(1). Gardiner refers to the prayers offered for the living and the dead after the consecration as a proof that the Eucharist was still to be regarded as a sacrifice offered in their behalf. When the Second Prayer Book appeared the prayers for the dead were omitted, and the prayers for the living were shifted to a place after the Offertory and before the consecration.

(2). Gardiner asserts that the doctrine of the Real Presence is implied in the prayer wherein we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to us the Body and Blood of Christ.' In the Second Prayer Book this prayer was altered.

(3). Gardiner thinks that an adoration of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament is implied in the kneeling of the priest and the prayer (now called the 'prayer of humble access), which then stood after the consecration and before the Communion. In the Second Prayer Book this prayer was put before the consecration.

(4). Gardiner points out that in 'the distribution' of Holy Communion it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are 'under the form of bread and wine. In the Sarum Missal the ordinary formula for administering was, 'The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life. Amen.' But in the Mass at which Communion was first given to the newly confirmed a stronger formula was employed: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and thy soul unto everlasting life. Amen.' In the First Prayer Book this latter formula was used at every Mass with a short addition. In the Second Prayer Book it was expunged and replaced by the words: Take, and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.'

6

(5). Gardiner points out that the rubric attached to the Mass of 1549 says: And every one [i.e. of the

consecrated hosts] shall be divided into two pieces at the least, and so distributed, and men must not think less to be received in part than in whole, but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ.' In the Second Prayer Book this was

omitted.

We should notice that the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei were omitted. The omission must have been dictated by a desire to deny that the Blessed One is present in the Sacrament and that He is there to be adored as the Lamb of God. The same intention is manifested in the Black Rubric appended to the Communion Service of 1552. It is there declared that kneeling at Communion does not mean that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body, to be in more places than in one at one time.' This declaration was added by the Council of their own accord, against the wishes of Cranmer, three days before the stated day of publication.

It may be truly urged that the Second Prayer Book here and there manifests a desire to retain Catholic forms where they might escape notice. It is also true that the actual form of the Communion Service, apart from the Black Rubric, does not condemn any Catholic doctrine, and that the prayer of consecration is possibly derived from the Catholic Mozarabic rite, either directly or indirectly through the German form used

in Brandenburg and Nürnberg.1 And it is probable that the book is in some true sense a well-meant compromise. Men like Cranmer were perhaps afraid that the whole Church of England would break in pieces before the attacks of Zwinglians and Anabaptists. They may have feared the extreme Protestants more than the extreme mediævalists. But the fact remains that the Second Prayer Book made it, for the first time, possible for adherents of the English Reformation to hold fundamentally heretical views with regard to an ordinance of Christ, and yet maintain that their views were justified by the services of the Church. The whole book is also marked by the essentially schismatical principle that a laudable practice of the Catholic Church ought to be abolished if it has been misused. All experience proves that regulation and not abolition is the real cure, and that abolition will simply bring about an unreasoning reaction. Queen Mary and the English Jesuits are the answer which history has given to King Edward and the Calvinists.

The Second Prayer Book received no sanction on the part of the Church of England. Its publication was a gross breach of faith, as the Council had falsely declared in a previous statute of Parliament that it was an explanation and perfection of the former 'Order of Common Service.' Side by side with the revision of the Prayer Book, Cranmer and others were engaged on the compilation of Forty-two Articles of Religion. They were published with royal authority in May 1552. They carefully deny the doctrine of the Real Presence, and when these Articles were taken in the reign of Elizabeth as the basis for our present Thirty-nine Articles, it was found necessary to

1 With regard to the actual words of consecration we should note that they are practically the same in the First and Second Prayer Book. But in the First Book they are connected with a definite prayer involving the doctrine of the Real Presence.

erase this and numerous other statements of a Protestant character. The Forty-two Articles were not sanctioned by the Church of England, but the Council, with lying effrontery, published them with a title-page asserting that they had been agreed upon by the bishops in Convocation.

CHAPTER V

THE ANGLICAN RESTORATION

As far as they (which are of the Church of Rome) follow reason and truth, we fear not to tread the selfsame steps wherein they have gone, and to be their followers. RICHARD HOOKER, Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. v. ch. 28, § 1. A.D. 1594.

§ 1. The Elizabethan Settlement.

IT has been remarked that each of the three royal children of Henry VIII. probably intended to follow one aspect of Henry's religious policy. Henry's strong opposition to Rome was inherited by Edward VI., who, if he had lived, would probably have reduced the Church of England to a Calvinistic sect. Mary was a mediævalist by conviction, but with a stronger leaning towards Rome than had been commonly found in English sovereigns of the medieval period. Elizabeth, on the other hand, represented the policy of moderation and reformed Catholicism to which the liturgical changes of Henry's reign and The Bishops' Book had pointed. The difficulties which confronted her in carrying out her policy were enormous. The moderate or Anglican party was small in numbers, and moderation was not always united with enthusiasm. The mediæval party was very strong. Edward's excesses had caused a decided reaction in favour of medieval worship, although the reaction was weakened by