LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

(See Common Prayer and Formulary .) This book is entitled The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland . Before the Reformation, our liturgy was only in Latin, being a collection of prayers, made up partly of some ancient forms used in the primitive Church, and partly of some others of later original. But when the nation, in King Henry VIII.’s time, was disposed to a reformation, it was thought nece ary both to have the service in the English or vulgar tongue, and to correct and amend the liturgy, by purging it of those gro corruptions which had gradually crept into it. And, first, the convocation appointed a committee, A. D. 1537, to compose a book, which was entitled “ The godly and pious Institution of a Christian Man , containing a declaration of the Lord’s Prayer , the Ave Maria , the Creed , the Ten Commandments , and the Seven Sacraments , .” This book was again published in 1539, with corrections and alterations. In 1543 appeared another Primer, in substance the same as the former, under the title of “ A nece ary doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man .” In the same year, a committee of bishops and other divines was appointed by King Henry VIII., to reform the rituals and offices of the Church; and the next year the king and clergy ordered the prayers for proce ions and litanies to be put into English, and to be publicly used. The English Litany accordingly, not much differing from that now in use, was publicly adopted in 1544. Afterwards, in 1545, came out the King’s Primer, containing the whole Morning and Evening Prayer in English, not very different from what is in our present Common Prayer. Thus far the reformation of our liturgy was carried in the reign of Henry VIII. In the year 1547, the first of King Edward VI., the convocation unanimously declared, that the communion ought to be administered in both kinds; whereupon an act of parliament was made, ordering it to be administered. Then a committee of bishops and other learned divines was appointed, to compose An uniform order of communion, according to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the primitive Church . The committee accordingly met in Windsor Castle, and drew up such a form. This order of the communion was appointed for general use, by royal proclamation, in 1548. This made way for a new commi ion, empowering the same persons to finish the whole liturgy, by drawing up public offices for Sun days and holy-days, for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, burial, and other special occasions. The committee appointed to compose this liturgy were— 1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. 2. Thomas Good rich, bishop of Ely. 3. Henry Holbech, bishop of Lincoln. 4. George Day, bishop of Chi chester. 5. John Skip, bishop of Here ford. 6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster. 7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of London. 8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul’s. 9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop, of Lincoln. 10. Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, and master of Queen’s College, Cambridge. 11. Dr. John Redman, prebendary of Westminster, and master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church, Oxon., and Westminster; afterwards bishop of Ely. 13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; afterwards dean of Durham. Our excellent liturgy, thus compiled, was revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both provinces of Canterbury and York, and then confirmed by the king and three estates in parliament, A. D. 1548, second and third of Edward VI. ch. 1. In 1549, an act pa ed for appointing six bishops and six other learned men, to draw up a form for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons. Heylin conjectures that these were the same as those above mentioned, with the exception of Bishop Day, who had refused to subscribe the liturgy. But, about the end of the year 1550, exceptions were taken against some parts of this book, and Archbishop Cranmer proposed a new review. The principal alterations occasioned by this second review were the addition of the Sentences , Exhortation , Confe ion , and Absolution , at the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book began with the Lord’s Prayer; the addition of the Commandments at the beginning of the Communion Office; the removing of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book, such as the use of oil in confirmation, the unction of the sick, prayers for departed souls, the invocation of the Holy Ghost at the consecration of the eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that used to follow it; the omitting the rubric that ordered water to be mixed with the wine, with several other le material variations, The habits, likewise, which were prescribed in the former book were in this laid aside; and, lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion Office, to explain the reason of kneeling at the sacrament. The liturgy, thus revised and altered, was again confirmed by parliament, A. D. 1551, with this declaration, that the alterations made in it proceeded from curiosity rather that any worthy cause . But both this and the former act in 1548 were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary. Upon the acce ion of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was set aside, and several learned divines appointed to take another review of King Edward’s liturgies. These (according to Camden and Strype) were— 1. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. 2. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely; one of the original compilers. 3. Dr. William May; one of the original compilers. 4. Dr. William Bill, afterwards dean of Westminster. 5. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham. 6. Sir Thomas Smith. 7. Mr. David Whitehead. 8. Mr. Edmund Grindal, afterwards bishop of London, and archbishop of York and Canterbury. To these were afterwards added, 9. Dr. Edwyn Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester. 10. Mr. Edmund Guest, afterwards bishop of Rochester and Salisbury. It was debated, at first, which of the two books of King Edward should be received. At length the second was pitched upon, and confirmed by parliament, which commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain le ons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise. The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out the deprecation, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities,” and adding these words to the petition for the sovereign, “strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousne and holine of life.” The two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament, were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ ,” ., and “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ,” ., which were taken out of King Edward’s First Book; whereas, in the Second Book, these sentences were left out, and in the room of them were used, “Take, eat, or drink, this,” with what follows; but now, in Queen Elizabeth’s book, both these forms were united. There are some other variations in this book from the Second of King Edward. The first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel, and the proper place of reading Divine service, was altered; the habits, enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, and forbidden by the Second, were now restored; at the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the sovereign, and another for the clergy. Lastly, the rubric, that was added at the end of the Communion Office, in King Edward’s Second Book, against our Saviour’s corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out in this. This was done, that the aforesaid notion might remain as a speculative opinion, not determined; it being the queen’s design to unite the nation, as near as po ible, in one faith. In this state the liturgy continued, without further alteration, till the first year of King James I.; when a conference was held at Hampton Court between that prince, with Archbishop Whitgift and other bishops and divines, on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans, on the other: the result of which was, the adding some forms of thanksgiving at the end of the Litany, and an addition to the catechism in relation to the sacraments. Likewise, in the rubric at the beginning of the Office for Private Baptism, the words “lawful minister” were inserted to prevent midwives and laymen from presuming to baptize, with one or two more small alterations. But, immediately after the Restoration, King Charles II., at the request of several of the Presbyterian ministers, i ued out a commi ion for a new review of the liturgy, empowering twelve of the bishops and twelve Presbyterian divines to make such reasonable and nece ary alterations as they should jointly agree upon. Nine coadjutors were added on each side, to supply the place of any of the twelve principal who should happen to be absent. Their names are these: On the Episcopalian side. Principals. 1. Dr. Frewen, archbishop of York. 2. Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London. 3. Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham. 4. Dr. Warner, bishop of Rochester. 5. Dr. King, bishop of Chi chester. 6. Dr. Henchman, bishop of Salisbury. 7. Dr. Morley, bishop of Worcester. 8. Dr. Sanders on, bishop of Lincoln. 9. Dr. Laney, bishop of Peter borough. 10. Dr. Walton, bishop of Chester. 11. Dr. Stern, bishop of Car lisle. 12. Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter. Coadjutors. 1. Dr. John Erle, dean of Westminster, afterwards bishop of Worcester. 2. Dr. Peter Heylyn, prebendary of Westminster. 3. Dr. John Hackett, archdeacon of Bedford, afterwards bishop of Lich field. 4. Dr. John Barwick, succe ively dean of Durham and St. Paul’s. 5. Dr. Peter Gunning, succe ively master of Corpus and St. John’s, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chi chester. 6. Dr. John Pearson, succe ively master of Jesus and Trinity College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chester. 7. Dr. Pierce. 8. Dr. Anthony Sparrow, archdeacon of Sudbury, afterwards bishop of Norwich. 9. Mr. Hubert Thorndike, prebendary of Westminster. On the Presbyterian side. Principals. 1. Dr. Reynolds. 2. Dr. Tuckney. 3. Dr. Conant. 4. Dr. Spurstow. 5. Dr. Wallis. 6. Dr. Manton. 7. Dr. Calamy. 8. Mr. Baxter. 9. Mr. Jackson. 10. Mr. Case. 11. Mr. Clark. 12. Mr. Newcomen. Coadjutors. 1. Dr. Horton. 2. Dr. Jacob. 3. Mr. Bates. 4. Mr. Rawlinson. 5. Mr. Cooper. 6. Dr. Light foot. 7. Dr. Collins. 8. Dr. Wood bridge. 9. Mr. Drake. These commi ioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but to very little purpose; the Presbyterians reviving all the old scruples of the Puritans against the liturgy, and adding several new ones of their own. Baxter had the a urance to affirm, that our liturgy was too bad to be mended, and confidently proposed to compose a new one, which he had the insolence to offer to the bishops. Upon this the conference broke up, without anything being done, except that some particular alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines; which, the May following, were considered and agreed to by the whole clergy in convocation. The principal of these alterations were, that several le ons in the calendar were changed for others more proper for the days; the prayers for particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany, and the two prayers to be used in the Ember weeks, the prayer for the parliament, that for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving, were added. Several of the collects were altered; the Epistles and Gospels were taken out of the last translation of the Bible, being read before according to the old translation. The Office for Baptism of those of Riper Years, and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea, were added. In a word, the whole liturgy was then brought to the state in which it now stands, and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of both provinces, on Friday, Dec. 20, 1661. And being brought to the House of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily pa ed an act for its establishment; and the Earl of Clarendon, then lord chancellor, was ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy, for their care and industry shown in the review of it. The English liturgy was adopted in Ireland shortly after the Reformation in England. In 1551, Edward VI. i ued an injunction to Sir Anthony St. Leger, the lord deputy there, to have the English Common Prayer Book read in the Irish churches. The lord deputy accordingly summoned the whole clergy, and after opposition from the primate and some of the bishops, a proclamation was i ued, and the English Prayer Book publicly used in Christ Church, on Easter Sunday that year: having been printed in Dublin, with these words on the title page, After the use of the Church of England . No order is extant for the adoption of King Edward’s Second Book; nor does it appear that any act was pa ed in Queen Mary’s reign prohibiting the use of the First. In 1560, an Act of Uniformity, copied from the English act, was pa ed, enjoining the Book of Common Prayer as then revised in England: this act was pa ed with the consent of seventeen out of nineteen prelates, that is, of the spiritual estate, as the Irish Church was then constituted. In 1662 the English revised liturgy was referred for consideration to the Irish bishops; on their approval it was pa ed by convocation; and nearly four years after, the Act of Uniformity was enacted by parliament.—See Stephens’s Introduction to the Irish Book of Common Prayer . The peculiar excellencies of our Church of England service are to be traced to a variety of causes. One prominent cause is obvious and important; namely, that our reformers most closely adhered to the model of primitive devotion.... To approach, as near as po ible, to the Church of the apostles, and to that of the old Catholic bishops and fathers, so long as they deemed it pure and unadulterated, was the paramount direction of their tastes, their judgments, and their hearts.... In the formation of our liturgy, it has been happily, and doubtle providentially, guarded alike from exce and deficiency. It po e es a peculiar temperament, equally remote from all extremes, and harmoniously blending all excellencies: it is not superstitious, it is not fanatical, it is not cold and formal, it is not rapturous and violent; but it unites, perhaps beyond any other human composition, sublime truth and pure spirit; the calmest wisdom and the most energetic devotion. Under various trying circumstances it has been so signally and repeatedly preserved, that we cannot doubt it is continued to us for some greater purpose than it has hitherto effected. While the very memory of many contending parties, that threatened its destruction, has nearly pa ed away, it remains uninjured and unaltered; giving us to conjecture, that it is reserved for still nobler, more extended, and more enduring triumphs.— Bishop Jebb. As for the English liturgy’s symbolizing with the Popish Mi al, as some have odiously and falsely calumniated, it doth no more than our communion, or Lord’s supper celebrated in England, doth with the ma at Rome; or our doctrine about the eucharist doth with theirs about transubstantiation; or our humble veneration of our God and Saviour in that mystery doth with their strange gesticulations and superstitions. In all which particulars, how much the Church of England differed both in doctrine and devotion from that of Rome, no man that is intelligent and honest can either deny or di emble.— Gauden’s Tears of the Church of England. The Nonconformists say, the liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the ma -book; but it follow eth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them, a devised or false worship; for many things contained in the ma -book itself are good and holy. A pearl may be found upon a dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin than to say, that everything in the ma -book is devilish and antichristian, for then it would be antichristian to pray unto God in the mediation of Jesus Christ —to read the Scriptures—to profe many fundamental truths nece ary to salvation. Our service might be picked and culled out of the ma -book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all show and appearance of evil; though the ma -book itself was fraught with all manner of abominations. It is more proper to say the ma was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the ma -book; for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the liturgies of the Church long before the ma was heard of in the world.”— Stilling fleet on Separation. A man would wonder how it is po ible for those, who understand wherein the iniquity of Popery consists, to make this objection against the Book of Common Prayer. The Papists have corrupted Christianity by adding many unwarrantable particulars; whereas the Protestants have rejected those unwarrantable particulars, and retained pure Christianity. Wherefore, as the Protestant religion is very good, although it is in some sense the same with that of the Papists; so also may an English reformed Prayer Book be very good, although it be in some sense the same with the Popish liturgies. Upon supposition that the matter of fact were never so certainly true, and that the Book of Common Prayer were taken word for word out of the Popish liturgies, yet this is no just objection against it. For as the Popish religion is a mixture of things good and bad; so their liturgies are of the same kind. They contain many excellent prayers addre ed to the true and only God ; which every good Christian cannot but heartily approve of; though at the same time there are other prayers addre ed to angels and saints, and containing unsound matter. So that it is po ible for us to make a choice of admirable devotions out of the Popish liturgies, if we take care to separate the good from the bad; if we reject their superstitions, and retain what is truly Christian.— Bennet’s Paraph. Com. Prayer , Appendix I. If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because it is comprehended in the ma -book, or in the breviary, we must, by the same reason, infer, that our doctrine is unsound, because it is all to be found in the councils, and in the writings of the doctors of the Romish Church. But so the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and many sentences of Scripture which are used in that mi al, or in that breviary, as also the doctrine of the Trinity , of the incarnation, pa ion, ., which are comprehended in the councils, would all of them be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say that our liturgy is naught, because it hath been extracted out of the ma -book or breviary, if that were true, yet it is just such an argument, as if men had hit Luther and Calvin in the teeth with this, that they were superstitious, Popish heretics, because they came the one out of a convent from among friars, and the other out of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries, who were all infected with Popish heresies and superstitions. And would they not have had great cause to complain, if upon this pretence they had been always suspected, rejected, or condemned? Therefore, as they were reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, after their doctrine had been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of Rome, although they came out of her communion, let our liturgy have but the same right done unto it; let it be examined, and that, if they please, with exactne and the greatest rigour; but in consequence let it be also declared innocent, if no harm be found therein, though that should prove true, that it had been wholly taken out of the ma -book, or breviary, which will never be found to be so. For I dare say that among one hundred of them who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that ever saw the mi al or the breviary, or but knows so much as what the books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might produce some proofs of this rash affirmation, which is so frequent in their mouths, they would be infinitely puzzled. They would not find, either in the mi al, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent pa ages which set before our eyes the greatne of our guilt towards God , and of his mercy in pardoning the same unto us; which pa ages are placed in the very beginning of it. They would not find there that godly exhortation to repentance, and to the confe ion of our sins in the presence of God , which follow eth immediately the reading of those pa ages. Nor yet the confe ion of sins, nor the absolution which follow eth the same, for there is not one line of all this in the ma -book. The ten commandments are not to be found there, nor that prayer which is made at the end of every commandment which the minister hath pronounced; nor the Commination, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of the other forms. But in it they will meet with the Lord’s Prayer, the Creeds, the songs of Zachary, Simeon, of the Ble ed Virgin, and of some others, which are word for word in the Scripture, or are extracted out of it, and are grounded upon the same, and were in use in the primitive Christian Church before ever the ma was hatched. Therefore it is manifest that to say that our liturgy is either the ma , or taken out of it, is a mere slander, proceeding from malice, or ignorance, or both.— Durel’s Government of the Reformed Churches—Sermon on the English Liturgy.