Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



etc. 131-4

[ocr errors]


The Instructions to the Commissioners shew this; and point to Ancient
Liturgies for interpretation of doubtful Rubrics
"Reverently"=KNEELING, in the Rubric "Whilst these sentences'
"Reverently"-STANDING, in the Rubric "When all have communi-
cated" etc.
"= KNEELING and STANDING, in the Rubric "the Priest
and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call" etc.
Further proof that the Communicating posture is also the posture of
Consumption, inferred from the known opinions of Bp. Cosin and
from other considerations

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

II. Cranmer's Letter does not furnish Theological Arguments for
Kneeling at Communion: these, therefore, to be sought elsewhere in
his writings

His Catechism of 1548 teaches the Real Objective Presence
Examination of doubts raised as to this






Cranmer held the same Doctrine of the Presence in 1548 and 1551
Mr. Goode's error in claiming Cranmer's changed opinion in 1548 as
proof that when he put out the 1st Bk. of Homilies (in 1547) "he had
not then embraced the true doctrine of the Eucharist "
Examination of a suggestion by a Prelate-that the phrase "under the
form of bread and wine," in the Advertisement of 1st Bk. of Homi-
lies, was "surreptitiously introduced"


[ocr errors]



Cranmer not in, what he himself calls, the "error of the real presence"
when he published the Catechism of 1548-shewn from statements of
Strype, Dr. Burton, and Mr. Fisher
Cranmer's real opinion then, gathered by comparison with that of Bp.
Hooper and with a statement of Bp. Gardiner .
Doubtfulness of the assumption that Cranmer's opinions on the Eucha-
ristic Presence were influenced by Bucer

Yet, if so, Bucer would have led him towards Objective Presence
Cranmer's own definition of the word "Corporal"

Cranmer's own statements as to the nature of the Presence, when (in
1552) he had gone farthest towards low views of Eucharistic Doc-

Further proofs from his contemporaries-that the Physical Presence, held
to be involved in Transubstantiation, was the great point of opposition
by the Reforming party

Proceedings in 1559, at the review of the 42 Articles under Elizabeth, as
stated by Bp. Burnet and others, illustrate Burnet's account of the
omission of the Declaration from the P. Book of 1559
But there is evidence that the Declaration continued to be published in
some other way.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The retention in it, at that time, of "real and essential,” implies that it
only condemned "the Corporal presence" .
Bp. Geste's Letter of Dec. 22, 1566, on the Real Presence, is evidence
of the meaning attached to the Declaration at that time

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



Parker perhaps removed Guest's objection to its language, for Guest re-
asserts, in § 9, the statement of Letter of 1566


Guest's consideration for Cheney, no proof that "Parker and the Bishops"
differed, as Mr. Goode says, from Guest


[ocr errors]

The non-insertion of "profitably," proposed by Guest, no proof that it
was rejected, as Mr. Goode says


Unlikely that, as Mr. Goode thinks, Bp. Guest was the objector to Art.
xxix, referred to in Abp. Parker's Letter to Lord Burghly, June 4,
1571-more likely to have been Bp. Cheney

An error to suppose, as Mr. Goode does, that the absence of the names
of Guest and Cheney from the signatures of the Fifteen Abps. and
Bps. to the Preface of Elfric's Anglo-Saxon Homily, implies a disa-
greement as to its Doctrine

[ocr errors]

Bp. Guest's objections to other Articles which nevertheless were not
altered, a further probable proof of his acquiescence in Art. xxix

Cheney perhaps availed himself of the apparent freedom of the Bishops

from subscribing the Articles




Further light thrown upon Guest's opinions then, in the rest of the
Letter of May 1571 where he argues against the Bill "toching coming
to ye Church, and receiving y Sacrament"
Important distinction which he made between the two propositions-
resisting the latter on the ground that it was "to go aboute to des-
troye" "the papistes" who did not believe "ye Sacrament” in the
Church of England to "be ye Lordes body"

[merged small][ocr errors]

The withdrawal of the Bill an indication that his Doctrine of the Real
Objective Presence was then a recognized one
Examination of Mr. Goode's assertion that Bp. Guest did not Subscribe
the Articles of 1562-reasons for doubting it
Analysis of Bp. Jewel's controversy with Harding on the Eucharist
No proof from it that, as Mr. Goode says, his belief on the Real Presence
differed from that of Bp. Guest

[ocr errors][ocr errors]



[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]


Examination of Mr. Goode's complaint that Dr. Pusey in his “discussion

of the meaning of the Advertisement at the end of the first Book of

Homilies" does not "notice" a passage which he had cited from

Cranmer's reply to Gardiner

Answer to Mr. Goode's assertion that "it cannot be supposed that
[Cranmer] inserted" the Advertisement

Bp. Jewel's use of the phrase in the Advertisement, coupled with the
belief that he edited the 2nd Bk. of Homilies, indicates that he con-
sidered it authoritative.



[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The fact that the Editions from 1545 to 1551 were issued during Cran-
mer's Episcopate-a period when Eucharistic Doctrine was continually
discussed-implies his cognizance of their publication.

The Primer sanctioned by Statute 1549-50

The harmony of language between the Advertisement of 1547 and the
Primer of 1551, an indication that Cranmer approved the Advertise-

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

This omission of it in the Primer though not in the Advertisement, no
inconsistency, but rather a proof that it was not abandoned

Necessity of noticing the additions to the Catechism under K. James i.-

Mr. Fisher's opinion of them

Examination of Mr. Goode's objection to the allegation that "the faith-

ful" in the Catechism "merely means every body who comes

to communicate"

Analysis of his quotations from twenty one Commentaries, 1623-1790,
which he says "have agreed in interpreting the words as referring to
true believers"-they do not support his statement

Mr. Goode's definition of “the faithful" opposed to its use in the Apos-

tolical Epistles


[ocr errors]

And to passages in the Ancient Liturgies


And to the testimony of Ecclesiastical Writers or Historians


Resumption of Enquiry at p. 72 whether Bp. Gauden "did not hold
high views of the Real Presence, through denying Transubstantiation" 301-2
Affirmative answer from his "Tears, Sighs, Complaints and Prayers of
the Church of England" &c. 1659: and his "Counsell which the Bp.
of Exeter delivered to xlix Presbyter and Deacons " &c. 1660
Agreement of this "Counsell" with the Answer of the Bishops (of whom
Gauden was one) in the Savoy Conference

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]





[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Dr. Heylin's statement that the Declaration was omitted in 1559 "lest
under colour of a carnal . . . a real presence" should be denied, and
his probable consent to its changed language, testify that it is now
only a protest against "a gross and carnal Presence".


[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

Investigation of Mr. Goode's statement that "the whole object of the
Declaration is to point out, that the act of Kneeling is not an act of
adoration to Christ" present as "God and Man"



[ocr errors]


[blocks in formation]

His reference to the 7th Canon of 1640, in support of this opinion, shewn
to be inapplicable

His seeming implication-that as the Canon was

presidency of Abp. Laud" he concurred in this meaning of it, dis-


III. Notice and application of the Puritan proposal, in Q. Elizabeth's
reign, to prostrate at the Sacrament


Fallacy of Mr. Goode's argument- that "if Christ" and "the Bread"
are "one whole" it is "a proper object of worship"
Reply to his objection-that Bread and Christ's Body united cannot pro-
perly be called by either name alone


[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »