« PoprzedniaDalej »
reason to believe, Jewel edited the Second Book of Homilies, the natural conclusion seems to be that he could not have regarded the terms of the Advertisement as being either unauthorized by, or repugnant to the mind of, the Church of England:* else, though he might not have felt at liberty to omit it, he would never have recognized it so distinctly in the Title of the 2nd Book which declares that the "Homilies" therein contained were "of such matters as were promised
Then, referring to SS. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Leo, he further enquires--"Wherefore say you of your own head, that form' and 'substance' be so contrary, seeing the Catholic fathers say they be both one?" -Ibid. p. 262. See also his remarks on "forma" and "natura," pp. 512-13.
Since writing the above I have read for the first time Mr. Griffiths' copious and careful Preface to the new Oxford Edition (1859) of the Homilies: his "collation of" the published editions with what he seems reasonably to regard as "the original form" of the Homily of the Resurrection leads him to the following remarks:-".... the omission of the words 'in form of bread' in p. 433, 1. 22, was doubtless intentional, and ought to be borne in mind, when attempts are made to found an argument for the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements upon the retention of the words 'under the form of bread and wine' in the promise of more Homilies which closes the First Book: for its import is shewn by another omission, 'now received in this holy Sacrament,' in p. 435, 1. 18."-p. xxxiv.
Now here it is important first of all to observe that Mr. Griffiths (who has very carefully investigated the subjects of Authorship, Editorship, and Editions of both Books of Homilies) never attempts to question (as Mr.Goode does) the genuineness or authority of this Advertisement: speaking of the First Book of Homilies he does not hesitate to say (p. xiv.) that "Cranmer intended from the first that more should follow, and put a promise to that effect at the end of the Book together with a list of subjects on which they should treat." With regard, however to the omission of the phrase "in form of bread" (which Mr. Griffiths seems to consider as now lessening the argumentative value of the expression"under the form of bread and wine) it may fairly be supposed that it was considered best to avoid the incidental use, in this Homily, of a controverted term relating to a subject promised to be dealt with in another Homily treating exclusively of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. As to the second change in the same Homily, viz. the omission of the words which I bracket in the following sentence-"Yea, how dare we be so bold to renounce the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [now received in this holy Sacrament], (for, where one is, there is God all whole in Majesty together with all his power, wisdom, and goodness,)" &c.-I cannot see how it sustains Mr. Griffiths' opinion as to the former by shewing, as he says, the "import" of the other omitted sentence: rather it seems to me to have been left out as having been already better expressed just before (p. 433, l. 28, &c.) in the sentence, "Thou hast received his body to have within thee, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for to dwell with thee, to endow thee with grace, to strength thee against thy enemies, and to comfort thee with their presence." Indeed Mr. Griffiths' conjecture, if correct, would seem to sustain the authority and fitness of the terms "under the form of bread and wine" as being the equivalent of the phrase "in this holy Sacrament;" for I suppose the objectors to the Advertisement will not deny that the Church of England might sanction such a formula as this"Of the due receiving of His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrament."
It is convenient, and may be useful (as bearing upon what has been said at
and intituled in the former part of Homilies." It is most improbable, too, that the History and Authorship of the Advertisement had been forgotten in sixteen years; for no longer time had elapsed between the 1st Edition of the First Book in 1547, and the 1st Edition of the Second Book published in 1563 under the sanction of the Queen and Convocation; yet in that period no less than twenty Editions of the First Book are known to have been published; viz. fifteen in King Edward's reign, (between 1547 and 1552,) and five under Queen Elizabeth (between 1559 and 1563) prior to the issuing of the Second Book.* The Title of the 1st Elizabethan Edition informs us also that they were "by her Grace's aduyse perused and ouersene;" and, whether Parker or Cox or Jewel performed this office, the Advertisement could not have been unnoticed by either of them: what Bishop Cox thought of its authority we know from the Preface which Strype tells us he prepared for the Second Book; for he there says that "whereas in the said [First] Book of Homilies mention was made of other Homilies concerning certain necessary points of religion that were intended to be annexed to these, her Highness hath caused the same to be faithfully drawn" &c.—(Annals c. xxx.) Moreover it cannot reasonably be doubted that the sense in which Cranmer used the word "form," in the Advertisement, was
p. 209, relative to Art. xxix.) to notice here an alteration which Mr. Griffiths says (Pref., p. xxi. and Note ii., p. 445) was also made in "The first part of the Sermon concerning the Sacrament." He states that in "the original form" above mentioned (which he believes to be the copy presented to Elizabeth of the 2nd Book of Homilies, as settled in the Convocation of 1563) the following bracketed passage from St. Augustine occurs, though it was omitted in the first and in all the subsequent published Editions:-"For the unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious Body: whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding in him; their union, and as it were their incorporation, with him. [Whereof thus saith St. Augustine; He which is at discord with Christ doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, although he receive to the judgment of his destruction, daily the outward sacrament of so great a thing.'] Wherefore let us," etc. In the margin was the reference "Lib. 4. de Trinit.," which was also omitted. It will be recollected that Article xxix. was suppressed, although it had been passed in the same Convocation of 1563. The Article was restored in 1571, but not so this omitted passage of the Homily. Perchance this may have influenced Abp. Parker in removing, as is said, (see p. 209) the reference to St. Augustine from the margin of the Article.
See Mr. Griffiths' Catalogue. pp. 1. to lx.
well known at the time the Second Book was prepared; and, too, that that sense was none other than the anti-roman one, already quoted from Jewel, viz. substance and not merely accidents.
I have already drawn attention (pp. 162-165) to a point which seems not to have been sufficiently regarded by any in considering the notice of the promised Homily and its supposed production in the Second Book under the title "Of the worthy receiving and reverent esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ." The argument there was founded upon a probable conclusion (drawn from Bp. Burnet)* that this Homily was due to Cranmer's own fulfilment of the promise; though it was also shewn what would be the effect of the discovery that the Homily was certainly not prepared by Cranmer. It is in place here to observe that (assuming the Homily to have been compiled or revised by Jewel) what was there suggested (p. 165) as a reason which might have induced the Archbishop not to use in the Homily the words "under the form of bread and wine" applies equally to the Bishop; for Jewel at that time may have entertained the like fear of its being popularly accepted in Harding's sense, which Cranmer in his day probably had of its being interpreted by Gardiner's definition. Yet such an act of prudent consideration no more proves of Jewel than of Cranmer that he objected to it as being at variance with the teaching of the Church of England-on the contrary it seems to me that a further proof of his acceptance of it, in the sense in which he must have known that Cranmer employed it, is to be found in "The twenty-sixth Article" of his controversy with Harding, against whom Jewel maintains that no proof can be found in the first six centuries "that the Sacrament is a sign or token of the body of Christ, that lieth hidden underneath it."
Harding had said:
"That the outward form of bread, which is properly the sacrathere were two books of Homilies prepared; the first was published in King Edward's time; the second was not finished till about the time of his death; so it was not published before Queen Elizabeth's time."—Expos, of Art. XXXV.
eved at the form of breads
To da Jend amen tha:—
“These words of St Augustine are alleged and answered before.* Ta boy earned father never wid, seither that the forms and acchants to the excrement, nor that Christ's body is really hidden under the same; nor in this place speaketh any one word at all of
“But the words wherein M. Harding is deceived are these, forma prás; which words signify not the outward forms and accidents, as be untroly exposndeth them, but the very kind and substance of the bread. So St. Paul salth: .... Christ, being in the form vor nature, of God, took upon him the form (or nature; of a servant,'
I think M. Harding will not say, Christ took a body of forms and accidents, that he might be conversant and live with men.... "And as touching the other word operta, covered,' St. Augustine meaneth not thereby that Christ's body is really contained and covered under the said form or kind of bread, but only that it is there AS IN A SACRAMENT OR IN A MYSTERY. In this sense St. Augustine saith: ...The grace of God lay hidden covered in the old Testament.' And again: ... The new Testament was hidden in the old, that is to say, it was secretly signified in the old.'”—pp. 796-7.
That is at pp. 618 and 619 of the same Volume: I have given two short extracts from the answer at p. 247 but it may be useful to n ake a further quotation here: thus Jewel says-"In the second word, operta, which signifieth covered,' M. Harding wittingly dissembleth his own learning, and would seem not to know the manner and nature of all sacraments; which is to offer one thing outwardly unto our senses, and another inwardly to our mind. Hereof there is sufficiently spoken before, in the second and eighth division of this article." -p. 618.
"Thus the Sacrament of Christ's flesh, which, according to the doctrine of St. Augustine, beareth the name of the thing that it signifieth, is called Christ's flesh, invisible, spiritual, and only to be conceived by understanding. For the whole work hereof pertaineth, not unto the mouth or teeth, as St. Augustine saith, but only to faith and spirit."-p. 619.
↑ Viz, at pp. 594, 595, 604-e. g. These things considered, it may soon appear how faithfully and how well to his purpose M. Harding allegeth this place of St. Augustine: Hoc est, quod dicimus, etc: (De Consecr. Dist. 2.) This is it that we say, which we go about by all means to prove, that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, and standeth of two things; of the visible kind (or nature) of the elements, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; of the Sacrament, the outward holy sign, and the thing of the sacrament, which is the body of Christ.' Hereof M. Harding gathereth that the body of Christ lieth hidden under the accidents. St. Augustine's words be true; but M Harding with his guesses is much deceived. For of this word specie he concludeth that the substance of bread is gone, and nothing remaining but only accidents; and of this word Invisibili he gathereth that Christ's body is there really inclosed. And so he maketh a commentary far beside his text."-p. 594.
"Neither does this word visible' import any such external form as is here imagined; but only excludeth the body of Christ, which is in heaven, invisible to our bodily eyes, and visible only to the eyes of our faith."-p. 595.
For the passage at p. 604 see p. 247.
But then, lest this illustration should be thought to prove too much, it is well to notice another illustration which Jewel gives, together with it, at p. 618:
"But as St. Augustine saith here, Christ's body is hidden under the form or kind of bread; even so he saith: ... 'The grace of God lay hidden in the old testament.' Even so Gregory saith : 'As the chaff hideth the corn, so the letter hideth the Spirit.' Even so again St. Augustine saith: . . . The new Testament was hidden in the old.' But he expoundeth himself: ... 'It was hidden, that is to say, it was secretly signified.' And thus by St. Augustine's own words and exposition, we may likewise say: . . . 'Christ's flesh is privily hidden, that is to say,' as St. Augustine expoundeth it, 'it is privily signified.""
Now Jewel's quotation from St. Gregory in this passage removes a difficulty which it and the former passage might else present, and so helps us to see that he might (as I have argued that he did) accept the phrase "under the form of bread and wine," allowing a true yet denying a physical Presence therein and therewith of the Body and Blood of Christ. For it is clear that the "corn" hidden under the "chaff” is a material thing; but, as he himself says,* the like was not true of "the new Testament" which was hidden in the old ;" why then (besides another) did he use two illustrations which are thus at variance? I can imagine no other reason than that he wished to guard himself from seeming to unsay what (as Compiler or Editor) he had said two years before on behalf of the Church of England, in the Homily of "The Worthy Receiving," &c., viz. that the Sacrament of the Altar was no untrue figure of a thing absent;" and further that (while by one illustration, from the two Testaments, he sustained his resistance to a Carnal Presence and by a second, from the chaff and corn, pointed to his
"Here, lest M. Harding should take these words strictly and grossly, as he doth the rest, and say, the new testament indeed and really was covered in the old, St. Augustine himself hath prevented him, and opened his own meaning in this wise, as it is said before: Occultabatur,... id est, occulte significabatur, [De Baptism. contr. Donatist. Lib. 1. c. xv. 24.]: 'it was covered, that is to say, it was secretly signified.' By which exposition, being St. Augustine's, M. Harding might have learned likewise to expound these words: caro operta forma panis, id est, occulte significata: The flesh covered in the form or substance of bread, that is to say, privily signified in the form or substance of bread.'"-p. 797.