IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /<^^^^ cr v^ % J 1.0 1.1 12.8 ■ 2.5 warn ,^1^ tm^ 11 140 2.0 18 1.25 1.4 1^ ^ 6" - K m //, / ^J '/ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 •J^ ■^ ■^ ■i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Tachnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notaa tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of ttiis copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad baiow. □ Colourad covars/ Couvartura da couiaur D D D n D D n Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covars restored and/or laminated/ Couvarture restaur^ et/ou peilicul4e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiquaa en couiaur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planchaa et/ou illuatrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avac d'autres documaAta Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liura serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion la long da la marge intAriaure Blank leaves addad during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pagea blanches ajoutiea lors d'une reatauration apparaiaaant dana la texta. mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pagaa n'ont pas «ti filmiea. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentairas; Various pagingt. L'Institut a microfilmi le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti poasibia de se procurer. Las details dm cat exemplaire qui sont peut-4tre uniquea du paint da vua bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier uno image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la mtthodo normaia de fiimaga sont indiqute ci-dessous. r~l Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. Pagaa da couiaur Pagaa damaged/ Pagaa endommagiaa Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurtes et/ou pellicultes Pagea discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages dicolortes. tachatAes ou piquiaa Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^as Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inigale de l'impre«sion includes supplementary matarii Comprend du material supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seula Mition disponibia r~~| Pagaa damaged/ pn Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~n Pagaa discoloured, stained or foxed/ [~n Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ r~] Quality of print varies/ [~~| includes supplementary material/ pn Only edition available/ Tha tot Tha poa of ftlni Orii b«fl tha aioi oth firs sioi ori Thi aha TIN Pagea wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref timed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totaiement ou partiellement obacurcias par un fauillet d'errata, une peiure, etc., ont iti filmies A nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. Ma difl •nt bOQ raq ma^ 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX T 12X lex XX 24X 28X 32X Th« copy film«d h«r« h«s b««n r«produc(Nl thanks to tho gonorotity of: Harold CampMI Vaughan Mamorial Library Acadia Univaraity The imagos appearing hara ara tha baat quality postlbia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifleationa. Original copiaa in printad papar covars aro fllmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha iaat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, or tha back covar wtwrn appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha iaat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaton. L'axampiaira filing fut raproduit grica k la ginirositi da: Harold Campbali Vaughan Mamorial Libraiy Acadia Univartity Laa imagaa suivantas ont «ti raprodultas avac la plus grand aoin. compta tanu da !a condition at da la nattat* Hm l'axampiaira film*, at an conformity avac laa conditions du &ontrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux don'4 la couvartura an papiar aat ImprimAa sont fiimte mt comman9ant par la pramiar plat at mn tarminant soit par la darni*ra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Tous laa autras axamplairaa originaux sont filmAs an commandant par ia pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darniira paga qui comporta una taiia amprainta. Tha Iaat racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol — ^ (moaning "CON- TINUED "), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END "), whichavar appliaa. Un daa symboiaa suivants apparaltra sur la darniAra imaga da chaqua microficha. salon la cas: la symbols — »• signifis "A SUIVRE". la symbols V signifis "FIN". Maps, platas, ciwrta. ate. may ba fllmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to lia antiraly inciudad in ona axpoaura ara fllmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand corner, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata )ha mathod: Las cartas, planclias. tablaaux. ate, pauvant Atra fiimAa A das taux da reduction diffArantr. Lorsqus ia documant ast trap grand pour Atra raproduit an un saui clichA. il ast filmi A partir da I'angla supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha A droita. at da tMut an baa. an pranant la nombra d'imagas nAcassaira. Las diagrammas suivants illuatrant la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 \\ /"^^ I .7' ■ ,/ The Protestantism OF THE PRAYER BOOK. The Protestantism A OF THE PRAYER BOOK BY THE REV. DYSON HAGUE, M.A., RECTOR OK ST. HAUL'S CHURCH, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA. WITH A A PREFACE BY THE RIGHT REV. JOHN CHARLES RYLE, D.D., LORD niSHOP OF LIVERPOOL. ENGLISH EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. "the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery." — Canon XXX. " I shall freely set forth that ivhich undoubtedly I am persuaded to be the truth of God's IVord, — call me a Protestant -who ivill, I care not." — Bishop Ridlev. 3Lontian : CHURCH ASSOCIATION, 14, BUCKINGHAM STREET. STRAND, W.C. \ r « I LONDON : ■i. \(»RMAN AND SOX, PRI.VTKRS, HART STREET, COVEN r OARPEV. At the earnest request of many English and Canadian friends this work is published in England under the auspices of the Church Association. I dedicate it, as I dedicated the Canadian edition, to those Churchmen in England, who because they love Christ and His truth, are not ashamed cf the grand old name of Protestant. JLO io L^ I desire hhre to acknowledge with gratittide my indebtedness to Mr. J. T, Tomlinson, who has, with the greatest kindness, given time and labour to revising the proof sheets. i.r . 'i ' . I. CONTENTS. Preface by the Bishop of Liverpool PAGE ix Introductory The i'ro' jtant Church of England and the anti-Protestant reaction. XI Chapter I.— A Preliminary Argument i The age in which the Prayer Book was compiled, the men who compiled it, and the influences moulding them. Chapter II.— Three General Protestant Character- istics ... . ... ... ... ... ig It is Common Prayer ; it is in the language of the people ; it is scriptural. Chapter III. — Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany 31 The Protestant features of the Prayers and Rubrics ; the noteworthy changes in the Litary. Chapter IV.— The Communion Service 43 Not the Mass, nor the semi-Protestant service of 1549. The Sarum Mass ; Pusey's Views. Chapter V.— The Baptismal Office 60 Not Romish ; not superstitious. The Roman doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration not taught in the Church of England. Chapter VI. — The OcCi» signal Services 84 Significant changer, in the direction of Protestantism in all these services. If • •• vni Contents. PAOB Chapter VII.— The Absolution Doctrine of the Church OF England ... loi Differences between it and the Roman doctrine. Chapter VIII. — Auricular Confession 115 Not the doctrine of the Church of England : the teaching of the Roman Church. Chapter IX.— The Ordinal 129 The good rule of the Reformers. Vindication of the form " Receive the Holy Ghost." Chapter X. — Recapitulation and Conclusion 144 Our Protestant Prayer Book. Appendix — The Canon of the Mass 161 The Eastward Position 171 The so-called Ornaments Rubric 183 The Mixing of Wine and Water 205 Dr. Pusey on the "Real Presence" 209 The Sacrifice of the Mass ... 213 Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. Pusey on Private Confession 215 Apostolical Succession 221 PREFACE. 'T^HE volume entitled "The Protestantism of the Prayer Book," originally published in Canada, requires no recommendation from me. It can afford to stand on its own feet, and to be judged by its own merits. Nevertheless, having been requested by the author to add a few prefatory words to the edition about to be published in England, I have much pleasure in complying with his request. The volume now in the reader's hands is a brief but exhaustive account of the true principles on which the English Book of Common Prayer was finally compiled, when the Reformation of our Church was completed, and the Second Book of King Edward substituted for the First Book. Those principles were carefully retained in the Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and were finally preserved unaltered in the last revision of i66i:. Even at that date, immediately after the unhappy Savoy Conference, Archbishop Sheldon and his assistant revisers did not attempt to bring back into our liturgy the questionable things which found a place in King Edward's First Prayer Book, and HHiiMiididUhAlbAH 1^'- J'- r\ K X Preface, were purposely cast out from King Edward's Second Book. The true principles of the English Prayer Book, whatever some interpreters may please to say, are Protestant and Evangelical, and of this abundant evidence is supplied in this volume. The ignorance of many English Churchmen in this day about the true principles of their own Church, is something deplorable. Very little is taught about the subject in most public schools, from the highest grade down to the lowest. Very few, it may b|e feared, have ever read or studied our noble Confession of Faith, the Thirty-nine Articles. The result of this widely-spread ignorance may be seen in the growth oi Romish doctrines and ritual within our pale. The Rev. Dyson Hague's book, which I have much pleasure in recommending, appears to me eminently calculated to lessen the ignorance to which I have referred, if Churchmen will read it. I heartily wish it an extensive circulation. J. C. Liverpool. Palace, Liverpool, September, 1893. n INTRODUCTORY. n^HE title of this work explains its object. It is to demonstrate the essential Protestantism of the Book of Common Prayer, and to give to loyal Churchmen a series of reasons for their honest attachment to the Church of England. The word Protestant is a term of which no Churchman should be ashamed ; and he who sneers at her Protestantism, may well be suspected of disloyalty to the Church. No one can resd the history of the Reformation without recognizing the fact that the Church of England is nothing if not Protestant. Not only her Articles, but all the services c f the Prayer Book were drawn up by Protestants in the true sense, and intended for the establishment of Protest- antism. While we rejoice in the Catholicity of the Church of England, and recognize with gladness the fact that she is a true branch of the one holy Catholic Church, which she herself has defined to be " the blessed company of all faithful people," we also know that her very being is essentially and continuously a living protest against the falsities of Rome, and not only that, but against all forms of error, practical and doctrinal, Unitarian, Socinian, Pelagian, Arian. The Church is Protec- mt, not merely in that she presents a powerful disclaimer both in her Articles and liturgy against the perversions of Popery, but Protestant equally in her standing protect against other forms of error, which, by negation or subtraction, have perverted the truth. It is, however, in the former sense, which is the common under- standing of the term Popery or Romanism, that is, in the sense of protest against Roman corruptions in doctrine, and \ r xu Protestantism cf the Prayer Book. Romish trivialities in ritual, that the word Protestant is mainly employed in this work. v* No one can question the Protestantism of the Church in the days of the Reformation, and for the next one hundred and thirty years. To abhor all Popery as sin ; to detest the Pope as the incarnation of falsity; to regard with distrust the priest; of the Roman Church ; to dread, like poison, the name of the Jesuit, were unfailing characteristi s of all sound Churchmen. At certain periods this spirit waxed stronger, and the Church of England was not only Protestant, it was ultra- Protestant. In the days of the Reformation, and those immediately succeeding, the language of Reformers and representative divines, the stateknents of authoritative documents, and the common employment of expressive terms, set forth this ultra -Protestantism with the strongest proofs; Cranmer» Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper, all speak of Rome as the seat of Satan, Babylon, or the whore of Babylon, and the Pope as the Antichrist, or the man of sin. The Homilies on the Peril of Idolatry, on Repentance, and for Whitsunday, exhibit the same detestation of Rome ; and as to the use cf expressive terms, it is a matter of notoriety that no Church- man scrupled to employ the words Romish, Papal, Popt?ry, and Papist. In fact, the words Popery and Papist were almost uniformly used in reference to Romanists and the Church of Rome. In the days of William and Mary, and for many years subsequently, the attitude of English Churchmen was un- changed The revolution of 1688, which put them on the throne, was essentially a Protestant revolution. William of Orange sailed to England because a Popish king had attempted to subjugate the kingdom to the thraldom of Popery. He was acknowledged sovereign by the Estates Introductory. xui because England's Church was a Protestant Church, and England was a Protestant kingdom. This it was also that produced the strong denunciation of that doctrine and position, that princes deprived by the Pope, or on authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, as impious, heretical, and damnable ; that no foreign prince, person, or prelate, hath or ought to have any juris- diction, supremacy, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm ; and that every person who is or shall be reconciled to the Church of Rome, or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, shall be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown, — statutes which, it is almost needless to remind English Churchmen, have never been xepealed. In those days pride in the Church of England, as a Protestant Church, was almost universal. It was confined to no one party or school of thought. Coming down to a later period, we find that, even at the beginning of this century, the staunch old High Churchmen abhorred the Pope as the man of sin, and regarded Popery as the nation's irreconcilable foe. A modern author. Professor J. A. Froude, in a recent interesting article on the Oxford movement, tells how his father, a rector of the old-fashioned High Church type, trained his boys up in the idea that the Pope was Antichrist, and the Reformers worthy of all honour. The Church was Protestant through and through, and the use of the word Protestant in popular connection with the Church of England was as common as the word Catholic in connection with the Church of Rome. As a simple illustration of this it may be pointed out that one great branch of the English Church, once a daughter, now a sister, a Church identical with her in all but a few minor details, and always considered as a branch of the Anglican Church, the Episcopal Church in the United States, has taken as a Church the title of Protestant. I XIV Protestantism of the Prayer Book. K That Church, which is, to all intents and purposes, the Church of England in the United States, has been, and to- day is, the Protestant FJpiscopal Church, and the name was given because it was natural. If the Church were not Protestant, or rather if the Church were not characteristically, unquestionably Protestant, if Protestantism were not only of its characteristics, but as strongly expressive of its character as episcopacy, the Church would never have adopted that appellation, and if that description were not true, it is certain that the Anglican Church would never without a protest have suffered a body in such close relationship to retain a title so contradictory, nor would the Protestant Episcopal Church have tolerated it for so many years. The famous lahguage of the Coronation Oath is a still more unanswerable instance of the recognized connection of the adjective Protestant with the Church of England, for the religion of the national Church is there described as the " Protestant Reformed Religion established by law." About fifty years ago, more or less, a change, however, began to creep over the spirit of the English Church. Very quietly, very gradually, but very surely, the bitterness of the anti- Roman feeling, the " Protestant prejudice," as Newman termed it, began to wear away. The word catholic, which was formerly, and, we confess, in an entirely unwarranted manner, exclusively arrogated by the Romanists, began to be applied to certain Churchmen. The doctrines of the Church of Rome, which were formerly held in such honest abhorrence, began to be respected, admired, and even publicly proclaimed, in the Church of England. The words Popery, Papist, and Papacy, began to be geiiily laid aside as oppressive, abusive, and unreasonable. The practices of the Church of Rome, which were formerly abhorred, and by the Church at the Reformation completely cast aside, began Introductory. XV to l)C stealthily advocated, and soon openly performed. A retrograde movement was taking place, and doctrines, practices, words, and habits, conduced to habituate members of the Church of England to the forms of Romanism, and to conciliate them to what they once detested. Now, things have come to such a pass that men, still claiming loyalty to the Church of England, have not hesitated to disavow the term Protestant,* and boldly to glory in the inculcation of doctrines Roman in everything but the name, and the advocacy of all those trivialities of ritualism which are the glory of Romanism, and were so earnestly opposed by our Reformers} incense, altar lights, eucharistic vestments, alb, amice, maniple, chasuble, dalmatic, tunic, mixed chalice, eastward position, wafer bread, genuflections, and crossings, adoration of the host on the ringing of the consecration bell, fasting communion, canonical hours, prayers for the dead, ablutions, auricular confession ; extreme unction, a practice which the author of "The Congregation in Church" audaciously declares to be still perfectly valid in the Church of England; celebrations for the dead; the reserved sacra- ment; chrism and trine immersion; and other practices and ceremonials too numerous to mention. Nor is there any question as to the tendency of these things, nor the end which they are designed to effect. The true tendency of the practices of ritualism, and the inculcation of Tractarian doctrine, is to make the doctrine and practice of the Church of England as like as possible to that of the Roman ; in other words, to gradually un- protestantize the Church of England, and slowly but surely to assimilate it to Rome. The end to be finally effected is not merely the parallel development of the Church of * I would refer the reader to a book which has obtained a large circulation, entitled, "The Congregation in Church." r ' , XVI Protestantism of the Prayer Book. England on so-called Catholic lines, but its fusion with the Church of Rome. The consummation devoutly wished by the Tractarian party, and daily prayed for by their leader, was declared by him, in the closing pages of the "Eirenicon,"* to be the restoration of intercommunion between the Eastern, Roman, and Anglican Churches ; an assimilation which, it need hardly be repeated, would be confusion, not fusion ; schism, not union. Such are the plain facts, admitted by men of widely different schools of thought. Bishop Wilberforce and Bishop Coxe joined hands with Bishop Ryle in protest against a party whose object is to Romanize the Church of England ; to make the Church of England a mere appendage of the Roman usurj)ation, and destroy her catholicity j to undo the work of the Reformation and of the Church's martyred bishops; and to go down on servile knees to those who slew them, begging Protestant Churchmen to receive again a yoke of bondage and corruption. A party, too, whose doctrinal Romanism — I repeat, whose doctrinal Romanism — is by no means removed though it is cleverly disguised by continuous and loud-voiced protests against the Pope as a temporal despot, and the lately promulgated dogmas of the Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. It is because of this change in the spirit of a section of the English Church that I have endeavoured to emphasize the fact of the Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Whither we are drifting, none can tell ; but as long as the Book of Common Prayer remains unchanged, the Church can never be Romanized. Its prayers, its services, its Articles, are the bulwarks of her Protestantism, and only by dislocation and distortion can Popish practices find toleration in her. The strongest protest against the retrograde movement now in * An Eirenicon, by Dr. Pusey, p. 335. Introdtictory, xvii progress in the Church of England is not from the pen of this or that individual Churchman, but from the Prayer Book itself. It protests by its utterance. It protests by its silence. It protests by its amendments. It protests by its contrasts. Every false Romish doctrine, every novel Romish practice, stealthily introduced or openly advocated, receives either the protest of its written contradiction, or the equally forcible protest of its silent repudiation. Is it the practice of adoring the eucharist? The Prayer Book expressly repudiates it. Is it the doctrine of extreme unction ? The Prayer Book says nothing about it. Is it the doctrine of purgatory ? The Prayer Book lifts up its voice of denunciation. Is it prayers for the departed dead ? The Prayer Book is as silent as the graves in which their bodies lie. Is it the fatal dogma of transubstantiatiou ? The Prayer Book explicitly rejects it. Is it the pract ce of the confessional ? There is absolutely no provision for it whatever. In short, a careful study of the various changes in the Prayer Book's cliequered history, from its first stages in King Edward's reign to its present position, has led me to the deliberate conclusion that the Prayer Book is a Protestant work with no uncertain sound ; and that if English Church- men will only remain true to their Book of Common Prayer, the ambitions of Romanists and Romanizers will never be realized. The Prayer Book itself is the great stiimHing-llock in the ivay of the Romanizers. It atfords them so little countenance for their practices ; its doctrinal baldness from the falsely so-called Catholic stand- point is disappointing to a degree. The whole tendency and end of their doctrine and practice is one well-defined and boldly declared process of approximation to Rome. The tendency and aim of the Prayer Book has been from the outset, with almost uniform steadiness, retrogression from Rome. h r^ .<'« xviii Protestantism of the Prayer Book. The first practice generally to be introduced by the aspirants of this party is the elevation of the elements in the administration of the eucharist. The first practice to be forbidden in the liturgical reformation of the Church of England was this same elevation of the chalice in the act of consecration. The crucial doctrines to be taught with more or less boldness, as occasions permit, are the doctrines of sacramental absolution, auricular confession, sacramental justification, and the sacrificial character (I mean in the Roman sense) of the Supper of the Lord. The doctrines to be clearly impugned, both by the silence and the clear- ness of the Prayer Book, are these same doctrines. In the First Prayer Book of 1549, they obtain but slight counten- ance ; and thje subsequent revisions show that they were thoroughly disallowed. If the doctrines of the Reformers in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth had been the doctrines of Pusey and the Tractarian party, the Prayer Book would never have been cast in its present form. This is an unquestionable fact ; and it is a thought of cardinal importance for English Churchmen. Let them grasp it, and hold it fast. If the doctrines of the Reformers in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth had been the doctrines of Pusey and the Tractarian party, our Prayer Book would never have been cast in its present form. It is silent where, from their standpoint, it should be most expressive ; it is found wanting where, had they compiled it, it would have been most explicit. The bona fide tendencies of the Romanizing party in the Church of England have been declared by a well-known Churchman, the late Bishop Wilberforce, to be four : — First, the renewal of a system of auricular confession. Second, of sacramental absolution. Third, of the sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper. Fourth, of the denial of justification by faith. I ''I / 1 Introductory. XIX These, in reality, are the inward and dangerous doctrines of which the rituahstic innovations before men- tioned are but the ominous outward and visible signs. These are but the separate links in a chain which always has but one design : the binding of the Church in the unity of Rome. But each of these pernicious links is shown, by the progressive stages of the Prayer Boc-.^, to have been cast aside ; and the practices now so clamorously advocated as indispensable to the illustration of some falsely-called " Catholic " principle, and intrinsically harmless, are proved, by the contrasts offered by the various stages of the Prayer Book's history, to have been considered by the Church as positively dangerous. My object, therefore, has been to show the striking difference between the intentions and productions of men who are actuated by Romish, and men who are actuated by Protestant, principles. The aims of the one are to fabricate a liturgical system the soul of which is priestcraft, and the body a complex symbolical ceremonialism. The aims of the other are to produce a liturgy at once scriptural, simple, and spiritual, with everything to promote devotion and godliness, and everything removed that would tend to superstition and false doctrine. The greater part of this treatise, therefore, is based upon the argument of contrast ; contrast, primaril} . between the teachings and the practices of the Roman Church and our own, and contrast, next, between the Prayer Book, as it now stands, and the first Prayer Book put forth in the reign of Edward VI. ; and my endeavour shall be so to illustrate these differences by the statement of widely- ignored facts, and, I fear, widely-unknown quotations, from the original Books themselves, that each man may judge for himself whether these things are so. If we find that certain practices authorized, and certain doctrines taught, in this r ' XX ' Protestantism of the Prayer Book. semi-reformed Prayer Book of 1549 have been carefully removed in subsequent revisions, and are not to be found in the Prayer Book to-day, we may certainly gather from tliis fact that they were deemed either unnecessary or dangerous. The things that were left out were left out for a reason ; and what has been expressly left out by the Church, it is not for irresponsible individuals to bring in. Wliatcver biassed divines may decide, the common sense of Englishmen will sustain the judgment that the Prayer Book in its revisions abolished, and intended to abolish, what it did not retain. If we know, moreover, that this Prayer Book of 1549 is now obsolete, and, ho'.ever valuable in many respects, is now no longer possessed of any doctrinal or rubrical validity, we may understand how unfair it is to plead its statements as a justification for ritualistic or doctrinal innovations in the Church of to-day. As well might one explain the doctrines of the Church set forth in the Thirty- nine Articles by the Articles of the reign of King Henry VIII. If, moreover, we discover that these changes are not merely accidental, nor changes of convenience, but the conscientious alterations of spiritually enlightened Reformers ; and that these remarkable indications of spiritual enlighten- ment are not confined to the Second Prayer Book of King Edward's reign, but are the substance of the Prayer Book as Churchmen now have it, we may be the more determined to resist every endeavour to undo a work so carefully per- formed, and hold fast a prize secured by martyr-blood. In this endeavour, also, to set forth the more especially Protestant features of the Prayer Book, I shall not only proceed upon the principle that omission and alteration are practical prohibition, and an index of the teaching of the Church, but also upon the fundamental, the most indispen- sable, principle, that the true guide to the interpretation of the Book of Common Prayer, as it now stands, is not falsely Introductory, XXI so-called Catholic usage, and Catholic doctrine, but the teaching and rationale of the Reformation in its more perfect development, and of the age that followed, not the age that preceded it. Jewel and Hooker are more trustworthy ex- ponents of Church Doctrine and ritual than cither Pusey, or Sadler, or Walker. It must be remembered that a book which is the product of certain men, and of a certain age, must be interpreted in the '.'frht of that age, and in honest accordance with the known views of its compilers.* Few, \'jry few, real Churchmen, I am sure, will agree with Newman's conclusion in his famous Tract 90, that we have no duties towards the compilers, and that their views and interpretations of the formularies of the Church must, in no way, be a standard for us. To know the men, and to under- stand the tendency of the age, is a sine qua non for the right understanding of the Prayer Book. As the late Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Harold Browne, in his introduction to the Articles, says : " If Ridley and Cranmer were the chief compilers both of the Prayer Book and of the Articles, although the Church is in no degree bound by their private opinions, yet, when there is a difficulty in understanding a clause either in the Articles or the Liturgy ... it cannot hut be desirable to elucidate such difficulties by appealing to the writings, and otherwise expressed opinions of these two Re- formers." To ignore the fact that the tendency of the Refor- mation was away from, not towards, Romanism and undue ceremonialism, and to repudiate the views of the Reformers, is not only illogical and unfair, but misleading and deceptive. * "The fundamental principle of interpretation of all worship, sacred or profane, is that words are to be understood in their historical sense ; that is, in the sense in which it can be historically proved that they were used by their authors, and intended to be understood by those to whom they were addressed." — Hodge, Theology, vol. i., 376. r I xxii Protestantism of the Prayer Book. And the views of the Reformers which are to be our guide arc not the views which they held in their ecirlier days, aii error sometimes made by the Romanizing party,* hut the views which they held after they became, by their own con- fession, enlightened by God's Spirit. This personal spiritual enlightenment is at once the explanation of their abandon- ment, in the case of Cranmer, of the doctrines of the " Real " Presence, the sacrifice of the mass, and purgatory, and the doctrinal significance of the careful changes they introduced in the Prayer Book. Such is the object, endeavour, and purpose, of this work. Not merely to awaken, in its high and spiritual sense, that decaying spirit of antagonism to Rome, and to withstand that pseudo-chArity which, in these perilous times, regards with complacency the Church's deformation ; but to arouse Churchmen to defend from everything that is mediaeval, Romish, false, a liturgy that represents, in its reformed purity, the spirit of scriptural, apostolic, and primitive religion. Not to stir up strife, and perpetuate unreasonable and passionate antagonisms ; but to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Church in the spirit of truth and love. There is an antagonism to Popery which is merely founded on bitterness, ignorance, and hatred of individuals ; * I have seen quotations made ex. gr. from the earlier writings of Cranmer and Ridley in proof of the doctrine of auricular confession, but these are no guide whatever to their later views. Church- men should take care to see that any quotations from the Reformers are from a period not earlier than 1552. I may state here, once for all, that I use the word Romanizer only in regard to those who advocate those practices and doctrines which, in Bishop Wil her force's opinion, indicate a bona fide tendency to Rome, and that I distinctly repudiate as most unjust, and un-Christ-like, the branding of every so-called " High " Churchman as a Romanizer. it Introductory. XXlll hut witli such I plainly say I have no sympathy whatever. I iK-'lieve that in all our contests with false teaching, and all opposition to erroneous teachers, our protests should he so permeated with the spirit of love that it should he manifest that our opposition is inspired hy principle, not hy con- tentiousness ; and is directed against errors, not against men. Nothing is more calculated to injure the cause of Protestantism than the unloving, unsympathetic, intolerant spirit of some Protestants. If we do not love Christ and llis truth, we have no reason or cause to protest. If we do love Christ and His truth, our protests can only be made in love. May God the Holy Spirit, without whom nothing is strong, nothing holy, enable us to understand what is His trutli, and add His blessing to what, with entire dependence on His strength and countenance, has been written herein. r CHAPTER I. A PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT. II^EW books are the object of as much misapprehension and misinterpretation as the Prayer Book of the Church of England. Distorted by many within, and abused by many without, it has been for generations largely mis- understood, and, as Simeon said years ago, its blemishes alone are seen by multitudes, and its excellencies are alto- i;ether forgotten. Even Churchmen have been influenced by the aversion that is to be found in those outside the Anglican communion, and have sometimes, perhaps unconsciously, caught the contagion of prejudice. The accretions of abuse that have accumulated upon it have often, to their eyes, obscured its real character, and led them tamely to accept the humiliating position, that it is not worth preserving, and is incapable of defence. And in nothing is the Prayer Book more misunderstood than in its attitude towards Romanism. It is a subject, indeed, that seems to be rarely faced, and still more rarely appreciated. The soundness of our Book of Common Prayer, from the Protestant standpoint, is something vague and dubious to the minds of many Churchmen. They are convinced that the Articles are sound, and Popery will find small countenance in them, but as to the Prayer Book being Protestant, Protestant essentially, and Protestant as a whole, that is a different matter. They are so accustomed to hear jof Popery and lingering Romanism in connection with it; so ready to accept carelessly the ignorant calumny of the [Church of England having " a Popish liturgy " ; and so . /^ I 2 ' Protestantism of the Prayer Book. relurtJ»nt to study the trae facts with regard to their Prayer Book, that its Protestantism seems iiardly capable of vindi- cation. I confess that, to a certain degree, I have shared this misapprehension, partly owing to the audacity Vv'ith which the Romanising school have perverted its statements, and partly to the indifference which has permitted their interpretations to pass unchallenged, and to be considered the true teaching of the Church. A deeper study of the facts connected with the Prayer Book has entirely removed that pre udice, a prejudice which I now see was founded chiefly on ignorance and magnified by timidity, and my hope is that a careful study of the following pages, and an intel- ligent consideration of the arguments contained therein, will lead the \ reader to the conclusion that, in spite of the misapprehensions of many without, and the misrepresent- ations of riany within, the Prayer Book is truly, and essen- tially, Protestant. Tr ily, that is, in its fair and honest interpretation ; essentially, that is, as a whole, and in its real character. At the outset, its Protestantism will be evident, as a matter of extreme probability, if we consider the age in which it was compiled, the men who compiled it, and the influences that surrounded them. For many centuries previous to the Reformation, the Church of England, while independent, to a certain degree, of the supremacy of the Pope, and asserting its autonomy as a national Church, was nevertheless, in doctrine and dis- ripline, entirely Romish. Founded, in all probability, in apostolic days, and, perhaps, even by apostolic men, the Church in England became tainted by the same doctrinal and practical corruptions that, within eight or ten centuries, had leavened the rest of the Catholic Church of Christ. The very controversies in the early part of the seventh century, between the lingering representatives of our early ill A Preliminary Argument, 3 British Church and the Roman contingent, are an infallible indication of the Church's spiritual degeneracy. Even then, the Church of England, despite its apostolic origin, was weak, erring, spiritually ignorant, superstitious, and corrupt. It was still the Church of Christ, but like the Church in Galatia, it had been turned back to the feeble and beggarly elements of ceremonial religionism. As the ages passed on it fell back still more. Planted a noble vine, wholly a right seed, it turned, as it were, into *he degenerate branches of a strange vine. Degeneracy deepened into still greater degeneracy; ignorance increased, until throughout England the most repelling elements of Popery were everywhere discernible. The most superstitious practices prevailed. The most misleading and unscriptural doctrines were pro- claimed. The roost inconsistent and ignorant of men were found in the ranks of the clergy. The dogma of transub- stantiation was as fervently taught in London as in Rome. The worship of Mary and the saints was as blindly and continually practised in England as in Italy. Friars swarmed in the shires of England, as in the streets of Paris, or the country parts of Germany. Monasteries and nunneries abounded throughout the kingdom. Masses were con- tinually being said in every church. The roadsides abounded with crosses, crucifixes, and temporary elevated chapels for prayers. The highways were filled with pilgrims travelling to favourite shrines to kiss some fabled bone of St. Peter, or watch the vial that contained drops of the blood of Christ. Of the images and idols, there was no end. Their name was legion. As Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, tersely remarked ;; " Every county was full of chapels, every chapel was full of miracles, and every miracle full of lies." The whole country was deluged with the evidences of Popery. The people were ignorant, superstitious, and untaught. The churches were, in many cases, little more than the temples ij'il iltil 111 A' 4 ^ Protestantism of the Prayer Book. , of idols. The clergy were often blind leaders of the blind, and frequently, alas, licentious and debased. By the fatal decree of Hildebrand, Rome compelled them to remain unmarried, with the then inevitable consequences, im- morality and debauchery. " Darkness covered the land, and gross darkness the people." As far as doctrine, practice, and worship was concerned, the religion of England was practical Popery. The Church of England had become thoroughly Romish. And here let me, once and for all, emphasize a point of the utmost importance. I am not now speaking of political Popery, but of doctrinal Popery. There is a political Protestantism, and there is a doctrinal Protestantism, and I would earnestly, caution the reader to be on his guard lest he confound these two things, and to remember that a Churchman and a Church may protest most forcibly against the Pope's usurping temporal power, and yet hold the great body of Romish teaching. As early as the seventh century, there is an authenticated instance of the resistance of the Church of England to Agatho, the then Pope of Rome. But even earlier than this, there is undoubted evidence thrt the Church of England, then the organized Church of the nation, was in doctrine and discipline virtually Romish. She was Romish in doctrine, teaching all the doctrines repudiated in Articles XHI, XI\, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXX, XXXI, and XXXII ; and though she had her peculiar uses and forms, substantially at unity with the rest of the then Catholic Church in worship. As far as doctrine is concerned, it may be truly said, as Professor J. J. Blunt, the historian of the Reformation, has put it, that " the Roman Catholic religion prevailed in England."* And it is only ignorance. * The employment of the word R^man Catholic by Churchmen is unfortunate. It is a term that is misleading, because unmeaning. A Preliminary Argument. 5 wilful or casuistical, that makes modern Churchmen deny it. Let the reader, therefore, in order to be thoroughly fortified against misleading argumentation, keep clearly in mind that throughout the history of the pre-Reformation English Church these two things are unquestionable — On the one hand, that ever and anon throughout many centuries in matters of political and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Church of England made endeavours to assert her inde- pendence of Rome. On the other hand, that the Church of England, in all matters pertaining to ritual, practice, and doctrine, was practically identical with Rome. There is a determined effort now made in certain quarters of the Church to make it appear that the pre-Reformation Church of England and the Church of Rome were two entirely different things, that the practices of the English Church were not the practices of the Roman Church, her ritual not the Roman ritual, her doctrines not the Roman doctrines, and that therefore the pre-Reformation Church of England should be more and more referred to as a doctrinal and liturgical guide. The reasoning by which this position is maintained is entirely delusory. It is disingenuous, deceptive, unfair. It is based upon apparent truth, while it conveys logical evasions, and misrepresentation. As Butler, in his " Ecclesi- The Roman Church, especially since the Council of Trent and the publication of the Vatican Decrees, cannot in any true sense be called Catholic. Not only does the Roman usurpation rob the true Catholic Church of Christ of her honourable name, but, as Dean Jackson declares, "adherence to the visible Church of Rome doth induce a separation from the Holy Catholic Church," or as the Church still more strongly sta<-es in the Homily for Whitsunday, " If it be possible to be where the true Church is not, then it is at Rome." r I !'i 6 ' Protestantism of the Prayer Book. astical History," has truly remarked : "The effort of some English historians to show that the Church of England (as far as doctrine, discipline, and morals, that is) never came under complete subjection to the Papacy can be made to seem plausible only by an argument which keeps in the background the most obvious facts, and makes prominent the protests and resistances which were made to the extortions and the tyranny of the Papacy." — EccL Hist., II. p. ^63. The obvious facts are, of course, the innumerable elements of Church doctrine and practice which entirely identified the Church of England with the erring Church of Rome ; the monastic system, celibacy of the clergy, transub- stantiation, denying the cup to the laity, auricular confession indispensable to the reception of the Eacharist, purgatory, worshipping of images, etc. Nor does Romish doctrine merely mean the extremities of Roman doctrine, the Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception. It means the whole of that soul-destroying system which found its culmination in apostate Latin Christianity, and apostate Greek Christianity, in the mass and the mass-priest. Nor does Popery merely mean recognition of the Papal supremacy, or allegiance to the Pope's temporal authority, for, in its true and doctrinal acceptation, there can be Popery without the Pope ; in the Anglican and Oriental Churches, as well as in the Roman. When I say, then, that the religion of England was practical Popery, I desire it to be clearly understood that I am not unmindful of the repeated instances of resistance, on the part of the Church of England, to the territorial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Occa- sional assenions of insular ecclesiastical independence were not necessarily inconsistent with doctrinal identity. The haughty spirit of defiance to the Italian despot which stirred in prelates like Robert Grostete, Bishop of Lincoln, and ( ' A Preliminary Argument, 7 Stephen Langton, of Magna Charta fame, and led protesting sovereigns like Edward I. and Edward III. and their pro- testing parliaments to pass anti-papal statutes and breathe defiance to the Pope, was not Protestantism in the modem sense of the term, nor had it the slightest doctrinal signifi- cance. Strictly speaking, these protests were not protests of the Church at all, but of individuals or of the legislative bodies 3 but even if they can for the sake of convenience — inasmuch as they were to an extent national — be called protests of the Church against the Pope, there was not the remotest idea of their involving any protest against Popery. And, therefore, again I say, to all practical intents and purposes, the Church of England was doctrinally one with the Church of Rome, tainted with her taints, corrupt with her corruptions, sinking with her just as deeply as she sank.* When, therefore, in the good providence of God, John Wycliffe, the first real Protestant in the Church of England, emerged from the darkness with the torch of Truth, and lighted that lamp which blazed forth with full radiance some two centuries later, it may easily be imagined how deep was the abhorrence with which he and his spiritual successors re- garded the detestable enormities of Rome. As step by step * If any of my readers imagine that I am stating this point too strongly, let them read the 15th chapter of Bishop Ryle's Principles for Churchmen, " The Lessons of English Church History." In this he says : " It is no exaggeration to say that, for three centuries before the Reformation, Christianity in England seems to have been buried under a mass of superstition, priestcraft, and immorality." " There was an utter famine of vital Christianity in the land." " Practically, the religion of most Englishmen was Mary worship, saint worship, and slavery to priests." — pp. 358-360. Of course it is a fact. No one can deny this but those who will persist in blinding their eyes to the plain facts of history. r ' 8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. the eyes of England's Reformers were enlightened, and the Spirit of God drew from off their eyes the veil that obscured the falsities of their mighty foe, the hatred with which they regarded her was conscientious and deadly. At first, separation from the Catholic body was a thing which was never contemplated by Henry VIII. and the nation. Their only desire was emancipation from the abominated thraldom of the Pope. It was not the desire of either the clergy or the nation, as a whole, to sever themselves from the unity of the Holy Catholic Church visible, nor, at first, to alter even to the length of one jot or tittle one article of the Catholic religion, as represented by Rome. They wished only to demonstrate the ability of England to administer her own affairs, without the interference of any foreign prince. Henry VIII. never was a Protestant in the evangelical sense, nor did he to his dying day intend any serious doctrinal reformation. In doctrine, he was an ardent Romanist. The highest idea of reformation that he ever conceived was of reformation in the Church, not reformation of the Church. Even with regard to reformations in the Church, that is, reformation in the way of abuses and morals, they were conducted only in so far as they made no inter- ference with Popery. Henry VIII. never intended a reformation of the Church in doctrine ; he simply, through caprice, severed himself and the Church from the temporal headship of the Pope. Now, the chief feature of the reformation of the Church of England was reformation in doctrine. The affair of renouncing the allegiance of the Pope, though in God's providence a step of great importance, was not the greatest matter, for the English Church was never strong in that at any time. The imputation, therefore, that the reformation of the Church of England was the work of King Henry VIII. A Pyeliminary Argument. g is an ignorant calumny. The assertion of certain Romanists* that Henry VIII. was founder of the Church of England, or that Henry VIII. brought about the reformation of the Church of England, is utterly false He did everything in his power almost to hinder it, thwart it, stop it, and nothing was further from his thoughts. He was a t^horough Romanist, a most bigoted Papist, and violently oppo.«jed to the doctrines of Protestantism. If Henry VIII. had had his way the Church of England would never have been the reformed and Protestant Church that she is to-day, for, as Bishop Hooper sagaciously remarked, " The king cast out the Pope, not Popery." Neither the king, nor Wolsey, nor Warham, ever dreamed that the defiance of the Papal decree would involve separation from the doctrines of and unity with the visible Catholic Church. Gradually, however, by the good hand of the God of all grace, the work of reformation proceeded, until by the dissemination of the Truth, through the reading of God's pure Word and the enlightenment of the eyes of the Reformers by the Spirit of Truth, that abhorrence of Popish tyranny was succeeded by an abhorrence of Popish doctrine equally deep-seated and deadly. Marvellous it is to witness how this work advanced in the teeth of what was apparently irresistible opposition. Marvellous, too, is it to notice how an illumination almost preternatural directed and upheld the leaders in this great cause. Theirs was no blind hatred, or unreasoning malice. Not at all. It was the strong, deep-seated conviction of men who were taught by the Word of God, upheld by His power, and led onward by paths opened in His providence ; and when the time was fully come, when the day appointed by God from eternity arrived, * The American Cardinal Gibbons, e.g., in his "Faith of our Fathers." 10 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. that stately fabric of falsehood, so long an incubus on our loved fatherland, fell, and fell for ever, and great was the fall of it. " Cecidit Babylon ! cecidit Babylon ! civitas ilia magna ! cecidit Babylon ! " // was from the contest of these days that the Prayer Book issued forth, It was in the furnace of opposition to Romish doctrine and by the fires of Romish persecution that it was tried and purged and refined. It was by the men who afterwards laid down their lives rather " than consent to the wicked Popery of the Bishop of Rome" that it was compiled, and in many parts composed. It was in an age when the hatred of Popery, rather than the Papacy, was undying, conscientious, and disinterested, that it was begun, continued, and brought to a consummation. Never, perhaps, did hatred of the abominations of the Papacy and the doctrines of Popery run so high in England as it did in the days of the Reformers, and never, perhaps, did hatred of the Papacy, and clear, conscientious detestation of Rome's soul-destroying te.ichings, run so high in individual men as it did in the minds of the men who compiled the Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer : He accounted the Pope as very Antichrist, and the foe of the cause of God. His opposition extended not merely to the Pope as a usurping prelate, but to the Papacy, as a system which falsified the Word of God, .and over- whelmed men in the darkness of Christless ignorance. "As for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." "It is not the person of the Bishop of Rome, which usurpeth the name of Pope, that is so much to be detested, but the very Papacy and the See of Rome, which hath by their laws suppressed Christ and this is the chief thing to be detested in that see, that it hath brought the professors of Christ into such ignorance of Christ." — Cranmer s Works, Park. Soc, I., 28, and II., 322. ■ ■^•^•jjjt.r.ft-i^i^.'i'UA^JMi.ir-i A Preliminary Argument. 11 Ridley : He too accounted and boldly declared the Pope to be Antichrist, the beast of Babylon, the whore of Baby- lon, which hath bewitched almost the whole world. " I perceive," said he, " the greatest part of Christianity to be infected with the poison of the See of Rome." " For the godly articles of unity in religion, these thieves place in the stead of them the Pope's laws and decrees, lying legends, feigned fables and miracles, to delude and abuse. Thus the robbery and theft is not only committed, nay, sacrilege and wicked spoil of heavenly things, but also instead of the same is brought in and placed the abominable desolation of . . . the Babylonish beast " ..." By the abomination of Baby- lon I understand all the whole trade of the Romish religion, under the name and title of Christ, which is contrary to the only rule of all true religion, that is, God's Word . . . There are not only all these abominations which are come into the Church of England, but also an innumerable rabble of abominations, as Popish pardons, pilgrimages, Romish pur- gatory, P».omish masses, etc., with a thousand more .... and when I consider all these things, wherein standeth the substance of the Romish religion, it may be evident and easy to perceive that these two ways, these two religions, the one of Christ, the other of the Romish See, in these latter days are as far distant, the one from the other, as light and darkness, good and evil, Christ and Belial." — Ridley's IForks, Park. Soc, p. 53-57. Latimer : He, likewise, denounced with a Pauline fervour the falsities of Rome as the tokens of Antichrist. "Let the Papists go with their long faith. Be you contented with the short faith of the saints, which is revealed to us in the Word of God written. Adieu to all Popish fantasies ! The Fathers have both herbs and weeds, and Papists commonly gather the weeds and leave the herbs: Ibid., -p. 114. Learn to abhor the most detestable and dangerous poison of the \>\ 'V \k 12 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Papists, which go about to thrust Christ out of His office. Learn, I say, to leave all Papistry, and to stick only to the Word of God, which teacheth that ( "hrist is not only a judge, but a justifier, a giver of salvation, and a taker away of sin. He purcliased our salvation through His painful death, and we receive the same through believing in Him, as St. Paul teacheth us, saying, * Freely ye are justified through faith.' In these words of St. Paul all merits and estimation of works are excluded and clean taken away. For it' it were for our works' sake, then it were not freely, l)Ut St. Paul saith freely. Whether will you now believe, St. Paul or the Papists ? " — Conjlrcnces, R'nllcrfs JForks aitd Lotinicrs Remains, i-74- Now, these men were the instruments chosen by God for the compilation of the formularies and liturgy of the Church of England. Men whose opposition to Romish error was as far removed from uncharitable bigotry as the opposition of St. Paul to St. Peter at Antioch. Men living in an age when the long oppressions of the spiritual despot of Christen- dom had awakened a spirit of resistance aui'^ defiance akin to that which stirred the breasts of the Jews *" old against brutal and tyrannical Rome. Is it probable, then, that a book which was to be almost entirely the work of these men's hands would bear the taints of Popery, or that they would be parties to the perpetuation of a Liturgy that would stereotype the very doctrines that they hated ? Is it possible that they would compile a Prayer Book which would contain that doctrine of Transubstantiation which they regarded as idolatrous, or set forth the system of ceremonial sacerdotal religion which they so abhorred r Common sense would at once answer, It is impossible. Not only the men, and the times, but the very influences that were at work upon the Reformers were all of them set in the strongest possible degree in a Protestant direction. A Pycliminary Argiancnt. 13 error was While it cannot be declared with exactitude how far the influence of Bucer and Martyr extended in the revision of the First Prayer Book, it is certain that these master minds moulded in no small measure the Reformers in the ciiangcs introduced by them in the Second Book of Edward VI., which is substantially the Prayer Book as we now possess it. ]ioth Bucer and Martyr were Protestants of the soundest type. Knthusiastic for the truth, they hated Popery as they hated sin ; and keen to discern all Romish blemishes, they faidifully and clearly exposed what they considered to be blots in the liturgy lately compiled. The consequence was that the Prayer Book was so thoroughly purged on its second revision that Martyr, in a letter written to BuUinger on June 14th, 1552, declared that "all things are removed from it which could nourish superstition." Everything thus goes to show how strongly improbable it is that the Prayer liook should retain the elements of Popery. The briefest con- sideration of the men, the times, the influences, will prove that such things would not willingly have been counten- anced. If it had proceeded from others, they would have died rather than support it ; much less would they have allowed it to go forth from themselves. But, it will be objected perhaps by some, the men were not free in the matter. Had their own will been the stan- dard, unquestionably the book would have been free from [blots. But they had a Popish king, a Popish clergy, and a Popish people to deal with, and were in consequence Icompelled to retain many Popish elements to conciliate the [minds of the people. This objection has small basis in fact. The First Book )f Edward VI., the Prayer Book of 1549, though, as :ontrasted with the Sarum and Roman services, " a very jodly order, and agreeable to the word of God and the primitive Church," contained, as will be afterwards ii' I r I 14 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, shown, many elements calculated to engender superstition. While Protestant in the main and on the whole, the blem- ishes of a lingering Romanism were visible throughout. The light had begun to break, but the minds of the Re- formers were not yet wholly emancipated from the errors of Rome. The glorious light of the Spirit had not yet fully enlightened their intellects and hearts. Doubtless it was God's good purpose that it should not. So sudden a change as the present liturgy would have been as bewildering as the noonday glare to partially opened eyes. God's ways are wonderful. The new wine of the Reformation must not go into the old bottle of the Roman Church, nor must it go even into the new bottle of the Reformed Church of England without preparation and caution. A messenger must prepare the way for the Gospel. A preparatory step must be taken. That messenger and that preparatory step was the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. Tinged as it was with superstition, stained as it was with the remnants of Popery, it yet opened the minds of the people, and paved the way for its Protest- ant successor. It was not perfect — what thing of man's creation ever was — and yet it did its work. It filled the gap. It bridged the way between Popery and Protestantism. Compared with what came after, it was Romish ; but compared with what went before, it was nobly evangelical and Protestant. In fact, when we consider the age, the First Prayer Book of Edward can only be regarded as a marvel. When we consider that for nearly five hundred years the elements of apostolic Christianity had been dead, and buried under a mass of superstition and formalism, and that evan- gelical doctrine was almost unknown, and worship in the vulgar tongue a thing unheard of, and see that they had practically to create a new form of worship altogether, the work they performed seems truly miraculous. A Preliminary Argument. 15 It was pioneer work of a kind that had never been per- formed before. The marvel, therefore, is not that it had so many blemishes, but that it had so few ; not that it was so tainted with Romish error, but that it was so amazingly Protestant. Meanwhile, in the good providence of God, the way was being opened for further reformation. Without let or hin- drance from king or clergy, nay, rather, with the highest authority in the land urging them peremptorily to remove the blemishes and cast out the faults, the Reformers, now more enlightened than ever by the Spirit of God, proceeded to perfect their work. Spurred on by the king, and aided by the wise counsels of holy men, they removed the errors, filled in the gaps, added new features, and renovated the whole. The result was a Prayer Book purged from Popery, and sound, comprehensive, scriptural ; a book, moreover, which both for its Protestantism and scripturalness did more to establish the Reformation in England than any other instrumentality whatsoever, the Bible alone excepted. For this reason, the Prayer Book broke the spell of Popery, by supplanting the unintelligible Mass with a service which all could understand. It destroyed the arrogant claims of the priesthood, by letting all men worship in a service of common prayer. It abolished tradition and lying fables, by bringing the people the pure Word of God. Churchmen may well thank God for the influence of the Prayer Book in establishing the Reformation, and stamping on the Church its Protestant character. But it will perhaps be objected by others, the Prayer Book of these Reformers is not now the Prayer Book of the Church. The Second Prayer Book of Edward's reign, the Book of 1552, marked but a departed phase in the evolution of the liturgy, and is possessed of little interest for us to-day. Now this objection is a very subtle one, and exceedingly \ I m ^li i6 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. dangerous, and it is one that is made a great deal of by those who seek to alter the position of the Church of Englaijd. The more the Second Prayer Book of Edward can be vilified, and slandered as a Puritanical and Calvinistic abortion, the more likely are churchmen to regard it with suspicion, and consider it as having nothing to do with the Prayer Book as we now have it. It is important, therefore, for churchmen to thoroughly understand that for all practical intents and purposes this second Prayer Book of Edward VI. is sulistantially our own Book of Common Prayer. If the good providence of God was marked in the begin- nings of the Prayer Book, still more is it discernible in its continuance. Since the days of Edward the Sixth many and crucial havfe been the crises through which the Church has passed. In those days of trial and crises, the Prayer Book of the Church was naturally the subject of alteration and revision. But though many changes have been made, those changes, with one or two exceptions, have never in the slightest degree been of a retrograde character, and the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. remains to-day, for all practical purposes, the Prayer Book of the Church of England. Let Churchmen thoughtfully and thankfully consider this fact. Subjected to the scrutiny of a thousand different minds, at the mercy of kings and convocations who could have introduced the most disastrous changes, in the hands of men whose doctrinal bias would naturally have led them to revert to such a Prayer Book as that of 1549, it seemed nevertheless, as if by some invisible power, they were restrained from altering anything that really affected in any serious degree the fundamental Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Men who believed, heart and soul, in the communion table as an " altar," were in some strange way restrained from A Preliminary Argument, 17 the re- introduction of that term. Men who believed, heart and soul, in the absolving power of the priesthood, were restrained from inserting such a slight alteration as the permission in the First Prayer Book which authorizes auricular confession. Men who believed most conscien- tiously in the Lord's Supper as a " sacrifice " were kept from inserting that term in any such manner as to countenance the Romish teaching thereon. Men who detested the phraseology of the " black rubric " were, as if by the in- fluence of some mighty hand, held back from altering it in any serious degree, or from preventing its reinsertion in the Prayer Book. In fact, after a careful and earnest study of the various stages through which the Prayer Book has passed, I make this deliberate statement : that as far as the great body of doctrine aud practice is concerned, the Prayer Book of to-day is essentially the Second Prayer Book of the reign of Edward VI. Or, in other words, that all the subse- quent changes which the Prayer Book has undergone in the various stages through which it has since passed have never tended, in the slightest degree, to bring the Church of England back to Romanism, or even to the half-way house of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. I make this statement with the greatest emphasis, because it is the practice of not a few of the members of an extreme school of the Church to minimize the value of this book, which was the Prayer Book of the Reformation. They refer to it as a book possessed of only the briefest shadov/ of authority, and a short-lived existence. They allude to it as being interesting, inasmuch as it was the product of the opposition of the extremer school of Reformers, led by the impracticable Hooper, and the foreigners, Alasco, Martyr, and Bucer, to the semi-reformed first Prayer Book of Edward VI. The result is that multitudes of Churchmen are accustomed to think of this Second Book r I z8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, of Edward VI. as a phase of the Prayer Book with which we have no concern, a phase which marks only the tem- porary triumph of an extreme and most uncompromising reforming school, whereas the plain matter of fact is, that with a few unimportant exceptions, all those significant and intentional changes introduced by the Reformers in the latter Prayer Book of Edward VI. 's reign have never been re- nounced by the Church of England. Revision there has been ; additions there have been ; but retrogression — never. The word " altar " ; auricular and secret confession to the priest ; the anointing and chrism ; the reservation of the Sacrament ; prayers for the dead ; invocation of saints, &c., &c., may be searched for in vain in our present Prayer Book.* However distasteful the fact may be, it is a fact, that, in the gobd providence of God, there has been no material reversion either in phraseology or in practice to the phraseology and practices that obtained in the Prayer Book which marks the initial stage in the reformation of the Church of England. At the outset, therefore, it is well for us to grasp the fact, that the men by whom, the times in which, and the influ- ences through ^which the Prayer Book was compiled, were all of an unquestionably Protestant character. If we do not understand this, we shall fail to interpret it aright. If we do understand it, we shall more readily perceive, and more clearly comprehend the reason for those Protestant fcitures which meet us on every page, and the explanation of those intentional omissions and alterations which so clearly indicate the steady progress made by the Reformers in the Pro- testantizing of the Church of England. l-a * For a fuller list of these discarded Romish practices, see p. 146. HmUl-dMMMW CHAPTER II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 'T^HE key to the Prayer Book, consl 'ered as a whole, is the theology of England's Bishop-Reformers. Enter into their sentiments, and an understanding of the doctrinal difficulties is at once arrived at. Realize their doctrinal position, and the interpretation of ritual directions is at once made simple. No fountain sendeth forth from the same place both sweet water and bitter, nor does a Protestant Reformer lend his hand to the compilation of a Romish liturgy. Such is the positif^ assumed in the previous chapter, and the argument from probability and improbability iL one that may at the commencement legitimately arrest the attention of every student of the Book of Common Prayer. But however valuable as a piece of circumstantial and complementary evidence, the acknowledged Protestantism of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, is not sufficient to establish the soundness of the Prayer Book as we possess it. To prove this we must proceed to the Book itself, and examine it, both broadly as a whole, and minutely in its particular parts. In this chapter, therefore, it is proposed to glance at some of the more general features. Now, if we take up the Book of Common Prayer, and examine \*: first of all not particularly, but as a whole, we shall find that it presents three prominent characteristics, and that each of these stamps it with an unmistakable Protestantism. It is in the language of the people; it is common or congregational prayer j it is wholly Scriptural. (i) To begin with, it is in the vulgar tongue, or the language of the people. This of itself is an invaluable boon, 20 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. and a sign which proclaims most distinctly its emancipation from Popery. Such a thing would never have emanated from Rome, nor have been tolerated by Romanizers. Rome hates the thought of it. Her device ha3 ever been to blind the minds of the people by the use of an awe-inspiring religious language, as an instrument for the preservation of mystery, and the perpetuation of the priestly power. When the Reformers laid down the majestic principle proclaimed in Article XXIV., "it is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacra- ments in a tongue not understanded of the people," it is difficult for us to understand how revolutionary was the declaration from the Roman standpoint, or how finally and completely it demoli: " led the Popish fabric. Rome had practically said for generations: The language of Rome is the language of religion, and the language of religion is the only proper language for worship ; therefore, the people must have it, whether they understand, it or not. Obey the Holy Mother, the Church. " Living languages, continually changing, are more suited to convey doctrines which are subject to frequent alteration. But the Catholic Church prefers old unchangeable languages because she is herself unchangeable. The Church speaks Latin because she is apostolic, unchanging, and catholic. Obey the Church." " No," said the Reformers, in acts if not in words, "" St. Paul declared that it was better to speak five words with understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." If it should be objected that this referred to preaching, not to praying, the answer is clear. " If the preaching availeth nothing, being spoken in a language which the people understandeth not, how should any other service avail them, being spoken in the same language ? And yet. 1:1 General Characteristics. 21 that St. Paul meant not only of preaching, it appeareth plainly by his own words. For he speaketh by name expressly of praying, singing, lauding, and thanking of God, and of all other things which the priests say in the churches, whereunto the people say, Amen, which they used not in preaching, but in other divine service ; that whether the priests rehearse the wonderful works of God, or give thanks unto God, or make open profession of their faith, or humble confession of their sinsj that then all the people, understanding what the priests say, might give their minds and voices with them and say. Amen, that is to say, allow what the priests say; that the rehearsal of God's universal works and benefits, the giving of thanks, the profession of faith, the confession of sins, and the requests and petitions of the priests and the people, might ascend up into the ears of God all together, and be as a sweet savour, odour, and incense in his nose." — Cranmers Works, Park. Soc, p. 450. To-day an unknown tongue is compulsory the Papal world over. Whatever else is said in the vulgar tongue, I have read the mass must be in Latin. But from the day that the Church of England authorised her people to worship God in their own tongue, Popery received a death-blow in England, and Protestantism a life-giving inspiration. The publication of the Holy Scriptures in language understood by the people was doubtless the chief instrument employed by God for the destruction of the Popish strongholrV But in England, at any rate, the Prayer Book was d. factor in this reformation work, second only in importance to the Bible itself. Super- stition and false doctrine had so ingrained themselves into the national religious life, through the ecclesiastical use in woiship of the Latin tongue, that the only possible method, humanly speaking, of ever breaking the spell was by the annihilation of this enslaving medium. This was most effectually accomplished by the publication of the liturgy in ) '.I 1 1 li 'ill ! 22 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. English. The fact, then, of the Prayer Book being in the vulgar tongue is one of the first and strongest proofs of its freedom from Popery. (2) Not only is the Prayer Book in the vulgar tongue, but it offers a form of common Prayer. It is to be participated in jointly by minister and people. For generations the only part to be taken by the people was that of looking on. They were, on the whole, mere spectators of a religious performance. Far away in the chancel, and before the altar, the priest bowed and turned and prostrated himself, mutter- mg mysterious things in an unknown tongue. The choir chanted and sung, doubtless with grace, and sometimes with unction, but also in a language understood by few. And the people all looked on. Religion was mystery. A mystery to the people, a mystery to the performers, a mystery even to the priests, and the priests loved to have it so. Now all is changed. No longer " a sacrificing priest " like those of Rome, but a minister or presbyter (for short, called priest), the clergyman only leads the devotions of the people. No longer an ignorant and untaught rabble, the people join intelligently in an intelligible act of worship. People and minister unite together. The worship of the Church is not a priestly performance afar off in the choir, but a glorious communion of young and old, people and minister, in prayer and praise to God. The humblest peasant, the meanest child, uses the same devotions as the most learned layman or most exalted prelate. How distinct are the injunctions to bring everything within the understand- ing of the people. Nothing is to be mysterious or exclusive. " At the beginning of morning and evei. ag prayer the minister shall read, with a loud voice the sentences," &c. " Then the minister shall kneel and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice." " Then shall he read distinctly, with an audible voice, the first lesson," etc. This rubric is General Characteristics. 23 really a most decisively Protestant work, a distinct and ever eloquent protest against the superstitions and priestly falsities of Roriy. It is a distinct protest, too, against the assumptions of the Romanizer. No man-made sacrificing priest is to intervene between the people and their God in the offering of devotion. The priest is to lead, not engross, the worship of the people. In the language of the late learned Bisho of Durham, while the Christian minister the representative of man to God, of the congregation jjiiniarily, of the individual indirectly, as a member of the congregation, the minister's function is representative without being vicarial. He is a priest as the mouthpiece, the delegate, of a priestly race. His acts are not his own, but the acts of the congregation. The Church of England, to my mind, is unique in this, not in that she recognized the right of the people to participate in the public worship of God, but in that she alone practically has made this participation an accomplished fact. She looks for the co-operation of all the people in all her services. She desires all, not only to have a part, but to have a great part. The first prayer used morning and evening in the Church of England is prefaced by the emphatic declaration : " A general confession, to be said of the whole congregation after the minister." Even when prayers are said by the voice of the minister alone, it is distinctly understood that all the words, thoughts, and phrases, are simply the intelligent utterance of the people, who, at the end of every prayer, shall answer, " Amen " — the Church here following precisely the example of the Church Apostolic, I. Cor. xiv. 16. When the minister kneels and says the Lord's Prayer, the people also shall kneel and repeat it with him. When he, in the lesser Litany, prays a short ejaculatory prayer by himself, then shall the people respond jy another. When he utters the first part of the " Glory be to 24 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, I '1 h 1 i the Father," then shall the right of the people to participate in the worship be recognized by their responding audibly, " As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be." In the Psalms, the people stand up, and read each alternate verse ; and in the case of the Creeds, it is enjoined that ihey shall be sung or said by the minister and the people. The Litany is another wonderful example of a form of supplication in which the priesthood of the people is practically recognized, in making them all draw near to the Throne of Grace, with liberty to speak out before God. Even in the reading of the Commandments, contrary to natural expectations, the congregational rights of the wor- shippers are secured, and there, as in every part of the service, the people take their part audibly and intelligently. Thus throughout the whole service this idea is distinctly emphasized, that the worship of God's people in His Church is the united offering of devotion. " Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord," Isa. Ixi. 6. " Ye are a royal priesthood," I. Peter, ii. 9. " He hath made us to be priests unto God," Rev. i. 6. Every prayer is the common prayer of priest and people ; of the holy priesthood, the people ; and their representative and mouthpiece, the priest. And herein the Church is found to be on the lines of Scripture and the primitive Church, Our Lord expressly laid down a form of common prayer when He gave, for the use of His disciples, that incomparable petition, the Lord's Prayer. In itself it is a liturgy in epitome, and carries with it our blessed Lord's imprimatur as an authority for using a form of prayer. More than that, it carries with it the highest authority in heaven or earth for using united and common prayer. It was His will that they should all pray together. Not that St. Peter should lead in prayer and allow the others to follow as well as they could the extempore effusions of his imagination; or that St. John should pray u u General Characteristics, 25 ng a the and pray lUow instead of them all, and they, in silence, adopt as well as possible his language and thoughts, making them their own in the progress of the supplication ; hut that they should all use in common, as a united mouthpiece, voicing forth in unison, as common property, the one petition in the same words. " After this manner therefore pray ye : ' Our Father,' " &c. In the Acts of the Apostles, wherein is recorded the procedure of the primitive and apostolic Church, it is to be noted that not only once, but often, expressions are made use of which lead us to conclude that prayer was offered up unitedly by the whole people in common. Compare verses fourteen and twenty-four of the first chapter. It is not said in the latter verse that St. Peter or St. John alone uttered this sentence, but that they all did. The phrase used in the Revised Version of the forty-second verse of the second chapter, " they continued steadfastly in the prayers," points to a united and common form of supplication. The twenty- fourth verse of the fourth chapter reveals to us, as through an open window, the body of the primitive Church all together lifting up their voices in one common form of praise and petition, just as we do in the Church service in the Litany, or the Ter Sanctus. In the sixth and eighth chapters, common or united prayer is again hinted at, and when, in the twentieth chapter, St. Paul prayed, he prayed with them all. Whether or not they prayed audibly with him, it is more than probable that, in accordance with the practice of the apostolic Church, they would at least audibly respond. Amen, at the conclusion of the petitions. In fact, the whole question of liturgical versus extempore prayer lies just here. The question is not whether one man can express his thoughts better in a written form, or in extempore utterance ; or whether a man may or may not please God and the people better by uttering informally 26 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. ' i! Mi ■ •! ^ ii the burning petitions of the moment, or from a carefully prepared manuscript. The real question is, whether the people have the right, as God's priesthood, to participate constantly and practically in the worship of God in His house ? And further, whether the people, as God's priest- hood, can be said to participate practically and really in common worship and common prayer when they relegate to one man the duty of framing prayers which must of necessity, in great measure, be the reflection of his own views and of his own thoughts ? The Church of England, in following the example of her Lord and His apostles and bringing back, at the Reformation, the early practice of common and united worship, has distinctly asserted that, as far as she is concerned, that only can be said to be common prayer and common worship, when not merely priest or minister speak audibly in prayer, but when, in every part of the service, all the priesthoojl of God join audibly in unison of heart and voice. It is a travesty upon the service of the Church of England when few or none but the minister and the choir participate in the service. It may be the method of the various Protestant religious bodies, or of Rome, but it is not the method of the Church of England. The teaching and practice of the Church of England is the union of minister and people in a form of common prayer. This participation of the people in the worship of the Church is an anti-Roman note that is worthy of all emphasis. It is the second distinct bulwark and guarantee of the Protest- antism of the Prayer Book. (3) Next, and by no means least, the Protestantism of the Prayer Book is guaranteed by its complete scripturalness. Where the Word of God has free course and is glorified, Popery dies by a natural death. In the Book of Common Prayer the Word of God is glorified. So completely is it saturated with the Word of God that there is scarcely one ll General Characteristics. 2^ sentence which has not for Its founAition and vindication some text of Holy Scripture. By far the greater part of all the prayers, petitions, and responses, are in the words of Scripture. The Canticles are all, with one or two exceptions, portions of Holy Writ. More than two-thirds of the Prayer Book, the Psalms, and the Epistles and Gospels, are literal transcripts of God's Word. In fact, for one who has never carefully considered this matter, it is simply startling to find how richly permeated with Scripture is every part of the Prayer Book. The Rev. H. Bailey, in his "Liturgy Compared with the Bible," takes the sentences of the Prayer Book one by one, from the " Dearly Beloved Brethren " of the Morning Service to the last word of the Thirty-Ninth Article, and shows by a simple collation of tex* that there is for every sentence in the Prayer Book either exact scriptural language, or else apparent authorization from similar texts of Scripture. In addition to this, it must be remembered that the whole tendency of the liturgy is to exalt the inspired Word of God. Its Lessons, its Psalms, its Canticles, its Gospels and Epistles, all combine to bring God's Holy Word into great prominence in the hearing of the people. We question, indeed, whether any human composition could, without any straining or purposed effort, compress with as much discretion, and in so short a compass, so full and varied a presentation of the Scriptures as is to be found in the order for morning and evening prayer. It begins with Scripture. It ends with Scripture. It exalts Scripture. It is based on Scripture. It is Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, from beginning to end. As to the mere portions of Scripture which are appointed to be read daily, to say nothing of those portions of God's inspired Word which are appointed as " hymns and spiritual songs," it is wonderful what richness and fitness there is in the Church's daily provision for her children. As far as I I' 1 III! 28 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. am aware, among the various Protestant religious commun- ons outside the Church of England, it is not customary to have more than four portions of God's Word read on Sunday, two in the morning, and two in the evening, chosen probably at random, or at the caprice of the minister. In the Church of England, six portions of God's Word is the very lowest possible number, eleven is the average, while sometimes as many as eighteen passages of God's inspired Word are read, not including those four portions of the Bible which are sung in the morning and evening services. If those are reckoned also, fifteen portions of God's Holy Word is the ordinary provision of the Church of England for her people. In other words, every person who attends the Sunday or daily services of the Church of England hears, or reads, fifteen passages out of the Bible. Surely this fact, if there were no other, would be sufficient to guarantee the thorough soundness and Protestantism of the Book. The pure Word of God is ever hateful to Rome. She knows its fatal power. She hates its life-giving energy. She knows that priestcraft and papistry totter when it has free course. But Protestants love the Word of God. It is to them :he Word of Life, the instru- ment of regeneration, making wise to salvation. It is the charter of their spiritual liberties, the eternal bulwark of their spiritual life. Therefore the Reformers exalted the Scriptures. Therefore they declared that " Holy Scripture containeth alt things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith." — Art. VI. That " the three Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." — Art. VIIL That " it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. General Characteristics, M Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation." — Art. XX. That " things ordained by General Councils as necessary to salva- tion have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture." — Art. XXI. That " the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration of images, etc., is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." — Art. XXII. That " transubstantiation in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." — Art. XXVIII. Therefore they saw to it, in the compilation of the liturgy, that nothing should be found therein which was not grounded on the Word of God, and took care that the liturgy should be but a candlestick for the exaltation of the light. Therefore they secured to the Church a human composition so richly saturated with Scripture that it stands in its matchless beauty second only to the Word of God. " For they so ordered the matter that all the whole Bible (or the greatest part thereof) should be read over once every year, intending thereby that the clergy, and especially such as were ministers in the congregation, should (by often reading, and meditation in, God's Word) be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were adversaries of the truth; and further, that the people (by daily hearing of Holy Scripture read in the church) might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be more inflamed with the love of His true religion."— Preface to the Prayer Book. If the Church of England is sound upon any ooint, she is sound upon this cardinal doctrine of the position i nd value of r I ' ill f ii! , II '■| J . iH ■t'l) Holy Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Tipture. If the Prayer Book is sound upon one point more than another, it is upon the supreme and exclusive value of the inspired Word of God. As has been tersely remarked, if you were to take out of the Prayer Book of the Church of England everything that is Scripture, or a paraphrase of Scripture, you would have little left but the covers. Not merely the spirit, but the body would be departed also. By each of these characteristics separately, and by all of them as a whole, the Protestantism of the Prayer Book is most surely vindicated. Each of them is of the utmost importance, and contributed in large measure to securing the Protestantism of the Church and the nation. When together, they present a most solid front, a very bulwark of defiance, tc the Romish practices. While Rome performs her service in a language " not understanded of the people/' ai ^ in a manner that practically excludes the people from common worship and common prayer, and in phraseology in great measure utterly anti-scriptural, the Reformed and Protestant Church of England, on the contrary, glories in a form of prayer which is in the people's language, within the people's reach, and permeated with the pure and soul-saving Word of God. !-r r ri r' CHAPTER III. MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER AND LITANY. ■ T PROPOSE to consider in this chapter those details of the Prayer Book which are comprised under the order for Morning and for Evening prayer, concluding with a brief survey of the Litany. It is not my object to point out the rationale of this order, nor to bring into prominence its spiritual appropriateness, nor its beauties of diction. As in the former chapter, and throughout the work, the aim will be to emphasize those niceties of rubrical direction, and textual expression, which prove, more strikingly than careful arguments, the anti-Romish intentions of the compilers. If the Book of Common Prayer is capable of vindication from a Protestant standpoint, it must stand the scrutiny of particular analysis. Each sentence must be subjected to examination, and tested even to the position of the words themselves. Such a scrutiny, I am persuaded, the book will stand, and the examination of each particular feature will confirm the unmistakable Protestantism of the whole. To proceed, then, to the order for morning prayer. The service begins, of course, with Scripture. First of all, the people are brought into the very presence of God by contact with His infallible Word, as the minister reads, with a loud voice, one or more sentences of Scripture ; the Prayer Book thus declaring, by its first act, the supremacy of the sacred Scriptures, and the responsibility of the individual soul to God. Then follows that simple and scriptural exhortation in which the people are summoned, before the Throne of Grace to confess their sin, not to any human mediator or confessor-priest, but to God the Almighty, the Judge of all. /"I 32 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. I'Ul n Iv Precious on account of its intrinsic fitness and beauty, this exhortation should in itself be held dear, as an eloquent protest against two of the most fundamental falsities of Rome : private or auricular confession, and priestly absolu- tion. It is impossible to conceive that such an exhortation could be found within the compass of a Romanist or a Roman- izing liturgy. The very simplicity of the language of appeal, and the statement of the purposes for which we assemble in church, above ail, the terms employed to express the end of confession, are proofs of its truly Protestant character. A Romanist, or even Romanizing, liturgy would infallibly have substituted for the words, " to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by His infinite goodness and mercy," some such expression as that we may, in the sacra- ment of penance, by the absolution of the priest, obtain forgiveness of the same, or words to that effect. Led, then, by the minister, the whole congregation approach the Presence of God in words at once scriptural, suitable, beautiful, meekly confessing their sins ; the Prayer Book teaching, in this initial supplication, two most impor- tant truths : the right of each individual to go to God directly and at once, and the necessity of constant personal acknow- ledgment of sin. This general confession demolishes most completely the figment of a mediating priesthood. At once, without let or hindrance, or intermediate step to priest, or saint, or virgin, each individual soul draws nigh to God, with the voice of pleading, " Almighty and Everlasting Father ; " and, at the same time, his identity with his fellow- worshippers is emphasized by the use of the plural number. But it is to God, at once and directly, he goes. In the very forefront of the Prayer Book, as a proclamation to all of its character, this confession is established as one of the bulwarks of its Protestantism. It strikes, at the beginning, a deadly blow at Rome's doctrine of secret confession, by r 1 .by Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany, 33 uniting the congregation in a public confession, and pro- claims, as with audible voice, the great anti-Roman dogma of Holy Scripture, " There is but one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Following this is the absolution or remission of sins, to be pronounced by the priest alone, standing ; the people still kneeling. In this, the priest pronounces ahd declares the absolution and remission of the sins of God's people who truly repent and unfeignedly believe. Let it be clearly understood that in this the priest does not absolve. As God's minister and ambassador, he declares the sweet message of pardon. He pronounces the glad message of peace. He assures the people of God that, if they truly repent and unfeignedly believe God's Holy Gospel, they are pardoned. " Almighty God — He pardoneth and absolveth. all them that truly repent," &c. There should be no doubt of it, for as St. John said in writing, so the minister declares in slightly different words, " Your sins are forgiven you, for His name's sake." In the language of Dr. Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham : " The Christian minister is God's ambassador to men ; he is charged with the ministry of reconciliation ; he unfolds the will of Heaven ; he declares, in God's name, the terms on which pardon is offered ; and he pronounces, in God's name, the absolution of the penitent. This last mentioned function has been thought to invest the ministry with a distinctly sacerdotal character. Yet it is very closely connected with, the magisterial and pastoral duties of the office, and is only priestly in the same sense in which they are priestly. As empowered to declare the conditions of God's grace, he is also empowered to proclaim the conse- quences of their acceptance. But throughout his office is representative and not vicarial. He does not interfere between God and man in such a way that direct communion with God is suspended, on the one hand, or that his own' 3 34 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. mediation becomes indispensable, on the other." — Bp. Light- Joot on Epistle to Philipp., p. 265. So far, in fact, from indi- cating any remnant of Popery, this absolution is of the very essence of Protestantism, and, as long as it remains intact, will maintain the Protestantism of the Prayer Book. It is the very antipodes of a Papist absolution. The absolution of Rome, as we shall afterwards show, is the judicial and indispensable act of an absolving human priesthood. This absolution is a declaration, a promise, an evangel, an exhortation to prayer. It sets forth in the ears of the people the gladdest message that ever greeted man, the gospel of the free grace of God, the long-suffering and pardoning mercy of God ; the certainty of this forgiveness as declared by His ministers, to whom the power and commandment to declare this message has been entrusted ; and finally, the necessity of imploring the God who alone can save, and quicken, and renew, to grant true repentance and His Holy Spirit. This last character, of itself, completely frees it from the imputation of Romanism, and vindicates its scripturalness and simplicity. Instead of a Popish absolution it is an exhortation to earnest prayer, founded on the authoritative demonstration of God's mercy, according to His unfailing promises ; for the rubric that immediately follows clearly shows that the Church considers it a prayer. It is unfair, and untruthful, to distort this into a plea for lingering Romanism. The very distastefulness of this absolution to that section of the Anglo - Catholic school who will be contented with nothing short of a reversion to the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. is in itself a proof of its stubborn Protestantism. One of the prominent leaders in that movement, the Rev. Dr. Littledale, in a letter to the Royal Commission on Ritual, quoted by Butler in his History of the Book of Common Prayer, pleads for an omission of the General Confession and the Absolution. The latter, which k payer Ibom that Loyal of If the ^hich Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany. 35 he calls the quasi-absolution (note the expression — the quasi- absolution), he considers worthless, and a Puritan innovation of 15,52, quite contrary to the true theory of Catholic worship. In fact, the party whose avowed object is the extirpation of Protestant opinions within or in the Church of England, finds no impediment to the accomplishment of their sinister designs more obstinate and impregnable than the unmistakable anti-Romanism of the Revised Prayer Book of 1552. This period in our Church history indicates the high standard of the Protestantisra of the Church. It was at this period that the Confession and Absolution were added to the Prayer Book, both of them in the very v.-ords almost of similar services in other Protestant liturgies, and, by the goodness of our Lord, they remain as they were originally inserted to this day. Though apparently a trivial circumstance and unworthy of particular notice, this fact of the time and the circum- stances of the addition of the Confession and Absolution is, in reality, a very important one. This Absolution, which many to-day, through a misunderstanding of its evangelical purport, imagine to be a vestige of priestcraft, unworthy a place in a Protestant liturgy, was inserted, and almost certainly composed, by the men whose Protestantism brought them to the martyr fires at Smithfield. They knew full well what they were doing. They certainly had no idea of cringing to Rome, or admitting avenues to Romish teaching. Doubtless they understood only too well the tendencies and dangers of a mediating and sacrificing and absolving Romish priesthood, and in making the priest or minister the pro- nouncer of the message of absolution, and God the giver of absolution, they took the safe and blessed via media of Holy Scripture. As has been pointed out by a modern writer on the Prayer Book, the very doctrine of the Church of England propounded in our Absolution has been made the subject of 3 * /-' 36 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. W a special anathema by the Church of Rome in the language of the Tridentine Canon : "If anyone shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministerial act of pronouncing and declaring (pro- nuntiandi et declarandi) to the person confessing that his sins are pardoned, provided only he believes himself to be absolved, let him be accursed." Now whatever learned theologians may decide after their disputes as to the form of abs )lution, whether it be a judicial act or merely a declaratory utterance, the common people^ comparing the words of this Roman canon with the words of the Prayer Book absolution, can only come to one con- clusion. It :3 certain that, according to the Prayer Book> the ministers here have the power and commandment to- declare and pronounce the absolution and remission of sins> and that what they declare and pronounce with regard tO' the absolution and remission of sins is that He, God, pardoneth and absolveth "all them that truly repent," &c. It is equally certain that the Romish do«_trine is the opposite of this, for, according to the teaching of the Church of Rome in the canon of the Council of Trent, he is to be accursed who says that the absolution is a bare ministerial act of pronouncing and declaring. Therefore, whatever it is, it is clear that the absolution of the Church oi England Prayer Book is not Romish, for it is, in so many express words, anathematized by Rome. After the Absolution follows the Lord's Prayer, not to be muttered inaudibly by the priest alone, but to be said with a clear voice by the people, too. And from this section of the service to the recital of the Creed, with the exception of the Te Deum, or Benedicite, nothing is said or sung that is not in the very words of Holy Scripture. At least, one-half of the morning service is thus occupied in repeating or listening to the Word of God. The Lord's Prayer is taken Morning and Evening P,ayer and Litany. 37 from the sixth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, from the ninth to the sixteenth verse. The Versicles which follow are taken from the fifty-first and fortieth Psalms. The Gloria from the twenty-seventh verse of the sixteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and other parts of Scripture. The Venite is the ninety-fifth Psalm. The Psalms for the day which follow, being read by the people and minister alternately, are taken from the old Bible version of Tyndale and Coverdale. They average five a-day, to be read through altogether in the course of a month. Then come the Lessons, one taken from the Old and one from vhe New Testament; and after that another sacred hymn, a choice being allowed between the song of Zacharias in the first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, from verse sixty-eight to seventy- nine, generally known as the Benedictus, or the Jubilate, that is, the one hundredth Psalm. We may mention here, in passing, that the rubric con- cerning the reading of the lessons has a most decidedly Protestant ring. In order to fully appreciate this we must once more remember that Rome was ever averse to the pure Word of God, and that in the English Church before the Reformation, when Roman practices everywhere prevailed, the Word of God was persistently kept from the people. It was read in an unknown tongue, and was utterly un- intelligible to all but the scholarly. It was read, moreover, only in fragments here and there. It was, above all, so covered over with fiction, and fables, and lying tales of man's invention, that spiritual benefit was nigh impossible. And to-day the practice of Rome remains unchanged. The Word of God is read in fragments, mixed with human fictions (see the Roman Breviary), and in a language that to the common people is incomprehensible. The Reformers, knowing this, boldly reverted to scriptural usage. In the first place, they raised the standard of revolt .A I 38 Protestantism of the I'raycr Book. against Rome, by ordaining that in our Church the Scriptures should be read in the language understood by the people. In the next place, by decreeing that they should be read distinctly with an audible voice, tne reader to so stand and turn as to be best heard by all present. In the third place, by declaring that nothing is ordained to be read but the very pure Word of God. The difficulties they had to contend with, in introducing so revo.utionary a change, are somewhat humorously alluded to in the Preface to the Prayer Book. The simple chapters of the Bible, they tell us, were inter- spersed with *' stories and legends, with multitude of responds, and verses, and vain repetitioi^s." The service was rendered in Latin to the people, which they understood not, so that they " heard w'th their ears only, and their heart, spirit, and mind, were not edified." And, worst of all, the number and hard- ness of the rules, and the manifold changings of the service, was the cause, that to turn the Book " was so hard and intricate a matter, that many times there was more business to find out what should be read, than to read it when it was found out." — Preface concerning the Service of the Church,-p. 5. Instead of aV this, thanks to their wisdom, and energy, and perspicuity, we have now an order for the reading of the Holy Scripture, which is at once commodious, easy, profitable, and pure. Our Reformers have, in fact, so ordered the matter, in the good providence of God, that all the whole Bible, or the greatest part thereof, is read over once every year, to tlie end that the clergy should, by often reading and meditating in God's Word, be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others to '.vholesome doctrine, and to confute them that are adversaries to the Truth. Herein, members of the Church of England have a rich, heritage, for which they can never cease to be thankful. Not merely have they the Word of God read in the hearing of the people, but there is, in the order of the reading, such. >--f'; i i549> the word "altar" is frequently used. ^ " The priest, standing humbly afore the midst of the altar, shall say the Lord's prayer," " Then the priest, turning him to the altar, shall say." It was also termed, " God's board," but altar is the word more frequently used. Now, the word "altar " is entirely expunged, and the word " table " is substituted throughout. The " table," " the Lord's table," "the holy table," are the words intentionally and exclusively employed; the word "altar," never ! A decided. Protestant mark. Third. In the Prayer Book of 1549, the last of the opening rubrics was : — " The Priest standing humbly afore the midst of the altar shall say the Lord's prayer with this collect." In the Second Prayer Book this most important rubric appeared in its place, and is to-day the last of the rubrics, at the beginning of the Communion Service. " The table having at the Communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the Body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning prayer and evening prayer be appointed to be said. And the priest standing at the north side of the table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with this collect following."* This rubric was expressly intended to prevent the Romish error of localizing the Divine Presence, and the altarward system of worship and service. With the table standing " in the body of the church," the altarward system of worship is impossible. * See Appendix. The Eastward Position. f: t The Communion Service. 49 Yet this is the position authorized by the Church. / With the table standing in the chancel, altarward worship is almost equally difficult. Yet this is the only alternative permitted by the Church. The common use, viz. an altar-like table fixed at the end of the chancel, is authorized neither by the rubrics, nor by the doctrinal system of the Church of England ; and though use may make a thing common, it can never legalize, for nothing can legalize but law. This rubric, suggesting and implying a movable table, not a fixed altar as in the Church of Rome, is a most decided Protestant mark. Fourth. In the First Book of Edward, 1549, the vest- ments enjoined for use were a white alb, plain, with a "Vest- ment" or cope, or else albs with tunicles: vestments similar to those in use in the Roman Church. In the Second Book of Edward, 1552, and now, with the exception of Cathedrals and Collegiate churches, the vestment authorized for both priest and deacon is, " a surplice only." Another decided Protestant mark.* Fifth. In the Prayer Book of 1549, the mixing of wine and water was enjoined. Now it is wine alone, the mixing being purposely omitted, and therefore prohibited. Another Protestant mark.f Sixth. In the First Prayer Book of Edward, the doctrine of the "Real" Presence (in the Romish sense) was coun- tenanced, and most objectionable expressions were em- ployed. For instance, in the Exhortations which the curate is enjoined to give to the people, he says, " He hath left in those holy mysteries, as a pledge of His love, and a continual' remembrance of the same, His own blessed Body and See Appendix. The so-called Ornaments Rubric, f See Appendix on Mixing of wine and water. /•I 50 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, precious Blood, for us to feed upon spiritually." In the prayer of consecration, which in the First Book came before the " You that do truly repent," &c., he prays that the " Bread and Wine may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly bel ed S Jesus Christ." Both in the prayer of humble ace • . sv; I in the prayer after the com- munion, the words are ":■ H io eat the flesh of Thy Son, and to drink His Blooa, in ;' ■ e holy mysteries," and, "that Thou hast vouchsafed to leed us in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy Son." In the revised Prayer Book, as we now have it, all these expressions are carefully avoided, the only approach to them being the unobjectionable thanksgiving to God for giving Christ to be our spiritual food in the believing use of the sacrament. While not actually teaching, in so many words, the doctrine of the " Real " Presence, these expressions hinted in that direction, and were capable of being distorted into a direct support of that doctrine. The Reformers, therefore, carefully removed them, not by accident, or in ignorance, but because they thoroughly understood their work.* Another decided Pro- testant mark. Seventh. In the First Prayer Book the rubric ordered that the bread used at the communion should be of a uniform kind, an unleavened, round piece of bread, like the Roman wafer, only a little larger, and " without any manner of print," and that this should be broken, and part of it put into the com- municant's mouth by the Priest. In the Second Prayer Book, as in our own, the rubric provided, " to take away superstition" that is, of course, superstition connected with the offering of the mass and transubstantiation ; that bread " such as is usual to be eaten * See Appendix. Dr. Pusey on the Real Presence. The Communion Service. 51 at the table with other meats " be used j and the direction with regard to the Priest putting the Sacrament of Christ's Body into the mouth was omitted. Both these changes were significant changes in the Protestant direction, inasmuch as they were intended to draw the mind away from customs associated with the Romish Mass, and to emphasise the Scriptural usage in the receiving of the communion. The Rubric of 1552 enjoined the Priest to deliver (the elements) to the people in their hands. The Rubric in the Prayer Book now is even mor ' emphatic: " into theiv hands." Another decided Protest? mark. Eighth. In the First Book of Edward, prayers were rv N for the dead : ** We commend unto Thy mercy, O Lord, all other Thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace; grant unto them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy and ever- lasting peace." — Prayer before Consecration. In the revision, they were carefully omitted, and are not now to be found in the Prayer Book. Another decided Protestant mark. Ninth. The prayer of oblation, as it has been called, now substantially the prayer which follows the Lord's Prayer, after the consumption of the elements, " O Lord and heavenly Father, accept this our sacrifice of praise," &c., was tnen before the partaking of the elements. This, by many semi-Romanists, as it is by the Romanizers now, was construed into a sanction of the idea of the communion being a sacifice. Now, it is put into a position where no such meaning can possibly be forced out of it. Wheatly, in his work on the Prayer Book, complains that this prayer was " half laid aside, and the rest thrown into an improper place, as being enjoined to be said after the people have communicated ; v/hereas, it was always the practice of the primitive Christians to use it during the act of consecration. * . i 5i Protestantism of the Prayer Book. For the holy eucharlst was, from the very first institution, esteemed, and received as a proper sacrifice, and solemnly offered to God upon the altar, before it was received and partaken of by the communicants. In conformity, where- unto, it was Bishop Overall's practice to use the first prayer in the post-communion ofiice, between the consecration and the administering, even when it was otherwise ordered by the public liturgy." Whatever may be thought of the utterly anti- rubrical and law-defying action of Bishop Overall,* it is certain that the Reformers knew what they were doing in placing the prayer where they did. They did it intentionally, and their purpose evidently was to discountenance every- thing that could lend any possible aid to the grossly sacerdotal doctrine of the sacrifice of the altar. Tlie position of this prayer„ then, is another decided Protestant mark. Tenth. And, above all, most decided Protestant mark, there was inserted that rubric at the end of the service, which, as it has ever been a humiliation, and thorn in the flesh to all Romanizers and pseudo- Romanists in our Church, has been to all loyal Churchmen a cause for continuous thankfulness, as the sturdy bulwark against all Romanism and Popery, open or concealed. This post-communion rubric, called sometimes the black rubric, was inserted in 1552, and though slightly altered it still stands as an irresistible protest against the doctrine of the corporal presence, and effectually de- molishes the theory and practice of adoration of the eucharist. " Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive * Since the above was written it has been pointed out to me that we have no real evidence that Bishop Overall (who died 67 years before Wheatly was born) was guilty of this practice, and that Wheatly was probably mistaken in making this statement. The Communion Service, 53 the same kneeling ; (which Order is well meant, for a signi- i fication of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation, and disorder in the holy- communion, as might otherwise ensue :) yet, lest the same kneeling should, by any persons, either out of ignorance, and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued, and depraved : It is hereby declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or unto any Corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and, therefore, may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ;) And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth of ('hrist's natural body, to be at one time in more places, than one." In fact, anyone who goes carefully through the Second Book of Edward, comparing it with the First Book, sentence by sentence, and word by word, cannot fail to see that every sentenre and expression that afforded, in the Reformers* opinion, the slightest colour to the lingering elements of Romanism, have been firmly and intentionally expunged. Not only the above-mentioned alterations and additions, but rubrics against the reservation of the elements, and solitary communion, confirm this, and show with what minuteness of care all the avenues to a possibly returning Romanism were entirely and for ever closed up. To sum up : There is, in the communion service of the Church of England, a distinct repudiation, first, of the whole conception, form, and purpose, of the Romish Mass. The term is never I I I 54 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. employed. The elements are administered in both kinds. There is not the slightest analogy between them. Tlie Mass is, from beginning to end, based upon the assumptions of sacerdotalism. It is a ritualistic ceremony, to be performed by the priest, and to be witnessed by the people. The administration of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of the Church of England, is essentially and simply a com- munion. The central object in the Mass is the visible offering upon the altar, by the priest, of the sacrifice of C'hrist's Body. The central object in our service is Christ seen and fed upon by faith. The central idea of the Mass is sacrifice. The central idea of the English service is com- munion. In the one, the worshippers gather before an altar to adore a priest-made deity. In the other, believers gather around the table of the Lord, " in remembrance of his meritorious cross and passion whereby alone " (that is, by which cross and passion alone) , " we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven." The object and end of worship in the Roman system is the eucharistic sacrifice. In the English Church there is a distinct provision of the rubrics which shows that an administration of the Holy Communion is not necessarily a part of the morning service, and another which actually forbids the celebration of the Holy Communion unless there be a certain number to communicate with the priest. Were the " Catholic " theory of worship the Church theory, such things would be impossible. In fact, the altar- ward system of worship is as completely destroyed by the third post- communion rubric requiring three persons at least (beside the priest) to receive, in order to make a communion possible, as it is by the fourth ante-communion rubric, which orders the table to stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel. The Communion Service. 55 And any Romanist will say so too. There is, in the communion service of tlie Church of England, a distinct repudiation, secondly, of the expression, and notion of an altar. Tlie altar is the inseparable adjunct of the Roman service. In the Protestant Church of England it has no place. The reasons given by Ridley and adopted by the Privy Council in their Orders in Council sent to each of the bishops " why the Lord's board should rather be after the form of a table than of an altar," are worthy of all consi- deration. First reason. " The form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord's supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it ; the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon. Now, when we come to the Lord's board, what do we come for ? To sacrifice Christ again, and to crucify Him again ? or to feed upon Him thiit was once only crucified and offered up for us ? If we come to feed upon Him, spiritually to eat His Body, and spiritually to drink His Blood, which is the true use of the Lord's Supper, then no man can deny but the form of a table is more meet for the Lord's board than the form of an altar." Second reason. Though the Prayer Book makes mention of an altar (he speaks here of the First Book of Edward, in which, as I showed above, the term "altar" was used), it did not prescribe any ^^orm thereof. How much more forcible is this reason now, when the word "altar" has been pur- posely rejected. So that we may now alter the words, and say with perfect trutii — Whereas the Book of Common Prayer "maketh no mention of an altar," therefore, it is not lawful to employ a term which that Book abolished. Third reason. "The Popish opinion of the Mass was that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or a super r^ 50 Protci^tanthm of ih.c Prayer Book. ii I .illl I'l, altar/* To abolish this superstitious opinion, it is more meet to have the form of a table. Fourth reason. " The form of an altar was ordained for the sacrifices of the Law. But now both the Law and the sacrifices thereof do cease j wherefore, the form of the altar used in the Law ought to cease withal." Fifth reason. " Christ did institute the sacrament of his Body and Blood at his last supper at a table, and not at an altar, as it appeareth manifestly by the three evangelists. And also, it is not read that any of the Apostles, or the primitive Church did ever use any altar in ministration of the holy communion. Wherefore, seeing the form of a table is more agreeable w^ith Christ's institution, and with the usage of the Apostles and the primitive Church, therefore, the form of a table is rather to be used than the form of an altar." — Cranmers Works, Park. Soc, p. 524. The whole argumentation is in flat contradiction of those who, desirous of remrning to Catholic usages, will persist in styling the table an " altar." The word " table " is more scriptural, more convenient, and more in accordance with primitive usage. The word " altar " on the contrary, is anti- scriptural, Ivomish, and tends to assimilate the holy communion to the Popish Mass. The language of the Prayer Book is most emphatic. In the First Book, to use the term " altar" was necessary and legitimate. It was the term used in the Prayer Book. Afterwards, the expression was taken away, and that completely. To use it still, after such purposed removal, is evidently a contravention of the spirit and letter of the Prayer Book. If any further testimony is needed, it may be added that the eighty-second Canon puts an end to all controversy on this point. This Canon is entitled : " A decent communion-table in every Church. " " Whereas we have no doubt, but that in all churches Tke Communion Service. 57 within the realm of England, convenient and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy communion, we appoint, that the same tables shall, from time to time, be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered, in time of divine service, with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that table, and so stand, save when the said holy communion is to be administered." But why quarrel about a name ? Can there really be any serious ground for controversy in the use of a mere term ? Certainly there can. Names represent things, and terms signify doctrines. Their danger lies in the ideas they convey. A sacrificing priest and an altar generally and naturally go together ; a sacrificing priest and a table, — never. Therefore, the Reformers abolished the term, and to-day there is no such thing as an altar in the Church of England.* There is, in the communion service of the Church of England, a distinct repudiation, thirdly, of the whole idea of "sacrifice," that is, in the sense of its being a re-enactment of the offering of Christ on Calvary. Not only is there not the slightest allusion to this in the service, the catechism, the rubrics, the articles, but the very terms employed, " the Lord's supper," "the holy communion," are totally subversive of the idea of sacrifice. Not only so, but Art. XXXI, "Of the one oblation of Chi'ist Jinished upon the cross," made once for all, — Latin semel, that is, once only — never to * To refer toHeb. xiii.-io,"wehave an altar," is not only unfair, for the point is about the Prayer Book expression, but a dishonest beg- ging of the question, for it has yet to be proved that the Lord's Table is referred to. But assuming that it is, it certainly is not the Romish altar for material sacrifices, as the context shows. r ■ S8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. I i J I il! be repeated, condemns the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. Not only that, but the Homily on the worthy receiving of the sacrament, bids us "beware, lest it (that is the holy cominunion) , be made a sacrifice.'' To speak, therefore, of the post-communion prayer as the " offering of the sacrifice," is certainly an utter distortion of the plain teaching of the Prayer Book. And while the expression, '* eucharistic sacrifice," is capable of a scriptural interpretation, the way in which it is often employed by Churchmen is entirely in contradiction to the whole spirit of the words of the communion service and the real teaching of the Church.* So much, then, for the anti-Romanism, and explicit Protestantism, of the communion service in the Church of England. From first to last no element remains which is capable of suspicion. All is clear, and true, and pure. But let it not be thought that these negative elements are all that we have to be grateful for. These Protestant elements, subjects as they are for devout and continuous gratitude on the part of every Churchman, are almost insignificant as compared with the fulness of the scriptural and spiritual beauties of the service. Solemnity, simplicity, practical fitness, all are wonderfully and throughout combined. The exhortations, so heart-rending and real ; the confession, so fitted to the contrite heart ; the absolution and the sentences, so full of consolation ; the following prayers, so scriptural and pure ; the Lord's prayer, and thanksgiving, so natural and significant ; and the final ascription of praise to God — what could be more edifying and precious ? To the devout soul, everything combines to bring one into the very * See Note in the Appendix, Sacrifice of the Mass. The Communion Service. 59 presence of God, to see the Saviour face to face, and to feed upon Him, in the heart, by faith, with thanksgiving — " Here, O my Lord, I see Thee face to face ; Here faith can touch and handle things unseen ; Here do I grasp with firmer hand Thy grace, And all my weariness upon Thee lean. Here do I feed upon the bread of God ; Here drink with Thee the royal wine of Heaven ; Here do I lay aside each earthly load ; Here taste afresh the calm of sin forgiven." »1 '■.! m CHAPTER V. ill ! H! ' ! THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. "M"© portion of the Prayer Book has afforded more material for controversy than the service we are now to con- sider : the order for the ministration of baptism to infants. Volumes have been written upon every possible side, and the most learned of Churchmen have engaged in its interpreta- tion, Tt is vain, then, to imagine that a final solution of this vexed question of infant baptism in general, and our form for infant baptism in particular, a solution, that is, that will be decisive and satisfactory for all men, can be found at once and without difficulty. As to infant baptism as a divine ordinance and a scriptural truth, the more one studies God .^ Holy Word, the more one is convinced rat it is the purpose of God ; yet, its proof and demonstration ;vqui:-es a line of evidence as broad and as difficuK as that -whu- i establishes the divinity of the Son of God. It is a line of argument dealing largely in circumstantial elements of evidence, in- sufficient and weak in themselves, but together contributing to establish the doctrine upon an 'mmovable foundation. So with regard to the soundness of our baptismal service. The demonstration of its Protestantism or Popery is not to be found in the explanation of a sentence which has generated volumes of controversy ; for if the words " this chlia is nov*'- regenerate " prove the Popery of the Prayer Book, the words ir* I. Peter iii. 21, "baptism doth also now save U-," p^'ovc the Popery of tl>e Bible. The service must be regai'J'ei.l as d who'e; the significance of all its parts be carefu.ly weighed; and its contrasts from Roman and The Baptismal Service. §ir [ice. It to Ihas this Iyer low lust be ind Romish baptismal offices be examined in all their importance. If this is done, though every difficulty may not be destroyed, the conviction will be established of the soundness of this service from a Protestant standpoint, and a line of argument constructed sufficient to dispel the allegation that the bap- tismal service is still tainted with Popery. I propose, therefore, in this chapter, to give a slight sketch of the Romish baptismal service, in order that an idea may be gained of the scriptural contrast offered by our own ; to dwell then upon some of the superstitious features of the first Protestant, though not thoroughly reformed, Book of Common Prayer ; and then to briefly notice the interpreta- tion of vexed sentences in the service. The various accretions of superstition and ceremonialism which gradually overgrew the apostolic rite of Holy Baptism, culminated finally in a double evil. On the one hand the service became elaborately ritualistic, on the other doctrinally corrupt. Outwardly the service was overladen with a series of ritualistic performances that altogether obscured its real sigriificance, and the spiritual import of the sacrament was lost amidst a display of semi-heathenish rites. Along with this outward deformation of the ordinance grew that doctrinal corruption which increasingly attributed a direct influence on the human soul to the purely material parts of the sacra- ments, and culminated in the theory, " ex opere operate." That is, the theory that the work of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament is always and surely carried out by the perform- ance of the rite itself apart altogether from any antecedent or accompanying faith in the recipients, or worshippers, or any elective decree of God, To understand, therefore, how thoroughly our service is purged from the elements of super- stition, we must consider in the first place the form of the baptismal service in its purely Romish phase, and then in its semi-reformed aspect j and in the next place the circum- \l n 62 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. It t r, t I stances and facts that demonstrate its deliverance from the pernicious ex opere operato theory of Rome. ^ In order that the reader may have some idea of what this service was in mediaeval days, and what it is to-day in the Church of Rome, and thus form a judgment for himself, I purpose to give, as briefly as is consistent with clearness, a description of the Roman form as taken from the Roman ritual at present in use in America.* I believe that very few Protestant Churchmen have the least conception of the utter unscripturalness of the Roman baptismal office. After reading it we can only marvel at the grossness of the superstitions from which, by God's grace, our Church has been delivered. The baptismal service in the Church of Rome opens with a short direction to the priest as to the disposition of the children, and tl'.3 nature of the vestments t. be worn, and a short question to tiie godfather. The priest is then directed to breathe or blow softly upon the face of the infant, at the same time saying, " Depart from him, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete." After that the priest makes with his Jiumb the sign of the cross on the infant's brow and breast, with the exclamation, " Receive the sign of the cross," followed by two prayers, the first for the enlightenment, and deliverance from Satan, of those to be baptized. Another ceremony follows, the blessing of the salt ; a strange performance to the Protestant. Putting some salt into a small vessel, he repeats a form of benediction. " I exorcise thee, creature of salt, in the name of God the Father, Omnipotent," — here he makes the sign of the cross — " and in the charity of Jesus Christ our Lord " — the sign of the cross again — "and in the power of the * The translation is from a publication of the Roman ritual by Piet of Baltimore, U.S. I - The Baptismal Service. 63 Holy Spirit " — the cross again. " I exorcise thee, through God the living" — the sign of the cross again— " through God the true" — again the sign of the cross — " through God the Holy " — crossing again — " through God " — another cross- ing — "who has procreated thee for the protection of the human race, and has ordained thee to be a healthful sacra- ment to the routing of the enemy. "We therefore pray Thee, Lord our Father, that Thou wilt, in sanctifying, sanctify this creature of salt, and in blessing it, bless it so that it may become to all who receive a perfect remedy, remaining in them, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen." The priest then places a small portion of the salt, thus blessed, in the mouth of the child, repeating at the same time these words : " Receive the salt of wisdom ; may it be to thee a propitiation to life eternal." A prayer follows, in which God is implored to grant that the one who has now tasted for the first time the consecrated salt may be fed with heavenly food. It would seem to many that the precautions taken so far with regard to the unclean spirits have been sufficiently elaborate to secure their abolition, if exorcisms and crossings were sufficient for the purpose. But apparently they have not been, for here the priest utters another formula with three more signings of the cross for the expulsion of the unclean spirit, which is still addressed as remaining, not- withstanding the careful ensufflation and adjuration at the commencement of the service. " I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name cf the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,"— three crossings — " so that thou mayest depart from this servant of God. For He Himself commands thee, thou damned and cursed one, who walked upon the sea, and stretched the right hand to the sinking Peter. Therefore, cursed devil, recognize thy sentence, and give honour to the living God, give honour to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the Protestantism of the Prayer Book, i'i Holy Ghost, and withdraw from this servant of God, because God and our Lord Jesus Christ have been pleased to call this person to Himself, and His holy grace, and the font of baptism." Then, with a final adjuration, he signs the infant's brow with the sign of the cross, calling to the un' '"in spirit as he does it, " And, do thou, cursed devil, never dare to violate this sign of the holy cross which we put upon his brow." After what one would suppose to be the final disposition of the devil, the priest now turns and says, " Oremus, let us pray." The prayer that follows is beautiful and touching : "I entreat Thee, Holy Lord, omnipotent Father, eternal God, in Thy eternal and most righteous compassion for this Thy servant, that Thou wilt deign to illuminate him with the light of Thy knowledge ; wash him and sanctify him ; give to him true understanding, so that he, being made worthy of the grace of Thy baptism, may hold steadfast hope, right counsel, and holy doctrine, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." But the sLi.plicity and purity are of short duration, for another ceremony immediately follows. The pries-t lifts the lower end ot his stole, and places it over the infant's head, and introduces him into the Church, saying as he does so : " Enter into the temple of God, so that thou mayest have part with Christ in eternal life. Amen." So far there has been but small approach apparently to the act of baptism, and the reader may well wonder how many more unscriptural practices are to be performed before the administration of the sacrament itself. There have been numbers of crossings, adjurations, ?md exorcisms of the devil, but small mention of baptism, or the qualifica- tions for the rite. Now, however, it seems to be in prospect, for the priest, proceeding to the font, recites in a loud voice, in Latin of course, — everything in the service, it is to be noted, is performed in the Latin tongue — " Credo in Deum " The Baptismal Service. 6s because to call font of jns the to the ;d devil, hich we )se to be irns and )llows is y Lord, nd most hou wilt )wledge 5 standing, baptism, doctrine, tion, for lifts the ^t's head, .oes so : est have (I believe in God, the Father Almighty), and after it the Pater nosier, (the Lord's Prayer). But here occurs another exorcism. From the wording of it, it seems to be specially addressed to the intelligence of the unclean spirits who have inhabited the body of the infant to be baptized. Already, as we have seen, there have been two very explicit and persuasive adjurations addressed to the evil ones, but in order that there may be no possible mistake, and that no evil spirit should consider himself as not included in the number of those expelled, the priest lifts up his voice in the following address : " I exorcise thee, every unclean spirit, in the name of the Father omnipotent, of Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord and Judge, and in the power of the Holy Ghost," — three signs of the cross are made with the names — " that thou withdraw from this, God's workmanship, which our Lord has deigned to call to His holy temple, that he may be a temple of the living God, and the Holy Spirit may dwell in him, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen." Surely after such multiplied imprecations the spirit of evil will withdraw; but, as we shall presently see, there is another exorcism still. The ceremonies hitherto have been somewhat multiplied and superstitious, but both as regards number and super- stitiousness they are enhanced by what follows. The priest, now putting his finger into his mouth, covers it with saliva, and taking it out touches the ears and nose of the infant. As he touches the right ear he pronounces the words, " Ephphatha, that is, be opened." Then he touches the left ear, saying the same words. After that he touches the nose with the saliva-covered finger, saying as he does so : " For a sweet-smelling savour. Do thou, moreover, devil, flee away, for the judgment of God shall draw nigh." A question is now addressed to those to be baptized by the priest, the answer being made by the sponsor. S ri I I • I I i /I 66 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. " Q. Dost thou renounce Satan ? A. I do renounce him. Gl. And all his works ? A. I do renounce them. ^ Q. And all his pomps ? A. I do renounce them." Another ceremony follows, viz. the anointing with oil. The priest, having dipped his thumb in the consecrated oil, that is, that has been blessed, .-i id exorcised, and sanctified for the faithful, anoints the infant on the breast and between the shoulders, in the form of the cross, saying as he docs so : " I anoint thee with the oil of salvation in Christ Jesu our Lord, that thou mayest have eternal life." Immediately after this there is another ceremony, the change of stole. The violet-colourod one is laid aside, and a while one substituted. Then another catechising ; " Dost thou believe in God the Father . . . Jesus Christ His Son . . . the Holy Spirit?" &c. Answer: "I do believe." "Dost I'lou desire to be baptized?" "I do." At last the baptismal ceremony itself has arrived, and like everything- else it is unique. The sponsor, taking the infant in his arms, holds him before the priest. The priest takes in a vessel a quantity of consecrated water, and holding it over the infant pours" it upon him. " N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father," — here he puurs water upon him, and signs him with the sign of the cross — "and of the Son," — here again he pours the water and signs the sign of the cross — "and of the Holy Ghost," — repeating the same process again. This being finished the holy oil is again brought, and the priest, putting his thumb into the oil, anoints the infant on the top of the head, in the form of the cross, repeating the words : " Almighty God, Fatlier cf our Lord Jesus Christ, who has regenerated thee by water and the Holy Spirit, and has given to thee remission of all thy sins," — here the anointing in the form of the cross is performed — " Himself anoint thee with the chrism of salvation in the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."" The Baptismal Service. 67 The priest: "Peace be with thee." Answer: "And with thy spirit." All is not yet over. Three more ceremonies remain to be yet performed. First, the production of a piece of cotton wool, the bombacium, or something similar, and the careful wiping of the thumb of the priest, and the oil-anointed forehead. Next, there is brought forth a snow- white robe called the chrisom, which is put upon the infant in token of his spotless innocency through the laver of regeneration. " Receive," says the priest, " this white vestment, which mayest thou bear unspotted before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life." And, last of all, the ceremony of the candle. A lighted candle or taper is put by the priest into the hand of the infant or sponsor, and the words are repeated : " Receive this burning light, and keep thy baptism without blame. Keep the commandments of God, so that when the Lord shall come to the wedding, thou mayest meet Him with all the saints in the celestial palace, and have eternal life, and live for ever and ever. Amen." With the words, " Go in peace," and, " The Lord be with thee," the baptismal ceremony has come to an end ! Such is the administration of the sacrament of baptism according to the usage of the Church of Rome. And such, I suppose, substantially was the form in use in the pre- Reformation English Church ! But what a medley of vain performances. What a confusion of empty and heathenish superstitions. How little there is that is really scriptural, pure and good. How overladen with " blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits," the original simplicity of the baptismal rite. How utterly the man-devised ceremonies have obscured the reality of the apostolic ordinance. The exorcisms, the S * IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 ISO 1^ IM 1^ 12.2 m m 1.4 20 1.6 m v) m ^l. v? '/ -(S« Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 ^ A ^*. L

^^ r.^^ w h \ \ ^ \ k r I 68 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, n crossings the changing of vestments, the tapers, and salt, and oil. ^ How aghast would St. Peter have stood if asked to perform such a ceremony ! How bewildf;red, were he told it was the apostolic rite of Christian baptism ! True, there is the baptism with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Encrusted as It is with superstitions the apostolic formula still remains intact, but it is so buried under the rubbish of ritualism that it can scarcely be 3Cognized. Surely if by Popery is meant identity with, or assimilation to, this form of the Church of Rome, the service of the Church of England is unouestion- ably Protestant. The only thing that the Church of England has in common with the Church of Rome in the baptismal service is the only thing in the whole Roman office that is purely scriptural, the baptismal formula. As to the rites, and ceremonies, and man-devised ritualisms of the Roman form, the contrast presented by the simplicity of the Anglican service is simply remarkable. Let us now proceed to a comparison that is still more instructive as a proof of the desire of our Reformers to purge from the Prayer Book all the elements of Popery : the comparison of the baptismal service as it now stands in the Prayer Book, with the service as it existed in the First Prayer Book of 1549. Protestant on the whole, as this First Prayer Book was, it was tainted by many unscriptural and dangerous features. Th^re were still not a few elements of rituilism authorized, which were calculated to perpetuate and promote erroneous teaching ; and, in addition to these semi-Romish practices, many expressions which fostered unscriptural doctrine. In the opening prayer, for instance, there was the sentence The Baptismal Service. 69 which some might have been led to interpret in such a way as to countenance the Romish doctrine, " that by this whole- some laver of regeneration whatsoever sin is in thern may be washed away." Then there was the rubric enjoining the priest to make a cross upon the child's forehead and breast, saying as he did : " Receive the sign of the cross both in thy forehead and breast," &c. Then there was the form for casting out the devil, the priest being enjoined to look upon the children, and say: "I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out and depart from these infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to His holy baptism, to be made members of His Body, and of His holy congregation. Therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, re- member thy judgment, remember the day to be at hand wherein thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels, and presume not hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants, whom Christ hath bought with His precious blood, and by this His holy baptism calleth to be of His flock." Then there was the ceremony of the chrisom, or the putting a white robe on the child, and after that the anoint- ing with oil, and the accompanying prayer: "Almighty God .... vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction of His holy spirit." The rest of the service is practically the same as that found in the Prayer Book to-day, the contrast, therefore, between it and the former services revealing the magnitude of the work that the Reformers had imposed upon them. It was, indeed, a work of no little difficulty to bring back the simplicity of primitive truth from the accretions of mediaevalism, and to tear aside the excrescences without firr ir. r^ 70 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. injuring the body. Clearly, it was impossible to bring in perfection in a moment at first trial. But they did the. work, and bravely and well was it done. With the excep- tion of the things above referred to, the whole service was solemn, scriptural, edifying, impressive, and as superior to the Roman form, as the Prayer Book to the Koran. But still it was imperfect, and as they advanced in knowledge they determined to root out everything that savoured of superstition, and present to the Church a Prayer Book without Romish blot or blemish. This they did, as God permitted, and accordingly we find that there is in the baptismal service of the Prayer Book, as we now possess it, a remarkable advance in these particulars. In the first place they rearranged the whole service with the most admirable judgment, adjusting the various parts with great wisdom, so as to emphasize the necessity of faith and prayer beforehand, and the responsibility of those who bring the candidates. In the next place they omitted the words, " that by this wholesome laver of regeneration, whatsoever sin is in them may be washed clean away," and left out entirely the Romish form of exorcism, by which the priest is directed to say : " I command thee, unclean spirit, that thou come out, .... therefore, cursed spirit, remember thy judgment, remember thy sentence, and presume not hereafter to exer- cise any tyranny towards these infants," &c. This prayer, which was omitted in the Second Prayer Book, is not to be found in our service to-day, which is, as we have often to repeat, substantially the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. In :he third place they altered the form of Baptism, and omitted also the ceremony of the chrisome. In the First Book the priest is directed to dip the child in the water thrice. First dipping the right side ; second the left side ; The Baptismal Service, 71 the third time dipping the face toward the font. Then after the baptism he was directed to put upon the child its white vestment, the chrisom, to be returned at the puri- fication of the mother. All of these alterations are distinct proofs of the advancing Protestantism of our Reformers. Each of them is a distinct advance upon the First Boo'* of Edward, which was only partially liberated from the elements of superstition, in the direction of unmistakable evangelical purity. The very fact, moreover, that some of .these things removed are in themselves quite unobjectionable, and were expunged only on account of their offending the weak con- sciences of the spiritually enlightened, gives additional proof of the sturdy Protestantism of the revision. So much for the form of the baptismal service, and the evidence in favour of its Protestantism from a ceremonial standpoint. Nothing could be more simple, or further removed from Popery. There is absolutely not one element of ritualism in the whole service to which reasonable exception can be taken. Having dwelt sufficiently upon the outward form, let us proceed now to the doctrinal expressions of the service* Though it is hardly within the purpose of this work to offer explanations upon controverted points of theology, it may not be out of place to dwell for a little space upon those expressions which have, to so many Protestant minds, offered most serious difficulty, the words, " seeing that this child is regenerate," &c. But the reader must distinctly understand that the difficulty of these words and the Popery of these words are two en- tirely different things. Difficult they are ; Popish they are not. They are found in a service compiled by men flatly opposed to Popery, and if any interpretation can be given to them but the Roman, it must be given. They are words, moreover, which are found elsewhere in ultra- Protestant formularies, and employed by men of must Protestant r /••• k i ill! 72 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, prejudices. They are precisely similar, for instance, to those employed by one whom no one ever suspected of Popish v proclivities, John Calvin, in his catechism ;* and they may be employed by any who really believe in the power of God to receive as His own disciples the little infants. They are, moreover, words similar to those which are used by most ultra-Evangelicals to illustrate the baptismal blessing. In a book lately written by the Rev. Andrew Murray, who is, I believe, a Presbyterian minister, author of " Abide in Christ," "With Christ," and other works, it is said: "Not only are the children when grown up, but even from the birth, to be partakers of the covenant." " The promise is not held in abeyance to wait for the child's faith, but is given to the father's faith in the assurance that the child's faith will follow." "The promise of God is no empty word, though our unbelief may make it of none effect. In His purpose the water and the spirit are inseparably united ; ' What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder * ; let not a parent's unbelief rest content with the water without the spirit." And throughout the whole work similar reasoning is to be found. The expressions, therefore, of our baptismal service can no more be adduced in themselves as indications of the lingering Romanism of the Prayer Book, than the expressions employed by John Calvin and Mr. Murray could be brought forward as proofs of the Popish tendency of their works. Certain it is that in the baptismal service of the Church of England the Roman doctrine of baptismal re- generation is not taught. In proof of this four facts may be adduced. The first fact is this : — That after the baptismal service was completed it was * See Mozley on the Baptismal Controversy, Part ii, Chap. vii. The Baptismal Service. 7Z >mise IS eulogized by Peter Martyr, one of the most uncompromising Protestants of the Reformation age, a man summoned by Archbishop Cranmer to aid in the work of reforming the Church of England, and declared by Archbishop Parker to be one " who had sustained constant labours in the defence of evangelical truth against the Papists." This eulogy is possessed of more than ordinary importance, for it occurs in one of the most important publications bearing upon the baptismal controversy, viz., a letter of this Peter Martyr, Regius Divinity Professor in Oxford in 1552, preserved in the archives of the ecclesiastical library in Zurich and edited by Goode, written to his friend BuUinger just after the completion of the Second Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth. In this letter, speaking of the Prayer Book as then published. Martyr states : " For all things are removed from it which could nourish superstition." Then, almost immediately afterwards, he mentions as one of the doctrines, like that of the real presence, which would bring with it superstitions, the doctrine that grace is invariably conferred in the sacra- ments, that is, the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Since, therefore, in Martyr's opinion the doctrine that grace is invariably conferred by the sacraments brings with it superstitions, and Martyr testified that all things are removed from the Prayer Book that could nourish superstitions, it is certain that in the mind of those who were identified with Martyr's views, viz., the Reformers, the doctrine of the invariable spiritual regeneration of infants in baptism (the Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration) is not the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. It is, moreover, most significant, as pointed out by Goode, that the leading Reformers held the evangelical view with Peter Martyr, as opposed to the Romish, and that when the Articles were afterwards published to abolish controversy and determine the true teaching of the Church of England, the phraseology /-I It :'!) k 74 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. of the Article on baptism was the phraseology of Peter Martyr, and the views of the sacrament the views of the i party with which he was connected, and not the views of the Romish party. The second fact is this : — That among all the controversies raised by the early Puritans about the baptismal services, none was ever raised about the doctrine of regeneration as taught in it. This fact, which is pointed out by Boultbee in his exposition of the Articles, though apparently insignificant, and not generally known, is, to the careful observer, most important. These men were, as everybody is aware, the most uncompromising, and often the most unreasonable, opponents of everything that savoured of Papistry. Beneath their searching scrutiny a mole-hill of Churchiness was magnified into a mountain of Roman' . They would have destroyed even the very formu. and materials of Rome, not because they were wrong, but because they were Roman. Yet these men, amidst all their objections, never so much as raised a whisper against the expressions of the baptismal service, or ever dreamed of exhibiting the words, " this child is regenerate," as a proof of lingering Romanism. The third fact is this : — That there is so striking a difference between the Articles of the Church of England in 1536, the Church's first effort in the way of doctrinal reform, and the Articles of 1553, in their treatment of the doctrine of baptism, as to make it clear that the Reformers intended to discard the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Indeed, no stronger proof of the soundness and legitimacy, from a Church standpoint, of the position of those who deny the Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration can be offered than a comparison of the Articles of 1536 and our present Articles, Homilies, and Catechism. We have presented in these Articles of 1536 The Baptismal Service. 75 the spectacle of a Church trying to rid itself of Romanism, yet ignorant of evangelical truth. The very fact of their publication, though at such a date, speaks volumes for their Protestantism, for the "Roma /acuta est, causa ^finita est" doctrine was just as true then as now, and ten times more practical. But of course they are full of Romish errors, and many doctrines afterwards discarded are there plainly set forth. In the Article on baptism, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is clearly taught, and were it the doctrinal standard of to-day the position of Pusey and the Tractarian school would be demonstrated and established beyond cpvil. It begins by asserting that people must of necessity believe all those things which hath, by the whole consent of the Church, been always approved, received, and used in the sacrament of baptism ; that it was instituted by Christ, &c. ; that it is offered unto all men, as well as to infants such as have the use of reason, that by baptism they shall have remission of sins, and the grace and favour of God, according to the saying of Christ : Whoso- ever believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; and continues by arguing at great length, that the promise of grace and everlasting life (which promise is adjoined to this sacrament of baptism) pertaineth not only unto such as have the use of reason, but also to infants, innocents, and children ; and that they ought, therefore, and must needs be bs^^^ized; and ihat by the sacrament of baptism they do also obtain remission of their sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby the very sons and children of God ; that infants must needs be christened because they be born in original sin, which sin must needs be remitted, which cannot be done but by the sacrament of baptism, whereby they receive the Hoiy Ghost, which exerciseth His grace and efficacy in them, and cleanseth and purilieth them from sin by His most secret virtue and operation." And much more to the same effect. "v. I t i I r \ 76 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. The contrast to the present teaching of the C'hurch in tlie twenty-seventh Article is remarkable. In the Article of 1536 baptism is declared to be the bestower of the Holy Ghost, and this in the most unqualified terms. It is Rome's " ex opere operato" theory most clearly. In our Article baptism is said to be the sign and seal of regeneration, and the qualifying expressions are carefully added : " And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation." "They that receive baptism rightly," &c. In the First Book of Articles the baptism of infants and their sacramental remission of sins and regeneration occupies an extremely prominent part and place. In the Article of to-day instead of this there is the qualified state- ment that the baptism of young infants is, in anywise, to be retained as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. This fact may at first sight appear trivial, but to the careful observer it is profoundly significant, and throws strong light on the interpretation of the baptismal service. The fourth fact is this : That throughout the whole of the Prayer Book expressions are found which clearly prove that the Church frames the language of many of her services upon what is commonly called the principle of charitable assumption. The services are drawn up upon the supposition of faith in those who are addressed by them ; in other words, that the participants in the Church services are in reality what they are declared to be. Without this principle many of the expressions in the Catechism, the Collects, the Burial Service, and other offices, cannot be understood. If then it is a fact that this principle obtains throughout the Prayer Book, there is no reason why it should not be found in the baptismal service; and it is evident then that the Reformers, holding as they did strong Calvinistic doctrines with regard to the salvation of the elect, and the perpetuity of faith in them, could not compile I /•I iv The Baptismal Service. 77 formularies which taught the very Romish doctrines they were drawn up to protest against and destroy. Believing as they did that infants may be spiritually regenerate, and believing most certainly that all infants are not spiritually regenerate, and therefore could not be spiritually regenerated in baptism, it is clear that the language of the service, " this child is regenerate," was intended to bear an hypothetical interpretation. This seems borne out by the fact that in the very prayer in which the priest gives God thanks for the regeneration of the infuiit, he almost immediately afterwards prays that " finally, with the residue of God's holy Church, he maybe an inheritor of God's everlasting kingdom," which proves that from the standpoint of the Reformation age, the statement about regeneration was generic and presumptive, not a positive judgment with regard to each particular infant. The teaching of the catechism that infants are bound to perform the promises made by their sureties when they come to age, a statement that is in flat opposition to the Romish doctrine of invariable spiritual regeneration, and is honoured by a special anathema against it from the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent,* also bears out the prin- ciple of hypothetical explanation. In fact it &eems from a consideration of the known views of the Reformers, and the literal statements of the Articles and Services, that on the one hand the teaching of the Church is plainly this, that the blessing of newness of life and spiritual regeneration is possible alike to adult and infant. As Samuel was the child of God from infancy, and John the Baptist filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, so is it possible for * See Bungener's " History- of the Council of Trent," page 29. The 14th Anathema on Baptism anathrmatizes those who maintain that persons baptized in infancy should, when they come of age, be asked whether they are willing to ratify the promise made in their name. F 78 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. I ! God now to settle on even new-born infants the fulness of His grace. Since, therefore, it is as impossible for the Church to discern which are not to be recij)ients of this blessing as to discern which are, she charitably uses the only language that is scripturally possible in connection with baptism. On the other hand, while the regeneration in the highest sense, though possible, is in many cases in adults and in all cases in infants the charitable language of faith and " expectative " hope, a relative change has always taken place. All children brought into a covenant state of grace by baptism, as the Jews of old by circumcision, and all adults likewise who have professed their faith, are relatively, that is as far as covenant privilege, and responsibility goes, and as far as a dispensation of grace is concerned, "members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven." But as all circumcised were not circumcised in heart, Romans ii. 28-29, so all baptized are not necessarily baptized of the Spirit because baptized with water. Acts viii. 21-23. It is perfectly right, therefore, to address those as unregenerate, that is in the spiritual sense, from the pulpit, who are without any signs of spiritual life, even though they have been publicly pronounced regenerate at the font. Could not the expressions of the Church of England baptismal service have been applied to Simon Magus on his baptism ? Certainly they could have. And yet, notwith- standing, there can be no doubt that St. Peter was justified in addressing him as one who had still need of a change of heart and newness of life. " Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." Numberless quotations from the greatest and most authori- tative teachers of the Church of England could be collected to prove that this view, as opposed to the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration, has been the commonly accepted interpretation of the language of the Prayer Book in the The Baptismal Service. 79 less of or the^ of this :ie only 1 with in the adults 3f faith 5 taken if grace and all latively, ty goes, lembers >;dom of cised in :essarily Lcts viii. hose as pulpit, igh they England on his lotwith- ustified lange of nor lot f God." authori- :ollected doctrine iccepted c in the baptismal service.* It is a fact that the principle of hypo- thetical interpretation was evidently intended by the Church to obtain in the case of the Collects, the Catechism, and the Burial Service. It is also i fact that a great number of most learned, pious, and representative Churchmen have united to declare that the principle of the prayer in these general cases is the principle of interpretation that must be applied to the words, "this child is regenerate," in the baptismal service. It is evident, therefore, to thoughtful minds that hasty expressions of opinion as to the Romanism of this service ai'e entirely inconsiderate. They are too frequently the utterances of ignorant and prejudiced men whose judgment is crude, and knowledge shallow ; men who consider it a blemish that anything should be found in the service which needs an explanation. Such persons forget apparently that the whole of the Word of God abounds with expressions which require most careful investigation and studied expla- nation. And no expressions, perhaps, in the Word of God are more difficult of correct explanation than the expressions of the Prayer Book with regard to baptism. See Rom. vi. Col. ii. 12, I Peter iii. 21, Acts xxii. 16. In fact, enlarging Origen's sagacious remark, as quoted by Butler in his Analogy, that he who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from Him who is the author of nature, may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it as are found in the constitution of nature ; we may say alsx> : he who finds difficulties in those very Scriptures which were given by the Holy Ghost for the illumination of mankind, * I would heartily commend to my fellow Churchmen the work of Dean Goode on Baptism. The argument is somewhat involved and lengthy, but when once mastered it convinces the reader that the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration never was, and never can be, with the Prayer Book untampered with, the doctrine of the Church of England. 8o Protestantism of the Prayer Book. may expect more difficulties in compilations which, however beautiful and complete, were still drawn up by the hands of fallible men. One thing, however, we confidently affirm to the student of the Prayer Book: difficulties he will find, but Popery never. Before concluding the chapter there are two matters in the service which call for brief notice, as they have been a stumbling block to many. First. The expression in the prayer immediately before the baptism : " Sanctify this water to tlie mystical washing away of sin." The meaning of it is clear. It is a simple petition that the water to be employed for the sacred act of baptism may be set apart for this symbolic purpose, and separated from common uses. That there is nothing Romish or superstitious in this is evident to any one who considers the elaborate formula for the benediction of the baptismal water according to the Roman Catholic ritual, and also remembers that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in one of its manuals for the direction of its ministers enjoins that in the ordinance of baptism prayer is to be made " for sanctifying the water to this spiritual use." Second. The sign of the cross on the forehead of the baptized. This was from the very first a stumbling block o some— see the rubric at the end of the service, " To take away all scruple concerning the use of the sign of the cross," — and is a source of difficulty to many to-day. That, however, i' is :io proof of the Popery of the Prayer Book, but rather the very contrary, is clear from a consideration of the thirtieth Canon, to which the attention of all those who demur to the practice is directed. The Canon is entitled : " The lawful use of the cross in baptism explained." Beginning with an expression of regret that this ceremony should still be a matter of scruple to many, it proceeds to The Baptismal Service, 8i latters in show thpt the sign of the cross in baptism was one of the usages of the primitive Charch, whereby Christians acknowledged, in the face both of heathens and Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge Him for their Saviour who died for them upon the cross, and that their children, also dedicated by that badge to His service, should not be ashamed of the faith of the Crucified. In process of time, however, the sign of the cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, " especially after that corruption of Popery had once possessed it." " But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it," and it was not the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject those ceremonies which neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of sober men. It has therefore baen retained, botlt by the judgment and practice of those reverend Fathers and great Divines in the days of King Edward the Sixth, " because the use of this sign in baptism was ever accompanied here by such sufficient cautions and exceptions against all Popish superstition and error, as in the like cases are either fit or convenient." Two things in this Canon are especially worthy of careful consideration. The declaration that this ceremony of the signing of the cross in baptism, the only place in which its use is sanctioned by the Church of England, is among the things which are " of themselves indifferent," and is to be retained not because it is in itself of the nature of an essential, but because it has been deemed fit and right in the judgment of the Church to observe it. The Canon declares : " The Church of England, since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and so doth hold and teach still, that the sign of the cross used in baptism is no. part of the substance of the sacrament." And above all„ the clear, strong, unambiguous statements with regard to the Protestantism of our Church, and the corruption of Popery. 6 ft- r I -I 5 8a Protestantism of the Prayer Book. As I have reniarked before, whatever others may think, there are many who cannot view without apprehension the change that has come over the spirit and thought of many Anglican Churchmen within the last fifty years. Not only has the stubbornness and intensity of "the Protestant prejudice " passed away, but a reactionary sentiment of kindliness and amitx has set in with overwhelming force. The Church of Rome to many has ceased to be a foe. She who was denounced is now spoken of softly and gently. That which was abhorred is now introduced into favour. Rome the adulterous, revelling in her shame, has suddenly become — not that she has changed one whit her character — the virtuous and pure. The harlot is to be received again as a true wife or sister, her iniquities still unrepented of, her foul deeds the same. The strong names by which she was called are forgotten. "Popery" and "Papist" are as slanderous terms of reproach. No Anglican sighing for union with Rome would ever dream of using terms so offensive. If protests are made, and denunciations employed, they are against her political and ecclesiastical usurpations, not against her deadly and soul-destroying doctrines. But the Church of England, in her Canons, has no such scruples, nor does the pseudo-charity of some of her members find any support in the formularies of the Charch. If Anglo- Catholics of the nineteenth century are ashamed of her Protestantism, she is not. If Tractators and Ritualists speak lovingly of Rome, she does not. Four times in this Canon is her language unmistakable in its sterling Pro- testant ring: " After that corruption of Popery had once possessed the Church of Rome." " All Popish superstition and error." " The Church of England, since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever taught and held." The Baptismal Service. 83 " The use of the sign of the cross being thus purged from all Popish superstition and error." Popish and Popery were very definite things, and are so still. And they are very definitely repudiated and denounced by the Church of England, The extreme caution taken by the Church to guard against all elements of Popery, and the scrupulous care she has exercised, as the Canon declares, to vindicate the reasonableness and purity of even the slightest matter that might be deemed to savour of her supersti^'.ions, demonstrate most forcibly the soundness of her principles as a Protestant Church. So much for the baptismal service. The nature of the ■case has demanded that I should dwell more largely upon its negative characteristics from a Protestant and anti-Roman standpoint, rather than upon its Catholic and scripmral characteristics. But as I remarked with regard to the communion service, so I wouM say with regard to the baptismal: Its fulness and scripturalness, its purity and solemnity, its heart-searching and touching spirituality, are matters for which Churchmen must ever be thankful. And I think that all who rightly understand its meaning will willingly endorse the sentence of one of the noblest of cur age, a Churchman whom none could accuse of proclivity to Popery on the one side, or to Dissent on the other, the late Lord Shaftesbury, on the baptismal service of the Church of England : " It is a lovely and solemn ceremony, heavenly in its purport, and almost so in its composition. May God in His mercy grant, that as the child was this day signed with the cross, so he may ne/er be ashamed to confess and to fight for a crucified Saviour." — "Life," I, 235. It is an utterance worthy of the man. It is the utterance, not of a narrow-eyed, mote-seeking critic, but of a genuine man, a prayerful father, a devout Churchman, a sincere Christian. 6* r\ CHAPTER VI. THE OCCASIONAL SERVICES. "X^TE now pass from the major services of the Prayer Book to the consideration of those services like the confirmation, marriage, burial and other, which are in less frequent use, and are generally comprehended under the generic term, the Occasional Services. Though of com- paratively minor importance the reader's attention is specially requested to them, for these services present in a v^ery unmistakable manner the intention and position of the Prayer Book as it at present stands. While there still remains in the service for the visitation of the sick a rubric and a sentence which seem to countenance one of the most seductive errors of Popery, of which more hereafter, on the whole it can be honestly said of these occasional offices, that they have had all things removed from them which savoured of Romanism and were calculated to nourish superstition. No little spiritual discernment and practical sagacity was required to remove from the partially reformed services the remnants of medisevalism. It was a most delicate and difficult work ; but in every case it was performed with thoroughness, and from each service there v/as removed some lingering sign of either needless ritualism or doctrinal corruption. From the confirmation service was taken the signing of the sign of the cross. From the marriage service, the blessing of the ring. From the visitation of the sick, the anointing with oil and sign of the The Occasional Services, 8s cross upon the forehead and breast. From the communion of the sick, the reservation of the elements and private celebration of the eucharist. From the burial service, the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead. Each of these changes is fraught with significance. They are not meaningless ; they are intentional. They are not accidental j they are all in one direction. They all tend to one goal. They all declare the unmistakable Protestantism of the Reformers. Each of them is at once positive and negative. Negative, in that it is the discarding some useless or baneful shred of Popery. Positive, in that it is the putting on of the sound and scriptural garment of apostolic truth and practice. Though these changes in one service might seem trivial, when viewed as a whole they present an irresistible argument. It is remarkable to notice how in every one of the above services there is a threefold gradation in the upward direction. The Roman or Sarum service marks the first grade, and it is invariably low, debased by the elements of superstition. The Prayer Book of 1549, the First Prayer Book of Edward, marks the second grade, and it is always higher and in the direction of Protestantism. Tho Second Prayer Book of Edward's reign, which is substantially the Prayer Book of to-day, marks the third and highest grade, the attainment of simplicity and Protestant purity. Can any one believe that this uniform and invariable historical gradation is merely accidental ? Can any one believe that this uniform tendency from Popery, and to primitive purity, is meaningless ? In one service alone such changes might be regarded as trivial and the result of accident. But when we see in each service the same careful progression, can we doubt the intention of the Reformers, or the importance of the changes as establishing the present standing of the Church ? It seems impossible to escape the conviction r 86 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, that arises from a careful study of the changes simultaneously and uniformly made by the Reformers in all these services, that it was their deliberate intention to eradicate from the Prayer Book of the Church of England everything that would be calculated to perpetuate doctrinal corruptions, or nourish unnecessary ritualism. We shall proceed to exhibit the proof of this assertion by presenting each of these services in order for the reader's inspection. Let the Confirmatioyi Service be taken first. According to the Roman use, and the use of the Anglican Church for some time prior to the Reformation, the rite of confirmation was to all practical purposes little more than a superstitious form. As soon as children were baptized, immediately after or as soon as possible, always at any rate while they were infants or little onet, they were brought to the Bishop to be confirmed. The Bishop anointed the thumb of the iiifant, and crossing its head with oil, said in Latin : " I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." And this was the rite of confirmation ! According to the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth the rite of confirmation appears under a totally different form. It assumes a reasonable and scriptural position ; is administered to intelligent and scripturally instructed persons, who have come to the years of discretion ; and has little in common with the pre-Reformation rite but the name. Instead of a body of infants being presented to the Bishop for anointing, a body of intelligent children and adults are presented, " agreeable with the usage of the Church in times past, whereby it was ordained that confirm- ation should be ministered to them that were of perfect age, that they being instructed in Christ's religion should openly profess their own faith, and promise to be obedient to the r \ The Occasional Services. 87 taneously services, from the ing that >tions, or o exhibit of these Anglican 2 rite of e than a baptized, any rate ought to nted the , said in confirm J Father, le Sixth different Ition ; is structed and has 3Ut the d to the en and of the onfirm- ect age, openly ; to the will of God." — Rubric, First Book of Edward, 1549. Instead of the anointing of the forehead and the thumb, the Bishop's hands, in accordance with the apostolic custom, were laid upon the head of the candidate, the sign of the cross was made, and the words were pronounced : " I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and lay my hand upon thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." In the Prayer Book of iS5'^> the third and perfect stage as far as its Protestantism is concerned, was attained. All the remaining elements of superstition were discarded, the crossing of the forehead was done away with, the sentence of the Bishop : " I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and lay my hand upon thee, in the name of the Father," &c., was obliterated for ever, <"nd in place thereof was substituted the beautiful prayer : " Defend, O Lord, this thy c;i'ld (or servant) with thy heavenly grace, that he may continue thine for ever," &c. Not in ritual only, but in intention and scope the service was rendered more evangelical. The responsibility of the individual candidate was emphasized by the assumption of the vows, and the open acknowledgment of their decision for God, a matter that of itself constitutes a proof of radical reform. Thus the rite was gradually but entirely divested of the elements of superstition on the one hand, and on the other invested with the simplicity and reality of the apostolic form ; and to-day it remains in its unadorned and scriptural beauty as a monument of the purity of our Reformers' work. The Marriage Service. Before the Reformation the marriage service was tainted with many unscriptural allu- sions and superstitious practices. The marriage was first of all performed at the church door; then after various prostrations and genuflections prayer was offered before r^ , ii i ! il ] '• I \ 1 88 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, ** the altar " ; the whole concluding with the sacrifice of the Mass. As in the Roman Catholic Church, so in the service of the pre- Reformation English Church, a most elaborate service was used for the blessing of the ring, which after being sprinkled with holy water and signed with the sign of the cross, was placed by the bridegroom upon the thumb, the forefinger, and the third finger succes- sively, being finally left upon the fourth finger of the bride's left hand. By the First Book of Edward nearly all the superstitious practices were omitted, and a service was introduced almost perfect in its purity and beauty. The rite was to be per- formed in the body of the church ; the prostrations and blessing of the ring were discarded ; and the service as a whole was simplified, and permeated with scriptural phraseology. There still remained, however, some trifling blemishes, the sign of the cross being made in the bene- dictions, an apocryphal allusion being used in the prayer after the Psalm: "As thou didst send Thy angel Raphael to Thobie and Sara, the daughter of Raguel," and the word " altar " being twice employed. In the Prayer Book of 1552 the minute care of the zealous and scrupulous Reformers is marked by their intentional omission of the allusion to the angel Raphael in the prayer, the expunging of the term " altar," and the abolition of the sign of the cross in the benedictions. The very triviality of the changes, trivial, that is, as compared with the purity of the sei vice as a whole, only proves the thoroughness of their intention to achieve perfection. The Visitation of the Sick. In the service for the visitation of the sick, the three stages are equally perceptible. In the Roman and pre-Reformation Anglican services, this visita- tion service is marked, more than any other, by utterly unscriptural doctrines and superstitious practices. Prior to r I The Occasional Services, 89 the Reformation, it was customary for the priest in the English Church to present to the eyes of the sick person, the crucifix, and then to sprinkle him with holy water. Then he had to make confession, and learn what penance to perform. The priests prayed that all their benedictions and sprinklings of holy water, all h's own knockings of the breast, contritions, confessions, fasting, alms, vigiio, prayers, pilgrimages, all his good works, all injuries borne for God's sake, the Saviour's passion, the Virgin's merits and the merits of the Saints, all the prayers of the Catholic Church, might be eflfectual for the remission of his sins, the increase of his merits, and the obtaining of eternal rewards. Following this there was a direction for the sick person to kiss the crucifix, there were allusions to the granting of indulgences, there was the doctrine of extreme unction, and various supersti- tious practices connected therewith. There was a prayer, after the Roman fashion, for the soul at the time of depar- ture. Above all, everything was in Latin, and, of course, generally unintelligible. The progress made, even in the First Prayer Book, was most marked. The whole was put into a Protestant form. The crucifix was dispensed with. The unscriptural allusions to penance and merit were omitted. Extreme unction, in its superstitious Roman form, was abolished. The whole service was practically transformed. And yet there remained some elements of danger, in the shape of doubtful ex- pressions and practices; allusions to the Apocrypha, the countenancing of auricular confession, the anointing with oil, and the sign of the cross in the final rubric. " If the sick person desire to be anointed, the priest shall anoint him upon the forehead or breast only, making the sign of the cross, saying thus : * As with visible oil thy body outwardly is anointed, so our Heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant, of His infinite goodness, that thy soul inwardly may be anointed 90 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. with the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of all strength, com- fort and gladness,' " &c. In itself, the unction is a simple and scriptural practice, but in its abuse in those days it was most dangerous. The service of 1552 marks another advance. All Apoc- ryphal and unscriptural allusions are omitted. Anointing with oil and signing with the cross are done away with, and absolution is protected by the significant safeguard, " if he humbly and heartily desire it." Although, as I shall after- ward show, there still remains in this service a sentence which is capable of mischievous misconstruction, on the whole it presents one of the strongest illustrations of the onward progress of the Reformation in the Church. Communion of the Sick. In this service, according to the Roman use, all the superstitious features that mar the offering of the Mass are largely present. There is the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the adoration of the sacrament, the accompanying ceremonies, prostrations and genuflections, the holy water, and the confession of sins to the priest. In the First Book of Edward the change is remarkable^ All superstitious elements are removed, doctrinal and cere- monial, while a rubric is inserted, which, for simplicity and scriptural purity, is almost unsurpassed in the Prayer Book. The rubric, that is, to the effect that even if a man does not receive the sacrament, and yet truly repents and steadfastly believes, he is a partaker of Christ. There still remained, though, two directions which were liable to perversion into error: the direction to the priest to reserve so much of the sacrament as shall serve the sick person, and the permission to celebrate in private, solitary communion. With their usual care,, fearing, not unreasonably, the consequences that might flow from this apparently harmless procedure, the Reformers, in the revision of 1552, wholly omitted this part of the The Occasional Services, 91 lained, m into of the sion to 1 care,. : flow rmers, of the mbric which sanctions the reservation of the sacrament^ and provided, also, as a matter of necessity, that others beside the sick person should at the same time receive the communion. The intention, it need hardly be added, was to demonstrate authoritatively that the Church of England teaches that the communion is not a mere magical perform- ance wherein priest and recipient alone are necessary, but a real communion of believers unitin[; together to remember the Lord's death till He come. The change to some may seem trivial ; but in those days, as in these, the practice of reserving the elements, and of celebrating a solitary com- munion, was decidedly dangerous. While not necessarily Romish, it countenanced and tended to superstitious practices. In our present services both practices are 'dis- allowed, and rubrics have been inserted which exclude all possibility of a return to them. It may not be out of place here, in view of the persistent efforts that are being made by a certain party in the Church of England to undo the work of the Reformation, and to stealthily and openly introduce erroneous doctrines and unrubrical practices, to emphasize the point that these precautions were mainly made to prevent any possible return through tiny openings to Roman corrup- tions, especially Roman corruptions of doctrine in relation to the Holy Communion. In fact, these two rubrics in the " Communion of the Sick," are, in themselves alone, one of the strongest, if not the strongest. Prayer Book bulwarks against Popery, and deserve a prominence which has not generally been accorded to them. The rubric before the service, requiring as a minimum number, that three, or at least two, besides the sick man, shall communicate, renders the private celebration of the Mass an impossibility in the English Church. It also most effectually disposes of the Romish idea of the final reception of the Eucharist being indispensable to the soul's r I ^ t 92 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, passage to Christ. The mbric enjoining that the absence of other communicants is to be reckoned as a just impediment, most effectually reprobates, in the Church of England, the doctrine of the necessity of the sacrament as a kind of viaticum for the soul. If it held this doctrine, it certainly could not teach that such a trivial matter as the absence of one or two others should be considered as a just impediment to the dying man's acceptance of the body and blood of Christ, and deny to him the Holy Communion, unless in the exceptional case of contagious disease. The other rubric, after the service, declares that if the sick man repents and believes, &c., he doth eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth. In order to understand the full significance of this statement, the reader must compare it with Article 29. Art. XXIX. " Of the wicked which eat not the body nj Christ in the Lord's Supper. The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the sacrament 0/ the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ : but, rather, to their con- demnation do eat and drink the sign, or sacrament, <)f so great a thing." Rubric: Communion of the Sick. "But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the Curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the r 1 The Occasional Services. 93 body and blood of our Saviour, Christ, profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." Those without living faith, although they do partake of the sacrament, are not partakers of Christ. This is the teaching of the Article. Those with living faith, although they do not partake of the sacrament, are partakers of Christ. This is the teaching of the Rubric. Taken in conjunction, they conclusively prove that the Church of England does not hold the Romish "ex opere operato" theory of the sacraments. The reception of Christ lies not so much in the consecrated bread as in the consecrated heart. If the bread be conse- crated, and the heart is not, there is no communion with Christ ; and though the bread be not blessed, and the cup be not blessed, yet if, in the absence of the consecrated elements, the heart feed with faith on Christ, the Living Bread, there is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. The Churching of ll^omen. The service for the thanks- giving of women after child-birth, or the churching of women, though of minor importance and devoid of doctrinal signification, presents also the same instructive gradation. In the Prayer Book of 1549, no such thing as allusions to the intercessions of the Virgin Mary, or sprinkling with holy water, as in the Roman and Sarum uses, is to be found. The service throughout is plain and simple ; and in the perfection service of 1552, even the word "purification," and the offering of the infant's baptismal mantle, are done away with. The Burial Service. In the burial service, the Protestant position of our Prayer Book is very marked indeed, and the progressive stages deserve the most careful consideration. In this service, let it be remembered, an easy opportunity is presented for reproducing many of the most unscriptural doctrines and superstitious practices of Rome. It is a service that deals almost wholly with the unseen world. ^ 'fc U : 94 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Any departure, therefore, from the exact teaching of holy scripture, is sure 1o be followed by corrupt and misleading" usages. We find this was accordingly the case in the pre- Reformation service of the English Church. False doctrine and vain ceremonial mingle, from beginning to end. A mass is said for the soul of the departed. Prayers are offered for the pardon of his sins. The corpse is censed with incense. Three times the priest walks round the body, each time sprinkling it from the vessel of incense. Holy water is cast upon it. Requiems are made for his soul. The grave itself is sprinkled with holy water and covered with incense. Absolution is pronounced to the body as it descends into the grave. Earth is placed on it in the shape of a cross, and incense sprinkled on that. Requiems again are chanted, the service concluding with a final prayer for the soul of the departed. The change from this service, with its traditionary superstitions, to the service of the First Prayer Book of Edward, is like passing from thick darkness to the light of early day. All is in English. The greater part of it is intelligible and scriptural. The formalities and varieties of ceremonialism are discarded. There is no incense, no holy water, no requiem chanting, no signing of the cross, no offering of the Mass. At the same time, and who can wonder, there were blemishes. One, especially, was most noticeable. A great part of the service was drawn up as if intended for the dead, and not for the living. The prayers were prayers for the dead as well as for the living. The committal of the body to the grave was accompanied with a commenda- tion of his soul to God by the priest. " Then the priest, casting earth upon the corpse, shall say, I commend thy soul to God the Father," Sec. " We commend into Thy hands of mercy (most merciful Father) the soul of this our brother r The Occasional Services. 95 were departed . . . that when the Judgment shall come, both this our brother and we may be found acceptable in Thy sight, and receive that blessing which Thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear Thee, saying," &c. And so agaiu : " O Lord, with whom do live the spirits of them that be dead, and with whom the souls," &c. "... grant unto this. Thy servant, that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed to him ; but that he, escaping the gates of hell, may ever dwell in the region of light," &c. In fact, these prayers for the dead, and they were no doubt dangerous and indicative of graver erroneous doctrines, were the only real blot upon the reformed service of 1549. In the service of i552 all was achieved that was necessary to perfect the service, and now everything is removed from this service that could coun- tenance superstition. In three respects the Protestantism of the Burial Service is remarkable. First : In that it totally omits all prayers for the dead. The omission is most noteworthy on account of the prayers in the first reformed Prayer Book, and the difficulty of avoiding the allusion to the dead. See in the prayer, " Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord," &c., how carefully they now shun all approach to a prayer for the departed, and how skilfully the direction-current of the prayer is turned. Twice in the first book the soul of the departed is committed into the hands of God ; once by the priest alone, and once by priest and people together in prayer; and three times united prayer is made on his behalf. All this is now abolished completely. Second : In that it distinctly repudiates the Popish superstition of purgatory, according to which the souls of the departed rest in a condition of more or less misery until they be purged and prepared for the presence of God. The > I 1 1 n 1 •ii tii -n I 96 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Prayer Book clearly teaches here that the souls of the departed "are in joy and felicity," and distinctly discards the Popish falsity of a purgatorial flame. Third : In that it evidently intends the whole service for the living; not for the dead. The commendations and prayers iov the dead are changed into prayers for the living who participate in the service. The prayer that he — the departed — " may be found acceptable in Thy sight, and hear the sweet words of Christ, * Come, ye blessed children of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you,' " is changed into a prayei that the offerer of the prayer, and the bystanders, may be raised from the death of sin, and accepted at last by the Son of God. The Church of Eng- land thus emphasizes, in the most solemn of her services, the truth that life is the only opportunity for conversion, and that prayers for the dead are worthless and unscriptural. In this connection, another fact may be noticed. The remarkable freedom of the Burial Service from every trace of Romish and traditional error is no more significant than the precision with which the whole service adheres to the lines of Scripture. With openings on every hand in the direction of spurious teachings ; with every facility, so to speak, for lapsing into error ; it has nevertheless, in the good providence of God, been preserved in the strait path of simplicity, wisdom, true doctrine, and charity. If, on the one hand, it gives no countenance to the Popish superstition of purgatory, or the unscriptural practice of prayers for the dead, it offers as little countenance, on the other hand, to popular, though thoroughly erroiieous, concept! )ns. loo many, in starting baci: from the Scylla of Popish superstition, fall into the Charybdis of popular superstition ; and in abhorring the doctrine of an intermediate state in purgatory, forget the doctrine of an ''ntermediate state at all. The popular idea of the state after death is an entrance into The Occasional Services. 97 1 of the discards •vice for ons and le living he — the ind hear Idren of ) »i • OU, IS and the sin, and of Eng- services, ion, and riptural. d. The trace of than the he lines irection eak, for )vidence iplicity, hand, it rgatory, it offers though Popish stition J state in e at all. ice into heaven that shuts out practically the very notion of the personal second coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a judgment both for believers and the unfaithful according to their works, and the resurrection of the body. The great, overwhelming, and all-prominent docirine em- phasized by tho Church in the Creeds, the Communion Service, the season of Advent, and so many of tbc; prayers of our personal relation to our glorified Saviour, who is to come again in person, at whose coming " the c^ead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed," "who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory," is, for all practical purposes, obscured, or destroyed, by the idea that, at death, the soul enters either into heaven or hell, and everything that con- cerns its felicity or misery is settled then, a.id there, and for ever. Now, the Burial Se^ice, by closely adhering to the very- lines of Scripture, not only gives no countenance to such a heresy, but offers the most powerful antidote to it by holding forth the truth of the Word. It lifts the heart and mind throughout upwards and onwards, right on to Him " who is the resurrection and the life," and to the resurrection of the body, through Him, to glory. While it says very little about the intermediate state of the believer, what it does say is precisely similar to the veiy rare and brief allusions of Holy Writ. From the New Testament, we gather that the souls of departed believers are "with Christ," "at rest," and are in a state of happiness far transcending that of earth, and, as far as earth is concerned, are "asleep in Jesus." See Phil. i. 23 J Rev. xiv. 13 j Luke xvi. 22 ; xxiii. 43 ; and I. Thess. iv. 14. In the Burial Service, the only allusions to the intermediate state are these, and these only : " The dead which die in the Lord are blessed, for they rest from their labours." 7 /•' 98 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. J !l " The souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity." "Christ hath taught us not t) be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in Him." " The soul of the departed has been taken by Almighty God to Himself." But the hope, the object of intelligent expectation, set prominently forth, and prayed for, is not a mere vague, indefinite, indiscriminate heaven, as multitudes superstitiously believe, but the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, "who shall change our vile body," &c., Phil. iii. 2ij the accomplishment of the number of His elect in this dispensa- tion, according to Acts xv. 145 and the consummation of all in the kingdom of the glory of our blessed Redeemer. As to the indiscriminate use of this service over the unbeliever and the believer alike, I need only add that it is a difficulty that, in my opinion, has been needlessly exag- gerated. The service is only for those who are professedly believers. For the excouuiiunicate and the unbaptized, it is expressly forbidden. It is for those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, and have taken the solemn vows of his religion. It is not for those who, by open impiety or deliberate disobedience, have been expelled from the com- munion of the saints. If, even among those who are professedly the Lord's, there are brought for burial some whose lives seem to have been careless, it is nevertheless an act of most tremendous responsibility for any fallible man to pronounce himself so infallibly sure of the state of the deceased as to declare him shut out from the hope of the resurrection to life. The language of c]^aritable presumption is nowhere less out of place. At the same time, a stricter enforcement of discipline on the part of all branches of the Christian Church, and even a relaxation of the words of committal into such form as that employed in the r I The Occasional Services. 99 American Church, in the opinion of many, would be most desirable. The Commination Service alone remains. With regard to the Commination Service, whatever opinions men may have as to its usefulness, it certainly cannot be held amenable to the accusation of Popery. The ceremonial of the benedic- tion of the ashes has been discarded, and all is simple, natural, and plain. Nor is it, as some men have carelessly asserted, a service for cursing our neighbours. No man curses any one. It were impious to do so in the face of the Master's prohibition, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." The minister simply reads out " the general sentences of God's cursing against impenitent sinners " — a very different thing — that the man that maketh any carved image, curseth father and mother, &c., is cursed ; that is, the wrath of God abideth on him as long as he remains impenitent ; and the people admit the righteousness and reality of that judgment by answering. Amen ! As to the exhortation that follows, we question whether in the whole compass of the Prayer Book there is to be found an address more fervent, more scriptural, more touching in its pathos, more searching in its appeal; and one that is more calculated to arouse the Impenitent, and lead unconverted souls to Christ. From first to last it breathes the spirit of the yearning Christ, and is wholly interpenetrated with the purity of evangelical fervour. Herein is nothing of priestly absolution, sacra- mental efficacy, or reception into the fold of the Church. There may be, and are, lost, unconverted, and unregenerate souls, and in pleading, simple tones, it exhorts the hearer to turn to God ere it be too late, to come for pardon and newness of life, not to the priest, nor to the sacrament, but to Christ, the alone Advocate and Mediator. Of course, in all these services, it must also be remem- bered that there are manv changes in the direction of 7* 11 II 1-^ ir r I 100 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Protestantism which it is impossible to enumerate. For instance, the discarding of the word " altar " and the substi- tution of the Lord's Table, or the Table, in its place; the absence of allusion to the various vestments prescribed for the priest in the early services; the entire sweeping away„ in short, of all the trivial and vain rubrical directions of these vitiated liturgies. Small things in themselves, they are valuable as affording additional evidence, and demonstrate,, along with the foregoing indisputable testimonies, the thoroughgoing Protestantism of the Prayer Book as reformed in 1552, and at present established. ii /■ I CHAPTER VII, THE ABSOLUTION IN THE VISITATION OF THE SICK. A^TE have now examined in detail the various features of those services which constitute the main body of the Book of Common Prayer. The only portions which still remain for consideration, as offering any serious difficulty to the Protestant Churchman, are the rubric with regard to confession in the visitation of the sick, the form of absolu- tion, and the words employed by the bishop in the ordination service, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." The material magnitude of these phrases is so inconsiderable that they might be eliminated from the Prayer Bock, without reducing its size one quarter of a page ; but as far as their doctrinal significance is concerned, they are of the utmost importance, inasmuch as they have been made the ground for the advocacy and introduction of some of the most pernicious of Romish teachings. I do not for a moment pretend that I shall be able to remove all difficulties from sentences which involve some of the knottiest points in the Bible as well as in the Prayer Book ; but I propose to offer a few arguments for considera- tion in proof that whatever the objections to those sentences may be, they do not and cannot teach the doctrine of Rome. The teaching of the Church of Rome with regard to absolu- tion, confession, and ordination, is very definite, and very deadly, and any one who understands at all the connection of confession, absolution, and ordination, with the Roman theological system, will see at once, after a careful study of the position and method of the teaching of the Church of 3 /•' 102 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. England on these points, that it is essentially removed from that of Rome. v I would ask the reader in this chapter, therefore, to read the rubric which authorizes the confession to he made, and then carefully and dispassionately to investigate the form, conditions, and circumstances, of the absolution which is permitted. The rubric reads as follows : " Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter ; after which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort : Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences ; and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The question of auricular confession is of such importance that it deserves a chapter to itself, and therefore ^,he subject of the absolution will be offered now for our exclusive con- sideration. A form of absolution is used three times in our Prayer Book as it now stands. First, in the opening of Morning and Evening Prayer, after the General Confession. This absolution, as has been shown before, is manifestly declara- tory. It is the simple pronunciation of the blessed Gospel message, that " He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His Holy Gospel." Its very purity and scripturalness make it beautiful, and at the same time precious, to all Protestants, as a bulwark of the Faith once delivered to the saints. No one could distort it by any means into a support of the P oman dogma of abso- lution. /-' Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 103 Second, in the Communion Service. This form is also one of remarkable pathos and beauty. " Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, who of His great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance- and true faith turn unto Him, have mercy upon you ; pardon, and deliver you from all your sins ; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." This, as any one can see in a moment, is simply a commendatory prayer, and could be offered, not merely by a bishop or minister of God, but by any devout follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. It carries in it nothing exclusively appertaining to the minis- terial office, much less distinctively peculiar to sacerdotal authority. In the Order of the Communion which was published in 1548, the first authoritative Church service ever issued in English, the absolution was somewhat different : — " Our blessed Lord, who hath left power to His church to absolve penitent sinners from their sins, and to restore to the grace of the Heavenly Father such as truly believe in Christ, have mercy upon you ; pardon and deliver you from all your sins," &c., &c. But for a good purpose the Reformers substituted, in the place of this form, those beautiful words of consolation above quoted, which are so familiar to all Church people as the absolution of the Communion office. These, then, are the two forms of absolution constantly employed in the Church of England. They are heard by millions every week, as the forms of absolution of the Church of England in common use, and they set forth, as often as they are pronounced, the striking fact, that the theory of doctrine with regard to absolution in the Church of England is totally removed from the system of the Church of Rome, and irre- concilable with it. They destroy the very foundations of PI 104 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. sacerdotalism, by not vesting in the priest the power to remit sins by the judicial act of absolution. Third, the form in the service for the visitation of the sick, a form which so many suppose to be incapable of defence from the Protestant standpoint. On the face of it, it certainly seems Romish. Its position, following the exhortation to special con- fession ; its form, so like the Roman ; above all, the ex- pression " I absolve thee," all point to Popery, pure and simple. That it is, however, far removed from the Popish absolution, a little reasoning and reflection will su/ely prove. In the first place, it is well to consider ivho it is that is said to forgive — " Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . jf His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences." He it is alone who can lift the weighty load from the sinner's conscience. As the sin is against Him, so He must forgive. Not the priest, but the Lord Jesus is here distinctly declared to be the forgiver of sin. Having, then, mad»j this declaration, and offered this prayer, the priasl pronounces the sentence, " by His authority " — that is, by the authority of John xx. 2.3 — " I absolve thee." If the former sentence were omitted, then we should be compelled to believe that a human priest was judicially pronouncing, as Christ's vicar in his sacerdotal character, a Divine sentence ; but since that sentence is not omitted, but distinctly declares that Christ forgives, we may believe that this sentence of absolution, even though couched in the first person, the present tense, and the indicative mood, was nut intended by the Reformers to carry with it any countenancing of the Roman doctrine. The whole theological position ol the Reformers justifies this assertion. Interpreted thus, it stands in conformity with the rest of the Prayer Book, and, though liable to abuse, it is not Popish. Interpreted otherwise, it is an unreasonable 1 1 Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 105 and iinintelHgil)le blot, which the Reformers would never have tolerated, much less have themselves composed and inserted For the aholiition, ns it stands in the Prnyt-r Booh io-day, is /trecisc/t/ the same as the aisolittinn in the Second Book of Edward VI. There is not the slightest alteration of any kind whatever, save the substitution of the pronoun ■"who" for the more archaic "which." That Book, com- posed under the supervision of the most Protestant minds of the Reformation, and by the careful anti-Romish zeal of scripturally enlightened men, contained precisely the same formula for absolution, under the precisely same conditions. It must not be supposed, therefore, that this is the pro- duction of the semi-Reform days of 1549, or an addition of any later era of sacerdotal reaction. It is not. It is the deliberate judgment of the fully enlightened Reformers, •expressed in their carefully finished work of 1552. It is, morenver, a form which was sanctioned by the sense of the Continental Reformers, inasmuch as it has been retained in the Protestant confessions of Augsburg, Bohemia, and Saxony, and was approved by John Calvin. This fact, which has been pointed out by Fausset in his work on the Prayer Book, is worthy of consideration. But the objection will, perhaps, be offered : The Roman form may be defended by precisely the same argument. In it the words " Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat " stand before the judicial sentence of the priest, " Et ergo auctoritate ipsius te absolvo." If, then, in the Anglican, so in the Roman form of absolution, it is not the priest, but the Lord that absolves. Not so. Though at first sight the words seem precisely similar, there are two points of differ- ence which are worthy of emphasis. In the first place, there is a distinction made in the Anglican form between the forgiveness of the Lord and the absolution of the priest. The Lord Jesus Christ forgives ; the priest exercises the 1 io6 Protestantism of the Prayer Ihwk. ministerial function of absolution — tlu* drciaration, by ai> appointed authority, of the relaxation of God's penalty. In the Roman form it is, "Christ absolves thee . . . and I absolve thee." In the next place, the conditional rep«Mitance and belief in (Christ is put prominently into position in the Anglican form. In the Roman form, it is entirely omitted. Only those who repent and believe in Ilim can be entitled to receive from His ministers the comfortal)le assurance of the forgiveness of their sins. But there is another consideration that demonstrates strongly the fundamental difference between the two forms, and extracts from this resolution the sting of Popery. I do not say this consideration alters in any way the expressions of the form, or palliates the obnoxiousness of the absolution considered in itself. But it does establish the fact that there is such a difference between this absolution and the priestly absolution of the Roman Church, as to relieve the Prayer Book from the charge of Popery pure and simple. The consideration is this. In the Church of Rome, confession and absolution are indispensable, and a positive necessity. It is the highest function of the priest to receive the one and impart the other. It is absolutely necessary, not only for ultimate salvation, but also for the reception of the eucharist, that the priest should pronounce this absolution, and that each member of the Church should duly receive it. It is the corner stone of the whole sacerdotal structure. Remove it, and the structure falls to the ground. If there is no confession, there is no absolution ; if there is no absolution, there is no real accept- ance and forgiveness. It is the necessity of the Roman act of absolution, therefore, which constitutes its evil. Now, this fact is the strongest apology for the form of absolution in the Visitation of the Sick in the Church of England Prayer Book that can be offered. While the- Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 107 Roman form is uniformly employed and absolutely neces- sary, the Prayer Book form is never necessarily employed^ and by millions is never used at al'. It occurs in an occasional service, but is never necessarily enjoined. With Rome, it is indispensable, and of the highest impcjrtance. Rome enjoins its use for every mem'.jer of the Church. The Church of England never absolutely enjoins it, and only rarely permits it. Tiiat the Church of England, therefore, attaches no such importance to priestly absolution, and denies in toto the Roman doctrine, is proved by the fact that this form of absolution is fettered with such limitations as tt> bring it practically into disuse. (i) It occurs onlij in the service for the Visitation of the Sick. (3) It not only occurs in this service alone, but this service, as has been pointed out, is the only service in the Prayer Book which need not be emp/oyed by the minister, unless he so please. The other services aie imposed. This is optional. According to Canon 67, die minister, when he visits the sick, " shall instruct and comfort them according to the rules of the Communion, if he be no preacher ; or, if he be a preacher, as he shall think most needful and convenient." And inasmuch as the Canons of 1603- 1604 were passed by both Houses of Convocation, and received the assent of the Sovereign, as head of the Church, though never passed by Parliament, their authority is sufficient to justify the clergy- man in making use in this service of any other form at his discretion. (3) It is only for the sick, and as the whole service goes to show, only the really seriously sick. (4) It is only to be used in case the sick one feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. If he does not feel this— if his conscience is not troubled — if the matter " I r I io8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. !'b i.;!. be not weighty — then he is not to be moved to make a special confession. (j) The absolution is only to be pronounced ii—if — he humbly and heartily desire it. This limitation effectually demolishes the Popish character of the absolution, for absolution is an indispensable necessity, or it is nothing. It is impossible to conceive of Rome permitting her priests to limit their absolution to such as humbly desire it, or emasculating it of its authority by such man-devised " ifs ! " By teaching here that this absolution is not indispensable, that it is not a necessity for every sinning son of the Church, the Church of England destroys its Romish character, and induces it to an inoffensive formula. As has been well said, "The actual practice of the Church is utterly inconsistent vith the notion that this absolution is a Divine sentence. If it were a Divine sentence, the Church would not have limited its use as above, nor allowed its total disuse, but would have taken care that every minister employed and every member received it." In fact, when one takes into consideration the whole circumstances of this absolution — the chamber of sickness, the approach of death, the solem- nity of the surroundings, the unburdening of the conscience, the earnest desire for the assuring voice of God's minister ; when one considers, moreover, that it occurs in a service but rarely employed, and indeed not necessarily even at any time ; above all, when one considers that its use is entirely left, not merely to the option of the minister, but to the desire of the sick person, and that it is followed by as fervent and evusigelical a prayer for pardon as is to be found within the comp.iss of the Prayer Book — a prayer, moreover, that is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of the Authoritative conveyal of priestly absolution — the most prejudiced mind must see how small a ground it affords for Absohitio7i in Visitation of the Sick. 109 the accusation of undisguised Popery, and for the justifi- cation of the practices of the Romanizing school in the Church. Even though its presence may be regretted by many, candour must acknowledge that, as far as its practical effects are concerned, the defect is insignificant. T do not say that it is not a defect. In my opinion it is, because it offers to the Romanizing school a lever for the introduction of false teaching, by considering the sentence apart from its context, and without reference to the views of the compilers, and the body of the Prayer Book, taken as a whole. To a school of men who are "haunted by no intellectual per- plexities," it is a matter of no consequence that there is. absolutely no justification whatever for the employment of this formula in any other place, or under any circumstances, other than those particularly specified in the foregoing^ rubrics ; that to use it, for instance, in any other place than the house of the sick, or to any other person than one very sick, with a troubled conscience, at his humble and hearty^ desire, is to act lawlessly as a minister of the Church of England. So far, indeed, is it a defect ; but in so far as, honesty and obedience to truth and law remains in the Church, it is a defect which has, in the good providence of God, been reduced by the limitations by which it is sur- rounded to its practical minimum. As the question is one of great interest to Churchmen, I subjoin the views of two well-known authorities on the Book of Common Prayer, representing the two great schools of thought in the Church. Wheatly supposes that this form of absolution seems, only to respect the censures of the Church, and lays much stress upon the expressions of the Collect that immediately follows. " If," says he, " we look forward to the Collect immediately after to be used, it looks as if the Church did only intend the remission of ecclesiastical censures and. li ,. i. 1 10 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. bonds. For in that prayer the penitent is said still to most ■earnestly desire pardon and forgiveness, which surely there would be no occasion to do if he had been actually pardoned and forgiven by God, by virtue of the absolution pronounced before. Again, the priest offers a special request, that God would preserve and continue him in the unity of the Church ; which seems to suppose that the foregoing absolution had been pronounced in order to restore him to its peace." He then goes on to show that the authority promised to St. Peter and the other apostles — Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18 — was a power of admitting to or excluding from Church com- munion, for it is expressed by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. " Binding and loosing signify the same things that we now express by excommunicating and absolving, and it is the opinion of some that the power committed to the apostles of remitting and retaining sins confers only a power of excommunicating and absolving, and consequently that no authority can be urged from hence for the applying of God's pardon to the conscience of a sinner, or for absolv- ing him any otherwise than from the censures of the Church." That these words in St. John xx. 23, give no power to us, in the present state of the Church, to forgive or remit sins in the name of God is clear to Wheatly from the fact that with the apostles this power was conjoined with the power of healing diseases. The power of forgiving sins " is only to be interpreted of an extraordinary power which accompanied the inflicting, or continuing, or removing dis- eases." In the primitive Church, this authority to pardon or forgive sins was nev^r considered to appertain to the ministers of the Gospel, nor was such authority ever pre- tended to for a great many centuries after Christ. Absolution was alv/ays correlative with public discipline, and the relaxa- tion of this discipline was accon)panied with prayers after the optative form. Even when, as late as the twelfth Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. iii -century, the indicative form was introduced, it was made use of only to reconcile the penitent to the Church, while the deprecatory form was supposed to procure his pardon from God. In applying the pardon of God to a sinner's conscience, the power of the priest is only ministerial, and therefore the form is precatory rather than peremptory. But in restoring a. man to the peace of the Church, the minister exercises a judicial authority. It is evident, then, in Wheatly's opinion, that this absolution was not intended to countenance the unscriptural and demoralizing doctrine of the Roman Church, that the priests have a power invested in them to release a sinner from the wrath of God, &c., but rather to restore, under strong and narrowing limitations, the practice of the early Church with regard to discipline. He concludes this argument by a comparison of the rubric in the First Book of Edward VI., where these words occur : " After which con- fession, the priest shall absolve him after this form ; and the same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions." But in the Second Book: "Our Reformers, observing that persons might place too much confidence in it, and thinking that the bare pronouncing it over them cleansed them from their inward pollution and guilt, and entirely remitted their sins before God, left out that rubric, and in the exhortation to the Communion altered the expres- sion to show that the benefit of absolution (of absolution, I presume, from inward guilt) was not to be received by the pronouncing of any form, but by the due application and ministry of God's Holy Word. So that all the minister seems here empowered to transact, in order to quiet the conscience of a person that applies to him for advice, is only to judge by the outward signs whether his conversion be real and sincere ; and if, upon examination, it appears to be so, he is then to comfort him with an assurance that his 112 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. sins are remitted, even in the Court of Heaven, and that he is restored to the grace and favour of Christ. But this he is- to deHver, not absolutely, but conditionally ; that is, upon the presumption that his repentance is as sincere as he represents it." Wheatly's theory is reasonable, and is worthy of considera- tion. His last argument especiallj'- is very strong ; in fact, it is this. If the Reformers, by their deliberate expurgation of the injunction to use this form in private confessions, and by their equally deliberate omission of the injunction in the Communion Service to come to the priest and confess that he may receive absolution, meant anything, they meant that confession and absolution were not necessary for the remission of their sins before God. Therefore they must have meant something else ; and it is reasonable to believe that it was left in this occasional and rarely-uced service in accordance with the practice of the primitive Church in binding and loosing ecclesiastical discipline. Hole, in his manual of the Book of Common Prayer, gives a somewhat similar explanation. I give his words without alteration : ** The office of ahsolufion : its nalure. The first of the three fo.ms, by its manner of referring to its authority, understands that the minister's office, as conveyed by St. John XX. 23, is to declare the absolving grace of God, and assure the penitent of it. In the third absolution, therefore, since it is founded on the same authority, as itself more expressly declares, the minister must needs consider that he discharges an office of the same nature, and he must understand the words * I absolve thee ' as an equivalent form to * I declare and pronounce unto thee God's absolving grace.' *' The effects of the absolution. The first form, after declar- ing the pardon and absolution of those who truly repent. yives thout the lority, by God, ution, tself isider must form )lving Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 113 goes on to exhort us to pray for true repentance. It is followed also by the Lord's Prayer, which supplicates forgive- ness. On the twenty-first and twenty-fourth Sundays after Trinity, notwithstanding that pardon and absolution have been already declared, both are prayed for in the Collect for the day. Absolution is also prayed for in the Commination; renciission and forgiveness in the Litany; and on Ash Wednesday the second form is also succeeded, though not immediately, by the Lord's Prayer and its petition for pardon ; while next to this again comes a prayer in which God is most humbly besought to grant remission of sins. In the case of the third absolution, the after prayer for pardon is more especially noticeable. The penitent has confessed with an express view to absolution ; the precatory absolution, 'Our Lord absolve thee,' has succeeded ; then the official sentence, I absolve thee ' ; and still there immediately follows a very full and most earnest supplication by the minister, that God would put away the sin of His servant who is still desiring pardon and forgive- ness ; and that God will continue him in the unity of the Church, and will not impute unto him his former sins. The penitent is not thus lulled into a false security, as though the Church's absolution completed the remission, and took effect like a judge's sentence in court by the utterance of the words, or like the words which complete the act of baptism, or the act of marriage -, he is not made to suppose that the official sentence settles his account with God. The office of a minister in absolution is to present, in the name of God, a remission of sins as a gift to the penitent, which he himself must take up, either then or thereafter, by his own personal and individual faith in Christ, and true repentance." Substantially, his view is similar to Wheatly's on this point. Both agree that the succeeding prayer for pardon 8 114 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Auricular Confession. 121 ^ that he may rt jeivc such gliostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us (as of the ministers of God, and of the (-luirch) he may receive comfort and absolution to the satisfaction of his mind, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness; requir- ing such as shall be satisfied with a general confession not to be offended with them that do use, to their further satisfying, the aiirittilar and secret cnnf'i'ssiun to the firiest; nor those also which . . . particularly open their sins to the priest, to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble con- fession to God, and the general confession to the Church." Now, in this exhortation two things are very noticeable. First — That while auricular confession is not to 1 >\ enforced upon the members of the Church of England, it is to be freely allowed to those who desire it. Second — That the confes- sion so permitted is undoubtedly what is now generally known as auricular confession, involving secrecy in confession and absolution on the part of an authorized priest. The words confession, absolution, auricular, had, in those days, very definite meanings j and they mean, on the whole, precisely what they mean in the Roman Catholic usage to-day. Now, compare with this the exhortation as it is found in our Prayer Book to-day. " Therefore, if there be any of you who cannot by this means (that is, by repentance and self- examination) quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief j that, ly the munstrij of God's Holy JVbrd, he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." The differ- ence is as the difference of darkness and light. Instead of " to me, or to some other discreet and learned Priest," it is, 122 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, I ,■ 'i ■f i'- :. 1 " to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's Word," the contrast being intentionally marked because v of the traditional and universal connection of the priest with the ac'i, of confession. If the word priest is ever used in the Prayer Book as implying a dustinctly sacerdotal office,, it should be used here. But here, in this very place, it has been purposely omitted. Instead of absolution from the priest, the benelit of absolution is to be obtained by the ministry of God's Holy Word ; that is, by the application of the many great and precious promises of the Bible, by the minister unfolding to the penitent the declarations of the Word which may be applicable to him. But above all, the per- mission to use "the auricular and secret confession to the priest " is entirely left out, and by this purposed and most important omission, auricular confession is abolished com- pletely from the Church of England. That this was clearly the intention of the Church is shown, moreover, by another fact which demonstrates the matter beyond all dispute. In the service for the Visitation of the Sick in the First Prayer Book, these words occur after the examination of the sick man by i.he minister: "Here shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. Afte~ which confession, the Priest shall absolve him after this form j and the same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions." The latter sentence admits the use of private confessions, and makes provision for the manner of absolution. In the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. this sentence was carefully omitted, and it has never been inserted since, so that there is now in the Church of England no authorization for the employment of any form of absolution in jirivate confessions. By two strong blows, the practice of auricular confession : has been demolished. ' Auricular Confession. 123 The first blow was given by sweeping away from the exhortation in the Communion Service the mention of auricular confession. The second blow by sweeping from the Visitation rubric any possible mtans of performing it^ The omission of these words, " the same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions," is really one of the most Protestant features in the Prayer Book, for it cuts out the very roots of one of the deadliest of Roman doctrines. These two facts are surely sufficient to establish the matter. Finally, to banish all doubt as to the plain teaching of the Ch'^rch of England with regard to auricular confession, I would quote these outspoken words from the Homily on Repentance. After proving confession of sin unto God to be one of the parts of repentance, and confession to brother-man also need- ful and necessary, according to the teaching of our blessed Lord and His apostle St. James, Matt. v. 235 Jas. v. 16,. the Homily continues : " And whereas the adversaries (that is, the Papists) go about to wrast this place for to maintain their auricular confession withal, they are greatly deceived themselves, and do shamefully deceive others. For, if this text ought to be understanded of auricular confession, then the priests are as much bound to confess themselves unto the lay people as the lay people are bound to confess unto them. And, if to pray is to absolve, then the laity by this place, hath as great authority to absolve the priests, as the priests have to absolve the laity. This die Johannes Scotus^ otherwise called Duns, well perceive, whci, upon this place, writeth on this manner : ' Neither doth it seem unto me that James did give this commandment, or that he did set it forth as being received of Christ. For, first and foremost, whence had he authority to bind the whole Church, since that he was only bishop of the church at Jerusalem ? Ex- cept thou wilt say that the same church was, at the begin- 11 it } ^ i'' • I ♦ 'i, 124 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. ning, the head church, and that consequently that he was the head bishop, which thing the See of Rome will never grant. The understanding of it then is, as in these words, ' confess your sins one to another,' a persuasion to humility, whereby he willeth us to confess ourselves generally unto our neigh- bours that we are sinners, according to this saying, 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' And where that they do allege this saying of our Saviour Jesu Christ unto the leper to prove auricular confession to stand on God's Word, * Go thy way, and shovv^ thyself unto the priest,' do they not see that the leper was cleansed from his leprosy afore he was by Christ sent unto the priest for to show himself unto him ? By the same reason, we must be cleansed from our spiritual leprosy, I mean, our sins must be forgiven us afore that we come to confession. What need we, then, to tell forth our sins into the ear of the priest, since that they be already taken away ? Therefore, holy Ambrose, in his second sermon on the one hundred and nineteenth Psalm, doth say full well, * Go, show thyself unto the priest ; who is the true priest but He which is the Priest for ever after the order of Melchixcdec?^ Whereby this holy father doth understand that, both the priesthood and the law being changed, we ought to acknow- ledge none other priest for deliverance from our sins but our Saviour Jesus Christ, who, being our sovereign Bishop, doth with the sacrifice of His body and blood, offered once for ever on the altar of the cross, most effectually cleanse the spiritual leprosy, and wash away the sins of all those that, with true confession of the same, do flee unto Him. It is most evident and plain that this auricular confession hath not his warrant of God's Word, else it had been lawful for Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, upon a just occasion to have put it down. For when anything ordained of God Auricular Confession. 125 was the jr grant. confess whereby r neigh- ;, * If we tie truth lying of luricular id show jper was ?nt unto le same prosy, I come to sins into 1 away ? the one to, show e which izedec ? " (oth the cknow- lut our jp, doth once inse the se that, It is )n hath ^ful for ccasion of God is by the lewdness of men abused, the abuse ought to be taken away and the thing itself sutfered to remain. More- over, these are St. Augustine's words : ' What have I to do with men that they should hear my confession, as though they were able to heal all my diseases ? A curious sort of men to know another man's life, and slothful to correct or amend their own. Why do they seek to hear of me what I am, which will not hear of thee what they are ? And how can they tell, when they hear by me of myself whether I tell the truth or not, since no mortal man knoweth what is in man, bat the spirit of man which is in him ? ' Augustine would not have written thus if auricular confession had been used in his time. Being, therefore, not led with the conscience thereof, let us, with fear and trembling, and with a true contrite heart, use that kind of confession that God doth command in His word j and then, doubtless, as He is faithful and righteous. He will forgive us our sins, and make us clean from all wickedness. I do not say but that, if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, or to some other godly learned man, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God's Word ; but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance." — Homilies, S.P.C.K. ^^•» P- 575' ^' ^^'J- Of course, it must be remembered that the Homilies, though generally containing sound doctrine, are not to be considered as possessed of verbal authority, or as being in every sentence and particular statement doctrinally infallible. They are not. As far as some specific statements go, they are erroneous; and as far as their binding authority goes> 126 i:. k lii f'> f ■' l\ Protestantism of the Prayer Book, they are subsidiary to the Articles. On the whole, they voice the sentiments of the Reformers and the teaching of the Church, and, as discourses, were admirably adapted to the times for which they were drawn up, by their forcible exhibition of plain truths; they show forth, too, most authori- tatively, the mind of the Church of England with regard to the more serious errors of the Church of Rome ; and though not claiming particular infallibility for each utterance on the subject, they yet most strikingly declare that auricular con- fession in the Church of England is utterly inadmissible. In the time of blindness and ignorance, it was in place. But now, by God's grace, we have been delivered from these things. To sum up : The practice of auricular confession has no warrant in the Church of England. It is opposed at once to the Articles, the Homilies, the Canons, and the Rubrics of the Prayer Book. Those who plead that the rubric in the service for the Visitation of the Sick is a justification for the practice, are condemned by the rubric itself. Auricular confession is necessary, secret, and entire. This rubric enjoins a confession which is partial and peculiar, not entire; in a house, and not in the confessional box ; before others, and not of necessity secretly ; optional, not indispensable ; in very rare cases, not for all. The Church of Rome makes auricular confession part of one of the sacraments necessary to salvation; exacts it as indispensable to the reception of the eucharist ; excommunicates those who yearly neglect it } imposes with it, by the priest's dictation, penance for satisfaction to God ; enforces secrecy from confessor and confessed; demands an entire confession of every mortal sin of hidden thoughts and foul imaginings; orders the priest, by suggestive questionings, to unfold the penitent's •carnal desires ; begins this confessional work with children ■«'il 'll Auricular Confession. 127 e, they caching idapted forcible luthori- gard to though : on the ar con- lissible. 1 place, tn these t has no once to brics of ; in the tion for uricular rubric entire 5 others, nsable ; makes cessary tion of neglect nee for or and mortal Ts the itent's hildren not yet in their teens; teaches natly that sins are forgiven by the priestly act ; requires the penitent to subject his whole soul to the will and dictation of the priest ; demands that painful and laborious works of satisfaction be performed at his word ; teaches that the penitent may satisfy Divine justice thus for his own sins; in short, makes the people in conscience, will, and thought, in matters spiritual and matters moral, the help- less bond- slaves of the priesthood, and the priesthood the dispensers of salvation. In direct antagonism to this, the Church of England, Article Twenty-tive, denies that penance (which includes auricular confession) is a sacrament ; not only does not exact auricular confession as a necessary pre-requisite to the eacharist, bat never exacts it at all; does not excommunicate those who neglect it ; requires no works of penance for satisfaction ; does not demand, as Rome does, entire secrecy from confessor and confessed, and only in the case of voluntary confession is that confidence required, on the minister's part, which is reasonable and just ; says nothing whatever of " mortal " sins ; insists upon no revela- tion of sinful thoughts ; authorizes no inquisitor-like search on the part of the minister, especially between a clergyman and the female members of the Church, for thoughts con- nected with immodesty and licentiousness; has absolutely no provision whatever for the bringing of children to confession; teaches that sins are not pardoned by the priestly act of absolution, without the hearty repentance and true faith of the penitent ; never ascribes infallibility to mortal man, nor teaches slavish submission of soul to priest ; and instead of teaching that satisfaction-works can be performed by one Christian for another, repudiates the doctrine as arrogancy and impiety (Art, 10, 13, and 14) ; teaching, in fine, as Latimer puts it, " as for satisfaction or absolution for our sins, there is none but in Christ ; we cannot make amend for our sins but only by believing in Him which suffered for r • \'j ii If" $ i 128 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. us ; and herein standeth our absolution or remission of our sins, namely, when we believe in Him, and look to be saved through His death."* In short, the confessional and Romish auricular confession are things blotted out by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation, and condemned by her absolutely. No one, save those specified in the Rubric and Communion Se vice, can be asked to confess ; and if they do, the Church makes no provision whatever for the manner of their confes- sion, or the method of absolution, save the application to the burdened conscience of the precious promises of God's Word. Therefore, it may, with all confidence, be declared, that the introduction of the teaching and practice of auricular confession into the Church of England is not only " fraught with peril to its existence as an establishment, and sub- versive of the principles of morality, social order, and civil and religious liberty," but also, in the very highest and truest sense, " alien to the doctrine, the principles, and the order of the Church." * I am indebted for most of these contrasts to an able work oa the history of the confessional by Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont. ,••■■ I ia-i.. mi: r' CHAPTER IX. THE ORDINAL. ^^NE last objection remains to be considered : the form employed by the bishop in the ordination of priests, beginning, " Receive the Holy Ghost." The various preliminary services having been accomplished, and the candidate presented, a solemn exhortation is delivered by the bishop, and a series of heart- searching queries addressed, to which suitable answers are given. After this, the congre- gation engage three times in prayer j once silently, once audibly, and once through the voice of the bishop. Then the bishop, with the priests (or presbyters) present, lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receives the order of priesthood, the Church thus carrying out, with literal exactness, the apostolic practice in ordination, the conjunction of the hands of the presbytery with that of the bishop, the representative of the higher order, in the manual imposition. A comparison of the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, " the gift that is in thee, given by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," and the sixth verse of the first chapter of the second epistle, " the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands," seems to prove that it was the mind of God, as expressed in His Holy Word, that the proper authorities for ordination, the representatives of the apostolic office, should have associated with them, in the act of ordaining, the members of the order of the presbytery, and accordingly this is done in the Church of England. While the hands are laid upon the heads of the candidates r t 130 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. Itfi r humbly beseeching upon ihfii knees, the bishop says the words which convey tlie committal of the formal authority of the office to the minister : " Receive thi Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy sacraments ) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The words are mainly taken from i'^'^oly Scripture, being an almost literal transcript of the words of our blessed Lord in the twenty-third verse of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John : " Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." Now, in considering this and other difficulties in the Prayer Book, it is well to remember that wh''<^ our Re- formers were prompted by the convictions of a most decided Protestantism, they were by no means actuated by that unreasonable and fanatical spirit which rejects everything in toto that has ever been employed by Rome. Theirs was the more sagacious and profitable way of rejecting all that was bad, while retaining all that was good. They rejected Popery, but retained Episcopacy. They rejected the Mass, but retained the Lord's Supper. They rejected the Romish service, but retained the liturgy. In fact, their position is precisely put in the language of the great and judicious Hooker: "We condemn not all as unmeet the like whereunto have been either devised or used haply amongst idolaters. For why should conformity with them in matter of opinion be lawful when they think that which is true, if in action, when they do that which is meet, it be not lawful to be like unto them ? Are we to forsake The Ordinal. 131 says the authority Ghost for Crod, now r hands, nd whose •e thou a His holy Son, and nly taken tiscript of verse of ' 3t. John : ye remit, • sins ye s in the our Re- t decided by that y thing in was the that was They They 2;uage of ot all as or used lity with ink that is meet, forsake any true opinion because idolaters have maintained it ? Nor to shun any requisite action only because we have, in the practice thereof, been prevented by idolaters ? It is no impossible thing but that sometimes they may judge as rightly what is decent about such external affairs of God as in greater things what is true. Not, therefore, whatsoever idolaters have thought or done, but let whatsoever they have either thought or done idolatrously be so far forth abhorred. For of that which is good, even in evil things, God is author." And again : " Touching our conformity with the Church of Rome, as also of the difference between some Reformed Churches and ours, that which generally hath been already answered may serve for answer to that excep- tion which, in these two respects, they take particularly against the form of our common prayer. To say that in nothing they may be followed which are of the Church of Rome, were violent and extreme. Some things they do in that they are men j in that they are wise men and Christian men, some things ; some things in that they are men misled and blinded wiih error. As far as they foUow reason and truth, we fear not to follow the self-same steps wherein they have gone, and to be their followers. Where Rome keepeth that which is ancienter and better, others whom we much more affect (that is, the Reformed Continental Churches) are leaving it for newer and changing it for worse ; we had rather follow the perfections of them we like not, than in defects resemble those whom we love." — Ecc. Pol., Book V. It is well also to remember, in our consideration of these difficult questions, that their age was one of amazing transi- tions. The whole of their surroundings, antecedents, and associations, were entirely different from ours. The only known form of Christianity to them for many 3'ears was # '^t- H.\ mt tit, 133 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. wliat was practically Pvomanism. The only services from which they could draw for models of ritual, or forms of service, were forms more or less identified with the usage of the Church for centuries. Accordingly, in drawing up many of the forms of prayer and services, they adopted the prudent plan of retaining all that was profitable iind praise- worthy, anc rejecting everything which, in their opinion, could nourish superstition, or lead the minds of the people back to Rome. " The compilers of the liturgy examined all the service-books then in use. These they compared with the primitive liturgies, and whatever they found in them consonant to the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine and M'orsliip of the primitive Church, they retained and im- proved ; but the modern corruptions and superstitious inno- vations of latter ages, they entirely discharged and rejected." The Ordination Service is one of the conspicuous ex- amples of this. With the doubtful exception of one short sentence, it is interpenetrated with the spirit of evangelical fervour. The language employed, the forms used, the scrip- tural lessons, the addresses given, the questions asked, the prayers offered, the hymns sung, the acts performed, are remaikable alike for their fitness, scripturalness, dignity, and simplicity. Its scripturalness is revmrhol-h'. For every sentence, texts of Scripture can be found. The addresses, especially to the candidates, are all accu- rately based upon the language of the pastoral and other epistles. Its practicalness is remarhalle. Nothing is superfluous. Nothing defective. Nothing is left out that serves to promote the interests of the Church in the setting apart of her ministers for their sacred office. An opportunity is given to any who know good reasons The Ordinal, 133 why the candidate should not be ordained to come forth and stop the ordination j an obstructionist policy, perhaps, that might occasionally be employed to great advantage. Its earnestness is remarkable. How heart-sea- ching are the appeals in the bishop's address ! How subversive of all earthly ambitions and sinister designs ! How comprehensive and penetrating the enquiries made ! How impossible almost that any wolf in sheep's clothing could ever find entrance ! How multiplied the precautions ! Could prudence have erected any further safeguards ? No one who has ever witnessed it, much less participated in it as a candidate for ordination, could remain insensible to its profitableness, its excellences, its grandeur. But in the contemplation of what is regarded as a blemish and plague-spot, many entiiely overlook its l?eauties. That spot is the sentence in the mouth of the bishop, " Receive the Holy Ghost," and its objectionableness lies in the fact that it is similar, in some degree, to the Roman form. But, as we have shown, its similarity to the Roman form is nothing whatever in itself. The Church of England uses the Lord's Prayer exactly as do the Romanists ; yet we have obtained that prayer, not from Rome, but from the very words of Holy Scripture. The question is not whether it is like or not like the Roman formj for, being like, it might be true, and, being unlike, it might be false ; but whether it is scriptural, and true, and reasonable, and right. Unscrip- tural and superstitious as Rome is, the basis of many of its doctrines is true. The head of Rome is sick, and the heart is faint ; but from the sole of the foot unto the head it is not all wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores ; corruption within, and corruption without, and not a vestige of soundness. Its pollution consists in the way in which it has overladen what is true with what is false, or transformed what is true in itself /- I 134 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. into falsehood, by virtue of dislocation and misapplication. It has much truth, and we must not deny it. If we say that it is fundamentally corrupt, we must mean that as a whole, and substantially it is c* rupt ; not that every part, sentence, act, doctrine, is verbally, literally, essentially, of the Evil One. But even from the standpoint of similarity to Rome, the Protestant Churchman has small grounds for apprehension and cavil. Though resemblances in detail may be discovered, yet, as a whole, the Ordination Service of the Church of England differs from the Roman in method, aim, and intent, fundamentally and entirely. Whatever the English Church Ordination Service may be, it certainly is not Popish. In the Roman Church, three forms are used for the ordination of priests, two of which are essential, the third non-essential. The chief personage in the Romish ritual is the sacrificing- priest ; the chief service he performs, the sacrifice of the altar. Accordingly, in a Roman Catholic ordination the thing foisted into greatest prominence is this, that, by the act of ordination, the candidate is about to be constituted a sacrificing-priest, with power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate masses for the living and the dead. This is the fact, beyond ill things emphasized, that a man is about to be made a sacrificing-priest. Two ceremonies, therefore, form the essential features in a Roman ordination : First : The hands of the kneeling candidates having been placed in the form of a cross, they are anointed by the bishop (Pontifex) with oil. As he anoints them, he prays this prayer : " Vouchsafe, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our benediction. Amen." Then, as he makes the sign of the cross over the hands of each ordained, he continues : " That whatsoever they shall The Ordinal. 135 bless may be blessed, nnd whatsoever they shall consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified ; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen." Second : The bishop hands to each one in succession a chalice, in which water is mixed with wine, and a paten, with the sacred host, saying the words : *' Accipe protestatem offerre sacrificum Deo, missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis, quam pro defunctis. In nomine Domini, Amen." " Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate masses for the living and the dead. In the name of the Lord, Amen." This ends the part of the service that pertains to the form of ordination, and the candidates are now ordained. There is, I understand, a third form employed, " Receive thou the Holy Ghost," but its use is not regarded as essential. Evidently, then, the act of ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Church is an act which has for its chief end and purpose the solemn constitution of a sacrificing-priest and priestly mediator between God and man. The hands are hallowed because they are to be the media for the performance of such mysterious acts, and the authority of the ministry is to be chiefly exercised in offering sacrifice to God, and celebrating masses for the living and the dead. Therefore, it is clear that the Reformers, having in mind the precise meaning and tendency of the Romish form, at once determined, boldly and peremptorily, to discard those ele- ments of the service which were nothing more or less than corruptions of Popery. As they had abolished the sacri- ficing-priest, as altars and masses were no more, those parts of the Ordination Service which were inseparable from these things were not only unnecessary, but harmful. Accordingly, they were swept away. And the fact that the very rites which conferred the supreme and distinguishing sacei dotal functions, the rites which made a man a priest, in the Roman 136 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. HI I i'1 sense, were thus purposely abolished by the Reformers, speaks volumes for itself. Having swept away the things themselves, altars, masses, and sacrifice, and the form that authorized them, they considered it unwise to proceed further, and in the belief that there was nothing in the form to "nourish superstition''" that the words were the very words of Christ for a similar purpose, and employed by him at a similar time, they sub- stituted the form, " Receive the Holy Ghost," &c. To prc^^eed now to the consideration of the expressions used. " Receive the Holy Ghost for the offire and work of a priest in the Church of God. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." In the words themselves, there is and can be nothing objectionable. They are the very words of inspired Scrip- ture ; they proceed from the lips of the Infallible Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. As far, therefore, as the words them- selves are concerned, this is a difficulty of the Bible, not a Prayer Book difficulty. The responsibility of it must be thrown farther back than the compilers of the Prayer Book of the Church of England. " If, then, our Lord and Saviour Himself have used the self-same form of words, and that in the self- same kind of action, although there be but the least show of probability, yea or any possibility that His meaning might be the same which ours is, it should teach sober and grave men not to be too venturous in condemning that of folly which is not impossible to have in it more profound- ness of wisdom than flesh and blood should presume to control. Our Saviour, after His resurrection from the dead, gave His apostles their commission, saying, ' All power is given Me in heaven and in earth ; go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. In sum, 'as My The Ordinal. 137 Father sent Me, so send I you.' Whereunto St. John doth add farther that, having thus spoken. He breathed on them, and said, ' Receive the Holy Ghost.' By which words He must of likelihood understand some gift of the Spirit — not miraculous power," which they did not then receive, but a holy and ghostly, that is, spiritual, "authority over the souls of men ; authority, a part whereof consisteth in power to remit and retain sins : ' Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted j whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' Whereas, therefore, the other Evangelists had set down that Christ did before His suffer- ing promise to give His apostles the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and, being risen from the dead, did promise more- over at that time a miraculous power of the Holy Ghost, St. John addeth that He also invested them even then with the power of the Holy Ghost for castigation and relaxation of sin, wherein was fully accomplished that which the promise of the keys did import. Seeing, therefore, that the same power is now given (viz. ministerial power and authority), why should the same form of words expressing it be thought foolish ? The cause why we breathe not as Christ did on them unto whom He imparted power is, for that neither Spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us, which are but delegates or assigns, to give men possession of His graces." — Hooker, Ecc. Pol. V., 77. Similar language is found in Strype's " Life of Whitgift," where, in answer to an objection propounded by some, that the words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," imply that the bishop has authority to give the Holy Ghost, it was said : *' The bishop did not take thereby upon him to give the Holy Ghost, but only instrumentaliter; even as the minister giveth baptism when he saith, * I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' &c., whereby he doth not take upon him to be the author or giver of baptism, but the minister thereof only, as I ^! \A^ ' ri' 138 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. John the Baptist did. For Christ only is the Giver of the Holy Ghost. And of baptism John and others are the ministers of the sacrament and of the ceremony. The words are Christ's words, used in the admitting of the apostles to the ministry, and therefore used by us in the like action to signify that God, by our ministry and imposition of hands, as by the instruments, doth give His Holy Spirit to all such as are rightfully called to the ministry." — Strypes Whitgifty Vol. /., p. 258. The difficulty, then, is not the use of the words themselves, but the propriety of their use on this occasion; and especially their conjunction with the words, ** the office and work of a priest in the Church of God." For my own part, I am convinced that the Reformers never intended the words to bear the meaning that has been put upon them. To them the word priest meant nothing more than presbyter, being etymologically a contraction of that term j for, since Christ entered into heaven as our High Priest, the use of the word priest in the sense of sacerdotal mediator was impossible. In the Latin version of the Ordinal, the word uniformly used is Presbyterus. In the Prayer Book throughout, the words priest and minister are used with such curious inter- changeableness as to leave no other supposition than that they are practically synonymous. The " minister " reads with a loud voice ; the " priest " pronounces the absolution j the "minister" says the Lord's Prayer j the "priest" (why the priest ?) the Gloria ; the " minister " reads the Creed and says, " Lord, have mercy upon us " ; the next moment it is the "priest" using almost precisely the same form of words. So in the Communion office. Now it is " minister," now "priest," and from the usage of the terms it is impossible to make any distinction. The "priest" says the Ten Commandments, but the priest is in the same action called the " minister " J the " minister " giveth warning about the The Ordinal, 139 r of the are the le words Dstles to ction to f hands, all such Vhitgiftj nselves, specially rk of a :, I am ords to 'o them r, being } Christ le word ossible. iformly ut, the inter- n that reads ution J (why ed and it is \rords. now )ssible Ten called It the celebration of the Lord's Supper; the "priest" says the exhortation. The " priest " consecrates ; the same person, the " minister," receives the communion, and then delivers to the bishops, "priests," and deacons. The priest, the minister; the minister, the priest. A more remarkable case is the Baptismal Service, a service which has always been permitted to a deacon, where the words are, beyond all controversy, used as interchangeable terms. The same is the case in the Marriage Service, the Visitation of the Sick, the Churching of Women, the Commination Services, and, above all, in the Burial Service. In the Burial Service the term minister is never used, the word Priest always, though, as everyone is aware, the Deacon, if not the layman, may validly perform the service. In f.-.ct, the terms are employed all through the Prayer Book so interchangeably as to bewilder anyone who would seek to explain their employment on any other ground than that of their practical convertibility. The word priest simply denotes the person who performs the sacred service at the time, and cannot refer to a sacerdotal as distinguished from a non-sacerdotal order, for it is used in certain places, as we have seen, to signify the officiating minister when he may be only a deacon. Whatever were the distinctions made by the Laudian divines, and intro- duced as far as they possibly could, it is certain that, from the standpoint of the Reformers, and the Prayer Book, as they compiled it, the terms are interchangeable, and presby- terus is the highest meaning to be attached to the word priest. Two weighty authorities may be here adduced, the Second Book of Homilies, and the learned and judicious Hooker. The Second Book of Homilies : — In the first part of the Homily, on the worthy receiving of the sacrament, it is said that to acknowledge Christ as one's own personal Saviour, &c., is to make Christ one's i,t kv r 140 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. own, &c. " Herein thou needest no other man's lielp, no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing-priest, no mass, no means established by man's invention." If words prove pnything, they prove that, in the interpretation of the Church of England, the "minister" or "priest" in the Holy Com- munion is no " sacrificing-priest," Hooker : — The view of this learned divine may fairly be received as the view of the Church in that age, from the standpoint of one whom all schools and parties delight to honour. His reasoning is conclusive as to the fact that the word priest, like presbyter, cannot convey any sacrificial meaning. "Touching the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body of the Church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons. I rather term the one sort presbyters than priests, because, in a matter of so small moment, I would not willingly offend their ears to whom the name of priesthood is odious, though without cause. For as things are distinguished one from another by true essential forms . . . so if they that first do impose names did always understand exactly the nature of that which they nominate, it may be that then by hearing the terms of vulgar speech, we should still be taught what the things themselves are." But, as he proceeds to show, words have so many different senses that it is difficult to determine the precise idea that is attached by each man to them in common use. Generally, however, names have regard to " that which is naturally most proper," or to " that which is sensibly most eminent in the thing signified," or, as is the case in the word priest, to the thing personified. In its proper ecclesiastical sense, a priest is one whose " mere function or charge is the service of God." " Howbeit, because the most eminent part, both of heathenish and Jewish service, did consist in sacrifice, when learned men The Ordinal. 141 s help, no ) mass, no irds prove he Church ;oly Com- eceived as ndpoint of our. His )rd priest, meaning. "hrist, the hiity and I rather luse, in a ^ly offend s odious, ished one i that first nature of )}' hearing ight what to show, ifficult to man to lies have to " that iried," or, fied. In se " mere Howbeit, nish and ned men declare what the word Priest doth properly signify, according to the mind of the first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice. Seeing, then, that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry, how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied? " Because, he replies, "even as St. Paul applied the name flesh" to the substance of fishes, *' although it be in nature another thing," so the Fathers of the Church called "the mini«?try of the Gospel priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices, namely, the com- munion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice. As for the people, when they hear the name, it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of senator or alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient." — Hooker, Ecc. Pol. v., 78. Hooker's reasoning here is most remarkable. The force of a name is entirely dependent on ihe thing that it repre- sents. It is evil or good because of the idea that it embodies to the mind. Now^ the word priest — which in itself is a perfectly harmless, nay, most scriptural, term, being etymo- logically a contraction of Presbyter — merely implies one whose function or duty is the service of God. But inasmuch as in the Roman Church the chief function of the priest is the offering of sacrifice, in that Church, and indeed largely, the term has set forth the idea of a sacrificer. But where there is no offering of sacrifice, the word priest cannot possibly denote the person of the sacrificer. Now, in the Church of Fingland, there is no sacrifice. " Sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry." "The Communion hath properly no sacrifice." Therefore, the term priest cannot possibly denote " a sacrificing-priest." Most remarkable reasoning, truly. If for nothing else, remarkable for the A» k 142 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, proof it offers of the absolute difference Letween the views of those who now speak of "the great act of eucharistic sacrifice " — see Pusey's Real Presence, p. 3 1 2 — and the views of such a representative High Churchman of the Elizabethan age as Richard Hooker. To proceed. If, then, it is proved that there is no such thing as a sacrificing-priest in the Church of England as ^ reformed in the sixteenth century, the form, " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God," is stripped at once of a blemish that otherwise would be most damaging to the Protestantism of the Church. But with the masses, and altar, and crucifixes, the Church of England abolished also the sacrificing-priest ; or, as the Thirtieth Canon declares, the Church of England has abolished Popery. Therefore, it is conclusive that, whatsoev^er difficulty there may be experienced in the interpretation of this sentence, it was never intended to perpetuate Popery. Whether or not it be advisable to sub- stitute another expression, is another question altogether. But that this form was neither drawn up by the willing slaves of Popery, nor intended for the perpetuation of Popery, nor could, without dislocation, be construed into an auxiliary of Popery, is evident from the meaning of the words, and the known views of the Reformers. Doubtless it has been made the justification for all the practices of priestcraft in the Church of England, and the fountain- source of all the assumptions of sacerdotalism by her clergy.* But offences come from the abuse of hard sayings of the Scriptures as well as from the Prayer Book, and, in my opinion, men who would get their warrant for the parti- * See Appendix. The doctrine of Apostolical Succession in the Church of England, p. 220. r The Ordinal. 143 the views Bucharistic —and the m of the s no such ngland as ^ eceive the 16 Church otherwise 1 of the crucifixes, ig-prlest ; England sive that, I in the tended to e to sub- Itogether. e willing jation of •ued into ig of the Doubtless ctices of fountain- by her 1 sayings :, and, in :he parti- cular practice of auricular confession from the very general and scriptural statements of the Ordination Service, would not be restrained, were those words ooliterated, from introducing It upon the authority of their own private interpretation of our blessed Lord's words in the twenty-third verse of the twentieth chapter of St. John. on in the ::11 CHAPTER X. i!f-: m IS- U\ RECAPITULATION AN, C> LUSION. nr I m f IkA/'E have now traced, chaptei :.>}' ^ ipter, the various details of the Prayer Book which . ^blish, one by one, its Protestant character. It only remains tor us, in this concluding chapter, to gather up in a brief summary the arguments brought forth, and present the several points in a general review. We have seen, in the first place, that the Protestantism of the Prayer Book is established by several positive features, which exhibit very strongly its contrast to the Roman and pre-Reformation Ang^lican services. It is in the vulgar tongue J the Roman services were in an unknown tongue. It is common prayer ; the ancient services, Roman and Sarum, were unintelligible to the people, and participated in almost exclusively by the learned. It is scriptural ; the Romish Mass, and other services, were largely " fond things vainly invented" by the traditions of men. It is primitive, apostolic, catholic ; the Romish mass is mediaeval, tradi- tional, occidental, and novel. The difference between the Church of England Book of Common Prayer and the missal of the Church of Rome is absolute, essential, irre- concilable ; the difference between midnight and mid-day. Great, however, as are these positive contrasts presented by a comparison with services more purely Romish, they are still less suggestive than the contrasts (which we next pointed out) between the semi-reformed Prayer Book of 1549 and the liturgies which preceded and succeeded it. These are, beyond all controversy, the most positive evidences of the anti-Romish and anti-ritualistic character A* Recapitulation and Conclusion. 145 vulgar of the liturgy, and present, in their number, a three-fold cord not easily broken. (i) The vast and significant differences between the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. and the ancient services of the Church, such as the Sarum missal or the Roman mass. The various services of the Anglican Church were Roman in all save the namej they were in an unknown tongue, crowded with idolatrous practices, and taught the idolatrous doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass. The Prayer Book of the year 1549 contrasted with this as the breaking of dawn with midnight. It was plain to every reader, simple to every worshipper, and scriptural throughout — compared, that is, with the earlier service books, for in itself, and compared with later revisions, it was disfigured by many blemishes, ritual and doctrinal. It was in this comparative sense, in my opinion, that the act authorizing the Second Book of Common Prayer spoke of the Book of 1549 as " a very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church . . . and most profitable to the estate of this realm " : for certainly the differences were profound in every way. (2) The still more significant differences, from a Pro- testant Church standpoint, between the First Prayer Book of Edward and the Prayer Book as it now stands and is used in every congregation of the Church of England throughout the world. In the First Book, the words " mass," " altar," "auricular confession," were employed, and the practices of mixing wine and water at the eucharist, the use of the wafer, the invocation of the Holy Ghost on the elements, the prayer of oblation over the elements, prayers for the dead, reservation of the consecrated elements, and extreme unction, were either enjoined or permitted. A careful perusal of our Book of Common Prayer will show that the 10 ^46 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. I II- i '. Eit. s I" - ' pi*'' t>.' ' ■' IN i^' i following omissions and alterations are among the most noteworthy links in the chain of contrast : The word mass is omitted. The word altar is not to be found in the Prayer Book. The mixing of wine and water is not mentioned, though most explicitly enjoined in the First Book. The use of the wafer is done away with, and the rubric expressly ordnins thnt " the bread be such as is usual to be •eaten at the table with other meats." The invocati(jn of the Holy Ghost on the elements is not mentioned. The allusion to the ministry of the angels in bearing up our prayers is omitted. The direction that the communicants should receive the sacrament into their mouths from tha priest's hand is not only left out, but a different direction is substituted. 'i'he hymn enjoined to be sung at the time of the Com- munion, " O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world," &c., is purposely taken away, to prevent any appearance of adoration of the eucharist. The use of the chrism in the Baptismal Service is omitted. The sign of the cross in the Marriage Service is left out. Prayers for the dead are swept entirely away. The permission as to auricular confession is carefully •omitted. The reservation of the elements is completely discarded. The service for the celebration of the holy communion when there is a burial of the dead is left out altogether. The permission to use genuflections, and to cross oneself, is no longer to be found. Each and all of these omissions prove the uncompro- mising character of the Prayer Book as it now stands. There is a significance in each of these changes that tells of Recapitulation and Conclusion. M7 scrupulous and anxious care. They are the changes of men who were guided by God's Spirit to search out and expunge, not mere non-essential trifles and meaningless expressions, but phrases and practices which they knew only too well could be made not merely hinges, or handles, but very doors for the admission of floods of false doctrines and error. The expressions and practices most carefully omitted might possibly have been employed by unscrupulous men to justify the introduction of Romish doctrine. The expression " altar," leading, as it does, to the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass J the injunctions as to "auricular confession," involving confession before mass and priestly absolution ; the reservation and seeming adoration of the elements j prayers for the dead and the implied doctrine of purgatory ; extreme unction, and communions at burials, implying masses for the dead ; these are the expressions, and practices, and doctrines, which, even in such a comparatively Protestant standard as the Prayer Book of 1549, gave opportunities for the introduction of Popery into a Protestant Church, and reversion to Rome without abandoning the Church of f>ngland. But these are the very things omitted by our Reformers, and the things that are to be searched for in vain in our Prayer Book to-day. Our Reformers knew what they were about when they did these things; and when anti-Protestants and Romanizers, or, as Bishop Cleveland Coxe denominates them, *' the Trentine party," clamour for a return to that discarded liturgy, they are clamouring for that which would land us, not half way, but almost wholly into Popery. For, at that time, these expressions and practices were the lingering remains of a position which was being steadily and surely abandoned. The movement of the age nnd of the Church was forward, not backward ; onward, not downward. Nou\ 10* 148 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, f PI ' i il I these expressions and practices would be the infallible harbingers of a disastrous and renegade movement to Rome. They would show that we were going backward, not forward; downward, not upward; for it is certain that words which could be used without significance in 1549 could oidy be re-introduced in 1890 to the confusion and destruction of the Church now established by law as Protestant and reformed. (3) The differences between the Prayer Book of to-day and some attempted editions. This is the third in the series of contrasts that throws strong light upon the present position of the Prayer Book : the contrast offered by a consideration of certain abortive Pniyer Books, which were mainly identical with the Prayer Book of the Church, and yet contained many retrograde features. I mean the Prayer Books of the Non-jurors and the Scottish Episcopal Church. During the days of Laud, and afterwards, towards the close of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth, the tide of Church doctrine and ritual set strongly in the misnamed "Catholic" direction; that is, in the direction of more elaborate ritual, and more strongly asserted sacerdotal doctrine ; and out of this era of Church history, two Prayer Books issued. The first, the Prayer Book for the Scottish Church. This work owed its character to Archbishop Laud, who was one of the parties who assisted in its compilation. Though mainly similar to our own, there were various significant changes, especially in the communion office, and nearly all of these changes are of a retrograde character ; that is, in the direction of the First Book of Edward VL -^ of ritualism in practice, and sacerdotalism in doctrine. The second, the Prayer Book of the Non-jurors who left the Church at the accePoion of William and Mary. Many of the Non-jurors made use of the First Prayer Book Recapitulation ami Cunclusiun. 149 <>t Kdward, but in 1718 tlu'y issued au ofiict- of their own, ill which they revived the following;; obsolete ceremonies : tlio mixing of water with tlio wine ; prayers for the dead ; prayer for tlie descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements; the prayer of oblation; trine inutiersioti; chrism; and unction at the visitation of the sick. Now, I say nothing as to the doctrin;.! opinions of these men, nor as to the Church views of those who to-day are doctrinally identified with them ; many of the \ were holy men, many of these are among the saintlicst of God's servants. What I desire to emj)hasise is this, that the expressions, and rubrics, and practices, authorized by the Prayer Hook of to-day are not the expressions and practices which the non-jurors and Scotch Hpiscopalians deemed necessary for insertion in their respective liturgies in order to set forth their views of Church cUjctiine and Church ritual. However valid and legitimate these views may be, it is certain that the expressions and ceremonies which are considered inseparable to the true exhibition of these same doctrines are not to be found in our Prayer Book as we now have it j for, if tluni were, the Non-jurors would have had no need to com/)ilc another. It is a fact to be remembered with gratitude by Churclmien, that amidst the entanglements and conflicts of the seventeenth century, the Prayer Book was preserved unde filed. It passed forth from the contending faook. ■ L'l \y f whetlier the risk depending on retaining them as they are is sufficient to counterbalance the risk of changing them for something else ? We think it is. The errors are few, and the risk of retention is proportionately small, for the body of the Book, on the whole, is sound. But the risk of change is fearfully great. So widespread is the leaven of the Trentine party, traditionalism, and ceremonialism, that we can be sure that the number of changes which would be agreeable to the Protestant evangelical would be vastly outnumbered by changes which would make the Prayer Book of our Reformers agreeable to the Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians of to-day. " Let well alone " was the motto of one of England's greatest statesmen ; and rather than imperil the Protestantism of our Prayer Book and Church by such a rash and dubious requisition as an authoritative revision, I would say : Let our Prayer Book stand as it is ; the monument of the invincible Protestantism of our glorious Reformers ; the most admir- able and matchless of all standards of worship; the most scriptural of all formularies of public devotion . Chu.rchly enough for the most conservative churchman ; evangelical enough for the most evangelical ; and in its pmcllcal removal from all Popish superstitions, Protestant enough for the most ardent Protestant. A few words in conclusion. What end our blessed Lord has in view in permitting the present strifes and divisions in His Church, we do not know. Why He has allowed a party to gain such mischievous predominance within the last thirty or forty years, as to up- root much of the good effects of the glorious Reformation, we cannot underGtariu. The external signs of abatement in the waters of the prevailing floods of Trentinism are, to human eyes at kniss:, cnti/ely wanting, 'ihe evil is appar- ently gaining he; civ ..y, and "the waters prevail and increase Recapitulation and Conclusion. 155 greatly on the earth." As in apostolic days the leaven of Pharisaism spread with such rapidity in the Galatian Churches, so, in these latter days of the Church, unsound men, with seductive doctrines, have waxed worse and worse,, deceiving and being deceived. Everywhere in the Church conspirators are found, eager to wrest from the Church her charter of Protestantism, the Prayer Book, and bring her back once more to the days before the Reformation. It is, ir; leed, an incnrMbie evil, and apt and expressive is the language of the learned Bishop of New York : " When I reflect on the Anglican Reformation j when I worship in the glorious liturgy they rescued from an unknown tongue,. ' nd cleansed from innumerable defilements; when I com- pare our reformed Church with Holy Scripture and the purest ages of antiquity, I am amazed at these results ; I wonder that, amid the passions and the conflicts of such an age, such a miracle should have been wrought by the hands of men. Then, when I see these benefactors of the world r.ttesting in the flames their holy mission, and bequeathing their work to England, sealed and hallowed with their blood, I seem to dream when I think of an age like this, that has bred a puny race of men to mock their memory, and to go on servile knees to those who slew them, begging to receive back again the yoke of bondage and of corruption." This is no dream, but an awful reality ; and the questions on the lips of thousands of Churchmen to-day are : What shall we do ? Whither are we tending ? How much longer the darkness of night ? Strong men are bowing in almost hopeless grief, while others, weary at heart, are slinking from the battle, hopeless of a cause wherein so much seems lost. Yet it does seem to me that, notwithstanding all these things, it is cowardice and folly for Churchmen to lose heart. There is, indeed, danger and widespread retrogres- il'i- B>' \ '/ 156 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. sion; there is indifference, intolerance, ignorance, and degeneracy; lut hopelessness there should not he. Where is our faith in Christ, His Church, and His truth ? How is it that we have no faith ? The times are dark, but there have been darker days than these before. Who would ever have dreamed, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, that the Church of England was to be •delivered from the thraldom of Papal rule and Romish doctrine, and that such an uncompromising and bigoted Romanist as Henry VHI. should have been chosen by God as the hand to strike the first blow of emancipation ? Had one, in the year 1520, asserted that Henry VHI. would be used as an instrument, even as an inferior instrument, for the conversion of the Romanized Church of England into a pure and scriptural and Protestant Church, he would justly have been counted mad. Who could ever have drer.med, in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI., when both Church and State were in such perilous crisis, and the fierceness of tyrannical opposi- tion to the Reformed opinions was already waxing strong, that, in His wonderful providenrt, God would so overrule the counsels of men as to enable Cranmer, and Ridley, and Latimer, and others, in the name of the Church, to introduce the Prayer Book in the tongue of the people ; to remove the altars ind destroy Popish books of devotion ; to publish the Articles, the bulwark of oar doctrinal Protestantism, and the charter of our freedom from doctrinal Popery ; to substitute the Bible for the missal, the holy communion for the mass, and the Protestant minister for the Romish confessor and mass-priest ; in short, in a period of time incredibly short, and by a series of movements so wonderfully effective as to transform the corrupted and tainted Church of England into the Church of England apostolic, primitive, scriptural, Protestant ? Truly, it seemed impossible. It was like the Recapittilation and Conclusion. 157 conversion of a man, cold, dead, hardened, to human eye- sight hopelessly dead, yet by the regenerating power of God the Holy Spirit, a new creature, born again in Christ. The Church was converted. The old body, the old constitution^ the old lineage, the old name ; a new spirit, a new life, a new being ! "Who would ever have dreamed, in the awful days of " Bloody Mary," when fifteen Protestant Bishops were turned out and sixteen Papists reinstated ; when vestments and mass-books were dug up out of oblivion, and Romanism was sanctioned by the law of the land ; when England's queen and bishops and Church were absolved from their heresy, and solemnly restored to the unity of the Pope; when fires were blazing with the bodies of Protestants, and Cranraer and Ridley and Latimer, the pillars of the reformed doctrine, were consumed in the flames, that Protestantism would ever again survive in the Church of England, and that our Prayer Book would once more be the standard of the Church ? Who could ever have asserted, in those gloomy days, without inspiration, that God would make that same revolution the salvation of the Protestantism of the English Church, and that He would use the Popish Mary for the casting out of Popery, as He had before used the Popish Henry VHI. for the casting out of the Pope? Yet it was even so. O, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God ! How unspeakable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out ! And who could ever have foreseen that, in that same wonderful providence, our Heavenly Father would so over- rule the wills and counsels of fallible men that amidst all the changes and factions of fifteen generations, notwith- standing the overthrow of the episcopate and the proscription of the liturgy, on the one hand, and the predominance of i^i i5« Protestantism of the Prayer Book. men of high Catholic views, on the other, the essentials of Protestant Churchmanship would remain unchanged, and that He would give to us intact, in these latter days of the nineteenth century, a Prayer Book which, for all practical purposes, is as pure as when it issued from the fires of the Reformation ? Let the con^. deration of these things inspire us with hope. If we were in darker days, we might give way to fear; but now we are without excuse. We have much more to cheer us than the Reformers had. We have a Church that is sound, scriptural, practical ; democratic, as well as episcopal ; admirably fitted to the present day needs. We hav<^ a people, on the whole, ioyal to Protestantism, and steauiast for the truth. We ha^ e a body of Church doctrine in our Articles which for soundness, scripturalness, and thoroughness, cannot be impugned. We have, as Protestant Churchmen, a title to loyalty which no others can urgv a claim to consistency which no others can put forth. We have history on ou' side. We have Scripture on our side. We have the Prayer Book on our side. We have the common sense of the great body of the laity on our side. And though we may not have numbers, best of all, we have God on our side. The cause of Protestantism is God's, and God will guard His cause. We are struggling at once for the doctrine of the Church, and the truth of the Bible; we are contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, and bought for us by martyr blood. For a time it is possible the issue may seem doubtful, and the battle lost, as the timid give up the contest, and the •cowards surrender without a blow. Recapitulation and Conclusion. 159 But that the Church of Enghmd, Protestant in her Reformation, Protestant in her history, Protestant in her doctrine, Protestant in her Canons, Protestant in the very- essence of her national and ecclesiastical being, should ever be defiled by the caresses of Rome, is to the eye of faith im- possible, ybr as long as the Proi/er Book remains unchanged ^ the Church of England cannot be Romanized. " For freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." \ i.}. w APPENDIX. I. — Canon oi- the Mass. (Chap. IV., p. 44.) The Canon of the Mass, according to the use of Sariim. The following is taken from a translation by Mr. John T. Dodd, B.A., of Oxford. The whole service was in Latin. The genuflections, prostrations, censings were substantially the same as in the Roman Church. In the midst was the priest, in his sacrificial vestments. Beside him were the deacon and sub- deacon in their dalmatics, the incense-bearers, and the carriers of candles. With much ceremonial, the chalice and paten are placed on the altar, which is censed and kissed. The Ter Sanctus follows, and then, with clasped hands and uplifted eyes, he repeats the prayer, which really is the commence- ment of the mass itself, p, 1 1 : "Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we most humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Here let him raise himself and kiss the altar on the right of' the sacrijice. that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to accept and bless these 4* gifts (here he makes the sign of the cross, and at each place where this cross occurs), these 4* presents, these 4^ holy, unspotted sacrifices, II IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe /. fe -^ j$> 1.0 I.I 11.25 ii. i L6 V] v3 /. >> /A vV'# '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSiER.N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 •17 (V ;\ \ % s '"«\ #% > ^^ ^1> 6^ ) i- f/j ^ o^ /-I 162 Appendix. When he has made the signs over the chalice, let him uplift his hands, saying : ^ which, in the first place, we offer unto Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church, to which vouchsafe to grant peace ; to keep, unite, and govern, throughout the whole world, together with Thy servant, (N.) our Pope, and (N.) our bishop [that is, for his own bishop only], and (N.) our king [and they are mentioned by name] , and for all the orthodox, and for all worshippers of the catholic and apostolic faith. Here let him pray for the living. Remember, O Lord, Thy servants, both men and women (M. and N.), and all here present, whose faith and devotion is k:iown to Thee ; for whom we offer unto Thee, or who themselves offer unto Thee, this sacrifice of praise for them- selves, and for all theirs, for the redemption of their own souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety, communi- cating with and honouring the memory, especially of the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, and also of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip . . . Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Grisogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy Saints j by whose merits and prayers, grant that we may, in all things, be defended by the aid of Thy protection , through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Here let the priest look at the host with great veneration. We therefore beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to accept this oblation of our service, and of Thy whole family j dispose our days in Thy peace, and command us to be delivered from eternal damnation, and to be remembered in the flock of thine elect ; through Christ our Lord. Amen. in r-l xAppendix. 163 Here let him look at the host again, saying: ,, Which oblation do Thou, O Almighty God, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe to render in all respects, blessed *!*, ap- proved '^, effectual Hh, reasonable and acceptable, that it may be made unto us the body 4-, and the blood 4*, of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, Here let the priest raise his hands and join them together ; and afterwards, let him wipe his Jingers, and elevate the host, saying : who, the day before He suffered, took bread in His holy and venerated hands, and with His eyes uplifted to heaven, Here let him lift up his eyes. to Thee, Almighty God, His Father, Here let him bow and elevate a little, saying : gave thanks, and blessed 'h, and brake, Here let him touch the host, saying : and gave to His disciples, saying : Take, eat ye all of this. For this is My body. And these words ought to be pronounced with one breath and utterance, and without any pause. After . these words, let him elevate it above his forehead, that it may be seen by the people; and let him reverently place it before the chalice in the form of a cross made by the same, and then let him uncover the chalice and hold it between his hands, not disjoining the thumb from the forefnger, except when he makes the benedictions, saying : Likewise, after He had supped, taking also this pre-eminent chalice in His holy and venerable hands, also giving thanks Here let him bend, saying : II * r\ 164 Appendix, Hr 1 Fr! to Thee, He blessed •!*, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take, and drink ye all of this, ^ . Here let the priest elevate the chalice a little, saying : for this is the cup of My blood, of the new and eternal testa- ment, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. Let him elevate the chalice, soj/ing: As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remem- brance of Me. Here let him replace the chalice, and raise his arm in the form of a cross, with his fingers joined, until the words *' of Thy gifts:' Wherefore, O Lord, we. Thy servants, and also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, and also His resurrection from the dead, and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer unto Thy excellent Majesty, of Thy gifts and presents, a pure •!• host, a holy •!* host, an immaculate "l" host, a holy Hh bread of life eternal, and chalice •!* of everlasting salvation ; upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene coun- tenance, and accept them as Thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of Thy righteous servant, Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch, Abraham, and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedec offered unto Thee, a holy sacrifice, an immacu- late victim. Here let the priest say, with lowed Indy and clasped ■ hands: We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thy altar on High, in the presence of Thy divine mnjesty, that all we r 1 s saying: 'B' il testa- DU, and •emem- n in the intil the liy holy e same in from er unto pure *!• iread of upon le coun- accept rifice of Priest mmacu- 'lasped id these altar on we Appendix. 1O5 Here let him stand erect and kiss the altar on the ri^ht of the sacrifice. i' who shall have received the holy body 4* and blood ■i' of Thy Son from this participation of the altar Here let him cross himself on the face. may be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction 4* j through the same, our Lord. Amen. Here let him pray for the dead. Remember also, O Lord, the souls of Thy servants, both men and women (N. and N.), who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and rest in the sleep of peace. We pray, O Lord, that to these, and to all that rest in Christ, Thou wouldst graciously grant a place of refreshment of light and peace ; through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen. Here let him strike his breast once^ saying : And to us sinners. Thy servants, who trust in the multi- tude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy aj)ostles and martyrs } with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabasj Ignatius, Alexander, Marcelli- nus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all Thy saints, into whose company do Thou admit us, we beseech Thee, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences ; through Christ our Lord, by whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create all these good things j Here let the priest sign the chalice thrice, saying : Thou dost sanctify »!*, quicken -i*, bless "f", and bestow them upon us. Here let the priest micnver the chalice and wake the sign of the cross with the hostfve times: frst, over the chalice, on either side; secondly, level with it; 1 66 Appendix. thirdly, lelow it; fourthly, as at Jirst ; Jifthly :, before it. ^ Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, all honour and glory is to Thee, O God the Father Almighty ^J-, in the unity of the Holy Ghost. Here let the priest cross the chalice, and hold his hands over the altar, until the time when "Our Father" is said ; saying thus, for ever and ever. Instructed by Thy saving precepts, and taught by Thy divine instruction, we are bold to say, Here let the deacon take the paten and hold it aloft to the right of the priest, uncovered, until " mercifully grant." Here let the priest raise his hands, saying: Our Father, &c and lead us not into temptation. Let the choir answer: But deliver us from evil. The priest, privately : Amen. Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech Thee, from all evils, past^ present, and future ; and by the intercession of the ever- glorious Virgin Mary, the mother of God, of Thy blessed apostles, Peter and Paul and Andrew, with all saints, Here let the deacon give the paten to the priest, and kiss his hand, and let the priest kiss the paten ; then let him put it to his left eye, then to his right ; afterwards let him make the sign of the cross with the paten over his head, and then let him restore it to its own place, saying : mercifully grant peace in our days, that, by the help of Thy mercy, we may be always free from sin, and secure from all trouble ; r^ Appendix. 167 Here let him uncover the chalice, and, lowing, take the body and place it in the hollow of the chalice ; and holding it between his thumb and forefinger ^ let him break it into three portions while he says : through the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son (second fraction), who, as God, liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, Here let him hold the two portions in the left handy and the third portion in the right hand, on the top of the chalice, thus saying in a loud voice : for ever and ever. Amen. The peace of the Lord •J- be with you "f- alway. *f« Lei the choir answer : And with Thy Spirit. Then let the deacon and the sub-deacon approach the priest, both on his right, the deacon nearer, the sub-deacon further off, and say, privately : O Lamb of God, &c grant us Thy peace. Here, while making the sign of the cross, let him place the aforesaid third portion of the host in the sacrament of the blood, thus saying : May the sacred mixture of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ berome to me, and to all who receive it, salva- tion of mind and body, and a salutary preparation for the earning and laying hold of eternal life ; through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen. Before the pax is given [a small silver tablet to be kissed^, let the priest say : O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Eternal God, grant that I may so worthily receive this most holy body and blood of Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ ; that by this I may be ; J 'i I f! I :! ii ' 'm III A> i68 Appendix, lii ! deemed fit [w«?re?ar] to receive remission of all my sins, and to be filled with Thy Holy Spirit, and to possess Thy peace; for Thou art God, and there is none beside Thee, and Thy glorious kingdom remaineth for ever. Amen. Here let the priest kiss the corporals on the right side, then on the top of the chalice, and afterwards the deacon, saying: Peace be to thee, and to the Church. Answer : And with thy spirit. Let the deacon on the right side oj the priest receive tue pax from him, and give it to the sub-deacon ; then lei the deacon bring the pax to the choir-step, to the directors of the choir, and let them carry the pax to the choir, each to his own side, beginning from the elder. After the pax has been given, let the priest say the following prayers privately, before he communicates, holding the host with both hands: O God the Father, fountain and source of all goodness, whose mercy willed that Thy only begotten Son should descend to this lower world for us, and should take upon Him flesh, which I, unworthy, hold here in my hands. Here let the priest bow to the host, saying: I adore Thee ; I glorify Thee ; with every power of my heart, I praise Thee ; and I pray that Thou wilt not leave us. Thy servants, but forgive us our sins, so far as we deserve to serve Thee, the only living and true God, with pure heart and chaste body ; through the sam( Christ, our Lord. Amen. O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of the Living God, who, by the will of the Father, and the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, Appendix. 169 hast, by Thy death, given light unto the ^vorld, deliver me from all mine iniquities, and from all evils, by this Thy, most holy body and blood ; and make me ever obedient unto Thy commandments, and grant that I may not be separated from Thee for ever, who, with God the Father, and the same Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God for ever and ever. Amen. Lord Jesu, let not the sacrament of Th}' body and blood which I, though unworthy, receive, become judgment and condemnation unto me ; but, through Thy mercy, may it be profitable for salvation of my body and soul. Amen. Let him humbly say to the body, before he receives it: Hail, evermore, most holy flesh of Christ, Sweeter far to me than all beside. May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ be to me, a sirmer, the way and the life. In the name 4* of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Here let him receive the body, after having made the sign of the cross vnth it before his mouth. Then to the blood, with great devotion, saying: Hail evermore, celestial drink. Sweeter far to me than all else beside. May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to me, a sinner, for an eternal remedy unto ever- lasting life. Amen. In the name 'i' of the Father. Here let him receive the blood, and then let him bow and say, with devotion, the following prayer : 1 give Thee thanks, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Eternal God, who hast refreshed me by the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and I r I 170 Appendix. pray that the sacrament of our salvation, which I, an un- worthy sinner, have received, may not turn to my condem- nation, according to my deserts, but may be available to the profit of my body and soul unto everlasting life. Amen. When this has been said, let the priest go to the right side of the a/ tar, with the chalice between his hands, his Jingers joined as before ; and let the sub-deacon approach and pour wine and water into the chalice ; and let the priest wash his hands, lest any remnants oj the body and blood be left either on his Jingers or in the chalice. After the first ablution or pouring, this prayer is said : Grant, O Lord, that we may receive with a pure mind that which we have taken with the mouth ; and that from a temporal gift, it may be made to us an everlasting remedy. Here let him wash his Jingers in the hollow of the chalice,, with wine poured in by the sub-deacon ; and when it has been drunk, let this prayer Jollow : Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from sin, and make us partakers from the heavenly healing. After the reception of the ablutions, let the priest hold the chalice over {_or rather place the chalice upon] the paten; so that, if anything remains therein, it " viay drip; and, afterwards, let him bend down and say : We adore the sign of the cross, by which we have received the sacrament of salvation." After the priest has washed his hands, and performed sundry other ceremonies, the people are dismissed, and the candle and incense-bearers, deacon, sub-deacon, and priest,, retire in their vestments, after a reverence to the altar. r I Appendix. 171 , an un- condem. e to the men. he right veen his I let the d water Is hands t I be left fter the id: re mind : from a medy. chalice, . •id when in, and st hold ? upon'} rrein, it i down eceived formed nd the priest, . I have (juoted this at some length in order that the reader may judge for himself whether there is anything in this service that can fairly be adduced as similar to the order of the holy communion in the Prayer Book of the Church of England. There are, indeed, a few analogous expressions and prayers ; but the point that I would emphasize is this : that the substance, the essence, the intention, of the whole service is entirely different. In short, this is the mass, pure and simple ; as Latimer called it, altogether detestable. It is the making and adoring a priest-made god. The Lord's Supper, in the Church of England, is the holy communion, the simple and scriptural apostolic ordinance as our Lord ordained it. And, yet, . ome of the clergy of the Church of England have openly declared that this Sarum missal is the standard towards which the Church should work ! 2. — The Eastward Position. (Chap. IV. p. 48.) Is it right for the clergyman, at the celebration of the holy communion, to stand in the centre of the chancel space, with his face towards the table and his back to the people ; or, is it the intention of the Church of England that the clergyman should stand, during the communion service, on the left hand of the table, with his face towards the length of the table and his side to the people ? In other words, is the Eastward position sanctioned by the Prayer Book ? The question is of such grave importance that it is worth consideration, for with it is bound up the whole doctrinal position of the Church of England on one of the most vital of subjects. If the Church of England maintains the spuriously- called " Catholic " theory of church teaching, that is, of a sacrificing priesthood and eucharistic worship, there can be no doubt that she must enjoin the Eastward position, for it is /• 172 Appendix. insopnrable from such theory. If tlie Cliurch of England does not, in her standards and formularies, teach such doctrine, it is evident that she will, in her rul)rits, guard against the intro- duction of any form and ceremonial that will tend to symbolically set it forth. It is, therefore, the duty of every Churchman to make diligent enc^uiry into the precise teaching of the Prayer Book on this matter. Now, in the first or semi-reformed Prayer Rook of the Church, the position of the Church was as clearly defined in one direction as it is now in anotlicr. In the First Book of 1549, the Eastward position is most clearly enjoined. There can be no doubt that it was the duty of every clergyman in the Church of England to assume the attitude universal in the Church of Rome, and to stand with his back to the people in the communion service. For here is the rubric : " The priest, standing humllfi afore the midst of the altar, shall sat/ the Lord's Prayer, with this collect." Observe the words. They can have but one meaning. Even if there were no centuries of custom in the medicEval Church to guide, there could be no doubt that " standing humbly afore the midst of the altar," meant standing before the middle of the altar, with face towards it, and back towards the congregation. If such a direction as this were to be found in the Prayer Book to-day, objectors to the Eastward position would not have an inch of argument to stand on. "When the Second Book appeared, there was doubtless much expectancy with regard to the nature of the altera- tions ; and certainly, as far as this rubric was concerned, the •difference was most striking. In two most important particulars, it was intentionally changed. In the first place. i'ippcndi; nnd does :riiu\ it is he intro- tetul to of every teaching c of the fined in Book of There y^man in iniversal bark, to is the / of the 'ith this leaning. lediiEval standing 5 before id back lis were I to the nent to Dubtless I altera- led, the iportant t place, there was added a rub ^73 and with regard to the appearance disposition of tlie coniiniiiiion table, which purposely and wholly subverted the mischievous "Catholic" theory of eucharistic sacrifice and mediating priest. "The table havitig at the communion time a fair white linen cloth u/mn it, shall stand in the bodij of the church, or in the chancel, tsfc.'* No one could be so simple as to believe that the theory of "Catholic" worship could ever be carried out in a Church which authorized the communion table (not altar) to stand in the body of the church ! Where the altar is against the east wall as a fixture, and the priest is commanded to stand in the middle before it, all is clear ; but to perform the sacri- ficial service at a table, standing in the body of the church, is "confusion worse confounded." And next, and, if possible, still more important, instead of the words, " the priest standing humbly afore the midst of the altar," there were substituted the words which to-day stand unaltered in the Prayer Book as the Church's direction to her officiating ministers at the communion : " And the priest standing at the north side of the table^ shall say the Lord's Prayer, with this collect." The difference is complete. The one is Romish ; the other is Protestant. The first says, " afore " ; the other says, " at the north." The first says, " afore the midst " ; the other says, " at the north side." The first says, " afore the midst of the altar " 5 the other says, " at the north side of the table." The distinction is thus radical and intentional. According to the teaching of the Prayer Book, there can be no other position taken by the clergyman than that of standing on the left-hand side (looking from the body of the church) of the table, with his side, not his back, to the people. Any clergyman who assumes any other r I 174 Appendix. position is acting contrary to the clear direction of the rubric. .i \ But perhaps it will be argued that the alleged distinction between the north side and the north end is a valid ground for the assumption of the Eastward position, and that inasmuch as the table is not a square, but an oblong, the clergyman who stands at the left-hand side of the front of the table, that is, the side facing the congregation, is standing in the rubrical position. The argument is worthless. It is not based upon any fair interpretation of the plain meaning of the text of the rubric, but has been fabricated in the very face of the rubric for the purpose of supporting a novel system of doctrine. For there is no doubt, as matters of historical fact, that (i) The tables, in the time of Edward VI., were some- times square, not oblong; so that the word "side" could not possibly, even upon the recently invented argument, be confounded with the " end." No shape has ever been pre- scribed for the table by law, and a square table is just as legal as an oblong. (2) Even where the tables were oblong, the distinction between the " side " and " end " was utterly unknown in the Church. The distinction is a purely nineteenth century fabri- cation. The word " side," at the time of the Reformation used to describe the ends of the altar j that is, the right and left-hand sides, as seen from the church. (3) Both at the time of the Reformation, and at the time of later revisions in the reigns of James and Charles, the tables were often placed, not as they are now universally, across the chancel, with the longer side to the body of the church, but lengthwise, that is, with the longer sides parallel with the sides of the chancel j and few of the acts of Arch- bishop Laud met with more bitter resistance than his attempts to alter the position of the communion tables and pia r I Appendix, 175 put them in a fixed position against the wall, in the place of the altar. il It was agreed at the Restoration, however, in spite of strong opposition, to leave in the rubric the old provision with regard to the table standing in the body of the church ; and instead of inserting the words "north e id," or "nortii j^iart," to simply employ a term which would specifically designate the position required, and yet suit every position of the holy table. There can be no doubt that the minds of all Churchmen were unanimous upon this point, no matter what their private opinions, that the position of the officiating priest should be at the left side of the table, with his side, not his back, to the congregation, and that the rubric should be clear, so as to prevent the priest standing with his face to the altar, as is the manner in the Church of Rome. There can be no doubt, al:so, that what would now be called the " High Church " party would have preferred a rubric which would not have permitted the table to stand lengthwise, or in the body of the church ; but for expediency's sake, the rubric was framed so as to permit this. With tables lengthways and crossways, the need was felt for a word which would be applicable to both positions, and yet prevent the attitude of the Roman priest. The word " end " was certainly open to objection, for, if the table was placed lengthwise, there was, grammatically speaking, no end at all to the north ; for every side is not an end, though, in a table, each end is a side. In that case, the north end di'^: not exist. The word " part " was equally open to objec- tion, as being somewhat vague, and as possibly, when the table was placed altarwise, giving an opening for the adop- tion of the Eastwrrd position. But there was a word which was at once specific and comprehensive ; specific enough to define the precise posi- tion, and comprehensive enough to suit both positions of the '^ ! 176 Appendix. table. That term was the " north-side." It was inserted accordingly in the rubric, and to-day the order of the Church of England is so clear that no clergyman, who literally obeys the rubric of his Church, can adopt any other position than that of standing at the north-side of the table, with his side to the people. With regard to the rubric immediately pre- ceding the Prayer of Consecration, which might seem to warrant the assumptio*^ of another position, dur'ng that prayer at least, I will just quote the judgment of one whom " High " Churchmen certainly must regard as an authority — Wheatly, the author of the work on the Prayer Book. He says, pp. 296-297 : " Jf it be asked whether the priest is to say this (the Con- secration) prayer standing before the table, or at the north-end of it, I answer, at the north-end of it ; for, according to the rules of grammar, the participle standivg must refer to the verb ordered, and not to the verb say. So that whilst the priest is ordering the bread and wine, be is to stand befors the table ; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so as that he may, with the more readiness a.-^d decency, break the bread before the people, which must be oi} the north-side. For, if he stood before the table, his body would hinder the people from seeing: so that he must net stand there: and conse- quently he must stand on the nortl side ... In the Romish Church, indeed, they alwr.ys stand before the altar during the time of consecration, in order to prevent the people from being eye-witnesses of their operatiovi in working their pretended miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut the chancel door . . . But our Church, that pretends no such miracle, enjoins, we see, the di:"ect contrary to this, by ordering the priest so to order the bread u.nd irine that he may, with the more readiness and decency, break the bread before the people and take the cup into his hands." That is, directly before the consecration prayer, the priest r-\ Appendix, 177 IS inserted he Church rally obeys iition than th his side liately pre- t seem to ur'ng that one whom lUthority — Book. He (the Con- ! north-end ing to the rfer to tlie whilst the before the so as that : the Iread le. For, if the people ind conse- he Romish during the 2ople from king their they shut ■etends no ■y to this, wine that Ireak the ,is hands.'' the priest is to leave the north-side and come before the table. Then he is to move the elements to the left or north-side ; or, in other words, to "order" them. And then, in order "that he may, with the more readiness and decency, break the bread before the people," he is to assume again the position enjoined by the Prayer Book at the north of the table. Interpreted in this way, the rubric is natural and easy. Interpreting otherwise, one must either overlook altogether the words " before the people," or give them an interpreta- tion they were never intended to bear ; or assume the East- ward position, and attempt the most awkward and almost ludicrous task of keeping the back to the people, and, at the same time, st;aining and twisting the arms and body, so as to make the manual acts visible to the people, or with still greater awkwardness and difficulty elevating the paten and cup above the head at arm's length. This was of course written before the Lambeth Judgment upon this point, and though it pains me to do it, the love of truth compels me to add a few words concerning this recent deliverance. From the very first there are evidences of a laboured desire to establish the points which the court evidently wants to establish, such as becomes the ardent pleader rather than the judge. It ignores in the most curious manner, for instance, the fact that the word " side " in King Edward's day and later, was used to denote what modern writers are pleased to call the end, and bases its preliminary argument upon its ignoring of this fact ; then it goes on to argue upon the imaginary supposition that the tables in the body of the church were alwayr placed lengthwise, and deduces con- [2 r ! 178 Appendix. elusions that are good and sound save for the fact that they are based on an unproved supposition, not a proved proposi- tion. Even supposing that some writers only had made these terms convertible, it is a strange thing that the court should take the opinion of Puritan opponents of the Church because it is on the court's side, and allow it to weigh against such Church authorities as Cosin, Wren, Bennet, L' Estrange,, and Nicholls. Further on it makes use of a term that might well become counsel whose only resource was to abuse the plaintifi", but ill becomes the dignity and impartiality of the Judge — the word "Pur'tan." For what reason the Court should use this word, and speak of the difficulty of complying with a Puritan rubric, unless it was to somehow make the reader believe that the northside position was the fad of a narrow minded and unchurchly school, and thus stigmatize the position with an adjective that is so awful in its potentiality,, it is hard to conceive. It was hard enough to ignore the incontrovertible fact that the Priest standing at the north side of the table is the same as the Priest standing at the north end of the table, but it seems harder to have this followed by the use of such an unnecessary term as Puritan. But this is just of a piece with the whole deliverance. It takes things for granted that should be proved, and worse than that, which cannot be proved for the simple reason that they are contradicted by facts which have been known to students for years, and then it proceeds upon these assumptions to base conclusions that beg the whole question j as when it says, for instance, that th' substitution of the north end for the north side was a " compromise,'' But perhaps the most extraordinary feature in the Judg- ment is the reason given by the Court for the north side rubric. • fi Appendix* 179 that thej' proposi- ad made the court I Church ;h against Estrange,. il become plaintiff. Judge— "t should fxng with he reader a narrow atize the tentiality, fact that the same Die, but it such an ance. It orse than that they I students ptions to when it 1 end for be Judg- orth side For years it was supposed that the determination to avoid the Popish practice, and to break away a Protestant people from the spectacle of the Roman priests' back-to-the-people celebration of the mass sacrifice was the chief reason for the enactment of this rubric. No, says the Court, that was not the reason at all. The real reason of the north side rubric, according to the Lambeth Court, was that the Communion might be cele- brated " as near, as much among, and as familiarly with the congregation as possible." The grounds for this reason the Court does not vouchsafe to offer. Surely the Court knew that some, if not all of the Prayer Book authorities of the Church, with unanimous voice alleged that the reason for the north side rubric was, that it was intended to make the minister of the Church of England avoid the Popish position. Surely the Court knew that Gauden, and NichoUs, and L'Estrange, to say nothing of many others, positively stated that this and this only was the reason. Yes, the Court knew that, and said so. How then does it get over this ? Surely these scholars were learned, and studious, and competent. The way in which the Court gets over this simply over- whelms one with amazement. It says they were mistaken. But why ? In what words ? On what grounds ? On what contemporaneous evidence ? The Court does not say. It does not even offer the shadow of the semblance of an argument. It simply re- pudiates the idea with scorn. And using almost the only vigorous language in the Judgment it says : " Their unhistorical idea of a protest against Rome guided their judgments in favour of standing at the north end." 12 * I r i8o Appendix, But — their reasons are fallacious ! ! ! Naturally we enquire why are their reasons fallacious, and their view false ? They lived in the times, their exposition has the strongest of all force, the force of contemporary exposition, and they were unanimous in giving as the reason for the north side rubric, the clear and intelligible explanation that it was the purposed, and deliberate, and intentioned avoidance of the Popish altar-ward position. The Court does not answer. With a kind of sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas brevity the Court simply brushes away two centuries of facts and history, and says : The idea is unhistorical, the view is fallacious. Is it not extraordinary for a Court in its judgment to cast around for a reason which on the face of it is insufficient to justify the contentions that raged about the rubric, and reject one so patent, and so universally accepted ; and does it not almost seem as if nothing but a determined resolve to countenance the Eastward position could have led the Court to make such a statement. As to the words that follow, "the north end is beyond question a true liturgical use in the Church of England formed not ly enactment but as the word itself implies ly use,'* we would simply say: If the north end is thus graciously allowed to be a true liturgical use, wheie, then, are the other liturgical positions enacted in the Church of England ? What are the other true liturgical positions ? Certainly the Prayer Book, the Canons, the Articles, say nothing about them. Where, then, are they to be looked for ? *' Formed not by enactment but by use " ! But what was the reason of the "use " ? Certainly not the Roman Church, for it always adopted the Eastward position. Certainly not the practice of Luther, who r < Appendix. i8i cious, and strongest and they north side t was the ice of the le voluntas es of facts he view is mt to cast ifficient to ibric, and and does resolve to the Court is beyond England mplies by is thus leie, then, I!hurch of positions ? icles, say )oked for ? iopted the ither, who advocated the Westward position as a theory, and though he retained for a time the customary position, repudiated alto- gether the sacrificial idea. Certainly not the early Church, for to consecrate behind the table facing the people was a ( ommon use in the West. Common sense answers at once: the reason of the " use " was the enactment of the Prayer Book, which said the Priest standing at the north- side of the table shall say, &c. Every table has four sides, and the north side, or as the Court terms it, the north end, was taken not because of use, but because of enactment. In other words, the Prayer Book said so, and the clergy obeyed. The concluding part of the Judgment is taken up with an account of a number of engravings facing the title pages &c. of old Prayer Books, &c., which show the position of the table, and of the Prayer Book upon the table. Those regarding the position of the look are of no value whatsoever (as Mr. Tomlinson shows in his able "Examina- tion of the historical grounds ci the Lambeth Judgment," J. F. Shaw, to which the reader is referred) j and as to such pictures showing positions of the celebrant having anything to do with making the position legal or illegal, it seems strange to think that a solemn judicial deliverance could contemplate such a thing. For what has the action or the private opinion of an individual, or a few individuals, or, perhaps, for aught we know, an irresponsible printer, or engraver, in this or any other age to do with even the correctness of any peculiar ritual, much less with the legality of the ritual of the Church ? Nothing whatever. We shall hardly be surprised after this to hear that the Lambeth Court of the year 1900 has decided that during the Missa Cantata the incense is to be swung three times with semicircular swings before the altar, upon which is to be placed the Crucifix in the centre, between two lighted candles ; and "<"""■—■■ r ■ l82 Appendix. i II I. It the ablutions are to be censed with three signs of the cross, &c., because on the xixth page of the introduction to the "Notes on Ceremonial" there is a complex engraving to show how this should be done, and to justify these things as "a true liturgical use" of the Church because some ^«/i- Puritan Churchmen had "always" celebrated the Eucharist according to the engraving in the Directorium Anglicanum. Even if the pictures were true they would be of no judicial value, but what can be thought when it has been shown ("Tomlinson's Examination," p. 44,) that only four of these engravings show the celebrant officiating at even any portion of the West side of the table, and that not one of these shows, the celebrant taking the Eastward position during the Ante- Communion Office. Here then is the whole matter : — On one side — (r) A positive enactment in plain English — " the north side of the table." (2) A good plain reason, the semper, ubique, et ab omnibus of English Churchmen for a century — to avoid the Romish position. (3) After the Restoration, the same positive rubrical enactment, the same reason, and not only so, but with a few doubtful exceptions, nearly 1 50 years of unity in practice and interpretation. On the other side : — (i) A few doubtful instances of departure from the con- tinuous and almost universal interpretation of the rubric, drawn from engravings, &c. (2) The supposition that north side did not mean the same as north end, and that the lengthwise position of the table, at one time prevalent, invalidated the older north side practice. (3) The strong statement that the practically universal Appendix. 183 the cross, m to the aving to things as me Anti- Eucharist :licanum. ) judicial n shown of these y portion se shows, he Ante- Inglish — le, et ab avoid the rubrical ith a few ctice and the con- 3 rubric, lean the )n of the 3rth side universal interpretation of the reason for adopting the north side was " unhlstorical," and fallacious. ' i ' And yet, after thus employing arguments where we should expect judgments, and pronouncing judgments where we reasonably expect arguments, the Court elaborately pro- nounces that the charge is dismissed, and the Eastward position is not i!'";gal. In other words : that English words now do not mean what they mean j that north-side doesn't mean north-side, ■or for that matter anything in particular at all j that history is not history, but private opinion ; and that the thousands and ten thousands of learned divines of the Church who for well nigh three centuries believed with profoundest faith that the great reason why the Church of England enjoined the north side position was to render impossible any imitation of the Romish mass-sacrifice, and that adoption of the Eastward position signified the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice, were utterly mistaken, and reasoned fallaciously, because the Lambeth Court of 1890 has decided that such an idea is without foundation, and that the Eastward position conveys no intrinsic error, or erroneous shade of doctrine. .3. — ^The so-called Ornaments Rubric (Chap. IV., p. 49.) This IS perhaps the most difficult of all the difficulties in the Prayer Book, and I do not pretend for a moment to solve it completely. All that I can do is to endeavour to explain it as clearly as possible for the reader who cares to follow its rather involved history. There it stands in the very forefront of the Prayer Book, as a direction before the order for morn- ing and evening prayer. " And here is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this z84 Appendix, « I E 1-^ Et y): Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." On the surface there appears to be only one conclusion. In the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, the ornaments of the minister, and of the Church were unquestionably of a Romish character, for there seems to be no manner of doubt as to the association of the wearing of the alb and chasuble with the mass, and the use of these so- called sacrificial or specially eucharistic vestments was ordered or permitted by the First Prayer Book of Edward. Every minister of the Church of England, therefore, who does not at all times of ministering wear vestments like those worn by priests in the Roman Church, is acting illegally as a minister of the Church of England. This is, I say, the first and most natural conclusion. But at once a doubt arises in the mind of the thinking Churchman as to its being the true one, for if it be, then for about three hundred years every minister in the Church of England has acted illegally, and the extraordinary phe- nomenon is presented of all the ministers of a Church wearing a simple surplice when the Church of which they are the ministers prescribed for their use the cross-covered and richly ornamented vestments accustomed to be worn by the Roman priest. It can be almost positively asserted that from the year 1552, when the Romish vestments passed out of use in the English Church, until the year 1853, when the Romish vestments were again seen worn in the Church of " St. Thomas (Becket) the Martyr," Oxford, the first church in England to use them, the custom of the clergy of the Church of England, since the Reformation, was to wear a simple white surplice as the distinctive garment of the minister in every parish church during the performance of Divine Service. If this be the case, it is evident that the direction in Appendix, 185 t, in the lusion. le Sixth, :h were us to be taring of hese so- » ordered ore, who ke those ally as a in. thinking then for kurch of ry phe- Church ich they covered A^om by ar 1552, English stments Becket) e them, ince the as the church tion in this first part of the Prayer Book had been nullified by more authoritative directions ; or else that a different interpretation has to be taken of it than that which appears on the surface : for it stands to reason that if the vestments of the Church clergyman ought to be similar to those worn by the Roman clergy, an outcry against the universal custom would have been made generations ago. What then is the explanation of this anomaly, or, in other word., what is the law of the Church of England respecting the vestments to be worn by its ministers. To go back to the very beginning. Before the Reformation it was the custom of the clergy of the Church to wear a number of striking and highly ornamented articles of apparel, more or less symbolical and emblematic of the office of a sacrificing priest, the amice, the alb with ornamental embroidery called apparels, the girdle, the maniple, the chasuble, the dalmatic or tunicle, varying in colour according to the ecclesiastical season. If any one had entered an English church in those days, he would have witnessed the performance of the mass, with all its accompaniments of incense and crossings, and prostra- tions, by priests in richly ornamented and cross-covered vestments j but he would not have seen the Mass celebrated by a priest m a surplice^ for the surplice only was never permitted a priest celebrant. When the first Prayer Book appeared, 1549, nothing whatever was said about the dress of the minister at all in the first part of the Book, the order beginning with the simple direction : " The priest being in the Quire, shall begin with a luud voice the Lord's Prayer.'^ But in the Communion Oflftce, entitled " The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass," i86 Appendix, after the three first rubrics which are still the first three in our Prayer Book, there came a direction as to what the priest should wear. "The priest . . . shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say a white alb plain, with a vestment or cope," and any priests or deacons helping were also to have corresponding vestures, " that is to say, albs with tunicles." This, then, was the first direction of the Church of England in the matter of vestments at the time of the Reformation, and though it was not completely, it was certainly in the Protestant direction. For the reader must remember that the principal vestment of the priest in his ceremonial office as a sacrificing priest was the chasuble, and the principal vestment of the deacon at the celebration of mass was the dalma^'c or "tunicle," and that both of these were of high symbolical significance, and associated with the offering of the sacrifice of the mass. But the cope, which was a thing shaped somewhat like a ladies' fur cape, though longer, and made of silk, was not a sacrificial vestment at all, while the albe was a kind of tight- fitting surplice worn generally by the choir and the sexton. When the albe was employed for eucharistic purposes, it had little square embroiderea ornamentations in front and at the back to show its sacrificial significance, and was often coloured. When, therefore, it was ordered in the rubric that the priest was to wear a white albe plain, it was evidently for the purpose of avoiding not only that excess of ornamenta- tion that was so characteristic of Romish vestments, but also to get rid of a piece of ornamentation that was symbolically associated with the offering of the mass. The permission to use a cope in place of the Vestment, and the injunction as to the alb being plain, all point Appendix. 187 t three in the priest appointed \n, with a jing were say, albs i England ormation, ily in the Tiber that nial office principal s was the •e of high ffering of hat like a *vas not a of tight- le sexton. es, it had md at the /as often that the ently for namenta- ents, but hat was ss. The estment, all point to the fact that it was the mind of the Reformers, even at this early stage, to displace from their sacrificial use those more showy Romish dresses which had been associated with the offering of the mass sacrifice, and to accustom the clergy to wear in their ministrations plainer and simpler vestments devoid of all priestly and sacrificial significance. Though "the vestment" be identified with the chasuble, there is no recognition of its necessity as a priestly garment, for the cope, a non-sacrificial dress, is permitted as an alternative; whereas if the Church held those high views of ritual and symbolism insisted on in the Romish form, it would never have allowed the disuse of that garment. So much for the First Prayer Book. In the year 1552 the Second Prayer was put forth, and in place of our present ornaments' rubric, these words were found : *^ And here is to he noted that the minister at the time of the Communion^ and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet ; and being a priest or deacon he shall have and wear a surplice only." This Prayer Book was established by an Act of Uniformity and became law, and thus the use of the alb, vestment, and cope became illegal. In other words the First Prayer Book was superseded by the Second, and the law of the Church henceforth was that the minister should at all times, and in all places, wear a surplice only, that is, that he should not wear an alb, a chasuble, or a cope, or any such thing. Of course, every candid person must perceive that there was a reason for this alteration. The reason was obvious. The abrogated vestments had been connected with the Popish I f ' L'« a f^'W-'t tiii \' 1 ! t .1 i i88 Appendix. Mass, and they were forbidden because they were sacrificial garments, or gave a " distinctive " dress to the celebrant at the Eucharist. The surplice on the other hand was not a mass vestment at all ; nay, it was not a vestment in which mass could be legally celebrated. And the Reformers selected the surplice as a protest against, and to avoid the superstition of the mass. After the accession of Queen Mary, and throughout her reign, both these Prayer Books were dead and buried, and all the vestments and ceremonies of the Romish Mass became legalized in the Church of England, but in the first year of Glueen Elizabeth's reign, the Second Prayer Book of Edward was restored, there being authorised only three slight changes to be made "therein," "and none other, or otherwise." In the twenty.fifth section of the Act of Uniformity, which legalized its restoration, there appeared these apparently plain words, which have since become famous; for they have occasioned perhaps more trouble in the Church than all the rest of the sentences in the Prayer Book put together : — " Provided always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in this Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., until other order shall be therein taken by authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metro- politan of this realm." But when the Prayer Book of 1559 was itseM printed, there appeared under the Order for morning and evening prayer the direction : — "And here is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministra- sacrificial celebrant hand was 3Stment in Reformers avoid the ighout her ied, and all Lss became ■St year of of Edward ht changes (thcrwise." lity, which apparently : for they e Church Book put ornaments )e retained Y authority of King taken by ice of her the great he Metro- ntedy there prayer the the time ministra- Appendix. 189 tion, shall use such ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Vlth, according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book." And this is the Jirst appearance, and the Jirst form- of this so-called Ornaments Rubric. If this form had never been altered, there never would have been any difficulty to speak of. For two reasons : In the first place it was not, in the strict sense of the word, a rubric at all, but only a professed summary of part of the Act of Uniformity, made privately, and interpolated, without any authority whatsoever, as a rubric ; while the Act to which it referred expressly stated that the direction was merely provisional "until other order should be taken;" and, as we shall presently see, other order was taken in the Injunctions and Advertisements of the Queen. In the second place, and this is most important, the whole force of the direction, or, as it is erroneously called, the rubric, depended for its legality on the Act of Parliament in the beginning of the Book, which by section 3 enacted the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., enjoining the wearing of " a surplice only." There seems to be no reason to doubt that this direction appeared in the Prayer Book from a simple desire to please the Queen, who liked to see the cope used in the Communion Service. Yet from the very first time it appeared it was regarded as a piece of waste paper, and, as a matter of fact, from that day to this, the vestments in question have been abolished from the Church. And they were abolished, not from mere Puritanical caprice ; they were abolished by law. In this very year i5';9, the Commissioners referred to in the Act of Parlia- ment set forth in the beginning of Elizabeth's Prayer Book framed and prepared a set of authoritative orders to the k1 I*-' • ft.* ] 190 Appendix. clergy in explanation and enforcement of the Act, to show them clearly what they were to wear and do as clergymen of the Church of England, and these orders were issued by the Queen in virtue of her supreme ecclesiastical authority as head of the State Church, and iu accordance with the authority given her by the Act of Uniformity. These orders were known as the Queen s Injunctions, and they dealt with the matter of the minister's vestments in language of most certain sound. " Item, her Majesty being desirous to have the prelacy and clergy of this realm to be had as well in outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, thinking it necessary to have them known to the people in all places and assemllies, both in the church and AT^ithout, and thereby to receive the honour and estim- ation due to the special messengers and ministers OF Almighty God ; willeth and commandeth that all Archbishops and Bishops, mid all other that be called or admitted to Preaching or ministering the Sacra- ments .... shall use and wear such seemly habits, garments, and such square caps, as were most commonly and orderly received in the latter year oj the reign of King Edward the Sixth'' That is, the Queen's Injunctions now authoritatively declared that the clergyman who wore the vest- ments of King Edward's First Book, the " vestment " i.e, chasuble, the alb, the cope, and tunicle, was acting contrary to the law of the Church of England. That this was the clear meaning of the words, is manifest from the fact that all sacrificial vestments from that time went out of use, and were universally abolished from the Church. This has become of late more apparent than ever, owing to a careful research which has established the fact, apparently not known at the time of the Ridsdale judgment, that the 30th Injunctioa ordeied the surplice only. Appendix, 191 t, to show clergymen issued by- authority with the ctions, and tments in iie prelacy I outward is of their wn to the E CHURCH md estim- MINISTERS deth that that be :he Sacra- nly habits, monly and I of King tions now e the vest- ment " i.e, J contrary IS the clear :t that all :, and were IS become 1 research )wn at the njunction. If it be alleged, however, that these Injunctions were only provisional, and to serve an ephemeral purpose, the answer to this is that new editions of them were constantly put forth, and continued to be set forth even till i6oo, and inasmuch as they were set forth by virtue of the Queen's authority given her by the Act of Uniformity they are possessed, in the opinion of many competent to decide, of the same legal force as that illustrious statute. In the year 1566, there came forth another famous set of ecclesiastical regulations known as the Queen's Advertise- ments, which were compiled mainly by Archbishop Parker, and issued by the authority formally given to Her Majesty by the Uniformity Act. These Advertisements were issued by the Queen's directions, in the name of the Queen's Commissioners, and regarded universally as possessed of the same legal authority as the Injunctions, which were of the same legal force as the Act of Uniformity, and they were referred to as the binding law of the Church on vestments both by the Canons of 1571, and of 1604. The Advertisements expressly ordered that the minister, without any exceptions wh'atsoever in the case of parish churches, and at all services, should wear as the ecclesiastical garment the surplice. In cathedrals and college churches only, the cope was permitted (to the exclusion of chasubles and tunicles) in the ministration of the Holy Communion (the cope not having any sacrificial significance), and even in cathedrals and collegiate churches, at all other services, a surplice was to be worn. In other words, the so-called Ornaments Rubric was clearly repealed, and vestments, albs, and tunicles,' were to be regarded not merely as unauthorized and illegal garments for any minister of the Church of England, but as things associated with Popish superstitions, and therefore to be destroyed. If the old maxim, contemporanea expositio fortissima est in !| 192 Appendix. lege, be a rule of English law, there can be no doubt about the authority of the Advertisements, for the Arch- bishops and Bishops of the day were strong in their determin- ation to utterly extirpate the use of vestments, as the visitation articles of Archbishop Parker, Archbishop Grindal, Archbishop Whitgift and Archbishop Piers abundantly prove. The " Vestment," alb and tunicle disappeared from the chancel, and were consumed in the flames. Even in cathedrals, copes fell into disuse. The universal use of the Church vindicates the universal loyalty of the clergy to the law of the Church, for whatever may have been their own private predilections, they recognized the surplice as their only legal vestment, and considered the use of the chasuble and the alb (and the cope in parish churches) to be absolutely Illegal. The next authoritative documents to be considered are the Canons of 1603- 1604, issued in the first year of King Jarnes I. These Canons set forth in the form of a series of articles the general laws of the Church with regard to the services, &c., and represent in a modernized and modified form the Acts, and Injunctions, and Articles of the two previous reigns, and especially the Canons of 157 1 and 1597. They were authorized by the King, and passed by both convocations. They treat of the subject of the vestment t'.ree times. The 24th Canon expressly provides that according to the Advertisements published Anno 7 Eliz. the principal minister, with Gospeller and Epistler ** agreably " (i.e. en suite), in all cathedral and collegiate churches at Holy Communion shall on .^ertain great feasts wear a decent cope. Two things of great importance are here established. The authority of the Advertisements, which, as we have just seen, abolished the vestments of Edward the Sixth's First Prayer Book, and the confinement 01 the use of the cope (a non-sacrificial and Appendix. 193 no doubt lie Arch- ietermin- s, as the ) Grindal, itly prove, from the Even in ise of the gy to the their own their only suble and absolutely dered are r of King a series of ird to the modified the two and 1597. by both vestment ing to the minister, ite)t in all nion shall vo things ithority of abolished 5ook, and flcial and therefore inoffensive article) to cathedral and collegiate churches only. The fact, too, of the cope being ordered to be worn by the epistoler and gospeller shows conclusively that it was not considered as the distinctive vestment of a sacrificing priest. The 25th Canon proceeds to confirm the law further by enacting : " In the time of Divine Service and Prayers in all cathedral and collegiate churches, when there is no communion, it shall be sufficient to wear surplices." (And it adds that Deans, Canons and others, being graduates, shall wear their hoods.) Here again the law of the Church according to the Act of Uniformity is distinctly confirmed. But these rules applied only to cathedral and collegiate churches. What were the great body of the clergy to wear in their parish churches ? Canon 58 put an end to all controversy. " Every minister saying the public Prayers, or ministering the Sacraments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish." Thus, according to the Canons of the Church, the only vestment recognized as a legal garment to be worn by the clergyman of the Church of England is the surplice (with academical hood, and tippet or scarf). No other is even hinted at as possible or permitted. The only exception is the use of the cope in cathedrals and college churches. The use. of the chasuble, alb, tunicle, is absolutely illegal. A point of unassailable force in connection with these Canons was brought out in the Ridsdale Judgment, viz., . that these Canons, enjoining the use of the surplice, &c., were by the convocations which passed them, considered to be entirely consistent with other Canons, such as the 14th, i6th, , and 56th, which enjoined the strictest possible conformity ^3 < i t •;-•; II ! 194 Appendix. with the orders, rites, and ceremonies, prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, without addition, omission, or alteration. Now on the supposition that the 50-called orna- ments rubric was then possessed of statutory authority, these Canons could not possibly be reconciled with one another, and would be invalid in law because contrary to the statute. On the supposition, however, of the Advertisements being possessed of legal force, the Canons are quite consistent. (One word may be inserted with regard to a contention that has been made by those who are anxious for the re- introduction of die disused vestments, that the mediaeval Canons which were the law of the Church and the State during the reign of Henry VIII., and which authorized, of course. Popish usages and vestments, were in force in the second year of Ed'^ard VI., and thus the Canon Law itself authorizes their use still. The contention is utterly futile. For in the first place the statute of Henry VIII., which authorized these mediaeval canons and constitutions, was itself invalidated pro tanto, if not by the first Act of Uniformity, most unquestionably by the subsequent Acts of Uniformity, and all the provisions of the older Canons thus abrogated ; and in the second place, the Canons of 1603-1604 were compilations from Acts and Injunctions of previous reigns, and by being accepted by the Church in convocation, and authorized by the sovereign, disannulled all former Canon Laws) . We now come to the year 1662, and to the most puzzling part of the whole subject. As we have seen, up to this point there has been no question at all as to the law of the Church, or the usage of the clergy ; for a hundred years, notwithstanding the so-called ornaments rubric of 1559 — which was not a rubric at all, but only an inaccurate and unauthoritative paraphrase of the 25th section of Elizabeth's Appendix, 195 d by the ission, or lied orna- rity, these other, and :ute. ;nts being stent, ontention ►r the re- mediaeval the State lorized, of ce in the Law itself I., which was itself liformity, liformity, brogated ; )04 were as reigns, ition, and er Canon : puzzling p to this aw of the •ed years, >f ^559— :urate and lizabeth's Act of Uniformity — the only vestment worn, and authorized to be worn in general use, was the surplice. \-i In the year 1662 the Prayer Rook as we now have it appeared, revised and amended, and instead of the previous rubric : — "And here is to be noted that the ministe'' at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his minis- tration, shall use such ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book," there appeared with a slight but most crucial verbal alteration the present rubric : "And here is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." The reader will perceive that there is an important differ- ence in the two. In the first there was a reference to the Act of Parliament in the beginning of the Book, and this reference took away its sting, for by the high authority of that Act the ornaments of the Second Prayer Book were prescribed, and the surplice only authorized. In the present rubric this reference is not found, and the law of the Church in the year 1^48-9, the year of the First Prayer Book, is apparently made the law once more, and every minister obliged to wear the semi-Popish vestments authorized in that imperfect stage of the Church's Reformation, viz. the chasuble, the alb, and tunicle. But as it has been ably pointed out by some of the greatest of England's ecclesiastical jurists,* the Act of * See Six Privy Council Judgments, Brooke, pp. 180-181. 13 * 196 Appendix, :■ I Uniformity which legalizes the Prayer Book of 1662, that is, Charles the Second's Act, did not repeal the former Act of Uniformity by Elizabeth, but left that Act in force. That Act, as v^e have seen, overruled the particular enactment of the so-called ornaments rubric most effectually. Therefore, by retaining it, Charles the Second's Act of Uniformity did the same. In other vi^ords, the effect of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. was to leave the law in the same state in which it had been up to that date. And up to that date the law was, the surplice only, and no dalmatic or any such thing. This is further confirmed in the opinion of many by the introduction into the present rubric-direction of the words, '^ shall be retained, and be in use." Now of these things there can be no doubt. The In- junctions and Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth equently egree of cstments ley intro- tion, thus obtained, nity with u'c suffi- lorize for cope and estments 1 no man who associated some of them with eucharistic symbohsm Would h ive prescribed them generally for all services. Thesi', then, are the signifuant tacts: I. 'i'hat the Puritans ohjedcd to the rubric as it stood in the Prayer Hook belore 'hat time. 2 That the rubric was altered as the result of their objection, 5. I'liat the men who made the alteration made no attempt to revive the obsolete vestn\ents, but on the other hand insisted on the use of the .snr/)/i<'e only. Hut then, after all, the stubborn (luestion will assert itself again : Why, if this was the case, was the rubric ever left there at all ? Why all this ambiguity, and mystery, and elaboration of explanatory devices, when a simple stroke of the pen would have wiped away all controversy ? Why, if the bishops just wanted the surplice, did they not simply say so ? Why did they leave in the very front of the Prayer l^ook a clause which they might have seen would occasion endless discussion, and perplexity ? Why indeed ? Not a few Churchmen have given up the attempt to answer this question, and have heen satisfied to treat it as an insoluble conundrum, and say, *' No one on earth can tell." Others have answered it satisfactorily to themselves, by finding in this so-called ornaments rubric an authorization for a higher degree of ritual for all those who, from time to time, should desire to revert to the more elaborate eucharistic symbolism of the pre-Reformation Church, and revive the gorgeous vestments of the mass. In other words, the Adver- tisements, the Injunctions, and the Canons are to be taken only as prescribing the very least degree of ritual, the minimum of j)lainness, and the ornaments rubric as prescribing the highest possible degree of ritual, the maximum of gorgeous- ness. But, as the most learned of English jurists have IP \ W ^^' ^ 202 Appendix. pointed out,* this theory, however agreeable to the ritualistic temperament, is hopelessly at variance with the facts of history, and the usage of the Church. There is not the slightest evidence in the history of the Church to show that during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, the surplice was permitted as a legally possible ritual minimum, while the gorgeous vestments were permitted also as a possible maximum. On the contrary, everything proves that the surplice was the only vestment permitted and ordered. It was to be one thing or the other. If it was to be a surplice at all times, then it was not to be a chasuble and alb at the Holy Communion, and vice versa. It was not a permissive, it was a peremptory and compulsory statute. All the legislation of that day was characterized by this uncompromising exactitude. The acts were acts not of Biformity, but of Uniformity, and their object was not to tolerate maximums and minimums for differently thinking Churchmen, but to establish uniformity for all Churchmen. And the crowning demonstration of this is the utter destruction of the mass vestments, and the vigorous mea- sures of the bishops taken to ensure the wearing of the surplice only. Strange that there should have been such annihilation and destruction if the bishops were aware that they were permissible vestments. Strange, too, that this fascinating explanation was unknown to the men who devised the rubric ! No. No. The theory is utterly worthless, and is condemned most chiefly by the fact that it was left to the nineteenth-century ritualist to discover it. Others have gone to the length of a literal interpretation of the face meaning of the rubric, contending that the only ""■■ . .- .- , — ..^ - — , „ ■ — _^. — ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■ ■ > ■ — ■■ .-- .. I » * Brooke, p. 182, " i Appendix. 203 ritualistic facts of not the show that arles, the ninimum, ilso as a g proves itted and If it was . chasuble . It was impulsory racterized e acts not ras not to thinking chmen. the utter ous mea- g of the een such ware that that this nen who tied most h-century etation of the only authorized vestments are those of the First Prayer Book, and that, in consequence, every clergyman who has for the past three hundred years administered the Holy Communion while wearing only a surplice has acted illegally. The men who adopt this view are honest, but singular. If they have an apparent sanction for this extraordinary view in an isolated sentence in the Prayer Book, they have a most practical refutation of it in the fact that the whole body corporate of the Church of England clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons, have for three hundred years been systematic violators of the law, and ninety-nine out of a hundred are so to-day J for if the rubric is the only law, then, to use the language of the Ridsdale Judgment, the use of the vest- ments is not merely authorized, it is enjoined. It would be a serious business to bring all the law-defying clergy to task if this is the case ! But, seriously, there never has been an instance of the user of the surplice being considered a law- breaker, nor has there ever been a recorded instance of such a prosecution. On the contrary, it has been decided by the highest court of the land, that any man who wears these vestments at the administration of the Holy Communion, is committing a legal offence against the Church of England.* The law of the land, and the law of the Church is, that the surplice is the only lawful vestment for the clergyman at all times of his ministration. To conclude. The only satisfactory explanation to my mind is this : — The rubric, so-called, is not to be regarded as a rubric * Privy Council Appeals, vol. iii., Hebbert v. Purchas, p. 626. "The Vestments complained of (chasubles, tunicles, and albs) have been considered prohibited, and declared illegal, and are and must be considered, and so held now.'' 204 Appendix. w 4 '■■ at all, for rubric it never was, but simply as a kind of reference note to the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity which remains now as before the primary authority as to ornaments. In its original form, the rubric or quasi rubric, for it was an entirely unauthorized and imperfect article, referred the people to the great Statute of Uniformity, and in its final form its intention still was to retain the standard then existing, as provided for by the Act of Elizabeth. That this explanation is the true one from the Church standpoint is proved by the fact that neither the inserters of it nor their antagonists ever regarded it as afresh enactment determining the vestments of the clergy. In fine : it is no more right to take an isolated sentence in the Prayer Book, and interpret it by itself, than it is to take an isolated passage in Holy Scripture and interpret it apart from the context. And this has been the mistake of some modern English Churchmen. They have taken a sentence, which of all other sentences in the Prayer Book should have been considered in its connection with the legislative enactments of the past, and considered it solely by itself as a rubric binding on all the clergy, forgetting entirely not only that this pseudo-rubrical direction has not, and never had, the authority of a rubric, but that the custom of the Church, the unquestionable interpretation of its framers, and the final decision of the highest authority have determined that it stands there only as a reference and testimony to that great series of Uniformity Enactments which, on the one hand, discarded and illegalized the chasuble, alb, and other sacri- ficial vestments, and on the other legalized, and exclusively legalized, the wearing of the surplice. (The reader who cares to go into this subject for himself should read the oflicial reports of the Privy Council in the Purchas and Ridsdale Judgments, and also the various Appendix. 205 L kind of lity which rnaments. it was an erred the final form xisting, as le Church iserters of enactment sntence in is to take et it apart n English ntences in onnection isidered it forgetting IS not, and torn of the mers, and nined that that great 3ne hand, her sacri- xclusively )r himself cil in the e various learned treatises by Mr. J. T. Tomlinson, published bv the Church Association.) 4. — The Mixing of Wine and Water. (Chap. IV. p. 49.) The decision of the Lincoln Judgment on this question is as follows : — " The Court declares that the mixing of the wine in and as part of the service is against the law of the Church, but finds no ground for pronouncing the use of a cup mixed beforehand to be an ecclesiastical offence." Though the point is in some respects a trivial one, the way in which the Court arrived at the latter conclusion may be briefly referred to as a sample of its methods in dealing with these disputed questions. The point the Court wanted to establish was that it is lawful to use the mixed cup in the Communion Service, though not to mix it in the service, and the difficulty the Court had to face was, that though in the Prayer Book of 1549 the mixing was enjoined, the Prayer Book now says nothing about it. How, then, is the Court to do this ? First of all it goes to some trouble to show that the use of the mixed cup was a primitive, continuous, and all but universal practice in the Church j tbat Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others mention the fact. But of course, this is not sufficient, as the question is not what is or was the practice of any other church or churches, but what is the law of the Church of England. The Church of England has omitted the practice altogether. But though the Church has thus plainly expressed itself, the Court is not without resource, and it proceeds by a rather involved line of demonstration to show that though the '■ I 206 Appendix. mixing was abolished from the service, it was not intended to abolish the 7ise of the mixed cup. How is this to be proved ? It cannot be proved. What, then, does the Court say ? It says that probably Cranmer intended not to disapprove of the previous mixing. " There exists no presumption that the use of a mixed cup was intended to be discontinued." Upon what grounds does the Court say this ? Upon this ground, that apparently Cranmer got many of his liturgical suggestions from " the usages of the Primitive Church," among which was the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, and that as these had not the mixing in the service, though they presupposed a mixed cup, therefore it is probable that Cranmer did not intend to discontinue the use of the mixed cup. But what is the ground for the probability of this most momentous negative presumption ? Simply a note written in his handwriting in one of Cranmer's unpublished folios not much later than 1544, to the effect that in the eucharist water is to be mixed with wine. In 1544! But, says the Court (it is believed) there is no after-trace of his having altered his opinion on the point. The Court, it is to be presumed, has evidence of this, but on the other hand it must be remembered that Cranmer himself confessed many years after this that he was at that very time " in divers errors," and afterwards changed his opinion. However. The Court then concludes : — " [f, however, for reasons of primitive antiquity he re- moved the mixing " (previous to the fresh information brought by the researches of later students, it was thought that the reasons for this and other alterations of the 1549 service were a growing spiritual enlightenment, and the Appendix. 207 >t intended ?d. What, y Cranmer . " There i cup was it many of i Primitive hrysostom, ice, though olahle that se of the this most in one of in 1544, to nixed with there is no ! point, ice of this, it Cranmer vsis at that langed his lity he re- nformation as thought f the 1549 t, and the desire to remove from the Prayer Book everything which could nourish superstition), " it remains probable that for the same reason resting on the same early memorials of Christianity, he approved of the previous mixing " Truly the premises are small, but the conclusion is enormous. It is not rven based on a probable fact. It is baseu merely on the probability of a presumption. (A presumption that to many minds is more reasonably improbable than probable.) In other words, the Court lays down with all gravity as a basis for the deliverance of a most important ecclesiastical judgment, a mere presumption, a mere negative presumption, and then — upon the probability of this negative presumption, which the Court itself by no means ventures to positively support, but declares it is a mere opinion, a mere vague " it is believed" — the Court gravely proceeds to state that it is probable there is another probability, which doubly dubious probability is the ground for the Court deciding that the use of a cup mixed before- hand is no ecclesiastical offence. Thus on the one side are these facts : — (i) The cup in the Prayer Book of 1^49 was mixed, and the administration of the cup mixed in the service was not only permitted but commanded. (2) This rubrical provision for mixing was put out of the Prayer Book. (3) This pro- vision is not in the Prayer Book. (4) Nor was there put into the Prayer Book any permission (as might most naturally have been done in the post-communion rubrics) to use the mixed cup. (5) Nor is there any permission now. On the other side are these facts and presumptions : ( I ) The use of the mixed cup was customary in Eastern and Greek and other Churches, and was a primitive, con- tinuous, and all but universal practice in the Church as the revisers of the Prayer Book knew, (a) It is a presumption I.!i. 208 Appendix. that if, as is probable, Cranmer remcve^' the mixing from the service for rear ons of primitive antiquity, it is also probable that he approved of the previous mixing, for " it is believed " he did not alter his opinion after the year 1^44. The Court did not, for reasons of its own, discuss the proposition that Cranmer was not the only reviser of the Prayer Book, and that a mere sentence in a mere unpuhlished volume of only one of these revisers, written many years before, was hardly a thing to have any stress laid upon it as indicating Cranmer's views, much less the views of the whole revising body at this later date; nor did it consider the apparently indisputable proposition that it does not necessarily follow that because an individual Archbishop may perhaps have bad a certain private opinion which pre- sumably led him in a general way to approve of a mixed cup being used in the Church, that the whole Church of England is therefore to take the same view, and act as if it were the Church's view when there is no rubrical direction on the subject. However, the Court decided that what it presumed to believe was, in all probability, Cranmer's presumption was a good basis for a judgment, and it pronounced accordingly ; and it is to be hoped that all the clergy of the Church of England will remember that the decision of the Lambeth Court is : — " That the mixing of the IVine in and as a part of the Service is against the law of the Church " ; and also remember that this and all the other deliverances of the Court do not in the slightest degree affect the unassailable lawfulness of the practices of the Protestant Churchman. f Appendix, 2og \ from the ) probable believed*' iscuss the ser of the ipublished lany years ipon it as vs of the t consider does not Lrchbishop which pre- »f a mixed Church of act as if it 1 direction esumed to iption was cordingly ; Church of Lambeth as a pari and also ices of the inassailable chman. 5. — Dr. Pusey ox the " Real Presence." (Ch. IV. p. 50.) One of the chief works of the late Dr. Pusey, a wcrk that has exercised no small influence in determining the views of modern Churchmen, is entitled, "The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Doctrine of the English Church," The object of this work is to show th'it the Church of England teaches a real objective presence of the body and blood of Christ in that sacrament. It is, of course, impossible, in the compass of so fragmentary a note, to give anything like an idea of the work ; but I will state, in a few brief words, four facts that most clearly show the contrast between the doctrine of Pusey and that of the Church of England. First: Pusey says, p. 211, that "the Church of England teaches that we receive Christ, not spiritually only, but really." In the sense that Pusey means, the Church of England does not teach us this. The Church of England teaches us, in Article Twenty-eight, that "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only (note, onii/) after an heavenly and spiritual manner." " Only such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, are par- takers of the body of Christ." " Faith is the mean" (medium quo\ &c. Second : Pusey denies that the Black Rubric opposes the doctrine of the Real Presence. But here, not\ ithstanding the ability with which his side of the case is presented, he comes into plain conflict with the teaching of the Church of England. " No adoration is intended unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." Pusey up- holds a real objective presence; the Church of England denies that there is any corporal presence. Pusey declares, justifying the practice of adoring the sacrament, p. 313, that the Church of England does not say, 14 210 Appendix. in the Twenty-fifth Article, that the jiractice of adoring our Lord as present in the holy eucharist " may not be done." The Church of England teaches, " no adoration is intended, cr ought to be done." " The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians)." — Post- Communion Rubric. Third : Pusey, in a line of reasoning extraordir . jly involved, and, to my mind, entirely illogical, says that the teaching of the Church of England is that the wicked eat the body of Christ, pp. 240-311, compare especially pp. 307 and 257 : ** the wicked receive sacramentally the body of Christ." The Church of England does not teach this. Article Twenty-nine : " Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper. The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, are in nowise partakers of Christ." Here are two syllogisms for those who, holding the non-Church doctrine of the " Real " Presence, believe that " good and bad people receive the same thing in the holy communion." The body of Christ is taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and sj)iritual manner. But " the wicked," or "bad people," are not heavenly and spiritual. Therefore they eat not the body of Christ. They cannot feed upon that precious body. Again : " The mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." But "the wicked," or "bad people," have no faith; that is, real faith, living faith, "a lively faith." Therefore, they eat not the body of Christ. Pusey reasons all through upon the assumption that the words in the sixth chapter c • St. John's Gospel refer only and directly to the sacrament, a position that cannot be proved. On the contrary, the man who had much to do with compiling the service did not believe this, for the Papist, Dr. Smith, having employed an argument to which that of Dr. i sey is very ioring our ne." The tended, c>r and wine therefore bhorred of lordir .ily s that the vicked eat ly pp. 307 e body of ;each this, it not the he wicked, partakers 10, holding lelieve that the holy ten in the iner. But d spiritual, annot feed is received ,"or "bad h, " a lively t the words nd directly On the ipiling the ith, having ley is very Appendix. 211 similar, in quoting John vi., in support of his view, Cranmer thus answers : — 1 "Whereunto I answer by his own reason: Can this promise be verified of sacramental bread ? Was that given upon the cross for the life of the world ? I marvel here not a little of Master Smith's either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see that Christ, in this chapter of St. John, spake 7iot of sacramental bread, hv heavenly bread. So that He spake of Himself wholly: aying ; * I am the Bread of Life. He that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall not thirst for ever.' And neither spake He of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread ; for neither of them was given upon the cross for the life of the world. And there can be nothing more manifest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sacrament of His flesh, but of His very flesh ; and that as well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the future tense, * the bread which I will give shall be My flesh,' but in the present tense, ' the bread which I will give is my flesh,' which sacramental bread was neither then His flesh, nor was then instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world." — Cran. JVorks, Park. Soc. L, 372. Now, the correctness or the incorrectness of the exegesis here is not my point. What I want to emphasize is this, that it is entirely unwarrantable for Pusey to argue, in his reasoning, that the words in the Communion Service must refer only to John vi., and that John vi. refers only to the sacramental bread, when the man who mainly compiled the service itself declared distinctly, as his view, that Christ here spake not of sacramental bread. Fourth : Pusey says, that the (i.e. his) doctrine of the " Real " Presence is the doctrine of the English Church. But an emphatic contradiction to this statement is 14* p I il 212 Appendix. the fact noted on p. 52, namely, the careful removal, by Cranmer and his associate Reformers, of every- thing that would sanction even remotely this view, and the insertion of that tremendous stumbling-block to all Roman i/.ers, the rubric against the adoration of "any" corporal presence. In fact, more than two years before the Prayer Book was revised, Archbishop Cranmer repudiated the doctrine of the *' Real " Presence as a doctrine of the Church of England. He is confuting Dr. Smith, the Papist contro- versialist, and said Smith no more understood P. Martyr's opinions than he understood "my book of the catechism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I in that book did set forth the Real Presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. Unto which false report I have answered in my fourth book. But this, I confess of myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism, / was in that error of the Real Presence, as I was many years past in divers other errors ; as of transub- stantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome ; being brought up from my youth in them, and nousled therein, for lack of good instruction from my youth, the outrageous floods of papistical errors at that time overflowing the world. For the which, and other mine offences in youth, I do daily pray unto God for mercy and pardon, saying, 'Good Lord, remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth.' But after it had jpleased God to show unto me, by His Holy Word, a more perfect knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ, from time to time, as I grew in knowledge of Him, by little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of His mercy gave me light, so through His grace I opened mine eyes to receive it, and did not wilfully repugn unto God and remain in darkness. And I trust in God's mercy and pardon for my former errors, because I erred but of frailness and ignorance. Appendix. 213 removal, f every- iew, and ;k to all " corporal le Prayer e doctrine )hurch of t contro- Martyr's hism, and book did lacrament. urth book, wrote the sence, as I f transub- sts in the any other ig brought for lack of floods of For the pray unto lember not ifter it had rd, a more m time to ind little I His mercy ne eyes to ind remain ion for my ignorance. And now I may say of myself, as St. Paul said : ' When I was like a babe or child in the knowledge of Christ, .' spake like a child, and understood like a child ; but now thj.t I am come to man's estate, and growing in Christ, through His grace and mercy, I have put away that childishness.' " — Cranmrr's JVorhs, Park. Sor., I. 374. Bishop Ridley, who was the instrument in God's hands of leading Cranmer to the true view of the Lord's Supper, declared that when it is said " that v/ith the receipt of the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received in every one, good or bad, either life or death; it is not meant that they which are dead before God may hereby receive life ; or that the living before God can hereby receive death. For as none is fit to receive natural food, whereby the natural life is nourished, except he be born and live before ; so no man can feed (by the receipt of the holy sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated and born of God before ; and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation who is not dead before." — Ridley's Works ^ Park. Soc, p. 9. 6. — The Sacrifice of the Mass. (Chap. IV., p. 58.) On p. 61 01 the ever-famous Tract 90, Newman makes this audacious staten 3nt, which is also supported by Dr. Pusey, and to which many members of the Tractarian school seem to have lent their countenance : " The Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but against actual existing errors ! " " Here the sacrifice of the mass is not spoken of . . . but the sacrifice of masses ! " " The Article before us [Article Thirty-one] neither speaks against the mass in itself, nor aga'nst its being (an offering though commemorative, 2nd Ed.) for the quick," &c. I diiii^ M I I 214 Hut Appendix. if Newman niul Pusey think that the sacrifice of tlie mass is to be received, while the sacrifice of masses is to be condemned, Ridley and Cranmer (the true exponents of Church teaching) did not : " Now, alas, not only the Lord's commandment is broken . . . l)ut there is set up a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice, to satisfy and pay the price of sins," &c. — Rid/ey's IVorks, p. 52. " Prop. 3. In the mass is the lively sacrifice of the Church available," &c. Ridley answers this doctrine — mark well, not the sacrifice of masses, but the sacrifice of the mass : " I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphemous (the very word used in the Thirty-first Article) against the most precious blood of our Saviour, Christ." — p. 206-211. And again — this is very important — showing how they, the Romanists, "avoid" Scripture by subtle shifts ..." By the distinction of the bloody and unbloody sacrifice, as though our unbloody s.icrifice of the Church were any other than the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a showing forth, and a sacramental repre- sentation of that one only bloody Sacrifice, offered up once for all." — p. 211. Cranmer also says. Works I., 374: "I was in divers errors," and amongst them he mentions " the sacrifice propitiatory of the priest in the mass," not in the masses. So also the Homily for Whit Sunday : " Christ commended to His Church a Sacrament of His body and blood; they have changed it into a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead ;" and the Homily concerning the sacrament : " We must then take heed, lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice." Appendix. 2x5 e of Uie is to be nents of l)roken sacrifice, 3 Church rk well, ass : " I i wicked lirty-first Saviour, (ortant — by subtle inbloody rch were ing, than tal repre- up once in divers sacrifice masses, nmended hey have d ;" and ;hen take 7. — Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. Pusey on Private Confession. To show that this view is not confined to any particular school of thougiit, I C|Uote the opinion of one who may be fairly taken as a representative High Churchman, the late Bishop S. Wilberforce, whose views I learned for the first time after thus writing. Speaking on this subject of private confession, he says : " It is plain, first, that our Church never designed that the ministers of God's words and sacraments should abdicate that which is amongst the most important functions of their office, the dealing, as ministers of God, with the consciences of men. Yet, on the other hand, it is equally clear that there is a broad distinction between her intention herein and that of the Church of Rome . . . The object of the Roman Church is to bring the conscience under the power of the priest, to make him the judge to whose sentence it should absolutely defer. The object of our Church is so to awaken, enlighten, and strengthen *h'e conscience that, with the aid of Holy Scripture and the ordinary public ministrations of God's Word, it may rightly guide the individual soul. " With these different objects in view, there is between the two systems far more than a mere difference in degree. Every part of the priest's private ministrations with consciences is affected by it. The one is always seeking to subdue, the other to emancipate, the individual conscience. And this difference of object has by degrees greatly affected the statement of doctrine, as well as the administration of discipline, in the two Communions. " Thus, it is not merely that private confession is enjoined upon all in the Roman Communion, and only permitted in certain exceptional cases in ours, but that the spiritual aspect of the same act assumes a wholly different character in the r I 2l6 Appendix, two Communions. The teaching of the Church of Rome is that confession to a priest is a direct sacramental ordinance of the Church of Christ ; and that, to be duly practised, it must be secret and complete, numbering all remembered sins. So made, it is to be followed by private absolution, which, it is held, conveys a special pardon for the sins so remembered and confessed ; and then, consistently with this system of confession, she recommends that every soul should be permanently under the direction of some priest ; that this spiritual director should habitually guide those who consult him ; that the conscience should be committed '^o his keep- ing} this is, in their view, the result to be aimed at ... It is not difficult to see what must be the effect of such a system. It will lead to many great evils, and amongst them these : When confession to a man is thus enforced, or even encouraged, as a duty, instead of being allowed as a last permission, to which, under peculiar circumstances and as an extreme remedy, the stricken soul, unable to reassure itself, may have recourse, it will, with many, be used dishonestly. The habit of withholding the real and deepest sins, con- sistently with getting through confession, will soon be formed. On the other hand, those who strive to confess all will assuredly be led lo weaken the spring of conscience by devolving that determination of what is right, which is its own solemn responsibility, to be discharged under the eye of God and bj the light of His "Word, to the decision of another for it. The confessor will take the place, first, of Christ, as the receiver of all the secrets of our guilt, and shame, and weakness ; and then of the conscience, as the judge, arbiter, and director of our lives. " Now, in opposition to this system, the Church of England, in exact conformity, as we maintain, with the Word of God and the teaching and the practice of the primitive Church, allows private confession instead of en- r \ Appendix. 217 Rome is )rdinance ictised, it lembered )Solution, e sins so with this A should that this ) consult lis keep- t ... It [ such a gst them ., or even as a last md as an ire itself, honestly, ins, con- soon be ^nfess all :ience by ich is its lie eye of f another ]^hrist, as ime, and ?, arbiter, lurch of with the :e of the d of en- forcing it, and recommends it only under certain prescribed circumstances and conditions; as a means of restoring health to a sick conscience, instead of treating the habit of con- fessing is the state of health. She treats it as wise men treat medical aids ; as blessed means of renovation, stored, by God's mercy, for their need in times of sickness ; but still as not meant for, and not wholly compatible with, a settled habit of strong health; and this difference of view is founded upon a great doctrinal difference as to the place which confession occupies in the new kingdom of Christ. The Church of England does not treat it as a separate ordinance of Christ, endowed with a special sacramental grace of its own ; but she regards it as a permitted * opening of grief ' ; as a * lightening ' of a ' burden ' ; as in no way bringing any special pardon or absolution to the penitent over and above that which he might equally obtain by general confession to Almighty God, and public absolution in the congregation, but only as a spiritunl confidence which might be entrusted to any brother Christian, but which it is most natural and best to commit to the physician of souls, as having more experience of such cases, and as being specially provided by God with grace for their treatment and relief." — Wilberforces Ordination Addresses, pp. 1 12-1 15. Quite opposed to this view, and to the teaching of the Church of England, are the views of Dr. Pusey, as expressed in his latt work on confession, in which he takes the extra- ordinary position that the declaration in the First Prayer Book (an obsolete and now unauthorized manual) permitting auricular confession is a sufficient justification for its practice in the Church to-day, and the carefully circumscribed abso- lution in the Visitation of the Sick the formula to be employed in confessing those who are well. One rises from reading this argument of Pusey with the exclamation of Newman, "Truly, this man is haunted by no intellectual perplexities," • >•- 2l8 Appendix, ' m and with the assertion of Bishop Cleveland Coxe, " Dr. Pusey is out of place in the Church of England." Filled with Romish theories, he casts about, as if in desperation, for any opening or place by which he can graft them on the Church of England. He asks that the Romanizing school " be free to do what we think, before God " ; in other words, to propagate the Roman doctrine of confession and absolution because there were certain expressions in the now-abandoned Prayer Book of 1549 which permitted auricular confession. He declares, as his opinion, that the Church of England commands her priests, in two of her offices, to hear con- fessions, a statement that is positively misleading, for the permission in the Communion exhortation has nothing to do with confession in the Romish sense that Pusey uses. He takes statements of divines like Usher, Jewel, and White, advocating the scriptural and evangelical theory of confession, as supporting his view, which is scarce distinguishable from the Roman. He quotes such men as Bishops Andrewes and Overall, and Dr. Peter Heylin, as if their views could be authoritative expositions of the teaching of the Church. He takes a quotation of Cranmer, written in the year 1540, to interpret his views in 1550 or 1552, though Cranmer himself acknowledged a change in his views. He quotes from Latimer's sermon on the third Sunday after Epiphany, "and sure it grieveth me much that such con- fessions are not kept in England," as if Latimer was supporting the Tractarian doctrine ; but he omits to state that, in the very sentence before, the good bishop demolishes that very doctrine of priestly absolution which he (Pusey) advocates throughout : — " Here our Papists make much ado with their auricular confession, proving the same by this place. For they say Christ sent this man unto the priest to fetch there his absolution 5 and, therefore, we must go also unto the priest, ii!;'' Appendix. 219 and, after confession, receive absolution of all our sins. But yet we must take heed, say they, that we forget nothing j for all those sins that are forgotten may not be forgiven. And so they bind the consciences of men, persuading them that when their sins were all numbered and confessed, it was well. And hereby they took clean away the passion of Christ. For they made this numbering of sins to be a merit; and so they came to all the secrets that were in men's hearts ; so that emperor nor king could say or do, nor think anything in his heart, but they knew it ; and so applied all the purposes and intents of princes to their own commodities. And this was the fruit of their auricular confession." And then he adds, " But to speak of right and true confession," that for the grieved in conscience to go to a learned man and get comfort from him, of the Word of God, " I would to God it were kept in England, for it is a good thing." — Park. Soc, Latimer's Remains, p. 180. In short, the teaching of the Church of England in the language of the Prayer Book is, that the absolution of the burdened, in the cases specified in the Communion exhort- ation, is to be found from "the comfortable salve of God's Word," for the quieting of their consciences. "As for the absolution for our sins, there is none but in Christ," as Bishop Latimer truly declares. The teaching of Pusey is, that the burdened come, not for comfort merely, nor for advice, but for absolution, at the mouth of the absolving- priest. What wonder, then, that finding the deficiencies and silence of the Prayer Book so discouraging, he has resort to a semi-reformed formulary to substantiate his views; and failing to find any fair warrant in the Prayer Book, as it now stands, for his general auricular confession, he boldly flings the gauntlet of defiance at text-matter and rubrics by the audacious advocacy of lawlessness. "What I and others desire is that we should, both clergy and laity, be free to do 2;20 Appendix. r^ what we severally think (sic) right before God." — Pusey. Advice on Hearing Confessions, p. 25. ^ • 8. — ^Apostolical Succession. Does the Church of England teach this doctrine ? To answer the question is somewhat difficult, for the reader must remember that there are two distinct theories associated with this term, one of which the Church of England certainly teaches, the other of which she certainly docs not. The one doctrine or theory is this : — That, according to reasonable inference from Holy Scrip- ture, and the facts of primitive Church history, there were three orders in the ministry ; and as a matter of fact there has been a succession of carefully ordained episcopal ministers from the Apostles' times to the present. That the ordaining power is properly exercised by bishops who represent, for example, Timothy and Titus, to whom, and not to mere presbyters, the ordaining function was committed. That all ordinations performed by such bishops are valid and regular, and that ordinations by others are irregular. That this, moreover, is a matter which concerns the form and ecclesiastical government of the Church, but is not to be considered as touching the very nature and essence of a Church. It is, in short, the theory of the Historic Episcopate. This theory or doctrine is the theory or doctrine of the Church of England. The Preface to the Ordinal, the twenty- third and thirty-sixth Articles, unquestionably teach it. The other theory is altogether different, viz., that along with this historic episcopate, or the episcopal succession, and inseparable from it, there is a well-defined system or scheme Appendix. 221 of doctrine as essential to the Church as the body to the soul • or the soul to the body. i i This scheme of doctrine is : — That apart trom the episcopal succession there can be no valid ministry. That all ministers not episcopally ordained are not realiy ordained. That without this ordination no minister can administer valid sacraments. That without valid sacraments no grace can be conveyed to the soul. In the terse and emphatic language of Haddan, in his " Apostolical Succession " : "This scheme of doctrine obviously is of one piece, and holds together as one complete and homogeneous view. ... It means, in few words, without bishops no presbyters, without presbyters no legitimate certainty of sacraments, without sacraments no certain union with the Body of Christ, viz. His Church, without this no certain union with Christ, and without that union no salvation." With regard to this clearly defined and logical scheme, we remark three things : (i) It is not to be found in the Articles, which alone contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, nor in the Prayer Book. The nineteenth Article declares the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Church, and lays down the notes of the Church — the things that are essential to the very being of the Church. But it says nothing whatever about the necessity of episcopal ordination to salvation. It is silent about the idea of the grace of Orders, and those sacraments only being valid which are administered by the ministry of the episcopal succession. The scheme of doctrine set forth by Pusey and Haddan, ; 1' :'\ i: : :> - 1 m ^m- -h /- I 222 Appendix, and now so widely known as "the" doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, is so bold, and clear, and essential to the very- being of the Church, that it is as the keystone to the arch of their whole Church system. It is not one of a series of notes of the Church, a note which might be inserted or omitted without much matter. It is not, nor could it be, a note at all. It is the note or nothing. It is the one great, essential, and clearly indis- pensable note. Without it, the whole system of (falsely so-called) Catholic doctrine falls to the ground. It is impossible, therefore, to believe that the Church of England, if this were its doctrine, could formulate an Article on the Church, and say nothing about it. As easily could one believe that the nineteenth Article was written by the Pope of Rome, as believe that the nineteenth Article was written by Churchmen who held the Haddan theory of Apostolical Succession. The twenty-third Article lends no support to this novel theory either. It states, in a very positive way, the necessity of ministerial ordination j and then, in an equally positive but very general way, that lawful ordination is ordination by men who have public authority given to them in the congre- gation. To extract " without bishops, no salvation," out of the twenty-third Article is like getting the Papacy of the fifteenth century out of i Peter V.-3. As Dean Goode has pointed out, only a man ignorant of the history and theology of the Church of England could fail to admit that this twenty-third Article was purposely so worded as not to exclude the ministry of the foreign non-episcopal Churches ; and Bishop Burnet, also, in his " Exposition of the Articles," states that the general phraseology of the Article was designed " on purpose not to exclude them." The thirty-sixth Article is equally wanting in support to this novel doctrine. It is inclusive, not exclusive. That t '- Appendix. 223 is, it declares "he lawfulness of the ordination of its own ministers, but is silent about others. To make it prove all other ordinations invalid would be to make it prove too much, for it would then invalidate the ordination of all other episcopal Churches, Eastern and Western. So with the Preface to the Ordinal. It declared in its first form that the threefold order of the ministry and episcopal ordination should be continued in the Church of England ; and since 1662 il has held that, for the purpose of con- tinuing and reverently using and esteeming these orders in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the Church of England, unless he has, or has had. Episcopal ordination or consecration. (2) It is not to be found in the writings of the great and representative exponents of Church doctrine. If, as is natural, nothing is said about any scheme of doctrine in the Preface to the Ordinal (though the same cannot be said of the Articles, where the argumentum e silentio is unanswerable), it is only reasonable to look for the systematic and dogmatic exposition of this scheme in the writings of the great Church divines. Certainly, if this great doctrine is the doctrine of the Church of England — the greatest of all Church doctrines — the keystone to the arch of the Church-system — it will be elaborately outlined, and as clearly expounded by them as it is by Keble, Pusey, or Haddan. Yet we look for it in vain. Not only do the leading Church divines ignore this idea of the connection of sacramental grace and salvation with an episcopally ordained ministry absolutely and purposely (for it is childish to say this theory was not a live question in their day, when the " without bishops, no salvation " dogma was beinj;; for ever hurled at them by Roman contro- /■■I 224 Appendix. IIKL M versialists), but they even deny that episcopal ordination is an essential note of the Church. Jewel declared in his "Defen 2 of the i^.pology " that there can be a true Church without bishops. Whiigift declared that " form of Church government is not such a part of the essence and being of a Church, but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government." ^ Hooker concludes his noted passage, in the fourteenth chapter of the seventh Book, with the words, " we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination." Bancroft stated that "where bishops could not be had ordination by presbyters must be esteemed lawful." Bishop Hall, in another famous passage, asserted that " a distinction must be made expressly betwixt the being and the well-beii. ■ of a Church," and "the lack of episcopacy is not to be regarded as the lack of the true essence of a Church." Bishop Burnet, in the exposition above quoted, stated also that " the Body of the Church of England, for over half a century, did, notwithstanding these irregularities (that is, their not having bishops and being cut off from the epis- copal succession), acknowledge the foreign Churches so constituted to be true Churches as to all the essentials of a C;hurch." Even so-called High Churchmen never dreamed of setting forth this novel scheme of Haddan as a doctrine of the Church of England. On the contrary, none of them seemed to deny the validity of non-episcopal orders. Bishop Andrews does not assert that a Church cannot stand without episcopacy. Archbishop Bramhall grants to non-epis- Appendix, 225 copal Churches the nature and essence of true Churches. Dean Sutcliffe, a High Church divine, in his work on the " True Church of Jesus Christ" (1600), rejects the idea of the episcopal succession being a true note of the Church. Bishop Cosin, in his famous letter to Cordel, printed in Goode's edition of "Jackson on the Church," denies in toto the necessity of episcopal ordination even for ministry in the Church of England ; and Archbishop Wake, in 17 19, declared that certain Church writers were insane who denied that the non-episcopal bodies had true and valid sacraments. And so on, and so on. The reader is referred to Dean Goode's Divine Rule ii. 247-347, from which most of these references are taken, for further examples, but these are enough surely to convince even the most stubborn that this upstart theory of the Apostolical S uccession was unknown to the representative divines of the Church for over two hundred years. (3) It is disproved by the practice of the Church of England for many years. Up to the time of the Restoration, it is a well-known fact, that ministers of "Presbyterian churches were admitted as ministers of the Church of England without reordination. Bishop Cosin testifies that it was the practice of the bishops generally, and that many were admitted. Bishop Fleetwood asserts that many ministers from Scotland, France, and the Low Countries were admitted into the Church of England ministry without reordination. Bishop Hall testifies, too, that^ where there was sticking at the admission of these ministers, it was not on account of their not being episcopally ordained, but on account of the requirements of the statutes of the realm. Now this fact most certainly proves two things. I St. That the bishops of the Church of England admitted J5 226 Appendix. '* ' , ' ! !, ■ ' the validity of the ordination of non-episcopal ministers from the AngHcan stimdpoint ; and 2nd. That the bishops of the Church did not believe that the teaching of the Churt-h of England connected the validity of the sacraments with the episcopal succession, and much less the grace of (episcopal) Orders with salvation, for they permitted these men to prt;ach and to administer the sacra- ments. The insertion of the words in the Preface to the Ordinal, 1(562, about no one being accounted a " lawful " bishop or priest with'jut episcopal consecration or ordination, stopped this practue, but they have nothing whatever to do with the doctrine. The nineteenth and twenty- third Articles stand as they were, i We therefore conclude : that while the Church of England holds, and always has held, that doctrine of the Apostolical Succession which implies that episcopa ordination is the valid and regular method of ordination in the Church of England, and that Episcopal Succession is the historic inheritance of the Church, it does not hold, and never has held since reformed, that scheme of doctrine by some termed the Church doctrine of the Apostolic Succession, which implies that without bishops there are no presbyters, without bishops and presbyters there is no legitiraate certainty of sacraments, without sacraments there is no certain union with the mystical Body of Christ that is, His Church — that without this there is no certain union with Christ, and with- out that union there is no salvation, a scheme of dogmatic teaching that is certainly complete and homogeneous, but of which every link (save the last) is unsound, every propo- sition ^save the last) is undenionstrable, and not one of them (save the last) taught by the Church of England. INDEX. . I Shaftes Absolution, at Morning Prayer . Absolution, in Visitation of Sick Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, a.d. 1566 Altars abolished, A. D. 1550 Apostolical Succession .... Auricular Confession .... Auricular Confession, Wilberforce and Pusey on Uaptism of Infants .... Baptism, Cross in ... . Baptism, promises of . Baptism, Office of, in First Prayer Book Baptism Office expurgated Baptismal Office approved by Martyr, 73.. and Lord bury ...... Baptism, Charitable hypothesis of Burial Office ..... Canons of 1604 ..... Canon of Mass ..... Chalice, the mixed .... Church of England Popish before the Reformation Churching of Women .... Commination Service .... Common prayer, what ? . Communion, Holy, Office of . Communion, Holy, contrasted with Mass Communion, Holy, temporary Order of, in 1548 Confirmation of children Dead, burial of, 93; Prayers for Doctrine, the subject of the Reformation Eastward position, 171 : Lambeth Judgment on Episcopacy (see " Romish " and " Apostolical Succession First Prayer Book of Edward VI. semi-reformed PAGE 33 lOI 191 48 220 115 215 78 80 72 I I 49. 68 62 83 76 93 192 i6i 205 . 3. 6 93 99 23 43 54 46 86 • 51.95 6 & Pref. xvi . 177 131 14 r I 228 Index, 1-' First Prayer Book of Edward VI., changes from First Prayer Book of Edward VI., defects in . First Prayer Book of Edward VI., now obsolete High Churchmen, not to be confounded with Romanizers Henry VIII. never a Protestant Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, June 24th, 1559 Intermediate State, the . Lambeth Judgment, remarks on Litany, changes in Mass, Canon of (Sarum Use) Mass, Sacrifice of, and Article XXXI Marriage .... Mixed Chalice Morning Prayer, analysis of North side, reason for adopting . Ordinal .... Ornaments rubric. History and meaning of Prayer Book (see "First" and "Second" Prayer Books Edward VI.) Prayers for the Dead (see Dead) •• Protestant," meaning of Pusey on re-union with Rome, xvi; on " Real " presence " Real " Presence " Receive the Holy Ghost " "Retain," meaning of . Revisions of Prayer Book Romanizing, what? Romish Ordination Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. Sick, Visitation of, ilS ; Communion of Scriptural character ot Prayer Book . Table, why substituted for altar, 55 ; place of Wafers discontinued Vestments, illegal PAGE 48, 143 49 Pref. X Pref. xxii 8 190 97 177. 205 40 . iCi 213 87 49. 205 32 174 129 . 183 of 95 Pref. xi 209 209 13G 196 148 151 134 16 90 26 48 50 203 11 '11 SOME OF THE foblicationsof the Qjliurch Association. ■**^ PRICE POST PRRK. The Church Intelligencer. Annual Subscription The "Legal History." of Canon Stubbs, by J. T. Tomlinson The Great Parliamentary Debate in 1548 on the Lord's Supper, by J. T. Tomlinson Volume.of Tracts, I to 60 Volume.of Tracts, 61 to 100 . Volume of Tracts, loi to 163 Ditto, cloth each The "Word to the Wise" Series, small, tinted papers, suitable for letters per 100 assorted The Church of England Almanack Ditto, cloth Guide to Ecclesiastical Law Guide to Church .Services at Sea-side Resorts of England and Wales Annual Report The Protestantism of the Prayer Book . The Misprinted Catechism of the Church of England 6 7 3 3 3 9 2 7 2 I 2 2 loj U It ■ (V^ ; EqupcI) e^ ss® cietli^r) ^ufelicaiiorjs — continued. -»4-^ PRICE POST FREE. U'> -'. r> Additionil Evidence respecting Ornaments ' p^^^ I ^"^'^''^ \paytz Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth Queen Elizabeth's Crucifix : its Secret History and Real Meaning Altar Lights : their History and Meaning " Hearing ' Mass " : or, Non-Communicating At- tendance ........ Mixed Chalice ...... " Spiritual Presence " as taught by Ritualists Teaching of the Catechism as to the Lord's Supper The threatened Revival of Canon Law . • Reservation of the Host : a Reply to C.B.S. . The placing of the Lord's Table. With ilhisirations "Into their hands" : a plea for toleration of the old way of" taking" the bread " The Liturgy and the E.P." With 15 of the oldest known representations of the Lord's Su^- ' * . " North Side of the Table " Sarum Mass compared with First Prayei Book The E.C.U. a Romanizing Conspiracy . Canon Law. Reply to E.C.U. " Rejoinder " Fasting Communion. Archd. Farrar Sacerdotalism, Archd. Farrar UndoingtheWork of the Reformation. Archd. Farrar Moving the Lord's Table. Counsel's opinion s. d. 4 4i n I ij li 6J ^..'\ )UJ?oQ cn-ssaoieiKor) ^u\dhol;:3 3s. Cambridge Press. (2s.) Begg (Jas. D D., Scotch Free Church), Memoirs of. By Thos. Smith, D.D. 2 vols., 8vo., 15s. (Od.) Beust'S (Count) Memoirs; containing Personal lleminiscences of his Career as Premier of Austria and Ambassador in London. Edited by Baron II. de Worms. 2 vols., 8vo., 36s (9d.) s, d. 1 6 3 18 6 6 5 CHAS. J. THYNNE, Protestant Bookseller, Ac, V ''; II 'I ., A LIST OF VALUABLE BIBLES AND COMMENTARIES At greatly Reduced Prices. THE ILLUSTRATED CHRISTIAN FAMILY BIBLE. With Mkugi^a Notes and Kefkkknces, Complete Biui.u Dictionary, Histoutcal Treatise connectiil Old and New Tostanients, Full-paged Coloured Plates and Maps, CiiRONOLooici Tables, Family Keoihteu, &c. Morocco, pilt edges, oflfcred at JIO/- Morocco extra, gilt edges „ 40- Ditto, full gilt „ 5«/- Sumptnously bound in deep relief leathe after the style of the early wood-carvin| otfered at «0/- Post free. THE TEACHER'S TREASURE BIBLE. Inclndinfr a comprehensive Tntrcj duction to the Stuily of the Scriptures and Complete Bible Dictionary. With man Engravings and Maps, and the most approyed Marginal Ueferences and Histurical an Descriptive Notes. *1 Cloth, red edges, ofifered at 3 '3 2 French morocco ,, 4/6 8 French morocco, circuit „ 5/0 4 French morocco, yapp „ 0'3 6 Persian, limp „ CyO 6 Turkey morocco, limp, round coi ners otfered at 7 Morocco circuit 8 Padded Levant morocco 0/3 10/3 11/tf No. 1 does not contain Maps or Engravings. Postnge Gd. THE HOLY BIBLE: STUDENT'S EDITION. With Explanatory Notes numerous Engravings and Coloui-ed Maps. 1 Cloth, red edges, offered at i2/3 2 French morocco „ 8 French morocco, circuit „ 4 French morocco, yapp „ 6 Paste grain, limp „ 6 Paste grain, circuit „ 3/- 4/3 4/0 3/« 4/0 7 Turkey morocco, offered at 8 Turkey mor., round corners 9 Turkey morocco, circuit 10 Pcrsiiin morocco, limp 11 Persian morocco, boards 12 Levant morocco, padded y/3 73 S/6 3/3 3/A 9/6 Postage Gd. THE HOLY BIBLE: COBBIN'S PORTABLE COMMENTARY. Wit! 15,000 Notes, Critical and Illustrative, 50,000 References, Historical Treatise i necting the Old and New Testaments, various useful Tables, and Coloured Maps. ♦2 Cloth, limp, red edges offered at ♦3 Cloth boards, burnished red edges offered at ♦4 Re-grained cl.. gilt edges „ 6 French morocco „ 6 French morocco, circuit „ 7 French morocco, yapp „ 8 Paste grain, limp „ 9 Paste grain, circuit „ 1/a 1/4 1/S a/3 !4/» '^/6 !«/9 (r/io«e marked 10 Turkey morocco, limp offered at 4/- 11 Turkey morocco, round corners offered at 4/6 12 Turkey morocco, circuit „ tS/6 13 Persian morocco, limp „ tJ/9 14 Ditto, red under gold edges,, 3/3 15 Persian morocco, boards ,, 4/- 16 German calf „ 5/6 17 Levant morocco, padded „ 7/- * are icithoiit Maps.) Postage Gd. Clarke's (Dr. Adam) Commentarv on the Holy Bible. Conoaining the Author's Latest Corrections, A New Edition, with additional pre- fatory and Supplementary Notes, bringing the work up to the pre- sent standard of Biblical Knowledge, and a Life of the Author, by the Kev. Thoruley Smith. Unabridged Edition, 6,000 pages, with many Engravings, Maps, Plans, &c. In six vols., super-royal 8vo., cloth, price 52s. 6d. ; half calf or half morncco, 78s. (Post free.) Clarke's (Dr. Adam) Condensed Commentary. By the Bev. Newton Young. In 3 Vols., imperial 8vo., cloth tUs. 6d. ... (Post free.) Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Holy Bible. With Memoir and Prefatory Essay. Complete in Three Volumes. Imp. 8vo., cloth, 54s. ; in 6 Volumes, cloth, 63s. ; lialf-calf or half -morocco, • 84s. ... , (Post free.) 1, Great Queen Street, London, W.C. t.t 8 NATOEY Notes Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Holy Bible. With Memoir and Introduction. 3 vols., 4,300 llluatratioua ... ... (Post free.) Kitto's Illustrated Family Bible, with 800 illustrations on wood and two coloured plates. 2 large vols., 4to., 21s (Is. 6d.) , Half Morocco, cloth sides, gilt edges Book of Common Prayer, A.D. 1886, compared (by being printed in parallel columns) with the First Prayer Book, A.D. 1549, with an Introduction by the Bishop of Oxford. lOs. 6d. ... (6d.) Bright (John), Life and Tin .3 of. By W. Robertson. A new and authoritative Life, with a series of beautiful Photographs and a Portrait. 2 thick vols., 4to., cloth extra, gilt top, Cassell's. 45s. (Is.) Brooke's General Gazetteer and Geographical Dictionary. Cou- taining descriptions of every known country. New and enlarged Edition. Edited by J. A. Smith. 8vo., 1,000 pp., 18s. ... (9d.) Browne (Joseph), Ten Lectures on Ward's Errata of the Protes- tant's Bible. 6s (4id.) Bunyan'S Pilgrim's Progress. With Notes by Rev. R. Maguire. Illustrated by H. C. Selous. Large 8vo. ... ... ... (6d.) Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. With lOO Illustrations by F. Barnard, etc. Gilt edge, 3s. (4id.) Bunyan's Holy War. illustrated by Selous and Friston. Large 8vo. (4id.) Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England. Abridged by the Author for the use of Students, with Illustrations. 390 pp., 3s. 6d (3d.) Catechisms of the Second Reformation; Being the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly and its Puritan Precursors and Rutherford's and other Scottish Catechisms of the same period. With Historical Notes, &c., by Prof. Mitchell, D.D. 7s. 6d. (4Jd.) Christian Truth ; A Family Guide to the Chief Truths of the Gospel, by Rev. E. Bickersteth, Sixth Edition. 43. 6d (4id.) Chrysostom; A study in the History of Biblical Interpretation, by F. H. Chase. 6s (4id.) Clark's (F. L.), Life of Wm. Tyndale. Gilt edges (2d.) Clerical Reminiscences. By Rev. Canon Bateman, Author of the " Life of Bishop Daniel Wilson." 4s. 6d (ijd.) Coligny, The Earlier Life of the Great Huguenot- By Eugene Bersier, D.I). 7s. 6d (4id) Covenanters, Lives and Times of the Two Guthries ; or Sketches of the Covenantors, by Jean L. Watson. 2s.... ... ... (4^d.) Pollok's (R., Author of "The Course of Time ") Tales of the; with Life of the Author by Jean L. Watson. 2s. ... (4id.) Cowper's Poetical Works ; with Memoir, illustrated with Beautiful Steel Engravings. Gilt edges ... ... ... (4H') Cox (Sir Geo. W.), Little Cyclopaedia of Common Things. Many Illustrations. 660 pp., bvo (6d.) 8. d. 30 12 18 2 9 6 4 6 1 6 3 2 3 1 9 2 6 2 1 6 6 2 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 3 4 6 CHAS. J. THYNNE, Protestant Bookseller, Ac. n ^l-t'^ ii;^ f . Croquet (K. L.), li'-xposition of the XXXIX. Articles of Religion. 168 (Gd) Cruden's Complete Concoriiance to the Bible and Apocrypha. 850 pp., larji^e 8vo., 5s ..- ... ... (tid.) Cruden's Concordance. Baojstor's Ts. 6d. Edition. Arranged under one alpliabet in sroa^l but clear typo. Four columns to a pfige 4to (3d.) Daily Readings for Holy Seasons : Advent to Epiphany by Rt. Uev. W. Pakenliam Walsh, D.D., Bishop of Ossory ; Lent, by Rev. W. Harrison, M.A. ; Passion Week, by Kov. J. Scholefield, M.A., Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge ; Easter to Whitsuntide, by Rev. J. Richardson, M.A., late Incumbent of Camden Church, Camberwell, Small 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. ... ... ... (4|d.) Damascus and its People. Sketches of Modern Life in Syria by Mrs. Mackintosh. With Illustrations, 3s. 6d. (4id.) Disruption Worthies of the Highlands ; A Series of Biographies ot Eminent Free Church I\linisters who suffered in the ^Nc^rthof Scotland in 1843 jfor the Cai se of Religious Liberty. Enlarged Edition with an Introduction by tho Rev. Dr. Duff. 4t')., cloth gilt, 21s (l>d.) Domestic Portraiture; being Memoirs of Three of his Children by the Rev. Legh Richmond. 8th Edition, Illustrated, 5s. ... (4id.) Duff (Dr. Alex., First Missionary of the Scotch Free Church to India), Memorials of. 2s. Cd (4id.) Epochs of the Papacy. By the Rev. Canon Pennington, M.A. • •• ••• ••• !•• ••• !•• ••■ ..• \^2^^'/ 10s. 6d. Erasmus, The Life of. Portrait. 6a. By Rev. Canon Pennington, M.A., with .'■ ... ... ... ... ... \^2^*/ Essays on the Bible. By a Layman. Essays on the Church. By the Bible." 3s. 6d 3s. 6d (3d.) Author of " Essays on the (3d.) England's Training. By the same Author. 3s. 6d (3d.) Evangelical Fathers, The Later. By m. Seeiey. 5s. ... (4id.) Contents : — John Thornton. William Cowper. Richard Cecil- Charles Simeon. Henry Martyn. John Newton. Thomas Scott. William Wilberforce. Josiah Pratt. Facts and Fragments; A Seqnel to " The Spirit in the World." By W. W. Champneys, D.D., Dean of Lichfield. 3s. Gd, ... {Ud.) Farrar's (Archdeacon) Life of Christ. 2imo., in neat cloth case, 10s. 6d. Handy Edition, in 5 vols., (Is.) Fitzgerald (Bishop), Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. The English Reformation from Wycliffe to the Great Rebellion. With Memoir. 2 vols., 8vo., 21s (9d.) Forster (Rt. Hon. W. E.), Life of, by T. Wemyss Reid. Fine Portrait. 8vo., lOs. Gd (6d.) 8. d.\ 2 3 1 3 3 G 1 9 G ■ 1- 2 G V 1 Heav 1 1 Homi A S 2 G 1 1 9 1 8 Hows 3 1 Hutt( ti 1 1 9 I 9 I John B 2 6 ■ T 1 9 6 6 5 6 5 6 1, Great Queen Street, London, W.C. a. d.\ 2 Ul 3 1 3 3 G 1 !) G 2 6 1 2 G 3 1 9 1 9 1 9 2 6 1 9 6 6 5 6 5 6 Foxe'S Book of Martyrs, beinof a History of the Persecutions of the Protestants, edited by JJr. A. Clarke. Large 8vo., 984 pp.... (7id.) Foxe'S Book of Martyrs. Abridged from Dr. Milner's Edition (4id.) Good\.m (Harvey, D.D., Lord Bishop of Carlisle), A Commentary on St. Mark. 28Upp., 7s.6d (4id.) Sermons Preached before the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 6s (4id.) A Standard and Accurate Work on the Subject. Griesenger (Theodor), The Jesuits. A Complete History of their Open and iSecret Proceedings from the foundation of the Order to the present time, translated by A. J. Scott, M.D., with portrait of Loyola. 840 pp., large Svo., 10s. 6d (6d.) C. J. Thynne holds the entire stock of this book, Grub (Geo., M.A.), Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, f- om the Introduction of Christianity to the Present Time. 4 vols., 8vo. Scarce (Is. 6d.) Guide to the Study of the Holy Scripture, by Rev. e. a. Litton, M.A., with Maps, 3s. 6d (4H ) GustavuS AdolphuS, History of, and his Time. By J. L. Steevens, LL.D. Portrait. J5s (6d.) Heavenly Counsel in Daily Portions. Beadings on the G^^spei of St. Matthew. By the late Miss Charlesworth, 38. 6d (42-d.) Homiletic Encyclopaedia of Illustrations on Theology and Morals. A Handbook of Practical Divinity and a Commentary on Holy Scripture, selected and arranged by R. A. Bertram. 892 pp., large 8vo., 10s. 6d. (6d.) Howson (Dean), Our Collects, Epistles, and Gospels. 3s. 6d. (3d.) , The Characters of St. Paul. 5s (3d.) , The Metaphors of St. Paul. 3s. 6d. ... (3d.) Hutton (Jas.), James and Philip Van Arteveld; Two Episodes in the History of the 14th Century. lUs. 6d (4id.) John a Lasco ; His Earlier Life and Labours- A Sketch of the Reformation in Poland, Germany, and England. By Dr. H. Dalton. Translated by Rev. M. J. Evans. 7s. 6d (6d.) Knight (C), Half Hours of English History. 4 vols. ... (is.) Leighton's (Archbishop), Works and Remains, comprising Sermons ; Commentary on St. t'eter ; Expository Lectures on Psalms, Isaiah, St. Matthew, Romans, The Creed, Lord's Prayer, Ten Command, ments, University Lectures and addresses; also Spiritual Exercises and Letters and Remains. Edited and annotated by William West, B. A. 6 vols., best library edition, £4 IDs. ... (Post free) Also Separately. Letters of the Martyrs of the English Church. Selected and edited, with Portraits, bilt edges (a suitable religious gift), 3s. 6d. (4^d.) Lightfoot (Rev. Dr., M.A.), Text Book of the XXXIX. Articles. 5s. (4id.) 8, d. 3 6 2 1 9 1 6 5 6 57 6 1 9 3 6 1 9 7 6 1 9 2 1 9 2 2 6 15 1 9 1 6 6 CHA8. J. THYNNE, Protestant Bookseller, Ac, Little (C E.), Biblical liiffhts and Side Lights- Ten Thonsand Illustrations, with Thirty Thoasand Cross ilL'terunces. Largo 8vo., ' 10s. Cd (tjd.) Litton (Rftv. E- A), A Guide to the Study of Holy Scripture. With Maps. 3ti. 6d. ... ... (4id.) A Standard Work on the LORD'S SUPPER now offered for a short ti) > at a rvellously cheap price. Lord's ;!n; * jr, The, Uninspired Teaching Thereon from A-JL 7'kiv "S75. By Rev. Clias. Ilebort, L).!). Vol. I. Clement of Kt • i ; Jtius and the Fathers of 'i'oledo (a.d. 74 to A.n. 8l>l). Vol. ll. yl^ifrii . ntmou Liddon (a.d. *J09 to a.d. 1875). The 2 vols., 8vo., LXXIl. and 1,4G8 pp., with Chronoloj