CHAPTER VII.

THE PRAYER BOOK IN THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. [A.D. 1660-1662.]

ESCAPING from the dismal period of rebellion, we pass on with the history of the Prayer Book to the year 1660, when the restoration of the monarchy brought freedom of conscience and worship to Churchmen. On the 1st of May letters from King Charles II., dated from Breda, were brought to the Houses of Lords and Commons, with a Declaration, in which the King ‘declared a liberty to tender consciences’ on the subject of religion, ‘and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom; and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament as, upon mature deliberation, shall be offered to us for granting that indulgence.’¹ By a resolution of the Commons (May 8), the King was desired to make a speedy return to his Parliament, and on the same day was solemnly proclaimed: and on the 10th of May, on the occasion of a day of thanksgiving, the Common Prayer was read before the Lords.²
 

Deputation of Nonconformists to theu King at the Hague,

suggesting that the Prayer Book should not be re-introduced ;

Finding no hope of abridging the King’s liberty of using the regular service, they then requested that the use of the surplice might be discontinued by the royal chaplains, because the sight of this habit would give great offence to the people. But they were plainly told by the King that he would not be restrained hirnself, when others had so much indulgence: that the surplice had always been reckoned a decent habit, and constantly worn in the Church of England: that he had all along retained the use of it in foreign parts: that though he might for the present tolerate a failure of solemnity in religious worship, yet he would never abet such irregularity by his own practice.³

Meanwhile the clergy of the Church had not been slow to take up their position again; they were graciously received by the King and with some necessary warnings as to discretion and moderation were recommended to make every effort by conference with the Presbyterians ‘to reduce them to such a temper as is consistent with the good of the Church.’⁴
 

and ceremonies to be abolished.

The reply of the Bishops.

Reply.

The King’s Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs.

allowed many Presbyterian demands.

The Savoy Conference opened April 15, 1661.

The Presbyterians are desired to present their Exceptions.

The Presbyterians proposed:
    1. ‘That all the prayers, and other materials of the Liturgy, may consist of nothing doubtful or questioned among pious, learned, and orthodox persons)

To this the Bishops answered:
‘The Church hath been careful to put nothing into the liturgy, but that which is. either evidently the word of God or what hath been generally received in the Catholic Church.’ The demand is unreasonable and impossible unless it be agreed who are to be called orthodox. ‘If by orthodox be meant those who adhere to scripture and the catholic consent of antiquity, we do not yet know that any part of our Liturgy hath been questioned by such.’

2. To consider that as our first reformers so composed the Liturgy as to win upon the Papists and to draw them into their Church-communion, by varying as little as they well could from the Romish forms before in use,’ so whether now we should not have our Liturgy so composed as to gain upon the judgments and affection of all those who in the substantials of the protestant religion are of the same persuasions with ourselves.’

3. To omit ‘the repetitions and responsals of the clerk and people, and the alternate reading of the Psalms and Hymns, which cause a confused murmur in the congregation’: ‘ the minister being appointed for the people in all Public Services appertaining to God; and the Holy Scriptures . . . intimating the people’s part in public prayer to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close, by saying Amen.’

4. To change the Litany into one solemn prayer.¹⁹
    In reply to 3 and 4. ‘Alternate reading and repetitions and responsals are far better than a long tedious prayer,’ ‘as appears by the practice of ancient Christian churches.’ If the people may take part in Hopkins’ why not David’s psalms, or in a litany?

5. ‘That there may be nothing in the Liturgy which may seem to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast.’
    The religious observation of Lent was a custom of the Churches of God.’

6. To omit the religious observation of Saints’ days and their vigils.
    It is of ecclesiastical, not divine institution, but it is agreeable to the Scripture and ancient.

7. ‘That there may be no such imposition of the Liturgy, as that the exercise of’ the gift of prayer ‘be totally excluded in any part of Public Worship’ ; and that ‘it may be left to the discretion of the minister to omit part of it, as occasion shall require.’
    This makes the Liturgy void, and may bring more mischief than good.

8. That the new translation of the Bible should alone be used in the portions selected in the Prayer Book.

9. That nothing be read in the church for lessons but the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
    This comes ill from the advocates of preaching. ‘It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good’ as the Apocrypha.

10. That no part of the Liturgy-need be read at the communion-table but when the Holy Supper is administered.
    Unreasonable, since all the primitive Church used it, and if we do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of Nice “Let ancient customs prevail til reason plainly requires the contrary," we shall give offence to sober Christians by a causeless departure from Catholic usage.

11. To use the word ‘Minister,’ and not’ Priest’ or ‘Curate,’ and ‘Lord’s-day’ , instead of ‘ Sunday.’
    Unreasonable, because there is a real distinction between Priest and Deacon. ‘Curate’ is unobjectionable, and Sunday’ is ancient.

12. To amend the version of metrical Psalms.

13. To alter obsolete words.

14. That no portion of the Old Testament, or of the Acts of the Apostles, be called ‘Epistles,’ and read as such.’

15. To reform the offices, where ‘the phrase is such as presumes all persons within the communion of the Church to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of grace; which, had ecclesiastical discipline bee truly and vigorously executed . . . ‘ might be better supposed, but . . . cannot now be rationally admitted.’
    The Bishops reply to this, The Church in her prayers useth no more offensive phrase than S. Paul uses, when he writes to the Corinthians, Galatians, and others, calling them in general the churches of God, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by vocation saints, amongst whom notwithstanding there were many who by their known sins (which the Apostle endeavoured to amend in them) were not properly such, yet he gives the denomination to the ‘whole from the greater part, to whom in charity it was due, and puts the rest in mind what they have by their baptism undertaken to be; and our prayers and the phrase of them surely supposes no more than that they are saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by their baptism admitted into Christ’s congregation, and so to be reckoned members of that society, till either they shall separate themselves by wilful schism, or to be separated by legal excommunication, which they seem earnestly to desire, and so do we.

16. Instead of the short collects, to have one methodical and entire prayer composed out of many of them.

17. The present Liturgy seems defective in forms of praise and thanksgiving; in consisting very much of general expressions, such as ‘to have our prayers heard, to be kept from all evil, to do God’s will’: the Confession does not clearly express original sin, nor sufficiently enumerate actual sins with their aggravations’; and ‘there is no preparatory prayer . . . for assistance or acceptance.’ ‘The Catechism is defective as to many necessary doctrines’; (some even of the essentials of Christianity not mentioned except in the Creed, and: there not so explicit as ought to be in a Catechism.’
    The Bishops reply, There are many Thanksgivings, Te Deum, Benedictus, Magnificat, Benedicite, Glory be to God on high, Therefore with Angels and Archangels, Glory be to the Father, besides occasional Thanksgivings after the Litany, of the frequency whereof themselves elsewhere complain. The use of general expressions, as in confession of sin, is ‘the perfection of the Liturgy, the offices of which being intended for common and general services, would cease to be such by descending to particulars’; the general expressions objected to are almost the very terms of the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. It is an evil Custom springing from false doctrine, to use expressions which may lead people to think that original sin is not forgiven in Holy Baptism: yet original sin is clearly acknowledged in confessing that the desires of our own hearts. render us miserable by following them, &c.

18. The Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling: at the Lord’s Supper, are brought forward as the usual instances of ceremonies, judged unwarrantable by sundry learned and pious men, and exposing many orthodox pious, and peaceable ministers to the displeasure of their rulers. They must be fountains of evil, unless all his Majesty’s subjects had the same subtility of judgment, to discern even to a ceremony how far the power of man extends in the things of God.
    Obedience is a duty to the Church’s laws of decency and order: each is in itself defensible, and may fairly be imposed.
 

The following exceptions were taken against particular parts of the Prayer Book :—
    They wish the first rubric as to the place of service to be expressed as in the Book of 1552; and the second rubric about vestments and ornaments to be omitted.
    The Bishops differ and refer to § 18 above.

The doxology to be always added to the Lord’s Prayer; and this prayer not to be so often used.

The Gloria Patri to be used only once in the Morning, and once in the Evening.

’Rubric. And to the end the people may the better hear, in such places where they do sing, there shall the Lessons be sung in a plain tune, after the manner of distinct reading: and likewise the Epistle and Gospel.’ We know no warrant why they should be sung in any place, and conceive that the distinct reading of them with an audible voice tends more to the edification of the Church.
    The Bishops reply, The rubric directs only such singing as is after the manner of distinct reading, and we never heard of any inconvenience thereby.²⁰

To appoint some Psalm or Scripture hymn instead of the apocryphal Benedicite.

In the Litany they object to the expressions, deadly sin, sudden death, and all that travel.

In the collects; to omit the words ‘this day,’ in the collect for Christmas Day.

Some other collects were named, as having in them divers things that we judge fit to be altered’; some of which were altered, as were also others to which no objection was here raised.
 

In the Communion Service:—
    The first rubric had directed intending communicants to ‘signify their names to the Curate overnight, or else in the morning afore the beginning of morning Prayer, or immediately after.’ It was objected that this notice was not sufficient; and the rubric was altered to ‘at least some time the day before.’

They desire that the minister should have a full power to admit or repel communicants.

They object to kneeling during the reading of the Commandments, and also to the petition after each Commandment, preferring that the minister should conclude with a suitable prayer.

They desire preaching to be more strictly enjoined, and that ministers should not be bound to ‘Homilies hereafter to be set forth,’ as things which are as yet but future and not in being.

They object to the Offertory sentences, that two are apocryphal, and four of them more proper to draw out the people’s bounty to their ministers, than their charity to the poor; and to the Offertory itself, that collection for the poor may be better made at or a little before the departing of the communicants.

The Exhortation, which was appointed to be read ‘at certain times when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the Holy Communion,’ is objected to as unseasonable to be read at the Communion.

They object to the direction, ‘that no man should·come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in·God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience,’ as likely to discourage many from coming to the Sacrament, who lie under a doubting and troubled conscience.
    The Bishops reply, Certainly themselves cannot desire that men should come to the Holy Communion with a troubled conscience, and therefore have no reason to blame the Church for saying it is requisite that men come with a quiet conscience, and prescribing means for quieting thereof.

The General Confession in the name of the communicants was directed to be made ‘either by one of them, or else by one of the ministers, or by the priest himself’: they desire that this may be made by the minister only.

To the rubric, that the priest or bishop, in reading the Absolution, should ‘turn himself to the people,’ they say, ‘The minister turning himself to the people is most convenient throughout the whole ministration.’
    Not so: when he speaks to them’ it is convenient that he turn to them: when he speaks for them to God, it is fit that they should all turn another way, as the ancient church ever did.

As before in the collect for Christmas Day, the object to the word ‘this day’ in the proper Preface for that day and Whitsunday.

Of the Prayer ‘in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion,’ — ‘Grant that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious -blood,’ — they observe that these words seem to give a greater efficacy to the blood than to the body of Christ, and would have them altered thus-’that our sinful souls and bodies may be cleansed through his precious body and blood.’
    The Bishops in reply refer to the words of our Lord, This is my blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins,’ observing that he saith not so explicitly of the body.

Of the ‘Prayer at the Consecration,’ as they word it, they say, the manner of consecrating is not explicit enough, and the minister’s breaking of the bread is not so much as mentioned.

Of the manner of distributing the elements, and the words used, they desire that the words of our Saviour may be used as near as may be; and that the minister be not required to deliver the bread and wine into every communicant’s hand, and to repeat the words to each one: also that the kneeling may be left free.
    Administration to every particular communicant with the words in the singular number is most requisite, forsomuch as it is the propriety of Sacraments to make particular obsignation to each believer.

To the rubric, that ‘Every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year,’ they say, Forasmuch as every parishioner is not duly qualified for the Lord’s Supper, and those habitually prepared are not at all times actually disposed, but many may be hindered by the providence of God, and some by the distemper of ·their spirits, we desire this rubric may be either wholly omitted, or thus altered: ‘Every minister shall be bound to administer the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper at least thrice a year, provided there be a due number of communicants manifesting their desires to receive.’ They also desire the Declaration, explanatory of kneeling, in the second Prayer Book ‘established by law as much as any other part’ to be again restored to its place: to which the Bishops reply, This rubric is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by law; nor is there any great need of restoring it, the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry. Besides, the sense of it is declared sufficiently in the 28th Article of the Church of England.
 

The Baptismal Office, and those parts of the Prayer Book connected with it, furnished special matter for objection. The charitable conclusion of the Church, ‘that Christ will favourably accept every infant to baptism that is presented by the Church according to our present order,’ was opposed to the ministerial tyranny which the Puritan elders sought to exercise in the way of discipline and excommunication. Thus with regard to the subjects of baptism, they say, ‘There being divers learned, pious, and peaceable ministers, who not only judge it unlawful to baptize children whose parents both of them are atheists, infidels, heretics, or unbaptized, but also such whose parents are excommunicate persons, fornicators, or otherwise notorious and scandalous sinners; we desire they may not be obliged to baptize the children of such, until they have made due profession of their repentance,
    We think this to be very hard and uncharitable and giving too arbitrary a power to the minister.

Then, with regard to sponsors, they object that there is no mention of the parents; they deny the right of any others not appointed by the parents to speak for the children and ‘desire that it may be left free to parents whether they will have sureties to undertake for their children in baptism or no.’
    It is an erroneous doctrine, and the ground of many others, that children have no other right to baptism than their parents’ right. The Church’s primitive practice (S. Aug. Ep. 23²¹) forbids it to be left to the pleasure of the parents, whether there shall be other sureties or no.

Of the questions addressed to the sponsors they say, ‘We know not by what right the sureties do promise and answer in the name of the infant.’ ‘We desire that the two first interrogatories may be put to the parents to be answered in their own names, and the last propounded to the parents or pro-parents thus, “Will you have this child baptized into this faith?"
    If Guardians may contract for minors, why not Sponsors?

They wish the font to be conspicuous.
    It stands as it did in primitive times at or near the Church door to Signify that Baptism was the entrance into the Church mystical.

As to particular expressions in the service, they object to the notion of the sanctification of Jordan, or any other waters, to a sacramental use by Christ’s being baptized.
    If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by Christ as to be the matter if baptism, what authority have we to baptize? and sure His baptism was ‘dedicatio baptismi.’

The words, ‘may receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration,’ they would have to be, ‘may be regenerated and receive the remission of sins.’
    Most proper for Baptism is our Spiritual regeneration, referring to S. John iii. ; Acts ii. 3, and the Nicene creed,

The words of thanksgiving, ‘that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit,’ to be otherwise expressed, since we cannot in faith say that every child that is baptized is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit; at least it is a disputable point.
    Seeing that God’s sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not ‘ponere obicem,’ put any bar against them (which children. cannot do) we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no.

Of Private Baptism they say, We desire that baptism may not be administered in a private place at any time, unless by a lawful minister, and in the presence of a competent number: that where it is evident that any child hath been so baptized, no part of the administration may be reiterated in public, under any limitations: and therefore we see no need of any Liturgy in that case.
    We think it fit that children should be baptized in private rather than not at all; and as to the service, nothing done in private is reiterated in public.
 

In the Catechism, they desire the opening questions. to be altered, but only, as it seems, for the temporary reason, because the far greater number of persons baptized within the last twenty years had no godfathers or godmothers at their baptism. The third answer they conceive might be more safely expressed thus: ‘Wherein I was visibly admitted into the number of the members of Christ, the children of God, and the heirs (rather than "inheritors") of the kingdom of heaven.’ To the answer, declaring our duty towards God, they would add at the end, ‘particularly on the Lord’s-day’; for the reason that otherwise there was nothing in all the answer referring to the Fourth Commandment. In the latter portion, upon the Sacraments, they would have the first answer to be, ‘Two only, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.’ Of the baptismal answers they say, We desire. that the entering infants into God’s covenant may be more warily expressed, and that the words may not seem to found their baptism upon a really actual faith and repentance of their own; and we desire that a promise may not be taken for a performance of such faith and repentance; and especially that it be not asserted that they perform these by the promise of their sureties; it being to the seed of believers that the covenant of God is made, and not (that we can find) to all that have such believing sureties, who are neither parents nor pro-parents of the child.²²
    The effect of children’s baptism does not depend on the faith and repentance either of them or of their sponsors, but upon the ordinance and institution of Christ.

They approve, however, generally of this portion of the Catechism, that the doctrine of the Sacraments is much more fully and particularly delivered than the other parts, in short answers fitted to the memories of children: therefore they propose a more distinct and full application of the Creed, the Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer: and to add ‘somewhat particularly concerning the nature of faith, repentance, the two covenants, justification, sanctification, adoption, and regeneration.’
    The catechism is designedly short.
 

Exceptions against the Catechism.

For Confirmation, they conceive that it is not a sufficient qualification that children be able memoriter to repeat the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and to answer to some questions of this short Catechism; for it is often found that children are able to do this at four or five years old; and it crosses what is said in another rubric, ordaining that Confirmation should be ministered unto them that are of perfect age, that they being instructed in the Christian religion should openly profess their own faith, and promise to be obedient to the will of God; and therefore they desire that none may be confirmed but according to his Majesty’s Declaration (October 25, 1660) — ‘That Confirmation be rightly and solemnly performed, by the information and with the consent of the minister of the place.’
    The requirement is a minimum.

They object to the words of the rubric, declaring that ‘children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation,’ as dangerous as to the misleading of the vulgar; although they charitably suppose the meaning of these words was only to exclude the necessity of any other sacraments to baptized infants.
    There is no danger in keeping the words, but only in wishing to expunge them.

They object also to the mention of a godfather or godmother, seeing no need of them either at baptism or confirmation.

The words of the ‘Prayer before the Imposition of Hands’ suppose that all the children who are brought to be confirmed, have the Spirit of Christ, and the forgiveness of all their sins; whereas a great number of children at that age, having committed many sins since their baptism, do show no evidence of serious repentance, or of any special saving grace; and therefore this Confirmation (if administered to such) would be a perilous and gross abuse. To which the Bishops reply, It supposeth, and that truly, that all children were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably presumed that, notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon them; and therefore adds, ‘Strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace, &c. None that lives in open sin ought to be confirmed.

They also object that the Imposition of Hands by the Bishop seems to put a higher value upon Confirmation than upon Baptism or the Lord’s Supper.
    Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop as of old, and our church doth everywhere profess to conform to the Catholic usages of the primitive times, from which causelessly to depart argues rather love of contention than of peace: and on the contrary the most necessary ordinances are those least restricted.

They desire that the practice of the Apostles may not be alleged as a ground of this imposition of hands for the confirmation of children, and that imposition of hands may not be made a sign to certify children of God’s grace and favour towards them, because this seems to speak it a sacrament, on both points alleging Article XXV.
    It is the apostolic ordinance, and you misinterpret the Article.

They urge that Confirmation may not be made so necessary to the Holy Communion as that none should be admitted to it unless they be confirmed.
    There is no inconvenience, and you elsewhere desire this very thing.
 

In the Marriage Service, they desire that the ring may be left indifferent: some other words to be used instead ‘worship’ and ‘depart,’ — which old word, they say, is Improperly used: the declaration in the name of the Trinity to be omitted, lest it should seem to favour those who count matrimony a sacrament; to omit the change of place and posture directed in the middle of the service: to alter or omit the words ‘consecrated the state of matrimony to such an excellent mystery,’ seeing the institution of marriage was before the Fall, and so before the promise of Christ; and also for that it seems to countenance the opinion of making matrimony a sacrament: and to omit the direction for Communion on the day of marriage.
 

In the ‘Order for the Visitation of the Sick,’ they desire a greater liberty in the prayer as well as in the exhortation; and that the form of the Absolution be declarative and conditional, as ‘I pronounce thee absolved,’ instead of ‘I absolve thee,’ and ‘If thou dost truly repent and believe’; and that it may only be recommended to the minister to be used or omitted as he shall see occasion.
    The giving of absolution must not depend upon the minister’s pleasure, but on the sick man’s penitence. The form is closer to S. John xx. than the amendment.

Also, of the ‘Communion of the Sick,’ they propose that the minister be not enjoined to administer the sacrament to every sick person that shall desire it, but only as he shall judge expedient.
    He must not deny the viaticum to any who ‘humbly desire it’ being presumably penitent and prepared.
 

In the Churching they desired a change of place, a change of psalm, a penitential Versicle to be used in case of adultery or fornication, and the omission of the offering.
    The place is conspicuous and good and is suitable to her making an offering. In case of sin penance must be done first.
 

The Bishops, after replying at length to these objections, ended by stating the following concessions, which they were willing to make in the way of alterations in the Prayer Book.²³
    1. We are willing that all the Epistles and Gospels be used according to the last translation.
    2. That when anything is read for an Epistle which is not in the Epistles, the superscription shall be, ‘For the Epistle.’
    3. That the Psalms be collated with the former translation mentioned in the rubric, and printed according to it.
    4. That the words, ‘this day,’ both in the Collects and Prefaces, be used only upon the day itself; and for the following days it be said, ‘as about this time.’
    5. That a longer time be required for signification of the names of the communicants; and the words the rubric be changed into these, ‘at least some time the day before.’
    6. That the power of keeping scandalous sinners from the Communion may be expressed in the rubric, according to the 26th and 27th Canons; so the minister be obliged to give an account of the same immediately after to the Ordinary.
    7. That the whole Preface be prefixed to the Commandments.
    8. That the second Exhortation be read some Sunday or Holy Day before the celebration of the Communion, at the discretion of the minister.
    9. That the General Confession at the Communion be pronounced by one of the ministers, the people saying after him, all kneeling humbly upon their knees.
    10. That the manner of consecrating the elements may be made more explicit and express, and to that purpose these words be put into the rubric, , Then shall he put his hand upon the bread and break it’ ‘Then shall he put his hand unto the cup.’
    11. That if the font be so placed as the congregation cannot hear, it may be referred to the Ordinary to place it more conveniently.
    12. That those words, ‘Yes, they do perform those, &c.,’ may be altered thus, ‘Because they promise them both by their sureties.’
    13. That the words of the last rubric before the Catechism may be thus altered, ‘that children beinb baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and dying before they commit any actual sins, be undoubtedly saved, though they be not confirmed.’
    14. That to the rubric after Confirmation these words may be added, ‘or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.’
    15. That those words, ‘with my body I thee worship, may be altered thus, ‘with my body I thee honour.’
    16. That those words, ‘till death us depart,’ be thus altered, ‘till death us do part.’
    17. That the words, ‘sure and certain,’ may be left out.
 

Of these changes of phrases, or minute improvements of rubric, there is hardly one of any great importance. The Bishops, conscious of their own power and of the captiousness of the opposition, felt that they were not called upon by any plea of tender consciences to adopt alterations of which they did not recognize the clear necessity. They therefore took up a strong and unyielding position behind primitive custom and Catholic usage. They also knew that it was vain to assent to any real changes; for that, if they granted all the proposals of the Ministers, and altered all the ceremonies and phrases objected to, the Prayer Book would still be deemed an intolerable burden, so long as its use in any shape was to be constantly and vigorously enforced.²⁴ The Puritans required the free exercise of the gift of prayer in every part of Public Worship, and contended that, whatever alterations might be made in the Book, it should be left to the discretion of the minister to omit any part of its appointed services.²⁵
 

Besides making such alterations in the Prayer Book as should be, thought necessary, the King’s Warrant authorized the Commissioners to insert ‘some additional forms, in the Scripture phrase as near as might be, suited to the nature of the several parts of worship.’ Therefore when the Ministers delivered to the Bishop their paper of exceptions against the existing Prayer Book, they said that they had made a considerable progress in preparing new forms, and should (by God’s assistance) offer them to the reverend Commissioners with all convenient speed. This portion of their labours was undertaken by Richard Baxter. Whether he had ever any idea of composing forms of prayer, to inserted among the Collects of the Prayer Book, so that the same book might be used in Public Worship by Puritans and Churchmen, while each party retained their essential differences, is very doubtful. He thought amendment all but hopeless in a book of which the framework and the matter of the prayers had respect to primitive models; and, to express his own ideas of a befitting Christian worship, he composed an entirely new Directory of service, under the title of The Reformation of the Liturgy.²⁶ This with some slight alterations was accepted by the Presbyterian Committee, and presented to the Bishops with A Petition for Peace,²⁷ which was for the most part a lengthy repetition of the Puritan wail, which had been going on for a hundred years, against set forms of prayer and ceremonial. If the Prayer Book was to be tolerated by the Puritans, their new Liturgy must also be allowed, so that either of them might be used at the discretion of the minister; they also desired freedom from subscription, oaths, and ceremonies; and demanded that no ordination, whether absolute or conditional, should be required from any who had already been ordained by the parochial pastors.
 

Additional forms of prayer to be inserted in the Prayer Book.

Baxter composes ‘The Reformation of the Liturgy,’

with a Petition for Peace.

Baxter’s Rejoinder to the Reply of the Bishops

Eight particulars in the Prayer Book alleged as sinful.

In the meanwhile, Convocation had assembled on the 8th of May, 1661.³⁵ The first business was to prepare a Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving for the 20th of May, the anniversary of the King’s birth and restoration, and also an office for the Baptism of Adults, which was found necessary from the great neglect of religious ordinances during the Rebellion.³⁶ Other steps were also taken towards the Revision of Canons and the drawing up of Visitation articles. But as yet nothing was done as regards the Prayer Book. In the House of Commons, on June 25, notice was first taken of the proceedings at the Conference; a Committee was appointed to make search for the original of King Edward’s Second Service book,³⁷ ‘and to provide for an effectual conformity to the Liturgy of the Church for the time to come’; and a Bill for Uniformity passed the Commons (July 9), to which was annexed the Prayer Book of 1604³⁸: but in view of what was going forward in Convocation this was delayed until the following February in the House of Lords.

The second session of this royalist Parliament began November 20, and Convocation reassembled on the following day, when the King’s Letters were read, directing the revision of the Common Prayer, and a Committee of Bishops³⁹ was appointed for the purpose. The business, however, had been foreseen, and the Committee seems to have at once reported that the preparations were already made, and that the whole House might proceed to the work of revision. On Saturday, November 23, a portion of the Book with the corrections of the Bishops was delivered to the prolocutor of the Lower House, and the remainder on the following Wednesday, when the first portion was returned from the Lower House, with a schedule of amendments there made. The whole work was speedily completed, and on the 20th of December, 1661, the Book of Common Prayer was adopted and subscribed by the Clergy of both Houses of Convocation, and of both provinces.⁴⁰
 

Communion Office.

The first rubric explaining the end of Confirmation was now appointed to be read as the Preface to the Service, followed, in place of the catechism, by the inquiry of renewal and ratification of the baptismal vow. A form was now appointed for the publication of Banns of Marriage, and the particular ‘time of service’ to be ‘immediately before’ the Offertory Sentences. The Order following the last Blessing, ‘Then shall begin the Communion,’ was omitted; and the final rubric, that ‘the new married persons, the same day of their marriage, must receive the Holy Communion,’ was altered to a declaration that it is convenient so to do either then or at the first opportunity after their marriage.

In the Visitation of the Sick instead of a reference to ‘Peter’s wife’s mother, and the captain’s servant,’ the petition for the sanctification of sickness was inserted in the prayer before the Exhortation: and the words, ‘if he humbly and heartily desire it,’ were added to the rubric respecting absolution. The final benediction, and the occasional prayers, were now added. The form of service for the Communion of the Sick was more clearly directed to begin with the Proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, and then to pass to the part of the public office beginning with ‘Ye that do truly,’ &c. In the Order for Burial, the first rubric was added respecting persons unbaptized or excommunicate. The Psalms and Lesson were appointed to be read in the church, according to the rubric of 1549. The name of the deceased was omitted in the prayer at the grave. In the Churching Service new Psalms were appointed. The Commination was directed to be used on the first day of Lent.
 

The revised Prayer Book was at once translated into French by John Durel,⁶⁰ and his version has been chiefly used ever since in the Channel Islands. The same writer also eventually completed the edition of the Latin Prayer Book which Convocation had originally taken in hand. This was not, however, till 1670. He profited by the previous translations, but took the Psalms and Scripture portions from the Sarum Breviary and Missal.⁶¹

In 1665 a Greek version was published by Dr. James Duport, the Greek Professor at Cambridge and Dean of Peterborough. This superseded Petley’s version published in 1638, and the Greek version in Whitaker’s bilingual book of 1569.⁶²

The missionary development of the Anglican Communion has in later years rendered necessary the translation of the Prayer Book into many languages. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge has published alone all but one hundred versions in different languages, and has had a hand in a certain number of others, which have been printed in the Mission Field. The Prayer Book and Homily Society has also done something in this direction, and in America the Prayer Book has been printed in a number of Indian dialects by the American Board of Missions.
 

1 Gee and Hardy, Doc. CXIV.

2 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 703.

3 Clarendon, History, XVI. 234.

4 Cardwell, Conferences, 247-249.

5 Preface to B.C.P. of 1661.

6 This was drawn up by Reynolds, Worth, and Calamy, and presented lo the King a few weeks after the Restoration, together with Archbishop Ussher’s Reduction of Episcopacy: Cardwell, Conferences, p. 252. See the substance of Ussher’s plan for episcopal government in Collier. Eccles. Hist. VIII. 871, and in Documents relating to the Act of Uniformity, 1662, p. 22 (London, 1862).

7 So the bishops noted in their reply: See below, p. 167.
 

8 Cardwell , Conferences, pp. 252, 277 and ff.

9 Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 873. The Answer is printed in full in Doc. relating to A. of U. 1662, no. VII.

10 Ibid. no. VIII.

11 Ibid. no. IX. (cp. Also X. and XI): or Cardwell, Conferences, p. 286; Doc. Ann, CXLIX. See also Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 873, for the history of the document and the alterations made in it to meet the petition of the ministers.

12 See their address of gratitude, Doc. relating to A. of U. no. XII.

13 Dr. Cardwell (Conferences, p. 256) says that several of the Presbyterians, including Reynolds and Manton, accepted spiritual appointments, and recognized the authority of the Bishops. Reynolds, indeed, accepted the bishopric of Norwich, and was consecrated Jan. 6, 1661. But it appears that the other ministers refused the offered promotions. See Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 876. Manton signed the doctrinal Articles, and was instituted by the Bishop of London to his rectory of S. Paul’s, Covent Garden, Jan. 16, 1661 : but he honestly refused the deanery of Rochester; and his conformity did not continue, when the Church service was re-settled after the Savoy Conference.

14 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 298. Doc. relating to A. of U. XIV. Collier, VIII. 876.
 

16 A precursor of the numerous Presbyterian ‘exceptions’ appeared, probably from the Middleburgh press, In 1606, entitled, ‘A Survey of the Booke of Common Prayer, by way of 197 Queres, grounded upon 58 Places ministering just matter of question; with a view of London Ministers’ exceptions: all humbly propounded, that they may be syncerely answered, or els offences religiously removed,’ Hall, Reliq. Liturg. Vol. 1. Introd. p. xiv.

17 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 260.

18 The documents were printed in An accompt of all the proceedings of the Commissioners (1661). The ‘Exceptions against the Book of Common Prayer’ were preserved by Baxter, and published in a more accurate form in his own narrative of his life. The Answers of the Bishops are only known from the ‘Rejoinder,’ in which Baxter attempted to refute them. The limits of this work will not allow of more than an abstract of this paper. See Cardwell, Conferences, p. 262; and chap. VII. Documents, V., VI.; Collier, Eccles. Hist. VIII. 878 and ff.
 

24 See the Answer of the Bishops on the head of Ceremonies. Cardwell, Conferences, p. 345.

25 Exceptions, § 7 above, p. 173. The Bishops had seen the results of the ‘exercise of the gift’ in its utmost freedom. They say of it in their reply (Cardwell, p. 341), ‘The mischiefs that come by idle, impertinent, ridiculous, sometimes seditious, impious, and blasphemous expressions, under pretence of the gift, to the dishonour of God and scorn of religion, being far greater than the pretended good of exercising the gift, it is fit that they who desire such liberty in public devotions should first give the Church security, that no private opinions should be put into their prayers, as is desired in the first proposal; and that nothing contrary to the faith should be uttered before God, or offered up to him in the church.’

26 ‘The work is described as the labour of little more than a fortnight — a suggestion, by no means incredible; for, spite of the praise bestowed on it by his biographer, that "few better Liturgies exist" (Orrne’s Life of Baxter, II. p. 420), a less desultory performance might have been expected from a mind so used to composition, and on an occasion so urgently calling for the exercise of wisdom and deliberation. The method he pursued in its composition was to follow the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments: but "my leisure," he owns, "was too short for the doing of it with that accurateness which a business of that nature doth require, or the consulting with men and authors. I could not have time to make use of any book save the Bible and my Concordance; comparing all with the Assembly’s Directory, and the Book of Common Prayer, and Hammond L’Estrange." (Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, II. p. 306.)’ See Hall Reliquiæ Liturgicæ, Introd, p. xlvii, The fourth volume of this work contains a reprint of Baxter’s Reformation of the Liturgy.

27 Documents relating to A. of U. no. XVII. Cardwell, Conferences, p. 261. See also Roger L’ Estrange’s scathing reply, The Relapsed Apostate, 1661.
 

28 Doc. relating to A. of U. no. XVIII. See Cardwell, Conferences, p. 263, note.

29 Ibid. p. 265. Documents relating to A. of U. no. XIX.

30 They were these :—
   1. That no minister be admitted to baptize without the transient image of the cross.
   2. That no minister be permitted to exercise his office that dares not wear a surplice.
   3. That none be admitted to the Communion that dare not receive it kneeling.
   4. That ministers be forced to pronounce all baptized infants to be regenerate by the Holy Ghost, whether they be the children of Christians or not.
   5. That ministers be forced to deliver the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ unto the unfit, and that with personal application, putting it into their hands; and that such are forced to receive it, though against their own wills, in the conscience of their impenitency.
   6. That ministers be forced to absolve the unfit.
   7. That they are forced to give thanks for all whom they bury.
   8. That none may be a preacher that dare not subscribe that there is nothing in the Common Prayer Book, the Book of Ordination, and the Thirty-nine Articles, that is contrary to the Word of God.
   It must be added, that this paper was delivered by the three disputants in their own name only; for here they would not pretend to represent their party. Baxter desired to add two more points, but they were left out.

31 See the Petition to the King in Documents relating to A. of U. p. 381.

32 Ibid. nos. XX. and XXI. cp. Cardwell, Conferences, p. 364.
   The other chief point debated was the sense of Rom. xiv. 1-3; Collier VIII. 885, and see Doc. no. XX.

33 Documents relating to A. of U., no. XXII.

34 They ultimately admitted that while nothing must be imposed contrary to the Word of God, other and lawful commands should be obeyed: but their tender consciences judged the Church’s order unlawful and contrary to the Word of God. See Petition to the King at the close of the Conference, in Documents relating to A. of U. no. XXII.

35 There was at first some danger that Convocation might not be summoned, and all be left to the Conference. See a letter from Heylyn protesting against such a course, in Consequence of which it was abandoned, and Convocation summoned. Collier, VIII. 886.

36 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 370; Synodalia, ii. 641, 642.
   The Acts of the Convocation are given in full in Cardwell’s Synodalia, ii. 631 and ff.; cp. Parker’s Introduction, lxxxvii.

37 This had been referred to by the Presbyterians at the Conference, as containing matter which they wished to have replaced in the Prayer-Book: such as the first rubrics concerning vestments, &c., and the declaration about kneeling at the Communion. Cardwell, Conferences, p. 376.

38 Two prayers before the reading Psalms were to be omitted. They were unauthorized additions after the end of the Commination Service in the edition annexed, The temper of the House may be judged from the Speech of Lord Chancellor Hyde at the opening of Parliament. Collier, VIII. 888.
 

39 Cosin, Bishop of Durham, Wren of Ely, Skinner of Oxford, Warner of Rochester, Henchman of Salisbury, Morley of Worcester, Sanderson of Lincoln, and Nicholson of Gloucester.

40 Cardwell , Conferences, p. 372. Synodalia, II. 660. The writ for summoning the Northern Convocation was directed (June 10) to Archbishop Frewen; and Nov. 30, a King’s Letter of Nov. 22 empowered this Synod to review the Common Prayer and Ordinal. Parker, Introduction, p. lxxxvi. The Bishops of the Northern province were already in London, and sitting in consultation with the Southern bishops. For convenience and despatch of business, the Lower House agreed to make proxies to transact in their names with the province of Canterbury obliging themselves to abide by their vote, under the forfeiture of all their goods and chattels. They did not, however, resign their activity in the matter, but sent up a paper of suggestions to their Upper House London; Parker, Introd. ccccxxxi. Joyce, English Synods, pp. 709 and ff.
   The MS. copy which was signed has been published in facsimile (1891): See Additional Note, p. 204.
 

41 Printed with the Proceedings in Parliament in Documents relating to the A. of U. p. 414. Parker, p. cccclix.

42 When the Bill was returned with the revised Book, which it was well known had been amended in Convocation from a copy of 1636, the Commons ordered a close comparison of the Books of the two periods: and, April 16, they put the question, Whether they should reconsider the amendments of Convocation; they decided to receive them without discussion, on a division of 96 to 90; they then divided again on the question whether they had the power of reconsidering such corrections, and affirmed their own power to do so, had they so desired.

43 Gee and Hardy, Doc. CXVII. Documents relating to A. of U. XXIV.

44 See Additional Note, p. 204.

45 See the Acta in Synodalia or in Gibson’s Synodus Anglicanus.

46 Parker, Introduction, p. clx, A reprint of the ‘Sealed Book has been published by the Ecclesiastical History Society. For the MS. books, see Additional Note. p. 204.

47 See Cardwell, Conferences, p. 380; also ‘the Preface’ to the Book of Common Prayer, stating the general aim of the alterations.
 

48 Cf. Joyce, English Synods, p. 716, note.

49 The Bishops’ classification of them in the Preface.

50 Some changes were made in order to avoid the appearance of favouring the Presbyterian form of Church-government: thus, ‘church,’ or ‘people,’ was substituted for ‘congregation,’ and ‘ministers in’ for ‘of the congregation’; ‘priests and deacons’ were especially named instead of ‘pastors and ministers.’
   The alterations were felt by them to be of no value. ‘It was proposed in their behalf in the House of Lords, that the existing Liturgy should be continued, and all the corrections made in Convocation should be abandoned.’ Cardwell, (quoting Clarendon’s Life, II. 128) Conferences, p. 388.

51 ‘This was one of the greatest grievances complained of by the Dissenters, being, as they said, a declaration that that is certain by God’s Word, which at best can only be proved as a probable deduction from it. Baxter maintained, "That of the forty sinful terms for a communion with the Church party, if thirty-nine were taken away, and only that rubric, concerning the salvation of infants dying shortly after their baptism, were continued, yet they could not conform." Long’s Vox Cleri, an. 1690, p. 18,’ in Cardwell, p. 383, note.

52 The Act of Uniformity required every beneficed person, before the Feast of S. Bartholomew, to read the Prayers according to the amended Book in his church or chapel and declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all things contained in it; and all succeeding beneficed persons, to do this within two months after possession of their benefices: Also every Ecclesiastical person, and every Tutor and Schoolmaster, to make a declaration of the illegality of taking arms against the King, and a promise of conformity to the Liturgy, and during the next twenty years a further declaration that the Solemn League and Couenant was an unlawful oath, and of no obligation. It deprived of their benefices all persons who were not in Holy Orders by episcopal ordination, unless they were so ordained Priest or Deacon before the Feast of S. Bartholomew. It provided for the toleration of aliens of the foreign Reformed Churches, allowed or to be allowed in England. The Morning and Evening Prayer, and all other prayers and service, might be used in Latin in the chapels of colleges, and in Convocations. All Lecturers and Preachers to be approved and licensed by the Archbishop, or Bishop of the Diocese: Common Prayer to be read before sermons, except at the public University sermon. The Bishops of Hereford, S. David’s, Asaph, Bangor, and Llandaff to take order for a true and exact translation of the Book into the British or Welsh tongue before May 1, 1665.

53 Cp. Hallam, Constitutional Hist. II. 459 (339), and note, p. 462 (341), on the number of those who were turned out of the benefices into which they had been intruded during the troubles. Skeats (Hist. of the Free Churches of England, p. 56) observes that 2,000 were ejected, ‘because the toleration which they had denied to others was now denied to them.’ Indeed Gouge, Manton, Calamy, &c., believed in 1648 ‘that toleration was a doctrine born of hell’.
 

54 For the later history of such services, see Reeves’ introduction to Irish Form of Consecration of Churches, (S.P.C.K.) p. 7, and Bishop John Wordsworth, On the Rite of Consecration of Churches (Ch. Hist. Soc. Tract, LII).

55 See p. 202.

56 Calendar of State Papers, 1661, Nov. 30, and Dec. 7. Stephen, II. 340, 345.

57 Calendar, 1662, July 14. See, however, the report of a Church Session at Edinburgh, under the date Oct. 17, p. 520.

58 Stephen, II. 350.

59 The MS. Book of Common Prayer that was attached to the Irish Act of Uniformity has been printed by the Eccles. Hist. Society. See Stephens’s Introd., pp. Ixxxviii. and ff, and clxvi, and ff; and a sketch of the history of the Irish Prayer Book by Mr. Clay, in British Magazine (Dec. 1846), xxx, 601-629 ; Blunt, Annotated P. B. p. 710 (ed. 1884).

60 Chaplain of the French congregation in the Savoy Chapel, Dean of Windsor, and Canon of Durham. Among the State Papers is an Order by the King that John Durel’s French translation of the Prayer Book be used, as soon as printed, in all the parish churches of Jersey and Guernsey, &c., in the French congregation of the Savoy, and all others conformed to the Church of England with licence to him for the sole printing of the said translation. Calendar, 1662, act. 6, p. 508. The sanction of the Bishop’s Chaplain is dated April 6, 1663. Durel was the author of A View of the Government and Public Worship of God in the reformed Churches beyond the seas: wherein is shewed their Conformity and Agreement with the Church England, 1662: and S. Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, adversus iniquas atque inverecundas schismaticorum criminationes, vindidiæ: 1669.

61 See Marshall’s Latin Prayer Book of Charles II. (Oxford, 1882) for both these. The Latin book went through seven editions between 1670 and 1703, but in 1713 another, but inferior, Latin version appeared, by Thomas Parsell, of Merchant Taylors’ School, and passed through several editions. His Psalms and Scriptures are taken from Castellio’s version. Besides the usual contents, and the Ordinal, the book has also Forma Precum in utraque domo Synodi, &c.; Formula Precum 2da die Septembris (for the Fire of London); and Forma Strumosas attrectandi. In 1785 a revised edition was published by Dr. E. Harwood. All these Latin Prayer Books have now been succeeded by Libri Precum Publicarum Ecciesiæ Anglicanæ Versio Latina, by Bright and Medd (1865), who have adopted the original phraseology wherever it can be traced, and have rendered the more recent portions into Latin of a similar character. Cp. Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book, p. 19 [p, 104, ed. 1884].

62 Marshall, l.c. pp. 42, 43, and see above, p. 124.
 

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

THE WORK OF REVISION.

The progress of the work of revision by the Bishops and Clergy¹ is marked by four extant books. The first is a Prayer Book of 1619, now at Durham, which contains alterations and directions to the printer written in the hand of Cosin, and also at a later date, and to a less extent, in Sancroft’s hand. This was probably used in the earliest stages and anterior to the meeting of Convocation² The second is a Prayer Book of 1634 now in the Bodleian Library, which Sancroft has used to make a fair copy of the preceding. The third is a Prayer Book of 1636 which was the official copy used by Convocation in making the revision.³ The fourth is the original MS. of the Book as revised and ‘fairly written’ out of ‘the book wherein the alterations were made’⁴; it was subscribed by Convocation on December 20, 1661.⁵ From these it is possible to trace in minute detail the process through which the Revision went.

When once presented to Parliament (February 25), together with a schedule of the changes made, the Book underwent no alteration except in some very small details.⁶ The House of Lord Committee on February 27, amended some clerical errors in the titles of four of the Psalms. and one of the Rubrics after Communion, But, having done this, and discussed the question whether alterations ought not to be referred back to Convocation, they resolved not to read the Book at all.⁷

On March 5 Convocation appointed a Committee of three Bishops with plenary power to act in their name with reference to the changes.⁸ The work of the House of Lords in Committee on the Bill was finished on March 10, and an agreement no doubt was made with the Bishops, though there is no record of it in the scanty and incomplete minutes. On the 13th and two following days the whole House considered and approved the Book, and returned thanks to Convocation for their pains therein. The Bill, however, did not pass till April 9, when it and the Book Annexed were sent to the Commons. There the schedule was perused, and the Book was carefully scrutinised by a Committee, but on April 16 the House agreed not to exercise its right of discussing the changes made by Convocation, and accepted them en bloc.⁹

The discovery of a fresh clerical error in the rubrics of Baptism raised a further difficulty; and in view of it the Bishops appointed Cosin to a vacant place on their existing Committee. Consequently when, after the Conference with the Commons, the error was mentioned in the Lords (May 8), Cosin, on behalf of the Committee of Bishops, corrected the word then and there.¹⁰

The care which the Parliament took not to encroach upon the Church’s province is again seen later on. It was proposed in the Commons on April 28, that there should be ‘a proviso for being uncovered and using reverent gesture at the time of divine service.’ But the matter being held proper for the Convocation, Ordered’ to invite the Lords to join in recommending to the Convocation ‘to take order for reverent and uniform gestures and demeanors to be enjoined at the time of divine service and preaching.’ To this the Lords agreed May 8, and recommended to the Convocation ‘to prepare some canon or rule for that purpose to be humbly presented unto his Majesty for his assent.’ In reply Convocation sent to Parliament a copy of the xviiith canon of 1603 in a somewhat amended form (May 10 and 12, 1662).

1 Wren and Cosin were armed already with a series of proposals. Wren’s are printed in Jacobson, Fragmentary Illustrations of the B.C.P., 45-109. Cosin’s in Works, V. pp. 502-525. These seem to have been originally drawn up for the abortive revision in 1641, and afterwards to have been amplified. Tomlinson, pp. 185 and ff.

2 Tomlinson, p. 203.

3 Published with a collation of the two former in Parker’s Introduction to the Revisions: and also facsimiled at full length in 1871 for the Ritual Commission. (Griffiths 1871/1)

4 Journal of House of Lords, Ap. 10, in Parker’s Introduction, p. cccclxviii.

5 Published in facsimile in 1891 an printed verbatim et iiteratim with collations in 1892. (Griffiths 1891/1; 1892/2)

6 The theory that the Black rubric was inserted at the Council Bosrd after the assent of Convocation and before the book was sent to Parliamerit, is impossible. It rests only on a vague statement of Burnet, and it is categorically denied by the King’s own words. Selborne, Liturgy of the Church of England, pp. 57-69, disposes both of Mr. Parker’s and of Mr. Tomlinson’s theories as to changes made independently of Convocation.

7 Selborne, Liturgy, p. 60.

8 Acta in Cardwell, Synodalia, ii., 666. Parker, cccclxii.

9 See above, p. 195, note.

10 Parker, cccclxxxv, Selborne, p.62.