O5

ICVJ

CD

! co

FROM-THE- LIBRARY-OP
TRINITYCOLLEGETORDNTO

Sliturgtae 2lmetfcanae

OR

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

AS USED IN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED BOOK OF 1786
AND WITH THE PRAYER BOOK OF

C&e CJwrdb of CnglanD,

AND AN HISTORICAL, ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS.

BY

WILLIAM MCGARVEY, D. D.

Priest of the Congregation of the
Companions of the Holy Saviour.

TO WHICH IS ADDKD

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

OF THK

STANDARD EDITIONS OP THE AMERICAN PRAYER BOOK,

AND A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE
PRAYER BOOK PSALTER,

BY THB
REV. FREDERICK GIBSON, D.D.

THE PHILADELPHIA CHURCH PUBLISHING COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA

MCMV II

R3

" It seems unnecessary to enumerate all the different altera
tions and amendments. They will appear, and it is to be hoped
the reasons of them also, upon a comparison of this with the
Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which
it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to
depart from the Church of England in any essential point of
doctrine, dicipline, or worship ; or farther than local circum
stances require." (Preface of the American Prayer Book.)

Copyright by WM. McGARVEY, 1895.

ri n
JAN 2 7 1982

PREFACE.

AS Reeling s invaluable Liturgies Britannicse, is intended to set
forth the wording of the various Prayer Books of the Church
of England since 1549, so the present work is primarily an attempt to
give the wording of the Prayer Book used in the United States
together with the Articles of Religion, compared with the Proposed
Book of 1786 (which was never adopted), and with the English Prayer
Book of 1662 in use when this country was a dependency of the British
Crown. In the footnotes I have given such items of information, gathered
chiefly from the works of Bishop White, as help to throw light on the
reasons for the departures from the English Book made by the revisers
of 1789, and also the immediate originals of all those prayers, thanks
givings, and collects which are peculiar to the American Book,
except those of the prayer For Malefactors after Condemnation, and
the Thanksgiving for the beginning of a Recovery ; the sources of these
are yet to be discovered. I have taken no notice of variations in punctua
tion, and merely typographical differences, which exist between the
Proposed Book and the English Book, and even between the various
editions of the American Prayer Book. Indeed the arrangement
adopted for this comparative reprint precluded such notice, which could
only be adequately done by reprinting all the books in extenso. In a
few cases, however, where these variations seemed to be of sufficient
importance, attention has been drawn to them in the footnotes. I have
drawn up for the Introduction, a history of the American Prayer Book
from which, it is thought, no salient fact has been omitted ; and in
Appendix II will be found a verbatim reprint of illustrative documents.

The Rev. Frederick Gibson, D. D., has kindly contributed the biblio
graphical account of the Standard Editions of the American Prayer
Book which immediately follows the Introduction, and also a Critical
Examination of the Psalter printed as Appendix I. In the preparation
of the latter work he has been occupied for some years, during which
time he has consulted the principal libraries of England as well as of
this country. His well-established reputation for painstaking accuracy
is a sufficient assurance beforehand of the value of any work done by
him.

At the outset, I desire the reader to remember that, in the prepara
tion of this work, the object kept in view has been to give an impartial

iv PREFACE.

statement of facts connected with the Prayer Book, without the ex
pression of opinion as to any conclusion which might or might not be
drawn from such facts. And therefore, where it has been necessary
consistently with this aim to point out in the footnotes alterations
introduced from time to time into the American Prayer Book by editors
or editing committees, I do not wish to be understood as thereby giving
any opinion as to the desirability or otherwise of such changes in them
selves, or as to the legality of the method in which they were made ;
all such questions I leave to the judgment of the reader.

A word of explanation may be needed with regard to what constitutes
the standard text of the American Prayer Book. The first edition
was published in 1790 ; at the next General Convention in 1792,
a committee was appointed " to compare the printed edition of the Book
of Common Prayer with the original acts of the last General Conven-
tion where they may judge it necessary." The result of their work was
the setting forth of a corrected book in 1793, which was the first
edition officially styled " the Standard." Thereafter as occasion required,
the Prayer Book was re-edited by Committees appointed by General
Convention, and each time a new standard was authorized which displaced
the previous one, and was supposed to represent the true text of the
Church s liturgy. Accordingly there have been, since the first edition
published in 1790, seven standard editions, viz. : 1793,1822,1832,
1838, 1845, 1871 and 1892, the last being not a set of plates, but a
single volume duly authenticated. It may perhaps be unnecessary to
remind the reader that the American Prayer Book continued without
revision for almost a hundred years, and therefore these various Standards,
except the last one, are simply so many editions of the same book.

Prior to 1811, one session of General Convention could make
(c&lcrig parilws) any change it saw fit in the Prayer Book. This
being the case, if the Convention set forth a book as the only pure text,
it became so co ipso, whether it had been so before or not. But in
1811, before the publication of the second Standard, the eighth article
of the Constitution of the Church was so amended that it required the
action of two consecutive General Conventions, together with formal
notification during the interim to all the dioceses, before any alteration
or addition could be made.

The Standard of 1793 is therefore the foundation text of the
American Prayer Book. And since it was the last edition in which the
General Convention could make alterations at one session, all changes
made thereafter from that text, are in this work placed in the footnotes,
except such as have been constitutionally ordered by the action of two
successive Conventions, or such as are manifest corrections of misprints.
Errors of this kind are to be found in all the Standards, not excepting
the one of 1793, and have always been corrected when discovered.
Some of them originated in the cditio princeps of 1790 and in the first
Standard, but others have been inherited from the Proposed Book and
the editions of the English Book current in this country in the last
century, and a few are as old as the sixteenth century. A large number
of such errors were corrected in 1845, others in 1871, and an exceed
ingly large number by the painstaking committee which has iust
completed its labours.

The Proposed Book, which will be found parallelled with the English
Prayer Book, is the revision of the latter made by the first General

PREFACE.

Convention in 1785 and published, with many changes by its Committee,
in 1786. A full account of it is given in the Introduction to the present
volume. Although it was not adopted by the Church, it influenced the
revision of 1789, and many of its peculiarities passed into the American
Prayer Book. Of this book there have been already three reprints.
The first was published in London by " J. Debrett, opposite Burlington
House, Piccadilly, M,DCC,LXXXIX." The second is to be found in
Hall s Reliqu-se Liturgise,, Vol. V. The third, copied from the London
reprint of 1789, was put forth in this country in 1873 for polemical
purposes by those who with Bishop Cummins left the Church at that
time. The present, and fourth reprint, is made from a copy of the
original book in the Philadelphia Library.

The text of the English Book reprinted in this volume is that of the
Oxford quarto of 1775, probably the last edition of the Prayer Book of
the Church of England used in this country. It was the edition by
which the Proposed Book was punctuated as we learn from Dr. White
(afterward the first Bishop of Pennsylvania) in a letter to Dr. Smith :
" I have rec d yours of the 28th which I have sent to the press in the
manner you approve of, having first reviewed and compared the pointing
of it with an Oxford edition of the Prayer Book printed in 1775, and
adjusted it accordingly. This I think you cannot but approve of, as
the said edition appears to have been made on great deliberation in
that Seat of letters. I observed that wherever you had altered the
pointing in the proof sheet, you had done it conformably to the same
book. I intend to bestow the same pains on all I shall send to the
press." l The copy of this edition from which the present reprint was
made belongs to the historic parish of St. Peters, Philadelphia.

In parallelling these Prayer Books, the arrangement of Reeling s
Liturgise, Britanicse, has been followed as being on the whole the most
satisfactory. Accordingly the present text of the American Book as
ordered by General Convention to be set forth in 1892, is printed in the
first column marked " [Sd. 1892]," and the text in use prior to the
recent revision is contained in the second column, which has the
heading, "[Ed. 1790, Sds. 1793-1871]." The parts which were
added after 1790, viz.: the forms of Ordination, the order for the Con
secration of a Church, the Institution of Ministers, and the Articles of
Religion, have in the heading at the top of the column, for the first
date, the year in which they were respectively authorized.

The Tables of Lessons marked " [1877 (Eng. Bk. 1871)] " are those
set forth by the Church of England in 1871, and permitted to be used
in this country for three years by the General Convention of 1877.
They are reprinted from the official copy sent out by the Secretary of
the House of Deputies.

The Proposed Book published in 1786, is contained in the third
column marked, " [Prop. Bk. 1786]." The English Prayer Book is
printed in the fourth column with the heading, " [Eng. Bk. 1775
(1662)]."

Those portions which are common to the American books before and
after the late revision are printed across the page ; and similarly those
which are common to the Proposed Book and the English Book,
attention being drawn to the verbal differences in the footnotes.

1 Perry s Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 137.

vi PREFACE.

This general plan has been departed from where whole offices, or
portions of considerable length are found in one liturgy only, and con
sequently to have printed them in any single column would have caused
an unsightly extent of blank space. A careful attention to the names
and dates placed at the top of each page will guide the reader and
prevent any confusion.

Those offices of the American Book which have nothing correspond
ing to them in the English Prayer Book, viz.: the offices for the
Visitation of Prisoners, Thanksgiving Day, Family Prayers, Consecra
tion of a Church, and Institution of Ministers, have been parallelled
with the offices from which they were derived. The Irish Office for the
Visitation of Prisoners, set forth by the Synod of Dublin in 1711 is
marked, "[Irish Office, 1711]", and is taken from a Prayer Book
printed at Dublin by George Grierson in 1730. The original of the
office of Thanksgiving Day is found in the Proposed Book. Bishop
Gibson s Family Prayers is reprinted from a volume in the possession
of the Rt. Rev., the Bishop of Cairo, entitled, " Family Devotion |
or, an | Exhortation | to | Morning and Evening | Prayer | in Families
| with two | Forms of Prayer | suited to these two seasons, and also
fitted for the | Use of one Person in Private. | To which are now added,
j Two shorter Forms to be used by Children and | Servants, when
they cannot conveniently be present at | the Family Prayers. | First
drawn up for the Use of the Inhabitants of | the Parish of Lambeth,
and now Revised and Enlarged, | By the Right Reverend Father in
God, | Edmund Gibson, D. D., | Late Lord Bishop of London. | Now
reprinted at the Recommendation and under the | Direction of the
Right Reverend John Lord Bishop of Clogher. | The Twenty-Sixth
Edition I Dublin: I Printed for Robert Barton, No. 2. Capel-Street I
M,DCC,LXXIX."

The order for the Consecration of a Church drawn up by the English
Convocation of 1712 is marked " [Eng. Convocation, 1712]," and is
copied from Burn s Ecclesiastical Law, 2d edition, London, 1767.
The Office of Induction adopted by the clergy in Connecticut in 1799,
and the one set forth by the General Convention of 1804, are marked
respectively, "[Conn., 1799]" and "[1804-1808]." They are both
reprinted from the original pamphlets preserved in the archives of the
diocese of Connecticut.

In a work of this kind, involving the collation of so many books, it
is hopeless to guard against all typographical slips. Every care, how
ever, has been taken by repeated revision to secure accuracy, and it is
hoped that no misprints will be found of such a character as to mislead
the reader. I shall be glad to be informed of any inaccuracies which
may be discovered that they may be corrected in case of the issue of a
future edition.

It only remains for me to express my thanks to those who, in one
way or an other, have aided me in the preparation of this volume.
In the first place, I desire to thank the Rev. Frederick Gibson, D. D.,
of Baltimore, for the use of his set of the Standard Prayer Books, and
also to gratefully acknowledge the obligations which, in common with
all students of the American Prayer Book, I am under to his labours aa
presented in various articles contributed by him to the Church periodi
cals. It may be safely said that until the appearance of his unique
essay on The American Book of Common Prayer and its Several

PREFACE. vii

Standard Editions,* little or nothing was known of these books. Even
the scholarly Dr. Coit, ranch as he contributed to the criticism of the
Prayer Book, seems to have been acquainted with only one or two of
the earlier Standards. To Dr. Gibson belongs the credit of inaugurat
ing the scientific study of the text of the American Prayer Book, and
the result of his researches will be of permanent interest and value to
the Church. I have also derived much information from him in per
sonal converse, when he has always gladly imparted the knowledge accu
mulated through years of patient iavestigation. It is, however, only
just to him to say, that I alone am responsible for the present work, his
responsibility being limited to the two articles to which his name is
attached.

I have also to express my obligations to my diocesan, the Right Rev.
the Bishop of Pennsylvania, for his kind permission to examine the
archives of the diocese; to the lit. Hev. Charles R. Hale, D. D.,
Bishop of Cairo, for the use of his copy of Bishop Gibson s Family
Prayers ; to the Rev. Henry R. Percival, D. D., Rector of the Church of
the Evangelists, Philadelphia, for the information gathered from the
many articles and essays which have appeared from his pen during the
past twelve years, for the use of his extensive library, and for his many
criticisms and suggestions which have added greatly to the value of
the work; to the Rev. Samuel Hart, D. D., Secretary of the House
6f Bishops, for the unfailing kindness with which he answered my many
enquiries, and for providing me with the editio princeps of the offices of
Ordination, and the original pamphlets with the offices of Induction of
1799 and 1804 from which to make the reprints found in this volume ;
to the Rev. William R. Huntington, D. D., D. C. L., Rector of Grace
Church, New York, for the kind gift of a number of valuable pam
phlets bearing upon the recent revision of the Prayer Book ; to
the Kev. Canon W. R. Churton, D. D. , of King s College, Cambridge,
England, for some items of information ; to the Rev. J. Lewis
Parks, D. D., Rector of St. Peter s Church, Philadelphia, who courte
ously entrusted me with the copy of the Oxford Prayer Book of
1775 belonging to his parish; to the Rev. C. Ellis Stevens, LL. D.,
D. C. L., Rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, for permission to use
the rare collection of books preserved in the vestry of that Church;
to the Rev. Thomas P. Hughes, D. D., Rector of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, New York, for the text of Bishop Cotton s prayer
for Missions; to James S. Biddle, Esq., of Philadelphia, for his active
interest in the work even before its inception and during its whole
progress; to Andrew Wheeler, Esq., Jr., of Philadelphia, for kindly
consenting to act as Secretary: and to the many Right Reverend
Bishops and others of the Clergy and Laity, both in this country and
in England, who by their subscriptions rendered possible the publication
of the work.

In conclusion I have but to express the hope, that in the following
pages something has been contributed to deepen interest in the history
of the Book of Common Prayer, and tht.t others may be stirred up to

1 Printed first in the Atntrican Church Review, January, 1885. The material
part of it is reproduced in the bibliographical account of The Standaid Edi
tions of the Ameria.1. 1 .; tt Book in this volume.

riii PREFACE.

prosecute tbe work still further, feeling assured that the more the
Prayer Book is studied, the more it will be loved, and the more mar
vellous will appear God s watchful care over the Church in America.

WILLIAM MCGARVEY.
Christmas, 1894.

AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

OF THE

AMERICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

|HE Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England,
as revised in 1661, was the liturgy in use in this country
at the time of the Revolution. Immediately after the
Declaration of Independence in 1776, it was altered by
Rectors and vestries here and there, and in Virginia by
the State Convention, in order to adapt it to the changed political
conditions. 1

Maryland Conventions, 1783.

But the first concerted action, looking towards an authoritative
revision of the Prayer Book, was taken in a meeting of clergymen at
Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, on the 13th of May, 1783.
As the Church in this State was still established by law, a memorial and
petition to the General Assembly was drawn up praying "that the said
clergy might have leave to consult, prepare, and draft a bill," enabling
them " to make such alterations in the liturgy and service as might
adapt the same to the revolution, and for other purposes of uniformity,
concord, and subordination to the State." The memorial was signed by
William Smith and Thomas Grates as a Committee. 2 The petition hav
ing been granted, another meeting of the clergy was held at Annapolis,
August 13th, 1783, at which there was drawn up A Declaration of
Certain Fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Protestant Episcopal 3
Church of Maryland, &c. In this document it was declared, " That
as it is the right, so it will be the duty, of the said Church, when duly
organized, constituted, and represented in a Synod or Convention of the
different orders of her Ministry and people, to revise her liturgy, forms

1 For an account of these alterations, vide Hoffman s Law of the Church,
p. 31, and Perry s Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 100, et seq., also his History of the
Amer. Epis. Church, II, p. 115.

2 Notices and Journals, &c. of the P. E. Church in the Diocese of Maryland,
App. to Journal of 1855. See also Conventions in Maryland, 1780-1783,
printed with Journal of 1878.

3 For the history of the use of the title "Protestant Episcopal," vide an
article by the Rev. Dr Fred. Gibson in the Amer. Ch. Revieu; Jan., 1885, p.
5. See also Perry s Hist, of the Amer. Epis. Ch., II, p. 21, and the Report
of a Committee of the House of Bishops in the Convention of 1883 (Journal,
p. 334).

INTRODUCTION.

of prayer, and public worship, in order to adapt the same to the late
revolution, and other local circumstances of America ; which it is
humbly conceived, may and will be done without any other or farther
departure from the venerable order and beautiful forms of worship of
the Church from whence we sprung, than may be found expedient in
the change of our situation from a daughter to a sister church." l

Pennsylvania Convention, 1784.

After the meeting at Annapolis, we next have a Convention of the
Church in Pennsylvania, which met at Christ Church, Philadelphia,
May 2425. 1784. There were present five clergymen and twenty-two
laymen. "This was the first ecclesiastical assembly in any of the States
consisting partly of lay members." 2 Among the fundamental principles
proposed as instructions by this Convention to a Committee " Empow
ered to correspond and confer with representatives from the Episcopal
Church in other States or any of them, and to assist in forming an
Ecclesiastical Government," the following is the third article : " That
the doctrines of the Gospel be maintained as now professed by the
Church of England ; and uniformity of worship continued, as near as
may be, to the liturgy of the said Church." 3

Convention at Boston, 1784.

A meeting of the clergy of Massachusetts, and Rhode Island was
held in Boston, September 8th, 1784, when there were adopted the six
fundamental principles set forth by the Pennsylvania Convention. A
slight addition was made to two of the articles, but the third touching
the doctrine and worship of the Church was accepted word for word as
above. A copy of these resolutions was sent to the clergy of Connec
ticut, New York and Pennsylvania, together with a letter urging the
necessity of " adopting some speedy measures to procure an American
Episcopate." " We are extremely anxious for the preservation of our
Communion and the continuance of an uniformity of doctrine and wor
ship, but we see not how this can be maintained without a common
head." 4 That such was also the view of the Connecticut clergy, will
appear from the following extract, probably written about this time by
the Rev. Mr. Jarvis in their name: "The clergy in Connecticut con
sider the Church in which they officiate as collected and formed upon
the principles on which the Church was at first founded by her great
Head. Therefore what they have to deliberate upon and endeavour to
carry into effect, in the first place is, that she be settled in the full
enjoyment of the spiritual powers and officers essential to her : viz., a
Bishop, from whom alone all the other officers in the Ministry derive
their commission. And when this is accomplished, and our Church
thus completed in her members, then, 2. The clergy of this State will
consider it as their duty, as that is ascertained by Scripture and primi
tive example, to revise the Liturgy and render as perfect, as they may

1 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 22.

2 So says Bp. White, Memoirs of the Church, 3d. ed. , p. 94. But it has since
been discovered that a Convention was held in Maryland, Nov. 9th, 1780, at
which representatives of the laity were present along with the clergy. It
was at this Convention that the title Protestant Episcopal was first
adopted as the official designation of the Church.

8 Journal of the meetings which led to the institution of a Convention of the
P. E. Church, in the State of Pennsylvania. * Reprint of the Journals of Mass.

INTR OD UOTION. xi

be able, whatever shall be found needful for a pure and Scriptural wor
ship for all Christians of her communion." 1

Convention at New York, 1784.

In accordance with the arrangement made at a meeting held at New
Brunswick, New Jersey, May llth, there assembled in New York,
October 6-7, 1784, a Convention of fifteen clergymen and eleven lay
men, from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. The Rev. Mr. Griffith
from Virginia was present by permission but not as a delegate, as the
Church in that State was not yet free from civil control. Connecticut,
consistently with the principles it had thus far acted upon, sent no lay rep
resentative. The clergy there " thought themselves fully adequate to the
business of representing the Episcopal Church in their State," and " the
laity did not expect or wish to be called in as delegates on such an occa
sion ; but would, with full confidence, trust matters purely ecclesiastical
to their clergy." 2

Among the fundamental principles adopted with a view to the future
unification of the Church, and proposed to the Church in all the States,
the following is the fourth article : " That the said Church shall main
tain the doctrines of the Gospel as now held by the Church of England,
and shall adhere to the liturgy of the said Church, as far as shall be
consistent with the American revolution and the Constitution of the
respective States." 3 The declaration of this principle, writes Mr.
Parker, is " disgusting to many of our Communion who neither like
the doctrines held by the Church of England nor the liturgy as it now
stands." 4 At this Convention, formal action was taken towards uniting
the Church under one legislative body, by inviting the Episcopal Church
in each State to send deputies to a General Convention, consisting of
clergymen and laity, to be held in Philadelphia the " Tuesday before the
feast of Saint Michael and All Angels," 1785.

Concordat of Bishop Seabury with the Scotch Bishops.

At a meeting of ten clergymen in Woodbury, Connecticut, March
25th, 1783, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury had been chosen to go to Eng
land to ask for consecration to the Episcopate. Compliance with his
request not having been granted by the English Bishops, he proceeded
to Scotland, and on the 14th day of November (the xxii Sunday after
Trinity) 1784, was consecrated Bishop at Aberdeen by three of the
Scotch Bishops. On the following day a Concordat was drawn up
between them, of which the following is the fifth article : "As the cele
bration of the holy Eucharist, or the Administration of the Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the principal Bond of Union among
Christians, as well as the most Solemn Act of Worship in the Christian
Church, the Bishops aforesaid agree in desiring that there may be as
little Variance here as possible. And tho the Scottish Bishops are very
far from prescribing to their Brethren in this matter, they cannot help
ardently wishing that Bishop Seabury would endeavour all he can con
sistently with peace and prudence, to make the Celebration of this vener-

1 The Evergreen, Vol. Ill, p. 173, New Haven, 1846.

2 Letter of the Rev. Abraham Beach to Dr. White, Hist. Notes and Doc.,
p. 12. s Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 4.

4 Letter to Dr. White, Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 91.

xii INTR OD UCTION.

able Mystery conformable to the most primitive Doctrine and practice
in that respect: Which is the pattern the Church of Scotland has
copied after in her Communion Office, and which it has been the wish
of some of the most Eminent Divines of the Church of England, that
she also had more closely followed, than she seems to have done since she
gave up her first reformed Liturgy used in the Reign of Edward VI., be
tween which and the form used in the Church of Scotland there is no Dif
ference in any point, which the primitive Church reckoned essential to the
right Ministration of the holy Eucharist. In this capital Article there
fore of the Eucharistic Service, in which the Scottish Bishops so earn
estly wish for as much Unity as possible, Bishop Seabury also agreed to
take a serious View of the Communion Office recommended by them, and
if found agreeable to the Genuine Standards of Antiquity, to give his
Sanction to it, and by Gentle Methods of Argument and persuasion, to
endeavour, as they have done, to introduce it by degrees into practice
without the Compulsion of Authority on the one side, or the prejudice
of former custom on the other side." 1

Virginia Convention, 1785.

The Church in Virginia having been set free from civil control, a Con
vention of thirty-six clergymen and upwards of seventy laymen, gathered
at Richmond, May 18-23, 1785. It was decided to send deputies to the
General Convention, and a letter of instruction " concerning doctrine
and worship" was framed for their guidance. In this letter the depu
ties were told that " from the Holy Scriptures rather than the comments
of men, must we learn the terms of salvation. Creeds therefore ought
to be simple: And we are not anxious to retain any other than that
which is commonly called the Apostles Creed. Should a change in
the Liturgy be proposed, let it be made with caution : And in that case
let the alterations be few, and the style of prayer continue as agreeable
as may be to the essential characteristics of our persuasion. We will
not now decide what ceremonies ought to be retained. We wish, how
ever, that those which exist may be estimated according to their utility ;
and that such as may appear fit to be laid aside, may no longer be
appendages of our Church." 2 A resolution was also passed directing
" that until farther order of the Convention, the liturgy of the Church
of England be used in the several churches throughout this Common
wealth with such alterations as the American revolution has rendered
necessary." *

Convocation at Mtddtetown, 1785.

On the 2d day of August, 1785, the clergy of Connecticut met at
Middletown to receive Bishop Seabury but shortly returned from Scot
land. Eleven clergymen were present together with the Rev. Mr.
Moore of New York, and the Rev. Mr. Parker of Boston. A Con
vocation was afterwards held on August 4th and 5th, at which a
Committee was appointed to act with the Bishop in making "some
alterations in the liturgy needful for the present use of the Church." 4
" Having the honour," writes Mr. Parker to Bishop Seabury some time

1 Hawks & Perry, Church Documents of Connecticut. Vol. II.

2 Hawks Contributions, Vol. I. Journals, p. 6
8 Ibid.

4 The Evergreen, New Haven, 1846, Vol. Ill, p. 152.

INTR OD UCTION. xiii

afterward, " of being named in that Committee, in conjunction with the
Rev d Messrs. Jarvis and Bowdoin, you will recollect, sir, that we
spent Friday and Saturday in that week upon this subject, and that
most, if not all the proposed alterations were such as we were under
obligation to you for, or such as you readily agreed to." 1 The changes
in the State prayers were set forth at once in an Injunction dated
August 12th, 1785, 2 -but the other alterations were reserved to be
reported at a meeting to be held at New Haven in September. A copy
of them was transmitted " to the Rev d Dr. Smith of Maryland, to be
communicated to the Convention to be held at Philadelphia, in the
month of October." 3

Convention at Boston, 1785.

They were also laid before a Convention of four clergymen and ten
lay deputies from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire,
which assembled at Boston, September 7th and 8th of the same year.
The substitutes for the State prayers were received and adopted by this
Convention with the change of a single word, viz., the word " State,"
in place of which the word " Commonwealth was used. The other
proposed alterations, with two exceptions, were also agreed to and pro
posed to the churches in the States represented. 4 " You will see upon
perusal of them," says the Rev. Mr. Parker writing to Bishop Seabury,
" that those proposed at Middletown are mostly adopted, and some few
others proposed. The only material ones we have not agreed to are the
omitting of the second Lesson in the Morning Service and the G-ospel
and Exhortations in the Baptismal Office. The additional alterations in
some of the offices are such as were mentioned at Middletown, but
which we had not time to enter upon them." 5 The text of the altera
tions drawn up at Middletown, other than those set forth in Bishop
Seabury s Injunction, is unfortunately lost. 6 But that they did not
differ in their general character from those proposed at Boston would
seem to be clear from a letter of the Rev. Mr. Parker to Bishop Sea-
bury, in which he assumes the substantial identity of both sets of alter
ations, and expressly speaks of them as " these alterations suggested by
yourself and adopted by this [i. e., the Boston] Convention." 7 And
writing to Dr. White, he says, " Certain alterations were proposed in
the liturgy of the Church by the Bishop of Connecticut and at his re
quest lay before the Convention at Boston for their approbation, and
those were made the basis of our proceedings, but when approved were
not to be adopted till the other churches had approved of them also, in

1 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 364.

2 Appendix II, 1.

3 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 365.

4 Appendix II, 3.

5 Church Documents of Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 284.

6 It is to be regretted that, while the records of the early Conventions of
the Church in the other States have been preserved and are accessible in
print, those of Connecticut, prior to 1790, have not yet been discovered.
That they were known to the Rev. Dr. S. F. Jarvis is evident from the fact
that in the Memoir of Bp. Jarvis his father, printed in the Evergreen, he
quotes them, and refers to them in hia Voice from Connecticut. These
precious documents belonging to the diocese of Connecticut may still be
among the papers of Dr. Jarvis, although a letter of enquiry written by the
Editor of the present work to the Rev. S. F. Jarvis, of Brooklyn, Conn, (in
whose possession they are said to be), met with no response.

7 Notes and Doc., p. 365.

xi v INTR OD UCTION.

order if possible to obtain an uniformity. And accordingly we have
not yet made any alterations except a substitute for the State prayers." l

From these propositions for the revision of the Prayer Book, drawn
up by New England Churchmen, the Proposed Book of 1786 immedi
ately derived not a few of its most characteristic features. It is here that
we first meet with the omission from the Te Deum of the clause, " thou
didst not abhor the Virgin s womb " and the substitution of, " thou didst
humble thyself to be born of a pure virgin." Here also we meet with the
omission of the article on the Descent into Hell from the Apostles
Creed ; the disuse of the Athanasian Creed ; the permission to omit the
Nicene Creed ; the omission of the second Lord s Prayer and the Kyries
in Morning and Evening Prayer, and likewise of the Lord s Prayer at
the beginning of the Communion Service ; the saying of Gloria Patri
but once ; the doing away with the interrogative Creed in Baptism ;
the permission to omit the Sign of the Cross in Baptism ; the change in
the formula of Committal in the Burial of the Dead ; the omission of the
Churching office ; the omission of the form of private Absolution ; the
reducing of the exhortation in the Marriage Service to one sentence ;
the permission to omit the Collect for the day from one service when
Morning Prayer is followed by the Communion ; and the permission to
read the Communion Service in the desk.* It needs only the most
cursory examination of the Proposed Book to convince anyone of the
positive influence exercised by these suggestions in shaping the
revision of the Prayer Book in the .General Convention held a few
weeks afterward. Moreover we have the express statement of Dr. Wil
liam Smith, in a letter to be cited hereafter, acknowledging his indebted
ness to the work of the Committee appointed at Middletown and the
Boston Convention.

Convocation at New Haven, 1785.

These proposed alterations, although most of them, according to
Mr. Parker, were either suggested by Bishop Seabury, or such as
he readily agreed to, did not commend themselves to the general body
of Church people in Connecticut, and at the Convocation which met at
New Haven on the 14th of September, 1785, they do not seem to have
been even presented for discussion. The result of this Convocation, so
far as the revision of the Prayer Book was concerned, may be given in
the words of Bishop Seabury writing to Mr. Parker. " Between
the time of our parting at Middletown and the clerical meeting in New
Haven, it was found that the Church people in Connecticut were much
alarmed at the thought of any considerable alteration being made in the
Prayer Book ; and upon the whole it was judged that no alterations
should be attempted at present, but to wait till a little time shall have
cooled down the temper and conciliated the affections of the people to
each other." 8

General Convention of 1785.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Convention held in

1 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 295.

2 If we are to believe Mr. Parker, as cited above, Bishop Seabury was
chiefly responsible for suggesting these alterations. Yet we know that after
the action of the General Convention of 1785 he exerted himself to the
utmost to have the Apostles Creed restored to its integrity, and to have the
two other Creeds replaced in the Prayer Book.

3 Church Doc. of Conn., Vol. II.

INTR OD UOTION. xv

New York, May, 1784, the first General Convention assembled at Christ
Church, Philadelphia, on September 27th, 1785, and continued in ses
sion until the seventh of the following month, under the presidency of the
Rev. Dr. William White. There were present sixteen clergymen and
twenty-six laymen, representing seven States, viz.: New York, New Jer
sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.
No delegates were sent from the New England States. On the second
day a Committee was appointed, of which the Rev. Dr. William Smith
of Maryland was Chairman, " to report such alterations in the liturgy,
as shall render it consistent with the American revolution and the Con
stitutions of the respective States : and such further alterations in the
liturgy as it may be advisable for the Convention to recommend to the
consideration of the Church here represented." As this Committee was
also directed to "report a draft of an ecclesiastical Constitution," it divi
ded itself into two sub-divisions, one of which took charge of the revi
sion of the Prayer Book, the other prepared the draft of a Constitution.
Dr. Wm. White was assigned to the latter, and so had no hand in the
work of liturgical revision.

When the alterations in the Prayer Book were brought by the sub-
Committee into the General Committee on the fifth day, " they were
not reconsidered ; because the ground would have to be gone over again
in the Convention." " Even in the Convention there were but few
points canvassed with any material difference of opinion." 1 With
regard to the Service for the Fourth of July, an office which Dr.
Smith had compiled from the State services then in the English Prayer
Book, Dr. White objected to its adoption on the ground of the inex
pediency of requiring the use of such an office. " To his great surprise,
there was but one gentleman, and he a professed friend to American
independence, who spoke on the same side of the question ; and there
were very few, if any, who voted with the two speakers against the
measure." 2 Only on two points does the opinion of him, who was
afterward the first Bishop of Pennsylvania, seem to have had any modi
fying influence in the Convention on the report of the Committee. The
one was with regard to the Article on Justification, in place of which
he succeeded in having the English Article restored ; the other was with
regard to the Article on Original Sin, the phraseology of which he
induced the Convention to amend. 3 So little did he have to do with the
revision of the Prayer Book at this time. The facile princeps in this
work, both in the Committee and in the Convention, was Dr. William
Smith, of Maryland. And the Convention formally recognized the
important part he had taken, by extending to him a vote of thanks "for
his exemplary diligence and the great assistance he had rendered this
Convention as Chairman of their Committee, in perfecting the important
business in which they have been engaged," and asked him to preach
the sermon at the close of the session. It was also resolved " that the
service be then read as proposed for future use." Which last resolution
Bishop White speaks of as a capital error which helped to confirm the
opinion that the proposed alterations were to be introduced with a high
hand. 4

A few quotations from the sermon preached before the Conven-

1 Bp. White s Memoirs of the Church, p. 116. 2 Ibid., p. 118.

3 1 bid, pp. 119, 120. 4 Ibid., p. 121.

xvi INTR 01) UCTION.

tion, on this occasion, will set before us the aim had in view by Dr.
Smith in the work of revision. Speaking of the changes made in the
Prayer Book, he says : " Ardent and of long continuance, have been the
wishes of many of the greatest, wisest and best Divines of our Church,
for some alterations and improvements of this kind. Among these we
have a Whitby, Tillotson, Sanderson, Stillingfleet, Burnet, Beveridge,
Wake, Tenison, Hales, and innumerable others of venerable name among
the Clergy, and among the Laity a multitude more, at the head of whom
may be placed the great Lord Bacon, the father of almost all reformation

and improvement in modern philosophy and science The greatest

and most important alterations and amendments were proposed at the
Revolution, that great sera of liberty, when in 1689 commissioners were

appointed At the commencement of a new sera in the civil

and religious condition of mankind in this new world, and upon another
great revolution about a hundred years after the former, all these pro
posed alterations and amendments were in our hands, and we had it in

power to adopt or even improve them It is our duty, as it hath

been our great endeavour in all the alterations proposed, to make the
consciences of those easy who believe in the true principles of Chris
tianity in general, and who, could they be made easy on certain points
no way essential to Christianity itself, would rather become worshippers,
as well as labourers, in that part of Christ s vineyard, in which we pro
fess to worship and to labour, than in any other Let us not,

therefore, repeat former errors, nor let the advantages now in our hands
slip from us." 1

The alterations accepted by the Convention were set forth under two
general heads, viz : " Alterations agreed on and confirmed in Conven
tion, for rendering the Liturgy conformable to the principles of the
American revolution, and the Constitutions of the several States," 2
and " Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration
of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church,
according to the use of the Church of England, proposed and recom
mended to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America." 8 It will be observed that the first of these two sets of
alterations was " agreed on and confirmed " by the Convention, the
second is not said to be adopted, but only "proposed and recom
mended." An editing Committee, consisting of the Rev. Dr. White,
the Rev. Dr. Smith, and the Rev. Dr. Wharton, was appointed " to
publish the Book of Common Prayer with the alterations, as well as
those now ratified, in order to render the Liturgy consistent with the
American revolution and the Constitutions of the respective States, as
the alterations and new Offices recommended to this Church ; and that
the book be accompanied with a proper Preface or Address, setting forth
the reason and expediency of the alterations, and that the Committee
have the liberty to make verbal and grammatical corrections, but in such
manner, as that nothing in form or substance be altered." The Com
mittee was also "authorized to publish with the Book of Common
Prayer, such of the reading and singing Psalms, and such a Kalendar
of proper lessons for the different Sundays and Holy-days throughout

1 Life and Correspondence of the Bev. William Smith, D. D.. by Horace W.
Smith, Phila., 1880, Vol. II, pp. 134-139.

* Appendix II, 4.

* Appendix II, 5.

INTR OD UCTION. xvii

the year, as they may think proper." With these ample powers the
Committee set about their work. The occasional letters which passed
between them during the winter and spring of 1785-1786 bring before
us the ideas of liturgical revision prevalent at the time, and are among
the most valuable of the documents illustrative of the history of the
Prayer Book in America. 1

The Preface for the new Prayer Book was written by Dr. Smith.
The Tables of Lessons and the Easter Tables were prepared by Dr.
White. The Psalter the most original feature of the work seems to
have been the joint work of all three members of the Committee. In
its preparation the Psalms were very freely handled ; those portions
which for one reason or other were thought to be unsuitable for Chris
tian worship were omitted, and new Psalms were made by the combination
of verses gathered out of two or more of the Psalms of David. The result
was a series of sixty centos, two of which were assigned to each day of
the month, one for the Morning, the other for the Evening service.
Some of the verses of this new Psalter were taken from the Prayer
Book version, others were from the Authorized Version, and still others
were original renderings of the compilers.

The guiding principles of this revision as a whole were those which
characterized the work of the Commissioners of 1689. It is exceedingly
doubtful however that anyone in the Convention of 1785 was acquainted
with the original records 2 of this attempted revision in the reign of
William III. 3 The Preface of the Proposed Book probably indicates the
chief sources from whence the knowledge Dr. Smith possessed of the
" great and good work " of 1689 was derived. Bishop Burnet, 4 and Dr.
William Nicholls 5 are there credited by name, and a quotation is made
from "other certain account," which, although the Preface does not say
so, is probably taken from the Puritan Calamy, 6 who had gathered
together all the exceptions made against the Prayer Book. Besides
these, we learn from a letter of Dr. Smith s 7 that Warner 8 was con
sulted, who had given an account of the alterations prepared by the

1 These letters have all been printed in Bp. Perry s Hist. Notes and
Doc., pp. 125-200.

2 They are now accessible in a Return to an Address of the House of Com
mons, March 14, 1854, and ordered by the House to be printed, June 2, 1854-
They have also been set forth in The Revised Liturgy of 1689, being the Book
of Common Prayer interleaved with the alterations prepared by the Royal Com
missioners in the first year of the reign of William and Mary, edited from the
copy printed by order of the House of Commons, by John Taylor, London,
1855.

3 For an account of this revision vide Cardwell s Conferences, p. 392, Lath-
bury s History of Convocation, chap. XI, and Bp. Patrick s Brief Account of
my Life, Works, Oxford, 1858, Vol. IX. See also "The Attempted Eng.
Revision of 1689 and the Prop. Bk. of 1785," The Churchman, Dec. 20, 1873.

4 The History of my own Times, bk. V.

5 Gulielmi Nicholsii Presbyteri Defensio Ecclesise Anglicanse, in qua vindican-
tur omnia, quse ab adversariis in Doctrina, cultu et Disciplina ejus, improbantur.
Prsemittitur Apparatus, qui Historiam Turbarum, e secessione ab ecclesia Angli-
cana, exortarum continet. Londini, 1707, p. 92 et seq. (A copy of this book is
in the library of the General Theological Seminary, New York.)

6 An Abridgement of Mr. Baxter s History of his Life and Times, by Edmund
Calamy, D. D., London, 1713.

7 Hist. Notes and Doc., p 173-175.

8 An Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, by Ferdinand Warner,
M. A., London, 1754.

xviii INTHOD UCTION.

royal Commissioners, and may have had access to the original docu
ments, for in one instance at least, in his notes on the Athanasian Creed,
he quotes them verbatim.

Other suggestions were gathered from what was known as Benjamin
Franklin s Prayer Book, 1 and from the editing Committee s own sense of
the fitness of things. Whatever was novel in the Articles " was taken
from a book in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Smith. The book was
anonymous, and was one of the publications which have abounded in
England, projecting changes in the established Articles." 2 But the docu
ment which directly exercised the greatest influence in determining the
general character of the Proposed Book, was the series of alterations pre
pared at Middletown, and afterward proposed by the Boston Convention.
The Rev. Mr. Parker of Trinity Church Boston writing to Bishop Seabury
before the meeting of the first General Convention, says : " We have
voted not to send any delegates to the Convention at Philadelphia, but
only to acquaint them with our proceedings ; and I flatter myself that
no other alterations will be adopted by them than those we proposed
at Middletown and have agreed to here. If they are so prudent as to
pursue the same steps, the desired object of a general uniformity will
thereby be obtained." 3 Dr. Smith was desirous of doing whatever would
contribute to the unification of the Church, and accordingly exerted him
self to have suggestions of the New England Churchmen adopted by the
General Convention, as he acknowledged in a letter to Mr. Parker
written sometime after the adjournment of General Convention. " I trust
that after a serious and candid consideration of what we have done, it will
have the approbation of the worthy body, clergy as well as laity, who are
to meet you in Convention ; or that if there be some things which you
may judge could have been done otherwise, or better, we can in future
editions come to an easy agreement on this head, as would certainly have
been the case had we been so happy as to have had your advice and
assistance as we expected at the last Convention. I think there are few
alterations which you did not wish. As Chairman of the Grand Com
mittee for revising, etc., I had the Alterations which you had proposed
in your last meeting put into my hands the first day of our sitting, and
you will see that I paid full attention to them, and that we have agreed
with you almost in every matter, except only respecting the Nicene
Creed, and our Convention in Maryland which met last week have
recommended the restoring of that Creed also."*

1 "

I have omitted in this Table all the Holy Days besides Easter ; because
that being known, the next Table shows the others. In all other respects
I shall print the said Table, agreeably to Dr. Franklin s Book which has
them in the neatest way of any I have seen." (Letter of Dr. White to Dr.
Smith, printed in Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 159.) The book here referred to as
"Dr. Franklin s" is entitled, Abridgement of the Book of Common Prayer
and Administration of the Sacraments and other Sites and Ceremonies of the
Church according to the use of the Church of England : together with the Psalter
or Psalms of David, printed as they are to be sung or said in churches. London.
Printed in the Year MDCCLXXIII. (A copy of this book is in the library of
the Divinity School, Phila., and in the Library of Congress.) Vide note in
Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 159.

2 Memoirs of the Church, p. 120.

3 Church Documents of Conn., Vol. II.
* IfM. Notes and Doc., p. 199.

INTR OD UCTION. xix

The first General Convention besides revising the Prayer Book and
framing a Constitution addressed a petition to the Archbishops and
Bishops of the Church of England requesting them " to confer the Epis
copal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this Church
in the several States here represented." In a letter dated February 24th,
1786, the English Bishops expressed their desire to use their best
endeavours to comply with the prayer of the address, but asked to be
first advised as to the alterations which the Convention proposed to
make in the Prayer Book, lest they " should be the instrument of estab
lishing an ecclesiastical system which will be called a branch of the
Church of England, but afterwards may possibly appear to have
departed from it essentially in doctrine or discipline." 1 The Committee
appointed to edit the Proposed Book had sent the printed sheets to
England as they came from the press, but through some miscarriage
they had not reached the Bishops at the time of their writing. " Hence
arose the caution with which the Convention was answered by the right
reverend bench." 2

The revised Prayer Book was published in April, 1786, and almost
immediately was referred to as the " Proposed Book," a name by
which it has ever since been known. In the preface it was declared
that, " It is far from the intention of this Church to depart frotn the
Church of England, any farther than local circumstances require, or to
deviate in anything essential to the true meaning of the thirty-nine
Articles." Notwithstanding the many departures from the English
Book, there is no reason whatever for doubting the perfect sincerity of
this declaration. The omissions made by the Convention were prompted
by a desire to remove whatever might seem to be a stumbling block in
the way of persons otherwise disposed to enter the Church, and not from
a wish to deny any doctrine held by the Church of England. It was
thought that certain terms and statements could well be spared with
great advantage to the Church, and without her doctrinal position being
thereby weakened ; to use the words of the General Convention of
1786, the omissions made were "such as were calculated to remove
objections which it appeared to us more conducive to union and gen
eral content to obviate than to dispute." " I wish to God," writes the
Rev. Dr. West, a member of the Convention, " that no construction
may be put on any of the late Convention proceedings, by which a depar
ture from what some of the Church of England may deem essential to

its doctrines may be inferred ! The next thing we may probably

hear, is that the Convention at Philadelphia have rejected the Nicene
and Athanasian Creed ! The truth is, they omitted, but did not reject
them ; and could the motive inducing that body to omit them, have
been made as public as the actual omission, I trust no ill-natured reflex
ions would have been made." 3 But however excellent were the inten
tions of the Convention of 1785, the Proposed Book had no sooner
issued from the press than it was at once the object of bitter attack.
So many were the objections to the book, and so determined was the
opposition stirred up against it, that the Rev. Mr. Provoost writing from
New York shortly after its appearance, says, " Such a strong party has
been raised against the alterations that I am afraid we should not be

1 Journal of 1786. * Memoirs of the Church, p. 125.

3 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 307.

xx INTRODUCTION.

able to adopt the book at present without danger of a schism the
ostensible object is that they were made without the sanction of a
Bishop, but the Thanksgiving for the Fourth of July in all probability
is one principal cause of the opposition. The sale of the books has
been very dull only thirteen have been disposed of." 1

State Conventions subsequent to the First General Convention.

The first State Convention in which the new Prayer Book came up
for consideration was that of Maryland, which met at Annapolis,
April 4th, 1786. A majority of the clergy were present, but not
many of the laity. Among other things, it was recommended that the
Nicene Creed should be restored to the Prayer Book, and printed as an
alternative with the Apostles Creed, and that a prayer for the sanctifi-
cation of the bread and wine should be inserted before the words of
institution. 2 This last proposition, Dr. Smith tells us, " perfectly recon
ciled Mr. Smith 3 to our service, and will prevent any further division
between us and the numbers of clergy coming among us from Bp.
S[eabury] and the Scots Church." * These emendations seem to have
fallen in with the views of Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, for writing to
Dr. Smith he remarks, " I think the proposed alterations of your Con
vention will render our service more compleat." 5 The Church in
New Jersey met in Convention on May 19th, at Perth Amboy, and ad
dressed a Memorial to the General Convention, strongly deprecating
many of the proposed alterations and the manner in which they had
been made. 6 The Convention of Pennsylvania, which met at Philadelphia,
May 22d, proposed a number of amendments to the Proposed Book,
chief among which were the restoration of the Nicene Creed, the
introduction into the Prayer of Consecration in the Communion Office,
of the same clause as that proposed by the Maryland Convention, and
the putting back of the Apostles Creed in the offices of Baptism. 7 There
is every probability that these amendments were suggested by Dr.
White. On the 29th of the same month a Convention met at Rich
mond, Virginia. Its chief objection to the new Prayer Book was with
regard to the rubric which directed the Minister to repel notorious evil
livers from the Holy Communion. " The offensive matter was not the
precise provisions of the rubric, but that there should be any provision
of the kind, or power exercised to the end contemplated." 8 It drew
up a detailed criticism of the new Articles of Religion, and framed a
letter of instruction for the delegates to the next General Convention. 9
At the same time a Convention of the Church in South Carolina was
being held at Charlestown. A committee, which had been appointed a
month before, presented a carefully prepared report on the proposed
changes in the Prayer Book, in which were embodied a number of propo
sitions for still further alterations. 10 The report was adopted, and the

1 Church Doc. of Conn., Vol. II, p. 297. 2 Appendix II, 6.

8 A relative of Dr. Smith who speaks of him as " My learned but zealous
high church little Friend and relation (as he says), Mr. Smith, of Somerset,"
Maryland. He afterward went to Connecticut and became Rector of Nor-
walk, where he drew up the Institution Office. For an account of his life,
see Annals of the American Putpit, Vol. V, p. 345 ; also, The Churchman.
New York, Sept. 8th and 15th, 1883.

4 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 190. 5 Ibid., p. 191. 6 Appendix II, 7.

7 Appendix II, 8. 8 Memoirs of the Church, p. 127.

"Appendix II, 9. 10 Appendix II, 10.

INTRODUCTION. xxi

Deputies to the General Convention desired to use their endeavours
to have its propositions adopted. It was evidently from the suggestions
of the South Carolina Convention that not a few of the features which
distinguished the Prayer Book of 1789, not only from the English
Book, but also from the Proposed Book, were derived, e. g., the follow
ing omissions : the word " again " from the Apostles Creed, the versicle
" God make speed to save us," with its response, and the three
Evangelical canticles. The Convention of New York, which assembled
on June 14th, deferred the consideration of the Proposed Book to a
future time. 1 No Convention met in Delaware.

General Convention of 1786.

The Second General Convention assembled in Philadelphia, the 20th
of June, 1786, and continued in session until the 26th of the same
month. There were in attendance fourteen clerical and twelve lay dele
gates. The first business was to draft a reply to the letter of the English
Bishops. In this answer it was declared that, " We are unanimous and
explicit in assuring your Lordships, that we neither have departed, nor
propose to depart from the doctrine of your Church. We have retained
the same discipline and forms of worship, as far as has been consistent
with our civil constitutions ; and we have made no alterations or omis
sions in the Book of Common Prayer but such as that consideration
prescribed, and such as were calculated to remove objections which it
appeared to us more conducive to union and general content to obviate
than to dispute." 2 No action was attempted at this time with regard to
the alterations which had been passed with such apparent unanimity the
previous October, and the various memorials from the State Conventions
on the subject were " referred to the first General Convention which
shall assemble with sufficient powers to determine the same." Before
adjourning, the Committee of Correspondence with the English prelates
was "empowered to call a General Convention whenever a majority of
the said Committee shall think necessary." 8

Adjourned Meeting of a Convention at Boston, 1786.

The Convention of the Church in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and
New Hampshire which met at Boston, September, 1785, was kept under
adjournment until the following July waiting to see what action would
be taken by the Church in Connecticut and in the Southern States with
regard to the alterations prepared at Middletown and proposed in Bos
ton. As has been already noted these alterations were not generally
acceptable to the Churchmen of Connecticut, and no action was there taken
with regard to them. " When our Convention met in July by adjourn
ment," writes the Rev. Mr. Parker of Boston, " we found that we were
left by our brethren in Connecticut that they thought it not advisable
to make any alterations. The Convention at the southward, though
they acceded to some of our alterations had gone much further, 4 and did

1 Appendix II, 11. 2 Journal. 3 Ibid.

* Chiefly in omitting the Nicene Creed, but Mr. Parker s only objection to
this was on the score of its inopportuneness : " No objection, I think, can be
made to the omission of the Nicene Creed but the time. Some passages in it
are as obscure and unintelligible as many in the Creed of Saint Athanasins,
which I am very glad we are rid of." (Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 295. )

xxii INTR OD UCTION.

not adopt the substitutes for the State prayers." 1 So far, however, was
the Proposed Book from being distasteful to the New England Church
men, outside of Connecticut, that it would probably have been adopted
by this Convention, had there been any likelihood of its general accept
ance in the Southern States. This we learn from a letter of Mr. Parker
to Dr. White, September 15th, 1786 : " Our Convention met here on
the 20th of July and seemed disposed to adopt your Alterations in the
Book of Common Prayer, but were discouraged from the circumstance
of your not being agreed to the use of it in those States which were
represented in the Convention by which those alterations were proposed.
Indeed the Alterations proposed in our own Convention in September
last had been sent to the several Churches in these States and returns
received from them purporting their approbation of them and readiness
to adopt them. And though yours are in a great measure similar, yet
as there are some things in which we disagree, it was thought best, all
things considered, to leave it optional with the several Churches to adopt
which they like best, or even to continue the use of the old liturgy (the
State prayers excepted) until we become complete in our officers and one
common liturgy is established by the first Order of the Clergy to whom
alone, we are of opinion, this matter appertains." Availing himself
of the permission given by this Convention, Mr. Parker introduced into
the services of Trinity Church, Boston, on the first Sunday in August
the alterations proposed the September before, together with the use of
the Psalms of the Proposed Book which he had " reprinted by them
selves," and which he thought were " much more suitable for public
worship than the collective body of David s Psalms." 2

Convocation at Derby, Connecticut, 1786.

On the 22d of September, 1786, Bishop Seabury with his clergy
assembled in Convocation at Derby. In his charge, the Bishop animad
verted to the Proposed Book. Some of the alterations he thought were
" for the worse, most of them not for the better." His chief objection,
however, rested upon the fact that it had been set forth without Epis
copal authority : " Liturgies are left more to the prudence and judgment
of the governors of the Church ; and the primitive practice seems to
have been that the Bishop did, with the advice no doubt of his Presby
ters, provide a Liturgy for the use of his diocese. This ought to have
been the case here. Bishops should first have been obtained to preside
over those Churches. And to those Bishops, with the Proctors of the
Clergy, should have been committed the business of compiling a liturgy
for the use of the Church throughout the States." 3 The Bishop of
Connecticut s estimate of the doctrinal character of the Proposed Book
may perhaps be gathered from a letter written to the Rev. Mr. Parker
sometime afterward : " I never thought there was any heterodoxy in the
Southern Prayer Book, but I do think the true doctrine is left too
unguarded, and that the offices are, some of them, lowered to such a
degree, that they will, in a great measure lose their influence." 4 It was

1 Church Documents of Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 319, and Hist. Notes and
Doc. , p. 36o.

2 Hist. Notes and Doc., pp. 365, 324.

3 Cited by the Rev. Dr. Saml. Hart in his Historical Sketch and Notes to
Bp. Seabury s Communion Office, 2d. Ed. p. 33.

* Ifixt. Notes and Doc., p. 367.

INTR OD UOTION. xxiii

at this Convocation 1 that Bishop Seabury set forth a Communion Office,
which was taken, with some alterations, from that which was then used
in Scotland. He did not formally impose it, but "recommended " it to
the congregations in his diocese. It " seems to have been almost, if not
quite, universally adopted by the clergy of Connecticut." 2 At the same
time, a new State Prayer, and a suffrage in the Litany were provided. 3

General Convention at Wilmington, 1786. j*

Upon the receipt of an answer from the English Bishops to the letter
sent by the General Convention of 1786, an adjourned Convention was
called, and met at Wilmington, October 10th, 1786. In this second
communication, their Lordships expressed their willingness to confer the
Episcopate upon such properly accredited persons as should be sent to
them, but at the same time exhorted the Convention to " restore to its
integrity the Apostles Creed, in which you have omitted an article,
merely as it seems, from misapprehension of the sense in which it is
understood by our Church ; nor can we help adding, that we hope you
will think it but a decent proof of the attachment you profess to the
services of our liturgy to give the other two Creeds a place in your
Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left
discretional." It is noteworthy that no particular reference was made to
the other peculiarities of the Proposed Book, except the very general
remark that, " it was impossible not to observe with concern that if the
essential doctrines of our common faith were retained, less respect, how
ever, was paid to our liturgy than its own excellence, and your declared
attachment to it, had led us to expect." 4 As a matter of fact the Pro
posed Book but reflected the ideas of liturgical revision prevalent at the
time, and there is little doubt that the majority of the Georgian prelates
would gladly have revised the Prayer Book after much the same fashion
had they been free to do so. " The feeble recommendation," as Bishop
White styles it, that the Athanasian Creed should be restored was under
stood to have been made more for form s sake and to preclude the
cavils of the Non-Jurors, than for any other reason. " The inclination
of the Archbishop on that head was, not to give any trouble, but only
to avoid any act or omission, which might have been an implicating of
them and their Church." 5 Too much, also, must not be attributed to

1 Vide Dr. Jarvis Voice from Connecticut. Before this time Bishop Seabury
in his own ministrations may have made some departures from the English
Prayer Book for Dr. Smith tells us that rumors were afloat that the Bishop ot
Connecticut was " making very great alterations from the English Liturgy,
especially in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord s Sup
per, striving as Archbishop Land did, to introduce again some of those
superstitions of which it had been cleared at the Reformation." (Church
Documents of Conn. , Vol. II, p. 302.)

2 The Rev. Dr. Hart s Notes to Bp. Seabury s Communion Office, p. 40.

:1 Appendix II, 13. Mention may here be made of two other liturgical pro
ductions of Bishop Seabury, viz., " A Burial Office for Infants who depart
this life before they have polluted their Baptism by actual sin," reprinted in
Beardsley s Life and Correspondence of Bp. Seabury, p. 488 ; also "The Ps-alter
or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches, with the
Order for Morning and Evening Prayer Daily throughout the year." This
latter work printed in 1795 is noteworthy in having the Athanasian Creed,
in omitting the Latin titles of the Psalms, and in substituting the future
tense for the imperative mood in passages which might be called damnatory.
Vide App. to Dr. Hart s Reprint of Bp. Seabury s Com. Office.

* Appendix II. 12. 5 Memoirs of the Church, p. 134.

xxi v INTR OD UCTION.

the influence, in the Wilmington Convention, of the letter of the English
Bishops. Maryland and Pennsylvania had both voted that the Nicene
Creed should be restored long before the second letter of the Bishops
had been received ; and in those days, before the unification of the
Church, the wishes of State Conventions were of paramount importance
in General Convention. When the letter of their Lordships was first
received, it was " a matter of surprise that the only thing which looked
like a condition made on the subject of the Common Prayer Book, was
the restoring of the clause concerning the Descent into Hell, in the
Apostles Creed." 1 And it was principally owing to the objections of
one Bishop, the then Bishop of Bath and Wells, that any point was
made even of this. 2 All the other peculiarities of the Proposed Book,
were not considered of such a character as to prevent their conferring
the Episcopate.

A Committee was appointed to take the communication of the Eng
lish Bishops into consideration, and to report thereon. "We sat up
the whole of the succeeding night," says Bishop White, "digesting
the determinations in the form in which they appear in the Journal.
When they were brought into the Convention little difficulty occurred
in regard to what was proposed concerning the retaining of the Nicene
and the rejecting of the Athanasian Creed. But a warm debate arose
on the subject of the Descent into Hell in the Apostles Creed.
Although this was at last carried, agreeably to the proposal of the Com
mittee ; yet whoever looks into the Journal will see, that the result was
not owing to the having of a majority of votes, but to the nullity of the
votes of those churches in which the clergy and laity were divided." 5
The action of the Convention was set forth in a document, entitled " An
Act of the General Convention of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the
Protestant Episcopal Church," etc. 4 " As the matter now stood, there
was evidently no ground on which the English Bishops could have
rejected the persons sent, unless they had made the Athanasian Creed
an essential; which would not have been warranted by the feeble
recommendation of their letter." 5

Affair of King s Chapel, Boston.

Before proceeding further, mention must be made of the trouble at
King s Chapel, Boston. The causes which led to the withdrawal of this
building from the control of the Church, throw an interesting light upon
the history of the Prayer Book during this period. The Chapel was
the oldest and most imposing edifice the Church had in Boston. - Dur
ing the progress of the war of the revolution, " Many of the members
of the congregation, had gone to Nova Scotia and elsewhere, from dis
affection to the American cause. Their pews were let to persons, sundry

1 Memoirs of the Church, p. 133.

2 Ibid., p. 157.

3 The action of the Wilmington Convention seems to have given satisfac
tion everywhere except in Virginia. In a Convention held at Richmond,
May 16-20, 1787, it was resolved " that the deputies to be appointed to at
tend the next General Convention, be instructed to move the General Con
vention to expunge the words, He descended into hell, inserted in the
Apostles Creed by the General Convention held at Wilmington, and also
whatever relates to the restoration of the Nicene Creed. ( Hawk s Contribu
tions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United States of America. )

4 Appendix II, 14. 5 Memoirs of the Church, p. 139.

INTR OD UQTION. xx v

of whom had never professed themselves of the Church, to the members
of which they had no other affinity in principle than what consisted in
dissatisfaction with the system then generally preached in Boston.
Thus a majority was produced, to whom were sacrificed the rights of
the real members of the Episcopal Church. The remembrance of the
manoeuvre should be perpetuated," continues Bishop White, "for the
guarding against the like in the future." 1 Unitarianism was at the
time beginning to make rapid strides through New England. Its spirit
was already present in many of the Congregational churches, and soon
took firm hold of the congregation of King s Chapel. It was because
here that spirit met the clear terms of a stated and required liturgy,
observes the late Bishop Brooks, that that Church was the first to
set itself avowedly upon the basis of the new belief. 2 " The liturgy
of the Church of England was believed by that Society " one of the Uni
tarian members of the Chapel tells us, " to be essentially erroneous with
regard to the object of prayer, in that they held that Christ ought not
to be addressed with prayers of divine worship. 3 " They waited with
patience till the result of the Convention which was held at New York,
October, 1784, was known. When, however, they found it was estab
lished as a fundamental principle by that Convention, that the Episco
pal Church in America shall maintain the doctrines of the Gospel
as now held by the Church of England, and shall adhere to the liturgy
of the said Church as far as shall be consistent with the American revo
lution, etc. they concluded that no more time was to be lost, and that
as there was no expectation that a great and liberal reformation would be
made, they had an undoubted right to deliver themselves from what
seemed to them unscriptural impositions." 4 Accordingly on June 19th,
1785, the congregation set forth a revised Prayer Book, based upon
that of Dr. Samuel Clarke. The object "in the new liturgy was to
leave out all such expressions as wound the conscience of a Unitarian,
without introducing any which should displease a Trinitarian." 5 And
the book was intended to be of so comprehensive a nature " that every
sect may conscientiously adopt it. It is general and indefinite like the
sacred Scriptures, and every sect may reason from it, as from the sacred
Scriptures in defence of their peculiar tenets." 6 " Some reasonable
expectations were entertained that the Convention which was to be held
in Philadelphia (1785) would expunge all disputable doctrines (and the
doctrine of the Trinity is certainly disputable, to say nothing more of
it), and whilst they inserted no expression in the liturgy which could
wound an Athanasian, that they would leave out all which would hurt
the conscience of a Unitarian." 7 *

But the action of the first General Convention afforded but little
satisfaction to these expectations. In the Proposed Book Christ was as
distinctly the object of worship with the Father and the Holy Ghost as
in the English Book. Still the people of King s Chapel were loath to
suffer the loss of prestige that separation from the Episcopal Church would

1 Memoir of the Life of the St. Rev. Wm. White, D. D., by Bird Wilson, D.D.,
p. 323.

2 A Century of Church Growth in Boston, Monograph VI in Vol. II of the
History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 491.

3 Correspondence of the Rev. Dr. White with Mr. Charles Miller, in Dr. Wil
son s Memoir, p. 329.

*Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 334. e Ibid., p. 330. "Ibid.

xxvi INTR OD UCTION.

entail. They hoped that a modus vivendi might be found within
the Church for the Unitarians as well as for those who worshipped the
Triune God. The Proposed Book was evidently uot going to be the
established liturgy, and in the Convention which was to meet in June,
1786, more liberal counsels might prevail. Accordingly, Mr. Miller
appealed to Dr. White in order to enlist his influence in behalf of the
congregation of King s Chapel. In the first place he regretted that the
34th of the Articles of the Church of England reads " That it is not
necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly
alike. Had a more general and enlarged idea been expressed in the
Article ; it would, in my opinion, have contributed more to the peace
and harmony of the Church. For it appears to me that it is not neces
sary that traditions, ceremonies, doctrines and public prayers be one or
utterly alike even in different congregations of the same Church. For
were the several congregations which compose a Church permitted to
make such alterations and omissions in the liturgy as might appear to
them necessary, they might forever continue united as one body, under
their Episcopal heads, however various their sentiments might be. The
Athanasian, whilst his conscience would not allow him to leave out the
petitions to the Son and Holy Ghost, might rest satisfied with having
these addresses printed in the liturgy, and might cheerfully and can
didly permit the Unitarian to suppress them." 1 He further urged the
consideration that the enlarged membership gained to the Episcopal
Church by the adoption of this principle would be a powerful offset to the
influence of the Horn an Church : " The ambitious schemes of that
Church or of any other enterprising zealots will most effectually be
crushed by the Episcopal Church accomplishing a plan which will be
truly great and liberal. For whilst she tenaciously adheres to disputa
ble doctrines many conscientious persons will be prevented from joining
her Communion, though they might otherwise be engaged by the gen
eral propriety and beauty of her worship. There is also reason to
apprehend that other congregations, beside that of which I am a mem
ber, will, should they become Unitarians, separate themselves from the
Episcopal Church, and form themselves into independent societies.
Should Unitarian sentiments spread as rapidly in America as they have
the last century in England, revolts from the Episcopal Church may
become very frequent, as no causes of an interested nature exist here to
prevent a separation." 2

These suggestions for increasing the Church s membership, failed to
enlist the sympathies of Dr. White. In his letter of reply, he observed,
as " it woflld be a very singular Church, indeed, which should hold up
a certain matter of order as the only part of its foundation essential to
be retained, so I hope you will, on further consideration, think it quite
unnecessary on my part to prove, that the same cannot be said of the
Church to which we have belonged. I shall lay the less stress on this
subject, as it is a singular opinion, and what I do not think you will
long maintain, that persons differing in regard to the object of prayer,
may be of the same Church or Communion." 8 Whatever hopes the
congregation of King s Chapel might still have had were given up after
the action of the General Convention at Wilmington, and soon afterward
they ceased to have any relation with the-Episcopal Church.

Cor. of Dr. White and Mr. Miller. 2 Ibid., p. 335. Ibid., p. 337.

INTR OD UOTION. xxvii

The Episcopate obtained from England.

On the 2d of November, 1786, the Rev. Dr. White, and the Rev.
Dr. Provoost sailed for England, and on Septuagesima Sunday, the 4th
day of February, 1787, were consecrated to the Episcopate in the chapel of
Lambeth palace. Shortly after their return, Bishop Seabury addressed
a letter of congratulation 1 to each of them in which he took occasion to
express his hearty desire for the union of the Church in the various
States, and suggested in order to accomplish the end " the most likely
method will be to retain the present Book of Common Prayer, accom
modating it to the civil Constitution of the United States."* In reply
Bishop White expressed his willingness to accede to this proposal should
it be found practicable : " As to the liturgy, if it should be thought
advisable by the general body of our Church to adhere to the English
Book of Common Prayer (the political parts excepted) I shall be one of
the first, after the appearance of such a disposition to comply with it
most punctually. Further than this, if it should seem the most prob
able way of maintaining an agreement among ourselves, I shall use my
best endeavours to effect it. At the same time I must candidly express
my opinion, that the review of the liturgy would tend very much to the

1 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 344.

2 The Eeverend Mr. Learning, of Connecticut, also addressed a letter of
similar purport to Bishop White, which, as it has not before appeared in
print, we here give from among the MSS. left by Bishop Kemper :

STKATFOED, May 2d, 1787.

Allow me, my very dear sir, to congratulate you upon your happy success
in yonr Undertaking for the Service of the Church, and your Safe Return to
your Native Land.

I am far advanced in Life, and nothing can give me more pleasure, than to
see the Church of England (for by that title I wish she may be called) fixed
upon a firm Basis, in Unity thro all the States.

May it not be worth consideration to enquire, what method is most likely
to produce this effect ? Perhaps, there is no Scheme that promises so fair to
accomplish the End desired, as keeping, as near as we can to the old Forms.
We know these have been tried for Ages, and have always answered the pur
pose. Why should we make a new experiment, upon a subject which has
had sufficient Trial already ?

It seems that Dr. S[mith] the last man in the world for such Business
has been the Director, in forming the constitution and service of the Chh.
for these States, as he intended. He was one of the Com tee , and you know,
they must do what he directed, or do nothing.

It appears to me, that it is unhappy for the Church, That, that man ever
came into this land : he has done more harm to it, than any other person.

However, let us lay aside all worldly schemes, and take a View of what will
be agreeable to our great Master s design, in building up his Kingdom which
is not of this world. Provided we do this, we shall see the Chh. in its native
purity.

There is no need to enlarge upon this point, as I have sent you wrth this
Letter, my sentiments, in what Method the Chh. of England is to be per
petuated in this land. If I have made any mistake, I shall stand corrected
by you.

If your aifairs will permit, it would give me unspeakable pleasure to see
you at our Convocation, which will be held at Stamford in Whitsunday
week.

Remember me kindly to all your Clergy, and to your good Lady, and
believe me to be,

Right Reverend Sir.

Your most obedient & hum. Ser.,

Bp. White. JEREMIAH LEAMING.

xxviii INTROD UOTION.

satisfaction of most of the members of our Communion, and to its
future success and prosperity. The worst evil which I apprehend from
a refusal to review is this, that it will give a great advantage to those
who wish to carry the alterations into essential points of doctrine.
Reviewed it will unquestionably be in some places, and the only way to
prevent its being done by men of the above description is the taking it
up as a general business." 1 In another letter written to Dr. West,
February 24th, 1789, Bishop White touched upon the same subject :
" It is my most earnest wish that the ensuing Convention may be so
wise and moderate as to establish a book which shall be sure of a general
reception. I see little prospect of this, without a considerable deviation
from the Proposed Book towards the old. Much will depend on what
is now to be done. And I pray God, that we may be enabled to take
such measures as shall have a tendency to build up and not to pull down,
to unite and not to divide." 2

General Convention of 1789.

The first Convention after the obtaining of the Episcopate from Eng
land gathered in Philadelphia, July 30th, 1789. An adjourned meet
ing was held from September 29th to October 3d in the same city, at
which the Constitution was so modified as to give the Bishops the
right, sitting as a separate House, to originate measures and also to
negative acts of the other House not adhered to by four-fifths of the
delegates. Thereupon it was assented to by the deputies from Connec
ticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and they took their seats in
the General Convention, thus completing the unification of the Church,
a consummation, which had been long and anxiously desired. On Sat
urday, the 3d of October, the Bishops withdrew from the House of
Deputies, and on the following Monday sat for the first time as a distinct
House.

The chief business of the Convention after its division into two Houses,
was the revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The Journal gives
us little or no detailed information with regard to the progress of this
work, so that we are indebted altogether to Bp. White s Memoirs and
to incidental statements in his other works for whatever knowledge we
possess. At the very outset there was a grave difference of opinion
between the two Houses, which continued throughout the session. The
House of Bishops held that the English Book was still the liturgy of
the Church, and that it should be taken as the book in which some
alterations were contemplated. On the other hand the lower House
contended " that there were no forms of prayer, no offices, and no
rubrics until they should be formed by the Convention now assembled."
"Everyone must perceive," observes Bishop White, "that this
abridged the species of negative lodged with the House of Bishops. For
if, in any branch of the liturgy, they should be disposed to be tenacious
in any point, which should be a deviation from the English Book, the
consequence must be, not that the prayer, or whatever else it were, re
mained as before, but that no such matters were to be inserted. This, in
some instances, would have operated to the extent of excluding a whole
office of the Church, if the negative of the Bishops had been insisted
on." 3 Referring, in a letter to Bishop Hobart, to this difference of

1 Hist. Notes and Doc., p. 346. 2 Archives of Maryland.

3 Memoirs of the Church, p. 171.

INTRODUCTION. xxix

principle in the work of revision in the Convention of 1789, he says,
" In all other respects \i. e., other than the State prayers], I held the
former ecclesiastical system to be binding. The Conventions of our
Church have always acted in tfee same principle, except that of October,
] 789, whose adopting of a different principle has rendered our liturgy
more imperfect (according to my opinion) that it would otherwise have
been. On this point I could give you some interesting information." 1

The particular reasons, so far as known which induced the Conven
tion to make the verbal departures it did from the English Book have
been noted in the body of this work, and need not be enumerated here.
The Evangelical Canticles, and the word " again " after " he rose " in the
Apostles Creed, which had been in the Proposed Book as well as the
English Book, were omitted, as the Convention of South Carolina had
suggested. The House of Bishops proposed in an amendment to
retain the Athanasian Creed with a rubric permitting its use. On the
part of Bishop White this was assented to " on the principle of accommo
dation, to the many who were reported to desire it, especially in Con
necticut, where, it was said, the omitting of it would hazard the recep
tion of the book." It was his intention, however, " never to read
the Creed himself, and he declared his mind to that effect." " The
amendment was negatived by the other House, and when the subject
afterward came up in conference they would not allow of the Creed in
any shape ; which was thought intolerant by the gentlemen from New
England, who with Bishop Seabury, gave it up with great reluctance." 2

In addition to the offices in the English Book the Convention adopted
" A Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the Fruits
of the Earth, and all the other Blessings of his merciful Providence."
This office was taken from the Proposed Book, and had in all probability
been drawn up by Dr. William Smith. " Forms of Prayer for use in
Families " were also added. These are abridgements of those set forth
by Bishop Gibson of London. The latter were among the books pro
vided by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel for distribution
by its Missionaries in the Colonies. 3 They were therefore in all proba
bility well known and widely used by Church people of the last century.
They may not have been original compositions of this prelate, but
perhaps were drawn by him from earlier forms, as they bear considerable
likeness to a series of prayers prepared by Archbishop Tillotson for the
use of William III. 4 Selections of Psalms to be used instead of the
Psalms of the day were prepared by the House of Deputies, and
reluctantly assented to by the Bishops. 5 An office for the Visitation of
Prisoners which had been in the Proposed Book, was adopted after some
changes in it had been made. Nothing more seems to be known as to

1 Memoir of the Life of the JKt. Bev. Wm. White, D. D., by Bird Wilson,
D. D., p. 348.

2 Memoirs of the Church, p. 174.

3 A Eev. Mr. Murray, Minister at Beading, Pa. , writing in 1769 to the
Secretary of the Venerable Society, says: "To forward the education and
to instruct several of the older poor people, I have occasion for some small
tracts such as Lewis s Catechism, 4 doz. ; Husbandman s Manual, 3 doz. ; Bp.
Gibson s Family Prayer, 4 doz. ; ditto on the Sacraments, 6 doz : or any of the
most approved, short, plain Treatise on that subject " (Historical Collections,
Ed. by Wm. S. Perry, D. D., Vol. II, Penn., p. 438).

4 Works ofAbp. Tillotson, London, 1722, Vol. II, p. 677.

5 Vide Memoirs of the Church, p. 176.

xxx INTRODUCTION.

the origin of this office, than that it was drawn up by the Synod held at
Dublin in 1711, and, was commonly found afterward in Prayer Books
printed in Ireland. 1 A number of Occasional Prayers 2 and Thanks
givings were introduced, and three new prayers added to the office for
Visitation of the Sick. Bishop White speaking generally of these
prayers, says they were taken from Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and this
statement has been repeated by subsequent writers. It is clear that we
are indebted to Bishop Taylor for A Prayer which may be said by the
Minister in behalf of all present at the Visitation, and A Prayer which
may be said in case of sudden surprise and immediate danger, both of
which are taken from his Holy Dying. The wording of the Thanks
giving for the beginning of a recovery may have been suggested by A
Prayer to be said when the Sick Man takes Physic, in the same book.
But a careful search through his works has failed to discover any of
the others. No one having any acquaintance with the polished English
of this great divine will think it likely that the prayer for Malefactors
after Condemnation came from his pen. And the others appear to be
but compilations of sentences and clauses taken from various parts of
the Prayer Book.

The most notable addition made in the Prayer Book was to the Prayer
of Consecration in the Communion Office. The Conventions of Maryland
and Pennsylvania, had both asked, as we have seen, for the insertion of
a prayer more explicit than the clause in the English Book, expressly
beseeching God for the consecration of the Sacrament. It was a matter
which "lay very near to the heart of Bishop Seabury." 3 Writing to Bishop
White on the eve of the Convention of 1789, he expressed the earnest
hope that the matter might be taken up, and that God will raise up some
able and worthy advocate for this primitive practice, and make you and
the Convention the instruments of restoring it to his Church in America.
It would do you more honour in the world, and contribute more to the
union of the Churches than any other alterations you can make." Bishop
Seabury did not overrate the influence of the Bishop of Pennsylvania in
thus appealing to him, for had the latter thrown his vote against what
is now the most striking departure of the American from the English
Prayer Book it would never have had a place therein. On the contrary
however, the proposition to add the Prayers of Oblation and Invocation
with what follows, received his hearty support, so that its adoption in
the House of Bishops was unanimous. In the House of Deputies it was
also passed without opposition. " It may perhaps be expected that the
great change made, in restoring to the consecration prayer the oblatory
words and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, left out in King Edward s
reign, must at least have produced an opposition. But no such
thing happened to any considerable extent, or at least the author did not
hear of any in the other House, further than a disposition to the effect in
a few gentlemen, which was counteracted by some pertinent remarks of
the president." * One important change was made in the Invocation
before being adopted. Instead of the words of the Scotch Offices and of

1 The Irish Prayer Book, by W. K. Clay, British Magazine, Dec., 1846. See
also Mants History of the Church of Ireland, Vol. II, p. 233.
. 2 Vide a letter of Dr. Jarvis, suggesting the addition of such Prayers, in
Hoffman s Law of the Church, p. 35.

3 Memoirs of the Church, p. 179.

INTROD UCTION. xxxi

Bishop Seabury s book, which read, " that they may become the Body
and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son," there was substituted,
" that we receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ s
holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be par
takers of his most blessed Body and Blood." In all other respects,
with the exception of the change of " lively " to " living," the text of
the Canon of Bishop Seabury s Office, which he had set forth in 1786
for use in his diocese, was copied. This office was in turn substantially
taken from Bishops Forbes and Falconer s edition of the Scotch liturgy,
which was published in 1764, 1

The work of the revision in the Convention of 1789 occupied thirteen
days. On the last day a committee was appointed to edit the book thus
revised, and in August, 1790, the first American Prayer Book was set
forth, bearing not the Ratification of a Parliament, but the Ratification of
the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Church itself. In the preface,
the declaration so often made before, was again repeated, even more
explicitly : " This Church is far from intending to depart from the Church
of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship ;
or farther than local circumstances require." Everywhere the new
book was received without opposition, and at once went into use. In Con
necticut where some of its omissions were not regarded altogether with
favour, it was nevertheless formally approved and received by a resolution
of Convocation at Newtown, September 30th, 1790. At the same time it
was agreed " that in the use of the New-Prayer-Book, we be as uniform as
possible, and for that purpose that we approach as near the Old Liturgy,
as a compliance with the Rubrics of the New will allow." 2 In a little
while however the new Prayer Book had become as dear to the members
of the Church everywhere as the old book had ever been.

General Convention of 1792.

In the Convention of 1792 the Forms for conferring Holy Orders
were formally set forth. In the ordinations which had been performed
by the American Bishops previous to this time, the English Prayer
Book had been used, with the omission of the political parts. But few
alterations were made by the Convention in these venerable forms, and
those which were introduced were prepared by the Bishops. " There
was no material difference of opinion, except in regard to the words
used by the Bishop at the ordination of Priests, Receive ye (sic) the
Holy Ghost, and Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven;
and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. Bishop Seabury,
who alone was tenacious of this form, consented at last with great
reluctance, to allow the alternative of another as it now stands." z That
no departure from the doctrine of the Church of England was intended,
is evident from the fact that the old form was still retained, and also from
what Bishop White tells us in his Memoirs where he defends both
forms, but thinks the second is of " more obvious signification."
General Convention of 1799.

A Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel was proposed in
1799 by the House of Bishops and adopted. Bishop White tells us that
" it is substantially the same with a service composed by Bishop Andrews

1 Hall s Fragmenta Liturgica, Vol. V, p. 193.

2 A Voice from Connecticut, p. 27.

3 Memoirs of the Church, p. 191.

xxxii INTROD UCTION.

in the reign of James the First." One however has only to compare our
American office with the service drawn up by the great Bishop of Win
chester to see that it was not immediately derived from the latter.
Bishop Andrews order was the basis of the many forms for the Conse
cration of churches set forth in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen
turies, 1 but so widely did most of them depart from their original that
their resemblance to it is very faint. Our service is really a revision of
one adopted by Convocation in 1712, which was not however finally con
firmed, as one of the heads of business given by George I. in 1715 was
" the preparing a form for consecrating Churches and Chapels." This
form of 1712 must not be confounded with one prepared by the English
Bishops in 1714 and submitted to the Convocation of the following
year, and which also failed to obtain formal authorization. 2 The two
offices are alike in general structure, but differ from each other in a
number of particulars, in all of which the American service agrees with
the earlier order. The form of 1712 was "not printed till 1719, when
it appeared in the appendix to John Lewis Historical Essay upon the
Consecration of Churches." ! It was afterwards reprinted by Gibson, 4
and also by Burn. 5 The latter, writing in the middle of the last
century, says of it, that this office " as it did not receive the royal assent, 6
was not injoined, but is now generally used." The General Conven
tion, therefore, in 1799, but adopted a form which was then commonly
observed in England for the Consecration of Churches. There was also
set forth at this time a Prayer for Convention, probably drawn from the
conclusion of the second part of the Homily for Whitsunday.

General Convention of 1801.

Thus far the Prayer Book was without the Articles of Religion. The
House of Bishops in 1789 had proposed the " ratification of the Thirty -
nine Articles, with an exception in regard to the thirty-sixth and
thirty-seventh articles," but the lower House referred the subject to a
future Convention. The absence of this familiar feature caused some
uneasiness among Church people. " The Articles," says Bishop White,
" with the exception of the political parts, the obligation of which had
been abrogated by Divine Providence through the instrumentality of the
revolution, were still the acknowledged faith of the Church ; while on

1 References to where some of these forms are to be found may here be
given : Bp. Andrews Order is in Sparrow s Rationale. The order for The
Consecration of Abbey Dore Church, Ed. by Rev. J. Fuller Russell, Pickering,
1870. Bp. Cosin s Form, Surtees Soc. Vol. LV, p. 176. Bp. Wilson s Works,
Anglo-Cath. Lib., Vol. VII, p. 143. Bp. Patrick s Works, Oxford, 1858, Vol.
IX, p. 349. The form laid before the Convocation of 1715 is reprinted by
Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. II, p. 819. See also Irish Form of Consecration of
Churches, with Introduction by Bishop Reeves, S. P. C. K., 1893. Still other
forms are given by Oughton in bis Ordo Judiciorum, Vol. II, London, 1738.
(A copy of this work is in the Astor Library, New York). See also Harrington s
The Object, Importance, and Antiquity of the Bite of Consecration of Churches,
London, 1844.

2 Reprinted by Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. II, p. 819.

3 The Rt. Rev. Bishop Reeves in Preface to Irish Forms of Consecration of
Churches. S. P. C. K. 1892.

4 Codex Juris Ecclesiastici, last Ed., II, 1459.

5 Ecclesiastical Law, by Richard Burn, LL.D., Chancelor of the Diocese of
Carlisle, and Vicar of Orton, in the County of Westmoreland, 2d. Ed. London,
1767, Vol I, p. 298.

6 Cardwell thinks otherwise. See Synodalia, Vol. II, p. 819.

INTR OD UCTION. xxxiii

the other hand they could not be edited as such, without changes at
least in the manner of exhibiting them, which no individual had a right
to regulate. What rendered the situation of the Church the worse in
this respect, was that it suited the opinions of some, to declare in con
sequence of it that she had no Articles, and could have none, until they
should be framed by a convention, and established by its authority." 1
This opinion was met in New York by the following resolution adopted
by its Convention, Nov. 4th, 1790. "Whereas many respectable mem
bers of our Church are alarmed at the Articles of Religion not being in
serted in our New Book of Common Prayer : Resolved, That the Articles
of the Church of England, as they now stand, except such parts thereof as
aifect the political Government of this Country, be held in full force and
virtue, until a further provision is made by the General Convention,
agreeably to the eighth article of the Constitution of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America." 2 In the Conven-
of 1792 the subject was informally discussed by the Bishops. Bishop*
Prevost and Madison were directly against the having of Articles, while
Bishops White and Claggett were in favour of them. Bishop Seabury
was in doubt as to their necessity, "although on the other side he
acknowledged his inability to answer an argument pressed on him, that
without them individual ministers would have to do by their respective
will and authority, what had better be done by known law, for the pre
venting of the delivery of opposite doctrines to their flocks by different
preachers." 5 In the Convention of 1799, a Committee having the
subject in hand, reported a resolution, " That the articles of our faith
and religion, as founded on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, are sufficiently declared in our Creeds and Liturgy, as set
forth in the Book of Common Prayer established for the use of this
Church, and that further articles do not appear necessary," which was
not agreed to. It was next proposed " that the Convention now proceed
to the framing of Articles for this Church," which was adopted. Of the
clergy, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia voted against the
resolution, but all the laity present voted for it, except the delegation
from Virginia. A Committee was accordingly appointed, and within
three days a draft of seventeen Articles was laid before the Convention. 4
Their consideration however was postponed to the next Convention. In
the meanwhile, the conviction grew " that the doctrines of the Gospel r
as they stand in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
with the exception of such matters as are local, were more likely to give
general satisfaction than the same doctrines in any new form that might
be devised." And the Convention of New York (Sep. 5th, 1801)
instructed its delegates to General Convention " to advocate and vote for
the adoption of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England,

1 Memoirs of the Church, p. 211.

2 This resolution was probably due to the suggestion of the deputation!
from Trinity Church, for at a meeting of the Corporation of this parish,
November 1 st, 1790, the delegates to the State Convention were instructed
" to use their utmost endeavours to procure a compliance with the proposal
made by the Bishops at the last General Convention, for a ratification of the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, except the 36th and 37th of
the said Articles." (Berrian s History of Trinity Church, p. 178.)

3 Memoirs of the Church, p. 213.

4 They will be found printed in the Journal of 1799.

xxxiv INTR OD UQTION.

except such parts as may affect the political government of this
country." Accordingly in 1801 the English Articles with the change
of the political parts, were unanimously adopted. From the history of
the Church during the twenty-five years which followed the revolution,
it must appear " that the object kept in view, in all the consultations
held, and the determinations formed, was the perpetuating of the Epis
copal Church, on the ground of the general principles which she had
inherited from the Church of England ; and of not departing from
them, except so far as either local circumstances required, or some very
important cause rendered proper. To those acquainted with the System
of the Church of England, it must be evident, that the object here
stated was accomplished on the ratification of the Articles." 1
General Conventions of 1804 and 1808.

In the diocesan Convention of Connecticut, held at Stratfield in 1799
it was " Voted that Dr. Smith be desired to prepare an office for induct
ing and recognizing clergymen into vacant parishes, and present the same
for adoption to the next Convention of this diocese." 2 This office was
accordingly drawn up, and first " adopted by the Bishop and Clergy of
the Diocese of Connecticut, in Convocation at Derby, November 20th,
1799." It was afterwards adopted by the Convention which met at
Lichfield, the first Wednesday of June, 1804 : " The Office of Induc
tion," reads the Journal, " as agreed upon by the Bishop and Clergy in
Convocation was adopted by this Convention." 2 Two years before (Oct.
6th, 1802) the Convention of New York adopted the same office with
some verbal alterations, and made its use obligatory by canon. 3 In the
G-eneral Convention which met in September, 1804, the New York Office
was, with a few changes, adopted by the Church and made one of the
offices of the Prayer Book. The most significant of the changes made
was in the Letter of Induction. The Connecticut and New York offices
made the Bishop the ultimate arbiter and judge in every case in which
there was a desire, either on the part of the clergyman or the people, to
dissolve the pastoral relation, thus seeming to imply that the Bishop had
the power to forbid a priest leaving a cure which he desired to relin
quish ; but the General Convention so modified the wording of this
letter that the Bishop was only to act as arbiter and judge " in case of
any difference " between the priest and the congregation as to such dis
solution. In the General Convention of 1808, in order to avoid any
conflict with the rights of vestries as established by the law of certain
States, 4 its use was made optional instead of obligatory, and the title
changed from "An Office of Induction " to " An Office of Institution."
It is not known whether it was an original composition of Dr. Smith s,
or drawn by him from some earlier form in use in England, or perhaps
in Maryland where the Clergy had employed the right of induction and
institution, and where he had been Rector of Stepney, and Somerset.
Bishop Andrew s Manner of Induction may have suggested the general
o utline.

General Convention of 1811.

Hitherto the action of one General Convention sufficed to make
alterations in the Prayer Book, but in 1811 an addition was made to

1 Memoirs of the Church, p. 33. 2 Journal of Conn.

3 Vide, page 470.

4 Vide Hoffman s Law of the Church, pp. 120-126, 279-293.

5 Minor Works, p. 162.

INTR OD UCTION. xxxv

the eighth article of the Constitution, requiring that " No alteration or
addition shall be made in the Book of Common Prayer, or other Offices
of the Church, unless the same shall be proposed in one General Con
vention, and by a resolve thereof made known to the Convention of
every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent Convention." The same
provision was in 1829 extended to the Articles of Religion. The
Prayer Book as set forth in 1789 with the additions made in 1792, 1799,
1801, 1804 (1808), remained without change until 1886. Corrections
of what were thought to be errors were made from time to time by order
of the Convention, or by Editing Committees, but these were merely
verbal, or in matters of punctuation. Various attempts however were
made to inaugurate a revision, or to secure alterations of one kind or
other, but in every case the General Convention set its face against such
efforts, and they came to naught.

General Convention of 1814.

In the Convention of 1814 it was thought good by both Houses to
make a Declaration distinctly setting forth the organic identity of the
Church in this country with the Church of England : " The Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States is the same body heretofore known
in these States by the name of the Church of England ; the change of
name, although not of religious principle in doctrine, or in worship, or
in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of England
supposing the independence of the Christian Churches, under the different
sovereignties, to which respectively their allegiance in civil concerns
belongs. But that, when the severance alluded to took place, and ever
since, this Church conceived of herself, as professing and acting on the
principles of the Church of England, is evident from the organization of
our Conventions, and from their subsequent proceedings, as recorded in
the Journals ; to which accordingly this Convention refer for satisfaction
in the premises."

General Convention of 1820.

In the Convention of 1820 the following instructions were adopted
by both Houses to be observed in editions of the Book of Common
Prayer : " 1. That special attention be paid to the title page and table
of contents, so that nothing may be omitted or added. 2. That the
Book of Common Prayer be distinguished from the Book of Psalms in
metre, the Articles of Religion, and sundry offices set forth by this
Church, viz. < The form and manner of making, ordaining, and conse
crating Bishops, Priests and Deacons, The form of consecration of a
church or chapel, A prayer to be used at the meetings of Convention,
An office of institution of ministers into parishes or Churches all of
which are of equal authority with the Book of Common Prayer ; but
which, when bound up with it, ought not to appear as parts thereof." 1

General Convention of 1826.

In 1826 certain provisions for the shortening of the Morning Service,
and for modifying the statements of the Confirmation Office were intro
duced by Bishop Hobart of New York, and proposed to the dioceses by
the General Convention for final action in 1829. 2 These proposed altera-

1 Of. a resolution of the House of Deputies in the Convention of 1886,
Journal, p. 521. * Appendix II.

xxxvi INTRODUCTION.

tions, stirred up no little controversy, and excited: the gravest appre
hensions. 1 It was felt by many, to use the words of the then Bishop
of Virginia, that " that uniformity of worship which has distinguished
us as a society, should the proposed alterations be carried into effect,
would be destroyed. Instead of uniting in the same devotional exercises
as we hitherto have done, every clergymen will have it in his power to
select his own lessons, and to read such portions of the Psalms of David
as he pleases, by which means the public worship of God in these par
ticulars, will be as various as the constitutions of our minds. The old
members of the Church, who have been taught to view the Liturgy
through a medium the most sacred, will be grieved. The guards to
uniformity being once removed, one innovation will succeed another,
until the people will lose that reverence for our incomparable services
by which they have been actuated, and the Church receive the most
vital injury." 2 So general was the opposition manifested to these changes
in the Prayer Book, that in the next Convention in 1829, they were
on Bishop Hobart s own motion, " dismissed from the consideration of
the Convention." 3

General Convention of 1832.

In 1832 a change was made in the text of the Prayer Book as a correc
tion of an error. This was the omission, from the office for receiving chil
dren privately baptized, of the question and answer, "Minister. Wilt
thou be baptized in this faith. Ans. That is my desire." The pres
ence of this question and answer in this place was declared by a resolu
tion of the House of Bishops to be a " mistake," which " should be
corrected in future editions of the Prayer Book."

Three alterations were proposed by this Convention to the dioceses
for final action in 1835, viz.; The change of " the rubric before the
selection of Psalms, so as to read, The following Selections of Psalms, or
any one or more Psalms, or any portion of the 119^ Psalm in the
Psalter, may be used instead of the Psalms for the Day, at the discre
tion of the Minister;" and the omission of the fourth paragraph in the
Order how the Psalter is appointed to be read. The second proposed
change was "to alter the last rubric before the Communion Service by
substituting the word right for the word north." It was also proposed
to move the Prayer for Conventions to a place among the Occasional
Prayers and to append to it the rubric. 4

General Convention of 1835.

The above alterations were finally adopted in 1835, except the first.
In this Convention both Houses concurred in the opinion " that the Con
fessions, the Creeds, and the Lord s Prayer in the Liturgy of our
Church should be the joint acts of minister and people, and be con
firmed by their united declaration of assent in the word Amen. " And

1 See Memoir of the Life of Bishop Griswold, by John Stone, D. D., pp.
332-336 ; The Episcopal Register, July, 1828, to August, 1829 ; The Gospel
Messenger, 1829, and Memoir of the Life of Bishop Hobart, by Rev. Win.
Berrian, D. D., pp. 367-375.

2 Memoir of the Life of Bishop Moore, by J. P. K. Henshaw, D. D., p. 183.

3 See Life of Bishop Hopkins of Vermont, by John Henry Hopkins, D. D.,
pp. 77-83.

4 Journal, pp. 92, 93.

INTR OD UOTION. xxxvii

a Committee of the House of Bishops further proposed, in a report pre
sented on the 29th of August, that in these parts, and at the end of
" the Gloria in Excelsis, the Trisagion, and the last prayer for Ash-Wed
nesday, the word Amen should be printed in Roman letters, and
the Minister unite with the people in saying it ; and that in all cases
where the word Amen is the response of the people to what the Min
ister alone says, it should be printed in italics." The report of the
Committee was adopted by the Bishops, and sent to the House of
Deputies "to be read therein." 1 In this Convention it was proposed to
the dioceses "to add to the note on the table of moveable feasts, ac
cording to the several days that Easter can possibly fall upon, the words,
unless the table gives some day in the month of March for it, for, in
that case, the day given in the table is the right day. 1 "

General Convention of 1838.

The next Convention which met in 1838 adopted the above amend
ments, and enacted the following rules for printing all future editions of
the Prayer Book, viz : " I. The words Let us pray to be always
printed in the same type with the prayers. II. The word Amen
to be printed in the Roman character, besides in the cases men
tioned in the action of the House of Bishops as recorded in the
minutes of the proceedings of that House on the 29th of August,
1835, in the following cases, viz.: 1. After the Baptismal act, N. I
baptise thee, &c., in each of the baptismal services. 2. After the sen
tence in the marriage service, commencing, With this ring, &c. 3.
After the sentence in the same service, commencing, Forasmuch as M.
and N., &c. 4. After the sentence pronounced by the Bishop, at the
laying on of hands in the ordination of Deacons and Priests. It being
understood by this Convention, that the word Amen, in the above
cases, is not properly a response, but proper to be used only by the party
required to say the words to which it is attached. III. The rubric in
the Institution Office commencing with the words If any objection,
&c., to be printed in three paragraphs, as follows :

If any objection &c., to the word service

No objection] &c., to the word institution

And then shall] &c., to the end.

" And whereas there is a difference in different editions of the Prayer
Book in the mode of printing the word Amen after the words used by
the Bishop at the laying on of hands in Confirmation, therefore, Re
solved, As the sense of this Convention, that in this case the word
Amen should be printed in Italic character, as being properly a
response." 2

General Conventions of 1841 and 1844.

In the Convention of 1841 it was formally proposed to the dioceses
"to erase the words Associated Rector, and also the word State
wherever they occur in former editions of the Institution office ;" which
changes were ratified by the Convention of 1844.

General Conventions of 1853 and 1856.

We come next to the Convention of 1853, when the Rev. Dr. Muh-
lenberg and others laid before the House of Bishops the celebrated

1 Journal, pp. 24, 65, 102. * Journal, pp. 41, 81, 115.

xxxviii INTROD UOTION.

" Memorial " in favour of the inauguration of measures looking towards
a comprehension of the various Protestant bodies. Liturgical relaxation
was suggested as one of the means to this end: " It is believed that
men can be found among the other bodies of Christians around us, who
would gladly receive ordination at your hands, could they obtain it with
out that entire surrender, which would now be required of them, of all
the liberty in public worship to which they have been accustomed." 1 At
the same time the House of Deputies requested the Bishops " to take
into consideration the propriety of setting forth a form of Prayer for
the increase of the Holy Ministry, according to the command of Christ,
Pray ye the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers
into his harvest. " A similar resolution was offered by the Rt. Rev.
Alonzo Potter of Pennsylvania in the House of Bishops. 3 A Commit
tee of Bishops was appointed to take into consideration the matters
brought forward by the Memorial and the resolutions, and to report at
the next Convention. 4

In their report in 1856, 5 they say, that "It is the general voice of our
Communion, that in adjusting the length of our public services, more
regard should be had to the physical ability of both minister and people ;
and this is especially important in those parts of our country where the
heats of summer are long-continued and debilitating, rendering mental
exertion burdensome, and even perilous to health." They however
proposed no alteration in the Prayer Book, quite the contrary : " It has
been the purpose of the Commission, so far as their present labours go,
to leave the Prayer Book untouched," and they " have come to the unani
mous conclusion that some of the most material of the improvements
which are loudly called for, and which commend themselves to our
judgment, might be attained without legislation," and to this end
they recommended the adoption of a series of resolutions. They also
recommended " that Canon xlv. (1832) be so amended that the conclud
ing sentence [which then read, And in performing said service (i. e. of
the Pr. Bk.), no other prayers shall be used than those prescribed by
the said book ] may read as follows : And in performing said service,
no other Prayers, Lessons, Anthems or Hymns shall be used than those
prescribed by the said book, unless with the consent of the Ecclesias-tical
authority of the Diocese. The effect of this amendment would be to
enable particular dioceses under the direction of the Ecclesiastical au
thority of the same, during such seasons as Passion Week, Christmas,
and the like to substitute Lessons, Anthems, or Canticles more appro
priate to the occasion." In order to meet the requests made in 1853
for a form of prayer for the increase of the Ministry and for other occa
sions, they also presented for consideration a number of forms of prayer,
viz.: 1. A Prayer for Unity, 6 2. A Prayer for the increase of the
Ministry, 3. A Prayer for Missions and Missionaries, 4. A Prayer for
the Young, to be used on occasions of Catechising and the like, 5. A
Prayer for a Person about to be exposed to special danger, 6. A Prayer
in time of public calamities, dangers, or difficulties, 7. A Thanksgiving

1 Journal, p 182.

2 This was done upon two resolutions, one offered by a Rev. Mr. Scott, and
the other by the Rev. A. C. Coxe of Maryland, afterward Bishop of Western
New York. Journal, pp. 49, 74, 85.96. 3 Journal, pp. 157, 216.

4 Ibid., pp. 216. 231, 232. 5 Journal, p. 340.

6 Adopted by the Conventions of 1889-1892.

INTR OD UOTION. xxxix

for deliverance of a person from any peril, 8. A Prayer for deliver
ance from public calamities and dangers, 9. A Thanksgiving for the
recovery of a sick child.

Whatever expectations had been raised that the Memorial Movement ?1
would lead to the revision of the Prayer Book, were brought to an end by
the adoption of the three following resolutions, modifications of those sug
gested by the Commission : " Resolved as the opinion of the Bishops, 1.
That the Order of the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Communion
Service, being separate offices, may, as in former times, be used separ
ately under the advice of the Bishop of the Diocese. 2. That on
special occasions, or at extraordinary services not otherwise provided for,
ministers may, at their discretion, use such parts of the Book of Com
mon Prayer, and such lesson or lessons of Holy Scripture, as shall in
their judgment tend most to edification. 3. That the Bishops of the
several Dioceses may provide special services as, in their judgment, shall
be required by the peculiar necessities of any class or portion of the
population within said Diocese : provided that such services shall
not take the place of the services or offices of the Book of Common
Prayer in congregations capable of its use."

General Convention of 1859.

The action of the House of Bishops with regard to the Memorial
Movement caused no little dissatisfaction among some persons, and in 1859
the House of Deputies passed a resolution in which they declared that
the action of the Bishops " had disturbed the minds of many in our
Church," and asked the Bishops " to reconsider their preamble and reso
lution, and to throw the subject matter into such shape as will admit of
the joint action of both Houses of Convention." Bishop Otey also of
fered in the Upper House a resolution asking that the " Memorial," the
amendment to the Canon on the Prayer Book, and kindred matters, be
referred to a Joint Commission to report to the next Convention. The
Bishops, however, refused to do anything which might seem to involve
the reconsideration of their former action. 2

General Conventions of 1862 and 1865.

In 1862 a memorial was offered again asking for the insertion in the
Prayer Book of a prayer for the increase of the Ministry, but the matter
was referred to the next Convention. 3

In the same Convention, the House of Deputies, upon the motion
of the Rev. D. H. Buel of Vermont, resolved " that the following
suffrage be proposed to be inserted immediately after the supplication
for Bishops, Priests and Deacons : That it may plase thee to send forth
labourers into thy harvest ; We beseech thee, " etc. The proposition
however was not concurred in by the House of Bishops, for the reason
that it was " inexpedient." f

General Conventions of 1868 and 1871.

In 1868 " an additional cycle for the years 1861 to 1899 inclusive,"
to be inserted in the Prayer Book in " the place of the cycle for the

1 For an account of this movement, see Memorial Papers, The Memorial
with Circular and Questions of the Episcopal Commission, with an introduction
by Rt. Rev. Alonzo Potter, D. D. , Philadelphia, 1857.

2 Journal, pp. 196, 215, 216, 217. 3 Journal, 1862, pp. 99, 105.
4 Journal, pp. 95, 194, 205, 206, 220.

xl INTR OD UCTION.

years 1843 to 1861 inclusive " was proposed to the dioceses, and adopted
in 1871. 1

A growing desire for shortened services took definite shape in the
Convention of 1871 when it was thought to secure the end sought for
by the adoption by the Lower House of the following amended form of
Canon 20 2 : "Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer. Every
Minister shall on all occasions of public worship, use the Book of Com
mon Prayer, as the same is or may be established by the authority of
the General Convention of this Church, and this rule shall be under
stood to prohibit all additions to, and omissions from the prescribed
order of the said book, except in the cases prescribed by Section XIV.
of Canon 13, Title I.: Provided, That on other occasions than Sundays,
and the mornings of those week-days for which a special service is
ordered, and at all times in mission stations, and other places than parish
churches, when the prescribed order of Morning and Evening Prayer
cannot be used to edification, other services may be used, compiled only
from the Book of Common Prayer; but no such deviation shall be
permissible, except on emergencies, without the approbation- of the
ecclesiastical authority of the diocese." This canon failed to obtain the
assent of the Bishops. 3

General Conventions of 1874 and 1877.

In 1874 the attempt was made to secure shortened services by an
amendment to the Constitution, which would explicitly authorize
General Convention to modify the requirements of the Prayer Book by
canon. Both Houses proposed the following addition to the Eighth Arti
cle, to be inserted after the words "subsequent General Convention:"
" Provided, That the General Convention may by canon arrange and set
forth a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer to be compiled
wholly from the Book of Common Prayer." 4 Immediately after this
it was proposed to add the still further amendment, "Provided, however,
That the General Convention shall have power from time to time to
amend the Lectionary ; but no act for this purpose shall be valid which
is not voted for by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled
to seats in the House of Bishops, and by a majority of all the Dioceses
entitled to representation in the House of Deputies."

The second of these two amendments, having reference to the Lec
tionary, was adopted by the Convention of 1877, but the first providing
for shortened services was defeated in the Lower House. It was next
proposed, by the House of Deputies, in 1877, to secure the much desired
shortened services by the adoption of a rubric " to be inserted immediately
after The Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is appointed to be read. 11
This rubric was as follows : " The Order Concerning Divine Service."
" On days other than Sunday, Christmas Day, The Epiphany, Ash-
Wedne-day, Good Friday, Thanksgiving Day, and the Ascension Day,
it shall suffice if the Minister begin Morning or Evening Prayer at the
General Confession or at the Lord s Prayer, and end with the Collect
for Grace or for Aid against Peril", as the case may be, and 2 Cor. xiii,
14 ; using so much of the Lessons appointed for the day and so much
of the Psalter, as he shall judge to be for edification And note that on
any day, the Morning Prayer, the Litany, or the Order for the Admin-

1 The Convention of 1821, and the Committee of 1844, made similar alter
ations, but without the action of two Conventions.

2 Now Canon 24 of Title I. 3 Journal, pp. 103-113, 155. * Journal, p. 575.

INTRODUCTION. xli

istration of the Lord s Supper, or Holy Communion may be used as
separate Services. Provided, That no one of these Services shall be
habitually disused. And note further, that on any day when the Morn
ing or Evening Prayer has been already used, or is to be used, and
upon days other than those first aforenamed, it shall suffice, when need
may require, if the Minister say before a Sermon or Lecture the Lord s
Prayer, and one or more Collects found in this Book." 1 This rubr