Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

VII.-Durham, University Library, xvii, E. 19 (title-page).

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

X.-Durham, Cosin Library, F V, 2 (fol. B. i, verso).

XI. Bodleian Library, Arch. Bodl., A. I, 57 (title-page).

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

INTRODUCTION.

THE appearance of the Order of the Communion in March, 1548 had been preceded by the passing, in December, 1547, of an Ac of Parliament,' in which provisions of very different kinds ar curiously linked together. The first portion of the Act, after prelude on the virtuous intentions of the king and his desire t govern his subjects by methods of clemency, indicates tha "some bridle of fear" is necessary for certain persons, describe as men most contentious and arrogant for the most part o else most blind and ignorant," by whom "things well and godl instituted" are " perverted and abused," and that this tendenc is especially apparent "in matters of religion and in the grea and high mysteries thereof, as in the most comfortable Sacra ment of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Chris commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and in Scripture the Supper and Table of the Lord, the communion and par taking of the Body and Blood of Christ." It proceeds, after statement as to the institution of the Eucharist, to declare tha the Sacrament has been "of late marvellously abused" b

unreverent and ungodly" disputations and reasonings, and b "such vile and unseemly words as Christian ears do abhor t hear rehearsed." It therefore enacts that any persons who afte the first day of May, 1548, shall by words or otherwise deprave contemn, despise or revile the Sacrament shall suffer fine an imprisonment at the King's pleasure, and directs the mode o proceeding against offenders.2

1 The statute 1 Edw. VI. cap. 1. It is printed in Gee and Hardy, Documen illustrative of the History of the English Church, 1896, p. 322.

2 The effect of this may seem at first sight to be the giving of full liberty speech to the revilers for four months or more. But this was probably not intended and the gap was filled within a few days after the passing of the Act by a proclamation forbidding irreverent and indecent discussions as to the Sacrament, and the us

The second portion of the Act declares that it is mo agreeable to the first institution of the Sacrament, and to t common use and practice of the Apostles and the primiti Church, that the Sacrament "should be ministered to Christian people under both the kinds of bread and wine th under the form of bread only"; and "that the people bei present should receive the same with the priest than that t priest should receive it alone." It therefore enacts that t Sacrament shall "be hereafter commonly delivered a ministered unto the people within the Church of England a Ireland, and other the King's dominions, under both the kind that is to say, of bread and wine, except necessity otherwi require"; that the priest shall, at least one day before ministers the Sacrament, exhort those who are present prepare themselves to receive it; and that on the day appointe "after a godly exhortation by the minister made,” declaring t benefits of receiving worthily and the peril of receivi unworthily, "to the end that every man shall try and exami his own conscience before he shall receive the same," t minister "shall not, without lawful cause, deny the same to a person that will devoutly and humbly desire it."

It is not always easy to trace in the Parliamentary Journa of the time the exact steps by which particular measures pass into law. But there can be little doubt that this Act was t result of a combination of two bills, of which one was intend to repress the growing irreverence towards the Sacrament, t other to provide for the administration of the Sacrament to th lay people "under both the kinds." The Parliament met o

of irreverent language concerning it (examples being cited in unnecessary quantity under severe though unspecified penalties. (Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv, p. 18.) T was doubtless meant to supply the necessary “bridle of fear” for the time. By t proclamation preachers were prohibited from using, on the subject of the Sacramer till a further definition of doctrine should be made, any terms not employed Scripture.

1 It may be noted that the practice of "five hundred years and more aft Christ's ascension " is alleged for ministration in both kinds; no precise period assigned for the duration of the other primitive usage.

at it is more nt, and to the

the primitive stered to all and wine than people being than that the acts that the elivered and England and

th the kinds, ity otherwise

y before he e present to ay appointed, declaring the of receiving and examine same," the same to any

[blocks in formation]

November 4th, 1547. The Journals of the Lords show that bill "for the Sacrament of the Altar" was read in that Hous on November 12th, again on November 15th, and twice of November 17th. On November 26th, a bill "for the receivin of the Sacrament sub utraque specie" was read and delivered t the Chancellor, Lord Rich. On December 3rd, a bill "pr Sacramento was read and committed to the Protector. Th committing of the bills seems to have been utilised for thei combination, which may perhaps have been the purpose fo which they were committed.

On December 5th, a bill "pro Sacramento Corporis e Sanguinis Christi" was read in the Lords, and committed to tw judges, Marvin and Portman. This was probably the bi resulting from the combination of the two measures, and th same which was read on December 7th, when it is described as bill" pro sacrosancto Sacramento Altaris." On December 10th appears again, as a bill "pro sacrosancto Sacramento Corpor et Sanguinis Christi": it was then read and approved" commun omnium procerum assensu," with five dissentients. These wer the Bishops of London (Bonner), Norwich (Rugg), Herefor (Skip), Worcester (Heath), and Chichester (Day). Cranmer an nine other Bishops who were present1 appear to have assented t the passing of the bill. In the Commons its progress was rapid it was read a first time on the same day on which it was passe by the Peers; the second reading followed on December 13tl and the third on December 14th. On December 17th it appear once more in the Journal of the Lords, where it is recorded tha a provision to be annexed to the bill was sent to the Common "the which the Commons would not receive, because the Lord had not given their consent to the same." On the same da

1 These were the Bishops of Durham (Tunstall), Ely (Goodrich), Salisbu (Salcot), St. David's (Barlow), St. Asaph (Parfew, otherwise Wharton), Carlis (Aldrich), Bristol (Bush), Lincoln (Holbeach), and Rochester (Ridley).

2 There is nothing to show the nature of this provision. The part of the b relating to communion in both kinds appears to have received no addition or alterati after it was engrossed.

the bill was read once more in the Commons, and passed b them.

The Convocation of Canterbury met on November 5th, th day after the meeting of Parliament. After the election of th Prolocutor, the Lower House, on November 22nd, agreed upo four petitions, which were presented to the Upper House, but t which, apparently, no answer was ever returned. One of thes petitions was that the clergy of the Lower House, according t the ancient customs of the realm and the tenor of the King writ for the summoning of Parliament,' might be "adjoined an associated" with the House of Commons, or else that statute and ordinances concerning matters of religion and ecclesiastica causes might not be passed without their "sight and assent On November 30th, while the Lower House was still awaitin an answer to its petitions, the Prolocutor brought forward, in session which is said to have been "anticipated," a documen described as "the form of an ordinance," which he stated that h had received from the Archbishop, as to communion under bot kinds. He himself and fifteen other members, out of fifty-eigh who were present, signed the document in question. December 2nd (probably the day to which an adjournment ha been made on November 25th) the proposal made in th "anticipated" session was approved viva voce by all who wer present, without expression of dissent.2

O

It is uncertain what the " forma cuiusdam ordinationis " maj have been which was produced on November 30th, and receive a somewhat irregular assent on December 2nd. But it may b conjectured that it was a draft or summary of the bill which ha been introduced in the House of Lords on November 26th, t which an objection may have been raised on the ground that th Convocation had had no opportunity of expressing an opinion

1 The reference is to the clause "Praemunientes" in the writ by which th Bishops were summoned to Parliament.

2 The methods of assent by subscription which had been applied on November 30t and was afterwards employed in a later session in the expression of an opinion on th marriage of priests was apparently abandoned in this session.

« AnteriorContinua »