.,;* ft \
1 n i \
li *^ M ^-^ % ^ M.. UJ^.. '^Ji, %.p, K y^Jsj^j'-^^^
|
.A |
A. < |
|
14 ji, |
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
FREDERIC THOMAS BLANCH ARD ENDOWMENT FUND
A HISTORY
tc §ooIi 0| Cammait pniircr
OTHER BOOKS OF AUTIIOlUTy;
AN AITEMPT TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE RUBRICS AND CANONS
HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND OBSERVED FROM THE
REFOKilATiON TO THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III.
AXSO
AN ACCOUXT OF THE STATE OF HELTGIOX AXD KELIGIOUS PARTIES IX EXGLAXD FROM 1640 TO 16G0.
REV. THOMAS LATHBURY, M.A.,
AUTHOE OF "A HISTOET OF THB CONTOCATION," " A HISTORY OF THE yONJCEOBS," &C,
SECOND EDITION.
Oxford ami i'oiulou:
JOIIX IIEXKV AND JAMES PAIIKEK. 185 9.
firU.^
'' . ^t^^t /»1t^^ U^^^A^ *^-f^€ •'O/lv'/- «!^ ^i<^.
/►7 t
^'Z' yi ►' ^ /-» -^
^/i4< 'C- ^/i ,
PBIMTEU in Mr««m. rARKKK, <«Hi> .i.n.p
PREFACE.
Works on the Book of Common Prayer, the Rubrics and Canons, arc rather numerous; yet the process to wliich I have resorted in the present vohime has not been adopted by preceding writers to any considerable extent. ^ly object is to shew how the rubrics and canons of the Church have been understood and observed from the Reformation to the accession of George III. We have a body of rubrics and canons, by which the clergy are supposed to be governed ; it cannot, therefore, be a waste of time or labour to en- deavour to ascertain the intentions of their framers. In the prosecution of my work, I have collected the views of contemporaries in each reign, as well of those who were unfriendly to the Church as of her strenuous supporters. AMicn practices vary among the clergy, it is desirable to ascertain whether the Church has pronounced any opinion on the matters in dispute ; and for this purpose I have in- stituted an inquiry into the state of Conformity and Non- conformity in each reign since the Reformation.
It will be seen from these pages, that Churchmen and Nonconformists have at all times agreed respecting the meaning of the rubrics and canons. The latter did not object to the interpretation given by the bishops; on the contrary, they admitted that it was correct ; but thoy ob-
1-^85715
JV PREFACE.
jectcd to various rites and ceremonies which were enjoined, and demanded an alteration. The meaning of the rnbrics was supposed by botli parties to be clear. Tliough the bishops were censured by the Puritans for enforcing the rubrics and canons, yet they were never charged with giving an erro- neous interpretation. This is a point of considerable im- portance in tlie controversy. It very much simplifies the matter. In the exercise of their common sense, the Puri- tans and Presbyterians could affix no other meaning to the rubrics and canons than that which was given by the bisliops. Consequently, as they disliked the matters in dis- pute, they called upon the bishops to procure certain alter- ations. When the Church declined, in 1GG2, to depart from lier ancient practice, the dissatisfied ministers refused to conform. The views and interpretations which were alike adopted by both parties arc stated in considerable detail. It is only by descending to minute particulars that such questions can be settled. The obvious conclusions also arc pointed out, and in some cases they militate against pre- vailing practices. In every instance, however, the evidence, on wliich the conclusions rest, is adduced. My wish is only to state facts, not to support a particular theory.
Not unfrrcpicntly loose and unsettled opinions are broached on these subjects, in some cases from ignorance, in others from hostility to the rites and ceremonies of the Church. It is by no moans uncommon to find clergymen perfectly indifTerent to the rides of their own Church; yet they have declared tlieir asncnt and consent to all things contained in the Book of Common I'raycr, and have pledged themselves
PREFACE. V
to conformity to the ru1)rics and canons. AVliilc it is of the utmost importance to adhere to tlie doctrines of the Church, it is no less a duty to conform to licr discipline and ceremonies. He who is indifferent in the latter can scarcely be sound in the former; at all events, he cannot be a consistent Churchman. It will generally be found, that the most strenuous objectors to the rites and cere- monies of the Church are the least acquainted with her history. Instances of rash assertions, made without in- quiry, are given in this volume. Frequently they are put forth in support of some favourite theory.
A considerable amount of information on the subjects under discussion will be found in this volume. No one is competent to form conclusions on such matters, who has not a more than ordinary acquaintance with our ecclesi- astical history, as well as some knowledge of early Litur- gies, and the practices of the Primitive Church.
The materials are derived, not only from the usual sources, but from a large mass of contemporary, and in many cases, not common, publications. Such works furnish the mate- rials of history. They have not been hitherto much used in these inquiries, though they reflect considerable light on the subjects of which this volume treats.
These pages will also furnish a view of our general eccle- siastical history, as well as of the rubrics, canons, and customs of the Church. From the year IGlO to IGGO, the period of the ci>'il wars, a particular account is given of religion and religious parties, embracing the wild notions and fearful errors which were then so prevalent, and which sprang up
VI FRKFACr.
year after year, until all sober-minded men became disgusted, and tlie people were brought to weleorae the Restoration, as the only means of delivering the country from such enormities.
Some of the particulars respecting editions of books are new : they may aftord interest to bibliographical readers, and they shed light on the history of the Prayer-book.
Into matters which arc plain and obvious I do not pro- fess to cuter. But the Mork will supply a comment on almost all important questions connected with the meaning of the rubrics and canons. I may add, also, that I have sedulously laboured to defend our Reformers against both Romish and Puritan adversaries.
PKKKAci: TO tin: skcond kdition,
The sale of one impression of this work witliiii the space of eight months may be regarded as evidence of an increas- ing desire among Churchmen to become acquainted with the history of the Book of Common Prayer, as well as with the meaning of its rubrics.
Various criticisms have been bestowed upon the present work; and, with one exception, they were conducted with fairness and good feeling. The exception will be no further noticed than to state that the charge of error in a date is unfounded, as a' consideration of the context will shew. It will be seen that in the passage in question I am speaking of the arrival of James I. in London to take possession of the crown, not of the day of Queen Elizabeth's death.
An Index is now given, which will assist the reader in his examination of the various important subjects of which the volume treats.
I have also added a List of the Authorized Books, of which an account is given in the present volume. In the List of Editions of the Book of Common Prayer, such only are in- serted as were fully printed and duly authorized. From the period of the Reformation, the royal printers Mere accus- tomed to print mutilated editions of the Book for the purpose of being bound with Bibles : such copies, being of no import- ance, are excluded from this list. And as the Book of Com- mon Prayer has undergone no change since the review in 1661, I have not continued the list later than 1CG2, the Book of that year being still our standard text.
PREFACE.
Some editions exist wliicli are not included in tlie list ; they are, however, but few. I give only such as have come under my own observation, and of which I can speak positively.
There are two editions of the Order of Communion, both printed in the year 1548. Two copies only of each edition are at present known. A copy of each edition, and also- a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, 1604, have recently been acquired by the British Museum through my in- Btrumentality.
A careful examination of all the Books set forth by au- thority, from the year 1536 to 1563, will enable the stu- dent of our ecclesiastical history to trace the various steps by which the Reformation was accomplished, and to ascertain the principles on which our Reformers proceeded. He will perceive that our Reformation was a restoration, not the assertion of new principles or the introduction of new prac- tices. We have abundant reason for gratitude to Almighty God that the apostolic government as well as the apostolic doctrine was preserved in our Reformation. There is cause for great thankfulness that our various authorized documents 60 fuUy and so distinctly recognise the principles and prac- tices of the primitive Church, and that our polity and our mode of government are in unison with those of the apostolic a<rc. May Chiirchmen ever be resolved, by the grace of God, to preserve our formularies from tlie rashly innovating hand of modern Cliurch reformers, whose rule of reformation would be verv different from that of the sixteenth century!
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Early Books. Primers, 1534, 1535. — Supremacy. — Articles, 1536. — Institution. — Influence of the Primers. — Eilsey's Primer, 1539. — Necessary Doctrine. — Policy of Rome. — Prayers, 1543. — Liturgy, 1544. — The term " Common Prayer." — Primer, 1545 . . 1
CHAPTER II.
Henry VIII. — Edward VI. — Cranmer. — Reformation. — Apostolical Discipline. — Cautious Proceedings. — Injunctions. — Creed, Lord's Prayer, &c. — Discussions prohibited. — Cranmer's Views. — Images. — Controversies. — Proclamation. — Order of Communion. — Order of Matrimony. — Psalter, 1548. — Cranmer's Visitation. — Homilies, 1547, — Preachers. — Injunctions. — Preaching restrained . . 11
CHAPTER III.
Prudence of Reformers. — ^lerits of the Book of Common Prayer. — Sufferings for it. — First Book, 1549 editions. — Two Lights. — Re- ception of the Book. — Bonner. — Books called in. — Articles prohi- biting Ceremonies. — Puritan Opponents. — Eucharist Controversy. — Bucer. — Revision of the Book. — Alterations. — Book of 1552. — Customs. — Articles, 1553. — Primers. — Conformity. — Anabaptists. — Cranmer no Erastian. — Death of Edward. — i\Iary. — Prayer-book suppressed ....•• .25
CHAPTER IV. Elizabeth. — The Exiles. — Differences. — Litany. — Creed, Lord's Prayer, &c. — Book of Common Prayer revised. — Act of Uni- formity.— Alterations. — Real Presence. — Different Views. — Augs- burg Confession. — Ornaments. — New Book introdvced. — Editions. — Latin editions. — Puritan Attempts. — The Puritan Book of 1584. — Puritan Innovations. — Customs. — Primers. — Orarium.— Praeces Privattc. — Homilies. — The Ordinal . . .41
CHAPTER V.
Injunctions. — Some particulars considered.— Habits. — Controversy.
—Articles of Visitation.— Parker, 1563, 15G7, 1569.— Various
Articles. — Grindal, 1570. — Division of Services. — Source of the
Error. — Customs and Common Law. — Passing Bell. — Parish
X CONTENTS.
, PAGB
Clerks. — Preachers.— Subscription.— Churchwardens. — Psalters. — Kight of Bishops to exanaine. — Baptisms. — Buiials. — Customs. — Weekly Fast. — Communiou-table . . . .70
CHAPTER VI.
Puritans. — Admonition.— Orders. — Conformity. — Deprivations.— Character of the Men. — Bishops' Conduct. — Reference to Foreign Divines. — Puritan Views ; Practices. — Frankfort Troubles. — Knox. — Objections. — Churching- Veil, Surplice, and Cope. — Misrepre- sentations to Foreigners. — Irregularities. — Wafers. — Extreme Practices. — Misrepresentations of Reformers. — Disproved. — Erro- neous Statement.— Queen's Prerogative. — Old Surplices and Copes. i^Bishops.— Cawdrey's Case. — Book of Common Prayer said to differ from the Book in the Statute. — Place of Morning and Even- ing Prayer. — Desks. — Pulpit. — Customs. — Plea of the Innocent, — Act of 13 Eliz.— Hats in Churches. — Popery in the Prayer-book. — Authority of Custom.— Best Reformed Churches. — Reformation by Church, not by State. — Queen's Day. — Articles of 1571 , 95
CHAPTER VII.
James I. — Millenary Petition. — Book of 1604. Editions. Copies.— The Abridgment. — Conformity. — Ornaments. — Objections. — Ordi- nal.— Misrepresentations. — Cranmer. — Act of Uniformity. — 13th of Elizabeth. — Surplice.— Cope.— Subscriptions.— Irregularities. — Communion. — Interpretation of Rubrics. — Visitation Articles.— Abbot. — Bancroft. — Babiugton. — Overall. — Confession. — Length of Service. — Controversies. — Customs. — Churching Veil. — Passing Bell. — Bowing at the Name of Jesus. — Daily Service. — Funeral Sermons. — Views of the Reformers .... 127
CHAPTER VIII.
Book of \62o — Conformity. — Irregularities. — Visitation Articles. — Customs. — Catecni/ing. — Communion. — Surplice and Gown. — Abbot and Laud. — Puritan Practices. — ^\'ren. — Short Morning Prayers. — Cosiu's Articles. — Metrical Psalter. — Alleged Altera- tions of Prayer-book. — Communion-table. — Variety in Practice. — Canon. — Order by Abbot. — St. Gregory's Church. — Orders by Bishops. — Williams. — Controversy on Table. — Charge of Popery. —Book of Sports. — Conformity. — Customs. — Standing. — Bovrtng. — Covering the Head. — Organs ..... 156
CHAPTER IX.
1640. — Canons. — Parliament. — Bishops. — Wren. — Visitation of Sick. —Churching. — Sermon Bell. — Second Service. — Surplice. — Puri-
CONTENTS. XI
PACB
tans. — Williams. — Petitions. — Communion-rails. — 1641. — Com- mittee on Prayer-book. — Alleged Innovations. — Orders of Parlia- ment.— Walton. — Monuments of Superstition. — Riotous Proceed- ings.— Bishops' Protestation. — Bishops imprisoned. — Williams and Form of Prayer. — Popery. — Death of Williams . .173
CHAPTER X.
Spoliation of Churches. — Books and Vestments. — Ejections. — Prayer- book. — Scandalous Ministers. — Excesses. — Enthusiasm. — Cruelties to Clergy. — Sermons. — White's Century. — Covenant. — Parliament. — Changes. — Causes thereof. — Scots. — Preachers. — Assembly. — Baillie's Account. — Covenant taken. — Authors of War. — Proceed- ings in the Assembly. — Independency. — Want of Discipline. — Di- visions.— Presbyterians. — Christmas. — Sects. — Directory. — Pulpit. — Lightfoot and Assembly ..... 192
CHAPTER XI.
Laud. — Charges. — Burton, Prynne,andBastwick. — Kentish Churches. — Views of the Times. — Alleged severities. — Laud and Prynne. — ^lisrepresentations. — Deering. — Alleged alterations in Prayer- book. — Presbyterians and Independents. — Covenant. — Pulpit a cause of War. — Sermons. — Caiamy. — Burnet's Censures on the Times ........ 221
CHAPTER XII.
Independents. — Toleration. — Sects. — New Reformation. — Confu- sions. — Heresies. — Singular Opinions. — Peters. — Scenes in Churches. — Soldiers. — Quarrels. — Burton and Caiamy. — Charges against Caiamy. — Christmas-day. — Fast. — Oxford. — Disputations. — The Army.— Heresies. — 1648.— Rump. — Independents triumph. — Toleration. — Strange Scenes. — Prophecies. — Christmas. — Hats in Churches. — Oxford. — Gathered Churches. — Baxter's Account. — Errors. — Blasphemies. — Cromwell. — Customs. — Dress.— The Triers. — Pocock. — Sadler. — Bushnell. — Chambers. — Nye and Smoking. — Reading Sermons. — Baptisms. — New Churches. — Quakers. — George Fox. — Names. — Abuse of one Party by another. 241
CHAPTER XIII.
Common Prayer. — Prohibited. — Used in secret. — Private Meetings. — Mode of conducting Worship. — Rainbow. — Sanderson. — Wells. — Taylor.— Refusal to the King.— Soldiers.— Bishop of Ely. — The Book in Churches. — Cromwell. — Oxford. — . Risks in
XU CONTENTS.
PAGE
using it. — Bishops. — Duppa, Bishop of Durham. — Ireland.—- Usher. — Meetings at Abingdon. — Ignorance. — Bull's case. — Crom- •well's Character. — Monk. — Marriage. — Private Ordinations. — ■ Succession of Bishops. — Martin's case. — Singing and Psalms . 284
CHAPTER XIV.
Restoration. — Prayer-book. — Editions 1660. — Clergy return. — State of Religion before the Restoration. — Testimony 1 660. — Profligacy before 1660. — Papers between Bishops and Ministers. — Rubrics.— Customs. — Baxter's Liturgy. — No Agreement. — New Bishops. — Cathedrals. — Prayer-book before 1662. — The Healing. — Forms for Jan. 30. — Debates in Parliament. — Cosin's case. — His Books.^ Wren. — Burgess ....... 316
CHAPTER XV.
Prayer-book Revised. — Presbyterians. — Usher's Model. — Divisions among the Sects. — Act of Unifomaity. — Bishoprics. — Calamy.— Conformity. — Pretence of not seeing the Book. — Refuted. — Edi- tions.— Alterations. — Ornaments. — Surplices. — Communion-table. — Accustomed place. — Chancels. — Real Presence. — Subscription to the Homilies. — Oblations. — Foreign Orders. — Geneva. — Scot- land. — Views of Reformers. — Necessity. — Dort. — Ordinal. — Wake. — Stillingfleet. — Prynne ..... 341
CHAPTER XVI.
Conformity under Charles II. — Irregularities. — Cause. — Surplice.^ Communion. — Second Service. — Comprehension. — Visitation Ar- ticles.— Wren. — Visitation of Sick. — Wheatly. — Churchiugs. — Funerals. — Separatists. — Parish Clerks. — Laxity in this Reign.— George Fox. — Act of Uniformity. — Supremacy. — Contrasts be- tween the Reign of Charles II. and William III. — Bishops' Charges. — Table. — William's Views. — Uniformity enforced. — Lord's Supper. — Stillingfleet. — Customs. — Rails. — Nonjurors. — Gibson.— Bidding-Prayer.— Second Service.— Foreign Churches. — Lutherans. — Prince George. — George I. and II. — Works on sub- ject.— Conclusion ....... 389
THE BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEE,
CHAPTER I.
EABLT BOOKS. PEIHEES, 1534, 1535. — SrPEEMACT. — AETICIES, 1536. — INSTITUTION.— INFLUENCE OF THE PEIMEES. — HIISET'S PEIMEE, 1539. — NECESSAEX DOCTEINE. — POLICY OF HOME. — PEATEES, 1543. — LITUEGT, 1544. THE TEKM " COMMON PEAYEE."— PEIMEE, 1545.
PREVIOUS to tlie Reformation, the public Service-books were inLatin, but others for private use existed in English. The Sarum Primer, in English, was for a long period, a com- mon book. It was intended for private and family use ; and as it contained various portions of the sacred volume, it was a very important book for the laity. Though the Papal Su- premacy was rejected by Henry VIII., yet the pubHc offices continued imchanged. The Bible, and portions thereof in the Primers, were circulated during a considerable portion of his reign; and consequently the minds of the people were gradually prepared for the subsequent changes. No papal doctrine was openly renounced except the Supremacy ; but various practices, which involved certain opinions, were gra- dually introduced ; and thus the work was rendered easy in the ensuing reign. In a very silent way did the Reformation commence in this country : and to no other cause can we as- cribe the success which followed, under the Divine blessing, than to the circulation of the books to which we allude, from which some of the pecidiar practices of the Church of Rome were excluded.
In the year 1534 the first reformed Primer was published. It came out under the name of William Marshall, and its usual designation is Marshall's Primer. It was intended for circulation among the laity instead of the Sarum Primer.
B
2 The Book of Common Prayer ;
Some of its statements were hostile to various doctrines -oliich. were then held sacred. The book was accordingly mentioned in Convocation as containing suspected opinions, and a proclamation was issued on the subject^.
Of this edition of 1534 no perfect copy is known ; but a Tolume exists in the Bodleian Library without a date, which is with good reason supposed to be the book in question. At all events, an edition was printed in 15 34-, with which the Bodleian volume seems to agree.
In 1535 it was republished, though with some variations. In a preface to the Litany, the compiler alludes to the pre- vious book, — so that no doubt can be entertained that an edition existed before 1535. He had omitted the Litany, in which the Virgin !Mary and the saints were invocated; and in the new impression he sa^^s, — " Forasmuch, good Christian reader, as I am certainly persuaded that divers persons of small judgment and knowledge have been of- fended, for that in the English Primer, which I lately set forth, I did omit and leave out the Litany, which, I take God to witness, I did not of any perverse mind or opinion, thinking that our blessed Lady and holy saints might in nowise be j)rayed unto ; but rather because I was not igno- rant of the wicked opinion, and vain superstitious manner, that divers and many persons have not only used in wor- shipping them ; but also thinking that God by Christ would none otherwise gladly hear and accept their petitions and prayers, but by His blessed mother and saints." He there- fore inserts the Litany in the edition of 1535, " for the con- tentation of such weak minds," expressing a hope that they may not " abuse the same." So far the compiler complied with the prejudices of the people ; but still the book, by its statements, and perhaps more by its omissions, was cal- culated to promote the Bcformation^.
• WilkiiiH, iii. 769.
b "A goodly I'riuicr, newly corrected and printed, with certiiin Godly Me- ditations and I'rayers. lnii)rintcd at London by John Byddell, for \\'illiain Marshal 1, 1535." It appeared that an earlier Primer, in English, even than that of 1031 existed witli liiiuiLu:
omissions; for in the year 1530 a de- claration was put forth, in which such a book is mentioned, — " by which ap- peareth his erroneous opinions against l)raying to saints." Wilkins, iii. 733. In 1532 Sir Th(jmas More alludes to a similar omission in an existing i'rimcr. Uulcss, therefore, Miu-shall's Ik'st edi«
with the Rubrics and Canons, 3
This book, like the Sarum Primer, was read by the people, and probably was used in the instruction of the j^oung. For Bishop Hilsey, in the Preface to his Manual, which will shortly be noticed, remarks, — " I have here set forth a rude work, whom it hath pleased me to call the Manual of Prayers, because it is so commonly had in hand with the people, which before was called the Prymer, because (I sup- pose) that it is the first book that the tender youth was in- structed in." The edition of 1535 differs in other par- ticulars from the undated book; and it contains some in- direct attacks, if not on the doctrines, yet certainly on the practices of the Church of Rome. In an Admonition, or Preface, the practice of praying before the image of " Our Lady of Pity," in the expectation of seeing her visage, is ridiculed : — " I pray you, what fondness, or rather madness, is this ?" Some legends also are condemned : — " I omit the right loud lie before the mass of Eecordarc, also written in the Mass-book, besides other goodly glorious titles that pro- mise innumerable days and years of pardon, some more, some less, to the saj^ers of such blasphemous prayers, — yea, some- times to the bearers about of them, which promises and par- dons have flowed and come from the cursed and wicked bishops of Eome, and are but lies and vanities, as it is recog- nised by the holy Church of England, both spiritual and temporal." Some addresses to saints are styled blasphemous, especially that to Becket, — "Tu per Thomae sanguinem." Other strong passages occur ; and it is evident, notwith- standing the royal proclamation, that the Council could not have been very strict in suppressing this and other similar works, which must have tended to forward the work of reformation.
Remembering the proceedings in Convocation in 1534, we cannot but feel surprise that a new edition should be
tion appeared in 1530, there must have been another Primer of the same character, tliough no sucli book is now known. Certain saints are mentioned in the calendar of the suspected book of 1530, of which there is no mention in the undated Oxford book. Tliis
fact seems to indicate that it was an independent work, and that Marshall's first edition ajipearcd in 1534. The Almanack in the Oxford book com- mences with the year 153-4. Foxe, 1018, 1019; Spehuan, u. 732.
b2
4 TJke Book ^ Common Prg§fer;
jvniii-cd to be drciilated in 1535, especially as tlie latter ccaitained stronger oen^saies of some of the practices of the Church of £ome than the finrmer. It is also zemarkable that the cconpiler should even then speak of the holy ChxiTch of England as different firom the Chnich of Rome. The compiler, howeTer, adopted the right course, since there ever wer« persons who asserted the independence of the IvTiolish Church. Henry, in asserting the supremacy of the crown, did not imagine that he was setting £arth a new doc- trine. On the contrary, the a^ertion of the Papal Supre- macy, not its rejection, was the noTdty, though the usorpa- tion had been of long oontinuanoe.
The Arfides of lo3l&'^ mark another stage in the Befinrma- tlon. These were aimed at some of the doctrines, while the Primeis chiefly touched the practices of the Church. They are important as tn^Tking the progress of the great work. In the Mlowing year, " The Institution of a Christian Man" was put forth by royal authority, after it had been agreed upon by the bishops. The foregoing Articles were for the most part embodied in this book, which, besides the Preface by the Bishop contains the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ace Maria, with certain expo- atioms, and an article on Justification and on Purgatory **. Of this work Cranma was the chief promoter. By him it was deTised and recommended. In some parts of the work. Craning evidently followed Marshall's Primer, sinoe whole saLtences are transferred into its pages. The Primer, there- fore, was known to Hhe Archbishop, though not published under his sancticm^.
From 1534 to 1539 this Primer masi have been e:sien- sivelT circulated, for another edition was required in 1538. Though but a small -volume, yet it accomplished a great
c " Ar-j^l-en 0.L -■: :: : ?v-rrT'5 >!sr^ rrratiiniiig the Kipoatim or In- l|j|i<9S>c :>.-' ?:■)>': .o of the canmoD C^vcd of
an* acfd l'ri:l< . ^ SatxameaibBt at the Ten
-rs &r^ &c 4to^ Lon- .'-.a edhioo in 8n>. ns ._. i.ia»e T€«r. ■:>er's Works by Jenkrns, L
with the Rubrm cmd CamtmM* 5
work in preformg tins mnadfl <xf tiie people fisr tiie to^ le. jecti«mof tiieerronof ti>eCiitmidi(of E«Mii^ Use AidniMxutMm prized was a bold decIara^Mi ag««MA mai]^ eampi ytak&' laem, wludi inri^Ted a bdiiff m raaiom erroaeooM dodtxiB&^ The book mnst be h^d in lereroice hy all who Taloe tiae BoA. dl Common Pra j€t« or j^predale tiie Ue«sngi leeared to OS b)r tiie Bi^wmatunu Hus bo«^ indeed, eonloimiag Tazioas portions of tiie sacxed T<^nmev was pidbaU^ nuwe msltnimciital in loitiieiing tibe Beformation amonff tiie peo^e tiian ewea. tiie two Bibles ihesi in ciretdatioa: — tiu»e dt 1535 and 1537. The \aikex were lat^ and e:i^amTe Tfilnniei, bejrond tiie leadiof tiie poor, while tiie Primer was smaU and eompaiatiTelj eheap. Probal^ tiie poor became aeqaainfted witii tiie aacred Tolnme tiizong^ tiie mtMm» of tibis Primer^ ainee tiieir poTiOfj mnst hare pnerenied tibem fiom pooKst- ing tiie Bible, lii 1538, to meet tiie ease dl tiae porar, tiie BiUe was ^aoed in all drazdies; bat till titen. ^fl»*« qwall Primer most hare beat tiie onfy wcnk eoimeeted witii tiike aacred ToInme witiiin tiieir reaeb.
In 1539 anothcy work of a mtr\^tf kind was pabliBbed br Hflsej, Bishop of Eochesto'. It is diffieolt to asrign a icason ist tiie publication of a new bodk ralher tiian a new edition of tiie former. In many particolarBy and etpe^alfy in tiaose connected witii the peculiarities of Bomanian, tiie boc^ dif- fiezed from tiie Primer bj ManbalL It rather receded on tiiese points. Hilsejr may hare imaginfd tiiat modczatioa woold be more ^'JRr^tc*'^ tiian violence in advaneins tiie great work. Before tbe poUiGatiffli, tiie bode: was submitted to Cranmer, tbong^ his corrections, fiom some delaj, weie not admitted f.
Hilsey makes no alhmon whatever to tiie prerioas Primer. He died in tiie jear 1539, the jear of tiie pubUcaticHi of tbe book. He had acted witb Cranmrar in arranging " Hie Xo- stitatiaii,'' and was devoted to tbe cause of tbe BcfiHmatiiHi. In the Prologue tbe antbra* giTi^ an account of tbe wok, mentioiiing the deviatioiis 6xan. ^Qae Samm Primer, diarg- mg smne of its prayers as superstitioi^ espeoalty in ohi- nection with the Tirgin Mazy: — "I have tlMwg*»t it mj
6 The Book of Common Prmjer ;
bounden duty towards God's true and sincere honour to set forth such a manner of Primer wherein might be no such distorted Scripture, or false honour of that most immaculate mother of God, lest the youth should learn to take such Scriptures to be of our Lady which are of God, and to give such praise to her as should only be given to God/^ In de- fence of other deviations from the Sarum Primer in matters not in themselves erroneous, he states that some things were so obscurely expressed, " That the rude and unlearned, which hath most the use of such kind of books as this is, might not comprehend the mysteries of them." For the sake of such readers he made the alterations. Certain saints were rejected from the calendar, though he admits the lawfulness of the doctrine of their invocation. Various prayers for the faithful departed are retained, according to the views entertained on this subject in early times before the doctrine of Purgatory was invented". It would seem that Ililsey and the early Reformers retained this doctrine on account of its antiquity, though not sanctioned in Holy Scripture. At the close is a direct condemnation of " The Bishop of Rome, with his ad- herents, destroyers of all estates ^J"
This work, like the preceding, was intended for, and was circulated among, the poor, and both contributed to further the great work which had commenced. Both remained in circulation throughout Henry's reign ; nor has a due pro- minence hitherto been given to these small works by ordinary
fs Archbp. Williams was of opinion that the prayers in the old Liturgies, which are usually said to have been ofl'ered for thefaitliful departed, " were conceived for men dying and passing, not dead already ; and so they still arc iiscd in the Church of Phigland, and most diligently and devoutly in the Collogiate Church of Westminster. We ^ray for men departing as the Fathers did, not for men departed, as the I'riars did." — Manual of I'ruyers, by John, Archbp. of York, 1G72, K 1^87. Wil- liiims evidently confounds two prac- tici s togctlicr, nanicly, priiying ior tiie faitliful dcparttd.and for those who were in dying circumstances. Tlie latter custom w:ls retained by the Uefoniifrs, ajj \i mauifcst from the rule relative
to the passing bell; but the former existed in some early Liturgies, not- withstanding the assertion of NVilliams, and this was rejected by the English Church.
■» "The Manual of Prayers, or the Primer in English, set out at length, &c. Set forth by John, late Bisliop of Koche8ter,&c. Imprinted 1539." Tliero were several editions. In 1857 a copy of llilsey's Primer, wanting the title, was sold at Sotheby's, which is (piite diiferent from the ordinary editions. Tlie size is smaller, and tlie Almanack, instead of seventeen years, as in the common copies, is made only for twelve years. The cditi(m was apparently unknowai to all bibliographers.
uith ihe Rtibrics and Canons. 7
historians of tlie 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 Reformation, 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. These particulars are not usually regarded, yet they must be con- sidered if we wish to trace minutely the first steps of the Reformation. All groat 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 Booh of Common Prayer ;
Eook" because it was recommended by bis ISfajesty, tbough. Cranmer and bis bretbren were principally concerned in its arrangement or compilation. Wbile tbe book was calciJated to further tbe Reformation, it was yet in some tbings less unfavourable to certain Romisb errors than "Tbe Institu- tion '." It may be regarded as an exposition of tbe doctrine of tbe Englisb Cburcb at tbat period. Tran substantiation is more pointedly asserted tban in " Tbe Institution ;" and some otber points are determined in a way more favourable to tbe errors of Rome. In an Act of Parliament relative to books in 1542, called " An Act for tbe Advancement of True Religion and tbe Abolisbment of tbe 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 Teachino: aorreeable with God's Word, and the true Doctrine of the Catbolick and Apostolick Church." This was the " Ne- cessary Doctrine '^.^ 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 the 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 Form'iu English was
' " A Necessary Doctrine and Erudi- tion for any Christian Man, set forth by the King's Majesty of England. 4to., London. Bertlielet, 1513." Se- veral editions appeared the same year. I once possessed three editions, two in 4to. and one in 8vo., all by Bcrthelet, and of the same year. This book was revist'd and sanctioned by Convocation, tlumj^h Jiurnet and Collier assert the contrary. "The institution" was por- tioned out to various jjrclates for revi- sion, prt-jiaratory to its consideration by the Upjjcr and i>o\ver Houses. W'il- kiiis, iii. 80^; Strype's Mem., 1. i.
583—590; Lord Herbert, 238; Collier, ii. 191; Burnet, III. i. b. 3. Strype makes several mistakes about the two books. 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 an edition of the liible was published in the same year, yet no edition apjieared in this reign after 1541.
^ Gibson, 3JG ; Heylln's Ecclcs. Hes., 19, 20; Todd's Cranmer, i. 334 —337.
I Burnet, i. 273-279 ; iii. 153.
idth the Rubrics and Canons. 9
put fortli to be used on certain occasions ™. 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 of the 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 154.9. 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 wliich belongs as much to the people as to the minister : — " It is thought con- venient in this Cbmmon 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 Reformation, 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.
" WUkins, iii. 869.
10
TJie Book of Common Prayer ;
The book was circulated in every diocese by royal autbority. The translator was Cranmer himself, as we learn from a letter addressed to his ]\Iajesty : — " 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 "."
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 preyious 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, thonght meet bythelving'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,1541." The most singularmistakes have been made by various winters 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. T^e Strange's Alliance, 20. 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. Tlicn follows a I'araphrase on the Lord's I'rayer." IJurnet, vol. iii. 104. Burnet was thinking of some other book, since in this there arc no such passages a.s ho describes, nor any paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer. Ncal made the same assertion, which was corrected l)y Ma- dox, who says, " No Psalms or Piira- 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 tliis are added,' " &c. Neal'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 the trouble to exanfine 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 1515, have seldom been properly distinguished. Fre- quently they have been taken to bo