| The Book of Common Prayer | |||||||
|
|
CHAPTER VI THE PRAYER BOOK FROM THE ACCESSION OF [A.D. 1603-1649.] |
Previous chapter |
| UPON the
accession of King James I. (March 24, 1603), the earliest measure adopted
by the general body of the Puritans was to present to him (in April) the
famous Millenary petition,1 so called from the number of ministers
who were said to have consented to it.2 Their chief grievances
were four: The Church Service, Church ministers, Church livings and maintenance,
Church Discipline. Upon the subject of the Prayer Book they urged that
of these ‘offences following, some may be removed, some amended, some qualified
:— |
Puritan Objections. The Millenary Petition. |
| ’In the Church Service: that
the cross in baptism, interrogatories ministered to infants, confirmation,
as: superfluous, may be taken away: baptism not to be ministered by women,
and so explained: the cap and surplice not urged: that examination may
go before the Communion: that it be ministered with a sermon: that divers
terms of ‘priests’ and ‘absolution’ and some other used, with the ring
in marriage, and other such like in the book, may be corrected: the longsomeness
of service abridged: Church songs and music moderated to better edification:
that the Lord’s Day be not profaned: the rest upon Holy Days not so strictly
urged: that there may be an uniformity of doctrine prescribed: no popish
opinion to be any more taught or defended: no ministers charged to teach
their people to bow at the name of Jesus: that the canonical Scriptures
only be read in the church.’ |
Puritan objections to the Prayer Book. |
| ’These, with such other abuses
yet remaining and practised in the Church of England,’ they declared ‘we
are able to show not to be agreeable to the Scriptures, if it shall please
your Highness further to hear us, or more at large by writing to be informed,
or by conference among the learned to be resolved.’3 |
A Conference proposed,
|
| The King acceded to the request
for a Conference, as suited to his own fondness for such a debate, though
contrary to the wishes of the universities and of the clergy generally.
A proclamation4 was issued (October 24), ‘Touching a meeting
for the hearing and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in
the Church,’ ‘to be had before himself and his council of divers of the
bishops and other learned men.’ The meeting was at first intended to be
held on the 1st of November, but was deferred till after Christmas. Meanwhile,
Archbishop Whitgift sent to Hutton, Archbishop of York, certain queries
of matters that might be debated at the Conference; among which these points
were noted concerning the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the
Sacraments: ‘(i.) concerning lay baptism: (ii.) concerning the sign of
the cross in the child’s forehead made at its baptism: (iii.) concerning
praying in the Litany to be delivered from sudden death, since we ought
so to live, that death should never find us unprepared.’5 |
and ordered by proclamation. |
| The Conference was held at Hampton
Court,6 on the 14th, 16th, and 18th of
January, 1604. The persons summoned to take part in the discussion, on
the side of the Puritans, were Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Sparkes, Mr. Knewstubbs,
and Mr. Chaderton, who had the reputation of being the most grave, learned,
and modest of the party. The Conference, however, was not a discussion
between the Episcopal and Puritan divines in the presence of the royal
council, but a Conference first between the King and the bishops, and secondly
between the King and the invited Puritan divines, concluded by the royal
determination upon the points debated. On the first day the King assembled
the lords of his council and nine of the bishops with the deans of the
chapel royal. and four cathedral churches; after an hour’s speech he propounded
six points, three of them in the Common Prayer Book, viz. the general absolution,
the confirmation of children, and the private lay baptism: the two former
were allowed, but some things in them were to be made clear. After a long
discussion on private baptism, it was agreed that it should only be administered
by ministers, yet in private houses if occasion required. Some other matters
were debated, concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, and the civilization
of Ireland. |
Conference at Hampton Court.
Conference between the King and the bishops, on Saturday Jan. 14. |
| On the second day, the Puritan
representatives were called before the King and the council, in the presence
of the bishops of London and Winchester, and the deans and doctors, who
had been summoned to take part in the Conference. The Puritans propounded
four points:— purity of doctrine: means to maintain it: church government:
the Common Prayer Book. Concerning the ‘book itself and subscription to it,
there was much stir about all the ceremonies and every point in it; chiefly
Confirmation, the cross in baptism, the surplice, private baptism, kneeling
at the Communion, the reading of the Apocrypha, and subscriptions to the
Book of Common Prayer and Articles. ‘All that day was spent in ceremonies,’
writes Dean Montague in a letter giving an account of what passed in his
presence, and ‘ all wondered that they had no more to say against them.’7 The
conclusion was that there should be a uniform translation of the Bible, and
one form of catechism over all the realm; that the Apocrypha should be read,
but not as Scripture; and that any doubtful point of the Articles should
be cleared. |
Conference between the King with certain bishops and the Puritan divines, on Monday, Jan. 16. |
| On the third day, the bishops
and deans, with certain civilians, attended at the court, and the Archbishop
presented to the King a note of those things, both explanations to be added
to the rubrics and other points, which had been referred to their consideration
on the first day. These were: ‘ 1. Absolution, or
remission of sins, in
the rubric of absolution.’8. In private
baptism, the
lawful minister present. 3. Examination, with confirmation
of children. 4. Jesus
said to them, twice
to be put in the dominical Gospels, instead of Jesus
said to his disciples.’ With regard to Baptism, the King directed an
alteration in the rubric of private baptism: instead of ‘They baptize not
children,’ it should be, They cause not children to
be baptized;’ and instead
of, ‘Then they minister it,’ it should be ‘The curate,
or lawful minister present, shall do it on this fashion.’ Then, after
some discussion about the High Commission, the oath ex officio, and
excommunication, and referring some points to special committees, Dr. Rainolds
and his associates were called in, and the alterations agreed to were read
to them. There was a little disputing about the words in the marriage ceremony,
‘With my body I thee worship,’ and it was agreed that they should be, ‘worship
and honour,’ if it were thought
fit. There followed a discourse upon unity and peace from the King, and a
vain complaint urged in behalf of some ministers in Lancashire and Suffolk,
who would lose their credit if they were now forced to use the surplice and
cross in baptism; to this it was curtly answered, that the general peace
of the Church must be preferred to the credit of a few private men; and so
the Conference ended with a joint promise of the Puritan representatives
to be quiet and obedient, now they knew it to be the King’s mind to have
it so.9 |
Alterations agreed to by the King and the bishops on Wednesday, Jan. 18. |
| Certain alterations
were thus agreed to by the King and the bishops at the Conference; but
the particular form in which they should be expressed was referred with
three other points to the bishops. A special commission10 dealt
with other decisions of the Conference, e.g., the reform of Church
Government and the new translation of the Bible. To effect the liturgical
changes the King issued his letters patent11 (February
9), specifying the alterations, and ordering the publication and the exclusive
use of the amended Book. The authority for this action was the undefined
power of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters, as well as the statutable
power granted by the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity in 1559. And care
was taken to call the alterations by the name of explanations, to
bring them under the clause in Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, which empowered
the Sovereign, with the advice of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to ordain
further ceremonies, if the orders of the book should be misused.12 It
is to be noted, however, that these alterations had the sanction of Convocation,
inasmuch as that body allowed this exercise of the prerogative, and ordered
the amended book to be provided for the use of the parish churches.13 |
Revision of the Prayer Book after the Conference,
|
by the royal Authority
and sanctioned by Convocation.
|
|
| The following changes were made
at this time (1604) : — In the Kalendar: one more Black Letter Saint was added, and lessons from canonical scripture were substituted for Tobit and Bel and the Dragon. Into the title of the Absolution were inserted the words, ‘or Remission of Sins.’ A prayer for the. Queen, the Prince, and other the King’s and Queen’s children, was placed after the prayer for the King; and a corresponding petition was inserted in the Litany. Thanksgivings for particular occasions, for Rain, for Fair Weather, for Plenty, for Peace and Victory, and for Deliverance from the Plague, in two forms, were added to the Occasional Prayers in the end of the Litany, and were styled, ‘An enlargement of thanksgiving for diverse benefits, by way of explanation.’ |
Changes made after the Hampton Court Conference. Divine Service. |
| In the Gospels for the 2nd Sunday
after Easter, and the 20th Sunday after Trinity, the words ‘unto His disciples’
were omitted, and ‘Christ said’ and ‘Jesus said’ were to be printed in
letters differing from the text. |
Gospels. |
| The main alteration was made
in the rubrics of the Office of Private Baptism, and the administration
was now restricted to the minister of the parish, or some other lawful
minister. The title had been, ‘Of them that be baptized in private houses
in time of necessity’; now it became, ‘Of them that
are to be baptized in private houses in time of necessity, by the Minister
of the parish, or any other lawful Minister that can be procured.’
The 2nd rubric,— ‘that without great cause and necessity they baptize not
children at home in their houses . . . that then they minister on this
fashion . . .’ was amended as it now stands, ‘ . . . they
procure not their children to be baptized . . .’ The 3rd rubric, ‘First,
let them that be present call upon God for his grace . . . and one of them
shall name the child, and dip him in the water, or pour . . . ‘ was now,
‘First, let the lawful Minister, and them that be
present, call upon God for his grace, and say’ the Lord’s Prayer, if the
time will suffer. And then the child being named by some one that is present,
the said lawful Minister shall dip it in water, or pour water upon it .
. .’ A corresponding alteration was made in the 4th rubric; and the inquiry
— ‘ Whether they call upon God for grace and succour in that necessity?
‘ — was omitted, and the following precaution inserted in its place. ‘And
because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted
through fear or haste in such times of extremity, therefore I demand further.
. . .’ |
Baptism. |
| ’Confirmation’ was explained
by adding the words, ‘or laying on of hands upon
children baptized, and able to render an account of their faith, according
to the Catechism following.’ |
Confirmation. |
| The concluding portion upon the
Sacraments was added to the Catechism,14 and
is generally attributed to Overall, the prolocutor of the Convocation.15 |
Catechism. |
| In 1608 the Prayer Book was printed
in Irish, having been translated by William Daniel, or O’Donnell, Archbishop
of Tuam, who had in 1602 published the first Irish version of the New Testament.16 |
Irish Prayer Book. |
| In Scotland the use of prescribed
forms of prayer had long been a matter of controversy. The English Book
had been in general use there between the years 1557 and 1564, but when
Knox returned to Scotland in 1559 he brought with .him his Genevan book,17 which
soon displaced the Prayer Book, and under the title of The
Book of Common Order became the authoritative model18 of
worship, Under James I. a valid episcopacy was restored to Scotland in
1610,19 and in 1616 he obtained the sanction
of the General Assembly at Aberdeen, that a Prayer Book should be compiled
for the use of the church,20 and the work
was entrusted to one Peter Hewat, an Edinburgh minister, and three others.
The result of this was a Form of Service21 to
be used before sermon, which lay in MS. and forgotten till 1871. It was
professedly a revision of The Book of Common Order, and consisted mainly
of an exhortation on the fourth commandment, a long confession of sins,
a psalm and prayer, two chapters from the Gospels and Epistles respectively,
another psalm, creed, and a long final prayer. |
The Prayer Book for Scotland. The English Prayer Book used for seven years. |
| The King was set upon bringing
Scotland into line with English customs, and in 1617 caused the English
Prayer, Book to be used in the chapel royal of Holyrood.22 Meanwhile,
he had sent to Scotland a set of Five Articles enforcing Kneeling at Communion,
Private Baptism and Communion, four Holy Days corresponding to Christmas,
Good Friday, Easter and Whitsunday, and an Episcopal Blessing of Children.
The Scottish clergy resisted the Articles vigorously, and resented the
King’s English service; and when in 1618 the Articles were definitely submitted,
by the King’s desire, to the General Assembly at Perth, they were only
adopted under great pressured and by the vote of the lay nobility.23 In
1621 they were confirmed by Parliament, but were not a whit more acceptable
on that account.24 The Perth Assembly
appointed a Commission to revise the draft Service-book; but it seems that
this was set aside in favour of a new draft which was ready early in 1619,25 and
submitted by the Archbishop of S. Andrew’s to the King. |
Service-books prepared,
|
| In character it was a cross between
the English Prayer Book and Knox’s Book. The features of the former which
were unpopular with the Puritans are omitted, but on the other hand some
features appear which were retained in the later Scottish Book of 1637,
and so found their way into the English Book of 1662. The Morning and Evening
Prayer follow the lines of the Prayer Book, but all Versicles and Responses
and variable Collects are omitted, except that five Collects are provided
for the five ‘Commemoration’ days recognised by the Church corresponding
to Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday. Special
features were provided for Sundays, drawn largely from The Book of Common
Order. The service of Baptism is the English Order altered on Puritan lines.
The Confirmation service contains the Catechism drawn up by order of the
Aberdeen Assembly in 1616. The Communion Order consists of a long exhortation
and prayers, with the English. acts of Consecration and Administration,
with rubrics for the manual acts. Then follow the Marriage Service, Visitation
Order (with the English exhortation to confession and form of absolution),
and lastly a general direction as to Burial. It was revised, with the assistance
of Young, Dean of Winchester, and then returned to Archbishop Spottiswoode,
in whose hands it lay dormant for some time,26 owing
to the disturbed state of Scottish feeling, consequent upon the King’s
action in forcing the Canons upon the Kirk. |
but not used.
|
| An Ordinal was adopted in 1620,
based on the then English Ordinal, but only recognising two ordersBishops
and Ministers.27 But in the following.
year, when Parliament accepted the Articles, a promise was given that there
should be no further innovation, and the liturgical movement was stayed. |
The Ordinal. |
The project, however, was revived early in the next reign. Negotiations began in 1629 between Maxwell (on behalf of the Scottish Bishops) and Laud as to a new Book. Maxwell had, at the King’s request, brought a copy of the draft-book with him from Scotland. This did not commend itself to Laud, who wished the Scots to have the English Book; but Maxwell maintained that they would be much more likely to accept a book of their own.28 Four years later, when Charles visited Scotland, an was crowned at Edinburgh,
the English customs were used. Gold and blue copes and a crucifix alarmed
the Scottish mind, but there was more fighting over the surplice. The King,
however, was unmoved and ordered the use of the English Book in the Royal
chapel, with the Communion ministered every month in copes, with kneeling
at reception enforced. Similar orders were directed to the Bishops and
the University of S. Andrew’s.29 But,
meanwhile, as a compromise between the conflicting desires for the Scottish
draft-book of 1619 and the English book, the Bishops were instructed to
draw up a new book, with the help of Laud, Wren, and Juxon.30 The
work was done in the main by Bishops Maxwell and Wedderburn. Laud threw
himself into it when, against his judgment, it was decided on.31 It
was to be framed upon the English model ‘as near as can be,’32 and
it seems clear that the draft of 1619 was. discarded, and the English Book
taken as a basis; but some modifications were adopted to meet the wishes
of the Scottish Bishops. |
New projects under Charles. |
| After a new draft
emanating from them had been set aside, even though it had been accepted
and was in 1635 and 1636 already partly in print, another fresh start was
made again on the basis of the English book; some modifications were adopted
from a paper of ‘Certain notes to be considered of,’ sent to Archbishop
Laud by Wedderburn, while others were rejected. The suggestion that the
extracts from Scripture should be printed according to the last translation
of the Bible was adopted, and also the proposal ‘that every Prayer, or
Office, through the whole Communion, should be named, in the rubric before
it, that it may be known to the people what it is.’ Again it was conceded
at the Eucharist that the Collect of Consecration and Oblation . . . .
and the Lord’s Prayer should be said before the Communion’; but, in spite
of a proposal to change, it was decided that the Invitation, Confession,
Absolution, Sentences, Prefaces, and Doxology should be set in the same
order they stand in the English Liturgy: and that the Prayer of humble
access to the Holy Table might stand immediately before participation.
Wedderburn’s new Offertory Sentences were incorporated, and at his suggestion
a rubric was inserted directing the manual acts in Consecration, which,
though designedly omitted from the English Book since 1552, were considered
by Laud “the practice
of the Church of England.” Further objections seem to have been raised
to the keeping of Saints’ days, the Quicunque, and probably
the ceremonies of the ring and cross, which were the stock complaints of
the enemy, but these met with, less consideration. Fault was also found
by Wedderburn with the Scottish Ordinal of 1620,33 that
the Order of Deacons was made no more than a lay office, an that ‘in the
admission to priesthood’ ‘the very essential words of conferring orders
are left out.’34 It was not till
October 18, 1636, that it was decided to keep the English formula of ordination:
at the same time the objections to the reading of lessons from the Apocrypha
and to Saints’ days were finally overruled. The Book both reached its final
form and also was authorized by Royal warrant on October 18, 1636; it was
then promulgated by Act of the Scottish Privy Council and by Royal Proclamation
on December 20. It was not likely to win the Scots’ approval. Not only
did the new book prove ultimately to be merely a revision of the disliked
English Book, and that too in the opposite direction to that which the
Scots would have wished, but the whole matter was grossly mismanaged by
the Scottish Bishops, in spite of Laud’s repeated warnings. The Book of
Canons ordering the Book was allowed to appear before the Book and prepare
for it a hostile reception. The clergy and the General Assembly were not
consulted, and their attitude seems hardly to have been even considered.
The book was foredoomed, in spite of its excellence. |
Scottish proposals, |
The Book sanctioned by King Charles.
|
|
When it appeared, the following were seen to be its more prominent characteristics. In the Kalendar, by the King’s express command, while the ordinary reading
of the Apocrypha was given up, the first six chapters of Wisdom, and
the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 35th, and 49th chapters of Ecclesiasticus, were
placed among the Lessons to be read for certain Saints’ days: and besides
the names of the saints which were in the English Kalendar, some were
inserted belonging to the northern part of the Island. Throughout the
book, by way of concession to the Scots’ wishes, the words Presbyter, or Presbyter
or Minister, or Presbyter or Curate, were used instead
of
Priest or Minister. In the Office of Baptism, the water in the
font was ordered to be changed twice in a month at least; and on the
occasion of the first baptism after the water had been changed, the Presbyter
or Minister should add these words in the first prayer of the service,
‘Sanctify this fountain of baptism, Thou which art the Sanctifier of
all things.’ In the Communion Office, some important changes were made
in the expressions, and the arrangement of the prayers was brought more
nearly into accordance with the first Book of Edward VI.35 |
Its variations from the English Prayer Book. |
| This Book of Common Prayer for
Scotland can hardly be said to have been used: it was silenced by a popular
tumult, as soon as the attempt was made to introduce it, on the 23rd of
July, 1637.36 A
new Ordinal is said to have been published in 1636, but no copy of it is
known to exist. The Prayer Book itself ends with the Commination. The Psalter
had already been printed in 1636. |
The Book not used, |
| The book over which Laud had
spent such pains37 was thus a failure:
this was due, not to its own fault, but to the circumstances which surrounded
its introduction. The pains were not wasted, for a good deal of the amendment
introduced into the Scottish Book was afterwards adopted into the English
Book in 1662,38 and other good points,
which the English Prayer Book has never yet been able to adopt, have found
their way by means of the Scottish Liturgy into the Liturgy of the American
Church; besides, the tradition of the Book of 1637 is preserved in the
present Scottish Liturgy, which may fairly claim to be the best Liturgy
in use in the Anglican Communion.39 |
but not wasted. |
From the opening of the Long Parliament at the end of 1640, it was manifest that a time of trouble was coming speedily upon the Church of England; Convocation, Liturgy, and Episcopacy were alike attacked, and after the Lords had attempted to suppress disturbances by commanding that the Prayer Book order should be observed40 (January 16), attempts were made to lessen the hostility of the Puritans against the Prayer Book by introducing some important changes. On the 1st of March, the very day on which Archbishop Laud was sent to the Tower, the House of Lords appointed a committee.41 ‘to take into consideration all innovations in the Church respecting religion.’ Archbishop Laud thus expresses his fears of the result: ‘This committee will meddle with doctrine as well as ceremonies, and will call some divines to them to consider of the business. . . . Upon the whole matter I believe this committee will prove the national synod of England, to the great dishonour of the Church: and what else may follow upon it God knows.’42 A sub-committee was appointed, more readily to prepare matters for discussion; Williams,43 Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of Westminster, presided and summoned other clergy to assist, representing both parties in the Church.44 A memorandum was drawn up by seven of the members for the consideration. of the body,45 divided into three heads, ‘Innovations in doctrine,’ ‘ Innovations in discipline,’ and ‘Considerations upon the Book of Common Prayer.’ Among the ceremonies, or innovations in discipline, which the committee
were invited to condemn, the following concern the arrangements of the
public service: |
In England, Parliamentary action.
Committee of the Lords on Church Reform. |
The turning of the holy table altar-wise: Bowing towards it: Setting candlesticks on it: Making canopies over it: Advancing crucifixes and images upon the parafront, or altar-cloth, so-called: Compelling all communicants to come up before the rails, and there to receive: Reading some part of the Morning Prayer at the holy table when there is no Communion: Turning to the East when pronouncing the Creed: Reading the Litany in the midst of the church: Offering bread and wine by the Churchwardens before the consecration of the elements: Having a credentia, or side-table, besides the Lord’s table, for divers uses in the Lord’s Supper: Introducing an offertory before the Communion, distinct from the giving of alms to the poor: Prohibiting a direct prayer be for sermon, and bidding of prayer. Singing the Te Deum cathedral wise: Introducing ‘Latin-Service in the Communion’ at Cambridge and Oxford: Standing up at the hymns, and always at Goria Patri: Carrying children from the baptism to the altar so called there to offer them up to God. The ‘Considerations upon the Book of Common Prayer,’ propounded
the following queries for the consideration of the committee: |
Ceremonies proposed to be abolished. |
| To expunge
from the Kalendar the names of some departed saints and others: To set
out the reading Psalms, sentences of Scripture, hymns, epistles, and
gospels, in the new translation: To mend the rubric, where all vestments
in time of Divine service are now commanded which were used 2 Edw. VI.
To substitute canonical Scripture for the Apocrypha in the Kalendar:
To repeat the Doxology always at the end of the Lord’s Prayer: To read
the Lessons and not sing them: Whether Gloria Patri should be repeated
at the end of every Psalm: Instead of daily Morning and Evening Prayers,
to read them only on Wednesday and Friday Morning, and in the afternoon
on Saturday, with holyday eves: To omit the hymns, Benedicite, &c.:
In the prayer for the clergy, to alter the phrase, ‘which only worketh
great marvels’: To alter the rubric ‘that such as intend to communicate
shall signify their names to the curate over night, or in the morning
before prayers’: To clear the rubric, how far a minister may repulse
a scandalous and notorious sinner from the Communion: To gather the alms
when the people depart, instead of before the Communion begin: The confession
to be said only by the minister, and then at every clause repeated by
the people: Not to print in great letters the words in the form of Consecration,
‘This is my body-This is my blood of the New Testament’: To insert a
rubric, touching kneeling at the Communion, that it is to comply in all
humility with the prayer which the minister makes when he delivers the
elements: Cathedral and collegiate churches to be bound to celebrate
the Holy Communion only once in a month: In the first prayer at Baptism,
to change the words, ‘didst sanctify the flood of Jordan and all other
waters,’ into ‘didst sanctify the element of water’: Whether it be not
fit to have some discreet rubric made to take away all scandal, from signing
the sign of the cross upon the infants after baptism: or, if it shall seem
more expedient to be quite disused, whether this reason should be published,
That in ancient Liturgies no cross was Confined [? consigned] upon the
party but where oil also was used, and therefore oil being now omitted,
so may also that which was, concomitant with it, the sign of the cross:
In Private Baptism the rubric mentions that which must not be done, that
the minister may dip the child in water being at the point of death: To
leave out the words in the rubric of Confirmation, ‘and be undoubtedly
saved’: To enlarge the Catechism: To take away the times prohibited
for marriage: None to marry without a certificate that they are instructed
in their Catechism: To alter the words, ‘with my body I thee worship,’
into ‘I give thee power over my body’ : To mend the rubric, that new-married
persons should receive the Communion the same day of their marriage,
by adding, ‘or upon the Sunday following, when the Communion is celebrated’:
In the Absolution of the Sick, to say, ‘I pronounce thee absolved’: To
compose the Psalm of Thanksgiving of women after childbirth out of proper
versicles taken from divers Psalms: May not the priest rather read the
Communion in the desk, than go up to the pulpit? The rubric in the Commination
leaves it doubtful whether the Liturgy may not be read in divers places
in the church: To alter the words of Burial, ‘in sure and certain hope
of the resurrection to eternal life,’ into ‘knowing assuredly that the
dead shall rise again’: In the Litany, to put ‘grievous sins’ for
‘deadly sin.’ To mend the imperfections of the metre in the singing psalms
and then to add lawful authority to have them publicly sung before an
after sermons, and sometimes instead of the hymns of Morning and Evening
Prayer.46
The sub-committee held a week of sittings in March and the matter then
went back to the committee, which closed its meetings on April 8. An
allusion appears to it a month later, and then the whole question disappeared. |
Proposed changes in the Prayer Book. |
| Meanwhile, motions were entertained
in the House of Commons47 which evidently
showed that no change in ritual or discipline would pacify opponents who
sought the ruin of the Church, and who were rapidly increasing in power.
The ‘Protestation’ of
May 3 was an attack upon the Church under the specious guise of promise
to maintain ‘the true reformed Protestant religion.’48 The
purpose however was plain, and under the circumstances the idea of making
concessions, suche as those suggested, was laid aside as useless: but it
was not forgotten by Nonconformists that such alterations had once been
taken into consideration by persons of high name and station in the Church,
and many of the objections reappeared in 1662.49 When
Parliament reassembled in the autumn, unanimity was at an end: the ecclesiastical
question came again to the front, and it was the question of Prayer Book
which divided the House of Commons into the two great parties which thenceforward
contended to the death. A new iconoclastic campaign similar to those which
disgraced the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth was inaugurated, but a
resolution against the defamers of the Prayer Book rent the House of Commons
asunder; and meanwhile, it found itself in conflict with the Lords, who
had already modified its iconoclastic zeal and now reasserted their own
previous order of January 16, that the Prayer Book should be strictly observed
and its disturbers punished.50 After this
the tide set wholly against the Church: the power of the Lords in her favour
grew weaker: the bishops were ejected from Parliament51 and
imprisoned, and episcopacy was abolished.52 |
Parliamentary attacks. |
| In 1643 (June 12)
an Ordinance of Parliament summoned the Westminster Assembly, — a
body designed as a substitute for Convocation, consisting both of lay members
and divines, ‘to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling
of the government and Liturgy of the Church of England, and for vindicating
and clearing of the doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and
interpretations.’53 In the same year (Sept.
25), the Scottish oath, called ‘The Solemn League and Covenant,54 — a
deliberate pledge to overturn the, Church — was subscribed
by the remnant of the Parliament, and then was imposed upon all civil and
military officers, and upon all those of the clergy who had hitherto been
allowed to retain their benefices.55 In
1645 (Jan. 3), the day on which the archbishop’s attainder passed the Lords,
an Ordinance of Parliament took away the Book of Common Prayer, and established
in its stead the ‘Directory for the Public Worship of God in the Three
Kingdoms.’56 This was followed: (Aug.
23) by another Ordinance ‘for the more effectual putting in execution the
Directory.’57 Henceforth to use the Book
of Common Prayer in any ‘public place of worship, or in any private place
or family within the kingdom,’ was punishable by a fine of five pounds
for the first offence, ten pounds for the second, and for the third by
‘one whole year’s imprisonment without bail or mainprize.’:
not to observe the Directory subjected the minister to a fine of forty
shillings; while to do or say anything in ‘opposition, derogation, or depraving
of the said book,’ might be punished by a fine of five pounds, or fifty
pounds, at the discretion of the magistrate.58 |
The Westminster Assembly summoned.
|
The Directory substituted for the Prayer Book,
and enforced under penalties.
|
|
This history does not require
any account of those years of upheaval and violence, during which the voice
of the Church of England was silenced, and Presbyterianism, after trying
to bring a spiritual despotism into every parish and household, was in
its turn obliged to yield to Independency.59 a
‘hydra of many heads.’ Old sects revived, new sects were created, and there
ensued a state of distraction and impiety, the natural tendency of which
was to break up all minor distinctions, and to divide men into two large
classes, one of them anxious to find terms of agreement, in order that
religion might not be easily extinguished, and the other indifferent whether
any form of religion remained.’60 |
|
1 Printed in Gee and Hardy, Documents, LXXXVllI.; Prothero, Statutes, p. 213. 2 Gardiner, Hist. I. 148, note. 3 Cardwell, Conferences, pp. 131 and ff. Frere, Engl. Ch.. V. 292. 4 Doc. Ann. CXVI.; Conferences, p. 148. |
Notes Return to text |
5 Strype, Whitgift, p. 570; and Appendix, XLIV. Cardwell, Conferences, pp. 151 and ff. 6 Frere, English Church, V. 296. 7 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 140. The opposition was soon seen to be very factious and futile. The King in a private letter revealed how much he had enjoyed the discomfiture which awaited the Puritans. ‘We have kept such a revell with the Puritans here this two days as was never heard the like: quhaire I have peppered thaime as soundlie as yee have done the Papists thaire.’ .And a good bit more in a very racy strain; for which see Cardwell. Conf., p. 161. 8 ‘I. Tell me I pray you why some of your combination desired
to have the Absolution termed a Remission. N. Because Absolution
implyeth forgiving of sins with authority, Remission only by way of declaration;
whereof this latter may be permitted to men, but the former is peculiar
to God: and therefore you are in this point too much the apes of Popery.’
Fisher’s dialogue, A Defence of the Liturgy, p. 174, written circ, 1610
(see p. 14), but not published till 1630. |
Return to text |
9 See Cardwell , Hist. of Conferences, ‘Letter of Dr. James Mantague, dean of the Chapel Royal,’ pp. 138 and ff.; and ‘The Sum and Substance of the Conference, contracted by Dr. William Barlow, dean of Chester,’ ibid. pp. 167-212. 10 S. P. Dom. vi 18, 25. 11 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 217. 12 See the letters patent, in Cardwell. Also in a proclamation (March
5), the King says, ‘We thought meet, with consent of the bishops and other
learned men there present, that some small things might rather be explained
than changed; not that the same might not very well have been borne with
by men who would have made a reasonable construction of them, but for that
in a matter concerning the service of God we were nice, or rather jealous,
that the public form thereof should be free not only from blame, but from
suspicion, so as neither the common adversary should have advantage to
wrest aught therein contained to other sense than the Church of England
intendeth, nor any troublesome or ignorant person of this Church be able
to take the least occasion of cavil against it: and for that purpose gave
forth our cam. mission under our Great Seal of England to the Archbishop
of Canterbury and others, according to the form which the laws of this
realm in like case prescribe to be used, to make the said explanation,
and to cause the whole book of Common Prayer with the same explanations
to be newly printed.’ Cardwell, Conferences, p. 227, Gee and Hardy,
Doc. LXXXIX. Cp. S. P. Dom. vi. 83. 13 Canon LXXX, (1604), ‘ Libri sacri in ecclesiis
parandi. Ecclesiarum
et capellarum omnium œconomi et inquisitores librum publicarum precum,
nuper in paucis explanatum ex auctoritate regia, juxta leges et majestatis
suæ hac in parte prærogativam, sumptibus parochianorum comparabunt.’ |
Return to text |
14 See the King’s letter, commanding the alterations; Cardwell, Conferences, p. 217. 15 See below, p. 600. 16 See Stephens, MS. Book of Common Prayer for Ireland (ed. Eccl. Hist. Soc. 1849). Introd. pp, xxix, and ff. 17 See p. 112 n. 18 Sprott and Leishman, The Book of Common Order, p. xv. |
Return to text |
20 Collier, Hist. VII. 709 ; Stephen, II. 219; Gardiner, Hist. III. 221. 21 ‘Hewat’s Form of Prayer,’ printed in Sprott’s Scottish Liturgies of James VI. (Edinburgh, 1871), pp. 119-140. 22 Hall, Rel. Lit. introd. p. xxii.; Sprott, p. xxv. 23 Gardiner, III. 220 and ff. Stephen, II. 223. 24 Gardiner, VII. 274· 25 A copy of this draft of the Prayer-Book for Scotland is in the British Museum: it is printed with a valuable introduction in Sprott, See also Hall, Reliq. Liturg. vol. I. Introd. p. xix,; Stephen, II. 216; Gardiner, VII. 282. 26 It was in 1619 very near to publication, for a license to print it
for nineteen years was then granted. Sprott, p. xxxiv. |
Return to text |
27 This very rare book has been reprinted in the Wodrow Miscellany, and by Mr. Forbes in his edition of the Works of Bp. Rattray (Burntisland, 1854), pp. 695-712 (i. 597-615): The forme and maner of ordaining ministers: and consecrating of archbishops and bishops used in the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh, 1620. 28 Laud. History of Troubles, 168, (Works, III. 427), cp. 109 (335) and ff. 29 Collier, VIII. 760, gives the order in full, cp. Stephen, II. 238, Gardiner VII. 385. Sprott, xlvii-xlix. 30 Juxon, Bishop of London, being also Lord Treasurer, was at times too busily occupied to pay the requisite attention; so that the work was left to Laud and Wren. Collier VIII. p. 767, Laud, Works, VI. 456. 31 See the account of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, by Dr. Bright, In Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book, p. 580[705. ed. 1884]; Dowden, Annotated Scottish Communion Office, pp. 29 and ff.; Collier, Eccl. Hist. VIII 762. 32 King Charles’s letter to Spottiswoode, Oct. 20, 1634. Sprott, p. xlix.,
cp. Laud’s note on p. xlvii. |
Return to text |
33 Above, p. 145. 34 See the letter of April 20, 1636, printed in Prynne’s Hidden Works of Darkness brought to Light (1645), p. 152 (Laud, Works, VI. 455), written by Laud to Wedderburn, informing him how many of the notes were allowed, and adding sundry directions from the King. These new alterations superseded those that had been formerly conceded, and were now written, chiefly in presence of the King, on the margin of a 4to English Prayer Book, with the following warrant for their adoption :— ‘ CHARLES R., I give the Archbishop of Canterbury command to make the alterations expressed in this book, and to fit Liturgy for the Church of Scotland And wheresoever they shall differ from another book, signed by us at Hampton Court, September 28, 1634, our pleasure is to have these followed : unless the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and his brethren who are upon the place, shall see apparent reason to the contrary. At Whitehall, April 19th, 1636.’ Hall, Reliq. Lit. Introd. pp. xxv. and ff. Sprott, lviii. and ff. 35 For fuller detail, see Bright’s account in Blunt, Annotated
P. B. ‘The
Booke of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other parts
of Divine Service for the use of the Church of Scotland’ (1637), is reprinted
in vol. II. of P. Hall’s Reliquiæ Liturgicæ. Its
variations from the English Prayer Book are noted in L’Estrange’s Alliance
of Divine Offices, Keeling’s Liturgiæ, and Parker’s First
P. B. |
Return to text |
36 Gardiner, VIII. 312. Stephen, II. 250. Seven years afterwards a sort of remembrance of it was issued by the Kirk, at the same time that the Directory was published in England, entitled, ‘The New Booke of Common Prayer, according to the forme of the Kirke of Scotland, our brethren in faith and covenant,’ 1644, with ‘C. R.’ on the title-page. It was a brief abstract of Calvin’s Geneva Prayer Book, derived from Knox’s Book of Common Order. Hall, Fragment. Lit. I. pp. 85-98. 37 This was not the only influence which this archbishop has been supposed to have exercised upon the Book of Common Prayer. He was accused by the Puritans of having caused some changes of words and phrases to be inserted in the editions printed under his supervision, in order to give support to doctrines and practices which were now called popish And the accusation was made so unscrupulously, that it was very generally believed, in spite of the archbishop’s solemn denial, and no withstanding the fact that no such alterations had been made-a fact which was patent to any who might choose to compare the printed books. Mr. Lathbury states, as the result of a comparison of editions fro 1604 to 1642, that the word priest or minister was inserted by the print at his own discretion, or as a matter indifference. Moreover such charges were made at random: Prynne says the same of Cosin, that he had made alterations in our Common Prayer Book, and put priests for ministers. Hist. of Convocation, p. 270. Another charge against Laud was that at was printed for in, in the Epistle for the Sunday before Easter, where the phrase was, ‘in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow’: the Archbishop replied that, if the alteration were purposely made by the printers, they followed the Geneva Bible (1557). The fact was that ‘at’ was printed during the whole of the reign of Charles I., and the practice of bowing at the name of Jesus, which the word was supposed to sanction, had been required by the injunctions of Elizabeth. See Cardwell, Conf. ch. V. 38 E.g. the Manual Acts and the Offertory. 39 E.g. the oblation before Communion and the Epiclesis. For the later history see below, p. 228. 40 Gardiner, IX. 266. 41 The committee consisted of thirty lay peers and ten bishops, to whom later the Bishop of Durham and two more lay peers were added; on March 10, they were empowered to increase their number by calling in such learned divines as they pleased, and Archbishop Ussher, Prideaux, Warde, Twisse, and Hacket were especially named as suitable. 42 Laud, Diary, p. 61; cp. p. 174 (Works, III. 241, 437). Fuller, Ch.
Hist. bk. XI. p. 174. |
Return to text |
43 Though Williams for political causes fell in with the Puritans, yet he must be allowed the praise of getting the Prayer Book translated into French and Spanish. See Lathbury, Hist. of Convoc. p. 268. 44 Laud’s History of Troubles, p. 174 (Works, III. 437): they were Drs, Brownrigg, Featly, Racket, Westfield, Burgess, with Messrs. Shute, Calamy, White and Marshall. Cp. Cardwell, Conferences, p. 239; Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 799 ; Gardiner, IX. 298. At the same time other private meetings were held by Williams in which Bp. Sanderson had a part. See Life by I. Walton. This was no doubt on the conservative side: Sanderson like J. Taylor drew up a form of service for use while the P. B. was suppressed. See Jacobson, Fragm. Illustr. 1-40, and Taylor’s Works. 45 Namely, Ussher, WiIliams, Prideaux, Ward, Brownrigg, Featly and Racket.
See Selborne, Liturgy of the English Church, p. 37. |
Return to text |
46 A Copy of the Proceedings of some worthy Divines, &c., 1641, printed in Cardwell, Conferences, p. 270. Lathbury, Hist. Convoc. 269. 47 The bill against deans and chapters occasioned a misunderstanding amongst the divines, and broke up the meeting. Collier, VIII. 800. 48 Gee and Hardy, Doc. XCVIII. 49 See e.g. Baxter’s Preface to his Rejoinder to the Bishops in 1661, below, p. 191. And see Selborne, Liturgy of the English Church, 36. 50 Gardiner, X. 14; Collier, VIII. 806; Gee and Hardy, Doc. C—CIII. 51 Gee and Hardy, Doc. CIV. 52 ibid. CV. CVI. 53 Rushworth, Hist. Collection, Part III. Vol. II. p. 337. See
Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 823. |
Return to text |
54 Gee and Hardy, Doc. CVII. 55 Hallam, Constit. Hist. II. 224 (164). 56 Collier, VIII. 835. The Ordinance is printed with the Directory in Hall, Rel. Lit. III. 58 ‘The Presbyterian State Church proved to be quite as intolerant, and to the majority of the people, less pleasant, than the Episcopalian had been. Assemblies of divines have never been celebrated for practical wisdom, moderation, or charity, and, of all assemblies, that of Westminster, which sat for six years, and held 1163 sittings, showed the least of these qualities." Skeats, Hist. of Free Churches of England, p. 51. 59 Hallam, Constitutional Hist. II. 270 (197). 60 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 244.
|
Return to text |
| AN abridgment
of Calvin’s Form of Service, or rather of Knox’s Book of Common Order,
was presented to Parliament, and printed; in 1641, and again in 1643;1
and another adaptation of the same original, somewhat larger than the Middleburgh,2
but much shorter than either that of Calvin or Knox, was presented to the
Westminster Assembly, and printed in 1644.3 The
parliamentary divines, however, preferred to issue a work of their own
composition. They had denounced the Book of Common Prayer as unfit to lead
the devotions of the people; but they then suffered a year to pass by before
they attempted to substitute anything in its place. Then came the ordination
of Elders and Deacons by an Association of Ministers in London and other
chief towns; and then the preparation of a Book of service. A committee
was appointed to agree upon certain general heads for the direction of
the minister in the discharge of his office before the congregation; these,
being arranged in London, were sent to Scotland for approbation, and summarily
established by Ordinance of Parliament (and denounced by a counter-proclamation
from the King) as the Directory for Public Worship. This was not so much
a Form of Devotion, as Manual of Directions: the minister being allowed
a discretion, either to make the most of what was provided for him in the
book, or to use his own abilities to supply what he considered needful.
A few of the variations, more especially directed against preceding usages, were the rejection of the Apocrypha ; the discontinuance of Private Baptism; of godfathers and godmothers; of the sign of the cross; of the wedding ring; and of the administration of the Lord’s Supper to the Sick at home; the removal of the communion-table into the body of the church; with the preference of a sitting or standing to a kneeling posture. All saints’ days were discarded, and all vestments. No service was appointed for the Burial of the Dead: no Creed was recited, nor the Ten Commandments; though these with the Apostles’ Creed were added to the Confession of Faith a year or two afterwards.4 This parliamentarian form of Public Devotion is entitled, A Directory
for the Public Worship of God throughout the Three Kingdoms of England,
Scotland, and Ireland. Together with an Ordinance of Parliament for the
taking away of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Establishing and Observing
of this present Directory throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion
of Wales. |
The Service and Discipline. The Settled Order. |
| It commences with a note ‘Of
the assembling of the congregation, and their behaviour in the Public Worship
of God.’ The minister is to begin with prayer, in a short form, for a blessing
on the portion of the Word then to be read. All the Canonical Books are
to be read over in order: ordinarily one chapter of each Testament at every
meeting. After reading and singing, ‘the minister who is to preach is to
endeavour to get his own and his hearers’ hearts to be rightly affected
with their sins.’ A long prayer is prescribed before the sermon. Then follows
a long note of the manner and matter of preaching. After sermon follows
a prayer of thanksgiving. The Lord’s Prayer, as being not only a pattern
of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, is recommended for use
in the prayers of the Church. |
Reading of Scripture. |
| The Administration
of the Sacraments; and first of Baptism: It is to be administered
only by a minister, ‘in the place of Public Worship, and in the face
of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear;
and not in the places where fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly
and superstitiously placed.’ The child, ‘after notice given to the minister
the day before, is to be presented by the father, or (in case of his
necessary absence) by some Christian friend in his place.’ ‘Before Baptism,
the minister is to use some words of instruction’: that the seed of the
faithful have right to Baptism: that they are Christians, and federally
holy; before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized: that the inward
grace of Baptism is not tied to the amount of its administration; and
that it is not so necessary that through the want of it the infant is
in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty. ‘ Prayer is to be joined
with the word of institution, for sanctifying the water to this spiritual
use.’ |
Baptism. |
| ’The Communion, or Supper of
the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered
and determined by the ministers and other church-governors of each congregation.
‘We judge it convenient to be done after the morning sermon; ‘It is requisite
that public warning be given on the Sabbath-day before the administration.’
Therefore, after the sermon and prayers, follows a short exhortation: then,
‘the table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed that
the communicants may orderly sit about it or at it, the minister is to
begin the action with sanctifying and blessing the elements of bread and
wine set before him.’ The words of institution are next to be read out
of the Evangelists, or 1 Cor. xi. 23-27: then the prayer, thanksgiving,
or blessing, offered up to God, ‘to vouchsafe his gracious presence and
the effectual working of his Spirit in us; and so to sanctify these elements,
both of bread and wine, and to bless his own ordinance, that we may receive
by faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ crucified for us, and so feed
upon him that he may be one with us, and we with him, that he may live
in us, and we in him and to him, who hath loved us, and given himself for
us.’ ‘ The elements being now sanctified by the word and prayer, the minister
being at the table, is to take the bread in his hand, and say in the expressions
(or other the like used by Christ, or his Apostle, upon this occasion)
:— According to the holy institution, command,
and example of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, I take this bread; and
having given thanks, I break it, and give it unto you. (There the
minister, who is also himself to communicate, is to break the bread and
give it to the communicants.) Take ye, eat ye. This
is body of Christ, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of him. In
like manner the minister is to take the cup, and say . . . According
to the institution, command, and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, I take
this cup and give, it unto you. (Here he giveth
it to the communicants.) This cup is the New Testament,
in the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of the sins of
many, drink ye all of it. After all have communicated, the minister may ‘put them
in mind of the grace of God in Jesus Christ held forth in this Sacrament’:
and he is to give solemn thanks to God.
’The collection for the poor is so to be ordered, that no part of the Public Worship be thereby hindered.’ Then follows a note ‘Of the Sanctification of the Lord’s-day.’ |
The Lord’s Supper. |
’The purpose of marriage between any persons shall be published by the minister three several Sabbath-days in the congregation.’ And the marriage shall be publicly solemnized ‘in the place appointed by authority for Public Worship, before a competent number of credible witnesses, at some convenient hour of the day, at any time of the year, except on a day of public humiliation. And we advise that it be not on the Lord’s-day,’ The manner of marriage is first a prayer, a declaration of the institution,
use, and ends thereof, a solemn charge, if they know any cause why they
may not lawfully proceed to marriage, to discover it: then ‘the minister
shall cause, first, the man to take the woman by the right hand, saying
these words: I N. do take thee N. to be my married
wife, and do, in the presence of God, and before this congregation, promise
and covenant to be a loving and faitful husband unto thee, until God
shall separate us by death.’ Then the woman shall take the man by
his right hand, and say a like form, adding the word obedient. ‘Then,
without any further ceremony, the minister shall . . . pronounce them
to be husband and wife according to God’s ordinance; and so conclude
the action with prayer.’ |
Matrimony. |
| A notice is given of instructions
‘Concerning Visitation of the Sick, and suitable topics of exhortation
and prayer.’ |
Visitation of the Sick. |
| ‘Concerning Burial of the
Dead,’ all customs of praying, reading, and singing, both in going to and
at the grave. are said to have been grossly abused. The simple direction
is therefore given, ‘When any person departeth this life, let the dead
body, upon the day of burial, be decently attended from the house to the
place appointed for public burial, and ‘there immediately interred, without
any ceremony.’ |
Burial. |
| Then follow directions ‘Concerning
Public Solemn Fasting,’ ‘Concerning the Observation of Days of Public Thanksgiving,’
and ‘Of Singing of Psalms’; concluding with ‘An Appendix touching Days
and Places for Public Worship’; in which it is ordered that only the Lord’s-day,
and days separated for Public Fasting or Thanksgiving, shall be kept holy;
and the old churches are allowed to be used for the following reason: ‘As
no place is capable of any holiness under pretence of whatsoever Dedication
or Consecration, so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition,
formerly used and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient
for Christians to meet together therein to the Public Worship of God. And
therefore we hold it requisite that the places of public assembling for
worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.’ |
Holydays.
Holy Places. |
The Parliament, it seems,
was not entirely satisfied with its own Directory, and soon found it
necessary to publish a supplement for the use of the sailors. This is
one of the most singular productions of that extraordinary period. It
is called A
Supply of Prayer for the Ships that want Ministers to pray with them. ‘A
reason of this work’ is prefixed to the book; and it states: ‘Whereas there
are thousands of ships which have not ministers with them to guide them
in prayer, and therefore either use the old form of Common Prayer, or no
prayer at all; the former whereof for many weighty reasons hath been abolished,
and the latter is likely to make them rather heathens than Christians:
Therefore, to avoid these inconveniences, it has been thought fit to frame
some prayers agreeing with the Directory established by Parliament.’ There
are certain directions for the use of the form; ‘The company being assembled,
they may thus begin with prayer’: a short prayer follows, after which the
Lord’s Prayer is to be used, and we have this direction, ‘After this, some
psalms and chapters being read out of both Testaments (but none out of
those books called Apocrypha), and a psalm being sung, a prayer may follow
in this manner.’ Two prayers follow, one being ‘for the Church universal
and our united Churches and Kingdoms.’-The latter contains a petition for
the King, though at the very time they were making war upon him: ‘We pray
thee for all in authority, especially for the King’s Majesty, that God
would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and Government, establish
his throne in religion, save him from evil counsels and make him a blessed
and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel.
Next comes a direction, ‘After this prayer a psalm may be sung, and the
conclusion may be with a thanksgiving and blessing.’ Then follows
‘a prayer particularly fitted for those that travell upon the seas,’ and
‘a prayer in a storm.’5 |
Form of prayer for Sailors. |
1 ‘The Service, Discipline, and Forme of the Common Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments, used in the English Church of Geneva . . . 1641.’ The 2nd Edition was called, ‘The Reformation of the Discipline and Service of the Church, according to the best Reformed Churches . . . 1643.’ P. Hall’s Reliquiæ Liturgicæ, Vol. III. P. 89. 2 See above, p. 132. 3 ‘The Setled Order of Church-Government, Liturgie, and Discipline, for the rooting out of all Popery, Heresie, and Schisme, cording to the Forme published the Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and parallel’d to the best Reformed Protestant Churches in Christendome: and most humbly presented to the learned assembly Divines, now congregated at Westminster, by the authority of both Houses of Parliament, for the Reformation of abuses in the government of the Church . . . 1644.’ P. Hall’s Reliq. Liturg. Vol. I. p. 111. 4 See Hall, Reliq. Liturg. Introd. p. xl. Several editions of the Directory appeared during the years 1644, 1645, and 1646. It is reprinted with the Ordinances of Parliament (Jan. 3, 1644-5, and Aug. 23, 1645) in Reliq. Liturg. Vol. III., and in Clay, Book of Common Prayer Illustrated, Append. IX. X. XI. See also Sprott and Leishman, pp. 283 and ff. 5 Lathbury, Hist. of Convoc. pp. 497 and ff. |
Notes 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 |