in the Church for fifteen centuries. For all those ages they had been supposed to be the rivulets which watered the earth with the graces of the Spirit. After so long experience it should have been at least possible to tell what they were, or how many they were; but the question was suddenly asked, and none could answer it. The bishops were applied to. Interrogatories were sent round among them for opinions, and some said there were three sacraments, some seven, some a hundred. The Archbishop of York insisted on the apostolical succession; the Archbishop of Canterbury believed that priests and bishops might be nominated by the Crown, and he that was so appointed needed no consecration, for his appointment was sufficient.[1] Transubstantiation remained almost the only doctrine beyond the articles of the three creeds on which a powerful majority was agreed.[2]
- ↑ Answers to Questions on the Sacraments by the Bishops: Burnet's Collectanea, p. 114.
- ↑ In one of the ablest and most liberal papers which was drawn up at this time, a paper so liberal indeed as to argue from the etymology of the word presbyter that 'lay seniors, or antient men, might to some intents be called priests,' I find this passage upon the eucharist: 'As concerning the grace of consecration of the body of our Lord in form of bread and wine, we beseech your Grace that it may be prohibited to all men to persuade any manner of person to think that these words of our Master Christ, when He 'took bread and blest it and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, and eat ye, this is my body that shall be betrayed for you,' ought to be understood figuratively. For since He that spake those words is of power to perform them literally, though no man's reason may know how that may be, yet they must believe it. And surely they that believe that God was of power to make all the world of nought, may lightly believe he was of power to make of bread his very body.'—Theological MSS. Rolls House.
