Edward's First Book, to follow the more ancient Liturgies.
Several Clergymen of the Anglican Church would have preferred the restoration of the usages, as they were termed; but they did not consider them essential, as was the case with Collier and Brett. Thus Johnson, in his valuable work "The Unbloody Sacrifice," decidedly expresses his preference for these practices; but as he did not consider them essential, he was ready to comply with the authorized office.
It is very remarkable also, that Whiston, who on many important points entertained dangerous opinions, should in this matter have altogether agreed with Collier and Brett. He is quite as much in favour of the usages as themselves: and defends them as strongly. Accordingly, in his Revised Liturgy, they are all introduced. All the peculiarities of the New Communion Service were retained by Whiston, who argued, as the Nonjurors did, that they were primitive practices, and that the Church could not dispense with them.[1]
Deacon, who will be more specifically mentioned in a subsequent chapter, also appeared in this controversy.[2] His chief object was to prove, that there was no necessary connexion between the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead. The work may be regarded as another evidence, that
- ↑ The Liturgy of the Church of England reduced nearer to the Primitive Standard. Humbly proposed to Public Consideration. 8vo. London, 1750.
- ↑ The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Purgatory, proved to be contrary to Catholic Tradition, and inconsistent with the necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as practised in the Ancient Church. By Thomas Deacon, Priest. London, 12mo. 1718.
