Mass be celebrated in a language understood by the people? 10. When did the practice begin, of reserving the Sacrament, and hanging it up?

The answers of

other Bishops.

To these questions the Commissioners were required to return their answers in writing; and, fortunately, their replies have Cranmer, and for the most part been preserved'. It is impossible to introduce them into these pages; but they who have leisure to inspect them, will find there a curious exhibition of the theology of those days, in its state of transition to greater purity. With the exception of the Primate, and Ridley, (then Bishop of Rochester), not one of the Commissioners

peated it over their bread, which, by the irresistible virtue of the words, was immediately converted into flesh! Fire descended from heaven, on the instant, to avenge their presumptuous ignorance, and struck the offenders dead. Their misfortune filled the holy fathers with dismay; and to prevent a repetition of it, they ordained, under penalty of a curse, that the words of consecration should, thenceforth, be pronounced in a voice inaudible by the congregation. Durandi Rationale. In addition to the reason afforded by this veracious narrative, it was alleged, that as the effect could not be seen, the syllables, which were instrumental to it should on no account be heard. It is no easy matter to reconcile the above notable legend with the principle, that the effect of the Sacrament is, in any way, dependent on the intention of the consecrating minister. According to the above story, the shepherd (who was no minister at all) probably dreamed of nothing so little, as of the miraculous conversion of his meal into the flesh of his Saviour.

They are printed in Burnet, vol. ii. Rec. No. 25.

2 A very complete statement of these answers may be found in Soames's Hist. Reform. vol. iii. p. 241–248.

1

can be confidently pointed out as having discarded every relique of the Romish perversion: nay, there is one point, in which we can discern a very faint tincture of the ancient prejudice adhering to the opinions even of the Primate and his friend. In his answer to the ninth of the above questions, Cranmer replies, that he approves of the vulgar tongue in the Mass; but adds, "except in certain secret mysteries, whereof I doubt." A similar qualification is added by Ridley-" Nevertheless, as concerning

1548.

the part that pertaineth to consecration,

Dionysius and Basil move me to think it no inconvenience, that part should be spoken in silence." This, however, is the only speck that can be detected in their Sacramental doctrine. Their answers to the third and fourth questions, more especially, place it beyond all question, that they had, at this time, both of them thrown away the Romish dogma of a corporeal presence; for they both affirm, that the oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, is so entitled, merely because it is a representation and memorial of his cross and passion; and that nothing can be essential to the Mass but what is set forth respecting it in Scripture 2.

1 It should be observed that to some of these questions several of the Commissioners gave no answer at all.

? Namely, in the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Acts ii.; 1 Cor. x. xi.-Of those who answered the question, respecting the presence, only the Bishops of Lincoln and St. David's, and the two Doctors, Cox and Taylor, agree with Cran→ mer and Ridley; the rest of the Commissioners adhere firmly to

The result of these discussions was the first step towards the conversion of the Mass into

Steps towards Mass into a Comconverting the

munion Service.

what we now call the Communion Service. But even here, the caution and the tact of the Reformers were eminently displayed. The innovation made by them, was the least that could possibly be introduced, consistently with their purpose. They put forth no formal denunciations against the doctrine of transubstantiation; for they, doubtless, perceived that the Canon of the Mass, so far as it relates to the sacramental elements, is very far from necessarily involving the dogma of the corporeal presence1: and, partly for this reason, partly in compliance with the urgency of the case, (for Easter was now approaching), they ordered that

the ancient office of the Mass should be said in the customary manner, down to the reception of the

the Romish doctrine; with the exception of the Bishop of Salisbury, whose language is equivocal.

1 In what is called the Canon of the Mass,-(the only part which the Council of Trent pronounces to be free from all error), the words which are supposed to effect the miraculous change, are as follows-" Which oblation, we beseech thee, O God, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless, approve, ratify, and accept, that it may be made, for us, the body and blood of thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (See the Roman Missal for the use of the Laity, p. xxxv. in the edition of 1815.) Now, although these may not be precisely the words which a Protestant would choose, they are words in the use of which he might join with perfect safety and honesty; for, in his sense of them, they would amount to nothing more than a prayer, that the elements might become, to us, as spiritually efficacious, as the body and blood which they represent.

Sacrament by the Priest. But it was directed that, after the Priest had received it himself, he should turn to the people, and address to them an exhortation, substantially similar to that which is in use at this day. Then followed a warning to impenitent sinners, that they should retire from these holy mysteries, lest the devil should enter into them, as he did into Judas. After this, there was to be a short pause in the service, to give opportunity for those to withdraw, whose conscience might convict them of unrepented transgression. Next came the invitation to the communicants, the confession, and the general absolution, (preceded by a declaration of the power of the Church to absolve penitent sinners 1)—the texts of Scripture, and the acknowledgment of our unworthiness,—all nearly in the same form as in our present office. The Sacrament was then to be administered in both kinds, first to the Ministers present, then to the people, in this form-" The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body unto everlasting life: the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy soul unto everlasting life." The congregation was then to be dismissed with a blessing. The eucharistic bread was still to be in the form of small round cakes, or wafers; each of which, however, was to be broken into two parts, to signify that the virtue of the Sacrament was entirely independent of the quantity received. If the consecration of additional wine should be needed, it was to be done

1 This declaration was afterwards omitted in the Liturgy.

To this new office was

without any new elevation. prefixed a most important rubric, directing the minister to give notice of the communion on the Sunday or holiday next before; and leaving it to the discretion of the penitent, either to confess their sins to God, or, if troubled in conscience, to their own parish Minister, or any learned and discreet Divine. This rubric, together with the office itself, was issued from the press on the 8th March, together with a proclamation, intimating that further improvements were still in contemplation, for which the people were enjoined to wait in reverence and quiet.

We may easily imagine the bitterness of heart with which Gardiner and his whole party must have witnessed this uplifting of the veil, which had, for so many ages, been hanging over the grand mystery of their faith. Their obedience to the order, which enjoined the circulation of the new sacramental office, was tardy and reluctant; and in some places, the dissatisfaction of the parochial clergy was expressed in very violent and dangerous language. One of the complaints against the new service, it must be confessed, appeared sufficiently reasonable. In the prescribed form for the administration of the elements, the body of Christ is spoken of as preserving the body of the communicant, his blood as preserving the soul; as if the chalice were not only indispensable to the integrity of the rite, but of more essential importance and dignity than the bread. There is, however, no cause for believing that this distinction was