THE PREFACE.

W5
1867

In a former edition of this book, which was printed in folio, I was at a loss in what manner I was to address the reader; that is, whether I was to bespeak his candour as to an entire new book, or whether only the continuance of it as to a new edition of an old one. I called it indeed the third edition in the title-page; though I think I had but little other reason for doing so, than my having twice published a treatise upon the same subject before. For scarce a fifth part of what I then offered to the world was printed from either of the former editions; nor had so much of them as I have mentioned been continued entire, had I foreseen how little I should have confined myself to the rest. But when it first went to the press, I had no other design than to have reprinted it exactly from the second edition; except that I had yielded to the request of the booksellers, who, being encouraged by the quick sale of two large impressions, in a smaller volume, were willing to run the hazard of one in a larger size. This was all the alteration I proposed: nor did I think of any other, till the introductory discourse, the whole first chapter, and great part of the second, were worked off from the press; which therefore, for the most part, stand just as they did before, and not in the method into which I should have thrown them, had I known from the beginning what alterations I should have made. However, the reader will have no reason to complain; since though the form would have been different, the arguments notwithstanding must have been much the same: and they sure will appear to a better advantage by standing entire, and in the light they are set by the authors themselves, from whom I have borrowed them, than if they had been broke into comments and notes, and produced in parcels, as the rubrics would have required; which was the method I afterwards thought fit to pursue.

For

* I desire that what I have said may be principally understood of the introductory discourse (which is almost verbally transcribed from Dr. Bennet's Brief History of the joint Use of precomposed set Forms of Prayer) and of the three first sections of the second chapter; for the first of which I am partly obliged to bishop Beveridge's Discourse on The Necessity and Advantage of Public Prayer; for the second to Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity; and for the third to Mr. Roberts's excellent Sermon at the Primary Visitation of the late bishop of Exeter at Oakhampton. The two following sections of that chapter are pretty much in the method I afterwards observei, and so for the most part is the whole first chapter; for the first division of which (concerning the Tables and Rules) I must not forget to repeat the acknowledgments I have more than once made to the learned Dr. Brett.

when I observed at the close of the second chapter, (which is upon the general rubric concerning The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,) that I had taken no notice in what part of the Church Divine Service should be performed, (the appointment of which was yet the principal design of the first part of that rubric,) I not only found it necessary to add a new section to supply that defect; but taking the hint, to examine how I had managed the rubrics in general, I perceived that I had been equally deficient in most of them; and that consequently, to make the work truly useful, the like additions would be necessary through the whole.

The occasion of this defect in the two first editions was owing to a neglect of those parts of our offices in all who had writ upon the Liturgy before me for as I never, till the third edition, attempted any further than to give the substance and sum of what others had treated of more at large; it could not be expected, that the epitome, or abridgment, should give more light than the books from whence it was taken supplied. However, as I considered the price of my own book would then be very considerably advanced, I thought it but reasonable to make the purchaser what amends I was able, by putting it into his hands as complete as I could.

To this end I applied myself, in the first place, to the comparing our Liturgy, as it stands at present, with the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., and with all the reviews that have been taken of it since; from whence, together with the history of compiling it, and of the several alterations it has undergone from time to time, I easily foresaw the rubrics would be best illustrated and explained. Nor have I found myself disappointed in the advantage I proposed; for I do not remember that I have met with a difficulty through the whole Common Prayer, but what I have been enabled, by this means, in some measure to remove.

And whilst I was upon these searches, it came into my mind, from the extravagant prices which the Old Common Prayer Books have borne of late, that it would not be unacceptable to the curious reader, to note the differences between them: wherever therefore I met with any variations, I have also been diligent to transcribe them at large, and to give the reason of the several changes: another improvement which I thought would be looked upon to be so much the more useful, as it furnished me with occasions of inquiring into several ancient usages of the Church, and of shewing how far we have advanced to, or gone back from, the primitive standard, since our first Reformation.

These are the two principal alterations which I observed: and though these perhaps may seem but slight at first mentioning, yet I can assure the reader, that from my first laying the design, I found that, instead of what I had at first undertaken, which was only the supervising a few sheets as they were worked off, I had got an entire new work upon my hands, and that I was to prepare for, as well as to correct from, the press. New additions I perceived were necessary to be made almost in every page, and where the old matter was continued, it was to be often transposed, and to be worked

up again in different parts of the book. So that neither of my former editions was, from the time above mentioned, of any other use to me in compiling of this, than any of the authors that lay open before me except that what was scattered in different books, which treat some of them of one thing and some of another, I generally found ready collected in my own, which therefore for the most part saved me the trouble of new weaving the materials which others had supplied. Not that I took any advantage from hence to spare myself the pains of reading over again the several authors themselves; for I do not know that there was a single piece on the subject, how inconsiderable soever, but what I gave a fresh review, and with the utmost care, that not a hint should escape me, which I judged would be any ways worth observation. And yet I dare affirm that the whole that I borrowed from all who have writ professedly upon the Common Prayer, does not amount to near a fourth part of what the following sheets contain. Nor will it seem incredible, that every thing that is pertinent to my own design, should be reduced into so narrow a compass as I have mentioned; when it is considered that though the authors I made use of were numerous, yet the matters they treat of are generally the same; that some of them have printed the Liturgy itself, as well as their explanations and comments upon it; that they are most of them but small; and that in the two that are voluminous (Dr. Comber and Dr. Nichols) scarce an eighth part of either of them come within the limits Í confined myself to. The bulk of the former consists in large Paraphrases and practical Discourses, which I wholly passed by: and if the latter has done nothing in a practical way, yet the repetition of his Paraphrases, where the same forms return in different offices, together with his enlarging upon subjects that a reader would never think to look for in a Comment upon the Common Prayer, have very much contributed to swell his work with materials that I judged might be spared, without any danger of its being thought a defect; especially since the omission of them made room for the enlarging upon other points much more pertinent to the subject of the book; and which indeed make the principal part of the whole, though most of them are touched upon but lightly, if at all, in any former direct Exposition of the Liturgy. To name all the particulars would be more ostentatious than useful; and therefore I shall only observe in general, that wherever I knew any point I was to mention, handled more particularly by authors who have made it their principal view, I always had recourse to them, and took the liberty of borrowing whatever contributed to the perfecting my scheme.

In such cases I have generally given notice in the margin to whom I have been beholden; though there is one thing perhaps in which I have been deficient, and that is, in not using sometimes the ordinary marks of distinction, when I have taken the words as well as the thoughts of my author: for it was always my rule when I could not mend an expression, not to do it an injury by changing it: and yet as I was frequently forced to transpose the order of his sentences, and to blend and mix with them what my own thoughts

supplied, it often came to pass, that when the paragraph was finished, I questioned whether the author, from whom most of it was taken, would acknowledge it to be his own.

And thus I have given the reader an account, as well of my first attempts on this subject, as of the further progress I made upon it when it came the third time to the press; which I have done, not so much for the sake of acquainting him with the old editions, as of informing him more distinctly what it is he may look for in the new ones. It will be a needless caution I suppose to add, that I shall stand to nothing that I have said before, any further than it agrees with the contents of the last: the particulars indeed are but few, as far as I can remember, where my notions are changed; but where they are, it is but common justice to take my sentiments from what I deliver upon maturer judgment; and not to expect I should always vindicate an error or mistake, because I once advanced it in a juvenile performance. I should have very ill bestowed the pains I took to review my original papers, (which was more a great deal than it cost me at first to collect and compile them; and which took up as many years as it would have done months, had they been only reprinted as they were before,) if they did not come out with some improvements at last. Not that I am so vain as to think, they are at last without faults and imperfections; I am sensible there are many; I can only plead that none willingly escaped me, and that wherever any escaped unwillingly, nobody could have been more industrious to find them. For in order to this, I not only, during the tedious delay that I then created to the press, examined the sheets upon every occasion that called the matter of them fresh to my mind; but also importuned the assistance and corrections of such learned friends as I knew were in no danger (except from too favourable an indulgence to the author) of overlooking the slightest mistakes.

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 I 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 DECLARATIVE, that it is truly EFFECTIVE; insuring and conveying to the proper subjects thereof the very absolution or remission itself." 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 irreconcilable 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 authority in the Ministers of the Gospel, to pardon or forgive sins immediately and directly in relation to 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 further 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 obtaining our pardon from God, himself, and the forgiveness of sin as it relates to him."+ 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 I am speaking of a judicial and unconditional absolution, pronounced by the Minister in an indicative 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 inflicting and remitting the censures of the Church, I could not understand peremptorily 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 I have said on the other. The absolution I am speaking of is conditional, pronounced by the Priest in a declarative form, and limited to such as truly repent and unfeignedly believe God's holy Gospel. This indeed I have 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 is founded upon the general tenor of the Gospel, which supposes, if I mistake not, that God always accompanies the ministrations of the Priest, 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 truly repent and unfeignedly 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 declar ation?