Английская Википедия:Free and Candid Disquisitions

Содержание

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Free and Candid DisquisitionsШаблон:Refn is a 1749 pamphlet written and compiled by John Jones, a Welsh Church of England clergyman, and published anonymously. The text advocated for reforming the Church of England to enable the reintegration of independent English Protestants, particularly through changes to the liturgies of the mandated 1662 prayer book.

Free and Candid Disquisitions followed a failed attempt to revise the Book of Common Prayer in 1689 and other unsuccessful efforts towards comprehending Dissenters.Шаблон:Refn Jones's proposals included combining and abbreviating the Sunday liturgies, removing latent Catholic influences from several rites, and providing improved hymns and psalms. He also challenged the requirement that clergy subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. The text included an appendix of statements from historic figures and Jones's contemporaries to support his positions.

The pamphlet's contents were the subject of significant discussion, drawing several responding texts by contemporaries. Despite a positive reception by Thomas Herring, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Jones's proposals were generally not accepted by the Church of England. However, his suggested alterations to the prayer book and advocacy of privately published liturgies were influential upon several Dissenter liturgical texts–including Theophilus Lindsey's liturgy and successive Unitarian prayer books–and the first American Episcopal Church's prayer book revisions. Until the beginning of the Tractarian movement in the next century, Free and Candid Disquisitions remained a major influence on proposed liturgical changes in the Church of England.

Background

Painting of Samuel Clarke seated with an open book

Samuel Clarke (pictured) publicly proposed revising the Book of Common Prayer in 1712 and created his own revision in 1724; John Jones was described by historian Ronald Jasper as Clarke's "foremost disciple".

Following the collapse of the Protectorate with the Stuart Restoration, King Charles II of England elevated the Episcopalian party that had been marginalized during the Interregnum. While Charles had promised religious toleration to Royalist Presbyterian Anglicans and Episcopalian Anglicans with the Declaration of Breda in 1660, his convening of the Savoy Conference in 1661 to work on the Church of England's liturgy disadvantaged the Presbyterian party. Episcopalians supported restoring the Book of Common Prayer, forcing the Presbyterians to make a case against such a proposal. The Savoy Conference ended without compromise: Parliament rejected proposals from both Presbyterians and the surviving Durham House Group Caroline Divines over sentiments that they were each responsible for the violence of the preceding 20 years.

Instead, Convocation produced the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The new prayer book's use was legally required with the Act of Uniformity 1662, and episcopal holy orders were mandated for all clergy. Some 2,000 Nonconformist clergymen who refused to submit were ejected from their benefices on St Bartholomew's Day, 1662. Anglican liturgical historian Ronald Jasper forwarded that the 1662 prayer book "marked a firm rejection of the Presbyterian schemes for comprehension"Шаблон:Refn of Dissenters in the Church of England.

In 1688, ire over James II's personal and political favor of Catholicism spurred English Protestants towards forming a united opposition against the king and revived Anglican interest in comprehension. William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had advised the bishops in his jurisdiction in July 1688 to enjoin their flock to be wary of Popery and to show affinity towards Dissenters. With the help of some other Anglican divines, Sancroft began crafting a plan that would revise the Church of England's liturgy towards comprehension.

The 1688 Glorious Revolution expelled James II and installed William III, a Dutch Calvinist, and Mary II as joint monarchs. While Sancroft was deprived of his benefice as part of the Nonjuring schism, William III supported comprehension and the new king established a commission in September 1689 to draft a comprehending liturgy. The 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension was rejected by Convocation due to disinterest, preferring to discuss the fate of the nonjurors. As Dissenters enjoyed better legal standing, interest in comprehension waned. With the passage of the Toleration Act in May 1689, Dissenters were free to worship outside of the Church of England and its prescribed prayer book. The manuscript for the Liturgy of Comprehension was kept from public view by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Tenison, who feared that the text would result in angst from those who felt its concessions were too great and could be used to "justify their nonconformity" by those who found its "concessions were too little".

In 1712, Samuel Clarke, the Church of England rector of St James's Church, Piccadilly, published The Scriptural Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he challenged Trinitarian orthodoxy and suggesting alterations to the prayer book, such as excising the Athanasian Creed. Clark privately revised a copy of the prayer book in 1724 with his own manuscript changes to reflect these desires, removing or changing references to the Trinity and replacing the Nicene Creed with a psalm. John Jones, a semi-Arian Welsh Church of England priest who was the Vicar of Alconbury from 1741 until 1750, was referred to by Jasper as Clark's "foremost disciple". The essays that would comprise Free and Candid Disquisitions were presented to "a very eminent and worthy Prelate" in 1746, with the intention of their presentation to Convocation. Jones launched a campaign in 1748 to have the Liturgy of Comprehension made publicly available. This effort failed, and it was not until the House of Commons ordered its publication in 1854 that the manuscript's contents were made public. Those interested in utilizing the Liturgy of Comprehension for their own prayer book revision proposals in the 18th century would rely upon distorted records of the 1689 commission's findings published by William Nicholls and Edmund Calamy. However, public discussion regarding the possibility of prayer book revision persisted.

Contents

Paining of Isaac Watts

Free and Candid Disquisitions praised the hymns and psalms of Isaac Watts (pictured).

Free and Candid DisquisitionsШаблон:Refn was published anonymously as a 367-page pamphlet in an octavo printing by A. Millar of London in June 1749. At least two further editions of the pamphlet were published that year. The volume consists both of passages that Jones compiled from divines—many of whom were his contemporaries—and essays containing Jones's own suggestions. It is presented as a series of "queries and observations" on a number of issues, primarily liturgical, and is addressed to the Church of England, the state, and—most directly—Convocation. An appendix is included containing documentary evidence dating from between 1604 to 1748, starting with Francis Bacon and including Calamy's coverage of the 1689 effort.

The text's first section is concerned with a new Bible translation. The next sections described prayer book revisions: sections II–IV proposed alterations to the Sunday liturgies, section V addressed issues with the scriptural readings and psalters, section VI suggested the removal of the Athanasian Creed and revision of the catechism, section VII critiqued several rites, and section VIII proposed some additional rites for specific circumstances, including an office for visitation of prisoners. Section IX sought correct printings of the Bible and prayer book and criticized limitations on when marriages were allowed to be held. Section X challenged requirements that clergy subscribe to the doctrinal statements of the Thirty-nine Articles.

Among the changes to the prayer book and its liturgies that Jones sought in order to effect comprehension was the removal of the Athanasian Creed (due to its incomprehensibility rather than any error), excessive repetition of the Lord's Prayer and Gloria Patri, and anything not permitted by the Bible. The lectionary and liturgical calendar were scrutinized, with Jones suggesting that proper psalms be assigned to each Sunday. Jones's Puritan-like views were made evident in urging for the sign of the cross in the baptismal office be made optional and private baptism abolished. The matters of the sign of the cross and ending the practice of sponsors at baptism were raised due to Jones's identification of these actions as vestiges of Catholicism that should be expunged. A similar grievance was raised about prohibitions on marriages occurring during particular seasons of the year. The only explicit doctrinal change suggested in Free and Candid Disquisitions is the alteration or outright cessation of infant baptism.

Jones also contended that there was a pressing need for additional topical prayers and other new content, expressing a desire for prayers for families and use in prisons. He declared that introducing the proposed changes to collects from 1689 would bring them to "the utmost perfection". Jones also pressed for combining and abbreviating the Sunday morning liturgies (also called the Divine Service). Finding that the recitation of Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Ante-Communion offices was repetitive, Jones suggested they should be combined into a single, shorter office. The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer was suggested as a possible guide for revising the Communion office. Should the Church of England fail to adopt these comprehending liturgical reforms, Jones argued, Dissenters should begin privately creating their own revisions.

Concern was also raised regarding the state of many parishes being such that no hymns were recited, saying, "neither psalm nor hymn can be had even on Sundays, much less on holy‐days and other days of prayer. So thin are the congregations, and so unskilled in singing." Jones praised Isaac Watts's psalms and hymns—commenting on "the Christian instruction, and goodly solace and comfort" they provided—and called for further hymns to be written. Desiring a better metrical psalter, the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter was targeted for removal.

The book also argues for other substantial reform in the Church of England, including reducing the number of tenets to which clergy would be required to subscribe. The pamphlet follows Clarke's example in its proposals challenging Trinitarian orthodoxy. Jones's work also challenged the requirement of subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles for those who may not fully understand what teachings the articles affirm. He appraised the Reformation as an unfinished work and sought its completion, suggesting alterations to the Canons of 1604. The relevancy of The Books of Homilies is also the subject of questioning while a new Bible translation is suggested.

Reception and influence

Painting of Francis Blackburne

Francis Blackburne (pictured) published writings defending Jones's work in 1750 and 1766. Blackburne's son-in-law Theophilus Lindsey credited Free and Candid Disquisitions in his influential 1774 Unitarian prayer book.

Upon publication, Free and Candid Disquisitions and its proposals reinvigorated public debate regarding reform in the Church of England and has been credited as reopening the Bangorian Controversy in favor of comprehension. Replies came quickly, including clergyman John Boswell's large, two-part work,Шаблон:Refn which was published in 1750 and 1751 and argued against the need for the proposed reforms. Boswell's Remarks defended the 1662 prayer book as containing the best of early Christian liturgies and supported continuing both clerical subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles and the restrictions of the Test Acts. Boswell further argued against Free and Candid DisquisitionsШаблон:Apostrophes Puritan sentiments he deemed responsible for "the dreadful Scene of Misery, which we suffer'd in the last Century". Another critique was published in 1751 by John White, who was a vicar in Nayland and a fellow of St John's College, Cambridge.Шаблон:Refn

Clergyman Francis Blackburne published his own pamphlet, An Apology for the Author of the Free and Candid Disquisitions, in 1750 in defence of Free and Candid Disquisitions. This led some to believe that Blackburne had been the author of the original 1749 text. Blackburne had not contributed to Free and Candid Disquisitions, but he had read it in manuscript and returned it without corrections. After reading the manuscript, Blackburne lambasted Jones for the latter's trepidation over possibly offending those in power. Jones published Catholic Faith in Practice in 1765 and established the Catholic Christianity Society to effect "a new Reformation in England". Jones died in 1770. Free and Candid Disquisitions, along with Blackburne's 1766 The Confessional,Шаблон:Refn proved influential upon the 1771–1774 Feathers Tavern Petition against the requirement of clerical subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles.

In 1753, A New Form of Common-Prayer was published anonymously and gave credit to Free and Candid Disquisitions on its first page. A New Form of Common-Prayer offered liturgical revisions that answered Jones's queries, submitting these proposals and the duty of finally perfecting the Reformation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, it is generally considered that Thomas Herring—himself the Archbishop of Canterbury—wrote A New Form of Common-Prayer.Шаблон:Refn Herring had perhaps been motivated by similar desires as Jones's when accepting nomination to the archiepiscopate. However, Herring would express uncertainty regarding pursuing reform for fear of encountering clerical and lay resistance that showed "determination and even peremptoriness". Ultimately, Convocation did not address Jones's proposals.Шаблон:Refn Only one proposed alteration to the prayer book was actually accepted: in 1759, a topical prayer "for the ceasing of the distemper which lately raged among the horned cattle in this kingdom"—something Jones had specifically requested—was added.

However, Free and Candid DisquisitionsШаблон:Apostrophes appeal for unofficial revisions succeeded. Between 1751 and 1768, a half dozen individuals created their own prayer revision formulas—including A New Form of Common-Prayer—with each demonstrating varying degrees of influence from the 1689 proposal and Jones's work.Шаблон:Refn Of these six liturgies, only one was theologically orthodox and five made reference to Free and Candid Disquisitions. Theophilus Lindsey, a son-in-law of Francis Blackburne and Feathers Tavern petitioner, acquired a copy of Clarke's manuscript changes to the prayer book from John Disney, another son-in-law of Blackburne. From this, Lindsey published a revised prayer bookШаблон:Refn which he used at his Essex Street Chapel. Crediting both Clarke and Free and Candid Disquisitions, Lindsey's liturgy proved the dominant influence on Unitarian prayer books.Шаблон:Refn Charles Wesley's 1784 The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America was very similar to Lindsey's liturgy, Jones's suggestions, and the Savoy Conference's Puritan proposals.Шаблон:Refn

Following the American Revolution, the Episcopal Church of the United States set about revising its own edition of the prayer book. The proposed revision submitted in 1786 featured a preface of queries described by liturgist Marion J. Hatchett as an outline of Free and Candid Disquisitions. William Smith's work on the 1786 proposed prayer book led some of his fellow clergymen to believe he had made the revision with a copy of Free and Candid Disquisitions beside him. Demonstrating the desire for substantial change beyond simple alterations, the 1786 text was seldom used before the Episcopal Church adopted another revision submitted in 1789. Hatchett held that Jones's work was also among the influences of the 1789 American Book of Common Prayer. Hatchett also noted that other commentators failed to note the influence of Free and Candid Disquisitions and other latitudinarian 18th-century texts on the 1789 prayer book. A shortened version of the 1786 preface was retained in the succeeding prayer books of the Episcopal Church through to its current edition, retaining the influence from Free and Candid Disquisitions.

Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, would publish an anonymous pamphletШаблон:Refn in 1790 containing liturgical proposals also based on Clarke and Free and Candid Disquisitions. William Winstanley Hull published a workШаблон:Refn in 1828 that looked favorably upon the 1789 American prayer book and put forward that a royal commission or House of Commons select committee be established to reform the prayer book. Among the changes Hull submitted was a synthesis of the three Sunday morning liturgies based on Jones's proposals. Hull's proposed liturgical revisions were similar to others in the early 19th century, demonstrating a Low Church bias and relying upon the prior works of the 1689 effort, Clarke, and Jones. Such proposals remained the norm until Tractarians later in the century renewed interest in pre-Reformation ritual and forwarded revisions to restore these practices.

References

Sources

• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite ODNB
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite journal
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite ODNB
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite ODNB
• Шаблон:Cite ODNB
• Шаблон:Cite journal
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite journal
• Шаблон:Cite book

External links

• Free and Candid Disquisitions Relating to the Church of England, and the Means of Advancing Religion therein; addressed to the governing powers in Church and State, and more immediately directed to the two Houses of Convocation. A scanned copy of the text, via Internet Archive.
• Remarks upon a treatise, intituled Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England, part the First. The 1750 first volume of Boswell's reply to Jones. A scanned copy of the text, via Google Books.
• Remarks upon a treatise, intituled Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England, part the Second. The 1751 second volume of Boswell's reply to Jones. A scanned copy of the text, via Google Books.