observing, and reading both the places, concluded the objection to be a meer cavil. And this was for the pretended contradiction."-2nd Day's Conference, January 14th, 1603.
resort to the same explanation in reference to Articles 17 and 25: I prefer the more charitable and the more likely opinion -that he became convinced of the language not being unsound, though it was not what he considered the most appropriate to obviate difficulties and to meet objections. It. would needlessly encumber these pages, and would be quite foreign to their purpose, to discuss the points raised in this Letter upon the 17th and 25th Articles, with a view to reconcile their language with the objections of Bishop Guest: but it will be convenient to cite the words of the Homily "Of Common Prayer and Sacraments," as bearing upon his remarks on the 25th Article.
"Now with like, or rather more brevity, you shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our Saviour Christ, and are to be continued and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willeth them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and an holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. For although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin; yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are: and therefore Absolution is no such sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath his visible sign and promise; yet it lacks the promise of remission of sins, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to that thing, whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not onely to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments; but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such. like; not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are..... And although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, .. certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the church, matrimony, confirmation of children.
and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments in such signification and meaning as the sacrament of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are: but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity, by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church."
Now, comparing this passage with § § 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Letter to Burleigh, is there not such identity of language as to shew that the same hand might have written both? But this 9th Homily had been set forth by Archbishop Parker and the other Bishops nine years before, and was now again. authoritatively recognized as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine," in the 35th of those very Articles then awaiting the Royal Sanction. Is it at all an improbable conjecture -that Guest was referred to the Homily for proof that the 25th Article did mean what he thought it might, in words, more clearly convey? Would not this be quite sufficient to account for the relinquishment of his objection, and for his consenting to sign the Article ? If so, does not this consideration support the theory for which I am contendingthat Guest was convinced that the language of the Articles, to which he had been demurring, was not repugnant to the doctrine which he held, and, therefore, that he could consistently attach his signature?
No doubt, too, Guest felt that having made this last attempt to get, what he considered, a more accurate phraseology introduced into these Articles, it was simply the path of modest duty to concur by his signature in the decision of "y most of [the] Bishops," and to set an example of Subscription (though it was not required from the Bishops by the 13th Eliz. c. 12), unless he was convinced that those Articles really embodied unsound doctrine. Bennet, indeed, thinks (p. 187) that Guest's Subscription at this time proves that he 66 came off from those notions afterwards" which he had held about the Real Presence "(as divers persons in those early daies entertained different opinions at different times about the Sacrament)" but then Bennet, apparently, was entirely ignorant of the existence of these Letters of 1566 and 1571,
else he must have sought for some other reason to account for Guest's signature to "that very [29th] Article in the Convocation of 1571."
With regard to the question of Cheney's subscription, Bennet says:
"Nor do I believe, that Bishop Cheney did ever subscribe the Twenty-ninth Article. For tho' the 13 Eliz. c. 12 obliged the inferior Clergy to Subscription; yet the Bishops are exempted from that necessity by the very Letter of the Act."
It may be quite true that, as Mr. Goode supposes, Cheney "would have been glad to have subscribed" the Articles, as as well Guest; though not, as I have argued at p.212, "in that sense" which Guest puts upon the 29th; but, unless he was constrained to do so by any other authority than that of the Statute, it can hardly be doubted that he would be anxious to avoid Subscription himself (though obliged to enforce it upon his Clergy), if he continued to hold that opinion of the Real Presence, which there seems ground for believing that he did maintain in May, 1571.
Having regard, then, to the various considerations now offered, I must confess myself unable to think with Mr. Goode, that "the question thus raised" by Bishop Guest's Letter of Decr. 22, 1566, which "has been appealed to as determining the sense of the 28th Article in a direction very different from that which has been ordinarily attributed to it," can be easily set at rest, and the interpretation thus given to the 28th Article be shewn to be inadmissible" (p. 1): on the contrary, it seems to me that, although some obscurity still overhangs the subject, the view I have now presented will, at least, bear a favourable comparison with that which Mr. Goode has drawn, and requires some strong shadow to be thrown upon it, before it can be dissolved into his picture.
Some additional light is, however, cast upon, what I have represented as, Guest's opinions at this time, in Parts II. and III. of his Letter to Burleigh (see pp. 201-4), wherein he argues "toching coming to ye Church, and receaiving y sacrament." The Bill to which these words relate is conveniently referred to in the following passage of Mr. Swain