Overall certainly does. And not just in terms of eucharistic theology: laudablepractice.blogspot.com/2024/04/we-d....
Following on from yesterday's post , there are three relevant episodes noted in the introductions by George Ornsby (b. 1809, received orders...
My own reading of the letter is that Guest was attempting to (1) get himself out of a somewhat embarrassing situation and (2) persuade Cecil that his aim has been to get another bishop on board with the Articles. And for Elizabeth and Cecil, a quiet, peaceful church was a priority.
It is a very unconvincing argument. There was a range of acceptable interpretations within the broad family of Reformed eucharistic theologies. Some of these sought to answer moderate, eirenic Lutheran queries (a minority Lutheran position at the time), but no more than this.
Two others I would add. Burnet's Exposition of the Articles (which became a standard text throughout the 18th century). And Welchman's 1713 Commentary (interesting because he was a 'Reformed' divine i.e. not Arminian, but had a moderate reading of the Articles).
Yes, I have read that, and I am not convinced he is doing more than seeking grounds for others with neo-Lutheran views to assent to the Article. It is possible that he also falls under this term, but that is not quite what this letter says.
Agreed. But I am not at all convinced that he was a crypto-Lutheran. The statement regarding the cope is definitely Reformed in its emphasis.
Yes. His view on the cope really cannot be reconciled with interpretations of him as a 'Lutheran'.
Lake's book is also sitting on my desk waiting to be read. In light of the reviews, I am approaching it with somewhat mixed feelings. I am increasingly of the view that 'Laudianism' was a loose sensibility rather than a firm ideological position.
But he did sign the Articles in 1571, allowing for his appointment to Salisbury. The key thing about his statement regarding the cope is, of course, it cannot at all be reconciled with certain interpretations of his eucharistic views.