Supremacy in Morning Prayer

August 18, 2011 by Charles

A number of times the question of the state prayers in American Morning office has been brought up as if this somehow invalidates certain points made criticizing the 1928 litany (see the Litany’s Faldstool— especially the comment section). The 1928 inserted a petition for the US President where the Crown and royal seed formerly stood. The problem with this insertion is it equates the US Presidency to Christian kingship. Christian kingship not only is rooted in the king as ‘first’ member of the local church, but in the English tradition, it possesses a sacramental and ministerial character that the modern Presidency repudiates. For classical high churchmen, there are further considerations regarding the order of the church under the dignity of Supremacy, and if this same dignity ought to be given to an office that constitutionally rejects duties in the local church and rendering it more or less unitarian in nature. Consequently, the 1892 litany was suggested as a correction to the 1928. However, the MP/EP state prayers was not addressed.

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.

Posted in Anglicanism | 12 Comments

12 Responses

on August 18, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Reply Matthew Weber

In 1785, the office of the President of the United States did not yet exist. There was a President of the Congress, but that wasn’t the same thing.
on August 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply Charles

Hi Fr. Weber,
Yes. You are right. The prayer in the 1785 spoke very generally of the magistrate. This reminds me something of the American prayer for state of whole church or the litany (until 1928).Both speak of “christian civil rulers” in a very generic way. I actually like this, and would readily embrace the 1785/6 morning prayer collect for civil authority if it wasn’t for certain commitments to BCP’s already in circulation (DoW’s 2011 or the 1928). Anyway, the 1785 EP collect for civil rulers reads:

“¶ A Prayer for our Civil Rulers.
O Lord our heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the Universe, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers, upon earth; most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold all in authority, legislative, judicial and executive, in these United States; and so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way: Endue them plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant them in health and wealth long to live; and finally, after this life, to attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Amen

I wish the prayer survived into the later BCP general intercessions. As the 1928 presently stands, those prayers between the collect for grace and prayer of St. Chrysostom are left to the rector’s discretion, adding or subtracting, w/ further collects allowed from the BCP’s chapter on ‘Prayers and Thanksgivings’. If a person was going to be very conservative in their use of the 1928, the sequence I posted above would be the least creative. The 1785 ‘prayer for civil rulers’ probably could be added with Bishopric approval, said after the prayer for the clergy. I know some ministers like to privately change the “our bishops and other clergy” to “all bishops and other clergy” in the clergy collect. If one-word changes like this are permitted, then I imagine more of the same could be done, suited for local practice, keeping a bookmark for supremacy, etc.. I also believe the 1785 prayer above is much closer to the broadness the 1801 articles intended (between the states) when rephrasing article 37.
on August 26, 2011 at 12:40 am | Reply Lue-Yee Tsang

Aha, thanks a lot!
on August 26, 2011 at 12:47 am | Reply Lue-Yee Tsang

By the way, I think federalism also raises questions here. If the states have established churches severally (as I believe they have the constitutional right to do), but the U.S. Constitution maintains its prohibition on national-level establishment, how will this affect prayers? In Britain, of course, with the imperial crown as the head and supreme governor, this was easy, but in America the situation’s rather more complex.
- on August 26, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Reply Charles
  
  Hi Lue-Yee, Yes. Christian pluralism really makes a mess of things. More on this soon. Meanwhile, let me plug your recent article on local unity. Another example was the close unity achieved between reformed and lutheran churches between 1536 and 1541 under the labor of Melanchthon, Capito, and Bucer. A return to confessionalism very much seems a key component. I think your reading of the constitution’s original intent for states to establish churches is totally correct.
on September 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Reply Charles

Hackney Hub suggested something similar for the Litany. My criticisms of the 1928 litany can be read here. The revision of the Hub is here.

I really like HH’s MP revision, but would reverse the order of country to church, rendering it as below:
The prayer for Our Country is found on p. 36 of the BCP, in the chapter ‘Prayers and Thanksgivings’
on September 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Reply Charles

An interesting aside on the 1785 collect for civil rulers as well as insight on the Litany’s composition. This quote is from the Life and Correspondence of the Right Reverend Samuel Seabury. Boston 1881. by E. Edward Beardsley, p. 379-381,

“Among the first things to receive attention in the revision of the Litany were the changes in the prayers for civil rulers. A newly constituted government was to be recognized, and care must be taken to make these prayers conform to its existence. In the “proposed book” [1785] what is now “a prayer for the President of the United States and all in civil authority” was “a prayer for our civil rulers,” which followed in language more closely the corresponding prayer in the English liturgy, and was not to be used when the Litany was read. There was no President at that date, and hence it was a petition for “all in authority, legislative, judicial, and executive, in these United States;” but in 1789 the government was settled under the Federal Constitution, with General Washington at its head, and the prayer was changed accordingly, and “health and prosperity” substituted for “health and wealth”.

The collocation of the rubric was changed also, not, it has been claimed, by authority of the convention, but of the committee appointed to prepare matters for the press and superintend the printing. The tradition is very well authenticated that Dr. Smith, who was specially charged with the publication, deliberately changed the order, assigning this, among other reasons, that General Washington never attended church except in the morning, and therefore would never hear the prayer unless it was appointed to be used on Sundays and all litany days.

The late Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury, a grandson of the bishop, who inherited his intellectual qualities, wrote a letter in the autumn of 1868 to a clergyman of the Church who had become interested in the history of the rubric, and an extract from it bears so strongly on the question in hand that the temptation to produce it in this connection cannot be resisted:–

‘The use of the Collect for the President on a day when the Litany is said is a palpable violation of the principles on which the services of the Prayer Book are arranged.
Moreover the General Convention which first put forth the Prayer-Book never intended that the said Collect should be used on a Litany day. My father more than once told me that when the Prayer Book was first printed he and others were examining it in the Bishop’s (Seabury) parlor, the Bishop walking up and down the room at the time that he or some one of the company expressed surprise that the Litany did not come in at its old and proper place; that his father (the bishop) told them that it did so come in, and that the Collect for the President was not directed to be used when the Litany was used; that they then showed him the book, that he looked at it and gave a tremendous scowl and said not a word.
The fact is that the Collect was, I believe, foisted into the present place by the Whig Dr. Smith, who was on the committee of Publication, contrary to the intention of and order of the Convention.
I have often mentioned this circumstance and I thought it well to give it in writing.
The surprise and disapprobation of Bishop Seabury at the time are undoubted. That the collect was smuggled in by the Committee is perhaps less certain, though to my mind it hardly admits of a doubt.'”

A very strong argument for using the 1785 Litany. Also, some background on the 1785 vs. 1789 collects. When reading the 1785 state prayers, it is useful to consider the time of their composition– when the American form of government was yet “unsettled”.
on October 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Reply Lee Poteet

Two things. First, the tittle “President of the United States” did exist at that the time of the Articles of Confederation which means that although their was a change in constitutions and in the powers of the President, there was in fact a continuation of government.

Secondly, it was George Washington himself who asked for the writing of the collects for the president. When he was to be sworn in as the first president under the Constitution, he first attended services at St. Paul’s Chapel and received communion and then went to where he would take the oath. For many years his pew as President was preserved on the North side of the chapel but I don’t know if that has been continued since the TEO fell into the hands of the Lords of Mordor.

What we in the Continuum have to realize is that Seabury was the only one of the original American bishops who was truly Anglican. The others had already been infected with germ of secular humanism which is why they originally attempted to foist the Liturgy of Comprehension off on the new American Church. Thankfully they were stopped by the English bishops just as the Convocations kept it from replacing the Book of Common Prayer at the time of William and Mary.

1928 is not perfect but we must realize that from the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I there has been an active attempt to destroy Anglicanism and the Church of England and its natural daughters. It still walks among us an we must always be on guard to resist its works. At the same time we need to prepare for a better book to replace it in the future. That book should be as free as possible of the plain defects of 1559/1662 forced upon the Church of England by the Puritan thugs whose real devotion was not to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the ancient Church but to the new inventions of Calvinism.
on June 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Reply The Royal Issue | Anglican Rose

[…] throughout the BCP’s liturgy– the litany, ordinal, the communion intercessions, and the daily offices. During the 16th to 19th centuries an Oath of Allegiance was added to subscription standards. […]
on July 25, 2013 at 10:07 pm | Reply The Litany’s Faldstool | River Thames Beach Party

[…] a similar article: Supremacy in Offices) The faldstool in English ceremony was the movable seat otherwise reserved in the chancel as the […]
on July 25, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Reply The Litany’s Faldstool | Anglican Rose

[…] essay was originally written for River Thames (along with Supremacy in the Offices) and, while I normally do not cross-post, this entry is part of a longer series discussing […]
on November 29, 2014 at 2:19 pm | Reply Charles

More thoughts on reconstruction of Ordered Authority in the Prayer Book, this time with the American Whole State Prayer and term “Christian Rulers”. See “Supreme Rulers”.