YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY a HISTOEY Sfk ^aak af (CjOfimmm §rapr OTHER BOOKS OF AUTHORITY; AN ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE RUBRICS AND CANONS HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND OBSERVED FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. AN ACCOUNT OF THE STATE OF RELIGION AND EELIGIOTJS PARTIES IN ENGLAND FROM 1640 TO 1660.; EEV. THOMAS LATHBUEY, M.A., hi AtTTIIOB OJ "A HISTOET OF THE CONVOCATION," "A HISTOEY OI" THE K02TJVEOHS," &C. SECOND EDITION. "The Manual of Prayers, or til Primer in English, set out at lengA &c. Set forth by John, late Bishop B Rochester, &c. Imprinted 1 539." Tliori were several editions. In 1857 a cod of Hilsey 's Primer, wanting the titl was sold at Sotheby's, which U cm different from the ordinary cditioM The size is smaller, and the Alumna! instead of seventeen years, as iu itj common copies, is made only for tweffl years. The edition was apparcu|| unknown to all bibliographers. with tlie Rubrics and Canons. 7 historians of the Reformation, who generally ascribe its early progress to the circulation of the editions of the Holy Scrip tures, forgetting that the Bible was too expensive to be pos sessed by the common people. It was indeed a great work to get the Bible translated and circulated, and to the "Word of God the whole success is to be attributed. But the people generally became acquainted with that Word, not by reading the large folios containing the sacred text, but by perusing these small Primers, which were within their reach, and in which they found very considerable portions of the Holy Scriptures. In short, the Word of God became known to the common people through the medium of the copious ex tracts in these Primers. It was a most important step to translate the Holy Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, because many could procure the volume, and read in their own houses the wonderful works of God ; but vast numbers were unable to purchase a book of such magnitude, while these small Primers were accessible to all. I am confident that these small books have not been fully appreciated by our histo rians. In tracing the progress of the Eeformation, it is necessary to bear in mind the minute circumstances which have been detailed. To do so is no detraction from the Word of God. It is rather putting honour upon that Word, since the progress of the Reformation for many years was chiefly owing to the portions of the sacred volume which were em bodied in these manuals of devotion. The compilers of the Book of Common Prayer under Edward VI. followed Hilsey's Primer in the arrangement of the Epistles and Gospels and the selection of festivals. Thrse particulars are not usually regarded, yet they must be con sidered if we wish to trace minutely the first steps of the Reformation. All great and important works spring from small beginnings ; and the hand of God is the more visible in producing such results from apparently insignificant means. I have therefore deemed it necessary to dwell on matters which are generally unnoticed. In 1543 " The Necessary Doctrine" was put forth by royal authority. It is an enlargement, and in some respects a modification, of " The Institution." It is called " The King's 8 The Book of Common Prayer; Book" because it was recommended by his Majesty, though Cranmer and his brethren were principally concerned in its arrangement or compilation. While the book was calculated to further the Reformation, it was yet in some things less unfavourable to certain Romish errors than "The Institu tion !." It may be regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the English Church at that period. Transubstantiation is more pointedly asserted than in "The Institution;" and some other points are determined in a way more favourable to the errors of Rome. In an Act of Parliament relative to books in 1542, called " An Act for the Advancement of True Religion and the Abolishment of the Contrary," there is an allusion to a book about to be published. It states that his Majesty would set forth " a certain forme of pure and sincere Teaching agreeable with God's Word, and the true Doctrine of the Catholick and Apostolick Church." This was the " Ne cessary Doctrine V Burnet appears to have been unac quainted with " The Institution." His statements are very erroneous, and the publication of the " Necessary Doctrine" is assigned to the year 1540, instead of 1543 ^ It was the policy of Rome to celebrate her services in a dead language, so that the common people could only be present as spectators, being unable to join in the worship. Cranmer was long anxious to bring about a change- in this important matter. The Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and tho ¦ Ten Commandments were already read in English in all: churches ; in 1543 certain prayers were appointed during a season of unusual rain; and in 1544 a Porm in English was 1 " A 2fece3sary Doctrine and Erudi tion for any Christian Man, set forth by the King's Majesty of England. «a, London. Berthelet, 1543." Se veral editions appeared the same year. I once possessed three editions, two in 4to. and. one in 8vo., all by Berthelet, and of the same year. This hook was revised and sanctioned by Convocation, though Burnet and Collier assert the contrary. " The Institution" was por tioned ont to various prelates for revi sion,, preparatory to its consideration by the Upper and Lower Houses. Wil kins, iii. 868; Strype's Mem., I. i. 683—590; Lord Herbert, 238; Collier, ii. 191; Burnet, III. i. b. 3. Strypa makes several mistakes about the two hooks. He says the article on Purga- tory was omitted in the "Necessary! Doctrine," whereas it is retained with! some alterations, though under a dif ferent title. Strype also says that nn edition of the Bible was published in; the same year, yet no edition appeared' in this roign after 1541. * Gibson, 346 ; Heylin's Eccles. Res., 19, 20; Todd's Cranmer, i 331 —337. » Burnet, i. 273—279 ; iii. 153. with the Rubrics and Canons. 9 put forth to be used on certain occasions m. It was ordered by the King " because the not understanding the prayers and suffrages formerly used caused that the people came but slackly to the processions." This was a most important step towards the reformation ofthe public offices. To this time the services of the Church were conducted in Latin. They remained unaltered, except that the names of the Pope and certain saints were ordered to be erased from the various offices. But now a step was taken in the right direction by the publication of " The Litany." Prefixed is " An Exhorta tion to Prayer," in which the duty and privilege of address ing God in supplication are stated. Though the Litany thus published did not supersede other services, yet it was to be used on certain occasions, such as fasts and festivals, and in processions, as an additional office ; and thus the people were enabled to join in public worship in their own language. This was an advantage of no ordinary magnitude. After the invocation of the Trinity, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, and all holy patriarchs and prophets are called upon to pray for the worshippers ; but with this exception, and two short prayers before the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, the Litany was adopted in the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The term " Common Prayer" is used in one of the rubrics : it is probably the original of an expression so familiar and so endeared to the members of the Church of England, as characteristic of that book which belongs as much to the people as to the minister : — " It is thought con venient in this Common Prayer of Procession to have it set forth and used in the vulgar tongue for stirring the people to more devotion." Here, then, was the first use of our pre sent Litany in English. In the Primers already described a Litany, containing some similar petitions, had appeared. A Litany, therefore, had been used privately since the year 1535 ; and the people must have welcomed the new form in the churches with feelings of joy and gratitude. Silently the doctrines of the Eeformation, which were the doctrines of the Primitive Church, advanced among the people, first by the Primers, then by the Litany and Prayers in all churches. - >» ^yiitiu^ ;;;. 869. 10 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; The book was circulated in every diocese by royal authority. The translator was Cranmer himself, as we learn from a letter addressed to his Majesty : — " I. have translated into the English tongue, as well as I could in so short a time, certain Processions to be used upon festival days D." During the next year, 1545, another Primer was put forth by royal authority, though there is little doubt that Cranmer was principally concerned in its arrangement and publication. In this book, the previous Litany was inserted without altera tion ; and, with the exception of three clauses of Invocation of the Virgin, the Angels, and the Patriarchs, and a few collects, is the same as in the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The Litany, therefore, may be regarded as an ex pression of the views of Cranmer at this time. This Primer of 1545 is quite a different book from the two preceding works. All three are independent books, and each has its peculiarities °. * "An Exhortation unto Prayer, thought meet by the King's Majesty and his Clergy to be read to the People in every Parish afore Processions. Also a Litany, with Suffrages, to be said or sung in the time of Processions. Lon- don,1544." The most singularmistakes have been made hy various writers about this book. Thus Nichols (Pre face) says the Litany for Wednesdays and Fridays was published some time after the Primer of 1545. Le Strange appears not to have been aware of the book, as he speaks only of the Litany as it stands in the Primer of 1545. Le Strangefs Alliance, 26. Burnet's mis take is very remarkable. He says, " To this are added some Services of devo tion, called Psalms, which are collected out of several parts of Scripture, but chiefly the Psalms. Then follows a Paraphrase on tho Lord's Prayer." Burnet, vol. Hi. i64. Bun.et -was thinking of some other hook, since in this there are no such passages as he describes, nor any paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer. Neal made the same assertion; which was corrected by Ma dox, who says, "No Psalms or Para phrase. There are two editions in St. John's Library, Cambridge, one printed in' 1544, the other in 1546." Madox's Review, 300. In his review of Madox, Neal contents himself with saying, " On the contrary, Bishop Burnet ex pressly says, ' To this are added,' " &c. Meal's Review, 70. Neal did not take the trouble to examine the subject in order to correct his error, but insinu ated that Burnet was more likely to be correct than Bishop Madox. The authority of a writer who can thus deal with evidence is not worth much. Madox told him where the book could be found, yet he would not take tho trouble to examine it. This strange error is retained in Toulmin's edition of Neal without any remark. Grey's Review, 78,79; Neal's Puritans, by Toulmin, i. 32. Strype had not seen the form. ° These three Primers, namely, of 1535, 1539, and 1545, have seldom been properly distinguished. Fre quently they have been taken to be different editions of the same work. Into this error Mr. Massinherg has fallen in his history. Mr. Todd appears to have laboured under the same mis take. " Not n year," says he of this Primer of 1535, "hardly afterwards elapsed for a long time without the re-appearance of this book." Todd's Cranmer, i. 128. ivun mo ±iv.urws and Canons. 11 These various books were circulated during the latter por tion of the reign of Henry VIIL, and they mark the progress of the Reformation at that period. The Bible also was circu lated ; but, from its size and consequent costliness, few of the common people could have procured a copy. On the con trary, the Primers, or Manuals of Prayer, were generally accessible. The Sarum Primer had prepared the people for prayers in their own language ; and the chapters and por tions of chapters from the sacred volume contained in these Manuals must have caused an anxiety on the part of many to know still more of God's Holy Word. They were led to peruse the whole Bible whenever it could be procured. The great Bible was placed in churches, in order that the com mon people might resort thither for its perusal. Yet still the circulation of the Primers prepared the people for the reception of the Bible. In short, the importance of these small works in promoting the Reformation can scarcely be overrated. CHAPTER II. HENRY VIII. — EDWARD VI. — CEANMEE. — EEEOEMATION. — APOSTOLICAL DISCI PUNE. — CAUTIOUS PEOC'-TOxTNGS. — INJUNCTIONS. — CEEED, LOED'S PRAYER, &C. DISCUSSIONS PROHIBITED. — CBANMER'S VIEWS— IMAGES.— CONTROVEB- gIEg. PROCLAMATION. — ORDER OE COMMUNION. — OEDEE OE MATRIMONY PSALTER, 1548— CEANMEE'S VISITATION. — HOMILIES, 1547.— rEEAOIIEES.— INJUNCTIONS. — PREACHING RESTRAINED. ffNRY was an unconscious instrument in the hand of God in severing the bonds of our thraldom to Rome. The work was promoted to a considerable extent in spite of his prejudices; for though he struck the first blow at the Papacy by his renunciation of the Supremacy, yet he relin quished none of the other doctrines of the Church of Rome. Still the cause of the Reformation was advanced by his in strumentality, even though personally he adhered to the views in which he had been nurtured. The consequences of his movement against the Pope were not foreseen by himself. 12 The Book of Common Prayer; He was absorbed in, one object — the divorce— when his oppo sition commenced ; and he had no intention of renouncing the doctrines oi the Church, though he resisted the Pope. All things were, however, mercifully overruled to the ac complishment of an end which the monarch never contem plated. While he himself retained the errors of Rome, he permitted the circulation of books which tended to destroy the power and influence of the Papacy. Though at the time of his death he was not inclined to renounce doctrines which he had long cherished, yet he had done enough to prepare the publio mind for greater changes, and to render the work easy of accomplishment under his successor. The history of this reign, more than almost any other in our annals, shews -how God frequently uses the most improbable instruments for the accomplishment of His purposes11. King Henry died on the 27th of January, 1547. Cranmer became the chief adviser of Edward. The Archbishop's views had been modified oh various subjects, — yet still he maintained some of the peculiar doctrines of Rome. Cran mer was naturally timid and cautious ; but on principle, he wished only to cast off the additions which Rome, during many ages, had introduced. A reformation of abuses he anxiously desired ; and his view of a reformation was simply a return to the doctrines and practices of the primitive Church. He knew that the destruction of the government and discipline of the Church would not be a reformation. Thus he proceeded with prudence. Nothing was carelessly or hastily undertaken or rejected ; and he deemed it better to permit matters to remain as they were for a season, than rashly to rush upon changes, the consequences of which no one could foresee. To Cranmer's wisdom we are mainly in debted for the preservation of the apostolic government and discipline in our Church. Under other circumstances, our Reformation might have been conducted on different v It has been well remarked of Henry and some of his courtiers who concurred in the cominencemeut of the Eeformation, that tlxey were Pa- pl'ts : — "So that how good or bad soever the proceedings of that reign were, the Reformed Church of England is not entitled to the honour or dis honour of it."— A Brief History of England, in Svo., 1748, p. 184. This work was written hy Lindsay, a Non juror. It is a rare book. with the Rubrics and Canons. 13 principles; and a mistaken zeal for purity of doctrine might have led men less wise to sacrifice the apostolic government of the Church. Our gratitude is due espe cially to the memory of Archbishop Cranmer for the pre servation of episcopacy in the Church of England i. At first, matters were permitted to remain in the state in which they stood at the time of Henry's death. The services of the Church were conducted in the same way; no doctrines were formally rejected, no practices were pub licly renounced. At length some corrupt practices were prohibited. Injunctions were issued by royal authority, in which several practices were condemned, though no doctrine, with the exception of that of the Supremacy, was assailed. Against the Supremacy the clergy were enjoined to make a public declaration four times every year. Images, relics, miracles, and pilgrimages were to be no longer extolled ; a sermon was ordered in all churches, at least each quarter; images, which had been abused by superstition, were to be destroyed; the Pater-noster, the Creed, and the Ten Com mandments were to be read in English ; the Bible to be set up in every Church, with the Paraphrase of Erasmus ; all lights, with the exception of two on the high altar, were pro hibited ; and in confession, persons were to be examined in the Articles of the Eaith. The practices condemned were connected with certam erroneous doctrines which had been gradually introduced into the Church; and by this prohi bition of the practices the doctrines were virtually censured, though not formally or expressly renounced. Unimportant, therefore, as these Injunctions may now appear to some per sons, they were of the utmost importance at the time, for they prepared the way for further and more extensive alter ations. When a doctrine was assailed through a practice, the public faith was shaken in that doctrine, and its rejec tion easily followed11. i " Knowing the constitution of this Church, he could not but discern that, as it cast put all the errors and super stitions of the Church of Rome ; so no intemperate zeal, nor any necessity o£ affairs, caused it to throw out, together villi them, that apostolical govern ment and those rites which h;f I. been of constant use with the whole Church, in all places and times." — Lives ot Pa- cock, Pearce, and Newton, i. 49. ' " Injunctions geven by tho moste excellent Prince Edward the Sixtc, &c., to all and singular liis loving 14 The Book of Common Prayer ; The first change in the mode of conducting divine service was the order to read the Epistle and Gospel in every mass in English. This was a change of great importance, not as affecting any doctrine, but as still further making known the Word of God to the people. No other change was in troduced at this time. On the contrary, by these very In junctions a restraint is imposed upon the clergy : — "No per son shall from henceforth alter or change the order and man ner of any Fasting-day that is commanded, or of Common Prayer or Divine Service, otherwise than is specified in these Injunctions, until such time as the same shall be otherwise ordered and transposed by the King's authority3." Yet very soon, some persons began openly and publicly to discuss the questions connected with the Lord's Supper. The doctrine of Transubstantiation was by some broadly stated; by others it was assailed. To keep matters quiet until an order could be devised, a proclamation was issued in the King's name. He states " that some of his subjects, not contented with such words and terms as Scripture doth de clare thereof, do not cease to move contentious and super fluous questions of the said holy Sacrament, entering rashly into the discussion of the high mystery thereof, and go about in their sermons or talks arrogantly to define the manner, nature, fashion, ways, possibility or impossibility of those matters; which neither make to edification, nor God hath by His holy Word opened." Both the defenders and the opponents of Transubstantiation are evidently intended in the proclamation. Thus it is stated that persons, not con tent with the words of Scripture, " Search and strive unre- Subjects. R. Grafton, 1547." The au- thority of these Injunctions has some times been questioned; yet they were in force throughout this reign, and were referred to as obligatory in that of Elizabeth. By the act ofthe Sist of Henry VIII. a royal proclamation, or order; was invested with the same authority as an Act of Parliament. The act, indeed, was repealed in Ed ward's first year, hut not until after the Injunctions were issued ; and in a royal letter subsequent to tho repealing enactment, they are specified as binding. As they were not men tioned in the Act of Eepeal, they could not have been touched by it; and be sides the Parliamentary, they also had the authority of the Crown. By the Injunctions to Winton College in 1547, the scholars were confined to the use of the King's Pri mer, either in English or in Latin. They were also allowed to take one Bible from the choir of the Church for use in the College. Pour Bibles were placed in the Church by royal authority. Wilkins, iv. 9. with the Rubrics and Canons. 15 verently, whether the body and blood aforesaid is there really or figuratively, locally or circumscriptly, and having quantity and greatness, or but substantially and by sub stance only, or els but in a figure and manner of speaking." To check such discussions it is said, " For reformation thereof, the King's Highness willeth and commandeth, that no per son from henceforth do in anywise contentiously and openly argue, dispute, preach, or teach, affirming any more terms of the said blessed Sacrament than be expressly taught in Holy Scripture." It is ordered that all " should take that holy Bread to be Christ's Body, and that Cup to be the cup of His holy Blood, and accommodate themselves rather to take the same Sacrament worthily, than rashly to enter into the dis cussing of the high mystery thereof." By some persons the Sacrament had been called an idol; and the proclamation ordains that any one " who should revile, contemn, or despise the said Sacrament by calling it an idol, or other such vile name, shall incur the King's high indignation, or suffer im prisonment '." At this time Cranmer held the Lutheran notion on the Lord's Supper ; nor did he ever relinquish his opinions of a real Presence. The proclamation was intended to prevent discussion and controversy. It was dated December 27, nearly a year after Edward's accession ; yet no changes in the public services had yet been introduced beyond those already specified. Some of the clergy were disposed to press forward with more zeal than was approved by the Archbishop, whose judgment they despised, and whose cautious proceedings they mistook. He acted wisely, though he was regarded with suspicion. On the 24th of February, 1547-8, an order was issued for the removal of images from churches". This was more than a year after Edward's accession. Still it was difficult to prevent discussions, and to check innovations in the public worship. Some of the clergy, dis liking the cautious proceedings of the Archbishop, were anxious to proceed in their own way, and innovate in those things of which they disapproved. On February the 6th, • Wilkins, iv. 18. u Wilkins, iv. 22. 16 The Book of Common Prayer; 1547-8, the commencement of Edward's second year, a pro clamation was issued, which clearly exhibits the appearances and varieties then witnessed in different churches. After stating that nothing tended so much to " the disquieting of the realm as diversity of opinions and variety of rites and ceremonies," it intimates that the King was endeavouring to "direct this Church and the cure committed to his High ness in one and most true doctrine, rite, and usage." It states that some persons, lay and clerical, in divers churches attempted, "not only to persuade the people from the old and accustomed rites and ceremonies, but also themselves bring in new orders, every one in their church, according to their fantasies." It is therefore enjoined "that no person "do omit, leave undone, change, alter, or innovate any order, rite, or ceremony commonly used and frequented in the Church of England, and not commanded to be left un done at any time in the reign of our late Father, other than such as his Highness, by his Majesty's visitors, injunctions, statutes, or proclamations hath already, or hereafter shall command to be omitted, left, innovated, or changed"." Nothing can more manifestly shew the progress of the Reformation than these royal proclamations. Edward had now been on the throne nearly thirteen months ; yet, with the exception of certain practices prohibited by the Injunc tions, and the addition of the Epistle and Gospel in EngHsh, all things continued as in the preceding reign. This tardi ness was unpalatable to many who were anxious to pull down before any platform of Church-government, or any order of service, was ready to be substituted for those which were to be removed. Meanwhile, Cranmer was not inactive. His own opinions were gradually changing on several sub jects. He did not wish to destroy, but to reform and restore ; and to his wise policy we are indebted for our Liturgy, which is consonant with the primitive forms. At the very time when some men manifested such impatience, the Archbishop and the rest of the Reformers were occupied in preparing " the Order of Communion." As the mass had been more corrupted than any other service, that office was first re- - Wilkins, iv. 21. wiik the Rubrics and Canons. 17 viewed by tho Reformers. The result was the issuing of "The Order of Communion." The publication of this book was the first step in the re formation of the public services; the other forms, as the Litany and Prayers, being additions. It was set forth on the 8th of March, 1547-8, by royal proclamation. Innovations had been practised by some of the clergy since the King's accession, which could not easily be prevented. This Order was intended to remove the chief objections to the service of the Mass ; for it restored the cup to the laity. In the pro clamation prefixed to the book, it is stated that the Parlia ment had decided that the Sacrament should be administered in both kinds to all. By the same proclamation persons were prohibited from following their own fancies: — "Willing all our loving subjects to stay and quiet themselves with our direc tion as men content to follow authority and not enterprising to run afore, and so by their rashness become the greatest hinderers of such things as they more arrogantly than godly would seem most wholly to set forward." An intimation is also given that other things would be redressed in due time, according to God's Word. Thus two most important steps were taken: — First, tho Sacrament was now administered in both kinds; secondly, the service, after tho priest had communicated, was to be continued in English according to this Order. The Latin service was to be used until the priest's reception of the Elements: — "The time of the Communion shall be imme diate! v after that the priest hath received the Sacrament, without varying any other rite or ceremony in the Mass (until other Order shall be provided) ; but as heretofore usually the priest hath done with the Sacrament of the body, to prepare, bless, and consecrate so much as will serve the people, so it shall continue still after the same manner and form, save that he shall bless and consecrate the biggest chalice, or some fair and convenient cup or cups full of wine, with some water put into it ; and that day not drink it up all himself, but taking one only sup or draught, leave the rest upon the altar covered, and turn to them that are dis- AM. c 18 The Book of Common Prayer ; posed to be partakers of the Communion, and shall thus exhort them as followeth." The office of the Mass, therefore, ended with the Com munion of the priest; then the newly-published Order was introduced, and the service proceeded in English, concluding with the blessing, as at present. On the 13th of .March letters were addressed to the bishops by the Council, requiring them to cause copies of the book to be delivered to the clergy for use at the ensuing Easter. Some, both bishops and priests, were lukewarm in the work; so that the Order was not universally observed Y. Again there was a pause in the work, and for another year the worship of the Church, with the exception of the Order of Communion, was permitted to remain unaltered, to the annoyance of such as were anxious to reform after the man ner of various foreign Churches. Our Reformers were wiser, and proceeded with caution and deliberation: and the ad vantages of their plan are now experienced in the enjoyment of our Book of Common Prayer, while other Churches are tossed about with perpetual variations. No other service was yet altered : at all events, we havo no record of any changes. Individuals were not deterred, however, from introducing unauthorized forms; and there are two printed forms of this reign which probably received some sanction, though no record of the fact exists. " The Order of Matrimony" was printed in'1547 or early in 1548. The book is without date; yet it must have been printed early in the reign, because it recognises marriage as a sacra ment. It would seem that this office was an addition to tho Marriage Service, as the Order of Communion was to tho Mass. It may have been allowed; and probably such was the case, as the book was printed by Scoloker, who was not r Heylin's Eccles. Ees., 59. Tho order alludes to the Act of Parliament for the Communion in both kinds; and then proceeds to state, that sun dry prelates had assembled, "who after long conference together have with deliberate advice finally agreed upon such an order to bo used in all places in the distribution of the said most holy Sacrament as may appear to you by the book thereof, which wo send herewith unto you." — Wilkins, iv. 31, 32. with the Rubrics and Canons. 19 engaged in putting forth books without authority. But whe ther authorized or not, there can be little doubt of its use in some chiuches. That innovations were connived at, we know from the first Act of Uniformity. It states distinctly that different forms had been adopted since Edward's accession : — "Of late divers and sundry forms and fashions have been used in the cathedral and parish churches of England and Wales, as well containing the Mattins, or Morning Prayer, and the Evensong, as concerning the Holy Communion, and in the administration of other Sacraments of the Church." This statement, made in the year 1549, affords a picture of the period after Edward's accession. The Act states that the king had, without success, attempted to check the inno vations; and that he had borne with the weakness of his subjects in the belief that fhey had acted with a good zeal." It is distinctly stated that various unauthorized forms were used ; that, such as adopted them were greatly pleased, while others were as much offended ; and that to impose a check upon such diversities the Book of Common Prayer was set forth in 1549. The Act therefore proves the previous use of some unauthorized forms, and shews that the government was not disposed to interfere even to enforce its own proclama tions : — " Those that liked not any of these popish forms used other English forms as their fancies led them. By that Act all those who had of their own wills used other forms or innovations were pardoned2." " The Order of Matrimony a " consists of an address to tho persons about to be married, and was probably used in ad dition to the service in the Manual. The book is curious as an illustration of the means adopted by some of the clergy from Edward's accession to the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The Act of Uniformity alludes to forms used for " the other Sacraments." Marriage was re garded as a Sacrament at this time; and it is so regarded in 1 Strype's Memorials, II. i. 132—34. • "The Order of Matrimony, by Anthony Scoloker, dwelling in the Savoy Kentes. Cum Frivilegio ad., Sec Imprinted at London." The only known copy of this work is now in tbe Bodleian Library. It was discovered by myself about twenty years ago. Ihe title is given by Herbert, whose description is merely transcribed by Dibdin and Lowndes. Neither had seen a copy. Its contents were quite unknown to all preceding writers On our Eeformation. c2 20 The Book of Common Prayer; " the Order." The book has the usual royal license for print ing. In those days no book coidd safely be printed without such license ; and it does not appear that Scoloker was ever called in question for printing without authority. The exist ence of such a book, therefore, is a strong presumption that in some way the book was privately allowed, though not openly authorized. The book itself appears to have been unknown until I directed attention to it in a former work. The other printed form of this reign which probably received some sanction from authority is "a Psalter." The existence of such a book was not known until within a few years, when a copy was purchased at a sale in the country, and is now in the British Museum. The volume contains the whole of the Psalms; several canticles from various portions ofthe sacred volume ; " the Songe of Augustin and Ambrose ; the Crede of Doctor Athanasius ;" and then " the Letani and Suffrages." After the prayer, " We humbly beseeche Thee," &c, are the prayers, "O God, whose nature and property," &c, and " Al- myghty and Everlasting God, whych only workest great mar vels ;" and then the two prayers as in the Litany of 1544. Two other prayers follow : " a prayer for men to saye entring into battayle," and "a prayer for the king." The book, therefore, comprises the Psalter, and the Litany of ,154k The Litany was used in the reign of Henry VIIL, and was ordered to be used by Edward YT. The volume does not contain any other prayers, and consequently was not the foundation of the Book of Common Prayer. The invocations of the Yirgin Mary, the angels, patriarchs, and prophets, arc retained as in the Litany of 1541, and also the petition for Queen Catherine. It was a prayer for " the increase of all godlynesse, honoure, and children." In 1544, perhaps, the latter part of the petition was not strange; but in 1518 it was singular that the clause should bo retained, as she was then married to an English nobleman. One petition of tho Suffrages is new :— " That it may please Thee to preserve the Lady Mary's Grace, the Lady Elizabeth's Grace, and the Lord Protector's Grace \" Though, therefore, such a book »"ThePsalter,orBokcofthePsalmes, I certayne other devout Prayers- set whereunto is added the Letany and | forth with the Kingcs moste gracious with the Rubrics and Canons. 21 was not until lately known to be in existence, yet it is evi dent, as the work was set forth by royal license, that the Litany was intended to be publicly used in churches accord ing to the practice of the latter part of the preceding reign. The Injunctions of 1547 enjoin the use ofthe Litany already set forth, which was that of 1544, and this is simply a reprint with the addition of the petition for the Princesses. As we have positive evidence of the use of various unautho rized forms, both of Morning and Evening Prayer and for certain Sacraments, during the period between Edward's ac cession and the publication of the Book- of Common Prayer, and as these books were printed by due authority, it is rea sonable to infer that they were allowed to be put forth, in order to satisfy the strong desire which was experienced by vast numbers, even though no record has been found of their recognition either by the king or council. The printing was fully authorized ; yet as all the services were to be reformed, it may not have been considered desirable to impose these books, but rather to leave individuals to adopt or decline them, as their own inclinations might dictate. At all events, these two books must have been of essential service in pre paring the people for the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. They were precursors of the Prayer-book. As such they must be regarded with special interest ; and the more so, that even their existence was unknown to all our writers concerning these times. These details evince the anxiety and the diligence of our Reformers in restoring the worship, as well as the doctrines of the Church, to their primitive purity. In the year 1548 Cranmer held a visitation in the diocese of Canterbury, und the Articles of Inquiry enable us to form a judgment of the progres*i*t)f the Reformation. These Arti cles are founded on the royal Injunctions of the preceding year, though there are allusions to some other matters. It is clear from them that the Litany was in general use. It is inquired — " Whether they do not every Sunday and Holy- day, with the Collects of the English Procession, say the lycense. Anno Domini mdxlviii. I hy me Eoger Car, for Anfhoni Smyth, Mentis Julii. Imprinted at London | dwellying in Paules Churchyarde." 22 The Book of Common Prayer; prayer set forth by the King's Majesty for peace between England and Scotland?" The Procession was the Litany. Another inquiry relates to "the Pater-noster, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments," and whether they were recited when there was no sermon; also, whether the Epistle and Gospel were read in English. On every Sunday and Holy- day a chapter from the New Testament was ordered to be read in English, " immediately after the Lessons; and at Even song after Magnificat one chapter of the Old Testament." The Archbishop asks also, " whether they have the Procession- book," namely, the Litany, in English, and have said or sung the said Litany in any other place but upon their knees in the midst of the church ; and whether they use any other Procession, or omit the said Litany at any time, or say it or eing it in such sort as the people cannot understand the same? It must be borne in mind, while the consideration of this period is under review, that no further alterations in the public services had been made besides those already described. The books in use in the reign of Henry still remained c- New impressions were not put forth ; for the changes which had been made were only additions to the existing forms, not substitutions. Nothing was superseded except the latter portion of the office of the Mass by the Order of Communion. Certain erasures were ordered in the offices, but the offices were retained. In this visitation of 1548, Cranmer asks, " whether they have put out of their Church-books this word Papa, and the name and service of Thomas Becket, and prayers having rubrics containing pardons or indulgences, and all other superstitious legends and prayers." The Primers were intended for the private use of the laity; and at this time, that of 1545, by King Henry, was commanded to be used. In these Articles it is inquired, " whether they that understand not the Latin do pray upon any Primer but tho English Primer, set forth by the King's Majestie's authority." The Articles also refer to the Order of Communion : " whe ther they minister the Communion any other way than only c "The old Mass-books, Breviaries, I without new impressions."— Gibson and other Eituals did still serve 25'J. ' with the Rubrics and Canons. 23 after such form and manner as is set forth by the King's Majesty in the Book ofthe Communion d." The First Book of Homilies was published in 1547. It is well known, since it remains almost unaltered. In the above Articles we find an inquiry respecting its use. All these pro ceedings evince great anxiety on the part of the Reformers for the purity of the Church, as well as for the welfare of the people. At the same time, they were desirous of preventing innovations without authority. Some of the clergy were with difficulty restrained. Their zeal outstripped their pru dence. Lacking the wisdom of the Reformers, they mis took their proceedings and misrepresented some of their measures. Thus it became necessary to impose a restraint on the pulpits, or the misdirected zeal of some would have led them into many deviations from the general practice, and have destroyed the uniformity of public worship. In the first year of Edward's reign, licenses were allowed to preachers under certain restrictions. Some abused the pri vileges thus conceded ; and therefore in the second year of that reign a letter was issued in May by the Council to such as held the licenses, who were requested to avoid innovations : " That in no wise you do stir and provoke the people to any alteration or innovation other than is already set forth by the King's Majesty's Injunctions, Homilies, and Proclamations. And straitly rebuking those, who of an arrogancy and proud hastiness will take upon them to run before they be sent, to go before the rulers, to alter aud change things in religion without authority, teaching them to respect and tarry the time which God hath ordained to the revealing of all truth, and not to seek so long blindly and hidlings after it till they bring all orders into contempt e." In the injunctions issued for the Deanery of Duncastre the Litany was enjoined: — "You shall every day that an high Mass is said or sung at the high altar, before the same Mass J Wilkins, iv. 23—26. <= Wilkins, iv. 27, 28. The letter reminds the preachers how far they were to go. " What is abolished, taken away, reformed and commanded, it is easy to see by the Acts of Parliament, the Injunctions, Proclamations, and Homilies. In other things which be not yet touched it behoveth him to think, that cither the Prince did allqw them or else suffer them, and in these it is the part of a godly man not to think himself wiser than the King's Majesty and his Council, but patiently to expect and conform himself thereto." 24 The Book of Common Prayer; read openly in your churches the English Suffrages." In these same Injunctions some of the customs observed in churches were explained or interpreted in a way to avoid superstition. When the holy water was sprinkled, the priest was to say, "Remember Christ's Blood-shedding, by the which most holy sprinkling of all your sins you have free pardon." Before the distribution of the holy Bread, accord ing to a common custom, these words were to be used : — " Of Christ's Body this is a token, which on the Cross for our sins was broken : wherefore of his death if you will be partakers, of vice and sin you must be forsakers." We have this order also : — " The clerk shall bring down the Pax, and standing without the church door shall say boldly to the people, This is a token of joyful peace which is betwixt God and mens conscience: Christ alone is the peacemaker, which straitly commands peace between brother and brother. So long as ye use these ceremonies, so long shall ye use these significations'." The last sentence is an evident allusion to the work then in progress, the Book of Common Prayer, which superseded all the former Offices. Till that work was completed, the cere monies remained without alteration ; but some of them were thus explained to prevent abuses. During the same year, 1548, in the month of September, in consequence of the indiscretion of some ministers, all preaching was prohibited by royal proclamation, until the Book of Common Prayer should be ready for use : — " His Highness minding to see very shortly one uniform order throughout this his realm, and to put an end to all contro versies in religion (for which cause at this time certain bishops and notable men by his Highness commandment are congregated), hath thought good, until such order shall be set forth generally, to inhibit as well the said preachers so before licensed, as all manner of persons whosoever they be, to preach in open audience e." At present, therefore, the Homilies only were to be used in churches. The Reformers were now employed in arranging and preparing the Book of Common Prayer ; and in the ensuing March the book was published. Wilkins, iv. 29. * WUkins, iv. 30. with the Rubrics and Canons. 2-ii CHAPTER III. PEXTDENCE OE EEEOEMEES. — MEEITS OP THE BOOK OE COMMON PEATEE.— SUE- EEEINOS TOE IT. — FIEST BOOK, 1549 EDITIONS. — TWO LIGnTS. — EECEPIION OE THE BOOK. — BONNEB. — BOOKS CALLED IN. — AETICLES PBOHIBITINO CEHE- 1I0NIES. — PLTEITAN OPPONENTS.— EUCHAEIST CONTEOVEHSY. — BTTCEE. — EEYI- SION OE THE BOOK. — ALTEEATIONS. — BOOK OE 1552.— CUSTOMS. — AETICLES, 1553. — PEIMEES. — CONEOEMITY.— ANABAPTISTS. — CEANMEE NO EEASTIAN. — DEATH OE EDWAED. — MAEY. — PEAYEB-BOOK SUPPBESSED. We have now described the state of religion from Edward's accession to the commencement of the year 1519. The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was published on the seventh of March, 1548-9. Edward had been on the throne more than two years : during that period the books which had been used in the reign of Henry were retained, with certain erasures ; and the other books, which have been already described, were added as supplemental to the exist ing services. From the preceding evidence it will be clear that the Book of Common Prayer was not compiled in haste, though such a charge is not unfrequently made by persons who are igno rant of the particulars, which have been minutely detailed in the preceding chapter. Neither were its framers unversed in Church history, or unacquainted with the Liturgies of the primitive ages, or superficial in their knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. They were men of more knowledge, piety, and zeal than usual ; and some of them sealed the truth in their blood, and testified in favour of the doctrines embodied in the Book of Common Prayer even in the flames. Though the io-norance of later times has led many to depreciate our Prayer-book, the Reformers were ready to sacrifice their lives in its defence ; a fact which its revilers would do well to remember. It was no hasty performance of unlearned men : more than two years were occupied in its preparation. From the commencement of the reign, it was the intention of the Council to effect a full and complete reformation, both in doctrines and in ceremonies. But the Reformers well knew the importance of the work. They were aware that constant 26 The Book of Common Prayer ; changes would be prejudicial to the cause of truth : hence it was that the indiscreet zeal of some was repressed, and that preaching was prohibited. The unwearied labours of the Reformers — their unbiassed judgment, so evident from their proceedings — may be pleaded in favour of the Book of Com mon Prayer against those charges which are sometimes al leged by persons who, in learning, in wisdom, in zeal, and in devotion to God's cause, are not to be compared with those great men by whom our public Liturgy was compiled from the Holy Scriptures and from the primitive offices. To tho modern advocates of revision and alterations it is sufficient to reply, that the large majority of Churchmen are content with the Book as it now stands, regarding it as a legacy from our venerable Reformers. Of the first Book of Common Prayer, by which all the ofiices which had been in use in the Church during the two years of Edward's reign were removed, several editions were put forth in the months of March, May, June, and July. As the ecclesiastical year commenced on the 25th of March, while the civil year began on the 1st of January, the question whether the March or the May Book was the earlier has generally been regarded as somewhat doubtful. Supposing the May Book to be the first, the real date of the March edition would be 1550. Donee's positive assertion, written in his copy of Ames, has usually been taken as con clusive ; yet it was rashly made, without knowledge or in quiry, and others have acquiesced in his conclusion1". That the assertion was hasty the following evidence will shew. In books published between the 1st of January and the 25th of March a diversity of practice existed among print ers in giving the date. For example, a Book published at the commencement of March 1549, might have been dated 1548, because the ecclesiastical year did not begin till the * Donee's note is as follows : — " Out of the seven editions printed in- 1519 this appears to be the first, and in all respects the tdilio princeps ofthe Common Prayer ; notwithstanding any cbjection that may be taken to the uate by those who do not understand it." Dr. Cardwell quotes this note, and says,—" That the edition of May was the first may he asserted in the words of the following note written by Mr. Douce in the margin of his copy of Ames." — Cardwcll's Two Liturgies, &c, Preface. with the Rubrics and Canons. 27 25th day of the month. Still no uniform rule was observed, and sometimes one date was given, sometimes the other. Accordmg to the ecclesiastical style, March 1549 would have been 1548. Hence arose the mistake about the first edition of the Prayer-book. It was imagined that the books with the date of March 1549 were really published in 1550, nearly a year after the supposed first edition. No one had collected the evidence on the subject, and few were prepared to controvert Douce's assertion. The late Mr. Pickering frequently expressed his conviction to me that the Book of the 7th of March was the earliest of the whole number : his impression was derived from an examination of the Book. Speaking as a printer, he re marked that it bore marks of being hastily got up, and, he suspected, by two printers, to meet an emergency. A short time before his- death the following evidence was collected, and it is conclusive on the subject. It had been argued that so large a Book could not have been printed between the time when the Act of Parliament was passed and the beginning of March. It will be seen that such an opinion was unfounded. The individuals who had drawn up " The Order of Com munion" were employed to revise all the Services of the Church. A Book was prepared, sanctioned by Convocation, and set forth by authority of Parliament. It was to be in troduced generally on the Feast of Pentecost ; but the clergy were at liberty to introduce it earlier, should copies be pro cured. The first edition appeared on the 7th day of March. By the Act it was enacted that in parishes in which the Book could be procured before the Feast of Pentecost, it might be used " within three weeks next after the said books so at tained and gotten." Such was the permission; and the framers of the Act evidently did not doubt but copies would be ready long before Pentecost. Now we have direct and positive evidence of its use in the London churches on Easter- day, 1549. Easter-day fell that year on the 21st of April; the Book appeared on the 7th of March ; so that there was time between the two dates to comply with the provisions of the Act. It is singular that the historical evidence on 28 The Booh of Common Prayer ,' a subject which has interested so many persons should have been so long overlooked, especially as it is of no doubtful character. "After Easter began the Service in English in divers churches, and at Whitsuntide at Paules, by the com mandment of the Dean1." " At Easter some began to offi ciate by it, followed by others, as soon as books could be provided." And again, "The Liturgy was to be put in execution in all parts of the realm at the Feast of Whitsun tide, 1549, and had actually been officiated in some churches for some weeks before k." It is therefore certain that the Book published with the date of the 7th of March was the first, since the edition of May did not appear until some time after Easter-day. Bucer, writing from Lambeth on the 26th of April, says, "All the Services in the churches are read or sung in the vernacular tongue1." On the 26th of April, therefore, the new book was in general use in the London churches. In the same letter Bucer speaks of concessions in the new book, " such as the vestments and the use of candles." This expression appears to settle the question of the "two lights" on the altar under the first book. They were evidently in use when Bucer wrote, and were deemed to be lawful. At this time the Book must have been in use in the Archbishop's chapel ; and it had been ex amined by Bucer and Fagiusm- 1 Stowe, 1033. k Heylin's Eccles. Bestau., 74, 98. 1 Original Letters, Parker Society, 535, 536. Other evidence is given on this subject in the author's " History of the Convocation," pp. 139, 140. Strype's error is remarkable, for he mentions the June edition as the first, and adds that a second was published on the 8th of March, 1550. He knew only of two editions, and was quite ig norant of the particulars connected with their publication. "¦ Calvin, in writing to the exiles at Frankfort, objected to lights, or candles j and Cox replies, " We never had any." Mr. Gorham remarks that the letter is valuable, as shewing that lights were not used under Edwaul's second Book. They were undoubtedly abolished by the second Book : but Mr. Gorham's argument proves their exist ence under the first Book ; aud so es tablishes their use. The rubric respect ing ornaments restores such as existed under the second Book. — Gorham's Gleanings, &c, 34G, 317; Original Letters, Parker Society, 757. As no lights were enjoined under the second Book, the exiles must cither have de ceived Calvin, by giving an account of the practice under the first Book, or he must have acted dishonestly iu al luding to things which they had not mentioned. The matter is well put by Stillingfleet:— "To excuse himself for his liberal censures before, he mentions lights as required by the Book, wliich were not in the second Liturgy of Ed ward the Sixth. So that cither tliev •deceived him who sent him the -ib stracfc, or he was put to this miserable tcith the Rubrics and Canons. 20 As the people were anxious for the new Book, we cannot wonder that the work was hastened through the press. With difficulty some of the clergy had been restrained from using their own forms : — " There did arise a marvellous schism and variety of factions in celebrating the Communion Service." Some complied; others proceeded in their own course. These diversities caused the Reformers to set forth tho com plete Book of Common Prayer, which was most joyfully re ceived by all except the Romanists. Some objections have been raised against the declaration in the Act of Uniformity, that it had been drawn up "by the aid ofthe Holy Ghost;" and it was replied, that the expression was to be understood only to mean that the Reformers were assisted in their work, since all good motions and consultations are directed by the secret influences of God's blessed Spirit. They made no new book, but cleared the ancient services of their cor ruptions. The various editions ofthe Book differ but slightly, and scarcely at all in appearance. Seven editions appeared. Two are dated in March, — one by Whitchurch, the other by Grafton ; the former on the 7th, the latter on the 8th day of the month. Both editions, therefore, were in use at Easter, April 21, 1519. During the same year "the Ordinal" was published in a separate form. It is a small volume in 4to., and contains a few things which were afterwards omitted when the form was revised and appended to the second Prayer-book in 1552 n. shift to defend himself: the matter being ended contrary to his expecta tion." Calvin's disappointment is thus described : — " When Calvin and some others found that their counsel was not like to bo followed in our Reform ation, our bishops proceeding more out of reverence to the ancient Church than inere opposition to Popery, (which some otherEeformersmade their rules,) they did not cease, by letters and other ways, to insinuate tliat our Reforma tion was imperfect as long as any of the dregs of Popery remained. So they called the use of those ceremonies which lii'.-y could not d( ny to liuve been far nixie ancient than the great nposlacie of the Roman Church." — Stillingfleet on Separation, 12, 14. Yet some per sons talk of Calvin's influence in our Reformation. Why then were our ceremonies and episcopacy retained ? 11 "The Forme aud M-vner of Makyng and Consecratyng ot' Archbishoppes, Bishoppi>--, Priestes, and Deacons, itr- 1549." Aa-. Clay assigns it to the year 1550 by mistake, and mentions that no copy existed in the British Museum, or in the Public Library at Cambridge. — Clay's Common Prayer illustrated, Preface, xv. The book is of consider able rarity, but there is now a copy in the Museum. 80 The Book of Common Prayer; All the offices in use under King Henry, and during the first and second years of King Edward, were now superseded by the Book of Common Prayer. The labours of the Re formers were crowned with success; their anxious wishes were realized ; and the worship of the Church of England was restored to its primitive state. The prudent course adopted during more than two years had prepared the way for the reformed Book ; and except in Cornwall, it was wel comed with great joy by the people. Had the old books been removed on Edward's accession, the clergy must have been left to their own discretion ; and eonfusions and divisions must have been the consequence. Some opposition was ex hibited on the part of the Romanists. Bonner was its most active opponent ; and he was admonished by the Coimcil, on the 24th of June, not to allow masses in his cathedral, which he still permitted °. In another letter of the 23rd of July, he is reminded of his negligence in enforcing the book, since even at that time, in some places it was not known, in others not used, or so used as not to be understood. In this letter the Book is declared to be " according to the Scriptures and the use of the primitive Church p." To facilitate the work of reformation, and to prevent evil, the books which for more than two years had been in use in the churches were or dered, by a proclamation dated December 25, 1549, to be called in and defaced. After the fall of the Duke of Somer set, a rumour prevailed that the old service was to be re stored ; and to prove the contrary, the Archbishop was or dered "to commend the clergy to call in all Antiphoners, • Wilkins, iv. 84. It would appear that Bonner complied to a certain ex tent ; for the masses mentioned in the lett'-v were celebrated in the various side-chapels; and n-it in the chancel. The Apostles' Mass, Our Ladie's Mass, are mentioned as "used in private chapels and other remote places ofthe same, and not in the chancel." These are to be-discontinued, and the Com munion ordered to be "ministred at the high altar of tho church, and in no other places of the same, and only at such time as your high Masses were wont to he used, except some number of people detiro (for their necessary business) to have a Communion in the morning, and yet the same to be exe cuted at the chancel of the high altar, as it is Appointed in tho Book of the publick Service, without enutele or di gression from the Common Order." ' Wilkins, iv. 35, 3G. In this let ter it is stated that the Book was set forth, " not only by the common agree ment and full assent of the nobility and commons of the late session of Parliament, but also by the like assent of tho bishops, and of all other the learned men of this our realm, in their synods and convocations provincial." u-ilh the Rubrics and Canons. 31 Missales, Grayles, Processionalles, Manuellcs, Legendcs, Pies, Portasies, and Ordinalles after the use of Sarum, Lincoln, Yorke, or any other private use, and all other books of Service, the keeping whereof should be a let to the usage of the said Boke of Commune Prayer; and that you take the same books, and then so deface and abolish, that they never after may serve either to any soch use, or be at any time a let to that godlie and uniform ordre'1." After the Book of Common Prayer was published, certain Articles were issued to the clergy, prohibiting the use cf various ceremonies in the Mass. The following are speci fied : — " Kissing the Lord's Table ; washing the fingers ; blessing His eyes with patten or sudary ; crossing His head with the patten; shifting of the book from one place to another ; laying down and licking the chalice ; holding up His fingers, hands, or thumbs ; breathing upon the bread or chalice; shewing the Sacrament openly before the distribu tion of the Communion ; ringing or sacrying bells ; setting any light upon the Lord's Board at any time ; and finally, to use no other ceremony than are appointed in the King's Book of Common Prayers." It was ordered " that on Wednes days and Fridays the Common Prayer be diligently kept ;" and that the Catechism should be taught every six weeks; that not more than one Communion should be celebrated in any church on any day, " except Christmas- day and Easter- day ;" and that no " light or bells" should be carried by the minister in going with the Sacrament to the sick1*. Tho order in these Articles respecting lights must be understood to refer to more than the two lights which were ordered to stand on the high altar. It would appear from a letter of Bucer's from Cambridge on Whitsunday, 1550, that some of the clergy, besides such as were favourers of Rome, were careless in complying with the Common Prayer : — " Even our friends are so sparing of their sermons, that during the whole of Lent, which never theless they still seem to wish to observe, with the exception of one or two Sundays, they have not once preached to the people, not even on the day of the commemorations of Christ's i Wilkins, iv. 37, 33. » Wilkins, iv. 33, 33. 32 The Book of Common Prayer ; death, or of His resurrection, or on this day." These men did not manifest much zeal in the Reformation, because it was not conducted after their own fashion. He speaks of some persons who, " laying aside all desire after true repent ance, faith, good works, the communion and discipline of the Church, do nothing but dispute and contend, and often very profanely, how they may seclude Christ our Saviour from our Sacraments and holy assemblies, and confine Him to His place in heaven." Then he tells us that these per sons "follow those teachers who dare to write and assert publicly, that it is a fanatical attempt to construct any sys tem of ecclesiastical and penitential discipline, whereby those who have openly offended should be compelled to do penance, and when that is performed, to be absolved of such offence, and receive absolution of the Church for their particular sins'." This was written to Calvin. Though, therefore, most of the clergy and people, except the Romanists, were thankful to Almighty God for the Book of Common Prayer, yet still there were some few who enter tained opinions similar to those which afterwards prevailed among the exiles at Frankfort, and which led to such fatal consequences. Objections started on the Continent were adopted by persons in England who wished to reform after the Zuinglian system. This is clear from Bucer's words. It was not alleged that the Book of Common Prayer could not be lawfully used ; but cavils and complaints were circulated. Among the continental Reformers three opinions prevailed on the Lord's Supper — the Lutheran, the Zuinglian, and a middle course adopted by Bucer and Peter Martyr. The Lutherans held the doutrine of Consubstantiation ; the Zuinglians main tained that the Lord's Supper was merely a commemoration ; and Bucer and Martyr held a real but spiritual Presence. In England the Reformers were somewhat divided in opinion. Some were inclined to Luther's views, others to Bucer's ; but few, if any, of the actual compilers of the Prayer-book adopted • Original Letters, 547. In 1550, Ridley inquires in his Articles of Visi tation, — " Whether any of the Ana- bapti-t sect, or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private Conventicles, wherein they do use doctrine or ad ministration of Sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish." — Hcylin's Eccles. Res. 107; Wil kins, iv. 61. with the Rubrics and Canons. 33 the opinions of Zuinglius, though they found some supporters among the clergy. Cranmer and his brethren, however, con sented, in consequence of the solicitation of some foreign Re formers, to a review of the book, not because the suggested changes were important in their estimation, but for the sake of peace. The book, therefore, was submitted to a revision, and certain alterations were made. In the Communion Ser vice new words were substituted at the delivery of the Elements. In the Book of 1549 the words were — "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul," &c. ; in the revision they were — "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee," &c. This was undoubtedly a modern form, while the former was the ancient one. Prayers for the dead were omitted; all second Communions were discontinued. The Ten Commandments were introduced, and the Sentences, Confession, and Absolution at the commencement of Morning Service. There were various changes in the arrangement of the Book : several rubrics were altered or omitted, and some were added. To some persons the changes, especially in the Communion-office, have appeared to be a concession on the part of the Reformers to foreign influence against their own judgment ; yet it is clear that no such importance was at tached to them at the time, since the new Act of Uniformity declares that the concessions were merely of the strong to the weak in matters of no moment4. Certain ornaments were enjoined in the first Book which were dispensed with in the second. " There appeared no small alteration in the outward solemnities of divine service. For by the rubrick of that Book no copes or other vestures were required, but the surplice only : whereby the Bishops were necessitated to forbear their crosses, and the Pre' -..".ids at Paul's and other churches occasioned to leave off their ' The second Act of Uniformity as serted the agreeableness of the former Book with God's Word and primitive practice, and that the doubts wliich had been raised " proceeded rather from the curiosity of the minister and mistakers than from any other worthy AM. cause." Cranmer said of it, that it was " agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St. Paul, and the old primitive, Apostolic Chnrch, and with the right faith of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross." 34 The Book of Common Prayer; hoods." Ridley, on the day appointed for the use of the re vised Book, " did officiate the divine service of the morning in his rochet only, without cope or vestment"." The new Book was published in 1552, and was ordered to be used from the Feast of All Saints. It was confirmed in Parliament in April, so that its public use did not commence until nearly nine months afterward. Several editions were published by Graf ton and Whitchurch. The Ordinal was subjected to revision at the same time, and was published with the Book of Com mon Prayer, some few alterations having been made x. Six months after the passing of the Act of Parliament for establishing the revised Book of Common Prayer, and after some copies had been circulated, a new rubric, or injunction in the form of a rubric, respecting kneeling in the Lord's Supper, was issued by the Council. It formed no part of the Book, as confirmed by Act of Parliament, and therefore pos sessed only royal authority. In order that this declaration might be inserted, the delivery of the books was stopped by the Council. Copies, however, had been circulated, and could not be recalled. To meet this difficulty, the declara tion was printed on a single leaf, for insertion in such copies as had got into circulation ; and in the copies in the hands of the printer the sheet was cancelled, and a new one, con taining the declaration, was printed. A variety, therefore, exists in different copies. As the Book was put forth by two printers, the same order of placing the declaration was not observed by both : in some copies it stands as the fourth, in others as the fifth rubric, at the end of the Communion Ser vice, and in some it is found inserted on a separate leaf. " Because the posture of kneeling was excepted against by some, and the words used at the reception of the bread gave scrapie, as though the adoration of the Host were intended : therefore to take off this, and to declare the contrary to be the doctrine of this Church, October 27, a letter Avas sent from the Council to the Lord Chancellor, to cause to be printed to the Book of Common Prayer lately set forth a ¦ Heylin's Eccles. Rest. 126; Strype's I x Heylin's Eccles. Rest. 83. Memorials of Cranmer, i. 416. J with the Rubrics and Canons. 35 declaration signed by the King, touching the kneeling at the receiving of the Communion y." The Papists affected to laugh at the alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, asserting that the Reformation was as likely to change as the fashions. It was replied, that the corruptions of a thousand years were not likely to be cast off at a stroke, and that no material alterations would be ever required iii the Book. It should be our object not to falsify these assertions of our venerated Reformers. At the commencement of each session of Parliament the mass of the Holy Ghost was celebrated : no order had been given on the subject, and the previous forms continued to be used. Until March, 1549, more than two years, as we have seen, all the services in churches continued as in the previous reign ; and of course the religious ceremonies at the opening of a Session of Parliament would be the same. But it appears that they were continued after March, 1549, probably because no order was given, and a precedent must be followed. A session commenced in November, 1549, and another in 1551. Edward's first Parliament was then dissolved ; and a new one was summoned to meet at the commencement of the year 1553, the year of the King's death. Before the meeting of this Parliament the Duke of Northumberland addressed a letter to the Lord Chamberlain, relative to the ceremonies to be observed at the opening. Among other suggestions he says, " It would also be considered who shall that day preach, and what service shall be said in the stead of the old service, r Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, i. 416; Memorials, II. ii. 20; Burnet, iii. 210. Of three copies once in my own possession, the declaration occu pied the fourth in two, in the other the fifth, place among the rubrics. I have still the declaration also on a separate leaf. It does not occur in the Oxford copy, from which Dr. Cardwell printed his edition. Its form is unlike that of the other ru brics, since it assumes the appearance of a proclamation. Of all the edi tions of the Book of 1552, the 4to. by Whitchurch is, I apprehend, the most rare. Very few copies indeed are known. The date is not affixed : and the prose Psalter, though an in dependent work, is found with the few copies that exist. With the folios there was no Psalter ; nor does it oc cur in the folio editions of 1559, though it is found with the 4to. of 1560. At the end of this Psalter, the Godly Prayers, as they are termed, occur for the first time. The history of these prayers is somewhat curious. They appeared first in 1552 : they occur at the end of a Psalter with a small Prayer-book of 1559 ; also in the 4to. editions of 1560 and 1567 : and after the last-mentioned date they arc found only in an altered form. d2 36 The Book of Common Prayer ; which was wont to be of the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, or whether his Majesty will have the Communion for all his lords and prelates to communicate together at the said Ser vice in his Majesty's presence or not." It is evident, there fore, that at present no change had been made in this matter. From another letter we learn that the Mass of the Holy Ghost had been customary at the opening of Parliament : — " Her Majesty told me (1554) that in the church of West minster, before the usual Mass of the Holy Ghost began, which is generally said before the assembly of the Parlia ment, seeing Pembroke, she made much of himz." It ap pears, therefore, that the session had usually been commenced with this Mass ; yet it is clear, from the accounts on record of the opening of this Parliament, that Northumberland's suggestions were adopted. Thus Ridley was appointed to preach before the King and the Lords in the chapel at Whitehall ; and the Lord's Supper was administered there, in consequence of the weakness of the King, who was not able to go to Westminster8. In the last year of Edward's reign the " Articles of Re ligion" were agreed upon in Convocation, and published: they were forty-two in number. Some alterations were made in 1562, which may be noticed in a subsequent chapterb. Following the practice of the previous reign, Edward also put forth some primers for private use. For a season the existing primers were ordered to be used ; but in 1549 all prayers to saints were commanded to be obliterated. In 1551 the Book of 1545 was reprinted, with some alterations : « Tytler's Reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Mary, vol. ii. 163, 368. • Parliamentary History, iii. 267. * Some Papal writers have affected to doubt whether the Articles were submitted to Convocation in 1552. But the evidence seems conclusive. See t(M author's History of the Con vocation, 143. " It is more likely they were agreed to in King Edward's time, for they were printed then with that title. It cannot now be known from the Records of the Convocation, they being all burnt : but it is certain that soon after, in Queen Elizabeth's time, these Articles were ever looked on as the work of Convocation in King Edward's time. As long as the popish party was the majority, our Reformers were obhged to carry matters by some selected _ bishops and divines, whose propositions were enacted by the civil authority: hut when the clergy was, by degrees, wrought to give a more universal concurrence in the Reforma tion, which was done before the year 1552, we have no reason to think that the regular method was neglected." Burnet's Reflections on the Oxford Theses, Part II. 89, 90. with the Rubrics and Canons. 37 but in 1553 a primer of a totally different character was put forth by royal authority, for general use. No other public books connected with the services of the Church were published during this reign. In these times the public books are our best guides in tracing the progress of the Reformation. This somewhat minute account there fore may be of service in correcting some mistakes which have been current on these subjects. It could not be expected that the prescribed uniformity would in all eases be observed, or that the bishops, in such unsettled times, would always be able to enforce an observ ance of the laws. Certain sects had already sprung up, as we have seen from the Visitation Articles. In the first year of Edward's reign it was found necessary to check the vio lence of some persons by Act of Parliament. It was called " An Act against such as shall unreverently speak against the Sacrament of the Altar, and of the receiving thereof under both kinds." The preamble states that some persons, " of wickedness, or else of ignorance, for certain abuses here tofore committed of some, have condemned the whole thing, and contemptuously depraved, despised, or reviled the same most holy aud blessed Sacrament, and not only disputed and reasoned unreverently and ungodly of that most high mys tery, but also in their sermons, preachings, readings, lectures, communications, arguments, talks, rhymes, songs, plays or jests, name or call it by such vile and unseemly words as christian ears do abhor to hear rehearsed0." The Anabap tists especially became troublesome at this time3- But others, who did not adopt their errors, began to scruple the ceremo nies enjoined by the Book of Common Prayer. It is not easy to ascertain the precise state of conformity during this reign, but various irregularities existed. Humphrey, writing to Bullinger under Elizabeth, in the year 1566, says ex plicitly, " in the time of the most serene King Edward the Lord's Supper was celebrated in simplicity without the sur plice6." He undoubtedly alludes to the latter part of the Rastall's Statutes, 1594, 406; ype's Mem., ii. pp. 97, 98; II. ii. i. Strype's 340. d Strype's Mem., II. i. 110, 111. ' Zurich Letters, 158. 38 The Book of Common Prayer; reign, under the second Book of Common Prayer, when copes were laid aside, and the surplice only retained. The surplice, however, was enjoined, though some persons evi dently refused to conform. As the period was but short, since Edward's death occurred in 1553, it is probable that many individuals officiated without the surplice, though the omission was a breach of the law. Cranmer's death and sufferings fall not within the objects contemplated in this work ; but some of the view3 ascribed to him may be noticed. Thus it is a favourite object with some professed Churchmen to attempt to prove him an Eras- tian. The charge is founded on some answers to certain questions which were printed by Burnet, in his " History of the Reformation" under Henry VIII. These answers attributed to his Majesty powers which Churchmen have never recognised ; yet had the opinions been held by Cran mer at that time, they would only have amounted to a proof that he ascribed to the King the authority which had pre viously been attributed to the Pope. An acute writer, well acquainted with the matter, relates the following particulars : — " When this History came forth, a very great prelate, very eminent for learning, took offence at a passage in this history, and sent for the author, and reproved him sharply, for hav ing done great wrong to the memory of Archbishop Cranmer," The records were not questioned, but Burnet was blamed for not preventing the mistake " that Cranmer was an Erastian ; whereas, by his subscribing to Bishop Leighton's answer, it appears that, whatever he might sign as President of the College of Bishops, yet he was himself, in his own private judgment, orthodox." Burnet's answer was, that he had shewn his MS. " to a very good judge, the then Bishop of St. Asaph : he had approved of it." The bishop was Lloyd, than whom no man could be a better judge of such matters. But his account of the affair gave a different complexion to the whole business. Lloyd said that he " saw the MS., and liked it very well, as any one would do that reads it : but it is not to be expected that in reading over two such volumes he should examine every quotation, and look into every record." The writer observes, " The historian heard of this with the Rubrics and Canons. 39 thing over and over in print, and he did what he could to excuse it ; but not being willing to acknowledge himself in the wrong, he never could, in the opinion of the world, get clear of the charge." Now had it been true that Cran mer held Erastian notions under Henry VIIL, they must have been renounced under Edward VI. , for he was the chief author of the preface to the Ordinal. To the assertion that it is evident from Scripture and ancient authors that bishops, priests, and deacons have ever existed in the Church, no con sistent Erastian could subscribed Soon after the death of Edward, in 1553, the Book of Common Prayer was altogether set aside. No order for change was immediately issued, but some of the clergy began to restore the Romish worship. Mary ascended the throne July 6th, 1553 ; and in the ensuing October all Edward's laws on the subject of religion were repealed. By the same Act the public services were ordered to be conducted as in the last year of the reign of Henry VIII. A proclamation was issued against heretical books, among which the Book of Common Prayer was included. It was ordered that no one should use " Any book or books concerning the common ser vice and administration set forth in English to be used in tho churches of this realm, in the time of King Edward the Vlth, commonly called the Communion Book, or Book of Common Service and Ordering of Ministers, otherwise called the Book set forth by authority of Parliament, for Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments : but shaU within f " A Prefatory Discourse to an Ex amination of a late Book, an Expo sition of the XXXIX. Articles," 4to., 1702, 91, 95. Einkes was tbe au thor of this work. After all, whether Cranmer was an Erastian at the time in question or not is of no importance, since he soon changed his opinion, particular conceits of his own, and it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion : for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions set down in these papers." — Burnet's Re formation, i. 276. In two otber works Burnet repeats the fact that Cranmer's as Burnet repeatedly admits. In his ' opinion was changed.— A Collection of History, where the statement was first i Tracts, 4to., 1GS5; a Letter occa- made, he mciely Siiys, " In Cranmer's j stoned by the second Letter, 4, 5; paper some singular opinions of his | aUo Fourteen Papers, 4to., IS. The about the nature of ecclesiastical offices i assertion, therefore, frequently made, will be found ; but as they are delivered by him with all possible medesty, so they were not established as the doc trine of the Church, but laid aside as for a particular purpose, by modern writers, that Cranmer was an Eras tian, is not correct ; it is doubtful even whether he ever held such an opinion. 40 The Book of Common Prayer ; fifteen days bring or deliver the said books to the Ordinary, where such books remain, at the said Ordinary's will and dis position to be burnt." Some time before the Lower House of Convocation requested the bishops to suppress Cranmer's books against the Sacrament of the Altar, " the schismatical book called the Communion Book, and the Book of Ordering Ecclesiastical Ministers «." In short, all things were soon brought back to the state in which they stood before the Reformation commenced. The old Service-books had been in some cases destroyed, in others defaced, so that probably there was not a sufficient supply for the churches. At all events, the Missal, the Breviary, the Manual, and other pubhc books were printed in London during this reign, with several editions of the Sarum Primer. It has been the fashion with Romish writers not only to revile our Reformation on the ground of Henry's character, but also on account of Cranmer's. We admit the inapplica bility of such a principle, because God often uses even un righteous men as His instruments ; but we are ready to stand upon the principle, on the condition that it be applied to both Churches. Let Cranmer's character be compared with that of many Popes, who, as Baronius admits, were monsters of iniquity. Nay, let it be compared with the character of the Popes of his own period, and the Archbishop's memory will not suffer by the contrast. e Wilkins, iv.95— 97, 129; Heylin's Eccles. Rest. 28. ivith the Rubrics and Canons. 41 CHAPTER IV. ELIZABETH. — THE EXILES. — DIFFERENCES. — LITANY. — CEEED, 10BD'3 PIUTEB, &C. — BOOK OE COmiON PKAVER EEVISED. — ACT OE LTNTFOBMITY. — ALTEBA- TIONS. — EEAL PEESENCE. — DIFFEEENT VIEWS. — AUGSBURG CONFESSION. — OBNAMENTS. — NEW BOOK INTRODUCED. — EDITIONS. — LATIN EDITIONS. — PtTEITAN ATTEMPIS. — THE PUEITAN BOOK OE 1584. — PUEITAN INNOVA TIONS. — CUSTOMS. — PEI1IERS. — ORAEIUM. — PEACES PETVAT^. — H01IILIES. — THE OEDINAL. Elizabeth's accession was the signal for the return of many exiles from the Continent, where they had resided during the reign of Queen Mary. Not a few of them in their retreat, as no Act of Uniformity existed to bind them to the use of the Book of Common Prayer, had followed their own inclination in conducting public worship, thereby departing from the practice of the Church of England. At Frankfort, Cox and several other clergymen retained the use of the Book ; but Knox and various Englishmen persisted in a course of opposition. They were reminded, without effect, that to reject the English Book was casting a reflection on their own Reformation. Such an argument had no weight with men who, even before their exile, preferred the con tinental system to their own, reverencing the foreign re formers more than the English martyrs, who had in various instances gone to the stake with the Book in their hands. Our subsequent trials arose from the disputes which had sprung up among the exiles. Those who adhered to the Book of Common Prayer had reason and justice on their side. The Reformation had been wisely managed ; the Book had been carefully prepared ; all had concurred in it before their exile ; and its rejection was a reflection on the memory of its framers, who had died in its defence11. Many of the " Mr. Gorham calls the "Brieff Discours of the Troubles" a one-sided account; and he states that the trans lation of Calvin's Letter is not true, but gives a too favourable meaning to the Erankfort congregation. Gorham's Gleanings, 337. Bancroft gives the name of the exiles who were favour able to their own Reformation, and adds, that they "having no great af fection to Geneva, bestowed themselves in Germany. These men maintained the reformation of the Church of Eng land in King Edward's time." Dan- 42 The Booh of Common Prayer ; exiles were led away by passion; and some of the more moderate men yielded to the influence of the more violent ; and thu3 afterwards the common peace of the Church was disturbed for the sake of a few ceremonies confessedly non essential1. The reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. present most melancholy illustrations of the evils arising from factious disputes concerning trifles ; for trifles the things in dispute were, and very few of the Puritans at this time charged them as sinful. Instances in abundance of the irrit able tempers and uncharitable spirit of the men who adopted the continental notions might be adduced. The Queen ascended the throne on the 17th day of Novem- vember, 1558: — "A day shining graciously to many poor prisoners, who long had been wearied in cold and heavy irons, and had been bound in the shadow of death, unto whome shee came as welcome as the sweet shower cometh to the thirsty land, and as the dove that brought the lawrell leafe in her mouth came to faithful Noah and his family after they had been long tossed in the miraculous delugek." She came to the throne after many perils and much suffering, and could therefore sympathize with others. Still she proceeded with great caution, in this respect fol lowing the example of her brother's reign. Our wise and prudent Reformers concurred in this resolution, while, others would have introduced the foreign discipline at once, which gerous Positions, 41. Of the refor mers, Whitgift says, — "They were singular learned men, zelous in God's religion, blamelesse in life, and martyrs at their end, for eyther al, or the most part of them, have sealed this Booke with their blood." When Cartwright objected that the Reformers did not die for the Book, Whitgift replies, — "They may well be sayd to have sealed this booke wyth their blond, because they were martyred for that religion that is conteyned in this Eouke." Cartwright suid that some of the martyrs had declared openly their, dislike of some things in the, Book at the time of their death. Whitgift says, — "Name one who at the time of his death, or in ye time of his imprisonment, declared openly his misliking certayne things in that Booke. I can shew you the con traries." He then quotes Ridley's "Testimony." Whitgift's Defence, 710, 711. * Under Queen Mary, some persons kept up the private worship of the Church in secret according to King Edward's Book. Harley, Scambler, and Bentham, afterwards bishops, may be mentioned. k Harsnct's Sermon on the Anniver sary of the Accession, 4to, 1601. The sermon is unpaged. " One of her ear liest actions was to release the cap tives, and to restore liberty to tlie freeborn." Strype's Annals, i. 55 with the Rubrics and Canons. 43 would have been followed with confusion. At first, there fore, no change was permitted; but in a short space "the Litany, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Com mandments," were ordered to be "said in Enghsh," and also " the Epistle and Gospel at the time of the high Mass1." At the commencement of the reign a proclamation was issued against changes. It was only intended to prevent individuals from acting on their own authority. During one month the Queen attended Mass, forbidding only the elevation of the Host; and on the 27th of December the proclamation was issued, by which the above services were permitted in English. The mode of conducting public wor ship, therefore, was just the same as during the first two years of King Edward, before the use of the Book of Com mon Prayer in 1549. At the same time her Majesty intended to proceed with the Reformation, and the Book of Common Prayer was to be restored. But a question arose whether Edward's first or second Book should be adopted, or whether a revision should be made from both. Two classes of opponents existed, the Papists on the one hand, the Gospellers, as they were then termed, on the other; and the royal proclamation was in tended to restrain both parties™. On this account preaching was for a time prohibited, as in the previous reign. Commissioners were appointed to review Edward's second Book. It was not fully approved, or it would have been adopted without any alterations. It appears that Guest, who was appointed by Cecil to act with the Commissioners, was more active in the work than any other individual. 1 Heylin's Eccles. Res., 104. The Litany was used on the first of Janu ary, 1558-9. An edition on a single sheet was printed in 1558, containing the clause against the Bishop of Rome. The existence of this edition was not known until within a few years. A question naturally arises, was this edi tion used iu tho Queen's chapel? Either this edition or the Litany in King Edward's Book must have been used, and in both the petition existed. In 1559 it was again put forth in a separate form, but without the peti tion in question. Tliat of 1558 agrees with the Litany in the Ordinal of 1549, in having the words, "Pitifully behold the dolours of our heart." " For ¦the first six weeks the Queen and her wise councell suffered matters to stand in their former state, without the least change, as yet not altering, but con sulting what should be altered." Fuller, ix. 51. »' Wilkins, iv. ISO ; Strype's Ann. i. 5S; Collier, ii. 411. 44 The Book of Common Prayer ; "Him the Secretary required diligently to compare both King Edward's Communion Books together, and from them to frame a Book for the use of the Church of England, by correcting and amending, altering and adding, or taking away, according to his judgment and the ancient liturgies." The Book when arranged was taken by Guest to the Secre tary, with a paper containing a vindication of the alterations which were to be submitted to Parliament. " And by this writing it appears that the main care of the revisal and pre paration of the Book lay upon that reverend divine, whom I suppose Parker recommended to the Secretary to supply his absence71." The Book was submitted to Parliament and sanctioned, and by the Act of Uniformity was to be used on the 24th of June, 1559. From November, 1558, to June, 1559, the Romish offices were continued with the supplemental services already mentioned; but from the 24th of June the Book of Com mon Prayer became the law of the land. It is singular that the Act states that the Book to be esta blished was Edward's second Book, " with one alteration, or addition, of certain lessons, to be used on every Sunday, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sen tences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the communicants, and none other, or otherwise." Many other alterations were, however, introduced, and some of them of considerable importance. Nor were the variations over looked by the Puritans in this and the succeeding reigns, who rested some of their arguments against the Book on the above clause in the Act of Uniformity, contending that the Book imposed and the Book in actual use were totally dif ferent. It is quite impossible to account for the wording of the above clause. The fact, however, that the new Book ¦ Strype's Annals, I. i. 120, 121; Vol. I. ii. 459 — 64. Guest recom mended that the posture of the com municants in receiving the elements should be left indifferent. To this suggestion the Parliament did not yield. His remarks on vestments are curious: — "Because it is sufficient to use hut a surplice in baptizing, read ing, preaching, and praying, therefore it is enough also for the celebrating of the Communion." Copes were, how ever, appointed; but from his words it would seem that the revisers of the Book contemplated the use of the sur plice iu the pulpit as well as in the desk. Ibid. 461. with the Rubrics and Canons. 45 differed from Edward's second Book in many more particu lars is evident to all who compare the two. By Edward's second Book, " Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel," and any controversy was to be settled by the ordinary; by the Queen's Book, " the Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the or dinary of the place." Here was at once a ground of con troversy. The accustomed place might mean the place in which the Romish services had been celebrated. Edward's second Book dispensed with all ornaments and vestments except the surplice ; the Queen's restored them as they stood in the first Book. In Edward's second Book the prayer for the king, the clergy, and the collect, " 0 God, whose nature," &c, were not found. There were various other alterations, not indeed important as affecting doctrinal questions, but quite sufficient to give occasion for controversy °. Undoubtedly, the great changes were those specified by the Act of Uniformity ; and of these the most important was the addition of the sentence at the delivery of the elements in the Lord's Supper. The two forms from the two books were united in the revised Book. In the first Book the words were only, " The bod-^, &c, which was given for Thee preserve," &c. ; "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. ; in the second Book- this form was omitted, and another substituted, namely, "Take and eat this in remembrance, &c. ; take and drink this in remembrance," &c. It was argued that the words in the second Book seemed only to " The Puritans in this and tho suc ceeding reign were quite correct in their statements respecting the differ- .ences between the two hooks — the book in use and the book as described by the act. They indeed disliked one quite as much as the other, but the differ ences afforded an occasion for cavil. In Elizabeth's reign the Papists af fected to laugh and triumph at the alterations iu the Prayer-book, for getting how often their own books had been changed : — " If any will com pare the Ordo Romanus, wdiich was a ritual of the 10th or 11th century, with the missals at present, it will ap pear how inconsiderable the changes that our Reformers made are, when compared to those of that Church." " Since then all Churches, chiefly that of Rome, have so often changed their di vine offices, it is a very unreasonable thing to reproach the Church of Eng land for having done it once or twice in the beginning of the Reformation." — Burnet's Reflections on the Oxford Theses, part ii. 87, 83. 46 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; indicate a commemoration in the Lord's Supper, or a me morial; while those in the former Book were the primitive form. By the union, the ancient form was restored : — " The revisers of the Book joyned both forms together, lest, under colour of rejecting a carnal, they might be thought also to deny such a. real presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Upon which ground also they ex punged a whole rubric at the end of the Communion Ser vice V The rubric in question was the declaration on kneel ing, which had been introduced by the council after the Book was pubhshed. Unquestionably there were important deviations from the second Book ; and it seems probable that they were made with a design to prevent the introduction of the Zuinglian notion of a mere commemoration, to which many of the exiles,, and indeed most of those subsequently known as Puritans, were inclined. It is remarkable that consubstantiation is in no way men tioned by our Reformers in the Formularies or Articles ; and a question arises, whether they intended to condemn any other view than that of a corporal presence, or Transubstantiation. By some persons it has been concluded, but certainly without due inquiry, that Calvin had considerable influence in our Reformation. Yet where are the traces of his influence? In ceremonies and in Church government our reformers set tled matters in direct opposition to his principles ; and with respect to the XYIIth Article, it agrees with Calvin's views only so far as they coincide with the Augsburg Confession. Our Reformers were guided by primitive practice, without reference to the principles of continental reformers ; yet if any one individual more than another exercised any influence, that person was not John Calvin, but Martin Bucer, whose views were moderate and reasonable. This fact has become > HeyhVs Eccles. Res. 111. Strongly as the Reformers opposed the corporal presence, or Traasubstautiation, they held a real, though spiritual, presence : " Its removal clearly shews that the Church could not then be brought to express an opinion adverse to the real presence." Card-vell's Conferences, 35. "In the next B»k (Edward's), tho Commemoration being let in, and the body and blood of Christ shut out, that real presence which all sound Protestants seem to allow, might pro bably be implied to be denied. Ex cellently done, therefore, was it of Queen Elizabeth's reformers to bind them both together."— Lo Strange. 210. c ' with the Rubrics and Canons. 47 more manifest than ever by the various letters published by the Parker Society and Mr. Gorham. Bucer " was chiefly consulted with by Cranmer," says Archbishop Wake ; and Bishop Carleton, who favoured Calvin's doctrinal views, ad mits that Cranmer and the Reformers rather agreed with Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer % Bucer's views on the Eucharist were a modification of Lutheranism ; but he was especially tender of Luther's memory. Though he did not concur altogether with, yet he did not condemn that great Reformer. All our Reformers were strenuous against the Romish notion of a corporal presence ; yet all asserted a real and spiritual Presence, in opposition to the Zuinglian doctrine. Of the Lutheran view they say nothing ; for they were united in bonds of amity with the Lutherans, and had the " Confession of Augsburg" and the " Simple Consulta tion of Herman" before them; the former in preparing the Articles, the latter in compiling the Book of Common Prayer. Accordingly, we find the Reformers in their writings con stantly condemning such as regarded the Sacraments as mere signs. To the corporal presence, as the grand doctrine of the Church of Rome, they offered the most decided oppo sition; but on the manner of Christ's presence urthe Eucha rist they decided nothing. There were, of course, men in England who wotdd have preferred Calvin to Bucer in this great work; but though they were men of the Reformation period, yet they were not among the Reformers, and had no hand in the matter. The recently published letters reveal many secrets in these im portant transactions, and afford abundant evidence that Cal vin's opinions did not influence our Reformers'. Of Bucer, q Biog. Brit., Art. Wake. "Carle- ton's Examination of those Things wherein the author of the late Ap peal holdeth the Doctrines of tbe Pe lagians and Arminians to be the Doc trines of the Church of England," 4to. London, 1626, 5. ' The judgment of men who had cast off the x\postolic discipline could not have influenced our Reformers. Wen who had forsaken the practices of the primitive Church could not have been taken as safe guides in such a work. Many there were in England who would have adopted Calvin's 1'lat- form in every particular, but provi dentially they were not among our Reformers. In this matter great mis takes are committed by varioits writers, who clnss such men among om- Reform ers because they lived at the time. Had they been our Reformers, episco- copacy would have been sacrificed. 48 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; and even of Martyr, some of Calvin's friends uttered senti ments of the most unchristian character, and their dislike is grounded on his views of the Real Presence. One person in 1549, writing to Bullinger, says, "Ask for any books of Bucer's on the Lord's Supper written by him before he began to dote." Burcher, in the same year, mentioning his arrival in England with Fagius, as Cranmer's guests, says, " I wish they may not pervert him or make him worse." A year later he mentions Bucer's sickness, and most unfeel ingly says, " In case of his death, England will be happy in having been dehvered from two men of most pernicious talent, namely, Paul Fagius and Bucer." In the same letter he alludes to Latimer as an "opponent of Lutherans and Bucerians3." At this time Hooper, in a letter to Bullinger, charges Bucer and Martyr with Lutheranism. He regrets the absence of A. Lasco, " especially as Peter Martyr and Bernardine so stoutly defend Lutheranism, and there is now arrived a third (I mean Bucer) who will leave no stone un turned to obtain a footing*." It is evident that Hooper con sidered the views of Bucer and Martyr as nearly the same with Luther's on the Real Presence. Neither, indeed, was a Lutheran, though both agreed much more with Luther than with Zuinglius, with whose views probably Hooper was in clined to concur. Cranmer's views on this subject were modified at different times, yet in 1550 he did not go far enough in one direction for Hooper. " The Archbishop has relaxed much of his Lutheranism, (whether all of it I cannot say) : he is not so decided as I could wish." And in the same year Bucer writes from Cambridge, that some tallied " so vapidly about His exhibition and presence in the Supper, that they appear to believe that nothing else but the bread and wine is then distributed11." " Original Letters, 5S3, 652, 662. < Ibid., ii, 46; 61. » Ibid., 89, 544. It is absolutely necessary, in order to a full under standing of the history of this period, to distinguish between the Reformers themselves and certain writers of the same age, because not unfrequently, from ignorance or design, the latter are classed among the former. Bishop Cooper states, from his own expe rience, that the converts to popery in this reign were chiefly influenced in their decision by the unsettled opi nions which were held hy the Puritans. "The doctrine of the Lord's Supper with the Rubrics and Canons. 49 Sometimes it is said that there was an identity of view between our own and the foreign Reformers on the Eucha rist ; but the statement is too loose to be regarded. It may be asked, who are meant by the foreign Reformers ? By some the answer would be Calvin, Beza, and Zuinglius. As far as they are concerned, the assertion of an identity of view is utterly false. As a body, the foreign Reformers were widely divided on this subject ; even Bucer and Martyr differed : and similar differences existed in England. In 1549, writing to Martyr, Bucer objected to any words which "deny the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament." He was anxious to use in the formularies only " the words of Scripture and the ancient Church," in which, says he, " we observe that the very exhibition of Christ is everywhere most fully expressed." It was his desire that the Church of England should not be suspected of holding "nothing in the Lord's Supper besides empty signs of Christ." To Calvin he says in a letter, " The Papists adore an idol of the bread ;" such as deny a Real Presence, " an idol of their own thoughts, instead of Christ." He also defends the Lutherans as maintaining only " that Christ is truly given or received in the Supper, whether He be said to be taken in the bread, or under the bread, or through the bread :" and in the year 1550, he says also, " Up to this time nothing further is established in this kingdom concern ing that controversy, than that Transubstantiation is not to be affirmed.'* Bucer's views remained unchanged ; for A. Lasco writes after his death, " He remained firm in his senti ment concerning the presence and the real exhibition of the Body and Blood of Christ in the signs or through the signs"." A. Lasco held the Zuinglian theory, which our Reformers hath been so slenderly taught by some, that a number have conceived with themselves that they receive nothing but the external elements in remem brance that Christ died for them. Pri vate baptisme, yea, and publike also, if it be ministered by one that is no preacher, hath been so impugned, as if it were no sacrament at all. These and a great number of such others have wounded the hearts of au infinite AM. J number, causing them partly to revolt to papistrie, partly to atheism. As I have talked with many recusants, so did I never conferre with any that woulde use any speech hut that he hath alleged some of these offences to be the cause of his revolting." Cooper's Admonition, 122, 123. 1 Gorham's Gleanings, 84— 68, 104, 106, 143, 248. 50 The Book of Common Prayer ; utterly rejected. They held a real presence, without any attempt at explanation ; and provided the corporal presence was rejected, individuals were left to their own judgment in other matters. That Bucer, and not Calvin, was the man whose influence was felt in England, is evident from the letters of the advocates of the Zuinglian system, and espe cially from their unchristian triumph at his sickness. "I am ignorant," says Burcher, " as to what the hireling Bucer is plotting in England. He is an invalid, and (as report says) is either becoming childish, or is almost in his dotagey." The evidence in these letters is very striking, and proves that, if our Reformers were in any way influenced by foreign ers, they did not apply to Calvin or Zuinglius. The men with whom the}r were on terms of intimacy reverenced the memory of Luther. Cranmer wished for an agreement among all the reformed Churches, especially " on the Sacramentarian controversy." In 1552 he speaks of the divisions on this subject in letters to Bullinger, Calvin, and Melancthon. As no agreement was to be expected, the English Reformers contented them selves with a strong denial of the Romish doctrine of Tran substantiation. In the circumstances in which they were placed, the question relative to the mode of Christ's presence was left undecided. The Nonconformists, in their contro versy with the Church, have always alleged what they called the Lutheran tendencies of our Reformers as an objection to the Book of Common Prayer and the XXXIX. Articles. "When, after Queen Mary's time, the Reformation came to be resettled, some of those who had a hand in it were pos sessed of the Lutheran principles as to the Real Presence, forms, and ceremonies z." A consideration of the opinions which prevailed at the Reformation is necessary to a full comprehension of the question of the Real Presence, as it was left under Queen Elizabeth, and is now maintained by the Church of England. The variety of sentiment amon"- the Reformers on this subject led to their cautious proceedings in arranging the Book of Common Prayer, and in preparing the Articles. Luther's memory was held in reverence by ' Original Letters, GGG. 2 History of Conformity, 1681, 3. with the Rubrics and Canons. 51 Elizabeth's Reformers ; and the moderate views of Bucer and Martyr, rather than those of Calvin or Zuinglius, were regarded as most in accordance with Holy Scripture and primitive practice. It was the aim of the Puritans to confound Lutheranism with Popery, and tlieir representations were most uncharita ble. Still, their misrepresentations prove that the peculiar doctrines of Luther were not regarded as popish by the Anglican Church in the days of Elizabeth, and that, though not affirmed, they were yet not condemned by the Articles. In 1566, Grindal and Horn tell Bullinger, " The mode of spi ritual feeding, and the body of Christ in the Holy Supper, is not to be explained, but to bo left undetermined." Turner, Dean of Wells, in the same year, says that " the flock of Christ was exposed to Papists, Lutherans, Sadducees, and Herodians ;" and Gualter, in a letter to Beza, remarks that the discontented or Puritan ministers must not quit the Church on account of the ceremonies, because " either avowed Papists or Lutherans would succeed into their places." George Withers writes, that Satan, "as he is unable to restore popery altogether, is endeavouring by degrees to bring us back to Lutheranism3." Bullinger fell in with the same uncharitable views, and replying to Bishop Horn in 1565, says that the common adversaries were seeking the removal of the Puritans, in order to put into their places " Papists, or else Lutheran doctors and presidents, which are not very unlike them b." These assertions were false and most uncharitable; but they shew the moderation -of the Church of England, and the violence of the Puritans, who sought for a further refor mation. By the Puritans, no distinction was made between the corporal presence of the Papists and the real presence of the Lutherans ; and the passages which are quoted prove that, in the opinion of Gualter, Beza, and other foreigners, the English Church, though she had not affirmed, yet had not » Zurich Letters, i. 358; ii. 125, 143. lt was not likely that Elizabeth's bishops should be influenced hy Calvin, to whose interference at Frankfort they well knew that the divisions at e2 home were o»irig. Fuller admits that Calvin's letter caused sume, who "partly approved," "wholly to dis like" the Liturgy. Fuller, viii. 30. b Zurich Letters, 312. 5.2 The Book of Common Prayer ; excluded Luther's views by her Articles. Peter Martyr, in 1556, saw nothing in the Augsburg Confession which could " not be brought into harmony" with his own views ; yet he concurred with the Church of England c. He saw nothing, therefore, in the Articles which was condemnatory of the views of that Confession, though consubstantiation is ex pressed therein in strong and decided terms. Dissenting writers have usually asserted that the Lutheran view is not prohibited by the Church. Some have even contended that consubstantiation was positively maintained, which is con trary to fact. A doctrine may not be prohibited, though it be not affirmed. Neal says "the Lutherans and Papists were indulged in the doctrine of the Real Presence." He displays the usual ignorance on the subject, charging the Church of England with holding views which she rejects, and making no distinction between Popery and Lutheran ism. When Bishop Madox replied, that a latitude was allowed on this subject by the Church of England, al leging in proof of his assertion the omission of the rubric on the corporal presence ; Neal, in apparent forgetfulness of his own words, in which no difference was made between Papists and Lutherans, asks what relief was this to the Lutherans ? " Do they adore the corporal presence ? No." Then why did he couple the Lutherans with the Papists d ? It was apparently admitted both by Puritans and Church men, that the Reformers of this reign intended to leave a wider latitude on this subject than was allowed by Edward's second Book. In proof of this view Heylin adduces "the total expunging of a rubrick which seemed to make a ques tion of the Real Presence." He attributes the breaking off of the Papists from the parish churches to the changes in troduced by the Puritans, as " the holy Table brought into the midst of the church like a common table ; the communicants at some places sitting at it with as little reverence as at any ordinary table: the ancient fasts and feasts deserted, and Church vestments thrown aside c." However, the proceed ings relative to the Eucharist prove the caution of the c Gorham's Gleanings. 364. [ c Heylin's History of the Presbv- d Xeal's Review, 13. 16. | tcrhns, 250. ' with the Rubrics and Canons. 53 Reformers, and their desire not to give offence to the two contending parties on the Continent. Besides the changes in the Book of Common Prayer already noticed, a para graph was expunged from the XXVIIIth Article on the cor poral presence by Elizabeth's Reformers. " In the begin ning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when certain persons of the Zuinglian opinion would have abused the Church with Sa- cramentary doctrine, and pretended the Church of England had declared for it in the second clause of 1552, the wisdom of the Church thought it expedient to joyn both the clauses : the first, lest the Church should be suspected of the Sacra- mentary opinion ; the latter, lest she should be mistaken as a patroness of Transubstantiation." The Papists pretended that we had two Reformations, — a Lutheran under Edward, a Calvinian under Elizabeth. The charge was false in both cases f. No little confusion would be avoided, if writers would define their meaning in certain words, such as the Corporal Presence, and Real Presence. These two expressions are fre quently used in precisely the same sense; and confusion is the consequence, since no distinction is made between tran substantiation and a real presence. A real spiritual presence is held by the Church of England in opposition to the popish doctrine of Transubstantiation on the one hand, and the Zuin glian notion of a mere memorial on the other. On this subject no small amount of ignorance is frequently displayed. The Puritans in many cases charged the Church of England with holding a real presence, by which they meant a corporal pre sence, or transubstantiation. In a later reign this was con stantly done, either from ignorance or design. " Both," says Burton, "holding a real presence, — Rome explicitly by tran substantiation, and England explicitly, not daring to speak plainly how e." Another Puritan, alluding to the omission of a part of Edward's XXVIIIth Article, says : " All this is blotted out, which yet had good use against the Lutherans' error of consubstantiation h." And an infidel writer of the f Taylor's Offices, Preface, Heylin's Examen, 154. e Burton's Replie, 67. h Ames's Fresh Suit, part iii. 117: Burnet is not sufficiently careful to distinguish between a corporal and a real presence; and therefore he has not quite done justice to Elizabeth's Re- 54 The Booh of Common Prayer ; last century, whose views respecting the meaning of the Church of England were invariably adopted by Dissenting writers, uses the terms Real Presence in the sense of corporal presence, arguing that the doctrine was condemned under Edward and revived under Elizabeth. He also contends that the real presence is asserted in the words " verily and in deed taken." Undoubtedly it is so asserted, but not in the sense imputed, which is the Romish doctrine of the corporal presence. lie quotes Bramhall as saying that " no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny the real pre sence." lie proceeds to remark, that the only difference between us and the Church of Rome is about the manner, not about the thing, which is a gross misrepresentation, — a misrepresentation, however, made by the Puritans of this period, and by other writers opposed to the Church of Eng land in later times '- For nearly three centuries all our great writers have as serted a real and denied a corporal presence, the former being the primitive doctrine, the latter the corruption of formers, thonj'i upon the whole he is very impartial. " Therefore it was re commend d to the d'vines to see that there should :.e no express definition ag.iinst it : th it so it might lie as a speculative op'.nion, not determined, in which every man "as left to the firtrtlorn of his own mind." He thin states, that ou this ace mnt, the rubric ou kneeling tt a. - o nitled, and also that tlie words at the deliver'/ of the ele ments in E-hviid's first Buck, which were omitted it the revision in 1552, were now joir.ed with those of the second. Burr.-t is quito correct in saying that Elizabeth's Reformers in- tented to leuve a latitude, and to de termine nothing about the manner of Christ's presque : but his words really refer to the corporal presence, against which they dii d t.rmine. The truth is, he does n'.t • ii - ti guish between the cor 101-al and -¦':.; real pic-enc •, a.d so )iia;is the 11 t'h'HIlts say that, the form r, ins' ea I of t\v latter, shoul.l be left und. c .1 d. Burnet, part ii. 3f>J, Ho p-ti the matter mure cor rectly when h; says, " It was thought to he enough to condemn trausui.siaii- tiation ;" but again he used the words, "a real or corporal presence," thus making no distinction between them. Ib. 376. Unhss Burnet made a dis tinction between transubstantiation and a corporal presence, he nally as serts that the former was left unde termined, which he c.uid not have in tended. 1 Tindal's Eights of the Church, 101, 39/, 3US. Even some of our own writers have occasionally made a con fusion with tbe terms, "ieal presence" und '• corporal presence," i uking one for the other, though in other cases the proper distinc ion is drawn. Sir Henry Ellis prints two letters, one from Bishop Gibson, the other from Eishop Potter, to Slrjpe, relative to Queen Eliza beth's own views. He adds tho fol lowing note: "There can be little dmbt that Queen Elizabeth was a he- liever in a real, but not in a transub stantiated, presi nee. The Cnureh in hi r reLn was- Bacerian in thai re- sp?et, and there can he no i cui it that Quo n Kliz.-.bjlh iigrc- d in t-..e doc trine Of her own (Jlinrch." Original L'ttcrs of Eminent EHeraiy -Men, wiih Koi. s, &c, hy Sir Henry Ellis; for the (Jumdcn Society, 4to., pp. 209 —271. with the Rubrics and Canons. 55 the Church of Rome. "The universal custom was, that no man did receive the flesh of Christ, but first he did adore : I doe not saie the Sacrament, or element, but Christ Himself." " Adoration," says this writer, " may never be done to the elements, though it must always be given to Christ Himself. Though we doe adore Christ when we receive the Sacra ment, as antiquitie did, yet we doe not adore the species, or elements, as our superstitious adversaries doe." lie is on- posing the Puritan argument against kneeling in the Lord's Supper, and he censures the ignorance "that cannot dis tinguish betweene the worship of God and Christ, when we receive the Sacrament, and the worship of the Sacrament, or elements. We worship Christ when we receive his Plesh and Blood, but we destroy not the nature of the Sacrament to make a conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ k." The Puritan authors of "The Abridgement," in 1605, alluding to this question as settled under Elizabeth, affirm that according to the views then entertained, " it is not to be inquired whether Christ be present in the Sacrament by consubstantiation or transubstantiation, and that it can in no way either hinder us or further us, however that stand '." This is a specimen of the false assertions of Puritan writers. Transubstantiation is condemned in unmistakeable terms : nor can any man holding that doctrine minister in the Church of England. On the other hand, consubstantiation was held by so many of the foreign divines with whom our own Reformers wore on terms of intimacy, that they make no mention of that doctrine. Hud they intended to reject it, as they rejected transubstantiation, we may reasonably pre sume that it would have been specified. With some per sons, whatever is disliked is popery. With the Puritans, with many Nonconformists, and the Scottish Covenanters, the Church of England herself was popish. So even now, certain equivocal Churchmen who can worship either in the church or in a dissenting chapel, call strict conformity to the rubrics popery. Now it is well known that our Ec- u Buckcridfre's Sermon 13. 31—37. ' Abridgement, 33. 56 The Book of Common Prayer ; formers had the Confession of Augsburg before them when the Liturgy and Articles were arranged. With respect to practice, they followed the rules of the primitive Church ; and in matters of doctrine they consulted the Confession of Augsburg, because in their judgment it defined all the great doctrines in accordance with Holy Scripture and the views of the early Church. Several of our Articles are expressed in nearly similar terms with some in the Augsburg Con fession. On the Eucharist our Articles do not go so far ; yet it doe3 not follow that the Reformers, while they did not affirm, intended to condemn the Lutheran doctrine. Such a supposition would involve the condemnation of all doctrines not expressed or defined. The Augsburg Confession exhibits the views of Luther, Melancthon, and many continental Reformers, as well as of various Churches at the present day. It was the production of Luther and Melancthon: the matter being supplied by the former, the style ard expressions being the work of the latter ; and it is still the standard of faith of the Lutheran Churches. It was pubhshed in 1531. On the Eucharist we read, — "De Ccena Domini docent, quod Corpus et Sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vcscentibus in Coena Domini : et improbant secus docentes." In the year 1540 the words were somewhat altered: — " De Ccena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere ex- hibeantur, Corpus et Sanguis Christi, vescentibus in Ccena Domini." In the Apology, which, as well as the Confession, is re ceived as a standard of doctrine by the Lutherans, are these words : — " Confitemur : quod in Coena Domini vere et sub- stantialiter adsint Corpus et Sanguis Christi, et vere exhibe- antur cum illis rebus, qua) videntur pane et vino his qui Sacramentum accipiuntn." ¦ It was generaUy considered at this period that the Lutherans were more anxious to comply with tho primitive Liturgies and customs than the Zninglians or Calvinists. "The reformed of the Church of England and the Lutheran doctors holding more closely to the rules of antiquity and the practice of the primitive Church than the Zuingliaus and Cal vinists were observed to do." Hey- lin's Cerbamen Epistolary, 155. "There may bo a consubstantiation rightly interpreted j that is, a compre- sen tation, or rather a compresentiality, of both the real Bread and Wine, and with the Rubrics and Canons. 57 It is certain that the Church of England has not asserted this doctrine : and the question is, Has she repudiated all views which she has not enjoined ? Are not many opinions held by her members which are neither affirmed nor con demned by the Church ? Is Consubstantiation one of these ? The Church asserts a real, though spiritual, Presence in the Lord's Supper ; does she reject the Lutheran notion ? Our Reformers had the Augsburg Confession before them when they were engaged upon the Articles ; they were on terms of the closest intimacy with the Lutheran Reformers ; and they could scarcely intend to condemn so many great and good men on the Continent. It cannot be proved, nor ought it to be as sumed, that the Church of England condemns Martin Lu ther, Philip Melancthon, and various continental Churches, though she bas not adopted into her Articles all the views which were held by those remarkable men. We must not confound a real and spiritual Presence, which the Church holds, with the corporal Presence, or Transubstantiation, which she rejects. To the rejection of the corporal Presence the Reformers confined themselves in the Articles, — while at the same time they have carefully retained a spiritual Presence, in opposition to the Zuinglian notion of a mere memorial0. Neither Luther' nor Calvin, nor any other person, was fol lowed in our Reformation. The grand ride with our Re formers was the rule of Holy Scripture and primitive prac tice. " The Church of England should have pared away all the Canon of the Communion, if she had mended her pace at the prescription of the Zuinglians, and kept up altars still by the example of the Lutherans, and not have retained decency by the good- will of the Calvinists p." They followed none of the foreign systems ; yet, at the same time, they did not go out of their way to condemn others. In some cases, the real Body and Blood of Christ at once. And Lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted, will prove a sound and unexceptionable doctrine." — -A Brief Discourse of the Real Pre sence, 1686, 46. This was one of the numerous works against Popery in the reign of James II. « The King of Prussia, though a Lutheran, conforms, when in this country, to the Church of England. So, too, does the husband of our 1'riu- cess Royal. r Taylor's Offices, Preface. 5S The Book of Common Prayer; indeed, views are censured by implication — as the Zuinglian notion — by the assertion of a real presence, the one striking at the root of the other ; but in other matters, though cer tain doctrines were not imposed, they nevertheless were not censured. The changes in the Liturgy were regarded by some of tho exiles as concessions to the Papists ; for they were ignorant of those primitive practices and usages which had no con nexion with Popery, and which were retained by the Re formers on the principle laid down in the paper " Of Cere monies." The Reformers were not influenced by such mo tives, but they were anxious to adhere as closely as possible to primitive practice, without reference to the objections of Papists or Puritans. The rubric which restored the ornaments of Edward's first Book, and which has been retained ever since, was the occasion of much opposition from the Puritans during this reign. They had been discontinued in the second Book, and were now revived. Everything was to remain as settled by authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward ; so that the vestures and ornaments of the first Book were re-established. They were obnoxious even to some of the bishops, who, however, complied, because they did not regard them as sinful. Sandys says, " The last Book of Service is gone through with a proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the first and second year of Ring Edward, until it please the Queen to take other order for them. Our gloss upon this text is, that we shall not be forced to use them ; but that others in the meantime shall not convev them away, but that they may remain for the Queen." Strype observes, ': But this must be looked upon as the conjecture of a private mani." The Puritans complained in strong terms of this rubric throughout the whole reign. Writing to Bullinger in 15G6, Humphrey says, "The cope which was then abro gated by law is now restored by a public ordinance1'." i Parker's Correspondence, Go ; Strype's Annals, I. i. 122. ' Zurich's Letters, IOS. The cope was condemned in the Admonition, replied, that it was not enjoined'hy1 After 1571 the bishops discontinued I any law, while the other vestments the use of the Grey Amice. Cart wright said it was no more p pish than the cope or surplice. Whitgift with the Rubrics and Canons. 59 Some of the clergy introduced Edward's second Book of Common Prayer into their churches immediately after Mary's decease; but the practice was discouraged by the Queen, who, while she manifested her intention of carrying on the Reformation, was yet opposed to that mode of worship which some of her subjects wished to establish. Very soon after her accession her inclinations were discovered3. On Christ mas-day, 1558, she refused to hear mass. "Perceiving a bishop preparing himself to mass all in the old form, she tarried there till the Gospel was done; and when all the people looked for her to have offered according to the old fashion, she with her nobles returned again from the closet and the mass unto her privy chamber, which was stran°-e to divers'." The revised Book was publicly used on the 24th of June, 1559. " Hitherto the Latin Mass-book remained, and the priests celebrated service, for the most part, as they did be fore; that is, from November, 1558, to June, 1559. When that day came, the Protestants generally received the Book with great joy, finding it to consist of the same Divina Ser vice with that in godly King Edward's days V Parliament had assembled on Jan. 25, 155S-9. The Act of Uniformity was passed April 2Sth. On the 1st of May the Book was used in her Majesty's chapel, and in all churches on St. John Baptist's Day, 1559. On the following Wednesday the Book was used in St. Paul's Church, in the presence of a large concourse of people*. There are two editions of this year, were ordered to bo used. Whitgift's J to bo churched." Zurich Letters, 158- Befence, 282, 283, 2S7. He mention the cope at the Communion . Ibid, 606. He says they were established by authority of Parliament. Many Puritans deemed them popish, as well as the cap and gown. Sampson and Humphrey speak of the csip and gown as being required in pubhc, and the sacred garments in divine service. "The surplice, or white dre?s of tha choir, and the cope, arc reintroduced. The sacred habits, namely, the cope and sm-plice, are used at the Lord's Supper. The popish habits arc ordered to be worn out of church. Women con tinue to wear a veil when they come IG-i 5 Eur let, ii. 350. ' Ell's's Letters, Second Series, ii. 262. The Letter is also printed in Wright's "Queen Elizabeth and ber Times." « Strype's Annals, I. i. 200, 201. This period was a gloomy one to the Puritans, who were doubtful of tho Q'leeu's intentions. Yet they were scarcely less dissatisfied when the Re formation was settled, because it. was not fixed on their b.isis. Most reluc tantly, they yielded a very partial obe dience. 1 Strype's Grindal, 24. 60 The Book of Common Prayer; which differ in some important particulars. The one has certain prayers which are not found in the other. This is probably the first edition, and a question arises, whether the Act of Uniformity referred to this Book, or to the other of the same year, which was followed in subsequent impressions. The fact is singular, and does not admit of explanation. The edition containing the prayers was printed by Jugge and Cawood. Until lately, Grafton's edition was regarded as tho only impression of this year. An edition in small 8vo. also was published, without date, but supposed to be of the year 1559-T. In 1560 an edition appeared in 4to. with the Prose Psalter; and another in 1567. In 1566 an edition in folio was published, also with the Prose Psalter ; and during the reign, at intervals, new impressions were put forth until 1603, the year of Elizabeth's decease2. Several editions also in 24mo. were published, but they are somewhat abridged in some of. the rubrics in the occasional services. The earliest of these very small books, which has fallen under my notice, is of the year 1570. Another of the same size appeared in 1575, and a third iu 1586. Other editions, probably, were published. Besides the editions in folio and quarto, several slender books were printed, with various Bibles. These copies were intended to be bound with the Bibles. They are of all sizes, according to the size of the sacred volume ; but they are of httle importance; since they are not complete, the references only being given for the Epistles and Gospels. Not unfre quently, a book is spoken of as one of Elizabeth's, which, on inquiry, turns out to be one of these small editions, intended for circulation with the Bible. In 1560 a Latin edition of the Book of Common Prayer was put forth. Edward's Book of 1549 was translated into Latin by Alexander Aless, for the use of the foreign * One copy only is known of this smill edition. It was purchased at thi sale of the Duke of Sussex, and is no'v in the possession of Lord Ash- bu.-nhahi. * Iu 13f>6, two editions of the Me- tri'-al P-ahus, by Sternhold and Hop kins, were published. The first com plete collection appeared in 1583. All are exceedingly rare. The edition in folio of 1566 has the royal license to Day at the back of the title, authoriz- ing him to print the Metrical Psalter. It is probably the earliest instance of the publication of the license with the Book. with the Rubrics and Canons. 61 Reformers, and published in 1551. It was intended for the foreigners, to enable them to form a judgment of the English Book. Alcss was not over-scruprdous in the execution of his task, for sometimes, instead of a literal translation of a rubric, he gives his own notion of what he conceived to be its intention ; and not unfrequently his account is a misre presentation. In 15C0, Walter Haddon took this translation as the groundwork of a new book. Elizabeth authorized the use of a Latin Book in colleges ; and the work was as signed to Haddon. In many things he was compelled to depart from this translation, in consequence of the altera tions since 1549; yet in others he follows Aless so closely, that the Book of 1560 by no means gives an accurate view of the Book of Common Prayer of this reign. But among the copies of this Book there are considerable varieties. The Book is reprinted by the Parker Society. The copy followed in this reprint is now in the British Museum. It was supposed by the editor to differ from other known copies ; but there are two in the Bodleian Library, which agree with it in every particular. It has some special ser vices which are not found in other copies ; yet it may be doubted whether the Books, in which the offices in question do not appear, are not of greater rarity than the others. In 1571 another Latin edition in 24mo. appeared. It is frequently called a second edition of the preceding ; but it is a different work, and is altogether an independent Book. It is, in fact, a translation of Elizabeth's Book of Common Prayer. It was reprinted in 1574 and 1596 a. As the Puritans objected to the Book of Common Prayer, they evaded conformity as much as possible. Disliking the Common Prayer, yet not always being able to evade con formity, they made various attempts to get the Book altered. Failing in their object, they endeavoured to introduce changes into some editions of the Book. A bold, though silent, at tempt of this kind was made in 1578. In that year an edi- * The Latin Book for the use of Christ Church, Oxford, printed iu 1615, follows the Book of 1560. In 1 573, a version of tlie Morning and Evening Service, in Greek and Lathi, was pub lished by Whittaker for the use of schools. This Book is what in those days was usually called a Psalter, which comprised the Daily Services and tbe Prose Psalms. 62 The Book of Common Prayer ; tion of the Geneva Bible was published in a large folio volume ; and to this Book was appended a new impression of the Book of Common Prayer, beautifully printed. The Bible was intended by the Puritans to be used in churches instead of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, which had been intro duced by royal authority; and as the Book of Common Prayer, in large type, was prefixed to the volume, it was imagined that tho clergy might in their ministrations make use of this edition. Still it did not attract much attention at the time. This is evident from Heylin, who, though he mentions a book with the peculiarities of this volume, yet had never seen a copy. The design is apparent from its con tents ; and the Puritans imagined that a silent and gradual change might be accomplished. Some entire services are altogether omitted, as the Office for Private Baptism, that for Confirmation, and that for the Churching of Women. These services were especially obnoxious to the Puritans; and from this Book they are excluded. The first four rubrics in the Communion Service, and the introductory rubric in the Office for Public Baptism, are omitted; and the word priest does not occur once in the whole Book*. After the year 1570, when the Admonition to the Parlia ment was published, some of the Puritans separated them selves from the Church of England, and held private assem blies whenever they were able. The mass of such as were called Puritans remained in the Church, and evaded con formity; but they were opposed to separation. Cartwright and his party, however, advocated a total separation ; and, as far as. possible, they carried their principles into practice. Two remarkable books were published by this party: the one on Discipline, usually designated " The Book of Disci pline ;" the other is a Form of Prayer for publio worship". This latter book was printed by Waldegravo in 1584, * "This I find noted in the preface of a book writ by William Eeynolds, a virulent Papist, I confess, but one that may be credited in a matter of fact, which might so easily have been refuted by the Book itself, if ho had any way belyed it." Heylin's Pres byterians, 283.. Reynolds did not belie tho Book, though he assigned it to a wrong printer, for it was printed by Barker. On the contrary, Eeynolds does not mention all the omissions. c Various particulars respecting this " Porme of Common Prayer" are de tailed in the author's "History of the Convocation," 189 — 192. ivith the Rubrics and Canons. 63 though the date is not given. In favour of this book they petitioned, " May it therefore please your Majestie, &c, that it may be enacted, &c, that the Booke hereunto annexed, &c., intituled, A Booke of the Forme of Common Prayers, Administration of Sacraments, &c, may be authorized, put in use, and practised." Bancroft observes, "See here, when they hoped to have attained theyr purposes by lawe, and to have had the same accordingly established ; they offered to the Parliament a Booke of their owne, and thought it (as it seemeth) altogether inconvenient to leave every minister to his owne choyse d." It was proposed as a substitute for the Book of Common Prayer; and it was said to be agreeable to God's Word and the use of the Reformed Churches : and yet within a few years it was altered in hundreds of particulars. The incon sistency of putting forth a Book as perfect according to God's Word, and then altering it, was noticed by contemporary writers. Bridges, in 1587, says, — "Is there not, even in the Booke of Common Prayer, by themselves compiled, be- tweene the written Booke, and that that is printed at Mid- dleborough, and that at London, and that at Scotland, above a hundred, yea, two hundred, yea, three hundred differences one from another ; and all in a Booke little bigger than an Almanack e." This point was constantly urged, even as late as the reign of James I. One of the arguments of the Puritans against the Book of Common Prayer was derived from the length; but this charge was retorted upon them even in this reign. "All the Formes of Prayer that are prescribed in any part of our ordinarie Divine Service may be soberly and with decent pauses uttered forth, either for the minister's or for the people's part, in the space of little more than one houre, yea, the Lessons and all the rest of the Divine Service, within one houre and a halfe, even where the service is d Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, &r., 1503, 100: Heylin's Presbyte rians, lib. viii. 269. B liridges's Defence of the Govern ment established in the Churche of Englande, 4to., 1537, 85. Bridges most justly complains of the Puritans for setting out a book "without au- thoritie," and denying the same power "to the whol estate of tho Church of England." lb. 625. 64 The Book of Common Prayer; longest in saying, though also much and solemne singing doe protract itf." Sometimes the Puritans made assertions which had no foundation whatever to rest upon. Thus it was alleged that the people went away from the cathedrals before, or walked in the nave, during the sermons. Bridges, in replying to this objection, states that in most cathedrals, and also in parish churches, the preacher came from the choir into the body of the church for the sermon : — " And if in some fewer places he preach in the quyre ; then shall ye not lightly have many beneath in the body of the churche, especially of such as come to the church to heare Divine Service." At this time, therefore, the prayers were usually read in the choir or chancel, and the sermon preached in the nave. Bridges, however, alludes to St. Paul's, which the Puritans had in their eye when they made the general charge. " One church indeed there is, that I have seen, and which (I take) our brethren especially meane, where many resorte, partly but for a thorough passage, and partly to walke up and downe almost all day long, spending the time beneath in talking, or bargaining, or other worldly matters ; but these do so as much at the Divine Service as any sermon in the queere above. But commonly there the sermon is preached in the churchyard ; and that with a great assembly of other parishes, where they had no sermon : and all that while that the sermon is in that churchyard, none is permitted to walke or abide, in the cathedrall churche B." This reign was fruitful in books, more or less of a public ' Bridges's Defence, &c, 625. In another place he says, — "Are not the confessions that they reade in their prescribed Forme of Prayer, a greate deale longer than ours areP — their first confession to be reade being above thirteen score lines, besides their chap ters. As for their Prayers, some one or two of them being as much as twenty of ours, besides the Prayers that they leave unto the Minist. vo luntary." Ib. 636, 637. s Bridge's Defence, 644. From this extract we • find that St. Paul's was usually open, that it was used as a pas sage from one side of the street to the other, that merchants did their busi ness therein ; but that during the ser mons at the Cross the church was closed. Bridges suggested that the sermons in the church should hepreach- ed in the body of the church, not in the choir, and that the walking should be stopped. Still, in meeting the Pu ritan objection he says that the body of the church " is so separated from the quire above, that the actions and as semblies in the quire, neither at ser vice nor sermons, is disturbed hy any passengers beneath."-^lb. 640. with the Rubrics and Canons. 65 character connected with divine worship. Tlie first in order, after the Book of Common Prayer, arc the Primers, and their history, though not a little intricate, is at the same time interesting. Until lately, the Elizabethan Primers were scarcely known. In Edward's reign, as we have seen, there were two of totally different character; namely, one in 1551. a reprint almost of 1545 ; and another in 1553, altogether different. Under Elizabeth Primers also were published; and it might have been supposed tliat the Book of 1553 would have been followed. On the contrary, however, a Primer appeared in 4 to. in 1559, which in all points, except the Invocation of Saints, agrees with that of 1545. Follow ing Henry's Book, it contains the usual Prayers for the Dead, Of this edition, two copies only are known, — one in the library of Christ Churcli, Oxford, the other in Cam bridge. A few years ago the existence of such a book was not known ; and had any one asserted that a book of Elizabeth's contained Prayers for the Dead, the assertion would have been denied. Koither Cosin nor Prynne, in the time of Charles I., was aware of such a book, as is evident from their controversy. But another Primer in 12mo., of the same reign, con taining the Prayers for the Dead, exists, and at present one copy only of this edition is known. It follows the Book of 1545, except at the commencement, where, instead of the introductory matter in Henry's Book, it has the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer. With the Catechism the Book commences, having a sort of half-title as a heading ; and whether any other title was ever published cannot be ascertained. Being without date, the question arises whether this or the 4to. book is the earlier edition. The two editions differ in many particulars. After the commencement both follow the same arrangement, and both contain various col lects in which prayers for the departed are retained. Cer tain errors which do not exist in the 4to. edition, lead me to suppose that this small book is the earlier, and that it was published at the very commencement of Elizabeth's reign. Some of the different readings are so peculiar as to give rise to a supposition that the book was hastily printed, and that AM. F G6 The Book of Common Prayer; the printer in his hurry too closely followed his copy. In the Catechism he of course printed from a Book of Edward's, and the word king is given for queen. In the Litany, the petition for the sovereign stands thus : " That it may please Thee to be hys defendour, gevinge him the victory ;" yet in the foregoing clauses the pronoun is correctly used after the name of the queen. It would appear that the printer, having the Primer of 1545 for his copy, forgot the necessary altera tions. In various passages it more closely follows Henry's Book than the 4to. edition. The latter has the Morning Prayer, consisting of the Sentences, the Exhortation, the General Confession, the Absolution, and certain prayers, from the Book of Common Prayer of 1559, and not from the Book of 1552. This fact is evident from two readings- in 1559, which are different from the Book of 1552, and which are given in the Primer. It could not, therefore, have been published until after the Book of Common Prayer had been put forth. These portions of the Morning Service were not allowed to be used before the Book of Common Prayer was introduced into the churches. The small Primer does not contain these portions. After the Catechism and the Graces, it begins the Morning Prayer with the sentences usually found in the Officer to the Virgin, and in the Sarum Primer. The presumption, therefore, is strong that it appeared before the 4to. Primer, in which the prayers in question are found. As no other copy has yet been discovered of this edition, the volume from which these particulars have been given, may be regarded as a document of great importance in the history of the books connected with the Reformation h. It is remarkable that a book containing petitions for the departed should have been published in this reign; it is still more remarkable that the obnoxious editions should have escaped the notice of the Puritans during the time of Eliza beth, James I., and Charles I. Yet that these books were unknown to them is evident from their silence. Prynne h In one prayer in these Primers are these words: "Our Saviour and Ei de- mer Jesu Christe, whichc in Thy laste Supper with Thyne Apostles dyddest delyver Thy blessed Body and Blood, under the fourme of bread and wyne." This is evident Lutheranism. with the Rubrics and Canons. 67 knew nothing of such a book. He asserted in his contro versy with Cosin, that no petition for the departed was to be found in any book of this reign; consequently, he never saw these Primers. The Puritans accumulated all sorts of charges to make up their grand charge of popery : and Prayers for the Dead would have certainly been enumerated, had they been aware of the existence of these books. Not a single notice of their existence is to be traced. In the British Museum there is a Primer of the date of 1560, but it is a mere reprint of one of Edward's, altogether different from these books which have been described. In 1575 another Primer was published. It contains no Prayers for the Dead ; and its general character and arrangement are different from the others. Of this edition, there are two copies in the Bodleian. They have indeed usually been regarded as different editions. One has no title, the other no colophon. The title to the one has the date of 1566; the colophon to the other that of 1575. After a careful exa mination, I ascertained that they are of the same edition. The real date of the books is that in the colophon, 1575 ; and the date in the title of one copy is merely that of some other book, for which the woodcut border had been used in 1566. Such variations between the title and the colophon of books in these times are very common. The woodcut border bore the date of the year in which it was first used ; and in taking the block for this Primer, the date was either forgotten to be removed, or designedly retained, and the proper year given in the colophon. Jugge and Cawood published the first edition of the second Book of Homilies in 1563 ; in 1567 they printed another, using the same block, and therefore the former date remains on the title, while the latter appears in the colophon. Seres, the printer of this Primer, printed two books of the same size in 1566. He used the same border in the Primer, retaining the date on the title, and giving the proper year in the colophon. Another book of devotions in Latin was published in 1560, the Orarium1. This book was taken by Cosin in 1627 as 1 Orarium sou Libollus Precationmn | tus." 12mo., 1560. Mr. Palmer has per Ecgiani Majeslatem Latine edi- | fallen into an error about the Orarium, ¦e 2 68 The Book of Common Prayer ; the model for his " Private Devotions," or "Hours of Prayer," which excited so much anger among the Puritans. It was attacked especially by Prynne and Burton, aud both shew their ignorance of their subject, for they confound the book with another, the Prcces Privatcr, which is altogether a dif ferent work.. The Orarium follows the arrangement of the earlier books in the hours of prayer, while in the Prcces Prkatce no such order is observed. Prynne, therefore, ac cuses Cosin of not taking the proper edition for his model, arguing, that though the Romish division was followed in the book of 1560, it was omitted in the next edition. He could not have examined the two books, for the slightest scrutiny would have proved that they were different. With out examination of the Orarium, therefore, Prynne chose to rest his accusations on the Preces Privates, which he found to be different in the arrangement from that of Cosin's book. He did not even know the first edition of the Prcces Privates, 1564, but uses the third, of 1573, as the second edition of the Orarium. Into this mistake even Cosin himself fell ; for he considered the Preces Privates as a second edition of the Orarium. The circumstance shews how little was known of editions of books at that time, and how careless such men as Prynne and Burton were relative to the truth or falsehood of their statements. The first edition of the Preces Privatm appeared in 1564; the second in 1568, and a third in 1573. Like the Orarium, this book was intended for private use. In 1569 appeared "The Booke of Christian Prayers, col lected out of the Ancient Writers ;" it was reprinted in 1578, 1581, 1590, and 1608. The first edition, however, is very different from the others. In the Litany, the petition for the Queen was intended to be used by Elizabeth herself: " That it may please Thee to keep and strengthen me Thy servant, of this realm by Thee ordained queen and governor : to rule my heart in Thy fear," &c. And in the " Prayer for for he states that the Primer of 1560 of the reign of Edward, and th.it of was a translation, of which the Book i 1575, with the date of 1566 on the of 15CQ, as he tenni it, was a second title, is quite different from any other ¦ ed'nion. The Primer of 15G0, as al- j in this reign. Palmer's Antiquities of ready mentioned, was a reprint of one the English Ritual, i. 205, 206. with the Rubrics and Canons. 69 the Quene's Maj es tie :" " I beseech Thee with Thy favour to behold me, that I may vanquish and overcome." In another prayer, " For Wisdom to Govern," the same form is adopted. It is evident that this copy was prepared especially for the Queen. This book is in the library at Lambeth Palace, and no other copy is known,. Though a very beautiful copy, yet it is disfigured by a modern morocco binding, like an ordinary Prayer-book. It is scarcely necessary to notice the Homilies and the Articles among the books of this reign, because they are so well known. The first Book of Homilies was reprinted, and a second prepared, and both were published in 1563. Seve ral impressions appeared the same year, and others in 1567, 1582, and 1587. The Articles were also pubhshed in 1563. Originally they were forty-two in number ; but in this reign they were reduced to thirty-nine. Thus the Reformation was completed. The Puritans, in their notion of a reforma tion, ignored the ancient Church altogether ; the Reformers were only restorers : " Their meaning was not to make a new Church, but to reform according to the primitive model k." "Such things as we now use in the Booke of Common Prayer (though some of them have been used in the time of Papistrie), were appointed in the Church by godly and learned men, before the Pope was Antichrist, or the Church of Rome greatly corrupted. Is Papistrie so able to infect the Word of God, godlie prayers, and profitable ceremonies, that they may not be used in the Church reformed, the errours and impieties being taken away ? Why doe we call our Churches Reformed Churches, rather than newly builded, or, as it were, wholly transformed, but that we reteyne what soever we fynd to be good, refuse or reforme that which is evil1." As soon as the Book of Common Prayer was established by the Act of Uniformity, some Romish writers pretended that k Buckoridge's Sermon, 241, 1 Whitgilt's Defence, 474: "Our Reformers, although they made the Scripture the only rule of faith, and rejected all things repugnant therto : yet they designed not to make a trans formation of a Church, hut a. rcfor-. mation of it, by reducing it as near a3 they could to that state it was in under the first Christian emperors." — Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Se. paration, 17. 70 The Book of Common Prayer; the Ordinal was not restored, and that consequently the new bishops were not legally consecrated. The objection was frivolous, since the Ordinal was a part of the restored book, and therefore was included in the Act, though not expressly named. However, in the eighth year of Elizabeth, an ex planatory Act was passed, declaring that the Parliament had intended to include the Ordinal in the former Act, under the general designation of the Book. Again, it was said on the authority of this Act, that the bishops were merely parlia mentary bishops ; yet the Act only declared the intention of the law. Parliament declared that all had been rightly done under the former Act ; and they confirmed again the Book of Ordinations with the Book of Common Prayer. It was well answered by Mason, in reply to the Romish cavils, that on the same ground it might have been argued in Queen Mary's reign, that there was "a Parliament-Mass and a Parliament-Pope," since both were established by Act of Parliament m. CHAPTER V. INJUNCTIONS. — SOME PARTICULARS CONSIDERED. — HABITS. — CONTROVERSY. — AETICLES OF VISITATION-.— PARKIER, 1563, 1567, 1569.— VARIOUS ARTICLES. — GEINDAL, 1570. — DIVISION OP SERVICES. — SOURCE OP THE ERROR. — CUS TOMS AND COMMON LAW. — PASSING BELL. — PARISH CLERKS. — PREACHERS. — SUBSCRIPTION. — CHURCHWARDENS.— PSALTERS. — RIGHT OP BISHOPS TO EXAMINE. — BAPTISMS.— BURIALS.— CUSTOMS.— WEEKLY PAST. — COMMUNION TABLE. Having given an account of the public books, we proceed to inquire into the state of conformity durinw this reio-n. Besides the rubrics in tho Book of Common Prayer, the Queen's Injunctions were supposed to possess the authority of law. These were put forth in 1559, and impressions were published as late as the year 16C0. Whatever, therefore was their force in the first year of tlie Queen's reio^n it re mained the same to the end of it, because new editions were ¦» Mason's Vindication, &c, 1728, 2S2, 213; Strype's Parker, i. 108 109. with the Rubrics and Canons. 71 constantly put forth by royal authority. This point is not always remembered, and some persons appear to imagine that the Injunctions were intended to serve only a temporary purpose, and that their authority ceased with the publication of the Book of Common Prayer. Such an opinion, however, can only be entertained by those who are ignorant of the fact which I have now stated. The Queen possessed the same authority at the end as at the beginning of her reign ; and she claimed the same. Several things were regulated by the Injunctions which were not specified in the rubrics n. Among other matters, the supremacy of the Crown is stated in these Injunctions in such terms as would doubtless be recognised in our courts of law. The "ancient jurisdic tion over the State Ecclesiastical" is asserted ; and the Queen declares, " Her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will, challenge any authority than that was challenged, and lately used, by the said noble kings, which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm : that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be °." It was for the denial of the supremacy, and not for religion, that some Papists were put to death in this reign, but not till after the Queen had been excommunicated by the Pope. The Litany was ordered to be said by the priests kneeling in the midst of the church; one bell to be rung before sermon ; and the parishes to be perambulated by " the curate and substantial men" once in the year before " Com mon Prayers." On Wednesdays and Fridays the Litany was specially ordered. During the Litany, Collects, and Suppli cations the people were commanded to kneel ; " and that whensoever the name of Jesus shall be in any lesson, sermon, or otherwise in the church pronounced, due reverence be made of all persons, with lowness of curtesy, and uncovering " In 1641 these Injunctions were also published. » It was sometimes said by Roman ists that the supremacy " was carried much higher" under Elizabeth than under Henry. " The allegation is false, for the supremacy was carried much higher under King Henry than it was under Queen Elizabeth, who, as shs would not accept the title of Head of the Church, so she explained her su premacy, both in her own Injunctions and in the .Acts of Convocation and Parliament that followed." Burnet's Reflections on the Oxford Theses, part ii. 92. I'A The Book of Common Prayer ; of heads of the man-kind, as thereunto doth necessarily be long, and heretofore hath been accustomed." Respecting the Communion-table, the moderation of the Injunctions is re markable. Some altars had been removed, while others remained. The Injunction proceeds : " In the order thereof, saving for an uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment, so that the Sacrament be duly and reverently minis tered; yet, for observation of one uniformity, it is ordered that no altar be taken down but by oversight of the curate and the churchwardens. And that the holy table be decently made and set in the place where the altar stood, and there commonly covered, and so to stand, saving when the Com munion of the Sacrament is to be distributed." Wafers were ordered to be used in the Communion, but plain, " without any figure, of the same fineness and fashion round as the usual bread and wafer heretofore named singing-cakes, which served for the use of the private mass p," In the "Advertisements," 1561, the Common Prayer was ordered to be " sayde or songe decentlye and distinctlye in suche place as the ordinarye shall thinke mete for the large- nesse and straightnesse of the churche or quyer, so that the people may be moste edified." In the administration of the Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches, " The prin- cipall minister shall use a cope, with a gospeller and epistoler agreably; and at all other prayers to be sayde at that Com munion Table, to use no copes, but surplesses." The Passing Bell is enjoined " when any Christian bodye is in passing ;" and the Litany, with two Psalms, on Rogation-days % P One Injunction, the 30th, orders that all ccch'.-instical persons, and all persons " admitted into any society of learning, shall use and wi ar such seemly habits, garments, and such square caps as were most commonly ami ordeily received in the latter year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." i Advertisements, " Partly for due ord r in the publique administration of Common Prayers and usinire the holy Sacramentrs, and par lv for the Appnrell of all persons eccle-iastica'i, by vertue of the Queen's JIajlst.es Letters. 4to. Beginalde Wolfe." A loud outcry was raised by the Puri tans against the Advertisements, al though some new rites had been im posed, whereas they were only in tended to enforce such as were already in use, because some of the clergy were l.ix in their praet'ee. Th y were al lowed by he Queen to be 'published, hut no' under her Majc-ty's authority ; consequently -they never possessed tho same force as tho Injunctions. As, hoi ever, they are qiured in tho 3Uh Canon, they are still of some import ance. Long after iu this reign we find the Puritans objecting to the cope with the Rubrics and Canons. 73 The Rubrics, Injunctions, and Advertisements contain most of the ceremonies to which the Puritans objected. An opinion has, however, sometimes prevailed among Churchmen that the cope was superseded by the Injunctions. This was Bishop Madox's view. In replying to Neal, who had objected to the cope, he states that tho Queen had dispensed with it by her Injunctions. And even recently, some writers have adopted the same notion, as Mr. Soames, and the Editor of the Zurich Letters. The former asserts that the cope was optional after the Injunctions ; and this opinion is quoted with approval by tho latter r. The question is not of much importance, since copes are now disused ; but in an inquiry into the meaning of rubrics and injunctions for historical purposes, it is necessary to consider various matters in wliich many may feel no interest. It appears to me that Bishop Madox and the two writers now quoted are mistaken in their interpretation of the Injunction. Because it alludes to the last year of King Edward, they seem to imagine that it cither sets aside, or renders optional, the rubric respecting orna ments. It appears evident, however, that tho Injunction does not refer to the cope, or the surplice, or to the minister ing dress of the clergy, but to their ordinary habits. No thing is said of ministrations. Even supposing the Injunc tion to refer to the ministerial dress, it can only be taken to impose such habits as are specified, and not to dispense with others which are specially enjoined by a rubric. But the mention of the square cap is a proof that the ministerial dress was not intended ; or tho cap must have been actually used in the church. By the Puritans no relaxation of tho rubric was supposed to be intended. They would have been too glad to have pleaded it in their justification ; but, on the contrary, they ever admitted the full force of the rubric respecting ornaments, and complained of it as one of their grievances. as in general use. " Doe not the people think a more grievous fault is com mitted if the minister doe celebrate &c. without a surplesse or a cope, than if the same through his silence should suffer an hundred souls to perish?" Parte of a Pegister, 45. The cope is mentioned frcqiieutly in the same w ork, 62, 81. r Jladox's Examination, 81, 88; Nerd's Review, 51; Zurich Letters, 158, 159. 74 The Book of Common Prayer; Moreover, such a notion is confuted by the practice in the Queen's chapel and hi cathedral churches. Instead of being designed to relax a rubric relative to the ministerial habits, the Injunction was evidently intended to enforce greater strictness in the ordinary dress, not only of ministers, but of others. This is clear from the introductory words, as well as from the clause already quoted :— " Her Majesty, being desirous to have the prelacy and clergy to be had as well in outward reverence as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, and thinking it necessary to have them known: to the people both in the church and without," &c. In the time of their ministration they were known to the people by their ministerial habits; but the Queen wished them to be recognised also in the public streets by some peculiar garb. The practice of the times, moreover, fully confutes such an opinion. The bishops never appeared " pub licity but in their rochets, nor officiating otherwise than in copes, at the holy altar. The priests not stirring out of doors but in their square caps, gowns, or canonical coats, nor exe cuting any divine office but in their surplice. The Sacra ment of the Lord's Supper celebrated in most reverend man ner, the holy Table seated in the place of the altar, the people making their due reverence at their first entrance into tho church, kneeling at the Communion and Prayers, stand ing up at the Creed, the Gospels, and the Gloria Patri, and using the accustomed reverence at the name of Jesus. AU which particulars were either established by the laws, or commanded by the Queen's Injunctions, or otherwise retained by virtue of some ancient usages not by law prohibited." Of the Queen's chapel the writer adds, " The gentlemen and chil dren (of the choir) in their surplices, and the priests in copes as oft as they attended the divine service at the holy altar3." This is an accurate description of the state of things under Elizabeth ; and the principles on which all was founded, namely, the law, the Injunctions, and custom or usage, must be borne in mind by those who wish to understand those con troversies respecting ceremonies to which it will be necessary Heylin's Eccl. Res., 123, 124. with the Rubrics and Canons ; 75 frequently to refer in this inquiry. Those persons who argue that the cope was dispensed with, rest their argument on the well-known clause in the Act of Uniformity ; but they for get that no rubric could be set aside by an order from the Queen unless it was actually specified. In short, the notion that the cope was superseded by the Injunctions is quite groundless. To the Puritans all the vestments were specially obnoxious, the surplice as well as the cope. The former was the Baby lonish garment, to be detested of all Christians. Every effort, therefore, was used to evade the law ; consequently, through out this whole reign we meet with numerous instances of nonconformity to the rubrics. The bishops were inclined to act gently towards men, some of whom had been their fellow- exiles ; but at last it became necessary to enforce compliance. The Reformers under Elizabeth, feeling that in Edward's second Book there had been a departure from some customs in themselves laudable, were induced to insist upon the use of the ornaments now established from the first Book. After a few years, subscription to the Book of Common Prayer was more rigorously imposed ; and this added to the grievances of the Puritans. They evaded subscription, therefore, because they were too honest not to feel the inconsistency of sub scribing, and then not conforming,— of promising, and not keeping the promise. In an inquiry into the state of conformity during this reign, there are two wide fields in which to seek for illus trations, and which have not been much used, namely, the Articles of Visitation by different bishops, and contemporary publications. Archbishop Parker issued his first Diocesan Articles in 1560. The inquiries, as was natural, relate very much to certain Romish practices, to which many of the clergy were still inclined. But two inquiries relate to the Puritans. He asks, " Whether there be in your quarters any that openly or privately use, or frequent any kind of Divine service or Common Prayer other than is set forth by the laws of this realm : whether there be any that keep any secret con ven- 76 The Book of Common Prayer ; tides, prcacliings, lectures, or readings contrary to the laws1. In lo63 Parker again visited his diocese, and the Articles were publi-hvd. Some inquiries relate to the performance of Divine service, and are such as were frequently used after wards. Thus he asks, " Whether Divine service be sayd or songe duelye and reverentlye, as it is set forthe by the lawes of this reakne, without any kynde of variation ; whether a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion, sette in place prescribed by the Queenes Majesties Injunctions : whe ther your priests, &c, in the celebration of Divine service, do weare a surplesse prescribed by the Injunctions : and whether they do celebrate the same Divine service in the chauncell or in the church, and do use all rites and orders prescribed, &c, and none other : whether they do use to minister the Communion in wafer-bread, according to, &c, , or in common bread." Among other things, he asks whether chancel-screens are preserved, since there was an order for their preservation ; whether any persons exercised the office of the ministry "without imposition of hands and ordinary authoritie ;" whether the laity " be diligent in coming to churche on the holy daies ;" and whether there were " any that stubbornly refuse to conform themselves to unitie and good religion : any that bruteth abroad rumours of the altera tion of the same, or otherwise that disturbeth good orders, and the quietnesse of Christe's Churche and Christin con gregation." These were the first Diocesan Articles printed in this reign. Injunctions were issued by the Bishop of Norwich, but as he held no visitation, there were no articles of inquiry. These Articles of 1563 were published, and yet they remained un known to all our authorities until very lately. A few years ago I discovered a copy, beautifully printed, in a volume of tracts. The visitation of this year is recorded by Strype, yet he was not aware of the existence of any articles, even in MS. Neither by our historians, nor by our bibliographical ' Shape's rarlter, 86— S3. Dr. ! 1S63. Cardwcli's Documentary An- Carduell gjves ihesc inquries in 15GU | nals, 320. The ai tides of 1560 were But they occur in 1560 and ] not pubhshed. with the Rubrics and Canons 77 writers, was the existence of such a book ever susp9cted ". It is worthy of remark, that thus early in the reign the in quiry respecting tho surplice was made. It shews that some endeavoured to evade compliance with the law, and that it was not dispensed with by the royal Injunctions. The next Articles were issued by Parker in 1567 for a metropolitan visitation. Norwich was the diocese wliich appears to have given cause for the visitation, and which was held on account of the laxity of Parkhurst, the Bishop. They " afford evidence that Puritanism, and not Popery, was now the opponent to be dreaded x." One inquiry relates to " semely or priestly garments ;" and another to " necessary ornaments in the church." Though intended specially for the diocese of Norwich, the articles were applicable to the whole province y. Again in 1569 Parker visited his own diocese by a com mission. The Articles differed somewhat, especially in order and arrangement, from those of 1563. These, as well as those of 1567, wrere printed at the lime. The usual questions occur respecting private meetings, the surplice, and " the rites and orders pi-escribed in the Book of Common Prayer2." Parker also visited the diocese of Winchester as metropoli tan. We find the common inquiry relative to Holy Orders : "Whether any have intruded themselves, and presume to exercise any kind of ministerio in the Churche of God with out imposition of hands and lawful calling by ordinarie authoritie, and whether any admitted but to the deaconrie usurpe the office of the minister. Whether any laye persons take upon them to read openly in the congregation Divine service, without they be thereunto, upon some urgent cause 11 "Articles to be enquired of in the Visitation of the Moste Reverend Fa ther iu God, Matthew, by the Suffer- aunce of God, Archebyshop of Canter bury, Primate of all Eng'.ande, and Metropolitane. In the yeare of oure Lord God 1563. Imprinted at Lon don by Reginaldo Wolfe. Anno Do mini 1563. 4to." On the title is a small woodcut ornament, and on the sides the letters M. A. This booh is now in the Bodleian Library. It is remarkable that the very existence of such a book should have been so long unknown. 1 Carduell's Documentary Annals, 303. i Strype's Parker, i. 21-1, 4S0- 492; Wilkins, iv. 252. In this year the more extreme Puritans began to assemble more boldly iii their private meetings, and to adopt other services after the Geneva fashion. It was the first attempt to set up separate wor ship. Collier, ii. 511. * Wilkins, iv. 257; Strype's Par ker, i. 562, 563. rs Tlie Book of Common Prayer; or great necessity, for a time licensed by the ordinary ;. or whether any of them have taken upon them to solemnize matrimony, or to minister any sacrament8." The views of the Reformers respecting Presbyterian orders will be con sidered in another chapter ; but a remark in passing may be offered on one of Parker's inquiries. It cannot be urged that the laicfid calling mentioned by Parker included Presbyterian orders, because he also uses the word deaconrie, and deacons were not allowed by the Presbyterians. The use of the word deaconrie proves that episcopal orders only were contemplated by this Article. Parker was anxious to prevent men from officiating who had not been ordained by bishops. No other than episcopal orders were at this time deemed lawful in the Church of England. The Puritans made no distinctions between orders conferred by foreign Churches and those con ferred by their own self-constituted Presbytery at home ; and it became necessary for the bishops to refuse all men not episcopally ordained. Some of the Puritans proceeded to deacon's orders, that they might minister in the Church, and then declined to receive the orders of the priesthood. The same question occurs in' various Articles of this reign. In 1577, 1582, and 15S6, we find it in Aylmer's Articles for the Diocese of London. The Puritans after 1570 actually set up a presbytery ; and Aylmer, therefore, asks whether "any new presbyteries or elderships be lately among you erected, and by them any ministers appointed, without orders taken of the bishops, do baptize and minister the Com munion." Among other irregularities of the Puritans, they penn it ted in some cases the parish clerks to perform such of the occasional offices as they themselves disliked. The above question refers to such practices b. Grindal issued an Injunc tion to check the unseemly practice:— "We do enjoin, that. * " Art'cles to bo enquired of within the Diocese of Winchester in the Me- tropolitieal Visitation of the Most Re verend Father in Christ, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury. London. Bv John Dave." 'bIn 1580' Whitgift prohibited any r,ve from preaching, "unless he be a priest, or deacon at the least, admitted thereunto according to the laws of this realme." A question relative to the same subject occurs in the Articles of 1585. It is also repeated, with some amplitications, in 1588. The occasional services are speeiBed, since the Puri tans evaded the celebration of these offices. with the Rubrics and Canons. 79 no parish clerk, or any other person, not being ordered, at the least, for a deacon, shall presume to solemnize matri mony, or to minister the sacrament of Baptism, or to deliver to the communicants the Lord's cup at the Holy Commu nion." To us in the present day the existence of such strange abuses seems almost incredible. The Puritans were ready to preach, but they disliked the Book of Common Prayer, "and especially the occasional offices, which they permitted to be celebrated by the parish clerks and other laymen. It was owing to such irregularities that the bishops were compelled to interpose their authority, of which the Puritan, writers complain so loudly. Gentle courses could not be pursued towards men who were opposed to the Book of Common Prayer and the constitution of the Church. When Sandys visited the diocese of London in 1570, he ordered all "to keep strictly to the Book of Common Prayer, to observe the appointed apparel, and in all divine service to wear the surplice." Parish clerks were prohibited from intruding " into the priest's duty, as before they had some times done." " That is," says Strype, " they had taken upon them on some occasions to say Common Prayer, and' use some of the Offices: this was presumption not to be suf fered." " All clerks' tolerations were to be called in." This injunction refers to the Puritans, who had held private meet ings, in which they ministered "after a new way, different from the public Liturgy." Some ministers had been im prisoned; but Aylmer's predecessor, by permission of the coimcil, had granted their liberty. They still persisted in their course ; and therefore their " tolerations" were re called c. In Grindal's Injunctions we find an order for tho removal of rood-lofts, and some regulations for placing pul pits, with this proviso : " That all the prayers and other service appointed for the mynistration of the Holy Com munion, be said and done at the Communion Table only." The surplice is strictly enjoined in all the services a. In 1571 a metropolitical visitation was commenced by Grindal. In one of the Articles, as published in Strype and <• Strype's Annals, II. i. 40. J Strype's Grindal, 21-1, 215. 80 The Book of Common Prayer ; AYilkins, it is stated that the Communion is to " be received three times a-ycar besides Ash-Wednesday ; viz., on one of tho two Sundays before Easter, and on one of the two Sundays before Pentecost, and on one of the two before Christmas." This mistake was not corrected until recently, when the Regis ter at York was examined for the Parker Society edition of Grindal's Remains. It was ascertained, as every person imagined who had paid attention to the subject, that the transcriber for Strype had written "Communion" for "Com- mination," and " received" for " read." The Injunction was in accordance with King Edward's second Prayer-book, which ordered the Comminution Service to be read divers times in the }"ear e- Some light is reflected by these Injunctions on a question which at various times has been discussed, and which at tracts considerable attention at the present time, namely, that of a division of the Morning Service, nasty assertions are frequently made by persons who have not instituted any inquiry. It is often assumed that our Morning Service con sists of three distinct Offices, which were not intended by the Reformers to be read or used at one time. By Grindal's Injunctions of this year 1571, "the minister is not to pause or stay between the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Com munion, or the service appointed to be said when there is no Communion." He was to saj' the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion in continuation. It is evident, that in those places in which the people left the church for a short space before the Communion, the custom was a de parture from the general practice. Grindal had been con cerned in all the transactions of the Reformation, and well knew the intentions of the Reformers. He knew that a di vision was contrary to custom, and the intentions of the Be- formers. Undoubtedly the practice which he enjoined was agreeable to those intentions. Though no objection niight be raised to a division of the service by competent authority, yet it is not correct to plead the example of the Reformers in its favour. In the first Occasional Porm in this reign, ' Wilkins, iv. 269; Strype's Grhidal, 2-17—250; Grindal's Remains, 136 —160. iciih the Rubrics and Canons. 81 published in 1563, the minister was directed to exhort the people to spend a quarter of an hour, or more, in private prayer, between the Morning Prayer and the Communion f. This practice, if continued for any time, was probably found inconvenient. At all events, it was discontinued. In all subsequent Occasional Forms, the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion Service were printed as one continuous office, to be used without division or intermission. The mistake, which has been so often made, undoubtedly arose from not considering the various steps by which the reformation of the Offices was carried on. For some time the Litany alone was used in churches as supplemental to the Romish services. Then the Order of Communion was intro duced, to be used with the Office of the Mass. After more than two years from Edward's accession, the whole Book of Common Prayer, comprising, with the Morning and Evening Service, the Litany and the Communion Office, was put forth and enjoined to be said in all churches ; but no separation, or saying one part at one time and another at another, was even contemplated. Not a particle of evidence in support of such a notion can be collected from, the history of the period. The assertion, however, has been repeated from one to another without inquiry, till many actually suppose that it is a truth g. In all books previous to the last review, the rubric or- ' "AFourme to bo used in Common Prayer twise a-week, &c, during this Timeif Mortalitie." 4to.,Londen, 1563. By the Injunctions of Queen Eliza beth, the Litany was ordered in the quire "immediately before tho time of the Communion of the Sacrament." In the Form of 1566, the Litany is ordered specially with the Morning Piayer to "be said in the midst ofthe people." At this time the Morning Prayer was said in the chancel, and the Litany in the body of the church. i Nothing less than the total over looking of these particulars could have led to the following hasty assertion : "The Litany being a distinct service, was, long after the Reformation, said at a distinct time, towit, in the middle space 1 etvveen Matins and the Com munion OffiVe." Peck's Desiderata C'ui-io-irr, 1771), 228. This assertion AM. by a man so learned bas probably misled many. Peck mentions Queen's Col lege in Cambridge, aud Christ Church, Oxford, for the pi active in his own day. Their practice was, however, a, deviation, and proves nothing. Ben- net's assertion that the present prac tice is "contrary to the first intention of our Church," is of the same hasty character, made without inquiry. Ben- net's Paraphrase, 1709, 156. Equally hasty is 51 r. Scobell's assertion, "That from the first tho Communion Service was intended to be a distinct and se parate service. Scobell's }?kv.' Thoughts on Church Subjects, 18-13, p. 7. Mr. Scohell makes no attempt at proof of his assertion. The evidence, however, which I now submit to the reader is conclusive against any such suppo sition. 83 The Book of Common Prayer; dorcd that persons who intended to communicate should give their names to the curate "over-night, or else in the morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or imme diately after." It has been inferred from this rubric that the people left the church for a time. Overall is quoted by Whcatly for such a custom at York and Chichester; and Johnson of Cranbrook mentions a similar practice in another place. But such instances were merely exceptions to the general rule, and prove only that irregularities existed. In such a case, the practice since the Reformation is the best interpreter of the rubric ; and this is ascertained from the Occasional Forms from 1563, and from the Visitation Articles of numerous bishops. Yet neither Wheatly nor Johnson re sorted to this mode of inquiry. On this point, the evidence of the Forms and the Visitation Articles is conclusive. They prove that the Reformers never intended a division; that they and their successors, down to the last review in 1661, never understood the words " immediately after" to mean that the Communion Office should be used as a separate ser vice at a different time. This is evident from the way in which the Occasional Forms are printed; but in some of them under Elizabeth, there is a rubric ordering the Morn ing Prayer, Litany, and the usual portion of the Communion Office, to be used as one continuous service, according to the order in the Book of Common Prayer ; and in all the forms from the. accession of James I. to 16-10, tho various parts are printed entire, with the additional collects and prayers, to be read together, without pause or division, before the sermon or homily*1. At the last review the apparent ambiguity in the rubric was removed. The Litany was ordered after the third col lect ; and the words " immediately after" were changed for h lt is admitted that sometimes, in the roiirns of James and Charles I., the Litany was read alone; but the practice was irregular, aud contrary to the intentions of the Reformers. Fisher in 1630 mentions it in de fending the Liturgy against the Puri tan objection of repeating the Lord's Prayer: "We join this Prayer to the Letauio, because it is- oftentimes said alono (as upon Wednesdays and Fri days)." Fisher's Defence of the Li- turgie, 1630, 52. I quote this author as to the fact; but his reason for using the Lord's Prayer in the Litany caunot be admitted. with the Rubrics and Canons. 83 "some time tho day before." The alterations at the last review were not, as is sometimes alleged, a departure from the previous practice. In the reigns of James I. and Charles I., this inquiry is very common in Visitation Articles : " Doth he upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, add over and above unto the ordinary service of the morning, the Litany and Suffrages according to the laws and canons provided?" The following is as common : "Upon Sundays and holydays established by law, and upon the whole week before Easter, doth he read the second service, according to the Book of Common Prayer, after the former service, when the Morning Prayer and Litany be ended ' ?" Some clergymen were accustomed to abridge the Morning Prayer, and even to omit the Litany, or the usual portion of the Communion Office ; and hence, probably, arose the notion of three distinct forms, intended for use at separate times. This irregularity, however, was checked by the bishops. The following inquiries are common in the time of James I. and Charles I. : " Whether the whole service, or Common Prayer, is read in such order as is set down in the Book, without any alteration or omission ? Doth he diminish Divine service, in regard of long sermons, prayers of his own, or any other respect, or add anything in the matter or form thereof of his own conceit or fancy P" The sermon alwa3rs followed the Communion Office ; and the expressions, Common Prayer, or Divine service, included Morning Prayer and the Litany. Such inquiries, therefore, imply that the whole service was performed at one time. Moreover, it was ordered that every 1 Le Strange thought that a short space intervened after Morning Prayer, before the Communion commenced: " Whether or not the congregation de parted hence upon Sundays and holy- days, and returned again to the Com munion Service,' I will not positively determine : I rather think not, be cause tho authors of the Admonition, whose captious curiosity nothing could escape which seemed to promote their beloved quarrel, have these words : ' We speak not of ringing when Mattins is done;' which could not administer the least show of blame, had it been done bell in Scotland. G2 in the absence of the assembly, or had not the congregation been then re ligiously employed ; for this bell was usually rung in the time of the second service, viz. the Litany, to give notice to the people : not that the Commu nion Service, as hath been supposed, but that the sermon was then coming on. In reference to the sermon only it was rung — called, therefore, tbe ser mon-bell; so that when there was to be no sermon the bell was not rung." Le Strange, &c, 162, 163. Le Strange quotes Bp. Cowper for the sermon- 8i The Book of Common Prayer ; lecturer or preacher, who employed a curate, should twice in the year at least read the whole service in the church. We therefore constantly meet with this question : " Doth your parson or vicar, having a curate, publicly read Divine service himself two several Sundays in the year ?" This was to be done previous to the sermon, which came after the Communion Office ; »and we have seen that this followed the Morning Prayer and Litany. From the Reformation to the present time the general practice of the Church has been the samek. A division of the service, therefore, would be a deviation from the practice of the Reformers. It would involve the condemnation of their arrangements; and on this ground alone, apart from the practical difficulties which would stand in the way of such a change, the subject should not be enter tained by Churchmen. When it is said that no rubric pro hibits a division in express terms, it may be replied, that it imposes the performance of the service on the clergy in such a way as to render a division impossible. At common law, many things are decided by custom. Indeed, custom is often the only law. Our present custom of reading our service has been continuous from the Reformation. Were there no written law, custom then would settle the question. Yet the written law is express and clear. The forms for the State holidays are framed on the general principle of a continuous service. Morning Pra3'er must precede the sermon, which must come after the Nicene Creed ; and consequently no k Sparrow argues for three distirct services: "If any man should think that it cannot pioporly be called the second service, because tho Morning Service aud Litany go before it, whereby this should seem to be the third rather than the second service, it is answered, that sometimes the Communion Service b u.iod upon such days aS the Litany is not, and then it may, without question, be called the second service." This mode of argu ing shews that Sparrow's theory was encumbered with difficulties. It has been shewn that no division was con templated by the Reformers. Sparrow, however, admits that " in our usual ac ceptation of the word Service, namely, for a complete service, with all the several parts of it, — Psalms, Readings, Creed.;, Thanksgivings, and Prayers, so tbe Litany is not a service, nor so esteemed, but called the Litany, or Supplications; and lnokt upon some times, when offices follow, as a kind of preparative to them." He adduces no evidence, yet he asserts that they aro three distinct services, to be used "at distinct places and times." Without any reason, and only on the authority of a clause in the third Collect for Grace, he contends that Morning Pravcr was to be said at the beginning of the day. Sparrow's Rationale. with the Rubrics and Canons. 85 clergyman nor bishop can order any separation. Bishops can order the Litany on additional days, but they cannot allow it to be separated from Morning Prayer on the ap pointed days. In 1661 the Nonconformists observed, that the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion Service were compulsory at one time. They never imagined a division allowable, nor did they desire it ; they only asked for the omission of the Lord's Prayer in the Litany and Communion Office, because it had been previously read in the Morning Prayer. In the Books previous to 1 662, banns were to be published in the time of service, " the people being present." The object was publicity, and one service only is specified. Had .'here been a division of the Morning Service, the rubric in ihe old Books would have mentioned the portion at which the publication should take place. In 1753, the New Mar riage Act provided that banns should be pubhshed after the Second Lesson, and not after the Nicene Creed, as was ap pointed in 1662; but the change was made because in some churches the publication could be better heard in the desk, where the Lessons were read, than at the Communion Table, at wdiich the Nicene Creed was recited. Practically, the change would deprive many persons of a portion of the Morning Service, since they could not attend except once. They could not arrange to come at different times. Were the sermon attached to the Communion Office, or Litanv, some would attend the service with the sermon and lose the rest ; and some might attend the service without the sermon. The reason usually assigned for a division is the alleged length of the service. But if persons are to have, during the morning, the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Com munion Office, would they not prefer the continuous act before the separate services? But the reason is insufficient; for the whole service, without the Communion, rarely occupies two hours, and never where there is no chanting, or when the sermon is not of immoderate length. It would be unwis to shorten the service in order to lengthen the sermon. Moreover, the Dissenters, who have no Liturgy, usually oc cupy quite as much time in the morning, and much more in 86 The Book of Common Prayer ; the evening. Few persons complain of the length. Our an cestors did not complain, though the sermon was seldom less than an hour, and the churches were without stoves or fires. In some of the Occasional Forms for Fast-days there is a special direction that the sermon should not be extended beyond the hour, in consequence of the additional prayers. If occasionally complaints have been heard of the length of the Morning Service, they have usually proceeded from some of the clergy, who probably, like the Puritans, may wish to devote a longer space to the sermon. As, then, a division of the Morning Service would be a deviation from the practice ofthe Reformers, and also a reflection on their memory, as though they lacked the wisdom of the present generation, it will be wise to leave the Book of Common Prayer as we have re ceived it from our fathers. It would not be possible to make alterations in one direction, for one set of objectors, without opening the door to applications from an opposite quarter. The advocates of change, moreover, should beware lest, while they call for a departure from the practice, others should in sist upon a deviation from the doctrines, of the Reformers'. The Passing Bell is enjoined by the royal Injunctions of 1559, and by the Advertisements, and is frequently men tioned in the Visitation Articles. It was ordered by Grindal 1 Quoting Johnson, who calls the union of Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Communion Office an innova tion, Lewis says, "This is whim and ignorance. To read them at three se veral times of the morning in parish churches is quite impracticable with a congregation. Both tho rubricks and common practice shew that the word ' after' means at the. end. Iu the Com mon Prayer-books before the Restora tion the Mornincr Prayer ended with The Third Collect for Grace, and after that immediately was read tlie Litany. There is not the least inti mation of any roress of the congrega tion." Lewi* next coines.to the Com munion Ofliie, aud says that the rubric d>cs not direct at what time of the d iv it shall be used, " no more than tin re is at what time the sermon shall be; but custom and common usage, ever 6ince tlie compiling the Rook of Com mon Prayer, has ascertained their meaning to be, that they shall both be used iu the forenoon, alter the end of Morning Prayer." The C.ise of Ob serving Fasts and Festivals proclaimed by the King's Authority, 17-14, 27, 2S. The first edition appeared in 1721, and it appears that Lewis's opiuiou had been strengthened since 1717. In that year he speaks of cathe'ials in which Morning Prayer was first read, and tho Communion Service at a later hour ; and be admits that such an ar rangement was easier for the minister, Rut even then be says, " However such au order- might bo borne with in cities and market-towns, it would ho imprac ticable iu country parishes, and never complied with by the parishioner*, to resort to the church twice in the morn ing." Lewis's Two Letters in De fence of tho Liturgv, &c, 1717, 19. with the Rubrics and Canons. 87 in 1570, "to move the people to pray for the sick person." Iu 1576, in the Articles for the province of Canterburv, is the following enquiry: — "Whether the bell be tolled to move the people to pray for the sick person, especially in all places where the sick person dwelleth near the church"1." By the moderate Puritans no objection was alleged to the use of the passing bell, though by others it was censured as popish. At a later period, the use of bells on all occasions was condemned by the Puritans n At this period, the qualifications of parish clerks were sometimes made the subject of enquiry in the Articles of Visitation. By Grindal's Injunctions they were required "to read the First Lesson, the Epistle, and the Psalms." In 1577 Aylmer asks the question, whether they were suffi ciently qualified for such a duty? In the present century, in Devon and Cornwall, it was the custom in some places for the parish clerk to read the First Lesson. As the Puritans became more irregular in omitting por tions of the Book of Common Prayer, and even proposed a Book of their own, the bishops were still more particular in their enquiries. In the Metropolitical Visitation in 1584, Whitgift asks, " Whether your minister have used any other form or manner of publick prayer, administration of the Sa craments, or any other rites and ceremonies, or orders, than are prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer ; or hath he altered them, or any of them ?" The surplice is particularly specified : " Doth your minister in public prayer-time wear a surplesse?" These Articles were used in the diocese of Chichester, and probably in others. In 1580 certain Articles relative to preachers were issued by AVhitgift ; and though they contained no new impositions, yet loud complaints were raised by the Puritans. As they contented themselves with preaching, their curates or others reading the Common Prayer, Whitgift ordered that all preachers should " say service and minister the Sacra- m Gtrypc's Griudal, 313-319, 331, ; the Province of Yorke, in the Metro- 396, 403, 101, 553; Wilkins, iv. 236 ; j political Visitation of the Most Reve- Grindal's Rouinius, 123, 132, 133. ICO, i rend Father in God, Edwin, Arehbp. ]G-., of Yorke, 1D77 and 157S. Imprint- " "Articles (o be inquired off w'.-hi.i eel at Loudon." 88 The Book of Common Prayer ; ments according to the Book of Common Prayer" four times in the year. The apparel according to the Advertisements was enjoined; and the three Articles which were in 1604 embodied in the Canons, and which are subscribed by all clergymen, were now imposed; and a great clamour was raised. In addition to the usual Article relative to the Com mon Prayer, Aylmer asks, in 1580, " Whether your minister so turn himself, and stand in such place of your church or chauncell, as the people may best hear the service?" In 1588 Several dioceses were visited by the Archbishop as Metropo litan. Besides the question about the Prayer-book, is the following respecting ornaments : " Doth he use in his minis tration the ornaments appointed by the laws now in force?" Whitgift's activity was most annoying to the men who scrupled conformity. Some retained their livings, complying as little as they could ; others separated altogether. Hence the common question, " Whether you know any that use con venticles, or meetings for expounding Scripture, or saying of prayers in private houses or places" ?" For his activity he is often branded by Puritan writers as a persecutor, though his proceedings were gentle in comparison of those of the same party at a subsequent period. In ] 589, when lie visited his own diocese as well as that of Rochester, the enquiries were of the same character: but the Puritans pretended that they en trenched on the Queen's supremacy p. In the Articles of Fletcher, Bishop of London, 1595, and in those of Chadderdon, Bishop of Lincoln, 1598, we find similar enquiries with those already noticed. King, who be came Bishop of London in 1611, published some Articles as Archdeacon of Nottingham in 1599, in which tho same ques tions are proposed. In their general features, all the various • WUkins, iv. 318 j Strype's Whit- gift, i. -162, 463, iii. 179. i" Wilkins, iv. 337 ; Strype's Whit gift, i. 511>, 59:1—597, iii. 67, 112. In our 0 Zurich Letters, 169, 175—80. 1 lb., 84. H2 100 The Book of Common Prayer; and kneeling at the Communion. As an example, he would not allow his wife " to give thanks for her deliverance k." xlfter 1570 the more violent Puritans began to hold their secret meetings, and their Discipline was introduced in some places, the Common Prayer being discarded. Grindal and Horn, in 1567, state, " Some London citizens of the lowest order, together with four or five ministers remarkable nei ther for their judgment nor learning, have openly separated from us." They add, that by these Separatists, Sampson, Humphrey, Lever, and others, were regarded as semi-Papists for not going all lengths with them in their turbulent •courses \ Sometimes the foreign divines encouraged the Puritans in their coursej^and listened complacently to their misrepre sentations, for which they were mildly reproved by Cox in 1571, who says to Gualter, "I wish you had not lent so ready an ear to a few of our factious brethren." He laments that Gualter had given an opinion of matters which he could not in his circumstances understand. Cox calls the Common Prayer "a holy httle Book," which the Queen had "restored to the Church of Christ. When we were called to the mi nistry we embraced that Book with open arms, and not with out thanks to God, who had preserved for us such a treasure, and restored it to us in safety. For we know that this Book ¦ ordains nothing contrary to the Word of God." Cox men tions that some of the Separatists even refused to enter the parish churches. Horn also writes, " They reject preaching, despise Communion, would have all churches destroyed, as having been formerly dedicated to Popery." In 1573, Cox .alludes to "Articles drawn up by certain Englishmen, now It is difficult to understand their as in a few years the Puritans became their strenuous advocates. Cartwright compared them to Trentals. Whitgift pbjection to funeral sermons, especially ' shews the absurdity of the notion, with the Rubrics and Canons. 101 Grindal says that these extreme men were young, and that Humphrey, Sampson, and others disapproved of their violent proceedings". Alluding to the same class, Sandys says, "The author of these novelties, and, after Beza, the first inventor, is a young Englishman, by name Thomas Cartwright "." As Cox and other bishops had represented the deprived Puritans as unlearned, Withers, one of the party, takes up their defence, alleging that they were so learned as to be chosen as preachers at Paid's Cross p. Thus the Puritans be came divided, — one party, with Cartwright at their head, adopting the Presbyterian discipline, the other remaining in the Church, and partially conforming to her ceremonies. Nothing would satisfy the Separatists short of the establish ment of their newly-invented Discipline, which was to be forced upon all as the discipline of Christ. Deprivations for nonconformity were not, therefore, uncommon after the rise of the extreme party among the Puritans. All these evils are traceable to the miserable disputes at Frankfort among the exiles in the reign of Queen Mary. Instead of sympathizing with their suffering brethren at Cartwright used the argument, that " in the best reformed churches they were removed ;" but Whitgift alludes to the form used in the English Church at Geneva, in which they are approved, and which was allowed by Calvin. Cartwright used also his com mon argument, that they were not mentioned in the Now Testament ; to which Wbitgift replied, " You can no more prove by this argument that there ought to be no funeral sermons than you can prove that there ought to he no women at the receiving of the Communion." Whitgift's Defence, 732—735. Bancroft alludes to the subject, quoting from their Book of Discipline : " The preachers must leave oft' by little and little to preach at burials, lest thereby they nourishe the superstition of some men." Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, 99, 108. The objection existed in the beginning of the reign of Charles I., though during the Long Parliament the Puritans adopted the practice, and carried it to an excess never indulged in by the Church of England. They said the practice was abrogated in the reformed Churches. Fisher's Defence of the Liturgie, 1630, 208. Bridges meets their objection by referring to Calvin's practice in Geneva: "If they think Geneva the best reformed Church, how can our brethren say, as here they doe, &c. V Defence of Ecclesiastical Government, 1587, 817 » Zurich Letters, 234—37, 249, 280 —83, 292. ° Ib. 312. p Ib. 149. Eiebard Hilles, in 1567, tell3 Bullinger, who seems to have re ceived intelligence from men of various shades of opinion, that the very scrupu lous men were "not aroang the most learned;" that they, .-by too great scrupulosity, or overci. .- >y vain-glory, or some measure of p''',»"; >r applause," created disturbances by their opposi tion, " touching the use of wearing of the surplice in the church during the saying of the Psalms, the reading of the Lessons, and the administration of the Sa' -auients." Zurich Letters, Se cond Series, 166. 102 The Book of Common Prayer; home, too many occupied themselves in declaiming against the Book of Common Prayer. It is vain to allege that the dispute was a quarrel between two parties who were equally to blame ; for it must ever be remembered that all of them had conformed to the Book of Common Prayer in England, for the defence of which many were at the very time suffer ing in the flames. The adherents to the Book simply re quested that they might worship as they did in England. The opponents coidd only plead against such a course the practice of some foreign Churches, with which they had no possible connexion. It would appear that some of the exiles, who opposed the Book, were doubtful of their cause, for in a letter from Strasburg in 1555 Sampson says, "A strong con troversy has arisen ; while some desire the Book of Reforma tion of the Church of England to be set aside altogether, others only deem some things in it objectionable, such as kneeling at the Lord's Supper, the linen surphce, and other matters." Some argued for the Book, because the Arch bishop of Canterbury " defends the doctrine as sound," and because the other party " can assign no just reason why the form should be changed." Sampson writes this to Calvin, and asks his opinion i. At this early period, therefore, some of the exiles were inclined to depart altogether from the English Reformation, and to set up Presbytery. It could not be supposed that such men would conform peaceably at home. Knox's influence and turbulence in these disputes at Frank fort produced the most mischievous results. Whitehead and others, writing to Calvin in 1555, distinctly attribute the persecutions at home to the pernicious book of Knox's, for which he was removed from Frankfort. " This we can assure you, that that outrageous pamphlet of Knox's added much oil to the flame of persecution in England. For before the publication of that book not one of our brethren had suf fered death ; but as soon as it came forth, we doubt not but that you are -well aware of the number of excellent men who have perished in the flames. To say nothing of how many i Original Letters, 170. with the Rubrics and Canons. 103 more have been exposed to the risk of all their property, and even hfe itself, upon the sole ground of either having had this book in their possession, or having read it1'." Beino- in safety himself, the violence of his temper led him to forget the confessors in England. Pretending to be influenced with zeal for God's glory, he was led on by his own ungovernable spirit to matters quite beyond his province as a preacher of the Gospel. The Puritans who remained in the Church complained of some few things ; yet they would not separate. Humphrey and Sampson in 1566 enumerate, in a letter to Bullinger, the objections which they entertained to the Ceremonies. They are comparatively few. They admit that there was nothing actuaUy sinful in the Prayer-book, though they regarded some things as superstitious. Some of their objections appear very strange in the present day. Thus the organ was as obnoxious to them as the surplice and the cross. Some things were condemned which were not enjoined, as the " churching-veil." This rested only on custom". They com plain also of the omission of the paragraph on the Corporal Presence from the XXVIIIth Article, alleging that the ex cluded portions " expressly oppugned and took away the Real Presence." The Reformers intended to take away only a Corporal Presence*. In the preceding chapter we have seen how frequently the r Original Letters, 761. Eidley, , s The Admonition objected to the almost in his dying moments, sent a churching-veil; and Whitgift replied letter to the exiles, beseeching them to j — " That women should come in veyles adhere to the Book of Common Prayer. ' is not conteined in the Booke ,-" and he " When those unhappy differences adds, that it " is rather a civil man- broke out about the use of the Liturgy, ner and customc of our country than he wrote a very moving letter, exhort- i u, ceremonie of the Churche, and the ing them to adhere stedfastly to the j wearing of newe gloues (as many at form of public worship prescribed in ¦ that time, and especi-^y at the time that excellent work ; expressing the j of marriages, do) is as much a cere- utmost astonishment at the rashness I mony as those." Cartwright had ob- and presumption of Mr. Knox and his \ jected to the women going so near the party, and challenging them to shew I Communion-table. Whitgift answer- any "particular contrary to tbe holy i ed — " It is thought to be the moste Word of God in the whole English , convenient plnce, especially if she be Liturgy, the purity and perfection of | disposed to receive the Holy Conuuu which he every day expected to be called to confirm with the testimony of his blood." Downes's Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, 93, 94. nion." Whitgift's Defence, 535, 537; Bridges':; Defence, &.C., 810. • Zurich Letters, 163—165. 104 The Book of Common Prayer ; bishops in their Visitation Articles alluded to the surplice, which was one of the obnoxious garments. The cope also is sometimes mentioned, though it appears to have been chiefly confined to cathedrals. Various letters and works of the period shew that the Articles of the bishops were necessary. John Abel tells Bullinger in 1566 that " they need not put on a surplice when preaching, as indeed nobody is com manded to do, except in the administration of infant baptism and the Lord's Supper :" yet Coverdale, Humphrey, and Sampson, in the same year lament, in a letter to Beza, that " the white surplice and cope are to be retained in Di vine Service u." Bullinger confirms the judgment which the bishops had formed of the unreasonable character of the Puritan opposition. " I confess to you that I have always looked with suspicion upon the statements made by Master Sampson. He is not amiss in other respects, but of an ex ceedingly restless disposition : — While he resided amongst us at Zurich, he never ceased to be troublesome to Mas ter Peter Martyr, of blessed memory. He often used to complain to me that Sampson never wrote a letter without filling it with grievances : the man is never satisfied; he has always some doubt or other to busy himself with." It is amusing to read Bullinger's account of the way in which he was accustomed to get rid of his troublesome visitor': — " As often as he began to lay his plans before me, I used to get rid of him in a friendly way, as well knowing him to be a man of a captious and unquiet disposition. England has * This evidence quite overturns Mr. Soames's notion : " The wearing and hearing in publike administrations of albe, surplesse, coape, pastoral- sta ffe, cornnicniie called the crozier staffe." A Defence of the Ecclesiastical Disci pline. Privately printed. 4to., 1588, 23S. Zurich ' Letters, Second Se ries, 121. In the lime of Whitgift and Cartwright there can be no doubt that tho cope was used. Cartwright mentions it as an obnoxious habit, and Whitgift defends the use with that of the surplice. In 1577 Cartwright, in replying to Whitgift, asks, " Would not the priest's gown suffice without the surplice ? His surplice without the cope ? His preaching and other minis terial function without them all ? " Again : " He should have compared our cope to the idolatrous cope." Tho Pest of the Second Peplie of Thomas Cartwright, 252, 257. It is singu lar that one Puritan writer, Abel, as above quoted, should say that the sur plice was not required. He could only have meant, that in somo places it was disused with impunity, or that some bishops were lax in enforcing disci pline. Its use was enjoined, as Cart wright admits, though it was often neglected. Zurich Letters, Second Series, 118. with the Rubrics and Canons. 105 many characters of this sort, who cannot be at rest, who can never be satisfied, and who have always something or other to complain aboutv." Little did Bullinger imagine, when he penned this letter, that it would be published in England nearly three centuries afterwards. A more severe descrip tion of the Puritans could not have been given even by an enemy: it is a better justification of the bishops than the most laboured defence. It shews that leniency and tenderness would have been lost upon such men : even had the bishops yielded, many of the Puritans would have been dissatisfied ; and one concession would only have encouraged a demand for another. Parker, Whitgift, and other bishops, did no more than circumstances required ; no more even than Bul linger would have done. Obedience to the laws was neces sary; the bishops merely enforced it; and the sentence of deprivation was never executed until all other means had failed. From the commencement of the reign some bishops were reluctant to enforce uniformity ; consequently some dioceses presented greater irregularities than others. Cecil tells Par ker in 1561, " The Bishop of Norwich is blamed, even by the best sort, for his remissness in ordering his clergy. He winketh at schismatics and Anabaptists, as I am informed. Surely I see great variety in administration. A surplice may not be borne here ; and the ministers follow the folly of the people, calling it charity tojQ?ed their fond humour"." Par ker wished to act tenderly, but he was called upon to deal with men who regarded tenderness as weakness. In 1565 he addressed Sampson, beseeching him " Visceribus Jesu Christi to salve again this great offendicle risen by your dissent from the course of the Gospel." The next year he mentions to Cecil, that some repented of their course, and that one had besought him to restore him to his parish. His testimony respecting their abilities agrees with that already given : — T Zurich Letters, Second Series, 152. 1 Parker's Correspondence, 149. Burnet alludes to "the great diver sity in practice; many conforming on all points to the law, while others did not use either the surplice or the square cap. Many forsook' their churches on both sides ; some because those habits were used, and some be cause they were not used." Burnet, iii. 306. 106 The Book cf Common Prayer ; " As for the most part of these recusants, I would wish them out of the ministry, as mere ignorant and vain heads." That some of the means taken by the Puritans were fac tious and discreditable is certain. Cecil had been told that six hundred persons came to a particular church, intending to receive the Communion, and found the doors closed. He writes to Parker, who refers him to the Bishop of London ; but adds, that in some places to which he had sent his chap lains, " What for lack of surplice and wafer-bread, they did mostly but preach." He then states that in one place, while his chaplain was reading the service, " one man of the parish drew from the table both cup and the wafer-bread, because the bread was not common. Divers churchwardens, to make a trouble and difficulty, will provide neither surplice nor bread." What could the bishops do in such cases ? Could they do less than attempt to enforce conformity ? Parker mentions the case of Crowley, who had been confined to his own house for refusing to conform. The mayor complained to Parker, who sent his own chaplain to officiate in his church : " But they heard him quietly, and a minister sent thither was received with his surplice -T." The objection of the Puritans to wafers in the Com munion must have been raised only for the sake of oppo sition, since they were used even in Geneva. The foreign Reformers deemed the matter to be one of indifference. Parker alludes to the controversy in 1570 in a letter to Cecil, mentioning that it " was a matter of much contention in the realm ;" but that " most part of Protestants think it most meet to be in wafer-bread, as the Injunction pre- scribeth, while divers others, I cannot tell of what spirit, would have the loaf-bread" A curious case is mentioned by Parker, of an attempt to indict a priest for using wafer- bread. The judges were, as he says, astonished on "the production of the Book." Even at that time, so near to the publication of the Injunctions, many were ignorant of their character. Calvin had a dispute with the people at Berne for using wafers in the Communion, and for observing cer- i Parker's Correspondence, 244, 272, 277, 278. icith the Rubrics and Canons. 107 tain festivals. On these points the people of Geneva were divided, and at last Calvin was banished from the city, the victorious party restoring the wafers. Some of his friends who remained wrote to him on the subject ; and he, having grown wiser in his exile, advised them not to make a di vision about a matter which was indifferent. On his return to the city the practice was continued without further oppo sition z, so that Calvin's example might have contented the Puritans. A most important fact is mentioned by Parker in the same letter to Cecil, namely, that the Queen had assured him that, but for the proviso in the Act of Uniformity authorizing her to make alterations in rites and ceremonies, she would not have agreed to divers orders in the Book of Common Prayer; and that by virtue of this law, " she published further order in her Injunctions, both for the Communion-bread, and for the placing the tables within the quire." So that the Queen and the Archbishop considered the Injunctions as authorized by the Statute : — "They that like not the Injunctions force much the Statute in the Book. I tell them they do evil to make odious comparison betwixt Statute and Injunction, and yet I say and hold, that the injunction hath authority by * Parker's Correspondence, 375. Wafers were long used at Geneva. Parte of a Register, 25, 28, 29. This work was published about 15S9 ; and wafers were then used in some churches in England. "At Geneva the use of the wafer-cake being brought in in the absence of Calvin, did secme to sundry godly men a thing so offensive that they were of mind to have refrained from the Lord's Supper; hut Calvin being demanded his judgment wished them rather quietly to use it. How abominably the wafer-cake was abused in Popery every man may know ; it was made an idol, and palpably adored with the highest kiude of divine wor ship. Yet Calvin, though thinking it inconvenient, did earnestly admonish them not to he contentious about a thing indifferent." Mason on the Church, 38; Sprint's Anglicanus, 157. In 1567 Heylin says, "In some churches, and particularly in West minster Abbey, they still retained the use of wafers." Hist, of Presby terians, 257. In 1580 the lords of the council, in a letter to the Bishop of Chester, order that each parish. should adhere to its present practice, whether in the use of wafers or com mon bread. Peck's Desiderata Cu- riosct, i. 91, 94; Strype's Parker, ii. 343, 344. Whitgift considered the matter as indifferent. Wh'tgift's De fence, 591, 595. I vrkhur:.. nsks Par ker's advice about the waf'ec-bread in 1574, in consequence of contentions in his diocese. There were two parties, " the one alleging the Book, the other her Majesty's Injunction; the one af firming this, the other that, to be of more force." Gorham's Gleanings, 491. Cosin mentions that it was ques tioned whether any church was re strained from the use of wafers, " as in Westminster and many other places they have been wont to do." Kiehols on Common Prayer. Additional Xotes, 68. 108 The Book of Common Prayer ; proviso of the Statute." It was held that, as the description of bread was not mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer, the matter was settled by the Inj-uhctions. Wafer-bread was not regarded as excluded by the rubric. Parker gives this interpretation : "It shall suffice, I expound, where either there wanteth such usual fine bread, or superstition be feared in the wafer-bread : which is rather a toleration in these two necessities than is in plain ordering, as is in the Injunction." Parker admits that the question was not important, yet in his own diocese he said the rejection of the wafer-bread " would breed some variance \" Soon after he sent a sacra mental wafer to Cecil, according to the form devised by Grindal and himself. " How so many churches," says he, "hath of late varied I cannot tell; except it be the practice of the common adversary to make variance and dissension in the Sacrament of Unity." When Parkhurst applied for ad vice on the same subject, the Archbishop replied: "You would needs be informed by me whether I would warrant you either loaf-bread or wafer-bread, and yet you know the Queen's pleasure. You have her Injunctions, and you have also the Service-book." In another letter he requests Parkhurst not " to wink at the loaf-bread, but merely to per mit it for the sake of peace in some places b." The extreme courses of the separating Puritans are thus described in 1589 : " They will have no fonts, but christen in basons :. many will npt use the old pulpits, but have new made. I marvaile that they use the churches themselves, then which nothing hath been more prophaned with super stition'1." Xot many years after some did actually call "for * Parker's Correspondence, 376. "There was likewise a clause put in the Act of Uniformity empowering the Queen to ordain and publish such fur ther ceremonies and rites," lb. ii. 4. I k Le Strange's Alliance, 328. 112 The Book of Common Prayer ; service in the body of the church : at length a reading- desk was adopted in some churches, which was tolerated by the ordinaries, though not enjoined by law. Gradually the custom was recommended by the bishops, until it became almost general1. It is evident from the controversy between Whitgift and Cartwright, that the accustomed place was the chancel. The latter says : — " He whiche readeth is not in some place hearde, and in the most places not understanded of the people, through the distance of place betweene the people and the minister, all the whyche ryseth upon the wordes of the Booke of Service, which are that the minister should stande in the accustomed place, for thereupon the minister in saying Morning and Evening Prayer, sytteth in the chancel with hys backe to the people, as though he had some secret talke with God whych the people might not heare. And hereupon it is likewise, that after morning prayer, for saying another number of prayers he clymeth up to the further end of the chauncel, and runneth as farre from the people as the wall wyl let him." To this Whitgift merely rephes, that Cart wright has not quoted the whole rubric, omitting the words " excepte it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinarie." He then expresses his opinion that in most churches the bishops have "taken a very good order for the place of i "Kb man denieth but that hothe praying and preaching ought to be in that placa where it may be best heard of all : and therefore the Booke doth prudently leave it to the discretion of the bishop. But the middest is not the fittest place for that purpose : he that standeth in the middest of the church bathe some behynde him, somo before him, aud some of eche syde of him, those whiche be behindc, or on the sides,, cannot so welt heare, as those tint he before, as experience teacheth in sermons at the Spittle, at the Crosse in Patdes, and other places. Wherefore, in my opinion, that place in the church is most fittest, both for praying and preaching, where the mi nister may have the people before him." Whitgift's Defence, 4-86. " Tho f.ccilstomid place was then without dispute the choire : for all along Queen Mary's days, nay, from her death, being the 17th of November, to the Feast of St. John Baptist, when this Common Prayer was to commence, by the Sta tute, mattins and mass, yea, all divine offices, were performed after the Popish manner, and that was undoubtedly in the choire at the high altar, and conse quently to that place must the word accustomed have relation in this ru- brick. True it is, there is an excep tion against this rule, in case tbe or dinary shall determine otherwise: so that till the ordinary shall state it otherwise, the rule holds firm, and consequently Morning Prayer, with all its appendauts (not otherwise settled by express order) is to be said at the altar." Le Strange, 212. with the Rubrics and Canons. 113 prayer ; if any bishop have neglected it, the fault is in the bishop, not in the Booke." Two things, then, are evident : first, that the accustomed place was the chancel ; secondly, that the second service was read at the Communion-table stand ing at the end of the chancel under the wall. This is a charge brought by Cartwright, and Whitgift does not deny it. At this time, therefore, the practice must have been general; and such was the law. Cartwright admitted that there was an order for reading " The chapters and Letanie in the body of the church ;" but on this he grounds a charge of disorder, " in saying the rest of the prayers partly in the hither end and partly in ye further end of the chancel." Alluding to the ordinary's power with respect to morning and evening prayer, he intimates that the evil, as he called it, had not been corrected. In reply, Whitgift says, — " Concerning the lessons, the Book prescribeth no place : neyther doth the Book appoint any certain for the Letanie, and therefore you do but dally and trifle. The ordinarie is the meetest man to whose discretion these things should be left." Cartwright afterwards said, — " The tenth churcli in England hath not al the service said in that place where the whole church may best hear yt." He then censures the " separation of the minister by chaun- cel as monkish, as also the often shifting of the minister's place." Here, then, is direct and positive evidence of the custom of our Church in the time of Elizabeth m. The pulpit was usually placed near the entrance to the choir, so that the preacher might look towards the people in the body of the church. ¦ On some occasions a pulpit was erected for preaching in the open air. From the Reforma tion, it was the custom to have three sermons on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Easter-week, at the Spittle, a dissolved hospital, before the Lord Mayor, a pulpit being erected in an open space on what was once the churchyard. As in all churches the pulpit faced the western end, so the temporary pulpit at the Spittle was placed toward the west. But in 1594 a new pulpit Avas made and set up toward the south. The example had been set by Sir Walter Mildmay, m Whitgift's Defence, 485, 486, 4S7. The Pest of the Second IUplie of Thomas Cartwright, 186, 187. AM. I 114 The Book of Common Prayer; in the chapel of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, which by his order was built north and south". Some singular customs prevailed even in Parliament in connection with the Book of Common Prayer. In the House of Commons, 1558-9, February 11th, "The Litany was said by the clerk kneeling, and answered by the whole house on their knees, with divers prayers." In 1580, " Saturday, the 21st day of January, the Litany being read by the clerk, and the old prayer that was used in former sessions read also by the speaker, Mr. Speaker made a short oration." On Mon day, the 23rd, "Mr. Speaker coming to the House after eleven of the clock, read the usual prayer, omitting the Litany for the shortness of time." On the 24th the speaker informed the members of the Queen's displeasure at the ap pointment of a private fast by the house. It had been ordered for the 29th, in the Temple Church, but the House submitted to her Majesty0. Heylin ascribes some changes to the Puri tans. " They had also much took off the edge of the people from the Common Prayer-book, but most especially in the Litany, which till that time (1580) was read accustomably in the House of Commons before the members settled upon any business. But in the beginning of this Parliament it was moved by one Paul Wentworth in the House of Com mons, that, there might be a sermon every morning before they satep." It appears that the speaker was left to his own ' HeyUn'sPresbyterians,329. Whit- g'ft says, the Scriptures say nothing " of preachings in pulpets, chaires, or otherwise; of baptizing in foates, in basons, or rivers, &c. And yet no man (I suppose) is so simplo to thinke that the Churche hath no authoritie to take order in these matter:;." Whitgift's Defence, 89. It is evident, from tho rubrics, that the minister looked away from the people in prayer, for he is ordered to turn towards them in read ing the Lessons. Before the last re view fiiii rubric before the Te Deum was, " The minister that reads the Lessons standing and turning himself so as he may be best heard ;" in 1652 it was changed to, " he that readeth so standing and turning himself as he mav be best heard." The direction in both is in effect the same. The mi nister is to turn to the people, so that he is previously supposed to look in another direction. In the rubric be fore the Absolution in tho Communion Office is a similar direction. The bishop, or priest, is to turn to the people: "For that purpose, in many parish churches of late, the reading-pew had one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the church, another for the Prayer-book, looking towards the east, or upper eud of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage j for when the people were spoken to, it was fit to look toward them; hut when God was spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people." Sparrow. 0 D'Ewes's Journal, 47, 282—284. p Hcylin's Presbyterians, 286, 287- with the Rubrics and Canons. 115 discretion as to the prayer. He might use a written form, or an extemporary prayer, or portions of the Prayer-book. In 1597 he used a written prayer composed by himself. " Mr. Speaker this morning, according to the usual course, brought in a prayer to be used in the House during this Par liament." The prayer is given by D'Ewesi. Towards the close of this reign the Puritans who remained in the Church put forth a defence of their conduct in not complying with some rites and ceremonies. It was published in the name of one individual; but it was in reahty the justification of the whole body of the Puritans who did not actually separate from the Church. This work throws much hght on the subject of our inquiry. The irregularities are admitted and justified, but some things are misrepresented. Thus we read in the way of justification : " As it is saide in the Preface to the saide Booke, it was not thought fit at the first to take away all those things which seemed to be super stitious, but to take the middle waye, abandon some and retaine some1." This is a perversion of the words of the Reformers, which are a justification of all such ceremonies as were retained. They asserted that none were retained except such as were for edification. The well known Act of the 13th of Elizabeth was devised to meet the case of the Puritans. They objected to the sub scription ordered by the bishops, and the State lent its aid towards enforcing conformity. It was passed in 1571, and from this time the Puritans found it more difficult to evade the laws. It was intended to reduce them to obedience3. ' D'Ewes's Journal, 551. Parlia mentary History, iv. 413. At the end of this reign we meet with complaints which indicate, even on the part of Churchmen, an indifference to the daily service of the Church. A writer com plains of some who "prefer hearing before praying ; knowing before doing ; wherein consists the actual service and worship of God, seeing the actual service and worship of God is the end, and hearing but the means to that end. I complaine, not that our churches are auditories, but that they are not oratories; not that you come to sermons, but that you refuse or neglect common prayer ; not that you resort to Paul's Cross, but that our parish churches are naked and emptie." Howson's Sermon at Paul's Cross, 4to., 1598, 43, 44. 1 The Plea of the Innocent : wherein is averred, That the ministers and people, falslie termed Puritanes, aro injuriously slandered for enemies, or troublers of the State. By Josias Ni chols, 1602, 7. » Pari. History, iv. 101. "Which was made to restrain certain Puritani cal preachers who opposed the Articles concluded on in a synod at London in the year 1562." i3 116 The Book of Common Prayer ; In 15S5 an attempt was made to alter this Act. A bill passed the Commons, yet it was dropped in the Lords; and no particulars of its character are recorded1. After this Act, subscription was more vigorously pressed, though not alike actively by all bishops. " Our merciful God graunted unto us in the midst of these fiery contentions a goodlie space of quietnesse about the time that the reverend Father Edmund Grindal was Archbishop of Canterbury. After the said Archbishop's decease there came forth a newe and fresh as sault of subscription universallie imposed, and again enforced upon all the ministers in three Articles11." These Articles were put forth by Whitgift in 1584, and they are still sub scribed by all clergymen. The Puritans avowed their readiness to conform to the Prayer-book : " We doe willing-lie use the Book of Common Prayer, and no other forme, unless sometime upon extraor dinary occasion, by publike authority, some other prayer be assigned us ; onlio we leave out some few things, or perad- venture explain some one clause. We have always borne with what we amend, and have used the Booke of Common Prayer in our ministerie so far forth as we might. But now, being compelled by subscription to allow the same, and to confesse it not to bo against the Word of God in any point, we could not but show a reason of our refusal." They chose to understand the Act of 13 th Elizabeth as binding the:n only to subscribe to the doctrinal Articles ; and therefore in this Book it is said, that the wound would be healed " if sub scription were kept within the compasse of law, according to the meaning of the statute anno 13, and the ceremonies made indifferent, to use or not to use." " We do not disallow the Eooko of Common Praier, but do use it, and none other, in our ministrie ; bui if, further than the statute layeth upon us for that Booke, we be required to subscribe, wee do nothing ag-ainst the law of the realme, nor against the saide Booke, especially seeing that they, the saide law and Booke (so far as we can loarae) do not require our subscription to the ' D'lhvcs's Journal, 32G ; Pari. Hist., iv. 2G0 2G1. " Plea of the lunouul, 8, 9, 10. with the Rubrics and Canons. 117 same*." Nichols, the writer, says that he had quietly enjoyed his place " since the forlorn year of subscription (except that I was at two times some two years), under tho wise and fatherlie oversight of the most reverende Father our Diocesan of Canterburie, not having subscribed in any sort, neither used all the ceremonies so preciselie as peradventure some others doe." More than once he alludes to the five years of Grindal's administration previous to 1584 as a time of great peace ?. In the succeeding reigns the custom of sitting covered in Do O churches was not uncommon. It advanced as Puritanism progressed; and even in this reign it was sometimes prac tised. A drawing of the funeral of Cox, Bishop of Ely, exists, from which it is clear that the custom prevailed. "The custom of men's sitting uncovered in church is cer tainly very decent, but not very antient. Richard Cox, Lord Bishop of Ely, died 2.2nd July, 1581, and was afterwards solemnly buried in his own cathedral. I have seen an ad mirable fair, large, old drawing, exhibiting in one view his funeral procession; and in another the whole assembly sitting1 in the choir to hear the funeral sermon, all covered and having their bonets onz." We shall meet with instances of this unseemly practice as we proceed. From the foregoing account it will be seen, that there were two parties among those, who came under the general desig nation Puritans, namely, those, who after 1570 set up a separate worship and stigmatized the Common Prayer as popish, aud those who remained in the Church, though they objected to some rites and ceremonies ; and from that period to the present there have been individuals who, from igno rance or prejudice, have asserted that the Reformers left Popery in the Prayer-book. Were this charge true, it would follow that some of them died for Popery, since they did not ' Plea of the Innocent, 21, 119, 1 29, 130, 134. r lb. 186, 187, 216, 217. Fuller says tlie laws were relaxed ou account ot " Grindal's age and impotency. who in his greatest strength did but weakly urge conformity." Book ix. 138. A few years Inter, in 1587, he fiiys, "At this time there was more ¦-uniformity in the landings than conformity in tlie church-behaviour of men, the Stielc- lers against the Hierarchy appearing now more vigorous, though for a time they had concealed themselves." Ib, ix. 1SS. • Peek's Desid. Curios., 574. 118 The Book of Common Prayer; hesitate to declare that they died in defence of the principles embodied in that Book. The objectors, however, can allege no martyrs in defence of their own novel system*. Our Reformers retained only what was primitive. In their hatred to Popery, they did not lose their common sense, and reject primitive usages, because they bad been abused by the Church of Rome. Their rule of Reformation was the primi tive rule, while that of their opponents was a newly invented one of the sixteenth century. For example, the use of the sign of the Cross was more ancient than Popery ; and it was retained in the Church of England. By the Lutherans also it was retained in their Reformation. But other Churches on the Continent forsook the primitive pattern, and reformed according to the new rule. In their dread of Rome they relinquished many laudable things, as though the abuse could render their use unlawful. The more rigid Puritans constantly talked of following the best reformed Churches. The same expression was used at a later period, especially by the Scottish Presbyterians ; but it was very vague and in definite, since a difference of opinion must necessarily exist on the subject. It was introduced by Cartwright in the Admonition, and became afterwards a sort of watchword with the disaffected. The Admonition asks, " Is a reforma tion good for France, and can it be evil for England ?" But surely the question might have been altered, and with more reason,— Is a reformation good for England, and can it be evil for other countries? Their pretended argument was a mere begging of the question. It was replied, and with irresistible force : " Why should we be bound by their ex ample? we cannot but marvel that men will urge us to conformity with forraine Churches to which we owe no sub jection, and will not conforme themselves to the Church of England, in whose bosome they live. But to whom shall we conform ourselves, as the reformed Churches differ from * The views of the Separatists were put f .'i'th in the Admonition : " In the Admonition, 1572, a perfect platforme is tendered, not so perfect yet, but two years after it is altered, nine years after that, anno 1583, a new draught fit for tbe English meridian is pub lished; yet that not so exact, but Travers must have a new essay to it, 29 Eliz., and after all this a world of doubts yet arise." — Hall's Episcopacie hy Divine Bight, part iii. 25, 26. with the Rubrics and Canons. 119 one another? How shall we know which are best, unless the reformed Churches would have a general meeting in a publike councell, and make us a final determination. If we shoidd be tied to follow the most ancient, then Geneva itself must be cast in another mould, which our Reformers will not allow to be of equal perfection. But whatsoever our Reformers say, it is cleere that they have alwaies one eye fixed upon the face of Geneva : yet Geneva hath some popish orders (if you call all orders popish which have been used in Poperie,) as well as wee ; and some popish orders they keepe which are not imposed upon us, as the wafer-cake, which was more scandalously abused in Popery than anything that we enjoine, yea, then the Crosse itselfeV In short, the Church of England pursued her own independent course, without being led away by the violent proceedings of some foreign Reformers. It will also be seen from the preceding chapters, that our Reformation was managed by the Church not by the State. In some foreign countries, the State interfered and imposed a system on the Church; in England the Churcli was the b Mason on the Church, &c. 4to., 57, 58. Le Strange says, in allusion to "the best reformed Churches," that there must be a doubt in tbe matter. He questions whether the best reformed Churches, according to the Puritan acceptation, have not given up the "order of bishops, an order of 1500 years standing, before tlie new fangled discipline : wherein if they have done well, the consequence must infallibly he, that all those blessed martyrs, confessors, fathers, did abuse the Church in preserving such a pre lacy, and that God's Providence was supinely negligent and fast asleep to permit his Church all along so many centuries to be so misgoverned." Le Strange also alludes to the notions of the Lord's Day held by "the best re formed Churches." He remarks that they give it up, though the Puritans regarded it of divine institution : "True it is, they make it a day of public as sembling, but not for sacred concern ments alone : no, for civil also, having tlie'r markets kept upon those day." He argues, therefore, that the title of "the best reformed Churches" cannot be granted. Bancroft speaks of " tliat counterfeit and false hierarchie, which they would obtrude upon us hy the countenance and name of the Church of Geneva." Dangerous Positions, 3. Cartwright called for a reformation ac cording to the best reformed Churches; and Whitgift answered, " England is not bound to the example eyther of France or Scotlande; I would tliey both were (if it pleased God), touching veligion, in that state and condition that Englnnde is. I woulde Anti christ were as far from them removed." Whitgift's Defence, 704. In reference to the Liturgy he says: "To which reformed Churche would you have it framed ? Or why should not other reformed Churches as well frame them selves unto us ? Por we arc as well assured of our doctrine, and have as good grounds and reasons for our do ing as they have, except you will bring in a newe Koine, appoint unto us an other head Church, and create a newe Pope, by whom we must be in all thhifrs directed." Ib. 481. 120 The Book of Common Prayer; mover. The Church, indeed, acted with the State ; or rather the former was supported by the latter. The Reformation of the services was not parliamentary. The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal were derived from the Convocation, which alone deliberated about them ; and the Parliament, in giving their sanction, took special care to shew, that they merely added the force of a law to the measures which had previously been settled by ecclesiastical authority. Our Liturgy, by which the public service was reformed, and the Articles in which the chief errors of Rome were rejected, were arranged in our national synods; and their rule was the Word of God, and the practice of the Primitive Church. Parliament can only give a civil sanction to religious ser vices. Though it may make a thing legal, yet it cannot give an ecclesiastical character. The doctrines of the Gospel are not true because they are established by Act of Parliament, nor is the discipline of the Church obhgatory only because sanctioned by the civil legislature. On this ground, the Puritans constantly erred in judging of the Church of England, and yet for their own discipline they claimed divine authority. The Church of England appeals to the Scriptures and to primitive practice : " Imprimis vero vide- bunt, ne quid unquam doceant pro condone, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrina? Veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina Cathohci Patres, et veteres episcopi collegerint." Liber Quorundam Canonum, fyc., 1571. These canons were agreed upon in Convocation, with the revision of the Arti cles, in 1571. Many Puritan writers and some of our own Church have alleged, though without the slightest evidence, that our Re formers intended to have altered and rejected certain things which we still retain. The Puritans who lived at the time, and some moderate men who remained in the Church, un doubtedly wished to proceed further; but the Reformers themselves understood their work, which was to restore, not to destroy, and they stopped at that point at which they believed their object would be accomplished. That some men of the period of the Reformation were anxious to go ttn'lh ihe Rubrics and Canons. 121 further is true; that the Reformers themselves ever enter tained such a wish is contrary to fact, as these pages abun dantly testify. In order to effect their purpose, they re jected the additions of Rome, and went back to the ancient Liturgies. This error respecting the intentions of the Re formers has been repeated by one writer after another, until the assertion is believed by many. No writer, perhaps, is less trustworthy in such matters than Neal. He actually says, " A passage was left in one of their Service-books to this purpose, — that they had gone as far as they could. in reforming the Church, considering the times they hved in, and hoped they that came after them would, as they might, do more." This strange error was corrected at the time by Bishorj Madox, yet ISTeal contents himself with replying: " Mr. ISTeal has not had an opportunity of examining this quotation, nor does he lay any stress upon it, but he tran scribed it from Mr. Pierce's Vindication, p. 2, where it is to be found verbatim with his authority, and in Bennet's Memorial of the Reformation, p. 50." Thus we find one Dissenting writer making a most false statement, and another copying it into his pages ; and when the error is detected, we are coolly told that the author did not lay much stress upon the point, and also it is insinuated that it is probably true, because it is asserted by two other writers. A careful historian would have acknowledged and regretted his mis take. He would have examined the Service-books, and then have corrected his error; but instead of pursuing this ho nourable course, he allows the false statement to remain. It is true that Pierce gives the passage from Troughton, an other Dissenting writer, and Bennet had quoted it from Pierce. As the statement made against the Church of Eng land, these Dissenting historians gave it without inquiry. It served their purpose, and that was sufiicient. No such passage exists in any Service-book. Yet, notwithstanding the correction of the falsehood at the time, the statement was permitted to remain, without note or comment, as a true statement, in the edition of ISTeal published by Dr. Toulmin in the present century. So that even now the readers of Neal 122 The Book of Common Prayer ; will in many cases beheve the story. Thus it is that errors in history are perpetuated0. In some places the old surplices and copes used in the time of Queen Mary were still retained; and an objection was raised to these particular vestments as having been used at the mass by persons who did not object to the habits in themselves. They merely wished for new ones. Others made no distinction between such as had been used for the celebra tion of mass and those that were new ; but condemned all surplices and all copes. Many, therefore, refused to wear the surplice ; and the bishops are condemned by Puritan writers merely for enforcing the law a. In 1584 a clergyman who had been suspended for refusing to wear the surplice was asked for his reason. " I had it not," said he, " so I had not refused it. There was none offered me, nor was there a sur plice in the parish." He would not promise to wear it, but requested the bishop to allow him to go on till one was pro cured. The Bishop, Aylmer of London, refused, and the man was suspended. Could the bishop have acted otherwise with out neglecting his duty ? There was no surplice in the parish evidently because the minister persuaded the churchwardens not to procure one e. In the well-known case of Cawdrey, in 1586, the surplice was the chief objection : " I have not," says he, " wore a surplice since I entered into the ministry." Gawton, a ininister in the diocese of Norwich, admitted that he did not wear a surplice, but he denied the charge of not observing the order of the Book of Common Prayer. Ho charged the bishop with having formerly expressed his dis like of the surplice, but the charge was solemnly denied. e Madox, 310. Neal's Eeview, 70. Seal's History, by Toulmin, i. 67. Calamy says, " In the days of King Edward VI. several of the Reformers owned iii their writings that they ra ther got what they could obtain than fixed Things as they apprehended they should be; and they intended to go much farther in conformity to Scrip ture, rather than designed their settle ment for a continuance." Cnlamy's Sermon at the Ordination of Mr. John Munkers, 1717, 39. Here is the com mon fallacy of Dissenting writers. They take the assertions of men who lived at the period, but who had no hand in settling the Reformation, and attribute their views to the Reformers. No assertion Can be more contrary to fact, as is clear from the " Preface" to the Prayer-book and the paper "Of Ceremonies," in which the views of the Reformers are expressed. d Brook's Lives of the Puritans, i. 153. • Ibid., i. 296. with the Rubrics and Canons. 123 The same person confessed, though he did not refuse to com ply with the order of the Book, that he omitted certain por tions of the services, that he might give more time to the sermon ; and he appears to have imagined that he was jus tified by the law, since he adds, " as I may by law." He also omitted the sign of the Cross, and the questions to sponsors, yet he seems to have supposed that he did nothing against the Book, simply because he made no additions. There was a common notion among the Puritans, that omis sions were not prohibited*. Ellison, a minister, was charged with omitting the Litany on Sundays, to which charge he replied that he preached. The Bishop, Scambler of Peter borough, remarked, that " whether he preached or not, the Litany must be read s." From an early period of this reign the Queen's accession was observed as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God; and it was objected by the Papists that the members of the Church of England paid more regard to this day than to the great festivals of the Church. It appears first to have been celebrated in Oxford. Howson, in the dedication of a ser mon, says it " was with the first celebrated in this her most loyal and Christian TJniversitie of Oxford." The practice, however, was not new, for the same writer adds, " Not with out the example of former times, wherein the like hath been practised to some of her Majestie's predecessors, though with different ceremonies in a different religion." In meeting the charge *Yom the Papists of making too much of the day, the preacher notices those who observe superstitious feasts, and those who observe true feasts superstitiously. Of the former are the Papists, who observe feasts in honour of fabulous saints; and of the second sort were some of the Puritans, who made the Lord's Day a Jewish Sabbath. " They that observe true feasts superstitiously are such as doe Judaizare, which will see their neighbour perish before they wdl relieve him on the Sabbath-day. Such was he even of this shire, who lately, when his father's ribbes were broken, would not ' Brook's Lives, i. 432—434 ; vol. ii. 242 — 244. Cawdrey also omitted the sign of the Cross and the questions in baptism, and distributed the ele ments to persons as he found them, "some standing, some sitting, some kneeling." e Ibid., i. 356. 1 2 1 The Book of Common Prayer ; ride for a bone-setter on the Sabbath-day ; such a one was he who in my memory went out from amongst us, and preached in a market town in this shire, that it was a greater sin to doe senile opus in Sabbatho, than to do murther or com mit adultery ; because the commandement of keeping the Sabboth belonged to the first table, and murther and adultery but to the second h." As a precedent for the celebration of the day he alludes to Queen Mary, who appointed " two solemne and anniversarie masses to be yerely celebrated in St. Maries, the one on the 18th of Februarie, being the nativitie of Queen Marie, and the other on the first of October, on which she was crowned; at which masses the whole TJniversitie should be present'." Throughout this reign the extreme Puritan ministers and people avoided as much as possible being present at church except at sermon-time. A curate was frequently engaged to read the prayers according to law, the preacher remaining in the vestry until it was time to ascend the pulpit ; and the people often walked in the churchyard until the Liturgy was closed. The disaffected came to an agreement, that such ministers as could not approve of the Liturgy should remain out of the church till prayer3 were finished ; and that an ex tempore prayer should be used before sermon for such as did not attend the pubhc service. The practice was intro duced by Cartwright. To meet the case of such as did not attend the service, he was accustomed to take the bid ding prayer and adapt it to his purpose with various altera tions and additions. Thus one of the Puritan preachers h Howson's Sermon at St. Marie's, Oxford, Nov. 17, 1602. In Defence of the Festivities of the Church of Eng land, a rid namely that of her Majestie's Coronation, 4to., Oxford, 1603, 17. The Pap^ts also said, that on the 17th of November, in St. Paul's Church, "an antiphone. or hymn," used in honour of the Virgin Mary, was sung in hon' ur of Queen Elizabeth. " To this I answer," says Harsnet, " by ne gation, denying utterly that any such f-rm of antiphone is used in Paule's Church,' or in any other cathedral cuuich; yet I will not deny but that thrre is an antiphone songe in- Paule's a little before the conclusion of service, at morn and even, the 17th of No vember; but this antiphone is mere Eueharistical, indeed only to this pur pose, to give God thankes for the happy regiments of Quene Elizabeth. No other antiphone is used in any public place in England." Harsnet'a Sermon on the Queen's Accession, 4to., 1601. This was in accordance with the permission in the Queens's Injunctions. ' Ibid., 21. with ihe Rubrics and Canons. 125 saj's : " I preach every Sabbath-day without having any thing to do with the Liturgy, and that by the counsell of the reverend brethren, who have their meetings almost every weeke, who have also admitted me very kindly into theyr number11." We perceive, therefore, notwithstanding all the outcries of Dissenting writers, that the bishops of this reign were as lenient as their difficult circumstances permitted. The question has been raised, whether the Book of Articles appended to the Act of Parliament in 1571 was the Book printed in 1563 or in 1571. The whole question turns upon the fact, whether the Articles of 1571 were printed before the passing of the Act. We have positive evidence that the Latin edition was not printed on the 4th of June, 1571 ; and the Parliament was dissolved on the 29th of May. The Book, therefore, attached to the Act was printed before that time, because it was a printed Book. To the Latin Articles are appended certain canons, under the title, Liber Quorundam, §c. ; and they con stitute a part of the Book. In other words, the Articles and the Canons constitute but one Book1. On the 4th of June Parker wrote to Cecil, and stated that the Queen had not then consented to allow the Canons to be printed ; conse quently, on that day the Latin edition of the Articles was not published. Now what is the presumption from these facts ? Certainly, that the Queen had not then consented to the Articles in any form; for it is not probable that she first authorized an English edition, and then a Latin. Every one conversant with those times knows, that Latin and English editions of books were usually put out together by the same authority. Until recently, indeed, no one ever imagined that the printed book mentioned in the Act was any other than the Book of 1563. Arguing against the assertion, that the XXIXth Article was sanctioned by Convocation, Neal asks, " What has this to do with the Act of Parliament, which refers to a Book printed nine years before™ ?" Collins, in k .Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, book iii. S3; Wettenhall's Gifts and Offices in the Public Worship of God, 151. 1 Lathbury's History of the Con vocation, 181. The proofs .are here given. m Neal's Puritans, i. 218. 126 Tlie Booh of Common Prayer ; both his works on Subscription, proves that the Book ap pended to the Act was the Book of 1563". The editor of " Parker's Correspondence " says, in reference to Augustine, " The allusion is to the XXIXth Article, which was now printed for the first time °." The argument for the Book of 1571 is quite novel, and cer tainly untenable. Lord Coke speaks of Thirty-nine Articles, and the Act of Uniformity expresses the number. But what does this fact amount to ? Simply, that Lord Coke and the framers of the Act of Uniformity adopted the popular form of speech, the designation by which the Articles were known. But the adoption of the common designation does not esta bhsh the fact that the Articles were Thirty-nine in number by the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth. If Acts of Parliament mention supposed facts, which are afterwards proved not to have been facts, the mention of them in the Acts does not make them so. There is, as must be seen from the above evidence, abundant reason to shew that the Articles of 1571 were not printed when the Act of the 13th Ehzabeth was passed ; consequently, no subsequent Act, by mentioning the number Thirty-nine, can establish the fact that they were printed at that time. When Lord Coke wrote, and when the Act of 1661 was passed, there was no question raised about the XXIXth Article; and the judge and the legislators merely adopted the common designation of the Articles at the time. The Church of England gave her sanction to Thirty-nine Articles in 1562 ; but as one was not confirmed by the Queen, the. Book published in 1563 contained only Thirty-eight. All Churchmen must receive any Article sanctioned by the Church. To them the parliamentary sanction is of little im portance, since it only adds the support of the civil legis lature to the ecclesiastical. In 1571 also the Church gave her sanction to Thirty-nine Articles ; yet the Parliament in that year confirmed only Thirty-eight, because they gave force to the Book appended to the Act, in which the XXIXth Article is omitted. The XXIXth Article is subscribed hy ° Priestcraft in Perfection; His- I - Parker's Correspondence, Parker torical Essay on the XXXIX. Articles. | Society, 3S1. with the Rubrics and Canons. 127 all clergymen equally with the rest ; yet it cannot be pleaded in proceedings under the 13th of Elizabeth. When the Parliament was dissolved on the 29th of May, the Articles of 1571 had not been printed. The only printed book in existence was that of 15C3 : "Any man that observes, that though the statute in 1571 requires subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, as they are comprised in a printed book, yet there were at that time in that piinted Book but Thirty-eight Articles, the XXIXth being omitted, not withstanding that it passed in Convocation, should not sup pose that great political bodies are always exact p." The error, however, of which Calamy speaks, was not committed by the Parliament of 1571, for the Act does not mention the number of the Articles, but by the Parliament of 1661, by whom the Act of Uniformity was passed. By the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth, a printed Book containing Articles agreed upon in 1562, is specified without reference to the number ; and this book was the Book of 1563. CHAPTER VII. JAMES I. — MILLENARY PETITION. — BOOK OF 1604. EDITIONS. COPIES. — THE ABRIDGMENT. — CONFORMITY. — ORNAMENTS. — OBJECTIONS. — ORDINAL. — MS- REPRESENTATIONS. — CRANMER. — ACT OF UNIFORMITY. — 13th OE ELIZABETH. SURPLICE. — COPE. — SUBSCRIPTIONS . — IRREGULARITIES. — COMMUNION. — IN- TEEPEETATION OE RUBRICS. — VISITATION ARTICLES. — ABBOT. — BANCROFT. — . BABINGTON. — OVERALL. — CONFESSION. — LENGTH OF SERVICE. — CONTROVER SIES. — CUSTOMS. — CHURCHING VEIL. — PASSING BELL. — BOWING AT NAME OE JESUS. — DAILY SERVICE. — FUNERAL SEEMONS. — VIEWS OE THE REFORMERS. During the latter part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Puritans who were not inclined to a separation from the Church remained comparatively quiet, evading conformity to certain ceremonies, and waiting in expectation of a change under the next sovereign. As James had been trained partly under Presbytery, they hoped, if not for the abolition of epi scopacy, yet for some modifications of the ceremonies. On entering England, his Majesty was met with "the Millenary p Calamy's Remarks on Bonnet's Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles, 119. 128 The Book of Common Prayer; Petition," a petition from the ministers seeking reformation. The document was signed by 750 clergymen, all beneficed in the Church of England. In this petition their grievances were embodied, and their objections were now few and com paratively unimportant. A conference of bishops and divines was soon assembled at Hampton Court, to consider the various points at issue be tween the two parties. The Puritan ministers stated their objections, which were similar to those contained in the Mil lenary Petition. It must, however, be remembered that the Puritans of the separation were in no way concerned in this conference. The bishops well knew that it would be useless to invite men to a consultation, who objected to the very government of the Church, and rejected all forms of prayer, and the individuals themselves would have spurned such an invitation. Men who claimed the sanction of Heaven for their particular discipline could not condescend to meet for deliberation. Their discipline was ready, and to offer any opposition, or even to call it in question, was a breach of a Divine ordinance. With such men it was not possible to treat, but with those who continued in the Church and were opposed to separation, while they only objected to a few cere monies, it was supposed that some arrangement might be made. The King was, however, in favour of the English Church as he found it settled, and therefore very little re sulted from the conference. It is probable that concessions might have been made, had tho whole body of the Puritans united in a few moderate suggestions, but they were so miserably divided among them selves, that the bishops were fearful of yielding even in small matters, lest a compliance should lead to more extensive de mands. Many who did not actually separate from the Church, were disposed to proceed much further in their opposition than the ministers who actually assembled at the conference'. They did not concur with Eainolds and his brethren. It was asserted that the "conference at Hampton i Barlow's Sum of the Conference, &c., 4to., 1604. Barlow says "they would frequently walk in the church yard till sermon-time, rather than be present at public prayer." with the Rubrics and Canons. 129 Court was not in the name of all Nonconformists, but only the personal act of three or four men'." Puller fell in with the Puritan objection so far as to say that Barlow's account was partial, "to the great disadvantage of their divines." To this Heylin replies, " If so, how did it come to pass that none of their divines did ever manifest to the world the partialities and falsehoods of it ?" They only circulated a few papers in MS., which Barlow printed at the end of his book. Hick man, one of Heylin's antagonists, asserted that Barlow was sorry for some wrong done to Bainolds in his account, but when his authority was demanded he refused to give it, un less his opponent would mention the persons who had stated, that his sermons on the tares had done more mischief to the Papists than all the sermons preached by Dr. Prideaux. This was certainly an odd way of establishing his charge. No more, however, was said, and the assertion respecting Bar low's sorrow was entirely unsupported. No charge, indeed, was alleged against Barlow's account until twenty years after the author's death, and thirty years after the confer ence ; nor wras any evidence ever adduced to prove the truth ofthe assertion, which was then industriously circulated3. James succeeded to the throne on tho 7th of May, 1603 ; in the following October he issued a proclamation, in which he intimated that the matters in dispute should be considered by a body of clergymen selected for the purpose. This con ference did not take place until January, in consequence of the plague. The proclamation authorizing the new Book is dated the 5th of March; and the Book was published during that month. This was March 160-1 ; but as the ecclesiastical year then began on tho 25th of the month, it was at the option of the printer to use the date of 1603 or 1604, as his own discretion might dictate. In March, therefore, the Book appeared, with the proclamation, and * The History of Conformity, &c, 4to., 1681, 20. ' » Heylin's Examen, 172 ; Certamen Epistofare, 127, 129. Puller, in reply t> Heylin, simply says, " I only said j part ii, 94. that some did complain that this con- . AM. K ference was partially set forth. I avowed not that they complained justly ; I believe their complaint cause- lesse." Appeal of Injured Innocence, 130 The Book of Common Prayer; it was considered to possess full authority, though not set forth by Parhament, nor sanctioned by Convocation. James and Whitgift considered that the sovereign was duly au thorized to make alterations. "By the advice of com missioners, or the metropolitan," the sovereign was em powered " to ordain and publish such further ceremonies as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the edify ing of His Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments ;" unless, therefore, it can be shewn that the power was confined to Queen Elizabeth, the Book of 1604 was duly and fully authorized. It appears to me that few persons really questioned the royal authority at that time. One of the most learned, and also the most moderate, of the writers of this period, says in 1605 : " The King of England may, by the ancient preroga tive and lawes of England, make an ecclesiastical commission, by advice whereof, or the Metropolitane, he may ordaine and publish such ceremonies, or rites, as shall be most for the advancement of God's glory." For this the writer quotes Sir Edward Coke and the Act of Uniformity. But, apart from the Act, he considers such power as belonging to the royal prerogative. Probably the Act of Uniformity was in tended to be an assertion of the prerogative. After some eulogium on Elizabeth's Book, he proceeds : " Yet it hath pleased our gracious Sovereigne that some things should be cxplayned, that the publike forme of Praier might be free not only from blame, but from suspicion." He then remarks, that the Convocation commend the use of the Book thus explained, and bind the clergy to its use*. According to this view, the Book of 1604 possessed legal and convocational authority. In the next reign, the general impression was that the Crown, by its own authority, could make alterations in ceremonies, just as it could put forth occasional forms of prayer. Some years later, indeed, Burton, whose opinion on such matters is of no value, says, " But they plead the Act of Uniformity before the Communion Book, wherein is re- Mason on the Church, 15, 22. with the Rubrics and Canons. 131 served a power to the Queen, with advice of her Commis sioners, &c. Hereupon they ground all their innovations. But for this, first observe that this clause of the Act is hmited to Queen Elizabeth, and not extended to her successors. Secondly, admit it was extended to the successors, yet it is with that qualification as may be most for the advancement of, &c. To bring our new rites to this rule. Do they make for the advancement of God's glory? What, superstitious idolatrous worship of wooden altars ? What, to bow before a crucifix ? Againe, for the edifying of His Church. What ? By reading a second service at the altar where the people cannot heare it ? And for due reverence of Christ's sacra ments. What? By possessing the people with an opinion of a Popish Keal Presence" ?" The force of the Act of Uni formity was, however, denied by some of the Puritans. "The State doth not impose the use of ceremonies, but doth tole rate them for the timex." The power is denied to be in King James : " The authoritie to alter ornaments was given to her Majestie, and not intailed to her heirs and succes sors y." But these writers made their assertions at random, for the sake of supporting their own particular views. As the sovereign never dies, all the privdeges of Queen Eliza beth, if not expressly limited, descended to James I. As no limits are mentioned in the Act, the authority was possessed by the successor. Two editions of the Book, if not more, were published; yet it is of such rarity that few libraries possess a copy. One is preserved in the library at Lambeth, with the date 1603, another at Cambridge with the same date, and a third in the Bodleian Library with the date 1604. These are the only copies existing in public libraries. Three others, of the date of 1604, exist in private collections. It is remarkable that so few copies should be known, since of the editions of 1549, 1552, and 1559, many are to be found both in pubhc and private libraries z- ¦ Burton's God and the King, 65, 66. x Supplication to the King, 4to., 1609, 33 y Survey of Book of Com mon Prayer, 1610, 42. 1 To this Book of 1604, and not to Elizabeth's Book, subscription was re- k2 132 The Book of Common Prayer ; Many who have made the history of the Prayer-book their special study have been obhged to content themselves with later editions ; and therefore they were not aware of variations even in the Books of 1604. Vet such is the fact. Of the six known copies I have examined four, and find that there are two editions of the date of 1604. The variations are sufficient to shew that the Book was twice printed. The tables of contents differ in the number of hnes, and the initial letters and ornaments vary considerably. Though the catch-words are the same in both editions, yet many pages present varieties in orthography. In one copy we read " Act," in another " Acte of Uniformity." Still the varia tions can only be discovered by a very minute comparison. In my own case the discovery was accidental. Observing the difference in a remarkable letter in the title between two copies, I was induced to compare the two to the end. One variation is remarkable. It occurs in the rubric respecting ornaments. The usual reading is, "And here it is to be noted, that the minister, at the time of the Communion and at all other times in his ministrations, shall use," &c. This is the reading in Ehzabeth's Books, and undoubtedly the correct one. Bishop Cosin alludes to the omission of the word all in his day. " The word all here had been divers years omitted in the editions of this Book, contrary to the true copy of it set forth in the first year of Queen Elizabeth (which was done either by the negligence of the printer, or upon design,) until King Charles the First, in the first year ' of his reign, commanded it to be restored, and sent me to the printing-house to see it done : ever since that time it has so continued \" One of the copies of 1604 retains the word " all," and is therefore correct ; the other omits it ; and quired by the 36th Canon. This was certaiuly ah implied sanction by Con vocation. * ^Nichols on the Common Prnyer. Additions, p. 17. One of the copies of 1604 is in the library of Mr. Meud- ham. The late Mr. Mendham told tea that he hnd greater difficulty in procuring this Book than in obtaining copies of 1519, 1552, and 1559. Tbe Proclamation prefixed to the Book of 1604 alludes to " Informations of sun dry ministers complaining of errors and imperfections in tho Church." Tlieir conduct, moreover, is censured : " They used forms not here allowed, held assemblies without authority, and did other things carrying a very ap parent show of sedition, more than of zeal, whom we restrained by a former Proclamation in October last." with the Rubrics and Canons. 133 it is quite true, as Cosin states, that it was omitted in sub sequent editions during the reign of James I. Though no important concessions were made to the Puri tans, yet some changes were introduced in the new edition of the Book of Common Prayer. They did not, however, satisfy the Puritans. As soon as the Book appeared it was fiercely attacked ; and one of the main arguments was its want of due authority, because it had not been enacted by Parhament. Various anonymous and secretly printed publications were filled with the complaints and the objections of the Puritans. One of the earliest, and indeed the chief, was " The Abridge ment," which embodies all their grievances. In 1604 the Canons were arranged in Convocation ; and the Puritans fairly say that from them they "are bound to receive the meaning and interpretation of the Book of Common Prayer." At this time the people were generaUy in favour of the cere monies as settled by the rubrics and canons ; and in " The Abridgement" it is said, " Many of the people in all parts of the land are knowne to be of this minde, that the sacraments are not rightly administered without them ;" while such as omit them are called " schismatics and Puritans." " The surplice is known to be esteemed by many of the people in all parts of the land so holy a thing, as that they will not receive the sacrament from any but such as weare it." Of the sign of the cross they say, " The common people in many parts of the land are known not only to retain the supersti tious use of it, (blessing themselves, their breasts, their fore heads, and everything they take in hand by it,) but also to hold that their children are not rightly baptized without it," As a reason for their nonconformity, the ministers plead their former disuse of the ceremonies and the surplice. " As there is danger iu the use of these ceremonies in all congre gations, so specially if they shall be brought back againe into those, where they have beene long out of use, and re ceived by such ministers as are known to have refused them heretofore. For this cause great divines have judged, that the receiving of them againe into such congregations can with no colour of reason be esteemed an indifferent thing, but 134 The Book of Common Prayer ; must needs be held wicked and unlawful V It is evident. from this Book, notwithstanding all the outcries against the bishops under Elizabeth, that numbers of the Puritans re tained their livings unmolested, though they refused to wear the surplice, and to conform to some of the ceremonies. In the Book of 1604 the rubric respecting ornaments re mained as it stood under Queen Elizabeth ; and the objec tions of the Puritans not only prove that the cope and the albe were used, but also that in their opinion, as well as in that of the bishops, they were enjoined. Their allusion to the disuse of the pastoral staff by the bishops as an inconsis tency, is a proof that they considered the rubric to be bind ing. " What bishop is tliere that in celebrating the Com munion, and exercising every other publike ministration, doth weare, besides his rochet, a surplice, or albe, and a cope or vestment, and doth hold his pastoral staff in his hand, or els hath it borne by his chaplain ? To all which, notwith standing hee is bound by the first Book of Common Prayer made in King Edward the 6 his time, and consequently by authority of the same statute whereby we are compelled to use those ceremonies in question0." At the end of "The Abridgement" is a table of such things as were then considered objectionable by the Puritans. The Liturgy is alleged to be in matter and form hke the Mass-book, while its length "shuts out preaching." The use of the word " priest," aud the appointment of holydays with eves, are deemed popish. The words " generally ne- b An Abridgement of that Booke which the ministers of Lincolne Dio- cesse delivered to his Mnjestie upon the firs.t of December, 1605, 21, 51, 52,63,l»t. c In another work they admit that copes were enjoined, but add that " nor:*- of them are usod but in some cathedral chiuches." Survey of the Book- of Common Prayer, IOS. "Tlie bishops themselves take liberty to omit tlie ornaments imposed on them, namely, the pastoral stnft'e, which in the same place of the Book of 2 Ed ward VI. ho is enjoyned to have in his hand, or to liave it borne by bis chap lains. Yet the bishops herein can dispense for themselves : is there not reason then to dispense with ministers iii the rest ?" Reasons shewing tlio Necessity of Refonnation,3S,39. Copes are enjoined in cathedrals by the 24th Canon. The cope was probably en joined hy the Canons in consequence of the disposition to lay it aside. " This vestment having been discontinued (I know not by what fatal negligence), . many years together, it pleased the bishops and clergy in the Convocntion anno 1603, to pass a canon to this purpose, viz. Canon 24." Heylin's lafe of Laud, 7. with the Rubrics and Canons. 135 cessary" in the Catechism are said to imply that there are more than two Sacraments a. Among the doubtful or false things alleged to be in the Book, is the assertion that the infants slain by Herod were " Innocents." In the reign of Queen Elizabeth an objection had frequently been raised to the permission granted to one of the people to repeat the Confession in the Communion Office. It was now confined to the minister. Some of the objections indicate the inter pretations given to certam rubrics at the time. Thus they object "that the words of the institution are to be pro nounced and repeated to every several communicant." In the Book of 1604, the Ordination Services were not com prehended; and Elizabeth's Ordinal was used, which even then, it seems, was not common : " Not one minister in forty doth know what that Booke containeth, nor how to come to the sight of it." Thus, after a few years the Ordi nation Services were printed at the end of the Common Prayer. The Ordinal is charged with " manifest untruths ;" and they specify the preface, " where it is said that it is evident to all men dihgently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient writers, that from the apostles' times there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, viz. bishops, priests, and deacons." The Book is moreover mis represented. They insinuate that the Thirty-sixth Article seems to require subscription to the first Ordinal published by King Edward ; and they mention various corruptions, — " as that the cope, albe, surplice, tunicle, and pastoral staffe" are appointed to be used ; and that the oath of supremacy is thus concluded : " so helpe me God, and all Saints, and the holy Evangelists." The Thirty-sixth Article required sub scription to the Ordinal of Queen Elizabeth. No state ment of the Puritans respecting books, or ceremonies, or doctrines retained by the Church of England, can be re ceived without due examination. Many of their assertions are most ungrounded, whether made in ignorance or by design * " 'Whether the learners of this Ca- tcchisme may not be occasioned hy these words to believe that there be mo Sacramentes than two," Survey of Prayer-book, 120. 136 The Book of Common Prayer ; Various books were published within a few years after James's accession of the same general character, all im pugning the Book of Common Prayer and the Church. Incidentally, some things are mentioned which shew the narrow-mindedness of the men, and prove that any relax ation in the terms of conformity would merely have led to further demands. They could not, for example, question Cranmer's piety, because he had died as a martyr ; yet they have done what they could to traduce his memory. Allud ing to one of Calvin's Letters, it is said, " Wherein the writer may observe two notable things ; first, the feare, or rather prophesie of M. Calvin, that a winter-like and full quenching of the Gospell would shortly follow the slackness of a full reformation ; secondly, the great and grievous trouble of conscience and foul fall of subscribing to all the abominations of popery, which God let Cranmer fall into before his death. Which sharp correction God surely laid upon him partly for his greater trial, and partly also as a correction for his slackness in reformation of things that were amisse." He is also compared to King Solomon, " with his many hundred wives, who at the last drew him to ido latry and all abominations. So Cranmer being married to many hundred Churches, was at the last driven to subscribe to all abominations of popery f." It is clear that the body of the Puritans were now becoming more extreme in their views, for this charge against Cranmer is aimed at the very office of diocesan bishops. The false and unchristian cha racter of the remarks will strike every candid reader. One of their most learned opponents says, — "They are a generation apt and skilfull to speak evil. We deale with adversaries whose chiefest hope dependeth upon the allowance of unlearned followers s." Alluding to their Book of Discipline, which they wished to impose on the ' Wheteuhall's Discourse, &c, 4to., 1605, 167, 1S8. Both parlies were active nt tbe commencement of tliis reign; the bishops in enforcing, the Puritans in evading, conformity. "The Liturgy more solemnly oflici.ited by the priests, and more religiously at tended by the people : the fasts and festivals' m iro punctudly observed hy both them of later times. Coups brought again info tho service of tlio Church, the surplice generally worn without doubt or hesitancy."— Hey lin's History of the Presbyterians, 376. ' CoveU's Modest and Reasonable Examination, &c, 4to., 1604, Epistle. with the Rubrics and Canons. 137 English Church, Covell says, " Wherein the best amongst themselves agree not, and the meaner lyive not knowledge to examine. They distaste anything that is not new." He contrasts the Puritan Pra)rer-book of 1584 with our Liturgy. " We cannot but mervaile at them who devise continuallie new forms of praier in their publick service, injuriously de prave in sundrie points that Liturgie which in the judg ments of moderate and wise men is both least different from antiquitie, and withall most absolute for perfection of any that is used in the Churches reformed in this day." Of King James he says: "There is no one thing which shall heap more honourable and everlasting glory unto his name, then without any alteration or change in the strict com mandment of publishing this order of Common Prayer in any matter of substance \" After all, they were but a small minority in the land, and it was unreasonable to expect others to comply with their demands. "In cases wherein we cannot," says an able writer of this period, " chuse but offend either by doing or not doing that which is com manded, better is it to offend the lesse then the greater : a few private persons then a whole state '." This wholesome rule was disregarded by the Puritans. They repeated their assertion, that nothing should be enjoined which was not commanded in the Word of God ; but they forgot that some of their own ceremonies had no foundation to rest upon in that Word. " A white surplesse is nowhere commanded ; nei ther is a black gown : kneeling at the communion is no where commanded, but neither is sitting or any other gesture k." h Covell's Modest, &c, 79, 179, 184. In the margin Covell has, "Vide Li brum nuper impressum." His work appeared in the same year. To the common charge of following Rome Covell says, " We follow them in all wherein they follow those holie and auncient Fathers who first planted the truth amongst them. We are willing to borrow that from them, which ver- tuouslie was used in that Church, when it was worthie to be called our mother." 185. 1 Rogers's Two Dialogues, &c, 4to., 1608. At this time it was common for persons to kneel privately for prayer in St. Paul's Church. In one of tlieir works the Puritans allude to persons "that accidentally meete in St. Paules of London, there to kneel at tho same, on several pillars to pray." — Dispute on Kneeling, 160S, 41. k Mason on the Church, 31, 32. Prom Mason's argument it would ap pear, that on Elizabeth's accession tlie surplices then in use were still re- 138 The Book of Common Prayer; Though they would allow no deviation from their own discipline, yet they supplicated King James for a toleration in the disuse of some of the ceremonies. They pretended that some clergymen who had complied had been visited with the rod of the Almighty. "The wrong we have re ceived in our souls doth in parte discover itself hereby, that some upon vehement urging on the parte of the bishops to subscription and conformitie, having in the end yielded there'to, have within few dayes after, uppon a more serious conference with their own conscience, discovering their er- rour and miscarriage herein, languished unto death. And wee doubt not but the present subscribers, when it shall please the Lord to shew mercie to his poore Churches, will then crye with the bishops of Asia, 'Nos non nostra vo luntate sed necessitate adducti subscripsimus, non animo sed verbis duntaxat consensimus '." This rumour of Divine judgments on subscribers was frequently circulated in their privately printed publications. It was, however, a ground less fabrication; yet it answered their purpose with the weak and ignorant. Sometimes the case was stated in still stronger language. It was said that some who had com plied had "lost the grace and power of their gifts, some fallen to idlenesse, neglect of publicke and private duties, yea, to prophane and scandalous life and conversation1"." To this it was afterwards replied : " And so (say I) have sundry done upon my knowledge, that have holden out against conformitie, even to suspension and deprivation; whose zeal in that behalfe hath either been prepostrous, moru insisting on the lesser matters of the law, or joined with gross ignorance, themselves not able to have given a reason of their doinge before God or man." Some of the opposers of conformity complied as they grew older. In Elizabeth's time, Humphrey, Rainolds, Sparkes, Chaloner, Airey, • Chadderdon, Knewstubs, all men of eminence, com- taiued : " Not many of Queen Mary's surplesses do now remaine, and if tbey did, the matter were soon remedied, and time itselfe in short time would weare them away." 44. Bound died in 1606, aud it is said he never wore the surplice during forty years. Brook's Puritans, ii. 171. 1 Supplication to the King, &c, 4to., 1609,41,42. m A Christian and Modest Offer, &c,, 4to., 1606, 19. with the Rubrics and Canons. 139 plied, and endeavoured to persuade others to follow their example n. The attack on the Book of Common Prayer, as not autho rized by the Act of Uniformity, has been noticed; it was renewed in this reign with additional violence. The Puri tans now complained that there were three Books, and they asked, to which are we required to conform ? If the Canons possessed any authority, they were undoubtedly required by the Thirty-sixth to subscribe to the Book of 1601. But they chose to disregard the Canons, and therefore the Act of Uni formity was in their estimation the only authority. They argued, that the Act required the parishes to provide copies of the Book of Common Prayer ; and that the Book in tended was not provided, because that of 1604 contained more alterations than were specified in the statute. The differences between the new Book and that of 1552, to which they pretend they are bound by the Act, are enu merated ; and they conclude, " Wherefore the parish Booke, in so many and material points, being thus grossly cor rupted, and no one true original copie provided by the parishioners, it seemeth to be a very lamentable and wofull case, that subscription to a feigned record should bee thus " Sprint's Cassander Anglicanus,4to., 1618, Preface, 163. Sprint declined conformity for a time, and then com plied. He wrote an able and tempe rate defence of his conduct, and ex horted others to follow his example, on the ground that the ceremonies were matters- of indifference. Fuller's Wor thies, 360. Wood says he was "a great instrument in persuading others" to conform. Wood's Athena;, Bliss, ii. 332. Many ytars after his death, Ca lamy endeavoured to diminish the credit of Sprint's work by giving a statement from the son, that the book wns altered before it was printed. In his " Epistle Dedicatory," the author says, "If anything be found hindering the passage thereof, I wish it to be censured with a deleatnr." He could not have complained, therefore, even if alterations had been made ; of which, however, there is no evidence. The paper was alleged to have been sent to Calamy by Sprint's grandson. One of the allegations is, that Laud had said, " it had been no great matter if this book and the author had been burnt together." This is so improba ble, that the whole paper may be re garded as a fabrication. What con nexion could there have been between Laud aud Sprint in 1618? Besides, the pretence of alterations before pub lication, and this saying of Laud's after, are not consistent with each other, since Laud could scarcely have said so of a hook which had been sub mitted to episcopal censure and al lowed. Calamy's Abridgment, &c, ii. 343 ; Calamy's Defence of Noncon formity, i. 27. Brook places Sprint in his list of Puritans, as he does. many others who conformed to all the cere monies of the Church. Brook's Puri tans, ii. 306, 307. 140 The Book of Common Prayer ; streio-htly urged °." They further contended that the statute of the 13th Elizabeth, requiring subscription to the Articles, did not touch their case; so that they pleaded, that they were exempt from any subscription whatever. They boldly declared that the statute relative to the Articles was of no force, "because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13th Elizabeth, forasmuch as they are not therein expressly asserted, nor so much as their number, but onely the title-page of them mentioned. Nor is it known where the original is en rolled?." These points were urged by the Puritans from the reign of Elizabeth until the Act of Uniformity in 1662, which settled the questions at issue and left no room for debate. All the arguments that had been used since the accession of Elizabeth are accumulated in a work published in 1660. The following queries give the whole case : — " 1. Whether there be anything of substance altered in, or added to, the Articles of Religion, or Books of Common Prayer, or Ordination ; and those alterations or additions not expressly mentioned and confirmed by Parliament ; this doth not make those books to be void in law, if pleaded as law ? The grounds of this qaere are the Acts of 13 Ehz. 12, as touching the Articles ; that of 1 Eliz. 2 as to the Book of Common Prayer; ° 'Certaine Considerations drawne from the Canons of the last Siuod and other the King's Ecclesiastical and Statute Law, ' Ad Informandum Ani- niim Domini Episcopi Wigornensis,' &c. ; for not subscription, for the not exact use of the Order and Forme of th.j Booke of Common Prayer, here tofore provided by the Parishioners of any Parish Church, within the Diocese of Worcester, or for the not precise practice of the Rites, Ceremonies, and Ornaments of the Church." 4to., 1605, 6.17. » '•' Reasons Shewing the Necessity of Reformation," &c, 4to. 1, 2. Pear son says : " Certain it is, that the pub lick doctrine of the Church of Eng land is reputed to be established by law: but divers ministers of sundry counties tell us, that though it be re puted, yet indeed it is not so esta blished." Pearson retorts upon tliem their argument against the royal de claration of 1628, when they called for a repeal of so much of the Act of Eli zabeth as required subscription, ob serving, "There c:in be no necessity to repeal that branch of the Act, a neither all nor any of the Articles be confirmed by that Act." Moreover they said, " The statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles," &e., and Pearson says, "If it be true that the statute doth require belief, &c. ; how can it be also true that nei ther all nor any of them is confirmed hy that statute ?" Hiekes's Collection of Tracts, 356, 358, 359. They thus shifted their ground to suit their pur pose according to circumstances. tcith the Rubrics and Canons. 141 and the Statute of Eliz. 8, i., and of 5, 6 Edward VI. i. as to Ordination ; which last-named Act saith that they were annexed to the said Statute ; yet are they not to be found inrolled therewith ; no more is the other Book of Articles in 13 Eliz. inrolled with that Act. 2. Whether the Statutes which are said to confirm any of the things named in the former quere, mentioning only the titles, but not reciting the matter of the Books themselves, do make those Books, or the things contained in them, to be established and good in law, because now commonly reputed, received, and generally used as ratified by law ? The ground of this quere is that clause in 1 Eliz. 2, which, after mentioning some alterations in the Common Prayer-book, prohibiteth all other. 3. If any man be indited or sued at law upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2, for not reading of the Book of Common Prayer, or upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12, for not reading the Articles of 156,2, and the defendant plead not guilty, and deny these Books to be confirmed by those laws tdl the plaintiff prove them to be on record ; whether is not the plaintiff bound to prove that, and in the meantime the defendant not punished by those Statutes? The ground of this quere is that there are no records of these to be foundq." In this work they enumerate some things which they re garded as required by the rubrics or the canons, and which * Reasons shewing the Necessity of | 42. Another writer says, " The last Reformation, &c„ 61, 62. "Neither j objection is from Acts of Parliament, is that the Booke which is by law I which the Service-hook men make the established, (differing in many things , staffe of their confidence, ami yet in from King Edward's Book, where it , truth heing well tried, it shall be should differ but in three onely,) as is j found that they abuse the state and elsewhere proved." Short Dialogue, | consciences of men most grossely. All &c, 56. " Sure we are that the Book ' ministers shall use the said Booke allowed by the Statute ought to differ , authorized hy Act of Parliament in from the Booke authorized by the 5 ' the fifth and sixth yeare of Edward and 6 yeares of Edward VI., but in j VI., and no other. This is the sum of four pointes, and the same is under no | the Statute; and there is not one pas- small payne to he used, and none other : sage for confirmation or establishing or otherwise. But if it be manifest j any other Service-hooke but that of that the now Booke differeth from that | Edward VI. Divers ministers in in many more pointes than in those \ King James's time answered, that if foure, and so by consequence is an other and otherwise, then let Mai H for shame cease hereafter to beguile the reader." The Removall of certaine Imputations laid upon the Ministers of Devon and Cornwall, &c, 4to., 1606, they yielded they should nv.vke them selves transgressors of the laws, in sub scribing to another Book than that established by law." The Anatomy of the Service-book, 4to., 98, 99. 142 The Book of Common Prayer; they wished to have altered. " They must have all (except hghted candles) that are upon the popish altars ; yea, piping on divers instruments, playing upon organs ; all which were laid aside by Edward VI. or by the second Homily. This which we chiefly aim at is to shew a necessity of reforming those rites and ceremonies contained in the Book of Common Prayer, or enjoyned by the Canons of 1603. Such are, the surplice, copes, and such like, imposed upon all as estabhshed by law. But such establishment we do and must deny until we see a record produced by which that Book now in use or printed in 1 Eliz. is by Act of Parliament ratified and con- finned. For if either there be no record of that to which an Act referreth, or that there be more alterations in the Book than the Act mentioneth, can that Book be properly said to be established by law, and not rather made void thereby ? In all other things, nothing is admitted for law but what is expressly contained in verbis in the Act itself. This is the case with the present Liturgy, which neither is recorded, nor agreeth with, but hath sundry alterations from and additions to, that of 5 and 6 Edward VI., besides those hinted at in the Act of 1 Eliz., 2 r." Much ingenuity was exercised by the Puritans in inter preting the rubrics. They admitted that the rubric adopted the ornaments of Edward's first Book, but they pretended that, as a cope was enjoined in some portions of the service, the surplice coidd not be used alone. " No minister at or in any of the times and services aforesaid is bound to put upon him a surplice, unlesse therewithall he weare a cope. For the use of ornamentes ought to be according to the Act of Parhament. And therefore where no cope, there by the Act no surplice." Their object was to get rid of the surplice ; and their argument was, that if all the ornaments were not » Reasons, &c, 35, 36. Tho autho rity ofthe Canons was attacked on the ground of want of consent. " Some bishops themselves never gave consent unto those Canons. Yea, one of tbe bishops hath affirmed in open place, that he and two or three more made the canons. Some bishops speak very broadly ofthe matter." A Short Dia logue, &c, &c, 1605, 4to., 56. This charge is often repeated. In a sum mary of their grievances they say, "The present Archbishop (Bancroft), then Bishop of London, had (if not the onely, as many saye, yet) the chiefest hande and a negative in casting those canons." A Survey of the Book of Common Prayer, 12mo:, 1610. with the Rubrics and Canons. 143 used, none need be used. Edward's first Book enjoined " an albe or surplice with a cope," in which the priest was to " say all things at the altar." Upon this they argue, " Where no altar to goe unto after the Letany ended, there no surplice to be put on 8." It is evident from these works from 1605 to 1610, that sub scription was now pressed under the Canons, as well as under the Act of 13 Elizabeth. " As for the subscription now re quired, it was not heard of until about twenty years after : at which time it was brought in by the late Archbishop of Canter bury, without any law for the countenancing of his owne writings against M. Cartwright1" They also say: "The ceremonyes have growne to such a disuse in very many churches (in some ten years, in some twenty, in some thirty, in some more), that it would be a very strange thing to bring them into use againe u." At one time, for the reasons already given, they denied that the Act of 13 Elizabeth possessed any authority ; and again, they contended that it bound them to subscribe only the Articles relative to doctrine, excluding such as relate to Church government. " The statute of 13 Eliz., requyring all that are called to the ministry to sub scribe to the Articles of Eeligion that concerne the doctrine of faith and sacraments onely, doth by necessary consequence exclude aU other subscription whatsoever x." To this argu ment it was replied, that the Act of the 1 3th of Elizabeth comprehended the body of the Articles, since " the confession of the true faith meaneth faith at large for the whole body of * Certaine Considerations, &c, 32 — 34. In 1605 and a few succeeding years several anonymous and privately printed books appeared, evidently put forth by the leading Puritans. A Pu ritan in the next reign says, " Some may inquire whence came this new writing about ceremonies ? and he may please to be informed, that after the ' Abridgement' about these matters (as if enough had been said on both sides) until Dr. Morton, then Bishop of Ches ter, not thinking it honest to silence ministers for ceremonies before some answer was given unto their reasons they stood upon, undertooke with great confidence to give a full answer to all that was objected." Ames's Presb Suite, &c, 4to., 1633, 529. Morton's book appeared in 1618 ; but between 1605 and that year the controversy did not sleep, as Ames insinuates : va rious works in 1606, 1607, 1608, 1609, and 1610 testify the contrary. « A Short Dialogue, &c, 52. "What good was like to ensue this new sub scription, and this reviving, yea, and eucreasing of Church ceremonyes, which in sundry places wore utterly disused." The Removall of Certaine Imputa tions, 57. u A Short Dialogue, &c., 55. • lb., 56. 144 The Book of Common Prayer ; true religion, as we find it 13 Eliz., cap. 12, whether doctrine or manners. By which course of reasoning they might as deceitfully conclude they are to subscribe but to three Arti cles, because it is said in the new Canons, Canon 36, he shall subscribe to three Articles ; whereas the word article in that place is taken at large, comprehending in it the Article of Su- premacie, the Booke of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles. It is said in the statute, that ministers shall declare their consent to all the Articles of Religion, the words following being set downe as a watchword to expresse and declare the summe of all the Articles in the Book there specified V The objection was the common one used in the previous reign, and the reply was similar to that which had often been given. A learned writer in Elizabeth's reign argues that the matter was " clear from the words of the statute that mentioneth the Book, and all the Articles therein contained, and by the in terpretation of the most learned lawyers z." It is evident that great irregularities existed in the prac tice of the clergy, and that many complied with the rubrics only partially. The rubric did not prescribe how the minis ter himself should receive the elements in the Lord's Supper, but the Puritans chose to assert that he was to receive stand ing, and that the words "without an absurditie cannot bee construed to command a minister to kneele." They then infer that the people might stand or sit, and that the rubric was a permission to administer to communicants kneeling, not a command a. It is difficult to conceive how any persons could adopt so strange a line of argument. But this was a period of singular arguments and odd practices. The incon sistencies of the Puritans also were not a little remarkable. In one of their privately printed works they ask James, T Huttou's Reasons for Rufnsal of Subscription, ic, ns they were ex hibited to the Bishop of Exeter, &c. ; with. an Answer, &c, 4to., 1605, 60, 61. In the canon, thirty -nine Articles are mentioned as agreed upon in Convo cation in 1562. The question relative to the twenty-ninth Article has been stated in a previous chapter. * Sutclifl'e's Answer to a Certain, &c, 4to., 1592, 111—113. " " Certaine Dcmandes, with their Grounds Drawne out of Holy Writ," Sec, Sec. 4to., privately printed, 1605, 45. Tlieir pretence is thus put in an other work : " The priest is expressly directed in the next rubrike before to stande, and not directly to kneele now." Survey of the Book, &c, 70. with the Rubrics and Canons. 145 "Either to imitate King Edward the 6th in reforming the same, or to establish the Liturgie which is in Scotland. The latter is rather to be desired, as it is not known that ever any professor of the Gospel excepted any such thing against that Liturgie b." Before the last review of the Book of Common Prayer, the sentences, the exhortation, the confession, and the absolu tion, were only printed in the Morning Service ; yet there was a direction that they should be read also at Evening Prayer. Some persons, however, chose to commence the Evening Service with the Lord's Prayer, regardless of the previous rubric, because the introductory portions were not again printed. They ask, " Whether a minister be not as punishable f&r omitting all going before, and beginning with the Lord's Prayer (which many do in the afternoone), as for not wearing the surplice ?" Not foreseeing the strange courses of their successors in the next reign, they ask, "Whe ther it be lawfull by the word for men to sanctifie weekely, quarterly, or yearly fasting dayes ?" This is an allusion to the various fasting days appointed by the Church. Their successors, however, under Charles I., appointed a monthly, and many other fasts. Their opinions changed with circum stances. The burying of the dead they wished to be "laid upon the clarke," as not a ministerial office ; and as an argu ment they refer to the recent plague : " Seeing the mortalitie of the last plague, 1603, was such, that if in some parishes the minister had buried all the dead, there had been little service, much loss preaching c." In several of their publications, the Puritans mention that Archbishop Parker allowed the people to stand in receiving the elements in the Lord's Supper ; and that " her Majesty's commissioners did above fifty years ago establish in Coven- b A Survey of the Book of Common Prayer, Preface, 19, 24. The Scottish Book was that of Knox, and nearly the same as the Book proposed by the Pu ritans in England in the-previous reign. They were willing to receive their own Book on the king's authority, but not that of tbe Church of England. Ib.170. AM. c Survey of the Book of Common Prayer, 46, 68, 142, 143. Popery and LutberaDism were in this reign, as well as iu the preceding, often confounded together : " Many points of pspcrie and Lutheranisme are broached in court and cities pulpits." Ib. 146 The Book of Common Prayer; trie standing in the act of receiving." They add, "In some cathedraU and collegiat churches, wafers and altars be used, which sheweth the meaning of the Booke, touching kneeling, and also that wafers and altars are not forbidden." After quoting Parker's case, and that of Coventry, with other instances, they say, " All this may shew that kneeling in the act of receiving hath not been generally used; but rather that the meaning of the Booke should be (upon the ground alleged) that the use of kneeling might be indifferent. As for those fewe cathedral churches, it may be said, that that popishe trash is fit for such high places. And it may be concluded, that if wafers and altars are lawful in them, because they be not forbidden ; then a gesture sacramentally fit for a sacra mental eating is no lesse lawful in parish churches, because it is not forbidden*1." Wafers were still used in some churches, according to the Injunctions, but we have no men tion of altars. To serve their purpose, the Puritans must have so designated the Communion-tables. The words at the delivery of the elements, " The body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body," &c, are said "to insinuate a boddy presensee." Thu3 was the meaning of the rubrics constantly misrepresented. The Puritans not only demanded liberty of posture in the Lord's Supper for themselves, but wished to impose their own custom on all others. It was asked whether, "in those congregations that stand, they would admit any to the Sacrament that should sit? I assure myself they would not. Why then should the re- o Survey, &c, 19S, 200, 202 j in all such matters, the following rule from St. Auguatine is'most important : "Whatsoever the Church hath ob- s-rvcd generally hi all places, at all times, and was not decreed by any general council, tho same did proceed from the apostles." Such is the rule: "But such is kneeling at the Com munion, it hath been used at all times, in all places, and not decreed by any General Council, and therefore did pro ceed from the apostles." Hickes's Colli ction of Tracts, 142. Tbe same writer. Bishop Leslie, remarks: "In the beginning of King Edward's reign there was an intermission for a space, when all gestures were free ; but the Church afterwards perceiving the in convenience thereof, thought fit to reduce all her children to an unifor mity, by ordaining one gesture to be used in that ordinance." Ib , 144. e Survey, &c, 81. The authors of this singular work particularly mention wafers as iu use at Westminster. They wore also used at Geneva much later, and the circumstance is adduced by Bishop Morton in his argument against the Puritans. Morton's Defence, 143. Calvin's opinion has already been given hi a previous chapter. with the Rid»-ics and Canons. 147 straint of that exorbitancy seeme severe in others, which themselves would practice? For myself I have received it diversly, as the practice of the present congregations have given occasion. In churches where I have seen most pre- cisenesse in the time of the celebration of the Sacrament, whilst some are receiving, others are employed, either ia singing of Psalms, or hearing some Scripture read1." The storm was now gathering which overwhelmed Charles I. in its fury ; yet for a time the reins of discipline were held with a firmer grasp than in the previous reign. The attempt of the Puritans to get their own discipline esta blished issued in the enactment of the canons of 1603, by which conformity was strictly enforced. Generally, the bi shops insisted upon comphance with the rubrics and canons in their visitations ; and their articles present a singular pic ture of the times. Thornborough, Bishop of Bristol, asks in his primary visitation, in the first year of King James, " Whe ther he doth at any time, celebrating Divine Service, omitte, or alter any of the collects, prayers, psalmes, or one or both of the lessons, or any part of divine service, whatsoever ap pointed in the saide Booke of Common Praier s." In 1604 the question is asked in the Articles for the diocese of Ox ford, " Whether your children be baptized in the time of the Morning and Evening Praier, in the presense oi the congre gation, at the usual font in the church ?" Such a question is frequent in this reign; and it proves that the practice of baptizing in the midst of the congregation was gradually, even at this time, becoming less common. Another question ' Denison's Heavenly Banquet, 12mo., 1610, 318, 323, 334. Singing at the Communion was common. It was "a general fashion used in our Church in employing the congregation in singing during the time of commu nicating." Le Strange's Alliance, 210. The practice is frequently mentioned, while some are receiving, " others are left at liberty to employ themselves in the singing of a psalm." Dispute on Kneeling, 4to., 1608, 40. Lilly men tions the practice iu 1625 during the plague: "During the distributing thereof I do very well remember wo sang 13 parts of. the 119th Psalm." Lives of Antiquaries, 26. To the as sertion that kneeling was popish, it was replied: "If the argument be good, wee must remove fire from our houses, the sunne out of the heavcus, hells out of steeples, fonts out of churches, churches out of the world, because the Chaldeans abused the one, the Persians the other, and the papists the rest." Denison's Heavenly Ban quet, 351. «• Articles to be ministred in the first general visitation of John, Bishop of Bristol!. 4to., Oxford, 1603. 14S The Book of Common Prayer ; is of constant occurrence : " Doth he use the words of insti tution according to the Boke at everie time that the bread and wine is received in such manner and form as by the pro viso of the 21 canon is directed?" We find this question in the Metropolitan Articles in 1605, under Bancroft; and in those for the diocese of Worcester in 1607, under Babing ton. There was no division of opinion at that time among the bishops on this subject. Bancroft and Babington were agreed, though the latter has sometimes been supposed to have been favourable to the Puritans. The question occurs in the Norwich Articles in 1620. Even Abbot, though in disposed to severity, was compelled by the intemperate course of some of his clergy to adopt strong and decided measures. In 1612 he visited, by commission, the chapter of Bristol cathedral, in consequence of certain irregularities. The Even ing Service had been quite neglected in this cathedral. Babington adopts a question which had been frequently proposed in the previous reign : " Whether any doe resort unto barnes, fieldes, woods, private houses, or to anie extra- ordinarie exposition of Scripture or conferences together ?" It was also used in the Oxford Articles in 1619, and by seve ral other bishops'1. In Archbishop Abbot's Articles in 1616, we meet with the following : " And using all due and lowry reverence, when the blessed Name of the Lord Jesus is men tioned." Abbot was supposed to favour the Puritans, yet his Visitation Articles prove that he was anxious to bring persons to conform to the rubrics and canons1. The same question is used by Overal of Norwich in 1619 ; yet he was a man of singular wisdom and moderation. He asks another important question, which was, moreover, of frequent oc- cum.-ace: "Doth jour minister before the administration of the Sacrament exhort his parishioners, if they have their h It occurs in the Worcester Arti cles, 1607, and in the Oxford for 1623. Gloucester diocese is thu3 described under Thomas Davis, tho bishop from 1601 to 1607: "The diocese of which place being then overstocked with such ignorants as could scarce brook the name of a bishop, yet by his episcopal way of living among them he obtained their love, and were content to give him a good report." Newcorxrt's Itc- pertorium i. 29. > In 1615 Hildersham was suspended for his nonconformity, and Abbot was applied to on the subject. He, however, declined to interfere, " unless he would submit to what the commissioners required." Brook's Puritans, ii. 3S3. with the Rubrics and Canons. 149 consciences troubled or disquieted, to resort imto him, and open his grief, that he may receive such counsaile and com fort, as his conscience may be relieved, and by the minister he may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience and avoiding of scruple." In our natural dread of the Eomish doctrine of Auricular Confession, it may be questioned, whether the wholesome directions of our own Church, relative to the disburdening of the mind, be not too much neglected in the present day. The practice is recog nised by the Church, and by the canon the minister is bound not to reveal particulars which his parishioners may disclose. The question relative to the two Psalters, which was common in the previous reign, occurs also in that of James I. We find it in the Articles for the archdeaconry of Surrey in 1621 ; and it would appear that the bishops generally en couraged the use of the metrical version. Among the objections of the Puritans to the Book of Common Prayer, was its length. This was urged in the Millenary Petition to James I., and is thus met in the Oxford Answers : " Who notwithstanding are wont to spende an houre sometimes, or httle lesse, in extemporie, incon sequent, and senseless praires, conceived rashly by them selves k." To enable them to give more space to their own exercises, they were accustomed to curtail the Liturgy. The length of the service was a common objection. Yet the Puritan ministers used longer prayers of their own, and charged the Prayer-book with unnecessary length simply because it interfered with their own performances. After 1610 there appears to have been some cessation from controversy through the press. In 1618 it was re newed, and several works appeared. The following is a striking picture of the effects of nonconformity at this time : " After the losse and leaving their ministrie, small other fruite hath happened in them then to make the churches rent the wider, to speak evil and scofFe at persons in autho- k The Answers of the University of Oxford, &e, 4to., 1C04, 12, 13. The Oxford divines remark that some were "ready to make everything popery which they do not fancy." 150 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; ritie: to breed distraction in the hearts of the people, to vilify their godly brethren which have submitted, to swell in scorn and pride against them, and in the meantime to neglect the main duties of godlinesse. The more eager people are against the ceremonies, their zeal is so exercised, as that they find small leasure to look unto God's kingdom within them '." Some of the customs of this period were very singular : "In our liturgies," says Bishop Buckeridge, "we stand at the Creed and reading of the Gospel, and we sit at the read ing of the Psalms and chapters m." The Psalms, it appears, were classed with the Lessons, and, as wdl be seen presently, were read only by the minister, the people remaining seated. Such a custom in the present day would be deemed most irreverent, though at this time it was common. Strange as it may appear, yet it would seem that at this time it was the ordinary custom to sit covered at meals. The foUowing passage clearly alludes to such a practice: "As we sit with our heads uncovered at this table, which we do not at common tables. We sit with our heads uncovered when the word is read, but not when it is preached, to dis tinguish between the voyce of man and the voyce of God n." The distinction between reading and preaching was then common : yet within a few years the Puritans, or the sects springing from them, gave up the reading of the Scriptures in their public assemblies, and resolved everything into preaching, as the one ordinance of God, making their own words — in some cases blasphemous, in many most erroneous — the word of Jehovah. Some of the customs of this period are now quite forgotten. An order was made by the Chancellor of Norwich, that a woman coming to be churched should wear a white veil. An individual refused, and was excommunicated. She prayed > Sprint's Cassander, &c, 4to., 1618, 40. ¦" Buekcridge's (Bp.) Sermon, 1C1S, 46. That many irregularities existed is clear from contemporary works : "It cannot hut grieve a Christian heart to see how the Sacrament of Baptism is discstcemed. It is usual in most congregations for people to flocke away unreverently, as though that Sacrament nothing concerned them." Denison's Heavenly Banquet, 1620, 39. " Solution of Dr. Resolutus, 4to, 1619, privately printed, 18. with the Rubrics and Canons. 151 for a prohibition of the sentence, alleging that no- Canon enjoined the practice, and that custom was not sufficient. The judges consulted the Archbishop, who convened his suf fragans on the occasion. The prelates certified that it was an ancient practice, and the judges confirmed the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court, refusing the prohibition °. Though the custom is now forgotten, the churching-pew still remains in many churches. Another custom, that of the hour-glass in the pulpit, once universal, has long been discontinued. It remained, however, long after the Restoration, and was common with Dissenters as well as with Churchmen. " What command can they shew," says a writer in the time of Charles II. , " for preaching and praying by the hour-glass, and especially on fast-days for praying a full hour at leastp ?" The passing-bell, too, is now discontinued, though in this reign the practice was general. It was mentioned in Visitation Articles, and contemporary publications have fre quent allusions to the practice. D'Ewes mentions in 1624 the bell toUing for an individual whom he visited, and who lived some hours afterwards i. The Canon, however, is ex press on the subject : " And when any is passing out of thjs life, a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shaU not then slack to do his last duty." At one period the sound of the passing-bell was heard in every parish, and in most of the Visitation Articles the custom was enjoined. Nor can any reasonable objection be raised against it, as it was allowed by the Church of England. The question in Visitation Articles usuaUy appeared in this form. "And when any person is 0 Gibson, 373. Sparrow wrote be fore the Restoration, and he takes it for granted that the custom was be come a law. He speaks of the woman sitting " near to the holy Table, in the public view," and hence he infers the necessity of " a veil or covering." Spar row's Rationale. "Is it not more seemly, that women, when they goe to be churched, bee so covered on their heads according as in former times, ra ther than he so attired, Uke as those be which goe to a market, or a faire, or to a wedding, or the like ?" Reeves's Christian Divinitie, 4to., 1635, 174. p Defcuce of Stillingfleet, 35. i D'Ewes's Autobiography, i. 240. James I., in touching for the King's evil, discontinued the sigu ofthe cross. "All along King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth her reign, when tho Strumosi, such as had the King's Evil, came to be touched, tho manner was then for her to apply the sign of the cross to the tumour." James I. " or dered it to be expunged out of the prayers relating to that cure, which hath proceeded as effectually, that omission notwithstanding, as it did before." Le Strange's Alliance, 240. 152 The Book of Common Prayer ; passing out of life, doth he, upon notice given him thereof, toll a bell, as hath been accustomed, that the neighbours may thereby be warned to recommend the dying person to the grace and favour of God." Probably such a custom now would by some persons be called popish ; yet few practices were more likely to advance the interests of true rehgion in a parish. Two important ends were secured : first, the people, by the sound of the bell, were reminded that a brother or a sister was departing out of time into eternity, a circum stance eminently calculated to excite reflections on their own mortality ; secondly, the dying person, if sensible, had the consolation of knowing that some at least of his neighbours were addressing the throne of God in his behalf. In the time of Elizabeth, Grindal enjoined the custom, " to move the people to pray for the sick person, especially in aU places where the sick person dweUeth near the church1." From various notices, even in the writings of the early Puritans, it is evident that they did not regard the practice as popish. This discovery was reserved for the superior light of a later age, and for writers who, while they boast of inheriting the principles of the Puritans, manifest but httle acquaintance with their works. As an illustration of dishonest suppression by a modern writer, the foUowing instance may be given. A certam author professes to give an account of the life of John Eainolds, one of the Puritan advocates of the Hampton Court Conference, and Fuller is cited as his authority. Now Fuller, among other things, says, " The morrow after, death seazing upon all parts of his body, he expressed by signes that he would have the passing-bell tole for hims." This circumstance, which proves that the custom was not a popish one, inasmuch as the passing-beU was required by one of the most eminent of the Puritan ministers, is altogether suppressed by Mr. Brook, who probably imagined that his readers would infer an attachment on the part of Eainolds to the doctrines and practices of the Anglican Church '. Such suppressions are common in the pages of certain authors. * Grindal's Remains, Parker So ciety, 108. » Puller's Abel. Red., 490. ' Brook's Lives of the Puritans, ii. 180. with the Rubrics and Canons. 153 The principle laid down by the judges respecting the churching-ved, namely, custom or long practice, is applicable to other ceremonies which are now almost forgotten. One especially may be mentioned, because by many who are not conversant with the history of tlieir own Church it is re garded as popish, namely, bowing at the Name of Jesus, and towards the east. The Canon enjoins due and lowly reverence at the Name of Jesus, and therefore this practice cannot be deemed popish by conscientious members of the Church of England". But bowing to the east is neither enjoined nor specified. Due reverence, as it was usuaUy termed, was cus tomary on entering the church. "For this there was no rule nor rubric made by the first reformers, and it was not necessary that there should, the practice of God's people in that kind being so universal u." Bishop Morton was as far removed from Eome as any man who ever lived, for he was one of her most able opponents ; yet he reproved a young relative for refusing to comply with the then general prac tice of bowing on entering the church. " If this young man be averse to that posture of bowing himself towards the Lord's table he shall have me, much his elder, altogether his enemy *." The practice is frequently mentioned in this amd the next two reigns, not as enjoined by Canon, but as continued from the Eeformation. The following passage, from a work of a later period, may be cited as an iUustration of the custom : " Our custom is, when we bow down and worship, to do it towards the place where the holy table is. The quires where it is most customary have the entrance against the table, and two others, one of each side over * " Though this Injunction was pub lished the first year of the Queen, yet then this bowing at the name of Jesus was lookt on as an ancient cus tom. And in this case, and in all others of that nature, it is a go d and certain rule that all such rites as bad been practised in the Church of Rome, and not abolisht nor disclaimed by any doctrine, law, or canon of the first Re formers, were to continue in the same state in which they found them. But this commendable custom, together with all other outward rev,-vencc in God's service, 'being every d.iy more and more discontinued, it seemed good to the prelates and clergy assembled in Convocation anno 1603 to revive the same, with some enlargement as to the uncovering of tbe head in all tho acts and parts of public worship. Canon 18." Heylin's Life of Laud, 17, 18. 1 Morton's Episcopacy Asserted. Preface IV. Such a practice cannot be popish, since it existed before the errors of popery were introduced. 1 54 The Book of Common Prayer ; against each other. Now, if a man at his entrance at the former should think it better to face quite about and bow towards the door he came in at than to bow right towards the table, I believe he would make himself ridiculous to all the people." The writer remarks, that all persons coming in at the same time by the two opposite doors, and inclining the head straightforward, would be supposed to be bowing at each other; and "something of hke nature would be found in bowing any way but that in use, however the en trance into, or situation of, the quire be." It will be ob served, by the " entrance against the table" he means the western door opposite the Communion-table ; and it wiU not fail to be noticed by the reader that the objection, at the time when this work was published, was not against bowing on entering the church, but against bowing towards the Communion-table y. Though we have no certain evidence of the daily service in all churches during this reign, yet we have many inci dental notices, which prove that the practice was very ge neral, at least in towns. "On Saturday, the 4th day of October, 1623, the Prince landed at Portsmouth in the after noon, between two and three of the clock, the people being then at evening prayer z." Archbishop Usher attended the public prayers in the chapel twice every day, besides the morning and evening devotions in his family. In those times sermons were usually long, and on fast-days Usher "preached always first himself, at least continuing two hours, and more than ordinarily extending himself in prayer." A singular fact is mentioned in connection with Usher in this reign. While he was bishop elect, in 1620, he was chosen to preach y Advice to the Readers of the Com mon Prayer, &c, 4to., 1682, 13, 14. Bowing towards the cast was neither enjoined nor prohibited. The Reform ers clearly did not mean to prohibit every practice which was not prescribed. It was used by the Reformers as an ancient practice. It " is neither a new one (never by any law -or canon turned out at the Reformation, but only not then imposed under any com mand, and since disused in some places,) nor yet was it lately imposed or in truded on the Church." Hammond's View of the Directory, 82. This rule- may settle some matters not decided by canon or rubric. Stillingfleet re- murks, " The C'.uion which requires it refers to the former custom." Stilling fleet on Separation, 362. ' D'Ewes's Autobiography, i. 236. with the Rubrics and Canons. 155 before the House of Commons in St. Margaret's Church. " I have heard him say (as I take it) it was the first time the House of Commons received the Communion by themselves, distinct from the House of Lords8." The Puritans themselves, while they were ever ready to object to certain ceremonies enjoined by the Church, were constantly introducing new usages of their own, each suc ceeding generation departing in some things from the pre ceding, forgetting their own rule, that nothing was to be prescribed which is not enjoined in the Word of God. Fu neral sermons were now becoming common, and the practice rapidly advanced, yet at the origin of Puritanism it was con demned in the strongest terms. In the time of Cartwright such sermons were deemed unlawful ; in this and the next reign nothing was more common. In 1573 Cox consulted Gualter relative to the Puritan objections, among which were funeral sermons ; and the latter, though he does not condemn them, admits that they were not common at Zurich b. In the Puritan publications of an early period the custom is con demned in terms of great bitterness c. This was a practice retained by the Reformers, and so condemned by the early Puritans. Yet at the commencement of the troubles in the next reign, when the practice was grown universal among the Enghsh Presbyterians, it was as distasteful as ever to the Scotch. Bailhe, one of the Scottish commissioners, men tioning. Pym's death, and the funeral senium, says, "which we would not hear ; for funeral sermons we must have away with the rest d." Strange that even funeral sermons should be popish in Scotland, though so common with Presbyterians in England. In the next reign nothing was more common than to speak disparagingly of the Reformers, as men only partially en lightened ; and even at this time we find traces of the same * Bernard's Life and Death of Usher, 1656, 51, 58, 85. b Zurich Letters, second series, 234. c Parte of a Register, 4to., 63—66, 73,74,77. d Baillie's Letters, i. 409. Though the Puritans would not kneel at tho Lord's Supper, they adopted cus toms of their own wluch implied as much. "They sit uncovered before the elements, with a religious respect nnto them, wliich they use not to do in the hearing of the word." Hickes' Collection of Tracts, 175. 156 The Book of Common Prayer; presumption. " Cranmer, Ridley, and others, who saw not all things in the dawning of the day, being moved with the stirs and outcries of the Papists, to appease them somewhat, enjoyned kneeling in the act of receiving, in the renewing of the Book of Common Prayer e." Whenever the Puritans wished to find excuses for their conduct, and were reminded of the practice of the Reformers, they invariably replied, that concessions were made at the Eeformation merely for the moment, and that the most sweeping changes were con templated. The tale, moreover, that the Reformers tinder Elizabeth did not intend a permanent settlement is con stantly repeated in the Puritan works of this reign. " The said ceremonies were retained in our Church (when Popery was banished) but by way of interim, untd the time might minister opportunity of further reformation, as appeareth by the Statute of 1 Elizabeth, cap. 2, which giveth the said Queene power, with the consent of the Archbishop, to re move them at her pleasure'." This pretence has aheady been refuted. The Puritans forgot that the Statute ahowed the Queen to introduce other rites and ceremonies. CHAPTER VIII. Book op 1625. — conpobmity. — ieeegulaeities. — visitation aeticles. — customs. — catechizing. — communion. — surplice and gown. — abbot and laud, — pueitan pbactices. — ween. — shobt hobning peayebs.— cosix'8 aeticles. — metbical psaltee. — alleqed alterations of peayee-book.— -communion-table. — vaeiety in practice. — canon. — oedeb by abbot. — st. gbeooey'g chuech. — oedees ev bishops. — wil liams. — contkovebsy on table.— charge op popeky. — book op spoets. coxl'oemity. — customs. — standing. — bowing. — coveeing the head. — OEGANS. A Kew- edition of the Book of Common Prayer was pub hshed in folio in 1625, the first year of the reign of Charles I., copies of which are very uncommon. It has been some times stated, that certain alterations were made by royal e Solution of Dr. Resolutus, &c, 4to., 1610, 37. 1 A Short Dialogue, &c, 1600, 52. with the Rubrics and Canons. 157 authority ; but there is no foundation whatever for such an assertion, since the Book of 1625 differs not from those of the previous reign, except in some few things, which were merely accidental, arising from negligence in the printers. The standard text was that of 1604, but in subsequent years some variations occurred, chiefly in the use of the word minister for priest, or priest for minister, in a few of the rubrics. These variations were merely blunders of the printers ; and in printing the new Book, in 1625, the last edition of the previous reign was probably followed, instead of the Book of 1604. In printing a new edition it was per haps assumed that all the previous copies were the same; and as no rule was laid down by any authority, the printer doubtless took the first edition that came to hand, or such as was given to him by the person who superintended the work. To the ignorance prevailing at the time relative to particular editions of books, and to neghgence in not ex amining different copies, must be attributed the falsehoods aUeged against Archbishop Laud by Prynne and others, re specting alterations in the Book of Common Prayer during this reign &. The bishops were now, in most cases, rigid in enforcing conformity, and the Puritans were stUl more decided in their opposition. Yet as some bishops were less rigid than others, irregularities were connived at in one diocese which were by no means permitted in another. Abbot, the archbishop, was inclined to be inactive ; and Laud was influential with the king in urging his Majesty to stir up the metropolis io exertion. Still, the same irregularities to a considerable tent prevaUed in this, as in the last reign, and the ssiu.. controversies existed. The rubrics and canons were the same, yet they were not observed in the same way in every place, because some bishops held the reins of discipline with a tighter hand than others. A loud cry was always raised against any bishop who^ deemed it to be his duty to enforce * A remarkable copy of the Book of 1625 is now in the Bodleian Library. It is the copy actually used by Se cretary Nicholas in his own family during the troubles, and has a clause for the king's return written by him in tbe margin of the prayer for his Majesty in the Communion Service. 158 The Book of Common Prayer ; obedience to the laws. By the Puritans, Laud was regarded as the cause of the severities which were exercised; for, as he was a strenuous advocate for uniformity, which could only be maintained by enforcing obedience to the laws, he neces sarily became very obnoxious to all who were unwilling to conform. Yet notwithstanding the charge of severity against Laud and some other bishops, their Articles of Visitation did not vary much from those of the previous reign. The Visit ation Articles of this reign are a criterion of the state of conformity from 1625 to 1640. In 1627, William3, bishop of Lincoln, asks whether the minister "Doth appoint holy-days and fasting-dayes, and the Ember- weekes ? Doth he warne and celebrate the day of the beginning of his Majesties reigne, and also the 5th of November? Is your parish clarke above twenty years of age, and able to reade distinctly the first lesson and to sing ?" In some places, by permission of the bishops, the parish clerks stiU read the first lesson ; but the license was abused by the Puritans, who aUowed their clerks to celebrate some of the offices of the Church h. To check this unseemly practice, various inquiries were instituted by the bishops: "Doth your clarke meddle with anything above his office, as church ing of women, burying the dead, reading of prayers, or such like?" This question occurs in 1629, 1630, and 1633, in Articles for the archdeaconry of Bedford, and in the Metro politan Articles of York. The Offices for the Churching of Women and tlie Burial of the Dead were especiaUy ob noxious to the Puritans, who evaded the performance a3 much as possible, though they were pledged by their oaths to the Book of Common Prayer. Yet the bishops are de nounced by the advocates of the Puritans as tyrants, simply h A writer of this reign, in defend ing the Church against the Puritan objection of the length of the Liturgy, which they said wearied the minister, and hindered preaching, says : " One of the chapters is in many churches read by the dark j part of the Psalms and other answers are dispatched by hiui and the people." Fisher's De- lence of the Liturgie, &c, 4to., 1630, 7. In this reign they repeated their ob jection relative to the responses, al leging that the Prayer-book allowed women " to speake in the Church, which Paul doth prohibit." lb., 47. Tho Puritans further charged the Prayer- book with prayer for the dead in the petition, " Remember not the offences of our forefathers/' lb., 70. with the Rubrics and Canons. 159 for performing their duty in enforcing conformity upon men whom nothing would satisfy short of permission to foUow their own inclinations,— a permission which they would not concede to others. These efforts to enforce conformity were not confined to Laud, Wren, and Pierce, for Abbot and Wil liams appear to have adopted a simUar course in their visit ations, since they found by experience that lenity only made matters worse. In 1625 Andrewes asks, "Doth he in regard of preaching diminish Divine Service or praires, that the Creed be not said, and the Commandments read every Sunday, whereby the parishioners may lose the knowledge of them both, which most of aU concerns them to know ?" In 1629 the Bishop of Oxford asks, "Doth your minister omit any part of the service, and make long sermons and praiers of his own?" These questions point to the practice of the Puritans in omitting portions of the service, who forgot that the peo ple assembled to worship God in prayer and praise, as well as to hear sermons. The Sacraments were generally neglected by the Puritans, because they did not like the mode of their administration. To ascertain the state of the parishes, the bishops were accustomed to ask : " Doth your minister, or curate, or any other of the parish, speake pub- likely or privately against the necessity or benefit of the Sacraments, if they may conveniently be had?" This in quiry occurs in the Articles for Oxford in 1625, 1628, and 1629. The question relative to Baptisms in the congre gation occurs frequently : " whether your minister do baptize out of the face of the Church and congregation without special cause i?" In Wren's Articles, in 1636, it is thus pro posed : " Doth your minister goe to the administration of Bap tism immediately after the second Lesson ?'' Catechising was deemed of importance by the bishops, and disliked by the Puritans on the ground that it shortened their sermons. It was generaUy performed in the afternoon, instead of a ser mon, and was therefore enforced in Visitation Articles. In 1628, the Bishop of Winchester, and in 1638, the Arch- 1 It occurs iu the Oxford Articles for 1629, and in the Metropolitan of 1633. 160 The Book of Common Prayer; bishop of York, ask: "Whether doe the churchwardens assist the. minister herein?" The churchwardens probably assisted in arranging the children before the desk, for the convenience of the minister. As this practice interfered with sermons, it was usually condemned by the Puritans k. The question relative to the delivery of the elements and the recital of the words of institution frequently occurs as in the previous reign. We find it in Andrewes's Articles for Winchester in 1625, in the Gloucester Articles 1629, in those for Bath and Wells in 1630, in Juxon's, 1634, in the Metro politan Articles for 1635, in WiUiams's, 1635, and in Juxon's, 1640. It is expressed with as much moderation in the Articles put forth by Laud as in those of any other bishop. Juxon was a moderate man, and Williams was supposed to favour the Puritans ; yet both of them are as strict and systematic in their Articles of Inquiry as Laud or Wren. The question concerning reverence at the Name of Jesus is usuaUy asked by all bishops during this period. It is found in Juxon's Articles, 1634, in WUliams's, 1635, and in Laud's of the same year, as weU as in those for Gloucester in 1640. In some cases the following words were added : " not as an adoration of the bare sound, but as an humble acknowledge ment that there is not, either in heaven or earth, any name by which we shaU be saved but that alone." In 1636, Wren ordered frequent Communions, and that not more than three hundred, or at the most four hundred, com municants should receive at the same time. This is a re markable regulation, and it meets the objection frequently raised against the repetition of the words of institution to each individual, on the ground of the large number of com- k It was pleaded that catechising thrust out sermons. Some of the Pu ritan ministers resorted to the trick of putting off sermons in the morning, . and preaching in the afternoon, to pre vent catechising. In I63G Laud re ports, "In Norwich, where there are thirty -four churches, there was no ser mon on the Sunday morning, save only in four, but all put off to the after noon, and so no catechis'ng ; but now he hath ordered, that there shall be a sermon every morning, and catechizing in the afternoon in every church." In 1639, of Peterborough, he says, that some men preached as well as cate chised in the afternoon : " In this par ticular the bishop craves to receive di rection, whether he shall command them to catechize only, and not preach." The king writes in the margin, "soe that catechizing he first duly performed let them have a sermon after that if they desire it." Wharton, 541, 543, with the Rubrics and Canons. 161 municants in modern times. It is evident that in Wren's time four hundred communicants assembled sometimes in one church. In 1641, after the commencement of the turbulent Long Parliament, Williams was as strict as any bishop in enforcing the use of the words to each communicant. The Puritans disliked the practice, yet they considered it enjoined by the rubric K The gown worn by the clergy as a part of their ordinary dress was sometimes censured by the Puritans, as well as the surplice. Williams, in his Articles of 1635, has this ques tion: "Have you any lecturer in your parish who hath preached in his cloak and not in his gown1" ? " The same question occurs in the Metropolitan Articles of 1634 and 1635, and in Juxon's in 1640. Thus we find WiUiams and Laud united in enforcing the same practices and checking the same irregularities in their visitations. During the sus pension of WiUiams, in 1638, Laud visited the diocese of Lincoln as Metropolitan ; and it is remarkable, that no ques tions occur in his Articles different from those, which had been previously used by the bishop himself. We meet with the same question as in the time of James I. relative to the admonition to persons to come and unburden their griefs to their ministers, previous to the Lord's Supper, and also that relating to the two Psalters. The latter occurs in the Articles for the Archdeaconry of Surrejr, and in those for the dioceses of Oxford and Gloucester in 1629". • 'Wren has a further question: "And doth he always use the words of insti tution according to the Book of Com mon Prayer without alteration every time that the bread and wine is re newed?" B In 1636 Wren asks : " Doth he also preach standing, and in his cassock and gown (not in a cloak) with his surplice, and hood also, if he be a gra duate?" It would appear from this question that Wren enjoined the sur plice in preaching as well as in reading, the gown being at that time a part of the minister's ordinary dress. It ap pears, too, that sometimes the ministers were accustomed to sit down while preaching. The custom is still coin- Alr. M mon on the continent, both with Ro man Catholics and Protestants. " " Hath your minister at any time revealed the confession of any made to him in secret, contrary to the 113th Canon, aud so hath brought a scandal upon that ancient remedy of sin and sinners ?" This kind of confession the Church requires, but it has no con nection with the Romish doctrine. One extreme produces another. Some Scriptural aud primitive practices are discarded on account of their abuse in the Church of Rome. The question occurs frequently : hi the Articles for Winchester, 1625; Norwich, 1627; and Peterborough, 1633. 162 The Book of Common Prayer ; Abbot died in 1633, and Laud was promoted to Canter bury. It is frequently said that his proceedings were un usually severe, while Abbot's course was marked by singular forbearance. Yet the latter, notwithstanding his mactivity and his wish to keep things quiet, did not approve of the conduct of the Puritans: and nothing was afterwards en joined by Laud which had not previously been prescribed by his predecessor. Laud's own Articles of Visitation, as we have seen, were as moderate as those of Abbot and Wd- hams. Yet he was charged with influencing Wren and Pierce in framing their Articles after his elevation to Canter bury. Wren and Pierce were very obnoxious to the Puritans on account of their activity ; yet after all, their Articles of Inquiry were of the usual character. Some of Wren's ques tions are curious, as indicative of the practices of the Puri tans at the time. He asks, " Do any use scornfuU language against those godly sermons caUed the Homilies of the Church ?" Such a question should have secured him against some of the charges exhibited before the Long Parliament. By the Puritans the Homilies were abused or ridiculed ; yet Wren was charged for neglecting them. He asks respecting Baptism " and the surphce never but worn in the adminis- tering of it ;" and the Lord's Supper, " Hath the blessed Sacrament been delivered unto any that did unreverently either sit, stand, or leane; or that did not devoutly kneele upon their knees ?" This last question was intended to check the custom of delivering the elements to persons sitting, or standing, or leaning over their seats ; and it was frequently put by other bishops. Juxon asks, in 1640, " Have you any in your parish that keep their places, not drawing near, as is commanded by the Church, but looking that the minister should forsake the place of his station by the Church ap pointed, to bring it to them?" The Puritans refused to go to the Communion-table at any time, except at the cele bration of the Lord's Supper; and Wren therefore asked, " Doth the preacher or minister, after his sermon, wholly forbear to use anie kind or form of prayer (not being pre scribed) as also to pronounce the blessing (out of the pulpit) wherewith the Church useth to dismiss the people? But with the Rubrics and Canons. 163 doth he there conclude with ' Glorie to God the Father, &c./ and then coming from the pulpit (if the sermon were made within the church or chapel) doth he, or whosoever there officiates at the same place, where he left before the sermon, proceed to reade the remainder of the Divine Service, and at the close of aU to give the blessing ?" In 1638 the same prelate asks, " Have you two faire large surplices for your minister to officiate Divine Service in, that the one may be for change when the other is at washing ; and also to serve for him that at Communion assisteth the chiefe minister, that no part of Divine Service may be done but with and in ministerial vestments?" SimUar questions occur in other Articles of the period. In the Articles of 1638 is the following singular question : " Doth he instead of wine give water unto any person that is abstemious and naturally can not endure wine? Such persons ought rather to abstain altogether, then to receive a popish halfe-communion against our Saviour's Institution. For only institution makes a Sa crament, and if God dispense He doth excuse from ordinary course and tye°." In some Articles short Morning Prayers are mentioned. Appended to the Gloucester Articles for 1 634 is the following advertisement : " That every incumbent or curate indeavour 0 Neal, in censuring the bishops of this period for their Visitation Articles, speaks of the oath administered to churchwardens as a new thing. He • may have imagined it to be an inven tion of Laud, yet before he wrote he should have examined his subject. The oath, at all events, was as old as the early part of the reign of Elizabeth. It occurs hi Grindal's printed Articles in 1576. Rnshworth mentions the oath in 1633, but says not a word of its heing new. Rapin speaks of Walter Curie bethinking *' himself to oblige hy oath the church wardens to turn informers." Rapin further remarks, that the Bishop of Winchester was " very careful to hin der any Presbyterian ministers from getting into the Church of England." How could any Presbyterian wish to minister in an Episcopal Church ? Or how could any bishop allow such a thing ? The whole statement proves M that Rapin cannot be followed as a safe guide in such matters, for he insi nuates that the oath was new, and quotes Rnshworth, who says no such thing. Neal also misrepresents Mon tague. Pretending to quote Fuller, he says, "Mr. Fuller says he was a celebrated Grecian and Church Anti quary, but a superstitious admirer of Church ceremonies." Fuller says no such thing. His words are "But (all in his diocese not being so well skilled in antiquity as himself) some charged him with superstitious urging of cere monies." Fuller merely mentions what some persons said, and evidently him self discountenanced the charge. This is one of many specimens of Neal's dis honesty in fathering his own imsup- ported assertions on the authors whom he professes to quote. Neal's Puri tans, ii. 246—248,427; Grindal's Re mains, 177 ; Rushwortli, ii. 186, 187 j Rapin, ii. 2S9— 290. 2 164 The Book of Common Prayer; (as far forth as he can), especially in market townes, to read short Morning Prayers at six o'clock before men go to their labours." In 1640 it is rather varied : " That short Morning Prayers be every day read in market townes, and in all other places where conveniently it may bee." In both sets of Articles is the following rule for preaching : " That preachers doe not so much intend often and long preaching as painfull and profitable preaching, according to his Majestie's instruc tions." It is difficult to understand what was intended by short Morning Praj'ers. The foUowing also was a common question : " Whether any do teach or professe any doctrine of innovation, not agreeing to the ordinances of the Church of England, as Papistry, Brownisme, Puritanisme, or any other heresie or schismatical errors." Also, " Doth your minister every halfe yeare once denounce in your parish aU such parishioners as doe remain excommunicate and seek not to be absolved p?" Cosin, who became very obnoxious to the Long Parliament, put forth some Visitation Articles in 1627, as Archdeacon of the East Biding of York. He asks : " Have you in your church the whole Bible of the ancient translation called the Bishops' Bible, whereunto the Book of Common Praj'er doth refer to Lessons and Psalms, or at the least the whole Bible of the largest volume of the translation authorized by his late Majesty?" It appears, therefore, that the Bishops' Bible and the present translation were indifferently used. The Book of Common Prayer of 1604, and aU subsequent editions until 1662, referred to the Bishops' Bible for Lessons. When Cosin was arraigned by the Long Parliament some years p A rticles for the Diocese of Oxford, 1629, 4to. In 1629, Neil, then Bishop of Winchester, was accused of innova tions, because a stone table had been placed in tho cathedral of Durham while he was bishop. He replied that the act was. the dean's, without his knowledge; yet he admitted that he did not think it a matter of import ance. Another charge was the com mon one of standing at "the Gloria Petri" To this he answered, " Though there be no publick constitution enjoin ing it, yet he held it a duty becoming all Christians, and in some particular churches, as at Wells, it is 1 . their local statutes required." Neil died just before the troubles, the "beginning of that period which took away bishops, the Common Prayer, and monarchy, and set fi.rth a new Confession of Faith, a Directory, with a correction of the XXXIX Articles, and ended in an ex tirpation of the monarchy and a settle ment hy way of confusion," &c,— Le Neve's Lives, ii. 150, 151. with the Rubrics and Canons. 16S later, one of the charges against him was that of disparaging and discouraging the use of the metrical version of the Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins. His accusers could have made no conscience of ascertaining the truth of their charges, since his Articles of Visitation in 1627 are a direct confuta tion of the aUegation, for he asks the common question rela tive to the two Psalters. Prynne charges Cosin with altering the Book of Common-prayer : " Who hath lately made some alterations in our Common Prayer-booke, by what authority I know not." Again : " Together with his alteration of our Common Prayer-booke, and putting in of priests for ministers; his ingrossing of popish Tr.iyer-books for masses and devo tions for sundry years, and his curious and costly binding and stamping them after the popish manner^." The charge was utterly groundless, as may be seen hy an examination of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer from 1604, but it probably arose from the circumstance mentioned in a preceding chapter relative to his commission from his Majesty to restore the word all in one of the rubrics. The controversy relative to the position of the Communion table stiU existed. By the rubric, the position was left to custom and the Ordinary, but there was a diversity in prac tice. The question is now settled by custom, and no clergy man possesses any power or authority in the matter. No bishop is likely so to forget himself, as to commit an out rage on propriety and common sense, by ordering its removal at the caprice of a whimsical incumbent, nor would the law sanction such a course. On the contrary, though the rubric leaves the question open, it is now settled by custom, which in such a case is law, and no bishop could interfere, except to keep the Communion-table in its present position. In this reign, however, a variety existed in the practice. q Prynne's Briefe Censure of Cozeu's Cozening Devotions, 4to , 1629, 65, 66, 92, 104. The violence of the Puritans is generally forgotten by their defenders, yet it was of such a character as to force the bishops to act. In 1628, Smart, in his seditious sermon, says, "I have heard of a dived that preaclit ; I have heard of a friar that preacht in a rope; but I have never heard of either divell or friar that preached in a cope." All sorts of tales were told f _.r the purpose of rendering the bishops and clergy odious. A clergyman was allegul to have bowed so low at the altar that he fell and broke his nose. It was a mere fabrication. Smart's Sermon, 24, 25 ; Illustration of Neal, i. 59, 60. 166 The Book of Common Prayer; In some churches the table stood at the east end of the chancel at Communion -time,, in others in the body of the church or chancel. The former position was deemed an in novation by the Puritans, and the bishops and clergy who advocated the practice were denounced as papists. The alleged innovation was charged on Laud, yet Abbot issued one of the earliest orders on the subject. By the 82nd Canon the table was ordered to be placed in the most convenient situation, a discretionary power being left in the Ordinary, who was in aU cases to be the judge. In 1633, in the case of Crayford, in Kent, Abbot decided, after hearing all that could be alleged on both sides, that the communicants should come to two " ascents or foot-places in the chancel before the Communion-table," and there kneel. The order was pub lished in the church1. Laud procured a similar order in the case of St. Gregory's church, in London. The table in the royal chapels, and in most cathedrals, had always stood at the east end of the chancel, near the waU, at Communion time as weU as at other times, and this position was regarded as most convenient. In the case of St. Gregory's church, the com plaint was lodged in the Court of Arches against the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul, as the Ordinaries ; and when the 82nd Canon was pleaded, it was decided that the discretionary power was not with the parish but with the Ordinary8. These decisions were supposed to regulate the practice, and several bishops issued orders on the subject. Wren's order was thus expressed : " The Communion-table to always stand close under the east wall of the chancel, the ends north and south, unless the Ordinary give particular direction ' Wilkins, iv. 479. Abbot has often been praised at the expense of Laud, yet he endeavoured to enforce con formity. In Huntley's case, in 1627, he wa3 the promoter of the business. "It was Ahp. Abbot who blew the coals in this business." Brook's Lives, ii. 501. 8 Wilkins, iv. 482; Rushworth, ii. 207; Collier, ii. 762. Some of the more moderate bishops, as well as Laud, Wren, and Montague, were charged with innovations. Davenant and Wil liams were included in Prynne's charge of popery. Alluding to certain alleged innovations, he says, "So they were by Dr. Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, hy the Bishop of Lincoln, Williams, and the officers of his diocese." Iu the year 1637 the Archdeacon of Bucks, in Williams's diocese, asks, at his Visi tation, whether the table was at the east end of the chancel and inclosed with a rail. Prynne's Canterhurie's Doome, 89, 94—100. with the Rubrics and Canons. 167 otherwise." Rails also were ordered according " to the Arch bishop's late Injunctions." This order was not forgotten in the accusation to the Parliament a few years later. Opposi tion was stirred up especially against Laud, Wren, Mon tague, and Pierce, yet other bishops enjoined the same prac tice. Duppa, one of the most moderate of the prelates, two years later, in 163S, asks, " Is it set, according to the practice of the ancient Church, upon an ascent at the east end of the chancel, with the ends north and south ? Is it compassed in with a handsome raile ?" In the Metropolitan Articles, in 1635, for the diocese of Norwich, it is asked : " Whether is the same table placed in such convenient sort within the chancel or church, as that the minister may best be heard in his prayer and administration, so that the greatest number may communicate?" The same question occurs in 1636. These were Laud's Articles, and they prove his moderation ; for though he wished the table to stand at the east end, yet he was evidently prepared to order it to be placed elsewhere, if such a position was found inconvenient. In the Norwich Articles, 1638, we find these questions : " Is your Communion table an altar of stone? Is the Communion-table removed downe at any time, either for or without Communion, into the lower part of the chancel or body of the church ?" In con nection with the position of the table, Wren, in his Articles of 1636, asks, " Are all the pews and seats in the church so ordered that they which are in them maj'- all conveniently kneele downe in the time of prayer, and have their faces up eastward towards the holy table ? Are there also any kind of seats at the east end of the chancel above the Communion table, or on either side up east with it ?" The controversy between Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, Heylin, and others, on this subject may now be noticed as reflecting some light on the practices of the period. In 1627 the Vicar of Grantham removed the Communion-table from the body of the church to the east end of the chancel, against the wishes of the parishioners, who lodged a complaint with the bishop, aUeging that they could neither see nor hear the minister. The bishop prohibited any change without his sanction, but after an interview with the vicar and the pa- 168 The Book of Common Prayer ; rishioners at his palace, he wrote a letter by way of settling the dispute. The bishop viewed the matter as indifferent, and directed that the table should stand at the east end, except at Communion-time, when it should be removed to that part of the church in which the minister could be best heard by the people. So the matter rested till 1636, when . Heylin published his " Coal from the Altar," appending to it the letter pf 1627, which had been circidated in manuscript. Heylin was of opinion that the Reformers intended that the Table should always stand at the east end of the chancel ; and WUliams, in his letter, had admitted that it was the most decent situation " when it is not used, and for use too, where the quire is mounted up by steps and open, so that he that officiated may be seen and heard of all the congregation." Heylin says, that in the Visitation of 1636 Laud found that much of the opposition to the permanent position of the table at the east end of the chancel arose from the letter of Wil liams, which had been privately circulated by some persons. It was not circulated by WiUiams*. The Bishop found it necessary to put forth a reply. It was published under the name of a Lincolnshire Minister11. At this time WUliams's own practice was the same as Laud's ; for in his chapel at Bugden the table at all times stood at the east end of the chancel ; and the same rule was followed in the cathedral at Lincoln and Westminster Abbey, of which * A Coal from the Altar.; or, An Answer to a Letler not long since written to the Vicar of Grantham, against the placing of the Communion table at the east end of the chancel, 4to., 1636, 3. « The Holy Table, Name and Tiling, more anciently, properly, and literally used in the New Testament than tliat of an Altar ; written long ago by a Minis ter of Lincolnshire, 4to., 1637. Neal, and writers of his stamp, affect to be lieve that Williams was favourable to the Puritans ; yet in his last Visitation, notwithstanding his unworthy compli ances with tbe Long Parliament, he says in his charge : " Countrymen and neighbours, whither do you wander ? Here are your lawful ministers pre sent, to whom, of late, you do not re sort, I hear, but to tub-preaehers in conventicles. Out of this idol of ima ginary liberty which you worship, you will make so many masters to your selves, that we shall be all slaves." Some members of the House of Com mons complained, for this was in the year 1641 : yet " He maintained he had done God good service to unmask them to their shame that were igno rant laicks, yet preached publicly and privately, to the corruption and dis honour of the Gospel. Nay, all would he teachers in the gatherings of tha Sectaries, scarce a mute in the alpha bet of these new Christians, but all vowels." Hacket, part I. 86. with the Rubrics and Canons. 1G9 he, as Dean, was the Ordinary. In " The Holy Table" he pleaded for the indifferency of the position ; but it was re plied, that "the bishop needed no further refutation of his book than his own example." This was scarcely correct, since, though he viewed the matter as indifferent, he might prefer the practice of placing the table at the east end at all times. The same writer observes, " The Bishop confesses to other practices, which prove that he had no inclinations towards -the Puritans v." He defended the custom of bow ing at the Name of Jesus. Heylin replied to "The Holy Table" in his Antidotum Lincolniense, to which no answer was returned, though we are told by his biographer that he was preparing a vindication when his troubles in the Star-chamber commenced1. At Bugden, Lincoln, and West minster, the table was ornamented with candlesticks. At Bugden also a crucifix was placed above the table y. Pock- hngton mentions the ornaments at Bugden; and the state ments are not denied by the bishop. Pocklington speaks of pictures and a crucifix : and it is evident that, in the matter of ornaments, he in no way differed from Laud2. No distinction was made by the Puritans between such things as were enjoined by the rubrics, and others which were sometimes practised though not prescribed ; but aU were jumbled together in one general charge of popery. It was the most convenient charge ; and the Puritans cared not whether it were true or false, provided it answered their purpose. "Images, loud-sounding organs, sweet-chaunting choristers, deanes and sub-deanes, copes and palls, crucifixes, praying to the east;" all these things were condemned as popish by Puritan writers". In some things James and Charles acted unwisely. The Book of Sports may be in stanced, since it gave occasion for scandal. In one of the extravagant statements of the period it is said that fiddlers came to the church doors before the close of the afternoon ' Barnard's Life of Heylin, 170,171. 1 Hackefs Life of WiUiams, 109, 110. y Heylin's Life of Laud, 269, 312. Heylin's Observations on the Reign of Charles I., 126. 1 Pocklington's Altare Christianum, 87. Holy Table, J 2. . * Burton's Replie, &c, 4to., 1640, 66, 67. 170 The Book of Common Prayer ; service, and that the people quitted the prayers to join in the sportsb. This was an exaggeration, for the churchwardens took special care that no interruption should be given to Divine Service. The publication of the " Book of Sports" was an error ; but the intentions of its framers were very much misrepresented. It originated with Bishop Morton, one of the most zealous defenders of the Church against the Papists ; and therefore it was not of that obnoxious character which the Puritans pretended. " It was no smaU pohcie in the leaders of the popish party to keep the people from church by dancing and other recreations, even in the time of Divine Service, es pecially on holy days and the Lord's day in the afternoon0." King James consulted Morton respecting a remedy, who thought it would be wiser to restrict than to abolish the recreations. Hence the declaration for lawful sports. In stead of being intended to promote popery, as the Puritans alleged, it was designed to counteract the efforts of the Papists. The same reasons existed for its revival in 1633: there was no intention to encourage profaneness. Laud met the charge openly and fairly : " For the day, I ever laboured it might be kept holy, but yet free from a superstitious holi ness. The book names none but lawful recreations; there fore, if atty unlawful be used, the book gives them no warrant. And that some are lawful, appears by the practice of Geneva, where, after Evening Prayer, the elder men bowl and the younger train4." Even Fuller says: "There wanted not many who conceived the declaration came forth reasonably to suppress the dangerous endeavour of such who now began in their pulpits to broach the dregs of Judaism, and force Chris tians to drink theme." Fuller glances forward, and says that some " who were the strictest observers of the Lord's day are now reeled in another extreme. These transcendants aver they need not keep any, because they keep all days Lord's days in their, elevated holinessef." The book, there- k Animadversions on the Life of Baxter, 20. c Barwick's Life and Death of Thomas, Bishop of Duresme, &c, 1660, 80—82. i Wharton's Laud, &c., 343. • Puller, lib. x. 76. ' lb., lib. xi. 149. with the Rubrics and Canons. 171 fore, was not so profane a thing as the traducers of Laud represented; nor did the bishops countenance any breaches of the divine command. Some of the Visitation Articles set the matter in its true light. We may condemn the policy that originated the declaration, but we have no right to im pute motives to its framers. We find the following ques tion : " Whether doth any parishioner abuse the liberty given in the Kinges majesties late declaration by using or exercis ing the recreations therein aUowed on Sundays and holydays unduly or not seasonably, to the hindrance or neglect of Divine Service, viz., before the end of aU Divine Services for that day? Have you any in your parish, men or women, who do abstain from coming to church or Divine Service, and yet assume a liberty to use the recreations aUowed in the said declaration « ?" Baxter gives us an account of his own practice with respect to conformity at the commencement of this reign, and it was doubtless the same with many others who had subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer. " I came to the beginning of the Churches Prayers when I could and staid to the end. I remember what was said of old Mr. Feme, that he would say Amen loudly to every one of the common prayers except that for the Bishops, by which he thought he sufficiently expressed his dissent." Baxter would have acted wisely in not exposing the man's want of charity. He tells us that the minister of one parish, in which he lived in his early days, was bhnd, and "he that read aU the Scriptures was a poor day-labourer," the clergyman repeating the prayers'1. b Articles to be enquired, &c, for Gloucester, &c. Heylin says that Williams had a comedy acted at'Bug- den on a Sunday after an ordination, to which the neighbouring gentry were invited. Examen, 243. h Baxter's Apology, &c, 8, 9. In this work he expresses himself strongly against separation : " If I travelled in Abassia, Armenia, Russia, or among the Greek Churches, I durst not deny to hold communion with them." Bax ter says that, for twenty years he never administered the Lord's Supper, never used the sign of the cross, never wore a surplice. This is his own con fession, and it is very discreditable to a man who professed to minister in the Church of England. Baxter's Answer to the Bishop of Worcester, 76, 77. He admits his use of the Common Prayer in 1639, 1640, "which most did not use." Reply to Stilling fleet, 22. Stillingfleet expresses his surprise that a man " could think such a necessity lay upon him to preach, and yet apprehend none to administer the Sacraments." He remarks that ir; The Book of Common Prayer; "Every fasting-day" some "wandered three miles to meet with a fast minted after their own mind." The infrequency of public services, by which the Puritans meant sermons, was urged as a complaint ; and yet in many churches, especially in London, daily service was performed. At St. Paul's there were three services. " God's sacred service is solemnly said thrice every day in this sanctuarie. And in this church and churchyard there the most and best sermons preached every week that are in any church in the world besides1." This remark was directed against those who were accustomed to wander to distant churches. " Some think it a piece of great godliness to goe out of the church if a surplice be there worne ; some scarcely will heare their own preaching ministers that are for conformitie, if within some mdes they may goe to heare a farre weaker, who is against it k." Prynne complains that at Hereford " they are to stand up at the Creeds, and the Gospel, and Doxologies, and to bow so often as the Name of Jesus is mentioned, and that no man be covered in the church." Bishop Montague asks in his Articles of 1635, "Do they uncover their heads, sit bare aU service time, kneel down in their seats, bowing towards the chancel? Do they stand at the Creed, at the hymns and doxologies ? Do they stand at the reading of the Gospel ? Doth the minister read the second or latter service at the Communion-table ?" Prynne declares that by the rubric the Epistle and Gospel were to be read " where the two lessons are." He charged Laud with bringing in standing up at every recital of ' Glory be to the Father/ together with "very lowly bending at the Name of Jesus." Laud rephed, " The standing up at Gloria Patri, though not prescribed by any canon or rubric of our Church, is of great antiquity, and hath been commonly practised in our churches; and that .bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed in direct terms by he wa3 as much bound to do one as the other, and that he might have dis pensed with one as well as with the other. Alluding to Baxter's admis sion, that some for eighteen years did not baptize or administer tho Lord's Supper, he says, " I would fain know what Churches these men are of." ' Stillingfleet ou Separation, 153, 286. 1 Squier's Sermon at St. Paul's. A Thanksgiving for the Decreasing of the Plague, 4to., 1636,- 20, 40. ¦k Burgess's Answer, &c, 4to., 1631, 5. with the Rubrics and Canons. 173 Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions and the eighteenth canon; therefore no innovation nor offence." Prynne mentions organs as popish : Laud replies, " being approved and gene rally used in our churches there could be no popery in them." Reading the second service at the Communion-table was also regarded as popish. Laud replies, it "is no innovation; it hath been ever since my remembrance customarily practised in churches, and is warranted by the rubric," In replying to some of the answers, Prynne says, " It is confessed there is neither canon nor rubrick enjoyning any to stand up at Gloria Patri : a most disorderly unnecessary practice, where in men stand up and squat down sodainly again, as if they were frightened out of their sleep 1." This standing up and sitting down suddenly arose from the unseemly practice of sitting during the reading of the Psalms, which appears to have been common in those days. The custom also of sitting covered in churches must have been prevalent, or Prynne could not have designated the order to sit uncovered an inno vation. But a man who could affirm that the rubric ordered the Epistle and Gospel to be read in the same place as the lessons cannot be taken as a guide in any matter ; nor can his assertions be received unless they are supported by other and better testimony. CHAPTER IX. 1640.— CANOE'S PARLIAMENT. — BISHOPS. — WREN.— VISITATION OF SICK. — CHUECHING.— SERMON BELL. — SECOND SERVICE. — SUEPIICE. — rTRITANS. —WILLIAMS. — PETITIONS. — COMMtTNION-EAILS. — 1611. — COMMITTEE ON -PRATER-BOOK.— ALLEGED INNOVATIONS.— OBDEES OP PARLIAMENT.— WALTON. MONUMENTS OP SUPERSTITION. — RIOTOUS PROCEEDINGS. — BISHOPS' PEO- TESTATION.— BISHOPS IMPRISONED.— WILLIAMS AND IOEM OP PBAXEE.— POPEET. — DEATH OF WILLIAMS. We now approach that period at which the Church of England became oppressed by a combination of enemies who woidd rest satisfied with nothing less than her destruction as the established Church of the land. Early in 1640 a Parlia- ' Prynne's Canterburie's Doome, 64, 80, 152, 466, 469, 48S, 493. 1 74 The Book of Common Prayer ; ment was summoned, and with it a Convocation, according to ancient practice. In a short time the Parhament was dis- . solved, but the Convocation continued to sit under the royal writ. Whether the crown had the power to continue the synod, after the Parhament was dissolved has often been questioned, though never disproved. Canons were enacted and published by royal authority, being seventeen in num ber. By one canon the Communion-table was fixed at the east end of the chancel, and it was ordered to be enclosed with rails. This was in accordance with the injunctions of various bishops, and the practice of the royal chapels and cathedrals ever since the Reformation; yet the outcry was as loud as if the whole body of popery was about to be introduced into the Enghsh Church. During the summer Juxon held a visita tion, and one of his questions in his Articles was founded on the seventh canon : " Doe the chancels remain as they have done in times past, that is to say, in the convenient situation of the seats, and in the ascent or steps appointed anciently for the standing of the holy table. Is it so set as is directed by the Queen's Injunctions and appointed by the canons made in the synod held at London 1640 ?" These canons became a strong feature in the charge against Archbishop Laud. As the king could not proceed without a Parliament, an other was summoned to meet on the 3rd of November. This was the memorable Long Parliament, of which we shall have many things to relate in the progress of our inquiry. Almost as soon as the Parhament assembled the late canons were condemned as unlawful. Wren and Cosin were ar raigned by the Commons for their Visitation Articles. The charges exhibited confirm the account of the state of con formity during the previous portion of the reign of Charles I. which has aheady been given, and prove that many who considered themselves Churchmen were but iU acquainted with the principles of the Church of England. It was alleged that Wren had caused " the communion-table to be plaeed altar-wise and to be railed in," and that the people bowed " to or before the same ;" " that he, of his own mind, with out lawful authority, in 1636, ordered and enjoined that the with the Rubrics and Canons. 17 o chancels should be raised towards the east end, some two, some three, some four steps, that so the Communion-table there placed altar-wise might be the better seene of the people." In his Injunctions in 1636 he had ordered that the sick should be prayed for " in the desk and nowhere else, at the close of the first service ; and that two collects only from the Visitation Office should be used." In this order the Articles of Impeachment say, " He in the said yeare enjoined that no prayer should be made in the pulpit for the sicke, and that such as were prayed for in the reading-desk should be prayed for only in the two coUects prescribed for the Visitation of the Sicke in Private Houses m." It is clear, therefore, that the Puritans were accustomed to use an ex tempore prayer in the pulpit for the sick ; and the Injunction was intended to check this practice as unsanctioned, by the Church. Such a power was evidently vested in bishops. In some churches it had been the custom to ring a single bell before Divine Service, after the general peal, for a quarter of an hour, in case a sermon was to be preached on that occasion. This was caUed the sermon-bell, and the practice still exists in some country parishes. Now the Puritans were ready to go to the sermon, but many avoided the prayers, going into the church after the usual service. The bishops endeavoured to check this unseemly practice, and the foUow ing question was frequently proposed in Articles of Visita tion. "Are there any in your parish who will come to church to heare the sermon, but wiU not heare the pubhc service, making a schism or division betweene the use of public prayer and preaching?" Wren, moreover, ordered m The most scurrilous works were allowed to be printed by the parlia mentary licencers agaiust Land and Wrenfor the purpose of making them odious to the people, and they abounded in lies and blasphemies, though under the pretence of supporting religion. The following are really atrocious : — " Wren's Anatomy: Discovering his no torious Pranks, and shamefulle Wicked- nesse : with some of his most lewd Facts and infamous Deeds, to his perpetual Shame and Infamy. Printed in the yecre that Wren ceased to domiueere, 1641." "The Wren's Nest Defiled; or, Bishop Wren Anatomized; with a true Relation of his persecuting Godly Ministers, 1640." As no time was mentioned in the rubrics for the use of the Office for Churching of Women, Wren ordered that it should be used at the second service, when the min is. ter went to the Communion-table. Tbe bishop had the power to fix the time, and the practice was quite unobjection able; yet it was alleged a3 a charge against Wren before the Long Par hament. 1 76 The Book of Common Prayer ; " That the same manner of ringing of bells should be ob served at aU times, whether there were a sermon or not." In the Articles of Impeachment a heavy charge was grounded upon this order. " There having been formerly two kinds of ringing of bells and calling people to the church in that diocese, one kinde when there were both prayers to be read and a sermon preached, whereby the people did apply them selves to the service of God in those places where both prayers and preaching was to be, hee, to hinder the people in their good desires of serving God and edifying their souls, did in ¦ the same yeare command and enjoyne that there should be no difference in ringing of bells when there was a sermon and when there was none." Wren's object was simply to bring the people to church to worship God as well as to hearithe sermon. The order was a most sensible one, and fuUy jus tified by the circumstances of the country. The Puritans also charged Wren -with an innovation in requiring the Communion Service to be read at the Com munion-table on non-commuhion days, yet the rubric was exphcit on the subject. Laud, Wren, and other bishops en forced the rubric, as they were pledged to do by their conse cration vows. It was aUeged that the service was thereby rendered unprofitable to the people, "who could not hear what was said." We know, from experience, that the alle gation was false, since in the very same churches the service is now read at the Communion-table, and in most parishes the minister is better heard even than in the desk. He was charged also with ordering ministers to preach in the sur plice, " a thing not used before in that diocese. And the parishioners of Natshall wanting a surplice, he did by his officers, in tho yeare 1637, enjoine the churchwardens there that no prayers should be read in that church till they had got a surplice, which they not getting for the space of two Lord's-days after, had no prayers during that time there." The scandal certainly rested on the parish, not on the bishop. A surplice was appointed by law. The clergyman had pledged himself to conformity, and it could easily have been pro cured. That it was not procured was an evidence of obsti nacy, and to receive such a charge was a proof that the with the Rubrics and Canons. 177 House of Commons preferred listening to the enemies rather than the friends of the Church. The minister himself must have been dishonest in pursuing his course without a sur plice, because he had given a pledge of obedience to the laws. Had he regarded the good of the Church rather than his own whimsical notions, he woidd not have persisted, con trary to his vows, to have read the Common Prayer without the surplice °- The licensers of books during the previous period now felt the weight of Puritan vengeance. Dr. Bray was perhaps the most obnoxious. He had hcensed Pocklington's " Sunday no Sabbath," and Altare Christianum. In 1640-41 he was summoned before the Lords on this charge ; he acknowledged his error in not using due caution, and professed to be now of a different opinion. By the Lords he was ordered to make a recantation sermon that day month : " And the bishops of Durham, Lincoln, and Carlisle appointed to view the sermon before he preaches it, and judge whether it be sufiicient for the recantation intended." The sermon was preached and published. At the end is a collection of passages from the Altare Christianum, and " Sunday no Sabbath," which Bray censured. In some matters he seems to have gone beyond what was required, as in defending pews, which Pocklington 0 The Charge voted against Bishop Wren on Monday, 5th of July, 1641, in the afternoone. Printed in the Yeare of our Prelates' Feare, 1641, 4to . Williams was as anxious to enforce conformity as Laud, and from the va rious reports presented to the king, it is clear thut the diocese of Lincoln was as free from nonconformity as any in the kingdom. In 1635 Williams re ported only one for nonconformity: " Linshall is in the high Commission Court ready for sentence." Wharton, 536. Communion-rails were in some cases objected to, though generally adopted. In 1636 Laud reports from Williams that he had ordered rails to be sot up, and that in some places, though the bishop urged them to com ply, they had refused. "Now, because this is not regulated by any canon of the Church, his Lordship is In humble suite that he may have direction hcre- AM. jj in. And truely for this particular I think the people will best be won by the decency of the thing." The king writes, "Try your nay for some time." In 1638 the Bishop of .Norwich was only troubled in this one point of Com munion-rails. Laud tells the king that the practice is almost general. Whar ton, 557, 562. The situation of the table was supposed to be fixed by law cr custom. In 1641 the gown and cas sock, as well as the surplice, were be come popish. "Never was Christian Uberty in greater danger, when not onely the crosse in Baptisme, the sur prise, &c, hut also the gowns, cassocks, long cloaks, are reputed sinful, for pious worthy men are upbraided in the streets, (nay, some are not spaied in the time of Divine service) as it were a sin, and consequently a shame to weare them." Womack's Beaten Oil, 1611, Ito, 51. 178 The Book of Common Prayer; had condemned. After reading the passages, Bray confessed his eiror. One passage is curious, because it acquits the Church of aUowing lecturers without orders. " He scandal- izeth our Church as having lecturers which never take orders ; and falsely quotes the letter for that which speaks not a word pro or con in that matter." The recantation, however, did not save him from his enemies, for he was ejected soon after. " Soon after both doctors deceased for grief, say some, that they had written what they should not ; for shame, say others, that they had recanted what they would not ; though a third sort, more charitable, take notice neither of the one nor the other, but merely impute it to the approach ofthe time of their dissolution p." Yet the bishops of this period are often regarded as per secutors, and the Puritans as patient • sufferers. There are those who look back upon the period between 1640 and 1660 as a time of great light and much religious feehng; whereas it was an age of hypocrisy with some and enthusiasm with others. Such persons, however, merely adopt the notions propagated by those, whose object is to defame the Church of England. The bishops, at all events, were not such persecutors a3 the very men, said to have been persecuted, proved themselves to be during the period from 1640 to 1660. The Puritans under the Long Parliament far out stripped the bishops in the work of persecution. "If the works of Leighton, Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, for which they suffered in the Star-chamber, are perused by unprejudiced persons, it wiU be admitted that it was not pos sible to leave such men at liberty. The language of many of the publications of the Puritans against the Church was cruel and insulting, and in some cases even blasphemous q. t Eu=hworth, I. part iii. 207. A Ser- | Smart, which Mr. Smart was a proto- mon of the Blessed Sacrament, &c, i martyr." Speeches and Passages, &c, togutuerwith the Disprovingof Sundry j 1641, 45. The Puritan speakers hi Passages in two Books set forth by . the Long Parliament were utterly Dr. Pockliugton. Now published by command, 4k>., 1641; Fuller, xi. 172. i Eons called Smart the proto- roarfrr. In his speech to the lords against Cosin, Maynwaring, and Beale, he says that the Charge against Cosin is "upon the complaint of Peter reckless in assertions. White charges tho bishops with corrupting the rubrics. Edward's Second Book directed the service to he read so as the minister could best be heard; Elizabeth's or dered it to be read in the " accustomed place." This change is called a cor- with the Rubrics and Canons. 179 When it suited their purpose, the Puritans could plead the authority of the rubrics, though in almost every case they violated those which were plain and exphcit. Thus, if a custom prevailed which was not enjoined in the Book of Common Prayer, they urged the authority of the „Book, forgetting their own breaches of its most direct commands. Of Burton it was said : " His present practice in several things must be condemned, as having no warrant or prescrip tion in that Booke. Por I would faine know where in that Booke his rite of carrying the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ up and downe the church to the re ceivers' pews is to be found ? where he hath any allowance of singing of psalms whUe he is administering ? If the not being in the Booke shaU bee enough to exclude aU rites and ceremonies from being used in the Church, then surely such as are contrary to the express orders there prescribed must much more be excluded. And certainly Master Burton by this means would be but in an iU case, and many others especiaUy of his faction. For how could they justify their not reading of Gloria Patri at the end of every psalm, their christening of children after divine service, their consum mation of the whole forme of marriage in the body of the church ; and many other things, which are contrary to the expresse words of the rubrike r ?" In their zeal against some ruption by the bishops: "In the .n- brick, as it is now printed, prayer shtdl be used in the accustomed place." From this rubric, he says, " They have introduced the popish practice of read ing prayers at the upper end of the chancel at their altar, and turning their faces to the east, and their hacks to the people in reading in the desk." The rubric was fixed b; Elizabeth, aud was fully authorized; and we have White's admission as to its meaning ; yet as he disliked it he charged it as a corruption. Further, White asserts that the bishops in the later hooks had omitted the clause against the pope, and the declaration on kneel ing, which, he says, were confirmed by Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity. Such dishonesty was common in these men. Speeches and Passages, &c, 45, 429. ' Dow^s Keply to Burton, &c, 4to., 186, 187. Heylin adopts the same line: "Are not you he that told us that the Communion booke set forth by Parliament is commanded to be reade without any alterations, and none others. And if you read it not, as it is commanded, make you alteration thinke you ?" Heylin's Answer, ic, 165. The authors of Smectymnuus repeat the silly charge, that the Book of Common Prayer in use was not con firmed by Parliament, because it did not agree with Edward's Second Book ; yet soon after, forgetting themselves, they say, "When the Parliament hav ing given order for the alteration and correction of the Litany, all the alte ration that was made in it was the taking out of that one suffrage ' From tho pope, &c.' " Here is an acknow ledgment of an order. for corrections. In the Vindication of Smectymnuus, n2 180 The Book of Common Prayer ; things, they could plead the silence of the Prayer-book, a most dangerous weapon for them to use, forgetting their own practice in introducing many things which were not com manded, and many which were contrary to the express in junctions of the rubrics. Yet these men called themselves the only true members of the Church of England, though they afterwards renounced episcopacy for the covenant, and the Prayer-book for the Directory. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, was liberated from prison by the king, yet he was in high favour with the Par hament, and some of his subsequent acts were dictated by a desire to mortify Archbishop Laud. In November, 1640, the first month of the Long Parliament, on a fast- day, "The Bishop of Lincoln was brought into the abbie by sixe bishops, and did reade service before the lords3." On this occasion the first interruption took place in the performance of Divine Service : " As the second service was reading at the Communion-table, a psalm was sung, which put by the service, and which was and is much marvelled at by men of moderate spirit'." In December "a pe- the authors have a curious passage re specting the lost books of Hooker; "'It is worth the enquiring whether the three last books of Hooker's Ec clesiastical Politie be not suppressed hy him that hath them, because they give the prince too much power iu ecclesiastical matters, and are not for the divine right of bishops." Smec tymnuus, 10; Vindication, &c, 33. 5 Perfect Diurnal, &c, 4to., 1641, 5 : " Doctor Burgessc and Master Mar shall preached before tho House of Commons at least seven horn's betwixt them." Burgess and Marshall were, perhaps, more instrumental in kind ling the flames of war than any other two men in the kingdom. As soon as the Commons appointed days of fast ing, the Puritans who had been most disaffected to the Chnrch were in variably appointed as the preachers. Burgess had been a strict conformist, but at length ho became a Puritan : and in 1610 he began to preach in favour of taking up arms for religion. During the tnuults connected with the bishops, he was accustomed to lead parties to the door of the House of Commons, " to see that the -god'y party might not be out-voted." Of the mob, he said, " These are my band- dogs, I can set them on, and I can take them off." Sometimes small par ties were admitted into the house, and Burgess acted as their spokesman : "Dr. Burgess," says Baillie, " commonly is their mouth. We suspected him as too much episcopal, and wished he had not been of the number. Yet he has carried himself so bravely tha'; we re pent of our. suspicions." Bai die's Let ters, i. 245. Baillie refers to the pe titions on tlie Remonstrance. Claren don said that Laud never exercised so much influence in the royal councils as was exercised by Burgess and Mar shall over the two houses ; and Calamy in his reply admits, that Marshall " did encourage the taking up arms for se curing the constitution," but he pleads that ho did not concur in the measures "wliich overturned the constitution." He also pleads that Burgess was against the king's death. Calamy's Continu ation, 737; Wood, iii. 6S5. ' Perfect Diurnal, 4; Nalson's Col lections, i. 533. with the Rubrics and Canons. 181 tition was brought complaining of the Church discipline in having archbishops, bishops, &c, using the crosse in baptism, kneeling at the Communion, as unuseful in the Protestant Church"." Thus early did the fruits of Puri tanism appear. For a time the members of the House of Commons professed themselves members of the Church of England, wishing only for the abandonment of a few cere monies ; but now they strike at the foundation of her disci pline and government. From this time petitions poured in, and they were graciously received by a House of Commons professing to be Churchmen. It was resolved that the Sacrament should be received in St. Margaret's Church by the members of the Commons, who deputed two of their number to request the Dean of West minster, WUliams, to order that the elements should be consecrated at a table, "standing in the middle of the church, removed from the altar." The Dean complied, in timating that he woidd have done the same " at the request of any parish in the diocese, had it been desired*." For a time WUliams was the obsequious servant of the Parliament, and performed their bidding in their crusade against Com munion-rails. An order was issued by the Lords on the subject ; and the bishop was requested to put it in practice in his visitation in 1641. Accordingly, in his Visitation Articles of that year we find the foUowing questions : " Doth your Communion-table stand in the ancient place, where it hath done for the greatest part of these sixtie years, or hath it been removed to the east end and placed altar- wise ? Are all the steps raised up in the chancel towards the altar (as they call it) within the last fifteen years leveUed J ?" These " Perfect Diurnal, 12. I should not disturb it, hut that the 1 Parliamentary History, ix. 81. j clergy should not introduce " any rites T Articles to be enquired of within j ov ceremonies that may give oft'euce, the diocese of Lincoln, &c, printed | otherwise than those which are es- 1641. Williams printed the order of j tarnished by the laws of the land." the Lords at the end of his Articles, j Nalson, i. 727, 800; ii. 4S3. On one For a time the Lords seemed to wish j occasion the Lords censured some hiy to adhere to the Church. When a I preachers, telling them that they would complaint was made in January, 1640, j be punished if the ofl'euce were re- 41, of some Anabaptists, they or- I peatcd ; and yet at the same time the dered the service to be performed " as j clergy were tre ded with the utmost it is appointed;" aud tliat persons I severity for merely complying with 182 The Book of Common Prayer ; questions were aimed at Laud, whose influence had been so great during the previous fifteen years, yet they involved the condemnation of his own practice. From a sense of his previous sufferings, probably, he was led to foment those divisions, which issued in his own ruin and that of his order. In these Articles he also inquired, whether the minister called upon the people to stand at any other time than at the Creed and Gospel. It is strange that WUliams should have considered sitting as a suitable or reverent posture during the reading of the psalms and hymns of the Church. StiU some things in these Articles indicated a wish to adhere to the practices of the Church. He asks: "Doth your parson distinctly and reverently say Divine Service upon Sundays and holydays, and other days appointed to be observed by the Book of Common Prayer, as Wednesdays and Fridays, and the eves of every Sunday and holyday? Doth he bid holydays and fasting-days, as by the Book of Common Prayer is appointed?" The foUowing question must have been most obnoxious to the Puritans: "Doth your minister in his sermons deliver such doctrine as tends to obedience, and the edifying of their auditory in faith, religion, and good hfe, without intermeddling with particu lar matters of state, not fit to be handled in the pulpit ? Or doth he spend most of the houre in points of controversie, and new start up questions of Arminianisme, debarred by the king's authority from the pulpit?" This question was al most prophetic of the course subsequently pursued by the parliamentary preachers. WiUiams, in short, was a Church man, though ho acted inconsistently for a season. He evi dently entertained fears of the pulpit. And there was cause for fear, for it was one of the exciting causes of the civU war, and of aU the wickedness of that distracted period, as wiU be shown- in another chapter. It was the common vehicle for the abuse of individuals, for publishing the news, and for stirring up sedition2. the rubrics. Ib., 271. "There was a report of two tradesmen in London that have preached in the Church, whereupon there were warrants sent forth to bring them before the House of Commons." Perfect Diurnal, 118. • One question in Williams's Arti cles evidently was prompted by his pique against Laud, because it is con demnatory of his own practice in pre- with the Rubrics and Canons. 183 WiUiams was one of a committee, which met at his deanery, appointed by the Lords to consider certain points of ceremony and discipline. The results of their labours were published in 1641. Usher, Brownrig, Featly, and Hacket were also nominated, but did not attend. In spite of tho clear letter of the rubric, the committee pronounced the reading of the second service at the Communion-table, except at tho time of the Communion, " an innovation." " Turning to the east," " a credehtia or credence-table," " standing up at the hymns of the Church and Gloria Patri," and the use of candlesticks, were also classed among innovations. After a specification of certain matters of doctrine to be condemned, they censure the practice of receiving the Communion at the rails, and propose certain, queries -respecting the Book of Common- prayer : " Whether the rubrique shaU not be mended where all vestments in time of Divine Service are now commanded which were used 2 Edward VI." They also recommend, " That the inperfection of the nieeter of the singing Psalms should be mended and then lawful authority added unto them." The committee did not distinguish between ordinary customs and practices actually enjoined. It is evident that candlesticks were commonly placed on the Communion-table, and that turning to the East at the Creed was the common practice. In that time of confusion, probably, WUliams and his brethren in this committee may have imagined, that a few concessions would have satisfied those who were calUng for reformation ; and on this ground their recommendations may have been based. However, the effort was fruitless, for the Parliament had now entered upon a career, wdiich issued in the ruin of the Church and the monarchy a. vious times : " Do you know of any parson, vicar, or curate, that hath in troduced any offensive rites, as namely, that make three courtesies toward the Communion-table, that call the said table an altar," &c. • "A copy of the Proceedings of some worthy and learned Divines, appointed by the Lords to meet at the Bishop of Lincoln's in Westminster, touching Innovations in the Doctrine and Dis cipline of the Church of England ; together with Considerations upon the Common Prayer-book," 4to., printed at London, 1641. Heylin's Laud, 473, 474. This tract is an evidence of tbe practice of that and the pre ceding times. " Bowing towards the cash, advancing candlesticks in many parish churches upon the altar, the mi nister's turning his backe to the west, and his face to the east when he pro- nounceth the Creed or reads prayers, reading the Litany in the midst of the 184 The Book of Common Prayer ; In aU the petitions the changes were rung on innovations. The London Petition against bishops, in 1640, enumerates among the pretended innovations, " The bishops' rochets and lawn sleeves, the cope and surplice, the tippet and hood, ' the pulpits clothed, standing up at Gloria Patri and at read ing the Gospel, praying towards the east, bowing at the Name of Jesus, reading the second service at the altar, and consecrating churches;" and it is added, "the Liturgy for the most part is framed out of the Romish Breviary, Ritual, and Mass-book." After a very short time the Commons de clared against " aU corporal bowing at the Name of Jesus, or towards the east end of the church b." The Puritans even condemned the short private prayer still common at entering the church : " For the mo3t part they rush into the assembly with less reverence than they usuaUy do into the houses of their familiar friends ;" and usually the men sat with their hats on: "but when a great person hath come into the church have honoured him with the uncovering of the head." It was a common practice at this period to sit during portions of the service, at which the bishops recommended standing, and at which no one in our day would think of being seated ; and the same persons who were accustomed to sit during the reading of the Psalms, uncovered their heads "when the same Psalms are sung by them changed into metre c." The men who so set themselves against the Church evinced not only opposition, but malice and ignorance. Bishop Hall stood up in 1641, on occasion of the vote respecting bishops, body of the church in many parochial churches, having a credentia or side- tubio, singing the Te Denm after » cathedral-church way ;" and other thiujrs, are mentioned as innovations. 'Tbii mention of these proves that they tvcui common. It is clear that the Litany w, usually read at a separate placr. Moreover the committee re commend that the .desk should be placed where the people could best hear, for it usually stood in the chan cel. They declare that the injunctions of Quetn Elizabeth possessed no force, evidently because they were against their rt commendations. b Parliament. History, ix. 157. The clergy were subjected to all sorts of misrepresentations. 1'he following passage from the letter of a man of some moderation is an instance in point : " Our vicar, Mr. Andrews, con- tinueth his praying for his h>rd and master, the Bishop of Elye, notwith standing he hath been admonished and acquainted with the charge against him in Parliament." Agaiu, he " con- tiuueth his commemoration for the dead." D'Ewes's Autobiography, ii. 27.1, 272. Speeches, &c., 165. c England's Faithful Reprover, 12ino., 1658, 44, 49, 50. with ihe Rubrics and Canons. 185 and uttered a passage which was truly prophetic. "If these men may with impunity and freedom thus bear down eccle siastical authority, it is to be feared they wUl not rest here, but wiU be ready to affront civU power too d." This was the last speech made by a bishop in the House of Lords. Pro bably some members of both houses intended only to make a few changes in the rubrics, or only to abolish a few practices. In September, 1641, a motion "to agree upon some alte rations and new additions to be inserted in the Book of Com mon Prayer" was lost ; yet in the same month the Commons ordered the Communion-table to be removed from the chan cel "to some other convenient place," and the rails to be taken away, and the chancels levelled. Shortly after, the parishioners of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and of a parish in the country, petitioned against the removal of their Communion- rails, aUeging that they had existed eighty years. The peti tion was rejected. These rails, and many parishes were in the same state, had continued from the early days of the Reformation e. In the same year Articles were exhibited in Parliament against Brian Walton, the learned author of the Polyglott, for placing the Communion-table altar-wise. Tlie churchwardens had refused to place the table at the east end * Pari. Hist., i. 133. The Petitions were usually got up by disaffected ministers, and the people were easily induced to add their signatures. The following practices, moreover, were con stantly branded aspopish. "Turning the Communion-tables altar-wise, setting images, crucifixes, and conceits over them, and tapers and books upon them, and bowing and adoring to or before them, the reading of the second service at the altar." Speeches, &c., 166. Sir John Culpepper in his speech repeated the same things. Ib., 342. The Kentish Petition calls standing at Gloria Patri and the hymns an "obsolete cere mony," thus proving its previous exist ence. Ib., 434. • Perfect Diurnal, 351, 359, 360, 368; Nalson, ii. 491. " Hereupon fol lowed such an alteration in all churches that the churchwardens pulled down more in a week or two than all the bishops and clergy had been able to raise in two weeks of years." Heylin's Presbyterians, 410. The Puritans wished to level the chancels, though they were ready enough to raise the • pulpit and the desk. To preserve an appearance of justice, the Lords or dered, that certain persons', who had c.immittcd disorders in certain churches during the Communion, in pulling down the rails, should be sent to the Fleet, from which they were soon released on the plea of poverty. They also ordered, " that new rails shall forthwith he set up as they have been for fifty years last past, but not as they were for four or five years last past, and this to be done at the expence of the delin quents." They were also to make a public acknowledgment of their fault in the body of the church. Other cases of a similar kind occurred, 1 >': all the individuals were soon dismi. KTalson, ii. 271, 275, 291, 2U2, , " 393, 365. 186 The Book of Common Prayer; of the chancel, and Walton and the Bishop of Rochester did it themselves. It was now ordered to be removed. Another charge against him was reading the second service at tho Communion-table f. At one time the service of the Church was ordered to be continued according to law; but within four months an order against innovations, as many authorized practices were termed, opened the door to all sorts of excesses s. Other orders foUowed in succession against monuments of superstition, among which they mention " holy water fonts, as if such things had of late existed or were permitted in the Church of England, as indeed they were not." Books, sur plices, copes, and vestments were torn'and destroyed, and the fonts removed under these orders : " the name of the holy water fonts being extended and made to comprise them alsoh." In a short time these orders were extended so far, that many of our churches were almost destroyed. WiUiams at length found himself uneasy under his Parlia mentary masters, who discovered that the archbishop was not suited to their purpose. " They that did intend to em ploy him in their faction did repent in one day that ever he came among them'." The Protestation which led to the imprisonment of the bishops and their expulsion from the House of Lords, originated with WiUiams, who was insulted by the rabble. When the apprentices and others petitioned against the bishops, they were encouraged by the House of Commons. " This day many hundred citizens flocking to the Houses, called earnestly upon the members as they passed to suppress bishops. This evening many of the citizens and apprentices being detained in Westminster Abbey and ex amined before the Bishop of York, the rest ofthe apprentices came in a great company to relieve those that were de tained1'." "No day passed wherein some petition was not ' Todd's Life of Walton, i. 14, 15. « Heylin's Laud, 435, 4S6. Hcyliu's Presbyterians, 4-10. In September, 16 tli. tho Commons voted the con tinuance of the Common Prayer with out liberation or addition by 60 against 55. Xalson, ii. 475. The Lords had ordered, in January, 1640, the service to be continued according to law ; in September, 1641, it was repeated, though some Peers entered a protest. The protest is not in Itushworth. The Commons, did not concur with the Lords, but drew up then- own de claration. h Heylin's Presbyterians, 464, 465. 1 Hacket's Life of Williams, 140, 141. k Perfect Diurnal, I\Tov. 29 to Dec. 6, p. 3; Doc. 27 to Jiuie 2, pp. 2, 3. with the Rubrics and Canons. 1S7 presented against the bishops, insomuch that the very por ters (as they said) were able no longer to undergo the burden of episcopacy1." Vicars, tho unblushing chronicler of all the imquities of these times, admits that the bishops were in danger, and glories in the fact. Nothing could now save them from expulsion from the Lords, and therefore the pro testation was a wise movement, since it removed the mask from their pretended friends and revealed them as enemies to the Church. They were insulted and even injured by the mob, and they protested against all proceedings in Parlia ment during their absence. Their committal to prison was the first-fruit of Presbyterian tyranny. This Presbyterian triumph was celebrated in ballads and satires, and recorded in grave histories in terms of approval, which remain to the everlasting disgrace of the party by whom WiUiams was im prisoned and Laud beheaded™. " A groat number of persons in a tu multuous manner came to Westmin ster, where they offered many affronts to divers bishops." Wbitelock, 53. "These lordly and lofty prelates (among whom, and a prime one too, was that supercilious arch-prelate of Yorke, Bp. Williams) took foul scorn and high in dignation at this affront of boys and prentices." Vicars's God in the Mount, 58. 1 Fuller, xi. 185. " From these per sons," said Bp. Hall, in tho last speech made by a prelate in the Lords, "pro- ceod those dangerous assaults of our Church government; from hence that inundation of base and scurrilous libels and pamphlets, in which papists and prelates, like oxen in a yoke, are still matched together." Pointing to the bishops, he said, "Do not your lord ships see here those that have spent their time, their strength, their lives, in preaching down and writing down popery ?" Pari. Hist., x. 132. m The Decoy-Duck : together with the Discovery of the Knot iu the Dragon's Tail, 1641. Williams is re presented in a woodcut as decoying his brethren into the tower. In allu sion to Laud, the owner of the place says, "I never knew but one arch- decoy-duck before that was ever taken, but he came hi all alone ; but this your captain decoy duck, bee hath brought in good store, five couples and one odd duck besides himselfe." Wbitelock ad mits, " They offered many affronts and violences to divers of the bishops." He also alludes to the triumph of tlieir enemies : " Divers of their adversaries were much pleased with this unadvised act of the bishops, being (as they wish ed) a way prepared by themselves to be set aside." Wbitelock, 53. Claren don condemns the protestation, pro bably from dislike to Williams. " They suffered themselves implicitly to be guided by the Archbishop of York to such an act of indiscretion and dis advantage to themselves, that all their enemies could not have brought upon theui." Some ofthe Lords said, " That there was Digitus Dei to bring that to pass, which they could not other wise have compassed." Clarendon, part ii. 345, 353 ; Vicars's God in the Mount, 57. Eushworth admits that the rabble threatened to pull down the organ in Westminster Ab bey. Rnshworth, part iii. vol. i. 463, 465. Soon after the threat was ex ecuted with a vengeance. Wharton's Remains, 1S4. "Certainly, if ever," says the incendiary "Vicars, "here was a most visible point of God's overruling providence, crossing these prelates' craft, paying them iu their 188 The Book of Common Prayer ; The bishops had given offence to the Commons before the Protestation. A day of thanksgiving had been appointed, for which Williams prepared a Form of Prayer. It pur ported to be for the Diocese of Lincoln and the Deanery of Westminster. The latter included St. Margaret's Church, at which the Commons usually attended on public occasions. They, however, took offence, and voted " That the Bishop of Lincoln had no power to set forth any prayers." To shew their disapproval they kept the day in the chapel of Lin coln's Inn. Hutton, Curate of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was com plained of before the Commons, " That on the Day of Thanks giving he would not suffer any one to preach but himself. Secondly, that instead of preaching in the afternoon he only read the Bishop of Lincoln's Prayer °." WUliams was attached to the Church of England, though at the commencement of the Long Parliament he seemed to waver. At his own cost he procured a translation of the Book of Common Prayer to be published in French and Spanish. To accomphsh his object he even studied the Spanish tongue, and in ten weeks was able not only to read works in that language, but to converse with the Spanish ambassadors. He was anxious to let the Spaniards see the character of our worshipp. He evidently agreed with Fang James, of whom he says, " Of his affection to these three he gave a fuU demonstration — to the doctrine by the translation of the Bible against the papists, to the discipline by the Con ference at Hampton Court against the novelists, and to the maintenance by remitting aU sede-vacantes." He further says own coin." Vicars, 59, 61. Baxter admits, while defending the Parlia ment, that the fear of being over powered, "caused Eome of them to countenance such pctitionings and clamours of the Londoners, appren tices, and others, as. we think dis orders and provocations of the kins." The Nonconformists* Plea for Peace, 167 J, 128. " Xalsou's Collections, ii. 476, 477, 497 ; Clarendon, part i. ii. 293. " The Co mucins actually sat on a Sunday at this tiftie, because the king was about to start for Scotland." Wbitelock, 47. rTalson, ii. 436. The declarations of the reasons for the Sunday sitting Came from the Lords, hut not the motion to sit. Verney's Notes of the Long Parliament, 114; Perfect Diur nal from June 27 to July 1, p. 134; Pari. Hist., ix. 513. P Backet, 126, 127, 209, 210; Ca bala, 309; Heylin's Laud, 104, 374. Heylin says "This was very seasonably done ; for till that time the Spaniards had been made believe by their priests and Jesuits, that when the English had cast off the pope, they had cast off all religion also." with the Rubrics and Canons. 180 that James received "the hierarchy as a government re ceived from Christ and His apostles. God Almighty was pleased that this great king should be bred for a while in that discipline, that he might learn in times to eome, how he should not discipline the Church of Christ "." Though he and Laud were not agreed on some points, yet he promoted the repairs of St. Paul's Church. In his Visitation in 1634, he says to his clergy : " Should this minster stiU remain (as of late it did) a great heap of mouldering stones, or rather a httle mountain of dust and rubbish, were our churches in the inner places of this isle ever so weU repaired, yet would strangers out of error, and seminaries out of rancour, possess the world, that since the Reformation God's houses in Eno-- land are become the habitations of dragons and a court for owls. That when Pater-noster had reared them up to touch the heavens, Our Father had pidled them down to the dust of the earth "." Popery had been alleged against WiUiams in earlier days, and it is remarkable that the charge was renewed in 1641, and grounded upon his book of " The Holy Table." De}', the author of the charge, petitioned the House of Commons on the subject, aUeging that the "Book was most probably written, but most certainly approved by John WiUiams, Bishop of Lincolne ;" and he calls upon the House to demand certain answers from the prelate. Dey states that "The Holy Table" was corrected in the press by Dr. Holdsworth. Williams is charged with yielding "the whole controversy, and more than aU, too," by his admissions ; " and though," says he, " I might have petitioned against one of Canterburie's chaplains, who heavily afflicted me in the Universitie, or against London's officers, who have injuriously wronged me of my living, yet digesting mine own injuries I have rather become a humble supphant in behalfe of the truth and doctrine of Christ3." q Great Britain's Solomon, a Ser mon, &c, 4to, 1625, 3S, 50, 51. ' Hacket, part ii. 60. " Two Looks over Lincolne; or, a View of the Holy Table, discovering his Erroneous and Popish Tenets and Doctrine; and under pretence of de fending the cause of Eeligion, shame fully betraying the Truth and Sinceritia thereof. A Petition exhibited in all hunvlitie to the judgment of the most worthy Defenders ofthe Truth, the Ho nourable House of Commons, against the said Cook, and especiaUy fifty-one tenets therein. By lt. Dey, minister of the Gospel. London, 4to., 1641, i. 300 The Book of Common Prayer ; " Williams has been frequently charged with Puritanism, as also Laud was with Popery, both which accusations we believe were really and equally false, but neither of them ground less'," yet Laud had no wish to promote popery, nor had Williams any desire to introduce presbytery. Williams's affection for the Church of England, notwith standing his compliances, in the early period of the Long Par liament, with Presbyterian tendencies, was proved in his declining days. He was " a punctual observer of the ancient Church orders, whereof he was a governor, and a great de- cliner of innovations, holding to it that what was long in use, if it were not best, it was fittest for the people u." After the commencement of the war he hved in retirement in Wales; and the reports circulated of his concurrence with the Parhament were destitute of any foundation. On the contrary, no man was more afflicted by the death of the king. He survived his Majesty rather more than two years, and was accustomed until his death to rise at midnight for prayer. He "kneeled on his bare knees, and prayed earnestly and strongly one quarter of an hour before he went to his rest agii in. The matter of his prayer was principally this : ' Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly, and put an end to these days of sin and misery.' So much I learnt from himself, and so report it." After that sad event he seldom inquired for news, " ex- 25—28, 82. The earlier charge of popery against Williams arose from the liberation of some recusants by King James. The writs were issued by Williams. Heylin also insinuated certain things connected with the prince's journey to Spain, and it was rumoured that a cardinal's hat was of fered for bis services. WiUiams deemed it neeessary to repel the last charge in a letter to'Lord Arran. Cabala, 293, 294; Kemiet, ii. 750; Heylin's Exa men, 273, 'iiii Heylin's Observations on the History of Charles!., 137, 138 ; Philips's Life of Williams, 237. Even Bp. Hall was charged with popery. " He should have had no peace with Rome, as well as he wrote of the no peace v;ilh Rome." Vicars's God in the Mount, 62. This was said in al- huion to tho Bishops' Protestation, which was regarded by this incendiary as a most visible print of God's over ruling providence. "Thus on that happy fifth of February was the Church of God most mercifully freed of that pestilential disease, the antichristian tyranny of our English prelates. Thus Goliah is slain with his own sword, and Haman is hanged upon his own gallows." Ib., 72. « Echard's History, ii. 17. » Hacket's Life of Williams, 229. Baxter, as late as 16S1, circulated the rumour that Williams " became a com mander in North Wales for the Par liament." Baxter's Search for a Schis matic, 1681, 12. In 1679 he said the same thing, " as it is reported, without denial." The Nonconformists' Plea for Peace, 138. with the Rubrics and Canons. 191 cept that sometimes he would lift up his head and ask what became of the king's tryers, Baanah and Rechab, especiaUy Cromicell and Bradshaio, looking for some remarkable judg ment from God to come down upon them*." In his last sickness he was attended by the nearest clergyman. Echard says, " Notwithstanding the world's opinion of his principles, he continued so exact and strict to the rules of the Church of England, that in his last sickness, wanting a regular Presbyter to give him the Sacrament, absolution, &c, he purposely ordained an honest and pious servant of his own to administer to him in those holy offices ?." It is gratifying to know that Laud and WiUiams were reconciled. When troubles come upon them and the Church, their animosities were forgotten; aU misunderstandings were cleared up, mutual jealousies vanished, and each saw and appreciated the other's talents, integrity, and piety. In the tower the bishops " refrained not on either side from sending messages of love and consolation unto one another, those mutual civilities being almost every day performed betwixt the two arch bishops also, though very much differing both in their coun sels and affections in the times foregoing l." 1 Hacket, 226. Vicars always abuses Williams, a proof of the falsehood of the charge of serving the Parliament. Alluding to his departure for Cawood, he says, " Thus, skulking up and down with a base guilty conscience, as full of pride as guilt against God and good- ¦nesse." God in the Mount, 181. y Echard's History, ii. 700. * Heylin's Laud, 461. Alluding to the Parliament, Williams said to Hey lin, "That the courtesie he expected from them was that which Poliphemus promised to Ulysses, that is to say, to cat him last." Heylin's Observations on the Reign of Charles I., 217, 218. 192 The Book of Common Prayer; CHAPTER X. SPOLIATION' OP CHURCHES— BOOKS AND VESTMENTS. — EJECTIONS. — PJ1AYE1!- BOOE. — SCANDALOUS MINISTEBS — EXCES3E3. — ENTHUSIASM. — CRUELTIES 10 CLERGY. — SERMONS. — WHITE'S CENTUEY. — COVENANT. — PARLIAMENT. — CHANGES. — CAUSES THEREOF. — SCOT3. — PREACHERS. — ASSEMBLY. — BAIT.LIU'S ACCOUNT. — COVENANT TAKEN. — AUTHOES OE WAR. — PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ASSEMBLT.— INDEPENDENCY. — WANT OF DISCIPLINE. — DIVISIONS.— PBE3BV. TEBIAN5. — CHEISTMAS. — SECTS. — DIRECTORY. — PULPIT. — LIGHTEOOT AND ASSEMBLY. From the year 1640 aU order and discipline were disre garded. The conscientious clergy were removed from their livings, and the churches of the land were defaced, and in some cases almost destroyed by the mob, who were encouraged in their work of destruction by the parliamentary preach ers. St. Margaret's, Westminster, was ravaged by order of a committee of the House of Commons ; the windows were broken and the organ destroyed ; the monuments and tombs were cast down, the actors being guarded in their work of spoliation by a troop of soldiers. Sometimes processions were formed by the soldiers arrayed in surplices ; at other times fire3 were kindled with books and vestments. It is customary with some persons to carp at the accounts given of these iniquitous scenes by royalist writers as untrue ; but their evidence is abundantly confirmed by the exulting tes timony of Presbyterian authorities. At Winchester, "Tlie sweet cathedralists, in whose houses they found great store of Papist books, pictures, and crucifixes, which the soldiers carried up and downe the streets in triumph to make them selves merry ; yea, and they for certaine piped before them with the organ pipes, (the faire organs in the minster being broken downe by the soldiers,) and then afterwards cast them all into the fire and burnt them." At Lichfield, "though the soldiers were merciful to the men, yet were they void of all pity towards the organ-pipes, copes, sur plices, and such like popish trumperies." As the Parlia mentary Ordinance ordered the demolition of monuments of superstition, the rabble regarded all statuary and painting with the Rubrics and Canons. 193 as coming under that designation. Thus at Canterbury "they went to the quire door, over which were thirteen images; these were all hewn down, and twelve more images of popish saints over them. They fell upon seven large images of the Virgin Mary. And so went on most zealously and religiously in ruinating and turning into rubbish aU the monuments of idolatry in that cathedral*." In the Parhamentary Ordinances, surplices, hoods, fonts, organs, images, and pictures are enumerated as superstitious memorials. The first ordinance was issued shortly after the assembhng of the Long Parhament ; at intervals it was re newed ; and in 1644 a new one was published, which was viewed by Vicars as a Parliamentary mercy : " The pious Ordinance of Parliament for the demolishing of all Organs and superstitious Monuments of Popery." He could see a mercy in a battle or in the removal of a cross. "Upon Tuesday, May 9th, the gorgeously-gilt leaden coat of Cheap- side cross was plucked over its eares, and its accursed car- kase also tumbled down b." At Worcester the vestments were torn by the soldiers in the streets ; the books were burned, horses were stabled in the church, and fires kindled. At Chichester, at Sudely, at Lincoln, and many other places, simUar scenes were acted. Lichfield Cathedral was converted into a stable, and so was St. Paul's in London0. Sir Philip Warwick mentions that he once went into St. Paul's and found it converted into a stable. It became now a saying, "that we had now a thorough reformation in England, since our horses also went to church3." Gauden mentions the horses in the church, and the removing of the scaffolds for sale, with / * Vicars's God in the Mount, 229, 273 j God's Ark Overtopping the World's Waves, 101, 102. Heylin says that Winchester suffered more than the other cathedrals, "because it fell unto the Scots (commanding some Scotizing English) to do execution." Heylin's Presbyterians, 450. b God in the Mount, 164, 327. « Heylin's Presbyterians, 450 — 452, 559, 560; Merourius Aulicus, 130,228, 244, 312. * Warwick's Memoirs, 80. Poulis, AM. 137, 138. . Walker's Independency, part ii. 216. In 1642 "the body of St. Paul's Church was converted into a horse-quarter for soldiers ; and part of the choir, with the rest of the build ing eastward from it, was by a parti tion wall made of brick, anno 1649, disposed of for a preaching place, which so continued till the Kestoration." Kewcourt's Repertorium, i. 4. Por several years, therefore, it was alto. gether desecrated. 191. The Book of Common Prayer; the lead, as the cathedral was under repairs when the war broke out. "I pray God the ruine of that church be not a presage of other ruines, which wiU be more unwelcome to manv of that city when their ceiled houses shall become ruinous heapes e." Bibles, as weU as Prayer-books, were fre quently torn in pieces, because they were found in churches ; the vestments and organs were destroyed because they were popish, and even the beUs were pulled down and sold. Some times men who had partly complied with the Parliament were attacked, and their churches defaced. Featly was at tacked at Aton. " So soon as they came, to the church they went. First they fell upon the rails and broke them down and burned them. Their next inquisition was for the Book of Common Prayer ; but a young chUd of mine, of his own accord, hid it from their discovery. Having burned the rails, puUed down the font, broken the windows, searched for (but missed) the Book of Common Prayer, they grew weary of their vUlany for that time and rested awhUe. To the Com munion-table they presently repaired, where they sat tippling so long and so freely, that having drank too deep they uttered their minds in the doctor's seat, and in the very pulpit did that which was worse. The whole church was at length converted into a lay-s-taU. Yet all this, in the judgment of the actors, was piety, not profaneness. They had done too little. This concerned but the steeple-house ; they had higher thoughts yet ; they aimed at the doctor." Before they left the village they set on fire two stabkss, and the barn fiUed with corn. But still they were not satisfied, for * Gauden's Sighs and Tears of the Cli'.voh of England, 340. Gregory Wihimng, Bishop of Ossory, says, the soldiers made frocks of surplices, aud at Worcester appropriated the font to the vilest purposes, pulling down the organ and walking in procession with the copes on their bucks. In one church he mentions the slaughter of a sheep on the Communion-table. Discovery of Mysteries, 46, 47. The pulpit at Paul's Cross also was destroyed in these fanatical times. " The pulpit- cross, where these sermons were wont to be preached every Tuesday, in the forenoon, before it was pulled down in the late rebellious times, stood about the midst of St. Paul's Church-yard." Newcourt, i. 5. Bishop Leslie, quoting St. Augustine's maxim, that " it is the honouring of these things, or the ap plying them to our own private use, which is forbidden," says, " I wish the Edomites of my country had remem bered this when they pulled down the churches, sent the organs, copes, bells, leads into France to be sold, and built houses unto themselves with the stones and timber of the churches." Hickes's Collection of Tracts, 157. with the Rubrics and Canons. 195 they went to Lambeth, where Featly resided, and entered the church on the Sunday, " with pistols and drawn swords," expecting that he was about to preach. Featly, however, was stopped by a parishioner as he was proceeding to the church, and thus escaped. One person was mortally wounded in the church ; another shot dead as he was looking over the churchyard wall. The soldiers withdrew with threats against Featly for aUowing the use of the Common Prayer, " which in the height of contempt they caUed porridge." These scenes occurred in 1642, before the importation of the Cove nant from Scotland, and Featly was a most moderate man, yet the soldiers were never punished, never even questioned. He had been opposed to Laud, and was nominated a member of the Westminster Assembly ; yet he fared no better than others, because he adhered to the Book of Common Prayer, and was not prepared to renounce episcopacy'. Baxter, a most unexceptionable witness, testifies to the interruptions in churches. He tells us of some separatists looking in at the door of a church, and saying, " The devil choke thee, art thou not out of thy pottage yet ? because the Common Prayer was not ended." This statement was de nied after Baxter had printed it, and he repeats it in another ' Featly's Life, 12mo., 1660, 23— 80. The Committee for Plundered Ministers received a charge against him, and he was actually in danger of his life from the fanatical soldiers, in attending for his defence. Ib., 40, 41. " In three years," says Heylin, " more clergymen were removed than hy all the bishops since the Reformation." Cerlamen Epistolare, 185. A peti tion was presented against Stamp, a magistrate, who had committed three j ouug men to prison for assembling in Stepney churchyard, " for the listing of such as would voluntarily subscribe to serve the King and Parhament in defence of the Protestant religion. And the curate called them round- headed rascals, and encouraged his brother to commit them." The ma gistrate and the clergyman were "sent for as delinquents." Perfect Diurnal, from July 25 to Aug. 1, 1642, pp. 3, 5. The (alse assertions of lighting for the king as well as for the Parliament will be remarked. " Information was given to the Houses of the unhappy accident that fell out at Lambeth, which was partly occasioned by the immannerly carriage of one of the soldiers of the guard sitting in the church with his hat on in tbe time of Common Prayer, which a waterman perceiving, one Ed ward Jones by name, came in a violent manner and pulled off the soldier's hat, struck him, and forced him out of the church, which occasioned the tu mult j yet the soldiers (as the best re ports goe) withdrew to their court of guard with a desire to be quiet ; hut the violent Watermen and tumult pur suing them with clubs and staves, they would by noe meanes he kept off, hut let fly at them and killed one whom they observed had heene very busie in throwing of stones, as he was looking over the wall at them." Perfect Diur nal, No. 37. In this way was the vio lence of the soldiers softened down by the Parliament. o2 196 The Book of Common Prayer; work, in which he tells us that the circumstance occurred as early as 1640; he adds, "From very sober, honest people, I have, I believe, many score times heard them call the Com mon Prayer porridge, and say, He is not out of his porridge yets." Though all the clergy, in 1640, had pledged themselves to conformity, the engagements of many were soon broken, and they were as ready to embrace the novel systems of Presbytery and Independency as to forsake the discipline which had been retained in the Church from the apostolic age. Gauden teUs us that Brownrig, who had been a fa vourite with numbers, on accepting the bishopric of Exeter, wus slighted by "the Amphibian ministers, who could live in Presbytery or Episcopacy, as their interest led them." From such amphibian ministers, who could submit to Presbytery as weU as to Episcopacy, the Church has ever suffered. While some may leave us for the Church of Rome, others do not conceal their predUection for the platform of Calvin. Amidst the distractions and changes of times, the true Churchman will adhere to the formularies of the Church, which, with the holy Scriptures, are his safeguards against errors in doctrine or inconsistency in practice. Under the sway of the Long Parliament aU obnoxious clergymen were removed as scandalous ministers. Com mittees for rehgion were appointed, to whom informers were encouraged to present charges against the clergy. As soon as the ordinance for " the removal of scandalous and insuf ficient ministers" was issued by the House of Commons, the business of ejection commenced, and men were deemed scan- * Baxter's Cure of Church Divi sions, 18S. Defence of the Principles of Love, part ii. 72, 73. As soon as the Long Parliament assembled, the Common Prayer was traduced by the disaffected, and extempore prayer ap plauded. The Scottish Commissioners in London were followed ou account of their prayers. A writer, in allu sion to tlieir extempore effusions, says, that such Prayer "is first (of all other • prayer,) to speed with the prayer- hearing God, who best knows the meaning and language of that spirit of His by which such prayers are poured forth." Christ on His throne, 1640, 4to., 34. Is not this a claim of inspiration? Baxter, at a later period, mentions persons who so con fidently affirmed that what they said " was the voice of God," that he was struck with reverence, till on conside ration, lie was constrained " to turn his reverence into pity." Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions, 165. with the Rubrics and Canons. 197 dalous for using ceremonies as well as for immoral conduct ; and bowing at the Name of Jesus was as great a crime as drunkenness. The general charge of superstition was quite a sufficient cause for removal from a living. Yet aU who were ejected were treated as men of immoral character, and their sufferings were regarded as a just judgment from Almighty God. Vicars, who was a preacher as well as a chronicler, considered the imprisonment of clergymen and bishops as a mercy vouchsafed as a return to prayer. " A brave troop of London Dragooners brought to the Parliament that most mischevious viper of our Church and State too, Matthew Wren, Bishop of Elie, as also Dr. Martine, Dr. Beal, and Dr. Stern, — three very pestilent and bad birds of the same viperous brood, with other prisoners brought up to the Par liament, who are all now lockt up in cages most fit for such ravenous vultures and unclean birds of preyh." A greater incendiary than Pennington did not live, yet Vicars considers his election as Lord Mayor as a special, answer to prayer, " immediately after the publique Fast '." The cruelty ex ercised in some cases seems almost incredible. Vicars speaks of " the cages," and Sterne, one of the victims, subsequently Archbishop of York, in a letter dated 1643, giving an account of his removal from Cambridge by CromweU, writes, " nor is anything laid to my charge, (not so much .as the general crime of being a malignant.) What hath^been wanting in human justice hath been (I praise God) supplyed by divine mercy. Health of body and patience I have not wanted, no, not on shipboard, where we lay (the first night) without any thing under or over us but the bare decks and the cloathes on our backs." He says they were in a "small Ipswich coal-ship, so low that we coidd not walk nor stand upright in it, yet they were within one or two of threescore in number ." The ejections were frequently accompanied with unusual barbarity and violence. A good living was a sufficient cause for removal. "The truth," says LiUy, of a certain clergy man, " is, he had a considerable parsonage, and that only was h Nalson, ii. 238, 246. ' Vicars's God in the Mount, 149, 168. * Le Neve's Lives, 249, 250. 198 The Book of Common Prayer ; enough to sequester any moderate judgment1." In the framing of charges against clergymen the most dishonest means were adopted. The Parliamentary committees would not say that they were ejected for loyalty to their sovereign, though that was their only crime, which was caUed malig nancy ; but they accumulated various charges in their ordi nance, in the expectation that, under one head or another, all might be comprehended. Men of scandalous hves would readily have saved their livings by submission ; yet the clergy, whose conscience forced them to observe their oaths, were re moved under an ordinance whose very title imphed, that they were immoral in their conduct. The Long Parliament, there fore, added falsehood to injustice. They endeavoured to take away the good name of the men, whom they deprived of their sustenance. Ministers were removed on grounds, which the Parhament could not openly avow, and therefore they were charged with being " scandalous." Among the men so ejected were Bishops Hall, Brownrig, Morton, Prideaux, and Dave nant, with Hammond, Sanderson, FuUer, and many others among the clergy, men of the greatest eminence and strictest morals, — men whose names wUl be had in everlasting re membrance, while the memory of their persecutors wdl be loaded with infamy. When the Long Parliament assembled, it became the cus tom to stigmatize episcopacy as unchristian, and the Common Prayer" as superstitious. For a season, indeed, the Liturgy was partially used; yet very early the ministers began to preach against it before the Parliament. " Many additions, gestures, now standing, now sitting, are- not necessary, but cumbersome not to be tolerated. Zeale in praying is not in being (as a boy) bound up in a booke, nor as a childe tied to a forme." " My blood be' upon thee, O Prelacy, shaU England say m." Yet no reproof was administered to the preacher, nor 1 Lives of Antiquaries, S6, ™ Wilson's Sermon, 1641, 9, 267 Sir Edward Deering wished to cut off some things, yet he was sincere in his attachment to the Church, as his speeches testify. After one speech for retaining episcopacy he was told that he had hy this speech lost the prayers of thousands. They were opposed to Episcopacy, and he says, he found "so much more of intreaty than of argu ment, that they have proved them selves bishops unto me, for I have received confirmation from them." with the Rubrics and Canons. 199 was any disapproval expressed. On the contrary, sermons containing attacks on the Book of Common Prayer were ordered by the two houses to be printed. Until the covenant was imposed there was no actual test, but the ejections took place under the ordinance of Parliament. StiU the work was effectually carried on. White's. Century was published before the imposition of the Covenant, and its pages are evidence of the cruel and false pretences alleged for ejection. Like the Parliamentary Ordinance, the title implies that the clergy ejected were immoral men, while their real crimes were cere monies and malignancy. Viears glories in the fact that any person was at liberty to lodge a complaint against a clergy man. "The committees were ready to receive the just com plaints of any that should informe against such as were scan dalous either in their lives or doctrine. O what a companie of stinking snuffs are put out, and what rare and radient tapers and purely burning shining lamps are set up n." The Cove nant had not yet come into operation, or his ecstacies would have been greater. The term "scandalous" was applied to doctrines as weU as to conduct; and as all doctrines were scandalous which were not received by the committees, the ministers ejected were scandalous ministers. In his Epistle to the Reader, White meets the objection derived from the learning of some of the clergy ejected. " Let not the learn ing of some few move thee to thinke they be hardly dealt with, for learning in a man unsanctified is but a pearl hi a swine's snout." Among the charges alleged are, refusing to observe the Parliamentary fasts, and exhorting the people against the war ; and one individual was removed for reading the Homily against wilful rebeUion °. Deering^ Speeches, 77, 78. Seeing how all order and ceremonies were likely to be sacrificed, he speaks out boldly in defence of some things then deemed popish; "I will doe bodily reverence unto my Saviour, and that upon occasion taken at the mention of His saving Name, Jesus ; if Christ be Jesus, if Jesus bee God, all reverence (exterior as well as interior) is too little for Him. I hope we are not going up the back stairs to Soeinian- isme." Ib., 85, 88. " Vicars's God in the Mount, 326. 0 The First Centurie of Scandalous Malignant Priests, &c., London, 1643. " Great malignity to the Parliament" is the common charge. It covered many virtues, and was sure to lead to sequestration. Neglecting the "month ly fast, setting their men to plow," was another. Whitelock, in mention- i;i_; "White's death, says he was " some what severe at the committee of plun dered ministers !" Whitelock, 128. 200 The Book of Common Prayer; Fuller said that some of the ejected clergy were scandalous in their lives, though he admitted that " many of the com- plainers were factious people, and who since have deserted the Church as hating the profession of the ministry." When accused by Heylin as a traducer of his brethren, and as taking his account from White's Centurie, he says, " This being laid down and yielded to the violence of the times, I wrought myself by degrees (as much as I durst) to insert what fol loweth in vindication of many others rigorously cast out for foUowing in their affections their preceding judgments and consciences." "It was," he says, "as much as I durst say then for my brethren without running myself into apparent danger p." Such a defence is a singular Ulustration of the tyranny exercised by the Parliament. AUowing that some were immoral in their lives, which, however, was never proved, stUl the foul blot remains on the Parliament for charging aU under one general designation of scandalous clergymen, when the great majority were guilty only of complying with the Book of Common Prayer. This alone was a mark of malignancy. Many of the accusers of the clergy were parishioners who had been reproved by their ministers, or who wished to be freed from the payment of their tithes. " The manner was to lay all manner of crimes in the Petitions and Articles, and If any of the least, which they caUed so, as bowing at the Name of Jesus, preaching against sacrilege, or for conformity, were proved, the charge was supposed sufficiently made good'." Sometimes a few discontented, or even disreputable, persons presented Articles against the minister, which were received by the unscru pulous committees as the accusations of the parish. One of the most bitter of the Parliamentary preachers had the effrontery to declare, not long before the Restoration, "It is a sad providence on the cathedral prelacy who pretended to f Puller's Appeal of Injured Inno cence, 165:', part iii. 57. Fuller had said in his H'utory, " Some were merely outed for their affections for the king's cause, and what was malignancy at London was loyalty at Oxford;" and that " some bhuuelesse for life and or thodox for doctrine were ejected onely on the Recount of their faithfulncsse to the king's cause." He states that the passages uriimadverted upon by Heylin were written ten years before, though published only four, and that then lie could not have said more. In 1659 he coidd speak more openly. i Nalson, ii. 23S. with the Rubrics and Canons. 201 be the salt of the earth so to lose their savour as to be cast out and trodden under foot of men." He has the boldness to assert, that the clergy were deprived " merely upon the account of malignancy, delinquency, or scandal1"." Malig nancy was sufficient, because it included whatever was dis liked. "Mr. Baxter may remember when wo of the Church of England as established by law were deprived and silenced for no other reason but because we could not in conscience conform to the illegal government. I know there were other pretences against some, as disability, immorality, and scandal ; but the main reason was our nonconformity to the present government3." White boasted of turning out 8000; yet his book was published in 1643'. Of the men thus ejected none were permitted to exercise their functions, or even to act as domestic chaplains, or to keep schools. Baxter laboured to defend the committees; and Pierce asked, "how many hundreds are cast out, who must be granted (even by you) to be exceedingly good men, at least, exceedingly better than those that are thrust into their rooms ? Who is now in the canonry of Christ Church out of which Dr. Sanderson was rudely cast ? Or who hath the parsonage of Penshurst, out of which Dr. Hammond was long since thrown ? Judge by these of the rest, which I wiU also name if you desire11." He gives a long list of names of men of great learning, adding, " men so eminent for learning and so exemplary for life, that 'tis scandalous to be safe when such men suffer as malefactors." The ejections of which we have spoken occurred before the time of the Covenant, which, after its introduction, be- ' Burgess's No Sacrilego nor Sin to Purchase Bishops' Lands, 1659, i. 5. Burgess ventured to purchase many lands belonging to bishops, and at the Restoration was ruined iu consequence. • Bishop of Winchester's Viudica- ti6n, &c, 513. « " It was the boast of Mr. White (as I was told by one who will be as likely to tell you of it,) that he and his had ejected 8,000 in four or five years." Pierce's New Discoverer, &c., 140. Pierce says the Century was scandalous, that White, " its author, was ashamed to pursue his thoughts of any other." Pierce tells Baxter that " worse men were put into livings than the worst that were put out." Fuller says tbat the king refused to allow "such a Boo'c of the Vicious Lives of some Pat anient ministers, when such a thin.; was presented to him." » Pierce'sNew Discoverer Discovered, 1659, 134. I' Jail, Rector of St. Aus tin's, was charged with never praying for the success of the Parliament. He was deprived. Mercurius Anlicus, 13. 202 The Book of Common Prayer ; came an easy test for trying disaffected clergymen. Its im- position, or reception, in England is one of the most singular events of these strange times, and the particulars may now be detailed. The members of the Long Parliament were nominally Churchmen, yet in a few years they submitted to the Cove nant, which pledged them to the extirpation of Episcopacy. This sudden change from Episcopacy to Presbytery, and from the Common Prayer to the Directory, may be regarded as a proof that their principles were never fixed, and that their professions of attachment to the Church of England were in sincere. The opponents of Laud and the bishops affected to be members of the English Church, yet within a very brief space they received a system diametricaUy opposed to Epis copacy. The question naturally arises, how was this sudden change produced ? In the war with the king, the Parhament found that they should not be successful without the aid of the Scots, who would render no assistance but on one condition, namely, the reception of their Covenant. It had been adopted with entluisiasm in Scotland, where the wUdest notions of its im portance prevailed — " One of them, upon our Commissioners' coming home, prayed God to deliver them from all crafty compositions. Another refused to pray in the church for Sir William Nesbett, late Provost of Edinburgh, when he was lying upon his death-bed, only because he had not sub scribed the Covenant x." The Scots hated bishops and litur gies. Moreover, they had possessed themselves with thi notion that Presbytery was the discipline of Christ, to he propagated by the sword, if necessary. To set up this system they had united in a Solemn League and Covenant. In Eng land the Covenant was unknown; but as they could not subdue their king without the aid of the Scots, the Long Parhament soon became willing to sacrifice their loyalty to revenge. What was to be done ? Unless the Covenant was taken, the Scois would riot come. They yielded, and Epis copacy was sacrificed. 1 A Large Declaration, by the king ; folio, 1639, 403, 404. with the Rubrics and Canons. 203 The influence of the pulpit in exciting and carrying on the war wiU be noticed in another chapter ; but it may here be mentioned, that the preachers contributed their fidl share in preparing the people for the Covenant. On the fast and thanksgiving days, the disaffected clergy usuaUy preached before the Parhament. These men, at the commencement of the war were professed members of the Church of Eng land, disaffected indeed to her government, yet pledged to conformity to her discipline. They were anxious for what they caUed a further reformation, yet they had not at the outset adopted the Presbyterian discipline. It is painful to contemplate the facility, with which numerous clergymen renounced their own previously acknowledged views for a system directly at variance with their own Church, in order to secure the aid of the Scots against their king; yet such was the fact. The Scots considered themselves pledged to attempt the reformation of the Church of England, as well as their own. Their acknowledged rule was the Word of God, and the examples of the best reformed Churches. Both parts of this rule were differently understood in England, though the Scots had no doubt on the subject; yet the controversy, as to the meaning of the expressions, was carefuUy kept in abeyance. When it became necessary to ascertain the mean ing of the Covenant, the greatest variety of opinions was found to exist in England, both on the expression, " accord ing to the Word of God," and on the question relative to "the best reformed Churches." But at the beginning, all feU- in with the Covenant without hesitation. The danger was imminent ; the king was gaining ground, and the aid of the Scots must be secured at any price : — "Our masters, find ing themselves to be mortal too, began to be afraid, and now the Scots must be called in. They promise anything, offer anvthing, do anything for the present that the Scots would have them do. All that was heard was the Covenant uni formity in Church government. But they meant afterwards to be even with them — to perform nothing, to serve their turns by them, and then pick quarrels with them V Hollis Hollis's Memoirs, 4. 204 The Book of Common Prayer ; alludes to the accession of Cromwell and the Independents to the Solemn League and Covenant ; and undoubtedly the Presbyterians were outwitted by their younger brethren. It was to hasten the Scots that both parties agreed in the Covenant. When the Westminster Assembly was convened, BaUlie, Rutherford, and Gillespie were admitted to sit as com missioners from Scotland. BaUlie has left a very curious record of some of the proceedings of that assembly. It gives a strange picture of the hopes and fears of the Presbyterians respecting the introduction of the Scottish disciplinez. When the Scots' army entered England in 1640, BaUhe and his brethren accompanied them, and proceeded to London on the departure of the troops for Scotland. In 1640 he writes from Newcastle to his wife, that he is about to proceed to London, "for convincing of that prevalent faction against which I have written ; Mr. Gillespie for the crying down of the Enghsh ceremonies, for which he has written a." From London he tells his wife of preaching at home to the Com missioners, having no "cloaths for outgoing;" and adds in the same letter, "Episcopacy itself beginning to be cried down, and a Covenant cried up." Even at this early period Baillie alludes to the Independents, but with the hope of their union with the Presbyterians "to overthrow Epis copacy." Bishop Hall is condemned for his book on the Liturgy; and in 1641 he mentions the order of the Lords against innovations. Of Nye, one of the preachers at a fast, he says, " His voice was clamorous ; he touched neither in 1 Dugdale, 128. Twiss, the pro- locutor, in the opening sermon, la mented the want of the "royal as sent." Of the 120 who were named, only 69 appeared, "and those in coats and cloaks, of several forms and fashions, so that Dr. Westfield and some few others seemed tho only Nonconformists amongst them, for their conformity, whose gowns and canonical habits differed from the rest," Fuller, xi. 199. "Tlieir good success was prayed for by the preachers in the city." lb., 200. Jeremy Taylor said : " It may be, when I am a little more used to it, I shall not wonder at a synod in which not one bishop sits (in the capacity of a bishop). Though I am most certaine this is the first ex ample in England since it was first christened." An Apology for Liturgie, &c, 1649, 2. » " Scots' Commissioners are sent up thither, and they, both by Parliament and city, are lookt upon as angells of light; and they frequent the congre gation of the chief Dissenting Presby ters, who from all quarters of the king dom flow up to this city, as if they were to convert an unsanctified hea then nation." Warwick's Memoirs, 152. with the Rubrics and Canons. 205 prayer nor preaching the common business ; he read much out of his paper book." The common business was the Covenant. Even in this year, 1613, his hopes sometimes languish : " Mr. Henderson's hopes are not great of their conformity to us before our army be in England b." At length the Parhament consented, because they could not subdue the king without the aid of the Scots. The Covenant was taken in due form by the House of Commons on the 25th of September, 16-13, and by the Assembly on the 29th : " All this being done in such a godly, grave, solemn, and substantial manner, as would ex traordinarily have affected any truly honest and godly heart to have beheld itc." "The Covenant was read, and then notice was given that each person should, by swearing there unto, worship the great Name of God, and testifie so much outwardly by lifting up their hands ; and then they went up into the chancel, and there subscribed their names in a roll of parchment, in which the Covenant was fairly written11." White occupied nearly an hour in prayer ; and Henderson, b Baillie's Letters, i. 148, 215, 218, 231 : " Not that we need distrust that the Scots will not advance the busi- nesse for sending of forces into this kingdome, till they beare of our agree ment and entering into the Covenant." Perfect Diurnal, 50. "The Covenant will be transmitted back to Scotland, which will doubtlesse give more hfe to the preparations there, if they be not already upon their march." Ib., 55- c Vicars's God in the Mount, 364, 365. Whitelock is more sober in his account: "Both Houses, with the As sembly of Divines and Scots* Commis sioners, met in St. Margaret's Church, where Mr. White prayed an hour to prepare them for taking the Covenant ; then Mr. Nje made some observations touching the Covenant. Mr. Hender son, one of the Scots' Commissioners, concluded iu a declaration of what the Scots had done. Then Mr. Nye in the pulpit read the Covenant, and all present held up their hands, and after wards subscribed their names. Dr. Gouge in the pulpit prayed for a bless ing." Whitelock, 74. Baillie describes a fast-day in the Assembly in 1614, on wh;ch they were occupied in prayers ana sermons from 9 o'clock till 4. Marshall "prayed large two hours." Arrowsmith preached an hour : " Mr. Viner prayed near two hours, and Mr. Palmer preached an hour, and Mr. Seaman prayed near two hours." Baillie's Letters, ii. 19. These were the men who could complain of the length of the English Liturgy. Every thing appeared long except their own prayers. Perfect Diurnal, 81, 82. " Rushworlh, vol. ii. part iii. 475 Perfect Diuruai, from Sept. 35 till Oc tober 2, 1643; No. ii. 81,82. Some members did not take it till a few days after : " They then tooke the Covenant in a very solenxne manner in the house, the whole house sitting uncovered." Perfect Diurnal, 88. Bur gess scrupled it for some days. "Dr. Burgess as yet resteth unsatisfied, and desireth further time." Ib., 152, 3. At last he was suspended from the Assembly. He submitted, and was re stored. Ib., 63, 72. 206 The Book of Common Prayer; Nye, Gouge, and WUson, all took some part in the business of the day. The peers took the Covenant on a later day. Vicars, who was quick at seeing judgments against the king, was rash enough to assert that the Covenant was the result of the aUeged plot of Challoner and Tompkins : " The malig nant conspirators of London's covenant produced the taking of an honest and happie Covenant for the Parhament, and well-affected partie." Undoubtedly, many who concurred never meant to adhere to the Covenant longer than was necessary to secure their object, namely, the subjugation of the king ; for they considered Independency, not Presbytery, as the proper model of Church government. The fears of the Presbyterians lest the Covenant should be rejected were excessive, and boundless was their joy when it was actuaUy taken : " A mercie involving myriads of mercies in it, and likely to produce manifold, inexpressible, nation-happyfying blessing from it. A mercie of God's own creating e." As soon as it was adopted, it was used as the instrument of ejection. Gibson and Ward were summoned before the visitors at Cambridge; the Covenant was tendered and re fused ; and they demanded to know if the Committee had any crimes to allege against them, since some were said to be ejected for immoralities. The Committee replied, "that those were words of course, put into all their orders of ejection." By the influence, however, of Sir John Trevor, who had a reverence for learning, Ward was allowed to occupy the chair of Astronomy at Oxford without taking the Covenant f- The reply of the Committee marks the iniquity ' Vicars\ Jehovah-Jireh, 365, 428. Burnet's remark ou the Covenant in Scotland is applicable to England : "It was thought strange to see all their consciences of a size exactly to agree as the several wheels of a clock, which made all apprehend there was some first mover. This by one party was imputed to God's extraordinary providence, but by others to the power and policy of the leaders, and the sim plicity and fear of the rest." Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, 239. Fuller was charged with taking the Covenant, but untruly. He says, "I never saw the same, except at a distance, as hiuig up in churches, nor ever had any occasion to read, till this day (July 1, 1654), in writing my his tory." Ib., 206. ' Popo's Life of Ward, 16, 20, 21. " Presbytery was brought over on the sword's point, and wrapped up in the cover of a Covenant (as plants in mats), to be set in this" good soil of England, after sweating Smectymnuus and the industrious assembly, with many heads, hands, and tongues, and pens, had digged and prepared the ground for it, by gaining the minds of some well- with the Rubrics and Canons. 207 of the proceedings. Though men were removed solely for refusing the Covenant, yet the order of ejection called them scandalous in their lives. Thus the Covenant became the great instrument for ejecting ministers after its importation from Scotland, until it was set aside by the Independents. It was proposed to aU suspected persons, and a refusal was sequestration. From this time, at aU events, the Parliament can only be regarded as a Presbyterian assembly, and the question arises, what were their previous principles? Baxter tells us that the members were almost all of them Episcopalians at the commencement of their session; yet from that time to the period of the Covenant they constantly listened to attacks on Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer from the pulpit, by preachers appointed by themselves, whose sermons they ordered to be published. Baillie, Rutherford, and GiUespie, the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster As sembly, also preached before the Parhament, and sentiments were uttered, and then published, which sound members of the Church of England must have condemned s. After the affected members." Tet "this rare plant of Presbytery soon dwindled. Some ministers and people, who could not for shame return to Episcopacy, nor yet well persist in promoting Pres bytery, which they saw a lost game, betook themselves to a new invention of Independency." Gauden's Sighs and Tears of the Church of England, 15, 17, 18. s " When the whore of Babylon was cast out she left behind her a gold ring and some love-tokens : I mean Episeo- pacie and human ceremonies." Ruther ford's Sermon, 1643, 18. "It cannot be denied that Episcopacie is such a supporter of Papacy, that where the one falls the other cannot stand." Baillie's Sermon, 1643, 27. Baillie says, " The Covenant rejects absolutely all kinds of Episcopacy." Baillie's Let ters, ii. 81. In the sermon aheady quoted, Coleman says of bishops, " All reformed religions have expelled them as incompatible with reformation." Coleman's Sermon, 38. " What is it that hath destroyed Gospel order, go vernment, and worship hi these king doms ? Hath it not been prelacy ? " Case's Sermons, the Quarrell of the Covenant, &c, 1644, 47. " Come, my brethren, and fear not to take this Agag, (prelacy I mean, not the pre lates,) and hew it in pieces before the Lord." lb., 51. Heylin says the Cove nant "was swallowed without much chewing by the Houses of Parliament, who were not then in a condition to deny them anything." Lifeof Laud, 478. " My blood upon thee, O Prelacy, shall England say." Newcomen's Sermon, 1642, 38. The pulpit was used to stir up a feeling in favour of the Covenant, as some were not a little backward. Alluding to the day, the 25th of Sept., one preacher says, "It was the very birth-day of this kingdom ; our hearts were so elevated, they are not settled yet. Who was not touched by that feeling prayer made by that man of God, that godly exhortation which fol lowed from another, that pithy rela tion by that man of name, that soul- affecting thanksgiving wherewith a godly doctor closed the day ?" Cole man's Sermon at the Taking of the 208 The Book of Common Prayer; Restoration, when the war wras charged upon the Presbyte rians, Baxter endeavoured to prove that it was commenced by Episcopalians. It was evidently his aim to blunt the edge of the charge by implicating others. " I am sure the assem bly of divines that sate at Westminster were so conformable when they went thither, that I never heard of five Noncon formists among them, beside the five dissenting brethren. Among those called Puritans, few knew what Presbytery was till the Scots afterwards brought it in." Alluding to one of his opponents, he says, " He proveth them Presbyterians (namely, the Long Parliament) at first, when they knew not what it was, because they were for Presbytery a year or two after. The Scots' Commissioners by degrees acquainted them with Presbytery, and Mr. Burton's Protestation Protested, and ' the five dissenters, with Independency. It was Episcopal men that made up the main body. There are about 9,000 parish churches in England, besides many hundred chappels, and many churches that bad more than one minister, and almost all these comphed with the times." The generals, he says, were Conformists, and "The assembly of divines were aU, save eight or nine, conformable." Addressing a correspon dent, he remarks : " You are too old to be ignorant that it was an Episcopal and Erastian Parliament of Conformists that first took up arms in England against the king. The mem bers yet living profess, that at that time they knew but one Presbyterian in the House of Commons. Interest forced them or led them to call in the Scots, and Presbytery came in with them11." Covenant hy the Assembly, 1643, IS, 19. " Unlesse a man be free of his purse, as well of his paines, he bids not up to the demsnds of this Covenant, nor pay es up his own promise when he enter'd it.'1 Caryl's Sermon before the Commons, Oct. 6, 1643, 13.. Caryl even imagines the fulfilment of a pro phecy in the Covenant. Alluding to Babylon, he a^ks, "Are not these the duie-i, and this the time, when out of the north there cometh up a nation against her ?" Ib., 20. Case said of it : " The sound tlicreof im.ll go into all the earth, and the words of it io the ends of the world. This the last physic that ever the Churcli shall take or need; for it is an everlasting Covenant." Case's Sermons, 62, 66. He was a false prophet, for it was never rooted in England. h Baxter's Defence of the Principles of Love, part i. 13; Baxter on Coun cils, 82, 83 ; Baxter on Episcopacy, 24; Baxter's Apology for the Nonconform- ists'Miuistry,H3;TheNonconforinists' Plea for Peace, 120, 137,138. Mr.Orme falls in with Baxter's view : " It is equally untrue that all or any conside rable number of them (the Assembly) were enemies of the Church of Eng land." Yet four pages after he says : with the Rubrics and Canons. 209 All this may be perfectly true. Avowedly and professedly the members of the Long Parliament were Episcopalians, yet their subsequent conduct proved that their profession was not sincere. Had their principles been sound they could not have submitted to the Covenant, which involved the over throw of the Church. What kind of Conformists, then, were they in 1640? WhUe professing to be friends, they were secret enemies to the Church of England. Because the men, who became Covenanters, had once called themselves Con formists, therefore Baxter, Calamy, and others pretend that the war was begun by Episcopalians. But they were either dishonest men during their profession of conformity, or their principles were sacrificed to their desire of subduing their sovereign. Even the preachers, whose sermons, which breathed threatening and slaughter, were pubhshed by the order of Parliament, were nominaUy Episcopahans ; some of them had been strong advocates for the Ceremonies, and most of them had subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer. Yet they soon, as weU as their masters, accepted the Covenant and Presbytery. It is clear, therefore, that even in 1640, the Long Parliament must have been very loose in their attachment to the Church. Assuredly they were not Epi scopahans when they sent the bishops to prison, and when they took the Covenant. The five Smectymnuan writers were once professed Conformists, yet they were not Episco palians when their notorious book was written. In short, the Episcopal feelings of the Long Parliament could never have been very strong, since before they had sat one single year several of their ordinances were directly against the Church. "The great body of the Assembly and of the Nonconformists were Presbyte rians, attached from principle to the platform pf Geneva, and exceedingly desirous, in alliance with Scotland, of establishing Presbyterian uniformity." Onne's Baxter, i. 88, 92. It is singu lar to find a writer so flatly contra dicting himself. Baxter says in another work : " This war thus begun between the two parties of the Episcopal laity and clergy, after drew in the Scots to help the Parliament. These auxiliaries would not help them but on the terms AM. of the Covenant, and so Church alte rations came on." Search for a Schis- matick, 12. This does not alter the case. The change is admitted. Baxter often makes the same admission : " When the Parliament's armies were worsted, and they found themselves iu danger of heing overcome, they in- treated help from the Scots, who, taking advautage of their straits, brought in the Covenant as the condition of tlieir help." The Nonconformists' Plea for Peace, 127. This was not a righteous beginning, certainly. 210 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; They were professed members of the Church of England, without caring anything for her principles ; or rather, they had no fixed notions of Church government, or worship, or ceremonies. Had their views been in accordance with their professions, they could not have listened to sermons in abuse of bishops and the Book of Common Prayer : they would not have sacrificed their Church to the Covenant. Baxter's own ideas of such matters must have been very unsettled, or he never could have made such assertions as those which have been quoted. These remarks apply to both clergy and laity, to all who took the Covenant after professing to belong to the Church of England. To assert, therefore, that the mem bers of the Long Parliament were sound members of the Church of England, is to charge them with sacrificing their principles to expediency. In these matters they were men without fixed principles, and thus they could submit to the Covenant and comply with Presbytery k. The Long Parliament were influenced only by one feeling in the' whole business, namely, the subjugation of the king. To attain this end they yielded to the Scots, who insisted upon their own terms. The Covenant being taken, the Scots and the English Presbyterians expected to see the Scottish discipline erected in aU its glory '- k Undoubtedly the majority of the Long Parliament accepted the Cove nant as the means of enabling them to subdue the king, and they probably cared as little for Presbytery as for Episcopacy. Still their conduct was dishonest. Even in the present day, some persons call themselves Church men, though they worship sometimes with Presbyterians, at other times with Independents. In such cases Church government, at all events, is sacrificed, and thj individuals so act ing cau only be regarded as Indepen dents occasionally worshipping in the parochial churches. 1 The Scots were very inconsistent, for in 1637 they styled our Reformers "BlesM-d Reformers," aud yet culled tho Book of Common Prayer popish. Nor could any conduct be more incon sistent than that of their ministers, who condemned the bishops on account of their secular employments, and yet took part in politics themselves, and sent commissioners to Loudon at tho commencement of the Long Parlia ment. Baillie, however, at one time had his misgivings. After the com motions in 1637, he says, "I think our people possessed with a bloody devil far above anything that I could ever have imagined, though the mass iu Latin had been presented." Nor are the ministers spared: "Who are no ways so zealous against the devil of their fury as they are against the se ducing spirit of the bishops." " It is here alone I think we might learn from Canterbury, yea from the pope, yea from the Turks or Pagans, modesty of manners. We are so far the other way that our rascals without shame mako sucli din and clamour in the house of the true God, that if they minted to use the like behaviour in with the Rubrics and Canons. 211 BaUlie's account of the hopes and fears of the Scottish Commissioners is most amusing. They were soon aware of the existence of Independency in the Assembly : " Wherewith we purpose not to meddle in haste tUl it please God to advance our own army, which we expect wiU much assist our ar guments." Yet he complains of the boldness of some "in gathering separate congregations." " As yet," says he, " a Presbytery to this people' is a strange monster ;" but he ex pects the aid of the Independents in establishing the Direc tory " to abolish the great idol of the Service-book." His wishes for the approach of the army are frequently repeated : " If God bring in that army quickly, and be pleased to be with it, aU here at once wUl be well ; if otherwise, all here wUl quickly ruinm." BaiUie's fears arose from his observation of the state of feehng in the Parhament, who had been eager enough to puU down the old buUding before they had decided on any other to be erected in its place. The Scots Commissioners, and such English Presbyterians as concurred with them, conceived that the work was finished when the Covenant was taken. They never imagined that Presbytery was not to be set up. On the contrary, they regarded the establishment of Pres bytery as a natural consequence of the abolition of Episco pacy. In the work of pulling down, Independents united with Presbyterians, but the union then ceased. The House of Commons, though united in removing Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer, were strangely divided on the sub ject of Church government. As soon as the aid of the Scots was secured, by the payment of the stipulated price, the Covenant, the Independents in the Commons, and in the Assembly, united with the Erastians to prevent the establish ment of Presbytery. Though indifferent as to Episcopacy my chamber, I wonld not he content till they were down the stairs." He also doubted about the Covenant, whether Episcopacy were unlawful in itself, "which the whole reformed Churches this day, and, as far as I know, all the famous and classic di vines that ever put pen to paper, ab solved of unlawfulness." Letters, i. 10, P 11, 96. This is strong testimony. But his scruples were overcome. - Baillie's Letters, i. 297, 215, 259, 388, 395, 402. "Hither they come marching with it gloriously upon their pikes, and in their hats, with this motto: For the Croton and Covenant of both kingdoms. This I saw, aud suffered hy it," Walton's Lives, 383. % 212 The Book of Common Prayer; and the Liturgy, they were alarmed at the prospect of the Scottish system in England. The Directory regarded only the mode of conducting public worship, and left almost every thing to the tastes of individuals, and therefore the Inde pendents and Erastians did not concern themselves in the matter, but the discipline was not to be endured. To keep the Assembly and the Scots in good temper, they were per mitted to debate on various subjects, and even their advice wras sometimes asked, and concessions made to them of little importance, such as the aUowance of the Directory and the Confessions. Long speeches were delivered in the Assembly by the Erastians and Independents, by which business was retarded, tUl at length these assembled divines were held in contempt throughout the nation" For a time, indeed, the hopes of the Scots and their Enghsh brethren were very great ; so that Rutherford, preaching before the Parliament, exultingly exclaimed, " Satan, prelates, papists, malignants shaU bee under-workmen and kitchen-servants to him who hath his fire in Zion and his furnace in Jerusalem, to purifie and refine the vessels of mercy in the Lord's house0." It was argued by the new Reformers, that neither King Edward nor Queen Elizabeth had wrought " a thorough Reformation p." With the Presbyterians the Scottish system was the discipline of Jesus Christ, which was now to be erected ; and the fact that in the outset thoy only intended to make a few changes in the Common Prayer, was men- ¦• "Though the wise Parliament made use of the Presbyterians' seal ard activii / for the extirpation of hisliops, yet they discreetly resolved to hold a strict hand over them ; as not coming by their own power to adrlse, but called to advise with the Parliament. The major part of the Assembly endeavoured the settling of the Scotch government in all parti culars, that though Tweed parted their countries, nothing might divide their Chnrch discipline; and this was la boured by the Scotch Commissioners. But it could not be effected, nor was it ever settled by Act of Parliament. The Parhament kept the coercive power in their own hands, not trust ing them to carry the keys at their girdle." Fuller, xi. 214. ° Rutherford's Sermon, 4to., 1614, 9. p Scudder's Sermon, 1644, 19. The supporters of the Parliament were utterly reckless in tlieir assertions re specting the Church of England. " The assembly of divines againe met this day, to consult of the Bishop's Booke of Articles agreed upon hy the Convocation in 1562, but since much corrupted by our late popish affected bishops, aud by them unjustly forced upon the clergy." A Perfect Diurnal, p. 16. This outrageous falsehood rela tive to alterations in the Articles was constantly repeated. with the Rubrics and Canons. 213 tioned, in order to prove, that God by His Providence had led the House of Commons to adopt a course, which they did not contemplate. " If but the three costly ceremonies had been taken off (costly I call them, because they cost the Church the losse of the fruitful labours of so many precious men) ; if these and the clogging subscriptions had been removed, the doves would have kept at home, and not taken so great a flight as to the discoveries of Columbus, no, nor to Holland. I dare say you thought at first onely to restrain the exorbi tancy of the bishops, and reforme some faults of the Service- book, and God has discovered innumerable abominations to you, and hath led you in paths not intended by you'." It was the constant exhortation of the preachers to the Parlia ment to set Christ on His throne, namely, to establish Pres bytery. The advice was heard ; the preachers were thanked for their sermons, yet nothing was done in the great work. Though the Covenant pledged the Parliament to root out Episcopacy, which they were willing to accomplish, it did not, in the estimation of the Erastians and Independents, bind them to set up Presbytery. Thus, when the bishops and ceremonies were removed, the men. who had been so closely united in overturning the ancient' fabric, could no longer agree. Matters were adroitly managed by the Independents. Before the Covenant was taken by the English Parliament certain alterations were made. " They altered the Covenant so as to describe the present frame only ; and when tlie House of Lords took the Covenant, Mr. Coleman (an Eras tian) gave it them, openly declaring that it was not meer Episcopacy that this Covenant renounced, but only the Eng hsh described complicate form r." Notwithstanding the alter- ' Langley's Gemitv.s Columba} a Sermon, Dec. 25, 1644, 28, 29._ * Baxter's Defence of the Principles of Love, part i. 13. Baxter tells tbe story of Coleman more than once. He says also that none of the members of the Worcestershire Association assisted in putting down bishops, and that they could not be charged as opposed to Episcopacy, except so far as it was opposed by the Covenant. Christian Concord, 74. If they were not opposed to Episcopacy, they very quietly sub mitted to its overthrow. "They re formed Episcopacy into Presbytery, and Presbytery into Independency, and a sober Liturgie into a Directory, and XXXIX. Articles into all the wild freaks of Faniilism, Anabaptism, &c." Defence of Stillingfleet, 460. In their "Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to our Solemn League a"d Covenant in 1648," the Presbyterians declare, "The Presbyteiial Govern- 214 The Book of Common Prayer; ations, the Scots and Presbyterians regarded it as pledging them to endeavour the destruction of all Episcopacy; nor can any other interpretation fairly and honestly be given to the strong expressions which are used. But the alterations, doubtless, were cunningly made, and seemed to allow a dif ference of interpretation respecting the system to be erected on the ruins of Episcopacy. At aU events, different interpreta tions were given. By their engagement with the Scots, the English bound themselves to reform the Church of England after the model of the best reformed Churches, and according to the Word of God. The ambiguous expressions were, " The best reformed Churches" and "the Word of God." The Scots " must alter our English Church according to the best reformed Churches, (and that must necessarily be the Kirk of Scotland,) and sly Sir Henry Vane adds, according unto the Word of God ; and that would as tolerably propose for a pattern of Independency8." So the two parties disagreed among themselves : the Independents were prepared to puU down the old fabric, but not to erect the new. The, Scots succeeded in getting Christmas-day in 1643 disregarded. Most of the Assembly wished to preach on that day, " tUl the Parliament should reform it in an orderly way." The day was not abohshed tiU 1644 : " Yet we pre- inent by Presbyteries and synods, is that government which is most agree able to tbe minde of Jesus Christ." p 24. This was tit a time when Pres bytery was about to fall, aud when the sects were becoming supreme. They therefore comfort themselves thus: ''Who knows but Christ may prrmit us to he nmvalh:d by want of this Go vernment for awhile to convince us, by tho mischiefs and miseries of an un- governed Church, of our own fol ly, and the necessity of his government." Ib., 26. Tbt-y then relate the circum stances of the introduction of the Co venant, the order for reading it on fast -dws,aud hanging itup in churches; and they add, " We trust they who have entfrid into it did ready and sincerely intend to perform it." They quote Nye's w,>rds at the taking of the Covenant, that its " like hath not been in any age." They further assert that it can only be interpreted "ac cording to the common, plain, and true grammatical sense." Ib., 28. They also declare that " toleration will prove an hideous and complexive evil, the glory of the Most High God will be laid in the dust." Ib., 32. • Warwick's Memoirs, 266. "One would think all men that have cove nanted to reform after the example of the best reformed Churches, indispens ably obliged to the King Edward or Queen Elizabeth's English Reforma tion, the most regular, perfect patterns that Europe yieldeth." View of the Directory, 1646, 7. The cxpressi™, " best reformed Churches" puzzled the Independents, who well knew what the Scots meant ; " for which Sir Henry Vane found out an expedient, by adding these or the hke words: 'according to the Word of God.'" Ludlow, i. 79. with the Ruorics and Canons. 215 vailed with our friends of the Lower House to carry it so in Parliament, that both Houses did profane that holy day by sitting on it, to our joy and some ofthe Assembly's shame'." StUl the Independents continued to gather strength, and the Scots to sigh for the advance of their army. " We did not care for delays till the breath of our army might blow upon us more favour and strength." BaUlie's description of the proceedings in the Assembly is not a little curious. Reading the Scriptures in church was quite a stumbling-block to the Scots. It was the practice to pray and read and expound in the desk, and then to go to the pulpit : " We are not against the minister's reading and expounding when he does not preach : we fear it puts preaching in a more narrow and discreditable room than we coidd wish, if all this work be laid on the minister before he preach." An odd custom, it seems, existed in Scotland for the minister to bow in the pulpit. BaUlie deemed it prudent at first not to press this custom, determining " in due time to do the best for it we may." He mentions that " most of the Assembly write, as also all the people almost, men, women, and children, write at preach ing11." When the subject of preaching was introduced, Goodwin, says he, so far prevailed, " that after long debate we could conclude nothing." In February, 164-4, he men tions a request from the Lords to the Assembly for one of their members " to pray to God with them. By this means the relicks of the Service-book, which till then was every day used in both Houses, are at last banished *." Various differences arose in the Assembly between the « Baillie, i. 408 — 110. In 1045 the Commons were resolved to prevent auy interference on the part of the As sembly. " The House being informed of an intended petition for establish ing Presbytery as the discipline of Jesus Christ, they voted it to be scan dalous." Whitelock, 173. The preach ers never ceased to urge the point of discipline. " Mr. Strode was buried a constant servant to the Parliament, just and courteous. The preacher of his funeral sermon brought iu, tho' by head and shoulders, the business of Church discipline." Ib., 172. " Warwick says that the king's in tention to seize the five members was betrayed " by that busy stateswoman the Countess of Carlisle, who was be come such a she-saint, that she fre quented their sermons and took notes." Warwick's Memoirs, 204. * Baillie,i.413,414,421. In I645the Scots gave up this custom, of bowing in the pulpit : "Por bowing in the pulpit, whether by custom, or because of the lute abuse of it by the prelatical party to bow to the east and the altar, it was so universally disused, that we were not able to make them alter." Ib„ ii. 89, 216 The Book of Common Prayer ; Scots and the English. The Assembly wished the elements in the Lord's Supper to be delivered to the people in their seats ; the Scots desired the people to leave their seats and go to a table. BaiUie also complains of the irreverence of the Independents. Nye told them that his private judgment was that " in preaching the minister should be covered and the people discovered ; but in the Sacrament the minister should be discovered as a servant, and the guests all covered." " Their way is wofully tedious. Nothing in any assembly that ever was in the world, except Trent, like to them in pro- lixityy." " The humour of this people is very various and in clinable to singularities, to differ from aU the world, and one from another, and shortly from themselves. No people had so much need of a presbytery." From 9 o'clock tiU 5 on one occasion a fast was held by the Assembly, Marshall praying two hours " most divinely, confessing the sins of the mem bers of the Assembly ;" then Arrowsmith preached an hour, and Vines afterwards preached nearly two hours; then a sermon of an hour from Palmer, and a prayer of two hours from Seaman. Incredible as it may seem, the occurrence was a common one. On this occasion it was agreed, accord ing to BaiUie, to preach against all sects ; and he mentions that most of the Independents were " faUen off to Anabaptism, Antinomianism, and Socinianism ; the rest are divided among themselves. One Mr. Williams has drawn a great number after him to a singular Independency, denying any true Church in the world, and wiU have every man to serve God by himself alone, without any Church at all." Yet at the time he was full of hope, if they could but settle Presbytery. " The times of Antichrist's fall are approaching ;" yet Pres bytery was never settled. The Independents are censured as opposed to catechising, and as administering the elements to the people in tlieir seats ; but he rejoices in having carried y Baillie, i. 410, 455. It appears that during the war Psalms were some times sung previous to a battle. Vicars has this marginal note to one of his accounts : " A Psalm was sung before th y v.i.-ut on: see the piety of these soldiers." At Manchester, he says, "the soldiers had prayers and singing of Psalms daily at the street's end." Vicars's God in the Mount, 164, 177, 327. Baillie mentions Hugh Peters: " You know Mr. Peters better than to marvel at anything he writes: all here take him for a very imprudeut and temerarious man." with the Rubrics and Canons. 217 their motion for tables. Soon after he complains of Selden as opposed to any discipline as Jure Bivino : and though he had imagined, that the tables were carried, yet Goodwin and Bridge « cast all in the hows,' and not one of the English did join with us." But now his hopes are revived by the success of the army against Prince Rupert : " Our army oft signified to us they conceived their want of success flowed most from God's anger at the Parliament and Assembly for their neglect of the establishing of religion 2." In a little time Baillie's tone is changed to that of despon dency. Baptism was neglected : " In the greatest parish in London scarce one child in a year was brought to the church for baptism." " This is an irresolute, divided, and danger ously-humoured people. We long much to see them settled, and our nation honestly rid of them." He is again shocked at WUliams, the sectary, who said there was " no Church, no Sacrament, no pastors, no Church ordinance in the world, nor has been since a few years after the Apostles." On the lsfr of November, 1644, he mentions "the Preface of our Direc tory, casting out at doors the Liturgy and aU the ceremonies in cumulo, is this day passed8." Thus, after a long struggle the Directory was carried. It contained neither the Creeds, nor the Lord's Prayer, nor the Decalogue. The Lord's Prayer was indeed permitted, not commanded. Nothing was ordered, nor was anything actually forbidden, except the Liturgy compiled by our Reformers. The Preface uttered a most glaring falsehood. It declared that the Common Prayer was " offensive to the foraigne re formed Churches." Had the charge been true, it would not' have been, a reason for the removal of the Prayer-book, since ' Baillie, ii. 12, 19, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34. When Rous's Psalms were under discussion, " Mr. Nye spake much against a tie to any Psalter, and some thing against the preaching of para phrases, as of preaching of homilies. We underhand will mightily oppose it, for the Psalter is a great part of our uniformity." Ib., i. 411. • Baillie, ii. 37, 43, 71. "Their Directory of Worship was at length sent forth for a three years' trial, and such as could not conform to it mark'd out with an evil eie, hated and perse cuted, under the name of Separatists." Mrs. Hutchinson's Memoirs, ii. 95 Itapin says of the Presbyterians, "They thought themselves in slavery, if them selves did not command." itapin, ii 624. Mrs. Hutchinson also says that she and her husband were "often glanced at in their publick sermons as fanatics." Memoirs, ii. 104. 218 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; the practices established by our Reformers were quite aa likely to be in accordance with Scripture and antiquity as those of any of the continental Churches b. It was, however, manifestly and directly untrue, for all the reformed Churches had at various times expressed their approval of the Book of Common Prayer. Yet the Directory produced but little union. "Is it not prodigiously strange to see brethren, under the names of Presbyterians and Independents, not only persecuted by others, but even condemning and doing severe execution upon one another ? They who have sweetly agreed in the destructive part of reformation ; they who have joined hke brethren in one practical Directory, why should not they also be brought to shake hands in lesser mat ters, harmoniously concurring in matters of Church govern ment0." It was this very subject of Church government b It is painful to read portions of the Directory, because they sound like hypocrisy on the part of the framers. Thus, " Of Prayer after SermoD," it is ordered that ministers should pray "for the armies for defence of the king." Yet at this time they were fighting against his majesty. Direc tory, p. 38. It also declares that the pcrple were hardened in ignorance by "their lip-labour in bearing a part in it," the Common Prayer, lb., 4. It was, and still is, the custom to kneel privately on entering the church; but the Directory ordered, "If any, through necessity, be hindered from being pre sent at the beginpin<;, they ought not, when they come into the congregation, to betake themselves to their private devotions, but reverently to compose themselves to joyne with the assembly in that ordinance of God which is then in band." Hence the origin Cf the ir reverence in dissenting Congregations. The dead were to be interred " with out any ceremony." Even certain cus toms which the Church had not en joined were prohibited as superstitious, as " praying by or towards the dead corp..." Gauden in 3659 remarked .that tliere was " as little reverence in a church at holy duties, a3 in a play house, and far less than in a shire- house." Sermon before the LordMayor, the Lord General, &c, on the Day of Thanksgiving, for Restoring the Se cluded Members, Feb. 28, 1659. 4to., 1660, 29. The text was Jer. viii. 11 ; and Gauden mentions among others, "the slight healing by taking away the Liturgy." Ib., 57. Also " curing Episcopacy hy Presbytery." Ib, 59 " The little finger of Presbytery hath been heavier than the loins of mode rate Episcopacy." Ib., 60. c Hill's Sermon, 30. Sir Edward Deering, as early as 1642, foresaw the struggles between Presbytery and In dependency. His description of both is amusing : " Mr. Speaker, there is a certaine new-borne, un-scene, ignorant, dangerous, desperate Way of Independ ency : are we, sir, for this Independent way ? Nay, sir, are we for the elder brother of it, the Prcsbyterial forme ? Episcopacy says it is by Divine right, and ceriainly, sir, it conies much nearer to its claim than any other. Presby tery, that sayes it is by Divine right. Nay, this illegitimate thing, this new born Independency, that dare3 to say it is by Divine right also." Deering's Speeches, 99. In another place he brands Independency as " a semniiuary for all self-pride, heresie, schisme, se dition, and for all libertinisine, except an outward seeming saiutship." He is not much more favourable to Pres bytery. Ho calls it "a more orderly and a better-tempered novelty, but a novelty, and but older brother to In dependency. It is enough for me that with the Rubrics and Canons. 219 which was not numbered by the Parliament among lesser things, for it involved the power of inflicting censures, which the House of Commons would not commit to the parochial ministers. As no other discipline was set up, the natural results of the removal of Episcopacy and the Common Prayer were schisms, heresies, and unheard-of opinions : " Come into some companies, you shall heare people talke themselves and one another into a passion against Independents ; others wiU draw as ugly a picture of Presbyterians. We have un dertaken in the national Covenant the establishment of uni- formitie; and how that can stand with this uniformitie, indeed, nulliformitie, I "understand not. Divine vengeance hath shut it out of our camp by our Covenant. You have heard what horrible blasphemies have been belched out against heaven in some corner sermons; you know what intrusions are made into the ministry, and what confusion is threatened by divisions and diversities of opinions'1." Lightfoot, who was one of the members of the Westmin ster Assembly, left an account of some of the debates in which he took a part. A sort of abstract is published by Strype. He mentions " one of the Assembly, named Baily," who stated, " that tiU the last year he had hved convinced by Bishop BUson of the Jus Bivinum of bishops ; tiU con ferring with a gentlewoman, who said to him that it was a wonder he coidd not see ground for presbyterial govern ment which all the reformed Churches have ; it struck him so that he fell to study the reformed writers, Calvin, Beza, &c, and by them was convinced." He quoted the usual pas sages of Scripture, as "though he had been thoroughly studied in this matter." He was supported by Rutherford and Gillespie, and opposed by Lightfoot and others. Ruther ford said, "That the Parliament, if they had intended to judge ecclesiastical things in an ecclesiastical way, would not I can point out when it began ; since my father was born, or I am sure, at must, in my grandfather's days: and it is my fixed determination that since I am of the oldest religion, I will never consent to any but to the old est government." Of Episcopacy, he says, " It had a being in the best, the first, the purest age, and if it be not of apostolical! institution, yet cleare enough it is of apostolical! permis sion." Ib., 142. d Thorowgood's Sermon, 12, 15, 16, Whitelock mentions in 1644 : " Upon tho question, it was carried to lay aside the point of Jus Divinum : and herein Glynne and I bad thanks for divers for preventing the surprisal of the house on this great question." Whitelock, UI. 220 The Book of Common Prayer ; have convened this assembly." Rutherford, says Strype, "liked not our divine, who in truth spared not often to thwart the Scots labouring in this assembly to bring in their discipline into this Church of England e." Not unfrequently it is aUeged as an argument against the Convocation of the Church of England, that the members would not agree; but it would be well if such objectors would consider the disputes which occurred in the West minster Assembly. Never did an English Convocation pre sent such a variety of opinions. Yet the objectors to Convo cation are generaUy men, who would look with favour on such a body as the Westminster Assembly. Let them read two books, BaUlie's Letters and Lightfoot's Remains, and th.en judge whether an English Convocation would be likely to be so much divided. It is strange that Lightfoot, with his moderate views, should have acted with such men ; but he was an Erastian, and thought that he might do some good. He could not save, but he was not hostUe to, the Church of England. " When once in the Assembly, some began to move whether the Church of England were a true Church, and the mi nistry a true ministry: some would have waved it, lest it might have brought on the business of subscription to the orders of the Church." Lightfoot remarked that the Church of England was not like the Church of the Jews ; yet that was the true Church. He constantly opposed the Scottish discipline ; and in arranging the Directory he " had an eye to former rtibricks and canons." Singing was altogether omitted in that document untU observed by Lightfoot, at whose suggestion it was introduced f. e Lightfoot's Remains, 8vo., 1700. Preface, xii , xiii., xvi., xxxi. Selden was a sore grief to the Presbyterians, for his learning, like Lightfoot's, was a corrective of their ignorance. White- lock, who was a member, gives an amusing account of Selden's manner : " Mr. Selden spoke admirably, and con futed divers of them in their own learning. Sometimes when they had cited a text to prove their assertion, he woidd tell them, Perhaps in your Uttle pocket Bi'iles with gilt leaves (which they would often pull out and read), the translation may le thus, but the Greek or Hebrew signifies thus and thus, and so would totally silence them." Whitelock, 71. We cannot wonder at Baillie's dislike of him. Baillie's Letters, i. 250. Cleveland says of Selden : — " Thus every Gibeline hath got his GueJph, But Selden, bee's a Galliard by himself, And well may he ; there's more divines in him Than in all this their Jewish Sanhedrim.*1 Cleveland's Poems, 45. ' Lightfoot's Remains, Preface, xxxviii., xxxix., li. with the Rubrics and Canons. 221 CHAPTER IX. LAUD. — CHARGES. — BURTON, PRYNNE, AND BASTWICK. — KENTISH CHURCHES. VIEWS OP THE TIMES. — ALLEGED SEVERITIES. — LAUD AND PRYNNE.— MIS REPRESENTATIONS. — DEERING. — ALLEGED ALTERATION S IN PEAYER-xlOOK. — ¦ PRESBYTERIANS AND INDEPENDENTS. — COVENANT. — PULPIT A CAUSE OP WAR. — SERMONS. — CALAMY. — BURNET'S CENSURES ON THE TIMES. While the English and Scottish Presbyterians were em ployed in the business of the Covenant, Laud was languish ing in prison; and but for the hatred of Prynne and the Scots, he might probably, like Wren, have remained un noticed. The Scots, however, sought his life ; nor was Prynne less anxious to bring him to punishment. Charges, therefore, of various kinds were exhibited to the Parliament. The cases of Leighton, Prynne, Burton, Bastwick, and Smart were carefuUy prepared, with all sorts of insinuations and falsehoods. The punishment of these men was severe; yet their offences were not trivial. The authors of such pub lications as theirs even now would be subjected to fine and imprisonment. Some things, indeed, were ridiculous, as ascribing the plague to the alteration in a form of prayer for 1636; but others, affecting the character of Laud and several bishops, were too serious to be overlooked. The sentences, moreover, were in- accordance with the principles of the age. All the charges of innovations were refuted by Laud ; and they only proved the ignorance of their authors. In the. " News from Ipswich," the bishops were called " enemies to God ;" and in Burton's " Por God and the King" it was stated that ministers were punished for not observing things which were not enjoined in the rubrics and canons. Laud replied, " He nor his complices cannot bee able to produce any one example of any man that hath been censured for refusing any of these, but those only which are commanded by law or canon." Burton complained of the Common Prayer as " cutting short sermons," and yet talked of inno- 222 The Book of Common Prayer vations, because a prayer for the royal family, which was no longer applicable, was omitted in an occasional form for a fast-day ". Laud's character was unscrupulously assailed ; his motives were misrepresented, and all his actions were dis torted. The slanders against his memory are still repeated without inquiry. Taking their accounts of the times from such writers as Neal, some persons still persist in represent ing the Archbishop and other bishops of this reign as relent less persecutors. Proofs are not even attempted, but the most recldess assertions are hazarded. Every act of Laud's life was scrutinised for the purpose of extracting charges against him at his trial. Amongst other things, his Injunctions relative to the foreign congregations in Kent were adduced. Such individuals as could speak English were enjoined to attend their parish churches ; and in other cases, the Book of Common Prayer in French was to be used. In the reign of Edward VI., when the foreigners first sought a refuge in this country, it was the intention of the government to impose the Liturgy of the Church of England, which was translated into French for that pur pose; so that no change was introduced by Laud. Under Abbot, indeed, the refugees had pursued tlieir own course, and the English Puritans were thereby encouraged in their irregularities. Laud's reply to the charge is conclusive: " Their standing on their own discipline wrought upon the party in England which were addicted to them." Moreover, Laud only carried out the general principles of aU parties in those times, for even the Puritans insisted on the imposition of one uniform system. Had the Presbyterians been in the po-?fj-v,ion of power at the time, the Walloon congregations would have been permitted to worship in their own fashion, not on the principle of toleration, but simply because it chanced to agree with the Presbyterian system. The men « Ilevlin's Answer, 160; Dow's Eenly to Burton, 121, 135. In allu sion to Burton's complaint of shorten ing the prayers, Heylin asks : " Doe you here complaine that the prayers are shortened, that so you may have liberty to preach the longer ?" Dow says of Burton's book: "They are two sermons, or (as he terms them) the summe of two sermons. If this be true, surely the sermons were of a large size, and transgressed the bounds of an hour-glasse." Dow, 15. with the Rubrics and Canons. 223 who supported the Walloons, and abused Laud, would have refused a toleration to Episcopal congregations in similar circumstances. Consequently Laud was consistent in his proceedings, since he acted on principles recognised by all parties. Bulteel, one of the complaining ministers, in an account pubhshed after Laud's death, proved himself to be more of a persecutor than the Archbishop. Nor does he regard truth, since he charges Laud with a design for the introduction of popery, " had not God put an end to and set a period to his ambition, his tyranny, designes, and life." This man was a minister of the Gospel, yet he could thus speak of a bishop who was then in his grave : " The archbishop had a long time to repent, had he had the grace to do it. He was, according to his merits, beheaded, the axe making a divorce between his head and body, lege talionis, and by the just judgment of God. A young martyr at the stake cried, Sunne of God shine upon me, and immediately it shone out of a dark cloud ; but here, immediately after the stroke of the axe, and the death of this old imposter and trayter, the sun did shine, the curtaine of the world drawn open, and the Son of God seemed to be pleased with that act of justice h." A man who could pen such blasphemy is scarcely worthy of any credit ; yet such were many of Laud's traducers. Nonconformity in the reign of Charles I. was so common, that the bishops were compelled to use some severity, but the odium chiefly fell upon the Archbishop. And from that time to the present Laud's memory has been loaded with reproach for severities aUeged to have been exercised upon unoffending clergymen. The sufferings of the Puritans were the fruit of the principles of the times ; and the very men who com plained under the bishops proved themselves to be greater persecutors than the Archbishop. It was a struggle for pre-eminence, not for toleration ; and when Presbytery acquired power, its little finger would have proved heavier i A Relation of the Troubles of the Foreign Churches in Kent, caused by the Injunctions of William Laud ; by J. B. London, 4to., 1645. Wharton's Remains, 164, 165. Bulteel trium- i phantly alludes to the old woman and the stool in Edinborough in 1637: " A woman, dux foemini facti, leading the dance." 224 The Book of Common Prayer; than the loins of the bishops, had not the reins of discipline been held by the Parhament. Severity in one party is no justification of it in another : yet when men talk of the suf ferings of the Puritans, they should consider the principles of the age, and remember the persecutions exercised by those very men against others. The men, to whom Laud's tra- ducers appeal in proof of their charges, would have visited with the utmost severity aU departures from what they termed the discipline of Christ ; and in a few years, under the rule of Presbytery, the alleged cruelties of Laud were cast into the shade by the far darker scenes enacted by men who had complained of the bishops. Laud's sufferings and death were such a reproach to the Presbyterians, that the efforts of their advocates have ever since been directed against the Archbishop's character. This most iniquitous course has been pursued in order to divert attention from the unjust proceed ings of the Presbyterians. Prynne became possessed of Laud's papers by order of the House of Commons; and from them he proceeded to con struct his charges. The Archbishop's Diary was published in a garbled form; many passages, especiaUy such as con demned the Church of Rome, being suppressed. In one of bis private prayers Laud confesses his sinfulness ; and Prynne suggests that he aUudes to a particular sin, adding, " perhaps uncleane." The malignity of such a suggestion is almost inconceivable. But the custom of accumulating: charges against Laud is stiU continued, in some cases from igno rance, in others from a desire to load his memory with re proach. It is common to form an estimate of Laud's charac ter from the abusive accounts of Prynne, Burton, and Bast- wick. Yet these men subsequently abused one another with equal bitterness. Those who had been feUow-sufferers in the same cause became open enemies ; and the same terms were - used in speaking of one another, as aU had used in abusing Laud and the Church of England. In forming an estimate of Laud's character, his Diary, as faithfuUy published by Wharton, must be compared with the scandalous version by Prynne in his "Breviate." All the passages relative to the conference with Fisher, with many others connected with with the Rubrics and Canons. 225 popery, were suppressed by Prynne. The passage containing the account of his dream stands thus in the Diary: "Nor was I grieved with myself [only by reason of the errors of that Church, but also] upon account of the scandal." The words in brackets were omitted by Prynne, and thus Laud was made to say that he was only troubled "at the scandal." The Scottish Book of 1637 was a prominent charge in the catalogue of his alleged crimes ; yet he most distinctly assures us that he was anxious for the introduction of the English Book in opposition to the feelings of the Scottish bishops '. We have Burnet's opinion that the Church of England was milder in her government than either Presbytery or Inde pendency. "It were as easy as it would be invidious to shew that both Presbyterians and Independents have carried the principle of rigour in the point of conscience much higher, and have acted more implacably upon it, than ever the Church of England has done even in its angriest fitsk." Now, aUowing that the period of Laud's influence was one of the angry fits of the Church, we still have Burnet's tes timony, that the rigour exercised against the Nonconform ists was less than that which they imposed upon others in the day of their power. Before the Archbishop's imprisonment the Presbyterians laboured to damage his reputation ; and after his death their hireling writers justified the enormous crime. Succeeding writers, who could not justify the act of putting him to death, have endeavoured to palliate it by painting the pre late in the most odious colours. But their assertions have led to a more careful examination of his character, as weU as a more minute investigation of the events of the period, and the result is most satisfactory. When the Archbishop was in adversity, his alleged vic tims manifested a spirit most opposite to that of the Gospel. 1 Wharton, 109, 124, 168, 169; Prynne's Breviate, 10, 30 ; Prynne's Hidden Works of Darkness, 153, 170. Puller calls Prynne's insinuation about the sin "an uncharitable suspicion." Book xi. 218. Prynne's Breviate really raised Laud's -memory in public AM, - Q estimation, " though inten ' \1 other wise" Heylin's Examen, part ii. 166. k Burnet's Collection ot Papers, 4to., 16S9, 86. Such testimony is sufficient to outweigh a host of modern asser tions made without inquiry. 226 The Book of Common Prayer; Prynne devoted his energies during the trial to accumulate charges, and after his death to stigmatize his memory. Actu ated by the most bitter hostUity, he never ceased to avenge his own supposed wrongs, not even when death had removed his victim beyond his reach. WhUe his feelings of revenge were at their highest pitch, Prynne undertook to write a Life of the Archbishop from his own papers, which he had seized under the authority of the Parliament; and from the writings of this individual Laud's modern calumniators are supplied with materials1. Every candid person must rise from the perusal of Prynne's works against Laud with astonishment, that any one could be so forgetful of the common feelings of human ity, and that a man professing the Gospel should have been actuated by such malignant motives. Burton also pursued a simUar course. In 1640 he pubhshed a Reply to Laud's "Conference with Fisher," charging the work as popish. " Though I would not joine in prayer with such a profane hvpocrite as you are, and an enemy of Jesus Christ and His truth, yet my dayly prayer is and shaU be, that God would more and more let the king see how he is abused, and the peace and safety of the kingdom distracted and endangered, both by the late violent practices, and now by the publishing of such a pernicious book as this m." A more generous ad versary, Sir Edward Deering, even when opposing him, said, that in his book " he muzzled the Jesuite, and shaU strike the Papists under the fifth rib when he is dead and gone. And being dead, wheresoever his grave shall be, Paul's wUl be his perpetuaU monument, and his own book his lasting epitaph a" 1 " An order was made by the Com mons that Mr. Pryn should print and publish all the proceedings of the tryal of th« late Archbishop. It were well it weris printed iu all languages, for the sermon he made when he lost his head is translated into several lan guages, and published in all Christen. dome. Siich is the diligence of the enemy to get advantages." Perfect Diurnal, 663. ¦» Barton's Beplie, 20, 21. B Deering's Speeches, 1643, 4to., 5. Andrew JIarvel, though not a Church man, justly says of LauJ, " Who if for nothing else, yet for his learned book against Fisher, deserved far another fate than that he met with, and ought not now to be mentioned without due honour." Rehearsal Transposed, i. 281. It is evident that many of Laud's traducers did not understand his argu ments against popery, aud so they call him a papist. Yet tho line adopted by him was much morn galling to the papists, than the course pursued by some, who make great pretensions of hostility to popery. In fact, Laud understood the subject. On the Con tinent Laud was misunderstood in with the Rubrics and Canons. 227 After Laud was in his grave, Burton published another work, equal in virulence to any from the pen of Prynne. Had the book been destroyed, and we had merely been told of its contents, we should scarcely believe it possible that such satanic feelings could have been entertained by any man calling himself a Christian. But the book remains, to its author's everlasting disgrace. Alluding to his own suf ferings seven years before, BuTton says, " He little dreamed then that in the space of seven years such a pillory could grow to such a bulk as whereof to erect a scaffold on the Tower-hill, where himself should lose his head for others' ears. By this time himself knows with what eye he looked unto Jesus, as whom he finds a just Judge, and punisher of that faith of his, which was none other than that of Babylon, as the reader may see in my Reply to his Relation of a Con ference. He closes aU with a Lord receive my soul to mercy. Now, what hath an impenitent hard-hearted hypocrite to do with mercy." Presently he adds that he was " worthy to have died the ancient death of persecutors, or traitors, to be sewed up in a cuUeous, or leather sack, and cast into the water °." Laud's conduct in his sufferings produced a sense of shame in the breasts of his persecutors, who, fearing lest the people should regard him as an innocent man, laboured to defame his character after his death. In sending him to the scaffold, his enemies acted contrary to law, as their own ordinance, under which he suffered, proves r. consequence of the misrepresentations ' more pains to have vindicated King of his enemies at home. Thus he was , Charles I. and Archbishop Laud from charged with making " a new Common ! that for which he falls so foully on the Prayer-book other than those that j present administration, it had been were used in the times of our three : more suitable to the respect that all last sovereigns." Durell's View, 185. It was therefore supposed that the Book of Common Prayer in use in the reign of Charles I. had been al tered by Laud, and so altered as to become a new book. It is evident that the misapprehension arose from the slanders of his enemies, either re specting the Occasional Form of 1636, or the Scottish Book of 1637. Burnet lovers of the Church do pay tlieir memory." Burnet's Reflections on the Rights, &c, 4. " Burton's Grand Impostor. p Laud's enemies stirred up the mob to demand his life, and after his death they gloried in it as a righteous judg ment. " About this time the Arch bishop of Canterbury, having been by an unknown law condemned to die, admits that all lovers of the Church ! and the execution suspended for some respected the memory of Charles I. ; days, many of the malicious citizens, and Laud. Alluding to xUterburv, he ., fearing his pardon, shut up their _shops, eays, "I confess, if he had a little ' professing not to open them till justice Q ¦¦) 228 The Book of Common Prayer; Prynne, Burton, and others of the same class, were wont to stigmatize as Papists all the true friends of the Church of England. Bramhall, and even Usher, were so branded. " The Tery best and learnedest in all the whole pack of prelates, even the Primate of Armagh, Bishop Usher, (of whom most men hitherto have had a very honourable opinion,) hath ex tremely degenerated in his Christian zeal for the Protestant religion V If Usher did not escape, what mercy could be extended to Laud ? Consequently Prynne calls the sentence " a righteous judgment against that arch incendiary." He unblushingly asserts that Laud " was justly executed with far more mercy, favour, indulgence, than himself shewed to any pious Christian that came under his heavy hands'." Yet Laud's suspensions for nonconformity were less numerous than Abbofs. He ordered an examination of the registers under his predecessor, and he gives the result: "I find more by three suspended, deprived, or degraded in every seven years of his time, than in the seven years of my time so cried out upon for sharpness and severity8." The charge of altering the Book of Common Prayer is fully met in another work. The charges alleged by Prynne exhibited his own ignorance, though unfortunately the igno rance of the times in such matters was 60 great that many believed the slanders. They are now disproved by the exist- was executed. This malice and mad ness is scarce credible, hut I saw it." Walton's Lives, Major's Edition, 393. "A most proud and hypocriticitll crafty tyrant and persecutor of Qod's saints he lived, and a most obstinate and marble-headed atheist he also impu dently and impenitently died." Vicars"* Burning Bush, 92. q Prynne's Canterbnrie's Doom, Epis tle. This was a time " when churches were pulled down for God's glory, when religion was called popery and mon archy tyranny." Bulstrode's Memoirs of Charles I, 51. ' Prynne's Hidden Works of Dark- ccsse. Preface. Among books " in De fence of Popish Errors" Prynne places Laud:s Speech in the Star-chamber, and Bishop Hall's Reconciler, and Episcopacy by Divine Right. Canter bnrie's Doom, 156. Prynne's ignorance often furnished the Papists with an argument. Thus he called the deriva tion of the episcopal succession from Augustine, sending us hack to Rome, not distinguishing between the Primi tive Church and the Church of Rome of later ages. Ib., 422. Gauden says, " I think the Archbishop of Canter bury was neither Calvinist, Papist, nor Lutheran, as to any side and partie, but all, so far as he saw they agreed with the Reformed Church of Eng-_ laud." Gauden's Tears, Sighs, &c, 1659, 630. ¦ Wharton, 164- Cleveland says of Laud, — " The State in Straffori fell, the Church ia Laud." And of the Liturgy, — " The Liturgy, whose doom was voted next, Dy'd as a comment upon him the text." Cleveland's Poems, to., 65. with the Rubrics and Canons. 229 ing impressions of the Book of Common Prayer. Without taking the trouble of an examination, the most improbable charges were received by the Parliament. The Book of 1604 was then the standard text; and in this edition the word priest occurs more frequently than in those of 1633 and 1636, the period of Laud's greatest power. In short, the Archbishop did not interfere in such matters. The printer, in preparing a new edition, evidently took as his copy the Book which he happened to possess. Yet the charge of alterations is stUl repeated, both against Laud and Cosin, by men who wish to load the Archbishop's memory with re proach, and who rashly put forth assertions without examin ation or inquiry. Prynne never hesitated to make an asser tion if it suited his purpose. He charged Cosin with adding James's Proclamation of 1604 and Elizabeth's Act of Uni formity to the Book of Common Prayer. Yet the Act was a part of the Book, and the Proclamation appeared with the edition of 1604. The assertion that they were omitted in former editions before Cosin's time was utterly false ; and he might have ascertained the fact by merely opening the Books which had been put forth since the accession of James I. * Of the same character were most of the charges against Laud, but they were readily received by his enemies. It is, therefore, strange that modern writers should repeat charges which admit of so easy a refutation. After the removal of the Book of Common Prayer and the imposition of the Covenant, the Presbyterians contemplated the erection of their Discipline. But before the object could be attained, the Independents acquired sufficient power to supplant the Presbyterians, and therefore the Scottish system was never imposed. Ministers were at liberty to practise the discipline, provided the people were willing to submit, but they could not impose it upon their congregations. Thus it was never more than tolerated in England. " There was another generation of men which, like the frozen snake that lay in their bosoms, seemed but to desire the same things with them; but they had further designs, to de- 1 Prynne's Brief Survey, 34. 230 The Book of Common Prayer; stroy and cut off not a few, alter the Church government, have no order in the Church. This was the venom they harboured, which at first they were not warm enough to put forth c." StiU we find many eulogiums of the Cove nant, and numerous denunciations against Covenant breakers, in the sermons preached before the Parliament. The mem bers could hsten to the preachers, though they did not mean to follow their advice. " In the place of a long Liturgie, wee are in hope of a pithy Birectorie : where Popish altars and crucifixes did abound we begin to see more of Christ cruci fied. Instead of the prelate's oath we have a solemn Covenant, engaging us to endeavour reformation, yea, and the extirpa tion of popery and prelacy itself1." The toleration required by the Independents was attacked from the pulpit, not only as injurious to religion, but as inconsistent with the Cove nant. " If once we come to this, that any man be suffered to teach what he pleaseth, to be of what faith or religion seems good in his own eyes, farewell Covenant, farewell re formed religion, farewell the peace and glory of JEngland. Had we kept this Covenant, what saints should we have been; aU our families would have been so many Churches ; Eng land would by this time have been the 'holy island*.'" " Solomon had many wives, even seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Let us not have as many re hgions. To prevent the like we have a Covenant z." We meet with such complaints as early as 1644, so that even then the Presbyterians were in fear for their Covenant. The Presbyterians would tolerate nothing, whUe the Inde pendents would tolerate everything, as we shaU see in the sequel, except the Book of Common Prayer. The latter coidd tolerate Presbytery as a sect, yet they would not allow ¦ Hollis's Memoirs, 5. 1 Hill's Sermon, 1644, 4to, 28. In allusion to this sermon, Baillie says, "Mr. Palmer and Mr. HiU preached that day to the Assembly two of the mi st Scottish and free sermons that ever! heard anywhere. The way here of all preachers has been to speak be fore the Parliament with so profound a reverence as truly took all edge from their exhortations. That style is much ¦changed of late. These two good men laid well about them, and charged publick and parliamentary sins strictly on the backs of the guilty j among the rest, their neglect to settle religion ac cording to the Covenant." liaillic, ii. 51, 52. Though the Parhament lis tened to the preachers, they declined to-set np the Discipline. y Newcomen's Sermon, 1644, 38, 40. * Seaman's Sermon, 1664, 44, 45. with the Rubrics and Canons. 231 of its domination. Great as was the guilt of the Indepen dents in taking the life of their sovereign, we yet owe them some gratitude for preventing the rule of one of the worst species of spiritual tyranny ever exhibited in the world a. Thus the parties who had united in the work of destruction soon began to quarrel among themselves. One party wished to set up Presbytery, the other would have no established system. Both could puU down, one only was prepared to build up a new fabric. In taking the Covenant, the Pres byterians not only contemplated the ruin of Episcopacy, but the establishment of Presbytery ; nor did they imagine that opposite opinions coidd be entertained by any who had subscribed that document. In the Commons, some were Erastians, others Independents, and both could as cordiaUy unite against Presbytery as against Episcopacy. " Downe with the old building," said a preacher, " of popery and pre lacy." Still he did not see his beloved Presbytery in its glory b. The struggles between the Presbyterians and the Inde pendents continued until nearly the period of the king's death, after which the sectaries were triumphant. BaUlie expressed his hopes and his fears to his Scottish correspon dents. In 1645 he says, " We are on the point of setting up * The Independents were very few in number in 1640, but they became stronger each year : "Until the Egyp tian slime and dog-star heat in the Parliament, 1640, bred so many con gregational insects, that they as laud ably made Presbytery appear to them antichristian as Episcopacy had ap peared so unto the Presbyterians." Warwick's Memoirs, 83. "To have this (the Covenant) stick among us, or laid aside, whilst malignants and sec taries live in our hosonie, blessing, and in secret applauding themselves, that they have neither taken this nor any of your former Protestations." Hard- wick's Sermon, 1644, 33. Yet some times the preachers were in full expec tation of seeing the Discipline erected. '¦Who would ever have thought that the throwing of a stool in the church hy a godly woman, a zealot, at the first broaching of the Enghsh masse at Edinborongh ; I say, who would have thought that the throwing of that stool should have so mightily shaken the Pope's chair ? This I take to be a very great and good omen." Gemitus Colv.mba< ,• a Sermon, Dec. 25, 1644, 28. "> Hill's Sermon, 1644, 35. The triumphs of the preachers on some occasions were most unseemly. " We have an ungodly generation, that weep with a loud voice and complaiue their gods are gone — their cud Episcop.jcy, their god Liturgy, tlie Jrgan, and the Surplice." Staunton's Sermon, 1614, Epistle. Another Parliamentary worthy says of tbe Liturgy : " Vain babbling;, as when the minister shall only pro pound things to be prayed for, and then the people twenty times shall say, ' We beseech thee to heare us/ &c." Smith's Sermon, 1644, 7. 232 The Book of Common Prayer; Presbytery, but aU the ports of heU are opened upon us." He found the Erastians more troublesome even than the Independents, and Selden was held in abhorrence. "The Erastian party in the Parliament is stronger than the Inde pendent, and is like to work us much woe. Selden is their head." The Scottish army, from whose coming he hoped so much, is described as immoral, and he mentions " drunken, blasphemous, plundering officers," for which " God wiU plague us." At the close of the year 1645 his courage revives: " It must be a divine thing to which so much resistance is made by men of aU sorts, yet by God's help we wUl very speedily see it set up in spite of the devU." Yet the next year he expresses his dread of the Erastians, mentioning Coleman as the only one in the Assembly. Shortly after he writes: "God has struck Coleman with death. It is not good to stand in Christ's way." BaiUie at last leaves London without seeing the erection of the Discipline c. But though Presbytery was not established, yet the Pres byterian ministers for some time occupied the majority of the churches ; and they had fuU power to eject such min isters as refused the Covenant or were lukewarm in the cause of the Parliament11- Nor were they inactive in the business. " Under the pretence of expunging popery, they turned out all men who stood up for the Prayer-book. When the ministers have given a seven nights' warning to prepare for the blessed Eucharist, they were fain to return home with out it, for want of bread and wine to administer ite." In the work of ejecting the loyal and well-affected clergy, Pres- c BaiUie, ii. 95, 96, 107, 141, 159, 109, 313. "When bishops and prelacy were down, two parties who were mu tually one before broke forth, the Presbyterians and Independents, and were as biiter the one against the other, as the prelates were against them both." Cherry'sConformingXon- coiiformist, $9. d The dissenting brethren in the Assembly, when Launted with opposing Pivsbi tery, reminded the Presbyterian ministers that they had all the bo.it livings, and that tiny might practise the Discipline in their own parishes. Lilly says the Presbyterians "would preach weU, but they were more lordly than bishops, aud usually in their parishes more tyrannical than the great Turk." Lives of Antiquaries, 123. e Gregory Williams, 44, 45. Cap tain Yen said "that his wire could make prayers worth three of any ia that book." Ib. Lilly gives a curious ease of a man who was spared, though guilty of immoral conduct, because " the godly, as they termed themselves, sided with him." When Lilly accused him of adultery, he replied that he was then in his natural condition. Lives of the Antiquaries, 60, 61. with the Rubrics and Canons. 233 byterians and Independents coidd unite. Not a few of the best men in the Church were removed from their livings, because they could not comply with the requirements of the Presbyterian party. Onghtred, " the most famous mathema tician of aU Europe, parson of Albury, was in danger of sequestration by the committee of plundered ministers. Many worthy ministers lost their hvings for not complying with their Threepenny Directory. Had you seen what pitiful idiots were preferred into sequestrated benefices, you would have been grieved in your soul ; but when they came before the classes of divines, could the simpletons but only say they were converted by hearing such a sermon, such a lecture of that godly man, Hugh Peters, Stephen Marshall, or any of that gang, he was presently admitted f." All who refused the Covenant " were branded with the mark of malignancy *." In addition to the loss of their livings, many were plundered of their property and compeUed to hve in retirement. In 1645 Usher was robbed of his books in Wales. As his name was known all over the country, the preachers became alarmed for the reputation of their body. They therefore undertook the task of recovery. " Most of the other books were restored by the preachers' exhorting of all sorts in their sermons to that end." The manuscripts were recovered, but the printed books were altogether lost1'- Ejection was now a trade, and robbery followed as a consequence. Reformers were nu merous, and the committees were willing listeners to any complaints against clerg}Tmen who did not commit them selves to the cause of the Parliament. We have aheady seen how the pulpit was abused in these times to party and pohtical purposes ; yet the stiU heavier ' Lives of the Antiquaries, &c, 86, 87. * Whitelock, 69. Lilly says that Fuller the historian "took the Cove nant twice for the Parliament before my face in the Savoy Church, invited others unto it, yet apostate ran iu a few days to Oxford." Lives of the Antiquaries, 172, 173. Lilly makes a strange mistake about the Scotch Prayer-book of 1637, saying, " It ad mitted unto the people the Commu nion but in one kind." He mentions, as late as 1649, that "Paul's Church was made a horse-guard, and so con tinued until of laic." Ib., 208, 271. Lilly was very obnoxious to the Pres byterians on account of his astrolo gical pursuits. Ashniole has au en try : "Mr. Lilly culled before the con- mittee of plundered ministers and committed." Ib., 317. h Bernard's Life of Usher, 101. 234 The Book of Common Prayer ; charge rests upon the preachers and writers of the period of exciting the people to war. The sermons are extant as witnesses both against the ministers and the Parhament. In 16-12 his Majesty said, "The preaching of the word is turned into a license of libelling and revUing both Church and State'." The charge was true. The pulpit commenced the quarrel, calling it God's cause, and the press seconded the measure ; so that at the door of the Presbyterian preachers and writers much of the sin of beginning and continuing the war must be laid. Prynne, in his various dedications, en couraged the Parliament to proceed; others adopted the same course ; but nothing can exceed the bloodthirsty lan guage of the preachers, and of those writers who were also ministers. When Baxter laboured, at the Restoration, to remove from the Long Parliament the heavy imputation of being guUty of the king's death, Morley replied that " the king's person was not excepted from being fought against, and consequently from being killed." He asks also, " How can the Presbyterian clergy of those times, especially the London and Parliament preachers, be excused from being intentionaUy guilty of the king's death before he was actuaUy murdered by the Independents ?" And of the Act of Uni formity, of which Baxter complained, Morley argued that it was equitable, "if they had been enjoyned silence for the future by way of punishment only for the mischief they had done by preaching formerly k." He charges the preachers with "libelling tho king in their prayers in order to the making of his subjects first hate him and then to fight against him1." It is true that the Presbyterian ministers 1 His Majesty's Declaration, printed at Cambridge, 1612, 4to., 32 ; Butler's Sarcastic Prayer in his Short Litany was suggested hy the times : " Prom those "who for selfends would all things bi'tnay, Froi.i *.:nt& that cursa and flatter whin thi:y pray." Butler's Posthumous Works. In a petition in 1642 it was stated, that "The sons of peace are become the loudi st trumpets of warrtr." The Petition of the Citie of London for Peace. Oxford, 1642, 4to., 5. . k Bishop of Winchester's Vindica tion, 16S3, 4to., 251, 252, 490. 1 Bishop of Worcester's Letter, 1662, 4to., 2. The Independents were more honest than the Presbyterians, for they omitted the name of the king from the Parliamentary Ordinances. "Till their new modelling their army, the Parlia ment had given out all commissions to their soldiers for (king and Parlia ment). But then the king's name was left out ; which seeming to many thousands an utter change of the cause, from that time many did desert with the Rubrics and Canons. 235 were shocked at the king's death, yet they themselves, espe cially Calamy, Case, Walker, Burgess, Manton, Love, and others, had, by their prayers and sermons, stirred up both Parliament and people to war. After the king's death, the Independents retorted upon them their warlike sermons. Axtel, one of the regicides, confessed that the sermons of the Presbyterians so impressed his mind, that "he thought with himself he should have been damned for ever if he had not acted his part in that most tragical scene m." As soon as the Long Parliament was convened, the clergy who were disaffected to the Churcli were summoned from aU parts of the country to preach before the two Houses on the monthly and occasional fasts. " Many of the well-affected ministers petitioned the Parhament both for the choice of an assembly and for the ordering of a monthly fast. The monthly fast was speedily put in practice, which being, as it were, a spiritual militia, puts the kingdome into a spiritual posture of a God-pleasing, holy warfare "." Erequently the people were encouraged by being assured that God's blessing evidently rested on the Parliament. Peters, who was a prin cipal chaplain in the army after the new model, in his letters to the Parhament expatiates on the mercies of God. After the storming of Basing House he writes : "This is the twen tieth garrison that hath been taken in this summer, and I be lieve most of them the answer of the prayers and trophies of the faith of some of God's servants. The commander of this brigade having spent much time with God in prayer the night before the storm, and seldome fighting without some text of Scripture to support him. This time he rested upon that blessed word written in the 115th Psalm, ver. 8, 'They that make them/ &c."° them." Baxter's "Nonconformists'Plea, 128. Strange must have been the notions of right and wrong, when Baxter could so deceive himself as to believe, that the army who met the king in the field was actually fighting in his defence. The very fact men tioned by Baxter is a proof that the Independents were not such hypocrites as the Presbyterians, who pretended to fight for the king. "¦ South's Sermons, iii. 513. " Aricars's God in the Mount, 6S. 0 Sprigge's England's Recovery, 141. Sprigge was ready to believe all sorts of marvels in favour ofthe Parliament. Alluding to the takii'i of Banbury, he says, " The strange 'Jits that were seen over the towne si.uoyn years ago,. in the night-time, when us the appear ance of fighting, pikes pushing one against another, was discerned iu the 236 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; The fact that the preachers all along promoted the war cannot be disguised. Instead of being men of peace, they were men of war, and disasters were often attributed to the breach of the Covenant. After a defeat in the West, a preacher said to the Commons, " I am sure you have not forgotten, for it is not yet a full yeare since you did, with your hands lifted up to the Most High, even in this place sweare a solemne league and covenant in a most solemne and rehgious manner. Me- thinks this stroake of God upon us so neere that time twelve month, wherein we took the Covenant, seemes to speake as if God intended once a-yeare to require an account of this Cove nant at the hand of England." He then enumerates their sins against the Covenant, and they are chiefly sins of omis sion : " What hath the Assembly done ? What hath the Parliament done in the reformation of religion ? When will some order be settled for the worship of God ? I feare God takes it very grievously that since we made a Covenant for reformation we have spent now a yeare and done so little p." This was a blow at the Independents and Sectaries, and liberty of conscience is broadly denoimced in the same sermon ; so that at this early period the Presbyterians had lost much of that power which they possessed in 1641. Though the air, whereof I was an eyewitnesse, with many others, might portend the sad fate that hath since befallen that mise rable place." Ib., 252. The pulpit was the vehicle of news in these times: " I have heard their auditors say, that by the Sunday sermons, or a lecture, they eo'ild learne not only what was done the weeke before, but also what was to be done in Parliament the Weeke following." Mercurius Auli- cus, 9S. p Ne-.vcomen's Sermon, &c, 1644, 35, 36. The common Mercuries or nen'spaj-ers were filled with niUivpre- se'ntati«:is of the loyalists and the Church. The king ordered a day of thaiilog'ving for a victory in tlie xVorth ia liilt; and tlu: appointment was thus misrepresented: "Tlie ro.wd army commanded it to be observed, giving strict orders that no sivplice, hoo.!, or tippet be then omitted; that the Common Prayer with the whole Litany be duly and reverently said, the clerke, with an audible and dis tinct voyce, keeping stroke with the minister, saying Amen. That whole some anthems and Te Deums be well sung, with musieko accompanying the same; that the plt.tr should be beau tified with tapa>. candlesticks, &c, all which were c.'-ucaived very fit and decent to he usi.d on this occasion. That no person whatsoever should pre sume to make any common fire before they had contributed towards conse crated wood to make bonfires, and that the young men and maids after evensong should meet at the May -pole, &c. That all those that were not drunk before night should pay the sum of five shillings to the use of the first iuventer of tlie Puritanical false hood." Perfect Diurnal, -105, 105. .All that was done was the publica tion of a Form of Prayer, according to the usual custom : the rest is a tissue of lies. with the Rubrics and Canons. 237 Covenant had been a year in force, yet nothing had been done towards substituting Presbytery in the room of Epis copacy. So cruel, and even blasphemous, were some of the sermons, which, nevertheless, were ordered to be printed, that it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that the fast and thanksgiving-days were a solemn farce, enacted for the purpose of deceiving the people. It is a remarkable fact, that the House of Commons seemed less inclined to proceed to severity against such as were placed in their power, than the preachers who, from time to time, addressed them on the fast-days from the pulpit. The exhortations to war, and to inflict punishment on malig nant prisoners, prove that in the estimation of the ministers the Parliament was too slow and too lenient. One preacher talked of a " winepress, for the squeezing of delinquents ;" and another says, "Adventure for God, and trust Him to the uttermost, to the brink, to the edge, to the last inch of the candle q." The latter clause was the conclusion of an enu meration of victories. A preacher tells the Commons to say, " I have the Lord of Hosts fighting for me at Keinton, New- bery, &c, and therefore let England say, The Lord liveth, &c. Write on stUl, you wise statesmen, write upon your fore heads, your brain-pans, Holinesse unto the Lord. When you are engaged in the battle, drink downe this cordiall di lemma, If you live, you will live honoured, if you die, you wiU die martyred '." Vicars, the fanatical and profane chronicler of the war, says, that " reverend and renowned Master Marshall, Master Ash, Master Mourton, Master Obadiah, and Master John Sedgwicke, Master Wickins, and divers other eminently pious and learned pastours, rode up and downe the army, through the thickest dangers, and in much personal' Syizard most faithfully and couragiously ex horting and encouraging the soldiers to fight valiently and i Arrowsmith's Sermon — the Cove nant Avenging Sword Brandished, Epist. Ded. ; Bond's Sermon; Salva tion a Mystery, &c, 1644, 58. Such specimens of blasphemy were com mon in the sermons, and they were patiently heard by the Parliament. * Stanton's Sermon, Rvpes Israelis, 1644, 24, 25. Flatteries were often ad ministered hy the preachers. Lockyer, in 1 616, says to the Commons, " I want ability to give milke to babes, much more to give strong cieate to such strong men as you." 238 The Book of Common Prayer; not to flye, but now if ever to stand to it and to fight for their religion, laws, and Christian liberties 8." These men so acted at Edgehill, and many preachers afterwards aUuded to this battle, in order to encourage the Parliament to prose cute the war. The conduct of MarshaU and his brethren was most disgraceful to their character as ministers of the Gospel. " AU pulpits," says Fuller, " in the Parhament's quarters must be made like the whole earth -before the building of Babel, of one language and of one speech, or else aU may be destroyed by the mixture of other doctrines '." It certainly was so on the question of war, though on other subjects the pulpits soon uttered the most contradictory opinions. "I know that many have taken great pains to prove it lawful to make use of armes in defence of religion ; but I shah make bold to go one step further, and not only to preach but presse" the saints to put on, keepe on, and use manfuUy, wea pons of offence against the brats of Babylon. And I shall here boldly affirme, that he who now startles and staggereth, delayeth and refuse th to bear and use armes against the pre lates, papists, atheists, is no other than a rebell and traytor against God." This preacher says, " AU of most men's reli gion hath been bound up in a Booke of Common Prayer ;" and adds, "It were an excellent way to fetch in men and money for the Parliament's aid, to assure them they should have a Masse-book instead of Common Prayer and Bibles u." s Vicars's. God in the Mount, 201. " One pree.ehed in the Tower church in a buff-c.v.t and a scarf. He told the people they were all blessed that died in thi-, cnuse." Wharton's Troubles of Laud, 210. "The whispers of the corner passed into the noise of a camp, and the rumours of the street into the sound ofthe trumpet, 'the cloud like an band became a magazine of storms, and our new lights set us all on fire. The pulpit sounded as much as the drum, and the preacher spit as much flame as tho cannon. Curse yo Meroz was the text, and blood and plunder the comment and the use." A Loyal Tear ; a Sermon on Sin, 30, 1667. ' Fuller's History, xi. 207. Baxter was pleased to designate a work pub lished in 1640 a * a libel ; yet it actually suggested, by way of satire, courses to tho Parliament which they actually followed, though at the time no one imagined that their proceedings against the king won!! be so monstrous. " First, by such faire ways as you can, bee instant to f < ke from him his nega tive voice in Synods and Parliaments. Secondly, se<- if you can take from h'un the power of making laws, and let the Parliament be t>'« law-makers. But to please him, apivinfc him to be the ex ecutioner of the '.-ws." The Epistle Con- gratulatorie of Lysimachus Kicanor, &c, 4to., Anno Domini 1640, 10, 11. " Boden's Sermon. An Alarme beat up in Sion to war against Babylon, 1614, 25. We are told in a sermon that with the Rubrics and Canons. 239 Calamy gives the following story : " An excellent story of a young man that was at sea in a mighty tempest, and when all the passengers were at their wits' end for feare, he onely was merry, and when he was asked the reason of his mirth, he answered, that the Pilot of the ship was his Father, and he knew his Father would have a care of him." Such was the story ; and Calamy uses it as an encouragement to the war: "Our heavenly Father is our Pilot, He sits at the sterne, and though the ship of the kingdom be ready to sinke, yet be of good comfort, our Pilot will have a care of us x." Burnet's censure is just, though severe: — "Among the many heresies this age hath spawned, there is not one more contrary to the whole design of religion, and more destruc tive of mankind, than is that bloody opinion of defending rehgion by arms, and of forcible resistance upon the colour of preserving religion. When I reflect on the late times, I wonder much how any can be guilty of the error of thinking it was the cause of God was then fought for?." Neither does he countenance the notion that the war was caused by the proceedings of the lung. The Scots " were as forward in pressing for England's uniformity with Scotland, as they were formerly in condemning the design of bringing Scotland to an uniformity with England. Their demands were un justifiable, so that the foUowing war cannot be said to have gone on the principles of defending religion, since his Majesty was invading no part of the established rehgion : and for Scotland's part in it, no sophistry wiU prove it defensive z." a soldier who was mortally wounded at Newbury, cried out, "0 that I had another life to lose for Jesus Christ. Let this speech live in you after his death." Hill's Sermon, &c, 16-14. If such a speech were uttered, the poor man must have been awfully deluded by his religious teachers. Calamy said in 1643, "An excellent thing for a minister to die preaching, and a. soldier to die fighting." Sermon, 1613, 58. " If Christ will set up His throne upon millions of carcases of the slaine, it well becomes all the elders to rejoice and give thanks." Caryl's Sermon, J611, 46. " Calamy's Sermon to the Lords, 1613, 56, 57. Tlie story of the youth has often been told in our own times in pulpits and on platforms, and most persons have regarded the circum stance as recent. It has been given in tracts and celebrated in verse, with this difference only, that in the modern versions child is substituted for young man. The story was evidently an old one in 1613. This shews the ne cessity of not paying much attention to religious stories of modern times, which may he only old tales in a new dress, or merely pious frauds. y Burnet's Vindication of the Church of Scotland, 1673, Preface, 223. * Burnet's Vindication, 211. Bur- 210 The Book of Common Prayer ; In his Sermons and Tracts, Burnet is as strong in his denun ciations against the king's enemies as any bishop or divine of the reign of Charles II. He did not hesitate to condemn both Presbyterians and Independents for the part which they took in the war with their sovereign a. net was no less severe against the Presbyterian system. Of one of the Kirk courts he says, " They will search long ere they find a divine warrant for this court, unless they vouch Mary Mitchelson's testimony for it, whose hysterical distempers were given out for prophecies. I look upon a portion of physick as the best cure for him who can think a national synod ac cording to the model of Glasgow is the kingdom of Christ on earth, or that court to which he hath committed his authority, for he seems beyond the power or conviction of reason." 181, iai. • Speaking of January 30, Burnet says, " It were better to strike it out of our Kalendar, and to make our January determine on the 29th, and add these remaining days to February. But, a' as ! this cannot be done ; we cannot wipe out this blot. What was done can never be forgotten : it cannot by others, and by us it ought not to be forgotten. The cry was loud on earth, but much louder in heaven. The whole world lookt on with astonishment, not knowing whether more to ad mire the heinousness of the crime, the wickedness of the actors, or the pa tience, and constancy of the sufferer." He mentions the prayer of the peo ple to avert the judgment: "But the prayers of this martyr went before it for averting that curse which he feared should (hut prayed that it might not) fall on his people." He alludes to the Ikon : " We have his character given us in such true and lasting colours, in that Picture which he drew for himself in his soUtude and sufferings, that it is perhaps a piece of presumption to take up the pencil again, and to add any touches to what is so perfect, that it may be made worse, but can hardly be the better for any addition." Burnet's Sermon before the Aldermen, &c January 30, 1680-1, 4to, 2, 7. He speaks also of the sufferings of Churchmen : "Those of the Church not only lost all that they enjoyed, their goods and their benefices, but they lost him who was their head on earth, who was, and still must be, one of tbe greatest glories of this Church." Ib., 27, 28. Of the Independents we read : " Those of the separation were not gainers by it : a new party rose up and took the game out of their hands; and when they had forced the Parliament and killed the king, they entitled the rest to all they had done, and pretended they had gone on truly according to the principles upon which they had set out at first." Ib. with the Rubrics and Canons. 241 CHAPTER XII. INDEPENDENTS. — TOIEBATION. — SECTS. — NEW KEEQBMATION. — CONFUSIONS.-— HEEESIES. — SINGULAE OPINIONS. — PETEES. — SCENES IN CHUECHES. — SOL DIERS. — QUAEEELS. — BUBTON AND CAEAMY. — CHAEGES AGAINST CAEAMY. CHRISTMAS-DAY. — PAST. — OXFORD. — DISPUTATIONS. — THE AEJIY. — HERE- SIES. — 1648. — EUMP. — INDEPENDENTS TEIUMPH. — TOLEEATION. — STRANGE SCENES. — PEOPHECIES. — CHEISTMAS. — HATS IN CHUECHES. — OXFORD. — GATHERED CHUECHES. — BAXTEE'S ACOOT/NT. — EEEOES. — BEAST-HE MIES. — CROMWELL-. — CUSTOMS. — DEES3. — THE TEIEES. — POCOCK. — SADLEB. — BUSH NELL. — CHAMBERS. — NFE AND SMOKING. — BEADING SEEMONS. — BAPTISMS. — NEW CHUECHES. — QUAKEES. — OEOEGE TOX. — NAMES. — ABUSE OB ONE PAETY BY ANOTHEE. In 1640 the Independents were an insignificant minority in the Parliament, only as a little cloud, which, however, soon darkened the horizon. But though weak in Parha ment, the Independents were strong in the army ; and after a few years the new model placed all power in their hands. From the period of their ascendancy in the army, there was no prospect of setting up the new Discipline. The war under their management came to a termination, the king was subdued, and the Parliament were at their mercy. Cromwell was in no small measure instrumental in manag ing the new model of the army : " He cuts the grass under the Presbyterians' feet, and comes out with a new project of a self-denying ordinance ; and an Independent army was soon found of spirit enough to purge a Presbyterian House of Commons b." b Warwick's Memoirs, 283: "Tlie zeal of some men," says Gauden, " to fet up Presbytery into its throne was such, that I was twice sent to by some members of both housts, and sum moned by the committee of the county where I live, to preach at the conse cration of this many -headed bishop, the new Presbytery." He declined the office; yet some others "did as offici"ii«ly attend on the Scots' Com missioner to set up Presbytery and de stroy Episcopacy, as the nnid is wont AM. in pictures to wait on Judith with a bag for Holofernes's head." Gauden's Tears, Sighs, and Complaints, 377,378. Gauden says of Independency, that "having nevi had any patent from any Christian king or people, pleads a patent (as doth Presbytery) from Christ Jesus, which hath been, it seems, dormant and unexecuted these 1640 years." Ib., 381. Gauden, though be had complied too mueh at the commencement of the Long Par liament, soon discovered his error. 242 The Book of Common Prayer; Presbytery, therefore, could not be opposed ; and as nu merous sects rapidly sprang up, who united with, the Inde pendents on the principle of toleration, the parochial minis ters were left at liberty to conduct public worship according to their own inclinations, provided the Book of Common Prayer was not used. A strange spectacle, therefore, was exhibited in many parishes. The removal of Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer opened a floodgate, through which errors and heresies of the wUdest land rushed in and overspread the land. Long sermons were preached, long extempore prayers were uttered, while the most singular opinions were propagated. Some doctrines were rejected as popish, others were positively denied, and unheard-of novel ties were broached. It was urged that the Reformers did the best they could according to their light, which was dim and uncertain, and that the Eeformation was very imper fect. Each year produced new sects, each with its own peculiar opinions. Lilburn mentions forty new sects in the army c. Most characteristic descriptions are given by Pres byterian writers of the confusion that existed after the abolition of Episcopacy: "Amsterdam, Poland, Transyl vania, places most infamous for heresies, are now righteous, compared with England, which in so short a space has broached or entertained above 160 errours, many of them damnable. Satan having found the usefulness of that sex for seduction, upon all occasions makes use of them. Doe not women, whom the Apostle permits not to speak in the church, presume to preach and vent their brainsick fancies? In eighty years there did not arise amongst us so many hor rid opinions and blasphemous heresies under Episcopacy, as have risen in these few years since we have been without government ; and in those daies the errors that were waUced in darknesse, and in ours they outface the sun 4.'" c Some objected to the old pulpits, because they had been abused by the Papists; others wished to pull down the churches for the same reason. Even the reading of the Scriptures was condemned as a human ordinance. Hodges's Scripture Catechism, 146, 147, 156 — 158. " Too much of Rome was retained, and the land hath not been purged of it to this day." Scud- der's Sermons, 1644, 19. A Cranford's H&reseo-Machia ; a Sermon before the Lord Mayor, 1646, 5, 2£), 45. "Liberty of conscience," said Case, "may improve itself into liberty of estates, and liberty of wives." with the Rubrics and Canons. 243 Edwards gives a catalogue of 176 errors and heresies in 1646, and still more remarkable scenes occurred at a later period. He mentions "Denne, a great sectary, who in the bishops' times was a high-altar man. He hath put down aU singing of Psalms. He preaches and prays, and after he hath done he caUs to know if any be not satisfied ; and then they stand up that will object, and then he answers." Of Paul Hobson we read : " This man, when he was in the army, wherever he came he would preach in the churches, where he could get pulpits. The last is one Mr. Peters, the solicitor-general for the Sectaries, who came out of New England; the vicar- general and metropolitane of the Independents; that ubiquitary perturber of, solicitor, and stickler at, most of our late elections." A singular specimen is given from one of Peters's sermons : " In Hol land, an Anabaptist, a Brownist, an Independent, a Papist, could aU live quietly together, and why should they not here ? In the army there were twenty several opinions, and they could hve quietly together." Edwards assures us that in one sermon Peters said, " What a stirre there was about a king, as if we could not live without one." In another he was not a httle sarcastic: "I had rather hve under Ga maliel's government than under any of the Presbyterians e." Case's Sermon, 1647, 34, "As if it were a small thing for u3 to be the common sewer of other countries, in which the confluence of strange opi nions should meet, unlesse we add something of our own. I believe we have added some which other places and ages scarce ever dreamed of, though it be a dream, that all Churches are dissolved, ordinances lost, and not to he recovered till new apostolical com missions drop down from heaven among ns." Bowles's Sermon, 1648, 8. Gau den remarks, that "The ejection of Episeopaey, like the banishment of St. Chrysostom out of Constantinople, hath hitherto been attended and fol lowed in England with great earth quakes and terrible shakings of other men's palaces and houses, as well as those of bishops, whose turning out of the House of Lords made so wide a doore and breach to that house, that none of those peers could lon;: rf-iy within those walls; the ju.-'- - of Heaven (as some conjecture), sr . ¦.• e- taliating men's passions with speed upon tlieir own heads." Garden's Tears, Sighs, 4c, 650,651. Laud's words were prophetic : "The effects of this eclipse may work further than is yet thought on, and the blackness of it darken the temporal lords' power more than is yet feared." Wharton's Remains, &c, 187. • Edwards's Gangrana, 1616, — 27 36, 76, 89, 98, 182, 183; Gangrcsna part ii. 84; part iii. 120, 121, 123. Among the errors, he mentions the alleged necessity of receiving the Lord's Supper with hats on. "All human learning must go down; and women may preach." He mentions " Ten or eleven women in one town who hold it unlawful to hear any man preach, he- cause they must not he like those r2 244 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; It was common for persons in a congregation to call to ministers in the pulpits. Edwards states, that on one occa sion, as he was leaving the pulpit, a gentleman in scarlet met him and said : " Sir, you speak against the preaching of soldiers in the army ; but I assure you, if they may not have leave to preach they will not fight." " Some soldiers have gone into the parish churches, and put by the godly ministers who should preach, and by force against the minis ters and people have set up captains and others to preach f." After the surrender of Oxford, the soldiers frequently en tered St, Mary's pulpit. The Parliament issued a prohi bition, which however was not regarded. " Their open and frequent preaching in the Universitie of Oxford doth most of all declare their impudencie; and that in the puhlike schools in Oxford to preach daUy, and that against human learning, as they did for some time." When the general prohibited the practice in the Schools, it was continued in Christ Church. Some preached sitting, others in their hats. Ereshmen at Cambridge are mentioned by Edwards as preach ing in that town : " It is thought these freshmen are gather ing, or will shortly gather, churches." "The Sectaries often," he says, "give the lie to the preachers in the pulpit g." AU these evils the Presbyterians thought would have been prevented by their Discipline : " If the Parliament had seen and known what now they do, what a floodgate of women in Timothy, "ever learning, &c." Two gMjtlemen who went to hear a woman preach told her of Mil ton's doctrine of divorce. She replied that she should look into it, " as she had au unsanctified husband that did not » .'Ik in the nay of Sion, nor speak the ImgURge of Canaan:" Edwnrd3 states thi!' she afterwards went off with another man. Part.ii. 11. Bishop Hall, in the last speech made iu the Loi'd3 by a bishop, said : " I beseech you to consitler what it is that there should be in London and the suburbs no fewer than fourscore congregations of several sectaries, as I have been credibly informed, instructed by guides fit for them." Pari. Hist., x. ' Edwards's Gangreena, 102, 107, 108, 111. e Gangr&na, part i. 139; part ii. 20, 173; part iii. 23, 27, 30. Colonel Hewson once forced a minister from the pulpit and occupied it himself; on another, he interrupted the minis- ter; and iu one church the soldiers under his command made a fire and smoked tobacco. Gangreena, 252, 253, Iu Oxford the Presbyterians set about a new reformation, which consisted only in pulling down. They discovered that the cap and the hood were as popish as the surplice; hut the at tempt to set them aside was prevented by the exertions of a few members of the University. Pope's Life of Ward, 34—36, 40. with the Rubrics and Canons. 245 damnable heresies, errors, blasphemies and practices, are come in upon us since we have been without Church government, they would not let this Church have been so long without one, but would have prepared and provided to have set up a new when they took down the old. This land is become already a chaos, a Babel, another Amsterdam, yea, worse ; but if a general toleration should be granted, England would quickly become a Sodom, an Egypt, Babylon, yea, worse than all these. A toleration is the grand design of tho devU, his masterpiece." - Burton, who had formerly written against Cosin, and recently against Laud, was now an In dependent; and Edwards says that his conduct was worse than " Cosin's Devotion, Montague's Popery, Bishop Laud's Altars, and bowing at the Name of Jesus h." When the quarrel commenced between the Independents and the Presbyterians, the latter had not renounced the doctrine of the lawfulness of a form of prayer, though they rejected the Common Prayer. Edwards says : " I challenge you in all your reading to name one divine of note, and orthodox, that ever held set forms of prayer prescribed un lawful, excepting Independents. I never heard that any of you five ever used the Lord's Prayer, it being now made to be a note of a formalist." He also charges the Independents with being the first to lay aside the use of the Liturgy after the meeting of the Long Parliament : " Is that a due respect to the peaceable and orderly reformation, to see i;. churches (where you and other ministers of your way have preached) great tumults and disorders committed by your followers against the use of any part of the Liturgie, and yet never to reprove them for it, nor to teach them to wait till the Par hament would settle things ? Which of you have preached " Gangreena, 114,120, 121, 127, 128. Elsewhere Edwards says of Burton, that he now agreed " with Canterbury and Poeklingtou. In all their writings I doe not find such rancorous malicious passages against the general Assembly as in this booke of Mr. Burton's." Part iii. 245. He retorts upon him his former nonconformity : " To see this man who will not yield to bishops in a ceremony, afterwards yield to the people, and submit to base conditions, as to forbear baptizing some of his people's children, and to let singing of Psalms bo suspended, and all to enjoy his ministry in the Cliurch." lb., 246. In 1615 the city of London, in a pe tition for the settlement of Church government, state that in one parish " there were instances of women preachers hi those meetings." Pari. Hist., xiv. 20S. 246 The Book of Common Prayer; against the tumults in churches, or the lay-preaching, or the gathering of churches ' ? " It is not a little amusing to peruse the various accounts of the quarrels between the two parties when they had no Church to attack in concert. Even Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, the martyrs of Puritanism under Laud, were soon divided after the removal of the Book of Common Prayer. Prynne and Burton had assailed Cosin with unusual bitter ness, yet their attacks on each other were as bitter. Burton became an Independent, Prynne adhered to Presbytery, and each defended his own system. In Burton's estimation, Presbytery was an evil of no less magnitude than Epis copacy. His description of religion under the most flou rishing period of Presbytery permitted in England is by no means flattering : " England is generally ignorant of the mystery of Christ's kingdom." When Prynne quoted texts for Presbytery, Burton replied, " Alas, brother ! these very text3 our prelats abused to maintain their unlimited liberty of setting up their rites and ceremonies. Good brother, let's not have any of Dracoe's laws executed upon innocents. And remember how not long agoe the prelats served us. And shall we turn worse persecutors of the saints than the prelats were ?" Prynne had said, " None of us three sufferers suffered for opposing bishops' legal autho rity, or any ceremonies by Act of Parliament established." Burton replies, " Here, brother, give me leave to answer for myself;" and adds, that "for a twelvemonth before his suffer ings he preached against all ceremonies of humane ordi nance." By his own confession, therefore, he not merely re fused conformity, but actually preached against all cere monies. To have acted consistently with his principles, he should have quitted his living, since he could no longer comply with the laws of the land k. 1 Edwards's Antapologia ; or, A Pull Answer to the Apolosretical Narration, 1614, 98, 99, 2 14. Tlie Presbyterians complained of persecution under the bishops, condemned liberty of con science after Episcopacy was laid aside, and endeavoured to persecute others. k Burton's Vindication of Churches commonly called Independent, 1641, 21. Ludlow says Cromwell tried to reconcile the Presbyterians and Inde pendents, but found the work too diffi cult, "to compose the differences be tween two ecclesiastical interests, one of which would endure no superior, the other no equal." Ludlow, i. 238. with the Rubrics and Canons. 247 Burton had also a quarrel with Calamy. He was excluded from a lecture in Aldermanbury Church on the report of the clerk, who stated that his views favoured Independency ; and he was not to be permitted any longer to preach unless he would engage not to handle such matters in the pulpit. Burton refused to comply with the conditions, and was ex cluded. A controversy ensued. Burton charged Calamy with complying under the bishops, under the pretence of " enjoying his ministry," alleging that " such as now glory most in their new Reformation were among the last that held up the Service-book, as loth to lay it down till very shame left it '." Calamy calls him " a man not only of like passions with others, but made up aU of passion. Scarce any man since Montague's Appeal hath written with more bitter ness." Calamy retorts the charge of previous conformity on Burton, and to defend himself he enters upon some particu lars which probably he would gladly have forgotten at the Restoration. "I was one of those that did joyn in making Smectymnuus, which was the first deadly blow to Episcopacy in England." This scarcely agrees with Baxter's opinion, that the persons who began the war were Episcopalians. " Smecr tymnuus" was a most dishonest performance, since it was written by men who hitherto had acted as professed mem bers of the Church of England. Calamy never expected the restoration of Episcopacy, or he would have been more cau tious. He then explains Burton's allusion to his conduct respecting the Liturgy. A meeting took place at his house, at which it was agreed that all who " could in their judg ments submit to the reading some part of it shoidd be in- treated for awhile to continue so to doe. This is enough to give satisfaction for the late laying it down m." This circum- 1 Burton's "Truth Shut out of Doors; or, A Briefe and True Narrative of the Occasion and Manner of Proceeding of some of Aldermanbury Parish," &c, London, 4to., 1615. Burton's Ten dencies to Independency soon appeared, In 1643 he and Holmes refused to ad minister the Lord's Supper at Easter. Mercurius Aulicus, 181. Calamy re plied to Burton in " The Door of Truth opened; or, A Brief and TrueNarrative ofthe Occasion how Mr. Henry Burton cameto shuthimself out of the Church," &c, London, 4to., 1615. To this Bur ton answered in " Truth still Truth, though shut out of Doors ; or, A Reply toa late Pamphlet," &c.,London,16±5. m Calamy's "Just and Necessary Apo logy against an Unjust Invective, by Mr. Henry Burton, in a late B iok en titled Truth still Truth, though shut out of Doors," 4to., 1616, 11. 248 The Book of Common Prayer; stance occurred soon after the meeting of the Long Parlia ment, when Calamy and his brethren expected only some changes, and not the utter rejection of the Bock of Common Prayer. Calamy's. history is so interwoven with, and is so illustra tive of, the proceedings of these times, that other particulars of his erratic career may be given in order to complete our picture. Christmas-day was a stumblingblock in the way of the Presbyterians, because the people loved their old customs. In 1643, as we have seen, the Scottish Commis sioners managed to get the day disregarded by the Parlia ment, who assembled as on other days. In 1644, the 25th of December was appointed by Parliament to be observed as a fast, and Calamy was one of the preachers before the Lords : "This yeare God by a providence hath buried this feast in a fast, and I hope it wUl never rise again." " God is necessi tated to prolong our wars. For aU the blood-thirstie cava liers are but as so many shepherds' dogs sent out by God to gather His sheep together. God's people are now as sheepe scattered, as one from the other, to the reproach of rehgion ; and God hath sent the enemy as His dog to call them all together, and till this be fully accomplished these dogs will not be taken off n." But Calamy had once been as vehement for, as he was now against, conformity; and the fact was noticed at the time, both by Episcopalians and Independents. It was said, " That he read the second service at the high altar, preach ing in a surplice, bowing at the Name of Jesus, and was so zealous an observer of times and seasons, that, being sick and weak upon Christmas-day, yet with much difficulty got into the pulpit, declaring himself to this purpose — that he thought himself bound in conscience to strive to preach upon that day, lest the stones in the street should rise up against- him." Yet he subsequently instructed the people in Presbyterian " Calamy's Sermon, Dec. 25th, 1641, 16. On the same day another preacher said to the Commons : " Great cause had your Ordinance to command this day to be kept with more solemn hu miliation, because it may call to re membrance our sins and the sins of our forefathers, who have turned this feast, pretending the reverince of Christ, into an extreme forge tfulnesse of Him." Thorowgood's Sermon, Dec. 25, 1644, 25, 26. with the Rubrics and Canons. 249 principles, " after such a rate of confidence as if his educa tion and condition had been some superintendent among the Presbyterian provinces of the reformed Churches." As Calamy opposed the toleration of the Independents, the writer asks, " May not he that was ignorant of the will of God in the times of Episcopacy be justly suspected for weak- nesse and mistakes about His most perfect wUl in the days of Presbytery0 ?" That the charge was no calumny is evident from his own silence respecting some of the particulars. Bishop Morley mentions a conversation with Bishop Brownrig in 1648, as they travelled together to the Conference at the Isle of Wight : " I remember very well I asked his Lordship whether he knew Mr. Calamy, and he answered that he did. Pray, my Lord, said I, was he always a Nonconformist ? No, said he, far from it, in his practice as weU as in his judgment even, until the beginning of these times. How came he, then, said I, to be. so suddenly and so strangely changed ? Why, said the Bishop, he saw the tide was turning, and having a good opinion of his own parts, he thought if he was one of the foremost in the coming, in he might be one of the fore most, as you see he is ?." Burton charged him with bowing towards the altar. This he denies, and retorts upon Burton that he had "abased himself to the superstitions of the bishops, as hundreds hi this city can testify." However, he admits his conformity ; but he adds, " I made in a sermon a recantation and retractation of what I had done. And this I did before the times turned against Episcopacy9." ° The Pulpit Incendiary, 7, 8. " Master Calamy, another great evan gelist of the new way, sometimes com plied with Bishop Wren, preacht fre quently in his surplice and hood, read Prayers at the railes, bowed at tlie Name of Jesus, and undertook to sa tisfy and to reduce such as scrupled at these ceremonies." Sober Sadness ; or, Historical Observations, &c, 4to., printed for W. Webb, bookseller, near Queene's College, 1643, 32. p Bishop of Winchester's Vindica tion, 498. q Calamy's Just and Necessary Apo logy 5, 8, 9. Calamy's Subscription, signed by his Own hand, still exists. It was in HVil, not long before the troubles; so lli.it his recantation could not have been made until he saw that changes were coming. Iu those dnys men usually wrote their own form of subscription; and this is Calamy's: "Nov. 9, 1637. "Ego Edm. Calamy Sacrce Theologia Bach. ; jam admit- tendus et instiiuendus, ad et in Rec- to-riam De Rochford in comitaiu Es- sexice hisce tribus Articidis prascriptis ante'a me lectis, et omnibus in iisdein conleMs, libenter et ex animo sub- scrilo. Edm. Calamy." ClaoiXralales, 150. 250 The Book of Common Prayer; Bowing to the altar he denied ; the other charges were un- refuted. The errors which now abounded were viewed by the. Pres byterians as even more grievous than any which had existed under Episcopacy. " You have put down the Book of Com mon Prayer," says Edwards, " and there are many among us have put down the Scriptures. You have broken down images of the Trinity, Christ, the Virgin Mary, Apostles ; and we havo those who overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity, oppose the divinity of Christ, speak evil of the Virgin Mary. You have cast out ceremonies in the Sacraments, as the crosse, kneeling at the Lord's Supper; and we have many who cast out the Sacraments. You have put down saints' days, and we have many who make nothing of the Lord's- Days and fast-days. In the bishops' days we had the Fourth Commandment taken away, but now we have all Ten Com mandments at once, by the Antinomians, yea, all faith and the Gospel denied r." Baxter's account of the strange scenes during the war cannot be questioned. Of one battle, at which, as a minister of peace, he ought not to have been present, speaking of Harrison, he says, " I happened to be next to Major Harrison as soon as the flight began, and heard hini with a loud voice break forth into the praises of God, with fluent expressions, as if he had been in a raptures." He also confirms the reports relative to the army preachers and sectaries. In Buckinghamshire, where he was quartered, the sectaries, in opposition to the rector, appointed a dispu tation in the parish church. Baxter occupied " the reading- pew," a cornet and some soldiers "the gallery." Baxter alone disputed with the soldiers from morning till "almost night." He would not yield because they woidd have boasted of victory. Baxter forwarded an account to Edwards, which was published, though without the name, in the Gangreena '. ' Edwards's Gangreena. The Pres byterians rejected the apostolical dis cipline in order to bring in their new inventions. The result was a scene of immorality, error, and profanity such as never had been witnessed. The case is proved by their own statements, for none of the Royalist writers have given such an appalling picture as that which is presented in the sermons of the men who were so eager to reject Episco pacy and the Book of Common Prayer. 8 Baxter's Life, part i. 54. ' lb., part i. 56. He mentions that he " allowed Quakers and Anabaptists publick disputes half a day together." with the Rubrics and Canons. 251 Prynne is not a little severe : " Had Hugh Peters, John Goodwin, and these army counsellors lived in our Saviour's days, they would have taught St. Peter how to have denied his Lord thrice together with oathes and curses, and to have justified it, instead of going forth and weeping bitterly for it, as he did. And had Catesby, Faux, &c, wanted an advo cate, or Ghostly Father, to encourage them to blow up the Parhament and justifie it, the general, oflicers, and counceU of this army, and their forenamed chaplains, would have justified not only the contriving but the effecting of it, with their plea of extraordinary necessity ; there being no differ ence between the armie's proceedings and theirs, but that they would have blown up the King, Lords, and Commons with gunpowder : and the army hath now pulled and bat tered them down with gunpowder and arms ; and what they did only attempt modestly and covertly in a vault, the army hath done impudently against their trusts, duties, cove nants." His account of heresies is as curious : " Add to this the monstrous opinions broached publiquely and privately in the army against the Divinity of the Scriptures, the Trinity, &c, seconded w-ith publique affronts to our ministers, climb ing up into their pidpits, interrupting them in their sermons, and making our churches common stables in some places, and receptacles of their excrements u." Such a picture from a Royalist sufferer would have been considered as overwrought. No such scenes occurred under the bishops ; they were the fruit of the further reformation. Even the lawyers, as well as the ministers, became obnoxious to the army. Prynne teUs us that he frequently, during his imprisonment in Pcn- dennis Castle, heard them say, " that they hoped ere long to see and leave neither one lawyer nor parish priest through out England, nor yet steeple-house, or bells, which they Answers to the Bishop of Worcester, 23. " Ye see, hy sad experience, what fruit these men's teaching doth bring forth, who run uncalled, and thrust themselves iuto the place of publique preachers." Baxter's Answer to the Bishop of Worcester, 23. 1 Substance of a Speech, by William Prynne, 1648, 111. In 1647 the House of Commons met on a Sunday, as was supposed, for business. On coming to gether at 4 o'clock, Marshall was do- sirtd " to make them a repetition of his sermon which he had preached that afternoon at Westminster, not to the Parleaient, but according to his course." Afterwards the House rose without proceeding to business. Blen- cowe's S\ dney Papers, 21. 252 The Book of Common Prayer ; would seU, or cast into ordnance to fight against the Dutch \" After the expulsion of the Presbyterians from the Parlia ment, tho most prominent preachers were Independents or Sectaries. The Rump Parliament, however, had its preachers, but they were now Sectaries rather than Presbyterians, and the most extraordinary scenes were enacted in the pulpit. " Hugh Peters, the pulpit buffoon, was one of their oracles, who, instead of delivering the oracles of God, delivered the oracles of the Council of War to them." Peters preached at St. Margaret's Church on a fast-day, and affirming that a certain thing was not yet revealed to him, he reclined his head on the cushion in silence tiU the laughter of the people roused him, when he said, "Now I have it by revelation. This army must root up monarchy. This army is that stone cut out of the mountain, which must dash the powers of the earth to pieces." Walker relates in 1649 the story of the soldiers in the church of Walton-on-Thames. Six soldiers entered the church at the close of the service, one of them asserting that he had a message to deliver. The message consisted of five parts, and included the abolition of the Sab bath, tithes, ministers, magistrates ; and then, taking out a Bible, he said, " It is abolished ; it containeth beggarly rudi ments, fit for babes ; and I am commanded to burn it before your faces." Taking a candle from the lanthorn which he carried, he applied it to the leaves, and then putting out the candle, said, " Here my fifth is extinguished y." Many parish churches were gradually occupied by Inde pendents and Sectaries. As some of them- allowed the people to ask questions, the most singular scenes occurred in churches. Erbury, a Sectary, gives a curious account of disputations between his party and the Presbyterians. On one occasion he called out in a church to the minister, " You have preached long ; will you suffer another fool to speak a little concerning prayer ?" The interruption caused great confusion, yet the people insisted on hearing him, adding, that to refuse any " sober-minded man was an episcopal spirit." Erbury also x Blencowe's Sydney Papers, 61. r Walker's Independency, part ii. 34, 35, 49, 152, 153. with the Rubrics and Canons. 253 gives an account of himself. He was a sufferer " first by the prelates, next by the royal party, for my affection to the Par liament." However, with all his affection, he was charged with blasphemy before the Committee of Plundered Minis ters *¦¦ The devotions of the people must have been marred by the prayers : " One party prayeth against another as schismatics, the other preacheth and prayeth against them as tyrants, a third party preacheth and prayeth against them both as antichristian ministers, a fourth party preacheth and prayeth and writeth against them all as under the fourth beast. In a hurry, the old government was pulled down and none ever after like to be set up. When the brethren had got the keys, by violence, out of the hands of the bishops, neither Presbyterians nor Independents knew what to do with them, but to lay them by them ; they have either totally neglected to use them, which was generally the case of almost all the Presbyterians, or else fallen under the tempta tion of throwing them into the body of the common people, which all Congregational men do"." Baxter also condemns the Sectaries for their self-sufficiency and their censures of others : " The late generation of proud ignorant Sectaries amongst us have quite outstripped in this the vilest persecutors. He is the ablest of their ministers that can rail at ministers in the most devilish language. If any doubt of the truth of what I say, let him read all the books of Martin Mar-Priest, and teU me whether the devil ever spake so with a tongue of flesh before b. " Other Pres byterian writers are as severe as Edwards or Walker. " If " Erbury'sTestimony,&c.,4to., 1658, 313, 336. The Independents were op posed to any fixed income fortlie clergy, and he complains that one minister "had four pounds for every Sunday sermon, besides four pounds every week for government and gaudies and eating good cheer." ¦ The Separation of the New Sepa ratists condemned, 25, 131, 109. b Baxter's Saints' Rest, 1649, 86, 459, part ii., Preface, 202, 230, 239, 476, 481, 2. In this work, until the Restoration, the remarkable passage, in wliich Brooke, Pym, and Hampden were mentioned as among the glorified saints whom he hoped to meet in hea ven, was retained. Baxter, in the same work, defends an expression of Laud's with much good sense : "A learned and golly man is offended with Canterbury for these words, (' Reason and ordinary gi'ace superadded, by the help of tra dition, do sufficiently enlighten tho soul to discern that the Scriptures are the oracles of God'). Will any Christian deny that there is such a thing as ordinary grace, or that tradition is ne cessary to deliver us the Scriptures?" 254 The Book of Common Prayer; any of these whelps did but bark against any one, nothing but sequ-estration, turning men and their families out to starve, and some of the most factious and beggarly men put in. Have not their visible saints pronounced, vowed, sworn never so much, if the condition of their catholike cause so alter that what they have so promised and sworn be no longer expedient to them, a pretended enthusiasm, a new light, and they wiU do clean contrary, yet aU out of ten derness of conscience d." In 1649 the Rump abolished the monthly fast, on the ground that " set times for extraordinary duties are apt to degenerate into mere formality and customary observances." There was an affectation of a great concern for the interests of rehgion ; but the Parliament in this matter was really influenced by a dread of the Presbyterian ministers, who were now deprived of the opportunity of attacking their proceed ings from the pulpit on the fast- days. To check the ten dency to speak of pubhc affairs in the pidpit, it was enacted in March, 1649, that the ministers should " only apply them selves to their duty in preaching Jesus Christ and His Gos pel." In July of the same year the Parliament declared that any ministers who should " directly or indirectly preach or pray against- the Parliament should be judged delin quents;" At this time, therefore, the Presbyterian ministers were more completely muzzled in the pulpit than they had ever been under the bishops. In 1640 the pulpit was regu lated by the Presbyterians, who exercised their authority during several years ; it was now the turn of the Indepen dents, and aU preachers were prohibited from questioning tho authority of the Parliament e. Edwards, WaUcer, and Baxter are censured by modern Independents for their alleged exaggerations; yet one ol their most recent authorities fully confirms all the accounts given by the writers in question. " The wildest doctrines and speculations were sported in the most fearless manner, as if men had been resolved to outvie one another in outrages on Scripture doctrine and common sense. Prophecies and d Holiis's Memoirs. c Parliamentary History, xix. 95, 119, 120, 154. with the Rubrics and Canons. 255 visions, dreams and voices from heaven, were publicly re ported. New sects were every day springing up, each more fanatical and erroneous than the former5." Edwards and Walker enter into particidars, but their censures are not couched in stronger language than Mr. Orme's. In some of the early sermons preached before the Long Parhament, and in various publications, the members were assured, that by their means Antichrist might be destroyed and the prophecies respecting Christ's kingdom fulfilled. The year 1650 was fixed upon by several individuals as the period for the accomplishment of the great events. Had Presbytery been set up in its glory, the preachers might have considered its establishment as the fulfilment of the predic tions. Most of the prophets, however, lived long enough to see their predictions falsified ; and in 1650 CromweU occu pied the place in the country which the Presbyterians as signed to their Discipline. More unlucky prophets never existed than these preachers of war and rebellion. In some cases the people were urged on to war by arguments derived from the prophecies. "The very quarrel in which Anti christ shall fall is now begun in this kingdom s." The pul pit was degraded by sermons addressed to the Parliament, to persuade that Assembly that they were the destined instru ments in God's hands for the accomplishment of the pro phecies relative to the kingdom of Christ. " The new temple is built when the forty-two months of the beast's raigne and the treading down the holy city come to an end." The preacher fixed on the year 384 as the commencement of the 1260 years. " Now if wee should reckon the beginning of the beast's reign about the time of that councel, the end of it wiU fall in at this very time of ours. Assuredly the accepta ble yeare of Israel's jubUee and the day of vengeance upou Antichrist is coming, and not farre off. Certainly the work is upon the wheel \" One man says: "The prophecies in the Revelation serve to foreshow that the ruine of Anti christ shall in good part be brought to passe by the sword'." ' Orme's Life of Owen, 3S5. A New Plea for the Parliament, 16. h Gillespie's Sermon, 1644, 4to., 9, 37, 3S. 1 Hickes' Sermon, 1655, 4to., 42. 256 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; Another remarks : " If so, then the time comes out in 1650, as appears to any that shaU adde to 360. And before these things come to passe Rome shall be destroyed, whose last scene is now acting, and hor ruine at handk." "The great earthquake draws neare, if it be not already entered. I much suspect the last twenty-six years ever since the troubles in Bohemia. I much more suspect the last seven or eight years ever since the stirres began in Scotland ; but most of all these last foure years ever since that, by the endeavours of this noble Parliament, the prophets are begun to be raised np as it were from the dead." " The 1260 years," he adds, " grow towards their full period of expiration V " If we leave ancient prophecies, and peruse but the historie of these latter yeares, what can we conclude lesse then the initials of Christ's kingdome, or at least the prognostics of His reigne™ ?"' The year 1650 arrived, and the Long Parliament, which was to be the instrument for the overthrow of Antichrist, no longer existed. Its very name was a byeword. In the absence of all discipline, the only rule which ap pears to have prevailed was to avoid every practice which hud ever been observed by Papists. On no other principle can we account for the irreverent custom of sitting covered in churches, now so common : " Much dispute there was of late about adherent and inherent holinesse of churches, and it was accounted a sinne to be covered in them; and it ia now a punishment in some not to be covered, a punishment Tlie opposition to gathered churches was afterwards disco*, ered in the pro phecies: "That will not suffer Christ to reign King, Priest, and Prophet in His own house; that will not suffer Christ to choose His own Church out of the world, hut will choose for Him, and Christ must either be content with a v. hole parish, and a whole king dom, and m the whole to be II is Church, or else this beastly whorish spirit will allow lliin no Church at all." The Breaking of the Day of God, by Gerard Winstanley, 12mo., 1658. k Gowc-r's Sermon to the Commons; Things now a-doing, 1644, 4. The year 1650 wu.-. mentioned in a sermon to the Comr.ons in 1611 : "It casts the beginning of the accomplishment of this prophecy upon the 1650 yeare. But Rome must fall before that." Symonds' Sermon, 1641. 1 ReVnPr's Sermon, &c; Babylon's Ruining Earthquake, 1644, 28. "' Caryl's Sermon, &c, 1644, 34. When Prynne was imprisoned in 1651, some of the soldiers were accustomed to repair to him to converse with him respecting the " expected personal reign of Christ ;" and he says, "These formerly confident swordsmen were so nonplussed, that they had not one word to reply." A True and Perfect Narrative of what was done, &c. be tween Mr. Prynne and tho Old and Newly forcibly Late Secluded Mem bers, &c, 4to., 1659, 78, 79. with the Rubrics and Canons. 257 for the winde and weather, from the roofe and windows ; so easily men fall from one extreme to another "." Even the insensible buildings were supposed to be punished by being suffered to fall into ruins. Men sat covered in churches to evince their opposition to popery, or because the Church of England had prohibited such irreverence. Although festivals were abolished, Christmas-day was still observed by the people. Even in 1644, notwithstanding the parliamentary ordinance, the shops in London were gene raUy closed. In subsequent years the same tendency was manifest ; so that on the 24th of December, 1647, the Com mons put forth a declaration against disturbances on Christ mas-day. In the previous year, some persons who on this day had opened their shops for business, were publicly in sulted: "Upon Christmas-day, 1647, many gentlemen and others of the meaner ranke in this city of Canterbury, being religiously disposed to the service of Almighty God, accord ing to the Liturgy and orders of the Church (a heinous offence, I must confess, in these times of reformation), met at St. Andrew's Church, where Mr. AUday, the resident mi nister, preached to them a sermon answerable to the day. This piece of orderly and Christian devotion startled the consciences of the new saints, who, enflamed with fiery zeale, began to make tumults in the streets, and under the church windows0." The mayor endeavoured to enforce the par liamentary ordinance against festivals, and " was much abused by the rude multitude p." It is clear that the tumult began with those who wished to interrupt the serviws. Every year the day was more or less observed. In 1G.';7 Gunning and Wild were apprehended for assembling for worship on Christmas-day q. One of Thurloe's correspond- ¦ Thorowgood's Sermon, 16. • "A True Relation of that as Ho nourable as Unfortunate Expedition of Kent, Essex, &c. By M. C, a.d. 1648. Printed in the yeere 1650," 1,2. » Whitelock, 285. On the 24th of December this year, some officers kept "a fast, where Cromwell, Ireton, Co lonel Tichburne, and other officers prayed, and from Scripture exhorted AM, to unity and obedience to com mands." Ib. i Burton's Diary, ii. 314, 315. In Cromwell's Parliament, 1656, a bill was introduced to prevent the abuse of the day in future. A member said, "We are, I doubt not, return ing to popery;" another remarked that the day was more observed than the Lo'rd's-day; and u third 258 The Book of Common Prayer; ents teUs him, that he went on Christmas-day, 1657, to "a publick meeting-place, to hear one Mr. Geldart, who uses to preach upon that day, pretending the general hbertie." According to the writer of the letter, the preacher prayed " for his owne party under the name of orthodox." Thur- loe's correspondent then talks of getting the preacher re moved, yet knows not what plea to urge. The writer was Bowles, one of the triers at York, much applauded by Ca lamy, though in his correspondence with Thurloe he evinces a strong wish to persecute r. In 1658, " Some congregations being met this day according to former solemnity, and the Protector being moved that soldiers might be sent to suppress them, I advised him against it, as that which was contrary to liberty of conscience, so much owned and pleaded for by the Protector and his friends; but it being contrary to ordi nances of Parliament (which I also opposed in the passing of them) that these days should be solemnized, the Protector gave way to it, and those meetings were suppressed by the soldiers 3." After the decline of Presbytery,. very singidar notions of gathered churches began to prevaU in the country. As the Sectaries did not recognise their parishioners as belonging to the Church, the Lord's Supper was not administered in many parishes. During eighteen years this Sacrament was almost laid ¦ aside in England. Though the Independents and Sec taries held many of the parochial edifices, yet other churches were gathered out of their parishes of such as were denomi nated saints, to whom they ministered privately. The Sa- added,"One may pass from thoT-nver to Westminster, and not a shop open." Preaching on Christmas-day was deem ed superstitious, though not on other days. A defence ofthe people of Canter bury was published : " The Declaration of many thousands ofthe cityof Canter bury concerning the late tumult, pro- vokt by the Mayer's violent proceedings against those who desired to continue the celebration, of the feast of Christ's Nativity. Printed in the yo«u- 16 17-" ' Thorloe, vi. 711. ¦ Whitelock, 666. The festivals were abolished at an early period. In 1646 the journals of the Commons com mence with the 25th of March, Lady- day : " The parliamentary fast, which fell out on the feast of the Annun ciation. But both the feasts and fasts of tho Church had been somo time abolished -to make way for the new institution of parliamentary fasts." Park Hist., xiv. 309. In 1648 we meet with au instance of the desecration of churches by quartering of soldiers. Colonel Salmon made a complaint of the mayor of Exeter for unwilling ness in giving up the churches for his troops. Ib., xvii. 162, 163. with the Rubrics and Canons. 259 craments, therefore, were not publicly administered : " How many churches are there where there hath been no speaking of a Sacrament these fifteen or sixteen years? And is it not for them to mock God to make a directory of the manner of receiving the Lord's Supper, and not to make use of it, yea, by force to hinder the execution and performance of it ' ?" " Surely it was better to have the holy, complete, and reve rent Sacrament of the Lord's Supper administered and re ceived by humble and devout Christians, meekly kneeling upon their knees, than to have none at aU celebrated for twice seven years u." In Christ Church, Oxford, the Com munion was not once administered during the rule of the Independents; and the very person who was the last to administer it before his expxdsion, was the first to renew it at the Restoration T. Yet many of the ministers who acted so inconsistently received the emoluments of their livings, though some sects were honest enough to refuse churches, and to renounce aU support from tithes. A minister writing to ScobeU on this subject, says, " The want of means doth very much hinder the gathering of churches. We are not so happie in this country as to reckon many churches gathered, especiaUy in the purest way." A German minister, however, is men- ' History of the English and Scot tish Presbytery, 1658, Svo., 199. Some rejected the very office of tlie minis try. AB were alike preachers : " Have not one or other of them come to that passe as to reject all manner of minis try, all manner of Liturgies, even to the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments,- absolutely to condemn Infant Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, either wholly neglect- . ing it, or receiving it only with a small number of select members ?" Durell's Sermon, 1662, 4to., 10. 1 Gauden's Sighs, Tears, &c, 101. » The Reformation Reformed, 32. Not four persons in Oxford ventured to use the Lord's Prayer before their sermons. It was said that Owen was accustomed to put on his hat when it was repeated. Independent Catechism, 4to., 70. In churches in which the Lord's Supper was retained, it was administered very irreverently: "Some chuse to sit, others to stand, at the Lord's Supper. Some quitted the church if the Lord's Prayer was used." Long on Separation, 34 : "I will make affidavit that some parishes have been interdicted from the Lord's Supper by the hirelings that teach them, from anno 1642—1659." Hacket's Life of Williams, part ii. 107. It was_ the same in Ireland : "King's Inventions, &c, 216. "The churcli doors have been shut np, and, as is said, all wor ship of God for a considerable time together ceased. The slighting of In fant Baptism, the total neglect of the Lord's Supper, rendered the state of the parish churches deplorable." The Separation ofthe New Separatists Con demned, 122, 123. s 2 260 The Book of Common Prayer; tioned,. who with "a small parish, is gathering the godly of his parish, and resolves to enter into a church way accord ing to Christ." Sometimes the people of a parish petitioned for a particular minister. Alluding to a particular case, the same person adds, "It wUl be somewhat difficult to get a petition subscribed by the parishioners ; the greatest part of the parish, at least, and the greatest of the parish, are Cavil- liers. There be some godly, yea, very godly, as Cousen Langdon. But he is against ministers, at least against such ministers as come in such a way, or doe receive maintenance from the magistrate1." This case may be regarded as an Ulustration of the times. With all their zeal for the people, the ruling powers would not allow them to petition, unless their views were in accordance with their own. In this parish the godly were opposed to the maintenance of minis ters by law. Here was a twofold difficulty, — ;the majority were Churchmen, and the godly were wUd Sectaries ?. WiUiams, bishop of Ossory, relates the following circum stance which occurred in a parish in Wales : " The minis ter had been a trooper in the Parliament's army, and only preached, but did neither baptize nor dehver the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." This state of things had continued during eight years, but on one occasion he aUowed the bishop to preach. During the sermon the minister stood up, and told the people that "he preached lies," and ordered him from the pulpit, which he then occupied himself. The mi nister was indicted at the sessions at Denbigh by the grand jury, but the judge quashed the indictment. The bishop also tells us that certain soldiers on one occasion searched his house, "to see if they could find the king's picture." Of Wales he says, " Where I had an occasion to be an eye- * Peck's Desiderata Curiosa, 4to., 491, 492, 498. In some cases the rules of the gathered churches were pub lished. The following are curious: " Church Rules Proposed to tlie Church in Abingdon, &c. Published for the use of Abingdon. By John Tickell, MA., Oxon, 1656." "An Epistle to the Church of Christ iu Chippiu-Nor- ton, as also cert iln rules wliich Christ hath given to lib Churches to walk hy, approved by the Members of the said Church. Oxford, 1656." y The inconsistency of the Sectaries is admitted by some of their advo cates : " They did not view themselves as parish ministers. They accepted the parochial edifices, and received a portion of tho tithes : but in all other respects acted according to their own principles." Crine's Owen, 136. with the Rubrics and Canons. 261 witness of their proceedings, I do assure you they have ejected and deprived most, if not all, of the best preachers, some only for receiving their just dues, others for their loyalty, and some without once calling them to answer, or telling them why they were ejected ; and they have let their livings to captains and soldiers. That they might seem good gospellers to deceive the world, they have got some few novices and young striplings, and with one pocket- sermon or two, that they got, as was reported, from their brethren at Wrexham, and learned the same by rote, which were full of the doctrines and blasphemies of the times, they became, as they are termed, itinerant preachers, to be stow a sermon upon a congregation which they never saw before \" Baxter's picture of the state cf religion, drawn in 165G, when there were no bishops, no Common Prayer, no ceremo nies, but when each individual followed his own fancies, is suf ficiently dark : " It was put to the vote in an assembly that some called a parliament in England, whether the whole frame of the established ministry and its legal maintenance should be taken away." He admits that the Lord's Supper was rarely administered, and baptism, prayer, and praise, were thrust into a corner ; yet " a great part of God's service in the Church assemblies was wont, in aU ages of the Church, tiU of late, to consist in publike praises and eucharistical acts in Holy Communion." He mentions some who con demned such ministers as " would not give the Sacrament to aU the parish," adding, "the prelates would have some dis cipline ;" yet these persons " would have none." It appears, therefore, that while some sects would not administer the Lord's Supper to any, others would administer it to aU. Baxter's admissions prove, that the mass of the people still ' Williams's "Great Antichrist Re vealed : and proved to be neither Pope, nor Turk, nor any single Person ; but a collected Pack of Hypocritical Blas phemous Men, who have combined by a Solemn League and Covenant." Pol., 1661, 38, 39, 94; part ii. 84; part iii. 62. This singular work was ready for the press two years before, but the author could not find a printer. In the dedication to the Parliament he calls upon them to suffer the ancient Liturgy to ho restored without altera tions, except by " a full and lawful synod." 262 The Booh of Common Prayer; were anxious for Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. He represents the people as careless, and inclined to "the prelatical party." " If it be a case where they can but say that the prelatical divines are of another judgment, how immoveable are they ?" " The people are taught that we are not of their pastors." He alludes to the Episcopal clergy in this case, and says, " I know that some of these men are learned and reverend, and intend not such mis chievous ends as those. The hardening men in ignorance is not their design, but this is the chief thing effected." It is evident from Baxter's account, that the Episcopal men, as he caUs them, were making their way with the people amidst the confusions and blasphemies which abounded in the land. "The Sectaries," says he, "teU us that we should go to plough and cart, and labour for our hving." He admits also that many ministers were devoted to business, and " are such as the Sectaries would have them bea." Though Baxter did not administer the Lord's Supper under the bishops, yet he blames the Sectaries for following his ex ample under the Commonwealth: "It is suspicious to see men hang loose from all our Churches, and join with none, nor communicate in the Sacraments V We have a striking confirmation of the accuracy of the accounts of this period given by Baxter and others, from the pen of a layman, and a magistrate in the county of Devon. Among those who " were oonvented for nonpayment of tithes, were some who pleaded • Baxter's Reformed Pastor, 8vo., 1656. Preface, 80, 112, 198, 236. " Others will have no bishops, nor any thing that belonged to bishops, but only their good lands and houses, the spoiles of those Egyptians. Others will have no presbyters, nor tythes, nor temples, but arbitrary and unmer- ccnary preachers in occasional barnes and stables, or (sub dio) in open fields, who will do the work of Christ with out man's wages. It were well if their soldiers would do so too, in their holy wars, which are voted by some to be the work of Jesns Christ." Gauden's Sermon, 4to., 1659, 67. b Baxter's Key for Catholicks, 4to., 1659, 345. Hs alludes to the use of the hour-glass in preaching, 425. " Some," he says, " were against sing ing psalms, some against ministry, and some against Sacraments." He gives a curious account from Mr. Nor ton of New England of a case of sepa ration. The congregation chose " un learned men, and would receive and endure none that had human learn ing." To the arguments alleged, they would give only this answer : " That is your judgment, and this is ours." Baxter's Defence of the Principles of Love, part ii. 124. Manton, in his comment on James v. 13, alludes to some who scrupled singing Psalms at all. with the Rubrics and Canons. 263 that they would wiUingly pay if their pastors would admi nister the Lord's Supper, which some of them did altogether intermit : others did only exhibit it to a church which they had new gathered0." When the charge of neglecting the Lord's Supper, during these times, was alleged subsequent to the Restoration, it was pleaded, that in some parishes the people would not aUow it to be administered: "I knew a parish," says a Presbyterian, "where it was a long time disused, though desired, because the parishioners did not provide (though often urged unto it by the minister) decent and necessary utensils for the celebration of it. Possibly the expectation of a settlement might hinder the adminis tration of that ordinance for a time in many places a." Be cause they could not agree in the mode of celebration, the Lord's Supper was never administered in numerous parishes during many years. As a witness in this matter, Baxter must be regarded as most unexceptionable; nad his testimony is conclusive re specting the enthusiasm and errors of the period. " I have known poor tradesmen's boys have a great mind of the ministry, and we have contributed to maintain them whUe they got some learning and knowledge. But they had not patience to keep out of the pulpit till they competently understood their business there. And yet many of the reli gious people valued them as the only men ; and some of them shortly after turned to some whimsical sect or other e." The sects were not only whimsical, but some of them were blas phemous, for they rejected the Holy Scriptures. "Some men seek to pull down aU local churches, because they have been sometimes superstitiously abused ; possibly at the same rate, " Morice's New Inelosures Broken Down, 4to., 1657, Preface. ii An Humble Apology for Noncon formists, 1669, 142. The Sectaries were quite as expert in drawing pic tures of the Presbyterians : " Whe ther fools and knaves in stage-plays took their pattern from these men, or these from them, I cannot determine. What wrye mouths, squint eyes, and screw 'd faces do they make ? How like a company of conjurors do they mum ble out the beginning of their prayers that the people may not hear them; and when artificially they have raised their voices, what a palling do they make." " The Clergy in their Colours ; or, A Brief Character of them. By John Pry, a Member of the Parlia ment of England. 18mo., 1650, 33, 41." The book was condemned by the Parliament. « Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions, 215. 264 The Book of Common Prayer ; not one place of their conventicle meetings should stand." The writer alludes to those Sectaries who would not worship in the parish churches. But the Bible, as weU as the churches, was condemned. " Though the devU must needs be a cun ning orator, yet he never tUl of late had confidence to make use of this place of oratory to persuade Christians to burn all other books, that they might better study and understand the Bible, and the Bible too, that they might better under stand the mind of Godf." The cry of popery was now common, and it was raised against everything which was disliked, as weU as against everything not understood. "For everything that they hate this shall be the name, Popish. For Oliver CromweU him self, I weU remember, could not be carried to his grave with out their clamours, because there was black velvet, a bed of state, and a waxen image s." Baxter, in his later years, was strongly impressed with the idea that the papists mingled with the sects, and encouraged them in their errors, in order to produce confusion. At aU events, popery was advanced by the confusions of the times. " I begin to have a strong sus picion that the papists had a finger in the pie on both sides, and that they had indeed a hand in the extirpation of epis copacy h." " Thousands have been drawn to popery by this argument aheady ; and I am persuaded that aU the argu ments else in BeUarmine and aU other books that ever were ' Gauden' s Eierdspistes, 1653, 254, 397. Some persons told their people "tliat Latin acd Greek are the lan guages of the beast." lb., 409. Latin was called " tl c language of the beast, because the Pvpe sometimes speaks it." The Establi>hL'jent ; or, A Discourse to Settle the Minds of Men, &.C., 4to , 1654, 163. S-.me curious instances of enthusiasm are given hy Strype from Lightfoot's Papers. "John Hart, a soldier, said commonly, Who made you? My Lord of Essex. Who re deemed you ? Sir William Waller. Who sanctified aud preserved you? My Lord of Warwick." Probably tho soldier intended to ridicule the Cate chism. It was reported to tho As sembly that some sects held " that a child of God or-ght not to ask pardon for sin, and that the moral law is no rule to walk by." Lightfoot's Re mains, Preface, xii., xiii., xlix. No thing was too strange to be received by the deluded people in these dis ordered times. Some denied "faith to be the gift of God, which I have heard to proceed out of the mouth of divers of no small esteem amongst them with incredible impudence." Gery's Discnsjion of some Controver sies, jl2mo., 1657, 2. Alluding to Antinomians, tho same writer says, "And myself heard one of that sect say of himself, that he had no sin." Port Royal of Christianity, 129. s Patrick's Friendly Debate, part L 96; part ii. 109. h Baxter's Grotian Religion, 95. with the Rubrics and Canons: 26i written, have not done so much to make papists in England as the multitude of sects among ourselves. Yea, some pro fessors of religious strictness, of great esteem for godliness, have turned papists themselves when they were giddy and wearied with turnings, and when they had run from sect to sect, and found no consistency in any '." A Puritan minister in Worcestershire describes the state of his parish in 1651 : " You have been unanimous, though you have been a great body, and many of you a knowing people, having enjoyed the means for almost fifty years together, and that by a suc cession of very eminent and able divines, conformable Non conformists, conformable to the canon of Scripture, though not to the bishop's canons ; where the Lord raised up that valient and religious knight, Sir Richard Greaves, who by his wisdom and courage sheltered these reverend ministers from those episcopal horns, which otherwise had fallen upon them. And now at last, I have been set upon by the Sectaries, who sometimes have spoken to me in the middle of sermon, sometimes after, sometimes chaUenged me to a dispute k." No opinion was now too strange to find advocates. " Many wiU aUow no Catholic Church, denying any true Church at all to be now in the world. Some make everything a sin and error which they like not ; others count nothing a sin to which they have an impulse1." "Since the suspension ¦ Baxter's Defence of the Principles of Love, part i. 52, 53. Many from Presbyterians became Independents, then went off to some new sect, and at last betook themselves to Rome. Everard, a captain in the army, was a preacher for some time, and then be came a papist, and published an ad dress to Nonconformists to persuade them to follow his example. "Thou sands have been made papists in'Eng- laud, Scotland, and Ireland within these twenty years, that have been driven from us by onr shameful sects; yea, many sectaries themselves, when they have run themselves through as many sects as they could try." The Church told of Mr. E. Bagshaw's Scandals. By R. Baxter. 167'.', 30. k HaU's Pulpit Guarded, 4to., 1651, Dedication. 1 Gauden's Kieraspites, Preface. In 1648 the Presbyterian ministers in London published " A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to our solemn League and Covenant : as also against the Errours, Heresies, and Blasphemies of these Times, and the Toleration of them. With a Cata logue of Divers of the said Errours, &c, 4to., 1648." It is subscribed by fifty-two ministers. They give a strange list of heresies from existing works. Among them are these : " That the Scriptures are human; that the damned shall be saved ; that the moral law is no ride of life ; that there is no Church, no ordinance; and the error of toleration." Milton's doctrine is also specified : "That indisposition or 266 The Book of Common Prayer; of our Church government every one that hsteth turneth preacher, and take upon them to intrude into our pulpits, and vent strange doctrine. A volume wiU hardly contain the hurt that these Sectaries have done1 to this poor Church. They cannot abide our fonts, nor our churches, nor our bells, nor our marriage, nor our administration of the Sacraments, nor our burials, nor our prayers taken out of Scripture, as the Lord's Prayer m." " Some chuse to sit, others to stand, at the Lord's Supper. There are that abhor to appear as ministers of the Church of England by wearing any gown, or so much as black clothes in their officiatings : many of them rather than wear a black cap, chuse to put on a white one, appear ing a3 if they went to execution when they go to preaching." The people were as much infected as their ministers. " Some people so rule the tender mouths and ride the gaUed backs of their preachers with so sharp a snaffle and hard a saddle, that they are afraid to offend their great censors by putting the title of saint to any holy evangehst." The clergy were sometimes insulted in the streets by the Sectaries. "This makes many leave off wearing black, when they have cause most to be in mourning n." Under the bishops such excesses were unknown. The debates in CromweU's Parliaments are quite as en thusiastic as the accounts which, by persons unacquainted with the history of the period, are often caUed caricatures ; " 1654, Past-day kept in the house by three preachers, from contrariety of mind are a ground of divorce. Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, by I. M., 1644, p. 6. Peruse tbe whole book."' 19. m Pagit's Heresiography, 1654, Pre face, 54. Gauden, in 1659, mentions " Long prayers and sermons of their own invention, without reading any part of the Holy Scriptures." He tells us of cases of burning the Book of Common Prayer, and says they did the same with the Bible, " calling it an idol." The charge of not rending the Scriptures is repeated : " Seldome or never seriously to read, either pub- liokly or privately, any part of tho Holy Scripture. This they esteem as a puerile, business oidy fit for children at school, not for Christians at ohurch." Gauden's Sighs and Tears, &c, 90, 95, 154. " Gauden's Sighs and Tears, &c, 108, 247, 250. Mrs. Hutchinson says of her husband, " The godly party of those days, wdien he embraced their party, would not allow him to be reh gious, because his haire was not to their cut, nor his words in their phrase." One man, she says, "gave large contributions to Puritane preach ers who had the art to stop the people's mouths from speaking ill of their bene factors." She mentions another who "kept up his credit with the godly by cutting lus haire and taking up a game of godlinesse the better to deceive." Memoirs, i. 181, 196, 203. with the Rubrics and Canons. 267 9 in the forenoon untU 4 in the afternoon °." Another year the Parhament kept a fast in their own house, which con tinued tUl after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, three ministers officiating. In a discussion respecting another fast, Eeynolds was objected to for reading his sermons. "I doubt," says one, " we are going to the episcopal way of reading prayers too." On one occasion there was no minister to pray, and WhaUey told Downing that he " was a minister, and he would have to perform the work." Downing admitted that "he was once a minister." They proceeded to business, how ever, without prayer. In 1657 some objections were raised against a bill for the observance of the Lord's Day. Colonel HoUand said, " Divers godly precious people are unsatisfied about the institution of the day, and the time was scrupled by many godly men, who think that any twelve hours is the Lord's-day." This same gentleman, whose hght was now much clearer than it was formerly, said that at one time he would have gone to six or seven sermons in a day, but that now he could " serve God as weU at home with godly ser vants." The same year a fast was kept from 10 o'clock tUl 5 in the House. On another occasion a debate arose respect ing the place for holding a fast, some members being anxious to keep it in St. Margaret's Church ; but it was decided to " Burton's Diary, i. ; Introduction, xlix. It seems incredible, yet Baxter assures us that some persons were ac customed to leave a sect as its numbers increased, lest it should not be the "little flock" mentioned by Christ. "Because they read ('Pear not, lit tle flock') as if (a little flock) must separate from Christ's little flock for fear of being too great. Yet such have there been of late among us, who first became (as they were called) Puritans or Presbyterians, when they saw them a small and suffering party; but when they prospered and mul- tiplyed, they turned Independents or Separatists, thinking that the for mer were too many to be the true Church. And on the same reason, when the Independents prospered, they turned Anabaptists; and when they prospered, they turned Quakers, think ing that unless it were a small and suffering party, it could not be the little flock of Christ." Baxter's True and Only Way of Concord, 33, 34. We find cases of Churches consisting of two or three persons. A man was asked, " What Church are you of ? I am of Mr. Barber's Church. Mr. Barber's Church— a Church I have not heard of before. Pray how mauy members have you? Truly, said he, very gravely, we have none yet, but we hope we shall have more." The Doctrine of Schism, 1672, 12mo., 126. Even as early as 1646 Case said in a sermon, " If either saints may make opinions, or opinions saints, we shall quickly have more opinions than saints in the land." Baillie mentions a man who considered himself a whole Church. It may, however, be questioned whe ther the present age does not furnish a3 many sects, and as many novel opi nions. 268 The Book of Common Prayer ; hold it in the House p. Peters on one occasion, acting as chaplain, said that " religion was left by our ancestors hot, fiery hot ; but it was now fallen into lukewarm hands. Other nations say they wUl come over and choose their religion when we have agreed of a religion, and when we serve our God better they will serve Him i." The triers had power to admit into the ministry, to insti tute to livings, and also to remove suspected persons from their benefices. In short, they did the work which had been performed by the various committees under the Presbyterians. Their commission was derived from the Parliament, and they were to sit in judgment on the gifts and graces of the per sons who appeared before them for examination. If the views of a candidate for the ministry or for institution to a r Burton's Diary, i. 229, 334, 359; ii. 192, 267, 268, 372 ; iii. 13. In the Little Parliament there was no chap lain. " They began with seeking God by prayer; and the Lord did so draw forth the hearts of them, that they did not find any necessity to call for the help of a minister, but performed the service amongst themselves, eight or tea speaking in prayer to God, and some briefly from the Word." " Some affirmed they never enjoyed so much of the spirit and presence of Christ in any of the meetings and exercises of religion in all their lives." In 1653 the whole of the 11th of July was spent in prayer, " when about twelve of the members prayed and spoke till four iu the afternoon. The Lord- General wa3 present, and it was a comfortable day." Cromwell did not wish them to be occupied with affairs of state. Each day the' members prayed " one after another till there was a sufficient number present to make np a House." Those, who imagine this period to have been one of great piety, will do well to ponder these scenes, and consider whether any con temporary narratives give a more sin gular picture than even the journals of Parliament. Pari. Hist., xx. 181 — 183, 214, 215; Seobell, 236, 237. i Burton's Diary, . i., Introduction, xix:; ii. 346, 347. In reference to the charge of superstition, a writer asks, " Was there ever read or heard of a more superstitious generation than themselves ? Doe not most of thern teach that it is unlawful to ring the bells in peale upon the Lord's Day; to eat mince-pics, or phnnb-porrage, or brawn in December; to trim tho chnrch with holly and ivy about Christmas, or to strew it with rushes about midsummer ?" Fisher's Chris tian Caveat to the New aud Old Sab batarians, 4to., 1652, 63, 64. Baxter alludes to things neither commanded nor forbidden, but which some con demned, and instances their opposition "against wearing the hair of any length; against wearing cuffs upon a day of humiliation; against dressing meat on the Lord's Day; that a minister should not lift up his eyes, much less kneel down, to signifie his private prayer when he goeth into the pulpit; nor any other when they enter into the church ; that just such and such hours for family worship must be observed by all ; or, as other say, that no set times or number of family prayers are to be observed." Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions, 293, 294. There was more supersti tion in these things than in the prac tices of the previous times. In 1651, an order was made "that all cathe dral churches, whero there were other churches sufficient for the people, should be pidled down, and the mate rials sold." Pari. Hist.> xx. 90. with the Rubrics and Canons. 269 benefice coincided with those of those Commissioners, he was safe ; if otherwise, rejection or sequestration was certain. "We have not yet forgotten the triers that used to usurp Whitehall, who, being informed of the fall of good livings, would be sure to make a feast for themselves, and then others perhaps might partake of their leavings. How did they make babes in years presently to commence babes in grace r." The trade of informers was as common as under the parlia mentary committees. Every tale from a disaffected parish ioner was readily received, ministers were summonedfrequently before the Commissioners, and sometimes men were removed from their livings without even knowing the charges which had been alleged. It was a sad spectacle often " for grave and worthy ministers who taught them in the name of Christ on the Lord's Day, the very next day, pale and trembling, to appeare before them in some county committee com pounded of laymen, yea, and of some tradesmen ; yet these are the men that must catechise, examine, censure, and con demn s." Sometimes one witness only was called, and men were ejected. Baxter was appointed to act under the Com missioners, with others, in a committee for his own county, and he refused, " till the angry importunities of many epi scopal divines that were referred to my examination, and would else have lost their places, prevailed with me to keep them in'." Undoubtedly they believed that Baxter was a 1 A Private Conference, &c, 1670, 176. In these times the custom of writing sermons was common. " To make their zeal the more observable, they never went without the necessary utensils of pen, ink, and a large pocket writing-book, which was then the high note of the religious and godly." Nalson's Countermine, 25. » Gauden's Sighs and Tears, &c, 426. In previous times loud com plaints were uttered against bishops and patrons for forcing ministers upon reluctant parishioners ; yet the Pres byterians and Independents pursued tho same course. Under the triers, when some argued for the rights of the people, Needbam replied, "If there be no other supplies made for parishes but such as the parishioners cordially reverence and affect, the man to be chosen in most parishes would be a man in it surplice with a Common Prayer-book." The Great Areu-er Cast Down, 43. Where, then, was the liberty of the people, who would have restored the Common Ti-ayer ? * Baxter's Apology, 81. The Act for the triers was passed in 1033. Scobell, 279. In 1654, by Cromwell and his Council, Commissioners were appointed for each county in England and Wales. The names are given by Scobell, 335—347. Among those who, under this Act, were to ho deemed scandalous, were "such as have pub- liquely and frequently read or used tbe Common Prayer-book since the first of January last, or shall at any time hereafter do the same." In 1656 270 The Book of Common Prayer ; man of more sense and moderation than most of those who were likely to be appointed. Pocock, the Orientalist, was ejected from Oxford in the Visitation in 1647, but was per mitted to hold a hving in the country, which he nearly lost in 1654 under the triers. Charges signed by two per sons were exhibited to the Commissioners at Wantage. It was aUeged " that he had frequently made use of the idola trous Common Prayer," and neglected the fast and thanks giving days appointed by the Parliament. It was also al leged that he refused to admit some godly ministers into his pulpit. The witnesses deposed to his use of the Com mon Prayer, yet their only proof was that he usuaUy com menced with the words " Almighty and most merciful Fa ther." It was moreover stated that he had used a por tion of the. Book at a Burial, and adxninistered the Commu nion in the old way at Easter. One witness deposed to the words "Praise ye the Lord." A wandering Anabaptist preacher was refused the pulpit, and this circumstance con stituted one of the charges. - Pocock seems to have adopted the practice suggested by Sanderson, reading the Psalms and Lessons according to the Book of Common Prayer ; and the prayers which he used were framed after, or taken from, the Liturgy. Yet he took special care not to infringe the par liamentary ordinance. These charges, however, fell to the ground ; but soon after another was invented, nothing less than insufficiency. Some of the witnesses said that " he was destitute of the Spirit," and that his preaching was duU and dead. Such a charge against such a man stirred Up the Uni versity of Oxford. Not only were Wilkins, Ward, and Wallis roused to exertion, but even Dr. Owen went before the Com missioners, and assured them that contempt and reproach ,would fall upon them if they removed from his hving for insufficiency a man " whom aU the learned, not of England only, but of all Europe, so justly admired for his vast know ledge and extraordinary accomplishments." The interposi tion of these men saved Pocock from ejection u. liberty was granted to such as agreed in certain doctrines, though they dif fered in "some points of doctrine, worship, or discipline." But it was ordered "so that this liberty he not extended to popery or prelacy." Ib., 381. » Lives of Pocock, Penrce, and New- with the Rubrics and Canons. 271 In a parish near Oxford " they changed their minister as often, if not more often, then there be seasons in the year, and yet scarce afford maintenance for a single man to hve with them. It is past belief what foolish exceptions they have made against those men who have upon trial or other occa sions preached before them. This they had against one not unknown to myself, that he preached too long upon the same textT." Patrons were still allowed to present, provided they presented men approved by the triers. Ashmole men tions, in 1654, the removal of the minister from Bradfield, of which living he was patron. He presented a man who "passed with approbation;" but on account of a dis pute respecting the patronage he resigned, and Ashmole presented another, who was admitted x. Soldiers, it seems, were among the triers of ministers. " Hereupon they, with divers others, some ministers, and, as I remember, some sol diers, do sit in judgment at Whitehall upon the gifts, graces, yea, the particular opinions of all persons offering themselves to be tried by them." This writer lived at the period, and gives an account of what he saw with his own eyes y. Some cases of sequestrations under the triers were pub lished, and they afford most curious illustrations of the ini quitous methods adopted to remove men from livings, who did not faU in with the ruling powers. As the charges alleged were always numerous, it was easy to find some to suit aU cases. If men could not be accused of immorality, the triers could always fall back upon the charges of insuf- ton, Sec, i. 152, 156, 159, 16S, 169, 173, 174, 175. Writing to Thurloe, Owen says, "There are in Berkshire some few men of mean quality and condition, rash, heady, enemies of tythes, who are the Commissioners for the ejecting of ministers. They alone sit and act, and are at this time casting outouslightpretcnces very worthy men, one especially whose name is Pococke, a man of as uuhlameable conversation as any that I know living, of repute for learning throughout the world." Tliurloe's State Papers, iii. 781. Pa trick was presented to a living, hut hesitated on account of the triers: " My chief reason was fear of being examined and rejected by the triers." A London minister promised to in fluence the triers, and he consented. Caryl was one of the examiners. Pa trick's Autobiography, 31. Accord ing to the practice of the times, be had commenced preaching, yet was dissa tisfied. Ib., 212. He was ordained pri vately deacon and priest by Bp. Hall. v England's Paithful Eeprover, 218. 1 Lives of Antiquaries, 321 — 323. ' AFresh Suit against Independents, 24, 25. He quotes Goodwin's words : "The triers of the last edition are mounted upon thrones of authority and power far above their fathers the bishops." 272 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; ficiency or reading the Common Prayer. In 1654 Sadler published his case, dedicating- it to the Lord Protector, craving protection from " the malignancy of prejudice, even the prejudice of Mr. Nye, the Commissioner." Nye had acted a most unjustifiable part in the business ; and Sadler gives a singular picture of the proceedings of the body, who had, "by their informers, intelligence from all parts," and who refused men solely because their " answers were not to their mind," on which ground alone they regarded them as " in sufficient." Sometimes they alleged that they did not know the subscribers to a man's certificate " to be godly ;" at others, that a man had not " the gift of utterance." Sadler was ordained in 1631. In 1654 he was presented to Comp ton Hayway, in Dorsetshire, and submitted himself to the Commissioners for examination in London. He presented a certificate signed by various persons, which was rejected because the parties were not known to the Commissioners; and after waiting three weeks, he wrote to Nye and Peters, begging that he might be examined. On the 3rd of July he was summoned before five Commissioners. Nye pro posed the first question : " What is regeneration ?" and then followed many quibbling queries. At last came the question: "Are you regenerated?" to which Sadler an swered " Yes." " Make that out," said the Commissioners. They examined him long on this point, and in such a way that any man might have been rejected. This first exa mination was not satisfactory to the Commissioners, and in the evening of the same day he was again summoned into their presence. Nye told him, that the Commissioners did not approve, yet Peters stated that nothing was decided. After waiting a fortnight, he wrote to Nye, who did not reply to his letter ; and then Sadler pubhshed his narrative. Sadler was not presented, and yet no reason was assigned, except that the Commissioners did not approve. After the Bestoration, Nye attempted to defend himself from some of the charges which had been alleged against him as a Com missioner2. Sadler was a singular man, and in later hfe not ¦ Inquisitio Anglicana : or, The I Proceedings of the Commissioners at Disguise Discovered: shewing the | Whitehall, for the Approbation of Mi- with the Rubrics and Canons. 273 reputable in his character; but when he was presented to the living, no charge of impropriety was even attempted to be alleged. Bushnell's case also is curious and interesting as an illus tration of the times. He was Yicar of Box, in Wilts, and charges were aUeged against him before the Triers. An account was prepared for publication, which was not per mitted to appear until the Restoration. A charge was ex hibited against him in January, 1655, by some of his own parishioners, consisting of various items, as drinking, profa nation of the Sabbath, the use of the Common Prayer, at tempts upon his servant, and disaffection to the Government. One witness said he had used a prayer before sermon so long, that " the very boys of the street could repeat and laugh at it." Byfield asked one of the witnesses whether he repeated, at the end of the Psalms alleged to have been read, " Glory be to the Pather ?" It appears that he was accustomed to frame his prayers after the Liturgy, but the witnesses proved their ignorance by their answers. One man averred that he was not profited by BushneU's ministry, and that he was not weU reported of by the godly, and was a Common Prayer man. He appeared nine times before the Commissioners between January 1655 and April 1658. His own witnesses were frequently rejected, while persons who were quite un worthy of credit were admitted in support of the charges. Yet with these witnesses nothing coidd be proved, but his removal was determined beforehand. After so long a period of trial, therefore, he was ejected, and another person placed in his living". One witness was known to the Commissioners as a man unworthy of credit, and others were of the same stamp. To every one who reads the narrative it will be nisters, in the Examination of Anthony Sadler, Cter., whose Delay, Triall, Sus pense, and Wrong presents itself for Remedy to the Lord Protector and High Court of Parliament: and for Information to the Clergy and all the People of the Nation," 4to., London, 1654, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8. Wood's Athena:, iii. 963, 1267. ¦ " A Narrative of the Proceedin gi of the Commissioners appointed by AM. O. Cromwell for ejecting Scandalous and Ignorant Ministers, in the case of Walter Bushnell, Clerk, Vicar of Box; wherein is shewed that both Commis sioners, Ministers, Clerks, Witnesses have acted as unjustly, even as was j- o ;si ble for Men to do by such a Power, and all under the Pretence of Godli ness and Eeformation," Svo., 1660, 3, 13, 43, 52, 75, 76, 8S, 89, 95, 99, 1S7S 1SS, 1S9, 190, 229. 274 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; erident, that the witnesses were in some cases perjured, and yet no crime was proved even by their testimony. His narrative came out in 1660. Two of the Commis sioners, Dr. Chambers and Adonirem Byfield, the scribe to the Westminster Assembly, were especially marked out by Bushnell, and they richly deserved aU the censures which he has inflicted. Chambers published a reply to Bushnell in the same year, but not one of the grave charges is even attempted to be confuted. It relates to personal remarks made by Bushnell, and fully estabhshes his character. Thus Chalmers denies that he reported him to be "unfit to return to his living ;" and he admits his surprise that " such a fellow as I had heard Trever3 to be shoidd bring in articles against a learned minister, as I then took Mr. Bushnell to be." In reply to one of BushneU's statements relative to their activity, Chambers says that there was " little to be done in the southern part, which was formerly purged of scandalous ministers by the committee long since appointed by order of the House of Lords and Commons." And so Chambers falls in with the general designation, and insinuates that aU the ministers ejected were scandalous. Because BushneU uses strong language in his book, yet not stronger than the case required, Chambers, after denying that he had caUed him scandalous, says, " The Commissioners need not be suspected of injustice in outing Mr. Bushnell for a scandalous person, when the very language that comes from his pen speaks him scandalous b." One circumstance is mentioned respecting Byfield, which was more scandalous than anything alleged against BushneU, except the attempt on the servant, which was proved to be a fabrication, namely, his excessive use of tobacco. The state ment is doubtless true, since it is uncontradicted by Cham bers. He mentions it several times : " I appeared nine times before them, where Mr. Byfield ever made one, and (when the pipe was out of his mouth) was seldom silent." " Mr. Byfield, coming from a window (as soon as he had 0 " An Answer of Humphrey Cham- i of Box ;'' with a Vindication of the bers, D.D., Hector of Pewscy, &c, to Commissioners, 4to., 1660, 2, 3, 5, tho Charge of Walter Bushnell, Vicar I 81, 35. with the Rubrics and Canons. 275 taken his pipe of tobacco) where formerly he was, made a proposal that all should withdraw." "And yet, as zealous as he was, he could not forbear (no, not for that time) his beloved tobacco." " Mr. Byfield was playing with a tobacco- pipe (although he forbore to smoke it for that short space, yet had he the pipe in a readiness, and was fiUing of it out of Mr. Martin's box before I left the room.)" BushneU remarks, had he known that presents woidd have prevailed, " or had I been minded to have practised with him in that way, I should have courted him with a handsome quantity of Spanish tobacco, to which he was the most immoderately and scandalously addicted that ever I saw any man c." Here was a case of excess in a disgusting practice in a minister. Had these Commissioners been free from the practice, such a case in others would have been a proof of scandalous living. It was, indeed, more scandalous than any single act in the conduct of many who were ejected. It has sometimes been said that the custom of reading sermons was confined to the Episcopal clergy. We find, how ever, that it was common with the Presbyterians. BaiUie, in a passage already quoted, aUudes to the practice with some of the members of the Assembly ; and Pearce, in a reply to Baxter, states that the Presbyterians were more frequent readers than the Episcopalians. He instances Reynolds, "the most learned and the most eloquent of all your preach ers." Manton and Hickman are also mentioned as readers of sermons'1. Sancroft, writing to his father, in 1646, from Cambridge, mentions a sermon by Tines, one of the par liamentary preachers : " It was three-quarters of an hour, and yet he read it all ; two great faults in others, but in an Assemblyman ro more but peccadilloes e." c Bushnell's Narrative, &c, 15, 82, 205, 223, 2-15. Byfield died this same year. In a Common Prayer man, the excessive smoking would have been a foundation for a charge of drunkenness. Brook, the biographer of the Puritans, has the effrontery to say that Walker's charges against Byfield were not sup ported by evidence: yet surely the charges against Bushnell were not proved. Brook's Puritans, iii. 375. A far better judge, and a more honest writer, the late Dr. Bliss, says that Walker's account is "very good." Wood, Bliss's Ed., iii. 761. Bushnell died in 1667. Ib., iii. 760. ii Pierce's New Discoverer, 4to., 1659, 219. • Carer's Memoirs of the Civil Y\ ar, i. 18. 2 276 The Book of Common Prayer; A most singular picture of the times is given by Price, who was chaplain to Monk : " To let posterity see how far the Parliament's reformation had prevailed against the Liturgy and bishops, a very intricate case of conscience was put before dinner, Whether he could be a godly man who prayed the same prayer twice. Some were for the negative, but others said they durst not be so peremptory." At the same dinner Captain Poole said, "There never could be a quiet and lasting settlement so long as there was a parish priest or a steeple-house left." This occurred at Monk's table, not long before the Restoration. The writer gives an account of the General's march from Scotland. On their way Peters met them at St. Alban's. " Here we spent one day extraordinary in the church ; the famous Hugh Peters, Mr. Lee, of Hatfield, and another, carrying on the work of the day, which was a fast. Peters supererogated and prayed a long prayer in the General's quarters too at night. As for his sermon, he managed it with some dexterity at the first. His text was Psalm cvii. ver. 7, ' He led them,' &c. With his fingers on the cushion he measured the right way ; told us it was not forty days' march, but God led Israel forty years through the wilderness ; yet this was stUl the Lord's right way, who led His people crinkledum cum crankledum." Price remarks that it was said of an army fast in those days, "that it commonly proved the forerunner of some solemn mischief." They met to seek the Lord, " and in truth they knew so weU at what turning to find Him, that their seek- t» Af! er the Restoration, Baxter incurred much odium .from various persons for stating that some of the sects were accus tomed to baptize their converts naked. The fact, however, is certain. As early as 1646 Edwards states that certain men went about the country as dippers, who dipped "young maids and young women naked." These dippers were young men from twenty to thirty years of age. " It is an ordinary ' Price's Mvstery and Method of the Bestoration, 'Svo., 16S0, 29, 86— SS. A singular collection of petitions might be derived from the prayers of the preachers. One man prayed : "O Lord, get up upon Thine horse, and make haste into Ireland, or Thou wilt lixss more honour there than ever thou gotst in England." Allington's Apology, Preface. with the Rubrics and Canons. 277 custom amongst them to rcbaptize, and plunge women naked into the water until they say they feel faith *." Baxter was charged with uttering a falsehood. In his reply he admitted that he had not -witnessed the act : " My book was written in 1649. A little before, common uncontrouled fame was, that not far from us, in one place, many of them were bap tized naked, reproving the clothing way as anti-scriptural. I never heard any man deny this report. I conversed with divers of Mr. Tombs's church, who denied it not." Beina1 called upon for proof, when the Baptists were ashamed of the practice, Baxter says, "Had I not seen a Quaker go naked through Worcester at the assizes, and read the Rant ers' letters full of oaths, I could have proved neither of them. And yet I know not where, so long after, to find my wit nesses. The Quakers do not these things now, which many did at the rising of the sect ; and if I could, I woidd be lieve they never did themn." But the evidence is too strong to be controverted. In 1647, Oates, a preacher, was com plained of to the House of Lords for dipping women naked. " He dips women naked in the night, fit for works of dark ness." The petition to the Lords was signed by sundry ministers in the county of Rutland1. 8 Edwards's Gangreena, part iii. 189. The History of the English and Scottish Presbytery, 198. ' One person was severely beaten " for telling some soldiers, when he saw them in his own grounds dipping two lewd women in a pond, that he could not envy their churches such members." The Begal Apology, 16 18, 61. The same writer alludes to the public sanction of a man who pretended to be a discoverer of witches : " Have they not licensed a villain to wander about the kingdome, who by watching, fastings, and tor tures compelleth poor silly people to confesse themselves witches, and upon that accusation, and proofs as weak, they have lost their lives ?" Ib. This book was published before the death of the King was known to be designed ; yet the writer uses this remarkable languago: "If their homes should prove as long as themselves are curst, and God should permit them to fill up tbe measure of their iniquities by the accession of the murder of this king, which we do even tremble to mention, yet have some reason to believe they do designe, one of their members hav ing professed as much, and offered himself a Felton for that fact, yet never so much as questioned." The writer mentions a man of the name- of Hall, who said the Parliament were foolish for not procuring the king's assassina tion. The man was afterwards pro moted in the navy. Ib., 91. h Tbe Substance of Mr. Cart Wright's Exceptions Considered, 1675, 74, 75, 76. In two contemporary works, "Feat- ly's Dippers Dipt," and " Pagct's He- resiograpby," there are plates repre senting naked baptisms. These plates were not censured as false at the time. " In the very frontispiece of that book he discovereth fifteen species of them." Lee's Sermon on Featly's Death, 2-1. 1 Pari. Hist., xvi. 400—103. The petition also says, "Sometimes ho breaks into the churches, tln-usts him- 278 The Book of Common Prayer ; Of all the sects of this period, the Quakers, perhaps, alone have maintained their ground and their opinions till the present day; though they even are deteriorated in man} things, more especially in the article of dress. During these times they were very troublesome to the Presbyterians, who classed them with Papists. Baxter was troubled by them, and writes of them with bitterness. The Journal of their founder, George Fox, affords a singular illustration of the religious feelings of the people during the wars and the Commonwealth. In 1648 he mentions a disputation between Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Common Prayer men. The meeting was in a steeple-house. The priest was in the pulpit; a woman asked a question, and the priest said, " I permit not a woman to speak in the church." Pox disturbed the assembly by his interruptions, and the people separated. At Derby, in 1650, he hears the bells ringing for " a great lecture. Many of the officers of the army, and priests and preachers, were to be there, and a colonel that was a preacher V Fox is moved to attend the lecture. He mentions certain persons who came to dispute with him, and who denied the existence of Jesus Christ; others called themselves "triers of spirits." He speaks of one steeple- house as being very much painted in 1651, "its old priest being looked upon as a famous priest* above Common Prayer men, Presbyters, and Independents." He must have be- self into our pulpits, and vents most false and heretical doctrine." It is recorded tliat a 'female Quaker went naked into the chapel at Whitehall, while CromweU was present. A gen tleman stated tliat his servant-girl came naked into his dining-room while ho and several friends were seated at dinner. Kennet's Register, 40. George Fox admits the charge, and apparently justifies the act. In 1660, " William Sampson was moved of tbe Lord to go al several times for three years naked and barefoot before them, as, a sign unto them, in markets, courts, towns, cities, to priests' houses, telling them, so shall they all be stripped naked as he v;as stripped naked." i'ox's Journal, i. 572. " Some have been moved to go naked iu their streets, in the other power's days, and since, as signs of their nakedness." ii. 88. k We have various contemporary accounts of public disputations. " At two public disputations against Sec taries I ran great hazards ; at the first, 1650, there was a great rabble of Sec taries met together, who gave out un toward speeches against me. In August, 1651, about a week before the King came into Worcester, I was called to assist in » disputation against some Sectaries. This fulling out at that juncture of time, I was looked upon as an enemy to the Commonwealth, and thereby the constable was comuinndecl to bring me in prisoner to Worcester, to be there secured among the loyal ists." Hall's Downfall of Maygames, &c., 39. with the Rubrics and Canons. 279 longed to one of the whimsical sects spoken of by Baxter. In some places he meets with ministers who were "not parish teachers," though they occupied the parish churches. These persons had also gathered separate churches of saints. Others refused to use the parish churches ; for he finds one man in 1652 "who was a Baptist and a chapel-priest." Fox, by his freaks in various places, often found himself in prison. In 1654 he was liberated from one prison by Crom weU, who was wise enough to see that the man was not re sponsible for his actions. After his liberation, he remained for a season in London; and he mentions the opposition of one of Oliver's priests: "For Oliver had several priests about him, of which this was his newsmonger, an envious priest, and a light, scornful, chaffy man. I bid him repent, and he put in his news-book next week that I had been at WhitehaU, and had bid a godly minister there repent." " These priests," says he, " the newsmongers, were of the Independent sect." In 1656 the Fifth Monarchy men and Baptists prophesied "that this year Christ should come and reign upon earth a thousand years." Coming this year to London, he met CromweU's carriage near Hyde Park, surrounded by his guards. Fox rode up to the window, and entered into conversation with the Protector, who com manded the Guards not to interfere. At parting, CromweU desired him to caU at Whitehall ; and some time after he re paired thither. " There was one called Dr. Owen with him" at the time of his visit. Tombs, the Anabaptist preacher, is mentioned " as yet having a parsonage at Leister." Tomb3 said, "he had a wife and he had a concubine; his wife was the baptised people, and his concubine was. the world." On the fasts of the period Fox is very severe : " Divers times, both in the time of the Long Parliament and of the Protector, and of the Committee of Safety, when they pro claimed fasts, there was some mischief contrived against us ;" and he adds that the New England professors, " before they put our friends to death, proclaimed a fast." Fox saw the Protector just before his death : " and as he rode- at the head of his Life Guards I saw and felt a waft (or apparition) of his death go forth against him." The next day he feU sick; 280 The Book of Common Prayer ; Oliver's lying in state was displeasing to many as well as to the Quakers : " Now was there a great pudder made about the- i?nage? or effigies of Oliver Cromwell lying in state, men standing and sounding with trumpets over his image." When the Restoration was at hand, in 1660, a Quaker went into a church " with a white sheet about him amongst the great Presbyterians and Independents there, to shew them that the surplice was coming up again ; and he put an halter about his neck, to shew them an halter was coming upon them, which was fulfilled upon some of our persecutors not long after1." In 1660 it required no prophetic spirit to foretell the return of the surplice, which had never been abolished by law, and which therefore came back with the institutions of the country. It has sometimes been questioned, whether the statements respecting the use of names for their children by the Puri tans were not mere fabrications. " The Lord is Wear, More Trial, Reformation, More Fruit, More Joy, Sufficient, Deli verance, Dust," and other names of the same character, are mentioned in works whose authors could not have been guUty of fabrication, or of asserting things which did not exist™. Besides, we have the most incontrovertible evidence on the subject in the names of two bishops after the Resto ration, who were born in the time of the Commonwealth, ' when this peculiarity derived from the Puritans was still more prevalent. The Bishops "Accepted Frewen" and " Offspring BlackaU" were the children of Puritan parents, who indicated their principles by the names given to their chUdren. 1 Pox's Journal, i. 50, 75, 97, 93, 124, 141, 184, 243, 246, 247, 360, 379, 427, 501, 503, 510, 572. The "spirit triers," mentioned by Pox, must have been one of the singular sects of these times. Probably they added astrology to their profession, for he mentions one who acted as a fortune-teller, pretending " to discover to people, when their goods were stolen or houses broken up, who the persons were that did it." Ib., 260. "' White on the Sabbath, 1635, Preface. Bancroft, in 1593, gives the following names as common : — " The Lord is Neerc, More Trial, Reforma tion, Discipline, Joy Againe, Suffi cient, From Above, Free Gifts, More Fruit, Dust." Dangerous Positions, 108. Accepted Prewen had a brother named Thankful. There was also a Thankful Owen, who was one of the Triers under Cromwell. Scobell, 279 ; Wood, iii. 822, 833. Strype mentions several names of the same kind. Strype's Whitgift, 217. with the Rubrics and Canons. 231 The cause of the Presbyterians was ruined by their in tolerance. A junction with the episcopal party would, at any period before CromweU's expulsion of the Presbyterian members, have saved the king and aUowed them the exercise of their Discipline. But they grasped at too much. Having removed bishops, they desired more than episcopal power for their parish presbyteries. During a debate in 1648 in the Commons on bishops' lands, a member remarked, "More shame is it for the synod, that they, being the men who con demned and cried out against the pluralities of the episcopal clergy, shoidd enjoy far more than the corruptest of the bishops and their chaplains did ever allow of, divers of them at this time possessing two or three, yea, and four livings apiece n." They resolved, in October, that his Majesty's proposals were unsatisfactory on these points, the Common Prayer and the Covenant. In this vote the Presbyterians and Inde pendents were united ; yet the latter were opposed to the Covenant, though they concurred in pressing it upon his Majesty, knowing that it would be rejected. The Presby terians, in consequence of their extreme intolerance, were so blind as not to discover the policy of the Independents °. In December the same year, however, Prynne argued at great length that his Majesty's concessions were sufficient as a basis for an accommodation. Alluding to a clause in his Majesty's papers against heresy and schisms, Prynne pro ceeds, "In the extirpation of which I am certain we have not proceeded by an hundred degrees so far as we have actually done in the extirpation of episcopacy." Prynne charged the army with furthering the designs of the Papists " "The Church of England was no sooner overthrown, but some of those that had been most forward and busy to pull down, when they saw how sud denly the swarms of other Sectaries increased upon them, were forced to acknowledge that the constitution which they had destroyed was a groat told Gauden that Charles supported Episcopacy from conscience, not from State policy. Gauden's Tears, Sighs, &c , 606. » Pari. Hist., xviii. 109, 111, 113. The Presbyterians were the cause of all the evils both in the State and in the Church. Had they not discarded check and restraint to those errors j bis-hops and the Common Prayer, the which grew bold and licentious under the liberty they had procured." Col lection of Cases, &c, i. 38. Marshall errors and blasphemies would not have b^en promulged. 2 S3 The Book of Common Prayer; to prevent a reconciliation with the king. It was now voted that his Majesty's answers were a sufficient ground for a settlement. But it was too late: Cromwell's plans were matured; the Presbyterian members were seized; the re maining members were Sectaries and Independents ; and the death of the King soon foUowed P. From this time Cromwell became supreme in reality, though not yet in name. Liberty of conscience was pro claimed, except for the members of the Church of England, to whom the use, even in private, of the Book of Common Prayer was denied q. An engagement to the Commonwealth was soon devised which set aside the Covenant, and by means of which many Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians wero removed from their livings. The farce of a Parliament was kept up a httle longer. They were permitted the honour of sacrificing their king ; some strange votes were from time to time recorded ; and then their master, when his purpose was served, put a period to their existence. CromweU's policy was to tolerate all parties except Papists and prelates, and probably, had. he been left to himself, he would have tolerated the latter. At all events, their con dition was improved under his rule. Some of his schemes, however, were very singular. His plan for propagating the Gospel in Wales was certainly calculated to overthrow it. It was a system of itinerants, who travelled from place to place, whUe the regidar clergy were silenced. Vavasour Powell was the leader of this strange band. But when CromweU attained supreme power, they rebelled against his authority, and in 1655 sent up a testimony for what they called the truth. The document was signed by many magis- r Park Hist., xviii. 112, 404, 349, 411, 422, 423, 416. Hugh Peters had a baud in the ndixiinisf nil ion of Pride's celebrated Purge : " About 3 o'clock in tlie afternoon, Hugh Peters, with a sword hy his side, came into the Queen's Court to take a h>t of the prisoners' nami?s hy order of the Gener.il, as he Slid. When being asked by what au thority they were imprisoned, he an- swc-iod. By the power of the sword." Walker's Independency, part ii. 31. i The Directory also was slighted, with the Covenant. " Alas, poor Di rectory ! thou must give up the ghost too ! the spirit must the way of aU flesh!" Butler's Posthumous Works, 12mo„ 1715, vol. ii. 61. In 1618, "the couneiloftho army named two oflicers of every regiment to meet and seek God what advice to offer the General concerning Ireland." White- lock, 391. with the Rubrics and Canons. 283 trates and ministers ; and so far were they advanced in light and knowledge, that they protested against "keeping up parishes and tithes, as popish innovations." They call upon all the Lord's people to forsake such men " as those that are guilty of the sins of the latter days." In a postscript it is said that they waited in the hope that Cromwell wonld re pent: "and seeing God gave him time to repent, and he repented not, we have published this our testimony." The postscript also mentions attempts to suppress the document and to imprison the subscribers, and that Vavasour PoweU was actually taken by a company of soldiers and committed to prison '. This strange production led to another from other ministers in Wales, who tell Cromwell that they agreed not in the petition, " esteeming not only his person, as being before them in Christ, but also that government which God, by such signal providences, had called him to the exercise of3." When the war began the Puritans were called Roundheads, in consequence of wearing their hair closely cut ; but in a few years a great change was introduced among the Secta ries, who seem to have outstripped even the Rojralists. A Presbyterian minister complains most bitterly of the change : " Many ministers appearing like ruffians in the pulpit, I could no longer forbeare. All the days of that famous Queen Elizabeth, King James, and the beginning of the late king's reign, till which time 'tis well known, short hair was the guise of this nation, till of late years wo have changed both our principles and our practice together." " Tell me whether ragged rascals, nasty varlets, raggamuffian soldiers, tinkers, crate-carriers, jaylc-birds, are not partakers with thee in this ruffianly guise." He adds, " 'Tis observed by others that the greatest Sectaries in London are the greatest ruffians." Ho refers to the older Puritans: " Witnesse Cartwright, Perkins, Rain olds, Rogers, Dod, Brinsley, Hildersham, Fen, Wheatly, Prideaux ;" and then he mentions, " their effigies are to be' seen to this day in Oxford Library," as evidence of wearing r "A Word for God; or, a Testi mony on Truth's Behalf. Prom seve ral Churches and divers Hundreds of Christians in Wales against Wicked ness in High Places." 8 A True Catalogue, Sec, 10. 284 The Book of Common Prayer; short hair.- " Our short haire is our own, when many of our ruffians borrow their perriwigs (it may be) of some harlot, which may now be lamenting the abuse of that excrement in hell '." It would seem, therefore, that some men wore false hair, or wigs, which were dressed in a fantastic manner. CHAPTER XIII. COMMON PRATER. — PEOHIBITED. — USED IN SECRET. — PRIVATE MEETINGS.— MODE OP CONDUCTING WORSHIP. — RAINBOW. — SANDERSON. — WELLS.— TATLOR.---BErC3.iX TO THE KING. — SOLDIERS. — BISHOP OP ELY. — THE BOOK IN CHURCHES. — CROMWELL. — OXFORD. — RISKS IN USING IT. — BISHOPS DUPPA, BISHOP OP DURHAM. — IRELAND. — USHER. — MEETINGS AT ABING DON. — IGNORANCE. — BULL'S CASE. — CROMWELL'S CHARACTER. — MONK. — MARRIAGE. — PRIVATE ORDINATIONS.— SUCCESSION OP BISHOPS. — MARTIN'S CASE. — SINGING AND PSALMS. In this chapter it is proposed to give an account of the Common Prayer during the time of trouble from 1640 to 1660. We shaU find,, that while it was abused and laid aside by the ruling powers, it was secretly cherished and used by loyal and consistent members of the Church of England. The times were times of great inconsistency; and it is refreshing to gather the fragments of information relative to the conduct of many, whose names in those days of tribulation wer? cast out as evil, on account of their ad herence to the faith and practice of the Reformers. Many laid the Book aside in 1640, yet it was nominaUy in use until the ordinance, which established the Directory, quite set it aside. TJntU . then it was partiaUy used by a consi derable number of the clergy, and altogether by others. Even 'after the introduction of the Directory, certain minis ters were prosecuted by indictment at the sessions for neg lecting to' read the Book of Common Prayer ". It was not * Hall's Loathsomenesse of Long HMr, 2, 53, 58, 69, 73. 0 Dugdale, 221. This circumstance led to an ordinance repealing the Act of Uniformity. Scobell's Collection. The ordinance for the Directory im posed a penalty on all persons using the Common Prayer, and ordered that with the Rubrics and Canons. 285 denied that the mass of the people were attached to the Book, but their love was attributed to their blindness, which it was the duty of the more enlightened to remove. The people, indeed, complained that their Prayer-book was taken away, that the Forms of Marriage, Baptism, and Burial, were prohibited ; yet these complaints were unheeded, as the mere murmurs of the ignorant. At this time, preaching was -regarded as the only divine ordinance : " As for ser mons, which in this period seeme the only thing opposed to Liturgy, I hope they doe not undertake to be as eminent a part of the worship of God among us as prayer. Preaching hath of late beene the only business of the Church (which was by God entitled the House of Prayer), and the Liturgy at most used but as musick, to entertaine the auditors tUl the actors be attired, and the seates be fuU, and it be time for the scene to enter V Yet it was valued by all great and good men, until a new generation sprang up, whose principle of reformation was destruction, not restoration. Gauden says of Bishop Brown- rig, "he had a particular great esteem for it. 1. For the honor and piety of its martyrly composers, who, enduring such a fiery trial, were not likely to have made a Liturgy of straw and stubble. 2. For its excellent matter, which is di vine, sound, and holy. 3. For the very great good he saw it didy." The Presbyterians were aware of the deeply rooted affection of the people for the Book of Common Prayer, and they made a curious attempt to supply its place among the sailors by a new form. It was published, as is admitted in the preface, because the common sailors clung to the Book of Common Prayer, which these new Reformers were resolved to put down2. Even the poor saUors must all copies ofthe Book should be brought in to the committees: "An indict ment in Bucks for reading the Com mon Prayer complained of. Ordered, that an ordinance be brought in to take away that statute that enjoyns it, and to disable malignant ministers from preaching. This was much op- postd by me and some others, as con trary to that principle which the Par liament had avowed of liberty of con science, and like that former way complained of against the bishops ibr silencing of ministers." Whitelock, 226. 1 Hammond's View of the Direc tory, 1615, 73. r Gauden's Memorial of Brownrig, 169. 2 " A Supply of Pi;: ver fur the Shivs 26 The Book of Common Prayer; not use that Book, to which tbey were so greatly attached. This was the only. form- of prayer published by men who decried aU forms. This strange production did not escape the notice of Hammond, who, in the "View of the Di- rectorv," gives an account of its contents. It was an ad mission that a prescribed form of prayer was not, in their estimation, unlawful. However, it was the only attempt of the kind, and the form may be regarded as a curiosity \ There were men among the clergy who were ready to re tain or to reject the Common Prayer, as their interests might dictate. There were others who disliked the Book, though they had hitherto conformed ; and by this class the people were stirred up against such clergymen as really loved the Liturgy, and were resolved to use it in their churches. The soldiers, moreover, not unfrequently inter fered to prevent the use of the Book. We have an iUustration of the method adopted by con scientious clergymen, in the case of Mr. Cranford : " He, in discourse some time with me in Tunbridge, while he lay here upon the occasion of health to drink our waters, did tell me his manner of laying down the use of the Common Prayer ; that he used it as long as any, who were suffered to enjoy their livings ; and when he laid it by, having first vindicated it from the exceptions laid against it, he declared that he would not have laid it down, had he not been forced by the fury of a faction ; and if ever it should please God to give the liberty to use it againe, he would take it up with much more readiness and joy than he laid it down b." But many who had professed to conform discontinued the use of the Book before any necessity for so doing existed, thereby dis covering their inclinations to Presbytery c. that want Minivers to pray with them, agreeable to the- Directory established by Parliament. Published by autho rity, -ito. Printed for John Field." » Lathhnry's History of the Convo cation, 197, -193. b S'tilemaa's Peace-Offering. 4to., 1660, 126. c '¦' Whether I do not believe tliat therefore I have done very ill to ex communicate the English Common Prayer-book, which hy most divines hath been called Optimum Brevia- rium, and ins' end of it have set up a Directory, which speaks nothing so much as fixt sense, and hath no bet ter derivation than £U« DirectariiV Whether it be better to turn Presby terian, Romane, or to continue Catho- lique ? By Thomas Swadliu, B.D., 4to., 1658, p. 8. Swadlin proposes some strong questions : " Whether I do not with the Rubrics and Canons. 287 But when the Directory came forth, the Common Prayer could not be used with impunity. The greater part of the orthodox clergy were already ejected, and such as still re mained were compelled to forego the public use of the Book. Thus the sequestered ministers could only worship God in secret places. Many, indeed, read the Daily Service in their families; yet they were ever exposed to danger, since in formers were encouraged by the ruling powers to collect evidence, and to allege charges against any of the clergy. In some cases even servant- girls were spies upon their mas ters. Rewards were ofiered to tempt persons to betray their employers. Yet the Book was used; God's worship was secretly conducted in many places, and various families were admitted into the houses of the sequestered clergy at the time of worship. Secresy was, of course, absolutely ne cessary; and the greatest caution was used, lest an enemy should find his way into a family as a supposed friend. The clergy chiefly resided in the larger towns. Some set apart a room in their houses for the purpose, a sort of chapel or oratory, in which they assembled with their famihes and read the proscribed Book. This was Heylin's case : " In which sad prospect of affairs our divine buUt a private oratory, where he had frequency of synaxes, the Liturgy of the Church being daily read by him, and the Holy Eucha rist administered as often as opportunity gave leave; many devout and well-affected persons, after the manner of the primitive Christians when they lived under heathen perse cutions, resorting to his little chapel, that there they might wrestle with the Almighty for His blessing upon them selves11." As far as possible, a similar course was adopted believe that Christ taught his Apostles to pray, and say, ' Our Father,' &c. ? Whether I do not believe that the Apostles did pray and say as Christ taught them ? Whether I have done well to expunge and obliterate that prayer, ' Our Pather p' Whether I do not believe that the primitive Church, and so the Church successively, untill of very late years, was governed by Episcopacy ?" Ib., 3, 4. d Vernon's Life of Heylin, 116,117; Bernard's Life of Heylin, 233, 236. The Common Prayer was vised at Laud's funeral, "after it had been long disused, and almost reprobated iu most churches of London." Heylin's Life of Laud, 538. The Earl of Lei cester mentions the baptism of his grandson iu 1646, at Salisbury -house, in the usual manner, with sponsors. Blencovve's Sydney Papers,!. In March, 1616, we read, " Both Houses gave an allowance to the Earl of Chesterfield, 288 The Book of Common Prayer ; by aU the ejected clergy; or they resided in families in which they privately acted as chaplains. Private meetings, therefore, were more or less common until the Restoration. Such of the Episcopal clergy a3 remained in their livings were accustomed to frame their public prayers on the model of the Liturgy. It was a common custom to combine por tions of the Liturgy in their prayers before and after ser mon. "We have the recorded practice of various individuals who occupied churches after the removal of the Prayer- book. Thus Bishop Rainbow, " though he could not openly use the Enghsh Liturgy, yet he used some of those ex ceUent prayers of which it is composed, and that not only in his private famUy, but also composed such prayers as he used in the church out of those in the Liturgy; and so graduaUy brought the ignorant people to affect the Common Prayers, a httle transformed and altered, who disliked the Common Prayer-book itself, they knew not why e." San derson's practice was similar. In 1652 he published his interesting letter on the subject. Some one wished his opinion, and was anxious to know his practice. He replies, " So long as my congregation continued unmixed with sol diers (as well after as before the ordinance for the abolishing of Common Prayer), I continued the use of it, as I had ever formerly done in the most peaceable and ordinary times, not omitting those very prayers, the silencing of which I could with an intimation that he do not entertain malignant preachers in his house, nor use the Common Prayer. That part of not using the Common Prayer I spake against as contrary to that liberty of conscience we ourselves claimed formerly." Whitelock, 239. In 1U-17, " referred to a committee to examine what delinquent ministers did preiu-h or read the Common Prayer, and to silence them, which wa3 much opposed by me and others, as much opposed to that liberty of conscience which they themselves pretended to insist upon." Whitelock, 284. e Bk'.nbmv's Life, 48, 49, Thomas, who was Bishop of Worcester at the revolution, and died under suspension as a 'Nonjuror, resided in Wales as a schoolmaster daring the troubles, and used the Common Prayer at certain times, though he wa3 frequently dis turbed by the itinerant preachers. Wood, iv. 262. Fuller says, "I knew a minister who was accused for usirg the Gloria Palri, (conforming lis practice to the Directorie iu all things else,) and threatened to be brought before the committee." He remarks, '¦ When the Directorie hath been prac tised in England ninety years (the world lasting so long), as the Liturgie hath been, then posterity will be the competent fudge, whether the face of religion had the more lively, healthful, and chearful looks, under the one or under the other." Book xi. 22-1. with the Rubrics and Canons. 289 not but know to have been chiefly aimed at in the ordi nance ; viz., those for the king, the queen, and the bishops." Even when soldiers were casuaUy present he persisted in his course for a time ; but at last a troop came, who were so enraged that " they siezed on the Book and tore it aU to pieces." During their continuance for six months he dis continued the practice, and used the Confession, the Lord's Prayer, the Versicles, and the Psalms, and sometimes the Creed and the Decalogue. In the Lord's Supper, Marriage, Burial of the Dead, and Churching of "Women, he used the ancient Offices without alteration. In the Daily Service he was obliged to be cautious. At the Lord's Supper, he says, " I was the more secure, because I was assured none of the soldiers would be present." After the departure of this troop, he resumed his former practice : " I took the liberty to use the whole Liturgy, or but some part of it, omitting sometimes more, sometimes less, especiaUy if any soldiers or unknown persons happened to be present. But all the while the substance of what I omitted I contrived into my prayer before sermon." For two years he proceeded in this way quietly, when he was informed by a member of Parliament of a complaint against him from some Presbyterian minis ters, "for not obeying the parliamentary ordinance." He then resolved to forego the use of the Common Prayer rather than forsake his ministry. From this time he adopted a new course, commencing with the Holy Scriptures and an exhortation to confession of sin derived from the General Confession and the Absolution in the Book of Common Prayer, using the same words, " purposely here and there misplaced." Then came the Confession, with some additions, the Lord's Prayer, the Versicles, the Psalms, and the First Lesson for the day. Sometimes he modelled the Litany into short coUects. Such was his practice when the letter was written, "and is hke stiU to be, unless some happy change of affairs restore us the hberty of using the old way again'." We have Sanderson's testimony, that some * Sanderson's Cases of Conscience. | tion of Dr. Hewitt in 1658, his usual 12mo., 16S5, 157—165. In a volume prayers before and after sermon are of sermons pubhshed after the execu- ! given. The prayer before sermon AM. tj 290 The Book of Common Prayer ; were ready to give up the Liturgy before they were required to do so. Before the war, he remarks, scarcely any minis ters or people scrupled the sign of the cross, but some "in a short space became either such perfect time-servers as to cry down, or such tame complyers with the stronger side as to lay down, ere they needed, the use of the whole Liturgy, and of aU the rites and ceremonies therein prescribed." Ber nard declares, on his own knowledge, that in earher times many who were now classed among the Puritans were stre nuous defenders of the Book of Common Prayer : " What is here subscribed as to the Book of Common Prayer was here tofore (to my knowledge) as dUigently attended by persons of the like eminency, being so far from absenting themselves that they were careful to come at the beginning of its." In 1646 a sad occurrence took place at WeUs. Dr. Ra leigh, Dean of WeUs, was murdered by a parliamentary official. At the funeral, Standish, one of the clergy, used the Burial Office in the Book of Common Prayer ; and for this offence he was committed to prison by the committee of thai county, where he remained until his death h. Jeremy Taylor pursued a simUar course with Sanderson. During the troubles he published his " Collection of Offices," to assist others in the management of pubhc worship. The book was put forth, "not in opposition to the established Liturgy, but to supply the want of it." As the Common Prayer was prohibited, Taylor intended his Offices for use among the clergy who might be disposed to receive such assistance. In his preface he by no means spares the Direc tory, by which the Common Prayer was displaced. He calls it a book " that wiU not do piety to the dead nor comfort to the hving, by solemn and honorary offices of funeral. A Liturgy that recites no creed; an office that, takes no more is of considerable length, and con sists chiefly of passages from tho Li turgy in one continuous form. There are, indeed, petitions suited to the times, and one especially for the re storation of bishops. N ine Select Ser mons, &c, by the late Reverend John Hewytt, D.D. Together with his Pub lick Prayers before and after Sermon. London. 8vo., 1658. s Bernard's Clavi Trabales. Pre face, 150. h Wood's Athence, iii. 197; Life of Charles I. 78; Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, 71, 76. with the Rubrics and Canons. 291 care than chance does for the reading of the Scriptures ; an office that does by implication undervalue the Lord's Prayer, for it never enjoins it, and does but once permit it." With the Directory he also contrasts the Book of Common Prayer : "This exceUent book hath had the fate to be cut in pieces with a pen-knife, and thrown into the fire, but it is not con sumed: at first it was sown in tears, and is now watered with tears, yet never was any holy thing drowned and ex tinguished with tears. The greatest danger that ever the Commoa Prayer-book had, was the indifferency and indevo- tion of them that used it but as a common blessing; and they who thought it fit for the meanest of the clergy to reade prayers, and for themselves onely to preach, though they might innocently intend it, yet did not in that action consult the honour of our Liturgy." To meet the circum stances of the times, he proposes his own "CoUection of Offices ;" " Because in very many churches, instead of Com mon Prayer, which they use not, every man useth what he pleases, and all men doe not choose weU, and the Sacra ments are not so solemnly ministered as the sacredness and solemnity of the mysteries do require, and in very many places, where the old exceUent forms are not permitted, there is scarce anything at all, but something to shew that there was a shipwreck, a plank or a cable, a chapter or a psalm. Some who were troubled to see it so, and fain would see it otherwise, did think it might not be amiss that some of the ancient forms of other Churches, and the prayers of Scripture, shoidd be drawn together and laid before them that need '." 1 A Collection of Offices, Preface. Martin, in 1647, defended the use of the Book in a curious mock petition. He was detained in prison several years for refusing the Covenant, which, he says, was " opposite to his religious faith, and all his duties to God and man." It was not imposed on Papists : Martin pleads for the same liberty. Alluding to former laws, he says that he "daily sees men that endeavour, professe, print, and practise, innova tions and alterations;" sarcastically adding, that the Lords will certainly punish those "who manifestly give sentence upon themselves, that they have all this while formerly (notwith standing all their subscriptions, oaths, and professions) lived and gone in a wrong way." E. M., A Long-impri soned Malignant ; his humble Submis sion to the Covenant and Directory : with some Reasons and Grounds of use to Settle and Satisfie Tender Con sciences. Presented in a Petition to the Lords assembled in Parliament in the yeare 1647. Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, part ii. 155, 1C6. Mar- v2 292 The Book of Common Prayer ; The Presbyterian intolerance, as manifested in their at tempts at agreement with Charles I., almost exceeds belief. In 16-18, when their power was about to be supplanted by the Independents, they were so blind to their danger, that they refused to his Majesty the use of the Book of Common Prayer in his own family. Nothing but the Covenant and the Directory were to be permitted; yet in a few months both became dead letters J. Then loud complaints were uttered by the same men, who might have secured their discipline by a few concessions to his Majesty. Refusing to allow the King himself to use the Book of Common Prayer, they lost their only opportunity of setting up Presbytery. The disciphne was their watchword; not merely the prac tice of it for themselves, but its imposition on a whole country. When they treated with his Majesty, they could use the discipline as far as the people would receive it ; but liberty for thomselves was not sufficient, and they must set Christ upon His throne in all His glory. They were asked, — " What troubles you ? Who doth oppress you ? Have you not authority on your side ? Have you not all the Church livings in the kingdome ? Is there the least show of opposi tion or cause of complaint administered unto you, except it tin's case is recorded in White's Cen tury : it serves to expose the lies of that infamous book. Martin is charged with praying for souls in purgatory. This was a wilful false hood on the part of White; his real crime was saying that "the Parlia ment was about to erect a new reli gion;" and this assertion was true. White's Century, 41, 42. Martin be came Dean of Ely after the Restoration. ' At this time Sedgwick proposed to expound^ a portion of the Book of Bevelation to his Majesty, who after some time asked him to conclude, on account of the lateness of the hour. Warwick's Memoirs, 30S. When the King was with the Scots' army, the use of the Common Prayer was de nied; on the other hand, when he was with the English army, the liberty was granted. Sheldon, Morley, San derson, and Hammond, "performed their functions at the ordinary hours, in their accustomed formalities." A complaint was made to the Lords that Hammond and Sheldon "had often times of late used the Common Prayer, and officiated before the King with divers superstitious gestures, contrary to the Directory." Pari. Hist., xvi. 50, 63. When the King asked for the Common Prayer, they replied that "The Common Prayer is as bad as the Mass; and that if it should be permitted at Court, it were but to reject one idol and set up another." Pari. Hist., xviii. 19. "The devil is au enemy to all hierarchy, and there fore holydays must be abolished, and so farewell saints and angels. What have they given us for lawn-sleeves but sackcloth and misery? All re nounce Whitsuntide, and yet boast the Holy Ghost. AVhat have they given us for lawn-sleeves but sack cloth and misery ? Instead of Litur gies, they have brought upon us all the evils we there prayed against." Butler's Post, ii. 51, 60. with the Rubrics and Canons. 293 be because you are not suffered to oppresse, vex, and gall your brethren that join not with you* ?" Had they yielded the Common Prayer to his Majesty for his own use, they might have retained the Directory in the churches. Undoubtedly many clergymen were indifferent on the subject, and complied with the times without any particular views. A curious Ulustration is given by a writer, in the detaU of his own troubles during this period. The clergy man of his parish became more moderate in his views, and evidently wished to please his principal parishioners. The writer objected to the Directory, which, though not used, was lying in the reading-desk; and it was removed. On one occasion, this gentleman was apprehended as a malig nant, and was permitted to use the Book of Common Prayer with his famUy, without disturbance,- according to his daily custom. He prayed for the King, and was not interrupted by the officers who were in the house1. In some places the clergy who attempted to use the Book were frequently interrupted in their private assemblies, whUe they were un molested in others : " The ministers of the Church of Eng land were generaUy contented with the exercise of their rehgion in private houses ; though even these also were often disturbed by soldiers or constables, who used to hale them from the very Communion-tables upon the more solemn festivals of their despised Church, rending their surplices, where any were used, and tearing their Mass- books (for that was the name by which the crafty states man and the more jugghng gospeller taught the undiscern- ing multitude to call the English Liturgy) into pieces'"." In London, "the Bishop of Ely asserted the cause of the Church of England in the height of the Rebellion11." A few Episcopal clergymen retained their livings and preached, and pursued the same course as Jeremy Taylor and San derson. A contemporary writer mentions " Dr. HaU (after wards Bishop of Chester), Dr. Bull, Dr. Wild (late Bishop in Ireland), Dr. Hardy, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Pierson (now ' Pulpit Incendiary, 45. 1 Wenlock's Narrative, 79, 87. B Price's Mystery of tbe Restora tion, 118. " Saywell's Evangelical end Cathc-. lick Unity, 1682, 291. 294 The Book of Common Prayer; Bishop of Chester), Dr. Mossome, Mr. Faringdon, with many more0." In London, moreover, some clergymen occasion- aUy used the Prayer-book in churches ; but the connivance was under the rule of CromweU, not under that of the Presbyterians. The fact that such a hberty was sometimes taken by clergymen was, frequently adduced, after the Act of TJniformity, as an argument for toleration : " 'Tis noto riously known that Dr. WUd, Dr. Gunning, and others, had numerous meetings for Common Prayer and preaching in London ; and Dr. Hyde, Dr. Fell, and others, at Oxford. The Presbyterians disclaim separation; they desire the like hberty and toleration from the Bishops that they were wUling to have shewed to their brethren of the congrega tional way; yea, they would bless God and our governours, if they might have the like favour and liberties that Dr. Gun ning, Dr. WUd, Dr. Hide, had in former times?." Calamy also dwells upon the same topic as an argument for tolera tion: "Many that shewed a disposition to Hve peaceably remained unmolested. Many went on using the Liturgy and ceremonies9." But if these statements are taken without limitations, the • The Conformist's Plea for the Nonconformists, part iv. 110. Abra ham Wright resided for a time with Sir George Graham, and "read the Common Prayer on all Sundays and holydays, and on principal feasts he preached and administered the Sacra ments." About 1655 he was chosen by the people of St. Olave's, Silver- street, as their minister, though to avoid the oaths he was not put in formal possession. He remained^ how ever, four years, and "baptized and buried according to the Common Prayer, and gave the Sacrament ac cording to this Liturgy of the Church of England." Wood, iv. 276. » An Humble Apology for the Non conformists, 1669, 23, 130. They met in Oxford, in Dr. Willis's rooms in Christ Church, and after his ejection, in his lodgings. Wood, iii. 1050. In Mr. Browne Willis's study, at Whad- don, is a little book in 12mo., printed at London, with this title, " Prayers or Intercessions for their use who Mourn in Secret for the Publique Calamities of this Nation : with an Anniversary Prayer for the 30th of January." On a blank leaf is wrote, " N. B. — I wa3 informed hy the Rev. Mr. Roper, of St. John's College, in Cambridge, that these are the prayers which were used in Dr. Willis's oratory during the for- mer rebellion. S. C. Mar. 15, 1729." On a spare leaf is this, added by Mr. Browne Willis in his own hand: "Prayers said hy Bishop Fell in his brother-in-law Dr. Willis's apartment in Oxford, the famous Physician." Wood, iii. 1050. The note is Cole's. If these Prayers were used, they must have been in MS., for the book was not printed till 1659. Nor could they have been used in 1650, since they were composed after the battle of Worcester. ' Calamy's Church and the Dis« senters Compared, 58. with the Rubrics and Canons. 295 reader wiU form a very erroneous conclusion respecting the liberty enjoyed by members of the Church of England in these troublous times. It is quite true that many used the Common Prayer in private, and on some occasions in churches; but no permission was granted under the Pres byterians. The hberty was sometimes taken ; it was never conceded r- Later indeed, Cromwell, who, had he been unfettered, would have allowed the use of the Liturgy as well as the Directory, granted more hberty, and the Episcopal clergy sometimes read the Common Prayer in churches; yet no credit belongs to the Presbyterians, who never permitted the use of the Liturgy in a single instance, when they became aware of the fact. ISCor is Calamy's as sertion correct, that "many went on using the Liturgy." They used it as Sanderson and Taylor used it ; not in the open and pubhc way imphed in Calamy's words. After the ordinance abolishing the Prayer-book, some continued its use for a time, but they were soon stopped. It is not true, therefore, that any liberty was conceded by the Presbyte rians; and whenever the Liturgy was read, the minister read it at a risk. Some deemed it their duty to proceed till they were called to account ; and some escaped detection longer than others. Hacket used the Book in his church until he was forbidden by the Parliament5. And in every case, when a discovery was made, the Parliament or some committee interfered, and the practice was checked. Some men indeed persisted in their course, but what was * In 1647, when the Independents had succeeded in preventing the set ting up of Presbytery, the use of the Common Prayer was still prohibited " Debate touching rehgion, and voted that the indulgence as to tender con sciences shall not extend to tolerate the Common Prayer." Whitelock, 274. • Newcourt's Repertorinm, i. 182. The bigotry of the Long Parliament was never relaxed: "Morton, Bishop of Durham, a reverend man, was brought before the Commons for chris tening a child in the old way, and signing it with the sign of the cross, contrary to the Directory. He was committed to the Tower." White- lock, 141. " The Commons had before them Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham, about christning a child of an honour able person in the old superstitious way, and signing it with the crosse, contrary to the Directory." Perfect Diurnal, 706. In 1647 all festivals were abolished, on the ground of their previous abuse ; and the second Tues day in each month was allotted to servants and apprentices as a day of recreation, instead of the various holy- days. Thus, by the parliamentary ordinance, it was insinuated that fes tivals were merely used as days for pleasure. Scobell's Acts, &c, 97, 9S, 128. 296 The Book of Common Prayer; the consequence ? They were imprisoned. Where was the liberty to use the Liturgy? Alhngton, who pubhshed his own case, tells us that the only charges against him were bowing at the Name of Jesus and using the Common Prayer instead of the Directory '. Undoubtedly many ran all risks and used the Prayer-book, but the liberty thus taken could not fairly be urged afterwards as an argument for toleration under the Act of Uniformity. Yet the liberty mentioned by nonconformist writers was no more than liberty assumed, not permitted. StiU the instances of the use of the Liturgy are not few, but the circumstances under which it was used must ever be remembered. The sequestrated bishops mostly used the Book, as weH as they could, in their own famUies, or in the houses of those with whom they resided. But a discovery would have led to suffering. Mayne, in the dedication of a ser mon to Duppa, Bishop of Worcester, says : " The old Church of England stiU kept up in your house, with aU its forms and rites, though publickly forbidden, prayers constantly read by you twice a day for the king." Kennet remarks on this statement: "He might have mentioned the good bishop's frequent ordinations of young loyal Church scholars, among whom was the late exemplary primate, Archbishop Tenison, as I have heard from his own mouth u." Barwick, as chap- Allington's Apology. Abp. Sharp restored form in the year 1660." Com- always felt a pleasure in the reflection that he was baptized, in 1644, accord ing to the Book of Common Prayer. His mother favoured the Episcopal clergy, while his father was inclined to Puritanism. When Lord Fairfax was lodged at his father's house a search was made for Common Prayer- books, but his mother "preserved those of her family, one of which she put early into her son's hands, and taught him to love and valne it." Sharp's Life, i. 3, 5. In the same year, 1644, Comber was baptized "according to her's Life, 9. u Kennetfs Register, 626. Tenison was ordained privately by Duppa hi 1659 at Richmond. His Letters of Orders were not used till the Restora tion, but they were entered in the bishop's private book. Le Neve's Lives, i. 237. In the succeeding cen tury the Dissenters pretended that the Episcopal clergy enjoyed great liberty. " The ordinances of 1645, 1646, were hut scarecrow ordinances, for tbe use of the Liturgy was continned in some public churches within the city of the rites of the Church of England. London." Moderation still a Virtue, He notes, that himself was the last ! 46. The assertion is utterly false of child baptized in that font hy the the period of Presbyterian ascen- Cnnimon Prayer, which the rebels then j dency, and even under the Indepen. put down; and a daughter of his half- j dents liberty was not formally granted sister was the first christened by the | to the Church of England. In 1649' with ihe Mubrics ana vanons. 297 lain to the Bishop of Durham, who was involved in great dif ficulties, was accustomed to read the Common Prayer in private lodgings, though not without occasional interrup tions. In 1650 he was imprisoned for his offence as a dis affected person, yet on his liberation he resumed his previous practice, reading prayers daily at the house of some friend x. AUestry, FeU, and Dolben lived privately in Oxford, and ministered to a congregation of loyalists. Clarendon men tions the Earl of Southampton as adhering strictly to the Common Prayer, " in the performance whereof he had always an orthodox chaplain, one of those deprived of their estates by that Government wliich disposed of the Church as weU as ofthe State ?." In Ireland the Book of Common Prayer continued in pubhc use later than in England. In 1649 Bernard refused to lay aside the book, though commanded to do so by Colonel Jones. The same prejudices, however, and the same igno rance, prevailed in Ireland among the parliamentary sup porters, for when Bernard used the Services for Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, and the Communion by heart, repeating them without a book, the people expressed their satisfaction, though on previous occasions the}' had quitted the church when these offices were read from the Book of Common Prayer, " the younger sort having never heard it, and the other almost forgotten it." Some who had heard the ser vice without the book, and then afterwards from it, con fessed their ignorance1. Usher continued to use privately the Book of Common Prayer in the house of the Countess of Peterborough as long as he lived a. " one Mr. Williams sent to prison for read ing the Common Prayer publickly." Whitelock, 424. * Barwick's Life, 119, 157, 164— 166, 170, 193. At one time he read the Common Prayer in a chamber set apart for the purpose in his brother's house. Ib., 202, 281, 282. Sancroft, in a letter in 1652, says, "After so long banishment, the Common Prayer last Thursday at night entered into Trinity Chapel, and once more conse crated it." D'Oyly's Sancroft, i. 81. 7 Clarendon's Life, iii. 789. A cu rious account is given in a letter in Aubrey's collection, dated 17-19, of a clergyman who used the Common Prayer during these times. His name was even concealed from all except the lady of the family. Aubrey's Let ters, ii. 127, 129. * " 1619. Order for an Act to abo lish the hierarchy in Ireland and to forbid the use of the Common Prayer- book there." Whitelock, 44-1. ¦ Bernard's Clari Trabales, 51, 58—60. Soaie of the Puritans con tinued to use the Book. Jolm Dod, 298 The Book of Common Prayer ; Under Presbytery, therefore, no liberty was allowed to the friends of the depressed Church, but they often ventured, at great personal risk, to use the Book of Common Prayer in private houses. Under the Independents the ' condition of the clergy was not improved until Cromwell became supreme. The Independents would tolerate anything but the Prayer- book, and therefore whatever liberty was enjoyed during the Protectorate was owing altogether to the feelings of Crom well, who was far more tolerant than his party. Nor could he go so far as his inclinations probably would have prompted, for the prejudices of his party were strong and decided. The distinction between CromweU himself and the Independents must be borne in mind in order to understand the state of things during his government. Sometimes the clergy were persecuted for using the Common Prayer, at other times they were left at liberty ; in the latter case Cromwell foUowed his own real views, in the former he acted to please others b. " In a few years, the higher powers abating, the Liturgy of the Church of England began in some places to be publiekly read ; and Mr. Huish, then minister in Abingdon, had a nu- so well known as a preacher, "never forsook the use of it, but read always as much as his very old age would suf fer." When requested to baptize a child by the Directory, he refused; and when asked why he did not preach for the Parliament, he asked the individual who proposed the question for whom he was fighting. For the King and Parliament, was the reply. The old man asked, " If the king should be in the fight, would you kill him ? " The soldier answered, " He must take his fortune." " The old man was shocked." Bp. Morton on Episcopacy, Preface. These circumstances are not noticed by the defenders of the Puritans. b Usher endeavoured to procure li berty for the clergy from Cromwell, who told the Arehbisliop that his coun cil advised him against the scheme. Parr's Life and Letters of Usher, 75. Le Strange gives a curious account of an interview with Cromwell in 1653. He had been compelled to leave the country, and returned after the disso lution of the Rump. But he was sum moned before the Council, and as the matter was delayed he sought an in terview with Cromwell : " Hee told me ofthe restlessness of our party; that rigour was not at all his inclination; that he was but one man, and could do little by himself; and that our party should do well to give some better tes timony of their quiet and peaceable intentions." He was soon discharged: Bagshaw had charged him with often bringing " a fiddle under his cloak to facilitate his entry" at Whitehall, Le Strange declares that henever saw Cromwell on any other business at Whitehall, and thus explains the story of the fiddle : " Being in St. James's. park I heard an organ in a little low room of one Bir. Hinckson's. I went in, and found a private company of five or six persons. They desired me to take up a viole and bear a part. I did so. By and by in comes Crom weU. He found us playing, and, as I remembor,so ho left us."" Le Strange's Truth and Loyalty, 49, 50. Has it been noticed that Cromwell was fond of music P He certainly in this matter did not go with his party. with the Rubrics and Canons. 299 merous auditory of loyal persons who frequented public prayers at St. Nicholas, which became so greatly offensive to the factious party, that they laboured all they could to have the Church razed to the very foundation." Huish, either from fear or pohcy, desisted, and Heylin addressed him in a letter of expostulation and advice, and the service was resumed c. Moreover, the private meetings were not so frequently molested under Cromwell. In some cases the Protector appears to have connived at clergymen in London, who were unmolested in the use of the Liturgy in a few churches. Still very little publicity was given in these cases. -Griffith read prayers privately in London "accord ing to the Church of England (particularly to my own know ledge in the little-observed church of St. Nicholas Olaves) to the poor cavahers during the usurpation, for which he suffered seven violent assaults and five imprisonments'1." Whatever were CromweU's own inclinations, he could not always indulge them in such matters. Gunning also suf fered many interruptions. Sometimes he was summoned before the Protector, who stiU did not actuaUy prohibit him from exercising his ministry e. In 1655, Cromwell's own order prohibited the use of the Book of Common Prayer. It was, doubtless, a concession to c Vernon's Life of Heylin, 147, 148, I 194. Dolben " assisted Mr. John Fell 154. Heylin also procured men from j in keeping up tlie orders and ceremo- Oxfordtorenderassistance at Abingdon, j nies of the Church of England in a d Newcourt's Repertorium, i. 305; I private room opposite to Merton Col- Wood, iii. 711 ; Barwick's Life, 518. liege Church." Newcourt, i. 61; e Barwick's Life, 39, 40. Gunning i Le Neve's Lives, ii. 259. Wilde was " undertook to hold a constant congre- accustomed to hold an assembly in gation in the chapel of Exeter-house J Fleet-street. Wood, iii. 720. "iir. in the Strand, where by his reading , Corker told me that one Dr. Wilde, the English Liturgy, preaching, &c , ! living in Fleet-street, has a private he asserted the cause of the Church of ' chureh there, which is contrived in England when the Parliament was ' private chambers, with seats, a pulpit, most predominant. And to him gladly 1 and all things necessarie for that pur- flocked loyal multitudes of religious | pose; and that every forenoon (but and true-hearted people to celebrate especially the Wednesdayes and IVi- thoseholyofficesinprivatehouses,when dayes between nine and ten of the by armed violence they were forced ' clock) are assembled most of Ch. St. out and driven from the churches." agents." Thurloe's State Papers, i. Gower's Sermon, 1685. Fell was the 15. He mentions 1'o'den, Bins, calling chief person in Oxford who continued himself Dawson, Withrington, who the Service of the Church of England, went under the name of Green, Bar- Others assisted him in'a private house j ker, who went by the name of Lamb, opposite Merton College. Wood, iv. J and Leister and Culpepper. Ib., 716. 300 The Book of Common Prayer ; the Independents against his own feelings f. Little change, however, occurred in actual practice. From long disuse, the younger portion ofthe people were not familiar with the Book of Common Prayer. George Bull, subsequently Bishop of St. David's, accepted the living of St. George's, near Bristol, because, from the smaU income, it was not worth the no tice of the leading men among the Sectaries. Generally, he adopted Hammond's plan, forming his public prayers from the Liturgy. On one occasion, however, he baptized a chUd, using, though without the Book, the whole of the Baptismal Office. The famUy, who were unacquainted with the Prayer- book, expressed themselves greatly pleased with the manner in which the service had been performed. He pointed out the Office in the Book of Common Prayer to the father, who became a regular attendant at Bull's church, though pre viously a Sectary. This gentleman had grown up during the eclipse of the English Church, and therefore he knew but little of the Liturgy. In 1658 Bidl was married by the Vicar of Preston, Mr. Masters, according to the Book of Common Prayer. Before the Restoration he was presented to the rectory of Suddington, where he was more open in the use of the Prayer-book. When the Restoration took place, he reconciled his parishioners to the adoption of the Book before its use was publicly sanctioned. On a Sunday morning, before the king's return, he married a couple in his church by the Book, and afterwards he told the parties that they could expose him to a public prosecution for the transaction e. ' Prynne said of the Protector's De claration of Nov. 4, 1655, that it "was such a transcendent barharisme, im piety, and high-way to extirpate reli gion (us pious, learned Abp. Usher ttld him), as the Pope and Jesuits themselves could not have invented the like." Bushuell's Narrative, 234. b Nelson's Life of Bull, 39,10,-15,55. A similar case is mentioned by Spratt, Bishop of Rochester, with respect to the Funeral Service in the reign of Charles II. : "A noted ring-leader of schism was to bu buried in one of the princi pal churches of London ;" the mi- nist'T, "a wise regular Conformist," and afterwards a bishop, knowing the feelings of the relatives, recited the Funeral Service without the Book; the people " were strangely surprised and affected, professing they had never heard a more suitable exhortation, or a more edifying exercise." They were much more surprised on finding that the whole " was taken word for word out of the very office ordained for that purpose in the poor contemptible Book of Common Prayer." Spratt says that this incident occurred just after the Restoration, and that it came " within the compass of his own knowledge." Discourse of the Bishop of Rochester at his Visitation, 17, 18. with the Rubrics khu Canons. 301 Some decisive testimonies in favour of the Common Prayer were published during CromweU's rule, notwithstanding his ordinance against the Book. The Bishop of Worcester's work, which appeared in 1655, illustrates the state of the times, while it evinces the author's determination to adhere to the Church of England in her troubles. It was dedicated to his two daughters, who were descended from Rowland Taylor the martyr. Prideaux tells them, "The chaine of pearl he only left your great grandmother, his dear wife, (when he last parted from her to suffer martyrdome,) was no other but the Book of Common Prayer; in contriving of which he had a hand, and which he used only in his imprisonment, as holding that Book (above all other next the Bible) the most absolute directory for aU his effectual devotions." He cautions his daughters against the new reformers : " You see what mischiefe such reformers have wrought, which the piety and prudence of many ages are scarce likely in a long time to recover." The propriety of the rites, and ceremonies, and customs of the Church, is boldly asserted and defended : " It is a plot of Satan to brand due reverence of the body with the scandal of super stition; bowing at the Name of Jesus, standing up at the Creed, kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, must be held with sone superstitious and to smell of popery." He also aUudes to a custom which stUl prevaUs in some country churches, that of bowing to the minister on entering the church : " It was the modesty and humility of some of your foremothers not to seat themselves in the church before they had performed a reverent respect to the minister then officiating." The practices of the Church are defended: "Why may not the congregation joyne as weU with the minister in praying as in singing, or (to speak to the point) in praying in prose in a set form, as consonantly as in a set form of prayers in verse ?" The Prayer-book was now excluded from churches, but he recommends its use in private famUies : " For mine owne part, I must confesse that my long studies amongst much variety hath not met with the hke for words and matter so judiciously fitted. Neither can I be persuaded but those learned men and martyrs who were compilers of our Service-book came any way short for 302 The Book of Common Prayer ; gravity, learning, or piety, of those men who stand m this age so much upon their gifts, and take upon them (as the saying is) to correct Maynificat." Among the novelties of the age he mentions the following: -"In which is strange also, that a generation is found amongst us that scruple at children's asking a blessing from their parents. Are they afraid they should shew themselves to be too dutiful? or surfeit upon blessings ?" The new reformation is thus de scribed : " Now such a reformation is directed to us, that we know not where we are, or what to expect; but that the longest hver shaU never be acquainted (by this new method in our Church Service) with the whole counsel of God ; and (if the minister please not) the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, and Lord's Prayer in the New, shah never be known to the simple people V Sir John Bramstone gives an account of his father's con duct : " I had usuaUy frequented St. Gregorie's, Dr. Mos- som's, Dr. Wild's, Dr. Gunning's, or some other congrega tions where the orthodox clergie preacht and administered the Sacraments ; but the soldiers often disturbing those con gregations, it was not so convenient for my father to appear there." "One Sunday morning," says he, "I stept into Milk-street" by accident. Here Faringdon preached on the occasion for the first time. He told his father that he had found an orthodox preacher whom he could quietly hear. In 165 -i Bramst one's father died, and was buried according to the Book of Common Prayer by Dr. Michelson, who had suffered much from his attachment to the Liturgy. On one occasion he was thrown by the rabble into an open grave for using the Prayer-book'. In most cases where the rabble h Prideaux's " Evchologia, Sec; he- iug a Legacy to his Daughters in Pri vate, Directing to such manifold Uses of our Common Prayer-book, as may Satisfie upon all Occasions without looking after new Lights from extern - poral Flashes. London, 18mo., 1655 ;" pp. 49, 62, 127, 140, 151, 165. Tho bishop well describes the difference between coming to worship by a set form known to the people as well as to the minister, and coming merely to listen to extempore prayers: "No settled Church can be noted that had not some publick Liturgy, where in the people might joyne with the minister in God's service; children, and the simpler sort, might be in structed by hearing the same words constantly repeated ; and not to come only as spectators to a theatre, to hear much, learn little, and do nothing." Ib., 232. ' Bramstone's Autobiography, 91 — 93, 96, 97, 121. with the Rubrics and Canons. 303 so acted they must have been instructed by others, for gene raUy the common people were attached to the Book. Baxter mentions a case illustrative of this feeling. A minister told him, that on some occasions he was really afraid "lest they would have put him into the grave for burying a corps with out the Common Prayer according to the Directory K" Clement Barksdale gives us a most interesting narrative of his own proceedings with respect to pubhc worship under CromweU. He appeared to imagine that by one of Crom weU's orders liberty was granted for the use of the Common Prayer, though the current of feeling among the ministers, by whom such matters were regulated, was sufficient to pro hibit its public introduction. In 1653 a correspondence and a disputation in public took place between Barksdale and a. neighbouring minister. In one letter Barksdale argues, that after the deliverance from the Scottish invasion, aU hopes of reformation by the Covenant were cut off; and in an account of his practice he says : " The Liturgy of the Church of England we heartily embrace ; but in the use thereof shall not retain anything offensive and opposite to the present government." His opponent was a Sectary or Independent, and in replying to some of his remarks, Barksdale asks: "Was not the reformation fought for a long time Presby terian? That's not yours, nor is yours estabhshed." In another reply he says, " Since the late obstinate disorders of our people, I am more in love with the beauty of the Church. TiU I find a better Church, I must have leave to continue in 1 Baxter's Apology, 90. Abraham Wright, the author of "The Five Spe cimens of Preaching," read the Com mon Prayer in Baptisms and Burials in 1658 in London. Wood, iv. 275, 276. Basire's wife, in 1655, writing to her husband, says : "Mr. Threscros has prech and praid according to youre Chorcb, and his name is geven in, and threscore more that followed his way." Correspondence, of Dr. Basire, 141. Long after the Restoration Baxter stated that the Covenant was not ge nerally taken in the previous times: "Many ministers and gentlemen re fused it, and so did Cromwell's sol diers, and in many counties few did take it." But this was some time after its introduction, when the power of Presbytery was effectually curbed. Baxter's testimony to the extent of Presbytery is decisive : " We know of no place but London and Lancashire where it was commonly taken up, and some little of it at Coventry, and some few such places. And that was only as a tolerated or commended thing, without any imposition that we knew of; and accordingly it came to nothing in a short time." Nonconformist's Plea, 8vo., 1679, 128. 304 The Book of Common Prayer ; the communion of this." To a question proposed by the minister of the Sectaries, "Of what church are you?" he replies, " 1. I am a member of the parish church ; which, although it be much distracted by a minister of separation, yet it is not yet destroyed. Although we cannot come to the usual place for the present safely, and without danger of being engaged in prayers against our conscience, and of being seduced by erroneous doctrine, and much offended and grieved by uncharitable sentences, yet we preserve the prac tice of our rehgion at home, and sometimes partake of the publick ordinance abroad. 2. 1 am a member of the national Church of England, which we acknowledge a true visible Church of Christ, though somewhat clouded now, and de faced by the modern innovations, to which yet there are many thousand professors that have not bowed. 3. I am a member of the Church Catholick, into which I was received at my Baptism." In the disputation in the church, his op ponent cried out "Popery" at the mention of Christmas. On the 17th of December, 1653, he addressed a letter to the justices of Winchcomb, in consequence of complaints of his use of the Common Prayer, in which he expresses his readi ness to obey the Government " in using or not using the Common Prayer. I am ready to use it, if it be permitted, (as I suppose it is by order of the Council of State, Novem ber 12 last,) and I am ready to lay it aside (never with contempt) if they require it to be laid aside." Various tricks had been adopted to make up the proof that he had used the Book in his church : " They procured warrants to fetch in some of my neighbours to swear against me for using the Common Prayer-book, who are not so book-learned that they can weU tell when I use it, when not." It was alleged, "That he hath sometime used some part of the Common Prayer (themselves use not the Directory, and the order of the 12 th of November last protects all assemblies but popish) ; that he christened such a man's child with the sign ofthe Cross." Barksdale says, "Terrible articles'! 1 The Disputation at Winchcomb, Nov. 9, 1653. Together with the Letters, &c- 18mo., London, 1654, 7, 17, 43, 50, 57, 61, 65. Tlie first por tion of the book is unpaged. whh me xcttorics and Uanons. 305 but since the dissolution the men are not terrible." His op ponent's ignorance and presumption were manifested in the disputation in the church. When he alluded to the Liturgy, the Sectaries cried out, " Away with it, we wUl hear none of your Liturgy and old forms." In reply to another aUusion, one of the ministers said, " See, godly brethren, the subtilty of this man ; he wiU not contain himself within the Holy Scripture, but teUs us of fathers, &c. Expound Scripture by the practice of the primitive Church? do ye heare him, brethren ? as if Scripture needed the help of the Church. We thought we should finde him inclining to popery." When this man was asked how he would prove Scripture to be God's word, he replied, " I know it by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in me." Another of the disputants said, " We have enough of you already. I would not goe over the door sill to dispute with one upon whose spirit I see so much of the pope." Cromwell's ordinance for ejecting ministers was severely handled in an address to the Parliament, especially on ac count of the coupling of the Common Prayer with ale-houses, and holding blasphemous opinions. The author also men tions some of the singular opinions then so common : " Some have accounted the dressing oi any meat, or the doing of any other ordinary work, or the using any common talk on that day (the Lord's-day) to be a prophanation ; others have maintained that the working in their trades, or the buying and selling in publick markets, is no prophanation of the day." He states that a minister was " convented for scoff ing at professors of rehgion, because he spake against hypo crites, understanding by them (as the witnesse upon oath said he beheved) the godly and religious." He also mentions the fact, upon which we have dwelt in another chapter, that the Lord's Supper was neglected for many years. In refe rence to the Triers, he asks, what is to keep out of parishes improper persons, who are secure "if they have but so much impudency and hypocrisy as to teU two or three holy lies of their conversion, and then whine or snivel three or four time-serving principles, and answer or admire at four or five mungrel questions, which some of the propounders AM. '' X 306 The Book of Common Prayer ; themselves understood not, and those that have any ingenuity can scarce forbear laughing at, and for the palliating their ignorance disclaime human learning as savouring too much of the two Universities, Rome and Babylon"1?" CromweU was probably quite indifferent on the question of the Common Prayer. His character was a singular one, and it is difficult to say whether he was an enthusiast or a hypo crite, or both combined. It is the custom with some men to discountenance the scenes recorded of his last hours ; yet it is scarcely possible to deny that strange things occurred. BaiUie says, " Some did fearfuUy flatter him as much dead as living. Thomas Goodwin, at the fast before his death, is said to have spoken such words : ' Lord, we pray not for Thy servant's hfe, for we know that is granted, but to haste his health/ And Mr. Sterry, in the chapel, after his death : ' O Lord, Thy late servant is now at Thy right hand, making intercession for the sins of England n.' " A book was published soon after Cromwell's death, which, for en thusiasm and flattery, goes beyond the alleged prayers of the preachers. The author dedicates his book to Richard, and says, " I am afraid to teU your Highness how all your people look upon you as our second Joshua in the place of our second Mose3, as full of the wisdom, courage, and piety as he was." The book is a parallel between Moses and Crom weU, and the latter is said to be inspired : " His inspired Highness full well knew that kingdoms were not made so much for kings, as kings for their subjects." Again : " In imitation of these two greatest statesmen, our first and second Moses, who had so familiar a recourse to the Al mighty, that as the one was, so the other, for ought I know, may be the friend of God." Alluding to CromweU's prayers, he says that this precious spirit "is not onely manifest to those that have had the happinesse to be present at his daily spreading of his hands and pouring forth of his spirit before the Lord, and to joyn with him in his devotions, but to the ¦" " A Petition for the Vindication of the Publique Use of the Book of Common Prayer, &c, occasioned by the late Ordinance for the Ejecting Scandalous Ministers, &c. By Lionel Galford. 4to., 1655." 39, 40, 54, 56. It was certainly most iniquitous to join the use of the Common Prayer with drunkenness and blasphemy. " Baillie's Letters, ii. 423. with the Rubrics and Canons. 307 whole nation." He adds, " How many times has the divine vengeance been diverted from faUing upon our sinful heads by his importunate intercessions? How many pestilences, famines, and other plagues have been kept off from us by his means? Has he lesse often than the former Moses con quered his . enemies, more by his own prayers than by his soldiers' armes ? How could this be, but that the Lord could no more deny anything to the prayer of this His dear ser vant and favourite, our second, than he could to the former Moses ?" His. prayers and fastings were so managed, " that he made on earth a perfect figure of angels ascending and descending, receiving already a taste of those benefits which he was to hope for in the other." " The familiar friend of God was not only always ready to stand in the gap, as the first Moses did, but was wont to storm heaven for us °." » " Historie and Policie Reviewed, in the Heroick Transactions of his most Serene Highnesse, Oliver, late Lord Protector, &c. ; Declaring his Steps to Princely Perfection : as they are drawn in lively Parallels to the Ascents of the Great Patriarch Moses, in Thirty Degrees, to the height of honour. By H. D., Esq.; 8vo., London, 1659," 49, 177, 178, 179, 181. Many expressions in this book are not a little blasphe mous. His appointment of Richard as his successor is ascribed to " parti cular revelations that he had from God Himself." Ib., 269. Richard is called "our second Joshua." Ib., 277. Crom well's resistance to different parties is magnified, as " The late king ; then the kirk, and all its consistorians ; then tho long-lived, long-reigning, and in deed ruining, Parhament." Ib., 192. Of Paul's injunction about speaking "to edification, to exhortation, and comfort," the writer says, " If ever this sublime piece of divine prophesio was made out to any mortal man, it was most eminently glorious in him ; his very life was a perpetual prophesie, his sanctified example was a constant living sermon, and the words which the Spirit gave him, when he was pleased to open his inspired lips, were as thunder-claps for the production of salvation." Ib., 213. After Crom well's death, some of the addresses to Richard were quite as profane. In many he was called " the delight of their eyes :" in one it was said that God made " the mountains plains beforo him:" that God had removed him on "account of their All the sincere friends of the Church, as has been shewn, used the Book from the time ofthe Restoration. 'We have a contemporary, though an anonymous publication, which glances at the practice of some of the paro chial ministers in refusing to comply with the suggestions of the proclama tion : " Let us make it a time of re storing, for tho reading ofthe Common Prayer-book in our churches. St. John wept when there was not one to open the book. And what a lament able thing it is, that many should be so peevish aa not to open this Book, the very readiri;: of which caused our forefathers, the martyrs, to weep for joy." Addressing the ministers who refused, he proceeds : " Nor will your infirmity of body or shortness of breath serve for an excuse, for how then came yon to he such long-winded preachers? How is it that you can bestow three or four hours in eager and violent discourse to Justine your inability, whenas a third part of that breath sufficiently, testifies your abi lity?" Alluding to those who read portions of the Book only, he says: " For by this mangling ofthe Common Prayer, as yourselves please, what do you else hut make yourselves bishops in your own parishes ? You bring the Common Prayer into disgrace and dis like with the people, as a frivolous, unnecessary, superfluous piece of ser vice, and so bid fair for the ushering in that goddess of the Presbyterians, the Directory and the Covenant." A Visitation Speech, delivered at Col chester, in Essex, 1662, 4to., London : printed in the year 1662. with the Rubrics and Canons. 347 they were sitting in a shop in St. Paul's Churchyard, what was the value of the see of Lichfield and Coventry '. He de clined in the end, but more from the recoUection that his consistency would be sacrificed by compliance than from scruples of conscience. He could not forget his previous course, his Christmas -day and other sermons. He and others could not comply without a loss of character, on ac count of their former violence. It was inconsistent even to hesitate, if their objections to ceremonies were such as they had frequently expressed. Their indecision evidently arose from other considerations, namely, whether they might not be despised both by their friends and the consistent members of the Church of England ; and whether they might not lose the former without gaining the latter. Some even admitted that they did not scruple conformity, but that in their case it would have been inconsistent, since it would have been buUding up what they had long laboured to puU down. Others were determined in their refusal to comply by the hope of an indulgence. It was said that, if a large body declined, the government would interfere in their favour. Sometime after the Act therefore had been in operation, several conformed, finding that their expectations of an in dulgence were not likely to be reahzed. One individual preached his fareweU sermon, taking leave of his people on one Sunday, and then conformed on the next. Others went with their friends, and afterwards repented. It is also stated, that some were influenced in their determination to refuse, by the prosecutions instituted in various places by the magis trates against ministers for not reading the Common Prayer according to law. Forty indictments were presented by the grand jury at Exeter k. Before the 24th of August, there fore, many had made up their minds to refuse subscription and to quit their livings ; but it is evident that, from their numbers, they expected some indulgence on the part of the government. The day arrived, and they left their churches. 1 Morley on Baxter, 600. Orme I k Rennet's Register, 647, 752. Thi3 considers his hesitation about the objection has been previously met. bishopric as discreditable to his me- j Such indictments were quashed. mory. Orme's Life of Baxter, i. 247. I 348 The Book of Common Prayer; Subscription was the great obstacle ; yet most of tbe meu who refused had taken the Covenant or the Engagement1. From the 24th of August, 1662, to the present time, the charge has been repeated, that the ministers were turned out for not subscribing to a book which they were not able to see. The cry was probably. first raised by Baxter; and from him it is still repeated. Yet the charge is utterly groundless. On the 6th of August the Book was ready for circulation, and on that day the fact was announced by pub hc advertisement1". In London, therefore, and its vicinity, there could have been no difficulty ; yet from London many were ejected. But Baxter asserts that "the Book and Act of Uniformity came not out of the press tiU about that very day, August 24th n." The assertion, as we have seen, is contrary to fact. But the Act made a special provision for such as could not, from any cause, get the Book by the specified day. It enjoined expulsion, except some lawful impediment could be alleged. The not receiving the Book was a lawful impediment ; therefore the objection was ground less. StiU it was constantly repeated. The Bishop of Peter borough gave a certificate to the Dean and Chapter, who did not receive their copies until the 17th of August, so that aU could not peruse the Book by the 24th. The certificate was sufficient to prevent ejection ; and in aU other cases a simUar course was open. It must have been known that no mate rial alterations were made ; consequently the argument based 1 The ministers who refused to com ply in 1662 were not a fourth part of those who were in possession of bene fices. This fact is noticed by Baxter to prove that many complied, though they had held livings under the Covenant or the Engagement : " So that it is evi dent that above three-fourth parts of the ministers that kept in under the Parliament and Protector (notwith standing Covenant, Directory, and all) did prove conformists." Baxter's ^Nonconformist's Plea, 140. ¦a Kcrmef s Register, 739. " Baxter on Councils, 230: "The new Liturgy came out of the press so neav the penal Bartholomew day, that in almost all counties of England they were turned out for not declaring as sent to a Book which they never saw, or could see; and the conformists owned it before they saw it." Bax ter's Search for a Schismatick, 35. The same unfounded assertion was re peated in the next reign :¦ "It is well known that the Liturgy came not out of the press till a few days before the 24th of August, so that very few could possibly have had a sight of the new Book before they were obliged todeclare their assent and consent." Moderation still a Virtue, 4to., 1704, 18. This au thor's testimony may be estimated, perhaps, at little value, but it shews the continuance of the false charge. with ihe Rubrics and Canons. 349 on the late reception of the Book was not of much value. Yet every man was at hberty to apply for a certificate that he had not received a copy in sufficient time for examination. There was no difficulty in the matter °- Yet the argument or pretence has been used by aU dissenting writers, who, however, must have been aware of the provisions of tbe Act. An Act was also passed to meet the case of persons who were absent, or "by reason of sickness, imprisonment, disability of body, or otherwise, could not, or did not, resort unto their respective bishops or ordinaries p." Baxter mentions that he ceased from preaching three months before the 24th of August, that aU "might understand in time whether I in tended to conform or not; for bad I stayed to the last, some would have conformed the sooner, upon a supposition that I intended it"!." So that, according to Baxter, some became Nonconformists, not from principle, or from scruples of con science, or because they could not see the Book in time, but from partisanship. It is evident that the shortness of the time had no influence in his decision; yet he and aU his followers, down to Mr. Orme, have put forth the pretence that the Book could not be procured for examination r. By many the Book was received with unusual satisfaction, and on the 24th of August it was read in almost all churches. It is stated that at Gloucester aU cheerfully complied, and that " not a man in aU the church had his hat on, either at service or at sermon s." In the previous times this unseemly practice of sitting covered, which had been derived from the Puritans, prevailed to a great extent ; but it was contrary to the Canons of the Church of England. Such a notice proves the prevalence of the practice. The new Book was published on large and smaU paper, 0 Rennet's Register, 837. r Gibson, 283. i Baxter's Life, 384; Rector of Sutton, 61. ' Calamy, i. 201, 202, 205 ; Calamy on Nonconformity, ii. 100; Robinson s Review, &c, 397; Conformist's Plea for Nonconformists, part ii. 55 ; Orme's Baxter, i. 291. The false statement is handed down from one generation of dissenting writers to another, until it is a part of their creed. It is more than a tradition; it is with them a fact. In 1774 Palmer, in a new edi tion of Calamy's work, repeats it ; and it remains in the edition of 1802. This writer says that there was not time for printing the Book after the pass ing of the Act, so as to allow of an examination before the 24th of Au gust. ¦ Rennet's Register, 743, 749. 350 The Book of Common Prayer; in foho ; the latter for general use, the former for such as might prefer the Book in that state. Another edition in foho was published in the same year, in black letter, yet in a smaller type. The first Book has an engraved, the second only a printed title. One is so much smaller than the other, that the two Books can readUy be distinguished. Two edi tions in Svo. were also published by Field, at Cambridge, and one in 12mo. in London by the king's printer, in the same year '. As the Parliament was determined on passing the Act of Uniformity, the Presbyterians appear to have depended on- the king. The Romanists, moreover, secretly advised them to stand out, assuring them that if their numbers were large, a toleration must be granted. By the papists the toleration was desired in order that they might be compre hended: "It was a great unhappineas that they found so much countenance from the king and some of his prime ministers; for this did but help to harrass them in their prejudices against the Church, and made them less and less inclinable to conformity and union, because they flattered themselves with the continual hopes of liberty and toleration. Whereas, if they had lost aU dependence on a court interest, and had found the king and his ministers intent upon the strict observance of tbe Act of Uniformity, as the Commons of England now were, most of the Dissenters would no doubt at this juncture have conformed"." It appears that the court secretly encouraged the Presbyterians in their non conformity, while at the same time they urged the bishops to enforce a strict uniformity. It was, however, inconsistent in the Presbyterians to desire a toleration, for they had been the advocates of the covenanted uniformity, and had viewed hberty of conscience as a greater evil than prelacy. Fre- * A small edition was published in 1663. It is a rare little book. ¦ Rennet, Complete History, iii. 39 : "It was plausible for them (the pa pists) says Rennet, " to promote an in dulgence towards Protestant dissent ers, to bring on by degrees n general toleration that could not fail to give breath and life to them and their re ligion." Ib., 240. The fact is ad mitted by Neal, who states that the papists urged the episcopal party to press the Act of Uniformity, in order that a toleration might be conceded. Neal, iv. 349, 350; Collier, ii. 889; Rennet's Register, 852; Hallain's Constitutional History, ii. 467, 468. with the Rubrics and Canons. 351 quently had they deprecated the evils which, as they al leged, must necessarily flow from such a scheme. According to their own principles, therefore, it would have been more consistent to have complied with the Act of Uniformity than to have sought for a toleration. Yet the men, who were now likely to be the sufferers, were eager to obtain that relief which, in the day of their power, they had refused to concede to others. The odium of the Act is placed to the accoimt of the Church, though it was rather the Act of the State. It was carried in Parliament, not in Convocation ; it was passed by Churchmen, though not by clergymen; by laymen in Parhament, not by clergymen in Convocation. The Lords attempted a modification, by the insertion of a clause em powering the king to dispense with the use of the surplice and the sign of the Cross ; but the Commons indignantly set their faces against aU such proposals. The principle, moreover, of one uniform system, to be imposed on tbe na tion, was as much the doctrine of the Presbyterians of these times as of the members of the Church of England. The alterations of 1661 were chiefly in the way of addi tions, as indeed was the case in the revision under Edward VI., and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Convocation would not rashly touch the work of the Reformers. Ad ditions may be required by times and circumstances, and their adoption involves no departure from any principle, unless, hke those of the Church of Rome, they virtuahy set aside important truths. Such additions have never been made to tbe Book of Common Prayer. It stiU remains the same Book as the Reformers used. Without a pubhc Liturgy, public worship would be different in different pa rishes. It would not be always the same in the same parish, or in the same church. A Liturgy could not have been de vised to have suited aU the Sectaries, since the very principle of a prescribed form was rejected by no inconsiderable num ber ; and if the management of Divine Service had been left in many cases to the option of the minister, the people would have had just reason to complain. Moreover, such a departure from the practice of the Reformers would have cast a slur on the Enghsh Reformation. Happily, in 1661 352 The Book of Common Prayer; the work was committed to men who did not betray their trust. No radical changes were introduced ; but if the pro posals of the ministers had been accepted, the Liturgy would no longer have been the book of the Reformers. In making the additions, the Convocation foUowed the precedent of the Church in aU ages, namely, to add according to circum stances ; not to put forth new books, but to make additions to existing offices, and to add other forms when they were required by circumstances. The Book was, as usual, assaUed by opposite parties, — by Romanists and Nonconformists. By the former, the Church of England was said to be constantly changing; by many of the latter the Common Prayer was, according to the former cry, designated the Mass in Enghsh. To the former it is sufficient to reply, that the Church of Rome has done the same as the Church of England. Additions have frequently been made to her Ritual. Some additions were also made to the Common Prayer-book. To the latter it may be replied, that the things alleged to be found in the Mass are also in the Bible and the early Liturgies. If, therefore, everything is to be rejected which is found in the Romish books, we must cut off some portions of the Bible. But the assertion is untrue. The Mass-book, that is, so much of the Romish office as is popish, was added to the Book of Common Prayer, or to the Primitive Liturgies, which our Liturgy foUows, and the additions were removed at the Reformation. Almost everything in the Prayer-book is to be found in the ancient Liturgies in use before the time of popery. It has been most truly said, " Our dis senters do unreasonably charge us with taking our offices from the Church of Rome ; though, by the way, to make the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome a sufficient exception against a conformity of behef or worship in the Church of England, is both a ridiculous and dangerous ob jection; and if the argument should be pursued to its just con sequences, would make the dissenters renounce the Bible *." * Collier's Supplement, &c, art. Li turgy. The Act of Uniformity was censured for rejecting all forms ex cept the English Liturgy; and the objection came from men who had been strenuous in imposing the Cove nant and the Directory. witn tne Motorics ana Uanons. 353 Though a few things were altered in the Book, yet sub stantially it remained the same. The rubrics, to which the strongest objections had been raised by the Puritans, were retained, for their rejection would have been a reflection on the Eeformers by whom they were arranged. Thus the ornaments of the Church were to- remain as they were fixed by the first Book of King Edward : " Therefore, legally, the ornaments of ministers in performing Divine Service are the same now as they were in 2 Edward VI. y" Whatever was prescribed in this matter by that Book is stUl in force, but as the ornaments are not specified, some have been neglected and forgotten. The question of ornaments is one of some interest. With respect to the cope there can be no doubt, though its use is discontinued ; but different opinions are entertained relative to candlesticks on the Communion-table. By Edward's In junctions " two lights" were retained on the " high altar," while all others were removed, In Cranmer's Articles in quiries were made about the removal of candlesticks and tapers, yet at the same time the two on the altar are re tained. We find that the "two lights" were in use under Edward's first Book, and consequently they were lawful at that time. Though they were subsequently prohibited, yet Elizabeth's rubric, which was adopted in 1662, and which is stiU our rule in Church ornaments, takes us back to the first Book established in Edward's second year. Any injunctions of Edward's reign, subsequent to his second year, have no bearing on this question. It is evident that the Injunctions of 1547 were ratified by Parliament; and as Elizabeth's y Gibson, 297. Gibson says, " This clause now became, for the lirst time, part of the Book of Common Prayer." He also makes the same remark on the rubric about the place for Common Prayer. The rubrics occurred in Eli zabeth's Book, hut, he says, " not hy authority of Parliament." "Thelnjunc- tion concerning the habits and orna ments of ministers, which is at the end of Ring Edward VI.'s fust Service- book, with its explanations in the Act of Uniformity by Queen Elizabeth, is the legal or statutable rule of our Church habits at this day." Sharpo on the Rubrics, 215. Grey strangely imagines the second Book of Ring Edward to be intended by the rubric, but, as far as I can judge, he stands alone in that singular opinion. Others have considered it limited by the ad vertisements in 1561. Gibson is, I think, mistaken in saying that the above rubrics had no parliamentary authority under Elizabeth. AM. A a 354 The Book of Common Prayer ; make no aUusion to the matter, they do not touch the " two lights." Candlesticks and tapers, indeed, are by the Queen's Injunctions ordered to be removed, but only in the terms used in 1547 and 1548 in the same Injunctions, by which the "two hgbts" are established; consequently, no more could be intended in 1559 than in 1548 ; and in the latter year, the same document which ordered the removal of aU other, confirmed tbe use of the two lights. Besides, if Elizabeth's Injunctions should be interpreted to comprehend in the general order for removal, which was adopted from a previous reign, the two lights, as well as aU others, they must also embrace Communion-tables, since tables as well as candlesticks are specified. Two facts are, at aU events, estabhshed ; first, that the two candlesticks were re tained under Edward's first Book ; secondly, that they were in general use in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. From the Puritan accusations it is evident, that candles were placed on the Communion-table in cathedrals, and in many pa rochial churches, throughout that reign; consequently, they were then regarded as ornaments within the meaning of the rubric On no other ground than this rubric, and that of custom, are organs and various other things retained in our churches. The Reformers under Elizabeth knew well what ornaments were retained in churches in Edward's second year, and as candlesticks were among the number, it is ar gued that they were sanctioned by the rubric, which sends us back to King Edward's first Book. The practice in the days of Elizabeth may be regarded as interpretative of the law. It might, indeed, be argued, that the two lights were necessarily removed with the altars, of which they were ap pendages ; but stUl the general use of candlesticks under Eli zabeth, seems to warrant the conclusion, that they were then reckoned among church ornaments. The question is one of perfect indifference, though stUl of considerable interest. From the fact that candlesticks were retained under Ed ward untU 1552, and also under Elizabeth, it appears that the Reformers continued the use of unlighted candles as ornaments, instead of the lighted ones, which remained only ¦untU the removal of the altars. with the Rubrics and Canons. 355 It is remarkable, that in Sharpe's day the surplice was used in the pulpit in the whole diocese of Durham. It was, moreover, peculiar to this diocese at that time ; for though many clergymen in other places preached in the surplice, yet the custom was not general. Probably the practice was continued by Cosin, who interpreted the words, "aU times of ministration," to comprehend preaching. It has been argued, that the words in the rubric of 1549, "aU other places," dispensed with the surplice, except in the offices specified; but surely, as matins, evensong, baptizing, and burial are mentioned, the clause cannot be taken to signify that the services not mentioned might be celebrated without any peculiar dress. The public offices, besides those speci fied in Edward's rubric, are few, and the Communion, which is not mentioned in the order, is specially required to be celebrated in a surplice, or in an albe or cope z. " AU other places" could only refer to ministers when not engaged in the performance of Divine Service. AU ministers connected with cathedrals and coUeges were at liberty to wear the sur plice in their choirs ; but in " all other places," the clergy not officiating might appear in their ordinary dress, which, as weU as the ministerial habit, was regulated by law. No alteration was made in the rubric respecting the po sition of the Communion-table. Though a controversy had long existed on this subject, yet the Convocation deemed it right to leave the question as it formerly stood. So the table was to stand in the body of the church or chancel, where the Morning and Evening Prayer were appointed to be said. The Morning and Evening Prayer were to be read in the accustomed place. A latitude was allowed to the ordinary, but none to the minister or people. In all churches the accustomed place was the choir, but the ordinary could appoint another for the Communion-table in case of any in convenience. For a long season, therefore, the table has stood at all times close to the east wall in the chancel, though the rubric leaves the question unsettled. Custom has since decided the matter; and common sense has ruled that the _* Sharpe on the Rubrics, 247; Grey's Ecclesiastical Law, 113. a a2 356 The Book of Common Prayer ; east end of the chancel is the most convenient position. Yet, as the chancels were to remain as in times past, and as the table usuaUy stood in the chancel, it might be a question whether the prescribed place, even at tbe time of Communion, is not the east end of the church. Two views only could be admitted to have any weight in a court of law, namely, first, that the words, "the accustomed place," should be taken to signify the place in which Morning and Evening Prayer were said when they were originaUy used in the Book of Queen Elizabeth; or, secondly, that the place in which the table had stood long enough to establish a custom was intended. In either case the table must remain at the east end of the chancel, since the words originally meant the place where the altar had stood, and for a long series of years it has remained in aU churches in the same situation. Neither the clergy nor the people have any discretionary power in the matter ; but it is sometimes asserted, that the ordinary can order the table to be removed to any part of the church for the celebration of the Communion. For the reasons aheady given, I am inclined to believe that the ordinary has now no such power. Long custom has, I be heve, made the law. Under Edward's first Book altars still remained, and Morning and Evening Prayer were said in the choir. The accustomed place under Elizabeth was the place in which the Morning and Evening Prayer had pre viously been said, namely, the choir ; and the table was to stand in that part of the church in which the Daily Service was performed". The rubric, " and tbe chancels shall remain as they have done in times past," occurs in Edward's second Book, and is repeated in Elizabeth's; consequently the rule observed re specting chancels under the Book of 1549 is still retained. In short, the chancels were to continue in the state in which they were left by the Reformers. There was a disposition to pull down the steps and level the chancels with the rest of the church; and this rubric was originally intended to check such excesses. The state of the chancels under Edward's ¦ A discretionary power was granted ] churches certain obstructions came to the ordinary, because in some between the nave and the chancel. with the Rubrics and Canons. 357 first Book is weU known. The table stood, as at present, under the eastern wall, in the place of the altar, and the Morning and Evening Service were read in the chancel. No alteration was made in the second Book : on the contrary, the chancels were to continue as they had existed under the Book of 1549. An alteration was made in the Declaration relative to the presence of Christ in the Lord's. Supper. The Noncon formists were anxious for the insertion of the Declaration, which had existed in some copies of Edward's second Book.- Under Elizabeth, the two forms at the delivery of the ele ments were united, and the Declaration against the corporal presence was rejected. In 1661 the united form at the de livery of the elements, was retained ; and the Declaration was adopted, though with such material alterations as to change its character. The change was effected by the substitution of the words " any corporal presence" for " real and essential presence." Probably the corporal presence was alone in tended by the Reformers in the Declaration ; but the Puri tans had regarded the words as denying any real presence. In 1661, therefore, when the Declaration was revived, the "real and essential presence" was not denied, but only the carnal or corporal presence of Rome b. A question is not unfrequently asked respecting the extent of subscription to the Homilies, namely, whether it binds to an approval of every expression. The form of subscription was framed in the Canons of 1603, and even at that time the question was raised. Burgess, a clergyman, scrupled the form of subscription, in consequence of his disapproval of b As usual, Neal is as rash in his assertions on this subject as on others. Alluding to the interpolated rubric or declaration on kneeling, in Edward's second Book, he says, "This clause was struck out by Queen Elizabeth to give a latitude to papists and Lu therans, but was inserted again at the Kestoration, at tho request of the Purir nis." Neal, i. 63. This short sentence contains various errors of no small magnitude. It asserts that the clause was struck out to give a latitude to papists, which is utterly false; it confounds the popish view of transub stantiation witli the Lutheran notion of a real presence, wliich is a gross misrepresentation: and it states that the clause was restored in 1662, and at the request of the Puritans, lt is true that the Declaration was restored, hut so altered on the point of most importance as totally to change its character. It is truly surprising that a man should have been able to express so many false statements in so small a number of Unes. 358 The Book of Common Prayer ; some expressions in the HomUies, though he had subscribed to the Articles under Queen Elizabeth. On being called upon to renew his subscription, he stated his scruples, but ofiered to subscribe if it could be shewn to his satisfaction that there wa3 no change intended in the doctrines of the Articles by the Canons. He had imagined that the Canons had effected some change. His opinion of what he considered the subscription to include was submitted to James I., who, together with Archbishop Bancroft, admitted that it was the view of the Church on this subject. He confesses that he bad been deceived by the false quotations of " the abridge ment ;" and that he bad construed some things in the Ca nons " to a worse meaning than he afterwards perceived to be in the Church." Burgess accepted the supremacy and the XXXIX Articles without scruple. To the second of the three Articles relative to the Common Prayer, he subscribed on certain conditions, namely, that it did not bind him to the errors of printers and translators of the Scriptures, that the sign of tbe cross did not possess any virtue in itself, and that be was not bound to approve every expression in the Homilies, but that " dogmaticaUy there is nothing delivered in these Homilies contrary to the Word of God," and that they may profitably be read " when other means are want ing." " These interpretations King James accepted, and my Lord's Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to bee the true sense and intent of the Church of England." Burgess now laboured to induce others to conform, and published his work by command of Charles I. As the same form of subscription was retained in 1662, we may conclude that the intention is the same as was allowed by James I. and Bancroft. This statement seems decisive of the question. The Homilies are not subscribed in the same way as the Articles and Book of Common Prayer. The subscription is rather to a proposition concerning the Homilies °. At the review in 1661, the word ''oblations" was inserted in the Prayer for the Church Militant; and a petition for their acceptance, which supposes the act of presenting them • Burgess* Answer, &o., 4to., 1631, 17, 18, 23—26. with the Rubrics and Canons. 859 to be performed by the minister, was added. The order to place the elements on the table at this particular part of the Service was given at the same time, and the word " obla tions" was intended to meet it ; so that the expression can not consistently be used by the minister unless he comply with the direction. The clergy pledge themselves to obedi ence in all things; and nothing can be plainer than the rubric respecting the placing of the elements on the table by the minister a. The question of re-ordination was one of the great stum bling-blocks to the Presbyterians in 1661 ; and the objection is stUl a common one with dissenting writers, and even with some Churchmen. It is asserted sometimes, that the re- ordination of the ministers ordained irregularly during the usurpation was a departure from the principles of the Re formers, who allowed the orders of the foreign reformed Churches. The matter is now rather curious than impor tant ; yet, as so many loose assertions are repeated on a mere question of fact, the subject merits some notice. The clause in the Act of Uniformity requiring episcopal ordination, however, is not inconsistent, but in perfect ac cordance, with the views of the Reformers. It was intended to meet the case of men who rejected the authority of bishops. No necessity could be pleaded : yet necessity is the hinge on which the whole question depends. Our Reformers, in their public documents, never admitted the validity of orders con ferred by presbyters ; whether the view was right or wrong is quite another question ; I now deal only with the fact. It wiU be desirable to trace the history of this controversy. Probably of all the foreign reformed Churches, that of Geneva appeared the most attractive to the Puritans; yet Geneva may be pointed to at the present time as a warning to such as reject the apostolic discipline. Many of the re formed Churches, in which the primitive government was not retained, have fearfully departed from the faith, and none more so than the Church of Geneva. Some of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are formally rejected. d Sharpe on the Rubrics, 91, 93. 360 The Book of Common Prayer ; The apostohc government was laid aside at the Reformation, and now the apostohc doctrines are discarded. The fact shews the danger of setting up modern theories against pri mitive practice. Looking at the continental Churches, we cannot but see that God's blessing has not rested on those which rejected the apostolic government ; and we may infer that the question is of more importance than some per sons imagine. The Geneva discipline was the model of the earlier Puritans and the later Presbyterians ; and what is now the state of tbe Church of Geneva? Its discipline and government remain, but some of the great doctrines of the Gospel are denied or evaded, whUe portions of the sacred volume are treated as fabulous. Some other continental Churches are in the same deplorable condition. In many places, errors on fundamental doctrines are more or less pre valent. The fact is incontrovertible. Yet with this fact staring us in the face, some persons belonging to the Church of England can scarcely conceal their dislike to- Episcopacy. The state of things on the continent may well inspire a fear, lest in rejecting an apostolic ordinance, the apostolic doc trines may" also be disregarded. The government adopted at Geneva and in other places was never known in the Church for 1500 years. The fact was often admitted by the foreign Reformers, who accordingly urged the plea of necessity as their only justification. Never indeed was it reasonable to appeal to Geneva as a model of reformation, since it was so small a territory that various English parishes exceed it in the number of inhabitants and of ministers. But had the English Presbyterians succeeded in setting up the Geneva discipline, have we any reason to believe that the results would have been different ? In Geneva, popery is rapidly advancing, for the papists are the only persons who manifest any zeal. Not many years ago the Roman Catholic population was comparatively small, now it is more than one- third of the whole, and a large cathedral was recently erected. The Church of Geneva is corrupted in its doctrines, ministers and people are destitute of zeal, and the only persons in earnest are the papists, with the exception of the very small body separated from the national establishment. The con- with the Rubrics and Canons. 361 sequence is a constant accession of numbers to the Church of Rome. Groups of priests are now seen in the streets in their peculiar costume, as in France and Belgium. Cor ruption in doctrine has followed the infraction of the apo stolic discipline. In practice, moreover, Geneva is sadly degenerated e. The Sabbath is fearfully desecrated by open shops and public markets, at which labourers are hired for the country. The weU known rifle-matches, so common in Switzerland, commence on the Sunday, and thousands as semble as actors and spectators. We, as a nation, whatever may be the sins of individuals, have been spared such scenes ; and may we not ascribe our security, by the divine blessing, to our Church, which re tains both the Scriptural doctrines and the apostolic practice ? We have seen in this work the sad results which followed the rash proceeding of setting aside Episcopacy and the Com mon Prayer. In England, moreover, all other rehgious bodies are undergoing perpetual changes in their views. Where are the old Presbyterian congregations, — congregations in which the Geneva discipline was practised ? They are either become Independents or Socinians. In short, Independency may now be said to have taken the place of Presbytery, though it is of still more recent origin, since it sprang up during that period so fruitful in novel opinions and in strange sects, the period of the Commonwealth. But even among English dissenters the same transformation is in constant progress. The first dissenters were Presbyterians, and many of them became Socinians. Other bodies of more recent formation seem to be drifting in the same direction, while many suffer their political to overpower their religious feelings. In many things the Independents, the most numerous body, are de parted from their original principles ; while even the Wesleyan Methodists have repudiated some of the distinctive tenets of ' One of the sore points with the Puritans was tlie observation of holy- days. By the Reformers no distinction was made b?tween them and the Los d's-day, both were to be observed. But the foreign Reformers, whom the Puritans wished to copy, made light even of the Sunday, aud permitted things to be done on tliat sacred day which would give a shock to all right feelius: ill England. S62 The Book of Common Prayer; their founder, John Wesley. But the Church of England remains the same in doctrine and worship. From Geneva, therefore, was derived the desire for Pres- byterial government in England. In later times, however, another opinion began to prevail, namely, that aU Church government was a matter of indifference, and that either Episcopacy or Presbytery may be adopted at the option of the civU governors. To support this notion, it was argued that our Reformers, though they retained Episcopacy, still regarded Presbytery as lawful. I shaU now proceed to shew that the assertion is not true, and further, that, were it cor rect, the recognition of orders conferred by the foreign Churches would not meet the case of the Puritans in earher times, or of Nonconformists of a later period. In the present day there is a tendency to depreciate Episcopacy as a matter of indifference or expediency, to be set up or laid aside by parliamentary authority. Such a notion, however, is at variance with the principles of the Church of England, which holds Episcopacy to be an apo stolical ordinance. The State may set up Presbytery or Popery, but it cannot make true and canonical bishops. ' The establishment of an ecclesiastical system does not make it apostolical. God's Word is not true because it is recog nised by the State : it depends on higher authority. Nor is Episcopacy lawful because it is sanctioned by the law of the land, but because it is warranted by the Word of God and the practice of the primitive Church. It is an ordinance of the Church, which the State may retain or reject, but no legislative enactments can alter its character. An Act of Parliament cannot m..ke a Church, though it can create an ecclesiastical establishment. In Scotland, Episcopacy exists while Presbytery is established, and no little misapprehen sion prevails even in England on the subject. The Erastian principle would lead its advocates to worship according to the system established by law. In England they would join in our Liturgy, and in Scotland they would worship in the Presbyterian Church. But this loose notion is utterly re pugnant to Episcopacy and Presbytery. No sound member of the Church of England could possibly adopt it, since it with the Rubrics and Canons. 363 involves tbe rejection of Episcopal government, except as a parliamentary institution. To the existence of this loose notion may be attributed the inconsistencies, which are manifest among professed members of the Church of England. The case of Scotland is an illus tration. In that country the bishops are sometimes dispa raged, as though, from the existence of Presbytery, they possessed no canonical authority. Yet they are true bishops, notwithstanding the establishment of Presbytery. As mem bers of the Church of England, we have no more to do with the establishment of Presbytery in Scotland than with the toleration of Dissent in England. Such measures are mere acts of State, and to depreciate Episcopacy because it is not estabhshed, is to fall in with the pretence of the papists and dissenters, that our Church is only a parliamentary esta blishment. The nature of things cannot be changed by the State. If Episcopacy be an apostolical ordinance, it cannot be laid aside by its supporters because Presbytery in some places may be legally established f. In Scotland, therefore, all who adhere to Episcopacy as an apostolical ordinance must recognise the Scottish bishops. To refuse subjection to bishops is to renounce the govern ment of the Church of England. To subscribe to the XXXIX Articles and the Book of Common Prayer is in consistent in any, who refuse to submit to a bishop, who may exercise canonical jurisdiction over the territory in which they may be located. The mere use of the Common Prayer does not constitute a man an Episcopalian. A Churchman must recognise the authority of a bishop— of a bishop, too, who has a canonical claim to his allegiance. He cannot otherwise be an Episcopalian. In Scotland no English bishop can exercise jurisdiction, because canonical bishops reside in that country ; and on the principles of the Church of England their authority is not affected by the legal esta- ' It was said of some under the Commonwealth, that they would not believe the Creed because it was not directly established by Act of Parlia ment. A Catechism of the last cen tury was no caricature: "Why will not dissenters use the Creed ? Because it is not set down every word in the Bible. Why will they not use tlie Lord's Prayer? Because it^is set down every word in the Bible." 364 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; blishment of Presbytery. Bishops are lawful governors of the Church, even in countries in which Presbytery pre vails. A system is not necessarUy true or sound because it is sanctioned by law, neither can its establishment in validate Episcopacy, which is still the Scriptural and pri mitive government of the Church. On the mere establish ment principle, Popery even, if sanctioned by law, must be received. It behoves us to be truly thankful that our Church is established by law ; yet, were the sanction of the State withdrawn, or were Popery or Presbytery legaUy set up, she would stUl remain a true and apostolical Church. Principles cannot be made true or false by authority of Parliament. The Church of England is not the creature of the State, as the Romanists and Dissenters constantly assert. It is pro tected by the State, and the civU power sometimes lends its aid in suppressing errors. Yet ever since the Reformation, the charge of being a parliamentary Church has been re peated by Roman Catholics; and it has also been adopted by dissenters. By the Act of the 1st of Elizabeth, the Book of Common Prayer, with tbe Ordinal, was duly restored ; but as the latter was not actually specified in the Act of Uni formity, the papists immediately asserted that the bishops were not legaUy consecrated. In the 8th of Elizabeth an other Act was passed to remove aU doubts on the subject, and the papists took advantage of the circumstance to stigmatize the bishops a3 parliamentary bishops. Now the statute in question merely refers to the validity of Episcopacy in the eye of our own laws, not to its canonical character, which could not be affected by the legislature. The statute also proves, that the Ordinal was reputed to be effectually esta blished by the Act of Uniformity with tbe Book of Common Prayer. But the bishops of this period were true bishops by their canonical consecration, without reference to the parliamentary enactments. " The laws of England can neither make a valid ordination to be invalid, nor an invalid ordination to be valid, because they cannot change the in stitution of Christ8." This is a sufficient answer to the s Bramhall's Succession of Protes- I The 8th of Elizabeth only declares tant Bishops Justified, 12tno., 60. | the law of the first year of hor reign. with the Rubrics and Canons. 365 assertions of dissenters, who concur with papists in calling our Church a parliamentary Church : and it fully meets the case of Episcopacy in Scotland. As Christ's institution, it is not affected by the establishment of Presbytery. An objection has been raised against the Episcopal Church of Scotland on the ground of its Communion Office. The Church allows the use of this Office or that of the Church of England : each clergyman decides for himself. The fact itself in no way affects the question of the character and jurisdiction of the Scottish bishops, nor yet the duty of Eng lish Churchmen in Scotland. The Church' of Ireland has several distinct Offices, with various prayers, aU duly autho rized, which do not exist in our Book of Common Prayer, and which cannot be used in England. A different Book, therefore, is provided for the Church of Ireland. Yet these varieties are no obstacle to the union of the two Churches. No Enghsh clergyman is compeUed to adopt the Scottish Office, and in many places it is never used; yet in Ireland every one ordained in England is called upon to use forms to which he has never subscribed. But it is not probable that those who decline the jurisdiction of Scottish bishops would submit, even were the Office in question discarded. The very notion of the importance of an Act of Parliament in such matters, militates against all ideas of reverence for Episcopacy as an apostolic ordinance. Yet on no ground, except that of erroneous doctrine, could communion with the bishops in Scotland be refused. This ground, therefore, is assumed. It is asserted that the Office is unsound ; yet it is not in reality chargeable with the erroneous doctrines which are alleged by the objectors, frequently without any enquiry or examination. The assertion is a revival of the old cry of popery against anything which may be disliked. Our own Office is deemed popish by many persons, and, indeed, the lb., 96, 98. The XXXVIth Article declares that the Ordinal of Edward VI. was confirmed by authority of Parliament; and it decrees that all ordinations in accordance with Ring Edu aid's Ordinal were lawful. By the Reformers, therefore, the Ordinal was regarded as sufficiently confirmed. Besides, by Elizabeth's Act of Uni formity, Edward's Act was restored; and consequently, the Ordinal pos sessed full parliamentary authority from the first year of her reign. 366 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; whole Book of Common Prayer. And assuredly, if popery can be extracted from the Scottish Office, it will not require much ingenuity to find it in the English. The distinction between certain views entertained by the early Church and modern Romish errors is not understood by the objectors, nor will they take tbe trouble to enquire into the subject, because it is much easier to make assertions than to examine evidence. Individuals may hold extreme opinions in Scot land as well as in England ; but these opinions are not to be charged to the Communion Office in one country more than in the other. Horsley's view of the Scottish Office must have some weight with Churchmen; at aU events, after such an opinion, any one wUl be rash to charge it with popery : " I have no scruple in declaring to you what, some years since, I declared to Bishop Abernethy Drummond, that I think the Scottish Office more conformable to the primitive models, and, in my own private judgment, more edifying than that which we now use ; insomuch that, were I at hberty to foUow my own private judgment, I would use the Scotch Office in preference \" Horsley was not in clined to popery. He was a man of sound judgment and immense learning ; and his opinion is surely of more value than that of the individuals, who allege the charge of popery against the Office in justification of their own conduct. The flippant charge of popery is met in the foUowing terms by an individual, whose leanings were certainly not towards the Church of Rome : " By adversaries, the origin of the Scot tish Communion Office has been assigned to the Mass-book. This is a statement, if not positively untrue and dishonest, certainly disingenuous and unfair. The Scottish Office is the Romish missal, just as is the English Office ; that is, the mis sal reformed, and restored in the judgment of either Church, (for here the Churches differ,) with the formularies of primi tive antiquity. The genealogy of tbe Scottish Office is less direct, but not less distinct ; and tbe reasons for the varia tions that appear in the result is probably this, that Scripture bas prevailed more over tradition in the southern Office, and b Skinner's Office for the Sacrament, &c, Svo., 1807, 159. with the Kubrics and Canons. 367 tradition more over Scripture in the northern." This is an honest statement from a man well acquainted with the sub ject, who was by no means prejudiced in favour of Episcopacy. He adds, " Neither, again, must it be taken for granted that the Scottish Office is the universal, or even the general cus tom of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. The Scottish Office is not used in more than one fourth of the Episcopal Churches in Scotland. True, the Canons of 1838 are more decisive than those of 1811 or 1822 ; yet even now the law of the Church enforces no more than that in the ritual (whether English or Scottish) no alteration, amalgamation, interpola tion, or substitution be admitted without approval of the bishops ; and that the Scottish Office (of course as now pub lished) be used at aU general synods, as previously at all episcopal consecrations'." From the Restoration to the Revolution no Liturgy was used in Scotland; yet no one imagined that the Scottish bishops and clergy were not in communion with the Church of England. The XXI 7th Article recognises the power of particular Churches to or dain rites and ceremonies. It is often alleged that Episcopacy is not absolutely de clared in Holy Scripture as necessary to salvation. To this objection it may be replied, neither is the necessity of the observance of the first day of the week positively asserted ; nor infant baptism ; nor is it declared that women are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. All these matters are settled by the same rules as Episcopacy. But with members of the Church of England such an argument is quite inadmissible, and the only question is, what is the view of the Church on the subject. The truth or falsehood of the doctrine itself is quite another matter. A clergyman of the Church of England, however, binds himself to believe that Episcopacy is revealed in Holy Scripture, and sanctioned by apostohc practice. The question is a very simple one, though frequently mis apprehended for want of enquiry. In the Preface to the ' Fragmenta Zihtrgica. Edited by the Eev. Peter Hall, M.A., ISIS. General Introduction xlix., lxiii. 368 The Book of Common Prayer; Ordination Service, the doctrine of the Church of England is stated with great precision: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' times there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons'1." It seems scarcely possible to dispute the intention of the Church in this statement. Let it be remembered that we are not now enquiring into the truth of the doctrine, but merely into the views of the Church on the subject. A dis senter denies the doctrine, and we have no quarrel with him on that account. * He is at liberty to enjoy bis own opinion. But if, as Churchmen must believe, the matter be evident to all who diligently read, it follows that these orders, being Scriptural and Apostolic, are consequently necessary to the right government of the Church. Between Churchmen and Nonconformists there never has been any difference respecting the meaning of tbe Church of England: the differences related to the doctrine itself. The Church has asserted the necessity of bishops; her opponents have ad mitted that the doctrine in question was the doctrine of the Church, and they denied its truth. This course is perfectly consistent on the part of the dissenters. On the meaning of the words in the Ordinal, the members of the Church of England and the Puritans and later Nonconformists were fuUy agreed ; and " that may be justly looked upon as the sense of the Church, which is owned by the friends and enemies of it1." In the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., the Puritans objected to the statement in the k With marvellous inconsistency, dis senting writers sometimes complain of the doctrine of three orders as stated in tho Preface, and on other occasions assert, that the Reformers maintained only two orders of ministers. Real asserts that the Reformers held only two orders, and that "the form of or daining a priest and a bishr.p is the same." Such assertions are in the teeth of the Ordination Service, which asserts three orders by name, and ap points two forms, one for a priest, the other for a bishop, and assigns the or dination of the former to a bishop, aud the consecration of the latter to the archbishop and bishops. One form is called "The Form of Ordaining of Priests;" the other, "The Form of Consecration of an Archbishop or Bi shop." It is strange in Real thus to write, because tbe Puritans had all along objected to three orders, and as serted that they were maintained by the Church, quoting the very forms in proof of their statements. Real, i. 52, 53. 1 Stillingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases, 1698, Svo., 173. with the Rubrics and Canons. 369 Ordinal ; and in the reign of Charles II. it was denied by the Presbyterians. Puritans and Presbyterians declared that the Church was in error in the maintenance of this doctrine. As these unsettled opinions are entertained on the subject of Church government, their advocates endeavour to shelter themselves under the wing of the Reformers, aUeging that they held the validity of Presbyterian orders. But were the assertion true, their case would not receive much sup port, since it would be a mere question between Episcopacy and Presbytery, whereas the present advocates of the opinion adduce it to countenance Independency, which was rejected by the foreign, as well as by our own Reformers. The state ment, however, is not correct, as wUl appear from this en quiry. Some of the reformed Churches were, from necessity, con stituted without bishops ; though aU would have retained the order had it been possible. Hence the necessity of ordination by presbyters. Our Reformers were under no such necessity; for the chief of them were bishops. The apostolical order was, therefore, preserved — mercifully and providentiaUy preserved; and every sound Churchman is thankful to Almighty God for its preservation. With tho continental Reformers, especially those of Germany, our Reformers were on terms of intimacy and friendship, acknow ledging the foreign Churches as true Churches, though de fective as wanting the apostolic government. But the rule could never be applied to the Puritans and Nonconformists, since they could plead no. necessity for not submitting to bishops. By the Reformers, separation was regarded as a schism ; and all our early writers, who have treated of this subject, pleaded the necessity of the case as the only ground, on which the ordinations of foreign Churches destitute of bishops could be allowed. Any other principle would have been contrary to the statement of the Ordination preface. Moreover, our own Reformers, in their admission, only in tended a recognition of the foreign Churches, as sister- churches, in a defective and irregular state, from the ne cessity of their circumstances. They by no means admitted am. Bb 370 The Book of Common Prayer; that their orders could be allowed in England, where no such necessity existed. It is quite impossible to shew that more than this was ever intended by our Reformers. The ministers of 1662 who , had received Presbyterian orders, had gone in the face of the bishops. Had they been sorry for their previous courses, they would have readily re ceived episcopal ordination. Neither could the principle be applied to Scotland, since no necessity could be pleaded in that country. The case of the foreign Churches was quite different from that of Scotland, or that of English Nonconformists, since there is a wide dissimilarity between the want of bishops and casting them off voluntarily. The latter was the case with Scotland, and with English Presbyterians ; the former was that of the foreign Churches. The necessity was often lamented by members of those Churches. At the synod of Dort, Bp. Carleton told the members that all their troubles arose from the want of bishops, and they admitted the fact. The president replied, " Domine, nos non sumus adeo fehcesm." Bp. HaU, one of the most moderate defenders of Episcopacy, thus distinguishes between the foreign Churches and the Scots : " For know, their case and yours is far enough differ ent. They plead to be by a kind of necessity cast upon that condition which you have willingly chosen. They were not, they could not be, what you were and might still have been." m Carleton's words are remarkable : "I made open protestation in the synod, that whereas in that confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the parity of ministers, I declared our dissent utterly in that point. I shewed that by Christ a parity was never in stituted in the Church ; that when the extraordinary autbori' of the apostles ceased, yet their ordinary authority continued in bishops, who succeeded them ; that this order hath been main tained in the Church since the apo stles. To this tliere was no answer made by any. And somewhat I can say of my own knowledge, for I bad conference with divers of the best learned in that synode: I told them the cause of all their troubles was, that they had not bishops among them. Their answer was, that they did much honour and reverence the good order and discipline of the Church of Eng land, and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established amongst them, hut that could not be hoped for in their state. Their hope was, that seeing they could not doe what they desired, God would be mercifull to them, if they did what they could. Tbis was their answer." Carleton's Examination, Sec, 4to. 1626, 111, 112. This was tbe plea of necessity, and no other, for Presbytery. " They wished rather than hoped to he made Uke the Church of England." A Joint Attes tation, 4to. 1626, 5. with the Rubrics and Canons. 371 Hall held that Episcopacy was divinely instituted, according to the statement in the Ordination Preface : " How weary should I be of this rochet, if you can shew me that Episco pacy is of any lesse than divine institution." To the asser tion of the Scots respecting their reformation, he replies : " Say now no more that you have conformed to the patterne of some other reformed Church: this starting bole is too strait to hide you. We can at once tenderly respect them and justly censure you : acts done out of any extremity can be no precedent for voluntary and deliberate resolutions. We may confidently and irrefragably prove our Episcopacy to be of no lesse than divine institution11." Another writer of the same age, and of similar moderation, held the same view : " He hath sometimes said to me that he held other reformed Churches, which had no bishops, to have verum esse, a true being of ministers, but it was esse defectivum0." When the Bishop of Chichester deplored the want of bishops in the re formed Churches, nothing was said in defence of their system by the ministers assembled at Dort ; and if any of our bishops have at any time recognised the ministers of foreign Churches, no more was intended than that they allowed the plea of necessity. The Church herself is silent on the subject. The cases of persons admitted in early times to livings with only Presbyterian orders were very rare, and the sanction of the Church was never given p. Concessions made by individuals n Hall's Episcopacie by Divine Right, Part i. 3, 6, 16, 17 ; Part ii. 109. » Memoirs of Bp. Brownrig, 191, 192. We know from our own history, that when the Presbyterians under took to ordain without bishops, the Independents soon discovered that they could ordain without presbyters, and the Sectaries could set up ministers without any ordination whatever. Churchmen were never so strenuous in asserting the divine right of Epi scopacy, as Cartwright and his brethren in affirming the divine right of tlieir discipline, or as the Scottish and other Presbyterians of Presbytery : " When a Synod or Church, convened in the name of Christ, binds on earth accord ing to the word of God, Matt. 18, there is no lawful! appeal from them to any civil judicature." Rutherford's Sur vey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 4to. 16-18, Epistle. Rutherford was puz zled by the sects : " If the Presby terians pray as they doc, that God would avert that atheistical plague, liberty of conscience, and Indepen dents pray that God would grant them the grace of hberty of con science, can the Spirit bestow the same accesse and presense to the praires of one as the other ?" Ib., 252, 253. p Martin's Letters, 102 — 106. Bishop Hall gave episcopal ordirs to a minister from Geneva. The Noncon formists, and especially Baxter, con stantly alluded to Uslier's scheme, which he proposed to meet a difficulty : yet even the archbishop held s'.rong views on the question of Orders. Gau- Bb2 )~2 The Book of Common Prayer ; establish no rule, nor can the few instances which are alleged of the time of Elizabeth be urged to prove more than that certain bishops, not the Church herself, made the concession on the ground of necessity. A custom may be allowed under a necessity, which cannot be permitted where no necessity can be pleaded. It is often said, that the view of the necessity of episcopal government to the right constitution of the Church, originated with Archbishop Laud. The assertion is utterly groundless. Whether the doctrine itself be true or false, it has existed ever since the Reformation. The Reformers asserted it in the Ordination Preface ; nor can it be stated in stronger or more explicit language. As Churchmen, we subscribe to the truth of the doctrine. To justify their own irregularities, some have attempted to get rid of the argument from the Ordination Service, aUeging that it merely asserts the exist ence of the orders, not their necessity. Unprejudiced persons, however, will admit that a thing evident from Scripture and ancient authors must be necessary. In this view we are sup ported by the early Puritans and modern dissenters q. The necessity of Episcopacy was supposed by the opponents of the den knew him as well as Baxter : and writing in 1659, he declares that he condemned as schismatics all who wil fully cast off Episcopacy, "Affirming, as I have been further most credibly informed, that he would not (because with comfort and a good conscience he coidd not) receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper from such ministers' hands whose ordination he esteemed irregular and incomplete." Gauden's Tears, Si^hs, and Complaints, &c, 1659, 616. Gauden says further of Usher: " While young Presbyterian and In dependent preachers possess them selves (some by dispossessing others) of the best livings they can seize, this aged bishop, this inestimable jewel of men, this brightest star of the British Churches, this paragon of prelates, tiiis glory of Episcopacy, was suffered to be so eclipsed, that, with St. Paul, ho knew what it was to want as well as to abound." Gauden mentions that bis usual dress iu his later years was " a plain gown and cassock, as an or dinary presbyter." Ib., 617, 618. The bishop's robes would not have been tolerated. The cases of admission to livings with merely Presbyterian or ders were very few ; they were also in opposition to the rule of the Church. And the question is, not what is the opinion of individuals, but what is the doctrine of the Church ? i The Puritans were accustomed to quote the Preface to the Ordinal as asserting a divine right for Episcopacy, and at this they stumbled. It was one of their constant objections. In one of their most celebrated publica tions, after quoting the passage, they add : " Yea, and by the whole order of prayer and of Scripture read in the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop, it is apparent that the or der of an archbishop or bishop conse crated hy that Booke is reputed and taken to be of divine institution." Certaine Considerations Drawne from the Canons, &c, 4to. 1605, 48. with the Rubrics and Canons. >73 Church to be asserted, and they hesitated to admit the asser tion. AU the most learned of our adversaries have under stood the words in the same sense with all consistent Church men. "By divine appointment, and from the days of the apostles, with me," says Calamy, "is all one." Subscription, he argues, "would be an allowance of that assertion, that bishops, priests, and deacons are three distinct orders in the Church by divine appoinment. Indeed, the whole Book of Ordination ir. bottomed on that supposition as its foundation. If there were three such orders from the days of the apostles, they must be by divine appointment." He remarks that the expression, "from the apostles' days," is the same as "by divine appointment; and I think the asserting the one is equivalent to asserting the other, and is the fundamental principle the Office goes upon, and presupposes itr." Whether the doctrine be true or false, which is not the question now ' Calamy's Abridgement, i. 222, 223; Calamy's Defence of Nonconformity, ii. 211, 212 ; . iii. 396. " If we are true to a principle that has been re ceived in the Church from the apo stles' days downwards, and has been maintained with much zeal by this Church now for above an hundred years, that Christ and His apostles have established in the Church a subordina tion of bishops, priests, and deacons ;" " If our plea for a divine original is well founded, then, since no human law or custom can derogate from the divine law, let those who are concerned in these things see how they can re concile our principles to their prac tices." Burnet's Reflection on a Book intituled The Rights, &c, of an Eng lish Convocation, &c, 4to., 1700, li. Burnet, says a writer who animad verted with some severity on his Expo sition of the Articles, opposed " naked truth," and, " when he neither was a bishop, nor was indeed so much as thought to be' one of us, or little more than as standing by, or a neuter, he wrote for Episcopacy." A Prepara tory Discourse to an Examination of a Book entituled An Exposition, &c„ 4to., 1702, 3. As early as 1677 Bur net wrote in defence of Episcopacy; and in the Beflections on Atterbury's book just quoted, he held the doctrine of the Church respecting the three orders. He was ordained hy a Scottish bishop, and therefore he says, " It may seem too great a presumption in one who is a stranger in this Church to engage in a question that so much concerns it. But though I had not my orders in this Church, yet I derive them from it, being ordained by a bishop that had his ordination in this Church." Burnet's Vindication of the Ordinations of the Churcli of England, &c, Svo., 1677, Preface. Alluding to the Romish objection relative to the power of the Crown, he says, the king "cannot make a man a bishop or a priest, nor can he take away ciders. The power of ordination comes irom Christ, and has a spiritual effect, what ever opposition the king may make, but the exercise of that power must be had from him." lb , 88, 89. " We •sec immediately after the days of the apostles, that all the Churches were cast into one mould of bishop, priest, and deacon." " We have all the rea son to conclude that the distinction of bishop, priest, and deacon, wa3 set tled by the apostles themselves. " Burnet's Four Discourses, &c, 4to.„ 1644, 95, 96. 374 The Book of Common Prayer ; under consideration, it is the doctrine of the Church of Eng land, as our adversaries perceive. To caU it in question in dicates dishonesty in subscription, or ignorance of the his tory of the Reformation. It must be evident that, even if the Church of England had recognised Presbyterian orders conferred in foreign Churches, which, however, was never the case, it would not follow that she must allow any orders conferred in England, where no necessity ever existed. The cases are totally dis similar ; since the necessity pleaded for the former could not be pleaded for the latter. But such ordinations were never contemplated by the Reformers. The Act of Uniformity, therefore, did not infringe the views of the Reformers in this matter ; it merely renders it necessary to act upon the prin ciples of the Church3. In the Ordinal of 1549 it is stated, "To the intent these orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in this Church of England, it is requisite that no man (not being at this present, bishop, priest, nor deacon) shaU execute any of them except he be called, tried, examined, and ad mitted according to the form hereafter following." Not only is it asserted that the orders have ever existed, but it is ordained that no person, from that time, should be admitted into any one of them, unless he should be ordained by the form in the Book. How, then, can it be argued that the Churcli ever contemplated the admission of ministers with only Presb}'terian orders ? In 1661 an alteration was intro duced into, the Ordinal. After the first clause, which is unaltered, the words are, "No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to. the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly episcopal conse cration or ordination." It has been urged that the words, " or hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordination," ' "Nothing new in this point can be true, notliing variable can be vene rable; ih.it only being authentick which is ancient and uniform ; that only au thoritative which is primitive, catho- lick, and apostolick." Gauden's Sighs, Tears, &c, 160. with the Rubrics and Canons. 375 are an addition to the Ordinal. But it may well be asked, can such an assertion be gravely made ? Is it ingenuous to put forth such a statement ? Por what purpose can it be hazarded? Where is the difference between the clause in the present Ordinal, and the parenthetical sentence in the former ? It seems scarcely consistent with truth to call the words an addition, since they introduce nothing new — nothing which was not previously stated, though the expressions were different. The words, "not being at this present, bishop, priest, nor deacon," are omitted in 166.2, and another clause is substituted in a different part of the Preface; yet can it be said that the clause of 1662 asserts more than that of 1549? Is the change anything more than the substi tution of one clause for another, without any change of mean ing ? The three orders are twice mentioned in the Preface, and the distinction is assigned to the age of the apostles ; and three forms are appointed. Nothing can be more decisive of the view of the Church, whatever opinions may have been held by individuals either in earlier or later times. Thus the Church asserts the existence of three orders, bishops, priests, and deacons; and she ordains that none shall be admitted to the ministry unless they are ordained according to the appointed forms. Could anything be more exphcit? The cases frequently adduced were departures from the principles of the Church; and the Nonconformists, who denied the doctrine, were consistent in their refusal to subscribe. " Some of us," said Baxter, " are conscious that we have dUigently read the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, and yet these orders and offices are not evident to us »." Such was the conclusion of the Nonconformists. They 1 Baxter, however, felt the full force of the argument against Presbyterian orders, except on the ground of neces sity. He supposes, in 1653, the case of the death of all the bishops. Wren and Pierce were then in the Tower; and he says, "The Parliament must go to tbe Tower to intreat these pri soners that Christ may once more have a Church in England." This was a sneer, yet he was not quite easy, for he says, "Those cannot plead necessity that have disobediently put down bishops." He meets his own objection in an odd way: "Most ministers of any long standing were ordained by bishops. I know of few or none of our association that can be charged with taking down bishops. I know none so liable to such a charge as myself. I do not know of any that can be charged higher than for taking it down so far as the Covenant take3 it down." He then argues that the 376 The Book of Common Prayer; considered that no one could be regarded as a lawful minister in the Church of England who was not episcopally ordained. In reply to an opponent, who doubted whether Presbyterian orders were denied by the Church, Baxter says : " You may as weU feign them to be for re-baptizing; they aU renounce it with one consent : therefore they that require men to be ordained by bishops must needs hold that they had no true ordination before ; or else they should be for that which they abhor11."' True or false, such is the view of the Church. He who rejects it cannot honestly subscribe to the Ordinal. The mistakes on this subject arise from not distinguishing between the principles of the Reformers, as embodied in our Formularies, and the opinions or practices of individuals who, though they lived at the period, had no hand in settling the Reformation. No allusion is made in our Formularies to other Churches. The Reformers pronounced no decision on their state ; but they made such a declaration of their own principles, as excludes ministrations except such as are au thorized by bishops. Nor can the words "lawful authority" in the Preface to the Ordinal in 1662, mean any other than that of bishops, for no other existed " It was supposed that this general ex pression was used, lest the direct limiting it to episcopal authority should give offence to the Protestant Churches abroad ; but that they meant episcopal authority is plain from the last clause, ' or hath had formerly episcopal conse cration or ordination V " If some few persons were aUowed Covenant did not abolish all Epi- . " Gibson, 99. The clause was in- scopacy. He further says he knows of tended to comprehend bishops, priests, no bishops to whom they could apply : and deacons from the Church of Rome. ' We know but of very few diocesan bishops living. Some (I think) in the Tower, where we cannot come at them, and by their imprisonments suppose them uncapable of ordaining; therefore we are uncapable of making use of these." His argument, at all events, was inapplicable after the Re storation. Christian Concord; or, The Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches of Worcestershire, 4to., 6153, 52, 73, 74, 75. " Baxter's Nonconformists' Plea, 7; Defence of the Plea, 195. All other persons were to be ordained according to the Ordinal. Rome had preserved the substance of the primi tive forms, and the three orders in the ministry, though all her services were corrupted with various modern super stitions. Her orders, therefore, wore admitted. The Church says nothing of other reformed Churches; but her rule for orders excludes all not episco pally ordained. " The Church of Eng land judged none hut her own children. Most of the learned men of those Churches had made necessity the chief with the Rubrics and Canons. 377 in early times to minister in the Church with merely Pres byterian orders, the permission was only granted by par ticular bishops, who would not raise the question, and pro bably were uncertain in the matter. But it is clear that they never admitted men from the Presbyteries in England. The Puritans and Nonconformists were frequently incon sistent in shifting their ground in their arguments. At one time they assailed the doctrine of the Ordinal, at another they cited certain bishops as having recognised the orders of foreign Churches. By the Puritans of an earlier period, the latter argument was used to open a door for the admission of men who had been irregularly ordained by the Presbyterian classes ; and by the Nonconformists of a later age to cover the orders conferred during the wars and the Commonwealth. The view now advocated, whether right or wrong, was the view of the Reformers. If any one considers the doctrine of three orders to be erroneous, or not manifest from Holy Scrip ture and ancient authors, he cannot honestly minister in the Church of England. By some persons the Reformation is regarded as the setting up of a new Church, whereas it was only a restoration *•. The want of this distinction has led many to make very strange assertions.. Archbishop Wake, writing to Courayer to give him information, says: "You will see there the Concordia Sacerdotii el Imperii in our English Church ; that we are still under the same canonical discipline and episcopal govern ment we ever were, and have done nothing more than to lay aside such canons and constitutions as we found to have been contrary to the Word of God, the laws of the realm, or the preroyatives of the crown; the rest, even those that were pillar to support that ordination, and that necessity could not bo pleaded here." Clarendon's Life, ii. 289. 1 "Our Church shewed ber pru dence and moderation in not destroying root and branch, but reserving sueh things as were good, and by being cleansed from some excresccncies miyht prove still of excellent use. This, though it has given some colour to many peevish complaints, yet is that in which we have cause still to glory." Burnet's Vindication of the Ordina tions of the Church of Engl.md, Pre face. " We, having true priests and true bishops, are a true Churcli. AVe do truly eat the flesh of Christ and drink His b'ood, having the blessed Sacrament administered among us ac cording to our Saviour's institution. We have the ministerial power of C'ivinsr absolution, and the ministry of reconciliation, and of forgivimr sins, given us by our orders." Ib., 103, 104. 373 The Book of Common Prayer; used before the Reformation, still continuing in force with us. So that our succession is as uninterrupted in the discipline of our Church as in that of our Episcopacy, in which there never has been, that we know, the least breach." In another letter he says: "God knows that we are as careful to continue the true succession of our Episcopacy, and value ourselves as much upon it, as any in the Romane Church." Wake's moderation towards foreign Churches is well known ; yet he could only recognise their orders on the one ground, that of necessity. He alludes to the case of Archbishop Grindal mentioned by Courayer: "The license granted by Arch bishop Grindal's Vicar- General to a Scot Presbyterian to officiate here in England, I freely own it, is not what I should have approved, yet dare not condemn. I bless God that I was born, and have been bred, in an episcopal Church, which I am convinced has been the government estabhshed in the Christian Church from the very time of the apostles." At the same time he would not assert " that where the ministry is not episcopal, there is no Church." Not even Laud asserted so much. He admitted the plea of necessity, though he saw that in many cases it could not be estabhshed. But such an admission does not involve the indifferency of Episcopacy *. Sometimes the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth is adduced to prove, that the Church of England allows the orders of foreign Churches, which are not episcopal in their govern ment. The clause on which the opinion is founded is the following : " That every person under the degree of a bishop who shaU pretend to be a priest or minister by reason of any form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late king, or now used in the reign of our most gracious Sovereign Lady, shaU declare his assent and subscribe to all the articles of reli gion," &c. It is evident that the clause was intended to include priests from the Church of Rome. Even were it r Biog. Brit., art. Wake. Wake any to the other reformed Churches; himself re-ordained a Presbyterian [ but I must agree with you, that I minister : " I have ordained Mr. \ know no government older than Cal- "Horner both deacon and priest, and I vin's time but what was episcopal in thereby received him into the ministry ! the Church of Christ." Wake quoted of the Church of England. This is a j Andrewes as concurring in the same work that gives the most offence of ' views. with the Rubrics and Canons. 379 certain that Presbyterian orders were also comprehended, what would the advocates of Presbytery gain ? In another clause it is enacted that "No person shall hereafter be ad mitted to any benefice except he be of the age of three-and- twenty years, and a deacon." And again, " No person shall retain any benefice being under the age of twenty-one years, or not being a deacon at the least." It is evident, from the use of the term deacon, that Presbyterian orders were not intended, since deacons were not recognised in the foreign Churches. But were it aUowed that the Act permitted minis ters not episcopally ordered to hold livings on subscription, it follows that none could be instituted after 1571 without regular ordination by bishops. The utmost that can be urged from this Act, therefore, is simply that it covered irregular ordinations previous to 1571. By the utmost lati tude of interpretation, it must exclude all except Episcopal orders subsequent to that year, and thus the Act cannot be applied to the purpose for which it is sometimes alleged, namely, the sanction of Presbyterian ordinations. But were the Act capable of such an interpretation, it woidd not follow that such were the views of the Church of England. Yet its framers evidently had no such intention in the clause in question. Because some Churchmen have admitted the vali dity of foreign orders in cases of necessity, the Church, in the absence of synodical determinations, is not bound by their opinions. Nor are we in the present day pledged to any views not expressed in the Liturgy, Articles, Ordinal, and Canonical decisions of the Church z. 1 Strype asserts that the clause was intended to comprehend those who had been ordained iu the foreign reformed Churches; and Neal, with other dis senting writers, takes that point as settled. The reasoning in the text shews that the matter is by uo means certain, and that, at all events, the act i:=elf pronounced all subsequent or dinations, except by bishops, insuf ficient. Neal, moreover, admits that the clause was not regard' d, but he attributes this to the "servile com pliance" of the bishops. It is more likely that the Act could bear no such construction, and that the bishops, some of whom were actors in the le gislative proceedings on the subject, were well acquainted with the inten tions of the fr.imers. The expressions used in the clause seem scarcely to ngreo with any forms in use among the reformed Churches. Neal, i. 217. Travel's mentions his own case, yet the pcrmis-ion (o exercise the ministry for a time without being questioned is no evidence that the Church allowed his orders- Very inconsistently he refers to the 13th of Elizabeth, for he would have spurned Acts of Pnrlia- 380 The Book of Common Prayer; Burnet supposes that the XXIIIrd Article was framed so as not to exclude the foreign Churches, yet he argues that they were irregular in their constitution : " That which we believe to be lawful authority is that rule which the body of the pastors or bishops and clergy of a Church shaU settle, being met in a body under the due respect to the powers that God shall set over them." Calamy says of the above quotation, "This is stiff enough, in all conscience3." In fact, Burnet's view does not serve the purpose for which it is sometimes quoted, namely, the recognition of dissenting bodies under a national Church. He merely intended to say that the Article did not condemn foreign Churches, and his whole argument is based on the necessity of their case. In the Ordinal in 1661 the words, "for the office and work of a priest," and " for the office and work of a bishop," were ment as a foundation for Presbytery. Yet he speaks doubtfully. He only infers, that as the Act included priests from the Church of Rome, it must also comprehend ministers from Presbyte rian Churches. The conclusion was by no means justified, as is evident from the expressions in the Act. Strype's conclusion is equally at variance with the terms ofthe Act. Annals, ii. 481, 519—524. If the 13th of Elizabeth comprehended foreign orders, it only indulgcd such ministers until the fol lowing Christmas, after which time none were to be admitted without episeojial ordination. Should even this view be taken, the rejection after Christmas, 1571, being perpetual, while tlie indul gence was only for a short space, the Act must surely be regarded as de claring against all ordinations not con ferred by bishop?. The correspondence of our Reformers with foreign divines did not involve the question of orders. They honoured such meu in their own country, where necessity, not choice, led them to act without bishops. Even Archbishop Laud held a friendly cor respondence with foreign Churches, calling their mnisters coiifrotres mei chcrissimi. It appears to be the prac tice with some persons to gather the doctrines of tbe Church from the irre gular proceedings of some of her mem bers, as if the rubrics and canons were to be interpreted, not according to their grammatical construction, hut by the practice of individuals. * Calamy'sMiuistryof the Dissenters Vindicated, 1724, p. 12. The public authority intended must have been that of bishops, since no other existed at the time, or was even contemplated as possible. But how can tbe Article be brought to bear upon separate con- gregal ions in England,wh en its framers did not allow of any such assemblies, much less of any power to appoint ministers ? By the Reformers all se paration was condemned as schism, consequently the ministrations in such assemblies could not he recognised. Yet some persons, not distinguishing between national Churches abroad and separate congregations at home, ad duce the XXIIIrd Article as allowing the ministrations in the latter. The doctrine of the Church may be sup posed to be true or false according to the notions of individuals, but to bring forward the Article to support a state of things, which the Reformers did not regard as possible, is opposed to common sense, and is a monstrous perversion of truth. The State allows separation, yet the Church of England has not chang. d her views, and the Reformers utterly condemned it. But some su,iierficinlly informed Churchmen accommodate the Articles to existing circumstances,' and allege that they are acting on the principles of the Reformers. with the Rubrics and Canons. 381 inserted, and it was alleged by Romish writers that the Convocation were conscious of a defect in the former Ordinal • but the sole reason for the addition was the objection raised by the Presbyterians, that the Church made no distinction between bishops and priests. Burnet meets the case with much force and truth: "But that having been since made use of to prove both functions the same, it was of late years altered as it is now. Nor were these words being the same in giving both orders any ground to infer that the Church esteemed them one order, the rest of the Office shewing the contrary very plainly"." Yet, unless the two were regarded as the same by the Church, she could not admit the validity of Presbyterian orders. It is not easy. to understand the aim of those, who are constantly urging that the Church has recognised Presbyterian orders, unless they wish to insinuate that the ministrations of dissenters are allowed, and that Episcopacy is a matter of indifference. In reply to such an insinuation, it may be remarked that the possibility of dis sent was not contemplated by the Reformers. Unless, there fore, the modern popish theory of development be imputed to our Reformers, it is utterly impossible to prove that any ministrations, save such as are episcopal, are recognised. In the 55th Canon, which is merely an injunction for the bidding-prayer, the clergy are commanded to pray for the Churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland ; and it is ar gued, by the advocates of Presbyterian orders, that this was a recognition of Presbytery. The allegation indicates a very imperfect acquaintance with Scottish history. Presbyterian authorities concur in asserting that in 1603, when the Canons were enacted, Presbytery was not established in Scotland. The name and title of bishop were already revived, and whether Episcopacy were or were not the established sys tem, it certainly was not Presbytery ; consequently the Con vocation in 1603 clearly intended a Church governed by bishops. From the year 1596 the groans of Presbyterian * Burnet's Reformation, ii. 136. "Eight years ago," says Baxter, "I wrote to prove the validity of ordina tions by presbyters, and though I called for an answer, had it not to this day." Yong, a dissenting opponent, replies : "May not many papist quakers say so ?" Yindicim Baxteriance, 36. 382 The Book of Common Prayer ; writers are loud and deep. In that year Calderwood says, " Here end the sincere genei-al assemblies of the Church of Scotland." In 1597 the Icing was empowered by the As sembly to invest any minister with the office and dignity of a bishop; and in 1603, during his journey to London, Spot- tiswood was created Archbishop of Glasgow c James Mel vii calls the period from 1596 the declining age of the Church, and in 1602 he mentions three bishops as in possession of their sees d. Admitting, therefore, that in 1603 the consti tution of the Church was not completed, it is idle to pretend that the 55 th Canon contemplated Presbytery, which, by the testimony of all Presbyterian writers, did not exist. This fact, coupled with the well-known principles of the framers of the Canons, is decisive of the question. Though in an irregular state, yet the Ring, the Convocation, and the Pres byterians regarded the Church of Scotland as episcopal in 1603. Of this fact there can be no doubt. Besides, it is no better than trifling to allege that the Convocation intended Presbytery in that Canon, for they utterly repudiate it in others; so that, according to the novel theory in question, the framers of the Canons pulled down with one hand the fabric which they buUt up with the other.. The 36th Ar ticle, which confirms the Ordinal, quite oversets the notion that any other system of Church government is allowed by the English Church ; and not only are aU the Articles in a body confirmed by the Canons, but the XXXVIth, relative to bishops, priests, and deacons, is specifically sanctioned. The Canon, in specifying the ministers of the Church, mentions "as well archbishops and bishops as other pastors and cu rates," evidently including only such as were subject to bishops. To pray for a Presbyterian Church, as a Church defective in its government, is a Christian duty ; but to pre tend that the act of prayer is a recognition of its orders, is illogical and unreasonable. ¦ Every Christian would pray for others from whom he differs, yet the act of prayer implies no approval of the points on which the differences exist e. c Cook's History of the Church of Scotland, ii. 55, 99, 130. d Autobiography and Diary of James Helvil, 506, 516. ' The XXX I Ind and XXXVI th Arti cles mention bishops, priests, and dea cons as tbe ministers of the Church of England, and how can the XXIIIrd be with the Rubrics and Canons. 383 This question is now only raised by some Churchmen from their tenderness to dissenters, though the latter care but little whether their ministrations are admitted or rejected by the Church of England. Yet the advocates of the theory are reduced to this difficulty, that they make the Church deny the necessity of orders which she declares always existed. If ever there was a time when the rulers of the Church were inclined to deviate from the established prin ciple in this matter, it was the period immediately subse quent to the revolution. At this time a sovereign was on the throne who wished to comprehend aU in the national establishment. As is well known, Commissioners wore ap pointed to review the Book of Common Prayer preparatory to a settlement in Convocation. And what were the views of the Commissioners ? Though they made various pro posals, yet, on the question of orders, the principle was left untouched. The Ordinal was brought under their conside ration, and though the matter was not completed, yet their views are evident from their recorded proceedings. The papers are now before the public, having been printed in 1854 by order of the House of Commons. "The Commis sioners proceeded no further, for want of time, the Convoca tion being mett." StiU, notwithstanding this entry, certain suggestions and recommendations occur in the same volume, which appear to have been prepared by a Committee, though they were not finally adopted in consequence of the meeting of the Convocation. The suggestions, however, give us a clue to the opinions of the Commissioners. Anxious as they were to comprehend dissenters to please the sovereign, they yet did not question the doctrine of the Church on this sub ject, which wotdd have remained unaltered even had the suggestions been adopted by Convocation. It was assumed made to comprehend any other minis ters, especially as the Ordination Service asserts the existence of such orders from the beginning. When the 55th Canon is adduced in favour of Pres bytery, the others are overlooked. The wboh; tenor ofthe Canons is against such a intion. Some arc directed a- gainst schismatics. And who are the schismatics ? The State has granted a toleration, yet the doctrine of the Canons remains the same as it was in 1604. In the 139th Canon the Synod of the Churcli of Engl md is described in such a manner as to exclude the notion of Presbytery, and to prove that the Convocation never contem plated anything of the kind in the 55th Canon. 384 The Book of Common Prayer; that the reformed Churches were in an imperfect state, and that their case was one of necessity. It was therefore sug gested whether such ministers might not be received "by an imposition of a bishop's bands, in these or such like words, Take thou authority, &c., and to minister the holy Sacraments in this Church, as thou shalt be lawfully ap pointed thereunto." It is added : " Whereas it has bin ye constant practice of ye ancient Church to allow of no or dinations of priests, i. e. presbyters or deacons, wi'hout a bishop, and that it has bin likewise ye constant practice of this Church ever since ye Reformation to allow none that were not ordained by bishops where they could be had ; yet in regard that several in this kingdom have of late years bin ordained only by presbyters, the Church, being de sirous to do all yl can be done for peace, and in order to yc healing of our dissensions, has thought fit to receive such as have been ordained by presbyters only to be ordained priests according to this office, with the addition of these words in these following places, If they have not bin al ready ordained — If thou has not bin already ordained." It is added : " By which, as she retains her opinion and practice wh make a bishop necessary to tbe giving of orders when he can be had, so she do's likewise leave all such persons as have bin ordained by presbyters only the freedom of their own thoughts concerning tlieir former ordi nations. It being withall expressly provided that this shall never be a precedent for ye time to come, and y4 it shall only be granted to such as have been ordained before the day of f." This was the concession contemplated, and it asserts the doctrine and practice of the Church in the strongest manner. Moreover, the Commissioners asserted that the Church never had allowed any other orders than those 'conferred by bi shops ; and to make it manifest that the hypothetical words were only adopted to meet a particular case, the principle ' " Alterations in the Book of Com mon Prayer. Prepared hy the Royal Commissioners, for the Revision of tlie Liturgy in 1CS9, (extracted from the original volume in the custody of the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c.,) or dered by the House of Commons to he printed, 2nd June," 1854, pp. 84, 85, 86, 102, 103. with the Rubrics and Canons. 385 being stiU maintained, it was proposed that the privilege should only be extended to such as were ordained previous to a particular day ; in other words, such only as were or dained in England when the bishops were removed and all things were in confusion. From Williams's Diary, printed in the same volume, we find that it was admitted on all sides that such ordinations were imperfect, and that " it should be only for this turn, those that were in orders, but not to pro ceed further." Stillingfleet argued for " the preservation of the Church's principle about the necessity of episcopal ordi nation where it might be had." These proposals involved no change of the doctrine ; on the contrary, they were an assertion of the doctrine in terms not to be mistaken. But even those proposals were not submitted to Convocation, though they involved no change of principle, and were an iteration of the views of the Church on this subject. What then, becomes of the assertion, that the Church has admitted the validity of Presbyterian orders? Such a notion found no countenance in 1689, even among men who were willing to do all they could to bring in the Dissenters. By the Com missioners even all subsequent dissenting ordinations were excluded from tbe hypothetical form. Calamy remarks, that all the accounts in his day of the Commission were defective : " and so, I believe, will all our accounts be tUl the original papers come to be published, as I believe and hope they will be in time." He mentions that he had an " exact copy," which he " unhappily and irrecover ably lost by lending out." The publication of the original verifies the words of Calamy. On this question of orders, Nichols, almost the only authority in this matter previous to the publication of the original papers, states merely that a Nonconformist minister was to be received by the hypo thetical form, without any mention of the limitation as to time, or of the strong assertion of the doctrine of the Church. Birch, who mentions that an abstract of the proceedings of the Commissioners was communicated to Nichols by Wil- bams, makes a similar statement. He also mentions that the original papers were retained by Tenison, who was " cautious of trusting them out of his own keeping, alleging that if AM. C C 386 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; they came to be pubhc they would give no satisfaction to either side, but be rather a handle for mutual reproaches : as one side would upbraid their brethren for having given up so much, whUe the other would justify their Nonconformity because these concessions were too little, or, however, not yet passed into a law g." At the same time TUlotson drew up a paper of proposals, in which the same limitations are pro posed. The publication of the papers by order of Parlia ment has quite cleared the Churchmen of 1689 from the charge of holding any loose notions on the question of orders. Even at a period when many were anxious to make conces sions to the Nonconformists, no .Churchman entertained the notion, now frequently put forth, that the Reformers or the Church of England ever maintained the validity of any other than episcopal orders. It must not be forgotten, in judging of this controversy, that our Reformers, especially in the time of Queen Eliza beth, were called to contend with two classes of opponents, — the Papists and the Puritans, or Presbyterians. To the ques tion of the former, "Where was your rehgion before Lu ther?" it was replied, Where were your peculiar doctrines during the first six centuries ? Where was the doctrine of the corporal presence, of the worship of images, and of pur gatory ? They were novel doctrines in the eighth century. Our Reformation introduced nothing new either in worship or discipline. It retains the ancient government and the Scriptural doctrines, consequently tbe charge of novelty can not be sustained. The Reformers merely cut off the additions by which the faith was corrupted. Our doctrines were aU taught by Christ and His apostles ; they were promulgated in the purest ages; they are nominaUy retained by the Church of Rome, though virtually rejected by ber additions. Not one article of faith, as held by the Church of England, is formaUy condemned by the Church of Rome; and the Papists can only accuse us of repudiating some doctrines which we can prove to be additions. If Rome had cast off her corruptions, the Reformation would have been her own s Calamy's Abridgment, i. 447, 448, I 184, 191 ; Patrick's Autobiography, 452 ; Birch's Life of Tillotson, 1S2— | 153. with the Rubrics and Cations. 387 work, and the unity of Christendom might have been pre served. Her arrogance prevented any reformation, and the Church of England merely exercised ber authority, as an independent Church, of reforming herself, and going back to the primitive standard in doctrine and discipline, rejecting the claims of Rome as novel and untenable. But in separat ing from the corruptions of Rome, our Reformers never con templated any departure from the practices of the primitive ages with respect to Church government. They were equaUy opposed to Rome and to Presbytery. As applied to the latter, the charge of novelty was true, but not in reference to the English Reformation. Our Reformers, in opposing Eome and Presbytery, took their stand on Scripture and antiquity ; consequently, Episcopacy was preserved as God's ordinance. They rejected Presbytery as a novelty; and, though they sympathized with foreign Reformers, they did not approve of their system, regarding it only as a necessity in their particular circumstances. " A very strange thing, sure it were, that such a discipline that ye speak of should be taught by Christ and His apostles in the Word of God, and no Church ever have found it out nor received it tiU ibis pre sent time. We require you to find out but one Church upon the face of the whole earth that hath been ordered by your discipline, or hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, by episcopal regiment, sithence the time that the blessed apostles were here conversant h." " I cannot but wonder and grieve to hear a man of such worth as Beza was, so trans ported as to say that this Presbytery of their device is the tribunal of Christ, a tribunal erected above fifteen hundred years after His departure from us, an invisible tribunal to all the rest of God's Church besides ! !" Our Ordinal is based on the principle of three orders in the ministry, and conse quently the Reformers, whatever may have been their feel ings towards the persons of the continental Reformers, never intended to countenance their system of Church government. 11 Hooker, Preface, sect. 4. 1 Hall's Episc. by Divine Right, part iii. sect. 5. Hooker says of Pres bytery, that it " was neither appointed c c 2 of God Himself, as they who favour it pretend, nor till yesterday ever heard of among men." Book vii. sect. 1. 388 The Book of Common Prayer; In the Homilies, the Articles, and the Canons, there are frequent references to tbe primitive Church. The Canons, indeed, merely adopt the language previously used. After the Restoration, Stillingfleet wrote his Irenicum, in which he pleads for a modified Episcopacy. The book was pubhshed when he was a young man, and to meet a par ticular exigency ; and if he changed his opinions be can' scarcely be blamed. Stillingfleet subsequently declared his change in some points, yet it was observed of the book, "It can never make any man a Dissenter3." When he wrote, as nothing was settled, he argued that parties might yield to each other; but the case was otherwise after the Act of Uniformity was passed, since his principle, which was only intended to meet an unsettled state of things, was no longer applicable. His views were not changed on the subject of Church government or ceremonies ; and as soon as these matters were decided by competent authority, he deemed it the duty of all to submit. Nor did tbe principles of the Irenicum militate against such a decision. On the same principle he charged the Dissenters with schism for disturb ing the Church about trifles. In reply to an opponent, StUlingfleet says, " When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and further consideration those divines of the Assembly who then opposed separation should change their opinions, wUl you not aUow one single person, who hap pened to write about these matters when he was very young, in twenty years' time to see reason to alter bis judgment ? But after all this, wherein is it that he hath thus contra dicted himself? Is it in the point of separation, which is the present business? No. So far from it, he speaks in that very book as fully concerning the unlawfulness of separation as in this sermon V It has hitherto escaped the observation of aU writers, that 1 Sherlock's Vindication of Eccle siastical Authority, Svo., 1685, 147. " When the Church of England was pulled down, and these ceremonies and Episcopacy itself removed out of the way,, did it cure divisions or increase them ? When the reverend Dean of St. Paul's made some proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons with refer ence to these ceremonies, what thanks had he for it ? How many bitter in vectives were written against him ?" Ib., 180. k Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Preface, Ixxii. with the Rtibrics and Canons. 389 Prynne defended the Act of Uniformity. Yet such is the fact. In 1663 he pubhshed a work in which the Act is jus tified. The work, indeed, was never assigned to him, yet the internal evidence is conclusive, for he quotes one of his own acknowledged books. Thus, alluding to certain statements, he says, "As you may read at large in my Rome's Master piece, pubhshed 1643." It is remarkable that the circum stance should never have been noticed, for it presents a new feature in tbe singular character of Prynne. At the time the fact must have been unnoticed, or the Dissenters would have been loud in their outcries against the author for defending the Act of Uniformity after ah his previous sufferings for Nonconformity1. That Act made episcopal ordination ne cessary ; yet it was defended by Prynne, who had written so much against bishops. StiU no new principle was asserted in the Act; it was merely the application of the old principle to the case of the ministers appointed during the times of trouble. CHAPTER XVI. CONFOBMITY UNDEB CHARLES II. — IEEEGULAEITIES. — CATTSE. — SUBPLICE. — COMMUNION SECOND SEEVICE. — COMEEEHENSION. — VISITATION AETI CLES. — WEEN. — VISITATION- OE SICK. — WHEATLY.— CHUECHING3.— EUNE- BALS. — SEPAEATISTS. — PAEISH CLEEKS. — LAXITY IN THIS EEIG-N. — GEOEGE FOI. — ACT OE UNIFOBMITY. — SUPEEMACY.— COKTEAST BETWEEN THE EEIGN OP CHAELES II. AND WILLIAM III. — BISHOPS' CHAEGES.— TABLE. — WIL LIAM'S VIEWS. — UNIEOBMITY ENEOECED. — LOED'S STTPPEB. — STILLINGFLEET. — CUSTOMS. — BAILS.— NONJTTBOES. — GIBSON. — BIDDING-PEAYEE. — SECOND SEBVICE. — EOEEIGN CHITECHEg. — LUTHEBANS. — PEINCE GEOEGE. — GEOEGE I. AND H. — WOEKS ON SUBJECT. — CONCLUSION. The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 is now our standard text, and its rubrics are our guide in conducting public wor ship. We now proceed to inquire into the state of con- 1 " Philanax Protestant ; or, Papists Gracious Ring and his Parliament's Discovered to the Ring : with Pliilo- Proceedings for the Maintenance of laus; or. Popery Discovered to all Chris- the Act of Uniformity, 4to., 1663." tian People, in a Justification of our 390 The Book of Common Prayer ; formity subsequent to the passing of the Act. Never were greater irregularities permitted by bishops than during the reign of Charles II. Subscription was considered sufficient, and conformity to the rubrics was left to the inclination of individuals. Of the men who complied in 1662, some were utterly careless in the matter of Church government and ceremonies, and others disliked the Book of Common Prayer, though they subscribed, in order to preserve their hvings : " It may without breach of charity be believed, that many who did subscribe had the same malignity to the Church and to the government of it; and it may be did more harm than if they had continued in their inconformitym." "Some came into the Church to be as nonconformable as they could be in it." Some of them employed curates to read the prayers, contenting themselves with performing that duty occasionally, and using long extempore prayers before and after their sermons". Others even omitted the surplice, and dispensed with kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and the bishops remained inactive. How such things could have been tolerated it is difficult to imagine ; yet, from con temporary accounts, we cannot doubt that irregularities of this kind were common: "Nor can I think," says a writer in 1672, " that our own ministers have any huge apprehen sions of this exceeding virtue of the surplice, for whereas they are enjoined to wear it as oft as they officiate, I find few of them so to do, many of them never wear it but when a Sacrament is to be administered °." This is an extraordi nary statement ; yet Baxter intimates that sometimes the surplice was disused : " I have communicated in a conform able parish church in London, where one half knelt at' the receiving of the Sacrament, and the other sit. Doth every disobedience make men separatists ? If so, then when even a conformist disobediently, shorteneth his Common Prayer, or Ieaveth off his surplice, or giveth the Sacrament to any that kneeleth not, he is a separatist. Yea, no man, then, is not a separatist sometimes. I oft hear conformists omit " Clarendon's Life, ii. 306. » Rennet's Register, 843, 844. ° Bonasus Vapulans, 41. with the Rubrics and Canons. 391 divers prayers. I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lord's Supper, I think, to the greater part that sate P." Here great irregularities are intimated. The elements were given to communicants sitting or standing. In such a case the minister must have gone from seat to seat. Probably the clergy, who acted so irregularly, yielded to the feelings of the people from a desire to conciliate ; yet the custom of goino- from seat to seat was a direct violation of an express rubric, and it is singular that it was not checked by the bishops. Portions of the service were omitted, and the surplice some times laid aside. We find Nonconformist writers of the period, in justification of themselves, describing the irregular practices which prevaUed in many churches: "In some churches they stand up at the hymns, in others they sit ; in most they read the prayer for Christ's Catholick Church, if at aU, before sermon, but I know where 'tis constantly read after q." " Some sit upon their breach aU tbe time of pulpit prayer, unless when just the Lord's Prayer is repeating, be cause, forsooth, pulpit prayer is not allowed by the Church, but only bidding of prayer." Sitting during the prayer in the pulpit was practised by those, who wished to discounten ance the lengthened extempore prayers of some ministers just » Baxter's Plea for Peace, 160; An swer to Stillingfleet, 49, 81. Arch bishop Sharp, in a letter to Thoresby, states that Baxter received the Com munion in his church after the Re storation : " So long as he lived in my parish he seldom failed, when he was well, of coming to our prayers and ser mons twice every Lord's-day ; and re ceiving the Communion with us, kneel ing at the rails, once or twice every year : this I speak of my own know ledge." Letters, &e., addressed to Thoresby, i. 275. A dissenting minis ter tells Thoresby: "Dr. Bates does Borne time in the year receive the Sa crament in his parish, and Mr. Baxter did often in the parish I am in." Ib., 821. Bishop Patrick refused tho ele ments to Lewis de Moulin, who did not kneel, though he presented him self at the rails. Patrick explained by letter the obligations of the rubric, and De Moulin begged his pardon. Patrick's Autobiography, 86, 87. He also thanked him for hi3 prayers, "which were the very prayers of the Liturgy." Ib. i Humble /> lology for Nonconform ists, 1669, 126. We have evidenco from various quarters of the slovenly manner in which the services were in many places performed during this reign: "It is much to he regarded, considering the time when he prac tised all this regularity and exactness, which was soon after the Restoration, when very many of the clergy, espe cially the country clergy, fell into a perfunctory way of performing the sacred services " Life of Isaac Milles, &e, Svo., 1721, 35. On one occasion Milles was asked to allow the Pres byterian minister to preach in his church, on the ground of his episco pal orders. Ib.,45. Mdles read prayers daily in the morning, and twice each day during Lent. Ib., 46. 393 The Book of Common Prayer; after the Liturgy was finished. The custom which had pre vailed in the previous times of sitting covered in churches during the sermon was still continued by some who were un friendly or lukewarm towards the Church. The impropriety was manifest ; and a dissenting writer says, " Men had left off to put on their hats in time of sermon, had Mr. Calamy and others been hearkened to '." Baxter appears to delight in pointing out the varieties in the performance of Divine Service, his object being to shew that Nonconformists were only irregular in some other matters : " One parish minister prayeth in the pulpit, and another only biddetb prayer ; one useth a form, and another varieth according to the matter of his sermon. One sitteth at the singing of a Psalm, and an other standeth, and another kneeleth (and so at sermon) ;' one boweth only at tbe Name of Jesus, another boweth also at the Name of Christ and God. One standeth up at the read ing of the Psalms, and not at the singing of the same Psalms ; another sitteth at both, and a third standeth up at both. One receiveth the Lord's Supper kneeling, and then standeth or sitteth to eat or drink it. And as to practice, we come not into two churches of ten, where just aU the same prayers and parts of the Liturgy are daily read ; but one readeth more, and another less ; one this part, and another that s." Some of the customs thus described are not settled by the rubrics, though at present the uniformity is complete. It appears that some communicants would kneel ' Bonasus Yapv.lans, 56, 57, 126. This writer is, however, shocked at the practice of taking off the hat in a climcli, except in the time of public worship. Bagshaw, at Oxford, read his lectures in the church with his hat on, until a remonstiance was addressed to him on the unseemliness ofthe prac tice. Le Strang's Truth and Loyalty, 4ro., 1662, 14." ¦ Baxter's Plea for Peaoe, 15S — ISO. Bowing towards the chancel was a common custom in this reign on en tiling the church. Collection of Cases, ii. imj\. Baxter admits tliat the Im ach between the Church and Ronconlbrm- i-ts was widened by the conduct of the latter. His description is very characteristic of the times: "Abun dance of women first, aud men next, growing at London into separating principles ; some thinking that it was a sin to hear a conformist ; and more that it is a sin to pray according to the Common Prayer; and yet more that it is a sin to communicate with them in the Sacrament." Baxter's Life, part iii. 61. The description mixht suit the present times, for the same separating principles are still in ac tive operation. It was contended, by Churchmen in this reign, that the minister was at liberty to follow his own inclinations in the prayer before sermon. Collection of Cases, iii. 125. with the Rubrics and Canons. 393 to receive the elements into their hands, and then stand up to eat and drink. It was certainly a strange way of satisfy ing their scruples. Frequent allusions to the omission of the surplice occur in contemporary publications. "Some read not all the Com mon Prayer they are enjoined; some use not the surplice; some omit the cross in baptism ; some dare not put away any from the Sacrament merely because they are not satisfied to receive it kneeling '." There was a variety in the practice in reading the Psalms which now appears very singular, because our uniformity in this matter is never broken. In some cases the minister read the whole of the Psalms, for the alternate reading by the clergyman and the people was disliked by tbe Nonconformists : " For the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those churches only where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole congregation can read, very few excepted ; for, by the way, this method is not commanded, but every parish church is left at hberty to observe ber own custom about it. In tbe "country parishes the minister generally recites aU u." Such a custom is now quite unknown. Baxter did not hesitate to conform, as we have seen, on sxuie occasions; and he sometimes speaks of the Book of Common Prayer as lawful : " If God continue to you in the pubhck assemblies but sound doctrine and lawful communion, do not say all means are gone. If it be but the reading of * The Rector of Sutton committed with the Dean of St. Paul's, 1680, 27. ¦ Collection of Cases, iii. 236. Iu the time of Charles II. the common custom was with Churchmen and Ron- conformists to give out or repeat each sung hy the people ?" In 1708, Thoresby alludes to tho mode of sing ing in his time: "A new order of wliich was begun this day in the parish church, to sing a stave betwixt the daily morning and Communion Ser- verse of the Psalm before singing: j vice, as has been long done ttt^Loiv There were, however, persons among \ don, Sec." Thoresby's Diary, ii. 10, the latter who objected to singin altogether." Collection of Cases, ii. 375," 376. The custom evidently ex isted in the previous reign, for Wren, in his Articles, asks respecting sing ing, "Is it done in that grave man ner (which was first in use) that such do sins as can read the Psalms, and He also mentions evening prayers and singing in London " at eight of the clock after the shops lire shut." Ib., 18. Baxter, in 1681, iu dwelling on the varieties in different churches, says, "Some churches begin to use new versions of the singing Psalms." Search for a Schismatick, 24. What not after that uncouth and undecent | were these new versions? Patricks custome of late taken up, to have every j Century of Select Psalms appeared in line first read by one alone and then ' 1679. 394 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; the Holy Scriptures, and singing Psalms, and praying, no worse than is expressed in the Liturgy, it is a mercy not to be despised. There are some ignorant Christians that think it enough to charge anything in worship or rehgion to be unlawful because it is human, the work of man." This was the great charge against the Common Prayer. Baxter rephes : " Preaching and praying are the words and works of men ; the singing Psalms were turned into metre by men ; aU your English Bibles were made English by men. If you despise aU in rehgion that is the work of man, you wiU despise the Word and work of God, and shew that you are less than men." It is surprising that this argument did not lead Baxter to conform altogether. He mentions in this 6ame work a singular scene, which he must have witnessed in his parish church : " To hear lately in this parish at the Communion publickly, while they received the Sacrament on it, one man swear or vow before God those visible actions of another, which that other there and then as solemnly vowed to be aU false *." At this time few of the churches in Lon don which had been destroyed in the fire were restored ; for Baxter says, " Most of them to this day, or very many, lye unbuUt, and God's worship is performed in such poor wooden tabernacles as before wonld have been made a scorn J." v There was a variety in the practice of different churches ; but in some things the rubrics were evidently strictly ob served. We are told by a writer of the period, who evidently describes the practice of many of the clergy, that the minister in reading, the lessons turned towards the people, " whereas in prayer he looks another way, towards the more eminent part of the church, where use to be placed the symbols of 1 Baxter's Obedient Patience, 1683, 166, 172, 245. Baxter alludes to the treatment he sometimes experienced : " A9 1 went along tho street, a Tory in Latin reviled me and struck me on the head with his staff." He long confined himself to his house, "lest they should be men that would swear me to the gallows." Ib., 110, 112. y lb., 254. Baxter appears to search for what he considered irregularities. He says, in one of his lator works, that he was confirmed at the age of 15 or 16, with others, in the church yard : " We all kneeled in a long row in the churchyard in the path way, and as he (Bishop Morton) went by he laid his hands on every one and huddled over a short Collect, of which I scarce understood one sen tence that he said." Defence of tha Nonconformists' Plea, 68. with the Rubrics and Canons. 395 God's more especial presence, with whom the minister in prayer hath chiefly to do. Por the same reason, we suppose, that the Christians in former times used to pray with their faces eastward z." We have noticed the irregular practice of former reigns in sometimes reading the second service in the desk, and not at the Communion-table. The Puritans, however, admitted that the rubric was explicit, and the Presbyterians in 1661 argued for an alteration. Few of the Nonconformists abso lutely asserted that the rubric allowed the service to be read in the desk. Yet in this reign the custom not only became common, but Churchmen even defended it through the press. It was actually pretended that there was no command to read it at the table when there was no Communion : " You say 'tis the custom at most parish churches to read the second service in the desk; and custom in the major part of any society hath the force of a law." The writer admits that custom is a law, where there is no positive rule ; not other wise. The plea of indecency was urged against going from the desk to the table ; and the writer meets it by reminding the objectors, that they saw no indecency in going from the desk to the font after the second lesson to baptize a child. It would seem, therefore, that at this time, though many irregularities were practised, baptisms usually took place in the midst of the service. By some it was contended, that the second service need not be read at aU, unless the Lord's Supper was administered; and it was replied, that if the rubrics refer only to Communion-time, no sermon could be permitted : " You must acknowledge that aU the same ru- bricks belong to the Communion Service when there is no Communion, as well as when there is one, or else what will ¦ Elborow's Reasonableness of the Christian Sacrifice, 47, 48. He tells us that the Service " usually began at six in the morning, and doth still in the cathedral churches, where the canonical hours are punctually ob served." Thoresby mentions the copes at Durham in 1681 : " In the after noon went to the minster; was some what amazed at their ornaments, tapers, rich embroidered cope3, vest ments, &c." Thoresby's Diary, i. 75. It appears that Reynolds's diocese was as regular in its conformity as any: " I dare appeal to your own obser vation whetlier iu any other diocess there be to be found a more sober, regular, and loyal clergy, a more con formable people." Rively's Sermon at the Funeral of Bp. Reynolds, 4to., 1677, 27. 396 The Book of Common Prayer ; become of your great Biana, the sermon. You should be more kind to that part of tbe Liturgy which gives the sole authority to your sermon." He alludes to the fact, that the Nonconformists considered tbe rubric to pledge them to read the service at the Communion-table. The Presbyterians could not put any other construction upon the rubric in question. And he further appeals to the forms of prayer since the Reformation, in which, though no Communion was intended, the usual portion of the service was commanded to be read at the table, "as on other holy-days is by the Common Prayer appointed to be read when there is no Communion a." This work, though exceedingly moderate in its tone and style, was answered in a most intemperate manner by some person, who argued for the practice of reading the second Service in the desk. It is evident from the answer that the practice was very general, for the writer speaks of it as a kind of prescription. Moreover, he gives us some informa tion respecting the strange conduct of the Bishop of London. He states, that he and his two immediate predecessors, " when they have been by several ministers consulted in that par ticular case, both at their visitations and at other times, when they have come to preach in their churches on holy-days, have ordered them to be read as they used to do, when they were not there b." From this work, however, we learn that the Communion-table usuaUy remained in the chancel, even •'" Parish Churches turned into Con venticles, by serving God Therein and Worshipping Him otherwise than ac cording to the Established Liturgy and Practice of the Church of Eng land. In particular by Reading the Communion Service or any part there of in the Desk. By Richard Hart. London; 4to., 1683," 3, 5, 6, 13, 17, 18, 21. 'fhe Dissenters, with much shew of reason, asked why they should he charged with Nonconformity, when many ofthe clergy were so irregular. They repeatedly urged this point in their defence; and contemporary pub lications prove the existence of many irregularities : " In very many places little or no care had that the people may have the Liturgy whole and entire, without mangling and curtail ing." H>. * Compton was now the bishop, and his two predecessors were Henchman and Sheldon. In 1663 Henchman was inclined to connive at irregularities when at Salisbury; and so was his successor, Earle. The Chancellor of the latter gravely proposed to Dr. Watson that his tithes should be paid if he would gratify his people hy read ing the Communion Service in the desk. I question whether any bishop after the Revolution would have ven tured to make such a proposal to a clergyman. The Opinion of John Cosin, &c, &c. By Ri. Watson, D.D, 1684, 98. with the Rubrics and Canons. 397 at the time of the Communion, for the author quotes the rubric permitting its removal, and says, "and is so too in some parish churches (which might be named) at Commu nion-time." It is evident, therefore, that the removal was not common; in short, that the removal was the exception, whUe the custom of keeping it fixed was almost general. He mentions Bishop Sparrow as not observing his own rule : " I have been upon certain grounds informed that Dr. Sparrow, whilst incumbent and residing at his benefice in Suffolk, when he himself read prayers, he did not go up to the altar when there was no Communion, but only to the parting of his church or chancel. It seems he himself doth change and not keep his ground0." It is questionable whether the state ment respecting the three bishops of London is correct ; for it is not probable that such a man as Sheldon, one of the bishops in question, was guilty of so great an irregidarity as that of aUowing a practice in violation of an express rubric. Sparrow's case is singular; yet it does not assist the argu ment, since, according to the writer, he left the desk, and stood at the entrance to the chancel. But the story is pro bably false, for Sparrow was scarcely the man thus to violate the orders of the Church. There were various attempts at comprehension in this reign ; and Bridgman, the Lord-Keeper, was one of those who laboured on the part of the Church to accomplish the object. Le is mentioned by Burnet and Baxter as having wished to bring about a scheme, which should have compre hended many of the Dissenters ; but Baxter does not tell us that he relinquished all such, hopes before his death, and that c "Parish Churches no Conventicles from the Minister's Reading in the Desk when there is no Communion. For the Vindication of the Practice of Parochial Ministers. In Answer to a Pamphlet stiled Parish Churches turn ed into Conventicles. By O. II., 4to., London, 1683," 10, 12, 27, 33. This writer called himself a Churchman ; yet he could wilfully violate the plain est rules of the Church. Some Church men were less consistent than the Dis senters. The latter disliked the Church and dissented in consequence. Ber nard, Heylin's biographer, in 16S3, states that rails were not usual in country churches at that time; and he attributes the want of them to Williams's Holy Table: "Ever since this mischief followed his book, that in country churches, to this day, the table is set at the hither end of the chancel, without any traverse or rails to fence it; boys fling their hats upon it ; country vestries write their parish accounts." Bernard's Life of Heylin, 171. 398 The Book of Common Prayer; he cast the blame on the Nonconformists. Yet such was the fact. The circumstances are curious and interesting. Baxter states that he, Bates, and Manton, consulted with the Bishop of Chester and Dr. Burton, and that they aU agreed to an Act of Comprehension drawn up by Lord Chief Justice Hale, at the request of Bridgman, the Lord-Keeper. Sherlock visited Dr. Burton some time after Baxter's assertion of the aUeged fact. Burton said he could not remember the precise terms of tbe accommodation ; but he stated that he was com manded by Bridgman to attend as his chaplain. Bridgman also drew up some proposals for an indulgence to the Inde pendents, who, he knew, could not be comprehended in any national Church ; and Owen and others, who were consulted on tbe scheme, were satisfied with the terms. Baxter and his brethren, however, could not come to any agreement ; and Sherlock says, from Burton, " My Lord told him, in the great est passion that ever he saw him in, These men (meaning the Independents) from whom I expected the least compliance, thankfully accept the terms proposed : but the others, whom I believed most ready to promote such a peaceable designe, will never agree in any thing : and I will never have more to do with them.. And thus that conference, wherein Dr. Burton was concerned, ended without any effect0." Baxter speaks of the Act as framed at the time of the conference with Burton and the Bishop of Chester. It now became evident that comprehension was impracticable; for how was it pos sible to devise a scheme to take in men who could not agree among themselves. Neither could the charge of cruelty be alleged, since the very men, who sought the comprehension on their own terms, had acted with much more severity in the day of their power. Though the bishops were restored to their sees in 1660, * Sherlock's Vindication of theRights of Ecclesiastical Authority, 187, 188. In allusion to Baxter's Liturgy, Sher lock says : " I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tem pore, as to use a form of prayer which was written ex tempore." lb., 421. " If it be a fault thus to restrain the spirit, is not the same spirit restrained when the whole congregation shall be confined to the forme of this one man's composing ? Doth not the minister confine and restrain the spirit of the Lord's people when they are tied to his forme ? It would sound of more liberty to their spirits, that every one might make a prayer of his own, and all pray together." Taylor's Apology for Liturgie, &c, 78 — 87. with the Rubrics and Canons. 399 yet they did not commence their visitations untU the Church was settled by the Act of Uniformity. During the summer and autumn of 1662 most of the bishops visited their dioceses, according to the ancient practice. A few notices from the earhest visitation articles of this reign wiU illustrate the proceedings of the bishops, and shed some hght on the state of conformity. As Wren's articles in 1636 caused so great a disturbance among the Puritans, we commence with those which he put forth in 1662. He was now an aged man, yet full of vigour : " Do any use scornful words against those godly sermons, caUed the Homihes of the Church ?" Some times, in the previous reign, a bishop was censured by the Puritans for making too much of the HomUies ; at other times he was charged with disparaging them. In churches in which baptisms take place during tbe service, no httle in convenience is sometimes experienced from the cries of the chUdren, which would be avoided were they brought to the font soon after the birth, as the Church ordains ; and thus the objection, which is sometimes alleged, that the con fusion is an interruption to devotion, would be obviated. Wren asks, " Whether this sacrament was deferred longer than the first Sunday after the birth ?" Bespeeting tbe Com munion-table, he asks: "Is the same table placed con veniently, so as the minister may best be beard, and the greatest number may reverently communicate? To that end, doth it ordinarily stand up at the east end of the chancel, where the altar in former times stood, the ends being placed north and south ? Are there any steps or ascents in your chancel up to the Communion-table ? Have you a decent rail of wood (or some other comely inclosure covered with cloth or silk) placed handsomely above those steps be fore the holy table, near one yard high ?" Wren, and in deed aU the bishops, ordered the table to be placed at the east end of the chancel, and to be inclosed with a rail ; and this was regarded as the most convenient place for the ad ministration of the Lord's Supper. The very notion of raUs precludes the idea of a removal of the table at Communion time. Prom the laxity of some bishops in not enforcing their own orders, uniformity in this respect was not for some years 400 The Book of Common Prayer; general. He asks, further, whether the pews are so arranged that the people can kneel, "and have their faces up east toward the holy table ?" whether there " are galleries or seat-folds ?" The mode of administering the elements is in dicated by the following question : " Do they all, according as the Church expressly commandeth, draw near, and with all Christian humility and reverence come before the Lord's table ; and not (after the most contemptuous and unholy usage of some, if men did rightly consider) sit stiU in their seats or pews to have the blessed. body and blood of our Saviour go up and down to seek them aU the church over ?" Undoubtedly the Puritans adopted the practice censured by Wren out of contempt to the Church, yet nothing could be more unseemly than the carrying the elements from pew to pew. A question occurs in these Articles which is common to almost aU the enquiries of this period : " Have you any in your parish that do come to hear the sermons only, and not to Divine Service ?" In the previous reigns the Puritan ministers avoided the attendance on Common Prayer as much as possible, and their example was followed by many of the people. A simUar practice also had been common since the king's return. To correct this evil, the question already quoted, or one of similar import, is found in most of the Visitation Articles of this period. The form is somewhat varied in different articles : " Are there any among you that come only to the preaching, and not to the common prayers of the Church ?" " Who in your parish do come to the ser mon only, and not to Divine Service ?" " Have you any that come not to church tiU the Divine Service be ended, and the sermon to begin ?" The custom was most unjusti fiable, and aU the bishops concurred in its censure. After the express rules and orders of the Church, it seems almost impossible that any one should contend that the legislature never- intended the Morning and Evening Ser vice to be used daily in our churches. Yet a few years ago a writer came boldly forward with such a startling proposi tion. Men may neglect the rules of the Church, but it was not likely that their existence should be denied, and that we with the Rubrics and Canons. 401 should be told that all our predecessors were in error in their interpretation. Yet such is the fact. It is argued by the writer in question, that if the legislature had intended the daUy service, it would have been specified in the Act of Uniformity ; whereas the Lord's-day and holy-days only are absolutely mentioned. Surely the calendar and the rubrics settle tbe matter. The order at the end of the pre face is express ; so is the rubric before the collect for the day. Why were daily lessons appointed but to be read ? But the reasons assigned in support of the extraordinary assertion indicate a strange want of knowledge of the previous history of the Prayer-book. It is gravely urged, that the object of mentioning the private as weU as the public use of the Book of Common Prayer daily was to restore the use of the Book, which had been set aside by the parliamentary ordinance in 1645. Where did the writer gain this information? Such a measure was needless, since the law was restored with the king, and the parliamentary ordinance fell to the ground. Nay, that ordinance had been neglected even during the Commonwealth. The Prayer-book was never legally re moved, consequently the legislature could never have en tertained such a strange notion. But after aU, the order for private or public reading was not in the Act of Uniformity. It was the old order of the Church, as it had continued from the Reformation. Thus the writer first refers to the Act of Uniformity, and then argues as though the order in question was a part of it. With Churchmen, the orders of the Church are sufficient, even if not sanctioned by Act of Parliament ; but in the present case the order has full legislative as weU as ecclesiastical authority, since every rubric in the Book of Common Prayer is a part of the law of the land. Whatever may have been the deficiencies of clergymen with respect to the daily service, the omission was never, untU this work appeared, gravely defended on the ground of the Act of Uniformity. Such a discovery was reserved for the present dayf. We have already glanced at the irregular practice of read- ' Scobell's Few Thoughts on Church Subjects, 27, 28. AM. D d 402 The Book of Common Prayer; ing the Communion Service on non-communion days in the desk in this reign. In their visitation articles the bishops very properly reprobate the practice ; but, from the evidence already detailed, they must have been very lax in enforcing their own orders. Their inquiries were consistent ; their own practice must have been inconsistent, or the evil custom would have been prevented. Wren and a few bishops were careful to enforce conformity; but their successors were in many instances too fond of ease, or too much absorbed in court matters, to attend to their dioceses. Wren, however, asks, " Doth your minister, preacher, or lecturer only read the Communion Service, commonly caUed the Second Ser vice, at the Communion-table?" Still great laxity prevaUed; and men really followed their own inclinations, the bishops either conniving at the irregularity, or being indifferent in the matter. In the present day no clergyman, probably, would venture on such a direct violation of the rubric ; or, should any one make the attempt, his diocesan, unless equally forgetful of his vows, would speedily correct the irre gularity!?. The clergyman's ordinary dress was the gown. In Wren's time it was evidently the custom in some places to preach in the surplice whenever the prayer for the Church Militant was used ; or, in other words, in the morning. Wren's questions appear to point to such a custom : " Doth he preach stand ing, aud in his cassock and gown, (not in a cloak,) with his surplice and hood also, if he be a graduate? Doth your preacher, at the close of his sermon, wholly forbear to use any kind or form of prayer (not being prescribed), as also to pronounce the blessing (out of the pulpit) wherewith the Church useth to dismiss the people ? But doth he then conclude only with ' Glory to God,' &c. ; and then, coming from the pulpit, doth he, at the same place where he left before the sermon, proceed to read the remainder of Divine b Laud, in his Star-Chamber Speech, in allusion to this custom, observes, " By little aud little this ancient cus tom was altered, and in those places first where the emissaries of this fac tion came to preach. And now, if any in authority offer to reduce it, this ancient course of the Church is called an innovation. If this be an innova tion, 'tis made by the rubricke, not by the prelates." Speech, ix., 41. with the Rubrics and Canons. 403 Service?" In the afternoon, probably, the gown only was used, for in a question relative to combination lectures, Wren asks whether " every one of these preach in a gown and not in a cloak ?" It is not probable that the present practice will be altered ; but an inquiry into the customs and rules of the Church wiU prove that the men, who use the surplice in the pulpit, are not innovators, as they are sometimes designated by persons, who never trouble themselves about the truth of their assertions. Before the troubles, it was the custom, at least in some dioceses, as we know from Prynne's charges against certain bishops, to use some of the prayers from the Office for the Visitation in praying for the Sick even in the church. After the Act of Uniformity the same practice seems to have been retained by Wren, who asks, " If any being sick do desire the prayers of the Church, is it done at the time of Divine Service, after the three collects ? and according to the form in the Liturgy for the Visitation of the Sick ? and not only by giving their names to the preacher, and mentioning them in the pulpit before or after the sermon ?" It was the custom to use one or more of the collects. How long the practice was continued I am not able to determine. It was not alto gether discontinued in Wheatly's time, for be censures it as unnecessary in consequence of the clause in the Prayer for all Conditions of Men : " There being a particular clause provided in this prayer, it is needless, as well as irregular, to use any collects out of the Visitation Office upon these occa sions, as some are accustomed to do without observing the impropriety they are guilty of in using those forms in the public congregations which are drawn up to be used in pri vate, and run in terms that suppose the sick person to be present h." It is clear, therefore, that in his day some of the •> Wheatly on the Common Prayer. The inquiry relative to confession oc curs in 1662, in nearly tbe same form as it stands in some of the visitation articles before 1640. "If any man confess his secret sins to the minister for the unburtbening of bis conscience and receiving of spiritual consolation, doth he, the said minister, by word, writing, or signe, openly or covertly directly or indirectly, make known'to any ptrson whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and sccresy." The Canons were not touched in 1661, and, therefore, the question of confession remains as in the time of Charles I. It is very simp'e. In the Communion Office an individual in dis tress is exhorted to come to a minister and "open his grief;" and by tha Dd2 40-1 Tlie Booh of Common Prayer; collects for the Visitation Office were sometimes used. But Wheatly's position as to the irregularity is doubtful : for, first, on his principle the sick could not be prayed for in the morning, since no order is made for a clause to be used when the prayer for all conditions of men is not read ; and secondly, some of the coUects could be read in church after the mention of the sick person's name, without any impro priety. If, moreover, Bisse's statement, as made in his book and repeated to Wheatly, be correct, that Gunning was the composer of the prayer, and that he never used it in the afternoon because the Litany was not then ordered to be read, but only in the morning, on such days as the Litany was not appointed, it would follow, on Wheatly's principle, that on many occasions no petition could be used for the sick man, unless it were an extempore one introduced by the minister. Wren, who was concerned in the revision of the Liturgy, evidently did not adopt Wheatly's oonstruction. Much diversity of practice exists with respect to the time for using the Office for Churching of Women. But un doubtedly the custom originally was to use it just before the Communion, or second service1. In 1662 the usual inquiry is in the foUowing form : " Doth your minister use the form of Thanksgiving for Women after ChUdbirth immediately before the Communion Service ?" Another custom appears to have prevailed, which is now probably never adopted, that of kneeling at funerals. Thus we find the foUowing ques tion in 1662 : " Doth he devoutly kneel when he saith the prayers and the coUects at burial ?" The practice of kneeling 113th Canon a clergyman is admon ished not to reveal any matters com mitted to him in secret, except they relate to certain breaches of the law. But the Church only permits a minis ter to hear the griefs of a parishioner. She does not enjoin the minister even to recommend the practice; she only allows it at the option of individuals who in distress are anxious to unbur den their lxiinds to their spiritual ad viser, 1 The rubric before 1662 left the ad dress to the woman at the discretion ofthe minister. The priest "shall say these words, or such like as the case shall require." In 1662 the discre tionary power was withdrawn. In the earlier books the woman was or dered to kneel " nigh unto the place where the table standeth." At tho last review she was to kneel "in some convenient place, as hath been accus tomed, or as the ordinary shall direct." The accustomed place was the place used before the troubles, or near the Communion-table. " This service is to be done betwixt the first and second service, as I have learnt by some bi shops' enquiries at their visitation." Sparrow's Rationale. with the Rubrics and Canons. 405 is not prescribed, yet it would seem from this question that the custom was in some cases used. Wren asks the following singular question: "Whether the preacher acts properly, without favouring or abetting schismaticks or separatists (that are at home or gone abroad), either by a special prayer for them, or by any other approbation of them ?" Was it the custom for some who remained in the Church publicly to pray for others who bad refused to conform? Wren's question seems to be directed against some such practice. We meet with another singular inquiry in Wren's Articles, which appears directed against a practice common at the time : "Do you know, or have you heard, of any which are reputed to be ministers, or of any other of the laity, male or female, that presume to make matters of divinity their or dinary table-talk ? Or that, under pretence of holiness and edification, take the hberty, at their trencher meetings, or where several company (not being aU of the same family) are assembled, rashly and profanely to discourse of Holy Scriptures." The Nonconformists had their secret meetings, and it is intimated in some contemporary publications that they took advantage of social assemblies to lecture and ad dress their people. Tbe inquiry probably aUudes to such assembhes K The visitation articles of this period are generally of the same character. The following inquiry is very singular : " Have you a large and decent surphce (one or more) for the minister to wear, and another for the clerk, if he hath here tofore been accustomed to wear it when he assisteth the minister ?" That the parish clerk was intended, and not a clerk in orders, is clear from another question, under the heading "Parish Clerks:" "Doth he wear a gown when he so attendeth, and a surphce over it, if heretofore the custome hath been such among you?" It would appear that the k Articles of Inquiry (with some directions intermingled) in the diocese of Elv, in the Second Visitation of the Right Reverend Father in God, Mat thew, Lord Bishop of thatDiocese, Anno Dom. 1662. London, 1662. Articles of Visitation and Inquiry concerning matters Ecclesiastical within the Dio. cese of Winchester, Sec. &c, 1662. In the Diocese of Salisbury, &c., 1662, In the Diocese of Chichester, 1663- In the First Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Bristol, 1662, 406 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; parish clerks in some churches wore a surplice, as is the case with singing -men and choristers in cathedrals. But, notwithstanding such articles of visitation, the great est laxity prevailed among the clergy in the performance of Divine Service throughout the whole of this reign. The State was sufficiently active in requiring subscription, but the bishops did not evince any measure of zeal in enforc ing conformity ; and thus in a little space irregular practices became very common. The irregularities, unlike those in the preceding reigns, did not proceed from dislike to the ceremonies or disaffection to the Church, but from deadness, coldness, and indifference in the bishops and clergy. There were, of course, many exceptions ; yet vast numbers of the clergy gradually became indolent, and indolence led to irre gularities in the performance of Divine Service. Previous to 16-10, the Puritans hesitated to comply with the rubrics, and the bishops set themselves to enforce conformity ; in the time of Charles II. the bishops were the chief aggressors in not exacting obedience to the laws." George Fox gives a curious story of a Presbyterian in 1667. He had been one of the Triers, and his wife was now a Quaker. She revealed to Fox her husband's mode of evading the law. " The last first-day," said she, " he and his priests and people, the Presbyterians, met, and they had candles and tobacco-pipes, and bread and cheese, and cold meat on the table ; and they agreed beforehand, that if the officers should come in upon them, then they would leave their preaching and praying, and fall to their cold meat." Fox reproved him, saying, " Who would have thought that you Presbyterians and Independents, who persecuted and im prisoned others, and whipped such as would not follow your religion, should now flinch yourselves, and not dare to stand to and own your religion, but cover it with tobacco-pipes, flagons of drink, cold meat, and bread and cheese. But this and such like deceitful practices, I understood after wards, were too common amongst them in times of persecu tion"1." Fox viewed their persecutions as judgments: "God m Fox's Journal, ii. 102, 103. with the Rubrics and Canons. 407 brought His judgments upon those persecuting priests and magistrates ; for when the king came in, most of them were thrust out of their places and benefices, and the spoilers were spoiled." He remarks that they said, " Had we cried against some priests only, they should have liked us; but crying against aU, that made them dislike us." "When they were uppermost, they would not have liberty of conscience granted unto others. There was one Hewes, of Plymouth, a priest of great note in Oliver's days, who prayed that God would put it into the hearts of tbe chief magistrates to re move this cursed toleration. But awhUe after, when priest Hewes was turned out of bis great benefice, a friend asked him whether he would account toleration accursed now?" Fox asserts that the persecutions under the Presbyterians in New England were worse than those under the bishops : "When they had got power, they so far exceeded the bishops in cruelty, that whereas the bishops had made them pay twelve pence a Sunday for not coming to their worship here, they imposed a fine of five shillings a day upon such as should not conform to their wUU Worship there n." Fox mentions an incident in 1669, which proves that the bishops were not very vigilant in enforcing conformity, but were satisfied with subscription. John Fox, a Presbyterian, bad been removed from his living in Wilts., but was some times permitted to preach by bis successor : " Presuming too far upon the priest's former grant, he began to be more bold, and would have preached. whether the parish priest would or no. This caused a great battle in the steeple- house between the two priests and their hearers on either side." The case was published in the papers; and some " malicious Presbyterians caused it to be so worded, as U' it had proceeded from George Fox, tbe Quaker"." The Dissenters in the times of Charles II. observed the 5th of November, but not the other occasional days : and it » Fox's Journal, ii. 573—579. Bur net, who was not inclined to speak harshly of the Dissenters, says, "Others plead now for moderation, though they have forgot it shamefully when they have power, as the congregations do now in Rew England, and the Presby tery did in Scotland." Burnet's Ser mon at the Election ofthe Lord Mayor, 4to., 1651, 29. ° Fox's Journal, 133. Calamy merely mentions John Fox. 403 Tlie Book of Common Prayer ; was asked, "What command have they for observing the 5th of November for a thanksgiving, any more than the 30th of January for a fast ? And why, then, do they observe the one and not the other? The strange custom, too, of wearing the hat in their chapels appears to have prevailed among them : " What command have they for the ministers preaching with their hats off, and the people hearing with their hats onP ?" By the Act of Uniformhy, all Elizabeth's laws " for the uniformity of prayer and administration of the Sacraments" were to stand in full force, and to be applied for the establish ment of the new Bookq. If the power to make alterations was possessed by Queen Elizabeth under the authority of a certam clause in the Act of 1559, the same power is pos sessed by Queen Victoria, because the Act of 1559 is sanc tioned by the Act of 1662. But this power would only be exercised in an orderly manner. It may apply to forms of prayer for special occasions ; and even then the matters are not ordained by the crown itself, but by its authority. The crown would order the proper persons to do a certain thing, either Commissioners ecclesiastical, or the Metropohtan, or the Convocation. No more than this is involved in the supremacy; and wherein does it differ from the power ex ercised by Romish sovereigns ? They are accustomed to re quest, or rather order, the Pope to do certain things, as our sovereign may command the Metropolitan. It is only in England, where the sovereign cannot ask a favour from the Pope, that the Romanists are free from civil- control in ecclesiastical matters. Even in Prussia, many things are managed by the pontiff at the request of the king for his Romish subjects. Those who quit the Church of England on the question of the supremacy are in no better condition than they were before ; for in many parts of Europe the sovereigns exercise quite as much authority over ecclesias tical persons as our kings or queens. They indeed exercise r Defence of Stillingfleet, 34—42. i Service. Irreverence seems to be inherent in ' Elizabeth's Act, with the penalties Presbytery. In the Cathedral at for enforcing it, is by the Act of Uni- Gcneva, I have seen the men sitting formity to bo applied to the Common with their hats on during Divine ! Pr.iver of 1662, with the Rubrics and Canons. 409 more authority over their subjects in spiritual matters than was ever claimed in England1. Not unfrequently the irregularities which exist in the management of public worship are ascribed to the revolution in 1688, as though the change in the government occasioned much lukewarmness in the Church. But the notion is groundless, for conformity was more general subsequent to the revolution than in tbe reigns of Charles II. and James II. Never, indeed, were irregularities more common than in tbe time of Charles II. Subscription was pressed according to law, but the bishops were very lax in enforcing conformity to the rubrics3. Subsequent to the Revolution the case was greatly altered. Some bishops and clergymen were lukewarm, but the great body of the clergy were attached to the Book of Common Prayer, and resolved to comply with the requirements of the » "Our men of the mission have always made a great noise ofthe king's supremacy, as if it were the most ab surd thing; without considering, that as the supremacy is explained by the Articles, it is practised by almost all the states and princes of Europe." Burnet's Reflections on the Relation of the English Reformation, latelyprinted at Oxford, 4to., 1689, part i. 21. It has been ruled that the Act of Supre macy was nothing new, but only de claratory of the old law on the sub ject. » The first portion of the following statement is at variance with the facts : " Still much more was preserved than we have now any idea of, the neglect and loss of which are to he attributed partly to the immediate bad influence of the revolution, in making the Church little more than an establishment, and partly to the increased laxity and cold ness which characterized the last cen tury." Hierurgia, Preface. With some exceptions the bishops of the time of William III. and Queen Anne were as zealous supporters of the Church as had ever existed. Several of them agreed in almost all points except the oaths with the Nonjurors. Archbishop Sharpe even preferred the Commu nion Office "in Ring Edward's First Service Book as a more proper office for the celebration of those myste ries." Sharpe's Life, i. 355. Asheton, who was as forward as any one for William, wished for the restoration of the "Memorial of Oblation" of the First Book of Edward VI. Asheton's Life. Most of the men who supported William declared against alterations in the Prayer-hook, though they were prepared to add new offices if they were required. A strange assertion has been advanced, "That the greater part of the altars were removed, not at the Eeformation but at the Revolution." History of Pews, 1842, 15. It is dif- ficult to understand on what ground such an assertion could have been made. During the time of Charles I. no altars existed, while the numerous Visitation Articles prove that tiMes were placed in all churches. Had the altars remained, the fact would have been noticed by the Puritans. Yet their charges merely are, that the clergy called the tables altars, aud endeavoured to decorate them n; al tars. It is quite true that coldness characterized the last century, but it is not correct to attribute any irregu larities which may prevail to the Revo lution. These pages will show that an improvement in the performance of Divine Service, and in complying with tbe laws and customs of the Church, became manifest after that event. 410 The Book of Common Prayer ; Church. The fact that a few of the bishops were latitudi- narian in their practice, led the mass of the clergy to cling fast to their inheritance — the Book of Common Prayer, and this feeling compelled the bishops to act consistently. Se veral bishops, even in spite of themselves, were obliged to enforce a compliance with the laws. Any laxity would have been noticed, and, moreover, would have been imputed to disaffection to the Church. Whenever the clergy are re solved to adhere to the rubrics and canons, a bishop will feel himself, whatever may be bis own private opinions, con strained to lend them his countenance and support. This was precisely the case in the reign of WiUiam III. ; in the two previous reigns it was far otherwise. We have a striking illustration of the feehngs of the time in the attempt to alter the Book of Common Prayer in 1689, when a royal commission was appointed to prepare matters for the Convocation. Several bishops were very anxious to introduce alterations, in the hope that the great body of the Nonconformists would thereby be recovered to the Church ; but the clergy in general wished to retain the Prayer-book unaltered. The project failed, signally faUed, and the defeat was entirely owing to the firmness of the Lower House of Convocation ; and some of the chief movers in the scheme subsequently acknowledged that the faUure was a merciful interposition of providence*. The supporters of the plan for alterations proposed in 1689 saw reason to be thankful that it was not adopted. Some of the promoters of that scheme entertained loose opinions on the subject, while others expected to recover the Dissenters ; but it seems to have been forgotten that the more consistent members of the Church would have been disgusted, and probably would have joined the Nonjurors in their separation. In this instance the op ponents of the scheme were the true friends of the Church, and its advocates afterwards admitted tbe fact. Any ex tensive changes would have involved a censure of the Re formers. Tho Church, however, was faithful to herself; and the charge which is sometimes alleged of lukewarmness ' Rennet, 674; Burnet's History of His Own Times, ii. 34; Lathhury's History of the Convocation, 234j 235. with the Rubrics and Canons. 411 and irregularities after the Revolution is unfounded, for the Churchmanship of the reign of Wilham III. was superior to that of the reign of Charles II. The cause of the stricter conformity in the reigns of WiUiam III., Queen Anne, and George I. must be attributed partly to the Nonjuring sepa ration. The Nonjurors, until they were rent by their own divisions, were rigid in their adherence to the Book of Com mon Prayer; and, moreover, they were careful observers of their brethren, who remained in the national Church. Had the irregularities been very common, the clergy would have been taxed with indifference to the Church ; and bad the bishops winked at obvious breaches of the rubrics and canons, they woidd have been charged with a want of at tachment to tbe cause which they professed to support. Hence the stricter conformity after the Revolution. I do not, of course, mean to assert that irregularities did not exist under King William, but I repeat, that the con formity to the rubrics was much more general in his reign than previous to the Revolution. Nor is it my intention to dispute the fact that the nation was in a very lethargic con dition during the last century. I simply mean to deny that this state was owing to the Revolution. On the contrary, I assert, and I think I have proved, that the Church was more effective after than before that event. In some cases justice is scarcely done to the peaceable and quiet Nonjurors, who are often confounded with the Jacobites. The latter were strong partizans of the exiled monarch, the former were content to lose all their preferments and to hve in retirement, not being able to take the oaths to a new sovereign, though they never interfered in pohtical matters. They may have been mistaken in their views, but they were quiet and peaceable sufferers. As the Jacobites were occu pied wth constant plots, suspicion often fell upon those who merely refused the oaths and suffered in privacy. The pub lication of the obnoxious form of prayer in 1690 furnishes an illustration pf the suspicion with which such men were viewed. The Nonjuring bishops and the more moderate clergy were guUtless in the matter. Certain petitions occurred in tne clandestine form of 1690, which were evidently ap- 412 Tlie Book of Common Prayer; plied to King James. A mystery, however, hangs over the publication. It is uncertain whether it was pubhshed by Jacobites or by their enemies, but it is clear that the Non jurors, as a body, and the bishops especiaUy, were altogether ignorant of the authors. To vindicate themselves, Sancroft and his brethren put forth a declaration denying any know ledge of the matter. The obnoxious petitions, after all, were not original prayers. AU were taken from forms of a previous period. From a privately printed form of 1659, and two others, one in 1680 and another in 1685, aU the petitions which, when referred to King James, were an act of treason to King WiUiam, were extracted and embodied in the new form of 1690. In 1659 Charles II. was in exile, and several of the petitions refer to him and his troubles. It was easy, therefore, to apply them to James II. The fact that the petitions were not new is very important, for it clears the memory of Sancroft and the bishops. Sancroft must have been weU acquainted with the form of 1659, for he resided in England at the time ; whUe those for 1680 and 1685 must have been prepared by himself, as he became Archbishop in 1679. Now the presumption is that Sancroft had not even read the obnoxious form when the declaration was put forth, for bad he examined it he must have recognised his own composition, and in self- defence he would have pointed out the sources from which the petitions were derived. His silence on the subject cer tainly warrants the supposition that, in order to act with a safe conscience, he never even read the form in question. It is a curious fact, that all the petitions which, as applied to James IL, were offensive, were taken from preA'ious forms ; and it is stUl more curious that the circumstance should have escaped observation untU the present time. The prayer for the restoration of public worship, the clause relative to per secution, the petition for the king's return, the aUusions to such as suffered for conscience sake, the clause, " Give him the necks of his enemies," were all taken from the form of 1659 ; whUe the petitions, " Protect and defend our Sovereign Lord the King, strengthen his hands, and the hands of aU that are put in authority under him, with judgment and with the Rubrics and Canons. 413 justice to cut off all such workers of iniquity ; bind up his soul in the bundle of life," are all found in the Thanksgiving of 1685. Several of the petitions also occur in the Fast form of 1680". In " A Modest Inquiry into the Causes of the Present Disasters in England," the archbishops and bishops, and the whole of the Nonjuring body, were charged with publish ing the obnoxious form. The writer proceeded so far as to allege that it was the " result of a kind of oecumenical coun cil of the whole party." This was a mere random assertion, as false as it was unjust. After quoting the petitions already given, the writer observes, " I do not remember we ever saw them so transported with an extatick fit of zeal in aU their prayers for King James, when be was upon tbe throne x." He knew not that the petitions had been aU previously used either for Charles II. or James II. It is, therefore, certain that the Nonjuring bishops were in no way implicated in the matter. If the form was really put forth by any of the Jacobites, stUl the quiet and peace able Nonjurors were not consulted. Its framers took the petitions, against which objections were raised, from the forms already mentioned, and applied them to James II. in his exile. Cole's mistake about tbe date of the first of the three forms has been pointed out. In a reprint, the authorship is assigned to Dr. Hewitt, but it was probably the produc tion of several of the loyal clergy resident in London and Oxford. It is quite certain that it was not printed or composed in 1650, since it contains various aUusions to Charles II. and the battle of Worcester. The reprint of " A Form of Prayer to be Used on Wednesday, tlie 22nd of December, be:ng the Fust Day, Appointed by the Ring's Proclamation ; to seek Recon ciliation with Almighty God, and to beseech Him that He would avert His Judgments, defeat the counsels of our Enemies, unite the Hearts of all loyal Protestants. London, 4to., 1680. A Form of Prayer and Solemn Thanksgiving, &c, for His Majestie's Late Victories over the Rebels, &c. 4to., 16S5. There is a remarkable heading to one prayer in the form of 1680, " Against the Papists, our Ene mies." 1 State Tracts during the Reign of William III., vol. ii. 98, 99. Ren net quotes the tract, and merely men tions the form. He, it appears, as well as Sancroft, was ignorant of the sources from which the objectionable petitions were derived. 414 The Book of Common Prayer ; the book, with the date unaltered, 1659, has Hewitt's name on the title-page ; and from the type, the paper, and other circumstances, I am inclined to think that it was printed as late as the commencement of tbe reign of George I. y My impression is, that it came from the press at which various nonjuring books were printed during a few years subsequent to 1714. The typographical ornaments, such as initial letters and head and tail-pieces, are evidently the same as were used in various works of that period pubhshed by some of the Nonjurors. As this form, which was originally in tended to apply to Charles IL, was easily applied to the Pretender, it was probably reprinted for private use among some of the Nonjurors about the time of the rebellion in 1715. But still, many of the peaceable men could not have concurred in its adoption. We find many of the bishops under William III. urging a strict compliance with the rubrics, a thing of rare occurrence under Charles II. In 1695, tbe Bishop of Rochester re quires the clergy to read the Common Prayer, " as the law requires, constantly and entirely in each part, without any maiming, adding to, or altering of it. If you do not so, you are liable to a legal punishment and censure." He remarks, that the Church enjoins each minister " to read some very considerable part of his office once a-day, at least, to him self, except he shaU be excused by indispensable business2." Stillingfleet was a bishop of William's promotion, yet he was a most scrupulous Churchman. No man did more in y Prayers of Intercession for their use who Mourn in Secret for the Pub lick Calamities of the Nation; with an Anniversary Prayer for the 30th of January. Very necessary and useful in Private Families, as well as in Con gregations. By John Hewitt, D.D. Together with the manner of his Exe cution on Tower Hill, aud his last dy ing Speech. Loudon, printed in the year 1659. This edition is, I believe, very rare. It is a very small volume. The fact that the form of 1690 was drawn from the previous ones is very curious. Lord Macaulay admits that the fact now mentioned clears the nonjuring bishops: "which seems to have been unknown to the accused bi shops and their accusers." Macaulay's History, v. 295. 1 Di3c:ourse of the Bishop of Roches ter at his Visitation, 1695. 4to., 8, 10. In this discourse the bishop al ludes to the practice of preaching the sermons of others. The candidates for ordination were required to write sermons, which, he says, were excel lent, though in tlieir examination he found their knowledge very defective : "My wonder was soon over, when I manifestly discovered that nothing but their ignorance was their own, their sermons belonging of right to their betters." lb., 25. with the Rubrics and Canons. 415 the defence of tbe Church, both against Romanists and Dis senters. Arguing for forms of prayer, he observes, "We have very early proofs of some common forms of prayer, which were generally used in tbe Christian Churches, and were the foundations of those ancient Liturgies, which by degrees were much enlarged. And the interpolations of later times do no more overthrow the antiquity of the ground work of them, than the large additions to a building do prove there was no house before. It is an easy matter to say that such Liturgies could not be St. James's or St. Mark's be cause of such errors, and mistakes, and interpolations of latter times; but what then? Is this an argument there were no ancient Liturgies in the Church of Jerusalem or Alexandria?" After disposing of the argument against a prescribed form of prayer, be urges a strict compliance with the rules of our own Book : " I could beartUy wish that in greater places, especiaUy in such towns where there are people more at hberty, the constant Morning and Evening Prayers were duly and devoutly read, as it is aheady done with good success in London and some other cities. Thus the design of our Church wiU be best answered, which ap points the Order for Morning and Evening Prayers daily to be said and used throughout the year \" In another charge Stillingfleet says the times of solemn worship "are the weeldy Lord's-days and the other holy-days;" and in aUusion to cases of neglect of the Common Prayer, he says, " You ought, what lies in you, to remove the causes of such neglect b." Another bishop of William's promotion thus speaks of the Common Prayer: "To this you have promised to conform, and subscribed your -hands to that promise, as also to the ¦ Bishop of Worcester's Charge, 1691, 22, 23. " I heartily recommend it to you, my brethren, that in all your parishes where a congregation (though but a small one) can be got together, you would every day have Morning and Evening Prayer in your churches." Bp. of Chester's Charge, 1692, 19. b Stillingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases, 1696, 1S2, 202. In a letter in 1694, to the archbishop, on the observance of the Lord's-day, he suggests a difficulty in presenting persons for breaking the commandment relative to the Lord's- day, without taking in holy -days : "Canon 13 joins Sundays and holy- days together, which will make some difficulty in the churchwardens pre senting one, and taking no notice at all of the other, which are so generally neglected." Ecclesiastical Cases, ii. 377. 416 The Book of Common Prayer; second of the three articles in the thirty- sixth Canon. Does he make good these subscriptions who reads tbe Common Prayer very seldom, or not in order, or not the whole, but only some parts and pieces ? I am sure they cannot excuse themselves in neglecting, omitting, or altering, any part of the public offices. They ought to perform the offices as they are directed and prescribed, for nothing less than this can an swer their subscription. This is to be understood, not only of the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer (which, if they could be daily performed in aU parishes would be of great use to breed in people's minds a sense of their de pendence upon God from day to day,) but also all occasional offices in the expressions and order in which they are di rected, which can only satisfy the conformity which you have promised c." From the preceding charge some light is thrown upon the position of the Communion-table in the reign of King Wil ham ; and it is clear that the uniformity was now greater than in the time of Charles II. : " There is a part of the church very convenient and proper, and generally fitted and prepared for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which we caU the chancel. Here the Communion-table may be placed, and the communicants receive, with greater order, decency, and convenience- for devotion, than in the body of the church and the seats there. I doubt not my brethren are sensible of this, and satisfied in it, finding great inconvenience in con secrating in so strait a place as an ally of the Church, and delivering the bread and wine in narrow seats, over the heads and treading upon the feet of those that kneel ; when by removing into the chancel at the time of that solemnity, every one may kneel without disturbance, and receive with c Advice to the Clergy of the Dio cese of London, 1697, 11, 12, 13. The bishop speaks of the neglect of the festivals and fasts: "The neglect of which has proceeded in some places as much from the minister as from the people." Of the omission to give notice of such days, he says, "This is unaccountable neglect, aud savours of insincerity." The clergy and the members of the Church in general were the cause of the improved state of things in this reign, not William himself, who in this respect was a la- titudinarian. Yet he was regular in his attendance on Divine Service on Sundays, and Burnet recommended him to attend on week-days. Diary of the Times of Charles II., ii. 285 —288. with the Rubrics and Canons. 417 easiness, and see the whole office performed. This is so proper and so becoming, that one cannot but wonder that the parishioners in any place should be averse to receive the Sacrament in this order, and that rectors should not take more care to fit their chancels for this purpose ; but some he whoUy disused, in more nastie manner than any cottager of the parish would keep his own house ; others are employed for keeping school, by reason of which, the seats, pavement, and windows, are commonly broken and defaced. But the reason which some give why they except against the use of the chancel, at the time of celebrating the Lord's Supper, is stiU more to be wondered at : they say it is popery, and that ministers who use their chancels for this office are popishly inclined. But why popery ? Is it because the Romish priests before the Reformation made use of the chancel to say mass ? So they use the body of the church to perform other parts of the popish service, and for that reasrm they may as well ex cept against the use of the church for reading the Scriptures and preaching ; and there want not those who carry the ar gument so far as to cry down the use of churches in gene ral; but how weak, how unreasonable is this! What if the popish priest said mass at the altar in the chancel ? may not the minister of the Church of England for that reason per form the Communion Service there without the imputation of popery d ?" So wrote the Bishop of Lincoln, one of the bishops appointed by King WiUiam. Uniformity certainly did not exist on this point in the Church when the above passage was addressed to the clergy of Lincoln; yet matters were far worse in the previous reigns, and it was not common for bishops under Charles II. to address their clergy with so much zeal. We find a con stant desire on the part of the bishops after the Revolution to produce uniformity in all churches ; and matters continued to improve, until, on this point at least, the custom became general. No clergyman could now remove the Communion table from its position, nor woidd any one go to communi cants in their seats, except in some particular case of dis- d Advice to the Clergy of ihe Dioceso of Lincoln, 22, 23. AM. E e 418 The Book of Common Prayer; ease. After so long a custom, no ordinary would ven ture to order the removal of the table from the east end of the chancel, which is the most convenient position for the minister and the communicants. It cannot be denied that William's inclination to Presby terianism, with the latitudinarian principles of some of the actors in tbe Revolution, would have led, had they been un checked, to a renunciation of some of the distinctive tenets of the Church, and to material alterations in her discipline and worship. But a merciful Providence watched over the nation, and the clergy, especially the lower clergy, defended their bulwarks with such success, that King WiUiam was compeUed to support the Church in her integrity. What ever may be our obligations to WiUiam III. as a nation, we are not indebted to his views and feehngs for the preserva tion of our Church, but to the principles of the clergy and people, who were resolved to maintain the system which had been established at the Reformation. The Church neces sarUy experienced a shock from the Presbyterian tendencies of the sovereign, yet he had the good sense to yield to the in fluence of the great body of the nation. Sound men were appointed as bishops, because the Church maintained her influence in the royal councils. In the Royal Injunctions of 1694 the king declares that the Protestant religion cannot be more effectuaUy supported than by " the protecting and maintaining the Church of England as it is by law esta bhshed." Probably the king cared httle for the Injunc tions ; but they shew the strong feehng in favour of the Church which then pervaded the monarch's councUs. The bishops are caUed upon " to use their utmost endeavour to obhge their clergy to have pubhc prayers in the church, not only on holy-days and Litany days, but as often as may be, and to celebrate the holy Sacrament frequently e." At the same time it must be admitted, that WiUiam, whatever his theory may have been, became attached to the * Injunctions given by the King's Majesty to the Archbishops, &c, &c., A-.-'j., 1694. They are given in Wilkins. Archbishop Sharp endeavoured to in duce the clergy to read prayers daily in populous towns. Letters to and from William Nicholson, 162. with the Rubrics and Canons. 419 Church of England. On this point we have the evidence of his own prayers, the authenticity of which there is no reason to doubt, since the Bishop of Norwich, Moore, by whom they were published, assures us that they were faithfully printed from his Majesty's papers. Several of them relate to the Sacrament" of the Lord's Supper ; and the Bishop states that he never failed to communicate four times in the year, and that " he always set apart two or three days to prepare himself for it." Even in the camp the duty was performed. It is also mentioned that the king used some of the prayers in his daUy retirement : " I do humbly implore Thy gracious assistance, and acceptance of my endeavour to prepare myself for the worthy receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Thy dear Son. Fit me, 0 Lord, by hearty con trition for my sins, and a sincere resolution of a better course, to approach Thy altar." No man who disliked the Church of England would have used such petitions in such circum stances. In a prayer of general intercession we read, " Bless and preserve Thy Church dispersed over the face of the earth ; restore to it unity and concord. I beseech Thee more especially to be merciful to that part of Thy Church which Thou hast planted in these kingdoms. Pity the distractions and heal the breaches of it. Purge out of it all impiety and profaneness. Take away those mistakes and mutual exaspera tions, which cause so much distemper and disturbance'." "U ith all his feelings in favour of others, William was evi dently, after his accession to the throne, sincerely attached to the Church of England. He evidently entered into her devotions, Nor, with such feelings as are exhibited in these prayers, can we feel any surprise that his episcopal appoint ments were generally so unobjectionable. The bishops of this reign and of the next were men of piety and zeal, and devoted to the interests of the Church ; and in William's case, there can be httle doubt that he himself exercised his own judg ment in the appointments. It was under the rule of George I. and George II. that such men as Hoadiy were promoted to the Rt. Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Norwich, 24mo., 1704." Tho frontis- f " A Form of Prayers used by his late Majesty Ring William III. when lie received' tbe Holy Sacrament, and ou other Occasions. With a Preface by piece represents the king kneeling at the Communion rails. .20 The Book of Common Prayer; the episcopal bench. These monarchs were unacquainted with our language ; and the pernicious custom was introduced of allowing the Prime Ministers, rather than the sovereign, to fill up the vacant sees. The two Georges could know nothing of the personal qualifications of individuals; and, consequently, aU such matters were managed by the Minister of the day, who, in too many cases, regarded the Church as a political engine, to be employed for the promotion of his own objects- It is not to the principles of the Revolution, but to the fact that a German prince unacquainted with our language was seated on the throne, that we must attribute tbe obnoxious episcopal appointments subsequent to the year 1714. Still, through the gracious providence of God, many good and Ulustrious men, even in the reigns of the first and second George, were promoted to the Bench ; and in the worst times many of the clergy were zealous and active in their parishes, so that, though the horizon might for a season be overclouded, yet the darkness was at length dispersed. In 1716, Talbot, who had been appointed to the see of Oxford in 1699 by Wilham III., succeeded Burnet at Sarum. In his primary charge he enters upon the duties of the clergy : " The first is reading the prayers of the Church, which you are obliged to do, not only upon Sundays and holy-days, but upon Wednesdays and Fridays weekly ; and if the wish in tbe fifteenth Canon could have effect, that every housholder dweUing within half-a-mile of the church would come or send one at least of his houshold fit to join with the minister thither upon those days, the pretence of want of a congregation would be over in most places." He remarks that the clergy are bound to read the prayers " intirely, not mangling them, and leaving out part of what is appointed. Regularly in the method prescribed, not changing the order accordmg to your humour and fancy K" * The Bishop of Sarum's Charge, 1716,13,14. It is singular that Tal bot makes no allusion to his prede cessor, Barnet. Some odd customs, unsanctioned hy the Church, have jrevailed at certain times io churches, sich as giving notice of lost property. The practice was censured in the time of George I. : " If it he un warrantable to teach children in the church, then it is plainly so much more to give notice in church of any thing lost, or of any common, civil, or worldly business to he done. And 'tis strange how such things came even to be permitted to he once done in any with the Rubrics and Canons. 421 In the reigns of William III. and Queen Anne conformity was constantly urged by the bishops; whereas in that of Charles II. they seem to have been satisfied with subscription. At aU events, they were much less zealous than their suc cessors after the Revolution. Fleetwood, Bishop of St. Asaph in 1710, says, "the rubrick is the guide." Alluding to a custom for wliich there was no authority, he says, " I resolve to have it altered, as being expressly against the rubrick and the laws of the landV This is by no means a solitary in stance of a bishop insisting on a strict compliance with the rubrics. Many others were equally active. The unseemly practice of administering the elements to communicants seated in their pews, so far from becoming more common after the Revolution, was very materially di minished. We have most important testimony on this point from Kennet, in 1709 : "I have not heard of late years that any single request of that nature has been even made to a parochial minister in Westminster or London, and I question whether there is above one church, if that, where the Sacrament is carried about to people in their pe\v3. There is a decent uniformity in the people coming up to the rails, and kneel ing there without any manner of scruple1." These passages shew an amazing improvement after the Revolution. It is a grand mistake to put down all irregularities to the princi ples introduced with that event. For the reasons already stated, the bishops and clergy were far better conformists than their predecessors. There were, indeed, lax bishops and las clergymen, but the majority were truly attached to the church." Wells's Discourse on the Duty of a Reverent Behaviour in Church, 1716, 39. b Bishop of St. Asaph's Charge, 1710, 18, 44. With some few ex ceptions, the clergy are bound to ad here to the rubric "punctually and perpetually ;" and any one who breaks the rule should consider " whether he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of his engage ment to the Church." Sharpe on the Kubrics, 8, 9. The same writer re marks that any innovation in the practice of the Church is as great an offence as preaching against the doc trines of the XXXIX Articles. Ib., 18, 19. 1 A Vindication of the Church and Clergy of England, 1709, 58. The passing-bell appears to have been common at this time. In 1709 it is mentioned by Thoresby: "It was a doleful thing to hear the passing-bells at the same juncture at both churches, aud I believe drew tears from more eyes than mine." "The passing-bell tolled for Mr. Benson." In the former case Thoresby remarks that the indi vidual "was said to be drawing away." Thoresby's Diary, ii. 53, 54. 4:22 The Book of Common Prayer; Church, and anxious to conform to her ceremonies : and all were under the necessity of being cautious in their practice to avoid the charge of inconsistency and disaffection. No man could have been more strict in enforcing conformity than Stillingfleet; his learning was immense, his judgment sound, and his practice most consistent. Some of his rules or directions are important in their bearing on certain questions relative to things neither enjoined nor disallowed by the Church, and the observing of which rests only on custom. The common law is the common custom of the country; and the principle is applicable to the Church. " Of every custom there be two essential parts," says Lord Coke, "time and usage; time out of mind, and continual and peaceable usage without interruption." Some ecclesi astical matters are decided by the same principle ; as, " the distribution of the national Church into two provinces, and the right of presiding in provincial councils." General prac tice and allowance of certain things "make them laws to us." " If the customs be such as are derived from the primi tive times, and continue in practice, there is no reason to oppose, but rather to comply with them ; or if they tend to promote a delight in God's service. As, for instance, wor shipping toward the east was a very ancient custom in the Christian Church ; the use of organical musick in the public service k." As the rubric did not enjoin communion-rails, it was long' before they became general. Many instances occur in the reign of Charles II. of churches in which rails were not erected. Subsequent to the Revolution the practice became more common. Sir John Bramstone mentions his reception of the Communion " at the rails, this being the first time the Communion hath been celebrated since the table was railed in, and the pulpit removed1." This was at the close of King k Stillingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases, i. 32S, 333, 349, 380, 3S1. Stillingfleet allu.les to the maintenance of the clergy in bis day : " If we had such settled times as could bear such amendments, there are many tlnngs to be thought of as well as this. But we have too many who catch at such things not with a design to reform, but to ruin our Church ; and I think we ought to be watchful against all plausible de signs to do us mischief." Ecclesiasti cal Cases, ii. 378, 379. 1 Bramstone's Autobiography, 413. with the Rubrics and Canons ; 423 William's reign. In the reign of George I., an opponent of the Church, speaking of the general practice, mentions com munion-rails in such a way as to prove that in his day they were at least almost universal™. It has been intimated already that the Nonjurors, previous to their own schisms, exercised a salutary influence upon Churchmen in keeping them close to the rubrics and canons. We have a- large mass of evidence from various works in the reigns of William and Anne on this subject. We learn from a letter written by Hickes to Charlett, that Queen Anne would not receive tbe elements in the Lord's Supper until after the clergy: "Her Majesty is in the right in making the clergy receive before herself." In the same letter Hickes says to Charlett, " I think you were wrong not to assist the parish priest for want of a surplice, the want of a surplice being a sufficient excuse in foro ecclesiastico, et conscientiae, for administering the service without one, especially in a large Communion, when it was charity both to priest and people to assist "." In such a case a clergyman must be left to his own feelings. It is, of course, of very rare occurrence, since in almost all churches two surplices are provided. In 1711 and 1713, Gibson, then Archdeacon of Surrey, circulated some visitation articles, in which the following question, so common in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., is proposed : " Doth he read the whole ser vice of the Church, as prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, distinctly, audibly, and devoutly, without omission or alteration?" While he was Bishop of Lincoln, his charges were published in a volume ; and he assigns as a reason, that the work would be useful " at a time when the minds of the m Pierce's Vindication of Dissenters, 1717, Part ii. 208. A curious custom seems to have prevailed among Dis senters at this time. Nichols mentions that they bowed " to one another in their meeting-houses upon sneezing, and other occasions." Pierce replies, that he had never seen the custom in tlieir chapels ; and he adds, that some of their writers had condemned the practice " even out of worship." He then cites the Westminster Assembly as condemning all such salutations in the time of worship. Ib., 214; Nichols' Defence, 317. In cities and towns Communion-rails must have been gene ral in the time of William III., as is evident from the circumstance already mentioned, of tbe representation of his majesty kneeling in tbe act of receiv ing the elements. " Aubrey's Letters, &c, i. 283— 285. 424 The Book of Common Prayer; clergy seem to be bent more than ever upon tberevival and improvement of ecclesiastical discipline0." This statement was made immediately after the accession of the house of Hanover. At the present time, the bidding-prayer is seldom used except in cathedrals and the Universities, or on some public occasions in parish churches ; but the subject has attracted attention at various periods, and its history since the Revolu tion is not a little curious. Opinions have always varied greatly on the subject. Kennet objected altogether to its use ; and he states that he " knew of very few ministers who practice it, and of very few people that would endure it." This was in the reign of Queen Anne. At the same time, he objects to the use of a collect and the Lord's Prayer, adding, that this practice was only common with the younger cleigy. He further states that it was introduced by the Nonjurors, who would not pray for King William. He would neither have the bidding-prayer, nor a collect ; but his notion appears to be, that the minister should use a prayer of his own, taking care to introduce the special sub jects enjoined in the Canon?. Within a very few years, how ever, a most singular change occurred. In 1714, the bid ding-prayer as given in the Canon, which had usually been neglected, was imposed upon the clergy by the royal injunc tions. Preachers were ordered to " keep strictly to the form iu the said Canon, or to the full effect thereof." In the previous reign Kennet had considered its use as a mark of want of attachment to the Church : "Bidding of prayer was thought better than praying to God0-." It is singular that its use should be so soon enjoined, and that not to use it was deemed a mark of disaffection to the sovereign*. ° Gibson's Vis'tation Charges, 8vo., 1717. Preface, 101, 102. ' Vindication ofthe Chnrch of Eng land, 65, 65. i Rennet's Life, 126. He mentions some excesses of individuals who were supposed to favour the Pretender: " Some would not go to tlieir seals in the church till they had kneeled and prayed at the rails of the Communion table; they would not be content to receive the Sacrament there kneeling but with prostration and striking of the breast, and kissing of the ground, as if there were an host to he wor shipped." One of his signs of popery is very common in our day — "Churches without organs had the thinner con gregations." r "Directions to our Archbishops and Bishops for the Preserving of Unity in the Church, and the Purity with the Rubrics and Canons. 42l The practice of reading the second service at the Commu nion-table, now universal, was much more common after than before the Revolution, and men appeared more sensible of the obligation of oaths. It was, indeed, contended by a few writers that the service was allowable in the desk : " It is an allowed practice, which our governors do never blame or endeavour to alter." This writer admits that the rubric seems to intimate the contrary s. The notion was a sin gular one, and quite untenable, since the connivance of governors "is of no authority in such matters as our governors themselves are not at liberty to allow of or dis pense with." Sharpe gives an illustration from the rubric of the Christian Faith concerning the Holy Trinity. By His Majesties Spe cial Command. 4to., London, 1714."' Tbe observance of the fifty-third Ca non relative to opposition " between preachers" is enjoined. The fixth di rection relates to the bidding-prayer : " Whereas we are informed that it is the manner of some before their ser mon either to use a Collect and the Lord's Prayer, or the Lord's Prayer only, &c. j we do further direct," &c. These directions are given in Wilkins, and in various other collections. The royal order gave rise to some discus sion, some advocating the use of the prayer as it stood in the Canon with out alteration, others contending for taking the various points and turning them into a prayer. A writer of the latter class alludes to the change in many pulpits after the royal injunc tion : " The generality of the people were astonished at the change of prayer, and when upon enquiry they found that the order came from above, and was designed to bring a great many ministers of the Church of Eng land to do their duty, and to pray for King George with all his titles, tbe judgment which the people passed upon this order was, first, that it was very strange that they who had taken the oaths to King George should want to be reclaimed so soon to then- accus tomed duty ; but next, and most espe cially, that the use of the Canon, as it was read according to the letter, was far from effecting the end intended by the revival of it, which was that th^ ministers should pray for King George with all his stiles and titles : whereas as it was managed, the people were only told who was their king, and were bid to pray for him." A Defence of Praying before Sermon as Directed by the Fifty-fifth Canon, 8vo., 1720, 5, 6. Notwithstanding the royal order some who adhered to the form as a bidding to prayer were charged with disaffection, though the injunction al lowed either th<>t method or to the full effect of the Canon. Wheatly stood forward and declared that some of these men were the most loyal sub jects, but they felt it right to follow the orders of the Church. They re garded the form in the Canon as pre scribed for use. Wheatly's Bidding of Prayers before Sermon no Mark of Disaffection, &c, Svo., 1718. ¦ Rennet's Paraphrase, &c. Inci dentally we learn that the practice of sitting during the Psalms, so common in the reign of Charles II., was quite discontinued at au early period in the eighteenth century : " Since we stand up with reverence to praise God in the use of one translation or version of the Psalms, by parity of reason we should do so in the other." Burrough's De vout Psalmist, 1714, 55. The author is pressing the duty of standing up in singing the Psalms. While, therefore, he proves the continuance of oue cus tom, which was not relinquished gene rally until some time after the com mencement of the present century, he proves that another was then quite given up. 4.26 The Book of Common Prayer ; respecting the position of the table: "The rubric directs that it shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. But this appointment by another rubric before the Morning and Evening Prayer is left to the discretion of the ordinary. And till such appointment be made, the ancient custom in each church is to be followed'." Consequently, the position of the table cannot be changed by the clergy man, nor is he at liberty to read the second service in any other place than at the table at the east end of the chancel, where it was fixed, out of Communion-time, by Queen Eliza beth's injunctions. Bennet's notion found but few favourers even in his own day ; and the practice was graduaUy dis continued. It is now probably quite extinct. At all events, any bishop, if aware of such a practice, would at once enforce a compliance with the law u. t Sharpe on the Rubrics, 66—68. " Thirty years ago, however, the custom still lingered in some country churches. I found it in existence in my first curacy. I may here mention a curious illustration of the surplice controversy. Previous to the year 1842 I occasionally took the morning service in a country church near a large city. On the first, and on various sub sequent occasions, I found neither gown nor bands, and on asking the clerk for the gown, he replied, that " master had no gown j he preached in the white one." I therefore preached in the surplice; and a gown had not been seen in that church for many years. After the year 1842, on taking a morning service in the same church, I found a new gown, and meeting the incumbent some time after, I noticed the circum stance. He replied, that in conse quence of the controversy he had pur chased a gown. It is not likely that the question relative to the use of the surplice in the pulpit will he settled. Men must be left to their own judg ment. But Mr. Scobell's strange dis tinction between the homilies and ser mons can never be allowed. He speaks of unlicensed ministers formerly read ing the homilies in the surplice from the pulpit or the steps of the Com munion-table. "As still speaking in her name, and her own authoritative words," says he, they " read them in the surplice." He adds, " And this agrees with old visitation questions as to ' whether the minister in addressing the congregation at sermon-time wore a surplice or not over his gown and cassock,' implying blame if it were a sermon, consent if it were a homily." This mode of reference to ' visitation articles is too loose for such an in quiry, and the inference drawn is un warrantable. It supposes a distinction between the sermon and tbe homily, yet the Church makes none, and the rubric which appoints the one appoints the other. Moreover, it elevates the homily above the sermon ; and further, it involves a consequence which Mr. Scobell could not have foreseen,nainely, that in all churches, at the period to which he refers, steps to the Com munion-table existed. On the same subject he says, " It is tho subsequent blending of two offices together, prayer and preaching in one person, that has tended to confusion." To what period can Mr. Scobell refer by the term " subsequent ?" Did the Church ever contemplate two persons in each pa rish ? the thing would have been im possible. Scobell's Few Thoughts, &c. 41, 42. Mr. Scobell's distinction makes the homily the voice of the Church, while the sermon is the mere act of the preacher. Surely the voice of the with the Rubrics and Canons. 427 A dissenting writer in the reign of George II. says, " The Church requires the Communion-table to stand in the body of the church or chancel, and the priest to stand at the north side of it. But in opposition to this injunction, the table is made altar-wise, and clap'd unto the wall at the east end, with rails about it, and steps to it." Alluding to the vari ations in different churches, the same writer remarks that there is no order for preaching in the surplice, " and yet it is practised in some churches." Further, " There is no com mand for setting up of candles upon Communion-tables, and yet we see unlighted candles placed on collegiate and cathe dral altars, which some inferior churches awkwardly ape." Such objections and allusions prove that the rubrics and Canons were generally observed. As the rubric did not en join Communion-rails, they were not generally introduced for some time; but the practice became more common after tbe Revolution. Incidentally, in his spirit of carping, this author mentions the alternate reading of the Psalms, and raises an objection to the responses by women, contending that they have as much right to preach as to respond. It appears to have b'een reserved for Dissenters to discover, that repeating the responses by women is a violation of St. Paul's rule. On the same ground they must abstain from singing in our churches1. It has been suggested that the clergy subsequent to the Revolution were more careful in their compliance with the rubrics and Canons of the Church in consequence of the Non- Church is of more importance than the act of any minister, however emi nent; and therefore Mr. Scobell has certainly elevated the homily above the sermon, a doctrine not likely to be received in the present day. 1 Owen's Plain Dealing; or, Sepa ration without Schism, 29, 37. " Our women readers read tbe Psalms as loud as the men." Moderation still a Virtue, 34. In 1 722, Thoresby says, " Walked to Batley Church, where Mr. Rhodes preached well, though in the surplice." Diary, ii. 341. We have a singular proof of the general use of candlesticks on the Communion-table in ' Queen Anne's reign, in a work published against the Scottish union : " We shall have blind lights, altars, and bowing to the altar." Lawful Prejudices against an Incorporating Union ; or, Considerations on the Sinfulness of this Union. 4to. Edinburgh : priuted in the year 1707, 5, 11. At this period, therefore, candlesticks were so common in English churches as to be numbered by a Scottish writer among the things, which were offensive to Presbvterians. 428 The Book of Common Prayer; jurors, who watched their movements. Many who were re garded as Low Churchmen were strict in tlieir conformity. They also asserted the apostolic order of the Church of Eng land. " Our own reformed Church," says Kennet, " more hippy than the best of the other, did justly renounce the usurped tyranny of Rome, and by a full authority, tinder God, of Prince, and Parliament, and Convocation, did shake off that heavy yoke, and so restored, reformed, and by laws established a pure faith, and worship, and discipline, accord ing to the institution of Christ and His apostles, and the good example of the primitive Church." Kennet does not regard the foreign reformed Churches as equal to our own : "If anything seem wanting in the outward administration and government of some of them (which we cannot deny), the wise and merciful God will (we hope) in due time supply that defect." At this time a hope was entertained of the reception of our Liturgy and government in some foreign Churches; for Kennet says, "Our Liturgy in many foreign parts approved, commended, and almost entirely brought into use and practice ! And our primitive order of bishops, so weU-beloved and esteemed, that there seem to be some hopes breaking forth of its reception and establishment in other evangelical and reformed Churches." He also glances at the previous times of confusion : " We have seen many of the laity, bred up to other ways of disciphne and worship, returning to the bosom of our Church ; several of the dis senting teachers, eminent for piety and learning, regularly ordained by our bishops." While he refers to the strong views of some who, like Brett, held the independency of the Church upon the State, he fully confesses that our Church is in accordance with the primitive platform: "This our Church of England being formed, as near as might be, to the pattern of the primitive Church, does not affect or acknow ledge a parity in those orders that were appointed to minister in holy things. For she remembers that her founder, Christ Jesus, did place His own apostles in the highest order aud degree to preside over the subordinate clergy and people, and to appoint bishops for their successors, to be duly consecrated with the Rubrics and Canons. 429 to the chief office and honour in this evangelical ministry throughout all ages of tbe Christian Church >." On the accession of the House of Hanover a controversy arose on the question of Lutheranism, or, whether the pecu liar views of Luther were rejected by the English Church. Not only at the Reformation, but on various occasions the question had been discussed. In the reign of Queen Anne the subject fell under consideration in the discussions on the various bills in Parliament relative to occasional conformity. Prince George of Denmark, the consort of the queen, was a Lutheran, having his own chaplain; but he was an occa sional conformist. Before he could assume his ofiice of Lord High Admiral, it was necessary to receive the Lord's Supper in the Church of England. As a Lutheran he had no scruple ; nor did any members of the Church of England imagine that bis views on the doctrine of Consubstantiation presented any obstacle. His Danish chaplain, however, evi dently mistaking the views of the Church of England, re fused to administer the Lord's Supper to the prince, who was obliged to procure another Lutheran minister from the continent. Prince George remained a Lutheran to the end of his life. George I., and his son, afterwards George IL, were both Lutherans ; and the accession of this family called forth various works on the subject, the object of most of which was to shew, that there was no essential difference be tween the Church of England and the Lutheran Churches on the question of the Eucharist. Among the works published on the subject, two rather remarkable ones may be mentioned : the one a translation of the Lutheran Liturgy, the other a History of Luther anism2. The latter was dedicated to the Archbishop of York, to whom the author says: "I am encouraged in this presumption, not only by your Grace's eminent qualities, but also by the subject of this small tract, which treats of the religion of our present sovereign, King George. All the y A Sermon preach'd before the Archbishop, Bishops, and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, in Convocation assembled, in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul. By White Kennet. Trans lated from the Latin. 8vo., 1711, 10, 19, 24. ' The Lutheran Liturgy, &c, proved to agree with the Book of Common Prayer, Svo., 1711. 430 The Book of Common Prayer ; world knows his majesty King George to be a Lutheran, which is so much corresponding to the doctrine ofthe Church of England, that it is certain of being in a flourishing con dition so long as he and his royal posterity shall reign over usa." George I. remained a Lutheran as long as he lived, and had his German chaplain; but he conformed on some occasions with the Church of England. George II. was in the same position. Though Lutherans, they exercised acts of supremacy in the Church of England; and the common opinion was, that there was no opposition between the views of the two Churches. But an opposition arose from a very unexpected quarter, namely, from a man who shortly after became a Nonjuror. The opposition was the consequence of dislike to the Hanover succession. Brett, who hitherto bad complied with the oaths, published a "Reply to the History ofthe Lutheran Church," in which he condemns consubstantiation as opposed to the doctrines of the Church of England. His position was, that George I. could not be a Lutheran after his accession to the crown of Great Britain: "Whatever his majesty's religion was whilst he was only Elector of Brunswick, now he was king of Great Britain he was obliged by Act of Parliament to join in communion with the Church of England V Brett and his friends stood alone in their opinion; for all other parties, even those who at other times had branded consub stantiation as popish, now concurred in the view that the doctrine, while it was not affirmed, was not condemned by the XXXIX Articles, and that, as in the case of their sove reign, it might be held consistently with an attachment to the Church of England. Brett's views were supported by another writer0. But it is clear that King George, as au honest man, could, not have adopted the faith of the Church of England if he had regarded the Articles as condemnatory of the doctrine of consubstantiation. Most persons, tbere- * The History of the Lutheran Church; or, The Religion of our Pre sent Sovereign, Ring George, agree able to the Tenets of the Church of England : an Essay to Unite all Pro testants against Bome, John Calvin, and Theodore Be/a, 8vo., 1711, 25, 33. b A Review of the Lutheran Prin ciples, shewing how they Differ from the Church of England, 8vo., 1714, 6. c A Letter to the Author of the History of the Lutheran Church. By a Country School Boy, 8vo., 1714. with the Rubrics and Canons. 431 fore, considered that the Church had passed no opinion on that subject; that she had condemned transubstantiation, or the Romish view, without alluding to other views held by some of the Reformers. " The Letter to the Author of the History," called forth an intemperate attack, by a clergyman, on Brett, to whom the writer ascribes the authorship of the letter a. Brett de clares, in a postscript to a second edition of his " Review," not only that he did not write the book, but that be knew nothing of the author. The Presbyter argues from "Brett's Review" and from the "Letter," that on the principle of these works George I. conformed from necessity; whereas his own statement was that conformity involved no incon sistency. This opinion was not new. In the days of Bishop Bedell some Lutherans settled in Dublin, and being un acquainted with the doctrines of the Church of England, they refused to conform to the established worship. By re quest of the Archbishop of Dublin, Bedell saw them, and satisfied them, so that they immediately complied. They had imagined the English Church to be identical with the continental Calvinists. Burnet, who relates the circum stance, says, " Such is the moderation of our Church in that matter, that no positive definition ofthe manner ofthe pre- sense being made, men of different sentiments may agree in the same acts of worship without being obliged to declare their opinion e." Before the accession of George I. Puffendorf published a work with a view to a union among the continental Protes- d Two Letters to the Lord Vis count Townsend : shewing the Sedi tious Tendency of several late Pam phlets, more particularly of a Review of the Lutheran Principles of Thomas Brett, LL.D., and of a Letter to the Author of the History of the Luthe ran Church by a Country School Boy. Bv a Presbyter ofthe Church of Eng land, 8vo., 1714. ' Burnet's Life of Bedell. Rone of the reformed Churches regarded the Lutheran notion of the Eucharist as a bar to union or communion. In 1631 a svnod ofthe reformed Church in France declared "that there was no idolatry or superstition in the Lu theran Churches, and therefore the members might he received into com munion without renouncing their own opinions' or practices." Stilliugfleet on Separation, 186. Archbishop Wil liams siys, "Tho reverence due to this great Sacrament is as observable a3 the manner of Christ's presense is in expressible. Christ is in the Sacra ment really for the matter, ineffably for the manner." Manual of Prayers, bv John, Archbishop of York, 1677, 85—87. 432 The Book of Common Prayer ; tants, which was translated into English by Dorrington, the compiler of " The Reformed Devotions," in consequence of the accession of a Lutheran sovereign to the throne of these realms'. A few years after the accession of George I., the minister of the Lutheran Church in London published a " Defence of Lutheranism against the Charge of Popery," in which the views of the Lutherans are stated for the purpose of being contrasted with those of the Church of Rome. On the Eucharist, after a statement of the Romish doctrine, we have the following : " On the contrary, the Lutherans, ac cording to Christ's institution, teach that the real bread and body of Christ are both eaten, the real wine and blood both drunk, by all who partake of the Lord's Supper. They teach that the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament may very lawfully and piously be adored ; but that the bread is not to be adored s." Several attempts were made at different times to introduce the English Liturgy into the Lutheran Churches. Wake and Sharp, aud others, were greatly interested in the mat ter; and some of the Lutheran ministers were anxious on the subject. The sentiments of one of Sharp's correspond ents are applicable to many in our own day : " The opinion which has of late days prevailed is, that, the worship consists in the sermon ; so that the worship of God has even lost its name among us. For example, we do not say, will there be divine service to-day ? but only, will there be a sermon to-day? Among Papists divine service is performed with ' A View of the Principles of the Lutheran Churches, shewing how far they agree with the Church of Eng land. Being a seasonable Essay to wards the Uniting of Protestants upon the Accession of his Majesty King George. Translated hy Theophilus D.riington, 8vo. 1714. b A Vindication of the Lutheran Religion from the charge of Popery : written in Latin in 1717. By Bal thazar Mentzer, Pastor of the Augus tan Chnrch in London. And now translated by a Presbyter of the Church of England. 8vo. 1720. " It i-. not to be denied that Luther and some other did teach that even the wicked doe in a sort cat the flesh of Christ, not as if they did corporally touch His sacred body, much les3e teare, rent, or divide it with their teeth, or turne it into their substance; but for that they may he said, iu a sort, to eate the flesh of Christ, though unprofitably, and to their con demnation, in that they truely receive tho body of Christ ; eating that out ward substance of bread, with which it is truely present, though not lo cally." Field, Ofthe Church. 1635, 822, 823. wnn the liubrics and Canons. 433 scarce any instruction of the people : and we, on the con trary, place our service in almost nothing else, but in struction." In approving the English Liturgy the writer says, "In divine service the people should not be mere spectators or auditors, but actors V My task is now nearly completed. The preceding pages will enable the reader to decide on the state of conformity to the rubrics and canons in each succeeding reign, from the Reformation until after the accession of the present family. It is my object to foster a reverence for the Book of Com mon Prayer; for if the people love the Book, they will not easily consent to material alterations. We live in an age of change. Some persons would even alter the sacred volume. The Book of Common Prayer, therefore, is assailed. Its very age is sufficient to condemn it with modern reformers. Though drawn from the Word of God and primitive Litur gies, yet some persons would cast it aside as an unprofitable work. They do not hesitate to' cast a reproach upon the Reformers, by whom it was compiled. Nor can they put forth a very strong claim to tbe name of Protestant ; for all, who at the commencement of the Reformation protested against Popery, received the Book of Common Prayer. In stead of constant attempts to alter the legacy of our Re formers, let us rather thank God that the Book is preserved to us unchanged in its character; and let us bear in mind that, in the use of our Liturgy, we adopt usages and join in petitions which were used by our own Reformers more than three hundred years ago, and also by the Church of God in the primitive and apostolic ages. With our Book of Com mon Prayer the Reformers, as well as the great and good in succeeding ages, worshipped Almighty God. Nor does it become us to imagine, that we can worship Him in a form more acceptable than that, which the Reformers prepared from Holy Scripture and the primitive Liturgies. We may well be content with a Book with which they were satisned. The assertion of greater light in the present day is a fallacy. » Life of Archbishop Sharp, ii. 157, 162. The letter was written in 1710 by the chaplain ofthe King of Prussia. F f 434 The Book of Common Prayer ; Church government is no more a science than the Gospel. No one would pretend to a clearer view of the scheme of salvation in the present age than in preceding times. The principles of the Gospel may be more exemplified at one time than at another, or in one country more than another ; but no new light is to be shed on God's revelation. It is complete. Nor can time reflect light on the government, discipline, and ceremonies of the Church of Christ ; but, as we appeal in all cases of doctrine to the sacred volume, so in the matters now under consideration we refer to that book and tbe practices of the Apostles and the Church during the first ages. On various occasions it has been the lot of the Church of England to be attacked by Papists and Puritans; yet she has ever adhered to Holy Scripture and primitive practice. Her doctrines are derived from tbe sacred volume; her government is that of the apostolic age. She renounces the Additions of Rome; she rejects Presbytery and Independ ency by an assertion of her own government as grounded on the Word of God and the practice ofthe early Church. Se cessions have at times taken place from her communion, some to Rome, others to Dissent. While it is incumbent on Churchmen to foster a dread of Popery as a deadly evil, it is no less their duty to oppose those who reject our discipline and government. It should never be forgotten, that the Church of England has been exposed to persecution from Puritanism as well as from Popery. The Prayer-book was once cast out as popish, , and Episcopacy rejected as anti- Christian. We may well be warned by the confusions of the period of the Long Parhament. There are those who would, as they allege, alter the Book of Common Prayer in some few particulars; and in 1640 the parlia mentary leaders asked no more. In all such matters con^ cessions invariably lead to further demands. Taught by experience, the true friends of the Church will resist such demands as fraught with danger. Church government is not like civil government — a system to be altered by the people according to times and circumstances. As no special form of civil policy is enjoined by Holy Scripture, or with the Rubrics and Canons. 435 recommended by the primitive Church, the people of every country must decide the question for themselves. But Church government is a matter already settled for us. The Church of Christ is a spiritual kingdom, with its laws and regulations. Some things, indeed, are left indifferent to be managed by those who are invested with authority in the Church, yet the government is fixed. The Reformation was a return to the practice of the primitive ages. The standard was then erected. Rome bad departed from it, and our Reformers returned. Consequently, Church reform is unlike parliamentary reform. In the latter, the object is to accommodate ourselves to the times; in the former, the rule is tbe primitive practice. If corruptions creep in, our duty is obvious, namely, to cast them off and return to the original standard. Besides, it would be unreasonable to make concessions to the call of a few persons who may be active and clamourous, while the majority are anxious to preserve the Book of Common Prayer in its integrity. With the example of the period from 1640 to 1660 before us, it would be rash to deviate from those formularies, which have come down to us from men, whose wisdom and piety are not equaUed among modern reformers. Churchmen could scarcely accept a revision of the Liturgy from Papists and Dissenters ; yet to such a result must the present movement tend, for the advocates of alterations would submit the matter to a parlia ment composed of aU parties. By many persons the Church is regarded as a mere creature of tbe State; and on this ground Episcopacy, or Popery, or Presbytery may be set lip according to circum stances. Our Reformers, on the contrary, considered the Church as a spiritual kingdom, established by our Lord with a certain platform of discipline and government, suffi ciently revealed in Holy Scripture, as interpreted by primi tive practice, and, therefore, not a mere establishment to be altered at the pleasure of individuals. Persons, who talk of the darkness of the Reformers, and of the greater light of the present age, treat God's own institutions as a mere science, in which time and experience may effect great improve ments. Unless it can be proved, that the present generation. 436 The Book of Common Prayer f possess more of the influence of the Holy Spirit than the Reformers, they certainly are not better judges of primi tive practice than the great men of the Reformation. In all notions of modern reform the practice of the early Church is quite ignored, and its advocates simply adopt a theory of their own, as though the institutions of God could be im proved by the exertions and ingenuity of man. As our only guides in this matter are the Word of God and primitive practice, it is worse than trifling to pretend that we of the present age are more competent to decide on such a ques tion than our Reformers, who were actuated in all their proceedings by a sincere desire for God's glory, and had adopted no favourite scheme of their own. The theory strikes even at the foundation of the plan of salvation. It reverses the glorious truth, "The way -faring men, though fools, shall not err therein ;" and makes everything depend on human reason. On the same principle, the observation of the first day of the week might be abolished. It might as well be argued, that we understand that question better than the primitive Christians. And the same may be said of Infant Baptism. These matters are decided by Holy Scrip ture and primitive practice. The Gospel is a revelation, and will not be better understood ages hence than at the present period; nor can the discipline of the Church be better comprehended by us than by our forefathers, though in natural science, philosophy, and general literature we may very far outstrip aU preceding ages. To say nothing of piety, no modern Church reformers are to be compared with the great and holy men of the sixteenth century in their knowledge of antiquity. Moreover, none in the present day would come to the work so free from prejudices as our Re formers. The Reformation, indeed, was wonderful in the manner of its accomplishment. While some on the Conti nent set up almost a new Church, our Reformers only re stored the building to its original state. For their proceed ings, for their prudence, their caution and wisdom, we have abundant reason to be thankful, since we are now reaping the fruits of their labours ; while all the foreign Churches, to which the Puritans of an early period, and the Presbyterians with the Rubrics and Canons. 437 of a later, were constantly looking, have undergone perpetual changes, even to the denial, in some cases, of the funda mental Articles of the Christian faith. Novelties in doctrine are inadmissible ; so also are novel ties in Church discipline : both are settled for us, the former by the Word of God, the latter by that Word and the prac tice of the apostolic age. Such, at least, is the view of the Church of England. It may be observed, that I am not inquiring into the truth or falsehood of the principles main tained by our Church ; on the contrary, I merely state the views which are embodied in our Formularies, which we must hold to be sound and true. As Churchmen, we can no more question the principles and practices of the Church than the doctrines of Holy Scripture, for if we call them in question we are in reality Separatists. As Churchmen, we take it for granted that the views of doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies are in accordance with the Word of God. I do not mean to assert, that all our ceremonies are enjoined in the Bible, for such matters are not settled by Holy Scripture ; but every sound member of the Church of England believes, that nothing which the Church enjoins is contrary to God's Word. Where Holy Scripture is silent in matters of disci pline and ceremony, the Church has power to decide for her self, provided she ordains nothing contrary to Scripture. This rule was rigidly observed in our Reformation. It was merely a restoration of the Church to the model of the primitive age. AU members of the Church of England must concur in this view, or they betray the cause which they are pledged to defend. Believing that the Reformers settled everything in accordance with the Word of God and primi tive practice, it would be presumption in us to tamper with their work. It is moreover forgotten by the advocates of alterations, that their principle would involve constant changes. Where would be our security were the principle adopted? If we introduce changes to please ourselves, the succeeding genera tion may do the same, for they wiU not feel it necessary to be bound by our decisions. Their right will be the same as ur own, and endless changes would be the consequence. 438 The Book of Common Prayer ; If concessions were made in favour of one class of objectors, it would be only just to shew the same indulgence to an other. It might be said, why should we bind our posterity ? If, however, we sincerely adopt the principles on which the Church has decided, we are in no difficulty, for then we shall regard them as fixed, and shall no more think of departing from them than of renouncing the Gospel. As the question of discipline, like the Gospel of Christ, is not one on which time can reflect light, it is wise to abide by tbe Book of Common Prayer, as it has been handed down to us by our Reformers. Some men would alter the Word of God under the pretence of improvements. Novelty is the danger of the present day. In a new reformation all primitive rules would be disregarded, and the mode of worship and discipline would be regulated by the whims and caprices of individuals. To the common argument that some good men require altera tions in the Book of Common Prayer, it may be replied, that many more of greater piety and knowledge wish to pre serve the legacy of the Reformers, whose memory they fondly cherish. The good men in question, moreover, as is evident from certain productions occasionally issuing from the press, mistake the principle of the Reformation. They have adopted a theory with which the Book of Common Prayer interferes. It may be asked, by whom are the desired changes to be effected ? Would there be a general agreement on this point ? A Church assembly would be the proper body for such a work. In such an assembly was the Prayer-book arranged. Yet all, who now call for a reform, wish for a royal commission to prepare tbe changes preparatory to a parliamentary sanction. But apart from the danger of sub mitting such a matter to a House of Commons composed of enemies, as weU as of friends, of the Church, is it to be expected, that any conclusion could ever be arrived at in an assembly so constituted? Some would require doctrinal alterations, others would be content with rubrical changes ; but a Book of Common Prayer, in which the House of Com mons could concur, would be a performance of a most sin gular description. In this business each individual wishes with the Rubrics and Canons. 439 to effect certain changes of his own, and he imagines that others would give their support; yet the very alterations, for Which he is ready to risk the peace of the Church, would be strenuously opposed by many, and thus aa agreement would be an impossibility. Dissenters from the Church of England seem to imagine that the ministers alone are to be consulted on the question of a prescribed Form of Prayer ; and that they only are not to be subjected to a previously composed Liturgy. But surely the people are to have a voice in a matter in which they are so intimately concerned. The extempore prayer of the minister is as much imposed upon the people as a printed form. There is, indeed, this difference, namely, that the latter is previously known to the congregation, and there fore can be readily received by aU, while the former falls newly upon their ears, and must be pondered over by the mind before it can enter the heart and be adopted. More over, if a whole Church is to be debarred the power of im posing a form on its ministers, on what ground is a single minister to be aUowed to impose his own form on a whole congregation? The theory of those who reject prescribed forms confines public worship to preaching, and extempore prayer by the minister, and singing by the people. Unles3 in prayer meetings, the people are allowed to take no part in the public service ; and in them one person only can speak at a time as the mouthpiece of the rest. Except in the act of singing, the people are mere listeners. Surely such is not the method calculated to promote edification, nor is it sanctioned by the Word of God, or by the practice of the Church in the purest ages. Churchmen, however, are agreed on the question of a prescribed form, though many would alter the particular form bequeathed to us by our Re formers. We, therefore, are not called upon to defend the principle, but only to guard our Book against being tam pered with by its professed supporters. During the last century the state of religion in England was undoubtedly very discouraging. The cause has already been stated, namely, the ignorance of a new sovereign of our 440 The Book of Common Prayer ; language and customs, and tbe consequent appointment of bishops by the Minister of the day. However, Dissenters as well as Churchmen were lukewarm and inactive : yet stiU the Church of England was in a better condition than the foreign Churches. The latter not only were lukewarm, but they actually sacrificed some of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel ; the former has been aroused from her lethargy, and her doctrines were never endangered. At the present time all parties in the Church are animated with zeal; so that if we have divisions, which all must lament, and which all should endeavour to heal rather than foment, yet there is no want of activity. It cannot be said that the Church is in a sluggish state. Her condition, indeed, is one of excite ment ; but it may fairly be questioned whether this is not better than a state of stagnation. During the sluggish period of the Church's history, the formularies were her safeguard. Whatever might be the language of the pulpit, the truth was propounded from the desk. There was a vital principle in the Church by which she was preserved from falling into error, in spite of the short-comings of many of her ministers. Were the great mass of the clergy corrupt in doctrine, and indolent in practice, sad as such a state of things would be, stfll the Church would not be destroyed as long as her articles and formularies remained. A corrupt clergy could not corrupt the Church, though they would corrupt the people. From such a condition, by God's provi dence, the Church would be delivered, unless tbe doctrines and discipline should be renounced or altered. In the case of foreign Churches, as we see from the example of Geneva, where the ministers departed from their original principles, the doctrines were renounced. The same remark is applic able to dissenting congregations. As each is independent of another, if a minister adopts unsound opinions, and suc ceeds in carrying with him the people, the newly received creed becomes the creed of the congregation, until some other change occurs by a similar process. On the other hand, whatever may be the errors of her ministers, or how ever they, as individuals, may depart from the faith, the with the Rubrics and Canons. 4-11 Church of England, being a branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, not subject to mutation, retains the true doctrine and the apostolic discipline. As long as our formularies are preserved we are safe, even though many ofthe clergy may be unfaithful to their trust ; but should they be subjected to material alterations, under the pretence of improvement, the consequences may be far more serious than the advocates of change could contemplate without horror. With the sad exam ple of various continental Churches before our eyes, it behoves all Churchmen, as they love the truth, to preserve unaltered those bulwarks to which the conservation of our privileges must be attributed. It is sometimes asserted that persons quit the Church of England on account of the Book of Com mon Prayer, especially on account cf the length of the service, and that their objections would be obviated by the adoption of a few alterations. The assertion is contrary to fact. Our service is not usually longer than that of the dissenting chapel, frequently not so long; and it is certain that the common people, as well as other classes, are, as a general rule, better able to worship God by our Liturgy, in which all can take a part, than by the formal extempore prayer, which is frequently unintelligible, and sometimes unsuited to the congregation. Many Dissenters, both ministers and people, are beginning to feel the importance and advantage of a prescribed form of prayer: the former, because the effort in selecting their words and framing their petitions is an obstacle to their own devotion ; the latter, in order that they may enter with all their feelings into the supplications to the throne of grace, which they find to be impossible while each sentence, as it is uttered, must be considered before it can be appropriated. No truly devout member ofthe Church of England will complain of the length of our Liturgy, or of its repetitions, or of any of its petitions. Let it be our de termination to defend the legacy bequeathed to us. To accomplish this object we must preserve the Book of Com mon Prayer in its integrity. No rash innovations must be permitted. If the door be once opened to changes, who can say when it may be closed? If the Liturgy -should ever be "am. a g 44:2 The Book of Common Player, fyc. tampered with, the XXXIX Articles will not long escape a revision; and if the doctrine and practice of the Church should once be altered, they may be subjected to the same process in each succeeding generation, until in the end the Church will no longer remain an uncorrupted branch oi Christ's Holy Catholic Church, but a merely ecclesiastical establishment, with a negative creed and latitudinarian for mularies. INDEX. Abbot, Abp., 157, 159, 1G2. Abridgment, the, 123 — 126. Accustomed place, the meaning of the rubric, 355, 358. Act of 13th of Elizabeth, lis, 110, 140—144, 378, 379. Act of Uniformity, 44, 45, 59, 60, 70, 138—140. Admonition to Parliament, 95, 103, 118. Advertisements, 72, 73. A Lasco, 49. Alleged changes in Liturgy, 165, 228, 229. Aless, translates the Book of Common Prayer, 60, 61. Alterations proposed, 351, 353; in 16S9, 410, 41 1 ; at present, 437—412. Anabaptists, 277. Andrewes. Bishop, 159, 160. Antichrist, 255. Apocrypha, 109. Articles, 1536, 4 ; of Inquiry, 31 ; 1553, 36; 1563, 69; 1571, whether the XXIXth. was sanctioned by Parlia ment, 125 — 127. Aybner, Bishop, 78, 88. Bancroft, Abp., 101. Baptism, time and place of, 91, 10S, 133, 147, 159, 217, 395, 396; bap tisms at Restoration, 333, 334. Barksdale, Clement, 303. Bastwick, account of, 178, 179, 221. Baxter's Liturgy, 326—328. Bells, 83, 89, 175, 176. Bibles, 5, 6, 164. Bidding Prayer, 424, 425. Bishops, 186, 188; whether a right to examine for institution, 90, 91 ; lands of, 340. Book of Discipline, 89. Bowing at the Name of Jesus and towards the Communion-table, 71, 74, 109, 148, 153, 154, 160,165, 169, 172, 173, 183, 184, 215, 301, 392, 423. Bray, Dr., 177. Bucer's views, 46 — 50. Bullinger' s views, 48, 51, 105. Burials, 91, 145, 325. Burton, account of, 178, 221, 226, 227. Bushnell's case, 273 — 275. Calamy, 247—249. Calvin's opinions, 2S, 29, 46—51. Candlesticks, 182, 427. Canons, 139,142, 143, 147, 174; wbe- ther the fifty-fifth includes presby tery, 3S2, 3S3. Cartwrighfs views, 95, 97, 112, 113. Catechizing, 159. Ceremonies, 98, 99. Chancels, 174, 356, 357, 399. Changes, 42—44, 438, 4:'9. Christian prayers, 68, 69. Christmas-day, 214, 215, 257, 258, 304. Church reform, 435. Church,ra\e of, in reformation,434, 435. Churches converted into stables, 193 — 195, 331. Churching of women, 103, 153, 175, 404; churching veil, 150, 151. Churchivardens, 89, 163. Cloaks, 161, 177. CoUects, 21, 71. Commission, 1689, and re-ordination, 383—386, 410,411. Common law, 422. Common Prayer, 1549, 25, 26 — 29; 1552, 33—36 ; 1559, 44, 45, 58—62 ; 1603-1604, 129—132; 1C25, 156, 157; 1640, 2S4, 2S7; 1660-61, 317, 332—334; 1662, 341—350; called pottage, 195, 196; during the trou bles, 284— 286; Heylin's use of it, 2S7; Bishop Rainbow's, 288; San derson's, 289,290; Jeremy Taylor's, 290; Bp. Bull's, and various others, 293, 294, 295—305, 311 ; defence of, 301, 302. Communion in both kinds, 17. Communion-table, place of, 72, 79, 92—94, 165—169, 174, 175, 181— 1S6, 355, 356, 3»6, 397, 416, 420. Comprehension, 397, 398. Confession and absolution, 148, 119, 161, 403. Confession of Angsburgh, 56. Confor-miti/, under Charles I., 157 — 173; Charles II., 389—406; undei- William III., 409—422; Queen Anne and George I., 421 — 423. Conventicles, 75, 100. Convocation, 2, 27, 36, 40, 120, 174, 341, 345, 351, 428. 444 INDEX. Copies, 33, 3S, 58, 59, 73—75, 97, 104, 122, 142, 169, 184, 187,333. Corporal presence, 357. Cosin, Bp., charge of poperv, 164, 337 —339. Covenant, 201, 202, 205—207, 213, 214, 219, 230, 345, 316. Cox, Bishop, 100, 101. Cranmer's views, 12, 15, 38, 39, 50, 133 ; visitation, 21. Cromwell, 2S 1—284, 299; death and character, 303, 306—309. Cross, crucifix, 118, 122, 123, 151, 169, 171. Custom, force of, 80, 153, 423, 424, 426, 437; customs, 109, 114, 150. DaUy service, 154, 155, 401, 402, 4io— 417, 420. V 'Antique, mistakes about Cromwell and England, 308, 309. Declaration-, royal, 329, 330. Delivery of elements to persons stand ing or sitting, and in pews, 179, 324, 357, 390—392, 421. Desks, 111. Directory, 212, 213, 217, 218, 229, 230. Discipline, Presbyterian, 229, 230. Edward TI., 13, 38, 39. Ejections of clergy, 197, 201, 233, 231, 304; ejected clergy restored, 317,330. Elizabeth, Queen, 41, 42, 59, 123, 124. Encouraqements to war by the preach ers, 234—240. Episcopacy, 367, 371—373, 381, 436, 437; in Scotland, 303, 304,374,378, 383. Erastians, 211, 213. Errors, 250—252. Excesses in the wars, 180, 181, 1S7, 192, 193—196, 330, 331. Exiles at Frankfort, 41 ; disputes among, 101 — 103. Fasting, 92. Fasts, Parliamentary, 145, 254, 200, 2(>7. Festivals, 76, 80, 98, 295. Fletcher, Bp., 88. Fonts, 108, 147. Foreign Churches, views of, 59, 118, 119, 360—302, 370,371, 378. Foreign Divines, 100. Form "at the healing," 334. Funeral Sermons, 155. Gathered Churches, 25S— 200. Godly prayers, 35. I Gown, 177,402—400. I Grindal, Abp., 51, 78—80, 87, 89, 100. | Guest, Bp., 41, 45. Habits, 73—75, 87, 88, 97, 104, 105, 117, 177, 184. Hall, Bp., 185. Hampton Court Conference, 128, 129. Hats in churches, 117, 150, 155, 172, 173, 250, 257, 392, 408. Henry VIIL, 11, 12,40. Holt/ Days, 415. Holy Orders, 76—78, 98, 158, 182. Homilies, 23, 07, 69, 1G2, 399; sub- sc.iption to, 357. Hooper, Bp., 48. Horn, Bp., el, 100. Humphrey, 110. Images, 15. Independents and Presbyterians, 225, 229—232, 283; quarrels, 207, 211, 231, 241. Injunctions, 13, 21, 70—72, 107, 10S. Institution of a Christian Man, 4. Institution, words of, 148, 149, 160. Intolerance of Presbyterians, 292, 293, 331. Ireland, 297, 298. Irregularities, M0, 111, 116, 123—125, 155, 159, 177, 179, 390, 406, 407. Jacobite Form of Prayer, 412—414. James I, 127, 129. January 30th, 334, 335. Jewell, Bp., 98, 109. Juxon, Bp., 160, 162. King, Bp., SS, 89. King's evil, 151, 334. Kneeling, 34, 137, 144, 146, 1G2, 390, 391 ; at funerals, 404. Knox, John, 102, 103. Latitudinarianism, 419, 420. Laud, Abp., innovations allecrd, 157 —159, 162, 174, 221— 229 f charges bv Prynne, Burton, and BasUviek, 225—227. Lawful authority, 376 ; the words in Article XXIII., 380, 381. Lai/men, 78. Lectures, 9S. Leighlon's case, 178, 221. Length of Morning Service, 441. Lessons, 22. Liturgy, 8, 9, 21—23, 43, 71, 82, 83. Long Parliament, 174, 209, 210. Lord's Supper, views on, 32. INDEX. 445 Luther, 46 — 48. Lutheranism, 145 ; at accession of George I., and hooks on the sub ject, 428 — 433. Marriage, 310. Martyr, Peter, 46—49, 52. Mary, Queen, 39, 40. Mass, 15, 16, 22, 23, 30, 31, 35, 36, 43. Metrical Psalms, 60, 61, 89, 90, 149, 161, 165, 171, 184, 326, 336 j changes in Old Version, 313 — 315. Middleton, Bp., 91, 94. Millenary petition, 128. Mistakes of certain writers, 120, 121. Modes of worship, 2S8— 294, 300. Monk, General, 309, 310. Montague, Bp., 163. Monuments of superstition, 192, 193. Morning Service, 80—86, 163. Names, 280, 281. Necessary Doctrine, The, 7. Necessity as applied toforeign Churches, 367—369, 372—374, 378, 380—385 ; as stated at Synod of Dort, 370, 371. New Reformation, 118, 119. Nonconformists, views of, in 1662, 346 —349. Nonconformity, 149, 150; under Charles I., 223 ; under Charles II., 345—348. Nonjurors, 409 — 412, 423, 428. Nonoich, diocese of, 92. Nov. 5th, 158, 407. 2\o».17th; or, the Queen'sdsty, 123,124. Oblations, 358, 359. Orarium, 67. Order of Communion, 16 — 18. Order of Matrimony, 18—21. Ordinary, power of, 356. Orders, three, 374—378, 380, 3S1, 387. Ordinal, 29,34, 40, 70, 135; confirmed by Parliament, 304, 365, 374, 3S3. Ordinations during the civil wars, 290,310—312. Ornaments of Churches, 2S, 33, 5S, 73, 77, 78, 88, 99, 111, 133—135, 142, 169, 1S3, 185, 192, 193, 353—355. Ow.cn, 270—275. Parish clerks, 79, 87, 145, 158, 405. Parker, Abp., 75—78, 105, 106. Passing-bell, 6, 72, SO, 87, 151, 152, 421. Paler Noster, 21. Penalties, 295, 290. Pews, 177. Tierce, Bp., 159. Place of prayer, 111—1 14. Plea of innocent, 115, 117. I'oi-klington, Dr., 177. Pocock's case, 270. Popery alleged, 228, 229, 264-266- m Prayer-book, 117, 118. Position, of the minister in prayer, 39 1 395, 427. Prayer for Church Militant, 40? Prayer for Dead, 6, 158, 1 84. F''2V ,nT Sick' 175; with ™m&, 4U3, 40 4. Prayer iu Parliament, 114, 115. Prayer toward the East, 169. Preaching, 24, 87; prohibited, ->i 43 Preces Private, 68. Presbyterians, 207, 211, 231, divi sions, 343. Presence in Lord's Supper, 51—59 Primers, 1—6, 7, 10,11, 36, 37, 65—67. Processions, 21. Proclamations, 15," 16, 39. Prynne, 178, 221, 226, 389. Psalms read by the minister, 393. Psalters, 20, 2], 149, 161. Pulpit, 111, 113, 114, 203, 207, 234 —240, 244. Puritan objections, 61—64; and mis representations, 95. 96, 98, 100, 103 106,108,110,111,116,117,133-145! Puritan Prayer-book, 61, 62. Quakers, 278—280. Quarrels, 246—248. Pails, Communion, 177, 185, 397, 399 416—418, 421, 422. Beading Psalms, 393. Beading sermons, 275, 276. Beal Presence, question of, 46 — 55, 57, 103, 131, 357. Beceiving the elements, 400, 421. Eeformation, 119, 120, 156. Reformation a restoration, 377, 3S6, 387. Reformers, views of, 25, 26, 32, 33, 46—50, 58, 120, 121, 325, 434—430. Religion during the wars, 242 — 245, 259—267, 276, 277, 31S, 319; at Restoration, 320—322. Re-ordination. 345, 359, 360. Responses, 325, 326. Restoration, 316—319,321, 331 ; Com mon Prayer restored, 310, 317, 332, 333. Ring, 99. Roi/al declaration, 329, 330. Rubrics, interpretation of, 322—324; interpolated rubric, 324. 446 INDEX. Sayraments disused, 159, 217, 260— 263, 305. Sampson, the Puritan, 104, 105. Sandys, Bp., 58, 79. Savoy Conference, 323—328, 339, 341. Scandalous ministers, 196 — 199, 200. Scots, 202, 203, 207, 211. Scottish Bishops, 263—265. ¦ Communion Office, 366, 367. Second Service, place of, 176, 180, 322, 323, 395—397, 401, 402, 425. Sects, 37, 105, 164, 242, 243, 250, 251—259, 262—267, 283, 341. Sermon-bell, 175, 176. Sermons, 97, 405; time of, S3. Short Morning Prayers, 163, 164. ' Singing, 97, 99, 216, 217, 393, 394, 425; at the Communion, 146, 147, 179. Sitting, 150, 266, 390—392. Smart's case, 178. Smectymnuus, 179, -209. Soldiers in churches, 260, 261. Sporls, Book of, 170,171. Sprint, 138, 13:'. Standing, 164, 172, 173, 182; at Lord's Supper, 144—146, 150, 151. State of Geneva, 360, 361. of old dissenters, 361. Stillingfleet, 385, 3S9. Stone altars, 164, 167. Strange scenes and opinions, 264 — 266, 276, 277, 283. 302. Subscription, 115, 116, 142, 143, 345, 348, 349, 390, 392, 406. Succession, 311, 312. Supremacy, 13, 71, 130, 131, 35S, 40S, 409. Surplice, 75, 76, 79, 101, 105, 122— 124, 136, 137—141, 18G, 355, 393, 405, 426, 427 ; omitted, 390—393. Table at Communion, 395, 416—418. Time of Baptism, 395, 399. Tithes, 259. Toleration, 138, 242—245, 282. Transubstantiation, 15, 16, 46, 47, 55. Triers, 268, 269, 271- Turning to East, 179, 326. Two lights, 28. Uniformity, Act of, 37, 344, 345, 350, 416, 418. Usages, Puritan, 155. Usher's Model, 342, 343. Vestments, 186. Visitation Articles, 21, 22, 75—79, 80, 87, 88, 90, 91, 160—164, 399. Visitation of Sick, 175, 403, 404. Wafers at Communion, 76, 105—108, 146. Water with wine, 1 63. Westminster Assembly, 204, 207—209, 215, 216, 219, 220; views of, 208— 210; differences in, 216, 217. White's Century, 199, 201. Whitgift, Abp., 96, 97, 112, 113. William III., 418, 419; his form of prayer, 188. Williams, Abp., 15S— 162, 179— 1 S3, 189—191 ; his form of prayer, IKS. Wren, Bp., 159, 160—162, 177, 337, 339, 399, 402—405. Zninglius, views of, 50, 51. A LIST OP EDITIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEE, AND OTHER BOOKS OF AUTHORITY. A Gocdly Primer, 12mo. 1534. 12mo. 1535. The Manual of Prayers; or, The Pri mer, 1539. The same, without date. King Henry's Primer, 4to. 1545. 4to. 1546. The Primer, Edward VI., l2mo. 1551. Edward VI., 1553. 4to. 1559. 12mo. 1575. The Order of Communion, 1548. another edition, 1548. of Matrimony, 1547, or 1548. The Litany and Suffrages, 1544. The Psalter; or, Boke of the Psalmes, 1548. Homilies:— 1547. 1559. 1571. 1548. 1562. 1574. 1549. 1563. 1582. 1551. 1567. 1595. Certaine Articles, 1536. Articles, Forty-two, 1553. Articles, XXXIX., 1563. 1586. 1571. 1590. 1575. 1593. The Ordinal, 4to. 1549. Book of Common Prayer : — Pol. March, 1549. Fol. June, 1549. Fol. May, 1549. Fol. July, 1549. (There are other editions ofthe same years.) Pol. 1552. Fob 1552. 4to. 1552. Fol. 1559. Fol. 1559. 12mo. 1559. 4to. 1560. 4to. 1565. Fol. 1566. 18mo. 1570. Fol. 1574. 18mo. 1575. 4to. 1578. 4to. 15S0. 18mo. 1585. Pol. 1586. Fol. 1594. Pol. 1601. Pol. 1603. Fol. 1604. FoL 1604. 12mo. 1636. Fol. 1605. 12mo. 1637. 4to. 1605. Fol. 163S. Fol. 1607. Fol. 1639. 4to. 1613. 12mo. 3640. Fol. 1615. Fol. 1660. Fol. 1618. 4to. 1660. Fol. 1619. 12mo. 1660. Fol. 1622. Fol. 1661. Fol. 1625. FoL 1662. 12mo. 1627. Fob, a different 12mo. 1628. edition, 1662. Fol. 1631. 8vo. 1662. Fol. 1633. Svo. 1662. 4to. 1634. 12mo. 1662. Fol. 1636. Editions of books in Latin. Ordo Distributionis Sacrameuti Altaris, 12mo., 1548. Ordinatio Ecclesias Ministerii Eccle- siastici, &c, 4to., 1551. A translation ofthe Book of 1549. Liber Precum Publicaruui, &c, 4to., 1560. The text is somewhat altered from the preceding. Liber Precum Publicarum, 18mo. 1571. A different translation. Liber Precum Publicarum, 12mo. 1574. 12mo. 1596. Liber Precum Publicarum in Usum Ec clesiae CathedraU^ Christi. Oxon. Oxonife, lSuio. 1600. This book was printed for use in Oxford at the Restoration, and contains the Daily Service and the Psalter, with some additional prayers and collects. Orarium Seu Libellus Precationum, 18mo. 1560. Preces Privatae, lSmo. 1564 18mo. 1568. lSmo. 1573. By the same Author. A HISTORY OF THE CONVOCATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND irom the Earliest Period to the Year 1742. Second Edition. Svo. 10s. Cd. A HISTORY OF THE NONJURORS, their Controversies and Writings. Svo. 10s. 6d. imslSD BY 3IESSKS. PARKER, COEMJUBSliT, OXFOSD. c o o YALE