48ο

BOOKS RECEIVED

lise of reason. Reason first of all demonstrates God, and God’s perfection is the basis and criterion of right and wrong. The discussion
is clear and close and cogent, but perhaps it would have been better to
assist the intelligence of the reader by a greater number of chapter­
headings, marking the framework and sequence of the argument.

BOOKS RECEIVED
(Reviewed in present issue
Benziger Bros., New York.
The Early Friends of Christ. By Jos.
■ P. Conroy, S.J. Pp. 222. Price,
{1,75.
My God and My All.
By Fr. Lasance. Pp. 287. Price,
35 c. and upwards.
Blackwell, Oxford.
More's Eutopia. Translated by G.
C. Richards. Pp. xxi. 138. Price,
5s. net.
William Hemminge's
Elegy on Randolph’s Finger. With
Introduction by G. C. MooreSmith. Pp. 35. Price, 3s. 6d. n.
Blaise Benziger, New York.
General Legislation in the New Code.
By V. Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac. Pp.
384. Price, 12s. 6d.
Borns, Oates & Washbourne.
London.
The Catholic Students ”Aids” to the
Study of the Bible. By Hugh Pope,
O.P. Vol. HI. With Maps. Pp.
xiv. 461. Price, 7s. 6d.
Sir
Edward Widdington. By a Catholic
Gentleman. Pp. 32. Price, 5s.,.
Stories in School.':,. With Intro­
duction by Rev. F. H. Drink­
water.
Pp. 195·
Price, 5s.
The Pope’s Encyclical on St. Francis
of Sales. Price, 3d.
Monica’s
Mistakes. By C. J. Oddie. Pp.
158. Price, 3s. 6d.
A Priest's
Prayer and other Poems. By Allan
Ross, Cong.Orat. Pp. 88. Price,
3s. 6d.
The Roman Martyrology.
Translated. Pp. xvi. 156. Price,
los.
Up and down Lourdes. By
Edith Cowell. Pp. 108. Price,
3s. 6d.
Time's Gift. By Celest
Zanetti. Pp. 47. Price, 2s. 6d.
Catholic Truth Society, London.
• Several Twopenny Pamphlets.
Cecil Palmer, London.
Proof of the Existence of God. By
C. E. PelL
Pp. 180.
Price,
7s. 6d. net.
Dessain, Mechlin.
Epitome furis Canonici. Tom. III.
By A. Vermeersch, S.J., and J.
Crensen, S.J. Pp. xii. 397.
Price, 15.00 fr.
De Objectis et
Actibus ad Justitiam pertinentibus.

By E. Van Rosy.
Pp. 62.

4th edit.

or reserved for future notice.)
Encyclopedia Press, London. '
Supplement to the Catholic Encyclo­
pedia. Pp. 786. Price, 30s.
Examinee Press, Bombay.
History of England Series: Later
Medieval Period. By E. R. Hull,
S.J. Pp. 152. Price, 12 annas.
Fisher Unwin, London.
Climbs on Alpine Peaks.
By His
Holiness Pius XI.
Illustrated.
Pp. 136. Price, 8s. 6d. net.
Hurst & Blackett, London.
The Soul-Sifters. By A, J. Anderson.
Pp. viii. 279. Price, 7s. 6d. net.
Kegan Paul & Co., London.
Scientific Thought. By C. D. Broad,
M.A. Pp. 555. Price, 16s. net.
Longmans, London.
The Arts in Greece. By F. A. Wright.
Pp. viii. in. The Creed for the
Twentieth Century.
By C._G.
Harrison. Pp. xv. 128. Price,
4s. 6d. net.
An Order for the
Administration of Holy Communion
in the Diocese of Bombay. Pp. x.
53. Price, as.Gd. net.
Macmillan & Co., London,
The Nature of ' Intelligence’ and the
Principles of Cognition. By C.
Spearman. Pp. viii. 358. Price,
15s. net.
'
Sands & Co., London.
The Little Ones. By Mother Mary
Eaton. Pp. 137. Price, 2s. 6d. n,
S.P.C.K., London.
The Prelude to the Reformation. By
R. S. Arrowsmith, M.A.
Pp.
xii. 226. Price, 8s. net.
Society of SS. Peter and Paul,
London.
Congress Booklets.
By various
authors. Price, 3d. each.
Talbot Press, Dublin.
Gemma Galgani. By Ph. Coghlan,
C.P. Pp. 122. Price, 2s. net.
TÉQUi, Paris.
., —
Au Seuil de la Vie. By Abbé F.
Delerue. 2 Vols. Pp. eü282. Price, to.oo fr.
Vatican Press, Rome.
_
Il Primato di S. Pietro. By. N.
Cardinal Marini. 2nd edition.)
Pp. xx. 373. Price,

HOW CRANMER “ REVISED ” THE
SARUM MISSAL
ATHOLIC interest in the proposed revision of the
liturgy of the Anglican Church, of which the
National Assembly has given a “general approval”
and which is now in process of being discussed in detail,
centres in the revelation thereby afforded of the parlous state
of the Establishment. When Bishop contends with Bishop
as to the contents and meaning of the Anglican creed, what
wonder that the “ Ecclesia discens ” joins whole-heartedly
in the fray, and that all the various sects, united merely by
their legal constitution and called euphemistically “schools
of thought,” betray their deep-seated divergencies. Prayer
naturally follows belief: we adore Christ because we be­
lieve Him divine; we invoke Our Lady and the Saints
because we believe in their power of intercession; we pray
for the souls in Purgatory because we believe that our prayers
can help them. Accordingly, common prayer must be based
on common belief, and it is precisely because there is no
common belief amongst Anglicans that all this trouble about
the Book of Common Prayer has arisen. A revised PrayerBook, which would assume only those points of faith that
are shared by all “schools of thought” in the English
Church, would be a very small volume indeed and contain
very little that was distinctivély Christian. Hence the des­
perate remedy of “alternative uses”1 embodying different
beliefs, and thereby proclaiming the Church of England to
be what Catholics have always known her—a State-creation,
the work of man’s hands, without authority to teach and only
deriving her authority to rule from the State which made
her. No authority that does not speak in the name of God
can define infallibly, and therefore impose acceptanceof,
the truths that God has revealed. Hence the impossibility
of establishing in the Church of England a uniform code of
worship, for that Church, in spite of the aid of the secular.

G

■ This suicidal policy, which would *»**·»■£
the Anglican Church the confession that s e
leader) ** the
strangely enough, favoured by the Church Timer (Apnl aotn, tew /
only possible solution of the crisis.

VOL. CXLI.

JUNE, IJW·

48 z

HOW CRANMER “ REVISED ” THE SARUM MISSAL

power, has never been able to secure the necessary pre­
requisite—uniformity of belief.
The attempt, as we know, was made under Edward, under
Elizabeth, and under Charles II. The Prayer-Books of
1549 ( 1st Edward), of 1552 (2nd Edward), of 1559
(Elizabeth), and of 1662 (Charles) were the results. Why
any objection should be taken to the revision of a Book so
frequently revised before, why Cranmer and the Caroline
divines should be supposed to have said the last word on
Anglican liturgy, whereas their successors in the Episcopate
have the same power, or—since the setting up of the National
Assembly—even more, to. alter and amend the forms of wor­
ship in the State Church, is apt to puzzle the outsider until
he realizes that the contest is in essence about points of
doctrine. The old-fashioned Protestants are in deadly fear
lest, under pretence of bringing the liturgy “up-to-date,”
something more than revising the English and excising
strong passages from the Psalms may be accomplished, viz.,
the recognition of the Communion Service as a sacrifice, with
all· that such recognition implies ; that is, the restoration
of the Mass as the main feature of Anglican worship.
That being so, it may be of interest to recall, using the
classic, researches of Gasquet and Bishop1 as a basis, what
exactly Cranmer did when he turned the Sarum Missal into
the. Book, of Common Prayer. We. know what he did with
the Ordination-service, for the Holy See, by an irreformable
judgment, has. decided, that that rite, mutilated to express
the. heretical mind of Cranmer,. is incapable o£ conferring
the Sacrament.® The same heretical mind was at work, as
we shall see, even in the first “ revision” of theSarumMissal,
in order to abolish the Sacrifice of the Mass,
Before examining what Cranmer did to the Sarum Missal,
a word must be said in explanation of the Sarum Missal
itself. In the. Middle Ages nearly every cathedral in Eng­
land celebrated the Mass according to its own "use” or
local adaptation of the Roman rite. The neighbouring
parish churches followed the model, set by their cathedral.
But, as many of the English sees-had a monastic cathedral,
and as Religious Orders followed a use peculiar to them• selves, it would often happen that the secular clergy of a
' Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer (Hodges).
* For a convenient summary of the argument against Anglican Orders see
Whaf Cranmer meant to do and didi by Father Joseph Rickaby (C.T.S. : id;)·

HOW CRAN MER “REVISED" THE SARUM MISSAL

483

parish church would have to adopt the use of some secular
cathedral outside their own diocese. For reasons which it
is unnecessary to discuss here, most of the secular clergy;
adopted the use of Salisbury Cathedral. This Sarum Missal
was originally compiled, shortly after the Norman Conquest;;
by St. Osmund, a Norman, Bishop of Salisbury, or Sarum.
It represents, in the main the Roman rite of the eleventhcentury, with the addition of a few Norman customs. The
Sarum priest recited in the sacristy, while vesting, the Psalm!
" Judica,” the “ Pater ’’ and ‘‘Ave/’ At the foot of the altar,
he used a shortened form of the Confiteor, like that of the
Dominicans, followed by the “ Misereatur vestri.’’: Wine
and water were put into the chalice before the Gospel; and
at the offertory, chalice and Host were offered together, with
the prayersSuscipe, Sancta Trinitas ’’ and “In spiritu,
humilitatis." After the Lavabo the priest said "Orate
fratres et sorores.” From the preface onward;.through the
Canon, the Sarum Mass was word for word and gesture7 by­
gesture that of our Missals to-day, except: that .a profound
inclination took the place of the genuflection, and after the
Elevation the priest stood with arms outstretched in the form
of a cross. At High Mass, a ritual fan, made of rich
materials, was waved over the celebrant by a deacon. Before
his Communion the priest said this prayer, peculiar to the
Sarum use:

Ave in ætemum, sanctissima caro Christi, mihi ante omnia,
et super omnia summa dulcedo. Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu
Christi sit mihi peccatori via et vita. In nomine Patris et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti.1
.....

Such, in brief, was the Sarum “ use,” which, at the death
of Henry VIII. (January 28, 1347), was as yet intact.
Bishop Gardiner' celebrated a solemn requiem according to
Sarum for that monarch on the day of his funeral. But
the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist had long been
denied by the Continental Reformers, and the new teaching,
had filtered into England and given-occasion to violent dis­
cussions as to the manner of Christ’s presence in the Blessed
Sacrament. Among the lowest classes the profane had been
quick to seize the opportunity for revolting blasphemies.
» Hail for evermore; thou mœt holy flwb of
âe4
beyondIcings beside To me .
gr % Body of Our Lord /esu,
Christ be the Way and the Life- 1» the Nsrne, etc.

484

Λ:»,

PS :f
I'M t
y
I

■ill
Tv
y. ■.

HOfr CRANMER “ REVISED "THE SARUM MISSAL

Ribald men were applying such blasphemous epithets to the
Blessed Sacrament as “ Jack-in-the-Box,” “ the Sacrament
of the Halter “i; and the sacred words of Consecration,
“Hoc est Corpus,” had been corrupted into "Hocus Pocus,”
as the refrain of popular ballads.3
. Naturally such profanities gravely shocked the conscience
of the people, who, in spite of their confused notions about
the authority of the Pope, still retained their devotion to the
Blessed Sacrament, and there was an outcry of resentment.
Somerset and Cranmer saw in this popular disturbance a
means for advancing their own ends. Promptly (November,
1847) they, introduced into Parliament a “Bill for the
Sacrament of the Altar,” to suppress the growing irrever­
ence to the Blessed Sacrament. Towards the end of the
month, after the second reading of this Bill, which met with
great favour from the Catholic-minded party, they tacked
on to it a clause providing for the administration of Com­
munion under both kinds, as being conformable to the primi­
tive practice of the Church. After some difficulty the Bill
was passed, and in the following March (1548) Cranmer
drew up the Order of Communion, a ritual in English for
the communion of the laity under both kinds, to be inserted
in the Latin Mass. It contained a part called the “Warning
of Communion,” which ; shows Cranmer’s ultimate aim.
Some days before the Communion a notice must be read out,
stating on what day “the parson intends to administer it.”
Communion was to be restricted to Sundays and Holydays. By this subtle and specious innovation Cranmer paved
the way for the abolition of Masses at which there were no
communicants. That it was only a preparation for more
radical changes is seen from contemporary documents.
There is extant a document in Cranmer’s own handwriting,*
containing a series of questions submitted to the bishops of
England at the very time that the Order of Communion was
being written. The questions are tentative and are evidently,
meant to sound the bishops as to how far it was expedient
to go in the matter of the abolition of the Mass. One ques­
tion begins thus in Cranmer’s hand: “Whether it be con­
venient the accustomed . .
This is struck out, and over
it is written “What is the Mass?” This is again struck
* Nichols, Narratives of the Days of the Reformation.
* Froude, The Reign of Edward VI.
J C.C. C.C. : MS. 105. Quoted bjr Gasquet and Bishop.

JS

w-

HOW CRANMER “ REVISED ” THE SARUM MISSAL

485

out, and changed into “Wherein consisteth the Mass by
Christ’s institution?”
The other questions may be summed up thus: “What
is the Mass for? for sacrifice or communion?” “Shall we
do away with the Mass offered for the living and the dead,
as distinct from Communion?” “ Should the Gospel be ex­
plained at the Mass to the people?" “ Should the Mass be
in English?” The answers given by the bishops to these
questions are of great importance. The Henricians replied
in the Catholic sense, Bonner and five others submitting a
joint answer; but Cranmer, whose mind was most probably
made up when he framed the questions, gives clear, laconic
answer in the plain Lutheran sense. He writes that the
oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the Mass are terms im­
properly used, and that it is only a memory and representa­
tion of the sacrifice of the Cross. The Mass had no virtue
of itself, its virtue being limited to the reception of the
Sacrament. Mass offered for the living and the dead,’apart
from Communion, should not be allowed to continue. ·
While this questionnaire was being answered, Somerset
and Cranmer made use of the pulpit to bring about a change
in public opinion favourable to the reforms at which they
were aiming. Latimer, for instance, preached Eis famous
Plough Sermon at St. Paul’s (January 18, 1548)1;
Where the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, down
with Christ’s cross, up with superstition and idolatry. This is the
mark at which the devil shooteth, to evacuate the Cross of
Christ. These 1,500 years he hath been a doer, only purposing ·
to evacuate Christ’s death and to make it of small efficacy and
virtue. For whereas Christwould be exalted,that thereby as many
as trusted in him should have salvation,the devil would none of
that: they would have us saved by a daily oblation propitiatory,
by a sacrifice expiatory, or remissory.

PB
|t
s; &
if
o
y·

Ο

ii
■

- 'F?!

'1®

Meanwhile the land was flooded with pamphlets, dedi­
cated to the King and the Lord Protector, stigmatizing the
Mass as wicked and devilish. The time seemed now ripe
for Cranmer to take the step he had long been meditating.
The Order of Communion of 1548 had been adopted by
some in its entirety, by others in part, by others not at all,
and everything was in confusion. The Government decided
to remedy the confusion by a "uniform, quiet and godly
> Latimer “ Sermon.-”

Parker Sec., PP-7^·

5

*

I’1' '"'I'HWMM

486

HOW CR ANMER “ REVISED ” THE SARÜM MISSAL

order, rite and fashion, of common and open prayer and
administration of the Sacraments.” This was the first Book
of Common Prayer, in the inspiration and composition of
which Cranmer had the chief part. On its completion, thé
Book waâ presented to Parliament and debated in the Lords.
Of this debate, which began on December 15, 1548, and
lasted four days, full notes are preserved in the Royal MS.
in the British Museum, unique of their kind and first brought
to light by Gasquet and Bishop.1 After some irregular dis­
cussion about the Bill in general, Somerset “ commanded
the Bishops to fall to some point, and willed them to dis­
pute whether bread be in the Sacrament after the Conse­
cration, or not.” The account of the debate reads, in some
respects, like one of the weekly scholastic disputations in
a theological seminary. Quotations from the early Fathers,
familiar to anyone who has done the scholastic treatise, “ De
Eucharistia,” were hurled from one bishop to another, to
be rebutted by other quotations from a different part of the
same work. Both sides appealed to St. Augustine in sup*~
port of their own doctrine. The Bishop of Bath cited a
passage from “Sermo 272,” which seems against the real
présence : “ Fecit -corpus sunm, id est figuram corporis sui."
Thirlby of Westminster quoted from the “Enarratio in
Psalmum '98,“ the passage 11 Adorate scabellum pedum.
Terra est scabellum. Caro significat terram,” which proves
that the Blessed Sacrament is to be adored. St. John
Damascene, St. Chrysostom, Theophilact, Eusebius, St.
ïrenæus, Origen, Tertullian, are all quoted. Cranmer made
a Jong speech in defence of a virtual presence:
Th ey be two things, to eat the Sacrament, and to eat the Body
of Christ. The eating of the Body is to dwell in Christ, and
this inay be, although a man never taste the Sacrament. The
wicked eat the Sacrament. But the wicked eat not the Body of
Christ, but their own condemnation.

■

|
ï

Therefore the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Tun­
stall, in reply, instead of distinguishing the above premisses,
gave the argument from Scripture: “His body is in bread
and wine, because God hath spoken it, which is able to do it,
saying ‘This is my body.’” Cranmer at once retorted : “ If
the evil man .eat his body, he hath life everlasting." They
did tiot argue in strict scholastic form, and consequently
■ Royal MS. 17B. xxxix., ci. Gasquet ànd Bishop. Appendix V.

.

m

HOW CRANMER “ REVISED ” THE SARUM MISSAL

487
H'V

never kept to one point at a time. Occasionally Somerset
interrupted in anger, urging the bishops to agree to the Book.,
But no agreement was reached. One interesting remark,
made by Thirlby of Westminster shows that the Book had
been tampered with after it had been first presented to
receive the bishops’ signatures. The word “ Oblation,”
which was in it then, had been removed.
After the debate had lasted four days the Book of Com­
mon Prayer was passed. Of the bishops thirteen were
favourable, ten unfavourable, and four absent. It was em­
bodied in the Act of Uniformity and became law on WhitSunday, 1549.
It is one of the most momentous documents in the eccle­
siastical history of England, as it displaced, for the first
time, the liturgy which had been followed ever since-the
conversion of England to Christianity. It is a .compromise,
and still marks -only an intermediary 'Stage. Entirely
Lutheran in spirit, it keeps as much as,possible of the Sarum ~
form to avoid giving- too great a shock to .the .people. The
manifest aim was to remove the sacrificial, character of the
Mass. Eirst, the name is changed. The new.title is: “The
Supper of the Lord and Holy Communion commonly called
the Mass.” -Notice is to be.given beforehand of intending
communicants, and no service is to be .held unless there are
communicants. “ The priest shall,wear a white alb, plain,
with a vestment, or a cope,” i.e.^ the use of the ordinary
vestments is made optional. The .service was opened by
<
the clerks’ singing in English, for .the Introit, a Psalm ap­
pointed for the day.. In this,particular.point-Cranmer could
claim a return to a more ancient usage, for originally the
Introit of the Mass was a .whole Psalm, cut down in the
eighth or ninth century to two or three .verses. The Con­
fiteor, regarded by Lutherans as a preparation for sacrifice,
was omitted. Instead of the “Judica,” the priest recites
the Lord’s Prayer (as in the Sarum Missal) and a collect.
Kyrie, Gloria, Collects, Epistle, Gospel, and Credo, are all
retained, because these prayers indicate praise and thanks­
giving and not specially sacrifice. At this point occurs a
distinct break. In the Sarum use the priest is directed to
lift up Chalice and Host in both hands, offering the sacrifice
to the Lord, reciting the two sacrificial prayers, "Suscipe,
” These
Sancta Trinitas " and ** Γη
Γ spiritu
* humilitatis.
■’"*
“
The
priest
prayers and gestures were entirely suppressed.

(v

■l;

-' it' 'J
- 1:5

ii

1
*

a

SX

1

488

HOW CRANMER “ REVISED » THE SARUM MISSAL

was simply to place the bread and wine on the altar with­
out any ceremony. For the notion of oblation was substi­
tuted the collecting of money for the poor man’s box, and
verses of Scripture appropriate to almsdeeds were sung. In
this way the word “ Offertory ” has come to mean in Eng­
lish “a collection”—a sense wanting to the word in other
languages.
After this, “so many as shall be partakers of Holy Com­
munion shall tarry in the choir, all the rest departing’’—a
rubric which seems to compare non-Communicants to
Catechumens, excluded from the "Missa Fidelium.” The
Preface and Sanctus then followed as in the Sarum Missal.
We now enter upon the Canon, which with the exception of
one short clause added by St. Gregory, has remained prac­
tically unchanged for 1,300 years. Cranmer dared not sup­
press this hallowed prayer, but considerably modified it.
The ancient rubrics of the Canon were all-swept away, and
the following substituted:
(1) The prayer shall be said or sung plainly, and
distinctly;
(2) there shall be no elevation, or showing of the host
’
to the people;
(3) the elements shall be taken into the hands by the
communicants.
All the phrases of the Canon indicative of sacrifice were
changed. In the “Te igitur” the words “ haec dona, haec
munera, haec sancta sacrificia” were converted into “these
■prayers which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty.” In the
Memento for the Living the words “pro quibus tibi offeri­
mus hoc sacrificium ” are changed into “ We commend unto
thy^ merciful goodness this congregation which is here
assembled, to celebrate the commemoration of the death of
thy most glorious son.” Instead of “Hanc igitur obla­
tionem” there is quite a different prayer: .
O God, Heavenly Father, which of Thy tender mercy didst
give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross
for our redemption, who made there (by His one oblation, once
made) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satis­
faction for the sins of the whole world . . . etc.

In the “Quam oblationem,” instead of the words "ut
nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii Tui,”1 these
. · ”that they [the elements of bread and wine] may become for us the Body
and Blood of thy Best Beloved Son?*

HOH7 CRANMER “ REVISED” THE SARUM MISSAL

489

ambiguous words, capable of expressing either a real or only
a virtual presence, are put: “ that they may, be unto us the
Body and Blood of thy Son.”
The Consecration prayer, “ .Qui pridie,” was substantially
unchanged.
In the prayer “Unde et memores,” where Sarum has
"hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam,”
the new service has “ we offer unto Thee ourselves, our souls,
and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto
Thee.” All reference to the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham and
Melchisedech was omitted. Other new, and certainly very
beautiful prayers were inserted here, expressing the idea of
oblation, but it is only the oblation of the Faithful, united
by faith and love to Christ, and not the oblation of Jesus
Christ Himself. There was no commingling of the sacred
elements. The remaining deviations from the Sarum Missal
have no special significance.
The above equivocal service, meant to satisfy the
Lutheran without being quite intolerable to the Catholic,
naturally failed to satisfy either. Many even of the London
parishes refused to conform ; Oxford and Cambridge clung
to the heritage of the past; open rebellion broke out in
Devon and Cornwall. On the other hand, Peter Martyr,
Bullinger and their followers were displeased at the amount
of Popery in the new service. As a measure of Uniformity
it was a conspicuous failure, for it produced the greater
diversity. Bishop Gardiner’s attitude 'was curious. ; “He
adopted the policy, whether rightly or wrongly [says Car­
dinal Gasquet] of contesting every inch of ground with the
innovators, and putting a Catholic, even if a strained, inter­
pretation upon the words of the new service.” A strenuous
upholder of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the
Mass, he maintained that the Book of Common Prayer was
in accordance with these, doctrines. The intercession for
the living and the dead he understands as a sign that the
new service is a propitiatory sacrifice. In the prayer be­
fore the Consecration, the priest asks “ that these creatures
of bread and wine be to us the Body and Blood of Christ.
“They cannot be,” says Gardiner, "unless God worketh it
and maketh them so to be.” In other words, Gardiner openly
taught that the new rite indicated Transubstantiation as truly
as the Sarum rite.
,
This interpretation of Gardiners brought matters to a

. Y-

490

HOW CRANMER" REVISED ” THESARUM MISSAL

head. Cranmer was driven to repudiate Gardiner's teach·
ing by a more definite move towards Protestantism; and
in view of the confusion and dissension caused by the Ser­
vice Book of I 549, he thought that by 1552 the time had
come to go the full length of the Continental reformers. The
final step was now taken. The Sarum Missal was changed
beyond all possibility of recognition, without any attempt
at compromise, and without leaving any possible loophole
for Catholic-minded bishops. Everything in the first book
upon which Gardiner had fixed as evidence of Catholic doc­
trine was swept away. The Introit was abolished, the Gloria
was transferred to the end of the service, the Kyrie was
altered and embedded in the Ten Commandments. The
intercession for the living and the dead, and the prayer for
the sanctification of the creatures of bread and wine, on
which Gardiner based his argument, were expunged. In
fact, of the Canon little more-was left than the words of
institution. Nothing of the Sarum rite remained save the
Collect, Epistle, Gospel, and Creed. No provision was made
as to the time of placing the bread and wine on the table,
and ordinary bread was to be used instead of unleavened
bread. The table for Communion was to stand in the body
of the church, and the minister was to stand at the north
side of the table inorder to banish all idea .of a sacrificial
altar. The “ Black Rubric " was introduced to explain, lest
the kneeling for Communion should by any persons, either
out of ignorance or infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy,
be misconstrued and;depraved:

That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done,
either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily re­
ceived, or unto any corporeal presence of Christ’s natural flesh
and blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still
in their natural substances; and therefore may not be adored
(for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians),
and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in
Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s
natural body to be at one time in more places than one.
This second Prayer Book was of course swept away by
Queen Mary, but was revived by Elizabeth, with slight altera­
tions, in 1559, disappeared again during the Common­
wealth, was restored at the Restoration, and reimposed with­
out material change in 1662. The ridiculous story that the

HOir CRANMER “ REVISED " THE SARUM MISSAL

491

Pope, if his supremacy were again recognized by the Queen,
would have approved Elizabeth’s Prayer Book, repeated
though it is in many-Protestant “ histories,” is repudiated
by all responsible historians, non-Catholic as well as Catho­
lic.1 That Book was essentially and irredeemably heretical,
and it remains to-day the liturgy of Anglicanism^.
.
Thus was abolished the hallowed rite which had been the
mainspring of religious life in England for a thousand years.
The same hand and brain drew up the mutilated Ordination
Sendee, from „ which all reference to "the power of offering
sacrifice was deliberately removed. In addition, then, to the
evidence afforded by the contents of the Ordinal, Cranmer’s
treatment of the Sarum Missal makes it abundantly clear
that he meant positively to exclude, and succeeded in ex­
cluding, from the Ordinal the intention of consecrating a
sacrificing priesthood.
CLEMENT TIGAR.

1 See “The alleged Papal approval of the Anglican Liturgy,” by J. ft.
Pollen, S.J., Tint Month, Sept. 1902, pp.'374 sqq.