What wonder that such men were dissatisfied with the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., that they regarded it as a base compromise with Rome, that they were horrified by the mention in it of “priests, altars and sacrifices,” that they scorned as “badges and rags of popery” the vestments which it prescribed; that they were loud and urgent in demanding its immediate revision! Not only had they no sympathy with, they had no comprehension, no idea of the principle on which its compilers had acted. Their notion was that the only true and pure religion was such an one as differed _in toto_ from what they had repudiated. They had been misled by _some_ traditions; therefore they would henceforth recognise _no_ traditions. The word of God had hitherto been withheld from them: therefore now that they were able to possess it, they would handle it as freely as they pleased. The priests had domineered over them: henceforth they would have no priests. Sacrifices had been offered amiss; they therefore abhorred all sacrifices! Such were the feelings with which our Reformers had at once to deal. Should it be a matter of much surprise or reprehension that they dealt very indulgently with them, that they re-cast the service which was objected to as “so like the mass,” that they dealt expressions which were injuriously misunderstood, that individual Bishops ordered the removal of the altar lights, that the celebrant was required to wear a surplice only? Recollect: it was a time of violent re-action; moderation was interpreted as “compromise;” names, ceremonies, and vestments represented to Protestant minds not the things to which they really belonged, but the abuses which had so long been associated with them. In vain was it argued that the abuse does not take away the use. In vain was it protested that the Book of Common Prayer, as it stood, contained nothing that was contrary to the word of God or to the teaching of the primitive Church. In vain was it maintained that the Christian Church has and must have an altar, a priesthood, a continual sacrifice to offer; that, while it is most true that Christ’s _one_ sacrifice was _once_ offered for ever, and cannot be repeated, and that He is such a priest as knows no equal, no successor, no partner, as alone in fact answers to the name of priest; still, as the Jewish Church had its _prophetic_ memorials of His sacrifice—in its slaying and offering of bulls, and goats, and lambs—and its priesthood representing in the various acts of its office what Christ would do—so have we, and by His own command, a _historical_ memorial of His sacrifice: “This do in remembrance of me.” “As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till He come”—and must have a so-called priesthood, performing sacerdotal acts as His representatives. In vain I say was all this urged. Doubtless many of the dissentients would have readily admitted much of it if they had