« ZurückWeiter »
quent Lents, the truly Apostolic Latimer was called upon to fill the pulpit in the privy garden. At that, as well as at other places, crowds of anxious hearers attended upon his ministry. Nor though his alliterations, anecdotes, and strokes of satire would in these times be generally deemed improper in the pulpit, was his style unsuited to the age in which he lived. Such a man was eminently fitted at that period to impress his own convictions
the minds of others. Nor, when at length, a willing victim, he closed his useful life upon the blazing pyre, could those who had listened to his doctrine easily avoid a feeling of respect for any principles which old father Latimer, as he was affectionately called, had thought it his duty to inculcate.
As the winter drew towards a close, certain prelates and divines retired under a royal commission to Windsor Castle, for the purpose of consulting together there upon the preparation of a new and uniform mode of administering the Holy Communion in both kinds, as ordered by the recent act of Parliament". The individuals named for this important business were the Archbishops Cranmer and Holgate; the Bishops Boner of London, Tunstall of Durham, Heath of Worcester, Repps of Norwich, Parfew of St. Asaph, Capon of Salisbury, Sampson of Litchfield and Coventry, Aldrich of Carlisle, Bush of Bristol, Barlow of St. David's, Goodrich of Ely,
Holbeach of Lincoln, Day of Chichester, Skip of Hereford, Thirlby of Westminster, and Ridley of Rochester; together with Dr. Cox, the King's tutor and dean of Christchurch; Dr. May, dean of St. Paul's; Dr. Taylor, dean of Lincoln; Dr. Heynes, dean of Exeter; Dr. Robertson, afterwards dean of Durham; and Dr. Redmayn, master of Trinity College in Cambridge'. The first step taken in pursuance of this commission was to reduce the principal preliminaries requiring discussion into a series of questions, to each of which a written answer was demanded from every one of the divines engaged. Of these queries the following one stood at the head of the list : “ Was the Sacrament of the altar instituted to be received of one man for another, or of every man for himself?” To this it was unanimously replied, that the Eucharist was instituted to be received, not of one man for another, but of every man for himself. Bishop Capon, however, affirmed that the grace received by every communicant was profitable to the whole mystical body of Christ. It was secondly asked ; Is one man's act in receiving the Eucharist profitable to another ? Cranmer, Barlow, Cox, and Taylor, plainly answered this question in the negative. All the rest admitted, that besides profiting the recipient, every act of communion was beneficial to the whole body of Christ's Church. Bishop Aldrich went so far as to say, “whatsoever the receiving or receiver be, it availeth
Burnet, Hist. Ref. II. 98. Collier, II. 243. VOL. III.
and profiteth all present, absent, living and dead." The third question was, “ What is the oblation and satisfaction of Christ in the mass ?" Cranmer, Holbeach, Barlow, Ridley, Cox, and Taylor, denied that in the mass there is properly any oblation of Christ at all, he having been once only offered, on the cross ; they maintained, accordingly, that the oblation of Christ in the mass is a mere figure of speech, used because in that solemnity the Lord's offering of himself is represented and commemorated. All the others asserted, that under the forms of bread and wine, the very body and blood of Christ are offered to the Father, for the universal Church, and in remembrance of our Saviour's passion. Bishop Aldrich here again outstripped his brethren in the maintenance of Romanism, affirming, that, “ on the cross, Christ, being both priest and sacrifice, offered himself visibly, and in the mass, being likewise both priest and sacrifice, he offers himself invisibly by the common minister of the Church.” To the fourth question, " Wherein consisteth the mass by Christ's institution ?" Cranmer, Capon, Holbeach, Goodrich, Ridley, Barlow, and Bush, replied, by saying that it so consists in the things mentioned in such passages of Scripture as relate to the Eucharist ”. Boner, Heath, Skip, Day, and Parfew gave it as their opinion, that the mass principally consists in the consecration, oblation, and receiving of Christ's body and blood, with
St. Luke xxii.
1 Cor. x.
2 St. Matt. xxvi. St. Mark xiv. and xi. Acts ïi.
prayers and thanksgivings; but they admitted, that as to the prayers and rites used or commanded by our Lord at the institution of the mass, Scripture is wholly silent. Tunstall affirmed that the mass consists in the things mentioned in such texts as relate to it, together with confession, the oblation of Christ, communion, thanksgiving, and prayer for the mystical body of Christ. Holgate's answer was in effect the same; as is Sampson's, only he takes the liberty of surmising, that at the institution of the Eucharist, more was done by Christ than is related in Scripture. The staunch Bishop of Carlisle goes a little farther. After delivering an answer substantially the same as those of the other Romanists, he adds, “ Because Christ was, after his resurrection, long with his disciples, communing and treating of the kingdom of God, what should be done here to come thither, it may well be thought, that whatsoever He, or his Holy Spirit left with the Apostles, and they with others, after which also the whole universal congregation of Christian people useth and observeth, most ancient and holy doctors in like form noteth, may likewise be said and taken as of Christ's institution.” Cox replied, that the mass by Christ's institution consists in thanksgiving, and in dis
* “ What thanks that Christ gave before this most holy action, or what thanks that he gave after it, by the general words of Matthew, When they had sung an hymn, are not expressed. So that there appeareth, both before this most holy action, and also after, to be a certain ceremony appointed by Christ more than is expressed."
tribution of the elements to commemorate the Saviour's passion. Taylor said, that it consists in thanksgiving, and in blessing, breaking, and reverently receiving the Sacrament in both kinds with all such rites and circumstances as were used by Christ. To the fifth question as to the time when the priest alone began to receive the Sacrament, Cranmer replied, that, in his opinion, this practice was not in use during the first six or seven hundred years of the Christian æra. Holgate depending upon a forged decretal epistle", refers the origin of this practice to the time of Zephyrinus. Holbeach says, that the date of this, though uncertain, is assigned by the best authorities to the pontificate of Gregory the Great, about the close of the sixth century. Ridley cites some spurious authorities to prove that solitary masses were unknown in the primitive Church, and he concludes by expressing his belief that they were not in use during the first four or five centuries. By none of the other prelates, or by either of the doctors, is any time specified for the origin of solitary masses, but they all agree in ascribing them to that decay of piety which indisposed the bulk of Christians to a daily communion. Sixthly it was enquired, “Whether it be convenient that solitary masses continue ?”
Cranmer answered, “ I think it more agreeable to the Scripture, and the primi
b Collier, II. 244.
c Zephyrinus was Bishop of Rome between the years 201, and 219. Du Pin, II. 23.