Studies in the
History of
The Book of Common
Prayer
The Anglican
Reform; The Puritan Innovations; The Elizabethan Reaction; The Caroline
Settlement
With Appendices
By Herbert
Mortimer Luckock
Rivingtons, 1882
[Footnotes moved
near place of citation in square brackets.
Bible citations in all Arabic numerals.
Spelling selectively modernized.
Contents
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER: Notices of the Early British
Church. – The source from which she derived her Liturgy. The Mission of St. Augustine. Gregory’s reply to his questions. The rise and spread of Monasticism in
England. The Benedictine Rule of Life. The Canonical Hours. The Liturgical Reforms of Gregory VII and
Bishop Osmund. Religion confined to the
Monasteries. Rivalry between the secular
and regular Clergy. State of Public
Worship in the Cathedrals in the 14th and 15th centuries.
CHAPTER I:
The Anglican Reform. – The Pre-Reformation Service-books. The “Uses.”
Monastic worship. The New
Learning. The authority on which the
Revision of the Service books was undertaken.
The first Committee. Their
representative character. The Primate. The Bishops: Goodrich, Thirlby, Day, Ridley,
and Holbeach. The
Presbyters: Cox, May, Taylor, Haynes, Robertson, and Redmayn. The Committee enlarged. The changes in the language. Roman arguments for a dead language. The English of the First Prayer Book. Larger use of Scripture. The Calendar.
The consolidation of services. Ancient
lines followed. Comparison of Reformed
and unreformed services. The completion
of the first Revision. Its authorization. Its reception. Rebellions.
Their suppression.
CHAPTER II:
The Puritan Innovations – The Foreign Reformers. Scheme for a Concordat. Its hopelessness. The Diet of Spires. The League of Smalcald. The tyranny of the Emperor. The Refugees in England: a Lasco, Peter
Martyr, Martin Bucer. The Vestiarian
Dispute. John Hooper. Revision on the authority of Parliament. Changes introduced in the Revised Book. In Matins and Evensong. Baptism.
Confirmation. Matrimony. Visitation of the Sick. Burial Service. The Communion Office. The Sacrificial aspect obscured. The doctrine of the Real Presence
discountenanced. The Invocation and Agnus
Dei omitted. The Black Rubric. Suggested Explanations. Unsatisfactory. The aims of the Puritans defeated.
CHAPTER III:
The Elizabethan Reaction. – The accession of Queen Mary. Reaction upon her death. Difficulties confronting Queen Elizabeth. Her doctrinal views. First steps toward revision. A Committee appointed. Public Debate in Westminster Abbey. Proposals for legislation. The Abbot of Westminster and Bishop Scott. The Act of Uniformity. Changes introduced. The Queen and her Privy Council. The Injunctions. Anglican Worship fully restored. Generally accepted. Opposition raised. Causes which advanced the Puritans. The Queen’s rapacity. The neglected state of the Churches. The object of the Injunctions. The Advertisements. The London Clergy. The Universities. The opportuneness of Hooker’s Works.
CHAPTER IV:
The Caroline Settlement. – The state of feeling during the proscription of the
Prayer Book. Deputation to Holland, and
the Breda Declaration. The return of the
King. A second manifesto. The unreasonableness of the Presbyterians. Proposals for a Conference. The meeting in the Savoy. The Members: Cosin, Morley, Sanderson,
Pearson, Gunning, Reynolds, Richard Baxter, Calamy, Lightfoot. The object of the Conference. The exceptions of the Puritans. Baxter’s Liturgy. An attempt at agreement. Causes contributing to the restoration of
Episcopacy: The Coronation, The Solemn League burnt, The Act of Uniformity, The
return of the Lords Spiritual to the House of Peers. The results of the Conference. Committee appointed for the final Revision. Bishop Wren.
Cosin’s previous labours. Numerous
changes. The Sealed Books. The Act of Uniformity. The consequences. The conduct of the Presbyterian Ministers. The impossibility of reconciliation. The settlement at the bar of history.
APPENDIX I: On
the Gallican Liturgy. – Points of resemblance between it and the Sarum Missal. Its original source. An outline of’ the structure of the Liturgy.
APPENDIX II: The
Order of the Communion.
APPENDIX III:
The Hampton Court Conference. – The hopes of the Puritans revived on the
accession of James I. The Millenary
Petition. The Constitution of the
Conference. The meetings. The sign of the Cross objected to. The King’s answer. Unimportant concessions. The Prayer Book strengthened. Forms of Prayer added. A new translation of the Scriptures
undertaken.
APPENDIX IV: The
Directory of the Commonwealth, together with some account of its principles.
APPENDIX V: Changes
introduced into the Prayer Book in 1662 A.D.
Index (omitted for web)
Preface
It often happens that many things in a book
are intelligible only to those who are familiar with the mind and character of
the author. An expression or phrase,
which may ordinarily be passed over as unimportant, becomes instinct with
meaning and suggestiveness, when read by one who has the advantage of an
intimate acquaintance with the writer by whom it was used. And if this be true in regard to the chief
leaders of thought in the present day, it is truer still when the reader and
writer find themselves separated from each other by a long distance of time.
Now the realization of this has often made
me feel that a much fuller apprehension of the real teaching of the Book of
Common Prayer would be attained, if more light could be thrown upon the views
and characters of the different men who compiled and revised it.
Many summaries of the history of the Book
have been given to the world at divers times, but the authors have for the most
part been satisfied with little more than the bare enumeration of the names of
men who were charged with a work unequalled in importance for the influence
which it has exercised on the worship of the Church. In a few instances, e.g. Cranmer or Ridley or
Cosin, there was no necessity to do anything more, but Day and Thirlby and
Morley (to select at haphazard), except to the real student of Ecclesiastical
History, have been names, and names only.
Perhaps it would be impossible to
illustrate more forcibly the advantages of such a plan as I proposed to myself
than by a reference to the Council of Nicaea. Its history has often been written, and the
names of the leading Bishops who took part in it have been familiar enough; but
what a world of fresh interest gathered into that Council chamber by the
Bithynian Lake, when Stanley seized the dry bones, and clothed them with flesh
and blood, and stamped its own individuality upon every form! However much men may dissent from his
conclusions, no one can deny that by the portraits of the disputants which he
has drawn, from Constantine and Athanasius to Spiridion
and Paphnutius, he has imparted a reality to the
scene, as refreshing as it is instructive.
The materials upon which I have drawn for
what I have written in the following pages are so scattered and various that
anything like a full acknowledgment is impracticable. Much of course has been found in such standard
histories as those of Collier, Fuller, Peter Heylin, and Strype in earlier
times; or in Hook’s Lives of the
Archbishops, and Froude’s History of
England, and Dr. Stoughton’s series of works on Ecclesiastical History in
later times. Separate Biographies,
Diaries, Histories of individual Colleges at the two Universities, Athenae Oxonienses and Annales Cantabrigienses, have supplied sufficient matter for forming a fair
estimate of the opinions of the Bishops and Divines who were most concerned
with the growth and development of the Prayer Book.
Dr. Stoughton’s Histories have had an
especial interest, as putting forth far more ably and attractively than ever
before the views of Nonconformists upon those critical times.
But while according him much praise for the
general tone, the vivacity and the clearness of his writings, it is impossible
not to see that he has failed to recognize the real standpoint of the Church. For instance, he speaks without any reserve in
condemnation of the ejection of the ministers in 1662 A.D., and tries to enlist
our sympathies with the sufferings which they had to undergo, because they were
too conscientious to conform to the Church of the Restoration, ignoring the
fact that, twenty years before, their opponents had suffered equally, and that
too at the hands of men who had usurped the government. If the Nonconformists had their “black
Bartholomew,” the Bishops and the Established clergy had theirs also; indeed,
not a few of the ministers who made such a grievance of being cast out in 1662
A.D., were actually holding benefices from which the orthodox incumbents had
been ousted during the Commonwealth.
It only remains for me now to perform the
pleasant task of expressing my grateful acknowledgments to those who have aided
me in the work which this publication has entailed.
These are due especially to the Bishop of
the Diocese, for help directly and indirectly given, as well for suggestions
before its commencement, as for criticism of the results when the work was
concluded. Doubts and perplexities were
certain to arise, where the right understanding of a book, second in importance
only to the Bible, was the object in view. On such occasions I have found myself not
infrequently appealing to his counsel and judgment, and rarely without seeing
the prospect cleared, and the difficulties made easier to contend with.
Next I would tender my thanks to the Rev. Canon
Venables, Precentor of
Lincoln, for having kindly examined the printed pages, and suggested some
useful alterations.
Also I gratefully acknowledge the help in
revising and correcting the proof sheets, which I have received from the Rev.
W. B. Trevelyan, my colleague in the Ely Theological College.
And lastly, I may not forget that a fairly
exhaustive Index – that part of a work on which much of its usefulness so
frequently depends, but which nevertheless the author is so ready to neglect – is
the acceptable contribution of a member of my own family.
And now in sending forth this humble
treatise, I would express an earnest prayer that He, with Whose worship well nigh
every page of it is concerned, will bless its influence for an ever increasing
love, and a more intelligent and reverential use of those Forms of Prayer and
Ceremonial observances, for which such brave battle was done in more troublous
times.
H. M. L.
The Feast of St.
Michael and All Angels, 1881
College, Ely.
Introductory Chapter
It may help the reader to a better
understanding of the subject which we have endeavoured to illustrate in this
book if we notice briefly the conditions of Public Worship in the country
before we arrive at the great epochs with which the Book of Common Prayer is
more immediately concerned.
The materials from which the historian is
able to draw for a description of the Church and everything connected with it
among the Britons are so scanty that much uncertainty must necessarily prevail.
Tertullian,* in the second century, says
that “even those parts of Britain hitherto inaccessible to Roman arms had been
subdued by the gospel of Christ”; and Origen,** half a century later, testifies
that “the power of GOD our Saviour is even with those in Britain who are
divided from our world.”
[*Adv. Judaeos,
vii. Perhaps the date of this tract
should be placed in the third century, but Bishop Kaye considers it to have
been written before Tertullian became a Montanist, which is thought to have
been about 200 A.D.
**Hom.
vi. in Luc., also iv. in Ezech. But in his commentary on St. Matthew, he
speaks of “very many” as not yet having received the Gospel, iv. 271.]
At the beginning of the fourth century we
find the British Christians governed by Bishops. In 314 A.D. at the Council of Arles in Gaul,
among the signatures to the Canons then passed occur the names of Eborius, Bishop of York, Restitutus
of London, and Adelphus of Lincoln (or perhaps, Caerleon).
Again, at the Councils of Sardica in Illyria, 347 A.D., and Ariminium
in Italy, 360 A.D., British Bishops took part, and it is worthy of notice, as
bearing upon the poverty stricken condition of the Church in this land, that,
at the latter of the above Councils, when the Emperor offered to defray the
expenses of the Bishops who attended, the offer was declined except by those
from Britain, who were too poor to refuse.
In 429 A.D. an event occurred which in all
probability had an important influence upon the after-worship of the Church. The Britons, finding themselves unable to
oppose the spread of Pelagianism, sent to Gaul for some learned men to come
over to help them. A Gallic Synod was
called, and Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre,
and Lupus of Troyes, were sent as a deputation, and after completely refuting
the errors of the heretics, whom they met in controversy at Verulam,
they returned home, but only to be reinvited to establish the Britons in the Faith,
and build them up in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is to their second visit that the
introduction of the Galilean Liturgy and Ritual is most probably to be
attributed.
And from this date, passing over a dark and
obscure page in the Ecclesiastical history of the country, we come to the
Mission of St. Augustine.
It is on his arrival with his forty
companions, 596 A.D., that for the first time we have any definite mention of
the existence of particular Forms of Worship in the British Church. The Gallican Liturgy was then in use: not
perhaps in all points in its original shape, for variations were common in the
Primitive Liturgies, arising from a multiplicity of causes, such as the
peculiarities of a people, their habits and tastes, or the wishes of the Bishop
of the Diocese. One thing however is
certain, that when St. Augustine landed in England, he found the people using
for their highest Act of Public Worship a Service which they had derived from
Gaul.
We are almost surprised that he should have
expressed so much anxiety to supersede it by the Roman. Had it been a Liturgy of the Oriental type,
the variations from that to which he was accustomed would have been so numerous
that his desire to substitute his own would have been quite intelligible: but
between the Roman and the Gallican there were so many points of resemblance [Cf. Hammond, Liturgies, Eastern and Western,
xxiii-iv.]
that he might well have been satisfied to leave the existing Forms undisturbed.
But he was impatient of any divergence,
and inquired of Pope Gregory what course was to be adopted when the National
Liturgy and the Roman were found to disagree. He hoped no doubt that he would receive
authority to impose the latter without hesitation, but he was doomed to
disappointment.
The Pope, in his reply, showed him that
there was no obligation to insist upon the Roman. “You know,” he writes, “the custom of the Roman
Church in which you remember you were bred up. But it pleases me that if you have found
anything either in the Roman or the Gallican or any other Church, which may be
more acceptable to Almighty GOD, you carefully make choice of the same, and
sedulously teach the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith,
whatsoever you can gather from the several churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of
places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every Church those
things that are pious, religious, and upright, and when you have, as it were,
made them up into one body, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.”
[Cf.
Bede’s Eccles. Hist. i. xxvii.]
How far the advice was followed is a
disputed question. Perhaps the most
probable explanation of the different views is to be found in the supposition
that the two Forms of Liturgical practice continued side by side for a time:
those Churches which owed their origin to the missionary adopting that of their
founder, while those which had existed before his arrival continued their
worship unchanged.
Such divergence, however, ceased in the
eighth century, when by a decree of the Council of Cloveshoo, [The place of
meeting has been much disputed. Cliffe-at-Hoo, Abingdon, and
Tewkesbury, have each had their advocates. The 13th Decree ran thus: “Ut festivitates in omnibus ad eas rite competentibus
rebus, sc. in baptismi officio, in missarum celebratione, in cantilena modo,
celebrentur juxta exemplar, videlicet quod scriptum de Romana ecclesia habemus.” – Wilkins’s Concilia, i. 97.] 747 A.D., it
was decreed that the Roman Missal should be adopted throughout England.
But in addition to the Worship of the Altar
with which alone the rare notices hitherto have been concerned, we now meet
with daily worship and more frequent services. During that stage of Church history which
reaches from the Mission of St. Augustine to the Conquest, all our interest
gathers round the Monasteries.
These had existed before in different
parts, to which the numerous “Bangors” [It means “high
choir or circle,” or eminent community. For
particulars cf. Bright, Eccles. Hist.
20.]
are said to testify. At Bangor Iscoed, at Bangor Wydrin (or
Glastonbury), and “the great Bangor over Conway,” and in other places, Monastic
Colleges were built and formed centers of religious study and worship; but the
system took no real hold of the country till the beginning of the seventh
century. From this time forward it spread
with marvelous rapidity.
It was the monks who converted the heathen.
The austerity and stern duties which
marked their manner of life seemed to be possessed of attractions for the rude
Anglo-Saxon; and when the thanes and nobles with their crowds of retainers were
drawn in, and then finally Kings and Queens lavished their treasure upon the
Monastic Houses, the country became literally overspread by them. All the most beautiful spots in the land were
assigned for their settlement, and in “every rich valley, and by the side of
every clear stream, arose a Benedictine Abbey.” England became “a nation of monks”.
A consideration of the Benedictine Rule of
Life will enable us to realize what an impulse the worship of GOD received from
the extension of the Monastic system. The day was divided between “opus Dei, labor et lectio”: or the service of GOD and
manual and intellectual work. For the
regulation of the first, the day was divided into what were called “Canonical
Hours.” There is some variety, but the
ordinary arrangement gave seven in addition to the midnight Service: viz.,
Matins, or Lauds, at daybreak; Prime, at six A.M.; Tierce, at nine A.M.; Sext,
at noon; Nones, at three P.M.; Vespers, before sunset;
and Compline, at bedtime.
In the “Excerpta”
of Ecgbright, [C. 28.] we read, “These seven synaxes or assemblings we ought
daily to offer to GOD with great concern for ourselves and for all Christian
people.”
Divers conjectures have been made as to the
grounds upon which they have severally been observed.
The night services probably originated in
times of persecution. Prime and Vespers,
at sunrise and sunset, would naturally suggest themselves in connection with
the Sun of Righteousness. The observance
of the three “Leaser Hours,” which received their names from the third, sixth,
and ninth hours with which three of the four divisions of the day terminated,
was probably regarded as a continuance of the Jewish custom. Compline, from Completorium,
was the gathering up of the day’s devotions, the Service in which the
worshipper fully commended himself to GOD’S care for the coming night. These services combined were called “Divinum Officium”.
The next epoch opens with the Reforms of
Gregory VII and Bishop Osmund of Sarum.
The former, who occupied the Papal Chair
from 1073 to 1086 A.D., rearranged and abbreviated “the Divine Services” which
had been used at “the Hours,” and brought them out under the title of “The
Breviary,” which was generally imposed to the exclusion of the existing Forms. It consisted of four parts, for Winter,
Spring, Summer, and Autumn respectively, and each part had four or five
subdivisions, viz.: – 1. Kalendarium; 2.
Psalterium; 3. Commune Sanctorum; 4. Proprium de Tempore; 5. Proprium Sanctorum. Sometimes the second and third of these were
combined, as containing those parts which did not vary with days or seasons. In England the favourite title for the Book
was Portiforium, which in its English form had many
equivalents, – portfory, portuisse,
and portuary.
The other reformer of Service books was
Osmund. After the Conquest the
Anglo-Saxon clergy were in some cases forcibly ousted, in many succeeded at
their deaths by men of Norman blood.
Among these was a Count of some distinction
as a statesman, who was consecrated to the See of Salisbury [The date has
been variously given at 1085 and 1087 A.D.] on the death of Herman, 1087 A.D.
He at once set himself to put an end to the
great diversities of Rites and Ceremonies, which prevailed in different parts
of the country, and even in different parts of the same Diocese. He revised the Service books, and set forth a
reformed Breviary, Missal, and Manual for adoption in all the Churches and
chapels over which he had jurisdiction.
These, which constituted what was known as “the
Sarum Use,” became generally popular, and were introduced into many parts of
England, and held their ground down to the Reformation.
So far we have looked at the worship of GOD
mainly as it was offered in the Monasteries, but it would have been almost
useless to look elsewhere, for nearly all the religion of the country was
gathered within their walls. The people
who derived so much benefit from them would naturally be drawn into sympathy
with their religious life. The
Benedictine monks were the chief missionaries, for as they spread over the land
they associated the work of evangelization with the labours of agriculture, and
while they were turning uncultivated wastes into productive and luxuriant
farms, and bringing plenty to the homes of the people, they superseded
ignorance and blind Paganism by the blessed knowledge of the Gospel of Christ.
But in lapse of time their popularity
waned, and a rivalry grew up between the secular clergy and the monks. And inasmuch as the former were in the main
idle and incompetent, religion flagged, and in the Church, outside the
Religious Houses, the worship of GOD was suffered to fall into neglect.
There was a brief resuscitation in the
thirteenth century, when the country clergy were roused from their apathy by
the enthusiasm with which the preaching Friars carried on their mission.
But the good influence was only short-lived:
the mercenary spirit of the Roman religion, so rife at that era, was infused
into the new Orders, and the preaching of indulgences supplanted the preaching
of the Gospel.
In the Monasteries, as soon as they openly
repudiated the authority of the English Bishops, the door was opened for the
admission of endless innovations, and the Service books became more and more
tainted with Roman errors.
The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were
so notoriously evil that for them as well as for the ninth and tenth, “the dark
ages” has been regarded as the most fitting designation. This period has been described in these
striking terms, “the epoch was an eclipse – a very Egyptian darkness; worse
than chaos or Erebus – black as the thick preternatural night, under cover of
which our Lord was crucified.” [Dublin Review, xliv. 49,
cited by Hook, Lives of the Archbishops,
vol. iii. 58.]
And though all this refers to the general
condition of the Church, the decay of Public Worship was one of the most marked
of its features. If we may judge from
what we read of the Mother Churches, then we may well doubt if it was ever
nearer to total extinction. As a single
illustration, in the great Metropolitan Cathedral, at the close of the
fourteenth century, where there was every facility from rich endowment and
benefactions to maintain the beauty of holy worship in her services and ritual,
we are quite appalled at the revelations of history. Where the worship of the Altar and the Daily
Services had been for many generations offered with becoming dignity and
splendour, the sacred vessels and ornaments were pilfered or sold, and the
building profaned “by foul and abominable acts”. The House of GOD became a place of
merchandise; and while the Services were suspended or driven into obscure
corners, men and women, not on common days merely, but especially on the
Festivals of the Church, exposed their wares, buying and selling with no
thought whatever for the sanctity of the place. [Cf. Milman’s
Hist. of St. Paul’s, 82.]
Then if we leap over a gap of a hundred
years we find scarcely any improvement, and we realize to the full the
appropriateness of the title which those centuries have received. When Dean Colet in 1505 A.D. found himself the
guardian of St. Paul’s, with all his religion he made hardly a visible effort
to purge the Church of the profane uses to which it had been abandoned. The degeneracy of the times was such that it
may well be doubted whether he could have reinstated the worship of GOD; but a brighter
era was about to dawn, and with it the shadows of the past were to flee away.
In the following pages we have endeavoured
to show how the interest of the Reformation centered round the reestablishment
of a pure worship with the Service books revised and the Ritual regulated with
.a due regard to the edification of the worshippers.
Chapter I – The Anglican Reform
The chief Service books* in use in the
English Church at the time of the Reformation were these: The Breviary,
containing a series of daily services for the Canonical Hours, which were eight
in number.
[*Breviarium: cf.
Introductory Chapter. Missale was the title given probably in the eighth century,
or a little later, to the volumes in which the following Office books were
united: Lectionarius, for the lections from Scripture. Sometimes this was divided into Epistolarium, for the Epistles, and Evangelistarium, for the Gospels: Antiphonarium,
or Graduale, for all that was sung at Mass: Sacramentarium, for all the fixed parts and the Collects.
Manuale was the title
in the Salisbury and York ‘Uses’ for the Book called elsewhere Rituale. It
comprised the offices for Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, and others of less
importance.
Pontificale; the chief
contents of this were the Ordination Services, Confirmation, Consecration of a
Church and Burial ground, and sundry Episcopal benedictions.
In addition to the above the Primers
deserve notice, though they were originally intended rather for private than
public service. The Primer was not
confined to any one definite set of prayers, but embraced several different
collections according to the will of the compiler. Maskell’s Primer, e.g. which has been assigned
a date as early as 1400 A.D., contained Matins, Evensong, Compline, Litany, the
Hours of the Virgin, the Penitential Psalms and Songs of Degrees, the Lord’s
Prayer, the Creed, and Ten Commandments. It was usual to print the book in English and
Latin, sometimes in one of these languages only. A revised edition was brought out by Marshall
in 1530 A.D., and another by Hilsey, Bishop of
Rochester, in 1539 A.D., but all existing editions were superseded in 1545 A.D.
by “The Primer set forth by the King’s Majesty and his Clergy to be taught, learned,
and read: and none other to be used throughout all his dominions.”]
The Missal, or Order of Celebration of the
Holy Communion.
The Manual, for the Baptismal and other
occasional offices, which might be performed by a priest.
The Pontifical, for such as the Bishop
alone administered.
In all of these severally, while the
outline and structure were the same, there was considerable variety in detail,
and different editions, if we may so speak of them, had become generally
accepted in different localities. York,
for example, Lincoln, Hereford, and Bangor, had each its own “Use,” marked off
by some peculiarity, while the remaining Dioceses united in the adoption of
that entitled “the Sarum,” which the Bishop of Salisbury [It is considered
highly probable that he was assisted by Lanfranc, who had already compiled a
“Use” for the Benedictines. For the
influence of Roman ritual upon that which was introduced into England in view
of reconciling the clergy, which consisted of two rival races, cf. Preface to
the Sarum Missal in English, pp. x.–xi.] had compiled with so much care in the
eleventh century.
Three things in particular contributed to
call for a revision of these Service books about the middle of the sixteenth
century.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries [The Lesser
Monasteries, 376 in number, with incomes not exceeding £200 a year, were
dissolved by Act of Parliament, 1536 A.D. The Larger Monasteries shared the same fate,
but not so summarily. The Act, which
appropriated their revenues, passed 1539 A.D.] made a complete reconstruction
of the Breviary an imperative necessity. In Religious Houses, where it was of the very
essence of their constitution that the worship of GOD should enter largely into
the routine of daily life, it was an easy matter to subordinate all other
occupations to that which was held to be of primary importance, and seven [In lapse of time
the two early services came to be used continuously, and were regarded as one.] times during
the twenty-four hours the Bell of the Monastery summoned its inmates to
assemble in the Chapel for Divine Service.
When Henry VIII realized that the Monastic
Orders remained unshaken in their loyalty to the Papacy, and that the title of “Supreme
Head of the Church,” which he had assumed, could be little more than nominal,
if such formidable opponents were left to foster seditious counsels, nothing
remained for him but to dissolve their constitutions and appropriate their
revenues to other purposes.
With this abolition of the Religious
Orders, the offering of frequent worship became wholly impracticable. Up to the time of the Dissolution, the daily
service had not attracted the bulk of the people. [Cf. Freeman’s Principles of Divine Service, i. 278.] A certain number, no doubt, wherever there was
a Monastery in the neighbourhood, would be drawn to some extent into a
participation of its worship, but generally the people must have felt
themselves precluded by their occupations from taking any part therein. Now, however, that the Monasteries had been
swept away, men realized that if the daily homage of the creature was to
continue to be paid, such changes were called for as should make the payment
compatible with their secular duties.
How this was effected we shall see
presently.
A second demand for revision arose out of
the revival of learning.
The close of the fifteenth century
witnessed the beginning of what was designated “the New Learning.” The Universities claimed the honour of its
birthplace. Erasmus, of whom it has been
said that. he was the first “man of letters” who had appeared in Europe since
the fall of the Roman Empire, worked a complete revolution in the education of the
country. The Greek language, long known
but most imperfectly, and studied only in the books of authors wholly unworthy
to represent its genius and its true value, seemed suddenly endowed with new
attractions, and under the aegis of Erasmus regained its place in the two great
seats of learning and education. He determined to break down the ignorant
hostility to classical literature which reigned in the colleges and monasteries;
but how difficult a task it was, and how long it took for scholars to shake off
the fetters of a barbarous age, a study of Erasmus himself will abundantly testify.
With all his appreciation of the
beauties of Cicero, notwithstanding the spontaneity and naturalness of his
Latin, which give it all the charms of a living and spoken tongue, he is still
far removed from the purity and grace of the classical models.
But that for which we are most deeply
indebted to him is the impulse which he gave to the study of the New Testament
in the original language. [Erasmus’s Greek Testament, though of no critical
value, made a deep and lasting impression. He had neither the MSS. to enable him to form
a text, nor training to do it even if he had. To it, however, is due the first awakening to
the fact that the Vulgate was a document not worthy of the confidence which the
Church had placed in it.]
The “ever memorable” Dean Colet, [Dean of St.
Paul’s, and founder of the School which bears that name. He commenced his Lectures on the Greek
Testament in 1498 A.D.]
foremost among his friends, substituted lectures on Scripture at Oxford for the
customary disquisitions on Scotus and Aquinas; while at the sister university
George Stafford discarded the glosses of the Schoolmen altogether, and taught
his classes to study the text; and not a few of the Reformers [Latimer, though
at first bitterly opposed to him, became a convert to his teaching, and drew
Ridley over to the same studies.] sat at his feet.
One of the most immediate results of this
reaction, which rapidly affected the community at large, was to make them
dissatisfied with the part they had hitherto been contented to take in public
worship. Men awoke to the realization of the privileges which attached to “ the
priesthood of the laity,”* and they determined to claim a portion in that
intelligent and rational service, which the Clerics had monopolized all too
long.
[*Maskell, in opposition
to those who have asserted that daily service was never intended for the laity,
appeals to the authority of the Fathers and decides that it is “a certain
thing, that the Divine Office was not instituted solely for the clergy, but for
all men who call themselves Christians.” Cf. Freeman’s Principles of Divine Service, i. 277.
The Scriptures teach plainly that in some
sense all Christians are priests. St. Peter,
addressing his converts at large, writes, “Ye also as lively stones are built
up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,” and again, “Ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” 1 Peter 2:5, 9.
St. John also adopts similar language, “And
hath made us kings and priests unto God.” Rev. 1:6.
This teaching however has often been
misunderstood and supposed to destroy the efficacy of ordination. Rightly interpreted, it enhances it greatly. It is evident that the Apostles had in their
minds the language which God addressed to the Israelites, where speaking to all
He said, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.” Exod.. 19:6.
They knew well that though the universal
priesthood of the nation was here acknowledged, God had set apart a special
priesthood with special functions, and so hedged it in that for any one of “the
kingdom of priests” to claim it, without being called, was an unpardonable sin.
Unless the two cases had been analogous
the Apostles would have been careful to avoid the language they used. It is worthy of notice how those Nonconforming
bodies, which lay stress in this matter on the authority of St. Peter and St.
John, have robbed the laity of their prerogative, and precluded them almost
entirely from all part in the offering of public worship. A comparison of the ordinary service and the
parts assigned to the congregation and the ministers as appointed in the Church
and in any Dissenting Chapel will exhibit the contrast in a very marked manner.]
The first step towards the attainment of
this was the introduction of the vernacular in place of a dead unspoken tongue
in the Public Forms – the supersession of Latin by the language of the country.
The third, and by many considered to be the
chief call for revision, came from the pressing necessity for purifying the
Service books from error, and clearing away the accretions of superstitious
usage which had accumulated upon them in mediaeval times.
Such then being the chief causes which
contributed to make a revision necessary, it remains for us to examine the
authority by which it was undertaken and carried out, with a view to estimating
how far the work is entitled to the confidence of the Church.
There are few greater mistakes than to
accept as correct the loose statement so frequently made, that the Committee of
Revision were appointed by the Crown. Long
before it ever entered into the head of Henry VIII to touch our services, a
reformed edition [In
1516 and 1531 A D. Cf. Freeman’s Princip., Introd.
Pt. ii. Sect. x.] of the Sarum Breviary had been issued:
and it is worth while observing that it followed the very lines which the
Commissioners laid down for themselves in Edward VI’s reign. [This is
especially observable in reference to the simplification of the directions for
services, and to the extended reading of Holy Scripture.] This again was succeeded a few years later by
a somewhat similar revision of the Sarum Missal. Now both of these were undertaken before the
King had assumed the title of “Supreme Head of the Church,”* and when as yet he
took no such interest in ecclesiastical matters as to justify us in believing
that the work was in any way dictated by his advice or direction. Indeed we find him at this time most unwilling
to meddle with Church Reform of any kind: as unwilling as Convocation was the
reverse. He rejected a petition
presented to him by the Convocation of Canterbury for an authorized version of
the Bible in English for general circulation.
[*The title of “sole protector and supreme
head of the Church,” which he proposed to assume, was much discussed in
Convocation, and accepted with the limitation “quantum per Christi legem licet,” first by Canterbury and shortly
afterwards by York. An Act of Parliament
was passed in 1534 A.D. declaring the King to be the “Supreme head on earth of
the Church of England.”]
It is true that a few years later he was
induced to reconsider his decision, but we point to his hesitation in the
matter as an indication of his indifference to reform, and as affording a
strong presumption that whatever was done was sanctioned by Convocation, the
idea of independent action being quite untenable.
But when at length the King was persuaded
to interest himself in Liturgical improvement, his first step was to commission
the Archbishop to acquaint the Houses of Convocation that it was his pleasure
that the Service books should be revised: “that all mass books, antiphoners, portuisses, in the
Church of England should be newly examined, corrected, and reformed;” and
Convocation ordered that the work be entrusted to the Bishops of Sarum and Ely,
[Nicholas
Shaxton and Thomas Goodrich.] with three
assessors [See
below.]
each from the Lower House. Matters had
been made somewhat easier by an enactment of the previous year that one uniform
service should be adopted throughout the Province of Canterbury. [March 3, 1541
A.D. Cf. Wilkins’ Concil. iii. 861, 862.] But there was one fatal obstacle to any real
reform. So long as the Statute book [The Act passed
in May 1539 A.D. The other enactments were
on the efficacy of solitary masses and the celibacy of the priesthood.] imposed death
by burning as the penalty for denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and
hanging as a common felon for disapproval of Communion in one kind, or of the
perpetual obligation of vows of chastity, or of the necessity of auricular
confession, we can easily understand that the Revisionists felt themselves
clogged and hampered at every step. The
memory of the terrible scenes enacted in the torture room where Ann Askew so
heroically endured the rack, or of the fires of Smithfield, in which, in
company with others, she suffered martyrdom for her belief, must have hung like
a sword of Damocles over their Council Chamber. Indeed Shaxton
himself, who presided over their deliberations, had been condemned to the stake
on the self-same charge, but had purchased his life by recantation; and the
recollection of this must have haunted him like a specter till the Statute was
repealed. The severities of the “Six
Articles” were mitigated in 1544 A.D., but it was not till the close of 1547
A.D., after the death of Henry VIII and the accession of Edward VI, that the
Act was erased from the Statute book. That erasure established freedom of debate,
and made real revision a possibility; and immediately after we hear of the
Prolocutor in the name of the whole House carrying a petition to the Primate, “that
the works of the Bishops and others, who by the command of Convocation had
laboured in examining, reforming, and publishing the Divine Service,” [November 22,
1547 A.D. Cf. Mem. of Cranm. by Strype, ii. 4.] should be laid
before them. A few days later Cranmer
made a report, which was followed by the publication of a new and uniform
Order, chiefly in English, for administering Communion in both kinds, according
to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the Primitive Church. This received the unanimous sanction of
Convocation, and was in due course ratified by Parliament. [After being
approved by Convocation, it was ratified by Parliament December 20, 1547 A.D.,
and issued by Royal Proclamation March 8, 1548 A.D. The Proclamation ran thus, “The most Blessed
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour should from henceforth be
commonly delivered and ministered to all persons within our realm of England
and Ireland and other our dominions under both kinds, that is to say, of bread
and wine (except necessity of the wise require) lest every man phantasaying and devising a sundry way by himself, in the
use of this most blessed Sacrament of unity, there might arise any unseemly or
ungodly diversity.” This “Order of the
Communion” was really an addition to the Old Latin Mass of an English Form to
be used when any of the laity communicated.
Cf. Appendix II.]
The work may now be said to have been begun
in earnest. The Committee was enlarged,
and their sittings transferred to Windsor Castle as a special mark of royal
approbation and favour. Before, however,
we proceed further, we may well pause to make ourselves familiar with the
members of that august body, which under the guidance of GOD’S good Spirit,
gave to the country the noblest of Liturgical services ever compiled in any
age.
Conventional pictures of this assembly of
divines in the Council room at Windsor have placed Archbishop Cranmer in the
chair. He is supported on either side by
three bishops: while the six members chosen from the Lower House of Convocation
occupy a cross-bench facing the Primate.
The Bishops were Goodrich of Ely, Holbeach of Lincoln, Skip of Hereford, Day of Chichester,
Thirlby of Westminster, Ridley of Rochester. We miss Shaxton, the
head and chief of the original Committee, who had died; but we are not disposed
to regret his removal, for decision of character was a quality most requisite
in a crisis of this kind, and the Bishop of Sarum had forfeited all claim to
that important virtue. The remaining six
members were: Cox, May, Taylor, Haines, Robertson, and Redmayn: the same no
doubt who had sat as assessors to Shaxton and Goodrich
all through the existence of the Committee from 1542 A.D. Which of the bishops was placed on the right,
which on the left of the Primate’s chair; which again of these places was the
post of special honour, we need not stay to dispute, as Rome has so vehemently
disputed in reference to another and still more momentous assembly [The Council of
Nicaea, 325 A.D.]
in her eagerness to claim the foremost place for her representative. In all probability Goodrich, as the sole
surviving Bishop of the old Committee, and the senior Bishop, occupied the two
highest seats, while Ridley as junior, and Thirlby as Bishop of the latest
constituted see, that of Westminster, occupied the two lowest.
Now let me call your attention to the great
care which appears to have been taken to make it a truly representative
Committee.
Convocation claimed the whole number as
members of one or other of its two Houses.
The Crown had its advocate in Cranmer, than
whom none could be more attached to the king personally or more tenacious of
his rights and prerogative.
The Universities appeared in the Heads of
their chief Colleges, Cox being Dean of Christ Church, and Redmayn, Master of
Trinity.
Two of the different “Uses” were
represented directly: Lincoln by Holbeach and Taylor;
Hereford by Skip: two, York and Bangor, indirectly, as we shall see, while the
Archbishop and the other Bishops watched the interests of the Sarum “Use” which
was adopted in all their dioceses.
I propose now to draw the portraits of the
chief of these Commissioners in as few lines as is practicable, but in such a
manner that the reader may be able to conjecture their part in the work,
possibly also to imagine on which side their votes would be given on the
debated questions, which they were called upon to decide.
Of Cranmer many pictures have been given to
the world, but probably in no other case have they varied so materially from
each other. This variation is due not so
much to the bias of the painter, as to the fact that his character did change
in many of its features at different periods of his history.
As we see him seated in the chair at
Windsor, he bears distinctly many of the qualifications which fit him
pre-eminently for the post. He had in a marked degree the first requisite for
an efficient chairman, viz., a perfect control over his temper. He was by no
means a man of great genius, or an original thinker, likely to strike out
something fresh, but he possessed a good judgment, which would enable him to
discriminate between what was new and what was old; what was purely Roman, and
what was Catholic. He had a profound reverence for the Holy Scriptures upon
which he based his doctrinal views, not however according to his private
judgment, hut as the great Fathers of the Catholic Church had interpreted them
in primitive times. [“I
protest and openly confess that in all my doctrine and preaching both of the
Sacrament and of other my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge
those things as the Catholic Church and most holy Fathers of old with one
accord have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use the same words that
they used.” Cf. Hook’s Life of Cranmer, cap. iii. pp. 147–9.] Again and again, his loyalty to Catholic
antiquity manifested itself.
He held unhesitatingly the doctrine of the
Real, as distinguished from the Corporal Presence in the Holy Eucharist: [The year after
the Revision he published his Sacramental opinions in his “Defence
of the True and Catholic Doctrine,” etc. For an extract cf. Hook, p. 163.] also the
commemorative* rather than the propitiatory sacrifice: the representation or
pleading of that which was once offered upon the Cross, rather than the
repetition of it, which some few so persistently maintained.
[*2 For the right understanding of this we
suggest a short explanation. Firstly, Christ was offered in sacrifice
once for all, and in that sacrifice made a full, perfect, and sufficient
atonement for sin. Herein it was
distinguished from the Jewish sacrifices, which being imperfect were
necessarily repeated. But though Christ
died once only, and in His Death all His sufferings ended, there is a sense in
which His offering is continuous. Look
at the type. When the typical act of
Atonement was about to be made on one day for the whole sins of the year, the
sacrifices were offered in the outer court, and then the High Priest, taking
the blood of the sacrifice, entered within the Veil, and presenting it before
the Mercy Seat in the presence of God pleaded for forgiveness by and through
it. The sacrifice was not complete till
it was presented and pleaded before God. Now see the antitype. Christ suffered without the camp, and then by
His own blood entered the Holy of Holies to complete His sacrifice by
presenting and pleading it before God. This
is still going on, as Hebrews 8:3 clearly teaches, and will be continuous till
He comes again, when the pleading or representing the memorial of His Death
will cease. Now let us see, secondly, how the Holy Eucharist is the
counterpart on earth of Christ’s presentation of His own sacrifice in heaven. He commanded the Apostles to offer this as His
memorial sacrifice. The language he used
would suggest as much to Jews. Ανάμνησις was not a term
familiar to them for a “memorial before men”; wherever it was used in the Greek
Scriptures it was of a “memorial before God”; cf. Numb. 10:10, Lev. 24:7, Heb. 10:3,
compared with Lev. 14:17. ποιειν, though often
used in another sense, admitted a sacrificial interpretation; cf. Bishop
Hamilton’s Charge. Liddell and Scott
give the meaning “to sacrifice,” ποιειν
μόσχον, LXX. Sacerdos vice
Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium
verum et plenum tunc offert. – St. Cyprian, Ep. 63. “As it is a commemoration and representment of Christ’s Death, so it is a commemorative
sacrifice.” – Jer. Taylor, Life of Christ,
Disc. xix. Cf. also St. Chrysost. Hom. xvii. ad Hebr.; Bramhall, ep. de la Milletiere, Wks. i. 54; Bull, Wks. ii. 271 (Oxf.); Andrewes, Resp. ad Apolog.]
These were two important points which
Cranmer was determined not to yield, and it was probably this determination
which induced him to decline the offer of Calvin to aid in the revision. Unless moreover he had felt very strong in his
position he would hardly have acted as he did, for Calvin was at this time in
the very zenith of his reputation, and many would have welcomed his assistance
as the best guarantee for real reform.
Next in point of interest to the Primate is
unquestionably Goodrich, Bishop of Ely.
Now there are many circumstances in
Goodrich’s life which we are concerned in hearing of. When a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, he
like his more famous companion on the same Foundation [Cranmer was
twice Fellow: elected first in 1523 A.D.] rose into Royal favour by his judgment
on the crucial question of the Divorce of Queen Catherine. He had been selected by the University from
his legal knowledge to be on the Committee for drawing up an answer to the King’s
application respecting the legality of the separation. We have no difficulty in discovering which
view he took, for he was made a royal chaplain shortly after, and within a few
years nominated to one of the most enviable posts, the then-wealthy and
dignified Bishopric of Ely. [When the Abbey of Ely was converted into a Bishopric
in 1109 A.D., the king directed that the estates should be divided in just
proportion between the Bishop and the monks. The division which was conducted entirely by
Harvey, the first Bishop, and forced upon the monastery, was so far from being
an equitable one, that a contemporary, William of Malmesbury,
writes of it in these terms: – “You may judge of the value of the ancient
possessions of the Church of Ely by this: that though many of them have been
taken away and many are in the hands of intruders, yet he who now presides
there receives annually £1040 into his own purse, besides what he expends on
his own family and in keeping up hospitality, but has scarcely allowed £300 to
the monks.” Cf. Bentham, Hist. of Ely Cath. p. 135.]
It is more than probable that the first
part of the Church Catechism* was his composition, and when in the year 1552
A.D. he built the Long Gallery attached to the Palace, side by side with the
armorial bearings of the See and his own initials, he engraved on two tablets
that which he desired to be associated with his name before anything else, “our
Duty to God,” and “our Duty to our neighbour.”
[*This portion, extending to the
paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, has generally been ascribed to Nowell,
afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, but at the time of this revision an assistant master
at Westminster School. There is a strong
presumption against the probability of the revisers deputing such an important
work to one in a position of so little dignity. It was far more likely to be undertaken by one
of their own body, such as Goodrich was. It is worthy of record that in 1540 A.D. he
was appointed one of the translators of the Bible, and had the Gospel of St.
John allotted to him.]
His eagerness for reform led him to
inaugurate his episcopate by a series of Injunctions, having for their object
the overthrow of Papal influence, and the erasure from the Service books of the
name of the Pope, and the demolition of shrines which were frequented by
idolatrous worshippers. But that he was
in no sense a fanatic or disposed to condemn any usage or thing simply because
it had been abused, his monument in Ely Cathedral, upon which he is represented
with the full pontifical habit, bears evidence. He is further said to have endeared himself to
the King by his singular wisdom, and to have won the affections of the people
by his integrity and moderation.
Next after Goodrich comes Thirlby, whose
appointment on the Commission is the best proof of the impartiality with which
the selection was made. Although
admitted to the privy councils of Henry VIII and Edward VI, he never sympathized
with them in their desire to shake off their allegiance to the Papal See, but
continued throughout a staunch Roman; and at Queen Mary’s accession he was
singled out as the fittest ambassador she could send to tender to the Pope her
assurances of loyal obedience. He was
chosen too in the same reign, for a task from which, under other circumstances,
he would have shrunk back, the degradation of Cranmer before he was sent to the
stake. And if we need further and yet
more decisive proof of his opinions, we shall find it in his refusal to accept
the reforms of Queen Elizabeth and his consequent consignment to prison in the
Tower.
One honour he enjoyed which has been shared
by no one else. He was the first and last Bishop of Westminster, having
exercised the episcopate therein from the creation of the See till its
dissolution. [The
Abbey was dissolved and erected into an Episcopal See in December 1540 A.D.,
and Thirlby appointed first Bishop with jurisdiction over Middlesex. On March 29, 1550 A.D.. he surrendered it into
the king’s hands, who thereupon dissolved it, reconciled Middlesex to London,
and translated the Bishop to Norwich.]
As Bishop of Ely, he was a great
benefactor, especially to the Foundation of Jesus College, Cambridge, which
owes to him much of its ecclesiastical patronage, and also to his cathedral,
which received from him the endowment of its eight prebendal
stalls.
Of Day less is known, but enough to make it
certain that his hand would be held up and his voice raised against all changes
involving any real departure from medieval usage. He was more courageous in holding his opinions
than his brother of Westminster, as we shall see when we come to the close of
the sittings. [Cf.
p. 48. Day, Thirlby, and Skip all protested at first, but the two latter had
not the courage of their opinions when the final pressure came. – Cf. Soares, Edward VI.
p. 354.]
When the King issued letters for the
conversion of altars into tables, he refused to enforce the order in his
diocese, and when threatened with deprivation, he pleaded vigorously for the
rights of conscience; but finding his efforts to be unsuccessful, he expressed
his final decision in terms which command our respect: “he accounted it a less
evil to suffer the body to perish than to destroy the soul,” and “he would
rather lose all that he ever had in the world than condemn his conscience.” He was committed to the Fleet Prison, [Nov. 30, 1550
A.D. Cf. Collier’s Eccl. Hist. v. 424. He was
afterwards treated with kindness and sent to reside with the Lord Chancellor.] and his
bishopric sequestrated.
The character of Ridley is too well known
to need description, while of Holbeach, who assumed
that name on becoming a monk of Croyland in place of
his patronymic Rands, so little is left on record
that it would be difficult to form an accurate estimate of the influence which
he exercised upon the proceedings of the Commission.
Of the members of the Lower House, the most
distinguished on the whole was Cox. He
stands out in many ways as the very counterpart of Thirlby, and no one who
reads their history can fail to be struck with the fairness of a Commission
which admitted men of such opposing views.
When a Fellow at Oxford, Cox became enamoured
of Lutheran Theology, and amid all the changes of those ever-varying times, he
remained a consistent Protestant to the end.
After he came into the notice of Edward VI,
honours were thickly heaped upon him, and it fills one with wonder at the small
sense of responsibility which such a man must have had, to hear of his being
simultaneously Rector of Harrow, Archdeacon of Ely, Canon of Ely, Canon of
Windsor, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and Dean of Westminster, and Bishop
nominate of Southwell; not to mention the offices of
Tutor and Almoner to the king, and the Chancellorship of his University.
His biographer writes quite incidentally,
that it has been thought by some that “he had more regard to his private
advantage than to the true interests of the Church,” and without any notice of
these frightful pluralities, proceeds to vindicate him from the imputation
touching the alienation of the episcopal estates. History has certainly recorded one instance of
his determination to maintain the property of the See of Ely, though
unsuccessfully. Sir Christopher Hatton,
one of the Queen’s favourites, cast an envious eye upon the beautiful Palace
and garden in Holborn; and to gratify his desire she
commanded the Bishop to transfer a portion of it to him without delay. Whatever his feelings may have been on other
occasions, he had strength enough to resist this iniquitous claim, but only to
call forth the ever memorable rejoinder from the imperious Queen, “Proud
Prelate, you know well what you were afore I made you what you are. If you do not immediately comply with my
request I will unfrock you, by GOD.” And
the property was alienated, as the name “Hatton Garden” still indicates.
Considering their value, we can hardly be
surprised that his benefices were speedily seized and he himself was lodged in
the Tower when the Protestant King was no longer able to befriend him.
Two circumstances may be here mentioned as
testifying to his doctrinal opinions. At
Oxford he issued a Commission for the discovery of books which encouraged Papal
pretensions or Roman doctrine, and in the spirit of a true iconoclast ordered whole
Libraries to be destroyed, without any respect to their historical value or
antiquarian interest.
Again, when his brother Revisionist, Day of
Chichester, had stirred up the people of Sussex to resist the removal of their
altars, he was selected by the King’s Council as the fittest person they could
find to counteract his influence by a preaching campaign in support of the
Protestant Faith.
In May, the Dean of St. Paul’s, Cox found
an entirely kindred spirit, as the following episode in his life will
sufficiently indicate. On the
publication of an edict by the Privy Council for the destruction of all images
in churches, the work of demolition was not only sanctioned, but even
encouraged by the appointed guardian of that Cathedral. The Rood, and the attendant figures of St.
Mary and St. John, were roughly thrown down, and the wealth of sacred treasure
in plate and jewels and vestments which had accumulated out of the offerings of
the faithful to an almost incalculable extent was despoiled without even a show
of resistance on the part of the Dean; and there is good reason to believe that
it was done at his own instigation.
If this be true we cannot but admire him
for his consistency, for much that he encouraged entailed grievous loss upon,
if it did not actually impoverish, both himself and the Chapter which he represented.
He was what we may call an advanced
Reformer, and a strong advocate of Liturgical revision.
Of Taylor’s views we are not altogether
ignorant; on one important question, which all the Revisionists were called
upon to answer in writing, viz., “what is the oblation and sacrifice of Christ
in the mass?” it is recorded that he, in company with Cox, took the lowest
ground, asserting it to “mean nothing more than prayer, thanksgiving, and the
remembrance of our Saviour’s Passion.”
This was a strange reaction from the
opinions which he had put forward in the previous reign, when he preached a
sermon upon Transubstantiation, which led to the martyrdom of Barnes.
It is worthy of notice also that he was
selected for promotion by King Edward VI just at the time when his Majesty was
most especially under ultra-Protestant influence. [He was
consecrated Bishop of Lincoln in 1552 A.D.]
Of Haynes there is little to be said, save
that like the members of the Lower House already described he had a strong leaning
towards radical change.
The two that remain were men of a very
different type. Both Robertson and
Redmayn were more Catholic-minded.
Both too were widely renowned for their
great learning, the former having earned a reputation as a grammarian unsurpassed
in his generation, and the latter holding one of the highest positions in the
University of Cambridge.
The fact that Robertson obtained preferment
[The
Deanery of Durham, which, however, he was compelled to resign in favour of
Horne, its former holder, on the accession of Elizabeth.] from Queen
Mary, and that Redmayn tried to draw back from the sanction, which he had
reluctantly given by his signature to the Reformed Service book, are adequate
proof of the line which they must have taken in the deliberations at Windsor.
Such, briefly drawn, are some of the
characteristic features of the individual members of that famous Committee to
whom the Catholic Church of England owes so much.
But we must not fail to mention that even
these men, so learned, so well qualified in many ways, and so thoroughly
impartial as a body, were not held to be competent by their own unaided
counsels to accomplish the work of Revision.
It was considered desirable to enlarge the
Committee, so as to make it if possible still more representative, and to give
all parts of the country and every one who had any interest at stake a voice in
the proceedings. A large body of
assessors [The
assessors were Holgate, Archbishop of York, Bonner, Bishop of London, Tonstal of Durham, Heath of Worcester, Repps
of Norwich, Parfew of St. Asaph,
Salcot of Sarum, Sampson of
Coventry and Lichfield, Aldrich of Carlisle, Bush of Bristol, and Farrar of St.
David’s. Cf. Cardwell’s Two Litt. of Ed.
VI.; Pref. xiii.]
were added. They were not admitted to
the Council Chamber, as their numbers would have made them unwieldy as a
working Committee, but a series of questions bearing upon the most crucial
matters under dispute were submitted to them, and their replies were duly
weighed, and doubtless had no little influence upon the deliberations. Among these, whose opinions were thus invited,
were the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Sarum, representing directly the “Uses”
of their Sees, while the Bishop of St. Asaph was
appointed for the guardianship of the Bangor worship.
The first and most important change was in
the language.
In the Preface to the First Prayer Book we
read, changes “The service in the Church of England (these many years) hath
been read in Latin to the people, which they understood not; so that they have
heard with their ears only: and their hearts, spirit, and mind have not been
edified thereby.”
So long as Rome was the center of European
society, and Latin was generally spoken, there was no inconsistency in
maintaining it as the vehicle of Western worship, but long after Rome had lost
this preeminence, and her language had ceased to be intelligible to the common
mind, “the once living outpourings of devotion” were suffered to continue only “fossilized
into cold and lifeless forms.”
The arguments in defense of the continuance
which the medieval Church set up were very plausible. It was urged that “ the majesty of religion
would suffer and grow cheap if the most solemn and mysterious parts of the
service should be understood by the audience”; or that there were obvious
advantages for the protection of the Faith in embalming her Forms in a language
which is beyond the reach of change; or once more, that it served as an abiding
witness to the unity of the Church throughout Catholic Christendom, that every
branch of it should offer up their prayers and praises in one and the same
tongue.
These reasons were plausible enough, but
the majority of the Revisionists saw that there were reasons for change which
far outweighed them. The edification of
the worshipper ought always to be a matter of primary importance. St. Paul [1 Cor. 14:19] had clearly so
regarded it, when he declared that he would “rather speak five words in the
Church” in such a manner as to teach others, “than ten thousand words in an
unknown tongue.” And the principle was
upheld by the Primitive Church, which clothed its Liturgies in Greek, or Latin,
or Syriac, or Coptic, according to the language of the people who used them. It was enforced, moreover, by the sayings of
the Fathers; [Cf.
Origen, Contra Celsum,
viii. 37. St. Chrysost.
Hom.
xxxv. in 1 Cor. xiv.]
and the Law, both civil and canonical, contained the plainest injunctions for
its maintenance. The Code of Justinian [Justinian’s law
enforcing this was afterwards erased from the Latin versions, but it is
acknowledged by Bellarmine. – Cf. Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive of Popery, pt. 1. c.] provided “that all priests should
celebrate the sacred oblation” in such a manner that “thereby the minds of the
hearers might be raised up with greater devotion to set forth the praises of
GOD, according to the Apostle’s teaching”; and that this was interpreted as
enjoining a language “understanded of the people” is
shown by the attempts of those who violated the practice to erase the enactment
from the Statute book.
Again the Canon Law [Cf. Jer. Taylor,
ibid.]
by the authority of Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council, 1215 A.D., enforced “the
celebration of Divine Service according to the diversity of ceremonies and languages.”
When then the Windsor Assembly were called
upon to deal with this question, they knew that they should be fully supported
if they abandoned the Latin tongue.
We stated before some of the causes which
created a yearning on the part of the people for a more intelligent worship;
and it was quite obvious that the use of the English Litany, [1544 A.D] put forth a
few years before, and the reading of portions of the Communion office in their
own language, had greatly intensified their desire, and the Revisionists felt
that they could best satisfy the wants of the nation by giving them a complete
English Prayer Book.
And while commending them for giving us a
Service book in our own language, we are constrained to go further, and express
an additional obligation to them for having clothed it in English, the beauty
of which has rarely been equaled, and never surpassed, even in the best age of
literary excellence. [Cf.
Quarterly Review, No. 298, p. 416.] To whatever part of it we turn, whether hymns,
or prayers, or exhortations, the style is such that it cannot be improved. “The essential qualities of devotion and
eloquence,” as Macaulay says, [ Hist. of Engl. iii. 475.] “conciseness,
majestic simplicity, pathetic earnestness of supplication, sobered by a
profound reverence, are common between the translations and the originals. But in the subordinate graces of diction the
originals must be allowed to be far inferior to the translations. ... The
diction of our Book of Common Prayer has directly or indirectly contributed to
form the diction of almost every great English writer, and has extorted the
admiration of the most accomplished infidels, and of the most accomplished
Nonconformists, of such men as David Hume and Robert Hall.”
As an illustration of this high praise, I
have only to mention the very noblest of our Liturgical hymns, the Te Deum. In point of accuracy and exactness of
rendering there* is in parts no doubt something to be desired, but in rhythm,
in vigour of arrangement, and in its solemn grandeur (and so far it seems to me
not to bear out Macaulay’s view), it is incomparably superior to the original
Latin.
[*The opening line is an unfortunate
rendering and quite unjustifiable. It
should be “We praise Thee as God.” It is
not at all improbable that this hymn was, in its original form, such an one as
Pliny says the Christians used in his time, “carmen dicentes secum invicem Christo quasi Deo.” – Ep. ad Troj.
Eusebius also testifies to the custom of
ascribing Divinity to Christ in hymns. Eccl. Hist. v. 28, cf. also Liddon’s Bamp. Lect. vii.
Other inaccurate renderings are “goodly
fellowship,” for “praiseworthy number,” “noble army” for “white-robed,” (as in
an old English version, “the white oost”) – “When
Thou tookest upon Thee,” etc., for “When with a view to deliverance Thou
tookest upon Thee humanity.” – “Make them to be numbered with thy saints in
glory,” for, “to be rewarded with glory”: – “numerari”
was probably substituted by a clerical error for “munerari,”
and the “in” prefixed to “gloria” to complete the
construction; – Possibly “Vouchsafe to keep us this day,” for “that day,” viz.,
the day of judgment, though iste is used medievally for hic; – and perhaps “never be
confounded,” for “not to be confounded for ever,” so an old version, “Be I not schent for ever,” though here
again “never” is so rendered in the Vulg.; cf. Pa. xv. (xiv.) 5; xxxi. (xxx.)
1.”
The rhythm is manifestly improved in
verses 7, 8, 9. The original runs —
Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus,
Te
Prophetarum laudabilis numerus,
Te
Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus.]
And if we turn to the Collects, the same
expression of unfeigned praise is equally due. Take one or two specimens – first, of a simple
translation; and that I may not appear to be making a careful selection to
support my opinion, I will quote the most familiar perhaps of all.
“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with
Thy most gracious favour, and further us with Thy continual help; that in all
our works begun, continued, and ended in Thee, we may glorify Thy holy Name:
and finally, by Thy mercy obtain everlasting life,” etc.
Now this, as it happens, is one of the most
beautiful of the ancient Latin Collects: – Actiones nostras, quaesumus, Domine, et aspirando praeveni et adjuvando
prosequere; ut cuncta nostra operatio et a te incipiat et per te coepta
finiatur, per Jesum,
etc.
But beautiful as it is, I am sure that no
competent critic would venture to say that it has lost one particle of its
peculiar grace by being clothed in an English dress.
Then take a sample of the original
compositions. These were chiefly
introduced to supersede the corrupt forms in use for the Festivals of Saints
and Martyrs. [All
the Saints’ Days Collects were composed in 1549 A.D., except those for St.
Bartholomew and the Conversion of St. Paul, which were only altered, and those
for St. Andrew and St. Stephen, the former of which was written in 1552 A.D.,
the latter in 1661 A.D.]
Again, avoiding selection, let me quote
the Collect for All Saints’ Day, which is oftenest on our lips.
“O Almighty GOD, who hast knit together
Thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Thy Son
Christ our LORD: grant us grace so to follow Thy blessed saints in all virtuous
and godly living that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which Thou hast
prepared for them that unfeignedly love Thee, through,” etc.
But it is invidious to single out any
special portion for commendation; “the whole book,” it has been well said, “is
a very casket of treasures.”
The second alteration in order of utility
was the increased value set upon the public reading of Holy Scripture. During mediaeval times the consecutive reading
of this had been greatly interrupted by “the planting in uncertain stories and
legends with a multitude of Responds.” [Cf. Preface concerning the Service of
the Church. Responsories or responds
were short verses from Scripture originally intended to give the keynote of
what was being read. It was usual to
introduce them after every three or four verses.] These last came to be regarded of such
consequence that they were made long and elaborate, while the passages from
Scripture were proportionably curtailed: in short,
the Lessons and the Responds exchanged places.
The result of this was that the primary
conception of the latter, which was to be simply illustrative, was entirely
obscured, and the Respond became an independent anthem, confusing instead of unfolding
the meaning of what was read.
Furthermore, the Legendary stories and acts
of the Saints, especially at their commemorations, which were exceedingly
numerous, were generally chosen as the Lessons for the day in preference to the
Life of our LORD, and the sayings of His immediate followers.
The merit of initiating a reform in this is
claimed by a Cardinal of the Roman Church, [Cardinal Quignonez,
a Spanish Bishop, revised the Breviary, and published it for the use of the
clergy and monasteries, under the sanction of Clement VII in 1536 A.D. The title of his edition was, Breviarium Romanae Curiae ex sacra et canonica Scriptura
necnon sanctorum historiis summa vigilantia decerptis accurate digestum. It was suppressed in 1576 A.D.] who reinstated
the Word of GOD in its rightful place, and showed how much store he set by the
change, by inscribing on the title of his Revised Breviary the motto, “Search
the Scriptures.”
This Breviary was put into the hands of the
Revisionists as likely to prove a valuable aid in their work, and there is
every reason to believe that not only in this but upon other important points
it carried considerable weight.
In largely expanding the passages of
Scripture, and in drawing both from the Old and New Testaments the Revisionists
illustrated their determination to recover primitive usage wherever it seemed
expedient. In the description of the
early services found in the Apostolical Constitutions
[Lib.
ii. c. lvii. The date of their
composition is uncertain: the first six books probably in the third century,
the others a little later.] it would seem that as many as four Lessons of
considerable length were read, two from either Testament; and in the middle of
the second century Justin Martyr [Apol. i. lxvii. Cf. St. Chrysost.,
Hom. 24 in Rom. “Tell me, what Prophet,
what Apostle was read to us today?” It
may be seen also from the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage that
both the Old and New Testaments were read in Church. Cf. Bing., Antiq.
xiv. iii. 2.]
says, “that the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are
read as long as time permits.” This
latter, however, is only noted of Sunday. To adapt the principle to the weekdays was a
most judicious step, and finds ample justification in its propriety.
The third change was in the Calendar or
Pie. The directions for the variable
parts of the services in the old uses were complicated in the extreme. Perhaps the best idea of the minuteness of
detail may be gathered from the fact that there is extant in the library of
York Minster a volume of no inconsiderable size, the entire contents of which
are regulations of the Pie! [The origin of the term Pie is a vexed question. It has been derived from the initial letter of
πίναξ, a tablet, and
from pica, a magpie. The allusion in the
latter is to the party-coloured letters in which the directions were written. Before the 15th century these regulations were
called Ordinale.]
Indeed so involved were the rules to be
observed that the title by which the body of directions was designated has
become a very symbol of perplexity and confusion. Nothing could have been happier than the
language in which Cranmer expressed the feelings of the Revisionists on the
subject. “The number,” he says, “and
hardness of the rules called the Pie, and the manifold changings of the
service, was the cause, that to turn the book only was so hard and intricate a
matter that many times there was more business to find out what should be read
than to read it when it was found out.”
All these difficulties were cleared away
and a simple Calendar was substituted containing the order of Lessons, and preceded
by a Table of Psalms, arranged for Matins and Evensong for a month.
A fourth change rendered necessary by the
abolition of the Religious Houses was the union of the three Service books,
Breviary, Manual, and Missal, in one volume, and the curtailment of the number
of separate services.
The Revisionists determined to recover, for
the mass of the people, a participation in public worship, which they had
well-nigh lost through the establishment of the Monastic or Canonical “Hours.” The multiplication of services had led them to
regard worship as an impossibility for men engaged in the ordinary occupations
of secular life; and instead of selecting opportunities from the greater
number, they came to look upon it as a luxury for the occupants of Religious
houses, and left it almost entirely to them. Recognizing the fact that these were properly
the exceptions only, and that what might have been appropriate enough for the
few was ill-adapted to the majority, the Committee resolved at once upon a
reduction of the services. They went
back to the early ages for guidance as to their number, but they must have been
perplexed by the evidence. Some writers*
spoke of three, others of two only. The
Revisionists very wisely decided to adopt the latter, and thus restore the
principle which had existed all through the history of the elder dispensation,
and offer the voice of praise and thanksgiving like the Incense of the Altar
and the daily Sacrifice in the morning and at even.
[*Tertullian, 190 A.D., speaks of the
third, sixth, and ninth hours as more solemn than the rest. – De Orat., c. 25.
St. Jerome mentions the same as the times
when, according to Ecclesiastical tradition, the knees are to be bent to GOD. –
Comm. in Dan., 6:10.
The Apostolical
Constitutions, on the other hand, testify to two services only. The Bishop is directed to exhort the people to
attend Church constantly morning and evening every day, and the 63d Psalm is
appointed for the former, the 141st for the latter. – Lib. ii. c. lix.
Epiphanius also, in giving an account of
the customs of the Church, mentions morning hymns and evening prayers as
constantly used, but makes no allusion to any other. – Exposit. Fidei, n. 23 (t. i.
p. 1106).]
The Seven “Hours,” for all of which there
were special offices in the Breviary, were condensed into Matins and Evensong –
the ancient Nocturns, Lauds and Prime becoming amalgamated in the former,
Vespers and Compline in the latter. The
remaining three, Tierce, Sext, and None, or the Lesser Hours, were set aside
altogether, because they had long fallen into disuse except in the monasteries;
and as these were now dissolved, it would have served no purpose to have
retained what specially belonged to them. To suit the fresh adaptation, the Psalms,
which had hitherto been divided into seven portions [The bulk of the
Psalms were sung at Matins and Vespers, twelve at the former, five at the
latter. The greater part of the 119th
was divided between the Lesser Hours. The
remainder were distributed between Lauds, Prime, and Compline.] for a weekly
course, were so arranged as to be read through once in a month.
Now it is worth while observing how, in
carrying out this consolidation of services, they carefully adhered to the
ancient lines, and preserved in all their integrity the distinctive features of
public worship.
The ideal Form of service has three
component parts, though by no means in equal proportions. These are praise, instruction, and prayer. The primary conception gave by far the highest
place to the first of these; indeed the other two are entirely subordinate.
There is a beautiful legend told of St.
Theresa which illustrates this view in a very striking manner. As she lay asleep, the vision of a strange and
awful woman passed before her. In one
hand she carried a pitcher of water, in the other a pan of flaming fire. And when the Saint asked in fear and trembling
whither she was going with her mysterious burden, she replied, “I go to burn up
heaven and to quench hell, that henceforth men may learn to worship GOD, not
for any hope of future reward in the one, nor for fear of threatened torment in
the other, but for what He is – for Himself alone.”
Praise, then, the ascription of honour to
GOD, simply and solely because it is due unto His name, is the dominant element
of public worship, and that which blends our offering with the songs of angelic
hosts.
But subordinate to this there have always [In the passage
of the Apostol. Constit. above cited, it is stated
that the prophets and the account of the Resurrection were read, and prayers
offered up afterwards. – Lib. ii. c.
lix.]
been other considerations present to the mind of the worshipper, and in a
confessedly imperfect state it could hardly have been otherwise. Meditation upon GOD’S Word, and the record of
His works in Creation and Providence, exalts our conception of His greatness,
and creates a desire to know more of His Will; and thus the consciousness of
our own weakness is borne in upon us, and we pray to the Author of all power
and might to help our infirmities and supply our needs.
Thus it is that psalms or hymns, lections,
prayers or intercessions, have been linked together by a threefold cord in
common worship.
From a comparison of the following Tables
it will be seen at a glance that the first Revised Service book preserved the
characteristic features of the ancient offices, and while the sequence of each
part was generally retained, due prominence, as of old, was given to the
element of praise. [This
was more largely provided for in the First Prayer Book than in any of the
subsequent Revisions. In each and all of
these the element of prayer has encroached upon that of praise.] The Revisionists seem to have had the triple
division in their mind when they placed in the forefront of their service the
LORD’S Prayer and the “Venite.” Both
alike strike the keynote of all that is to follow. The first three clauses of the Paternoster [Cf. Freeman’s Principles of Divine Service, vol. i. c.
iv. s. 3.]
correspond to the Psalms and Songs of praise; the petition “Give us this day
our daily bread” has a special application to the reception of knowledge
through the reading of Scripture; and the rest represent all prayer and
intercession. So with the “Venite.” [The great
antiquity of the use of this Invitation, dating certainly to the third century,
as we know on the authority of St. Athanasius, as well as its peculiar
propriety, are sufficient reasons for not omitting it in the Shortened Form of
Service sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act. It is true that discretion is given to the
Minister to add, in its proper place, any canticle he may think fit, but in our
judgment the “Venite” should have found a place in the necessary portion of the
Service.]
No fitter prelude to worship could be
found, since it embraced a triple call, in verses 1–5, to sing GOD’S praises;
in 6 and 7, to fall down before Him in adoration and prayer; in 8–11, to hear
His word.
Table of
Services.
Morning.
Canonical
Hours in the Sarum Breviary |
First Prayer
Book of Edward VI |
|||
Matins |
Lauds. |
Prime. |
Matins. |
|
In the Name
... Our Father ... Ave Maria ... O LORD, open
... O GOD, make
speed ... Glory be to
the Father ... Alleluia. Invitatory. Venite. 12 Psalms and
Antiphons. 18 Psalms
(Sundays). Benedictions. Lections with
Responds. Te Deum
(Sundays). |
O GOD, make ... Glory be, etc.
... Alleluia. 5 Psalms and
Antiphons. Jubilate (Sundays). Canticle from
the O. T. Benedicite (Sund.) Capitulum. Hymn. Benedictus. Suffrages. Collect for
the Day. Collect for
Peace. |
In the Name
... Our Father ... O GOD, make ... Glory be, etc.
... Alleluia. Hymn. 3 Psalms and
Antiphons. 9 Ps.
(Sundays). Athanasian
Creed. Capitulum. Lesser Litany. Our Father ... Suffrages. Confession. Absolution. Collect for
Grace. Intercessions. Thanksgiving. |
Our Father ... O LORD, open
... O GOD, make ... Glory be, etc.
... Praise ye the
LORD. Alleluia (from
Easter to Trinity) Venite. Psalms in
order, with Doxology. 1st Lesson, O.
T. Te Deum or (in
Lent) Benedicite. 2d Lesson, N.
T. Benedictus. Lesser Litany. Creed. Our Father. Suffrages. Collect for
the Day. Collect for Peace. Collect for Grace. |
|
Table of
Services.
Evening.
Canonical
Hours in the Sarum Breviary |
First Prayer
Book of Edward VI |
|
Vespers. |
Compline. |
Evensong. |
In the Name... Our Father ... Ave Maria. O God, make
... Glory be ... Alleluia. 5 Psalms and
Antiphons. Capitulum. Hymn. Magnificat. Collect for
the Day. Memoria of the
B. V. |
In the Name ... Our Father ... Ave Maria. O GOD, make... Glory be ... Alleluia. 4 Psalms. Capitulum. Hymn Nunc Dimittis. Lesser Litany Our Father ... Creed. Confession. Absolution. Suffrages. Collect for
Peace. Intercessions. Thanksgiving. |
Our Father ... O GOD, make
... Glory be ... Praise ye the
Lord. Alleluia. Psalms in
order. 1st Lesson, O.
T. Magnificat. 2d Lesson, N.
T. Nunc Dimittis. Collect for
the Day. Collect for
Peace. Collect for
Aid. |
One element alone of importance is wanting
in the Revised Order, viz., Confession and Absolution. It is probable that they were omitted as being
of late introduction into public services. There is no doubt some testimony to the former
in St. Basil, [Ad Cleric. Neocaesariences, ep. 207.] who narrates
how the congregation immediately on entering the house of prayer “confess to God,”
but the Council of Laodicea points to this confession as being made in silence.
And in the Western Church there is an
entire absence of allusion to the custom for many centuries. It finds no place in the “Benedictine Rule”. [Its first
mention is said to be in the Gemma Anima,
written in the eleventh century.] And what applies to Confession is of
course equally applicable to Absolution. They stand or fall together. We shall see hereafter under what
circumstances the judgment of Cranmer’s Committee was revised.
These were the changes upon which the
Revisionists laid most stress, as we may gather from the Preface with which
they introduced their reformed Service book. In our present Prayer Book it is placed
second, following that which was prefixed at the final revision.
Many observances and ceremonies which they
retained, wisely or unwisely, will be brought under our notice in future
lectures. It may, however, be well at
this stage to state their own account of the principle which guided them in
their decisions: such ceremonies as were visibly superstitious and tended to
darken the Gospel and prove cumbersome to religion they rejected, [Cf. Dodd’s Church History, quoted in Collier, v.
299, n.]
while those were retained which guarded the worship of God from nakedness and
contempt. But while we pass these by we feel that no review of a Prayer Book
could be regarded as satisfactory which failed to notice the relationship which
it bore to the much disputed doctrines of the sacrificial aspect of, and the
nature of the Presence of Christ in, the Holy Eucharist.
Now it is quite obvious that the
Revisionists provided more largely for the actual participation of the laity,
and gave fuller recognition to the Communion aspect of the celebration, which
had been obscured in mediaeval times especially by the frequency of solitary
masses in which the priest alone communicated. But while doing this they were extremely
careful to avoid bringing the sacrificial view into discredit: in proof of
which I would appeal to the general adoption of the term “altar,” and to the
great prominence assigned to the Prayer of Oblation, in which it was said that “we
do celebrate and make before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the
memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make.” But they were determined at the same time to
reestablish completely the principle of general communion, by the long
obscuration of which the ordinance had been deprived of so much of its power
and efficacy.
Then, touching the doctrine of the Real
Presence, there can be no doubt that the Revisionists retained “the ancient
belief from which no Apostolic branch of the Church had ever swerved,” viz.,
that the consecrated elements were in some way the Body and Blood of Christ. [Cf. Freeman’s Principles, Introd., pt. II., sect.
xi. Massingberd, Eng. Ref., pp. 400–2.]
The words of administration used by them in
either kind were the first part only of the formulas now in use, “The Body of
our LORD Jesus Christ which was given for thee,” – and the “Blood of our LORD
Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life,” and they necessitate this view. It is strengthened moreover by the manifested
anxiety of the ultra-Protestant divines to get rid of them, which clearly
indicates how they were interpreted.
But while they “affirmed in unequivocal
language, and as the basis of all Eucharistic truth, what the consecrated
elements were,” with a wisdom which cannot be overestimated, they made no show
even of explaining the manner of Christ’s Presence, but left it, as it ever
should be left, a mystery impenetrable to finite intelligence.
The character of the work effected by the
first revision of the Old Service books has not unfrequently been
misrepresented. There is an idea too
widely prevalent, that a complete revolution in Church worship was carried out
at this time, whereas nothing could have been further from the thoughts and
intentions of those who undertook the revision, as any one may see who will
investigate the principles by which, as we have desired to show, they were really
actuated. Their aim was restoration, and
in the process of attaining to it, they exercised the most careful
discrimination between the old and the new, and, while cutting away without
hesitation the later overgrowths, preserved with scrupulous care the ancient
landmarks. And the impartial critic will
not hesitate to acknowledge that the conservative and reverent spirit which
animated them is abundantly evidenced in the result of their efforts.
But we pass on to the close. The arduous labours of the Committee came to
an end, and the report of their deliberations was drawn up and laid upon the
table to be attested by the sign-manual of the individual members: and it is
not a little remarkable that notwithstanding their diversity of opinions, and
the warm discussions which many of the questions had provoked, the result which
they had attained was held to be so satisfactory, that there was but one
dissentient: Day of Chichester alone [Skip and Thirlby signed the Book, but
protested against the Act of Uniformity. – Soames, p. 401.] protesting
that his conscience compelled him to withhold his assent to the document.
The next step, of course, was to give it
legal force.
Convocation met in November, but though we
have no records of what actually took place, we have the authority of the King
for stating that it was agreed to by “the whole clergy ... of this our realm in
their synods and provincial convocations.” [The Acts of Convocation are lost, having
perished in the Great Fire in 1666 A.D., but the King states in answer to the
Devonshire petition that the book was sanctioned by Convocation. The letter is preserved in Bonner’s Register. Cf. Lathbury, Hist. of Convoc., p. 138, n.; and Hardwick’s Ref., p. 213, n.] Then after
being presented to the Crown it was laid before the nobility and commons
assembled in parliament, and on January 15, 1549 A.D., an Act of Uniformity was
passed enjoining the use of the Revised Prayer Book after Whitsuntide, in every
parish of the King’s dominions “throughout England, Wales, Calais, and the
marches of the same.” [It
was allowed by the Act to use the Book, if it could be procured, as soon as
Easter. It was used in divers London
churches on Easter day, which fell on the 21st of April, and most probably also
in some of the Provinces; for, as the rising of the Devonshire rebel’s took
place on the 10th of June, and Whitsunday was on the 9th, the Service must have
become known before this Festival. Cf.
Lathbury, ibid. ] The
postponement of the operation of the Act appears to have been unnecessarily
long, but this particular time was selected by the Revisers for the purpose of
specially dedicating their work to GOD on the Feast of the Holy Ghost, by Whose
controlling influence they believed their counsels to have been guided
throughout, and brought to a successful issue at last. [Cf. The Act of
Uniformity.]
And now that all the legal formalities had
been gone through, let us see how the Book was received.
Some of the London Churches set the example
of compliance with the law, and superseded the old Service-books even before
the term of respite had expired. [“After Easter beganne the service in
English in divers churches, and at Whitsuntide at Paules by the commandement of
the dean.” – Stowe, 1038. “At Easter
some began to officiate by it, followed by others, as soon as books could be
provided.” – Heylin’s Eccles. Rest.,
74, quoted by Lathbury, 139, n.]
Throughout the country, not a few of the
clergy, who were averse to any alteration, accepted it because the changes were
less violent than they had been led to anticipate; many of the laity also
welcomed it gladly, not so much for any modification in doctrine, as from the
fact that being written in English, it made their worship more interesting, and
converted what in too many cases had been merely a dumb show into a living
intelligent transaction. But there were
many exceptions. Some of the priests
expressed an obstinate determination to resist the operation of the Act, and
were contented to suffer for conscience sake. Others openly conformed to the obligation, but
secretly continued to celebrate as of old, and, as this created considerable
trouble and confusion, the Lords of the Council took violent measures to remedy
the evil. This, however, was trifling,
compared to other difficulties which arose among the laity, and plunged certain
disaffected parts of the country into the miseries of civil war.
In these counties the proclamation of the Act
was followed by insurrection. The first
outbreak was in Devonshire and Cornwall. In the latter of these, one thing, which had
especially recommended the Revised Book elsewhere, had little if any force at
all. The change from Latin to English
was no gain to the Cornishmen, to whom one was as unintelligible as the other.
The primary cause of the rebellion is to be
found not in any spontaneous outburst of religious feeling, or general aversion
to the Reformed service on the part of the people themselves, but to the
fanaticism of a few individuals who urged them on.
Body, [Soames’ Reformation, iii. 440.] one of the Royal Commissioners
appointed to destroy idolatrous shrines, was stabbed to the heart by a
misguided priest, who, to justify murder, called upon the people to imitate his
zeal, and save their Churches from desecration. Other priests went about the country preaching
what the Mahometans call “a Jehad,” and invested the movement with all the
character of a religious war; and when open hostilities broke out, they carried
the Host on to the field of battle.
A secondary cause was an infatuated
conviction that in some way the Revisionists were associated with the abolition
of the Common Lands. Many of the
nobility to whom Abbey estates had been granted, attempted to turn them to the
best account, and made no scruple of enclosing commons, without any respect to
the rights of the poor to pasturage.
At Sampford Courtenay in Devonshire, the
priest in charge professed his intention of acceding to the change of Liturgy
on the appointed day, but had secretly instigated the people to stop him by
force, and claim the Latin Mass. From
this village the flames of discontent spread [The rebellion began on Whitsun
Monday, June 10th.]
rapidly, and within a few weeks no less than ten thousand men, mostly
mechanics, and deluded peasants, took the field in defense of the old Forms. They marched to Exeter, and from the outskirts
of the city, sent their demands into the King’s camp, couched in insolent
language, insisting on the restitution of their Service books, a recognition of
Transubstantiation; and strangely enough, the reenactment of the Bloody Statute
of the Six Articles. The Exonians
determined on resistance, and the straits to which they were subjected, through
a prolonged siege, have rarely been equaled in the annals of history. We may form some conception of the miseries
they endured, when we read that one of the citizens proclaimed in the
marketplace, that sooner than surrender he would fight with one arm and feed
upon the other! At last, when the Royal
troops were sufficiently strong to advance against the rebels (and it was not
till three merchant princes had come forward to reinforce the leader with large
supplies of money, and a regiment of Italian archers had been enlisted in the
service), their fate was sealed. They
suffered three successive defeats, and the rebellion was crushed.
The revenge was severe. [Commanded by
Baptista Spinola. They joined Lord
Russell’s forces and aided very materially in compelling the enemy to raise the
siege. The city was relieved on the 6th
of August. – Cf. Heylin, Ed. VI. p.
159. Froude’s Hist. of. Eng. iv. 410, sm. ed.] Arundel, Winslade, Berry, and Coffin, the
ringleaders, were publicly executed at Tyburn: a multitude of others were
unceremoniously hanged, among them the Mayor of Bodmin, and a number of priests;
and in Exeter, Welsh, the Vicar of St. Thomas’, was suspended from his own
Church tower, where he hung in chains till “his Popish apparel” rotted away,
and the carrion crows picked his bones.
That was the most serious of the
Rebellions.
We notice more briefly the rising in
Norfolk, June 20, at Attleborough, for this, at least at the outset, was less
than the other a protest against the Prayer Book. At first the enclosure of the commons was
their cry of complaint, but as their numbers swelled new grievances were sought
for, and we have them expressing themselves in such terms as these: “The
miseries of this world might be borne; but when the loss of our souls is the
question, the ruin from that quarter must be prevented at the utmost hazard ...
the holy ceremonies of antiquity are abolished, and a new face and form of
religion forced upon us.”
Again the Royal troops were unequal to the
task of restoring order. Kett, [Robert Kett, who
had been a tanner, was possessed of considerable landed property at Wymondham,
and desiring to add to it, enclosed some of the public commons. His fences were demolished by a number of
insurgents, whom he was induced to join.] the rebel chief, established a mock
court under the “Oak of Reformation,” [This was on Moushold-hill overlooking
the city of Norwich.]
and spread terror through the surrounding country. And here occurred an incident which nearly
cost the great Reformer of Queen Elizabeth’s reign his life. Parker, in despair at the failure of the
sword, resolved to try the effect of peaceable measures. He made his way into the rebel camp, and from
a branch of the famous oak, endeavoured to recall the people to counsels of
moderation. But they were in no mood to
listen, and were about to tear him to pieces for his advice, when the Chaplain
of the Rebel Forces, realizing the imminence of the peril, called upon the
people suddenly to sing the Te Deum, and in the excitement and enthusiasm which
it kindled the future Primate made good his escape. [Cf. Hook’s Life of Parker, 99.]
At length, vigorous measures were taken by
the government, and the mutiny was quelled. [They were commanded by the
Marquess of Northampton, who failed, and was superseded by the Earl of Warwick,
who fought a bloody battle at Dussingdale, defeating the rebels and leaving
2000 of them dead on the field, – Aug. 27.]
Kett, on Norwich Castle, his brother on the steeple of Wymondham Church,
and nine other rebels on as many branches of the “consecrated Oak,” paid the
penalty of their crime.
And with their deaths resistance to the
Reformed Liturgy ceased; and it was introduced throughout the length and
breadth of the land to the increased edification of the people and the greater
glory of Almighty GOD.
Chapter II – The Puritan
Innovations
The Revised Prayer Book, after the
opposition in Devonshire and Norfolk had subsided, received very general
recognition. Of course there were some
who, while grateful for the reforms which had been effected, could ill suppress
their conviction that the hands of the Reformers had been stayed too soon. These, however, in England at least, were not
a numerous body; and if no influence from without had been brought to bear upon
them, they would probably have quietly acquiesced without taking any action in
the matter. But there were many restless
spirits on the Continent who watched the progress of reform in this country
with the keenest interest, and whose hopes seemed to hang upon the English
Church. All they felt would be safe if
only they could indoctrinate England with a truly Protestant spirit, a genuine
aversion to anything and everything which received the approval of Rome.
Foremost amongst these were Calvin, Melanchthon,
John à Lasco, Racer, and Peter Martyr.
Unfortunately they found in Cranmer, the
Primate of the English Church, a too ready listener to their proposals. All of them entered into correspondence with
him upon ecclesiastical affairs; some of them came over in person, and were
welcomed as guests in his Palace, and received much sympathy and encouragement
at his hands.
Calvin, piqued by the manner in which the
Archbishop had met his proposal* to take part in the first Revision, hesitated
to risk a second rebuff by direct negotiations, but endeavoured first to
ingratiate himself with the Protector, hoping through him ultimately to attain
his object. He was considerate enough to
express his general approval of set forms of prayer, but with the
self-sufficiency, which asserts itself in all his letters, enters upon an
elaborate criticism and censure of many of those which had so lately received
the sanction of the English Convocation, the King, and the Parliament. After this he wrote to Edward VI pleading for
more extensive revision.
[*Heylin says, “the Archbishop knew the
man and refused the offer.” – Hist. Edw.
VI. p. 134. Calvin’s readiness to
come over is expressed in one of his letters thus – “If it shall be thought
that I can be of any use, I should not hesitate to cross even the seas, if
necessary, for the purpose.” It is
asserted that this was written later, but it is generally known that his
opinions were not approved by the leading Reformers. Cf. Cardwell. Pref. to
Litt. of Edw. VI. p. xxxii.]
Cranmer had no personal liking for Calvin,
and if he had been the only discontented complainant, probably little notice
would have been taken of his grievance, but a far more dangerous Reformer
entered into the field of controversy in the person of Melanchthon. The
connection between him and the Primate began under most favourable
circumstances. It would hardly be possible to find any other two men with such
strong natural affinities to each other. Now at this time Melanchthon was
possessed by an intense desire to draw up a Concordat which should commend
itself to the Protestant world at large, and act as a powerful engine against
the Papacy. So long as this was attacked by the Churches singly he felt that it
would always prove formidable, perhaps quite invincible, but if it could once
be attacked by a combination of forces its downfall was secured.
The possibility of the scheme had been
suggested to him by the cordial reception of the Confession,* which he had
compiled, throughout the Lutheran communities. It is characteristic, however, of Melanchthon’s
modesty, and strangely in contrast with the self-confidence of his brother
Reformer, that he shrank back from all claim to take part even in drawing up
the terms of agreement, and more than hinted at the imperfections of the
document he had framed.
[*This document was presented to the
Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, June 26, 1530 A.D. It is divided into two parts, one referring to
matters of faith, the other to ecclesiastical discipline touching certain
matters of dispute. It is distinctly
Lutheran, and received the signatures of all the princes who professed Lutheran
opinions, viz.: – John, the Elector of Saxony; George, Markgrave of
Brandenburg; Ernest, Duke of Lünenburg; Philip, Landgrave of Hesse; John
Frederick, Electoral Prince of Saxony; Francis, Duke of Lünenburg; Wolfgang,
Prince of Anhalt, together with the Senates of Nurenberg and Reutlingen. Cf. Hardwick. Hist. of the Articles, c. ii. p. 17.]
The idea commended itself to Cranmer’s
judgment, and he lost no time in inviting its originator to settle in this
country, but the invitation was not accepted. Again and again the Archbishop renewed his
efforts, holding out every possible inducement, but Melanchthon persistently
refused to leave his native land. The
urgency of the invitations we may gather from the astonishment expressed in one
of his letters, [Cf.
Laurence, Bamp. Lect. notes to p. 37.] in which he
writes that “the English pressed him so hard that they took away his breath.”
To any one who had interested himself in
the work of Reform the union of all the Reformed Churches in such a coalition
must in itself have appeared a grand conception; but past experience of such
combinations ought to have suggested difficulty and danger. If the alliance was to be more than nominal it
would entail many sacrifices before satisfactory terms could be mutually agreed
upon. Of these it was inevitable that by
far the larger share would be called for from England. Unhappily Cranmer had already begun to drift
away from the principles which he so boldly advocated at the Windsor Revision;
[When
the First Prayer Book of Edward VI was drawn up.] and the utter inconsistency of
making the required concessions failed to deter him. There was certainly one most desirable object
to be obtained by the project, and possibly this weighed largely with him. It would give back to the Lutheran and Calvinistic
Churches the Episcopal government which they had lost. [The Reformation
in Germany was not supported by any Bishop. None but priests joined Luther, and ho was
obliged, by the force of circumstances, either to abandon his design, or to
admit the novel ordination of priests by the laying on of hands of the priests
alone. He chose the latter course. The Augsburg Confession shows that a true
sacramental system was retained with true priests to administer it for a time,
but without the means of transmitting the power. Calvin’s Reformation began on lower grounds
still. The Helvetic Confession
maintained that Christ is the sole priest, except so far as laymen may be
regarded as priests. He instituted a new
order. Cf. Carter on the Doctrine of the Priesthood, c. iv. p.
24.]
But he never calculated how much was to
be set over against this one advantage in the surrender of other Catholic
privileges. The Swiss Protestants, [Ranke, the
historian, in contrasting Luther and Zwingli, shows how, while the former
desired to retain everything that was not at variance with the express teaching
of Scripture, the latter determined to abolish everything which could not be
supported by Scripture totidem verbis. – Reform.
in Germ. iii. 88, 89 (Eng. trans.).] for instance, were impatient of
everything, either in doctrine or ritual, for which express direction was
wanting in Holy Scripture. To conciliate
them the authority of antiquity, the witness of tradition, the decrees of
general Councils – all must be disregarded – and, in a word, the guiding
principles of the First Revision completely reversed.
Cranmer, unless he wilfully closed his
eyes, must have seen all this at the outset; but he was egged on by the Privy
Council and the King himself. The fiery
Scotch Reformer, John Knox, already enrolled among the Royal Chaplains, [In December 1551
A.D . He was afterwards proposed for the See of Rochester, but his scruples,
especially about kneeling at the Holy Communion, prevented him from accepting
it.]
was actually proposed for a vacant Bishopric, the King expressing a hope that
if raised to the Episcopal Bench he might prove “a whetstone to quicken and
sharpen the Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he had need.” But though the Utopian scheme of Melanchthon
was soon relinquished as hopeless, the impulse in the direction of
Protestantism which Cranmer had received lost little of its force. Indeed it gathered fresh energy from a new and
unexpected cause. This produced
ultimately such grave and unhappy results that we cannot pass on till we have
traced its origin with care and attention.
On March 15, 1529 A.D., a diet of the
German Empire was ordered by Charles V to take into consideration the state of
religion in his dominions. A resolution
was passed ratifying a previous condemnation of Luther, and pledging the
members of the Conference to use their endeavours to stem the tide of
innovation which was threatening to inundate the land.
The Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave of
Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, the Dukes of Lünenburg, together with the
Commissioners from fourteen Imperial cities, [The diet of Spires enforced the
decree issued against Luther at Worms in 1524 A.D. The fourteen cities were Strasburg, Ulm,
Nurenberg, Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Meinengen, Liudaw, Kempten,
Hailbron, Isna, Weissenburg, Nordlingen, and St. Gal. – Robertson, Hist. of Charles V. lib. v. p. 34.] made a manly
defense for the rights of conscience, and solemnly protested against what they
held to be an unjust decree, gaining from this circumstance the distinction of
being the progenitors of all who have since borne the title of “Protestant”.
The league of Smalcald, [It was formed
March 29, 1531 A.D. The Protestants
bound themselves by it to aid each other in upholding the Augsburg Confession
for six years.]
which followed not long after, bound the Protestant States together for mutual
defense against all aggression upon their religious rights. The Emperor determined to leave no stone
unturned to defeat their object, but it was not till some time had elapsed that
he was able to take any decisive step. In 1548 A.D., by the aid of several divines,
he drew up a system of Theology [It was compiled mainly by John Agricola
of Brandenburg. The only real
concessions to the Protestants were the withdrawal of the restrictions touching
the marriage of the Clergy in certain cases, and the permission to administer
the Cup to the laity.]
for general adoption, but although it was written with most carefully studied
dissimulation, and every artifice which language could provide was employed to
conceal its real effect, it was soon discovered to be conformable in all but a
few unimportant articles to the old Roman Religion. The document purported to be merely intended
as a provisional arrangement, of force only till a general Council could be
summoned, and it was designated accordingly “The Interim”.
The Emperor was determined to bind the
States to his will, and to coerce all who refused compliance. One prince after another suffered
imprisonment, taking courage from the noble example of the Elector of Saxony,
whom threats and promises alike failed to shake. “I cannot now,” he said, “in my old age
abandon the principles for which I formerly contended; nor, in order to procure
freedom during a few declining years, will I betray that good cause on account
of which I have suffered so much, and am still willing to suffer. Better for me to enjoy in this solitude the
esteem of virtuous men, together with the approbation of my own conscience,
than to return unto the world, with the imputation and guilt of apostasy, and
to disgrace and embitter the remainder of my days.” The severity of his confinement was increased,
and everything done to compel submission; but throughout Germany and in the
Netherlands, there was an obstinate determination not to be drawn back again
into the toils from which they had extricated themselves, when Luther threw the
Papal Bull into the flames at Wittenberg.
But in the midst of all this persecution it
was not surprising that they looked abroad for a free country where they might
hold and proclaim their opinions without molestation; and it was no less
surprising that they turned instinctively to England to find what they desired.
These were the circumstances which
brought the bulk of the Foreign Protestants into this country. I have dwelt upon the history at length, at
the risk of being tedious, because it was of such momentous consequence to the
Church, that it can hardly be too carefully considered.
The leading Foreigners, who took refuge
with us, were John à Lasco, Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer.
As they affected for a time the whole
character of Liturgical worship in England, I shall adopt the plan which I
followed with the First Revisionists, and endeavour to draw out the leading
features of their lives and work for the better understanding of the influence
which they exercised.
In May 1550 A.D., John à Lasco came to
settle in London. Though by birth a
Pole, of noble blood, he had been living in the capital of Friesland [He settled at
Emden in 1537 A.D.]
for some years, and taking a prominent part in all the Ecclesiastical
controversies, which agitated the Netherlands, as well as the rest of the
Continent. The Protestant cause made
great progress in the province, and the Emperor, perhaps confounding its
advocates to some extent with the turbulent Anabaptists, took the extreme
measure of invoking the aid of the Spanish Inquisition to suppress them. [Cf. Hardwick, Ref. c. ii. p. 161.]
The fear of this, combined with the
publication of “the Interim,” [In the Spring of 1550 A.D.] drove à Lasco
to find a refuge in England. The
widespread influence which he exercised over the Foreign Churches, which had
formed or were forming congregations in London, is very remarkable, and stamps
him as a man of no inconsiderable power. He succeeded without difficulty in gaining the
ear of the Lords of the Council, Cecil and Cheke, and through them of the
Protector Somerset. He held out to him
the advantages to trade, especially in the branch of weaving, which was their specialty,
likely to accrue to our country if his followers were permitted to dwell
unmolested. And he gained even more than
he asked. The King was so fascinated by
his conversation, and touched by his story, that he actually granted part of
the dissolved monastery of the Augustinian Friars as a chapel for his
congregation, together with the unprecedented privilege of absolute security
from interference, civil and ecclesiastical, in their forms of worship and
discipline. This remarkable concession,
[The
letters patent gave them leave “suos libere et
quiete frui gaudere uti et exercere ritus et caeremonias suas proprias et
disciplinam ecclesiasticam propriam et peculiarem.” – Wilkins, iv. 65. Hardwick, Ref.
c. iv. p. 219.]
fraught with so much future trouble to the Church, was signed and sealed on
July 24, 1550 A.D. It offered all that
the restless spirits of the time could desire in the free exercise of religious
worship, after other forms than those established by the law of the land. The home of à Lasco became a rendezvous for
persecuted foreigners of whatever denomination or doctrinal opinion, and he
reigned like a second Pontiff over a multitude of communities, Dutch, German,
Italian, Florentine, Belgian and French. In doctrine, on the crucial question of the
day, the nature of the Sacraments, he advocated strongly Zwinglian principles,
and condemned as idolatrous the practice of kneeling to receive the consecrated
elements. His aversion to Rites and
Ceremonies manifested itself in his eagerness to shake off the fetters of
English usage; while in the Vestiarian controversy, which was creating such
trouble and bitterness at this time, Hooper expressed his satisfaction that
though there were many men of influence and position from whom he expected
support “John à Lasco alone stood by his side.”
His piety was most marked, and his learning
so profound, that Erasmus pronounced him to be “a man of such parts that he
wished for no greater happiness than his single friendship,” [“Johannis à Lasco tale sum expertus ingenium ut vel hoc
uno amico mihi videar sat beatus.” – Erasmi Epist. 878. Strype, Cranmer.
ii. 277.]
and as an unmistakable mark of his esteem, he bequeathed to him in his will the
then-priceless treasure of his Library.
Now while à Lasco was exercising his great
influence in favour of Calvinistic doctrine and unrestrained liberty of private
judgment in the metropolis, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were being
brought under the training of foreign minds in many respects of no very
different type. Peter Martyr was
teaching at Oxford; Martin Bucer at Cambridge. Martyr, a man of high birth,
spent his early years in a Florentine monastery, but was at last compelled,
like so many of his contemporaries, to become an exile for conscience sake. Like à Lasco he found a sanctuary in England.
[He
came to England in 1549 A.D.] Shortly
after his arrival, mainly through the Primate’s influence he superseded Dr.
Richard Smith in the Chair of Divinity at Oxford. He became at once unpopular with the
University authorities; his first offence was taking his wife to live with him
in his Canonical lodgings at Christ Church, she being the first woman who had
ventured to invade by her presence the sanctity of College life. Dying shortly after, she was buried by the
shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church Cathedral, but on the accession of
Queen Mary the Celibates had their revenge, for her body was thrown out in
scorn and buried in a dunghill without the precincts of the College. [On the accession
of Elizabeth, her bones were restored to the Cathedral, and, to avoid the
possibility of future desecration, were mingled with those of the patron Saint
in the same shrine.]
In the earliest lectures that he delivered,
he took such a low view of the Sacraments as to assert that they were mere “
figures of absent things,” and the general tone of his Theology roused a spirit
of strong opposition, so strong that on one occasion when the Schools were
thronged by town as well as gown, he owed his preservation from personal
violence to the timely interposition of the Vice-Chancellor and his attendants.
[He
selected for his subject, 1 Corinthians, 11.
Cf. Soames, Edw. VI. 504. Strype (Cranmer.
ii. 157) gives an interesting account of the disputations upon
Transubstantiation which were subsequently held.]
Again, on the Vestiarian controversy he
took up a position directly opposed to all the traditional usage of the
Catholic Church, and was heard to boast that although a Canon of the Cathedral “he
had never worn a surplice at Oxford, even when present in the Choir,” and his
favourite designation for the Eucharistic vestments was “relics of the Amorites”.
[This
designation is first attributed to Jewel.
Cf. Life, by Le Bas, p. 74.]
And these are things which we must not
forget when we come to consider the changes which the Second Edwardian Prayer Book
effected both in doctrine and ceremonial.
We pass to the third of the distinguished
Foreigners. His original name was
Kuhorn, but according to a pedantic fashion of the day [Cf. Melanchthon,
Erasmus, etc.]
he changed it to Bucer, βους
κέρας, or in English “Cowhorn”. Much of his early life he spent at Heidelberg
as a Dominican Friar, [He
was born at Alsace in 1491 A.D., and at seven years of age took the habit of
St. Dominic. He came to England at the
urgent request of Cranmer in April 1549 A.D., and began his Lectures on the New
Testament after the Long Vacation.] but was at length tempted to abandon
the cloister and entered the married state: and in doing so not only violated
his own sacred promise, but induced another to do the same, for he selected a
nun for his partner; and when in the plague which devasted the country in 1541
A.D., she and five of her thirteen sons were carried off, the enemies who
professed the old Faith boasted that judgment had overtaken her at last for her
broken vows.
On coming to England at the same time as
Martyr, Bucer was placed in the corresponding Chair of Divinity in the sister
University, where he gave a fresh direction to the studies of the place. While his brother Professor at Oxford had been
trained in the School of Calvin, he had sat at the feet of Luther. [He first met
Luther at the Diet of Worms, and subsequently was engaged much with him in
discussing Theological questions, but never accepted the doctrine of
Consubstantiation. He held, however, “quod corpus Christi vere et substantialiter a nobis
accipiatur, cum sacramento utimur.” – Cf. Hardwick, Ref. iii. 166, n.] He did not,
it is true, accept his master’s teaching on the subject of subjects, he
nevertheless held Sacramental views many degrees removed from the bareness of
Calvin’s pupil.
The vicious principle that the abuse of a
thing is in itself a sufficient argument for its disuse, had a complete hold
upon him, and it led him to oppose with fatal effect the Catholic practice of
commending the faithful dead in prayer to the mercy of GOD. He did not hesitate to profess his cordial
acceptance of the Revised Prayer Book, but inasmuch as in twenty-eight chapters
of criticism of its contents, he finds abundant material for censure, it is difficult
to acquit him of the charge of dissimulation, and certainly his views upon the
utility of ceremonies, and “the circumstance” of religious worship, are utterly
inconsistent with an unreserved approval of the principles of the First
Revision. For instance, he confessed
that the sign of the Cross in Holy Baptism, the symbolical act of investing
with the Chrisom, [See below.] and “the
sanctification of water to the mystical washing away of sin,” were especially
distasteful to him. Even the innocent practice
of bell ringing, except immediately before service, he denounced for reasons
quite unintelligible.
The separation of the Clergy from the Laity
during Divine Service, he designated an “antichristian practice”. The manual acts accompanying the words of
Consecration in the Holy Eucharist he condemned as useless, and not only did he
show an aversion to the Eucharistic vestments, but went so far as to object to
wearing the Academic dress, though he shielded what we believe was a genuine
detestation under the disguise of a quaint witticism, “that he could hardly be
expected to wear a square cap, seeing that his head was round.” [There is much
dispute as to the originator of this witticism.
Fox (vi. 641), speaking of Hooper at Consecration, says, “Upon his head
he had a geometrical, that is, a four-squared cap, albeit that his head was
round.” – Cf. Heylin, Edw. VI. p.
194.]
But while we find so much with which we can
feel little sympathy, we must not omit to bear testimony to his personal
attractiveness and an amiability and sweetness of disposition towards those who
differed from him, which often proved irresistible in winning them to his side.
His residence at Cambridge was of short
duration, but sufficiently long to endear him to men of every class, and shade
of opinion, and he was followed to his grave by the whole body of the
University.
The learned ecclesiastic Redmayn, Master of
Trinity, who delivered a panegyric upon his merits, confessed that his own high
sacramental views might not improbably have undergone material modification had
not the influence of the Professor’s teaching been so prematurely closed. His labours in the Protestant cause were not
forgotten when Queen Mary reigned, for his body was exhumed, and burnt in the
marketplace; but the dishonour was wiped out at a later date, when a special
act of reparation was performed at St. Mary’s, and the Church presented a
spectacle unique in its history, the walls being literally covered with
laudatory verses and tributes to his worth.
It was to the spell of these three men that
Cranmer yielded himself up. Whether he
actually utilized their direct aid and counsel, during the progress of the
Second Revision, or not, is really a matter of indifference, or at least of
secondary importance. When we contrast
him with what he was when he sat in the Chair in the Windsor Assembly, no one
can deny that a vast change had passed over him; and when we go on to consider
how the change had taken place in the very direction of the teaching of certain
influential men, with whom he had been living in close intimacy or
correspondence, there is only one consistent conclusion to be drawn.
In the alterations which mark the Revision
under present consideration we see again and again such a significant
coincidence between the proscription of forms or doctrine, and the peculiar
tenets of one or other of these Foreign Reformers, that it is simple blindness
to refuse to acknowledge the potency of this alien influence.
Now, while Cranmer and the King had been
drawn into such close bonds of sympathy with the Exiles, and strongly impelled,
as we have seen, to conciliate them by further revision of our Service books in
view of a great Protestant Alliance, matters were brought to a crisis by the
outbreak of the Vestiarian controversy.
The prominent figure throughout was John
Hooper.
On the passing of the “Bloody Statute” [The Act of Six
Articles was passed in 1539 A. D. Hooper
was chiefly influenced at Zurich by Bullinger.] he fled to Zurich, and there
became thoroughly impregnated with Swiss theology, and enamoured of the
bareness, of Zwingle’s forms of service.
After his return home upon the accession of
Edward VI, he was appointed to preach before the King and his Most Honourable
Privy Council, and availed himself of the opportunity of advocating in several
sermons a number of sweeping changes and most startling innovations. His first efforts were directed to the
destruction of stone altars [The subject of his sermons preached before the King
was “an oversight and deliberation upon the holy prophet Jonas.” In the fourth of the course he advocated the
destruction of the altars.] and the substitution of wooden tables, which he
deemed imperative, for the overthrow of the Sacrificial doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist; and in this crusade Ridley went heartily with him. [He wrote a
treatise to show why “the Lord’s Board should rather be after the form of a
table than of an altar,” cf. Works, p. 321. In his Injunctions he exhorted “the curates,
church wardens, and questmen to erect and set up the Lord’s Board after the
form of an honest table.” Cardwell. Docum. Ann. i. 82.] As a necessary sequel it was followed up by an
attack upon the Eucharistic Vestments, which he said were only “marks of
Judaism” calculated to bring us back again to the Aaronic Priesthood. From this he went on to condemn the Academic
habits, and the Convocation Robes of the Prelates especially as being of the
colour which was held to identify the Papacy with the Babylonian harlot. But here the Bishop of London wisely quitted
his side. He even contended so strongly
for the mediaeval dress, that, sooner than yield, he advised the imprisonment
of his old colleague for his obstinate refusal to wear them. Hooper was committed to the Fleet. [He was first
committed to the Archbishop’s custody, but being immoveable in his
determination not to wear the Episcopal habit, he was condemned to imprisonment
January 27, 1551 A.D.: cf. Strype, ii. 217. He complied subsequently on condition that he
should be “attired in the vestments prescribed when he was consecrated and when
he preached before the King or in his cathedral or in any public place, but be
dispensed with on other occasions.”
Collier, v. 429.]
It was one of those unguarded moves, which
so often lead to consequences the very opposite to what is desired.
Persecution endured for conscience sake,
not unfrequently terminates in favour of the persecuted. When the Prison door closed upon Hooper, the
battle was won for his cause.
And, with this agitation, the combination
of forces requisite to reopen the reform of Church worship was well-nigh
complete. It only wanted the sanction of
Convocation to insure recommencement and unimpeded progress afterwards. But, to the honour of the Church, that was
never given.
At the urgent solicitation of Calvin, the
two Houses seem to have taken into consideration the desirableness of
proceeding with the work of revision, but though the records of their
deliberations have perished, it would appear from contemporary evidence that
they did not encourage, certainly not formally authorize, the proposed
undertaking. Some of the Upper House, it
is true, having been like the Primate brought under Continental influence, did
suggest to the Lower House that they should consult upon certain controverted
passages in the Book of Common Prayer; but when the latter were called upon by
their spiritual superiors to give in the result of their deliberations, they
found an excuse in the plea that insufficient time had been allowed, [When the Upper
House debated upon certain disputed points they made known their views to the
Prolocutor, but the Lower House made answer “that they had not sufficiently
considered of the points proposed, but that they would give their lordships
some account thereof in the following session”; but there is no trace of their
fulfilling the promise. Heylin, 1. 228.] but made no
signs of proceeding with the business, which, as far as they were concerned,
was altogether dropped. It is quite
clear that they were averse to the proposal, and that the King was fully aware
of it. Otherwise it would be impossible
to account for his declaration, that he was determined to carry it through,
despite all opposition, and if the changes he desired were not secured by the
ordinary process, he would, as head of the Church, exercise his prerogative and
enforce revision.
Eventually an Act of Parliament was passed
directing that the former Liturgy “should be faithfully and godly perused,
explained, and made fully perfect.” [It was enjoined that it should be done
by the King with the assent of the Lords and Commons. 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. i. Fuller, Ch. Hist. 312.]
This was the authority upon which the
Revision was undertaken.
Before we look at the changes which were
made, let us prepare ourselves by a rapid glance at the distinctive features of
Catholic and Puritan worship.
The Catholic clings to his Church as an
historic Church. In every age of its existence its present is linked with its
past. Its faith is a symbol of unity,
because it is part of the great heritage of Catholic tradition: not an
ever-changing system of religion and worship, but one inherited through a long
line of ancestry, to be transmitted unimpaired to the latest posterity.
The Church of the Puritan is essentially
unhistoric, with no reverence for ancient forms because of their antiquity, but
ready at any time to sacrifice whatever in her judgment has become tainted with
error; to supersede by modern innovations the most time-honoured usage.
And now, in the light of this broad
distinction, let us look at the changes themselves.
They were so numerous that without
attempting to exhaust the list, I shall be satisfied to set forth those which
from their significance seem most worthy of our attention.
The title of the book was changed. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI it was “The
book of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments and other rites and
ceremonies of the Church, after the use of the Church of England.”
In the second Prayer Book “of the Church”
was omitted, and an indirect blow given to the claim of the Anglican branch to
belong to the Catholic Church.
The spirit of the next change is worthy of
all praise. Before the revision only
such as “served the congregation” were expected to recite daily Matins and
Evensong. Henceforward an obligation was
laid upon all priests and deacons, “except they be letted by preaching,
studying of divinity, or by some other urgent cause”; and also upon all Curates
to say the same in their Parish Churches, unless they were absent from home or
otherwise reasonably hindered.
These obligations, with a slight
modification, remain in force at the present day. We cannot but think some evil has arisen from
the causes of exemption not having been duly recognized. In many villages where the clergyman hesitates
because he is singlehanded, the Daily service would be offered, if it were
thoroughly understood by priest and people that its intermission from time to
time from several causes, provided for in the rubric, would convey no
impression of neglect of duty.
In the Calendar the names of three Saints
were admitted, viz., SS. George, Laurence, and Clement; upon what grounds the
two former were so honoured, it is difficult to divine, considering the strong
objections felt by the Revisionists to the principle of commemorating any other
than those whose place in Scripture history entitled them to distinction.
At the same time Mary Magdalene was allowed
to drop out, probably from a doubt in their minds that she was the woman who
was “a sinner,” to whom the portion of Scripture, St. Luke 7:36–50, read for
the Gospel referred. There are few
traditions more improbable and baseless than that which has resulted in the
popular belief.
And though the Revisionists might have
acted more wisely by substituting an appropriate passage, and thus retaining
her place in the services of the Church, almost anything is better than the perpetuation
of an error, which stained the memory of one of the most beautiful saints of
Gospel story.
Then we notice the introduction of a rubric
directing that the Prayers shall be said, “in such place of the Church, chapel,
or chancel, and the Minister shall so turn him as the people may best hear.” This was intended as a relaxation of the rule
or custom of the First Prayer Book, which placed the Reader in the Quire, where
he stood or knelt facing eastwards, [Cf. Blunt, The Annotated Pr. Book, p. 19.] turning, that is, in the same
direction as the congregation – a position which seemed fit and appropriate to
one who was acting for the time being as their head and representative. The modification was a concession to Bucer and
Calvin, whose vehement denunciations of the prevailing practice as “Antichristian”
and as an “insufferable abuse” are still extant.
Another change was the prefixing of the
Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution to the Matins, [The change was
extended to Evensong in 1662 A.D.] which had begun hitherto with the LORD’S
Prayer. This was necessary when the
frequency of divine service had ceased to solemnize the minds of the
congregation, and for this purpose a better preparation could hardly have been
devised. It is when the conscience is
relieved from the burden of its sins, that man is in the fittest mood to praise
and give thanks to GOD. The main object
however of the Revisionists in this was to discourage private confession and
absolution by providing through the public ministration of daily service the
benefits which had been sought hitherto from the priest singly and alone.
At the same time the “Alleluia,” which had
been sung from Easter to Trinity before the “Venite,” and which had become most
closely associated in the minds of the people with that joyful season, was
omitted.
The direction that “in places where they do
sing,” the lessons should be sung in a plain tune after the manner of distinct
reading, and likewise the Epistles and Gospels, was withdrawn: as also the rubric
enjoining the singing of the “Benedicite” during Lent in place of the “Te Deum”.
Henceforward it was made an alternative
for it, and in a similar manner was the “Jubilate” for the “Benedictus,” the “Cantate” for the “Magnificat,” and the “Deus misereatur” for the “Nunc dimittis.”
In the first instance the intention was
probably to allow of greater freedom in, using the “Benedicite,” which before
had been confined to a definite season. On
the score of ancient usage the claims of the two are equal: for if the “Te Deum”
be regarded as a development of the hymn which the early Christians in Pliny’s
time sang “to Christ as GOD,” we have on the other hand the testimony of St.
Chrysostom to the fact that the “Benedicite” had been sung from the beginning “everywhere
throughout the world.” In point of
propriety the one is the hymn of the Church, the other the song of the universe;
while then the former is more adapted for general use, the latter may be fitly
substituted on numerous occasions, when the blessings of creation are brought
prominently forward, and for this reason its relegation to Lent was a patent
inconvenience.
In the case of the “Jubilate,” the obvious
intention was that it should only be substituted for the “Benedictus” on the
occasions when the latter occurred elsewhere in the service, though this has
been completely frustrated, and the special hymn has for the most part
superseded the general. For obvious
reasons this supersession is much to be deprecated. What influences led the Revisionists to offer
the “Deus misereatur” for the “Nunc dimittis”
we have no means of determining, but in the case of the “Cantate”
for the “Magnificat” their motive was unmistakable. It was a needless compliance with the
unreasonable objections of the Puritans, who did not scruple to banish from its
time-honoured [The
use of the Magnificat in public worship can be traced back to the beginning of
the sixth century, as it is found in Lauds in the Rule of Caesarius;
whereas the Cantate was never sung except in the proper order of the
Psalms before 1552 A.D.]
position one of the very noblest outpourings of inspired song, to gratify their
aversion to everything which expressed the slightest reverence for the Mother
of our LORD.
The Incarnation was the special idea
embodied in the ancient Vespers, and it was very forcibly expressed in the
thankful acknowledgment alike of the Blessed Virgin and of the aged Simeon. The removal, therefore, of their Canticles
tended to break the continuity which the First Revisionists had been so careful
to preserve.
In the First Prayer Book the Athanasian
Creed was directed to be recited on the six great Festivals of Christmas,
Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Whitsunday, and Trinity. At the Second Revision seven Saints’ Days were
added, the selection being made, so as to provide for its being said, as nearly
as possible, once a month.
The discretion which allowed the
substitution of a passage of Scripture in place of the Litany on the Great
Festivals was withdrawn, as also the permission to omit the Litany, “Gloria in excelsis,” Creed, Homily and Exhortation to Holy
Communion, if there was to be a sermon or for other causes which were
considered important.
The wish of the Revisionists to enforce the
Litany on all Sundays is quite intelligible, when read in the light of their
austere and gloomy views of Sabbath observance; and though we may regret the
course they adopted in regard to this, they deserve all praise for refusing to
sanction the omission of the Creed and the “Gloria in excelsis.”
It is true we cannot trace the
recitation of a creed in the Liturgy without interruption from primitive times,
but it is obviously most desirable that every safeguard against heresy should
be taken in celebrating the great Mysteries; neither is it wise to curtail that
which helped to express our thanksgiving, and make the service a “sacrifice of
praise”.
In the Baptismal office the following rites
and ceremonies were abolished: viz., the trine immersion, the anointing with
oil, the signing the breast with the mark of the Cross, the form of exorcism in
which the priest commanded the unclean spirit to come out and no more exercise
tyranny over the infants whom Christ was calling to be of the number of his
flock, and the investiture of the newly baptized with the Chrisom, [See above.] as the priest
said “Take this white vesture for a token of the innocence, which by GOD’S
grace in this holy sacrament of baptism is given unto thee; and for a sign
whereby thou art admonished, so long as thou livest, to give thyself to
innocence of living, that after this transitory life, thou mayest be partaker
of the life everlasting.” At the same
time the custom of the sponsors laying their hands upon the child preparatory
to this ceremony was given up, as well as the dedication of the Chrisom by the
mother when she presented herself in Church at her purification.
Some of these ceremonies may have been
fitly removed, some might be now recovered with advantage. What, for instance, could be more appropriate
than the triple affusion accompanying the utterance of the triple Name of the
Triune GOD?
And amongst ignorant people, who, as an
experience proves, are taught most easily by signs and pictures, it is possible
to conceive of anything more instructive of the whole teaching of Holy Baptism,
than the immediate investiture of the newly baptized in a robe of spotless
purity?
An important addition was made by the
introduction of the five prayers: “O merciful GOD, grant that the old Adam,”
etc., of the form of reception into “the congregation of Christ’s flock,” and
of the declaration of the child’s regeneration, “Seeing now,” etc., together
with the thanksgiving for the same, “We yield Thee hearty thanks,” etc.
In Confirmation the rubric [“Then the Bishop
shall cross them in the forehead and lay his hand upon their head, saying, “N., I sign thee with the sign of the
cross, and lay my hand upon thee: In the Name,” etc.] was withdrawn
directing the Bishop to “cross them in the forehead,” ad the beautiful prayer
“Defend, O LORD, this child,” etc., substituted for another [“Sign them, O
Lord, and mark them to be thine for ever, by the virtue of thy holy Cross and
passion. Confirm and strength them with
the inward unction of Thy Holy Ghost, mercifully unto everlasting life.”] referring to
“the sign” as well as the unction of the Holy Ghost.
In Matrimony the sign of the Cross hitherto
made when the priest blessed the man and the woman was omitted, and a reference
to the apocryphal mission of the Angel Raphael to “Thobie and Sara” gave place
to that of a Scriptural fact, viz., the blessing of GOD upon Abraham and Sarah.
In the Visitation, and the Communion of the
Sick, the ancient rite of anointing with oil was no longer mentioned. The rubric providing that the form of
absolution used in this service should be available for all private confessions
was erased; and the liberty of reserving the Blessed Sacrament from an open
Communion celebrated on the same day, or from a Celebration in one sickroom for
Communion in another, was withdrawn.
No doubt abuses had sprung up in connection
with the practice of reservation, but now that there is little probability of
their breaking out afresh, a return to primitive custom might be allowed, and
with every prospect of affording relief to the clergy and benefit to the sick. Instances of widespread sickness and mortality
arising from some special cause must be within the experience of most parish
priests, where they have had no alternative but to transgress the existing law,
or leave men to die without the Food of eternal life.
In the Order for the Burial of the dead,
the service was robbed of its most comforting element, when, as touching prayer
for the departed, the mourners’ lips were sealed, and not even a pious
aspiration was allowed to relieve a stricken and sorrowful heart. Two special forms for commending the soul into
the hands of the merciful GOD were altogether expunged from the Office, and a
prayer that the sins which the departed had committed might not be imputed to
him, was turned into a thanksgiving that he had been delivered out of the
miseries of this sinful world; and further a petition for our perfect
consummation and bliss was couched in such ambiguous phrase that it is
impossible to say whether it comprehends the dead as well as the living, or
not.
The intention of the framers of it, judging
from their general course of action, most likely was to pray for the latter
alone; but their language was providentially so ordered that pious men in every
generation since have been able to use it with larger views and in a more
Catholic spirit.
And here I may be pardoned if I dwell awhile,
because the action of the Foreign Reformers in this matter has not only left a
most lamentable blot on the Book, but illustrates very clearly the principles by
which they were guided. Their boast was
that they cared little for antiquity, and had no reverence for the past; the
guidance to which they trusted was that of private judgment which many of them
came at last to believe in as infallible.
For fourteen or fifteen centuries, prayers
had been offered for those who died in the LORD: there was not a Liturgy [Cf. Luckock, After Death, pp. 109–115.] from the very
beginning, either in the East or the West, which did not contain such
petitions, and yet in the face of this usage, the unbroken usage of the Church
universal, because the Catholic belief in the intermediate state had been
confounded with the errors of Purgatory, they paraded their pernicious rule, “the
abuse is a sufficient reason for the disuse,” and disallowed in their cold and
loveless creed even thanksgiving for the good example of a departed saint.
From the earliest times a celebration of
the Holy Eucharist had been associated with the burial of the dead, and the
Revisionists of 1549 A.D. made full provision for a continuance of the custom. When their successors in 1552 A.D. omitted the
Introit. Collect, Epistle and Gospel appointed for the Service, thereby
discountenancing a Celebration, they left a void in our Prayer Book for which
nothing but its full restoration can ever supply adequate consolation.
In this Revision Psalms 116, 136, and 146,
which were said in the First Prayer Book either before or after the burial of
the corpse, were dropt out.
One object observable throughout appears to
have been a desire to curtail the service as far as possible; a desire which
developed in their successors to such an extent that in the next century Bishop
Cosin [Works,
v. 168.]
testifies that “they would have no minister to bury their dead, but the corpse
to be brought to the grave and there put in by the clerk, or some other honest
neighbour, and so back again without any more ado”; and Hooker [Eccles. Pol., v.
lxxv. 4.]
laments the miserable days in which an orderly burial service was deemed “unmeet,
indecent, and unfit for Christianity.”
When we open the Communion Office we are
confronted by the same reckless indifference to Catholic doctrine and practice,
and an ever-widening divergence from the lines laid down by the first
Revisionists.
The title was changed from “The Supper of
the LORD and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass,” into “ The order
for the administration of the LORD’S Supper or the Holy Communion.” And here we
cannot but commend them at least in part for the alteration.
“Mass,” [Missa, of which Mass is a corruption, is probably a noun
of an unusual form, like collecta and oblata, and is frequently so used: cf. Cassian de Coenob.
Instit.
lib. iii. c. vii., Missam stans pro foribus
praestolatur.
St. August. Serm. xlix., Post sermonem fit
missa Catechumenis.
It is first used by St. Ambrose, Ep. ad Marcellin. p. 853, ed. Bened., Missam facers coepi.] as most of us are aware, was
derived from the Latin missa, in the formula
“ite, missa est” – “Depart, it is the dismissal,” at
the utterance of which words the congregation left the Church. Now on the grounds that the designation is not
Scriptural nor primitive nor significant, the action of the Revisionists in
discontinuing it finds full and ample justification. We think they would have shown further
discretion if they had eliminated also the title of “the LORD’S Supper”. It is supposed to rest on the authority of St.
Paul, “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the LORD’S
Supper,” [1
Cor. 11:17–34. It is impossible to
account for St. Paul’s rapid transitions in this passage except by recognizing
the close union of the two Feasts. Part
of his language refers to the Agape, part to the Eucharist.] but a careful
examination of the passage leads to the conclusion that the Apostle there
applies it to the Agape or Love feast in combination with the Holy Eucharist,
not to the latter considered by itself. Indeed, had this not been so, the extreme
rarity of the designation among the early Fathers [The first of the
Fathers who uses the title of “the LORD’S Supper” in the modern acceptation is
St. Basil. In answering the question
whether the Oblation should be made in a private dwelling, he says that we
ought neither to take “a common supper in a Church nor to degrade the LORD’S
Supper in a house,” Ep. liv. c. 7. St.
Chrysostom uses the term more than once: cf. Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor.] would be quite unaccountable. Not till the latter half of the fourth century
is it adopted by any writer; and it is worth mentioning that at two of the
early Councils, [The
third Council of Carthage 418 A.D., Can. xliv. The Council of Trullo, 683 A.D., Can. xxix.] the title is
distinctly appropriated for another Feast. The language is, “One day in the year in which
the LORD’S Supper is celebrated,” where it refers not to the Holy Communion,
but to a commemorative Feast on Maundy Thursday evening in imitation of our
Lord’s Last Supper with His disciples preceding the institution of the
Eucharist. Apart then from the
uncertainty of its usage in Scripture and its extreme rarity in Patristic
literature, it might well have yielded to titles with better claims and with no
tendency to create confusion. [The earliest
title was most probably “the Breaking of the Bread,” cf. Acts 2:42 and 46; 20:7.
Ignatius ad Ephes. c. xx. “The
Eucharist” was unquestionably a familiar title almost from the first. 1 Tim. 2:1 is of doubtful reference, but it
seems highly probable that St. Paul should bid Eucharists to be offered on behalf of such a king as Nero, and
equally improbable that he should exhort to give thanks for him. Ignatius uses it, Ep. ad Philadelph. c. iv., ad
Smyrn. c. vii. viii. Many others
also use it, Justin Martyr, Tremens, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and it is
worthy of notice that it became so common that the word was Latinized and
Syriacized: cf. Tertullian, de Cor. Mil.
c. iii. and the Syriac Version of Acts 2:42 and 46. “The Communion,” which St. Paul used, was some
considerable time before it was popularly adopted. Many of the references often given are
inapplicable, indicating Church fellowship and privileges rather than the Holy
Eucharist. Having, however, Scriptural
authority, and being at the same time especially appropriate in meaning, it may
well be accepted as a suitable designation for the Sacred Feast.]
In the Exhortation read at the time of the
Celebration the passage in which a blasphemer, adulterer, and any one guilty of
grievous crime was exhorted not to come to the Holy Table before he had
bewailed his sins, was transposed and inserted in the exhortation to be read on
the Sunday or holy day preceding. The
propriety of this change is patent, “For,” writes Bishop Cosin, [Works, v. 615.] “is any person
who comes at that time purposely to receive the Communion likely to discover
himself (if he be guilty) in the presence of all the congregation by rising up
and suddenly departing from it?”
There is a long array of omissions, as was
naturally to be expected.
Besides some especially significant, to be
considered presently, the following are to be noticed: –
The Introits, which were the shorter Psalms
or portions of the 119th selected one for each Sunday or holy day, and sung
immediately before the Collect and Epistle. It has been conjectured that they were omitted
with a view to the substitution of the metrical version, [Scudamore, Noticia
Eucharistica,
cap. iv. iii.]
which was partly composed by Sternhold at this time, but the speedy
discontinuance of the Prayer Book at the accession of Queen Mary prevented them
carrying out their intentions.
A second Service for Celebration on
Christmas Day and Easter, was erased from the Book.
The concluding paragraph of the
Exhortation, following the direction for such as were troubled in conscience to
resort to the priest “for comfort and absolution,” previously ran thus: “requiring
such as shall be satisfied with a general confession, not to be offended with
them that do use, to their further satisfying, the auricular and secret
confession to the priest; nor those also which think needful or convenient, for
the quietness of their own consciences, particularly to open their sins to the
priest, to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble confession
to GOD and the general confession to the church. But in all things to follow and keep the rule
of charity, and every man to be satisfied with his own conscience, not judging
other men’s minds or consciences; whereas he hath no warrant of GOD’S word to
the same.”
Few persons, who recognize the real teaching
of the Church upon Confession and Absolution, can fail to regret that such
valuable counsel should have been removed. In opposition to the Roman view it distinctly
repudiates the necessity of private confession, by implying that in principle
there is no advantage in private over public absolution: as one of the most
eminent of our bishops writes to his clergy [Bishop Woodford in his Primary
Charge.]:
– “Any one who is sincerely penitent, even in the largest congregation, will
receive as the absolving words are uttered, precisely the same benefit as if he
knelt before the priest singly and alone.” ... “He may die without having ever
made a private confession, and yet he may have passed again and again with fullness
of effect under the keys of the kingdom.” But at the same time it distinctly admits full
liberty of conscience to have recourse to this special ordinance of the Church
in time of need.
In the “Prayer for the whole state of
Christ’s Church,” all reference to the dead was left out, and its application
strictly confined to the living by the addition of the words “militant here in
earth.”
A few others of more or less importance
require notice: such as the withdrawal of the rubric directing the minister to
put to the wine “a little pure and clean water”. No reason was assigned for this, nor can any
be conjectured. The custom of admixture
was a natural one, if it be true, as most Jewish authorities maintain, that it
was the habit of the Jews generally to dilute their wine with water; and so we
find the practice almost universal in the Primitive Church. [Justin Martyr,
Apol. i. 67. Irenaeus, v. ii. 3. St. Cyprian, Ep. lxiii.] It continues in the Eastern and Roman
Churches, and as it is impossible to find in it any doctrinal symbolism of
dangerous or doubtful import, and as many leading Divines [Bishops
Andrewes, Cosin, Wilson. Cf. Scudamore, Not. Euch. cap. xii. x.] since the
Reformation have not hesitated to consecrate “the mixed Chalice,” it is to be
regretted on Vincentian principles that the rubric should have been erased.
Two other less important directions were
omitted: one that at the administration the Bread should be “ unleavened and
round “ in shape: the other that it should be placed in the mouth of the
Communicant at the priest’s hands.
We next consider two additions to the
Service, viz.: the Decalogue and the Second Exhortation.
The Revisionists desired to introduce some
rule or standard for self-examination before communicating, in view of St. Paul’s
direction, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and
drink of that cup.” The Decalogue
probably suggested itself to them from the existing practice of reading and
expounding it during this service from time to time.
It was a happy thought which prompted them
to take the Kyries, which in the
First Prayer Book were repeated nine times at this part of the service, and
with the addition of another, adapt them as ten responsory petitions for the
ten commandments.
Whether it would have been more in harmony
with the highest Christian service to have introduced the standard of
self-examination from Christ’s commentary in the Sermon on the Mount, rather
than the stern formula of the Jewish code itself, may be an open question. The American Liturgy supplements it by St.
Matt. 22:37–40, and the Scotch Liturgy directs the people to “the mystical
importance” of the commands, as well as “the letter”.
The second addition was an Exhortation for
occasional use when the Curate found the people “negligent to come to the Holy
Communion”. From 1552 A.D. to 1662 A.D.
the following passage occurred in it; “And whereas ye offend GOD so sore in
refusing this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort, and beseech you that unto this
unkindness ye will not add any more; which thing ye shall do if ye stand by as
gazers and lookers on them that do communicate, and be no partaker of the same
yourselves. For what thing can this be
accounted else than a further contempt and unkindness unto God? Truly it is a great unthankfulness to say
nay, when ye be called; but the fault is much greater when men stand by and yet
will neither eat nor drink this Holy Communion with others. I pray you, what can this be else but even to
have the mysteries of Christ in derision?
It is said unto all, Take ye and eat: take and drink ye all of this; Do
this in remembrance of Me. With what
face then, and with what countenance shall ye hear these words? What will this be but a neglecting, a
despising and mocking of the testament of Christ? Wherefore rather than ye should do so, depart
you hence and give place to them that be godly disposed. But when you depart, I beseech you, ponder
with yourselves from whom ye depart. Ye
depart from the LORD’S Table, ye depart from your brethren, and from the
banquet of most heavenly food.”
This was what Cosin calls a “religious
invective” against the principle of solitary Masses in which the priest alone
communicated. It has in disregard of its
true purpose been mixed up with the modern controversies on the legitimacy of “non-communicating
attendance.”
Neither in its introduction in 1552 A.D.
was it intended to discourage anything as practiced in the present day; nor in
its subsequent withdrawal was it designed to sanction it. An examination of its language will show that
it is wholly irrelevant to the case. The
Revisionists had in their mind irreligious men who never communicated, and
therefore profaned the service by an irreverent presence, for they contrast
them with “the godly disposed.” With
such they are certainly not to be confounded, who, being frequent communicants,
and realizing fully that the greatest value of the ordinance lies in
participation, are unwilling to forego a lesser blessing, if they have already
partaken on the same day, or from some cause are unprepared for it.
But we pass to matters of greater moment.
In this revised Service, the Sacrificial
aspect was greatly obscured by that of Communion. Sacrificial terms were for the most part
suppressed: sacerdotal vestments forbidden: the position of the altar was
changed, and the arrangement of important parts of the service disturbed. Everything, in short, was done, as the
Revisionists fondly hoped, to dissociate the mind of the worshipper from all
thoughts of oblation or sacrifice.
The direction was cancelled which ordered
that at the appointed time the Celebrant should “put upon him a plain alb or
surplice, with a vestment or cope,” which, whether invariably so from the
beginning or not, was unquestionably and universally associated at this time
with the idea of sacrifice. The term “Altar,”
which was the correlative of sacrifice, was erased from this and every other
rubric, and Table or Holy Table substituted. The most honourable place occupied by the
Altar all through the Church’s history was left vacant, and the Table brought
down to the body of the Church, and as a necessary consequence regarded simply
as a Board from which holy Food was distributed, and nothing more.
The Celebrant who had stood “humbly afore
the midst of the Altar” was directed to stand “at the north side of the Table.”
And lastly, a displacement [At the same time
the short Exhortation, the Confession, the Absolution, the comfortable words,
and the Prayer of Humble access, all of which had followed the Consecration,
were now placed before it.] of the Prayer of Oblation was effected. It had long been inseparably united with the
Act of Consecration by which the Bread and Wine were declared to be the Body
that was broken and the Blood which was shed; but by disconnecting them, and
placing the prayer after the consumption of the consecrated Elements, the idea
of offering these to the Father as a commemorative Oblation of Christ’s Blessed
Body and Blood was cast into the shade. Not content with emptying the words of their
obvious force by the change of position, the Revisionists went further and made
its entire omission possible by allowing the Thanksgiving Prayer to be used as
an alternative. This was a direct breach
of Catholic usage.
To pass on, they were no less anxious to
discountenance the doctrine of the Real Presence.
Four things especially betray their design.
The discontinuance of the Invocation of the
Holy Ghost upon the Elements, and of the singing of the “Agnus Dei;”
the substitution of the second clause, “Take and eat this,” ... and “Drink this”
... for the first, “The Body of Our LORD,” etc. ... “The Blood of our Lord,”
etc.; ... and lastly, the insertion of the “Black Rubric” or “Declaration of
Kneeling”: upon each of these it will be necessary to dwell.
In almost every Primitive Liturgy* there
had been a distinct prayer that the Spirit of GOD would sanctify the Elements
that they might become to those who received them the Blessed Body and Blood of
Christ. To eliminate this then was to
break away from Catholic usage as well as to ignore the immediate action of the
Holy Ghost, which is the great vivifying Agent in holy things.
[*In the Liturgy of St. James (Greek) the
prayer is, “Send, O LORD, upon us and upon these Thy gifts set forth Thy
all-holy Spirit the LORD and the Life-giver ... that He may make this Bread the
Holy Body of Thy Christ and this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ.” Cf. Hammond, Litt. East and West, p. 43.
Nearly the same language is repeated in
that of St. Mark, ib. p. 187, also in that of St. Basil, ib. p. 114. The Invocation is found in a shorter form in
many of the Western Liturgies, e.g. the Gallican and Mozarabic.
That which the Revisionists of 1552 A.D.
eliminated ran thus: –“And with Thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless†
and sanctify† these Thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be
unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.” It is retained with verbal alterations in the
Scotch and American Prayer Books. It has
been held of such importance that the Eastern Church ascribes the Consecration
to this.]
And here I would observe that this is
happily recognized in the Celebration of the other great Sacrament, the
operation of the Holy Spirit being mentioned no less than three times in the
opening of the Service.
With the discontinuance of the “Agnus Dei,”
beautiful as it is, we can find no fault if we are satisfied not to overstep
the paths of Primitive Antiquity. It had
no place in the early Liturgies or Sacramentaries, and was probably not
introduced in England till the times of AElfric, in the middle of the tenth
century, nor much earlier in any foreign Churches.
The Form of Words previously used at the
distribution of the Elements was deliberately abandoned in violation of an
almost uniform tradition from the beginning. However far we go back we trace an inseparable
connection not only in idea, but in expression, between the Bread and the Body
– the Wine and the Blood. Often when the
Priest gave the Sacramental Elements he simply said, “The Body of our LORD
Jesus Christ,” “The Blood, etc.,” and the Communicant indicated his assent or
his desire for its realization by adding “Amen”.
In the Sarum Missal the Formula had
expanded into “The Body of our LORD Jesus Christ keep thy soul unto eternal
life,” Amen; and the same had been unhesitatingly adopted in the First Prayer Book.
But when the second Revisionists
approached it with the knowledge that it admitted of only one interpretation,
viz., that the Body of Christ was given in the Sacrament, they determined to
eliminate it altogether and substitute another which would give no countenance
to the belief of those who maintained that the words of the institution, “This
is my Body,” were more than a mere figure of speech.
The last of the four was the “Declaration
of Kneeling,” in which it was asserted that that posture did not indicate that
any adoration was offered unto the Sacramental Elements or to any “Real and Essential
Presence” of Christ’s natural Body. The
words “Real and Essential” are to be noted, because they are no longer in the
Rubric, having yielded to “Corporal” at the final Revision. The history of this Rubric* affords sufficient
evidence that its introduction was intended as a concession to pacify the
foreigners, who never ceased to characterize kneeling to communicate as a
superstitious and idolatrous act.
[*The Act of Uniformity passed on April
6th, 1552 A. D., and fixed All Saints’ Day, November 1st, as the date upon
which the Revised Book was to come into use. On October 27th a Declaration “touching the
kneeling at the receiving of the Holy Communion” was forwarded by the Privy
Council to the Lord Chancellor for insertion in the New Book. The only authority it had was the King’s
signature. It is supposed to have been
compiled by Cranmer, who, as well as the King, was yielding more and more every
day to the influence of the Foreign Reformers. At the Elizabethan Revision it was treated as
an illegal interpolation, and ignored. Its
reintroduction at the Final Revision was due to the influence of Gauden and
Morley. The Bishops, however, having
carefully guarded the Catholic doctrine by a change of language, do not appear
to have resisted the concession to the Presbyterians, who expressed their
conviction that “the Church of England is for transubstantiation because of our
kneeling.”]
Now the above is a long and heavy bill of
indictment against the Second Revisionists for departure from Catholic
doctrine.
Can anything be urged generally in
mitigation of the verdict which the Catholic mind is impatient to pronounce? Apologists [Cf. Freeman’s Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii.
pp. 123–126.]
here and there have argued in their defense, that they did not in reality
intend to abandon the doctrines and usages which they appeared to supersede:
that many of the changes were made with the view of bringing into prominence
principles which had been thrust out of sight to the great loss and injury of
the Church in mediaeval times and at the first Revision. “Altar,” for instance, was not withdrawn, as
intimating a denial that what was offered thereon was in some sense
sacrificial, but “Table” was substituted because the predominance of the
Sacrificial aspect had completely obscured the other side of Eucharistic teaching,
viz., the Communion of the Blessed Body and Blood. Again, touching the words of administration
and “the Black Rubric,” the First Book, they say, had affirmed what the
Elements were – the Second Book aimed at explaining what they were not.
It is a very plausible defense, and finds
some support in the official statements of the Revisionists themselves.
In the Act of Uniformity which gave legal
force to their Revision they stated upon what grounds they had entered upon the
work, and what their general opinion was of the Book they superseded.
The Revision had been necessitated, they
said, because “divers doubts had risen for the fashion and ministration” [Cf. Collier, v.
464.]
of the services, which proceeded “rather by the curiosity of the minister and
mistakers than of any worthy cause.”
And the First Prayer-book the Statute
declared to be “a very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God and the
Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people desiring to live in
Christian conversation, and most profitable to the estate of this realm.” [Ibid.]
These statements seem well-nigh
inexplicable on any other theory than that which the Apologists have set forth,
viz., that the Revisionists had not really wished to renounce in any essential
matters the teaching of the First Prayer Book. But if we could bring ourselves to accept it,
we should still have to hold them up to rebuke for the weakness of their
judgment and a strange ignorance of the ways of the world. It saves them from Scylla to plunge them into
Charybdis.
The way to supplement is not to begin by
taking away; and to remove one word or usage and replace it by another is
substitution, not addition. If a
particular phraseology, ever connected with one set of ideas, was ousted by
another phraseology which had always been used to clothe ideas of a totally
different order, no amount of side notes, still less general assertions, in a
Statute, bound up at its first publication with the Service book, but
disconnected from it for ever afterwards, could insure later generations from
the danger of being misled. It seems
difficult to acquit them of hypocrisy or infatuation. He who best understands the times and
circumstances will be best fitted to decide whether they had desired in their
hearts to revolutionize the worship of the Church, and were too cowardly to own
it, or whether they had only aimed at developing obliterated features, but had
proved by their bungling their incompetence for the task; and it will be a
matter of no little surprise if the verdict is not, that they were guilty of
insincerity rather than mismanagement.
The study of their lives and opinions
forces upon us the conviction that their object was to eradicate the ancient
Catholic doctrines; and we may be thankful that though they were able to
prosecute their end in so far as they succeeded in eliminating the most salient
features, the principles were too firmly embedded in the whole framework of the
Liturgical Office to be rooted out by their action.
The reverent student will trace with
satisfaction the overruling influence of GOD’S good Spirit frustrating their
designs, and leaving them so far hopelessly baffled, that at the final
Revision, the Church was able solemnly to declare that the true Eucharistic
doctrine had remained essentially unchanged from the first Revision to the
last.
In the Preface to the Prayer Book of 1662
A.D., which is now in use, the Revisionists expressed their conviction of this
in unhesitating language. “We find, that
in the reigns of several Princes of blessed memory since the Reformation, the
Church, upon just and weighty considerations her thereunto moving, hath yielded
to make such alterations in some particulars, as in their respective times were
thought convenient; yet so, as that the main body and essentials of it, as well
in the chiefest materials, as in the frame and order thereof, have still
continued the same unto this day and do yet stand firm and unshaken.” It is impossible to exaggerate the weight of
this declaration, which we must never forget is “the assertion not of
individual theologians, but the deliberate pronouncement of the Church speaking
for herself.” [Cf.
Bishop Woodford’s Primary Charge.]
Chapter III – The
Elizabethan Reaction
When King Edward breathed his last the
Reformed Worship of the English Church hung for a moment in the balance.
“No compulsion of her subjects in the
matter of religion” was the promise by which Mary gained supporters in Norfolk
and Suffolk against her rival for the throne; and her words were taken up and
repeated in every part of the kingdom. And
when she entered the Tower and lifted the imprisoned Gardiner [The Duke of
Norfolk was released at the same time.
Cf. Collier, vi. 10.] from his knees, and let him go free, it was, she
might have urged, one fulfilment of her promise, but it was interpreted very
differently. Anglican and Protestant
began to tremble for their faith; and as soon as her Crown was secure she threw
off the disguise. A dagger launched by
some fiery zealot against a preacher [Bourne, Canon of St. Paul’s, was the
preacher.]
at St. Paul’s Cross, who divining his mistress’s mood inveighed against the
Prayer Book, was the signal for decisive measures to begin. Cranmer was confined within the walls of his
Palace, Ridley was committed to the Tower, Cox was shut up in a cell in the
Marshalsea, from which Bonner was released, and many others [E.g. Hooper,
Coverdale and Latimer.]
were imprisoned. In Canterbury Cathedral
the suffragan Bishop, seizing the advantage of the Primate’s confinement,
stopped the legal service, and with all the pomp and circumstance of the Roman
Ritual restored the Mass: and from this beginning the old use regained its
position step by step till the last vestige of opposition, that of the
Legislature itself, entirely disappeared. The Houses of Parliament, with scarcely a
dissentient voice, passed a vote of repentance for their schism, and after
receiving, in behalf of the nation, absolution from the Papal legate on their
bended knees, they heard the proclamation read, that England had entered again
into union with Rome. For four years no
language of prayer and praise but that which spoke in the Breviary and Missal
was ever heard in the Churches. But Mary
died, and Elizabeth reigned: and a fresh epoch in the religion and worship of
the Church began. Never in the world’s history was a movement initiated under
more difficult circumstances than the Elizabethan Reaction. It was well for England that the Sovereign,
who was to guide it, was possessed of an unconquerable will and a tenacity of
purpose rarely equaled, perhaps never surpassed.
Let us look awhile at the difficulties by
which she was confronted when she resolved, as she did in heart from the
beginning, to reestablish the Reformed Worship of the Catholic Church,
unimpaired if possible alike by Papal and Puritan innovations.
The clergy of the country were pledged to
Rome; the posts of dignity and influence from Bishopric to Prebend were filled,
with rare exceptions, by men who were intensely Roman; the Parish priests were
the same in a less degree no doubt, but in overwhelming majority, for the
vigilant eye of Bonner had promoted none that were lukewarm, and spared from
deprivation few that were disaffected. Here
then was one obstacle of appalling magnitude.
And there was a second hardly less
formidable. For Edward it would have
been trivial: for Elizabeth it was overwhelming. The one would have seized it and made it a
vantage ground: the other would be satisfied with nothing short of victory over
it, or at least in spite of it. This was
the Puritan Party which long banishment [The exiles are variously estimated from
three hundred to eight hundred. Of the
clergy the most notable were Bishops Point, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Bale,
Deans Cox, Turner, Horne, and Sampson, and of others Grindal, Jewel, and
Pilkington, of the laity Sir John Cheke, and Sir Anthony Cook. Cf. Collier, vi. 19.] and depression
had embittered, and which now the prospect of release made buoyant with hope
and eager for reascendancy.
When Mary declared herself for the Roman
Faith, and the Second Prayer Book was suspended, all who held views that were
decidedly Protestant, determined to escape from the intolerance which
threatened them at home. An exodus to
the Continent took place of some hundreds of the clergy, and Strasburg and
Frankfort, Zurich and Geneva became for the English, what London had been a few
years before, when it afforded a sanctuary from the Inquisition of Charles V
and the Papal Interim. And many of the
exiles were seized at once with a spirit of unrestrained freedom. Calvin, who at Frankfort was looked upon as an
oracle, denounced the English Prayer Book, and his denunciation produced a
powerful effect. Knox, the fiery revolutionist in Church government, placed
himself at the head of those who wished to shake themselves free from the forms
and ceremonies to which they had been tied. Thus a party was created of what we may call
ultra-Protestants. [Many
interesting details of these quarrels are given by Collier, vi. 144–153.] A few held out vigorously against these
democratic innovations, under the leadership of Cox, and for a time they
succeeded in preserving the English ritual in its integrity, but time and
circumstances told upon them. Living as
exiles in want and penury, they found that they had little to spend on
vestments and ornaments, on the luxuries and beauty of an elaborate worship,
and indifference to externals crept in, and the laxity of rule and discipline
of their neighbours had its effect upon them and made them impatient of order. And so it came about that when they returned
to England, even the bareness of worship which the close of Edward’s reign had
encouraged, was made barer still by Genevan and Frankfort usage.
Confronted by these, what was the Queen to
do? She was determined to overthrow the
Roman worship, because with all the pomp and ceremonial which she loved, it
involved doctrines which she disbelieved, and she shrank from an alliance with
the power which would have made the task so easy, because her nature rebelled
instinctively against the unattractive nakedness of Puritanical worship.
There was yet a third party, albeit
apparently a small one, with which she decided to identify herself.
When the Romanists came in, the Protestants
fled; but there were some who dreaded the association of the foreign Churches
more than contact with Rome, and they determined to remain in England, some of
them conforming to the Roman worship, and retaining their posts, others, whose
consciences were more tender, resigning their livings and retiring into
privacy, contented to bide their time and hope for better days. With this third part, the less violent portion
of the exiles, who had clung to the Prayer Book through all their vicissitudes,
were practically united on their return. It was reinforced too no doubt by. the
adherence of numbers of the laity, for this is the only explanation of the
conduct of the representatives of the people, in the Houses of Parliament, when
they were called upon to declare their opinion on the Acts of Uniformity.
It will be well to ascertain as clearly as
possible what the Queen’s doctrinal views really were, at the time when she was
called upon to assume the direction of affairs. There can, I think, be little question that
they underwent considerable modification in her later years, and it has been a
common practice to lose sight of this and to speak of her as though she had
held in the beginning the faith and opinions in which she died. Every surrounding had tended to lower the
standard. Of the Bishops of her reign
Parker was the nearest in sympathy, but with none of the Queen’s enthusiasm and
ever ready to make concessions. Of her
councilors Cecil was most faithful to her wishes, but in the maintenance of
Catholic faith and worship only a half-hearted minister; while Essex was an
avowed patron of nonconformity, and Leicester, “the wicked Earl,” seemed to
have been born for the destruction of the Church. Such a combination of evil influences could
hardly fail to affect her.
At the beginning of her reign she was
distinctly Catholic in the true and proper sense of the term: and we shall see
how she succeeded in more ways than one in stamping her Catholicity upon the
revised Liturgy which was shortly put forth. And this point can hardly be too carefully
considered or too clearly established, because it must have a most important
bearing upon the “Vestiarian Controversy,” and the right interpretation of the
disputed Advertisements.
In proclaiming her title she designated
herself “of the true and ancient and Catholic faith”. When the adoption of a Prayer Book was mooted,
she expressed a strong predilection in favour of the First of Edward VI. She had long been a student of patristic lore
and the early history of the Church, and it had created in her an intense love
for antiquity and reverence for old and time-honoured rites and observances.
Her views upon the crucial point of the
Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist she was known to have expressed with a
caution and reverence which might well be imitated.
“’Twas
GOD the Word that spake it,
He took the Bread and brake it,
And
what the Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.”*
[*This was her
reply to a Roman priest who tried to extract from her a declaration of her
belief. It is quoted in Heylin, ii. 261,
from Baker’s Chron. 329.]
And once when the preacher in the Royal
Chapel confessed with reverence and becoming humility the mystery of the Real
Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, she expressed her satisfaction by giving
thanks to him openly for his pains and piety at the conclusion of the service. [Heylin, ii. 317.]
And when de Feria, [Froude, Hist. of Elisabeth, viii. 82.] Philip’s
ambassador, pressed her to explain the doctrines which her people would be
expected to believe, she assured him that “she held that GOD was really present
in the Sacrament,” though she was not prepared to accept the teaching of the
Roman Catholics upon the manner of His Presence. All this shows very plainly the bent of her
mind.
The Puritans made a perpetual grievance of
her allowing the Crucifix and Lights to remain on the altar in her chapel, [There is a long
extract from Machyn’s Journal, showing how gradually the changes were made, in
Forbes’ Articles, p. xviii. xix.] and Dean
Nowell, when preaching before her in Lent, took occasion to speak by the way
with little reverence of the symbol of the Cross; whereupon Her Majesty called
to him from her closet window “to retire from that ungodly digression and
return to his text.” [Cf.
Life of Nowell, Athenae Oxonienses.]
The figure of the Crucified nailed to the
Cross had become an object of intense aversion, but sober-minded judges would
deem it an extreme measure to condemn her for Roman tendencies in using it,
especially if her own avowed objections are allowed their legitimate weight.
It is true that in selecting her Privy Council
she retained a number of statesmen who had served the same office to Queen
Mary, [The
Archbishop of York, the Marquess of Winchester, the Earls of Arundel, Darby,
Pembroke and Shrewsbury, the Lords Clynton and Effingham, Sirs Thomas Cheyney,
William Petre, John Mason, Richard Sackville and Doctor Wotton.] but she was
actuated herein by prudential motives which admit of ample justification; and
she was careful to provide against an undue preponderance of influence by the
addition of others [The
following were chosen by herself, the Marquess of Northampton, the Earl of
Bedford, Sirs Thomas Parry, Edward Rogers, Ambrose Cave, William Cecil, and Nicholas
Bacon. Cf. Heylin, ii. 269. Soakes, Hist.
of Elisabeth, 605.]
of very different views and policy. Again,
she has been blamed for continuing to attend the Celebration of the Mass far
longer than was necessary after her accession, but she exercised a wise
discretion in determining to feel her way cautiously and avoid irritating her
opponents by precipitate change. On one
or two occasions, however, she thought fit to resist what she believed to be
innovations upon Catholic usage. The
Romans, for instance, elevated the Host that it might be worshipped, and
against this she protested. It is
recorded that on Christmas day she directed the Bishop, [Oglethorpe,
Bishop of Carlisle. Cf. Lingard, vii.
255. Heylin, ii. 272.] who was about
to celebrate in the Royal Chapel, not to elevate the Host in her presence, and
that, when he replied that “his life was the Queen’s but his conscience was his
own,” she marked her disapproval by rising before the Gospel and leaving with
her attendants.
We pass now to see what, under these
circumstances, was the tendency of the ecclesiastical measures with which she
began her reign.
Her first act was the introduction of
certain parts of the Service in English in the Royal Chapel, viz., the Litany,
the LORD’S Prayer, Creed, Epistle, and Gospel. Then with the intention of checking the
intemperate zeal of the advanced Reformers, who, in the belief that she was on
their side, began at once a number of innovations, she issued a proclamation
prohibiting any further departure from the established order of worship than
such as she had sanctioned in her own chapel, till such time as “consultation
should be had by her Majesty and her three estates of the realm.”
Her next step was to take into her
confidence Sir Thomas Smith, a man of great learning, and, what was especially
helpful to her at such a crisis, profound knowledge of the laws of the country.
He at once drew up suggestions and
embodied them in a document entitled “Device for the alteration of religion”; [Cardwell, Hist. of Conferences, 43–48.] it is
singularly interesting as expressive at every turn of the legal mind, which saw
things chiefly from the opponent’s side, and was occupied in forestalling the
objections which would be raised.
His advice, which was acted upon, was the
immediate appointment of an intimate cabinet of trusty Councilors, who should
be made privy to the Queen’s designs and wishes, and aid her in the selection
of a Committee of Divines to review the service and ceremonies of the Church. The inner circle was formed of Cecil, Gray,
Northampton, and Bedford, and the revision of the Liturgy committed to eight
learned and able men, Parker, Grindal, Cox, Bill, Pilkington, Whitehead, and
May, with Sir Thomas Smith to render such legal and lay assistance as they were
likely to require. The Catholic and
Protestant views were equally represented, but those who held the latter,
though chosen from the returned exiles, were of the more orthodox side, all
having resisted the lax discipline and libertinism of Knox and his colleagues,
and adhered throughout to the English order. They met for deliberation without any
appointment under the great seal, but as a private body gathered together to
advise the government how to proceed in the matter of religion. Their place of meeting was the lodging of
their legal adviser in Cannon Row, Westminster: and the chair was taken by
Parker. His health broke down shortly
after, and Guest [The
name is sometimes spelled Gheast or Geste.
His chief weakness lay in his fear of giving offence, which often led
him to make concessions to the Puritans, which Parker would certainly have
resisted. Hook, Life of Parker, 163.] was appointed to fill his place
whenever he was unable to attend. The
first question which they were called upon to decide was the basis of the
proposed revision. Sir Thomas Smith, as
representing the Queen’s opinion, advised the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. It not only expressed those Catholic doctrines
which she was prepared to uphold, but the authority under which it had been
issued was unimpeachable. Convocation
had drawn it up, the voice of the people in Parliament had ratified it, the
King had sealed it, and beyond all this it had been acknowledged by its
Revisionists to have been compiled under the guidance and influence of the Holy
Ghost. These were weighty arguments in
its favour, but the returned exiles interposed. They felt themselves to be the representatives
of the whole Protestant body, and realizing what a violent shock it would be to
them to hear that a Book, which many of them disliked only one degree less than
the Roman Use itself, was about to be presented to Parliament for adoption,
they pleaded eagerly for that which had been last in use. And their arguments prevailed. The office of conciliating the Queen was
undertaken by Parker. He was known to
have great influence with her, and he succeeded in overcoming her
determination. His own inclinations were
entirely with hers, but he was a far-seeing and sagacious counsellor, and he
knew that to alienate the Protestants would be to leave the government, if not
entirely without support, yet face to face with two bitterly hostile parties,
which they would be powerless to resist.
It is very probable that he gave the Queen
assurances that the Second Prayer Book would only be nominally presented to
Parliament: he had every hope that such alterations would be made as should
strip it of its most obnoxious features, and so prevent her from doing any
violence to her conscience in accepting it.
After this preliminary was settled, the
Committee had repeated sittings, and on the 15th of February, a Bill was laid
before Parliament, for Uniformity of worship, but deferred on the ground that
the subject was not yet ripe for legislation. The Queen thereupon directed the Archbishop of
York to make arrangements for a public disputation between the Roman and
Reforming parties in Westminster Abbey. Eight disputants were chosen on either
side. [The
exact number has been much disputed.
Collier, Cardwell, Fuller, and Strype give eight. Fox, Jewel, and others give nine. It has also been doubted whether the names of
Cox and Sandys are rightly admitted. Cf.
Heylin, ii. 288.]
On the Roman side were Heath, Archbishop of
York, four Bishops, White of Winchester, Bayne of Lichfield, Scott of Chester,
Watson of Lincoln, Fecknam, Abbot of Westminster, Cole, Dean – and Chedsey
Prebendary of St. Paul’s, and two Archdeacons, Langdale of Lewis, and
Harpsfield of Canterbury.
On the side of the Reformers were Scory,
late Bishop of Chichester, Cox, late Dean of Westminster, Horn of Durham,
Sandys, Whitehead, Grindal, Guest, Elmar, and Jewel.
Of the Advocates of Rome apart from
Archbishop Heath, who however took no part in the discussions, there are only
two whose names bear any distinction in history, – Cole and Harpsfield, – the
former as having been chosen for his learning to preach the Sermon at Oxford in
justification of Cranmer’s sentence, the latter, for the unenviable reputation
he gained in the Marian persecutions, as “the inquisitor of Canterbury,” in
pitiless cruelty second only to “the bloody Bonner”.
The other list presents a far different
aspect, almost the whole number having left the mark of their names upon the
annals of the age.
Friday, March 31, was the day appointed for
the commencement of the combat. It must
have been a striking spectacle even in a building which, excepting only St.
Peter’s, has witnessed grander assemblages than any other in Europe.
It was the arbitrament to which the Queen
had resolved to submit the rival claims of her divided subjects, and on the
result of the disputations the gravest consequences appeared to depend. And the spectators were not unworthy of the
occasion. The Lord Keeper of the Seal,
Sir Nicolas Bacon, came representing the Crown, and as Moderator of the
Assembly, may have occupied for the occasion the Abbot’s stall, which would
only be vacated for the Queen or her delegate. The Privy Council, as next in order of
dignity, were placed in the stalls of the Monks. The Prelates, and the rest of the disputants,
some in their Convocation robes, others in their Academic dress, were seated in
the Quire beneath, the one on the North, the other on the South. The Houses of Parliament, Nobility and
Commons, were provided for where room could be found, for their sittings had
been suspended that all might attend that momentous contest. And such was the excitement and eager
expectation of the populace, wherever sight could be obtained or hearing found,
the Abbey was crowded with a dense mass of human beings.
Three subjects had been agreed upon for
discussion: —
Firstly,
That it is repugnant to GOD’S Word and the usage of the Primitive Church, that
the service should be conducted in an unknown tongue.
Secondly,
That every Church has authority to vary or modify its forms of worship, with a
view to edification.
Thirdly,
That the Mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.
The terms of the discussion agreed upon
were, that the Roman advocates should begin, their adversaries follow. It was pretended that the arrangement was made
in deference to the superior rank and position of the Romans, and they accepted
it, without thinking apparently, and were placed at a manifest disadvantage.
Intellectually the Marian party were
inferior, and could ill afford to make any such concession. The debate was opened with the question of the
use of the Latin tongue in public service, and it ended as every one expected
in the total discomfiture of the defenders of the Roman practice, [The weakness of
the Romans may be estimated by the speech of Cole, who was put forward to argue
in favour of the use of the Latin tongue; it is not only feeble, but contains
deliberate misrepresentations of History.
Cardwell. Confer. Docum. c.
ii. p. 63.]
and so completely did their adversaries overpower them in argument that they
carried the audience completely with them, the vast assemblage raising loud
plaudits at the conclusion, and the Prelates being covered with confusion and
dismay.
The following Monday was fixed for the
continuation of the dispute, but when they reassembled, the Bishops demanded
that the order of proceedings should be reversed: and argued that alike by the
practice of the Schools and the Law Courts, as they maintained the negative of
the question to be discussed, they were entitled to the second place in the
debate. And certainly they had justice on their side. Until the Law, had
deprived them of their position, they were the recognized guardians of the
Religion of the country; and it was obviously their duty to continue at their
post, and when assailed to repel the assault if they could, or to succumb if
they must.
But the Moderator ruled that the orders [The order, drawn
up by Cecil and assented to by both parties, was that as the balance of dignity
lay on the side of the Romans, their advocates should be called upon first to
deliver their arguments.]
drawn up by the Queen admitted of no modification, and must be strictly
complied with, or the discussion would be closed. Angry recriminations and bitter invectives
were bandied from side to side, but neither party would yield. The Romanists were conscious of being
overmatched, and decided that it was better to retire with at least a show of
unfair treatment, than risk being fairly beaten.
The Queen’s Representative rose from his
seat and pronounced the discussion closed, but forgetting that an arbiter
should know no favour, he turned with anger to the Bishops, and said, “You have
refused to let us hear you; ere long, it may be, you will hear of us.” And the ominous threat was soon put into
execution; the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, who had been foremost in
defying the Queen’s mandate, were committed to the Tower for contempt of court,
and the rest were bound over in heavy recognisances to come up for judgment
whenever they should be called upon, and eventually sentenced to considerable
fines. [The
amounts were as follows: – for Bayne, £333, 6s. 8d.; Oglethorpe, £250;
Harpsfield, £40; Scott, 200 marks; Cole, 500; and Chadsey, 40. Soames, 655, n.]
In a short time, the Parliament sittings
were recommenced, and one of the earliest measures brought on was the Bill
which had been dropped three months before for Uniformity of worship.
The debate in Westminster Abbey facilitated
its progress. The Commons accepted it,
as far as we can find, without a division, satisfied that it had received full
consideration from competent commissioners; but the Lords, whom the presence of
the spirituality in their councils had affected with a deeper concern for
matters of religion, were in a far different mood, and offered vigorous
opposition both at the second and third readings of the Bill.
The first to rise was the Abbot of
Westminster, and ashamed no doubt of the miserable exhibition which his party
had made in the Abbey, and eager to retrieve the credit they had lost, he made
a vigorous attack upon its principles. The
arguments of his speech were directed to the establishment of three
propositions: —
Firstly,
That the Faith which was imperiled was that which had come down from ancient
times.
Secondly,
That it was the only Faith which had ever been held with perfect consistency.
Thirdly,
That it fostered loyal obedience to the Crown and to all in authority.
At the third reading, Scott, the Bishop of
Chester, made a final effort to throw it out. His appeal was addressed especially to the lay
members of the House, and he tried to overawe them by dwelling upon the
weightiness, the darkness, the difficulty of the subject, “one touching life
and death, upon which damnation depended”; and he drew a terrible picture of
the danger and peril which hung over their heads if they erred in their
judgment: and then traversing the history of the past, and the settlement of
the great disputes of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, in which no
voice of the temporal power was suffered to be heard, he called upon his
brethren of the laity to imitate the modesty of Emperors like Theodosius and
Valentinian, and leave the settlement of Religion to the judgment of the
Episcopate.
Both speeches [Cardwell. Hist.
Confer. Docum. c. ii. 98–117. Cf.
Collier, vi. 234–247.]
have happily been preserved, and they are full of interest to those who study
the turning points of history.
How they were answered or by whom, the
annals of Parliament have left us no record; but when we remember that
notwithstanding the fact that the occupants of the Episcopal benches were
pledged to support them, they were defeated, we may fairly conclude that their
fallacies were exposed, and the fears which they conjured up disarmed of their
sting. The Bill passed* by a majority of
three, the non-contents including the names of nine lords temporal and nine
spiritual. It provided that the Second
Prayer Book of Edward VI, as revised by a Committee of Divines, should be
adopted throughout the kingdom on or after the Feast of John the Baptist next
ensuing.
[*On the 28th of April. It provided that the Revised Book should come
into use on the Feast of St. John the Baptist (June 24th next ensuing). The chief dissentients on the Episcopal
Benches were Heath, Bonner, Thirlby, Kitchen, Scott, and Oglethorpe. On the question, however, of the Oath of
Supremacy Kitchen parted company from the rest and stood alone in accepting it.
Cf. Dodd, Ch. Hist. 133, ed. Tierney.]
Now let us see how the mind of the Queen
was reflected in the changes. All but
one perhaps involved important principles. That was simply the removal of an uncharitable
petition in the Litany, which fostered a spirit of unchristian hatred, by
praying for deliverance “from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his
detestable enormities.”
Of the others the first was a direction
that prayers should be said “in the accustomed place”; and the words, “as the
people may best hear” were erased. There
can be no question that “the accustomed place” was the Quire where the prayers
were wont to be said during the three years and a half, when the First Prayer Book
of Edward was in use. It has been
asserted that it may have been simply a return to the usage of the Second Book,
but as that was only used for eight months in the metropolis, and probably much
less time in the provinces, no usage it enforced or sanctioned could have been
of sufficiently long duration to be designated by such an epithet as “accustomed”.
Indeed it is extremely probable that
owing to the difficulties of communication, many of the more remote parishes
never adopted the Book at all. [The date fixed for its introduction was
November 1st, 1552 A.D., and Edward VI died July 6th, 1553 A.D.]
The second was the introduction of an “ornaments
rubric,” which brought back the Eucharistic vestments, and repealed the prohibition
of 1552 A.D. An additional clause was
appended referring to an Act of Parliament which gave the Queen power by her
Royal prerogative “to take other order”. “Provided always, and be it enacted, that such
ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and be
used, as were in this Church of England by authority of Parliament, in the
second year of the reign of King Edward VI, until other order shall be therein
taken by authority of the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners
appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for causes
Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm.”
“And also that if there shall happen any
Contempt or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, by
the Misusing of the Orders appointed in this Book, the Queen’s Majesty may, by
the like advice of the said Commissioners or Metropolitans, ordain and publish
such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the Advancement of GOD’S
glory, the Edifying of His Church, and the due Reverence of Christ’s Holy
Mysteries and Sacraments.”
When these clauses are read together (and
they were printed as one in all the Elizabethan Prayer Books) it points to the
interpretation of the objects of the provision, being in both cases rather a
development than a restraint or modification of Ceremonial.
The third was the happy combination, as we
have it now, of the two clauses in the Form of administration of the Elements:
the first only having been used in the First Prayer Book, the second only in
the Second.
The fourth and last of any real import was
the striking out of the “Black Rubric,” which, the Queen insisted, had been
illegally foisted into the Prayer Book after the revision was completed. [See
above.]
Such were the changes, exhibiting a marked
determination of the Revisionists to recover from the retrograde movement of
the close of Edward’s reign. That the
whole ground was not regained is not so much a matter of surprise, as that, in
the face of such opposing forces, they were able to regain so much.
Even after Parliament had given legal force
to the reestablishment of the reformed worship, efforts were made to stay the
execution. The Queen was inexorable, and
before the term of respite expired she resolved to summon the discontented
Prelates into her presence and declare her unalterable resolve. Her Privy Council was called [On the 15th of
May 1559 A.D. The Queen dwelt upon the
Act of Supremacy passed in the late Parliament, and appealed to the Assembly to
aid her in “abolishing superstition from the worship of the Church.” Hook, Life
of Parker, 190.]
and the whole Episcopal order and other ecclesiastics of distinction; and
Archbishop Heath rose in the name of GOD and the Church he represented, to
entreat her even at the eleventh hour to reconsider her determination: and in a
speech full of foreboding predicted the consequences if the See of St. Peter
should cease to be obeyed. The Queen
replied with a dignity and calmness that fills us with wonder in one so young
before such an assembly, and the words she used have become so familiar on her
lips, as almost to have lost their original application: “As for me and my
house, we will serve the LORD,” [Joshua 24:15] adding, “My
aim is to bind myself and my people to Christ, the King of kings, and not to
the Roman See.” And the Assembly broke
up. Within six weeks from that date,
Breviary and Missal were superseded, and Forms of worship in which the laity
were enabled to take an intelligent part, restored to the Churches. But the Queen was not satisfied to leave the
enforcement of the Act to be carried out in the ordinary way. Before the year closed she issued a body of “Injunctions”
to insure conformity in some essential particulars. Let me mention two by way of illustration.
The first was for the promotion of music in
Divine Service. Recognizing its value
not only as a vehicle of praise but as a help to devotion, she made provision
for the due maintenance of singing men and children, with a wise precaution
that the service should not be made thereby less intelligible. And for the special comfort of those who
delighted in music, she enjoined that at the beginning and end of Common Prayer
a hymn or song in praise of Almighty GOD should be sung in the best melody that
could be conveniently devised. Could she
have foreseen that under the shield of her royal sanction, the barbarous
strains of Sternhold and Hopkins would thrust out even the “Te
Deum” and “Magnificat,” she would have hesitated to
pen such an injunction.
The second direction was to insure becoming
reverence in the outward gesture of the worshipper: and she embodied a general
principle in the following orders* which dealt with a familiar case: “That
whensoever the Name of Jesus should be pronounced in any lesson, sermon or
otherwise in the Church, due reverence should be made of all persons young and
old, with lowliness of courtesy, and uncovering of the head of the men kind, as
thereunto did necessarily belong and heretofore hath been accustomed.”
[*Cardwell. Docum.
Ann. ii. 176.
The
habit of showing reverence to the Name of Jesus, popularly supposed to have
originated in the declaration of St. Paul “that at the Name of Jesus every knee
should bow,” had a more probable origin in the desire of the early Christians
to exalt that which the Jews attempted to dishonour. The Name Jesus in particular was commonly
regarded after the Crucifixion as a title of reproach, and such contemptuous
designations as Jesus, the magician, Jesus, the impostor, Jesus, the Galilean
impostor, were freely used. Again, the
usual form of renunciation of Christianity was Anathema Jesus. By way of reparation, therefore, the
Christians marked the same title out for the reception of especial honour.
At a Council held at Lyons in 1274 A.D. it
was ordered that “whenever this glorious Name should be mentioned, especially
when the sacred Mysteries were being celebrated, every one individually
fulfilling himself that which is written, viz. ‘at the Name,’ etc., do bow the
knees of his heart and testify that he does so by at least bowing the head.” In 1604 A.D. the custom was indorsed in Canon
xviii. Cf. Bingham,
vol. x. lib. iv. c. 8.]
It shocks our ideas of reverence to hear of
men having their heads covered in a consecrated building, but the practice was
general at this time. Whether it was
confined to the hearing of the sermon only, or extended to the whole service,
is doubtful. The well-known picture in
the Palace of Ely, representing the funeral of Bishop Cox, exhibits the whole
congregation wearing their hats within the choir.
And with the Act of Uniformity, passed
April 28, 1559 A.D., and the Injunctions which followed, the Anglican Reformed
worship, with the Ritual of Edward’s early years, was in the main
reestablished.
The priests, according to the service in
which they were engaged, were free to wear the Edwardian vestments: outward
reverence for holy things and places and for the Sacred Name was revived: and
music, wherever it could be had, lent added beauty to the service of God’s
House. And, what was of no little
importance, the Queen herself, by whose happy efforts these results had been
mainly attained, was careful to set before her subjects a fitting pattern of
the worship which she desired to be offered throughout her dominions. The Royal Chapel was a model to all Churches,
in furniture and ornaments, as well as in the frequency and the reverential
conduct of its services.
But how far was the copy imitated’ In proof
that in many places it was done with no little success, we may appeal to the
fact that multitudes of Roman Catholics, to whom the absence of Ritual would
have been intolerable, were, if not satisfied, yet at least able to worship in
our Churches. The Queen* writing some
years after testifies to this: many of the nobility, who still remained true to
Papal allegiance, she says, “did ordinarily resort in all open places to Divine
Services in the Churches without contradiction or show of misliking.”
[*“As well those
restrained, as generally all the papists in this kingdom, not any of them did
refuse to come to our church and yield their formal obedience to the laws
established. And thus they all continued
during the first ten years of Her Majesty’s government.” Sir Edw. Coke’s Charge at Norwich, Lond. 1607,
fol. 12. For the Queen’s assertion cf.
Letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, dated August 11, 1570 A.D. Wordsworth, Eccles. Biogr. iii. 317. Collier,
vi. 265.]
And if the higher classes did deliberately
accept the Reformed worship, the common people very probably did the same
unconsciously. It is almost certain that
in many parishes the transition was practically unobserved by the congregation.
The altars were vested very much as
under the Marian rule, the “ornaments of the minister,” which the Elizabethan
Revision enjoined, were not so divergent from the Roman as to strike the eye,
while the gestures, the manner of the officiant priests, the intonation of the
voice, all would in the nature of things remain the same, for no direction was
given for change in any of these points. The real change was effected in the substance
and doctrine of the Liturgy, but as it had been recited for six years in Latin,
which was quite unintelligible to the masses, it is highly improbable that they
would recognize the modifications. The
only alteration which they would be certain to realize, they must have hailed
with satisfaction and delight, viz., the substitution of the tongue which they
spoke themselves, in place of one which, from their utter inability to
comprehend it, had made their worship a cold and lifeless formality.
But it would have been far too much to
expect that such acquiescence would be universal. In places opposition would be stirred up and fostered
by the priests, who hated the Reformation, and outbreaks of rebellion, for the
restoration of the Roman Faith and worship, were by no means infrequent. That which assumed perhaps the most dangerous
proportions was headed by the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland, [Percy and
Neville. They were aided chiefly by one
Nicholas Morton, whom the Pope had sent over with instructions to declare the
Queen a heretic. The insurrection was
not popular, and the most the leaders could number at any time was six hundred
horse, and four thousand foot. When
active measures were taken to repress it, the two earls fled to Scotland, and
from thence the Earl of Westmorland escaped to Flanders; but Percy was taken
prisoner and beheaded at York.] “the hereditary leaders of the North,” we may add
also “the hereditary chiefs of English Revolution.” It reached its height in Durham, when they
strode defiantly into the Cathedral with a crowd of followers armed to the
teeth, headed by a massive Crucifix, and the old banner of the Pilgrimage on
which the five Sacred Wounds were emblazoned. They tore the English Bible and Prayer Book to
pieces: set up the ancient altar, replaced the holy water vessel, and then, as
the historian relates, “amidst tears, embraces, prayers, and thanksgivings, the
organ pealed out, the candles and torches were lighted, and the mass was said
once more in the long desecrated aisles.” [Froude, ix. 515. Stow’s Ann.
pp. 663, sq.]
This rebellion however, like the rest,
was crushed, and the Roman worship driven out. Then came the Papal Bull [Issued by Pope
Pius v. 1569 A.D. This Bull is usually
called “regnans in excelsis.” Cf. Collier, vi. 471. It marks definitely the time when the
profession of Roman Catholicism in England became a schismatic act.] of
Excommunication against the Queen, and no Romanist was suffered any longer to
worship in the English Church.
But there was a party in England from whom
the Elizabethan Reforms had more to fear than from any threatened rebellion of
discontented Papists.
The Puritans had come in like a flood, and
Acts and Injunctions and Royal proclamations proved powerless to stay their
advance. Multitudes of important posts in the Church suddenly fell vacant. There had been an unprecedented mortality
among the Bishops; the Plague had entered their Palaces, [A contagions
fever raged for several months, and carried off, besides the prelates above
spoken of, “so many priests that a great number of parish churches in divers
places were unnerved, and no curates could be gotten for money.” Heylin, ii. 222.] and no less than nine had died,
as Fuller puts it, to form “the death guard” of Queen Mary. The rest, with a single exception, [Anthony Kitchen,
of Llandaff; cf. Fuller, Ch. Hist.
ix. 450.]
refused either the oath of Supremacy or the Act of Uniformity, and were
deprived. And not only those in the
highest office, but many Deans, and Archdeacons, and other dignitaries shared a
similar fate. And what followed? Their places were far from being adequately
filled. In the dearth of competent men
of Catholic views, there was no alternative but to draw from the Protestant
ranks. Men were appointed with strong Puritan
tendencies, not only satisfied with a meagre ritual, but pledged in principle
to encourage it. Bishops like Scambler
at Lincoln, Pilkington at Durham, Sandys at Worcester, and even Grindal in
London, made no show even of enforcing the Act, but lent all the aid of their
countenance to nonconforming clergy, till in many parts almost every feature of
Catholic worship was obliterated. [Cf. Fuller, Ch. Hist. ix. p. 480. Hardw.
Ref. 258.]
And then there was another cause
contributing largely to the same untoward result, for which the Queen herself
must be held responsible, I mean the impoverishment of the Church.
There is a noble protest among Whitgift’s
Letters,* which must be remembered to his honour: “Madam,” he writes, “religion
is the foundation and cement of human societies: and when they that serve GOD’S
Altar shall be exposed to poverty, then religion itself will be exposed to
scorn and become contemptible; as you may already observe it to be in too many
poor vicarages in this nation. And
therefore as you are by a late Act or Acts of Parliament entrusted with a great
power to preserve or waste the Church’s lands, yet dispose of them, for Jesus’
sake, as you have promised to men and vowed to GOD, that is, as the donors
intended: let neither falsehood nor flattery beguile you to do otherwise; but
put a stop to GOD’s and the Levite’s portion, I beseech you, and to the
approaching ruins of the Church, as you expect comfort at the last day; for
kings must be judged.”
[*Whitgift’s Works, iii. p. xiii. Hook’s Life of Whitgift, v. 136. It is said that all the Bishoprics of King
Henry VIII’s creation were so impoverished that the newly appointed Bishops had
actually to beg for their livelihood. The revenues of Oxford were divided between
the Earls of Leicester and Essex. Some “reasons
for making a Bishop of Elie” were drawn up by the Lord Beeper of the Great
Seal, and disclose in the most patent manner the real condition of affairs: “Your
Majestie shall fill that Sea which hath been 14 yeares
voyde, remove the opinion of kepinge
a Bishopricke so long in your Majestie’s hands; by
placing an olde Bishop there it will not (lykely) be long out of your Majestie’s hands: the Bishop’s howses of accesse now in great ruyne, will be repayred. ... Your
Majestic hereby shall not lose any profitt.” Then follow arguments to show “how the filling
of the Sea may be nere as valuable to her Majestie as
the Sea vacant,” and how the objections of “the Clergie-men
may perchance think your Majestie doth decrease the revenewes
of the Church” may be answered. The
impression left on the mind after reading this strange document is simply this,
that the Keeper of the Seal aimed at relieving the Queen of the unpopularity
which she had gained by her appropriation of the Episcopal revenues, without
restoring them to their rightful possessors. Cf. Bentham’s Hist. of Ely Cath. Appendix No. xxxiii. From the Harleian No. 6850.]
Many a Bishopric was sequestered. Ely, for example, was vacant for twenty years
after the death of Cox, and his successor Heton found the estates of the See
frightfully curtailed. And Elizabeth
seized the revenues with unblushing rapacity, and appropriated them with
unaccountable inconsistency, to enrich courtiers like Cecil and Leicester, as
well as herself.
The richest endowments were the first to
suffer. The Cathedrals soon presented an
appearance of most appalling neglect. The
only sign of life among the Deans and Canons was the principle of
self-interest, with which the example of the Queen had infected them. They suffered the daily services to cease: the
altars to be stripped: flagons and chalices stood on their sideboards; and the
copes and vestments were slit into gowns and bodices for their wives and
children.
In the towns and villages things were but a
few degrees better. The Parish Priests
who conformed and retained their benefices, made a struggle to maintain at
least the decencies of Ritual, but at last, “drawing foul ensample from fair
names,” they became like the rest.
The Puritan clergy, to whom even a surplice
was an abomination, could hardly be expected to check the prevailing
desecration.
So early as 1561 A.D. we read in a legal
document, [Preamble
of the Queen’s Order taken January 22, 1561 A.D. Cardwell. Doc.
Ann. i 289. Parker’s Letter to Lord Selbourne,
27.]
in which there is no probability of exaggeration, of the deplorable state to
which the Chancels were reduced. “In
sundry Churches and Chapels ... there is such negligence and lack of convenient
reverence used towards the comely keeping and order of the said Churches, and
specially of the upper part called the chancels, that it breedeth no small
offence and slander to see and consider, on the one part, the curiosity and
costs bestowed by all sorts of men upon their private houses, and, on the other
part, the unclean or negligent order and spare keeping of the house of prayer,
by permitting open decay ... and by appointing unmeet and unseemly tables, with
foul cloths, for the Communion of the Sacraments, and generally leaving the
place of prayer desolate of all cleanliness and of meet ornaments for such a
place whereby it might be known a place provided for Divine service.”
Much of this deplorable neglect was
inherited from the close of Edward’s reign. The change of Altars into Tables and also of
their position in the Churches had almost necessitated the disuse of the rich
vestments in which they had been clothed. To replenish his exhausted coffers the King
issued a Commission with power to seize upon the plate and hangings and other
furniture and ornaments which, it was said, being no longer available for their
original purpose, would be better appropriated than suffered to fall into
decay. The demolition of images too had
led to a great defacement of Churches and Chapels; and the east wall in many
cases, from having been a favourite position for sculpture, presented a ruinous
appearance, while no attempt at restoration had been made during the Marian
rule. This state of neglect, which the
Romans, with all their love of the externals of religion, had done nothing to
correct, was aggravated by the carelessness of the Elizabethan clergy, and the
Preamble of the Queen’s “Order” to her Commissioners is a terrible revelation. Her Injunctions were issued not merely to stay
further desecration but to recover what was lost. In destroying the Roods, the Screens on which
they were placed had been ruthlessly thrown down and cleared away: but while
acceding to the demolition of the former, she was determined that the Puritan
claim to efface the distinction between the Chancel and the Nave [“Orders taken
the x. day of October 1561 A.D. By vertue of Her Majestie’s letters,
etc. ‘Provided also, that where in any
Parish Churche the sayde Roode loftes be already
transposed, so that there remayne a comely particion betwixte the Chauncell and the Churche, that
no alteracion be otherwise attempted in them, but be
suffered in quiete. And where no particion
is standyng, there to be one appointed.’” Cf. Parker’s Letter to Lord Selbourne, Postscript,
157.]
should not be acknowledged, and she peremptorily ordered that the partitions
should be replaced. Further to hide the
disfigured wall above the Altar, she directed that the Table of the Decalogue
should be set up. In Cathedrals, “the
exemplary Churches,” [The
Commissioners issued their orders in these terms: “And further that there be
fixed upon the wall over the sayde Communion borde the Tables of GOD’S Precepts imprinted for the sayde
purpose.” “Provided yet that in
Cathedral Churches the Tables of the sayde Precepts be more largely and costly
painted out to the better show of the same.” Cf. Parker, Papers on the Ornam. Rubr.
No. x.]
they were to be embellished with “costly painting,” but in Parish Churches
where poverty was sure to be pleaded, printed copies pasted upon board were
sanctioned. We could hardly have a more
forcible and telling description than is given by the fact that what bore no
more traces of beauty than a modern “School Board Time Table” should have been
accounted as a “comely ornament,” calculated to recover something of the
reverence in which the Chancel had once been held. But the Injunctions failed to stay the
progress of decay, and the Worship of GOD and everything connected with it fell
into contempt. Even Convocation shared
the indifference of the times, and a proposal to abolish some of the simplest
ceremonies [The
chief of the proposals was to abolish Saints’ Days, the cross in Baptism,
organs in Churches, and the practice of kneeling.] was only rejected by fifty-nine
to fifty-eight votes. Then came the
Advertisements. They were an honest
attempt of the Archbishop to enforce the laws which were everywhere
persistently broken. Even the surplice
had been discarded in the administration of the Holy Communion, and some
received kneeling, some standing, some sitting. The superficial reader will be struck with the
triviality of the points at issue, the use of a dress, the sign of the Cross,
the outward reverence at the Sacred Name; but the discerner of the times knows
that in the greatest struggles the immediate battle is often fought over
apparent trifles, and sees here that the conflict was in reality between
antiquity and novelty, between the voice of the Church and private judgment,
between Catholic truth and sectarian error.
The result of the first attempt to enforce
Uniformity proves how necessary an appeal to force had become. When the London clergy were summoned before
the Primate and the Bishop of London, no less than thirty-seven out of
ninety-eight, more than one-third, refused compliance, and their livings were
sequestrated.
Of the Universities, the natural feeders of
the Ministry, Oxford, after the suppression of the Roman influence, to which it
yielded itself up in Queen Mary’s reign, became little more than a cipher. Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, and Humphrys, the
President of Magdalene, came back from exile and tried to bring about a
reaction, but they were speedily deprived. Puritanism took no root at Oxford: and the
soil vacated by the expulsion of the Papist zealots was left to lie idle, and
many of the Colleges were almost emptied of students.
Cambridge, on the other hand, though
traditionally less liable to fluctuations than the sister University, passed
rapidly from Roman under Puritan influence, and fanatical preachers excited the
undergraduates to rise in rebellion against the operation of the Act for
Uniformity of worship. Many of the Heads
of Houses took an active part in the “Vestiarian controversy,” and gained the
nickname of “cap and surplice fanatics.” [Fanatici superpelliceani et galeriani.
This was the designation by which Bartholomew Clerk, a Doctor of Laws,
who took a strong part in the Controversy, characterized the
Nonconformists. Collier, vi. 421.] Others vented their Protestant spleen in
stripping their Chapels of every vestige of beauty and ornament, and many fine
paintings and stained glass windows fell victims to their iconoclastic zeal. Then came the libelous acts of Martin
Mar-prelate, [This
was a violent attack upon the organization and ritual of the Church. A series of scurrilous libels were published
in 1588 A. D., anonymously assailing the Queen and Bishops with every kind of
abuse. Cf. Maskell’s History of the Controversy.] which fostered
the spirit of insubordination to the last degree, and the evil genius of the
University, Thomas Cartwright, appeared to add to the confusion. [Hook considers
him to have been the first organizer of Protestant Dissent in England. Life of
Parker, 406.]
It would be impossible to name any one
who did more to impregnate that generation with an uncatholic system of
Theology, and to stereotype in the Schools of the clergy principles which aimed
at stripping the Worship of the Church of all that was attractive and
beautiful. His Lecture room was thronged
by admiring students, and his sermons were so popular that “the very windows
were taken out of Great St. Mary’s Church that the multitudes might come within
reach of his voice.”
But amidst so much that was sad and
discouraging there was a gleam of sunshine: and it must have gladdened the
heart of the Queen before she died with at least the prospect of a brighter
future for the Church which she loved.
The Protestant invasion had stifled the “new
learning” which was born when the century began. It breathed again in the immortal pages of
Hooker when the century closed.
The Puritan rested the authority for the
doctrines and worship of the Church upon the narrow ground of express Scripture
direction. Nothing whatever, he said, in
faith or practice may claim our acceptance, or has even any right to receive
it, unless it is clearly laid down in GOD’S written Word. Hooker [Cf. Green, Hist. of the English People, iii. 30.] showed that this narrow ground
must be abandoned, and that “a divine order exists, not in written revelation
only, hut in the moral relations, the historical development, and the social
and political institutions of men,” and he claimed for human reason the
province of determining the laws of this order.
“The Ecclesiastical Polity” was exactly
what was wanted in the crisis, and though the impression which it made was not
immediately felt it was deep and lasting.
It informed the minds of men like Overall,
and Andrewes, and Laud, and Cosin, and a great host of others who drew from its
pages the spirit which gave them courage to meet the onslaught of the
Commonwealth, and enabled them to raise the Church from her temporary
overthrow, and place her securely in that position from which every effort has
been powerless to dislodge her.
Chapter IV – The
Caroline Settlement.
The Parish Churches of England experienced
a second revolution in their worship at the beginning of the Long Parliament:
but of a very different nature from that which ensued upon the accession of
Queen Mary.
The bitter hostility to the Rites and
Ceremonies of the Church which had been gathering for many years culminated in
1645 A.D., when a vote of the House established the Directory “for the public
worship of GOD in the three kingdoms,” [On the very day of Laud’s attainder,
Jan. 4th, 1645, £5 for the first offence; £10 for the second; a year’s
imprisonment without bail or mainprise for the third. Coll. viii. 296. For an account of the Directory, cf. Appendix
IV.]
and proscribed by fine and imprisonment the use of the Prayer Book, not only in
Divine Service in Churches, but even in private dwellings.
Henceforward the attachment of devout
Churchmen to the forbidden Liturgy became greatly strengthened, and was
regarded “with a degree of veneration such as is felt for a saint who has
suffered martyrdom.” Men were courageous
enough to brave the consequences for the sake of that they loved, and in secret
chambers met from time to time to worship GOD according to the old ceremonies
and the prayers of their fathers.
I know of hardly anything sadder than the
few scattered notices in Evelyn’s Diary. [They are found under the following
dates: – Dec. 3, 1654 A.D., Sept. 19, Aug. 3, 1656 A.D., Dec. 25, 1657 A.D.] These are examples.
Advent Sunday: – “There being no office at
the Church, but extempore prayers after the Presbyterian way, for now all forms
were prohibited and most of the preachers were usurpers, I seldom went to
Church upon solemn feasts, but either went to London, where some of the
orthodox sequestered Divines did privately use the Common Prayer; or else I
procured one to officiate in my house ... on the 10th, Dr. Owen, the
sequestered minister of Eltham, preached to my family
in my Library, and gave us the Holy Communion.”
Again he writes, “People had no principles,
and grew very ignorant of even the common points of Christianity: all devotion
being now placed in hearing sermons and discourses of speculative and motional
things.”
And in one of his entries for Christmas
Day, several of which strike the same note of sadness, he tells how with some
devout worshippers, be was surprised in Exeter Chapel in the Strand by a troop
of soldiers, who held their muskets against them as if they would have shot
them at the altar, and kept them in confinement.
And there is one more notice in the same
journal which bears melancholy evidence to the condition of the Parish Churches:
“They were filled with sectaries of all sorts, blasphemous and ignorant
mechanics usurping the pulpits everywhere.”
And he sums up all in one pregnant line: “The
Church now in dens and caves of the earth.”
And in corroboration of all this we might
point to the lamentation of Chancellor Hyde, where he bemoans the fact that
Papists and Puritans were both computing in how few years the enfeebled Church
of England would expire. [Cf. Stoughton, Church
of the Restoration, i. 37, where he quotes from Barwick’s Life, 449.] But the Providence of God defeated their
expectations. The death of the Protector
and the deposition of his weak and irresolute son revived the hopes of the
oppressed. The reestablishment of the
Church was inseparable from the restoration of the Monarchy; but it was for
some time a matter of anxious doubt whether her worship should be brought back
in its integrity, or only when shorn of most of its ancient glory.
The Lords and Commons and the City of
London sent a deputation to the King, who had taken up his abode in Holland,
during his exile, to convey to his Majesty expressions of loyalty. Eight Presbyterian Divines [The most
important were Reynolds, Calamy, Manton and Case.] seized the opportunity for
enlisting his sympathy, and succeeded in drawing from him the famous Breda
Declaration,* to which they clung so pertinaciously but so hopelessly through
all their after troubles. He assured
them that in consequence of the passion and uncharitableness of the times having
produced diversity in religious opinions, by which men had become engaged in
parties and animosities against each other, he would grant “liberty to tender
consciences.” There was some reserve in
his promise which they did not examine very closely, viz., provided such
differences did not interfere with the peace of the kingdom, and that
Parliament were ready to sanction the indulgence.
[*As this played an important part in the
history of the reign, we quote that part of it which concerns the Dissenters in
full: “Because the passions and uncharitableness of the times have produced
several opinions in religion, by which men are engaged in parties and
animosities against each other; which, when they shall hereafter unite in a
freedom of conversation, will be composed or better understood; we do declare a
liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in
question, for differences of opinion in matters of religion, which do not
disturb the peace of the kingdom; and that we shall be ready to consent to such
an Act of Parliament as upon mature deliberation, shall be offered to us, for
the full granting that indulgence.”]
There is no doubt however that his manner
was conciliatory, perhaps more so than he intended, for emboldened by their
reception, they pushed on at a later interview to extract a promise that
neither the old Liturgy nor the abhorred surplice should be reintroduced even
in his own chapel for fear of giving offence to their brethren. He replied with no little indignation, “that
since he gave them their liberty, he should by no means resign his own; that he
had always used that form of service, which he considered to be the best in the
world, and he would have no other,” and touching the minister’s habit while
officiating, he told them that it had been retained by him under more difficult
circumstances and would certainly not be discountenanced now.
On the 26th of May 1660 A.D., Charles
reached the English shores, and the following day the joyful sounds of the
disused Liturgy echoed once more through the aisles of the metropolitan
Cathedral at Canterbury.
Under the date of July 8th, there is a
brief entry in Evelyn’s Diary, almost as full of hope as the last which we
quoted from it was of sadness: “From henceforth was the Liturgy publicly used
in our Churches, whence it had been for so many years banished.”
In the autumn of the same year, the King
issued a second Declaration upon Ecclesiastical affairs. It was a repetition in the main of the less
formal promise given at Breda, and conceived in the same conciliatory spirit
towards Nonconformity. It contained much
which would have curtailed very seriously the independent authority of the
Episcopate; but this we pass by, as our present object is to deal with that
part only which concerns the Worship of the Church.
Pending a revision of the Prayer Book, full
liberty was granted to discontinue the use of it, as well as “the ancient
ceremony” of bowing at the Name of Jesus, and the wearing the surplice,
provided only that such liberty did not extend to those who ministered in
Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches.
Probably the King felt confident of the
ultimate result, when the projected Council of Divines should have held their
debates, and so was anxious to make temporary concessions, to avoid being
charged with a breach of faith, and to save himself from alienating a large
portion of his subjects at the outset of his reign.
Each fresh concession, instead of
satisfying the Presbyterians, made them wax bolder in their demands, till at
last they completely overreached themselves, and, as we shall see, in the end
lost everything by their grasping.
It is often asserted that they received
hard measure at the hands of their opponents; if it be true, it must be
attributed in a great measure to their own disregard of the feelings and
interests of others.
The Church too was then rising after a long
and severe depression, and it was only natural that as she found herself secure
of the recovery of her ancient prerogatives, some of her ministers should feel
but little sympathy for the alleged grievances of those, by whom in the hour of
their triumph they had been so ruthlessly treated. Still further, it must be remembered that the
differences were religious and doctrinal, and it was not a time for orthodoxy
to yield even an inch to the demands of men whose teaching the Apostolic Church
distinctly repudiated.
It was not till the spring of the following
year that the King was able to carry out his intention of bringing matters to a
final issue between the contending parties. Steps were then taken for submitting the vexed
questions of Liturgical worship and ceremonial observance to the decision of a
formally constituted assembly of Divines selected in equal numbers from either
side. No pressure of any kind was
exercised in the selection, but each party was left free to name its own
Commissioners. Twelve Bishops and twelve
Presbyterian ministers with nine coadjutors on either side formed the
deliberative Council from which so much was expected, so little realized.
Twice before the disputant parties had been
arranged on opposite benches, once at Hampton Court, [For a full
account, cf. Appendix III. Archbishop
Whitgift, Bishops Bancroft, Matthew, Bilson, and
Deans Andrewes, Overall, and Barlow were the chief on
the Episcopalian side. The Puritans were
represented by Reynolds, Sparks, Knewstub, and Chaderton.] once at Westminster. [The Knights of
the Shires named two or more representatives from each county. They numbered 120, of whom all but a very few
were avowed enemies of the Church. They
met first on July 1st, 1643 A.D., 69 members answering their names. The Prelates who accepted the invitation in
the first instances soon discontinued their attendance.] At all three meetings the subjects of debate
were practically identical, but the circumstances under which they were
debated, most widely different.
When King James, in reply to the Millenary Petition,
summoned a conference in 1604 A.D. to consider the Presbyterian grievances, the
Episcopalians were in undisturbed power; and they took their seats under the
Presidency of the King, who, they were secretly convinced, was strongly averse
to any concession, as Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed to adjudicate
rather than to debate on terms of equality. The aggrieved party moreover were placed at a
manifest disadvantage in point of numbers, having no more than four to confront
an array of nine Bishops, seven Deans, and three others.
And there was the same inequality at
Westminster, 1643 A.D., but then the tables were reversed, the Presbyterians
appearing in an overwhelming majority, outnumbering the representatives of the
Church in the proportion of twelve to one, or even more.
On the present occasion the champions of
the two rival systems met face to face, equal in numbers, and not altogether
unequal in intellectual power and learning; and as far as human judgment could
foresee, there was every prospect of a fair trial of strength, and a full and
unprejudiced consideration upon their merits of the questions to be debated.
That these anticipations were not fulfilled
was due far more to the unwisdom and unyielding spirit of men like Baxter than
to any other assignable cause.
The place of meeting by the Royal
Proclamation was the Palace of the Savoy. It was a spot rich in historic memories, and
worthy of the occasion. In the noble
Hall of the Master’s lodging, looking out on the Thames, the Conference met for
the first time on April 15, 1661 A.D.
And now let us look at the portraits of the
representative Divines of that eventful time, for such were those who formed
that memorable Assembly. [Episcopalians: Frewen,
Sheldon, Cosin, Ring, Warner, Sanderson, Morley,
Henchman, Laney, Sterne, Walton, and Gauden, with
coadjutors, Earles, Heylin,
Barwick, Gunning, Barwick, Hacket, Pearson, Pierce, Sparrow, and Thorndike. Presbyterians: Reynolds, Baxter, Tuckney, Wallis, Manton, Conant, Spurstow,
Calamy, Jackson, Case, Newcommen
and Clark, with coadjutors, Jacomb, Bates, Horton, Rawlinson, Lightfoot,
Collins, Cooper, Drake, and Woodbridge.] Inasmuch as, to all outward seeming, the
gravest issues for the future of the Church were likely to flow from its
deliberations, we should have expected to see the Primate of England occupying
the Presidential Chair, but Juxon was bowed down with
the weight of years, the burden of which would have made a young man prematurely
old, and he pleaded the infirmity of age as an excuse, deputing Sheldon, the
Bishop of London, and by a happy coincidence also Master of the Savoy, to fill
his place. His character has been
severely criticized by Nonconformist historians, but he was far from deserving
the wholesale condemnation which they have dealt out to him. We may find it difficult to maintain that the
Episcopate suffered no loss in its sacred dignity from his public conduct, or
that his spirituality and piety in private life were such as beseems a Father
in GOD, but it cannot be denied that he possessed many of the qualifications
which fitted him for a post, in which he was called upon to control the
discussions of men of such widely different opinions. He had mixed much with the world, and acquired
in society a wonderful aptitude for discerning character: and with this shrewd
discrimination and quickness of apprehension, he combined great courtesy in
manner and gentleness of speech.
He had the good fortune to be supported by
Bishops and Divines, fully competent to maintain the honour and rights of the
Church, men whose names have become familiar as household words in the world of
Ecclesiastical Literature and debate.
Foremost in importance, not perhaps from
every point of view, but unquestionably in connection with the subjects to be
discussed, was Cosin, Bishop of Durham. He
was almost without a rival in any age for acquaintance with Liturgical lore,
the decrees of Councils and Patristic teaching. In his early days he had sat at the feet of
Bishop Andrewes, and afterwards, when Chaplain to the Bishop of the See to
which he succeeded, he drank in the opinions of Overall [He owed so much
to Overall that he used to designate him his “lord and master”. He became his librarian in 1616 A.D.] and Laud, and
other like-minded Divines, for Durham house in London was the center of high
Ecclesiastical society.
It was here that he gathered many of the “Notes,”
which were destined to play such an important part in the final settlement of
Anglican worship. From the first he was
exposed to obloquy, and for his efforts to restore the decency of worship in
the Cathedral of Durham after his appointment to a Canonry, he was publicly
delated as “a young Apollo who sets out the Quire with strange Babylonish
ornaments,” and for his zeal in reviving a fitting ceremonial at the Coronation
of Charles I, he was contemptuously designated “a Popish Master”. Unless it could be proved that he changed his
views, his conduct during his exile at the Court of Queen Henrietta Maria, is
sufficient to acquit him of any tendency Romewards. When brought into contact with the Jesuits, he
held frequent discussions with them upon doctrinal questions, and at last
gathered up his arguments into a treatise in denunciation of their supreme
dogma of transubstantiation. But whether
the charges were wholly unfounded or not, we can hardly be surprised that he
had made himself hateful to the Puritans, or that he should have been selected
as the first Episcopalian to suffer vengeance by a vote of the Commons. [He was impeached
before the House of Lords 1641 A.D., and fled to Paris.]
Such being his history, such his character,
we can well imagine the dismay which the Presbyterians must have felt when they
saw him taking his place in the ranks of their opponents at the Savoy. From him at least they could expect no
concession; and though it was by no means in a spirit of retaliation, for he
was of a most generous temper and the strictest sense of rectitude and justice,
he did not disappoint them, but stood firm and unbending to the principles for
which he had suffered.
For the active part that he took in the
proceedings, Morley, Bishop of Worcester, deserves to be noticed next. He had followed the fortunes of the King throughout
the war, and had shared his banishment, and for his devotion to the Royal cause
was selected as the fittest person to preach the Coronation sermon in
Westminster Abbey.
He was a most brilliant speaker, quick in
reply, and of ever ready wit, but unfortunately of such a hasty temper that he
often spoke without weighing his words considerately. It is said too that he was so impulsive that
he manifested the greatest impatience of a sustained argument, and frequently
interrupted a speaker from whom he disagreed. These failings materially damaged his
influence and weakened the force of those qualities which should have made him
the most formidable member of the Conference. As it turned out, others were more feared by
the Presbyterians, but no one was more obnoxious to them: indeed they disliked
him more than all the rest of his party together.
Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, had
qualifications, which placed him from time to time in the President’s seat in
the absence of Sheldon. He was a staunch
upholder of the rights and prerogatives of the Church. When forbidden by the Commonwealth to read the
Book of Common Prayer, he committed its pages to heart, and habitually repeated
them from memory all through the times of the proscription. His reputation as a Casuist is such that his
works on the Conscience are studied in the present generation.
As a writer of English, he was almost
unapproachable for the purity of his language, as the most familiar though by
no means the best example of which, we may read the Preface to the Prayer Book
which came from his pen.
He was especially disliked by the
Presbyterians for the scathing severity with which he criticized the Solemn
League and Covenant.
The portrait gallery of the Episcopalians
would be grievously deficient, if Pearson and Gunning were wanting, though they
only acted as Coadjutors.
The former, as the Theologian of the
Conference, rises above all his fellows. The solidity of his learning and the cogency
of his argumentative skill earned for him a reputation which the lapse of two
centuries has hardly deteriorated.
In Catholic doctrine, it is true, he took
lower ground than Cosin or Gunning, but the extraordinary abilities which he
possessed commanded the respect of his opponents, though they contributed not a
little to their discomfiture.
The latter, Gunning, deserves a fuller
notice. He was a scholar of no mean
attainments, and being possessed of an unusually retentive memory and readiness
of speech, was able to enforce his arguments by telling illustrations drawn
from history and a wide experience. Among the uneducated, however, this fertility
of allusion made him obscure and difficult; and Charles II is said to have
ridiculed the Court ladies for their admiration of his preaching, which he
explained on the principle “omne ignotum pro
magnifico.”
His views on Ecclesiastical questions were
thoroughly Catholic; the Presbyterians stigmatized them as Roman, but they had
been much irritated against him by his refusal to administer the Sacrament to
Prynne, when he obstinately declined to kneel for its reception.
As a polemic he loved discussion, and was
in many ways the counterpart of Morley, with the same ready wit and quick reply.
He differed, however, in that he
combined great courtesy and goodness, with the utmost gravity and dignified
control over his temper.
It is recorded as an instance of his
readiness that once he engaged in argument with an enthusiast whom he happened
to hear declaiming on the immediate nearness of the Advent in the presence of a
great crowd who were completely carried away with his words. Gunning, after trying in vain to turn them
from their convictions by Scriptural arguments, seized upon an observation
casually dropped to the effect that his opponent had lately invested in an
estate, and offered him two years’ purchase for the transfer. Taken off his guard, the man demanded twenty
as its real value, and his converts left him.
As a writer, he has left his mark upon our
Service book in the beautiful prayer for “all conditions of men.” [Gunning is
supposed to have yielded to the objections of the Presbyterians, and gathered
into one the substance of several prayers for the king, clergy, and others,
originally used at the close of the Litany. In favour of this view Wheatley has quoted the
tradition that in St. John’s College Chapel, Cambridge, of which Gunning was
master, this was never read at Evensong, because its composer had intended it
to take the place of prayers which had been associated with the Litany, and
belonged naturally to a morning service. The occurrence of the word “finally,” when so
little has preceded, suggests the idea that other petitions may have fallen
out. There is no authority for the common belief that Bishop Sanderson was the
composer of it.]
I think no one can look at his monument in
Ely Cathedral without being impressed with the majesty of his bearing, and the
strength of character exhibited in his face, or stand upon the huge stone
engraved with the pregnant title “Petrus Episcopus
Eliensis,”
without feeling a profound sense of gratitude to him, as he recalls his history
as of one of the saviours of the Church in her most troublous time.
We turn now to those who represented the
opposite party. By far the majority of them were men of distinction: a few
stand out from the rest with names which would command the admiration of any
generation in history: and at these we look more closely.
The first, however, that attracts our attention
is Reynolds, whose position as a Bishop is not a little remarkable.
To sit as a Commissioner on the same bench
with men who were ready to burn the Prayer Book, and to take his place in
Convocation, which was almost sworn to defend it, is an anomaly almost without
parallel. It makes us suspect his
integrity, and is indicative of no little instability of mind and purpose. Though the Presbyterians were glad to avail
themselves of his advocacy, he completely lost their confidence, when in later
days he elected to retain his Bishopric and conform, while those in whose ranks
he had stood, and who had looked to him for guidance, had the courage of their
opinions, and were ejected. But whatever
judgment we may pass upon him for his inconsistency, he has left a mark upon
the Prayer Book, which the strongest Episcopalian can have no wish to efface,
as the author of “the General Thanksgiving”. [This also has been assigned to
Bishop Sanderson; but from the Records of Convocation it appears that Bishop
Reynolds prepared a “Form of general thanksgiving,” and presented it on
December 14th, 1661 A.D. Lathbury, Hist. of Convoc., 289. Kennet’s Register,
579.]
The moving controlling spirit of their
party was Richard Baxter. One act of
his, to be considered hereafter, will enable us to form a correct estimate of
his character better than the most lengthy description. But we may sum up his faults by saying that he
was far too self-reliant, seeing only with his own eyes and wholly incapable of
understanding the position of an opponent: and his good qualities, by
pronouncing him absolutely without an equal in guilelessness and personal
piety.
Though his work in the Conference was in
its spirit subversive of all that every loyal Churchman holds most dear, he has
won our affections and healed many a wounded heart by the touch of his “Saints’
Everlasting Rest”.
Calamy gained great renown as a preacher,
and had a larger following of distinguished persons than any minister in the
seventeenth century. He was profoundly
learned and conversant with writings not usually studied by men of his views,
having read through (as his Biographers assert, though it can only be by a
figure of speech) all the works of St. Augustine no less than five times, and
being equally at home in the disquisitions of the Schoolman Aquinas.
Lightfoot, the last to be noticed, was the
first of English Divines to penetrate deeply into the mysteries of Hebrew
Literature, and to lay bare for the Christian the secrets of Rabbinic and
Talmudic Science. Though two hundred
years have elapsed since he entered upon the then-untrodden field, few, if any,
have extended their investigations further.
Such were the men who were called together
at this crisis to debate and adjust the rival claims of the two systems of
Church Government and Worship.
The President of the Conference opened the
proceedings by reciting the instrument under which they had been summoned. It enjoined them “to review the Book of Common
Prayer, comparing the same with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used
in the Church in the primitive and purest times: ... to advise and consult upon
the several objections which should’ be raised against the same, and (if
occasion be), to make such reasonable and necessary alterations as should be
agreed upon to be needful and expedient for the giving satisfaction to tender
consciences ... but avoiding (as much as may be) all unnecessary abbreviations
of the forms and liturgy, wherewith the people are altogether acquainted and
have so long received in the Church of England.”
The presiding Bishop ruled that the summons
directed them to the consideration of exceptions and additions to the
Prayer-book, and maintained that as the Episcopal party were well-satisfied
with the Book as it stood, it was obviously the duty of those who were
aggrieved to set forth their objections and to suggest such additional matter
as they thought fit.. He ordered also that, to insure full consideration, they
should be laid before the Conference in writing. The Presbyterians, after many
fruitless protests against a course which they foresaw would fetter the freedom
of debate, yielded an unwilling assent, and agreed among themselves that the
main body should undertake to draw up the exceptions, and leave to Baxter alone
the compilation of the additions.
The former work was speedily accomplished.
The grievances had been stereotyped for years,* and only required to be placed
in categorical order and expressed in the most trenchant terms.
[*A considerable number of them had been embodied
in the form of petition, which was presented to King James on his accession. The petition prayed that these offences
following, some may be removed, some amended, some qualified; “In the Church
Service, that the Cross in baptism, interrogatories ministered to infants,
confirmations, as superfluous, may be taken away, ... the cap and surplice not
urged; that examinations may go before the Communion; that it be ministered
with a sermon; that divers terms of priests and absolution and some other used,
with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book, may be corrected
... church songs and music moderated to better edification, ... no ministers
charged to teach their people to bow at the Name of Jesus; that the Canonical
Scriptures only he read in Church.” Cardwell.
Confer.
132.]
Those which related to Church Worship may
be comprehended briefly under these heads: –
I. The mode of expressing both prayer and praise.
II. The ceremonies attendant upon the same.
III. The restriction of times for public service.
The first claim put forward was for the
omission of responses, and the alternative reading of Psalms, and for the
consolidation of the divided petitions of the Litany into one continuous
prayer.
This struck at the root of a very important
principle, and though the objectors hardly realized it, it would have debarred
the laity from the right which they possess in virtue of their priesthood [See near
beginning.]
of taking a recognized part in the public service.
Of a somewhat kindred nature was their
exception to separate Collects, which, usually embodying only one brief
petition, were unnecessarily encumbered, each with a preface naming the
attributes of GOD, as well as a conclusion appealing to the merits of Christ’s
intercession. It would be less
interruption, they said, to the general flow of prayer to combine the subjects
of several in one of greater length.
Another claim under the first head was that
the Liturgy should not be so strictly imposed as to exclude the exercise of “the
gift of prayer,” and that liberty of curtailing the stated forms be granted in
view of affording opportunity for extempore effusions at the minister’s
discretion.
Under the second head they desired the
abolition of the ornaments of the ministers and ceremonial usages, singling out
for especial animadversion the wearing of the surplice, the sign of the Cross,
and kneeling at the Holy Communion.
Under the last, restricting public worship
as far as possible to Sundays, they took exception to the observance of Saints’
Days and Vigils, and pleaded for the discontinuance of the title of Holy Days
by which they had been ‘commonly designated.
These objections [The exceptions
of the ministers, both general and particular, as well as the answers of the
Bishops, are printed in full in Cardwell’s Conferences,
vii.]
were laid before the Assembly at their next sitting. Written replies were drawn up, followed by
rejoinders on the Presbyterian side, and time passed on without any advance
being made towards union or reconciliation. The Bishops became daily more and more
encouraged by a variety of circumstances to make a bold stand for the absolute
integrity of their worship; and they assumed a more peremptory tone towards
their antagonists. They were provoked to
the last degree by the conduct of Baxter. In defiance of the terms under which they had
been called together, in total disregard for antiquity, for the accumulated
treasure of Liturgical forms, in many of which thirty generations had expressed
their wants and done homage to the Creator, he was bold to substitute for the
sanction of the Conference a Service book of his own,* whose claim for
acceptance he based upon the fact that it contained nothing in common with the
existing Liturgy, with a Book, that is, which his opponents next to the Bible
held dearest in the world.
[*There is no doubt that it is a
remarkable production, though it ill-deserves the high praise given to it by
Dr. Johnson. as “one of the first compositions of a ritual kind that he had
ever seen.” It contains services for the
LORD’S Day, for Holy Communion and Baptism, for marriage, with directions for
the visitation of the sick, for the burial of the dead; a discourse on
preparatory catechizing before Communion, also on Church discipline, with forms
of confession, absolution and exclusion, special prayers and thanksgivings, and
an Appendix containing a long Litany or general prayer, and an ascription of
praise for man’s redemption. Cf. Baxter’s
Works, Lond. 1830: vol. xv. p. 449.]
The story of its composition, though it
fills us with wonder, cannot but touch us by the simplicity of character which
it betokens. He tells in his own words
how, when the idea of a Reformed Liturgy had been conceived, he laid everything
aside and shut out the world till he had carried the work to completion.
“Hereupon,” he says, “I departed from them
and came among them no more till I had finished my task, which was a fortnight’s
time.” While all the pomp and
circumstance of Religious worship was breaking out with fresh vigour after long
suppression, while every Rite and Ceremony which could enhance the splendour of
the Coronation Service was being enacted in Westminster Abbey, a single divine
in solitude and retirement, with no other help than his Bible and Paraphrase,
was elaborating page by page a book which, in the infatuation of a beclouded
judgment, he persuaded himself would be acceptable to the nation. And this, the result of fourteen brief days’
labour, he did not scruple to propose as a substitute for one which had grown
with the Church’s growth, and rooted itself in the heart and affections of the
people.
The laying on the table of the Committee room
of that Reformed Liturgy did almost more than anything to wreck the
Presbyterian cause.
It may be said that Baxter was only one,
but his colleagues fathered his proposal, and so made themselves responsible
for his act. That the adoption of a
course so ill-timed, so devoid of all common sense, so certain to carry
destruction with it, should have been even possible, is almost past belief. It is evidence of no little forbearance in the
party in power that they did not break up the Conference in disgust at the
revolutionary spirit in which their opponents were prepared to sacrifice most
hallowed traditions, and at the self-confidence which demanded every concession
from others, but refused to make any in return.
However, after much written matter had been
interchanged between them, the Bishops consented to a debate on equal terms. Three were chosen on either side, Pearson,
Gunning, and Sparrow on one, Baxter, Jacomb, and Bates on the other. It is needless to tell with what result. We know the respective characters of the chief
disputants, Gunning and Baxter, and no annalist is required to record the issue
of a debate between them.
Before, however, the expiration of the time
to which the Session of the Conference was limited, Cosin made a final effort
to gather up the threads of controversy, by calling upon the complainants to
divide their objections to the Prayer Book, stating what they opposed as
sinful, what as inexpedient. A subtle
argument was carried on for some time, in which the Presbyterians attacked the
Book as unscriptural, and therefore sinful, in eight particulars,* but it was
as hopeless as the discussions which preceded it, and the Conference
terminated, Morley and Baxter having consented to report to the King that they
were all agreed as to the ends, viz., the unity, peace, and welfare of the
Church, but after all their debates were disagreed on the means.
[*1. That no minister baptize without the transient
image of the cross.
2. That
no minister may read or pray that dare not wear a surplice.
3. That none be admitted to Communion that dare
not receive it kneeling.
4. That ministers be forced to pronounce all
baptized infants to be regenerate.
5. That ministers be forced to deliver the
Sacrament to the unfit.
6. Or to absolve the unfit, and that in absolute
expressions.
7. Or to give thanks for all whom they bury.
8. Or to subscribe the Prayer Book as containing
nothing contrary to the Word of God. Cardin.
Conf. c. vi. Coll. vii. 440.
The charges were unfounded, and the orders
of the Church wilfully misrepresented.
When e.g. does the Church direct the ministry to do what 5 and 6 assume
that she does?]
During the sittings or shortly after,
several events occurred which tended greatly to the reestablishment of the
ancient Forms of worship in the Church.
I. The Coronation in Westminster Abbey.
II. The burning of the Solemn League and Covenant.
III. The passing by the House of Commons of an Act
of Uniformity with the restored Prayer Book.
IV. The introduction of a Bill for the return of
the Spiritual Lords to their seats in Parliament. Let us look at them separately.
I. As
soon as the Coronation day (April 22d) was fixed, the records of the past were
ransacked to furnish precedents for all the details of the solemnity, that nothing
in the way of Ecclesiastical pomp which had characterized similar occasions
might be wanting. So strong in the minds
of the King’s counsellors was the reaction from the studied absence of
Ceremonial which had marked the Commonwealth, that the Ritual exceeded in
splendour and magnificence anything that even Westminster Abbey with all its
tale of Ecclesiastical and Regal pageant had ever witnessed. The Presbyterians who were present must have
heaved a deep sigh as they read the unmistakable evidence that Catholic worship
was on the eve of full restoration, and that Episcopacy which they had
dethroned and trampled in the dust would soon lift up its head on every side.
It was an Episcopal ceremony from beginning
to end. The Archbishop poured the anointing
oil. A Bishop preached the sermon: a
second read the Gospel, a third the Epistle. Bishops were foremost in the procession, and
foremost in the reception of Royal favour, chosen to walk at the King’s side
under a Canopy borne by the Lords temporal, and permitted to kiss the King’s
cheek before any one not of royal blood.
No matter that Presbyterians had been
placed on the list of His Majesty’s Chaplains, [The Earl of Manchester, who
favoured the Presbyterians, obtained the King’s consent to appoint ten of the
number to be Royal Chaplains. Only four,
however, Baxter, Reynolds, Calamy, and Spurstow, were ever invited to officiate
at Court. Reynolds afterwards became
Bishop of Norwich. The See of Hereford
was also offered to Baxter, and that of Lichfield and Coventry to Calamy, but
both were declined.]
they were rigidly excluded from taking any official part in the proceedings.
This was the first direct blow which their
cause received.
II. It was followed by a second quickly
after. The Solemn League and Covenant [The Covenant was
subscribed not only by the appointed Commissioners and Assembly of Divines, but
also by the members of both Houses of Parliament. The King however issued a proclamation, dated
October 9th, forbidding his subjects to accept it. For a copy of it, cf. Fuller’s Ch. Hist. iii. 450; Stoughton’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 535.] pledged the Covenanters
to uphold in this country the Reformed worship and discipline, which had been
established in Scotland, and to extirpate Prelacy which was said to be linked
with superstition and heresy, and contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
godliness.
It had been accepted by the Assembly of
Westminster Divines, when with circumstances of an unusual significance they
had met, Sept. 25, 1643 A.D., in St. Margaret’s Church under the shadow of the
Abbey, and in the presence of the House of Commons, who adjourned to witness
the solemnity, they lifted up their hands and swore to maintain its provisions.
It was not enough that it had been set
aside informally at the King’s restoration; the nation must wash its hands from
the stain, and the renunciation be as publicly marked as the acceptance had
been. The House of Commons resolved that
the ill-starred document should be destroyed in such a manner as to leave no
doubt of their utter abhorrence of it. A
decree was accordingly passed that a copy of it should be burnt by the public
hangman in Palace Yard at Westminster, and another in the most crowded parts of
the city, that all might see. [At Cheapside, and before the
Exchange.]
And the journal [Mercurius Publicus, May 30, quoted
in Stoughton’s Ch. of the Rester. i.
196.]
of the period describes the execution of the sentence: “The hangman did his
part perfectly well, for having kindled his fire he tore the document into many
pieces and first burned the preface and then cast each part solemnly into the
flames, lifting up his hands and eyes, and not leaving the least shred, but
burnt it root and branch.” And the scene
was reproduced in the provinces. At
Southampton, [Public
Intelligencer,
June 6.13, ibid.] amidst the
firing of cannon and public rejoicing, the hated scroll was plucked from a
neighbouring Church, where it had been honoured with a stately setting in a
conspicuous position, and thrown into the fire. At Bury-St. Edmunds an effigy of a notorious
criminal, who had been hanged, was paraded through the streets with a copy of
the League fastened under his arm and the Directory in his hand, and after
being subjected to every possible indignity was torn piecemeal and destroyed.
III. The third step towards the reestablishment of
the old worship was the introduction of a Bill into Parliament to bring back
the Book of Common Prayer.
The very day after the King landed on the English
shores, to the unspeakable joy of many who heard it, the proscribed Liturgy was
read in Canterbury Cathedral, whither he turned aside on his journey to give
thanks to GOD. Again, in the Houses of
Parliament the old forms had been revived after the silence of well-nigh twenty
years, and in many Churches where the incumbents sympathized with the
Restoration the Directory was at once discarded, for though the law for its
enforcement was not yet repealed, they had no misgivings that it might be
broken with impunity. But the newly
elected Parliament, Royalist and Episcopalian as they were in overwhelming
numbers, were impatient to place everything connected with the worship of the
Church in an unassailable position. So
long as the Directory was sanctioned by the Statute book, those who professed
the Presbyterian Faith were free to use it without molestation. Such liberty must be curtailed without delay. On June 29th “A Bill for Uniformity of Public
Worship and the administration of Sacraments” was introduced in the House of
Commons.
Search was made for the original manuscript
of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI to be affixed to the Bill; but whether
it could not be discovered, or whether it was discovered but proved distasteful
to the promoters of the Bill, or from some other unknown cause, its intended
place was taken by that of King James, as amended at Hampton Court. [The Prayer Book
of 1604 A.D. differed from its predecessor in the following particulars: in the
rubric before the form of absolution was added “or remission of sins,” in the
rubrics in the office for Private Baptism it was directed that the Sacrament
should be administered only by a “lawful minister.” The explanation of the Sacraments, by Bishop
Overall, was added to the Catechism. A
prayer for the Royal Family and special thanksgivings for rain, fair weather,
etc. were added, and certain changes were made in the Apocryphal Lessons; cf.
Appendix III.]
The Bill passed its third reading on
July 9th, and was sent to the Upper House. They, however, deferred the consideration of
it, both because they wished to await the result of the Savoy Conference, and
also from a feeling that such a question could only be discussed at a
disadvantage till after the readmission into their body of the spiritual Lords.
IV. And this brings us to the last measure, which
paved the way so securely and effectively for the Caroline Settlement.
In the first year of the Long Parliament a
determined effort was made, and again and again renewed, to exclude the Bishops
from their seats in the Legislature. Hatred
of them was stirred up and fostered by a variety of charges. On one occasion they were actually threatened
with personal violence on their way to the House. They appealed for the protection of the law,
and not satisfied with this, injudiciously went on to declare that any measure
passed during their enforced absence would be null and void. They were at once impeached for high treason,
condemned and sent to the Tower, and the Bill to deprive them of their
privilege was hurried forward and passed its third reading within a few days,
Feb. 5, 1642 A.D.
This was the history of their exclusion. When
Charles II returned the Bishops’ Bench had been vacant for eighteen years.
The House of Commons voted for the
restitution of their ancient rights, but strangely enough, owing mainly to the
hesitation of the King founded on some Papist misrepresentations, [The Earl of
Bristol persuaded the King that the Bishops, if admitted to Parliament, would
feel conscientiously bound to oppose concessions to the Roman Catholics, which
his Majesty was desirous to make. Afterwards he was induced by the Chancellor to
withdraw his opposition, and the Bill was got through, and received the Royal
assent the very day on which Parliament was adjourned, July 30th.] it was Nov.
20th before they were able to take their seats. To commemorate the event the King went to the
House in person, and the junior Bishop [“From this time the junior Bishop in the
House commonly read the form of prayers before their proceeding to any
business.” Lathb. Convoc. 299.]
was desired to open the sitting with prayer.
The combination of forces was now complete,
and the total discomfiture of the Presbyterian cause was only a matter of time.
The result of the Savoy Conference was duly
notified to the King. After waiting till
October, he sent letters to the Primate to lay before Convocation, ordering
them to proceed with the revision of the Prayer Book. They met on Nov. 21, and ,without delay
nominated a Committee of Bishops to carry out the work. Considering the action which the House of
Commons had taken they regarded the business of pressing urgency, and directed
that they should meet daily except Sundays till the revision was completed. It has been asserted [Cf. Swainson’s Parliamentary Hist. of the Act of Uniformity,
p. 15. Cardwell. Confer.
371.]
that the appointed Revisionists did not act separately, but that immediately
after their appointment Convocation repented of having delegated its powers to
a small body, and resolving themselves into a Committee of the whole House,
proceeded at once with the work.
There is unquestionably much uncertainty,
but on the whole we are disposed to think that the appointment was not
rescinded, but that the members of Convocation decided to sit simultaneously
with the Revisionists so as to consider without delay the recommendations of
the Committee to be laid before them day by day. An incidental note in Sancroft’s handwriting,
in Cosin’s “corrected copy,” in reference to proposed alterations in the
Communion Office, stating that “my lords the bishops at Elie House ordered all
in the old method,” seems inexplicable on the theory that the work had been
taken out of their hands.
Let us look in now upon the Committee of
Revision. The place of meeting was the
house situated in the famous garden which Elizabeth threatened the proud
Prelate that she would unfrock him for daring to withhold from her favourite
courtier.
They were eight in number, Cosin of Durham,
Morley of Worcester, Warner of Rochester, Sanderson of Lincoln, Henchman of
Salisbury, Nicholson of Gloucester, Skinner of Oxford, and Wren of Ely. Sancroft was appointed to act as Secretary. Of the Bishops the first four had been members
of the Savoy Conference. Of the
remaining three Wren alone was greatly distinguished. Memories of the most touching interest cluster
round his name. Perhaps no one suffered
more persecution at the hands of the Puritans, and in the estimation of his persecutors
he deserved even more than he underwent. From his early years he was fiercely opposed
to dissent, and for this reason was translated from Hereford to the turbulent
See of Norwich, where schism was rifer than elsewhere. It is said that he ruled with such a high hand
that its chief town was crippled in its manufacture and suffered great loss of
wealth from the immense emigration of weavers who sought liberty of conscience
on foreign shores. [Cf.
Wren’s Parentalia, 10.]
From Norwich he was transferred to the
important diocese and Palatinate of Ely, owing his promotion to his knowledge
of law, both civil and ecclesiastical, which was requisite for the office.
His rigid enforcement of Church discipline,
and his attachment to Catholic doctrine, raised bitter hostility against him
during the Commonwealth, and after being subjected to a succession of
calumnious slanders, he was impeached before the Commons for “high crimes and
misdemeanours,” condemned, and thrown into the Tower. Here he remained for eighteen years, so
cheerful throughout and resigned to the severities of his confinement that, as
the Historian says, “the Church beheld his sufferings and saw by him that
nothing in Christianity was impossible, and the world did almost pardon his
enemies for the pleasure and benefit of his example.”
It was round his table at Ely House in that
memorable winter that the Commissioners sat to establish for many generations
the Liturgical forms and ceremonies in which the worship of the English Church
was to be offered up.
They carried out their work with such
expedition that they laid themselves open to a charge of inconsiderate haste,
but in reality the revision had long been anticipated and prepared for with the
utmost care and judgment.
There was a great mass of well-digested
material ready to hand, which had been accumulating almost from the beginning
of the century. Wren [Cf. Wren’s Parentalia, 26.] himself, in
conjunction with Laud, had revised the Scotch Liturgy, and during his long
imprisonment had weighed well the questions in dispute, particularly the
deficiencies of the Anglican Ritual, always buoying himself up with the
conviction that the time for a reaction was not far distant.
But the man whose labours contributed most
to the final result was Cosin, who had been named as President of the
Commission.
So early as 1619 A.D., he had made a
collection of “notes” in an interleaved Prayer Book, and three or four [1st. MS. notes
in an interleaved Prayer Book; 2dly. notes in another Prayer Book, collected by
Cosin; 3dly. MS. notes by Cosin, in his own hand; 4thly. MS. notes by Bishop
Andrewes. Cf. Lathb. Convoc. 287.] documents of a
similar kind succeeded at intervals. The
Revisers had little more to do than decide which of the proposed alterations
should be accepted, and desire their Secretary to note down their decision for
the approval of Convocation. A careful
comparison of “the notes” with the Book an finally published, shows that about
ninety in every hundred alterations were in accordance with Cosin’s
suggestions.
There was a departure from the ordinary
rules in respect to the Northern Convocation. In consequence of the
difficulties and delay in transmitting messages between the North and South,
the habit of discussing the questions separately was broken through, and
deputies were sent from York, to sit and vote in the Houses of Canterbury.
When the Revision was finished it was found
that six hundred changes [For a summary of these, cf. Appendix V.] great and
small had been made.
The doctrinal changes were by no means
numerous, but, such as they were, they testified definitely to the Catholic
spirit of the Revision.
The “priesthood” was more distinctly
marked. At the Savoy Conference, the
Presbyterians had pleaded for the substitution of “minister” throughout the
rubrics in place of “priest”. The object
of their request was fully understood, for it went to the very root of the dissensions
between the Church and Nonconformity. “No
Priest, no Church” was a maxim which had been handed down from St. Jerome’s [Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotes. S. Hieron. Adv. Lucif. c. 8.] time, and the Bishops might have appealed to it
with no little force, but they replied with calmness and simplicity that it was
“unreasonable that the word minister should only be used in the Liturgy, since
some parts might be performed by a deacon, others by none under the order of a
priest, viz., absolution and consecration; it was fit therefore that some such
word as priest should be used for these offices, and not minister, which
signified at large every one that ministered in that holy office of whatsoever
order he might be.” [Cardwell. Confer.
vii. 342.]
And now the Committee determined to
place the meaning of the Bishop’s reply beyond dispute.
They displaced “ minister” and “pastor” and
substituted “priest” [It
is worthy of note, as pointing to the entire disappearance in the minds of the
leaders of Revision of all aversion to the title of “priest,” that it was so
largely reintroduced that it occurs now about the same number of times as it
did in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.] in two important places. The Absolution
was henceforward to be pronounced by a “ priest,” and the suffrage in the
Litany for “Bishops, pastors, and ministers,” was in future to be made for “Bishops,
priests, and deacons.”
Again, the Presbyterians in their arguments
for the identity of the office of Bishop and Priest had laid stress on the fact
that no distinction of functions was recognized in the Ordinal.
The old form in the Consecration of a
Bishop, “Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of GOD
which is in thee by imposition of hands,” was altered to the present form: “Receive
the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of GOD.” [There is a
letter extant, written by Dean Prideaux to one of Archbishop Sancroft’s
chaplains, stating his belief that this alteration was made without any respect
to the Romanists, but “to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians, who, from an
Ordinal, pretended to prove against us that there was no difference between the
two functions, because the words of ordination said nothing to him (as a bishop)
in the old Ordinal, which he had not afore as a priest.” It bears date November 25th, 1687 A.D., and is
given in full by Cardwell, Confer.
viii. 386, n.]
A corresponding addition was made to the
words used in the ordering of Priests: viz., “for the Office and Work of a
Priest.”
In the Prayer for the Church Militant, [For a full
account of Prayers for the Dead in this prayer, cf. Luckock’s After Death, p. 241.] though they
were unable to recover all that had been lost by the omission of a prayer for the
dead with which it closed in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI, they took an
important step for vindicating a recognition of “the Communion of Saints” by
inserting the beautiful thanksgiving for the life and example of those who had
departed in the faith and fear of GOD.
The Presbyterians had conceived a dislike
for the title of “Church,” and adopted “congregation” instead. No less than four [In the Collects
for Good Friday, the fifth and sixteenth Sundays after Trinity, and St. Simon
and St. Jude.]
changes were made in connection with this to avoid even the slightest suspicion
that the adoption might give rise to in favour of the Presbyterian form of
Church Government.
In the Communion Office, other changes were
introduced. Provision was made for the “Lesser
Oblation,” the presentation of the Elements on the Altar, by prefixing the
rubric to the Prayer for the Church Militant, “and when there is a Communion,
the Priest shall then place upon the Table as much Bread and Wine as he shall
think sufficient,” and further by inserting the word “oblation,” to be used in
the prayer itself, of the Elements after their dedication to GOD.
Again, greater reverence was shown for that
portion of the Consecrated Bread and Wine which remained unconsumed, by a
direction that the same should be covered “with a fair linen cloth”; and also
by the introduction of the sixth of the final rubrics, ordering that “if any
remain of that which was consecrated ... the Priest and such other of the
Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the
Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.”
It has often however been maintained that
the reintroduction of the “Black Rubric,” or the “Declaration of Kneeling” may
well be set over against all the alterations which were made in a Catholic
direction; but such a theory will be found untenable when subjected to
examination.
It was no doubt originally introduced into
the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI as a concession to the Puritan party. There is therefore some prima facie force in the above argument, but it is entirely
destroyed by the alteration of the wording which the Revisionists made before
reinserting it. On its first appearance
it ran thus, “We do declare that thereby (i.e. by kneeling) no adoration is
intended ... unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s
natural Flesh and Blood.” On its
reintroduction by the Caroline Revisionists it was worded, “unto any Corporal
Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.” The first traversed the Catholic doctrine of a
Real Presence: the second simply denied the materialism of Transubstantiation. This Declaration, which has been interpreted
as a concession to the Presbyterians, who shrank from kneeling on doctrinal
grounds, was really couched in such well-chosen language, that while it
appeared conciliatory to them, it in no way discredited the highest Sacramental
teaching of the Anglican Church.
Such were some of the chief changes
resulting from the last revision. It has
been thought a matter for wonder that with Cosin in the Chair, and Wren to
sympathize with and support him, the Committee should not have carried
restoration further on the lines of the First Prayer Book.
Attempts we know were made, but unhappily
without success. [Surtees Soc.
Publ.
No. 55, p. xiii.]
Cosin had remodeled the Prayer of
Consecration, introducing the Invocation of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification
of the Elements, and had brought back the Prayer of Oblation to its proper
place. The Revisionists, however,
declined to accept his proposals. Their
motive is doing so was not prompted by disapprobation, but by a desire to
adhere as strictly as possible to their letters of instruction. And these were so unfortunately worded that
they could hardly fail to be diversely interpreted. One party laid stress upon that portion which
directed them “to compare the services with the most ancient Liturgies,” while
the other attached paramount importance to another portion in which they were
ordered “to avoid all unnecessary alterations.”
The Committee finished their work, and the
Revised Book was subscribed on December 20th.
Measures were taken to insure its integrity
being preserved.* Certain printed copies
were carefully examined by a Committee appointed for the purpose, and each
attested by the Great Seal of England. [For many interesting details the reader
is referred to the Book of Common Prayer,
edited by A. J. Stephens for the Ecclesiastical History Society, Introduction,
clxxix.–cc., and to James Parker’s Introd.
to the Revisions of the Prayer Book, dx.-dxxvi.] Each Cathedral was ordered to procure one of
these, and after having its name legibly stamped on the cover, to lay it up
among its archives as an ultimate standard of reference in case of dispute. A copy was also sent to the Tower, while four
more were deposited in the several Courts at Westminster. It was an omen of sinister import for the part
the Book was unhappily destined to play in legal proceedings, that it should be
deemed necessary that each Court should be furnished with a copy of its own.
[*Printers’ errors have nevertheless
slipped in. One such is worthy of
notice, as having led to a distinct breach of Church Rule. Originally the rubric after the Nicene Creed
provided that the Banns of Marriage should be published then. In 1805 A.D. the Delegates of the Oxford Press
omitted the words from the rubric on their own responsibility, to bring it, as
they supposed, into agreement with an Act of George II, which ordered that the
Banns be published “in the Morning Service, or Evening Service if there be no
Morning Service, after the Second Lesson.” They misread the object of the Act, which was
not to interfere with the proper place for publication, viz., after the Nicene
Creed, when the Creed was said, but to provide an alternative, where there was
only Evening Service. Dr. Stephens gave
a legal opinion to the effect that the present prevailing custom of publishing
after the Second Lesson in the Morning is “a flagrant breach” of Church Order.]
The copy which belonged to the King’s Bench
has come down to us in good preservation, and retains that which was their
distinguishing feature, viz., the Great Seal perfect, still attached by the
original cords; the rest of the Legal Copies are preserved, though in a far
less perfect condition, in the Public Record Office. Of those acquired by Capitular bodies, three
which are in possession of St. Paul’s, Christ Church, and Ely Cathedral
respectively, have been collated.
The Act of Uniformity received the Royal
Assent, May 19, 1662 A.D. And it was
enjoined by Statute that the use of the Revised Book of Common Prayer should be
obligatory upon all ministers after the ensuing Feast of St. Bartholomew (Aug.
24), before which date they were called upon to declare their “unfeigned assent
and consent to all and everything contained and preserved therein.” The King felt scruples in signing the
document, after the readiness he had so frequently expressed to grant “liberty
to tender consciences,” but he was overruled by the wisdom of his Parliament
and Convocation, and the principles and worship of the Church were preserved
whole and entire.
The result is known to every one. “Black Bartholomew” witnessed the ejection of
eighteen hundred. [For
various estimates cf. Stoughton, Eccles.
Hist., Appendix, 539–542. ] Presbyterians who refused to conform.
It can hardly be denied that there is some
justice in the complaints of those who suffered, both as to the manner in which
the operation of the Act was enforced, as well as to the stringency of the
terms of conformity. The first proposal
was that it should not come into force till Michaelmas, but the time was
afterwards curtailed, and apparently not without malice prépense, in order that the nonconforming ministers might
lose the tithes for the current year, the Feast of St. Michael being the day
when they fell due.
Again, the hardship was aggravated by an
unwarrantable delay in not publishing the Revised Book till the beginning of
August, so that the Presbyterians were kept in suspense as to whether they
would be able to conform to it or not; it was actually said that in some cases
assent was demanded before the Book had even been seen. [Steel, a
Flintshire clergyman, in his farewell sermon, declared that “he was turned out
for not giving his unfeigned assent and consent to a book which he never saw or
could see.” Stoughton, Ch. of Restor. i. 261.]
One of the first to refuse was Richard
Baxter. After the eagerness which he had
shown at the Savoy Conference in attempting to supersede the Prayer Book
entirely, compliance with it at this juncture would have exposed him to the
reproach of every honest-minded man: and he lost no time in making his decision
known, hoping that its publicity at this early stage would influence the
conduct of others who looked to him for guidance.
Reynolds, on the other hand, subscribed and
retained his preferment. He was not so
deeply committed as his friend, but it was a bitter disappointment to many, who
would have rejoiced in the deposition of a Bishop as affording the strongest
evidence of the force of Puritan convictions.
The Sunday preceding the ill-fated Saint’s
Day was commonly agreed upon for the pastors who stood firm to take leave of
their flocks. Nonconformist writers have
excited compassion by the graphic pictures they have drawn of the scenes
enacted on that mournful day. Happily we
may compassionate men in affliction without admitting the justice of their
grievance.
Calamy had gathered into his chapel, Sunday
after Sunday, greater crowds than congregated anywhere else. Thomas Lye, Philip
Henry, Oliver Heywood, Jacomb, Lamb, and many others were deservedly beloved,
and their parting words drew tears of genuine sorrow from many eyes, but
neither the faith which they professed, nor the commission which they bore as
unepiscopally ordained, belonged to the Church whose offices and ministry they
had unjustly usurped.
It is idle to talk of opportunities of
comprehension lost, and bewail that men who might have been friends were
confirmed in hostility; any compromise which would have satisfied them would
have ruined the Church. It was not
merely that they advocated a system of worship alien to long-established usage,
but they claimed for the Presbytery a right which all through the Church’s
history has been the sole prerogative of the Episcopate. However much then we may be touched with the
sufferings of the ejected ministers, we cannot call them wrongs, nor see how
they could have been averted without surrendering fundamental doctrines, and
severing the Church of the Restoration from the Church of the Apostles. The Caroline Settlement has amply justified
itself, and proved the soundness of the principles upon which it was made. Criticism is well-nigh disarmed when we point
to the fact that it has maintained its ground for two centuries and a quarter. It survived the shock of the Nonjuring
Secession, it survived the deadness and coldness of the Georgian period, which
would have destroyed the vitality of a weaker constitution, and has become in
this generation the root and source of a new outburst of Catholic faith and
zeal almost unequalled in the Church’s history.
We believe then that every loyal Churchman
may look back to it with satisfaction.
The Church passed through a crisis of
almost unparalleled gravity. Her enemies
were never more formidable either in numbers, or influence, or intellectual
power. Happily it befell at a time when
she was able to confront them at every point, and it is a matter for most
grateful acknowledgment that with many temptations to yield for the sake of
peace, her defenders maintained the contest to the end without making a single
concession calculated in any way to compromise her position as a true and
rightful branch of the
ONE CATHOLIC AND
APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Appendix I
On the Gallican
Liturgy
In the Introductory Chapter we spoke of the
earliest Form of Liturgical Worship traceable in the records of the British
Church. And while we attributed its
adoption to the visit of Germanus and Lupus, who were sent as a deputation from
Gaul to help the Britons to combat the Pelagian heresy, we observed that it was
highly probable that the Liturgy which they brought with them was modified in
some particulars, yet for the leading features we turn to the Galilean Form as
it was used in the country from which it derived its appellation. It was superseded, we said, by the Roman in
England at the Council of Cloveshoo, 747 A.D., but one of the effects of the
Norman Conquest was the Gallicanizing of the country,
and many variations from the Roman introduced into the Sarum have been
attributed to the national prejudices of the Liturgical Reformer Osmund, the
Norman Count.
One peculiarity pointing in this direction
has lately been noticed. [Hammond, Liturgies,
Eastern and Western, Introd. lxiv.] In the Sarum Liturgy the rubrics are cast in
the imperative mood instead of the present or future indicative, as is usually
the case. Now we may fairly conjecture
that this was adopted from the Gallican; we are unable to speak positively,
because no rubrics have yet been found belonging to this Liturgy. But in the Sister-Liturgy, the Mozarabic, used
in the neighbouring country of Spain, and bearing such a close resemblance in
its structure that their common origin has never been doubted, this
characteristic distinction is found: e.g., In the Sarum, Let the Priest say; in the Mozarabic, Let the Priest say; but in the Roman, The Priest says.
The Gallican belonged by origin to the
Ephesine family of Liturgies, and was in the first instance connected with St.
John. The Church of Ephesus established
Christianity in Gaul at an early date, radiating in all probability from Lyons
over a great part of the country. In the
second century, 177 A.D., we find the Christians of Lyons and Vienne [Cf. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. v. 1.] writing to the
Churches in Asia and Phrygia, and seeking sympathy in their sufferings like
children from a common mother.
The Liturgy of Ephesus, varying in some
degree to suit the country, became the Liturgy of France, and continued in use
there till Pepin first introduced the Roman chant and psalmody, and Charlemagne
completely supplanted it by imposing the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, and
issued an edict that this should be strictly adhered to. Our interest however is but little diminished
by the knowledge that before the Conquest it had ceased to be used in Gaul, or
by the fact that the eighth century witnessed the discontinuance of it in its
Anglican form in this country. The
manner in which the British and Anglo-Saxon Christians performed their highest
act of Worship during those centuries when the land was being claimed for
Christ and the Church set up upon the ruins of Paganism, is well worthy of our
careful consideration, and on these grounds we have subjoined an outline of the
Gallican Liturgy according to the plan which, with considerable difficulty and
perhaps some uncertainty, the best Liturgiologists have been able to construct.
The following is an outline of the
structure of the Gallican Liturgy [Cf. Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, i. 158; Mabillon, De Liturg. Gall.; Le Brun, Dissertationes de
Liturgiis;
Hammond, Liturgies.]: —
An Anthem or Introit with “Glory be to the
Father,” etc.
The mutual salutation of Priest and
People, “The LORD be with you,” etc.
The Trisagion (in Greek and Latin),
followed by Kyrie eleison.
The Benedictus.
A Lesson from (i.) the Prophets, (ii.) an
Epistle.
The Benedicite. [Hammond makes no mention
of this.]
The Gospel read at the Ambon, the clerks
at the beginning making response, “Glory be to Thee, O LORD,” and at the end, “Glory
to GOD Almighty.”
Homilies, Prayers, and Collect, post precem.
Departure of the Catechumens.
The Preface or address on the day, and
Collect.
An Anthem, during which was made the
oblation of the Elements, and prayer for their sanctification.
The recitation of the Diptychs, with
prayers for the souls of the Saints named.
Collects post nomina.
Kiss of peace, [Neither of this.] and
Collect ad pacem.
The Preface, i.e. the part beginning “It
is meet and right,” etc.
The Tersanctus.
The commencement of the Canon.
The Consecration.
The Collect post mysterium, or post secreta.
The Fraction and the Commixture during the
singing of an Anthem.
A proper Preface.
The LORD’S Prayer recited by the Priest
and People.
The Blessing, and the Priest’s Communion.
The Communicants approach the Altar.
Two Collects, one post communionem, the other consummatio Missae, with which the
Service closed.
Appendix II
The Order of the
Communion
On December 20th, 1547 A.D., an Act of
Parliament was passed bearing the title, “An Act against such as shall
unreverently speak against the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ,
commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and for the receiving thereof in
both kinds.” This was drawn up in
accordance with certain recommendations emanating from the Lower House of
Convocation. The Committee of Divines,
who had been appointed to revise the Liturgy, issued in the spring of the
following year, March 8, 1548 A.D., their first instalment entitled “The Order
of the Communion”. It provided not only
for the restoration of the Cup to the Laity, but supplied them with a Service book,
which was to be used whenever they communicated.
We have thought fit to print it at length,
not only because it has been frequently referred to in the preceding pages, but
because from the nature of circumstances it must be full of interest to all who
desire to trace the growth of the English Liturgy.
The following is the Order of the Service:
–
First, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, the next Sunday
or Holy Day, or at the least one day before he shall minister the Communion,
shall give warning to his Parishioners, or those which be present, that they
prepare themselves thereto, saying to them openly and plainly as hereafter
followeth, or such like.
Dear friends, and you especially upon whose
souls I have cure and charge, upon day ________ next I do intend, by God’s
grace, to offer to all such as shall be thereto godly disposed, the most
comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be taken of them in
the remembrance of his most fruitful and glorious Passion: by the which Passion
we have obtained remission of our sins, and be made partakers of the kingdom of
heaven, whereof we be assured and ascertained, if we come to the said Sacrament
with hearty repentance of our offences, steadfast faith in God’s mercy, and
earnest mind to obey God’s will, and to offend no more: wherefore our duty is,
to come to these holy Mysteries with most hearty thanks to be given to Almighty
God for his infinite mercy and benefits given and bestowed upon us, his
unworthy servants, for whom he hath not only given his Body to death, and shed
his Blood, but also doth vouchsafe, in a Sacrament and Mystery, to give us his
said Body and Blood spiritually to feed and drink upon. The which Sacrament being so divine and holy a
thing, and so comfortable to them which receive it worthily, and so dangerous
to them that will presume to take the same unworthily; my duty is to exhort you
in the mean season to consider the greatness of the thing, and to search and
examine your own consciences, and that not lightly, nor after the manner of
dissimulers with God; but as they which should come to a most godly and
heavenly banquet; not to come but in the marriage garment required of God in
Scripture, that you may, so much as lieth in you, be found worthy to come to
such a Table. The way and mean thereto
is,
First, That you be truly repentant of your
former evil life, and that you confess with an unfeigned heart to Almighty God
your sins and unkindness towards his Majesty, committed either by will, word, or
deed, infirmity or ignorance; and that with inward sorrow and tears you bewail
your offences, and require of Almighty God mercy and pardon, promising to him
from the bottom of your hearts, the amendment of your former life. And amonges all others, I am commanded of God
especially to move and exhort you to reconcile yourselves to your neighbours
whom you have offended, or who hath offended you, putting out of your hearts
all hatred and malice against them, and to be in love and charity with all the
world, and to forgive other, as you would that God should forgive you. And if there be any of you whose conscience is
troubled and grieved in any thing, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to
me, or to some other discreet and learned Priest taught in the law of God, and
confess and open his sin and grief secretly; that he may receive such ghostly
counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of
us, as a Minister of God, and of the Church, he may receive comfort and
Absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind, and avoiding of all scruple and
doubtfulness: requiring such as shall be satisfied with a general Confession
not to be offended with them that doth use, to their further satisfying, the
auricular and secret Confession to the Priest; nor those also, which think
needful or convenient, for the quietness of their own consciences, particularly
to open their sins to the Priest, to be offended with them which are satisfied
with their humble confession to God, and the general Confession to the Church;
but in all these things to follow and keep the rule of charity; and every man
to be satisfied with his own conscience, not judging other men’s minds or acts,
where as he hath no warrant of God’s Word for the same.
The time of the Communion shall be immediately after
that the Priest himself hath received the Sacrament, without the varying of any
other rite or ceremony in the Mass, (until other order shall be provided,) but
as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the Sacrament of the Body, to
prepare, bless, and consecrate so much as will serve the people; so it shall
yet continue still after the same manner and form, save that he shall bless and
consecrate the biggest Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of
Wine, with some Water put unto it. And
that day not drink it up all himself, but taking only one sup or draught, leave
the rest upon the Altar covered, and turn to them that are disposed to be
partakers of the Communion, and shall thus exhort them as followeth.
Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye, coming to
this holy Communion, must consider what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, how
he exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, or ever they
presume to eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a truly
penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy Sacrament; (for then we
spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood; then we dwell in
Christ, and Christ in us; we be made one with Christ, and Christ with us): So
is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily; for then we become
guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our own
damnation, because we make no difference of the Lord’s Body; we kindle God’s
wrath over us; we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry
kinds of death. Judge therefore
yourselves (brethren), that ye be not judged of the Lord; let your mind be
without desire to sin; repent you truly for your sins past; have an earnest and
lively faith in Christ our Saviour; be in perfect charity with all men; so
shall ye be meet partakers of these holy Mysteries. But above all things you must give most humble
and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the
redemption of the world by the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ, both
God and Man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us
miserable sinners, lying in darkness and the shadow of death; that he might
make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting Life. And to the end that we alway should remember
the exceeding love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ, thus doing for
us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood-shedding he hath
obtained to us; he hath left in these holy Mysteries, as a pledge of his love,
and a continual remembrance of the same, his own blessed Body and precious
Blood, for us spiritually to feed upon, to our endless comfort and consolation.
To him therefore, with the Father and
the Holy Ghost, let us give, as we are most bound, continual thanks; submitting
ourselves wholly to his holy will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in
true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. Amen.
Then the Priest
shall say to them that be ready to take the Sacrament,
If any man here be an open blasphemer,
advouterer, in malice, or envy, or any other notable crime, and be not truly
sorry therefore, and earnestly minded to leave the same vices, or that doth not
trust himself to be reconciled to Almighty God, and in charity with all the
world, let him yet a while bewail his sins, and not come to this holy Table,
lest, after the taking of this most blessed Bread, the devil enter into him, as
he did into Judas, to fulfill in him all iniquity, and to bring him to
destruction, both of body and soul.
(Here the Priest shall pause a while, to see if any
man will withdraw himself: and if he perceive any so to do, then let him common
with him privily at convenient leisure, and see whether he can with good
exhortation bring him to grace. And after
a little pause, the Priest shall say,
You that do truly and earnestly repent you
of your sins and offences committed to Almighty God, and be in love and charity
with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, and heartily to follow the
commandments of God, and to walk from henceforth in his holy ways; draw near,
and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort, make your humble Confession to
Almighty God, and to his holy Church, here gathered together in his Name,
meekly kneeling upon your knees.
Then shall a general Confession be made, in the name
of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, either by one of
them or else by one of the Ministers, or by the Priest himself; all kneeling
humbly upon their knees,
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We knowledge and bewail our
manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have
committed by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty, provoking
most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and be heartily sorry
for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the
burthen of them is intolerable. Have
mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord
Jesus Christ’s sake forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever
hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honour and glory of
thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Then shall the
Priest stand up, and turning him to the people, say thus:
Our blessed Lord, who hath left power to
his Church to absolve penitent sinners from their sins, and to restore to the
grace of the heavenly Father such as truly believe in Christ; Have mercy upon
you; pardon and deliver you from all sins; confirm and strength you in all
goodness; and bring you to everlasting life.
Then shall the
Priest stand up, and turning him to the people, say thus:
Hear what comfortable words our Saviour
Christ saith to all that truly turn to him.
Come unto me all that travail and be heavy
laden, and I shall refresh you. So God
loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that
believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting.
Hear also what S. Paul saith.
This is a true saying, and worthy of all
men to be embraced and received, That Jesus Christ came into this world to save
sinners.
Hear also what S. John saith.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: he it is that obtained grace for our
sins.
Then shall the Priest kneel down and say, in the
name of all them that shall receive the Communion, this prayer following:
We do not presume to come to this thy Table
(O merciful Lord) trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and
great mercies. We be not worthy so much
as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is
always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of
thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, in these holy Mysteries,
that we may continually dwell in him, and he in us, that our sinful bodies may
be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious
blood. Amen.
Then shall the Priest rise, the people still
reverently kneeling, and the Priest shall deliver the Communion first to the
Ministers, if any be there present, that they may be ready to help the Priest,
and after to the other. And when he doth
deliver the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, he shall say to every one these
words following,
The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was
given for thee, preserve thy body unto everlasting life.
And the Priest, delivering the Sacrament of the
Blood, and giving every one to drink once and no more, shall say,
The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which
was shed for thee, preserve thy soul unto everlasting life.
If there be a Deacon, or other Priest, then shall he
follow with the Chalice; and as the Priest ministereth the bread, so shall he,
for more expedition, minister the Wine, in form before written.
Then shall the Priest turning him to the people, let
the people depart with this blessing:
The peace of God, which passeth all
understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and
of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
To the which the
people shall answer,
Amen.
Note, that the Bread that shall be consecrated shall
be such as heretofore hath been accustomed. And every of the said consecrated Breads shall
be broken in two pieces, at the least, or more, by the discretion of the
Minister, and so distributed. And men
must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of
them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesu Christ.
Note, that if it doth so chance that the Wine
hallowed and consecrate doth not suffice or be enough for them that do take the
Communion, the Priest, after the first Cup or Chalice be emptied, may go again
to the Altar, and reverently and devoutly prepare and consecrate another, and
so the third, or more likewise, beginning at these words, Simili modo postquam
caenatum est,
and ending at these words Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem
peccatorum,
and without any levation or lifting up.
Appendix III
On the Hampton
Court Conference.
It may have been thought that, in treating
of the crises through which the Book of Common Prayer has passed, we might have
added a fifth epoch, and drawn out the details of its history at the beginning
of King James I’s reign. The reason
which has prompted us to relegate this to a brief and supplementary page
against our inclination (for no episode could be found which lends itself so
readily for description), is the consciousness that, in estimating the
importance of its results, this period is found to be wholly unworthy of the
attention which the rest are entitled to.
Inasmuch, however, as it did leave its mark
upon the contents of the Service books, we have placed before our readers a
summary of the proceedings of the Council, drawn in the main from original
documents. [“The
sum and substance of the Conference contracted by Dean Barlow.” “A letter from Patrick Galloway to the
Presbytery at Edinburgh, concerning the Conference.” “A letter from Court by Matthew, Bishop of,
Durham.” All of these have been placed
within reach of the ordinary reader by Cardwell in his History of Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer.] Upon the accession of James I in 1603 A.D.,
the Puritans were full of hope that their grievances against the existing Forms
and Ceremonies of Worship would receive a favourable consideration. Accordingly a Petition purporting to be signed
by “a thousand of His Majesty’s subjects and ministers,” hence called “the
Millenary Petition,” in which they embodied their objections, was presented to him
shortly after his arrival in England.
It was couched in these terms: –
“Most Gracious and Dread Sovereign,
“We, the ministers of the gospel in this
land, neither as factious men, affecting a popular parity in the Church, nor as
schismatics, aiming at the dissolution of the state ecclesiastical, but, as the
faithful servants of Christ and loyal subjects to your Majesty, desiring and
longing for the redress of divers abuses of the Church, could do no less, in
our obedience to God, service to your Majesty, and love to his Church, than
acquaint your princely Majesty with our particular griefs.
“Our humble suit, then, unto your Majesty
is that these offences following, some may be removed, some amended, some
qualified: – In the Church service: that the cross in Baptism, interrogatories
ministered to infants, Confirmations, as superfluous, may be taken away:
Baptism not to be ministered by women, and so explained: the cap and surplice
not urged: that examination may go before the Communion: that it be ministered
with a sermon: that divers terms of priests and absolution and some other used,
with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book, may be corrected:
the longsomeness of service abridged: Churchings and music moderated to better
edification: that the Lord’s day be not profaned: the rest upon holidays not so
strictly urged: that there may be an uniformity of doctrine prescribed: no
popish opinion to be any more taught or defended: no ministers charged to teach
their people to bow at the name of Jesus: that the Canonical Scriptures only be
read in the Church.”
Subsequently the Puritans asked for a
Conference of representatives to discuss the disputed questions. Such a course was vigorously opposed by the
Universities as well as by the rest of the Episcopal Clergy, but the King,
confident in his powers of controlling the debate, and thinking it prudent to yield
to the wishes of so large a body, granted their request.
The Conference was summoned to Hampton
Court, where the King resided, for its first session on January 14th, 1604 A.D.
The Divines selected to represent the
discontents were Dr. Rainolds or Reynolds, and Dr. Sparkes, with Mr. Knewstub
and Mr. Chaderton.
The advocates of the Church invited to take
part were Archbishop Whitgift, eight Bishops, of whom Bancroft of London,
Matthew of Durham, and Bilson of Winchester were chief, six or seven Deans,
embracing Andrewes, Overall, and Barlow, two doctors of Divinity, and one
Archdeacon.
On the first day the King did not invite
the attendance of the Puritan representatives, but held a consultation with the
Bishops and Deans on these subjects, Confirmation, Absolution, and Private
Baptism, upon which he required information.
Two days afterwards, January 16th, the
aggrieved party were admitted to a discussion with a portion of their
opponents. The King opened the
proceedings by expressing his readiness to hear any objections which they had
to bring forward. These were reduced by
Dr. Reynolds to four, the last of which was aimed at the unfitness of the Book
of Common Prayer to promote true piety. Judging from the following admonition of the
King, the Bishops were disposed to take advantage of their position and not
conduct the debate on fair terms. It was
the conduct of Bishop Barlow which called for his Majesty’s interposition.
“My Lord Bishop, something in your passion
I may excuse, something I must mislike. I
may excuse you thus far, that I think you have just cause to be moved in
respect that they traduce the well-settled government, and also proceed in so
indirect a course, contrary to their own pretense, and the intent of this
meeting. I mislike your sudden
interruption of Dr. Reynolds, whom you should have suffered to have taken his
liberty; for there is no order, nor can be any effectual issue of disputation,
if each party be not suffered, without stopping, to speak at large. Wherefore, either let the Doctor proceed, or
frame your answer to his motions already made, though some of them are very
needless.”
One of the objections which received much
attention, as indeed it has done in other times besides, was the use of the
Sign of the Cross in Baptism.
The King consulted with his Divines, and
was satisfied of its antiquity from the learned testimony of Dean Andrewes, who
appealed to the authority of the Primitive Fathers. But such evidence was of no value in the eyes
of the objectors: even allowing that it had been in use, it had been abused,
and that of itself was sufficient argument against the continuance. Dr. Reynolds called upon the King to follow
the example of Hezekiah, who had crushed the brazen serpent to powder, because
it had been perverted to idolatrous purposes. The King’s reply is highly characteristic: –
“Though I be sufficiently persuaded of the
cross in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long, yet,
if there were nothing else to move me, this very argument were an inducement to
me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order established; for inasmuch as
it was abused, so you say, to superstition, in time of Popery, it doth plainly imply,
that it was well-used before Popery. I
will tell you, I have lived among this sort of men, (speaking to the lords and
bishops,) ever since I was ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ did
of Himself, Though I lived amongst them, yet since I had ability to judge, I
was never of them; neither did anything make me more to condemn and detest
their courses, than that they did so peremptorily disallow of all things, which
at all had been used in Popery. For my
part, I know not how to answer the objections of the papists when they charge
us with novelties, but truly to tell them, that their abuses are new, but the
things which they abuse we retain in their primitive use, and forsake only the
novel corruption. By this argument, we
might renounce the Trinity, and all that is holy, because it was abused in
Popery: (and speaking to Dr. Reynolds merrily) they used to wear hose and shoes
in Popery, therefore you shall now go barefoot.”
“Secondly,” quoth his Majesty, “what
resemblance is there between the brazen serpent, a material visible thing, and
the sign of the cross made in the air?”
Thirdly, he was informed by the Bishops,
and found their account true, that “the Papists themselves never attributed any
spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism.
“To say, that in nothing they may be
followed which are of the Church of Rome, were violent and extreme.”
“Some things they do in that they are men,
in that they are wise men, and Christian men; some things in that they are
misled and blinded with error.”
The next scruple was the wearing of the
surplice: this, it was pretended, was a habit worn by the priests of Isis.
“This objection,” the King said, “was
somewhat new, because it was usually called a ‘rag of Popery.’ But granting the supposition, we do not live
now amongst heathens, and therefore there is no danger of reviving Paganism.”
On the third day of the Conference, January
18th, the Bishops laid before the King the result of their deliberations upon
the points on which he had consulted them when they first met. Thereupon his Majesty decided what alterations
should be made in the Prayer Book, the exact wording being left to a small
committee of the Bishops and Privy Council.
The following may be regarded as
concessions to the Puritans, though they were quite insignificant compared with
the changes which were asked for.
The Apocryphal Lessons were modified, and
the title “Confirmation” was explained by the additional words, “or laying on
of hands upon children baptized and able to render an account of their faith.”
The grievances against vestments, the ring
in Matrimony, and the Cross in Baptism were left unredressed. An explanation of the Sacraments from the pen
of Overall, which must have been far from acceptable, if they rightly
understood it, was added to the Catechism. Further, the title of the Absolution was
enlarged by the addition of the words, “or Remission of sins”. With all these decisions the Puritans who were
present at the Conference expressed their concurrence, though their conduct in
doing so was a disappointment to the body whom they represented.
An additional Prayer for the Queen, the
Prince, and other King’s and Queen’s children, with corresponding insertions in
the Litany, was introduced, together with numerous Thanksgivings for diverse
Benefits, – For Fair Weather, For Plenty, For Peace and Victory, and For
Deliverance from the Plague.
By far the most important however of the
results of the Conference was the appointment of a Committee of Divines to make
a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. The suggestion was made by Dr. Reynolds, but
some years elapsed before the plan was matured. On July 22nd, 1604 A.D., the King writes to
Bishop Bancroft that fifty-four translators, to meet in various companies at
Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster, had been nominated, and would shortly be
prepared to proceed with their work. There
was still further delay before the companies met, and the Translation was not
given to the world till 1611 A.D. How
far it became at once connected with the Services and worship of the Church is
a disputed question. There is a
statement on the title page that it is “appointed to be read in Churches,” but
there is an entire absence of testimony to its having ever received any public
sanction from Convocation or Parliament or the Privy Council or the King.
Appendix IV
On the Directory
As the Parliament grew in power, and
influence, they determined to submit all questions touching the Religious
Worship of the country to an Assembly of Divines selected and appointed by
their body. In view of obtaining for it
a general acceptance they resolved to give it an air of wide comprehensiveness.
Its members may be ranged in four parties:
– Firstly, The Episcopalians, [Usher,
Archbishop of Armagh; Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter; Westfield of Bristol; Dr.
Featley, etc.]
whose number, however, was naturally as limited as possible. Secondly,
The advocates of the doctrines and discipline of Presbyterianism, [Drs. Hoyle,
Smith, Twisse, Burgess, Stanton, etc.] who formed the bulk of the Assembly. Thirdly,
Some foreign Nonconformists, [Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Goodwin, etc.] who had
settled chiefly in Holland. Fourthly, A Committee of Laymen, [The Earl of
Pembroke, Messrs. Belden, Rouse, etc.] taken out of the two Houses of
Parliament. With the Assembly so
constituted certain Scotch Commissioners [The Earl of Lothian, Lords Lauderdale,
Warriston, etc.]
were subsequently associated.
The whole number of members nominated was
one hundred and twenty, but when their names were called over at their first
meeting in the chapel of Henry VII at Westminster, July 1, 1643 A.D., only
sixty-nine presented themselves, and of these not a few appear to have
withdrawn.
The Episcopalians, on learning the
constitution and the objects of the Assembly, saw at once that their position
as members was quite inconsistent with their loyalty to the King and their
adherence to the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Church.
Their withdrawal has been regarded as a
mistake, but their numbers were far too small to have influenced the decisions
of the Council; and we cannot regret that their conduct has acquitted the
Church of any, even the least, participation therein.
And now let us look at the part which the
Assembly took touching Public Worship. The
Parliament resolved to abolish the Book of Common Prayer, and called upon the
Westminster Assembly to frame a model for Divine Service. The result of their labours was a book
entitled “A Directory for the Public Worship of GOD, throughout the Three Kingdoms
of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” ordered by the Lords and Commons assembled
in Parliament to be printed and published March 13, 1644 A.D., and again
enforced under pain of forfeiture and penalties, August 25, 1645 A.D.
As it superseded the Prayer Book and
continued in use for a long period, and as it is not easy to be obtained, we
have thought fit in this place to subjoin a general statement of its
principles, as well as sufficient extracts from its directions to enable the
reader to estimate it aright.
The first characteristic of this “model of
Public Worship,” is the insignificant part assigned to that which the Church
has always regarded as the chief element, viz., Praise. At the very close, as though it were an
afterthought merely, it is declared to be “the duty of Christians to praise GOD
publicly by singing of Psalms together in the Congregation, and also privately
in the Family,” but only once in the order of Service (apart from a
parenthetical note) is any direction given, and then in the most indifferent
way, “Let a Psalm be sung, if with convenience it may be done.”
When this slight notice of praise is
contrasted with the minute and lengthy directions for prayer and preaching, it
becomes only too patent how selfishness had completely subordinated the higher
motives which ought to prompt the worshipper to ascribe honour to GOD simply
and solely because it is due unto His Name. [See above.]
The exercise of “the gift of prayer,” which
was one of the most urgent demands all through the Presbyterian grievances, was
provided for on the most liberal scale. The
Document, which throughout is a manual of directions rather than a Service book,
contains detailed prescriptions and numerous suggestions as to the character of
the minister’s petitions, and it is not a little significant that those, which
are to guide “the Prayer before the Sermon,” occupy considerably more space [No less than six
pages are taken up with these.] than all that bears upon the Celebration of the
Holy Communion.
The directions for the reading of Holy
Scripture are much less profuse. Of
course none but the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments were
admitted, and the longstanding prejudice against the Apocrypha was satisfied. The aversion to set Forms was carried to such
an extent that the compilers seemed unwilling even to have a chapter of the
Bible read unless it was accompanied by an exposition. For the Preaching of the Word, the power of
God unto salvation, they laid down a series of rules, admirable enough in
themselves, but out of place when forced into such prominence as to raise the
value of the office far above any ordinance, saving that to which they allowed
nothing to be subordinated, viz., extempore
prayer.
In the administration of Baptism, while
laying the utmost stress upon the Rite as a “seal of the Covenant of grace,”
they provided against the Catholic doctrine of Regeneration, by asserting of
those who come to receive the Sacrament, “that they are Christians, and
federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized.”
In the Celebration of Holy Communion, their
directions in one instance are more Catholic than we should have expected.
The words which accompanied the
distribution of the Elements were so framed as to exhibit no trace of a desire
to exclude the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.
This will be more striking if the formula
be compared with that adopted by the Puritans in the Second Prayer Book of
Edward VI. [See
above.]
In the Directory, the order runs thus: “Then
the Minister, who is himself to communicate, is to break the Bread, and give it
to the Communicants: Take ye, eat ye: This is the Body of Christ, which is
broken for you; Do this in remembrance of Him.”
The obligation to kneel for reception was
abrogated by the rule that “the Table should be so conveniently placed, that
the Communicants may orderly sit about it or at it.”
Again, they read the words of the
Institution simply as “a lesson of edification” instead of embodying the
account in a prayer so as to make the Service “a memorial before God,” the same
manual acts being used and the same words spoken as by Our LORD on the night of
His betrayal. [Cf.
Sadler’s One Offering, 101–105.]
One of the most grievous blots on the
Directory is the page which touches the Burial of the Dead. It shows how prejudice and fanaticism will
drive men to violate the instincts of nature. If there be one time more than another when
the heart of man needs the consolation of prayer, it is when he is burying his
dead out of his sight. And yet the
Westminster Assembly peremptorily forbade anything but “meditations and
conferences suitable to the occasion”. If
a Minister happened to be present, the privilege was conceded of putting the
people “in remembrance of their duty”.
It only remains to point out in what a
marked manner their Sabbatarianism and dislike to the observance of Holy Days
manifested itself. The whole of Sunday
was to be celebrated as holy to the LORD, and an entire abstinence was enjoined
not only “from all sports and pastimes but also from all worldly words and
thoughts.”
It was further ordered that the intervals
between the Public Services should “be spent in Reading, Meditation, Repetition
of Sermons, especially by calling their families to an account of what they
have heard, and Catechizing of them, holy conferences, Prayer for a blessing
upon the public Ordinances, singing of Psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the
poor, and such like duties of piety, charity and mercy, accounting the Sabbath
a delight.”
The Commemoration of Saints, and other Festivals
they swept away by the declaration that “Festival Days, vulgarly called Holy
Days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued.”
The Contents of the
Directory
The
Ordinance.
The
Preface.
Of
the Assembling of the Congregation.
Of
Public Reading of the Holy Scripture.
Of
Public Prayer before Sermon.
Of
the Preaching of the Word.
Of
Prayer after the Sermon.
Of
the Sacrament of Baptism.
Of
the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Of
the Sanctification of the Lord’s Day.
Of
the Solemnization of Marriage.
Of
the Visitation of the Sick.
Of
Burial of the Dead.
Of
Public Solemn Fasting.
Of
the Observation of days of Public Thanksgiving.
Of
singing of Psalms.
An
Appendix touching Days and Places of Public Worship.
Of Public Prayer
Before the Sermon
“To acknowledge our great sinfulness;
First, by reason of original sin, which (beside the guilt that makes us liable
to everlasting Damnation) is the seed of all other sins, hath depraved and
poisoned all the faculties and powers of Soul and Body, doth defile our best
actions, and (were it not restrained, or our hearts renewed by Grace) would
break forth into innumerable transgressions, and greatest rebellions against
the Lord, that ever were committed by the vilest of the sons of Men.”
“To bewail our blindness of mind, hardness
of heart, unbelief, impenitence, security, lukewarmness, barrenness, our not
endeavouring after mortification and newness of life; nor after the exercise of
godliness in the power thereof;” ...
“To acknowledge and confess, that, as we
are convinced of our guilt; so out of a deep sense thereof, we judge ourselves
unworthy of the smallest benefits, most worthy of God’s fiercest wrath, and of
the Curses of the Law and heaviest Judgements inflicted upon the most
rebellious Sinners; and that he might most justly take his Kingdom and Gospel
from us, plague us with all sorts of spiritual and temporal judgements in this
life, and after cast us into utter Darkness, in the Lake that burneth with fire
and brimstone, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth for evermore.”
“Notwithstanding all which, To draw near to
the Throne of Grace, encouraging our selves with hope of a gracious Answer of
our Prayers,” ...
“And humbly, and earnestly to supplicate
for mercy in the free and full remission of our sins, and that only for the
bitter sufferings and precious merits of that our only Saviour Jesus Christ.”
“To pray for the propagation of the Gospel
and Kingdom of Christ to all Nations, for the conversion of the Jews, the fullness
of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming
of our Lord;” ...
“To pray for all in Authority, especially
for the King’s Majesty, that God would make him rich in blessings both in his
person and government; establish his Throne in Religion and Righteousness, save
him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious Instrument.”
“For the comforting of the afflicted Queen
of Bohemia, sister to our Sovereign, and for the restitution and establishment
of the illustrious Prince Charles,” ...
“For a blessing upon the High Court of
Parliament,”...
“For all Pastors and Teachers, that God
would fill them with his Spirit,” ...
“For the Universities, and all Schools and
Religious seminaries of Church and Commonwealth,” ...
“For the particular City or Congregation,”
...
“To pray earnestly for GOD’S grace and
effectual assistance to the Sanctification of his holy Sabbath, the Lord’s day,”
...
“More particularly that God would in a
special manner furnish his Servant (now called to dispense the bread of life
unto his household) with wisdom, fidelity, zeal, and utterance, that he may
divide the Word of God aright,” ...
Of Prayer After
the Sermon
“To give thanks for the great Love of God
in sending his Son Jesus Christ unto us; For the communication of his Holy
Spirit; For the light and liberty of the glorious Gospel, and the rich and
heavenly Blessings revealed therein; as namely, Election, Vocation, Adoption,
Justification, Sanctification, and hope of Glory; For the admirable goodness of
God in freeing the Land from Antichristian Darkness and Tyranny, and for all
other National Deliverances; For the Reformation of Religion; For the Covenant;
and for many Temporal blessings.”
“To turn the chief and most useful heads of
the Sermon into some few Petitions; and to pray that it may abide in the heart
and bring forth fruit.”
Of The
Administration of Baptism
“That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus
Christ: that it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our engrafting into
Christ, and of our union with him, of Remission of Sins, Regeneration,
Adoption, and Life eternal:” ...
“That children by Baptism are solemnly
received into the bosom of the visible Church, distinguished from the world and
them that are without, and united with Believers; and that all who are baptized
in the Name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight
against the Devil, the World, and the Flesh: That they are Christians, and
federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized. That the inward Grace and virtue of Baptism is
not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered, and that the
fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life; and that
outward Baptism is not so necessary, that through the want thereof the Infant
is in danger of Damnation, or the Parents guilty, if they do not contemn or
neglect the ordinance of Christ when and where it may be had.”
Of the
Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper
“Let the Prayer, Thanksgiving, or Blessing
of the Bread and Wine be to this effect;
“With humble and hearty acknowledgement of
the greatness of our misery, from which neither man nor angel was able to
deliver us, and of our great unworthiness of the least of all God’s mercies, to
give thanks to God for all his benefits, and especially for that great benefit
of our Redemption, the love of God the Father, the sufferings and merits of the
Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, by which we are delivered; and for all means
of Grace, the Word and Sacraments, and for this Sacrament in particular, by
which Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us, which,
notwithstanding the denial of them unto others, are in great mercy continued
unto us after so much and long abuse of them all.”
“To profess that there is no other Name
under Heaven by which we can be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ, by whom
alone we receive liberty and life, have access to the throne of Grace, are
admitted to eat and drink at his own Table, and are sealed up by his Spirit to
an assurance of happiness and everlasting life.”
“Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of
all mercies, and God of all consolation, to vouchsafe his gracious presence,
and the effectual working of his Spirit in us, and so to sanctify these
Elements both of Bread and Wine, and to bless his own Ordinance, that we may
receive by Faith the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ crucified for us, and so to
feed upon him that he may be one with us, and we with him, that he may live in
us and we in him and to him, who hath loved us and given himself for us.”
“After all have communicated the Minister
is also to give solemn thanks to God for his rich mercy and invaluable goodness
vouchsafed to them in that Sacrament, and to entreat for pardon for the defects
of the whole service, and for the gracious assistance of his good Spirit,
whereby they may be enabled to walk in the strength of that Grace, as becometh
those who have received so great pledges of salvation.”
Concerning
Burial of the Dead
“When any person departeth this life, let
the dead body upon the day of Burial be decently attended from the house to the
place appointed for public Burial, and there immediately interred without any
Ceremony. And because the customs of
kneeling down, and praying by, or towards the dead corpse, and other such
usages, in the place where it lies, before it be carried to Burial are
superstitious, and for that praying, reading, and singing, both in going to,
and at the Grave, have been grossly abused, are in no way beneficial to the
dead, and have proved many ways hurtful to the living, therefore let all such
things be laid aside.”
“Howbeit, we judge it very convenient that
the Christian friends which accompany the dead body to the place appointed for
public Burial, do apply themselves to meditations, and conferences suitable to
the occasion: And that the minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time,
if he be present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.”
“That this shall not extend to deny any
civil respects or differences at the Burial suitable to the rank and condition
of the party deceased whilst he was living.”
Appendix V
On the Changes
Introduced at the Last Revision
In the account of the Revision of the
Prayer Book at Ely House after the Restoration of Charles II, we entered upon a
few changes which seemed to have an especial bearing upon the doctrines then
under dispute. Many others, more or less important, resulted from the labours
of the Committee, and as the history of this period would be manifestly very
incomplete without some notice of them, we have subjoined an outline thereof,
deeming this amply sufficient for the ordinary student.
By far the greatest number of changes was
made by the alteration of existing rubrics and the addition of new ones. Several which tended to promote greater
reverence in the Administration of the Holy Eucharist have already been
mentioned. We notice further the
directions or side notes in the Consecration Prayer providing for the manual
acts which had been ignored in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI and not
restored by Elizabeth. An addition was
made to the note in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI of the words, “and here
to break the bread,” insuring what Bishop Cosin characterized as a “needful
circumstance of the Sacrament.”
The belief in the Regeneration of Infants
in Holy Baptism was strengthened by the transference of a rubric from the
Confirmation to the Baptismal Office. In
its original place it was intended to satisfy people that Confirmation was not
necessary to salvation, for that if children died in their infancy after
baptism their salvation was assured. In
1662 it was added at the close of the Baptismal Service as worthy of greater
prominence than it received in an Office which was used so rarely as that for
Confirmation. The Rubric runs thus”: It
is certain by GOD’S Word that children which are baptized dying before they
commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” It involved a doctrine so repugnant to the Presbyterians,
that Baxter declared, “That of the forty sinful terms for a communion with the
Church party, if thirty-nine were taken away and only that rubric concerning
the salvation of infants dying shortly after their baptism were continued, yet
they could not conform.”
In the Introductory part of the Prayer Book
the following additions were made: —
The Preface, most probably written by
Bishop Sanderson.
The Table of the Vigils, Fasts, Days of
Abstinence, together with certain solemn days for which particular services are
appointed.
“The five prayers” were transferred from
the close of the Litany to the services for Matins and Evensong; and the latter
received the addition of the Sentences, Exhortation, etc., which before had
been prefixed to Matins only. In the
Litany the petition for deliverance from Rebellion and Schism was added with
much significance. Among the occasional
prayers and thanksgivings were introduced: —
A
second prayer for fair weather.
Two
prayers for Embertide.
The
prayer for Parliament.
The
prayer for all conditions of men.
The
General Thanksgiving.
The
Thanksgiving for public peace at home.
New collects were composed for —
The
third Sunday in Advent.
St.
Stephen’s Day.
The
sixth Sunday after the Epiphany.
Easter
Even.
A distinct Gospel and Epistle were
introduced for the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany.
The title of the Feast, “The Purification
of St. Mary,” was enlarged to its present form, “The Presentation of Christ in
the Temple, commonly called The Purification,” etc., and a special Epistle,
provided instead of that for the preceding Sunday.
A new Office was composed, for “The Baptism
of such as be of riper years.”
The Catechism was separated from the
Confirmation Service.
The requirement for newly-married people to
communicate on the day of their marriage was modified to a recommendation to do
so then or at the first opportunity.
In the Visitation of the Sick two rubrical
changes were made by the insertion of the words in italics: — “Here shall the
sick person be moved to make a
special confession,” and “After which confession the Priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and heartily desire it.”