THE PROTESTANTISM 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRAYER BOOK. 
 
i 
 
 r ) 
 
THE PROTESTANTISM 
 
 OK THE 
 
 PRAYER BOOK 
 
 1!V THE 
 
 REV. DYSON HAGUE, M.A,, 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. I'AUL's CHURCH, 
 HALIFAX, N.S. 
 
 " Th< C/iun/i of England since the abolishing of t'optry.'—Qwoti XXX. 
 
 "/ shall /r,-,ly set forth that which undoubtedly I am persuaded to be the 
 truth if Gifs iyord,—call me a Protestant who 7oill, I care not." 
 
 — HisHoi' Rrm.EY. 
 
 ToRi)NTo ; 
 
 The J K. Bryant Olmi-anv (Limited). 
 
 1390. 
 
6X5/ Yi' 
 H3 
 
 Entered, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, 
 by '."he J. E. Bryant Company (Limited), in the 
 Office of the Minister of Agriculture. 
 
A HOUT three years ago I began writing in my daily 
 -/l journal some notes on the more Protestant features 
 of the Prayer Book. 
 
 The study was somewhat new to nic, and the more I 
 pursued it, the more was I surprised and delighted to 
 find so many clear proofs of the anti-Romani.sni of our 
 beloved liturgy. 
 
 It has thus come to pass that what was at first material 
 for a newspaper article only, has been enlarged to the 
 proportions of a volume. 
 
 Convinced that there are many who are as unaware as 
 I once was of these more essentially Protestant features, 
 my earnest desire is that they may experience the same 
 gratification as myself in. their discovery, and I now 
 send forth this plain statement of the true facts with 
 regard to the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 with a prayer that it may be a blessing to every one 
 who reads it. 
 
 I dedicate it to those Churchmen who, because they 
 love Christ and His truth, are not ashamed of the 
 grand old name of Protestant. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introductory ix 
 
 The Protestant Church of England and the anti- Protestant reaction. 
 
 Chapter i.— A Preliminary ARdUMENi i 
 
 The age in which the Prayer Book was compiled, the men who compiled it> 
 and the influences moulding them. 
 
 Chapter ii. — Three CIenerai, Protestant Character- 
 
 isncs 17 
 
 It is Common Prayer ; it is in the language of the people ; it is scriptural. 
 
 Chapter mi.— Morning ano Evening Prayer and Litany. 29 
 
 The Protestant features of the Prayers and Rubrics : the noteworthy changes 
 in the Litany. 
 
 Chapter iv.— The Co.mmunion Service 41 
 
 Not the Mass, nor the semi- Protestant service of 1549. The Sarum Mass; 
 Pusey's Views. 
 
 Chapter v. — The Baptismal Office 55 
 
 Not Romish ; not superstitious. The Roman doctrine of Kaptismal Regene- 
 ration not taught in the Church of England. 
 
 Chapter vi. — The Occasional Services 78 
 
 Significant changes in the direction of Protestantism in all these services. 
 
 Chapter vii. — The Absolution Doctrine of the Church 
 
 OF England 94 
 
 Differences between it and the Roman doctrine. 
 
 Chapter viii. — Auricular Confession 107 
 
 Not the doctrine of the Church of England : the teaching of the Roman 
 Church. 
 
 Chapter ix. — The Ordinal 121 
 
 rood ru 
 Jhost." 
 
 The good rule of the Reformers. Vindication of the form " Receive the Holy 
 Gh 
 
 Chapter x. — Recapitulation and Conclusion 135 
 
 Let loy.'.l Churchmen have faith in God. 
 
 Appendix if 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 THE title of this work explains its object. It is to 
 demonstrnte 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 he suspected of disloyalty to the 
 Church. No one can read 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 of the Prayer Book were drawn up by Protest- 
 , ants in the true sense, and intended for the establishment 
 i of Protestantism. 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, .\rian. The Church is Protestant, 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 protest against other forms of error 
 ' which, by negation or subtraction, have perverted the truth. 
 It is, however, in the sense of protest against Romanism, or 
 Popery, Roman corruptions in doctrine, and Romish trivial- 
 ties in ritual, that tht- word Protestant is mainly employed 
 in this work. 
 
X Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 priests of the Roman Church ; to dread, like poison, the 
 name of the Jesuit, were unfailing characteristics of all 
 sound Churchmen. At certain periods this spirit waxed 
 stronger, and the Church of England was not only Protest- 
 ant, but she was ultra-Protestant. In the days of the Refor- 
 mation, and those immediately succeeding, the language 
 of Reformers and representative divines, the statements of 
 authoritative documents, and the common employment of 
 expressive terms, set forth this ullra-Protestantism with the 
 strongest proofs; Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper, 
 all speak of Rome as the seat of Satan, Pabylon, or the 
 whore of Babylon, and the Pope as the Antichrist, or the 
 man of sin. The homilies on the perils of idolatry, on 
 repentance, and for Whit Sunday, exhibit the same detesta- 
 tion of Rome; and as to the use of expressive terms, it is a 
 matter of notoriety that no Churchman scrupled to employ 
 the words Romish, Papal, Popery, 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 
 unchanged. The revolution of 1688, that put them on the 
 throne, was essentiallv 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 
 because England's Church was a Protestant Church, and 
 England was a Protestant kingdom. This it was also that 
 produced the sterling declarations of that doctrine and 
 position, that princes deprived by the Pope, or on authority 
 
Introductory. XI 
 
 of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their 
 sul)jects, as impious, heretical, and damnable; that no 
 foreign prince, person, or prelate, hath or ought to have any 
 jurisdiction, supremacy, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiri- 
 tual, 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 
 forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown. 
 In those days, it is almost needless to remark, 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 reganied Popery 
 as the nation's irreconcilable foe. A modern author, 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 honor. The Church was 
 Protestant through and through. 
 
 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 gently laid aside 
 as oppressive, abusive, and unreasonable. The practices of 
 
xii Protcstautism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 the Church of Rome, which were formerly abhorred, and l)y 
 the Church at the Reformation completely cast aside, began 
 to be 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 trivialties 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, 
 eastern 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 "Congregation in Church" audaciously 
 declares to be still perfectly valid in the Church of England; 
 celebrations for the dead; the reserved sacrament; 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 efilect. 
 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 pos- 
 sible to that of the Roman ; in other words, to gradually 
 unprotestantize the Church of England, and slowly but 
 surely to assimilate it to Rome. The end to be finally 
 
 * I would refer the reader to a book which has obtained a large circulation, 
 entitled, "The Congregation in Church." 
 
Introductory. xiii 
 
 effected is not merely the parallel development of the Church 
 of England on so-called Catholic lines, hut 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, 
 Rou)an, and Anglican Churches; an assimilation which, it 
 need hardly be repeated, would be confusion, not fusion; 
 heresy, not union. 
 
 Such are the plain facts, admitted by men of widely 
 different schools of thought. Bishop Wilberforce and 
 Bishop Coxe join hands with Bishop Rylc 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 usurpation, and destroy her 
 catholicity ; to undo the work of the Reformation and the 
 Church's martyred bishops; and to go down on servile 
 knees to those who slew them, begging Protestant Church- 
 men to receive again a yoke of bondage and corruption. 
 A party, too, 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 endeavored 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 
 progress in the Church of England is not from the pen of 
 
XIV Protcsiiuitisui of ihc Prayer Book. 
 
 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 eucharistic adoration? The Prayer Book 
 expressly repudiates it. Is it the doctrine of extreme unc- 
 tion? 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 transubstantiation ? The 
 Prayer Book explicitly rejects it. Is it the practice of the 
 confessional ? There is absolutely no provision for it what- 
 ever. 
 
 In short, a careful study of the various changes in the 
 Prayer Book's chequered 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 Protest- 
 ant work with no uncertain sound; and that if English 
 Churchmen 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 
 stumbling-block in the way of the Romanizers. It affords 
 them so little countenance for their practices; its doctrinal 
 boldness from the falsely so-called Catholic standpoint 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 l)een from the 
 outset, with almost uniform steadiness, retrogression from 
 Rome. 
 
Introductory. xv 
 
 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 he 
 forbidden in the liturgical reformation of the Church of 
 f^ngland 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 the subsequent revisions show thai they were 
 thoroughly disallowed. 
 
 If the doctrines of the Reformers in the reigns of Edward 
 VI. and Elizabeth had been the doctrines of I'usey and the 
 Tractarian party, the 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 Jide tendencies of the Romanizing party in the 
 Church of England have been declared by a well-known 
 Churchman, the late Bishop Wilberforce, to be the revival 
 of a system of auricular confession, sacramental absolution, 
 the sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper, and the denial 
 of justification by faith; and these, in reality, are the inward 
 and dangerous doctrines of which the ritualistic innovations 
 before mentioned 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 Book, to have 
 been cast aside; and the practices now so clamorously advo- 
 
XVI Prutcstantisjn of the Prayer Book. 
 
 cated 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 differ- 
 ence 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, primarily, 
 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 endeavor 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 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 this fact that they were deemed either unnecessary or 
 dangerous. If we know, moreover, that this Prayer Book 
 of 1549 is now obsolete, and, however valuable in many 
 respects, is now no longer possessed of any doctrinal or 
 rubrical validity, we may uiiderstand how unfair it is to 
 plead its statements as a justification for ritualistic or 
 
Introductory. xvii 
 
 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 thai these changes 
 are not mere;/ accidental, nor changes of convenience, but 
 the conscientious alterations of spiritually enlightened 
 Reformers; and that these remarkable indications of spiritual 
 enlightenment are not confined to the Second Prayer Kook 
 of King Edward's reign, but are the substance of the Prayer 
 Book as Churchmen now have i:, we may be the more 
 determined to resist every endeavor to undo a work so care- 
 fully performed, and hold fast a prize secured by martyr- 
 blood. 
 
 In this endeavor, 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 indis- 
 pensable, principle, that the true guide to the interpretation 
 of the Book of Common Prayer, as it now stands, is not 
 falsely 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. It must be remembered that a book 
 which is the product of certain men, and of a certain age, must 
 be interpreted in the light of that age, and in honest accord- 
 ance with the known views of its compilers. Few, very 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 interpreta- 
 tions of the formularies of the Church must, in no way, be 
 a standard for us. To know the men, and to understand 
 the tendency of the age, is a sine qua non for the right 
 understanding of the Prayer Book. To ignore the fact that 
 
XVIII Prutcstantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 the tendency of the Reformation 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. And the views 
 of the Reformers which are to be our guide are not the 
 views which they held in their earlier days, an error some- 
 times made by the Romanizing party,* but the views 
 which they held after they became, by their own confession, 
 enlightened by (lod'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, endeavor, 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 from the earlier writings of Cranmer and Ridley 
 in proof of the doctrine of auricular confession, eq., but these are no guide what- 
 ever to their later views. Churchmen 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 Witberforce'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. 
 
Introductory. XIX 
 
 but with such I plainly say I have no sympathy whatever. 
 I believe that in all our contests with false teaching, and all 
 opposition to erroneous teachers, our protests should be so 
 permeated with the spirit of love that it should be manifest 
 that our opposition is inspired by principle, not by 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 
 His 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 truth, and 
 add His blessing to what, with entire dependence on His 
 strength and countenance, has been written herein. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 A PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT. 
 
 FEW 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 
 misunderstood, and to-day its blemishes alone are seen by 
 multitudes, and its excellencies are altogether 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 humili- 
 ating 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 
 of 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 
 
2 Protcstanthm of the Prayer Hook. 
 
 reluctant to study the true facts with regard to theii Prayer 
 Book, that its Protestantism seems hardly capable of vindi- 
 cation. I confess that, to a certain degree, I have shared 
 this misapprehension, partly owing to the audacity with 
 which the Romanising school have perverted its statements. 
 and jiartly to the indifference which has i)ermitred 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 prejudice, 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 
 intelligent consideration of the arguments contained therein, 
 will lead the reader to the conclusion that, in spite of the 
 misapprehensions of prejudice from those without, and the 
 distortions of the Trentine party within, the Prayer Book is 
 truly, and essentially, Protestant. Truly, 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 discipline, 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, The ver)- controversies in the 
 early part of the seventh century, between the lingering 
 representatives of our early British Church and the Roman 
 
A Preliminary Argument. 3 
 
 contingent, are an infallible indication of the Church's 
 spiritual degeneracy. Even then, th^: Church of England, 
 despite its apostolic origin, was weak, erring, spiritually 
 ignorant, superstitious, and corrupt. .\s the ages passed on, 
 it became still more so. Degeneracy deepened into still 
 greater degeneracy; ignorance increased, until throughout 
 England the most repelling elements of Popery were every- 
 where discernible. The most superstitious practices pre- 
 vailed. The most misleading and unscriptural doctrines 
 were proclaimed. The most inconsistent and ignorant of 
 men were found in the ranks of the clergy. The dogma of 
 transubstantiation was as fervently taught in London as in 
 Rome. The worship of Mary and the saints was as blindly 
 and continually pracflsed 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 nun- 
 neries abounded throughout the kingdom. Masses were 
 continually 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 favorite 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 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, immoral- 
 ity and debauchery. " Darkness covered the land, and 
 
4 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 gross darkness the people." As far as doctrine, practice, 
 and worship was concerned, the religion of England was 
 practical Popery. 
 
 And here let me, once and for all, emphasize a point of 
 the utmost importance. I am not now speaking of political, 
 but of doctrinal Popery. As early as the seventh cen- 
 tury, 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 that 
 the Church of England, then the organized Church of the 
 nation, was in doctrine and discipline virtually Romish. As 
 far as doctrine is concerned, it may be truly said, as Blunt, 
 the historian of the Reformation, has put it, that "the 
 Roman Catholic religion prevailed in England."* Through 
 out the history of the pre-Reformation English Church, these 
 two things are most remarkable: 
 
 On the one hand, that the Church of England, in matters 
 of political and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, was ever and anon, 
 from time to time, asserting her independence 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 
 
 'It is surprising to see tliat even such a Churchman as Blunt should _. ploy the 
 word Roman Catholic, a term that is utterly misleading and unmeaning. 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 honorable name, 
 but, as Bishop J.-ickson declares, "adherence to the visible Church of Rome doth 
 induce a separation from the Holy Catholic Church," or as the Church still more 
 strongly state:; in the Homily foe Whitsunday, "If it be possible to be where the 
 true Church is not, then it is at Rome." 
 
A Preliminary Argument. 5 
 
 ritual not the Roman ritual, her doctrines not the Roman 
 doctrines, and that therefore the pre-Reformation Church of 
 England must 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- 
 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. 363. 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 Eucharist, 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 
 
6 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 assertions of insular ecclesiastical independence were 
 not necessarily inconsistent with doctrinal identity. 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 corrup- 
 tions, 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 
 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 
 
 *If any of my readers imagine that I am stating this point too strongly, let them 
 read the 15th chapter ot" 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 ling- 
 lishmen 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 wiii persist in blinding 
 their eyes to the plain facts of history. 
 
A Preliminary Argument. 7 
 
 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 dy'ng 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 Chiirch, not reformation 
 o/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, there- 
 fore, that the reformation of the Church of England was 
 the work of King Henry VIII. 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 thorough Romanist, a most bigoted 
 Papist, and violently opposed to the doctrines of Protestant- 
 ism. If Henry VHI. 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 car' out the Pope, not Popery " 
 
8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 Neither the king, nor Wolsey, nor Warham, ever dreamed 
 that the defiance of the Papal decree would involve separa- 
 tion 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. See, for instance, the latter 
 part of Note 2, Chapter 5. 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, 
 that stately fabric of falsehood, so long an incubus on our 
 loved fatherland, fell, and fell forever, 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, 
 
A Preliminary Argument. 9 
 
 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-destroy- 
 ing teachings, 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 " — Cran. Works, Park. Soc, I., 28, and II., 322. 
 
 Ridley: He too accounted and boldly declared the Pope 
 to be Antichrist, the beast of Babylon, the who.e 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, 
 
10 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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, Romish 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." — Ridlefs Works^ 
 Park. Sac, p. 53-57. 
 
 Latimer: He, likewise, denounced with a Pauline fervor 
 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 Gcd 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 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 Christ is not only 
 a judge, but a justifier, a giver of salvation, and a taker away 
 of sin. He purchased 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 if it were for our works' sake, then it were not freely, 
 but St. Paul saith freely. Whether will you now believe, St. 
 Paul or the Papists?" — Conferences Ridley's Works and 
 Latimer's Remains., 1-74. 
 
A Preliminary Argument. il 
 
 Now, these men were the instruments chosen by God for 
 the compilation of the formularies and liturgy of the Church 
 of Eni;land. 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 and defiance akin 
 to that which stirred the breasts of the Jews of old against 
 brutal and tyrannical Rome. Is it probable, then, nay, is 
 it possible, that a book which was to be almost entirely the 
 work of these men's hands would bear the taints of Popery ? 
 That from these fiercely, and, to the last degree, anti-Popish 
 days, a work should come forth all marred with Popish 
 error? Common sense at once would answer, It is impos- 
 sible. 
 
 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. 
 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 changes 
 introduced by them in the Second Book of Edward VI., 
 which is substantially the Prayer Book as we now possess it. 
 Botii Bucer and Martyr were Protestants of the soundest 
 type. Enthusiastic for the truth, they hated Popery as they 
 hated sin; and keen to discern all Romish blemishes, they 
 faithfully 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 Bullinger 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 Book 
 
12 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 should retain the elements of Popery. The briefest consi- 
 deration 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 
 compelled to retain many Popish elements to conciliate the 
 minds of the people. The objection has no basis in fact. 
 The First Book of Edward VI., the Prayer Book of 1549, 
 though, as contrasted with the Sarum and Roman services, 
 *'a very godly order, and agreeable to the word of God and 
 the primitive Church," contained, as will be afterwards 
 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 
 into the new bottle of the Reformed Church of England 
 without preparation and caution. A messenger must pre- 
 pare the way. 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, 
 
A Preliminary Argument. 13 
 
 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 
 Proterstantism. 
 
 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 tb 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. 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. It is impossible, as a matter of fact, to over- 
 estimate 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 to us to-day. 
 
14 Protesianiism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 This objection, too, is futile, for substantially this Prayer 
 Book is our own Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 If the good providence of God was marked in the begin- 
 nings of the Prayer Book, still more so is it discernible in 
 its continuance. Since the days of Edward the Sixth many 
 and crucial have been the crises through which the Church 
 has passed. In those days of trial and crises, naturally the 
 Prayer Book of the Church was the subject of alteration and 
 revision. But though many changes have been made, with 
 one or two exceptions those changes have never in the 
 slightest degree been of a retrograde character, and the Sec- 
 ond Prayer Book of Edward VI. remains to-day, for all prac- 
 tical 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 re 
 strained 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 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 auric- 
 ular confession. Men who believed most conscientiously 
 in the Lord's Supper as a "sacrifice" were kept from insert- 
 ing that term in any such manner as to countenance the 
 Romish teaching thereon. Men who detested the phrase- 
 ology of the "black rubric" were, as if by the influence 
 
A Preliminary Arginnctit. 15 
 
 of some mighty hand, held back from altering it in any 
 serious degree, or from preventing its reinsertion in the Prayer 
 Hook. In fact, after a careful and earnest study of the 
 various stages through which the Prayer IJook has passed, 
 I make this deliberate statement : that as far as the gr»at 
 body of doctrine and 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 shadow 
 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 Prayer Book of the first 
 year of Edward VI. The result is that multitudes of 
 Churchmen are accustomed to think of this Second 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 XL's reign have never been 
 renounced by the Church of England. Revision there has 
 been; additions there have been; but retrogression — never. 
 
l6 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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, etc., 
 etc., may be searched for in vain in our present Prayer 
 Book. However distasteful the fact may be, it is a fact, 
 that, in the good 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 features 
 which meet us on every page, and the explanation of those 
 apparent blemishes which are found in this as in every other 
 human work. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 GKNEKAL CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 THE key to the Prayer Book, considered as a whole, is 
 the theology of England's Bishop-Reformers. Enter ' 
 into their sentiments, and an understandingof the doctrinal 
 difficulties is at once arrived at. Realize their doctrinal 
 position, and the interpretation of ritual directions is at once 
 unfolded. 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 position assumed in the previous chapter, and 
 the argument from probability and improbability is 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 comple- 
 mentary evidence, the acknowledged Protestantism of Cran- 
 mer, 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 it first of all not particu- 
 larly, 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; it is 
 wholly Scriptural. 
 
i8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 (i) To begin with, it is in the vulgar tongue, or ihe 
 language of the people. This of itself is an invaluable boon, 
 and a sign which [)roclaims most distinctly its emancipation 
 from Popery. Such a thing would never have emanated 
 from Rome, nor have been tolerated by Romani/.ers. Rome 
 hates the thought of it. Her device has 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 demolished 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 chang- 
 ing, are more suited to convey doctrines which are subject 
 to frecjuent alteration. But the Catholic Church prefers old 
 unchangeable languages because she is herself unchangeable. 
 The Church speaks Latin because she is apostolic, unchang- 
 ing, and catholic. Obey the Church." "No," said the 
 Reformers, in acts if not in words, "St. Paul declared that it 
 was l)etter to speak five words with my 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 
 
General Characteristics. ig 
 
 the same languae;e? And yet, that St. Paul meant not only 
 of preaching, it appeareth plainly hy his own words. For 
 he speaketh by name expressly of praying, singing, lauding, 
 and thanking of (rod, and of all other things which the 
 priests say in the churches, whereunto the people say. Amen, 
 which they used not in preaching, hut in other divine 
 service; that whether the priests rehearse the wonderful 
 works of God, or give thanks unto God, or make open pro- 
 fession of their faith, or humble request of their sins; 
 that then all the people, understanding what the priests say, 
 might give their minds and voices with them and say, 
 Amen, that is, 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." — Cranmer's 
 Works, Park. Soc, p. 450. To-day an unknown tongue is 
 compulsory the Papal world over. Whatever else is said in 
 thevu'gar tongue, I have readtheniass must be in Latin. But 
 from theday that theChurchofEngland authorized herpeople 
 to worship God in their own tongue. Popery received a 
 death-blow in England, and Protestantism a life-giving 
 inspiration. The pul)lication of the Holy Scriptures in 
 language understood by the people was doubtless the chief 
 instrument employed by God for the destruction of the 
 Popish stronghold. But in England, at any rate, the 
 Prayer Book was a factor in this reformation work, second 
 only in importance to the Bible itself. Superstition and 
 false doctrine had so ingrained themselves into the national 
 religious life, through the ecclesiastical use in worshi[) 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 accom- 
 
20 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 plished by the publication of the liturgy in 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- 
 ing 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 presi)yter (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 com- 
 munion 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 every- 
 thing within the understanding of the people. Nothing is 
 to be mysterious or exclusive. "At the beginning of morn- 
 ing and evening prayer the minister shall read, with a loud 
 voice, the sentences," etc. "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 
 
General Characteristics. 21 
 
 lesson," etc. This rubric is really a most decisively Protest- 
 ant work, a distinct and ever eloquent protest against the 
 superstitions and priestly falsities of Rome. 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 learned Bishop of Durham, while the 
 Christian minister is the representative of man to God, of the 
 congregation primarily, 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 ot 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 nf 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 oi 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 I)y another. When he utters the first 
 part of the "Glory be to the Father," then shall the right of 
 
« 
 
 22 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 they 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 prac- 
 tically 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 worshippers 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," Is. Ixi. 6. 
 "Ye are a royal priesthood," I. Peter, ii. 9. " He hath made 
 ns to be priests unto God," Heb. 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 ^-^e 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 effu- 
 
General Characteristics. 23 
 
 sions of his imagination ; or that St. John should pray 
 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; but that they 
 should all use in common, as a united mouthpiece, voicing 
 forth in unison, as common properly, the one petition in the 
 same words. "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our 
 Father," etc. 
 
 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 alorre uttered 
 this sentence, but that they all did. 'I'he 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 
 
24 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 please God and the people better by uttering informally 
 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 w rship 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 priesthood 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 Protestantism 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 
 
General Characteristics. 25 
 
 saturated with the Word of God that there is scarcely one 
 sentence which has not for its foundation and vindication 
 some text of Holy Scripture. By far the greater part of all 
 the prayers, petitions, and responses, are in the words (.f 
 Scripture. I'he Canticles are all, with one or two excep- 
 tions, portions of Holy Wiit. 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 sim.ply 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 texts that there 
 is for every sentence in the Prayer Book either exact 
 scriptural language, or else apparent authorizati( n 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 pur- 
 posed 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 
 
26 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 the Church's daily provision for her children. As far as I 
 am aware, among the various Protestant religious commun- 
 ions outside the Church of England, it is not customary to 
 have more than four ])ortions 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 AV^ord 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 the 
 Word of Life, the instrument of regeneration, making wise 
 to salvation. It is the charter of their spiritual liberties, the 
 eternal bulwark of their spiritual life. Therefore the Re- 
 formers exalted the Scriptures. Therefore they declared 
 that "Holy Scripture containeth all tilings necessary to 
 salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read tlierein, 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."— .-ir/. VIII. That "it is not lawful for 
 the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's 
 
General Characteristics. 27 
 
 Word written, neither may it so expound one place of 
 Scripture that it be repugnant to another. 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 
 salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may 
 be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture." — 
 Arf. XXI. That "the Romish doctrine concerning purga- 
 tory, 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."— ^r/. 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, intendmg thereby that the clergy, and especially such as 
 were ministers in the congregation, should {by often read- 
 ing, and meditation in, (iod's Word) be stirred up to 
 godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others by 
 wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were adver- 
 saries 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. 
 
28 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 If the Church of England is sound upon any point, she is 
 
 sound upon this cardinal doctrine of the position and value 
 
 of Holy Scripture. 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 
 
 I 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 
 
 i 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, to the Romish practices. While Rome performs 
 her service in a language " not understanded of the people," 
 and 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. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER AND LITANY. 
 
 1 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 IJook of Common Prayer is capable of vindication from 
 a Protestant standpoint, it must stand the scrutmy 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, 
 
Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 30 
 
 before the Throne of Orace to confess their sin, not to any 
 human mediator or confessor-priest, l)ut to God the 
 Ahiiighty, the Judge of all. 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 con- 
 fession, and priestly absolution. It is impossible to conceive 
 that such an exhortation could be found within the compass 
 of a Romanist or a Romanizing liturgy. The very simplicity 
 of the language of appeal, and the statement of the purposes 
 for which we assemble in church, above all, the terms 
 employed to express the end of confession, are proofs of its 
 truly Protestant character. A Romanist, or even Roman- 
 izing, 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 s' crament of penance, by the absolution 
 of the priest, obtain forgiveness of the same, orworusto 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 import- 
 ant truths: the right of each individual to go to God directly 
 and at once, and the necessity of constant personal acknowl- 
 edgment 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 tmie, 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 
 
Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany. 31 
 
 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 
 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 (lod 
 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 and 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 absolvcth ail them that 
 truly repent," etc. There should be no doubt of it, for as St. 
 John said in writing, so the minister declares in slightly differ 
 ent words, "Your sins are forgiven you, for His name's sak- ." 
 In the language of the 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. I'his last mentioned function has been 
 thought to invest the ministry with a distinctly sacerdotal 
 character. Yet it is very closely connected with the magis- 
 terial and pastoral duties of the ofifice, 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 empow- 
 ered to proclaim the consequences of their acceptance. But ; 
 throughout his office is representative and not vicarial. He 
 
32 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 mediation becomes indispensabU', on the 
 other." — Epistle to Phil., p. 267. So far, in fact, from 
 indicating 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. I'he 
 absolution of Rome, as we shall afterwards show, is the 
 judicial and indispensable act of an absolving human priest- 
 hood. This absolution is a declaration, a promise, an 
 evangel, an exhortation to prayer. It sets forth in the oars 
 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 liy his ministers, to whom the power and com- 
 mandment to declare this message has been entrusted; and 
 fmally, 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 scriptural- 
 ness 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 abso- 
 lution to that section of the Anglo-Catholic school who will 
 be contented with nothing short of a reversion to the l^irst 
 Prayer Book of Edward VI. is in itself a proof of its stub- 
 born Protestantism. One of the prominent leaders in that 
 movement, the Rev. Dr. Littledale, in a letter to the Royal 
 
Morninf^ and Eveninf^ Prayer and Litany. 33 
 
 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 
 he calls the quasi-absolution (note the expression), he con- 
 siders worthless, and a Puritan innovation of 1552, 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 I'rayer Hook of 1552. 'Ihis 
 period in our Church history indicates the high standard of 
 the Protestantism 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 words 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 herald 
 of the message of absolution, and God the giver of absolu- 
 tion, they took the safe and blessed via media of Holy 
 
34 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 Scripture. As has been pointed out by a modern writer on 
 the Prayer Book, the very doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land propounded in our Absolution has been made the 
 subject of 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 
 {pronufitiandi et declarandi) to the person confessing that 
 his sins are pardoned, provided only he believes himself 
 to be absolved, let him be accursed." 
 
 Whatever learned theologians may decide after their 
 disputes as to the form of absolution, 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 
 conclusion. It is 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," etc. 
 It is equally certain that the Romish doctrine 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 to pronounce 
 and declare. Therefore, whatever it is, it is clear that the 
 absolution of the Church of 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 
 
Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany. 35 
 
 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 
 from the sixth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, from the 
 sixth to the ninth 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 the 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 
 unintelligible 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 
 
36 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 common people is incomprehensible. The Reformers, 
 knowing this, boldly reverted to scriptural usage. In the 
 first place, they raised the standard of revolt 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, the 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 revolutionary a change, are somewhat humor- 
 ously alluded to in the Preface to the Prayer Book. "The 
 simple chapters of the Bible," they tell us, "were interspersed 
 with stories and legends, and responds, and verses, and vain 
 repetitions. The service was rendered in Latin to the people, 
 which they understood not, so that they heard with their 
 ears only, and their heart, spirit, and mind, were not edified. 
 And, worst of all, the number and hardness 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." — Pre/ace to 
 the Prayer Book, p. 5. Instead of all this, thanks to their 
 wisdom, and energy, and perspicuity, wc 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 the 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 wholesome doctrine, and to confute 
 them that are adversaries to the Truth. Herein, members 
 of the Church of England have a rich heritage, for wtiich 
 
Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany. 37 
 
 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 a marvellous 
 sagacity of choice and selection, in the arrangement of the 
 reading of the lessons, that nearly the whole Word of God, 
 in its breadth, fitness, order, and connectedness, is read in 
 the hearing of the people. With others, the people '.nay be 
 largely left to the caprice of the minister, who may give 
 them a short Psalm, or a favorite passage from Isaiah, or 
 St. John's Gospel, and never necessarily — there may of course 
 be exceptions — the fulness of the Word of God. But in the 
 Church of England it can not be so. By the wise arrange- 
 ment of the authorities of the Church, where there is daily 
 service, the whole of the New Testament, with t'.ie exception 
 of a few chapters in the Revelation, is read through twice 
 in the year, and the greater part of the Old Testament iF 
 read once. Truly, if any people should be grounded and 
 rooted in the Truth, it is the people who have, in the 
 readings of Holy Scripture provided in the Church, such 
 ample opportunities for increasing in the knowledge of God. 
 As to the rest of the service, the Versicles, the Collects, 
 the Litany, the Occasional Prayers, and General Thanksgiving, 
 they not only offer, in a compact and suitable form, the 
 most varied and incessant breathings of the prayerful soul, 
 but they are couched in language so purely scriptural, so 
 beautifully simple, and so deeply spiritual, that it is difficult 
 to conceive how a human compilation could more entirely 
 answer all the desires and needs of a devotional spirit. 
 Protestant and Anti-Romish, they are to the core. Whatever 
 there was in any ancient collect, liturgy, or litany, that 
 savored of Romish or other error, was carefully omitted. 
 Everything that related to the merit of our good works, to 
 the intercession of the Virgin or the saints, all prayers for 
 the dead, and to the dead, everything that alluded to the 
 
38 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 intercession of the angels, everything, in short, that even 
 faintly countenanced the falsities and superstitions of Rome, 
 was as scrupulously removed from our Prayer Book, as the 
 leaven was removed from the houses of the Israelites before 
 the Feast of the Passover. On the other hand, whatever 
 there was in these ancient manuals that was pure, scriptural, 
 and spiritual, was wisely and carefully retained. Many of 
 the most exquisite prayers in our liturgy were inserted by 
 our Reformers, and all of them breathe the most fervent 
 and evangelical spirit. 
 
 As to the Litany, it is not only a wonderfully comprehen- 
 sive and satisfying service of prayer, a very model of 
 intercessory worship, it is also a striking monument of 
 the Protestantism of our liturgy. The various stages 
 through which it has passed, from its original form in the 
 Roman service, to its form as now used in the Prayer Book, 
 are trustworthy indexes of the various transition periods of 
 our Church. In its Romish form, it need hardly be said, 
 the Litany was full of error. There were in it no less than 
 sixty-two petitions to angels and archangels, men and 
 women, dead and alive. Invocations for intercession were 
 addressed, not only to Mary, Holy Mother of God, to 
 Michael and Gabriel, to angels and archangels, to all the 
 holy order of blessed spirits, patriarchs, prophets, and 
 apostles, to martyrs and evangelists, innocents and confessors, 
 but also to St. Laurence, St. Vincent, St. Cosmas, and St. 
 Damian, and to all the holy priests and Levites, all the holy 
 monks and widows, all the holy monks and hermits. 
 Kneeling upon their knees, the congregation would listen 
 in ignorance and superstition, while there rolled forth in an 
 unknown tongue, from the lips of the priest and the choir, 
 such petitions as these — 
 
 " Sancta Maria, Ora pro nobis," 
 
 " Sancte Abel, Ora pro nobis," 
 
 *' Omnes sancti Dei, Orate pro nobis," — 
 
Morning and Evening Prayer and Litany. 39 
 
 petitions, it need scarcely be added, as unedifying to the 
 Church, as they were unintelligible to the suppliants. 
 
 The year 1544 marks the second stage of the Litany. It 
 is a year worthy to be held in grateful remembrance from 
 generation to generation of Protestant Englishmen ; for in 
 that year, 1544, thanks, under God, to the untiring vigilance 
 of Archbishop Cranmer, prayers were used for the first time 
 in the English tongue. " Hitherto, the people had under- 
 stood no part of such prayers and suffrages as were used to 
 be said or sung," but now, by royal mandate, it is enjoined 
 that certain prayers and suffrages are to be said in the 
 language of the people. It was certainly a most momentous 
 innovation ; it was, in fact, a national revolution. It gave 
 a new character to the Church and the nation. It broke 
 the spell of Popery ; it established the Protestantism of 
 England. Simply, and quietly, yet most effectually, it 
 brought back again to primitive usage the forms of public 
 devotion, and the religious sentiment of the people. The 
 English Litany now introduced by authority, though 
 substantially differing from the Roman in that it was 
 in the English tongue and contained much new matter, was 
 marred by many unscriptural features. While the numerous 
 petitions to the monks and hermits, and other saints of the 
 Roman Canon, were omitted, petitions still remained to 
 Mary and the angels. 
 
 " St. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us." 
 
 " All holy angels and archangels, and all holy orders of 
 blessed spirits, pray for us." 
 
 "All holy patriarchs, and prophets, apostles, martyrs, 
 confessors, and virgins, and all the blessed company of 
 Heaven, pray for us." 
 
 However, on the whole, it was a worthy monument of 
 Cranmer's evangelical zeal, and of the ripening Protestantism 
 of the English Church. 
 
40 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 The reign of FMward the Sixth witnessed the Litany issuing 
 forth from its final revision as pure gold refined in the 
 furnace. Not only were all the invocations to saints and 
 angels finally and summarily disposed of ; not only was the 
 petition, " by the intercession of thy saints turn from us all 
 those evils that wc most righteously have deserved," omitted 
 from the Collect at the end ; not only were numerous 
 petitions, breathing the most fervent spirit of evangelical 
 truth, inserted ; but the whole was remodelled and adjusted 
 to meet the ever varying and perpetual needs of the hunger- 
 ing and thirsting spiritual mind. The most devout and 
 loyal Christian can find nothing in it that, being weighed in 
 the balance of scriptural truth, will be found faulty or 
 wanting. 
 
 Why then, perchance some one will ask, was that grand 
 old petition omitted, " From the tyranny of the Bishop of 
 Rome, and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord, deliver 
 us"? For the simple reason, in truth, that it was no longer 
 necessary. Finally and wholly, the Church of England had 
 been delivered from Rome's accursed thraldom. The 
 declaration of the King's supremacy had as completely 
 demolished Rome's political despotism, as the establishment 
 of the Reformed religion had abolished her spiritual 
 despotism. What need, then, for the free man to pray that 
 he might be freed from a yoke which he no longer wore, 
 and from a chain which God's grace had snapped asunder ? 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE COMMUNION SERVICE. 
 
 SO FAR, in the examination of the Prayer Book, it is 
 hardly possible that anything could be found to offend. 
 The most decided Protestant could discover nothing to 
 irritate or offend the anti-Romish prejudice. All is scriptural, 
 apostolical, and consonant with the spirit of the truth as it 
 is in Jesus. Purity, spirituality, and simplicity, have 
 characterized every feature of the service. Now, however, 
 we come to a section of the Prayer Book where, in the 
 general opinion, the lines of Protestantism begin to grow 
 fainter. The main body of the liturgy will stand a vigorous 
 scrutiny, but it is otherwise, some allege, with the sacramental 
 and occasional services. It is in these, that is in the 
 communion, baptismal, and other services, that stumbling 
 blocks, and stones of offence, in the shape of lingering 
 elements of Romishness, ate discovered by the zealous and 
 critical Churchman. 
 
 Before entering into a fuller consideration of these 
 services, let me once more appeal to the argument, 
 from probability and improbability, by pointing out 
 one noteworthy fact, a fact which, in itself, will speak 
 eloquently in defence of these portions of the Prayer Book. 
 It is this, that while in the previous portions of the Prayer 
 Book the greater part is taken from the services and 
 practicesof the early Church, many of which services wereused 
 in the mediaeval Roman Church, in this part of the Prayer 
 Book, the services were compiled under the presiding genius 
 
42 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 of the Reformation, and adopted in many parts from the 
 works of the continental Reformers. That is, the very parts 
 which are supposed generally to savor of Romanism, are 
 taken from Protestant sources, while the very parts that are 
 so entirely unobjectionable to the ordinary Protestant mind, 
 such as the Versicles, Creeds, Te Deum, and many of the 
 Collects, are taken from ancient sources, and are largely used 
 by Romanists. It is well, then, to remember that these 
 services — communion, baptismal, and ordination — were com- 
 posed, and compiled, and supervised, in ihe most Protestant 
 age, and by the most Protestant men, and were in identity 
 with, or similarity to, the most Protestant views that the world 
 has ever known. A comparison of our communion service, 
 with the Sarum, or Roman services, will speed '!y make this 
 point clear. What our communion service is, as compared 
 with the Roman Mass, is known to all who may have ever 
 witnessed that ceremony in a Roman church. The strange 
 and unintelligible mutterings, the incessant crossings and 
 genuflections, the kissings of altar and paten, the uplifting 
 of the host, the prostration of the people, the lighting of the 
 candles, the burning of incense, the changing of vestments, 
 the tinkling of the bell, — all these things remind one more 
 of the performance of some ceremony of heathenism, than 
 the administration of the Lord's supper to His believing 
 people. As Bishop Bull once said : " If the blessed 
 apostles were alive, and present at the celebration of the 
 Mass in the Roman Church, they would be amazed, and 
 wonder what the meaning of it was ; sure, I am, they would 
 never own it to be that same ordinance which they left to 
 the churches." 
 
 If any one, moreover, thinks that our communion office 
 is taken from the model of the English Church before the 
 Reformation, let him peruse the communion service accord- 
 ing to the use of Sarum.* So far from finding any trace of 
 
 * See Note i. 
 
The Communion Service. 43 
 
 the scriptural dignity, and unobjectionable simplicity, of our 
 communion service, he will discover, at every turn, anti- 
 scriptural, and Romanistic expressions, — the words, " mass," 
 "holy host," "immaculate host," "sacrifice," "altar," 
 "incense"; childish and superstitious observances, such as 
 kissing the altar andcup, removing the candles, incensing the 
 altar,changing of vestments,bowings and crossings most nuni- 
 erous,incensingthe choir,and bowing to the host; blasphemous 
 and abominable practices,— prayers for the dead, prayers to 
 the saints, ablutions of the fingers, adoration of the host. 
 The whole service, in fact, is stuffed with vain repetitions, 
 senseless ceremonies, unscriptural doctrines, pernicious 
 practices, and, to complete its worthlessness, it is in Latin. 
 Let me briefly give an idea of these. At the time of the 
 offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, the priest is directed to 
 place the bread upon the altar, before the chalice, to kiss 
 the paten, and then to cover it. This ended, he is to 
 incense the sacrifice with the censer, making the sign of the 
 cross, three times — beyond the chalice, and in a circle on 
 each side of the chalice and sacrifice, then the space between 
 himself and the altar. Then he is to be incensed himself, 
 then he is to kiss the Book of the Gospels. Then the 
 choir is to be incensed by the acolyte, and the priest is to 
 wash his hands. Then he is to kiss the altar, then to cross 
 himself. Then he is to offer the offertory, with frequent 
 crossings, and to consecrate the host and chalice, with more 
 bowings, and kissings, and signings of the cross. Then, 
 after many more like ceremonies, he is to receive the body 
 and blood, which, being done, his hands are rinsed, and his 
 face is signed with the sign of the cross. In short, from 
 the beginning to the end, there is not a single feature which 
 can be claimed as analogous to our Protestant service. It 
 is simply the Romish Mass, in all its superstitious and 
 unscriptural repulsiveness. 
 
44 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 Not only is our present service as far removed from this, 
 as the order of the communion in the Catholic Apostolic 
 or Irvinp;ite Church, is from the simph'city of the adminis- 
 tration of the Lord's Supper in the average Presbyterian 
 Kirk, but, even as compared with the order of the 
 Communion of 1548, the first step towards reformation in 
 the Church of England, it stands forth, by contrast, as 
 mid day from twihght or early dawn. The order of the 
 conimunion, drawn up chiefly by Cram .er, and enjoined to 
 be used by royal proclamation, was a communion service 
 partly in English, and partly in Latin. Though differing, 
 absolutely and radically, from the Mass, which had been 
 abolished before it was published, it countenanced auricular 
 confession ; enjoined many superstitious practices and 
 ceremonials; employed constantly the word "altar"; and, 
 worst of all, taught the doctrine of transubstantiation. At 
 the same time, it was a wonderful step in the right direction, 
 and a perfectly marvellous defiance of Popish practices, 
 considering the circumstances of the period. It forbade 
 the elevation of the elements, by a rubric at the end of the 
 service, demolishing thereby the superstitious adoration of 
 the host. " If it doth so chance, that the wine, hallowed 
 and consecrate, doth not suffice to be enough for them that 
 do take the communion, the priest, after the first cup or 
 chalice be emptied, may go again to the altar, and reverently 
 and devoutly prepare and consecrate another, and without 
 any elevation or lifting up" — the first ritualistic practice to 
 be forbidden in the reformation of the Church of England. 
 It enjoined the priest to give an address to the people on 
 the benefits of communion, thus reviving the apostolic 
 order of preaching, which Rome so labored to suppress. 
 It provided that the laity should receive both the wine and 
 the bread ; a practice so revolutionary and so contrary to 
 Roman usage, that it was the most audacious defiance of 
 
The Communion Service. ^5 
 
 Rome as yet attempted in Kngland. Superstitious, imperfect, 
 )>lcmished, as it was, we may thank God for the significant 
 l*rotestantism ot tliis harbinger of our liturgy. 
 
 In 1549, the whole Prayer Book, in Enghsh, came forth, 
 and the communion service in it was substantially the same 
 as that in our present Prayer Hook. There were, however, 
 various terms employed, and various practices sanctioned, 
 in this I'irst Book of Kdward, which were intentionally 
 avoided and omitted in the revised Prayer Hook of Edward 
 of 1552, which is, as must again and again be emphasized, 
 substantially the Prayer Hook as we now have it. I have 
 said, intentionally, for there can be no doubt, that Cranmer 
 and Ridley, the chief agents m the work of revision, with 
 growing spiritual enlightenment, were determined to eradicate 
 from the services of the Church of England everything that 
 could nourish superstition or countenance Popery. That 
 the omissions they made, and the changes they introduced, 
 were the result, neither of chance, oversight, or caprice, but 
 were the careful, judicious, and designed alterations of men 
 who clearly understood how even minute expressions and 
 outward gestures may be produced as intentional endorse- 
 ments of doctrinal teaching, will be seen from a comparison 
 of the service, as issued in 1549, and that to be found in 
 our reformed and perfected service. The following differ- 
 ences deserve careful and grateful consideration : 
 
 First. In the Prayer Book of 1549, the word "altar" is 
 frequently used. 
 
 "The priest, standing humbly afore the midst of the 
 a//ar, shall say the Lord's prayer." 
 
 "Then the priest, turning him to the aZ/ar, shall say." 
 
 It was also termed, "God's board," but a//ar 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 
 
46 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, 
 
 table," "the holy table," are the words intentionally and 
 exclusively employed ; the woxdj'allar^" never ! A decided 
 Protestant mark. 
 
 Second. In the I'irst Book of Edward, 1549, the vestments 
 enjoined for use were a white alb, plain, with a vestment or 
 cope, or albs with tunicles ; vestments similar to those in 
 use in the Roman Church. In the Second Book of Edward, 
 1552, and now, with the exce[)tion of Cathedrals and 
 College churches, the vestment authorized for both priest 
 and deacon is, "a surplice only." Another decided Protestant 
 mark.* 
 
 Third. In the Prayer Book of 1 549, the mixing of wine and 
 water was enjoined. Now it is wine alone, the mixing being 
 purposely omitted, and therefore prohibited. Another 
 Protestant mark. 
 
 Fourth. In the First Prayer Book of Edward, the doctrine 
 of the Real Presence (in the Romish sense) was counten- 
 anced, and the most objectionable expressions were 
 employed. For instance, in the exhortation which the 
 curate is enjoined to give to the people, he says, " He hath 
 left /;/ those holy mysteries, as a pledge of His love, and a 
 continual remembrance of the same, his own blessed 
 Body and 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," etc., he prays that 
 the " Bread and Wine may be unto us the Body and Blood 
 of Thy most dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ." Both in 
 the prayer of humble access, and in the prayer after the 
 communion, the words are used, " to eat the flesh of Thy 
 Son, and to drink His Blood, /;/ these holy mysteries," and, 
 " that Thou hast vouchsafed to feed 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 
 
 * See Appendix. 
 
The Communion Service. 47 
 
 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 food in the 
 sacrament. While not actually teaching, in so many words, 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, 
 these expressions hinted in that direction, and were capable 
 of being distorted into a direct support of these doctrines. 
 The Reformers, therefore, carefully removed them, not by 
 accident, or in ignorance, but because they thoroughly 
 understood their work.* Another decided Protestant 
 mark. 
 
 P^ifth. In the First Book of Edward, prayers were made 
 for the dead : " We commend unto Thy mercy, O Lord, all 
 other of 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 everlasting 
 peace."— Prayer /or the Church Militant. In the revision, 
 they were carefully omitted, and are not now to l)e found in 
 the Prayer Book. Another decided Protestant mark. 
 
 Sixth. The prayer of oblation, as it is called, now 
 substantially the prayer which follows the Lord's Prayer, 
 after the administration of the elements, was then before 
 the i)artaking of the elements, and, in fact, before the whole 
 of the service, beginning, " Ye that do truly repent you of 
 your sins," etc. This, by many seui.- Romanists, as it is by 
 the Romanizers now, was construed into a sanction of the 
 idea of the communion being a sacrifice. 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 is "thrown into an improper 
 place, as being enjoined to be said after the people have 
 communicated, whereas, it was always the practice of the 
 primitive Christians to use it during the act of consecration. 
 
 * See Note a. 
 
48 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 For the holy eucharist 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, whereunto, 
 it was Bishop Overall's practice to use the first prayer in the 
 post-communion office, between consecration and the 
 administering, even when it was otherwise ordered by the 
 public liturgy." Whatever may be inought 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 intentionall) , 
 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. The 
 position of this prayer, then, is another decided Protestant 
 mark. 
 
 Seventh. 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. It stands 
 ever as an irresistible protest against the doctrine of the 
 corporal presence, and effectually demolishes the theory and 
 practice of eucharistic adoration. "Whereas, it is ordained 
 in this office for the administration of the Lord's Supper, 
 that the communicants should receive the same kneeling; 
 (which order is well meant, for a signification 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 
 
The Communion Service. 49 
 
 should, by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, 
 or out of maUce 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 
 Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places 
 than one." 
 
 In fact, any one 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 sentence and expression that afforded, 
 in the Reformers' opinion, the slightest color to the lingering 
 elements of Romanism, have been firmly and intentionally 
 expunged. Not only the above mentioned alterations and 
 additions, but rubrics against the use of wafer bread, the 
 reservation of the elements, and single communion, confirm 
 this, and shew with what minuteness of care all the 
 avenues to a possibly returning Romanism were entirely 
 and forever closed up. 
 
 To sum up : 
 
 There is, in the communion service of the Church of 
 England, a distinct repudiation, first, of the whole concep- 
 tion, form, and purpose, of the Romish Mass. The term is 
 never employed. The elements are administered in both 
 kinds. There is not the slightest analogy betwjcn them. 
 The 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 
 
50 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 people. The administration of the Lord's Supper, according 
 to the rites of the Church of England, is essentially and 
 simply a communion. The central object in the Mass is the 
 visible offering upon the altar, by the priest, of the sacrifice 
 of Christ's Body. The central object in our service is 
 Christ seen and fed ui)on by faith. The central idea of 
 the Mass is sacrifice. The central idea of the English 
 service is communion. 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 remem- 
 brance 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." 
 
 There is, in the communion service of the Church of 
 England, a distinct repudiation, secondly, of the expression, 
 and notion of, the altar. The altar is the inseparable 
 adjunct of the Roman service. In the Protestant Church 
 of England it has no place. The reasons given by Cranmer 
 why the Lord's board should rather be after the form of a 
 table than of an altar, are worthy of all consideration, as an 
 index of the character of the presiding genius in the 
 reformation of the Church of England: — 
 
 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 that 
 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," 
 
The Communion Service. 51 
 
 Second reason. Though the Prayer Hook makes mention 
 of an altar (he speaks here of the First Book of Edward, 
 in which,as I shewed above, the term "aUar" is used), it does 
 not prescribe any *"orm thereof. How much more forcible 
 is this reason now, when the word "altar" has been purposely 
 rejected. So that we may now alter Cranmer's words, and 
 say with perfect truth — Whereas the Book of Common 
 Prayer maketh no mention of an altar, therefore, it is not 
 lawful to employ a term which that liook al)olishcd. 
 
 Third reason. The Popish opinion of the Mass was 
 that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or a super 
 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 do cease; 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 appe.ireth 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 the ministration 
 of the holy communion. Wherefore, seeing the form of a 
 table is more agreeable with 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." — Cranmer's Works^ Park. Soc.^ p. 524. The whole 
 of Cranmer's argumentation is in flat contradiction of those 
 who, desirous of returning 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, Romish, and tends to assimilate the holy 
 communion to the Popish Mass. The language of the 
 
52 Protestantism of the Prayer Book, 
 
 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 wehave nodoubt,but that in all churches 
 within the realm of England, convenient and decent tables are 
 provided and placed for the celebration of the holy communion, 
 we appoint, that the said 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." — Canon eighty-two. 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 
 
The Communion Service. 53 
 
 Lord's supper," "the holy communion," are totally subversive 
 of the idea of sacrifice. Not only so, but Art. XXXJ, 
 "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the cross," 
 made once for all, — Latin semel, that is, once only — never to 
 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 communion, 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 teachmg 
 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. Tl^ 
 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 
 
 * See Note 4. 
 
54 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 
 presence of (}od, 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." 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. 
 
 NO portion of the Prayer Book has afforded more 
 material for controversy than the service we are now 
 to consider: 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 
 interpretation. It isvain, 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's Holy Word, the more one is convinced that 
 it is the purpose of God ; yet, its proof and demonstration 
 requires a line of evidence as broad and as difficult as that 
 which establishes the divinity of the Son of God. It is a 
 line of argument dealing largely in circumstantial elements 
 of evidence, insufficient and weak in themselves, but 
 together contributing to establish the doctrine upon an 
 immovable 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 
 child is now regenerate" prove the Popery of the Prayer 
 Book, the words in 1. Peter iii. 21, "baptism doth also now 
 save us," prove the Popery of the Bible. The service must 
 
56 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 be regarded as a whole; the significance of all its parts be 
 carefully weighed; and its contrasts from Roman and 
 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 
 baptismal service is still tainted with Popery. I propose, 
 therefore, in this chapter, to give a slight sketch of the 
 Romish l)ftptismal 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 interpretation 
 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 
 significance, 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 sacraments, and culminated in the theory, '^ ex opere 
 operatoJ" That is, the theory that the work of the Holy 
 Spirit in the sacrament is always and surely carried out by " 
 the performance 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 superstition, we must consider in the first place 
 
The Baptismal Service, 57 
 
 the form of the baptismal service in its purely Romish 
 phase, and then in its semi-reformed aspect; and in the 
 next place the circumstances and facts that demonstrate its 
 deUverance 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 concep- 
 tion 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 m the Church of Rome opens 
 with a short direction to the priest as to the disposition of 
 the children, and the nature of the vestments to be worn, 
 and a short question to the 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 thumb 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 
 
 * The quotations are taken from a publication of the Roman ritual by Piet of 
 Baltimore. 
 
58 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 Lord" — the sign of the cross again — "and in the power of the 
 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 thecross — "through God the holy" — 
 crossing again — "throughGod"— another crossing— "who has 
 l)rocreated thee for the {jrotection of the human race, and 
 has ordained thee to be a healthful sacrament 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, fo» 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, notwith- 
 standing the careful ensufflation and adjuration at the 
 commencement of the service. " I exorcise thee, unclean 
 spirit, in the name of 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 honor to the 
 living God, give honor to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the 
 
The /baptismal Service, 59 
 
 Holy (ihost,and withdraw from this servant of God, because 
 Ciod 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 
 unclean spirit as he does it, " And, do ihou, 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 will 
 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 simplicity 
 and purity are of short duration, for another ceremony 
 immediately follows. The priest lifts the lower end of 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 numl)ers of crossings, adjurations, and 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 Deu/n" 
 
6o Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 (I believe in God, the Father Ahiiighty), and after it the 
 Paler noster, 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 
 San, 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 j.omewhat 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, " Ephpheta, 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: 
 
The Luptismal Service. 6i 
 
 "Q. Dost thou renounce Satan? A. I do renounce him. 
 
 Q. 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, and 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 does so : 
 " I anoint thee with the oil of salvation in Christ Jesu our 
 Lord, that thou mayest have eternal life." Then another, 
 the change of stole. The violet-colored one is laid r.side, 
 and a white one substituted. Then another catechising: 
 " Dost thou believe in God the Father . . . Jesus Christ 
 His Son ... the Holy Spirit?" etc. Answer: "I do 
 believe." '* Dost thou 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 pours 
 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, Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has regenerated thee by 
 water and the Holy Spirit, and has given to thee ren.i'ision 
 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 )esus Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 The priest: "Peace be with thee." Answer: "And with 
 
62 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 
 h.'ive 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 wiih 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 .i confusion of emi)ty and 
 heathenish superstitions. How little that is really scriptural, 
 pure and good. How overi.^den 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 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 
 bewildered, were he told it was the apostolic rite of Christian 
 
The Baptismal Service. 63 
 
 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 apostohc formula 
 still icmains intact, but it is so buried under the rubbish of 
 ritualism that it can scarcely be recognized. Surely if by 
 Popery is meant identity with, or assimilation to, this form 
 of the Church of Rome, tlie service of the Church of 
 England is uncjuestionably 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 l^ook all the elements of Popery : 
 the comparison of the baptismal service as it now stands in 
 the Prayer Book, with the service us it existed in the First 
 Prayer Book of 1 549. 
 
 Protestant on the whole, as this First Prayer Book was, it 
 was tainted by many unscriptural and dangerous features. 
 There were still not a few elements of ritualism authorized, 
 which were calculated to perpetuate and promote erroneous 
 teaching ; and, in addition to these semi-Romish practices, 
 many expressions which fostered unscriptural doctrine. 
 It was a work of no little difficulty to bring back the 
 simplicity of primitive truth irom the accretions of mediajval- 
 ism, and to tear aside the excrescences without injuring the 
 body. Clearly, it was impossible to bring in perfection in 
 a moment at first trial. But as they advanced in knowledg^. 
 they determined to root out everything that savore^ of 
 superstition, and present to the Church a Prayer Book 
 
64 Protestantism 0/ the 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 three particulars. 
 
 In the first place there is to be found in the First Book 
 a form of exorcism similar to the one in the Roman use. 
 The priest is directed to look upon the children and say: 
 " I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou 
 come out and depart from these infants. . . . Therefore, 
 thou cursed spirit, remember thy judgment, remember thy 
 sentence . . . and presume not hereafter to exercise any 
 tyranny towards these infants whom Christ hath bought 
 with His precious blood." In the Second Book, w/iic/i is 
 substantially the service of the present day, this remnant of 
 Romish superstition is entirely omitted, and in the Prayer 
 Book to-day it is not to be found. 
 
 Secondly. 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 third time dipping the face 
 toward the font. In the Second Book this is left out, and 
 it is omitted from the Prayer Book as we possess it. 
 
 Thirdly. In the First Book after the baptism the ceremony 
 of putting on the child a white vesture, called the chrisome, 
 was enjoined. Now, this Romish practice is wholly 
 omitted. Each of these alterations is a distinct proof of 
 the decided Protestantism of our Reformers. Each of 
 them is a distinct advance upon the First Book 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 
 consciences of the spiritually enlightened, gives additional 
 
The Baptismal Service. 65 
 
 proof of the sturdy Protestantism of the revision. So much 
 for the form of the baptismal service, and the evidence in 
 favor 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," etc. But the reader must distinctly 
 understand that the difficulty of these words and the Popery 
 of these words are two entirely different things. Difficult 
 they are ; Popish they are not. Tliey 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 em- 
 ployed by men of most Protestant prejudices. They are 
 precisely similar, for instance, to those employed by one 
 whom no one ever suspected of Popish proclivities, John 
 Calvin, in his catechism ;* and they mny >e employed by any 
 who really believe in the power of ' d to receive as His 
 own disciples the little infants. They are 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 
 
 * See Mozley on the Baptismal Controversy, Part ii, Chap. vii. 
 
66 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 i)ut 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 bai)tismal service can no more be adduced in them- 
 selves as indications of the lingering Romanism of the 
 Prayer IJook, than the expressions employed by John Galvin 
 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 regeneration is not taugiit. In proof 
 of this four facts may be adduced. 
 
 The first fact is this: — 
 
 That after the baptismal service was completed it was 
 eulogized by Peter Martyr, one of the most uncompromising 
 Protestants of the Reformation age, a man summoned by 
 Archbishoi) Cranmer to aid in the work of reforming the 
 Church of England, and declared by Archbishop Parker to 
 be one " who had sustained constant labors 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 Hullinger just after 
 the completion of the Second Prayer Rook of Edward the 
 
The Bapthmal Service. 67 
 
 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 imme- 
 diately 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 sacraments, that is, the Romish doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration. Since, therefore, in Martyr's opinion the 
 do(-trine that grace is invariably conferred by the sacraments 
 brings with it superstitions, and Martyr testified that all 
 things are removed from the Piayer l>ook that could nourish 
 sui)erstitions, it is certain that in the mind of those who 
 were identified with Martyr's views, viz., the Reformers, the 
 doctrine of the invariable s[)iritual regeneration of infants 
 in baptism (the Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion) is not the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 It is, moreover, most significant, as pointed out by (ioode, 
 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 of the Article on baptism was the i)hrascology 
 of Peter Martyr, and the views of the sacrament the views 
 of the parly 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 u reasonable, opponents 
 
68 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 of everything that savored of Papistry. Beneath their 
 searching scriiliny a mole-hill of Churchiness was magnified 
 into a mountain of Romanism. They would have destroyed 
 even the very formulas 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 Ronjanism. 
 
 The third fact is this: — 
 
 'I'hat the ditfercnce between the earlier formularies of the 
 Reformed Church of England, and its formularies to-day, 
 is so striking that the intention of the Reformers in discarding 
 the Roman doctrine of baptismal regeneration is no longer 
 a matter of doubt. Indeed, no strongi-r 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 com|)arison of 
 the Articles of 1536 and our present Articles, Homilies, and 
 Catechism. We have presented in these Articles of 1536 
 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 locuta est, causa finita est" 
 doctrine was just as true then as now, and ten times more 
 practical. P>ut 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 cavil. It begins by asserting that people must 
 of necessity l>elieve all those things which hath, by the 
 whole consent of the Church, been always approved, 
 
The Baptismal Service. 6g 
 
 received, and used in the sacrament of baptism; that it was 
 instituted by Christ, etc.; that it is offered unto all men, as 
 well as to infants such as have the use of reason, that by 
 iKxptism they shall have remission of sins, etc.; and 
 continues by arguing at great length, that the promise of 
 grace and everlasting life (which [)romise 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 baptized ; and that by the sacrament of bai)tism they do 
 also obtain remission of their sins, the grace and favor of 
 God, and be made thereby the very sons and children of 
 Ciod ; 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 Holy (Ihost, which exerciseth 
 His grace and efficacy in them, and cleanseth and purifieth 
 them from sin by His most secret virtue and operation." 
 And much more to the same effect. The contrast to the 
 present teaching of the Church in the twenty-seventh Article 
 is remarkable. In the Article of 1536 baptism is declared 
 to be the bestower of the Holy Chost, 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 cjualifying 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," etc. In the First Book 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 statement 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 
 
70 Pyutcstuntisjn of the Prayer Book. 
 
 trivial, hut to the careful ohserver it is |)rc)f<)uiully sij^nirKMiit, 
 and throws strong light on the interpretation of the l)ai)tisnial 
 service. 
 
 The fourth fact is this: 
 
 That tiiroughout the whole of the I'rayer Hook 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 thi 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 Ikirial Service, and other offices, 
 cannot be understood. If then it is a fact that this princii)le 
 obtains throughout the Prayer Hook, 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 
 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 Cod thanks for 
 the regeneration of the infant, he almost immediately after- 
 wards prays that " finally, with the residue of Cod's holy 
 Church, he may be an inheritor of Cod'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 
 
The Baptismal Service. 71 
 
 rcj^'ard to each particular iiiCaiU. The teaching of tlie 
 cate(;liisin that infants are hound to i)erforni the promises 
 MKule l)y their sureties when they come to age, a statement 
 that is in flat o[)[)osition to the Komish doctrine of invariable 
 spiritual regeneration, and is honored by a s{)ecial anathema 
 against it from the Church of Rome in the Council of 
 'Trent,* also hears out the |)rinci[)le of hypothetical 
 explanation. In fact it seems from a consideration of the 
 known views of the Reformers, and the literal statements of 
 the Articles and .Services, that on the one I. and the teaching 
 of the Church is plainly this, that the blessing of newness of 
 life and s[)iritual regeneration is possible alike to adult and 
 infant. As Samuel was the child of (lod from infancy, and 
 John the Baptist filled with the Holy (Ihost from his 
 mother's womb, so is it injssible for Cod now to settle on 
 even new-born infants the fulness of His grace. Since, 
 therefore, it is as im[)ossible for the Church to discern which 
 are not to be reci[)ients of this blessing as to discern which 
 are, she charitably uses the only language that is scriptural ly 
 possible in connection with bai)tism. 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 " exi)ectative " hope, a 
 relative change has always taken i)lace. All children 
 brought into a covenant state of grace by Ivptism, as the 
 Jews of old by circumcision, and all adults likewise who 
 have professed their faith, are, " in anywise," in any case, in 
 a sense, relatively, that is, as far as covenant privilege and 
 responsibility goes, 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 circum- 
 cised were not circumcised in heart, Romans ii. 28-29, so all 
 baptized are not necessarily baptized of the Spirit because 
 
 * See Bungener's History of the Council of Trent, p. xxix. 
 
72 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 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 ha.st neither /ar/ nor 
 /of in this matter. Thou art in the gall of bitterness, — 
 repent — ." Numberless quotations from the greatest and 
 most authoritative 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 baptismal service.* It is a fact that the 
 principle of hypothetical interpretation was evidently intended 
 by the Church to obtain in the case of the Collects, the 
 Catechism, and the Burial Service. It is also a 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 
 are entirely inconsiderate. They are too frequently the 
 utterances of ignorant and prejudiced men whose judgment 
 
 * 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 Komish doctrine of baptismal regeneration never 
 was, and never can be, with the Prayer Book untampered with, the doctrine of the 
 Churgh of England. 
 
The Baptismal Service, 73 
 
 is crude, and knowledge shallow; men who consider it a 
 blemish that anything should he found in the service which 
 needs an explanation. Such persons forget apparently that 
 the whole of the Word of (lod abounds with expressions 
 which recjuire most careful investigation and studied 
 explanation. And no expressions, perhaps, in the Word of 
 (lod are more difficult of correct explanation than the 
 expressions of the Prayer Hook 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 (juoted 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 also: he 
 who finds difficulties in those very Scriptures which were 
 given by the Holy (Ihost for the illumination of mankind, 
 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 the 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 holy 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 
 
74 Protestantism uf the Prayer Book. 
 
 in one of its manuals for the direction of its ministers 
 enjoins that in the ordinance of baptism prayer is to l)e 
 made " for sanctifying the water to this spiritual use." 
 
 Second, 'i'he sign of the cross on the forehead of the 
 l)ai)ti/,ed. This was from the very first a stumbling block 
 to some — see the rubric at the end of the service, " To take 
 away all scruph; concerning the u.se of the sign of the cross," 
 — and is a source of difficulty to many to-day. 'i'hat, 
 however, it is no proof of the Popery of the Prayer Hook, 
 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: " Tlie lawful use of the cross in baptism explained." 
 Heginning with an expression of regret that this ceremony 
 should still be a matter of scruple to many, it proceeds to 
 show that the sign of the cross in baptism was one of the 
 usages of the primitive Church, 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 
 Cod nor offend the minds of sober men. It has therefore 
 been retained, both 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." 
 
The Baptismal Service. 75 
 
 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 essenlial, 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, 
 
 As I have remarked 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 stubl)ornness and intensity of "the Protestant 
 prejudice " passed away, but a reactionary sentiment of 
 kindliness and amity 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 favor. 
 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 inicjuitios 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, th<;y are 
 
76 Protestantism 0/ the Prayer Book. 
 
 against her political and ecclesiastical usurpations, not 
 against her deadly and soul-destroying doctrines. But the 
 Church of England, :r. her Canons, has no such scruples, 
 nor does the pseudo-charity of some of her members find 
 any support in the formularies of the Church. 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 Protestant 
 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 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 savor of her 
 superstitions, 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 scriptural 
 characteristics. But as I remarked with regard to the 
 communion service, so I would say with regard to the 
 baptismal: Its fulness and scripturalness, its purity and 
 solemnity, its heart-searching and touching spirituality, are 
 

 The Baptismal Service. 77 
 
 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 our 
 age, a Churchman whom none could accuse of proclivity to 
 Popery on the one side, or to Dissent on the other, the late 
 L^rd 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 (led 
 in His mercy grant, that as the child was this day signed 
 with the cross, so he may never be ashamed to confess and 
 to fight for a crucified Saviour." — Lt/e, /, 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. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE OCCASIONAL SERVICES. 
 
 WK now pass from the major services of the Prayer 
 Hook to the consideration of those services like 
 the confirmation, marriage, burial and other, winch are in 
 less frequent use, and are generally comprehended under 
 the generic term, the Occasional Services. Of minor im- 
 |)ortance comparatively, these services present in a very 
 nnniistakahle 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 he honestly said of these occasional offices, 
 that they have had all things removed from them which 
 savored of Romanism and were calculated to nourish 
 su|)erstition. No little spiritual discerimient and practical 
 sagacity was recjuired to remove from the partially refornu'd 
 services the remnants of mediicvalism. It was a most 
 delicate and difficult work; but in every case it was 
 performed with thoroughness, and from each service there 
 was 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 
 cross upon the forehead and breast. From the communion 
 
The Occasional Services, 79 
 
 • 
 
 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. 'I'hey are not 
 accidental; they are all in one direction. They all tend to 
 one goal. They all declaie the unmistakable Protestantism 
 of the Reformers. ICach 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 .il^ove 
 services there is a threefold gradati(m 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. The 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 l^elieve 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, liut when 
 we see in each service the same careful progression, can we 
 doubt the intention of the Reformers, or the im|X)rtance of 
 the changes as establishing the present standing of the 
 Church ? It seems impossible to escape the conviction 
 that arises from a careful study of the changes simultaneously 
 
8o Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 and uniformly made by the Reformers in all these services, 
 that it was their delilierate intention to eradicate from the 
 I'rayer Hook of the Church of Kngland everything that 
 would he 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 con- 
 firmation 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 bapti/od, 
 immediately after or as soon as possible, always at any r.ite 
 while they were infants or little ones, they were brought to 
 the liishop to be confirmed. The Bishop anointed the 
 thumb of the infant, and crossing its head with oil, said in 
 l^itin: " 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 ; xi 
 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 
 will of God." — Rubric^ First Book of Edward, ^549- 
 
The Occasional Scnices. 8l 
 
 Instead of the anointing of the forehead and the thumb, the 
 liishop's hands, in accordance with the apostoHc 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 Hook of 1552, 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," etc., was 
 obliterated forever, and in place thereof was substituted the 
 beautiful prayer: "Defend, O Lord, this thy child (or 
 servant) with thy heavenly grace, that he may continue 
 thine forever," etc. 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. 
 
 T/ii' Marriage Service. Before the Reformation the 
 marriage service was tainted with many unscriptural 
 allusions and superstitious practices. The marriage was 
 first of all performed at the church door; then after various 
 prostrations and genuflections prayer was offered before " 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 successively, being finally 
 left upon the fourth finger of the bride's left hand. 
 
82 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 l>e per- 
 formed in the body of the church; the prostrations and 
 blessing of the ring were discarded; and the ser\*ice 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 
 benedictions, an apocryphal allusion lieing used in the 
 prayer after the Psalm : " As Thou didst send Thy an. el 
 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 niarked 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 ch.inges, trivial, that is, as compared 
 with the purity of the service 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 jierceptible. In the 
 Roman and pre-Reformation Anglican ser\ices, this visitation 
 ser^•ice is marked, more than any other, by utterly unscriptural 
 doctrines and superstitious practices. Prior to the Reforma- 
 tion, 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 his own knockings of the breast, contritions, 
 confessions, fasting, alms, vigils, prayers, pilgrimages, all his 
 good works, all injuries borne for God's sake, the Sa\-iour's 
 passion, the Virgin's merits and the merits of the Saints, all 
 
The Occasional Services. 83 
 
 the prayers of the Catholic Church, might he effectual 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 su|)erstitious 
 practices connected therewith. There was a prayer, after 
 the Roman fashion, for the soul at the time of departure. 
 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 re- 
 mained some elements of danger, in the shape of doubtful 
 expressions 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 infinite goodness, that thy soul inwardly may be anointed 
 with the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of all strength, 
 comfort and gladness,'" etc. 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. AH 
 Apocryphal and unscriptural allusions are omitted. Anoint- 
 ing 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 
 
$4 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 afterward 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 transuhstantiation, and the adoration of the 
 sacraments, the accompanying ceremonies, prostrations and 
 genuflections, ti.o holy water, and the confession of sins to 
 the priest. 
 
 In the Kirst Book of Edward the chan'.^'e is remarkahle. 
 All superstitious elements are removed, doctrinal and 
 ceremonial, while a rubric is inserted, which, for simplicity 
 and scriptural purity, is almost unsurpassed in the Prayer 
 Book. 'Ihe rubric, that is, to the effect that even if a man 
 does not receive the sacrament, and yet truly repents and 
 steadfiistly 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 private communion. With 
 their usual care, fearing, not unreasonably, the conse(iuences 
 that might flow from this apparently harmless procedure, 
 the Reformers, in the revision of 1552, wholly omitted this 
 part of the rubric 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, 
 wa -^ purposely to prevent the celebration of the Mass in the 
 sick chamber, and to demonstrate authoritatively that the 
 Church of England teaches that the communion is not a 
 mere magical performance wherein priest and recipient 
 alone are necessary, but a real communion of believers 
 
The Occasional Services. 85 
 
 uniting 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 receiving the elements, and of 
 celebrating private communion, was decidedly dangerous. 
 While not necessarily Romish, it countenanced and tended 
 to sui)erstitious practices. In our present services both 
 practices are disallowed, 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 
 unrui)rical practices, to emphasize the point that these 
 precautions were mainly made to prevent any possible return 
 through tiny openings to Roman corruptions, especially 
 Romish 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 fhe private 
 celebration of the Mass an impossibility in the f^nglish 
 Church. It also most effectually disposes of the Romish 
 idea of the final reception of the Eucharist being indispen- 
 sable to the soul's passage to Christ. The rubric 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 
 
86 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 considered as a just impediment to the dying man's accept- 
 ance 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, etc., 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 of 
 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 of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise 
 are they partakers of Christ : but, rather, to their condem- 
 nation do eat and drink the sign, or sacrament, of 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 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 
 
The Occasional Services. 87 
 
 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 opera 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 consecrated, 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 
 f;iith on Christ, the Living Bread, there is the communion 
 of the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 T/w Churching of Women. 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 155 2, even the word "purification," 
 and the offering of the infant's baptismal mantle, are done 
 awav 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. 
 Any departure, therefore, from the exact teaching of holy 
 scripture, is sure to 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 
 
88 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 commendation 
 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," etc. "We commend into Thy hands of 
 mercy (most merciful Father) the soul of this our brother 
 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," 
 etc. And so again: "O Lord, with whom do live the 
 spirits of them that be dead, and with whom the souls, etc. 
 
The Occasional Services. 89 
 
 . . . grant unto this, Thy servant, that the sins which he 
 committed in this world be not imputed to him; hut that 
 he, escaping the gates of hell, may ever dwell in the region 
 of light," etc. In fact, these prayers .or 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 1552 all was achieved 
 that was necessary to perfect the service, and now every- 
 thing is removed from this service that could countenance 
 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," etc., 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 commit- 
 ted 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 
 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 for the dead are changed into prayers for the living 
 
go Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 prayer that the offerer of the prayer, and the 
 bystanders, may be raised from the death of sm, 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 remark- 
 able 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 purga- 
 tory, or the unscriptural practice of prayers for the dead, it 
 offers as little countenance, on the other hand, to popular, 
 though thoroughly erroneous, conceptions. 
 
 Too many, in starting back 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 mtermediate state at all. 
 The popular idea of the state after death is an entrance into 
 heaven that shuts out practically the very notion of the 
 pergonal 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 doctrine of our 
 personal relation to our glorified Saviour, who is to come 
 
The Occasional Services. gi 
 
 again in person, at whose coming "the dead shall he raised 
 incorruptible, and we shall be changed," "who shall fashion 
 anew the body of our humiliation, that it may he conformed 
 to the body of His glory," is, for all practical purposes, 
 obscured, or destroyed, by the idea tha., at death, the soul 
 enters either into heaven or hell, and everything that con- 
 cerns its felicity or misery is settled then, and there, and 
 forever. 
 
 Now, the Burial Service, 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 very 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; Rev. xiv. 13; Luke xviii. 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 labors." 
 
 "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 to 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, 
 
gz Protestanthm of the Prayet Book. 
 
 indefinite, indiscriminate heaven, as multitudes supersti- 
 tiously believe, but the second coming of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, "who shall change our vile body," etc., Phil. iii. 21; 
 the accomplishment of the number of His elect in this dis- 
 pensation, according to Acts XV. 14; 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 excommunicate 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 charitable presump- 
 tion 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 Ameri- 
 can Church, in the opinion of many, would be most desirable. 
 
 TA^ 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 neighbors. No man 
 curses any one. It were impious to do so in the face of the 
 
The Occasional Services. 93 
 
 Master's prohil)ition, "Judge not, that yc 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, etc., 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 
 im] enitent, 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 
 fervor. Herein is nothing of priestly absolution, sacra- 
 mental efificacy, 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 many changes in the direction of 
 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 piace ; 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. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ABSOLUTION IN THE VISITATION OF THE SICK. 
 
 WE 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 diffi- 
 culty to the Protestant Churchman, are the rubric with 
 regard to confession in the visitation of the sick, the form 
 of absolution, 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 Book, 
 without reducing its size one quarter of a page; but as far 
 as their doctrinal significance is coticerned, 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 f, am 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 consider- 
 ation 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 absolution, 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 England on these points, that it is essentially 
 removed from that of Rome. 
 
Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 95 
 
 I would ask the reader in this chapter, therefore, to read 
 
 he rubric which authorizes the confession to be made, and 
 
 hen 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 the subject 
 of the absolution will be offered now for our exclusive 
 consideration. 
 
 The form of absolution is used three times in our Prviyer 
 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 Roman dogma of 
 absolution. 
 
 Second, in the Communion Service. This form is also 
 one of remarkable pathos and beauty. "Almighty God, 
 
96 Protestantism 0/ the Prayer Book. 
 
 our Heavenly Father, who of His great mercy hath promised 
 forgiveness of sins to all them that with true repentance and 
 hearty 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 I^rd Jesus Christ. It 
 carries in it nothing exclusively appertaining to the minis- 
 terial office, much less distinctively peculiar to sacerdotal 
 authority.* 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 arc 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 irreconcilable with it. They 
 destroy the very foundations of 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 confession; its form, so like the 
 Roman; above all, the expression "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 surely prove. In the first place, it is well to 
 consider zv/io it is that is said to forgive — "Our Lord Jesus 
 Christ . . . of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences." 
 
 •See Note i. 
 
Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. c)j 
 
 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, 
 made this declaration, and offered this prayer, the priest 
 pronounces the sentence, "by His authority" — that is, by 
 the authority of John .\.\. 23 — "I absolve thee." If the 
 former sentence were omitted, then we would be compelled 
 to believe that a human priest was judicially pronouncmg, 
 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 
 not intended by the Reformers to carry with it any coun- 
 tenancing of the Roman doctrine. The whole theological 
 positionof the Reformers justifies this assertion. Interpreted 
 thus, it stands in conformity with the rest of the Prayer 
 Hook, and, though liable to abuse, it is not Popish. Inter- 
 preted otherwise, it is an unreasonal)le and unintelligible 
 blot, which the Reformers would never have tolerated, much 
 less have themselves composed and inserted. For the 
 absolution, as it stands in the Prayer Book to-day, is 
 precisely the same as the absolution in the Second liook 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." 'J'hat Book, composed under 
 the supervision of the most Protestant minds of the Reform- 
 ation, 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 production of the 
 semi-Reform days of 1549, or an addition of any later era of 
 sacerdotal reaction. It is not. It is the deliberate judg- 
 
98 Protestantisvi of the Prayer Book. 
 
 merit of the fully enlightened Reformers, expressed in their 
 carefully finished work of 1552. It is, moreover, a form 
 which was sanctioned by the sense of the Continental 
 Reformers, inasmuch as it has been retained in the Protest- 
 ant 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 
 ministerial function of absolution — the declaration, by an 
 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 repent- 
 ance 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 Him can 
 receive from His ministers the comfortable 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 
 
Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. gg 
 
 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, con- 
 fession 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 absolu- 
 tion, and that each member of the Church should duly 
 receive it. It is the corner stcne 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 acceptance and forgiveness. 
 It is the necessity of the Roman act of absolution, there- 
 fore, 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 
 Roman form is uniformly employed and absolutely neces- 
 sary, the Prayer Book form is never necessarily employed, 
 and for millions may never be used at all. It occurs in an 
 occasional service, but is never necessarily enjoined. With 
 Rome, it is indispensable, and of the highest importance. 
 Rome enjoins its use for every member of the Church. 
 The Church of England never absolutely enjoins it, and 
 only rarely permits it. That the Church of England, there- 
 fore, attaches no such importance to priestly absolution, and 
 denies in toto the Roman doctrine, is proven by the fact 
 that this form of absolution is fettered with such limitations 
 as to bring it practically into disuse. 
 
 (i) It occurs only in the service for the Visitation of the 
 Sick. 
 
100 Protcstantishi of the Prayer Book. 
 
 (2) 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 employed by the minister, unless he so 
 please. The other services are imposed. This is optional. 
 According to Canon 67, the 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.''* 
 
 (3) It is only for the sick, and the whole service goes to 
 show, only th? 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 
 be not weighty — then he is not to be moved to make a 
 special confession. 
 
 (5) The absolution is only to be pronounced 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 riothing. It 
 is impossible to conceive of Rome permitting her priests 
 to limit their absolution to such us liunibly 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 
 reduces it to an inoffensive formula. As has been well said, 
 "The actual practice of the Church is utterly inconsistent 
 with 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 — 
 
 ♦See Note 8. 
 
Absolution in Visitatioti of the Sick. loi 
 
 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 evangelical a prayer for pardon as is to be found 
 within the compass 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 
 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, candor must acknowledge that, as far as its practical 
 effects are concerned, the defect is insignificant. I 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 perplexi- 
 ties," 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 
 
102 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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. 
 
 Wheatley 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 
 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 fore- 
 going 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 communion, for it is expressed by 
 the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. "Binding and loosing 
 signify the same things that we now express by excommuni- 
 cating 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 absolv- 
 ing, 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 absolving him any otherwise than from the 
 censures of the Church." That these words in St. John xx. 
 
Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 103 
 
 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 
 Wheatley 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 extraordin- 
 ary power which accompanied the inflicting, or continuing, 
 or removing diseases." In the primitive Church, this 
 authority to pardon or forgive sins was never considered to 
 appertain to the ministers of the Gospel, nor was such 
 authority ever pretended to for a great many centuries after 
 Christ. Absolution was always correlative with public discip- 
 line, and the relaxation of this discipline was accompanied 
 with prayers after the optative form. Even when, as late as 
 the twelfth 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 ap|)lying 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, tlie minister exercises a 
 judicial authority. It is evident, then, in ^^'heatley's 
 opinion, that this absolution was not intended to counten- 
 ance 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, etc., 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 couiparison of the rubric 
 in the First Book of Edward VI., where these words occur: 
 "After which confession, 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 
 
104 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 expression 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 assur- 
 ance that his sins are remitted, even in the court of Heaven, 
 and that he is restored to the grace and favor of Christ. 
 But this he is to deliver, not absolutely, but conditionally; 
 that is, upon the presumption that his repentance is as 
 sincere as he represents it." 
 
 Wheatley's theory is reasonable, and is worthy of con- 
 sideration. His last argument especially is very strong: 
 "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-used 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: 
 
Absolution in Visitation of the Sick. 105 
 
 "77/^ office of absolution: its nature. The first of the 
 three forms, 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 under- 
 stand 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, 
 goes on to exhort us to jjray for true repentance. It is 
 followed also by the Lord's Prayer, which supplicates 
 forgiveness. 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; remission 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 
 precatoryabsolution, 'Our Lord absolve thee,' has succeeded; 
 then the official sentence, 'I absolve thee'; and still there 
 immediately follows a very full and most earnest supplica- 
 tion by the minister, that God would put away the sin of 
 His servant who is still desiring pardon and forgiveness; 
 and that God will continue him in the unity of the Church, 
 and will not impute unto him his former sins. The peni- 
 tent is not thus lulled into a false security, as though the 
 
io6 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 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 sup- 
 pose 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 Wheatley's on this 
 point. Both agree that the succeeding prayer for pardon 
 must be considered as an important factor in the determin- 
 ation of the precise import of this absolution form. Both 
 agree that this form is not intended, like the Romish 
 absolution, to take effect like a judge's sentence, or entirely 
 remit the sins before God, by lulling the penitent into a 
 false security. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 AURICULAR CONFESSION. 
 
 IN a book published in England, entitled. "A Catechism 
 on the Church," by the Rev. C. S. Grueber, the follow- 
 ing extraordinary sentences occur: 
 
 "Q-— ^Vhat do you mean by absolution?" 
 
 " A.— The pardon or forgiveness of sin." 
 
 "Q.— By what special ordinance of Christ are sins com- 
 mitted after baptism to be pardoned?" 
 
 "A.— By the sacrament of absolution." 
 
 "Q-— '^Vho is the minister of absolution?" 
 
 "A. — A priest." 
 
 "Q-— Do you mean that a priest can really absolve^" 
 "A.- Yes." 
 
 "Q-~"^^'hat must precede the absolution of the peni- 
 tent?" ^ 
 
 "A.— Confession. Before absolution privately given, 
 confession must be made to a priest privatelv." 
 
 "Q.— In what case does the Church of England order 
 her ministers to 'move' people to private, or, as it is called, 
 auricular confession?" 
 
 "A.— When they 'feel their conscience troubled with any 
 weighty matter.' " 
 
 "Q-— ^Vhat is 'weighty matter'?" 
 
 "A.— Mortal sin certainly is weighty; sins of omission or 
 commission of any kind, that press upon the mind, are so, 
 too; anything may be weighty that causes 'scruple or 
 doubtfulness.' " 
 
 "Q.— At what times in particular does the Church so 
 order?" 
 
io8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 "A. — In the time of sickness, and before coming to the 
 holy communion." 
 
 Such is the unaltered language actually found in a work 
 published by a clergyman of the Church of England for the 
 instruction of the youth of the Church.* 
 
 Now, apart altogether from his unjustifiable use of the 
 word "absolution," his arbitrary and uncalled for assigning 
 of a troubled conscience as a cause for confession, and his 
 utterly false statement that the Church orders people to 
 auricular confession before coming to the holy communion, 
 it is manifestly unjust to talk of auricular confession being 
 permissible in the Church of England, or to plead the rubric 
 in the service for the Visitation of the Sick as affording any 
 shadow of countenance for its observance. 
 
 What is auricular confession? 
 
 Auricular confession, as practised in the Church of Rome, 
 is an express, contrite, but secret self-accusation to a duly 
 authorized priest of at least all grievous sins committed after 
 baptism, or of all the mortal sins committed since the last 
 confession when absolution was received, in order to the 
 reception of sacramental absolution. It involves accordingly 
 three essentials: 
 
 (i) It is the complete confession of all one's sins of a 
 grievous or mortal nature committed during one's life, if it 
 is the first confession; or, if it is not, of all the mortal, not 
 venial, sins committed since the last confession and 
 absolution. This distinction between mortal and venial 
 sins is a very important one in its bearing upon the doctrine 
 of Roman confession. A mortal sin is one which "excludes 
 a man altogether from the favor of God, because forbidden 
 by Him under the penalty of eternal death." Every mortal 
 sin ipso facto excommunicates a man, deprives him of God's 
 favor, and quenches the Spirit within him. A venial sin is 
 
 * The book is published by G. T. Palmer, London, England. 
 
Auricular Confession. 109 
 
 one of a lighter kind, and can be forgiven at once on the 
 mere act of repentance and faith. A mortal sin can only 
 (with such exceptions, for instance, as impossibiUty of access 
 to a priest) be wiped out by confession and absolution. 
 Auricular confession, therefore, is reserved for mortal sins 
 alone, and without confession and absolution in ordinary 
 cases, forgiveness is impossible. It is this fact, namely, that 
 confession is required only of mortal sins, that renders the 
 Roman doctrine so dangerous. On the one hand, it 
 engenders in the penitent a diseased and morbid spiritual 
 state, as he abjectly casts about in his mind for the terrible 
 iniquity committed since the last confession, for nothing 
 less than a mortal sin necessitates confession. On the other 
 hand, it gives to the unscrupulous priest an opportunity to 
 gratify a depraved imagination, by instituting an eneiuiry 
 which will elucidate the committal of some deadly sin. 
 
 (2) It is the secret confession of one's sins into the ear of 
 a priest. The act is to take place in private, between the 
 soul and the priest. 
 
 (3) It is necessary and indispensable. It is indispensable 
 to the reception of the sacrament of the eucharist, and it is 
 positively enjoined, as one of the commandments of the 
 Church, as necessary at least once a year. Take from it 
 these two last characteristics, and the practice of confession 
 will have lost its sting. If it is not secret, it will be deprived 
 of its most odious feature. If it is not necessary, it has 
 lost its power. The whole structure of Romanism would 
 crumble without it, so wedded together are the doctrines of 
 transubstantiation, priestly mediation, absolution, and con- 
 fession. 
 
 These are the elements, then, that make the practice of 
 the confessional in the Church of Rome so abhorrent to all 
 true lovers of God's truth. Confession in itself to a 
 brother Christian, especially to a man of God, duly author- 
 
110 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 ized to be God's minister of comfort to troubled souls, is not 
 only not repugnant to Holy Scripture, but is clearly enjoined 
 therein. See St. James v. 15. It is the secrecy of the 
 transaction, its connection with the dogma of mortal and 
 venial sins, its necessity in order to priestly al>solution and 
 the reception of the eucharist, that makes it so entirely 
 abominable. It is not the simple confession of brother- 
 man to brother-man, or of man to minister, but all that the 
 Roman practice involves. 
 
 Holding in mind, then, the real meaning of auricular 
 confession, let us consider this rubric in the Visitation of the 
 Sick: "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." In the first place, it 
 occurs in a service which is only used on rare occasions, 
 namely, in cases of severe illness, as the whole ser\ice 
 manifestly proves. It is a service, in the next place, for this 
 point is so important that it demands re|)etition, which need 
 not be used at all. It is the only service in the Prayer 
 Book which is not enjoined as necessar)-, the only service 
 which the minister may use, or may not use, according to 
 his discretion. See Canon 67. As a notorious matter of 
 fact, while no minister of the Church of England dare use 
 any form of service other than that authorized in the Prayer 
 Book in administering the communion, marr>ing, bur)ing, or 
 baptizing, he may, in the visitation of the sick, use his own 
 discretion as to what portion of the Bible he shall read, or 
 what prayers he shall use, and comfort and instruct them as 
 he shall think most needful and convenient. 
 
 Further, Even in this optional and rarely necessary 
 service, this rubric, which refers to the matter of confession, 
 is so fettered with limitations that it completely destroys the 
 essentiality of auiicular confession. The confession is to 
 be made "if he feel his conscience troubled with any 
 
 I 
 
A tiricttlar Confession. 1 1 1 
 
 weighty matter." If he doesn't feel the same, he need not. 
 *' If he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty 
 matter." If his is only an ordinary life, stained by no par- 
 ticularly heinous offence or act of criminality, the require- 
 ment of confession is not insisted on. " Here shall the sick 
 person be moved." It is to be a suggestion only, not the 
 e.xercise of an indispensable sacerdotal act. Nothing could 
 1)6 further from the necessary and indispensable auricular 
 confession of Popery than this strictly limited suggestion to 
 the minister to advise the sick man, under these peculiar 
 circumstances exclusively, to remove from his mind the 
 weight of unconfessed guilt. This very fact of the reception 
 or non-reception of absolution, and the opening or not 
 opening of the conscience in confession, is the thing that 
 clearly demonstrates the Protestantism of the service. The 
 idea of Rome allowing the onus of responsibility to be 
 thrown on the sick person, permitting him to say whether 
 he will confess, or whether he will not confess; if he 
 confesses, how much he will confess; and most startling of 
 all, leaving it to him to determine whether or not absolution 
 shall be given; the idea of such a thing is too absurd for 
 any sane man to contemplate for a moment. The Roman 
 system would crumble like a house on sand were the 
 supposition even permitted ! 
 
 In fact, this very rubric, in what some imagine to be the 
 most Romanistic service in the Prayer Book, carries in it 
 the very root-principle of all Protestantism : the wresting of 
 power from the priest, and deposing him from the position 
 of an absolving priest, carrying in his power life and death, 
 to that of a minister of God's grace, whose ministerial 
 power shall be exercised just as the penitent desires or not, 
 upon the minister's suggestion. Were this a Roman 
 service, the words "if he humbly and heartily desire it" 
 ■would be utterly impossible. God working through the 
 
112 Protestantism of the Prayer P>ook. 
 
 Church; the Church workiiiij from God through the priest; 
 the priest working as God, in the place of God, through the 
 sacraments: this is the essence and entirety of Romanism. 
 To vest the power of determining the administration of the 
 absolution, not in the priest, but in the laity, is not only 
 fundamentally to destroy the power of the priest and annihi- 
 late priestcraft, but to demolish the very idea of absolution 
 in the Roman or sacerdotal sense. 
 
 Nothing, again, could be more removed from the secret 
 transactions of the confessional boxes, according to the 
 usages of the Church of Rome, than this open confession in 
 the sick-room, where others are present. Certainly the 
 responses in the opening part of the Visitation seem to point 
 to the participation of others in the service. Whatever it is, 
 it is not the confessional box. Each of these points is 
 sufficient to destroy the practice, and disprove the doctrine. 
 Together, they present an irresistible argument. 
 
 But a stronger proof of the illegality and inadmissibility 
 of auricular confession in the Church of England is offered 
 by a comparison of the services in the Prayer Book when 
 only half freed from Popish errors — the First Book of 1549 
 — and as it now stand' in its reformed and Protestant 
 purity. In the Commu.. -a Service in the First Prayer 
 Book of Edward VI., it is directed thatafter the Creed shall 
 follow "the sermon or homily, or some portion of one of the 
 homilies, as they shall be hereafter divided." In the second 
 of these short exhortations, which is more particularly to be 
 offered when the people seem negligent to come to the 
 communion, these words occur: "And if there be any of 
 you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in anything, 
 lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some 
 other discreet and learned priest, taught in the law of God 
 that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and 
 comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us. 
 
Auricular Confession. 113 
 
 (as of the fliinisters of (iod, and of the Church) he may 
 receive comfort and absolution to the satisfaction of his 
 mind, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness; recjuir- 
 ing such as shall be satisfied with a general confession not to 
 be offended with them that do use, to their further satisfying, 
 f^e auricular and secret confession to the priest; nor those 
 also . . . which open their sins to the priest, to be offended 
 with them that are satisfied with their humble confession 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 be 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; confession 
 and absolution on the part of an authorized priest. The 
 words confession, aosolution, auricular, had, in those days, 
 very definite meanings; 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 beany 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; that, by the ministry of God's Holy JVord, 
 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, 
 "to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of 
 God's Word," the contrast being intentionally marked 
 
114 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 because of the traditional and universal connection of the 
 priest with the act of confession. If the word priest is ever 
 used in the Prayer Book as implying a distinctly sacerdotal 
 office, it should be used here. But here, in this very place, 
 it is purposely omitted. Instead of absolution from the 
 priest, the benefit 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 
 permission 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 the minister: "Here 
 shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel 
 his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After 
 which confession, the priest shall absolve him after this 
 form ; and the same form of ctbsolution 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 private confessions. By two strong blows, the 
 practice of auricular confession has been demolished. The 
 first blow was given by sweeping away from the exhortation 
 in the Communion Service the mention of auricular confes- 
 sion. The second b'ow swept away from the Visitation 
 
Auricular Confession. 115 
 
 iul)ric any possible means 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 Protest- 
 ant 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. 
 
 Fmally, to banish all doubt as to the plain teaching of the 
 Church of England with regard to auricular confession, I 
 would quote these outspoken words from the Homily on 
 Repentance. After proving confession to be one of the 
 parts of repentance, and the chiefest confession, confession 
 of sin unto God, and confession to brother-man, also needful 
 and necessary, according to the teaching of our blessed 
 Lord and His apostle St. James, Matt. v. 23; Jas. v. 16, 
 the Homily conti: es: "And whereas the adversaries (that 
 is, the Papists) go aoout 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 did Johannes Scotus, 
 otherwise called Duns, well perceive, who, upon this place, 
 writeth upon 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- 
 ning, the head church, and that consequently 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 
 
ii6 Protestantism ^f the Prayer Book. 
 
 your sins one to another,' a oersuasion to humility wherel)y 
 He willeth us to confess ourselves generally unto our neigh- 
 bors that we are sinners, according to this saying, 'If we say 
 that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is 
 not in us.' And when they that 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 show 
 thyself unto the priest,' do they not see that the leper was 
 cleansed from his leprosy afore he was sent by Christ 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 unto 
 the ear of a priest, since that they be already taken away? 
 Therefore, holy Ambrose, in his second sermon on the on? 
 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 forever after the order of Melchizedec?' 
 Whereby this holy father doth understand that, both the 
 priesthood and the law being changed, we ought to acknowl- 
 edge none other priest for deliverance from our sins but our 
 Saviour Jesu Christ, who, being our sovereign Bishop, doth 
 with the sacrifice of His body and blood, offered once 
 forever 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 law for 
 Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, upon a just occasion 
 to have put it down. For when anything ordained of God 
 is by the lewdness of men abused, the abuse ought to be 
 taken away and the thing itself suffered 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 
 
Auricular Confession. 117 
 
 » 
 
 hey 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 of me by myself whether I tell 
 the truth or not, since no mortal man knoweth what is in 
 man, but 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; 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 
 co.nfortable 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. 
 
 ed., p. 575. ^^ se^' 
 
 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, 
 they are subsidiar)- to the Articles. On the whole, though 
 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 
 
ii8 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 authoritatively, 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 confession 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 not yet in their teens; teaches flatly 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, not only for his own sins, but for the 
 
Auricular Confession. iig 
 
 sins of another; in short, makes the people in conscience, 
 will, and thought, in matters spiritual and matters moral, the 
 helpless bond-slaves of the priesthood, and the priesthood 
 the dispensers of salvation. In direct antagonism to this, 
 the Church of England, Article Twenty-five, denies that 
 penance (which includes auricular confession) is a sacrament; 
 not only does not exact auricular confession as a necessary 
 prerequisite to the eucharist, but 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 
 revelation 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, of 
 thoughts connected 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 perfect 
 contrition 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 (Arts. lo, 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 us; and herein standeth our absolu- 
 tion or remission of our sins, namely, when we believe in 
 Him, and look to be saved through His death."* 
 
 * I am indebted for these contrasts to an able work on the historj' of the confes- 
 sional by Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont. 
 
120 Protestantism of the Praya- Book. 
 
 In short the confessional and Romish auricular confes 
 .on are th.ngs hlotted out by the Church of E.Hand ., tt 
 nme of the Reformation, and condemned by her absolu elv 
 
 semce, can be asked to confess; and if they do, the Church 
 makes no provision whatever for the manner of heir confes 
 
 ^«fess,on ,n.o the Church of England is not only "fZh 
 "..h penl to us existence as an establishment, and subvers 
 
 se,^:^ '.'„?• H^ "■ •" ""^ '"'' '>'fe*es. and truest 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE ORDINAL. 
 
 ONE last objection remains to be considered: the form 
 employed by the bishop in the ordination of priests, 
 beginning, "Receive the Holy Ghost." The various pre- 
 liminary services having been accomplished, and the candi- 
 date 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; 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 carrj'ing 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 oflfice, 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 
 humbly beseeching upon their knees, the bishop says the 
 
122 Protcstantistn of the Prayer Book. 
 
 words which convey the committal of the fornal authority 
 of the office to the minister: "Receive the 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 ret vin, 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 Holy 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 while our 
 Reformers were prompted by the convictions of a most 
 decided Protestantism, they were by no means actuated by 
 that unreasonable and fanatical spirit which rejects every- 
 thing in toto that has ever been employed by Rome, 
 Theirs was the more sagacious and profitable way of reject- 
 ing 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 
 any true opinion because idolaters have maintained it? 
 
The Ordinal. 123 
 
 Nor to shun any recjuisite action only because we have, in 
 the practise 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 Ciod 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, (}od 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 exception 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; in 
 that they are wise men and Christian men, some things; 
 some things in that they are men misled and blinded with 
 error. As far as they follow 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 years was 
 what was practically Romanism. 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 
 
124 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 the Church for centuries. Accordinp;ly, in drawing up many 
 of the forms of prayer and services, they adopted the 
 prudent plan of retaining all that was profitable and praise- 
 worthy, and rejecting everything which, in their opinion, 
 could nourish superstition, oi lead the minds of the i)eople 
 back to Rome, "'i'he 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 
 worship of the primitive Church, they retained and improved; 
 but the modern corruptions and superstitious innovations of 
 latter ages, they entirely discharged and rejected." 
 
 The Ordination Service is one of the conspicuous 
 examples of this. With the doubtful exception of one short 
 sentence, it is inter[)enetrated with the spirit of evangelical 
 fervor. The language employed, the forms used, the 
 scriptural lessons, the addresses given, the questions asked, 
 the prayers offered, the hymns sung, the acts performed, are 
 remarkable alike for their fitness, scriptur^lness, dignity, and 
 simplicity. Its scripturalness is remarkable. For every sen- 
 tence, texts of Scripture can be found. The addresses, 
 esjjecially to the candidates, are all accurately based upon 
 the language of the pastoral and other epistles. Its practi- 
 calness is remarkable. Nothing is superfluous. Nothing 
 defective. Nothing is left out that ser\es to promote the 
 interests of the Church in the setting apart of her ministers 
 for their sacred office. An opportunity is given to ?ny who 
 know good reasons w!iy the candidate should not be 
 ordained to come forth and stop the ordination ; an obstruc- 
 tionist policy, perhaps, that might occasionally be employed 
 to great advantage. Its earnestness is remarkable. How 
 heart-searching are the appeals in the bishop's address! 
 How subversive of all earthly ambitions and sinister designs! 
 How comprehensive and penetrating the enquiries made ! 
 
The Ordinal, 125 
 
 How impossible almost that any wolf in sheep's clothing 
 could ever find entrance! Ho.v multiplied the |)recautions! 
 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 insensil)le to its 
 profitableness, its excellences, its grandeur. 
 
 But in the contemplation of what isrej.ardedasablemish 
 and plague-spot, many entirely overlook its beauties. That 
 spot is the sentence in the mouth of the i)ishop, "Receive 
 the Holy Clhost,'' and its objectionableness lies in the fact 
 that it is similar, in some degree, to the Roman form. 
 
 Hut, 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 ihe very 
 words of Holy Scripture. The question is not whether it is 
 like or not like the Roman form; 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 i^' 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 w hat is true in itself 
 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 corrupt, 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 
 
126 Protestantism of the Prayer Booh. 
 
 and cavil. Though resemblances in detail may he dis- 
 covered, 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, ,, • the act of ordination, the candidate is about to be 
 constituced 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 all 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 
 bless may be blessed, and 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, tarn pro vivis, 
 quam pro defunctis. In nomine Domini, Amen." "Re- 
 ceive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate 
 
The Ordinal. 127 
 
 masses for the living and the dead. In the name of the 
 Lord, Amtn." 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 (ihost," but its use is not regarded as essen- 
 tial, and it is not found in the Roman Pontifical, from which 
 I have made the above extracts. 
 
 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, nc altars and masses were no more, those parts 
 of the Ordination Service which were inseparable from these 
 things were not only unnecessary, but harmful. Accord- 
 ingly, they were swept away. And the fact that the very 
 rites which conferred the supreme and distinguishing sacer- 
 dotal functions, the rites which made a man a priest, in the 
 Roman 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 
 
128 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 lor a similar purpose, and employed by Him at a 
 similar time, they substituted the form, "Receive the Holy 
 Ghost," etc. 
 
 To proceed now to the consideration of the expressions 
 used. "Receive the Holy (Ihost for the office and work of 
 a p'-iest 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 Scripture; they proceed from the lips of the Infal- 
 lible Priest, the I '^-d Jesus Christ. As far, therefore, as the 
 words themselves are concerned, this is a difficulty of the 
 Bible, not a Prayer Book difficulty. The responsibility of 
 it must be thrown further back than the compilers of the 
 Prayer Book of the Church of England. "If, then, our 
 Lord and Saviour Himself has used the selfsame form of 
 words, and that in the self-same kind of action, although 
 there be but the least show of probability, yea, or any possi- 
 bility, 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 profoundness of wisdom than flesh and blood 
 should presume to control. Our Saviour, after His resur- 
 rection from the dead, gave His apostles their commission, 
 saying, 'AH power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth; 
 go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them,' etc. 
 In sum, 'as My Father sent Me, so send I you.' Where- 
 upon St. John doth add further 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 the 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 ye the 
 
The Ordinal. 129 
 
 Holy (jhost: whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted; 
 whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' Whereas, there- 
 fore, the other evangehsts had set down that Christ did, 
 before His suffering, promise to give His apostles the keys 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven, and, being risen from the dead, 
 did promise, moreover, at that time, a miraculous power of 
 the Holy Ghost, St. John addeth that He also invested them 
 with the power of the Holy Ghost for castigation and 
 relaxation of sin, wherein was fully accomplished that wliich 
 the promise of the keys did import. Seeing, then, that the 
 same power is now given (viz., ministerial power and 
 authority), why should not the same form of words express- 
 ing 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 gvACQ^."- -Hooker, Ecc. Pol. V., 
 LXXVII. 
 
 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,' etc., whereby he doth not take upon him to be the 
 author or giver of baptism, but the minister thereof only, as 
 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 right- 
 fully called to the ministry." — Strype's Whitgift, Vol. I., p. 258. 
 
I30 Protestantism 0/ the Prayer Boo 
 
 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 
 hear the meaning that has lieen put upon them. To them 
 the word priest meant nothing more than presbyter, being 
 etymologically a contraction of that term; 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 liook 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; the 
 "minister" says the Lord's Prayer; the "priest" (why the 
 priest?) the (iloria; 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"; 
 the "minister" giveth warning about the celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper; the "pritst" 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 P.aptis- 
 mal Service, a service which has always been permitted to a 
 deacon, where the words are, beyond all controversy, used 
 as interchangcai)le terms. The same is the case in the 
 Marriage Service, the Visitation of the Sick, the Churching 
 
The Ordinal. 131 
 
 of Women, and the Commination Services. The terms arc 
 employed so interchangeably as to bewilder anyone who 
 would seek to explain their employment on any other ground 
 than that of their practical convertibility. 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, 
 etc., is to make Christ one's own, etc. "Herein thou' 
 needest no other man's .»elp, no other sacrifice or oblation, 
 no sacrificing-priest, no mass, no means established by man's 
 invention." If words prove anything, they prove that, in 
 the interi)retalion of the Church of England, the "minister" 
 or "priest" in the Holy Communion 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 honor. 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 priest- 
 hood is odious, though without cause. For as things are 
 
••_■. ■ 
 
 132 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 distinguished one from another by true essential forms . . 
 so if they that first do impose names did always understand 
 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 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." "How- 
 beit, because the most eminent past, both of heathenish and 
 Jewish service, did consist in sacrifice, when learned 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?" 
 Ijecause, he replies, "just as St. Paul applied the name flesh 
 to the substance of fishes, in nature a different thing, so the 
 Fathers of the Church called the ministry of the Gospel 
 priesthood in regard to that which the Gospel hath propor- 
 tionable to ancient sacrifices, namely, the communion of the 
 blessed body and blood of the Lord Jesus 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 of old age, or to imagine that every 
 one so termed must needs be ancient." — Hooker, Ecc. Pol. 
 r., LXXVIII. 
 
 Hooker's reasoning here is most remarkable. The force 
 of a name is entirely dependent on the thing that it repre- 
 
The Ordinal. 133 
 
 sents. It is evil or good because of the idea that it embodies 
 to the mind. Now, the word priest— wliich 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 ^acrificer. But where 
 there is no offering of sacrifice, the word priest cannot 
 possibly denote the person of the sacrificer. Now, in the 
 Church of England, 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 
 proof it offers of the absolute difference between the views 
 of those who now speak of "the great act of eiicharistic 
 sacrifice" — see Fusey's Real Presence, p. 312 — 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 abol- 
 ished Popery. Therefore, it is conclusive that, whatsoever 
 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 substitute another 
 expression, is another question altogether. But that this 
 
134 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 form was neither drawn un by the wiUing slaves of Popery, 
 nor intended for the perpetuation of Popery, nor could, with- 
 out 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 tht Scriptures as well as from 
 the Prayer Book, and, in my opinion, men who would get 
 their warrant for the particular practice of auricular confes- 
 sion from the very general and scriptural statements of the 
 Ordination Service, would not be restrained, were those 
 words obliterated, 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. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 WE have now traced, chapter by chapter, the various 
 details of the Prayer Book which estabh'sh, one 
 by one, its Protestant character. It only remains for 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 Anglican services. It is in the vulgar 
 tongue; the Roman services were in an unknown tongue. 
 It is common prayer; the ancient services, Roman and 
 Saruni, 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 medieval, traditional, 
 occidental, novel. The difference between the Church of 
 England Book of Common Prayer and the missal of the 
 Church of Rome is absolute, essential, irreconcilable; 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 both preceded and succeeded 
 it. These are, beyond all controversy, the most positive 
 
ij6 Prukstantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 cvitlcnces of the anti-Romish and anti-ritualistic character 
 of the Uturgy, 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 name; they were in an unknown 
 tongue, crowded with idolatrous practices, and taught the 
 idolatrous doctrines of iransubstantiation 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 comparatively, in my opinion, that the language was 
 employed in the act authorizing the Second Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, which 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 Protest- 
 ant Church standpoint, between the First Prayer Book of 
 Edward and the Prayer Book as it now stands and is used 
 ,n 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 after the elements, allusions to angels, 
 prayers for the dead, reservation of the elements, and 
 extreme unction, either were enjoined or permitted. A careful 
 
Rccapilnlation and Conclusion. 137 
 
 perusal of our Hook of Common Prayer will show that the 
 following omissions and alterations are among the most 
 noteworthy links in the chain of contrast: 
 
 The word mass; it is omitted. 
 
 The word altar; it is not to be found in the Prayer Book. 
 
 The mixing of wine and water; it is no longer allowed. 
 
 The use of the wafer; it is done away with, and tiK' 
 rubric exjiressly ordains that "the bread bo such as is usual 
 to be eaten." 
 
 The invocation of the Holy Ghost on the elements in the 
 Holy Communion; it is not mentioned. 
 
 The allusion to the ministry of the angels in bearing up 
 our prayers ; it is omitted. 
 
 The direction that the communicants should receive the 
 sacrament in their mouths from the priest's hand; it is 
 carefully left out. 
 
 The use of the chrism in the Baptismal Service; it is 
 omitted. 
 
 The inlroits before the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels; 
 they are no longer in the Prayer Book. 
 
 The sign of the cross in the Marriage Service; it is left 
 out. 
 
 Prayers for the dead; they are swept entirely away. 
 
 The permission as to auricular confession; it is carefully 
 omitted. 
 
 The reservation of the elements; it is completely dis- 
 carded. 
 
 The service for the celebration of the holy communion 
 when there is a burial of the dead; it is left out altogether. 
 
 The permission to use genuflections and to cross oneself; 
 it is not 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 
 
Ij8 Protcdantism of the Prayer Hook. 
 
 scrupulous and anxious care. They are the changes of n»cn 
 who were guided l)y (lod's Spirit to search out and expunge, 
 not mere nonessential trifles and meaningless expressions, 
 but phrases and practices which they knew only too well 
 could be made not merely hinges, or handles, but wry doors 
 for the admission of floods of false doctrines and error. 
 The expressions and practices most carefully omitted are 
 the expressions and practices which might possibly be 
 em|)loyed by UMscrui)ulous men to justify the introduction 
 of Romish doctrine. The expression altar, leading, as it 
 does, to the doctrine of the sacrifice o( the mass; the 
 injunctions as to "auricular confession" and the Romish 
 doctrines of confessicjn before mass and priestly absolution : 
 the reservation of the elements and the doctrine of euclia- 
 ristic adoration; prayers for the dead and the implied 
 doctrine of purgatory; extreme unction and communions at 
 burials, implying the doctrine of masses for the dead; these 
 are the expressions, and practices, and doctrines, which, 
 even in such a conii)aratively I'roiestani standard as the 
 Prayer Book of 1549, gave opportunities for the introduction 
 of Popery in a Protestant Church, and reversion to Rome 
 without abandoning the Church of I'.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, "theTrentine 
 party," clamor for a return to that discarded liturgy, they 
 are clamoring for that which would land us, not halfway, but 
 almost wholly into Popery. For, f/ien, these expressions and 
 practices were the lingering remains of a past position which 
 was being steadily and surely abandoned. The movement 
 of the age and of the Church was forvvard, not backward; 
 
Recapitulation and Conclusion. 139 
 
 onward, not downward. JVoiv, these expressions and prar- 
 tices would be the infallible harbingers of a disastrous and 
 renegade movement to Rome. I'hey would show that we 
 were going backward, not forward ; downward, not 
 upward; for it is certain that words which could be used 
 in 1549 without significance could only 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 Hook 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 Hook: the contrast offered by a 
 consideration of certain abortive I'rayer liooks, which were 
 mainly identical with the Prayer Hook of the Church, and 
 yet contained many retrograde features. I mean the 
 Prayer Hooks of the non-jurors and the Scottish Epis- 
 copal 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 Hook for the Scottish Church. This work untjues- 
 tionably owed something of its character to Archbishop 
 Laud, who was one of the parties who assisted in its 
 compilation. Though mainly sin^ilar 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 nonjurors 
 who left the Church at the accession of William and Mary. 
 Many of the non-jurors made use of the First Prayer Hook 
 
140 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 of Edward, but in 1717 they issued an office of their own, in 
 which they revived the following obsolete ceremonies: the 
 mixing of water with the wine; prayers for the dead; prayer 
 for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements; the 
 prayer of oblation; trine immersion; the chrism; and unc- 
 tion at the visitation of the sick. 
 
 Now, I say nothing as to the doctrinal opinions of these 
 men, nor as to the Church views of those who to-day are 
 doctrinally identified with them; many of them were holy 
 men, many of these are among the saintliest of God's 
 servants. What I desire to emphasize is this, that the 
 expressions, and rubrics, and practices, now to be found in 
 and authorized by the Prayer Book of to-day are not the 
 expressions and [>ractices which the non-jurors and Scotch 
 Episcopalians deemed necessary for insertion in their 
 rcsi>ective liturgies in order to set forth their views of Church 
 doctrine 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 ; for, if they were, the 
 non-jurors would have had no need to compile another. It 
 is a fact to be remembered with gratitude by Churchmen, 
 that amidst the entanglements and conflicts of the seven- 
 teenth century, the Prayer Book was preserved undefiled. 
 It passed forth from the contending factions and chaotic 
 disturbances of that period as it did from the chaos of the 
 century before, unsullied and pure. Though tossed about 
 by many conflicts, and assailed by many foes, the Book of 
 Common Prayer, in the good providence of God, has been 
 preserved from any reversion, either in ceremonial or 
 doctrine, to the standard of a more degenerate era in the 
 history of our Church. It has come forth from innumerai^lc 
 struggles, enrrched, but not degraded; amplified, but not 
 
Recapitulation and Conclusion. I4I 
 
 deformed. Thus each successive contrast demonstrates 
 more effectually its present excellence, and shows that from 
 the first tentative step in the direction of Protestantism in 
 liturgical reform, the issue of the Order of the Communion 
 in 1548, down to those last amendments of the final 
 revision which gave us our Prayer Book as we have it to-day, 
 the progress of alteration has been steadily away from Rome 
 and ritualism, and uniformly towards simplicity and Protest- 
 ant purity. If Churchmen would know what they have now, 
 let them more clearly understand what they had once. 
 The contrast will make an impression upon the mind that 
 can never be effaced. 
 
 In the face, then, of these facts, and considering the state 
 of the Church as a whole, it seems to me that it is the 
 wisdom of Protestant Churchmen to be content with the 
 Prayer Book they have, and in the shape they have it. 
 Tampering at present would not only be inexpedient and 
 unnecessary, but it would be dangerous. We have in the 
 Book of Common Prayer all that fair-minded Churchmen 
 and conscientious Christians can demand: a Protestant and 
 scriptural Prayer Book. Imperfect, confessedly, on some 
 point-^.; but the points are of such comparative unimportance 
 that every liberal and thoughtful Protestant must infinitely 
 prefer their retention to the possibility of the introduction 
 of more serious errors. And it is certain that were any 
 revision attempted, the tendency at present would be to 
 introduce changes of a retrograde character. 
 
 Within the last thirtyyears, the leaven of a soidisant Cathol- 
 icism has spread through the ranks of the clergy with incred- 
 ible rapidity, and to a most alarming degree. Doctrines that 
 twenty-five or thirty years ago were regarded as infallible 
 indications of a tendency to Rome are to-day held by 
 thousands as the true, and, in fact, the only, teaching of the 
 Church. Men who, thirty years ago, were denounced in 
 
142 Protcstanthm of the Prayer Book. 
 
 most scathing language by bishops of most pronounced 
 High Church opinions, are to-day the Gamaliels and 
 Mentors of nearly all the clergy who hold these same views. 
 To-day thousands in the Church of England openly scout 
 the notion that the advocacy of the sacrificial character of 
 the Lord's Supper, sacramental absolution, and auricular 
 confession, indicates any real tendency to Rome. Thou- 
 smds hold these doctrines most implicitly who deny that 
 the effect of either their ritual or teachings is to lead any 
 nearer to the Church of Rome; they even go to the length 
 of saying that these men are the men who are the most 
 successful and conscientious opponents of Romish teaciiing. 
 But thirty years ago it was not so. The doctrines which 
 to-day are held as bona fide doctrines of the Anglican 
 Church were, in those days, taken to indicate a bona fide 
 tendency to Rome. I suppose that the late Bishop Wilber- 
 force may be taken as a representative exponent of the 
 High Anglican school of theology; indeed, he claimed 
 himself to be of the school of Andrews, and other High 
 Churchmen. Let Bishop Wilber force, then, be our witness. 
 In a letter written not thirty years ago, in his capacity as 
 Bishop of Oxford, he gives his definition of what should be 
 considered as bona fide Romanizing tendencies : " ^"^ bona fide 
 Romanizing tendencies in the Church, I mean the revival of a 
 system of auricular confession, sacramental absolution, the 
 sacrificial character of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
 the denial of justification by faith," etc. — Life of Bishop 
 Wilberfone, p. 195. Here we have four distinct marks or 
 notes of the Romanizing system. But so steady and subtle 
 has been the advance of these Tridentine, or so-called 
 Catholic t..!.iciples, that there are multitudes of clergy who 
 are led to believe that there is no necessary connection 
 between the holding of these doctrines and a tendency 
 Rome- wards. Now, these doctrines are held to be essen- 
 
Recapitulation and Conclusion. 143 
 
 tially Anglo-Catholic, and the men who hold them are 
 strong in the Church. The only dogmas the holding of 
 which would vindicate a Romish tendency would be the 
 Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallii)ility, and the tem- 
 poral headship of the I'ope. 
 
 The fact is indisputable — the most extreme members 
 of the party themselves do not deny it — eminent authorities 
 in the Roman Church admit it — the tide is set in the 
 current of High Anglican doctrine, and is rising fast; 
 so fast that, in the event of any attempted authorita- 
 tive revision of the Prayer Book, changes might l)e made 
 that would be most disastrous. They would probably 
 restore the word "altar." They would em[)loy the word 
 ".sacrifice." They would doubtless expunge the post- 
 Communion rubric. They would probably exchange the 
 long-disused and doubtfully legal Ornaments' rubric for a 
 law binding all the clergy. They would, in fact, if their 
 leaders and mouthpieces are qualified exponents of the views 
 of their school, assimilate the Prayer Book, as far as possible, 
 to the Prayer Book of the Scottish Episcopal Church ; nay, 
 the great majority, if the statement of the President of the 
 English Church Union is correct, would be satisfied with 
 nothing less than a return to the First Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI., or, at least, liberty to perform its ceremonies, 
 and employ its usages, without scruple of conscience, or 
 defence of ecclesiastical law. Nay, more. One of the 
 organs of the "Catholic party," the Church Review, boldly 
 declared lately: "The thing which luiglish Catholics have 
 in hand at present, and are likely to have in hand, as their 
 principal work, for at least one generation to come, is the 
 restoration of the altar, the re-establishment of the mass in 
 its seat of honor as the sun and centre of Christian worship. 
 ■ Pill this great work has progressed much further than it has 
 at present, it would be waste of time to emphasize too 
 
144 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 strongly doctrines of great importance, indeed, but of less 
 importance than that of the eucharistic sacrifice. But 
 unless the Catholic revival is to come to an untimely end — 
 a catastrophe which there is no reason faithlessly to antici- 
 pate — the future will see in our restored public worship 
 unmistakable marks of the belief of the Christian Church in 
 the efficacy of the intercessions poured forth by the blessed 
 Mary, and all saints, at the Throne of Grace, and of our 
 real communion (that is, mutual union) with them in the 
 acts which we perform as members of the one body of 
 Christ." 
 
 What, then, are the blemishes upon our Prayer Book 
 that are of such tremendous consequence as to risk the 
 almost certain introduction of deadlier and deeper stains? 
 The question is not whether there are matters which might 
 not rightly be altered, words which might not be expunged, 
 explanatory clauses which might not safely be added, for 
 upon this I think all Churchmen are fairly agreed; but 
 whether the risk depending on retaining them as they are is 
 sufficient to counterbalance the risk of changing them for 
 something else? Wc 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 numl)er of changes which would be 
 agreeable to the Protestant evangelical would be vastly 
 outnumbered l)y changes which would make the Prayer 
 Book of our Protestant 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 
 
Recapiinlatiun and Conclusion. 145 
 
 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; Churchly 
 enough for the most conservative Churchman ; evangelical 
 enough for the most evangelical; and in its practical 
 removal from all Popish superstitions, Protestant enough for 
 the most ardent Proi_ tant. 
 
 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 understand. The external signs of abatement in 
 the waters of the prevailing floods of Trentinism are, to 
 human eyes at least, entirely wanting. The evil is appar- 
 ently gaining headway, and "the waters prevail and increase 
 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, 
 indeed, an incurable evil, and apt and expressive is the 
 language of the learned Bishop of New York: "When I 
 reflect on the Anglican Reformation; when I worship in 
 the glorious liturgy they rescued from an unknown tongue, 
 and 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 
 
146 Protestantism of the Prayer Book. 
 
 age, such a miracle should have been wrought hy the hands 
 of men. Then, when I see these benefactors of the world 
 attesting in the flames their holy mission, and bequeathing 
 their work to England, sealed and hallowed with their i)loou, 
 I seem to dream when I think of an age like this, thr.t 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." Alas! 
 it 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 hope- 
 less 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- 
 sion ; there is indifference, intolerance, ignorance, and 
 degeneracy; but hopelessness there is not, and should 
 not be. 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. 
 
Recapitulation and Conclusion. 147 
 
 Who could ever have dreamed, 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 ♦^^o the Reformed opinions was already waxing strong, 
 that, in His wonderful providence, 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 and destroy Popish books of devotion ; to publish the 
 Articles, the bulwark of our 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 
 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 upoutof obhvion, 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 
 Cranmer and Ridley and Latimer, the pillars of the reformed 
 doctrine, were consumed in the flames, that Protestantism 
 
14S Protcstantisin of the Prayer Book, 
 
 would ever again survive in the Church of England, and 
 that our Prayer Book would once more he the standard of 
 the Church? Who could ever have asserted, in those 
 gloomy days, without the inspiration of madness, 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 (iod! 
 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 fi^ictions of fifteen generations, notwith- 
 standing the overthrow of the episcopate and the proscription 
 of the liturgy, on the one hand, and the predominance of 
 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? 
 
 In the face of all these things, what can we be but hope- 
 ful? 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 epis- 
 copal; admirably fitted to the present day needs. We have 
 a people, on the whole, loyal to Protestantism, and steadfast 
 for the truth. W^e have a body of Church doctrine in our 
 Articles which for soundness, scripturalness, and thorough- 
 ness, cannot be impugned. We have, above all, a Prayer 
 
Recapitulation and Conclusion. 149 
 
 Book upon which, thank God, we can stand as a rock; for 
 as long as the Prayer Book remains unchanged, the Church 
 of England cannot be Romanized. Therefore, let loyal 
 Churchmen stand fast in the Lord. Let them not lose 
 heart. Let them pray, without ceasing, for Cod's blessing 
 on our Church. Dear Church! How beautiful she is, and 
 lovable! We know that in struggling for her, and pleading 
 for her, we are contending earnestly for the faith once for 
 all delivered to the saints. We believe that it cannot be 
 God's will that she should be defiled by the caresses of 
 Rome. We know that the battle is not ours, but God's. 
 In heart and soul, we are convinced that the desperate 
 conflict now raging in the Church against ritualism and 
 Romanization, on the one hand, and latitudinarianism and 
 incipient agnosticism, on the other, is not the battle of Low 
 Churchmen, or of High Churchmen, or of any set of 
 Churchmen merely; it is God's own battle for His truth and 
 Church. He is Light, not darkness. He is Truth, not 
 error. He is Purity, not defilement. Therefore we are 
 confident. Therefore we have faith. Therefore we are 
 persuaded that so far and no fnrther will the proud waves 
 come; and when God wills it, then they will be stayed. 
 The predicted day has come, when the battle of the Refor- 
 mation is being fought over again ; but if God be for us, 
 who can be against us? - 
 
 Is it possible that the lamp lit by Ridley and Latimer is 
 in danger of being extinguished through the timidity of 
 Protestant Churchmen? God forbid! 
 
 Stand fast, therefore, brother Churchmen, in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled 
 again with the yoke of bondage. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER IV. 
 
 I. — CANON OF THE MASS. 
 
 The Canon of the Mass. according to the use of Sarum. The 
 J^llowmg .s a translation of the chief part of the service, l,y John T 
 Dodd, B.A., of Oxford. ^ ■^ 
 
 The whole service was in Latin. The genuflections, prostrations 
 incensings, were sul)stantially the same as in the Roman Church In 
 the midst was the priest, in his sacrificial vestments. Beside him were 
 the deacon and sul)-deacon in their chasubles, the incense-I,earers and 
 earners of candles. With much ceremonial, the chalice and paten are 
 placed on the altar, which is incensed and kissed. The Ter Sanctus 
 follows, and then, with clasped hapds and uplifted eyes, he repeats the 
 prayer, which really is the commencement of the mass itself p n • 
 
 Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we most humbly' pray and 
 beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ. Thy .Son, our Lord, 
 
 //ere let him raise himself and kiss the a'far en the right of the 
 sacrifice. 
 
 that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to accept and bless these t gifts (here he 
 makes the sign of the cross, and at each place where this cross occurs), 
 these t presents, these t holy, unspotted sacrifices, 
 
 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 kinc^ 
 (and they are mentioned by name), and for all the orthodox, and for 
 all worshippers of the catholic and apostolic faith. 
 //ere 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 known to Thee • 
 for whom we offer unto Thee, or who themselves offer unto Thee this 
 
152 Appendix. 
 
 sacrifice of prnisc for themselves, Und for all theirs, for the reJleniption 
 of their own souls, ff»r the hope of their salvation and <cifety, communi- 
 cating; with and honoriiif; the memory, es|>ccially of the glorious ever- 
 Virgin Mnry, the mt)ther of our Lord ami (lo*!, Jesus Christ, ami also 
 of Thy Messed apostles and martyrs, I'cter and I'aul, Andrew, James, 
 John, Thomas, James, Philip . . . Linus, Cletijs, Clement, Sixtus 
 Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, (Irisogonus. John jnd Paul, Cosmos 
 and Damian, and of all Thy saints; 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. 
 
 //(?;v /t/ i/w priest look' at the host with ^rcat veneration. 
 We therefore beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to accejit this, 
 oblation of our service, and of Thy whole family ; dispose our days in 
 Thy peace, and command us to be delivered from etenul damnation, 
 and to be remembered in the flock of thine elect; through Christ our 
 Lord. Amen. 
 
 Here let hint look at the host a^^am, sayitt};: 
 Which relation do Thou, O Almighty CotI, we l>eseech Thee, vouch- 
 safe to render in all respects, blessed t, approve«l t, eftVrciual +, reason- 
 able and acceptable, that il may be made unto us the body +, and the 
 blood +, of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
 * Here let the priest raise his hands and join them together ; and 
 afterwards, let him wipe his fin-^ers, and elez-ate the host, 
 sayiui^: 
 who, the day before He sufieretl, tooJ< biead in His holy and venerated 
 hands, and witii His eyes uplifted to heaven. 
 
 Here let hitn lift up his eyes. 
 to Thee, Almighty Cod, His Father, 
 
 Here let him how and elevate a little, saying: 
 gave thanks, and blessed t, 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 l>e pronotineed with one breaiJi and utter- 
 
 atue, and without any pause. After these words, let him 
 
 elevate it above his forehead, that it may he 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 uncor-er the 
 
 chalice and hold it between his hands, not disjoining the 
 
 thumb from the forefinger, except when he makes the bene 
 
 dictions, saying : 
 
Appendix. 153 
 
 Likcwi^4e, after lie hail suppcil, laUiii^ also this pre-eminent chalice in 
 His holy and venerable hands, also yiving thanks 
 
 /fere fet him I'ei.J, snj'i»!,': 
 
 to Thee, lie Ules-jed t, and gave to I lis disciples, saying: Take, and 
 <lrink ye all of this, 
 
 /ft/Y let t^c priest ek^'ate the chalice a little, sayiii.^: 
 
 for this is the cup of My Mood, of the new and eternal ttstamcnt, the 
 mystery of faith, which shall he shed for you, and for many, for the 
 remission of sins. 
 
 Let him elex'ate the chalice, saying: 
 
 As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me. 
 
 Here lit him replace the chalice, and raise his arm in the form of a 
 
 cross, 701 fh his /in^'ers Joined, until the 7vords ^^c/y'hy i^i/ts.'' 
 
 Wherefore, O Lord, we. Thy servants, and also Thy lioly ))eoplc, 
 calling to mimi the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our 
 Lord, and also His resurrection from tlie dead, and His glorious 
 ascension into heaven, ofler unto Thy excellent Majesty, yfThy gifts 
 and jiresents, a pure t host, a holy f host, an immaculate + host, a 
 holy + bread of life eternal, and chalice t of everlasting salvation ; upon 
 which vouchsafe to look with a pro|)itious and serene countenance, and 
 accept them as Thou didst vouchsafe to accejn the gifts of Thy 
 righteous servant, Al)el, and the sacrifice of our patriarch, Al)raham, 
 and that which Thy High I'riest M^elchisedec offered unto Thee, a holy 
 sacrifice, an immaculate victim. 
 
 Here let the priest say, with bowed body and clasped hands : 
 
 We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty (iod, command these to J)e 
 borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thy altar on High, in the 
 presence of Thy divine majesty, that all we 
 
 Here let him stand erect and kiss the altar on the right of the 
 sacrifice, 
 who shall have received the holy body + and blood f 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 l)enediction t; 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 (X. and N.), who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and 
 
154 Appendix. 
 
 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 lis sinners, Thy servants, who trust in the multitude of Thy 
 mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy apostles 
 and martyrs ; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, 
 Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, 
 Agnes, CcTecilia, Anastasia, and all Thy saints, into whose company do 
 Thou admit us, we beseech Thee, not weighing our merits, but pardon- 
 ing our offences ; through Christ our Lord, by whom, O Lord, Thou 
 dost always create all these good things ; 
 
 Here let the priest sign the chalice thrice, saying: 
 Thou dost sanctify t, quicken t, bless t, and bestow them upon us. 
 
 Here let the priest uncover the chalice and make the sign of the cross 
 with the host Jive times: first, over the chalice, on either side; 
 secondly, level with it; thirdly, below it ; fourthly, as at 
 first ; fifthly, before it. 
 
 Through Ilim, and with Him, and in Him, all honor and glory is to 
 Thee, O God the Father Almighty t, 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; thus 
 saying, for ever and ever. 
 
 Being instructed by Thy saving precepts, and taught by Thy divine 
 instruction, we are lx>ld to say, 
 
 Here let the lieacon take the paten and hold it aloft to the right of the 
 priest, uncovered, until ^''mercifully grant." Here let the 
 pt iest raise his hands, saying: 
 
 Our Father, etc 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, 
 tlie mother of God, of Thy lilesjed apobtles, Peter and Paul and 
 Andrew, with all saints, 
 
Appendix. 155 
 
 Here let the deacon give the paten to the priest, and kiss his hand, 
 and let the priest kiss the paten ; then let him ptit it to his 
 left eye, then to his riij^ht ; afterwards let him make the sij^n 
 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 ; 
 
 Here let him uncover the chalice, and, bowing, take the body and 
 place it in the hollow of the chalice ; and holdini^ 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 paction), 
 who, as Ood, liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy 
 Ghost, 
 
 Here let him hold the two portions in the left hand, and the third 
 portion in the right hand, on the top of the chalice, thus say- 
 ing in a loud voice: 
 
 for ever and ever. Amen. 
 The peace of the Lord t be with you f alway. + 
 
 Let the choir answer : 
 
 And with Thy spirit. 
 
 Then the deacon and the sub-deacon approach the priest, and they 
 say, privately: 
 
 O Lamb of Ood, etc grruiL us Thy peace. 
 
 Here, having made the sign of the cross, let him place the aforesaid 
 
 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 become to me, and to all who receive it, salvation 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 is to be kissed), let the 
 priest say: 
 O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Eternal God, grant that I may so 
 worthily receive this most holy Ixidy ^nd blood of Thy Son, our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; that by this I may be deemed fit 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. 
 
156 Appendix. 
 
 Here let the priest kiss the lorf-orals oil ihc rii^ht side, then on the 
 top of the chalice, and aftei-^vards the deacon, sayin:;;: 
 
 Peace be to thoe, and to the Church. 
 
 Answer: 
 \m\ willi thy s[)iiit. 
 
 Let the deacon on the rij^ht side of the priest receive the pax from 
 hi VI, and give it to the snb-deacon ; then let the tieacon l>ring 
 the pax to the choir-steps, to the directors of the choir, and 
 let them carry the pax to the choir, each to his oivn side, 
 />e!^innin_i^^from the eider. After the pax has been given, let 
 the priest say the follo^vin^ prayers privately, before he 
 commnnicatcs, holding the host with both hands : 
 
 O God the Father, fountain and source of all goodness, whose mercy 
 willed that Thy only l)egotten 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 bozi' to the host, saying: 
 
 I adore Thee; I glorify Thee; with every power of my heart, I [naise 
 Thee; and I juay that Thou wilt not leave us. Thy servants, but for- 
 give 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 same Christ, 
 our Lord. Amen. 
 
 O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of the living God, who, by the will ot the 
 Father, and the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast, by Thy death, 
 given light unto the world, deliver me irom 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. 
 
 O Lord Jesu, let not the sacrament of Thy body and blood which I, 
 though unworthy, receive, become judgment and condemnation unto 
 me; init, through Thy mercy, may it be profitable for salvation of ;iiy 
 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 sinner, the way 
 and the life. 
 
 In the name t of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
Appendix. 157 
 
 litre let hint receive the body, after haviu'^ made the v/j^v/ of the 
 cross with it before his mouth. Then to the idood, zvith 
 j^reat demotion, saying: 
 
 Hail evermore, celestial drink, 
 Sweeter far to me than all else beside. 
 
 May the l)ody and Ijlood of our Lord Jesus Christ he protitahle to 
 me, a sinner, for an eternal remedy unto everlasting life. Amen. 
 In the name t of the Father. 
 
 Here let him receive the blood, and then let him bow and say, with 
 devotion, the following prayer : 
 
 I give Thee thanks, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Eternal Cod, 
 who hast refreshed me l)y the most sacred body and l)lood of Thy Son, 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and I pray that the sacrament of our salvation, 
 which \, an unworthy sinner, have received, may not turn to my 
 condemnati(jn, according to my deserts, Init may be availal)le to the 
 profit of my l)ody and soul unto everlasting life. Amen. 
 
 When this has been said, let the priest go to the right side of the 
 altar, with the chalice betweeti his hands, his fingers Joined 
 as before ; and let the sub-deacon approach and pour zvine and 
 water into the chalice ; and let the priest wash his hands, lest 
 any remnants of the body and blood be left either on his 
 fingers 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 fingers in the hollow of the chalice, with 
 wine poured in by the sub-deacon; and when it has been 
 drunk, let this prayer follow: 
 
 Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from sin, and make us 
 partakers from the heavenly healing. 
 
 After the recept.on of the ablutions, let the priest hold the chalice 
 over the paten, that, if anythinj; remains therein, it may 
 drop; and, afterwards, let him bend down and say : 
 
 We adore the sign of the cross, by which we have received the sacra- 
 ment 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 reve- 
 rence to the altar. 
 
158 Appendix. 
 
 I have quoted 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 reformed 
 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 tiod. 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, some of the clergy of the Church of 
 England have openly declared that this .Sarum missal is the standard 
 towards which the Church should work I 
 
 2. — DR. PUSEY ON THE " REAL PRESENCE." 
 
 One of the chief works of the late Dr. Pusey, a work 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 that the Church of England teaches 
 the real objective presence of che body and blood of Christ in that 
 sacrament. It is, of course, impossible, in the compass of so fragmen- 
 tary a note, to give anything like an idea of the work ; but I will stale, 
 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 I^ngland 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 <7;//y (note, t?«/j') after 
 an heavenly and spiritual manner. " *^ Only such as rightly, worthily, 
 and with faith, receive the same, are partakers of the body of Christ." 
 " Faith is the means," etc. 
 
 Second : Pusey denies that the Black Rubric opposes the doctrine of 
 the Real Presence. BUl here, notwithstanding 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. 
 
Appendix. 159 
 
 Pusey declares, justifying the practice of adoring the sacrament, 
 p. 313, that the Church of England does not say, in the Twenty-fifth 
 Article, that the practice of adoring our Lord present in the holy 
 eucharist "may not be done." The Church of England teaches, " no 
 adoration is intended, or ought to be done." " The sacramental bread 
 and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore 
 /nav not lie adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful 
 Christians). " — Post-Comvitaiion Rubric. 
 
 Third: Pusey, in a line of reasoning extraordinarily involved, and, to 
 my mind, entirely illogical (he reasons, e.g., all through upon the assump- 
 tion that the words in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel refer only 
 to the sacrament, a position which is not proved, and cannot be*), says 
 that the teaching of the Church of England is that the wicked eat 
 the body of Christ, pp. 240-311, compare especially p. 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 lx)dy 
 of Christ is taken and eaten in the Supper otily after an heavenly and 
 spiritual 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 means whereby the body of Christ is received and 
 eaten in the Supper is faith. Bat "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. 
 
 Fourth: Pusey says, that the doctrine of the Real Presence is the 
 doctrine of the English Church. 
 
 But the most emphatic contradiction almost to this statement is the 
 fact that we have noted on p. 123, namely, the careful removal, by 
 Cranmer and his associate Reformers, of everything that would sanction 
 even remotely this view, and the insertion of that tremendous stumbling- 
 block to all Romanizers : the rubric against the adoration of the 
 corporal presence. In fact, more than two years before the Prayer 
 Book was revised and compiled in its present shape, Archbishop 
 Cranmer repudiated in these very words the doctrine of the Real 
 
 * See Note 3. 
 
i6o Appendix. 
 
 ■Presence ns tlie ductiine of the Church of England. He is confuting 
 Dr. .Smith, the I'njiist controversialist: "He, Smith, no more under- 
 stood r. M.arlyr's opinions than he understood my book of the cate- 
 chism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I did in that hook 
 set forth the Real Presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. Unto 
 which false report I have answered in my fourth bot)k. But this, I 
 confess of myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism, y 
 zi'as ill lliat error of the Real Prcsenee, as I was many years past in 
 divers other errors; as of tiansubstantiation, of the sacritice iirojiitiatory 
 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 of 
 mine offences in youth, I do daily pray for mercy and pardon, saying, 
 'Good Lord, remembernot mine ignorances and offences of my youth.' 
 But after it had pleased 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 (jod of His mercy gave me light, s<i 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 frailty and ignor- 
 ance. And now I may say of myself, as St. Paul said : 'When I was 
 like a babe or child in the knowledge of Christ, I spake like a child, 
 and understood like a child ; but now that I am come to man's estate, 
 and growing in Christ, through His grace and mercy, I have put away 
 that childishness.'" — Cuanme/s Works, Park. Soe., /., jy^. 
 
 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 with the receipt of the holy sacrament of the blessed 
 body and blood of Christ is received in every one, good or t)ad, 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 re- 
 ceive death. For as no one is fit to receive natural food, whereby the 
 natitral life is nourished, except he is born and live before; so no man 
 can feed (by the receipt of the holy sacrament) upon 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. Soe.,/>. 9. 
 
 \ 
 
Appendix. i6i 
 
 3. — Ol'INION OK AKCHlilSHOP CRANMER. 
 
 As thib statement is of ^rcat iinjiortancc, I would like to (|uute 
 the view of the niaster-miiui of the KnijUsh Church Keformatiou on 
 this point. The Papist Dr. Smith, having employed an ari^ument 
 to which that of Dr. I'usey is very similar, in (juotinj^ John vi., in 
 support of his view, Cranmer thus answeis: 
 
 "Whoreunto I answer by his own reason: Can this promise be 
 verified of sacramental bread? Was ///«/ jjiven ujHjn the cross for the 
 life of the world? I marvel here not a little at either Master Smith's 
 dulness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see that Christ, in this 
 chapter of St. Jolui, s[)ake not of sacramental, but of heavenly breid. 
 So that He spake of Himself wholly, sayini;: 'I am the IJread of Life. 
 He that conieth t(j Me siiall not hunjjer, and he that believeth on Me 
 shall not thirst for ever.' And neither spake He of common bread, 
 nor yet ij{ sacramental hi\ix\.i\; for neither of them was j^iveii upon the 
 cross for the life of the world. And there can be nothing; more mani- 
 fest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the 
 sacrament of His flesh, Init 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 is My llesh,' which 
 sacramental bread was neither then His flesh, nor was then instituted 
 for a sacrament, nor was after ijiven to death for the life of the world." 
 — Cran. IVorlcs, Park. Sac, /., ^72. 
 
 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 un- 
 warranttible for I'usey to argue, in his reasoning, that the words in the 
 Conununion Service must refer only to John vi. , and that John vi. refers 
 only to the sacramental oread, when the man who mainly compiled 
 the service itself declares distinctly, as his view, that Christ here spake 
 not of sacramental bread. 
 
 4. — CRANMER AND RIDLEY AS AGAINST NEWMAN AND PUSEY. 
 
 On p. 61 of the ever-famous Tract 90, Newman makes this 
 audacious statement, which is also supixirted by Dr. I'usey, 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 l)efore us. Article Thirty-one, neither sjx-'aks against the mass in 
 itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick, etc. (an ofTering 
 
1 62 Appendix. 
 
 though commemorative, 2nd Ed.) But if Newman and Pusey think 
 that the sacrifice of the mass is to be received, while the sacrifice of 
 masses is to be condemned, Ridley and Cranmcr (the true exiKjnents 
 of Church teaching) did not : 
 
 "Now, alas, not only is the Lord's commandment broken, but there 
 is set up a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice, to satisfy and pay the 
 price of sins," etc., . . . " the mass," (not merely masses). — A'l'Mey's 
 IVorks, p. J2. 
 
 "Prop. 3. In the mass is the lively sacrifice of the Church avail- 
 able," etc. Ridley answers this doctrine — mark well, not the 
 s:icrifice 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 impor- 
 tant — showing how they, the Romanists, avoid Scripture by subtle 
 shifts . . . "By the distinction of the l)loody and unbloody s;\crifice, as 
 though our unbloody sacrifice of the Church were any other than the 
 sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a showing 
 ft)rth, and a sacramental representation 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 this, "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 .1 sacrament of Hi:s 
 botly and blood ; they have changed it into a sacrifice for the fjuick and 
 the dead;" and the Homily concerning the sacrament: "We must 
 then take heed, lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice." 
 
 5. — THE EASTWARD POSITION. 
 
 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 ol the table and his side to the people? 
 
 In other words; is the Eastward position sanctionetl by the Prayer 
 Book? 
 
 The question is of such grave importance that it is worth considera- 
 tion, for with it is bound up the whole doctrinal jxisition of the Church 
 of England on one of the most vital of subjects. If the Church of 
 
Appendix. 163 
 
 Knj^land maintains the spuriously-called "Catholic" theory of doctrine 
 of sacrificing priesthood and eucliaristic worship, there can l>c nodoulit 
 that she nuist enjoin the Kastward position, for it is inseparaMe from 
 such theory and (if)Ctrinc. If the Church of Kngland does not, in her 
 standards and formularies, teach such doctrine, it is evident that she 
 will, in her rubrics, guard against the introduction of any form and 
 ceremonial that will tend to symbolically set it forth. It is, therefore, 
 the duty of every Churchman to make diligent enquiry into the precise 
 teaching of the Prayer Hook on this matter. 
 
 Now, in the first or semi-reformed Prayer Hook of the Church, the 
 position of the Church was as clearly defined in one direction as it is 
 now in another. In the First Book of 1549, the Kastward position is 
 most clearly enjoined. There can be no doubt that it w.as 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; humbly afore the midst of the altar, shall 
 say the Lords Prayer, with this collect." 
 
 Observe the words. They can have but one meaning. Even if there 
 were no centuries of custom in the mediivval Church to guitle, there 
 could be no doubt that "standing humbly afore, in the midst df the 
 altar," meant standing l)cfore 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 alterations; and certainly, 
 as far as this rubric was concerned, the difference was most striking. 
 In two most important particulars, it was intentionally changed. In 
 tlie first place, there was added a rul)ric with regard to the ajipcarancc 
 and disposition of the communion table, which purposely and wholly 
 subverted the mischievous "Ccuholic" theory of eucharistic sacrifice and 
 mediating priest. 
 
 ^* The table, having, at the communion time, a fair, white lincft 
 
 cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the 
 
 chancel." 
 
 No one could be so simple as to believe that the theory of "Catholic" 
 
 worship could ever l)c 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 com- 
 
164 Appendix. 
 
 niaiiflcd to stand in the middle before it, all is clear; hut to perform 
 the sacrificial service at a /ii/)/c\ standing in the />0(/y of the church, is 
 "confusion worse confounded." 
 
 And next, and, if possible, still more important, instead of the words, 
 "the priest standing; huml)ly afore the midst of the altar," there were 
 sul)stituted the words which to-day stand unaltered in tiie Prayer 
 Hook as the Church's direction to her ofhciating ministers at the com- 
 munion : 
 
 '^'^ And the priest, stattdiut:; at the north-side of the ta/de, shall say 
 the I.ortfs Prayer, with this collect.'' 
 
 The difference is complete. The one is Komish ; 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"; the other says, "at the 
 north-side of the table." The distinction is thus radical and intentional. 
 Kijfhtly, there can be no other position, according to the teaching of 
 the Prayer Hook, 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 position is acting contrary to the clear direction of the rubric. 
 
 Hut perhaps it will be argued that the alleged distinction between 
 the north -.f/</(," and the north-^«(/ is a valid ground for the assumption 
 of the Eastward jjosititm, and that inasmuch as the table is not a sfjiiare, 
 i)ut an ol)long, 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, in many cases, 
 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 lieen prescribed for the table by law, and a sfjuare 
 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 fabrication. The word "side," 
 at the Reformation, used to describe the ends of the altar ; that is, the 
 right and left-hand sides, as seen from the church. 
 
Appendix. 165 
 
 (3) Hoth at the time of the Kt-formation, and at the lime of latrr 
 revisions in the reij^ns of James and Charles, the tables were (tflcn 
 placed, »o/ as they are now universally, across the chancel, with the 
 lonj^er side to the l)ody of the church, l)Ut lenj^thwise, that is, with ihi- 
 longer sides parallel with the sides of the chancel; and few of thr acts 
 of Archliishop Laud met with more hitter resistance than his attempts 
 to alter the position of the communicm tal)les and i)rin^ them against 
 the wall, in the i)osition of the altar. 
 
 It was agreed at the Restoration, however, in spite of strong; op|)osi- 
 tion, to leave in the rubric the old provision with regard to the table 
 standing in the l)0(ly of the church ; and instead of insertinj; the words 
 "north side," "north end," or "north part," to sini]>ly employ one 
 term which would specitically desij^nate the position re<piired, and yet, 
 at the same time, suit every position of the holy tal)le. 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 
 ofliciatinf^ priest should be at the left side of the table, with his side, not 
 his back, to the congregation, .''nd 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, also, that what woulil 
 now be called the " High Church" party would have ]>referred a rubric 
 which would not have permitted the table tf) stand lengthwise, or in 
 the body of the church; but for expediency's stike, the rubric was 
 framed so as to permit this. 
 
 Witii tables lengthways ««</ crossways, the question was for a word 
 which would be applical)le to InUh iniyitions, and yet prevent the 
 attitude of the Roman priest. The word "end" was certainly open to 
 ol)jection, for, if the table w.as placed lengthwise, there was, grammati- 
 cally 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 did 
 not exist. The word "part" was equally open to ol)jection, as being 
 somewhat vague, and as possibly, when the table was placed altarwise, 
 giving an ojiening for the adoption of the Eastward position. 
 
 Hut there was a word which was at once specific .and comprehensive ; 
 specific enough to define the precise jxisition, and comi>rehensive 
 enough to suit both positions of the table. That term was the "north- 
 side." Not two words, the north side; but one word, the hyphened 
 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 
 jieople. 
 
i66 Appendix. 
 
 With regard to the rubric immediately precc<ling the Prayer of 
 Consecration, which seems to warrant the assumption of another 
 |x)silion, (lurini* this prayer at least, I will just quote the judgment of 
 one whom "High" Churchmen certainly must regard as an authority — 
 Wheatleyi the author of the work on the Prayer Book. lie says, 
 pp. 296-297: 
 
 "If it l«e askcl whether the priest is to s.iy this (the Consecration) 
 prayer iK-forc 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 
 statuii$ii^ must refer to the verb ordered, and not to the verb say. So 
 that whilst the priest is oriierins; the bread and wine, he is to stand 
 Ix-'fore the table ; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so as that 
 he may, with the tnore readiness ami deceruy, l>reak the bread before the 
 />eo/>le, which mast lie on the north-side. For, if he stoo<l liefore the 
 table, his liotly would hinder the |xx>ple from seeing; so that he must 
 not stand there, and conse(|uently he must stan<l on the north-side . . . 
 In the Romish Church, they always stand In/ore the altar <luring the 
 consecration, in onler to prevent the jieople from being eye-witnesses 
 of their pretendetl miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut the 
 chancel cloor . . . But our Church, that pretemls no such miracle, 
 enjoins, we sec, the direct contrary to this, by ordering the (iriest so to 
 order the bread and wine that he may, with the more readiness an<l 
 decency, break the brea<l and take the cup into his hands, be/ore the 
 people" 
 
 That is, directly liefore the amsecration prayer, 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 ami 
 decency, break the bread l)efore the |)eople," he is to assume again 
 the (xisition enjoineii liy the Prayer Book at the north-side of the 
 table. 
 
 Interpreteil in this way, the rubric is natural and easy. Interpreting 
 otherwise, one must either overlook altogether the words "liefore the 
 jieople," or give them an interpretation they were never intended to 
 l>ear; or .issume the Eastward position, and attempt the most awkward 
 and almost ludicrous t.isk of keeping the iKick to the people, and, at 
 the same time, straining .and twisting the arms and Ixxly so as to make 
 the manual acts visible to the (leople. 
 
Appendix. 167 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 
 
 I. — THE ABSOLUTION. 
 
 The unvvard progress of the Reformation is iH;culiarly marked 
 in llie difference Ixitwcen the absolution in the Order of the 
 Communion of 1548 and that in the Prayer Book of 1549. This 
 obsolete Order of the Communion is a most interesting formulary, 
 inasmuch as it was the pioneer in the great work of liturgical reforma- 
 tion. It was the first authoritative service ever issued in English, 
 though much of it was still in Latin, a step in itself of uni(|ue inii)ort- 
 ance. It was the first effective step to the demolition of the mass, 
 inasmuch as it provided for the administration of the communion in two 
 kinds, and forbade the elevation of the elements: "The priest may 
 go again to the altar, and reverently and devoutly prei)are and conse- 
 crate another .... without any elevation or lifting up." The 
 absolution in the Order of the Communion is as follows: "Our 
 blessed Lord, who hath left jxjwer to His Church to absolve penitent 
 sinners from their sins, and to restore to the grace of the Heavenly 
 Father such as truly Ixilicve in Christ, have mercy upon you ; pardon 
 and deliver you from all sins; confirm and strengthen you in all 
 goo<lness; and bring you to everlasting life." It was not without 
 jjurpose that the Reformers substituted for this form those beautiful 
 words of consolation which have ever since been the authoritative form 
 of absolution in the Communion Service. In the services which are 
 daily and weekly used in the Church of England, the form of absolution 
 is entirely unobjectionable. The only form to which even possiljle 
 objection may be taken is one which may never be used by any, and by 
 thousands is never used at all. The objectionable form is one which, 
 if used ever, is used privately, and in the house. The only forms 
 to which the ears of the jjeople are accustomed in the public services of 
 the Church are pure, simple, scriptural, evangelical. 
 
 2. — AUTHORITY OF THE CANONS OF 1603-4. 
 
 The authority of the Canons of 1603- 1604 rests ujMin a double 
 foun«lation. In the first place, they were passed by both Houses 
 of Convocation; and in the next place, though never passed by 
 Parliament, they received the assent of the sovereign, as head of the 
 Church. Their authority, therefore, is sufficient to justify the clergyman 
 in making use in this service of any other form at his discretion. 
 
i68 Appendix. 
 
 NOTES ON CHAPTliK VIII. 
 
 I. — UiSHOl* WILUEKFOkCE ON I'klVATE CONFKSSION. 
 
 Til show that this view is not confined to any particular siIukiI of 
 thought, I (jiiotc the opinion of one who may be fairly taken as a 
 representative Ili^jh Chureinnan, tlie late Hisiiop Wilberforte, whose 
 views I learned fur the first time aft«.-r thus writing. S|)eaking un this 
 subject of |)rivate confession, he sayi: 
 
 "It is plain, first, that »)ur Church never ilesigned that the ministers 
 of (lod's words and sacraments should abdicate that which is amon};st 
 the most im|H)rtant functions of their oflice, the dealing:;, as ministers of 
 (jud, with the consciences of men. Vet, on the other hand, it is 
 eipially clear that there is a I)ro.-\d distinction between her intention 
 herein and that of the Church of Rome . . . The object of tlie Roman 
 Church is to briny the conscience under the i)ower of the priest, to 
 make hin« the judjje to wh<j.se sentence it sht)uld absolutely defer. The 
 object (jf our Church is so to awaken, enlighten, and strengthen the 
 conscience that, with the aid of Holy Scripture and the ordinary jjublic 
 ministrations of tJotl's Word, it may rightly guide the individual 
 soul. 
 
 "With these different objects in view, there is l)etween the two 
 systems far more than a mere iliflerence in degree. Every part of the 
 priest's private mini;>trations with ctmsciences is affected by it. The 
 one is always seeking to sulxlue, the other to emancipate, the individual 
 conscience. And this difference of object has by degrees greatly 
 alTected 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 cxce]itional 
 cases in ours, but that the spiritual asi>ect of the same act assumes a 
 wholly different character in the two Cimnnunions. 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 Ik; duly practiseil, it must 
 be secret and complete, numbering all remenilH;red sins. So made, it 
 is to be followed by private absolution, which, as it is held, conveys a 
 s|x.'cial pardon for the sins so rememliered 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 ; 
 
Appendix. 169 
 
 that the conscience should be committed to his keeping ; this is, in their 
 view, the result to be aimed at . . . It is not dit'ticult 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 permis- 
 sion, 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 
 deejjest sins, consistently with getting through confession, will soon lie 
 formed. On the other hand, those who strive to confess all will 
 assuredly be led to weaken the spring of conscience by devolving that 
 determination of what is right, which is its own solemn responsibility, 
 to i)e discharged under the eye of God and by 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 opix)sit'on to this system, the Church of England, in exact 
 conformity, as we maintain, with the W^ord of God and the teaching 
 and the practice of the primitive Church, allows private confession 
 instead of enforcing 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 confessing as 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 ; i)ut still as not meant for, and not wholly compatible with, 
 a settled habit of strong health ; and this difiference 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 spiritual 
 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 lieing specially provided 
 by God with grace for their treatment and relief." — IVilbtrforce' s 
 Ordination Addresses, pp. ii2-ii^. 
 
170 Appendix. 
 
 2. — DR. PUSEY ON PRIVATE CONFESSION. 
 
 Quite opposed to this view, and to the teaching of the Church of 
 England, are the views of Dr. Pust.y, ''s expressed in his late work 
 on contession, in which he takes the extraordinary position that 
 the declaration in the First Prayer Book (an obsolete and unauthorized 
 manunl) permitting auricular confession is a sufficient justification for 
 its practice in the Church to-day, and the carefully circumscribed 
 absolution in the \'isitation of the Sick the formula to be employed in 
 confessing the well. One rises from reading this argument of Pusey 
 with the exclamation of Newman, "Truly, this man is haunted by no 
 intellectual perplexities," 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 Iiefore God " ; in other words, to propagate the 
 Roman doctrine of confession and absolution because there are 
 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 
 confessions, a statement that is positively misleading, for the permission 
 in the Communion exhortation has nothing to tlo with confession in the 
 Romish sense that Pusey uses. He trkes statements of divines like 
 Usher, Jewel, and White, advocating the scriptural and evangelical 
 theory of confession, as supporting his view, which is scarce distinguish- 
 able from the Roman. He quotes such men as Bishops Andrewes and 
 Overall, and Dr. Peter Hevlin, as if their views could be quoted as 
 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 acknowledges a change in his 
 views. He quotes fron) Latimer's sermon on the third Sunday after 
 Epiphany, "and sure it grieveth me much that such confessions are not f 
 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 the 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 ; and, therefore, we must go 
 also unto the priest, and, after confession, receive absolution of all our 
 
Appendix. 171 
 
 sins. But yet we must take heed, say they, that we forget nothing ; for 
 all those sins that are forgotten may not be forgiven ; and so they l)ind 
 the consciences of men, persuading them that when their sins are all 
 remembered and confessed, it is well. And herel)y they took clean 
 away the passion of Christ. F'or they m.-ide this numl)ering of sins to 
 be a merit, and so they came to all the secrets that were in men's 
 hearts; so that enijjeror 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 minister 
 and get comfort from him, with the Word of God, **I would to God it 
 were kept in England, for it is a good thing." — Park. Soc, Latimer's 
 h'eniains, //. , iSo. 
 
 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 exhortation, is to be found from "the 
 comfortable salve, 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 alwolving-priest. What wonder, then, 
 that rinding the deficiencies and silence of the Prayer Book so discour- 
 aging, 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 advo- 
 cacy of lawlessness. "What I and others desire is that we should, 
 both clergy and laity, be free to do what we severally think right before 
 God." — Pusey: Advice on Hearin:; Confessions, p. 2j.