« PoprzedniaDalej »
I am not unmindful of the facts that Jewel was only Elected Bishop on August 21st, 1559, and was not Consecrated until the 21st January following: it may therefore be urged that, as he could not have been a party to the re-publication of the Primer in 1559 so, he must not be held responsible for the continuance of the unaltered Prayer, and, consequently, it ought not to be cited in proof that he used, either approvingly or as being authorized, the language quoted from him at pp. 249 and 264 Note. Yet, surely, if ever "silence gives consent," and use implies approval, it was so in this case: for his Reply to Harding was not published until 1565, nor his Defence of the Apology until 1567, yet both the Primer and the First Book of Homilies had been circulating for six years before the earlier of these dates; nay, more, for two years the Second Book of Homilies had also been distributed, under the Sanction of the Crown and the Convocation, as expressed in the XXXVth Article; and he, as a Diocesan Bishop, had to see that all were duly used. If, however, the Phrase in question was obnoxious to the Church of England, or even to Jewel himself, could there have been a better and fairer opportunity for him to have said so than when discussing with Harding its Theological significance ? How came it to pass that, instead of merely defining the word "form" which occurs in it, he neglected so fitting an occasion to repudiate the Phrase altogether, either for himself, or for the Church of England, or for both? I can only suppose that he had no wish personally to disown it, or that, if he had, he felt he was not free to do so for the Church of England, so long as it remained in any of her authorized Books.
These remarks are also a further answer to Mr. Griffiths' observation, already noticed in the Note to p. 265.
But, having insisted so much on the repeated re-publication in the Primer of the language which Mr. Goode declares to have had no authority in the Advertisement of the First Book of Homilies, it would be unpardonable in me not to draw particular attention to the latest known Edition of the Primer, which is noticed in the preceding Table; for a very
considerable change was made in the Prayer as given in that Edition; no less, in fact, than the entire omission of the alleged unauthorized formula; so that the Prayer reads thus:
"Our Saviour and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, which in Thy last supper with Thine Apostles didst deliver the Sacrament of Thy Blessed Body: grant that we," &c.
There is some doubt (as I have pointed out in the Note at p. 272) as to the true date of this Edition of the Primer: the Title page calls it 1566, but the Colophon marks it as 1575: it is not unlikely that both dates are correct; the former (1566) indicating (as I have said) the period when it was first printed, the latter (1575) the time of its re-print or re-issue; this may have arisen from the very common practice with printers at that period of continuing to use an old Title page, if it was a Block, and printing the real date of an Edition in the Colophon. It is quite probable that there may have been an Edition in 1566, though, as no copy is known with that date only, there is no means of ascertaining whether the Prayer was altered at that time, or not until 1575: the true date of the alteration is not, however, material for my present purpose; though if it be 1575 it strengthens my argument, as, in that case, the alteration was four years after Bishop Jewel's death, and in the last year of Archbishop Parker's life.
Yet, assuming that the change was made in 1566, the change itself implies that the old phraseology was allowed up to that time why, then, was it changed at all? As nothing is known of the history of the change the cause can only be matter of conjecture, but that, I think, a natural conjecture. It is well known that nothing better impresses Doctrine on the mind than the language of prayers which are in frequent or constant use: but the expression "under the form of bread and wine" had marked Doctrines which were no longer held by the Church of England, and which clearly were intended to be excluded by that Homily on the Sacrament which was authorized in the Convocation of 1563. But the continued use, in a Prayer, of a Dogmatic Phrase,
claimed respectively by the holders of three different Doctrines, viz., Transubstantiation (either with or without a Carnal Presence)-a Corporal, i.e., a Physical Presence,and a Real, i.e., a True, but not a Material Presence,-might perplex or mislead those who were not Theologians; especially as at that time the Declaration on Kneeling (which, as I am throughout contending, was designed to exclude every possible theory of a Carnal Presence) was not appended to the Communion Office, and so that authoritative safeguard was wanting. It has been seen (See p. 213) that Bishop Cheney (though opposed to Transubstantiation) apparently held a Material Presence, at this very period, therefore it may have more or less prevailed in his Diocese of Gloucester -perhaps elsewhere. To omit from the Primer, then in use, the Phrase which might be thus misunderstood, may well have been thought a likely mode of correcting the error, and of preventing its extension.
Yet, if this were so, why was not the like process of excision resorted to in the Homilies? Obviously, I think, because there was no similar danger of misunderstanding; for, (1) the Homilies were not Prayers; (2) they were not much in the hands of, or read by, the people; (3) though they were read to the people by the Clergy, the Advertisement of course was not read; (4) the Phrase did not occur in any Homily, being probably omitted on prudential grounds, as I have already suggested at pp. 165 and 267. It was one thing for the Bishops to remove from a Prayer or a Homily* language which did not involve any point of essential Faith, but which might be designedly perverted, or popularly misapplied; quite another to withdraw a Dogmatic statement, of real Theological value, from a Notice never designed to be publicly read, or privately meditated upon. The Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies was a kind of Historic link which bound it to the Second Book, and which
I am willing to concede to Mr. Griffiths that this feeling may have had its influence in the omission, from the Homily of the Resurrection, of the words "in form of bread;" though, as I have said in the Note, p. 265, I do not think his argument accounts for it.
showed how, and how faithfully, the intentions of those who authorized the earlier Book had been carried out, either by themselves, or by their successors, in the later Volume; and this alone would be a sufficient reason for its being retained in every Edition down to the present day, and for faithfully retaining it hereafter. But it was, and is, still more a duty not to abandon a Theological Formula which had acquired a definite meaning in connection with the settled Eucharistic Doctrine of the Church of England; though it might not be thought then, and may not be considered now, needful or profitable to employ it in the ordinary religious instruction of the people.
Having thus carefully examined and, I hope, fairly estimated the evidence for and against the contested language of the Advertisement, it does seem to me, and will I trust appear to others, clearly established that the Phrase "Of the due receiving of His Blessed Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine," is a Theological definition strictly authorized by the Church of England, and therefore one which may be most fairly and confidently used in controversies touching the Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
Pursuing this Historical Enquiry in the order of time, it is necessary to notice the very important additions which were made to the Church Catechism in the reign of James 1st: it is pretty generally allowed that, considering the known views of Overall their reputed author, these additional explanations of Sacramental Belief were designed to be in the direction of what is called High Doctrine. That there was no intention of being deterred from this by any clamour about Popish teaching, is plain from what the King said on the second day of the Hampton-Court Conference, January 16, 1603-4; for, in answer to Dr. Reinolds, one of the Puritan representatives, who "complained that the Catechism in the Common Prayer Book was too brief; . . . and requested therefore, that one uniform catechism might be made," it is reported that,—
"His Majesty thought the doctor's request very reasonable: but
yet so, that he would have a Catechism in the fewest and plainest affirmative terms that may be :"
and stating as one rule to be observed "in reforming of a Church"
"that there should not be any such departure from the Papists in all things, as that because we in some points agree with them, therefore we should be accounted to be in error."-Card. Hist. Conf., p. 187.
With respect to the nature and tendency of these Catechetical additions, I cannot do better than cite the language of the same candid but adverse writer whom I have before quoted.
Mr. Fisher, speaking of them, remarks that—
"Since the revision of 1604—or, at all events, since the year 1662-Sacramentalism most decidedly predominates. . . . . In short, it is not too much to say, that in the Catechism as it now stands, the SACRED ORACLES, considered as an inspired Code of religious belief, are completely overshadowed by the prominence given to a Patristic scheme of sacramental theology."-Liturgical Purity, p. 293. Again he
".... it lets in the whole system of Romish Sacramentalism, by the insertion of a series of questions and answers, both upon Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which are at least open to a Papistical interpretation..
"For instance the old and essentially "Romish dogma of 'the real presence' receives, it may safely be affirmed, a plausible sanction at least, if nothing more, from the terms of the following question and answer :
"Q. What is the inward part or thing signified?'
"A. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.''
The italics are Mr. Fisher's.
And he argues that it is "assuming the very question in dispute" to reply, as some do, that the 28th Article teaches a different and the true Doctrine and "that the Church cannot contradict herself;" Mr. F., on the contrary, insists "that the Church is, in several important particulars, inconsistent with herself,"-pp. 297-8. Further, he adds:
"It is a significant fact that the expression 'verily and indeed, is the very expression used in those definitions of the Eucharistic presence, which have at different times been adopted, for the pur