« EdellinenJatka »
method of expression have sometimes varied. It was revived at Frankfort, and distracted the unhappy dchurch, which took refuge there during the reign of Mary. It was brought back to England on the accession of Elizabeth by Knox, Goodman, Whittingham, and others, and still continues in the persons of their successors to contract the usefulness, and to destroy the unity, of the British church.
The other subject of dispute, which it appears necessary to notice, is the nature of the sacramental elements in the Lord's Supper. This subject, like the one already considered, might seem in itself to be of small compass, and of secondary importance; but it was then, and has often since been treated, as involving the main principles of the whole controversy, and as being itself the sum and substance of all the points disputed between the Reformers and the Romanists. Neither the interest, however, nor the intricacy of the subject terminated there. The reformers were agreed, as long as they confined themselves to the denial of the Romish doctrine ; but they were immediately divided when they attempted the positive exposition of their own. Moreover, between the belief of the Lutherans, who held that the bread and the body were combined, and the extreme opinion of the anabaptists, who maintained that the whole service was merely a commemorative rite, there was space sufficient within the pale of the church for a @gradation of sentiments,
See a tract entitled, “A brief Discourse of the troubles begun at Frankfort in Germany, an. Dom. 1554, about the Book of Common Prayer and Ceremonies, and continued by the Englishmen there to the end of Queen Mary's Reign,” published in 1575, reprinted in 1642.
e For instance; P. Martyr : “ Fatemur non effigiem sive formam et accidentia panis subire hoc munus ut sint sacramenta, sed naturam
which, naturally forming subjects to exercise the ingenuity, the learning, and the piety of theologians, would lead them into wide fields of discussion and difference.
et substantiam ipsam panis et vini mutari in sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini.” Tract. de Euchar. p. 161. Ridley : “There is no change either of the substances or of the accidents; but in very deed there do come unto the bread other accidents ; insomuch that whereas the bread and wine were not sanctified before, nor holy, yet afterward they be sanctified, and so do receive then another sort or kind of virtue which they had not before.” Disp. at Camb. in 1549. Life of Ridley, p. 276. Bucer : “ The antichrists make the simple people to believe that we receive and have Christ here present after some worldly fashion, that is to say, either inclosed with the bread and wine, or else that he is present under their accidents, so that there he ought to be honoured and worshipped. Let them therefore that be apt to learn, be taught that there is no presence of Christ in the Supper, but only in the lawful use thereof, and such as is obtained and gotten by faith only.” Sayings of Bucer. Strype, Cran. vol. II. p. 859. Cranmer: “I mean not that Christ is spiritually either in the table, or in the bread and wine that are set upon the table ; but I mean that he is present in the ministration and receiving of that holy Sacrament.—And therefore I never said of the whole Supper that it is but a signification or a bare memory of Christ's death, but I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, wherein our souls are fed and nourished with Christ's very flesh and blood to eternal life.” Answer to Gardiner. Works, vol. III. p. 229. Cox: “The oblation of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass is the prayer, the praise, the thanksgiving, and the remembrance of Christ's passion and death.” Ans. to cert. Queries. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part ii. p. 198. Comp. Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 216. The continental reformers, on separating themselves from Luther, in the dispute respecting the real presence, were soon divided into two parties, the one maintaining that the bread and wine were signa Christi præsentis exhibitiva, the other that they were signa Christi absentis commemorativa. (Hess, Catal. vol. I. p. 44.) Bucer was a leader of the first party, and is stated by John a Lasco, in a letter to Bullinger in 1551, to have retained the same belief to the time of his death. (Miscell. Groning. vol. IV. p. 471.) The other party may be represented by John a Lasco, and some of the divines of Zurich. The distinction between the two cases is contained in the following passage from Hooper's Answer to. Gardiner, which was printed at Zurich in the The Communion Service of the first Liturgy contained a prayer for the fdescent of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine, and a following prayer of oblation, which, together with the form of words addressed to the communicants, were designed to represent a sacrifice, and appeared to undiscriminating minds to 8 denote the sacrifice of the mass. Numerous, therefore, and urgent were the objections against this portion of the service. Combined with a large class of objectors, whose theology con
year 1547. “In this place of Paul it cannot be taken actively, as men say that the minister doth exhibit, and give by hand the corporal body of our most blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. These words shew plainly that Paul meant nothing of giving or distributing of Christ's body; but taught the Corinthians that such as did eat of this holy sacrament according to the institution of Christ, were partakers of the spiritual graces and communion of Christ's body and blood, represented by the bread : and as Christ was not really nor corporally present in those sacraments and sacrifices of the Israelites that signified Christ to come, but by faith in effect they received the thing meant and represented by the sacrifices ; so likewise we, though that glorious body of Christ be in heaven, that this holy and most honourable sacrament representeth, yet when with true penitence we receive the external sacrament, faith receiveth the effect of that precious body represented by the sacrament.”
f In these words, “ Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech thee; and with thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.” And afterwards, “Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father...... we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion,” &c.
8 Gardiner himself, in his controversy with Cranmer, said that the words of the Liturgy, in connection with the eucharist, accorded with his own opinions : “ This holy mystery in the Book of Common Prayer is well termed, not distant from the catholic faith, in my judgment.” Cran. Works, vol. III. p. 171. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 99. Compare Cranmer's distinction, in his answer to Gardiner. Works, vol. III. p. 417.
sisted merely in an undefined dread of Romanism, were all those, however differing among themselves, who believed the holy communion to be a feast and not a sacrifice, and that larger class of persons, who, placing the solemn duty upon its proper religious basis, were contented to worship without waiting to refine.
It is stated by h Heylin, and repeated by Collier, that the alterations made in these and other portions of the Liturgy, were owing to the remonstrances of Calvin, and the active cooperation of Martyr and Bucer. But this is probably an exaggeration. It does not appear, however anxious he was to offer his assistance, that the peculiar opinions of Calvin were approved, or his advice either sought or rejected, by the primate and the other commissioners; and it is clear on examination, that the i faults discovered by Martyr and Bucer, of which they
b Hist. Ref. p. 107. Collier, Hist. vol. II. p. 309. The opposite opinion is maintained by Archbishop Laurence. Bamp. Lect. p. 253. 2nd edit.
i For instance. In Bucer's Censura, in the Scripta Anglic. p. 467. In the prayer for the church militant was a prayer for the dead : he recommends the omission of it, and proposes other words in its place. [The prayer for the dead was omitted, but Bucer's proposition was pot adopted.] P. 468. He wishes the oblatory clause to be altered, and proposes a form for the purpose. [The clause was omitted, and Bucer's form was not adopted.] P. 472. In the prayer, “O Lord and heavenly Father,” &c. was a clause that our prayers should be offered by the ministry of angels : Bucer proposes another clause in lieu of it. [The clause was omitted, without any substitution.] P. 475. He says, “ Formam hujus confessionis [de corpore et sanguine Domini] in libro sacrorum positam, esse omnino comprobandam et retinendam ;” and earnestly entreats that no concession should be made in this matter. (A great concession was made by changing the words addressed to communicants.) P. 479. In the service of Baptism he wishes the words " didst sanctify the flood Jordan,” &c. to be omitted. (They were retained.] P. 479. On making the sign of the cross, the infant was addressed in a form of words : Bucer recom
drew up a report at the request of Cranmer, were neither all that were admitted to exist by the English divines, nor were themselves corrected, in most instances, in the way that Martyr and Bucer recommended. On the contrary, it was stated to k Martyr, when he gave in the account of his objections, that the bishops had already agreed on many alterations. It cannot indeed be doubted that the many learned foreigners, who were at this time settled and actively employed in England, and were almost without exception in favour of more extensive changes, exerted an important influence on public opinion; but it is also certain that many of the English reformers, and the most active and considerable among the commissioners themselves, were desirous of a greater degree of simplicity both in faith and worship. m Cox and "Taylor, who were probably the working members of the commission, appear to have looked upon the oblation of the Eucharist as consisting merely of prayer,
mends in lieu of it a form of prayer. [It was changed into a declaration, not a prayer.] It is clear therefore that Strype is not quite correct in saying, (Cran. vol. I. p. 301.) “ Most of the things that he excepted against were corrected accordingly.” Compare Collier, Hist. vol. II. p. 296.
k Strype, Cran. vol. I. pp. 301. and 362. II. p. 899.
1 Froschover, comparing the English divines with those of Germany, in a letter to Gualter in May 1551, says, Anglis præclariora quam Germanis ingenia; sed illi nimis otio dediti. Hess, Catal. vol. II. p. 44.
m Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. pt. ii. pp. 198. and 201. Collier, Hist. vol. II. p. 243. Cox's letter to Bullinger, in Strype's Mem. vol. II. part i. p. 532. and II. part ii. p. 20. Cox was at that time dean of Westminster and Christ Church, chancellor of the university of Oxford, and almoner to the king. In 1559 he became bishop of Ely.
a Taylor was dean of Lincoln and prolocutor of the first convocation in Edward's reign. Strype, Cran. vol. 1. p. 220. In 1552 he was rewarded with the bishopric of Lincoln.