The New Mass;
An
Ingenious Essay in Ambiguity
Taken from Cranmer's
Godly Order
by Michael Davies
IN THEIR vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, the English
Catholic bishops urged a comparison of the Missal with Cranmer's 1549
Prayer Book which would reveal a series of omissions "of which the
evident purpose was to eliminate the idea of sacrifice." l
As has been shown in previous chapters, although this prayer book
replaced the Sarum Missal the nature of these omissions can be made
clear by comparing it with the Roman Missal in view of the substantial
identity between the Sarum and Roman rites. The texts of the 1549
Prayer Book and the Sarum Missal are both obtainable. 2
Cranmer entitled his new service "The Supper of the Lorde and the Holy
Communion, commonly called the Masse." This title is an adequate
summary of its nature-----it could be, and was clearly
intended to be, interpreted as a Protestant
"commemoration" of the Lord's Supper but contained nothing specifically
heretical and could be interpreted as a Mass. The word "Mass" was, of
course, dropped from the title of the service in the 1552 Prayer Book
which marked the fourth and final stage in Cranmer's liturgical
revolution, the imposition of a service which could be interpreted as
nothing but a Protestant commemoration. This ambiguity is stressed by
Francis Clark in the most authoritative study of the Eucharistic
doctrine of the Reformers yet undertaken, in which he quotes the
Protestant scholar T. M. Parker:
"The first Prayer Book of Edward VI could not be convicted of overt
heresy, for it was adroitly framed and contained no express denial of
pre-Reformation doctrine. It was, as an Anglican scholar puts it, 'an
ingenious essay in ambiguity', purposely worded in such a manner that
the more conservative could place their own Construction upon it and
reconcile their consciences to using it, while the Reformers would
interpret it in their own sense and would recognise it as an instrument
for furthering the next stage of the religious revolution." 3
Professor A. G. Dickens assesses Cranmer's service as follows: "Though
wholly in the English language, this Prayer Book remained a masterpiece
of compromise, even of studied ambiguity. While it did not specifically
deny Catholic doctrine, its ambiguous phrases were understood by its
author in a Protestant sense and was intended to enable Protestants to
use it with good conscience." 4 Another
Protestant historian, S. T. Bindoff comments: "Its keynote was
compromise, and in that it faithfully reflected the personality of its
chief author. It also reflected his mastery of the language. Melancthon
had once told Cranmer that 'in church it is more proper to call a spade
a spade than to throw ambiguous expressions before posterity '." 5
Ample documentation has been provided in Chapter VIII to demonstrate
that the "reformed" liturgies in general, and the 1549 Prayer Book in
particular, expressed their Protestant ethos principally by what they
rejected from the traditional Latin Mass-----everything
that smacked of oblation, as Luther expressed it. 6
"The liturgy of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer has been exhaustively
studied, and there is wide agreement that its most significant
difference in comparison with the Latin rite which it replaced was the
omission of sacrificial
language." 7 This can be made clear
by examining Cranmer's Communion service in some detail.
The Supper of the Lorde and the
Holy Communion,
Commonly called the Masse
1549
"Even the closest theological scrutiny of the new
composition will not detect anything inconsistent with, or excluding,
Luther's negation of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
"Looking therefore at the characteristics of the new Anglican service
and contrasting it on the one hand with the ancient missal, and on the
other with the Lutheran liturgies, there can be no hesitation whatever
in classing it with the latter, not with the former," writes Cardinal
Gasquet. 8 For this reason, it will be
pertinent to refer to Luther's liturgical innovations while examining
Cranmer's service.
(a) The first part of his new rite corresponds very closely with
Luther's 1523 Latin Mass. Luther stipulated that vestments still in use
could continue to be used, also the word Mass. The service was to begin
with the Introit (the whole psalm to be sung), the Judica me, with its reference to the priest
going "to the altar of God ", and the Confiteor
are both abolished. 9 The confession of sins to Our Lady,
the Saints and Angels and the request for their intercession was
obviously incompatible with the Protestant doctrine of Justification.
It was also regarded, from the Lutheran standpoint, as a sacerdotal
preparation for the sacrifice. 10
Cranmer follows Luther in omitting it.
(b) "Next, according to Luther, there are to follow the Kyrie, Gloria, and the ancient
collects (provided they are pious), the Epistle, Gradual, Gospel and
Nicene Creed." Cranmer follows this pattern but abolishes the Gradual.
(c) Luther says that a sermon may be preached before the Mass or after
the Credo. Cranmer follows
the latter suggestion and adds two exhortations to Holy Communion taken
from the 1548 Order of Communion referred to in Chapter XI. Certain
modifications had been made in these exhortations to make their
Protestant import more clear.
(d) After this there follows in
the "Roman Mass" what Luther describes as "all that abomination called
the Offertory, and from this point almost everything stinks of
oblation". Luther
therefore swept away the whole of the Offertory in the Roman rite and
Cranmer followed suit. "The 'Offertory' now became merely the
collecting of money for the 'poor men's box' and for church dues. Gone
were all the prayers and invocations of the former Latin rite which
spoke of the sacrifice to be performed." 11
A Communion Antiphon is still said or sung "according to the length and
shortness of the tyme, that the people be offering." There is no trace
of such prayers as the following from the Sarum Missal: "Receive, O
Holy Father, this Oblation which I, an unworthy sinner offer in Thine
honour, of Blessed Mary and all Thy Saints, for my sins and offences,
and for the salvation of the living and of all the Faithful departed."
(e) The Orate Fratres and the
Secret Prayer are abolished both by Luther and Cranmer. Both direct
that after completing the preparation of the bread and wine the
minister should begin the Sursum
Corda dialogue preceding the Preface. Dialogue and Preface are
as in the Roman rite and in Cranmer's rite this similarity is enhanced
by keeping the Sanctus in its
traditional position. Luther had postponed it until after the Words of
Institution, though this was not always observed.
(f) The most startling difference between the 1549 Prayer Book and
Luther's 1523 Mass is that the former keeps a version of the Canon
while Luther had cast aside "everything that savours of oblation
together with the entire Canon, let us keep those things which are pure
and holy." However, from what
Cranmer kept of the Old Mass "all the numerous references indicating
and implying that the action being done is a sacrifice, and that what
the priest is offering as a sacrifice, is the Body and Blood of Christ
here really present-----all this has been carefully cut out". Cardinal
Gasquet explained that: "Luther swept away the Canon altogether and
retained only the essential words of Institution. Cranmer substituted a
new prayer of about the same length as the old Canon, leaving in it a
few shreds of the ancient one, but divesting it of its character
of sacrifice and oblation." 12 Some
examples of Cranmer's technique are provided here:
(i) The opening prayer of the Roman Canon-----the
Te Igitur-----asks
God "to receive and bless these gifts these offerings, these holy and
unblemished sacrifices." Cranmer asks God "to receive these our
praiers, which we offer unto thy diuine Majestie."
(ii) The prayer Hanc Igitur
before the Consecration asks God to accept "The oblation which we, Thy
servants and Thy whole family make to Thee . . . " Cranmer replaces
this by a reference to the "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifyce,
oblacion, and satysfacyon for the sinnes of the whole world which
Christ made upon the Cross."
(iii) Before the words of Consecration Cranmer asks God to "blesse and
sanctifie these thy gyftes, and creatures of bread and wyne, that they
maie be unto us the bodye and
bloode of thy moste derely beloued sonne Jesus Christ." Hugh Ross
Williamson has pointed out that though a similar phrase occurs in the
traditional prayer immediately preceding the Consecration (Quam oblationem), "the
transubstantiation has been prepared for by the magnificent Te Igitur, Memento Domine and Hanc Igitur where the 'holy,
unblemished sacrificial gifts' are described in terms proper to the
coming change into the Body and Blood of which we are the unworthy
beneficiaries." 13 Fr. Messenger stresses
the fact that Cranmer's rite says
"may be unto us" while the
Roman rite has "fiant ",
namely, that they may become
or be made for us. The former
is clearly intended to exclude the idea of change but ever "fiant"
could quite easily have been interpreted in a Protestant sense if not
prepared for by the magnificent prayers to which Mr. Ross Williamson
refers. They would be
Christ's Body and Blood in a Protestant sense having become so by the faith of the
communicant who would be spiritually nourished by receiving them as
food and drink. In reply to Gardiner who insisted upon interpreting the
1549 rite in the orthodox sense Cranmer explained ". . . we do not pray
absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of
Christ; but that unto us in the holy mystery they may be so, that is to
say, that we may worthily receive the same that we may be made
partakers of Christ's body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and
in truth we may be spiritually nourished." 14
(iv) Despite the fact that the words of Consecration had been codified
by the Council of Florence, Cranmer did not hesitate to make changes
even here. 15 The principal changes made
by Cranmer are the
addition of the words "which is given for you (quod pro vobis tradetur), do this
in remembrance of Me" after the Consecration of the bread; the removal of the words
Mysterium Fidei from the consecration of the wine,
and the translation of benedixit as "blessed and given thanks." This
word was considered of great significance by the Reformers as they
considered that a literal translation of benedicere as "to bless" clearly
implied Transubstantiation. As Ridley explains: "Innocentius, a bishop
of Rome of the latter days and Duns Scotus do attribute this work (i.e.
Transubstantiation) unto the word benedixit 'He blessed '." 16 The conservative English bishops also
laid stress on the translation of benedicere
as "to bless". " Worcester said once to me," writes Latimer, "that to
offer was contained in benedicere,
which is not true, for benedicere
is to give thanks." 17 This is not the
place for a discussion of the
precise theological significance of the word benedixit in the Consecration
formula. For the purpose of this
study it is sufficient to note the significance the Reformers attached
to it, and the action they took. In the 1549 Prayer Book it was
translated as "blessed and given thanks" and in the 1552 Prayer Book
the words "blessed and" are left out altogether and have not been
restored.
(v) The prayer Unde et memores
which follows the Consecration in the Roman rite is rewritten in
Cranmer's service to exclude mention of the hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam
immaculatam. Similarly, the linking of the Mass with the most
celebrated sacrifice of the Old Testament in the prayer Supra quae is also removed.
(vi) Cranmer's Canon does contain a commemoration for the dead, very
similar in terms to that of the Roman which, in this instance, is not
worded in terms specific enough to conflict with the Protestant
doctrine that sola fides justificat.
There is also a commemoration of "the glorious and moste blessed virgin
Mary, mother of Thy sonne Jesu Christe our Lord and God, and in the
holy Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs . . . " Fr. Messenger
is extremely critical of the term "Virgin Mary" in reference to Our
Lady as opposed to the "ever-Virgin" of the Roman Canon. The fact that
a reference to the perpetual integrity of Our Lady had been removed at
a time when this doctrine was being called into question could be
interpreted as implying that doubts on this teaching were lawful. 18
(vii) One of the most significant innovations in Cranmer's Canon is the
introduction of an epiklesis. The epiklesis is, as now understood, an
invocation to the Holy Ghost that He may change the bread and wine into
the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a characteristic of the Eastern
liturgies and there is no prayer that is clearly of this kind in the
Roman Mass. 19 There has been
considerable discussion among liturgical historians about whether
certain prayers in the Roman Mass could have been an epiklesis or, if
none of them ever were, whether there once was an epiklesis which has
been removed. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that "the form of
this Sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which He effected this
Sacrament, for the priest effects the Sacrament speaking in the person
of Christ." 20 It
is explained that the words of Consecration bring about the
transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood
of Christ. The form of Consecration was specified as that laid down in
the Roman Canon. 21
In 1822 Pope Pius VII ordered that no one, not even a bishop or
patriarch should in future dare to defend the position that the
epiklesis was necessary for consecration. Pope Pius X found it
necessary to repeat this instruction in 1910. 22
The epiklesis is, of course, found in the Catholic Eastern rites and
there can be no possible criticism of such a prayer. The dispute has
been a doctrinal one as to whether the epiklesis is necessary for
consecration. The artificial introduction of an epiklesis into a liturgy which had
not contained one is what is at issue here. The prayer in question is
the one which has already been discussed in (iii) above. The full text
reads: "He are us (o merciful father) we besech thee; and with thy holy
spirite and words vouchsafe to blesse and sanctifie these thy gyftes,
and creatures of bread and wyne, that they maie be unto us the bodye
and bloude of thy moste derely beloued sonne Jesus Christe." Fr.
Messenger considers that this prayer was certainly suggested by the
invocation of the Holy Ghost found in Greek liturgies. 23
Needless to say, it is clear that Cranmer did not consider that even
with his new epiklesis there
was anything more than a spiritual presence of Christ.
(viii) Another change which shows "how carefully the new rite was
constructed in order to remove traces of the sacrificial concept which
had permeated the old", is the replacement of the phrase (from the Supplices te) referring to those
"who are partakers at the altar of the precious Body and Blood of Thy
Son . . ." 24 Cranmer changes this to:
"Whosoeur shall be partakers of thys holy Communion, maye worthily
receive the most precious body and bloude of thy sonne Jesus Christ."
(g) Luther kept the Pater Noster
with the traditional introduction but omitted the Libera Nos with its invocation of
the intercession of Our Lady and the Saints. He
also omitted the Fraction of the Host. Cranmer followed suit.
(h) Luther directed that the Agnus
Dei should be sung during the Communion. Cranmer followed suit.
(i) Luther had kept the first of the preparatory prayers for Communion
in the Roman rite, namely, the prayer for peace and unity beginning Domine Jesu Christe qui dixisti, as
it contains no reference to the Blessed Sacrament. 25
Luther omits the second Prayer-----Domine Jesu Christi Fili Dei which
does contain such a reference, together with the third prayer which
comes into the same category-----the Perceptio Corporis tui. The first
prayer does not occur in the Sarum Missal but almost identical forms of
the second and third do and Cranmer omits these. In place of the prayer
for peace and unity in the Roman rite, the Sarum rite has two most
beautiful prayers which are excluded by Cranmer for obvious reasons:
"O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty and everlasting God, grant me worthily
to receive this most holy Body and Blood of Thy Son Our Lord Jesus
Christ, that I may by it be found worthy to obtain remission ot all my
sins, and to be filled with the Holy Ghost, and to hold Thy peace. For
Thou art God, and there is none beside Thee, whose kingdom and glorious
dominion abideth for ever. Amen."
In the second prayer the priest speaks of Christ's flesh "which I
unworthy hold in my hands."
(j) Cranmer's service does contain a penitential rite before Communion
with a severely truncated Confiteor in
which the references to Our Lady, the Saints, and the Angels are
removed.
(k) The celebrant's Communion prayers are omitted from Cranmer's rite-----those
from the Sarum rite being even less acceptable than the Roman: "Hail
evermore, most holy flesh of Christ, to me above all things the sum of
delight. May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ avail to me a sinner as
the way of life." However, Cranmer does include a prayer to be said by
the priest in his own name and that of the people which contains
phrases more than capable of being interpreted in a Catholic sense.
"Graunt us therefore (gracious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere
sonne Jesus Christ, and to drynke his bloud in these holy Misteries,
that we may continually dwell in hym, and he in us . . . " It is
important to note that the inclusion of such expressions does not
necessarily imply an acceptance of the Catholic teaching of the
substantial presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, a belief which
Cranmer most certainly did not have. Sufficient has already been said
on the use of Catholic terms by Protestants in a sense that involves
the rejection of the Catholic teaching. (See Chapter VII.) The use of
the word "spiritually" is perhaps the best example. Holy Communion can
be spoken of as our spiritual food and drink with perfect orthodoxy but
it can also be intended to specifically exclude the Catholic teaching
of the Real Presence. "For figuratively he is in the bread and wine,
and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and
wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven . . ." 26
(1) As regards the
administration of Holy Communion, it was to be given under both kinds.
This had been one of the first changes the Reformers had managed to
push through Parliament. 27 The
reception of Communion under one kind was, of course, simply a
disciplinary matter within the Roman rite. In the Eastern rites Holy
Communion is given under both kinds. However, in reverting to a practice
which had been long abandoned Cranmer was making the type of
revolutionary break with established tradition condemned by the English
Bishops in their vindication of
Apostolicae Curae. Cranmer retained
the traditional form of altar-bread but one of the rubrics to the 1549
Prayer Book directs that it must be "without all manner of printe, and
something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly
deuided in two pieces, at the leaste, or more, by the discretion of the
minister." This would help to stress the new emphasis on the Mass as
essentially a commemorative meal.
(m) After the Communion, Luther omits the Ablutions but allows the two
prayers Quod ore sumpsimus
and Corpus tuum to be said.
Cranmer omits
both Ablutions and prayers, the Corpus
tuum was not included in the
Sarum rite but the Quod ore
was followed by another prayer which he
found equally unacceptable.
(n) The most unacceptable prayer after the Communion was quite
clearly the Placeat tibi "May
the homage of my bounden duty be pleasing
to Thee, O Holy Trinity; and grant that the sacrifice which I, though
unworthy, have offered in the sight of Thy Majesty may be acceptable to
Thee, and through Thy mercy be a propitiation for me and for all those
for whom I have offered it."
This prayer had been singled out for particular censure by
Protestants and, quite naturally, it vanished both in the Lutheran and
Cranmerian rites. 28
(o) Both Luther and Cranmer end their services with a blessing and omit
the Last Gospel.
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION
It is interesting to note that in the 1549 rite the people received Holy
Communion while kneeling from the hands of a priest. "And although it be read in aunciente writers, that the people many years past
receiued at the priests hands the Sacrament of the body of Christ in
thy own hands, and no commandment of Christ to the contrary: Yet
forasmuche 'as they many tymes conueyghed the same secretelye away,
kept it with
them, and diversely abused it to supersticion and wickedness: lest any
suche thynge hereafter should be
attempted, and that an uniformitie might be used, throughout the whole
Realm: it: thought conuenient the people commonly receiue the Sacrament
of Christs body, in their mouths, at the Priests hand." 29
However in the 1552 Prayer Book the minister: directed to give the
bread "to the people in their hands kneeling". 30
In order that the
fact that the communicants were still required to kneel should not be
"misconstrued, depraued, and interpreted in a wrong part" the notorious
"Black Rubric" was added which explains that: "Leste yet the same
kneeling myght 1: thought or taken otherwyse, we dooe declare that it
not ment thereby, that any adoration is doone, or ought to be doone,
eyther unto the sacramental bread or eyne there bodily receyued, or
unto any reall and essencil presence there beeying of Christ's naturall
fleshe an bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread an wyne,
they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces, and therefore
may not be adored, for that were Idolatrye to be abhorred by all
faythfull christians. An as concernynge the naturall body and blood of
our sauiour, Christ, they are in heauen and not here. For it is agaynst
the trueth of Christes true naturall body, to be in moe places then in
one, at one tyme." 31 The rubric was
issued as a Royal Proclamation after some copies of the 1552 Prayer
Book had already been published. It
is
interesting to note the correspondence between this rubric and
doctrines
anathematised in the Canons of the Thirteenth Session of the Council of
Trent (1551).
Canon 1. "If
anyone denies that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and
Divinity, of our Lord Jest Christ and, therefore, the whole
Christ is truly, really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of
the most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the
Sacrament
only as in a sign or figure, or by His power: let him be anathema."
Canon 6. "If anyone says
that Christ, the only begotten Son of God is
not to be adored in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the
worship of latria, including the external worship, and that the
Sacrament, therefore, is not to be honoured with extraordinary festive
celebrations nor solemnly carried from place to place in processions
according to the praiseworthy universal rite and custom of the holy
Church; or that the Sacrament is not to be publicly exposed for the
people's adoration, and that those who adore it are idolators: let him
be anathema." 32
Cranmer was taking careful note of the teaching of Trent and in March,
1552, he wrote to Calvin: "Our adversaries are now holding their
councils at Trent for the establishment of their errors . . . They are,
as
I am informed, making decrees respecting the worship of the host;
therefore we ought to leave no stone unturned, not only that we may
guard others against this idolatry but also that we may ourselves come
to an agreement upon the doctrine of this sacrament." 33
Cranmer's response to the Council of Trent can be found in the
Forty-two Articles of 1553 which were basically his work. 34
A passage
in Article XXIX is illuminating both with reference to the Black Rubric
and to the Canons of Trent's Thirteenth Session which have just been
cited. Even E. C. Gibson, an Anglican historian who is prepared to go
to any length to interpret the Articles in the most Catholic manner
possible, is compelled to concede that it reflects the opinion of John
a Lasco under whose influence Cranmer had come, "and its teaching on
the presence in the Eucharist, if not actually Zwinglianism, is
perilously near to it." 35
The relevant section of Article XXIX reads as follows:
"Transubstanciation, or the chaunge of the substuance of breade and
wine into the substaunce of Christes bodie, and bloude cannot be proued
by holie writte, but is repugnant to the plaine woordes of Scripture,
and hath geuen occasione to many supersticions.
"Forasmoche as the trueth of mannes nature requireth, that the bodie
of one, and theself same manne cannot be at one time in diuere places,
but must nedes be in some one certeine place: Therefore the bodie of
Christe cannot bee presente at one time in many, and diuerse places.
And because (as holie Scripture doeth teache) Christe was taken vp into
heauen, and there shall continue vnto then de of the worlde, a faithful
man ought not either to beleue, or openlie to confesse the reall, and
bodilie presence (as thei term it) of Christes fleshe and bloude, in
the Sacramente of the Lordes Supper.
"The Sacramente of the Lordes Supper was not commanded by Christes
ordinaunce to be kepte, carried about, lifted vp, nor worshipped." 36
E. C. Gibson accepts in his history of the Thirty-Nine Articles that
"there can be little doubt that in 1552 and 1553 the formularies of the
Church in this country were (to say the least) intended to be
acceptable to those who sympathised with the Swiss school of Reformers
in regard to the Eucharist, and who held that the Presence was merely
figurative." 37
The "Black Rubric" was omitted in the 1559 Prayer Book but was
restored in 1662 with what another Anglican historian, J. T. Tomlinson,
describes as a few "merely verbal" alterations. He cites other Anglican
historians who also insist that "no change of meaning was intended by
the verbal alterations of 1662", and points out that: "The pivot
sentence upon which the whole Declaration hung remains unchanged, viz.
that the body of Christ which 'is' in heaven, is 'not HERE.' That was,
and is, absolutely fatal to any theory of 'presence' in the sense of
residence within the elements. It was not merely a corporal manner of
presence (which no Romanist ever affirmed), but 'ANY corporal presence'
at all which is expressly rejected." 38
It is worth pointing out
that the more radical Reformers, such as John
Knox and John Hooper, objected to kneeling for Communion no matter what
might be said in any rubrics. 39
For them, kneeling could imply
adoration, and anything which could even imply adoration should be
abolished.
Foot notes
Nb. For a listing of the Abbreviations see: Abbreviations page.
1. VAC, p. 54.
2. FSPB and F. H. Dickinson, Missale
Sarum (Gregg International
Publishers Ltd., 1 Westmead, Farnborough, Hants., England. S.B.N. 576
99710).
3. ESR, p. 182, citing T. M. Parker, The
English Reformation to 1558
(Oxford 1950), p. 130.
4. The English
Reformation
(London, 1964), p. 219.
5. TE, p. 154.
6. ESR, p. 183.
7. Ibid.
8. EBCP, p. 224.
9. RMP, vol. I, p. 383. References to Luther's
reforms are based upon
this chapter (VII) of Fr. Messenger's book.
10. EBCP, p. 220.
11. ESR, 184.
12. EBCP, p. 223.
13. The
Modern Mass, p. 25.
14. CW, vol. I, p. 79.
15. The
Armenian Decree,
1439. D, 715.
16. Works,
P.S., p. 26.
17. Works,
P.S., 111.
18. RMP,vol. I, p. 387.
19. TM, p. 402.
20. Op. cit.,
Note 15. D,
698.
21. Op. cit.,
Note 15.
22. CDT, see entry: Epiklesis.
23. RMP, vol. I, p. 388.
24. ESR, p.
186.
25. RMP, vol. I, p. 394.
26. CW, vol. I, p. 139.
27. RMP, vol. I, p. 358.
28. ESR, p. 187.
29. FSPB, p. 230.
30. Ibid.,
p. 389.
31. Ibid.,
p. 393.
32. D, 883 and 888.
33. CW, vol. II, p. 432.
34. Op. cit.,
Chapter VI,
Note 29.
35. Ibid.,
p. 28.
36. Ibid.,
p. 83.
37. Ibid.,
p. 645.
38. The
Prayer Book, Articles, and
Homilies (London,
1897), pp. 264-5.
39. Ibid.,
p. 255.