m
Ml I
SOCIETY:OF
S = JOHN THE
EVANGELIST
Orecit O
^
RATIONAL ILLUSTRATION
or TIII:
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER/
01 TIII:
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
BEING
THE SUBSTAXCK OF EVERY THING LITURGICAL
IX
BISHOP SPARROW, MR. L'ESTRANCJE, DR. COMBER, DR. NICH<>!,>.
AND ALL FORMER RITUALISTS, COMMENTATORS,
OR OTHERS, UPON THE SAME SUBJECT;
MII i.i;< n:n v.\i> i;i:irn-:i> INTO ONI: [NTER8PEBSED \I,I. ALONG WITH XEW OKSERVATIOXs.
97499
BY
( IIARLKS WIIEATLY, ]\I. A.
o
vi< \i; OF i:i;i:\r \M> i - i I:\KIX PKI.IIAM i.v
Ostendas finpuln ccrnnoiiifis rt rilutn colcndi.
OXFORD:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PR 1
MDCX:CXLVI.
LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
TH K PKKKACE.
IN :i former edition of this book which \a- printed in folio, I was at
a luss in what manner 1 was to address the reader; i. e. whether
to bespeak his candour as to an entire new book, or whether
only the continuance of it as to a new edition of an old one. I called
it indeed the third edition in the title-page ; though I think I had but
little other reason for doing so, than my having twice published a
treatise upon the same subject before. For scarce a fifth part of what
1 then offered to the world was printed from either of the former
editions ; nor had so much of them, as I have mentioned, been continued
entire, had I foreseen how little I should have confined myself to the
yest. But when it first went to the press, I had no other design than
to have reprinted it exactly from the second edition ; except that I had
yielded to the request of the booksellers, who being encouraged by the
quick sale of two large impressions in a smaller volume, were willing
to run the lia/ard of one in a larger size. This was all the alteration
I proposed : nor did I think of any other, till the introductory discourse,
the whole first chapter, and great part of the second, were worked oft'
from the press ; which therefore, for the most part, stand just as they
did before, and not in the method into which I should have thrown
them, had I known from the beginning what alterations I should have
made. However the reader will have no reason to complain ; since
though the form would have been different, the arguments notwith-
standing must have been much the same : and they sure will appear to
a better advantage by standing entire, and in the light they are set by
the authors themselves, from whom I have borrowed them ; than if
they had been broke into comments and notes, and produced in parcels,
as the rubricks would have required : which was the method I after-
wards thought fit to pursue :: . For when I observed at the close of
* I desire that what I have said may he principally understood of the introductory
discourse \\ hich is almost verbally transcribed from Dr. Bonnet's Brief History of the
joint I'se of preeom posed set Forms of Prayer) and of the three first sections of the
second chapter ; for the first of which I am partly obliged to bishop Beveridge's
discourse on the Necessity and Advantage of Publick Prayer; for the second, to Dr.
Cave's Primitive Christianity; and for the third, to Mr. Roberts's excellent sermon
at the primary visitation of the late bishop of Exeter, at Oakhampton. The two
a 2
iv THE PREFACE.
the second chapter (which is upon the general rubrick concerning the
Order for Morning and Evening Prayer) that I had taken no notice in
what part of the church divine service should be performed (the
appointment of which was yet the principal design of the first part of
that rubrick) ; I not only found it necessary to add a new section to
supply that defect ; but taking the hint, to examine how I had managed
the rubricks in general, I perceived that I had been equally deficient in
most of them ; and that consequently to make the work truly useful,
the like additions would be necessary through the whole.
The occasion of this defect in the two first editions was owing to a
neglect of those parts of our offices in all who had writ upon the liturgy
before me : for as I never, till the third edition, attempted any farther
than to give the substance and sum of what others had treated of more
at large ; it could not be expected that the epitome or abridgment
should give more light than the books from whence it was taken
supplied. However, as I considered the price of my own book would
then be very considerably advanced ; I thought it but reasonable to
make the purchaser what amends I was able, by putting it into his
hands as complete as I could.
To this end I applied myself, in the first place, to the comparing our
Liturgy, as it stands at present, with the first Common-prayer Book of
king Edward VI. and with all the reviews that have been taken of it
since ; from whence, together with the history of compiling it, and of
the several alterations it has undergone from time to time, I easily
foresaw the rubricks would be best illustrated and explained. Nor
have I found myself disappointed in the advantage I proposed : for I
do not remember that I have met with a difficulty through the whole
Common-prayer, but what I have been enabled, by this means, in some
measure to remove.
And whilst I was upon these searches, it came into my mind, from
the extravagant prices which the old Common-prayer Books have borne
of late, that it would not be unacceptable to the curious reader to note
the differences between them : wherever therefore I met with any
variations, I have also been diligent to transcribe them at large, and to
give the reason of the several changes ; another improvement which I
thought would be looked upon to be so much the more useful, as it
furnished me with occasions of inquiring into several ancient usages of
the church, and of shewing how far we have advanced to, or gone back
from, the primitive standard, since our first reformation.
These are the two principal alterations which I observed : and though
these perhaps may seem but slight at first mentioning, yet I can assure
the reader, that from my first laying the design, I found that, instead
following sections of that chapter are pretty much in the method I afterwards ob-
served, and so for the most part is the whole first chapter; for the first division of
which (roiicrnung the tables and rules) I must not forget to repeat the acknow-
ledgments I have more than once made to the learned Dr. Brett.
THE PREFACE. *
of what I Imcl at first undertaken, which was only the supervising a
few sheets as they were worked off, I had got an entire new work upon
my hands, and that I was to prepare for, as well as to correct from, the
additions I perceived were necessary to he made almost
in i very pai;v, and where the old matter was continued, it was to be
often transposed, and to he worked up again in different parts of the
hook. So that neither of my former editions was from the time
above mentioned of any other use to me in the compiling of this, than
any of the authors that lay open before me : except that what was
Buttered in different books, which treat some of them of one thing,
and some of another ; I generally found ready collected in my own,
which therefore for the most part saved me the trouble of new weaving
the materials which others had supplied. Not that I took any ad-
vantage from hence to spare myself the pains of reading over again the
several authors themselves ; for I do not know that there was a single
piece on the subject, how inconsiderable soever, but what I gave a fresh
review, and with the utmost care, that not a hint should escape me,
which I judged would be any ways worth observation. And yet I dare.
affirm, that the whole that I borrowed from all who have writ professedly
upon the Common-prayer, does not amount to near a fourth part of
what the following sheets contain. Nor will it seem incredible, that
every thing that is pertinent to my own design should be reduced into
so narrow a compass as I have mentioned, when it is considered that
though the authors I made use of were numerous, yet the matters they
treat of are generally the same ; that some of them have printed the
Liturgy itself, as well as their explanations and comments upon it ; that
they are most of them but small ; and that in the two that are
voluminous (Dr. Comber and Dr. Nichols) scarce an eighth part of
either of them comes within the limits I confined myself to. The bulk
of the former consists in large paraphrases and practical discourses,
which I wholly passed by : and if the latter has done nothing in a
practical way ; yet the repetition of his paraphrases, where the same
forms return in different offices, together with his enlarging upon
subjects that a reader would never think to look for in a comment
upon the Common-prayer, have very much contributed to swell his
work with materials that I judged might be spared, without any danger
of its being thought a defect: especially since the omission of them
made room for the enlarging upon other points much more pertinent
to the subject of the book ; and which indeed make the principal part
of the whole, though most of them are touched upon but lightly, if at
all, in any former direct exposition of the Liturgy. To name all the
particulars would be more ostentatious than useful ; and therefore I
shall only observe in general, that wherever I knew any point I was to
mention handled more particularly by authors who have made it their
principal view, I always had recourse to them, and took the liberty of
borrowing whatever contributed to the perfecting my scheme.
vi THE PREFACE.
In such cases I have generally given notice in the margin to whom I
have been beholden ; though there is one thing perhaps in which I
have been deficient, and that is, in not using sometimes the ordinary
marks of distinction, when I have taken the words as well as the
thoughts of my author : for it was always my rule when I could not
mend an expression, not to do it an injury by changing it : and yet as
I was frequently forced to transpose the order of his sentences, and to
blend and mix with them what my own thoughts supplied, it often
came to pass, that when the paragraph was finished, I questioned
whether the author from whom most of it was taken would acknowledge
it to be his own.
And thus I have given the reader an account, as well of my first
attempts on this subject, as of the farther progress I made upon it
when it came the third time to the press ; which I have done, not so
much for the sake of acquainting him with the old editions, as of
informing him more distinctly what it is he may look for in the new
ones. It will be a needless caution I suppose to add, that I shall stand
to nothing that I have said before, any farther than it agrees with the
contents of the last : the particulars indeed are but few, as far as I can
remember, where my notions are changed : but where they are, it is
but common justice to take my sentiments from what I deliver upon
maturer judgment ; and not to expect I should always vindicate an
error or mistake., because I once advanced it in a juvenile performance.
I should have very ill bestowed the pains I took to review my original
papers (which was more a great deal than it cost me at first to collect
and compile them ; and which took up as many years as it would have
done months, had they been only reprinted as they were before) if they
did not come out with some improvements at last. Not that I am so
vain as to think they are at last without faults and imperfections ; I
am sensible there are many; I can only plead that none willingly
escaped me, and that wherever any escaped unwillingly, nobody could
have been more industrious to find them. For in order to this, I not
only during the tedious delay that I then created to the press, examined
the sheets upon every occasion that called the matter of them fresh to
my mind ; but also importuned the assistance and corrections of such
learned friends as I knew were in no danger (except from too favour-
able an indulgence to the author) of overlooking the slightest mistakes.
And this I take to be a proper place to explain myself in relation
to one passage particularly, which I know has been thought to need
the greatest amendment, though I have let it stand without making
any. And indeed an explanation of it is so much the more needful,
aa it is not only judged to be indefensible in itself, but also to be
inconsistent with what I have said in another part of the book. The
pu^age I mean is concerning the Absolution in the daily Morning and
Evening Service, which I have asserted to be " an actual conveyance
" of pardon, at the very instant of pronouncing it, to all that come
THE PREFACE. vii
" within the terms proposed 1 ." And again, that it " is more than
" DECLARATIVE, that it is truly > . insuring and conveying
" to the proper subjects thereof the very absolution or remission
-olf l> ." This has been thought by some, from whose judgment
I >hould be very unwilling to differ or recede, not only to carry the
point higher than can be maintained, but also to be irreconcilable
with my own notions of Absolution, as I have described them upon
the office for the I'isilfithn of the Sir/,-, where they are thought to be
more i-op-i.-tent with Scripture and antiquity. I have there endea-
voured to shew that there is no "standing authority in the Mii-i
" of the Gospel, to pardon and forgive sins immediately and directly
" in relation to God, and as to which the censure of the Church had
"been in no wise concerned' 1 ." And again, "that no absolution
" pronounced by the Church can cleanse or do away our inward guilt,
" or remit the eternal penalties of sin, which are declared to be due
" to if by the sentence of GOD, any farther than by the prayers
" which are appointed to accompany it, and by the use of those ordi-
" nances to which it restores us, it may be a means, in the end, of
" obtaining our pardon from God himself, and the forgiveness of
" sin a* it relates to him d ." These passages, I acknowledge, as they
HIT separated from their contexts, and opposed to one another, seem
a little inconsistent and confusedly expressed : but if each of them are
read in their proper places, and with that distinction of ideas which I
had framed to myself when I writ them, I humbly presume they may-
be easily reconciled, and both of them asserted with equal truth. I
desire it may be remembered that in the latter place 1 am speaking
judicial and unconditional absolution, pronounced by the Minister
in an indicative form, as of certain advantage to the person that
receives it. By this I have supposed the Church never intends to
cleanse or do away our inward guilt, but only to exercise an external
authority, founded upon the power of the keys ; which, though it
may be absolute, as to the inflicting and remitting the censures of the
Church, I could not understand peremptorily to determine the state
of the sinner in relation to GOD. And thus far I have the happiness
to have the concurrence of good judges on my side ; so that it is only
in what I assert on the daily absolution, that I have the misfortune
not to be accounted so clear. But, with humble submission, I can
Bee nothing there inconsistent with what I have said on the other.
The absolution I am speaking of is conditional, pronounced by the
Prie>t in a declarative form, and limited to such as truly repent and
wtfcignetUy believe Gorf'.s- holy Gospel. This indeed I have asserted to be
effective, and that it insures and conveys to the proper subjects thereof
the very absolution or remission itself : but then I desire it may be
remembered that I attribute the effect of it not to a judicial, but to a
ministerial act in the person who pronounces it : but to such an act
however as is founded upon the general tenor of the Gospel, which
a Page 99. b Page 10^. c Page 371;. d Page 381.
viii THE PREFACE.
supposes, if I mistake not, that GOD always accompanies the ministra-
tions of the Priest, if there be no impediment on the part of the
people. And therefore when the Priest, in the name of GOD, so
solemnly declares to a congregation that has been humbly confessing
their sins, and importuning the remission of them, that GOD does
actually pardon all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe; why
may not such of them as do repent and believe humbly presume that
their pardon is sealed as well as made known by such a declaration ?
I am sure this notion gives no encouragement either of presump-
tion to the penitent, or of arrogance to the Priest : I have supposed
that, to receive any benefit from the form, the person must come
within the terms required : and such a one, though the form should
have no effect, is allowed notwithstanding to be pardoned and ab-
solved. And the Priest I have asserted to act only ministerially, as
the instrument of Providence; that he can neither withhold, nor
apply, the absolution as he pleases, nor so much as know upon whom
or upon how many it shall take effect ; but that he only pronounces
what God commands, whilst God himself ratifies the declaration, and
seals the pardon which he proclaims.
It is true indeed, it does not appear by the ancient Liturgies, that
the primitive Christians had any such absolution to be pronounced,
as this is, to the congregation in general. But yet, if they had abso-
lutions upon any occasion, and those absolutions were supposed to
procure a reconcilement' with GOD ; (neither of which, I presume,
will be thought to want a proof ;) I see no reason why they may not
be usefully admitted (as they are with us) into the daily and ordinary
service of the Church. For allowing that the persons they were
formerly used to, were such as had incurred ecclesiastical censure ;
yet it is confessed that the forms pronounced on those occasions
immediately respected the conscience of the sinner, and not the out-
ward regimen of the Church ; that they were instrumental to procure
the forgiveness of GOD, whilst the ecclesiastical bond was declared
to be released by an additional ceremony of the ^imposition of hands c .
If then absolutions, even in the earliest ages, were thought to be
instrumental to procure GOD'S forgiveness to such sins as had deserved
ecclesiastical bonds ; why may they not be allowed as instrumental
and proper to procure his forgiveness to sins of daily incursion,
though they may not be gross enough, or at least enough public, to
come within the cognizance of ecclesiastical censures ? If it be urged,
that the ancient absolutions were never declarative, but either inter-
cessional, like the prayer that follows the absolution in the office
appointed for the Visitation of the Sick, or optative, like the form in
our Office of Communion : I think it may be answered, that the effect
of the absolution does not at all depend upon the form of it, since the
promises of GOD are either way applied, and it must be the sinners'
Sv Dr. Marshall'* Penitential Discipline, page 93, &c. See also the forms of
Absolution in his Appendix, Numb. 4, 5, 6, 7.
THE PREFACE. ix
embracing them with repentance and faith, that must make the appli-
cation of them effectual to himself.
I hope this explanation will justify my notions upon the daily abso-
lution, as well as reconcile them with what I have said upon the other.
I shall add nothing more in defence of them, than that they seem fully
to be countenanced by the form itself, (as I have shewed at large
upon the place,) and particularly by the inhibition of Deacons from
pronouncing it f : which to me is an argument that our Church de-
signed it for an effect, which it was beyond the commission of a
Deacon to convey. Not that I would draw an argument from the
opinion of our Church, where that opinion seems repugnant to Scrip-
ture or Antiquity : but where it does not appear to be inconsistent
with either, I think her decision should be allowed a due weight.
Wherever I have found or suspected her to differ from one or the
other, the reader will observe I have not covered or disguised it ; but
on the contrary perhaps have been too hasty and forward, and too
unguarded in my remarks. But TRUTH was what I aimed at through
my whole undertaking ; which therefore I was resolved at any hazard
to assert just as it appeared to me. It is not at all indeed unlikely
that in so many points as the nature of this work has led me to con-
sider, some things may appear as truths to me, which others, who
have better opportunities of inquiring into them, may find to be
otherwise : and therefore I can only profess that I have not advanced
any thing but what I have believed to be true* and that if I um any
where in an error, I shall be always open to conviction, let the person
that attempts it be adversary or friend ; since if truth can be attained
to by any means at last, I shall not value from whom or from whence
it proceeds : though I cannot but say, the satisfaction will be the
greater if it appear on the side which our Church has espoused,
notwithstanding the discovery may possibly demand some retractations
on my own part, which in such case I shall always be ready to make,
and think it a happiness to find myself mistaken.
In the mean while, I request that where I am allowed to be right,
I may not meet with less favour, because I have shewed myself falli-
ble ; and particularly I would importune my reverend brethren of
the CLERGY, (upon whose countenance the success of this work must
depend,) that if the Rubrics especially have been any where cleared,
and with proper arguments enforced, they would join their assistance
to make my endeavours of some service to the CHURCH. For it will
be but of very little use to have illustrated the rule, unless they also
concur to make the practice more uniform. And indeed I would
hope that a small importunity would be sufficient to prevail with
them, when they see what disgrace their compliances have brought
both upon the Liturgy and themselves ; since not only the occasional
offices are now in several places prostituted to the caprice of the
people, to be used where, and when, and in what manner they please ;
f See page 103, &c.
WHEATLY. b
x THE PREFACE.
but even the daily and ordinary service is more than the Clergy
themselves know how to perform in any church but their own, before
they have been informed of the particular custom of the place.
But I would not presume to dictate to those from whom it would
much better become me to learn : and therefore I shall only observe
farther with regard to the citations I have had occasion to make, that
I have but very seldom set down any of them at large, because I was
willing to avoid all unnecessary means of swelling the book. Besides,
I considered, that though I should cite them ever so distinctly, yet
those who understand not the language they were written in, must
take my word for the meaning of them at last : and those who
are capable of reading the originals, I supposed, would turn to the
books themselves for any thing they should doubt of, how careful
soever I should have been in transcribing them ; so that I thought it
sufficient to be exact in my references, as to the tome and page and
marginal letter, and then to insert a general table of the ecclesiastical
writers, which should once for all shew the editions that I have useds.
The reason of my adding the times when the writers nourished,
was, that my less learned reader might gather from thence the anti-
quity of the several rites and ceremonies I had occasion to treat of,
by consulting when those authors lived who are produced in defence
of them.
& If I have any where made use of a different edition, I have taken care to specify
it in the citation itself.
MAY 10, 1722.
[xi]
An Alphabetical Index of tfie Ecclesiastical Writers cited in the
following book ; with the times when they four ished,
and the editions made use of.
Almin, A.D. 780. De Offic. Divin. Paris. 1610.
Ambrose, A.D. 374. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1686.
Arnobius, A.D. 303. Adv. Gentes. Lugd. Bat. 1651.
Atlianasius, A.D. 326. Opera, ed. Benedict. Paris. 1698.
Atlu-na-oras, A.D. 177. Legatio by Dechair. Oxon. 1706.
Aiigustin, A.D. 396. Opera, ed. Benedict. Paris. 1679.
I'IIIM! the (ireat, A.D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1638.
Ilfrnard, A.D. 1115. Opera. Paris. 1640.
Canons called Apostolical, most of them composed before A.D. 300. By Coteler,
Antwerp. 1698.
Cedrenus, A.D. 1056. Histor. Compend. Paris. 1649.
( hrysostoin, A.D. 398. Opera, ed. Savil. Eton. 1612.
Clemens of Alexandria, A.D. 192. Opera. Paris. 1629.
( K-inens of Rome, A.D. 65. Epistohe by Wootten. Cant. 1 718.
Codex Theodosianus, A.D. 438. Lugd. 1665.
Constitutions called Apostolical, about A.D. 450. By Coteler. Antwerp. 1698.
Cyprian, A.D. 248. Opera by Fell. Oxon. 1682.
< \ ill of Jerusalem, A.D. 350. Opera by Mills. Oxon. 1703.
Dionysius of Alexandria, A.D. 254. Epist. adv. Paul. Sam. Paris. 1610.
Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, A.D. 362. Opera. Paris. 1615.
Durandus Mimatensis, A.D. 1286. Rationale. Lugd. 1612.
Diirantus. De Rit. Eccles. Cath. Rom. 1591.
Epiphanius, A.D. 368. Opera. Paris. 1622.
Euagrius Scholasticus, A.D. 594. Eccles. Histor. Paris. 1673.
Eusebius, A.D. 315. Opera. Paris. 1659.
Gennadius Massiliens, A.D. 495. De Eccles. Dogmat. Hamb. 1614.
Gratian, A.D. 1131. Opera. Paris. 1 60 1.
Gregory the Great, A.D. 590. Opera. Paris. 1675.
Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1630.
Gregory Nyssen, A.D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1615.
Hierom or Jerom, A.D. 378. Opera, edit. Ben. Paris. 1704.
Ignatius, A.D. 101. Opera by Smith. Oxon. 1709.
Irenseus, A.D. 167. Adv. Haeres. by Grabe. Oxon. 1702.
Isidore Hispalensis, A.D. 595. Opera. Paris. 1601.
Isidore Peleusiota, A.D. 412. Opera. Paris. 1638.
Justin Martyr, A.D. 140. Apol. i. by Grabe. Oxon. 1700. Opera. Paris. i6i\ir(Xi:D LIT! , 8
doubt of their having and usini; a preoomp .tied Liturgy,
than of our own having and using the J'ook of Common Pravi r,
iiul of its consisting- of prccomposed set forms. \Ve shall
.'ore proceed in the next place to inquire into the practice of
our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians.
And, 1st, for our Saviour; there is not the least doubt to l>e
made, but that lie continued always in communion with the
.Jewish Church, and was xealous and exemplary in their public
devotions; and consequently took all opportunities of joining in
those precomposed set forms of prayer, which were daily used
in the Jewish CongregatidlM, as the learned Dr. Lightfbot has
largely proved k . And we may be sure, that had not our Saviour
very constantly attended their public worship, and joined in the
devotions of their congregations, the Scribes and Pharisees, his
bitter and implacable enemies, and great zealots for the temple-
service, would doubtless have cast it in his teeth, and reproached
him as an ungodly wretch, that despised prayer, &c. But nothing
of this nature do we find in the whole New Testament; and
therefore, had we no other grounds than these to go upon, we
might safely conclude, that our blessed JSaviour was a constant
attendant on the public service of the Jews, and consequently
that he joined in precomposed set forms of prayer.
And, idly, as to the Apostles and our Lord^s otber Disciples,
their practice was doubtless the same till our Saviour's ascension ;
after which (besides that they did probably still join as before in
the Jewish worship 1 , which consisted of precomposed set forms)
it is plain that they used precomposed set forms in their Christian
'iblies, during the remainder of their lives.
A* the primitive Christians also did in the following ages: as
will appear,
1. From their joining in the use of the Lord's prayer.
2. From their joining in the use of Psalms.
3. From their joining in the use of divers precomposed set
forms of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and Psalms.
i . They joined in the use of the Lord's prayer. And this is
sufliciently evident from our Saviour's having commanded them
so to do : for whatever dispute may be made about the word
ovrws, in St. Matthew vi. 9, which is translated not exactly,
but paraphrastic-ally, after tins manner, but ought witb greater
accuracy to be rendered so, or >7/.v m ; yet if we should grant
that our Lord in this place only proposed this prayer as a di-
rectory and pattern to make our otber prayers by, we should
k Ibid. vol. ii. part ii. p. 1036, &c. 1 Sri- Acts iii. i. 15. xvii. 2. m In
which signification it is always used in the Septnagint Version of the Bible, Bf
' y comparing Numb. vi. :?. xxiii. 5. Isa. viii. I r. xxviii. 16. xxx. 15. xxxvii.
1 sonu! other places, with Numb, xxiii. 16. Isaiah xxx. i:. xxxvii. 21. liii. 3.
For in the former texts, ovrca Xtya 6 Kvptos, thus saith the Lord, bears the same
sig-niikation as retSe \fyei d Krpios, this saith the Lord, in the latter.
B 2
THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF
introduct. still find afterwards, upon another occasion, viz. when his Disci-
ples requested him to teach them to pray, as John had also taught
his Disciples, he prescribed the use of these very words ; ex-
pressly bidding them, When ye pray, say, Our Father*. I sup-
pose nobody hath so mean an opinion, either of St. John's or
our Saviour's Disciples, as to think they were ignorant how to
pray : therefore it is plain they could mean nothing else by their
request, but that Christ would give them this peculiar form, as
a badge of their belonging to him ; according to the custom of
the Jewish Doctors, who always taught their disciples a peculiar
form to add to their own ; so that either our Saviour instructed
them to use this very form of words, or else he did not answer
the design of their requests.
But it is objected, that " if our Lord had intended this prayer
" should be used as a set form, he would not have added the
" Doxology, when he delivered it at one time, as it is recorded
" in St. Matthew, and omit it, when he delivered it upon another
" occasion, as in St. Luke."
But to this we answer, That learned men are very much di-
vided in their opinions, concerning the Doxology in St. Matthew ;
some thinking it is, and others that it is not, a part of the original
text. Whether it be or be not, we need not here dispute, but
argue with our adversaries upon either supposition.
For, ist, if they think it is not a part of the original text, then
their objection is groundless : for there is nothing found in one
Evangelist, but what is also found in the other ; and the form,
as to the sense of it, is exactly the same in both : for though one
or two expressions may differ, yet the Syriac words, in which
we know our Lord delivered it, are equally capable of both
translations.
But, 2dly, if they think the Doxology is a part of the original
text; we answer, The addition of it is as good an argument
against the Lord's prayer being a directory for the matter of
prayer, as it can be against its being an established set form of
prayer. For we may say, in the language of our adversaries, if
Christ had intended his prayer for a directory for the matter
of prayer, he would not have given such different directions, or-
dering us to add a Doxology to the end of our prayers at one
time, and omitting that order at another. If therefore the ad-
dition of the Doxology be (as they must grant upon their own
principles) no objection against its being a directory for the
matter of prayer ; then certainly it is no objection against its
being an established set form. For the difference of our prayers
will be every whit as great in following this pattern, by some-
times omitting and sometimes adding a Doxology at the end of
our prayers, as it can possibly be, by using the Lord's prayer,
n Luke zi .1, 2, &c. o Dr. Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 158.
A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITUHGY. O
sometimes with, and at other times without, the Doxology. The lotroduct.
utmost therefore that can be concluded from the Doxology 's
being a part of the original text in St. Matthew, is this: That
our Ldrd, though he commanded the use of the Lord's prayer,
does not insist upon the use of the Doxology, but leaves it in-
different ; or at most, orders it to be sometimes used, and some-
times omitted, as our established Church practises. But the
other I'-sscntial parts of the prayer are to be used notwithstand-
ing; it being very absurd to omit the use of the whole, because
the latter part of it is not enjoined to be used constantly with
the rest.
But it is farther objected, 1st, That, " supposing our Saviour
" did prescribe it as a form ; yet it was onlyjfo?- a time, till they
" should be more fully instructed, and enabled to pray by the
" assistance of the Holy Ghost." And to urge this with the
greater force, they tell us, 2(lly, " that before Christ's ascension,
" the disciples had asked nothing in his name?, whereas they
" were taught, that after his ascension they should offer up all
" their prayers in his name 1 !. Now this prayer, say they, having
" nothing of his name in it, could not be designed to be used
" after his ascension." Accordingly they tell us, 3dly, " That
" though we read in the Acts of the Apostles of several prayers
" made by the Church, yet we find not any intimation, that they
" ever used this form 1 ? 1
Whatever resemblances of truth these objections may seem
to carry with them at first sight, if we look narrowly into them,
we shall find them to be grounded upon principles as dangerous
as false.
For, ist, If, because our Saviour hath not in express words
commanded this form of prayer to be used for ever, we conclude,
that it was only prescribedyor a time; we must necessarily allow,
that whatever Christ hath instituted without limitation of time
does not always oblige ; and, consequently, we may declare
Christ's institutions to be null without his authority; and at
that rate cry down Baptism and the Lord's Supper for temporary
prescriptions, as well as the Lord's prayer.
In answer to the second objection, we may observe, that to
pray in Christ's name, is to pray in his mediation ; depending
upon his merits and intercession for the acceptance of our
prayers ; and therefore prayers may be offered up in Christ's
name, though we do not name him. And as for the Lord's
prayer, it is so framed, that it is impossible to offer it up, unless
it be in the name of Christ : for we have no right or title to call
God our Father, unless it be through the merits and mediation
of Jesus Christ ; who hath made us heirs of God, and joint-heirs
P John xvi. 24. q John xiv. 13. and chap. xvi. 23. r Chap. i. 14. ii. 43.
iv. 24. vi. 6. viii. 15. xii. 12. xiii. 3. xx. 36.
6 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF
jntroduct. with himself. And therefore Christ's not inserting his own name
""in his prayer, does by no means prove, that he did not design it
for a standing form.
And, 3dly, as to the [objection of the Scriptures not once inti-
mating the use of this prayer, in those places where it speaks of
others ; we might answer, [that we may as well conclude from
the silence of the Scripture, that the Apostles did not baptize in
the name of the Father, Son*rmd Holy Ghost, as that they did
not use this prayer ; since they had as strict a command to do
the one as the other. But besides, in all those places, except
two 5 , there is nothing else mentioned, but that they prayed ; no
mention at all of the words of their prayers; and therefore there
is no reason why we should expect a particular intimation of the
Lord's prayer. And as for those prayers mentioned in the afore-
said places, I do not see how they can prove from thence, that
they were offered up in the name of Christ.
But, lastly, it is objected, that " the words of this prayer are
" improper to be used now ; because therein we pray that God's
" kingdom may come now, which came many ages since, viz. at
" our Saviour's ascension into heaven."
But in answer to this, I think it sufficient to observe, that
though the foundations of God's kingdom were laid then, yet it
is not yet completed. For since we know that all the world
must be converted to Christianity, and the Jews, Turks, and In-
fidels still make up the far greater part of it, we have as much
reason upon this account to pray for the coming of God's king-
dom now as ever. And if we consider those parts of the world
which have already embraced Christianity, I cannot think it im-
proper to pray, that they may sincerely practise what they be-
lieve; which conduces much more to the advancement of God's
kingdom, than a bare profession does without such practice.
Since therefore, from what has been said, it appears that our
Saviour prescribed the Lord's prayer as a standing form, and
commanded his Apostles and other Disciples to use it as such ;
it is not to be suspected, but that they observed this command;
especially since the accounts which we have from antiquity do
(though the Scriptures be silent in the matter) fully prove it to
have been their constant custom ; as appears by a numerous
cloud of witnesses, who conspire in attesting this truth : of which
I shall only instance in a few.
And first, Tertullian was, without all doubt, of opinion that
Christ delivered the Lord's prayer, not as a directory only, but
as a precomposed set form, to be used by all Christians. For he
says, '"The Son taught us to pray, Our Father, which art in
" heaven ;" i. c. he taught us to use the Lord's prayer. And
speaking of the same prayer, he says, u " Our Lord gave his new
Acts i. 74. and i v. 24. t Adr. Prax. c. 23. p. 5 1 4. A. u De Orat. c. i. j>. 1 29. A.
A NATIONAL PEECOMPO8KD LI 7
" Disciples of the New Testament a new form of prayer." 1 ' He
calls it, " " The prayer appointed by Christ/ 1 and *" The prayer
41 appointed by Law/ 1 (for so the word lf'itb:ia must be render-
iid " the ordinary" (i. e. the usual and customary) u prayer,
" which is to be said before our other prayers; and upon which,
H as a foundation, our oilier prayers are to be built :" and tell
that >' ' the use of it was ordained by our Saviour." 1
.1, St.Cvprian x tells us, that M Christ himself gave us a
" form of prayer, and commanded us to use it ; because, when
' we speak to the Father in the Sou's words, we shall be more
'easily heard;" and that ""there is no prayer more spiritual
" or true than the Lord's prayer." And therefore he most
earnestly 1 ' exhorts men to the use of it as often as they pray.
>;n, St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls it, c " the prayer which
" Christ i^ave his Disciples, and (1 which God hath taught us."
About the same time Optatus takes it for granted that it is
commanded 1 -'.
After him, St. Chrysostom calls it, t "the prayer enjoined by
" laws, and brought in by Christ."
In the same century St. Austin tells us 5 " that our Saviour
" gave it to the Apostles, to the intent that they should use it;
" that he taught it his Disciples himself, and by them he taught
" it us; that he dictated it to us, as a lawyer would put words
" in his client's mouth ; that it is necessary for all, i. e. such as
" all were bound to use; and that we cannot be God's children,
" unless we use it."
Lastly, St. Gregory Nyssen says, hu that Christ shewed his
" Disciples how they should pray, by the words of the Lord's
" prayer." And Theodoret assures us, that i " the Lord's prayer
'* i> a form of prayer, and that Christ has commanded us to use
" it." But testimonies of this kind are numberless.
If therefore the judgment of the ancient Fathers may be relied
on, who knew the practice of the Apostles much better than we
can pretend to do; we may dare to affirm, that the Apostles did
certainly -use the Lord's prayer: and if it be granted that they
used it. we may reasonably suppose that they joined in the use
of it. For. besides that it is very improbable that a Christian
assembly should, in their public devotions, omit that prayer
which was the badge of their discipleship ; the very petitions of
the prayer, running all along in the plural number, do evidently
shew, that it was primarily designed for the joint use of a con-
gregation.
u De Orat. c. i. p. 1-29. A. x Ibid c. ix. p. 133. B. y De Orat. r. ix. p. 133. A.
* DeOrat. Domin. p. 139. a Ibid, b Ibid. p. 139, 140. c Cat.vh. 31 \ stag. 5. . 8
p. -298. lin. 12, iVc. d Ibid. . 15. p. 300. lin. 24 *-' De Schism. Don. .list. 1. 4. p. 88.
f Hoin. II. in 2 (.'or. torn. iii. p. 553. li 157. torn. ii. i-ol. 543. B. et
, Serin. 58. torn. v. col. 337. D. K. !). Ornt. D.miin. Unit. I. tom. i.p. 712. B.
i Ha?ret. Kabul, lib. 5. m. iv. p. 3 i 6. B.
8 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF
introduct. That the Christians of the first centuries used it in their assem-
""" blies, is evident from its being always used in the celebration of
the Lord's supper 1 , which for some ages was performed every
day m . And St. Austin tells us in express words, that n "it was
" said at God's altar every day." So that, without enlarging
any more, I shall look upon it as sufficiently proved, that the
Apostles and primitive Christians did join in the use of the
Lord's prayer ; which is one plain argument that they joined in.
the use of precomposed set forms of prayer. Another argument
I shall make use of to prove it, is,
2. Their joining in the use of Psalms. For we are told, that
Paul and Silas, when they were in prison, prayed and sang
praises to God. And this we must suppose they did audibly,
because the prisoners heard them, and consequently they would
have disturbed each other, had they not united in the same
prayers and praises.
Again, St. Paul blames the Corinthians, because, when they
came together, every one had a psalm, had a doctrine?, &c.
Where we must not suppose that he forbad the use of psalms in
public worship, any more than he did the use of doctrines, &c.
but that he is displeased with them for not having the psalm all
together, i. e. for not joining' in it; that so the whole congrega-
tion might attend one and the same part of divine service at the
same time. From whence we may conclude, that the use of
psalms was a customary thing, and that the Apostle approved
of it; only ordering them to join in the use of them, which we
may reasonably suppose they did for the future ; since we find
by the Apostle's second Epistle to them, that they reformed
their abuses.
Thus also in his Epistle to the Ephesiansq, the Apostle ex-
v horts them to speak to themselves with psalms, and hymns, and
spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their liearts to the
Lord. And he bids the Colossians r teach and admonish one
another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, tinging "with
grace in their hearts to the Lord. From all which texts of Scrip-
ture, and several others that might be alleged, we must necessarily
conclude, that joint psalmody was instituted by the Apostles, as
a constant part of divine worship.
And that the primitive Christians continued it, is a thing so
notorious, that it seems wholly needless to cite any testimonies
to prove it : I shall therefore only point to such places at the
bottom of the page 5 , as will sufficiently satisfy any, that will
think it worth their while to consult them.
1 Cyril. Hieros. (as before quoted in notec andd, page foregoing) Hieron. adv.
Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. torn. ii. p. 596. C. August. Epist. 149. torn. ii. 001.505.0.
m Cyprian, de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Basil. Epist. 289. torn. iii. p. 279. A.B. n Serra.
58. cap. 10. t. v. col. 342. F. o Acts xvi. 25. P i Cor. xiv. 26. Q Chap. v. 19.
* CoL iii. 16. B Plin. Epist L 10. Ep. 97. p. 284. Oxon. 1703. Euseb. Eccl. Hist.
A NATIONAL PRKCOMI'OSKD LITURGY.
The practice therefore of the Apostles and primitive Christ- introduct
ians, in joining in the use of psalms, is another intimation, that
they joined in the use of precomposcd set forms of prayer. For
though all psalms be not prayers, because some of them are not
spoken to God ; yet it is certain a great part of them are, be-
cause they are immediately directed to him ; as is evident, as
well from 'the psalms of David, as from several Christian hymns 1 :
and, consequently, the Apostles and primitive Christians, by
jointly singing such psalms in their congregations, did join in the
use of prccomposed set forms of prayer. It only remains then
that I prove,
3. That they joined in the use of divers prccomposed set forms
of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and psalms.
And ist, as to the Apostles, we are told that Peter and John,
after they had been threatened, and commanded not to preach
the Gospel, went to their own company, and reported all that the
chief priests and ciders had said unto them. And when they
heard that, they lift up their voice to God with one accord, and
said. Lord, t/iou art God u 9 &c.
Now in this place we are told, that the whole company lift up
their ro'ur with one accord, and said, (i. e. they joined all together
with audible voices in using these words,) Lord, thou art God, &c.
which they could not possibly have done, unless the prayer they
used was a precomposed set form. For whatever may be said
in favour of joining mentally, with a prayer conceived extempore;
I suppose nobody will contend, that it is possible for a considerable
congregation to join vocally or aloud, as the Apostles and their
company are here said to have done, in a prayer so conceived.
But some may object, that " though it is affirmed, that the
" whole company lift up their voice, and said the prayer here
" mentioned ; yet it is possible that one only might do so in
" the name of all the rest, who joined mentally with him, though
" not in an audible manner. 11 To this we answer, That the
Scripture never attributes that to a whole congregation or mul-
titude, which is literally true of a single person only, except in
such cases, where the thing related requires the consent of the
whole multitude, but could not conveniently be performed or
done by every one of them in their own persons. But I suppose
no man will pretend, either that it was impossible for the Apo-
stles and their company to lift up their voice, and say the prayers
recited in the context, or that God could not hear or understand
them when speaking all together.
lib. 5. c. 28. p. 196. A. Just. Mart. Epist ad Zen. et Seren. p. 509. A. Cyril. Hieros.
Catech. 13. . 3. p. 180. lin. 9, &c. Catech. Mystag. 5. . 17. p. 300. fin. 34, &c.
Socr. Hist. Keel. 1. 2. c. IT. p. 89. A. Athana*. ad Marcellin. Epist. . 27. t. i. par. 2.
p. 999. B All these, and many others, mention the Church's using psalms in the
public assemblies, as a practice that had universally obtained from the times of the
Apostles, t As St. Ambrose's Te Deum, and the like. u Acts iv. 23, 24.
10 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF
introdact. But that which puts the matter out of all doubt is the follow-
ing consideration, viz. that the company is not barely said to
have lift up their voice, but to have lift it up [6/zo0i7xa6oz>] with
one accord, or all together ; which adverb is so placed, that it
cannot be joined to any other verb than fipav ; and nothing is
more evident, than that this adverb implies and denotes a con-
junction of persons : and consequently, since it is here applied to
all the company, and particularly to that action of theirs, viz.
their lifting up their voice ; it is manifest that they did all of
them lift up their respective voices, and that they could not
be said to have lift up their voices in that sense, which this ob-
jection supposes, viz. by appointing one person to lift up his
single voice for them all. For if they did so, then the histo-
rian's words must signify, that the whole congregation lift up
their voice together, by appointing one man to lift up his parti-
cular voice in conjunction with himself alone: which is such
nonsense, as cannot, without blasphemy, be imputed to an in-
spired writer. So that it is undeniably plain, that the persons
here said to have been present, uttered their prayer all together,
and spake all at the same time; and consequently, that the
prayer must be a precom posed set form.
If any person should be so extravagant as to imagine, that
" the whole congregation was inspired at that very instant with
" the same words.; and, consequently, that they might all of
" them break forth at once, and join vocally in the same prayer,
" though it were not precomposed ;" we need only reply, that
this assertion is utterly groundless, having neither any show of
reason, nor so much as one example in all history to warrant it.
But it may perhaps be objected, that " the Apostles and their
" company could have no notice of this unforeseen accident ;
" and therefore could not be prepared with such a precomposed
" set form of thanksgiving ; and that it was uttered so soon
" after the relation of what had befallen the Apostles, that if it
" had been composed upon that occasion, it seems impossible that
" copies of it should have been delivered out for the company to
" be so far acquainted with it, as immediately to join vocally in
" it." To which we answer, (i.) That since we have evidently
proved, from their joining vocally in it, that it must have been a
precomposed set form ; it lies upon our adversaries to answer
our argument, more than it does upon us to account for this
difficulty : for a difficulty, though it could not be easily accounted
for, is by no means sufficient to confront and overthrow a clear
demonstration. But, (2.) this difficulty is not so great as it
may at first appear : for there is nothing in the whole prayer,
but what might properly be used every day by a Christian con-
gregation, so long as the powers of the world were opposing and
tnreatening such as preached the Gospel, and the miraculous
. ATIOXAI, I'RKCOMl'OMil) i 11
gifts of the Holy Ghost were continued in the Church: so that i"troduct.
those who think thu prayer to have been conceived anil used on
that emergency only, and never cither before or after, do, in
reality, beg the question, and take that io. ' which they
cannot prove. For the Scripture says nothing like it, nor do
tin- circumstances require it ; and therefore it is very probable
that it was a standing form, well known in the Church, and fre-
quently used, POD offered : and consequently, upon this
occasion, (on which it is manifest it was highly seasonable and
proper. 1 they immediately brake forth, and vocally uttered, and
jointly >a'u I it, and perhaps added it to their other daily devotions,
which, we may very well suppose, they used at the same time,
though the historian takes no notice of it.
There remains still another objection, which may possibly be
made, vi/. that " the holy Scriptures, when they relate what was
" spoken, especially by a multitude, do not always give us the
" very words that were spoken, but only the sense of them : and
" accordingly in this instance, perhaps the congregation did not
" jointly offer up that very prayer, but when they had heard
" what the Apo*tlcs told them, they might all break out at
' one and the same time into vocal prayer, and every man utter
" words much to the same sense, though they might not join in
" one and the same form." But to remove this objection, we
need only reflect upon the intolerable confusion such a practice
must of necessity cause: for that they all prayed vocally, has
been evidently proved : if therefore they did not join in the same
prayer, but offer up every man different words, though to the
same sense; it must necessarily follow, that the whole company
would, instead of uniting in their devotions, interrupt and dis-
tract each other's prayers.
How much more reasonable then is it to believe, . that the
Apostles and their company, who then prayed all together
vocally, upon so solemn an occasion, did really use the same
prayer, and join in the same words ? And if so, then the argu-
ment already offered is a demonstration that they joined in a
prccomposcd set form of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and
psalms.
And that the primitive Christians did very early use precom-
posed set forms in their public worship, is evident from the names
given to their public prayers; for they are called the common
prayers*, constituted prayers*, and solemn prayers' 1 '. But that
which puts the matter out of all doubt, are the Liturgies ascribed
to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James; which, though corrupted
by later ages, arc doubtless of great antiquity. For besides
x Koival (vxaL Ju>t. 31 art. Apol. I. c. 85. p. 124. 1. 28. Y Ei>x win P paragraphs, see bishop Atterbury ; s Rights of an English
Convocation, id edit, from p. 184 to p. 205. a Strype's Memorials of Archbishop
Cranmer, p. 5 2 54.
BOOK OF COMMON I'll AVER. 21
second, the b Convocation declared their opinion, nullo rcclamante. Appendix
that the Communion ought to be administered to all persons introduce,
under loth kinds. Whereupon an Act of Parliament was made-, ""
ordering the Communion to be so administered. And then a
committee of bii-hops, and other learned divines, was appointed
to compose an uniform order of Communion, according to the
rules of Scrljitnre, (ind the use of the primitive Church. In order
to this, the committee repaired to Windsor;castle, and in that re-
tirement, within a few davs, drew up that form which is printed
in bishop Sparrow's collection . And this being immediately
brought into use tho next year, the same persons being em-
powered In a new commission, prepare themselves to enter upon
a yet nobler work ; and in a few months' time finished the whole
Liturgy, bv drawing up public offices not only for Sundays and
Holidays, but for Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, Burial of
the Dead, and other special occasions; in which the foremen-
tioned Office for the holy Communion was inserted, with many
alterations and amendments. And the whole book being so
framed, was set forth by the common agreement and full assent
both of the Parliament and Convocations provincial; i. e. the two
Convocations of the provinces of Canterbury and York.
The committee appointed to compose this Liturgy were,
1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury ; who was the
chief promoter of our excellent Reformation; and had a prin-
cipal hand, not only in compiling the Liturgy, but in all the steps
made towards it. He died a martyr to the religion of the Re-
formation, which principally by his means had been established
in the Church of England ; being burnt at Oxford in the reign
of queen Mary, March 21, 1556.
2. Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely.
3. Henry Holbech, alias Randes, bishop of Lincoln.
4. George Day, bishop of Chichestcr.
5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.
6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.
7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of
London. lie was esteemed the ablest man of all that advanced
the Reformation, for piety, learning, and solidity of judgment.
He died a martyr in queen Mary's reign, being burnt at Oxford,
October 16, 1555.
8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul's, London, and after-
wards also master of Queen's College in Cambridge.
9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. He
was deprived in the beginning of queen Mary's reign, and died
soon after.
10. Dr. Simon Heynes, dean of Exeter.
b See Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 157, 158. c Page 17.
LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
22 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE
Appendix ii. Dr. John Redraayne, master of Trinity College in Cam-,
introduct . bridge, and prebendary of Westminster.
~ 13. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church in Oxford, al-
moner and privy -council lor to king Edward VI. He was de-
prived of all his preferments in queen Mary's reign, and fled to
Frankfort ; from whence returning in the reign of queen Eliza-
beth, he was consecrated bishop of Ely.
13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester.
And confirm- Thus was our excellent Liturgy compiled by martyrs and
Sriiament > . f confessors, together with divers other learned bishops and di-
vines ; and being revised and approved by the archbishops,
bishops, and clergy of both the provinces of Canterbury and
York, was then confirmed by the king and the three estates in
parliament, A.D. 1548 d , who gave it this just encomium, viz.
which at this time BY THE AID OF THE HOLY GHOST,
with uniform agreement is of them concluded, set forth, &c.
But after- But about the end of the year 1550, or the beginning of 1551,
StteVto the some exceptions were taken at some things in this book, which
Buce^and were thought to savour too much of superstition. To remove
Martyr. these objections therefore, archbishop Cranmer proposed to re-
view it : and to this end called in the assistance of Martin
Bucer and Peter Martyr, two foreigners, whom he had invited
over from the troubles in Germany; who not understanding the
English tongue, had Latin versions prepared for them : one
Alesse, a Scotch divine, translating it on purpose for the use of
Bucer ; and Martyr being furnished with the version of Sir John
Upon whose Cheke, who had also formerly translated it into 6 Latin. What
^Te^ie^ed liberties this encouraged them to take in their censures of the
and altered. fl rgt Litt, r gy 5 and how far they were instrumental to the laying
aside several very primitive and venerable usages, I shall have
properer opportunities of shewing hereafter, when I come to
treat of the particulars in the body of the book. It will be suf-
ficient here just to note the most considerable additions and
alterations that were then made : some of which must be allowed
to be good ; as especially the addition of the sentences, exhorta-
tion., confession, and absolution, at the beginning of the morning
*and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book
began with the Lord's Prayer. The other changes were the re-
moving of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former
book ; such as the use of oil in baptism ; the unction of the sick;
prayers for souls departed, both in the Communion-office, and in
that for the burial of the dead ; the leaving out the invocation of
the Holy Gliost in the consecration of the Eucharist, and the
prayer of oblation that was used to follow it ; the omitting the
rubric, that ordered water to be mixed with wine, with several
d Second and third of Edward VI. chap. i. e Strype's Memorials of Archbishop
Cranmer, p. 210.
BOOK OF COMMON' I'll AY KK.
other less material variation-.. The habit* also, that were pro-
scribed by the former book, were ordi -reil by this to be laid introduce.
aside ; and, lastly, a rubric: was added at the end of the Commu-
nion-nflire to explain the reaxm of kneeling at the Sacrament.
book thus revised and altered was again confirmed in par- Ami ;uMin
hament A.I). 1 ";;") i , who declared, that the- alterations that were A"" JiTpar- 7
made in it proceeded from curiosity rather than ant/ \corthy cuuxi '.
JJut both this and the- former act mad.- in 154^, were repealed n,,th which
in the ,'irst vear of (jiieen Mary, as not being agreeable to tht pg o t J^J*
Komish superstition, which she was resolved to restore.
Hut upon the accession of queen Eli/abcth. the act of repeal But the se-
was reversed ; and, in order to the restoring of the English MT- i^B
vice, several learned divines were appointed to take another
review of king Edward's Liturgies, and to frame from "Ml* S 'JS
both a book for the use of the Church of England. The names
of those who, Mr. Cambden f says, were employed, are these that
follow :
Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely.
Dr. May.
Dr. Hill.
Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.
Sir Thomas Smith.
Mr. David White-head.
Mr. Edmund Grindall, afterwards bishop of London, and then
archbishop of Canterbury.
To these, Mr. Strype says*-', were added Dr. Edwin Sandys,
afterwards bishop of Worcester, and Mr. I'd ward Guest, a very
learned man, who was afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury,
almoner to the Queen, and bishop of Rochester, and afterwards
of Salisbury. And this last person, Mr. Strype thinks, had the
main care of the whole business ; being, as he supposes, recom-
mended by Parker to supply his absence. It was debated at
first, which of the two books of king Edward should be received;
and secretary Cecil sent several queries to Guest, concerning the
reception of some particulars in the first book ; as prayers for
the dead, the prayer of consecration, the delivery of the sacra-
ment into the mouth of the communicant, &c. h But however,
the second book of king Edward was pitched upon as the book
to be proposed to the parliament to be established, who ac-
cordingly passed and commanded it to be used, i.ith one altera-
tion or addition of certain IcMon.v to be used on every Sunday in
the fj ear , and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and
two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the com-
municants, and none other, or others*
In liis History of Q. Elizabeth. s Strype's Annals of Q. Elizabeth, p. Si, 83-
nt supra.
OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE
Appendix The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving
introduct. out a rough expression, viz. from the tyranny of the Bishop of
~~ Rome, and all his detestable enormities, which was a part of the
last deprecation in both the books of king Edward ; and the
adding those words to the first petition for the queen, strengthen-
in the true worshipping" of thee, in righteousness and holiness of
life, which were not in before. The two sentences added in the
delivery of the sacrament were these, The body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which was given for thee, or, The blood ofour-Lord Jesus
Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul to
everlasting life: which were taken out of king Edward's first
book, and were the whole forms then used : whereas in the
second book of that king, these sentences were left out, and in
the room of them were used, take, eat, or drink this, with what
follows; but now in queen Elizabeth's book both these forms
were united.
Though, besides these here mentioned, there are some other
variations in this book from the second o'f king Edward, viz.
the first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel and the
proper place of reading divine service, was altered ; the habits
enjoined by the first book of king Edward, and forbid by the
second, were now restored. At the end of the Litany was added
a prayer for the queen, and another for the clergy. And
lastly, the rubric that was added at the end of the Communion-
office, in the second book of king Edward VI. against the
notion of our Lord's real and essential presence in the holy Sa-
crament, was left out of this. For it being the queen's design
to unite the nation in one faith, it was therefore recommended
to the divines to see that there should be no definition made
against the aforesaid notion, but that it should remain as a spe-
culative opinion not determined, in which every one was left to
the freedom of his own mind.
And in this state the Liturgy continued without any farther
alteration, till the first year of king James I. when, after the
i. conference at Hampton court, between that prince with archbi-
shop Whitgift of Canterbury, and other bishops and divines on
the one side; and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans on
the other ; there were some forms of thanksgiving added at the
end of the Litany, and an addition made to the Catechism con-
cerning the sacraments ; the Catechism before that time ending
with the answer to that question which immediately follows the
Lord's Prayer. And in the rubric in the beginning of the Office
for private baptism, the words lawful minister were inserted, to
prevent midwives or laymen from presuming to baptize, with one
or two more small alterations.
And the And in this s.tate it continued to the time of king Charles II.
" who, immediately after his restoration, at the request of several
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
of the Presbyterian ministers, was willing to comply to another Appendix
review, and therefore issued out a commission, dated March 25. introduce.
1661, to empower twelve of the bishops, and twelve of the viewed ufter
Presbyterian divines, to consider of the objections raised again st^f '
the I/itur^v, and to make such reasonable and necessary altera-
tions as they should jointly agree upon : nine assistants on each
side being added to supply the place of any of the twelve princi-
pals who should happen to be absent. The names of them are
as follow :
On the Episcoparian side.
Principals.
Dr. Fruen, archb. of York.
Dr. Sheldon, bp. of London.
Dr. Cosin, bp. of Durham.
Dr. Warner, bp. of Rochester.
*Dr. Kim:, bp. of Chichester.
Dr. Henchman, bp. of Sarum.
Dr. Morley, bp. of Worcester.
Dr. Sanderson, bp. of Lincoln.
Dr. Luiu'V, bp. of Peterborough.
Dr. Walton, bp. of Chester.
Dr. Stern, bp. of Carlisle.
Dr. Gauden, bp. of Exeter.
Coadjutors.
Dr. Earles,dean of Westminster.
Dr. Heylin.
Dr. Hackett.
Dr. Banvick.
Dr.. Gunning.
Dr. Pearson.
Dr. Pierce.
Dr. Sparrow*
Mr. Thorndike.
On the Presbyterian side.
Principals.
Dr. Reynolds, bp. of Norwich.
Dr. Tuckney.
Dr. Conant.
Dr. Spurstow.
Dr.Wallis.
Dr. Man ton.
Mr. Calamy.
Mr. Baxter.
Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Clark.
Mr. Newcomen.
Coadjutors.
Dr. Horton.
Dr. Jacomb.
Mr. Bates.
Mr. Rawlinson.
Mr. Cooper.
Dr. Lightfoot.
Dr. Collins.
Dr.Woodbridge.
Mr. Drake.
These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but
all to very little purpose ; the Presbyterians heaped together all
the old scruples that the Puritans had for above a hundred
* I do not meet with this name either in the copy of the commission that was
printed in 1661, in the account of the proceedings of the Commissioners, or in that
copy of it which Dr. Nichols has printed at the end of his preface to his book upon
the Common Prayer; nor in that which Mr. Collier gives us in his Ecclesiastical
History i. But Mr. Baxter inserts it in the copy of the commission that he has
printed in the narrative of his own lifek, and Dr. Nichols mentions him in his intro-
duction to his Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England : and
there are not twelve principal Commissioners on the Church side without him : and
therefore I suppose he was left out of the copy of the commission in 1 66 1 , by the
printer's mistake, and that from thence Dr. Nichols and Mr. Collier might continue
the omission. *
i Vol. II. p. 8 76.
k Page 303.
26 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE
Appendix years been raising against the Liturgy, and, as if they were not
introduce, enough, swelling the number of them with many new ones of
""their own. To these, one and all, they demand compliance on
the Church side, and will hear of no contradiction even in the
minutest circumstances. But the completest piece of assurance
was the behaviour of Baxter, who (though the king's commission
gave them no farther power, than to compare the Common Prayer
Book with the most ancient Liturgies that had been used in the
Church^ in the most primitive and purest times ; requiring them
to avoid, as much as possible, all unnecessary alterations of' the
Forms and Liturgy, wherewith the people were altogether ac-
quainted, and had so long received in the Church of' England)
would not so much as allow that our Liturgy was capable of
amendment, but confidently pretended to compose a new one of
his own ; and, without any regard to any other Liturgy what-
soever, either modern or ancient, amassed together a dull, tedious,
crude, and indigested heap of stuff; which, together with the rest
of the Commissioners on the Presbyterian side, he had the inso-
lence to offer to the bishops, to be received and established in the
room of the Liturgy. Such usage as this, we may reasonably
think, must draw the disdain and contempt of all that were
concerned for the Church. So that the conference broke up,
without any thing done, except that some particular alterations
were proposed by the episcopal divines, which, the May follow-
ing, were considered and agreed to by the whole Clergy in Con-
vocation. The principal of them were, that several lessons in the
calendar were changed for others more proper for the days 5 the
prayers upon particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany,
and the two prayers to be used in the Ember-weeks, the prayer
for the Parliament, that for all conditions of' men, and the general
thanksgiving, were added: several of k the collects were altered,
the Epistles and Gospels were taken out of the last translation of
the Bible, being read before according to the old translation :
the office for baptism of tlwse of riper years, and the forms of
prayer to be used at sea, were added k . In a word, the whole
Liturgy was then brought to that state in which it now stands ;
and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of Convocation,
of both Provinces, on Friday the 2oth of December 1661. And
being brought to the house of lords the March following, both
houses very readily passed an act for its establishment ; and the
earl of Clarendon, then high chancellor of England, was ordered
to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy of
both provinces, for the great care and industry shewn in the
review of it.
The com. Thus have I given a brief historical account of the first com-
piling of our
k For a more particular account of what was done in this review, see the Preface
to the Common Praver Book.
dOOK OP COMMON 1R. \VI-M. !
piling the Hook of Common Prayer, and of the several reviews AP P HT
that were afterwards taken of it by our bishops and Convoca- intnxiuct.
tions: one end of which was, that so "whosoever will may Liturgy, &c.
as hi>hop Sparrow shews on a like 1 occasion) tl
" notorious slander which some of the Roman persuasion have^
" endeavoured to cast upon our church, viz. That her reforma-
" tion hath been altogether lay and parliamentary? For it
appears bv the proceedings observed in the reformation of the
service of the rhurch, that this reformation was regularly made
by the bishops and clergy in their provincial synods; the king
and parliament only establishing by the civil sanction what was
there done bv cn'lcs'infstical authority. " It was indeed," as my
lord bishop of Sarum has excellently well observed 01 , " con-
" firmed by ihe authority of parliament, and there was good
" reason to desire that, to give it the force of a law ; but the au-
" tliority of [the book and] those changes is wholly to be derived
" from the Convocation, who only consulted about them and
' made them. And the parliament did take that care in the
" enacting them, that might shew they did only add the force of
" a law to them: for in passing them it was ordered, that the
" Book of Common Prayer and Ordination should only be read
" over, (and even that was carried upon some debate ; for many,
" as I have been told, moved that the book should be added to
" the act, as it was sent to the parliament from the Convocation,
" without ever reading it ; but that seemed indecent and too
" implicit to others,) and there was no change made in a tittle by
" parliament. So that they only enacted by a law what the
" Convocation had done." And therefore, as his lordship says
in another place", "As it were a great scandal on the first general
" councils to say, that they had no authority for what they did,
" but what they derived from the civil power ; so is it no less
" unjust to say, because the parliament empowered (I suppose
" his lordship means approved) some persons to draw up forms
" for the more pure administration of the sacraments, and enacted
" that these only should be lawfully used in this realm, which is
" the civil sanction ; that therefore these persons had no other
" authority for what they did. Was it ever heard of that the
" civil sanction, which only makes any constitution to have the
" force of a law, gives it any other authority than a civil one ?
" The Prelates and other Divines, that compiled [these forms],
" did it by virtue of the authority they had from Christ, as
" pastors of his church ; which did empower them to teach the
" people the pure word of God, and to administer the sacraments,
" and to perform all holy functions, according to the Scripture,
" the practice of the primitive church, and the rules of expediency
1 Preface to his Collection of Articles, &c. towards the end. m Vindication of
Ordinations of the Church of England, p. 53, 54. n P. 74, 75.
28 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE
App to" ta " anc * reason ; an d this they ought to have done, though the
introduct c i v il power had opposed it : in which case their duty had been
" to have submitted to whatever severities and persecutions they
" might have been put to for the name of Christ, or the truth of
" his gospel. But on the other hand, when it pleased God to
" turn the hearts of those which had the chief power, to set
" forward this good work ; then they did, as they ought, with all
" thankfulness acknowledge so great a blessing, and accept and
" improve the authority of the civil power, for adding the
" sanction of a law to the reformation, in all the parts and
te branches of it. So by the authority they derived from Christ,
" and the warrant they had by the Scripture arid the primitive
" Church, ^these prelates and divines made those alterations and
" changes in the ordinal ; and the king and the parliament, who
" are vested with the supreme legislative power, added their
" authority to them, to make them obligatory on the subjects."
These excellent words of this right reverend prelate are a full
and complete answer to the Romanists' cavil of the lay original of
our Liturgy. And I cannot but wonder, that others, who have
wrote exceeding well on the Common Prayer Book, have not
been careful to obviate this objection ; but have indeed rather
given occasion for it, by intimating as if the Book of Common
Prayer had been compiled by some persons only by virtue and
authority of the king's commission : whereas it was indeed a
committee of the two houses of Convocation, and the book
was revised and authorized by the whole synod, and in a syno-
dical way, before it received the civil sanction from the king and
parliament.
And for this reason I have given a true account of this matter,
that others who are led away by Erastian principles, and think
that the civil magistrate only has authority in matters of religion,
may be convinced that this is not agreeable to the doctrine of
our church ; who declares in her twentieth article, that the
Church (that is, the ecclesiastical governors, the bishops and
their presbyters; for there maybe a church where there is no
Christian civil magistrate) hath power to decree rites and ceremo-
nies, and authority in matters of faith : and affirms again in the
thirty-seventh article, that where we attribute to the Queen's
Majesty the chief government, we give not to our Princes the
ministering either of God's word, or of the Sacraments ; but that
only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all
godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself; that is, that
they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge
by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain
with the CIVIL sword the stubborn and evil doers. Our Liturgy
was therefore first established by the Convocations or provincial
Synods of the realm, and thereby became obligatory in foro
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 29
canscicntifc; and was then confirmed and ratified by the supreme A Pi| p o ndI *
magistrate in parliament, and so also became < >l )ligatory in Jbro introduct.
ch'it't. It IIMS therefore all authority both ecclesiastical and civil.
As it is established bv ecclesiastical authority, those who separate
themselves and set up another form of worship are schismatics ;
and consequently are guilty of a damnable sin, which no toleration
granted by the civil magistrate can authorize or justify. But as
it is settled hv act rf parliament, the separating from it is only
an offence against the state; and as such may be pardoned by
the state. The act of toleration, therefore (as it is called) has
freed the Dissenters from being offenders against the state, not-
withstanding their separation from the worship prescribed by the
Liturgy : but it by no means excuses or can excuse them from
the schism they have made in the church ; they are still guilty of
that sin, and will be so as long as they separate, notwithstanding
any temporal authority to indemnify them.
And here I designed to have put an end to the Introduction ;
but having in the first part of it vindicated the use of Liturgies
in general, and in this Appendix given an historical account of
our own ; I think I cannot more properly conclude the whole
than with Dr. Comber's excellent and just encomium of the lat-
ter; bv which the reader will, I doubt not, be very well enter-
tained, and perhaps be rendered more inquisitive after those ex-
cellencies and beauties which are here mentioned, and which it
is one chief design of the following treatise to shew. In hopes
of this, therefore, I shall here transcribe the very words of the
reverend and learned author :
" Though all churches in the world," saith he , " have and
" ever had forms of prayer, yet none was ever blessed with soturgy.
" comprehensive, so exact, and so inoffensive a composure [as
" ours] ; which is so judiciously contrived, that the wisest may
" exercise at once their knowledge and devotion ; and yet so
" plain, that the most ignorant may pray with understanding:
" so full, that nothing is omitted which is fit to be asked in
" public ; and so particular, that it compriseth most things
" which we would ask in private ; and yet so short, as not to
" tire any that hath true devotion : its doctrine is pure and pri-
" mitive ; its ceremonies so few and innocent, that most of the
" Christian world agree in them : its method is, exact and na-
" tural ; its language significant and perspicuous ; most of the
" words and phrases being taken out of the holy Scriptures, and
" the rest are the expressions of the first and purest ages ; so
" that whoever takes exception at these must quarrel with
" the language of the Holy Ghost, and fall out with the church
t in her greatest innocence : and in the opinion of the most im-
" partial and excellent Grotius, (who was no member of, nor had
" any obligation to, this church,) the English Liturgy comes so
o Dr. Comber's preface, p. 4. of the folio edition.
30 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
Appendix near to the primitive pattern, that none of the reformed churches
Jntroduct. " can compare with it P.
" And if any thing external be needful to recommend that
tc which is so glorious within ; we may add that the Compilers
" were [most of them] men of great piety and learning ; [and
" several of them] either martyrs or confessors upon the resti,
" tution of Popery ; which as it declares their piety, so doth the
" judicious digesting of these prayers evidence their learning.
" For therein a scholar can discern close logic, pleasing rhetoric,
" pure divinity, and the very marrow of the ancient doctrine and
" discipline ; and yet all made so familiar, that the unlearned
" may safely say Amen 9.
" Lastly, all these excellencies have obtained that universal
" reputation which these prayers enjoy in all the world : so that
" they are most deservedly admired by the eastern churches,
" and had in great esteem by the most eminent Protestants
" beyond sea r , who are the most impartial judges that can be
" desired. In short, this Liturgy is honoured by all but the Ro-
" manist, whose interest it opposeth, and the Dissenters, whose
" prejudices will not let them see its lustre. Whence it is that
" they call that, which the Papists hate because it is Protestant,
" superstitious and popish. But when we consider that the best
" things in a bad world have the most enemies, as it doth not
" lessen its worth, so it must not abate our esteem, because it
" hath malicious and misguided adversaries.
" How endless it is to dispute with these, the little success of
" the best arguments, managed by the wisest men, do too sadly
" testify : wherefore we shall endeavour to convince the enemies,
" by assisting the friends of our church devotions : and by draw-
" ing that veil which the ignorance and indevotion of some, and
" the passion and prejudice of others have cast over them, re-
" present the Liturgy in its true and native lustre : which is so
" lovely and ravishing, that, like the purest beauties, it needs no
" supplement of art and dressing, but conquers by its own at-
t; tractions, and wins the affections of all but those who do not
" see it clearly. This will be sufficient to shew, that whoever
" desires no more than to worship God with zeal and knowledge,
" spirit and truth, purity and sincerity, may do it by these
" devout forms. And to this end may the God of peace give us
" all meek hearts, quiet spirits, and devout affections ; and free
" us from all sloth and prejudice, that we may have full churches.
" frequent prayers, and fervent charity ; that, uniting in our
" prayers here, we may all join in his praises hereafter, for the
" sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
v (irotius Ep. ad Boet. q i Cor. xiv. 16. * See Durel's Defence of the Liturgy.
THE END OF THE INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
a CHAP. I.
OF THE TABLES, RULES, AND CALENDAR.
PART I.
OF THE TABLES AND RULES.
SECT. I. Of the Rule for finding Easter.
THE proper Lessons and Psalms being spoken to at large in
other parts of this treatise, there is no need to say any thing ~~
particularly concerning the Tables that appoint them. I shall
therefore pass them by, and begin with the Rule for folding Rule for
: which stands thus in all Books of Common Prayer
printed in or since the year 1752 : Easter-day is always the first
Sunday after the full Moon, which happens upon or next after
^t'tifi/-/irst day of March ; and if the full Moon happens
> a Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday after.
. 2. To shew upon what occasion the rule was framed, it is upon what
to be observed, that in the first ages of Christianity there arose ruiTw^
vut difference between the churches of Asia and other
churches, about the day whereon Easter ought to be celebrated.
The churches of Asia kept their Easter upon the same day Easter dif-
on which the Jews celebrated their passover, viz. upon the four-
uenth day of their first month Nisan (which month began at
the new moon next to the vernal b equinox) ; and this they did
upon what day of the week soever it fell; and were from thence
called Quartodecimans, or such as kept Easter upon the four-
it en tii day after the ao-is, or appearance of the moon: whereas
ther churches, especially those of the West, did not follow
this custom, but kept their Easter on the Sunday following the
Jewish passover ; partly the more to honour the day, and partly
to cUiUpguish between Jews and Christians. Both sides pleaded
" In this edition, after the example of all others published since the year 1752, this
i-h.-ijitiT is printed with the alterations necessary to adapt it to the itetc Calendar^
7V;/jv, and Rules, which were ordered to be prefixed to all future editions of the
"Book of Common Prayer, by the Act 24 Geo. II. intitled, An Act for regulating the
ucnnent of the year ; 'and for correcting the calendar. b Josephus, Aitfiq.
Judaic, lib. 3. cap. 10.
Ordered to
be eyery
where ob-
served on the
same day by
the council
of Nice.
83 OF THE TABLES AND RULES.
Chap. I. apostolical tradition : these latter pretending to derive their
practice from St. Peter and St. Paul : whilst the others, viz. the
Asiatics, said they imitated the example of St. John c .
This difference for a considerable time continued with a great
deal of Christian charity and forbearance ; but at length became
the occasion of great bustles in the church ; which grew to such
a height at last, that Constantine thought it time to use his in-
terest and authority to allay the heat of the opposite parties, and
to bring them to a uniformity of practice. To which end he got
a canon to be passed in the great general council of Nice, " That
ff every where the great feast of Easter should be observed upon,
" one and the same day ; and that not on the day of the Jewish
" passover, but, as had been generally observed, upon the Sunday
" afterwards/' And d that this dispute imight never arise again,
these paschal canons were then also established, viz.
1. " That the twenty -first day of March shall be accounted
ct the vernal equinox.
2. " That the full moon happening upon or next after the
" twenty-first day of March shall be taken for the full moon of
" Nisan.
3. " That the Lord's day next following that full moon be
" Easter-day.
4. " But if the full moon happen upon a Sunday, Easter-day
" shall be the Sunday after."
. 3. Agreeable to these is the Rule for finding Easter, which
we are now discoursing of. But here we must observe, that the
Fathers of the next century ordered the new and full moons to
be found out by the cycle of the moon, consisting of nineteen
years, invented by Meton the e Athenian, and from its great
usefulness in ascertaining the moon's age, as it was thought for
ever, was called the Golden Number ; and was for some time
usually written in letters of gold. By this cycle, I say, the Fa-
thers of the next century ordered the moon's age to be found
out ; which they thought a certain way, since at the end of nine-
teen years the moon returns to have her changes on the same
day of the solar year and month, whereon they happened nine-
teen years before. For which reason the cycle was some time
afterwards placed in the calendar, in the first column of every
month, in such manner as that every number of the cycle should
stand against those days in each month, on which the new
moons should happen in that year of the cycle. But now it is
to be noted, that though at the end of every nineteen years the
moon changes on the very same days of the solar months, on
which it changed nineteen years before ; yet the change happens
about an hour and a half sooner every nineteen years than in
Euseb. Hist. EccL 5. c. 23, 24. p. 193, &c. Vide et 1. 4. c. 14. d Eusebius in
Vita Constant. 1. 3. c. 18. e Blondel's Roman Calendar, part I. lib. 2
