CHAP. XI. SECT. III. Fisher says: "Why should not both parties earnestly strive, by the simple process of mutual co-operation, to realize practically what both seem, on the whole, so cordially to desire."* Co-operation is a very simple process between those whose objects are the same, but it is impossible when they are diametrically opposed. How can the advocate of a corporal presence and eucharistic adoration co-operate in the alteration of our Service, with those who regard these as fatal errors? "Tractarianism," says Fisher, "it is evident, is not now what it once was." He goes on to show that it is not so defined (A.D. 1860). Whether more or less defined, it is certain that it is rapid in its Roman developments, and that the breach between parties is becoming wider every day. Fisher's proposal of a combined revision is perfectly absurd. It is only the complete preponderance of one party or other, which could secure a revision satisfactory to either. It may be possible to amend the lectionary, to abbreviate and reconstruct services, but a revision affecting doctrine, such as would satisfy all, is out of the question. Even the word Altar, as applicable to the table, if inserted in our Prayer Book, would undo the work of our Reformers; and when we contemplate the Romanizing character of Non-Juror, Scottish Episcopalian, and Irvingite books on the one hand, and the Arianism of other books of Common Prayer on the other hand, let us be thankful that our Prayer Book is still a witness for those great truths which the Reformers handed down and sealed with their blood. SUMMARY. The revision of 1552 gave to the Prayer Book its evangelical Protestantism. • Liturgical Purity, p. 483. London, 1860. This is the work of an enthusiastic revisionist. The author's judgment is evidently warped by his feelings. In his desire to prove the necessity of revision, he labours and strains to show that the Prayer Book is unsound. For example, he refers to Cranmer's translation of Justus Jonas's Catechism, as a "truthful exposition of Cranmer's more maʼured views.” (P. 125.) But the Catechism was published in 1548, when Cranmer held consubstantiation and other errors! He also says in reference to the revision of 1661, "But the doctrinal changes appear admitting that there were some improvements, to have been made in a retrograde direction.” (P. 483.) In reality, there was not See p. 66, Authorities, 3. REVISIONS. The revision of 1559 made a few alterations, introducing a PRIVATE new rubric as to the ornaments of the Church and Minister, but giving power to the Queen to take "other order." The revision of 1604 was of a very limited character, while that of 1661 effected many improvements, of which the most important was the declaration against the corporal presence. This revision was effected by Convocation, the Savoy Conference having failed. Several suggestions of the Puritans, rejected by the Episcopal Commissioners at the Savoy, were taken by Convocation, representing as it did a Church in which Puritanism was still strong. The revision which resulted in the Scottish Service, commonly called "Laud's book," was retrogressive. The Scottish Communion Office contains the oblation of, and invocation upon the elements, and is retrogressive in its character, retaining words in consecration stronger than those which our Reformers rejected as savouring of transubstantiation. The American revision resulted in a compromise by which, while the absolution in the visitation of the sick is omitted, and other features in our service, the Communion Service is assimilated to the Scottish Service. Attempts at revision by authority were made in 1641 and 1689, but failed. Private revisions have been made by the Non-Jurors, the Irvingites, and the Socinians. The two former are Romanistic. As revision is now desired by men of very opposite sentiments, some tending to Romanism, and others to rationalism, while a middle party of revisionists is orthodox, the work is encompassed by great difficulties and hazards. CHAP. XII. LATIN VERSIONS OF THE PRAYER BOOK- LITURGICAL SER- SECTION 1.-LATIN VERSIONS OF THE PRAYER BOOK. CHAP.XII. THE PRAYER BOOK was soon translated for the information of SECT. I. the foreign churches. Coverdale had sent "the order of Communion," in German, to Frankfort; while a copy, in Latin, was forwarded to Calvin, under the following title, "Ordo distri"butionis sacramenti altaris sub utraque specie, et formula con"fessionis faciendæ in regno Angliæ," with the initials attached, A. A. S. D. Th., being those, it is believed, of Alesius, the Scotchman, who subsequently (1549) translated the whole book. It is commonly supposed that Alesius undertook his transation for the information of Bucer, but this is by no means certain. Clay observes, "Doubtless Ales's work is printed in Bucer's Scripta Anglicana, immediately before the Censura, but as the marginal notes will show, this was merely to enable the reader to understand the nature of his remarks. He only tells us himself (p. 456), 'librum istum sacrorum, (the English Prayer Book of 1549), per interpretem, quantum potui, cognui diligenter.' Thus, most probably, Bucer had recourse to an oral, not a printed, translation, and yet one was in existence as early as July, 1549."* Procter says, in reference to this : "Also Ales's version was published, Jan. 5, 1551, at Leipsig, where the year was reckoned to begin on the 1st of January, and on this computation, Bucer might have had this translation before him for a whole year."+ We have already, however, shown that Bucer died in 1551, not 1552. Procter himself observes, that a translation had been made at Cambridge, by Dryander, before June, 1549, and, "This version or compendium, made by the Greek Professor, at his own University, was most probably known to Bucer." The translation by Ales is by no means faithful. The following parallel will exhibit this: * Prefaces to Elizabethan Liturgies. P. S. † P. 66. Ibid. "THE BOOK OF 1549. O God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us miserable sinners. O God, the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy upon us miserable sinners. God, the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners.--The Litany. That it may please Thee to give to all nations unity, peace, and concord.-Ibid. The most comfortable nion Service. ple num consolationis, hoc Transla The Latin Prayer Book, prepared by Walter Haddon, ap- Haddon's peared in 1560. There is reason to believe that the translator tion. availed himself very much of the version of the first Prayer Book made by Ales, the Scotch Professor of Divinity of Leipsic. But as the two books of Common Prayer published in Edward's reign, the one in 1549 and the other in 1552, differed on many important points, Haddon should have been careful to give all the emendations of the second book. The translation is very unfaithful, and retains many of the characteristics of the first service book. The discrepancy between this translation and the book which it proposed to represent, will appear from the following parallel :— BOOK OF ELIZABETH. 66 'Almighty God our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; par HADDON'S VERSION. "Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui suam potestatem dedit ecclesiæ, ut absolvat pœnitentes a pecatis ipsorum, et reconcilet celesti Patri eos, qui suam fiduciam collocant in Christum, misercatur VERSION TRANSLATED. Haddon's The book disapproved. Haddon sometimes assumes the character of an interpreter rather than of a translator, as appears from the following "In 1560, Walter Haddon took this (Ales's translation) as the groundwork of a new book. Elizabeth authorized the use of a Latin book in colleges, and the work was assigned to Haddon. In many things, he was compelled to depart from this translation, in consequence of the alteration since 1549, yet in others, he follows Ales so closely, that the book of 1560 by no means gives an accurate view of the book of Common Prayer of this reign."* The book was not favourably received; many of the colleges in Cambridge rejected it as "the Pope's dreggs."+ The book was never sanctioned by Convocation, and is of no authority. *Hist. of Prayer Book, p. 61, ut supra. † Strype's Parker, p. 535, vol. 1. Book III. c. xx. ut supra. |