Ritual, or Book of Occasional Offices, such as Baptism, Matrimony, Burial of the Dead, &c., represented by another portion of our Prayer-Book, is a volume of about 300 pages more, if in the same letter; and the Pontifical, or Book of Offices for Bishops, of which the Confirmation Service and the Ordinal are the sole relics in the Common Prayer, takes up three whole volumes, with an aggregate of about 860 pages in a larger type, reducible to half that number by double columns and a smaller letter. Thus, without counting in the minor books, the Missal is in mere bulk less than one-third of the whole-a calculation from which the value of the Reviewer's assertion, whether he knew the facts or not, may be readily assessed. An examination of a small-type Common Prayer-Book yields the following proportions. The whole number of pages is 167. Of these 24 are occupied with the Preface, Kalendar, &c., leaving 143 for all the offices, and of these 45 belong to the Holy Communion and its variable parts—a ratio not very dissimilar to the Roman one. As to the comparative purity of the Breviary and Missal, and their approximation to Anglican teaching, when contrasted with popular Romanism, which was our contention, it is such a mere commonplace of theology and history, seeing that the Prayer-Book is a condensed and recast translation from these very sources, that nothing could justify its denial by any one acquainted with the truth. For example, the Missal (irrespective, of course, of the services for days of modern institution) is, with but trifling exceptions, what it has been for at least twelve hundred years, and the Breviary proper (i.e. excluding accretions such as the 'Hora B.V.M.,' &c.) is almost entirely made up of Scripture, short biographies of Saints (purged by Pope Pius V. of much legendary matter which used to be there), and lessons out of the more eminent early Christian writers, notably S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Gregory the Great, and Venerable Bede. Of Papal supremacy, Mariolatry, indulgences, imageworship, purgatory in its coarser forms, invocation of Saints, and the like, there is practically nothing in the Missal, and exceedingly little in any save some very recent editions of 1 So Calderwood, in his Altare Damascenum (pp. 612, 613), A.D. 1623, observes that 'from three Romish channels was the English Service raked together; namely, 1st, the Breviary, out of which the Common Prayer was taken. 2ndly. The Ritual, or Book of Rites, out of which the Administration of Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, and Visitation of the Sick are taken. 3rdly. The Mass-Book, out of which the Consecration of the Lord's Supper, Collects, Gospels, and Epistles are taken.' the Breviary, no more, that is, than a conservative revision, such as has been advocated many times within the Latin Church itself, would easily and painlessly remove: whereas nothing short of a wholesale cataclysm could cleanse out the Augean stable of popular Roman cults and devotions. Before coming directly to the discussion of the second question which the Reviewer has chosen as his battle-ground, we must remind our readers of the emphatic manner in which he insists on the powerful and even dominant influence exercised by Lutheranism, and especially by the Confession of Augsburg, and the Apology for that Confession, on the English Reformation and the authoritative formularies of Anglicanism. We contend that he, following Archbishop Laurence and Archdeacon Hardwick, has overstated the matter, but that is his affair, not ours, after we have once warned our readers of the truth. He tells us expressly, and with iteration, that the Mass is gone in England, and that Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist is of authority here and now. Very good; now let us hear what the Confession of Augsburg, the most authoritative formulary of Lutheranism, has to say on this head :-'Falsò accusantur ecclesiæ nostræ, quod Missam aboleant, retinetur enim Missa apud nos, et summâ reverentiâ celebratur, servantur et usitatæ ceremoniæ ferè Itaque non videntur apud adversarios Missæ omnes. majore religione fieri quam apud nos.' Next, what says the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg? Initio hoc iterum præfandum est, nos non abolere Missam, sed religiosè retinere ac defendere. Fiunt enim et apud nos Missæ singulis Dominicis et aliis festis servantur usitatæ ceremoniæ publicæ, ordo lectionum, orationum, vestitus, et alia similia.' Here then are the two witnesses, which have been summoned into court with such a flourish of trumpets, testifying in favour of the defendant and full in the teeth of the prosecution, It is worthy of remark, too, that whereas the Reviewer lauds the Confession of Augsburg on the ground that 'its adherence to ancient forms is part of its Protestantism,' and whereas we have just shown that amongst those ancient forms retained by it was the Mass, with most of its ceremonies (as is visible in Sweden to-day, with its 'High Mass' and Mass-shirt' or chasuble), yet he charges us with sheer Romanising for holding the mere literary opinion that there is much similarity between the Prayer-Book and the Missal. This charge, by-the-by, illustrates forcibly enough the curious fact ་ that there are absolutely no English controversial works of any value against Romanism, except such as have issued from the High Church school, for the Low Church party has been either ignominiously silent or intellectually impotent in polemics. A really shrewd opponent of Rome would see that no stronger or more telling argument against her existing practices can be adduced than appeal to the contradiction to them afforded by the testimony of her own most ancient, sacred, and accredited formularies; but our Reviewer cannot see that, and plays Cardinal Manning's game by giving Romanism all the advantage to be derived from a general attack on documents which are chiefly of the Patristic age in matter and meaning. And we can readily exhibit from the same Lutheran source the true meaning of the condemnation of 'Sacrifices of Masses' by Article XXXI. It is quite clear that a doctrine that there is a fresh act of sacrifice in every Mass, and that each celebration of Mass is in some sense an independent offering, though officially repudiated by the Roman Church, and implicitly condemned by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, chap. iv. quest. 73, which declares that Christ's offering of Himself was once only, and upon the Cross, was widely current at the era of the Reformation, and indeed it is within our own knowledge that it is taught even still, just as a local Presence is, by some of the less educated Roman Catholic clergy. Now the Confession of Augsburg speaks thus: 'An opinion has gained ground, which has indefinitely multiplied private Masses, namely, that Christ by His Passion made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the Mass, wherein there should be an oblation for daily sins, mortal and venial. Hence flowed a popular opinion that the Mass is an act which by opus operatum blots out the sins of the living and dead: whereupon a dispute began whether one Mass said for many persons be equal in value to separate Masses for single persons. This debate gave birth to that boundless multitude of Masses.' And Franciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ (in 1633), glossing Article XXXI., observes :— 'Articulus durissimus videtur: rectiùs tamen introspiciendo, non adeo veritati discordem judicem. Prima pars, quoad affirmativa, indubitata est... In verbis posterioribus, si sobriè intelligantur, nihil agitur contra sacrificia Missæ in se, sed contra vulgarem et vulgatam opinionem de ipsis, scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerrent Christum pro vivis et defunctis, in remissionem pœnæ et culpæ, adeo ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab eis oblati independenter à Crucis sacrificio, merentur populo remissionem. Hæc est vulgata opinio, quam hic perstrinxit Articulus.' Having cleared the ground thus, let us come to the Anglican evidence. First of all, there stands the wording in the first Reformed Prayer-Book of 1549: The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.' The word disappeared from the second Book of 1552, but did the thing? Apparently not, in the minds of contemporaries, for (a) The Act of Uniformity, 5 & 6 Edward VI. c. 1, establishing the second Book, speaks of the former one as 'a very godly order, agreeable to the word of God and the Primitive Church,' while implicitly condemning the changes made in the Book of 1552, as due merely to doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause.' (b) Latimer, in the Disputation of 1554 at Oxford, said, 'I find no great diversity in them, they are one Supper of the Lord.' (c) In 1567 Archbishop Parker published (under the significant title of A Testimonie of Antiquitie, showing the auncient fayth in the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the body and bloude of the Lord, &c.) a modern English version of the Anglo-Saxon Easter Homily of Archbishop Ælfric (A.D. 995), as a vindication of the Reformed teaching of the Church of England on the Holy Eucharist in his own day, because identical, according to his statement, therewith, save in certain explicitly specified exceptions, being in all other respects agreeable to what the Elizabethan Bishops accepted as sound doctrine. Amongst the passages not excepted against is the following (all the more noticeably because there is a note of warning upon the very next paragraph): 'Once suffred Christe hym selfe (Ebreu x); but yet neverthelesse hys suffrynge is dayle renued at the masse through mysterye of the holye housell.' This Homily is attested as sound doctrine by the signatures of Archbishop Parker, of Young, Archbishop of York, Grindal, Bishop of London, Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, Horne, Bishop of Winchester, and ten other bishops, namely, Barlow, Scory, Cox, Sandys, Bullingham, Davies, Bentham, Parkhurste, Best, and Robinson, nearly all pronounced Low Churchmen, and likely to favour the least Catholic tenets then permissible. (d) The second Book, with some minor, though significant alterations, contented the great body of English Roman Catholics for the first ten years of Elizabeth's reign, till the Bull of Excommunication was launched against her. (e) Contrariwise, this Book of 1552-1559 was hotly de nounced as a 'Mass-Book' by the Puritan school, while Calvin described it as 'the leavings of Popish dregs' and as 'trifling and childish '--(Troubles at Frankfort, p. xlviii.) It was complained of again and again, as also was our present Book, as virtually retaining the Mass, under pretence of a pure and Scriptural administration of the Supper, and its structure was unfavourably 'compared' with that of the Missal and contrasted with the ordinance as observed in Protestant assemblies; with what degree of truth we will now exhibit by a tabular comparison of the leading factors of three Offices, the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass according to the use of Sarum, the existing Communion Office of 1662, omitting some minor details, and the Directory for Public Worship issued by Parliament in 1644: 1. Preparation of 1. Preparation of Priest Priest 2. Commandments 3. Collects, Epistle, 4. Nicene Creed 7. Confession and 8. Sursum Corda 10. Sanctus 11. Prayer of Humble Puritan Directory 1. Exhortation of invitation and warning 2. Seating of communicants round the table 3. Reading of the words of institution as a lesson, not as a prayer 4. Prayer (extempore) of thanksgiving for mercies and all means of grace, and that God may so sanctify the Ordinance that those who eat and drink may receive by faith the Body and Blood of Christ Access (for priest 5. Joint communion and people) 12. Consecration People(kneeling) 14. Communion of 6. 18. Post-Communion Prayers 19. Blessing and Dismissal People(kneeling) 15. Post-Communion Prayers 16. Gloriain Excelsis missal of minister and people, all seated, with no prescribed words of administration Exhortation after Communion 7. Thanksgiving |