Page:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu/272

Rh and an anti-social character assigned to the former on the ground that it subserves the sinister interests of individuals, the overt and as it were congregational nature of the praying comes to be insisted on as a guarantee that no magic is being employed (cf. Apuleius, Apol. 54, “tacitas preces in templo dis allegasti: igitur magus es”), a notion that suffers easy translation into the view that there are more or less disreputable gods with whom private trafficking may be done on the sly (cf. Horace, Ep. I. xvi. 60, “labra movet metuens audiri, Pulchra Laverna, da mihi fallere”). Thus it is quite in accordance with the outlook of the classical period that Plato in his Laws (909-910) should prohibit all possession of private shrines or performance of private rites; “let a man go to a temple to pray, and let any one who pleases join with him in the prayer.” Nevertheless, instances are not wanting amongst the Greeks of private prayers of the loftiest and most disinterested tone (cf. L. R. Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, p. 202 seq.). Finally we may note in this connexion that in advanced religion, at the point at which prayer is coming to be conceived as communion, silent adoration is sometimes thought to bring man nearest to God.

The Moralization of Prayer.—When we come to consider the moral quality of the act of prayer, this contrast between the spirit of public and private religion is fundamental for all but the most advanced forms of cult. In its public rites the community becomes conscious of common ends and a common edification. We may observe how even a very primitive people such as the Arunta of Australia behaves with the greatest solemnity at its ceremonies, and professes to be made “glad” and “strong” thereby; whilst of his countrymen, whom he would not trust to pray in private, Plato testifies that in the temples during the sacrificial prayers “they show an intense earnestness and with eager interest talk to the Gods and beseech them” (Laws, 887). We may therefore assume that, in acts of public worship at any rate, prayer and its magico-religious conveners are at all stages resorted to as a “means of grace,” even though such grace do not constitute the expressed object of petition. Poverty of expression is apt to cloak the real spirit of primitive prayer, and the formula under which its aspirations may be summed up, namely, “Blessings come, evils go,” covers all sorts of confused notions about a grace to be acquired and an impurity to be wiped away, which, as far back as our clues take us, invite interpretations of a decidedly spiritualistic and ethical order. To explicate, however, and purge the meaning of that “strong heart” and “clean” which the savage after his fashion can wish and ask for, remained the task of the higher and more self-conscious types of religion. A favourite contrast for which there is more to be said is that drawn between the magico-religious spell-ritual, that says in effect, “My will be done,” and the spirit of “Thy will be done” that breathes through the highest forms of worship. Such resignation in the face of the divine will and providence is, however, not altogether beyond the horizon of primitive faith, as witness the following prayer of the Khonds of Orissa: “We are ignorant of what it is good to ask for. You know what is good for us. Give it to us.” (Tylor, Prim. Culture, 4. 369.) At this point prayer by a supreme paradox virtually extinguishes itself, since in becoming an end in itself, a means of contemplative devotion and of mystic communing with God, it ceases to have logical need for the petitionary form. Thus on the face of it there is something like a return to the self-sufficient utterance of antique religion; but, in reality, there is all the difference in the world between a suggestion directed outwardly in the fruitless attempt to conjure nature without first obeying her, and one directed towards the inner man so as to establish the peace of God within the heart.

—The following works deal generally with the subject of prayer from the comparative standpoint: E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, ch. 18 (1903); C. Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion (Gifford lectures, lect. 6) (1897); F. Max Müller, “On Ancient Prayers,” in Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr Alexander Kokut (1897); L. R. Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, lect. 4 (1905). For special points the following may be consulted: Prayer in relation to magic: R. R. Marett, “From Spell to Prayer,” in Folk-Lore

(June, 1904); W. W. Skeat, Malay Magic (1900). Degeneration of prayer: W. H. R. Rivers, The Todas, ch. 10 (1906). Use of the name of power: F. Giesebrecht, Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens (1901); W. Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu (1903). Silent prayer: S. Sudhaus, “Lautes und leises Beten” in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 185 seq. (1906). Beginnings of Prayer in Australia: A. W. Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia, 394, cf. 546 (1904); K. Langloh Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, 79 seq. (1905); the evidence discussed in Man, 2, 42, 72 (1907). Prayer and spell in North American religion: W. Matthews, “The Prayer of a Navajo Shaman,” in American Anthropologist, i.; idem, “The Mountain Chant; a Navajo Ceremony,” in Fifth Report of Bureau of American Ethnology; J. Mooney, “The Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees,” (7th Rept. 1891). Greek prayer: C. Ausfeld, De graecorum precationibus quaestiones (1903). Christian prayer: E. von der Goltz, Das Gebet in der altesten Christenheit (1901); id., Tischgebete und Abendmahlsgebete (1905); O. Dibelius, Das Vaterunser: Umrisse zu einer Geschichte des Gebets in der alten und mittleren Kirche (1903); T. K. Cheyne, article “Prayer,” in ''Ency. Bib.'' (1902).
 * (R. R. M.)

 PRAYER, BOOK OF COMMON, the title of the official service book of the Church of England. One of the most important steps taken at the Reformation was the compilation and provision of a comprehensive service book for general and compulsory use in public worship in all cathedral and parish churches throughout the Church of England.

Apart from alterations in detail, both as to doctrine and ritual, which will be referred to later, the following main advantages were achieved from the very first and apply to all editions of the Prayer Book equally.

1. The substitution of the English language for the Latin language, which had hitherto been in universal and almost complete use, and in which all the old service books were written.

2. Unification and simplification. The number of books required for the performance of divine service in pre-Reformation days was very large; the most important being the Missal for the service of Holy Communion or the Mass; the Breviary for the daily service or performance of the divine office; the Manual for the minor sacramental offices usually performed by the parish priest; and the Pontifical, containing such services as were exclusively reserved for performance by the bishop. Many of the contents of these larger volumes were published in separate volumes known by a great variety—over one hundred—different names. The Prayer Book represents in a much condensed and abbreviated form the four chief ancient service books, viz.: the Missal, Breviary, Manual and Pontifical.

In addition to a multiplicity of books there was much variety of use. Although the Sarum Use prevailed far the most widely, yet there were separate Uses of York and Hereford, and also to a less degree of Lincoln, Bangor, Exeter, Wells, St Paul's, and probably of other dioceses and cathedral churches as well. Cranmer's preface “Concerning the Service of the Church” expressly mentions the abolition of this variety as one of the things to be achieved by a Book of Common Prayer. It says: “And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; some following Salisbury Use, some Hereford Use, and some the Use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln; now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one Use.”

We will next enumerate the sources from which the Prayer Book was compiled. 1. It has been already indicated that the older pre-Reformation service books formed the main quarry, especially those according to the Use of Sarum. Morning and Evening Prayer, including the psalter and the lessons, were taken from the Breviary, Matins being compiled out of Nocturns (or Matins), Lauds and Prime; and Evensong out of Vespers and Compline. The Order of Holy Communion, including the collects, epistles and gospels, was taken from the Missal. The sacramental and other offices which occupy a position in the Prayer Book between the Order of Holy Communion and the Psalms were taken from the Manual; and the services for consecration or ordering of bishops, priests and deacons were taken from the Pontifical; but in all cases not only with a change of Latin into English, but with numerous alterations, omissions and additions.

2. The reformed Latin Breviary of Cardinal Quignon, Francis de Quiñones, a Spaniard, a Franciscan and cardinal of the Holy Cross, brought out a reformed Latin breviary with papal sanction in 1535. A second and revised edition appeared in 1537. It met with considerable favour, and was adopted into use in many places, without, however, winning universal acceptance, and in 1558 papal