« PoprzedniaDalej »
upon: though, if it had been, that would have furnished no satisfactory proof of a denial of the Real Presence, seeing it was the external form of devotion in the Greek Church. Indeed, the language of Guest, in a controversy already quoted (p. 17) quite agreed with that of his contemporaries, who yet insisted upon kneeling being the rule; and unless we are to suppose that his views had become higher when, in 1566, he wrote his lately-discovered remarkable letter to Cecil-a supposition which certainly lacks proof-we must believe that he advocated what he considered to be an act of reverence equally demonstrative with kneeling, if made the rule of the Church.
True it is that later in Elizabeth's reign the Puritans, as they had then begun to be called, pressed upon the Bishops to allow them to receive the Eucharist standing: but this was only when they found that their demands to be allowed to sit were again and again rejected: indeed I remember to have seen it stated somewhere (by Strype, I think, though the passage was not noted down at the time and cannot now be searched for) that some of them even proposed to prostrate themselves: their object in this, as in their other proposals apparently being simply to avoid a Rule authoritatively laid down, and the more so as that Rule was the one also observed in the rest of the Western Church.
That Parker and Grindal were both concerned to secure reverence in the celebration of the Eucharist (though the latter proved himself throughout Elizabeth's reign considerably anti-ceremonial) is plain from the fact that not long after the publication of the Prayer Book of 1559-indeed almost contemporaneous with it- the Queen upon their recommendation (Parker Corresp. p. 378) issued an Injunction, in virtue of the power vested in her by Sec. xxvi of her Act of Uniformity, directing Wafer Bread to be used "for the more reverence to be given to these Holy Mysteries an Injunction which provoked controversy and opposition during the whole of her reign. These considerations, apart from others which could be produced did my present limits permit, seem sufficient to establish the view suggested-that a fear of its abuse by the Puritan party, as well as an un
willingness to offend the Roman party, concurred to keep out from Elizabeth's Prayer Book a Declaration which, as it was verbally obnoxious to the latter so, was not incapable of perverse and mis-directed criticism by the former.
It is wholly out of my power now, from the want of time, to attempt any examination of controversial Documents in this Reign, touching the question of the Real Presence, similar to that pursued in Edward's reign: it would be much to the purpose, for example, to analyze Jewel's famous controversy with Harding; it may be observed, however, that it would probably yield the like results and, too, would exhibit more consistent and definite language than some of that which has been quoted.
But the prominent part taken by Grindal in this Reign, first as Bishop of London, then Archbishop respectively of York and Canterbury, renders it desirable not to pass over a tract of his upon this subject which seems to have been written just after his return to England upon the accession of Elizabeth. We have already seen something of his views in the discussion given at (p. 17): it is most unlikely that his opinions on this point became more Catholic during his residence among the continental Protestants: if this be so, we are entitled to regard the tract just mentioned as explanatory of his former statement.
Strype (Life of Grindal, p. 464) having stated that Grindal was the author, speaks of it as
"...... written in a clear method, and with much rational evidence, against the real, that is, the gross and corporal presence in the Sacrament.
In this imaginary Dialogue Custom asks at the outset— "What! are you so great a stranger in these quarters ? Hear you not how that men do daily speak against the Sacrament of the Altar, denying it to be the real Body of Christ?
Verity pleads in excuse for his ignorance that he has "returned but of late into this country."
Custom having cited the text "This is my Body," as expressing the REAL Presence, Verity proposes to "Declare the meaning of the words........and next in what sense the Church and the old Fathers have evermore taken them."
We are bound, therefore, to assume that Verity means to speak in a Catholic sense.
In the course of this argument, Custom having alleged "Christ hath not so gross and fleshly, (as you think) but a spiritual and ghostly body; and therefore, without repugnance, it may be in many places at once," Verity puts this Syllogism.
"No body, being real, natural, and organical, and not spiritual can be in many places at once:
"Christ's Body in the Sacrament was in the Apostles' hands and mouths at one time: which were many places:
"Ergo, Christ's Body in the Sacrament was not a real, natural, and organical Body, but spiritual.”—pp. 50 and 51.
Further on, he argues against the real, that is the carnal presence, from the case of unworthy receivers, summing up his position in these words :—
"Thus, by the Word of God, by reason, and by the old Fathers, it is plain that sinful men eat not the Body of Christ, receive they the Sacrament never so oft: which thing could not be, if in the Sacrament there remained nothing but the Body of Christ."
It is unnecessary to quote more from this Dialogue: but it is of consequence to notice the expression in the last extract, "If in the Sacrament there remained nothing but the Body of Christ."
Grindal's words, "nothing but," taken by themselves, would naturally convey the belief that he held a Real Objective Presence; denying at the same time the truth of the alleged Roman theory which asserted the absence of the substance of the Bread and Wine as distinguished from their accidents which were held to remain. He tells "Custom," (p. 42) "I conclude by your own argument, that we ought not only to say, but also to believe, that in the Sacrament there remaineth bread": and then he quotes St. Augustine's definition "(in Joan. tract. 26) Aliud est sacramentum, aliud res sacramenti. Sacramentum est quod in corpus vadit: res autem sacramenti est corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi." His argument seems to be-that as the res sacramenti is "spiritual" not "organicas" IT can only be matter for spiritual manducation; but this being an act of lively "faith,” which the wicked have not, therefore "Christ's Body cannot
be eaten of the wicked: which thing must necessarily ensue, if the bread were turned into the body of Christ," for then Ir must be " eaten with the teeth....of the body:" which is impossible. Grindal like the other writers of that period, especially those whom I have been quoting, was combating the carnal Presence then, as we have seen, popularly held; and then too, as now, imputed to Transubstantiation. If Roman Catholics now repudiate this view, and try to reconcile difficulties by attributing to accidents the properties which Grindal assigned to substance; then, however inconsistent or illogical their argument may be thought, CHARITY at least should forbid us from endeavouring to fasten upon them what they now disown; though, as will have been observed in the course of these quotations, some of their leading controversialists formerly insisted upon the popular belief.
There are no Writings of Abp. Parker to which we can turn to ascertain with precision what were his views on this Doctrinal question; but so far as we can gather from his general statements and conduct during his Primacy, it is certain that they were not lower than Grindal's: his continued residence in England during the reign of Mary no doubt preserved him from much of that deteriorated Doctrine which the contact with Genevan Divines produced in some of his contemporaries: indeed the accusations made against him by (the Roman) Dorman on the one hand and by many of the Puritans on the other hand, of being a Lutheran, plainly shew that his tendencies were in what we should term the Catholic direction.
But it is much to the purpose to observe that the Archbishop put forth, in 1556, jointly with Grindal and fourteen other Bishops, Ælfric's Anglo-Saxon Homily of " the Paschall Lamb," in the Preface to which they state that
".... almost of the whole sermon is about the understanding of the Sacramentall bread and wine howe it is the bodye and bloude of Christ our Saviour, by which is reuealed and made knowen, what hath been the common taught doctrine of the Church of England on this behalfe many hundreth years agoe, contrarye unto the unadvised writing of some nowe a days."
The Preface specifies, too, certain points in the Sermon
which the Episcopal publishers accounted "not consonant to sounde doctrine," and, throughout the Sermon, notes indicate their views upon various statements in it: it is just worth while to notice, however, that the expression "once suffred Christe by hym selfe, but yet neuertherless his suffrynge is daylye renued at the masse through mysterye of the holye housell "-is not marked as objectionable by the Bishops, though they do in the Preface take exception to the sentence which immediately follows-" Therefore the holye Masse is profitable both to the lyuing and to the dead." Is it improbable that having regard to the whole tenor of the Sermon, based too as it is said to have been upon Bertram's Book-they considered the language sound? Indeed a comparison of it with many passages in the Writings already quoted would perhaps answer this enquiry affirmatively. Plainly the great value of Ælfric's Homily in the minds of the Elizabethan Bishops was its witness against Transubstantiation: if the above expression did not involve that tenet, and it would be hard to prove that it does-they would in all likelihood, I think, be unwilling to condemn it even if they thought it undesirable; though, indeed, that they did so regard it must first be shewn.
I can only now simply notice one other important fact in connection with this omission of the Declaration in Elizabeth's Book, namely, that the third paragraph (p. 32) of the xxixth of Edward's Articles was omitted in the xxxix Articles of 1571. Now considering that that paragraph was, as I have already shown, the probable basis of the Declaration in the Prayer Book of 1552, this omission seems to strengthen the notion that not only did the Elizabethan Bishops, of whom be it remembered Gest the framer of the present xxviiith Article was one-desire not needlessly to alienate the Roman party, but that they wished to afford as much latitude of language as could possibly consist with a denial of Transubstantiation. What kind of language they approved may be seen from the Saxon Homily already mentioned: but we have no warrant, I think, for supposing that they wished to limit others to that if only they repudiated the Roman Doctrine.