Book of Common Prayer

[Zach]

I recently acquired a 1662 Book of Common Prayer after reading an interview with J.I. Packer about it. Does anybody here use it? Will it make me an Anglican? Will I become a heretic if I use it? (Just kidding about those last two!)

Just curious though, does anybody on the board use it and pray the prayers in it? Do you have any particular recommendations for using it? I don't follow the Church calendar, but are there things of value to read in the BCP on those days? I do really like the Morning and Evening division of Psalms and may follow that as part of a readings schedule.

Just looking for some advice on how to use and not use the book. Thanks everyone!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I use the "Burial of the Dead" section often during graveside services.

 

[Philip]

The daily readings are good (though some come from the Apocrypha, so skip those). The prayers (collects) are mostly by Archbishop Cranmer himself, who should be counted among the great reformers (Calvin thought very highly of him). Cranmer's prayers are beautiful and are always simple, deeply theological, and brief in length. Three qualities which I could only wish in my own prayers. I will often use his prayers as a starting point for my own devotions.

Will it make you an Anglican? Most likely not. I considered Anglicanism for a while after a trip to England (which is where I picked up my copy) but then I spent four months at Oxford attending a CofE Church, and I decided that confessional teaching was a better grounding for a church than liturgical uniformity (which is unravelling, in England at least). I have the greatest respect for my Anglican brothers and sisters, particularly Packer, but also some on the Anglo-Catholic side, but my grounding in the WCF is too strong for me to be terribly tempted in that direction.

All of that said, there are few parts of the BCP that I haven't heard used in confessional Presbyterian churches.

EDIT: I will add an anecdote. While in England, I decided to attend an evening service at an Anglo-Catholic church (ironically located right next to the Oxford Martyrs Memorial) and noted that while the trappings of the service pointed almost to transubstantiation (almost), the content of the 1662 language manifestly denied it. The 1662 BCP is the best liturgical expression of John Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper that I know of.

 

[BibleCyst]

The Book of Common Prayer will most certainly NOT make you an Anglican, but it might make you a liturgical Presbyterian. It really is a wonderful volume.

I would recommend this:
The Book of Common Prayer: As Amended by the Westminster Divines A.D. 1661 - Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. - Google Books

 

[Gavin]

There are copies of the Geneva Bible bound together with the Book of Common Prayer.
Calvin, Bullinger and Melanchthon were invited to England by Cranmer,its author, but declined because of troubles in their regions.
Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, influential leaders at the time also had influences on the Prayer Book.
But John Knox opposed it, and used his own prayer book for the congregation at Geneva- which was largely based on Calvin's French edition.
So I wander how to make sense of the above- How did the rest of the translators of the Geneva Bible feel about the Book of Common Prayer (as early editions of the Geneva Bible included Morning and Evening Prayers from Knox's Prayer Book). Eventually the Westminster divines revised it for use in the Presbyterian Churches.

 

[DeniseM]

If you carry it around in Scotland, you might have to watch out for flying chairs: Jenny Geddes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's what immediately came to my mind also.

 

[Philip]

In terms of its history, there were three major editions:

1549: this edition was basically a stopgap measure so that there would be a prayer book in English, though from the beginning, Cranmer intended to revise and reform it. Basically, it is a translation and modification of the pre-Reformation Sarum Rite. It pleased no one and was not intended to.

1552: Cranmer had gotten input from Martin Bucer, among others, before revising the 1549 BCP and in his 1552 revision, he ended up excising most of what we here would find objectionable. The congregation was made more prominent in its participation, vestments were simplified, and the Eucharistic Rite is intended to accommodate a wide range of Protestant (but not Catholic) belief. The only really troubling thing here is (heavily implied) baptismal regeneration. The 1559 edition (adopted on the accession of Elizabeth I) is barely altered from the 1552 while the 1604 edition made minor changes, like prayers for the royal family.

1662: this edition (still official in the CofE) was still staunchly Protestant, but much more accomodating toward higher views of the sacraments than the WCF (for instance) would allow. Most of the changes, however, were in the rubrics and order of service, not in the actual form of words used.

That's oversimplified, but hopefully helpful.

 

[Gavin]

Thank you
That does put things into perspective.
So the first and second generation of reformers were more influential with the 1552 edition whilst the Westminster Divines were tasked with the revision of the 1662 version of the 39 articles ( of which they reached article 15) before abandoning it to draft an entirely new confession better suited for the Solemn League and Covenant. And the was called by parliament.

 

[Gavin]

I sometimes wander what the landscape would have looked like today if Cranmer ( author of the 39 articles) had realised his ecumenical meeting with Calvin ( author of the French confession) Bullinger (author of the Second Helvetic Confession) and Melanchthon ( author of the Augsberg Confession) . Possibly the Westminster Assembly might not have been necessary if a common Confession was drawn up then...
And what if the Westminster Divines had completed the revision of the 39 Articles, would there have been two versions as is today with the Baptist Confession,
but God in his Providence would not have it so.

I know I've gone off topic but in answer to your question, no I don't think you're be a heretic.

 

[Gavin]

One thing: i think there should be a distinction between praying the prayers and using them as a form of prayer.

 

[RamistThomist]

Which is the best edition for a Reformed presbyterian to buy (also taking into account price)?

 

[Gavin]

I don't know if its still in use but this is a good read.
It used to be published together with Calvin's Catechism and the Psalter
Free Church of Scotland | The Geneva Book of Order

 

[Rangerus]

I just down loaded the BoCP to Kindle and must say coming from a Baptist back ground I find the book very confusing. I guess I was expecting something more along the lines of Spurgeons Morning and Evening.

 

[mercyminister]

I recently acquired a 1662 Book of Common Prayer after reading an interview with J.I. Packer about it. Does anybody here use it? Will it make me an Anglican? Will I become a heretic if I use it? (Just kidding about those last two!)

Just curious though, does anybody on the board use it and pray the prayers in it? Do you have any particular recommendations for using it? I don't follow the Church calendar, but are there things of value to read in the BCP on those days? I do really like the Morning and Evening division of Psalms and may follow that as part of a readings schedule.

Just looking for some advice on how to use and not use the book. Thanks everyone!

Zach,
I am not familiar with the BCP (I know it's been around awhile, but I have never gotten into it), but I recently purchased a 1599 Geneva Bible and there is a section of prayers in the back. I have used these a few times and actually found value in them. I am just wondering if this is a similar experience that someone would enjoy in using the BCP.
Anyhow, if you find value in using it, then, by all means, go ahead and do so. It's where your heart is that is important.

James