|« Prev||Chapter I: The Anglican Reform||Next »|
THE ANGLICAN REFORM
The chief Service-books
BREVIARIUM: cf. Introductory Chapter. MISSALE was the title given probably in the eighth century, or a little later, to the volumes in which the following Office-books
were united: LECTIONARIUS, for the lections from Scripture. Sometimes this was divided into Epistolarium, for the Epistles, and Evangelistarium, for the Gospels: ANTIPHONARIUM, or GRADUALE, for all that was sung at Mass: SACRAMENTARIUM, for all the fixed parts and the Collects.
MANUALE was the title in the Salisbury and York “Uses” for the Book called elsewhere RITUALE. It comprised the offices for Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, and others of less importance.
PONTIFICALE; the chief contents of this were the Ordination Services, Confirmation, Consecration of a Church and Burial ground, and sundry Episcopal benedictions.
In addition to the above the PRIMERS deserve notice, though they were originally intended rather for private than public service. The Primer was not confined to any one definite set of prayers, but embraced several different collections according to the will of the compiler. Maskell’s Primer, e.g. which has been assigned a date as early as 1400 A.D., contained Matins, Evensong, Compline, Litany, the Hours of the Virgin, the Penitential Psalms and Songs of Degrees, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and Ten Commandments. It was usual to print the book in English and Latin, sometimes in one of these languages only. A revised edition was brought out by Marshall in 1530 A.D., and another by Hilsey, Bishop of Rochester, in 1539 A.D., but all existing editions were superseded in 1545 A.D. by “The Primer set forth by the King’s Majesty and his Clergy to be taught, learned, and read: and none other to be used throughout all his dominions.” in use in the English Church at the time of the Reformation were these: The Breviary, containing a series of daily services for the Canonical Hours, which were eight in number.
The Missal, or Order of Celebration of the Holy Communion.
The Manual, for the Baptismal and other occasional offices, which might be performed by a priest.
The Pontifical, for such as the Bishop alone administered.
In all of these severally, while the outline and
structure were the same, there was considerable variety in detail, and
different editions, if we may so speak of them, had become generally
accepted in different localities. The
York, for example,
Bangor, had each its own
“Use,” marked off by some peculiarity, while the remaining Dioceses united in the adoption of that entitled “the
Sarum,” which the Bishop of Salisbury
It is considered highly probable that he was assisted by Lanfranc, who had already compiled a “Use” for the Benedictines.
For the ifluence of Roman ritual upon that which was introduced into England in view of reconciling the clergy, which consisted of two rival races, cf. Preface to the SARUM MISSAL in English, pp. x.-xi. had compiled with so much care in the eleventh century.
Three things in particular contributed to call for 3a revision of these Service-books about the middle of the sixteenth century.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries1313The Lesser Monasteries, 376 in number, with incomes not exceeding £200 a year, were dissolved by Act of Parliament, 1536 A.D. The Larger Monasteries shared the same fate, but not so summarily. The Act which appropriated their revenues passed 1539 A.D. made a complete reconstruction of the Breviary an imperative necessity. Frequent worship an essential feature of the Monasitc life. In Religious Houses, where it was of the very essence of their constitution that the worship of GOD should enter largely into the routine of daily life, it was an easy matter to subordinate all other occupations to that which was held to be of primary importance, and seven1414In lapse of time the two early services came to be used continuously, and were regarded as one. times during the twenty-four hours the Bell of the Monastery summoned its inmates to assemble in the Chapel for Divine Service.
When Henry VIII realised that the Monastic Orders remained unshaken in their loyalty to the Papacy, and that the title of “Supreme Head of the Church,” which he had assumed, could be little more than nominal, if such formidable opponents were left to foster seditious counsels, nothing remained for him but to dissolve their constitutions and appropriate their revenues to other purposes.4
With this abolition of the Religious Orders, the offering of frequent worship became wholly impracticable. It disappeared at their dissolution Up to the time of the Dissolution, the daily service had not attracted the bulk of the People.15151 Cf. FREEMAN’S Principles of Divine Service, i. 278. A certain number, no doubt, wherever there was a Monastery in the neighbourhood, would be drawn to some extent into a participation of its worship, but generally the people must have felt themselves precluded by their occupations from taking any part therein. Now, however, that the Monasteries had been swept away, men realised that if the daily homage of the crearture was to continue to be paid, such changes were, called for as should make the payment compatible with their secular duties.
How this was effected we shall see presently.
A second demand for revision arose out of the revival of learning.
The close of the fifteenth century witnessed the beginning of what was designated “the New Learning.” The Universities claimed the honour of its birthplace. Erasmus, of whom it has been said that he was the first “man of letters” who had appeared in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, worked a complete revolution in the education of 5the country. The Greek language, long known but most imperfectly, and studied only in the books of authors wholly unworthy to represent its genius and its true value, seemed suddenly endowed with new attractions, and under the ægis of Erasmus regained its place in the two great seats of learning and education. He determined to break down the ignorant hostility to classical literature which reigned in the colleges and monasteries; but how difficult a task it was, and how long it took for scholars to shake off the fetters of a barbarous age, a study of Erasmus himself will abundantly testify. With all his appreciation of the beauties of Cicero, notwithstanding the spontaneity and naturalness of his Latin, which give it all the charms of a living and spoken tongue, he is still far removed from the purity and grace of the classical models.
But that for which we are most deeply indebted to him is the impulse which he gave to the study of the New Testament in the original language. 1616Erasmus’s Greek Testament, though of no critical value, made a deep and lasting impression. He had neither the MSS. to enable him to form a text, nor training to do it even if he had. To it, however, is due the first awakening to the fact that the Vulgate was a document not worthy of the confidence which the Church had placed in it. The 6“ever memorable” Dean Colet,1717Dean of St. Paul’s, and founder of the School which bears that name. He commenced his Lectures on the Greek Testament in 1498 A.D. foremost among his friends, substituted lectures on Scripture at Oxford for the customary disquisition, on Scotus and Aquinas; while at the sister university George Stafford discarded the glosses of the Schoolmen altogether, and taught his classes to study the text; and not a few of the Reformers 1818Latimer, though at first bitterly opposed to him, became a convert to his teaching, and drew Ridley over to the same studies. sat at his feet.
One of the most immediate results of this reaction, which rapidly affected the community at large, was to make them dissatisfied
with the part they had hitherto been contented to take in public worship.
Longings for a more rational kind of
Men awoke to the realisation of the privileges which attached to “the priesthood of the laity,”
Maskell, in opposition to those who have aserted that daily service was never intended for the laity, appeals to the authority of the Fathers and decides that it is “a certain thing, that the Divine Office was not instituted
solely for the clergy, but for all men who call themselves Christians.” Cf. FREEMAN’S Principles of Divine Service, i. 277.
The Scriptures teach plainly that in some sense all Christians are priests. St. Peter addressing his converts at large, writes, “Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthiood,” and again, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthiood, a holy nation.” 1 Ep. ii. 5, 9.
St. JOHN also adopts similar language, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God.” REV. i. 6.
This teaching however has oftenbecn misunderstood and supposed to destroy the efficacy of ordination. Rightly interpreted, it enhances it greatly. It is evident that the Apostles had in their minds the language which God addressed to the Israelites, where speaking to all He said, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.” EXOD. xix. 6. They knew well that though the universal priesthood of the nation was here acknowledged, God had set apart a special priesthood with special functions, and so hedged it in that for any one of “the kingdom of priests” to claim it, without being called, was an unpardonable sin. Unless the two cases had been analogous the Apostles would have been careful to avoid the language they used. It is worthy of notice how those Nonconforming bodies, which lay stress in this matter on the authority of St. Peter and St. John, have robbed the laity of their prerogative, and precluded them almost entirely from all part in the offering of public worship. A comparison of the ordinary service and the parts assigned to the congregation and the ministers as appointed in the Church and in any Dissenting Chapel will exhibit the contrast in a very marked manner. and 7they determined to claim a portion in that intelligent aud rational service, which the Clerics had monopolised all too long.
The first step towards the attainment of this was the introduction of the vernacular in place of a dead unspoken tongue in the Public Forms—the supersession of Latin by the language of the country.
The third, and by many considered to be the chief call for revision, came from the pressing necessity for purifying the Service-books from error, and clearing away the accretions of superstitious usage which had accumulated upon them in mediæval times.8
Such then being the chief causes which contributed to make a revision necessary, it remains for us to examine the authority by which it was undertaken and carried out, with a view to estimating how far the work is entitled to the confidence of the Church.
There are few greater mistakes than to accept as correct the loose statement so frequently made, that the Committee of Revision were appointed by the Crown. Long before it ever entered into tho head of Henry VIII. to touch our services, a reformed edition2020In 1516 and 1531 A.D. Cf. FREEMAN’S Prinicples, etc., Introd. pt. II. sect. x. of the Sarum Breviary had been issued: and it is worth while observing that it followed the very lines which the Commissioners laid down for themselves in Edward VI.’s reign.2121This is especially observable in reference to the simplification of the directions for services, and to the extended reading of Holy Scripture. This again was succeeded a few years later by a somewhat similar revision of the Sarum Missal. Now both of these were undertaken before the King had assumed the title of “Supreme Head of the Church,” 2222The title of “sole protector and supreme head of the Church,” which he proposed to assume, was much discussed in Convocation, and accepted with the limitation “quantum per Christi legem licet,” first by Canterbury and shortly afterwards by York. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1534 A.D. declaring the King to be the “Supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” and when as yet 9he took no such interest in ecclesiastical matters as to justify us in believing that the work was in any way dictated by his advice or direction. The King’s reluctance to move Indeed we find him at this time most unwilling to meddle with Church Reform of any kind: as unwilling as Convocation was the reverse. He rejected a petition presented to him by the Convocation of Canterbury for an authorised version of the Bible in English for general circulation.
It is true that a few years later he was induced to reconsider his decision, but we point to his hesitation in the matter as an indication of his indifference to reform, and as affording a strong presumption that whatever was done was sanctioned by Convocation, the idea of independent action being quite untenable.
But when at length the King was persuaded to interest himself in Liturgical improvement, his first step was to commission the Archbishop to acquaint the Houses of Convocation that it was his pleasure that the Service-books should be revised: “that all mass-books, antiphoners, portuisses, in the Church of England should be newly examined, corrected, and reformed;” and Convocation ordered that the 10The first Committee of revison appointed.work be intrusted to the Bishops of Sarum and Ely,2323Capon and Thomas Goodrich. with three assessors24242 Cf. p. 13. each from the Lower House. Matters had been made somewhat easier by an enactment of the previous year that one uniform service should be adopted throughout the Province of Canterbury.2525March 3, 1541 A.D. Cf. WILKINS’ Concil. iii. 861, 862. But there was one fatal obstacle to any real reform. Impediments to all real reform. So long as the Statute-book 2626The Act passed in May 1539 A.D. The other enactments were on the efficacy of solitary masses and the celibacy of the priesthood. imposed death by burning as the penalty for denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and hanging as a common felon for disapproval of Communion in one kind, or of the perpetual obligation of vows of chastity, or of the necessity of auricular confession, we can easily understand that the Revisionists felt themselves clogged and hampered at every step. The memory of the terrible scenes enacted in the torture-room where Ann Askew so heroically endured the rack, or of the fires of Smithfield, in which, in company with others, she suffered martyrdom for her belief, must have hung like a sword of Damocles over their Council Chamber. Indeed, Capon’s predecessor in the See of Sarum, Nicholas Shaxton, had been condemned to the stake on the self-same charge, but had purchased his life by 11recantation; and the recollection of this must have haunted him like a spectre till the Statute was repealed. The first object aimed at was the acceptance of the principle that it was lawful for the laity to communicate in both kinds. Convocation accepted this principle on the 30th of November 1547, during the progress of a bill to authorise it through the House of Lords, and before it was introduced into the Commons. 2727Cf. Append. by Bishop Stubbs in Ecclesiastical Courts Commission Report, i, 142. The Act ordained simply that the primitive custom of administering in both kinds should be observed, but no set form of words was prescribed. Parliament was prorogued on December 24th, and did not reassemble till the close of the next year. Convocation was also prorogued; but in the spring “The Order of Communion” was drawn up, and issued by the King, for administering in both kinds, and it was wholly in English.2828This “Order of Communion” was really an addition to the old Latin Mass of an English Form to be used when any of the laity communicated. Cf. Appendix II. The Proclamation2929The Proclamation ran thus : “The most Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour should from henceforth be commonly delivered and ministered to all persons within our realm of England and Ireland and other our dominions under both kings, that is to say, of bread and wine (except necessity of the wise require) lest every man phantasaying and devising a sundry way by himself, in the use of this most blessed Sacrament of unity, there might arise any unseemly or ungodly diversity.” speaks of 12the advice received from the Protector, and other of the Privy Council, and orilered that the Blessed Sacrament should be ministered unto our people only after such form and manner.3030In former editions, I spoke of, this Order of Cimmunion having received the sanction of Convocation. In this I have made alterations, being now satisfied that I was mstaken, and that I had its action in regard to the principle of conceding the cup to the laity with the Form of Service subsequently framed for administration.
After this the Committee was enlarged and proceeded with the revision of the Prayer-book.
Conventional pictures of this assembly of divines, which most probably held some of its sessions in the Council-room at Windsor,3131There has been much dispute as to the actual place of session. They were unquestioruably in audience of the King it Windsor, but as the Court was residing at Oatlands during their deIiberations, it is said they usually met at Chertsey Abbey. Cf. Gasquet, p. 133, n. have placed Archbishop Cranmer in the chair. He is supported on either side by three bishops: while the six members chosen from the Lower House of Convocation occupy a cross-bench facing the Primate.
The Bishops were Goodrich of Ely, Holbeach of Lincoln, Skip of Hereford, Day of Chichester, Thirlby of Westminster, Ridley of Rochester. The remaining six members were : Cox, May, 13Taylor, Haines, Robertson, and Redmayn: the same no doubt who had sat as assessors to Capon and Goodrich in the Committee of 1542 A.D.3232Dixon implies that they were not formally appointed, only nominated. The original terms are obscure: “but this the Lower House released.”—WILKINS, iii. 863. Which of the bishops was placed on the right, which on the left of the Primate’s chair; which again of these places was the post of special honour, we need not stay to dispute, as Rome has so vehemently disputed in reference to another and still more momentous assembly3333The Council of Nicæa, 325 A.D. in her eagerness to claim the foremost place for her representative. In all probability Goodrich, as the most eminent Bishop of the old Committee, and the senior Bishop, occupied the two highest seats, while Ridley as junior, and Thirlby as Bishop of the latest constituted see, that of Westminster, occupied the two lowest.
Now let me call your attention to the great care which appears to have been taken to make it a truly representative Committee. We shall see how successfully the selection was made, for no interest with any claim to have a voice in the revision was neglected.
Convocation claimed the whole number as members of one or other of its two Houses.
The Crown had its advocate in Cranmer, than 14whom none could be more attached to the king personally or more tenacious of his rights and prerogative.
The Universities appeared in the Heads of their chief Colleges, Cox being Dean of Christ Church, and Redmayn, Master of Trinity.
Two of the different “Uses” were represented directly: Lincoln by Holbeach and Taylor; Hereford by Skip: two, York and Bangor, indirectly, as we shall see, while the Archbishop and the other Bishops watched the interests of the Sarum “Use” which was adopted in all their dioceses.
It is proposed now to draw the portraits of the chief of these Commissioners in as few lines as is practicable, but in such a manner that the reader may be able to conjecture their part in the work, possibly also to imagine on which side their votes would be given on the debated questions, which they were called upon to decide.
Of Cranmer many pictures have been given to the world, but probably in the case of no other person have the representations varied so materially from each other. This variation is due not so much to the bias of the painter, as to the fact that his character did change in many of its features at different periods of his history.15
As he is seen seated in the chair at Windsor, he bears distinctly many of the qualifications which fit him pre-eminently for the post. He had in a marked degree the first requisite for an efficient chairman, viz., a perfect control over his temper. He was by no means a man of great genius, or an original thinker, likely to strike out something fresh, but he possessed a good judgment, which would enable him to discriminate between what was new and what was old; what was purely Roman, and what was Catholic. He had a profound reverence for the Holy Scriptures upon which he based his doctrinal views, not however according to his private judgment, but as the great Fathers of the Catholic Church had interpreted them in primitive times.3434“I protest and openly confess that in all my doctrine and preaching both of the Sacrament and of other my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge those things as the Catholic Church and most holy Fathers of old with one accord have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use the same words that they used.” Cf. Hook’s Life of Cranmer, cap. iii. pp. 147-9. Again and again, his loyalty to Catholic antiquity manifested itself.
His views on the Holy Eucharist were already, it is true, declining from the Catholic standard, but still very different from those which he maintained eventually. He was orthodox in holding the 16commemorative 3535For the right understanding of this we suggest a short explanation. Firstly, Christ was offered in sacrifice once for all, and that sacrifice made a full, perfect, and sufficient antonement for sin. Herein it was distinguished from the Jewish sacrifices, which being imperfect were necessarily repeated. But though Christ died once only, and in His Death all his sufferings ended, there is a sense in which His offering is continious. Look at the type. When the typical act of Atonement was about to be made on one day for the whole sins of the year, the sacrifices were offered in the outer court, and then the High Priest, taking the blood of the sacrifice, entered within the Veil, and presenting it before the Mercy Seat in the presence of God plealed for forgiveness by and through it. The sacrifice was not complete till it was presented and pleaded before God. Now see the antitype. Christ suffered without the camp, and then by His own blood entered the Holy Holies to complete His sacrifice by presenting and pleading it before God. This is still going on, as HEBREWS viii. 3 clearly teaches, and will be continuous till He comes again, when the pleading or representing the memorial of His Death will cease. Now let us see, secondly, how the Holy Eucharist is the counterpart on earth of Christ’s presentation of His own sacrifice in heaven. He commanded time Apostles to offer this as His memorial sacrifice. The language he used would suggest as much to Jews. Ἀνάμνησις not a term familiar to them for a “memorial before men;” wherever it was used in the Greek Scriptures it was of a “memorial before God;” cl. NUMB. x. 10; LEVIT. xxiv. 7; HEBR. x. 3, compared with LEVIT. xvi. 17. ποιεῖν, though often used in another sense, admitted a sacrificial interpretation; cf. BISHOP HAMILTON’S Charge. Liddell and Scott give the meaning “sacrifice,” ποιεῖν μόσχον, LXX. “Sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitator, et sacrificium verum et plenum tune offert.”—St. CYPRIAN, Ep. 63. “As it is a commemoration and representnsent of Christ’s Death, so it is a commemorative sacrifice.” —JER. TAYLOR’S Life of Christ, Disc. xix. Cf. also St. CHRYSOST. Hom. xvii. ad Hebr.; BRAMHALL, Ep. de la Milletiere, Works, i. 54; BULL, Works, ii. 271 (Oxf.) ANDREWES’S Resp. ad Apolog. rather than the propitiatory sacrifice: the representation or pleading of that which was once offered upon the Cross, rather than the repetition of it, which some few so persistently maintained.
This was an important point which Cranmer was determined not to yield, and it was probably this determination which induced him to decline the offer of Calvin, who was opposed to any sacrificial view of the Holy Eucharist, to aid in the revision. Unless moreover he had felt very strong in his position he would hardly have acted as he did, for Calvin was at this time in the very zenith of his reputation, and many would have welcomed his assistance as the best guarantee for real reform.17
Next in point of interest to the Primate is unquestionably Goodrich, Bishop of Ely.
Now there are many circumstances in Goodrich’s life which we are concerned in hearing of. When a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, he like his more famous companion on the same Foundation3636Cranmer was twice Fellow: elected first in 1523 A.D. rose into Royal favour by his judgment on the crucial question of the Divorce of Queen Catherine. He had. been selected by the University from his legal knowledge to be on the Committee for drawing up an answer to the King’s application respecting the 18legality of the separation. There is no difficulty in discovering which view he took, for he was made a royal chaplain shortly after, and within a few years nominated to one of the most enviable posts, the then-wealthy and dignified Bishopric of Ely.3737When the Abbey of Ely was converted into a Bishopric in 1109 AD., the king directed that the estates shuould be divided in just proportion between the Bishop and the monks. The division, which was conducted entirely by Harvey, the first Bishop, and forced upon the monastery, was so far from being an equitable one, that a contemporary, William of Malmesbury, writes of it in these terms:—“You may judge of the value of the ancient possessions of the Church of Ely by this : that though many of them have been taken away and many are in the hands of intruders, yet he who now presides there receives annually £1040 into his own purse, besides what he expends on his own family in keeping up hospitality, but has scarcely allowed £300 to the monks.”—Cf. BENTHAM’S Hist. of Ely Cath. p. l35.
It is more than probable that the part Church Catechism3838This portion, extending to the paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, has generally been ascribed to Nowell, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, but it the time of this revision an assistant-master at Westminister School. There is a strong presumption against the probability of the revisers deputing such an important work to one in a position of so little dignity. It was far likely to be undertaken by one of their own body, such as Goodrich was. It is worthy of record that in 1540 A.D. he was appointed one of the translators of the Bible, and had the Gospel of St. John allotted to him. was his composition, and when in the year 1552 A.D. he built the Long Gallery attached to the Palace, side by side with the armorial bearings of the See and his own initials, he engraved on two tablets that which he desired to be associated 19with his name before anything else, “our Duty to GOD,” and “our Duty to our neighbour.”
His eagerness for reform led him to inaugurate his episcopate by a series of Injunctions, having for their object the overthrow of Papal influence, and the erasure from the Service-books of the name of the Pope, and the demolition of shrines which were frequented by idolatrous worshippers. But that he was in no sense a fanatic or disposed to condemn any usage or thing simply because it had been abused, his monument in Ely Cathedral, upon which he is represented with the full pontifical habit, bears evidence. He is further said to have endeared himself to the King by his singular wisdom, and to have won the affections of the people by his integrity and moderation.
Next after Goodrich comes Thirlby, whose appointment on the Commission is the best proof of the impartiality with which the selection was made. Although admitted to the privy councils of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. he never sympathised with their in their desire to shake off their allegiance to the Papal See, but continued throughout a staunch Roman; and at Queen Mary’s accession he was singled out as the fittest ambassador she could send to tender to time Pope her assurances of loyal 20obedience. He was chosen too in the same reign, for a task from which, under other circumstances, he would have shrunk back, the degradation of Cranmer before he was sent to the stake. And if further and yet more decisive proof of his opinions is needed, it may be found in his refusal to accept the reforms of Queen Elizabeth and his consequent consignment to prison in the Tower.
One honour he enjoyed which has been shared by no one else. He was the first and last Bishop of Westminster, having exercised the episcopate therein from the creation of the See till its dissolution.3939The Abbey was dissolved and erected into an Episcopal See in December 1540 A.D., and Thirdly appointed first Bishop with jurisdiction over Middlesex. On March 29, 1550 A.D., he surrendered it into the king’s hands, who thereupon dissolved it, reconciled Middlesex to London, and translated the Bishop to Norwich.
As Bishop of Ely, he was a great benefactor, especially to the Foundation of Jesus College, Cambridge, which owes to him much of its ecclesiastical patronage, and also to his cathedral, which received from him the endowment of its eight prebendal stalls.
Of Day less is known, but enough to make it certain that his hand would be held up and his voice raised against all changes involving any real departure from mediæval usage. He was more 21courageous in holding his opinions than his brother of Westminster, as we shall see when we come to the close of the sittings.4040Cf. p. 48. Day, Thirlby, and Skip all protested at first, but the two latter had not the courage of their opinions when the final pressure came.—Cf. SOAMES’S Edward VI. p. 354. When the King issued letters for the conversion of altars into tables, he refused to enforce the order in his diocese, and when threatened with deprivation, he pleaded vigorously for the rights of conscience; but finding his efforts to be unsuccessful, he expressed his final decision in terms which command our respect: “he accounted it a less evil to suffer the body to perish than to destroy the soul,” and “he would rather lose all that he ever had in the world than condemn his conscience.” He was committed to the Fleet Prison,4141Nov. 30, 1550 A.D. Cf. COLLIER’S Eccl. Hist. v. 424. He was afterwards treated with kindness and sent to reside with the Lord Chancellor. and his bishopric sequestrated.
The character of Ridley is too well known to need description, while of Holbeach, who assumed that name on becoming a monk of Croyland in place of his patronymic Rands, so little is left on record that it would be difficult to form an accurate estimate of the influence which he exercised upon the proceedings of the Commission.22
Of the members of the Lower House, the most distinguished on the whole was Cox. He stands out in many ways as the very counterpart of Thirlby, and no one who reads their history can fail to be struck with the fairness of a Commission which admitted men of such opposing views.
When a Fellow at Oxford, Cox becmne enamoured of Lutheran Theology, and amid all die, changes of those ever-varying times, he remained a consistent Protestant to the end.
After he came into the notice of Edward VI., honours were thickly heaped upon him, and it fills one with wonder at the small sense of responsibility which such a man must have had, to bear of his being simultaneously Rector of Harrow, Archdeason of Ely, Canon of Ely, Canon of Windsor, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and Dean of Westminster, and Bishop nominate of Southwell ; not to mention the offices of Tutor and Almoner to the king, and the Chancellorship of his University.
His biographer writes quite incidentally, that it has been thought by some that “he had more rebard to his private advantage than to the true interests of the Church,” and without any notice of these frightful pluralities, proceeds to vindicate him from the imputation touching the alienation of the 23episcopal estates. History has certainly recorded one instance of his determination to maintain the property of the See of Ely, though unsuccessfully.His resistance to the Queen’s unreasonable demands. Sir Christopher Hatton, one of the Queen’s favourites, cast an envious eye upon the beautiful Palace and garden in Holborn ; and to gratify his desire she commanded the Bishop to transfer a portion of it to him without delay. Whatever his feelings may have been on other occasions, he had strength enough to resist this iniquitous claim, but only to call forth the ever memorable rejoinder from the imperious Queen, “Proud Prelate, you know well what you were afore I made you what you are. If you do not immediately comply with my request I will unfrock you, by GOD.” And the property was alienated, as the name “Hatton Garden” still indicates.
Considering their value, we can hardly be surprised that his benefices were speedily seized and that he himself was lodged in the Tower when the Protestant King was no longer able to befriend him.
Two circumstances may be here mentioned as testifying to his doctrinal opinions. At Oxford he issued a Commission for the discovery of books which encouraged Papal pretensions or Roman doctrine, and in the spirit of a true iconoclast ordered 24whole Libraries to be destroyed, without any respect to their historical value or antiquarian interest.
Again, when his brother Revisionist, Day of Chichester, had stirred up the people of Sussex to resist the removal of their altars, he was selected by the King’s Council as the fittest person they could find, counteract his influence by a preaching campaign in support of the Protestant Faith.
In May, the Dean of St. Paul’s, Cox found an entirely kindred spirit, as the following episode in his life will sufficiently indicate. On the publication of an edict by the Privy Council for the destruction of all images in churches, the work of demolition was not only sanctioned, but even encouraged by the appointed guardian of that Cathedral. The Rood, and the attendant figures of St. Mary and St. John, were roughly thrown down, and the wealth of sacred treasure in plate and jewels and vestments which had accumulated out of the offerings of the faithful to an almost incalculable extent was despoiled without even a show of resistance on the part of the Dean ; and there is good reason to believe that it was done, at his own instigation.
If this be true we cannot but admire him for his consistency, for much that lie encouraged entailed 25grievous loss upon, if it did not actually impoverish, both himself and the Chapter which he represented.
He was what we may call an advanced Reformer, and a strong, advocate of Liturgical revision.
Of Taylor’s views we are not altogether ignorant; on one important question, which all the Revisionists were called upon to answer in writing, viz., “what is the oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the mass?” it is recorded that he, in company with Cox, took the lowest ground, asserting it to “mean nothing more than prayer, thanksgiving , and the remembrance of our Saviour’s Passion.”
This was a strange reaction from the opinions which he had put forward in the previous reign, when he preached a sermon upon Transubstantiation, which led to the martyrdom of Barnes.
It is worthy of notice also that he was selected for promotion by King Edward VI. just at the time when his Majesty was most especially under ultra-Protestant influence.4242He was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln in 1552 A.D.
Of Haynes there is little to be said, save that like Haynesthe members of the Lower House already described he had a strong leaning towards radical change.
The two that remain were men of a very different 26type. Both Robertson and Redmayn were more Catholic-minded.
Both too were widely renowned for their great learning, the former having earned a reputation as a grammarian unsurpassed in his generation, and the latter holding one of the highest positions in the University of Cambridge.
The fact that Robertson obtained preferment4343The Deanery of Durham, which, however, he was compelled to resign in favour of Horne, its former holder, on the accession of Elizabeth. from Queen Mary, and that Redmayn tried to draw back from the sanction, which he had reluctantly given by his signature to the Reformed Service-book, are adequate proof of the line which they must have taken in the deliberations at Windsor.
Such, briefly drawn, are some of the characteristic features of the individual members of that famous Committee to whom the Catholic Church of England owes so much.
But we must not fail to mention that even these men, so learned, so well qualified in many ways, and so thoroughly impartial as a body, were not held to be competent by their own unaided counsels to accomplish the work of Revision.
It was considered desirable to enlarge the Committee, 27so as to make it if possible still more representative, and to give all parts of the country and every one who had any interest at stake a voice in the proceedings. A large body of assessors4444The assessors were Holgate, Archbishop of York, Bonner, Bishop of London, Tonstal of Durham, Heath of Worcester, Repps of Norwich, Parfew of St. Asaph, Salcot of Sarum, Sampson of Coventry and Lichfield, Aldrich of Carlisle, Bush of Bristol, and Farrar of St. David’s. Cf. CARDWELL’s Two Litt. of Ed. VI.: Pref. xiii. were added. They were not admitted to the Council Chamber, as their numbers would have made them unwieldy as a working Committee, but a series of questions bearing upon the most crucial matters under dispute were submitted to them, and their replies were duly weighed, and doubtless had no little influence upon the deliberations. Among these, whose opinions were thus invited, were the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Sarum, representing directly the “Uses” of their Sees, while the Bishop of St. Asaph was appointed for the guardianship of the Bangor worship.
The first and most important change was in the language.
In the Preface to the First Prayer-book we read, The changes introduced Adoption of the English language. “The service in the Church of England (these many years) hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understood not; so that they have heard with 28their ears only: and their hearts, spirit, and mind have not been edified thereby.”
So long as Rome was the centre of European society, and Latin was generally spoken, there was no inconsistency in maintaining it as the vehicle of Western worship, but long after Rome had lost this pre-eminence, and her language had ceased to be intelligible to the common mind, “the once living outpourings of devotion” were suffered to continue only “fossilised into cold and lifeless forms.”
The arguments in defence of the continuance Roman arguments for a dead language. which the mediæval Church set up were very plausible. It was urged that “the majesty of religion would suffer and grow cheap if the most solemn and mysterious parts of the service should be understood by the audience;” or that there were obvious advantages for the protection of the Faith in embalming her Forms in a language which is beyond the reach of change; or once more, that it served as an abiding witness to the unity of the Church throughout Catholic Christendom, that every branch of it should offer up their prayers and praises in one and the same tongue.
These reasons were plausible enough, but the majority of the Revisionists saw that there were reasons for change which far outweighed them. The 29edification of the worshipper ought always to be amatter of primary importance. Not scriptural nor primitive.St. Paul45451 COR. xiv. 19. had clearly so regarded it, when he declared that he would “rather speak five words in the Church” in such a manner as to teach others, “than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” And the principle was upheld by the Primitive Church, which clothed its Liturgies in Greek, or Latin, or Syriac, or Coptic, according to the language of the people who used them. It wasenforced, moreover, by the sayings of the Fathers;4646Cf. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum, viii. 37. St. CHRYSOST. Hom. xxxv. in 1 Cor. xiv. and the Law, both civil and canonical, contained the plainest injunctions for its maintenance. The Code of Justinian4747Justinian’s law enforcing this was afterwards erased from the Latin versions, but it is acknowledged by Bellarmine.—Cf. JER. TAYLOR’S Dissuasive of Popery, Pt. I. e. i. provided “that all priests should celebrate the sacred oblation” in such a manner that “thereby the minds of the hearers might be raised up with greater devotion to set forth the praises of GOD, according to the Apostle’s teaching; ” and that this was interpreted as enjoining a language “understanded of the people” is shown by the attempts of those who violated the practice to erase the enactment from the Statute-book.30
Again the Canon Law4848Cf. JER. TAYLOR’S Dissuasive of Popery, Pt. I. c. i. by the authority of Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council, 1215 A.D., enforced “the celebration of Divine Service according to the diversity of ceremonies and languages.”
When then the Windsor Assembly were called upon to deal with this question, they knew that they should be fully supported if they abandoned the Latin tongue.
We stated before some of the causes which created a yearning on the part of the people for a more intelligent worship; and it was quite obvious that the use of the English Litany,49491544 A.D. put forth a row years before, and the reading of portions of the Communion office in their own language, had greatly intensified their desire, and the Revisionists felt that they could best satisfy the wants of the nation by giving then a complete English Prayer-book.
And while commending them for giving us a Service-book in our own language, we are constrained to go further, and express an additional obligation to them for having clothed it in English, the beauty of which has rarely been equalled, and never surpassed, even in the best age of literary excellence.5050Cf. Quarterly Review, No. 298, p. 416. To whatever part of it we turn, whether hymns, or 31prayers, or exhortations, the style is such that it cannot be improved. “The essential qualities of devotion and eloquence,” as Macaulay says,5151Hist. Of Engl. iii. 475. “conciseness, majestic simplicity, pathetic earnestness of supplication, sobered by a profound reverence, are common between the translations and the originals. But in the subordinate graces of diction the originals must be allowed to be far inferior to the translations. . . . The diction of our Book of Common Prayer has directly or indirectly contributed to form the diction of almost every great English writer, and has extorted the admiration of the most accomplished infidels, and of the most accomplished Nonconformists, of such men as David Hume and Robert Hall.”
As an illustration of this high praise, we have only to mention the very noblest of our Liturgical hymns, the Te Deum. In point of accuracy and exactness of rendering there
The opening line is an unfortunate rendering and quite unjustifiable. It should be “We praise Thee as God.” It is not at all improbable that this
hymn was, in its original form, such an one as Pliny says the Christians used in his time, “carmen dicentes secum invicem
Christo quasi Deo.”—Ep. ad Traj.
Eusebius also testifies to the custom of ascribing Divinity to Christ in hymns.—Eccl. Hist. v. 28, cf. also LIDDON’S Bamp. Lect. vii.
Other inaccurate renderings are “goodly fellowship,” for “praiseworthy number,” “noble army” for “white-robed,” (as in an old English version, “the white oost ;“)—“When Thou tookest upon Thee," etc., for “When with a view to de1iverance Thou tookest upon Thee humanity.”—”Make them to be numbered with thy saints in glory,” for, “to be rewarded with glory:”—“numerari” was probably substituted by a clerical error for “munerari,” and the “in” prefixed to “gloria” to complete the construction;—Possibly “Vouchsafe to keep us this day,” for “that day,” viz., the day of judgment, though isle is used mediæevally for hic;—and perhaps “never be confounded,” for “not to be confounded for ever,” so an old version, “Be I not schent for ever,” though here again “never” is so rendered in the Vulg.; cf. Ps. xv. (xiv.) 5; xxxi. (xxx.) 1.”
The rhythm is manifestly improved in verses 7, 8, 9. The original runs — Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus, Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus, Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus. is in parts no doubt something 32to be desired, but in rhythm, in vigour of arrangement, and in its solemn grandeur, it is incomparably superior to the original Latin.
And if we turn to the Collects, the same expression of unfeigned praise is equally due. Take one or two specimens—first, of a simple translation; and that we may not appear to be making a careful selection to support our opinion, we will quote the most familiar perhaps of all.
“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with Thy most gracious favour, and further us with Thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in Thee, we may glorify Thy holy Name: and finally, by Thy mercy obtain everlasting life,” etc.
Now this, as it happens, is one of the most 33beautiful of the ancient Latin, Collects:—Actiones nostras, quæsumus, Domine, et aspirando praeveni et adjuvando prosequere; ut cuncta nostra operatio et a te incipiat et per te coepta finiatur, per Jesum, etc.
But beautiful as it is, we are sure that no competent critic would venture to say that it has lost one particle of its peculiar grace by being clothed in an English dress.
Then take a sample of the original compositions. These were chiefly introduced to supersede the corrupt forms in use for the Festivals of Saints and Martyrs.5353All the Saints’ Days Collects were composed in 1549 A.D., except those for St. Bartholomew and the Conversion of St. Paul, which were only altered, and those for St. Andrew and St. Stephen, the former of which was written in 1552 A.D., the latter rewritten in 1661 AD. Again, avoiding selection, let us quote the Collect for All Saints’ Day, which is oftenest on our lips.
“O Almighty GOD, who hast knit together Thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Thy Son Christ our LORD: grant us grace so to follow Thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which Thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love Thee, through,” etc.34
But it is invidious to single out any special portion for commendation; “the whole book,” it has been well said, “is a very casket of treasures.”
The second alteration in order of utility was the increased value set upon the public reading of Holy Scripture. During mediæval times the consecutive reading of this had been greatly interrupted by “the planting in uncertain stories and legends with a multitude of Responds.”5454Cf. Preface concerning the Service of the Church. Responsories or responds were short verses from Scripture originally intended to give the key-note of what was being read. It was usual to Introduce them after every three or four verses. Those last came to be regarded of such consequence that they were made long and elaborate, while the passages from Scripture were proportionably curtailed: in short, the Lessons and the Responds exchanged places.
The result of this was that the primary conception of the latter, which was to be simply illustrative, was entirely obscured, and the Respond became an independent anthem, confusing instead of unfolding the meaning of what was read.
Furthermore, the Legendary stories and acts of the Saints, especially at their commemorations, which were exceedingly numerous, wore generally 35 chosen as the Lessons for the day in preference to the Life of our LORD, and the sayings of His immediate followers.
The merit of initiating a reform in this is claimed by a Cardinal of the Roman Church,5555 Cardinal Quignonez, a Spanish Bishop, revised the Breviary, and published it for the use of the clergy and monasteries, under the sanction of Clement VII. in 1536 A.D. The title of his edition was “Breviarium Romanæ Curiæ ex sacra et canonica Scriptura necnon sanctorum historiis summa vigilautia decerptis accurate digestum.” It was suppressed in 1576 A.D. who reinstated the Word of GOD in its rightful place, and showed how much store he set by the change, by inscribing on the title of his Revised Breviary the motto, “Search the Scriptures.”
This Breviary was put into, the hands of the Revisionists as likely to prove a valuable aid in their work, and there is every reason to believe that not only in this but upon other important points it carried considerable weight.
In largely expanding the passages of Scripture, and in drawing both from the Old and New Testaments, the Revisionists illustrated their determination to recover primitive usage wherever it seemed expedient. In the description of the early services found in the Apostolical Constitutions 5656Lib. ii. c. lvii. The date of their composition is uncertain: the first six books probably in the third century, the others a little later. it would seem that as many 36as four Lessons of considerable length were read, two from either Testament; and in the middle of the second century Justin Martyr 5757Apol. i. lxvii. Cf. St. CHRYSOST. Hom. xxiv. in Rom. “Tell me, what Prophet, what Apostle was read to us to-day?” It may be seen also from the Canons of the Councils of Ladicæa and Carthage that both the Old and New Testaments were read in Church. Cf. BINGHAM’S Antiq. xiv. iii. 2. says, “that the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits.” This latter, however, is only noted of Sunday. To adapt the principle to the week-days was a most judicious step, and finds ample justification in its propriety.
The third change was in the Calendar or Pie. The directions for the variable parts of the services in the old uses were complicated in the extreme. Perhaps the best idea of the minuteness of detail may be gathered from the fact that there is extant in the library of York Minster a volume, the entire contents of which are regulations of the Pie!58582 The origin of the term Pie is a vexed question. It has been derived from the initial letter of IRTAT, a tablet, and from pica, a magpie. The allusion in the latter is to the party-coloured letters in which the directions were written. Before the 15th century these regulations were called Ordinale.
Indeed so involved were the rules to be observed that the title by which the body of directions was designated has become a very symbol of perplexity and confusion. Nothing could have been happier
37than the language in which Cranmer expressed the feelings of the Revisionists on the subject. “The number,” he says, “and hardness of the rules called the Pie, and the manifold changings of the service, was the cause, that to turn the book only 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.”
All these difficulties were cleared away and a simp1e Calendar was substituted containing the order of Lessons, and preceded by a Table of Psalms, arranged for Matins and Evensong for a month.
A fourth change rendered necessary by the abolition of the Religious Houses was the union of the three Service-books, Breviary, Manual, and Missal, in one volume, and the curtailment of the number of separate services.
The Revisionists determined to recover, for the mass of the people, a participation in public worship, which they had well-nigh
lost through the establishment of the Monastic or Canonical “Hours.” The multiplication of services had led them to regard
worship as an impossibility for men engaged in the ordinary occupations of secular life; and instead of selecting opportunities
from the greater number, they came to look upon it as a luxury for the
38occupants of Religious houses, and left it almost entirely to them. Recognising the fact that these were properly the exceptions
only, and that what might have been appropriate enough for the few was ill-adapted to the majority, the Committee resolved
at once upon a reduction of the services. They went back to the early ages for guidance as to their number, but they must
have been perplexed by the evidence. Some writers5959
TERTULLIAN, 190 A.D., speaks of the third, sixth, and ninth hours as more solemn than the rest.—De Orat., c. 25.
St. JEROME mentions the same as the times when, according to Ecclesiastical tradition, the knees are to be bent to GOD.—Comm. In Dan., vi. 10.
The Apostolical Constitutions, on the other hand, testify to two services only. The Bishop is directed to exhort the people to attend Church constantly morning and evening every day, and the 63d Psalm is appointed for the former, the 141st for the latter.—Lib. ii. c. lix.
EPIPHANIUS also, in giving an account of the customs of the Church, mentions morning hymns and evening prayers as constantly used, but makes no allusion to any other.—Exposit. Fidei, n. 23 (t. I. p. 1106). spoke of three, others of two only. The Revisionists very wisely decided to adopt the latter, and thus restore the principle which had existed all through the history of the elder dispensation, and offer the voice of praise and thanksgiving like the Incense of the Altar and the daily Sacrifice in the morning and at even.
The Seven “Hours,” for all of which there were special offices in the Breviary, were condensed into 39Matins and Evensong—the ancient Nocturns, Lauds and Prime becoming amalgamated in the former, Vespers and Compline in the latter. The remaining three, Tierce, Sext, and None, or the Lesser Hours, were set aside altogether, because they had long fallen into disuse except in the monasteries; and as these were now dissolved, it would have served no purpose to have retained what specially belonged to them. To suit the fresh adaptation, the Psalms, which had hitherto been divided into seven portions6060The bulk of the Psalms were sung at Matins and Vespers, twelve at the former, five at the latter. The greater part of the 119th was divided between the Lesser Hours. The remainder were distributed between Lauds, Prime, and Compline. for a weekly course, were so arranged as to be read through once in a month.
Now it is worth while observing how, in carrying out this consolidation of services, they carefully adhered to the ancient lines, and preserved in all their integrity the distinctive features of public worship.
The ideal Form of service has three component parts, though by no means in equal proportions. These are praise, instruction, and prayer. The primary conception gave by far the highest place to the first of these; indeed the other two are entirely subordinate.
There is a beautiful legend told of St. Theresa which illustrates this view in a very striking manner. As she lay asleep, the vision of a strange and awful 40woman passed before her.The primary object of worship. In one hand she carried a pitcher of water, in the other a pan of flaming fire. And when the Saint asked in fear and trembling whither she was going with her mysterious burden, she replied, “I go to burn up heaven and to quench hell, that henceforth men may learn to worship GOD, not for any hope of future reward in the one, nor for fear of threatened torment in the other, but for what He is—for Himself alone.”
Praise, then, the ascription of honour to GOD, simply and solely because it is due unto His Name, is the dominant element of public worship, and that which blends our offering with the songs of angelic hosts.
But subordinate to this there have always 6161In the passage of the Apotol. Constit. above cited, it is stated that the prophets and the account of the Resurrection were read, and prayers offered up afterwards.—Lib. ii. c. lix. been other considerations present to the mind of the worshipper, and in a confessedly imperfect state it could hardly have been otherwise. Meditation upon GOD’S Word, and the record of His works in Creation and Providence, exalts our conception of His greatness, and creates a desire to know more of His Will; and thus the consciousness of our own weakness is borne in upon us, and we pray to the Author of all power and might to help our infirmities and supply our needs.41
Thus it is that psalms or hymns, lections, prayers or intercessions, have been linked together by a threefold cord in common worship.
From a comparison of the following Tables it will be seen at a glance that the first Revised Service-book preserved the characteristic features of the ancient offices, and while the sequence of each part was generally retained, due prominence, as of old, was given to the element of praise.6262This was more largely provided for in the First Prayer-book than in any of the subsequent Revisions. In each and all of these the element of prayer has encroached upon that of praise. The Revisionists seem to have had the triple division in their mind when they placed in the forefront of their service the LORD’S Prayer and the “Venite.” Both alike strike the key-note of all that is to follow. The first three clauses of the Paternoster 6363Cf. FREEMAN’S Principles of Divine Service, vol. i. c. iv. s. 3. correspond to the Psalms and Songs of praise; the petition “Give us this day our daily bread” has a special application to the reception of knowledge through the reading of Scripture; and the rest represent all prayer and intercession. So with the “Venite.” 6464The great antiquity of the use of this Invitation, dating certainly to the third century, as we know on the, authority of St. Athanasius, as well as its peculiar propriety, are sufficient reasons for not omitting it in the Shortened Form of Service sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act. It is true that discretion is given to the Minister to add, in its proper place, any canticle he may think fit, but in our judgment the “Venite” should have found a place in the necessary portion of the Service. No 42fitter prelude to worship could be found, since it embraced a triple call, in verses 1-5, to sing GOD’S praises; in 6 and 7, to fall down before Him in adoration and prayer; in 8-11, to hear His Word.
|CANONICAL HOURS IN THE SARUM BREVIARY.||FIRST PRAYER-BOOK
OF EDWARD VI.
|In the Name . . .||In the Name . . .|
|Our Father . . .||Our Father . . .||Our Father . . .|
|Ave Maria . . .|
|O LORD, open . . .||O LORD, open . . .|
|O GOD, make speed . . .||O GOD, make . . .||O GOD, make . . .||O GOD, make . . .|
|Glory be the the Father . . .||Glory be, etc. . . .||Glory be, etc. . . .||Glory be, etc. . . .|
|Alleluia||Alleluia||Alleluia||Praise ye the LORD.|
|Invita tory.||Hymn.||Alleluia (from Easter to Trinity).|
|12 Psalms and Antiphons.||5 Psalms and Antiphons.||3 Psalms and Antiphons.||Venite.|
|18 Psalms (Sundays).||9 Psalms (Sundays).||Psalms in order, with Doxology.|
|Benedictions.||Jubilate (Sundays).||Athanasian Creed.||1st Lesson, O. T.|
|Lections with Responds.||Canticle form the O.T.||Te Deum or (in Lent ) Benedicite.|
|Te Deum (Sundays).||Benedicite (Sund.).||2d Lesson, N. T.|
|Hymn.||Lesser Litany.||Lesser Litany.|
|Benedictus.||Our Father . . .||Our Father.|
|Collect for the Day.||Confession.||Collect for the Day.|
|Absolution.||” for Peace.|
|” for Peace.||Collect for Grace.||” for Grace.|
|CANONICAL HOURS IN THE SARUM BREVIARY.||FIRST PRAYER-BOOK OF
|In the Name . . .||In the Name . . .|
|Our Father . . .||Our Father . . .||Our Father . . .|
|Ave Maria||Ave Maria|
|O GOD, make . . .||O GOD, make . . .||O GOD, make . . .|
|Glory be . . .||Glory be . . .||Glory be . . .|
|Alluelia.||Alluelia.||Praise ye the Lord.|
|5 Psalms Capitulum.||4 Psalms.||Alleluia.|
|Hymn.||Hymn.||1st Lesson, O. T.|
|Collect for the Day.||Our Father . . .||Nunc Dimittis.|
|Memoria of the B. V.||Creed.||Collect for the Day|
|Confession.||” for Peace.|
|Absolution.||” for Aid.|
|Collect for Peace.|
One element alone of importance is wanting in the Revised Order, viz., Confession and Absolution. It is probable that they were omitted as being of late introduction into public services. There is doubt some testimony to the former in St. Basil,6565Ad Cleric. Neocœsarienses, ep. 207. who narrates how the congregation immediately on entering the house of prayer “confess to GOD,” but the Council of Laodicea points to this confession as 44being made in silence. And in the Western Church there is an entire absence of allusion to the custom for many centuries. It finds no place in the “Benedictine Rule.”6666Its first mention is said to be in the Gemma Animœ, written In the eleventh century. And what applies to Confession is of course equally applicable to Absolution. They stand or fall together. We shall see hereafter under what circumstances the judgment of Cranmer’s Committee was revised.
These were the changes upon which the Revisionists laid most stress, as we may gather from the Preface with which they introduced their reformed Service-book. In our present Prayer-book it is placed second, following that which was prefixed at the final revision.
Many observances and ceremonies which they retained, wisely or unwisely, will be brought under our notice in future lectures.The general principles which guided the Revisionists.It may, however, be well at this stage to state their own account of the principle which guided them in their decisions: such ceremonies as were visibly superstitious and tended to darken the Gospel and prove cumbersome to religion they rejected,6767Cf. DODD’S Church History, quoted in COLLIER, v. 299, n. while those were retained which guarded the worship of God from nakedness and contempt. But while we pass these by we feel 45that no review of a Prayer-book could be regarded as satisfactory, which failed to notice the relationship which it bore to the much disputed doctrines of the sacrificial aspect of, and the nature of the Presence of Christ in, the Holy Eucharist.
Now it is quite obvious that the Revisionists provided more largely for the actual participation of the laity, and gave fuller recognition to the Communion aspect of the celebration, which had been obscured in mediæva1 times especially by the frequency of solitary masses in which the priest alone communicated. Their jealour preservation of ancient features. But while doing this they were extremely careful to avoid bringing the sacrificial view into discredit: in proof of which I would appeal to the general adoption of the term “altar,” and to the great prominence assigned to the Prayer of Oblation, in which it was said that “we do celebrate and make before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make.” But they were determined at the same time to re-establish completely the principle of general communion, by the long obscuration of which the ordinance had been deprived of so much of its power and efficacy.
Then, touching the doctrine of the Real Presence, 46there can be no doubt that the Revisionists retained “the ancient belief from which no Apostolic branch of the Church had ever swerved,” viz., that the conscerated elements were in some way the Body and Blood of Christ.6868Cf. FREEMAN’S Principles, Introd. pt. II., sect. xi. MASSINGBERD’S Eng. Ref., pp. 400-2.
The words of administration used by them in either kind were the first part only of the formulas now in use, “The Body of our LORD, Jesus Christ. which was given for thee,”—and the “Blood of our LORD Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life,” and they necessitate this view. It is strengthened moreover by the manifested anxiety of the ultra-Protestant divines to get rid of them, which clearly indicates how they were interpreted.
But while they “affirmed in unequivocal language, and as the basis of all Eucharistic truth, what the consecrated elements were,” with a wisdom which cannot be over-estimated, they made no show even of explaining the manner of Christ’s Presence, but left it, as it ever should be left, a mystery impenetrable to finite intelligence.
The character of the work effected by the first revision of the Old Service-books has not unfrequently 47been misrepresented. There is an idea too widely prevalent, that a complete revolution in Church-worship was carried out at this time, whereas nothing could have been further from the thoughts and intentions of those who undertook the revision, as any one may see who will investigate the principles by which, as we have desired to show, they were really actuated. Their aim was restoration, and in the process of attaining to it, they exercised the most careful discrimination between the old and the new, and, while cutting away without hesitation the later overgrowths, preserved with scrupulous care the ancient landmarks. And the impartial critic will not hesitate to acknowledge that the conservative and reverent spirit which animated them is abundantly evidenced in the result of their efforts.
But we pass on to the close. The arduous labours of the Committee came to an end, and the report of their deliberations was drawn up and laid upon the table to be attested by the sign-manual of the individual members: and it is not a little remarkable that notwithstanding their diversity of opinions, and the warm discussions which many of the questions had provoked, the result which they had attained was held to be so satisfactory, that there 48was but one dissentient: Day of Chichester alone6969Skip and Thirlby signed the Book, but protested against the Act of Uniformity.—SOAMES, p. 401. protesting that his conscience compelled him to withhold his assent to the document.
The next stop, of course, was to give it legal force.
Convocation met in November, but though we have no records of what actually took place, we have the authority of the King for stating that it was agreed to by “the whole clergy . . . of this our realm in their synods and provincial convocations.”7070The Acts of Convocation are lost, having perished in the Great Fire in 1666 AD., but the King states in answer to the Devonshire petition that the book was sanctioned by Convocation. The letter is preserved in Bonner’s Register. Cf. LATHBURY’S Hist. of Convoc., p. 138, n.; and HARDWICK’S Ref, p. 213, ii. Then after being presented to the Crown if was laid before the nobility and commons assembled in parliament, and on January 15, 1549 A.D., an Act of Uniformity was passed enjoining the use of the Revised Prayer-book after Whitsuntide, in every parish of the King’s dominions “throughout England, Wales, Calais, and the marches of the same.”7171It was allowed by the Act to use the Book, if it could be procured, as soon as Easter. It was used in divers London churches on Easter-day, which fell on the 21st of April, and most probably also in some of the Provinces; for, as the rising of the Devonshire rebels took place on the 10th of June, and Whitsunday was on the 9th, the Service must have become known before this Festival. Cf. LATHBURY, ibid. The postponement 49of the operation of the Act appears to have heen unnecessarily long, but this particular time was selected by the Revisers for the purpose of specially dedicating their work to GOD on the Feast of the Holy Ghost, by Whose controlling influence they believed their counsels to have been guided throughout, and brought to a successful issue at last.7272Cf. The Act of Uniformity.
And now that all the legal formalities had been gone through, let us see how the Book was received.
Some of the London Churches set the example of compliance with the law, and superseded the old. Service-books even before the term of respite had expired.7373“After Easter beganne the service in English in divers churches, and at Whitsuntide at Pauls by the commandement of the dean.”—by it, followed by others, as soon as books could be provided.”—HEYLIN’S Eccles. Rest., 74, quoted by LATHBUBY, 139, n.
Throughout the country, not a few of the clergy, who were averse to any alteration, accepted it because the changes were less violent than they had been led to anticipate; many of the laity also welcomed it gladly, not so much for any modification in doctrine, as from the fact that being written in English, it made their worship more interesting, and converted what in too many cases had been merely a dumb show into a living intelligent transaction. 50But there were many exceptions. Some of the priests expressed an obstinate determination to resist the operation of the Act, and were contented to suffer for conscience sake. Others openly conformed to the obligation, but secretly continued to celebrate as of old, and, as this created considerable trouble and confusion, the Lords of the Council took violent measures to remedy the evil. This, however, was trifling, compared to other difficulties which arose among the laity, and plunged certain disaffected parts of the country into the miseries of civil war.
In these counties the proclamation of the Act was followed by insurrection. The first outbreak was in Devonshire and Cornwall. In the latter of these, one thing, which had especially recommended the Revised Book elsewhere, had little if any force at all. The change from Latin to English was no gain to the Cornishmen, to whom one was as unintelligible as the other.
The primary cause of the rebellion is to be found not in any spontaneous outburst of religious feeling, or general aversion to the Reformed service on the part of the people themselves, but to the fanaticism of a few individuals who urged them on.
Body,7474SOAMES’S Reformation, ill. 440. one of the Royal Commissioners appointed 51to destroy idolatrous shrines, was stabbed to the heart by a misguided priest, who, to justify murder, called upon the people to imitate his zeal, and save their Churches from desecration. Other priests went about the country preaching what the Mahometans call “a Jehad,” and invested the movement with all the character of a religious war; and when open hostilities broke out, they carried the Host on to the field of battle.
A secondary cause was an infatuated conviction that in some way the Revisionists were associated with the abolition of the Common Lands. Many of the nobility to whom Abbey estates had been granted attempted to turn them to the best account, and made no scruple of enclosing commons, without any respect to the rights of the poor to pasturage.
At Sampford Courtenay in Devonshire, the priest incharge professed his intention of acceding to the change of Liturgy on the appointed day, but had secretly instigated the people to stop him by force, and claim the Latin Mass. From this village the flames of discontent spread 7575The rebellion began on Whitsun Monday, June 10th. rapidly, and within a few weeks no less than ten thousand men, mostly mechanics and deluded peasants, took the field in 52defence of the old Forms. They marched to Exeter, and from the outskirts of the city sent their demands into the King’s camp, couched in insolent language, insisting on the restitution of their Service-books, a recognition of Transubstantiation, and, strangely enough, the re-enactment of the Bloody Statute of the Six Articles. The Exonians determined on resistance, and the straits to which they were subjected, through a prolonged siege, have rarely been equalled in the annals of history. We may form some conception of the miseries they endured, when we read that one of the citizens proclaimed in the market-place, that sooner than surrender he would fight with one arm and feed upon the other! At last, when the Royal troops were sufficiently strong to advance against the rebels (and it was not till three merchant princes had come forward to reinforce the leader with large supplies of money, and a regiment of Italian archers7676Commanded by Baptista Spinola. They joined Lord Russell’s forces and aided very materially in compelling the enemy to raise the siege. The city was relieved on the 6th of August.—Cf. HEYLIN’S Ed. VI. p. l59. FROUNE’S Hist. of. Eng. iv. 410, sm. ed. had been enlisted in the service), their fate was sealed. They suffered three successive defeats, and the rebellion was crushed.
The revenge was severe. Arundel, Winslade, 53Berry, and Coffin, the ringleaders, were publicly executed at Tyburn: a multitude of others were unceremoniously hanged, among them the Mayor of Bodmin, and a number of priests; and in Exeter, Welsh, the Vicar of St. Thomas’, was suspended from his own Church tower, where he hung in chains till “his Popish apparel” rotted away, and the carrion crows picked his bones.
That was the most serious of the Rebellions.
We notice more briefly the rising in Norfolk, June 20, at Attleborough, for this, at least at the outset, was less than the other a protest against the Prayer-book. At first the enclosure of the commons was their cry of complaint, but as their numbers swelled new grievances were sought for, and we hear them expressing themselves in such terms as these: “The miseries of this world might be borne; but when the loss of our souls is the question, the ruin from that quarter must be prevented at the utmost hazard . . . the holy ceremonies of antiquity are abolished, and a new face and form of religion forced upon us.”
Again the Royal troops were unequal to the task of restoring order. Kett,7777Robert Kett, who had been a tanner, was possessed of considerable landed property at Wymondham, and, desiring to add to it, enclosed some of the public commons. His fences wore demolished by a number of insurgents, whom he was induced to join. the rebel chief, established 54a mock court under the “Oak of Reformation,”7878This was on Moushold-hill overlooking the city of Norwich. and spread terror through the surrounding country. And here occurred an incident which nearly cost the great Reformer of Queen Elizabeth’s reign his life. Parker, in despair at the failure of the sword, resolved to try the effect of peaceable measures. He made his way into the rebel camp, and, from a branch of the famous oak, endeavoured to recall the people to counsels of moderation. But they were in no mood to listen, and were about to tear him to pieces for his advice, when the Chaplain of the Rebel Forces, realising the imminence of the peril, called upon the people suddenly to sing the “Te Deum,” and in the excitement and enthusiasm which it kindled the future Primate made good his escape.7979Cf. HOOK’S Life of Parker, 99.
At length, vigorous measures were taken by the government, and the mutiny was quelled.8080The Royal troops were commanded by the Marquess of Northampton, who failed, and was superseded by the Earl of Warwick, who fought a bloody battle at Dussingdale, defeating the rebels and leaving 2000 of them dead on the field,—Aug. 27. Kett, on Norwich Castle, his brother on the steeple of Wymondham Church, and nine other rebels on as many branches of the “consecrated Oak,” paid the penalty of their crime.55
And with their deaths resistance to the Reformed Liturgy ceased; and it was introduced throughout the length and breadth of the land to the increased edification of the people and the greater glory of Almighty GOD.
|« Prev||Chapter I: The Anglican Reform||Next »|
►Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version