« ПретходнаНастави »
that there are absolutely no English controversial works of any value against Romanism, except such as have issued from the High Church school, for the Low Church party has been either ignominiously silent or intellectually impotent in polemics. A really shrewd opponent of Rome would see that no stronger or more telling argument against her existing practices can be adduced than appeal to the contradiction to them afforded by the testimony of her own most ancient, sacred, and accredited formularies ; but our Reviewer cannot see, that, and plays Cardinal Manning's game by giving Romanism all the advantage to be derived from a general attack on documents which are chiefly of the Patristic age in matter and meaning.
And we can readily exhibit from the same Lutheran source the true meaning of the condemnation of Sacrifices of Masses' by Article XXXI. It is quite clear that a doctrine that there is a fresh act of sacrifice in every Mass, and that each celebration of Mass is in some sense an independent offering, though officially repudiated by the Roman Church, and implicitly condemned by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, chap. iv. quest. 73, which declares that Christ's offering of Himself was once only, and upon the Cross, was widely current at the era of the Reformation, and indeed it is within our own knowledge that it is taught even still, just as a local Presence is, by some of the less educated Roman Catholic clergy. Now the Confession of Augsburg speaks thus :
“An opinion has gained ground, which has indefinitely multiplied private Masses, namely, that Christ by. His Passion made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the Mass, wherein there should be an oblation for daily sins, mortal and venial. Hence flowed a popular opinion that the Mass is an act which by opus operatum blots out the sins of the living and dead : whereupon a dispute began whether one Mass said for many persons be equal in value to separate Masses for single persons. This debate gave birth to that boundless multitude of Masses.'
And Franciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ (in 1633), glossing Article XXXI., observes :
Articulus durissimus videtur : rectiùs tamen introspiciendo, non adeo veritati discordem judicem. Prima pars, quoad affirmativa, indubitata est. .. In verbis posterioribus, si sobriè intelligantur, nihil agitur contra sacrificia Missæ in se, sed contra vulgarem et vulgatam opinionem de ipsis, scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerrent Christum pro vivis et defunctis, in remissionem pænæ et culpæ, adeo ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab eis oblati independenter à Crucis sacrificio, merentur populo remissionem. Hæc est vulgata opinio, quam hic perstrinxit Articulus.'
Having cleared the ground thus, let us come to the Anglican evidence. First of all, there stands the wording in the first Reformed Prayer-Book of 1549: The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.'
The word disappeared from the second Book of 1552, but did the thing? Apparently not, in the minds of contemporaries, for
(a) The Act of Uniformity, 5 & 6 Edward VI. C. I, estab. lishing the second Book, speaks of the former one as 'a very godly order, agreeable to the word of God and the Primitive Church,' while implicitly condemning the changes made in the Book of 1552, as due merely to 'doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause.
(6) Latimer, in the Disputation of 1554 at Oxford, said, 'I find no great diversity in them, they are one Supper of the Lord.
(c) In 1567 Archbishop Parker published (under the significant title of A Testimonie of Antiquitie, showing the auncient fayth in the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the body and bloude of the Lord, &c.) a modern English version of the Anglo-Saxon Easter Homily of Archbishop Ælfric (A.D. 995), as a vindication of the Reformed teaching of the Church of England on the Holy Eucharist in his own day, because identical, according to his statement, therewith, save in certain explicitly specified exceptions, being in all other respects agreeable to what the Elizabethan Bishops accepted as sound doctrine. Amongst the passages not excepted against is the following (all the more noticeably because there is a note of warning upon the very next paragraph): Once suffred Christe hym selfe (Ebreu x); but yet neverthelesse hys suffrynge is dayle renued at the masse through mysterye of the holye housell. This Homily is attested as sound doctrine by the signatures of Archbishop Parker, of Young, Archbishop of York, Grindal, Bishop of London, Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, Horne, Bishop of Winchester, and ten other bishops, namely, Barlow, Scory, Cox, Sandys, Bullingham, Davies, Bentham, Parkhurste, Best, and Robinson, nearly all pronounced Low Churchmen, and likely to favour the least Catholic tenets then permissible.
(d) The second Book, with some minor, though significant alterations, contented the great body of English Roman Catholics for the first ten years of Elizabeth's reign, till the Bull of Excommunication was launched against her.
(e) Contrariwise, this Book of 1552–1559 was hotly de
fisichop Ælir the Church identical, licitly sper the El
nounced as a Mass-Book' by the Puritan school, while Calvin described it as 'the leavings of Popish dregs' and as • trifling and childish'--(Troubles at Frankfort, p. xlviii.) It was complained of again and again, as also was our present Book, as virtually retaining the Mass, under pretence of a pure and Scriptural administration of the Supper, and its structure was unfavourably "compared' with that of the Missal and contrasted with the ordinance as observed in Protestant assemblies; with what degree of truth we will now exhibit by a tabular comparison of the leading factors of three Offices, the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass according to the use of Sarum, the existing Communion Office of 1662, omitting some minor details, and the Directory for Public Worship issued by Parliament in 1644:
1. Preparation of 1. Preparation of 1. Exhortation of inPriest Priest
vitation and 2. Confession and 2. Commandments
and Kyrie (ten 2. Seating of commu3. Kyrie(nine times)
nicants round 4. Gloria in Excelsis 3. Collects, Epistle, the table 5. Collects, Epistle, and Gospel | 3. Reading of the and Gospel 4. Nicene Creed
words of institu6. Nicene Creed 5. Oblation of Bread tion as a lesson, 7. Oblation of Bread and Wine on
not as a prayer and Wine on Altar
4. Prayer (extempore) Altar
6. Church Militant of thanksgiving 8. Secreta for accept Prayer of Obla
for mercies and ance of oblation tion and of Com
all means of 9. Sursum Corda
memoration of grace, and that 10. Preface
Living and De
God may so II. Sanctus
sanctify the Or12. Commemoration 7. Confession and dinance that of Living Absolution
those who eat 13. Consecration 8. Sursum Corda
and drink may Prayer 9. Preface
receive by faith 14. Com memoration | 10. Sanctus
the Body and of Departed 11. Prayer of Humble Blood of Christ 15. Prayers of Hum
Access(for priest 5. Joint communion ble Access (for and people)
of minister and Priest only) 12. Consecration people, all sea16. Communion of
ted, with no prePriest
13. Communion of scribed words of 17. Communion of Priest
administration People(kneeling) 14. Communion of 6. Exhortation after 18. Post-Communion People(kneeling) Communion Prayers
15. Post-Communion 7. Thanksgiving 19. Blessing and Dis
16. Gloria in Excelsis
lic little more, ate dit to the Holy meant by the worare
The structural, theological, and even verbal likeness between columns I. and II. is obvious at a glance, as is also the unlikeness of the third column to both. And the broad distinction is, that on the one hand there is an act of oblation and consecration, attended by other acts of worship, besides the oral reception of the Communion, in the Latin and Anglican rites; whereas, on the other hand, the act of communicating is the one and only intent of the Puritan order ; while the one element common to all three, the recitation of the Institution, is in the Directory-as, indeed, in other Puritan forms—studiously dissociated from any action with or over the bread and wine. That is to say, the former are what S. Ambrose, and those of his day, meant by the word Missa, when they applied it to the Holy Eucharist; while the latter is little more, at best, than the long-abolished agape, or religious club-feast, of ancient Christendom.
It will be seen, on comparison of the Sarum and Caroline offices, that out of the nineteen factors set down in column I. they have fifteen in substantial and often exact verbal agreement, though varying somewhat in order, as is also the case with the several parts in all distinct liturgies. Their chief points of structural difference are the addition of the Decalogue to our present rite, and the condensation of 8, 12, and 14 in column 1. into the single 6 of column II., while of course there is a good deal of verbal change, but nothing which can even disguise the practical identity, as to essentials, of the two rites.
As to the Prayer of Consecration itself, we have of course the right to claim that it should be read not only in the light of that of 1549, so highly lauded in the very Act of Parliament which substituted the Book of 1552, but also by that of the Liturgies of the Scottish and American Churches, with which the Church of England is in perfect intercommunion.
The trustworthiness of Dr. Lushington's dictum, that the Mass is gone, root and branch,' may be readily tested in this way; and, indeed, it is not unworthy of mention that when this learned judge was acting as assessor to Archbishop Sumner, in condemning Archdeacon Denison, one of the latter's friends obtained for him in court an explicit condemnation of a proposition respecting the Eucharist, as untenable in the Church of England, which happened to be, though he did not know it, an extract from Lancelot Andrewes.
As regards the mode of interpreting such a document as the existing Communion Office, no reasonable doubt can
arise. The Church of England makes incessant appeal to the ancient Christian Church of the first five centuries, in Prayer-Book, Canons, Articles, Homilies, and in such Acts of Parliament and other civil documents as the following (which may perhaps be held by some persons as more weighty and authoritative evidence than any ecclesiastical formularies) : 25 Henry VIII. c. xxi.; 34 & 35 Henry VIII. c. i. ; i Edward VI. c. i. ; 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. i. ; Proclamation of 1548 ; Answer to Princess Mary, 1551 ; 1 Elizabeth, c. ii. ; Proclamation against Sectaries; Queen's Declaration, 1969; Proclamation for Uniformity, 1604; 13 & 14 Charles II., &c. And that the two doctrines of the Real Presence and of the Eucharistic Sacrifice prevailed universally throughout the ancient Church does not admit of serious dispute ; still less that they have been not merely acknowledged, but vigorously asserted, by all the greatest names in Anglican theology. We can find, it is true, denunciations of the Liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches amongst the less eminent, learned, and respectable Reformers, just as we can find like attacks on baptismal regeneration, as a‘soul-destroying' doctrine and unknown to the Church of England, amongst the more illiterate Evangelicals even still, though nothing like so many as twenty years ago, and a like denial of the lawfulness of private confession, despite the explicit language of the Prayer-Book and Canons.
But a few citations from men whose praise is in all the Churches will not be out of place. We do not propose to construct a long catena, but just to pit some of the most famous writers of Anglicanism against one anonymous contributor to a recent number of a Review, undertaking, as we have seen, to lay down the law for the Church of England, and, as it would seem, doing so in the Nonconformist interest, by assailing the essential doctrines of that Church.
We will take, first, two eminent men, because singled out by the Reviewer himself as supporters of his own views, and will cite them simply to illustrate his position-already made untenable by Edmund Burke—that unlikeness to the Roman Church, even where that Church is in accord with early Christianity, is and ought to be the distinguishing characteristic of the Church of England ; and, in giving certain positive extracts from their writings, we are not to be misconstrued as though we intended to conceal or deny the existence of negative expressions, directed against popular Roman teaching, which may also be found in their works :. ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL.—'The Roman Church is not a Pro
utseen, to lay seem, dontial doctrines, because siview