Book of Common Prayer (1928, England)

Early Oxford Movement Tractarians of the Church of England had interpreted the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a catholic liturgy with rubrics that should be closely followed. This view was challenged by "second-generation" Tractarians and members of the Cambridge Movement, who found the 1662 prayer book too liturgically Protestant. Instead, this latter faction advocated the adoption of ceremonial and some liturgical practices from the Catholic Church, such as celebrating Communion facing eastward, placing candles and a cross on the altar, and vestments. These "usages" were justified by ritualists pointing to the prayer book's Ornaments Rubric, contending that it mandated such practices. Among some clergy, adoption of medieval Sarum and modern Catholic Latin liturgies was contemporaneous with the proliferation of Anglo-Catholic devotional literature in the 1870s and 1880s. The Tractarian John Henry Newman's conversion to the Catholic Church elicited praise but also raised concerns regarding his peers' degree of conformity to the Church of England. Liturgical scholars would soon lean on this research in their criticisms of the 1662 prayer book, preferring a "primitive" liturgy. Prayer book historian Brian Cummings credited their research with doing more to "unearth the original manuscripts of the liturgical traditions", though critiqued their ardent defense of the Victorian era "Anglo-Catholic myth" that the 1549 prayer book was very close to the medieval Sarum Use. The 19th century saw several Anglican liturgical revision efforts outside England: the United States Episcopal Church made a series of minor changes between 1808 and 1868 before approving a comprehensive but conservative prayer book revision in 1892, Church of Ireland evangelicals guided the creation of an 1877 prayer book, and Canadian Anglicans were considering their own revisions from an Anglo-Catholic direction. In England, Anglo-Catholics scholarship and the 1662 prayer book's increasingly dated language both challenged prior idealization of the 1662 liturgies. The linguistic issues within the prayer book, many of which were derived from Thomas Cranmer's translation of Latin, left pastors many "trip-wires" with theological and ministerial implications that could not be easily explained. With no way to stop the mechanisms behind this and other complications, Church of England clergy increasingly supported revision. Shortly after assuming the archiepiscopate at Canterbury in 1903, Randall Davidson told parliament that he would rein in the ritualists. In March the next year, Davidson and Prime Minister Arthur Balfour authorized a review of the state of church discipline to address the debate between Anglo-Catholics and their opponents. The Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline—chaired by Michael Hicks Beach—interviewed 164 witnesses to produce a four-volume report in 1906. This report asserted "the law of public worship is too narrow for the religious life of the present generation", particularly with regard to the desire for ceremony and historic continuity as violations of policies including the Ornaments Rubric were widespread. The commission also reported the means of enforcing teaching and practice in the church were ineffective. The report included ten recommendations primarily compiled by Davidson. Among the recommendations was to begin revising the vestiture rubrics, formally initiating the process for a new prayer book authorized by an Act of Uniformity. ==Revision process==

, were charged with the pastoral duties of wartime. Many felt the 1662 prayer book was inadequate for these purposes. The initial period of revision, between 1906 and 1914, primarily focused on the 1662 prayer book's Ornaments Rubric and its role in justifying Anglo-Catholic ceremonial practice. John Wordsworth chaired a group of five bishops who issued a report on the rubric in 1908 with the assistance of leading moderate Anglo-Catholic liturgist Walter Frere. It was understood that these scholars were to "safeguard" the "both catholic and reformed" Anglican identity in a manner akin to the earlier Non-jurors. During the war, Convocation continued reviewing potential changes. Among these was a proposal emulate the 1549 English and 1637 Scottish prayer books' Holy Communion offices and move the Prayer of Oblation to after the Consecration. Viscount Halifax went further, requesting that the 1549 Communion service be approved. The war proved a proximate cause in the more significant revision which followed. Reservation of the sacrament became more popular during the war, as the convenience convinced chaplains who may have avoided this "Romish" practice in peacetime. From 1911, a convocational drafted rubric that had been intended to prevent "extra-liturgical devotions" by authorizing reservation exclusively for communing the sick served as the standard for diocesan permissions. Though generally popular, the increased permissions for reservation during the war were met with strong evangelical disapproval and suspicion. Linguistically, the 16th-century diction were not comforting to the many illiterate and barely literate soldiers most in ministerial need. The 1662 prayer book's monotony similarly came under scrutiny during the war, with its repetitiveness felt "mindless" by those attending its liturgies. Alec Vidler described the "conventional worship of the Church of England" as "too dull and cold and reserved" for those living on the social margins. It was among the slums that Tractarians and ritualists had entrenched their ministries, with great success. These factors meant that the moderate rubrical adjustments advocated in the 1906 report were felt insufficient by the war's end. Postwar While chaplains returning from the war and those ministering to the working class had identified the needs for "a simplified, linguistically modernized, and theologically less intimidating" liturgy in their mounting support for a significantly revised prayer book, these pastoral concerns were generally dismissed once the more substantial work began. Instead, scholastic and party lines became the dominant forces in this renewed process. The role of revision fell not to chaplains, but rather academics more focused on relitigating the evangelical-versus-traditionalist debate that had run since Cranmer's era. Further, the perceived "timeless sanctity" of both the 1662 prayer book and the King James Version of the Bible saw many defend the dated language of both texts as essential for worship. General modernization of the liturgical language would not be accomplished until the 1960s. By 1918, according to Dix, the concern with statutory matters had given way to revision from the "point of view of liturgy not law." The lower house of Canterbury voted that year in support of altering the Communion service and in 1920 a special conference favoured adopting an "Eastern" modification to the service. The revision process became complicated by Parliament passing the Enabling Act in December 1919, establishing the National Assembly of the Church of England with an upper house of clergy and a lower house of laity was established. The National Assembly first met in 1920, setting up a committee on prayer book revision in the autumn. That committee's report was published in June 1922 as NA 60. The House of Bishops passed the Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure that accepted these recommendations—including reservation of the sacrament—without modification in October that year, publishing the liturgy with suggested changes as NA 84. The proposed lectionary changes were detached and submitted to parliament, which passed it in 1922 and accepted its use alongside the 1871 revised lectionary. NA 84's publication saw three major external efforts to influence the final proposed prayer book. The resulting three proposals were known by the colour of their covers: the English Church Union's "Green Book", the Life and Liberty Movement's "Grey Book", and the Alcuin Club's "Orange Book". The Green Book, published in October 1922, took a scholarly and Anglo-Catholic view particularly visible in its support for commemorations of Saint Joseph and the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Life and Liberty Movement, which had pushed for the National Assembly's creation, took a Liberal Anglo-Catholic stance in their 1923 Grey Book. The Grey Book, prefaced by Bishop of Manchester William Temple and "largely the work of Revd Percy Dearmer, F.R. Barry, and R.G. Parsons", reflected what prayer book historian Geoffrey Cuming called "a remarkable combination of sound liturgical craftsmanship, modernist theology, and high-flown liberal sentiment." The Orange Book (sometimes also known as the "Yellow Book") mostly produced by Frere and published by the Alcuin Club in 1923 and 1924, took a more moderate Anglo-Catholic stance, attempting to "harmonize" the two other external proposals with NA 84. Each proposal included permission for the reserved sacrament. Evangelical opposition to the revision process persisted through this period. Instead of organizing their own proposed revisions, many preferred to simply retain the 1662 prayer book, reckoning that suggesting improvements would weaken their stance. Especially controversial were the repositioned Prayer of Oblation, insertion of an Epiclesis, and permission to reserve the sacrament. Bishops Ernest Barnes, Lord William Cecil, Ernest Pearce, and Bertram Pollock opposed each proposal. The National Assembly's House of Clergy and House of Laity completed their revisions in March and July 1925 respectively. The House of Clergy dropped the earlier proposed Communion canon and offered two of their own. The House of Clergy also widened the permitted forms of reservation and sought to remove the role of regulating the practice from individual bishops. The House of Laity decided on the 1662 Communion service with one alternative form, with reservation exclusively permitted for communing the sick. In October 1925, the bishops began what would eventually be 47 full days of revision. Archbishop Davidson received 800 memorials regarding the revision, including one from nine diocesan bishops that opposed any revision to the Communion service's celebration after the Nicene Creed and rejected the creation of an alternative form. A proposal to separate Communion office revisions from the other changes was defeated. The bishops' revision, which featured some original additions as well as borrowings from the unofficial proposals, was sent to convocation in February 1927. Here, some changes were again made and the rubrics on reservation were separated by the upper house. In July 1927, this version was approved by the National Assembly by a vote of 517 to 133. Soon, the matter garnered popular attention with the most partisan Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals opposing the proposed text for polar reasons: the former on the basis that it was too Protestant and the latter on the ground it contained new and old forms of "popery". ==Prayer Book Crisis==

In 1927, the change in liturgy became a question of national identity. Anglicans understood the Church of England as "inextricably bound up" with "English character", To gain final approval, the proposed text was next deposited before Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee—a procedure which lent the revision one of its popular names, the Deposited Book—and considered by this group through the late summer and autumn of 1927. The committee's 24 November report found "no change of constitutional importance is involved" and declared the revision as keeping with the coronation oath's promise "to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law". Davidson opened debate on the Prayer Book Measure in the House of Lords on 12 December, hoping it would pass there before going before the king for his royal approval. The three-day debate in the House of Lords saw emphasis on the theological implications of the revision, with several evangelical speeches against the measure. Viscount Halifax also opposed the measure, but from an Anglo-Catholic perspective. His speech on the measure, which questioned whether the Deposited Book could effectively regulate reservation, may have been an attempt to elicit further evangelical opposition to the measure. The House of Lords voted for the measure, 241 approving and 88 against. The controversy also became a topic of discussion among the Scottish denominations. In both the Church of Scotland and United Free Church of Scotland, members variously approved of and opposed the revised prayer book. Reservation, vehemently rejected by English evangelicals, was an accepted and regulated practice within the Church of Scotland despite the church's doctrinal distance from Catholicism. The Episcopal Church of Scotland's Primus, Walter Robberds, refused Davidson's request for a letter calling upon Scottish parliamentarians to vote for the revision on the grounds such a statement could cause trouble. The English prayer book controversy may have also excited anti-Catholic sentiments in Scotland, with the Orange Order of Scotland publicly against the revision and many letters on the matter sent to Scottish members of parliament. ==Aftermath and influence==

The process and fallout from the failed prayer book measures saw new calls for disestablishment both within and outside of Church of England. Following the parliamentary rejection, use of liturgies unauthorized by parliament became widespread. By 1959, many English clergymen used considerable elements of the 1928 prayer book. The belated episcopal approval for printing of and worshipping according to the 1928 prayer book was contingent on the "goodwill" of the congregations through their representation in the parochial church councils. By failing to perform this approval earlier, the Church of England may have lost out on their proposals being more broadly respected and supported and failed to establish a basis upon further revision could be accomplished. The baptismal office was also once in use by Anglican Church of Canada clergy as an alternative to the 1918 Canadian prayer book's form. The proposed text also proved influential on other Anglican liturgies, though other 20th century Anglican liturgies also resembled the 1928 English prayer book due to sharing many of the same influences rather than as a result of direct influence by the Deposited Book. In the Church of Nigeria, a Hausa-language prayer book combining elements from the 1662 and proposed 1928 prayer books was used. The Nigerian church's 1996 prayer book adapted the 1928 revision's Administration to the Sick. The U.S. Episcopal Church's Standing Liturgical Commission, in its 1953 Prayer Book Studies IV, lamented that the American church had adopted its own 1928 Book of Common Prayer before having the opportunity to examine the English 1928 revision and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book. The 1958 Lambeth Conference and the Liturgical Movement applied renewed pressure for new liturgical developments within Anglicanism. In 1960, the notion of "permissive alternatives" was debated before Convocation. The "permissive alternatives" approach grew more popular, though concerns of starting a debate like those over the Deposited Book remained. Many services from the 1928 book were compiled in the Church of England's 1966 First Series of Alternative Services. The Series One marriage office remains authorized. Following the 1970 formation of the General Synod, the church acquired the authority to reform its liturgy. In 1974, the church adopted the Worship and Doctrine Measure which led to the 1980 Alternative Service Book, so entitled to not bring parliament's involvement as required for a prayer book. As such, the 1662 prayer book—only slightly altered from its original form—remains the sole Book of Common Prayer approved by the Church of England. The Alternative Service Book was initially adopted for a period of ten years which was renewed for a further ten before replacement by the currently authorized Common Worship. ==Contents==

According to Cuming, the preface to the proposed prayer book was likely written by Davidson. Its recitation was prescribed for fifteen days, compared to 13 days in the 1662 offices. Frere's influence brought some borrowing from the 1549 and 1637 prayer books to the new rite, including an Epiclesis calling the Holy Spirit into the sacramental elements. Ordinal The 1928 ordinal is largely that as proposed in A Prayer-Book Revised. The Grey Book and Green Book had not included ordinals, and historian Paul F. Bradshaw described Frere's Orange Book ordinal as having "merely reproduced the proposals of A Prayer-Book Revised" with the added suggestions that the litany be abbreviated for ordinations and that new form of "Come, Holy Ghost" aligned more with the Veni Creator than that written by John Cosin and found in the 1662 prayer book. Made Bishop of Truro in 1923, Frere likely guided his fellow bishops in adopting these suggested changes. Deviating from A Prayer-Book Revised, the proposed prayer book made the litany optional; if the litany was omitted in the episcopal consecration rite, silent prayer and then the litany's concluding collect were to be said to provide a prayer of the people. Additionally, the rubrics for episcopal consecration now mandated they occur on only holy days or Sundays and a new collect was added for the simultaneous ordination of deacons and priests. Brightman described the litany's omission as "very distaste" while conceding that abridgment was perhaps desirable. In 1924, the upper houses of the Convocations of Canterbury and York adopted a rite for the making of deaconesses. This rite was included as an appendix to the bishops' proposed prayer book rather than in its ordinal. This rite was dropped in February 1927 while it was before convocation, for it had not been approved by the National Assembly. The upper house of the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution in 1937, stating that a rite for making deaconesses would be added to the ordinal of any new prayer book. ==See also==