almoner and privy-councillor to king Edward VI. He was deprived of all his preferments in queen Mary's reign, and fled to Frankfort; from whence returning in the reign of queen Elizabeth, he was consecrated bishop of Ely. liament. 13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester. Thus was our excellent Liturgy compiled by And confirmed martyrs and confessors, together with divers by Act of Parother learned bishops and divines; and being revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both the provinces of Canterbury and York, was then confirmed by the king and the three estates in parliament, A. D. 1548,72 who gave it this just encomium, viz. which at this time BY THE AID OF THE HOLY GHOST, with uniform agreement is of them concluded, set forth, &c. cer and Martyr. But about the end of the year 1550, or the be- But afterwards ginning of 1551, some exceptions were taken at submitted to the some things in this book, which were thought to censure of Busavour too much of superstition. To remove these objections, therefore, archbishop Cranmer proposed to review it; and to this end called in the assistance of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, two foreigners, whom he had invited over from the troubles in Germany; who not understanding the English tongue, had Latin versions prepared for them: one Alesse, a Scotch divine, translating it on purpose for the use of Bucer; and Martyr being furnished with the version of Sir John Cheke, who had also formerly translated it into Latin.73 What liberties this encouraged them to take in their censures of the first Liturgy, and ceptions it was how far they were instrumental to the laying reviewed and alaside several very primitive and venerable usages, I shall have properer opportunities of shewing hereafter, when I come to treat of the particulars in the body of the book. It will be sufficient here just to note the most considerable additions and alterations that were then made: some of which must be allowed to be good; as especially the addition of the sentences, exhortation, confession, and absolution, at the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book began with the Lord's Prayer. The other changes were the removing of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book; such as the use of oil in Upon whose ex tered. 72 Second and third of Edward VI. chap. i. 73 Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 210. baptism; the unction of the sick; prayers for souls departed, both in the Communion-office, and in that for the burial of the dead; the leaving out the invocation of the Holy Ghost in the consecration of the Eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that was used to follow it; the omitting the rubric, that ordered water to be mixed with wine, with several other less material variations. The habits also, that were prescribed by the former book, were ordered by this to be laid aside; and, lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion-office to explain the reason of kneeling at the Sacrament. The book thus revised and altered was again confirmed firmed by Act of in parliament A. D. 1551, who declared, that the alterations that were made in it proceeded from Both which Acts curiosity rather than any worthy cause. But were repealed by both this and the former act made in 1548, were repealed in the first year of queen Mary, as not being agreeable to the Romish superstition, which she was resolved to restore. And again con Parliament. Q. Mary. But the second book of K. Edestablished in the reign of Q. Eliza ward was again But upon the accession of queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was reversed; and, in order to the restoring of the English service, several learned divines were appointed to take another review of king Edward's Liturgies, and to frame from them both a book for the use of the Church of England. The names of those who, Mr. Camden 74 says, were employed, are these that follow: beth. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely. Dr. May. Dr. Bill. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham. Mr. David Whitehead. Mr. Edmund Grindall, afterwards bishop of London, and then archbishop of Canterbury. 75 To these, Mr. Strype says,' were added Dr. Edwin Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester, and Mr. Edward Guest, a very learned man, who was afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury, almoner to the queen, and bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of Salisbury. And this last person, Mr. Strype thinks, had the main care of the whole business; being, as he supposes, recommended by Parker to supply his absence. It was debated 74 In his History of Q. Elizabeth. 75 Strype's Annals of Q. Elizabeth, p. 82, 83. 76 at first, which of the two books of king Edward should be received; and secretary Cecil sent several queries to Guest, concerning the reception of some particulars in the first book; as prayers for the dead, the prayer of consecration, the delivery of the sacrament into the mouth of the communicant, &c." But however, the second book of king Edward was pitched upon as the book to be proposed to the parliament to be established, who accordingly passed and commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other, or otherwise. The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out a rough expression, viz. from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, which was a part of the last deprecation in both the books of king Edward; and the adding those words to the first petition for the queen, strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life, which were not in before. The two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament were these, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee; or the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee; preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life: which were taken out of king Edward's first book, and were the whole forms then used: whereas in the second book of that king, these sentences were left out, and in the room of them were used, take, eat, or drink this, with what follows; but now in queen Elizabeth's book both these forms were united. Though, besides these here mentioned, there are some other variations in this book from the second of king Edward, viz. the first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel and the proper place of reading divine service, was altered; the habits enjoined by the first book of king Edward, and forbid by the second, were now restored. At the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the queen, and another for the clergy. And lastly, the rubric that was added at the end of the Communion-office, in the second book of king Edward VI., against the notion of our Lord's real and essential presence in the holy Sacrament, was left out of this. For it 76 Strype, ut supra. And some al king James I. being the queen's design to unite the nation in one faith, it was therefore recommended to the divines to see that there should be no definition made against the aforesaid notion, but that it should remain as a speculative opinion not determined, in which every one was left to the freedom of his own mind. And in this state the Liturgy continued withterations made in out any further alteration, till the first year of it in the reign of king James I., when, after the conference at Hampton Court, between that prince with archbishop Whitgift of Canterbury, and other bishops and divines, on the one side; and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans, on the other, there were some forms of thanksgiving added at the end of the Litany, and an addition made to the Catechism concerning the sacraments; the Catechism before that time ending with the answer to that question which immediately follows the Lord's prayer. And in the rubric in the beginning of the Office for private baptism, the words lawful minister were inserted, to prevent midwives or laymen from presuming to baptize, with one or two more small alterations. And in this state it continued to the time of book again re- king Charles II., who, immediately after his viewed after the restoration, at the request of several of the Restoration. Presbyterian ministers, was willing to comply to another review, and therefore issued out a commission, dated March 25, 1661, to empower twelve of the bishops, and twelve of the Presbyterian divines, to consider of the objections raised against the Liturgy, and to make such reasonable and necessary alterations as they should jointly agree upon: nine assistants on each side being added to supply the place of any of the twelve principals who should happen to be abThe names of them are as follow: And the whole sent. On the Episcoparian side. Principals. Dr. Fruen, archb. of York. On the Presbyterian side. Dr. Reynolds, bp. of Norwich. *I do not meet with this name either in the copy of the commission that was printed in 1661, in the account of the proceedings of the Commissioners, or in that copy of it which Dr. Nichols has printed at the end of his preface to his book upon the Common Prayer; nor in that which Mr. Collier gives us in his Ecclesiastical History. But Mr. Baxter inserts it in the copy of the commission that he has printed a Vol. ii. p. 876. These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but all to very little purpose: the Presbyterians heaping together all the old scruples that the Puritans had for above a hundred years been raising against the Liturgy, and, as if they were not enough, swelling the number of them with many new ones of their own. To these, one and all, they demand compliance on the Church side, and will hear of no contradiction even in the minutest circumstances. But the completest piece of assurance was the behaviour of Baxter, who (though the king's commission gave them no further power, than to compare the Common Prayer Book with the most ancient Liturgies that had been used in the Church, in the most primitive and purest times; requiring them to avoid, as much as possible, all unnecessary alterations of the Forms and Liturgy wherewith the people were altogether acquainted, and had so long received in the Church of England) would not so much as allow that our Liturgy was capable of amendment, but confidently pretended to compose a new one of his own; and, without any regard to any other Liturgy whatsoever, either modern or ancient, amassed together a dull, tedious, crude, in the narrative of his own life, and Dr. Nichols mentions him in his introduction to his Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England: and there are not twelve principal Commissioners on the Church side without him: and therefore I suppose he was left out of the copy of the commission in 1661, by the printer's mistake, and that from thence Dr. Nichols and Mr. Collier might continue the omission. Page 303. |