Part the Second

The Evolution of the
Book of Common Prayer

The pedigree of every historic document is a fascinating study. The evolution of the Book of Common Prayer is at least as interesting as that of the Constitution of the United States and in importance is second only to that of the Bible itself. The Book is in fact a comprehensive library of devotional literature. Every part of it has a background; every line of it has a history. Many words in it have been the subject of centuries of discussion and controversy. The Book is essentially the product of English Christianity, although, as in the case of the Constitution of the United States, the constituent elements are very old. One cannot read English history without finding much that relates directly to the Prayer Book and one really cannot understand the evolution of the Prayer Book unless he knows something of English history.

I

Contents of the Book

When the Book is examined, its character as a library of devotional literature will be recognized at once. In addition to the Preface and some other introductory matter, it contains five distinct books.

(1) Preface. The interesting preface bears the date October, 1789. This preface, in the ecclesiastical sphere, corresponds to the Declaration of Independence, in that the Preface declares the ecclesiastical independence of the Protestant Episcopal Church from the Church of England. With equal clearness, however, the Preface recognizes the essential identity of the American Book of Common Prayer with the English Book. The changes made in the former have not been in any sense revolutionary but genuinely evolutionary, as will presently appear.

(2) Other Introductory Matter. The introductory matter includes directions concerning the Services of the Church, the Table of Lessons, the Calendar and the Tables and Rules for the Movable and Immovable Feasts and Fasts.*

(3) The Five Books. Following the introductory matter come the five distinct books to which reference has just been made. They are as follows:

1. The Book of Daily Offices, or Services. This book corresponds to the ancient Breviary. It contains Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, the Litany, and certain Prayers and Thanksgivings for occasional use in these services. It also includes a Penitential Office for Ash Wednesday.
2. The Book of the Holy Communion. This corresponds to the ancient Missal or Book of the Mass. It contains the Divine Liturgy, or Order for the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion; together with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and Holy Days of the year.
3. The Book of Offices for Special Occasions. This corresponds to the Manual, or Minister’s Hand Book. It contains the services for Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, Churching of Women, Visitation and Communion of the Sick and Burial of the Dead.
4. The Book of Psalms, or the Psalter. This is included in the Prayer Book for convenience, since the Psalms are so constantly used in the services of the Church. The translation is the Coverdale translation, substantially as it appeared in the Great Bible of 1539. It is therefore some seventy years older than the translation of the Psalms of the King James, or “Authorized,” Version of 1611.
5. The Ordinal. This book contains the forms of making, ordaining and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons; together with forms for consecrating a Church and for Instituting a Rector.

(4) Supplementary Matter. At the end of the Book appear the Church Catechism and forms of Prayer to be used in Families.

(5) The XXXIX Articles. Last of all, although not strictly a part of the Prayer Book, there are included the XXXIX Articles of Religion. They really do not belong in a book of devotions. They represent an attempt at theological statement, first made in England under the influence of the Reformation and set forth in their American form by the General Convention in 1801. The principal reason for retaining them is a vague apprehension that their omission might be regarded by some as a repudiation of our character as a Reformed Church. As far as most Christians are concerned, the historic Creeds of Christendom make the Articles for all practical purposes a superfluity.†

II

The Stages of Evolution
of the English Book

It must never be forgotten that the Book has been produced by an evolutionary process and that this has proceeded through the ages.

(1) The sub-Apostolic Period. It has been conjectured by scholars that during the lifetime of the Apostles there developed the nucleus of a liturgy, with special reference to the celebration of the Eucharist and based, of course, on Our Lord’s words of institution. Naturally enough, when the Apostles were dead and Christianity had begun to spread throughout the known world, local modifications of the apostolic nucleus made their appearance. Thus were evolved four historic liturgies or forms of public worship centering in the Eucharist. With reference to the place of evolution, these are called, respectively, the Liturgies of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Ephesus and of Rome. As each of them was attributed to the influence of some apostolic man, they came to be known respectively as the Liturgies of St. James, of St. Mark, of St. John and of St. Peter. Without going into details, suffice it to say that the Liturgy of St. James (Antioch) is the source of the present liturgy of the Russian and some other Oriental churches; that the Liturgy of St. Mark (Alexandria) is the present liturgy of Egypt; that the Liturgy of St. John (Ephesus) is the source from which the liturgy embodied in our Book of Common Prayer is derived; while the Liturgy of St. Peter (Rome) is the fountainhead of the present liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.

(2) St. Augustine’s Liturgy. At the close of the sixth century Gregory the Great was Pope of Rome. Under his influence St. Augustine was sent as a missionary to the British Isles. He found on arrival a native church already established and organized. It was this native British Church which was using a traditional form of the Liturgy of St. John, or of Ephesus, sometimes called, in the alternative, the Liturgy of St. Paul. Augustine, though accustomed to the Roman use, was sensible enough not to force it on the British Church. During his sojourn in France he had become familiar with the Liturgy of Tours, another development from the Liturgy of St. John. This he combined with the British form and in A.D. 600 set forth the revised liturgy, which thus marked an important stage in the evolution of the future Prayer Book.

(3) Forms of Worship Other than the Eucharist. Emphasis is placed on the Eucharist as the central act of Christian worship. There were, however, many other forms of worship. In the monasteries eight services were said daily: (1) Nocturns, sometimes called Matins, properly a night service, used before daylight. (2) Lauds, an early morning service at daylight. (3) Prime, a later morning service. (4) Tierce, at 9 A.M. (5) Sext, at noon. (6) Nones, at 3 P.M. (7) Vespers, an evening service. (8) Compline, a service at bedtime. For all these, fixed Psalms were appointed for antiphonal singing or recitation, and at some of them lessons from Scripture and Canticles were in use.

(4) Evolution of the Service Books. During the long period which followed the setting forth of a liturgy by Augustine, various service books gradually came into use containing between them the different forms of worship mentioned above and others as well. These service books were principally four in number. The Missal contained the service of the Mass, or Eucharist. The Breviary contained the monastic services and also the entire Psalter, the several Psalms being distributed according to the places in which they were to be read. The parts in our Book of Common Prayer corresponding to the Breviary are some prefatory matter and the Order for Daily Morning and Evening Prayer. The Roman Church has preserved the use of the Breviary as a separate book. It consists of four large volumes, one for each season of the year. In addition to the Missal and the Breviary there was the Manual, which included the service for special occasions such as the office for Baptism, for Confirmation, etc. In addition to the Missal, the Breviary and the Manual there was the Processional, the Book of Litanies, so-called because the litanies were usually chanted in procession.

(5) Latin the Universal Language. It will be understood, of course, that all these books at this period were in Latin. Both the Breviary and the Missal were evolved from earlier books, one of which (called the Ordinal or Directorium) contained the complicated rules for reading the services. A quaint fact of some interest respecting the Ordinal is that because of the large number of big black capital letters which it contained, contrasting strongly with the white of the parchment, it was called the Magpie, or more familiarly the Pie. When you remember that the Latin name for the magpie is Picus, you can understand whence came pica as the name of a printer’s measure. “Printer’s pie,” meaning a confused mass of letters, witnesses to the fact that the constant use of some of the early Ordinals tended to make them almost illegible.

(6) Evolution of Various English Uses. It was natural enough that the several service books thus enumerated should be evolved to meet the necessities of daily use. It was also natural that, in the absence of the exercise of any controlling central authority, uses should differ in different parts of the British Isles and that particular popularity should attach to certain uses, not as the result of authority but of inherent excellence.

The use which probably was more influential than any other in affecting the course of evolution was the so-called Sarum or Salisbury use of St. Osmond. The origin of this use is usually given as 1085, about twenty years after the Norman Conquest. All the services, of course, were still in Latin. There was as yet no “common prayer.” There was no response except by the few who were trained to repeat the necessary Latin words. The Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, some of the Psalms and some of the Collects gradually came to be taught in English, but, speaking generally, the people could not understand the Word of God when the lessons or any part of the Bible were read in church. On Sundays and holy days the people went to church for the service of the Eucharist, or Mass. Doubtless most of them could follow that service as they became used to it, but they did not join with the priest in its words and they rarely received the Sacrament. Just as during this period political abuses called for constitutional remedies, so it is easy to understand how the liberty-loving Englishman was becoming more and more impatient with ecclesiastical practices that were out of step with his daily life.

(7) Common Prayer in English. The transformation from Latin into English and the introduction of common prayer, or prayer by all, were evolutionary changes which we now see to have been inevitable. A date of as great significance as 1215, the date of Magna Carta, is 1540, when the “Great Bible” of 1539, an English translation of the Scriptures, was set up in the churches of England as the authorized version of the Bible. It is from this great translation, with which Coverdale’s name is associated, that we get the Psalter in the form in which we are familiar with it in the Book of Common Prayer. The view has been expressed by Mr. Gladstone and others that this older version of the Psalter is of incomparable beauty. It has been described as the translation of a poet rather than of a scholar.

(8) The Tudor Period. It will be remembered that Henry VIII (in the latter part of whose reign the Great Bible had been set forth) was in 1547 succeeded by his son Edward VI. Edward’s short reign of about seven years was followed by the still shorter reign of his sister Mary. Upon her death in 1558 her sister Elizabeth succeeded her. In the reign of Edward VI two English Prayer Books were set forth. The earlier of them, always referred to as the First Prayer Book of King Edward VI, was published in 1549 and taken into general use. This book may therefore be said to have been our Book of Common Prayer in its earliest form. The outstanding fact about this book is that it was a book of worship in the English language. However, it followed too closely the older teaching and practice to be acceptable to the reformers, who were absolutely determined to effect the changes deemed necessary to conform the book to the teachings of the Reformation. No sooner had the book been published than further alterations were mooted. A committee of Divines prepared the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI. This was enacted into law by Parliament as part of the Act of Uniformity, passed in 1552. The life of this second Prayer Book of Edward VI was, however, of even shorter duration than the first. Edward died, Mary came to the throne, the influence of the papal party became paramount, and the Act of Uniformity was repealed in 1553. With it the Prayer Book lost its official character.

(9) The Book of Common Prayer as we know it. It was not until the accession of Elizabeth that the fresh promulgation of an English Prayer Book became practicable. The Queen proceeded with caution but seemingly with a definite determination; and in 1559 the Book of Common Prayer, substantially as we have it today, received royal and parliamentary authority. This book is notable for the quality of comprehension, that is, the recognition of the wholeness of truth and the avoidance of controversial extremes. Hence, therefore, the revision must be understood rather as indicating a recognition of the great truths emphasized by the Reformation than as a surrender of the teachings of the primitive Church. Consider a single example, but a very important one. In the administration of the Holy Communion, the extreme of Catholic emphasis has been placed upon the Act of Consecration and the inherent effectiveness of the sacred elements when administered to the communicant. Accordingly, in the First Prayer Book of King Edward VI, the words of administration were only the following: “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” The extreme of Protestant emphasis, however, has always been upon the attitude of mind of the recipient. Accordingly, in the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI, the words of administration were the following: “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed upon Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.”

Quite obviously, each of the thoughts embodied in these two formulas is a part of an entire truth. This was recognized in the Prayer Book of 1559 and has been recognized to this moment by the inclusion of both formulas in the words of administration.

It has been well-said (The People’s Book of Worship, by John Wallace Suter and Charles Morris Addison, page 24) that this revision “was not only a translation into the simplicity and understandableness of the people’s spoken language; it was also a translation out of the accretions and remoteness of a scholastic and sacerdotal system into the simplicity and immediacy of the Christian fellowship of primitive tradition, when the Church was the people’s Church.”

(10) The Revision of the Restoration. As the revision of 1559 is styled the Revision of the Reformation, so the next great revision was the Revision of the Restoration. This was made in 1662 after the end of the Protectorate of Cromwell and the period of Puritan Supremacy. This revision involved many changes, but they were of minor importance and affected no fundamental principles.

III

The American Book of Common Prayer

The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the organization of the government of the United States are as important in the evolution of the American Book of Common Prayer as the great events of English history had been in the evolution of the English book. It is easy to remember the Revision of the Reformation, the Revision of the Restoration and the Revision of the Revolution, which together represent the three “R’s” in Prayer Book history.

(1) The General Convention of 1789. Happily in the period immediately following the Revolution there were two leaders of thought and action in the American Church. One, Bishop Seabury, has been styled the Catholic-minded and the other, Bishop White, the Protestant-minded. After a convention in Philadelphia in 1785 had been attended by delegates from some of the states and had resolved to adhere to the liturgy of the Church of England as far as consistent with the changes resulting from the Revolution, what was really the First General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church met at Philadelphia in the autumn of 1789. This Convention effected a permanent organization under the present Constitution of the Church and set forth our American Book of Common Prayer, which went into use on October 1, 1790.

(2) The Principle of Growth. Upon the book so set forth all the Christian centuries have left their mark. “Phrases and prayer utterances go back to the fathers of the first centuries, and liturgical forms like the ‘Sursum Corda,’ the ‘Lift Up Your Hearts’ of the Communion Service, are derived from the very earliest times. … The book testifies, indeed, upon every page, to its inherent principle of growth.” (Suter and Addison.)

(3) The Principle of Comprehension. Not less important than the principle of growth is the principle of comprehension which marks our book as of one blood with the Prayer Book of 1559. The recognition of the wholeness of truth was a necessity faced by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation if there was still to be maintained a national Church for all the people of England, including representatives of both sides of the great struggle through which the mother country had passed. While removed in time and place from the acute controversies of the Reformation period, the revisers of the American Prayer Book approached their task in the spirit of their English predecessors. We are thus assured, within the scope of our own Prayer Book, of a large measure of opportunity for freedom and satisfaction in worship. Some users of the Prayer Book indeed lay exclusive emphasis on those elements in it which correspond with their own theological preferences, whether they be Catholic-minded or Protestant-minded. It may be suggested, however, that he best enters into the spirit of the Book who is able to join heartily in all forms of public worship, whether they resemble a meeting of the Society of Friends or High Mass celebrated with full regard for Catholic ceremonial. The larger and the more imposing the edifice the greater the appropriateness of an elaborate ceremonial. In a great cathedral church there should be a standard of use characterized by such dignity and beauty as correspond with the structural environment. But, whether in the smallest chapel or the largest church, we should never forget that it is Common Prayer in which we are engaged and that we are to join in it heartily, audibly and in the spirit of Christian fellowship.

(4) The Rubrics. Throughout the Book we find printed in small type all sorts of directions respecting its use and concerning ceremonial practices. These rubrics (so called because originally engrossed or printed in red ink) may be regarded as having an authority less than enforceable law and greater than mere advice. The laws of the Church which in their nature are enforceable are styled canons, and for the violation of these a minister may be disciplined. In England, indeed, since the Church is an Established Church and the setting forth of the Prayer Book is an act of Parliament, all rubrics have the force of law. This fact has given rise in England to all the controversies which we naturally expect when attempts are made to exercise legal control over people in the minutiae of daily conduct. It is true that in our own canon law violation of rubrics is specified as one of the offenses for which a minister may be tried. As a practical matter, however, it must be clear that there are many rubrics to which the sanction of discipline is inapplicable. Rubrics should, it seems to me, be regarded rather as expressing the standard of practice and behavior which conforms most closely to the spirit animating the Book as a whole. They are in general in the nature of a challenge to the capacity of the clergy to subordinate personal preference to collective judgment, while leaving them free to exercise an honest discretion in departing from them in emergencies or other exceptional situations. The term “in general” is used because scattered through the Book, in the form of rubrics, are some directions which are canonical in nature. For violation of these, ecclesiastical discipline may perhaps be regarded as at least a theoretical possibility.‡

(5) Recent Revisions. In the interval between 1789 and the present time there have been two revisions of the American Book, one in 1892 and the other in 1928. The outstanding figure in the earlier of these two revisions was the late Dr. William R. Huntington, Rector of Grace Church, New York City, who combined with keen liturgical sense a sensitive ear and appreciation of style. Dean Suter, of Washington Cathedral, made notable contributions to the later revision, including that beautiful prayer “For Joy in God’s Creation.”

The revision of 1928 made important changes in the Book, all of a constructive sort. A rearrangement of material resulted in a much more logical and convenient sequence. The addition of many new prayers and the rewriting of others may fairly be described as an enrichment. The same may be said of the inclusion of the two Offices of Instruction, of a service appropriate to the Burial of a Child, of a provision for Extreme Unction, of a Litany for the Dying and of modifications in the Baptismal Office, the Marriage Office, the Visitation of the Sick and the Burial Office.

In the service of Holy Communion a most desirable change was made in the position of the Lord’s Prayer and of the Prayer of Humble Access. One of the most significant of Our Lord’s declarations is that “no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”§ It is therefore highly appropriate that immediately after the Prayer of Consecration the congregation should be emboldened to address God Almighty as “Our Father” and should then immediately recognize that such an approach is made possible not because of trust in their own righteousness but because of God’s manifold and great mercies. Indeed, this thought might have been emphasized with even greater emphasis if the words “As our Saviour Christ hath taught us” had been omitted, so that, immediately after the Prayer of Consecration, the celebrant’s address to the Father would be a direct result of Our Lord’s overpowering presence in the Sacrament rather than because of any mere matter of teaching. “And now”—now that we are actually coming to Thee in the way appointed—“we are bold to say ‘Our Father.’” This is a suggestion for future revisers to consider.

The revision of the marriage vow was doubtless a concession to the popular view that there is something undignified in a promise “to obey.” From a lawyer’s point of view it is always important to settle in advance, in case of a partnership of two, who is to have the casting vote in the event of a deadlock; the alternative being an impasse or an immediate recourse to a dissolution of the relation.

In the Burial Office many will regret that the reading of the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians is no longer compulsory. The option is given to substitute either Romans 8:14 or John 14:1. Many others will deplore the excision from the fifteenth chapter of that powerful passage beginning “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead” and ending with “for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.”

However, it is to be remembered that those accustomed by long use to a particular form of words lack the open-mindedness essential to just criticism. This is notably true with reference to changes in the translation of the Psalms. If one has memorized the Psalter or any considerable number of the Psalms, he feels that he has somehow acquired a right to object to any change whatever. Among the changes made in the latest revision (of which a list appears elsewhere in this volume) many are obviously clarifying. At least one, slight in itself, may fairly be described as revolutionary. This is nothing more than the insertion of an interrogation mark at the end of the first verse of Psalm 121—Levavi oculos. Heretofore we have been accustomed to think of “the hills” as the place to which we may look for divine help. “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help.” has been the aspiration of millions. When, however, the verse is rendered thus: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help?” an entire change of meaning results. The pilgrim is looking at the formidable hills which he must ascend to reach his goal on Mount Zion. Almost in dismay he cries, “From whence cometh my help to make the grade?” Whereupon, looking away from the hills and not toward them, he reassures himself by answer to his own question: “My help cometh even from the Lord, who hath made heaven and earth.” If we accept this rendering as a change for the better, we may suggest that it would have been even more helpful to follow literally the Latin levavi by resorting to the past tense instead of retaining the future tense which is appropriate to aspiration. Had this been done, the verse would have meant: “I have lifted up mine eyes and seen the hills which I must ascend: whence can I draw the help that is needed to climb them?”

An interesting change has been made in verse 7 of Psalm 49. In the King James Version this verse reads: “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.” Prior to the Revision of 1928 the Prayer Book translation read: “But no man may deliver his brother, nor make agreement unto God for him.”

In a suggestive essay¶ the late A. E. Housman uses this particular verse to illustrate his contention that it is the music of words that constitutes poetry rather than the thoughts which the words express. He says: “As for the seventh verse of the Forty-ninth Psalm in the Book of Common Prayer [quoting it as it read before 1928] that is to me poetry so moving that I can hardly keep my voice steady in reading it; and that this is the effect of language I can ascertain by experiment: the same thought in the Bible version [quoting it] I can read without emotion.”

From Housman’s point of view the Revisers of 1928 may have spoiled poetry without the compensating advantage of a change in meaning, for the revised translation is as follows: “But no man may deliver his brother, nor give a ransom unto God for him.”

Apart from a few debatable questions of this sort, it may be said with confidence that the Revision of 1928 was a normal forward step in an age-old evolutionary process and that the Book of Common Prayer is the richer because of the work then done.**

IV

Summary and Conclusion

This sketch has covered a good deal of ground but necessarily in a most superficial way. In it the attempt has been made to trace from earliest times the evolutionary process to which we owe our Book of Common Prayer. Emphasis has been placed not only upon the element of growth, which is a necessary element in evolution, but upon the spirit of comprehension and catholicity which is the Prayer Book’s distinguishing characteristic. Much might be said of the deeply spiritual quality of the prayers and other forms of worship and of the incomparable beauty of the language in which they are set forth.

The purpose of the sketch is twofold. It is intended to help to place a just valuation upon this book of devotion in respect to which we are the heirs of the centuries. The other purpose is to encourage the reader to become even more familiar with the book than he already is. The more it is studied and put to practical use the more one will find in it the inspiration and spiritual illumination of which we all stand deeply in need.