The population of England at this time consisted of two great parties, Puritans and Papists, with of course some neutrals, who were prepared to join either party according as their interests might seem to dictate. These great parties differed, as in every thing else, so also in their estimation of the prayer-book. We now proceed to consider the opinions and the conduct of each of these parties in regard to the newly imposed liturgy. The intrinsic character of the Anglican liturgy may be very safely inferred from the sources whence it was drawn, and the estimation in which it was held by Papists. In regard to the former, it is known to all in any measure conversant with the subject, that the book of common prayer was taken from the Romish service-book. "In our public services," says the present bishop of Sodor and Man, "the greater part of the book of common prayer is taken from the Roman ritual." Again,-" In giving an account of the common prayer-book, it will be more correct to describe it as a work compiled from the services of the Church of Rome, or rather as a translation than as an original composition." Again, speaking of Edward's first prayer-book, of which, indeed, he spoke in both the preceding instances, he says, "almost the whole of it was taken from different Roman Catholic services, particularly those after the use of Salisbury, which were then generally adopted in the south of England, and the principle on which the compilers proceeded in the work, was to alter as little as possible what had been familiar to the people. Thus the litany is nearly the same as in the Salisbury hours." Speaking of the Anglican ordination office, he says, "its several parts are taken from that in use in the Church of Rome," with few exceptions, which he mentions. In a note, he states that those parts of the liturgy which were not taken from the service books of the Church of Rome, were drawn from a prayer-book compiled about this time by Harman, the popish bishop of Cologne.* Edward's second prayer-book was a revised edition of the first, omitting some of the grosser abominations of Popery which the first contained. The present prayer-book of the Church of England stands about half-way between the first and second of Edward, and was, as we have seen above, taken almost verbatim from the popish service book. Such, then, is the parentage of "our apostolical prayer-book—our incomparable liturgy * Sketch of the History, &c., 201, 537, 540, 541. -our inestimable service book," of which even evangelical members of the Church of England cannot speak in terms sufficiently expressive of their rapturous admiration. Bearing all this in mind, we shall cease to feel any surprise at the fact mentioned by all historians of the period, that so well satisfied were the Papists with the Reformed (so termed) services, and so little difference did they discover between the modern and the ancient ritual, that for the first ten years of Elizabeth's reign they continued, "without doubt or scruple," as Heylin says, to attend public worship in the Church of England. Indeed, as all acknowledge, who know any thing of the subject, if the court of Rome had not altered its policy towards England, excommunicated Elizabeth, and forbidden her subjects to attend the Established Church, the Papists would have remained conscientiously convinced, that in worshipping in the Anglican establishment, they were still attending upon the Romish services; so imperceptible to their well-practised senses was the difference between the two, and so well did the compilers of the prayer-book or the revisers of their work accomplish the task prescribed to them by the queen, viz. to frame a liturgy which should not offend the Papists. Nay, but what is more, when a copy of the prayer-book had been sent to the Pope, so well was he satisfied with it, that he offered, through his nuncio Parpalia, to ratify it for England, if the queen would only own the supremacy of the see of Rome.† Such was the estimation in which the Pope and his followers held the prayer-book, which Anglicans now can never mention without exhausting all the superlatives in the vocabulary of commendation to express their most unbounded admiration of “our inimitable, inestimable, incomparable, apostolic, (?) and all but inspired liturgy." Nothing strikes so painfully upon the ear as to * * Sir George Paule relates in his panegyric on Whitgift, that an Italian Papist, lately arrived in England, on seeing that ambitious primate in the cathedral of Canterbury one Sabbath, "attended upon by an hundred of his own servants at least, in livery, whereof there were forty gentlemen in chains of gold; also by the dean, prebendaries, and preachers, in their surplices and scarlet hoods, and heard the solemn music, with the voices and organs, cornets and sackbuts, he was overtaken with admiration, and told an English gentleman, that unless it were in the Pope's chapel, he never saw a more solemn sight, or heard a more heavenly sound."Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog., iv. 388—9. Strype's An. i. 340. Burnet, ii. 645. Collier, vi. 308-9. hear a man of evangelical sentiments utter such hyperboles in laudation of a popish compilation, which even antichrist offered to sanction. In attempting to account for so startling a phenomenon, we have heard men less charitable than ourselves surmise, that the only principle on which it can be accounted for is, that the less intrinsic merit any object possesses, the more loudly must it be praised, to secure for it popular acceptance. For our own parts we must say we rank the matter under the category de gustibus, &c., and say there is no disputing about taste. And if members of the Church of England were satisfied with enjoying it themselves, without thrusting it upon other people, and if moreover they did not, as some of them do, place it upon a level with the Bible, we should for our own part be as little disposed to deny them its use, as we certainly are to envy them its possession. The commendations bestowed by Papists upon the Anglican prayer-book, might of itself lead us to infer that it did not satisfy the Reformers; and the conclusion thus arrived at is as much in accordance with historic facts as it is the result of logical accuracy. The continental Reformers to a man expressed both contempt and indignation towards the Anglican liturgy. Calvin* declared, that he found in it many (tolerabiles ineptias,) i. e. "tolerable fooleries ;" that is, tolerable for the moment, as children are allowed, (to use quaint old Fuller's illustration) to "play with rattles to get them to part with knives." Knoxt declared, that it contained" diabolical inventions, viz. crossing in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's table, mumbling or singing of the liturgy," &c., and "that the whole order of (the) book appeared rather to be devised for upholding of massing priests, than for any good instruction which the simple people can thereof receive." Beza, writing to Bullinger about the state of England and the English Church, says, "I clearly perceive that Popery has not been ejected from that kingdom, but has been only transferred from the Pope to the queen; and the only aim of parties in power there is to bring back matters to the state in which they formerly stood. I at one time thought that the only subject of contention (between the Puritans and the Conformists) was * Epist. p. 28, t. ix. ed. 1667. † Calderwood's History, (Wodrow ed.,) i. 431. See the whole letter, pp. 425-434. + Strype's An. ii. Rec. No. 29. The whole letter deserves a care. ful perusal. about caps and external vestments; but I now, to my in-' expressible sorrow, understand that it is about very different matters indeed," even the most vital and fundamental elements of the Christian Church, as the sequel of the letter shows.* Beza concludes by saying, "such is the state of the Anglican Church, exceedingly miserable, and indeed, as it appears to me, intolerable.” We might quote similar sentiments from other continental divines, such as Bullinger and Gualter, and may perhaps do so ere we close. But since the opinions of the Anglican Reformers themselves will be, in the circumstances, of more importance, and since we are very much hampered for want of space, we come at once to the recorded judgment which these great and good men passed upon the prayer-book and the Church of England. The opinions of Grindal, successively bishop of London and archbishop of York and Canterbury; of Sandys, successively bishop of Worcester and London, and archbishop of York; of Parkhurst of Norwich, Pilkington of Durham, Jewell of Salisbury, and others, we need not refer to, as every one knows that they expressed themselves as strongly against the state of the Anglican Church as Sampson, Fox, Coverdale, or Humphreys. The only prelates of the first set appointed by Elizabeth who are claimed by Anglicans themselves, as having been in favour of the reformed condition of the Church of England, are Archbishop Parker, Cox of Ely, and Horne of Winchester, (as for Cheney of Gloucester and Bristol, we give him up an avowed Papist,) and if we show that these were dissatisfied with the condition of the Church of England, even her apologists must acknowledge that all Elizabeth's first prelates desired that that Church should be further reformed. Parker was one of the compilers of the prayer-book, and we have already seen how much the first draft excelled the present liturgy. Even after it had been enjoined, both by parliament and the queen, that the communion should be received kneeling, Parker administered it in his own cathedral to the communicants standing. At the very time when he was persecuting the Puritans for nonconformity, (1575,) he wrote Cecil, "Doth your lordship think that I *The vicar of Leeds not only admits, but contends that Beza was correct in stating that the contention entered into the vital elements of Christianity. See Dr. Hook's Sermon, a Call to Union, &c., 2d ed., 74, 75. † McCrie's Life of Knox, 6th ed., p. 64, note. care either for caps, tippets, surplices, or wafer bread or any such ?"* And Strype says expressly, that this "pressing conformity to the queen's laws and injunctions, proceeded not out of fondness to the ceremonies themselves," which he would willingly see altered, "but for the laws establishing them he esteemed them.”† "It may fairly be presumed," says Bishop Short, "that Parker himself entertained some doubts concerning the points which were afterwards disputed between the Puritans and the HighChurch party; for in the questions prepared to be submitted to convocation in 1563, probably under his own direction, and certainly examined by himself," for his annotations stand yet upon the margin of the first scroll, "there are several which manifestly imply that such a difference of opinion might prevail."+ The questions here alluded to by Bishop Short embrace most of those matters which were at first disputed between the Puritans and conformists. In particular, "It was proposed that all vestments, caps, and surplices, should be taken away; that none but ministers should baptize; that the table for the sacrament should not stand altar-wise; that organs and curious singing should be removed; that godfathers and godmothers should not answer in the child's name;" and several other matters, which were then loudly complained of, but which remain in the Church of England till this day. It was only after he had been scolded into irritation by the queen, after his morose and sullen disposition and despotic temper had been chafed and inflamed by the resistance of the Puritans, and he felt or fancied that his character and the honour of his primacy were in jeopardy, that Parker committed himself to that course of persecution which has "damned his name to everlasting infamy." Had he even the inquisitor's plea of conscience, however unenlightened, to urge in his own defence, some apology, how inadequate soever, might be made for him. But Parker was a persecutor only from passion, or at best from policy. Parker himself then was inclined to a further reformation of the Church of England. * Strype's Parker, ii. 424. Sketch, &c., p. 250. † Ibid. p. 528. § Burnet, iii. 457, 458. Strype's Parker, i. 386. Rec. No. 39. Bishop Short candidly acknowledges, that "when Parker and the other bishops had begun to execute the laws against nonconformists, they must have been more than men," or less, "if they could divest their own minds of that personality which every one |