Sivut kuvina

thanksgiving, and the remembrance of our Saviour's passion; Ridley, who entertained higher conceptions of its nature, had yet been the first, even before the order of council had been issued, to remove the ancient altars, and to place tables in their stead ; and P Cranmer,

o Life of Ridley, p. 325. Ridley agreed with Hooper at the time of the dispute, in thinking that there was more pomp than was convenient. Life, p. 324. Comp. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. III. p. 386.

P See Cranmer's opinion as quoted above. Comp. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 377. and Cranmer's Works, vol. II. pp. 398. 400. III. pp. 38. 50. Cranmer's matured opinions on the nature of the sacraments, as he expressed them in his two treatises, appear to have coincided with those of the church of Zurich, as contained in the Helvetic Confession, adopted at Basil in the year 1536. Take the following as a specimen. Cranmer : “ The bread and wine be not Christ's very body and blood, but they be figures, which by Christ's institution be unto the godly receivers thereof sacraments, tokens, significations, and representations of his very flesh and blood ; instructing their faith, that as the bread and wine feed them corporally, and continue this temporal life, so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giveth them everlasting life.” (Works, vol. II. p. 398.) Helvetic Confession, Art. 22: “ Non quod pani et vino corpus Domini et sanguis naturaliter uniantur, sed quod panis et vinum ex institutione Domini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso Domino per ecclesiæ ministerium vera corporis et sanguinis ejus communicatio non in periturum ventris cibum sed in æternæ vitæ alimoniam exhibeatur.” (Sylloge Confess. p. 107.) Or compare him with Zuingle. Cranmer: “The oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the mass is not so called because Christ is indeed there offered...... but because it is a memory and representation of that very true sacrifice," &c. (Works, vol. IV. p. 97.) Zuingle: "Consequitur missam sacrificium haudquaquam esse, sed commemorationem aut rememorationem sacrificii.” (Opera, vol. I. ff. 32. 35.) Or with Bullinger. Cranmer : “Our Saviour Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of his Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us unto the world's end. And whensoever two or three be gathered together in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal grace all godly men...... increase and grow to their spiritual perfection in God; spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood. ..... I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his supper,

with the convictions he expressed in his Defence of the Sacrament, and his Answer to Gardiner, could not have wished to retain the prayers of consecration and oblation, or to convey the impression, which they were intended to make, of a real unbloody sacrifice.

as he is when two or three be gathered together in his name... This difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally." (Works, vol. III. pp. 165. 170.) Bullinger : “ Hæc dicimus expresse spiritualiter fieri per fidem, etiam extra communionem cænæ, quoties fidelis recolit vera fide passionem et incarnationem Servatoris Christi : pariter autem et in ipsa cæna sancta et mystica, ubi jam etiam accedit insignis illa Christi institutio et solennis actio, quam appellant sacramentalem. Ac diserte hic monemus, cum spiritualiter dicimus, non sentire nos carnem Christi mutari in spiritum. Credimus enim carnem manere in sua essentia atque natura, ipsamque communicari nobis non carnaliter... sed modo et ratione spirituali, sic ut caro ipsa residens aut manens. in cælo vitam totam carne tradita partam spiritu suo vivifico effundat in corda fidelium.” (Apolog. Expos. p. 18.) When a Lasco presented to Cranmer Bullinger's treatise De Sacramentis, the archbishop desired that it might be printed immediately; observing, that nothing of Bullinger's required to be read and examined previously. See Miscell. Groning. vol. IV. p. 471.

9 One remarkable change was made in this revision of the Liturgy, which may be quoted as shewing a strong leaning in favour of the sacramentaries, and as almost decisive with respect to the views of the commissioners. In the first Liturgy the words addressed to the communicants on delivering the bread (and mutatis mutandis on delivering the wine) were, “ The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” In the second Liturgy the words were, “ Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." Now the words adopted in the Liturgy of Strasburg, as used probably by Bucer, and certainly as published by Pollanus in the year 1551, were “ Panis quem frangimus communicatio est corporis Christi.” The same words also appear to have been used by Calvin (Epist. p. 206. ed. Amst.), till, owing to the great number of communicants, he found it desirable to discontinue the practice. In the churches of Zurich it appears that no words were addressed to the communicants singly, but only a portion of scripture read whilst the

The commissioners appear to have completed their revision of the Book of Common Prayer before the end of the year 1551. Early in the next year a bill for the uniformity of divine service, with the Book of Common Prayer annexed to it, was brought into the house of lords, and was finally passed in the house of commons and returned to the lords on the 14th of April, 1552. It was ordered that the new servicer should be used throughout the kingdom from the feast of All Saints following:

It is not necessary to enumerates the other changes that were made in this revision of the Liturgy. It may, however, be desirable to notice two of them; the one on account of its novelty, the other on account of its connection with the early history of the church.

In the first Liturgy the morning and evening services began with the Lord's Prayer: in the second, the morning service opened with the Introductory Sentences, the Exhortation, the General Confession, and the Absolution.

elements were distributed. (Gerdesius, Introd. in Histor. Evang. p. 327. and Monum: Antiq. p. 243.) Would not the form of the commissioners, omitting altogether the dangerous word “body," be more acceptable to the sacramentaries than the form of Pollanus ; and does it not indicate a decided opinion on the part of the commissioners that they preferred an exposition of their own to an express quotation from St. Paul? The most eminent and complete sacramentary then in England was John a Lasco, and the words used in his church on the delivery of the bread were, Accipite, edite, et memineritis 'cor. pus Domini nostri Jesu Christi pro nobis in mortem traditum esse in crucis patibulo ad remissionem omnium peccatorum nostrûm.” See a Lasco's Forma ac Ratio tota Eccles. Min. in Pereg. Eccl. an. 1550.

The office for making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons was inserted in this book, with some few alterations which are noticed in the Life of Ridley, p. 340.

s An account of them is given by Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 349. and by Collier, Hist. vol. II. p. 310.

It has been an object of some interest to ascertain from what source these compositions were derived; and in the absence of actual information, it has been surmised that the suggestion was taken from the Liturgy published by Calvin for the use of the Genevan church in the year 1545. That Liturgy indeed contains no form of absolution ; but it is known from a statement made by Calvin himself,

t In his answer ad Quæstionem de quibusdam Ecclesiæ Ritibus, dated 12 Aug. 1560. Epist. p. 206. ed. Amst. “ Confessioni publicæ adjungere insignem aliquam promissionem, quæ peccatores ad spem veniæ et reconciliationis erigat, nemo nostrum est, qui non agnoscat utilissimum esse. Atque ab initio hunc morem inducere volui : sed quum offensionem quidam ex novitate metuerent, nimium facilis fui ad cedendum : ita res omissa est.” Archbishop Laurence says in his Bamp. Lec. p. 207. “ In 1552 when the Liturgy] was revised and republished, the Introductory Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, were in some degree taken from [Calvin's Liturgy), yet not from Calvin's own translation, but from that of Pollanus, which was printed in England at the very period when the Book of Common Prayer was under revision. This is evident from the circumstance that the translation of Pollanus alone contains an absolution, Calvin's not having the slightest trace of one." But the absolution in Pollanus is merely the following notice: “Hic Pastor ex Scriptura sacra sententiam aliquam remissionis peccatorum populo recitat in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.” It would appear then, that, if the question lies between those two Reformers, the English commissioners were indebted to Calvin rather than to Pollanus for the suggestion on which they constructed their form of absolution. Probably, however, it was not taken from either of them, but from the Liturgy used by a Lasco in the German church, which was protected by Cranmer, and incorporated by letters patent in the year 1550. The following portions at least of the Confession and Absolution used in that church bear a strong resemblance to the form adopted by the commissioners. “Neque amplius velis mortem peccatoris sed potius ut convertatur et vivat”....“omnibus vere pænitentibus (qui videlicet agnitis peccatis suis cum sui accusatione gratiam ipsius per nomen Christi Domini implorant) omnia ipsorum peccata prorsus condonet atque aboleat”......"omnibus, inquam, vobis qui ita affecti estis denuncio, fiducia promissionum Christi, vestra peccata omnia in cælo

that he intended in the first instance to add a declaration of that kind, and that he yielded unwillingly to the scruples of others in omitting it. The commissioners would not have rejected a good suggestion" merely because it proceeded from Calvin; but in this instance there was no opportunity for putting such a scruple to the test. The breviaries

a Deo Patre nostro modis plane omnibus remissa esse". opem tuam divinam per meritum Filii tui dilecti supplices imploramus.... nobisque dones Spiritum Sanctum tuum.... ut lex tua sancta illi [cordi] insculpi ac per nos demum. ... tota vita nostra exprimi ejus beneficio possit.” See Forma ac Ratio tota Eccles. Min. in Pereg. Eccl. anno 1550.

u Heylin says, (Hist. Ref. p. 65.) and Collier repeats the statement, (Hist. vol. II. p. 253.) that Calvin offered his assistance to Cranmer, but that Cranmer“ knew the man, and refused his offer." This statement appears to be overcharged. It is clear indeed from Calvin's letters and dedications that he frequently offered his advice to Edward and the English reformers, and that he was urged to do so by Bucer and other correspondents in England. He began with his Dedication to the Protector Somerset in the year 1548, and so late in the reign of Edward, as in Feb. 1553, he requested Cheke to let him know “si quando regem censueris meis exhortationibus excitari posse." (Calv. Epist. p. 68, ed. Amst.) But he appears to have acted with the concurrence, and even at the suggestion, of Cranmer ; who wrote to him in 1552 to ask for his assistance in forming a convention of " docti et pii viri, qui alios antecellunt eruditione et judicio.. capita omnia ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ tractarent.” (Cranm. Works, vol. I. p. 346. with Jenkyns' note : and his pref. at p. civ.

Calv. Epist. p. 61.) Calvin also said, in a letter to Farel in June 1551, (Calv. Epist. p. 240.) “ Cantuariensis nihil me utilius facturum admonuit, quam si ad regem sæpius scriberem.”

Nevertheless his peculiar opinions were not approved by the leading reformers in England, who, like the divines of Zurich, adopted generally the opposite sentiments of Luther and Melancthon. Bullinger, when questioned on the subject of foreknowledge and predestination by Traheron in 1552, wrote a long and elaborate account of the points in which he differed from Calvin. Hess, Catal. vol. II. pp. 62, 67.


« EdellinenJatka »