The Book of Common Prayer-two editions (1662 & 1928) and their differences | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

Excerpt

The Book of Common Prayer-two editions (1662 & 1928) and their differences

The Book of Common Prayer-two editions (1662 & 1928) and their differences

by Dr Peter Toon
August 27, 2007

During the last century, a minority of the membership of both the high-church school and the anglo-catholic school of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. [now called The Episcopal Church and including other countries with the U.S.A.] have made an amazing claim. They have placed the American edition of The Book of Common Prayer (1789,1892 & 1928) on a pedestal so as to assert that the English 1662 edition (used in Great Britain and all over the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations) is not only inferior to the American edition but also-in terms of its Communion Rite-probably invalid.

This attitude persists in parts of the Extra-Mural or Continuing Anglicanism in the U.S.A. where either the BCP 1928 or the BCP 1928, as fortified by the Roman Tridentine Missal, is used. Thus these persons with this viewpoint see the decision of the Common Cause Partners to make BCP 1662 a basic Formulary as a tragic mistake.

I think that this position of putting the BCP 1928 on a pedestal is mistaken and works against Anglican unity in comprehesiveness. To show why I shall describe most of the significant differences between the content of BCP 1662 and the American BCP of 1789-1928. However I shall do so only after having first pointed my readers to the preface of the American edition of The BCP.

First, to appreciate this Preface one has to recall that the first attempt of the independent Episcopal Church of 1785 in the new republic to produce a Prayer Book was rejected by the English Archbishops because it seriously dumbed-down (to use a modern verb) the received Faith and Liturgy of the Anglican Way. The second and much improved attempt was accepted by the English Church through its Archbishops. In the preface to this 1789 BCP were these words: "this Church [PECUSA] is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or further than local circumstances require." And these words are also in the 1892 and 1928 editions.

Clearly, the claim is that the Church in England and the Church in the new republic shared the same worship, doctrine and discipline in basics and essentials, and that their differences related primarily to two very different contexts of political economy, a monarchy and a republic.

Secondly, here is a bsic List of what was left out of the American BCP of 1789 when compared with the BCP 1662:

1. The Creed known as The Athanasian Creed.
2. The paragraph in the Preface to the marriage service which sets out the purposes of holy matrimony.
3. The promise to obey by the wife in the marriage service (1928).
4. The "Table of Kindred and Affinity" relating to who may marry whom.

Thirdly , here is a basic List of what was seriously modified in 1789:

1. The Venite in Morning Prayer-"strong" words removed.
2. The Apostles' Creed in terms of the "descent" of Christ.
3. The Apostles' Creed may be used in Holy Communion instead of The Nicene Creed, except on various Feast Days and the Nicene in Daily Office instead of Apostles'.
4. The sign of the Cross may be omitted in Baptism (1789).
5. The summary of the Law allowed instead of the full Commandments in Communion Service.
6. A new Preface for Trinity Sunday was provided to avoid the terminology of the traditional dogma of The Trinity.

Fourthly, here is a basic List of additions:

1. Services for the Visitation of Prisoners and Family Prayer added. 2. A specific Invocation and Oblation are added to the Prayer of Consecration, with some re-ordering of the rest of the content.

It would appear that these various changes were the result of two very different currents of thought. One was the Enlightenment which made many churchmen into latitudinarians and caused them not to favor some traditional formulations (see "Secondly" and part of "Thirdly" above). The other was the High-Church school of Samuel Seabury of Connecticut and his friends who wanted the Consecration Prayer to reflect a late patristic shape and so they pressed for the use of the Scottish model of 1764.

So it would appear that the possible ground on which one can stand to declare the superiority of BCP 1789-1928 over BCP 1662 is this: that in the Order for Holy Communion the model of the 1764 Scottish Service was adopted (and recall that Seabury had been consecrated bishop in Scotland in the tiny Episcopal Church of that country).

It would further appear that since the Preface of 1789 declares that there is no difference in essential doctrine , the addition of a specific verbal Invocation and Oblation is to be regarded as nothing more than a local Church deciding after negotiation on a particular structure (1764 Scotland) in preference to another (1662) without in any way whatever suggesting that its own is valid and the other (1662) is invalid.

So one may conclude by saying this: Let American Episcopalians and Anglicans continue to use the BCP 1928 with joy and humility and let them encourage others to do so with them; however, let them also realize that their edition of The BCP is used in 2007 by not more than 50,000 persons whereas The BCP 1662 is used by fifty millions or more. Furthermore, The BCP 1662 has been used with joy and satisfaction by millions through the centuries, and in this great number are included many worthies, saints and doctors, of the Anglican Way.

END