3155
^at
J&m...ftf Iflm'Boolc-
Zfifflfl
Keep Your Card in this Pocket
Boots will be issued only on presentation
of proper library cards.
Unless labeled otherwise, books may be
retained for four weeks. Borrowers finding
books marked, defaced or mutilated are ex-
pected to report same at library desk; other-
wise the last borrower will be held responsible
for all impel fections discovered,
The card bolder is responsible for all books
drawn on his card.
No books issued unless penalties are paid.
Lost cards and change of residence must
be reported piomptly.
Kan City, No.
Keep four Card in this Pocket
BOOK. OP COMMON PEAYEK
CHURCH OF ENGLAND :
THE SUBSTANCE OF EVERY THING LITURGICAL IN
BISHOP SPARROW, MR. L'ESTRANGE, DR. COMBER, DR. NICHOLR.
AND ALL FORMER RITUALISTS, COMMENTATORS, AND
OTHERS, UPON THE SAME SUBJECT.
CHARLES WHEATLY, M.A.
* OP BIIENT AND FUBNEUX PBLRAM IN
JUOKDON:
BELL AND DALDY, YOBK STBEET, OOTENT GARDEN.
1871.
LONDON:
PBIffTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,
STA3CPOKD STREET ANI> CHAKING CBOSS.
THE PREFACE.
IN a former edition of this book, -which was printed in folio, I was
at a loss in what manner I was to address the reader ; that is, whe-
ther I was 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 I 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 rest. 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 t to run the hazard 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 off 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
notwithstanding must have been much the same: and the-y sure
will appear to a better advantage by standing entire, and *n 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 rubrics would have required ;
which was the method I afterwards thought fit to pursue.* For
* I desire that what I have said may be principally understood of the introductory
discourse (which is almost verbally transcribed from Dr. Bonnet's Erief History of the
joint Use of precomposed set Forms of Prayer] and of the three first sections of the se-
cond chapter ; for the first of which I am partly obliged to bishop Bev'eridge's Discourse
on The Necessity and Advantage ofPubhc Prayer; for the second to Dr. Cave's Pri-
mitive Christianity ; and for the third to Mr. Roberta's excellent Sermon at the Primary
Visitation of the late bishop of Exeter at Oakhampton. The two following sections of
that chapter are pretty much in the method I afterwards observed, and so for the most
part is the whole first chapter ; for the first division of which (concerning the Tables
and Rules) I must not forget to repeat the acknowledgments I have more than once
made to the learned Dr. Brett.
iv THE PREFACE.
when I observed at the close of the second chapter, (which Is upon
the general rubric concerning The Order for Morning and Evening
Prayer,} that I had taken no notice in what part of the Church Di-
vine Service should be performed, (the appointment of which was
yet the principal design of the first part of that rubric,) 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 rubrics in ge-
neral, 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 further 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 historv of com-
piling it, and of the several alterations it bas undergone from time
to time, I easily foresaw the rubrics 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 in-
quiring 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 of what I had at first undertaken, which was only the
supervising a few sheets as they were worked off, I had got an en-
tire new work upon my hands, and that I was to prepare for, as
well as to correct from, the press. New additions I perceived were
necessary to be made almost in every page, and where the old mat-
ter was continued, it was to be often transposed, and to be worked
THE PREFACE. v
up again in different parts of the book. So that neither of my
former editions was, from the time above mentioned, of any other
use to me in compiling of this, than any of the authors that lay open
before me: except that what was scattered in different books,
which treat some of them of one thing and some of another, I ge-
nerally 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 advantage 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 pro-
fessedly upon the Common Prayer, does not amount to near a fourth
part of what the following sheets contain. Nor will it seem in-
credible, that everything 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 tnat are voluminous (Dr. Comber and Dr. Nichols)
scarce an eighth part of either of them come within the limits I
confined myself to. The bulk of the former consists in large Para-
phrases and practical Discourses, which I wholly passed by : and if
the latter has done nothing in a practical way, y^et 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 snail 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.
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
V1 THE
supplied, it often came to pass, that when the paragraph was finish-
ed, 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 further 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
further 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, be-
cause 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 favourable
an indulgence to the author) of overlooking the slightest mistakes.
And this I take to be the proper place to explain myself in re-
lation to one passage particularly which I know has been thought
to need the greatest amendment, though I have let it stand with-
out making any. ^ And indeed an explanation of it is so much the
more needful, as 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 passage 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 pro-
nouncing it, to^ all that come within the terms proposed."* And
again, that it "is more than DECLARATIVE, that it is truly EFFECTIVE j
insuring and conveying to the proper subjects thereof the very
absolution or remission itself, "f This has been thought by some,
from whose judgment I should be very unwilling to difter or recede,
is of Absolution
--j- ~~ ** 1/Aj.v, Visitation of the om^,
where they are thought to be more consistent with Scripture and
* Page 115. t Page 119> 120 .
THE PREPACK. v j|
antiquity. I have there endeavoured to shew that there is no
standing authority in the Ministers of the Gospel, to pardon or
forgive sins immediately and directly in relation to God, and as to
which the censure of the Church had been in no wise concerned."*
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 it by the sentence of GOD,
any further than by the prayers which are appointed to accompany
it, and by the use _ of those ordinances 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 as it relates to him."f These
passages, I acknowledge, as they are separated from their contexts,
and opposed to one another, seem a little inconsistent and con-
fusedly 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 I am speaking of
a judicial and unconditional absolution, pronounced by the Min-
ister 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 dp away our inward, guilt, but only to exercise an
external authority, founded upon the power of the keys j 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 ha>e the misfortune not to be accounted so clear. But,
with humble submission, I can see nothing there inconsistent with
what I have said on the other. The absolution I am speaking of
is conditional, pronounced by the Priest in a declarative form,
and limited to such as truly repent and unfeignedly believe God's holy
Gospel This indeed I have asserted to be effective, and that it
insures and conveys to the proper subjects thereof the very absolu-
tion 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 supposes,
if I mistake not, that GOD always accompanies the ministrations
of the Priest, if there be no impediment on the part of the people.
And therefore when the Priest, in the name of GoD r so solemnly
declares to a congregation that has been humbly confessing their
sins, and importuning the remission of them, that GOD does ac-
tually pardon, all that truly repent and unfdgnedly 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 declar-
ation?
* Page 442. t Page 443,
Viil THE PP.EFACE.
I am sure this notion gives no encouragement either of presump-
tion to the penitent, or of arrogance to the Priest : I nave 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 he pardoned^ and
absolved. 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 eifect ; 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 anjr such absolution to be pro-
nounced, as this is, to the congregation in general. But yet, if
they had absolutions upon any occasion, and those absolutions
were supposed to procure a reconcilement with GOD, (neither of
which, f 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 allow-
ing 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 con-
science of the sinner, and not the outward 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.* If then absolu-
tions, even in the earliest ages, were thought to be instrumental
to procure GOD'S forgiveness to such sins as had deserved ecclesi-
astical 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
intercession^, 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 tne 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 sinner's embracing them with repentance and faith, that
must make the application of them effectual to himself.
I hope this explanation will justify my notions upon the daily
absolution, 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 rne is an
argument that our Church designed it for an effect, which it was
t
* See Dr. Marshall's Penitential Discipline, page 93, &c. See also the forms of
Absolution in his Appendix, numb. 4, 5, 6, 7. f See page 120, &c.
THE PREFACE. lx
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 Scripture 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 sus-
pected 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 re-
marks. But TRUTH was what I aimed at through my whole under-
taking; 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 consider,
some things may^ appear as ^ truths to me, which others, who have
better opportunities of inquiring into them, may find to be other-
wise : 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 am
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 the less favour, because I have shewed rny-
self fallible ; and particularly I would importune my reverend
brethren of the CLERGY, (upon whose countenance the success of
this work must depend,) that if the Eubrics 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 illus-
trated 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 pros-
tituted to the caprice of the people, to be used where, and when,
and in what manner they please ; 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 ob- (
serve further 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 wbo understand not the language they
THE PREFACE,
were written in, must take my word for the meaning of them at
last: and those who are capable of reading the originals, I sup-
posed, would turn to the books themselves for any thing they
should doubt of, how careful soever I should have been in tran-
scribing 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 used.* The reason of
my adding the times when the writers flourished, was, that my less
learned reader might gather from thence the antiquity of the se-
veral 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.
AN" ALPHABETICAL INDEX
ECCLESIASTICAL "WRITERS CITED IN THIS BOOK
WITH THE TIMES "WHEN THEY PLOTJBISHED, AND THE
EDITIONS MADE USE OF.
Alcuin, A. B. 780. De Offic. Biyin. Paris. 1610.
Ambro&e, A. B. 374. Opera, ed. Bened. Paris. 1686.
Arnobius, A. B. 303. Adv. Gentes. Lugd. Bat 1651.
Athanasras, A. D. 326. Opera, ed. Benedict, Paris. 1698.
Athenagoras, A. D. 177. Legatio by Dechair, Oxon. 1706.
Augustui, A. D. 396. Opera, ed. Benedict. Paris. 1679.
Basil the Great, A. D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1638.
Bernard, A D. 1115. Opera. Paris. 1640.
Canons called Apostolical, most of them, composed before A. D. 300. By
Coteler. Antwerp. 1698.
Cedremis, A. D. 1056. Histor. Compend. Paris. 1649.
Chrysostom, A. D. 398. Opera, ed. Sard. Eton. 1612.
Clemens of Alexandria, A. D. 192. Opera. Paris. 1629.
Clemens of Rome, A. D. 65. Epistolse by "Wotton. Cant. 1718.
Codex Theodosianus, A. B. 438. Lug-d. 1665.
Constitutions called Apostolical, about A.D, 450. By Coteler. Antwerp. 1698
Cyprian, A. B. 248. Opera by Fell. Oxon. 1682.
Cyril of Jerusalem, A. D. 350. Opera by Mills. Oxon. 1703.
Bionysius of Alexandria, A. D. 254. Epist. adv. Paul. Sam. Paris. 1610
Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, A. B. 362. Opera. Paris. 1615.
D-urandus Mimatensis, A. D. 1286. Rationale. Lugd. 1612.
Durantrus. Be Bit. Eccles. Cath. Rom. 1591.
Epiphanius. A. D. 368. Opera. Paris. 1622.
Euagrius $cholasticus, A. D. 594. Eccles. Histor. Pans. 1673.
Eusebi-us, A. D. 315. Opera. Paris. 1659.
Sennadrus Massxliem, A D. 495. De Eccles. Dogmat. Hamb. 1614.
Gratian, A. D. 1131. Opera. Paris. 1601.
Gregory the Great, A. D. 590. Opera. Paris. 1675.
Gregory Nazianaen, A- 1>. 370. Opera. Paris. 1630.
Gregory Nyssen, A. D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1615.
Hierom or Jerome, A. D. 378. Opera, edit. Ben. Paris. 1704.
Ignatius, A. B. 101. Opera by Smith. Oxon. 1709.
IrWeus, A. D. 167. Adv. Haeres. by Grabe. Oxon. 1702.
Isidore Hispalensis, A. I). 595. Opera. Paris. 1601.
Isidore Peleusiota, A. D. 412. Opera. Paris. 1638.
Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. Apol. l.lby Grabe. Oxon. 1700. Opera. Paris. 1615.
Lactantius. A. D. 303. Opera by Sparlz. Oxon. 1684.
Be Eccles. Observ. Paris. 1610.
xn
INDEX OF ECCLESIASTICAL WHITERS.
Minncrus Felix, A. B. 220. Octa-vms "by Davis. Cant. 1712.
Mcephoras Calistus, A. D. 1333. Eccles. Histor. Paris. 1630
Optatus Mileyitanns, A. D. 368. Opera. Paris. 1679.
Origen, A. B. 230. Opera Latine. Paris. 1604.
Panlimis, A. B, 420. Lib. eontr. Felic. Paris. 1610.
Paulus Biaeonns, A. B. 757. Opera. Paris. 1611.
Polycarp, A. B. 108, Ep. ad Phil, by Smith. Oxon. 1709.
Pontius Biaconus, A. B. 251. Tita S. Cypr. before St. Cyprian's Works
Oxon. 1682.
Proclus, A. B. 434. Be Trad. BIT. Lit, Paris. 1560.
Rufinms, A, D. 390. In Symbolum at the end of St. Cyprian's "Works.
Socrates, A. B. 439. Eccles. Histor. Paris. 1668.
Sozomen, A. B. 440. Eccles. Histor. Paris. 1668.
Synesius, A. B. 410. Opera. Paris. 1631.
Tatian, A. B. 172. Orat. ad G-r. by "Worth. Oxon. 1700.
TertnUian, A. B. 192. Opera by Bigaltms. Paris. 1675.
Theodoret, A. B. 423. Opera. Paris. 1642.
Theodosrus Junior. See Codex Theodosianus,
TheopMlus Antiochen, A. B. 168. Ad Autolyc. by Fell. Oxon. 1684.
Theophylact, A. B. 1077. Commentarii. Paris. 1631.
COUNCILS.
By Labbee and Cossart, in 15 tomes. Paris. 1671.
Agathense, A. B. 506.
Anrelianense 1, A. B. 511.
Bracharense 1, A. B. 563.
Calchntense, A. B. 787-
Carthaginense 3, A. B. 252.
Carthaginense 4, A. B. 253.
Constantinop. 2, Gen. A. B. 381.
Constant. 6, Gen. See Quini-sextum.
Eiiberitanuxn, A. B. 30o.
Gerundense 1, A. B. 517.
Laodicennm, A. B. 367.
Milevitan.1, A.B.402.
Feocaesariense, A. B. 315.
Mcennm 1, Gen. A. B. 325.
Orleance 1. See Aurelianense 1.
Placentimim, A. B. 1095.
Qxiini-sextum in Trallo, A. B. 69:
Bhemense 2, A. B. 813.
Sardicense, A. B. 347.
Toletanum 3, A. B. 589.
Triburiense, A. B, 895.
TraUan, See Quini-s
Yasense 1, A. B. 442.
Tasense 2, A. B. 529.
A
KATIONAL ILLUSTRATION
OF THE
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
AN INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE,
SHEWING THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF A NATIONAL
PIUSCOMPOSED LITURGY.
MOST of the objections urged by the Dissenters against the
Church of England, to justify their separation from it, being
levelled against its form and manner of divine worship, pre-
scribed in the Book of Common Prayer, &c., are, in the
following Discourse, answered, as fully as its brevity would
permit. So that, though the principal design of this book be
to instruct such as are friends to our Church and Liturgy ;
yet it is not impossible but that, by the blessing of God, it
may in some measure contribute to the undeceiving some that
are enemies to both, (such I mean as are disaffected to the
former, upon no other account, than a prejudice to the
latter;) especially could we, by first convincing them of the
Lawfulness and Necessity of National precomposed LI-
TURGIES in general, preuiil with them to take an impartial
view of what is here offered in behalf of our own. To this
end therefore, and to make the following sheets of as general
use as I can, I shall, by way of INTRODUCTION, endeavour to
prove these three things ; viz.
I. PIRST, That the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles,
and th> primitive Christians, never joined (as far as we can
prove) in any prayers, but pre composed set forms only.
H. SECONDLY, That those precomposed set forms, in which
they joined, were such as the respective congregations were
accpstomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with.
III. THIRDLY, That their practice warrants tltfc imposition
of a National precomposed Liturgy. <
2 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [INTRODUCTION.
I. FIBST, I am to prove that the ancient Jews, our Sa-
viour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, never joined
(as far as we can prove) in any prayers, but precomposed set
forms only. And this I shall do by shewing,
1. First, That they did join in precomposed set forms of
prayer.
2. Secondly, That (as far as we can conjecture) they never
joined in any other.
1. First, I shall shew that the ancient Jews, our Saviour,
his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, did join in pre-
composed set forms of prayer.
1st, To begin with the Jews, we find that the first piece of
solemn worship recorded in Scripture is a hymn of praise,
composed by Moses upon the deliverance of the children of
Israel from the Egyptians, which was sung by all the con-
gregation alternately ; by Moses and the men first, and after-
wards by Miriam and the women : l which could not have
been done unless it had been a precomposed set form. Again,
in the expiation of an uncertain murder, the elders of the city
which is next to the slain are expressly commanded to say,
and consequently to join in saying, a form of prayer, pre-
composed by God himself. 2 And in other places of Scripture 3
we meet with several other forms of prayer, precomposed by
God, and prescribed by Moses ; which though they were not
to be joined in by the whole congregation, are yet sufficient
precedents for the use of precomposed set fornis. But further,
the Scriptures assure us, that David appointed the Levites to
stand ^ every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and
likewise at even* which rule was observed in the temple
afterwards built by Solomon, and restored at the building of
the second temple after the captivity. 5 Lastly, the whole
book of Psalms were forms of prayer and praise, indited by
the Holy Ghost, for the joint use of the congregation ; as
appears as well from the titles of several of the Psalms, 6 as
from other places of Scripture.
Innumerable proofs might be brought, both ancient and
modern, that the Jews did always worship God by precom-
posed set forms : but the world is fully satisfied of this truth,
from the concurrent testimonies of Josephus, Philo, Paul
. xv. 1 20, 21. Dent. 3cd. 7, 8. s Numb. vi. 22, &c. chap, x, 35, 36.
- ' & V X& - l Chwro-aaifl. 30. *Veh, xii P 44,45 46.
cTiON.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. 3
Fagius, Scaliger, Buxtorf, and Selden in Eutychium. The
reader may consult two learned men c/f our own, vi2. Dr.
Hammond (who both proves that the Jews used set forms,
and that their prayers and praises, &c. were in the same order
as our Common Prayer 8 ) and Dr. Lightfoot, who not only
asserts they worshipped God by stated forms, but also sets
down both the order and method of their hymns and suppli-
cations. 9 So that there is no more reason to doubt of their
having and using a precom posed settled Liturgy, than of our
own having and using the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and
of its consisting of precomposed set forms. We shall therefore
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
be made, but that he continued always in communion with
the Jewish Church, and was zealous 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 congregations, as the learned
Dr. Lightfoot has largely proved. 10 And we may be sure,
that had not our Saviour very constantly attended their
public worship, and joined in the devotions of their congre-
gations, 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 Saviour was a con-
stant attendant on the public service of the Jews, and conse-
quently that he joined in precomposed set forms of prayer. _
And, 2ndly, as to the Apostles and our LorcVs other dis-
ciples, 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, 11 which consisted of pre-
composed set forms) it is plain that they used precomposed
set forms in their Christian assemblies, during the remainder
of their lives.
As the primitive Christians also did in the following ages:
as will appear,
* View of the Directory, p. 136, and his Oxford Papery p. 260, vql f. , - Br. I&h*-
foot's Works, vol. 1 p. 922, 042 946. Ibid, vol. fi. pwt ii. PI. 1036, &e, ; See ^cfe
W, 1. xiiu 15. xvii. 2. , , , , , J
B 2
4 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [INTRODUCTION .
1. From their joining in the use of the Lord's prayer.
2. Prom 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.
1. They joined in the use of the Lord's prayer. And this
is sufficiently evident from our Saviour's having commanded
them so to do : for whatever dispute may be made about the
word oUroac, in St. Matthew vi. 9, which is translated not ex-
actly, but paraphrastically, after this manner, but ought
with greater accuracy to be rendered so, or thus ; 12 yet if we
should grant that our Lord in this place only proposed this
prayer as a directory and pattern to make our other prayers
by, we should still find afterwards, upon another occasion,
viz. when his disciples requested him to teach them to pray,
as John had also taught his disciples, he prescribed the use
of these very words ; expressly bidding them, When ye pray,
say, Our Father I suppose 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 be-
longing to him; according to the custom of the Jewish
Doctors, who always taught their disciples a peculiar form to
add to their own; 14 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 re-
corded in St. Matthew, and omit it, when he delivered it
Cf on another occasion, as in St. Luke."
^ But to this we answer, That learned men are very much
divided 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 sup-
position.
For, 1st, if they think it is not a part of the original text,
12 In which signification it is always used in the Septnagint Version of the Bible,
as appears by comparing Numb. vi. 23. xxiii. 5. Isa. viii. 11. xxvm HJ. xxx 15
xxxvn. 33. and some other places, with Numb xxiiL 16. Isaiah xxx. 12 xxxvii 21
tin. 3. JPor in the former tests, oiirw Aeyet 6 Kwp^p, thus satth the Lord, bears' the
" -- - - -- ' , in the latter.
ON.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. 5
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, 2ndly, 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 differ-
ent directions, ordering us to add a Doxology to the end of
our prayers at one time, and omitting that order at another.
If therefore the addition 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 ob-
jection against its being an established set form. For the
difference of our prayers will be every whit as great in follow-
ing this pattern, by sometimes omitting and sometimes adding
a Doxology at the end of our prayers, as it can possibly be, by
using the Lord's prayer, sometimes with, and at other times
without, the Doxology. The utmost therefore that can be
concluded from the Doxology's being a part of the original
text in St, Matthew, is this: That our Lord, though he com-
manded the use of the Lord's prayer, does not insist upon the
use of the Doxology, but leaves it indifferent ; or at most,
orders it to be sometimes used, and sometimes omitted, as our
established Church practises. But the other essential parts of
the prayer are to be used notwithstanding ; it being very ab-
surd 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 further objected, 1st, That, "supposing our Sa-
viour did prescribe it as a form ; yet it was only for 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, 2ndly, " That before Christ's
ascension, the disciples had asked nothing in his name, 15
whereas they were taught, that after his ascension they should
offer -up all their prayers m his name. 16 Now this prayer, say
15 John xvl. 24. John xiv. 13. and chap. xvi. 22.
6 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OP [INTRODUCTIOW,
they, having nothing of his name in it, could not be designed
to be used after his ascension.' ' Accordingly they tell us,
3rdly, " That though we read in the Acts of the Apostles of
several prayers made by the Church, yet we find not any in-
timation, that they ever used this form." 17
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 he grounded upon principles as
dangerous as false.
For, 1st, If, because our Saviour hath not in express words
commanded this form of prayer to be used for ever, we con-
clude that it was only prescribed for a time ,- we must neces-
sarily 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 au-
thority ; 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 ; depend-
ing 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, un-
less 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 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, 3rdly, as to the objection of the Scriptures not once
intimating the use of this prayer, in those places where it
speaks of others; we might answer, that we may as well con-
elude from the silence of the Scripture, that the Apostles did
not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
(j/iost, as that they did not use this prayer; since they had
as strict a command to do the one as the other. But besides
m aU those places, except two, 18 there is nothing else menu
tioned, but that they prayed ; no mention at all of the words
ol their prayers ; and therefore there is no reason why we
s Acts ,,
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PKECOMPOSED LITURGY. 7
should expect a particular intimation of the Lord's prayer.
And as for those prayers mentioned in the aforesaid 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
Infidels 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 kingdom now as ever. And if we consider those parts
of the world which have already embraced Christianity, I can-
not think it improper to pray, that they may sincerely prac-
tise what they believe ; 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 numer-
ous 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, " l9 The Son taught us to pray, Our Father, which art
in heaven ; " i. e. he taught us to use the Lord's prayer. And
speaking of the same prayer, he says, " 20 0ur Lord gave his
new disciples of the New Testament a new form of prayer."
He calls it, " 20 The prayer appointed by Christ," and " 21 The
prayer appointed by Law," (for so the word legitlma must be
rendered,) and " the ordinary " (i. e. the usual and customary)
" prayer which is to be said before our other prayers ; and
upon which, as a foundation, our other prayers are to be
Adv. Prax, c. 23, p. 514, A 20 Be Orat. c. i. p. 129, A. 2l Ibid. c. ix.p. 133, B.
g THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OP [iNTRODtJCTiow.
built : " and tells us, that " 23 the use of it was ordained by our
Saviour."
Next, St. Cyprian 23 tells us, that " Christ himself gave us a
form of prayer, and commanded us to use it ; because, when
we speak to the Father in the Son's words, we shall be more
easily heard; " and that u24 there is no prayer more spiritual
or true than the Lord's prayer." And therefore he most
earnestly 23 exhorts men to the use of it as often as they pray.
Again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls it, " 2G the prayer which
Christ gave his disciples, and 27 which God hath taught us."
About the same time Optatus takes it for granted that it is
commanded. 23
After him, St. Chrysostom calls it, " 29 the prayer enjoined
by laws, and brought in by Christ."
In the same century St. Austin tells us, " 30 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, " 31 that Christ shewed his
disciples how they should pray, by the words of the Lord's
prayer." And Theodoret assures us, that U32 the Lord's
prayer is 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 maybe re-
lied 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 im-
probable that a Christian assembly should, in their public de-
votions, omit that prayer which was the badge of their dis-
cipleship ; 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 congregation.
That the Christians of the first centuries used it in their
24 De Orat. c. ix. p. 133, A, & De Orat. Domin. p. 139. 24 Ibid. 25 i^. p. 139,
140. 26 Catech. Mystag. 5, . 8, p. 298, lin. 12, &c. Ibid. . 15, p. 300, lin. 24.
38 De Schism. Donatist. 1. 4, p. 88. 29 Horn. II. m 2 Cor. torn. lii. p, 553, lin. 21, 22.
30 Ep. 157, torn. ii. col. 543, B et Serm. 58, torn. v. col. 337, D. JE. 31 Be Oi at. Dt oun.
Oral. 1, torn. i. p. 712, B. 32 Heeret. Pabul. lib 5, cap. 28, torn, iv, p. 316, B.
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. Q
assemblies, is evident from its being always used in the cele-
bration of the Lord's supper, 33 which for some ages was per-
formed every day. 34 And St. Austin tells us in express words,
that " 35 it was said at God's altar every day." So that, with-
out 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 36 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, L e. for not joining in it; that so the whole con-
gregation 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 Ephesians, 38 the Apostle ex-
horts them to speak to themselves with psalms, and hymns,
and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their
hearts to the Lord. And he bids the Colossians 39 teach and
admonish one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing with grace in their hearts to the Lord. From
all which texts of Scripture, and several others that might be al-
leged, 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
33 Cyril. Hieros. (as "before quoted in note 3 <> and *i, page foregoing), Hieron. adv. Pelag.
lib. 3, cap 5, torn. ii. p 596, C. August Epist. 149, torn. Ii. col. 505, C. 34 Cyprian.
de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Basil. Epist. 289, torn ni. p. 279, A, B. Serm. 58, cap. 10, t.
v. col. 342, F. * Acts xvi. 25. 33 * 1 Cor. xiv, 26. 3 Chap. v. 19. Col. iii. 16,
10 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESbiTY OP [INTRODUCTION.
to prove it : I shall therefore only point to such places at the
bottom of the page, 40 as will sufficiently satisfy any, that will
think it worth their while to consult them.
The practice therefore of the Apostles and primitive Chris-
tians, in joining in the use of psalms, is another intimation,
that they joined in the use of precomposed set forms of pray-
er. 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, because they are immediately directed to him ; as is
evident, as well from the psalms of David, as from several
Christian hymns : 41 and, consequently, the Apostles and pri-
mitive Christians, by jointly singing such psalms in their con-
gregations, did join in the use of precomposed set forms of
prayer. It only remains then that I prove,
3. That they joined in the use of divers precomposed set
forms of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and psalms.
And 1st, as to the Apostles, we are told that Peter and John,
after they had been threatened, and commanded not to preach
the Gospel, n>znt to their own company, and reported all
that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And
when they heard that, they lift up their voice to God with
one accord, and said^ Lord, thou art God* 2 &c.
Now in this place we are told, that the whole company lift
up their voice 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 what-
ever 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." To this we answer, That the
40 Plin. Epist. 1 10, Ep. 97, p. 284. Oxon. 1703. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 5, c. 28, p, 1 96,
A. Just. Mart. Epist. ad Zen. et Seren p. 509, A. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 13, . 3, p.
ISO, lin. 9, 8sc. Catech. Mystag. 5, . 17, p. 300, lin. 34, &c. Socr. Hist. Eccl. 1. 2, c.
11, p. 89, A. Athanas. ad Marcellln. 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 tunes of the Apostles. As St. Am-
brose's Te Deum, and the lite. 4 * Acts iv. 23, 24.
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. 1 \
Scripture never attributes that to a whole congregation or
multitude, which is literally true of a single person only, ex-
cept in such cases, where the thing related requires the con-
sent 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 one will pretend, either that it was impossi-
ble for the Apostles 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.
But that which puts the matter out of all doubt, is the fol-
lowing consideration, viz. that the company is not barely said
to have lift up their voice, but to have lift it up [bpodvpabbv]
with one accord^vr all together; which adverb is so placed,
that it cannot be joined to any other verb than fjpav, and no-
thing is more evident, than that this adverb implies and de-
notes a conjunction 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 objection supposes, viz. by appointing one
person to lift up his single voice for them all. For if they did
so, then the historian's words must signify, that the whole
congregation lift up their voice together, by appointing one
man to lift up his particular voice in conjunction with himself
alone ; which is such nonsense, as cannot, without blasphemy,
be imputed to an inspired 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 precomposed 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
12 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [INTRODXTCTTOK,
had been composed upon that occasion, it seems impossible
that copies of it should have been delivered out for the com-
pany- to be so far acquainted with it, as immediately to join
vocally in it." To which we answer, (1.) 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 adversa-
ries 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 congregation, so long as the powers of the
world were opposing and threatening such as preached tbe
Gospel, and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were con-
tinued in the Church : so that those who think this prayer to
have been conceived and used on that emergency only, and
never either before or after, do, in reality, beg the question,
and take that for granted which they cannot prove. For the
Scripture says nothing like it, nor do the circumstances require
it ; and therefore it is very probable that it was a standing
form, well known in the Church, and frequently used, as oc-
casion offered : and, consequently, upon this occasion, (on
which it is manifest it was highly seasonable and proper,) they
immediately brake forth, and vocally uttered, and jointly said
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, viz. that 46 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 Apostles 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 prac-
tice must of necessity cause ; for that they all prayejd vocally,
has been evidently proved: if therefore they did not join* in
the same prayer, but offer up every man different words, though
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. J3
to the same sense : it must necessarily follow, that the whole
company would, instead of uniting in their devotions, inter-
rupt and distract 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 ar-
gument already offered is a demonstration that they joined in
a precomposed set form of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer
and psalms.
And that the primitive Christians did very early use pre-
composed 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
wrayers.^ 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, are doubtless
of great antiquity. For besides many things which have a
strong relish of that age, that of St. James was of great
authority in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time,
who has a comment upon it still extant, 46 which St. Jerome
says was writ in his younger years : 47 and it is not probable
that St. Cyril would have taken the pains to explain it, unless
it had been of general use in the Church ; which we cannot
suppose it could have obtained in less than seventy or eighty
years. Now St. Cyril was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem either
in the year 349 or 351 ; to which office, it is very well known,
seldom any were promoted before they were pretty well in
years. If therefore he writ his comment upon this Liturgy
in his younger years, we cannot possibly date it later than the
year 340 ; and then, allowing the Liturgy to have obtained in
the Church about eighty years, it necessarily follows that it
must have been composed in the year 260, which was not
above 160 years after the apostolical age. It is declared by
Proclus 48 and the sixth general Council/ 9 to be of St. James's
own composing. And that there are forms of worship in it
as ancient as the Apostles, seems highly probable ; for all the
form, Sursum corda^ is there, and in St. Cyril's comment
4 3 Koii/aJ &x*- Just. Mart Apol. 1, c. 85, p. 124, lin. 28. 44 Ev%ai 7rpQcrTax Orat. 20, in
Basil. 6l Epist 63, torn. ii. p. 843, D. 62 Can. 18, Concil. torn. i. col. 1500, B,
63 Can. 1, Concil. torn. iv. col. 756, B. 6t See Dr. Bennet's History of the joint Ue of
precomposed set Forms of Prayer, from clxap. viii. to chap. xvi.
16 1HE, LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [INTRODUCTION.
the joint use of them obtained all over the Christian world.
And therefore I shall take it for granted, that what has been
already said is abundantly sufficient to prove, that the ancient
Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians,
did join in the use of precomposed set forms of prayer. I
shall now proceed to prove,
2. Secondly, That (as far as we can conjecture) they never
joined in any other. And first, that the ancient Jews, our
Saviour, and his Apostles, never joined in any other than pre-
composed set forms, before our Lord's resurrection, may very
well be concluded, from our having no ground to think they
ever did. Por as he that refuses to believe a matter of fact,
when it is attested by a competent number of unexceptionable
witnesses, is always thought to act against the dictates of
reason ; so does that person act no less against the dictates of
reason, who believes a matter of fact without any ground.
And what ground can any man believe a matter of fact upon,
but the testimony of those, upon whose veracity and judg-
ment in the case he may safely rely ? But what testimonies
can our adversaries produce m this case ? They cannot pre-
tend to any proof (either express or by consequence) within
this compass of time, of the joint use of prayers conceived
extempore, because there is not the lowest degree of evidence,
or so much as a bare probability of it. And therefore they
ought of necessity to conclude, that the ancient Jews, our
Saviour, and his Apostles, never joined in any other prayers
than, precomposed set forms, before our Lord's resurrection.
It only remains therefore that I show, that there is no reason
to suppose that they ever joined in any others afterwards.
And here as for our Saviour, we have no particular account
of his praying between the time of his resurrection and that of
his ascension ; and therefore we can determine nothing of his
joining therein. But as for the Apostles and primitive Chris-
tians, we may conclude, that they never joined in any other
than precomposed set forms after our Lord's resurrection, by
the same way of reasoning, as we concluded they never did
before his resurrection. For unless our adversaries can bring
sufficient authorities, to prove that they joined in the use of
prayers conceived extempore, we may very reasonably con-
clude they never did.
I know indeed there are some objections, which our adversa-
ries pickup from words of like sound, and, without considering
the sense, or how the holy penmen used them, urge them for
r^TKouucTioN.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. 17
solid arguments : but these my time will not permit me to ex-
amine, nor is it indeed worth my while. I shall only desire it
may be considered, that nothing more betrays the badness of
a cause, than when groundless suppositions are so zealously
opposed to evident truths. 65
I shall however mention one thing, which is of itself a strong
argument, that the Apostles and primitive Christians did never
join in any other than precomposed set forms of prayer, viz.
The difference between precomposed set forms of prayer, and
prayers conceived extempore, is so very great; and the alter-
ation from the joint use of the one, to the joint use of the other,
so very remarkable ; that it is utterly impossible to conceive,
that if the joint use of extempore prayers had been ever prac-
tised by the Apostles and first Christians, it could so soon have
been laid aside by every Church in the Christian world ; and
yet not the least notice to be taken, no opposition to be made,
nor so much as a hint given, either of the time or reasons of
its being discontinued, by any of the ancient writers whatso-
ever : but that every nation, that has embraced the Christian
faith, should, with a perfect harmony, without one single ex-
ception, (as far as the most diligent search and information can
reach,) from the Apostles' days to as low a period of time as
our adversaries can desire, unite and agree in performing their
joint worship by the use of precomposed set forms only. Cer-
tainly such an unanimous practice of persons, at the greatest
distance both of time and place, and not only different, but
perfectly opposite in other points of religion, as well as their
civil interests, is, as I said, a strong argument, that the joint
use of precomposed set forms was fixed by the Apostles in all
the churches they planted, and that, by the special providence
of God, it has been preserved as remarkably as the Christian
sacraments themselves.
Much more might be added, but that I am satisfied, what has
already been said is enough to convince any reasonable and un-
prejudiced person ; and to those that are obstinate and biassed
it is in vain to say more. I shall therefore proceed to shew,
II. SECONDLY, That those precomposed set forms of prayer,
in which they joined, were such as the respective congregations
were accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with. And
upon this I shall endeavour to be very brief, because a little
65 For further satisfaction see Dr. Bennet's Discourse of the Gift of Prayer, and tus
History of the joint Use of precomposed set Forms of Prayer, chap, xviii.
18 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [TNTRC DTJCTIOH.
reflection upon what has been said will effectually demonstrate
its truth.
And, 1st, as to the practice of the ancient Jews, our Saviour,
and his disciples, it cannot be doubteS, but that they were ac-
customed to, and well acquainted with, those precomposed set
forms which are contained in the Scriptures : and as for their
other additional prayers, the very same authors, from, whom
we derive our accounts of them, do unanimously agree in at-
testing that they were of constant daily use ; and consequently
the Jews, our Saviour, and his disciples, could not but be ac-
customed to them, and thoroughly acquainted with them.
The matter therefore is past all dispute till the Gospel-state
commenced ; and even then also it is equally clear and plain.
For it has been largely shewed, that the Apostles and primitive
Christians did constantly use the Lord's prayer and psalms ;
whereby they must necessarily become accustomed to them,
and thoroughly acquainted with them.
But then it is objected, that "their other prayers, which
made up a great part of their divine service, were not stinted
imposed forms, but such as the ministers themselves composed
and made choice of for their own use in public." But this
may likewise be answered with very little trouble ; because the
same authorities, which prove that they were precomposed set
forms, do also prove that the respective congregations were ac-
customed to them, and thoroughly acquainted with them.
For since the whole congregation did with one accord lift up
their voice in an instant, and vocally join in that prayer which
is recorded in the fourth chapter of the Acts ; since the public
prayers, which the primitive Christians used in the first and
second centuries, were called common prayers, constituted
prayers, and solemn prayers ; since the Liturgy of St. James
was of general use in the Church of Jerusalem within an hun-
dred and sixty years after the apostolical age ; since the Church
in Constan tine's time used authorized set forms of prayer ; since
the Council of Laodicea expressly provides, that " the same Li-
turgy be constantly used both at the ninth hour, and in the
evening ;" I say, since these things are true, we may appeal to
our adversaries themselves, whether it was possible, in those
and the like cases, for the respective congregations to be other-
wise than accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with, those
precomposed set forms of prayer, in which they joined.
We own indeed, that, by reason of the ancient Christian?
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITURGY. 19
industriously concealing their mysteries, copies of their offices
of joint devotion might not be common. And therefore (ex-
cept the Lord's prayer,, which the catechumens were taught
before their baptism, arid the psalms, which they read in their
Bibles) none were acquainted with their joint devotions before
they were baptized ; but were forced to learn them by con-
stant attendance upon them, and by the assistance of their
brethren. But the forms, notwithstanding, were well known
to the main body of the congregation ; and those very per-
sons, who at first were strangers to them, did, as well as
others, by frequenting the public assemblies, attain to a per-
fect knowledge of them: because they were daily accustomed
to them, and consequently, in a very short time, thoroughly
acquainted with them : which was the second thing I was to
prove. I come now in the last place to prove,
III. THIRDLY, That the practice of the ancient Jews, our
Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, warrants
the imposition of a national precomposed Liturgy : and this I
shall make appear in the following manner.
1. Their practice proves that a precomposed Liturgy was
constantly imposed upon the laity. For that, without joining
in which it was impossible for the laity to hold Church-com-
munion, was certainly imposed upon the laity. Now their
practice proves that it was impossible for the laity to hold
communion with either the Jewish or Christian Church, un-
less they joined in a precomposed Liturgy ; because the joint
use of a precomposed Liturgy was their particular way of
worship : and consequently as many of the laity as held com-
munion with them must submit to that way of worship ; and
as many as submitted to that way of worship had a precom-
posed Liturgy imposed upon them.
2. Their practice shews that a precomposed Liturgy was
imposed on the clergy, i. e. the clergy were obliged to the tise
of a precomposed Liturgy in their public ministrations. For
since the use of such a Liturgy was settled amongst them, it
was undoubtedly expected from the respective clergy, that
they should practise accordingly. For any one that is in the
least versed in antiquity, must know how strict the Church-
governors were in those times, and how severely they would
animadvert upon such daring innovators, as should offer to set
up their own fancies in opposition to a settled rule. So that
it is no wonder, if in the first centuries we meet with no law to
c 2
20 THE LAWFULNESS AND NECESSITY OF [INTRODUCTION,
establish the use of Liturgies ; since those primitive patterns
of obedience looked upon themselves to be as much obliged
by the custom and practice of the Church, as they could be by
the strictest law. But we find that afterwards, when the per-
verseness and innovations of the clergy gave occasion, the
governors of the Church did, by making canons on purpose,
oblige the clergy to the use of precomposed Liturgies ; as
may be seen in the eighteenth canon of the Council of Lao-
dicea; which, as I have shewed, enjoined, that "the same
Liturgy should be used both at the ninth hour, and in the
evening : " which is as plain an imposition of a precomposed
Liturgy, as ever was or can be made. Thus also the second
council of Mela enjoins, 66 that " such prayers should be used
by all, as were approved of in the Council, and that none
should be said in the church, but such as had been approved
of by the more prudent sort of persons in a synod : " which is
another as plain imposition of a precomposed Liturgy as words
can express, even upon the clergy.
But though neither clergy nor laity had been thus obliged,
yet one would think that the practice of all the ancient Jews,
our blessed Saviour himself, his Apostles, and the whole
Christian world, for almost fifteen hundred years together,
should be a sufficient precedent for us to follow still. "We may
be sure, that had they not known the joint use of Liturgies to
have been the best way of worshipping God, they would
never have practised it : but since they did practise it, we
ought in modesty to allow their concurrent judgments to be
too great to be withstood by any person or society of men ;
and consequently that their practice warrants the imposition
of a precomposed Liturgy.
And if of a precomposed Liturgy, it does for the same
reason warrant the imposition of a national precomposed Li-
turgy : for it appears, from what has been said upon my second
head, that the precomposed Liturgies of both Jews and Chris-
tians were such as the respective congregations were ac-
customed to, and thoroughly acquainted with ; and therefore
their practice warrants the imposition of such a precomposed
Liturgy, and consequently of a national precomposed Liturgy.
For upon supposition that it is expedient for the congregations
to be accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with, the
Liturgies which they join in the use of; it is plain that a
< As before quoted in notes , , p. 1 5.
INTRODUCTION.] A NATIONAL PRECOMPOSED LITUEGY. 21
whole nation may as well have the same Liturgy, as each con-
gregation may have a distinct one. And the clergy of a whole
nation may as well resolve in a synod, or require by a canon
made to that purpose, that the same Liturgy shall be used in
every part of the nation, as leave it to the liberty of every
particular bishop or minister to choose one for his own diocese
or congregation. Nor is such an imposition of a national pre-
eomposed Liturgy any greater grievance to the laity, than if
each pastor imposed his own precomposed Liturgy or prayer
onceived extempore on his respective flock ; because every
precomposed Liturgy or extempore prayer is as much imposed,
and lays as great a restraint upon the laity, as the imposition
of a national Liturgy. Nor, again, is the synod's imposing a
national Liturgy any grievance to the clergy ; since it is done
either by their proper governors alone, or else (especially ac-
cording to our English constitution) by their proper govern-
ors, joined with their own representatives. So that such im-
position, being either what they are bound to comply with in
point of obedience, or else an act of their own choice, cannot
for that reason be any hardship upon them.
Since therefore (to draw to a conclusion) this imposition of
a national precomposed Liturgy is warranted by the constant
practice of all the ancient Jews, our Saviour himself, his
Apostles, and the primitive Christians ; and since it is a griev-
ance to neither clergy nor laity, but appears quite, on the
other hand, as well from their concurrent testimonies, as by
our own experience, to be so highly expedient, as that there
can be no decent or uniform performance of God's worship
without it ; our adversaries themselves must allow it to be
necessary.
And if so, they can no longer justify their separation from
the Church of England, upon account of its imposing The
Sook of Common Prayer, &c. as a national precomposed
Liturgy ; unless they can shew, that though national precom-
posed Liturgies in general may be lawful ; yet there are some
things prescribed in that of the Church of England, which
render it unlawful to be complied with : which that they can-
not do, is, I hope, (though only occasionally, yet) sufficiently
shewn in the following illustration of it. From which I shall
now detain the reader no longer than to give him some small
account of the original of The Book of Common Prayer > and
of those alterations which were afterwards made in it, before
22 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX TO
it was brought to that perfection in which we now have it.
And this I choose to do here, because I know not where more
properly to insert such an account.
An Appendix to the Introductory Discourse, concerning the
Original of the Book of Common Prayer, and the several
Alterations which were afterwards made in it.
HOW the Liturgy BEFORE the Reformation, the Liturgy was only
stood before the in Latin, being a collection of prayers made up
Reformation. p art iy O f some ancient forms used in the primitive
Church, and partly of some others of a later original, accom-
modated to the superstitions which had by various means
crept by degrees into the Church of Borne, and from thence
derived to other Churches in communion with it ; like what
we may see in the present Roman Breviary and Missal. And
these being established by the laws of the land, and the canons
of the Church, no other could publicly be made use of: so
that those of the laity, who had not the advantage of a learned
education, could not join with them, or be any otherwise edi-
fied by them. And besides, they being mixed with addresses
to the saints, adoration of the host, images, &c., a great part
of the worship was in itself idolatrous and profane.
But when the nation in king Henry VIIL's
S^eLtfon to ne ^ me was ^ ls P ose0 ^ to a reformation, it was thought
Liturgical mat- necessary to correct and amend these offices : and
^ r vni^s n fiSr not only have the service of the Church in the
English or vulgar tongue, (that men might pray,
not with the spirit only, but with the understanding also
and that he, who occupied the room of the unlearned, might
understand that unto which he was to say Amen ; agree-
able to the precept of St. Paul; 67 ) but also to abolish and
take away all that was idolatrous and superstitious, in order to
restore the service of the Church to its primitive purity. For
it was not the design of our Beformers (nor indeed ought it
to have been) to introduce a new form of worship into the
Church, but to correct and amend the old one ; and to purge
it from those gross corruptions which had gradually crept into
it, and so to render the divine service more agreeable to the
Scriptures, and to the doctrine and practice of the primitive
a? 1 Cor. adv. 15, 16.
INTRODUCTION] BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER. 23
Church in the Lest, and purest ages of Christianity. In which
reformation they proceeded gradually, according as they were
able.
And first, the Convocation 68 appointed a committee, A. D.
1537, to compose a book, which was called, The godly and
pious institution of a christen man ,- containing a declara-
tion of the Lord's Prayer, the Ave Maria, the Creed, the Ten
Commandments, and the Seven Sacraments, 69 &c. ; which look
was again published A. D. 1540, and 1543, with corrections
and alterations, under the title of A necessary doctrine and
erudition for any christen man : and as it is expressed in
that preface, was set fur the ly the King, with the advuse of
Ms Clergy ; the Lordes lothe spirituall and temporally with
the nether house of * Parliament , having both sene and lyked
it very well.
Also in the year 1540, a committee of bishops and divines
was appointed by king Henry VIII. (at the petition of the
Convocation) to reform the rituals and offices of the Church,
And what was done by this committee for reforming the
offices was reconsidered by the Convocation itself two or
three years afterwards, viz. in February, 1542-3. And in the
next year the king and his clergy ordered the prayers for
processions, and litanies, to be put into English, and to be
publicly used. And finally, in the year 1545, the king's
Primer came forth, wherein were contained, amongst other
things, the Lord's Prayer, Creed, Ten Commandments, Venite,
Te Deum, and other hymns and collects in English ; and
several of them in the same version in which we now use
them. And this is all that appears to have been done in re-
lation to liturgical matters in the reign of king Henry VIII.
In the year 1547, the first of king Edward
VI., December the second, the Convocation 70 c^mmoJprlver
declared the opinion, nullo rectamante, that the compiled in the
Communion ought to be administered to all per- Edward^if
sons under both kinds. Whereupon an Act of
Parliament was made ordering the Communion to be so ad-
ministered. And then a committee of bishops, and other
learned divines, was appointed to compose an uniform order
of Communion, according to the rules of Scripture ', and the
use of the primitive Church. In order to this, the com-
68 For what relates to the authority of the Convocation, in this and the two following
paragraphs, see Bishop Atterbury's Rights of an English Convocation, 2nd edit , from
p. 184 to p. 205. ** Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 52 54. 7 See
Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 157, 158.
c l\ OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX TO
mittee repaired to Windsor Castle, and in that retirement,
within a few days, drew up that form which is printed in
bishop Sparrow's collection. 71 And this being immediately
brought into use the next year, the same persons, being em-
powered by a new commission, prepare themselves to enter
upon a yet nobler work ; and in a few months' time finished
the whole Liturgy, by drawing up public offices not only for
Sundays and Holidays, but for Baptism, Confirmation, Matri-
mony, Burial of the Dead, and other special occasions ; in
which the forementioned 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,
L Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury ; who was
the chief promoter of our excellent Beformation ; and had a
principal hand, not only in compiling the Liturgy, but in all
the steps made towards it. He died a martyr to the religion
of the Reformation, 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 Chichester.
5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.
6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.
7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards
of London. He was esteemed the ablest man of all that ad-
vanced 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.
11. Dr. John Redmayne, master of Trinity College in
Cambridge, and prebendary of Westminster.
12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church in Oxford,
7i Page 17.
INTRODUCTION.] BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 25
almoner and privy-councillor to king Edward VI. He was
deprived of all his preferments in queen Mary's reign, and
fled to Frankfort ; from whence returning in the reign of
queen Elizabeth, he was consecrated bishop of Ely.
13. Mr. Thomas Eobertson, archdeacon of Leicester.
Thus was our excellent Liturgy compiled by And conflmed
martyrs and confessors, together with divers by Act of Par-
other learned bishops and divines ; and being re- liament -
vised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy
of both the provinces of Canterbury and York, was then con-
firmed by the king and the three estates in parliament, A. D.
1548, 72 who gave it this just encomium, viz. rollick at this
time BY THE AID OF THE HOLY GHOST, with
uniform agreement is of them concluded, set forth, &c.
But about the end of the year 1550, or the be-
ginning of 1551, some exceptions were taken at
some things in this book, which were thought to
savour too much of superstition. To remove
these objections, therefore, ar,ehbishop Cranmer proposed to
review 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 Cheke, who had also formerly translated it into La-
tin. 73 What liberties this encouraged them to TY
, i * i /> ,1 A j. T -j. i Upon whose ex-
take m their censures of the first Liturgy, and ceptionsit
how far they were instrumental to the laying reviewed and ai-
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 sufficient here just to note the most considerable addi-
tions and alterations that were then made : some of which
must be allowed to be good ; as especially the addition of the
sentences, exhortation, 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 removing of some rites and cere-
monies retained in the former book ; such as the use of oil in
72 Second and fhird of Edward VI. chap, 1 73 Strype's Memorials of Archbishop
Cramner, p, 210.
2 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX TC
'baptism ; the unction of the sick ; prayers for souls depart-
ed, both in the Communion-office, and in that for the burial
of the dead ; the leaving out the invocation of the Holy Ghost
in the consecration of the Eucharist, and the prayer of obla-
tion that was used to follow it ; the omitting the rubric, that
ordered water to be mixed with wine, with several other less
material variations. The habits also, that were prescribed by
the former book, were ordered by this to be laid aside ; and,
lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion-office
to explain the reason of kneeling at the Sacrament. The book
nd a ain con ^ us rev * se ^ an ^ altered was again confirmed
firaied^Actof in parliament A. D. 1551, who declared, that the
Parliament. alterations that were made in it proceeded from
Both wWch Acts curiosity rath&r than any worthy cause. But
Q?M^. ealedby both this and the former act made in 154,8, were
repealed in the first year of queen Mary, as not
being agreeable to the Bomish superstition, which she was
resolved to restore.
But the second But ^P on tne accession of queen Elizabeth,
book of K Ed- the act of repeal was reversed ; and, in order to
esSwfeh^inthe tne restoring of the English service, several learn-
reign of a Eliza- e d divines were appointed to take another review
of king Edward's Liturgies, and to frame from
them both a book for the use of the Church of England. The
names of those who, Mr. Camden 74 says, were employed, are
these that follow :
Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely.
Dr. May.
Dr. Bill
Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.
Sir Thomas Smith.
Mr. David Whitehead.
Mr. Edmund Griudall, afterwards bishop of London, and
then archbishop of Canterbury.
To these, Mr. Strype says, 75 were added Dr. Edwin Sandys,
afterwards bishop of Worcester, and Mr. Edward Guest, a very
learned man, who was afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury,
almoner to the queen, and bishop of Eochester, and afterwards
of Salisbury. And this last person, Mr. Strype thinks, had
the main care of the whole business ; being, as he supposes, re.
commended by Parker to supply his absence. It was debated
INTRODUCTION.] BOOK. OP COMMON PRAYER. 27
at first, which of the two books of king Edward should be re-
ceived; and secretary Cecil sent several queries to Guest,
concerning the reception of some particulars m the first book ;
as prayers for the dead, the prayer of consecration, the de-
livery of the sacrament into the mouth of the communicant, &c. 76
But however, the second book of king Edward was pitched
upon as the book to be proposed to the parliament to be
established, who accordingly passed and commanded it to be
used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to
le used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the
Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in
the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and
none other, or otherwise.
The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leav-
ing 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 Hood of our 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 of 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 pre-
sence in the holy Sacrament, was left out of this. For it
w Strype, ut supra.
28 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX TO
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 speculative opinion not determined,
in which every one was left to the freedom of his own mind.
And in this state the Liturgy continued with-
tertuonsTadet out any further alteration, till the first year of
a n^the reign of y n g James L, when, after the conference at
-ing ames . jj am pt on Court, between that prince with arch-
bishop 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 Gate-
chism concerning the sacraments ; the Catechism before that
time ending with the answer to that question which immedi-
ately 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.
* n ^ ls s ^ e ^ continued to the time of
Andth whole
book again* re- king Charles II., who, immediately after his
Restoit/o? the restoration, at the request of several of the
Presbyterian ministers, was willing to comply to
another review, and therefore issued out a commission, dated
March 25, 1661, to empower twelve of the bishops, and
twelve of the Presbyterian divines, to consider of the objec-
tions raised against the Liturgy, and to make such reasonable
and necessary alterations as they should jointly agree upon :
nine assistants on each side being added to supply the place
of any of the twelve principals who should happen to be ab-
sent. The names of them are as follow :
On, the Episcop&rian side.
Principals.
Dr. Fruen, archb. of York.
Dr. Shelden, bp. of London.
Dr. Cosin, bp. of Durham.
Dr. Warner, bp. of Rochester.
*Dr. King, bp. of Chichester.
On the Presbyterian side*
Principals.
Dr. Reynolds, "bp. of Norwich
Dr. Tuckney.
Dr. Conant.
Dr. Spurstow.
Dr. Wallis,
* I do not meet with this name either in the copy of the commission that was
printed m 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." But Mr. Baxter inserts it in the copy of the commission that he has printed
Vol. u. p. 876.
..JSTTRODUCTION.]
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
On the Episcoparian side.
Principals.
Dr. Henchman, bp. of Sarum.
Dr. Morley, bp. of Worcester.
Dr. Sanderson, bp. of Lincoln.
Dr. Laney, 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. Barwick.
Dr. Gunning.
Dr. Pearson.
Dr. Pierce.
Dr. Sparrow.
Mr. Thorndike.
On the Presbyterian
Principals*
Dr. Manton.
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 heaping to-
gether all the old scruples that the Puritans had for above a
hundred years been raising against the Liturgy, and, as if they
were not 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 contradic-
tion 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 further power, than to
compare the Common Prayer Book with the most ancient
Liturgies thai had been used in the Church, in the most
primitive and purest times,- requiring them toavoid^as much
as possible, all unnecessary alterations of the Forms and Li-
turgy wherewith the people were altogether acquainted, 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 whatsoever, either
modern or ancient, amassed together a dull, tedious, crude,
In the narrative of his own life, 6 and Dr. Nichols mentions him in his introduction 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 Mm : and therefore I
uppose he was left out of the copy of the commission in 1661, "by the printer's mistake,
md that from thence Dr. Nichols and Mr. Collier might continue the omission.
I Page 303-
30 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX TO
and indigested heap of stuff; which, together with the rest
of the commissioners on the Presbyterian side, he had the
insolence to offer to the bishops, to be received and estab-
lished 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 con-
ference broke up, without any thing done, except that some
particular alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines,
which, the May following, were considered and agreed to by
the whole Clergy in Convocation. The principal of them
were, that several lessons in the calendar were changed for
others more proper for the days; the prayers upon particu-
lar 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 the collects were al-
tered, 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 those of riper
years, and the forms of prayer to be used at sea, were
added. 77 In a word, the whole Liturgy was then brought to
that state in which it now stands ; and was unanimously sub-
scribed by both houses of Convocation, of both provinces, on
Friday, the 20th 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 compiling ^ nils ^ ave * given a brief historical account
of our Liturgy, of the first compiling the Book of Common
&c. done toy an T> j e* i t
ecclesiastical, Jrrayer, and or the several reviews that were
an we n r 0t a cwfl a ^ terwar( ^ s taken of it by our bishops and Con-
power. ^ vocations : one end of which was, that so " who-
soever will may easily see (as bishop Sparrow shews on a like
occasion 78 ) the notorious slander which some of the Roman per-
suasion have endeavoured to cast upon our Church, viz. That
her reformation hath been altogether lay and parliamentary"
For it appears by the proceedings observed in the reforma-
" For a more particular account of what ^as done in this review, see the Preface to the
Common Prayer Book. 78 p re fac e to bis collection of Articles, &c., towards the end
INTRODUCTION-.] BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 3[
tion of the service of the Church, 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 by ecclesiastical authority.
" It was indeed (as my lord bishop of Sarum has excellently
well observed 79 ) confirmed by the authority of parliament,
and there was good reason to desire that, to give it the force
of a law ; but the authority of [the book and] those changes
is wholly to be derived from the Convocation, who only con-
sulted 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 Ordina-
tion 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, 80 "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 de-
rived 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 sacra-
ments, and to perform all holy functions, according to the
Scripture, the practice of the primitive Church, and the rules
of expediency and reason ; and this they ought to have done,
though the civil power had opposed it : in which case their
duty had been to have submitted to whatever severities arid
Vindication of Ordinations of the Chturch of England, p. 53, 54. 8 P. 74, 75.
32 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APPENDIX ro
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 reforma-
tion, in all the parts and branches of it. So by the authority
they derived from Christ, and the warrant they had by the
Scripture and the primitive Church, these prelates and di-
vines 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 Eomanists' 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 riot
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 in-
deed a committee of the two houses of Convocation, and the
book was revised and authorized by the whole synod, and m
a synodical 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 mat-
ters 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 may be a Church
where there is no Christian civil magistrate) hath power to
decree rites and ceremonies and authority in matters of
faith: and affirms again in the thirty-seventh article, that
where rue attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief govern-
ment, we give not to our Princes the ministering either of
God's word, or of the Sacraments ; but that only preroga-
tive, which me see to have been given always to all godly
Princes in holy Scripture by G~od himself; that is, that
they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their
INTRODUCTION.] BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 33
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 conscientice ,- and was then con-
firmed and ratified by the supreme magistrate in parliament,
and so also became obligatory in foro cwili. It has therefore
all authority both ecclesiastical and civil. As it is established
by 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 tolera-
tion granted by the civil magistrate can authorize or justify.
But as it is settled by act of 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, notwithstanding their separation from the
worship prescribed by the Liturgy : but it by no means ex-
cuses 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 au-
thority to indemnify them.
And here I designed to have put an end to the Introduc-
tion ; 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 en-
comium of the latter ; by which the reader will, I doubt not,
be very well entertained, and perhaps be rendered more in-
quisitive after those excellencies 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, 81 " have, and ever had forms of prayer; yet ^SSgy!
none was ever blessed with so 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
w Dr. Comber's preface, p. 4, of the folio edition
34 OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE [APJPENDIX TC,
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 primitive ; its ceremonies
so few and innocent, that most of the Christian world agree in
them : its method is exact and natural ; its language signifi-
cant and perspicuous; most of the words and phrases being
taken out of the holy Scriptures, and the rest are the expres-
sions of the first and purest ages ; so that whoever takes ex-
ception at these must quarrel with the language of the Holy
Ghost, and fall out with the Church in her greatest innocence ;
and in the opinion of the most impartial and excellent
Grotius, (who was no member of, nor had any obligation to,
this Church,) the English Liturgy comes so near to the
primitive pattern, that none of the Reformed Churches can
compare with it. 82
" And if any thing external be needful to recommend that
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 may discern close logic, pleasing rheto-
ric, pure divinity, and the very marrow of the ancient doc-
trine and discipline ; and yet all made so familiar, that the
unlearned may safely say Amen. 83
" 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 be-
yond sea, 8i who are the most impartial judges that can be de-
sired. 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
sadjy testify : wherefore we shall endeavour to convince the
* Gxott.:s Ep. ad Boet. & 1 Cor. xiv 16. & See Durel's Defence of the Liturgy.
cTioir.] BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER. &5
enemies, by assisting the friends of our Church devotions :
and by drawing the veil which the ignorance and indevotion
of some, and the passion and prejudice of others, have cast
over them, represent 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 attractions, 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 affec-
tions ; 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."
THE END OP THE INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
'CHAPTER 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 Hule
for finding Easter: which stands thus in all Rul Easfer ndillg
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 the twenty-
1 In this edition, after the example of all others published since the year 1752, this
chapter is pi in ted with the alterations necessary to adapt it to the new Calendar, 2V
Wes, and Rules, which were ordered to be prefixed to all future editions of the Book
of Common Prayer, lay the Act 24 Geo II., entitled, dn Met for regulating the row-
numcement of the year; and for correcting the calendar.
D
36 OF THE TABLES AND RULES. [CHAP, x,
Jirst day of March ; and if the full Moon happens upon
Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday after.
upon what occa- 2 - To shew U P 011 what occasion the rule
swn this rule was framed, it is to be observed, that in the first
was framed. a ^ eg Q Christianity there arose a great difference
between the churches of Asia and other churches, about the
day whereon Easter ought to be celebrated.
Easter differently ^ ne churches of Asia kept their Easter upon
observed by dif- the same day on which the Jews celebrated their
ferent churches. passoverj viz< upon the f ourtee nth day of their
first month Nisan (which month began at the new moon next
to the vernal 2 equinox) ; and this they did upon what day of
the week soever it fell ; and were from thence called Quarto-
decimans, or such as kept Easter upon the fourteenth day
after the
