And of these Legends, etc., the same preface adds, “Some be untrue, some uncertain, some vain and superstitious.” If it is the omission of such Legends as these that makes our Prayer Book “meagre,” all I can say is, Let us thank God for its meagreness.
(2.) Then, again, the Use of Sarum was rich in complicated and senseless ceremonial. The Preface already quoted says of these ceremonies:
“Some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet, at length, turned to vanity and superstition; some . . . because they were winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which, not only for their unprofitableness, but also because they have much blinded the people and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected.”
It may be well, perhaps, to give one illustration from the Sarum Missal: “Here let the priest uncover the cup, and make the sign of the cross with the host five times—first beyond the cup on every side, secondly even with the cup, thirdly within the cup, fourthly as the first, fifthly before the cup.” This is given simply as a specimen, and some may say that there is no harm in it. But I can scarcely believe it possible that anyone will hesitate to apply to it the language of the Preface, “This excessive multitude of ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that, they did more confound and darken than declare and set forth Christ’s benefits unto us.”
(3.) The Use of Sarum was rich in saint worship. For example, in the Missal the priest did not confess to God alone (I suppose that would have been meagre), but was directed to say, “I confess to God, to blessed Mary, to all the saints, and to you; because I have sinned too much by thought, word, and deed by my fault: I pray holy Mary, all the saints of God, and you to pray for me.” Again, in the Litany, the Use of Sarum was far in excess of the modern Church of Rome. In the modern Romish Litany I count only forty-seven persons to whom prayer is addressed, including the Virgin, two arch-angels, and the twelve apostles; but in the Use of Sarum according to Bishop Short, [8] there were no less than 116 persons addressed. Possibly some Gallican saints may have been added by S. Osmund. On that point I am not prepared to speak; but of this I am certain, that in regard to the worship of saints, all true English Churchmen will rejoice in the meagreness of the Church of England Prayer Book, and have no desire for the richness of the Use of Sarum.
Now this is the book which, before the assembled Church Congress at Derby, was avowedly preferred to our English Prayer Book. When, therefore, it is said that there is a clear preference for the worship of Rome, no one can any longer regard it as a calumnious or unfounded accusation. We have the open, plain, and undisguised avowal of the President of the English Church Union, that the English Prayer Book is “meagre,” and the Use of Sarum rich; the English Communion Office open to grave objections, and the unreformed liturgies so superior, that it is a wonder how anything so inferior as the English Prayer Book could have been compiled from such rich materials. Let no one, therefore, from this day forward, suppose that it is the object of the Union to uphold the Reformed Church of England, or to maintain its worship; but let it be clearly and distinctly understood, that the preference has been publicly given to the Use of Sarum and the unreformed liturgies.
But the avowal of a preference, it may be said, is not a proposal; and if we had nothing more than such an avowal, it might be supposed that there was no intention of any practical action. Such a supposition, however, is rendered impossible by the proposal which followed, viz., that there should be the alternative use of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.
Now let anyone look for a moment at the line of argument, and the meaning of this proposal is self-evident.
The argument is, that because the unreformed liturgies and the Use of Sarum are superior to our English Prayer Book, therefore we are to give the liberty to make use of the First Book instead of our own. Is it not obvious that the whole force of the argument depends on the fact that the First Book of Edward approximates to these unreformed liturgies more nearly than does our present book? It is preferred because it is more in accordance with that which is considered the best, viz., the Use of Sarum. This proposal, when regarded in connection with the avowed preference, carries with it its own condemnation, and ought at once to put all true Churchmen on their guard.
We are brought to exactly the same conclusion by the historical position of the book. The Reformation was not a sudden act, and our English Prayer Book was not born in a day. The work began with the King’s Primer in A.D. 1545, which was followed in A.D. 1548 by the first Communion Service—the chief object of which was the restoration of the cup to the laity; but the first reformed Liturgy for morning and evening worship was the First Book of Edward VI., in A.D. 1549. Now let no one undervalue, for one moment, the greatness, or importance, of the work which was accomplished in the publication of this book. The compilers cleared away such a vast amount of Romish superstition and error that it is impossible not to admire the courage and wisdom with which they acted. They were perfectly justified, therefore, in describing it as a godly book, and in ascribing their success to the gracious help of the Holy Spirit Himself; nevertheless, when the book was published it was found that there were some parts in it which still required alteration, and a revision became necessary. There were certain things still left which required removal, so that when any further change was objected to by the Papists it was answered: “That it was no wonder that the corruptions which they had been introducing for above a thousand years were not all discovered and thrown out at once” (Bishop Burnet). Besides which, there were certain expressions which it was just possible to understand in the Romish sense. [10] It was clearly of the utmost importance to avoid the possibility of any such doubt or misapprehension; and as the Reformers had no desire that their trumpet should give an uncertain sound, the book was carefully revised. In the Act of Parliament which sanctioned the revision the reason was given as follows:—