A rational illustration of the Book of common prayer of the Church of England

Front matter

mATZONAX. ILX-USTRATZCW

OF THB

OP THE

Preface

The following Edition being printed from one of those which had received the Jiuthor^s last corrections, it is thought unnecessary to repeat here the former part of his Preface relating chiefly to the alterations which he had made in his former Editions, as they followed each other. The latter part ^ containing a studied defence of his opinions on an important suhject^is in justice to the Author here preserved in his own words, as follows : . •

And this I take to be the proper place to explain myself in relation to one passage particularly, which I know has been thought to need the greatest amendment, though I have let it stand without making any. And indeed an Explanation of it is so much the more needful, as it is not only judged to be indefensible in itself, but also to be inconsistent with what I have said in another part of the book. The passage 1 mean, is concerning the Absolution in the daily Morning and Evening Service, which I have asserted to be " an *•• actual Conveyance of Pardon, at the very instant of '' pronouncing it, to all that come within the terms " proposed,* And again, " that it is more than De- ^' CLARATiVE, that it is truly Effective, insuring '' and conveying to the proper subjects thereof the very ^' Absolution or Remission itself.f'^ This has been thought by some, from whose judgment I should be very unwilling to differ or recede, not only to carry the point higher than can be maintained ; but also to be irreconeileable with my own notions of Absolution, as I have described them upon the office for the Visitation of the Sick, where they are thought to be more consistent with Scripture and Antiquity. I have there endeavoured to shew that " there is no standing au- ^^ thority in the Ministers of the Gospel to pardon and ^^ forgive Sins immediately and directly in relation to

*Page 115. t Page 120.

A ii THE PREFACE.

^^ GoD^ and as to which the censure of the Church " had been in no wise concerned.*" And again, "that " no Absolution pronounced by the Church can cleanse " or do away our inward Guilt, or remit the eternal ^' Penalties of Sin, which are declared to be due to '' it by the sentence of God : any farther than by " the Prayers which are appointed to accompany it, " and by the use of those Ordinances to which it " restores us, it may be a means, in the end, of ob- " taining our pardon from God himself, and For- ^^ giv^eness of Sin as it relates to him.f These passages, I acknowledge, as they are separated from their contexts, and opposed to one another, seem a little inconsistent and confusedly expressed : but if each of them are read in their proper places, and with that distinction of ideas which I had framed to myself when I writ them, I humbly presume they may be easily reconciled, and both of them asserted with equal truth. I desire it may be remembered that in the latter place [ am speaking of a judicial and unconditional Absolution, pronounced by the Minister of an Indictative Form, as of certain advantage to the person that receives it. By this I have supposed the Church never intends to cleanse or do away our inward Guilt, but only to exercise an external authority, founded upon the power of the keys ; which, though it may be absolute, as to the iniiicting and remitting the censures of the Church, I could not understand peremtorily to determine the state of the Sinner in relation to God. And thus far I have the happiness to have the concurrence of good judges on my side ; so that it is only in what I assert on the Daily Absolution, that I have the misfortune not to be accounted so clear. But, with humble submission, I can see nothing there inconsistent with what 1 have said on the other. The Absolution I am speaking of is conditionaU pronounced by the Priest in a Declarative Form, and limited to such as truly repent, and iinfeignedhj believe God's hohj Gospel This indeed 1 have * Page 451. t Page 452.

THE PREFACE. iii

asserted to be effective, and that it insures and conveys, to the proper subjects thereof, the very Absolution or Remission itself : but then I desire it may be remembered that I attribute the effect of it not to a judicial, but to a ministerial act in the person who pronounces it : but to such an act however as it is founded upon the general tenor of the Gos;:el, which supposes, if I mistake not, that God always accompanies the Minslrations of the Priestj if there be no impediment on the part of the People. And therefore when the Priest, in the Name of God, so solemnly declares to a Congregation that has been humbly confessing their Sins, and importuning the Remission of them, that God does actually pardon all that truhj reyent and luifeignedly believe ; why may not such of them as do repent and believe, humbly presume that their Pardon is sealed as well as made known by such a declaration ?

I am sure this notion gives no encouragement either of Presumption to the Penitent, or of Arrogance to the Priest : 1 have supposed that, to receive any benefit from the form, the person must come within the terms required : and such a one, though the form should have no effect, is allowed notwithstanding to be pardoned and absolved. And the Priest I have asserted to act only ministerially, as the instrument of Providence ; that he can neither withhold, or apply, the Absolution as he pleases, nor so much as know upon whom or upon how many it shall take effect ; but that he only pronounces what God commands, whilst God himself ratifies the declaration, and seals the pardon that he proclaims.

It is true indeed, it does not appear by the ancient Liturgies, that the Primitive Christains had any such Absolution to be pronounced, as this is, to the Congregation in general. But yet, if they had Absolutions upon any occasion, and those Absolutions were supposed to procure a R.econcilement with God ; (neither of which, I presume, will be thought to want a proof;) I see no reason why they may not be usefully admitted (as they are with us) into the Daily and Ordinary Service of the Church. For allowing that the persons they iv THE PREFACE.

were formerly used to, were such as had incurred Ecclesiastical Ceusure; yet it is confessed that the forms pronounced on those occasions immediately respected the Conscience of the Sinuerjand not the outward llegimeu of the Church; that they were instrumental to procure the Forgiveness of God, whilst the Ecclesiastical Bond was declared to he released by an additional ceremony of the Imposition of Hands. ^ If then Absolutions, even in the earliest ages, were thought to be instrumental to procure God's Forgiveness to such Sins as had deserved Ecclesiastical Bonds ; why may they not be allowed as instrumental and proper to procure his Forgiveness to Sins of daily Incursion, though they may not be gross enough, or at least enough public, to come within the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Censures ? If it be ur£;ed, that the ancient Absolutions were never Declarative, but either Intercessional, like the prayer that follows the Absolution in th • office appointed for the Visitation of the Sicky or Optative, like the form in our Office of Communion ; I think it may be answered that the Ef. feet of the Absolution does not at all depend upon the Form of it, since the Promises of God are either way applied, and it must be the Sinner's embracing them with Kepentance and Faith, that must make the Application of them effectual to himself.

I hope this explanation will justify ray notions upon the Daily Absolution, as well as reconcile them with what I have said upon the other. I shall add nothing more in defence of them, than that they seem fully to be countenanced by the form itself, (as I have shewed at large upon the place,) and particularly by the inhibition of Deacons from pronouncing itf : which to me is an argument that our Church designed it for an Effect which it was beyond the commission of a Deacon to convey. Not that I would draw an argument from the opinion of our Church, where that opinion seems repugnant to Scripture or Antiquity : but where it does

* See Dr. Marshall's Penitential Discipline, pa,^e 93, <S.c. See also the forms of Absolution in his Appendix, Numb. 4, 5, 6, 7.

t See Page 120, he.

THE PREFACE. v

not appear to be inconsistent with either, I think her decision should be allowed a due weight. Wherever I have found or suspected her to differ from one or the other, the Reader will observe I have not covered or disguised it ; but on the contrary perhaps have been too hasty and forward, and too unguarded in my remarks. But Truth was what I aimed at through my whole undertaking; which therefore 1 was resolved at any hazard to assert just as it appeared to me. It is not at all indeed unlikely that in so many points as the nature of Ibis work has led me to consider, some things may appear as Truths to me, which others, who have better opportunities of inquiring into them, may find to be otherwise : and therefore 1 can only profess that I have not advanced any thing but what I have believed to be true ; and that if 1 am any where in an error, I shall be always open to conviction, let the person that attempts it be Adversary or Friend ; since if Truth can be attained to by any means at last, I shall not value from whom or from whence it proceeds : though I cannot but say, the satisfaction will be the greater if it appear on the side which our Church has espoused, notwithstanding the discovery may possibly demand some Retractions on my own part, which in such case I shall always be ready to make, and think it a happiness to find myself mistaken.

In the mean while, I request that where I am allowed to be right, I may not meet with less favour, because I have shewed myself fallible ; and particularly I would importune my Reverend Bretheren of the Cler- GY, (upon whose countenance the success of this work must depend,) that if the Rubrics especially have been any where cleared, and with proper arguments enforced, they would join their assistance to make my endeavours of some service to the CnuiiCH. for it w ill be but of very little use to have illustrated the rule, unless they also concur to make the practice more uniform. And indeed I would hope that a small importunity would be sufficient to prevail with them, when they see what disgrace their compliances have brought both upon the vi THE PREFACE.

Liturgy and themselves : since not only the Occasional Offices are now in several places prostituted to the caprice of the people, to be used where, and when, and in what manner they please ; but even the Daily and Ordinary Service is more than the Clergy themselves know how to perform in any Church but their own, before they have been informed of the particular custom of the place.

But I would not presume to dictate to those from whom it would much better become me to learn : and therefore I shall only observe farther with regard to the Citations I have had occasion to make, that 1 have but very seldom set down any of them at large, because I was willing to avoid all unnecessary means of swelling the book. Besides, I considered, that though I should cite them ever so distinctly, yet those who understand not the Language they were written in, must take my word for the meaning of them at last : and those who are capable of reading the Originals, I supposed, would turn to the books themselves for any thing they should doubt of, how careful soever I should have been in transcribing them ; so that I thought it sufficient to be exact in my references, as to the Tome, and Page, and marginal letter, and then to insert a general Table of the Ecclesiastical Writers, which should once for all shew the Editions that I have used* The reason of my adding a column of the Times when the Writers flourished, was, that my less learned Reader might gather from thence the Antiquity of several Rites and Ceremonies I had occasion to treat of, by consulting when those Authors lived, who are produced in defence of them.

♦ If I have any wliere made iise of a diiFerent Edition, I iiave taken care to specify it in the citation itself.

AN

ALPHABETICAL INDEX

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS

CITED IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK ;

With the Times when they flourished, and the Ediiions made use of.

Ecclesiastical Writers'

Alcuin

Ambrose

Arnobius

Athanasius

Athenagoras

Augustin

Basil the Great

Bernard

Cannons called Apostolical, ) most of them composed v before )

Cedrenus

Chrysostom

Clemens of Alexandria

Clemens of Rome

Codex Theodosianus

Constitutions called Aposto- ) lical, about )

Cyprian

Cyril of Jerusalem

Dionysius of Alexandria

Dionysius, falsely called the >

. Flourished Anno Dom* 780

Books*

Editions.

Gennadius Maseiliens, Gratian

Gregory the Great Gregory Nazianzea Gregory Nyssen Hierom, or Jerom I^atius

248 350 254

De Offic. Divin. Paris 1610

Opera Ed. Bened. Paris 1686

Adv. Gentes Lugd. Bat. 1651

Opera Ed. Benedict. Paris 1698

Legatio by Dechair, Oxon. 1706 Opera Ed. Benedict. Paris 1679 by Coteler, Antwerp. 1698

Histor. Compend. Paris 1649

Opera Ed. Savil. Eton. 1612

Epi&tolse by Wotton, Cant. 1718 Lugd. 1663

by Coteler, Antwerp, 1698

Opera by Fell, Oxon. 1682

Opera by Mills, Oxon. 1703

Epist. adv. Paul. Sam. Paris 1610

Rationale Lugd. 1612

De Rit. Eccles. Cath. Rom. 1591

Eccles. Histor. Paris 1673

De Eccles. Dogmat. Hamb. 1614

Opera Edit. Ben. Paris 1704

Opera by Smith, Oxpn. 1709

Vlll

•fln Tndex of the Ecclesiastical Writers,

Ecclesiastical Writers.

Flourished Anno Doni.

Books.

Editions.

Irenaeus

Adv. Haeres. by Grabe,

Isidore Hispalensis

Isidore Peleusiota

Justin Martyr

< Apol. 1. by Grabe, i Opera

Oxon. 1700 Paris 1615

Lactantius

Opera by Spark

Micrologus

De Eccles. Observ.

Minucius Felix

Octavius by Davis,

Nicephorus Calistus

Eccles. Histor.

Optatus Milevitanus

Origen

Opera Latine

Paulinus

Lib. contr. Felic,

Paulus Diaconus

Polycarp

Ep. ad Phil, by Smith,

Pontius Diaconus

( Vita S. Cypr. before St. Cy-

i prian's Works, Oxon. 1682

Proclus

De Trad. Div. Lit.

Ruffinus i In Symbolum at the end of i Saint Cyprian's Works.

Socrates

Eccles. Histor.

Sozomen

Eccles. Histor.

Syneeius

Tatian

Orat. ad Gr. by Worth,

Tertullian

Opera by Rigaltius,

Theodoret

Theodosius Junior. See Codex

Theodosianus.

Theophilus Antiochent

Ad Autolyc. by Fell,

Oxon 1684

Theophylact.

Commentarii

COUNCILS.

By Labbee and Cossart, in 15 Tomes. Paris 167i»

Concil. Anno Dontnini.

Concil. Anno Dommini.

Agathense 506

Neocaesariense 315

Aurelianense 1. 511

Nicenum I. Gen. 325

Brachorense 1. 563

Orleance 1. See Aurelianense 1.

Calchutense 787

Placentinum 1095

Carthaginense 3. 252

Quini-sextum in TruUo 692

Carthaginense 4. 253

Rhemense 2. 813

Constantinop. 2. Gen. 381

Sardicense 347

Constant. 6. Gen. See Quini-sex.

Toletanum 3. 589

Eliberitanum 305

Triburiense 895

Gerundense 1. 517

Trullan. See Quini-sextum.

Laodicenum 367

Vasense 1. 442

Milevitan 1. 402

Vasense 2. 529

JIATIONAL ILLUSTRATION

OF THE

AN INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE,

Shewing the Lawfulness and Necessity of a National precomposed Liturgy.

ItJIoST of the objections urged by the Dissenters against the Church of England, to justify their separation from it, being levelled against its form and manner of divine worship, prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer^ &€. are, in the following Discourse, answered, as fully as its brevity would permit. So that, though the principal design of this book be to instruct such as are friends to our Church and Liturgy ; yet it is not impossible but that, by the blessing of God, it may in some measure contribute to the undeceiving some that are enemies to both, (such I mean as are disaffected to the former, upon no other account, than a prejudice to the latter ; ) especially could we, by first convincing them of the Lawfulness and Necessity of National precomposed Liturgies in general, prevail with them to take an impartial view of what is here offered in behalf of our own. To this end therefore, and to make the following sheets of as general use as I can, 1 shall, by way of Introduction, endeavour to prove these three things, viz.

L First, That the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, never joined (as far as we can prove) in any prayers, but precomposed set forms only.

Introdnct.

2 The Lawfulness and Necessity of a

Introd«ct. 11. Secondly, That those precomposed set forms, in ' which they joined, were such as the respective congre-

gations were accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with.

III. Thirdly, That their practice warrants the imposition of a JSIational precomposed Liturgy.

1. First, lam to prove that the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, never joined (as far as we can prove) in any prayers, but precomposed set forms only. And this I shall do by shewing,

1 . First^ That they did join in precomposed set forms of prayer.

2. Secondly, That (as far as we can conjecture) they never joined in any other.

I. First, I shall shew that the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christains, Jzc/jow mjt?re- Gomposed set forms of prayer,

\st, To begin with the Jews, we find that the first piece of solemn worship recorded in Scripture, is a hymn of praise, composed by Moses upon the deliverance of the children of Israel from the Egyptians, which was sung by all the congregation alternately ; by Moses and the men first, and afterwards by Miriam and the women ^ : which could not have been done, unless it had been a precomposed set form. Again, in the expiation of an uncertain murder, the elders of the city which is next to the slain are expressly commanded to say, and consequently to join in saying, a form of prayer, precomposed by God himself^ . And in other places of Scripture^ we meet with several other forms of prayer precomposed by God, and prescribed by Moses ; which though they were not to be joined in by the whole congregation, are yet sufficient precedents for the use of precomposed set forms. But farther, the Scriptures assure us, that David appointed the Levites to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even "*, which rule was observed in the temple afterwards built by Solomon, and restored at the building of the second temple after the captivity ^ Lastly, the whole book of Psalms were forms of prajer and praise, indited by the Holy Ghost, for the joint use of the congregation ; as

2 Dent. xxi. 7, 8. 4 1 Chron. xxiii.30.

National precomposed Liturgy.

appears as well from the titles of several of the Psalms ^ as introdm from other places of Scripture ^

Innumerable proofs might be brought, both ancient and modern, that the Jews did always worship God by precomposed set forms : but the world is fully satisfied of this truth, from the concurrent testimonies of Josephus, Philo, Paul Fagius, Scaliger, Buxtorf, and Selden in Eutychium. The reader may consult two learned men of our own, vizo Dr. Hammond (who both proves that the Jews used set forms, and that their prayers and praises, &:c. were in the same order as our** Common Prayer) and Dr. Lightfoot, who not only asserts they worshipped God by stated forms, but also sets down both the order and method of their hymns and suppHcations ^ So that there is no more reason to doubt of their having and using a precomposed settled Liturgy, than of our own having and using the Book of Common Prayer, &c. and of its consisting of precomposed set forms. We shall therefore proceed in the next place to inquire into the practice ot our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians.

And, 15^, for our Saviour; there is not the least doubt to be made, but that he continued always in communion with the Jewish Church, and was zealous and exemplary in their public devotions ; and consequently took all opportunites of joining in those precomposed set forms of prayer, which were daily used in the Jewish congregations, as the learned Dr. Lightfoot has largely proved^°. And we may be sure, that had not our Saviour very canstantly attended their public worship, and joined in the devotions of their congregations, the Scribes and Pharisees, his bitter and implacable enemies, and great zealots for the temple-service, would doubtless have cast it in his teeth, arid reproached him as an ungodly wretch, that despised prayer, &:c. But nothing of this nature do we find in the whole New Testament ; and therefore, had we no other grounds than these to go upon, we might safely conclude, that our blessed Saviour was a constant attendant on (he public service of the Jews, and consequently that he joined in precomposed set forms of prayer.

And, ^dly, as to the Apostles and our Lord's other Disciples, their practice was doubtless the same till our Sa-

6 See Psal. xlii. 44, &c. Psal.vi. 5, 6, &c. Psal. xcii.

7 1 Chron. xvi. 7. 2 Chron.xxix. 30. Ezraiii. 10, 11.

8 View of the Directory, p, 136.

and his Oxford Papers, p. 260, vol.i,

9 Dr. Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. p. 922, 942, 946.

10 Ibid. vol. ii. part ii. p. 1036,

4 The Lawfulness and ^"eeessily of a

Introduct. viours ascensioti ; after which (besides that they did probably still join as before in the Jewish worship", which consisted of precomposed set forms) it is plain that they used precomposed set forms in their Christian assemblies, during the remainder of their lives.

As the primitive Christians also did in the folloAving ages : as will appear,

1. From their joining in the use of the Lord's prayer.

2. From their joining in the use of Psalms.

3. From their joining in the use of divers precomposed set forms of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and Psalms.

L They joined in the use of the Lord's prayer. And this is sufficiently evident from our Saviour's having commanded them so to do ; for whatever dispute may be made about the word '^reag in St. Blatthcw vi. 9. which is translated not exactly, but paraphrastically, after this manner^ but ought with greater accuracy to be rendered 50, or //iW5^^; yet if we should grant that our Lord in this place only proposed this prayer as a directory and pattern to make our other prayers by, we should still find afterwards, upon another occasion, viz. when his Disciples requested him to teach them to pray, as John had also taught his Disciples, he prescribed the use of these very words : expresslj'" bidding them, JVhen ye pray, say, Our Father^^, I suppose nobody hath so mean an opinion, either of St* John's or our Saviour's Disciples, as to think they were ignorant how to pray: therefore it is plain they couW mean nothing else by their request, but that Christ would give them this peculiar form, as a badge of their belonging to him ; according to the custom of the Jewish Doctors, who always taught their disciples a peculiar form to add to their own^"*; so that either our Saviour instructed them to use this very form of words, or else he did not answer the design of their requests.

But it is objected, that " if our Lord had intended this " prayer should be used as a set form, he would not have *-* added the Doxology, when he delivered it at one lime, •■' as it is recorded in St. Matthew, and omit it, when he delivered it upon another occasion, as in St. Luke.''

11 See Acts iii. l.xiii. 15.xvii.2. xxiii. W. Isa. xxx. 12. xxxvii. 21,

liii. 3. f^or in the former text, ira

12 In which signification it is al- >Jyii 6 Kv^io(^ thus saith the Lord, ways used in the SeptuagintV^ersion bears the same signification as rah of the Bible, as appears by compar- xiyu Kv^wg^ this saith the Lord, ing Nurub. vi. 23. xxiii. 5. Isa.viii. in fhe latter.

3pd some other places, with Numb. 14 Dr. Liglitfoot, vol. ii. p. 158.

J^ational precomposed Liturgy, 5

But to this we answer, That learned men are very much Introduct. divided in their opinions, concerning the Doxology in St. ~~

Matthew ; some thinking it is, and others thai, it is not, a part of the original text. Whether it be or be not, we need not here dispute, but argue with our adversaries upon either supposition.

For, 1st, if they think it is 7iot a part of the original text, then their objection is groundless : for there is nothing found in one Evangelist, but what is also found in the other; and the form, as to the sense of it, is exactly the same in both ; for though one or two expressions may differ, yet the Syriac words, in which we know our Lord deliverd it, are equally capalDle of both translations;

But, ^dly, if they think the Doxology is a part of the original text ; we answer, The addition of it is as good an argument against the Lord's prayer being a directory for the matter of prayer, as it can be against its being an established set form of prayer. For we may say, in the language of our adversaries, if Christ had intended his prayer for a directory for the matter of prayer, he would not have given such different directions, ordering us to add a Doxo^ logy to the end of our prayers at one time, and omitting that order at another. If therefore the addition of the Doxologj^ be (as they must grant upon their own princi^ pies) no objection against its being a directory for the matter of prayer ; then certainly it is no objection against its being an established set form. For the differenceof our prayers will be every whit as great in following this pattern, by sometimes omitting and sometimes adding a Doxology at the end of our prayers, as it can possibly be, by using the Lord's prayer, sometimes with, and at other times without, the Doxology. The utmost therefore that can be concluded from the Doxology's being apart of the original text in St. Matthew, is this : That our Lord, though he commanded the use of the Lord's prayer, does not insist upon the use of the Doxologj^, but leaves it indifferent ; or at most, orders it to be sometimes used, and sometimes omitted, as our established Church practises. But the other essential parts of the prayer are to be used notwithstanding ; it being very absurd to omit the use of the whole, because the latter part of it is not enjoined to be used constantly with the rest.

But it is farther objected, Isi, That, " supposing our Sa- " viour did prescribe it as a form ; yet it was only /or a time, " till they should be more fully instructed, and enabled to " pr^ by the assistance of the Holy Ghost." And to urge

6 The Lawfulness and Necessity of a

latroduct. this with the greater force, they tell us, 2%, " That be- " fore Christ's ascension, the Disciples had asked nothing " inhis name^\ whereas they were taught, that after his " ascension they should offer up all their prayers in his " name^^ Now this prayer, say they, having nothing ■" of his name in it, could not be designed to be used after •' his ascension." Accordingly they tell us, odly^ '' That "though we read in the Acts of the Apostles of several " prayers made by the Church, yet we find not any inti- *' mation, that they ever used this forni^^.'*

Whatever resemblances of truth these objections may seem to carry with them at first sight, if we look narrowly into them, we shall find them to be grounded upon principles as dangerous as false.

For, I5/, If, because our Saviour hath not in express words commanded this form of prayer to be used for ever, we conclude, that it was only prescribed /or a hme ; we must necessarily allow, that whatever Christ hath instituted without limitation of time does not always oblige; and, consequently, we may declare Christ's institutions to be null without his authority ; and at that rate cry down Baptism and the Lord's Supper for temporary prescriptions, as well as the Lord's prayer.

In answer to the second objection, we may observe, that to pray in ChrisVs name, is to pray in his mediation ; depending upon his merits and intercession for the acceptance of our prayers ; and therefore prayers may be offered up in Christ's name, though we do not name him. And as for the Lord's prayer, it is so framed, that it is impossible to offer it up, unless it be in the name of Christ : for we have no right or title to call God our Father, unless it be through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ ; w^io hath made us heirs of God, and joint-heirs with hin> self And therefore Christ's not inserting his own name in his prayer, does by no means prove, that he did not design it for a standing form.