« PoprzedniaDalej »
The next point to which Mr. Goode calls attention. (pp. 21 to 24) is Dr. Pusey's "discussion of the meaning of the Advertisement at the end of the first Book of Homilies, to which" he, Mr. Goode, had "already directed the attention of the reader" in his "Work on the Eucharist, pp. 40— 47." I have examined the subject at some length in a former part of this Appendix (See pp. 152-171) where will be found, what seem to me, adequate reasons for dissenting from Mr. Goode's conclusions-that the Advertisement was "opposed to the Doctrine established by authoritative Formularies subsequently published," (p. 21): that it cannot have the slightest force or value" except except "That it may be some indication of the views entertained at the time by the person who inserted it. . . . " (p. 23): and that it "is a mat
Prideaux, as having held views, upon the subject of Baptism, which are undistinguishable from those of Mr. Gorham. Certainly it would not be difficult to cite a similar array of names in support even of the more extreme opinions of the late Archdeacon, provided those opinions are taken according to the letter of his published works. What, for instance, shall we say of such divines as Overall, Cosin, Thorndyke, Sheldon, Bramhall, Jackson, and Morley-all men of mark and eminence in the Church, and some of them Bishops and Archbishops? Nay, what shall we say of the notorious Dr. Gunning himself; the very man at whose instigation the rubrical alteration, we are now considering, is known to have been made? These divines may not have written upon the subject of the Eucharist at the same length, or with the same systematic precision, as the author of the book we are now considering; but they have all, and especially the lastthe chief actor be it remembered, in the revision of 1662-given utterance to sentiments of which it may without hesitation be affirmed, that they cannot, in any important particular be distinguished' from those of Mr. Wilberforce. And when, moreover, all the other circumstances of the case are duly considered: when we call to mind the special reason--namely, a compromise with Romefor which the Rubric now under consideration was omitted from the Liturgy of Elizabeth, together with the strong language which has all along been allowed to exist in certain portions of our present Communion Service: when we consider the Scholastic phraseology introduced, as we have already seen, into the Church Catechism by Bishop Overall; and the final removal, even from the Articles, of the one only clause contained in them, which was condemnatory, in express terms of the Real Presence:' we see not with what appearance of equity, or even common fairness, the late Archdeacon of the East Riding could, had his case been actually brought before any of our Ecclesiastical Courts, have been deprived of the honours of his Archdeaconry; Mr. Gorham continuing all the while unmolested in the vicarical emoluments of Brampford Speke."pp. 388-391.
* In a note Mr. Fisher gives the passage which I had quoted from Burnet at p. 70, remarking upon it, "And yet it was to men capable of such extravagancies as this, that the final revision of our National Service-book was entrusted; and we, forsooth, are content to accept their handy work as the expression of our own religious belief."
ter of secondary importance" to consider "whether the phrase used in this Advertisement
was used to express the doctrine of the real presence in the bread and wine, their substance remaining, . . . ." (p. 23).
My only reason for now adverting to this part of the Supplement" is Mr. Goode's complaint that "Dr. Pusey, according to his usual custom of ignoring the strongest points of his opponents' argument, . . . . takes no notice" (p. 22) of his citation of Cranmer's reply to Gardiner who had said (See p. 21) that the expression "under the form of bread and wine" occurred "in the distribution of the Holy Communion."
Why Dr. Pusey did not notice this I do not know; he may have thought it, as certainly it seems to me to be, one of the weakest of Mr. Goode's arguments; for how the fact that the phrase did not occur in so improbable a place as the Communion Office of 1549-proves its lack of authority where it stands in the First Book of Homilies, is a position which I should have thought it impossible to maintain without very different evidence from what Mr. Goode has produced or, indeed, from any which seems to exist. Mr. Goode, however, resorts to a singular plea in order to maintain what he regards as Cranmer's fatal answer to any Doctrinal claim of the Advertisement: he says:
"If the form of words in question occurred in any formulary of authority in our Church, that was equivalent to their being in the 'Communion Book.""
They did occur, however, as Mr. Goode says, (p. 22) "at the end of an authoritative Formulary;" that "Formulary" (to use Mr. Goode's nomenclature): being the first Book of Homilies: but suppose, for argument's sake, they had "occurred" in either of the Homilies themselves; would Mr. Goode really consent to place these "Sermons" on the same footing as the Communion Office? If so, is he prepared to accept all the consequences of such a theory, and to acquiesce in all the statements of these Homilies as readily as he is bound to admit the teaching of the Communion Office itself? It may be so, but I much doubt it. Yet, if not, of what
use is his argument at all? But even if he is willing to be bound by the legitimate force of his own proposition, it by no means follows that, in that proposition, he represents the mind of Archbishop Cranmer or the Convocation: surely it cannot be seriously maintained that they ever contemplated such an identification of the Homilies and the Communion Office. It was a most legitimate and useful thing to propose to instruct the people in the true meaning of a current Theological term, by issuing a Homily in which it should be explained it would have been, to say the least, a most doubtful proceeding to employ in a public Liturgy (where explanation was impossible)—that Liturgy, too, being a reformed one-an expression which was well known to be used in support of different Doctrines by different classes of religionists; one of these Doctrines being that very one of Transubstantiation which the Church of England had ceased to hold when the Prayer Book of 1549 was issued. It is easy therefore to understand why Cranmer repelled in somewhat strong terms Gardiner's assertion, that the phrase was used "in the distribution of the Holy Communion;" but it seems to me most illogical to infer from this circumstance, that "Cranmer evidently repudiates the phrase altogether as one used by the Church of England." I am content to set against Mr. Goode's inference the facts-that at this very time (1551) Cranmer's Catechism of 1548 was still in circulation: that, in that Catechism, Cranmer had employed this precise phrase (See p. 155): that, in his "Answer to Gardiner," (1551) he used the very phrase (See p. 179 and Note): that in this same Book he adhered to the Catechism* (See p. 159): and that there is nothing whatever to show that he ever abandoned it; whereas, on the contrary, all that we know goes to prove that he maintained it to the end of his life.
But Mr. Goode, anxious to deprive the Advertisement of any possible weight, yet seemingly embarrassed by the con
..... this document is, as has already been shown, authenticated by Cranmer himself, no less decisively at the close of the year 1551-when, according to Burnett, the SECOND Book of Edw. had already been drawn up-than at the time of its first publication."-Fisher Lit. Pur. p. 235. The Italics and Capitals are Mr. Fisher's.
sideration, that Archbishop Cranmer's opinions will naturally be regarded as a fair test of its meaning, further says (p. 23):
"And the question as to what Cranmer's precise views were in 1547 will not determine the meaning of this Advertisement, for the authorship of the Advertisement is not known; and such a notice, having no legal authority, might be inserted by any one to whom the office of editing the first book of homilies was entrusted; and certainly few among the authorities of our Church had then given up the doctrine of Transubstantiation. It is clear, as I have just shewn, that Cranmer altogether repudiated the phrase occurring in it as one to which our Church was committed, and shows by his language, in several places respecting it, what he understood by it. And therefore it cannot be supposed that he inserted it."
Now we have just seen that the Archbishop did make the phrase his own, and, in a sense, the Church of England's too, by using it in his Catechism of 1548: yet he certainly never repudiated" that Catechism, but distinctly upheld it (See p. 159), in the very "Answer to Gardiner," wherein, according to Mr. Goode, he "altogether repudiated" it for "our Church;" we are driven then to this conclusion-that Cranmer held and taught a Doctrinal phrase which he well knew and openly declared to be opposed to the mind of that Church over which he was Archbishop; but, as for my own part I cannot believe that the Primate would thus dishonestly instruct the "children and yong people" of England so, the merest charity obliges to the persuasion, that Cranmer did not consider the phrase to be disallowed in the Church of England, even though he might not think her formally "committed" to it if so, it may most fairly and reasonably "be supposed that he inserted it."
But, says Mr. Goode, "few among the authorities of our Church had then given up the doctrine of Transubstantiation :" yet certainly Cranmer had; and therefore he was not very likely to entrust the "editing" of the book to any one by whom, perchance, the phrase in question might be introduced with the design of supporting that Doctrine. It is, however, a mere assumption on Mr. Goode's part, that the Archbishop employed any one to Edit the Homilies: certainly there is no known proof that he did, though there is sufficient reason for
thinking that he did not yet, if he did, is it in the least likely that he neglected to look at the Book when it came out of the printer's hands? In that case could the Advertisement, or so important an alteration of it, have escaped his notice? On the supposition, indeed, that the Book was Edited by another, it is not impossible that a sentence of seven words might have been overlooked by the Archbishop, if inserted in the body of the Homilies; but assuredly it is most improbable that he could have overlooked it in so conspicuous a place as it occupies at the end of the Book. As to Mr. Goode's assertion, that "the authorship of the Advertisement is not known," it no more detracts from its value than does the like ignorance diminish the worth of some of the Homilies themselves; and when (to account for, what he considers, its unwarranted insertion) he says that it had "no legal authority," it seems to me enough to say-that I believe he would fail to produce any "legal authority" for the Homilies themselves which does not equally apply to this Advertise
I suppose Mr. Goode would allow that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was authoritatively abolished in the Church of England when the 2nd Book of Homilies was published in Elizabeth's reign: yet Bishop Jewel, while denying Harding's doctrine of a carnal Presence, uses the phrase in question (See p. 249) without any indication that he objected to it except in the sense which Harding put upon the word "forms" viz. accidents without substance; or "fantasies" as Jewel calls them: if, then, as there is good
Jewel's language to Harding in "The Defence of the Apology" shews more clearly his meaning in the passage referred to above; thus he says:"But ye tell us further of yourself, that the body of Christ in the Sacrament ... being (as you say) a very natural body, yet hath neither likeness nor shape of a body."- p. 258 Ed. P. S.
Again, quoting St. Augustine, "Hereof we may conclude that the body of Christ, which you have imagined to be contained grossly and carnally in the sacrament, forasmuch as by your own confession it hath neither quality, nor quantity, nor form, nor place, nor proportion of body, therefore by St. Augustine's doctrine it is no body."-Ibid. p. 259.
So, too, referring to Harding's distinction of "form" and "substance," he asks-" But now, what if all this great imagined difference be no difference? What if these two words 'form' and substance,' as they be used by Fulgentius. be all one?"-Ibid. p. 261.