# Bcp?



## Philip (Dec 12, 2009)

Ok, so I have been studying some of the language and history of the Book of Common Prayer (1662) and was wondering a couple of things:

a) Just what were the Puritan problems with it? (other than the calendar--ok, RPW issues there)--maybe it's just me, but I have rarely come across any liturgy so infused with scripture.

b) How relevant are these critiques today?


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 12, 2009)

Here's a little bit of background:



> THE DIRECTORY FOR THE PUBLICK WORSHIP OF GOD.
> THE PREFACE.
> IN the beginning of the blessed Reformation, our wise and pious ancestors took care to set forth an order for redress of many things, which they then, by the word, discovered to be vain erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous, in the publick worship of God. This occasioned many godly and learned men to rejoice much in the Book of Common Prayer, at that time set forth; because the mass, and the rest of the Latin service being removed, the publick worship was celebrated in our own tongue: many of the common people also receive benefit by hearing the scriptures read in their own language, which formerly were unto them as a book that is sealed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 12, 2009)

For the Puritans, the main issue (whether of Prayer-book services, or of vestments, etc) was the binding of conscience to another Rule, something beside the Scriptures. There were some Puritan-minded divines who tolerated increased levels of prelatical dictation. Willam Gurnall (author of _The Christian in Complete Armour_) comes to mind. He would rather minister than not, even if it meant accepting the imposition of regulation.

In the days of the Restoration, when full episcopacy was reinstated, new rules were handed down taking effect on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1662. It is known today as the "Great Ejection" when some 2000 Puritans were removed from ministry for refusing to comply with the Act of Uniformity. Further Acts (Conventicle Act and Five-mile Act) further oppressed the Puritans, forbidding any worship gatherings outside the established church, and forbidding ejected ministers from living within five miles of their former congregations.

It is said, when the Archbishop was asked if he realized that many ministers had serious consciencious objections to the new Prayerbook, and might refuse to submit to it, he famously replied, "I more fear that many will."


----------



## ADKing (Dec 12, 2009)

I posted this a while back in a different thread, but I think it is germane here as well: 

I recently read: The Two-Thousand Confessors of Sixteen Sixty Two about the ejection of non-conforming Puritan ministers during the reign of Charles II in England. In that book there is this interesting quote:

_The revision of the prayer book at this time (1662--my insertion) seems to have been conducted with the express object of making it as distasteful as possible to the Puritans, and so of preventing any extensive conformity from taking place...Those matters about which the Puritans scrupled were now made more prominent, and a coherence and a systematic consitency were now, for the first time, given to those sacerdotal and sacramental theories, which had previiously existed in the Prayer Book only in an embryotic condition...In the Prayer Book as it came from the hands of the Reformers in 1552, they would find comparatively little to which they could object. But since the time of the Reformation the Prayer Book has undergone most material alterations--it has been subject to no less than three reactionary revisions. The first in 1559 was made with the politic object of facilitating the conformity of the Romanists, who were then a numerous and formidable body. The revisions of 1604 and 1662 were carried out under the auspices of the High Church party, with the object of over-riding and crushing the Puritans and rendering their conformity distasteful or impossible. _(pp.35-36)

There are obviously places in the 1662 book of common prayer that expressly teach baptismal regeneration, for example... (coming from the liturgy for baptism) 

"SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."

and 

"WE yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit..."


----------



## Jack K (Dec 12, 2009)

ADKing said:


> There are obviously places in the 1662 book of common prayer that expressly teach baptismal regeneration, for example... (coming from the liturgy for baptism)
> 
> "SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."
> 
> ...



Interesting. I'd never noticed this. But when I checked it out in the copy I have (published by the Reformed Episcopal Church of NA), I also found this qualification:

"The word regenerate in this Office of Baptism is well meant for a signification
of our grafting and incorporation into Christ’s flock and
a grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given
to all who receive Baptism rightly (Note Article XXVII Of Baptism).
Yet, lest the same word should by any persons, out of ignorance,
malice, or obstinacy, be misconstrued: *It is hereby declared that
the use of this word is not intended to denote an essential alteration
in nature, nor a passing, as by some mysterious process, into
that fullness of religious life marked by faith, repentance, incipient
holiness, ardent desires after God, and elevated affections."*

So the baptized infant is made regenerate, but not really? Hmmm.


----------



## Bengibor (Dec 12, 2009)

major objections of the Puritans were the use of word priest and bishop and the Prayer of Consecration of the Eucharist although the revisers had dropped 'epiclisis' (invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine to make them the body and blood of our Saviour.
Anyway the CofE and the revisers of the Prayer Book have chosen the middle way of not pleasing too much either extreme in England, Puritans or Catholic leaning Anglicans.
ADKing also added the baptismal regeneration taught in the BCP. To that I answer that even Scottish Presbyterian liturgy contained almost the same words. Bishop J.C. Ryle later gave an explanation which was satisfying to many descendants of Puritans. 

Around 70% of the BCP is direct quotation from the Scriptures and I find that book along with subsequent edition in the US and Canada a delight for soul and her daily walk with God.


----------



## Philip (Dec 12, 2009)

Looking at the larger context of the passage in the BCP, it would appear that yes, taken alone, the phrasing implies baptismal regeneration, but everything preceding it contradicts this interpretation.



Bengibor said:


> Around 70% of the BCP is direct quotation from the Scriptures and I find that book along with subsequent edition in the US and Canada a delight for soul and her daily walk with God.



Yes--and Cranmer's readings and collects are excellent tools for devotion (for a while, I was using his ordering as I went through the NT).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 13, 2009)

It depends which prayerbook one is talking about (1552, 1559, 1604, 1662) and thus which Puritans one is talking about in which era.

In the early Elizabethan era (1559 BCP) the Puritans objected to:

[1] The minister wearing a surplice
[2] The use of the wedding ring in the marriage service
[3] Kneeling at communion
[4] The sign of the cross on the child's forehead in baptism

In the later Elizabethan era certain Puritans objected to the length of the communion service not giving enough time to a substantial sermon.

In the pre-restoration era, many Puritans in the Church of England used the prayerbook but excised parts they didn't like. People like Sibbes and Perkins, whilst uhappy with some things, still believed the Church of England was a true Church in which they could minister.

But in the post-restoration era, the main issue was the binding people's consciences to activities not specifically commanded in Scripture. One of the main offenses in the 1662 ejection was the demand that Puritans give allegiance to the crown, and that the former rebellion against the king be confessed as wrong.

Some Puritans stayed in the Church, like Edward Reynolds (a member of the Westminster Assembly). Indeed, his prayer of "General Thanksgiving" was inserted into the BCP in 1662. This has been the official prayer book since then.

In the 18th century the Reformed Anglicans like George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, John Newton et. al. had no conscience problems with the 1662 BCP.

Every blessing.

ps: There has never been an epiclesis in the BCP communion service.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 13, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Ok, so I have been studying some of the language and history of the Book of Common Prayer (1662) and was wondering a couple of things:
> 
> a) Just what were the Puritan problems with it? (other than the calendar--ok, RPW issues there)--maybe it's just me, but I have rarely come across any liturgy so infused with scripture.
> 
> b) How relevant are these critiques today?



To keep it short and to the point, I think the main issue that the puritans had with the BCP was not the liturgical forms per se (though there were issues), but rather with the government's role in forcing minister's and churches to conform to the BCP as the only acceptable rubric for worship and practice.

To date, the best edition of the BCP was published in 1552 under the reign of King Edward VI, the Protestant Boy King. This edition of the BCP garnered a great deal of support from reformers in England and on the continent (Bucer, Peter Martyr, et al). Calvin thought it an improvement while still maintaining that it had "many bearable pieces of foolishness" which in light of his statements regarding earlier editions may easily be called a high compliment! That said, the 1552 BCP is the most throughly protestant edition of the prayer book.


----------



## Bengibor (Dec 13, 2009)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It depends which prayerbook one is talking about (1552, 1559, 1604, 1662) and thus which Puritans one is talking about in which era.
> 
> ....
> 
> ps: There has never been an epiclesis in the BCP communion service.



JohnOwen, allow me to correct you. In the first book which was printed in 1549 there was a clear invocation of the Holy Ghost to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Cranmer dropped epiclisis in his 1552 BCP and that has remained the standard in England ever since then in spite of attempts of the High party to put it back some casting doubts even about the validity of the Eucharist without epiclisis. 
ABC Cranmer wanted to remove every single, even remote reference about any hinted change in the substance of bread and wine lest people would stray again into the error of transubstantiation. Hence also the famous black rubric at the end of the communion service where he clearly says that the kneeling at the communion does not imply or carry the idea of any adoration of the host and the corporal presence of Christ in it for Christ's body is only in heaven and he's spiritually present in the sacrament. 
However, Archbishop Laud did put it back in the Scottish Episcopal liturgy in 1637 and immediately caused the riots in Edinburgh and forced the authorities to cancel the imposition of Scottish BCP. 

But given that we live in age of secularism and apostasy on a large scale I doubt that any objections that Puritans then had would be relevant today. Christians are very busy defending the very basics of Christ's doctrine and even public morality. That certainly is the case in England which has become a distinctly pagan and post-Christian nation.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 13, 2009)

Bengibor said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > It depends which prayerbook one is talking about (1552, 1559, 1604, 1662) and thus which Puritans one is talking about in which era.
> ...



Dear Bengibor, the 1549 BCP, as Diarmaid MacCulloch's research brilliant shows, was always meant to be an interim book. It's most likely that he allowed for both a Lutheran and a Reformed understanding of the communion service. He himself had moved in his personal views from the Lutheran to the Reformed (or should I say Ratramnian) view in 1546-7 through Nicholas Ridley discovering Ratramnus' treatise on the Eucharist.

However, Cranmer's desire was never to have anything like the epiclesis _*classically understood*_ even in his 1549 rite. Whilst there are similarities to it, he himself theologically had rejected any such idea, and believed that even the 1549 service was basically Protestant. Yes, of course, Stephen Gardiner attempted to construe it in a conservative (Catholic) manner. And, yes, ever since people have attempted to interpret it as a classic epiclesis (to be sure the rite is ambiguous), but for Cranmer this was neither his intention nor his theology.

Every blessing to you.


----------



## Bengibor (Dec 14, 2009)

Dear JohnOwen, 

I totally agree that ABC Cranmer had Protestant and Patristic view of the epiclisis, something that most of us Reformed would be very comfortable with. 

And I think it's better to say that pre-Reformation understanding of epiclisis was actually *medieval understanding* thereof which was defined very late by RCC (I think Lateran Council was held in 1200 something) and was even later followed by the Eastern churches pushed hard by the Catholics and Ottoman Muslims as to have them in line with Rome and to keep Protestant spiritual and political influence away from Constantinople. 

yours in Christ


----------

