But many amongst us have for a long time been profoundly convinced that the Church principles of the loyal, conscientious, traditional High Churchman are totally different from the Church principles of the Ritualist; and that the epithet “High” means in the language of the two classes two totally different things. In the one it means a faithful adhesion to the Prayer Book and its principles; but in the other a dissatisfaction with the Prayer Book, and a craving after something beyond: in the one a rising to it, and in the other a departure from it. To many amongst us this has been perfectly plain for years. But still it has been impossible to prove it, for there have been no authoritative documents; and, even if there had been any they would not have been likely to contain any such avowal. It has been seen perfectly clearly in sermons, in pamphlets, in books, and in the ceremonial imitation of Rome. But still, individual words and actions could only be regarded as proofs of individual opinions, and therefore, although they left no doubt on the minds of observers, they could not be accepted as absolute proofs of disloyalty against any of those who were not themselves guilty of disloyal acts.
But a great change has now taken place, and we are brought into altogether a new position. After the Church Congress at Derby there can no longer be any doubt on the subject, for we had there what was as nearly an authoritative statement as under the circumstances it is possible to expect. It is needless to speak of that well-known body, the English Church Union. The E.C.U. was formed as a centre for the Ritualistic movement, and it has ever since maintained its position as the most widely extended and influential organization in existence for the maintenance of Ritualistic principles.
I believe, also, that it has been considered the most moderate of the various kindred associations, so that it embraces several who, as they express themselves, are not prepared to go to extremes. Now, at the Derby Church Congress we had the advantage of hearing a most important avowal from the President of this influential organization. Of course, we who do not belong to the Union have no means of knowing how far he spoke as the mouthpiece of the Council, or simply gave expression to his own personal opinion; but all must admit that when the President of the Union, on such a great occasion, delivered a carefully prepared written paper at the request of the Bishop of the Diocese, we may regard that paper as approaching as nearly as possible to an authoritative declaration of the principles and purposes of the Union.
What, then, did the President of the English Church Union say? What line did he pursue? The subject of discussion was “Proposals for Liturgical Improvement,” and Canon Venables accordingly made several important practical suggestions which he thought might tend without the slightest alteration of principle to increase the interest of our Liturgical worship. But the President of the English Church Union did nothing of the kind. He made one proposal, and one only, namely, that those who wished to do so should be at liberty to abandon our present Prayer Book altogether, and adopt in its place the First Book of Edward VI. His words were: “In discussing the question of Liturgical Improvement, the proposal I have to make aims not so much at any change in our existing Prayer Book, as at the alternative use along with it of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.” Nor was this all, for almost immediately afterwards he awowed his preference for the unreformed liturgies, and the Use of Sarum, above our English Prayer Book. He said, “Those who are at all acquainted with the unreformed Service books of the English Church must often have wondered how it came to pass that from a revision of originals so rich and varied as the Sarum Breviary, and the great English rite of S. Osmund, there should have resulted anything so meagre in comparison with them as our existing daily Offices and Liturgy.” There is no mistaking these plain and outspoken words. There is the distinct avowal of a preference for the unreformed Service books, while our own Prayer Book is described as being so meagre in companion with them that it is a wonder how it could have been derived from such rich and varied sources. Nor is this an isolated sentence. In another passage, he says, “In this respect it is impossible to deny that our existing Communion Office is open to grave exception.” The one object of the whole paper, indeed, is to give such evidence of the inferiority of our existing Liturgy as may induce the Bishops to give permission (which, of course, they have no power to do) for the substitution under certain circumstances of another book.
It is of no use, therefore, any longer to maintain the delusion that the movements of the English Church Union are prompted by any love for the English Prayer Book. That book is condemned as “meagre,” and “open to grave exceptions.” The preference is given to the unreformed services, and especially to the Use of Sarum; and it must be plainly understood that if anything is suggested as a via media or a modus vivendi, the two parties between whom it must be a via media are on the one hand those who avow their preference for the Use of Sarum, and on the other those who with their whole heart delight in the reformed worship of our dear old Church of England.
But I have heard it said that the Use of Sarum was itself a reformed service, and free from many of the abuses of Rome. Thus Mr. Wood calls it “The great English rite of S. Osmund.” But surely he was mistaken in that expression, for, though used in England, it was not an English rite. Osmund was a Norman Count, and having fought in the army of William the Conqueror, was, as a reward for his services, first created Earl of Dorset, and then appointed Bishop of Salisbury. At the time of his appointment there was great religious dissension in the country occasioned by the introduction of the Gallican liturgy by William the Conqueror, which was resisted by the English; and Osmund compiled the Use of Sarum in order, if possible, to harmonize all parties. His chief work, therefore, was to introduce, as far as possible, the Gallican element; and in no sense whatever can that use be called “The great English rite of S. Osmund.”
But its origin is of little importance as compared with its contents. The great question is, “What is the real character of the book which is thus preferred to our ‘meagre’ English Prayer Book?” And it would be an important contribution to the present controversy if any of those who exalt its excellence would inform us of any one particular in which it differs in principle from the Romish Missal and Breviary. There is not space in such a paper as this for the investigation of its identity in all important points with the liturgies of Rome; but it would be extremely interesting to know in what that richness consists of which we heard so high an encomium at the Derby Church Congress.
Three things may be briefly mentioned:
(1.) The Use of Sarum was certainly rich in Legends, and that to the exclusion of Scripture. On such a subject we surely cannot have a better authority than the preface to that First Book of Edward VI., which is now so strongly recommended. In that Preface it is said:
“These many years past this godly and decent order of the ancient fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected by planting in uncertain stories, legends, responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals, that commonly, when any book of the Bible was begun, before three or four chapters are read out, all the rest were unread.”