What English Service book and chapter is this referring to?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Gillespie in his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland notes the following:
The office of the popish priest stands in two things, to consecrate and offer up the body of Christ, and to absolve the faithful from their sins. ... And the same two make up the proper office of the priest by the order of the English Service-Book.
My guess would have been Laud's Service book, but I couldn't find a chapter on the office and in later editions I can really find enough to conclude these two points. There is a 1712 reprint to Laud's book online but I'm not sure the 1637 is.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Knowing a notable alteration in Laud's 1637 was the substitution of "presbyter" for "priest" makes me think the actual English/Anglican BCP is probably in view. Browsing the 1559 BCP orders for consecrating priests only brings up a few generalized references to administering the sacraments as among the various duties and requirements for the office. As such, even though he says "formal"*, might Gillespie have meant that the BCP liturgy for Holy Communion in effect makes such the case?
"proper"*
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Knowing a notable alteration in Laud's 1637 was the substitution of "presbyter" for "priest" makes me think the actual English/Anglican BCP is probably in view. Browsing the 1559 BCP orders for consecrating priests only brings up a few generalized references to administering the sacraments as among the various duties and requirements for the office. As such, even though he says "formal", might Gillespie have meant that the BCP liturgy for Holy Communion in effect makes such the case?
I don't know. I will need to think on it. It would seem that is the way to go.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
I just think you'll be hard pressed to find any historical Anglican document that puts those ideas in such absolute terms.
 
Last edited:

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
I just think you'll be hard pressed to find any historical Anglican document that puts those ideas in such absolute terms.
My thoughts as well. Gillespie has perhaps exaggerated the prayer books language. Though in his defense, the church of England has never lacked men who hold to precisely that at which he is taking aim.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
My thoughts as well. Gillespie has perhaps exaggerated the prayer books language. Though in his defense, the church of England has never lacked men who hold to precisely that at which he is taking aim.
Maybe Gillespie's view was colored or informed by the Laudian types such as those Rutherford debated in Aberdeen when he was banished there in the mid 1630s? My goal is to try and make sense of any reference and so I've got to make some sense of this for the reader.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I think Gillespie has Laud's book in view. I haven't found one place that makes the statement in the OP or one place in criticism that puts those two together, though there may be both, but the charge of both is made I think. See the fourth idolatry here, and they mention absolution and articular confession it may, and it may be a deduction. There was plenty of analysis and the Covenanters saw auricular confession and absolution implied. here. here. And I over looked Gillespie's anonymous tract against Laud's service book. He mentions at length the consecration of the elements but doesn't mention absolution. But he does as in the quote speak of the priest rather than presbytery, which the Scots would have seen as an insulting attempt to make the imposition go down better.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
This is the note I came up with. There is apparently a context and body of work for Gillespie's assessment of the service book.
Gillespie and the Scots Presbyterians saw this parallel of the office of English and popish priest, as well as many other errors, in the 1637 revision of the Book of Common Prayer (“Laud’s” Service Book), the imposition of which sparked the Second Reformation in Scotland. See Gillespie’s anonymous tract, Reasons for which the Service Book Urged upon Scotland ought to be Refused (1638) in Anonymous Writings. In December 1638, the General Assembly discussed the reasons to condemn the service book and several ministers submitted papers, including Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie. As a comprehensive summary of all the things condemned, James Gordon records William Spang’s “Animadversiones in librum liturgiae ab Episcopis abtrusum ecclesiae Scoticae.” See “Animadversions on the Service Booke,” in James Gordon, History of Scots Affairs, from 1637 to 1641, in three volumes (Aberdeen: Printed for the Spalding Club, [1841]), 2.59–79. William Spang (Robert Baillie’s cousin and frequent correspondent in Letters and Journals), details forty-six things superstitious or ridiculous, twenty-seven seeds of error, ten seeds of idolatry and seventeen more things worse than the original English service book. The thirteenth seed of error reads, “Auricular confession is urged upon the people, pag. 204, and absolution is expressly offered to them” (p. 70; see also the twenty-fifth, 72). On consecrating and offering up the body of Christ, see the Fourth seed of idolatry (pp. 73–74) and Gillespie’s Reasons, point 2. See Spang’s original Latin text in Irenaeus Philalethes [Lewis Du Moulin], Rerum nuper in regno Scotiae gestarum historia seu verius commentarius (Dantisci, 1641), 204–222.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top