An introduction to the history of the successive revisions of the Book of common prayer

Preface

This Introduction (which was commenced with the idea that it would occupy but some thirty or forty pages) was intended to be prefixed to the volume entitled " The Fust Prayer-Book of Edward VI. compared with the successive revisions" which was issued two months since, and to supply only a few notes respecting the chief documents relating to the issue of the several Books. The unforeseen extent of the " Concordance to the Rubricks" which was added at the end of that volume, involved the omission of the Introduction, as the book was already quite as thick as was compatible with the size. Some few pages had already been printed, and instead of destroying them, I determined to transfer them to another volume, and to print in full a large mass of material relating to the last Revision of the Book of Common Prayer, from which at first I had intended but to select some few illustrative examples.

In the pages of the Introduction which refer to the earlier Revisions, I had, in accordance with the original plan, selected for transcript only such Historical Memorials as Acts of Parliament, or Royal Letters ; but I had noted briefly some of the principal Records which indirectly concern the Prayer-Book, giving exact dates, and pointing out where transcripts might be found, — such as Injunctions, Advertisements, or Articles, — reserving the arrangement of these into systematic order, and the printing of them to some future opportunity.

At the same time, I had thought it well in this part of the work to lay stress upon a department in the history of our Prayer-Book which appeared to me not to have received the attention it deserved, namely, the classification of the different

1 PQi 1 A SJ

Preface.

editions, or rather impressions, of the early Prayer-Books which we possess, especially those of Edward the Sixth's reign.

It would be no easy matter to compile a complete list ; all I have done has been to take the copies in the Bodleian and the British Museum as types, and to shew by them alone how extensive was the range of editions. Even when the books are brought together and are lying open on the same table, it is a task requiring some care and patience, to be satisfied that any two books are absolutely similar. To all appearance two books may seem at first to be printed from the same types, as line after line agrees ; but after a few lines (and in some cases not even till after a few pages are read) do variations in spelling or typographical arrangement appear, shewing that the types have again been set up, and that the two books in fact belong to different impressions. But when the books are in different libraries, and the writer has to depend upon notes taken from one library to another, the care and patience required is increased tenfold, and what is worse than all, the result can never be so satisfactory a. The list, therefore, must be taken as open to further correction, and no doubt to several additions ; but at the same time, it may be accepted as a substantial basis for a further catalogue of what may be regarded in the light of the Original MSS. of the Prayer-Book, as these printed copies bear the same relation to that Book as the Codices do to some Ancient Classic. The various readings, as regards words found in the different books of any one series, may not be of great importance and the varieties of spelling of still less j yet there must be always an interest taken in, and a respect due to, the earliest, or best text of any one of the early Books of Common Prayer.

It will be seen that but few documents have been quoted to illustrate the account of the Revisions under Elizabeth and a No really trustworthy list of the several editions could be made, unless the books, which are scattered through the several public and private libraries, were, under the auspices of some known and trusted Institution or Society, brought together for a time under one roof, and then being sorted into groups, each group was compared, and exact notes taken of the variations.

Preface.

under James : and for the record of the unfortunate Liturgy compiled by Archbishop Laud, the passages from his own Journal tell nearly all that is required respecting the causes of the failure j while for the events which happened in 1645 few extracts were needed, but I trust I have selected those of chief importance.

From this point, however, the historical material changes. It is not only more full, but it is of a different character, and the actual MS. copies of the Prayer-Books, with their corrections, are found to be in existence. More than this also, the last revision is of course to us the most interesting, as it is at the same time most important ; and as from this point in writing the history I found myself no longer trammelled by the necessity of contracting the matter into a given space, I have been able to change altogether the treatment of the materials.

Of this last Revision I have attempted to record the progress in detail. By combining the entries in the Journals of the House of Lords, of Commons, and of Convocation, in one consecutive narrative, together with the addition of a few slight illustrative records, I have been able to a great extent to describe the process, and to fix the exact dates to the successive stages in the work. Throughout, too, I have given as far as possible the words of the Records themselves, rather than my own.

But I have attempted something more than this. The discovery of the Book actually corrected under sanction of Convocation, and from which the "Annexed Book" was confessedly copied, appeared to me to throw a new light upon the position and importance of two other Books. One of these two is written in the same handwriting as the Official copy, that is, by Sancroft ; the other is undoubtedly the original copy of all — the fons et origo — written by Cosin himself, but wath many further corrections made by Sancroft also. I have therefore attempted to shew, by an accurate and full comparison

Preface.

of these, the course of the revision as regards the several corrections.

The Plan adopted throughout this part of the work has been as follows : — At the head of the page I have printed every paragraph of the "Convocation Book" where a correction has been made. This is practically the Book which forms the text of our present Prayer-Book, and contains all that was agreed to by Convocation. From it the " Annexed Book" was presumed to be copied, and from the last the Sealed Books to have been printed. Hence this Book holds the most important place in the page.

Beneath are given the corresponding paragraphs of Cosin's copy, shewing the corrections made by Cosin or by Sancroft, and at times, still in a separate compartment, those of Sancroft' s copy, especially when in any way they differ from the original, or when the numerous corrections in the former have rendered the passage confused.

The means adopted to reproduce the corrections are these. The ordinary " Roman type" is used throughout to distinguish the printed matter of the Prayer-Book used in the Revision ; the Italic type is used in this part throughout to represent the manuscript additions or alterations of that text. The erasure of words, made in the original by the pen drawn through the words, are shewn here by the graver being passed through the type. The words are still legible, and the only difference from the copy is that a white line appears instead of a black one. It was thought to be a needless waste of space to print all the insertions above the line, though of course in the original they are written above the words erased, except where written in the margin. The plan adopted has been to print the words in the italic type within the line, and in the place which they were intended to occupy when the sentence was reprinted. It has been seldom necessary to print a whole rubrick or a whole prayer entire, nor has it been thought necessary to note all the corrections of "which" into "who" and " ben into 8

Preface.

" are:" only those being shewn where, for some other reason, the passage is quoted. In all cases "which" was corrected except in the Lord's Prayer, " Our Father which art," and even that in one case in Cosin's copy was altered.

It will be found, moreover, that the number of the rubrick is appended, and thus a ready reference is afforded to "The Prayer-Book :" and as the same series of numbers have been adopted throughout, a comparison is readily made between a rubrick in one part, and its representative in another.

Although considerable care has been exercised in the printing, it cannot be expected that there are no inaccuracies. It has been a task of greater difficulty than would at first appear, to combine together three series of notes, with constant variation of type and marks of obliteration, into a consecutive series, so as to shew clearly what alterations have been made in each.

Beside the corresponding paragraphs from Cosin's and Sancroft's copies, it will be seen that numerous extracts are given from Cosin's interleaved Prayer-Books and MS. Notes. As will be found insisted on more at length in the course of the Introduction, some of these explain, and often very fully, the reason, origin, or object of the correction in the text. The notes, which are preserved in the books at Durham, are written with his own hand, and may therefore be reasonably accepted as the true explanation of the corrections which Cosin himself made, when the two are consistent with each other. Others explain rubrick s which are not erased or corrected, and give good reasons for retaining them, as they stood in the then existing Prayer-Book. The proposals made under the sanction of the House of Lords in 164.1 for several corrections to be made, and again in 1661 by the Ministers in the Savoy Conference, as well as Cosin's own series of Considerations are also given, for though they may not always bear upon the correction of any one special rubrick, they will often be found materially to assist in illustrating the principles adopted in revising the rubricks as a whole.

Preface.

In the " Historical Survey," which follows after the details of the Revision, I have attempted to gather together some few considerations, derived not only from a review of the corrections themselves, but also from some of the circumstances which occurred, personally affecting Cosin, and which might have influenced him in making the series of corrections which formed so important a part, as will be seen, in the Revision of the Book. And I have been led to give more space to the account of the trials which Cosin underwent in respect of rubrical observances, than their direct bearing upon the changes in the rubricks would perhaps warrant, from the circumstance that so much is illustrative of the present difficulties which beset the Church of England. Other incidental matters have also been introduced, bearing upon the manner in which the Revision of 1662 was carried out, and upon the sequence and chronology of the events, as well as of the MS. material : in a word, all which seemed to be of importance in elucidating its history.

A few pages are devoted to a description of the " Annexed Book," with an account of the variations which it presents from the Book which was presumed to have served as the copy, and of the corrections made in it, subsequently to its being copied from the Convocation Book. But the explanation of the difficulties involved I have left to the judgment of the reader, rather than attempting to determine them myself.

The list of the debates upon the clauses of the Act of Uniformity are also given as full as they can be obtained from the Journals of the House of Lords and House of Commons, and an attempt has been made to append a reference to each clause in the Act to which the debate belongs. For this reason, the Act is printed entire, and broken up into numbered paragraphs, to which subject-titles have been added.

Finally, in order to make the work complete, a few words have been added respecting the Printed and the Sealed Books of 1662. 10

Preface.

WHILE the work disclaims to be polemical, it necessarily includes the treatment of many questions which lie at the root of the most pressing controversies of the day. To pretend that no regard whatever has been paid to such, would scarcely be the whole truth. Although the admission or omission of evidence has been determined by the desire to produce a complete yet concise view of the questions at issue, a fuller treatment has been given to those rubricks which controversyhas brought into prominence, than to others. Historical note?, too, have here and there been introduced, which bear upon questions raised in recent controversy: but in all cases full chapter and verse has been given for the authorities, and so far as space will admit, and so far as the matter is relevant, documents are printed entire.

It may not however, in the Preface, be out of place to shew the value of such original authorities as are given in this book, by selecting two examples from the Controversies of the Day ; and pointing out how the material brought here to hand, tends to elucidate the questions involved. The first example I select is, what is termed the " Ornaments' Rubric," the second what is termed the " Eastward Position." They will each afford me an opportunity of shewing how the historical matter adduced may be connected with the MS. authority, and how each supports the other.

I. In the summary of the revision of the Prayer-Book under Elizabeth (p. xliv.) it is pointed out, that in the Act of Uniformity a clause (Xo. 25) was inserted, respecting the Ornaments of the Minister, &c. At the same time, but independently of this, and in different words, a rubrick was inserted into the Prayer-Book. The clause of the Act was as good in law as any clause in any Act ever passed. The rubrick in the Prayer-Book rested upon very doubtful authority indeed. This will be found explained more at length in the Historical Survey (p. cccxliv.).

Preface.

When we come to the Revision of 1661, it will be perceived (see p. cxxix.) that Cosin had erased the Prayer- Bookrubrick, and written in another ; but that other rubrick is in the words of the Act of Parliament, (with a slight alteration in the introductory words, which is easily accounted for).

But that is not all : special attention is called to this circumstance in his MS. copy, the following words being written beneath,

These are the words of ye Act itself, v. Supra.

As these words are in Sancroft's hand, there can be very little doubt that they were written during the debates held by the Bishops, when Cosin's amended rubrick was discussed, previously to laying it before the Upper House of Convocation, and that they refer to the Act of Elizabeth, which, as we see, was printed at the beginning of the volume used.

But the acceptance of Cosin's copy having been agreed upon by the Committee, the words of the new rubrick were copied into Sancroft's " Fair copy," (see still p. cxxix.), yet in order that the whole House might know why the alteration was made, — the same explanation was repeated :

These are the words of the Act itself § penidt. nt supra.

The Upper House of Convocation approved the correction : It was read to the Lower House, and the new words, it will be seen, (still p. cxxix.), were copied on to the Official copy of Convocation, and thence on to the copy Annexed to the Act of Uniformity of 1662.

But why did Cosin prefer the words of the Act of Parliament to the words of the Rubrick? There can be little doubt : for we see throughout his notes how anxious he is that the Prayer-Book should be according to Law and Authority, as I have shewn on p. cccxliii. 12

Preface.

A simple fact, but yet one of great importance to be noted, is that the word "retained" now appeared in this part of the Prayer-Book for the first time, because it was in Elizabeth's Act. of Uniformity ; which, we are told clearly and emphatically, the revisers copied verbatim. It seems strange at first sight that anything so simple, — namely, the copying words from an Act, and the statement that they are copied from that Act, and a practical reason for such at once suggesting itself, — should have occasioned so much debate.

It would, perhaps, be easy to find several passages from controversial works on the purport here of this word u retained? and I am loath to write anything which shall appear to call in question the accuracy of so weighty a Judgment as that delivered by a Committee of Privy Council : yet, some passages in it so clearly illustrate the points to which I would refer to shew the way in which the documents hereafter given assist in investigating such questions, that I venture to extract from this Judgment, and to add comments upon it. It was delivered by the Lord Chancellor and the other members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Feb. 23, 187 1, in the well-known case of Hebbert v. Purchas, and contains the following passage : —

" . . . . The Bishops in their answer [at the Savoy Conference^ shewb that they understand the surplice to be the question, and not the Vestments. But the learned Judge [in the Court below], through this oversight, has overlooked the 'most important part of the proceedings.' The Bishops determined that the rubric ' should continue as it is.' But after this they did in fact re-cast it entirely. It must not be assumed that alterations, made under such circu??ista?tces, were made without thought, and are of no importance."

This Judgment then comments upon the alteration of the b See the Ministers' question, and the whole of the Bishops' answer, [p. cxxxvi.].

And then, remembering that Cosin took an active part in the Savoy Conference, and probably aided in drawing up the Bishops' answer, it will be well to "compare his own notes on the subject, taken from his interleaved Prayer-Book, &c, pp. cxxx.— cxxxvi. in order to judge how far it was his view, that the question involved the use of the Surplice only. It may be also questioned whether Calamy thought so. See his abstract of the Ministers' objections, p. lxxvi.

The use of italic letter throughout the extracts from the Judgment, is for the purpose of drawing attention to certain passages, and is not adopted in the original.

Preface.

introductory words, which has already been noticed, and then adds, —

"The change also brought in the word retained, which, it has been argued, would not include things already obsolete. "

Later in the same Judgment we have, —

"And here it is to be observed again, that the rubric was altered after refusal to listen to the Puritan objections, to a form different from that of any former rubric, by introducing the word 'retained.* Both in the statute of Elizabeth, and in the rubric in question, the word ' retain ' seems to mean, that things should remain as they were at the tinie of the enactment. Chasuble, Alb, and Tunicle, had disappeared, for more than sixty years c ; and it has been argued fairly, that this word would not have force to bring back anything that had disappeared more than a generation ago. To retain, means, in common parlance, to continue something now in existence. It is reasonable to presume that the alteration was not made "without some purpose ; and it appears to their Lordships, that the words of the rubric strictly construed, would 7iot suffice to revive ornaments which had been lawfully d set aside, although they were in use in the second year of Edward VI.

"Their Lordships will advise Her Majesty that the Respondent [Mr. Purchas] has offended against the Laws ecclesiastical in wearing the Chasuble, Alb, and Tunicle."

The first point on which my notes, I think, offer some explanation, is that relating to u the Bishops, who gave an answer to the Ministers' objections at the Savoy, and who are said by the Chancellor to have afterwards recast the Rubrick."

The twelve Bishops (i.e. those who with the Archbishop of York were appointed by the King to represent the Church of England at the Savoy Conference), — Sheldon, Cosin, Warner, King, Henchman, Morley, Sanderson, Laney, Walton, Sterne, Gauden, and Reynolds, — closed their session, July 25, c Query, does this mean that the Vestments disappeared about sixty years before the Revision of 1662, when the Rubrick was enacted. If so, I presume it means that just before the accession of James I. (i.e. 1603) the Vestments maybe considered to have been abolished. The reference can scarcely be intended to the Advertisements of Elizabeth of 1564, as this would be nearly a century. But then the admission, that for the intervening forty years Vestments were customary, i.e. had ?iot disappeared \ somewhat weakens the general argument on which the Judgment rests, because it is not shewn that their disappearance was in consequence of any fresh enactment. d See previous note.

Preface.

i 66 i, [see p. lxxx.]. While the Committee of eight Bishops, consisting of Cosin, Wren, Skinner, Warner, Henchman, Morley, Sanderson, and Nicholson, appointed by Convocation to revise the Prayer-Book, began their session Nov. 21, 166 1, [seep, lxxxviii.]. It is not to be supposed that their Lordships have thought the "twelve Bishops sitting at the Savoy" and the " eight Bishops who sat at Ely House" to be one and the same body, but their words lay them open to the imputation of that error; — yet while it might have diminished from the weight of the argument to have kept the actions of the two Committees distinct, it surely would have more clearly explained the circumstances to which their Lordships especially refer. It is quite possible that the Committee of the eight Bishops had before them the documents drawn up by the Committee of the twelve, appointed at a different time, and for a different purpose. It is quite possible, moreover, in their conference, that they accepted or rejected some of the suggestions put before them, on the same grounds which the twelve Bishops had adduced (see Summary, p. ccccvi.) But in this particular case, it would appear that the suggestion made by the Bishops at the Savoy was not taken [see p. cxxxvi.], while Cosin's emendation, which had been made probably some twenty years before the Savoy Conference was thought of, was accepted verbatim. [Conf. Sancroft's fair copy, and Cosin's Original copy, p. cxxix. See also p. ccccii.]

"What, then, " the Bishops at the Savoy Conference understood" (even if this is clear.) could have had little direct influence upon what " my Lords the Bishops at Ely House did? Hence the pertinence of the " oversight of the Judge of the Court below" does not become so apparent.

Then as to the re- casting. As my notes shew that the Committee of Bishops at Ely House accepted implicitly and voholly Cosin's transcript of the claiLse of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, some words of explanation at least are required to shew what is meant by the word " re-casting." Standing

Preface.

as this word does without any limitation or explanation, it is assuredly calculated to convey a very wrong impression as to " the most important part of the proceedings," which those notes shew to have taken place. An alteration in the introductory words was needed, and that only was made (see p. cccxliv.)

But lastly, What is the evidence that the introduction of the word " retained" was for the purpose of including only those ornaments which had been in use for sixty years? The Judgment omits — and it appears to me to be a culpable omission, in respect of failing to convey a clear idea of the grounds on which the Judgment is based — any consideration of what the word "retained" meant when first introduced in 1559. It was not necessary to go back sixty years then. The previous five years of Mary's reign had seen the restoration of all the Ornaments of King Henry the Eighth's reign, [see p. xxxvii.]. Then, (1559), i.e. at the commencement of Elizabeth's reign it was enacted that such of these were to be retained as had been retained in Edward the Sixth's reign, so far as the enactments down to the close of the second year of that reign extended. In the sixth year of that reign [see p. xxx.], as we know, other enactments were made, still further diminishing the number of ornaments. These further restrictions are definitely and distinctly excluded by the special mention of the year.

I have not attempted in the present volume to enumerate the ornaments which were forbidden, and by which the residue to be retained is to be discovered; but in passing it may be observed how inclusive the words of the Act are. They are not "by Act of Parliament" but "by Authority of Parliament," and thus the Injunctions of the first of Edward VI. are purposely included, as well as any royal proclamations or mandates which restricted or abolished ornaments, and were issued before the close of the second year of Edward's reign. 16

Preface.

The matter resolves itself, in fact, into a simple sum, which might be represented by figures. The customary ornaments of Henry's reign and Mary's reign being the same, it is only necessary to subtract from the total of either, those which were forbidden or abolished in the first two years of Edward's reign (or previously) ; (but not to subtract those disallowed after the second year, i.e. in the third year or afterwards.) The remainder gives exactly the sum of the Ornaments retai?ied; but that was a definite quantity, a fixed sum, say twenty, or thirty, or fifty, whatever it be. When, in 1662, so much of the clause of the Act of Uniformity was re-enacted^ it did not diminish that fixed sum; the re-enactment could not involve the further subtraction of those abolished in the third year, or in any subsequent year (notably the sixth) of the reign of Edward VI., or in any year of any subsequent reign. For the words are distinctly those of re-enactment : —

' 1 These are the words of ye Act itself. "

Nothing, surely, can be plainer; and no means could well have been adopted to have made the intention of the Revisers more certain, than by having these words written by their Secretary in both books, as a record of their act; by the same Secretary too, and in the same handwriting as that of the corrections in the Official Book, made under the supervision of Convocation itself.

But this was not all. "What may have seemed to the Revisers to be simply giving the words of the rubrick a more direct authority, and placing them beyond the reach of cavil, appears to have become of still greater importance by the subsequent action of the Parliament, and in this wise.

In the description of the "Annexed Book" [seep. cccxxxvL], I have shewn how the book was annexed to the Act of Uniformity : and while it has been decided that the Annexed Book has the authority of an Act of Parliament, the manner in which it is attached makes it an integral part of the Act, just as much as any one of the seven other -schedules of which

Preface.

the Act of Uniformity is composed. It follows, them that the clause in question was transferred from one part of the old Act of Uniformity to another in the new Act; for on a comparison of the two Acts of Uniformity, we look in vain for it in the new Act, in its old place.

The clause, however, after it is transferred, appears without the final words, on which so much stress has been laid, and which gave to it its provisional character, viz. " Until other Order shall be taken," &c. Consequently whatever force they may have possessed in Elizabeth's, James', or Charles I.'s reign was at an end the moment the Act of 1662, containing the same clause without them, received the royal assent. In effect, they were repealed, inasmuch as what was before provisional was now made absolute. It is beside the question, therefore, to lay any stress upon the value of the Advertisements of 1564, or the Canons of 1604, as interpreting this rubrick.

It is true that these Canons, as bye-laws, having been confirmed at a later date, enforce a certain amount of discipline ; and they do not, for reasons which in many cases are obvious, enforce the full discipline e contemplated by the Act : it is not, however, contended in the Judgment that they by themselves repeal the Act of Parliament, and render the full discipline illegal, but their relevancy is made to depend upon the provision introduced into the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth for further alteration ; and yet the Act of Charles not only makes no such provision, but re-enacts the old clause without any provision whatever. It is, of course, a great misfortune to the Church that such questions as are involved should be decided upon the literal reading of passages in Acts of Parliament, or the particular sense to be put upon special words accidentally used. But since they have been decided on these grounds — grounds taken up by the Court, because, perhaps, it can take no other — I cannot be wrong in examining very closely the evidence on which the Judgment is based.