Skip to main content

Full text of "Wycliffe : an historical study"

See other formats 


preeenteo  to 

Zbe  Xibrarp 

of  tbc 

THnlvcr$tt\>  of  Toronto 


v%y 


y 


M  ■ 


Wycliffe 


An  Historical  Study 


by  the 

Rev.  Dyson  Hague,  M.A. 


Rector  Memorial  Church,  London,  Ont.,  and  (Hon.)  Canon  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  London,  Ont. 
Examing  Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Huron,  and  Lecturer  in  Liturgies,  Wycliffe  College.Toronto. 


|*1l  $1 


3  I-  i  -a-  H 


The  Church  Record  S.  S.  Publications,  Confederation  Life  Building 
TORONTO 


A  CAREER  like  Wycliffe's  should  never  be  forgotten  by 
men  who  speak  the  English  tongue,  and  love  the 
thing  called  British  liberty.  He  was  such  a  splendid 
Englishman,  such  a  splendid  scholar,  and,  above  all, 
such  a  splendid  Christian.  It  does  one  good  in  these  modern 
days  to  freshen  up  one's  knowledge  of  the  man  and  his  work. 
Though  dead  and  gone  over  500  years,  one  cannot  read  of  his 
day  and  doings  without  getting  a  clearer  vision  of  the  needs  and 
questions  of  this  twentieth  century,  and  the  present-day  prob- 
lems of  the  Church.  Like  the  wave  pulses  that  go  on  and  on  and 
on,  the  influences  of  his  epoch-making  life  are  still  spreading  with 
most  persistent  force.    John  Wycliffe  being  dead,  yet  speaketh. 

I  have  endeavored  to  verify  with  the  utmost  care  every 
quotation,  reference,  and  historic  fact. 

My  chief  authorities  have  been :  Green's  History  of  the  English 
People;  Fisher,  D'Aubigne\  Blunt,  Beckett,  Geikie,  Massingberd, 
on  the  Reformation;  Wylie's  History  of  Protestantism;  the  well- 
known  works  on  Wycliffe,  such  as  The  Religious  Tract  Society's, 
Burrows,  Varley,  Pennington,  Poole,  S.  G.  Green,  Le  Bas,  Sergeant, 
Carrick;  and,  above  all,  the  great  works  of  the  German  writers, 
Professor  Lechler,  of  the  University  of  Leipsic,  and  Professor 
Loserth,  of  the  University  of  Czernowitz.  For  the  quotations 
and  references  I  have  also  used  the  writings  of  Wycliffe  by  the 
Religious  Tract  Society,  the  English  works  of  Wycliffe,  by  F.  D. 
Matthew,  and,  above  all,  the  invaluable  editions  of  his  Latin 
works  by  the  Wyclif  Society,  especially  the  de  Eucharistia,  de 
Ecclesia,  de  Veritate  Sacrae  Scripturae,  and  the  Opus  Evan- 
gelicum. 

D.  H. 


John  Wycliffe. 


John  Wycliffe  was  a  Yorkshireman.  He  be- 
longed to  a  family  which  had  been  lords  of  the 
manor  from  the  days  of  the  Coriquest.  He  was 
born  probably  about  1320,  or  perhaps  1324.  It  is  im- 
possible to  fix  the  date  with  exactitude.  He  died 
on   the   last  day  of  the  last  week   of   1384. 

If  not  the  greatest  man  of  his  age,  John  Wycliffe 
was  the  greatest  Englishman.  He  was  its  fore- 
most scholar.  He  became  its  most  influential  teacher. 
He  was  the  most  outspoken  nationalist  of  his  day. 
He  was,  as  Lechler,  the  German  biographer,  puts  it 
in  a  word,  the  centre  of  the  whole  pre-reformation 
history.  In  insight,  vivid  ;  in  living,  holy  ;  in  preach- 
ing, fervent ;  in  organization  and  labors,  unwearying  ; 
he  came  to  be,  to  slightly  alter  Lowell's  words  : 

"The  kindly,  earnest,  brave,  foreseeing  man, 
Sagacious,  patient, 
New  birth  of  our  new  soul,  the  first  great  Englishman." 

The  life  and  work  of  John  Wycliffe  may  be 
regarded  as  a  proof  of  the  providential  disposals  of 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  He  seems  to  have 
been  purposely  raised  up  to  do  a  work  that  only 
could  have  been  performed  in  the  age  in  which  he 
lived  by  a  man  of  his  varied  attainments  and 
official  character. 

The  Age  in  which   Wycliffe  lived. 

The  age  in  which  Wycliffe  lived  was  one  of 
the  epoch-marking    eras   of  England's   history ;  the 


4  Wycliffe. 

fourteenth  century.  It  was  the  golden  age  of 
reform  before  the  Reformation.  It  was  the  age  of 
Edward  III.,  the  royal  upholder  of  England's  national 
rights.  It  was  the  birth  age  of  England's  national 
consciousness.  It  was  the  age  of  the  emergence 
of  that  little  island  kingdom  upon  the  sphere  of 
history  as  the  realm  of  a  strong  and  liberty- 
loving  people.  The  distant  island  kingdom  of  the 
northern  seas  had  long  ceased  to  be  the  haunt  of 
warring  and  barbarian  tribes.  For  England  then  was 
becoming  a  nation,  and  its  name,  even  then,  was 
identified  with  the  ideas  of  valor,  of  independence, 
of  justice,  and  of  law.  The  masterful  blood  of 
the  Norman  had  mingled  with  that  of  the  stal- 
wart and  patriotic  Saxon,  and  the  blend  had  pro- 
duced the  Englishman,  the  English  language,  the 
English  constitution,  and  the  English  nation. 

The  restless  Dane,  the  hardy  Celt,  the  sturdy  Saxon, 

The  Norman,  dauntless,  dominant, 

These  are  the  bloods  that  intermingling  form 

The  modern  Briton ; 

These  are  the  strands  that  interwoven  blend 

To  make  the  race  that  conquering  rules, 

And  finding  takes,  and  taking  holds, 

For  liberty,  and  law,  and  righteousness,  and  God. 

It  was  during  the  fourteenth  century  that 
these  elements  of  national  greatness,  which  have 
since  lifted  England  to  the  highest  rank,  came  into 
operation.  It  was  during  the  fourteenth  century 
that  the  inflated  increase  of  the  Papal  pride 
synchronized      with     the      emerging      dignity      of 


Wycliffe.  5 

English  nationalism.  It  was  during  the  fourteenth 
century  that  the  English  language  emerged  from 
the  chaos  of  centuries,  and  became  fixed  as 
the  language  of  the  nation.  In  1356  Sir  John 
Mandeville  wrote  the  first  book  ever  produced  in 
English,  and  in  1362  English  became  the  authorized 
language  of  the  law  courts. 

In  1327,  when  Wycliffe  was  a  mere  child  at  hi& 
mother's  side,  Edward  III.  ascended  the  throne  of 
England.  The  imperial  and  independent  character- 
istics of  William  the  Norman,  of  Stephen  Langton, 
and  of  Robert  Grosseteste,  blended  in  his  royal 
character.  He  was  a  typical  Englishman.  Edward 
III.  believed  in  English  supremacy,  and  had  an 
Englishman's  impatience  of  foreign  interference. 
He  had  a  constitutional  contempt  for  foreigners. 
Thus  it  was,  that  at  a  time  when  England's  realm  and 
England's  church  were  simply  overrun  with  foreign- 
ers ;  when  Italians  and  Frenchmen  were  sent  by 
Papal  authority  to  occupy  the  most  valuable 
positions  in  England ;  when  the  nobles  were  weary- 
ing of  clerical  misrule,  and  the  rulers  and  lawgivers 
were  awakening  to  the  intolerableness  of  Rome's 
demands ;  it  was  at  this  time  that  God  raised  up 
John  Wycliffe  and  brought  into  the  political  and 
ecclesiastical  arena  of  the  great  fourteenth  century 
an  English  Churchman  who  was  not  only  the 
outstanding  Englishman  of  the  century,  but  was 
destined  to  be  the  first,  if  not  the  greatest,  of  the 
reformers  the  world  has  known. 


A 


6  Wycliffe. 

The  Distinctive   Work  of  Wycliffe. 

The  distinctive  peculiarity  of  the  work  of 
Wycliffe  was  neither  its  national  devotedness  nor 
its  antipapal  zeal.  It  was  neither  the  vigor  of  his 
exposure  of  abuses  nor  the  amazing  valor  of  his 
defiance  of  the  popes.  It  was  something  different 
from  this.  It  was  something  deeper  and  more  real. 
It  was,  rather,  the  fact  that  he  was  the  first  great 
Catholic  Churchmen  to  discern  the  falsity  of  Rome's 
doctrinal  position,  and  to  boldly  announce  and 
rehabilitate  the  truth  as  the  truth  is  in  the  Bible  and 
the  teaching  of  Christ. 

Others,  doubtless,  had  seen  and  known  these 
things.  To  the  Cathari  and  the  Waldenses,  to 
Claude  of  Turin,  and  Peter  Waldo,  it  was  given  to 
understand  through  the  Scriptures  not  only  the 
glory  of  the  Gospel,  but  the  corruptions  and  apostasy 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  of  Wycliffe  it  may  be 
distingui  shingly  asserted,  that  he  was  the  first  really 
great  and  enlightened  advocate  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  first  great  practical  exposer 
of  the  falsity  of  the  keystone  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  Church.  Others  had  done,  and  were  doing, 
the  political  part  of  Protestant  reform.  Grosseteste 
had  done  it.  Edward  III.  had  done  it.  Parliament 
had  done  it,  and  would  do  it  again.  But  the  work 
of  John  Wycliffe  was  higher  and  deeper.  Wycliffe's 
work  was  the  complement  of  this.  It  was  the  indis- 
pensable other  half,  without  which  all  the  mere 
anti-papal  legislation  and  anti-vice  preaching  in  the 


Wycliffe.  7 

world  would  never  have  freed  the  Church  from 
Popery.  It  was  the  shaking  not  merely  of  Papal 
pretensions,  but  of  Papal  falsities.  It  was  the 
impeachment  not  merely  of  vices,  but  of  errors.  It 
was  the  propagation  not  merely  of  negative  protests, 
but  of  evangelical  principles. 

One  of  the  commonest  fallacies  of  history  is  the 
fallacy  of  speaking  of  Wycliffe's  reformatory  work 
as  if  it  were  a  mere  reform  of  morals  in  the  Church, 
and  a  mere  correction  of  national  abuses. 

This  is  a  great  mistake. 

It  is  the  mistake  that  makes  men  completely  mis- 
apprehend the  English  Reformation.  The  English 
Reformation  was  not  merely  a  reform  in  the  Church. 
It  was  a  doctrinal  reform  of  the  Church.  This  was  in 
essence  also  the  work  of  Wycliffe  two  centuries  or  so 
before.  While  its  negative  aspect  dealt  largely  with 
the  exposure  of  Papal  abuses  and  clerical  vices,  it  de- 
rived its  chief  strength  from  its  positive  features  ;  the 
exposure  of  doctrinal  errors  widely  received  as 
Scriptural  truths,  of  Papal  falsities  long  believed  as 
Catholic  verities,  and  the  dauntless  declaration  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  Other  men 
had  whispered ;  he  cried  aloud.  Others  had  spoken 
in  the  secrecy  of  closets ;  he  proclaimed  on  the 
housetops.  Others  had  denounced  the  vices  of  popes; 
he  denounced  the  very  foundation  principles  of  the 
Papal  Church  system.  It  is  this  that  constituted 
Wycliffe  not  merely  the  morning  star,  but  the  rising 
sun,  of   the   Reformation. 


S  Wycliffe. 

The  reforming  zeal  of  John  Wycliffe  may  be 
traced  to  two  great  fountainheads.  It  was  from 
these  that  the  final  movement  of  the  reformation 
of  the  Church  of  England  sprang  a  century  and 
a  half  or  two  centuries  later.  Those  two  great  foun- 
tainheads were  personal  conversion  and  Scriptural 
enlightenment.  It  was  his  knowledge  of  a  personal 
Saviour  in  the  newness  of  life  that  was  the  secret 
of  Wycliffe's  greatness.  He  loved  Christ.  He  knew 
whom  he  had  believed.  He  spake  that  which  he 
knew.  Therefore,  also,  he  loved  the  Word  of  God. 
That  path  of  life  which  he  had  found  therein  he 
determined  all  his  life  long  to  make  known  to 
others. 

The  reformation  of  England's  Church  owes  its 
foundation  and  inception  to  the  Scriptural  illumina- 
tion of  men  taught  and  led  by  the  Spirit.  The 
nation  was  weary  of  the  yoke  of  Rome.  The  people 
were  disgusted  with  the  lives  of  the  clerics,  and 
the  degradation  of  religion.  It  was,  of  course, 
a  great  matter  to  rid  the  Church  of  the  Papal 
exactor.  It  was  a  great  matter  to  rid  the 
Church  of  immoralities  and  abuses.  But  any 
nationalist,  a  man  of  the  world  like  Simon  de 
Montfort,  or  an  Englishman  of  pride  like  John  of 
Gaunt,  could  move  measures  against  Papal  interfer- 
ence. Any  man  of  earnest  life  could  declaim  against 
the  vices  of  the  day  in  convent,  court,  and  cloister. 
But  the  greatest  evil,  the  root  evil,  was  the  yoke  of 
Romish  bondage ;  the  bondage  of  unscriptural  eccle- 


Wycliffe.  9 

siasticism,  and  of  idolatrous  superstition.  He  alone 
could  see  this  and  remove  this  who  had  been  himself 
enlightened  through  the  understanding  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

It  is  in  this,  therefore,  that  the  hand  of  God  is  so 
evident.  Not  merely  in  the  raising  up  of  a  man 
of  such  splendid  patriotism  and  colossal  mental 
power,  but  in  the  selection  of  a  man  who,  by  the 
devoutness  of  his  Christian  life,  the  strength  of  his 
will,  and  the  depth  of  his  convictions,  would  stand 
forth  before  the  world  as  the  Apostle  of  truth  and 
the  Apollyon  of  falsehood ;  one  like  the  Seraph 
Abdiel : 

"Faithful  found, 

Among  the  faithless,  faithful  only  he  ; 
Among  innumerable  false,  unmoved, 
Unshaken,  unseduced,  unterrified, 
His  loyalty  he  kept,  his  love,  his  zeal  ; 
Nor  numbers,  nor  example,  with  him  wrought, 
To  swerve  from  truth,  or  change  his  constant  mind, 
Though  single." 

The  reforming  work  of  Wycliffe  in  the  four- 
teenth century  was  characterized  very  largely,  also, 
by  the  same  features  as  the  reformation  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  not 
only  sprang,  as  that  did,  from  the  personal  enlighten- 
ment of  the  leader  of  leaders ;  it  had  three  distinct 
parts  or   movements. 

The   first  stage   was  the   political. 

The   second   stage   was   the   ethical. 

The   third   stage   was   the   doctrinal. 


10  Wycliffe. 

First  of  all  there  came  the  political  or  antipapal 
stage,  during  which  the  national  Church  spirit 
aroused  him  in  defiance  of  the  pretensions  and 
claims  of  the  Pope.  Then  there  followed  the  moral 
or  anti-vice  stage,  when  the  infamous  lives  of  monks 
and  friars  and  ecclesiastics  generally  were  arraigned 
for  popular  indignation.  Last  of  all  came  the 
doctrinal  or  anti-error  stage,  when  the  cardinal 
doctrines  of  Popery,  or  the  Roman  system,  were 
attacked,  and  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ  were  expounded.  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear, 
then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear,  as  the  Master  said.  Or 
in  other  words  :  first  of  all  there  was  the  removal 
of  external  obstructions  ;  then  the  rectification  of 
internal  conditions ;  and  then  the  rehabilitation  of 
foundation  principles. 

Wycliffe  as  a  National  Champion. 

It  was  in  the  character  of  a  national  champion, 
the  champion  of  the  rights  of  the  Sovereign  and  of 
the  people  of  England,  that  Wycliffe  started  his  public 
career,  treading  in  the  steps  of  Langton,  Grosseteste, 
and  Richard  Fitzralph  or  Radulphus,  the  brave  Arch- 
bishop  of   Armagh. 

Born,  as  it  has  been  conjectured,  about  1320  or 
1324,  and  educated  at  Oxford,  a  doctor  of  divinity,  a 
master  of  logic  and  philosophy,  Wycliffe  was  about 
forty  when  he  stepped  into  the  arena  as  a  nationalist. 
The  air  was  full  of  the  strife  of  tongues,  and  all 
England    was   aflame  at  the  time  on  account  of  the 


Wycliffe.  11 

insolence  of  Pope  Urban  V.,  who  had  demanded, 
for  the  first  time  for  33  years,  the  arrears  of  the 
annual  rental  which  used  to  be  paid  to  the  Pope  as 
a  sign  of  the  vassalage  of  the  realm. 

It  was  a  bad  time  for  a  Pope  to  make 
any  demands  on  England  for  tribute  money 
to  Rome.  The  first  Statute  of  Provisors,  which 
was  the  first  great  parliamentary  attempt  to  limit 
the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  and  cut  away 
the  very  root  of  the  Papal  power  in  England  by 
taking  the  appointments  to  all  Church  benefices  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  Pope,  had  been  passed  in  1351. 
The  Statute  of  Praemunire,  which  abolished  the 
Court  at  Rome  as  the  final  court  of  appeal  for 
Englishmen,  had  been  passed  in  1353.  Thirty-three 
years  had  gone  by  without  a  mention  of  any  Roman 
tribute,  and  England  was  in  a  very  different  state 
from  what  it  was  in  1213,  and  Edward  III.  was  a 
very  different  man  from  King  John.  Besides  that, 
what  had  touched  England  to  the  quick  was  the  exas- 
perating fact  that  the  money  demanded  by  the  Pope 
had  been  handed  over  to  the  French  to  help  them  fight 
against  England,  and  England  had  twice  thrashed  the 
French,  and  thrashed  them  badly,  at  Crecy  in  1346,  and 
Poitiers  in  1356.  However.  In  1366,  Pope  Urban  V. 
thought  it  was  about  time  to  collect  the  neglected 
tribute,  and  summoning  Edward  III.  to  recognize  him 
as  legitimate  sovereign  of  England,  demanded  the 
payment  of  all  the  arrearages,  this  annual  sum  of 
twelve  thousand  pounds,  as  England's  grateful  tribute 


12  Wycliffe. 

for  the  privilege  of  having  such  a  spiritual  blessing 
as  the  lordship  of  the  Pope. 

The  answer  of  the  Parliament  was  short  enough* 
Neither  King  John  nor  any  king  could  subject 
himself,  his  kingdom  or  his  people  without  their 
consent.     They  would  not  pay  it. 

The  episode  is  remarkable  as  a  proof  of  the  grow- 
ing sense  of  national  rights.  But  to  us  of  to-day  it 
is  remarkable,  also,  for  the  fact  that  it  brought  out 
upon  the  stage  of  England  a  Churchman  who  was 
destined  to  become  her  foremost  defender  against 
Rome.  The  ablest  man  of  his  day,  Wycliffe,  took  up 
the  matter  in  dead  earnest.  Before  the  King's 
Council  he  exposed  the  Roman  pretensions  with 
masterly  force.  He  took  the  claims  of  Rome  and 
with  relentless  logic  tore  them  in  pieces  one  by  one. 
He  showed  that  the  exaction  of  a  tribute  by  an  alien 
was  subversive  of  the  primary  principles  of  consti- 
tutional government.  A  tribute  is,  constitutionally 
speaking,  a  quid  pro  quo.  It  is  given  rightly  only 
to  him  who  can  guarantee  protection  in  return. 
This  the  Pope  could  not  grant.  Therefore  the  State 
need  not  pay  a  subsidy.  Going  deeper,  he  showed 
that  the  supreme  and  final  lordship  of  the  realm  was 
neither  in  the  King  nor  in  the  Pope,  but  in  Christ, 
and  Christ  alone.  The  Pope,  as  a  man,  subject  to 
sin,  has  no  control  over  that  which  is  held  for  Christ. 
The  claim  of  a  Pope  to  hold  and  control  a  kingdom 
like  that  of  England  was  a  clear  violation  of  the 
spiritual  principles  of  the .  kingdom  of  Christ. 


Wycliffe.  13 

These  were  daring  words  for  1366.  And  they 
were  startling  theorems.  England  was  delighted. 
The  whole  kingdom  rang  with  his  propositions,  and 
the  name  of  Wycliffe  was  soon  in  every  mouth. 
Preachers  in  the  pulpit  and  politicians  in  Parliament 
alike  were  eager  to  employ  his  arguments.  He 
found  himself  famous,   as  it  were,   in  a  day. 

From  that  day,  Wycliffe  was  the  hero  of  England's 
people.  From  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  in  court 
and  castle,  in  Parliament  House  and  homely  fireside, 
his  name  was  regarded  as  that  of  a  man  to  be 
always  relied  on  to  stand  up  for  the  people's  rights. 
To  the  mass  of  the  people  John  Wycliffe  became  the 
spokesman  and  champion  of  the  nation  on  every 
moral,  social,  and  ecclesiastical  question. 

A  year  or  two  after  this  he  brought  out  his 
famous  treatise,  "De  Dominio  Divino,"  in  which  he 
formulated  the  sublime  propositions  that  all  domin- 
ion is  founded  in  God  ;  that  that  power  is  granted 
b>y  God  not  to  one  person,  as  the  Papacy  alleged, 
who  is  His  alone  vicegerent,  but  to  all ;  that  the 
king  is  as  much  God's  vicar  as  the  Pope,  the  royal 
power  is  as  sacred  as  the  ecclesiastical ;  that  each 
individual  Christian  is  himself  a  possessor  of  domin- 
ion held  directly  from  God  ;  that  God  himself  is  the 
tribunal  of  personal  appeal.  If  these  things  were  so, 
then  it  followed  that  all  men,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  have 
a  sublime  equality  as  the  children  of  God  who  have 
been  made  in  His  image  ;  and  that  all  His  sons  are 
of  the  royal  birth,  and  all  his  subjects  priests  of  God. 


14  Wycliffe. 

In  the  Church,  save  for  the  purposes  of  law  and  order, 
there  are  and  can  be  no  lords  over  the  soul  of  man. 
Priests,  and  prelates,  and  Popes,  and  people,  hold 
equal  place  in  the  eye  of  God,  and  are  responsible 
directly  and  immediately  to  Him. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  even  Wycliffe  himself 
perceived  at  that  period  the  results  of  his  reasoning, 
and  the  consequences  of  such  audacious  assertions. 
But  whether  he  knew  it  or  not,  there  seems  to  be 
truth  in  Green's  statement,  in  his  History  of  the 
English  People,  that  by  this  theory,  which  established 
a  direct  relation  between  man  and  God,  he  swept 
away  the  whole  basis  of  a  meditating  priesthood,  the 
very  foundation  on  which  the  mediaeval  Church  was 
built. 

At  that  time  Wycliffe  seems  to  have  been  thinking 
more  of  the  Pope  as  a  pretentious  tribute-exactor  than 
of  the  Papacy  as  an  apostate  Christian  system ;  and  it 
was  as  a  civil  and  national  champion,  perhaps,  as  much 
as  a  religious,  that  he  waged  this  warfare  against 
Papal  claims.  Not  that  his  religious  convictions 
had  nothing  to  do  with  his  position,  as  one  would 
infer  almost  from  the  way  some  have  written  about 
him.  They  had  much  to  do  wTith  it.  He  was  in  no 
sense  a  mere  politician.  But  the  tone  of  his  cam- 
paign at  that  time  was  political  rather  than  spiritual. 
And  though  it  was  as  a  member  of  the  national 
Church  that  he  wrote  and  spoke,  it  was  the  independ- 
ence of  the  crown,  and  the  liberty  of  the  people, 
rather  than  the  independence  of  the  clergy,  and  the 


Wycliffe.  15 

nationality  of  the  Church,  for  which  he  was  fighting. 

Erat  homo  certans  pro  patribus.  He  was  as  a 
man  fighting  for  his  home.  From  this  time  the 
Court,  and  the  Commons,  and  the  country,  were, 
almost  to  a  man,  on  the  side  of  Wycliffe.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  the  priests,  the  prelates  and  the 
Pope  were,  almost  to  a  man,  against  him. 

Not  long  after,  (1374),  he  was  sent  as  a  member 
of  a  royal  commission  to  Bruges,  in  Flanders,  to 
negotiate  with  the  Pope's  representatives.  It  was 
not  only  a  high  honour  for  Wycliffe,  as  Lechler  says, 
but  it  throws  light  upon  the  political  situation  in 
England,  that  a  man  of  the  type  of  John  Wycliffe 
should  have  been  made  a  royal  commissioner  for  these 
diplomatic  transactions  with  the  Roman  Court.  The 
results  of  the  conference,  on  the  whole,  were  not 
satisfactory  to  the  people,  for  they  were  a  com- 
promise to  the  Pope's  advantage.  But  one  result 
must  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.  From  that  time 
onwards  Wycliffe  became  a  more  determined  oppo- 
nent than  ever  of  the  Papacy.  At  this  conference  he 
met  the  foremost  Papal  dignitaries  of  the  day,  and 
their  haughtiness,  pretentiousness,  and  lordly  indif- 
ference so  disgusted  him  that  his  antagonism  to  the 
Papacy  as  a  spiritual  system  claiming  the  rights  over 
kings  and  kingdoms,  and  lives  and  lands,  became 
finally  and  permanently  settled  as  a  conviction  of  his 
soul.  As  one  modern  writer  puts  it,  Bruges  was  to 
Wycliffe  what  Rome  was  to  Luther;  a  place  of 
revelation.     That  was  the  real  date  of  the  beginning 


1 G  Wycliffe. 

of  that  feature  of  his  career  which  is  graven  in  the 
monument  that  stands  to-day  in  the  old  church  at 
Lutterworth,  to  perpetuate  his  name:  "His  whole 
life  was  one  perpetual  struggle  against  the  cor- 
ruptions and  encroachments  of  the  Papal  Court." 

Wycliffe  did  not  long  continue  in  the  role  of  a 
national  or  political  champion.  Little  by  little,  he 
seems  to  have  abandoned  the  more  political  side  of 
his  work,  becoming  more  and  more  absorbed  in  the 
spiritual  or  religious.  As  D'Aubigne  tersely  puts  it, 
he  busied  himself  less  and  less  about  the  kingdom  of 
England,  and  occupied  himself  more  and  more  with 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  If  he  began  in  the  political 
road  as  an  Englishman  rather  than  as  an  ecclesiastic, 
and  was  led  in  the  first  instance  along  what  might  be 
called  the  path  of  patriotic  nationalism,  he  soon 
recognized  that  that  was  not  the  highest  path.  It 
led  him  into  questionable  alliances  and  doubtful 
partnerships,  just  as  many  a  godly  evangelical  of  the 
Irish  Church  has  been  identified  in  his  antipapal  zeal 
with  men  who,  for  all  their  Protestantism,  are 
utterly  devoid  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  yoked  him 
with  John  of  Gaunt  and  Lord  Percy,  and  that  class 
of  men.  It  threw  him  in  with  the  great  herd  of  the 
anticlerical  rabble,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  some 
with  base  aims,  some  with  high  aims,  but  all  glad  to 
have  in  their  fight  against  an  alien  Pope,  and  a 
purse-proud  priesthood,  the  alliance  of  so  illustrious 
a  man  as  John  de  Wycliffe,  the  pride  of  Oxford,  and 
the  friend  of  the  King. 


Wycliffe.  17 

But  Wycliffe  did  not  stay  all  his  life  in  that 
path.  Gradually,  as  the  eyes  of  his  mind  were  illu- 
mined, he  turned  to  a  truer  work  ;  not  the  examination 
of  Papal  claims  and  parliamentary  rights,  but  of  the 
state  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  needs  of  the 
day.  Without  ceasing  to  be  a  patriot  or  a  Protes- 
tant, he  was  led  to  a  distinctly  higher  work.  And 
that  was  the  work  of  exposing  the  abuses  and 
false   doctrines   which  were  universal  in  the  Church. 

Wycliffe  as  an  Ecclesiastical  Reformer. 

It  seems  almost  impossible  for  us  to  believe  the 
stories  which  are  told  of  the  state  of  things  in  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
centuries.  If  they  were  told  of  ignorant  Italians, 
or  of  degraded  Romanists  in  Guatemala,  or  Peru, 
it  would  be  credible  enough.  But  to  be  told 
that  the  lives  not  merely  of  the  English  people, 
but  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England,  were,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  immoral  and 
discreditable,  is  hard  for  us  in  a  Protestant  land  to 
understand. 

Yet  the  statements  are  established  by  multiplied 
and  unimpeachable  authorities.  Churches  abounded. 
Religious  houses  were  everywhere.  Ecclesiastics  of 
all  sorts  swarmed  in  city,  town  and  country.  Crosses 
dotted  every  highway.  Shrines  attracted  innumer- 
able devotees.  The  mass  was  celebrated  daily  on 
thousands  of  altars.  The  worship  of  the  Virgin,  the 
adoration  of  saints  and   images  and  relics,  and  the 


18  Wycliffe. 

bones  and  clothing  of  departed  saints,  was  every- 
where indulged  in.  There  was  plenty  of  religion ; 
that  is,  the  Romish  religion.  But  the  lives,  the  lives 
of  the  clergy  as  a  whole,  were  scandalous  to  a  degree. 

They  were  immersed  in  the  most  absolute 
depravity.  If  there  is  any  truth  in  contemporary 
evidence,  and  the  witness  of  men  of  the  day,  it  is 
certain  that  multitudes  of  the  priests  of  Holy  Church, 
that  is,  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  of  which  the  Church 
of  England  was  then  a  part,  the  professing  successors 
of  the  Apostles  and  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion, 
were  walking  as  enemies  of  the  Cross  of  Christ. 
Their  god  was  their  belly.  Their  glory  was  in  their 
shame.  They  seemingly  lived  wholly  for  the  world. 
The  very  dignitaries  of  the  Church,  from  the  Pope 
downwards,  lived  the  foulest  of  lives,  when,  as  their 
own  Cardinal  Baronius  said :  "  Harlots  governed  at 
Rome,  and  their  paramours  were  intruded  into  the 
See  of  Peter."  It  was  a  Roman  Archbishop  who  charged 
fifty  of  the  Popes  with  grievous  criminalities.  It 
was  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  bishops  to  keep 
mistresses,  and  for  priests  and  monks  to  resort  to 
the  nunneries  as  depraved  men  in  our  cities  to-day 
resort  to  houses  of  ill  fame. 

They  were,  moreover,  men  of  corrupted  minds, 
bereft  of  the  truth,  looking  upon  religion  as  a 
way  of  gain.  The  Pope,  cried  one  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  saints  in  a  work  authenticated,  it  is  said,  by 
Pope  Benedict  XIV.,  has  changed  all  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments into  this  one  ;  Money,  Money  !    Religion 


Wycliffe.  19 

was,  indeed,  a  way  of  gain.  It  was  the  most  paying 
thing  of  the  age.  They  had  the  monopoly  of  merits, 
which  had  a  splendid  sale  and  commanded  great 
prices  until  Luther  broke  up  the  demand.  They 
fattened  on  the  wealth  of  the  land  and  waxed 
wanton.  In  fact,  the  great  mass  of  the  wealth  of 
the  land  was  in  the  hands  of  the  clerics  and  of  the 
friars.  Many  were  literally  clothed  in  fine  linen,  and 
purple  and  scarlet,  and  were  decked  with  gold  and 
precious  stones  and  pearls.  Their  luxury  exceeded 
description.  They  lived  deliciously,  and  their  mer- 
chandise was  gold,  and  silver,  and  marble,  and 
incense,  and  ointment,  and  horses,  and  chariots,  and 
the  bodies  and  souls  of  men.     (Rev.,  xviii :  7-16.) 

As  to  the  mass  of  the  clergy,  secular  and  regular 
alike,  parish  priests,  and  monks  and  friars,  their 
condition,  for  the  most  part,  was  shameless.  There 
were,  no  doubt,  scattered  here  and  there  throughout 
the  Church,  men  of  simple  and  beautiful  piety. 
Many  a  case  of  lovely  Christian  purity  and  virtue 
was  doubtless  known.  But  of  the  great  body  !  alas  ! 
one  of  themselves,  a  prophet  of  their  own,  said  in  a 
later  day  :  "  They  pretend  to  resemble  the  Apostles, 
and  they  are  filthy,  ignorant,  impudent  vagabonds. 
They  are  sots,  wasps,  whoremasters,  vultures,  born 
fools.  Instead  of  going  about  doing  good,  and 
winning  men  for  God,  they  haunt  taverns,  ask  men 
to  drink,  lead  disgraceful  brawls,  and  are  notorious 
for  their  profanity."  "  They  waste  their  time  and 
wealth  in  gambling  and  revelry;  go  about  the  streets 


20  Wycliffe. 

roaring  and  outrageous,  and  sometimes  have  neither 
tongue,  nor  eye,  nor  hand,  nor  foot,  to  help  them- 
selves for  drunkenness."  The  reader  is  referred  to 
that  remarkable  work,  Froude's  Erasmus  12-15;  59-68. 

Nor  were  they  in  the  slightest  degree  ashamed 
when  they  committed  these  things.  So  far  from 
blushing  at  their  conduct,  they  gloried  in  it.  and 
lorded  it  over  the  people  by  their  power  of  the  keys, 
and  the  terror  of  their  censures  and  excommunica- 
tions. "  The  clergy  seemed  to  exult  in  showing 
contempt  of  God  and  man  by  the  licentiousness  of 
their  lives  and  the  insolence  of  their  dominion. 
They  ruled  with  self-made  laws  over  soul  and  body. 
As  successors  of  the  Apostles  they  held  the  keys  of 
hell  and  heaven.  There  excommunications  were 
registered  by  the  Almighty.  Their  absolutions  could 
open  the  gates  of  Paradise." 

No  wonder,  then,  that  a  man  like  Wycliffe,  whose 
canon  was  God's  Word,  turned  with  his  might 
against  such  men,  and  against  such  ways.  He  was 
not  the  first,  by  any  means,  nor  the  only  one  to  turn 
the  searchlights  on  their  lives.  Fitzralph,  Vice- 
Chancellor  of  Oxford,  and  afterwards  Archbishop  of 
Armagh,  had  done  similar  work  some  years  before, 
and  John  de  Polliac  also.  Geoffrey  Chaucer  also,  in 
his  Canterbury  Tales,  had  pictured  them  with 
scorn,  and  Dante  the  poet  likewise.  But  what 
Fitzralph,  the  Irishman,  began,  John  Wycliffe, 
the  Englishman,  carried  on  to  perfection.  His 
increasing  study  of  God's  Word   opened    more   and 


Wycliffe.  21 

more  the  eyes  of  his  understanding.  Controversy 
sharpened  his  weapons  and  multiplied  his  arguments. 
His  visit  to  Bruges  had  brought  out  in  more  lurid 
light  the  corruptions  of  the  whole  Romish  system. 
And  Wycliffe,  like  John  Knox,  was  one  who  never 
feared  the  face  of  man. 

It  is  well  known  with  what  a  vehemence  of  right- 
eous indignation  he  indicted  the  clerics  as  a  class,  and 
especially  with  what  splendid  audacity  he  turned 
upon  the  friars. 

But  before  we  speak  of  this  it  may  perhaps  be 
helpful  to  say  a  few  words  of  explanation. 

The  monks  and  friars  mark  a  curious  stage  in 
the  evolution  of  the  ecclesiastical  character.  The 
specialty  of  the  monks  originally  had  been  the 
mission  of  retirement.  Their  ideal,  in  theory  at 
any  rate,  was,  to  their  mind,  excellent.  It  was 
to  withdraw  from  the  wickedness  of  the  world, 
and  spend  the  days  in  quietness  and  prayer. 
Their  vows  were  those  of  poverty,  celibacy,  and,  to 
a  greater  or  less  degree,  of  silence.  In  carrying 
them  out  they  became  the  builders,  the  architects, 
the  copyists,  the  agriculturalists,  the  chroniclers,  and 
the  philanthropists  of  the  Middle  Ages.  In  theory 
and  ideal  they  were  the  Pietists  of  Mediaevalism, 
with  their  mission  of  quietness,  peace,  and  purity  of 
life.  But  alas  !  alas !  for  poor  human  nature,  they 
developed  into  anything  but  apostles  of  gentleness 
and  poverty  and  devotion.  Their  wealth  became 
enormous.     Instead  of   the   plain  and   simple  life  of 


22  Wycliffe. 

poverty,  they  erected  edifices  that  were  palaces,  and 
ofttimes  lived  like  kings  on  lordly  fare,  being  clothed 
in  fine  linen  and  purple. 

The  friars,  on  the  other  hand,  had  for  their 
specialty,  evangelization.  The  monks  were  men  who 
withdrew  from  the  world.  The  friars  were  men 
who  went  out  into  the  world.  Their  idea  was  to  go 
out  among  their  fellow  men  to  seek  and  save  the 
lost.  It  was  a  noble  intention.  And  at  first  the 
Franciscans,  the  Grey  Friars,  named  after  the 
famous  pietist,  Francis  of  Assisi,  and  the  Black 
Friars,  the  Dominicans,  which  means  the  Lord's 
Watchdogs,  poor,  bareheaded  and  barefooted,  went 
out  in  the  highways  and  byways  to  compel  men 
to  come  in  by  their  forceful  evangel.  They  were 
the  Methodists,  the  street  preachers,  and  the  Salva- 
tionists of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries. 
But  alas  !  they  also  fell.  The  ideal  was  too  high  for 
poor  human  nature.  Soon  they  came  to  be  more 
heresy-hunters.  Then  they  fell  still  lower.  They 
sank  into  many  foolish  and  hurtful  lusts  which 
drown  men  in  destruction  and  perdition.  They 
became  enormously  wealthy.  As  they  grew  in  power 
and  numbers,  they  went  from  pride  to  pride,  from 
insolence  to  insolence.  They  entered  parish  after 
parish,  and  snapped  their  fingers  at  the  authority 
of  the  parish  priest.  With  alarming  rapidity  they 
amassed  great  properties,  secured  emoluments, 
pushed  their  way  into  nearly  all  the  leading  posts 
in  the  universities,  until  they  beer. no,  as   a   modern 


Wycliffe.  23 

writer   tersely  puts  it,   dangerously  rich,  alarmingly 
powerful,  hopelessly  lazy. 

We  can  well  imagine  how  creatures  like  these 
must  have  seemed  in  the  eyes  of  a  man  like  John 
Wycliffe.  The  sturdy  Yorkshireman,  who  hated 
shams  and  religious  humbug  above  all  things,  and 
looked  at  things  in  the  light  of  common  sense,  regarded 
them  simply  as  a  lot  of  sanctimonious  rascals.  He 
exposed  their  corruptions  with  unsparing  thrusts. 
The  Cui  Bono  question  was  always  in  John's  mind. 
What  are  they  for ?  What  do  they  do  f  What  good 
are  they  ?  They  profess  to  be  preachers ;  what  do 
they  preach  ?  They  profess  to  be  benefactors  ;  whom 
do  they  benefit?  Their  self-assurance,  their  indecent 
irreverence,  their  self-glorifying  ignorance,  their 
immoralities,  and  above  all  their  menace  to  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  snatching  from  the  people 
their  possessions  and  their  rights,  and  crushing  them 
by  the  terrorism  of  the  Holy  Father  ;  these  were .  the 
leading  points  in  his  indictment  of  the  friars.  To 
the  end  he  continued  his  warfare,  undaunted  by 
Papal  bulls  or  clerical  menace.  And  the  story  has 
become  famous  how  the  sturdy  reformer  one  day, 
during  an  illness,  was  visited  by  a  body  of  friars, 
who  held  their  crosses  before  him  and  called  on  him 
to  abjure  his  heresies.  The  old  man  listened  for  a 
while,  and  then  calling  on  an  attendant  to  help  him 
sit  up,  he  awed  them  into  retreat  by  the  vehement 
words  that  have  passed  into  history :  "  I  shall  not 
die,  but  live,  and  declare  the  evil  deeds  of  the  friars." 


21  Wycliffe. 

But  the  friars  were  not  the  only  ones,  or -even 
the  first,  that  he  attacked.  The  lives  of  prelates 
and  priests  were  as  bad,  if  not  worse,  and  their 
worldliness,  and  pomp,  and  pride,  aroused  his  indig- 
nation to  the  extreme.  The  more  he  searched  the 
Word  of  God,  the  more  he  saw  their  inconsistency 
with  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  were  poor  men.  These  men  were 
great  and  rich.  The  Apostles  were  unworldly  and 
heavenly-minded.  These  men  were  earthly  and 
worldly-minded.  They  cared  nothing  for  worldly 
things.  These  men  seemed  to  care  for  nothing  else. 
He  and  they  worked.  These  men  lived  in  ease. 
They  sought  peace  and  quietness.  These  fought 
and  stirred  up  strife.  They  lived  among  the  people 
and  sought  their  good.  These  left  the  people  and 
sought  their  goods.  Christ  and  His  Apostles  owned 
no  property  and  desired  none.  These  added  lands 
to  lands,  and  house  to  house,  lived  in  wealth  and 
grandeur,  drawing  all  they  could  from  the  living 
of  the  people,  until  almost  half  the  wealth  and  a 
third  of  the  land  came  into  their  possession. 

The  scorn  of  Wycliffe  knew  no  bounds.  His 
indignation  was  unmeasured.  He  denounced  their 
wealth.  He  laughed  to  scorn  their  pomp  and  show. 
He  questioned  their  right  to  riches  and  estates. 
He  held  that  it  became  no  minister  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  live  in  possession  of  such  property,  and  most 
strenuously  denounced  their  vast  endowments  and 
princely  wealth. 


Wycliffe.  25 

Of  course,  he  was  misunderstood  then.  Of 
course,  he  is  misunderstood  now.  His  enemies  ca- 
lumniated him  then.  Their  descendants  calumniate 
him  to-day.  To  be  great,  says  Emerson,  is  to  be 
misunderstood.  They  called  him  a  communist.  They 
decried  him  as  the  friend  of  anarchists  and  spoilers. 
They  called  him  the  father  of  insurrection  and  dis- 
order. They  blamed  him  for  all  the  riots  and 
revolts  of  the  times.  And  to-day,  even,  there  are 
Church  writers  who  seek  to  belittle  his  greatness 
as  a  reformer  by  depicting  him  as  a  revolutionist. 

His  theories  in  his  work  on  Civil  Lordship  were 
certainly  curious.  On  a  surface  reading,  they  look 
like  a  mixture  of  the  modern  philosophic  humbug 
of  Christian  Science  and  the  Platonic  doctrine  of 
community.  "  Sin  is  nothing,  and  sinners  are  noth- 
ing. Therefore  sinners,  as  they  are  nothing,  can 
logically  possess  nothing.  They  can  have  apparent 
possession,  but  not  real  ;  the  righteous  only  can 
have  real  possession  in  God.  All  things  are  yours." 
Such  were  his  eccentric  words.  Yet  to  those  who  read 
a  little  more  deeply  it  seems  clear  that  Wycliffe 
merely  held  that  God  is  the  giver  of  all,  and  there- 
fore all  things  are  to  be  held  for  God,  and  that  all 
true  Christians  should  hold  their  possessions  as  a 
stewardship  of  God  for  the  use  of  man,  and  what 
the  ungodly  have  and  hold  they  do  not  have  and 
hold  as  their  own.  It  is  God's  property  they  are 
holding.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  many  of  the 
views   fathered   upon   him,   and    the    theories    with 


26  Wycliffe. 

which  he  was  charged,  are  the  outcome  of  the  hatred 
and  misrepresentation  of  his  Romish  opponents,  and 
of  those  who  dislike  his  evangelical  doctrine. 

For  after  all,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that 
Wycliffe  ever  patronized  socialists,  or  advocated  so- 
cialism. He  may  have  held,  and  probably  did  hold,  a 
pretty  strong  theory  of  Church  disendowment,  and 
pretty  advanced  ideas  on  the  communizing  of  goods. 
Thousands  of  clergy  have  done  the  same,  who  in 
nowise  can  be  called  socialists.  But  that  he  ever 
advocated  or  patronized  the  wild  communism  of  a 
John  Ball  or  a  Wat  Tyler  is  an  assertion  that  pro- 
ceeds only  from  ignorance,  as  Green  says  in  his 
History   of   the   English   People. 

To  denounce  the  greed  and  pomp  of  ecclesiastics 
was  one  thing  ;  to  advocate  the  spoliation  of  prop- 
erty, another  thing  altogether.  He  was  entirely 
opposed  to  this.  His  aim,  as  a  modern  writer  says, 
was  not  to  favor  a  communistic  reorganization  of 
the  State.  Nor  is  there  any  clear  evidence  that  the 
views  of  Wycliffe  with  regard  to  Church  property 
and  clerical  possessions  were  at  variance  with  the 
plain  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  words  of  Christ- 
There  was  really  nothing  in  Wycliffe's  ideas  about 
money,  and  the  right  of  the  clergy  to  wealth  and 
property,  that  is  beyond  the  fair  and  honest  inter- 
pretation of  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on 
the  subject.  He  seems  only  to  have  taught  what 
Christ  Jesus  taught  (Matt.,  vi.:  19,  20  ;  x.:  9 ;  Luke,  xii.: 
33,  34) ;    and  to  have  advocated  what  His  Apostles 


Wycliffe.  27 

advocated  (Acts,  xx.:  33;  II. Cor.,  xii.:  14;  I.  Peter,  v.:  2). 
When  we  consider  these  passages,  and  remember,  in 
addition,  the  startling  wickedness  of  the  clergy  and 
the  corruptions  of  the  age,  we  need  not  be  surprised 
to  find  that  a  man  like  Wycliffe  should  have  taken 
the  stand  he  did,  or  have  spoken  the  strong  words 
he  is  said  to  have  spoken.  He  was  not  immaculate. 
He  had  John  the  Baptist  work  to  do,  and  he  did  it. 
It  was  no  time  for  rose-water  and  soft  platitudes. 
He  had  to  speak  sternly  and  strongly.  As  he  was 
human,  he  may  at  times  have  spoken  almost  violently. 
Strong  diseases  require  strong  treatment.  But  that 
he  never  acted  the  part  of  a  communistic  incendiary, 
or  advocated  the  spoliation  of  ecclesiastical  posses- 
sions, is  the  testimony  of  nearly  every  reliable 
English   historian. 

Wycliffe  as  a  Doctrinal  Reformer. 

It  is  not  easy  to  fix  the  exact  date  at  which 
Wycliffe  emerged  in  his  last  and  greatest  character, 
and  stood  forth  not  merely  as  a  reformer  of  abuses, 
but  as  a  reformer  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Roman  Church.  For  a  long  time  he  had  been 
steadily  growing  in  the  clearness  of  his  spiritual 
insight,  and  in  the  fervour  of  his  anti-Romish  zeaL 
Roughly  speaking,  however,  the  year  1378  may  be 
taken  as  the  starting  point  of  the  most  important 
epoch  in  Wycliffe's  reforming  career.  In  February, 
1377,  Wycliffe  had  been  formally  charged  with 
heresy.     He   was   summoned  by  the  Archbishop   of 


28  Wycliffe. 

Canterbury,  as  the  representative  of  the  Roman  See, 
to  appear  in  the  Lady  Chapel  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral, 
in  London,  to  answer  to  the  charges  laid  against  him. 
The  year  before  his  enemies  had  sent  nineteen 
articles  and  extracts  from  his  writings  to  the  Pope, 
and  during  1377,  the  Pope  replied  with  five  bulls.  In 
these  he  declared  that  Wycliffe  was  a  pestilential 
heretic,  whose  damnable  doctrines  were  to  be  plucked 
up  by  the  roots,  lest  they  should  defile  the  faith  and 
bring  into  contempt  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and  he 
called  upon  the  Archbishop,  the  King,  and  the  univer- 
sity to  deal  summarily  with  the  heretic.  (Which 
things  prove  in  a  very  practical  manner,  by  the  way, 
the  position  then  occupied  by  the  English  Church  as 
an  integral  part  of  the  Church  of  Rome.) 

The  damnable  doctrines  complained  of  were  only 
questions,  however,  that  touched  the  wealth  and 
power  of  the  Church  :  the  binding  and  loosing  power 
of  the  Pope ;  the  right  of  the  temporal  lords  to 
deprive  wicked  clerics  of  their  temporalities ;  and 
other  matters.  The  trial,  as  every  one  knows,  came 
to  nothing.  John  of  Gaunt,  the  Duke  of  Lancaster, 
and  Lord  Percy,  the  Lord  Marshal  of  England,  both 
stood  bravely  by  the  reformer,  and  the  assembly 
broke  up  in  confusion.  Popular  opinion  was  on 
Wycliffe's  side,  and  the  proceedings  were  stopped 
by  a  representative  of  the  Regent . 

The  effect  of  this  trial  upon  Wycliffe  was 
important.  It  strengthened  his  courage.  It  deepened 
his  conviction.     It   fortified   him    in    his   defence   of 


Wycliffe.  29 

what  he  was  seeing  more  and  more  clearly  to  be 
true.  It  emboldened  him  in  his  defiance  of  what  he 
saw  more  and  more    clearly    to    be    false. 

Early  in  the  following  year,  1378,  he  was  sum- 
moned by  the  new  Primate  to  appear  at  Lambeth 
Chapel  before  himself  and  the  Bishop  of  London  as  the 
Pope's  Commissioners.  The  same  thing  happened 
again.  Wycliffe  repudiated  the  political  dominion  of 
the  Pope  with  unshaken  boldness.  He  repudiated  abso- 
lutely his  political  supremacy.  He  disclaimed  his 
power  of  absolution,  save  only  as  he  is  obedient 
to  the  law  of  Christ.  "It  seems  to  me,"  said  the 
grand  old  man,  "  that  he  who  usurps  this  power  must 
be  the  man  of  sin."  He  faced  the  representa- 
tive of  the  great  power  of  Rome  as  fearlessly  as 
a  child.  A  strange  sensation  of  fear  seemed  to  have 
suddenly  swept  over  the  Bishops,  and  once  more 
the  trial  came  to  nothing. 

In  the  meantime  a  momentous  event  was  tran- 
spiring in  the  Roman  world.  It  was  the  Papal 
schism,  the  crowning  scandal  of  Papal  Christianity. 
For  seventy-three  years,  from  1305  to  1378,  there 
had  been  no  Pope  in  Rome.  The  seven  Popes  of 
that  interim  were  Frenchmen,  who  transferred  the 
Papal  headquarters  to  iVvignon>  a  G^Y  on  the  Rhone, 
in  the  south  of  Franpe.  It  was  a  bad  state  of 
things  indeed.  But  worse  was  to  follow.  For  in 
1378,  the  Roman  Cardinals,  who  were  nearly  all 
Frenchmen,  elected  an  Italian,  Urban  VI.,  as  Pope 
to  reign  at  Rome,  and  then  another  set  of  Cardinals 


30  Wycliffe. 

chose  a  Frenchman,  Clement  VII.,  to  reign  as  Pope 
at  Avignon. 

There  they  were,  the  two  infallible  heads  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  fighting  each  other  like  wolves. 
Each  claimed  to  be  infallible.  Each  claimed  his  own 
right.  Each  claimed  to  be  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ. 
Each  claimed  to  be  the  representative  of  the  unity 
of  the  Godhead  in  Heaven,  and  the  Church  on 
earth.  Urban  VI.,  the  Pope  of  Rome,  excommuni- 
cated his  rival,  the  impostor  at  Avignon.  Clement 
VII.,  the  Pope  at  Avignon,  excommunicated  his 
rival,  the  impostor  at  Rome.  Each  promulgated 
decrees,  scattered  bulls,  issued  anathemas,  and  played 
the  role  of  the  visible  head  of  Christ's  Church. 
The  effect  of  this  upon  Wycliffe  was  electric. 
For  a  long  time,  doubtless,  the  seeds  of  suspicion  with 
regard  to  the  whole  Romish  system  had  been  ripen- 
ing within  his  mind.  The  Christianity  of  Christ 
was  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  Christianity  of 
the  Pope.  The  teachings  of  the  Apostles  were  so 
absolutely  contrary  to  those  of  the  Papists.  His 
work  as  a  patriot  and  constitutional  reformer  had 
opened  his  eyes  to  the  falsity  of  the  Papal  claims. 
His  impeachment  of  the  morals  of  the  clergy  had 
convinced  him  of  the  corruption  of  the  Papal  com- 
munion. But  now  he  seems  to  have  reached  his 
final  conclusion.  The  whole  fabric  of  the  Papal 
system  was  anti-Christian.  The  Pope  was  Antichrist. 
The  Popish  system  was  a  mass  of  error.  The  Papal 
decrees  were  the  laws  of  the  enemy  of  Christ. 


Wycliffe.  31 

He  wrote  a  tract  entitled  Schisma  Papae,  the 
schism  of  the  Papacy,  in  which  he  not  only  described 
the  Papal  system  as  Antichrist,  but  actually  urged 
the  sovereigns  of  Europe  to  seize  this  opportunity 
for  destroying  a  structure  already  shaken  in  its 
foundations.  It  is  absurd,  he  argued,  to  speak  of 
infallibility  in  connection  with  such  a  system.  "  God 
hath  cloven  the  heart  of  Antichrist,  and  made  the 
two  parts  fight  against  each  other."  He  declared  that 
the  position  he  had  before  asserted,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  not  the  head  of  the  Churches,  and  the 
Pope  of  Rome  invested  with  no  greater  jurisdiction, 
was  now  established  by  the  facts.  The  whole  system 
of  Rome  was  contrary  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Its 
authority  and  rule  were  not  the  canons  of  Scripture. 
Its  doctrines  were  not  the  doctrines  of  the  New 
Testament.  Its  practices  were  not  the  practices  of 
the  Apostles.  And  chief  of  all  its  errors,  the  fountain 
and  heart  of  all,  was  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist.  This,  as  Archbishop  Cranmer  wrote 
nearly  two  centuries  after,  is  the  chief  root  of  all 
Roman  error.  The  rest  is  but  branches  and  leaves. 
The  very  body  of  the  tree  is  the  Popish  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation. 

Turning,  then,  from  his  pursuit  of  friars  and 
monks,  and  his  sarcastic  impeachment  of  the  follies 
of  the  day,  Wycliffe  addressed  himself  to  the  more 
serious  task  of  exposing  and  destroying  the  doctrinal 
corruptions  of  the  Church,  and  restoring  the  foun- 
dations of  primitive  truth ;  not  of  denouncing   and 


32  Wycliffe. 

destroying  error  merely,  but  of  setting  forth  in  its 
simplicity  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

Wycliffe's  greatest  task  in  this  course  was 
unquestionably  the  exposure  of  transubstantiation. 
This  was  the  key  dogma  of  Rome's  position,  and 
around  it  gathered,  as  towers  around  a  citadel,  the 
various  doctrines  of  Popery. 

It  was  in  1381  that  Wycliffe  first  attacked  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  denied 
that  the  elements  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar 
could  undergo  any  material  change  by  reason  of 
the  words  of  the  consecration  of  the  priest.  It  is 
possible  that  the  initial  incentive  of  Wycliffe's  attack 
upon  the  sacrificial  teachings  of  the  Church  was  the 
monstrous  usurpations  of  the  men  who  pretended 
to  have  the  power  of  making  the  Body  of  Christ. 
"  Nothing,"  he  wrote  in  his  De  Eucharistia,  "  is  more 
horrible  than  that  any  priest,  in  celebrating,  daily 
makes  or  consecrates  the  body  of  Christ.  Our  God 
is  not  a  recent  God." 

He  based  his  attack  upon  two  grounds :  first, 
on  the  ground  of  Scriptural  inconsistency  ;  next,  on 
the  ground  of  philosophical  impossibility.  Wycliffe 
had  been  for  some  time  a  diligent  student  of  the 
Bible,  and  a  man  who  studied  the  Gospels  and  read 
the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  could  not  long  hold  the 
Roman  teaching  with  regard  to  the  Eucharist.  The 
two  were  irreconcilable.  The  monstrous  position 
that  the  priest  renews  at  each   sacrament    the  pro- 


Wycliffe.  33 

pitiatory  sacrifice  of  Calvary,  and  stands  daily 
offering  that  offering  which  the  Scripture  expressly 
asserts  was  once  for  all  offered  "one  sacrifice  for 
ever,"  was  as  repugnant  to  his  enlightened  spirit 
as  the  equally  monstrous  position  that  at  the  word 
of  a  simple  and  ignorant  man  the  Lord  of  Heaven 
descends  from  His  throne  and  suffers  Himself  to  be 
immolated  upon  the  altar,  and  expelling  the  substance 
of  the  bread  and  wine,  incorporates  in  the  place 
thereof  His  glorious  Body.  As  he  said  in  a  tract 
he  wrote  on  the  subject,  called  the  Wicket :  "Thou, 
then,  that  art  an  earthly  man,  by  what  reason 
may  est  thou  say  that  thou  makest  thy  Maker  ?'' 
Christ  ascended  into  heaven.  There  He  sits  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.  The  whole  tenour  of  the  New 
Testament  is  opposed  to  the  figment  of  His  corporal 
presence  on  the  altar.  He  is  not  here.  He  is  risen. 
"  The  natural  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ 
are  in  heaven,  and  not  here,"  as  the  Prayer  Book 
of  the  Anglican  Church  teaches  now. 

But  Wy cliff e's  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation  was  also  philosophical.  It  was  based 
on  reason.  We  must  remember  that  Wycliffe  waa 
one  of  the  profoundest  thinkers  of  the  day.  He  was 
a  logician  of  no  mean  order.  His  life  as  a  school- 
man had  been  passed  in  discussing  theolog- 
ical questions  in  an  argumentative  manner- 
Reason,  therefore,  as  well  as  Scripture,  became 
his  strength.  When  first  he  began  to  doubt 
the    universal    opinion     that  the  accidents  were 


34  Wycliffe. 

separated  from  the  substance  in  the  act  of  transub- 
stantiation,  he  seemed  to  have  held  somehow  the 
philosophical  subtilty  that  "a  mathematical  body"  was 
the  substance  of  the  accidents.  Then  he  seems  to 
have  passed  into  what  Carlyle  would  have  called  the 
centre  of  indifference,  doubting  most  positively  the 
Roman  dogma  that  after  consecration  no  substance 
of  the  bread  remained,  but  only  the  substance  of 
Christ,  God,  and  man ;  and  yet  affirming  that  there 
was  some  substance  to  the  accidents,  he  did  not  know 
what.  Slowly,  but  surely  and  triumphantly,  he 
reached  his  Everlasting  Yea,  that  after  consecra- 
tion the  bread  is  bread,  remains  bread,  and  that 
it  is  the  Body  of  Christ  figuratively  and  symboli- 
cally and  sacramentally  only. 

This,  then,  was  his  final  position. 

It  is  confrary  to  reason  to  assert  that  the  acci- 
dents of  the  bread  can  remain  in  the  eucharist  after 
consecration,  and  the  substance  of  the  bread  not  be 
there.  That  is,  it  is  utterly  unphilosophical  and  unrea- 
sonable to  say  that  the  piece  of  bread  can  look  the 
same,  and  feel  the  same,  and  weigh  the  same,  and  taste 
the  same,  and  smell  the  same,  and  yet  not  be  bread  at 
all,  but  something  else  than  bread.  The  thing  is  im- 
possible. If  the  accidents  of  a  thing  are  there,  then  the 
substance  of  the  thing  is  there  also.  If  they  seem  to 
be  bread  and  wine,  they  are  bread  and  wine.  Now,  it 
is  undeniable,  that  after  consecration  the  consecrated 
bread  is  to  all  appearance  bread,  just  the  same  as 
before.    That  is.    The  so-called  accidents  of  the  bread 


Wycliffe.  35 

remain.  This  is  fact.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
accidents  of  a  thing  cannot  remain  without  its  sub- 
stance. That  is  philosophy.  The  corporal  presence  of 
Christ,  or  transubstantiation,  is  therefore  impossible. 
God  requires  us  to  believe  many  things  which  are  above 
reason,  but  never  anything  that  is  contrary  to  reason. 
To  believe  a  mystery  is  one  thing ;  to  accept  a  thing 
that  contradicts  common  sense  is  another.  To  say 
that  what  is  seen  is  bread,  but  what  is  there  is  not 
bread,  but  the  physical  body  of  Christ,  is  not  faith, 
but  superstition. 

But  then  came  at  once  the  objection.  What,  in 
that  case,  of  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  is  My  body  "  ? 
Did  He  mean,  this  is  My  body,  or  did  He  mean  some- 
thing else  ?  If  he  meant  this  is  my  body,  then  the 
substance  or  subject  after  consecration  must  be,  not 
bread,  but  Christ's  body. 

Wycliffe's  argument  in  answer  to  this  was  ready. 
The  words,  "  This  is  My  Body,"  were  intended  by 
Christ  in  a  virtual,  figurative,  and  sacramental  sense. 
The  bread  after  consecration  is  still  bread.  Substan- 
tially or  really,  as  regards  its  subject,  it  is  what  its 
accidents  declare  it  to  be ;  bread,  real  bread.  But 
sacramentally  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ.  "  The  bread, 
by  the  words  of  consecration,  is  not  made  the  Lord's 
glorified  body,  or  His  spiritual  body,  which  is  risen 
from  the  dead,  or  His  fleshly  body  as  it  was  before 
He  suffered  death ;  but  the  bread  still  continues 
bread."  This,  Wycliffe  contended,  in  the  teeth  of  an 
angry   Church,    was   not    only  the   true  doctrine   of 


36  Wycliffe. 

Scripture,  but  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  "  In  all  Holy  Scripture,  from  the  beginning 
of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  the  Apocalypse,  there  be  no 
wordes  written  of  the  makyng  of  Christe's  body."  His 
doctrine,  he  contended,  moreover,  was  the  doctrine  of 
the  primitive  Church,  St.  Augustine,  and  the  great 
Fathers  of  the  faith.  "The  consecrated  host  we 
priests  make  and  bless,"  he  said  further  in  his  work  on 
the  Eucharist,  "  is  not  the  body  of  the  Lord,  but  an 
effectual  sign  of  it."  "It  is  not  to  be  understood," 
he  declared  in  the  Trialogus,  "that  the  body  of 
Christ  comes  down  from  heaven  to  the  host  conse- 
crated in  every  church.  No.  It  remains  ever  fast 
and  sure  in  heaven." 

Wycliffe  never  retracted  these  views.  On  the 
contrary,  when  the  University  of  Oxford  proceeded 
to  condemn  him  and  his  opinions,  Wycliffe  stood 
firm.  His  friends  were  timid.  John  of  Gaunt,  his 
former  patron,  refused  any  longer  to  champion  him. 
It  mattered  not.  The  courage  of  Wycliffe  was  in- 
vincible. He  had  ceased  to  put  his  trust  in  princes. 
His  help  was  in  the  Lord. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1382,  he  stood 
before  the  convocation  of  Oxford,  before  Archbishop 
Courtney,  and  the  bishops,  and  the  doctors,  and  his 
answer  to  their  excommunications  and  suspensions 
was  a  bold  confession,  in  which  he  declared  that  there 
is  a  real  presence  in  the  sacrament,  but  not  a  corporal 
presence.  That  is,  the  Body  of  Christ  is  present, 
but  not  substantially  or  corporeally.      Substantially 


Wycliffe.  37 

the  bread  is  bread  ;  sacrament  ally  it  is  the  Body  of 
Christ.  It  is  true  that  in  some  of  his  arguments  he 
employed  subtle  phrases  and  certain  obscure  and 
equivocal  expressions.  But  this  was  to  be  expected. 
Wycliffe  was  a  schoolman,  and  delighted  in  the 
subtilties  of  the  schools.  The  main  thing  is  that  he 
still  stood  to  his  point ;  that  the  bread  is  still  bread 
and  the  wine  still  wine  after  consecration.  The  best 
proof  of  his  not  having  recanted  is  the  fact  of  the 
unrelenting  persecution  of  his  enemies. 

The  Church  condemned  him,  but  the  Commons 
exculpated  him,  and  Wycliffe  never  flinched.  He 
had  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  and  he  did  not  turn 
back.  "Finaliter  Veritas  vincit"  was  his  proud 
avowal.  I  believe  that  in  the  end  truth  will  conquer. 
And  again  he  passed  forth  from  the  proud  throng 
unscathed. 

Nor  did  he  lack  adherents  and  supporters.  When 
the  whole  current  of  Church  thought  swept  fiercely 
against  him,  and  prelates  and  doctors  denounced  him 
as  an  apostate,  a  growing  band  of  faithful  ones  clung 
closely  to  him.  They  believed  his  teachings.  They 
became  apostles  of  his  doctrines.  They  went  from 
parish  to  parish,  and  town  to  town  ;  and  soon  in 
every  hamlet,  village,  town,  and  castle,  his  disciples 
abounded.  They  grew  in  spite  of  hatred,  and  death, 
and  recantations,  and  persecutions.  They  sprang  up 
in  the  schools.  They  appeared  in  the  North  on  the 
streets  of  Edinburgh.  They  were  found  on  the  con- 
tinent as  far  South  as  Bohemia.     They  waxed  bold 


38  Wycliffe. 

in  the  Universities.  They  appeared  even  amongst  the 
nobles. 

Wycliffe  maintained  to  the  end  his  vigorous 
denunciations  of  the  errors  of  Rome.  Living  in 
quietude  in  the  peaceful  rectory  of  Lutterworth,  in 
the  wonderful  providence  of  God,  he  was  unmolested 
by  persecution,  and  devoted  his  few  remaining  years 
with  tireless  assiduity  to  the  great  cause  of  truth. 
Nor  did  he  confine  himself  to  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  by  any  means.  He  assailed  every 
superstitious  practice  and  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
And  he  did  better.  For  while  with  relentless  logic  he 
shook  to  the  base  the  fabric  of  error,  he  set  forth 
also  the  great  positive  principles  of  evangelical  truth. 

Wycliffe s  Tracts. 

The  two  great  instruments  employed  by  Wycliffe 
during  these  prolific  years  were  his  tracts  and  his 
Bible.  The  influence  of  the  tracts  was  very  great. 
They  were  simply  appeals  to  the  people.  They  were 
not  addressed  to  the  learned  and  logical,  the  scholars 
and  schoolmen  of  the  day,  but  to  all  classes  of 
Churchmen.  He  had  addressed  the  University,  and 
the  University,  at  the  dictate  of  a  Roman  legate,  had 
hardened  its  heart.  The  doctors  had  ears  to  hear, 
but  they  would  not  hear.  As  the  Apostle  of  old  said 
to  the  envious  Jews  :  "  It  was  necessary  that  the 
Word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you; 
but  seeing  you  put  it  from  you,  lo,  we  turn  to  the 
peoples."     So  Wycliffe  turned   to   the  people  of  the 


Wycliffe.  39 

land.  He  addressed  them  in  their  own  mother 
tongue. 

With  an  amazing  industry,  Green  tells  us,  he 
issued  tract  after  tract  in  the  tongue  of  the  people. 
"The  dry,  syllogistic  Latin  is  suddenly  flung  aside, 
and  in  the  rough,  clear,  homely  English  he  woos  the 
hearts  of  the  masses."  And  with  wonderful  effect. 
The  influence  of  those  easily  read  little  pamphlets 
was  extraordinary.  They  spoke  to  them  not  in 
French,  the  language  of  the  Court,  or  in  Latin,  the 
language  of  the  Church,  but  in  English,  the  language 
of  the  people  and  of  every-day  life.  They  were  circu- 
lated widely.  They  were  read  voraciously.  They  were 
earnestly  believed.  They  created  thinkers.  They 
enlisted  the  devotion  of  awakened  lives,  It  was  the 
first  Tractarian  movement  in  the  English  Church. 

Wycliffe's  tracts  were  partially  negative,  par- 
tially positive.  They  exposed  and  destroyed  the 
erroneous ;  they  explained  and  restored  the  true. 
Nearly  every  distinctive  tenet  and  dogma  of  Roman- 
ism, or,  as  it  was  then  and  is  now  so  falsely  called, 
the  "  Catholic "  faith,  was  denounced  and  proved 
false.  The  great  canon  of  the  true  religion  of 
Christ,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostles,  was  unflinchingly  upheld.  What  saith 
the  Scriptures  ?  What  did  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
teach  ?  These  seem  to  have  been  the  only  authority 
and  rule  of  Wycliffe's  positions.  He  had  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  which  was  the  reason  of  the  Reformation; 
the  conclusion  that  all  Christian  doctrine  is  to  be 
tested  by  God's  Holy  Word. 


40  Wycliffe. 

The  result  was  a  revelation.  The  things  that 
were  most  widely  and  firmly  believed  by  English 
Churchmen  were  without  a  shadow  of  foundation  in 
Scripture.  The  great  and  massive  structures  of 
the  Roman  temple  were  built  on  quagmires  of  super- 
stition and  fable.  Pardons,  indulgences,  pilgrimages, 
auricular  confession,  image  worship,  saint  worship, 
the  adoration  of  the  host,  the  absolution  of  the  priest, 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope ;  these  things  were  the 
very  substance  of  Church  religion. 

And  they  were  all  wrong ;  they  were  false. 

This  was  a  tremendous  conclusion  for  a  man  in 
that  age  to  arrive  at.  But  God  was  his  judge,  and 
the  Word  of  God  his  authority. 

They  were  not  in  the  Scriptures.  They  were 
without  authority  there.  Therefore  they  could  not  be 
true.  As  he  said  of  the  host  in  his  tract,  the  Wicket : 
"  They  have  made  us  believe  a  false  law  ;  the  falsest 
belief  is  taught  in  it.  For  where  do  you  find  that 
ever  Christ,  or  any  of  His  disciples  or  apostles, 
taught  any  man  to  worship  it  ? "  He  found  no 
adoration  of  the  host  in  the  Word  of  God.  It  had 
no  right,  therefore,  to  be  practised  in  the  Church.  Or, 
as  the  Church  of  England  teaches  to-day  :  "  No  ado- 
ration is  intended,  or  ought  to  be  done,  for  that  were 
idolatry,  to  be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians." 
With  regard  to  the  asserted  power  of  the  priest 
to  transform  the  piece  of  bread  by  the  words  of 
consecration   into   the   Saviours  real  body,   he   said 


Wycliffe.  41 

again  :  "  You  cannot  create  the  world  by  using  the 
words  of  creation.  How  shall  you  make  the  Creator 
of  the  world  by  using  the  words  by  which  ye  say 
He   made   the   bread   His   body?" 

With  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  pardon  and 
indulgences,  and  the  supererogatory  merits  of  the 
saints,  there  is  no  warrant  for  these  things  in 
the  Word.  They  are  false,  and  therefore  should 
not  be  taught  in  the  Church.  "Do  they  imagine," 
said  he,  "that  God's  grace  may  be  bought  and 
sold  like  an  ox  or  an  ass  ?  The  merit  of  Christ 
is  of  itself  sufficient  to  redeem  every  man 
from  hell."  He  reprobated  the  idea  of  worshipping 
of  images,  and  cut  in  twain  the  casuistry  of  the 
Romish  defence.  "  We  worship  not  the  image,  but 
the  being  represented  by  the  image,  say  the  patrons 
of  idolatry  in  our  times.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  the 
idolatrous  heathen  did  the  same."  He  opposed  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy.  He  denied  the  necessity  of 
prayer  to  the  saints,  or  saint  worship.  He  rejected 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory  (though  some  have  ques- 
tioned this),  and  the  value  of  the  Latin  tongue  in 
the  services  of  the  Church.  He  impugned  the 
practice  of  private  masses,  and  of  extreme  unction. 
He  denounced  the  artificiality  of  the  chanting  of 
the  priests,  and  the  use  of  oil  and  salt  in  the  conse- 
cration. In  short,  in  his  tracts  and  treatises,  Wycliffe 
either  denied  or  questioned  every  prominent  feature 
of  the  Romish  system  of  religion. 

In  fact,  he  went   almost  beyond   this. 


42  Wycliffe. 

He  took  the  position,  as  Fisher  says  in  his 
history  of  the  Reformation,  not  only  of  a  Protestant, 
but,  in  many  important  particulars,  of  a  Puritan. 
Wycliffe  certainly  did  make  statements  that  were 
capable  of  misconstruction,  and  in  rejecting  totally 
ecclesiastical  tradition  as  a  guide,  assumed  positions 
that  laid  him  open  to  the  charge  of  iconoclasm.  If  the 
statements  with  which  he  is  credited  are  true,  he 
would  not  only  have  abolished  Popery,  but  episco- 
pacy ;  and  destroyed  not  merely  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  but  all  ceremonial  worship. 

If  the  statements  are  true  ! 

That  is  just  the  point.  For  we  must  remember  in 
the  first  place,  that  until  lately  the  accounts  we  had  of 
Wycliffe's  teaching  were  largely  gathered  from  Rom- 
ish sources.  In  the  second  place,  that  his  protests  were 
largely  against  the  abuses  and  misuses  of  things,  and 
are  not  to  be  considered  as  denials  of  their  use,  as  his 
idea,  for  instance,  with  regard  to  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion. And,  in  the  third  place,  as  Fuller  so  wisely 
said,  many  of  his  phrases,  which  are  heretical  in 
sound,  would  appear  orthodox  in  sense. 

However,  the  influence  of  the  tracts,  as  we  said, 
was  enormous.  They  found  their  way  into  many 
hearts,  and  wherever  they  went  they  arrested  and 
awakened.  If  the  evidence  of  a  contemporary  histo- 
rian is  to  be  relied  on,  every  second  man  on  the 
highway  was  a  Wycliffite  ;  that  is,  a  man  who,  by 
the  teachings  and  writings  of  Wycliffe,  had  come  to 


Wycliffe.  43 

doubt  and  deny  the  Romish  system,  and  to  think  for 
himself  on  religious  subjects. 

Wycliffe  s  Bible. 

The  Bible  of  John  Wycliffe  was  his  greatest 
achievement.  The  work  of  translating  fragments  of 
the  Bible  into  the  vulgar  tongue  had  been  frequently 
attempted  before  Wycliffe's  day.  Two  English  ver- 
sions of  the  Psalms  were  made  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  the  Third  by  William  of  Shoreham.  But 
none  of  the  translators,  from  Bede's  day  onwards,  had 
the  honour  of  Wycliffe.  Wycliffe's  honour  was  not 
merely  his  assertion  of  the  theoretical  right  of 
Christians  to  read  the  Word  of  God  for  them- 
selves, but  his  giving  the  whole  of  the  Bible  to  the 
people  in  their  own  tongue.  The  version  of  St. 
John's  Gospel  by  Bede  was  in  Saxon.  So  were  the 
fragments  of  King  Alfred.  The  scholastic  version 
of  the  Bible,  the  Vulgate,  was  in  Latin.  The  portions 
of  Archbishop  Aelfric,  and  Rolle,  and  William  of 
Shoreham  were,  to  all  practical  purposes,  ecclesias- 
tical curiosities.  Nobody  knew  anything  about 
them.  The  Church,  so  far  from  encouraging  the 
reading  of  the  Bible,  encouraged  its  obscurity.  The 
Church  of  England,  or  rather  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
England — for  that  is  what  it  practically  was—  so  far 
from  ordering  it  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  was  soon 
about  to  order  to  prison  everybody  who  read  it  at  all. 
No  jailer  ever  kept  a  prisoner  more  secure  in  an 
inner  prison   than   the   Church   of    Rome   kept   the 


44  Wycupfe. 

Word  of  God.  A  few  persons  here  and  there  could 
read  it  in  Latin ;  but  the  majority  cared  nothing 
about  it.  The  most  learned  and  intelligent  of  the 
clergy,  on  their  own  confession,  knew  less  of  the 
Bible  than  many  of  the  Wycliffites.  The  Bible  was 
a  sealed  book,  imprisoned,  unknown  ;  an  antiquarian 
curiosity. 

Wycliffe  boldly  claimed  the  Bible  for  the  people. 
The  Bible,  he  said  in  effect,  is  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
If  it  is  heresy  to  read  the  Bible,  then  the  Holy  Ghost 
Himself  is  condemned,  who  gave  tongues  to  the 
Apostles  of  Christ  to  speak  the  Word  of  God  in  all 
languages  under  heaven.  If  the  faith  of  the  Church 
is  in  the  Bible,  then  the  Bible  should  be  in  the  hands 
of  the  people.  If  God's  Word  is  the  life  of  the  world, 
and  every  word  of  God  is  the  life  of  the  human 
soul,  no  Antichrist  can  take  it  away  from  those  that 
are  Christian  men,  and  thus  suffer  the  people  to  die 
from  hunger.  All  truth  is  contained  in  Scripture. 
There  is  no  Court  besides  the  Court  of  Heaven. 
Though  there  were  one  hundred  priests,  and  all  the 
friars  in  the  world  were  turned  into  cardinals,  yet 
should  we  learn  more  from  the  Gospels  than  we  are 
taught  by  that  multitude.  True  sons  will  in  nowise 
go  about  to  infringe  the  will  of  their  heavenly 
Father.  These  were  his  words.  These  were  the 
impulses  that  spurred  Wycliffe  on  in  his  great  work 
of  translation. 

Wycliffe's  Bible  in  English  was  first  published  in 
1382.     Though  printing  was,  of  course,   uninvented, 


Wycliffe.  45 

the  devotedness  of  his  transcribers  produced  copies  in 
abundance.  Hundreds  of  busy  hands  were  at  work 
to  meet  the  demand  that  it  instantly  created,  and 
there  are  still  extant,  it  is  said,  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  hand-copied  versions  of  Wycliffe's  Bible. 

This  year  1382  is  a  great  date  in  English  history. 
It  is  a  year  to  be  had  greatly  in  honour  of  English- 
men. The  Bible  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  people, 
and  the  truth  is  abroad.  The  foundation  stone  of 
the  reformed  Church  of  England  is  laid.  The 
Reformation  has  begun. 

The  Bible  of  John  Wycliffe  was  the  masterpiece 
of  his  life.  To  repeat.  Its  distinctiveness  was  that  it 
was  the  first  real  attempt  to  give  the  whole  Bible  to 
the  people  of  England  in  their  own  tongue.  It  was 
not  merely  that  he  conceived  the  idea,  but  that  with 
the  dogged  determination  of  the  Yorkshireman, 
with  invincible  patience,  he  carried  it  into  final 
effect.  He  only  had  the  Vulgate,  the  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  to  translate  from.  His  knowledge 
of  Greek  was  limited,  and  his  acquaintance  with 
Hebrew  practically  nil.  Yet  in  spite  of  his  limita- 
tions, Wycliffe's  Bible,  the  first  of  all  our  Bibles, 
produced  in  an  age  of  comparative  critical  ignorance, 
has  maintained  its  position  to  this  day  as  the  parent 
not  only  of  our  present  authorized  version,  but  of 
the  majority  of  versions  since  his  day.  Not  only  so, 
but  the  Bible  that  has  been  given  to  the  world  in 
four  or  five  hundred  languages  is  the  English  Bible, 
which   was   the   direct    child   of  Wycliffe's   version. 


46  Wycliffe. 

Thus,  as  a  modern  writer  says,  Wycliffe's  Bible 
became  the  parent  Bible  of  all  the  Bibles  in  the 
world,  and  the  English  language  was  given  the 
honour  of  being  the  first  of  all  the  modern  tongues 
into  which  the  Word  of  God  was  translated. 

But  more  than  this. 

In  the  pages  of  Wycliffe's  Bible,  the  language 
of  our  forefathers  suddenly,  almost  dramatically, 
stood  forth  in  its  final  English  form.  The  mass  of 
the  people  had  spoken  for  many  years  a  language 
which  was  merely  an  Anglo-Saxon,  Latinic,  Teu- 
tonic, Franco-English  jumble.  But  the  language 
which  we  now  call  our  English  language  found  its 
earliest  popular  written  expression  in  the  pages  of 
Wycliffe's  Bible.  If  Chaucer  and  Sir  John  de  Mande- 
ville  fixed  the  language  for  the  cultured,  the  Bible  of 
John  Wycliffe  marked  the  settlement  of  the  English 
language  for  the  people.  Wycliffe's  version  of  the 
Bible,  says  Wylie  in  his  exhaustive  History  of  Prot- 
estantism, powerfully  contributed  to  form  the  Eng- 
lish language.  If  Chaucer  is  the  Father  of  English 
poetry,  Wycliffe  is  the  Father  of  English  prose. 
Dr.  Lechler  says  that  Wycliffe's  translation  of  the 
Bible  marks  as  great  an  epoch  in  the  development  of 
the  English  language  as  Luther's  translation  in  the 
history  of  the  German  language.  This  more  recent 
philologists  have  come  to  acknowledge. 

Wycliffe  lived  but  a  short  time  after  this.  He 
did  not  appear  again  before  the  public  eye.  But, 
though  he  lived  in  retirement,  he  accomplished  a  vast 


Wycliffe.  47 

amount  of  work.  He  labored  with  untiring  enthu- 
siasm, as  far  as  his  failing  health  permitted,  in  his 
parish  at  Lutterworth,  preaching  sermons,  writing 
tracts,  and  scattering  his  writings  abroad  over  the 
land.  An  idea  of  his  enormous  working  power  may 
be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  his  published  works 
in  Latin  and  English  are  estimated  at  about  one 
hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Little  is  known  of  his  life  during  these  latter 
days.  The  only  incident  of  importance  that  is  gener- 
ally related  is  the  Brief  of  the  Pope  Urban  demand- 
ing his  appearance  at  Rome,  and  Wycliffe's  alleged 
reply,  so  full  of  gentle  sarcasm  and  innocent  instruc- 
tion. He  told  the  Pope  he  would  be  delighted  to 
explain  his  teachings  to  anyone,  but  especially  to 
him,  because,  as  the  first  follower  of  Christ  in 
Christendom,  he  would,  of  course,  be  the  humblest, 
and  most  exempt  from  worldly  honours !  And  as  he, 
of  all  men,  was  most  bound  by  the  law  of  Christ,  he 
would  naturally  leave  all  temporal  dominion  and  rule 
to  the  secular  power !  He  regretted  that  he  was  unable 
to  appear  before  the  Pope  in  person,  but  would,  both 
by  himself  and  with  others,  remember  him  in  his 
prayers.  The  letter  is  given  in  full  in  Foxe's  Book  of 
Martyrs.     It  is  really  a  delicious  bit  of  reading. 

Wycliffe  died  on  the  last  day  of  the  last  month 
of  1384,  leaving  behind  him  a  noble  heritage  of 
truth,  and  a  record  of  untarnished  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  Christ. 

He  was  not  only  the  greatest  reformer  of  the 


48  Wycliffe. 

Church  of  England ;  he  was  the  first  reformer  of 
Europe.  His  reputation  was  continental.  He  antic- 
ipated the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century 
in  England  and  abroad.  If  Luther  was  the  Joshua 
of  the  Reformation  movement,  Wycliffe  was  its 
Moses.  Here  again  was  that  saying  verified;  one 
soweth  and  another  reapeth.  Wycliffe  sowed,  Luther 
reaped.  Wycliffe  spake,  Cranmer  and  Ridley  re- 
echoed the  words.  As  far  as  his  influence  in  Eng- 
land is  concerned,  a  modern  Oxford  professor 
describes  it  as  wholly  unapproached  in  the  entire 
history  of  the  nation  for  its  effect  on  English  the- 
ology and  English  religious  life.  To  Wycliffe,  says 
Professor  Burrows,  we  owe  more  than  to  any  one 
person  who  can  be  mentioned,  our  English  language, 
our  English  Bible,  and  our  reformed  religion. 

But  his  influence  was  not  confined  to  England. 
The  works  of  Wycliffe  scattered  through  the  Continent 
became  the  seeds  of  reformations.  They  influenced 
the  universities.  Students  from  Bohemia,  encouraged 
by  the  Queen  of  King  Richard  II.,  herself  a  Bohemian 
princess,  to  study  at  Oxford,  returned  to  their  homes 
with  Wycliffe's  tracts  and  Scriptures.  The  Conti- 
nental Church  world  was  shaken  by  John  Hus, 
the  brilliant  reformer  of  Prague  ;  and  the  salient 
subject  of  the  magnificent  Council  of  Constance, 
with  its  babel  of  voices,  was  the  doctrine  and  the 
teaching  and  the  works  of  the  man  who  died  in 
quiet  Lutterworth.  He  being  dead  yet  spake.  These 
cardinals,  and  archbishops,  and  bishops,  and   kings, 


Wycliffe.  49 

and  dukes,  and  marquises,  and  counts,  condemned 
his  writings,  and  commanded  his  bones  to  be  exhumed 
and  burnt.  But  in  vain.  In  vain  did  Romish  bishops 
burn  his  books.  In  vain  did  an  Anglican  bishop 
exhume  his  bones  and  cast  his  ashes  on  the  flowing 
stream.  "  The  brook  called  the  Swift  conveyed  his 
ashes  into  Avon,  Avon  into  Severn,  Severn  into 
the  narrow  seas,  they  into  the  main  ocean."  The 
very  ashes  of  Wycliffe  became  an  emblem  of  his 
doctrine    dispersed  over  the  world. 

Wycliffe s  Influence  and  Abiding  Work. 

As  this  is  perhaps  the  most  important  as  well 
as  the  most  interesting  phase  of  our  study,  we  will 
endeavor,  before  we  conclude,  to  show  in  a  more 
detailed  manner  the  effect  of  this  life  and  teaching 
of  Wycliffe  upon  the  subsequent  history  of  Europe. 
A  great  man  does  not  work  during  his  lifetime 
only.  He  leaves  forces  working  afterwards.  He 
projects  his  personality  far  into  the  future,  and  in 
proportion  to  his  greatness  is  the  impress  that  he 
makes  upon  the  after  generations.  It  is  only  of 
recent  years  that  the  magnitude  of  Wycliffe's  per- 
sonality and  "  the  epochal  importance  "  of  his  labors 
have  been  intelligently  appreciated. 

The  effects  of  Wycliffe's  life-work  may  be 
epitomized  thus  : — 

1st.  Its  influence  upon  the  British  character  and 
nation. 


50  Wycliffe. 

2nd.  Its  influence  upon  the  constitution  and 
doctrine  of  the  modern  Church  of  England. 

3rd.  Its  reactionary  influence  upon  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

4th.  Its  more  extensive  influence  upon  the  north- 
ern continental  nations. 

1st.    Wycliffe  s  Influence  upon  the  British  Nation  and 
Character. 

It  may  be  unquestioningly  said  that  John 
Wycliffe  was  the  true  precursor  of  British  liberty 
and  British  freedom  in  its  noblest  aspect.  The  high- 
est liberty  is  spiritual  liberty.  It  is  a  higher  liberty 
than  even  British  liberty.  If  to-day  this  passion  for 
personal  religious  and  spiritual  liberty  is  the  peculiar 
characteristic  of  the  British  Empire,  and  of  the 
Northern  nations  of  the  world,  it  is  largely  owing 
to  one  man,  and  that  one  man  an  English  Church- 
man, John  Wycliffe.  It  was  he  who  first  flashed 
on  the  modern  world  the  rays  of  the  Bible.  He 
was  not  only  the  first  Englishman,  but  the  first 
man,  to  recognize  the  truth  and  to  promulgate  the 
truth,  that  the  freedom  of  the  Church  and  the  free- 
dom of  the  nation  had  its  fundamental  not  in  the 
Magna  Charta  of  the  nobility  of  King  John,  but  in 
that  greater  Magna  Charta  of  the  freedom  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  nation,  that  deed  of  grace  and 
promise  given  by  the  Heavenly  Father,  God's  Own 
inspired  Word.  It  is  this  moral  constitution  written 
upon   the  hearts  of  the  people  of  England  which  is, 


Wyclipfb.  51 

as  our  great  and  good  Queen  Victoria  said,  the  real 
secret  of  England's  greatness.  It  is  to  this  we  owe 
our  British  love  of  freedom  and  our  British  sub- 
mission to  law,  our  English  constitution,  and  our 
national  love  of  truth.  Wycliffe  builded  deeper  than 
he  knew  when  he  worked  as  a  loyalist  for  the 
spiritual  liberty  of  the  subject,  and  as  a  translator 
for  the  right  of  the  English  people  to  the  Bible.  The 
leaven  which  Wycliffe  had  inserted  within  the  mass  of 
English  thought  never  ceased  to  ferment,  and  the  re- 
ligious liberty  we  enjoy  at  the  present  day  may  all  be 
traced  to  him  as  the  human  source. 

2nd.      Wycliffe  s   Influence  upon  the  Present  Teaching 
of  the    Church   of  England. 

The  question  of  the  effect  of  the  career  and 
teachings  of  John  Wycliffe  upon  the  present-day 
teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  is  a  very  large 
one,  for  it  opens  up  the  very  important  question 
of  the  relation  of  Wycliffe  to  the  Reformation  move- 
ment. As  far  as  detail  is  concerned,  it  is  certain 
that  some  of  the  sociological  and  sacramental  views 
of  Wycliffe  can  in  no  measure  be  claimed  as  the 
teachings  of  the  Church  of  England  to-day,  for 
Wycliffe  in  nowise  attempted  to  compile  a  system 
of  dogmatic  theology,  or  to  formulate  a  series  of 
doctrinal  articles.  But  with  regard  to  the  main 
principles  assumed  by  Wycliffe,  it  is  certain  that 
his  cardinal  doctrinal  positions  are  the  cardinal  and 
distinctive  principles  of  the  Church  of  England. 


52  Wycliffe. 

This  may  be  asserted  with  regard  to  three  im- 
portant positions. 

First  and  foremost  of  all,  Wycliffe  maintained,  as 
the  corner-stone  of  his  doctrinal  position,  the  su- 
premacy of  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
With  him  the  infallible  test  of  all  doctrines  was  the 
Word  of  God.  Nothing  that  anyone  could  teach, 
nothing  that  anyone  could  do,  could  be  of  equal 
authority  with  Holy  Scripture.  To  this  touchstone 
all  human  writings,  human  opinions,  and  human 
traditions,  were  to  be  unhesitatingly  brought.  The 
authority  of  Scripture  infinitely  surpasses  the 
authority  of  any  writings  whatever.  It  is  God's 
word,  and  therefore  the  highest  authority.  De 
Veritate  Sacrae  Scripturae,  pp.  200-394.  To  hold  the 
contrary  is  the  most  dangerous  of  heresies.  Not  only 
so.  He  took  what  was  in  those  days  the  audacious 
and  extraordinary  position  that  the  teachings  of 
popes  and  prelates  were  not  to  be  accepted  as  ex- 
cathedra  statements  of  Church  belief  simply  because 
they  were  the  statements  of  popes  and  prelates  to 
which,  because  of  their  authority,  all  men  should 
bow.  Men,  that  is,  Christian  men,  Churchmen,  the 
lay  people,  were  to  be  established  in  God's  law. 
They  were  to  examine  for  themselves  the  faith,  and 
to  know  the  subject  of  belief.  "  Forasmuch  as  the 
Bible  contains  Christ,  that  is,  all  that  is  necessary  for 
salvation,  it  is  necessary  for  all  men,  not  for  priests 
alone.  It  alone  is  the  supreme  law  that  is  to  rule 
Church,    State,  and    Christian    life,    without   human 


Wycliffe.  53 

traditions  and  statutes.  The  Bible,  according  to 
Christ's  will,  is  the  foundation  of  all  true  life,  the 
Magna  Charta  of  the  Church,  the  final  standard  of 
truth  and  error.  The  Bible  is  for  each  and  all ;  every- 
one is  bound  to  study  it.  In  the  sense  of  being  a 
lover  of  God's  Word,  every  man  ought  to  be  a  theo- 
logian."    Ibid.,  pp.  370-378-382. 

In  other  words,  he  promulgated  as  his  private 
opinion  what  is  now  the  authorized  faith  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  Sixth  Article :  "  Holy 
Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion ;  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of 
any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article 
of  the  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary 
to  salvation."  This  is  exactly  what  Wycliffe  con- 
tended for  ;  the  doctrinal  supremacy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  reasonable  right  of  private  judgment. 
The  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  was  to  be  the 
standard  of  doctrine. 

In  the  next  place,  Wycliffe  taught  men  "  to 
trust  wholly  in  Christ ;  to  rely  altogether  on  His 
sufferings ;  to  beware  of  seeking  to  be  justified  in 
any  other  way  than  by  His  righteousness."  "  The 
performance  of  good  works  without  Divine  grace 
is  worthless.  Those  who  follow  Christ  become 
righteous  through  the  participation  of  His  right- 
eousness, and  will  be  saved."  "  Human  nature 
is  wholly  at  enmity  with  God;  we  cannot  perform 
a  good  work  unless   it  be  properly  His  good  work." 


54  Wycliffe. 

"  We  have  no  merit.  His  mercy  prevents  us  so  that 
we  receive  grace ;  and  it  followeth  us  so  as  to  help 
us  and  keep  us  in  grace." 

"The  merit  of  Christ  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
redeem  every  man  from  hell.  Faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  sufficient  for  salvation."  "  There  must 
be  atonement  made  for  sin,  according  to  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  The  Person  to  make  this  atone- 
ment must  be  God  and  man."  "  Christ  died  not  for 
His  own  sins.  He  died  for  the  sins  that  others  had 
done."  "  If  men  believe  in  Christ,  then  the  promises 
of  life  that  God  hath  made  shall  be  given  by  virtue 
of  Christ  to  all  men  that  make  this  the  chief  matter." 
"As  a  right  looking  on  that  adder  of  brass  saved  the 
people  from  the  venom  of  serpents,  so  a  right  look 
by  full  belief  on  Christ  saveth  His  people." 

It  is  probable  that  Wycliffe  did  not  hold  with 
Luther's  clearness,  as  both  Melancthon  and  Dorner 
have  hinted,  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
Still,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  he  grasped  the  reality 
of  salvation  by  the  merit  of  Christ  alone.  He  got 
hold  of  the  fact  rather  than  the  dogma  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.  And  his  teaching  is  practically 
identical  with  what  is  now  the  distinctive  teaching 
of  the  tenth,  eleventh,  and  thirteenth  articles  of  the 
English  Church. 

"  Men  become  righteous  through  the  participa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness,"  said  Wycliffe. 

"We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only 
for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'' 


Wycliffe  55 

is  the  distinctive  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England 
(Article  XI.). 

"  Seek  not  to  be  justified  in  any  other  way  than 
by  His  righteousness,"  said  Wycliffe.  "  It  is  alto- 
gether a  vain  imagination  that  man  can  of  his  moral 
behaviour  induce  God  to  give  him  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  needful  for  conversion."  "  It  is  not  good 
for  us  to  trust  in  our  merits,  in  our  virtues,  in  our 
righteousness." 

"  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only 
for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
by  faith,  and  not  for  our  works  or  deservings," 
is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  (Article  XI..  of  the 
Justification  of  Man). 

"We  cannot  perform  a  good  work  unless  it  be 
properly  His  good  work.  We  cannot  so  much  as 
think  a  good  thought  unless  Jesus  send  it,"  said 
Wycliffe. 

"  We  have  no  power  to  do  good  works  pleasant 
and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by 
Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will, 
and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will," 
is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  (Article  X.). 

"  Unbelievers,  though  they  might  perform  works 
apparently  good  in  their  matter,  still  were  not  to  be 
accounted  righteous  men,"  said  Wycliffe. 

"  Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the 
inspiration  of  His  Spirit,  are  not  pleasant  to  God 
.     .     .     neither   do   they  make  men  meet  to  receive 


56  Wycliffe. 

grace,"  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England 
(Article  XIII.). 

The  five  Articles,  from  Article  X.  to  Article  XIV., 
are  almost  ipsissima  verba  of  Wy  cliff  e's  writings  ;  a 
brief  summary  of  the  teachings  of  Wycliffe  on  the 
way  of  salvation. 

Then  as  to  his  teaching  on  the  Church  and  the 
Sacrament  there  is  scarcely  an  Article,  from  the 
nineteenth  to  the  thirty-second  of  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  was  not  found  substan- 
tially in  the  teaching  of  Wycliffe.  His  teaching,  with 
regard  to  the  nature  of  the  Church,  was  directly  op- 
posed to  the  so-called  Catholic  Church  teaching  on 
the  subject,  and  is  similar  to  the  distinctive  (that  is, 
distinctive  from  the  so-called  Roman  Catholic  teach- 
ing) Church  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  to- 
day. He  declared  that  the  Church  was  made  up  of 
the  whole  body  of  the  faithful,  that  is,  true  be- 
lievers, and  that  the  clergy  alone  are  not  the  Church. 
He  repudiated  the  current  idea  that  Holy  Church 
meant  merely  prelates  and  priests,  with  monks  and 
canons  and  friars.  "  Christian  men,  taught  in  God's 
law,  call  Holy  Church  the  congregation  of  just  men, 
for  whom  Jesus  Christ  shed  His  blood." 

The  visible  Church  of  Christ,  says  the  Church 
of  England,  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men. — Art. 
XIX.  So  there  was  also  to  Wycliffe,  although  he  may 
not  have  used  the  precise  language  of  our  Church 
Article  to-day,  a  Church  visible  and  a  Church  invisi- 
ble, membership  in  the  former  by  no  means  implying 


Wycliffe.  57 

(as  in  the  Romish  system)  membership  in  the  latter. 
The  Pope  and  Bishops,  if  "of  the  world,"  were  no  mem- 
bers of  the  holy  Church.  The  True  Church,  the  Real 
Church,  or,  as  Hooker  used  to  call  it,  the  Church 
Mystical,  consisted  of  the  elect  only,  those  who  from 
eternity  were  predestinated  to  salvation.  "  Not  every 
one  who  is  in  the  Church  is  of  the  Church."  In  one 
word.  Wycliffe  deliberately  opposed  the  idea  that  the 
Church  means  the  Visible  Catholic  Church,  or  the 
organized  communion  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  and 
clearly  anticipated  the  teaching  of  the  Bishop- 
reformers  that  the  true  Catholic  Church  is  the 
blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people  in  its  mystical 
or  invisible,  and  visible  aspects.  The  authority  of  the 
Word  was  superior  to  that  of  the  Church  and  Councils) 
as  the  Church  of  England  distinctly  (namely,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  position  of  the  Church  of  Rome)  teaches 
in  Articles  XX.  and  XXI.  "  The  Church  has  fallen  be- 
cause she  has  abandoned  the  gospels  and  preferred 
the  laws  of  the  Pope.  Although  there  should  be  a 
hundred  popes,  we  should  refuse  to  accept  their  de- 
liverances in  things  pertaining  to  the  faith,  unless 
they  were  founded  in  Holy  Scripture."  It  is  almost 
the  very  language  of  Article  XXI. 

He  taught  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  (the 
so-called  Roman  Catholic  Church),  as  to  pardons,  and 
saint  worship,  and  image  worship,  and  relic  worship, 
was  superstitious,  and  unwarranted  by  Scripture. 
The  Church  of  England  teaches  the  same  (Article 
XXII.). 


58  Wycliffe. 

He  taught  that  the  Latin  should  not  be  invariably 
used  in  the  public  worship  of  the  Church.  The  people 
did  not  understand  it,  and  it  was  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God.  The  Church  of  England  teaches  the 
same  (Article  XXIV.). 

With  regard  to  the  sacraments,  especially  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  while  the  teaching  of 
Wycliffe  was  defective  in  some  particulars,  it  is 
remarkable  how  similar  it  is  in  the  main  to  the 
distinctive  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England.  He 
held  most  clearly,  as  we  have  already  shown,  that  the 
Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  a  figment. 
"  The  consecrated  bread  was  not  Christ ;  it  was  a 
sign,  an  effectual  sign  of  Christ."  "  Transubstantia- 
tion rests  on  no  Scriptural  grounds.  The  bread  still 
continues  bread."  "  Substantially  it  is  bread  ;  sacra- 
mentally  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  The  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  in  the  sacrament  figuratively  and 
spiritually."     This  was  Wycliffe's  language. 

The  language  of  the  Articles  is  almost  verbally 
the  same.  "  The  sacraments  are  effectual  signs  of 
grace."    (Article  XXV.). 

"  Transubstantiation  (or  the  change  of  substance 
of  bread  and  wine)  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  cannot 
be  proved  by  Holy  Writ ;  but  it  is  repugnant  to  the 
plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature 
of  a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many  su- 
perstitions "  (Article  XXVIII.).  "  The  body  of  Christ 
is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  only  after  an 
heavenly  and  spiritual  manner."    (Article   XXVIII.) 


Wycliffe.  59 

Wycliffe  condemned  the  system  of  sacramental 
adoration.  "  For  where  fynde  ye  that  ever  Christ, 
or  any  of  His  disciples,  or  apostles,  taught  any  man  to 
worshipe  it."  So  Article  XXVIII. :  "  The  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance 
reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or  worshipped." 
And  Article  XXV.  :  "  The  sacraments  were  not  or- 
dained of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon  or  to  be  carried 
about." 

He  taught  that  the  thing  needful  in  the  reception 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  merely  a  vain  formalism 
and  a  superstitious  rite,  but  a  communion  with 
Christ  according  to  the  spiritual  life.  The  very 
teaching  of  Article  XXVIII.  and  Article  XXIX.: 
"  The  mean  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received 
and  eaten  in  the  Supper  is  Faith." 

"  The  wicked  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively 
faith  "  "  eat  not  the  body  of  Christ." 

In  short,  if  Wycliffe  did  not  teach  in  extenso,  he 
taught  in  embryo  nearly  every  distinctive  doctrine 
now  authoritatively  set  forth  as  the  formulated 
teaching  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  those  great 
fundamental  matters  of  faith,  the  Holy  Trinity,  the 
Incarnation,  and  the  Resurrection,  he  held  with  the 
Creeds  of  the  Catholic  Church.  So,  in  like  manner, 
does  the  Church  of  England  in  the  first  five  Articles ; 
for  the  first  five  Articles  do  not  therefore  contain 
anything  peculiarly  distinctive  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

In   connection  with   this  phase  of  the  question, 


60  Wycliffe. 

however,  one  thing  must  be  clearly  held  in  mind.  The 
teachings  of  Wycliffe  were,  after  all,  mere  private 
opinions.  They  were  simply  the  unauthorized  views 
of  an  individual.  Not  only  so.  In  the  view  of  the 
Church  they  were  absolutely  heretical  opinions.  The 
Church,  that  is,  the  Roman  Church,  declared  them  to 
be  "false  and  erroneous  conclusions,  and  most  wicked 
and  damnable  heresies."  They  were  distinctly  and 
flatly  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  They 
were  abhorred  by  the  Church.  They  were  condemned 
by  the  Church.  Wycliffe  was  a  Protestant.  The 
Church  to  which  he  belonged  was  not  Protestant,  but 
Roman. 

And  further.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
modern,  loosely-held  idea  that  there  were  at  that 
time  a  number  of  churches  holding  their  independent 
doctrines,  and  that  the  Church  of  England  was  one  of 
these,  is  an  utterly  unhistoric  opinion.  The  Church 
that  condemned  Wycliffe,  and  from  which  Wycliffe 
differed,  was  the  Holy  Mother  Church,  that  is,  the 
Holy  Church  of  Rome,  which  was  known  in  England 
as  the  Catholic  Church.  There  was  in  those  days  no 
known  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  which  was 
distinct  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Every  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  England  was  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Rome.  There  was  no  distinctive 
teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  as  there  is  to-day. 
But  now,  those  same  views,  those  same  teachings,  for 
holding  which  men  were  once  burned  by  the  Church  of 
England  as  a  Church,  are  now  the  doctrine  and  the 


Wycliffe.  61 

teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  as  a  Church.  The 
private  opinions  of  a  man  have  now  become  the 
teaching  of  the  Church. 

3rd.  The  Reactionary  Influence  of  the  Life  and  Teach- 
ing and  Work  of  John  Wycliffe  upon  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

This  is  a  subject  that  is  sometimes  forgotten. 
But  it  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  Wycliffe 
awakened  not  merely  a  national,  but  a  continental, 
popular  conscience.  He  sent  the  schoolmaster  called 
Truth  abroad  to  teach  an  awakening  world.  And 
more  than  that.  He  shouted  into  the  ear  of  a  re- 
cumbent giant,  and  compelled  that  giant  to  wake  up 
and  put  his  house  in  order.  It  was  not  Luther,  it  was 
Wycliffe  who  first  disturbed  the  somniloquisms  of 
the  Papacy.  It  was  not  Luther,  it  was  Wycliffe 
who  first  awakened  the  Papal  Court  to  turn  over  a 
new  leaf  and  mend  its  ways.  It  did  not  all  come  in  his 
age.  But  the  day  soon  came  when  even  in  the  Roman 
Church  a  Pope  Joan  would  be  an  impossibility,  and 
an  Alexander  VI.  an  anachronism.  The  haughtiest 
despot  of  all  the  earth  had  to  learn  the  bitter  lesson 
that  he  must  set  a  better  example  and  stop  his  evil 
ways  ;  and  he  had  to  learn  it  from  an  English  priest. 
If  the  greatest  Council  ever  convened  by  the  Church 
of  Rome  assembled  thirty  years  later  in  the  City  of 
Constance,  with  an  estimated  attendance  of  5,000 
delegates  and  10,000  visitors,  it  was  convened  and  did 
its  work  largely,  if  not    solely,  because  an  English 


62  Wycliffe. 

reformer  had  disturbed  the  Church  and  its  ways.  If 
the  spirit  of  a  Ximenes,  a  Savonarola,  and  later  on  a 
Quignoni,  evoked  reforming  impulses  in  the  very 
bosom  of  the  Papacy,  it  was  owing  in  large  measure 
to  John  Wycliffe,  an  English  Churchman.  He  was 
the  voice  ;  they  were  but  Roman  echoes. 

4th.      Wycliffe  s  Influence  upon  the  Modern  Continen- 
tal Nations. 

A  modern  biographer  of  Wycliffe,  the  Rev.  J.  C. 
Carrick,  has  traced  in  a  most  interesting  manner  the 
connection  between  the  preaching  and  publishing 
work  of  Wycliffe  and  the  Church  of  Scotland.  It 
seems  that  in  Wycliffe's  day  many  Scottish  young 
men  of  promise  were  attracted  to  Oxford  and  came 
within  the  reach  of  his  influence.  The  mesmeric 
spell  of  his  personality  seems  to  have  operated  upon 
them,  as  upon  all  his  followers.  They  returned  to 
Scotland  Wycliffite  enthusiasts.  His  teachings  were 
promulgated  with  incredible  rapidity,  and  records 
remain  to  this  day  of  statutes  and  laws  put  in  opera- 
tion to  annihilate  the  arising  Wycliffe  heresy.  It 
was  by  these  men  that  the  torch  was  handed  on  to 
the  Scottish  reformers.  The  path  between  Wycliffe 
and  Knox  can  almost  as  clearly  be  traced  as  that  be- 
tween Wycliffe  and  our  reformation.  Wycliffe's  New 
Testament  was  translated  into  the  current  Scotch 
language  of  the  day,  and  so  the  light  was  lit  that 
afterwards  illumined  that  influential  church.     Knox 


Wycliffe.  63 

was  spiritually  the  son  of  Wishart.  Wishart  was 
the  son  of  that  Bible  which  was  brought  by  Wy cliff e's 
Scotch  disciples  into  the  north  country. 

The  Reformation  in  Bohemia,  and  the  works  of 
Hus  and  Jerome,  of  Prague,  were  simply  echoes  of  the 
work  of  John  Wycliffe.  John  Hus,  or  John  of  Husinec, 
the  famous  Churchman  of  Prague,  Dean  of  the  philo- 
sophical faculty,  and  Rector  of  its  University,  came 
into  contact  with  the  writings  of  Wycliffe  through 
Jerome  of  Prague.  He  is  said  at  first  to  have  abhorred 
them  intensely,  and  to  have  advised  a  student  who  pos- 
sessed them  to  go  and  fling  them  into  the  river.  But 
gradually  truth  triumphed  over  the  prejudice  of 
ignorance.  Hus  became  an  enthusiastic  Wyclifiite, 
and  his  intrepid  advocacy  of  his  doctrines  overspread 
the  land,  inaugurated  a  national  reformation,  and 
precipitated  such  a  panic  in  the  Roman  Church  that 
the  Council  of  Constance  was  convened,  and  the 
ecclesiastical  world  convulsed  by  the  storm  he  raised. 
It  is  only  natural  that  the  spirit  of  national  patriot- 
ism should  have  attributed  to  Hus,  the  national  hero, 
and  the  national  saint,  a  measure  of  originality 
which  later  researches  have  reluctantly  deprived  him 
of.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  Professor  Loserth 
and  others  have  justly  shown,  the  writings  of  Hus 
were  largely  a  translation  of  the  writings  of  Wycliffe^ 
copied  with  the  innocence  of  a  child.  His  work  on 
the  Church,  which  was  considered  so  powerful,  and 
was  so  celebrated,  was  simply  a  meagre  abridgment 
of  Wycliffe's  de  Ecclesia.      "  What  if  the  contempo- 


64  Wycliffe. 

raries  of  Hus,  who  represented  the  intellectual  ca- 
pacity of  the  Europe  of  that  day  assembled  at  Con- 
stance, had  known  the  original  Hus  had  drawn  upon, 
instead  of  his  feeble  imitation ! "  It  is  hardly  fair, 
however,  to  charge  upon  Wycliffe  and  Hus  the 
dreary  conflicts  of  the  religious  wars  that  ravaged 
Bohemia  after  the  Council  of  Constance,  and  the 
barbarous  wars  of  the  Calixtines  and  Taborites. 
They  may,  with  much  more  justice,  be  charged  to  the 
monstrous  perfidy  and  cruelty  of  the  Papal  hier- 
archy. Rather,  give  to  Hus  and  Wycliffe  the  credit 
of  the  purer  faith  of  the  United  Brethren  of  Bohemia, 
and  their  episcopal  succession  through  the  Bishops  of 
the  Waldenses. 

And  as  it  was  in  Scotland  and  Bohemia,  so,  less 
directly,  it  was  in  Spain,  in  Italy,  in  Germany. 
When  Cardinal  Ximenes  brought  out  the  first  Poly- 
glot Bible,  he  was  simply  following  the  example  of 
the  English  reformer  in  utilizing  his  instrument  of 
ecclesiastical  regeneration.  When  Savonarola  in 
Italy  hurled  his  fiery  word  -  arrows  against  the 
Roman  See,  he  was  simply  re-assuming  the  position 
and  reiterating  the  protest  of  the  old  rector  of 
Lutterworth.  And  as  to  the  work  of  the  Mystics  of 
Germany,  and  the  efforts  of  Gerson  and  John  of 
Wesel,  it  was  simply  the  spirit  of  John  Wycliffe 
revived  in  another  form.  They  were  mere  echoes  re- 
stating in  adapted  language  the  words  and  ideas  of 
the  man  who  first  emerged  out  of  the  darkness  of 
the  Middle  Ages  with  the  torch  of  truth. 


Wycliffe.  65 

As  to  the  oft-disputed  question  of  Wycliffe's 
influence  upon  Luther,  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  Ger- 
mans, through  partiality  to  their  national  reformer- 
hero,  should  have  so  earnestly  repudiated  it,  for,  as 
an  able  modern  writer  has  shown,  there  is  scarcely 
an  idea,  or  an  argument,  used  by  Luther,  with  one 
doubtful  exception,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
works  of  Wycliffe  ;  and  Germany,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  was  honeycombed  with  Hussite 
Societies.  There  is,  in  Vienna,  one  of  Wycliffe's 
manuscripts  with  the  name  Doctor  Martinus  Luter 
plainly  inscribed  upon  it.  Leland,  who  wrote  about 
1530,  says  that  he  saw  in  Germany  quite  a  number  of 
Wycliffe's  writings  in  circulation.  In  fact,  we  may 
well  summarize  the  marvellous  influence  of  our  great 
reformer  by  the  words  of  Milton  in  his  brilliant 
prose  work,  the  Areopagitica  :  "  Had  it  not  been  for 
the  obstinate  perverseness  of  our  prelates  against 
the  divine  and  admirable  spirit  of  Wycliffe  to  sup- 
press him  as  a  schismatic  or  innovator,  perhaps 
neither  the  Bohemian  Hus  and  Jerome — no,  nor  the 
names  of  Luther  and  Calvin — had  ever  been  known, 
the  glory  of  reforming  all  our  neighbours  had  been 
completely  ours." 

To  conclude. 

What,  after  all,  was  the  final  secret  of  this  man's 
career?  What  was  the  deepest  root  of  this  great 
banyan-life  that  has  fastened  its  limbs  in  many  a 
land,  and  still  is  stirring  countless  lives?    What  was 


66  Wycliffe. 

the  key  that  opened  to  John  Wycliffe  a  door  of  power 
such  as  few  men  ever  possessed  over  their  fellow  men? 

It  was  not  merely  scholarship,  though  he  was  by 
long  odds  the  most  distinguished  English  doctor  of 
the  schools,  the  Evangelic  Doctor  par  excellence.  A 
professor  of  Divinity,  a  master  of  Balliol,  a  brilliant 
lecturer,  a  famous  preacher,  a  chaplain  of  the  king, 
he  was  the  outstanding  English  scholar  of  the  day. 
The  learned  looked  up  to  him,  for  he  was  head 
and  shoulders  above  them  all.  But  as  far  as  the 
students  and  clergy  of  the  land  were  concerned,  he 
was  as  Mount  Blanc  to  the  hillsides  around  Cha- 
mounix.  Knighton,  one  of  the  bitterest  of  his 
Roman  opponents,  said  of  Wycliffe :  He  was  the 
most  eminent  Doctor  in  Theology  of  his  day.  In 
philosophy,  his  reputation  was  second  to  none,  and 
in  the  learning  of  the  schools  he  was  without  a  peer. 
The  University  of  Oxford,  in  its  now  famous  testi- 
monial, also  declared  that  in  logic,  philosophy,  and 
theology,  he  was  without  an  equal.     Lechler,  ii.,  318. 

It  was  not  merely  his  courage,  though  he  was  the 
Athanasius  of  his  day.  To  defy  a  current  of  tradition 
that  had  flowed  for  centuries  un withstood ;  to  stand 
alone,  all  alone,  against  Popes  and  Cardinals  and  pre- 
lates; this  John  Wycliffe  did,  and  it  proved  the  man 
of  heroic  mould.  Wycliffe  seemed  ignorant  of  the 
very  meaning  of  fear.  Like  Lord  Lawrence  he  feared 
man  so  little  because  he  feared  God  so  much.  Coun- 
cils, Popes,  doctors,  judges  ;  these  things  were  nothing 
to   him.     He    had    a    greater    appeal    than    that    to 


Wycliffe.  67 

Caesar.  He  went  back  farther  than  the  Primitive 
Church  ;  even  to  the  voice  of  Christ  and  the  Word  of 
God. 

It  was  something  deeper  than  scholarship,  and 
originality,  and  valour.  The  final  secret  of  Wycliffe's 
power  was  this.  He  had  a  simple,  personal  faith  in 
his  Saviour.  He  loved  Christ.  He  lived  Christ.  He 
walked  humbly  with  his  God.  He  was  a  good  man. 
His  life  was  a  demonstration  of  the  Invisible  Reali- 
ties. In  a  day  when  men  of  holy  name  were  of  ttimes 
most  unholy,  John  Wycliffe  was  acknowledged  to  be 
the  most  holy  of  all  men  in  his  age.  In  a  day  when 
churchmen  seemed  to  live  only  for  advancement  and 
earthly  rewards,  he  sought  neither  wealth  nor  pre- 
ferment, and  preferred  the  path  of  privation. 

Perhaps  the  most  wonderful  tribute  ever  paid  to 
Wycliffe  was  that  of  one  of  his  contemporaries,  who 
said  he  was  absolutely  blameless  in  his  conduct. 
There  is  good  reason,  also,  to  believe  that  when 
another  man  of  his  age,  the  poet  Chaucer,  drew  his 
famous  picture  of  the  English  parson,  he  was  just 
painting  a  word-portrait  of  John  Wycliffe. 

"A  good  man  was  there  of  religion, 
And  was  a  poor  parson  of  a  town. 
But  rich  he  was  of  holy  thought  and  work  " ; 

And  when  Chaucer  goes  on  to  say  that  though  he 
was  a  learned  man,  a  clerk,  and  preached  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  most  truly,  and  devoutly  taught  his  people, 


68  Wycliffe. 

patient,  benign,  and  diligent,  yet,  after  all,  the  most 
impressive  thing  about  the  man  was  that 

"  This  noble  example  to  his  sheep  he  gave 
That  first  he  wrought  and  afterward  he  taught, 
Out  of  the  gospel  he  the  wordes  caught. 
Christ's  lore,  and  His  Apostles  twelve 
He  taught,  and  first  he  followed  it  himself." 

he  was,  in  all  probability,  just  describing  the  good 
rector  in  the  quiet  little  village  in  Leicestershire,  who 
often  might  have  been  seen  visiting  the  sick,  telling 
Christ's  love  to  the  dying,  and  cheering  the  poor 
in  their  hovel  homes.  Never,  says  a  modern  writer, 
does  the  great  Doctor  Wycliffe,  first  scholar  of  the 
day,  and  the  keenest  logician  of  Oxford,  seem  so 
truly  great  as  when  we  trace  his  footsteps  in  the 
hovels  of  Lutterworth. 

If  John  Wycliffe  was  as  intensely  beloved  by 
those  who  knew  him  best,  as  he  was  maligned  intense- 
ly by  those  who  understood  him  not ;  if  with  a  singu- 
lar intrepidity,  and  staunch  perseverance,  he  pursued 
one  single  aim  and  purpose,  the  emancipation  of  his 
fellows  from  error  and  their  establishment  in  truth  ; 
if  as  a  national  Churchman  he  led  a  national,  if  not 
an  international,  moral  revival ;  if  as  a  writer  he 
helped  largely  to  form  the  language  of  a  world- 
influencing  empire  ;  if  by  his  immortal  achievement, 
the  translation  of  the  Bible,  he  inaugurated  a  move- 
ment that  to-day  is  swaying  the  nations  of  the  world 
through  four  hundred  of  its  languages ;  if  as  an 
evangelist   "he   found   an   abundant  reward   in   the 


Wycliffe.  69 

blessings  of  his  countrymen  of  every  rank  and  age, 
to  whom  he  unfolded  the  words  of  eternal  life " ;  if 
his  whole  life  was  "  a  call  to  others  to  stand  fast,  to 
quit  themselves  like  men,  and  to  be  strong,"  a 
beacon  that  always  shone,  a  trumpet  that  never  gave 
an  uncertain  sound  as  it  prepared  men  for  the  battle; 
if  his  notoriety  as  a  scholar  was  altogether  inferior 
to  his  personality  as  a  Christian  ;  it  was  because  he 
had  learned  through  the  leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  promise  of  the  Scriptures,  to  enthrone  in 
his  heart  the  Lord  Jesus  as  his  Saviour  and  Lord. 
"The  Name  of  Jesus  filleth  those  that  love  it 
with  spiritual  joy."  "  It  gets  a  man  a  warmth 
of  love.  It  lifts  up  the  mind  to  heavenly  melody. 
It  chases  away  the  watchful  fiends. "  "  Oh  thou 
good  Name.  Oh  thou  sweet  Name  !  Oh  glorious 
Name  !  Oh  heathf  ul  Name  !  Oh  Name  to  be  de- 
sired ! "  "I  sought  to  love  Jesus,  and  the  more  I 
grew  perfect  in  his  love,  so  much  the  sweeter  His 
Name  savoured  to  me."  "  Thou  most  sweet  Lord, 
from  henceforward  pass  not  from  me,  dwell  with 
me  in  Thy  sweetness."  "  Oh  thou  most  Holy  Ghost, 
come  unto  me,  draw  me  to  Thee,  inflame  my  heart 
with  Thy  love." 

No  English-speaking  Christian  should  ever  be 
ashamed  of  the  man  who  could  write  such  revealing 
words  as  that ;  the  man  who  stands  at  the  very 
summit  of  the  eminence  which  has  been  climbed 
throughout  the  ages  by  English  Churchmen — John 
Wycliffe. 


Cranmer 


An  Historical  Study 


by  the 

Rev.  Dyson  Hague,  M.A. 

Rector  Memorial  Church,  London,  Ont. 
Canon  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  London,  Ont. 
Examining  Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Huron.      . 
Lecturer  in  Liturgies,  Wycliffe  College,  Toronto. 


The  Church  Record  S.  S.  Publications,  Confederation  Life  Building 
TORONTO. 


TH I S  is  not  a  biography.  It  is  an  historical  study.  It  is 
not,  by  any  means,  intended  as  a  complete  biographical 
statement.  It  is  intended  to  be  suggestive.  It  is  an 
attempt  to  throw  a  fair  light  upon  a  much-slandered  his- 
torical character,  and  to  explain  a  much-misunderstood  career. 
It  is,  in  a  measure,  a  vindication.  In  its  preparation,  I  have  used 
the  standard  English  Histories,  such  as  Macaulay,  Froude,  Green, 
and  Aubrey  ;  the  Roman  Catholic  historian,  Lingard ;  the  Church 
historians,  Collier,  Burnet,  Milman,  Perry,  Massingberd,  Marti- 
neau,  Cutts,  Jennings,  Hore,  Wakeman,  Geikie,  Blunt,  Innes, 
Southey,  Fisher,  Dixon,  Overton,  and  Clark ;  Dean  Hook's  Lives  of 
the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury ;  and  above  all,  Foxe,  Strype,  and 
the  invaluable  editions  of  Cranmer's  works,  and  the  Original 
Letters,  by  the  Parker  Society. 

D.  H. 


Cranmer. 


Few  historical  characters  have  been  more  mis- 
represented than  Thomas  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  from  1533  to  1556.  Roman  Catholic  his- 
torians, from  Lingard  downwards,  have  almost  uni- 
formly traduced  him.  Anglican  Catholics,  from 
Wakeman  upwards,  have  almost  uniformly  mis- 
judged him.  And  a  Protestant  historian,  who 
ought  to  have  known  better,  has  done 
more  to  prejudice  English  opinion  against  him 
than  all  the  Roman  and  Neo-Catholic  writers 
combined.  It  is  Lord  Macaulay  who  is  chiefly 
responsible  for  the  popular  view  of  Cranmer. 
In  his  History  of  England,  he  has  painted  Archbishop 
Cranmer  as  a  man  unscrupulous  in  his  dealings, 
zealous  for  nothing,  a  coward  and  a  time-server  in 
action,  a  placable  enemy,  and  a  lukewarm  friend  ; 
and  his  characterization  in  the  Essay  on  Hallam's 
Constitutional  History  of  Cranmer  as  a  merely 
supple,  timid,  interested  courtier,  has  passed  into 
almost  universal  opinion. 

It  can  be  certainly  said  that  the  idea  in  the 
average  mind  about  Cranmer  is,  that  while  possess- 
ing many  amiable  and  excellent  qualities,  he  was 
in  the  main,  if  not  a  traitor  and  a  hypocrite,  at  least 
a  time-server  without  character,  a  Churchman  with- 
out principle,  a  cowardly  leader,  timid,  pliant,  and 
vacillating,  an  arch-episcopal  Mr.  Anything,  and  a  poli- 
tical Mr.  Facing-both-ways.  Froude,  the  English  histo- 
rian, has  left  it  on  record  that  Macaulay's  unfairness 


4  Cranmbr. 

to  Cranmer  first  suggested  to  him  the  project  of 
writing   history. 

It  is  time  that  a  reaction  should  set  in,  and  that 
a  juster  opinion  of  this  great  English  Churchman 
should  prevail.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Cranmer  was 
a  man  horn,  as  it  were,  out  of  due  time.  He  had  to 
fill  a  very  trying,  and  ofttimes  a  very  thankless, 
position,  and  even  his  detractors  have  reluctantly 
admitted  that  he  played  his  part  to  the  best  of  his 
ability  under  circumstances  of  almost  incredible  diffi- 
culty. A  man  of  studious,  retiring,  and  academic 
habits,  he  was  suddenly  thrust  out  into  the  hurly- 
burly  of  the  most  strenuous,  ecclesiastical-national 
life.  He  was  forced  to  play  a  part  that  was  entirely 
distasteful  to  his  temperament.  Cranmer  never  was, 
never  could  have  been,  a  great,  big,  bold,  world- 
defying  man  like  Luther.  He  was  not  a  daring  and 
outspoken  truth-champion  like  Knox.  He  was 
not  of  adamantine  native  strength,  uncompromising 
in  his  dogmatic  position,  like  Calvin.  He  was  of  less 
masterful  and  imperious  mould.  But  manfully  and 
earnestly,  here  a  little  and  there  a  little,  not  with- 
out occasional  trips  and  falls,  he  did  what  he  could 
in  the  times  in  which  God  placed  him,  with  the 
material  God  had  built  him  of. 

It  is  easy  for  us  to  sit  on  our  velvet  cushions 
of  twentieth-century  ease  and  criticise  the  courage 
of  those  who  were  sailing  the  ship  in  the  storm- 
centre  of  those  Eef ormation  days.  Perhaps  if  we  lived 
a  little  nearer  the  times,  we  would  echo  the  words 


Cranmer.  5 

of  a  great  historian  of  the  Church :  The  name 
of  Thomas  Cranmer  deserves  to  stand  upon  eternal 
record,  having  been  the  first  Protestant  Archbishop 
of  this  country,  and  the  greatest  instrument  under 
God  in  the  happy  reformation  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  whose  piety,  learning,  wisdom,  and  con- 
flict, and  blood,  the  foundation  of  it  was  laid.  He 
was  a  man  of  more  excellent  spirit  than  the  ordinary 
run  of  men. 

Archbishop  Cranmer  was  born  in  1487.  His 
father  was  an  English  country  gentleman.  He  was 
sent  to  college  at  an  early  age,  and  developed  a 
remarkable  talent  for  study.  At  Cambridge  he  was 
well  known  as  a  scholar  of  Jesus  College,  became  a 
master  of  sophistry  and  the  logic  of  the  schools,  and 
was  distinguished  by  a  habit  for  accurate  and 
scientific  observation  which  afterwards  became  his 
most  salient  characteristic  as  a  scholar.  Vehemens 
observator  erat. 

At  that  time  the  new  wave  of  thought  that  was 
breaking  over  the  religious  world  touched  England. 
The  publication  of  the  Greek  Testament  by  Erasmus 
gave  an  impetus  to  University  life  that  was  epoch- 
marking.  The  old  Roman  foundations  in  worship 
and  doctrine  were  being  shaken,  and  the  world 
was  waking  out  of  the  deep  sleep  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  The  thing  that  struck  Erasmus  on  his  visit 
to  England  was  the  number  of  young  men  who  were 
taking  up  the  study  of  the  Bible.  Cranmer  became  a 
diligent   student   of  the   Scriptures.      The  whole  of 


6  Cranmer. 

his  influential  life  may  be  traced  to  this  founda- 
tion and  root ;  the  earnest,  personal,  first-hand  study 
of  the  Bible.  It  might  be  said  of  him,  as  Carlisle 
said  long  afterwards  of  Luther :  "  He  gradually  got 
himself  founded  as  on  the  rock.  No  wonder  he 
should  venerate  the  Bible,  which  had  brought  this 
blessed  help  to  him.  He  prized  it  as  the  Word  of  the 
Highest  must  be  prized  by  such  a  man.  He  deter- 
mined to  hold  by  it,  as  through  life  and  to  death  he 
firmly  did." 

In  1529  a  chance  observation  caused  him  to  leap 
into  fame.  The  matter  of  the  King's  divorce  from 
Queen  Catharine  was  in  discussion  at  a  country  house 
where  he  happened  to  be  staying,  and  Cranmer  re- 
marked that  the  question  ought  to  be  decided  and  dis- 
cussed by  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  might 
be  done  just  as  well  in  England,  in  the  universities, 
as  in  Rome.  The  remark  was  carried  to  the  king.  It 
speedily  brought  Cranmer  into  favor  with  Henry 
VIII.,  and  started  him  on  a  path  of  extraordinary 
Church  influence.  It  did  more  than  that.  It  fortified 
Cranmer  in  his  position  as  an  advocate  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment  with  regard  to  Scripture  and 
truth,  as  opposed  to  the  claim  of  the  Pope  of  Rome. 
It  gave  him  a  starting  point  of  independence  as  a 
thinker  and  a  theologian.  And  further;  it  signalized 
him  as  the  man  for  the  hour.  The  King  and  the 
nobility  alike  recognized  him  .is  a  man  who  was 
prepared  to  stand  as  an  Englishman,  and  as  an 
English     Churchman,     against    the     overshadowing 


Cranmer.  7 

prerogatives  of  the  Papacy.  The  King  was  looking 
for  just  such  a  man.  He  found  in  Cranmer  what  he 
wanted. 

In  1529  Cranmer  was  despatched  as  an  ambas- 
sador to  Rome,  and  bore  himself  well.  It  was  a 
daring  thing  in  those  days  to  contend  with  the  Pope. 
But,  following  the  example  of  the  great  Apostle,  he 
gave  place  by  subjection,  no,  not  for  an  hour,  that  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  might  continue  with  us.  He 
contended  firmly  these  points : 

1st.  That  no  one  jure  divino  could  or  ought  to 
marry  his  brother's  wife. 

2nd.  That  the  Bishop  of  Rome  by  no  means 
ought  to  dispose  to  the  contrary. 

In  1533,  Cranmer,  who  had  been  Archdeacon  of 
Taunton,  King's  Chaplain,  Pope's  Plenipotentiary 
General  in  England,  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury. 

This  was  a  great  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Cranmer  accepted  the  appoint- 
ment with  unfeigned  reluctance.  Not  only  did  he 
feel,  as  he  expressed  it,  very  sorry  to  leave  his  study  ; 
he  felt  his  great  inability  to  such  a  promotion.  And 
further :  "  He  expressly  told  the  King  that  he  could 
accept  it  only  on  one  condition  ;  that  it  should  come 
from  him,  and  not  from  the  Pope,  inasmuch  as  the 
King,  as  the  Supreme  governor  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  causes  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  had 
the  full  right  and  donation  of  all  manner  of  bishop- 
rics and   benefices,  and  no  foreign  authority."     The 


8  Cranmer. 

King,  after  a  good  many  talks  on  the  subject,  agreed 
that  Cranmer  might  accept  the  Archbishopric,  making 
his  protestation  to  protect  his  conscience.  This 
Cranmer  did.  "I  indeed,  bona  fide,  made  my  protes- 
tation that  I  did  not  acknowledge  his  authority  any 
further  than  as  it  agreed  with  the  express  Word  of 
God.  And  this  my  protestation  I  did  cause  to  be 
enrolled."     Cranmer  Letters,  Park.  Soc.  223-224. 

After  receiving  the  eleven  Bulls  from  the  Pope, 
which  he  gave  to  the  King,  Cranmer  was  consecrated 
with  the  usual  form  and  ceremony  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Later  on  when  he  received  the  pallium,  he 
again  asseverated  that  he  took  the  oath  under  the 
same  protestation.  Cranmer  has  been  doubly  as- 
sailed for  doing  these  things.  The  Romanists  have 
taunted  him  for  his  want  of  principle  as  a  Church- 
man. The  Anglo-Catholics  have  taunted  him  for 
his  time-serving  subservience  to  Henry.  It  must  be 
asserted,  moreover,  in  all  fairness,  that  throughout  this 
period  of  his  career,  Cranmer  honestly  seems  to  have 
held  as  a  conviction  the  right  of  the  King's  suprem- 
acy as  opposed  to  the  Pope's  supremacy.  To  some 
Church  minds  it  seems  to  be  impossible  that  a  Church- 
man could  take  such  a  position.  But  Cranmer  cer- 
tainly appears  to  have  accepted  it,  and  to  have 
accepted  it  with  conscientiousness.  That  is,  he  re- 
garded the  Pope's  headship  of  a  national  Church  as  a 
usurpation,  and  seemed  to  honestly  believe  that  the 
King,  as  head  of  the  Nation,  was,  under  Christ  of 
course  the  Heavenly  Head,  the  head  of  the  national 


Cranmer.  9 

Church.  "Why,"  said  Doctor  Martin,  in  the  famous 
trial  at  Oxford,  September,  1555,  before  Brokes, 
"  why,  you  made  Henry  the  Eighth  Supreme  Head 
of  the  Church  !"  "  Yes,"  said  the  Archbishop,  "  of  all 
the  people  of  England,  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  tem- 
poral." "  And  not  of  the  Church,"  said  Martin.  "No," 
said  Cranmer,  "  for  Christ  is  only  Head  of  His 
Church,  and  of  the  faith  and  religion  of  the 
same.  The  King  is  head  and  governor  of  his 
people,  which  are  the  visible  Church."  With  this 
postulate,  it  can  be  seen  that  Cranmer's 
character,  essentially  cautious  and  tardy  in  devel- 
opment, was  evidencing  a  certain  force  of  inde- 
pendence. From  this  time  on,  Cranmer's  chief 
care  was  to  advance  God's  cause  in  his  high  position. 
The  thing  that  he  lived  for,  his  primary  concern,  was 
the  reformation  of  the  Church,  in  morals,  and  doctrine, 
and  finally  in  worship.  The  stages  through  which 
he  passed  in  his  archepiscopate  were,  broadly  speak- 
ing, three  : 

First. — The  Political-antipapal. 

Second. — The  Protestant-doctrinal. 

Third. — The  Evangelical- liturgical. 

The  first  stage  through  which  Cranmer  passed 
ivas  the  Antipapal.  In  the  Parliament  of  1533  he 
moved  that  the  usurped  power  of  the  Pope  was  a 
mere  tyranny ;  that  it  was  against  the  law  of  God, 
according  to  the  Divine  Word.  This  was  the  national 
legislative  complement  of  the  renunciation  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope  by  the  Convocations  of  York 


10  Cranmer. 

and  Canterbury  in  1531.  The  abolishment  of  the 
foreign  Papal  power  by  Act  of  Parliament,  and  the 
voluntary  separation  of  the  Church  of  England  as  a 
particular  or  national  Church,  from  the  corporate 
unity  of  Rome,  was  largely  the  result  of  his  singu- 
larly forceful  advocacy.  Convocation  in  1532,  peti- 
tioned the  King  in  these  memorable  words : — 
Forasmuch  as  St. Paul  willeth  us  to  withdraw  ourselves 
from  such  as  walk  disorderly,  it  may  please  the 
King's  most  noble  Majesty  to  ordain  that  the  obe- 
dience of  him  and  his  people  be  withdrawn  from  the 
See  of  Rome.  And  when  Cranmer,  later,  was  accused 
of  schism,  as  not  only  himself  receding  from  the 
Catholic  Church  and  See  of  Rome,  but  also  of  moving 
the  King  and  subjects  of  this  realm  to  the  same,  he 
answered  :  "  As  touching  the  receding,  that  he  well 
granted ;  but  that  receding  or  departing  was  only 
from  the  See  of  Rome,  and  had  in  it  no  matter  of 
any  schism."  We  have  separated  from  that  Church 
(the  Church  of  Rome),  said  Bishop  Jewel,  in  his 
Apologia,  and  have  returned  to  the  Primitive  Church. 
Reading  through  the  lines  of  his  after-con- 
victions, we  must  surely  give  credit  to  Cranmer  for 
honesty  of  purpose  in  this  matter.  It  was  not 
abject  subservience  to  the  imperious  will  of  Henry. 
It  was  conviction  born  of  Scripture,  and  fortified 
by  reason.  His  article  on  the  Catholic  Church  in  the 
Ten  Articles,  of  1536,  demonstrates  this,  evidently. 
Throughout  all  this  initial  stage  of  his  reforming 
career,  the  character  of  a  liberty-loving  and  Italian- 


Cranmer.  11 

scorning  Englishman  comes  strongly  out.  But  there 
was  something  higher  and  deeper  than  that.  There 
was  in  Cranmer,  also,  that  love  of  freedom  with 
which  Christ  makes  us  free,  of  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
spoke  when  he  said  :  If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make 
you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.  And  as  the  years 
passed  on,  this  conviction  not  merely  of  the  tyranny 
of  the  Papal  authority,  but  of  the  evil  and  un- 
scripturalness  of  the  Papacy  as  an  apostate  eccle- 
siastical system,  deepened  and  strengthened. 
2nd.  Cranmer  as  a  Protestant  Reformer. 
The  second  stage  through  which  Cranmer  passed 
was  the  Protestant-doctrinal.  His  progress  in  the 
first  part  of  this  stage  of  his  career  was  gradual, 
and  his  action  correspondingly  cautious.  But  every 
step  shows  progress.  Cranmer's  first  action  in  his 
career  as  a  Protestant  reformer  was  the  most  im- 
portant of  all.  In  1534  he  pressed  in  Convocation 
for  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  that  the  Scripture 
should  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue  by  some 
honest  and  learned  men.  It  was  a  significant  motion. 
It  showed  his  master-bias.  He  regarded  the  Bible 
even  then  with  a  peculiar  affection,  and  throughout 
his  career  he  was  the  unswerving  champion  of  an 
open  Bible.  He  worked,  and  worked  long  and 
patiently,  for  his  final  object ;  the  English  Bible  to 
be  read  in  all  the  English  Churches,  and  all  the  Bible 
to  be  put  in  the  hands  of  all  the  English  people. 
It  took  years,  but  at  last  it  came.  In  1538-39  the 
great  English  Bible,  now  popularly  known  as  Cran- 


12  Cranmer. 

mer's  Bible,  was  set  up  by  Royal  Command  in  every 
church.  It  was  a  great  act,  and  it  created  no  small 
sensation.  For  it  was  done,  as  one  historian  of  the 
Church  put  it,  to  the  confusion  of  the  Romanists,  the 
exultation  of  the  Reformers  and  the  rejoicing  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer.  Not  only  so.  In  spite  of  the 
antipathy  of  the  Romanists,  who  called  it  the  mother 
of  all  heresy  and  the  father  of  schism,  and  did  all  in 
their  power  to  prevent  its  being  read,  Cranmer 
worked  for  a  further  concession,  and  not  only 
secured  the  Bible  for  the  Church,  but  procured  leave 
for  the  people  to  buy  Bibles  and  keep  them  in  their 
own  houses. 

Cranmer  then  proceeded  to  a  very  great  work 
indeed  as  far  as  its  effect  on  the  future  of  England's 
Church  history  is  concerned ;  the  systematized  recast- 
ing of  the  Church's  doctrine.  In  1536  the  Ten  Articles 
came  out.  They  were  largely  due  to  Cranmer.  His 
speech  in  Convocation  on  that  occasion  showed  that 
he  had  already  grasped  in  embryo  the  very  kernel 
and  essence  of  the  principles  of  evangelical  religion. 
While  the  Ten  Articles  are,  of  course,  not  so  clear  in 
their  doctrinal  purity  as  the  present  Thirty-nine 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  they  exhibit  a 
remarkable  advance  towards  the  reformed  doctrine, 
and  may  be  said  to  be  the  high- water  mark  of  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation  before  the  days  of 
Edward  VI.  In  another  way,  too,  they  were  epoch- 
marking.  They  were  the  first  declaration  of  the  doc- 
trinal independence  of  the  Church  of  England.    They 


Cranmer.  13 

flung  out  the  banner  of  England's  national  Church 
in  the  assertion  of  its  right  to  act  independently  of 
Rome.  The  very  opposition  they  evoked  shows  the  in- 
dependence of  Cranmer,  and  his  determination  to  set 
forth  what  he  believed  to  be  truth.  Cranmer's  hand 
is  also  plainly  evident  in  the  book  that  was  set  forth  a 
little  later;  the  Bishop's  Book,  or  Institution,  of  1537, 
a  kind  of  composite  Protestant — Popish,  Catholic — 
Evangelical  manual.  It  was  simply  an  evidence  of 
the  tangled  theological  sentiment  of  the  day.  The 
Article  on  the  Catholic  Church,  which  seems  to  have 
been  Cranmer's,  was  a  remarkable  piece  of  work,  for 
it  proves  that  as  far  back  as  1537  Cranmer  had  prac- 
tically arrived  at  the  teaching  of  our  Article  19.  It 
sets  forth  in  unmistakable  language  the  initial  concept 
of  the  impossibility  of  the  Church  of  Rome  being  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  of  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church  being  a  spiritual  unity.  It  distinguishes 
between  the  Catholic  Church  visible  and  the  Catholic 
Church  invisible,  and  largely  teaches  the  present 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  upon  the  subject  of 
the  Church. 

In  fact,  we  may  trace  in  these  early  doctrinal 
formularies  of  1536  the  rudimentary  workings  of  the 
master  mind  which  in  later  years  was  the  inspiring 
influence  of  the  Articles  which  have  become  the  for- 
mulated teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  :  the  39 
Articles. 

During  this  period  a  double  process  of  develop- 
ment was  in  evolution  in  Cranmer. 


14  Cranmer. 

On  the  one  hand  there  was  discernible  an  in- 
creasing antipathy  towards  the  Roman  Catholic 
system.  This  was  more  especially  against  the  super- 
stitions and  falsities  of  its  worship,  though  it  was 
conjoined  with  an  antipathy  to  the  Papacy  as  the 
representative  of  spiritual  tyranny  and  ecclesiastic 
corruption.  On  the  other  hand  there  was  a  growing 
sympathy  with  the  continental  reformers.  Cranmer 
was  gradually,  perhaps  even  timidly,  stretching  out 
the  hand  of  fellowship  towards  the  Reformers  on 
the  Continent.  His  interest  in  them  had  been  first 
awakened  through  his  visit  as  chaplain  of  the  English 
Embassy  to  Nuremburg,  in  1532.  The  fact  of  his 
having  married  his  second  wife,  as  a  result  of  this, 
a  niece  of  the  Nuremburg  liturgiologist,  Osiander, 
would  doubtless  tend  to  cement  the  ties  already 
formed.  It  was  largely  owing  to  his  influence  that 
a  deputation  of  Lutheran  divines  came  over  to 
England,  in  1538.  The  English  reforming  Church- 
men, and  even  Henry  himself,  were  feeling  that  they 
were  really  engaged  in  the  same  great  work,  not- 
withstanding differences  of  detail,  and  that  a 
friendly  conference  would  tend  to  draw  them  closer. 
The  13  Articles  which  were  published  were  an  ex- 
pression of  the  harmony  of  faith  and  doctrine  be- 
tween the  Reformers  in  the  Church  of  England  and 
their  Lutheran  brethren. 

This  visit,  however,  unfortunately  seems  to  have 
failed  in  its  purpose.  Instead  of  establishing  the  con- 
cord, it  broke  the  concord,  and  the   Romish   party 


Cranmer.  15 

took  advantage  of  some  premature  and  perhaps 
impolitic  expressions  on  the  part  of  the  Lutheran 
embassy  to  twist  the  mind  of  the  king. 

From  that  time  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII.  there  was  a  decided  anti-Protestant  reaction, 
and  Cranmer's  position  became  one  of  extremest  diffi- 
culty. Cromwell  fell.  Gardiner  became  the  man  of  the 
hour.  Gardiner,  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  was  a 
clever  man.  Wily,  crafty,  insinuating,  of  loose 
morals,  a  trained  diplomatist,  a  master  of  intrigue  ; 
he  was  the  unwearying  foe  of  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation.  As  the  result  of  his  influence  on  the 
King,  The  Six  Articles,  a  set  of  Roman  dogmas  of  the 
most  definite  type,  including  transubstantiation, 
private  masses,  clerical  celibacy  and  auricular  con- 
fession, were  introduced  in  1539,  as  the  formu- 
lated doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
laws  of  heresy  were  put  in  operation.  Cranmer 
showed  his  independence  and  courage,  however,  even 
at  this  juncture  by  doing  all  in  his  power  to  pre- 
vent the  adoption  of  those  execrable  penal  clauses 
with  regard  to  the  execution  of  heretics.  "  The 
Archbishop  did  adventurously  oppose,  standing  him- 
self, as  it  were,  post  alone  against  the  whole  Parlia- 
ment." Later  on  he  stood  out  against  the  Romish 
manual  known  as  The  King's  Book,  or  the  Necessary 
Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man.  And  to  the  end  of  the 
career  of  the  dogmatic  and  increasingly  imperious 
King,  Cranmer  kept  quietly  but  consistently  working 
for  the  principles  of  the  Reformation.     At  times  it 


16  Cranmer. 

looked  as  if  he  did  very  little.  His  inaction  on  occa- 
sions appears  open  to  unquestionable  criticism.  But 
on  the  whole  he  seems  to  have  done  what  he  could. 
He  certainly  kept  the  Bible  for  the  people.  It  was 
owing  to  Cranmer  that  the  Bible  was  maintained  in 
the  Church  to  the  end  of  Henry  VIII.'s  reign,  un- 
touched by  any  dishonoring  hand.  No  one  can  ever 
estimate  the  effect  upon  the  nation  of  that  silent  but 
potent  force,  the  seed  of  the  Word  planted  in  every 
church  in  England,  and  in  the  homes  of  many  of 
England's  people. 

It  was  largely  owing  to  Cranmer  also  that  the 
Apostolic  lever  of  power  was  once  more  revived  in 
England's  Church,  the  practise  of  preaching.  Gifted 
men  were  permitted  to  freely  preach  the  Gospel. 
And  to  encourage  the  clergy  in  this  novel  work,  a 
book  of  Homilies  was  drawn  up,  mainly  by  Cranmer 
in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  Convocation  in  1542. 
Gardiner  imprisoned  them  pretty  well,  as  Mr.  Tomlin- 
son  has  shown  in  his  valuable  work  on  the  Prayer 
Book,  Articles,  and  Homilies,  but  still  the  principle 
was  established  which  later  on  in  Edward's  days 
became  a  feature  of  the  reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land. But  above  all,  as  we  shall  presently  show, 
Cranmer  was  working  silently  and  energetically  as 
an  ecclesiastical  popularist  for  the  re-establishment 
of  the  rights  of  the  people  of  the  land  to  participate 
personally  and  intelligently  in  the  worship  of  the 
Church.  In  1544,  three  years  almost  before  the 
great   Tudor's  death,  he  was  the  means  of  giving  to 


Cranmer.  17 

England's  people  the  Litany  in  English.  It  was  a 
great  act.  It  marked  an  epoch  in  England's  church 
history.  It  was  the  inauguration  of  a  great  church 
principle,  church  prayer,  not  private  prayer,  but 
church  prayer,  public  prayer,  in  the  people's  mother 
tongue.  It  did  not  supersede,  of  course,  the  ecclesias- 
tical use  of  Latin  as  the  language  of  English  church 
worship.  That  did  not  come  till  five  years  later. 
But  it  undermined  one  of  the  first  ecclesiastical 
principles  of  Rome,  and  prepared  the  way  for  the 
extinction   of   the   ecclesiastical   use  of   Latin. 

The  Evangelical  Liturgical. 

The  third  stage  through  which  Cranmer  passed 
might  be  summarized  in  the  words  the  Evangelico-litur- 
gical.  It  was  the  period  in  which  he  attained  to  the 
fullest  clearness  in  Scriptural  and  doctrinal  enlighten- 
ment, and  his  final  position  in  church  teaching  and 
worship.  During  this  part  of  his  career,  Cranmer's 
development  as  an  advocate  of  the  reformed  doctrine 
and  as  a  liturgical  compiler  is  of  special  interest.  At 
times  his  progress  was  slow,  and  his  caution  marked. 
But  however  gradual  his  advance  along  the  path  of 
the  new  learning,  it  was  deliberately  and  uni- 
formly in  the  one  direction.  The  moulding  factors 
during  the  latter  years  of  his  Archbishopric  were  : 

First.  The  influence  of  an  illumined  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  His  growing  clearness  of  insight 
into  doctrinal  truth  was  primarily  due  to  his  careful 
and  continuous  study  of  God's  Holy  Word  by  the  light 


18  Cranmer. 

of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  While  it  is  not  exactly  clear  that 
Cranmer  came  within  the  stream  of  influence  of  the 
so-called  Cambridge  band,  the  centre  of  which  was 
that  influential,  though  comparatively  unknown  re- 
former, Thomas  Bilney,  it  is  certain  that  the  same  in- 
fluences that  operated  upon  Bilney  and  Latimer  and 
Barnes  and  Coverdale,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  were  operating  upon  his  mind,  and  that 
he  was  throughout  these  years,  in  consequence,  reach- 
ing after  deeper  things  than  mere  ethical  and 
ecclesiastical  reform.  Cranmer,  as  Strype  put  it,  was 
a  great  Scripturist. 

The  second  and  by  no  means  an  indifferent  in- 
fluence, was  the  companionship  and  sympathy  of 
Bishop  Ridley.  Strong,  scholarly,  scriptural,  Nichol- 
as Ridley  exercised  no  small  influence  upon  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  whose  chaplain  he  was,  and  whose 
theological  researches  in  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Fathers,  incited  by  a  treatise  of  Bertram  or  John 
Scotus  Erigena,  strongly  impressed  Cranmer's  recep- 
tive mind.  "  I  grant,"  he  said  in  that  famous  scene  in 
St.  Mary's  Church,  Oxford,  on  12th  September,  1555, 
when  he  was  cited  to  appear  before  the  Bishop  of 
Gloucester  as  subdelegate  of  the  Pope,  "  I  grant  that 
then  I  believed  otherwise  than  I  do  now,  and  so  I  did 
until  my  Lord  of  London,  Dr.  Ridley,  did  confer  with 
me,  and  by  sundry  persuasion  and  authorities  of 
Doctors  drew  me  quite  from  my  opinion."  Ridley 
became  Cranmer's  right-hand  man.  In  fact,  we  might 
alter  the  proverbial  saying  and  say :  Latimer  leaned 


Cranmer.  19 

to  Cranmer,  Cranmer  leaned  to  Ridley,  and  Ridley 
and  Cranmer  and  Latimer  all  leaned  to  the  Word  of 
God. 

The  third  influence,  and  in  the  latter  days  more 
particularly,  was  that  of  certain  scholarly  men  who 
came  from  the  Continent  as  representatives  of  the 
most  modern  reformed  opinion,to  reside  by  Cranmer's 
invitation  in  England.  Of  these  the  leading  men 
were  Peter  Martyr,  an  Italian,  a  man  of  singular 
erudition,  and  of  strongly  Protestant  Evangelical 
sentiments,  who  was  established  in  1548  as  Regius 
Divinity  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford.  Another 
man  was  Martin  Bucer,  a  strong  Protestant  Ref  ormer? 
who  was  appointed  as  the  Regius  Professor  of 
Divinity  in  Cambridge.  "Bucer  is  with  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  like  another  Scipio,  and  an  inseparable 
companion,"  wrote  Hooper  to  Bullinger,  June,  1549. 
John  A.Lasco,a  Polish  Reformer  of  noble  lineage,  also 
helped  Cranmer  into  paths  of  truth,  and  exercised  no 
small  influence  upon  him.  While  it  can  not  be  fairly 
said  that  Cranmer  agreed  in  every  detail  with  the 
opinions  of  these  foreign  reformers,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted by  the  impartial  that  there  was  a  general 
similarity  in  thinking,  and  an  entire  sympathy  in 
action.  Their  eyes  were  all  tending  in  the  same 
direction,  and  they  were  all  being  led  by  the  same 
guiding  spirit,  away  from  the  falsities  of  medisevalism 
to  the  verities  of  the  Scripture  and  the  teaching  of 
the  Apostles. 

Looking     over     his     life     as   a  theologian     and 


20  Cranmer. 

a  Churchman,  it  may  be  said  that  Cranmer's  career 
as  a  whole  was  one  of  steady  spiritual  evolution, 
divisible  into  three  sections.  Or,  to  put  it  into  other 
words,  his  convictions  passed  through  three  fairly 
well  defined  stages. 

During  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII., 
he  was  a  Roman  Catholic  in  doctrine,  as  he  was 
an  Anglo-Roman  Catholic  in  Communion,  having 
been  nurtured  in  the  Roman  doctrine,  familiarized 
from  childhood  with  the  Roman  ritual, 
and  an  expert  in  Roman  law  and  procedure.  He 
was  appointed  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  by  the 
head  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  consecrated  according 
to  the  Pontifical  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  During  the 
latter  part  of  that  time  he  could  be  described  as  a 
Roman  with  a  decided  leaning  to  Lutheranism. 
Cranmer  then  became  a  Lutheran,  having  abandoned 
completely  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  and 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  during  the  last  five  or 
six  years  of  Henry's  reign  he  may  be  described  as  a 
Lutheran  with  decided  leanings  towards  the  reformed 
position.  During  the  first  two  or  three  years  of 
Edward's  reign  his  position  was  advancing  more  or 
less  slowly  and  cautiously  towards  the  reformed  posi- 
tion, and  by  1548-49  he  had  come  over  to  what  might 
be  called  the  Bullinger  view  of  the  Sacraments,  and 
what  we  would  call  the  Reformed  or  Evangelical  posi- 
tion. In  a  letter  of  Hooper  to  Bullinger,  he  says  : 
"  Now  I  hope  Master  Bullinger  and  Canterbury 
entertain     the     same     opinions."     On  the  last    day 


Cranmer.  21 

of  December,  1548,  a  letter  was  written  to  Bullinger, 
describing  the  great  debate  on  the  Sacrament  in 
Parliament,  December  14th,  1548,  in  which  it  was 
said  :  "  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  contrary 
to  general  expectation,  most  openly,  firmly  and 
learnedly  maintained  your  opinion  concerning  the 
Eucharist.  The  Truth  never  obtained  a  more  brilliant 
victory  among  us.  I  perceive  that  it  is  all  over  with 
Lutheranism,  now  that  those  who  were  considered 
its  principal  and  almost  only  supporters  have  al- 
together come  over  to  our  side."  From  that  time  on 
Cranmer's  convictions  were  stereotyped.  He  held  to 
his  convictions  to  the  last,  holding  the  golden  mean 
between  an  unscriptural  Sacramentarianism  on  the 
one  hand  and  an  unscriptural  Anti-sacramentarianism 
on  the  other,  and  defending  his  position  with  dignity, 
clearness,  and  determination.  In  all  his  appearances 
before  his  accusers  at  Oxford,  he  spoke  bravely  and 
boldly,  as  Dean  Hook  says,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury,  without  shrinking  from  the 
assertion  of  any  truth  he  had  already  advanced. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  exact  dates,  but  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  taken  as  an  approximate  summary 
of  his  successive  positions  : 

Cir.  1525-38 — Cranmer,  a  Roman,  tending  to- 
wards Lutheranism. 

Cir.  1538-46 — Cranmer,  a  Lutheran,  tending  to- 
wards the   reformed  doctrine. 

Cir.  1547-53 — Cranmer,  an  evangelical  of  the 
reformed  school. 


22  Cranmer. 

That  this  is  proven  by  Cranmer's  own  words  is 
evident  from  his  statement  in  St.  Mary's  Church,  Ox- 
ford, in  1555,  during  his  cross-examination  by  Dr. 
Martin  : 

Martin  : — When  you  condemned  Lambert,  the 
Sacramentary,  what  doctrine  was  taught  by  you  ? 

Cranmer : —  I  maintained  then  the  Papists'  doc- 
trine. 

Martin  : — And  how  when  King  Henry  died?  Did 
you  not  translate  Justus  Jonas'  book  ? 

Cranmer  : — I  did. 

Martin  : — Then  you  there  defended  another  doc- 
trine touching  the  Sacrament  ?  .  Then  from 
a  Lutheran  you  became  a  Zwinglian,  which  is  the 
vilest  heresy  of  all,  in  the  high  mystery  of  the  Sacra- 
ment ;  and  for  the  same  heresy  you  did  help  to  burn 
Lambert,  the  Sacramentary,  which  you  now  call  the 
Catholic  faith,  and  God's  Word. 

Cranmer : — I  grant  that  then  I  believed  other- 
wise than  I  do  now.     Cran.  Lett.  Park.  Soc,  218. 

It  was  during  the  latter  stage  of  his  career,  in 
the  years  1549-1552  (Edward  VI.  reign),  that  the 
Magnum  Opus  of  Cranmer's  career  was  produced ; 
the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England.  No  one 
disputes  that  in  this  work  his  was  the  guiding  mind. 
He  was  not  only  the  Chairman  of  the  Compilation 
Committee,  but  the  formative  genius  in  its  compila- 
tion. Cranmer  was  par  excellence  the  compiler  of  the 
Prayer  Book.  Even  in  the  compilation  of  the  Prayer 
Book,   the  progressive   character  of  his   mind    was 


Cranmer.  23 

evident.  The  book  was  not  formed  suddenly,  nor 
was  the  whole  plan  of  it  definitely  evolved  at  one 
time.  As  far  as  its  contents  were  concerned,  it  was  a 
composite  of  the  most  ancient  and  the  most  recent 
material.  It  represented  the  materials  of  many  ages, 
and  the  thoughts  of  many  men.  But  as  far  as  its 
form,  and  spirit,  and  object,  and  principle,  was  con- 
cerned it  was  practically  new,  and  without  a  counter- 
part in  the  western  Catholic  world.  It  was  the  prod- 
uct of  the  Reformation.  Yet.  while  this  is  the  case, 
two  things  may  be  asserted. 

In  the  first  place  the  shape  the  Prayer  Book 
finally  assumed  seems  to  have  been  the  climax 
of  a  series  of  progressive  ideas,  or  working  plans, 
that  passed  through  Cranmer's  brain.  His  first  idea 
probably  was  to  have  an  expurgated  Breviary  to  take 
the  place  of  the  old  Roman  Offices.  That  is,  his  first 
project  was  purification  ;  to  purify  the  old  offices,  and, 
by  means  of  translation  and  purgation,  rid  them  of 
some  of  their  most  objectionable  mediaeval  features. 
This  seems  to  have  been  followed  by  the  idea  of  an 
abbreviated  and  adapted  Breviary,  and  the  reduction 
of  the  eight  or  nine  offices,  used  mainly,  if  not 
wholly,  by  ecclesiastics,  to  two  services  for  the  use  of 
the  people.  In  a  word,  the  rudimentary  idea  of 
popularization.  For,  when  Cranmer  started  out 
on  the  path  of  liturgical  reform,  it  may 
be  safely  asserted  that  his  primary  object  was 
merely  purgation  and  reform,  and  that  even  when 
he   reached   the  second    stage   of     adaptation     and 


24  Cranmer. 

translation,  he  did  not  contemplate  a  Church  of  Eng- 
land Prayer  Book  for  the  use  of  England's  people  in 
English.  His  idea  was  simply  an  adapted  or  Angli- 
canized  form  of  the  Roman  or  Breviary  service. 
But  gradually,  in  ways  that  men  would  call  acci- 
dental, but  which  we  must  think  Providential,  there 
rose  before  the  mind  of  Cranmer  what  surely  must 
have  been  the  dream  of  his  life,  the  vision  of  a 
people's  Prayer  Book.  Henceforth,  his  idea  was  to 
have  one  Prayer  Book  for  the  people  of  England  ; 
a  single  volume,  not  eight  separate  books  ;  a  single 
volume,  not  in  Latin,  but  all  in  English  ;  one  book, 
all  on  scriptural  lines,  in  an  easily-handled  volume, 
and  all  for  the  people. 

The  result  of  these  visions,  and  dreams,  and 
ambitions,  and  efforts,  was  that  masterpiece  of  Cran- 
mer's  life,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  In  its  first 
stage  of  publication,  in  1549,  even  though  it  con- 
tained many  elements  of  superstition,  it  was,  with 
its  democratic  idea  and  popularized  worship,  dis- 
tinctly a  new  thing  in  the  then  Catholic  world.  Yet, 
even  at  the  date  of  its  compilation,  Cranmer  had 
undoubtedly  arrived,  in  a  measure,  at  the  views  con- 
tained in  the  second.  The  first  Prayer  Book  marks  a 
mere  transitional  stage  in  the  Reformation  of  the 
Church  of  England.  For  a  very  short  time  afterwards, 
in  1552,  the  second  Prayer  Book  was  introduced,  con- 
taining the  more  matured  and  final  views  of  Cranmer 
and  Ridley  upon  the  Sacrament,  of  Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord,  and  purposely  omitting  the  words 


Cranmer.  25 

mass,  altar,  auricular  confession,  sundry  genuflections 
and  crossings,  and  prayers  for  the  dead. 

There  is  a  second  thing  to  be  remembered  in  re- 
gard to  Cranmer's  views  and  their  relation  to  the 
Prayer  Book,  and  that  is  this :  the  final  stage  of 
Cranmer's  views  represent,  in  the  main,  the  doctrines 
and  ritual  finally  impressed  upon  the  liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England.  In  other  words,  the  views,  doc- 
trines and  opinions  ivhich  Cranmer  held  in  1552,  were 
in  1552  formally  set  forth  in  the  second  Prayer  Book, 
and  in  the  Articles,  as  the  teaching  of  England's 
Church ;  and  in  that  form  to  this  day  the  true  and 
real  views  and  principles  of  the  Church  of  England 
are  stereotyped  in  the  service  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Articles  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  An  Oxford 
scholar  has  recently  said :  The  whole  outcome  was, 
and  is  to  this  day,  the  expression  of  Cranmer's  mind. 
The  ultimate  construction  of  the  Church  of  England 
was  shaped  in  accordance  with  Cranmer's  ideas. 
That  is  true.  And  though  this  writer  probably  did 
not  refer  to  this  phase  of  it,  it  is  mainly  true  with 
regard  to  doctrine.  His  mind,  his  ideas,  became  the 
master-force,  the  moulding-force,  of  the  form  of  the 
worship  and  formulated  teaching  of  the  national 
Church.  For  what  Cranmer  did  in  1552  was  done 
permanently.  With  a  few  slight  changes,  changes 
largely  of  addition,  enlargement,  and  enrichment,  the 
whole  of  their  revising  work  has  been  introduced 
permanently  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of 
England.    Or,  as  it  may  be  stated  in  other  words  :  the 


26  Cranmer. 

position  which  Cranmer  and  his  associate  compilers 
deliberately  assumed  in  1552,  with  regard  to  the 
salient  teachings  of  the  Church,  has  never  been 
abandoned  by  the  Church  of  England. 

As  far  as  the  liturgical  work  of  Cranmer  goes,  it 
must  be  a  source  of  gratification  to  all  Englishmen 
that  one  so  steeped  in  Scriptural  knowledge,  and  so 
gifted  with  the  power  of  producing  a  stately  and 
sonorous  English,  should  have  been  selected  as  God's 
instrument  for  the  compilation  of  a  book  which  was 
to  exercise  so  widely-spread  influence  as  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer.  If  men  speak  of  the  beauties  of 
the  Prayer  Book,  and  of  its  language  as  a  well  of 
English  undefiled ;  if  men  speak  of  its  power  to 
mould  a  nation's  spiritual  character  ;  of  its  power  to 
steady  and  uplift  the  devotions  of  a  world-wide 
Church  ;  of  its  power  to  hold  and  attract  and  inspire 
Christians  of  every  realm  ;  it  is  largely  owing  to  the 
patient  toil  and  the  Scriptural  devotion  of  Thomas 
Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

Before  we  pass  to  the  latter  part  of  his  career 
there  are  two  matters  that  should  have  a  passing 
reference.  The  first  is  the  position  of  Cranmer  with 
regard  to  the  confiscation  of  the  endowments  of  the 
suppressed  monasteries.  The  idea  has  obtained  a 
wide  circulation  that  Cranmer,  if  not  the  instigator 
of  this  movement,  was  at  least  in  some  measure  re- 
ponsible  for  the  wholesale  spoliation  of  these  prop- 
erties. The  following  facts,  however,  should  be  held 
in    remembrance: — (1)     That    the    suppression    or 


Cranmer,  27 

spoliation  of  the  monasteries  in  the  reign  of 
King  Henry  VIII.  was  by  no  means  the  first  sup- 
pression. (2)  That  they  were  most  of  them,  if  not 
all  of  them,  suppressed  by  the  Bulls  of  the  Pope.  (3) 
That  that  great  Roman  Catholic,  Cardinal  Wolsey, 
was  the  author  of  the  suppression  of  a  very  large 
number,  and  derived  enormous  personal  gains  from 
their  dissolution,  living  in  quasi-royal  splendor  on 
the  spoils  of  thirty  or  so  monastic  manors.  (4)  That 
the  most  ruthless  destroyer  of  them  all  was  an 
uncompromising  papist,  Henry  VIII.  (5)  That  Cran- 
mer and  Latimer  pleaded  most  vigorously,  as  Strype 
has  pointed  out  in  his  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  i.-ix., 
for  the  retention  of  various  monasteries  as  centres  of 
Christian  learning,  for  the  employment  of  their  reve- 
nues for  the  establishment  of  colleges  and  theological 
halls,  and  for  the  extension  of  the  episcopate  by  the 
founding  of  new  bishoprics.  It  was  largely  the  Rom- 
ish influence  that  prevented  their  utilization  for  colle- 
giate and  church  extension  purposes.  The  reformers 
even  lost  favor,  as  a  modern  historian  has  put  it,  by 
standing  out  against  the  sacrilege  of  their  uncon- 
ditional transfer  to  the  King  and  his  favourites. 
Another  great  historic  writer  has  said  :  "  No  plunder 
of  Church  or  Crown  had  touched  the  hands  of  Cran- 
mer. No  fibre  of  political  intrigue,  or  crime  or 
conspiracy,  could  be  traced  to  the  palace  at  Lam- 
beth." 

Cranmer's  position  with  regard  to  the  transfer  of 
the  crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey  has  also  been  wantonly 


28  Cranmer. 

assailed.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Edward  VI.,  as 
his  end  drew  near,  was  determined  that  his  sister 
Mary,  the  daughter  of  Queen  Catharine,  should  not 
be  his  successor,  and  as  the  marriages  of  the  mothers 
of  both  Mary  and  Elizabeth  had  been  illegalized, 
it  seemed  only  natural  that  the  young  King  should 
throw  the  force  of  his  influence  in  the  direction  of  a 
Protestant  successor.  The  Council  was  pliant,  with 
two  exceptions.  Hales  refused  to  the  last  to  give  in, 
and  Cranmer  for  a  long  while  held  out  most  firmly. 
When  we  consider  the  personal  weight  of  the  Royal 
will,  it  is  remarkable  that  Cranmer  took  so  strong  a 
stand.  However,  he  finally  yielded.  Probably  he 
was  wrong.  But  that  he  was  inexcusable,  is  a  very 
strong  statement  for  any  man  to  make.  There  was 
no  doubt  that  the  Sovereign,  with  the  consent  of 
Parliament,  had  power,  according  to  current-day 
usage,  to  transfer  the  succession.  Mary,  Queen  of 
Scots,  was  already  excluded  by  the  will  of  Henry  VIII. 
If  the  Chief  Justice,  the  leading  legalist  of  the  day, 
after  deliberately  examining  and  re-examining  the 
arguments  for  and  against  the  King's  contention, 
had  altered  his  opinion,  it  seems  hard  for  any  one  to 
accuse  the  Archbishop  of  taking  an  inexcusably  weak 
position,  as  some  modern  writers  have  done.  "  The 
judges,"  said  Edward  VI.  to  Cranmer,  as  he  stood  at 
the  death-bed  of  the  dying  boy,  "  the  judges  have 
informed  me  that  I  may  lawfully  bequeath  my  Crown 
to  the  Lady  Jane.  I  hope  you  will  not  stand  out." 
Whether  or  not  the   others  were  involved  by  their 


Cranmer.  29 

pledge  in  eternal  disgrace,  and  perjured  themselves, 
is  a  fair  matter  of  debate.  But  it  is  certain  the 
charges  do  not  apply  to  Cranmer. 

All  the  conspirators,  save  only  he, 

Did  what  they  did  through  policy ; 

He  only,  in  a  general,  honest  thought 

Of  common  good  for  all,  made  one  of  them. 

It  probably  would  have  been  nobler  for  him  to 
have  stood  out.  But,  after  all,  who,  in  these  days, 
can  judge  ? 

The  Closing  Days. 

Edward  VI.  died  July  6th,  1553. 

After  the  death  of  Edward  VI.,  Cranmer' s  lot  was 
not  a  very  happy  one.  The  tragedy  of  Mary's  reign 
is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  Providence.  Yet  out  of 
the  awful  blight  of  that  unhappy  segment  of  Eng- 
land's history,  have  come  some  of  the  best  things  in 
our  national  life.  The  reign  of  Mary  meant  ecclesi- 
astically and  theologically  the  re-establishing  for  a 
few  years  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  in  England. 
In  1554,  England  was  received  back  into  union  with 
Rome.  The  nation,  through  its  representatives,  de- 
clared itself  regretful  and  repentant  for  its  schism, 
humbly  besought  absolution,  and  asked  to  be  received 
once  more  into  unity  with  the  See  of  Rome.  They 
were  abs  olved  then  by  the  Papal  Legate 
for  all  heresy  and  schism  and  received  again  into 
unity  with  the  Holy  Roman  Church.  Before  long 
the  fires  were  blazing  and  some  of  England's  best  and 
holiest  were  dying  at  the  stake,  not  for  treason,  not 
for  sedition,  but  because  they  endured  to  the  end  in 


30  Cranmer. 

holding  that  doctrine  of  the  Communion  which  is  now 
taught  in  the  28th  and  30th  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

The  conduct  of  Cranmer  throughout  Mary's 
reign,  with  one  brief  and  sad  exception,  is  of  the  high- 
est. While  his  friends  on  every  side  were  flying  from 
the  country  Cranmer  refused  to  flee.  His  resolution 
was  noble.  "  The  post  which  I  hold  and  the  parts  I 
have  taken  require  me  to  make  a  stand  for  the  truths 
of  Holy  Scripture."  With  this  and  like  sayings,  he 
refused  to  desert  his  post.  Later  on  when  a  scurril- 
ous slander  was  circulated  to  the  effect  that  he  had 
celebrated  or  authorized  the  celebration  of  the  Mass 
in  Canterbury,  he  wrote  a  most  dignified  and  cour- 
ageous rejoinder.  Latimer  himself  could  not  have 
written  in  more  dauntless  strain.  "  I  have  been  well 
exercised  these  twenty  years  to  bear  evil  reports  and 
lies,"  he  said,  "  and  have  borne  all  things  quietly,  but 
untrue  reports  to  the  hindrance  of  God's  truths  are 
in  no  wise  to  be  tolerated."  He  then  went  on  to 
say  that  the  Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of 
England  was  conformable  to  the  order  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles,  whereas  the  Mass  in  many  things 
is  not  founded  on  Christ's  Apostles  or  the  Primitive 
Church,  but  is  manifestly  contrary  to  the  same. 

Cranmer  was,  not  long  after,  despatched  as  a 
prisoner  to  the  Tower,  where  he  held  pleasant  and 
heart-inspiring  conferences  with  his  episcopal 
brothers  in  bonds,  Bishop  Ridley  and  Bishop  Latimer. 
They  read  the  New  Testament  over  together,  for  they 


Cranmer.  31 

were  all  confined  in  one  chamber  in  the  Tower,  "  with 
great  delectation  and  peaceful  study."  From  there,  in 
April,  1554,  they  were  taken  to  Oxford,  when  the  last 
disputations  on  the  subject  of  the  Sacraments  were 
held,  and  Cranmer  bore  himself  throughout  with 
marked  dignity  and  calmness,  as  a  scholar  and  a 
champion  of  the  Truth. 

The  scene  of  his  first  examination  was  a  notable 
one.  The  leading  churchmen  of  the  day  had  flocked 
to  Oxford,  and  delegates  from  every  part  of  the  king- 
dom thronged  in  St.  Mary's  Church,  where  the  thirty- 
three  Commissioners  in  their  scarlet  robes  and 
academicals  were  awaiting  the  arbitrament.  Three 
Articles  were  submitted  to  him,  and  most  firmly,  and 
with  a  dignity  that  won  the  admiration  of  many, 
they  were  repudiated  by  the  Archbishop.  At  this,  his 
first  defence,  Cranmer  stood  alone,  "calm,  collected, 
unmoved,"  as  he  did  also  at  his  second.  A  short 
while  after,  he  underwent  another  examination,  and 
a  few  days  later  Cranmer,  with  Latimer  and  Ridley, 
again  stood  before  the  Commissioners  for  their  final 
pronouncement.  The  three  Articles  that  were  to 
determine  their  standing  or  falling  were  submitted 
to  them.  They  were  asked  whether  they  would  main- 
tain, or  whether  they  would  deny,  the  threef  olio  wing 
propositions : — 

1st.  In  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar,  by  virtue  of 
the  divine  word  uttered  by  the  priest,  the  natural 
body   of   Christ,   conceived  of   the   Virgin    Mary,   is 


32  Cranmer. 

really  present  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine, 
and  also  His  natural  blood. 

2nd.  After  consecration  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine  no  longer  remaineth,  neither  any  other  substance, 
save  only  the  substance  of  Christ,  God  and  Man. 

3rd.  In  the  Mass  there  is  a  life-giving  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  living  as  well  as  of 
the  dead. 

The  Bishops  were  asked  whether  they  said  Yes 
or  No.  One  by  one  each  of  them  repudiated  and 
denied  for  the  last  time  the  Roman  dogma.  The 
prolocutor  with  dramatic  tensity  urged  them  with 
a  pleading  appeal  to  reconsider  this  final  decision. 
Deliberately,  solemnly,  and  decisively,  the  three 
Bishops  answered :  "  We  are  not  minded  to  turn." 
Then  and  there  the  sentence  of  heresy  was  pro- 
nounced upon  them.  And  though  many  months 
elapsed,  it  was  for  heresy,  the  heresy  of  denying  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  and  maintaining  the 
present-day  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
set  forth  in  the  services  and  in  the  Articles,  that 
Thomas  Cranmer,  Hugh  Latimer,  and  Nicholas  Ridley 
were  burnt  at  the  stake  near  Baliol  College,  Oxford. 
"  We  are  not  minded  to  turn  ! "  These  are  splendid 
words.  They  deserve  to  be  held  in  the  memory  of 
all  English  Churchmen. 

The  saddest  passage  of  Cranmer's  life  came  shortly 
before  his  end.  In  what  seems  to  have  been  a  time 
of  moral  and  spiritual  enfeeblement,  one  of  those 
crises  to  which  we  are  all  liable,  of  intense  depression 


Cranmer.  33 

of  spirit,  he  was  entrapped  by  the  wily  envoys  of 
Rome,  and  induced  by  two  of  their  most  able  strate- 
gists, Garcina  and  Sydall,  to  sign  a  series  of  recanta- 
tions. It  matters  little  how  many  he  signed,  or  how- 
far  their  genuineness  can  be  established.  The  unde- 
niable fact  is  that  he  recanted,  and  that  plainly 
against  his  conscience.  But  his  fall,  though  pro- 
found, was  transient,  and  as  men  rise  on  stepping 
stones  of  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things,  Cranmer 
rose  from  that  dismal  depth  to  a  height  of  esteem 
from  which  he  never  can  be  removed.  His  agony 
of  remorse,  his  deep  and  real  repentance,  his  longing 
to  atone  in  some  measure  for  the  sin  that  stained  his 
soul ;  these  things  can  never  be  forgotten.  Of  all  the 
dramatic  passages  of  England's  history,  none  ap- 
proaches or  surpasses  the  scene  of  Cranmer's  recan- 
tation of  his  recantation  in  the  University  church, 
and  the  nobility  of  his  death  amid  the  flames  on  that 
foul  and  rainy  day  in  Oxford,  March  21st,  1556.  His- 
torian after  historian  has  depicted  it.  Our  great 
modern  poet  Tennyson  has  immortalized  it  in  his 
drama  of  Queen  Mary. 

Howard. — Did  he  die  bravely  ?  Tell  me  that,  or 
leave  all  else  untold. 

Peters. — My  Lord,  he  died  most  bravely  ! 

Seldom,  as  we  have  said  before,  has  a  man  been 
so  pitilessly  treated  for  one  act  of  weakness.  No 
character  in  the  pages  of  history,  perhaps,  has  been  so 
ruthlessly  denounced  for  a  single  error.  One  modern 
historian  tells  us  that  for  that  one  recanting  act,  the 


34  Cranmer. 

brand  of  the  craven  is  upon  him,  and  the  flames  of 
Oxford  have  not  erased  it.  He  says  that  because  of 
his  failure  of  an  hour,  forgiveness  is  denied  him  for 
the  ages. 

But  is  this  fair?      Really,  is  it  fair  and  just? 

A  man  should  be  judged  by  his  life,  and  not  by 
his  failure  under  one  singular  and  peculiar  circum- 
stance. Why  should  we  judge  Cranmer's  life  any 
more  than  we  judge  another  man  only  by  his  faults, 
still  less  by  only  one  fault.  "  We  make  too  much  of 
"  faults.  The  details  of  the  business  hide  the  real 
"  centre  of  it.  Faults  ?  The  greatest  of  faults,  I 
"  should  say,  is  to  be  conscious  of  none.  Poor  human 
"  nature !  Is  not  a  man's  walking,  in  truth,  always 
"  that :  ■  a  succession  of  falls.'  In  this  wild  element 
"  of  a  Life  he  has  to  struggle  onwards ;  now 
"  fallen,  deep  abased ;  and  ever,  with  tears,  repent- 
"  ance,  with  bleeding  heart,  he  has  to  rise  again, 
"  struggle  again  still  onwards.  That  his  struggle  be 
"  a  faithful,  unconquerable  one ;  that  is  the  question 
"  of  questions." 

Well  said,  Thomas  Carlyle.  We  must  judge  a 
man's  whole  life,  not  a  single  hour  of  weakness.  We 
must  judge  Cranmer's  life  as  we  judge  Peter's.  Like 
Peter,  he  denied ;  like  Peter,  he  wept,  and  that  bit- 
terly ;  like  Peter,  he  confessed,  and  that  bravely  ; 
like  Peter,  he  braved  the  world  with  such  power  that 
multitudes  were  convinced.  If  he  was  timid  constitu- 
tionally ;  if  he  was  inclined  to  hesitate  and  falter  ;  then 
all  the  more  honor  to  him  that  he  did  what  he  did. 


Cranmer.  35 

Of  all  the  martyrs  at  the  stake,  no  martyr  ever  dis- 
played such  physical  courage  as  Thomas  Cranmer, 
Metropolitan  and  Primate  of  all  England.  And  if  he 
recanted  once,  he  only  did  after  all  what  two  of  the 
other  English  martyrs  did,  men  of  the  highest  cour- 
age. With  that  one  brief  exception,  it  can  be  truly 
said  of  Cranmer ;  he  never  went  back ;  he  never 
receded  ;  he  never  played  the  traitor.  He  was  one 
of  those — 

Who  rowing  hard  against  the  stream, 
Saw  distant  gates  of  Eden  gleam, 
And  did  not  dream  it  was  a  dream. 

To  conclude  and  epitomize  : — 

Thomas  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
Metropolitan  and  Primate,  was  unquestionably  the 
master  spirit  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of 
England.  He  was  not  as  strong  a  man  as  Crumwell, 
as  clever  a  man  as  Erasmus,  as  eloquent  a  man  as 
Latimer,  or  as  bold  a  man  as  Luther.  But  in  many 
ways  he  was  a  great  man,  and  he  was  the  man  of  the 
day.  If  unendowed  with  more  brilliant  faculties,  he 
had  at  least  the  divine  gift  of  common-sense,  and  the 
divine  grace  of  patience.  He  knew  when  to  be  silent, 
and  he  knew  when  to  speak.  He  has  been  freely 
called  a  coward.  Historian  after  historian  has 
accused  him  of  absence  of  principle.  They  assert  that 
his  character  was  abject  and  yielding.  They  taunt 
him  with  his  silence  when  as  a  brave  man  he  should 
have  spoken,  and  with  submission  when  as  a  true 
man  he  should  have  opposed. 


36  Cranmer. 

There  may  be  another  explanation. 

There  were  times,  when  boldness  would  have  been 
madness,  and  opposition  folly.  A  general  may  re- 
treat, and  still  be  brave.  And  no  man  seems  to  have 
mastered  better  than  Cranmer  the  great  secret  of 
statesmanship,  the  power  to  wait  patiently  on  time  ; 
to  be  quiet  when  it  would  be  madness  to  speak ;  to 
wait  when  it  would  be  folly  to  push  forward.  He 
has  been  unfairly  accused  of  not  opposing  the  Six 
Articles  Bill  because  he  was  an  inconsistent  coward. 
But  he  was  no  coward  then,  if  Burnet  can  be  trusted, 
who  says  he  opposed  the  King  with  much  resolution 
and  boldness.  And  afterwards  he  was  no  coward, 
for  when  all  brave  men  in  England  were  afraid  to 
open  their  lips,  he  alone  dared  to  plead  for  Anne, 
venturing  as  far  as  was  possible  with  such  a  king  as 
Henry  VIII.  Nor  was  he  a  coward  when,  not  long 
after,  he  stood  up,  almost  alone,  against  the  angry 
Lords  and  pleaded  like  a  man  for  Crumwell.  Nor 
did  he  look  like  a  craven  when,  a  few  years  later,  he 
stood  Athanasius  contra  mundum  in  the  Legislature 
against  the  Bloody  Statute.     (See  Geikie,  349.) 

Dean  Hook,  who  has  not  presented  Cranmer,  by 
any  means,  in  the  fairest  light,  says  that  his  conduct 
in  November,  1553,  "  as  compared  with  that  of 
"  Crumwell,  and  even  that  of  Wolsey,  is  worthy  of 
"  all  admiration.  He  bravely  refused  to  fly  when 
"  flight  was  possible ;  and  that  though  life  was  dear 
"  to  him,  there  was  not  in  him  that  abject  cowardice 
"  which   we    lament    in   a   man   so   really   great   as 


Cranmer.  37 

"  Wolsey,  or  as  one  who  acted  so  important  a  part  of 
"  life  as  Crumwell." 

It  has  been  thought  that  he  was  a  time-serving 
knave  because  he  did  not  stand  by  Lambert,  or  be- 
cause he  more  than  once  gave  way  to  the  King.  But 
at  the  time  of  Lambert's  death  he  was  at  least  a  Con- 
substantiationist ;  and,  as  to  giving  in  to  the  King, 
there  were  times,  as  we  all  know,  when  it  would  have 
been  infatuation  not  to  have  done  so.  The  times  were 
hard;  as  Bishop  Burnet  quaintly  said,  very  ticklish. 
The  King  was  hard.  The  questions  of  action  were 
almost  maddening  at  times.  It  is  easy  for  men  in 
these  days  to  criticise;  but  a  poor  and  shallow  thing 
it  is  to  condemn  a  man  in  a  situation  like  his.  For 
long  weeks  and  months  together,  Cranmer  could 
simply  do  nothing.  And,  like  a  wise  man,  he  did  not 
try.  He  saw  that  it  would  be  of  no  use.  And  then, 
at  other  times,  he  saw  an  opening.  At  once  he  seized 
it,  worked  like  a  man,  and  made  the  most  of  it. 

"  To  grasp  the  skirts  of  happy  chance, 
And  breast  the  blows  of  circumstance." 

And  so  through  all  the  dreary  years  till  Edward's 
day,  Cranmer  fought  and  wrought  almost  alone.  He 
could  not  do  much.  But  he  did  what  he  could.  It 
was  a  sore  struggle.  He  stood  practically  alone.  He 
had  no  friend  for  support,  and  the  malice  of  the 
Popish  party  was  incredible. 

Throughout  the  reign  of  Edward,  Cranmer's 
character  was  consistent,  and  he  was  most  courageous. 
And  if  in  that  reign  cosmos  emerged  from  chaos,  and 


38  Cranmer. 

the  vague  and  flitting  dreams  of  the  Reformers  were 
formally  materialized  on  the  reconstruction  of  the 
Church's  doctrine  and  worship,  it  was  owing  to  the 
gentle  but  firm  influence  of  the  man,  who  however 
accused  of  pliability  and  inconsistency,  still  steadily 
held  on.  In  Mary's  reign,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Simon 
became  a  Peter,  and  the  man  who  by  nature  was 
endowed  with  a  gentle,  tolerant,  conciliatory  dispo- 
sition, to  say  nothing  of  the  disadvantages  and  dis- 
abilities of  a  storm-tossed  age,  emerged  triumphantly 
in  the  final  act  of  his  life. 

"  Life  may  be  given  in  many  ways, 
And  loyalty  to  truth  be  sealed 
As  bravely  in  the  closet  as  the  field. 
But  then  to  stand  beside  her, 
When  craven  churls  deride  her 
To  front  a  lie  in  arms  and  not  to  yield. 
This  shows,  methinks,  God's  plan. 
And  measure  of  a  stalwart  man ; 
Limbed  like  the  old  heroic  breeds, 
Who  stands  self-poised  on  manhood's  solid  earth. 

Such  was  he  our  Martyr-Chief. 

I  praise  him  not ;  it  were  too  late ; 

And  some  innative  weakness  there  must  be 

In  him  who  condescends  to  victory 

Such  as  the  Present  gives,  and  cannot  wait : 

He  knew  to  bide  his  time ; 

And  can  his  fame  abide, 

Still  patient  in  his  simple  faith  sublime. 

Till  the  wise  years  decide." 

What  after  all  may  be  taken  as  the  heart  and 
secret  of  this  influential   life.     What  was  the  cause 


Cranmer.  39 

final  of  his  work  and  efforts  as  a  Churchman  and  as 
a  man  ? 

What  was  it  that  led  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury from  the  time  of  his  consecration  to  prosecute 
with  almost  an  unde viable  consistency  the  cause  of 
ecclesiastical  reform,  and  to  pursue  it  with  whatever 
transient  phases  of  halting  and  hesitation,  to  its  final 
goal,  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  as  a 
particular  or   national   church?     What  was  it   that 
inspired  him  with  what  became  the  supreme  aim  and 
purpose   of  his  life,    to   restore    once    more  to  the 
people  of  God's  Church  in  its  simplicity  and  scriptur- 
alness,  the  worship  that  through  the  de-formation  of 
the  ages  had  became  traditional,  superstitious,  and  un- 
intelligible; to  wrest  the  monopoly  of  Church  worship 
from  monastics  and  priests  and  choir  and  give  it  back 
once  more  to  the  priesthood  of  the  laity  ;  an  object 
surely  worthy  of  a  life,  and  of  a  death  ?    What  was  it 
that  led  Cranmer  with  such  undeviating  firmness  to 
labour  for  the  transformation  of  the  Mass  into  the 
simple  Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England; 
to  overturn  that  which  for   a  thousand  years   had 
woven  itself  into  the  nation's  ecclesiastical  life  as  the 
supreme  and  highest  act  of  worship,  and  to  substitute 
for  it  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  on  the  Lord's  Table,  as 
a  memorial  of  the  Lord's  death  ?     What  was  it  that 
led  him  with  such  singular  determination  and  perse- 
verance to   labor   for  the   circulation   of     the   Holy 
Scriptures  as  the   inspired   source   of   doctrine,   and 
the   inspired    guide    of    life?      What     was    it    that 


40  Cbanmer. 

led  him,  a  devout  and  simple-hearted  child  of  the 
Romish  faith,  a  sincere  and  true-hearted 
believer  in  the  teachings  of  Rome,  to  repudiate  with 
insistent  energy  not  only  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
but  the  whole  body  of  Roman  teaching,  as  a  system 
which  falsified  the  truth  of  God  and  overwhelmed 
men  with  Christless  ignorance  ?  That  conviction,  that 
change,  that  patient  resolve,  all  sprang  from  one 
source,  and  are  explained  by  one  thing.  Thomas 
Cranmer  was  a  man  whose  heart-life  was  changed  by 
the  power  of  God's  spirit  operating  through  God's 
Word.  That,  as  he  once  simply  and  solemnly  stated  it 
in  his  own  language,  was  the  secret  of  all. 

Writing  in  answer  to  one  of  his  critics  on  one 
occasion,  to  explain  the  change  that  had  come  over 
him,  he  uttered  words  that  I  have  sometimes  thought 
deserve  to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold.  They  are 
these : 

"  /  confess  of  myself  that  I  teas  in  that  error 
of  the  Real  Presence  as  I  was  many  years  past,  in 
divers  other  errors  ;  as  of  Transubstantiation,  of  the 
Sacrifice  Propitiatory,  of  the  Priests  in  the  Mass, 
of  Pilgrimages,  Purgatory,  Pardons,  and  many  other 
superstitions  and  errors  that  came  from  Rome ;  being 
brought  up  from  youth  in  them  and  nousled  (nursed) 
therein,  for  lack  of  good  instruction  from  my  youth, 
the  outrageous  floods  of  Papistical  errors  at  that  time 
overflowing  the  world.  For  the  which,  and  other  mine 
offences  in  youth,  I  do  daily  pray  unto  God  for  mercy 
and  pardon,   saying,    '  Good  Lord,  remember  not  mine 


Cranmer.  41 

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  God  of  His  mercy  gave  me  light,  so  through  His 
grace  I  opened  my  eyes  to  receive  it,  and  did  not  wil- 
fully repugn  unto  God  and  remain  in  darkness." — 
Cranmer.     On  the  Lord's  Supper.     Park.  Soc.  374. 

That,  in  a  nutshell,  is  the  secret  of  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England. 

The  re-formation  of  the  Church  of  England 
was  not  due  to  convocations,  or  Kings,  or  Parlia- 
ments. It  was  due  to  the  spiritual  enlightenment  of 
certain  great  English  Churchmen.  The  Church  was 
reformed  because  the  reformers  were  converted,  and 
the  conversion  of  the  reformers  was  effected  by  the 
same  forces  that  iuaugurated  the  primitive 
Church  ;  the  Spirit  of  God  through  the  Word  of 
God.  This,  then,  was  the  secret  of  Cranmer's  life- 
work.  God  had  showed  him  Jesus  Christ.  God  had 
been  pleased  to  reveal  His  own  Son  to  Cranmer  by- 
means  of  His  Holy  Word.  It  was  because 
Cranmer  grew  in  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  as  his 
own  personal  Saviour,  and  Teacher,  and  Lord,  that 
he  shed  little  by  little  the  remnants  of  his  early  igno- 
rances, doctrinal  and  ritual.  That  was  the  reason 
that  he,  like  Paul,  preached  the  faith  that  once  he 
destroyed.  That  was  the  reason  that,  though  by 
nature  timid,  he  became  so  brave  and  took  a  daring 


42  Cranmer. 

stand.  "I  will  never  consent  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome," 
he  said,  "for  then  should  I  give  myself  to  the  Devil." 
"  I  cannot,  with  conscience,"  he  again  asserted,  "  obey 
the  Pope."  "Although  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  whom  they 
call  Pope,  beareth  the  room  of  Christ  on  earth,  and 
hath  power  of  God,  yet  by  that  power  and  au- 
thority he  has  not  become  unsinnable."  It  was 
this  that  made  him  stand  alone  facing  the  angry 
crowd  at  Oxford,  undaunted  and  unmoved  as  they 
shouted  Vicit  Veritas,  and  refuse  his  obeisance 
with  quiet  dignity  to  the  representative  of  the 
Pope,  while  he  bowed  to  the  representatives  of 
England's  Court.  It  was  this  that  led  him  at  last  to 
the  stake  at  Oxford.  For  it  must  never  be  forgotten 
that  the  man  who  died  at  Oxford,  as  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  Primate  of  England's  Church,  died 
there  because  he  refused  to  believe  in  the  real  the 
corporal  presence  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  Did  he,  or  did 
he  not,  believe  in  the  corporal  presence  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements  of  Bread 
and  Wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  that  was  the  ques- 
tion. Repudiating  that,  he  died.  The  Archbishop  of 
England's  Church  was  burned  at  the  stake  because  he 
refused  to  accept  the  Communion  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  It  was  that  too  that  was  the  secret 
explanation  of  much  of  the  mis  judgment  and  nearly 
all  of  the  abuse  that  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Thomas 
Cranmer. 

What,  then,  are  the  verdicts  of  individual  judges 


Cranmer.  43 

with  regard  to  a  career  like  this  ?  "  Truth  is  the 
daughter  of  time,"  said  old  Bishop  Fox  in  1537,  "  and 
time  is  the  mother  of  truth,  and  whatsoever  is 
besieged  of  Truth  cannot  long  continue ;  and  upon 
whose  side  Truth  doth  stand,  that  ought  not  to  be 
thought  transitory,  or  that  it  will  ever  fall." 

"  My  Lords,"  said  the  Duke  of  Argyle  in  a  mem- 
orable speech  in  1885,  upon  the  political  situation, 
"  the  social  reforms  of  this  last  century  have  not 
been  mainly  due  to  the  Liberal  party.  They  have 
been  mainly  due  to  the  influence,  character,  and  per- 
severance of  one  man,  Lord  Shaftesbury."  "  That," 
said  Lord  Salisbury,  in  endorsing  this  eloquent 
tribute,  "that  is,  I  believe,  a  very  true  representation 
of  the  facts." 

So,  slightly  altering  this,  we  may  say  :  The  eccle- 
siastical reforms  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
sixteenth  century  were  not  mainly  due  to  a  political 
party,  or  even  to  the  King  ;  they  were  due  mainly  to 
the  influence,  character,  and  perseverance  of  one  man, 
Thomas  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  If  the 
Church  of  England  to-day  is  peculiarly  democratic  in 
its  character  and  in  its  worship  ;  if  the  language  of 
its  liturgy  is  the  mother  tongue  of  England's  people, 
and  the  salient  feature  of  its  worship  the  right  of 
participation  of  the  people  in  all  its  services  ;  if  its 
offices  from  beginning  to  end  are  saturated  with 
Scripture  and  expressed  in  Scripture  ;  if  its  calm,  and 
dignified,  and  beautiful  devotion  is  at  once  spiritual 
in  expression  and  edifying  in  effect ;  if  its  doctrines 


44  Cranmer. 

are  based  upon  the  purest  teachings  of  the  Holy 
Bible,  and  in  conformity  with  the  purest  ideals  of  the 
Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ ;  if  not  only  England's 
Church  but  English  Christians  have  had  secured  to 
them  an  open  Bible  in  the  Church ;  it  is,  in  the  main, 
because  of  the  earnest  purpose  and  rare  devotion  of 
that  scholar  and  statesman,  that  accomplished  litur- 
gist  and  dying  martyr,  Thomas  Cranmer. 


THE   HOLY  COMMUNION 

OF    THE 

CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND 


Part  I.— An  Historical  Study. 


Part  II.— An  Exposition. 


BY 

DYSON  HAGUE,  M.A. 

Rector    of    the    Church    of    the    Epiphany,   Toronto,    Canada ; 

Lecturer    in    Liturgies    and    Ecclesiology,     Wycliffe    College  ; 

Formerly  Canon  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  London,  Ontario,  and 

Examining    Chaplain    to    the    Bishop    of    Huron. 


With  a  Preface  by 

The  Right  Rev.  E.  A.  KNOX,  D.D., 

Sometime  Bishop  of  Manchester. 


London  : 
THE    CHURCH    BOOK    ROOM, 
— 82,  Victoria  Street,  S.W.I. — 


PREFACE 

THE  great  value  of  this  book  is  due  to  the  force 
with  which  the  author  expounds  the  doctrinal 
significance  of  our  service  of  Holy  Communion 
as  contrasted  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Mass.  The 
importance  of  insisting  on  this  difference  at  the  present 
moment  cannot  be  exaggerated.  It  is  from  the  services 
and  ritual  of  his  Church  that  the  ordinary  layman  forms 
his  conception  of  doctrine.  I  speak  of  the  ordinary 
layman  :  not.  of  the  careful  and  diligent  Bible  student : 
nor  of  the  comparatively  small  proportion  of  laity  who 
study  theological  works.  Theology  and  doctrine  reach 
the  ordinary  worshipper  through  forms  of  worship. 
Wycliffe's  teaching  remained  the  possession  of  a  small 
minority,  until  Cranmer  presented  it — with  develop- 
ments no  doubt,  and  variations — in  the  form  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Cyril  Lucaris,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  in  the  beginning  of  the  17th  century, 
held  and  taught  Calvinistic  doctrine,  but  he  conformed 
to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Eastern  Church  and  his  teaching 
perished  with  him.  Tractarian  tenets  never  made  any 
way  in  England  until  they  were  translated  into  ritualistic 
imitations  of  Rome.  It  is  in  this  fact  that  the  great 
importance  of  Prayer*  Book  revision  is  to  be  found 
to-day.  If  the  Church  officially  sanctions  forms  of 
worship  which  convey  to  the  ordinary  layman  doctrines 
which  he  cannot  distinguish  from  the  Mass,  if  these 
doctrines  come  to  him,  not  as  extravagances  of 
individualistic  cranks,  but  as  official  Church  teaching, 
it  will  be  useless  to  say  that  Prayer  Book  revision  did 
not  affect  doctrine.  It  will  not  be  the  meticulous 
distinctions  of  theologians  that  will  reach  the  public 
mind  :  not  these,  but  the  great  and  broad  difference 
between  the  offering  of  a  Sacrifice  and  the  administra- 
tion of  a  Sacrament. 

It  has  been  truly  said  that  "  it  is  the  heart. that  makes 
the  theologian."     Canon  Hague's  book  will  be   found 


to  be  no  dry  bones  of  metaphysical  doctrine,  but  a 
book  that  comes  from  the  heart  and  speaks  to  the  heart. 
It  is,  in  fact,  a  popular  work,  although  based  on  a  wide 
study  of  doctrinal  literature.  It  is,  of  course,  the 
misfortune  of  controversy  that  it  is  directed  against 
error,  which  is,  almost  always,  an  exaggeration  of  a 
truth,  exaggerated  until  it  has  ceased  to  be  true.  Canon 
Hague,  in  his  disproof  of  what  may  be  called  the 
Levitical  Priesthood,  and  Levitical  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist,  has  not  thought  it  necessary  to  enlarge  upon 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist — its  relation  to  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  or  the  various  non-Levitical 
sacrifices,  which  it  involves — sacrifices  of  almsgiving, 
of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  or  the  free-will  offering 
of  ourselves  to  God.  Indeed  in  so  short  a  work  there 
was  no  room  for  a  full  exposition  of  all  that  our  Blessed 
Lord  left  to  us,  when  He  instituted  this  holy  rite. 
Canon  Hague  has  restricted  himself  mainly  to  one 
point,  and  has  enforced  it  with  vigour  and  convincing 
reasoning.  His  book  should  be  of  special  value  at  this 
critical  moment  in  the  history  of  our  Church. 

E.    A.    KNOX, 

Bishop. 

Shortlands. 


FOREWORD 


IN  view  of  the  efforts  now  being  made  to  revive  the 
use  of  the  word  "  Mass  "  as  a  definition  of  the 
Holy  Communion  in  the  Church  of  England,  and 
of  the  statements  made  that  "  the  Mass  simply  stands 
for  the  service  that  is  celebrated  in  the  Church  of 
England,"  and  that  "  when  the  Bishop  of  London 
celebrates  the  Holy  Communion  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral 
and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  says  Mass  in  St.  Peter's  in 
Rome,  they  are  both  doing  identically  the  same  thing." 
It  is  well  for  English  Churchmen  to  recall  the  teaching 
of  our  Church  in  the  15th  Homily  referred  to  in  Article 
XXXV  :  "  But,  before  all  other  things,  this  we  must  be 
sure  of  specially,  that  this  Supper  be  in  such  wise  done 
and  ministered  as  our  Lord  and  Saviour  did,  and  com- 
manded to  be  done,  as  His  holy  Apostles  used  it  ...  . 
We  must  then  take  heed,  lest,  of  the  memory,  it  be  made 

a  Sacrifice What  hath  been  the  cause  of 

this  gross  idolatry,  but  the  ignorance  hereof  ?  What 
hath  been  the  cause  of  this  mummish  massing,  but  the 
ignorance  hereof  ?  .  .  .  .  Let  us,  therefore,  so 
travail  to  understand  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  we  be 
no  cause  of  the  decay  of  God's  worship,  of  no  idolatry, 
of  no  dumb  massing."  (Homilies  and  Canons,  S.P.C.K., 
pp.  474-475.) 

Some  years  ago  a  leading  English  writer  penned  a 
sentence  worthy  of  being  pondered  by  all  thoughtful 
Churchmen  to-day  :  "  It  is  possible  without  forsaking 
Protestantism,  to  indulge  in  certain  Romish  practices 
which,  whether  they  are  wise  or  foolish  as  parts  of  that 
great  religious  institution  to  which  they  properly  belong, 
are  childish  and  grotesque  when  observed  by  the 
adherents  of  a  spiritual  system  of  an  altogether  different 
type  and  genius."     (Dale  on  Hebrews,  p.  279.) 


These  words  seem  to  express  precisely  the  real  problem 
of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  present  crisis  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  ritual  accessories,  the  bowings 
and  crossings  and  censings  and  vestments  of  an  elaborate 
"  Eucharist,"  "  properly  belong,"  as  far  as  the  order 
of  the  Service  goes,  to  the  Mass  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  Eastern  Churches.  It  is  all  there  !  It  is  taught 
there !  It  is  provided  for  in  Rubrics !  The  ritual 
arrangements,  and  vestments,  and  postures  are  authorized 
and  prescribed  parts  of  those  services.  But  in  the  Order 
for  the  Administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  or  the  Holy 
Communion  in  the  Church  of  England  there  is  no  such 
provision.  It  is  not  there.  It  is  not  there  by  pre- 
scription or  inference.  And  the  object  of  this  brief 
work  is  to  show  how,  in  the  course  of  history,  the 
original  Lord's  Supper  became  the  Mass  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church ;  and  how,  by  a  series  of  events, 
providential  and  wonderful,  the  Mass  of  the  Anglo- 
Roman  Church  before  the  Reformation  became  the 
Lord's  Supper  or  the  Holy  Communion  of  the  Church  of 
England ;  and  to  explain  the  real  meaning  of  the 
Communion  Service  as  it  is  found  in  our  Prayer  Book 
to-day. 

The  study  is  divided  into  two  parts  : — 

I. — Historical :  How  did  the  Lord's  Supper  become 
the  Roman  Catholic  Mass  and  how  did  the 
Roman  Catholic  Mass  become  the  Holy 
Communion  or  Lord's  Supper  of  the  Church  of 
England  ? 

II. — Expository  :  What  is  the  real  significance  of 
the  Church  of  England  Communion  Service 
viewed  as  a  whole  and  studied  in  the  light  of 
the  aims  and  intentions  of  those  who  compiled 
and  revised  it  ? 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION  OF  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


Part  I.— An  Historical  Study. 

THE  storm  centre  of  the  Church  of  England  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation  was,  as  all 
Churchmen  know,  that  service  which  is  called 
the  Mass.  For  centuries  before  the  Reformation  the 
Mass  was  practically  the  only  service  attended  every 
week  by  the  laity  of  the  Church  of  England.  And 
yet  the  first  doubts  that  crept  into  the  minds  of  the 
men  who  were  being  illumined  by  the  light  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  Holy  Scripture  were  doubts  with 
regard  to  the  scripturalness  and  validity  of  the  Service 
to  which  they  were  most  accustomed. 

Strype,  in  his  "  Memorials  of  Archbishop  Cranmer," 
states  that  almost  the  last  thing  King  Henry  VIII. 
was  concerned  in  was  that  the  Archbishop  "  pen  a 
form  for  the  alteration  of  the  Mass  into  a  Communion  " 
(1-198).  Whether  Strype's  statement  is  correct  or 
not,  and  it  has  been  questioned,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  it  contains  in  a  nutshell  a  summary  of  the  greatest 
doctrinal  and  liturgical  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

Within  three  years  from  the  death  of  Henry  VIII. 
the  Mass  disappeared,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  became 
for  the  Church  of  England,  the  Holy  Communion 
And  from  that  day  to  this  throughout  the  Empire 
millions  and  millions  of  devout  and  earnest  souls  in 
every  quarter  of  the  world  have  received  the  "  holy 
mysteries,"  as  "  pledges  of  his  love,"  in  the  form  that 
is  provided  in  the  Prayer  Book,  by  The  Order  for  the 
Administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  Holy 
Communion. 

7 


T  Now  there  are  two  questions  of  pro- 

O  found  interest  to  all  Anglican  churchmen. 

The  first  is  this.  How  was  it,  in  the 
first  place,  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church,  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  ever  became  the  Mass  ?  By  what 
strange  and  devious  steps  did  that  simple  service 
instituted  by  the  Saviour  in  the  Upper  Room  become 
transformed  into  a  service  of  so  entirely  different  a 
character  ?  The  second  is  :  How  was  it  that  the  Mass 
became  again  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  How  was  it  that 
that  service  which,  for  practically  a  thousand  years,  had 
reigned  supreme  in  the  Church  of  England  as  the 
Roman  Mass  disappeared,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
re-established  in  its  place  as  the  Holy  Communion  in 
every  Church  in  England. 

The  study  presents  many  difficulties.  It  is  a  study 
that  covers  eras  of  Church  History  that  are  beyond 
all  others  involved  in  obscurity.  It  involves  develop- 
ments of  doctrine  and  ritual  that  are  incapable  of  exact 
historical,  chronological  and  theological  definition. 
It  presents  also  many  involved  questions  of  interpreta- 
tion into  which  it  would  be  impossible  for  us  to  enter. 
In  fact,  our  present  object  is  rather  to  present  the  subject 
in  a  broader  outline,  so  that  the  reader  may  see  and 
grasp  clearly  certain  great  phases  of  development  in 
regard  to  the  history  of  the  Holy  Communion  and, 
through  a  review  of  these,  see  how  ideas  that  were 
entirely  alien  to  the  original  ideal  worked  like  a  leaven 
till  the  whole  was  leavened. 

Suppose  we  take  two  dates.  For  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion, let  us  take  50  a.d.  and  1000  a.d.  Exercise,  for 
a  moment,  the  historic  imagination  and  think  of  the 
different  aspects  of  the  Holy  Communion,  doctrinally 

8 


and  ceremonially,  in  those  two  periods.  In  the  one 
there  is  a  simple  Supper.  It  is  marked  by  the  dis- 
tinguishing features  of  communion,  confederation, 
commemoration.  It  is  in  the  evening.  There  is  no 
fasting.  It  is  a  brotherhood  feast.  There  is  no  ritual ; 
no  priest,  no  altar,  no  sacrifice.  In  the  other,  there 
is  a  Sacrifice  ;  in  the  centre  is  an  Altar,  with  its  ritual 
splendour,  and  its  sacrificial  priest.  Its  object  is, 
in  effect,  the  repetition  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Calvary, 
and  there  is  the  profound  belief  that  the  Bread,  after 
the  Invocation  of  the  Hofy  Ghost  by  the  priest,  has 
become  the  Body  of  Christ  and  is  offered  as  a  Real 
Sacrifice  to  God  by  a  priest  before  adoring  worshippers. 
Or,  to  take  another  instance.  Contrast  the  Mass 
Service  in  use  in  the  English  Church  in  the  year  1547, 
with  the  service  called  the  Order  of  the  Administration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  Holy  Communion,  in  use  in 
the  English  Church  in  1552.  The  one,  in  1547,  was 
the  Sarum  Use,  or  the  Service  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  England ;  identical,  save  for  a  few  minor  details 
with  that  now  celebrated  in  every  Church  of  Rome. 
The  other,  in  1552,  was  the  Communion  Service  identical 
in  almost  every  respect,  save  for  a  sentence  or  two 
and  a  few  non-essential  rubrical  additions,  with  the 
Order  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  our  Prayer  Book 
to-day.  It  will  be  seen  almost  at  a  glance  what  is 
meant  by  this  great  transformation. 

Now  let  us  glance  at  the  historical  development 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  the  very  beginning,  that 
we  may  learn  what  it  was  originally.  Professor  Kennett, 
the  Cambridge  Professor  of  Hebrew,  recently  writing 
on  the  subject  of  the  Last  Supper,  said  very  signifi- 
cantly, "it  is  somewhat  strange  that  the  Institution 
of  the  Holy  Communion  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  New 

9 


Testament  is,  in  general,  comparatively  ignored."  It 
is  indeed  strange.  And  it  is  surely  the  duty  of  every 
intelligent  Christian  to  make  the  New  Testament 
record  the  starting  point  and  regulating  standard  of 
all  earnest  study.  Without  that  the  whole  subject 
will  be  confused  in  the  mazes  of  ecclesiastical  mis- 
interpretation. We  shall  see  that  the  service,  in  the 
course  of  its  evolution  or  devolution  has  passed  through 
three  great  stages. 

1 . — Institution  :  The   service,    as   insti- 

The  Three  tuted  by  our  Lord   and   Saviour   Jesus 

Great       Christ,  and  as  continued  by  the  Church 

Stages  of    in   the   days   of   the   Apostles,   was   the 

Develop-    Lord's    Supper.     It    was    called    by    St. 

ment.       Paul  the  Lord's  Supper,  I.  Cor.  xi.,  20, 

and   (possibly)    the   Communion,    I.    Cor. 

x,  16,  and  sometimes  the  Breaking  of  Bread,  Acts  ii,  42  ; 

xx,  7.     It  was  not  the  Mass  either  in  name,  or  form, 

or  substance,  or  doctrine,  or  ritual. 

2. — Substitution  :  During  the  sub-apostolic,  primitive, 
and  post-Nicene  eras,  say  from  150  to  500  a.d.,  the 
ordinance  underwent  a  subtle  and  definite  transforma- 
tion. By  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  it  was  changed, 
in  more  or  less  rudimentary  fashion,  into  that  form 
of  service  which  afterwards  became  in  its  full  develop- 
ment the  Mass  of  medievalism  and  the  Roman  Church. 
It  was  called  the  Mass  as  early  as  380  a.d.  It  was  the 
Mass,  and,  in  its  essentials,  identical  with  the  Mass 
Service  that  was  the  supreme  service  in  the  English 
Church  for  many  centuries  before  the  Reformation. 

3. — Restitution :  During  the  course  of  many  years 
of  definite  preparation  a  movement  was  growing  in 

10 


England  which  resulted  within  the  brief  space  of  five 
years,  1548-1552,  in  : 

(1)  The  complete  abandonment  of  the  Mass ; 

(2)  The  complete  substitution  for  it  of  the  restored 
service  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

After  being  used  for  one  thousand  years,  if  not  more, 
the  Mass  was  displaced  in  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  again  took  its  place  as  the 
Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England  according 
to  God's  Word.  As  Cranmer  said,  the  Communion 
which  was  secured  for  the  Church  of  England  was 
conformable  to  the  order  which  our  Saviour  Christ 
did  both  observe  and  command  to  be  observed,  and 
which  His  Apostles  and  His  Primitive  Church  used 
many  years.  (Strype's  Cranmer,  i.,  437-438.)  The 
claim  of  the  Church  of  England  now  is  :  our  Communion 
Service  was  the  restoration  of  the  service  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  according  to  the  order  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 
Our  first  object  then  will  be  to  trace  these  steps  of 
transition  ;  to  note  some  of  the  master  minds  who 
were  the  prime  movers  thereof ;  and  to  suggest  some 
of  the  more  salient  reasons  for  the  various  stages  of 
progression  and  retrogression. 


I.— THE  INSTITUTION. 

Now  let  us,   to  start   from   the  right 

The        starting  point,  open  the  pages  of  the  New 

Starting    Testament    in    order    that   we    may   see 

Point.       exactly  what  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 

Supper   was    in    its    original    form.     Let 

us,  with  the  open  Gospel  in  our  mind,   approach  in 

11 


imagination  the  door  of  the  Upper  Chamber  on  the 
eve  of  the  first  Good  Friday  and  see  the  Saviour  and 
His  disciples  gathered  together  for  the  last  time  at 
the  Passover  Feast  and  for  the  first  time  in  His  own 
sacred  Communion  Service.  What  do  we  see  ?  We 
see  these  men  gathered  together  in  a  sacred  fellowship. 
They  participate  in  a  fraternal  feast.  They  join 
together  in  a  fellowship,  as  brothers  loyal  to  death 
to  their  Saviour-Lord  and  Master,  who  is  abrogating 
and  displacing  the  Hebrew  Passover  and  inaugurating 
a  New  Feast,  as  a  continuous  Memorial,  from  age  to 
age,  till  He  return,  of  His  death  as  their  Substitute, 
their  Sin-Bearer,  and  their  Sacrifice. 

The   record   of   the    Lord's    Supper   is 

The       contained :  (1)   In  Matthew  xxvi.,  26-30  ; 

Original     (2)  In  Mark  xiv.,  22-26  ;  (3)  in  Luke  xxii., 

Record.     19-20;  (4)    in    I.    Cor.    xi.,    23-26.    The 

account   of   St.    Paul   was   probably   the 

first  that  was  committed  to  writing,  and  it  must  be 

remembered   that   the   Apostle   distinctly   states   that 

he  received  it  neither  by  tradition  nor  by  apostolic 

narration.     He  got  it  straight  from  the  Lord  Himself. 

The  "from  the  Lord"  in  I.  Cor.  xi.,  23,  is  emphatic. 

From   these   four  accounts  carefully  read  we  gather 

these  things : 

(1)  That,  as  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  its  name 
was  pre-eminently  the  Lord's  Supper  (I.  Cor. 
xi.,  20). 

(2)  The  object  of  the  service  was  Communion, 
(I.  Cor.  x.,  16).  The  service  itself  is  perhaps 
not  described  by  that  name ;  but  Communion, 
from  the  Pauline  teaching,  was  unquestionably 
one  of  its  chief  characteristics. 

12 


(3)  The  thing  on  which  or  at  which  it  was  partaken 
was  a  table.  It  is  specifically  designated  as 
the  Lord's  Table  (I.  Cor.  x.,  21).  The  word 
used  was  the  ordinary  word  in  those  days 
for  a  table  at  which  people  used  to  eat  at  a 
meal  or  feast. 

(4)  The  elements  were  bread  and  wine.  These  were 
taken,  and  broken,  and  poured  out,  and  distri- 
buted, and  eaten  and  drunk,  with  thanksgiving 
and  praise  to  God  (Matt,  xxvi.,  26,  Mark  xiv., 
22,  Luke  xxii.,  19,  I.  Cor.  xi.,  23). 

(5)  As  far  as  the  Lord  Himself,  the  Master  of  the 
Feast,  is  concerned,  the  prominent  elements 
of  the  service  were  blessing,  thanksgiving, 
instruction,  and  distribution. 

(6)  As  far  as  the  Disciples  were  concerned  :  parti- 
cipation, commemoration,  and,  after  His  ascen- 
sion, proclamation  of  the  Lord's  death  till  His 
return. 

To  summarize.  The  first  Lord's  Supper  was  in  the 
evening.  It  was  not  taken  fasting.  That  is  explicit. 
Matt,  xxvi.,  26  : — "  As  they  were  eating  Jesus  took 
bread."  It  is  clear  that  the  disciples  were  not  in  a 
fasting  condition  that  night,  nor  is  there  any  evidence 
in  the  New  Testament  for  any  such  practice,  much 
less  any  injunction  of  it,  as  fasting  Communion.  The 
disciples  gathered  at  a  table  which  is  denominated 
the  Table  of  the  Lord ;  not  at  an  altar  (I.  Cor.  x.,  21). 
There  was  no  trace  of  anything  like  altar  sacrifice, 
nor  of  any  offering  by  a  vested  priest  upon  an  altar. 
Further,  in  instituting  His  Supper,  our  Lord  took  bread, 
not  a  lamb.    Nor  is  there  any  trace  of  anything  like 

13 


adoration  (or  altar-worship).  Nor  of  the  bread  not 
being  bread,  or  of  its  being  turned  into  something  else 
than  bread.*  Nor  is  there  indication  in  any  shape 
whatever  of  any  altar  ritual  either  as  regards  vestment, 
or  posture,  or  gesture. 

In  view  of  later  developments  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
small  interest  for  us  to  know  that  the  Early  Church 
determined  to  carry  out  as  fully  as  possible  the  Lord's 
injunction  to  do  what  was  done  at  the  Last  Supper. 
The  Apostles  and  disciples  met  each  Sunday  evening 
and  re-enacted,  so  far  as  was  possible,  the  whole  of  the 
Last  Supper.  There  was  no  lamb  eaten  because  the 
type  represented  by  the  lamb  was  fulfilled,  and  as  the 
use  of  unleavened  bread  was  only  the  accidental  effect 
of  the  Last  Supper  having  fallen  on  the  days  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  it  was  not  continued.  But  all  the 
faithful  of  the  neighbourhood  assembled,  the  richer 
members  of  the  community  supplied  provisions,  and 
the    Master's    Last    Supper   was,    with    the   necessary 


*  The  phrase  "  This  is  my  body  "  means,  "  represents  my 
body."  There  is  neither  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  nor  in  the 
attitude  of  His  Apostles  anything  that  could  in  any  way  counten- 
ance the  idea  of  any  change  of  any  kind  whatsoever  in  the  bread. 
The  word  "  is  "  does  not  and  cannot  mean  "  becomes."  It  is 
well  known  that  the  Paschal  formula  pronounced  by  the  Head 
of  the  Feast  as  he  broke  the  bread  was  "  This  is  the  bread  of 
affliction  which  our  fathers  ate  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt." 
The  very  thought  of  the  bread  that  the  father  held  in  his  hand 
being  transformed  into  or  becoming  the  original  bread  of 
affliction  would  be  foreign  to  Hebrew  thinking.  If  the  words 
"  This  is  my  body  "  refer  to  identification  of  substance,  either 
by  way  of  consubstantiation  or  transubstantiation,  then  the 
same  must  be  true  of  the  cup,  for  the  very  same  word  is  used  : 
"  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  "  (Luke  xx.,  20). 
It  is  clearly  metaphorical  language,  a  simile  of  representation. 
Just  as  we  say  "  This  is  a  pound  "  when,  as  far  as  substance  is 
concerned,  it  is  merely  a  piece  of  paper  ;  or  "  This  is  my  father," 
"  This  is  my  mother,"  as  we  look  at  a  portrait.  (See  Jacobs 
Ecc.  Pol.  of  the  N.T.,  Ch.  vii.,  pp.  296-314.) 

14 


changes,  re-enacted.  Towards  the  end  of  the  meal, 
at  the  same  time  in  it  that  the  Lord  had  instituted 
His  Memorial,  bread  and  wine  were  placed  before  the 
presiding  presbyter  and  solemnly  blessed  by  him  as 
the  symbols  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  their  departed 
Lord,  and  partaken  by  all  in  solemn  silence  as  a  memorial 
of  Him.  Then  the  meal  continued,  and  at  the  end  of 
it,  thanksgiving  for  the  whole  was  offered  and  psalms 
or  hymns  were  sung. 

This  was  the  form  of  the  Administration  of  the  Holy 
Communion  down  to  apparently  the  year  110  A.D.,  when, 
owing  to  the  prohibition,  by  Trajan's  orders,  of  evening 
meetings,  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion  was 
transferred  to  the  forenoon  and  the  meal  to  mid-day. — 
(Meyrick's  "  Scriptural  and  Catholic  Truth  and  Worship," 
p.  22.) 

As  far  as  the  purpose  of  the  Institution 
n  was   concerned,    it   is   obvious   that   the 

Lord's  Supper,  as  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  was  primarily  a  witness  to  and  a  remem- 
brance and  announcement  of  the  Lord's  atoning  death. 
(I.  Cor.  xi.,  24-25).  It  was  to  be  an  everlasting  memorial 
of  Him  as  the  Crucified ;  and  a  perpetual  witness  to  Him 
as  the  Coming  Lord  (I.  Cor.,  xi.,  26).  In  one  word. 
The  New  Testament  survey  in  its  entirety  presents  to  the 
careful  reader  the  picture  of  a  Supper  or  a  Memorial 
Feast,  in  which  the  chief  elements  are  Commemoration, 
Confederation,  Communion,  and  Annunciation.  It  was 
instituted  to  enable  the  Lord's  children,  in  the  interval 
between  His  Ascension  and  His  Second  Advent,  to 
remember  His  Death,  in  a  communion-covenant- 
feast,  and  thus   announce   or  set    forth  and  proclaim 

15 


His  atoning  death  until  His  coming  again.*  The 
whole  matter  is  finely  and  fairly  summarized  in  the 
theological  statement  of  our  Church  Catechism  in  the 
question  :  "  Why  was  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ordained  ?  "  The  answer  is  remarkable.  It 
stands  like  a  crystal  monument  to  the  clearness  of  our 
Church's  Sacramental  teaching.  It  does  not  say  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  "  For  the  continual  r^-offering, 
or  repetition  or  representation  of  the  offering  of  the  death 
of  Christ."  No  !  But  "  For  the  continual  remembrance 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
benefits  we  receive  thereby."  In  the  Communion 
Service,  and  especially  in  the  Exhortations,  there  is  that 
Scriptural  balance  of  truth,  with  its  emphasis  of  the 
two  great  features,  Commemoration  and  Communion, 
that  so  pre-eminently  characterise  our  Church's  posi- 
tion. 

II.— THE  SUBSTITUTION. 

As  we  go  down  the  pathway  of  history 

The        we  see  that,  little  by  little,  the  Church 

First        departed  from   the  original  idea  of  the 

Departures.  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Communion.     Little 

by  little,   there  was   developed    another 

ideal  of  the  service.     In  its  initial  stages  it  was  simple 

enough.     Then,    step   by   step   of   subtle   and   almost 

unconscious,  unintentional  digression,  the  Lord's  Supper 

*  The  words  "Ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  "  have  been 
the  subject  of  much  controversy.  The  word  in  the  Greek  is 
"  katangellete."  It  means  literally  to  announce  or  to  set  forth 
good  news,  or  any  proclamation  of  joyous  or  solemn  meaning. 
To  katangellize  His  Death  is,  therefore,  to  announce  evangelically, 
or  publicly  set  forth,  its  glorious  meaning.  It  is  generally 
admitted  by  scholars  that  the  word  cannot  mean  to  exhibit 
before  God  ;  much  less  to  plead  or  present  or  represent,  before 
God,  Christ's  death  (See  A  Sacrament  of  Our  Redemption,  by 
Griffith  Thomas,  and  especially  pages  23-26.) 

16 


gradually  became  that  complex  service  of  strange  and 
suggestive  ceremonial  that  attained  its  climax  in  the 
Roman  Mass.  The  line  of  development  was  in  one 
definite  direction.  Century  after  century,  the  streams 
of  tendency  converged  to  one  end  ;  to  make  the  Euchar- 
ist the  central  and  the  supreme  service  of  the  Christian 
Church.  As  far  as  the  laity  were  concerned,  it  was 
practically  from  a  very  early  date  the  only  service 
attended  by  the  generality  of  worshippers.  From  the 
fourth  century  onward,  if  not  earlier,  the  Communion 
Service,  known  then  largely  as  the  Eucharist,  became 
the  sun  and  centre  of  Christian  worship.  It  had  the 
supreme  place  of  honour.  The  other  services  became 
altogether  subsidiary  and  secondary. 

As  time  went  by,  the  central  part  of  this  central 
service  became  the  offering  of  sacrifice.  The  idea  of 
communion  was  slowly  but  surely  receding  into  distance. 
An  entirely  new  theory  was  absorbing  the  mind  of 
Christendom.  Within  three,  or  certainly  four,  centuries 
from  the  death  of  Christ  the  idea  of  a  Communion  Supper, 
which  was  primary  and  fundamental  in  the  Lord's 
institution,  became  subsidiary,  and  non-essential ;  and 
the  idea  of  sacrifice,  which  was  utterly  wanting  in  the 
original  service,  became  primary,  fundamental,  and 
supreme. 

The    natural    question    is    therefore : 

How  did  it  all  come  about  ?     How  was 

it  possible  in  such  a  brief  period  of  the 

.  -      Church's  history  for  such  a  transformation 

to  take  place  ? 

It  arose  apparently  in  a  very  simple  way.     It  started 
from  very  small  and  apparently  harmless  beginnings. 

17 


For  instance,  it  was  customary  from  a  fairly  early 
date  to  separate  the  baptized  and  non-baptized 
Christians,  and  then  to  dismiss  the  latter  before  the 
Holy  Communion.  For  probably  very  simple  reasons 
also,  it  became  customary  to  shut  and  guard  the  doors. 
And  so  the  idea  grew  that  there  was  a  certain  mystery 
attached  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  an  idea  that  tended 
to  develop  with  great  rapidity  in  an  age  accustomed  to 
exaggerate  the  mystic. 

During  the  second  and  third  centuries  this  idea  took 
deeper  root  on  account  of  the  gradually  developed 
theory  of  the  mystical  connection  between  the  bread 
and  wine  and  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Without 
any  caution  of  spiritual  explanation,  the  symbolic 
expressions  of  John  vi.,  53-56,  with  regard  to  eating 
His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood,  which  our  Lord  most 
specifically  said  were  not  to  be  taken  with  literalism 
(John  vi.,  63 — "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  :  the 
flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life,"  that  is,  understood 
spiritually,  they  are  life)  were  applied  by  writer  after 
writer  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  terms  of  almost  mechanical 
materialism.  Irenaeus  says  that  the  bread,  in  the 
Communion  Service,  when  it  receives  the  Invocation  of 
God,  or  the  Word  of  God,  is  no  longer  bread  but  the 
Eucharist,  and  that  when  the  mingled  cup  and  the  made 
bread  receive  the  Word  of  God  they  become  the  Eucharist 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  consist  of  two 
elements,  an  earthly,  plus  a  heavenly  !  Irenaeus  may 
have  used  the  terms  innocently  enough.  But  one  can 
see  peering  in,  and  lurking  dimly,  and  looming  up 
vaguely,  dangerous  and  strange  expressions.  We  may 
charitably  say  :  They  are  only  hints  !  They  are  only 
suggestions !     Yes.     Possibly.      But    they   unquestion- 

18 


ably  show  the  growth  of  the  view  that  the  elements 
in  the  Communion  are  made  to  be,  by  the  Invocation 
or  the  Epiclesis  in  the  consecration  act,  something  that 
they  were  not  before.  They  seem  to  disclose  the  roots  of 
a  doctrine  which  before  long,  in  the  mystic  language 
of  Cyril,  and  the  unambiguous  language  of  Cyprian 
and  Ambrose,  became  something  which  approached 
the  transubstantiation  theory  of  the  Medieval  Church. 

Along  with  this  more  mystical  develop- 
A  ment  was  another  of  perhaps  far  deeper 

Dangerous  and  more  dangerous  tendency.  It  was 
Theory,  really  the  secret  of  all  the  departure.  It 
was  found  almost  as  far  back  as  the  days  of 
Clement  of  Rome.  It  was  this  :  That  the  Jewish  system 
of  priest  and  sacrifice  in  some  subtle  way,  mystic  or 
spiritual,  was  to  furnish  patterns  for  the  Christian 
Church  to  follow.  Of  that  idea,  in  the  New  Testament, 
it  can  be  confidently  stated  there  is  not  a  trace.  A 
study  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  fails  to  reveal  a  single 
trace  of  the  institution  of  any  priestly  or  sacerdotal 
ministry.  St.  Paul  used  ten  different  names  to  describe 
the  Christian  ministry,  but  the  one  name  he  never 
gave  is  the  word  "  priest."  There  is  no  trace  in  Scrip- 
ture of  any  sacerdotal  sacrifice  as  an  element  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  As  Farrar  said :  "  There  is  not  one 
syllable  in  the  New  Testament  to  sanction  it,  and 
everything  to  exclude  it." 

The  duties  and  privileges  of  the  Christian  Ministry 
are  clearly  set  forth  in  Ephesians  iv.,  11-15  (R.V.), 
"  And  He  gave  some  to  be  apostles  and  some  prophets, 
and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers, 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  minister- 
ing unto  the  building-up  of  the  body  of  Christ  "  ("ye 

19 


For  instance,  it  was  customary  from  a  fairly  early 
date  to  separate  the  baptized  and  non-baptized 
Christians,  and  then  to  dismiss  the  latter  before  the 
Holy  Communion.  For  probably  very  simple  reasons 
also,  it  became  customary  to  shut  and  guard  the  doors. 
And  so  the  idea  grew  that  there  was  a  certain  mystery 
attached  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  an  idea  that  tended 
to  develop  with  great  rapidity  in  an  age  accustomed  to 
exaggerate  the  mystic. 

During  the  second  and  third  centuries  this  idea  took 
deeper  root  on  account  of  the  gradually  developed 
theory  of  the  mystical  connection  between  the  bread 
and  wine  and  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Without 
any  caution  of  spiritual  explanation,  the  symbolic 
expressions  of  John  vi.,  53-56,  with  regard  to  eating 
His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood,  which  our  Lord  most 
specifically  said  were  not  to  be  taken  with  literalism 
(John  vi.,  63 — "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  :  the 
flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life,"  that  is,  understood 
spiritually,  they  are  life)  were  applied  by  writer  after 
writer  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  terms  of  almost  mechanical 
materialism.  Irenaeus  says  that  the  bread,  in  the 
Communion  Service,  when  it  receives  the  Invocation  of 
God,  or  the  Word  of  God,  is  no  longer  bread  but  the 
Eucharist,  and  that  when  the  mingled  cup  and  the  made 
bread  receive  the  Word  of  God  they  become  the  Eucharist 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  consist  of  two 
elements,  an  earthly,  plus  a  heavenly  !  Irenaeus  may 
have  used  the  terms  innocently  enough.  But  one  can 
see  peering  in,  and  lurking  dimly,  and  looming  up 
vaguely,  dangerous  and  strange  expressions.  We  may 
charitably  say  :  They  are  only  hints  !  They  are  only 
suggestions !     Yes.     Possibly.      But    they   unquestion- 

18 


ably  show  the  growth  of  the  view  that  the  elements 
in  the  Communion  are  made  to  be,  by  the  Invocation 
or  the  Epiclesis  in  the  consecration  act,  something  that 
they  were  not  before.  They  seem  to  disclose  the  roots  of 
a  doctrine  which  before  long,  in  the  mystic  language 
of  Cyril,  and  the  unambiguous  language  of  Cyprian 
and  Ambrose,  became  something  which  approached 
the  transubstantiation  theory  of  the  Medieval  Church. 

Along  with  this  more  mystical  develop- 
A  ment  was  another  of  perhaps  far  deeper 

Dangerous  and  more  dangerous  tendency.  It  was 
Theory,  really  the  secret  of  all  the  departure.  It 
was  found  almost  as  far  back  as  the  days  of 
Clement  of  Rome.  It  was  this  :  That  the  Jewish  system 
of  priest  and  sacrifice  in  some  subtle  way,  mystic  or 
spiritual,  was  to  furnish  patterns  for  the  Christian 
Church  to  follow.  Of  that  idea,  in  the  New  Testament, 
it  can  be  confidently  stated  there  is  not  a  trace.  A 
study  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  fails  to  reveal  a  single 
trace  of  the  institution  of  any  priestly  or  sacerdotal 
ministry.  St.  Paul  used  ten  different  names  to  describe 
the  Christian  ministry,  but  the  one  name  he  never 
gave  is  the  word  "  priest."  There  is  no  trace  in  Scrip- 
ture of  any  sacerdotal  sacrifice  as  an  element  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  As  Farrar  said :  "  There  is  not  one 
syllable  in  the  New  Testament  to  sanction  it,  and 
everything  to  exclude  it." 

The  duties  and  privileges  of  the  Christian  Ministry 
are  clearly  set  forth  in  Ephesians  iv.,  11-15  (R.V.), 
11  And  He  gave  some  to  be  apostles  and  some  prophets, 
and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers, 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  minister- 
ing unto  the  building-up  of  the  body  of  Christ  "  ("ye 

19 


are  the  Body  of  Christ  ")  till  we  all  attain  unto  the 
unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of 
God,  unto  a  full  grown  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ ;  that  we  may  be  no 
longer  children,  tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about 
with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men,  in 
craftiness,  after  the  wiles  of  error ;  but  speaking  truth 
in  love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  Him,  which  is 
the  head,  even  Christ."  The  only  sacrifice  demanded 
of  Christians  is  the  sacrifice  of  themselves.  "  I  beseech 
you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  God,  to 
present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable 
to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  service  "  (Rom.  xii.,  1). 

But  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century  that  idea 
grew  and  spread  with  extraordinary  rapidity  and  in 
proportion  as  it  grew  the  ministry  became  the  clergy, 
or  a  kind  of  separated  class.  Then  the  clergy  became 
the  priesthood,  a  sacerdotal  order.  The  idea  of  sacrifice 
logically  followed.  When  once  the  theory  took  root 
that  the  presbyter  was  a  sacerdos,  a  sacrificing  priest, 
it  was  only  natural  that  he  should  have  somewhat  to 
offer  (Heb.  viii.,  3-4)*     And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  the 

*  In  that  very  remarkable  work  The  Priesthood  of  the  New 
Covenant,  Mr.  Werner  H.  K.  Soames  shows  that  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  finally  destroys  the  argument  of  any  analogy 
between  the  New  Testament  presbyter  and  the  Old  Testament 
priest.  "  No  comparison  is  ever  drawn  in  Scripture  between  the 
priests  of  the  Old  Covenant  and  the  priests  of  the  New,  but 
between  the  MANY  priests  of  the  Old  Covenant  and  THE 
PRIEST  of  the  New."  ....  "  The  Old  Covenant  priesthood 
and  the  New  Covenant  priesthood  are  often  compared,  but  the 
comparison  almost  always  points  out  this  fundamental  difference 
between  them,  that,  whereas  the  OLD  Covenant  "  priesthood  " 
consisted  of  MANY  priests,  the  NEW  Covenant  "  priesthood  " 
consists  of  ONE  great  priest  ONLY."  .  .  .  .  "At  the 
celebration  and  eating  of  the  Paschal  Supper  no  Levitical  priest 
(sacerdos)  was  present  (i.e.,  one  was  not  required),  or  was  present 
at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  HEAD  of  the 
family  used  to  preside  and  officiate." 

20 


Eucharist  as  a  service  became  more  and  more  regarded 
in  the  light  of  a  sacrifice.  At  first,  of  course,  it  was 
only  a  "  spiritual  sacrifice."  It  was  only  a  "  symbolical 
sacrifice."     But  still  it  was  a  sacrifice.* 

How   the  changes   came   to   pass   will 
The        probably  never  exactly  be  traced.     But 
Cardinal    there  can  be  no  doubt  that  from  that 
Error,      time  on  the  oblations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, unbloody  and  commemorative,  were 
seized  upon  as  the  prophetical  foreshadowing  of  a  new 
oblation  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  actually  deemed  to  be  a  representation  and 
a  r^-enactment  of  the  awful  Sacrifice  of  the  Son  of 
God  on  Calvary's  Cross.    The  bread  and  wine  which 
were  originally  the  gifts  of  the  people,  offered  to  the 
priest,  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  now  to  be  offered 
by  the  priest,  for  the  people,  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ! 
The   consecration   prayer  has  become   the   prayer  of 
sacrifice  !    The  bread  has  become  by  the  Invocation, 
the  Body  of  Christ.     It  was  the  oblation  offered  to  God  of 
the  Sacrifice  of  Christ.     "  The  passion  of  Christ  (that 
is,  the  sacrifical  suffering)  is  what  we  offer  to  God," 

*  It  has  been  frequently  asserted  that  the  sacrifical  terms 
used  by  St.  Paul  in  Rom.  xv.  and  xvi.,  where  he  speaks  of 
himself  as  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  doing  the  sacrificial 
work  of  God's  Gospel,  that  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  may  be 
acceptable,  and  of  the  consecration  and  service  of  Christians  as 
sacrifice  (Rom.  xii.,  1,  and  Phil,  ii.,  17),  and  of  the  offering 
of  the  sacrifice  of  praise  (the  Greek  word  used  being  that  which  is 
the  basis  of  the  liturgical  expression  "  anaphora  "),  distinctly 
teach  and  authorize  the  idea  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar  in 
Christian  worship  and  the  office  of  sacrificer  in  the  Christian 
priest.  But  it  must  be  evident  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  in  the  Rom.  xv.-xvi.  passage  of  anything  like  sacerdotal 
teaching  and  that  the  whole  expression  is  used  metaphorically 
as  it  is  in  Rom.  xii.,  1.  Never  does  the  Apostle  or  any  New 
Testament  writer  hint  at  the  Holy  Communion  as  a  sacrifice, 
a  sacrifical  offering,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  trace  of  anything 
like  altar  worship  or  the  suggestion  that  the  minister  is  a 
sacrificing  priest* 

21 


said  Cyprian.  "  The  Eucharist  is  the  holy  and  awful 
Sacrifice,  the  Sacrifice  of  propitiation,"  said  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem.  "  We  offer  Christ  the  sacrifice  for  our  sins, 
while  we  propitiate  the  living  God  on  behalf  of  the 
living  and  the  dead."  "  You  see  the  Lord  sacrificed 
and  lying  before  you  and  the  priest  standing  over  the 
sacrifice  and  praying,"  said  Chrysostom. 

But  the  student  of  history  will,  of 
Cyprian,  course,  remember  that  the  name  of 
The  Prime  Cyprian,  the  famous  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
Sacer-  about  250  a.d.,  is  the  name  that  really 
dotalist.  marks  the  water-shed  of  Church  history. 
Cyprian  was,  essentiahy,  the  sacerdotalist 
of  the  Neo-Catholic  of  the  third  century.  He  was  the 
pioneer,  the  daring  pioneer,  of  Christian  priesthood. 
He  rushed  in  where  even  his  master,  the  great  Tertullian, 
feared  to  tread.  He  boldly  transferred  into  the  domain 
of  Christianity  the  theories  and  terms  of  Judaism. 
To  him  the  Communion  Table  is  the  Altar.  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  Sacrifice.  The  bread  is  the  Host.  The 
elements  are  offered  upon  the  altar.  The  Christian 
minister  is  no  longer  a  mere  presbyter  ;  he  is  the  priest, 
the  sacerdos.  The  twentieth  century  sacerdotalist, 
Roman  or  Anglican,  can  find  almost  everything  he  wants 
in  Cyprian,  except  the  Papal  Supremacy.  He  declared 
that  the  bishop,  the  summus  sacerdos,  sits  in  the 
sacerdotal  chair  ;  that  he  makes  priests  by  the  will 
of  God  ;  that  priestly  authority  and  power  comes  from 
the  bishop,  the  successor  of  Peter.  Priestly  unity 
takes  its  source  from  Rome  ;  the  priest  assists  at  the 
altar  of  God  ;  the  priest  offers  in  the  Church  a  full  and 
true  sacrifice.  The  priest  functions  in  the  very  place  of 
Christ.  (Sacerdos  vice  Chris ti  vere  fungitur.)  These 
and  a  hundred  like  expressions  abound  in  his  writings. 

22 


We  can  see  by  this  time  that  the  Church  had  departed 
very  far  indeed  from  the  simplicity  which  is  in  Christ 
("  I  fear,"  said  St.  Paul,  "  lest  by  any  means,  as  the 
serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtility,  so  your 
minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that 
is  in  Christ. — II.  Cor.  xi.,  3),  and  that  the  plain  teaching 
of  Scripture  ("  We  are  sanctified  through  the  offering 
of  the  Body  of  Christ  once  for  all  " — Heb.  x.,  10),  and 
that  "  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin  "  (Heb.  x.,  14)  was 
ignored  and  forgotten. 

After   Cyprian's   day    a   very   decided 
r  change  came  over  the  spirit  of  the  Church 

in  doctrine  and  ritual.  The  progress  was 
extraordinary.  It  amounted  almost  to  an  apostasy. 
At  that  time  and  during  the  centuries  that  followed, 
with  astonishing  rapidity,  every  possible  element  of 
ritual  splendour  and  pagan  superstitution  crept  into 
the  Eucharistic  service.  It  was  after  the  Council  of 
Nicea,  a.d.  325,  that  the  alteration  of  the  Church's 
position  as  to  doctrine  and  ritual  became  so  manifest. 
The  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great  was  the  danger  era. 
It  was  then  that  the  elements  of  pagan  idolatry,  holy 
water,  candles,  the  adoration  of  relics  and  the  Cross, 
and  other  practices  of  heathenism,  swept  into  the  Church. 
Ideals  of  pagan  origin  were  adopted  with  a  greediness 
that  seemed  like  the  working  of  that  strange  delusion 
that  made  men  believe  a  lie,  because  they  received  not 
the  love  of  the  truth.  The  current  of  Church  opinion 
was  running  like  a  flood  in  a  false  direction.  And  its 
cause  was  without  doubt  the  fusion  of  the  world  and 
the  Church.  It  was  the  temporal  exaltation  of  the 
Church  that  led  to  the  appalling  apostasy  from  the 
primitive  simplicity  of  spiritual  life  and  doctrinal  view. 

23 


From  that  time  on,  the  Eucharist  became  more  and 
more  conspicuously  ceremonial.  It  displaced  all  other 
services.  It  was  invested  with  every  element  of  ritual 
magnificence.  The  rites  and  ceremonies  prescribed 
at  every  point  of  the  service  by  the  most  minute  and 
exacting  rubrics  increased  as  the  centuries  went  on, 
but  even  in  the  Liturgy  which  is  supposed  to  be  the 
most  ancient  extant,  dating  probably  from  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century,  the  service  begins  with 
injunctions  to  the  High  Priest  and  Priest  to  put  on  a 
splendid  vestment,  to  make  the  sign  of  the  Cross,  and 
to  perform  various  actions,  destined  within  a  very 
short  time  to  become  almost  as  elaborate  and  complicated 
as  the  Roman  Service  now  is.  The  student  of  one  of 
these  ancient  Liturgies,  Eastern  or  Western,  will  be 
amazed  at  the  imposing  grandeur  of  their  ceremonial, 
and  the  apparent  importance  that  gradually  became 
attached  to  the  smallest  ritual.  It  is  hard  to  judge, 
but  it  almost  looks  as  if  the  influence  of  worldly  imitation, 
the  seductive  glamour  of  heathen  rites  and  the  pagan 
splendours  of  temple  worship,  were  perhaps  innocently, 
perhaps  thoughtlessly,  adapted  by  the  leaders  of  the 
early  Church  as  adding  an  emphasis  of  grandeur  to 
the  service  which  they  held  to  be  the  offering  of  the  body 
of  God. 

_  And  then  other  things  came  in.     The 

Further 
_  service   became   more  and  more  crowded 

Departures.    ...       .  r  .       . 

with    intercessory    supplications,    largely 

on  account  of  the  martyrs'  anniversaries.  Then  this 
habit  of  commemorating  the  beloved  dead  by  oblations 
led  to  the  development  in  the  service  of  intercessions 
for  the  dead.  This,  in  turn,  was  followed  by  the  deve- 
lopment of  intercessions  to  the  dead,  and  the  service 
was  elaborated  by  all  sorts  of  memorials  and  inter- 

24 


cessions  to  the  saints.  Then  there  followed  with  swift 
and  perilous  effect  the  thoughtless  practice  of  linking 
the  efficacy  of  intercessions  for  the  dead  with  the  offering 
by  the  priest  in  the  Eucharistic  service.  It  came  to 
be  believed  that  in  some  way  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice 
prevailed  for  the  curtailment  of  the  sufferings  of  those 
who  were  in  Purgatory.  Along  with  this  developed 
the  idea  that  the  Eucharistic  offering  in  some  mysterious 
way  atoned  for  their  sins  :  a  doctrine  held  with  incredible 
tenacity  and  which  rapidly  spread.  Oblations  for  the 
dead  became  universal,  and  soon  were  developed  into 
celebrations  of  masses  for  the  souls  of  the  departed. 
This  doctrine  seems  to  have  been  of  Western  rather 
than  of  Eastern  origin,  and  received  its  crowning 
development  in  Caesarius  of  Aries  and  Gregory  the 
Great.  The  oblationes  pro  defunctis  are  now  called 
Masses  for  their  souls  and  it  was  soon  believed  that 
the  sufferings  of  the  souls  in  purgatory  might  be 
alleviated  and  shortened  through  the  offering  of  Masses. 
In  fact,  the  Mass  offering  soon  became  the  favourite 
instrument  for  the  accomplishment  of  many  and  success- 
ful undertakings.  The  abuse  of  the  after-development 
of  the  sacrifices  of  Masses  and  the  danger  of  its  teaching 
is  clearly  pointed  out  in  Article  XXXI. 

Thus,  there  grew  up  and  spread  as  a  universal  tenet 
the  idea  that  it  was  sufficient  for  the  sacrificing  priest 
alone  to  communicate,  and  that  the  sacrifice  he  offered 
on  the  altar  was  of  efficacy  for  the  remission  of  the  sins 
both  of  the  living  and  the  dead.  As  early  as  the  fifth 
century  it  was  considered  sufficient  to  be  present  at 
the  Church  during  Communion,  and  Chrysostom  lamented 
that  there  was  no  one  to  communicate  with  the  priest. 
Thus,  the  substance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  changed. 
The    transubstantiation    was    complete.     The    simple 

25 


Supper  of  the  Lord  has  become  a  spectacular  ceremony  ; 
the  Communion  feast  has  become  a  rite  of  magnificence  ; 
the  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
has  become  a  representation  of  the  sacrifice,  which 
Scripture  tells  us  can  never  be  repeated.  "  And  every 
priest  standeth  daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes 
the  same  sacrifice,  which  can  never  take  away  sins  ; 
But  this  man,  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins, 
for  ever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God ; — For  by 
one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are 
sanctified. — And  their  sins  and  iniquities  will  I  remember 
no  more.  Now  where  remission  of  these  is  there  is  no 
more  offering  for  sin."  Hebrews  x.,  8-18.  In  the 
Great  Mystery-Drama,  the  Incarnation  and  the  Cruci- 
fixion were  re-enacted  before  the  wondering  gaze  of 
the  worshipping  multitudes,  and  the  very  Life  of  the 
Son  of  God  Himself  was  given  under  the  transmuted 
elements  of  bread  and  wine. 

The  service  had  become  the  Mass.     As 

And  so      far   back   as   the   days   of   Ambrose   we 

came  the    pass  the  final  milestone  and  enter  into 

Mass.        a    new    era.     Writing    in    the    year    384 

to  a  friend,  Ambrose,  who  was  then  the 

Bishop  of  Milan,  said  incidentally,  without  a  thought 

of  doctrinal  or  historical  reference,  that  he  had  begun 

to  celebrate  the  Mass  in  his  Church.     It  is  not  necessary 

to   quote   extracts   from   Ambrose's  writings   to  show 

that  his  views  were  similar  to  those  of  Cyprian  and 

Cyril,  and  that  to  him  the  centre  of  the  whole  service 

was  the  offering  of    the  Sacrifice,  after  the  Epiclesis 

or  Invocation  (the  prayer  that  the  Holy  Ghost  may 

make  the  bread  Christ's  Body,  and  the  wine  Christ's 

Blood).     In  one  word,  to  him,  the  priest,  the  altar, 

and  the  offering  of  the  Sacrifice,  with  prayers  to  the 

26 


dead,  were  the  essential  features  of  the  service.  But 
for  the  student  of  history,  the  point  is  that  we  have 
come  to  what  is  at  once  a  terminal  point  and  a  starting 
point  in  the  Church's  history.  What  was  known  in 
the  New  Testament  as  the  Lord's  Supper  is  now  known 
in  the  Christian  Church  as  the  Mass. 

There  are  few  things  less  understood 
What  than  the  Primitive  Liturgies.  It  may  be 
were  the  said  that  average  Churchmen,  even  highly 
Primitive  educated  and  widely-read  English  Church- 
Liturgies  ?  men,  have  often  only  the  vaguest  ideas, 
and  often  even  the  most  erroneous  ideas, 
with  regard  to  these  so-called  Primitive  Liturgies. 
For  these  two  things  ought  to  be  clearly  understood  : 

(1)  They  are  not,  in  the  proper  sense,  Primitive  ; 

(2)  Though  they  are  called  Liturgies,  they  should 
be  called  Mass  Services. 

They  certainly  were  not  primitive  because  there  is 
scarcely  a  trace  of  them  before  the  fourth  century, 
and  perhaps  the  fifth.  It  is  a  well  known  historical 
fact  that  the  Apostles  left  no  trace  of  anything  like  a 
form  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  indeed 
any  liturgical  form  whatsoever  that  can  be  regarded 
historically  as  authentic* 

*  See  Srawley,  The  Early  History  of  the  Liturgy,  Introduction, 
pp.  xiii.-xiv.,  who  says  that  the  attempt  to  trace,  in  any  existing 
liturgical  forms,  an  Apostolic  Liturgy,  is  doomed  to  failure. 
On  page  118  he  quotes  a  remarkable  passage  from  Basil,  that 
great  father  of  the  Church,  Metropolitan  Bishop  of  Cappadocia, 
master  administrator,  preacher,  theologian,  liturgiologist.  In 
his  work  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  Basil,  who  is  speaking  of  unwritten 
tradition  and  of  the  fact  that  none  of  the  words  of  the  Invocation 
at  the  consecration  had  been  left,  goes  on  to  say,  in  the  most 
naive  way  (375),  that  they  were  not  satisfied  in  their  day  with  the 
simple  words  of  the  Apostle  or  the  Gospel,  but  they  had  received 
from  'unwritten  tradition  (the  agraphic  didaschale),  other  words 
as  having  great  force. 

27 


Nor  were  they  Liturgies.  That  is,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word  as  we  English  Church  people  speak 
of  our  Prayer  Book  as  a  Liturgy.  The  Primitive 
Liturgies  were  really  the  early  forms  of  celebrating 
the  Mass.  When  they  came  in,  our  idea  of  the 
Communion  and  the  Lord's  Supper  had  disappeared 
from  the  Church,  and  the  simpler  and  fuller  idea  of 
Church  Service  that  we  now  associate  with  the  word 
Liturgy  had  vanished  also. 

The  most  remarkable  thing  about  these  so-called 
Primitive  Liturgies  was  that  they  sprang  up  simul- 
taneously in  various  parts  of  the  world ;  in  Africa, 
in  Asia,  that  is  Eastern  Asia,  and  in  Europe,  that  is 
Southern  and  South-Eastern  Europe,  after  the  sacer- 
dotal and  sacrificial  ideas  of  the  Holy  Communion 
had  fully  developed  in  the  Church.  They  came  into 
being  as  the  ritual  exponents  of  the  sacerdotal  theories. 
The  sacerdotal  theories  ante-dated  the  Liturgies.  They 
appeared  as  the  first  fruit  and  the  ripe  fruits  of  the 
fifth  century  sacerdotalism.  This  point  must  be 
clearly  grasped. 

Another  remarkable  thing  is  that  the  persons  whose 
names  they  bear  were  not  their  authors.  The  so-called 
Clementine  Liturgy  was  not  the  work  of  Clement  at 
all.  It  is  absolutely  fictitious,  and  probably  the  work 
of  the  pseudo-Ignatius,  a  most  unscrupulous  forger. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  the  so-called  Liturgy 
of  St.  James  had  any  connection  whatsoever  with  the 
first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  a  fraud-liturgy  inter- 
polated out  of  the  so-called  Liturgy  of  Constantinople. 
It  had  no  more  right  to  be  called  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
James  than  the  Sarum  had  to  be  called  the  Liturgy 
of  St.  Swithin  or  St.  Dunstan. 

28 


T  But    the    extraordinary    thing   is    that 

^  wnile    there    are    differences    in    detail, 

Branches.  ,  .  .  .         .  ,.        ,       ,  ,   ■*, 

trivial   varieties    of   order   and   sequence 

and  form,   their  broad  features  are  the  same.     That 

is  in  general  structure,  in  general  ritual,  and,  above  all, 

in  actual  object,  spirit  and  doctrine,  all  the  so-called 

Primitive  Liturgies  are  one  and  identical.     The  great 

divisions  were  : 

(1)  The  Asian  :  The  Syrian,  the  great  Liturgies 
of  St.  James,  St.  Basil,  the  Clementine,  the 
Armenian,  the  Nestorian. 

(2)  The  African  :  The  Liturgies  of  St.  Mark,  the 
Alexandrian,  and  the  Coptic. 

(3)  The  East  European  :  St.  Chrysostom  and  the 
Liturgy  of  Constantinople. 

(4)  The  West  European  :  The  Roman,  then  the 
Milanese  (Ambrosian),  the  Mozarabic  (the 
curious  term  applied  to  the  old  Spanish  Liturgy), 
the  so-called  Gallican,  and  the  traditional 
Liturgies  of  the  British  and  Celtic  Churches. 

The  Gallican  and  Ancient  British  Liturgies  seem  to 
have  disappeared  by  the  seventh  or  eighth  century, 
and  were  swept  into  that  great  absorbent,  the  Mass 
Service  of  the  Roman  Church. 

Now  what  the  reader  has  to  remember  is  that  the 
essence  of  all  these  so-called  Liturgies  was  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Mass,  with  all  its  prostrations,  kissings, 
censings,  bowings,  processions,  vestings,  crossings,  and 
elevations.  Their  substance  was  a  teaching  of  the 
Eucharist  that  was  practically  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  though  it  was  not  formally  so  termed  till 
many  centuries  later.  That  is,  when  the  Primitive 
Liturgies*   sprang    full-fledged   into   the   arena   of   the 

29 


Church  in  the  fifth  century  they  were  all  so  nearly  alike, 
not  because  they  proceeded  from  one  common  apostolic 
form,  but  because  they  were  all  formulated  in  an  age 
when  one  common  idea  was  held  throughout  the  world 
with  regard  to  the  Eucharist. 

We  must  repeat  here,  for  emphasis,  though  it  is 
a  deeply  fixed  tenet  of  Roman  writers,  and  widely 
received,  that  the  service  as  celebrated  in  the  Roman 
Church  was  of  apostolic  antiquity  and  handed  by  St. 
Peter  himself  to  the  Roman  Church,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  any  form  for  the  service  of  the  Holy 
Communion  composed  by  any  of  the  apostles,  or  any 
trace  of  such  a  form  being  handed  down  to  any  so-called 
successor  of  the  apostles.  Nor  is  there  the  slightest 
ground  for  supposing  that  any,  even  the  earliest,  of 
the  so-called  Primitive  Liturgies  is  in  any  respect  a 
legitimate  development  of  the  apostles'  unwritten 
tradition. 

The  earliest  form  of  what  we  might  call  consecration 
or  setting  apart  the  bread  and  wine  as  a  memorial  of 
Christ's  death  is  to  be  found  in  the  Didache,  or  "  The 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,"  written  probably 
at  the  end  of  the  first  century.  We  find  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  still  formed  a  part  of  the  evening  social 
meal  of  the  Christian  believer.  In  consecrating  (or 
setting  apart)  the  bread  and  wine  for  the  sacred  purpose 
of  commemorating  the  death  of  their  Lord,  the  following 
form  was  used :  First,  concerning  the  cup,  "  We 
give  thanks  to  Thee,  our  Father,  for  the  holy  vine  of 
David,  Thy  servant  (or  Child),  which  Thou  hast  made 
known  to  us  by  Jesus,  Thy  Servant  (or  Child).  To 
Thee  be  the  glory  for  ever."  And  concerning  the 
broken  bread,  "  We  give  thanks  to  Thee,  our  Father, 
for  the  life  and  knowledge  which  Thou  madest  known 

30 


unto  us  through  Jesus  Thy  Child.  To  Thee  be  the 
glory  for  ever.  As  this  bread  which  we  break  was 
once  scattered  over  the  hills  and  gathered  together 
it  became  one,  so  may  Thy  Church  be  gathered  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  into  Thy  kingdom  for  Thine  is 
the  glory  and  the  power  through  Jesus  Christ  for 
ever  "  (Didache,  ch.  ix.). 

The  Primitive  Liturgies  represent  a  terrible  falling 
away  from  the  glory  and  beauty  of  the  original  ideal. 
Pomp  had  displaced  purity ;  tradition  had  displaced 
Scripture  ;  ceremony  and  superstitution  had  displaced 
the  simplicity  of  Christ.  They  all  had  one  common 
origin  ;  the  natural  sacerdotalism  of  the  human  heart, 
and  the  natural  ceremonialism  of  the  sacerdotal  mind. 
With  every  desire  to  recognise  the  fervour  of  the  more 
spiritually-minded  of  the  Fathers,  and  their  wish  to 
express,  with  appropriate  dignity,  the  grandeur  of  the 
Communion  Service,  one  cannot  but  realize  that  one  of 
the  strongest  elements  in  the  building  up  of  the  structure 
of  the  Primitive  Liturgy  was  a  loss  of  the  words,  a  love 
of  the  world,  and  a  desire  to  adopt  its  fascinating  ceremo- 
nies ;  the  very  thing  that  the  early  Christians  were 
warned  against  by  St.  Paul,  St.  John,  and  St.  Jude. 
(Acts  xx.,  29-30,  II.  Tim.  i.,  15,  II.  Tim.  hi.,  13, 
Jude  iv.,  16,  Rev.  ii.,  4-20,  hi.,  1-14-17.) 

T  All     the     Liturgies,     Asian,     African, 

.p  European,    Roman    and    Gallican,    were 

divided  alike  into  two  great  sections  : 

1 .  The  first  was  the  part  that  came  before  the  offering 
of  the  sacrifice,  called  the  Pre-Anaphora. 

2.  The  second  was  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice  itself, 
the  Anaphora. 

They  all  had,  with  one  or  two  possible  exceptions,  the 
same  practice  and  doctrines.     The  prominent-  features, 

31 


were  the  Mass  and  movings  of  the  priest  and  acolytes  ; 
the  incense,  bowings  and  genuflections  ;  the  mixing  of  the 
water  and  wine,  and  prayers  for  the  dead  ;  the  invocation 
of  the  Spirit  to  change  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ.  And,  as  the  years  passed  on, 
these  were  more  and  more  marked  in  the  sacrificial 
vestments,  the  lighted  tapers,  the  censings  of  the  altar, 
the  invocation  of  the  saints.  They  all  taught  as  the 
essential  doctrine,  the  re-offering  of  the  Sacrifice  of 
Calvary  by  the  priest  on  the  altar,  that  the  offering  of 
the  sacrifice  was  efficacious  for  the  living  and  the  dead. 

If  words  iiave  any  meaning  and  if  Holy  Scripture, 
as  the  Church  of  England  so  firmly  teaches  in  the  6th 
Article,  is  to  be  the  sole  arbiter  of  all  that  a  Christian 
is  to  believe,  one  is  compelled  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
whole  service  was  the  performance  of  a  service  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  did  not  ordain,  in  a  way  in  which  His 
Apostles  could  not  have  approved,  and  for  a  purpose 
which  He  and  they  did  not  intend.  If  the  New  Testa- 
ment account  of  the  Lord's  institution  of  the  Last 
Supper  in  the  Gospels  and  the  11th  Chapter  of  I.  Corin- 
thians is  to  be  the  guide,  then  the  Mass  Service  of  the 
Primitive  Liturgies  and  of  the  Roman  and  Eastern 
Churches  to-day  is  not  only  corrupt  but  dangerous, 
not  only  blasphemous  but  idolatrous.  (See  the  last 
Post-Communion  Rubric  and  Articles  XXVIII  and 
XXXI.)  Surely  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  would  have 
marvelled  if  they  had  seen  the  Lord's  Supper  celebrated 
according  to  the  Syriac  or  the  Ambrosian  Liturgies  ! 
surely  they  would  have  stood  aghast  as  they  saw  the 
sacrificing  priest  enter  in  all  the  pomp  of  his  vestments, 
preceded  by  deacons  with  lighted  tapers  and  censers, 
with  the  Holy  Mother  of  God  and  all  the  saints  for 
intercessors,    standing   before   the   altar   with   incense 

32 


vessels  and  ceremonial  genuflections !  surely  they 
would  have  been  bewildered  to  hear  him  intercede  with 
the  Holy  Mother  of  God,  to  ask  the  Lord  to  receive 
their  supplications  and  present  their  petitions  through 
the  intercession  of  the  Holy  Mother  of  God  the  Immacu- 
late, to  confess  his  own  and  the  people's  sins  before  God 
and  God's  Holy  Mother  and  all  the  saints,  and  to  inform 
the  Almighty  that  he  is  now  about  to  offer  the  awful 
and  bloodless  sacrifice  ?  And  truly  the  man  must  be 
strangely  constituted  who  would  believe  that  James, 
"  the  apostle  and  brother  of  the  Lord,"  had  ever  seen 
the  Eucharist  celebrated  according  to  the  Liturgy 
which  bore  his  name  ! 

We  come  now  to   the  more  practical 
The  Holy    question  of  the  relation  of  all  this  to  the 
Communion    primitive  expressions  of  our  own  Com- 
in  the  Old  munion  Services  in  England.     It  is  practi- 
British       cally  impossible  to  say  what  form  the 
Church.      Communion  Service  took  in  the  Ancient 
British    Church.     In    the    very    earliest 
stages — say   100-200  a.d. — it  is  possible  that  it  was 
identical  with  the  Service  of  the  ancient  Church  in  Rome 
before  the  Primitive  Liturgies  came  into  existence.     But 
what   that   was   nobody   knows.     It   may   have   been 
similar  to  the  service  described  by  Justin  Martyr,  with 
its  Bible  readings  and  congregational  prayers  and  extem- 
pore thanksgivings  by  the  leader,  and  the  distribution 
of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  to  the  people.*     (See 

*  Maskell's  exact  words  are  :  "  We  shall  probably  never 
know  what  was  the  primitive  liturgy  of  the  Churches  of  Britain — 
observed,  perhaps,  in  parts  of  the  Island  for  many  centuries — 
before  the  arrival  of  St.  Augustine.  It  is  almost  certain  that 
every  copy  of  it  which  could  be  identified  has  been  long  ago 
destroyed."  Maskell  assumes,  one  would  greatly  desire  to  know 
upon  what  historical  or  literary  ground,  that  there  was  a 
Primitive  Liturgy  of  the  Churches  of  Britain.  But  "  it  is  surely 
best  to  avow  ignorance  where  nothing  is  known." 

33 


Maskell's  Ancient  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
XLVIII-LI.)  But  later— from  say,  200-400  a.d.— the 
accepted  theory  is  that  it  followed  the  Celtic  and  British 
Uses,  or  possibly  the  Gallican.  Here  again,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  what  the  so-called  Celtic  and  British  Uses  were 
is  not  now  known,  nor  how  far  they  were  identical  with 
the  Gallican.  Indeed,  what  the  Gallican  Mass  really 
was,  nobody  exactly  knows.  (See  Hammond's  Liturgies, 
Eastern  and  Western,  pp.  285-363.)  The  remains  of 
the  Gallican  Liturgy  are  in  Latin,  though  the  first 
rudimentary  Eucharistic  Services,  if  they  were  from 
Ephesus,  might  have  been  in  Greek,  but  there  seems  to 
be  a  strong  probability  that  the  Gallican  Liturgy  itself, 
and  probably  also  the  Celtic  Liturgy,  of  which  there 
are  no  remains,  was  in  Latin,  as  the  residence  of  so  many 
Roman  citizens  and  troops  in  England  made  Latin 
in  a  measure  the  language  of  the  country,  and  almost 
certainly  the  ecclesiastical  tongue.  The  service  was 
possibly  simpler  than  the  Clementine,  and  far  less  com- 
plex than  the  Medieval  Roman  or  Sarum.  But  the 
centre  of  it  was  the  altar,  the  offering  of  the  host  by 
the  priest,  and  the  doctrine  of  a  localized  presence,  and 
a  sacrificial  efficacy  that  was  universal  in  the  Western 
Catholic  Church  of  the  day.  (The  reader  will  find  in 
Duchesne's  "  Origin  and  Evolution  of  Christian  Wor- 
ship," an  interesting  attempt  to  reconstruct  a  Mass 
Service  according  to  the  Gallican  Use.  The  imagination, 
as  one  would  expect  in  a  French  Roman  Catholic,  plays 
an  important  part,  and  he  throws  a  halo  of  glory  around 
the  service.  But  the  heart  of  it  is  the  Roman  Mass. 
There  are  the  same  ornaments  of  the  altar  and  of  the 
priest,  the  oblation,  the  sacrificium,  the  offertorium, 
the  Pax,  the  Epiclesis,  the  honour  given  to  the  conse- 
crated body  and  blood.     On  the  other  hand,  one  sees 

34 


also  the  elements  of  simpler  prayer  and  simpler  ritual, 
of  congregational  participation,  and  the  host  given  into 
their  hands,  not  put  in  their  mouths ;  indications, 
all  of  them,  of  an  earlier  and  more  scriptural  worship.) 

But  when  we  reach  the  age  of  Augustine, 

The         597  a.d.,   we   touch  more   solid    ground. 

English     Whatever  the  Mass  Service  was  in  Rome, 

Church     that  he  introduced  into  England.     And 

Romanized,  a    century    later,    from    Theodore's    day 

onward,    the   Holy   Communion   was   no 

longer   administered   according   to   the   simpler   order 

of  the  Celtic  or  Gallican  Church,  but  throughout  all 

the  Church  of  England  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was 

offered  by  the  priest  after  the  Roman  fashion  of  the 

day.     If  what  is  called  the  Gallican  Liturgy  was  ever 

used  in   England,   and  if   as   many  have   maintained 

there  are  strong  proofs  of  the  identity  of  what    are 

called   the   Old   British   Liturgies   with   the   Gallican, 

this    Gallican    Liturgy    disappeared    completely    soon 

after   the   Primacy   of   Theodore,   680   a.d.     (See   the 

writer's  "  Church  of  England  Before  the  Reformation," 

pp.  38-61.) 

The  various  Anglo-Saxon  services,  that  is,  the  Mass 
Services  of  the  Church  in  England  during  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  and  Danish  historic  period,  were  simply  localized 
varieties  of  the  Roman  Mass.  And  later  on  what 
were  called  the  Diocesan  Uses,  and  are  referred  to 
in  the  Prayer  Book  Preface  as  the  Salisbury,  Hereford, 
Bangor,  York  and  Lincoln  Uses,  were  nothing  more 
than  Diocesan  forms  of  the  Roman  Mass  and  other 
Roman  Catholic  services. 


35 


Remember  then,  that  for  century  after 

The  Mass  century,  in  every  church  in  every  diocese 

in  the      in     England,     the     people    of    England 

Medieval    assembled  Sunday  by  Sunday  to  witness 

Church  of  the   celebration    of   the   sacrifice   of   the 

England.    Mass  by  the  priest,  vested  in  the  chasuble, 

and   going   through   those   multitudinous 

ceremonies  which  are  now  the  essence  of  that  Service.* 

III.— THE  RESTITUTION. 

And  then  came  the  great  awakening.  At  last, 
after  many  centuries,  England's  day  came,  and 
England's  man.  For  centuries  Englishmen  had  been 
restless  under  the  advancing  aggressiveness  of  Rome. 
The  sense  of  British  independence,  the  love  of  truth, 
the  British  craving  for  constitutional  liberty,  for  century 
after  century  found  expression  in  a  growing  resistance 
to  the  Papal  demands.  But  now  the  Protestantism 
of  England  is  to  take  another  form.  It  is  about  to 
receive  the  rising  beams  of  evangelical  light.  The 
people  who  had  long  groped  in  darkness  were  beginning 
to  feel  that  it  was  darkness.  And  then  God  raised 
up  the  man  who  brought  to  them  the  light. 

*  One  who  has  not  been  present  at  the  Roman  Mass,  say  in  a 
Church  in  Quebec  or  Ireland  or  Italy,  cannot  really  comprehend 
the  multiplicity  and  complexity  of  its  ceremonial.  It  is  the 
first  thing  that  strikes  one  who  visits  for  the  first  time.  It 
should  be  known  that  the  priest  who  goes  through  the  Mass  has 
to  observe  nearly  500  ceremonies.  He  must  remember  400 
rubrics  or  rules.  At  the  Mass,  he  signs  himself  with  the  sign  of 
the  Cross  16  times  ;  turns  6  times,  kisses  the  altar  8  times, 
strikes  his  breast  10  times,  kneels  down  10  times,  bows  his  head 
21  times,  folds  his  hands  24  times,  signs  the  altar  with  the  sign 
of  the  Cross  31  times,  uncovers  the  chalice  10  times,  presses  the 
altar  29  times,  folds  his  hands  in  prayer  36  times.  The  priest 
who  celebrates  the  Mass  has  hundreds  of  things  to  do,  of  which 
he  cannot  omit  one  without  sin.  (See  Wright's  Service  of  the 
Mass,  R.T.S.,  p.  68.) 

36 


The  translation  of  the  Bible  by  John 

Wycliffe's  Wycliffe,  in  1382,  may  be  taken  as  the 

Bible  and  starting     point     of     the     Reformation. 

Con-        Through  that  man  and  by  that  act,  God 

clusions.    said    to    England :  Let    there    be   light ; 

and    there    was    light.     The    opening    of 

the  eyes  of  that  great  English  Churchman  by  the  Holy 

Spirit  through  the  Holy  Bible  resulted  in  three  great 

things  : 

First,  his  conviction  that  the  whole  fabric  of  the 
Papal  system  was  erroneous,  if  not  anti-Christian. 
Again  and  again  he  declared  that  the  Papacy  was 
Anti-Christ,  arid  its  fabric  based  on  falsity. 

Second,  that  the  Bible,  as  the  Word  of  God,  was 
the  exclusive  touchstone  of  truth.  By  that  all  was 
to  stand  or  fall.  It  alone  was  the  supreme  law,  the 
final  standard  by  which  all  doctrine  was  to  be  tested. 

And  third,  that  the  doctrine,  which  was  then  the 
very  heart  of  the  Roman  system  and  teaching,  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  with  all  that  it  involved 
of  priestly  power  and  altar  sacrifice,  was  not  true. 
He  took  his  stand  on  Scripture  and  on  common  sense. 
As  a  thinker,  he  declared  that  it  was  unphilosophical 
to  say  the  bread,  after  consecration,  was  no  longer 
bread.  It  was  not  reasonable  to  believe  that  the 
body  of  Christ  would  descend  into  the  host  in  every 
church  where  the  priest  consecrated.  He  taunted 
the  priest  on  his  presuming  to  make  his  Maker,  and 
declared  "  nothing  is  more  repulsive  than  that  any 
priest,  in  celebrating,  daily  makes  or  consecrates  the 
Body  of  Christ.  For  our  God  is  not  a  recent  God  " 
("  De    Eucharistia,"  c.    1,  p.    16).     "  Thou  then  that 

37 


art  an  earthly  man  by  what  reason  mayest  thou  saye 
that  thou  makest  thy  Maker  "  (Wycket  vi.). 

It  was  a  tremendous  conclusion  for  any  man  to  arrive 
at  in  that  age.  But  God  was  his  Arbiter,  and  the 
Word  of  God  his  authority.  Wycliffe  most  clearly 
saw  and  most  daringly  declared  that  the  imposing 
super-structure  of  the  Roman  system  of  doctrine  and 
worship  was  built  on  a  quagmire  of  tradition,  super- 
stition,  and  cunningly  devised  fables. 

But  a  fact  of  strange  interest  should 
be  noted  here.  It  does  not  appear  that 
ACT*  Wycliffe  ever  attacked,  from  the  destruc- 
tive and  Protestant  standpoint,  the  various  features 
of  the  Roman  ritual.  He  does  not  appear  to  have 
discerned,  as  the  Anglican  reformers  two  centuries 
later  did,  the  falsity  and  idolatry  of  the  Mass  Service 
as  a  whole.  The  time  for  that,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  was  apparently  not  yet  ripe. 

Now  let  us  pass  on  through  two  cen- 
turies    of    English    ecclesiastical    history 
into   the   era   of  the   Reformation.     The 
world  was  waking  from  the  deep  sleep 
of  the  Middle  Ages.     The  thoughts  of  men  were  widen- 
ing  through   science,    art,    discovery,    and   above   all, 
through   the   epoch-making   miracle   of   the   day,    the 
printing  press.     The  publication  of  the  Bible  had  the 
effect    of   a   spiritual   earthquake.     Professor   Froude, 
in  lecturing  upon  Erasmus,  described  the  astonishing 
effect  produced  by  his  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment upon  the  reading  world  of  the  day.     The  laity 
woke  to  find  that  the  things  that  they  and  their  fathers 
had  fondly  believed  in  were  a  mythology  of  lies.     The 


dominating  religion  of  the  day  was  seen  to  be  a  sham. 
"  There  is  no  religion  in  it  save  forms,"  said  Erasmus, 
in  a  burst  of  honest  indignation,  "  religion  is  nothing 
but  ritual." 

At  first  Cranmer  and  the  other  reforming  Bishops 
had  no  idea  apparently  of  anything  being  wrong. 
As  children,  and  throughout  their  boyhood,  they  were 
taken  to  the  Mass.  They  had  never  seen  or  known 
anything  else.  They  accepted  the  Service  and  its 
teaching  as  a  matter  of  course.  They  believed  as  every 
one  else  did,  that  when  the  priest  pronounced  the  words 
of  consecration,  the  natural  body  of  Christ  conceived 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  present  there  upon  the  altar, 
and  that  none  of  the  substance  of  the  bread  any  longer 
remained  but  only  the  substance  of  Christ,  God  and  Man. 
They  believed  that  every  Sunday  morning  in  the  Mass 
Service  there  was  a  life-giving  propitiatory  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  the  living  as  well  as  for  the  sins  of  the 
dead,  and  the  very  fact  of  its  having  the  unquestioned 
veneration  of  eleven  or  twelve  centuries  would  incline 
them  to  believe  that  it  was  ordained  of  God. 

But    little    by    little    their   eyes    were 

Cranmer's    opened.     Perhaps   no   single   passage   in 

Opening     the  literature  of  the  time  throws  such  a 

Eyes.       revealing  light  upon  the  secret  source  of 

the  history  of  the  Church  of  England,  for 

three  and  a  half  centuries,  as  that  little  biographical 

reference  of  Cranmer  in  his  work  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  was  a  kind  of  confession  ;    a  frank  unveiling  of  his 

soul.     He  was  talking  of  his  past.     "  But  this  I  confess 

of  myself,  I  was  in  that  error  of  the  real  presence,  as 

I  was  many  years  past  in  divers  other  errors  :    as  of 

transubstantiation,    of    the    sacrifice    propitiatory    of 

39 


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  then  he  said  these  words  that  are  worthy 
of  being  printed  in  letters  of  gold. 

"  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  ignor- 
ance. .  .  .  And  as  God  of  His  mercy  gave  me  light, 
so  through  his  grace  I  opened  mine  eyes  to  receive  it, 
and  did  not  wilfully  repugn  unto  God  and  remain  in 
darkness."  (Cranmer  on  "  The  Lord's  Supper,"  Park. 
Soc,  p.  374.) 

The  First       The  first  thin£  aPParentlY  tnat  tneY 

Gain         awoke  to  was  that  it  was  not  right  to 

have  all  their  services  in  Latin,  a  language 

which  the  people  could  not  follow.     They  determined 

to  fight  for  a  service  in  English.     And  that  was  what  they 

got,  though  in  bits,  first  of  all. 

And  then  there  came  the  strong  conviction  that  as 
the  early  disciples,  both  clergy  and  laity,  in  the  Primitive 
Church,  had  received  the  wine  as  well  as  the  bread,  the 
laity  were  wronged  of  their  just  right  and  inheritance 
in  the  Last  Will  and  dying  Testament  of  their  Lord 
and  Saviour,  by  being  deprived  of  it.  They  determined 
to  restore  the  Sacrament  in  both  kinds.  That  is,  they 
resolved  to  have  a  service  that  would  provide  for  the 
administration  of  the  consecrated  wine  in  a  cup  or 
chalice  to  all  the  people  who  desired  to  communicate. 
An  extraordinary  innovation  in  England,  for  a  Church 
that  even  in  1548,  had  the  Roman  Mass  in  its  entirety, 
and  in  Latin. 

40 


And  then,  gradually,  probably  very  gradually,  there 
came  the  deep  conviction  that  somehow  or  other  the 
whole  thing  was  wrong.  It  seems  almost  incredible  when 
we  think  of  it.  But  at  last  the  great  conviction  came 
that  that  service  so  magnificent,  so  spectacular,  redolent 
with  the  associations  of  a  thousand  years,  gorgeous  in 
its  ancient  ceremonial,  and  enthroned  in  its  high  seat 
of  honour  throughout  Christendom  as  the  sun  and 
centre  of  all  Christian  worship,  was  nevertheless  an 
invention  and  ordinance  of  man.  It  was  false.  The 
very  body  of  it  was  false. 

Here  are  some  of  the  Reformers'  very 
The  words.  One  of  the  noblest  of  the  Anglican 
Bishops'  Bishops  said,  "  I  utterly  detest  and  abhor 
Words,  the  Mass ;  it  is  stuffed  with  so  many 
absurdities,  errors,  and  superstitions.  It 
is  a  very  masking  and  mockery  of  the  true  Supper  of 
the  Lord.  It  has  so  bewitched  the  minds  of  the  simple 
people  that  they  have  been  brought  from  the  true 
worship  of  God  unto  pernicious  idolatry."  Another 
of  them  said  :  "  The  very  marrow-bones  of  the  Mass 
are  altogether  detestable.  The  only  way  to  mend  it 
is  to  abolish  it  for  ever."  And  the  greatest  Anglican 
of  them  all,  Cranmer,  the  most  scholarly  and  in  many 
ways,  the  most  conservative,  said :  "  The  greatest 
blasphemy  and  injury  that  can  be  against  Christ,  and 
yet  universally  used  through  the  Popish  kingdom,  is 
this :  that  the  priests  make  their  Mass  a  sacrifice 
propitiatory,  to  remit  the  sins  as  well  of  themselves  as 
of  other,  both  quick  and  dead,  to  whom  they  list  to 
apply  the  same.  Thus,  the  papistical  priests  have  taken 
upon  them  to  be  Christ's  successors,  and  to  make  such 
an  oblation  and  sacrifice  as  never  creature  made  but 
Christ  alone,  neither  he  made  the  same  any  more  times 

41 


than  once,  and  that  was  by  His  Death  upon  the  Cross." 
(Cranmer  on  "  The  Lord's  Supper,"  Park.  Soc.,  345)  ; 
These  words  may  sound  strangely  harsh.  Yet  on  the 
living  pages  of  the  Prayer  Book  to-day,  in  Articles 
XXII.,  XXVIII.  and  XXXI.,  we  have  language  just  as 
passionate,  just  as  stern. 

And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Lost 
The  Supper  was  found.  Lost  ?  Yes.  Some- 
Lost  where  between  158  a. d.  and  450  a.d.,  the 
Supper,  precious  gift  bequeathed  by  Christ  to 
His  Church,  known  as  the  Lord's  Supper, 
was  lost,  and  buried  for  over  a  thousand  years  beneath 
the  superstition,  false  doctrine,  and  misleading  ritual 
of  the  Roman  Mass.  Found  ?  Yes.  After  many 
gropings  on  the  part  of  England's  Church  leaders  and 
many  guidings  by  God's  gracious  Spirit,  precept  upon 
precept,  line  upon  line,  here  a  little  and  there  a  little, 
the  Lost  Supper  was  found,  and  in  1548,  1549,  1552, 
restored  to  England's  Church  once  more.  For  it  must 
be  remembered  that  in  that  marvellous  period  of  recon- 
struction their  life  determination  was  to  recover  from  the 
wreckage  of  the  ages  the  long-buried  elements  of  Scrip- 
tural truth.  Gradually  they  were  led  to  see  that  the  very 
idea  of  the  Holy  Communion  had  been  buried  in  the 
accumulation  of  centuries  of  superstition,  tradition  and 
error.  The  very  name  had  disappeared.  "  Tush," 
said  a  Bishop  who  was  angrily  opposing  the  new  teaching 
of  the  reformers,  in  the  famous  story  told  by  Latimer, 
"  What  do  ye  call  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  What  new  term 
is  that}  "     ("Latimer's  Sermons,"  Park.  Soc,  p.  121.) 

Gradually  the  Reformers  came  to  see  that  in  the 
Mass  of  the  Church  of  Rome  the  idea  of  sacrifice  was 
primary,   supreme,   indispensable ;  and   that   the  idea 

42 


of  Communion  was  secondary,  subsidiary  and  even 
optional.  "  It  cannot  be  called  Communion,"  said 
one  of  the  Bishop-reformers,  "  for  there  need  not  be 
communicants."  In  the  institution  of  the  service  by 
our  blessed  Saviour,  the  idea  of  communion  was  primary, 
supreme,  and  indispensable.  The  idea  of  sacrifice,  in 
the  Roman  sacerdotal  sense,  was  not  even  secondary 
or  subsidiary.  It  was  non-existent.  In  spite,  therefore, 
of  incredible  difficulties  and  in  the  face  of  the  whole 
Roman  world,  they  determined  to  depart  from  a 
thousand  years  of  "  Catholic  usage "  and  to  revert 
to  Scripture  and  Apostolic  teaching,  restoring  to 
England's  Church,  in  all  its  original  elements,  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  or  the  Holy  Communion. 

The  first   effort  was  made  in   March, 

The  Order  1548,  when  what  was  called  "  The  Order 

of  the      of    the    Communion "    was    issued.      It 

Communion,  was  a  most  remarkable  achievement  for 

1548.        that  day.     In  its  origin  it  seems  to  have 

been  a  kind  of  after- thought.     One  of  the 

first  provisions   of  that   remarkable   First   Parliament 

of  Edward  VI.,  when  the  Church  and  the  nation  leaped 

into  the  arena  of  liberty  as  it  were,  in  a  day,  was  the 

enactment  of  the  Administration  of  the  Sacrament  in 

Both  Kinds.     England's  astonished  Churchmen,  cleric 

and  lay  alike,  heard  for  the  first  time  that  they  were 

to  receive  the  wine  at  the  Mass  as  well  as  the  Wafer. 

It  was  well  enough  to  pass  an  Act  like  that  in  the 

House  of  Parliament,  but  it  was  a  very  different  matter 

to  carry  it  out  in  the  Parish  Church.     The  practical 

question  was,  "  How  is  it  to  be  done  ?  "     Not  a  trace 

of  such  an  action,  much  less  the  way  to  perform  it, 

was  found  in  the  Roman  Mass,  and,  as  the  bulk  of  the 

English  priests  were  Roman  to  the  core,  it  was  evident 

43 


that  "  either  for  lack  of  knowledge,  or  want  of  a  good 
will,"  they  would  not  be  very  keen  to  make  the 
experiment.  The  passing  of  the  Act,  therefore,  necessi- 
tated the  appointment  of  a  commission,  or,  as  we 
would  call  it  nowadays,  a  committee,  to  draw  up  an 
Order  that  the  legal  requirement  might  be  carried 
into  effect.  The  State  authorized  the  administration 
of  the  Cup  to  the  laity.  But  the  Church  had  no  form 
of  service.  The  State,  therefore,  had  to  provide  the 
Church  with  a  service.  And  this  was  done  by  the 
appointment  of  a  Prayer  Book  Committee  in  1 548. 

The  Committee  met  at  Windsor  for  the  reformation 
of  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  there  during  the 
winter  of  1548  they  produced  what  was  called  the 
Communion  Book  or,  as  it  is  generally  termed  now, 
The  Order  of  the  Communion. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  remarkable  little 
Service,  the  first  fruits  of  reforming  Anglican  origin- 
ality, did  not  by  any  means  displace  the  Mass.  The 
Roman  Mass  was  still  to  be  celebrated  in  every  church 
of  the  Church  of  England  according  to  the  use  of  Sarum, 
Hereford,  Bangor,  York,  or  Lincoln.  But  after  the 
spectacular  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mass  in  Latin 
had  been  performed,  and  the  priest  himself  had  received 
the  consecrated  Wafer,  he  was  now  ordered  to  prepare, 
bless  and  consecrate  as  much  as  would  serve  the  people 
in  the  biggest  chalice,  some  fair  and  convenient  cup 
or  cups  full  of  wine  with  some  water  put  into  it.  He 
was  then  to  turn  to  the  people  and  say :  "  Dearly 
beloved  in  the  Lord,"  "  Ye  coming  to  this  Holy 
Communion,  etc.,"  and  "  You  that  do  truly  and 
earnestly  repent  you  of  your  sins  " — the  very  words 
that  are  so  familiar  to  all  Church  of  England  com- 

44 


municants  to-day — and  then  continue  in  the  words 
of  the  Confession,  the  Absolution,  the  Comfortable 
Words  and  the  Prayer  of  Humble  Access.  Then  he 
was  to  deliver  to  the  kneeling  people  "  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Body  of  Christ."  And  then  (this  was  the 
innovation !)  "  the  Sacrament  of  the  Blood,  giving 
every  one  to  drink  once,  and  no  more  "  !  It  was  a 
remarkable  piece  of  work.  It  was  the  opening  of  a 
Great  Door  of  Entrance.  The  Mass  still  held  its  place. 
But  it  was  like  a  man  standing  in  the  sand  against 
a  rising  tide.  After  centuries  of  privation  the  laity 
of  the  Church  of  England  were  once  more  privileged 
and  encouraged  to  partake  of  the  bread  and  the  wine 
of  the  Sacred  Feast  as  Christ  ordained.  In  England's 
Church  the  mutilated  Sacrament  is  gone  for  ever. 
The  Lord's  Supper,  as  far  as  the  reception  of  both 
elements  was  concerned,  is  henceforth  to  be  administered 
as  Christ  ordained  it. 

A  few  months  later  came  out  that 
The  First  significant  book,  the  First  Prayer  Book 
Prayer  of  1549.  In  it  the  Mass  of  the  Roman 
Book,  1549.  Church  in  the  Church  of  England  was 
abandoned.  It  is  true  the  word  "  Mass  " 
still  remained.  The  Service  was  entitled  "  The  Supper 
of  the  Lord  and  the  Holy  Communion,  commonly 
called  the  Mass."  But  the  essence  and  substance 
of  the  Mass  Service  was  gone.  Of  course,  as  everybody 
knows,  the  service  was,  as  it  were,  the  halfway  house 
from  England's  pre-reformation  Romanism  to  the 
reformed  Anglicanism  of  to-day,  and  there  were  many 
things  in  it  that  were  abolished  later.  There  was 
for  instance  :  the  Altar,  the  Vestment  or  Chasuble, 
the  Eastward  Position,  permissive  Auricular  Confession, 
the  Mixed  Chalice,  Prayers  for  the  Dead,  the  Invocation 

45 


of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  elements,  and  the  Intercessory 
Ministry  of  the  Angels ;  and,  noticeably,  the  clear 
teaching  of  the  Real  Presence,  and  the  Wafer.  But 
the  whole  service  was  in  English.  The  spell  of  Popery 
was  broken.  The  Latin  Mass  had  disappeared.  The 
Protestantism  of  England's  Church  was  inaugurated. 
The  first  great  step  in  the  declaration  of  her  doctrinal 
and  liturgical  independence  was  taken.  As  Cardinal 
Gasquet  says  :  "  The  new  book,  that  is,  the  Prayer 
Book  of  1549,  displaced  the  traditional  Liturgy  in 
England.  From  whatever  point  of  view  the  new 
Liturgy  be  regarded,  the  First  Prayer  Book  is  without 
doubt  one  of  the  most  momentous  documents  connected 
with  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  England  "  (Gasquet, 
"  Edward  VI.,"  182-233).  It  swept  away  ruthlessly  the 
ancient  and  popular  practices  of  religion,  according  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  rite,  and  substituted  ideals  that  were, 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  mind,  strange,  bare  and  novel. 

But  it  was  not   until    1552   that   the 
The         restitution    was    complete.     The    Prayer 
Second      Book  was  carefully  revised  and  all  the 
Prayer     semi-Romish  features  of  the  1549  Prayer 
Book,  1552.  Book    were    eliminated.     Unimpeded   by 
ecclesiastical    or    political     obstructions, 
spurred  on  by  the  earnest  young  King,  the  Bishop- 
Reformers  gave  to  England  what  is,  for  all  practical 
purposes  the  Communion  Service  of  the  Church  as  it 
is   now   celebrated   week   after   week   throughout   the 
Empire.     Their    objective    was    achieved.     The    tem- 
porary interim  which  marked  the  ecclesiastical  com- 
promise of  the  First  Prayer  Book  passed  away.     To-day 
the  Prayer  Book  will  be  searched  in  vain  for  the  words 
Altar,  Auricular  Confession,  Chrism,  Anointing,  Reser- 
vation of  the  Sacrament,  Prayers  for  the  Dead,  Invoca- 

46 


tion  of  Saints,  and  the  various  lingering  elements  of 
Romish  doctrine  and  Romish  ritual  found  in  almost 
every  service  of  that  Book.  The  dreams  that  they 
dreamed,  and  the  visions  that  they  saw,  found  their 
realization  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  and  their  settle- 
ment in  its  final  adoption  as  the  Prayer  Book  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  1559  by  Elizabeth's  Act  of 
Uniformity  which  is  a  legal  part  of  every  Prayer  Book 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  it  is  in  every  table  copy 
of  the  Canadian  Prayer  Book.  The  old  was  cast  away. 
As  Cardinal  Gasquet  says,  "  With  regard  to  the  English 
(Prayer)  Book,  what  it  was  in  1552  it  practically  remains 
to  the  present  day.  The  position  which  was  deliberately 
abandoned  in  1549,  and  still  further  departed  from  in 
1552,  has  never  been  recovered"  (p.  307).  As  an 
Anglican,  however,  I  would  prefer  rather  to  state  it 
in  this  way :  The  position  which  was  deliberately 
attained  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552  has  never  since 
been  abandoned  by  the  Church  of  England. 

The  triumph  of  the  1552  Prayer  Book  is  a  matter  that 
should  receive  a  stronger  emphasis.  It  is  customary 
with  many  Churchmen  to  regard  the  1552  Prayer  Book 
as  a  discarded  phase  of  Anglican  liturgical  history. 
But  to  one  who  goes  into  the  matter  with  a  careful 
study,  the  triumph  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552  seems 
almost  incredible.  If  one  would  take,  for  instance, 
such  a  work  as  the  "  English  Rite  M  by  Brightman,  and 
study  the  four-column  tables  of  the  Holy  Communion, 
pp.  638  to  721,  it  is  wonderful  to  find  how  the  Sarum 
Mass  has  scarcely  a  vestige  left.  The  1549  Communion, 
as  far  as  the  so-called  "  Catholic  "  features  are  concerned, 
is  nearly  all  gone.  But,  with  scarcely  a  vestige  of  altera- 
tion in  column  after  column,  the-  Communion  Service  of 
1552  stands  in  the  Prayer  Book  to-day  as  it  was  370  years 

47 


ago,  the  omission  of  the  first  half  of  the  Words  of  Adminis- 
tration being  rectified  in  1559. 

But  here  two  points  are  worthy  of 
Two  notice.  Little  or  nothing  remained  of 
Important  the  Sarum  Mass.  As  there  is  considerable 
Points,  misconception  on  this  point  it  is  well  for 
the  student  of  Church  teaching  to  remem- 
ber this  :  the  idea  that  our  Communion  Service  is 
essentially,  and  for  all  practical  purposes,  the  same  as 
the  Sarum  Mass  is  utterly  wrong.  Canon  Evan  Daniel 
says,  "  if  the  reader  compares  our  Communion  Service 
with  the  Gallican  Liturgy  he  will  see  that  in  all  essential 
matters  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  Eucharist  in  the 
Ancient  Gallican  Church  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
Church  of  England  to-day."  ("On  the  Prayer  Book," 
p.  10,  16th  Ed.)  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  its  spirit,  its 
aim  and  intention,  in  its  order  and  substance,  especially 
in  what  is  called  its  sequence,  our  Communion  Service 
is  essentially,  substantially,  and  absolutely  different. 
It  has  a  completely  different  object.  It  is  a  Communion 
Service  ;  not  a  service  for  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice 
by  the  vested  priest  upon  the  altar,  as  the  Gallican 
Mass  Service  was.  It  has  a  completely  different  form. 
It  is  in  English.  The  Mass  Service,  from  the  beginning, 
in  England  was  in  Latin.  It  is  simple,  spiritual, 
scriptural.  It  is  the  Communion  Service  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  proof  of  this  is  very  simple.  Take  your 
Prayer  Book.  Open  it  at  the  Communion  Service. 
Count  the  various  elements  one  by  one  :  the  four  Rubrics, 
the  Ten  Commandments,  the  ten  responses,  the  two 
Prayers  for  the  King,  and  so  on  and  so  on,  right  to  the 
end.  You  will  find  that  there  are  about  75  parts  in  all. 
And  of  these,  some  70  parts  have  nothing  whatever  corre- 
sponding to  them  in  the  Sarum  Mass.     They  are  purely 

48 


the  work  of  the  reformation  era,  they  represent  the 
genius  of  the  Church  of  England,  reformed  and  purified 
by  the  Spirit  and  Word  of  God.  Then  take  "  The 
Ordinary  and  Canon  of  the  Mass  according  to  Sarum," 
(Dodd's  Translation),  and  go  through  its  150  to  200 
parts  and  you  will  find  that,  with  the  exception  of  the 
opening  Collect,  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  the  Sursum 
Corda,  the  Ter  Sanctus,  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle, 
there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  service  corresponding 
to  the  present  Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of 
England.  And  even  with  regard  to  those  elements  of 
the  service  that  were  in  the  old  Sarum  or  in  the  Gallican 
Mass,  if  they  were  in  the  Gallican  Mass,  they  are  in  a 
totally  different  position  in  our  Communion  Service. 
As  to  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle,  they  would  never  be 
recognised,  for  they  were  placed  in  such  an  environment 
of  weird  ceremonial  that  no  ordinary  Anglican  would 
ever  know  that  it  was  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  that  were 
being  read. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  our  Communion  Service 
that  corresponds  with  the  doctrinal  and  ritual  objective 
of  the  so-called  Primitive  Liturgies.  Here  again  the 
average  Anglican  encounters  a  surprise.  But  those 
who  will  throw  aside  prepossessions  and  the  tradition 
of  generations  of  second-hand  reading  and  thinking 
and  investigate  the  Clementine,  the  Syriac,  the  Coptic 
the  Ethiopic  or  Armenian  Liturgy,  will  find  that  from 
beginning  to  end,  their  tone  and  note  and  teaching  is 
utterly  unknown  in  our  Church  to-day.  The  sequence, 
as  well  as  the  substance,  the  ritual  and  doctrine,  is 
absolutely  different.  Cranmer,  in  language  that  was 
proud  in  its  indignation,  said  to  his  slanderers,  "  who 
abused  his  name  and  bruited  abroad  that  he  set  up  the 
Mass  at  Canterbury  and  that  he  (Cranmer)  offered  to 

49 


say  Mass  before  the  Queen's  Highness  (that  is,  Queen 
Mary)  and  at  St.  Paul's  Church  .  .  .  .  '  as  for  offering 
myself  to  say  Mass  before  the  Queen's  Highness,  or  in 
any  other  place,  I  never  did  ....  but  ....  I  shall 
be  ready  to  prove  against  all  ....  that  the  Communion 
Office  (meaning  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  1552)  .... 
is  conformable  to  the  order  which  our  Saviour  Christ 
did  both  observe  and  command  to  be  observed,  and  which 
His  Apostles  and  primitive  Church  used  many  years ; 
whereas,  the  Mass,  in  many  things,  not  only  hath  no 
foundation  of  Christ,  His  Apostles,  nor  the  primitive 
Church,  but  also  is  manifest  contrary  to  the  same ; 
and  containeth  many  horrible  blasphemies  in  it.'  " 
(Strype,  "  Cranmer,"  437-438.)  It  would  be  as  absurd 
to  say  that  Cranmer  followed  the  ideal  of  the  Ancient 
Eastern  Liturgy,  as  to  say  that  he  took  as  his  model 
the  famous  Sarum  Office  or  that  he  grounded  our 
Service  upon  it.  No  !  His  whole  being  would  have 
revolted  with  profound  indignation  against  the  idea  of 
his  looking  to  a  service  which  he  believed  had  not  only 
no  foundation  in  Christ  or  the  Primitive  Church,  but 
was  manifestly  contrary  to  the  same. 

To  conclude  the  whole  matter.     What 
A  they  got  we  now  have  ;    and  what,  by 

Summary,  the  grace  of  God,  they  held,  we,  by  the 
same  grace,  now  hold.  The  Holy  Commu- 
nion Service  that  they  secured  and  which  is  now  to  be 
found  in  every  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  a  heritage,  the  beauty  and  worth  of  which  ought  to 
be  more  and  more  realized  by  English  Churchmen, 
but  it  will  be  almost  impossible  for  us  to  understand 
its  essential  value  unless  we  endeavour  to  see  the  dream 
that  they  dreamed  and  the  vision  that  they  saw  in 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

50 


What    they   wanted    above   all   things 

What        was  to  get  back  the  Lord's  Supper.     On 

They       that  point  they  were  very  clear.     No  one 

Wanted,  can  read  the  writings  of  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  Bishop  Ridley  and  Bishop 
Latimer  without  seeing  that  that  was  the  objective  of 
all  their  labours.  They  wanted  to  get  rid  of  the  Mass. 
And  they  did.  They  did  not  want  an  Anglican  Mass. 
They  did  not  want  a  revived  or  a  revised  Gallican  Liturgy. 
They  did  not  want  a  Sarum  Mass  purified.  "  I  have 
read  the  New  Testament  over  seven  times,"  said  Bishop 
Latimer,  "  and  I  cannot  find  the  Mass  in  it." 

They  were  determined  to  get  back  to  the  original.  They 
opened  the  New  Testament.  As  they  studied  it,  they 
saw  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  instituted  while  the 
disciples  were  fasting,  but  as  they  were  eating ;  that 
Jesus  took  bread — not  a  lamb  slain  in  sacrifice — but 
bread,  about  which  there  never  was  or  ever  could  be 
anything  propitiatory  ;  that  this  bread  was  not  offered 
on  an  altar  or  eaten  before  an  altar,  nor  did  it  involve 
the  presence  or  action  of  a  priest ;  that  Christ  broke 
the  bread  and  did  not  give  an  unbroken  Wafer ;  that 
the  bread  was  bread  after  He  gave  it  and  was  eaten  by 
all,  not  gazed  at ;  that  the  elements  were  received,  not 
offered ;  and  that  all  were  expressly  ordered  to  take 
the  wine  as  well  as  the  bread. 

And  so,  as  they  read  and  studied  these 
What  j    things  deeply   and  more   deeply  in   the 
They]      Spirit,  and  laid  that  original  simple  Supper 
Secured,    of  the  Saviour  side  by  side  with  the  specta- 
cular performance,  the  theatrical  presenta- 
tion with  mystic  meanings  and  symbols  and  vestments 
and  ceremonial,  the  great  drama  performed  by  the  priest 
in  the  chancel  before  the  gazing  multitude,  in  the  Latin 

51 


tongue,  with  ceremonies  dark  and  dumb,  their  whole 
soul  rose  in  a  passionate  revolt  to  think  that  Englishmen 
for  so  many  centuries  should  have  been  cheated  and 
defrauded  by  such  a  travesty  and  counterfeit,  and  that 
their  God  had  been  dishonoured  by  a  service  so  destitute 
of  Truth.  No  wonder  then  that  when  these  great 
Churchmen  secured  for  us  once  more  the  long  lost  Lord's 
Supper  and  brought  back  to  England's  Church  the  Holy 
Communion,  Cranmer  cried  with  a  proud  elation  of 
spirit :  "  Thanks  be  to  the  Eternal  God  !  The  manner 
of  the  Holy  Communion  which  is  now  set  forth  within 
this  realm  of  England  is  agreeable  with  the  institution 
of  Christ,  with  St.  Paul,  and  the  old  primitive  and 
apostolic  church,  with  the  right  faith  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  upon  the  cross  for  our  redemption,  and  with 
the  true  doctrine  of  our  salvation,  justification,  and 
remission  of  all  our  sins,  by  that  sacrifice."  (Cranmer, 
"  The  Lord's  Supper,"  p.  354,  Park.  Soc.) 

But  they  not  only  wanted  to  get  back  the  Lord's 
Supper.  They  wanted  to  construct  the  service  on 
the  exact  lines  of  the  original  plan  and  purpose  of  the 
Lord  as  set  forth  in  the  four  Gospels,  and  especially 
in  the  teaching  of  the  11th  Chapter  of  1st  Corinthians. 

Their  first  endeavour  in  1548,  in  the  pioneer  service 
of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  was  known  as  the  Order 
of  the  Communion.  It  was  just  a  little  four-page 
tract  in  English,  to  be  tacked  on  as  an  appendix  to 
the  Roman  Mass,  which  was  still  to  be  said  in  its  entirety 
in  Latin.  But  this  little  Order  of  the  Communion 
was  a  most  extraordinary  innovation,  from  the  pre- 
Reformation  standpoint,  for  considerably  more  than 
one-half  of  it  was  occupied  with  matter  which  had  for 
its  object  the  preparation  of  the  communicant.  It  proves 
that  Cranmer's  master  purpose,  even  as  far  back  as 

52 


the  year  1548,  seems  to  have  been  the  opening  of  the 
eyes  of  the  Churchmen  of  England  to  the  duty     of 
receiving  the  Sacrament  worthily,  and  that  to  receive 
worthily   meant   with   true   repentance,    with   earnest 
and  living  faith  in  Christ,  and  a  heart  that  was  divested 
of  all  hatred  and  unforgiving  malice.     You  can   see 
in  the  four  exhortations  the  legitimate  consequence  of 
a  reversed  idea  of  the  Service  itself.     If  the  main  purpose 
of  the  worshipping  body  was  merely  to  witness  the 
offering  of  a  sacrifice  which  was  largely  a  priest's  affair, 
a  chancel  affair,  a  choir  affair,  it  is  obvious  that  personal 
preparation  was  not  so  necessary.     But  if  the  object 
was  the  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  a  body 
of  believers,  intelligent,  spiritually-minded,  with  per- 
sonal faith  (Article  XXVIII.),  as  the  Holy  Communion, 
and  if  the  Sacrament  had  a  wholesome  effect  or  operation 
only  in  such  as  worthily  received  it,  that  is,  with  true 
repentance  and  living  faith,  one  can  realize  in  a  moment 
that  the  first  necessity  was  to  see  that  the  heart  and 
mind  of  the  communicant  was  to  be  prepared  along 
the  lines  of  I.  Cor.  xi.,  27-29,  and  that  the  Liturgy 
itself  should  embody  some  practical  way  of  doing  it. 
How  thoroughly  they  carried  out  that  resolve  will  be 
shown  later. 

.  N  In     the     next    place,      their      object 

was  to  reproduce  as  far  as  possible, 
liturgically,  the  exact  thing  that  our 
Lord  intended  in  the  original  institution.  Daringly 
to  say  of  the  sacred  Service  of  the  Church,  that  no 
innovating  hand  had  dared  to  alter  for  over  1,200 
years,  that  this  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  model  that 
we  will  follow  ;  to  say  we  must  initiate  an  entirely 
different  style,  form  and  manner  of  service  •  that  we 
must  return  to  apostolic  simplicity ;  indicated  a  fear- 

53 


lessness  in  the  cause  of  truth  that  was  only  possible 
to  men  who  believed  that  they  were  being  led  in  every 
step  by  the  guiding  Spirit  of  God.  "  As  for  me,"  said 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  in  words  that  deserve  to  be 
written  in  letters  of  fire  on  the  hearts  of  every  Anglican 
Churchman,  "  I  ground  my  belief  upon  God's  Word, 
wherein  can  be  no  error "  (Cranmer  on  "  The  Lord's 
Supper,"  Park.  Soc,  p.  368).  The  whole  of  the  initial 
part  of  the  Mass  Service,  occupying  say  from  thirty 
to  forty  minutes,  was  simply  swept  away.  A  new 
thing  altogether — some  say  Lutheran,  but  many  think 
purely  Anglican — was  introduced  in  the  recitation  of 
the  Ten  Commandments  ;  as  if  they  desired  to  carry 
through  the  first  part  of  the  service  the  Lighted  Lamp 
of  the  Law  of  God  searching  each  conscience.  If  here 
and  there  in  the  main  body  of  the  Service  little  fragments 
of  the  original  Liturgies  peer  out,  and  certain  elements 
that  are  found  in  the  Roman  Mass  appear,  it  must 
be  remembered,  as  that  great  Churchman,  Hooker, 
said  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity  (Book  V.,  12-6),  that 
"  we  are  not  to  forsake  any  true  opinion  because 
idolaters  have  maintained  it ;  and  where  Rome  follows 
reason  and  truth  we  fear  not  to  follow  the  self-same 
steps."  So  we  have  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  opening 
Sarum  Collect ;  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  which  came, 
of  course,  from  the  Church's  very  beginning ;  the 
Sursum  Corda  and  the  Ter  Sanctus.  But  in  our  service 
all  these  are  in  a  totally  different  setting  and  are  entirely 
free  from  any  thought  of  a  descent  of  Christ  upon  the 
Altar.  These  things  came  to  us  through  Rome ;  but 
they  did  not  come  from  Rome.  They  came  from  the 
New  Testament  and  the  Apostolic  Church.  And  it 
must  also  be  remembered  that  in  their  connection, 
their  intention,  that  is,  in  what  the  liturgical  writers 

54 


technically  call  the  sequence,  they  are  absolutely 
different  so  far  as  their  place  and  ritual  and  meaning 
goes  from  the  Roman  Service.  As  Cardinal  Gasquet 
says  in  his  remarkable  work,  "  Edward  the  Sixth  and 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  "  the  ancient  ritual 
oblation,  with  the  whole  idea  of  which  the  idea  of 
sacrifice  was  so  intimately  associated,  was  swept  away, 
that  venerated  service  that  had  '  remained  unaltered 
during  thirteen  centuries,'  "  and  the  reformers  resolved 
that  "  it  should  henceforth  be  impossible  to  trace  in  the 
Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England  any 
resemblance  however  innocuous  to  the  ancient  Mass M 
(pp.  194,  196,  197,  291). 

But  it  was  in  the  Post-Communion 
Service  that  they  sounded  their  final 
farewell  to  all  that  is  Roman  and  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  Primitive  Liturgy,  "  Catholic." 
That  is,  in  the  first  three  Rubrics  they  broke  clean 
away  from  a  thousand  years  of  so-called  Catholic 
practice  and  teaching  and,  so  far  from  making  the 
Communion  the  one  supreme  and  indispensable  service 
for  the  laity  on  every  Lord's  Day  they  actually  made 
the  Communion,  for  the  ordinary  parish  church,  a 
dispensable  and  optional  service,  provided  that  all 
parishioners  communicate  at  least  three  times  a  year. 
The  ideal  was  of  course  higher.  With  a  clear  eye, 
with  a  firm  mind,  knowing  absolutely  what  they  did, 
for  they  were  men  of  the  profoundest  and  strongest 
convictions,  they  displaced  of  set  purpose  the  celebration 
of  the  Holy  Communion  from  its  central  place  as  the 
sacrificial  offering,  or,  as  it  is  called  by  many,  the  highest 
act  of  Christian  worship,  by  making  it  not  as  in  Rome 
the  indispensable  service,  but  as  it  is  in  the  Church 
of  England  to-day,  a  service  that  "  shall  not  be  celebrated 

55 


unless  there  be  a  convenient  number  of  communicants." 
No  clearer  challenge  to  the  so-called  "  Catholic " 
doctrine  of  the  indispensability  of  the  Eucharist  as 
the  supreme  service  could  be  imagined.  And  in  the 
last  Rubric  they  finally  departed  from  the  whole  idea 
of  the  Medieval  Roman  teaching  with  regard  to  the 
service  by  declaring  that  "  no  adoration  is  intended 
or  ought  to  be  done  to  the  Sacramental  Bread  or  Wine  ; 
that  the  Sacramental  Bread  and  Wine  may  not  be  adored  ; 
that  were  Idolatry  to  be  abhored  of  all  faithful 
Christians." 

Now  everbody  knows  that  the  centre  of  the  Primitive 
Liturgy  and  of  the  Roman  Mass  was  Sacerdotal  Sacrifice. 
Adoration  was  its  logical  necessity.  The  true  view 
of  the  Mass  Service  can  only  be  gained  by  looking  at 
it  as  a  whole,  as  one  great  act  of  Eucharistic  Sacrifice. 
(Gasquet,  p.   197.) 

Our  Reformers,  therefore,  in  their  declaration,  flung 
out  the  banner  of  our  Church's  defiance  of  Rome. 
The  Anglican  view  of  the  Holy  Communion  is,  that 
it  is  not  as  a  whole  an  act  of  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  but 
that  it  is  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  To  put  the  oblation 
of  the  priest  in  the  stead  of  the  oblation  of  Christ," 
said  Cranmer,  "  to  refuse  the  Sacrament  of  His  Body 
and  Blood  ourselves  as  He  ordained  and  trust  to  have 
remission  of  our  sins  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  priest  in 
the  Mass,  is  not  only  to  do  injury  to  Christ  but  commit 
most  detestable  idolatry,  for  these  be  but  false  doctrines, 
feigned  by  wicked  Popish  priests  who  have  corrupted 
the  most  holy  Supper  of  the  Lord  and  turned  it  into 
manifest  idolatry.  For  as  much  then,"  Cranmer  went 
on  to  say,  "  as  in  such  masses  is  manifest  wickedness 
and  idolatry     ...     all  such  Popish  masses  are  to 

56 


be  clearly  taken  away  out  of  Christian  Churches,  and 
the  true  use  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  restored  again.' ■ 

For  this  they  dared  not  only  to  live  but  to  die.  In  these 
days  when  the  Church  in  England  is  being  almost  rent 
in  twain  by  men  who  are  compassing  sea  and  land  for 
the  re-establishment  of  the  Mass  in  its  seat  of  honour 
as  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  we  must  never  forget  that 
what  our  Church  leaders  really  died  for  was  the  truth 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  we  now  have  it  in  our  Communion 
Service.  We  may  well  remember  that  great  day  in 
Oxford,  in  April,  1554,  when  Cranmer,  Ridley  and 
Latimer  were  solemnly  asked  for  the  last  time  whether 
they  would  still  continue  to  believe  in  the  teaching 
of  our  Church  and  our  Communion  Service,  or  whether 
they  would  accept  the  Roman  dogma  of  transubstantia- 
tion  and  the  Mass.  Deliberately  and  decisively  our 
great  Martyr-Bishops  answered  with  an  unhesitating 
voice : 

"WE  ARE   NOT  MINDED  TO  TURN." 

From  that  place  they  went  to  die,  and  were  burned  for 
refusing  to  accept  the  Mass  teaching  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  But  the  heritage  they  bequeathed  by  their 
life  and  death  to  the  Church  of  England  was  the 
Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England,  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


57 


Part  II.— An  Exposition. 

The  real  significance  of  our  Communion  Service  in  the 
light  of  the  original  structure. 

In  studying  the  Communion  Service,  as  a  whole, 
it  should  be  remembered  at  the  outset  that  "it  is  a 
dictate  of  common  sense  that  any  examination  of  its 
origin  and  sources  should  be  conducted  with  a  primary 
regard  to  the  circumstances  in  which,  and  the  opinions 
of  the  persons  by  whom,  it  was  produced.  In  a  word 
it  must  be  put  in  its  proper  historical  setting,  and  illus- 
trated from  the  writings  of  those  who  composed  it  ...  . 
and  not  by  the  productions  of  those  centuries,  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  which  it  was  the  avowed  aim 
and  intention  of  its  authors  to  destroy."  (Gasquet, 
p.  20,  cf  Prot.  of  Prayer  Book,  pp.  xxii-xxiii.) 

It  is  a  truism,  of  course,  but  a  truism  that  needs  to 
be  repeated,  that  the  Prayer  Book  as  a  whole,  represents 
the  spirit  of  a  new  Anglicanism.  It  stands  for  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  victory  of  the  Reformation.  A  small 
but  triumphant  minority  of  Scripture-taught  leaders 
were  enabled,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  achieve  the 
reformation  of  the  Church  in  doctrine  and  ritual.  For 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Church  of  England 
was  Ultramontane  in  allegiance,  Roman  in  doctrine, 
Roman  Catholic  in  Communion,  and  Romish  in  ritual. 
It  was  identified  with  Rome  as  the  heart  is  identified 
with  the  body.  Its  central  and  conspicuous  service 
was  the  Roman  Mass,  celebrated  according  to  the  Use 
of  Sarum.  And  the  Church  of  England  emerged  from 
that  triumphant  struggle  with  two  books  :  the  one, 
the  cause,  the  other,  the  consequence  of  its  ^-formation 
— the  people's  Bible,  translated,  printed,  published,  and 

58 


put  in  every  Church  in  the  land ;  and  the  people's 
Prayer  Book,  conceived  and  compiled,  revised  and 
completed,  in  the  spirit  of  a  spiritual  and  scriptural 
reconstruction. 

The  Prayer  Book,  therefore,  stands  for  the  new  genius 
of  the  worship  of  the  Church.  Ecclesiastically,  it 
represented  the  regaining  of  the  devotional  rights  of 
the  laity  and  the  declaration  of  the  independence  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Doctrinally,  it  stood  for  the 
restoration  of  scriptural  truth.  Liturgically,  it  was  the 
re-establishment  of  the  principles  of  New  Testament  and 
apostolic  worship.  In  one  word,  its  supreme  objective 
was  the  restoration  of  the  reality  of  worship,  and  the 
re-vitalizing  of  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  a  nation. 
It  was  the  historic  fulfilment,  as  far  as  England's  Church 
was  concerned,  of  the  prophecy  of  the  dry  bones  in 
Ezekiel's  vision.  (Ezek.  xxxvii.,  5-10.)  The  Church 
of  England  was  a  redeemed  Church,  redeemed  from 
legalism  and  formalism,  redeemed  by  truth,  its  redemp- 
tion sealed  by  the  blood  of  its  martyrs. 

The  starting  point  of  all  our  readings  and  thinking, 
therefore,  is  that  the  men  who  compiled  the  Communion 
Service  were  spirit-led  men,  and,  above  all  things,  clear 
in  the  vision  of  what  they  desired.  They  were  men 
whose  theological  and  doctrinal  view-point  had  been 
changed.  They  knew  exactly  what  they  wanted  and 
they  determined  to  secure  it  in  the  Order  of  the  Service 
of  the  Church.  This,  and  this  only,  explains  the 
Communion  Service  of  the  Church  of  England.  It 
was  not  a  meaningless  conglomeration  of  Sarum, 
Lutheran,  Primitive,  and  Reformed  material.  It  was 
a  distinct  whole.  It  was  the  consummation  of  a  definite 
liturgical  plan.    There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the  Roman 

59 


Catholic  or  the  Sarum  Mass.  In  many  ways,  also,  it 
differs  distinctly  from  the  Lutheran.  It  can  only  be 
understood  when  taken  as  a  whole.  It  must  be  read 
in  the  light  of  the  constructive  genius  of  the  Spirit-led 
and  Spirit-taught  compiler  or  compilers  of  the  Service. 

We  will  first  of  all  make  an  analysis 
The         of  the  component  parts  and  view  it  in 
Three       its  three  great  sectional  divisions. 
Divisions.       The  Communion  Service  is  divided  into 
three  great  sections  : 

(1)  The  Ante-Communion,  as  it  is  commonly  called, 
which  includes  all  the  matter  up  to  the  end  of 
the  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 

The  keynote  of  this  section  is  preparation  ; 
in  searching  the  heart  by  the  Word  of  God  and 
prayer.  It  includes  the  four  preliminary 
Rubrics,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Collect,  the 
Ten  Commandments,  Collects,  Epistle  and 
Gospel,  confession  of  faith,  sermon  and  offertory 
and  prayer  ;  the  liturgical  fulfilment  of  I.  Cor.  xi., 
27-34.  The  whole  of  this  part  of  the  Service 
is  the  practical  fulfilment  of  the  Church  require- 
ments of  repentance  and  faith,  newness  of  life 
and  love,  as  set  forth  in  the  Catechism  and  the 
Articles. 

(2)  The  Communion  Proper,  which  begins  with  the 
Exhortations  and  the  General  Confession  and 
goes  down  to  the  end  of  the  Words  of  Adminis- 
tration. 

The  key-notes  of  this  central  section  are 
approach  and  participation,  in  the  spirit  of  deeper 
personal  heart  searching,  worship,  thanksgiving 

60 


and  humility.  It  includes  the  Exhortation 
and  thankful  remembrance,  Invitation,  Con- 
fession and  Absolution,  the  Consolatory  Words, 
Entrance  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  adoration 
and  most  humble  pleading  of  unworthiness  to 
receive  the  spiritual  food — unworthiness  removed 
by  the  Cross,  confirmed  and  applied  as  by  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  consecrated  Bread 
and  Wine — with  a  climax,  the  Consecration 
Prayer  and  reception  of  the  elements. 
(3)  The  Post-Communion,  from  "  Our  Father,"  to 
the  Benediction. 

The  key-note  of  this  section  is  parting  in  the 
spirit  of  prayer  and  praise  and  peace  after  the 
sacrifice  or  oblation  of  the  communicant,  soul 
and  body,  and  the  final  adoration  of  the  Gloria 
in  Excelsis. 

Now  the  thing  that  strikes  us  is  the 
The         uniqueness  of  the  opening  of  the  Commu- 
First        nion  Service  in  the  Church  of  England. 
Note.       It  is  a  distinct  break  from  the  service  of 
the  Mass.     If  our  service  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  forms,  as  a  whole,  a  striking  contrast  to  anything 
that  had  been  found  in  the  Church  of  England  for  a 
thousand  years,  of  all  parts  of  the  service,  the  opening 
part,   from   the    medieval  standpoint,   must   certainly 
have  had  a  surprise  of  novelty.     The  prominent  feature 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Anglican  service  is  the  extra- 
ordinary insistance  on  the  principle  that  in  order  to  get 
the  blessing  of  the  Service  the  heart  must  be  right  in 
the  sight  of  God.     From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  service,  the  key-note  of  sincerity  is  emphasized  in 
every  possible  way .     The  genius  of  the  Church  of  England 
has  always  been  practical.     There  is,  throughout  the 

61 


Prayer  Book,  a  determination  to  exclude,  as  far  as  is 
possible,  all  formalism  and  unreality  on  the  part  of  the 
worshipper.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
highest  object  of  the  Reformation  was  the  effort  of 
awakened  men  to  rid  the  Church  of  England  not  only 
of  idolatry,  but  of  the  curse  of  hypocrisy.  We  modern 
Churchmen  will  probably  never  understand  how  deeply 
the  hatred  of  the  formality  of  the  Mass  Service  was 
burnt  into  the  minds  of  our  Bishop-Reformers ;  or 
how  strong  was  their  resolve  to  make  Reality  the  very 
essence  of  the  restored  Lord's  Supper.  And  so  the 
opening  part  of  the  Service  seems  to  be  carefully  built 
upon  the  Apostolic  basis  of  I.  Cor.  xi.,  27-34.  Any 
one  familiar  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Mass  knows  the 
elaborate  preparation  of  the  vesting  of  the  priest  and 
of  the  altar,  the  bowings,  crossings  and  censings,  the 
multiplied  genuflections  and  kissings  of  the  altar  and 
all  the  actions  that  constitute  the  solemn  and  indispens- 
able introduction  to  the  preliminary  service. 

But  an  outsider  who  studied,  for  the 

The  Two    first  time,   the  Anglican  Service,   would 

Long       be   struck   with   the   fact   that   the   two 

Rubrics,     longest  preliminary  rubrics  have  nothing 

whatever  to  do  with  either  ritual  or  order 

or  doctrine.     They  concern  conduct.     They  are  of  a 

moral  and  personal  character.     The  approach  to  the 

service  is  through  the  portal  of  the  life.     He  would  be 

struck  with  the  fact  that  the  main  thing  at  the  outset 

of  the  Communion  Service,  in  the  mind  of  the  Church 

of  England,  is  the  anxiety  for  consistency  of  character 

and  a  regard  for  the  moral  state  of  the  recipient.     The 

quintessence  of  the  Reformation  lies  here. 

Now,  as  we  proceed  with  the  Service,  we  are  struck 
with  this  continually.     After  the  Lord's   Prayer,   the 

62 


service  begins  with  a  Collect  that  is  one  of  the  most 
heart-searching  and  comprehensive  in  the  whole  Prayer 
Book.  It  is  an  old  Prayer,  exquisitely  translated  by 
Cranmer.  It  voices  the  cry  of  the  body  of  God's  people 
for  the  cleansing  of  the  very  thoughts  of  the  heart  by 
the  inspiration  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  that  there  may  be 
a  perfect  love  and  a  worthy  exaltation  of  God's  name. 
As  the  people  remain  on  their  knees,  the  most  solemn 
demands  of  the  Most  High,  as  expressed  in  the  Ten 
Commandments,  are  heard  by  their  listening  ears,  and 
then  each  soul  sends  forth  its  cry  for  mercy  and  for 
Divine  grace  to  keep  this  law,  not  only  in  the  letter,  but 
in  the  spirit,  in  the  very  heart,  according  to  the  teaching 
of  Heb.  viii.,  10.  From  whatever  source  the  Church 
of  England  got  this  inauguration  section  of  the  Holy 
Communion,  whether  from  some  Lutheran,  or  as  has 
been  conjectured,  from  one  of  our  own  Anglican  Bishops, 
matters  little.  The  point  is  that  the  Service  starts 
with  a  searching  of  the  hearts  of  the  people  by  the  Lamp 
of  God's  Law. 

But  more  striking  still,  is  the  insertion 

The  Four   in  the  very  heart  of  the  service  of  what  are 

Exhorta-    called  the  four  Exhortations.    They  are 

tions.       entirely    Anglican.     Not    only    do    they 

contain   a   significant   exposition   of   the 

two-fold  aspect  of  the  Holy  Communion,  in  language 

at  once  simple  and  sublime,  but  they  will  ever  remain 

as  a  monument  of  the  Church's  resolve  to  clear  the  way 

to  the  Lord's  Table.     They  are  impregnated  with  the 

very  spirit  of  I.  Cor.,  xi.,  27.     They  seem  to  say,  in 

solemn  tones  ;   This  Communion  Service  is  the  solemn 

and  strengthening  sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood 

of  Christ.     But  it  is  so  divine  and  comforting  only  to 

those  who  receive  it  worthily.     There  is  great  peril  in 

63 


receiving  it  unworthily.  Search,  therefore,  and  examine 
your  consciences.  Come  holy.  Come  clean.  Be  ready 
to  forgive.  If  there  is  secret  or  open  sin,  repent,  or 
else  come  not.  Come  with  a  quiet  conscience.  Come 
with  a  full  trust  in  God.  Come  with  living  and  steady 
faith.  In  the  last  exhortation,  which  is  so  familiar,  is 
a  feature  of  the  Church  of  England  that  is  very  marked 
throughout  the  Prayer  Book  and  is  put  in  the  forefront 
of  the  Communion  Service.  It  is  the  use  of  the  adverbs 
"  truly  "  and  "  earnestly."  It  shows  that  the  Church  of 
England  demands  no  more  formal  or  verbal  offerings  of 
lip  confession  or  lip  homage.  So  great  is  the  final 
demand  that  no  one  can  approach  the  chancel  at  the 
Holy  Communion  who  has  not  been  asked  to  repent, 
truly  and  earnestly,  to  live  in  love,  with  the  intention 
of  leading  a  new  life,  and  drawing  near  with  faith. 

It  is  evident  then  to  the  student  of  our  Communion 
Service  that  the  emphasis,  as  far  as  the  communicant  is 
concerned,  is  neither  upon  the  ritual  nor  upon  the  doc- 
trine, but,  primarily  and  throughout,  upon  the  state  of 
one's  heart  and  life.  To  this  end  the  whole  of  the  Ante- 
Communion  Service  seems  directed.  For  after  the 
Ten  Commandments,  there  follows  the  teaching  of  God's 
Word  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Epistle,  nearly  all  of 
which,  throughout  the  Church  year,  emphasize  some 
great  truth  of  doctrine  and  spiritual  teaching,  conjoined 
with  and  emphasized  by  some  phase  of  Christian  living. 
In  the  Canadian  Prayer  Book,  the  time-honoured  respon- 
ses are  introduced  by  rubrics  ;  "  Here  shall  be  sung  or 
said,  '  Glory  be  to  thee,  O  Lord  '  ;  and  the  Gospel 
ended,  the  people  shall  in  like  manner  sing  or  say, 
'  Thanks  be  unto  thee,  O  Lord,'  " — words  which  seem 
to  express  the  rapture  of  the  believer's  heart  as  he  listens, 
as  it  were,  to  the  pronouncement  of  a  message  from  the 

64 


Lord  Himself.  Then  comes  the  confession  of  personal 
faith,  the  recitation  of  the  Creed.  It  is  a  pity  that  this 
is  not  more  thoroughly  understood,  for  it  is  one  of  the 
most  important  things  in  the  whole  service.  It  is  the 
demand  both  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  Matt,  x.,  32, 
and  Romans  x.,  10,  for  if  with  the  heart  man  believeth, 
with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  ;  for  the  Scripture 
saith,  "  whosoever  believeth  on  Him  shall  not  be 
ashamed."  To  this  great  end  also  is  the  hearing  of 
God's  Word  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  the  sermon 
and  before  the  offertory,  I.  Cor.  xvi.,  1. 

„,  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Offer- 

I   TITT 

~  tory,  like  the  Sermon  at  this  service,  was 

Offertory.       j* .  _u    ' 

an  entirely  new  feature  in  the  Church  of 

England  Prayer  Book.  The  Offertory  in  the  Roman  Mass 
was  a  totally  different  thing.  It  was  the  offering,  with 
most  elaborate  ritual,  of  the  Wafer  for  the  Immaculate 
Host,  and  the  elevation  and  offering  up,  with  crossings 
and  bowings  and  censings,  of  the  Chalice  ;  and  the 
tinkling  of  the  bell  to  tell  the  people  the  great  offering 
of  Calvary  and  its  repeated  sacrifice  is  about  to  com- 
mence. And  then,  the  long  and  elaborate  consecration 
prayers  known  as  the  "  Canon." 

This  service  of  spectacular  ritual,  Archbishop  Cranmer 
cut  out  and  substituted  for  it,  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
Communion  Service,  that  very  practical  method  of 
evidencing  our  religion,  the  offering  of  our  substance 
to  the  Lord,  according  to  the  letter  of  Exodus  xxxv., 
5-21,  and  the  spirit  of  Heb.  xiii.,  15-16.  And  he  enforced 
the  right  and  the  reason  and  the  method  and  the  measure 
of  the  people's  giving,  by  a  series  of  most  wisely  chosen 
texts  from  the  Word  of  God  on  the  subject.  These 
money  offerings  of  the  people  are  then  to  be  humbly 

65 

c 


presented  to  the  Lord,  as  oblations  or  devotions ; 
and  at  the  revision  of  1662  then  were  directed  to  be 
placed  upon  the  Holy  Table.* 

The  climax  of  the  Ante-Communion  is 

The  Church    the  Prayer  for  Christ's  Church  militant 

Militant    here  in  earth.     In  the  First  Prayer  Book, 

Prayer,     it   was   part   of   the   great   Consecration 

Prayer    and    contained    a    very    distinct 

prayer   for   the   departed,    "  We   commend   unto   thy 

mercy,  O  Lord,  all  other  thy  servants  which  are  departed 

from  us  with  the  sign  of  faith,  and  now  do  rest  in  the 

sleep  of  peace.     Grant  unto  them,  we  beseech  thee, 

thy  mercy,  etc."     In  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552,  this 

great  prayer  appeared  with  a  new  title,  a  new  setting, 

a  new  form,  and  a  new  teaching.     The  very  significant 

words  were  added,  "  Let  us  pray  for  the  whole  state 

of  Christ's  Church  militant  here  in  earth."    The  words 

"  in  earth  "  are  emphatic  and  suggestive.     They  show 

that  the  prayer  is  to  be  used  for  the  living,  and  for  the 

living  only.     But  while  it   deliberately  excludes  any 

praying  for  the  faithful  departed,  it  teaches  us  to  thank 

*  The  reader  is  here  referred  to  that  very  able  work  of  Bishop 
Dowden  entitled  Further  Studies  in  the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  193-196, 
in  which  he  shows  that  "  oblation  "  cannot  mean  the  bread  and 
wine,  but  simply  money  offerings.  The  Scotch  Prayer  Book 
Rubric  of  1637  provides  that  one  of  the  Churchwardens  shall 
receive  the  devotions  of  the  people  in  a  basin  and  bring  the  basin, 
with  the  oblations  therein.  Oblations  were  always  identified 
with  money  offerings.  It  is  significant  that  the  devotions,  that 
is,  the  money  offerings,  when  they  are  brought  by  the  minister, 
are  to  be  humbly  presented  and  placed  upon  the  Table,  but  the 
bread  and  wine  are  simply  to  be  placed.  The  words  "  presented  " 
and  "  offered  up  "  are  intentionally  avoided.  This  is  a  very 
remarkable  fact,  when  we  consider  that  this  rubric  was  inserted 
in  the  Prayer  Book  in  1662,  in  defiance  of  the  desire  of  the 
Bishops  that  the  word  "  presented  "  should  be  used  of  the 
offering  of  the  bread  and  wine.  It  was  done  in  order  that  there 
might  be  countenance  given  to  the  sacrificial  idea  of  the  Eucharist 

66 


•God  for  them,*  and  to  ask  God  that  we  may  be  partakers 
of  His  Heavenly  kingdom  with  them.  The  prayers,  as 
a  whole,  is  one  of  marvellous  comprehensiveness. 
It  breathes  the  very  heart  of  a  glorious  catholic  prayer 
for  all  that  do  confess  God's  Holy  Name,  for  all  Christian 
kings,  for  all  bishops  and  clergy,  for  all  God's  people, 
for  all  the  troubled,  with  a  thanksgiving  for  all  who  have 
departed  this  life  in  God's  faith  and  fear.  The  succession 
of  "  all's  "  is  remarkable.  The  more  one  studies  its 
depth  of  meaning  and  far-reaching  petitions,  the  more  one 
thinks  of  what  manner  of  men  we  Churchmen  ought 
to  be  to  send  forth  petitions  that  can  sway  the  move- 
ments of  empires,  secure  grace  for  a  world-embracing 
Church,  and  bring  down  blessing  upon  the  world  of 
troubled  and  needy  hearts,  by  the  use  of  a  prayer,  so 
profound  in  its  depth  of  meaning,  so  forceful  in  its 
tremendous  reach,  To  repeat  the  words  of  such  a 
mighty  prayer  as  that  for  the  Church  Militant,  in  terms 
of  a  parrot-like  formalism,  seems  almost  like  treachery. 
Only  those  who  are  living  on  the  plane  of  a  warm, 
sympathetic,  victorious  communion  with  God  are  fit 
to  use  so  significant  a  masterpiece  of  intercession. 

II.— THE  COMMUNION   PROPER. 

As  we  approach  the  central  part  of  the  Service,  the 
Communion  Proper,  we  are  again  impressed  with  the 
fact  of  the  extreme  care  that  is  taken  to  secure  a  body 
of  believing  participants. 

T  The  spirit  of  earnestness  and  devotion 

»  becomes  more  tense.     As  guarding  gates, 

the  four  Exhortations  stand  before  the 

inner  shrine  of  the  reception  of  the  Communion.     They 

*  This  was  added  in  1662. 

67 


are  the  Church's  effort  to  translate  into  practical  effect 
the  teaching  of  Articles  XXV  and  XXVIII :  '  In  such 
only  as  worthily  receive  the  Sacraments  have  they  have 
a  wholesome  effect  or  operation,'  or,  as  it  is  in  Article 
XXVIII,  '  To  such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith* 
receive  them.' 

The  Exhortations  then  stand  as  guards  of  the  Church's 
fidelity  to  standard,  as  admitting  to  Communion  only 
such  as  are  worthy  to  receive  the  same.  While  in  the 
second,  they  earnestly  and  lovingly  plead  for  men  to 
dethrone  all  feigned  excuses  and  come  to  the  Feast  to 
which  they  are  so  lovingly  called  and  bidden  by  God 
Himself,  in  the  first,  third  and  fourth,  they  say  with 
solemn  tones  "  Bewail  your  sinfulness.  Be  reconciled 
to  your  fellow  men.  Be  ready  to  make  restitution  and 
satisfaction.  Be  ready  to  forgive.  Repent  truly. 
Have  living  faith.  Receive  with  a  true  penitent  heart." 
But  what  strikes  us  as  most  significant  in  these  Exhorta- 
tions is  the  way  in  which  they  set  forth  the  central 
truth  of  Christianity,  the  very  citadel  of  our  religion  ; 
the  Atonement.  It  is  declared  to  be  Chirst's  meritorious 
death  and  passion  whereby  alone  we  obtain  remission 
of  our  sins.  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  His  death.  It  is  the 
redemption  of  the  world  by  the  death  and  passion  of 
our  Saviour  Christ,  both  God  and  Man.  And,  through- 
out, the  Lord's  Supper  is  equally  set  forth  in  its  two 
great  aspects  ;  remembrance  and  spiritual  nourishment. 

Passing  from  the  words  of  exhortation, 

The         the  meekly  kneeling  Churchman  is  now 

Five  Steps  led   from   strength   to   strength   through 

Up.  five  successive  stages  of  devotion,  until 

the  climax  of  the  actual  reception  of   the 

elements  is  reached.     Here  again  the  sequence  of  the 

68 


service  is  in  exact  accord  with  the  demands  of  a  truly 
spiritual  and  scriptural  order.  For,  before  there  can 
be  praise  and  lofty  adoration,  there  must  be  the  prostra- 
tion of  the  soul  in  the  pleading  for  forgiveness  and  the 
realization  of  the  removal  of  the  sin  burden,  through 
the  assurance  of  personal  forgiveness  in  the  Absolution. 
Before  the  quieting  and  uplifting  sense  of  peace,  there 
must  be  the  evangel  of  pardon.  And  so  the  Great 
Entrance  in  the  Prayer  Book  Communion  Service  is, 
at  the  start,  the  soul's  confession,  the  soul's  acceptance 
and  the  soul's  assurance  of  comfort  and  peace  in  order 
that  there  may  be  the  opening  of  the  lips  in  overflowing 
praise  and  adoration.  Surely  it  was  an  inspiration  that 
led  Archbishop  Cranmer,  to  see  that  the  place  of  the 
Ter  Sanctus,  the  Sursum  Corda  and  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis 
in  the  Sarum  Mass  was  all  wrong.  Surely  it  was  the 
leading  of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  led  him  so  carefully 
to  order  the  various  elements  of  our  Communion  Service 
that  the  great  Eucharistic  features  of  adoration  should 
come  not  before  but  after  the  confessions  of  sin  and  the 
declarations  of  pardon.  That  was  the  reason,  undoubt- 
edly, why  he  removed  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis  from  its 
place  in  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Lutheran  Communions 
to  the  very  end  of  our  service. 

.~  The  first  step,  therefore,  is  Penitence. 

p  '       It  not  only  re-echoes  the  first  demand  of 

the  Gospel,  through  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  (Mark  i,  15 ;  I.  John,  i,  8-9),  but  it  seems  to 
answer  to  the  natural  desire  of  the  soul  to  lay  aside,  at 
the  beautiful  gate  of  the  Temple  of  Commnuion,  the 
soul  burden  of  sin.  The  personal  confession  of  sin  is 
articulated  in  this  wonderful  General  Confession,  the 
language  of  which  sometimes  seems  almost  like  an 
exaggeration.     Its  sentences  are  terrific  in  their  earnest- 

69 


ness.  Its  cries  are  the  De  Profundis  cries  of  souls 
burdened  with  a  sense  of  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of 
sin  (Rom.  vii,  13-18).  We  confess  not  only  our  sins 
but  our  manifold  sins  ;  sins  grievously  committed,  by 
thought,  word  and  deed  ;  sins  provoking  most  justly 
God's  wrath  and  indignation.  We  confess  that  the 
burden  of  these  sins  of  ours  is  intolerable,  a  word  which 
seems  to  imply  that  no  human  heart  can  bear  that  which 
only  can  be  carried  by  the  Lamb  of  God  (John  i,  29  ; 
I.  Peter  ii,  24).  In  an  age  like  this,  inoculated  with 
Russelism,  Pseudo-Science,  Theosophy  and  Unitarianism, 
these  expressions  of  the  nature  of  sin  and  God's  right 
to  be  indignant  and  wrathful,  evoke  surprise  or  even 
disdain.  But  Churchmen  to-day  may  well  be  grateful 
that  Cranmer,  in  this  very  remarkable  prayer  has  left 
for  Churchmen  for  all  time  so  wonderful  an  expression 
of  the  very  secrets  of  the  sin-convicted  soul,  in  its 
desire  for  mercy  and  forgiveness  and  the  longing  for  a 
newness  of  life,  of  service  and  God-pleasing. 

^  The  second  step  is  Pardon.     The  ioyous 

Second,  .  t  .  ±     .        ..         J  J 

consciousness  of  sin  forgiven,  the  assurance 

of  personal  pardon,  is  now  brought  home 
to  the  heart,  through  the  words  of  a  declaratory  Abso- 
lution, most  beautiful,  most  true.  Here  again,  in 
this  absolution,  the  constructive  genius  of  Cranmer 
is  marvellously  manifest.  The  words  are  the  words  of 
Sarum  and  Cologne  ;  but  the  spirit  is  the  spirit  of  truth 
and  evangelical  clarity.  Its  tones  of  purity  and  power 
fill  the  ear  with  a  sweetness  and  a  strength  that  prepare 
for  the  great  Surswn  Corda  so  soon  to  follow. 

_,  The  third  step  is  that  of  Peace.     There 

1  HIRD 

^  are  few  more  beautiful  sentences  in  the 

iEACF 

Prayer  Book  than  those  Scripture  texts 
70 


that  are  known  to  all  Churchmen  as  "  The  Comfortable 
Words/'  The  heart  that  has  just  been  assured  of  the 
Father's  promised  pardon  is  now  confirmed  in  its  faith 
by  the  previous  promises  of  the  Evangel  of  Christ. 
They  are  indeed  "  good  words  and  comfortable  "  (Zech. 
i,  13),  inspiring  because  inspired.  Words  intended,  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  word  "  comfort,"  to  give  power  to 
the  faint  and  strength  to  them  that  have  no  might. 
There  are  only  four  of  them  and  they  are,  in  their  quaint 
English,  possessed  of  a  strange  and  uplifting  pathos 
to  modern  ears.  Cranmer  probably  got  them  from  the 
Liturgy  of  his  friend,  the  Prince  Archbishop  Hermann 
of  Cologne,  and  the  subsequent  revisers,  from  his  day 
to  ours,  have  left  them  just  as  they  were  in  the  Cranmer 
version  of  the  Great  Bible,  1540.  Archbishop  Hermann's 
Reformed  Lutheran  Communion  Office  was  of  a  moderate 
and  conservative  type,  and  gave  many  suggestions  to 
Cranmer  in  his  compilation  of  our  Communion  Service. 
A  curious  fact  is  that  in  the  Cologne  Communion  Service, 
the  Comfortable  Words  came  before  the  Absolution  and 
consist  of  John  iii,  35-36,  Acts  x,  43,  as  well  as  the  three 
last  sentences  in  our  Prayer  Book.  Why  did  Cranmer 
put  the  Comfortable  Words  after  and  not  before  the 
Absolution,  and  why  did  he  add  Matt,  xi,  28  ?  Probably 
because  that  wonderful  verse  of  our  Saviour  seemed  to 
comprehend  everything,  and  because  the  consolation 
of  the  Gospel  words  were  intended  to  come  as  a  confirma- 
tion of  the  gracious  assurance  of  the  Absolution.  Acts 
x,  43,  was  admirable  before  the  Absolution  and  would 
not  have  been  out  of  place  after.  But  for  some  reason 
he  left  it  out,  and  John  iii,  35-36,  also.  (Jacobs' 
"  Lutheran  Movement,  pp.  224-227  ;  Dowden,  "  Further 
Studies,"  p.  59.) 


71 


.p  The  fourth  step  is  Praise.    The  pardoned 

p  '     and  uplifted  soul  is  now  prepared  for  the 

great  Eucharistic  offering  of  praise  and 
thanksgiving.  In  the  First  Prayer  Book  the  ethical 
perception  was  faulty,  because  the  Sursum  Corda, 
"  Lift  Up  Your  Hearts,"  came  before  the  sin  was  con- 
fessed and  forgiven.  But  with  a  deeper  spiritual  insight 
Cranmer  saw  that  the  praise  should  come  after  the 
realization  of  pardon.  And  so  all  this  part  of  the  service 
vas  arranged  in  strict  accordance  with  a  progressive 
spiritual  discernment.  The  Sursum  Corda  is  probably 
the  most  ancient  formula  in  the  Communion  Service. 
It  seems  to  have  been  used  as  far  back  as  the  time  of 
Tertullian.  It  is  found  in  Cyprian's  Treatise  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  It  is  quoted  by  Cyril.  The  next  words 
are,  "  Let  us  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord  "  and  "It  is 
meet  and  right  so  to  do,"  etc.  Augustine  says,  with 
regard  to  the  giving  of  thanks  unto  the  Lord,  "It  is 
meet,  because  He  made  us  by  His  will.  It  is  just, 
because  He  redeemed  us  by  His  mercy.  It  is  right, 
because  He  gratuitously  justified  us."  It  is  wonderful 
that  through  all  the  chances  and  changes  of  the  historic 
eras  of  the  Church,  these  glorious  words  still  survive  as 
the  keynote  of  this  section  of  the  service,  with  their 
inspiring  sequel. 

"  Hearts  up  to  heaven  !  " 

"  Up  to  the  Lord  we  lift  them  !  " 

And  most  glorious  of  all,  the  congregation  assembled 
in  the  church  on  earth  now  unites  with  the  church  in 
heaven,  and  rising  into  the  heavenly  places,  in  Christ 
Jesus,  associates  itself  with  the  angels  and  archangels 
and  all  the  company  of  heaven  in  a  Magnificat  of  laud 
and  praise  to  God's  glorious  name,  joining  in  the  Angelic 

72 


Tnsagion  (Isa.  vi,  3 ;  Rev.  iv,  8.)  Churchmen  may 
well  thank  God  for  the  beauty  and  splendour  of  the 
Ter  Sanctus  in  its  present  form.  Not  only  are  the 
cumbrous  expressions  of  the  Sarum-Roman  Mass 
omitted,  but  one  of  the  most  significant  phrases  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  "  Blessed  is 
He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  was  with 
purpose,  left  out.*  The  five  Proper  Prefaces  that 
introduce  the  "  Therefore  with  Angels  and  Archangels  " 
are  further  indications  of  the  independence  and  origin- 
ality of  our  English  Prayer  Book.  Two  of  them  are 
practically  new,  two  others  are  almost  new,  and  all  give 
an  entirely  new  tone  of  clearness  and  beauty  to  the 
whole  teaching  of  the  Preface. 

The  fifth  and  last  step  in  the  preparation 
Fifth,       for  the  reception  of  the  elements  is  the 
A  profession  of  unworthiness.     This  prayer 

Profession,  is  peculiar  to  our  Prayer  Book.  It  has 
no  parallel  in  any  primitive  or  medieval 
service.  It  was  most  probably  composed  by  Cranmer 
himself.  In  the  Scottish  Liturgy  it  is  called  the 
Prayer  of  Humble  Access.  In  its  original  form  it 
represented  the  semi-enlightened  mind  of  Cranmer,  for 
after  the  words  "  Drink  His  Blood,"  there  followed 
four  words — "  in  these  holy  mysteries  " — which  un- 
questionably pointed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  Bishop  Gardiner 
said  that,  because  this  prayer  in  the  1549  Prayer  Book 
came  after  the  Consecration  Prayer,  it  was  an  act  of 

*  The  reader  will  remember  that  in  the  Roman  Mass  the  bell 
is  rung  at  the  close  of  the  Ter  Sanctus — Holy,  holy,  holy — to 
call  the  attention  of  the  people  to  the  fact  that  the  re-incarnation 
of  the  Lord  through  the  act  of  transubstantiation  is  about  to 
take  place,  and  that  they  are  about  to  adore  the  most  awful  and 
august  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  under  the  sacramental  veils. 

73 


adoration  paid  directly  to  the  flesh  of  Christ  then  lying 
upon  the  altar.  (Tomlinson's  Prayer  Book,  Articles 
and  Homilies,  p.  32.)  In  the  revision  of  1552,  therefore, 
Cranmer  removed  the  words,  "  in  these  Holy  mysteries," 
and  changed  the  position  of  the  Prayer,  placing  it  before 
the  Consecration.  The  Prayer,  as  a  whole,  has  for  its 
characteristic  notes,  humility  and  self-renunciation. 
It  sounds  a  death  knell  to  the  spirit  of  Pharisaism. 
There  is  in  it  an  absence  of  self-confidence  and  self -trust, 
that  is  the  very  spirit  of  Luke  xviii,  13.  It  is  an  echo 
of  Rom.  x,  3,  and  Phil.  Hi,  9.  In  the  spirit  of  the  teaching 
of  Articles  XI  and  XIII,  it  abases  the  soul  to  the  very 
dust,  and  compels  every  communicant  at  the  moment 
of  consecration  to  renounce  absolutely,  all  trust  in 
one's  own  righteousness.  "  We  do  not  presume  I  " 
"  We  are  not  worthy  !  "  "  We  do  not  trust  in  our  own 
righteousness  !  " 

The  latter  part  of  the  prayer  centres  around  the 
introductory  word  "so."  There  are  two  letters  only, 
but  of  great  suggestiveness.  So-truly  repentant ;  So- 
steadfastly  strong  in  living  faith  ;  So-full  of  love  ;  So- 
emptied  of  self  ;  So-praising  thee  with  the  glory  of  the 
angels  ;  So  absolutely  trusting  in  God's  righteousness 
alone  ;  So  grant  us,  gracious  Lord,  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
Jesus  and  to  drink  His  Blood.* 

*  For  the  meaning  of  "  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of 
Christ,"  the  reader  is  referred  to  John  vi.,  51-53-57,  and  the 
explanatory  words  of  the  Lord  Himself  in  verse  63,  "  The  flesh 
profiteth  nothing,  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  to  be 
understood  in  a  spiritual  not  carnal  sense,  spirit,  and  they  are 
life,  and  the  explanation  of  the  Church's  teaching  in  the  third 
paragraph  of  Article  XXVIII.,  and  the  explicit  teaching  of 
Article  XXIX.  As  to  the  idea  of  our  bodies  being  cleansed  by 
Christ's  Body  and  our  souls  washed  through  Christ's  Blood  (se« 
the  very  remarkable  appendix  to  Dowden's  Further  Studies  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  317-343,  a  most  scholarly  and  suggestive 
study.     See  also  the  Tutorial  Prayer  Book,  pp.  332-333.) 

74 


As  we  approach  the  Consecration  Prayer, 

The         we    see    that    the    reformers    displayed 

Centre      remarkable  courage  in  meeting  a  serious 

Prayer,     difficulty.     It    was    obvious    that    they 

could  not  retain  the  prayer  of  the  Roman 

Canon.     It  was  the  very  heart  of  the  service.     Yet 

how  could  they  touch  words  which  had  for  centuries 

been    regarded   with    such    awe.     At   no   other   point 

would    associations,    prejudices    and    superstitions    be 

so  vitally  affected.     If  Cranmer  and  his  fellow  workers 

had  not  been  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  Word  of  God, 

and  emboldened  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they 

could  hardly  have  dared  to  depart  so  absolutely  from 

the  inherited  traditions  of  a  thousand  years.* 

They  wished  to  provide  for  the  Church  of  England  a 
Consecration  Prayer  which  would  embody  three  great 
essentials : 

(1)  A  statement  of  the  truth  of  the  atoning  death 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  our  Substitute  and  our 
Sacrifice. 

(2)  A  prayer  that  would  embody  the  perfect  truth 
of  the  reception  of  the  elements  and,  at  the 
same  time,  reject  every  possible  phrase  or 
sentence  that  would  in  any  wise  countenance 
the  teaching  of  the  objective  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  consecrated  elements,   or  in  any  way 

*  Cranmer's  own  words  deserve  the  deepest  study  ■  "  The 
very  body  of  the  tree,  or  rather  the  roots  of  the  weeds,  is  the 
Popish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  of  the  Real  Presence  of 
Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  (as  they 
call  it),  and  of  the  Sacrifice  and  Oblation  of  Christ  made  by  the 
priest  for  the  salvation  of  the  quick  and  the  dead."  See  Cranmer 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  Park.  Soc,  p.  6.  See  also  the  splendid 
dissertation  upon  this  in  Dimock's  Doctrine  of  the  English  Church 
Concerning  the  Eucharistic  Presence,  p.  441. 

75 


seem  to  imply  the  sacrificial  character  of  altar 
worship. 

(3)  A  statement,  in  the  most  absolutely  simple 
and  spiritual  form,  of  the  original  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  work  was  not  performed  in  its  completeness  at 
one  stroke.  In  their  first  reforming  effort,  in  1548, 
there  seems  to  be  no  evidence  of  their  even  having 
attempted  anything  like  the  introduction  of  a  new 
consecration  prayer  form.  In  1549,  the  Consecration 
Prayer  certainly  retained  some  of  the  features  of  the 
Roman  Mass  ;  and  it  added  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  elements.  It  was  not  until  1552,  that 
they  divested  this  portion  of  the  service  of  every  possible 
element  of  sacerdotal  or  sacrificial  meaning.  The 
thing  that  they  then  had  as  the  end  in  sight,  was  to 
bring  clearly  before  the  eye  of  faith  the  atoning  death 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  to  dispose  of 
the  error  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  to  be  continually  ^-offered  upon  the  so-called 
altars  of  an  earthly  church. 

The  opening  part  of  the  Consecration  Prayer,  there- 
fore, sets  forth  the  great  truth  of  the  finished  work  of 
our  atoning  Saviour.  With  a  strong  emphasis  the 
great  prayer  teaches  that  the  Sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  made  on  Calvary.  It  flings  back  the  thought  across 
the  chasm  of  nearly  nineteen  centuries.  It  teaches 
as  the  explicit  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church,  that 
there  was  only  One  Oblation  ;  and  that,  the  Oblation 
of  HIMSELF  ;  once  offered — once  only.  And,  further, 
that  this  ONE  Oblation  of  Himself  ONCE  offered  was 
full,  perfect,  and  sufficient.      So    perfect,  so  sufficient, 

76 


that  no  merit  of  saint  or  angel  would  ever  be  needed  to 
supplement  it.  And,  further,  that  it  was  so  ample  that 
it  was  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  (Heb. 
vii,  27  ;  ix,  24-25  ;  x,  10-12.)  Nothing  in  the  formulated 
language  of  theology  more  satisfactorily  sets  forth  the 
New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  propitiatory,  substitu- 
tionary, and  vicarious  aspects  of  the  completed  work  of 
our  Saviour  on  the  Cross.  Compare  also  the  Catechism 
answer,  "  For  the  continual  remembrance  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  death  of  Christ  "  ;  not  for  the  continual  repetition 
of  that  sacrifice,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches.  (Read 
the  words,  Heb.  ix,  24-28.  "  For  Christ  is  not  entered 
into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the 
figures  of  the  true  ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear 
in  the  presence  of  God  for  us :  Nor  yet  that  he  should 
offer  himself  often,  as  the  high  priest  entereth  into  the 
holy  place  every  year  with  blood  of  others :  For  then 
must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the 
world ;  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself. 
And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after 
this  the  judgment :  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many ;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  Him 
shall  He  appear  the  second  time  without  sin  unto 
Salvation.") 

Not  only  is  there  a  remarkable  avoidance  of  the  sacri- 
ficial character  of  the  altar  offering,  as  it  is  called,  but 
in  this  Consecration  Prayer,  as  we  now  have  it,  there 
is  a  remarkable  avoidance  of  one  of  the  root  errors 
both  of  the  Primitive  Liturgies  and  of  the  Roman  Mass  ; 
an  error  that  has  its  echo  in  the  Lutheran  Communion 
Service,  and  also  in  the  Scottish  Liturgy  and  the  Com- 
munion Service  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  United  States  ;   that  the  Holy  Spirit  invoked  by 

77 


the  priest  should  make  the  elements  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood,  or  else  so  bless  and  sanctify  the  bread  and  wine 
"  that  they  may  be  unto  us,  or  that  they  may  become 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  God's  most  dearly  beloved 
Son."  But  in  our  Consecration  Prayer,  we  have  an 
entire  change  of  thought ;  a  change  of  teaching,  by 
a  change  of  wording.  The  prayer  is  now  not  for  any 
blessing  upon  the  creatures  of  bread  and  wine.  There 
is  no  request  that  any  change  in  any  way  whatsoever 
should  come  upon  or  over  them.  The  prayer  is  now 
a  prayer  for  the  communicants,  that  they  receiving 
God's  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  ....  may  be 
partakers  of  His  most  blessed  Body  and  Blood,*  that 
is,  that  they  may  receive  by  faith  an  interest  in  His 
Body  and  Blood,  and  personally  experience  by  living 
faith  the  remission  of  sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  His 
atoning  death.  And  so  the  very  heart  of  the  service 
is  Christ  Crucified  ;  Christ  Jesus  Himself  as  the  Lamb 
of  God,  the  Sin-Bearer,  the  Sacrifice.  It  is  wonderful 
how  deeply  the  substitutionary  and  atoning  work  of 
Christ  is  inwrought  into  Christianity.  It  is  the  immovable 
centre ;  and  in  this  wonderful  prayer,  the  Church  of 
England  wonderfully  sets  forth  what  Dr.  Forsyth  has 
called  "  the  centrality  of  the  Cross."  For,  as  often 
as  we  come  to  this  part  of  the  service,  we  do  "  shew 
forth  His  Death,"  at  the  Lord's  Table  in  a  perpetual 
memorial  and  communion,  with  the  everlasting  prospec- 
tive onlook  "  till  He  come." 

*  The  reader  whose  desires  to  have  a  full  and  fine  explanation 
of  the  Saviour's  words,  "  Except  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man  and  drink  His  blood,  yet  have  no  life  in  you  "  should  read 
that  most  masterly  summary  of  Bishop  Ryle  in  his  Expository 
Thoughts  on  the  Gospels  (John  i.,  402).  His  view  is  that  by  flesh 
and  blood  our  Lord  meant  the  Sacrifice  of  His  own  Body  for  us, 
and  that  by  "  eating  and  drinking  "  He  meant  that  communion 
and  participation  of  the  benefit  of  His  sacrifice  which  faith,  and 
faith  only,  conveys  to  the  soul. 

78 


And  now  come  the  Words  of  Adminis- 

The  Words  tration.     Again  the  genius  of  the  English 

to  the      reformers  is  seen.     When  they  came  to 

Communi-    the  administration  of  the  sacred  elements 

cants.       to    the    communicants,    they    were    like 

men    in    an    almost    unexplored    region. 

There  was  nothing  to  guide  them  in  the  one  Reformation 

Mass  Service.    They  must  have  been  in  a  kind  of  dilemma 

for  it  had  been  the  habit  for  centuries  to  put  the  Wafer 

on  to  the  tongue  of  the  communicant,  never  to  deliver 

it  into  the  hand.     As  to  the  wine,  there  had  never  been 

any  to  speak  of,  in  the  service  the  Cup  never  having  been 

given  to  the  laity.     Bishop  Dowden  has  pointed  out 

that  the  mass  services  of  medieval  England  contained 

no  words  for  communicating  the  laity,  either  at  or  after 

Mass,  and  the  only  words  that  were  ever  used  being  found 

in  a  form  for  the  Communion  of  the  Sick — the  Viaticum, 

as  it  was  called,  being  given  with  the  form  "  The  Body 

of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  keep  your  body  and  soul  to 

life  eternal."     (Dowden,  "  Further  Studies,  pp.  235-319, 

and    Upton's  "  Outlines   of    Prayer    Book    History," 

pp.  98-100.) 

It  was  a  happy  inspiration,  when  the  first  compilers 
of  our  Prayer  Book  resolved  to  introduce  a  more  Scriptural 
feature  in  our  Church  system,  that  the  communicant 
kneeling  to  receive  the  Sacrament  should  hear  in  his 
ears  a  few  suggestive  words  that  would  bring  home  to 
his  heart  the  very  essence  of  the  Communion.  Their 
historical  genesis  is  of  great  interest. 

They  were  first  used  in  the  Order  of  the  Communion, 
1548,  with  these  words  :  "  When  the  priest  doth  deliver 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  he  shall  say  to 
every  one  these  words  :    The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 

79 


Christ,  which  was  given  for  thee  (note  not  to  thee), 
preserve  thy  body  unto  everlasting  life."  and,  when 
delivering  the  Sacrament  of  the  Blood  :  "  The  Blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed  for  thee, 
preserve  thy  soul  unto  everlasting  life." 

A  year  later,  they  conjoined  the  words  in  the  delivery 
of  both  elements,  "  Preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto 
everlasting  life."  It  was  a  happy  innovation  and 
undoubtedly  the  result  of  a  quickened  spiritual  insight 
and  a  deeper  study  of  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
(Upton's  "  Outlines  of  Prayer  Book  History,"  p.  102). 
In  the  year  1552,  to  bring  home  to  each  believing  heart 
the  personal  appropriation  of  the  death  of  Christ,  they 
substituted  the  appealing  and  beautiful  words,  "  Take 
and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for  thee, 
etc,"  and  "  Drink  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ's 
Blood  was  shed  for  thee,  etc."  In  1559,  both  forms 
were  combined  so  that  we  now  have  repeated  at  every 
administration  throughout  the  year  the  words  that  have 
become  endeared  to  every  English  Churchmen  by  a 
thousand  sweet  and  tender  associations. 

Bishop  Dowden  raised  the  question,  "  Why  were  our 
reformers  not  content  with  the  ancient  formula  and 
why  did  they  insert  the  words,  '  which  was  given  for 
thee,'  '  which  was  shed  for  thee '  ?  "  ("  Further 
Studies,"  p.  235.)  And  he  answered  his  question  by 
showing  that  the  worrds  were  used  in  the  Lutheran 
formula  and  that  they  were  considered  of  such  vital 
importance,  as  to  be  principal  parts  of  the  Sacrament. 
The  ministers  were  enjoined  always  to  admonish  the 
people  with  the  greatest  earnestness  at  every  Communion 
to  carefully  ponder  and  lay  to  heart  the  words  "  which 
was  given  for  you,"  "  which  was  shed  for  you."  And 
in  Cranmer's  Catechism  of   1548,   the  same  thing  is 

80 


emphasised  in  a  paragraph  enlarging  on  the  significance 
of  the  words,  "  given  for  you,"  "  shed  for  you." 

To  the  Communicants  of  the  Church  of  England, 
they  set  forth  the  truth  of  the  personal  appropriation  of 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  by  faith.  They  bring  home 
the  great  teaching  of  our  Church  in  Articles  XXVIII 
and  XXIX.  They  show  that  in  the  Sacrament  we  are 
to  feed  on  Him  (not  on  bread)  ;  in  our  heart  (not  in  our 
mouth)  ;  by  faith  (not  by  mastication) ;  with  thanks- 
giving, in  the  Eucharist  of  the  soul.  (Heb.  xiii,  15 ; 
Ephes.  v,  20.) 

Further,  there  is  brought  home  to  each  heart,  in  the 
solemn  moment  of  the  reception  of  the  Sacrament,  the 
most  profound  of  all  Gospel  truths — the  great  truth  of 
the  finished  work  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
upon  Calvary's  Cross.  For  the  words  are  not  "  The 
Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  IS  given  for  thee," 
but  "  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  WAS 
given  for  thee."  It  is  a  very  suggestive  difference. 
If  our  reformers  had  inserted  the  phrase,  "  The  Body 
which  IS  given  for  thee,"  or,  "  is  being  given,"  there 
would  have  been  the  danger  of  some,  so  wzs-taking  the 
phrase  as  to  possibly  construe  it  into  meaning  that  it 
was  a  direct  or  indirect  evidence  of  the  fact  that 
Christ's  Body  is  given  to  God  in  sacrifice  for  us  in 
the  Communion.  Cranmer  had  to  face  this  and 
make  his  choice  between,  "  IS  given  "  and  "  WAS 
given."  He  made  his  choice  deliberately.  And  so, 
in  using  the  words,  "  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  which  WAS  given  for  thee,"  "  The  Blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  WAS  shed  for  thee," 
our  reformers  lifted  into  prominence  the  great  truth  of 
the  redemption  that  was  consummated  once  for  all. 
(Heb.  ix,  12-14-25-28 ;    Heb.  x,  1-2  and  10-14.)    The 

SI 


emphasis  is  not  upon  the  presence  of  the  glorified  Body 
of  our  Saviour,  which  was  never  at  any  time  given 
in  sacrifice  for  us ;  but  upon  that  Body  which  WAS 
given  for  us  in  His  death  upon  the  Cross.  As  Bishop 
Moule  has  pointed  out,  in  English  Church  Teaching, 
"  The  bread  is  the  body  regarded  as  slain.  The  wine 
is  the  blood  regarded  as  shed.  Literally,  the  body  was 
given  and  blood  shed  eighteen  centuries  ago,  once  and 
forever.  Literally,  therefore,  the  body  once  given  and 
the  blood  once  shed,  cannot  be  going  through  this  process 
now.  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament 
of  our  redemption  by  Christ's  death  mean  Christ  Crucified. 
The  thought  is  not  an  infusion  of  the  glorified  humanity. 
It  is  of  saving  union  and  communion  with  the  Lamb 
of  the  Sacrifice. ' '  In  other  words,  the  Church  of  England 
places  between  the  two  parts  of  the  Words  of  Adminis- 
tration a  chasm  of  about  1890  years ;  the  first  part 
emphasises  the  finished  redemption  of  that  Day  ;  the 
second,  brings  home  to  the  believer  in  this  day  his 
personal  interest  in  that  finished  redemption.  The 
Body  which  was  given — there ;  then,  Take  and  eat 
this — here,  now  ! 

III.— THE  POST  COMMUNION. 

The   conclusion   of   the   Service   deserves   a   careful 
study.     It  consists  of  five  sections : 

(1)  The  Lord's  Prayer. 

(2)  The  first  alternative  prayer,  sometimes  called 
the  Prayer  of  Oblation. 

(3)  The  second  alternative  prayer,  sometimes  called 
the  Prayer  of  Eucharist. 

(4)  The  Gloria  in  Excelsis. 

(5)  The  Benediction. 

82 


This  is  in  most  remarkable  contrast  to  the  Roman 
Service.  Before  the  Reformation,  the  Mass  ended  with 
a  complex  and  curious  series  of  chalice  rinsings,  hand 
washings,  ablutions  of  the  chalice  and  paten,  bowings 
and  crossings,  and  other  ceremonies.  But  the  English 
Reformers,  heart-sick  possibly,  with  the  irritating  dark 
and  dumb  ceremonies,  or  following  the  concluding  of 
some  Primitive  Liturgies,  in  the  pioneer  order  of  1548, 
simply  ended  the  service  with  this  blessing : 

"  The  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all  understanding, 
keep  your  hearts  and  minds,  in  the  knowledge  and 
love  of  God,  and  of  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

A  year  later,  was  provided  a  Post-Communion 
series  of  texts  of  Scripture,  twenty-two  in  number, 
and  most  beautiful  in  suggestion.  It  is  not  easy  to 
understand  why  Cranmer  struck  them  out  in  1552.  But, 
he  did.  And  he  put  in  their  place  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and 
the  two  prayers  that  we  now  have,  and,  as  the  climax 
of  all,  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis. 

The    Lord's    Prayer    forms    a    noble 

The        opening  to  the  finale  of  the  Communion 

Sacrifice    Office.    But  the  subsequent  prayer  may 

Prayer,     be  taken  as  an  index  of  their  intense  desire 

to  follow  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

for  it  marks  one  of  the  most  revolutionary  features  of  the 

revision  work  of  the  1552  revisers.     In  1549,  this  prayer 

was  intended  to  be  a  Prayer  of  Sacramental  Oblation.     It 

brought  out,  by  its  position  and  language,  the  idea  of 

the  pleading  of  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  before  God. 

But,  by  taking  it  away  from  the  Prayer  of  Consecration, 

and  inserting  it  in  the  Prayer  Book  after  the  Communion 

was   over,    our   Prayer   Book   compilers    intentionally 

removed  any  possibility  of  the  sacrifice  of  praise  and 

83 


thanksgiving  being  connected  with  the  offering  of  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine.  By  making  it  an  optional 
and  not  an  obligatory  prayer,  they  absolutely  destroyed  its 
its  value  from  the  standpoint  of  Roman  Catholic  teaching. 
But  they  brought  out  more  clearly  the  Scriptural  thought 
of  the  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  (Heb.  xiii, 
15),  and  the  solemn  dedication  of  ourselves  as  a  living 
sacrifice  (Rom.  xii,  1).  The  humble  and  lowly  petition 
with  which  it  concludes  is  one  of  the  sweetest  and 
most  solemn  in  the  Prayer  Book,  "  We  be  unworthy 
through  our  manifold  sins  to  offer  unto  thee  any 
sacrifice  ...."* 

The  second  alternative  prayer  is  also 
The         without  any  parallel  in  the  Roman  Mass 
Alternative  Service  and  illustrates  the  development 
Prayer,     of  Cranmer's  mind.     In  1549,  it  contained 
the   words,    "  Thou   hast   vouchsafed   to 
feed  us  in  these  holy  mysteries."     But  in  1552,  by  a 
deliberate  change,  slight  but  revealing,  they  avoided 
any  possibility  of  the  teaching  of  the  Real  Presence  by 
the  present  wording  of  the  Prayer.     Cranmer's  broad 
and  catholic  spirit  is  reflected  in  the  now  famous  defini- 
tion of  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ  as  "  The  blessed 
company  of  all  faithful  people,"  and  the  latter  part  of 
the  prayer  reveals   the  spirit  of  the  Epistle   to   the 
Ephesians  (Eph.  ii,  10)  in  the  beautiful  wording  of  a 

*  The  spiritual  illumination  of  Cranmer,  and  the  teaching  of 
the  Church  of  England,  are  well  brought  out  by  his  distinction 
between  Christ's  sacrifice  of  Himself  for  us,  and  our  sacrifice 
of  ourselves  to  God  by  him.  "  Another  kind  of  sacrifice  there  is 
which  doth  not  reconcile  us  to  God,  but  is  made  of  (that  is,  by) 
them  that  he  reconciled  to  God — sacrifices  of  laud,  praise,  and 
thanksgiving — ourselves  and  all  that  we  had."  (Cranmer  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Park.  Soc,  p.  346.)  These  words  throw  a  great 
light  upon  the  distinctive  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  regard  to  sacrifice-offering. 

84 


prayer  that  is  at  once  spiritual  and  practical  and  aptly 
comprehensive. 

The    Gloria    in    Excelsis.     For    many 
A  centuries   this  glorious  hymn,   originally 

Closing  called  the  Dawn  Hymn  or  the  Seraphic 
Hymn.  Hymn  or  the  Hymn  of  the  Angels  (for  it 
contained  in  its  original  form  little  more 
than  the  simple  words  of  Luke  ii,  14),  was  used  in  the 
service  of  the  Mass.  It  was  sung  in  Latin  just  before  the 
Nicene  Creed.  In  the  First  Prayer  Book,  1549,  it  was 
placed  in  the  forefront  of  the  service,  after  the  opening 
prayer,  "  Almighty  God,  unto  whom  all  hearts  are  open." 
Why,  then,  was  it  transferred  by  one  stroke  of  the  pen, 
as  it  were,  from  the  very  beginning  to  the  very  end  of 
the  Communion  Service  ?  The  most  natural  supposition 
is  that,  as  they  read  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  they  were 
struck  with  the  concluding  text :  "  And,  when  they 
had  sung  an  hymn,  they  went  out  "  (Matt,  xxvi,  30 ; 
Mark  xiv,  26),  and  that  they  evidently  desired  to  finish 
our  service  just  as  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  finished 
their  Communion  Service.  Anyway,  there  it  stands 
in  imitation  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  the  eucharistic 
closing  hymn. 

It  consists  of  three  great  sections  and,  like  the  Te  Deum, 
is  a  hymn  of  praise,  a  profession  of  faith,  and  a  litany 
of  supplication,  all  in  one.  Beginning  with  an  almost 
exuberant  tone  of  praise,  it  passes  at  once  into  a  strain 
of  tender  and  wistful  pleading  for  pity,  combined  with 
a  glorious  exaltation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
glory  of  His  Deity  and  the  beauty  of  His  Humanity. 
He  is  hailed  as  the  Only  Begotten ;  the  Lord  God ; 
the  Lamb  of  God  ;  the  Son  of  the  Father  ;  the  Remover 
of  the  world's  sin  ;  the  Sitter  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ; 

85 


Mounting,  as  it  were,  from  height  to  height,  it  reaches 
its  marvellous  climax  in  the  solemn  cadence  of  the 
thrice-repeated,  all-excluding  words  :  "  Thou  only  ! 
Thou  only  !     Thou  only  !  " 

And  so  the  Anglican  Communion  Service  concludes. 
The  soul  lies  low,  self-emptied  ;  shrunk  into  nothingness 
before  the  glory  of  God.  The  two  finest  notes  of  the 
Anglican  liturgical  system  come  out,  at  the  end  of  the 
service,  into  fine  relief :  the  sense  of  humiliation  and 
unworthiness  on  the  part  of  man,  and  the  giving  all 
the  glory  to  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God 
the  Holy  Ghost.  And  then,  not  with  the  curt  dismissal 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  with  the  great  Benediction, 
the  communicants  depart.  As  they  pass  out  into  daily 
life  with  their  souls  strengthened  and  refreshed  the 
last  words  that  linger  in  their  ears  are  those  of  the 
peace  of  God  which  passes  all  understanding,  and  guards, 
as  a  sentinel,  the  heart  and  mind  in  the  knowledge  and 
love  of  God,  and  of  the  blessing  of  the  Triune  God  ever 
abiding  with  each.     (Phil,  iv,  7.) 

Once  more  the  Church  of  England  is 
at  a  parting  of  the  ways.  It  almost 
looks  as  if,  in  England  anyway,  the  war 
of  the  Reformation  has  to  be  fought  over  again.  Once 
more  the  centre  of  the  battle  is  the  Communion 
Service.  Once  more,  the  roots  of  the  Romish  Real 
Presence  doctrines  are  growing  in  the  Lord's  vineyard, 
and  overspreading  the  ground  with  the  old  errors  and 
superstitions.  (Cranmer  on  "  Lord's  Supper."  Park. 
Soc,  Preface  6.) 

In  the  reign  of  Edward,  the  reaction  was  from  the 
Mass,  and  for  the  recovery  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  To-day, 
in  the  Anglican  Church,  the  reaction  is  from  the  Lord's 


Supper  for  the  recovery  of  the  Mass.  The  reaction  of 
to-day  is  an  almost  exact  repetition  and  a  reproduction 
of  the  successive  steps  in  the  movement  of  the  first 
three  centuries  of  the  Sub-Apostolic  age,  and  of  the 
retrograde  movement  of  the  first  century  in  the  Church 
of  England  after  the  Reformation.  The  lines  of  primi- 
tive departure  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
find  an  exact  historic  parallel  in  the  departures  of  the 
Caroline  Catholic  Anglicans,  the  Non-  Jurors  and 
Scottish  Episcopal  Laudians,  and  the  Anglo-Catholics 
from  Pusey's  day  to  ours.  These  lines,  in  a  word,  were 
as  follows : 

1st. — An  over-valuation  of  the  Supper ;  a  tendency 
to  exaggerate  its  importance  as  a  service ;  and  to 
give  to  it  a  place  that  is  certainly  not  assigned  to 
it  in  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  significant 
that  the  communion  is  mentioned  in  only  five 
Books  of  the  New  Testament.  In  twenty-two  of 
the  Books  there  is  no  reference  to  it.  In  only 
one  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  is  it  referred  to,  and  in 
the  writings  of  St.  Peter,  St.  John,  St.  Jude  and 
St.  James  it  is  not  once  mentioned.  The  silence 
of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  of  extraordinary  signific- 
ance. These  letters  to  two  Bishops  haven't  a 
suggestion  with  regard  to  its  observance,  much 
less  to  its  ritual. 

2nd. — To  make  it  the  highest  act  of  Christian  worship, 
to  the  exclusion  of  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer, 
and  to  put  into  the  background,  if  not  to  disregard, 
the  reading  of  the  Word  and  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  (See  "  A  Sacrament  of  Our  Redemp- 
tion," pp.  106-111.)  In  the  Primitive  Church,  this 
tendency  led,  with  awful  rapidity,  to  the  establish- 

87 


ment  of  the  Mass  Service  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice, 
with  its  accompaniment  of  false  and  misleading 
teachings.  The  propaganda  that  is  being  carried 
on  to-day  for  the  restoration  of  the  Altar  and  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Mass  in  the  Church  of 
England,  as  the  sun  and  centre  of  Anglican  worship, 
is  ecclesiastical  history  repeating  itself,  with  its 
fearful  errors  and  soul-destroying  dangers. 

3rd. — To  administer  it  with  an  excess  of  ceremonial, 
multiplying  the  accessories  of  ritual,  pageantry 
and  regarding  the  service  more  and  more  with 
mysterious  and  obsequious  veneration.  (It  is 
almost  like  the  epithumia  ton  opthalmon  of  I.  John, 
ii,  16.) 

4th. — To  see  in  the  bread  and  wine  after  consecration, 
the  mystic  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  through  a 
process  of  consubstantiation  or  insubstantiation 
or  transubstantiation.     And,  in  consequence. 

5th. — To  replead  the  once-for-all  offered  sacrifice, 
and  then  to  re-present  it,  and  then,  as  a  logical  con- 
sequence, doctrinal  and  ritual,  to  re-offer  it. 

If  Churchmen  will  only  hold  fast  to  their  Prayer  Book 
and  take  it  as  it  stands  in  its  true  and  usual  and  literal 
meaning,  we  shall  be  preserved  from  those  curious  and 
unhappy  differences  which  have  for  so  many  centuries 
vexed  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  come,  as  Archbishop 
Sancroft  pleaded,  into  closer  union  with  our  separated 
brethren,  the  Protestant  dissenters.  The  writer  is 
persuaded  that  nothing  so  tends  to  separate  us  from 
them  as  the  sacerdotal  and  sacrificial  errors  with  regard 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  for,  as  Bishop  Wordsworth  said, 
"  unity  in  error  is  not  true  unity."     If,  with  opened  eyes, 

88 


we  stand  upon  the  Bible,  we  will  never  either  under- 
value or  over-value  the  Holy  Communion.  Side  by 
side  with  our  great  Bishop-reformers,  with  simple  faith 
in  the  Bible  and  strong  confidence  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
we  will,  as  loyal  Churchmen,  avoid  the  term  "  Altar," 
abhor  the  term  "  Mass,"  and  beware  of  the  term  "  Eucha- 
ristic  Sacrifice."  As  well  call  the  Waterloo  banquet, 
as  one  has  said,  a  repetition  of  the  Battle  of  Waterloo, 
as  call  the  Holy  Communion  a  repetition  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  on  Calvary's  Cross.  We  will  pray  with  Cranmer 
and  his  colleagues  for  opened  eyes  and  growing  percep- 
tions of  truth  and  error,  and  with  stern  resolves  abandon 
all  that  would  tend  to  falsify,  and  hold  fast  all  that  is 
spiritually  true.  To  lay  stress  upon  spiritual  qualifica- 
tion ;  to  plead  for  living  faith  ;  to  demand  supremely, 
heart  love  and  genuine,  sincere  and  absolute  personal 
consecration  ;  this  is  the  duty  of  the  hour  for  the  clergy. 
To  see  in  the  service  an  exhibition  of  the  saving  truth 
of  the  Gospel,  the  power  of  the  precious  blood,  and  "the 
vicarious  propitiation  of  our  Crucified  Lord  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world ;  to  realize  what  is,  alas,  so 
often  obscured  in  the  Communion  Service  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  our  unity  and  our  union  with  our  fellow 
communicants ;  to  search  the  heart,  and  come  with 
living  faith  and  loving  heart ;  this  is  the  duty  of  the 
laity.  Then  we  may  truly  feel  that  in  our  beautiful 
service,  every  promise  of  the  Lord,  every  intention  of 
His  Word,  every  blessing  of  His  presence,  will  surely 
be  fulfilled  to  all,  both  clergy  and  laity,  who,  coming 
humbly,  truly,  earnestly,  meekly,  receive  the  elements, 
with  simple  and  sincere  faith.  And  so  coming  and  so 
receiving,  the  faithful  communicant  can  depart  saying, 
"Q,  my  God,  thou  art  true.  O,  my  soul,  thou  art 
happy." 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


"THE   PROTESTANTISM 
OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK." 


New  Impression.         1  /-  net. 


"  This  volume  is  a  brief  but  exhaustive  account  of  the 
true  principles  on  which  the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
was  finally  compiled,  when  the  Reformation  of  our  Church  was 
completed,  and  the  Second  Book  of  King  Edward  substituted 
for  the  First  Book.  Those  principles  were  carefully  retained  in 
the  Prayer  Book  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  and  were  finally 
preserved  unaltered  in  the  last  revision  of  1661.  Even  at  that 
date,  immediately  after  the  unhappy  Savoy  Conference, 
Archbishop  Sheldon  and  his  assistant  revisers  did  not  attempt  to 
bring  back  into  our  Liturgy  the  questionable  things  which  found 
a  place  in  King  Edward's  First  Prayer  Book,  and  were  purposely 
cast  out  from  King  Edward's  Second  Book.  The  true  principles 
of  the  English  Prayer  Book,  whatever  some  interpreters  may 
please  to  say,  are  Protestant  and  Evangelical,  and  of  this 
abundant  evidence  is  supplied  in  this  volume."  {Note  from 
Preface.) 


THE   CHURCH  BOOK  ROOM. 
82,  Victoria  Street, 
::  London,    S.W.  1.  :: 


o 

m 

• 

w 
~» 
o 
o 


« 


H 

CD 


S 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "Ref.  Index  Flit" 

Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU