Cosin and the Revision of 1662

Irish Church Quarterly

Cosin and the Revision of 1662Author(s): R. Mercer WilsonSource: The Irish Church Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 39 (Jul., 1917), pp. 205-218Published by: Irish Church QuarterlyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30067689 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Church Quarterly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The IrishChurch Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:46:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icq

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30067689?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


COSIN AND THE REVISION OF 1662. 205

COSIN AND THE REVISION OF 1662.

THE last great revision of the Book of Common Prayer took place in 1662. No study of the work done at that time can claim to be adequate or complete unless it takes into account the general characteristics of the period and the attitude of the various parties in the State towards each other. The antagonism which existed between the Puritan party and the Church party was strong and severe. In the reaction which accompanied the accession of Charles II the Church party showed signs of being at least as uncharitable as the Puritans had been severe in their day of power. Yet these were not the only parties in the State. All the time the heart of the nation was soundly Protestant. It is safe to say that both these parties, Churchmen and Puritans, would have shown a united front in offering strong resistance to any movement of Papal aggression, if such had shown itself. Lord Macaulay's words on the state of Ireland at the accession of Charles II might be applied, with a great measure of truth, to describe the state of religious feeling in England at the same time-" The interval between the Episco- palian and the Presbyterian seemed to vanish, when compared with the interval which separated both from the Papist."

This may be thought an over-statement in view of the fact that some of the bishops of the day were men with strong leanings towards Laudianism. But it must be remembered that all disciples of the school of Laud were not weak Protestants. And if it be true, on the one hand, that there were bishops imbued with Laudian tendencies, some of whom might have favoured an approxi- mation towards the liturgical standard of 1549; it is true, on the other hand, that these tendencies were effectively held in check by the temper of the nation. The vast

1 History of England, vol. i, p. 92



206 COSIN AND THE REVISION OF 1662.

majority of the clergy who survived the Commonwealth had little sympathy with the extravagances of Laudian- ism. An indication of this attitude of mind towards liturgical reform may be seen in the fact, mentioned in Cardwell's Conferences," that the House of Commons having failed to procure the original Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, deliberately selected, for purposes of revision, a copy of the Prayer Book printed in 1604, because it was commonly whispered that Laud had tampered with the text of the printed Prayer Books of more recent date. This suspicion of Laud was ill-grounded. But it shows the temper of the nation as expressed in Parliament."

Furthermore, when we consider the machinery of revision, we can see how difficult it would be for any member of a revising committee to press the adoption of his own particular views, with any hope of success, if he knew such views to be unacceptable to his fellow- revisers.' Even if any of the bishops possessed of reactionary tendencies in 1662 did press for the adoption of their special views, it must be borne in mind that the revised Prayer Book did not issue straight from the hands of the bishops. The power of revision did not lie solely with them. There was the wider authority of

' Conferences, second ed., p. 376. 3 There was, however, good reason for jealous watching of

the text of the Prayer Book. Milton, in his Church Perplexities, notices two unauthorized alterations in a Prayer Book of 1634, attributed to Laud's influence. (1) The Rubric directing the position of the Communion Table read " The Table at the Communion time having a fair white linen cloth, etc," the authorized Rubric then being " The Table, having at the Commurnion time a fair white linen cloth, etc." (2) The words " by his own oblation " were substituted for " by his one oblation."

4Thus the proposal for an alternative form of Consecration using sacrificial language in its " Prayer of Oblation," singing of the Agnus Dei, etc., was rejected by the Bishops. As Sancroft tells us, " My Lords, the Bishops of Ely House, ordered all in the old method " (Parker, p. ccxxii).




Convocation and the still higher authority of the Lords and Commons. Nor can these two extra circles of authority be regarded as merely nominal in the process of revision. For the Prayer Book as it left Convocation was not identical with the Prayer Book as it was presented finally to the Lords. According to Lord Selborne,5 there is no reason for believing that the proposals of Convocation were materially altered in the House of Lords; while Mr. Milton and Canon Swainson hold that certain changes were made in the Prayer Book between the time that it left Convocation and the time that it was submitted to Parliament. At any rate, these four stages of revising authority-the Committee of Bishops, the Convocation, the King in Council, and the Lords and Commons-have to be considered in answering the question as to who the revisers were; and these widen- ing circles of revising authority eliminate the possibility of tracing the main character of the Revision to any individual influence.

This consideration also serves to correct the mistaken notion, which seems sometimes to be entertained, that the Revision of 1662 was the work of the Savoy Com- mission. To regard the Savoy Conference as an index of all the tendencies of revision would be misleading. Mention need only be made of the deliberate insertion of the Black Rubric to see that this is so. This Declaration on Kneeling, which stands at the end of our Communion Office, was first appended by an Order in Council to the statutory Prayer Book of 1552. Naturally enough, it was not restored by the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity in 1559, because it had formed no part of the statutory Prayer Book, which alone was re-enacted. But it came up for discussion at the Savoy Conference, when the bishops gave a decided refusal to the request for its

s Selborne's Notes on Liturgy, pp. 58-62. * Church Perplexities. ' History of the Act of Uniformity, 1662




restoration. They said : "This rubrick is not in the liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by law; nor is there any great need of restoring it, the world being now in more danger of profanation than of idolatry." Yet it was restored in its entirety in 1662, with certain necessary verbal alterations. Moreover, the efforts of Tillotson and Stillingfleet in i668, and again of Stilling- fleet in 168I, to meet the genuine difficulties of the Puritans, indicate that there were controversies within the Church to which the abortive Savoy Conference gave no adequate expression. It would be a mistake, however, to make little of the influence of the Savoy Conference on the subsequent Revision. Points of contact and degrees of influence may be traced from the one to the other-which is but natural when we remember that some of the bishops on the Savoy Commission were also members of the Revision Committee.

Amongst the names common to both lists is one to which the theories of certain liturgiologists have given peculiar prominence, the name of Cosin, Bishop of Durham. He was a member of both Committees. His name is constantly mentioned in connexion with Prayer Book revision. And it offers an interesting field of inquiry, if we seek to examine for ourselves the ground of the opinion that his was the main influence at the last Revision. At the outset we find opinion sharply divided upon the subject. On the one side, Mr. James Parker, in his Introduction to the Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer (1877), sets forth the case for Cosin's pre-eminent authority as a Reviser. On the other side, Lord Selborne, Canon Swainson and the Rev. W. Milton, viewing the same facts, come to quite a different conclusion. And, more recently, the Rev. F. C. Brightman, Examining Chaplain to Bishop Gore, in his work, The English Rite (1916), dismisses Mr. Parker's theory as unlikely in itself and resting on slender evidence. This

* Quoted by Mr. Parker, Hist. Revis. Pr. Bk., p. ccecii.



COSIN AND THE REVISION OF 1662-. 209

divergency of judgement amongst authorities might be regarded as justifying the opinion that the evidence must remain inconclusive. Yet many modern comments on the Prayer Book are influenced by Mr. Parker's theory, even where the main position is but indistinctly perceived.

Mr. Parker's theory may be briefly stated in two general propositions :-

(I) The attitude of mind and liturgical opinions of Bishop Cosin may be correctly deduced from a Series of Notes written some time after 1619; more particularly the Notes usually described as " A First Series of Notes in an interleaved Prayer Book of A.D. 1619," and also Cosin's " Considerations " c. 1640, which consist of "Particulars to be considered, explained, and corrected in the Book of Common Prayer." The former work has " the most direct bearing upon the alterations Cosin made in the rubricks." The latter work "seems to be closely connected with the corrections made " at the Revision.'

(2) There is a remarkable agreement between the actual Revision of 1662 and a Prayer Book corrected in Cosin's handwriting, described by Mr. Parker as "Cosin's Corrected Copy," and thought to represent Cosin's private labours at revision between 1640 and 166i.

The validity of this theory depends on certain assump- tions, which have now to be stated and examined. With regard to the first of the two propositions just outlined, we have to ask,

(a) Were the Notes made by Cosin? They were first published in Dr. Nicholl's Common Prayer in 171o. They are there described as " ms Notes written in an interleaved Common Prayer Book, in the Bishop of Durham's library, printed in the year I619, Supposed to be made from the collections of Bishop Overall, by a friend or chaplain of his, a copy of which Mss. is in the hands of the Rev. Dr. Hicks."" This " friend or chaplain " -is

* Parker, pp. ccclxvi, ccclxxviii. 10 Quoted in Dimock's Eucharistic"Preecnce, p. 296.

D




conjectured to have been a " Mr. Hayward of Coton,'" of whom very little is known. Dr. Nicholls did not attribute these Notes to Cosin. Mr. J. T. Tomlinson points out that the First Series of Notes was for the first time attributed to Cosin in 1855 by Dr. Barrow, the editor of Cosin's works in the Anglo-Catholic Library, and then solely on the ground of handwriting. The Rev. N. Dimock" refers to Dean Goode's opinion that these Notes were certainly not Cosin's. Canon Meyrick," in his Letters to the Bishops on the Neo-Eucharistic System, disputes the handwriting of this " First Series." It must be admitted, as Mr. Parker himself says,13 " that there is a good deal of difficulty in the matter." Sup- posing it be conceded, however, that Cosin transcribed the Notes in this Prayer Book, we have to ask further,

(b) Do these Notes represent Cosin's opinions? As far as can be ascertained, it would seem, as Mr. Parker infers, that Cosin copied these Notes from a similar Prayer Book printed in 1617, which was the book used by Dr. Hicks already mentioned. Dr. Nicholls says that " nine parts in ten " are the same in both books. From this it follows that only one-tenth of these Notes could possibly belong to Cosin; and, Hicks's book being no longer extant, it is impossible to say which of the Notes were added by Cosin himself. The general character of these Notes is that of extracts from various writers. As Mr. Parker admits, " few of the Notes seem to be original."" Manifestly it would be unfair to saddle Cosin with the adoption of opinions which he simply copied out at second hand. Most students have at some time or other copied out extracts from different authorities for future reference, without thereby com- mitting themselves to the opinions quoted. It seems as

" Papers on The Eucharistic Presence, p. 297. " His argument can be seen in his Article " Cosin " in the

Protestant Dictionary. 'a p. ccexxiv. note D. 14 p. cccxxv.




if this might be the case with most of the Notes in the " First Series."

Nor do there seem to be many elements of originality in Cosin's "Considerations," which are supposed to have been drawn up in view of an expected revision in 1640. Mr. J. T. Tomlinson, who has subjected this whole question to the closest scrutiny in his Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies (I897),' shows that many of these " Considerations" are to be found also " in the perfectly independent suggestions of Bishop Wren, and of the Puritans at the Savoy Conference," whilst a few may be traced to the Scottish Liturgy of 1637. It would appear, therefore, to be more than possible that the "Considerations " consist chiefly of a record of the opinions of others. Mr. Parker assigns them to the year 1640, but admits' "there is no evidence for fixing an exact date," and hints at the possibility of a much later date.

From what has been said it may be gathered that Cosin's " Notes " and " Considerations" can hardly be expected to give us such an account of Cosin's own views as would be beyond question. But even if this could be established, we should have to ask further,

(c) Do these Notes represent Cosin's mature views? Mr. Parker's theory requires that Cosin's opinions as expressed in these Notes should have undergone no change subsequently. Yet it seems as if Cosin was no exception to the general rule that men's views become modified with the advance of years. In fact, he stands out as a rather extreme instance of this experience, for many of the mistakes found in these Notes are afterwards corrected or repudiated in the public writings of Bishop Cosin. The writer of this " First Series " exhibits an ardent admiration for the Jesuit Maldonatus, who is quoted at great length in several places. He is men-

1 pp. 185, 186 le p. ccclxxii.




tioned" as good authority for the commendable practices of chrism and the blow upon the cheek in Confirmation, and the touching of various parts of the body with the Sacrament before eating it. The argumentum ad vere- cundiam in favour of Maldonatus reaches its highest point in these Notes when the writer declares' that he would prefer to "go wrong with so many and great authors than speak that which is true with the Puritans." Yet these "commendable" practices are expressly repudiated in Cosin's "Third Series" of Notes, where they are described as "new fashions brought in, without any example of the Apostles."'9 It is in the First Series of Notes that we get the startling information that Edward's Second Prayer Book was but following the Roman Liturgy in adding the opening Sentences, Exhortation, General Confession and Absolution, at the commencement of Morning and Evening Prayer. We have no doubt that Cosin learnt better during the next twenty-five or thirty years, before he became Bishop of Durham in I661. This " First Series " also makes the serious mistake of imagining that the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity re-enacted the 1549 Prayer Book, whereas the Act refers entirely to the 1552 Book. Concerning Christ's presence in the Supper, these Notes say: "Yet there remains this controversy . . . whether the Body of Christ be present only in the use of the Sacrament, and in the act of eating, and not otherwise. They that hold the affirmative, as the Lutherans . . . . and all Calvinists, do seem to me to depart from all antiquity, which places the presence of Christ in the virtue of the words of consecration and benediction used by the priest, and not in the use of eating of the Sacrament."" That these were not the mature views of Bishop Cosin is proved by the fact that in his History of Transubstantiation,

1' Cosin's Works, Anglo-Catholic Library, vol. v. Is Ibid., p. 120. a9 Ibid., p. 486. t0Ibid., p. 131.




written in 1656, Cosin upholds the Lutheran teaching on this point. "We deny," he says,' "that the elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according to Divine institution, that is, given by Christ's ministers, and received by His people; so that Christ in the consecrated bread cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about, because He is present only to the Communicants." This History of Transubstan- tiation differs from Cosin's "Notes" in that it was a work intended for publication, whereas they appear to be more in the nature of private jottings or memoranda. But even without appealing to this published work of Cosin, it could be shown that the " Second Series" of Notes, which were made in an interleaved Prayer Book of 1638, corrects the "First Series" on this point of sacramental doctrine. Indeed, Dr. Barrow, the " Anglo- Catholic" editor, says of the Notes made by Cosin in the Second Series during his exile, that they exhibit "a controversial tone which is in marked contrast with that of the former series." This is acknowledged by Mr. Parker." During his exile Cosin attended the French Protestant Church at Charenton, and his experience of the baneful workings of Romanism in Paris must have helped to change his early doctrinal views. Keble in his Eucharistical Adoration" and Neal in his History of the Puritans" admit this change of views in Cosin. There seems good reason, therefore, for Mr. Dimock's conclusion on this point, "If it must be admitted that the Notes truly represent what once were Cosin's views, they are not without their value, as bearing witness to the fact of Cosin's having at an earlier period of his life entertained opinions, which gave way before a maturer judgement, and a more familiar acquaintance with the Romish controversy."

t' Brewer's edition, p. 61. Is p. ccclxviii, 3 p. 139.

24 Vol. ii., p. 336. 25 Eucharistic Presence, p. 297.




These considerations make it difficult to regard Mr. Parker's theory as established. Yet they are not the only difficulties in the way. There is one other point which would have to be proved, in order to vindicate that part of Ntr. Parker's theory which is now under examination. It should be shown,

(d) that Cosin's views, as expressed in his Notes, determined the attitude of the main body of the Revisers. Mention need only be made of the four strata of revising authority, to which attention has been already drawn, in order to see the difficulty of proving that any one individual dominated the Revision and stamped it with the impress of his character. But even if such a position could be set up, there are not wanting evidences which point to the extreme improbability of Cosin having been such a man. Mr. Tomlinson" points out that the rejected amendments proposed by Cosin fill forty-one pages in the Cosin Correspondence published by the Surtees Society. Baxter's"7 description of Cosin at the Savoy Conference, which must be taken cum grano salis, indicates that Cosin's influence was not of a commanding

character--" Bishop Cosin was there constantly, and had

a great deal of talk with so little logic, natural or artificial, that I perceived no one much moved by any- thing he said." Contemporary opinion credited Bishops Sheldon, Morley, and Henchman with the greatest influence at the revision. Sparrow is also mentioned. And there is reason for believing that the opinions of Wren, Bishop of Ely, exercised considerable influence. He was a really learned bishop, and an acknowledged authority on ancient liturgies. Bishops met at his house in conference from time to time. He was a member of the more important Committees of Convocation-which cannot be said of Cosin. Indeed, strange as it may appear, Cosin's name seems to have been unknown to

16 p. 210. 2s Reliquice Baxterian, p. 363.




the Convocation clerk, who repeatedly left a blank for it. Mr. Tomlinson points out instances where Convocation adopted suggestions by Bishop Wren in preference to suggestions on the same particulars by Bishop Cosin. As the Rev. F. E. Brightman observes in his recent work, The English Rite, Cosin's Notes " nowhere betray any profound intelligence of Liturgical precedents," while Wren's Notes form " a much more extended series of criticisms and suggestions for amendment."' Accordingly, if any one name was to be singled out for the credit of a marked influence upon the last Revision, it might be that of Bishop Wren, but it would scarcely be that of Bishop Cosin.

We come now to. the second part of the Parkerian theory, already stated in the following form: There is a remarkable agreement between the actual Revision and a Prayer Book corrected in Cosin's handwriting, believed by Mr. Parker to represent Cosin's private labours at revision between 164o and 1661.

Mr. Parker designates this book " Cosin's Corrected Copy, 1640-1661," and assures us that there are " good grounds "' for supposing that it was commenced even earlier. But careful examination of Mr. Parker's work reveals nothing as to the nature of these " good grounds." As far as can be gathered, Mr. Parker seems to leave it to his readers to infer, along with himself, that since these Notes are in a 1619 Prayer Book, therefore they must have been begun in 1619 or soon afterwards. This can hardly be regarded as cogent reasoning. And any cogency it might have is removed by the consideration that there are reasons sufficient to explain why Cosin may have procured a

I619. copy of the Prayer Book, even as late as 166o. In the first place, he may have chosen a 1619 copy for the purpose of easy page reference to his " First Series " of Notes, which were also made in a 1619 Book. In the second place, he may have been

'8 p. cxci. 2 p. ccclxxxv.




influenced in his choice by the fact that Laud was sus- pected of having tampered with the text of more recently- printed Prayer Books-from which suspicion a Book printed in 1619 would be quite free.

If this " Cosiri's Corrected Copy" really represents Cosin's private labours at revision, it is strange to find that the alterations are not made exclusively by Cosin. Many of the corrections are further amended in another hand, which is undoubtedly that of Sancroft. Mr. Parker explains this by saying that Cosin's private work was submitted to the Committee of revising bishops who met at Ely House, who made the subsequent corrections and alterations. The evidence for this view is not very clear; but, even if it were true, it entirely fails to account for the fact that many of the corrections in Cosin's handwriting are against Cosin's earlier views as expressed elsewhere. Let me give one or two instances. Cosin in his Considerations urges that the Absolution "is no prayer to God "; yet in the " Corrected Copy " he writes "shall answer here and at the end of all other prayers, Amen." The successive emendations of the first rubric in the Communion Office, made in Cosin's handwriting in the " Corrected Copy," are quite different from the view expressed in the Considerations, where Cosin argues for the necessity of an interval of time between Morning Prayer and Holy Communion, in order to allow intending Communicants to signify their name to the curate. Again, the present text of the English Orna- ments Rubric appears in the " Corrected Copy"; whereas Cosin, in his " Second Series" of Notes, comments upon the distinction, which existed in 1549, between " the time of the Communion " and " all other times " of a clergyman's ministrations, and is of opinion that no other order was ever taken.3

30 The reason for the alteration of the Rubric is given by Wren :-" There is somewhat in that Act that now may not be used." This statement contradicts Cosin's idea that tho Ornaments of the First Book were still legal. It was Wren's suggestion, and not Cosin's, which was adopted.




These examples are sufficient to suggest that Mr. Parker's description of this work as " Cosin's Corrected Copy, 1640-1661," is a misleading one. Indeed, a strict interpretation of Mr. Parker's statements would regard the so-called " Corrected Copy " and the different Series of Cosin's "Notes" as of the same authorship. We should in that case be quite at a loss to account for the contradictions. Fortunately, however, Mr. Parker relieves us from this confusion by suggest- ing, quite unintentionally, a much more reasonable explanation. In describing the so-called " Corrected Copy," Mr. Parker observes,31 "Many of the pages have a very confused appearance, not only on account of the obliteration of the text and the marginal additions, but from these marginal additions being in many cases struck through and others added in their stead." This account, coupled with the admitted fact of Sancroft's handwriting, points to the probability that this Book contains the minutes of a revising Committee, to which Cosin acted for some time as secretary, and in which position he was succeeded by Sancroft. This is the view adopted by such authorities as Lord Selborne, Canon Swainson, Rev. W. Milton, and Mr. J. T. Tomlinson. The last-named writer calls this work " The Durham Book," because it is in the Durham Library; and regards it as "containing the First Draft of the Revision of

I66I." It is to be regretted, be it remarked in passing, that the Anglo-Catholic Library did not carry out its original plan of publishing this work along with the other Series. Perhaps the Fellows of Durham University may yet come to recognize their responsibilities, and make this " Durham Book " more accessible to the public.

Certainly, it seems a much more reasonable view, and one that fits in better with all the facts of the case, to regard this " Durham Book" as the minutes of a preliminary stage of Prayer Book revision, carried out by a Committee in 166o or 1661, to which Cosin acted for some time as secretary, and was succeeded by

31 p. xcvi.




Sancroft. This is supported by the circumstance that it is the later emendations which are in Sancroft's handwriting. It is further supported by the existence of Sancroft's " Fair Copy," which represents a later stage of Revision, and which is exclusively in Sancroft's handwriting. Mr. Parker's venture of " 1640" as the date of this " Corrected Copy " or " Durham Book " is simply the invention of his own fancy, to suit the requirements of a particular theory.

The results of our investigation may be said to be that Cosin's accountability for the First Series of Notes is of the very slightest; that these Notes, being for the most part mere extracts from the writings of others, cannot be regarded as representing Cosin's own opinions, though they are usually quoted on this score; that there is an undeniable difference between the opinions expressed in the " Notes " and " Considerations " and the opinions expressed in Cosin's published works; and that, the real character of the so-called "Corrected Copy" being brought to light, the influence of Cosin on the Revision of 1661 has been grossly exaggerated. Cosin's attitude of mind and liturgical opinions may be deduced, in a more correct and unexceptionable manner, from his published writings than from the private memoranda of his early days. If we examine his History of Transubstan- tiation, if we read Dean Durel's Vindiciae, which was written partly in vindication of Cosin, as Bishop of Durham, against the Puritans, we shall find unques- tionable evidence as to Bishop Cosin's interpretation of the Prayer Book. It is possible that this inquiry may be thought by some to be needlessly minute; but to the writer its value lies, not so much in its determination of the precise part played by Bishop Cosin in the work of Prayer Book Revision, but rather in its correction of a theory which has done much to popularize a mistaken interpretation of the character of this Revision of our Book of Common Prayer.

R. MERCER WILSON.



Documents

Cosin and the Revision of 1662