| The Book of Common Prayer | |||||||
|
|
|
CHAPTER IV. THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK. No sooner had the First Prayer Book appeared, backed by the first attempt to enforce Uniformity by Act of Parliament, than it became a bone of contention. The conservatives disliked it for its innovations and its abrogation of the old services, the reformers because it retained too much of the old and did not go far enough in innovation. For the moment, both parties were content to use it, but in doing so they put very different constructions on it. The Catholic-minded, with the Bishops of the Old Learning at their head and the precedent of the Order of Communion at their back, maintained with the new Rite as much as was compatible of the old doctrine and ceremonial.1 There was nothing to prevent their doing so,2 and in the absence of rubrics directing otherwise they were perfectly within their rights. The party of reform led by the reforming bishops, according to the shade; of the colour of ‘their opinions, either welcomed the simplicity of ceremonial, resigning with relief the old elaborateness, or else outran the new movement itself, by declaiming against such decency and order as was still prescribed, or even by refusing conformity to it. Thus it is one of the grim sarcasms of history that the first Act of
Uniformity should have divided the Church of England into the two parties,
which have ever since contended within her on ceremonial and doctrinal
matters. From the first, little is heard of the former body: the blind
though dogged conservatives had little chance of making any pause in
such a whirl of change, and the voices even of the central body of Catholic-minded
bishops and clergy, who were willing enough for reform but did not want
a revolution,3 were soon drowned in the
clamour of extreme men goaded on by the extravagance of foreign divines
and the shamelessness of rapacious politicians. Iconoclasm had only whetted
its thirst by a breaking down of images, and proceeded to the destruction
of the altars in defiance of the Prayer Book, but under the direction
of such men as Ridley, the new Bishop of London who, by a miserable alienation
of the Church’s property, had acquired the place of the deposed Bonner
(April, 1550).4 |
Revision. The failure of Uniformity.
|
Destruction of altars.
|
|
| The extreme men attempted in
every way to prevent the moderates from interpreting the doctrine and arranging
the ceremonial of the Prayer Book in accordance with Catholic precedent,
and even the ceremonies expressly retained were openly denounced both by
English and foreign Reformers.5 Their attempt
might have been tolerable from men who themselves were loyal to the existing
order, even though they viewed it with a sour and narrow prejudice; but
their further proceedings disqualified them from being in any sense fair
exponents of the new order; and the whole course of events showed that
they were embarked on a far more headlong career of innovation than at
first was realized. The destruction of the altars was one clear indication
that there was to be no finality in the position created by the Prayer
Book. Ridley, who with Hooper6 was prime
mover in the destruction of the altars of Baal,7 attempted
to reconcile his action with the provisions of the Prayer Book, but in
fact it was a high-handed and illegal proceeding, though accomplished under
cover of an official Visitation of his Cathedral and Diocese, and backed
by the civil power.8 Notwithstanding these
efforts, many altars remained with their rich hangings and jewels, and
gold and silver plate; and we can hardly think otherwise than that some
courtiers desired their destruction because they hoped to enrich themselves
by the plunder of such valuable furniture,9 which
would not be wanted for ‘an honest table.’ Hence an order was issued (Nov.
4, 1550) for the entire removal of the altars, and arguments were prepared,
and sent with the Council’s letter,10 to
the bishops, to reconcile the parishioners’ to the loss of the ornaments
of their churches,11 The change, however,
involved rubrical difficulties: the people had been accustomed to kneel
before the altar at the time of Communion; but what should be their posture before
or around a table? The priest also had been directed to stand before the
middle of the altar fixed at the east end of the choir; but where should
he stand to minister at a movable table placed for the Communion in the
middle or at the western entrance of the chancel, or even in the nave of
the church? All this pointed to the need of further change. |
Dissatisfaction of the Reform party.
Their lawless action. |
| With the same tendency, a great
discussion was going on about ecclesiastical vestments, Everything which
had been used under the old régime was unclean in the eyes
of the more ardent reformers, who had foreign ideals before them and communicated
with Switzerland rather than with Germany. Great attacks had been made
upon the vestments, which had been retained, as well as upon the ceremonies.
This matter was brought to a head by the appointment of Hooper, against
his will, to the bishopric of Gloucester. He had for some time been conspicuous
as a leader in the attack on the Prayer Book, but the Council reckoned
on forcing their nominee to accept, not only the bishopric, but also the
vestments and ceremonies which he scrupled. For nearly a whole year
he remained obdurate; he carried his point about the oath12 but
could gain no support from those in power in the other respects. After
a long, hot, and fruitless debate with Ridley,13 Hooper
was committed to the Fleet, by order of the Privy Council (January 27,
1551) . This curious mode of compelling a bishop-elect to be consecrated
had the effect desired by those in authority. Hooper yielded so far as
to submit to the reduced ceremonial of the Ordinal and be consecrated (March
8), and then to preach in rochet and chimere before the King,14 on
the understanding that he would not be required to use the objectionable
dress on all occasions in the retirement of his diocese.15 |
Disputes about vestments
Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester. |
| A further disturbing element
in the situation was the formal criticism which some of the foreign divines
had been requested to pass upon the Prayer Book at its first appearance.
Peter Martyr (Vermigli), the Italian Austin Canon whom the Inquisition
had driven out of Italy, had come by way of Zurich and Strasburg, to join
the body of Lutheran and other refugees16 whom
Cranmer collected round him as early as the beginning of the reign. At
the end of May 1549, he was appointed. Regius Professor of Divinity at
Oxford, where his lectures raised no small commotion.17 |
Influence of foreigners. Peter Martyr. |
Martin Bucer, who as Pastor
at Strasburg had watched with interest the course of events in England,
was also drawn across the Channel, when in consequence of the celebrated
religious compromise devised by the Emperor and known as the Interim (July
1548) his position in Strasburg became a difficult one.18 He
arrived in England. at Cranmer’s invitation in April 1549 and at the
end of the year became a friendly rival of Martyr19 in
the Divinity Chair at Cambridge. |
Bucer. |
| The opinion of each
of these doctors was sought upon the Prayer Book, apparently in view of
the raising of the question of further revision in the coming Convocation
of December 1550. Hitherto there had been no such invitation, and though
Bucer’s influence might be traceable in the Ordinal the foreigners had
had no direct part in the revision;20 but
this was now entirely altered. Bucer had already written down his first
impressions in a letter sent to the Ministers at Strasburg on the day after
he reached Lambeth; in this he expressed general approval with regard ‘to
the establishment of doctrines and the definition of rites,’ but criticised
with characteristic moderation the concessions made in the retention of
vestments, candles, chrism, and the commemoration of the dead.21 This
was clearly a hasty review of the book, written as he made his first acquaintance
with it through the medium of an interpreter.22 His
mature judgment was elaborately given from an intimate acquaintance with
the book in his Censura, a
laborious criticism extending to 28 chapters,23 sometimes
shrewd, sometimes merely perverse, always moderate and scholarly, and generally
representing a middle position between the doctrine of the Church and the
extravagances of extreme foreign Reformers. |
Bucer’s first impressions.
|
His Censura.
|
|
| While speaking with approval
of the Daily Prayers and the Communion Service as entirely scriptural and
primitive, and approving of the division of the sexes in church, he objects
to the use of the choir for Divine Service, as being an antichristian separation
of the clergy from the laity, and also inconvenient for hearing. |
|
| He speaks in terms of general
approbation of the Communion Service,24 the
order that intending communicants should signify their names to the Curate,
and the new directions about the form and substance of the bread, but he
would ‘like to add, that the usual leavened bread may be used as well as
the wafer.’ He objects to the use of the first part of the service without
proceeding to an actual communion as ‘half a Mass, yet with all the vesture
of a whole Mass’;25 to the receiving of
oblations from persons absent, to the practice of non-communicants remaining
in church, and to certain gestures, such as kneeling, crossing, knocking
upon the breast, which were practised, by many people, and allowed, though
not directed, by a rubric. He objects to the use of peculiar vestments26 at
this service, because they had been abused to superstition, and would lead
to disputes; also to the delivery of the Sacrament into the mouth and not
into the hand of the communicant, and to the direction to place upon the
holy table only so much bread and wine as may be sufficient for the communicants,
as implying a ‘superstitious’ notion of the effect of consecration:27 he
allows however, that at a very early period care was taken to avoid profanation
of the remains of the consecrated elements. He objects to prayer for the
dead, and to the phrase, ‘sleep of peace,’ as implying a sleep of the soul;
to the ceremonies of making the sign of the cross, and taking the elements
into the hand in the action of consecration; to the prayer of invocation
of the Holy Spirit, that the elements. ‘may be unto us the Body and Blood
of Christ’; and to the mention of the ministry of the holy angels in carrying
our prayers before God. He objects to the crossing at consecration and
wishes to have the Manual Acts abolished, as well as the words ‘who in
the same night, &c.’
and all that signified consecration. He approves of homilies, and proposes
several additional subjects for new ones. He allows that a second Communion
was anciently administered on high festivals, when the churches were too
small to hold the congregation; but he dislikes the practice, implying,
as it did, that there would be a larger number of communicants at Christmas
and Easter than at other times, whereas all ought to communicate every
Lord’s Day. |
Communion Service. |
| He proposes that Baptism should
be administered between the sermon and the communion, because more people
were present then than at the morning or evening prayers;28 and
that the office should be begun at the font, where the congregation can hear,
instead of at the church door. He observes that every scenic practice ought
to be removed from divine service, and that whatever ancient ceremonies are
retained should be few in number, and should be carefully explained. to
the people: such ceremonies in Baptism were, the putting on the white garment
or chrysom, the anointing with chrism, and the signing with the cross:
the exorcism also he considers to be objectionable, as implying that all
unbaptized persons are demoniacs. The clause which asserts the sanctification
of water to the mystical washing away of sin by the Baptism of Christ he
wishes to be omitted, utterly disliking all benedictions, or consecrations
of inanimate things. He wishes the phrase to be altered, that infants ‘come,’
whereas they are brought to Baptism; he dislikes the mode of addressing
the infants, who cannot understand what is said, both at the time of signing
with the cross, and in the examination which was addressed to the child,
although the questions were answered by the sponsors. He approves of private
Baptism in case of necessity. |
Baptismal Office. |
| He insists upon frequent catechizing,
and that all young persons, whether confirmed or not, should be present,and
that none should be confirmed before they had by their manners approved
their faith, and their determination of living unto God. He desires that
marriages should be solemnized only in open day, and before the congregation;
he desires that the bishops should make a law of prohibited degrees; he
approves of the ceremonies of
the ring and marriage-gifts, and the manner of first laying them upon
the book, and then receiving them from the Minister to give to the Bride.
In the office of the Visitation of the Sick he objects only to the anointing;
in the Churching office to the chrysom and the offering; and, in the
Burial Service, to the form of commending the soul to God, or in any
terms praying for the dead. He wishes the Commination Service to be
used more frequently than on the first day of Lent, three or four times
in the year; the denunciations he thinks should be arranged in the order
of the Decalogue. Bell-ringing he greatly dislikes, and would have it
entirely forbidden, except only before service. If any Festivals were
retained, besides those of our Lord, and a very few others,29 he
thinks that they should be observed only in the afternoon. He speaks
of many people walking about and talking in the churches, and therefore
wishes them to be shut when no service was proceeding: As additions to
the Prayer Book, he wishes a Confession of Faith to be composed, shortly
and clearly declaring the points that were controverted in that age;
and also a larger Catechism.30 The examination
in the Ordination Service he wishes to be extended to disputed points
of theology, and he desires that Ministers should be kept to their duty
by annual inspections and Synods.31
Bucer delivered this well-meaning but unsatisfactory criticism on January
5, 1551, to the Bishop of Ely, for whom it was originally written, though
subsequently the preface was addressed to the archbishop: before the end
of the next month he was dead. |
Catechism. Confirmation. Matrimony.
Visitation of the Sick. Burial. Commination.
Festivals. |
| In the case of Peter Martyr there
is no extant document containing his criticisms of the Prayer Book, though
he certainly drew up and submitted a censure of his own. We have only his
own account of his criticism, in a letter to Bucer (January 10, 1551).
It seems that he was not well acquainted with the contents of the Prayer
Book, and that no complete Latin version was within his reach. A version,
probably of the ordinary services, by Cheke, was put into his hands, and
upon it he offered a set of annotations to the archbishop. Afterwards,
on reading Bucer’s larger treatise, he was surprised to find what the book
contained, and added his approval of his friend’s observations. He notices
one point which he marvels that Bucer had overlooked, that if a sick person
was to receive the Communion on the same day that it was publicly administered
in the church, a portion of the Sacrament was to be reserved and carried
to the sick person. To this Martyr objected, because he held falsely that
‘the words belong rather to men than either to bread or wine.’32 |
Martyr’s view. |
| At the same time as these censures
were prepared, some conference was held of bishops and others to prepare
for future changes. The views of Bucer and Martyr were in the hands of
those concerned: the latter was being assured, by Cranmer that great changes
were in prospect, was congratulating himself on having had such an excellent
opportunity of admonishing the bishops,33 and
was being insolently assured by Cheke that if the bishops were reluctant
they would be coerced by the King. Both Cranmer and Ridley were anxious at
this time for the abolition of the vestments, but unwilling to bring it about
except ‘by the general consent of the whole kingdom.’34 All
was being prepared in view of the future meeting of Convocation and Parliament:
the bishops ‘agreed among themselves on many emendations and corrections
in the published book,’ and ‘the alterations on which they decided were noted
in their places,’ and shewn to Peter Martyr: but he from his ignorance of
English gained nothing from this but the general impression that they had
not gone far in reform, and that Cranmer was held back by his colleagues.
Cheke again appears at this stage as the extreme man of the body of revisers:35 but
no further light is thrown either on its procedure or on its composition
until we reach a letter of Cranmer36 written
after the passing of the second Act of Uniformity, which mentions by name
Ridley and Martyr with ‘a great many bishops and others of the best learned
within this realm appointed for that purpose.’ |
Preparations for a Revised Book. |
| The sweating sickness which prevailed
in the autumn was probably the reason why Parliament, which should have
met in November, was prorogued till the month of January; and with it the
hopes of the reforming party were postponed.37 Meanwhile
they had to content themselves with the hopes of the reform of Ecclesiastical
Law — a project
which was occupying the minds of a Commission throughout the autumn and
during the opening months of 1552,38— and
with some disputations on the subject of the Eucharist.39 |
Legislation. |
On January 24th, two days after the execution of Somerset, Parliament met, and Convocation on the following day. Of the acts of the latter, Heylyn professed that he could find little record: but a document which he assigns to a Convocation in 1550 and 1551 probably belongs to this date.40 The opportunity, for which Cranmer and the reforming bishops had been
waiting, was now come, for obtaining public authorisation for their further
projects; the moderate party had been everywhere repressed, and their
leaders among the bishops, who had submitted, however unwillingly, to
the First Prayer Book, were in prison — Gardiner, who had been
committed to the Tower on the morrow of his sermon on the Eucharist delivered
June 29, 1548;41 Bonner, who had used
the new book, and then had also fallen victim to the tyrannical expedient
of being forced to preach a test sermon;42 Heath,
who had lost his liberty over the Ordinal, Day over the destruction of
altars, and Tonstal on an obscure charge of treason.43 From
the scanty and dubious records of Convocation, it seems likely that the
proceedings there were abortive. There seems to have been no discussion
upon the new draft of the book as a whole, but only upon some ‘doubts’
concerning the feasts, retained or abrogated,44 and
the formula and method of administering the Holy Sacrament.45 And
this is only in the Upper House; while the Lower House debated, but came
to no conclusion, and deferred the question.46 |
In Convocation. |
| Meanwhile, the time was coming
for the whole book to be put forward in Parliament with the second Act
of Uniformity. About a month was occupied in the passing of the measure
(March 9- April 14). The two bishops, who remained of the former opponents
of the First Prayer Book, again appeared to vote against the new Bill —
viz., Aldrich, of Carlisle, and Thirlby, of Norwich.47 It
was finally passed at the close of the Session on April 14, but its operation
was not to begin till the All Saints’ Day (November 1) following.48 |
In Parliament. |
| When the proposals
were scrutinised, it was clear that the opinions of Bucer and Martyr had
not been without their effect: many of the suggestions of the former had
been adopted, but his conservative views had clearly not found so much
favour as his proposals for alteration, and, while some of his worst suggestions
were set aside, in other respects the changes made were more radical. These
seem to have been dictated by the desire to be rid of such passages in
the First Prayer Book as the moderate party — and especially Gardiner49— had
fastened upon for their comfort. At the same time, for the sake of appearances,
and to bridge over the gulf between the old order and the new, the alterations,
important as they are, were said to be adopted only for the sake of rendering
the new book ‘fully perfect in all such places in which it was necessary
to be made more earnest and fit for the stirring up of all Christian people
to the true honouring of Almighty God,’ and with no intention of condemning
the doctrines of the former book. And the second Act of Uniformity declared
that the First Prayer Book was ‘a very godly order in the mother tongue,
agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church’; and that such
doubts as had been raised in the use and exercise thereof proceeded rather
from ‘the curiosity of the minister and mistakers, than of any other worthy
cause.’ |
|
No condemnation intended of the First Prayer Book.
|
|
The chief alterations now made were:— In the Daily Prayer, the introductory Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, were placed at the beginning of the service. In the Communion Office, the Decalogue was added, and the Kyries adapted to it; the Introit was omitted; and the mixture of water with the wine at the Offertory; the new Canon or long prayer of consecration, beginning with the Prayer for the Universal Church, and ending with the Lord’s Prayer, which had been composed as an amendment upon the ancient Canon in the Roman Liturgy, was divided into three parts, and became the Prayer for the Church Militant, the Prayer of Consecration, and the first alternative Prayer after Communion; at the same time the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the thanksgiving for the Patriarchs and Prophets, the sign of the cross and the invocation of the Word and the Holy Ghost at the consecration were struck out from it. The order of parts was altered so that communion should immediately follow consecration. At the delivery of the Blessed Sacrament to the communicants, the second clause in each case of our present forms was substituted for the first clause, whereby direct mention was avoided of taking the Body and Blood of Christ. In Baptism, the exorcism, the anointing, the putting on the chrysom, and the triple repetition of the immersion were omitted; the font was to be filled, and the water to be consecrated, whenever the service was used. In the Visitation of the Sick the anointing was omitted: the curate was no longer directed to celebrate or to reserve but only vaguely to ‘minister’ the Communion; in the Burial Service, the prayers for the dead, and the special office for the Eucharist at funerals. The rubric concerning Vestments ordered that neither alb, vestment,
nor cope should be used; a bishop should wear a rochet, a priest or deacon
only a surplice. |
Changes made in 1552. |
| The chief doctrinal alteration
was in reference to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the book
of 1549 the Communion Service had been so constructed as to be consistent
with the Catholic belief in the real presence. But the alterations in 1552
were designed to facilitate and foster the view that the prayer of consecration
had reference rather to the persons than to the elements, and that the
presence of Christ was not in the Sacrament but only in the heart of the
believer The pale of Church communion was thus enlarged for the more ultra
reformers, and narrowed by the attempt to exclude those who were determined
to retain the primitive doctrine apart from mediæval accretions. |
Doctrinal change respecting Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. |
| The interval between the close
of Parliament and the date fixed for the use of the new book (November
1) was by no means uneventful. While still in embryo the book was the subject
of controversy, and just before it came to the birth, a storm burst which
left an ill-starred mark upon it. The extreme party among the reformers
had for some time been making a dead set at the practice of kneeling at
communion. The crotchety Hooper had shown his non-conforming zeal in this
as in other respects, and others had followed his example. The immediate
cause of the storm seems to have been the profane recklessness of John
Knox, who, though a licensed preacher, had openly set aside the Prayer
Book, and, taking advantage of the absence of any direction on the subject,
had substituted sitting for kneeling, and common bread for wafer bread
in the Communion; he was now not content with infecting the north of England
with his irreverence, but, when he came up to London as Royal Chaplain,
he preached a violent sermon against the kneeling.50 The
Council awoke to the fact that in the forthcoming Prayer Book this practice,
which was calling forth so much opposition, was for the first time specifically
ordered; and, thereupon beginning to repent, suspended the issue of the
book.51 already in print (September 27,
1552), under the pretext that there were printer’s errors which needed
alteration, and also wrote to Cranmer, ordering him to reconsider the question.
The Archbishop had apparently at last reached the end of his tether. He
had been pushed on and on by foreign influence, by Bucer first, and after
Bucer’s death by more extreme men from abroad: but he would go no further:
in reply, he made a spirited but despairing protest52 against
altering what ‘Parliament had settled in deference to glorious and unquiet
spirits, which can like nothing but that-is after their own fancy;’ and
he showed up both the crudity of the Scriptural argument which was being
alleged against the custom, and also the indecency of sitting to receive,
but kneeling both immediately before and after reception. |
Publication delayed. |
While Cranmer was conferring,
Knox had a new opportunity of prosecuting his victory. The draft of the
Articles of Religion applauded the ceremonies of the new Book, and when
the draft was (on October 21) referred to certain censors for their opinion,
Knox renewed his attack. On the 27th following
— whether in consequence of this or not is not clear — a letter
went forth from the Council to the Lord Chancellor ‘to cause to be joined,
unto the Book of Common Prayer lately set forth a certain declaration,
signed by the King’s Majesty and sent unto his Lordship, touching the kneeling
at the receiving of the Communion.’53 |
More recent scholarship assigns to Cranmer more the role of leader in the 1552 revision, rather than follower, as is implied here.
|
Thus the Council compromised
the matter by the insertion, on the eve of publication54 of
the celebrated ‘Black rubric,’ which declared, in explanation of the
rubric requiring communicants to kneel at receiving the Holy Sacrament,
‘that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done, or ought to
be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received,
or to any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural
flesh and blood.’ |
The Black Rubric. |
Thus against the Archbishop’s
will and without the consent of the Church, English religion reached its
low water mark and the ill-starred book of 1552 began its brief career.
Ridley officiated at its first use in S. Paul’s on All Saints’ Day; the
choir of S. Paul’s was finally devastated,55 the
organ silenced, the bishop in bare rochet, and his clergy in bare surplices
filled in the details of the picture; and thereafter all communion ceased
except on Sundays.56 |
Fate of the Book. |
1 In October, 1550, it was reported to the Council of the service in S. Paul’s, ‘that it was used as the very Mass.’ Council Book, Strype, Memorials, II. i. 237. Bucer made similar complaints; Gorham, Ref. Glean, p. 201. Strype, Mem. II. ii. NN. 2 Indeed, the book could not be used except by applying to it a knowledge of the method of performing the Latin Service. It was assumed that the Priest would know, for example, (i) the old rules for the endings of the Collects, (ii) the old preface for Trinity Sunday and its variations from other prefaces (see below, p. 490), (iii) the rules for the saying or not saying of Gloria in excelsis (see above, p. 65 n.). 3 The sense in which they were willing to accept the Prayer Book may be
gathered from Gardiner’s allusions to it in his controversy with Cranmer.
For example: It teaches ‘the most true and catholic doctrine of the substance
of the Sacrament’ that ‘we receive in the Sacrament the Body of Christ
with our mouth’ (Cranmer’s Works on the Lord’s Supper, I. 55). He willingly
argues that ‘When the Church by the minister and with the minister prayeth
that the creatures of bread and wine set on the altar (as the Book of Common
Prayer in this realm hath ordered), may be unto us the body and blood of
our Saviour Christ, we require then the, celebration of the same supper
which Christ made to His Apostles for to be the continual memory of His
death with all fruit and effect, Such as the same had in the first institution’
(Ibid. 83, cp, 79). He approves the book on the point ‘that it is very
profitable at that time when the memory of Christ’s death is solemnized
to remember with prayer all estates of the Church (Ibid. 84). In conclusion,
he declares that ‘the effect of all celestial or worldly gifts to be obtained
of God in the celebration of Christ’s Holy Supper when we call it the Communion,
is now prayed for to be present, and with God’s favour shall be obtained
if we devoutly, reverently, and charitably and quietly use and frequent
the same without other innovations than the order of the book prescribeth’
(Ibid.), and that ‘the true faith of the holy mystery. . . in the Book
of Common Prayer is well termed, not distant from the Catholic faith in
my judgment’ (Ibid. 92). |
Notes Return to text |
4 Dixon, III: 197. 5 See Hooper’s letter to Bullinger, Dec. 27, 1549, rejoicing over the
destruction of the altars, but complaining that ‘the public celebration
of the Lord’s Supper is very far from the Order and Institution of our
Lord’: complaining also of the repeated celebrations, the vestments
and candles, and that ‘the mass priests, although they are compelled
to discontinue the use of the Latin language, yet most carefully observe
the same tone and manner. of chanting to which they were heretofore accustomed
in the papacy.’ Orig. Letters, p. 72. 6 See his Sermon IV upon Jonas. Early Writings, p. 488. . 7 Orig. Letters, p. 79. 8 King Edward’s Journal (in Burnet, Hist.). ‘June 23, Sir John Gates, Sheriff of Essex, went down with letters to see the Bishop of London’s injunctions performed, which touched plucking down of superaltaries, altars, and such like ceremonies and abuses.’ See Greyfriars Chron. p, 67-69, Wriothesley, Chronicle, ii. 47, for details of the changes at S. Paul’s in 1550 and 1551. 9 Instructions for the Survey of Church goods in Northamptonshire, 1552. ‘ . . . . in many places great quantity of the said plate, jewels, bells, and ornaments be embezzled by certain private men.’ Cardwell, Doc. Ann. XXVII. 10 Doc. Ann. XXIV. cp. Gorham, p. 213. 11 For the course of the Altar war, see Dixon, III. 199 and ff. |
Return to text |
12 See above p. 61. 13 Orig. Letters, p. 573 (October 20, 1550). 14 Orig. Letters, CXXIV. Foxe gives a quaint description of this scene. Acts and Mon. VI. 641. 15 See Dixon, III. 213-220, 254-256. 16 Two others who deserve special mention as compilers .of services at this date were John à Lasco, who became pastor of the foreign congregations in London, and Valerandus Pollanus• who fled to England from Strasburg with a number of his French and flemish followers, and was established at Glastonbury. These foreign congregations were allowed the exercise of their own forms of worship under Cranmer’s protection, in spite of the protest of Ridley and other bishops. See Orig. Letters CCLXIII. and Additional Note, p. 86. 17 Dixon, III. 66. 18 Dixon, II. 522. |
Return to text |
20 Dixon, II. 281 n, and see above p.62. 21 ‘The cause of religion as far as appertains to the establishment of doctrines and the definition of rites, is pretty near what could be wished. Efforts must now be made to obtain suitable ministers . . . for . . . the pastors of the Churches have hitherto confined their duties chiefly to ceremonies, and have very rarely preached and never catechised. . . . As soon as the description of the ceremonies now in use shall have been translated into Latin we will send it to you. We hear that some concessions have been made, both to a respect for antiquity and to the infirmity of the present age: such for instance as the vestments commonly used in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the use of candles: so also in regard to the commemoration of the dead and the use of chrism: for we know not to what extent or in what sort it prevails. They affirm that there is no superstition in these things, and that they are only to be retained for a time, lest the people, not having yet learned Christ, should be deterred by too extensive innovations from embracing His religion, but that rather they may be won over. This circumstance, however, greatly refreshed us, that all the Services are read and sung in the vernacular tongue, that the doctrine of justification is purely and soundly taught, and the Eucharist administered according to Christ’s ordinance, private masses having been abolished.’ Orig. Letters, CCXLVIII. p. 535. April 26, 1549. 22 ‘Equidem cum primum in hoc regnum venissem, quæ publice dogmata quique ritus in ecclesia essent recepti: videremque eo, num meum possem ministerium his solido consensu adjungere, librum istum sacrorum per interpretem, quantum potui, cognovi diligenter; quo facto egi gratias Deo, qui dedisset vos has ceremonias eo puritatis reformare; nee enim quicquam in illis deprehendi, quod non sit ex verba Dei desumptum, aut saltem ei non adversetur commode acceptum. Nam non desunt paucula quædam, quæ si quis non candide interpretetur, videri queant non satis cum verbo Dei congruere.’ Buceri Prologus in Censuram (Scripta Angl., p. 456.) . 23 ‘Censura Martini Buceri super libro Sacrorum, seu ordinationis ecclesiæ atque ministerii ecclesiastici in Regno Angliæ, ad petitionem R. Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, Thomæ Cranmeri, conscripta.’ Inter Buceri Scripta Anglicana, fol. Basil. 1577. 24 ‘De hac quantas possum ago gratias Deo, qui dedit eam tam puram, tamque religiose ad verbum Dei exactam, maxime illo jam tempore quo hoc factum est, constitui. Perpaucis enim verbis et signis exceptis nihil omnino in ea conspicio, quod non ex divinis depromptum Scripturis sit; si modo omnia populis Christi digna religione exhiberentur atque explicarentur.’ Ibid. p. 465. 25 Dimidiatam missam dicere vestibus omnino missalibus.’ Ibid. p. 459· 26 ‘Non quod credam in ipsis quicquam esse impii per se, ut pii homines
illis non possint pie uti.’ Ibid. p. 458. |
Return to text |
27 ‘Nonnulli eam sibi fingunt superstitionem, ut existiment nephas esse, si quid ex pane et vino communicationis ea peracta supersit, pati id in usum venire vulgarem; quasi pani huic et vino insit per se aliquid numinis aut sancti etiam extra communication is usum.’ Ibid. p. 464. This view was propounded only to be emphatically rejected. 28 ‘Cumque nec ad matutinas nee ad vespertinas preces solet ecclesia coire
præstaret sane baptisma adrninistrare statim a sacra concione cum
frequentissima adhuc est ecclesia, priusquam sacræ cœnæ administratio
incipiatur.’ Ibid. p. 477. The substitution of Morning Prayer for the Lord’s
Service had clearly not yet begun. |
Return to text |
29 ‘Item quibus visitatio Mariæ matris Domini, natalis Johannis, et divi Petri atque Pauli, Martyrum, Angelorumque peragitur memoria.’ Bucer, Censura, p. 494. 30 ‘In quo singulæ Catechismi partes, Symbolum quod vocant Apostolorum, decem præcepta, Oratio Dominica, institutio Baptismatis, Cœnæ, ministerii ecclesiastici, disciplinæ pœnitentialis, sic explicentur, ut populus in horum explanatione locos onnes re1igionis . . . . valeat perdiscere.’ Ibid. p. 501. 31 Cf. Dixon, II. 281-293. Collier, Eccl. Hist. V. pp. 387 sqq. 32 Strype, Cranmer, App. LXI. Verba cenæ magis ad homines quam aut ad panem aut ad vinum pertinere.’ 33 ‘Conclusum jam est in hoc eorum colloquio, quemadmodum mihi retulit
reverendissimus, ut multa immutentur. Sed quæenam illa sint, quæ consenserint
emendanda, neque ipse mihi exposuit, neque ego de illo quærere ausus
sum. Verum hoc non me parum recreat, quod mihi D. Checus indicavit: Si
noluerint ipsi, ait, efficere ut quæ mutanda sint mutentur, rex per
seipsum id faciet; et cum ad parliamentum ventum fuerit, ipse suæ majestatis
authoritatem interponet.’ Peter Martyr, Letter to Bucer; Strype, Cranmer, App. LXI. (Jan. 10, 1551). Gorham, p. 227. |
Return to text |
34 Orig.
Letters, 426, John
ab Ulmis to Bullinger (Dec. 31, 1550). 35 Martyr to Bucer (Feb. 1551). Gorham, p. 232. 36 See below, p. 84. 37 Orig. Letters, 500; Martyr to Bullinger (Oct. 26, 1551). 38 Several commissions were issued, and their meetings are alluded to in letters of the time in a misleading way as convocatio, See Orig. Letters, 444, and also 314, which must be of the same date, cp. 447, 503, 580, 889. See Dixon, III. 351, for the history of this project. 39 Nov. 25. Sir John Cheke, Home dean of Durham, Whitehead, and Grindal, with Feckenham and Young on the popish side, met at the house of Sir Wm. Cecyl, Secretary of State. Cheke propounded this question: ‘Quis esset verus et germanus sensus verborum cœnæ, Hoc est corpus meum? Num quem verba sensu grammatico accepta præ se ferebant, an aliud quiddam?’ A second disputation upon the same question was held on Dec. 3rd. Strype, Cranmer, II. 26. 40 See Gasquet and Bishop,. 286. Their view seems far more probable than Dixon’s (III. 249). 41 Dixon, II. 520; III. 163, 220. 42 Dixon, III. 132 and ff. 43 Dixon, III. 320. |
Return to text |
44 This was probably connected with the Act about fasts and Holy days passed by this parliament. Dixon, III. 436. 45 ‘The first debate among the prelates was of such doubts as had arisen about some things contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and more particularly touching such feasts as were retained and such as had been abrogated by the rules thereof: the form of words used at the giving of the bread, and the different manner of administering the Holy Sacrament; which being signified unto the Prolocutor and the rest of the clergy who had received somewhat in charge about it the day he fore, answer was made that they had not yet sufficiently considered of the points proposed; but that they would give their lordships some account thereof in the following Session.’ Heylyn, Hist., 5 Edw, § 15, but ascribed to 1550-1551. Cp. p. 79 for this Convocation. 46 In the Convocation of October, 1553, Weston, the Prolocutor, expressly congratulated the Convocation that the Prayer Book had not had its sanction. Dixon, IV. 73. 47 At its opening session, parliament was occupied with a Bill designed simply to enforce more rigidly the frequenting of the services of the first Prayer Book: this subsequently coalesced with the new Bill for the revised Prayer Book, and became the second Act of Uniformity. Dixon, III. 431 and ff. 48 The Act is in Gee and Hardy’s Documents, no. LXXI. 49 In his controversy with Cranmer. See above, p, 67, note. |
Return to text |
50 Orig. Letters, 591. Utenhovius to Bullinger, Oct. 12, 1552. 51 ‘A letter to Grafton the printer to stay in any wise from uttering
any of the books of the new service. And if he have distributed any of
them among his company (of stationers), that then to give strait commandment
to every of them not to put any of them abroad until certain faults corrected.’
Council Book, Sept. 26. Dixon, III. 476. |
Return to text |
52 After promising to see
to the correction of printer’s errors, he continued: ‘And Where I understand
further by your Lordship’s letters that some be offended with kneeling
at the time of the receiving of the Sacrament, and would that I (calling
to me the Bishop of London and some other learned men, as Mr. Peter Martyr
or such like) should with them expend and weigh the said prescription
of kneeling, whether it be fit to remain as a commandment or to be left
out of the book: I shall accomplish the King’s Majesty’s commandment
herein, albeit I trust that we with just balance weighed this at the
making of the book, and not only we, but a great many Bishops and others
of the best learned within this realm appointed for that purpose. And
now the book being read and approved by the whole State of the realm
in the High Court of Parliament with the King’s Majesty his royal assent
that this should now be altered again without parliament, of what importance
this matter is I refer to your Lordship’s wisdom to consider.’ 53 Council Book, Oct. 27, in Dixon, III. 483. 54 From the fact that there was only three days’ interval, it is not surprising that in many copies the addition was only pasted in on a fly sheet, while in others it was never inserted at all. Parker, Introduction, xxxii-xxxvi. Some illustrations of this may be seen here at the bottom of the page. 55 This had already been almost completely done by anticipation a week previously, and the organ had been silenced a month since. Greyfriars Chronicle, 75. 56 Greyfriars Chronicle, 76. (Cp. Wriothesiey’s Chronicle, II. 78, 79. |
Return to text |
ADDITIONAL NOTE. INFLUENCE OF FOREIGNERS. MENTION has been made of Calvin, and of Bucer and Martyr, the distinguished
foreigners who, having taken refuge in England, had some influence on
the course of events here. Two others deserve further notice. |
|
| The first of these is Valerand
Pullain (Valerandus Pollanus) a Fleming by birth. He had succeeded Calvin
in the pastorship of the Church of Strangers at Strasburg, but by reason
of the publication of the Interim (1548), he was obliged to flee
from that city with his congregation. These people were chiefly weavers
of worsted; and on their arrival in England the Duke of Somerset gave them
a home in the abbey buildings at Glastonbury, and provided them with the
means of carrying on their manufacture.1 In
February 1551, Pullain published their Order of Service in Latin,2 with
a dedication to King Edward, to defend his people from those who slandered
them for their change of religion and for licentiousness.3 This
book has been supposed to have furnished hints to the revisers of the Book
of Common Prayer in some additions which were made in 1552 to the ancient
services. The introductory Sentences, with the Exhortation, Confession,
and Absolution, which were then placed at the beginning of the Morning
and Evening Prayer, and the Ten Commandments with the Responses, especially
the last, subjoined to them, which were at the same time introduced at
the beginning of the Communion Service, are supposed to be due in some
degree to this publication of Pollanus. The following is the passage referred
to, being the commencement of the Sunday Service :— |
V. PULLAIN.
The Strasburg Liturgy |
| ’Die dominico mane hora’ octava,
cum jam adest populus Pastore accedente Choraules incipit dara voce, Leve
le cueur, ac
populus accinit cum modestia et gravitate summa, ut ne quid voluptati
aurium, sed serviant omnia reverentiæ Dei, et ædificationi
tam canentium, quam audientium, si qui fortasse adsint non canentes.
Cum absolverint primam tabulam, tum pastor mensæ astans versus ad populum sic incipit: Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit cœlum et terram. Amen. Deinde dara et distincta voce populum admonet de confessione peccatorum, hisque verbis præit : Fratres, cogitet nunc vestrum unusquisque se coram Deo sisti, ut peccata et delicta sua omnia simplici animo confiteatur et agnoscat, atque apud vosmetipsos me præeuntem sequimini his verbis. CONFESSIO PECCATI. |
’Est decalogus rithmo redditus’ |
Domine Deus, Pater æterne et omnipotens, agnoscimus et fatemur ingenue apud sanctissimam Majestatem tuam, peccatores esse nos miseros, adeoque a prima origine, qua concepti et nati sumus, tam ad omne malum esse pronos, quam ab omni bono alienos; quo vitio tuas leges sanctissimas assidue transgredimur, eoque nobis exitium justissimo tuo judicio conquirimus. Attamen, Domine Deus, pœnitet sic offendisse bonitatem tuam, proindeque nos et facta nostra omnia nimium scelerata damnamus, orantes ut tu pro tua dementia huic nostræ calamitati succurras. Miserere igitur nostri omnium, O Deus et Pater clementissime ac misericors, per nomen filii tui Jesu Christi Domini nostri te obtestamur; ac deletis vitiis, ablutisque sordibus cunctis, largire atque adauge indies Spiritus tui sancti vim et dona in nobis, quo vere et serio nostram miseriam intelligentes, nostramque injustitiam agnoscentes, veram pœnitentiam agamus: qua mortui peccato deinceps abundemus fructibus justitiæ ac innocentiæ, quibus tibi placeamus per Jesum Christum filium tuum unicum redemptorem ac mediatorem nostrum. Amen. ABSOLUTIO. |
’Confessio Peccatorum:’ repeated after the Minister. |
Hic pastor ex scriptura sacra
sententiam aliquam remissionis peccatorum populo recitat, in nomine Patris,
et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Ac toto hoc tempore populus magna cum reverentia
vel astat, vel procumbit in genua, utut animus cujusque tulerit. ORATIO. |
’Absolutio’ |
Dominus
adsit nobis, ut Deum oremus unanimes : There follow the reading of Scripture, exposition and an hour’s sermon, a collection, a long prayer for various needs and persons, and the service ends with creed, psalm, and blessing. It will be seen from this extract that this service of Pollanus, which
has a strong family likeness to others of the Genevan type,4 may
have furnished the hint, that the decalogue should be repeated in the
public service, and suggested some phrases in the English, additions
of 1552.5 But in the English book the
Commandments were to be plainly recited in the hearing of the people,
instead of being sung by them in metre; and they were appointed to be
said not in the Morning Prayer, but at the commencement of the Communion,
or principal service. The words, ‘dignare
cordibus nostris eam ita tuo spiritu inscribere’ contain the subject
of the petition which was placed as the concluding response after the
Commandments, ‘write all these thy laws in our
hearts.’ Comparing this
extract with the commencement of our Daily Prayer, we must observe that
there is not one strictly parallel sentence, and Pollanus gives no form
of Absolution at all. All that can be, alleged respecting the opening
portion of our service is, that the hint may have been taken from two
books of service used by congregations of refugees in England, which
were published about this time: the one being the version of Calvin’s
form, by Pollanus; and the other, that used by the Walloons under John
Laski, or à Lasco. |
Oratio.’ The Prayer after the Commandments. |
| This truly influential
person was a Polish ecclesiastic of noble birth, who left his country and
his honours (1538) and became one of the extremest German reformers and
Pastor at Emden in East Frisia. His first visit to England was in the autumn
of 1548, when he resided six months with Cranmer. The introduction of the
Interim into Friesland compelled him to seek a shelter in England in 1550.6 He
was soon after appointed superintendent of the congregations of foreign
Protestants, German and French, in London, who were incorporated by a royal
charter7 and installed in the church
of the Austin Friars,8 with permission
to use their own ceremonies.9 He published
in Latin the service used by his Church.10 His
friendly intercourse with Cranmer would naturally lead to an inquiry as
to the form of his worship; and that, not only with a reference to the
English Service-book then under review, but that the English Government
might know to what they were giving shelter and sanction. In this book
there is a recitation of the commandments followed by a form of Confession
and of Absolution, in which some phrases resemble the corresponding portions
which were added to the second Book of Edward VI. The following are from
the Confession :— |
JOHN A-LASCO. |
Superintendent of the foreign Protestant congregations in London. His form of Service contains a form of Confession and Absolution.
|
|
’. . . Neque amplius velis mortem peccatoris, sed potius ut convertatur et vivat ... opem tuam divinam per meritum Filii tui dilecti supplices imploramus ... nobisque dones Spiritum Sanctum tuum . . . ut lex tua sancta illi [cordi] insculpi ac per nos demum ... tota vita nostra exprimi ejus beneficio possit.’11 The Absolution follows thus :- ’Habemus certam et indubitatam promissionem . . . quod omnibus vere poenitentibus (qui videlicet agnitis peccatis suis cum sui accusatione gratiam ipsius per nomen Christi Domini implorant) omnia ipsorum peccata prorsus condonet at que aboleat . . . omnibus, inquam, vobis qui ita affecti estis denuncio, fiducia promissionum Christi, vestra peccata omnia in cœlo a Deo Patre nostro modis plane omnibus remissa esse. Hooper mentions à-Lasco as alone standing on his side of all the
foreigners who had any influence.12 He
was named among the thirty-two commissioners to frame ecclesiastical laws.13 When
the change came and England was no longer a congenial sphere, he returned
to work on the Continent and left England, September 15, 1553.14 |
|
It has proved very easy to
over-estimate influence of foreign reformed services upon the English
Rites. Apart from the Consultation and the Lutheran Litany, where the
indebtedness is evident, and in the former case traceable to a widely
current English version of that document, the parallelisms are vague.
The above extracts show this to be so even in the case of documents which
must have been well-known in England. Jacobs15 from
the Lutheran standpoint and Gasquet from the Roman Catholic standpoint
have multiplied references to many of the countless host of German Kirchen-Ordnungen
published between 1523 and 1552 : but most of the similarities are slight
and such as naturally occur in documents as similar as these are in purpose
and origin. The family likeness, such as it is, is collateral, not lineal. |
Lutheran Kirchen-Ordnungen. |
1 Strype, Cranmer, II. 23. 2 ‘Liturgia Sacra, seu Ritus Ministerii in ecclesia peregrinorum profugorum propter Evangelium Christi Argentinæ. Adjecta est ad finem brevis Apologia pro hac Liturgia, per Valerandum Pollanum Flandrum. Lond. 23 Februar. Ann. 1551.’ 3 Strype, Eccles. Mem. II., ch, xxix. p. 242. |
Notes Return to text |
4 Cp. The forme of Common Prayer used in the churches of Geneva . . . printed by Whitchurche, June 7, 1550. 5 The Edwardine Injunctions of 1547 had ordered that they should be taught to the people in English after the reading of the Gospel with the Lord’s Prayer and Creed. Doc. Ann. II. p. 7. 6 Orig. Letters, p. 560, Micronius to Bullinger (May 20, 1550), p. 483; Martyr to Bullinger (June 1, 1550). He was appointed superintendent by King Edward, on the 24th of July; ibid. note. Dixon, III. 231, 424. 7 Collier, Record, LXV. Burnet, V. 305 (Pt. II. i. 202). Orig. Letters, 567, Micronius to Bullinger (Aug. 28, 1550). 8 Now the Dutch church in Austin Friars, E. C. 9 This was for some time limited: or an account of the services see Orig. Letters, 575, Micronius to Bullinger, Aug. 14, 1551. cp. 568, 570; 577. The Italians were also under Laski as superintendent. Dixon, III. 425. 10 ‘Forma ac ratio tota ecclesiastici ministerii, in peregrinorum, potissimum vero Germanorum, ecclesia; instituta Londini in Anglia per Edvardum Sextum,’ Sine loco et anno, Other editions appeared in German, French, Dutch and Italian. Brit. Mus. Catalogue, II. 983. 11 Forma ac ratio, pp. 69-71. Cardwell, Two Prayer Books of Ed. VI. compared. Pref. p. xxxii, note. 12 Orig. Letters, p. 95. Hooper to Bullinger (Aug. 1, 1551). 13 Orig. Letters, p. 503, Martyr to Bullinger (March 8, 1552). 14 Ibid. p. 512. See further Hardwick, Reformation, (London, 1886) pp 70,82 and ff. Dict. Nat. Biog., an for his early life, Dalton, John a-Lasco. 15 The Lutheran Movement in England, pp. 218 & ff. |
Return to text |
Next Chapter
Return to the A New History of the Book of Common Prayer
| Web author: Charles Wohlers | U. S. • England • Scotland • Ireland • Wales • Canada • World |