When we discuss BCP state prayers under American ‘circumstances’, we should note two things: 1) Though High Churchmen like Seabury wished no revolution in the church, New England Episcopalians acknowledged Republican revolution by simply omitting prayers for King and royal issue. 2) While the American prayer book experienced a number of revisions between 1785-89, the earliest copies show editors paid no scruple to the sequence of state prayers. Parts judged disagreeable were either simply crossed out, or U.S. under-officers were substituted for Crown and council. In my opinion, this is shoddy and insensitive treatment of Anglican polity which argued church and king during the reformation and restoration for over three centuries before the American revolution.  Below are excerpts of these changes found in the revolutionary MP and litany revisions:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006701.jpg

inserts glued over text

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc007012.jpg

notice the lines drawn through the royals and His Majesty

The BCP daily offices are more complicated. The prayer for the Presidency and all civil authority was original to the 1789 version. Interestingly, the 1785 only gave a prayer for Congress, but it was reserved for congressional sessions not for general use. The 1928 improved the divine Office in so far as the President’s prayer was not part of four fixed collects but moved into general intercession, placing the rubric for the minister’s discretion after the collect for grace. Versions prior to the 1928  (both 1789, 1892) required the President’s prayer as part of Morning/Evening office. I often fuss about what’s wrong with the 1928 BCP, but this was actually its upside. In 1928 BCP, prayers for state legislators and courts also were added. Between these later prayers, the collect for the courts might be construed as the best alternate for a general prayer for civil authority, saying, “bless the courts of justice and all magistrates in this land”.

Getting back to the 1928 Morning Prayer rubrics, three fixed collects are directed– the daily, the peace, and grace– followed by the litany or ‘those general intercessions taken out of this book”. Again, it should be noted these later prayers are left to the discretion of the minister, “as he shall think fit”. This basically solves our problem since the minister may select or arrange other prayers as found pp. 18, 35-46  in the 1928. In fact, the  DoW-REC 2011 BCP doesn’t even bother to print the prayers between the fixed collects and the St. Chrysostom Prayer, removing all hint that presidential prayer must be said in MP. Instead, the general intercessions (all conditions, collects of the clergy, and for civil authority) are moved to another chapter after M/EP called ‘Additional Prayers’. I personally believe this is the best option.

However,  since prayers for the civil authority are highly commendable regardless of national constitution, suggested below is an order that obeys the rubric(s) yet remains sensitive to the English ecclesiastical ranking as implicated by the litany.  For the welfare of the magistrate, I chose the ‘prayer for courts’ followed by the collect for  ’all conditions of men’, placing both after the ‘prayer for clergy’ to avoid the Revolutionary confusion. Other arrangements are possible, but they should be conscious of the dignity of the Crown while duly respecting American circumstances, invoking minimum (if not zero) BCP change. What’s important is to spare an ethos of Supremacy by keeping the Crown vacant while going down the proper chain of authority: the bishops and clergy, with secular under-officers (e.g., judges, congressmen, and president) coming next, and, finally, the people. This preserves the original ranking, maintaining a structure parallel to the 1662, and making MP consistent with the litany. Walter Frere even said the state prayers in Mattins were borrowed from the litany (p. 399, New History), so why not better maintain this common origin? Below is a suggested format, good as an American High Church marker:

The Parson’s Handbook makes a case that prayers after the three collects pertain to occasional use. Dearmer concludes, “It would thus appear that the customary use of seven or eight prayers after the third collect goes beyond what is ordered in the prayer book, and that the occasions on which any of these prayers are used may be left to the minister” (p.263). The American version seems to agree with Dearmer, leaving the minister to choose intercessions “he shall think fit”. Dearmer’s reasoning from the 1662 BCP is interesting and perhaps should be taken as a precedent. The DoW-REC 2011 BCP restores the place of the Anthem, recovering the original intent behind additional prayers beyond the three collects. Dearmer notes the rubrics both at Mattins and Evensong lay special stress on the daily use of the three fixed prayers; but the rubric after the Anthem says nothing about those other Prayers and Thanksgivings. On this subject, Dearmer explains:

“that Mattin only allows the use of the prayers for King, Royal family, and clergy and people when the Litany is not ordered (i.e, Monday, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and Saturdays); that at Evensong gives no order as to the use even of these prayers, but presumably intends them to be used in Quires and places where they sing…As the Litany is appointed to be said on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings, this rule restricts the use of the prayers to M, T, Th, and Saturday. It may be noted that the rubric does not allow of the substitution of this prayer for the Litany on a Sunday morning…It is further maintained by some that the five prayers at the end of Mattins and Evensong are not intended to be used except in cathedral and collegiate churches… the five prayers are only to be used when there is an anthem.” (p. 262-263, Parson’s Handbook).

Thus, the prayer for the presidency is not a fixed part of Mattins or Evensong, and the 1928 finally leaves its inclusion or substitution the rector’s option. This gives high churchmen an ability to order the collects properly, according to the 1662 litany or to find older collects which speak generally about the civil authority as to not necessarily exclude the King. An example of the such a generic rendering would be the 1785 BCP which speaks very generally of christian civil rulers. This jives with the 1892 litany as well as the present whole state prayer, “we beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers”.

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the DoW-REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church with an emphasis on late-Henrician standards.

Christ's Rapture

When the Common Prayer Book is affirmed as a standard for Anglican faith, it is usually understood as including the short catechism, divine offices, sacraments, and preface. But, often passed over is the lectionary. The lectionary, especially when coupled with the collects and readings) is perhaps the richest fount for Anglican doctrine as it provides the verses by which we are to understand or unlock scripture. In otherwords, the lectionary is a hermeneutical compass unlike any other, and it is often overlooked.

However, with every prayer book revision, the lectionary has also been modified, yet rare are the studies on successive lectionaries as an evaluation would require consideration of an enormous volume of material. The reintroduction of the ecclesiastical year (even with most readings organized in an expository framework) especially makes this project formidable. That said, the problem is significantly reduced if the lectionary of various BCP’s are considered for those Holy Days historically found in the ‘Table of Feasts’. That leaves a sample of about thirty readings each taken one-by-one. My hope is to cover these thirty festivals over a casual course of three years, starting with Ascension Day as the first of many micro-studies which, once added together, can perhaps evaluate the good behind our several lectionary revisions, especially what the 1928 BCP contributed.

Ascension Day: Morning and Evening prayer selections experienced no great change between the 1549 and 1662 lectionaries other than the omission of John 14. In 1662, J14 appears to have been replaced by the more historical gospel, Lk 24. However, the theme remained the same, namely, “I go away, and come unto you” (v.28). The gospel and epistle readings for the communion, as with the collect, also remain the same, Acts 1 & Mark 16. The latter illuminate in what sense Christ returns to the apostles left in Jerusalem, and this is by the Holy Spirit, imparting many gifts and signs of ministry (Mk 16:16-17). Thus, a dual message is conveyed: First, Christ’s ascension or leaving of the apostles to therefore be crowned/enthroned in heaven. Second, Christ’s return by means of the Spirit which culminates by judging of the world.

Hence, two advents are described. The first-Advent coming to a conclusion with the ascension, but followed closely with the second-Advent that starts with the investment of the Holy Ghost at Jerusalem. Ascension roughly marks a transition in the calendar between two major themes or basic seasons, namely, between the mission of earthly Christ-incarnate, designated from Christmas to Ascension, compared to the Reign of heavenly Christ-glorified, celebrated between Pentecost to All Saints. NT Wright rightly recognizes the redundancy of such Roman Catholic festivals like Christ the King, especially at the fore of Advent, or the Methodist ‘kingdomtide’ introduced to reduce the extraordinary length of Trinity season. If there is a Kingdomtide (which there is not), it seems Pentecost to All Saints would best fit the description. As it is the ascension theme of “taken up, and sending down” is a portal between seasons, and it might be added the ascension collect belongs to the kingdom’s “rapture” said in the Sursum Corda.

Anyway, getting back to the BCP lectionary, we have no major change to it until the American. Even here the American makes no alterations until 1928. The 1789 and 1892 BCP’s both carry forward the older EP/MP selections for psalms, old testament, and new testament reading. Ditto with the communion reading. But the 1928 cuts out 2 Ki 2:1-16 and, very curiously, Mark 16. Also removed by the 1928 American revision are three psalms: Ps. 8, 15, 21, 108. These are replaced with Ps. 93, 96, and 99. Also, added was Is. 33:5-7, 20-22 and, strangely, verses 39-37 from the KJV Apocryphra’s Song of Three Children.

Omitted Parts: What did the 1928 American revision thus accomplish with its Ascension readings? The upside was more controversial verses were replaced with what might be considered safe scripture. The older readings made use of rather elusive passages regarding the crowning of the son. In some respects these passages from the book of David were unclear if man or Christ was spoken. Speaking of man’s creation, psalm 8 then says “Thou madest him to have dominion of the works of thy hands; and thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet” (v.6). Likewise, the twenty-first says, “for thou shalt meet him with the blessings of goodness, and shalt set a crown of pure gold upon his head” (v.3). However, given their relation to Ascension, the calendar makes it clear these passages are speaking of the Father crowning the Son and sitting Himself upon the right-side of God, “Set-up thyself, O God, above the heavens” (Ps.108:5).

It might also be noted that following these general descriptions of heavenly crowning, the psalter selections usually proceed to describe the resulting rule and judgement of the Lord. However, Daniel 7 remains for the matins reading, so an apocalyptic references remains albeit not as frequent as with the 1892 and earlier. The last interesting point is perhaps a concern over charismatic gifts as suggested in Mark 16 and 2 Ki 2. While Mark talks about snakes, healings, and exorcisms, 2Ki describes Elisha receiving the spirit of Elijah who thence exorcises water with salt, “I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land” (v.21).

While more likely 2 Ki2 was omitted due to Elijah’s “taking up”, it’s unfortunate the readings dealing with signs were omitted because they tell us how Christ returns, namely, by the gifts imparted by His Spirit. Mark 16 could also be read in context of Acts 1, “that you will baptize by the Spirit”, with the signs of healings, casting of demons, and treading of snakes being the inner workings of holy baptism. Furthermore, 2 Ki gives us a picture of Christ leaving the apostles by the rapture of Elijah leaving Elisha. However, Elijah leaves behind his mantle as a sign by which Elisha continuous the prophet’s miracles. These miracles curiously are the parting of the Jordan, much like the Red Sea, and the exorcising of water to impart life; thereby we too can “ascend”. In light of Mark 16 and Lk 24 these are pretty obvious allusions to new testament baptism.

Conclusion: While the 1928 offers ‘safe’ readings, the role a second advent plays seems diminished by select doxologies which often do little more than praise powers of creation. Lost also is the benefit that a lectionary normally bares by providing relevant cross-references to illuminate scripture’s dark areas. In this case how to read the rapture of Elijah in 2Ki2? How to understand the gifts promised in Mark 16 and their significance to baptism? Or what about the wider theme of apocalypse as found in Daniel 7, the omitted psalms, and 2Ki? As if often the case with the 1928, the book remains fairly orthodox, but a watering down process is yet detectable. Ascension Day not only culminates in the Kingship of Christ, but implicit with His heavenly enthronement is a promise for the church to be given the authority and power cast away evil and subdue in His Name. This latter half does not come out as clearly in the 1928 as it does with the 1892/1662 versions for Ascension. The positive is the 1928 annexes an Eve and Octave to the day.

A very good exposition on the Ascension of our Lord that uses 2 Kings 2 can be read here.

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church with an emphasis on late-Henrician standards.

the "peace plate"

One of the many liberal modifications to the 1979 prayer book was the liturgical reinsertion of the Kiss of Peace. For about six months I worshiped in an Episcopal church which often made use of the more conservative Rite 1. No matter how similar Rite 1 was to the 1928 communion office, the kiss of peace always seemed to ruin that sense of tradition. Even before I knew anything about liturgics, the kiss of peace always felt  ”hippie”. At the former TEC parish, the priest and entire congregation would mingle, hug, make small talk, too often turning the Pax into an intermission. At times people would even leave to catch coffee or make a phone call outside the church. It’s only redeeming quality in my mind was its potential to provide a time to bless and usher out possible catechumens. Anyway, the Pax seemed odd, and I had to ask if it was indeed an ancient practice of the church. This also required some digging into the prayer book.

The 1979 BCP seems to throw a bone to each type of churchmanship. The Kiss of Peace appears to be something that might satisfy the catholic. By placing the Holy Kiss at the offertory, the ’79 appears to defer to the ancient Eastern practice, dating back to the second century. The “Western Pax” appeared a bit later, roughly the fifth century, in Rome and North Africa. Instead of being done before the anaphora, it would have followed the end of the Latin canon where the Paster Noster is found. This is also where the 1549 BCP and Sarum Mass locate the Pax. So, the ’79 bcp had at least two options, and TEC revisionists apparently favored the more “ancient” location.

Not What it Seems: However, what is not said about the Holy Kiss is the rather sober manner which the primitive church administered it. Throughout the history of the Pax a fear of indecency or indiscretion is expressed. Thus, there is a certain restraint in its use. The Apostolic Constitutions confine the Kiss to estates within the christian assembly, namely, exchanging it between clerics in the chancel while laity pass it on to each other. But even amongst the laity the Kiss was carefully confined to gender: men exchanging amongst men, and women amongst women. Thus, the Kiss was never a “free-for-all” that bordered upon an intermission in the midst of the liturgy.

As time passed, though the Kiss remained part of the liturgy, it was gradually substituted for less disruptive devotions. By the middle-ages a variety of alternate forms for the Pax existed both East and West– e.g., kissing the altar, sacred elements, a relic, the bishop’s hand, or a stole. A limited Holy Kiss is found in the marriage rite, e.g., “you may kiss the bride“, and originally it was an oculation that passed from the priest to the groom to the bride. The Peace was also abbreviated by confining it between priest and deacon, most likely leaving the laity to conduct their own private reverences separately in the nave.  By the 13th century, osculatoriums, i.e., the “pax-board” or “pax-brede”, became common in England. Pax-boards were small plaques decorated by crosses that were kissed by the celebrant and then given to the congregation while at the altar rail. But even this practice gradually passed away.

In the Sarum rite the Pax is said at the end of the canon, exchanged between deacon and priest with the celebrant kissing the altar spread. The 1549 likely continued this practice, but the Latin location of the Pax finally disappeared upon Edward’s second prayer book where it becomes a preface to the benediction (A New History, p. 487). What’s interesting about the 1549 vis-a-vis later BCP editions is how the Pax is said specifically to the clerks, reading:

“Then shall the Priest say, The Peace of the Lord be with you. The Clerks. And with thy spirit”

If working from the Sarum, the Priest is assumed to be facing  ’choir-side’ while addressing these “clerks”. But in high mass ‘the clerks’ would naturally include the Deacon, acolytes, and perhaps cantor/choir. The Pax is not the only salute given between “clerks” and Priest. Unlike later BCP versions (1552/9, 1662 1789), the 1549 preserves the privilege of lower orders acting as a chorus, giving the “the clerks” more exclusive roles such as chanting the Gloria in Excelsis, Kyries, and the Angus Dei. This seems to give a more prominent role to assisting clergy that somewhat disappears after 1552, giving over to the ‘general priesthood’.

The Pax Today: Even in more recently ‘conservative’ revisions, such as in the Anglican Missal, the Pax is normally addressed to the people. However, the 1979 takes the Pax to a new level. Rather than make opportunity to genuinely restore an older liturgic, the 1979 appropriates what might appear an apostolic Pax, but uses it as pretext to expand the realm of ‘democractic’ worship. Furthermore, if the 1979 had actually continued the catholic direction that inspired earlier revisions like the 1928, the 1549 BCP (closest to the English Sarum) would have been the natural and more organic starting point rather than leaping back to mirky apostolic custom. If revisionists had started from the Sarum as the Anglican Missal had done, the newer BCP might have enlisted the Pax as a embankment to Anglican ecclesiology, emphasizing the special dignity once held between deacon and priest. Instead, the Pax is made a liberating gesture that frees the people from the mediative roles of priest-deacon, of which self-conscious ecclesiastical society breaks down for three to five minutes after the offertory. The 1979 appears to advance catholic ceremony but instead manipulates antiquity to make headway for democratizing movements in the liturgy. When praise music is added, there remains very little of Rite 1 that’s traditional.

If  Ordinaries permit the Pax (and some do with the 1928 BCP), they might consider the 1549 BCP’s application which favors the celebrant facing the deacon along “choir” or “clerk-side”. Liturgically, the 1549 might be treated as an opportunity to better highlight the function of the deacon as a second representative or leader of the people. This point was  made earlier at RTBP while writing on the possible benefits of keeping northside celebrations (as understood by Dearmer). Not only might we continue certain customs peculiar to earlier 1662 (northside) and 1549 (the pax) prayer books, but Anglicans can also use less well-known rubrics to slowly weaken the democratization of liturgy that has occurred over the last forty years, starting with a greater prominence to those lesser offices often acting in the chancel. The way we pray is the way we believe, etc..

As Lent passes and Easter is entered, Anglicans might consider how the law and gospel work together not only after church but in worship. When the faithful are dismissed from the communion, dismissal is not given to live as “hearts see fit” (sneaking in a coffee break before the end of divine worship, creating an intermission for small talk and short flirts, leaving the altar in the midst of public liturgy, etc.), but the Mass is given to live in Christ by His will and commandments. This ‘third use’ of the law ought to regulate even the Pax, not given licence to disorder but to enter Christ’s humility, thereby glorifying the Father.

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church beginning with late-Henrician standards.

Though today the prayer desk has replaced the faldstool, nevertheless, in the Parson’s Handbook the Rev. Dearmer explains the Litany is to be be given in the old position of the fladstool, namely,  in the midst of the church. According to Dearmer, the Litany should be recited regularly, normally Wednesdays and Fridays as well as between morning prayer and ante-communion on Sundays. But it is especially said upon penitential seasons.

However, these many details likely escape the majority of parishioners who rarely recite the Litany, and, perhaps they never do unless it be at Lent. Infrequent exposure to the Litany probably leaves more specifically Anglican features to pass unnoticed. The prayer book Litany differs from the Latin in a number of places. But perhaps the most conspicuous difference is the absence of heavenly saints of whom Romans and Eastern Orthodox commonly invoke. Instead, the Anglican emphasis is upon an earthy kingdom, or church militant. This ought to be an interesting point for Anglicans since our suffrages beg the Church of England instead of the heavenly hosts. The 1559 version of the litany lists the estates of the church [in bold] which are thus mentioned:

“We synners do beseche the to heare us (O Lord God,) and that it may please the to rule and governe thy holy Churche universally, in the right way…That it may please the, to kepe and strengthen in the true worshipping of the in righteousnes and holynes of lyfe, thy servaunt James our most gracious Kyng and governour…That it may please the, to rule his harte in thy faith, feare, and love, that he may evermore have affiaunce in the, and ever seke thy honoure and glory. That it may please the, to be his defender and keper, geving him the victory over al his enemyes. That it may please thee to bless and preserve our gracious Queen Anne, Prince Henry, and the rest of the King and Queen’s Royal issue… That it may please the to illuminate all Byshoppes, Pastours, and ministers of the Church, with true knowledge, and understanding of thy words, and that both by their preaching and livinge, they may sette it furth and shewe it accordingly…That it maye please thee to endue the Lordes of the Counsayle, and all the nobilitie, with grace, wisedom, and understanding…That it may please thee to blesse and kepe the Magistrates, geving them grace to execute justice, and to maynteyne truthe… That it may please the to blesse, and kepe al thy people.”

From the litany we can list the estates pertaining to England’s church militant. After the church universal, measured from greatest to least, these might be:  1. the Gracious King, 2. the royal issue, 3.  the Bishops and ministers, 4. the Lords in council, 5. the lesser magistrates (governors and parliament), and 6. all thy people. Anthony Sparrow, commissioner to the 1662 BCP, while speaking of the litany’s deprecations and petitions, divided the petitions into two parts:

“The like good Order is observed in our Petitions for Good. First, we pray for the Church Catholick, the common Mother of all Christians; then for our own Church, to which next the Church Catholick, we owe the greatest Observance and Duty. And therein in the first Place for the principal Members of it, in whole Welfare the Church’s Peace chiefly consists. After this we pray particularly for those Sorts of Men that most especially need our Prayers, such amongst others, as those whom the Law calls miserable Persons.” (p. 61, A Rationale)

Thus, the litany immediately divides between catholic and national parts. Keeping in mind the part is never greater than the whole,  the petition for the church cahtolik naturally comes first.  But after the prayer for our universal body, the 1559 litany moves to the provincial or national domain. The national church, of course, begins with England’s supreme head, the Crown. Descending from there, the suffrage  pleas for his seed, often both those nearest in birth and marriage to the throne. The litany then continues downward to the Bishops, likewise greater nobility, who were next to adjure for the church. Alongside them were then the  Lords of Council who could likewise be regents or protectorates to the King either his absence or by immaturity. Then came the magistrates (judges, commons), and, last, the faithful.

However, this order of estates did not belong to the older Sarum which gave priority to the church before the state. Frere comments upon the  transposition from ecclesiastical to royal offices in the Anglican litany of 1544:

“After the suffrage for the Church, [in the Sarum] those for the ecclesiastical orders usually came first, and were followed by those for the prince and for Christian people. Yet the intercessions for rulers of the Church and of the State were occasional-ly transposed, and in 1544 the series of petitions for the King was set next after that for the Church [catholik]: and this order remains”  (p. 416, A New History)

England’s Church militant: The litany’s emphasis on the terrestrial Church, and its structure is especially interesting from the stand point of authority. In England, the ‘church’ not only was composed of clerics but also included privileged rankings of secular society. In his 1547 Homily ‘Concerning Good Order’, Cranmer gives an enlightening comparison of the celestial to earthy hierarchies that all men must obey:

“Almighty God hath created and appointed all things in heaven, earth, and waters, in a most excellent and perfect order. In heaven he hat appointed distinct and several orders and states of Archangels and Angels. In earth  he hath assigned and appointed Kings, Princes, with other Governors under them, in all good and necessary order… Every degree of people in their vocation, calling, and office, hath appointed to them their duty and order: some are in high degree, some in low; some Kings and Princes, some Inferiors and Subjects; Priests and Laymen, Masters and Servants, Fathers and Children, Husbands and Wives, Rich and Poor: and every one hath need of the other: so that in all things to be lauded and praised the goodly order of God; without the which no house, no city, no commonwealth, can continue and endure, or last.” (p. 72, Sermons or Homilies)

I believe the homily gives some insight toward Cranmer’s alteration of the Sarum litany. For Cranmer, and especially the Anglican divinity of the 17th century, the church doesn’t absolutely stand apart from the commonwealth but is a peculiar estate within. Yet, all estates are ruled by the Prince, “The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil (Article #37).

Likewise, Hooker describes the church as “society”, assigning features of order normally associated with earthy kingdoms. It might be noted this description was contrary to the Puritan one which treated the church as a heavenly or invisible “mob”,

“By the Church…we understand no other than only the visible Church. For preservation of Christianity there is not any thing more needful, than that such as are of the visible Church have mutual fellowship and society one with another. In which consideration, as the main body of the sea being one, yet into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself. In this sense the Church is always a visible society of men; not an assembly, but a Society. For although the name of the Church be given unto Christian assemblies, although the name of the Church be given unto Christian assemblies, although any multitude of Christian men congregated may be termed by the name of a Church, yet assemblies properly are rather things that belong a to a Church. Men are assembled for performance of public actions; which actions being ended, the assembly dissolveth itself and is no longer in being, whereas the Church which was assembled doth no less continue afterwards than before.” (Book III, i, s. 14, Laws)

Thus, Anglican divines give a conservative order that more or less meshes laity and clergy together in a single yet ordered politic. While this sort of provincial structure for the church is not immutable or absolutely commanded either by the Apostles or God, Hooker and Cranmer both credit an ordering by the Christian king’s supremacy. Cranmer conveys the historical raison d’etre for a Christian king’s authority in the church:

“For it is out of all doubt that the priests and bishops never had any authority by the gospel to punish any man by corporal violence; and therefore they were oftentimes moved of necessity to require Christian princes to interpone their authority, and by the same to constrain and reduce inobedient persons unto the obedience and good order of the church: which the Christian princes, as God’s ministers in that part, and for the zeal they had to establishing of Christ’s religion, not only did gladly execute, but did also give unto priests and bishops further power and jurisdiction in certain other temporal and civil matters…” (p. 113, Sermons or Homilies)

Hence, the duties of Crown are not just for the material good but also the the cure and salvation of subjects. We might note the faldstool concept in Cranmer’s history. The bishops delegated powers to the Crown. Hence the Crown claims its own kind of faldstool– if not directly, then through appointed ministers. Cranmer continues describing the grand ministry of the Prince,

“And unto them of right, and by God’s commandment, belongeth, not only to prohibit unlawful violence, to correct offenders by corporal death or other punishment..to procure the public weal, and the common peace and tranquility in outward and earthly things; but specifically and principally to defend the faith of Christ and his religion, to conserve and maintain the true doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true preachers and setters forth thereof, and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers, and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be occasioners of the same; and finally to oversee and cause that the said priests and bishops do execute their said power, office, and jurisdiction truly, faithfully, and according in all points as it was given and committed to them unto Christ and his apostles” (p. 121)

Revolution and Apostasy: The American revolution changed the English transposition of church-state.  The prayer book blames the absence of royal Supremacy upon  American ‘circumstances’ (p. vi, The Book of Common Prayer). Episcopalians properly attended these ‘circumstances’ by omitting those prayers touching Crown and nobility. However, the American bcp revision of 1928 went further than baring mention of royalty from the book. Instead, the U.S. Presidency was inserted and curiously placed in the old rank of the Crown. This is wrong for a couple reasons.

In so far as we might view the suffrages of the church militant to be an outline a consecrated order for the English church, the American 1928 revision seems to wrongly conflate the estate of Christian king with that of a constitutional President. In other words, the U.S. revision makes the quality of these two estates indifferent, suggesting no substantive gap between a republican system (where the public head officially rejects a role in religion) vs. a christian monarch (where the king actively and sometimes aggressively intervenes and defends the faith). In the American system, the order is really reversed because the true sovereign is not a king but the people of each respective state who establish the pact of Union. Compare this to the litany which organizes authority in a descending where the people are the last voice in consultation. It also ignores the ancient nature of the English Crown as an anointed, quasi-sacramental office. The U.S. Presidency is more like a prime minister over a federal ‘parliament’ than an anointed king. If the 1928 was more consistent with the English 1662 litany (or even the earlier 1892 bcp), the U.S. Presidency would remain underneath the bishops, at the petition for wise magistrates.  A more correct rendition would either be:

1. re-use the1789 or 1892 versions.
2. simply re-edit the American 1928 suffrages by moving the Presidency back to its original place with common magistrates as found in the 1662 (or older bcp’s). In effect, this would make the American more ‘ catholic’ returning more or less to the same order (minus the Pope) as the Sarum where the state is below the church rather than the other way around.

Consequently, a revised 1928 might read:

“O Lord God; and that it may please thee to rule and govern thy holy Church universal in the right way…That it may please thee to illuminate our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with true knowledge and understanding of thy Word; and that both by their preaching and living they may set it forth, and show it accordingly… That it may please thee so to rule the heart of thy servant, The President of the United States, that he may above all things seek thy honour and glory…That it may please thee to bless and preserve Christian Rulers and Magistrates, giving them grace to execute justice, and to maintain truth…That it may please thee to bless and keep all thy people“.

While AR has no overwhelming interest in using the state prayers for monarchy,  the idea of regency within Supremacy needs to be preserved.  There is no question among conservative Anglicans today that the English Crown has become irresponsible in church responsibilities. It is also very apparent the the Primates and Archbishoprics follow a similar path.  Nonetheless, the litany’s faldstool (as a symbol of authority within the church) shows that Anglicans have a chain of command, and when the stool is abducted, their is a proper order by which a lower estate ought to function as regent or “defender of faith” until a better day.

Perhaps continuing Anglicanism have a certain excuse in their departure for the sake of a  ’free church’.  Response to apostasy can only go down the Erastian ladder. John Keble outlines this ‘ladder’ in terms similar to the litany,

“It is very possible that I may overlook something which materially affects this question, and which may be plain enough to other persons; but it does seem to me that in the case supposed (of a public censure, and dispensation, refused), loyalty to the Church, her Creed or her Order both, could only be maintained by one of the two following courses: either we should continue in our ministry, respect, fully stating our case, and making appeal to the Metropolitan, or as Archbishop Cranmer did, to the Synod, and that publicly–which course one should be slow to adopt except in a matter which concerned the very principles of Faith and of Church Communion;–or else we should tender to our superiors our relinquishment of the post which we held under them in the Church, and retire either into some other diocese, or, if all our Bishops were agreed into lay communion. The objections in point of scandal to these two courses would be, that the former might sound under present circumstances more as a way of talking than anything else: the latter, unless the case were very amply and openly explained, would appear as if one conceded the notion of the Articles being incapable of a Catholic sense…We might be excommunicated, but we could neither join ourselves to any of the uncatholic communities around us, nor form a new communion for ourselves. We could not be driven into schism against our will. We could only wait patiently at the Church door, wishing and praying that our bonds might be taken off, and pleading our cause as we best might from reason and Scripture and Church precedents.” (The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”)

Obviously, Keble isn’t despairing prelacy in the Church but the danger catholicism faced after by two democratizing events: 1) parliamentary supremacy after 1700 which always threatened the church; and 2) electoral emancipation in 1833 allowing non-Anglicans to sit in parliament.

Some thoughts: Anglicanism today is likely in worst straits than at Keble’s time. The question of authority whether in the Lambeth Communion or amongst Continuing Churches is endemic. Continuing clergy over the last forty years have manage to secure (sometimes irregular) bishoprics  so laity might roost in relatively safe dioceses. Meanwhile, Canterbury-aligned churches are breaking traditional diocese boundaries by forming parallel dioceses on the basis of theological affinity rather than territory. Though we are not at the point of needing a lay communion, the Litany instructs where Anglicans might go after estates successively fail. We might also consider the rare and in extremis powers an estate may employ in lieu of another’s abduction. Thus we have a chain of command, and it might be traveled either downward or upward according to contingency. The crisis of authority is not so much that Anglicanism can’t work, but what respective estate will step-in vis-a-vis Anglicanism’s historic ‘chain of command” now that the Archbishops and Crown have created a vacuum of authority, ruling in their stead? We might call this ‘regent theory’.

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church beginning with late-Henrician standards.

an english lecturn

I’ve always considered the communion rubric for standing on the North Side of the table to be incredibly odd. It’s always very much a challenge to envision a northside celebration, especially when there are close to nil churches doing it. We either have the priest facing the people during the recitation of the canon, or the priest faces eastward. But what is ‘northside’?

The 1662 BCP rubric for communion says, “And the Priest standing at the north side of the Table shall say the Lord’s Prayer, with the Collect following, the people kneeling”. This starts the antecommunion and the rest of the liturgy is finished in the same way. The 1637 BCP says the same, but the 1928 somewhat simplifies things by omitting the rubric altogether.

While probably a dead letter, the motive behind ‘northside’ originally involved a desire to include the people in the prayers and blessings of the church. The Reformation of the Mass was, firstly, concerned about the liturgy being 1) audible, and, 2) visible to the people. If a priest stood ‘eastward’, then manual acts were naturally blocked from view. Moreover, unless the bread was elevated above the shoulders, its visibility was also obstructed. Celebration against the east wall, especially in cathedrals with long choir stalls, would likewise hinder audibility. Another commenter observed the priest on the north side with deacon on the south would have made washings difficult, and this was also probably an intent.

However, the Puritan movement during Edward VI and Elizabeth I solved this problem by replacing fixed altars with movable tables, relocating the latter in the front of the chancel (between the choir) or, more often, the middle of the nave. The priest then celebrated the eucharist from the northside of a table which was often oblong in shape, meaning the table was orientated parallel to nave’s length.  Thus, the priest stood in the nave, faced northside, and had the length of the table before him. If this is very confusing, see this link: the Pre-tractarian Church.

Sacrament of the Altar not ‘the Desk’: When Laud restored the tables to their original Henrician position, plus forbidding their removal from the chancels, the northside position of the Puritans became untenable as the “north end” of a table was now fixed along the length of the ‘eastern’ wall. Especially in chapel sanctuaries, standing on the ‘north end’ would be awkward at best if not impossible.  Practicality reasoned ‘north side’ simply meant the gospel side of the altar, and it appears this would conform to ancient practice. But the intent of the 1662′s rubric was to keep the recitation of the liturgy near the altar rather than below in reading desk or pulpit as low churchmen might have it.  Bishop Cosin says regarding where the liturgy is pronounced:

“The Jews prayed standing, but only in the time of mourning; for then they prayed prostrate, or upon their knees. Formerly the Priest stood in the middle of the altar. Si ad aram Dei steteris. And the Writings of the Ancients abound with testimonies of the same thing. Again this Writer says with respect to standing at the Table: — which was the custom of the ancients, that all things which pertained to the celebration of the Lord’s-Supper should be said at the Altar. Now in this Celebration, there is hardly any difference between us and the Protestants in Germany, but that among us the Prayers are said by the Bishop or Minister at the Altar, but among them in the Desk: In which they do not agree with the ancients.” (Notes to Nicholls’ Book of Common Prayer, p. 38)

And the Rev. J.J. Blunt, (late Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.) observes: –

“Here the Rubric is express against a practice, not uncommon that of reading this Service, when there is no Communion, from the Desk. This, I say, is a clear infraction of the Rubric, which directs that “the Priest is to stand at the north side of the Table, and say, etc.. ( Duties of the Parish Priest, p. 325)

The Parson’s Handbook: The question still remains what would north-side celebration by the 1662 bcp look like? It’s hard to wrap one’s mind around. Evidently, there wasn’t a dominant or single interpretation of this rubric, so this complicates matters. However, the Anglican principle of hearing and seeing in worship should be kept in mind, calling the people to use their five wits with the clergy in liturgy. A good Anglican methodology when questions remain is to look back to prior practice. In his Parson’s Handbook, the Rev. Percy Dearmer rather successfully reconciles the earlier practice of eastward/altar facing as found in the 1549 BCP/Sarum with the 1662 ‘north side’ rubric. He says:

“In the editions of this Handbook preceding that of 1907 I deliberately left open the vexed question as to whether the priest should stand at the north, south, or middle of the altar. I have, however, now come to the conclusion that he should stand before the north part of the altar, mainly because more recent knowledge has resolved the doubt raised by the Lincoln Judgement, which, in a very thorough statement of the case, declared the eastward position a very thorough statement of the case, declared the eastward position throughout the service to be legal, but left the part of the altar undecided. Archbishop Benson took the following view:– The position of the Holy Table had, in 1662, been lawfully changed, but yet the revisers left the old rubric ‘standing at the north side’, although the Tables now stood altarwise, and had no north side in the sense of the rubric; therefore the words ‘at the north side’ are now ‘impossible of fulfillment in the sense originally intended’ (Lincoln Judgement, p. 44), and for the priest to stand at the northern part of the front ‘can be regarded only as an accommodation of the letter of the Rubric to the present position of the Table’ (ibid, p. 41).

Now it is not the case that the revisers of 1662 deprived the rubric of its meaning by leaving it unaltered to apply to the changed position of the altar. They seem rather indeed to have known what they were about, and to have left the words ‘standing at the north side’ (although the altars had been brought back to their proper position) because they knew that the words could still apply. The words ‘north side’ were, in fact, used to describe the ‘northern part of the front’ in pre-Reformation times; and there was therefore no reason to change them in 1662, when the altar stood as in those times. Here are some examples:– ‘Then I that was kneeling on the north side of the altar, at the right side of the crucifix’ (Revelation of the Monk of Evesham, 1482, cap. 12). In the Alphabetum Sacerdotum, the direction before the Gospel is ‘different missale ad aliud latus’. ‘How the priest after that with great reverenc doth begin the mass between deacon and subdeacon at the one side of the altar’ (Interpretacyon of the Masse, 1532, art. 5, qu. in Dat Becxhen, pp. xi, 142)

This position does in any case keep close to the letter of the rubric; and it was adopted by a good many after the Savoy Conference, when the Bishops declared in favor of the eastward position. The north end has never been authorized since, but the north part of the front was used at St. Paul’s in 1681, and in other ways is shown to have high sanction from 1674 to 1831. Nor was it an innovation to commence on the north side of the sanctuary: it was done at Westminster Abbey and by the Cluniacs before the Reformation, and is still the custom of the Carthusians.

Some have urged that the priest should stand at the south and not the north horn, on the ground that he began the service thus before the Reformation. This, however, is inexact. It is true that the Sarum Missal has ‘in dextro cornu‘” but at low Mass the priest vested at the north side of the altar, the chalic and paten lying in the middle and the book on the south side. He thus began Mass at the north side, and in this position he said amongst other things those very prayers which now begin our service, viz. the Paternoster and the Deus cui omne cor. Furthermore, to begin at the south is not even an accommodation of our rubric, and it has never been adopted under authority since the altars have been set back in their old position. Some have recommended the priest to stand ‘afore the midst of the altar’, because this was his position under the First Prayer Book; but this at least gives teh impression of disobeying our present rubric; and we have perhaps no right to imagine that the revisers of the 1662 meant the priest to revert to the custom of 1549 since they did not say so. They kept the words ‘north side’; and, as we have seen, ‘north side’ is good English for ‘sinistrum cornu‘.

The problem remains for Dearmer how the elements are made visible. Dearmer feels, though the priest stands on the north or gospel side, during the words of consecration, with the priest still facing eastwards, the bread ought be raised to “the level of the mouth” and the fraction thus made visible to the people behind. Meanwhile, the cup should remain on the table and the priest bow during that portion of the institution. This seems a bit odd to me, treating species differently, but Dearmer’s point is such satisfies the canon’s principle of visibility. I have to ask does this  suggest a kind of concomitance– what is done to one kind is done to the other?

The 1892 BCP revision seems to imply precedent for Dearmer’s recommenda-tion. The third rubric at the beginning of the Holy Communion rite instructs, “And the minister, standing at the right side of the Table, or where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said, shall say the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect following, the People kneeling” (p. 243)

Liturgics of Minor Orders: Dearmer offers the best answer to the north side question. If anyone has ever found a youtube video showing north side, please share!  My own preference would be to see Priests recognize the north side rubric despite its obsolesce since 1928. The 1928 BCP was an attempt to retrieve the 1549, and, ironically, the 1549 version has the priest turning to the choir to declare “the peace”, upon which the choir responds, “and with thy spirit”. This hearkens to the old Sarum where the Priest would actually begin the Pax with a kiss to the deacon or clerk, likewise turning north to do so. Calls and responses to choirsides might occur elsewhere in the liturgy, but traditionally the choir did have a more prominent role in the liturgy than today, singing introits and graduals. Liturgics today are very different from the Sarum. Minor orders are virtually dissolved into the “people”, and Anglican liturgy is conducted almost like a perpetual low mass. However, the 1549 and perhaps Dearmer’s northside retain the best of both eras.

The north side (gospel side) seems a distinctly Anglican ceremonial position. One advantage relevant for today might be the further de-emphasis that modern liturgics (both Vatican II Roman and neo-Anglican) tend to put upon laity in the attempt to democratize services and flatten ecclesiology.  A sense of prelatial space might thus be engendered by giving choirs, clerks, and swornmen heightened roles as was done in olden days when the church was conceived as ordered society with ranks and hierarchies rather than as an undifferentiated mass of ‘equal’ priests?

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church beginning with late-Henrician standards.

The Reverend Dr. Crouse, Patristics scholar and Anglican theologian passed away in his sleep last week.  Dr. Crouse was a professor and mentor to a number of people currently on the board of the Prayer Book Society in the United States, and without his instruction and influence Anglicanism in North America would be in much greater disarray than it currently is.  It is our fervent prayer that in future years Dr Crouse’s multiple essays on classical Anglican and Patristic theology will serve to guide those who desire to continue within the Anglican Way.

The following paragraphs are excerpted from the obituary written this week by Dr. W. J. Hankey, a colleague and long time friend in the Classics Department of Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

On the night of Friday the 14th, in his 81st year, the Reverend Professor Robert Darwin Crouse died in his sleep in his childhood home in Crousetown, Lunenburg county, where his family has been established for more than 200 years.  He had been very ill for several years, but played the organ for the Liturgy at St Mary the Virgin, Crousetown, the Sunday before last.  His contributions of the highest level to the Classics Department of Dalhousie University, to the University of King’s College, and to their students, to international scholarship, to the Anglican Church of Canada, and to the musical life of Nova Scotia make his passing momentous.  The Department of Classics has received condolences from many parts of Europe and North America.

In 1981 Robert was the founder of St Peter Publications in Charlottetown and of the Atlantic Theological Conferences, both of which continue.  For five decades Fr Crouse delivered uncounted theological and spiritual addresses, conferences, and retreats and guided the hundreds who came to him for help.  The extent of his labours, which embraced North America and Europe, was suggested when the Diocese of Saskatchewan made him its Canon Theologian.

Harvard granted him an S.T.B. (cum laude) in 1954.  After he was ordained priest by the Bishop of Nova Scotia, Robert moved to Trinity College, Toronto where he was a Tutor in Divinity for three years and earned a Master of Theology (1st class Honours) in 1957.  Trinity awarded him an Honorary Doctor of Divinity in 1983.

In 1970 Robert became PhD of Harvard University.  His dissertation was a critical edition of the De Neocosmo of Honorius Augustodunensis.  He supervised scores of MA theses at Dalhousie and directed and examined dozens of doctoral dissertations there and throughout North America and Europe.  His lectures, sermons, and scholarly publications (he published over seventy articles, reviews, and translations) were polished artefacts characterized by the greatest economy, precision and beauty of language. … In 1990 the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome named him Visiting Professor of Patrology, a post he took up repeatedly until 2004; he was the first non-Roman Catholic to be given this distinction.

In 1972 he joined other members of Classics, as well as members of the Departments of German and Sociology, as the first co-ordinators responsible for the structure and lectures of the Foundation Year Programme at King’s.  His Section on the Middle Ages was a model of the integration of literary, philosophical, religious, social and artistic culture.  With camera in hand he crisscrossed Europe bringing back the history of Romanesque and Gothic architecture.  His lectures on architecture and music opened many students to hitherto hidden mysteries.  His lectures on Dante’s Divine Comedy were so loved that he continued them well after retirement, giving his last series in 2003.  Former students returned annually to hear them.  Suitably his last lectures in the University were delivered on the Confessions of St Augustine in 2004 in the Foundation Year Programme. … Outside of the classroom his greatest contribution there was in the Chapel.  His celebration of the liturgy and his sermons had enormous influence on the lives of students and faculty.  Moreover, he established the choir for the Thursday Solemn Eucharist which is now the foundation of the musical renaissance at King’s.  

Robert’s gifts as an organist and choirmaster, were extended not only to parishes (notably in his home parish of Petite Riviere, Holy Trinity, Bridgewater, and St James’, Halifax) and chapels.  Soon after he returned to Nova Scotia, he assisted in the rescue and restoration of an early 19th century tracker organ which became the centre of forty-seven years of Summer Baroque concerts at St Mary’s Crousetown.  While such concerts of early music have now become staples of our Summer fare in the Maritimes, Robert was a pioneer.

After the concerts, receptions at his house allowed musicians and their audiences to admire Robert’s extraordinary gardens.  He was always an organic gardener, and inspired many to imitate his practices; his salads provoked awe, and his rosary, with 129 varieties, delight. … He eschewed radio, television, and telephone.  Around the walls of the room where Robert spent most of his time, [there is] carved in Carolingian Latin, an inscription from Scripture.  They are words St Bernard took from Isaiah for the habituations of his Cistercian monks and nuns who keep silence strictly, they translate thus: “The solitary place shall be glad, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the lily…and a highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness” (Isaiah 35.1-9)  At the heard of all Robert’s apparently endless practicality lay a carefully guarded silence which enabled the depth of his thought, his communion with God, nature, and humanity, and his unmovable independence of mind.  Among his greatest gifts as a teacher was his communication of the necessity, goodness, and beauty of contemplative silence.

Modest Reform: English divinity continued this older religious practice on the condition it was not contrary to scripture. The earlier Roman Catholic cult was distinguished by a vast and messy array of superstitions, not to mention devotional practices promoted by the Papacy that reinforced Rome’s merit theology. An alternative to abolishing the entire cultus was pruning away exagerations. English Reformers accomplished this several ways [3]. In 1538 reverencing of images by decking or prayer were banned in both public and private worship [4]. The 1536 Ten Articles rebuked those vain superstitions, “as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us sooner than another or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same” (Formularies, p. 30). In 1548 Anglicans started reform of the Salisbury mass, finishing an overhaul of the missal and its related Christian calendar which eliminated many legendary saints. In 1544 the “litany of saints” was also revised, where the heavenly saints were reduced to a single stanza while living members of the church gained the greater focus of the litany. Until 1549 this single stanza continued from the Cranmer’s 1544 litany where an invocation of heavenly saints remained[5]:

“Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of our Savior Jesus Christ. Pray for us All holy Aungels and Archaungels and all holye orders of blessed spirites. Praye for us. All holy patriarkes, and Prophetes, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, & Virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven: Praye for us.”

A Commemorative Form: The next prayer book published in 1549 collated together the 1544 and 1536 reforms. But the single invocation quoted above was removed. This omission represented a final shift away in devotions from the orderly host in heaven towards Christ’s commonwealth on earth; e.g., “God save the King”, et al. This liturgical development in the prayer book basically translated the sacred order in heaven to the emerging order in the national church. As Laud’s book said, “Everlasting God, which hast ordained and constituted the services of all Angels and men in a wonderful order”. The wonderful order of men on earth was recalled with every state prayer found in the BCP and royal primers of the period, reminding men of their common parentage(s) yet hierarchic loyalties to church, council, and Crown[6]. The 1547 Homily on Obedience parallels the earthly to heavenly order, “Almighty God hath created and appointed all things in heaven, earth and waters, in a most excellent and perfect order. In heaven he hath appointed distinct and several orders and states of Archangels and Angels. In earth he hath assigned and appointed Kings, Princes, with other Governors under them, in all good and necessary order.” (Prayer Book and Homily, p. 73) The emphasis on the terrestrial was evident in the BCP’s litany as well as prayer for whole church. In both, the top of the earthly hierarchy was the Crown, followed by royal seed, then bishops, nobles, and people. By 1552 the focus from the heavenly saints to the terrestrial Kingdom was complete. For instance, the Whole Church Prayer in 1549 earlier read, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s church”, but in 1552 and later editions the phrase “militant here in earth” was added. The litany followed the same course of reform.

Before it was removed, the 1549 Whole Church prayer was similar to the 1544 litany, only briefly mentioning the heavenly procession:

“And here we do geve unto thee moste high praise, and heartie thankes, for the wonderfull grace and vertue, declared in all thy sainctes, from the begynning of the worlde: And chiefly in the glorious and moste blessed virgin Mary, mother of thy sonne Jesu Christe our Lorde and God, and in the holy Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles and Martyrs, whose examples (O Lorde) and stedfastnes in thy fayth, and kepyng thy holy commaundementes, graunt us to folowe”

But notice the 1549 saint-prayer above was commemorative rather than intercessory, so even at this early Edwardian date England had acquired a format that would define future reformed catholic petitions. Following the 1562 homily on prayer, we are instructed that only the Father has the attributes to answer those who call upon him. Meanwhile, only the Son has the favor to advocate our behalf. Thus prayers could neither be addressed to nor requested of saints without tarnishing the Triune God’s glory[7]. Yet the virtues demonstrated in mortal lives could indeed be remembered, even asked for. So, the homilist says, “not that we should put any religion in worshipping of them, or praying unto them; but that we should honor them by following their virtuous and godly life” (Prayer Book and Homily, p. 223). The 1536 Ten Articles said the same, “there may be representers of virtue and good example, and that they also be by occasion the kindlers and stirrers of men’s minds, and make men oft to remember and lament their sins and offences, especially images of Christ and our Lady” (Formularies, p. 28).

Principally written by Melancthon in 1536, the Wittenburg Concord, by which the English Ten Articles were a reply and closely framed, likewise said, “We do not reject the remembrance of saints and the celebration of their days, but for the following reasons consider that it is beneficial and Christian to keep their remembrance” (art. 16). The Concord then provided three causes: 1. “God wanted to set before Christendom examples in whom he might show that he pleases to be gracious”; 2. “to hold before the people examples of faith and of other virtues, so that we may follow after them, each one his own calling”; 3. “we should thank God that he gave these gifts to the saints, and they should be praised for having really used God’s gifts and resisted the desire of the flesh to squander”. Melanchthon ended the article quoting fathers,

“This veneration of the saints we permit in the sense only St. Basil and St. Jerome speak of it, for Basil speaks thus in his sermon concerning the martyr Gordius: “The saints do not need our praises for their salvation, but we need to remember them in order to follow their example.” In another sermons he says: ‘To praise and bless the martyrs is the same thing as to admonish the Church to follow their examples and their virtues”. (Bray, p. 159)

Martin Bucer, agreeing with Melanchthon’s commendation said,

“we teach that the blessed saints who lie in the presence of or Lord Christ and of whose lives we have biblical or other trustworthy accounts, ought to be commemorated in such a way, that the congregation is shown what graces and gifts their God and Father and ours conferred upon them through our common Saviour and that we should give thanks to God for them, and rejoice with them as members of the one body over those graces and gifts, so that we may be strongly provoked to palce greater confidence in the grace of God for ourselves, and to follow the example of their faith.”

By 1549 common prayer already had a regular form for commemorating saints, exemplified not only in the prayer book but in the collect for All Saints Day:

“O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen[8]“

A similar one emphasizing the examples of saints can be read in the 1928 BCP’s Whole Church prayer:

“And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom.”

A favorite, more embellished style is the prayer of commemoration found within the Society of King Charles Martyr’s Liturgical Manual (see graphic above) where the collect for Jan. 30th reads,

“Blessed Lord, in whose sigh the death of thy Saints is precious: We magnify thy Name for thine abundant grace bestowed upon thy servant, King Charles of England, by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Savior, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto blood, and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his courage and constancy, his meekness and patience, and great charity; and all for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.”

Red Letter Saints: English divines followed the criteria of Cranmer and Bucer, eliminating ‘legendary saints’ and dividing the remainder into biblical and historic kinds. However, Anglican theology retained a hesitancy regarding the dearly departed. Greater saints remained. The Ten Articles said, “they be thus to be honored, because they be known the elect persons of Christ, because they be passed in godly life out of this transitory world, because they already do reign in glory with Christ” (Formularies, p. 29). But in the morning prayer liturgy, the Te Deum reads, “We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge. We therefore pray thee, help thy servants, whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood. Make them to be numbered with thy saints, in glory everlasting. O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine heritage. Govern them, and lift them up forever” (1928 BCP, p. 10-11). The biblical saints were those disciples & apostles found in scripture; otherwise known as ‘red-letter saints’, designated by red type in the prayer book which indicated their ‘festive’ significance. Whereas the historical saints not mentioned in scripture (the ‘churchy” ones), often british kings and ancient doctors, went by the moniker as ‘black-letter’. But these were downplayed with no necessary festivity attached. Legendary saints or events (e.g, the Assumption of Mary) and those martyrs who battled for papacy (like Thomas Becket) were promptly eliminated. Black-letter saints pertaining to England’s history and the primitive church slowly gained ground, starting in 1552 with Clement and Lawrence. Others made gradual comebacks, appearing first in Tudor primers and then in the 1662 prayer book[9]. The 1662 is notable for adding new saints and days of commemoration unique to Anglican history, namely, King Charles I martyr (who was beheaded by army millenarians January 30th,1649) and the 1660 Restoration the Crown, Charles II.

Black-letter saints usually had no collects and propers [10]. More often lesser saints were given secular or mneumetic functions with such times/places for bill collection, street names, college chapters, almonries, hospitals, etc.. Black and some red-letter saints might have local observances depending upon the indulgence of the King and/or bishops, “And likewise we must keep holydays unto God, in memory of him and his saints, upon such days as the church hath ordained their memories to be celebrated; except they be mitigated and moderated by the assent and commandment of us, the supreme head and the ordinaries” (Formularies, p. 30). But Edward and Elizabeth actually restrained the increase of black-letter days partly because too many holy days, rather than promoting godliness encouraged idleness while discouraging charity, “that it shall profit more their soul’s health, if they do bestow that on the poor and needy, which they would have bestowed upon the said images or relics” (Bray, p. 176). Injunctions against veneration of saints were probably more pastoral than dogmatic. The1539 Abrogation of Holy Days was similar in this regard about the vice of idleness, Cromwell’s Goodly Primer reading:

“First, that the feast of dedication of the Church shall in all places throughout this realm be celebrated and kept on the first Sunday of the month of October for ever, and upon none other day. Item, that the feast of the patron of every Church within this realm, called commonly the Church holyday, shall not from henceforth be kept or observed as a holy day as heretofore hath been used, but that it shall be lawful to all and singular persons, resident or dwelling within this realm, to go to their work, occupation, or mystery, and the same truly to exercise and occupy upon the said feast, as upon any other workday, except the said feast of the Church holyday such as else universally observed as a holyday by this ordinance following…it may be lawful for every man to go to his work or occupation upon the same, as upon any other workday, except always the feasts of the Apostles, of our blessed Lady, and of St. George, and thus the four Evangelists, and Mary Magdalene.” (Three Primers, p.331-2)

Calendar saint days solemnize both locality and “ethnos”. Though many shrines and reliquaries were demolished and outlawed during the reformation, the ‘reformed catholic’ keeping of biblical and trustworthy historical saints continued the memory of sacred people and land. With every wave of conquest arriving upon Britain (e.g., the Anglo-Saxon, then Norman races), so too followed their saints, stratified and collected into the BCP calendar. While the first prayer book was rather barebone, both black and red-letter saint days increased. When James I introduced prayer books adapted for Ireland and Scotland their calendars were edited to incorporate saints peculiar to the celtic ethnos. Inside these 17th century editions can be found men of holy memory like Columba and Patrick. A personal favorite is the 1637 Scottish prayer book where numerous Northumbrian saints appear–Kings Edwin & Oswald, Bede, Aidan, Colmán of Lindisfarne, et al.– hearkening back to a period when tribal kings ruled lesser realms like Mercia, Sussex, Kent. Prayer books from continuing churches contain feast days of local significance for Tudor and Carolinian divines like Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, William Laud, Lancelot Andrewes, and William Law. More recent doctors remembered in the calendar might include William Muhlenberg, John Hobart, and the White & Seabury consecrations.

A reformed catholic treatment of saints seems preconditional to understanding the even more sticky subject of Protestant prayers for the departed. I hope to look at how kingship might be reconstructed within magisterial protestantism through the field of certain liturgical customs. Sainthood was one way to memorialize the deceased. In many ways, magisterial protestantism never broke from catholicism but continued it with varying degrees of non-dogmatic prohibitions (thus accounting for national differences between, say, German and English). The English treatment probably was more conservative, eliminating only those saints either caked in fabulous legend or serving as props for Papacy. Anglican liturgy, therefore, is simplified with a modest saint-cultus that allows history and time sacralised through the Calendar. Saints were often signs or focal points for locality.
Next: A Protestant Dirge

Footnotes:
[1.] Perhaps ‘reformed catholic or ‘protestant catholic’ are likewise oxymoronic. However, these terms represent the center of what might be also called “northern catholic”. The Northern Catholic is best represented by the German and English churches of the 16th century. The German churches, like the later British ones, would undergo successive royal marriages/treaties, culminating in the Prussian Union Church of Frederick William III, which joined Lutheran and Reformed congregations in Germany under a system of state-elected superintendents. The confession and liturgy of the Prussian church was close to the German Reformed (“Altered”). “Altered” means those later confessions modified or somehow part of a formal dialogue with the Augsburg 1530.
[2.] German princes first called for free general at the Diet of Speyer 1526, invoking the older national principle used at the Council of Constance in 1415. Pope and Emperor later confirmed the German demand for synod in 1535. After a false start at Mantura in 1537, coupled with some interesting preliminary hearings at Ratisbon in 1541, the Western Council was finally held at Trent in 1545. But Roman packing of legates compounded by a Lutheran military upset with treaty at Passau interrupted the Council’s first session. Possibilities for future reconciliation between Germans and Romans further deteriorated and finally dried up after the death of Pope Julius III. His successor, Pius IV, was extremely anti-protestant. Therefore a surprising difference existed between early and late-Tridentine convocations. By1562 any optimistic outcome with Trent came to an end, and whatever promises Trent might have held to satisfy Lutherans was hollowed out by Papacy.
[3.] another reform not mentioned here was the earlier division of christian dead for saints vs. souls. This amounted to removing all references to purgatory and props thereof. In the calendar “All Souls” (Nov. 2) was omitted while “All Saints” (Nov. 1st) continued, becoming a general memorial day for all christian departed. Theologically, what both the living and the departed shared was the expectation for the consummation of all things– namely the bodily resurrection of those faithful and last judgement.
[4.]the 1536 injunction (c.4) stated, “to the intent that all superstition and hypocrisy, crept into divers men’s hearts, may vanish away, they shall not set forth or extol any images, relics or miracles for any superstition or lucre, nor allure the people by any enticements ot the pilgrimage of any saint, otherwise than is permitted in the Articles…as though it were proper or peculiar to that saint to give this commodity or that, seeing all goodness, health, and grace ought to be both asked an looked for only of God” (Bray, p. 176) These injunctions carried forward into the 1538 and 1547 canons. The 1559 injunctions (C.23) added, “Also that they shall take away, utterly extinct and destroy all shrines, covering of shrines, all tables and candlesticks, trundles or rolls of ware, pictures, paintings and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glasses, windows or elsewhere within their churches or houses. And they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses.” (p. 340-1). Not only shrines, but the 1559 injunctions C.35 forbade veneration of saints in private homes.
[5]. A discussion of heavenly saints are deserving. The BCP’s Morning Prayer provides the Apostle’s Creed which confesses a belief in the “communion of saints”. The canticle, Benedicite omnia opera Domini  (1928 BCP, p. 12-13), says, “O ye Servants of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify Him for ever. O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him forever”. This doxology resembles the prayer of whole church, beginning with “Israel” and ending with “holy and humble Men”, as if bookends. The order of heaven does not exclude a similar kind on earth. It is too bad greater heavenly saints per 1544 version have not made their way back into the litany or whole church prayer as they indeed part of Israel, God’s Kingdom on earth as in heaven yet commemorative according to the Form discussed above.
[6.] this can be further studied in noteable expositions on the fifth commandment as well the the Anglcian Homily on Obedience. Martin Luther’s commentary on the Fifth Commandment (which he enumerates as the Fourth Commandment) in his Large Catechism. He states, “among us there must necessarily be such inequality and ordered difference, and therefore God commands it to be observed, that you obey me as your father, and that I have the supremacy.” This natural inequality among men is an outworking of fidelity to the Fifth Commandment. Supremacy is also the term used by the English Crown to describe his rule in the Church.
[7.] “The sum is this, that we must come to call upon God the Father, resting upon affiance of the promises made to us by Christ, and trusting upon his intercession, leaving all respect of our own worthiness, and framing our prayers, as it were, out of the mouth of Christ; which doing, as it is most agreeable to the truth of scriptures, so is it most far from the faults of arrogance and persumption” (Nowell’s Catechism, p.89)
[8.] The 1928 catholic revision of the prayer book, that restored some Henrician practices, gives two generic formats for saints:
“Almighty and everlasting God, who dost enkindle the flame of thy love in the hearts of the Saints; Grant to us, they humble servants, the same faith and power of love; that, as we rejoice in their triumphs, we may profit by their examples; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Or this: O Almighty God, who hast called us to faith in thee, and hast compassed us about with so great a cloud of witnesses; Grant that we, encouraged by the good examples of thy Saints, and especially of thy servant [Saint ----], may persevere in running the race that is set before us, until at length, through thy mercy, we, with them, attain to thine eternal joy; through him who is the author and finisher of our faith, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.“
[9.] the prayer book of 1662 was that liturgy restored from 1643, after the English civil war 1642-51 whereupon Charles II, in order to save the church from disestablishment, was asked by presbyterians to return to the Throne. The 1662 was the first prayer book published with respective uniformity acts for each British kingdom. Nonetheless, variations in the Calendar for Scottish and Irish saints were made to better suit national and local customs.
[10.] Collects are short, fixed prayers said throughout daily liturgy (e.g., matins, the litany, communion, etc.). Propers are specific to communion, found at the beginning of the canon. Between the two kinds a saint might be commemorated four or five times in a single day. Thus, the common liturgical difference between biblical and historical saints is quite significant. Local usages may be enjoyed given bishopric approval/discretion.

Bibliography:
Gerald Lewis Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, James Clarke & Co. 1994
Various, Formularies of Faith put forth by Authority during the reign of Henry VIII, Oxford. 1825
Various, Three Primers put forth in the Reign of Henry VIII. Oxford. 1890
Prayer Book and Homily Society, Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in the Churches, London. 1986

Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church beginning with late-Henrician standards.

Henry VIII

Henry VIII’s biography is perhaps the most abused and defamed of 16th century reigns. Protestant scholars often treat Henry as a re-converted Roman Catholic. Meanwhile, for Roman Catholics, Henry’s several divorces preoccupy his church policy. But little is known about Henry’s genuine conviction as a churchman, much less head of the church militant in England. Like Elizabeth and James who succeeded him, Henry was an accomplished and well-read theologian in his own right, convinced of England’s catholicism. His churchmanship might be identified with those earlier Erasmian catholics– humanists who retrieved antiquity through original manuscripts, study of the fathers, and ancient texts. How Henry understood the old faith is more definitively known by his 1543 Catechism and 1536 Ten Articles, where the six articles delineate conservative (supposedly adiaphoric) boundaries on ceremony and discipline.

In a very interesting study on Henry VIII and Lutheranism (Neelak Serawlook Tjernagle, 1965), Neelak describes Henry upon his death neither professing Roman Catholicism nor Lutheranism. Henry died an Anglican:

“Henry breathed his last at Whitehall early on the morning of Jan. 1547. To prophesy the king’s death was treason in England, and therefore not until the attending physicians saw that his death was very near was it suggested that the might desire spiritual ministrations at his approaching death. Those near him might have wondered whether, in his last moments, he would call for the Catholic bishop, Stephen Gardiner, who had been the leading member of the Privy Council for the last years. They might have wondered whether he would request the formal last rites of the Roman Catholic Church and the ministrations of the foremost English son of the faith of his childhood. But there was no question in Henry’s mind. He asked that Thomas Cranmer be summoned.. When the archbishop arrived at the palace, the end was near. Cranmer asked the king to give some acknowledgement of his faith and trust in Christ. The king could only claps Cranmer’s hand. It was his last gesture. “And from that day to his own last agony the Archbishop left his beard to grow in witness of his grief”. To him alone the king had given a warm and enduring affection. ” (p. 247)

The Henrician period is formative for Anglicans. It not only severed the CofE from the Papacy, but the formulas approved by convocation and crown established a framework and substance for religion which Edward VI and Elizabeth would only slightly expand upon, namely, reforming the mass. No matter popular opinion, the standards stand above individual peculiarities– e.g., Cambridge’s calvinist faculty during the 1580′s, or, for example, Bp. Stokesley’s advocacy to realign toward Eastern churches in the 1530′s. This foundation and memory of King Henry might likewise be called “Cranmer’s Beard”. To better understand Henrician learning, I suggest this study on the Henry’s Media Via as well as the following book where the primary texts with royal seal can be read for themselves:

Various. Formularies of Faith put Forth by Authority During the Reigns of Henry VIII. Oxford, 1825.

For those interested in the Henrician Settlement’s relation to wider vera-Protestantism, see my belabored article: The Christmas Day Articles.

Andrewes Hall is a Theological College affiliated with the Reformed Episcopal Church.  I stumbled across its website yesterday and was taken with the College’s statement of doctrinal standards.  Personally, I found the statement to be an excellent summary of the classical Anglican point of view.  This should not surprise anyone, however, given that I am very devoted to Lancelot Andrewes and consider among a handful of the most important Anglican divines.   In any event, I thought I would share the principles for discussion.

“One Canon”

“Two Testaments”

“Three Creeds”

“Four Councils”

“Five Centuries”

One further note…