The Book of Common Prayer : Studies in Religious Transfer

Revue Française de Civilisation BritanniqueFrench Journal of British Studies

XXII-1 | 2017The Book of Common Prayer : Studies in ReligiousTransferLe Book of Common Prayer: études d'un transfert culturel en religion

Rémy Bethmont and Aude de Mezerac-Zanetti (dir.)

Electronic versionURL: http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1210DOI: 10.4000/rfcb.1210ISSN: 2429-4373

PublisherCRECIB - Centre de recherche et d'études en civilisation britannique

Electronic referenceRémy Bethmont and Aude de Mezerac-Zanetti (dir.), Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XXII-1 | 2017, « The Book of Common Prayer : Studies in Religious Transfer » [Online], Online since 15 April2017, connection on 05 March 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1210 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rfcb.1210

This text was automatically generated on 5 March 2020.

Revue française de civilisation britannique est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence CreativeCommons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

http://journals.openedition.org

http://journals.openedition.org

http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1210

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/




TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction - Cultural Transfers in Religion: Circulating the Book of Common Prayer inEuropeRémy Bethmont and Aude de Mézerac-Zanetti

The Book of Common Prayer: a Timeline

Constructing the Anglican Liturgical Tradition

The Political Enforcement of Liturgical Continuity in the Church of England 1558-1662Claire Cross

A Reappraisal of Liturgical Continuity in the Mid-Sixteenth Century: Henrician Innovationsand the First Books of Common PrayerAude de Mézerac-Zanetti

The Penitential Psalms and Ash Wednesday Services in the Book of Common Prayer,1549-1662Charles Whitworth

Promoting Anglican Liturgical Spirituality: Thomas Comber’s Companions to the Book ofCommon PrayerRémy Bethmont

The Book of Common Prayer across Denominational and National Borders

The Book of Common Prayer in Methodism: a Cherished Heritage or a Corrupting Influence?Jérôme Grosclaude

Anglican Liturgy as a Model for the Italian Church? The Italian Translation of the Book ofCommon Prayer by George Frederick Nott in 1831 and its Re-edition in 1850 Stefano Villani

The Influence of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer on the ‘Bersier Liturgy’ and FrenchProtestant WorshipStuart Ludbrook

Anglican Influence on Old Catholic LiturgyDavid R. Holeton and Petr Jan Vinš

The Anglican Contribution to Spanish Liturgical Life: Spanish Translations of the Book ofCommon Prayer and the liturgy of the Spanish Reformed Episcopal ChurchDon Carlos López-Lozano

In Search of a Liturgical Patrimony: Anglicanism, Gallicanism & TridentinismPeter M. Doll

Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XXII-1 | 2017

1

Book Reviews

Compte-rendu de Justin Gest, The New Minority : White Working Class Politics in an Age ofImmigration and Inequality, Oxford University Press, 2016.Olivier Esteves


2


3

Introduction - Cultural Transfers inReligion: Circulating the Book ofCommon Prayer in EuropeIntroduction – Transferts culturels en religion: la circulation du Book of CommonPrayer en Europe

Rémy Bethmont and Aude de Mézerac-Zanetti

And in these our doings, we condemn no othernations, nor prescribe any thing, but to our own

people only. For we think it convenient thatevery country should use such ceremonies, as

they shall think best to the setting forth of God’shonour or glory, and to the reducing of the

people to a most perfect and godly living, withouterror or superstition. And that they should put

away other things, which from time to time theyperceive to be most abused, as in men’s

ordinances it often chanceth diversely in diversecountries.1

1 Thus concludes “Of Ceremonies: Why Some be Abolished and Some Retained,” a textjustifying liturgical reform at the end of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, the firstversion of the English prayer book published under Edward VI, and reproduced in thepreface of every subsequent edition. It is an important reminder of the fact that theBook of Common Prayer was primarily seen as an English document: the firstvernacular, national liturgy, breaking with the use of Latin on the one hand and withthe medieval custom of liturgical diversity on the other (different dioceses useddifferent rites in medieval England as indeed in the rest of medieval Christendom).Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII and Edward VI’s archbishop of Canterbury and the chiefarchitect of liturgical reform, never foresaw imperial expansion and the developmentof a worldwide Anglican Communion, which have made his liturgies a cherished part ofthe religious heritage of a great number of Americans, Africans and Asians. The Book of


4

Common Prayer has become the object of various cultural transfers; it was translated(and, as autonomous Anglican churches or “provinces” appeared worldwide,increasingly adapted) into a great many vernacular languages, starting with a 16th-century French translation, for use in Calais and the Channel Islands. 2 And yet at thesame time, because the Anglican Church grew with the Empire, the sense of the liturgybeing primarily English lingered on. To some extent this has had consequences on thenature of scholarly interest for the Book of Common Prayer.

2 Much attention has been paid to the influence of the Prayer Book on English polity,language, culture and society (affecting Christians from all denominations in Britain). 3

The Book of Common Prayer has also attracted studies on its formation and theinfluence of various strands of European Christianity on the development of what cameto be seen as a quintessentially English liturgy. 4 In our postcolonial age, in whichchurches have increasingly repented of centuries of Eurocentrism, the question ofliturgical inculturation in different provinces of the Anglican Communion has givenrise to various studies, 5 testifying to the recognition that Anglican liturgy and theAnglican Communion generally in the postcolonial world cannot be defined by itsEnglishness. However little attention has been devoted to the attraction that thespecificities of liturgical practice in Anglican churches has constituted for religiousgroups beyond Anglicanism, both in and beyond the English-speaking world. 6

3 This issue seeks to explore how elements of Anglican worship were transferred to otherlanguages, countries and denominations, thus giving the lie to the idea that the Book ofCommon Prayer was just an ad-hoc national liturgy. Discussing these attempts atinculturation as cultural transfers invites one to focus on how “things become graftedfrom one cultural body to another” and how the original intention of 16th-centuryauthors for the English liturgy was altered in the event of such culturaltransplantations.7 In a new confessional and cultural context the Book of CommonPrayer or the parts that were transferred almost always take on new meanings.8 Thetheory of cultural transfers has been applied to a diversity of fields: intellectual history,literature, material culture, technical knowledge, science and the arts but could alsovery well apply to the movement of religious ideas, including to the circulation ofliturgical practices.9 This issue focuses on religious transfers from England tocontinental Europe and hopes to invite further research on the mobility of religiousbeliefs and devotional practices.

4 Today there are four Anglican jurisdictions in Europe (the Church of England Diocese inEurope, the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe of the American-basedEpiscopal Church and the small indigenous Anglican churches of Spain and Portugal).This contributes to making Anglican liturgy known on the Continent. The Diocese inEurope and the Convocation of Episcopal Churches have both engaged in a work oftranslation to make Common Worship, today’s official, contemporary Church of Englandliturgy alongside the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, or the American Book of CommonPrayer of 1979 available in other languages than English in their congregations on theContinent.10 Anglican presence in continental Europe has also given rise to somesignificant interest by ecumenical partners. The French branch of the Anglican Roman-Catholic International Dialogue has recently published a document recommendingways for the two churches in France to celebrate morning and evening prayer together,using one another’s liturgies.11 There is growing interest among French Catholics forAnglican liturgical patrimony.


5

5 But continental interest in Anglican liturgy in a number of cases seems to have startedindependently from this Anglican presence. Various denominations with no historicallinks to the Church of England have even used Anglican liturgy as a resource forworship in their own context and in languages other than English. In the case of theFrench Reformed Church, Anglican influence in the 19th century was the source oflasting changes in worship.

6 Anglican liturgy is known and loved far beyond its natural linguistic and culturalborders, even though initially it claimed little else than being the expression of adecidedly English settlement with no pretension to cross-cultural influence. Indeed16th-century liturgical debates centred on how much one should import from, notexport to the Continent. The liturgies of the French or Swiss Reformed churches werethe models to look up to for the “godly,” as the Puritans called themselves. The linksthat the English liturgy continued to entertain with the medieval past made itsProtestant credentials suspicious to many Protestants in England. The irony however isthat since the 19th century, especially, it is precisely these links, along with a livelyliturgical spirituality, that have made the Book of Common Prayer attractive to bothProtestants and Catholics on the Continent.

7 This issue seeks to underline that the role played by Anglican liturgy in the ChristianWest has been more diverse than is usually acknowledged. The double reference to theReformation and to an earlier tradition has made Anglican liturgy an importantcontributor to the liturgical experiments of several denominations in various Europeancountries. The liturgical half-way house the Prayer Book represented infuriated thePuritans in the 16th and 17th century and led to entrenched, permanent divisionswithin English Protestantism after the Restoration. But today — this is ironic — theAnglican liturgical tradition the Prayer Book has brought forth is particularly well-suited to help recover the common liturgical patrimony of the West and repair to someextent the divisions caused by the process of confessionalisation.12 This obviouslywould not be the case without the contemporary context of ecumenism andinterdenominational cooperation, strengthened as they have been by the LiturgicalMovement, which has sought to renew worship in the churches of the West.13 ButAnglican liturgy has some genuine ecumenical appeal which is inseparable from itsbeing steeped in a liturgical spirituality whose form is quite unique among churcheswho claim a Reformation heritage and which was shaped by centuries of daily use ofthe Book of Common Prayer by ordinary Anglicans.

8 However significant 16th- and 17th-century criticism of the Prayer Book may have been,its rites nurtured the spiritual lives of generations of English people. Conformity to andacceptance of the Book of Common Prayer in England has become the focus ofsignificant attention in the last decades, correcting the earlier emphasis on non-conformity and Puritanism. Judith Maltby placed the “committed conformists”, “thePrayer Book Protestants” squarely at the heart of her study of the Book of CommonPrayer. Mark Goldie encouraged scholars to focus on “voluntary Anglicans”.14 AndChristopher Haigh’s characterization of the bulk of church-goers as “parish Anglicans”has done much to rehabilitate the Prayer Book as a source of religious unity andharmony.15 Provided some elasticity, the notion of conformity could even be extendedto include church papists.16

9 As Jeremy Gregory points out, “studies of lay religion in [the sixteenth andseventeenth] centuries have moved on from earlier interpretations which saw the laity


6

reacting either antagonistically or indifferently to the offerings of the church, andfinding solace in a lay-led Puritanism or in folk religion, to an appreciation of whatMartin Ingram has called the ‘unspectacular orthodoxy’ of the majority of parishionersand in this attention has been given to the ways in which Prayer Book servicesresonated in their hearts and minds”. Gregory suggests that something similar mightbe said about the 18th century. 17 It may well be this resonance in ordinary people’shearts and minds which has commended the Book of Common Prayer and more broadlyAnglican liturgical tradition to Christians outside the Anglican fold on both sides of theProtestant-Catholic divide.

10 The readiness the Anglican Communion has displayed since the 1980s in making adistinction between Anglican liturgical patrimony and the particular textual form andperformance of the English Book of Common Prayer has reinforced the sense of anAnglican liturgical spirituality whose integrity is not inextricably tied to theCranmerian heritage. Even though some amount of liturgical inculturation had alreadytaken place in several Anglican churches,18 it was thanks to the 1988 LambethConference and the subsequent work of the International Anglican LiturgicalConsultations (IALC) that the question of developing liturgies for other culturalcontexts within the Anglican Communion was made explicitly part of its liturgicalagenda.19

11 Whereas the questions that inculturation raise for the denominational identity ofAnglicanism has ensured scholarly attention to the process of liturgical translation,adaptation and creation within the Anglican Communion, little consideration has beengiven to the same process in those churches that borrow from the Anglican tradition.The interdenominational cross-fertilizing that the ecumenical movement has madepossible has produced modern liturgies throughout Western Christianity that have afamily resemblance. But the question of why some denominations would look up toAnglican resources specifically, not only in this ecumenical age but also in earliertimes, is left largely unexplored. Anglican liturgy has helped redraw the confessionalboundaries that were rigidly established on the Continent in the 16th and 17th centuriesbetween Protestant and Catholic forms of worship. The essays in this issue suggest thatthis has turned Anglican liturgy into an important resource thanks to whichProtestants and Catholics alike may safely think through the meaning of theirdenominational identity within their own cultural context. Are they called, asdenominations, to reclaim a forgotten part of their liturgical heritage for missionarypurposes in their national contexts? Are they called to broaden and deepen theliturgical expression of their denominational identity for purposes of spiritual renewal?Are they called to celebrate their catholicity in a way that does not blur denominationalborders with Roman Catholicism? Anglican liturgy is a valued contributor in theattempts of mainline denominations in the West to create liturgies that are suited totheir time and place, while being true to the riches of the liturgical patrimony of theWest.

12 The first four contributions focus on how the Book of Common Prayer became aprominent marker of Anglican spirituality and identity in the course of the 16th and17th centuries. Liturgical experiments were led in constructive dialogue with England’sliturgical past and combined with politics to fashion a liturgy that came to be seen asincomparable at the Restoration. The failure to revise this prayer book — stillessentially a mid-sixteenth century text — in the following centuries made it possible


7

for the Book of Common Prayer to become the stable anchor of a spirituality whoseexpression was unique in the confessional landscape of the West.

13 In an overview of the 16th and 17th centuries, the first paper by Claire Cross sketchesthe history of opposition to the Book of Common Prayer from Edward VI’s reign to1662. Maintaining uniform liturgical practices in a church which gathered Protestantsof varied hues proved increasingly difficult over the period as the godly sought topurify the Prayer Book of its “popish” and “superstitious” overtones. Questions ofuniformity, obedience and submission trumped calls for further liturgical reform orexperimentation in preaching the Gospel. The political enforcement of loyalty includedrepression against religious dissidents throughout the religious turbulences of the 17thcentury. The content of the Book of Common Prayer was a highly political matter;hence the proclivities of the successive sovereigns and their reactions to demands forfurther reform did much to shape the liturgical patrimony of the Anglican Church.

14 However, something more than politics was also at play. The history of liturgicalrevisions in 16th- and 17th-century England provides evidence that liturgical reformerspaid considerable attention to their own liturgical practice and sought someexperiential continuum. This continuum was all the easier to experience becauseliturgical reforms in England were an experiment in incremental change. This was thecase not only between the first and the second Book of Common Prayer20 but from theHenrician liturgy to the 1549 Prayer Book. Henrician liturgical innovations providedthe basis for a certain degree of continuity between medieval liturgical performanceand the Edwardian prayer books. This is the focus of the second article by Aude deMezerac-Zanetti. Thomas Cranmer’s use of multiple sources of inspiration in hiscrafting of the first Books of Common Prayer is well-known but there is also a moreimmediate wellspring for the English liturgies: the newly created practices of the 1530sand 1540s when Henry VIII sought to harness the liturgy to promote the break withRome and the royal supremacy. These changes became deeply ingrained in the worshiphabits of the clergy and were embedded into some sections of the Book of CommonPrayer. Conversely those Henrician developments which did not make it into the newliturgy illuminate the particularities of both the Henrician and EdwardianReformations.

15 By shifting the scholarly focus from emphasizing change to seeking continuity, thiscontribution addresses one of the enduring historiographical questions relating to theEnglish Reformation: why is it that a radical and wholesale liturgical reform was readilyaccepted by the people in 1549? Actually, the change appears less radical thanpreviously thought if one examines how Henry VIII’s regime refashioned prayers topromote its policies. Thus by the mid-1540s, the English church’s liturgy was no longerseen as the immutable public prayer of the universal church but as a text which couldbe reformed at will by the government and which was increasingly being challenged byreform-minded clergy and parishioners.

16 Incremental change also made it possible to keep some sense of continuity in theaesthetic experience of the liturgy. The beauty of holiness of the Laudians is a well-known 17th-century example of reintroducing those elements of medieval ceremonythat the Book of Common Prayer either allowed or did not explicitly rule out. Laudiansthus created an aesthetic liturgical experience that brought them closer to themedieval past.21 Less dramatic because far less controversial was the use of psalms.Charles Whitworth’s paper also illustrates how liturgical practices were transferred


8

back and forth in time, resulting eventually in the (quasi) restoration of the status quoante. It charts the liturgical and devotional use of the penitential psalms (Ps. 6, 32, 38,51, 102, 130, and 143) from the late medieval Sarum liturgy to the Ash Wednesdaycommination in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These psalms continually generatednumerous commentaries in the vernacular by clergy and laity from the late medievalperiod to the seventeenth century. They were translated, put to music and used bycongregations whose enthusiasm for metrical singing prompted the publication ofpsalters set to music. Hence, these texts were deeply embedded in the devotional fabricof early modern Catholic and Protestant piety alike and some aspects of their liturgicaluse in the medieval Ash Wednesday service survived in successive versions of the Bookof Common Prayer. This exercise in liturgical archaeology illustrates the powerof devotional traditions and habits: evolution through accretion and sedimentation inthe use of the penitential psalms from one edition of the Prayer Book to the nexteventually led the Church of England back to a form of Lenten liturgy that was closer tomedieval usage in 1662 than it had been in the days of the Edwardian Reformation.

17 Appreciation of and respect for a continuum of liturgical practice gave the Book ofCommon Prayer a status in the Church of England which politics alone could notexplain. Attachment to the Prayer Book gave rise to a peculiarly Anglican brand ofspirituality in which a single liturgical text became the basis for a devotionalexperience fusing private and public prayer. This can be strikingly seen in ThomasComber’s commentaries on the prayer book, on which Rémy Bethmont’s articlecentres. Published in the last third of the 17th century, Comber’s Companions to the Bookof Common Prayer had a novel dimension. Prior to Comber, Prayer Book commentarieswere essentially attempts to defend the liturgy against its critics. While this desire isstill visible in Comber, there is also a strong devotional streak which is quite novel.Reconciling several strands of conformist tradition, Comber seeks to help clergy andlaity alike to use the Book of Common Prayer as a school of devotion: the words of theliturgy become the outward, audible form of the prayer of the heart, both at home andin church. Comber’s thorough commentaries and prayerful paraphrase of the entireliturgy contributed to the spread of a form of liturgical spirituality, whereby everyAnglican's devotional life, both personal and communal, was grounded on twoinseparable books: the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.

18 The importance of the Prayer Book in Anglican spirituality should be rememberedwhen accounting for Anglican attempts to export it, not only as part of missionaryendeavours in the Empire but also in dealing with other churches on the Europeancontinent. Whereas political reasons were undoubtedly paramount, what comesthrough (sometimes quite rightly) as Anglican arrogance in trying to make othersadopt their liturgy also combined with the sincere, though naive, conviction that theBook of Common Prayer was truly the best path to prayer that was compatible withProtestant principles. The following contributions examine several case studies of suchcultural transfers through translations, deliberate adaptations and concealedborrowings. The case of Anglican dealings with Italian Christians, which Stefano Villaniexamines, is a case in point.

19 A significant number of Italian translations of the Book of Common Prayer were madein the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. They served purposes that often had little to dowith worship, including providing a convenient way for English people to learn Italian.But some were part and parcel of grand plans to undermine the Pope’s influence in


9

Italy and promote a Protestant church whose catholicity would appeal to the Italiantemperament and culture, in other words a church established on the same principlesas the Church of England. In the early 17th century, the first Italian translation of thePrayer Book was part of a strategy seeking to convince Venice that the Anglican Churchprovided an alternative model to the Church of Rome that Venetians might adopt at atime when Venice was in conflict with the papacy. In the 19th century, a number ofAnglicans vainly engaged in attempts to convince the Waldensian Church to becomethe instrument of the conversion of Italy to Protestantism by encouraging them toadopt episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. The story of these Italiantranslations of the Book of Common Prayer is the story of English illusions about thepossibility of exporting the Prayer Book, stock and barrel, to a completely differentecclesiastical setting with its own culture and traditions.

20 In its desire to inculturate liturgies, contemporary Anglicanism has moved a long wayaway from such attempts. As we have said, the Anglican Communion provides severalexamples of how Anglican liturgies have recently attempted to fuse with local culturesand traditions. But Anglicans are not the only ones who have sought to adapt Anglicanliturgy to local ecclesiastical or cultural needs. Other churches provide fascinatingexamples of how the Anglican liturgical heritage has served all kinds of Christians infinding uplifting forms of worship that are suited to their own ecclesiastical contextwhile connecting them to a rich and diverse liturgical patrimony. Far from being seenas a problem, the elements of continuity between the Book of Common Prayer andmedieval liturgical usage have contributed to the attractiveness of the Prayer Book.Borrowing from the Anglican liturgy, or even considering the possibility of doing so,has been the occasion of questioning, deepening or celebrating one’s denominationalidentity.

21 The Methodist case, studied by Jérôme Grosclaude, is interesting given the Anglicanroots of the movement. The question of the place and role of the Anglican liturgicalheritage in the movement was controversial and reflected the need which Methodistsfelt, to a varying degree, of claiming their own separate identity. Even though theyseparated from the Church of England in the 1790s, Wesleyan Methodists, the majoritygroup, followed John Wesley’s instructions and practice by making it compulsory to usethe Book of Common Prayer, while allowing at the same time for impromptu prayers,also dear to their founder’s heart. Non-Wesleyans, on the contrary, were eager todistinguish themselves from the detested Church of England and did not use any setliturgy for most of the 19th century. Consequently their services were generallyimprovised.

22 From the 1860s however the British Methodist churches started to adopt their own setprayers. While Wesleyans moved away from the Book of Common Prayer (thoughretaining many Anglican elements), Non-Wesleyans started to adopt set — though notcompulsory — liturgies. This objectively brought the two Methodist traditions a littlecloser to each other liturgically and paved the way for the adoption of a new commonservice book in 1936, four years after most Methodist churches united to form theMethodist Church of Great Britain. The 1936 Book of Offices contained different typesof liturgies to satisfy all brands of Methodists, but it thus turned forms of worshipindebted to the Anglican tradition into resources for Non-Wesleyans. The twosubsequent service books of 1975 and 1999 betray the influence of the LiturgicalMovement while keeping the diverse liturgical traditions of Methodists. As the need to


10

affirm and bolster Methodist denominational identity has receded, Anglican liturgy canbe claimed as a valued heritage.

23 A little further away from the Anglican fold, the often-unacknowledged dialogue withAnglican liturgy in French Reformed worship, examined by Stuart Ludbrook, providesanother case-study of the influence of Anglican liturgy in a context in which issues oflocal ecclesiastical identity were important. French Reformed minister Eugène Bersier’sliturgy, which he composed for his congregation at the Temple de l’Etoile in Paris in1874-76, is an example of extensive borrowing from Anglican liturgical tradition.Although this liturgy was only ever used by Bersier’s congregation, its influence on theFrench Reformed Church was far-ranging because it constituted the basis of a proposalfor liturgical reform that Bersier drafted at the request of the French Reformed synodin 1888 and which led to considerable change in French Reformed worship. The Bersierliturgy is not a case of merely adopting the Anglican liturgy as it was. The liturgical textof the Bersier liturgy owes much to the Book of Common Prayer, and the architecture,decoration and music of his Paris church were influenced by Anglican cathedralworship. But Bersier adapted the Book of Common Prayer to French Reformedsensibilities and even downplayed Anglican influence as he responded to criticisms ofritualism and servile imitation of the Anglican high church party. Even thoughBersier’s influence on French Reformed worship was lasting, the resulting, greaterproximity of the latter with Anglican worship was rarely acknowledged, an example ofan unobtrusive cultural transfer.

24 The question of local ecclesiastical identity has taken a very different turn in the caseof the extensive borrowing from Anglican liturgies by Old Catholics22 in their recentliturgical revisions. This is the object of the article by David Holeton and Petr Jan Vinš.Old Catholics have leaned on full communion ties with Anglican churches to createforms of worship which, although decidedly Catholic, are just as decidedly non-Roman,thus strengthening the sense of Old Catholic identity. Full communion, established bythe Bonn Agreement of 1931, although slow in making an impact on the life of the twodenominations, provided a favourable context for extended liturgical consultationsfrom the 1980s, resulting in Old Catholic use of Anglican liturgical resources in draftingnew liturgies. The 1995 Altar Book of the Old Catholic Church in Germany, in particular,owes much to the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services, which had itselfborrowed heavily from the 1979 revision of the Book of Common Prayer by theEpiscopal Church. What is at play here is less the influence of the traditionalCranmerian heritage than the use of modern Anglican liturgical texts which arethemselves the product of the ecumenical Liturgical Movement. But the reason whyGerman Old Catholics turned to Anglican resources in the first place was determined bytheir perception of the Anglican liturgical tradition as Catholic but devoid of RomanCatholic theological idiosyncrasies, which the Old Catholics had repudiated.

25 Although modern Anglican worship is the product of ecumenical liturgical researchand has in some cases retained little from Cranmer’s texts, it is because Anglicanliturgical spirituality has the potential to be seen, experienced and affirmed as bothCatholic and Reformed that Anglican liturgy continues to play a significant role in theliturgical reforms of various churches in the West. Anglican liturgy provides a door toworship traditions that are not otherwise easily accessible. The contribution of theSpanish Reformed Episcopal Church, the small Spanish branch of the AnglicanCommunion, provides a striking illustration and is examined by Bishop Carlos Lopez-


11

Lozano. The Anglican Church in Spain has resurrected the Mozarabic rite forcontemporary worship in its prayer book. It thereby seeks to provide Christians inSpain with a door to their own indigenous liturgical heritage, which has virtually beenforgotten in Spanish Roman Catholic practice. The Spanish, national identity ofAnglicans in Spain is thus affirmed and celebrated.

26 The last paper, by Peter Doll, examines the mutual influences of Roman Catholic andAnglican liturgical performance and highlights the fact that even with the impact ofthe Liturgical Movement and its focus on the worship of the Early Church, historicalliturgical traditions of the Christian West remain important. From the seventeenth tothe nineteenth century, the Church of England was particularly conscious of closeaffinities with the Gallican, nationalist tradition in the French church, but at either endof this period the Tridentine baroque would also prove seductively fascinating to manyAnglicans. The tension between the ‘Gallican’ and ‘Tridentine’ tendencies withinAnglican high churchmanship, epitomised in the early twentieth century by the ‘BritishMuseum religion’ of Percy Dearmer’s Parson’s Handbook and the Roman tendencies ofthe Society of SS. Peter & Paul, remains alive to this day. In the nineteenth century,influential Anglican converts to the Church of Rome (A.W.N. Pugin, John HenryNewman, Henry Edward Manning, Edmund Bishop) brought with them theircontrasting convictions about the appropriate architectural setting for the liturgy.Pugin, firmly committed to liturgical Gallicanism, advocated medieval music,architecture and Sarum ceremonial, while Newman and his fellow Oratorians insistedon an ultramontane liturgy and architecture. The latter won the day in the RomanCatholic Church and Pugin was left isolated: his dream of a gothic revival was now bestcarried out by the Anglican Church he had left for Rome. The Liturgical Movement hasbrought Anglican and Roman Catholic worship very close together but the twocommunions still feel the need to deal with the heritage of Tridentinism andGallicanism.

27 Anglican liturgy has had a remarkable ability to claim a diverse heritage andaccommodate continuity in the midst of reforms, today as much as in the 16th century.This ability has enhanced its potential to be grafted with some measure of success ontothe liturgies of denominations seeking to rejuvenate their spiritual tradition. BecauseAnglican liturgy is often a mirror in which various denominations may contemplatehow their own identity may be expressed liturgically, religious transfers involving theBook of Common Prayer and more generally Anglican worship tradition have a richhistory and remain a feature of European Christianity.

28 The variously successful transfers of elements of Anglican liturgy from one cultural andreligious sphere to another as well as Anglican openness to other liturgical traditionssuggest that it would be a mistake to overemphasize, as has sometimes been done, theinsularity of Anglicanism. For all its specificities and its reluctance to be labelled, as adenomination, according to the broad confessional categories of Protestantism andCatholicism, Anglicanism has been a prominent actor and partner in Europeanecclesiastical history, contributing to shaping Christian churches far beyond theborders of England and its Empire.Ce numéro de la Revue française de civilisation britannique a été mis en forme utilisant lelogiciel LODEL, par John Mullen.


12

NOTES1. The Book of Common Prayer: The texts of 1549, 1559 and 1662, ed. Brian Cummings (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2011), 216.2. One should specify that a Latin translation came first, right after the publication of the 1549Prayer Book (Ordinatio ecclesiae seu ministerii ecclesiastici, in florentissimo Regno Angliae, conscriptasermone patrio, & in Latinam linguam bona fide conuersa & ad consolationem ecclesiarum Christi,ubicunque locorum ac genitium, his tristissimis [sum]ptoribus, edita, ab Alexandro Alesio Scoto sacraetheologiae doctore [London, 1551]). The first extant French translation is of the second PrayerBook, Le liure des priers communes, de l'administration des Sacremens & autres ceremonies en l'Eglised'Angleterre. Traduit en Francoys par Francoys Philippe, seruiteur de Monsieur le grand Chancelierd'Angleterre, London : Thomas Gaultier, 1553. (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Cranmer [London/NewHaven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1996], 525). See also the classic work on prayer book translations byWilliam Muss-Arnolt, The Book of Common Prayer among the Nations of the World (London: SPCK,1914); David N. Griffiths, “The French Translations of the English Book of Common Prayer”,Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 22 (1972): 90-114. See the classic work on prayerbook translations by William Muss-Arnolt, The Book of Common Prayer among the Nations of theWorld (London: SPCK, 1914); see also David N. Griffiths, “The French Translations of the EnglishBook of Common Prayer”, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London 22 (1972): 90-114.3. Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Stuart England (Cambridge: CUP, 2000) ;Timothy Rosendal, Liturgy and Literature in the Making of Protestant England (Cambridge : CUP,2007); Daniel Swift, Shakespeare's common prayers: the Book of Common Prayer and the Elizabethan Age(New York/Oxford : OUP, 2013) ; Christopher Marsh, “‘Common Prayer’ in England 1560-1640:The View from the Pew”, Past and Present 171 (May 2001): 66-94 ; Jeremy Gregory, ‘For all sortsand conditions of men’: the social life of the Book of Common Prayer during the long eighteenthcentury”, Social History 34.1 (2009): 29-54. 4. Francis Procter and Walter Howard Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, with aRationale of its offices (London: Macmillan, 1902), esp. 68-90 for the influence of foreign divines ;F.E. Brightman, The English Rite, Being a Synopsis of the Sources and Revisions of the Book of CommonPrayer (London: Rivingtons, 1915), 2 vols.; Geoffrey Cuming, The Godly Order, Texts and StudiesRelating to the Book of Common Prayer, Alcuin Club Collection 65 (London : SPCK, 1983), 1-122. Thereare several relevant articles in Paul Ayris and David Selwyn, Thomas Cranmer, Churchman andScholar (Woodbridget: Boydell & Brewer, 1999), especially Bryan D. Spinks, “Treasures Old andNew: A Look at Some of Thomas Cranmer’s Methods of Liturgical Compilation”, 175-188; KennethW. Stevenson “Cranmer’s Marriage Vow: Its place in the Tradition”, 189-198 and Basil Hall,“Cranmer, the Eucharist and the Foreign Divines in the Reign of Edward VI”, 217-258. 5. See Phillip Tovey, Inculturation of Christian Worship: Exploring the Eucharist (Aldershot: Ashgate,2004); Paul M. Collins, Christian Inculturation in India (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); Stephen Burnsand Anita Monro, Christian Worship in Australia: Inculturating the Liturgical Tradition (Strathfield,New South Wales: St Pauls Publications, 2009); Graham Kings and Geoff Morgan, Offerings fromKenya to Anglicanism: Liturgical Texts and Contexts including “A Kenyan Service of Holy Communion”,Joint Liturgical Studies 50 (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2001); and part five of The Oxford Guide to theBook of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, ed. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck (New York:Oxford University Press, 2006), devoted to the modern prayer books of the Anglican Communion.For recent Anglican liturgical texts, see Colin Buchanan, Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies: 1985 – 2010(Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2011).6. Beyond the numerous studies that deal with ecumenical cooperation and cross-fertilisingwithin the liturgical and ecumenical movements of the 20th and 21st centuries, little has been


13

done on the attraction of Anglican worship and its specificities in other denominations. Thereare studies of Methodist liturgy which deal with its ties with the Book of Common Prayer (see A.Raymond George, “From The Sunday Service to ‘The Sunday Service’: Sunday Morning Worship inBritish Methodism”, Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, ed., The Sunday Service of the Methodists:Twentieth-Century Worship in Worldwide Methodism [Nashville: Abingdon/Kingswood, 1996]; andKaren B. Westerfield Tucker, American Methodist Worship [Oxford/New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001]). The section on the Prayer Book and other traditions in The Oxford Guide to the Book ofCommon Prayer (op. cit., 209-228) has short pieces on the revision of the Book of Common Prayerfor use in the Unitarian King’s Chapel in Boston (by Carl Scovel) and on the use of prayer booklanguage in English-speaking Lutheranism in North America (by Philip H. Pfatteicher, the authorof the standard Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship: Lutheran Liturgy in its EcumenicalContext [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1990]), on top of a short essay on the liturgy ofcontinuing Anglican churches (by Lesley A. Northup). Beyond this one has to look at dispersedstudies about different denominations, like Thaddeus A. Schnitker, “Eucharist and Catholicity.The influence of The Book of Alternative Services on the New Altar Book of the Old CatholicChurch in Germany”, Liturgy Canada V.3 (Michaelmas, 1996): 4-6, or Stuart Ludbrook’s doctoralthesis, La liturgie de Bersier et le culte réformé en France: ritualisme et renouveau liturgique (Lille:Septentrion, 2001). 7. Manuela Rossini and Michael Toggweiler, "Cultural Transfer: an Introduction", Word and Text: AJournal of Literary Studies and Linguistics vol. IV n° 2 (December 2014) : 8.8. The theory of cultural transfers was crafted in the 1990s in the context of the study of theinfluence of French culture in Germany and the emergence of a German national identity. Atheart, this concept is an invitation to examine how cultural transfers change the object that istransplanted (objects, persons, texts, ideas, concepts) and the host culture; see Michel Espagneand Michael Werner, Transferts. Les Relations Interculturelles dans l’espace franco-allemand (XVIIIè-XIXè siècles) (Paris: Editions Recherches sur les civilisations, 1988). For a theoretical examinationof the concept see, for instance, Béatrice Joyeux, "Les transferts culturels: Un discours de laméthode", Hypothèses no. 1 (2003), and more recently, Michel Espagne, who has revisited theconcept, in Revue Sciences/Lettres no. 1 (2013) : “Tout passage d’un objet culturel d’un contextedans un autre a pour conséquence une transformation de son sens, une dynamique deresémantisation, qu’on ne peut pleinement reconnaître qu’en tenant compte des vecteurshistoriques du passage. On peut donc dire d’emblée que la recherche sur les transferts culturelsconcerne la plupart des sciences humaines même si elle s’est développée à partir d’un certainnombre de points d’ancrage précis. Transférer, ce n’est pas transporter mais plutôtmétamorphoser, et le terme ne se réduit en aucun cas à la question mal circonscrite et trèsbanale des échanges culturels, C’est moins la circulation des biens culturels que leurréinterprétation qui est en jeu”.9. To name but a few recent works on cultural transfers : Michel Espagne, Svetlana Gorshenina,Frantz Grenet, Shahin Mustafayev and Claude Rapin, eds., Asie centrale : transferts culturels le longde la route de la soie (Paris: Vendémiaire, 2016); Stefanie Stockhorst, ed., Cultural Transfer throughTranslation: The Circulation of Enlightened Thought in Europe by Means of Translation (Amsterdam andNew York: Rodopi, 2010); Lise Andries, Frédéric Ogée, John Dunkley and Darach Sanfey, eds.,Intellectual Journeys: The Translation of Ideas in Enlightenment England, France and Ireland (Oxford:Voltaire Foundation, 2013); Ann Thomson, Simon Burrows and Edmond Dziembowski, eds.,Cultural Transfers: France and Britain in the Long Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,2010); Stephen Greenblatt, Ines Županov, Reinhard Meyer-Kalkus, Heike Paul, Pál Nyíri, andFriederike Pannewick, eds., Cultural Mobility: A Manifesto (New York: Cambridge University Press,2009). Christophe Charle, Julien Vincent and Jay Winter, eds., Anglo-French Attitudes, Comparisonsand Transfers between English and French Intellectuals since the Eighteenth Century (Manchester/NewYork: Manchester University Press, 2007); Jean-Philippe Genet, and François-Joseph Ruggiu, eds.,


14

Les idées passent-elles la Manche? Savoirs, Représentations et Pratiques (France-Angleterre, X-XXè siècles)(Paris : PUPS, 2007).10. See Jeffrey Rowthorn, “Anglican Churches in Europe”, The Oxford Guide to the Book of CommonPrayer, op. cit., 438-442.11. “Pour une prière commune aux anglicans et aux catholiques : « Seigneur, ouvre nos lèvres”,Documents Episcopat n° 4 (avril 2015).12. The process by which different territories adopted a specific religious identity to theexclusion of competing others (cujus regio, ejus religio). This religious identity shaped politics,society and state building in that territory. The confessionalization thesis was first developed byearly modern German historians Heinz Schilling and Wolfgang Reinhard with reference to theHoly Roman Empire. See in particular, Heinz Schilling Religion, Political Culture and the Emergence ofEarly Modern Society (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Wolfgang Reinhardt,“Reformation, Counter-Reformationand the Early Modern State: a Reassessment‟, Catholic Historical Review vol. 75 no. 3 (July 1989):385-403. Innumerable studies have explored and exploited the concept but for recent discussionsand debates on its continued influence and relevance, see the forum discussion with MarcForster, Bruce Gordon, Joel Harrington, Thomas Kaufmann, Ute Lotz-Heumann in “ReligiousHistory beyond Confessionalization”, German History vol. 32 no. 4 (Dec 2014) : 579-598; PeterMarshall, “Confessionalization, Confessionalism and Confusion in the English Reformation”,Thomas Mayer, ed., Reforming the Reformation (Farnham: Routledge, 2012), 43-64; and NaïmaGhermani, “Confession” in Dictionnaire des concepts nomades en Sciences Humaines, ed. OlivierChristin, vol. 1 (Paris: Editions Métailié, 2010), 117-132.13. As David Holeton points out “Anglicans, like Christians in general, are increasingly exposedto one another’s celebrations through both attendance and the television media. When they visitor watch the liturgical celebrations of other churches (particularly Baptism and Eucharist), thereis a feeling of ‘being at home.’” (David Holeton, “Anglican Liturgical Renewal, EschatologicalHope and Christian Unity”, James F. Puglisi, Liturgical Renewal as a Way to Christian Unity[Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2005],18). For a history of the Liturgical Movement, seeJohn Fenwick and Bryan Spinks, Worship in Transition: The Liturgical Movement in the TwentiethCentury (New York: Continuum, 1995).14. Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People, op.cit.; Mark Goldie, “Voluntary Anglicans”, The HistoricalJournal vol. 46 n° 4 (2003): 977-990. See also Margaret Spufford, “Can we Count the Godly and theConformable in the Seventeenth Century?”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History vol. 36 n°3 (1985):428-38 and Keith Wrightson, English Society, 1580-1680 (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 213. 15. Christopher Haigh, “The Church of England, Catholics and the People”, The Reign of Elizabeth I,ed. Christopher Haigh (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1984), 195-220. 16. See Alexandra Walsham, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity and Confessional Polemic in EarlyModern England (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1993).17. Jeremy Gregory, op.cit., 31.18. Anglican liturgies in Spanish produced as early as the 19th century are a case in point (seeDon Carlos Lopez-Lozano’s paper in this volume).19. See David Holeton, Liturgical Inculturation in the Anglican Communion: Including the YorkStatement "Down to Earth Worship", Joint Liturgical Studies 15 (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1990).The York Statement was the fruit of the 1989 IALC meeting and furthered the reflexion oninculturation that Lambeth had commended. A number of principles were set down to reconcilethe integrity of Anglican tradition on the one hand and the necessary taking into account ofcultural diversity. A meeting of African liturgists at Kanamai in 1993, under the leadership of theArchbishop of Kenya, David Gitari, can be seen as following up on the York Statement. Themeeting more specifically addressed the issue of inculturation in the African context and cameup with guidelines for liturgical inculturation. See David Gitari, ed. Anglican Liturgical Inculturationin Africa: The Kanamai Statement ‘African Culture and Anglican Liturgy’, Joint Liturgical Studies 28


15

(Nottingham: Grove Books, 1994). Colin Buchanan gives an overview of the impact inculturationhad on recent Anglican liturgical texts in Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies: 1985 – 2010, op. cit., 2-8.20. See chapter 5 of Geoffrey J. Cuming’s A History of Anglican Liturgy (London : Macmillan, 1969),94-116. 21. On the kind of worship promoted by Laudians, see the masterful study by Kenneth Finchamand Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: the Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547–c. 1700(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).22. Old Catholic churches, born of a split in the Roman Catholic Church in the wake of the FirstVatican Council (Old Catholics refused the dogma of papal infallibility), constitute a significantpart of the ecclesiastical landscape in Germany and central Europe.

AUTHORS

RÉMY BETHMONT

Université Paris 8, TransCrit

AUDE DE MÉZERAC-ZANETTI

Université Lille 3, CECILLE


16

The Book of Common Prayer: aTimelineChronologie du Book of Common Prayer

The Henrician Reformation

1534: Act of Supremacy, recognizing that Henry VIII is rightfully head of the Church inEngland, enforced by an oath taken by all clergy. 1538: Royal Injunctions ordering all parishes to buy a Bible in English.Thomas Cranmer starts work to revise, translate and simplify the breviary (morningand evening services instead of seven daily offices).1547: Death of Henry VIII, accession of Edward VI.

The Edwardian Reformation

1548: Order of Communion: introduction of some English in the mass.Convocations of Clergy and House of Lords debate Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer. 1549: Book of Common Prayer published (March) and its use made compulsory (June).Rebellions against the Prayer Book in Devon, Cornwall and East Anglia.1550: Introduction of new Ordinal (ordination liturgy) and abolition of minor orders. First Vestarian Controversy: Hooper refuses to wear traditional episcopal vestments(rochet and chimere) for his consecration as Bishop of Gloucester. 1551: Hooper consecrated bishop in required vestments.Book of Common Prayer translated into Latin.1552: Act of Uniformity orders use of second Book of Common Prayer (March).John Knox objects to kneeling at communion.

1 Printing of the second Book of Common Prayer halted and a ‘black’ rubric (in black inkinstead of traditional red ink) added to specify that kneeling does not imply belief inthe real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

French translation of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer published.


17

The Reign of Mary Tudor

1553: Death of Edward VI (July). Jane Grey proclaimed Queen, Mary rallies support andis proclaimed Queen (July).Parliament passes Act of Repeal, undoing Edward VI’s Reformation.1554: Mass exile of English Protestants to the Continent.Second Act of Repeal: undoing Henry VIII’s Reformation; England reconciled to Rome.

The Elizabethan Reformation

1558: Death of Mary and accession of Elizabeth (17 November).Elizabeth leaves the royal chapel when bishop Oglethorpe elevates the host despite hercommand. 1559: Act of Supremacy and Act of Uniformity (Mary’s religious legislation undone,Elizabeth granted the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, conformityto Book of Common Prayer ordered).Restoration of the Book of Common Prayer combining elements of 1552 BCP withelements of 1549 version (kneeling at communion but black rubric omitted, ornamentsrubric amended, 1549 and 1552 words of adminstration combined in a single formula,creating some latitude on Eucharistic doctrine).Queen orders restoration of crucifix to Chapel Royal.1563: Calls for further ecclesiastical reform (abolition of holy days, sign of the cross,compulsory use of surplice, kneeling, organ music).Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion passed by the Convocations of Clergy.Book of Common Prayer translated into Welsh.1564-66: Second vestarian controversy. Elizabeth and Archbishop Parker enforceconformity (clergy indicted or deprived for refusing to wear the surplice).Term ‘Puritan’ used for the more radical Protestants calling for further reforms inworship and church government and for an increased emphasis on preaching. 1572: Parliament examines bill to allow dispensations from wearing vestments andobserving ceremonies. Queen bans bills on religious matters from being introduced in Parliament withoutsupport of bishops. 1581: House of Commons’ petition for Church reform rejected.1586: Introduction of a Bill in the Commons to reform the Book of Common Prayer andestablish a Geneva-style liturgy.

The Church of the Early Stuarts

1603: Death of Elizabeth, accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne asJames I. 1604: Hampton Court Conference meets to find agreement between bishops andPuritans. Book of Common Prayer of 1559 re-issued with minor changes. Enforcementcampaign leading to deprivation of eighty ministers.1607-10: Production of the first translation of the Book of Common Prayer into Italian,to encourage the Venetian Republic’s anti-Roman policies. 1611: Authorised Version of the Bible published.


18

1620s-1630s: rise of Laudianism (beauty of holiness, emphasis on ritualism,Arminianism, as a consequence church rails and altars restored in parish churches).1625: Death of James I and accession of Charles I.1637: Laudian version of the Book of Common Prayer (based on the 1549 edition)imposed in Scotland. Strong popular resistance to royal policy of Anglicanization of theKirk.1638: Book of Common Prayer and office of bishop abolished by Scottish synod.Widespread subscription to National Covenant launched armed resistance to king’spolicy and led to the two Bishops’ wars.1640-1: Resistance in England to Laudian policies in Parliament and ‘out of doors’. Callsto revise the Book of Common Prayer. 1642: Beginning of the Civil War1645: Book of Common Prayer abolished and replaced with Directory of Worship.1649: Trial and execution of Charles I

The Church of the Late Stuarts

1660: Charles II restored as king.1661: Savoy Conference to revise the Book of Common Prayer.1662: Act of Uniformity restores the Book of Common Prayer with little accomodationto Puritan demands. 900 clergy ejected for refusing to accept the Book of CommonPrayer.1664: Conventicles Act outlaws Non-Conformist prayer meetings (i.e. worship withBook of Common Prayer is now mandatory).1660-1685: Repression against Non-Conformists and failure of Charles II’s policies tosecure toleration for Catholics.1685: Death of Charles II, advent of James II, first Catholic king since 1558.Publication in London of the Book of Common Prayer in Italian. 1688: William of Orange lands at Torbay, James II flees England. Start of the Glorious Revolution.1689: Parliament declares the throne vacant ; William and Mary crowned.400 clergy (Non-Jurors) refuse to take the oath of allegiance, leading to loss of theirlivings some time later.Toleration for Dissenters.1690: Following the rejection of episcopacy by the Kirk, Scottish Anglicans reorganisein the Scottish Episcopal Church. They use the 1637 Laudian Book of Common Prayer.

The Church in the Georgian Era

1744: John Wesley calls the first Methodist conference in London. 1764: Scottish Anglicans publish the Scottish Communion Office, a revised eucharisticliturgy based on the Laudian 1637 Communion service.1780: John Wesley publishes A Collection of Hymns for the Use of People called Methodists.1784: Methodist Episcopal Church established in America.Publication of Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, with otheroccasional services (a revised version of the Book of Common Prayer).1789: After reorganising within a newly created Episcopal Church, American Anglicansin the independent United States adopt their own revised version of the Book of


19

Common Prayer, whose eucharistic rite owes a great deal to the 1764 ScottishCommunion Office.1797: Non-Wesleyans reject the use of the Book of Common Prayer.

The Nineteenth-Century Church

1828: Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. 1829: Catholic emancipation. 1833: Beginning of the Oxford Movement with the publication of Tracts for the Times.Rise of Anglo-Catholicism: belief that the Anglican Church is a branch of the CatholicChurch. Key figures in the movement: John Keble, John Henry Newman and EdwardPusey. 1836: Augustus Pugin publishes Contrasts, encouraging gothic revival in church buildingand return to medieval faith and social structures. 1840s-1870s: Rise of Ritualism (re-introduction of pre-Reformation rituals in churchservices).1874: Public Worship Regulation Act, banning ritualism, a few members of the clergyprosecuted. First Bonn Union Conference: first agreement between Anglican Church and Germanspeaking Old Catholics (but the question of the validity of Anglican orders is notsettled).1874: French Reformed minister Eugène Bersier publishes Liturgie à l’usage des EglisesRéformées, inspired by the Book of Common Prayer.1882: Publication of the Methodist Book of Public Prayer and Services.1899: Percy Dearmer publishes The Parson’s Handbook, arguing for a strict compliancewith the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, including the use of pre-Reformationrituals (Sarum rite) and ornaments, thus normalizing High-Church ritualism.

The Twentieth- and Twenty-First-Century Church

1906: Commission established to revise the Book of Common Prayer.1911: Creation of the Society of St Peter and St Paul by Anglo-Catholics in response tothe popularity of ritualism as popularized by The Parson’s Handbook. The Society laterpublished the Anglican Missal (1921).1927-8: House of Commons twice reject Prayer Book Measure (revised version of theBook of Common Prayer).1928: Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury authorise bishops to allow use ofDeposited Book (revised version).1936: Publication of the Methodist Book of Offices.1931: Bonn Agreement, establishing full communion between the Anglican church andthe Old Catholic churches.1979: Latest revision of the American Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church.1980: Publication of the Alternative Service Book, a modern set of liturgies to be used asan alternative to the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England.1985: The Anglican Church of Canada authorises the Book of Alternative Services, amodern set of liturgies for use as an alternative to the Canadian version of the Book ofCommon Prayer (1918, revised in 1964).1999: Publication of the Methodist Worship Book.


20

2000: Common Worship replaces the 1980 Alternative Service Book.2007: Pope Benedict XVI issues the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum whichreauthorises the use of the Tridentine rite in the Roman Catholic Church.2009: Pope Benedict XVI publishes Anglicanorum coetibus: special provisions forAnglicans converting to Catholicism, including use of Anglican liturgy.

2 This chronology is indebted to Rosemary O’ Day, The Routledge Companion to The TudorAge, Routledge: 2010 and John Wroughton, The Routledge Companion to The Stuart Age,1603-1714, Routledge: 2006.


21

Constructing the Anglican LiturgicalTraditionLa Construction d'une tradition liturgique anglicane


22

The Political Enforcement ofLiturgical Continuity in the Churchof England 1558-1662L’imposition par le pouvoir politique de la continuité liturgique dans l’Eglised’Angleterre, 1558-1662

Claire Cross

1 The preservation of the liturgy in the mid sixteenth century, which revisions of theBook of Common Prayer altered little, was primarily caused by reasons of state, but thisrelative continuity with the medieval liturgical past, was bought at a very considerableprice. Secular politics have impacted upon the Book of Common Prayer throughout itshistory, not least because the passage of the 1559 Act of Supremacy, which once morerecognised the monarch as both the head of the English state and the supremegovernor of the English church, automatically made objections to the Prayer Book apotential infringement of royal authority. Time and again during the century betweenthe accession of Elizabeth and the restoration of Charles II moderate and radicalProtestants alike raised concerns over whether the liturgy of the Prayer Bookaccurately reflected the doctrine of the national church: the failure to address theseissues contributed in no small measure to the destruction of a comprehensiveProtestant church in England in 1662.

2 The Book of Common Prayer was far from being set in aspic when Elizabeth succeededto the throne in November 1558. Despite his renunciation of the papacy, Henry VIII hadremained conservative in many other aspects of religion, and allowed only a fewalterations in the church's worship. It was only when the reformers seized control onthe accession of Edward VI in January 1547 that a wholesale revision of the liturgy tookplace, starting with the publication of a Communion Service in the vernacular in 1548.A convinced evangelical by this date, Cranmer had nevertheless moved very cautiouslywhen compiling the First Book of Common Prayer of 1549, and kept as much of thetraditional pattern as he could. When, however, his opponents had begun interpretingthe 1549 Prayer Book in a Catholic sense, he had devised a second unequivocally


23

Protestant Prayer Book in 1552. This second Prayer Book had been in use for a merethree quarters of a year when Edward VI died on 6 July 1553 and his half sister Mary Ibrought back the old Catholic liturgy and returned the country to the papal fold.1

3 Once they had reached the relative safety of the Continent, the first contingent ofProtestant clergy and laity, fleeing the country on account of their religion, were morethan ready to abandon the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and model their worship uponthat of their hosts. Some later arrivals, however, insisted on its retention at least partlyas a sign of their English identity. The attempt by Richard Cox and his party to imposethe Prayer Book on the English congregation at Frankfort resulted in half thecommunity migrating with John Knox to Geneva. Yet even the members of the churchwho stayed in Frankfort conceded in a letter to Calvin in April 1555 that the secondEdwardian Prayer Book still contained some imperfections, which they had recentlytaken it upon themselves to amend:

when the magistrates lately gave us permission to adopt the rites of our nativecountry we freely relinquished all those ceremonies which were regarded by ourbrethren as offensive and inconvenient. For we gave up private baptism,confirmation of children, saints days, kneeling at the holy communion, the linensurplice of the ministers, crosses, and other things of the like character.2

4 Most of the exiles returned in haste to England on Mary’s death on 17 November 1558to discover to their chagrin that they could exert very little direct influence on thereligious settlement. The new Protestant government faced considerable opposition tomaking any change in religion, and with the Catholic bishops still ensconced in theHouse of Lords only succeeded by a hair’s breadth just after Easter in persuadingParliament to pass the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, which respectivelyacknowledged the crown as the supreme governor of the English church and decreedthat all ministers throughout the country be ‘bounden to say and use’ the Prayer Book,and no other formulary, from 24 June 1559. Apart from the inclusion of the words ofadministration at holy communion from the first Edwardian Prayer Book, theElizabethan Prayer Book differed very little from the second Prayer Book of Edward VI.Probably because Calvin himself held more than a memorialist view of the Lord’ssupper, this particular change does not seem to have troubled Protestants bent onfurther reform. What seriously concerned them was the rubric which directed that‘such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and be inuse as was in this church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year ofthe reign of King Edward the VI’. To those who had so recently observed the ‘best’reformed churches on the Continent at first hand it now seemed intolerable to have tore-adopt the garb of the Catholic priesthood. The former exile and incoming bishop ofWorcester, Edwin Sandys, indeed could not believe that the vestments clause wouldapply to convinced Protestants: ‘our gloss upon this text’, he wrote in late April 1559, ‘isthat we shall not be forced to use them.’ At around the same time John Jewel, the futurebishop of Salisbury and author of the classic defence of the English church, referreddisparagingly to ‘the scenic apparatus of divine worship’. Even though in practice thenew Elizabethan bishops appear only to have required parochial clergy to wear thevestments in use at the death of Edward VI, that is to all intents and purposes thesurplice, the rubric remained a major stumbling block for those striving to secure afully reformed church in England.3

5 The vestments rubric contained the provision that it should continue in operation“until other order shall be therein taken by authority of the queen’s majesty with the


24

advice of her commissioners appointed and authorised under the great seal of Englandfor causes ecclesiastical or of the metropolitan of this realm”, and for a decade at leastmany leading churchmen anticipated vestments and ceremonies specified in the PrayerBook might be modified if not dispensed with altogether. At the national synod of theclergy in 1562 Bishop Sandys moved that the queen should be petitioned that ‘privatebaptism might be taken out of the Book of Common Prayer’ and that ‘the collect forcrossing of the infant in the forehead may be blotted out, as it seems very superstitious,so it is not needful.’ The appeal achieved nothing. With a similar lack of success, themore forward clergy at the 1563 synod attempted to excise from the Prayer Book theobservance of saints’ days, kneeling at communion, signing with the cross at baptism,and the clergy’s obligation to wear the surplice during worship and a distinctiveoutdoor dress when they went abroad. The approval by this Convocation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, a condensed and somewhat modified version of the indisputablyProtestant Forty-Two Articles of the last year of Edward VI, and their subsequentendorsement by Parliament in 1571, drew yet further attention to the discrepancybetween the church’s doctrine and the quasi-Catholic practices countenanced by theBook of Common Prayer.4

6 Stymied in Convocation, clergy with scruples over the Prayer Book turned to their laysympathisers for support. In London and its hinterland numerous congregationssheltered ministers who refused to wear the surplice. Enticed to Hull from Boston inLincolnshire by a group of forward councillors, Melchior Smith in the 1560s delegatedthe reading of Prayer Book services in Holy Trinity church to curates and clad in aGenevan gown only appeared in the pulpit to preach. The protection of the godly thirdearl of Huntingdon enabled the Marian exile and very vocal opponent of vestments,Anthony Gilby, to promote the cause for reform from the Hastings family seat at Ashbyde la Zouch in Leicestershire virtually unscathed for over two decades until his death in1585.5

7 Having encountered this type of passive resistance on her progresses across southernEngland, at the beginning of 1565 Elizabeth insisted upon the enforcement ofuniformity in the matter of clerical dress. The ensuing Vestiarian Controversy split thereformers. In Oxford, the former exiles Laurence Humphrey and Thomas Sampson, nowrespectively president of Magdalen College and dean of Christ Church, rejecting theargument that vestments might be regarded as a matter of indifference to be imposedat the will of the civil magistrate, felt called to make a stand. At the height of thedispute, after admitting to Bullinger ‘we have (praised be God!) a doctrine pure andincorrupt,’ they asked rhetorically, ‘why should we go halting in regard to divineworship, which is not the least important part of religion? F0

5B…F05D We have always

thought well of the bishops F05B…F0

5DWhy do they cast us into prison? Why do theypersecute us on account of the habits?' For their part, some of the bishops had qualmsabout what their supreme governor was constraining them to do, as Grindal and Hornsome months later told Bullinger and Gualter, explaining that they had been acting atthe queen's behest and that they still wished the vestments rubric could be droppedtogether with the practice of signing with the cross at baptism and kneeling atcommunion. Saved by a legal nicety Humphrey rode out the storm at Magdalen, butSampson lost the deanery of Christ Church, a crown appointment, and a number of thelesser clergy were deprived of their livings for refusing to conform. From the time ofthe Vestiarian Controversy the hotter sort of Protestants increasingly looked upon thebishops as their adversaries, while some now began questioning the legitimacy of the


25

very institution of episcopacy. Then in lectures on the New Testament delivered atCambridge university in 1570 Thomas Cartwright advanced the revolutionaryproposition that rather than the regulation of the church being a matter of indifferenceand so open to modification by the secular power Presbyterianism alone was thedivinely sanctioned form of church government.6

8 While by this date reformers had despaired of gaining change through Convocation,they had not entirely abandoned hope of Parliament. They introduced bills to impose astricter code of ecclesiastical discipline and to purge the Prayer Book of the hatedceremonies in the Parliament of 1571, but made no progress whatsoever in the face ofthe queen’s opposition. Though they must have known very well how she would react,a group of laymen still sponsored another bill for the reform of the Prayer Book in theParliament of 1572. Some radicals, however, had lost all patience with the policy ofwaiting upon the magistrate and before that session of Parliament had even come to anend two young ministers, Thomas Wilcox and John Field, took the decision to move thedebate out into the market place, and to appeal to the nation at large.7

9 In their tract, misleadingly entitled An Admonition to the Parliament, they launched ascathing attack on the Prayer Book in language deliberately designed to court thepopulace. ‘We must needs say ... that this book is an unperfect book, culled and pickedout of that popish dunghill, the Mass Book, full of abominations.’ It contained a host oftotally unacceptable observances: ‘private communion, private baptism, baptismministered by women, holy days ascribed to saints, prescript services for them,kneeling at communion, wafer cakes for their bread when they minister it, surplice andcope to do it in, churching of women coming in veils...’ The laity, moreover, derivedlittle benefit from this form of worship:

In all their order of service there is no edification, according to the rule of theapostle, but confusion. They toss the psalms in most places like tennis balls. Thepeople some standing, some walking, some talking, some reading, some praying bythemselves, attend not to the minister. F0

5B…F05D As for organs and curious singing,

though they be proper to popish dens, I mean the cathedral churches, yet someothers also must have them. The queen’s chapel and these churches must bepatterns and precedents to the people of all superstitions.

10 They then moved on to the habits, marvelling that the church should still have kept‘copes, caps, surplices, tippets, and such like baggage, the preaching signs of popishpriesthood, the pope’s creatures.’8

11 Most fundamentally of all the admonitioners believed that the Prayer Book, since it didnot provide for sermons at the main services as a matter of course, seriously hinderedthe church’s teaching ministry. When conscientious clergy took it upon themselves topreach, as they considered that it was their obligation to do every Sunday, the sheerlength of the set service, in the morning mattins followed by the ante-communion,limited the time available for the sermon. Some conservatives even preferred thereading of printed homilies to sermons, and

in the fulness of their blasphemy have said that much preaching bringeth the wordof God into contempt, and that four preachers were enough for all London, so farare they from thinking it necessary, and seeking that every congregation shouldhave a faithful pastor.9

12 During the 1560s theological exercises known as prophesyings, intended to educate theparochial clergy and improve their capacity to preach, had sprung up in many parts ofthe country. When she heard about them, because of their voluntary nature Elizabeth


26

saw them as threats to the hierarchical government of the church, and commanded thearchbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, to suppress them. After his death in 1575the unwelcome task fell to his successor, Edmund Grindal. Moved to the quick after shehad spoken slightingly of preaching in his presence, the new archbishop felt compelledto speak his mind, and taking his inspiration from the remonstration addressed to theemperor Theodosius by St Ambrose in the fourth century composed a public letter tothe queen:

Alas, madam! Is the scripture more plain in any one thing than that the gospel ofChrist should be plentifully preached? F0

5B…F05D Public and continual preaching of

God’s word is the ordinary mean and instrument of the salvation of mankind. F05B…F05D

The reading of homilies hath his commodity, but is nothing comparable to theoffice of preaching F05Bwhich had been greatly advanced by F0

5D the learned exerciseand conference amongst the ministers of the church

He had rather surrender his office than curb preaching. He concluded by reminding thesupreme governor of her obligations to the church:

Remember, madam, that you are a mortal creature. And although ye are a mightyprince, yet remember he which dwelleth in heaven is mightier. Wherefore I dobeseech you, madam, in visceribus Christi, when you deal in these religious causes,set the majesty of God before your eyes, laying all earthly majesty aside, determinewith yourself to obey his voice, and with all humility say unto him, Non mea sed tuavoluntas fiat.10

13 Greatly offended, the queen ordered Grindal’s sequestration, and he never regained hispowers of office. His sufferings, however, did much to redeem the institution ofepiscopacy in the eyes of more radical Protestants and so long as he lived the voicescalling for the Presbyterian form of the church government fell silent. Everythingchanged when he died and John Whitgift succeeded him as archbishop of Canterbury inthe autumn of 1583. A disciplinarian, Whitgift at once set to work to impose a greateruniformity upon the church and as a means to that end required the clergy to give theirformal consent to three propositions. Most had no problem in acknowledging the royalsupremacy and the Thirty-Nine Articles, but the more scrupulous among them couldnot in conscience accept ‘that the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering bishops,priests and deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the word of God.’ In theensuing outcry Burghley accused the archbishop of acting like a Roman inquisitor, andWhitgift had eventually to content himself with a limited subscription. The damage,however, was done, the bishops appeared once again to have resumed the role ofpersecutors, and the hotter sort of Protestants considered they had every justificationin renewing their attacks on the institution of episcopacy.11

14 Throwing caution to the winds, in parts of the south of England, the Midlands and EastAnglia some ministers now began implementing a voluntary form of Presbyterianismwithin the national church, meeting in local, regional and occasionally national synods.In 1586 Sir Anthony Cope even went so far as to introduce a bill into the House ofCommons to replace the Prayer Book with the Genevan liturgy and the ancient systemof canon law with a much stricter Presbyterian discipline. United in the defence ofepiscopacy the bishops retaliated by prosecuting Cartwright and his associates first inthe Court of High Commission and then in the Star Chamber. Although they failed toconvict them of high treason, they nevertheless succeeded in crushing the movementand gagging its protagonists for the remainder of the reign.12

15 The defeat of Presbyterianism, however, did nothing to silence criticism of the Book ofCommon Prayer. Drawing up his will a year before he died in 1588 no less a churchman


27

than Edwin Sandys, archbishop of York and second only to the archbishop ofCanterbury in the episcopal hierarchy, recorded for posterity his desire for its furtherreform:

concerning rites and ceremonies by political constitutions authorized amongst us,as I am and have been persuaded that such as are now set down by public authorityin this church of England are no way either ungodly or unlawful, but may with goodconscience for order and obedience sake be used of a good Christian. F05B…F0

5D So have Iever been and presently am persuaded that some of them be not so expedient inthis church now, but that in the church reformed, and in all this time of the gospel(wherein the seed of the scripture hath so long been sown), that they may better bedisused by little and little, than more and more urged.13

16 Aspirations were one thing, their realisation another and by this date it must havebecome evident to moderates and radicals alike that the present queen would allow noalterations to the Prayer Book during her life time. Everything changed in 1603 on theaccession of James I, a Scot educated from infancy in an indubitably fully reformedchurch, and within a month of Elizabeth’s death the new monarch received a petitionfrom allegedly a thousand of his subjects “for the reformation of certain ceremoniesand abuses of the church”. Deliberately moderate in tone the petition repeated the callsfor reform made so frequently in the previous half century - that “the cross in baptism... be taken away”, that “church songs and music be moderated to better edification”,“that examination may go before the communion”, and “that men be notexcommunicated without the consent of the pastor”. It also asked that newly ordainedministers should in the future only be required to acknowledge the royal supremacyand declare their assent to the articles of religion.14

17 Unlike Elizabeth, James positively enjoyed theological disputation, and responded tothe petition by presiding over a conference at Hampton Court in January 1604. The kingsympathised with the reformers’ call for a greater supply of learned preachers and for anew translation of the Bible, but, highly sensitive to any infringement of his position assupreme governor, exploded in anger when he mistakenly thought John Reynolds wassuggesting that a modified form of Presbyterianism should be introduced into theEnglish church. The conference ended with the king impressing upon the petitionersthe virtue of obedience and urging them to appeal to him personally if they felt thebishops were treating them too harshly. Apart from the insertion of clauses disallowingbaptism by midwives and justifying the rite of confirmation, the edition of the PrayerBook, issued a mere three weeks later, was in all other respects identical with the Bookof Common Prayer of 1559.15

18 Particularly during the archiepiscopate of Richard Bancroft, who occupied the see ofCanterbury between 1604 and 1610, clergy continued to be excluded from their livingsfor refusing to observe the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of CommonPrayer, though even the king conceded that these “puritans and novelists” did “not sofar differ from us in points of religion as in their confused form of policy and parity”.For their part, so long as James remained the supreme governor and a Calvinistconsensus prevailed in religion the great majority of ministers felt able to exercisetheir vocation within the church, taking comfort in the fact that in all essentials itsdoctrine accorded with that of the best reformed churches on the Continent.16

19 This way of thinking, however, was totally antipathetic to a theological movementwhich had been growing in strength in the two universities since the last decades of theprevious century. Derided as Arminians, these opponents of Calvinism, who rejected


28

predestination in favour of freewill, placed the sacraments above sermons and nolonger held the pope to be the Antichrist, seemed to their antagonists to be about to bere-introducing Catholicism by the back door. James I had been cautious in promotingsuch churchmen, but the moment Charles I succeeded his father in 1625 the gates ofpatronage sprang wide open. In a mere three years the party’s leader, William Laud,progressed from the insignificant Welsh bishopric of St David’s via Bath and Wells toLondon in the knowledge that the see of Canterbury would become his so soon as it fellvacant. His older colleague, Richard Neile, achieved an equally rapid advance fromDurham to Winchester and then York. Alarmed by the Arminians’ capture of so many ofthe chief posts in the church, Parliament in 1629 called upon Charles to preserve “theorthodox doctrine of our church F05B…F0

5D according as it hath been hitherto generallyreceived, without any alteration or innovation” and only “to confer bishoprics, andother ecclesiastical preferments, with the advice of his privy council, upon learned,pious and orthodox men”.17

20 Ignoring their protests, Charles chose to rule without a Parliament, and gave theArminians free rein. Laud and his followers then proceeded to implement theirprogramme largely through a literal enforcement of the observances and practices setout in the Book of Common Prayer. Their campaign to bring worship in parish churchesinto harmony with the far more elaborate liturgy celebrated in cathedrals, collegiatechurches and royal chapels met with widespread resistance from influential sectors ofthe laity, who in particular opposed the requirement that the holy table, which forgenerations had been brought down into the body of the church for the communionservice, be now situated permanently altar wise at the east end of the chancel andrailed. To curb preaching the Laudians went on to order clergy to replace afternoonsermons, for which there was no provision in the Prayer Book, with regularcatechising, and attempted to put an end the practice of sermon gadding by forcing thelaity to attend all services in their parish church.18

21 The implementation of this policy aroused resentment throughout the country,especially in towns like Salisbury, where the civic elite suffered a particularlyhumiliating defeat. The vestry of St Edmund’s, one of Salisbury’s three parishes,dominated by Henry Sherfield, the city’s recorder and representative in Parliamentbetween 1624 and 1629, and a prominent goldsmith, John Ivie, had recently acquiredthe advowson and in 1623 appointed a known reformer, Peter Thatcher. The newminister had then gone on to endorse from the pulpit the corporation’s wide rangingplans for the creation of a godly commonwealth, only to be stopped in his tracks whenSherfield, in 1630, ill-advisedly took it upon himself to destroy a stained-glass windowin St Edmund’s which depicted God in the act of creating the world. In the ensuing StarChamber trial, in which Sherfield was found guilty of iconoclasm, Laud went out of hisway to incriminate Thatcher, who, he alleged, had “not read all the divine service awhole year together”. After Sherfield’s disgrace a group of disillusioned parishioners,which included the minister’s teenage son, left Salisbury in despair for New England,and Thatcher himself for a time contemplated retiring to a safe haven in Herefordshire.In the event, he remained with his flock, and his harassment by the ecclesiasticalauthorities seems only to have increased his standing in popular estimation.Throughout the decade, the laity continued to relish his preaching, and no fewer thanthirty-seven members of the adjoining parish of St Thomas appeared in the local


29

church court in 1637 for neglecting services in their own church to frequent Thatcher’ssermons.19

22 At the other end of England the chief inhabitants of the prosperous parish of StMartin’s, Micklegate, in York had similarly acquired the patronage of their church. In1633 they conferred the cure on John Birchill, who then proceeded to combine hisparochial duties with acting as the household chaplain to Thomas Hoyle, a leadingmerchant and member of the corporation. Hoyle had recently purchased a small estatein Colton, a hamlet some half a dozen miles from the city and on a summer’s day in1635 Hoyle, his wife, daughter, Birchill and friends made an excursion into the countryto visit his manor house. Before venturing out into the fields, Hoyle requested Birchillto offer up a prayer, which he did, asking God to

bless our king, queen and whole state, giving also thanks to God for his merciesspiritual and temporal and for the temporal mercies here and elsewhere given toAlderman Hoyle and his, together with a desire that we might rightly use them. Andthat he would bless them to us and our posterity.20

23 News of the expedition quickly reached the ecclesiastical authorities who accusedBirchill of holding an illegal conventicle and of praying in an ex tempore manner incontempt of the Book of Common Prayer. Having pursued him for the rest of thedecade the court inflicted a final indignity upon the ailing minister in March 1640 byrequiring him to

read divine service in his parish church of St Martin’s as is prescribed in the Book ofCommon Prayers established in the Church of England, and in his sermon uponSunday next and in some passages of his other sermons hereafter to justify,maintain and defend the same to be both pious, lawful and well pleasing unto Godand to enforce it to his parishioners.’21

24 For eleven years from 1629 lay supporters of clergy like Thatcher and Birchill had nonational forum in which to seek redress. The wheel then turned full circle. To raisesupplies to put down the rebellion north of the border, caused in no small part byLaud’s attempt to impose the Book of Common Prayer upon the Scots, the king had noalternative but to call a Parliament. The moment they gathered in Westminster inNovember 1640 members of the House of Commons began voicing their grievances overprelacy and the Prayer Book, with the more extreme seeking a total overhaul of thechurch’s government, and some Londoners as early as December calling uponParliament to eradicate episcopacy “root and branch”. In January, Parliament receiveda petition from eighty Suffolk ministers for the reformation of the Prayer Book and, tothat end, set up a committee two months later under the leadership of John Williams,Laud’s archenemy, recently elevated to the archbishopric of York. On the passing of theGrand Remonstrance, which included a demand for the abolition of “needless andsuperstitious ceremonies F05B…F0

5D and F05B…F0

5D monuments of idolatry”, in December 1641the king agreed among much else to the removal of ‘any illegal innovations’ introducedinto the Prayer Book. These concessions, however, were too little and too late.22

25 In parts of the country, radicals were already starting to take the law into their ownhands, venting their anger at first on some of the greater churches. In Norwich, themob burst into the cathedral, dragged out service books, vestments and organ pipesand set them on fire in the market place. Similar iconoclasm happened at Canterburycathedral with prayer books pulled apart and strewed around the aisles. Then lesserchurches came under attack. Holding that the prayer book “was a popish book andagainst the word of God”, William Harvie of Earls Colne in Essex took “the Common


30

Prayer Book out of his parish church on a Sunday morning” and threw “the same into apond of water, and the next day, finding it swimming, took the same and tearing it topieces threw part of it into the fire and burnt it”.23

26 Thrust onto the defensive by these outbreaks of popular insurrection, members of thegoverning class rallied to the Prayer Book and began petitioning Parliament in itssupport. Kentish petitioners claimed that “the solemn liturgy of the Church ofEngland” was “embraced by the most and best of all the laity”, Lancashire petitionersthat the Prayer Book enjoyed the “general approbation of the most pious and learnedof this nation”, while those from Cornwall extolled “the divine and excellent form ofCommon Prayer”. Yet despite their veneration for the Prayer Book virtually all thepetitioners drew the line at the changes introduced by the Laudians, with those fromBedfordshire inserting a specific clause condemning “the exorbitances of ecclesiasticaljurisdiction and the innovations lately obtruded upon our church”. What most of theseconservatives seem to have wanted was a return to what they now regarded as thegolden age of the English church in the reigns of Elizabeth and James.24

27 Throughout 1641 and the first half of 1642, moderates on both sides continued in theirefforts to devise a modified form of episcopacy and a reformed Book of CommonPrayer, but time was against them. The outbreak of the Civil War in August 1642 hadthe effect of polarising attitudes towards the Prayer Book yet further, with Royalistsmaking a point of observing it to the letter, Parliamentarians increasingly ready todispense with it altogether. In the event, military exigencies decided the issue. Havingcome to the realisation that the king’s forces could not be defeated without aid fromabroad, Parliament had little choice in September 1643 but to enter into the SolemnLeague and Covenant with the Scots, and to accede to their demand that thegovernment and liturgy of the English church should be brought into accord with thatof the church in Scotland. After long periods of deliberation, the Assembly of Divinesduly produced a guide for extempore worship, the Westminster Directory, and in thefirst week of January 1645 Parliament passed an ordinance requiring all parishchurches to adopt this new form of service and banned the Book of Common Prayer.25

28 For the next fifteen years, the Prayer Book went underground, its clandestine use inEngland seen as a sign of political subversion if not potential treason, and the onlyplace it could be openly employed in worship was at the royal court in exile on theContinent. Royalist sympathisers nevertheless contrived to avail themselves of thePrayer Book privately in their households and, in the relatively tolerantCommonwealth period, were occasionally able to attend semi-public Prayer Bookservices conducted by sequestered Church of England clergy.26

29 The Royalists’ devotion to the Book of Common Prayer made it virtually inevitable thata version of the Prayer Book and an episcopal form of church government would bereinstated on Charles II’s restoration in May 1660. In the Declaration of Breda issuedthe previous month the king, by nature a pragmatist, had promised to bind up thecountry’s “bleeding wounds” and grant freedom of religion to tender consciences. Henow made overtures to some of the most eminent clergy who had served in theCommonwealth church and authorised the setting up a commission to discuss therevision of the Prayer Book. This conference met in March 1661 at the Savoy in London.Richard Baxter put the case for reform, arguing at length for extensive modifications inthe liturgy and for a toleration for those clergy who could not accept certain rites andceremonies. Antagonised by his pedantry, the episcopal party refused to grant any


31

concessions, and the delegates dispersed with nothing achieved. The task then passedto the bishops, and, at the eleventh hour, a group of Laudian clergy attempted toresurrect the much more conservative 1549 Prayer Book. The majority of churchmen,however, regarded this as a step too far and the Book of Common Prayer approved bythe Convocations of Canterbury and York in December 1661 was in all essentialsidentical with the Prayer Book of 1552.27

30 At this juncture the bishop of London, Gilbert Sheldon, determined to restore thechurch to the state in which it had been before the Civil War, turned to the newlyelected Cavalier Parliament to outmanoeuvre the king and his chief minister, the earlof Clarendon, who were still hoping for a more inclusive and conciliatory religioussettlement. He gained his objective through the patient marshalling of sympathisers inthe Lords and Commons, and clauses were inserted in the new Act of Uniformitydecreeing the only episcopally ordained clergy, who had repudiated the Solemn Leagueand Covenant and declared in public their “unfeigned assent and consent to all andeverything contained and prescribed in F05B…F0

5D the Book of Common Prayer”, might holdlivings in the English church. The Act received the royal assent on 19 May and cameinto force on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August, 1662.28

31 From the death of Edward VI until the Civil War, Protestants who had difficulty inreconciling the church’s liturgy with its theology had nevertheless consideredthemselves full members of the English church. Even late in Elizabeth’s reign, RichardHooker felt able to maintain that “there is not any man of the church of England butthe same is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any member of thecommonwealth, which is not also of the church of England”. No theologian could makesuch a claim with any plausibility after the Restoration. The refusal of hard lineEpiscopalians first to sanction any substantial modifications to the Prayer Book andsubsequently to allow leniency to tender consciences in the Act of Uniformity resultedin the ejection of around two thousand ministers with their congregations in the spaceof two years between the fall of the republic and Black Bartholomew’s Day. The re-adoption of the Book of Common Prayer in 1662 thus marked the end of acomprehensive church in England.29 It is, therefore, somewhat ironic that it was themore "Romish" aspects of Prayer Book worship - so very controversial in the firstcentury of its use- that most contributed to the position of Anglican worship as aunique resource for various churches on the Continent since the 19th century acrosshistoric denominational divides. More than "Romish", of course, these elements ofworship were the result of continuity of liturgical practice from the Middle Ages,through the Henrician break with Rome, to the Edwardian Reformation and theElizabethan Settlement.


32

NOTES

1. F. Procter and W. H. Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1901),45-90; B. Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer: the Texts of 1549, 1559 and 1662(Oxford, 2011).

2. E. Arber, ed., A Brief Discourse of the Troubles at Frankfort 1554-1558 (London, 1908), 77;spelling in all quotations has been modernised.

3. Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer, 186-92; J. Bruce, ed., Correspondence ofMatthew Parker (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853), 65; H. Robinson, ed., The Zurich Letters(Parker Society, Cambridge, 1842), 23; P. Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement(London, 1967), 32-6; D. J. Crankshaw and A. Gillespie, ‘Parker, Matthew (1504-1575),archbishop of Canterbury and patron of scholarship’, Oxford Dictionary of NationalBiography (Oxford, 2004), vol. 42, 707-28 [hereafter ODNB].

4. Cummings, ed. The Book of Common Prayer, 192; J. Ayre, ed., The Sermons of Edwin Sandys(Parker Society, Cambridge, 1841), 443; Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 65-6; B.J. Kidd, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their History and Explanation (London, 1899), 38-54.

5. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 50-51, 54-55, 69; C. Cross, Urban Magistratesand Ministers: Religion in Hull and Leeds from the Reformation to the Civil War, BorthwickPaper 67 (York, 1985), 14-15; C. Cross, ‘Gilby, Anthony (c.1510-1585), religious writerand Church of England clergyman’, ODNB, vol. 22, 213-14.

6. Zurich Letters, 162, 175-181; Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 68-95.

7. W. H. Frere and C. E. Douglas eds., Puritan Manifestoes (London: SPCK, 1907, reprinted1954), 8-55.

8. Puritan Manifestoes, 21, 29, 30, 35.9. Puritan Manifestoes, 23.10. W. Nicholson, ed., The Remains of Edmund Grindal (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843), 378, 379,382, 383, 389-90; P. Collinson, Archbishop Grindal, 1519-1583: the Struggle for a Reformed Church(London, 1979), 233-252.11. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 245, 264.

12. P. Collinson, J. Craig, B. Usher, eds., Conferences and Combination Lectures in theElizabethan Church: Dedham and Bury St Edmunds 1582-1590, Church of England RecordSociety 10 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003); Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movementparts 6, 7 and 8.

13. Ayre, ed., Sermons of Edwin Sandys, 448.

14. F. Shriver, ‘Hampton Court Re-visited: James I and the Puritans’, Journal ofEcclesiastical History, 33 (1982), 50-1.

15. Shriver, ‘Hampton Court Revisited’, 54-63.16. Shriver, ‘Hampton Court Revisited’, 66.17. N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: the Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590-1640 (Oxford, 1987); A. Milton,Catholic and Reformed: the Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640(Cambridge, 1965); J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 (Cambridge, 1966), 158.18. K. Fincham and N. Tyacke, Altars Restored: the Changing Face of English Religious Worship 1547-c.1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).


33

19. P. Slack, ‘Thatcher [Thacher], Peter (1587/8-1641), Church of England clergyman’, ODNB, vol.54, 207-9; P. Slack, ‘Religious Protest and Urban Authority: the Case of Henry Sherfield,Iconoclast’, Studies in Church History, 9 (1972), 295-302; J. Chandler, Endless Street: A History ofSalisbury and its People (East Knoyle, Salisbury, 1983), 201-2.20. Borthwick Institute of Archives, York CP H 2123 Responses of John Birchill; R. A. Marchant,The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York 1560 - 1642 (London, 1960), 74 - 106.21. Borthwick Institute of Archives HC AB 19 f. 115r.22. P. King, ‘The Reasons for the Abolition of the Book of Common Prayer in 1645', Journal ofEcclesiastical History 21: 327-39; A. Hughes, ‘”The Public Profession of these Nations”: the NationalChurch in Interregnum England’, in C. Durston and J. Maltby, eds., Religion in Revolutionary England(Manchester, 2006), 94.23. King, ‘Reasons for the Abolition of the Book of Common Prayer’, 333-4; J. Maltby, Prayer Bookand People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 1998), 92-3.24. Maltby, Prayer Book and People, 109, 113-14, 127.25. King, ‘Reasons for the Abolition of the Book of Common Prayer’, 336-7.26. J. Maltby, ‘Suffering and Surviving: the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Formation of“Anglicanism”, 1642 - 60', in C. Durstan and J. Maltby, eds., Religion in Revolutionary England(Manchester, 2006), 158-201.27. J. Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven and London, 1991), 30-41.;Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer, 757-8, 769.28. J. Spurr. ‘Sheldon, Gilbert (1598-1677), archbishop of Canterbury’, ODNB, vol. 50, 178-85;Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, pp.41-2; Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer, 196,198.29. R. Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (London, 1666), Book VIII, 448.

ABSTRACTSThe parliamentary settlement of religion of 1559, which in the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformityrecognised the monarch as the supreme governor of the English church and required the churchto worship according to the only slightly modified, indisputably Protestant second Prayer Bookof Edward VI, had long lasting political consequences, since it automatically made anyquestioning of the Prayer Book a potential infringement of royal authority. The Prayer Book hadundergone radical changes in the short reign of Edward VI and committed Protestants, whorepeatedly questioned whether the liturgy prescribed in the Prayer Book accurately reflected thetheology of the national church, assumed that the crown would authorise further revision. Thedisappointment of their expectations in the century between the accession of Elizabeth and therestoration of Charles II contributed in no small way to the destruction of a comprehensiveProtestant church in England in 1662.

Après l’avenement d’Elizabeth Ière, le Parlement rétablit la suprématie royale et la loid’uniformité imposa à toute l’Eglise une version légèrement revisée du second Book of CommonPrayer d’Edouard VI, liturgie clairement protestante. Ces decisions en matière de religion eurentun impact politique durable : toute remise en cause du livre de prières pouvait être comprisecomme une atteinte à l’autorité royale. Entre sa première et sa seconde edition, toutes deux sousle règne d’Edouard VI (1547-1553), le Book of Common Prayer avait été profondément transformé.


34

Les protestants les plus engagés, qui exprimait régulièrement leur malaise face à ce qu’ilsvoyaient comme un décalage entre la liturgie officielle et la théologie de l’Eglise nationale,étaient convaincus que la reine engagerait de nouvelles réformes. Du règne d’Elizabeth jusqu’auretour de Charles II sur le trône, leurs attentes furent décues et cette déconvenue explique engrande partie les profondes divisions de l’Eglise d’Angleterre qui empècherent la restaurationd’une Eglise unifiée en 1662.

INDEX

Mots-clés: Book of Common Prayer, Elisabeth Ière, puritains, dynastie Stuarts, Eglised'AngleterreKeywords: Book of Common Prayer, Elizabeth I, puritans, Stuart kings, Church of England

AUTHOR

CLAIRE CROSS

University of York


35

A Reappraisal of LiturgicalContinuity in the Mid-SixteenthCentury: Henrician Innovations andthe First Books of Common PrayerRepenser la continuité liturgique au milieu du XVIe siècle: les innovations durègne d’Henri VIII et les premières éditions du Book of Common Prayer

Aude de Mézerac-Zanetti

1 For more than a century, eminent scholars, from F.E. Brightman to Brian Cummings,have tirelessly reconstructed the varied influences which contributed to shaping theBook of Common Prayer.1 When trying to untangle the multiple sources of the firstliturgies in English, much of the focus rightly centres on the different rites from whichArchbishop Cranmer drew, as he is usually considered to be the main compiler of thenew liturgy. His knowledge in that field was extensive, ranging from the traditionalRoman liturgy and its variants (such as the Sarum rite used in most of England) to rarerforms and Continental reformed rites. Charles Whitworth’s study of the penitentialpsalms in this issue is a telling example of how in several instances, the Prayer Book’soriginal Sarum influence survived successive revisions.2 The influence of doctrinalstatements of Reformed churches on the prayer book has also been highlighted byBrian Spinks while the clear Biblical content has even led scholars such as Alec Ryrie tosee the Anglican services as “mechanisms for delivering the English Bible to thepeople”. 3

2 However, very little attention is paid to the impact of the immediate past. Indeed,worship underwent a few practical changes in Henry’s reign. The liturgicaldevelopments of the 1530s and 1540s have been woefully neglected and this paperpurports to correct this oversight and hence argue that although the 1549 Book ofCommon Prayer was radically novel and undisputedly broke with the past in manyways, it also presents some degree of continuity with changes implemented in the1530s and 1540s. In the books and manuscripts surviving from this period, numerous


36

meaningful adjustments to traditional forms of worship can be found. Building on theseobservations, I would like to offer some perspective on the bearing that the immediatepast had on the composition of the early Books of Common Prayer.

3 By so doing, I do not mean to deny that the 1549 text departed widely from pre-Reformation liturgical traditions and beliefs and that the Book of Common Prayer wasindeed a revolution in worship. But, as Bryan Spinks has established, the English liturgyalso evolved through “experimentation and a planned series of orders”. Heunderstands the first step of this gradual process to be the “Order of Communion” of1548, I would contend that, in fact, the first phase of this gradual development can betraced to the 1530s and 1540s.4 Not only is the emphasis on continuity in worshipcentral to understanding the developments of Anglican liturgy over the course of the16th and 17th century, it is also a useful concept when looking at the creation of theBook of Common Prayer.5 The notion of experiential continuity can indeed help explainwhy the revolutionary change of 1549 was quite readily accepted by the English people.This very issue goes to the heart of the underlying anthropological dimension ofliturgical practice: rites and rituals provide meaning, shape communities and connectthe present with the past and the living with the dead.

4 The relation between the evolution of the liturgy under Henry and the content of theBook of Common Prayer remains hopelessly complex and untidy. The liturgicalexperimentations of the later years of Henry’s reign heralded some of the featuresimplemented in the new liturgy while other Henrician innovations were abandoned orwatered down, in particular as concerned the focus on the king’s supremacy withinliturgical texts. And finally, the most enduring change concerned the function of theliturgy: in this respect, developments and experiments instigated under Henry becamestaple features of Reformed worship.

Henrician innovations carried over into the Book ofCommon Prayer

5 Amongst the liturgical developments of the 1530s and 1540s, three found their way intothe Reformed liturgy of Edward’s reign.

6 The best-known prayer published under Henry VIII and still in use, almost unchangedin Edward’s reign, is certainly the new litany of 1544.6 In tone and emphasis,Archbishop Cranmer’s litany in the vernacular departed radically from the latemedieval devotional practice known as the letania which centred on the intercession ofthe saints. The long list of saints was removed with merely a reference to Mary andsaints in general maintained. The prayer was entirely translated into English andpreceded by a homiletic text entitled An Exhortation to Prayer. The use of the vernacularand the emphasis on sincerity and understanding as an assurance of efficacy areremarkably consistent with Cranmer’s later understanding of the role and function ofthe liturgy.

7 A cursory foray into the matter would suggest that in some parishes the 1544 litany wasstill in use at the start of Edward’s reign. One parish priest effected manuscript changesto the intercessory section of the litany to pray for Edward instead of Henry andrectified the passage which mentioned Prince Edward to reflect the latter’s accession tothe throne.7 Interestingly, the mention of Mary, the angels and the saints are also


37

deleted from the text, thus aligning it perfectly with the version of the litany publishedin the 1549 Prayer Book.8 This example shows how liturgical texts could be recycled andadapted to circumstances when a concern for thrift was paired with a desire toconform.

8 Most commentators agree that the structure of the prayer at the altar whichimmediately follows the Preface in the 1549 eucharistic liturgy is mainly derived fromthe Sarum canon of the mass, and Cranmer once inadvertently referred to theconsecration prayer as the “canon”.9 Regardless of the similarities in structure, thetheological underpinnings of the two texts are at variance, in particular as concerns thedoctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, a notion which was whole-heartedly rejected bythe Reformers.

9 But the ecclesiological content of the text is also slightly different since in the Latinrite, the priest presented the holy offerings:

on behalf of thy holy Catholic Church which do thou vouchsafe to keep in peace, toguard, to unite, and to govern, throughout the whole world; together with thyservants our Pope N. and our bishop N. That is to say the bishop of the diocese only, thenshall follow and our King N and all who are orthodox, and who hold the catholic andapostolic faith.10

10 In the first and second Books of Common Prayer, this passage is vastly expanded andthe order of the intercession is altered: the prayers are offered to God, beseeching Himto inspire continually the universal church, the king and his council and to give graceto “all Bishoppes, Pastors, and Curates”, to comfort all whom suffer and finally to havemercy on the local congregation. In a reversal of the old medieval order, the king (andhis council) come before the bishops and the rest of the clergy.

11 Such liturgical implementation of the royal supremacy was first introduced underHenry’s reign. In a considerable portion of the surviving missals, the word papa isremoved from the canon as it is from elsewhere in the service books. But, in about fortypercent of all missals amended under Henry VIII, this very section of the canon wasrewritten so as to reflect the advent of the royal supremacy along with its revisedecclesiology. Hence, the king was named before the bishop. These changes were ofteneffected in several stages, the successive alterations to the canon of the mass being atangible illustration of the gradualism of liturgical change under Henry. That this newpractice had become established is further evidenced in the Rationale for Ceremonialwritten by a committee of bishops, including several stalwart conservatives.11 TheHenrician practice of naming the king before the bishops provides the missing link toexplain this minor yet symbolic shift in order.

12 Finally, the daily use of a collect for the sovereign, which has remained a hallmark ofthe Anglican liturgy to this day, was in fact introduced by Thomas Cranmer as early asApril 1534, months before Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy. The archbishoprequired that, in his Province, all members of the clergy recite the three orisons(collect, secret and post-communion in the Latin terminology) for the King and forQueen Anne at mass every day. This was certainly thought of as an early means toensure the clergy’s heartfelt commitment to the royal supremacy and to the king’smarriage to Anne.

13 In practice, an ad-hoc version of this mass was adopted in the dioceses of Hereford andWorcester. The king’s title of supreme head of the church is explicitly mentioned in thecollect:


38

We beseech thee, almighty and merciful God, that thy servant our king Henry theEighth, on earth supreme head of the English church, who through Thy mercy hathundertaken the government of the kingdom, and your servant Anne, our queen,may also be endued plenteously with all virtues; that being therewith meetlyarrayed, they may by thy grace be enabled to rejoice in bodily health, escape thewhirlpool of vice, overcome their enemies, and that he may govern human thingspeacefully and that his life may be as happy as possible so that when the course ofthis life is passed, he may finally attain unto thee, who art the way, the truth, andthe life.12

14 If the principle of praying daily for the king at the sacrament of the altar finds itstheological justification in the Pauline entreaty to pray for civilian authorities, it alsohas a more immediate foundation in a practice established and enforced under HenryVIII. Yet the content of the prayer in the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 is not strictlyidentical to that of its forerunner: the reference to the king’s supreme headship of thechurch is watered down in the 1549 collects: Edward is invoked as “king andgovernour”. The same choice of words was retained in all the ensuing versions.13 Thisexample is indicative of the very point where the theology of the Book of CommonPrayer parts ways with some Henrician innovations which were narrowly focused onpromoting the royal supremacy to the clergy and the realm at large.

Deviations from Henrician practice

15 Several prayers and liturgical practices established under Henry VIII were aimed solelyat ensuring political loyalty and uniting the realm in prayer for the sovereign. This isparticularly true of the new bidding prayers of 1534 and 1536. Archbishop Cranmerbanned the rambling, profusely detailed, didactic and eminently parochial bidding ofthe bedes of the late Middle Ages and replaced them with a streamlined prayer inwhich the royal supremacy stood front and centre.14 The Henrician bidding prayers donot appear in the 1549 liturgy but rather the communal prayer of old may well havecontributed to the beginning of the prayer at the altar which is also a prayer for thechurch militant:

F05B…F0

5D We humbly beseche thee moste mercyfully to receive these our praiers, whichwe offre unto thy divine Majestie, beseching thee to inspire continually theuniversal churche, with the spirite of trueth, unitie, and concorde: And graunt thatal they that do confesse thy holy name, maye agree in the trueth of thy holyeworde, and in live in unitie and godly love. Speciallye we beseech thee to save anddefende thy servaunt, Edwarde our Kyng, that under hym we maye be Godly andquietly governed. And grant unto his whole consaile, and to that he put inauthoritie under hym, that they maye truely and indifferently minister justice, tothe punishmente of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenaunce of Goddes truereligion and vertue. Geve grace (O hevenly father) to all Bishoppes, Pastors andCurates, that thei maie bothe by their life and doctrine set furthe thy true and livelyworde and rightely and duely adminster thy holy Sacramentes F05B…F0

5D And we mosthumby beseche thee of thy goodnes (O Lorde) to coumfort and succour all them,whyche in thys transytory life be in trouble, sorowe, nede, sycknes, or any otheradversitie.15

16 Indeed, this long passage bears little resemblance to the Sarum canon of the mass andis rather suggestive of the old bidding prayers with its didactic emphasis on the dutiesand obligations of all members of society:


39

Ye shall knell down on your kneis and praie devoutle and mekle to the Fader, theSon and the Holi Gost, three persons and on Gode: to the holy made the moderseynt Marye, and to all the holy court of hevene, specialy for the state and pees ofall holy churche and all Crysten kyngdoms and especeiall for the kyngdom ofYglond, that Jhu Crist of heven and prynce of pees graunte rest, unite and peesamonge all Cristen pepyll. Ye shall praie also for the pope of Roome speciali and all his cardinall, for thePatryake of Jerusalem, for owr lorde and fader the erchebyshope of Canterbury andfor owr fader the bysshope of London and all other erchebisshope and bisshope,speciali of this londe, that Jesus Crist geve hem myth and strengthe to mayntenethe Staat and lawe of holy Chirche, and for to rewll well hemself and after thatprestes and clerkes and all men and women of order and Cristen people Jesu toserve and plees. […]Also ye shule praye spicialy for the patron and for the parson of this chirche and forall the prestes and clerkes whiche servene Gode in this chirche or in any other, thatGode of his myche mercy hem helpe and mayntene to his worshype, and grauntehem grace so to do in this worlde, that it may be the savacion of here soules and ofalle Cristene folk. […] Also yee shall pray hertely for our leggh lorde, Kynge of Ingelond, and for our ladythe Quene, and for our prynce whom Crist save gostly; for dukes, erlis, baronsknyghtes, squyers, and for all gude communers of this lond, that God yeve hem allegrace so to do and orden so, that it be so soveraynlly likynge to hym and profyt andsalvacion of his londe. […]Yee shule also pray specialy for the welfayr and prosperite of this worshipefule cyteof London, for my ryth worship and reverente maister our maier, with all mymaisters his bretherne aldermen: for the schereffys and all other offycers anddwellers in the shame (same); and specially for oure parishioners here present,yche man prayeth for other and for tham which be absent and walde be present andmay gnoth: and for tham that may and wil noth, that God amende tham: andspeciale for seek and all that er desesyd in body or in soule, that God of gudnesconforte tham gostly and bodely: and for women that ben with cheldern, that Godgraunte to tham e gud delyveraunce and purificacion, to there childerncrystendome and confirmacion.16

17 It is likely that the very bidding prayers which might have inspired the prayer for thechurch militant has not survived but the broad similarities in tone and emphasissuggest a connection. This hypothesis is bolstered by the change in the organisation ofthe eucharistic liturgy implemented in the second Book of Common Prayer: theintercessory passage is moved out of the institution narrative and stands immediatelyafter the homily, hence closer to the place of the bidding of the bedes in the Sarumliturgy. The reason why, in this case, the Henrician bidding prayers was jettisoned maybe its over-emphasis on the royal supremacy while the Edwardian liturgy marks thereturn of a general intercessory prayer which is more inclusive and communal in toneand didactic in content, two hallmarks of reformed worship in England. It is also aclear-cut case of continuity in worship and liturgical recycling of medieval texts in theBook of Common Prayer.

Changing the function of worship

18 Changes in the function of worship are perhaps the most significant examples of howworship in English parish churches moved away from the Catholic tradition intoProtestant territory. It also bolsters the claim that liturgical experimentation of the1540s informed the radically new liturgies of Edward’s reign.


40

19 Ramie Targoff has aptly summarized one of the anxieties at the core of the EdwardianReformation: “English Reformers worried openly about the desirability of encouragingphysical signs and gestures as part of the worshipper’s practice of prayer”.17 It is wellknown that between 1549 and 1552, the ritual actions of the liturgy were graduallypared down and worship became less of a performative rite. This is particularly clear inthe well-rehearsed changes effected to the baptismal liturgy.18 However, the first stepsin this direction were taken under Henry’s reign, as exemplified in the treatment ofsacramentals in the doctrinal pronouncements of Henry’s church.

20 In the strictest sense, a sacramental is defined as a prayer, a ritual or an objectinstituted or acknowledged by the Church, such as the use of holy water, holy bread,blessed candles, ashes, etc. Sacramentals share a common efficacy with good works asthey prepare the soul to receive grace.19 Worthy reception of sacramentals grantsremission of venial sin along with spiritual or material graces. The liturgy ofsacramentals usually subtly combines complex deprecatory phrases, assertions ofspiritual efficacy and demands for apotropaic and prophylactic benefits. At the turn ofthe 16th century, these rituals remained popular and were considered an importantaspect of Christian devotion.20

21 To take but one example, at Sunday mass, the priest exorcised salt and water, beforemixing and blessing these elements which constitute holy water. In this prayer, threetypes of requests were made: for spiritual benefits (the salvation of the believers, thegift of the Holy Spirit), for material blessings (good health) and for apotropaic favourswhich were expected from the blessed elements (chasing evil and demons). Theblessing itself presents several layers of meaning: the allegorical reminder of Christ’sbaptism and Elisha’s healing of a spring with salt, and the symbolic reference to thewater used in baptism and the eucharist. But emphasis is firmly placed on theperformative powers of the liturgical formulae; the assurance was given that holywater healed soul and body, purified places and put the devil to rout. In fact, to a largeextent, the liturgy legitimated the quasi-magical uses of holy water, thus creating themix of superstition and accepted religious beliefs which Eamon Duffy has termed ‘layChristianity’.21 Prophylactic use of the sacramental was very common, as it served as aremedy for many ills, and criticism of such usage must be carefully scrutinized as itoften served polemical purposes.22 In truth, holy water was the most sought after andregularly used sacramental until the 1530s.

22 Under Henry, however, the meaning of sacramentals was deeply altered. In the “TenArticles” of 1536, they are treated as symbols, justifying a purely allegoricalunderstanding of the ceremony: ‘sprinkling of holy water [is] to put us in remembranceof our baptism, and the blood of Christ sprinkled for our redemption upon the cross’.23

The general understanding of sacramentals is subtly refashioned, as they are to be used and continued as things good and laudable, to put us in remembrance ofthose spiritual things that they do signify; not suffering them to be forgot, or to beput in oblivion, but renewing them in our memories from time to time. But none ofthese ceremonies have power to remit sin, but only to stir and lift up our mindsunto God, by whom only our sins be forgiven.24

23 The new teaching on sacramentals constituted a radical simplification of the multiplelayers of meanings conveyed by the Latin texts. The clergy were thus required to usethese rituals all the while explaining that they were not efficacious of themselves butmerely reminders of higher spiritual realities.


41

24 Liturgical rituals became teachable moments and were kept for their catechetical valueand to preserve public order. This hermeneutic evolution necessarily translated intoliturgical practice, since performing the same rituals while expecting them to meansomething different would necessarily create a disjunction.

25 Some members of the clergy were thus exploring new ways of meaningfully performingthese rituals. It appears that Hugh Latimer, a committed Reformer and later a victim ofMarian persecutions, encouraged the clergy of his diocese to use a new text in thevernacular when performing the rite of sprinkling holy water on the faithful:

Remember your promise in baptisme, Christ his mercy and bloudshedding, By whose most holy sprinkeling Of al your sinnes you haue free pardoning.25

26 This work would probably have replaced the Asperges me ritual. Here, the new teachingon the sacramentals was duly channelled through the purely allegorical treatment ofholy water. The ritual was interpreted as a reminder of baptism and the water stood inthe stead of the holy blood of Christ which alone granted forgiveness and salvation: inLatimer’s verses, the phrase ‘most holy sprinkling’ applied to the blood of Christ on thecross, of which the water was a mere sign. This example goes to show that in the moreevangelical parishes of the diocese of Worcester, the liturgical texts accompanying theritual of holy water might have evolved significantly in the late 1530s at the behest ofone of the more radical reforming bishops. And the use of a text very similar to this oneis attested at Arlingham in Latimer’s diocese.26

27 The issue of efficacy in the liturgy was not circumscribed to these ceremonies, as someof the seven sacraments came to be considered in much the same light as sacramentals:confession, confirmation and extreme unction were omitted from the Ten Articles andlater described in the Bishops’ Book and the King’s Book as efficacious when receivedworthily. The notion of worthy reception was already altering the traditional teachingon sacraments long before the Protestant Reformation took hold in England.

28 Finally, liturgical practice starkly divided conservatives from evangelicals andthreatened the unity of parishes For instance, disputes over the use of holy water werefront and centre in the 1543 inquiry into Kentish heretics. Conservatives encouragedtraditional understanding and practice27 while evangelicals stopped blessing water,banned their parishioners from using it, indeed sometimes mocked this practice.28

Contestation of sacramentals peaked when radical laymen and women rejected thesetraditional rites. Members of the Toftes family of Northgate, Canterbury engaged inillegal iconoclasm, refused to bear palms and to creep to the cross, read the Bible aloudin church, declared images to be devils, threatened to set fire to the church andharboured people who had ‘made themselves priests and were none.’29 Margaret Toftesthe younger declared that “her daughter could piss as good holy water as the priestcould make any” and warned the parish clerk's servant not to bring any holy water toher house saying the water in her well was as good.30

29 The extent and limits of the influence of later Henrician practices and experimentsshed light on the roots of some of Anglican idiosyncrasies while revealing much aboutthe differences between Henry’s and Edward’s brands of Reformation. The EdwardianReformation is rightly seen as infinitely broader and more spiritual in nature than theecclesiological revolution of the 1530s. However different, the two moments can also beseen as a continuous process by which the English reformers were weaning the English


42

from the Catholic liturgy: implementing change gradually, undermining traditionalrites before removing them completely and often, in the phrase of DiarmaidMacCulloch “promoting reform within the shell of traditional forms”.

30 Willingly or not, Henry had set this process into motion well before his death. Indeed,the king’s policy of compromise, by authorising traditional practices while shiftingtheir meaning, inadvertently created a growing disjunction between prayer anddoctrine, weakening people’s trust in the liturgy. Along with acceptance that the kinghad the authority to approve if not define acceptable forms of worship for his Church,came the idea that the liturgy was contingent and its content no longer immutable.Finally, without meaning to sound despondent, it is my understanding that thechallenge levelled at the liturgy contributed to its demise as a source of faith. In fact,the growth of the king’s control over the liturgy dovetailed the decline of trust in thepower of prayer. The combination of these two factors may contribute to the ongoingconversation about the origins of the Edwardian Reformation and help explain why thewholesale revision and translation of the liturgy was more readily accepted by mostEnglish people in 1549 than might have been expected in view of the strength of theCatholic faith on the eve of the Reformation.31

NOTES1. See Introduction, note 1 and 6.2. Charles Whitworth, “The Penitential Psalms and Ash Wednesday Services in the Book ofCommon Prayer, 1549-1662”, in this volume. 3. Bryan D. Spinks, “Treasures Old and New: A Look at Some of Thomas Cranmer’s Methods ofLiturgical Compilation”, Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar, ed. Paul Ayris and David Selwyn(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1993). See the same author’s Reformation and Modern Rituals andTheologies of Baptism: from Luther to Contemporary Practices (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006). Alec Ryrie’squotation is taken from a lecture delivered in Carlisle Cathedral for the celebration the 350th

anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The lecture can be found http://alecryrie.blogspot.fr/2012/09/the-prayer-book-at-carlisle.html4. Bryan D. Spinks, “Treasures Old and New”, op. cit., 1765. See in this volume: Claire Cross, “The political enforcement of liturgical continuity in theChurch of England 1558-1662”. 6. An exhortation vnto prayer thought mete by the kinges maiestie, and his clergy, to be read to the peoplein euery church afore processyions. Also a letanie with suffrages to be said or song in the tyme of the saidprocessyons, London: Berthelet, 1544 (STC 10620). For a thorough and brief examination of theLitany, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, A Life (New Haven & London: Yale, 1996),328-332. See also Proctor and Frere, A New History of the BCP, op. cit., 405-429 for a historicaloverview of the use of the litany in the Church and Roger Bowers. “The Vernacular Litany of 1544During the Reign of Henry VIII” in Authority and Consent in Tudor England, ed. G.W. Bernard & S. J.Gunn (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 151-178. 7. An exhortation vnto prayer… Also a letanie, London: Berthelet, 1544, STC 10622 (available onEEBO), fo. B v. 8. ibid. fo. B ii.


43

9. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Cranmer, op. cit., 413. 10. The English translation is taken from The Sarum Missal in English, trans. Fredetick E. Warren(London: De La More Press, 1911), part I, 42. The original Latin reads: “In primis quæ tibiofferimus pro ecclesia tua sancta Catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regeredigneris toto orbe terrarum, una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. (id estproprio episcopo tantum) et Rege nostro N. (et dicuntur nominatim) Sequatur et omnibus orthodoxisatque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus.” For a modern edition of the Sarum missal, Missalead usum insignis et praeclare ecclesiae Sarum, ed. F.H. Dickinson (Bruntisland: E Prelo de Pitsligo,1861-1883), col. 613-614.11. C. S. Cobb, ed., The Rationale of Ceremonial or Book of Ceremonies, Alcuin Club Collections (LondonLongman, 1910), 24. 12. The translation is mine. The original Latin text is found added to two Hereford missals(Oxford, Bodleian, Arch. B. c.6 and Oxford, St John’s College, Cpbd.b.2.upper shelf.1). A similarmass is found in the missal which belonged to Hereford Cathedral (Worcester Cathedral LibraryMS F161). For a modern edition of the text, see Missale ad usum percelebris ecclesiae Herefordensis, op.cit., p. iii-iv: Quaesumus, omnipotens et misericors Deus, ut famulus F0

5B tuusF05D rex noster

Henricus octavus, in terris ecclesiae Anglicanae supremum caput, qui tua miseratione suscepitregni gubernacula, et famula tua Anna, regina nostra, virtutum omnium percipiat incrementa ;quibus decenter ornati corporis incolumitate gaudere et vitiorum voraginem devitare, hostessuperare, ac in tranquilla pace dum in humanis agent, tam feliciter possint sua temporapertransire, ut post hujus vite decursum, ad te qui via, veritas, et vita es, gratiosi valeantpervenire.13. Brian Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer, 21 (1549), 126 (1552 and 1559) and 391-2(1662) 14. BL, MS Cotton, Cleopatra V, fo 286. For a slightly different version of this text see theinjunctions in Latin sent to monasteries: BL MS Cleopatra IV fo. 11v. “First, Whosoever shall preach in the presence of the king’s highness and the queen’s grace, shallin the bidding of the beads, pray for the whole catholic church of Christ, as well quick as dead,and specially for the catholic church of this realm: and first, as we be most bounden, for oursovereign lord king Henry the VIIIth, being immediately next unto God the only and supremehead of this catholic church of England, and for the most gracious lady queen Anne his wife; andfor the lady Elizabeth, daughter and heir to them both, our princess, and no further. Item, The preacher in all other places of this realm, than in the presence of the king’s saidhighness and the queen’s grace, shall, in the bidding of the beads, pray first in manner and form,and word for word, as is above ordained and limited; adding thereunto in the second part, for allarchbishops and bishops, and for all the whole clergy of this realm; and specially for such as shallplease the preacher to name in his devotion: and thirdly, for all dukes, earls, marquisses, and forall the whole temporality of this realm; and specially for such as the preacher shall name ofdevotion: and finally for the souls of all them that be dead, and specially of such as it shall pleasethe preacher to name.”15. ibid., 31 (1549). 16. These bidding prayers are taken from British Library Harleian MS 335. For a modern edition,see Manuale et Processionale ad usum insignis ecclesiae eboracensis (Surtees Society, 1875), 223*-225*.17. Ramie Targoff, Common Prayer: The Language of Public Devotion in Early Modern England (Chicago:Chicago University Press, 2001), 9.18. This methodology is typical of Cranmer’s approach to liturgical reform and a similarevolution may be observed in the rite of baptism between 1549 and 1552. At first severaldistinctive ritual elements were kept: an exorcism, the triple effusion, the white garment, theannointing and the blessing of holy water in the font.


44

The language used in the first BCP was still somewhat performative (“I commaunde thee,uncleane spirite, in the name of the father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, that thou comeout, and departe from these infants”). But these ritual aspects were forsaken in the 1552 BCPwith only one brief mention of the water in the liturgy but no blessing or sacring of the element. 19. The Ordynary of Christen men, sig. C ii.20. Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, op. cit., 277-287. 21. Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, op. cit., 28322. The use of holy water as a remedy for piles is condemned (Letters and Papers, xviii, (ii) (546),293). Drinking holy water is forbidden in the King’s Book and sprinkling it on beds banned inCranmer’s 1547 Injunctions to his diocese (Lloyd, Formularies of Faith, op.cit., 298, and VisitationArticles and Injunctions, op. cit., 187). 23. Formularies of Faith, xxviii. 24. Ibid.25. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1563), 1417, see The Unabridged Acts and MonumentsOnline (1563), available from : www.johnfoxe.org.26. See Arlingham Breviary, Salisbury Cathedral MS 152. For a modern edition of the prayer usedduring the sprinkling of holy water see H.T. Kingdon’s “On an early vernacular service,”TheWiltshire Archeological and Natural History Magazine XVIII n° LII: 62-70. I disagree with his view thatthis is a late 15th century text which inspired Hugh Latimer’s revised ritual. 27. Letters and Papers, xviii, (ii) (546), 296, 300, 30828. Ibid., 295, 291, 306-7, 311.29. Ibid.30. Ibid., 307.31. The question of the causes of the success of Edward’s Reformation is at the heart of the workof post-revisionist historians of the Reformation. See Ethan Shagan, Popular Politics and the EnglishReformation (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 2; Alex Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the EarlyEnglish Reformation (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 7.

ABSTRACTSThe multiple sources of the first two versions of the Book of Common Prayer have received a lotof attention from scholars. Thomas Cranmer, who was their principal compiler, had indeedturned to diverse texts for inspiration: the Sarum rite of his province of Canterbury and Scripturewere obvious sources, as were the several ancient liturgical traditions of which the archbishophad knowledge. This article however explores more immediate origins for the English liturgies,i.e. the new practices created at the end of Henry VIII’s reign. After the break with Rome and the passing of the Act of Supremacy of 1534, liturgicalexperiments were rife in England as the regime harnessed public prayer to advertise the royalsupremacy and the clergy responded by adapting the Catholic liturgy to the new ecclesiology andthe revised doctrinal pronouncements. Several of the new prayers composed under Henry wereincluded in the Book of Common Prayer, albeit in a slightly modified version (bidding of thebedes, 1543 litany). Moreover, changes in the clergy’s liturgical habits also shed light on theorigins of some passages found in the Edwardian liturgies.


45

http://www.johnfoxe.org/

http://www.johnfoxe.org/

This article also seeks to illuminate one of the most enduring historiographical issues relating tothe English Reformation: why was the wholesale liturgical reform of 1549 so readily accepted ortolerated by a majority of the English people? A better understanding of how the HenricianReformation redefined the status of the liturgy may contribute to explaining the success of theEdwardian liturgical reforms, for public prayer had lost its status as an immutable andtrustworthy depository of faith and had become a text which could be reformed at will by thegovernment.

Les sources du Book of Common Prayer sont nombreuses et ont été largement étudiées parhistoriens et liturgistes: Thomas Cranmer, principal auteur de la version de 1549 a, en effet,trouvé son inspiration dans les Ecritures, le rite de Salisbury (Sarum) et les diverses traditionsliturgiques dont il avait une fine connaissance. Mais les expérimentations liturgiques qui eurent cours sous le règne d’Henri VIII, à la suite duschisme de 1534, ont également influencé la composition de certains passages de la nouvelleliturgie. Le régime d’Henri VIII a exploité la liturgie comme moyen de communication pour faireconnaître la suprématie royale. Le clergé a servi de courroie de transmission et promptement misen œuvre cette nouvelle ecclésiologieOr certaines de ces nouvelles prières, comme les oraisons pour le roi et les nouvelles prièresd’intercession, composées afin d’introduire la suprématie royale dans la prière de l’Eglise sontensuite introduites dans les deux éditions successives du Book of Common Prayer. Enfin, plus largement, les effets des expérimentations liturgiques des dix dernières années durègne d’Henri VIII peuvent contribuer à éclairer une des questions historiographiques les plusfondamentales de l’étude du début de la Réforme en Angleterre : pourquoi et comment cetterévolution liturgique fut-elle si aisément acceptée dans le royaume ? La conception de la liturgiecomme un dépôt de la foi avait été érodée par la tolérance de pratiques hétérodoxes et par laremise en question par le régime lui-même de cette source dogmatique.

INDEX

Mots-clés: Réforme anglaise, Henri VIII, liturgie, Book of Common PrayerKeywords: English Reformation, Henry VIII, liturgy, Book of Common Prayer


46

The Penitential Psalms and AshWednesday Services in the Book ofCommon Prayer, 1549-1662Les psaumes pénitentiels et les offices du mercredi des Cendres dans le Book ofCommon Prayer, 1549-1662

Charles Whitworth

1 Book of Common Prayer, psaumes pénitentiels, liturgie, Carême

2 Beside the gradual, incremental process by which the English Church shifted from aCatholic to a reformed liturgy in Henry’s and Edward’s reigns, preserving somemeasure of experiential continuum, another aspect of liturgical continuity can be seenin the way in which the successive liturgical revisions, especially after 1552, sometimesintroduced renewed closeness to medieval liturgical usage. The 1559 conservativerevision of the words of administration of Holy Communion is a well-known example(see Claire Cross’s paper in this volume), but there are other, more rarely studiedexamples. One is provided by the revisions of the Ash Wednesday liturgy and the fate ofthe penitential psalms. From the Sarum rite through the successive revisions of thePrayer Book up to 1662, the sense that the English liturgy has to some extent come fullcircle — away from the Middle Ages and then moving back a little closer to it — isstriking.

After Morning Prayer, the Litany ended according to the accustomed manner, thePriest shall, in the Reading-Pew or Pulpit, say:BRETHREN, in the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that, at thebeginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put toopen penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in theday of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the moreafraid to offend.Instead whereof, until the said discipline may be restored again, (which is much tobe wished,) it is thought good, that at this time (in the presence of you all) shouldbe read the general sentences of God’s cursing against impenitent sinners … andthat ye should answer to every Sentence, Amen: To the intent that, beingadmonished of the great indignation of God against sinners, ye may the rather be


47

moved to earnest and true repentance; and may walk more warily in thesedangerous days; fleeing from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouthsthe curse of God to be due.

3 That is the beginning, in the Prayer Book of 1662, of the service of ‘Commination, ordenouncing of God’s anger and judgements against sinners, with certain prayers, to beused on the first day of Lent, and at other times, as the Ordinary shall appoint’. It is stillthere today 350 years later, in just those words, in reprints of the Book of CommonPrayer. The title for this special Ash Wednesday service, ‘A Commination’, from theLatin comminari, to threaten or menace (or in an ecclesiastical context, toanathematize), is first used in the second Edwardian Prayer Book of 1552. Indeed, thatis the first occurrence recorded in OED of the word in its strict liturgical connotation.The explanatory gloss, ‘or denouncing of God’s anger and judgements against sinners’,was added to the rubric in 1662. 1552 and 1559 just read ‘A Commination against sinners,with certain prayers to be used divers times of the year’. On the other hand, 1549 doesspecify ‘the first day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday’; the first half of thephrase, ‘the first day of Lent’, was restored in 1662. Archbishop Grindal, in Elizabeth’sreign, instructed that the service be used at least four times in the year. We might alsonote here that in the direction from 1662 quoted above, ‘After Morning Prayer, theLitany ended …’, all the earlier books, 1549, 1552, and 1559, specified ‘the ENGLISH litanyshall be read’; in 1662, there was no longer any need for such specificity: no other Litanycould have been intended. We recall that Thomas Cranmer had produced an Englishlitany in 1544, five years before the first Book of Common Prayer.

4 The celebration of the beginning of Lent, the season of fasting before Easter, and theanointment of penitents with ashes as a sign of humility, were a very ancient custom,dating from the time of the primitive church, as the opening sentence quoted aboveindicates. Gratian, the twelfth-century canon lawyer, describes the ceremony in hisConcordia discordantium canonum:

On the first day of Lent, the penitents were to present themselves before thebishop, clothed with sackcloth, with naked feet, and with eyes turned to theground; and this was to be done in the presence of the clergy of the diocese, whowere to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. These introduced them into thechurch, where the bishop, in tears, and the rest of the clergy, repeated the sevenpenitential psalms. Then, rising from prayers, they threw ashes upon them, andcovered their heads with sackcloth … Then the bishop commanded the officers toturn them out of the church doors; and all the clergy followed after, repeating thatcurse upon Adam, In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread. The like penancewas inflicted upon them the next time the Sacrament was administered, which wasthe Sunday following.1

5 We see here that the seven psalms were already—whatever the precise epoch in whichthe service described took place—an integral part of the Ash Wednesday liturgy.

6 By far the most widely used liturgy by the early sixteenth-century in England (andbeyond), and the one preferred by Archbishop Cranmer, was the Use of Sarum(Salisbury). It was adopted by cathedral chapters as far north as Lincoln, and hadspread to Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and even Portugal by the twelfth century.2 TheSarum Missal provides considerable detail about the Ash Wednesday rites—the onesthat Cranmer would have had clearly in mind when he set about composing the servicefor the new Prayer Book of 1549. The English translation of the Sarum Missaldemonstrates clearly the longstanding medieval practice, as Gratian recorded it,including the literal thrusting out of the penitents at the church door. But it is the


48

opening rubric that is of immediate interest: ‘After Sexts there may be a sermon to thepeople. After which let the Clergy prostrate themselves in the choir and say the seven PenitentialPsalms, with the anthem Remember not, Lord, our offences …’3 The seven PenitentialPsalms had obviously been a fixed part of the Ash Wednesday liturgy since the earlyMiddle Ages. Their inclusion was perpetuated in the successive versions of the Book ofCommon Prayer, though in various ways, as we shall see, one of many elementsretained from the old Roman practice in the new Church of England service.

7 The designation of seven of the 150 psalms as a group, known as the Penitential Psalms,dates from the early centuries of the medieval church. It is far from certain who firstproposed the grouping or why, or when they became commonly recognized andaccepted as a discrete group. As early at least as Cassiodorus in the mid-sixth century,perhaps as early as the fifth, during the lifetime of St. Augustine (the designation issometimes attributed to him), perhaps even the fourth (St. Ambrose) the PenitentialPsalms were recognized as a group, though they are far from uniform in content ortone.4 The seven are, in the numbering of the Hebrew Psalter (Masoretic Text) andtranslations deriving from it, including the Great Bible and subsequent Englishversions: Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143 (the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgatecounted Psalms 9 and 10 as one; hence the numbering from that point on is one lessthan in the Hebrew and its derivatives. E.g., 51 is 50, 130 is 129, etc.). At the risk of over-determining, we may notice a certain symmetry in the apparently random choice ofpsalms in the group, despite their diverse forms and contents, if we consider the Latintitles, that is the first few words of each psalm, titles which are to this day given alongwith the number, in the Book of Common Prayer:

6 Domine, ne in furore32 Beati, quorum38 Domine, ne in furore51 Miserere mei, Deus102 Domine, exaudi130 De profundis143 Domine, exaudi

8 That is, two psalms beginning Domine, ne in furore frame the Beati quorum, and twoothers beginning Domine, exaudi frame the De profundis. The two triptychs in turn framethe central Miserere mei, Deus, the most famous and most often cited, quoted andparaphrased of the seven (and the one continuous presence among the seven in AshWednesday offices over the centuries).5 All four framing psalms begin with an addressto God, Domine. Mere coincidence or a determining factor in the original designation ofthe seven psalms? One may be tempted to suspect the latter, given the medieval ‘ragefor order’, the penchant for organizing, ordering, classifying, systematizing, evident inworks of philosophy and theology as well as rhetoric and logic, so well described by C.S.Lewis.6

9 Both before and after the Reformation, paraphrases and commentaries on the sevenpsalms abounded. Gregory the Great in the sixth century was supposed to havecomposed a commentary (it is now considered spurious), and Alcuin of York in theeighth did compose one specifically on the Penitential Psalms. In the early fifteenthcentury, two distinguished women, in France and in England, wrote commentaries onthem in their respective vernaculars: Christine de Pisan and Dame Eleanor Hull.7 Hull’sis a translation from Old French. Even earlier, in the first half of the fourteenthcentury, the prolific Yorkshire mystic Richard Rolle produced an English prose version


49

of the entire psalter, with verse-by-verse commentary based on that of Augustine’sEnarrationes.8 John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester and Chancellor of Cambridge Universitypublished his commentaries on the seven psalms in 1508; they were reprinted seventimes in the next twenty years. Fisher was martyred for his opposition to Henry VIII inJune 1535, just two weeks before his friend Sir Thomas More followed him on thescaffold.9 Later John Donne preached sermons on several of the Penitentials, andLancelot Andrewes published devotional meditations on all seven.

10 Innumerable translations and paraphrases of the psalms in English were producedthroughout the sixteenth century. The Reformation did nothing to dampen enthusiasmfor the Old Testament poetry of David the poet-king (as it was generally believed thathe was the author of all the psalms), including specifically the seven Penitentials, onthe contrary. Martin Luther’s favourite ‘Pauline Psalms’ were four of the Penitentials:32, 51, 130, 143. Behind the impetus of Luther, whose commentary on the seven waspublished in 1517, and of Calvin’s, then Clément Marot’s and Théodore de Bèze’stranslations in the immensely influential Geneva Psalter, the psalms became even morewidely read, translated, paraphrased, memorized, said and sung than ever before.Robert Crowley and Matthew Parker, Sir Philip Sidney and his sister Mary, Countess ofPembroke, and Sir John Harington in England, Marot and Bèze and Philippe Desportesin France, for example, all produced metrical versions of the complete Psalms. Thefirst, partial, collection of the famous Metrical Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkinsappeared in 1549 (complete version, 1562), the same year as Wyatt's Penitential Psalmsand also Crowley's Psalter of David, the first complete English metrical translation, andof course of the first Edwardian Prayer Book.

11 The Tudor courtier and poet Sir Thomas Wyatt composed his powerful dramaticparaphrase of the seven psalms at the very height of the Henrician reforms. Certainpsalms commonly called the VII penitential psalms, drawn into English meter was published atthe end of the year 1549, seven years after the poet's death at the age of thirty-nine,with a prefatory sonnet by Wyatt's friend and fellow-poet, Henry Howard, Earl ofSurrey; Surrey himself wrote a splendid verse paraphrase of Psalm 51 (before beingbeheaded on 19 January 1547, another victim of Henry’s last paroxysm of vengeanceagainst the Howard clan, just nine days before the bloated tyrant himself died). Some orall of the Penitentials might be included in seemingly random selections of psalms.Such is the volume compiled by Sir John Croke about 1547, containing thirteen psalms,including all seven of the Penitentials, and the book of Ecclesiastes. Often, like Surrey, apoet would paraphrase a single, isolated Penitential Psalm. The Protestant playwrightand polemicist John Bale included a verse rendition of the De profundis (Psalm 130) inhis pamphlet An Expostulation or Complaint against the Blasphemies of a Frantic Papist ofHampshire (c.1552). Another notable example is the Elizabethan poet GeorgeGascoigne's striking version of the same psalm. Gascoigne, like Wyatt, provides adramatic frame in which to set his psalm paraphrase.10 Among the many others inEngland who paraphrased one or more of the Penitentials in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries are William Byrd, King James I, Sir John Davies, Thomas Carew,Joseph Hall and John Milton. John Davies of Hereford (not Sir John Davies) published hisThe Doleful Dove: or, Davids 7. Penitentiall Psalmes, somewhere paraphrastically turned intoVerse in 1612. The most curious of all is certainly William Hunnis’s massive andevidently hugely popular Seven Sobs of a Sorrowful Soule for Sinne: Comprehending thoseseven Psalmes of the Princelie Prophet David, commonlie called Pœnitentiall; framed into a formeof familiar praiers, and reduced into meeter, which appeared in 1583 and was reissued in


50

1587, 1589, 1597, 1600, 1604, etc. until 1629. As might be expected, and feared, from thework's title, it is a staggering, monumental production: each of the seven psalms isdivided into two or more 'parts', each part 'reduced' into anything from fifteen to fifty-four rhymed fourteener couplets (fourteener: archaic English meter, a heptameter lineof seven iambic feet, or fourteen syllables). Psalm 51 (Miserere mei) has five parts, and at300 fourteen-syllable lines, is clearly the centrepiece and centre of gravity of the entirework. The grand total of 1,210 heptameter lines—printed however as short alternatingeight- and six-syllable lines—occupy 85 pages in small octavo. What might have beenthe greatest of all, poetically speaking, is lost: a paraphrase of the Penitential Psalms islisted among the works of Edmund Spenser. During the same period and after, manycomposers of the first rank set one or all of the Penitentials, from Andrea Gabrieli,Lassus, Byrd, Dowland and Schütz, to Locke, Blow, Purcell, Bach and Handel, to Mozart,Mendelssohn and Brahms.

12 But it is the place of the Penitential Psalms within the new Church of England servicesfor Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, that is my subject. In 1549, the service for ‘thefirst day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday’ begins ‘After mattens ended, the peoplebeing called together by the ringing of a bell, and assembled in the church; the English litanyshall be said after the accustomed manner, which ended, the priest shall go into the pulpit andsay thus: ‘Brethren, in the primitive church there was a godly discipline …’. In otherwords, exactly the text that would be reproduced in subsequent versions up to andincluding 1662, complete with the responsive maledictions; the latter were not part ofthe medieval rite, but a Cranmerian innovation. On the other hand, this is the onlymention of bell-ringing in 1549, whereas the medieval services were full of bells; 1552and 1559 both retain the bell. In January 1549, however, Cranmer announced to hisbishops that Ash Wednesday ashes, as well as Candlemas candles and Palm Sundaypalms would henceforth be banned.11 Then follows the rubric: ‘Then shall they all kneelupon their knees. And the priests and clerks kneeling where they are accustomed to say thelitany, shall say this psalm: Miserere mei deus’. The English text in Coverdale’s Great Bibleversion follows. The Miserere mei, Psalm 51, is the sole survivor in the new vernacularAsh Wednesday service, of the seven Penitential Psalms recited in Latin by the clergy inthe Sarum Use. It would remain so throughout the revisions of the following century.Despite the radical paring away of ritual—the Sarum text specifies which vestments inwhich colours shall be worn, where priest, deacon and subdeacon are to stand andwhere to kneel, where the acolyte who holds the sackcloth banner shall be positioned;the clergy now kneeling rather than prostrating themselves; the absence of ashes, etc—a kernel, albeit a major one, the central psalm of the famous seven, survives. But in factthere is more. Turning to chapter iv of the 1549 book, ‘The Introits, Collects, Epistlesand Gospels to be used … through the year, with proper Psalms and Lessons, for diversfeasts and days’, we find a special Psalm, a Collect, an Epistle and a Gospel forCommunion on the first day of Lent, that is preceding the special Ash Wednesdayservice. The prescribed psalm is 6, the first of the Penitentials; the Epistle and Gospelare respectively, from Joel 2 and Matthew 6, that is the very texts set for AshWednesday in the Sarum Missal. Furthermore, two more of the Penitentials are set forCommunion on the first and second Sundays in Lent: 32, Beati quorum for the first, and130, De profundis for the second. Thus four of the seven psalms are prescribed in thenew English Prayer Book for Ash Wednesday and the first two Sundays in Lent; thereare rather more traces of the old rites in the new than at first appears.


51

13 In 1552, despite radical revision of many parts of the book, the rubrics and text for AshWednesday remain the same, with Psalm 51 said by the priests and clerks kneeling. Ashas been noted, the title becomes ‘A Commination against Sinners’, following one of therecommendations made by Martin Bucer in a commissioned report on 1549. But 1552specifies for the first day of Lent, in the section of Collects, Epistles and Gospels forcertain feasts throughout the year, for the Epistle Joel 2.12-19, and for the GospelMatthew 6.16-21, that is, again, the same texts specified for Ash Wednesday in theSarum Missal and in 1549. They remain in 1662 and thus to this day, the Epistle andGospel set for Ash Wednesday. The Introits are omitted entirely in 1552, so those otherPenitential Psalms for the first two Sundays in Lent are not mentioned. Anotherimportant change in 1552 concerned the Litany, which became a separate, stationaryperformance preceding the Eucharist, and no longer a procession. This left only a smallEaster procession, and the Ash Wednesday service as sole survivors of the numerousmedieval processions, which had required an entire separate service book, theProcessional. It is also enjoined in 1552 that the Litany shall be said on Sundays,Wednesdays and Fridays, hence of course on Ash Wednesday, as is seen in the rubric ‘After Morning Prayer, the Litany ended according to the accustomed manner …’. As we know,the 1552 Prayer Book had hardly been put in use, late in the year, when Marysucceeded to the throne a few months later and it was banned, to be revived more orless intact when Elizabeth in turn succeeded in 1558.

14 The Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer was promulgated by the 1559 Act ofUniformity, following the five-year Marian interlude, in which the medieval rite hadbeen restored, along with clerical vestments, processions, images, saints’ days and theRoman services. ‘1559 is a close relation to 1552, with small yet significant changes, e.g.to the words of distribution of the Eucharist and to the Litany’, according to BrianCummings in the commentary to his recent edition of the texts of 1549, 1559 and 1662.12

The Commination service remained identical to that in 1549 and 1552. The licencegranted by Bucer’s addition in 1552, recommending its use ‘at diverse times in the year’seems to have resulted in its being used, in Elizabeth’s reign, on several Sundays beforeEaster (in continuation of the Lenten theme of penitence) and at other times, onSundays before Whitsun and Christmas, for example (Cummings, 744). The so-called‘Hampton Court’ revision of 1604 saw no changes to Ash Wednesday services or to theprescriptive use of the Penitential Psalms. The latter simply had their places innumerical order among the others in the monthly calendar of daily Psalm readings,some in the morning, some in the evening.

15 So we come at last to 1662 and the Restoration Prayer Book. The earliest versions of thePrayer Book had succeeded one another with dizzying rapidity, in one of the mostdizzying and disruptive periods in English history: consider the mere decade, littlemore, from the death of Henry VIII in 1547 to the succession of his third heir, Elizabeth,in 1558. First issued in 1549, hastily revised and reissued in 1552, only to be supplantedand banned almost immediately by Mary in 1553, then restored in one of the first actsof her half-sister’s reign in 1559, the Book of Common Prayer had a childhood asperturbed as those of the sister queens who played such crucial roles in its variedfortunes. Banned by a Catholic queen in 1553, the Book of Common Prayer in itsElizabethan-Jacobean revision was in its turn banned by the Puritan Long Parliamentless than a century later (1645). Finally restored in 1662, it has remarkably survived 350years, never fully supplanted by late-twentieth-century alternatives. What was left


52

then, what is left now, of its predecessors’ prescriptions for the use of the PenitentialPsalms in the services for Ash Wednesday? Of course the glorious Coverdale Psalter isintegrated in its entirety for the first time in 1662. So familiar had its language becomethat it could not be replaced, even by the King James Version of 1611; it still has notbeen.13

16 The Commination remains, more or less intact. The same ten curses are there, withAmen pronounced by ‘the people’ after each, except that the first has lost most of itsiconoclastic fervour: ‘Cursed is the man that maketh any carved or molten image’,while clear, is less emphatic than 1552/59’s ‘Cursed is the man that maketh any carved,or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman,and putteth it in a secret place to worship it’. In the same vein, ‘worshipers of images’in the final summary curse has become merely ‘idolaters’; they are lumped togetherwith fornicators, adulterers, slanderers, drunkards, extortionists and the like. Thesummoning bell has been lost, but the people are to kneel as before, while the priestand the clerks, also kneeling, say the ever-present Miserere mei, in Coverdale’s versionof course. Even the parenthetical—‘which thing is much to be wished’—i.e., that thediscipline of open penance, as in Sarum, ‘may be restored again’ remains from 1549, as ithad in all of the intervening revisions; another little touch of Cranmer’s, crouchingthere in parentheses through the centuries.

17 I must conclude, and we have come full circle. At the end of a section entitled ‘ProperLessons and Psalms to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer on the Sundays andother Holidays throughout the year’, under the rubric ‘Proper Psalms on certain days’,in small print at the bottom of a page in modern editions, we find under AshWednesday, for Matins, Psalms 6, 32 and 38; and for Evensong, Psalms 102, 130 and 143.In 1559, this section, under the same heading, prescribes psalms only for Christmas,Easter, Ascension Day and Whitsunday; Ash Wednesday and Good Friday were added in1662.14 With Psalm 51, the Miserere mei, proper to the Ash Wednesday office as always,we have once again the full complement of the seven Penitential Psalms, in order, as inthe medieval rite, though distributed over the three services; but the ensemble isenhanced, as they are distributed three and three, on either side of the central Misereremei. No doubt the 1662 revisers too admired the elegance of that fearful symmetryperceived so long ago in what are still known today as the Penitential Psalms.

NOTES1. Quoted in Evan Daniel, The Prayer-Book : Its History, Language, and Contents, sixteenth edition(London, 1892), 219. I assume that it is this Gratian rather than the fourth-century ChristianRoman emperor of the same name, who was the author of the description.2. See K.A. Haworth, The Use of Sarum : The Worship and Organisation of Salisbury Cathedral in theMiddle Ages (Salisbury, 1973). 3. The Sarum Missal, Done into English by A.H. Pearson (London, 1884), 52. Sexts (or Sext) is the officefor the sixth hour in the day, counting from six a.m. (i.e., noon).


53

4. The Expositio psalmorum of Cassiodorus (mid-sixth century) was indebted to the Enarrationes inpsalmos of Augustine. Augustine is said to have asked that four of the psalms be prominentlyposted on the walls of his chamber during his final illness. His favourite was Psalm 32, Beatiquorum (‘Blessed is he whose unrighteousness is forgiven’). 5. In his classic commentary, Artur Weiser says simply: ‘Of the seven penitential psalms Psalm 51is the most important one. It demonstrates the essence of true penitence’ (The Psalms: ACommentary, trans. Herbert Hartwell [London: SCM Press, 1962], 401). 6. See The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge, 1964),10-12. Lewis makes only passing references to or quotes very briefly from the Penitential Psalmsin his classic Reflections on the Psalms (New York, 1958). A few further brief quotations occur in‘The Psalms’, in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, 1957), 114-28.7. “Les sept psaumes allégorisés” of Christine de Pisan: A Critical Edition, ed. Ruth Ringland Rains(Washington, 1965); and see Enid McLeod, The Order of the Rose: The Life and Ideas of Christine dePizan (London, 1976), pp. 147-8. The Seven Psalms: A Commentary on the Penitential Psalms translatedfrom French into English by Dame Eleanor Hull, ed. Alexandra Barratt, Early English Text Society 307(Oxford, 1995). Hull is the first English woman translator whose name is known. 8. The seven Penitentials, with Rolle's commentary, were selected and edited by GeraldineHodgson (London, 1928).9. Saint John Fisher, Exposition of the Seven Penitential Psalms in Modern English, intro. Anne BarbeauGardiner (San Francisco, 1998).10. 'Gascoigne's De Profundis' itself was erroneously omitted from the 1573 collection of hisworks, A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, though the prefatory sonnet was included; the psalm was restored in the collected works of 1575. See the edition by G.W. Pigman III (Oxford, 2000), lxii,290-93. Psalm 130 is the shortest of the Penitentials; Psalm 102, with 28 verses, is the longest.11. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,1996), 383.12. Brian Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer: The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662 (Oxford, 2011),722. 13. In October 1789, shortly after the end of the War of Independence, the Convention of theProtestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ratified a Book of Common Prayer,closely based on 1662. The Psalter is Coverdale’s, very slightly edited here and there. The Commination is replaced by ‘A Penitential Office for Ash Wednesday’: there are no maledictions;both clergy and people, kneeling, say the inevitable Miserere mei, Deus in Coverdale’s version. A‘Selection of Psalms’ at the beginning of the book, lists twenty-eight groups of Psalms on variousthemes; number 26 is ‘Penitential Psalms’, with the established seven. Under ‘Psalms and Lessonsfor the Christian Year’, for Ash Wednesday are prescribed, for Morning Prayer, Psalms 32 and143, for Evening Prayer, 102 and 130; Penitentials all, though not all of them.14. Unfortunately, Cummings’s excellent edition is misleading on this point: a note next to thechapter title, ‘Proper Psalmes and lessons …’ on the contents page (101) of his edition of 1559,directs the reader to ‘see 1662’. But as has just been observed, they are not the same: only fourfeast days are included in 1559, not six as in 1662.


54

ABSTRACTSThis paper traces the presence and the particular uses made of the seven Penitential Psalms inservices for Ash Wednesday and related occasions, in successive versions of the Book of CommonPrayer, from 1549 to 1662. A brief history of the Seven Psalms and their place in pre-Reformationliturgy, as set down notably in the Use of Sarum (though they were prescribed in ecclesiasticaltreatises even earlier), precedes a close examination of the evolution of their use in the first fourAnglican prayer books, and in the earliest American (Episcopalian) version (1789). It is notablethat the seven Psalms were included, in various groupings and at various points within the AshWednesday or Lenten Sunday services, throughout the period of the early revisions of the PrayerBook. The striking symmetry of the Latin incipits of the seven Psalms, and their perceivedappropriateness for the services of penitence on Ash Wednesday and other services in Lent,continued to command the attention and respect of revisers of the successive versions of theBook of Common Prayer, as it had done for their predecessors since the early Middle Ages.

Les sept psaumes pénitentiels font partie des offices pour le mercredi des Cendres dans toutes lesversions du Book of Common Prayer, de 1549 à 1662. Une brève histoire des sept psaumes et leurplace dans la liturgie médiévale, en particulier dans le rite de Salisbury (même si des traitésecclésiastiques antérieurs les prescrivent déjà), précède ici l’examen de l’évolution de leur usagedans les quatre premières versions du Book of Common Prayer—1549, 1552, 1559, 1662—ainsi quedans la première édition américaine (1789). Il est remarquable que, de révision en révision, lessept psaumes aient toujours été incorporés aux liturgies du mercredi des Cendres ou desdimanches de Carême, tout au long des XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Sans doute, la symétrie frappantedes incipits latins des sept psaumes et l’adéquation de leur contenu au temps liturgique de lapénitence avaient exercé la même séduction sur les rédacteurs des versions successives du Book ofCommon Prayer que sur leurs prédécesseurs depuis le haut Moyen Age.

INDEX

Keywords: Book of Common Prayer, Penitential Psalms, liturgy, Lent

AUTHOR

CHARLES WHITWORTH

Université de Montpellier 3


55

Promoting Anglican LiturgicalSpirituality: Thomas Comber’s Companions to the Book of CommonPrayerPromouvoir la spiritualité liturgique anglicane: Les commentaires du Book ofCommon Prayer par Thomas Comber

Rémy Bethmont

1 The great sense of liturgical continuity between the different versions of the PrayerBook, as well as with some aspects of medieval liturgy, provided Late Stuart Anglicanswith a liturgical patrimony which to them was probably as hallowed by time andcontinuous use as the Sarum rite must have felt to late medieval Christians.

2 The Prayer Book provided the basis of a liturgical spirituality that was unique to theChurch of England among Protestant Churches. After the episodes of the civil wars andCommonwealth, during which the Book of Common Prayer was suppressed, manysupporters of Cranmer’s liturgies felt it was their duty to reintroduce them to thepeople by producing commentaries of the Prayer Book. While many strove first andforemost to present the liturgy as orthodox and rightly reformed, one commentator,Thomas Comber, sowed the seeds of a more devotional approach: his monumentalcommentary of the Prayer Book sought to encourage the development of a liturgicalspirituality in both clergy and people by uniting the private and public use of the Bookof Common Prayer.

3 The continuous controversies about the Book of Common Prayer since the Elizabethanera gave rise to several defences of Cranmer’s liturgies. Their orthodoxy andconformity with the most venerable patristic tradition were vindicated in RichardHooker’s Book V of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1597), and their scripturality wasunderlined in John Boys’s survey of the biblical passages of which the text of the PrayerBook is largely composed.1 After the years of the civil wars and Commonwealth, inwhich those who were attached to the liturgy had had to take risks to continue to use


56

it, praying according to the Prayer Book came to be seen at the Restoration as a moredefining mark of belonging to the established Church than it had ever been. It istherefore not surprising that the Restoration Church should have produced severalcommentaries on the Book of Common Prayer, starting what became a veritableindustry within Anglicanism. Most of these commentaries were in continuity with theapologetic and analytic mode in which Hooker had written: one now defended theliturgy against the criticisms of the Dissenters and one wished to commend it to thosewho had grown up without it in the 1640s and 1650s. Thomas Comber’s Companions tothe Book of Common Prayer do all this but they also stand out by the scope andimportance of their devotional content. They promote the use of the Book of CommonPrayer, not just as the biblical, orthodox, public liturgy of the Church, but moreprofoundly perhaps as the outward form of the prayer of the heart, which can bestunite private and public devotion. In that respect, no matter how uninspiring Comberseems to have been to modern scholarship,2 his commentary of the Prayer Book helpedtowards the diffusion of a liturgical form of spirituality that became defining of“Anglicanism” and which sought to present itself as a profitable resource for allChristians, not only within but also beyond Anglicanism.

Making the liturgy understood and loved

4 Thomas Comber (1644-1699) was ordained to the priesthood in 1664. His whole clericalcareer unfolded in Yorkshire. He was first curate and then incumbent of the parish ofStonegrave, while acting as chaplain to the Thorntons, a local gentry family into whichhe married in 1668. In 1677 he became a prebendary of York, and precentor in 1683. Hiscareer climaxed in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, which he supported. Hereplaced Denis Granville, the Non-juring Dean of Durham, in 1691 and was also madechaplain-in-ordinary to William and Mary in 1692.

5 His commentary on the Book of Common Prayer, which he published, volume aftervolume, between 1672 and 1698, is what he is chiefly remembered for. The last volumes,on the state services3 and the ordinal,4 published respectively in 1696 and 1698, can beseen as late additions to the four main volumes that made him famous: A Companion tothe Temple on the daily office (1672 5), A Companion to the Altar on Holy Communion,Baptism and Confirmation (1675), the second part of A Companion to the Temple on thelitany and the occasional prayers and thanksgivings (1679) and The Occasional Offices ofMatrimony, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the Dead, Churching of Women and the Commination(1679). These four parts were subsequently published bound together in one volumeentitled A Companion to the Temple in 1684. An abridged edition of this one-volumeversion came out one year later.6 It is these four parts of Comber’s commentary on theBook of Common Prayer and particularly the more popular volumes on the daily office,the litany and Holy Communion that this paper focuses on.

6 When Comber set out to write his Companion to the Temple, his aim was to both vindicatethe excellence of the Restoration liturgy and to encourage the English to attend dailyprayer in church. In his mind, both the attacks on the Prayer Book by Dissenters andlow attendance at the daily office in parish churches were due to the fact that theliturgy was not sufficiently understood. He echoed a widespread concern at that periodthat Charles II himself had addressed on his return to England in his ‘Gracious LetterTouching Catechising’ that attributed “contempt among the people” for the “prayers of


57

the church” to the fact that “they were not understood.”7 Clergymen were asked toinstruct the people about the meaning of the liturgy and a number of publicationsproposing to meet that demand had preceded Comber’s Companion to the Temple, inparticular Thomas Elborow’s Exposition of the Book of Common Prayer (1663), followed bycomplementing volumes in the 1670’s. Even before the Restoration, concern for makingthe liturgy plain so that it might be loved was visible in Anthony Sparrow’s Rationaleupon the Book of Common Prayer, first published in 1655 and reedited in 1672. Comber’scommentaries were hardly an isolated publishing phenomenon. However, they standout by the thoroughness with which he comments every single sentence of everyPrayer Book service and also by the fact that his goal is much more explicitlydevotional than any of the other commentaries.

The devotional dimension and method of Comber’s Companions

7 Comber does more than analyse the structure and meaning of the liturgy or generallydefend the restored Prayer Book by showing, as Sparrow does in his Rationale, that theliturgy is thoroughly reasonable, grounded on Scripture and in line with the prayers ofthe patristic church.8 Ultimately the analytic and apologetic dimension of Comber’scommentary is merely a tool serving his overriding preoccupation: increasing lively,heart-felt devotion in the Church of England, which alone will commend daily liturgicalprayer to those who either oppose or have become indifferent to it.

8 Three kinds of people are on Comber’s mind, as he explains in the preface to ACompanion to the Temple: the “mistaken dissenters who hereby may be convinced ... thatwe can pray by this form with as much zeal and more knowledge, with as much spirit andmore truth than by any other kind of prayer;” the “ignorant, who may be instructedthereby to pray with understanding,” and finally, the “devout servants of God, andobedient sons of the Church”, who already attend daily prayers in church and are to beencouraged to deepen their devotions. All three categories are to be shown ways to“elevate the affections,” as Combers says in the section about the ignorant, so that the“daily offices may be full of life and pleasure; and every day court us with newdelights.”9

9 In order to do so, Comber proposes to methodically go through the services hecomments. Each section of the liturgy is presented in a threefold manner: the structureof the particular prayer or exhortation is graphically shown, often in a way thatenables the reader to have an overview of the whole prayer or exhortation (so thatmany sections of Comber's commentary herald the kind of annotated Book of CommonPrayer that William Nicholls published in 170910). Then a "practical discourse" on thetext analyses its meaning, defends its orthodoxy if necessary and accounts for its placein the overall structure of the service of which it is part. Sometimes (especially in thecommentary on Holy Communion), this discourse may also contain meditative prayersof Comber’s own making. Finally, a paraphrase of the prayer is given which weavestogether the words from the Book of Common Prayer and Comber's own phrases,referring the reader back to the main ideas developed in the practical discourse.Throughout, the actual words taken from the Prayer Book are typographically set apartin gothic, whereas Comber's own words are in roman type. The aim of that methodicalexposition is clear: invite readers to deepen their understanding of the liturgy in order


58

to enliven their devotions. Understanding with one's mind must lead to praying withone's heart:

when once we have thoroughly pondered them [i.e. the words of the liturgy], andmade our souls fully acquainted with these pertinent and comprehensiveexpressions of our constant necessities, we shall find our hearts actuated with holyenlargements, and powerfully attracted into the prosecution of the requests madeby our lips; and our minds would have no other employment in these duties, but toannex the sense to the words, and its most vigorous affections to that sense, whichis true devotion.11

10 Ultimately, it is a devotional method that Comber tries to convey: his own comments,paraphrases and meditations are not presented as the be-all and end-all of liturgicaldevotional exercises, but rather as crutches for beginners and, for those who are morespiritually advanced, as showing the way towards “making pathetical and piousenlargements, more and better than are to be found here.”12 By learning and applyingthe commentary’s method, Comber hopes, they will eventually be able to use thePrayer Book creatively and find their own way towards the prayer of the heart.

Promoting the use of the Prayer Book in privatedevotions

11 The thoroughness with which Comber deals with the content of the Book of CommonPrayer means that it takes time to read through his commentary and paraphrase of justone prayer. For example, the practical discourse on the daily confession in MorningPrayer is 39 pages long in the 1676 edition, followed by four pages of paraphrase.Clearly the book was meant to be read and studied at home, as part of a devoutChristian’s private devotions: “if we desire to pray acceptably, we must study ourpetitions before we present them; which not only enlivens our devotions in the act of it,but makes our prayers become the rule of our lives.”13 It is remarkable that thecomplete title of A Companion to the Temple in its first edition was A Companion to theTemple and Closet, or a help to public and private devotion. This title was changed insubsequent editions to the more general phrasing of A Companion to the Temple, or a Helpto Devotion in the Daily Use of Common Prayer. But the original title is an accuratedescription of Comber’s aim: making the liturgy the rule of believers’ lives byencouraging them to experience close correspondence between their private devotionsin the closet and public prayers in church.

12 It is not simply an intellectual study of the liturgy in private that reading Comber’sCompanions effects. The very structure of each section, in which analytical, learnedcomments in the practical discourse are followed by a devotional paraphrase of thewords of the liturgy, would lead the devout reader from study to meditative prayereven in the closet. A parallel may be made with the private, prayerful study of theBible, which was so dear to English Protestants and of which Joseph Hall's biblicalContemplations are an example.14 The same pattern from study to prayer can beobserved; the Prayer Book has joined the Bible as study/prayer material. Comber’s ideais to unite private and public devotions by promoting the use of the authorised liturgyfor both.

13 The private use of Common Prayer was hardly new. In the 16th century, most of thecontent of the Edwardian and Elizabethan primers of 1553 and 1560 or Books of Private


59

Prayer, was a selection of services and prayers from the Book of Common Prayer,encouraging devout, literate Christians to say Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, theLitany and chosen collects in private as well as in their parish church. And closer toComber’s time, the years of the civil wars and Commonwealth, when the Prayer Bookwas banned, had occasioned the increasing private use of the liturgy by those whorefused to abandon it. Many people used the forbidden liturgy at home as a book offamily and private prayer.15 In 1672, the same year as the publication of Comber’s firstpart of the Companion to the Temple, Anthony Sparrow commended the private use ofMorning and Evening Prayer when it was not possible to go to church in the reeditionof his Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer.16 Comber himself repeatedly seems tohint at what must have been a sufficiently established and widespread practice not toneed any explanation. In his commentary of the Collect for Pardon in part II of ACompanion to the Temple, for example, he declares that “some devout Christians, who usethe Common-Prayer in private, as their daily Service of God, do use this Form instead ofthe Absolution, which no ordinary person may pronounce, nor can any properly use itto himself, but they may petition for forgiveness in this form.”17 This comment hints atthe fact that the Book of Common Prayer had started to be seen by some as a resourcefor private prayer which could be used creatively, more so in fact than it had been inthe Edwardian and Elizabethan primers one century before.18

The Book of Common Prayer as a school of devotionuniting the personal and the communal

14 Comber was not therefore being particularly original in relating the Book of CommonPrayer to private devotion. The novelty of Thomas Comber’s commentary lies in itsinvitation to use the Book of Common Prayer as a school of devotion. When the liturgy isrightly understood and approached with the right method (which the Companion to theTemple provides), the words of the prayers become prompters which bring us, saysComber, to “enlarge our souls in holy and fervent wishes, desires and meditations,which is the prayer of the inward man, the life and soul of his duty.”19 When byfrequent reading of the commentary, the believer has learnt to discern in the particularprayers, phrases and words of the liturgy signals that should trigger certainmovements of the soul, he or she is in the right disposition to attain true devotion.

15 This is particularly striking in the use Comber suggests the reader should make of ACompanion to the Altar. While it is possible to say morning and evening prayer privately,a sacramental service like Holy Communion can only be celebrated communally with aminister officiating. Spiritual preparation at home for receiving the sacrament wassomething that had been encouraged ever since the Book of Common Prayer was firstauthorized and various books of devotion, such as the widely read The Whole Duty of Man(1658), gave assistance to the Christian preparing for Holy Communion, in particular bysuggesting how one should introspectively review one’s sins in order to approach thesacrament in a penitent way and by providing private prayers of thanksgiving to besaid after receiving communion. Comber takes a slightly different approach. He doesoffer many meditative prayers of his own composition that are quite distinct from theliturgical text. But whenever possible, he uses the liturgical prayers as the basis forprivate preparation for communion. It is particularly striking in the long section tohelp examine one’s conscience, which is presented liturgically, unlike what one finds in


60

The Whole Duty of Man, for example. The commentary and paraphrase of the collect forpurity serves as a devotional introduction for an examination of conscience based onthe recitation of the Ten Commandments, with each section ending by “Lord havemercy upon me and incline my heart to keep this law”, which is the congregationalresponse adapted for private use (“us” and “our” becoming “me” and “my”) to each ofthe Ten Commandments. The beginning of the “practical discourse of the TenCommandments” serves as an instruction manual: for every offense suggested by thecommandments, says Comber:

Ask then your own heart seriously at every one, Have I not been such an one? Donethis evil? Neglected this duty? And when your conscience answers, Yes; then youmust most passionately cry out, Lord have mercy upon me, and forgive me this or thatsin. ... But now that you are freshly minded of your duty, and reproved for yourformer neglect, it will be expected you shall be more afraid to transgress hereafter,and therefore desiring never more to offend, say, Lord incline my heart to keep thisLaw.20

16 Moreover, at the end of the practical discourse Comber suggests that those who feel somoved can also use the confession from the order for Holy Communion as a private wayto ask for God’s forgiveness when they have been through their self-examination.21

17 Whenever possible, Comber’s commentary turns the liturgy into a resource for privatedevotion to enable the devout Christian to better reinvest his private prayers into thepublic service of the Church. And when he inserts prayers of his own composition,Comber often does it in a way which develops particular sections of a liturgical text,emphasizing the dependence of his meditations on the liturgy and referring the readerback to it. For example, the post-communion prayers are commented in practicaldiscourses which, for each liturgical sentence, conclude with a meditation of Comber’sown making, to be used in the closet. As Comber explains in the introduction,

We have indeed many admirable books for our help in this sacrament; but theybeing generally designed for the closet, the affections which were elevated inprivate, are apt to grow loose and unactive when the public service doth begin.Whereas this discourse, following the order appointed for the celebration in thechurch, doth entertain the devout communicant all the way, with most pertinentmeditations; most of which, by frequent reading them in private, may be made sofamiliar, that the hearing that part of the office will bring them to our minds intheir proper seasons.22

18 The aim is to make the words of public prayer the outward form of true, inwarddevotion in the closet so that they might have that same inward quality in church.Comber even gives a table at the end of the introduction, directing the reader tovarious sections of the commentary according to the kind of devotions he wishes toengage in, from self-examination before the service to thanksgiving after thesacrament. Thanks to the commentary, the Book of Common Prayer truly becomes thekey resource for a spiritual life that unites the personal and communal dimensions ofthe Christian faith.

19 Comber's dream (like Cranmer’s) was one of a nation daily attending public prayer inchurch and in his mind the devotional use of the Book of Common Prayer in privateshould serve more frequent and meaningful attendance at public services. It is thisvision which is behind his commentary, even though he probably had little illusion asto its actually coming true. His insistence on the particularly low number of peoplenecessary to make a Christian congregation compared to the Jewish minyan is telling:


61

The Jewish masters indeed teach that ten is the least number to make an assemblyfit for the divine presence. But our gracious Lord descends lower, even unto two orthree, that none might be discouraged by the negligence of their brethren. ... If youfind but few of your brethren at church, yet you shall find him whom your soulseeks there.23

20 Lack of devotion or indifference to the liturgy, however, may not have been the onlyreason for this low attendance. While the dream of a whole nation attending dailypublic prayer may not have come any truer in Cranmer’s time than in Comber’s, thetendency to a certain privatized use of the Prayer Book, starting in the years of the civilwars and Commonwealth, and the association, promoted by commentaries likeComber’s, between the outward public form of prayer and the private prayer of theheart may have eventually brought some devout Anglicans, whose private devotionshad become increasingly based on the Prayer Book, to find it more inspiring to say thedaily office in their homes and reserve church attendance for Sundays. In particular,they may well have done so when their parish priest “sa[id] the liturgy withoutaffection,” as Comber complains was too often the case, leading to “the rude and hastyrepeating” of the common prayer.24 Interestingly Comber mentions private prayer asan excuse — which he considers as a hypocritical mask for irreligion — given by thelaity for not attending the daily office in church.25 Perhaps it was not always hypocrisy.

A liturgical spirituality that reflects a mixed heritage

21 Recent scholarship on the Restoration Church has underlined the sense of unity amongEpiscopalians but also some degree of diversity in the relatively peaceful coexistence offormer Laudians, Prayer Book Protestants and even Presbyterians who had beenreconciled to the restoration of episcopacy.26 Comber’s Companions seem to reflect amixed heritage of Laudianism and of the Prayer Book Protestantism which had been animportant feature of the pre-civil war Church.27 The way Comber establishes theconnection between the inward prayer of the heart and the outward, set form of prayeris hardly by emphasizing the role of ceremony and of the beauty of holiness as theLaudians had done, even though his use of the word altar has a distinctly Laudian ring.

22 Comber certainly does pay attention to the posture of one’s body in prayer, but notnecessarily more so than in Elizabethan conformist worship. In the preface to ACompanion to the Temple, he urges worshippers to:

compose their bodies into those most reverent postures which the Church hathsuited to every part of duty, kneeling at the confession, absolution and prayers;standing at the Gloria Patri, hymns and creeds, and bowing at the name of Jesus; fora general uniformity in these things doth declare, that there is in us, a due sense ofthe divine presence, a great obedience to our governors, and a sweet harmonybetween our bodies and souls in the worship we pay to the Creator of both.

23 Although greatly valued by the Laudians, kneeling in “common supplications toAlmighty God” and bowing at the name of Jesus had been canonically required sincethe Elizabethan Injunctions of 1559.28 And Comber is hardly obsessed with morequintessentially Laudian themes, such as the sanctity of the house of prayer. Commentson this, as one still finds in the contemporary Prayer Book commentaries written byThomas Elborow,29 are conspicuously absent from Comber’s writings. Neither does hecomment on the ornaments rubric and he only minimally remarks on the priest’sposture and gestures in the service, in contrast to what Anthony Sparrow does (and


62

profusely so!) in his Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer.30 Comber chooses toalmost exclusively focus on the spoken words of the liturgy. It is these words, more thanthe ceremonial beauty of holiness, that should enhance the devotional experience ofpublic prayer. As Comber writes, “the Liturgy in its true and native lustre, ... is so lovelyand ravishing, that, like the purest beauties, it needs no supplement of art anddressing, but conquers by its own attractives.”31

24 It may well have been part of a strategy to win over the Dissenters. One should notover-emphasize the things that they most loathed and Comber may have consideredthat the naked words of the liturgy, more than anything else, had the devotional powerto draw the Dissenters back to the prayers of the established Church32 because theywere sufficient to prompt the devotional movements of the soul.33 It is thereforedifficult to conclude with certainty from the Companions how much Comber’s personalspirituality owed to Laudianism and how much of it reflected the legacy of Prayer BookProtestantism.34 But what the Companions do show is that Comber was promoting a typeof prayer book spirituality that creatively put together Laudian elements withindifference to certain aspects of ceremonial on which the Laudians had insisted in the1630s. This word-based liturgical devotion, relatively indifferent (though not opposed)to ceremonial beauty, testifies to the fact that the Anglican liturgical spirituality whichdeveloped in the wake of the Restoration could quite peaceably draw from differentstrands of conformist tradition. Unlike Sparrow or Elborow, Comber belonged to a newgeneration, born during the civil wars, and he was claiming in his own way the spirituallegacy of the early Stuart Church.

25 Comber’s Companions were certainly never as popular as other contemporary books ofdevotion in general, such as The Whole Duty of Man, and perhaps less so than otherPrayer Book commentaries such as Anthony Sparrow’s Rationale upon the Book ofCommon Prayer. There is evidence, however, that a number of prominent people, both inthe clergy and the laity, did read at least some parts of Comber’s commentaries, notablyPrincess Anne, who used A Companion to the Altar to prepare for her first communion in1678.35 The thoroughness of the Companions may have looked quite daunting to a lot oflay people and it is very difficult to say how much of an impact Comber had on PrayerBook devotions. It is therefore quite comprehensible that recent scholarship shouldhave largely ignored him and focused rather on other, more obviously influentialdevotional authors from that period. Still, between 1672 and 1721, the commentaries onthe daily office and A Companion to the Altar, both published in various formats (fromfolio to octavo), ran respectively through three and five editions as stand-alonevolumes and through eight as part of the combined edition. And the abridged combinedvolume ran through four editions. The English Short Title Catalogue contains noevidence of any reprinting of Comber’s Companions after 1721. By that time otherliturgical commentaries which may have proved more appealing had appeared, notablythe edition of the Book of Common Prayer by William Nicholls (1709).

26 Whatever its impact, Comber’s Companions to the Book of Common Prayer, togetherwith the other contemporary works of Prayer Book devotion, testify to a definingmoment in the history of the Church of England. One was drawing on several strands ofconformist tradition to make the Book of Common Prayer central in articulating theway in which the private and the public dimension of spirituality related to each other.It was this articulation, Comber thought, which had the potential to make Anglicanliturgical spirituality attractive to all kinds of English Christians, including to those


63

who had left the established Church. Later developments on the Continent suggest thatthis characteristic of Anglican liturgy, with its ensuing capacity to profoundly unite allchurch members in one prayer, also made it appealing to a number of Protestants quiteoutside the Anglican fold. 36

NOTES1. In many ways, Boys comments the biblical passages in the Prayer Book more than the liturgyas such. But it was certainly a very powerful way of demonstrating the scripturality of the Bookof Common Prayer, about which Boys declares: “I did ever esteem as a second Bible the Book ofCommon Prayer in which (as I have here proved) every title is grounded upon the Scripture,every Scripture well applied, every good application agreeable to the most ancient and bestreformed Liturgies in all ages." (Works [1622], Epistle dedicatory)2. In his monumental study of English spirituality, Horton Davies pronounces Comber “deadlydull” (Worship and Theology in England, vol. II From Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, 1603-1690, 1975,combined edition [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 117).3. A Discourse on the Offices for the Vth of November, the XXXth day of January and XXIXth of May.4. A Discourse upon the Forms and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests andDeacons.5. The date given is that of the first edition.6. Short Discourses upon the whole Common Prayer (1685).7. Reproduced on the first page of Thomas Elborow’s Exposition of the Book of Common Prayer(London, 1663).8. Sparrow’s book is not devoid of “devotionally illuminating” remarks, to quote C J. StranksAnglican Devotions: Studies in the Spiritual Life of the Church of England between the Reformation and theOxford Movement (London: SCM Press, 1961, 153), but the thrust of his book is not to help peoplefind ways of enlivening their devotions in public prayer.9. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.10. However, Nicholls’s Comment on the Book of Common Prayer only deals with the daily office, thelitany, and the collects as well as the Sunday readings. Like Comber he offers a paraphrase of theprayers but as footnotes on the text of the Book of Common Prayer, so that the liturgy can beread directly from the commentary without any interruption by Nicholls’s own words.11. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.12. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.13. Epistle dedicatory of the first edition of A Companion to the Temple (1672).14. Rémy Bethmont, L’Anglicanisme : un modèle pour le christianisme à venir? (Genève: Labor et Fides,2010), 47-51.15. See Judith Maltby, “Suffering and Surviving : the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and theFormation of ‘Anglicanism’, 1642-60,” Religion in Revolutionary England, ed. Christopher Durstonand Judith Maltby (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), 166-7.16. Rationale on the Book of Common Prayer (1672), 333-5.17. A Companion to the Temple, part II (1679), 448.18. Strikingly the absolution, which is the only part of Morning Prayer which has to be said by apriest was retained in the primers, only switching from the third to the first person so that the


64

actual performative words of the absolution became simply declarative of the fact that Godpardons: “Almighty God, ..., which desireth not the death of a sinner, ... and hast given power andcommandment to thy ministers, to declare and pronounce to thy people, being penitent, theabsolution and remission of their sins, and pardonest and absolvest all them which truly repent...” APrimer or Boke of Private Praier [1560].19. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.20. A Companion to the Altar, 12. The page numbers given are those of the 1675 edition.21. A Companion to the Altar, 27.22. A Companion to the Altar, introduction, §3.23. A Companion to the Temple (1676), 448.24. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.25. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.26. See especially John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven : YaleUniversity Press, 1991) and Kenneth Fincham & Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored : The ChangingFace of English Religious Worship, 1547-c. 1700, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 305-352.27. Judith Maltby has very well shown that the defence of conformist worship and love of theBook of Common Prayer in the laity under Charles I could be — and mostly was — robustly anti-Laudian. See Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge: CambridgeUP, 1998), especially chapters 3 and 4.28. Injunction 52.29. Elborow’s preface to The Reasonableness of our Christian Service (London, 1677) starts with anexhortation to demean oneself “with all the reverence imaginable” when one comes into church,“that holy place”, where God’s “special presence” abides.30. For example, there is a thirteen-page long development on the ornaments rubric (A Rationaleupon the Book of Common Prayer [London, 1672], 322-32 and 335-6) and four pages are devoted todefend the idea of the priest facing one way when he speaks to God and another when headdresses the congregation (35-9). These passages are an occasion for Sparrow to discuss what hesees as the sacred symbolism of the church building, something which is quite absent fromComber’s discourse. Sparrow also has a lot more to say than Comber on the symbolism of thepriest standing or kneeling (14 and 65 for example).31. Preface to A Companion to the Temple.32. Comber actually had some dissenting friends whom he tried and sometimes managed toreconcile to the established Church, as was the case in 1690 with “a learned & moderatePresbyterian friend of mine who had lost a good liveing in 1662” (C. E. Whiting, ed., TheAutobiographies and Letters of Thomas Comber, sometime Precentor of York and Dean of Durham, vol. 1,Publications of the Surtees Society, vol. CLVI [London: Andrews & co., 1946], 23).33. Even in what may appear as the less inspiring moments of the liturgy. The way in whichComber turns into an occasion for joy what must have felt to some as the rather tedious warninggiving notice of a coming Holy Communion office is admirable: “Our Lord Jesus when he came inthe flesh had St John Baptist for his herald to bid the world prepare ... thus also his Messengersdo now proclaim his approach in this Sacrament, wherein he comes in the Spirit, to feast with us.... Why should we not receive the news with the same joy that Zachaeus expressed, when heheard that Jesus purposed to be his guest?” (A Companion to the Altar, op. cit, 103)34. Comber’s autobiographical notes and letters are not more helpful than the Companions in thatrespect. They show him to be comfortable with the beauty of holiness but there is never anydisplay of excitement about ceremonial. The gift of “a noble crimson velvet cloth with richembroidery & Gold fringe upon the Alter at York,” he simply mentions as a “seasonable & liberalgift” (C. E. Whiting, ed., op. cit., 23) and in a letter to a Dissenter he tries to reconcile him to theChurch by pointing out that ceremonies are matters so indifferent and inconsequential that theycannot constitute a good reason for separation (C. E. Whiting, ed., vol. 2, op. cit., 4-5).


65

35. C. E. Whiting, ed., op. cit., 9. A letter by one W. R. to Comber, dated from 1676, also suggeststhat his commentary had had some impact in London on both clergy and laity: “divers who havehade all of them [Comber’s volumes] are become constant daily prayer men and women at StChristophers, which fills morning and evening, verie much off late.” (C. E. Whiting, ed., op. cit.,115)36. Eugène Bersier’s example in the French Reformed Church is a case in point. His wish to put aprayer book in every church member’s hands flowed out of his appreciation of Anglican liturgicalspirituality (see Stuart Ludbrook’s paper in this volume).

ABSTRACTSThomas Comber was the Dean of Durham from 1691 to his death in 1699. He is chieflyremembered for his companions to the Book of Common Prayer, published between 1672 and1699, which constitute the first complete commentary on the Prayer Book for devotional use.Whereas the desire to defend the excellence of the liturgy of the established Church againstdissenting criticism is certainly not absent, the devotional dimension of Comber's commentarydistinguishes it from previous commentaries, starting with Richard Hooker's in Book V of theLaws of Ecclesiastical Polity. If Comber's aim is clearly to promote the daily frequenting of morningand evening prayer in the parish church by helping the educated laity to understand and loveevery part of the liturgy better, his commentary is also explicitly presented as suitable forprivate devotions. In the 16th c. the publication of primers and books of private prayer tocomplement the Book of Common Prayer had seemed to confine the Prayer Book to publicworship. At the end of the 17th c., Comber's commentary was an invitation to use the PrayerBook for private devotions as well. Thanks to his thorough commentaries and his prayerfulparaphrase of the entire liturgy, Comber contributed to the spread of a form of liturgicalspirituality, whereby every Anglican's devotional life, both personal and communal, wasgrounded on two books that were not to be separated: the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.

Thomas Comber, doyen de la cathédrale de Durham de 1691 jusqu’à sa mort en 1699, a légué à lapostérité son commentaire du Book of Common Prayer, publié, volume après volume, entre 1672 et1699. Il s’agit du premier commentaire complet du livre de prières dont l’objet est d’enflammer lapiété des Anglais. Si le désir de défendre l’excellence de la liturgie officielle contre les critiquesdes Dissidents n’est certes pas absent, l’usage méditatif et priant que Comber souhaite pour soncommentaire le distingue, en effet, de ceux qui l’ont précédé, à commencer par celui de RichardHooker dans le livre V de son Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. L’objectif initial de Comber estclairement d’encourager la fréquentation quotidienne des offices du matin et du soir dans l’égliseparoissiale, en aidant les laïcs instruits à mieux comprendre et aimer chaque séquence de laliturgie. Mais son commentaire se présente aussi explicitement comme une aide à la méditationet à la prière personnelle. Au XVIe siècle, la publication de livres de prières privées, commependants du Book of Common Prayer avait semblé confiner ce dernier au culte public. A la fin duXVIIe siècle, le commentaire de Comber invite à aussi utiliser le Book of Common Prayer pour laprière et la méditation privées. Par ses analyses détaillées de la liturgie et ses paraphrasesdévotionnelles, Comber a contribué à la formation d’une spiritualité liturgique dans laquelle lapiété anglicane, qu’elle soit individuelle ou communautaire, s’enracine dans l’usage de deuxlivres inséparables: la Bible et le Book of Common Prayer.


66

INDEX

Mots-clés: Réforme anglaise, Henri VIII, liturgie, Book of Common PrayerKeywords: English Reformation, Henry VIII, liturgy, Book of Common Prayer

AUTHOR

RÉMY BETHMONT

Université Paris 8, TransCrit


67

The Book of Common Prayer acrossDenominational and NationalBordersL’Influence du Book of Common Prayer au-delà des frontières confessionnelles et nationales.


68

The Book of Common Prayer inMethodism: a Cherished Heritage ora Corrupting Influence?Le Book of Common Prayer dans le méthodisme : héritage précieux ou cancerà extirper ?

Jérôme Grosclaude

1 Given the origin of Methodism, it is hardly surprising that the Book of Common Prayershould have played a part in its history. What is more remarkable, however, is that inspite of a long history of Methodist ambivalence towards the Prayer Book,contemporary Methodism has increasingly learnt to affirm it a lot more unanimouslyas a welcome resource. The continued relevance of Anglican liturgy in a denominationwhich had to come to terms with its separate identity is a testimony both to the appealand adaptability of the Anglican liturgical tradition.

2 When Methodism was founded in 1738, John Wesley had no intention to split off fromthe Church of England – in which he had been a priest for ten years – , but, on thecontrary, he wanted to revitalize it from the inside. However, in his own lifetime,Methodism functioned like an independent movement, ultimately answerable to no onebut to the Founder, even though he regularly protested of his and his disciples’ loyaltyto the established Church.1

3 The status of The Book of Common Prayer within Methodism illustrates the ambiguousrelation of Methodism to the Church of England. More than two centuries after the defacto separation of the two Churches, British Methodism is still influenced by theliturgy of the Church of England. Although the Book of Common Prayer wasinstrumental in shaping the spirituality of John Wesley and his early disciples, its placewas later disputed within the Methodist Church. However, since the late 19th century ithas become a lasting inspiration for the denomination.


69

The Book of Common Prayer as a constitutive elementof Methodist identity (1738-1791)

4 Without retelling the history of Methodism, its birth and rise in the British Isles andthen in the colonies (notably in North America)2, let it be noted that John Wesleyshowed a good deal of pragmatism when it came to organizing and leading hismovement. He freed himself from everything that could check the progression ofMethodism, such as the life-long appointments of ministers to their livings, or themonopoly on preaching then enjoyed by ordained ministers in the Church of England.It seemed to John Wesley that these things stood in the way of real conversions.However, he kept these “things indifferent” which did not hinder the task of spreadingthe Gospel that he had assigned to himself and to his disciples. In which category didJohn Wesley put the Book of Common Prayer and more generally fixed forms ofworship?

5 John Wesley loved the Book of Common Prayer, declaring in September 1784: “I believethere is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathesmore a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church ofEngland.”3 John Wesley’s writings were studded with quotations from the Book ofCommon Prayer almost as numerous as biblical quotations. In a 15-page letter to theBishop of Gloucester, for example, written in 1762 to answer anti-Methodist attacks,John Wesley explicitly or implicitly referred 17 times to the Book of Common Prayerand 13 times to The Books of Homilies.4 As for his Journal (21 volumes covering the years1735 to 1790), its editors, W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heintzenrater, have foundno less than 152 quotations from the Book of Common Prayer.5

6 Such intimate knowledge of one of the founding texts of Anglicanism is naturallyunsurprising, coming as it did from an Anglican minister (whose father and brotherwere also Anglican priests), who defined himself as “a High Churchman, son of a HighChurchman”.6 However, such proximity must be rightfully set in context.

7 John Wesley found himself constantly repeating that the Methodists were, and had toremain, members of the Church of England. In 1777, he delivered the followingwarning: “God is with you, of a truth [cf. 1 Co., XIV, 25]; and so he will be, while youcontinue in the Church: but whenever the Methodists leave the Church, God will leavethem.”7

8 In Wesley’s view Methodists were Anglicans. For him this Anglican identity was basedon two main features: Sunday service attendance in the parish church and doctrinalunity with the Church of England. Thus, on 13 September 1739, John Wesley recordedthe following episode in his Journal:

A serious clergyman desired to know in what points we differed from the Church ofEngland. I answered: “To the best of my knowledge, in none. The doctrines wepreach are the doctrines of the Church of England; indeed, the fundamentaldoctrines of the Church, clearly laid down, both in her Prayers, Articles andHomilies.”8

9 Time was not to modify John Wesley’s opinion, as he dramatically showed almost fiftyyears later when he published a service book for his disciples in the United States. Theprevious year, Britain had conceded independence to the Thirteen Colonies, and itseemed difficult for the Methodists to continue using the Book of Common Prayer(since it was the service book of the State Church of the former colonizer). Rather than


70

producing an original service book, John Wesley chose to publish an abridged versionof the Book of Common Prayer entitled The Sunday Service of the Methodists in NorthAmerica.9

10 However, this decision can be seen as a sign of John Wesley’s ambiguous position withregard to the Church of England. If the structure remained the same in the two servicebooks, the father of Methodism introduced several changes. All the saints’ feast daysdisappeared,10 as well as the Black Rubric in the Lord’s Supper. 11 He also deleted allreferences to clerical garb.12 Finally, The Sunday Service of the Methodists did not containany of the three references to the Books of Homilies contained in the Book of CommonPrayer.13

11 John Wesley’s work seemed to be mainly motivated by a desire for simplification in thecontext of life in the United States at the time, but we can also discern theologicalmotivations behind some of the changes he introduced. It is particularly visible in theversion of the Thirty-Nine Articles which, as was customary in all editions of the 1662Book of Common Prayer, were included in the 1786 service book. However, theyappeared in an abridged version, the doctrinal statement of the Church of Englandbeing reduced to 25 Articles. In what can logically be considered as the statement offaith of the Methodists, John Wesley had deleted two articles which could haveundermined the Anglican credentials of Methodism:

_ Article XX, whose opening sentence is: “The Church hath power to decree rites orceremonies and authority in controversies of faith”_ Article XXIII, according to which “It is not lawful for any man to take upon himthe office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation,before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same.”14

12 The articles which contradicted John Wesley’s Arminian vision of salvation were alsodeleted: article XVII (on predestination)15 and the part of article XXVII on baptismalregeneration16 (for John Wesley no one could be saved if he had not had a personalencounter with God). Other passages were probably deleted for the sake of brevity, andan article of religion was added: “Of the Rulers of the United States of America”, whichaffirmed the independence of the USA and the legitimacy of the federal and stategovernments.

13 For all the love and respect he had for the Book of Common Prayer, John Wesley did notthink it was perfect, nor wholly theologically sound. This became obvious in 1786 whenhe had The Sunday Service of the Methodists reissued, with no mention of the UnitedStates so that the service book could be used in Scotland and in the colonies.17

14 While professing the utmost fidelity to the Church of England, John Wesley de facto puthis movement outside the Church’s control. His conception of the Book of CommonPrayer was a good illustration of this ambiguity since he came to the point where heasked his disciples to use an abridged, revised version instead of the original, eventhough he repeated time and again how much he admired the liturgy of the establishedChurch. Consequently, after his death his followers were compelled to wrestle with thisambiguity, even though they eventually managed to clarify the status of the Book ofCommon Prayer inside Methodism.


71

The Book of Common Prayer in Methodism: acontroversial and problematic status (1791-1897)

15 The death of John Wesley, aged 88, on 2 March 1791, left the movement bereft of itscharismatic founder, thanks to whom Methodism had flourished beyond allexpectations. In another liturgical illustration of the ambiguous place of Methodistswithin the Church of England, the itinerant preacher, Henry Moore, who presided overJohn Wesley’s burial decided to use the Office for the Dead from the Book of CommonPrayer.18 However Moore, although ordained an “elder” by John Wesley in 178419, wouldnot have been authorised to perform the ritual by the established Church, since theBook of Common Prayer explicitly specifies that only a priest ordained by a bishop inthe apostolic succession was allowed to read the office.20

16 In the years immediately following the death of John Wesley, the Conference, thesupreme body of Methodism, composed of all its itinerant preachers, regularlyprotested its fidelity to the established Church. As when John Wesley was alive,Methodists still had the obligation to attend Sunday services in their parish churches(and to take communion if the Lord’s Supper was celebrated), as well as to participatein the Methodist preaching service on the same day.21 In the few cases whereMethodists (from at least 1786) were allowed not to attend the parish church (mainlybecause it was too far away or because the Minister was “notoriously wicked” orpreaching “a false doctrine”),22 the Conference recommended that “the Psalms andLessons with part of the Church Prayers”23 should be read, which confirmed the centralplace of the Book of Common Prayer in the liturgical life of Methodism. In addition tothis reiteration, the Conference of 1792 repeated the prohibition against holdingpreaching services at the same time as the Sunday service in the parish church.24

17 However, a growing majority of Methodists wanted the itinerant preachers to be giventrue ministerial status. The Conference was then torn between the desire to have theitinerant preachers administer communion,25 and the desire not to break with theChurch of England. A way out was found in 1795 thanks to the “Plan of Pacification”:this compromise solution reaffirmed the link between Methodism and the Church ofEngland, while at the same time allowing for the administration of the Lord’s Supperand of Baptism in preaching houses by the itinerant preachers, provided a majority ofthe faithful were in favour and subject to ultimate approval by the Conference.26 Thedocument stipulated that Methodist services should not be held at the same time as theoffice in the parish church but that, if it was nonetheless the case, the Book of CommonPrayer, or at least the version abridged by John Wesley, should be used.27 There was anabsolute prohibition on celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the preaching house on thesame day as in the parish church,28 however this recommendation seemed to haveremained a dead letter once the itinerant preachers had gained the right to givecommunion. The separation between the two denominations was thus de factoaccomplished, even if the Methodist movement long continued to claim that its rightfulplace was within the Church of England.

18 To what extent was the Conference’s injunction to use the Book of Common Prayer orthe Prayer-Book based Sunday Service of the Methodists obeyed? It is difficult to answerthe question with certainty, but two elements tend to indicate that it was indeed actedupon, and that Methodist services long followed the rubrics of the Book of CommonPrayer. First, The Sunday Service of the Methodists was reissued twenty-seven times


72

between 1792 and 1882 (a new edition every 3 years and 4 months on average), whichwould imply that the book was fairly successful. Secondly, in 1828 an anonymousMethodist pamphleteer thought himself justified in defending the use of the Book ofCommon Prayer or of its abridged version by arguing that “[t]he Liturgy has, in timespast, proved a standard, to which, without fear of contradiction, we could alwaysappeal in support of Methodistical [sic] doctrine”29 and that the Book of CommonPrayer represented “a very complete and concise epitome of the doctrines we profess”.30 The same pamphleteer also asserted that to listen to the liturgy of the Church ofEngland helped the Methodists immerse themselves in the Holy Scriptures since theywere heavily quoted in the Book of Common Prayer.31 Nine years later, in 1837, a greatMethodist figure, the minister and historian Thomas Jackson (1783-1873), twicepresident of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference (the main British Methodistdenomination), challenged his reader to find a Wesleyan chapel where the Book ofCommon Prayer was not in use: “[Y]ou shall attend any of the chapels where ourregular ministers officiate on the forenoon of the Lord’s Day as you please, and if youdo not find the liturgy or the lessons read, I will forfeit five pounds [that is to say, threemonths of the wages of an unmarried Wesleyan Minister]”.32 Eight years later, when theWesleyan Conference allowed its ministers to celebrate weddings, they were asked touse the Book of Common Prayer ritual revised by John Wesley in The Sunday Service ofthe Methodists.33

19 Thanks to other testimonies, it is possible to assert with confidence that the Book ofCommon Prayer (or its abridged version) was greatly used by the Wesleyans. In his 2006book on Methodist liturgy, David Chapman comes to the conclusion that the Book ofCommon Prayer was indeed used more often than The Sunday Service of the Methodists,and that it was not until 1882 that they were both supplanted by The Book of PublicPrayers and Services.34

20 It should be noted that, in addition to possibly bringing spiritual benefits, the use of theBook of Common Prayer (or of its abridged version) had the advantage of being a tokenof respectability for the Methodists who used it, while also bringing credence to theoft-repeated claim that Wesleyans represented the purest Anglican orthodoxy.35

21 However, the Book of Common Prayer and its abridged version also had theirdetractors among Methodists, especially among those who belonged to the minoritysects. The Book of Common Prayer and the “popish” influence which, for some,pervaded it, appeared shocking to them. In their view, Church of England services werestill too similar to Roman Catholic services. This accusation was made moreparticularly by non-Wesleyans, that is to say those Methodists who had broken awayfrom the main denomination from 1797, usually because of the excessively greatpowers given to ministers in Methodism. Hugh Bourne, for example, who co-foundedthe Primitive Methodists in 1812 (the main non-Wesleyan denomination), would usethe image of the “great whore” from the Book of Revelation — usually reserved toexcoriate Popery— to describe an Anglican service:

After the service began, it ran through my mind, “get thee out of this place [cf. GnXIX, 14], and beware of the woman that has the golden cup in her hand, and thosethat are with her; their ways are death” (…). It then struck me, “These peopledraweth nigh unto me with their lips,” [Mt XV, 8] &c. (…) I took my hat as soon asthey had done the Te Deum, and went out and the burden was removed. 36

22 With every schism, the newly born Methodist Churches (the Methodist New Connexionin 1797, the Primitive Methodists in 1812, the Bible Christians in 1815 and the United


73

Methodist Free Churches in 1857) rejected the use of the Book of Common Prayer or ofThe Sunday Service of the Methodists and chose not to prescribe any service book to theirpreachers.37 Until the end of the 19 th century, the non-Wesleyan services were of agreat variety and could be celebrated wholly or partly extempore, or find theirinspiration in Nonconformist services. It seems that non-Wesleyan ministers would usea general outline which served as a basis for a service which they devised rather freely,alternating sermons, hymns, readings and impromptu prayers.38

23 In the early 19th century, a clear difference existed between Wesleyan Methodists (whogenerally cherished the Book of Common Prayer and mainly refused the“Nonconformist” epithet) and non-Wesleyans, who had no consideration for “popish”prayers and even refused any set liturgy. This divide continued for most of the 19th

century and things only began to change in 1860 when an increasing number ofMethodist denominations started to use new service books.

The adoption of new Methodist service books: whatposterity for the Book of Common Prayer?

24 Beginning in the 1860s, but gaining steam from the 1870s, the Methodist Churchesstarted to adopt new service books. Such a step demonstrated the self-confidence of theMethodist denominations which, one after the other, had incorporated the word“Church” (instead of “Society” or “Connexion”) in their official names.39

25 The adoption of service books by Methodists remained a delicate affair for twoapparently conflicting reasons. Given that the use of the Book of Common Prayer wassupposed to warrant the Anglican orthodoxy of the Methodists (cf. the abovequotations by Thomas Jackson), to discontinue the use of the Book of Common Prayerand of The Sunday Service of the Methodists could be interpreted as renouncing thisorthodoxy; it is however true that, when the Wesleyan Conference ordered thepublication of a service book to replace the Book of Common Prayer in 1880, thisobjection seemed irrelevant to a great many Methodists.

26 Another argument against the adoption of a specifically Methodist service book waslinked to a peculiar feature of the movement created by John Wesley: extempore prayer.In the early years of Methodism, itinerant preaching often led John Wesley and hisassistants to utter prayers when they believed to be moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.40

John Wesley attached so much importance to this, that he even had the followingindication included in his revisions of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism: “Then the Elder[i. e. the Minister], if he see it expedient, may put up (conclude with) a prayerextempore”.41 Methodist Ministers had continued this usage, guaranteed by the 1795Plan of Pacification,42 and it still exists today. There is no doubt that some Ministersfeared the introduction of a (compulsory) service book which would eliminate anypossibility of uttering impromptu prayers. This was why in 1880 the itinerant preacherJohn Bate advocated “the absolute and universal abandonment of Prayer-Books”43 sothat Wesleyans might come back to the general use of extempore prayer, upon whichhe marvelled with these words:

[W]hat power with God, what pouring of the soul before Him, what signalrevelations of the Divine presence in light, comfort, peace, salvation, whatoverwhelming glory falling upon the congregations, should we see! Could a similarhistory be given of the use of read prayers?44


74

27 John Bate was probably not the only Wesleyan to entertain such fears, but The Book ofPublic Prayers and Services for the use of the People called Methodists was nonethelesspublished in 1882.45 Its content must have reassured those Wesleyans who were worriedby such an innovation since it contained many elements taken from The Sunday Serviceof the Methodists and it also allowed extempore prayers in the Orders for the Lord’sSupper and Baptism.46 The Book of Public Prayers and Services came to be generally usedby the Wesleyans and supplanted both the Book of Common Prayer and John Wesley’sversion.47

28 By the time the Wesleyans published their first service book, two other MethodistChurches had already produced theirs: the Primitive Methodists in 1860 and the UnitedMethodist Free Churches in 1865. Two more – the Bible Christians and the MethodistNew Connexion – were to follow in 1897. Such a development may appear surprising,since non-Wesleyan Churches often associated set prayers with the Church of Englandthat they had come to hate and despise.

29 However, it should be noted that the use of service books was in every case optional,since none of these denominations declared them to be mandatory. The full title of thePrimitive Methodist service book, for example, was Forms for the Administration ofBaptism, the Solemnization of matrimony, maternal Thanksgiving after Child-birth,Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Renewing our Covenant with God, and for the Burial of thedead, drawn up by the Order of the Primitive Methodist Conference, for the use of suchPrimitive Methodist Ministers as may require them (my emphasis).

30 Similarly, the Book of Services for the Use of the Bible Christian Church opened with anexplanatory foreword:

[T]here are certain special and solemn occasions in our Church life, which oughtnot to be left entirely to the discretion of the ministers and other presidingbrethren; occasions when both ministers and people would gladly welcome the aidof a service book.48

31 The authors also expressed their desire that their work should be used more as anassisting tool than as a compelling rule preventing any innovation from ministers.49

32 Two significant differences between non-Wesleyan rituals and the 1882 Wesleyanservice book can be noted. First, non-Wesleyan works clearly distanced themselvesfrom the Anglican heritage, visible in The Book of Public Prayers and Services. The formerseldom followed the framework of the Book of Common Prayer, and indicationsconcerning postures and gestures were very rare. Congregational responses weresimilarly scarce, no doubt to give them more latitude50. Finally, non-Wesleyan servicebooks were seen more as a source of inspiration for the minister than as a pattern to berigidly followed51.

33 When in 1932 the major British Methodist Churches united to form the MethodistChurch of Great Britain, it was felt necessary to produce a new service book. The Book ofOffices, published in 1936, was heavily influenced by the Wesleyan tradition – andconsequently, the tradition of the Book of Common Prayer. Methodists from non-Wesleyan backgrounds thus discovered offices following an Anglican framework, evenif two orders of service for the Lord’s Supper had been produced. The first followed theWesleyan structure and was very similar to the Communion Service of the Book ofCommon Prayer 52; the second, on the contrary, was very simple and closely resembledplain non-Wesleyan ceremonies. Despite the historic hostility of non-Wesleyanstowards Wesleyans, few eyebrows were raised, it seems, when the decision was made.53


75

When the 1936 service book was superseded in 1975 by The Methodist Service Book, the(Wesleyan) first order was maintained and the second was replaced by a new versionentitled “Sunday service”, showing the influence of the Liturgical Movement54. Thelatter order in turn influenced The Methodist Worship Book (1999), the current Methodistliturgy, which proposes ten different orders of service for the Lord’s Supper, dependingon the liturgical season, but whose general structure echoes that of the “SundayService”. Other elements are similar to those of the Anglican Lord’s Supper or theRoman Catholic Mass.55 The other ceremonies show the same twin influence of theLiturgical Movement (notably the “Marriage Service”, practically unchanged between1975 and 1999, which bears a strong resemblance to the Anglican and Roman Catholicservices56) and of the Book of Common Prayer (transmitted through the “SundayService” and the Wesleyan tradition). Prayer Book influence is particularly visible inthe Burial Office which follows the same structure as — and borrows some prayers from— the 1928 Prayer Book57. As this article has made plain, Wesleyans were able topreserve their liturgical tradition after the 1932 Union, even if the now unified BritishMethodist Church has also turned to other sources for inspiration.

Conclusion

34 Born in the Church of England, it was only logical that Methodism should bear someresemblance to the established Church, and that it should have influenced John Wesley.From the end of the 18th century to the last third of the 19 th century, Methodistdenominations had no choice but to define themselves with regard to the Book ofCommon Prayer: Wesleyans, the majority Church, saw it as a heritage to be protectedand officially decided to continue using it, while non-Wesleyans, on the contrary, sawits Popish ceremonies as a corrupting influence one had to get rid of. The samedichotomy remained when Methodist Connexions, one after the other, took toproducing their own service books. It was only in 1936 that non-Wesleyans, withoutdisclaiming their history and their love for the Protestant Reformation, (re)discoveredthe heritage of the Book of Common Prayer which had been preserved by theWesleyans for almost 150 years. The present situation is an interesting compromise andtoday’s British Methodist liturgy is the result of the quadruple influence of the Book ofCommon Prayer, John Wesley (extempore prayers have always been allowed in theunited Church since 193658), non-Wesleyan traditions and the interdenominationalLiturgical Movement.

NOTES1. Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (1970) (London: Epworth Press, 2000),311-314; John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley. The Bicentennial Edition. Journal and Diary [hereafter Journal], ed. W. Reginald Ward & Richard P. Heintzenrater, vol. 20 (Nashville, TN: AbingdonPress), 91.


76

2. For a history of Methodism, see, inter alia, George Eayrs, William Townsend & HerbertWorkman, eds., A New History of Methodism (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909), 2 vols; RupertE. Davies & Gordon Rupp, eds., A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain (London: EpworthPress, 1965-1988), 4 vols; Frank Baker, op. cit.3. John Wesley, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. – Standard Edition, [hereafter Letters] ed. JohnTelford, vol. VII (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), 239.4. John Wesley, “A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester”, The Works of JohnWesley. The Bicentennial Edition, vol. 11; The Appeals to Men of reason and Religion and Certain RelatedOpen Letters, ed. Gerald R. Cragg( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 521-536.5. John Wesley, Journal, vol. 24, 417.6. Letter to Lord North and Lord Dartmouth (14 June 1775) in John Wesley, Letters, vol. VI, 161.7. John Wesley, “On Laying The Foundation Of The New Chapel, Near The City-Road, London” inJohn Wesley, Sermons, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-132-on-laying-the-foundation-of-the-new-chapel-near-the-city-road-london(DOA: 26/6/2013).8. John Wesley, Journal, vol. 19, 96.9. Frank Baker, op. cit., 242-243. The name was misleading since it contained offices for other daysof the week.10. James F. White, ed., John Wesley’s Sunday Service of the Methodists of North America (Nashville,TN: Quarterly Review, 1984), 17 [hereafter SSM].11. Frank Baker, op. cit., 245.12. SSM, 10.13. Frank Baker, op. cit., 250. For a complete list of the deletions and additions, see ibid., 242-252.14. Ibid., 249-250.15. “Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, (…), He hath constantly decreed byHis counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen inChrist out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made tohonour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called accordingto God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; theybe justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of Hisonly-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercythey attain to everlasting felicity. (…)”16. “[T]hey that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of theforgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signedand sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.”17. Frank Baker, op. cit., 254-255.18. It should be noted that Henry Moore used “our father” instead of “our brother” throughout(Richard P. Heintzenrater, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, Volume 1: John Wesley His Own Biographer[Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984], 153).19. On Henry Moore’s ordination, see H. Edward Lacy, “John Wesley’s Ordinations”, Proceedings ofthe Wesley Historical Society 23 (1962): 120 and John C. Bowmer, “Ordinations in WesleyanMethodism, 1791-1850”, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 39 (1974): 125.20. Cf. the Order for the Burial of the Dead in The Book of Common Prayer.21. Minutes of the Methodist Conferences, From the First, Held in London, by the Late Rev. John Wesley,A.M., in the Year 1744, vol. I (London: John Mason/Wesleyan Conference Office, 1862), 193[hereafter MMC].22. Ibid., 19323. Ibid., 193.24. Ibid., 271.


77

25. The question is mentioned in the Minutes of every Conference from 1792 to 1795 (ibid. 270,273, 292, 314-315, 340-341).26. Ibid., 340.27. Ibid., 340.28. Ibid., 340.29. Layman (A), Objections to the Introduction of the Liturgy of the Established Church into WesleyanMethodist Chapels, Considered and Refuted, By a Layman (London: John Mason, 1828), 9.30. Ibid., 10.31. Ibid., 11.32. [Thomas Jackson], The Wesleyans vindicated from the calumnies contained in a pamphlet entitled,“The Church of England compared with Wesleyan Methodism”, in a dialogue between a Churchman and aMethodist (1837), 2nd edition (London: John Mason, 1837), 22.33. David M. Chapman, Born in Song: Methodist Worship in Britain (Warrington: Church in theMarket Place Publications, 2006), 201.34. [Thomas Jackson], The Wesleyans vindicated…, op. cit., 25.35. Thomas Jackson remarked in 1842: “For the Church of England as a whole and as a ProtestantEstablishment I have long entertained what I conceive to be a just and sincere respect; nor shallanything absolutely alienate me from her ordinances”, [Thomas Jackson], An Answer to theQuestion, Why are you a Wesleyan Methodist? (London: John Mason), 1842, 5.36. Quoted in John Walford, Memoirs of the Life and Labours of the Late Venerable Hugh Bourne, By aMember of the Bourne Family (1854) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 145.37. David M. Chapman, op. cit., 24-29.38. Ibid., 51-55.39. The Methodist New Connexion was the only Methodist denomination never to have adoptedthe word “Church” in its official name, but the denomination into which it merged in 1907, theUnited Methodist Church, did.40. Frank Baker, op. cit., 311 and 321.41. The Sunday Service of the Methodists late in Connexion with the Rev. John Wesley, M. A., with otheroccasional services (1784), 6th edition (London: Wesleyan Methodist Conference Office, 1817), 136,140.42. Paragraph 9 of the Plan of Pacification read: “The Lord’s Supper shall be always administeredin England, according to the form of the Established Church: but the person who administers,shall have full liberty to give out hymns, and to use exhortations and extemporary prayers”, MMC(1795), vol. I, 340.43. John Bate, The Desire for a Methodist Liturgy: A Protest (London: E. Stock, 1880), 5.44. Ibid., 10.45. David M. Chapman, op. cit., 25.46. The Book of Public Prayers and Services; for the use of the People called Methodists (1882) (London:Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1883), 230, 252.47. David M. Chapman, op. cit., 25.48. Ibid., 29.49. Ibid., 29.50. Ibid., 25.51. Ibid., 25.52. Ibid., 82.53. However, it is probable that some congregations continued to use the old service books, justlike former Wesleyan communities were still using the 1880 service book as of 2006. (ibid., 31).54. Ibid., 82-83.55. Ibid., 85.56. Ibid., 213-214.


78

57. Ibid., 231.58. Ibid., 31.

ABSTRACTSFor a long time, Methodism had a complicated relation with its “Mother Church”, the Church ofEngland, and the liturgical question provides a good illustration of this. Even though theyseparated from the Church of England in the 1790s, Wesleyan Methodists (the majority group)followed the instructions and practice of the founder, John Wesley, by making it compulsory touse the Book of Common Prayer for their offices, while allowing at the same time for impromptuprayers (also dear to their founder’s heart). Non-Wesleyans, on the contrary, eager to distinguishthemselves from the detested Church of England, did not use a set form of worship for most ofthe 19th century and their services were generally improvised.After describing the (Wesleyan and non-Wesleyan) Methodist vision of the liturgy of theestablished Church in the 18th and 19th centuries, this article will study the reasons why theBritish Methodist Churches adopted set liturgies from the 1860s, and how they were created.Finally, we will see to what extent these 19th- and 20th- century rituals were indebted to the Bookof Common Prayer.

Né d’une scission d’avec l’Eglise d’Angleterre, le méthodisme entretint longtemps une relationcompliquée avec son « Eglise mère » et la question de la liturgie en est un bon exemple. Tout enrompant avec l’anglicanisme, les méthodistes wesleyens (majoritaires), fidèles en cela auxsouhaits et à la pratique du fondateur, John Wesley, étaient, en effet, officiellement tenus defonder leurs offices sur le Book of Common Prayer, tout en laissant une place aux prièresimpromptues, à laquelle leur fondateur accordait également une grande importance. Les nonwesleyens, en revanche, soucieux de se démarquer d’une Eglise d’Angleterre honnie nedisposèrent, pendant une bonne partie du XIXe siècle, d’aucun rituel, et improvisaient donclargement leurs offices. Cet article, après avoir rappelé la vision qu’avaient les méthodistes(wesleyens et non wesleyens) de la liturgie de l’Eglise d’Angleterre, se propose d’étudier lesraisons qui poussèrent les confessions méthodistes, à se doter, les unes après les autres, à partirdes années 1860, de rituels, et comment ceux-ci furent conçus. Enfin, nous étudierons dans quellemesure les liturgies méthodistes du XIXe et du XX e siècles sont inspirées du Book of CommonPrayer, et dans quelle mesure elles s’en écartent.

INDEX

Mots-clés: anglicanisme, méthodisme, culte, John Wesley, liturgieKeywords: Anglicanism, Methodism, worship, John Wesley, liturgy

AUTHOR

JÉRÔME GROSCLAUDE

Université Blaise Pascal Clermont-Ferrand


79

Anglican Liturgy as a Model for theItalian Church? The ItalianTranslation of the Book of CommonPrayer by George Frederick Nott in1831 and its Re-edition in 1850 La liturgie anglicane, modèle pour l’Eglise italienne ? Les traductions italiennesdu Book of Common Prayer par George Frederick Nott en 1831 et sa réédition en1850.

Stefano Villani

Three seventeenth-century translations: betweenpropaganda and patronage

1 The first Italian translation of the Book of Common Prayer was made in 1608 for PaoloSarpi, the theological and canonistic consultant of the Republic of Venice. Thetranslation, by William Bedell, chaplain to the English ambassador to Venice, Sir HenryWotton, was clearly done for propaganda purposes. The Interdict — when the Republicof Venice was “excommunicated” in 1606 because of a jurisdictional conflict with Rome— had raised hopes of a possible Venetian schism in England. Both Wotton and Bedelldid everything they could to encourage this, including distributing Italian translationsof the Holy Scriptures and Latin propaganda writings among Venetian intellectualswho could influence the policy of the Republic in an anti-Roman direction. In their viewthe Church of England, an episcopal church which claimed apostolic continuity, couldserve as a possible model for Venetian reformers. For obvious reasons, they saw PaoloSarpi as a key, strategic figure in Venice. The translation of the Anglican liturgy intoItalian was made with the idea of presenting the Church of England as an alternativemodel to Roman Catholicism, yet distinct from other Protestant Churches. The


80

translation evidently did not just want to show Venetian readers a vernacular liturgythat maintained the charm of the Catholic liturgy, but also as a theology conceived as amiddle way between the extremes of Popery and Protestantism. This strategy, ofcourse, ended in naught. Bedell returned to England, and then moved to Ireland wherein 1629 he became Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh. His translation remained inmanuscript form with no known copies; Sarpi’s manuscripts burned in the fire of theServite monastery in 1769 and Bedell’s library was dispersed during the anti-Englishrebellion of 1641.1

2 In 1661, in London, Alessandro Amidei made a new Italian translation. Amidei, anadventurer, though not devoid of talent, was an ambiguous figure. He was almostcertainly a Tuscan Jew who converted to Catholicism and later went to England wherehe joined the Church of England, trying to make a living teaching Hebrew and Italian.But he was also involved in a murky poisoning incident. In all likelihood thistranslation was not conceived with the intention of being published. The manuscript,which is now preserved in the British Library, was written in elegant handwriting andthe front-page carries a quotation in Hebrew from the Pirkei Avot. The translation wascertainly done to gain the protection of a patron, probably Charles II, recently returnedto his kingdom, and it is no coincidence that in the same years Amidei preparedanother manuscript of Avvisi politici to be presented to the king, presumably for thesame purpose.2

3 The first printed edition in Italian of the Book of Common Prayer was published in Londonin 1685.3 Since an Italian Protestant Church in England no longer existed when thistranslation was published, it was apparently not meant for use in worship locally.Moreover, the Italian Protestant Church in London, founded in 1550 and dissolvedprobably around 1663, had never adopted Anglican worship and both from theinstitutional and liturgical points of view had always been a Calvinist Church.4

4 While the translator of this last edition was Italian, its editor was an Anglican cleric,Edward Brown, a former Cambridge student, who served as a chaplain to the Britishambassador at the Ottoman court for four years. On his return, Brown exercised hisministry as vicar of several parishes in southern England and devoted himself toscholarly pursuits. The foreword to the reader stated that when Brown was inConstantinople he often celebrated and preached in Italian (the Mediterranean linguafranca) for the benefit of some French Protestants. This experience induced him toprepare a full translation “in the nicest Italian language,” also with the prospect of anew Italian Protestant congregation in London that may conform to Anglican worship.

5 Despite this explicit reference to possible liturgical use, it is clear that this translation,like Bedell and Sarpi’s nearly eighty years before, was effected exclusively to servepropaganda purposes rather than worship. In the year of the publication of Brown’stranslation Charles II had died and an openly Catholic sovereign with an Italian wife,Mary of Modena, had come to the throne of England. Although it is possible that thistext was intended for the Italians around the Queen, it seems more likely that it was asort of poisoned gift to the new queen, to demonstrate the excellence and beauty ofChurch of England worship in a moment of danger. Brown was a militant Protestantscholar who collected anti-Catholic texts. It is therefore very significant that in theintroduction to his translation he recalled Sarpi’s version, whose Lettere italiane scritte alsignor dell’Isola Groslot he translated into English in 1693.5


81

The Book of Common Prayer as a teaching aid forlearning Italian

6 The translation of the Book of Common Prayer edited by Brown was republished in1708 by the Huguenot publisher Pierre de Varenne, and then, with some revisions, in1733 by Alexander Gordon, a Scotsman. In his foreword, Gordon made a reference tothe hope that this translation could be used by a restored Italian Protestant church inLondon — as a matter of fact in the late 1600s and early 1700s some attempts at such arestoration had been made. He added, however, that this version of the Anglicanliturgy could be used as a teaching aid for Italian.6 Any good Englishman knew thewords of the Common Prayer Book by heart and could easily follow the meaning of theItalian phrases and words even before acquiring a basic vocabulary. In fact, apparently,the Duke of Wellington had learned Spanish thanks to this method.7

7 It is very likely that a similar reason also motivated Antonio Montucci and Luigi Valettito translate the Book of Common Prayer again at the end of the 18th century. UnlikeGordon’s edition, this was a completely new translation of the text, different from theone edited by Brown. It was published in London in 1796. Significantly, in support ofthe hypothesis that the translation had been designed for “linguistic” rather than forliturgical reasons the two authors presented themselves on the title page as “teachersof the Italian language.” Montucci, a prominent sinologist, had links with the BibleSociety, suggesting some evangelical sensibility, although he apparently never left theCatholic Church and was eventually buried under the altar of a church in a Benedictinemonastery in Siena.8

8 A revised edition of the Montucci-Valetti version was reprinted in London in 1820 byGiovanni Battista Rolandi.9 Rolandi, a Piedmontese already established as an engineerin Lombardy, settled in London after the Restoration, perhaps out of contempt for theAustrian regime. In England, he befriended the poet and exile Ugo Foscolo and started apublishing and book trade business focused on Italian texts, which was taken over byhis brother Pietro after his death in 1825. The new edition of the Prayer Book in Italian,was prominent in a catalog that also included Italian editions of the Bible (1821), thePsalms (1822) and Diodati’s Version of the New Testament (1819 and 1821), along withclassics of Italian literature such as Guicciardini’s History of Italy. As in Montucci’s case,Rolandi’s evangelical sensibility is evident; it seems clear that the linguistic anddidactic intentions of the text were of particular import in the case of the publicationof the Anglican liturgy. This was made further explicit by an appendix of verses byMetastasio that the author inserted at the end of the volume.10

9 In 1821, the publisher Samuel Bagster, who had built a successful publishing housebased on the publication of inexpensive polyglot Bibles, decided also to publish polygloteditions of the Book of Common Prayer. An edition in eight languages (English, French,Italian, German, Spanish, ancient and modern Greek and Latin) was also published.Both the modern Greek and the Italian sections had been edited by Andreas Calbo, awriter born on the island of Zakynthos, who had accompanied Foscolo in England in1816 as his secretary and later published some odes in modern Greek, which earnedhim a prominent place in the literary history of modern Greece.11 The Italian versionedited by Calbo was a revised version of the Montucci-Valetti translation, and waspublished by Bagster numerous times, both in multilingual editions and separately, or


82

bound with the New Testament. Once again the principal reason for publishing thistranslation was pedagogical rather than liturgical or political.

10 Rolandi and Calbo’s ideas were reflections of the same cultural environment in whichpre-Risorgimento national political sentiments and disdain for the Catholic Churchprobably met. That Church was perceived as the guarantor of the hierarchical order ofthe Restoration. However commercial and didactic reasons almost certainly motivatedthe publication of the translations. All eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Italianeditions of the Book of Common Prayer were works of writers who, even when inspired bythoughts of religious reform, seem to have principally considered the commercialsuccess that a text with such a large market among the many English who came to Italyfor the Grand Tour might enjoy. With the exception of Gordon, these translators wereItalians who had left their country in search of fortune and freedom.

11 A new chapter in the history of the Italian translations of the Anglican Liturgy wasopened in 1831 with the publication of a new translation, this time by an Anglicanclergyman (for the first time since the 1685 translation).

George Frederick Nott’s translation

12 George Frederick Nott (1768-1841), an Anglican priest, published this new Italianversion in 1831. Coming from a family of clergymen (both his father and grandfatherwere Anglican ministers), he studied at Oxford and garnered an initial reputation as atheologian and later as a scholar of English literature. Charged with the education ofthe Prince of Wales’s daughter, he was involved in the feud that divided the royalfamily and, despite the support of King George III, was fired, for allegedly trying topersuade his pupil to secure him a bishopric. Thanks to his well-known Torysympathies, the government compensated him by making him prebendary ofWinchester. There he supervised the restoration of the cathedral, contributing to someunfortunate decisions, such as the removal of Inigo Jones’s seventeenth-century roodscreen, which was replaced by a neo-Gothic one, so ugly that it was demolished a fewyears later. Nott was an obstinate character. A disagreement with the dean of thecathedral about where to place an organ led him to apply for a leave of absencepleading plausible health reasons: he had been suffering from frequent migraines sincehe had fallen from a ladder during his supervision of the restoration of the cathedral.Free from the duties of his prebend, Nott settled in Italy in 1821, where he had servedas the tutor of a young Irish nobleman, thirty years earlier during his Grand Tour.

13 Aside from a two-year hiatus beginning in the autumn of 1824, Nott remained in Italyuntil 1832, leading a busy social life in Pisa, Naples, Sicily, Rome and Florence. Thisbrought him into the acquaintance of known Italian writers — such as Vincenzo Monti,Giovan Battista Niccolini, Giacomo Leopardi — and into friendship with the PrussianAmbassador Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen. In Italy he could devote himself toscholarly studies. He became editor of Dante’s Divine Comedy (in 1828) and of Bosone daGubbio’ Avventuroso Ciciliano, a fourteenth-century novel (in 1832). He also delighted inarcheology and art.12

14 Nott, who came from a wealthy family, financed his expensive scholarly andantiquarian interests by collecting the ecclesiastical revenues of two parishes as anabsentee rector. At the time Great Britain was awash with polemics against the abusesof the traditional Anglican clergy and the privileges of old England. These scandals


83

were epitomized by non-resident clergy and in the late 1820s and 1830s Nott inparticular was held up as a symbol of behavior not becoming to men of the cloth. Hebecame the subject of media campaigns by radical liberals. Major English newspaperseven published poisonous anonymous letters allegedly written by his parishioners, whosarcastically asked those who had information on him to come forward since they onlyhad news of him during the collection of tithes. The letters did not fail to disdainfullypoint out that he had chosen the Pope’s country as his place of residence.13

15 It was almost certainly these attacks that brought Nott to undertake a new translationof the Book of Common Prayer, which, thanks to the money from the Society for PromotingChristian Knowledge (SPCK) was published in Livorno, though with false attribution toLondon, in 1831. It is likely that the translation, which is clearly indebted to Montucciand Valetti, was prepared with the help of a native speaker, but there is likewise nodoubt that the initiative was Nott’s, almost certainly serving as a justification for hislong stay in Italy. Thanks to this translation he inverted the accusations that presentedhim as an emblematic, lax clergyman, indifferent to his religious duties. Nott managedto present himself as a champion of Anglicanism, who, just as Brown had done in 1685with King James II, showed the excellence of the liturgy of the Church of England in thestronghold of Catholicism. A few months after the publication of the book, much to hisregret, Nott returned to England.14

16 The book came out at the right time. For a set of political and religious reasons(primarily Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and the birth of the Oxford movement withthe publication of the first Tracts for the Time in 1833), some sectors of the Church ofEngland in the 1830s wanted to initiate some form of propaganda against Catholiccountries. Malta, which had been occupied by British troops since 1800 and hadformally become part of the British Empire in 1814, gradually came to serve as aspringboard for propaganda targeting Italy. To this end a branch of theinterdenominational Bible Society was established on the island in 1819.15

17 In this context Nott’s translation could play a role. The SPCK was already planning itsre-edition in 1834, since the copies of the 1831 edition had sold out. However, sometheological objections had been made with respect to Nott’s text. This led to the ForeignTranslation Committee of the SPCK asking Gabriele Rossetti, professor of Italian languageand literature at King’s College, to examine the text carefully to identify any error andto suggest possible changes in 1834.16

18 One of the controversial issues was the way in which Nott had translated the fourthcommandment rendering the word Sabbath with the phrase “il giorno di riposo” “dayof rest,” to avoid the ambiguity that would result from the use of the word Sabbath foran Italian ear.17 Another controversial issue was that the word “Minister” wastranslated as “Prete” (“Priest”).18 Rossetti gave the Foreign Translation Committee of theSPCK a copy with all his comments and corrections, which was sent to Nott for hisopinion. In March 1835 Nott answered that he would carefully examine the proposedamendments and would let them know what he thought. However, at the same time hetold them that he had already personally reviewed the whole translation having inmind its possible second publication.19 Two months later – in May – Nott wrote to theSPCK to let them know that he could not accept all the corrections proposed by Rossettiand therefore he would speedily finalize a second edition of his version that he hopedwould be considered positively by the Society.20 In the following months he took someof the comments into consideration and accepted at least two of the amendments


84

proposed by Rossetti in the Catechism – though it had taken the intervention of thebishop of Winchester.21 In July, Nott asked if the committee objected to the use of theDiodati’s version of the Bible for the Psalms and the quotations from Scriptures.Obviously, someone had objected to the way in which he had rendered scripturalpassages and Nott wanted to deflect criticism by emphasizing that he was quoting froman ancient and approved translation.22

19 All these exchanges seemed to indicate that the publication of the revised edition wasimminent. In the early months of 1836 Nott apparently changed his mind and made itknown that he would publish a new edition at his own expense. He did, however,consent to send the draft to the SPCK; in the event that the Society considered itsatisfactory, a further printing could be published at their expense. The SPCK had noobjections and waited.23 In the summer of 1836 Nott sent the first proofs to the ForeignTranslation Committee.24 In April 1837, some newspapers wrote that this new edition wasto be published shortly.25 But nothing happened. It is very likely that this delay was dueto Nott’s health problems. Based on the testimony of Emiliano Sarti, an Italianphilologist friend of his, Nott lost his mental faculties as he entered into his seventies.26

20 Nott died at Winchester in October 1841.27 The executors of his will got in touch withthe SPCK to offer the new edition of the translation that Nott had already revised andprinted, but that remained to be bound, at a price of £100.28 The Society, however,declined the offer. There had been no news from Nott for some years and this hadconvinced them that the promised new edition would never come. For this reason, theForeign Translation Committee had decided to entrust the revision of Nott’s text,following Rossetti’s suggested changes, to Giovan Battista Di Menna, an Abruzzese ex-Capuchin, who had joined the Church of England, and to George William David Evans,an Anglican minister. The work was completed in a satisfactory manner shortly beforeNott’s death, allowing the SPCK to publish their edition also in 1841.29 The copyrightand already printed copies of Nott’s translation were purchased by Thomas Sims, anAnglican priest, then the minister of a parish in the area.30

21 The new edition of Nott’s translation, revised by Di Menna and Evans, was promoted bythe SPCK almost certainly with the idea to distribute copies among Italian intellectualsand clerics who might be interested in working towards reform in the Catholic Church.Their audience was principally the Italian exiles who in England had grown fond of theChurch of England and the former priests and monks, most of whom had come toEngland through Malta and Gibraltar to start a new life. Sims, however, almostcertainly had a completely different project and audience in mind.

Thomas Sims and the Waldensian Church

22 Thomas Sims (1785-1864) was born in Wales and spent much of his youth in Bristolbefore beginning studies at Cambridge. Imbued with evangelical ideals, he wasordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1813. He was committed to the ChurchMissionary Society and linked to the so-called Clapham Sect, the most importantevangelical group of those years. On a trip to Europe in 1814 his curiosity was stirred bythe Waldenses. He decided to visit the Waldensian valleys in Piedmont, where he metRodolphe Peyran, Moderator of the Venerable Table, and Pierre Bert, AdjunctModerator. Sims was fascinated by the history of this people, mistakenly convinced of


85

the apostolic origins of the Waldensian Church, which actually came into being in thetwelfth century.

23 Since Oliver Cromwell, England had maintained close relations with the Waldenses,providing them with substantial economic aid and political support. The subsidies wereended, however, when the valleys passed under the rule of revolutionary France in1797. Back home, Sims pledged to restore these funds by publishing a pamphlet thatonce more brought the story of the Waldenses to the attention of English intellectuals –a genuine pro-Waldensian mania soon erupted in England.

24 After this first trip Sims returned to the valleys twice, in 1821 and in 1828, andcontributed to a number of important initiatives. He started a collection to build ahospital in Torre to remove the Waldenses from the care of Catholic institutions and tofund rural schools and schools for girls. Thanks to his advice a Waldensian Bible Societywas established in the valleys and the New Testament was published in a French-patoisbilingual edition (patois here refers to the dialect of the valleys) and in Piedmontese. InEngland, he published various writings on the history and the theology of theWaldensian Church.

25 In 1834 Pierre Bert died. For twenty years he had been Sims’s point of reference in thevalleys and Sims subsequently stopped dealing directly with the Waldenses. He insteaddirected his efforts towards the education and religious morals of the lower classes,missionary activity in Africa and the reform of the Church of England, as evidenced bya wide publishing activity.

26 Many of the projects that he had initiated were taken up by William Stephen Gilly,canon of Durham Cathedral since 1827, and by the retired colonel, John CharlesBeckwith. In 1824, the former published the first edition of an account of his journey inthe Waldensian valleys which soon became a best-seller. This stirred the VenerableWaldensian Committee of London to raise funds on the Waldenses’ behalf in May 1825.The latter, inspired by Gilly’s book, went to the valleys annually from 1828 until 1850before settling there permanently. Beckwith organized the use of funds sent by Britishbenefactors with military discipline. Among the most significant examples, it wasthanks to him that a network of rural schools was established, that the Latin School ofTorre was created, that the temples of Torre Pellice, Rorà, Roderetto, were built, andthat the hospital was finished.31

27 Sims, Gilly and Beckwith shared the idea that the Waldensian Church could become thenucleus from which to launch a missionary offensive in Italy. This was rooted in themyth of the apostolic origins of the churches of the valleys and to the equally mythicalvision that equated the Table Moderator to a bishop.32 It was for this reason that Sims,upon hearing of Nott’s death, came forward to buy not only the copyright but also thealready printed copies of his Italian translation of the Book of Common Prayer. Theidea was to offer the Church of England as a model to the Waldenses, both in terms oforganizational structure and liturgy. Sims, in his contacts with Italy, convinced himselfthat the Book of Common Prayer could be an important tool for evangelization, notonly for the Waldenses, but also for Italian Catholics. Its liturgy “containing so much ofthe devotional language of the early Christian churches”, cleansed from the “rubbishand superstition inserted during the medieval dark ages.” So it was a text suited torevive “in corrupted churches and countries sentiments and practices of a trulyevangelical character.”33 In essence, therefore, it was a similar to the Catholic liturgybut devoid of the superstitious elements of medieval scholasticism.


86

28 To deploy this ambitious project it was first necessary to convince the Waldensianpastors of the need to make changes that would prepare their churches to meet newtasks and demands. Both the governance of the churches of the valleys and theirliturgy were too “Protestant” to appeal to a country like Italy which had built itscultural identity on the Catholic Church, since the Counter-Reformation. At a timewhen the intellectual classes and leaders of the Italian states were addressing thequestion of escaping foreign domination to overcome political fragmentation, theAnglican friends of the Waldenses thought it would be a tragic mistake to propose aChurch model which, being Protestant, would be perceived as alien to the Italiantradition. Consequently, the Waldenses would have to eliminate the superstructuresthat religious conflicts had imposed on them when the original Christian church of thevalleys of Piedmont adhered to the Reformation in 1532.

29 Sims, Gilly and Beckwith were convinced that the Church of England was closest to theapostolic model, both for its governing structure and liturgy, and could therefore serveas a model for a renewed Waldensian Church. As a via media between Counter-Reformation Catholicism and Protestantism, Anglicanism, not only represented theclosest thing to the origins of Waldensianism, but could also be an attractive model forItalians and would contribute to infusing the nascent political “Risorgimento” withissues of moral and religious reform. With typical Anglo-Saxon pragmatism, ratherthan emphasizing or discussing theological issues which would be comprehensible onlyto a small elite, promoters of this idea believed that the most important things werethose that all churchgoers would understand immediately, such as the organizationalstructure of the Church and the liturgy.

30 With respect to the liturgy, the Waldenses did not have their own but used that of theReformed Churches in Switzerland and their pastors, depending on their preferences,could use that of Geneva, Lausanne or Neuchatel. In 1824, Pierre Bert, who had becomeModerator the year before, thought he would compose an indigenous one. The projectwas not carried out, but the fact that this proposal was made at that time, just afterSims’s second trip in the valleys and the meeting with Gilly, suggests that pressure bythe Anglican friends on the Moderator probably had some effect. This conjecture is alsobased on the fact that it was Gilly who, some years later in 1829, was at pains to obtainthe consent of the Waldenses to introduce a uniform liturgy for all the communitiesthat, in his view, should conform to the Anglican rite.34

31 A commission was appointed which, contrary to the wish of their British friends,decided not to use the Book of Common Prayer as a model, but the traditional SwissReformed liturgies. The final text was largely written by George Muston, who studied inLausanne and was at the time modérateur adjoint of the Waldensian Church. Subjected toseveral rounds of revision, it was published in 1837. The Venerable Table asked thepastors to use this liturgy and no other in the celebration of public worship.35 Despitethe initial disappointment, the fact that the Waldenses finally had their own liturgywas interpreted by their British friends as a step towards a greater independence inrelation to the Swiss Reformed.36

32 In the autumn of 1837 Colonel Beckwith wrote to the Waldensian pastors inviting themto vest the Moderator with a life tenure.37 He had discussed this extensively with theModerator Jean-Pierre Bonjour, who probably shared his ideas. Beckwith had been inagreement in the past with Bonjour’s now deceased father-in-law Pierre Bert who,


87

according to Gilly, had once said that he would consider favorably the restoration ofthe ancient discipline of the Waldensian Church in its pure episcopal form.38

33 Beckwith’s proposal was opposed both by the young, more directly influenced by thetheology of the Réveil, as well as by the older generation, who feared change. Thisexplains why the synod, held in April of 1839, did not even add Beckwith’s proposal tothe agenda.39 The leaders of the Church probably also feared political consequences.The Savoy government interpreted the British efforts to influence the Waldenses asattempts to “induce those religionists to join the Anglican Church” and considered theproposed transformation of the office of Moderator “into a bishopric” according to theEnglish model as a first step in adopting other changes. They manifested their strongopposition on the very same grounds which Beckwith had advocated – that it wouldstrengthen the structure and appeal of the Waldensian Church.40 The Synod of 1839 wasdelayed by a few months because the government of Savoy, before granting thenecessary approval for it to gather, wanted to understand clearly what changes toecclesiastical discipline were being proposed.41

34 The idea of spreading the Italian translation of the Book of Common Prayer, starting fromthe valleys, where very few actually spoke the language, was part of this intense debatethat went on for years to come. Despite the disappointment of 1839 Beckwith did notgive up. In 1848, when the King of Sardinia granted the Waldenses politicalemancipation, allowing them to build their own places of worship outside of the valley,Beckwith was very clear as to the Waldenses’ duty towards Italy : “You will bemissionaries or will be nothing,” he wrote to his friends in the valleys. For this reason,in 1850, he proposed the adoption of a liturgy which he elaborated in close imitation ofthe Anglican rite, which he published anonymously, and, significantly, in Italian.42

However, again in this case his proposal fell on deaf ears. It was welcomed by anembarrassed silence and was not even discussed by the synod of 1851.43

The new edition of Nott’s translation (1850)

35 It is very likely that the previously printed copies of Nott’s edition bought by Sims hadbeen sent into the valleys as early as 1841. It was only in 1850 that the Prayer-Book andHomily Society – to which Sims had granted the copyright – finally decided to re-issuethe volume. The edition included as an appendix the Latin text of the Thirty-nineArticles of the Church of England. Nott had introduced numerous revisions aboutfifteen years earlier, but these were often purely linguistic and did not always improvethe text, which in both editions completely lacks the beauty of the English original.Some translation mistakes were corrected and the Scriptural citations were consistentwith the Diodati translation. Contrary to what the Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge had once asked, the word “minister” continued to be translated as “prete.”44

36 It is likely that the almost ten years that separate Sims’s purchase of the copyright andthe publication are due to the fact that the new edition of the same translation revisedby Di Menna and Evans appeared in 1841. Possibly Sims and the Prayer-Book and HomilySociety simply thought that there was no market for another edition. In theory, asimilar risk would have existed in 1850 because the SPCK had published two editions ofthe Di Menna-Evans edition shortly before – the first in 1848, with no changes from the1841 version, and the second in 1849, after a further revision by a certain “Mr. Daviesformerly of Caius College”.45 But by this time the Italian situation had changed radically


88

compared to a few years before. The Risorgimento turmoil gave the hope not only of a“political revolution” but also of a religious reform. What was happening in the valleys,both from the political point of view, with the emancipation of 1848, and from areligious point of view, with Beckwith’s previously discussed attempts, apparently re-launched Sims’s project.46

37 In 1864 – three years after the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy, which also markedthe opportunity for the Waldenses to build churches outside the boundaries of the oldKingdom of Sardinia – Sims published a new book dedicated to the Waldenses: Visits tothe Valleys of Piedmont. It was a sort of spiritual testament since Sims died in the sameyear and it contained his first work published in 1815 in favor of the Waldenses. Thefinal pages of this volume are devoted to the dissemination of the Italian version of theBook of Common Prayer among the Waldenses.47

38 Sims also published some letters written to the Secretary of the Prayer-book and HomilySociety by Christian Lazarus Lauria and Christopher Webb Smith. Lauria was then amissionary in Italy for the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews.48 Inthe letter written in Turin on May 7 1861, Lauria thanked the Secretary for the Italiancopies of the Prayer-Book and Homilies that had been sent to him the previous year. Heexplained that among the “papists”, the words “Protestant” and “Atheist” wereconsidered synonymous and that to destroy this prejudice there was nothing betterthan to show those texts. Christopher Webb Smith, an official of the East India Companywho moved to Florence in his retirement in 1842, planned to print copies of the CommonPrayer Book in Italian at the Waldenses’ publishing house – the Claudiana press – inFlorence, though as far as we know this project did not go ahead.49 Sims was enthusedby these letters and other statements that described how some fifty missionaries weretraveling up and down Italy to spread the pure gospel of the Waldenses. He ended hisbook expressing the hope that wealthy Britons would continue to support the cause ofItalian evangelization. In his view the training of ministers and missionaries inFlorence and the dissemination of Scripture and of the Book of Common Prayer in Italiancould increase the number of the faithful.

Conclusion

39 Nott was a conservative both in politics and religion. A Tory and a high-church man hepublished his translation in 1831 almost certainly to justify his absence from Englandand to defend himself against allegations of dereliction of pastoral duties. But, verifyingthe classic aphorism that says that books have a life and will of their own – habent suafata libelli – in the hands of an evangelical like Sims, his translation became aninstrument of proselytism. While this is not the place to discuss in detail the goals ofthe other revisions, made by Di Menna and Evans, Davies and Camilleri,50 they certainlytestify to illusions cultivated by some in the English religious and politicalestablishment. They wished to present the Anglican Church to Italian liberal and anti-curial clerics as a model challenging the primacy of Rome, and to strengthen a Churchof Italy where the bishop of Rome did not have universal ambitions. It was aperspective that can perhaps be defined as neo-Sarpian.

40 This was, as we have seen, also an illusion under which Sims operated. Whatdistinguished Sims’s attempt from those of the SPCK, that promoted and disseminatedthe other revisions in Italy, was his belief that the Waldensian Church could be used to


89

launch the Reformation of Italy. The attempt to offer the Anglican liturgy as a model tothe Waldenses proved unsuccessful. There is, however, no doubt that the delusionabout being able to bring some Anglican influence to bear on the ancient Waldensianchurch ignited tremendous interest in Britain, bringing a flood of money into thevalleys and prompting the Waldenses to turn into a national church.

NOTES1. Stefano Villani, “La prima edizione in italiano del Book of Common Prayer (1685) trapropaganda protestante e memoria sarpiana”, in Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, XLIV (2008),24-45; ID., “Italian Translations of the Book of Common Prayer,” in Travels and Translations. Anglo-Italian Cultural Transactions, edited by Alison Yarrington, Stefano Villani, Julia Kelly (Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi, 2013), 303-319; ID., “Uno scisma mancato: Paolo Sarpi, William Bedell e laprima traduzione in italiano del Book of Common Prayer”, forthcoming in Rivista di storia eletteratura religiosa. On the links between Sarpi and the British embassy see Michaela Valente, “Lecampane della propaganda : rapporti di reciprocità e conflitto giurisdizionale a Venezia traCinque e Seicento”, Laboratoire italien [Online], 3 | 2002, Online since 16 March 2010, connectionon 24 July 2014. URL : http://laboratoireitalien.revues.org/369 ; DOI : 10.4000/laboratoireitalien.369.2. Stefano Villani, “Un’identità mascherata nell’Inghilterra del Seicento: la vicenda dell’ebraistaAlessandro Amidei”, in Quaderni Storici, XLIII (2008), 455-470. On the Avvisi politici see Stefano

Villani, “Raccolte di aforismi. Gli Avvertimenti di Alessandro Amidei come plagio e riscrittura di alcunemassime di Francesco Guicciardini, Giovan Francesco Lottini e Francesco Sansovino”, forthcoming inAnnali della Scuola Normale Superiore – Classe di Lettere e Filosofia.3. Il libro delle preghiere publiche ed amministrazione de sacramenti ed altri riti e cerimonie della chiesa,secondo l’uso della Chiesa Anglicana insieme col Saltero over i salmi di David, come hanno da esser recitatinelle chiese: e la forma e modo di fare, ordinare e consacrare vescovi, presbiteri e diaconi (Londra: MosesPitt, 1685); see Stefano Villani, “La prima edizione in italiano del Book of Common Prayer (1685)tra propaganda protestante e memoria sarpiana,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, XLIV(2008), 24-45; Id., “Libri pubblicati in italiano in Inghilterra nel XVII secolo: il caso dellatraduzione del Book of Common Prayer del 1685,” in Le livre italien hors d’Italie au XVIIe siècle,Actes du colloque du 23-25 avril 2009 réunis par Delphine Montoliu, Collection de l’Ecrit, 12(Toulouse: Université de Toulouse II, 2010), 91-120.4. Stefano Villani, The Italian Protestant Church of London in the Seventeenth Century, in Barbara

Schaff (ed.), Exiles, Emigrés and Intermediaries Anglo-Italian Cultural Transactions (Amsterdam/NewYork, NY: Rodopi, 2010), Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und VergleichendenLiteraturwissenschaft 139, 217-236.5. Stefano Villani, La prima edizione in italiano del Book of Common Prayer (1685), cit.6. On the attempts to revive the Italian chapel see Stefano Villani, “La chiesa protestante italianadi Londra nel Seicento,” in E. Valeri, M.A. Visceglia, P. Volpini, Figure e spazi della mediazione culturalenella prima età moderna (Rome: Viella, 2015), 263-285.7. Philip Henry, 5TH Earl of Stanhope, Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington, 1831-1851(London: J. Murray, 1888), 291.


90

8. La liturgia, ovvero formola delle preghiere publiche secondo l’uso della chiesa anglicana, col Satterio diDavide. Nuovamente tradotta dall’Inglese nel Tosco idioma da A. Montucci e L. Valetti, Si vende apprestodi Vernor ed Hood, Birchin Lane, Cornhill e S. Herbert, Great Russel Street Bloomsbury, 1796. OnMontucci see Stefano Villani, Montucci, Antonio, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (2012).9. Liturgia ovvero formola delle preghiere pubbliche secondo l’uso della Chiesa Anglicana; col salterio diDavide. Traduzione italiana corretta, ed aumentata da Giambattista Rolandi con aggiunta di rime sacre,Londra, Si vende da Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor e Lepard, Finsbury square; G. e W.B.Whittaker, Ave-Maria-lane; J. Collingwood, Strand; T. Boosey e Figli, Broad-street; R. Priestley,High Holborn; e B. Dulau e Co. Soho square, 1820.10. Villani, Italian Translations of the Book of Common Prayer, op. cit.11. J. Robert Wright, Early translations, in Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck (eds), The OxfordGuide to the Book of Common Prayer. A Worldwide Survey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 57;Samuel Bagster, Samuel Bagster of London, 1772-1851: An Autobiography (London: Bagster, 1972).12. Libro delle Preghiere Comuni e dell’amministrazione dei Sacramenti e degli altri riti e ceremonieecclesiastiche secondo l’uso della Chiesa Unita d’Inghilterra e d’Irlanda, insieme col Salterio o Salmi diDavid, colle pause da osservarsi nel cantarli, o recitarli in Chiesa, Londra 1831. London was certainly afalse imprint because, very probably, the book was published in Livorno by the printing press ofGiulio Sardi. See STEFANO VILLANI, George Frederick Nott (1768-1841). Un ecclesiastico anglicano trateologia, letteratura, arte, archeologia, bibliofilia e collezionismo (Roma: Accademia dei Lincei, 2012),855-858.13. Villani, George Frederick Nott (1768-1841), op. cit.14. Villani, George Frederick Nott (1768-1841), op. cit.15. See Giorgio Spini, Risorgimento e protestanti (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1989), 204-205. 16. Cambridge University Library (from now on referred to as Cambridge UL), SPCK.MS A16/1,Foreign Translation Committee, 1834-1844, c. 15. Involved in the revolutionary attempts of 1820,Rossetti fled first to Malta and then in England where he married the Protestant Frances Polidori.Even if he did not join formally the Church of England, he was always a passionate – even ifconfused – supporter of Italian Evangelism in London. On him see G. Rossetti, La vita mia – Iltestamento, con scritti e documenti inediti di William Michael Rossetti, edited by Gianni Oliva (Lanciano:Carabba, 2004).17. We get this information from a note by Edward Craven Hawtrey, in “Notes and Queries” 1st

Series, vol. 12 (21st July 1855), 64; this note is used in R. Cox, The Literature of the Sabbath Question(Maclachlan & Stewart, Edinburgh 1865), 354.18. Frances Eleanor Trollope, Frances Trollope: Her life and Literary Work from George III. to Victoria(London: R. Bentley & Son, 1895), vol. 1, 195.19. No copy of Rossetti’s remark is extant. There are many references to it in the minutes theForeign Translation Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge: Cambridge UL,SPCK.MS A16/1, Foreign Translation Committee, 1834-1844, c. 18 (Monday February 8 1835), Ibid., c. 20(Monday March 9th 1835).20. Ibid., c. 24 (Monday May 11th 1835).21. Ibid., c. 26 (Monday June 8th 1835).22. Ibid., cc. 29-30 (Monday July 13th 1835).23. Ibid., c. 51 (Monday January 11th 1836); Ibid., c. 61 (Monday April 11th 1836). Cf. also Ibid., c. 40(Monday November 9th 1835).24. Ibid., c. 68 (Monday July 11th 1836).25. ““Dorset County Chronicle”, March 1837; “The Aberdeen Journal” (1 March 1837), Issue 4651.26. G. Pelliccioni, Un archeologo romano della prima metà del secolo (Emiliano Sarti), “NuovaAntologia” vol. 30, Serie II (15 novembre 1881), 173-202 (republished also in A. Viti, Vite di romaniillustri, Nuova Tipografia dell’Orfanotrofio Comunale, Roma 1890, vol. 3, 59-109).


91

27. Cambridge UL, SPCK.MS A16/1, Foreign Translation Committee, 1834-1844, c. 205, 13 Dec. 1841.28. Cf. SPINI, Risorgimento e protestanti, op. cit., 205. 29. Libro delle Preghiere Comuni, e dell’amministrazione dei Sacramenti, e degli altri riti e cerimonieecclesiastiche, secondo l’uso della Chiesa unita d’Inghilterra e d’Irlanda: insieme col Salterio o Salmi diDavid, colla forma e modo di fare, ordinare, e consacrare vescovi, sacerdoti, e diaconi, Londra, G.M’Dowall, stampatore, 1841. For the vicissitudes of this revision see Cambridge UL, SPCK.MSA16/1, Foreign Translation Committee, 1834-1844, c. 205, 13 Dec. 1841, see David N. Griffiths, TheBibliography of the Book of Common Prayer, 1549-1999 (London, British Library, 2002), particularly, forthe Italian versions see 513-515 (num. 66.8). 30. In a sheet inserted between the pages 124 e 125 of the copy of the sale catalogue of Nott’slibrary kept in the archives of the Cathedral of Winchester (DC/L/3/1) there is a note that saysthat Sims acquired the copyright and 500 copies of the Libro delle Preghiere Comuni for 13 Sterlingpounds (“Copyright Italian Liturgy by Dr. Nott & 500 copies”), see a similar note in the cataloguekept in the Hampshire Record Office, 11M70/B7/91.31. For a complete biographical study of Thomas Sims see Stefano Villani, “Dal Galles alle Valli:Thomas Sims (1785-1864) e la riscoperta britannica dei valdesi”, in Bollettino della Società di StudiValdesi 215 (2014): 103-171. Il Nuovo Testamento in piemontese – ‘L Liber d’i Salm dë David tradoutën lingua Piemounteisa = Il libro de’ Salmi di David, [London], W. M’Dowall, 1840 [“Published by theBritish and Foreign Bible Society”] – was published by the same press of the Di Menna-Evansrevision.32. W. S. Gilly 1824, Narrative of an Excursion to the Mountains of Piemont, and Researches Among theVaudois, or Waldenses (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1824), 74.33. T. Sims, Visits to the Valleys of Piedmont; Including a Brief Memoir Respecting the Waldenses(London: 1864), 63-72. 34. See Viviana Genre, William Stephen Gilly e i viaggi nelle valli valdesi, tesi di laurea, Universitàdegli Studi di Torino, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, corso di laurea in Lingue e Letteraturemoderne, a. a. 2003-2004, relatore prof.ssa Giuliana Ferreccio, 57, 82-84; Bruno Bellion, Ilrinnovamento delle chiese valdesi nella prima metà del secolo XIX, Tesi discussa alla Facoltà Valdese diteologia (Rome, 1964-65), 54, 102-103. 35. La liturgie ou la manière de célébrer le service divin, comme elle est établie dans les EglisesEvangéliques des Vallées du Piémont. Par ordre du Synode (Edimbourgh : 1837); Liturgie Vaudois, ou lamanière de célébrer le service divin comme elle est établie dans l’Eglise Evangélique des Vallées Vaudoisesdu Piémont. Par ordre du Synode (Lausanne: 1842, another reprint Pinerolo: 1872). See VivianaGenre, William Stephen Gilly, op. cit., 82-84, 106-107.36. A new edition was published in 1842 with some changes, including a formula for the Burialservice, composed by Jean Pierre Bonjour – Pierre Bert’s son in law – largely influenced by theAnglican one.37. F. Giampiccoli, J. Charles Beckwith. Il Generale dei valdesi (1789-1862) (Torino: Claudiana, 2012), 83.38. Viviana Genre, William Stephen Gilly, op. cit., 208.39. See Spini, Risorgimento e protestanti, op. cit., 311-312; Giampiccoli, J. Charles Beckwith, op. cit. 40. Archivio di Stato di Torino, Materie Ecclesiastiche, Cat. XXXVIII, mazzo 4 “Carteggio relativoall’autorizzazione per il Sinodo delle Chiese valdesi” quoted in Giampiccoli, J. Charles Beckwith,98-104.41. Cambridge UL, Lettera di Gilly a Robert Pott, 10 giu, 1839, cit. in Genre, William Stephen Gilly,op. cit., 105; Vinay, Facoltà Valdese di Teologia 1855-1955 (Torre Pellice: Claudiana, 1955).42. [Beckwith], Saggio di liturgia secondo le dottrine della sacra scriptura ad uso dei semplici (Pinerolo:Tipografia di G. Chiantore, 1850). 43. Genre, William Stephen Gilly, cit., 137-138.


92

44. Il Libro delle preghiere pubbliche, e dell’amministratione de’ sacramenti, ed altri riti e cerimonieecclesiastiche, secondo l’uso della Chiesa Unita d’Inghilterra e d’Irlanda, coi Salmi di David. In fine, inlingua latina, i XXXIX articoli della religione (London, Prayer-Book and Homily Society, 1850).45. Cambridge UL, SPCK.MS A16/2, Foreign Translation Committee, 1844-1853, c. 141 Monday April 191847; Ibid., c. 149 Monday June 7 1847.Cambridge UL, SPCK.MS A16/2, Foreign Translation Committee, 1844-1853, c. 155 (Saturday July 31847). 46. See Alberto Revel, “Il Culto Cristiano”, in Rivista Cristiana III (1875), 82-89, 121-129, 159-169, inpart. 163-167.47. Sims, Visits to the Valleys of Piedmont, cit., 52, 63-72.48. On Lauria see Stefano Villani, “Christianus Lazarus Lauria e l’attività della London Society forthe Propagation of Christianity among the Jews in Italia”, forthcoming in Annali di Storiadell’Eseges XXXIV/1(2017).49. SIMS, Visits to the Valleys of Piedmont, cit., 64-67.50. When Sims published his last book, a further revision of Nott’s translation made by the SPCKhad already appeared. Its author was Michel Angelo Camilleri, a former Roman Catholic Maltesepriest, who had joined the Church of England (it was published in 1861 and reissued in 1863, 1870,1880, 1882, 1888, 1915, and, perhaps, in 1929). Ibid., 63-72.

ABSTRACTSThe first manuscript Italian translation of the Book of Common Prayer was made in 1608 by thechaplain to James I’s ambassador in Venice with the help of Paolo Sarpi. This translation was partof an English propaganda plan to instigate a schism in the Church of Venice. A completelydifferent translation was printed in London in 1685, for propaganda reasons, as a sort of poisonedgift to the Catholic King, James II. A significant number of Italian translations of the Book ofCommon Prayer were made in the 18th and 19th centuries. They served purposes that often hadnothing to do with worship, including providing a convenient way for English people to learnItalian. In 1831 George Frederick Nott prepared a new translation of the Book of Common Prayer,which was published in Livorno, though with false attribution to London. The Society for PromotingChristian Knowledge (SPCK) used this Italian version to promote the Church of England as apossible model for a reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 19th century, a number ofAnglicans vainly engaged in attempts to convince the Waldensian Church to become theinstrument of the conversion of Italy to Protestantism thanks to its adoption of episcopacy andthe Book of Common Prayer.

En 1608, le chapelain de l’ambassadeur de Venise à la cour de Jacques Ier, aidé de Paolo Scarpiproduisit une traduction manuscrite du Book of Common Prayer en italien. Cette traduction avaitune fonction de propagande et était destinée à encourager l’Eglise de Venise au schisme. En 1685,une nouvelle traduction en italien, complètement différente, fut publiée à Londres. Elle aussifaisait partie d’un dispositif de propagande, tout en constituant, par la même occasion, un cadeauempoisonné au nouveau souverain, catholique, Jacques II. Au cours des XVIIIè et XIXè siècles, denombreuses autres traductions furent publiées, à des fins très variées et souvent non liturgiques,par exemple pour servir d’outil dans l’apprentissage de l’italien. En 1831, George Frederick Nottprépara une nouvelle traduction du Book of Common Prayer, publiée à Livourne mais avec une page


93

de titre indiquant Londres comme lieu de publication. Avec cette traduction, la Society forPromoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK) voulut promouvoir une réforme de l’Eglise catholique sur lemodèle de l’Eglise anglicane. Enfin, au XIXè siècle, plusieurs anglicans cherchèrent en vain à fairede l’Eglise vaudoise un instrument de conversion de l’Italie au protestantisme, en l’encourageantà adopter le Book of Common Prayer et un gouvernement épiscopal.

INDEX

Mots-clés: liturgie, Eglise anglicane, Italie, traduction, Eglise vaudoiseKeywords: liturgy, Anglican Church, Italy, translation, Waldensian Church

AUTHOR

STEFANO VILLANI

University of Maryland


94

The Influence of the 1662 Book ofCommon Prayer on the ‘BersierLiturgy’ and French ProtestantWorshipL’Influence du Book of Common Prayer sur la ‘liturgie de Bersier’ et leprotestantisme français

Stuart Ludbrook

1 Anglican liturgy has also made its influence felt in denominations outside the English-speaking world and with no historical links with the Church of England. Liturgicalreforms in the French Reformed Church in the 19th century provide an example of howthe Anglican liturgical tradition was used as a major resource for spiritual renewal in afrancophone, non-Anglican setting.

2 In 1874, the Swiss protestant pastor Eugene Bersier (Morges 1831, Paris 1889)1

published the first edition of what we shall call the “Bersier Liturgy”.2 It wasintroduced, on 29th November 1874, into his congregation in Paris, at the Dedication ofthe “Temple de l’Étoile”. A second definitive edition appeared in 1876. Later printingscontain minor corrections. We shall use the 1876 edition.

3 The “Bersier Liturgy” had lasting influence on French Reformed worship and some ofits characteristics can still be encountered today. For instance, a verse of a hymn wassung as an unannounced response at several points during the first part of the service.This trait, hugely opposed at first, is still a regular feature of French Reformed worship.This service-book not only breaks with Protestant liturgical use in 19th century France,it also reintroduces features into French Reformed worship that go back to Calvin. In sodoing it applies the materials imported from the Church of England and reshapes themto French Protestant culture3.


95

The 1876 “Bersier Liturgy” pioneers liturgical renewalin French Protestantism

4 The first edition of the “Bersier Liturgy” opens with the Sunday Services, morning andevening. Then follow Liturgies for Baptism, Communion, Marriage and Burial. Thesecond edition adds a general prayer for each Sunday of the month as well as versesand prayers for the Christian Year: Christmas, New Year, Palm Sunday, Good Friday,Easter, Ascension and Pentecost. A Service is also surprisingly given for Nov. 1st (AllSaints) considered as Reformation Sunday to celebrate the universal Church. Togetherthese prayers give a remarkable overview of salvation history and are one of the mostenduring aspects of Bersier’s liturgical reform. Bersier tried to avoid hollow phrases orreligious sentimentalism in his prayers which combine poetry and a desire to teach. Hecustomarily resorts to rich biblical imagery. His “Prayer for Christmas Day” (Morningservice) is a good example:

Jesus, Redeemer of all peoples, Begotten of the Father before the rising of the firstdawn: Bright Morning Star, eternal Word, Light and splendour of the Father, Visibleimage of the invisible God, Sun of Righteousness, whose rays bring us healing andlife; you have risen on the world asleep in the shadow of death, and your Radiancewill have no end.4

In the Morning Service for November 1st, his prayer underlines the specificcontribution of the Protestant Reformation:

O Lord, you have been our Deliverer, we celebrate this day remembering yourmercies. Unworthy to dwell with you, we were incapable by ourselves to merit yourforgiveness. Yet, you have revealed to us your saving grace and granted us accessby faith; you have freed us from all fear placing in our hearts the Spirit of adoptionby whom we can call upon you as a Father. 5

5 The two final sections of the “Bersier Liturgy” are headed respectively “Sacraments”and “Church Acts”. The former includes “Baptism for Adults”, “Admission to HolyCommunion”, three orders for “Communion”; the latter has orders of service for “theOrdination of a Minister,” "the Induction of a new pastor” and “the Consecration of aChurch”. Next follow services for “Days of Fasting” or “Thanksgiving.” The secondedition of the book ends, as in 1874, with the Marriage and Burial Services. Bersier gavebirth to a French Prayer Book that encompasses regular services and rites of passage.As such, its scope is comparable to that of the Book of Common Prayer.

6 Furthermore, the “Bersier liturgy” also presents some similarities in content toAnglican services. At this juncture, we mention two features in particular that did notpass unnoticed. His Liturgy prescribes kneeling at several points. This was supposed toconform to Huguenot practise. The 1662 Prayer-Book restored “the Declaration onKneeling” and “Kneeling” is stipulated during the penitential parts in both the Officesand the Communion Service. Sung liturgical responses, imitating Anglican cathedralstyle, were introduced with a simple musical setting by his sister-in-law HenrietteHollard.6

7 However, this “Bersier Liturgy” should be clearly differentiated from his “LiturgicalProject” (1888).7 The French Lutheran theologian and lecturer Robert Will 8 failed tomake this distinction and so contributes to obscure the more radical elements of the“Bersier Liturgy”. The “Liturgical Project” is a proposal to revise existing FrenchReformed liturgy. Bersier produced a full scale service book with a lengthy theoreticaland historical introduction to French-speaking Reformed worship and extensive


96

ongoing critical commentary. It is a monumental achievement and a major resourcework for all of Bersier’s liturgical production. It is understandable that this technicalliturgical work was thought to be the “Bersier Liturgy”. It was to be submitted to theReformed Synod and had been prepared at their request. The Protestant historianAndré Encrevé classifies it as: “an intermediate liturgy between the ‘Bersier liturgy’ andthat of the French Reformed Churches”9. The “Liturgical Project” (1888) contains someimprovements on linguistic and stylistic grounds and occasionally a greater choice ofprayers, notably for the Burial Service; and this prayer to be said before the Creed:

Lord, we give you thanks for you have called us to the knowledge of salvationthrough faith in Jesus-Christ, our Redeemer. Keep us holding the truth that wepossess, so that, being subject to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, each of usmight freely confess his faith and say in communion with the universal church...10

8 But the congregational responses are virtually non-existent. It serves a watered-downversion of Bersier’s more innovative liturgical reforms, notably for Morning Serviceand Communion.

9 We should add that Bersier had some success as a hymn writer (he adapted Baxter’s “YeHoly Angels Bright” using music by Croft, an organist at Westminster Abbey) tailoringhymns for use at major christian festivals and for regular Sunday worship. In this hewas inspired by the resurgence of hymnody in Victorian England. He was also an outstanding preacher, well known in England ;11 a selection from his printed sermonsappeared as late as 1965.12

10 The importance of the “Bersier Liturgy” in French Protestantism cannot beunderestimated. J.-D. Benoît affirms: “The real father of the modern liturgical revivalwas Eugène Bersier.”13 It represents the first major attempt to create a FrenchProtestant Prayer-Book with services — previously centred on preaching — nowencouraging worship and congregational participation through said or sung responses.

Bersier and Anglican Worship

11 The Souvenirs recount the memoirs of Marie Bersier née Hollard, and relate what Bersiersaid about worship as well as some of his wife’s views on the subject.14 She sums upBersier’s basic approach: “The innate sympathy that he felt toward the English liturgydid not blind him to the need for restraint in adapting it to the Churches of France.”15

12 She recalls that Bersier’s English mother used to read the Anglican office in her Prayer-Book, and that later on Bersier prayed regularly this liturgy with her.16 During a week-long stay in London in August 1871, Bersier attended Mattins every morning inWestminster Abbey where "the sacred music is so beautiful."17 At the end of 1873,Bersier took himself to “la rue d'Aguesseau” before carrying out his liturgical reform.18

This means he attended services in the Anglican chapel of the British Embassy in Paris,known as St. Michael's Church since the 1970’s. One should also mention his friendshipwith A.P. Stanley,19 Dean of Westminster Abbey from 1864 and Archbishop Tait.20 Thesemorsels of information, albeit anecdotal, weigh nonetheless when trying to measurethe impact of the Book of Common Prayer on Bersier.

13 Amongst Bersier’s numerous writings on liturgical matters the 7th section of his article“Worship" (Culte) in the Lichtenberger encyclopedia is devoted to worship in theReformation Churches. Firstly Bersier summarises the history of Anglican liturgypresenting the Order for Morning Prayer. He provides no liturgical commentary.21 Even


97

so, that he engaged in liturgical research on the Book of Common Prayer is beyonddoubt.22

14 To this should be added his frequent criticism of the Oxford Movement. Bersieropposed, on exegetical and historical grounds, the return to overtly catholic devotionspromoted by this High Church party. His French liberal Reformed opponents accusedhim of ritualism, though stopping short of calling him an Anglo-Catholic. They didhowever scent the Anglican influence on his liturgy:

His congregation were artistic and sentimental; he thought he was doing art byintroducing erudite responses and paid choirs, painted stained-glass windows andprayers to order. His parishioners were for the most part Anglicans, so he servedthem with a pastiche of their liturgy.23

15 However, Bersier claims that the prayers of intercession in his liturgy come fromReformed sources24 and his annotations in his “Liturgical Project” bear this out. Thispolemic has surely contributed to Bersier’s silence concerning his debt to Anglicancathedral style worship.

16 Yet we cannot overlook the neo-gothic architecture of his parish church (imitating the Cambridge Movement) or the reordered interior: the Communion table is now central,carrying an open Bible and the pulpit stands on one side. This ordering has becomecommon in French-speaking Reformed churches. This alone exemplifies the newemphasis on frequent Communion, praise and worship as the prime focus in Sundayservices and the less central place given to preaching. All these are hallmarks ofAnglican liturgical worship. This leads to a fine tribute from Bernard Reymond, acontemporary authority in practical theology.

17 All proportions kept, Bersier has exercised an influence on the architecture and liturgyof French-speaking Protestant Churches, comparable to that of the CambridgeMovement in the Anglo-Saxon world.25

The overall conception of the “Bersier Liturgy” owesmuch to the Book of Common Prayer.

18 The ethos of the “Bersier Liturgy” can be illustrated by this prayer (based on Isaiah57:15) which encourages a reverential attitude during Sunday services:

Lord, you do not despise a broken and contrite heart. Even though you are the MostHigh and supremely the Holy One you deign to dwell with the humble ... Humble usthen, O God, kindly draw near to bless us. May we sense your presence and hearyour voice, so that in stillness and silence our souls may contemplate yourworshipful face.26

This embodies the numinous in worship and the sense of a transcendent presence thatexudes from Anglican worship, almost unconsciously. Thus, Bersier asserts the need forevery worshipper to have his liturgical book:

What is called ‘Liturgy’ is a tome used only by ministers that hardly ever leaves thepulpit. […] Yet, we consider that a liturgy worthy of the name should be a trulycongregational Book for the use of every churchgoer. It furnishes them with all theessential elements of worship when they are deprived of preaching. And it allowsthem to join more easily in public worship when it is regularly celebrated by theminister’.27


98

19 Bersier thought that a single worship book reinforced unity amongst churchgoers. Wemight add that it also serves to limit the power of any minister by giving thecongregation a greater role in worship.

20 The contents of the “Bersier Liturgy” echo those of the Prayer-Book. Both place at theirhead a calendar of Bible readings (lectionary). The opening services are those forMorning and Evening Prayer. The Te Deum is printed for congregational use. Provisionis also made to recite in most services (even sing as in the 1662 Book of CommonPrayer) the Apostles’ Creed. These are all features peculiar to the Prayer-Book.

21 There is also evidence of direct borrowing from the Book of Common Prayer. TheChurch of Scotland liturgist William D. Maxwell observes:

It was compiled by Mr. Bersier for use in his own congregation in Paris, in it theinfluence of Morning Prayer in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is marked,and the book itself has had a wide influence on the worship of the French ReformedChurch.28

22 We can measure the extent and nature of this influence with the help of this Table:29

TABLE n°1

Morning Prayer, Prayer-Book (1662) Morning Service, Bersier (1874)

Invocation and response

Scripture Sentences Scripture Sentences

Exhortation before confession Summary of the Law with response

Promises of forgiveness

Confession of sin Confession of sin and Kyrie

Absolution and Lord’s Prayer Absolution (wish) "Praise the LORD"

Reponses Responses

Psalm 95 followed by Gloria PatriGloria in excelsis Deo (incipit), Gloria Patri(response)

Psalm of the day

OT reading. OT reading

Te Deum or Canticle of the Creatures taken fromDaniel 3 (LXX)

Psalm or hymn

NT reading Reading from the Gospels or the Epistles

Song of Zachariah or Psalm 100

Apostles Creed Apostles Creed


99

Reponses and Kyrie simple and the Lord’s Prayer Suffrages and Three collects and various prayers

Intercessions (Litany) + Lord’s Prayer + GloriaPatri

Sermon

Hymn, Collection and Notices Hymn, Collection and Notices

Blessing The Grace 2 Cor 13 Free Prayer, Hymn, Blessing 2 Cor 13

23 Yet, Bersier does not incorporate into his liturgy, either entire rites, or specific prayers.He discards the biblical canticles, Venite (Ps 95), Benedictus (Song of Zachariah, Luke 1),and Jubilate Deo (Ps 100), as well as the Apocryphal Benedicite, omnia opera (Daniel 3Septuagint). Even so, the order in the “Bersier Liturgy” follows closely that of MorningPrayer: the Apostles’ Creed and the intercessions come before the sermon in both cases.There exist numerous detailed similarities between the two liturgies, even more so inthe 1876 edition of the “Bersier Liturgy”. Here then is a list of the main features thatBersier borrowed from the Anglican service:

1. The principle of reading several Bible verses as introductory sentences and thechoice of Psalm 51:17 and Joel 2:13. 2. Among the Promises of forgiveness: Ezekiel 18:27; 33:2 and 1 John 1:8-9. 3. The suffrages (Preces). 4. The use of responses (sung in the manner of English cathedrals). 5. The use of a litany (in the intercessory prayers) and some of its contents. 6. The “Lord’s Prayer” at the end of the litany. 7. The collects for festivals. 8. The prayer at the opening of the Parliamentary session. (The 1662 Book reads“during”) 9. 2 Corinthians 13:13; “the Grace", as a formula of blessing. 10. The Te Deum is printed out in full to be recited by the congregation on a regularbasis.11. The sermon occurs towards the close of the service.

24 Items 8 and 9 are peculiar to the 1662 Prayer-Book. We cannot exclude the possibilitythat the liturgy produced in 1866 by Charles Frossard30 might be a source for item 7,which along with item 8, appears later in Bersier’s Liturgical Project. Whatever his debtto earlier Reformed liturgies, or Lutheran “Agende”31 Bersier has borrowedconsiderably from Anglican Morning Prayer.

25 The Communion service also bears the mark of Anglican influences. Bersier introducesthe title "Communion Liturgy", whereas his “Liturgical Project” has "CommunionService". These titles break with usual practise in most French Protestant Churches; theterm "communion" is that of the Prayer-Book.

26 There appears to be no direct borrowing here from the Book of Common Prayer.32 Forinstance, he does not use “The Prayer of Humble Access” which became known inFrance and has even been researched.33 Yet he does introduce Sursam Corda, Sanctus and Gloria in excelsis, the latter albeit in a different position from that of the Book ofCommon Prayer. We also note the insertion of “Proper Prefaces” in the Communionthanksgiving prayer for use at festivals. Bersier has four “Propers,” Christmas, GoodFriday, Easter and Whitsun,34 against five in the Prayer-Book. Furthermore, Bersier,breaking with Reformed usage on two counts, imitates two features introduced into the1662 Prayer Book. Not only does he use the “words of institution” as a prayer,35 but he


100

also inserts three “manual acts” during the “Institution narrative” against five in thePrayer-Book, a reform jointly supported in 1661 by the Bishops and the Presbyterians.In the “Bersier Liturgy” we find: stretching hands over all the bread and cups; takingthe bread; taking the cup; but no black crosses, inherited from Catholicism, that wereexcised in 1552 from the 1549 Prayer-Book.

27 Kenneth W. Stevenson has shown that we also find in Bersier excerpts from theAnglican “Prayer of Oblation” commonly called “We thy unworthy servants”:

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, tobe a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; … And although we beunworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet webeseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits,but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

28 This entered his liturgy via that of the Catholic Apostolic Church36 designed by John B.Cardale.37 A French edition appeared in 1873, the year prior to the “Bersier liturgy”.

Acknowledging Thee to be our God, and ourselves Thy servants, as we are mostbound, so we present to Thee ourselves, our souls and bodies, and dedicateourselves unto Thy service, engaging henceforth to obey Thy holy will andcommandments, and utterly to eschew all that Thou abhorrest. O God, Thouknowest our weakness, and our frailty is not hid from Thee; have mercy upon us,and fulfil our vows in us … that we may henceforth yield ourselves to Thee a livingsacrifice, holy, and acceptable, which is our reasonable service.38

However, Bersier, whilst using Cardale and Romans 12:1-2 can improve the style andstress his own theology as the additions in bold type show:

We are unworthy to offer anything in return for such a great sacrifice. Whilstacknowledging Thee to be our God, and ourselves Thy servants, we present to Thee,our souls and bodies that you have redeemed and dedicate ourselves unto Thyservice. And we make the commitment to follow Thy holy will, to do what Thoucommandest and to flee completely that which Thou abhorrest. O God, Thouknowest our weakness, and our faults are not hidden from Thee; have mercy uponus, and fulfil these vows in us, so that we may in future offer ourselves to Thee aliving sacrifice, holy, and acceptable, which is our reasonable service. 39

29 Here then, borrowing by Bersier is proven, even if it is indirect via Cardale. Thesimilarities with the Roman Mass show further usage of Cardale. Calvin is the source forthe exhortation. These multiple sources should not however prevent us fromacknowledging some influence from the Book of Common Prayer.

30 The burial service also testifies to the importance of the Book of Common Prayer inBersier’s liturgical reforms. Bersier is a virtual pioneer in this area for French Reformedworship. In 1874, he even introduced an Order of Service for the Burial of a Child.40 Heincorporated psalms 39 Dixi, Custodiam and 90 Domine, refugium into his burial liturgy.Both these psalms were introduced into the burial service in the 1662 Book of CommonPrayer. He uses excerpts from 1 Corinthians 15, the Prayer-Book epistle for a funeralcommunion, printed in full since 1549. These details take on greater significance whenone recalls that funeral liturgies were absent from most Reformed service-books.

31 That the 1662 Book of Common Prayer provides a liturgical paradigm can also be seenin other occasional or pastoral services. The French title of Bersier’s “Special Service ofThanksgiving” suggests its translation from the English. The whole service reflectsAnglican structure and style. It uses a single response, like a litany of thanksgiving.41


101

32 Bersier is probably using the Book of Common Prayer as a source for the Communion ofthe Sick as few other Reformed liturgies existed at that time. This Prayer-Book Officeincludes a form of absolution that ends in a traditional formula using the first person:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners, whotruly repent, and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; Andby his Authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

33 In 1661, the Presbyterians had unsuccessfully requested a declarative form.42 UsuallyBersier prefers to “announce forgiveness” following the example of Calvin atStrasbourg. So Bersier avoids the Prayer Book text:

May Almighty God, who hath given His Son Jesus-Christ as the Sacrifice andPropitiation for the sins of the whole world; grant unto you, for His love’s sake,forgiveness, remission and absolution of all your sins !43

While finding inspiration in Cardale’s liturgy yet again:Almighty God who hath given His Son Jesus-Christ to be the Sacrifice andPropitiation for the sins of the whole world; Grant unto you for His sake fullremission and forgiveness; Absolve you from all your sins.44

34 These are none other than the “comfortable words” of the Book of Common PrayerCommunion service taken from 1 John 2:1-2. Nevertheless, Bersier modifies the endingto avoid the traditional terminology that harks back to the Book of Common Prayer andbeyond that to the Roman Catholic absolution formula.

35 The 1662 Prayer-Book contains a service of Baptism initially intended for those notbaptized into the Anglican fold during the Commonwealth period. The preface byBishop Robert Sanderson (1661) justifies this:

an office for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years: which, although not sonecessary when the former Book was compiled, yet by the growth of Anabaptism,through the licentiousness of the late times crept in amongst us, is now becomenecessary, and may be always useful for the baptizing of Natives in our Plantations,and others converted to the Faith.

36 Bersier created a service of Baptism for adults. One could claim that he was onlycopying the previously mentioned liturgy by Frossard since he is aware of hiscolleague’s work in this area.45 But Bersier realised that Frossard was using Anglicansources. Two items testify to Bersier’s borrowing from the Prayer-Book. Firstly, hefollows the 1662 Preface on the need for such a service, referring to Baptists, convertsand Christian mission:

37 This liturgy is to be used to introduce into the Christian Church Jews or convertsbrought to faith through mission to non-Christian peoples. But it will always be usefulin families either won over to Baptist teaching where infant baptism has beensuppressed, or where unbelief has led to the disappearance of any religious practise.46

38 He uses similar language when tracing the history of such liturgies in the Reformedtradition: “the Walloon Synod of 1667 added to the liturgy, a formulary for […] theBaptism of adults, Anabaptists, Jews, Mahometans, pagans and idol worshippers.”47

39 Secondly, he also uses the Gospel of John, chapter 3, printed in full in the Book ofCommon Prayer, an unlikely choice for adult baptism as it has been read traditionallyas advocating “baptismal regeneration.”


102

Conclusion

40 The Book of Common Prayer remains Bersier’s principal liturgical source as a “motherliturgy”. There are numerous cases of direct borrowing from the daily office. Heindirectly uses the Prayer Book Communion Service when he quarries texts fromCardale. The 1662 Prayer Book provides liturgical models for several services. Hisknowledge of the Oxford Movement, the continental Lutheran liturgical revival and ofeastern and patristic texts means that the “Bersier Liturgy” was part of a Europeanmove in the 19th century to rediscover and use the liturgical patrimony of the ChristianChurch. The influence of the “Bersier liturgy” and his “Liturgical Project” was moreconsiderable than has been imagined,48 and remained significant for the FrenchReformed Church until the 1970’s. More broadly the “Bersier liturgy” signalled thestart of a trend in French Protestantism at large in which Anglican liturgy has beenused as an important liturgical resource.49

NOTES1. This reproduces material from my doctoral thesis: La Liturgie de Bersier et le culte réformé enFrance : ritualisme et renouveau liturgique, (thesis 1999) (Lille: Septentrion, 2001).2. Liturgie à l'usage des Églises Réformées (Paris: Fischbacher, 1874). The 2nd edition was published in1876 and reprinted during the 1880s. The Liturgie de l’Étoile, 1892, contains alterations reflectinguse in his parish.3. Anglican worship had previously influenced French speaking Protestantism. John-FrederickOstervald was the first Reformed pastor whom the 1662 Prayer Book inspired for his liturgy in1713 at Neuchatel, Switzerland. His Order of Service held sway in the Neuchatel church until the20th century. See the articles by Bruno Bürki, “La Sainte Cène dans la liturgie de SuisseRomande”, Coena Domini II: Die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen von 18. bis zum frühen 20.Jahrhundert (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2005), 484-486; and “Jean-Frédéric Ostervald(1663-1747), le Pasteur neuchâtelois à l’origine des réformes liturgiques modernes au sein duprotestantisme francophone”, Les Mouvements liturgiques: corrélation entre pratiques et recherches,Conférence St. Serge, Paris 2003 (Rome, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2004), 97-104. Since Bersier claimsthat, in 1874, he was unacquainted with this reform, we shall ignore Ostervald for this study.4. “Jésus, Rédempteur de tous les hommes, toi que le Père a engendré avant le lever de lapremière aurore, brillante étoile du matin, Parole éternelle, lumière et splendeur du Père, imagevisible du Dieu invisible, soleil de justice, dont les rayons apportent à nos âmes la guérison et lavie, tu t'es levé sur le monde endormi dans l'ombre de la mort, et ta clarté n'aura point de fin.”“Bersier Liturgy”, 99.5. “Ô Dieu qui as été notre Libérateur, nous célébrons en ce jour le souvenir de tes miséricordes.Indignes d'habiter avec toi, nous étions incapables par nous-mêmes de mériter ton pardon, maistu nous as révélé ta grâce salutaire et tu nous y as fait avoir accès par la foi; tu nous as délivrés detoute crainte servile en mettant dans nos cœurs l'esprit d'adoption par lequel nous pouvonst'invoquer comme un Père.” “Bersier Liturgy”, 170-172.6. Henriette Hollard (1840-1875), youngest daughter of the naturalist Henri Hollard.


103

7. Henceforth “Liturgical Project” will refer to Projet de Révision de la Liturgie des Églises Réforméesde France préparé sous invitation du Synode Général Officieux. Avec une introduction historique et uncommentaire critique, Pour être soumis à l'examen des Synodes particuliers (Paris: Fischbacher &Grassart, 1888).8. Robert Will, Le Culte, 3 vol., Étude d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse, tome I., Le caractèrereligieux du culte (Strasbourg / Paris: Istra, 1925), 194, 264. Robert Will, (Asswiller 1869, Brumath1959). See the notice in André Encrevé, ed., Les Protestants: Dictionnaire du monde religieux dans laFrance contemporaine (Paris: Beauchesne, 1993), 515-516.9. André Encrevé and Daniel Robert, 227, note 101, “A l'occasion du centenaire de l'Église del'Étoile Eugène Bersier (1831‑1889)”, Bulletin de la S.H.P.F. CXXV (1976): 211-228.10. “Seigneur, nous te rendons grâce de ce que tu nous a appelés à la connaissance du salut par lafoi en Jésus-Christ notre Rédempteur. Maintiens-nous dans la possession de la vérité, afin que,soumis aux enseignements des Saintes Écritures, chacun de nous puisse confesser librement safoi et dire en communion avec l'Église universelle…”, Liturgical Project, op. cit., 32.11. See Sermons, 7 vol., 1863-1884; Sermons, coll. Protestant Pulpit, 2 vol. (London, 1869); andFrederick Hastings, The Gospel in Paris: Sermons (London, 1884).12. See Souviens-toi, Sermons de Bersier (Vevey: Groupes Missionnaires, 1965).13. J-D. Benoît, Liturgical Renewal: Studies in Catholic and Protestant developments on the Continent,(Studies in Ministry and Worship) (London, SCM. Press, 1958), 31.14. Marie Hollard-Bersier, Recueil de souvenirs de la vie d'Eugène Bersier (Paris, Fischbacher, 1911).All page numbers refer to the second edition of 1912. See esp. 340-343.15. Ibid., 349: “La sympathie innée qu'il éprouvait pour la liturgie anglaise ne l'aveuglait pascependant sur la mesure à garder pour une adaptation aux Églises de France”.16. Ibid., 341.17. Ibid., 326.18. Ibid., 349.19. Sermons, tome VI, 246, this is found in a sermon entitled “César et Dieu”, 229-258 andSouvenirs, op. cit., 337-338.20. Souvenirs, op. cit., 412. See Liturgical Project, op. cit., XXXVII, note 2, (reproduced in our thesisAnnexe II).21. “Culte” tome III, (1878), 525-526, in Frédéric Lichtenberger, ed., L'Encyclopédie des sciencesreligieuses (Paris: Fischbacher, 1876-1882), 13 vols.22. He refers to Hermann Adalbert Daniel, Codex Liturgicus (Leipzig, Weigel, 1847-1853), 4 vols.(reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966). The third volume (1851), given over to Anglican andReformed liturgies, was in view. See also the information about publication of Anglican liturgiesin “Calendrier chrétien”, in Lichtenberger, op. cit., tome II, (1878), 514‑519.23. “Son assemblée était artiste et sentimentale ; il a cru faire de l'art en introduisant des chantssavants et des chœurs payés, des vitraux peints et des prières cadencées. Ses fidèles étaient engrand nombre des Anglicans, il leur a servi un pastiche de leur liturgie” Théodore Maurel, LaRenaissance, 22 June 1877, and his reply in the same publication, 6 July 1877. He had previouslypublished: Le puseyisme en Angleterre, dissertation in theology (Montauban, 1860).24. “La question liturgique: deux lettres de M. Bersier”, Le Christianisme au XIXe siècle (27 July1877): 234-235.25. We translate: “Toutes proportions gardées, Bersier a exercé sur l'architecture et la liturgiedes Églises protestantes francophones une influence comparable à celle du mouvement deCambridge dans le monde anglo-saxon.” Bernard Reymond, L'architecture religieuse des protestants :Histoire, caractéristiques et problèmes actuels, coll. Pratiques 14 (Genève: Labor & Fides, 1996), 122.26. We translate this prayer: “Seigneur, tu ne méprises point les cœurs contrits et brisés, et,quoique tu sois le Très-Haut et le Saint des Saints, tu daignes habiter avec les humbles ... Humilie-nous donc, ô Dieu, et veuille t'approcher de nous pour nous bénir. Que nous puissions sentir ta


104

présence et entendre ta voix, de telle sorte que, dans le recueillement et le silence, nos âmescontemplent ta face adorable ... » This introduces the prayer: « Dieu tout-puissant, notre Pèrecéleste”, Prayer for the second Sunday of the month” (Morning), “Bersier Liturgy”, 75-76, see“Liturgical Project”, 49.27. “ce qu'on appelle liturgie est un volume à l'usage des seuls pasteurs qui ne sort guère deschaires […] Or, nous estimons qu'une liturgie digne de ce nom devrait être un véritable livred'église à l'usage de tous les fidèles, pouvant leur fournir les éléments essentiels du culte là où ilssont privés de toute prédication et leur permettre de s'associer plus directement au culte publiclorsqu'il est régulièrement célébré par le pasteur.” Liturgical Project, op. cit., XLIII-XLIV;reproduced in our thesis Annexe II, 556.28. William Delbert Maxwell, An Outline of Christian Worship, 5th edition (Oxford: O.U.P., 1963), 190,n. 41; reprinted with the title History of Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982).See also his study The Book of Common Prayer and the Worship of non-Anglican Churches, Dr. Williams'Lecture 1949 (Oxford: O.U.P., 1950).29. Alexander Elliott Peaston, The Prayer Book tradition in the Free Churches (London: James Clarke,1964), supplies the order for Morning Prayer p. 168.30. La Liturgie ou ordre du service divin à l'usage des Églises réformées de France, ed. Charles LouisFrossard (Lille, 1866).31. Bersier may have taken his opening invocation and responses, as well as his order of service,from the United Prussian “Agende” (1822) of Frederick William III. He shows his appreciation forthis service in his article in the Lichtenberger Encyclopaedia, op. cit., “Agende”, vol. I. (1877), 115.32. Bruno Bürki, Cène du Seigneur, Eucharistie de l'Église, Cahiers Œcuméniques 17B (Fribourg: Éd.Universitaires, 1985), 43.33. See Katie Badie, La Prière de 'l‘Humble accès’, mémoire de maîtrise (Vaux-sur-Seine, 2005) ; andher article “The Prayer of Humble Access”, Churchman vol. 120, n°2 (Summer 2006): 103-117.http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_120_2_Badie.pdf 34. “Bersier Liturgy”, 227; Liturgical Project, 158.35. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer made them part of the newly titled “Prayer ofConsecration”.36. See Kenneth W. Stevenson, The Catholic Apostolic Eucharist, thesis (Southampton University,1975), 374‑377. See also his, Eucharist and Offering (New York: Pueblo, 1986), 263, n. 26, where herecalls Bersier’s debt to the Catholic Apostolic Eucharist. He gives several extracts from Cardale’sCommunion liturgy p. 184‑185.37. Consult John Bate Cardale, The Liturgy and other Divine Offices, 1838, 1842 (London: George J. W.Pitman / Chiswick Press, 1880, 1892); and Liturgies et autres divins offices de l'Église (Paris, 1873 /Lausanne, 1901). See also John B. Cardale, Readings in the Liturgy and the Divine Offices of the Church,2 vol. (London: Thomas Bosworth, 1874-1875).38. The Liturgy and other Divine Offices, (1838), 1880 edition, op. cit., 7-8; see Liturgies et autres divinsoffices de l'Église, op. cit., 22.39. “Nous sommes indignes de rien t’offrir en retour d’un si grand sacrifice. Toutefois, confessantque Tu es notre Dieu et que nous sommes tes serviteurs, nous te présentons nos âmes et noscorps que tu as rachetés, nous nous consacrons à ton service et nous prenons l'engagement desuivre ta sainte volonté, de faire ce que tu commandes et de fuir entièrement ce que tu as enhorreur. O Dieu, tu connais notre faiblesse et nos fautes ne te sont point cachées; aie pitié de nouset accomplis en nous ces vœux, afin qu’à l’avenir nous puissions nous offrir à toi en sacrificevivant, saint et agréable, ce qui est notre raisonnable service.” “Bersier Liturgy”, 225-226.40. “Liturgie pour l'enterrement d'un enfant” (au temple), “Bersier Liturgy”, 341-349; seeLiturgical Project, 241-246.41. “Un service spécial d'actions de grâces”, “Bersier Liturgy”, 291-295.42. Colin O. Buchanan, The Savoy Conference revisited, op. cit., 12.


105

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_120_2_Badie.pdf

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_120_2_Badie.pdf

43. “Que le Dieu tout-puissant, qui a donné son Fils Jésus-Christ en sacrifice et en propitiation pourles péchés de tout le monde, vous accorde pour l'amour de lui [sic Christ] le pardon, la rémissionet l'absolution de tous vos péchés.” In “Administration de la Communion aux malades”, “BersierLiturgy”, 242-243.44. The Liturgy and other Divine Offices (1838), 1880 edition, op. cit., 2.45. Liturgical Project, XXX, n. 1, reproduced in our thesis Annexe II, 548.46. “Cette liturgie est applicable à l'introduction dans l'Église chrétienne des israélites ou desprosélytes amenés à la foi par la mission chez les peuples non-chrétiens. Mais elle aura toujoursplus son emploi par le fait de la suppression du baptême des enfants soit dans les famillesgagnées aux doctrines des baptistes, soit dans les milieux où l'incrédulité fait disparaître toutepratique religieuse.” Liturgical Project, 139.47. Le Synode wallon de 1667 ajouta à la liturgie, des formulaires pour ... le baptême des adultes,des anabaptistes, des juifs, des mahométans, des païens et des idolâtres. Liturgical Project, XLI,n. 1, reproduced in our thesis Annexe II, p. 554, n. 34.48. See my liturgical study: “La fréquence de la Sainte-Cène dans le protestantisme de languefrançaise : en quoi la liturgie d'Eugène Bersier (1831-1889), a-t-elle modifié les pratiques ?”, LesMouvements liturgiques : corrélation entre pratiques et recherches, Conférence St. Serge, Paris, 2003(Rome, Edizioni Liturgiche, 2004), 105-125.49. This is the case of the French Methodist Liturgy of 1983. The use of the Prayer Book byMethodists is hardly surprising, however. More surprisingly, the value of Anglican liturgy isaccepted by many French Baptists as can be seen in the French Baptist Federation manuals (1994ff.) even though Baptists are not used to praying from set liturgical texts. In a recent liturgicalresource for the Communion service, the following were included: Collect for Purity, TenCommandments with Kyrie, Offertory Sentences, Comfortable Words and Humble Access. Formarriage, the 1549 collect was borrowed, for funerals the opening funeral sentences, the use ofextracts from Psalms 39 and 90 (the 1662 Book of Common Prayer Psalms used by Bersier). Andthe “Prayer of Committal” occurs before burial in its 1662 form.Finally various books of prayers and hymnbooks also bear witness to French Protestant interestin Anglican worship. A book of Anglican Prayers (La tradition anglicane [Chambray: Ed. C.L.D.,1982]) includes numerous collects from the Book of Common Prayer (for purity, Ember Collect byJohn Cosin, “A General Thanksgiving” attributed to Edward Reynolds, and the prayer of humbleaccess). The ccumenical prayer and hymn book, Ensemble (Paris / Lyon: Bayard / RéveilPublications, 2002). reproduces in French several collects (for purity, Advent Sunday; BibleSunday, Ash Wednesday and “A General Thanksgiving” previously mentioned).

ABSTRACTSFrench Reformed minister Eugène Bersier’s liturgy, which he composed for his congregation atthe Temple de l’Etoile in Paris in 1874-76, is an example of extensive borrowing from Anglicanliturgical tradition. Although this liturgy was only ever used by Bersier’s congregation, itsinfluence on the French Reformed Church was far-ranging because it constituted the basis of aproposal for liturgical reform that Bersier drafted at the request of the French Reformed synod in1888 and which led to considerable change in French Reformed worship. The Bersier liturgy isnot a case of merely adopting the Anglican liturgy as it was. The liturgical text of the Bersierliturgy owes much to the Book of Common Prayer, and the architecture, decoration and music of


106

his Paris church were influenced by Anglican cathedral worship. But Bersier adapted the Book ofCommon Prayer to French Reformed sensibilities and even downplayed Anglican influence as heresponded to criticisms of ritualism and servile imitation of the Anglican high church party.

La liturgie du pasteur réformé français Eugène Bersier, composée pour sa paroisse du Temple del’Etoile à Paris en 1874-76, fait de nombreux emprunts à la tradition liturgique anglicane. Bienque cette liturgie n’ait été utilisée que par la paroisse de Bersier, son influence sur l’Egliseréformée de France fut importante car elle a constitué le fondement d’une proposition deréforme liturgique que Bersier a élaborée à la demande du synode de l’Eglise réformée de Franceen 1888 et qui a ensuite conduit à d’importantes évolutions dans le culte réformé. Bersier, dans saliturgie, n’a pas simplement fait sienne la liturgie anglicane. En effet, si le texte liturgique deBersier doit beaucoup au Book of Common Prayer et si l’architecture, la décoration et la musiquedans son temple parisien reprenaient de nombreux éléments du culte anglican tel qu’on pouvaitle voir dans les cathédrales anglaises, Bersier a aussi adapté le Book of Common Prayer à lasensibilité des réformés français et a même minimisé les influences anglicanes pour répondre àceux qui l’accusaient d’être un ritualiste et d’imiter de façon servile la haute église anglicane.

INDEX

Mots-clés: liturgie, Eglise Réformée de France, anglicanisme, Book of Common PrayerKeywords: liturgy, French Reformed Church, Anglicanism, Book of Common Prayer

AUTHOR

STUART LUDBROOK

Fédération Baptiste de France


107

Anglican Influence on Old CatholicLiturgyLes Influences anglicanes sur la liturgie vieille-catholique

David R. Holeton and Petr Jan Vinš

1 Whereas borrowing from the Anglican liturgy in the French Reformed Church was anundertaking that had to be very cautiously engaged into not to upset denominationalsensibilities, the Old Catholic Churches provide an example of liturgical transfer inwhich turning to Anglican liturgical resources has been experienced as a way ofstrengthening Old Catholic identity and the communion between the two churches.

2 Anglican influence on Old Catholic liturgy is relatively recent and is the fruit ofgrowing cooperation between the two communions. Mutual relations between theAnglican and Old Catholic churches from the 1870s have been of varying intensity andcan be divided into several periods. Even before the First Vatican Council a book by J.M. Neale on the history of the Church of Utrecht1 brought to the attention of theAnglican public the existence of an independent Catholic church on the Europeancontinent. After 1870 and the emergence of the German-speaking Old Catholic churchesin reaction to Vatican I, relations with Anglicans went from an optimistic beginningbetween 1878-1900, through a period of crisis between 1900-1918, of which the mostnotable incident was the so-called Mathew Affair,2 then a period of renewed dialogue,which culminated in the Bonn Agreement of 1931. This important document started anew period of structural cooperation, but its reception by both Old Catholics andAnglicans was relatively slow in coming. After the Second World War, liturgicalcooperation became visible in mutual participation in episcopal ordinations, butinitially there was little sharing in each other’s liturgical life. It was thanks to a seriesof Old Catholic-Anglican theological conferences, starting in 1957, that the twocommunions created the conditions for sharing their liturgical resources. From the1980s, as several Old Catholic churches started to revise their liturgies, they madeextensive use of contemporary Anglican prayer books, especially from North America.The appeal of these modern Anglican liturgies (compared to the revised liturgies ofother Western Churches, which are equally the fruit of the Liturgical Movement) lies in


108

the fact that their rootedness in a type of catholicity that is free of Roman theologicalidiosyncrasies resonates with Old Catholic sensibilities.

Bonn union conferences

3 The critical Catholic reaction to the First Vatican Council was observed with greatinterest from the Anglican side; both the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic wings sawin the emerging Old Catholic movement a possible ally for their cause. The Evangelicalsappreciated the resistance to Rome, the Anglo-Catholic wing on the other hand wasinterested in a church body living within the Catholic liturgical tradition andpromoting an ecclesiastical understanding based on the tradition of the undividedchurch of the first millennium. In time the Anglo-Catholic connection proved to bestronger and a more viable route down which to pursue liturgical cooperation.3 One ofthe channels of contact between the emerging Old Catholic movement and the AnglicanChurch became the Anglo-Continental Society, founded in 1853 for the promotion ofthe principles of the Church of England on the European continent, which in 1873 setup its own committee for correspondence with the Old Catholics and arranged for thedissemination of Old Catholic literature in England.4

4 In 1873 two Old Catholic Commissions had been established for dialogue with theAnglican and Orthodox churches respectively. The Anglican-Old Catholic commissionwas headed by Professor Ignaz von Döllinger who in the next two years went evenfurther and organised the so-called Bonn Union Conferences which aimed at adoctrinal-ecclesiastical understanding between Anglican, Old Catholic and Orthodoxchurches. Those proto-ecumenical dialogues might be considered the most importantinter-confessional meetings of the nineteenth century.5

5 The first Bonn Union Conference (1874) accepted fourteen theses, formulated primarilyby Döllinger.6 One of the questions that remained unsolved – partly because of theopposition of the Orthodox participants and the Church of Utrecht – was the questionof the validity of Anglican orders. This proved to be the main obstacle to futureAnglican-Old Catholic cooperation. Although the German Old Catholic church with itsnewly elected Bishop Joseph Hubert Reinkens was prepared to accept the validity ofAnglican Orders, the position of the Church of Utrecht changed only in 1925. TheSecond Bonn Union Conference was attended by various Anglican Bishops and otherdelegates from England and the United States.7 The topic of the conference was adoctrinal dialogue on the Creed (mainly with the Orthodox), but an important placewas also given to the question of the validity of Anglican orders. Döllinger himselfvigorously defended the validity of those orders.8

6 The Bonn Union Conferences received a mixed reaction in the Church of England.9 Itwas partly this mixed reaction on the Anglican side — the Evangelicals regarded OldCatholics as being too “catholic” and on the other hand the High Church movementfeared that further dialogue with the Old Catholics could negatively influence theirattempts to lead a discussion with Rome, a position taken, for example, by EdwardBouverie Pusey — that led to Döllinger’s decision not to call a third Union Conference.10


109

On the way to the Bonn Agreement

7 Nevertheless, in 1878 the Second Lambeth Conference expressed its support for the OldCatholic movement on the Continent. Two Old Catholic Bishops, Eduard Herzog andAdolf Küry were present at the Lambeth Conference and reported extensively on it inthe Old Catholic press. The Swiss national Old Catholic Synod meeting in 1879 answeredthe Lambeth declaration with its own affirmation that the Old Catholic and AnglicanChurches rest on the same foundations.11

8 A very interesting liturgical event occurred in 1879, when two Old Catholic Bishops –Reinkens and Herzog – celebrated the eucharist together along with the Scottish BishopCotterill.12

9 The Swiss Old Catholic Bishop Eduard Herzog was invited in 1880 to the United Statesand on several occasions celebrated the eucharist and even confirmed the faithful ofthe Episcopal Church. This was very warmly received in the Episcopal Church andBishop Herzog donated a Swiss Old Catholic Altar Book to the House of Bishops of theEpiscopal Church.13 It seems that at least on one occasion he even ordained a priest forthe Episcopal Church who subsequently received permission from his Bishop to use theOld Catholic rite.14 Bishop Herzog appears to have had a positive disposition towardsthe American Book of Common Prayer, for it is said that, while preparing the first SwissOld Catholic liturgical texts (in German), he always had a copy of the American book onhis desk.15 The fact that, at the time of its creation, the American book had drawn onthe liturgy of the Scottish Episcopal Church – with its inclusion of an epiclesis in theeucharistic prayer in particular – gave that book a “catholic/orthodox” characterwhich was missing from the English versions of the Book of Common Prayer.

Formal agreement and living communion

10 While between 1870 and 1885 there were many publications concerning Old Catholicson the Anglican side, it seems that the end of the nineteenth century brought a coolingdown of relations. The Utrecht Union of the Old Catholic churches was established in1889 and the position of the Church of Utrecht on the validity of Anglican orderscreated an on-going difficulty in the relationship. The consecration of Bishop Kozlowskifor the Polish Catholic Church of Chicago in 1897 and the consecration of Arnold HarrisMathew for the non-existent “Old Catholic Church of Great Britain” in 1908 broughtmutual relations to an all-time low. Only in 1925 did the situation change when, as apart of the inner renewal of the Dutch Old Catholic Church, they declared “without anyreservations that Apostolic Succession was not interrupted in the Church of England.”16

This declaration eliminated the last barrier and the International Old Catholic Bishops’Conference expressed its “hope for a future closer fellowship with the Church ofEngland and its affiliated Churches on a truly Catholic foundation.17” Five years laterthe Lambeth Conference also affirmed its desire for “a reunification with OldCatholics.”18

11 In July 1931 eight members appointed by the Lambeth conference and fourrepresentatives of the Union of Utrecht prepared the text of the Bonn Agreement,which was deemed the basis of fellowship at the church level.19 The Agreement wasratified by the Old Catholic International Bishops' Conference on September 7, 1931 and


110

by the Convocations of Canterbury and York on January 20-21, 1932. This Agreementnevertheless did not include any “instruments of unity” and thus its practical receptionwas relatively slow on both the Anglican and the Old Catholic sides. Importantly, fromthe liturgical point of view, the Bonn Agreement explicitly states that it “does notrequire from either Communion the acceptance of all ... liturgical practicecharacteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold allessentials of the Christian Faith.” This opened the possibility for mutual criticalreception of liturgical texts and practices.

Episcopal contact and theological conferences

12 Contacts between German-speaking Old Catholic churches and the AnglicanCommunion were completely interrupted during the Second World War, but werereinstituted after 1945 and the Bonn Agreement started to be enacted. The most visibleform of this enactment was and still is a mutual participation in episcopal ordinations.

13 This participation in episcopal consecrations constitutes a practical liturgicalcooperation between Old Catholic and Anglican churches. Since the 1950s bothchurches have felt a need not only for practical but also for theoretical and theologicalconsultation. Thus, in 1957 the first Anglican-Old Catholic Theological Conference metas an unofficial body without a formal status, but with a great impact on the practicalcollaboration of both churches. Subsequent theological conferences dealt mainly withthe ecumenical relations of both churches (with the Orthodox, Methodists and RomanCatholics), but some liturgical questions were also raised during these conferences. Theseventh theological conference (September 15-18, 1974 in Lucerne) opened the topic ofministry, ordination and the eucharist as well as eucharistic hospitality. The eighththeological conference (April 18-21, 1977 in Chichester) was entirely dedicated to thetopic of the theology of ordination. This was the case mainly because the question ofthe ordination of women had emerged. Through the theological conference individualparticipants also exchanged their expertise on liturgy and liturgical texts – thus the OldCatholic libraries in Bonn, Bern and Utrecht received new copies of Anglican liturgicalbooks from various parts of the Anglican Communion. The exchange in the otherdirection was more limited, mainly because Old Catholic liturgical languages (mainlyGerman and Dutch) were inaccessible to most of the Anglican participants. (The IronCurtain restricted attendance by delegates from Central Europe and rendered Polishand Czech texts unavailable.)

Ongoing reform

14 The renewal of the liturgy is an ongoing process. Regular pastoral use of the ritesprepared by the various Old Catholic and Anglican churches in the 1970s brought anincreasing awareness both of the benefits brought to the churches by the reform of therites as well as an awareness that the work of liturgical reform was far from complete.

15 Usually there is a lapse of at least a generation between the publication of a Church’snew liturgical texts, the reception of those texts and the revision process that followswhen work begins on their successors, with the publication of a new prayer bookcoming, perhaps, half a century later. That was not to be the case with the new


111

generation of liturgical texts in the Old Catholic and Anglican traditions and the pace ofrevisions took on an unprecedented speed.

16 The momentum begun with the Liturgical Movement and the ensuing, revised liturgicaltexts emerging from many Churches (most publicly and visibly the Roman CatholicChurch) had a profound effect on the life of the western liturgical Churches includingboth Old Catholics and Anglicans.

Common translations

17 Many churches began to work together ecumenically. For English speaking churchesthis began with the work on common translations of liturgical texts shared by manychurches. Organizations like the Consultation on Common Texts (CCT) in NorthAmerica and the Joint Liturgical Group of Great Britain (JLG) first undertook this workand the two groups soon began to work together as ICET (the InternationalConsultation of Liturgical Texts). Eventually ICET came to include equivalentecumenical groups from Australia (ACOL), New Zealand (JLG-NZ) and South Africa. TheRoman Catholic Church was fully included in this work through the participation ofICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy). Together they producedtranslations of a number of standard liturgical texts (including Gloria in Excelsis, theNicene and Apostles’ Creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, Sanctus/Benedictus, Te Deum,Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis &c.). For English-speaking Christians, this was the first timethey had ever shared common vernacular translations of these fundamental texts.20

18 The process of co-operation on common translations also provided an occasion forsharing liturgical books being prepared by the member churches at this time. Out ofthis emerged what has come to be known as a modern ecumenical liturgical consensuson the shape of the liturgy (particularly the Eucharist).

Sharing new texts

19 Given that Old Catholics and Anglicans do not have a common liturgical language, thisspirit of practical liturgical cooperation began in a different way – by the mutualexchange of texts. For example, at the beginning of the 1980s, the liturgical commissionof the German Old Catholic Church, started a new round of revision. The 1995 altarbook of that diocese is the third official book for the celebration of Holy Eucharist,succeeding the rites of 1888 and 1959.21

20 The rite of 1959 was deemed to be rather ‘Romanising’ as it had reintroduced featuresof the Roman Mass which had been abandoned in the first altar book in 1888. It becameclear to the members of the commission that, if the diocese were to be true to its desireto be as close to the undivided Church as possible, the new German liturgical books ofthe Roman Catholic Church could not be adopted, even with alterations. The theologyof the Eucharist and of the ministry, as well as the pastoral situation of the parishes ofthe German Old Catholic Church were too different from those of the “other” CatholicChurch to be suitable for use in the Old Catholic diocese.

21 Furthermore, the advances in liturgical scholarship since the mid-1960s, when theRoman Catholic books had been drafted in Rome, were too significant to be ignored. As


112

the revision got under way it was notable that Anglican rites for the celebration of theeucharist were consulted before any other.

22 This was, in part, due to the fact that Sigisbert Kraft and Joachim Vobbe, the Bishops ofthe Old Catholics in Germany and themselves liturgists were deeply committed to livingout the precepts of the Bonn Agreement.22 In the end, it turned out that the single mostinfluential book in this round of revisions was The Book of Alternative Services of theAnglican Church in Canada (BAS).23

23 The BAS proved to be an instant success with the members of the German liturgicalcommission. The book’s catholicity (which did not bow to strictly Roman doctrine orpractice), its sensitivity to the extant vernacular balanced by a reverence for the styleand rhythm of traditional English liturgical language, and its clarity of structureprovided a perfect counter-balance to the Alternative Service Book 1980 of the Church ofEngland which was thought by the commission to be quite inadequate in these areas.

24 The commission thought that the tradition of liturgical renewal begun by the 1979 Bookof Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (formerly ECUSA) had some mileage and so anumber of texts that first appeared in the American 1979 Book of Common Prayerfound their way into the German book by way of their inclusion in the BAS.

25 In working towards new German liturgical texts, Old Catholics also made directborrowings from the BAS: the first Thanksgiving over the Water (from Holy Baptism,pp. 156-7) and the Litany of Penitence (from Ash Wednesday, pp. 283- 5). The collectsused in the BAS proved to be a particularly fruitful source for the creation of the newGerman texts. Eight Sunday collects were translated and the Canadian texts werealways consulted for the other feasts and often served as a basis for their Germanequivalents.

26 Additionally, the middle section of the Prefaces (the concrete reason for giving thankson a particular day) [BAS pp. 218-26] also inspire the German texts. While the prefaces,retain the traditional doxological style at their beginning and end (as opposed to theberakah style used in the BAS), the majority of the twenty-three eucharistic prayershave much in common with the strictly Trinitarian structure as maintained in the BAS:praise of the Father, anamnesis of the mighty acts of God through Christ, including thewords of institution (which retain their proper prayer form by saying that Christ“praised your compassion”, “gave you thanks and praise”, etc.), and an epiclesis of theHoly Spirit over bread and wine and those who eat and drink from the Holy Gifts.

27 It was not the German Old Catholic Church alone that drew on the liturgical work of theAnglican Communion. Anglican liturgical texts were used as resources when new OldCatholic texts were drafted by other Old Catholic churches and by the IALK. The DutchOld Catholic Church, for example, drew on Canadian and English resources whendrafting their new eucharistic prayers.

28 Regular communication between the two communions was significantly improved andformalised when, in 1993, Dr. Thaddeus Schnitker, Secretary of the Old CatholicInternational Liturgical Commission (IALK), was invited to be an ecumenical member ofthe International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC). In 1994, Professor DavidHoleton, then Chair of the IALC was appointed to be the Anglican member of the IALKwith the approval of the Anglican Consultative Council. This assured activeparticipation by each communion in the liturgical discussions of the other Church andthat each Church would be kept informed of the liturgical activities of the other –


113

particularly work on new liturgical texts. Over time, this has proved to be ofconsiderable importance.

29 Much time in the later years of the IALK was spent on rites for a proposed newpontifical to be used as a common text in the Union of Utrecht. While the new project isstill under way, some Anglican texts have been adapted for rites now in use byparticular Old Catholic Churches. For example, the rite for the blessing of oils of theCzech Church draws heavily on the BAS. Most notably in both books, the blessing of theoils is incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer itself following early Christian practicein which gifts other than bread and wine were also blessed in the context of theEucharistic prayer.

30 As the newest complete sacramentary in the Union of Utrecht, the Czech Missal24

contains some important Anglican influences. In part, these are indirect as a number ofEucharistic prayers in the Czech Missal’s Rite A are drawn from the new German AltarBook and, thus, incorporate material from the BAS. More directly, the work of the FifthInternational Anglican Liturgical Consultation (Dublin, 1995) which was largely devotedto the Eucharist25 had a major influence on the new Czech Missal.

31 The Dublin Documents”,26 produced by the Consultation, contain the reports andrecommendations of its five working groups. Those of Group III concern the structureof the Eucharist. Reflecting on the experience of these rites in various Anglicanprovinces over the previous decades, it was clear that various changes were needed tothe basic structure of the rite. These included a simplification and reordering of the rite– particularly the gathering (or entrance) rite, the treatment of penance within therite, the placement of the Lord’s Prayer and the sign of peace, and the conclusion(dismissal).

32 In outline, the shape recommended by the Consultation for the Sunday eucharist is asfollows:

The Gathering of God’s PeopleGreeting[Penitential rite]Song or Act of PraiseOpening Prayer preceded by silenceProclaiming and Receiving the Word of GodFirst ReadingPsalmSecond ReadingGospelSermon[Creed]Prayers of the PeoplePrayersLord’s Prayer[Penitential rite]PeaceCelebrating at the Lord’s TablePreparing the TablePrayer over the giftsEucharistic PrayerSilenceBreaking the BreadInvitationCommunion


114

Going out as God’s PeopleSilence[Hymn]Prayer after Communion[Blessing]Dismissal

33 Parts included within square brackets are judged not to be necessary components ofthe rite but useful on occasion or during particular seasons of the liturgical year.

34 This shape27 was followed by the committee which prepared the second Eucharistic rite(Rite B) and included in the new Czech Sacramentary.28

Future cooperation

35 An unexpected motion at the Old Catholic Bishops’ Meeting held at Amersfoort in May2011 (temporarily) suspended the work of the IALK, thus eliminating an importantinstrument for Anglican-Old Catholic liturgical cooperation. Until the commissionresumes its meetings, common liturgical conversations will rely on less formal contactsbetween Old Catholic and Anglican members who happen to meet at the biennialcongresses of Societas Liturgica or the possible attendance of Old Catholics at meetingsof the IALC. Given the important influence of new Anglican Liturgical texts on OldCatholic liturgical renewal in recent years, the importance of these contacts should notbe underestimated as various Anglican provinces set about work on a new generationof liturgical texts.

NOTES1. John Mason Neale, A History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland (Oxford: John Henry andJames Parker, 1858). Old Catholic liturgical texts had been available in English since 1876 with thepublication of Frederick Edward Warren’s translations in The Offices of the Old Catholic Prayer-Book(Oxford and London: James Parker, 1876).2. See Christopher Schuler, The Mathew Affair: the Failure to Establish an Old Catholic Church inEngland in the Context of Anglican Old Catholic Relations Between 1902 and 1925 (Amersfoort: StichtingOud-Katholiek Seminarie, 1997) for further reference to the Matthew affair and Anglican-OldCatholic relations in the first two decades of the 20th century.3. Some of the known examples of early Anglican-Old Catholic contact include Bishops E. H.Browne and Christopher Wordsworth's calls for support of the Old Catholic movement. Theritualist vicar of St Peter, London Docks, Charles Lowder even attended the Old Catholics'Congress at Constance in 1873; Stewart J. Brown, and Peter B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement:Europe and the Wider World 1830-1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 263.4. Brown and Nockles, op. cit., 246.5. Peter Neuner, Döllinger als Theologe der Ökumene (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1979), 178.


115

6. Heinrich Reusch, ed., Bericht über die 1874 und 1875 zu Bonn gehaltenen Unions-Conferenzen. Neudruckder Ausgabe in zwei Bänden von 1874 und 1875, Schriftenreihe des Altkatholischen Seminarsder Universität Bonn, Reihe A,2.7. The most significant Anglican participants were: Standfort, Bishop of Gibraltar, Dean Howson,Liddon, Plummer, Meyrick (secretary of the Anglo-Continental Society), Malcolm MacColl,Plunket (later Archbishop of Dublin), Henry Potter (secretary to the House of Bishops in the USA,later Bishop of New York), Nevin (anglican chaplain in Rome).8. His speech was recorded by W. S. Perry as such: “I desire, according to an understanding withthe gentlemen from the East, to say some words on the question of the validity of the AnglicanOrders which has been already spoken of in the former year. The English Church, in the sixteenthcentury, completed its Reformation without renouncing the Ancient Episcopal Constitution.Under Queen Elizabeth, Parker was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, and the historicalcontroversy turns upon the question whether his consecration was valid. Into this controversy,all manner of trifling things have been drawn, and it has, from strange motives, been thrown intoconfusion. The fact that Parker was consecrated by four validly consecrated Bishops, ritè etlegitimè, by laying on of hands and the words which are to be regarded as essential, is confirmedby such ample testimony, that one, if he should doubt these facts, could with the same rightdoubt one hundred thousand facts; or, as some one, after the appearance of the Life of Jesus byStrauss, has done in derision, could represent the history of the first Napoleon as a myth. Thefact is as well attested as can be desired for any fact. Bossuet has acknowledged the validity ofParker's consecration, and no critical historian can dispute it. Ordinations of the Romish Churchcould be impugned with more show of justice. Besides the re-ordinations of the Tenth Century,the following may, in this view, be recollected. At Florence, a peculiar formula of belief wasdrawn up in the first instance for the Armenians, with the pretended assent of the Council, whichwas nevertheless properly at an end. In this so-named Decretum pro Armeniis, the doctrine of theSeven Sacraments is especially developed for the instruction of the Orientals; it is the onlydetailed statement of the kind before the time of the Trent Council. There is found there inregard to ordination the perfectly astonishing declaration that, the matter of this Sacrament isnot the laying on of hands, which is not even mentioned, but the porrectio instrumentorum, thedelivery of the chalice and the paten. The form also is inexact, drawn out at great length. Thedecree was to be forced upon the Orientals. Clement VIII even ordered the Orientals to observethis decree in regard to the Sacraments. And yet the porrectio instrumentorum is purely aceremony, and, in truth, such a one as first arose after the year 1000, and only in the West. Howwould it be now if bishops, on the ground of this decree, should have viewed the laying on ofhands, which is essential to the validity of ordination, as a mere ceremony, and should havediscontinued it. The English theologians {are} only right energetically to hold this Decretum proArmeniis before the Romish theologians in England, who attack the validity of the Anglicanordinations, and remind them that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”;William Stevens Perry, The Reunion Conference at Bonn 1875, printed privately, 1876.9. Mark D. Chapman, 'Liddon, Döllinger and the Bonn conferences of 1874 and 1875; A Case Studyin Nationalism and Ecumenism', IKZ 92 (2002): 21-59.10. Angela Berlis, “Relations with the Anglican Church” [online article], retrieved from: http://www.utrechter-union.org/page/294/relations_with_the_anglican_chur11. Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche: Ihre Geschichte, ihre Lehre, ihr Anliegen (Stuttgart:Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1978), 107.12. Harald Rein, Kirchengemeinschaft: Die anglikanisch-altkatholisch-orthodoxen Beziehungen von 1870bis 1990 und ihre ökumenische Relevanz (Bern: Peter Lang 1993), 126; in the Old Catholic press theevent was reported by Jean-Francois Mayer in Der Katholik 33/1879 (Bern, 1879): 260-262.13. Harald Rein, op.cit., 129.


116

14. “Bericht des Bischofs über die Geistlichkeit”, Der Katholik 25/1887 (Bern 1887): 197; HaraldRein, Kirchengemeinschaft, 129.15. The extent of this influence has never been researched. I am grateful for this information toEmeritus Professor Urs von Arx of the Old Catholic Theological Faculty in Bern.16. Urs Küry, op. cit., 468.17. Loc. Cit.18. Angela Berlis, op. cit.19. The text of the agreement reads:1) Each Communion recognizes the catholicity and independence of the other and maintains itsown.2) Each Communion agrees to admit members of the other Communion to participate in theSacraments.3) Intercommunion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinalopinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies thateach believes the other to hold all essentials of the Christian Faith.20. David R. Holeton, “Des traductions communes en anglais: un itinéraire anglican etœcuménique”, La Maison-Dieu 272 (Juin, 2013): 153-178.21. Die Feier der Eucharistie (Altarbuch für die Feier der Liturgie) (Bonn, 1995). An English translationof the book was published in electronic form as The Celebration of the Eucharist in the CatholicDiocese of the Old Catholics in Germany: http://www.alt-katholisch.de/information/liturgie/altar-book. The book has enjoyed widespread influence well beyond its pastoral use withinAnglicanism.22. The episcopates of the two bishops spanned the time from the inception of the project untilits completion. Both were enthusiastic supporters of drawing inspiration from the BAS for theirown creative work.23. Thaddeus A. Schnitker, “Eucharist and Catholicity. The influence of The Book of AlternativeServices on the New Altar Book of the Old Catholic Church in Germany”, Liturgy Canada V.3(Michaelmas, 1996): 4-6.24. Eucharistická slavnost starokatolické církve. Český Misál. [The Eucharistic celebration of the OldCatholic Church. The Czech Missal.] (Prague, 2011).25. David R. Holeton, ed., Our Thanks and Praise. The Eucharist in Anglicanism Today: Papers from theFifth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1998).26. Ibid., 259-309.27. The shape has much in common with the proposed revisions of both the English- andGerman-language Roman Catholic Sacramentaries – projects which were abandoned after the2001 publication of the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam.28. Český Misál, 36-56.

ABSTRACTSOld Catholics have leaned on full communion ties with Anglican churches to create forms ofworship which, although decidedly Catholic, are just as decidedly non-Roman, thusstrengthening the sense of Old Catholic identity. Full communion, established by the BonnAgreement of 1931, although slow in making an impact on the life of the two denominations,


117

http://www.alt-katholisch.de/information/liturgie/altar-book




provided a favourable context for extended liturgical consultations from the 1980s, resulting inOld Catholic use of Anglican liturgical resources in drafting new liturgies. The 1995 Altar Book ofthe Old Catholic Church in Germany, in particular, owes much to the 1985 Canadian Book ofAlternative Services, which had itself borrowed heavily from the 1979 revision of the Book ofCommon Prayer by the Episcopal Church.

La reconnaissance de la pleine communion entre les Eglises anglicanes et les vieux-catholiquesont permis à ces derniers de créer une liturgie aussi résolument catholique qu’elle est non-romaine, permettant ainsi de renforcer une identité vieille-catholique. Si la pleine communionavec les anglicans, établie par l’Accord de Bonn de 1931, n’a fait sentir ses effets que trèslentement dans la vie des deux confessions, elle a offert un cadre favorable à de nombreusesconsultations liturgiques depuis les années 1980. Elles ont conduit les vieux-catholiques à utiliserles ressources liturgiques anglicanes pour élaborer leurs nouvelles liturgies. Le Livre d’autel(Altarbuch) de 1995 de l’Eglise vieille-catholique d’Allemagne, en particulier, est très redevable auBook of Alternative Services canadien de 1985, qui doit lui-même beaucoup à la révision de 1979 duBook of Common Prayer de l’Eglise épiscopale aux Etats-Unis.

INDEX

Mots-clés: Eglise vieille-catholique, Eglise anglicane, liturgieKeywords: Old Catholic Church, Anglican Church, liturgy

AUTHORS

DAVID R. HOLETON

Charles University, Prague

PETR JAN VINŠ

Charles University, Prague


118

The Anglican Contribution toSpanish Liturgical Life: SpanishTranslations of the Book of CommonPrayer and the liturgy of theSpanish Reformed Episcopal ChurchL’apport anglican à la vie liturgique espagnole: les traductions espagnoles du Book of Common Prayer et la liturgie de l’Eglise réformée épiscopaled’Espagne

Don Carlos López-Lozano

1 The capacity of Anglican liturgical spirituality to be considered, experienced andaffirmed as both Catholic and Reformed is key in the continued contribution ofAnglicanism to liturgical renewal in the Church at large in the West. As in the case ofthe Old Catholic Churches, the process of devising a liturgy for the Spanish ReformedEpiscopal Church shows that the liturgical contribution of the Anglican tradition isfound as much in the ecclesiological principles and identity it embodies as in the actualtexts of Cranmer’s liturgy.

2 Since the 17th century, the story of liturgical cross-fertilising between the AnglicanChurch and Spain has essentially run down two lines: one is the story of the translationof the Book of Common Prayer into Spanish and its use by Spanish exiles in England(that Spanish translations were actually used for worship is an important differencefrom the Italian translations, whatever the similarities between the two stories mayotherwise be). The other is the story of the development of a branch of the AnglicanChurch in Spain from the end of the 19th century. The Spanish Reformed EpiscopalChurch, right from its inception, has engaged in a highly creative and original fusing ofthe Prayer Book heritage and of the ancient Spanish liturgy, the Mozarabic rite.

3 There does not seem to be any causal link between the two stories, but they arenonetheless both about England, its Church and its religious heritage repeatedly


119

constituting a haven for some of those Spaniards who dissented from the RomanCatholic Church. That this dissent crystallised at the end of the 19th century into thecreation of a Church that fused its liturgical sense of Spanishness with Anglicanism is atestimony to the role of the Anglican tradition in the recovery by the Western Churchas a whole of the fullness of its liturgical heritage.

4 Cross-influences between the Anglican liturgy and the Spanish world have worked bothways. When Thomas Cramner composed morning and evening prayer, he wasinfluenced by the book published in 1535 by Cardenal Quiñones.1 Quiñones’ bookeliminated some of the antiphons and responses, and distributed all the psalms duringthe week. He organized the lectionary so the Holy Scriptures could be read during thecourse of the year.

5 A few years before The Book of Common Prayer was published, The King´s Primer of 1545included a collection of prayers by Ludovico, also known as el “Español,” Luis Vives deValencia, the preceptor of Princess Mary, Catherine of Aragon’s daughter. The bookwas reprinted several times because these Spanish prayers were very popular andspoke to people through their sincerity and clarity.2 Spain and its people weretherefore not absent from the English Reformation.

6 The more obvious example of Spanish influence on The Book of Common Prayer was theMozarabic liturgy. Archbishop Cramner used the first printed edition of the Mozarabicliturgy in Toledo in 1500 and a Mozarabic book of hours from 1502, specifically in theorganization of morning and evening prayer.3 Today in Lambeth Palace library it ispossible to find two copies of these books with marginal notes by Cramner. It is veryclear that when he condensed the seven hours of the Roman Breviary into morning andevening prayer he was inspired the Mozarabic rite.4

7 Given this subtle Spanish influence on the Book of Common Prayer, perhaps it was notentirely unfathomable that an indigenous form of Anglicanism eventually took hold inSpain centuries later. Seen in this historical perspective, Spanish Anglicanism, whichhas claimed the Mozarabic liturgical heritage, is not such an odd leap as people mightat first think.

Spanish translations of the Book of Common Prayer

8 Long before the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church was founded, Anglican liturgy wasnot entirely unknown in the Spanish world thanks to several Spanish translations ofthe Prayer Book, some of which were actually used for worship.

9 Tomás Carrascón (also known by the nom de plume that he used, Fernando de Texeda)made the first complete Spanish translation of The Book of Common Prayer in the 17th

century.5 Carrascón was a Spaniard living in exile who fled the Spanish Inquisition andfound religious freedom in 17th century England. He was a friend of King James I andother influential members of the English court. He enjoyed the protection of JohnWilliams, Bishop of Lincoln and Keeper of the Great Seal, who asked him to translatethe English liturgy into Spanish. It may have been thanks to this work that he wasappointed canon of Hereford cathedral.

10 A fascinating book by Dr. Gregorio Marañón explains how the first Spanish edition sawthe light of day.6 The story is noteworthy since it led to the first ever translation of TheBook of Common Prayer into Spanish. When James I’s son, Charles Stuart, prince of Wales,


120

and princess Mary, sister of King Philip I of Spain were engaged to be married, Jamesasked for a translation of the prayer book so that Spanish courtiers could understandthe catholic doctrine of the church of England.

11 The marriage never took place. This may have been due to the religious intransigenceof the duke of Olivares, a close and powerful confidant of King Philip, as well as to theprejudices of the Spanish Counter Reformation. The prince of Wales turned up inMadrid without any fanfare, accompanied solely by the duke of Buckingham, wishing tomeet the Spanish princess. The straight-talking Mary saw him as no more than aheretic and proceeded to cross herself in his presence in case she were spirituallydamaged. Thus spurned, the prince of Wales returned home, laden with gifts andhumiliated both politically and romantically.7

12 The first Spanish translation of the Prayer Book in 1623 was based on the Englishedition approved by Queen Elisabeth in 1559 with the changes authorised by James I in1604, followed by a translation of the book of psalms.8 The Spanish used by thetranslator is particularly old-fashioned and severe. For instance, he uses “threat” torender “warning”. The Spanish text also contains a large number of spelling mistakesand omissions. He sometimes throws in articles and prepositions that are absent fromthe English text or adds words that the original text does not warrant. The text mayhave been published in a rush and the draft may not have been checked throughproperly. Also, the font and typesetting do not make its reading any easier.

Second and third edition of the Book of CommonPrayer in Spanish in the 18th century

13 The second edition of The Book of Common Prayer in Spanish9, printed by Félix Antonio deAlvarado of Seville in 1707, basically came about as a result of the revision of the prayerbook in 1662, which made it necessary to update Tomás Carrascón’s previous Spanishtranslation. The second edition was intended for small groups of Spanish-speakingAnglicans in London and Amsterdam, which brought together Spanish religious exilesand British merchants who traded with Spain and wanted to brush up their Spanish.10

14 Félix Antonio de Alvarado translated and revised this new edition of the prayer book.He had gone to England in exile on conscientious grounds where he publicly recantedhis Roman Catholicism and joined the above-mentioned Spanish-speaking community,founded by Lord Stanhope on his return from seven years living in Spain.11 Alvaradoeventually became an Anglican minister of this congregation although, to make endsmeet, he did spend some of his time making translations paid for by the Quakers.

15 This edition features an extremely interesting prologue where the translator explainsto the reader that the first edition had become exceedingly scarce and also that itcontained a number of mistakes typical of its era, as well as printing errors. The authorpoints out that in addition to the reforms ushered in by the religious authorities he hassignificantly updated the language, style, structure and spelling. He ends by pointingout that there are three different translations of the Lord’s prayer, so individualworshippers can pick the version they prefer for private prayer. He stipulates that inpublic worship in Spanish churches, ministers should always use the same version, theone thought to be most faithful to the original Greek. Following the 1662 Englishversion, this volume differs from the original Spanish translation as it introduces


121

prayer sequences to be used at sea or for ordinations. This newer version cuts out allthe archaic language and is far more readable and stylish than its predecessor.

16 Eight years later this edition was out of print. Alvarado reprinted it in London in 1715with London’s sizeable Spanish exile population in mind.12 Most of the changes to thisedition are corrections of errata from the 1707 version, for instance amending anarticle or a letter here and there where they led to confusion, i.e. “ovejas” (sheep)instead of “orejas” (ears). Spanish spelling was also modernised: “parroquia” instead of“parrochia” (parish) o “catecismo” for “catechismo”. It is obvious that Alvarado readwidely in Spanish and was up to speed with the latest changes in grammar and spellingback home and the way the language was evolving.

17 The most striking change in this version is Alvarado’s new prologue: “Exhortation to allthe faithful of the Spanish nation who wish to bring forward the kingdom of Christ toread Holy Scripture”. This sentence clearly highlights the aims of the editor andtranslator. The prologue begins by praising Holy Scripture and urging the reader toread it, with biblical quotations, calling on the church councils and fathers who hadsupported reading Holy Scripture, focusing specifically on St John Chrysostom, quotingextensively from his sermon on Lazarus.

18 He argues for the historical importance of translating Holy Scripture, referring to anumber of ancient and modern translations. Clearly, the insistence on translation andaccess to Scripture in the prologue was related to the overriding ambition of thisversion, namely to spark reform within the Spanish church by circulating the prayerbook widely.

Other editions of the Book of Common Prayer inSpanish in the 19th and 20th centuries

19 New Spanish versions came out throughout the 19th century, usually as propaganda topromote reform in the Spanish and Latin American churches.

20 The historical context of the first half of the 19th century favoured regular neweditions of the prayer book in Spanish. The Napoleonic invasion of the Iberianpeninsula and the Anglo-Spanish Alliance against the French saw the stock of theUnited Kingdom, its ways and traditions, rise in Spanish eyes. This was a time of greatcultural upheaval. The Duke of Wellington became a national hero and received thetitles of duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and viscount of Talavera in 1812. Henceforward therewould be growing numbers of Spanish religious exiles in England. The lack of religiousfreedom in Spain was one reason why so many editions of the prayer book wereproduced both for Spanish-speaking communities in England and with a view tocirculating them in Spain.

21 The first reissue in the 19th century was the work of the well-known Spanish writerJoseph Blanco White (José Maria Blanco y Crespo), who was exiled in London. BlancoWhite, a former Roman Catholic priest, had risen to great heights within the church buthad then lost his faith. In the early 1810s he was exiled in England for political reasons,being a liberal when Fernando VII had just ascended to the throne looking to restoreabsolutism. His language skills were such that he was considered bilingual in Englishand Spanish. His love of literature got him a professorship in English literature atOxford University. Contact with the Anglican Church helped him recover his faith and


122

on 19 March 1814 he became a priest of the Church of England. Bejarano tells us that in1821 Blanco White began writing his renowned Letters from Spain. In 1822 he agreed totranslate the prayer book into Spanish pro bono for the editor Mr. Bagster, who plannedto send copies to Spain and South America as propaganda. It came out in London in1823, without a printing date.13

22 This version is very different from the previous ones, as regards both the length andquality of the text.14 It became the reference point for all future editions of the prayerbook in the 19th century. The translator uses modern print and punctuation. Thelanguage of the prayers is more vibrant. The rubrics, in italics, are clearer. There was areprint in London in 1836, for which Mr. Bagster may have been responsible.

23 In 1837 the Church of England’s Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK)brought out a new, larger edition for publication in Spain. The main point of interest isthat it uses Catholic bishop Romano Félix Torres Amat’s Spanish version of the Bible,which the SPCK had published, as a way to win over Spanish readers.15

24 In 1839 the SPCK issued a new version with two different covers. One is identical to itspredecessor (except for the change in the publication date). The other has a differentcover.16 The reason for this second false cover was so that the Spanish authoritieswould not confiscate the book. Censorship was still rife in Spain.

25 In 1864 the prayer book was reissued in Spain. Although it does not say so, the SPCKmust have footed the bill as it had done in the past.17 Around the same time, the prayerbook was sent, along with a selection of liturgical texts, to members of the SpanishParliament, under the title “Church of England Report” clearly from the same publisherbut lacking a printing date.18 This delightful little work has a concise six-page prologuehighlighting the catholicity of the Church of England’s liturgy and the publication’seducational aims, i.e. promoting reform in “other” churches. After the prologue comebasic texts: the Apostles’ creed, the Lord’s prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Nicenecreed, a selection of liturgical texts from the ordinal, a few questions from theexamination of ordinands, the Te Deum, the collect for Pentecost and the tenth nona after Trinity, confession and absolution, the collect prior to Easter Sunday, the collectfor the Easter Vigil and Good Friday, the consecration canon with the relevantsubheadings and exhortations to those taking communion. The end of the bookfeatures the formulation for consecrating bishops, with long and detailed explanations.In 1869 and again in 1876 the SPCK reprinted the prayer book in Spanish at the OxfordUniversity Press.19

26 These translations did not of course spur on reforms in Catholic Spain and their usewas mainly limited to groups of exiles. It was the progress of religious freedom in Spainat the end of the 19th century, combined with reaction to the First Vatican Council thatallowed the rise of a minority church that looked up to the Anglican Church forinspiration. But interestingly, although direct Anglican liturgical influence can be seen,it was much more the Church of England as a model for both reclaiming and reformingthe national past that flamed the imagination of the founders of the Spanish ReformedEpiscopal Church. This led to the publication of a Spanish prayer book which leaned onAnglican principles to resurrect the Mozarabic rite.


123

The Mozarabic rite and the Spanish liturgical heritage

27 The Mozarabic liturgy has been studied several times in relationship with the liturgy ofthe Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church.20 This liturgy was the national expression oforthodox Christianity which evolved from the 4th to the 11th century in Spain. Throughthe years it borrowed from diverse sources to make worship meaningful to the Spanishpeople.

28 The term Mozarabic means “Christians living among Arabs.” The term began to be usedafter 711 when the Moors conquered the Iberian peninsula and then this adjective waslater applied to this liturgical rite. Prior to that, it was called the Hispanic rite orVisigothic rite.

29 No one specific date can be established as the date when the Mozarabic rite came intobeing. Claims have been made that this was the form of Christian worship brought toSpain by the Apostles, or borrowed from North Africa, or brought from the East by thechaplains to the Imperial troops who occupied parts of Spain from 554 until 629, orwritten by St. Isidore. 21

30 St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, describes the Spanish liturgy, including the “SevenPrayers of the Faithful” in his 7th century De ecclesisticis officiis. He and Leander(Archbishop of Seville, 600) and Hildefonsus (Bishop of Toledo, 667) may be consideredto be the three most important people who brought the Spanish liturgy to its height inthe 7th century. Scholars believe that they were not originators of a new rite, butenriched an old national rite which had been passed down to them.22

31 Perhaps some of the confusion is due to the unstable political situation which existed inSpain from the 4th to the 11th centuries. Not only was what we now call Spain broken upinto small kingdoms, but invasion and occupation first by the Visigoths and then by theMoors changed the whole way of life.

32 In the 4th century, Christianity was the dominant religion in Spain, but the same ritewas not used in the various dioceses.23

33 In the 5th century the Visigoths invaded and occupied Spain, bringing with them theirArian Christianity. We can imagine that there was hostility between the twointerpretations of Christianity, but this was resolved in the 6th century when KingRecared accepted the Trinitarian faith.

34 In 711 the Moors had conquered almost all of Spain and occupied it until 1085 whenthey were driven out of Toledo. Some might think that a country overrun by Moslemswould be unable to practice Christianity — the great Christian centers of North Africadisappeared under this rule — yet this was not true of Spain. The use of the Mozarabicrite was permitted continuously in the land occupied by the Moors. However, theChurch was in crisis and this resulted in three centuries of decadent church practice.This spelled the end of the rite.

35 The six main books used in the Mozarabic rite were the Liber Missarum which was likethe Roman Sacramentary and contained prayers for all Masses, the Liber Antiphonarumwhich contained the music of all antiphons and responses. The Liber Orationum whichhad collects for all the services but the Mass, the Liber Ordinum which contained theoccasional offices, votive Masses, the Psalter, and the Liber Comicus which contained thecanticles and Scripture lesson.


124

36 The Mozarabic rite influenced the Gallican liturgy and through it probably the churchin Northern Italy. It may also have had some effect on the English and Scottishchurches by way of the Celtic liturgy. The Gallican and Celtic liturgies were alsowidespread but in today´s world they are almost museum pieces. And so would be theMozarabic liturgy had it not been for the effort of Cardinal Francisco Ximenes deCisneros, Archbishop of Toledo.

37 In the late 15th century he collected all the Mozarabic manuscripts available. Hecommissioned Alfonzo Ortiz and three Mozarabic priests to prepare these manuscriptsfor printing. In 1500 a Missal was printed and in 1502 a breviary. A permanent chapel(the Corpus Christi chapel) was set aside in the Cathedral of Toledo for the celebrationof the Mozarabic liturgy, and a group of chaplains appointed. This has continued to thisday. However this is now little more than a daily performance, for no one is able toreceive communion there anymore. The chapel is not even a tourist attraction becausefew tourists know what is going on there.24

38 But the fact is that in the minds of many in the world of the church, both Catholic andProtestant, there is still a fondness for the national Mozarabic rite and many Spaniardsregret its suppression.25

39 When in the mid-19th century a group of Spanish clergy and people broke away fromthe Church of Rome, many over the issues of the infallibility of the Pope, it was naturalthat they should think of reclaiming their religious heritage connected to this rite.

The Prayer Book of the Spanish Reformed EpiscopalChurch

40 Religious freedom, even in the broadest sense, was unknown in Spain until 1868 whenQueen Isabella was deposed. Before this, a number of Roman Catholic priests, who hadleft that church over disagreements with some of its doctrines had found refuge inGibraltar. They formed the Spanish Reformed Church in 1868 and established a centralboard to govern it.26

41 These priests found many people in Spain who shared their dissatisfaction, particularlyafter the proclamation of the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in 1870. Two of thesepriests, the Rev. Francisco Palomares and the Rev. J.B. Cabrera had become familiarwith Anglican doctrine and with the Prayer Book while in exile in Gibraltar. Palomaresin Seville and Cabrera in Madrid founded “reformed” congregations based on theAnglican form of worship. With the help of the Anglican Chaplain to the BritishEmbassy, Palomares was able to buy the Church of San Basilio at Seville which had beenconfiscated by the government. There, in June 1871, the first public service of the“Reformed Spanish Church” was held. It was a Prayer Book service and Rev. Palomarespreached.27

42 A proposal by the seven “Reformed” churches in Spain and Portugal seeking an alliancewith the Anglican Communion was presented to the 1876 Lambeth Conference. TheConference recognized the suffering of their Spanish and Portuguese brethren, but feltthe best solution was to give the Bishop of “the Valley of Mexico” jurisdiction overthese churches. At the time, Mexico had just become a part of the Episcopal Church,and no bishop had been elected yet.


125

43 In 1879, the Right Rev. H.C. Riley was consecrated bishop of Mexico, and in 1880, hepresided over the first synod of the “Reformed” Church. He confirmed over onehundred people and ordained one priest on that occasion.

44 At the synod, the Rev. Cabrera was chosen as Bishop-elect of the Spanish ReformedChurch, but he was not consecrated for fourteen years. This man was to be the greatestinfluence, the very “spirit” of the Church in his forty years of ministry.

45 Another figure expressed lasting interest and had lasting influence: Lord Plunket, thenBishop of Meath, later Archbishop of Dublin.28 As early as 1879 he was working with theSpanish and Portuguese Churches, supporting them financially and making frequentvisits for confirmations and ordinations until his death some twenty years later. He wasthe founder of the “Spanish and Portuguese Church Aid Society,” which to this dayprints prayer books, maintains churches, supports seminarians and supplements clergyincome.

46 In the early 1890s Archbishop Plunket, with the approval of the Archbishop ofCanterbury, arranged for these two churches to come under the jurisdiction of thedisestablished Church of Ireland. Since the “Reformed” Church did not have threebishops, the provision was that there be set up a “Provisional Council of Irish Bishops”(originally Archbishop Plunket, and Bishops Stack of Clogher and Welland of Down)who would supervise the work of these churches.

47 Without the written consent of this Council there could be no election or consecrationof a bishop, and no change in doctrine, formularies, or discipline of the Church. Thisprovision prevails to this day.

48 The Council received permission from the Irish House of Bishops to consecrate Rev. J. B.Cabrera as the first bishop of the “Reformed” Churches. He was consecrated onSeptember 23rd, 1894, in Madrid and was active until his death in 1916.

49 Bishop Cabrera was a capable liturgical editor and was the guiding force behind thefirst Prayer Book used by the Spanish Reformed Church. This book was first publishedin 1881 and was then approved with some modification by the Synod of 1889 and isessentially the same as the Prayer Book in use in Spain today.29

50 It contained a wealth of material from the ancient Mozarabic liturgy since BishopCabrera felt that this major expression of their liturgical heritage should be revived.This liturgy was officially considered a museum piece as far as the Roman CatholicChurch was concerned, but it still lived in the hearts of the members of the SpanishEpiscopal Church.

51 The work of the Rev. Charles R. Hale, later Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese ofSpringfield, Massachusetts, helped considerably to revive the Mozarabic heritage.Bishop Hale had been doing extensive research on the Mozarabic rite and had prepareda form of service for Holy Communion, assembling a multitude of collects and othervariable prayers, and a Baptismal Office, all from Mozarabic sources.30

52 The reason he had made this study was that the Reformed Mexican Church had askedto become part of the Episcopal Church and desired a liturgy which would incorporateelements of their Spanish liturgical heritage in it. The Church of Jesus in the Valleys ofMexico (Iglesia de Jesus en los Valles de Mexico) like the Spanish Episcopal Church wasan indigenous movement formed by former Roman Catholic priests. They followed theAnglican model of ‘Catholic but not Roman.’ They welcomed Bishop Hale’s scholarly


126

work and the result was a Book of Common Prayer printed in 1901.31 Hale’s influence onCabrera’s Prayer Book was considerable.

53 The available Mozarabic sources did not yield a complete set of offices, so in order tohave a complete Prayer Book, Bishop Cabrera was forced to include material from othersources, and he wrote parts of it himself.

54 The content of the present Prayer Book is overwhelmingly traditional Mozarabic, witha small portion of Mozarabic sources derived from Hale’s work and material written byCabrera. The rest is to be traced back to Anglican sources (including the Irish PrayerBook which contained some Mozarabic influence), the Swiss liturgy, the Roman liturgy,the Lusitanian (Portuguese) Prayer Book, and Irvingite (Catholic Apostolic Church)material. About half of the wording of Morning and Evening Prayer, the confirmationservice and the marriage liturgy have been borrowed from The Book of Common Prayer.“The Prayers to be used at Sea” is taken completely from The Book of Common Prayer. Fora book containing this multitude of sources it is very well edited and none of thematerial seems out of place with the other sources.

55 Since 1889 there have been two revisions of the Prayer Book. The first was in 1906when additions were made to the two Offices for Baptism, and the Offices for theOrdination of Presbyters and the Consecration of Bishops were added. The secondrevision in 1952 provided shortened forms of several offices, notably the CommunionOffice, which was accepted provisionally by the Synod. Also at that time an experimentwas made with a new lectionary based on the Church Year, arranged so that the lessonsof special importance fall on Sundays. The Committee on Revision was careful topreserve the essential character of the 1889 book.

56 The Mozarabic Mass contained nineteen variable parts, some of which changed eachday, others changed with the seasons of the church year. The Spanish CommunionService has reduced the number of variables to nine, with only the three lessons, thesermon, and the collect changing every day. The other variable parts change accordingto the liturgical season and can take from eight to seventeen different forms.

57 The eight Introits are all taken from Bishop Hale´s order of service, which he gleanedfrom Mozarabic sources. 32

58 The seventeen different Laudas (portion of the psalms that is sung after the Gospel,followed by hallelujahs) are all Mozarabic and change according to the season. 33 Theychange for the following times: during advent, from Christmas to New Year, from NewYear to Epiphany, the Feat of Epiphany, after Epiphany until Septuagesima, fromSeptuagesima to Lent, during Lent, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, after Easteruntil Ascension, from Ascension until Pentecost, from Pentecost to Trinity, TrinitySunday, after Trinity until Advent, on Days of Supplication, on days of Thanksgiving.

59 Fifty-three collects for Sundays and major feasts are by Bishop Hale from Mozarabicsources. The others are either traditional Mozarabic collects for the day (2nd Sunday ofAdvent, Christmas, Sunday after Christmas, Circumcision [2nd Collect], Easter [2 nd

Collect], Ascension, Pentecost [2nd Collect], Trinity Sunday [2 nd Collect], Last Sundayafter Trinity), or collects adapted from both Mozarabic and Anglican sources (Epiphany[1st Collect]) or borrowed from Anglican sources (the feast of the circumcision [1 st

collect] and the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany). The collect for Maundy Thursday is byCabrera.


127

60 The Spanish Church celebrates the same Holy Days as those in the English Book ofCommon Prayer and the collects for those days are all by Bishop Hale, with the exceptionof the collect for the Transfiguration which was composed by Bishop Cabrera.

61 The Illations, which are the equivalent of the Proper Prefaces of the Book of CommonPrayer before the Sanctus, change twelve times a year and all are taken from Hale´swork on Mozarabic sources with the exception of the Illation for Holy Thursday, whichis Bishop Cabrera’s composition.34 .

62 The Blessing of the People (the first benediction) varies seventeen times within theChurch Year35 and all variants are traditional Mozarabic blessings.

63 The Introits and the Illations have been shortened for the most part from the originalMozarabic which tended to be quite wordy.36

64 The variable Lessons are with few exceptions the traditional Mozarabic lessons for theday. While the Psalm also changes every day in the Mozarabic, the Spanish service nowuses the first five verses of Psalm 106 at every celebration.

The Communion service

65 In comparing the Spanish Communion service and the Mozarabic Mass, somedifferences can be noted. A number of them can be attributed to the desire to return toa Mozarabic use, rid of Roman influences. This is the case for the Confession andAbsolution which, in the Spanish Communion service follows the Remembrance of theFaithful Dead, before the Illation. This is a restoration to the proper position of theearly Mozarabic Mass. Cardinal Cisneros’s Mass shows the later position at thebeginning of the Office, which was made to conform with the Roman Mass.

66 Through Roman influence, a second commemoration of the living and the dead creptinto the Mozarabic Liturgy but the Spanish prayer book has reverted to a singlecommemoration immediately after the Offertory section.

67 While the unique fraction ritual of the Mozarabic rite in which the bread is broken intonine pieces (one each for: the Incarnation, the Nativity, the Circumcision, theApparition, the Passion, the Death, the Resurrection, the Glory, and the Kingdom) andarranged symbolically on the paten in the form of a Cross with two pieces at the sidehas been omitted from the text of the Spanish liturgy, it is in fact practiced by mostReformed Episcopal priests when the congregation starts to sing the anthem “Gustad yVed.” (“Taste and See”).

68 The structure of the two services is essentially the same and probably 75% of thecontent is the same (with minor changes of wording and abbreviations).37 The nineteenvariables have been reduced to nine which seems to be a good move. The MozarabicMass was difficult for the faithful to follow, not just because it was in Latin, but becauseit was practically a new Mass every time they attended.38

Conclusion

69 The story of Anglican liturgy in the Spanish world is one which started as a history ofexile and dissent in a context of Roman Catholic hegemony. When a measure ofreligious freedom was given in late 19th century Spain, it then turned into a history of


128

bringing back to life a forgotten national liturgical tradition. This endeavour, however,might have been short-lived because of the great difficulties that the Spanish ReformedEpiscopal Church encountered in the years of the Franco regime. Churches weredestroyed. The number of clergy went down to four at one point. At the time of theoutbreak of the Civil War, every “Reformed” Church had a school for its children. Thesewere all closed by the government. Marriage outside the Roman Catholic Church wasillegal. Civil ceremonies took months or years to process and getting approval wasdifficult for Protestant churches. Despite their marginalization, however, SpanishEpiscopalians kept their faith.

70 With the death of General Franco in 1975, Spain entered into a period of democracy andreligious freedom. In 1980, the two “Reformed” churches of Spain and Portugal becamefully integrated into the Anglican Communion as extra-provincial jurisdictions underthe care of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

71 Today the church is well established all around Spain and it is possible to find anAnglican community in all major cities. The Church runs several social programs andprojects. It maintains good relations with the Roman Catholic Church and has anofficial agreement with the State.39 Spanish Episcopalians are now once more makingthe Mozarabic liturgy a living rite, thriving in the midst of their nation. Their storymay send an important message to the Anglican Communion if it wishes to grow inthose parts of the world where English is not the dominant language.

NOTES1. Francisco Quiñones,. Breviarium Romanum ex Sacra potissimum Scriptura et probatis sanctorumhistoriis collectum et concinnatum. Rome,1535. More generally on the influence of Quiñones on thefirst Books of Common Prayer, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Cranmer (London/New Haven : YaleUniversity Press, 1996), 222, 224-5; Geoffrey Cuming, The Godly Order: Texts and Studies relating tothe Book of Common Prayer (London: Alcuin Club/ SPCK, 1983), 2-7, 62; Bryan D. Spinks, “TreasuresOld and New: A Look at Some of Thomas Cranmer’s Methods of Liturgical Compilation”, inThomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar, ed. Paul Ayris and David Selwyn (Woodbridge: TheBoydell Press, 1993), 177 and Francis Procter and Walter Howard Frere, A New History of the Book ofCommon Prayer, with a Rationale of its offices (London : Macmillan, 1902), esp. 34, 309, 341-3, 355,369.2. Geoffrey Curtis, “Espiritualidad Anglicana”, Dialogo Ecumenico no. 16 (1969): 501.3. Breviarium Secundum Regulam Beati Isidori (Toledo: A. Ortiz, 1502).4. In the Mozarabic rite there is a service specifically for clergy and people in cathedrals thatcondensed all the canonical hours into two offices, morning and evening. On the influence of theMozarabic rite, see Procter Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, op.cit, 571-2 andDiarmaid MacCulloch, Cranmer, op.cit., 4155. For more on Tomas Carrascón, see William McFadden, Fernando Texeda: Complete Analysis of hisWork, together With a Study of his Stay in England (1621-1631), unpublished M.A. thesis, Queen´sUniversity, Belfast, 1933, and Rafael Carasatorre Vidaurre, “El reformista español conocido como


129

Fernando Tejeda responde al nombre real del navarro Tomás Carrascón de las Cortes yMedrano”, Príncipe de Viana Año 64 no. 229 (2003): 373-391.6. Gregorio Marañón, El Conde-Duque de Olivares. La pasion de mandar (Madrid, 1946), 54.7. At the same time as Carrascón was asked to produce his Spanish translation, a French-speaking Anglican minister, Dlau, was asked to do a French version, in case the prince marriedthe French princess, Henrietta Maria, which he did eventually.8. Liturgia Inglesa o Libro del rezado publico, de la administracion de los Sacramentos, y otros Ritos yceremonias de la Iglesia de Ingalaterra, trans. Fernando de Texeda, 1623. Amongst the three copiesheld in the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana is a copy of particular interest (shelfmark : U/7576).Bound in English-style leather and bearing the golden seal of the library of its former owner,Lord Keeper; it subsequently belonged to Luis Usoz y Río, who donated it to the national library.A strange figure in Roman numerals appears on the cover as a print date, it is thought to be aprinting error or an attempt to cover up the date for the benefit of the Spanish authorities, assuggested by Wiffen to Luis Usoz y Ríos, in a letter included in the volume at the national library. 9. Liturgia ynglesa, o El libro de oracion commun y administracion de los sacramentos, segun el uso de laYglesia de Inglaterra, hispanizado por D. Felix Anthony de Alvarado, trans. Felix Anthony de Alvaredo(London: G. Bowyer, 1707). 10. El Nuevo Testamento de Nuestro Senor Jesu Christo, nuevamente sacado á luz, corregido y revisto porSebastian de la Enzina, trans. Sebastian de la Enzina (Amsterdam: Jacob Borstio, 1718).11. Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos españoles (Madrid: Biblioteca deAutores Cristianos, 1935), vol. 2, 398. The first volume of this book has been published in English,A History of the Spanish Heterodox, trans. Eladia Gómez-Posthill (London: Saint Austin Press, 2009). 12. La liturgia ynglesa, o El libro de la oracion comun y administracion de los sacramentos, segun el uso dela Yglesia Anglicana, hispanizado por D. Felix de Alvarado, trans. Felix Anthony de Alvaredo (London:G. Bowyer, 1715). 13. Mariano Méndez Bejarano, “Vida y obras de D. José Maria Blanco y Crespo”, Revista deArchivos, Bbliotecas y Museos (Madrid, 1920), 437.14. The book of common Prayer, And Administration of the sacraments, And other Rites and Ceremoniesaccording to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland: together with the psalter, or psalms ofDavid in eight languages ... : to which are added the service at the convocation of the clergy ... with tirty-nine articles of religion, London: Samuel Bagster, 1821 OR 1825. I Could not find the 1823 edition15. Liturgia anglicana o libro de oración común, y administración de los sacramentos, y otros ritos yceremonias de la Iglesia, según el uso de la Iglesia de Inglaterra Irlanda: juntamente con el Salterio o salmosde David y la fórmula de la consagración, ordenación, e institución de los obispos, presbíteros y diaconos,Nueva ed. corr. y rev. por la Sociedad para Promover el Conocimiento Cristiano (Londres:impresso por Ricardo Clay, 1837).16. Common Prayer Book and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of theChurch, According to the Practice of the Church of England and Ireland: along with the Psalms of David(Seville: National Print Works, 1839).17. Liturgia anglicana, ó libro de la oracion común, y administración de los Sacramentos, y otros ritos yceremonias de la Iglesia : según el uso de la Iglesia de Inglaterra é Irlanda, juntamente con el Salterio oSalmos de David, puntuados según se han de cantar o rezar en las Iglesias ; y la fórmula de la consagracion,ordenación e institutción de los obispos presbíteros y diáconos Londres: Impreso por G.M.Wats, 1864.18. Informe de la Iglesia de Inglaterra, su fe y culto (London: Hatchard and Co., [1866]).19. The cover is identical to the previous edition of 1864, except for its last three lines: Oxford:University Press. 1869 and the back cover reads: Printed For the Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge At The Clarendon Press, Oxford.20. Nelson B. Hodgkins, “The Influence of the Mozarabic rite on the Liturgy of the SpanishReformed Episcopal Church”, manuscript (Alexandria, Virginia: Virginia Theological Seminary,1959); Charles Hale, Mozarabic Collects Translated and Arranged from the Ancient Liturgy of the Spanish


130

Church (New York: James Pott, 1881). The introduction to the translation of the 1889 Spanishprayer book in The Revised Prayer Book of the Reformed Spanish Church, as authorized by the Synod ofthat Church on May 1889, Translated by R. S. C. with an introduction by the Most Rev. Lord Plunkett,Archbishop of Dublin, 2nd edition (Dublin: Alex Thom & Co., 1894), iii-xxviii.21. There exist various sources on this subject, I recommend a book recently translated intoEnglish, Raúl Gómez-Ruiz, SDS, Mozarabs, Hispanics and the Cross (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,2007), 10-26.22. Archdale King, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957), 23.23. Jordi Pinell, “El Problema de las dos tradiciones del antiguo rito hispánico. Valoraciondocumental de la tradición B, en vistas a una eventual revisión del ordinario de la MisaMozarabe,” Liturgia y musica mozarabes: Ponencias y comunicaciones presentadas al I CongresoInternacional de Estudios Mozarabes, Toledo, 1975 (Toledo: Instituto de Estudios Visigotico-Mozarabesde San Eugenio, 1978), 3-44.24. Recently the Bishop´s Conference of the Spanish Roman Catholic Church has published a neworder of liturgy to be used for the small Mozarabic community in Toledo: Missale Hispano-Mozarabicum, Ordo Missae (Barcolona: Coeditores Litúrgico, 1991).25. The Mozarabic rite was prohibited by Pope Gregory VII in a letter to King of Spain, Alfonso VIof Leon and Sancho V of Navarra in the year of 1074. But Spaniards in the 11th Century thoughtof the Roman rite as foreign and unfamiliar.26. Reseña de la Instalacion del Consistorio Central de la Iglesia Española Reformada. 1868 (Gibraltar,1868).27. Liturgia Española (Sevilla: De Gironés y Orduña, 1871). This small booklet contains the generalconfession, the creed, the litany and some prayers and psalms from The Book of Common Prayerand the Mozarabic liturgy to be used for Morning Prayer.28. Frederick Douglas How, William Conyngham Plunket: Fourth Baron Plunket and Sixty-firstArchbishop of Dublin, A Memoir (London: Isbister, 1900). 29. Oficios Divinos y Administración de los Sacramentos y Otras Ordenanzas en la Iglesia Española(Madrid: J. Cruzado, 1881) and Oficios Divinos y Administración de los Sacramentos y Otros Ritos en laIglesia Española Reformada (Madrid: J. Cruzado, 1889). .30. Charles R. Hale, Mozarabic Liturgy and The Mexican Branch of the Catholic Church of Our Lord JesusChrist Militant Upon Earth, a Liturgical Study (Newark, N.J.: privately printed, 1876).31. Oficios Provisionales de la Iglesia Episcopal Mexicana o Iglesia de Jesus (Mexico: T. GonzalezSucesores, 1894). There is another printed edition from 1901 with more prayers, variations andalternatives (published by El Siglo XIX). This book followed more or less the printed edition ofthe Spanish Episcopal church of 1889 with some variations, notably the inclusion of someMozarabic prayers. These were unfortunately eliminated when the church was absorbed into theEpiscopal Church of the United States. One of the conditions was to eliminate their existingliturgy and accept the Spanish translation of the American Book of Common Prayer.32. One for each of the following seasons: Advent, from Christmas to Septuagesima, fromSeptuagesima to Lent, Lent, from Easter to Ascension, from Ascension to Pentecost, fromPentecost to Trinity, from Trinity to Advent.33. Advent, from Christmas to New Year, from New Year to Epiphany, the Feat of Epiphany, afterEpiphany until Septuagesima, from Septuagesima to Lent, Lent, Holy Thursday, Good Friday,Easter, after Easter until Ascension, from Ascension to Pentecost, from Pentecost to Trinity,Trinity Sunday, after Trinity until Advent, on days of Supplication, on days of Thanksgiving.34. Advent, from Christmas to Epiphany, from Epiphany to Septuagesima, from Septuagesima toLent, during Lent, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, from Easter to Ascension, from Ascension toPentecost, from Pentecost to Trinity, Trinity Sunday, from Trinity to Advent.35. Advent, from Christmas to New Year, from New Year to Epiphany, Epiphany, after Epiphanyuntil Septuagesima, from Septuagesima to Lent, Lent, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, after


131

Easter until Ascension, from Ascension until Pentecost, from Pentecost until trinity, TrinitySunday, after Trinity until Advent, on days of Supplication, on days of Thanksgiving.36. One Introit contained fifty-two lines in the original!37. The only other changes that I could identify concern the Mozarabic collect and the Missia andAlia Oratio. The Mozarabic collect is traditionally found in either of two places: after theSacrificium or at the beginning of the service. The Spanish Church has placed it in yet anotherposition, before the Prayer for Peace. The reason for this I have not been able to discover, so Iwill have to be satisfied by simply mentioning it. In the Mozarabic, the Missa and Alia Oratio arereally one prayer with two parts: the first addressed to the people and the second to God. In theSpanish Church they have been reversed, but this seems unimportant to me since the two partsare still discernable. 38. Simplification may also be behind the move to avoid too many double endings on prayers — anoted characteristic of the Mozarabic rite — at the conclusion of petitions especially where thechoir responds “Amen,” and also when the celebrant says the Doxology and again when the choirresponds with “Amen.” This occurs only twice in the Communion Office but more often in theMorning and Evening Offices of the Spanish book.39. One of the best sources for more information about the Spanish Reformed Episcopal church isFrancisco Serrano Álvarez, Contra Vientos y Mareas,, Barcelona,: CLIE, 2000.

ABSTRACTSSpanish translations of the Book of Common Prayer in the 17th and 18th century and their use byvarious groups of Spanish Protestant exiles are a testimony to early interactions between theAnglican Church and Spain. Given this history, the creation in the late 19th century of the SpanishReformed Episcopal Church, the small Spanish branch of the Anglican Communion, is not as oddas may first appear. In its prayer book, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church has fused theliturgical tradition represented by the Book of Common Prayer with the Mozarabic rite, the ancientliturgy of Spanish Christians. It thereby seeks to provide a door to Spain’s own indigenousliturgical heritage, which has virtually been forgotten in Spanish Roman Catholic practice. TheSpanish, national identity of Anglicans in Spain is thus affirmed and celebrated.

Les premiers liens entre l’Espagne et l’Eglise anglicane se mettent en place dès les XVIIe et XVIIIesiècles, par le biais des traductions du Book of Common Prayer et de leur utilisation par diversgroupes de protestants espagnols réfugiés en Angleterre. Ces précédents éclairent la création, àla fin du XIXe siècle, de l’Eglise réformée épiscopale d’Espagne, création finalement moinsinattendue que l’on pourrait le croire. La liturgie créée par l’Eglise réformée épiscopale associe latradition liturgique du Book of Common Prayer au rite mozarabe, la liturgie espagnole du hautMoyen Age. Elle cherche ainsi à offrir une occasion de renouer avec la tradition liturgique propreà l’Espagne, qui avait quasiment complètement disparu de la pratique de l’Eglise catholiqueromaine espagnole. Aussi la spécifité nationale espagnole des anglicans d’Espagne est-elleaffirmée et reconnue.


132

INDEX

Mots-clés: anglicanisme, rite mozarabe, liturgie, Espagne, traductionKeywords: Anglicanism, Mozarabic rite, liturgy, Spain, translation

AUTHOR

DON CARLOS LÓPEZ-LOZANO

Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church


133

In Search of a Liturgical Patrimony:Anglicanism, Gallicanism &TridentinismA la recherche d’un patrimoine liturgique : anglicanisme, gallicanisme ettridentinisme

Peter M. Doll

1 The non-Roman catholicity of the Anglican liturgical tradition, which appeals so muchto the Old Catholics, also provides a door for Roman Catholics to a half-forgottenCatholic patrimony. One of the most remarkable features of the pontificate of BenedictXVI was his determination to recover some of richness of liturgical tradition that hebelieved had been lost in the reforms since Vatican II.1 In 2007 he declared in the motuproprio Summorum Pontificum that both the Novus Ordo post-Vatican II rite of the Massand the 1962 revision of the Tridentine rite were legitimate forms of the one RomanRite, thereby breaking at a stroke the tradition that there should be only one version ofthe Roman Rite for the universal Church. In 2009 Benedict issued in addition anapostolic constitution entitled Anglicanorum coetibus providing for personal ordinariatesfor Anglicans entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.2 In it, hemade a remarkable provision for a distinct Anglican liturgical character within theRoman Church:

2 Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariatehas the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy ofthe Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper tothe Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintainthe liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within theCatholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of theOrdinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

3 By making this provision for an Anglican use within the Western Church, he opened theway for even greater diversity of liturgical culture. When Benedict allowed both‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ forms of the one Roman rite, he expressed the hope that


134

the two might be ‘mutually enriching’.3 By adding the Anglican liturgical tradition tothe mix, his explicit intention was that the ‘liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditionsof the Anglican Communion’ were ‘a treasure to be shared’ with the rest of the Church.What, then, is the character of this Anglican tradition from which Benedict wasconfident that others should learn?

4 The very diversity of liturgical culture which these developments encourage is in fact anotable characteristic of the Anglican ‘patrimony’. In addition to the reformedinfluences from Wittenberg, Geneva and Zurich, the Anglican liturgical tradition is alsoa throwback to older Catholic traditions lost to the centralizing spirit of UltramontaneCatholicism in the nineteenth century. Through most of its existence, members of theChurch of England both before and after the Reformation have been influenced bydevelopments in Continental Catholicism. Anglican and Catholic theologies have beeninfluenced by parallel if sometimes divergent intellectual currents. Anglicanism is inmany ways an English expression of the Catholic tradition known as ‘Gallicanism’.4 Inthis context, Gallicanism denotes that expression of Catholicism (particularlyassociated with the Church of France but also influential elsewhere) with deep roots innational character and local liturgical and devotional traditions; a strong sense ofidentity with the undivided Church of the early Fathers; and a looser, conciliar,collegial structure in which authority is shared between the Pope and diocesan bishops.These characteristics bear a strong resemblance to what has been known as ‘classicalAnglicanism’. Tridentinism, or Ultramontanism, on the other hand, looks directly tothe papacy and the contemporary Roman Church for its source of authority andidentity.

5 This paper focuses on the architectural setting of the liturgy because once the text ofthe Book of Common Prayer has been agreed, all subsequent liturgical decisions areabout how that text is to be performed: what is the form and decoration of the churchbuilding; how do clergy and laity relate and move within the space; what vestments areworn and what music sung or played. The development of the performance of theliturgy has never been tied down to Cranmer’s theology; theologies of worshipdeveloped that were at variance with the official text if not in contradiction to it.

6 The scholarly assessment of Anglican worship in the century after the death of HenryVIII has been very much caught up in the various conflicting approaches to the reignsof the Tudors and Stuarts. Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke have summarisedrevisionist scholarship of the last thirty years on the architectural setting of theEucharist in this period.5 The first Book of Common Prayer (1549) in the reign of KingEdward VI allowed the retention of Eucharistic vestments and ceremonial. From thesecond Prayer Book of 1552 to the early seventeenth century, however (excepting thereign of Philip and Mary, 1553-58), the Puritan liturgical agenda dominated the church.Images were removed and decorated walls whitewashed, roods and lofts taken down(but screens largely left in place), and altars and altar steps removed, replaced bywooden communion tables set up table-wise (east and west) in the body of the chancelrather than altar-wise (north and south) at the east end. Typically the liturgy of theWord would be celebrated in the nave of the church. When the Eucharist wascelebrated, clergy and people together would ‘draw near with faith’ by moving throughthe screen into the chancel to gather together around the communion table.

7 The only significant exception to this arrangement for the communion table was QueenElizabeth’s Chapel Royal, furnished with an altar set altar-wise, up steps and furnished


135

with candles and a crucifix. Elizabeth’s Injunctions of 1559 ruled that the ‘holy table’should be ‘set in the place where the altar stood’ except at the celebration ofcommunion, when it would stand in the midst of the chancel, but this rule wasgenerally ignored. Rather than presiding over what has been seen as an Anglican viamedia, Elizabeth fought a largely unsuccessful campaign against the thoroughgoingiconoclasm of the Edwardian reaction against Mary’s restoration of Catholicism. In thisperiod, Elizabeth's was a lonely voice in the Protestant establishment to argue in favourof a traditional liturgical setting.

8 Just when the Puritan triumph seemed complete, however, there emerged in the lastdecade of Elizabeth’s reign an ‘avant-garde’ of clergy, led by Richard Hooker andLancelot Andrewes, who not only were committed to greater ceremonialism in worshipbut also increasingly questioned what passed for Puritan orthodoxy. For the avant-garde, it was not sufficient to reject ornaments and ceremonies simply because RomanCatholics had them. In common with many European scholars of diverse traditions,Hooker found justification for ceremonious worship from the precedent of theJerusalem Temple. Of his Puritan opponents he wrote:

[They have] a fancy … against the fashion of our churches, as being framedaccording to the pattern of the Jewish temple. … So far forth as our churches andtheir temple have one end, what should let but that they may lawfully have oneform?6

9 The Temple was understood to be not simply the archetype of the Christian churchbuilding, it was also a model for civic planning and a means of articulating thesymbiotic relationship between church and state. King Philip II of Spain’s self-identification with King Solomon shaped the design of his monastery/palace El Escorial(1563-1584). The Spanish Law of the Indies of 1573 designated a model of civic planningbased on the vision of Ezekiel (ch. 40) as interpreted by the Franciscan Nicholas of Lyra(d. 1349).7 The Spanish Jesuit theological and architectural scholars Juan BautistaVillalpando and Hector Prado published a monumental three-volume treatise onEzekiel’s vision of the Temple8 which influenced projects as diverse as the design of theEnglish Puritan New Haven Colony in Connecticut (1639),9 the widely exhibited model‘Templo’ built by Rabbi Jacob Judah Leon (ca. 1602-75), and ultimately the design of thePortuguese Great Synagogue of Amsterdam.10

10 The Temple tradition retained a unique power and significance in the Christian mind,and the Church of England made its own claim to that heritage. Even through much ofthe nineteenth century, a conscious link with the Temple was at the heart of churchbuilding. Queen Elizabeth’s church orders of October 1561 insisted on the retention ofchancel screens (standing for the Veil of the Temple hanging before the Holy of Holies)and that ‘the tables’ of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) should ‘be fixed upon thewall over the said communion board’. The tablets of the Ten Commandments were keptin the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, the throne of God’spresence guarded by two cherubim (1 Kings 8.6). From the early seventeenth centurythe commandments were frequently augmented by brightly painted images of Mosesand Aaron like that commissioned by Archbishop Whitgift for the chapel of his hospitalat Croydon in 1601.11 In the church/temple typology, the chancel stood as the Holy ofHolies in the Temple, the screen as the Veil, the altar as the Mercy Seat or throne ofGod where the Lord was present in the Eucharistic Mystery. The decorative motifs bothin churches and popular prints were taken from the Temple: the tables of the TenCommandments, the shekinah (depicted as a sunburst or glory because of its


136

association with the Pillar of Fire), clouds, cherubim, the Tetragrammaton or HolyName. All of these were symbols of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist just as inthe Temple they had pointed to the abiding presence of the Lord in the midst of hispeople. Altarpieces of the period would commonly bring together a number of theseelements, as in the simple rural church of St Katherine, Chislehampton, Oxon (1763).

11 Historians have often distinguished Puritans and High Churchmen by associatingPuritans primarily with the Word and preaching and High Churchmen withsacramental religion. Arnold Hunt has rightly argued that this is a false dichotomy.12

Puritan and High Churchman alike held both preaching and the sacrament of theEucharist in high regard. Even when their beliefs about the Eucharist coincided,however, they were divided by the kind of language they chose to use to express thosebeliefs. Reformed Patristic theologians like Lancelot Andrewes, Joseph Mede, WilliamLaud, John Overall, Herbert Thorndike, and Jeremy Taylor chose to use the language of‘altar’ and ‘sacrifice’ and ‘oblation’ drawn from their typological interpretation ofTemple worship and from the Fathers and the liturgies of the Eastern Church, butPuritans rejected it because this was also the language of Roman Catholicism.13 The fulltitle of the work which summed up the thought of the Patristic school, The UnbloodySacrifice (1704) by John Johnson of Cranbrook, conveys precisely the points incontention: The Unbloody Sacrifice, and Altar, Unvailed and Supported, in which the nature ofthe Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the four firstcenturies; Proving, That the Eucharist is a proper material Sacrifice, That it is both Eucharisticand propitiatory, That it is to be offered by proper officers, That the Oblation is to be made on aproper Altar, That it is properly consumed by manducation.14

12 These Biblical and Patristic ideals inspired architects including Christopher Wren (theson and nephew of Laudian high churchmen) and Nicholas Hawksmoor.15 Sacramentaltheology also found visual expression in prints associated with popular commentarieson the liturgy. Jeremy Taylor’s Eucharistic theology from his devotional favourite The Worthy Communicant (1660) is visually echoed in the frontispiece of Charles Wheatly’sRational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer (1722), the standard Prayer Bookcommentary in the eighteenth century:

13 The church being the image of heaven, the priest, the minister of Christ; the holy tablebeing the copy of the celestial altar, and the eternal sacrifice of the lamb slain from thebeginning of the world being always the same; it bleeds no more after the finishing of iton the cross, but it is wonderfully represented in heaven, and graciously representedhere; by Christ’s action there, by his commandment here.16

14 The emphasis on the Temple was an extension of the concern of the churches of theProtestant and Catholic reformations for the witness of the Fathers of the early andundivided Church, each side appealing to patristic authority as justification for theirdoctrines and actions.17 The Fathers themselves looked to the Temple and the wholeOld Covenant as typological precedent for the Scriptures and church life of the NewCovenant. Concern for the Primitive Church also excited interest among manyAnglicans in the successors to the Eastern Fathers in the Orthodox Church. Anglicanslooked to the Orthodox as fellow non-Roman Catholic Christians with a shared devotionto the primitive Church.18 Lancelot Andrewes in his liturgical practice and patronageinspired the introduction of Orthodox liturgical practices into the Prayer Book rites. AsPeter McCullough has observed, ‘When Andrewes was thinking liturgically, he did soeastward-facing, to ecumenical councils, Eastern liturgies, and even Eastern fittings.’19


137

His influence is particularly evident in the Scottish liturgy of 1637 and the ritesdescended from it. If it is less evident in the 1662 Prayer Book, Andrewes’ influence onEnglish liturgical theology was nevertheless profound.

15 The movement in the early 1600s for the beautification of churches anticipated theLaudian reforms of the 1630s, with their emphasis on the ‘beauty of holiness’. Thisartistic movement was in tension between a continuity in identity with the pre-Reformation Church in England (with a strong strain of gothic survivalism) and theexciting but decidedly theologically risky world of the continental baroque.20 As the useof images become more common in churches, so English artists turned to prints readilyavailable from the Continent for inspiration and guidance. Biblical images by Catholicartists made widely available in prints particularly from Flanders were translated intostone, plaster, wood, and glass in English churches and houses alike. Through theseprints, some of the symbols most powerfully connected with the Jesuits and theTridentine reforms became part of the common visual currency in England, losing anyof the negative connotations that might have been associated with their ultimatesource. The Jesuit motif of the flaming heart, of the IHS (the sacred monogram of HolyName of Jesus), of the Shekinah (the Hebrew term for the glorious presence of the Lord)depicted as a sunburst all came to be commonly used in Anglican contexts:architectural elements, plate, vestments, and devotional illustrations. Most ironic of all,the very emblem of the Society of Jesus became the most common symbol associatedwith communion silver in the Church of England. Although this is an instance ofsignificant Tridentine influence in England, Anglicans used the images for theircommon Christian themes rather than their particular Roman associations.

16 At the same time the avant-garde and their Laudian successors were keen to vindicatethe continuity of the Church of England with its medieval predecessor through theuninterrupted episcopal succession rather than tracing the Puritan-inspired line ofdescent through proto-Protestants like Wycliffe, Hus, and the Waldensians. Thoseadvocating more elaborate ceremonies and decoration of churches appealed tomedieval precedent and adopted gothic forms. The College Chapel at Lincoln College,Oxford, was built in 1629-31 in a late perpendicular gothic style, and the apostles in thewindows by Abraham van Linge stand under conventionally medieval canopies. Even inthe mid-seventeenth century, surviving late Gothic forms remained a natural buildingstyle, as in the chancel screen commissioned in the 1630s by John Cosin at Sedgefield inCounty Durham. This growing awareness of the Church of England as a nationalcatholic church with its apostolic Episcopal order, its strongly patristic theologicalidentity, its own English liturgical use, and its local architectural tradition fostered astrong sense of common identity with the Gallican tradition which some leadingchurchmen, like Bishop Richard Montagu, worked hard to exploit.21

17 For their part, Gallicans were well aware of the Anglican contribution to their commonpatristic concerns. The great preacher and ecclesiastical statesman Jacques BenigneBossuet, bishop of Meaux, was also patron of the Gallican patristic apologists. He andhis allies acclaimed Bishop George Bull’s work defending the Nicene faith, the MauristJean Mabillon recommended works by Anglican scholars for inclusion in monasticlibraries.22 The orientalist and liturgist Eusèbe Renaudot familiarised Bossuet with thetheology of Lancelot Andrewes and others so that Bossuet came to realise that Anglicanteaching supported Christ’s real (though not corporeal) presence in the Eucharist.


138

Through the scholarship of Mabillon, Bossuet even came to affirm the validity ofAnglican orders.23

18 A common line of Anglican and Gallican thinking is revealed in contemporary attitudesto chancel screens. The ideal church of the counter-reformation was the Jesuit churchin Rome, the Gesú, with its shallow chancel and its absence of a screen, thus bringingthe theatre of the mass close to the people. In many of the ancient churches andcathedrals, the medieval screen, or jubé, was being removed amidst the generalenthusiasm for baroque furnishings. The focus on the high altar, preferably with amarble-columned ciborium or baldacchino, meant that many ancient furnishings andtombs were being swept away. Through Gallican influences, however, the principle ofthe screen did not disappear. John McManners notes, ‘In some places the medievalwork was replaced with a more delicately constructed barrier, one which broke up theview without obliterating it – a grille of ironwork in acanthus designs at Rieux, a row ofIonic pillars at Sens.’ At Rouen the old screen was replaced by a new colonnade‘consisting of six marble shafts of antique workmanship, plundered long ago from theruins of Leptis Magna in North Africa.’24 Even some new churches built in the classicalstyle in Paris, such as St Eustache, St Roch, and St Sulpice, were built with chancelscreens.

19 Gallican theologians wrote spirited defenses of the place of choir screens in church. Theliturgical theologian Jean-Baptiste Thiers published a Dissertations sur les jubés in 1688.Le Brun des Marettes, a Jansenist liturgist and expert on the liturgical traditions ofNotre-Dame de Rouen, wrote (under the pseudonym De Moleon) in his Voyage liturgiquede France of 1718, ‘There is no higher act in the Christian religion than the Sacrifice ofthe mass; the greater portion of the other sacraments, and nearly all the offices andceremonies of the church, are only the means or the preparation to celebrate orparticipate in it worthily.’ This being the case, it was only natural that the place wherethe holy sacrifice was offered up should be set apart and railed off to enhance thepeople’s reverence for the sacrifice.25 William Beveridge, the eminent patristictheologian and future Bishop of St Asaph, expressed himself in similar terms. When hisparish church of St Peter, Cornhill in London, was rebuilt (1681) after the Great Fire ofLondon, he insisted it had a chancel screen:

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper being the highest mystery in all our religion, asrepresenting the death of the Son of God to us, hence that place where thisSacrament is administered was always made and reputed the highest place in thechurch. And therefore, also, it was wont to be separated from the rest of the churchby a screen or partition of network, in Latin, cancelli, and that so generally, thatfrom thence the place itself is called the ‘Chancel’.… It may be sufficient to observeat present, that the Chancel in our Christian churches was always looked upon asanswerable to the Holy of Holies in the Temple; which, you know, was separatedfrom the sanctuary or body of the Temple, by the command of God Himself.26

20 Wrought-iron chancel screens in Anglican and Gallican churches, like those in AllSaints, Derby and Amiens Cathedral, have both the same rationale and appearance.

21 The chancel screen also provides a link to the leading English liturgical architect of thenineteenth century, Augustus Welby Pugin, who believed passionately in the liturgicalnecessity of screens to a Christian church. Pugin was the chief begetter of the GothicRevival in a meteoric career (he died aged only 40) that changed the face and mind ofBritish architecture. Converted to Roman Catholicism as a young man, his passion was


139

to redeem the ugly, industrialising, laissez-faire England of his day by restoring thefabric and values and faith of an idealized medieval England.27

22 In his determination Pugin was particularly inspired by the neo-Gallican liturgists andhistorians of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century France who celebrated theparticular traditions, rites, and ceremonies of the medieval French church as opposedto those of Rome. Pre-eminent among the authorities Pugin most frequently cites in hiswritings are Jean-Baptiste Thiers, Dom Edmond Martène, and Le Brun des Marettes.Just as these Frenchmen celebrated their own native traditions, so Pugin believed theEnglish Church ought to revive the English traditions of the Sarum rite.

23 During the early years of his career as the architect of choice for a Roman CatholicChurch regaining confidence about its place in English society, Pugin’s enthusiasm forthe Gothic swept all before him. He encouraged the church to look back to its days ofmedieval glory, and even the most enthusiastic Romanists, like Cardinal Wiseman, wereconvinced that this was the right way forward for English Catholics to assert their placein the mainstream of English life. Pugin had rich and complaisant patrons, like the Earlof Shrewsbury, who were prepared to indulge him; he had celebrity and the knowledgeof his authority as the expert on Gothic architecture and he was buoyed up by thepopular medieval romanticism of the time. Pugin took his passion for screens with himwherever he built a church. For a time, other future converts, led by Newman, sharedhis Gothic enthusiasm.

24 Once the new generation of Anglicans went over to Rome around 1845, however, theirattitude to Pugin changed entirely. W.G. Ward became convinced that only doing thingsas Rome did could be acceptable and he became a vigorous opponent of medieval orGallican usages and traditions. Newman had rejoiced in the Gothic of St Giles, Cheadle(the church that most fully exemplifies Pugin’s ideals), when it opened in 1845; before1841, he had expressed repugnance with the architecture of Renaissance Rome. Nowthat he had become a Roman Catholic, he lost his interest in the Gothic and took agreater delight in the classical with every step he took toward Rome. He wrote of theChurch of St Fidelis, Milan, in 1846,

It has such a sweet, smiling, open countenance – and the Altar is so gracious andwinning – standing out for all to see, and to approach. The tall, polished marblecolumns, the marble rails, the marble floor, the bright pictures, all speak the samelanguage. And a light dome perhaps crowns the whole … so in the ceremonial ofreligion, younger men have my leave to prefer gothic, if they will be [sic] tolerateme in my weakness which requires the Italian.28

25 Newman came to prefer churches in the style that followed the Jesuit pattern of ashallow chancel, no screen, altar rails, by which the people could come closer to thealtar than in a Gothic church and thus see and hear better. The style of the Oratory ofSt Philip Neri suited Newman perfectly; he had found an architectural and liturgicalsetting where he felt perfectly at home.

26 This change of heart led to a fierce quarrel between Newman and Pugin. For these twomen, it was not simply a difference in architectural style, but also the liturgical anddoctrinal implications that went with them. The argument became deeply personal.Frederick Faber, already an Oratorian, tore down the rood screen that Pugin had builtfor the church at Cotton Hall. Newman took to spelling ‘screen’ with a ‘k’ to show hiscontempt for this medieval relic.29


140

27 Newman as an Oratorian believed that sight and sound were of the greatest importancein the Roman liturgy and that chancel screens blocked the people’s sight of thesacrament. As long as English Catholics continued to focus on their own nationalarchitecture and traditions, they would lapse into the sins of the national church andfail to be properly Roman. Newman became so incensed by Pugin’s Gothicintransigence that Newman went so far as to denounce Pugin to the Secretary of thePropaganda in Rome in 1848, accusing him of doctrinal inaccuracy and insinuating thathe was a Gallican, schismatic, anti-Roman and disloyal to the Pope.30 The Oratorians’hatred of Gothic became so overheated that Faber wrote that if St Philip Neri hadpossessed a ‘dark Gothic cathedral’ he would have ‘pulled it down, and built anothermore to his own taste’ and that therefore the Oratorians should ‘pull down thebuildings of our fathers’, even Westminster Abbey if necessary. Faber believed that toconvert the English, the Oratorians needed to offer the kind of light, popular, dramaticservice like Benediction for which he believed Gothic churches were entirelyunsuitable.31

28 The reversal was particularly painful for Pugin. He seemed to be losing all the creditand influence he had in the Catholic Church. His dream of a revived medieval CatholicEngland receded further and further. He did derive some comfort that many Anglicansremained faithful to the vision of a national catholic church. In his pamphlet, An EarnestAddress on the Establishment of the Hierarchy in 1851, Pugin even expressed admiration ofcertain high Anglicans and gratitude that men like William Laud, John Cosin and JohnHacket (bishop of Lichfield and Coventry and rebuilder of Lichfield Cathedral after theCivil War) had defended traditional liturgies and ceremonies and ancient buildingsfrom the Puritans. ‘The name of Hacket and Cosin may awaken a grateful remembrancein a Catholic heart’, Pugin wrote.32

29 In his final riposte to the Oratorians, he wrote the most significant publication of hismaturity, A Treatise on Chancel Screens and Rood Lofts in 1851. In it he showed how far hehad moved beyond a monomaniacal devotion to Gothic as he explained the role of thechancel screen in the Church throughout the centuries, in buildings of all differentarchitectural styles and periods. In a scarcely veiled attack on the Oratorians, Puginclaimed, ‘We have now to contend for the great principles of Catholic antiquity, --tradition and reverence against modern development and display. It is not a strugglefor taste or ornament, but a contention for vital principles. There is a most intimateconnection between the externals of religion and the faith itself; and it is scarcelypossible to preserve the interior faith in the doctrine of the holy Eucharist if allexterior reverence and respect is to be abolished.’33 The Oratorian fixation on thenecessity of seeing was, Pugin claimed, a capitulation to Protestant principles. Heapplied the title ‘ambonoclast’, or destroyer of screens, to Puritan and ‘Paganisers’alike: ‘It is remarkable what a similarity of feeling against screens is to be found amongPuritans and Paganisers.’ 34

30 Far from being confined by medieval precedent, Pugin detailed how the screen hadbeen part of churches from the time the first public churches were created. He drew onprimitive antiquity (old St Peter’s) as well as modern classical churches. He also made apoint of including screens, whether Gothic in style or not, erected in the Church ofEngland since the Reformation. Pugin explained how the discipline of the early Churchtaught that only those in a state of grace could safely look on the sacrament but thatsince then the church’s discipline had changed. The church now taught that looking on


141

the host was beneficial. Pugin did not have a problem with the emphasis on seeing thehost but did not believe that this necessitated destroying old forms and devotions. Herailed against ‘the modern all-seing principle’ and ‘making the mass a sight’ which, hethought, would ‘lower the majesty of religion to the level of a common show’.35

31 Despite all the learning and powers of persuasion Pugin brought to his cause, hisopponents were not to be convinced. Even those who had warmly supported him in thepast, including Cardinal Wiseman, turned their support to the Romanists. The degree towhich Pugin felt isolated within his own Catholic community may be inferred by thetitle of his last work, unpublished at his death: An Apology for the Separated Church ofEngland since the reign of the eighth Henry. Written with every feeling of Christian charity forher children, and in honour of the glorious men she continued to produce in evil times. By A.Welby Pugin. Many years a Catholic minded son of the Anglican Church, and still an affectionateand loving brother and servant of the true sons of England’s Church.36

32 With the development of the Oxford Movement into the Ritualist movement in the laternineteenth century, high church Anglicans became more than ever conscious of thesources of their ritual choices. By the early twentieth century, two tendencies(anticipated in the seventeenth century) had hardened into definite parties as mutuallyscornful of one another as Pugin and the Oratorians.37 The Anglo-Papalists, representedby the Society of St Peter and St Paul, nailed their colours to the Tridentine mast,choosing to worship according to the Roman rite and following the fashions prevalentin Continental Catholicism.38 They scorned the approach of their rivals at the AlcuinClub as ‘British Museum religion’. These ‘Prayer Book Catholics’ strove to remain asfaithful as possible to the rubrics of the Prayer Book, interpreting the ‘ornamentsrubric’ as permitting, even requiring, the use of all the Sarum vestments, furnishings,and ceremonial current in the first half of 1549.39 St Cyprian’s, Clarence Gate (1903),designed by Ninian Comper for the Sarum rite is a good example. With its gilt screens,‘English altars’ hung with curtains on three sides, amply shaped medieval vestments,plainchant music sung from the rood loft, processions facilitated by the absence offixed seating, this church provided the setting for the fullest expression of the ancientEnglish rite. Its consecration rite was based on the mid-eighth century pontifical ofEgbert, Archbishop of York. The historic affinity between Anglicanism and Gallicanism,based upon their common understanding of national catholic churches independent ofRome, was here expressed architecturally and liturgically. Ironically, Pugin’s Gothicvision had come to be realized most fully in the Anglican Church he had left for Rome.40

33 Comper himself (like Pugin) later turned away from his strict adherence to the latemedieval tradition towards incorporating the styles of liturgical planning of the earlyChurch. He became a pioneer of the Liturgical Movement which, in the twentiethcentury, would render obsolete these battles about historical correctness. As in theseventeenth century, so the leaders of the Liturgical Movement in many denominationsturned their gaze away from the Middle Ages toward the worship of the early Church.Never since the Middle Ages had the Eucharistic worship of the Church had such astrong family resemblance.

34 Most recently, however, there has been a revival of interest in historic forms of liturgy,inspired not least by the preferences of Pope Benedict himself. When he came to Britainin 2010, it was widely reported how moved he had been by the Anglican worship atWestminster Abbey – the papal spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi acknowledged that


142

Pope Benedict had been ‘impressed’ by the ‘richness’ of the liturgy. Here wassomething from which Roman Catholics could learn. This would be the style of theOrdinariate. How ironic then, that his vision should be formed at the Abbey, whoseworship remains shaped by the medieval Sarum tradition of Prayer Book Catholicism,for this is precisely the style that papalist Anglicans in England have most firmlyrejected in favour of the modern Catholic style.

35 Pope Francis has not the same interest in liturgical tradition as his precedessor, but hiscommitment to decentralise the Church and to share authority collegially with hisbrother bishops is evidence that the Gallican conciliar tradition shared with Anglicansmay be a significant part of the future of the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever thefuture of the Ordinariate, we can be sure that Anglican and Roman styles of worship inthe foreseeable future will continue to be shaped by the Gallican, Tridentine, and earlyChristian traditions.

NOTES1. See the origins of this programme in Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 2000).2. Anglicanorum coetibus, 4 November 2009.3. Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of the publication ofthe Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio Data’ Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior tothe reform of 1970, 7 July 2007.4. Significant recent works on Gallicanism include Jacques M. Gres-Gayer, Le Gallicanisme deSorbonne (Paris: Champion, 2002) and Emile Perreau-Saussine, Catholicism and Democracy: An Essayin the History of Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). 5. Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored. The Changing Face of English ReligiousWorship, 1547-c.1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). In addition, G.W.O. Addleshaw andFrederick Etchells, The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship (London: Faber and Faber, 1948)remains a crucial resource.6. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk v, ch. 14, in The Works of that Learned andJudicious Divine, Mr Richard Hooker, ed. John Keble (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), II, 51-52.7. See Jaime Lara, City, Teple, Stage. Exchatological Architecture and Liturgical Theatrics in New Spain(Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), ch. 4.8. In Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani commentariis et imaginibusillustrati (Rome, 1596-1604).9. John Archer, ‘Puritan Town Planning in New Haven’ Journal of the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians 34 (2), (1975): 140-149.10. A. K. Offenburg, ‘Jacob Jehuda Leon (1602-1675) and his Model of the Temple’ in J. Van denBerg and Ernestine G. E. Van der Wall, eds. Jewish-Christian Relations in the Seventeenth Century,(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 95-115.11. Stephen Porter and Adam White, ‘John Colt and the Charterhouse Chapel’, ArchitecturalHistory 44 (2001): 228-236.12. Arnold Hunt, ‘The Lord’s Supper in Early Modern England’, Past & Present, No. 161 (1998),39-83.


143

13. Achsah Guibbory, Christian Identity, Jews and Israel in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2010), chap. 2.14. The Theological Works of the Rev. John Johnson (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1847), vol. 1.15. See especially Pierre de la Ruffinière du Prey, Hawksmoor’s London Churches: Architecture andTheology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).16. Cited in C. W. Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London:S.P.C.K., 1942), 102. For further exploration into Temple motifs in Anglican churches, see PeterDoll, ‘The Architectural Expression of Primitive Christianity: William Beveridge and the Templeof Solomon’ Reformation and Renaissance Review 13.2 (2011): 275-306.17. Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of aConfessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Paul Avis, In Searchof Authority: Anglican Theological Method from the Reformation to the Enlightenment (London:Bloomsbury, 2014).18. Peter M. Doll, ed. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy 300 Years after the ‘Greek College’ in Oxford (Oxford:Peter Lang, 2006); Judith Pinnington, Anglicans and Orthodox: Unity and Subversion 1559-1725(Leominster: Gracewing, 2003).19. Peter McCullough, ‘Absent Presence. Lancelot Andrewes and 1662’ in Stephen Platten andChristopher Woods, eds. Comfortable Words. Polity and Piety and the Book of Common Prayer (London:SCM, 2012), 49-68.20. Graham Parry, The Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation: Glory, Laud and Honour (Woodbridge:The Boydell Press, 2006).21. Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed. The Roman and Protestant Churches in English ProtestantThought 1600-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 263-269. For broaderconsideration of Anglican-Gallican links, see Peter Doll, Revolution, Religion, and National Identity.Imperial Anglicanism in British North America 1745-1795 (London: Associated University Presses,2000), 22-29.22. George Every, S.S.M., The High Church Party 1688-1718 (London: S.P.C.K., 1956), chap. 1, andOwen Chadwick, From Bossuet to Newman. The Idea of Doctrinal Development (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1957), 13-16, 52-60.23. W.J. Sparrow Simpson, A Study of Bossuet (London: S.P.C.K., 1937), 117-18. See chap. 10,‘Bossuet and the Church of England’.24. John McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1998), I, 442.25. Quoted in Augustus Welby Pugin, A Treatise on Chancel Screens and Rood Lofts. Their Antiquity,Use, and Symbolic Signification (London: Charles Dolman, 1851), 3. Facsimile published atLeominster by Gracewing, 2005.26. William Beveridge, ‘The Excellence and Usefulness of the Common Prayer: Preached at theOpening of the Parish Church of St Peter’s, Cornhill, the 27th of November 1681’, in TheTheological Works of William Beveridge, 12 vols., Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology (Oxford,1842-46), vol. vi, 388.27. The most recent biography of Pugin is Rosemary Hill’s God’s Architect. Pugin and the Building ofRomantic Britain (London: Allen Lane, 2007). The author who best understands Pugin as aliturgical theorist is Christabel Powell, Augustus Welby Pugin, Designer of the British Houses ofParliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006).28. Stephen Dessain, ed. The Letters and Diaries Of John Henry Newman xi, (London: Thomas Nelson,1961), 249. Newman to W.G. Penny, 24 September 1846.29. Powell, Pugin, 282.30. Ibid., 289-90.31. Frederick William Faber, The Spirit and Genius of St Philip Neri: Founder of the Oratory. Lecturesdelivered at the Oratory, King William Street, Strand, (London: Burns and Lambert, 1850), 55-56.


144

32. Pugin, An Earnest Address on the Establishment of the Hierarchy, (London: Charles Dolman, 1861),12.33. Pugin, Screens, 3.34. Ibid., 75.35. Ibid., 3.36. It is worth noting, however, that Pugin’s Sarum spirit survived in parts of the English CatholicChurch, particularly among the Benedictines. Anglican converts had a decisive influence on thebuildings and worshiop of Downside Abbey. See Michael Hall, ‘Thomas Garner and the Choir ofDownside Abbey Church’ and Aidan Bellenger, ‘The Work of Sir Ninian Comper and FrederickWalters’ in Aidan Bellenger, O.S.B., ed. Downside Abbey. An Architectural History (London: Merrell,2011), 117-176.37. Nigel Yates, Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain 1830-1910 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999), ch. 7; Peter F. Aston, Fashions in Church Furnishings (London: Faith Press, 1960), chs. xxix,xxx.38. Michael Yelton, Anglican Papalism. A History: 1900-1960 (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2005);Anselm Hughes, The Rivers of the Flood (London: Faith Press, 1961).39. Percy Dearmer was the scholar and theorist of the Prayer Book Catholics, whose work issummed up in the many editions of the best-selling Parson’s Handbook from 1899 to 1960. DonaldGray, Percy Dearmer: A Parson’s Pilgrimage (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2000).40. A definitive study of Comper is Anthony Symondson and Stephen Bucknall, Sir Ninian Comper(Reading: Spire Books with the Ecclesiological Society, 2006). On St Cyprian’s, 87-97.

ABSTRACTSIn common with other churches of the Protestant and Catholic Reformations, the Church ofEngland identified its own worship with that of the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and ofthe early Church. In the aftermath of Queen Mary’s restoration of Catholicism, the Church ofEngland’s liturgical identity was also dominated by a severe Puritan reaction against all Catholicforms. In the last decade of Elizabeth’s reign, however, an ‘avant-garde’ of clergy emergedcommitted to greater ceremonialism in worship according to the Book of Common Prayer. TheLaudian high churchmanship that emerged from this beginning was a movement in tension,looking simultaneously to the Patristic Church, the pre-Reformation Church in England (with astrong strain of ‘gothic survivalism’) and the even more risky world of the continental baroque.From the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, the Church of England was conscious ofaffinities with the Gallican, nationalist tradition in the French Church, but at either end of thisperiod the Tridentine baroque would also prove seductively fascinating to many Anglicans. Theuse of the chancel screen was frequently a touchstone of this debate.While the Gallican tradition was effectively submerged within Roman Catholicism by the FrenchRevolution and the First Vatican Council, the tension between the ‘Gallican’ and ‘Tridentine’tendencies within Anglican high churchmanship remains alive to this day. In the nineteenthcentury, influential Anglican converts to the Church of Rome brought with them theircontrasting convictions about the appropriate architectural setting for the liturgy. The architectA. W. N. Pugin, firmly committed to liturgical Gallicanism, advocated medieval music,architecture and Sarum ceremonial, while John Henry Newman and his fellow Oratorians insisted


145

on an ultramontane liturgy and architecture. Through the creation of the Anglican Ordinariatewithin the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican tradition continues to bear witness to thediversity of the Catholic tradition.

Comme les autres Eglises issues des Réformes protestantes et catholiques, l’Eglise d’Angleterreconcevait sa liturgie en continuité avec celle du Temple antique de Jérusalem et de l’Egliseprimitive. Après l'expérience de restauration par Marie Tudor du catholicisme, l'identitéliturgique de l'Eglise d'Angleterre fut dominée par une violente réaction puritaine contre touteforme de pratique qui rappelait le catholicisme. Cependant, dans la dernière décennie du règned'Elisabeth Ire, apparut une avant-garde cléricale acquise à plus de cérémonial dans le cultecélébré selon les rites du Book of Common Prayer. De ces prémices, naquit ensuite la haute Egliselaudienne inspirée, non sans tensions, de l’Eglise des Pères, de l’Eglise médiévale anglaise (avecun goût pour les survivances gothiques) et du baroque continental auquel elle se risquait. DuXVIIe au XIXe siècle, l’Eglise d’Angleterre était très consciente de profondes affinités avec latradition gallicane et nationale de l’Eglise de France, mais au commencement comme à la fin decette période, le baroque tridentin a aussi fasciné et séduit maints anglicans. La présence ou nond’un jubé était à l’époque un des enjeux essentiels. Alors que la Révolution française et le premierConcile du Vatican sonnèrent la fin de la tradition gallicane au sein du catholicisme, les tensionsentre les tendances « gallicane » et « tridentine » au sein de la haute Eglise anglicane restentvives encore aujourd’hui. Au XIXe siècle, d’influents anglicans, convertis à l’Eglise catholiqueromaine, y importèrent leurs désaccords sur le cadre architectural le plus approprié pour laliturgie. L’architecte A. W. N. Pugin, défenseur convaincu du gallicanisme liturgique, plaidaitpour la musique et l’architecture médiévales ainsi que pour le cérémonial du rite de Salisbury,alors que Newman et ses amis oratoriens insistaient sur une liturgie et architectureultramontaines. Par le biais de la création des Ordinariats anglicans au sein de l’Eglise catholiqueromaine, la tradition anglicane continue à porter témoignage de la diversité de la traditioncatholique.

INDEX

Mots-clés: liturgie, anglicanisme, gallicanisme, catholicisme tridentin, architectureKeywords: liturgy, Anglicanism, Gallicanism, Tridentine Catholicism, architecture

AUTHOR

PETER M. DOLL

Norwich Cathedral Library


146

Book ReviewsComptes-rendus


147

Compte-rendu de Justin Gest, TheNew Minority : White Working ClassPolitics in an Age of Immigrationand Inequality, Oxford UniversityPress, 2016.Olivier Esteves

RÉFÉRENCE

Justin Gest, The New Minority : White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigrationand Inequality, Oxford University Press, 2016.

1 C’est une dizaine de jours à peine après l’élection de Donald Trump et quatre moisaprès le Brexit que Justin Gest, spécialiste de sciences politiques à George MasonUniversity (Washington D.C), a publié cet ouvrage comparatiste d’une brûlanteactualité, d’une grande érudition, enfin d’une humanité qui pourrait paraître suspectecompte tenu de son objet d’étude : le ressentiment racial et l’anti-autoritarisme des‘petits blancs’ dans les villes de Youngstown (ville martyre de la désindustrialisationdans l’Ohio) et le bourg londonien de Barking & Dagenham.

2 Au premier abord, cette suspicion peut être attisée par le titre de l’ouvrage, dontl’auteur assure pleinement le caractère problématique :

The conceptualization of any group of white people in the United Kingdom or theUnited States as a ‘minority’ is questionable, to be modest. Less modestly, such aconceptualization stands in the face of 50 years of progress achieved by civil rightsstruggles, community cohesion agendas, and affirmative action policies. At theirinception, such efforts acknowledged –and indeed were mobilized against- theprivileged status of white people.


148

3 Ensuite, comme Didier Fassin et Daniel Bizeul l’ont déjà fait pour la France 1, Justin Gestconceptualise la difficulté qu’il y a à traiter de groupes sociaux dont les idées peuventsembler répugnantes aux chercheurs en sciences sociales, chez qui tend à prédominerl’empathie vis-à-vis de groupes stigmatisés. Le défi, selon lui, est le suivant :

Scholars and observers of minority politics and social affairs generally maintain asense of empathy (or at least common understanding) that heightens theirsensitivity to subjects’ disadvantage and their perceptions, despite their subjects’demonstrated flaws. The challenge is to sustain this empathy for the primaryantagonist of the minority subjects we are accustomed to examining” (p. 31).

4 L’ouvrage de Justin Gest est le fruit d’un travail ethnographique de trois mois à Barking& Dagenham et de trois mois à Youngstown, soit 120 entretiens au total. Les pagesaméricaines sont aussi riches que les pages britanniques, mais, fort logiquement, jeplacerai ici la focale sur le terrain londonien de l’auteur.

5 Avec Bexley et Havering, Barking & Dagenham est le bourg londonien qui a voté le plusmassivement en faveur du Brexit 2 et, sans jamais mentionner le référendum, M. Gestoffre des clés sociologiques, historiques et politiques décisives pour appréhender cecomportement électoral allant à l’encontre d’une capitale anglaise ayant opté sansambiguïté pour rester dans l’Union Européenne (60%). Il y a d’abord, concrètement, lamanière dont le B.N.P., pendant quelques années, a été quasiment la seule offrepolitique visible dans l’espace public local ; il y a aussi, a contrario, la façon dont le partitravailliste, avec Margaret Hodge, est parvenu à brillamment évincer le B.N.P dupaysage politique local en 2010, et le ressentiment que cette prise de pouvoir a pugénérer chez de nombreux petits blancs ne se sentant plus représentés. Ceci estd’autant plus vrai que les conseillers municipaux du B.N.P avaient brillé par leurincompétence et leur absentéisme (p. 65) et que ni le député de Barking (MargaretHodge) ni celui de Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) n’ont élu domicile dans les circonscriptionsqu’ils représentent aux Communes, une anomalie plutôt courante outre-Manche etdont l’auteur et ses enquêtés font grand cas (p. 124, p. 199).

6 M. Gest analyse avec finesse les ressorts du protectionnisme social (welfare chauvinism)chez les couches les plus vulnérables de Barking & Dagenham, et son lien avec unenostalgie politique partiellement mythique (p. 52-3, l’idée qu’il faudrait, pour améliorerle quartier, ‘turn the clock back’, ‘make it like 50 years ago’), qui repose elle-même surla perception d’une méritocratie britannique totalement dévoyée par l’immigration :

Most believe that the British social system was previously meritocratic, insofar ashard work was rewarded inside of each hierarchical circle. Respondents frequentlycited the hours invested by family members who exerted themselves on assemblylines, docks, and warehouse floors to earn a living. They are frustrated that thecurrent social system grants immigrants access to the same meritocracy and offersadvantages that they believe are not provided to white Britons, such as affirmativeaction policies, public housing preference, and favouritism disguised as antiracismplatforms (p. 162).

7 Un constat qui est également dressé à Youngstown, même s’il n’est pas exactementarticulé de manière identique.

8 Un des fils conducteurs de l’ouvrage est l’interrogation suivante : pourquoi, pris dansune vulnérabilité et une précarité quasiment identiques, des individus peuvent-ils êtretentés par les extrêmes politiques ou, au contraire, céder complètement à l’anomie ?Même si le croisement de méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives peut parfois êtredifficile à suivre, il reste que le travail de Justin Gest est particulièrement éclairant. On


149

pense notamment à cette longue lettre (quatre pages, p. 59-63) envoyée à DavidCameron par une administrée lambda (Nancy Pemberton), qui illustre la troublante etapparente porosité des frontières politiques à l’heure où le B.N.P se targue d’être « leparti travailliste de vos grands-parents ». Ou, comme le dit Gest, “One of the morefascinating trends in white working class politics is just how little separates the social andpolitical attitudes of BNP and Labour voters” (p. 63). On pense également à ce longentretien accordé par la députée Margaret Hodge à l’auteur, laquelle estextraordinairement consciente des difficultés insolubles de représentativité que posentà la fois son positionnement politique et son profil sociologique (p. 125-6).

9 D’autres pages sont très éclairantes : les entretiens avec des jeunes émeutiers de l’été2011 (p. 68-69), l’analyse brillante qui est faite du refrain éculé ‘I’m not racist but…’ (p.72-3), la description de la fermeture définitive des pubs, ces réceptacles de la mémoirepopulaire (p. 47-9), c’est-à-dire autant de phénomènes ou d’évolutions qui alimentent laperception, chez les enquêtés, d’être “like a peripheral afterthought in a country theyonce defined” (p. 200). Empruntant régulièrement à la psychologie sociale, Justin Gestdécrit l’aporie culturelle dans laquelle les ‘petits blancs’, agrégats d’individus politiquesisolés, se trouvent coincés :

To identify a stronger sense of groupness, whites must seek out subcultures relatedto more distinct identities connected to other social cleavages based on ideology,lifestyle, or sexuality. With fewer resources and their increasing distrust of unions,white working class Americans and Britons actively discard more politicallymeaningful and more feasible alternatives for group identification. And whilemiddle-class white people can identify with achieved social statuses and thereforeinvest less in ethnic and racial distinctions, white working-class people cannot (p.143).

10 Avec quelques mois de recul, il apparaît nettement que les Trump, BNP et UKIP ont suinstrumentaliser avec cynisme et talent de telles évolutions et perceptions au seind’une partie des électorats britannique et américain.

11 Pour conclure, l’ouvrage The New Minority, par la façon dont il croise les méthodologies,par son comparatisme méticuleux, par sa scientificité autant que par son humanité,complète de manière idéale la lecture de monographies déjà publiées, par exemplecelles, sur la Grande-Bretagne, de Matthew Goodwin (sur UKIP et le BNP) ou d’HillaryPilkington et Joel Busher (sur l’EDL) 3. Il peut aussi être mobilisé sans modération parles enseignants en civilisation britannique ou américaine, car sa complexité estlargement contrebalancée par un didactisme précieux.

NOTES1. Daniel Bizeul chez les militants du Front National (voir « Des loyautés incompatibles, aspectsmoraux d’une immersion au Front National », Revue en ligne SociologieS, 21 juin 2007), DidierFassin chez les forces de l’ordre, en particulier les agents de la B.A.C en Seine-Saint-Denis (voir LaForce de l’ordre : une anthropologie de la police des quartiers, Paris : Seuil, 2011). 2. Les deux autres bourgs hormis ces trois-là sont Sutton (sud de Londres) et Hillingdon (ouest).


150

3. Voir par exemple, Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford Revolt on the Right : ExplainingSupport for the Radical Right in Britain, Londres : Routledge, 2014 ; Matthew Goodwin, Caitlin Milazzo, , U.K.I.P, Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics, OxfordUniversity Press, 2015 ; Matthew Goodwin, New British Fascism : Rise of the British NationalParty, Londres : Routledge, 2011 ; Hilary Pilkington, Loud and Proud : Passion and Politics inthe English Defence League, Manchester University Press, 2016 ; Joel Busher, The Making ofAnti-Muslim Protest : Grassroots Activism in the English Defence League, Londres : Routledge,2016.


151

The Book of Common Prayer : Studies in Religious Transfer

Documents

Transcript of The Book of Common Prayer : Studies in Religious Transfer