It is one of the difficulties of perfect fairness in controversy that we are often unable to ascertain with accuracy the real opinions of any considerable bodies of men. This is especially the case when people are not united as a corporate body, and therefore there is no dogmatic or authoritative statement of their opinions. If, for example, we are brought into discussion with those who term themselves “The Brethren,” we may be perfectly satisfied that we are giving a fair and faithful representation of what we believe to be their teaching; but still we cannot prove our statements by authority; for there are no authoritative documents, and what one “brother” admits, another may deny. It was, doubtless, this difficulty that led to the peculiar language of the 31st Article. The Council of Trent did not define the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice in the mass until the year A.D. 1562, and consequently in A.D. 1552, when the Article was drawn up, the framers of it could not refer to any authoritative document, but could only condemn what they knew to be the current teaching of the Church of Rome. They therefore used the expression, “in which it was commonly said.” There has been just the same difficulty with reference to that remarkable movement which originated at Oxford about fifty years ago, beginning with Tractarianism, and now developed into Ritualism. It has all along professed to be an effort for the revival of Church Principles, and as such has been heartily supported by a considerable number of loyal and true-hearted Churchmen. By “Church Principles” they have understood the real principles of the Church of England; and, as loyal Churchmen, they have welcomed the movement, believing it to be an effort to recommend and develop those principles. In this they have been encouraged by the use of the epithet “High.” The Ritualistic party call themselves “High Church,” But many amongst us have for a long time been profoundly convinced that the Church principles of the loyal, conscientious, traditional High Churchman are totally different from the Church principles of the Ritualist; and that the epithet “High” means in the language of the two classes two totally different things. In the one it means a faithful adhesion to the Prayer Book and its principles; but in the other a dissatisfaction with the Prayer Book, and a craving after something beyond: in the one a rising to it, and in the other a departure from it. To many amongst us this has been perfectly plain for years. But still it has been impossible to prove it, for there have been no authoritative documents; and, even if there had been any they would not have been likely to contain any such avowal. It has been seen perfectly clearly in sermons, in pamphlets, in books, and in the ceremonial imitation of Rome. But still, individual words and actions could only be regarded as proofs of individual opinions, and therefore, although they left no doubt on the minds of observers, they could not be accepted as absolute proofs of disloyalty against any of those who were not themselves guilty of disloyal acts. But a great change has now taken place, and we are brought into altogether a new position. After the Church Congress at Derby there can no longer be any doubt on the subject, for we had there what was as nearly an authoritative statement as under the circumstances it is possible to expect. It is needless to speak of that well-known body, the English Church Union. The E.C.U. was formed as a centre for the Ritualistic movement, and it has ever since maintained its position as the most widely extended and influential organization in existence for the maintenance of Ritualistic principles. What, then, did the President of the English Church Union say? What line did he pursue? The subject of discussion was “Proposals for Liturgical Improvement,” and Canon Venables accordingly made several important practical suggestions which he thought might tend without the slightest alteration of principle to increase the interest of our Liturgical worship. But the President of the English Church Union did nothing of the kind. He made one proposal, and one only, namely, that those who wished to do so should be at liberty to abandon our present Prayer Book altogether, and adopt in its place the First Book of Edward VI. His words were: “In discussing the question of Liturgical Improvement, the proposal I have to make aims not so much at any change in our existing Prayer Book, as at the alternative use along with it of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.” Nor was this all, for almost immediately afterwards he awowed his preference for the unreformed liturgies, and the Use of Sarum, above our English Prayer Book. He said, “Those who are at all acquainted with the unreformed Service books of the English Church must often have wondered how it came to pass that from a revision of originals so rich and varied as the Sarum Breviary, and the great English rite of S. Osmund, there should have resulted anything so meagre in comparison with them as our existing daily Offices and Liturgy.” There is no mistaking these plain and outspoken words. There is the distinct avowal of a preference for the unreformed Service books, while our own Prayer Book is described as being so It is of no use, therefore, any longer to maintain the delusion that the movements of the English Church Union are prompted by any love for the English Prayer Book. That book is condemned as “meagre,” and “open to grave exceptions.” The preference is given to the unreformed services, and especially to the Use of Sarum; and it must be plainly understood that if anything is suggested as a via media or a modus vivendi, the two parties between whom it must be a via media are on the one hand those who avow their preference for the Use of Sarum, and on the other those who with their whole heart delight in the reformed worship of our dear old Church of England. But I have heard it said that the Use of Sarum was itself a reformed service, and free from many of the abuses of Rome. Thus Mr. Wood calls it “The great English rite of S. Osmund.” But surely he was mistaken in that expression, for, though used in England, it was not an English rite. Osmund was a Norman Count, and having fought in the army of William the Conqueror, was, as a reward for his services, first created Earl of Dorset, and then appointed Bishop of Salisbury. At the time of his appointment there was great religious dissension in the country occasioned by the introduction of the Gallican liturgy by William the Conqueror, which was resisted by the English; and Osmund compiled the Use of Sarum in order, if possible, to harmonize all parties. His chief work, therefore, was to introduce, as far as possible, the Gallican element; and in no sense whatever can that use be called “The great English rite of S. Osmund.” But its origin is of little importance as compared with its contents. The great question is, “What is the real character of the book which is thus preferred to our ‘meagre’ English Three things may be briefly mentioned: (1.) The Use of Sarum was certainly rich in Legends, and that to the exclusion of Scripture. On such a subject we surely cannot have a better authority than the preface to that First Book of Edward VI., which is now so strongly recommended. In that Preface it is said:
And of these Legends, etc., the same preface adds, “Some be untrue, some uncertain, some vain and superstitious.” If it is the omission of such Legends as these that makes our Prayer Book “meagre,” all I can say is, Let us thank God for its meagreness. (2.) Then, again, the Use of Sarum was rich in complicated and senseless ceremonial. The Preface already quoted says of these ceremonies:
It may be well, perhaps, to give one illustration from the Sarum Missal: “Here let the priest uncover the cup, and make the sign of the cross with the host five times—first beyond the cup on every side, secondly even with the cup, thirdly within the cup, fourthly as the first, fifthly before the cup.” This is given simply as a specimen, and some may say that there is no harm in it. But I can scarcely believe it possible that anyone will hesitate to apply to it the language (3.) The Use of Sarum was rich in saint worship. For example, in the Missal the priest did not confess to God alone (I suppose that would have been meagre), but was directed to say, “I confess to God, to blessed Mary, to all the saints, and to you; because I have sinned too much by thought, word, and deed by my fault: I pray holy Mary, all the saints of God, and you to pray for me.” Again, in the Litany, the Use of Sarum was far in excess of the modern Church of Rome. In the modern Romish Litany I count only forty-seven persons to whom prayer is addressed, including the Virgin, two arch-angels, and the twelve apostles; but in the Use of Sarum according to Bishop Short, Now this is the book which, before the assembled Church Congress at Derby, was avowedly preferred to our English Prayer Book. When, therefore, it is said that there is a clear preference for the worship of Rome, no one can any longer regard it as a calumnious or unfounded accusation. We have the open, plain, and undisguised avowal of the President of the English Church Union, that the English Prayer Book is “meagre,” and the Use of Sarum rich; the English Communion Office open to grave objections, and the unreformed liturgies so superior, that it is a wonder how anything so inferior as the English Prayer Book could have been compiled from such rich materials. Let no one, therefore, from this day forward, suppose that it is the object of the Union to uphold the Reformed Church of England, or to maintain its worship; but let it be clearly and distinctly understood, that the preference has been publicly given to the Use of Sarum and the unreformed liturgies. Now let anyone look for a moment at the line of argument, and the meaning of this proposal is self-evident. The argument is, that because the unreformed liturgies and the Use of Sarum are superior to our English Prayer Book, therefore we are to give the liberty to make use of the First Book instead of our own. Is it not obvious that the whole force of the argument depends on the fact that the First Book of Edward approximates to these unreformed liturgies more nearly than does our present book? It is preferred because it is more in accordance with that which is considered the best, viz., the Use of Sarum. This proposal, when regarded in connection with the avowed preference, carries with it its own condemnation, and ought at once to put all true Churchmen on their guard. We are brought to exactly the same conclusion by the historical position of the book. The Reformation was not a sudden act, and our English Prayer Book was not born in a day. The work began with the King’s Primer in A.D. 1545, which was followed in A.D. 1548 by the first Communion Service—the chief object of which was the restoration of the cup to the laity; but the first reformed Liturgy for morning and evening worship was the First Book of Edward VI., in A.D. 1549. Now let no one undervalue, for one moment, the greatness, or importance, of the work which was accomplished in the publication of this book. The compilers cleared away such a vast amount of Romish superstition and error that it is impossible not to admire the courage and wisdom with which they acted. They were perfectly justified, therefore, in describing it as a godly book, and in ascribing their success to the gracious help of the Holy Spirit Himself; nevertheless, when the book was published it was found that there were some parts in it which still required alteration, and a revision became necessary. There were certain things still left which required removal, so that when any further change was
The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was the result of that revision; and, although it was subsequently both slightly altered and added to in 1560 and 1604 till it reached its present form in 1662, we must regard that Second Book as the completion of the great work of the Reformation so ably, but still imperfectly, commenced in the First. The history, therefore, places the First Book in exactly the same position as that in which it was placed in the argument of Mr. Wood, viz., an intermediate position between the Use of Sarum and the present English Prayer Book. It was a great and noble effort but yet not complete. It was a great movement in the right direction, but there were still in it certain most serious defects; and what was more important, it contained certain passages Yet this is the book to which we are now invited to return; and it is only reasonable that we should ask the reason why. We are content with our beloved old English Prayer Book, in which, ever since we began to worship at all, we have poured out our hearts in holy communion with God. Why should we either forsake it, or throw the whole Church into confusion by the admission of an alternative service? Certainly not because the First Book is less “meagre” than the second; for, beyond all controversy, it was the more meagre of the two. Morning and evening prayer began in it with the Lord’s Prayer, and therefore contained neither texts, address, confession, nor absolution. They also ended with the third Collect, and therefore contained none of the prayers for the Queen, Royal Family, &c. The “Prayers and Thanksgivings on several occasions” were not included, so that the familiar words of the “Prayer for all Conditions of Men,” as well as the “General Thanksgiving,” were not in it. The Commandments were not there; and the Catechism contained nothing about the Sacraments. And what has become of some importance since the subject has been mooted, there was no Ordination Service. It is well to bear this in mind, because it is the fashion with some persons to quote the 36th Article as giving a sanction to the First Book. And Mr. Wood said, in his address at Derby, that “at this very moment it It must be clear, therefore, to the most superficial observer, that the attraction of the First Book does not consist in its richness. If our own Prayer Book is “meagre,” the First Book is much more so. The changes subsequently made have To these he might have added the restoration of an altar in place of “the table” with its “fair white linen cloth;” and of the name “The Mass” in addition to the “Holy Communion;” the sanction for auricular confession in the Communion Service, combined with the omission of the General Confession in the Morning and Evening Prayer; the omission from the words of administration of the clause, “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving” and the presence of certain other expressions which it was just possible for “mistakers” to understand as teaching the localization in the consecrated elements of the actual human person of our blessed Redeemer now seated at the right hand of God. But there is one other result of a return to the First Book which is of supreme importance, though I have not yet seen any notice of it in the recent discussion, viz., that by returning to the First Book we should get behind the date of the Articles. The Articles were not drawn up till the year A.D. With all these facts before us, it is impossible to mistake the character of the proposal made. Whether we look at the history or the contents of the book, we are brought to the same conclusion. It is not a proposal to improve our Prayer Book or to adapt it to the special demands of the day. It is a proposal to depart from the Prayer Book altogether, and to return to the transition state through which the Church of England passed in the transition days of the Reformation. The First Book of Edward bore just the same relationship to the Use of Sarum that Basingstoke does to the city of Salisbury. The Reformers halted awhile there on the up line, but they could not rest, so they soon left it to complete their journey. We are now invited to return there; but is there any thinking man who can suppose for one moment that we are intended to remain there, when we have the public avowal of the undenied preference for “the unreformed liturgies” and the Use of Sarum? Is it not perfectly clear that the attraction to the First Book is simply this, that it is a station for the express train on the direct down line to Sarum? And now, how will this proposal be received? or rather, how will it be received by that large body of men who wish to be considered “High Churchmen,” and who mean by that expression that they entertain a loyal, loving, and faithful allegiance to the grand old Church of England, into which they were received at their baptism, and of which those who are clergymen have been its appointed officers ever since their ordination? Will they, or will they not, be prepared for this new departure? Are they prepared to abandon all the historical E. Hoare. |