The Book of Common Prayer and the New Settlement

By Robin G. Jordan

In my previous article, "The Thirty-Nine Article and the New Settlement," I voiced the concerns of confessional Anglicans about the place of the Thirty-Nine Articles in the new settlement in North America in the twenty-first century and called for the organization of confessional Anglicans in defense of the truth of the gospel, which the Articles safeguard. Confessional Anglicans like myself are not only concerned about the place of the Articles in the new settlement but also the place of two other important Anglican formularies-The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and The Ordinal of 1661. Common Cause is proposing that the new North American province should be built upon the foundation of the Common Cause Theological Statement. What does this statement tell us about the place of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal in the Common Cause Partnership and its future place in a new province built upon the statement as a foundation?

The Common Cause Theological Statement articulates the following position on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1662 Ordinal:

"We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship."

First, the statement tells us that the Common Cause Partners receive the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal attached to the same as "a" standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline. In other words, they accept the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as one of a number of standards for Anglican doctrine and discipline. Are these other standards are "three Catholic Creeds," "the teaching of the first four Councils, and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures," and "the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562" also referred to in the statement? The statement, however, does not say so. The statement only states that the Common Cause Partners accept them. The other standards of doctrine and discipline are not mentioned in the statement, which leaves the individual Partners to determine what they are.

Historically three formularies have formed the standard of doctrine for Anglicans: they are the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion ratified by the Church of England in 1571 and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. These three formularies are the "one touchstone of genuine Anglicanism". [1] They are three of Anglicanism’s greatest treasures. [2]

In my previous article, "The Thirty-Nine Articles and the New Settlement," I drew attention to the token place that the Articles occupy in the Common Cause Partnership and are likely to occupy in the new province. J. I. Packer has shown that the Articles may claim the authority proper to a creed. [3] The Common Cause Theological Statement quotes Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher. "The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own." With these words the statement dismisses genuine Anglicanism’s confession of faith.

Like the Thirty Nine Articles, the Common Cause Theological Statement gives the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal no voice in the Common Cause Partnership. They are a token standard of doctrine and discipline. On this basis it would seem that they are not likely have any voice in the new province.

The Common Cause Partners’ continued use of two service books—the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer—that differ substantially in doctrine from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal at key points, appears to support this contention. So does the AMiA’s proposal that the Common Cause Partners and the new province adopt a new service book, An Anglican Prayer (2008), which the Anglican Mission compiled with the assistance of the Prayer Book Society of the USA. Like the doctrine of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1979 Prayer Book, the doctrine of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) differs substantially from that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. For example, the classic Anglican Prayer Book excludes any repetition of Calvary in the Eucharist. The entire structure of the 1662 rite underlines the truth that the only sacrifice that may be viewed as a legitimate part of worship in the Holy Communion is "the responsive sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that the faithful communicants offered after receiving the bread and the wine". [4] All three service books—the 1928 BCP, the 1979 BCP, and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008)—give liturgical expression to the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist in the 1928 BCP and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) can be interpreted as a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins for both the living and dead. The 1979 BCP teaches "a more modest conception of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist". This doctrine is implied in most of its eucharistic prayers and is explicit in its catechism. The description of the Eucharist in the 1979 Catechism is "is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself… it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering". [5]

In 1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, Titus 2:1, and Titus 2:6-8 the apostle Paul points to what it matters what Prayer Book we use. The repeated use of a particular Prayer Book over a period of time will influence what we believe. It can expose us to particular interpretations of Scripture that read into or impose upon Scripture meanings that "cannot with certainty be read out of Scripture," that cannot be shown "to be unambiguously expressed by one or more of the human writers". [6] It can subject us to textual material that embodies doctrines that, while they may have the sanction of tradition, are not gathered from Scripture or agreeable to Scripture. It can also expose us to usages, or liturgical practices, which have been incorporated into the Prayer Book because they are more or less ancient and which, while they may in themselves not be prohibited by Scripture, nonetheless give expression to doctrines that are contrary to God’s Word.

In its Solemn Declaration of Principles the AMiA commits itself to the Thirty Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as its doctrinal standards. But the Anglican Mission is proposing a new service book for the use of the Common Cause Partners and the new province, which strays from the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal. The Anglican Mission is not the only Common Cause Partner displaying a worrisome inconsistency between the doctrine it affirms in its declaration of principles and the doctrine it expresses in its liturgy. The Reformed Episcopal Church, while averring in public statements its support of the doctrine of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal, has adopted a new service book that strays not only from the doctrine of these formularies but also departs from the principles articulated in its historical Declaration of Principles. The new service book is haled as bringing the REC Prayer Book closer to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal, wherein fact it actually does the opposite. Neither Common Cause Partner appears to see the inconsistency.

In the AMiA and other Common Cause Partners evangelicals are using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, two service books that give liturgical expression to doctrines that have no warrant in the Bible or are inconsistent with the Bible and which evangelicals have historically rejected. These doctrines are contradictory to the biblical-Reformation theology of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. The contemporary language of the services of the 1979 BCP may partially explain its use by evangelicals but it does not explain their use of the 1928 BCP. Evangelicals using these service books appear to fail to see the inconsistency between the doctrinal beliefs that evangelicals have historically held and the liturgies that they are presently using. This suggests that they may not have a good grasp of the connection between believing and praying. It further suggests that they have become desensitized to the unbiblical doctrines in these books and do not recognize them for what they are—inconsistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies.

This state of affairs is not a good sign for the new province. It is certainly does not portend well for the historical Anglican formularies as doctrinal standards in the new province. We have only to look at the mess in The Episcopal Church and other liberal Western provinces that have not given more than a token place to these formularies to see what the future holds in store for the new province.

Second, the Common Cause Theological Statement tells us that the Common Cause Partnership receive, "with the Books which preceded it," the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as the standard of the Anglican tradition of worship. Note that the statement says that the Common Cause Partnership accepts the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as the Anglican worship tradition standard "with the Books which preceded it." Four Books preceded the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal--the first Edwardian BCP of 1549, the second Edwardian BCP of 1552, the Elizabethan BCP of 1559, and the 1604 revision of the 1559 Prayer Book. While they differ in some ways from each other, the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books are substantially the same Book. They all follow the Reformed model first introduced in 1552 Prayer Book. The 1549 Prayer Book, on the other hand, is modeled on the medieval service books and the German Church Orders. It was intended as a transitional book and it is susceptible to interpretation as teaching doctrines that the English Reformers rejected. It is a book that has historically been favored by High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics. It has been used to justify the movement of Prayer Books like the 1928 BCP and the 1928 Proposed English BCP away from the biblical-Reformed theology of the 1662 BCP and closer to the theology of the medieval service books. Its inclusion in the Common Cause standard for the Anglican worship tradition is clearly intended to permit the continued use of the 1928 BCP in the Common Cause Partnership, a Book that is claimed is to be close to the 1549 Prayer Book but actually is closer to the medieval service books. For example, the 1549 Prayer Book tries to avoid anything suggestive of eucharistic sacrifice. The 1928 Prayer Book, on the other hand, directs the priest to offer up the bread and wine both at the Offertory and after the Words of Institution in the Prayer of Consecration, a practice found in the medieval service books and associated with the medieval doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The 1549 Cannon contains nothing like these words in the 1928 Prayer of Consecration, "…with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee…". The inclusion of the 1549 Prayer Book greatly weakens the position of the 1662 BCP as the principal standard for the Anglican worship tradition in the Common Cause Partnership. In a new province built upon the foundation of Common Cause Theological Statement the 1662 Prayer Book would be a token standard for the Anglican worship tradition just as it would be a token standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline. It would have no real voice. The 1928 BCP would continue to be used in the new province and would occupy the position of de facto standard for the Anglican worship tradition in the province.

The contemporary English services in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), which the AMiA is proposing for use in the Common Cause Partnership and the new province, are based largely upon the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book. While its editors claimed that an earlier version of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), authorized for limited trial use in the AMiA, contained the services of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 in contemporary English, they drop this claim in the present edition. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) clearly adopts the 1928 BCP as the standard for the Anglican worship tradition. The Book contains a so-called " 1662 English Order" for the Holy Communion part of the Eucharist from the Prayer of Consecration on but it includes liturgical elements from the 1928 Prayer Book and 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, which change its theology. In promoting the use of the Book not only in its own churches but also other Anglican jurisdictions in the United States and around the world, the AMiA is encouraging the making of the 1928 BCP the standard for the Anglican worship tradition throughout the world. This promotion of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) and with it the 1928 Prayer Book as the standard for the Anglican worship tradition contradicts AMiA’s own Solemn Declaration of Principles that commits the Anglican Mission to the Thirty Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal at its standard of doctrine and worship.

From my conversations with evangelicals in the AMiA, who are committed to the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal, I have gathered that they are not very happy with this development. They believe that the Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Mission had much greater input into An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) than they did. Some take the view that it may be the best that they can hope for but they are clearly not enchanted with the Book.

These two developments are not unrelated. They point to a vision of the new province that governs the direction of thinking in certain quarters of the Common Cause Partnership and in the Continuing Anglican churches. It envisions the new province as a continuation of the Episcopal Church before the church, in the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic view, went astray—before the church ordained women and adopted a second major revision of its Prayer Book. It is a time in the history of the Episcopal Church when the Thirty-Nine Articles were either interpreted in a fanciful, ahistorical manner and downplayed or ignored altogether. It is also a time in Episcopal Church history when the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal had no place in the church except as a historical curiosity: the fledgling Episcopal Church had used them before the adoption of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer. It was the heyday of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that, while it retained to a certain extent the form of the 1662 BCP, did not adhere to its biblical-Reformation theology. The 1928 BCP placed less emphasis upon human depravity and God’s wrath than its predecessors. It was also less penitential in tone. The doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice was not only given liturgical expression in the 1928 Communion Office but so was the doctrine of transubstantiation. The 1928 Communion Office contains liturgical elements that can be interpreted to teach not only the Real Presence but also transubstantiation—the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ. The 1928 Office of Baptism stressed the priest’s consecration of the water in the font instead of God’s sanctification of all water for the mystical washing away of sin. The 1928 Offices of Instruction and Confirmation Service adopted an Anglo-Catholic sacramental view of Confirmation, a significant departure from the 1662 Prayer Book’s Reformed catechetical view of Confirmation.

An examination of the history of the Episcopal Church suggests that the church may have first gone astray as far back as the adoption of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer. At the urging of Bishop Samuel Seabury the fledgling church adopted the Prayer of Consecration of the Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office of 1764. 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office was the work of two elderly Scottish Non-Juror bishops. They were the last of the surviving Usagers, a Scottish Non-Juror church party that taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ had not offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross.

"The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when He began to offer Himself for the sins of all men, i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist." [7]

Bishop Thomas Deacon in his Comprehensive View describes a proper celebration of the Eucharist from this standpoint. The priest, he writes

"does as Christ did...he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words "This is my Body," "This is my Blood" over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice....God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy’ Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue." [8]

The Scottish Non-Jurors had been sharply divided over the views of the Usagers. These two elderly bishops had outlived their opponents. [9] The original 1764 Prayer of Consecration expresses the Usager doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. This can be seen in "who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice etc." The word "there" contained in the 1662 Prayer of Consecration is omitted in keeping with the Usagers’ contention that Christ’s offering of himself was really made at the Eucharist. [10] The language that is used at the juncture in the prayer, where the priest offers up the bread and wine to God parallels the language that is used at this juncture in the medieval Roman Mass. [11]

The original 1764 Prayer of Consecration petitions that the bread and wine should "become the precious Body and Blood of thy dearly beloved Son." This suggests that that consecration changes the substance of the elements. The rubric before the distribution appears to acknowledge that the elements have undergone some kind of change. Instead of saying, "when he delivereth the bread, he shall say," as in the 1662 Communion Service, the rubrics say, "And when he…delivereth the sacrament of the body of Christ to others, he shall say." [12] In the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Office the Lord’s Prayer, Invitation to Communion, Confession of Sin, Absolution, Comfortable Words, and Prayer of Humble Access follow the Prayer of Consecration. The priest delivers the bread and the cup, using the 1549 Words of Distribution.

The Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office follows the pattern of the medieval service books in that the priest offers up the bread and wine at the Offertory and during the Prayer of Consecration. The 1928 Communion Office also follows this pattern.

While both the 1764 Prayer of Consecration and the 1549 Canon have a fully blown Epiclesis, 1764 Prayer of Consecration places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution and petitions God to bless and sanctify the elements with his Word and Holy Spirit. The 1549 Canon, however, places the Epiclesis before the Words of Institution and asks God to bless and sanctify the elements with his Holy Spirit and Word. The particular order of the 1764 Prayer of Consecration is related to its particular doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. It is the same order that is found in the 1928 Prayer of Consecration.

Bishop Seabury had lobbied for the adoption of the original 1764 Prayer of Consecration and other features of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office. The 1789 General Convention, however, adopted only a revised form of the Prayer of Consecration. The word "there" was restored to the phrase "who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice etc." The Penitential Preparation was moved to 1662 position before the Prayer of Consecration, the Prayer of Humble Access was inserted in the 1662 position after the Sanctus, and the Lord’s Prayer placed in the 1662 position after the distribution of communion. The priest was directed to set out at the Offertory as much bread and wine as would be needed. The 1764 rubric to offer up the bread and wine at the Offertory was not adopted.

Even with these changes the 1789 Communion Office is suspect from the perspective of the English Reformers, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The English Bishops may have accepted the 1789 Book of Common Prayer but their acceptance does not make the 1789 Communion Office any less suspicious. The 1789 Communion Office retained the offering of the bread and wine during the Prayer of Consecration and the words, "with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee…". Evangelicals initially rationalized this offering of the elements as an offering of the bread and wine for the holy use as the signs of tokens of Christ’s Body and Blood. But it had no scriptural authority and this lack of scriptural authority gave them an uneasy conscience. Those who were familiar with the doctrinal views of the Scottish Episcopal Church that had adopted the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office were cognizant that the Scottish Episcopal Church taught that this offering of the bread and wine was "a sacrifice representative of Christ's own meritorious sacrifice of himself; a sacrifice made to God, to put him in mind, as it were, of the all-sufficient sacrifice of his Son." [13] In the Scottish Episcopal Church the priest, standing with his back to the congregation, traditionally elevated the bread and wine at the words "with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee…". [14] Such elevation of the bread and wine was prohibited by the Thirty-Nine Article due to its association with the medieval doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They were increasingly aware that the Ritualists in the Episcopal Church were adopting this practice and teaching that the Eucharist was a sacrifice.

A primary reason that Bishop George David Cummins and a number of conservative evangelicals left the Episcopal Church in the 1870s was that they had come to the conclusion the Episcopal Church’s Prayer Book was defective. It contained undeveloped principles of a theology that was antithetical to the Protestant and reformed faith of the church. They saw no future for themselves in the Episcopal Church. [15] Their departure, however, removed a check against the development of this theology in the Episcopal Church.

With the adoption of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the first major revision of the Episcopal Church’s Prayer Book, their fears came to fruition. The changes introduced in the 1928 BCP officially moved the Episcopal Church some distance from the faith articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. The Episcopal Church, under the influence of the so-called "Catholic Revival," had already drifted far from that faith.

The Thirty-Nine Articles fence the road that has been dubbed the "Anglican Way." They state where Anglicans stand on a number of important issues. The Articles has never been a strong fence in the Episcopal Church because the clergy are not required to subscribe to them. During the nineteenth century holes were opened in this fence as the so-called "Catholic Revival" introduced into the Episcopal Church beliefs and practices that the Church of England had rejected at the Reformation in the sixteenth century or which had developed in the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and later. The Episcopal Church failed to close these holes and to strengthen and reinforce the fence. A fence is not going to work if it is not kept in good repair. Once holes are opened in one part of the fence is it surprising that eventually holes are opened in another part of the fence? One group after another followed the example of the Anglo-Catholics and tore holes in the fence and broke down parts of it. The denial of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the resurrection, the depravity of man, the salvation of man only by the name of Christ, and the sinlessness of Christ in the twenty-first century Episcopal Church is a natural consequence of the introduction of the doctrines of purgatory, veneration of images and relics, invocation of the saints, adoration of the sacramental species, eucharistic sacrifice, and transubstantiation in the nineteenth century Episcopal Church. One paved the way for the other by undermining the authority of the Bible in the Episcopal Church. When the part of the fence that was intended to keep out unreformed Catholic beliefs and practices was broken down, it was inevitable that the part of the fence intended to keep out beliefs and practices that the sixteenth century Reformers termed "Anabaptist" would follow.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer played a part in this process. It sanctioned doctrines and practices against which the fence of the Thirty-Nine Articles had been raised. It not only sanctioned these doctrines and practices but also spread them throughout the Episcopal Church. It helped to foster in Episcopalians a disregard for biblical authority and teaching and an acceptance of unscriptural beliefs and practices. It also established precedence for the prayer book revisions of the second half of the twentieth century. The 1928 BCP, in introducing far-reaching and even radical changes in the Prayer Book, inspired a later generation of Episcopalians to introduce farer-reaching and even more radical changes in the Prayer Book. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is the continuation of a process that the 1928 Prayer Book began.

Some would argue that, since the United States had gained political independence from the United Kingdom during the American Revolution, the Episcopal Church was justified in adopting its own separate and distinct Prayer Book tradition from that of the Church of England. The Episcopal Church had become an independent church. They claim the Episcopal Church’s independence from the Church of England provides adequate grounds for the church’s breach of theological continuity with the Church of England. The argument that the Episcopal Church is an independent church is frequently heard in liberal quarters of the Episcopal Church to justify the radical theological and moral innovations of the past forty years. But are the political independence of the United States from its mother nation and the ecclesiastical independence of the Episcopal Church from its mother church really adequate grounds for the adoption of a Prayer Book tradition that embodies beliefs different from the three principal Anglican formularies—the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal? Can such a Prayer Book tradition really be classified as Anglican? Unless we adopt an extremely loose definition of what is Anglican, as do the liberals, the answer is "no".

Let us look for a moment at how this notion of American independence has played out in recent years. Episcopal bishops would ordain women without authorization from their own church, much less consultation with the other Anglican provinces. Episcopal bishops would ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians and authorize the blessing of same gender unions in their dioceses before and after the 1998 Lambeth Conference in which the bishops of the Anglican Communion adopted a resolution stating that homosexual practice is not consistent with the Bible and they could not advise such ordinations and blessings. Over the objections of the primates of the Anglican Communion and despite repeated requests that the Episcopal Church should not take this unilateral action, the General Convention confirmed the election of a divorced man involved in a homosexual relationship as a bishop of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops consecrated him. By the logic of this argument, it is not only acceptable to have broken with the doctrine and worship of the Church of England but also to have proceeded with these innovations. American independence trumps the Anglican formularies. It trumps the Bible. It trumps Catholic tradition.

A related argument that is sometimes is heard is that after the American Revolution the Tories returned to England and they took the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with them. Why then should we use the 1662 Prayer Book in the United States almost 235 years later? Such an assertion is far from the truth. It betrays ignorance of the history of the Book of Common Prayer in the United States or intentional disregard of that history. First historical inaccuracy is that all the Tories returned to England. Some resettled in Canada, which was still a British possession. The second historical inaccuracy is that the Tories took the 1662 BCP with them. The 1662 Prayer Book with some alterations in what is known as the State Prayers, e.g. the Prayer for the King, was used in the United States for thirteen years after the War for Independence. [16] The 1785 Proposed Book of Common Prayer of the newly formed Episcopal Church was greatly influenced by the 1689 Proposed English Prayer Book, which had made a number of changes in the 1662 BCP with the intention of reconciling the Dissenters with the Church of England but had never been presented to Convocation or Parliament for approval. The 1785 Proposed BCP met with a storm of opposition, largely because it was not conservative enough and departed too much from the 1662 Book Prayer Book. It was strongly opposed by Bishop Seabury and the High Church party in the Episcopal Church. [17] The 1789 Book of Common Prayer, the first Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, was a fairly conservative revision of the 1662 BCP. Its most radical departure from the 1662 Prayer Book was its adoption of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. The 1789 Book of Common Prayer and its successor, the 1892 Book of Common Prayer, exhibit much greater continuity with the 1662 BCP than the 1928 Prayer Book.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is the most widely used Prayer Book in the Anglican Communion. The 1662 BCP has been translated into dozens of languages and dialects. The 1662 Prayer Book is still authorized for use in a number of Anglican provinces such as the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Australia, which have adopted alternative rites. Anglicans around the world recognize The Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 BCP, and the 1661 Ordinal as the standard of faith and worship for Anglicans. The 1662 Prayer Book is a major part of the heritage that all Anglicans share—those in the Anglican Communion and those outside the Communion. To dismiss the 1662 BCP as irrelevant to North American Anglicans is to dismiss the relevance of global Anglicanism and to take an extremely parochial view. The Jerusalem Statement certainly takes the position that the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 BCP, and the 1661 Ordinal are relevant for all Anglicans. Adherence to the Anglican beliefs expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the 1661 Ordinal is what set Anglicans apart from other Christians. The danger of such a parochial view is that it can lead to unilateral actions like those that The Episcopal Church took, which tore the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

Others would argue that it is a normal development for the Episcopal Church to move away from biblical-Reformation theology of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common and the 1662 Ordinal and the practices of the Elizabethan and Reformed Settlements. Churches evolve and their doctrine and worship evolves with them. The Episcopal Church cannot be expected to conform to the doctrines and worship of an earlier period.

Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and liberals both have made this argument—the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics for the changes in doctrine and worship that the so-called "Catholic Revival" and the subsequent adoption of the 1928 Book of Prayer introduced into the Episcopal Church and the liberals for the changes in doctrine and worship that the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer introduced into the church and for the radical theological and moral innovations of the past 40 years. Anglican by this definition is whatever a church that traces its origin to the Church of England believes and is doing at the present time.

This argument has been used to justify the introduction of the doctrine of sacramental salvation into the Episcopal Church. It has also been used to justify the normalization of homosexuality in the Episcopal Church. These examples come from two different periods in the history of the Episcopal Church. The same argument, however, was used in both instances.

A case may be made for altering and adapting forms of worship to conditions in the mission field provided that such changes in worship do not result in changes in doctrine. This is an important proviso. In the nineteenth century the Ritualists introduced a number of changes in the worship of the Church of England, claiming that they were trying to make the services of the Church of England more appealing to the lower classes. However, these changes also resulted in substantial doctrinal changes. In the twentieth century the 1979 Book of Common Prayer made the worship of the Episcopal Church more intelligible with its use of contemporary English. But, like its predecessor, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, it introduced unwarranted doctrinal changes with the revisions that were clearly needed. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), which was intended to provide North American Anglicans with a contemporary English alternative to the 1979 Prayer Book, goes further than the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books in giving liturgical expression to the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. It stops just short of using the "hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, etc" of the medieval Roman Mass.

Those who envision the new province as a continuation of the Episcopal Church from where traditionalist Anglo-Catholics believe that the church went astray want to perpetuate and preserve the Episcopal Church’s defective Prayer Book tradition in the new province at the expense of the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. This vision would make ample room for the Continuing Anglican churches and the more extreme forms of Anglo-Catholicism but would provide little or no room for genuine Anglicanism.

The Thirty-Nine Articles establish Anglican identity, protect the church from clergy with unreformed or heretical opinions and provide doctrinal standards for the interpretation of the Prayer Book, and set the bounds of comprehensiveness. They also safeguard the truth of the gospel, as Anglicans have historically understood it. The Thirty-Nine Articles affirm very important apostolic and catholic doctrines. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer gives liturgical expression to the Anglican understanding of the gospel, as well as serves an important Anglican doctrinal statement and as a model of a Reformed liturgy for Anglicans. It affirms the central place of Christ’s death upon the cross in our salvation. The 1661 Ordinal presents the Anglican view of the ministries of deacon, presbyter, and bishop. It also serves as an important Anglican doctrinal statement and provides a model of Reformed ordination services for Anglicans. It affirms the critical role of the bishop as the guardian of the faith and the shepherd of the faithful. Where conformity to doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles has not been mandated and enforced and the 1662 BCP and the 1661 Ordinal have been viewed as historical curiosities, as in the Episcopal Church, different gospels have been proclaimed and false teaching has flourished. Giving a token place to these formularies in the Common Cause Partnership and the new province should be a cause for real alarm among confessional Anglicans.

What is even more disturbing, a number of Episcopalians argue that since Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal have never had any relevance for Episcopalians, the Common Cause Partnership should not give these formularies even a token place in the new province. They ask why these formularies should have a voice in the new province when they have never had a voice in the Episcopal Church. They argue that these formularies should not be made an authoritative standard of doctrine and worship in the Common Cause Partnership or the new province. They should not be relegated even to the storage shed. They should be thrown in the dustbin. Whatever their motives may be these Episcopalians would replicate the same conditions in the new province, which have contributed to present state of the Episcopal Church.

How should confessional Anglicans respond to this devaluation and outright rejection of the Anglican formularies?

As I noted in my previous article, confessional Anglicans may have second thoughts about participating in the Common Cause Partnership and the new province. They may want to establish a separate body which represents genuine Anglicanism and in which the Anglican formularies—Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal—have a real voice in the doctrine, discipline, and worship of that body.

Whatever they do, confessional Anglicans need to organize. As isolated individuals they have no voice. But if they are organized, they can exercise an influence disproportionate to their numbers. The Anglo-Catholics learned this lesson in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the liberals in the twentieth century and put what they learned to good use. Even in Anglican provinces such as the Church of England where they are a minority, the Anglo-Catholics have effectively promoted their theological and liturgical views. In the Church of England, a province in which evangelicals are the largest wing of the church, Anglo-Catholics have nonetheless influenced the development of the liturgy presently used in the church, first with the Alternative Service Book (1980) and then with Common Worship (2000). Most of the eucharistic prayers in these service books are Anglo-Catholic in theology. The theology of the Common Worship baptismal service is also Anglo-Catholic. A number of services of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, which was rejected by Parliament as too Anglo-Catholic, and which the upper house of Convocation in defiance of Parliament authorized for use at the discretion of individual dioceses, were incorporated into Common Worship. In the Episcopal Church the liberals have gained a complete ascendancy.

Confessional Anglicans can learn other lessons from the Anglo-Catholics and the liberals. The Anglo-Catholics carved out a niche for themselves in the Church of England by persistent agitation and stubborn resistance to church authority. They were willing to go to prison for their principles. Their arrest, trial, and imprisonment for violating church canons and regulations generated public sympathy for their cause. The liberals adopted the strategy book of the so-called "gay rights" movement and have relentlessly worn down all opposition to their cause. I am not suggesting that confessional Anglicans adopt these tactics. What I am saying is that they can accomplish more by taking a stand for genuine Anglicanism and upholding that stand despite the obstacles than by doing nothing and letting others determine the future of Anglicanism in North America.

Confessional Anglicans need to call for consistency between what Anglican clergy and congregations in North America outside the Episcopal Church claim to believe and the services they use on Sunday morning and other occasions.

Confessional Anglicans must be strong advocates for a liturgy that embodies the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. They must not settle for a liturgy that expresses doctrine antithetical to that of the Articles, the Prayer Book and the Ordinal and encourages, incorporates or permits worship practices that are incompatible with the Bible and these three Anglican formularies. They need to make certain that genuine Anglicanism is adequately represented both in the bodies of their particular Anglican jurisdiction and those of the new province, which are responsible for developing services for that jurisdiction and the new province and for authorizing these services. They need to ensure that these bodies produce and approve services that confessional Anglicans can in good conscience use. They need to aggressively campaign both in their particular Anglican jurisdiction and the new province in support of services that adhere to the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal and draw attention to where services used in that jurisdiction and the new province deviate from the theology of these Anglican formularies. They must untiringly and unwaveringly confront and refute arguments used to justify such deviations and worship practices that give expression to deviant theology. If they do not say anything, if they take no action, they then only have themselves to blame if they find themselves with a liturgy that is a contradiction of genuine Anglicanism, of the Bible and the Reformation, if they find themselves in a province that, like the Episcopal Church, has moved away from the Anglican beliefs of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal.

Confessional Anglicans who are pastors need to voice their misgivings about the continued use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) at the meetings of the clergy in their particular Anglican jurisdiction and at the meetings of other bodies in that jurisdiction. They need to express their concerns in private conversations with their bishop and their fellow clergy. They need to network with like-minded pastors and to adopt a common strategy. They need to volunteer for commissions and task forces on the liturgy in their particular jurisdiction, the Common Cause Partnership, and the new province or to accept appointment to these commissions and task forces. Anglo-Catholics have in the past tended to dominate these bodies due to their interest in the liturgy, their desire to influence the form and doctrine of the liturgy, and their willingness to serve on such bodies to achieve this end. Confessional Anglicans must become involved in these bodies if they hope to see in their particular jurisdiction and the new province a liturgy embodying the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. They also need to be like the juror who obtained the acquittal of the innocent man by obstinately refusing to join with the other jurors in a finding of guilty. The other jurors eventually came around to his point of view. They should not be swayed by appeals for compromise, which result in the watering down of the doctrine of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal or lead to the acceptance of deviant theology.

If their particular Anglican jurisdiction or the new province sanctions the continued use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer or the use of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), they need to work with like-minded pastors and other church leaders to build a critical mass of support for the replacement of these service books with a liturgy consistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies.

Confessional Anglicans who are pastors need to educate the members of their congregations and other Anglicans outside their congregations concerning the vital importance of a liturgy that is compatible with the Bible and the Anglican formularies. As well as making greater use of the services of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the worship of the congregation, they also need to incorporate material from the 1662 BCP into their preaching and teaching. They need to devote time to studying the doctrines of the 1662 Prayer Book and explaining these doctrines to their congregations and showing them how the doctrines are firmly grounded in the Bible.

Wherever possible, when services in traditional English are desired, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the annexed Ordinal with appropriate alterations of the State Prayers, the Litany, the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church Militant, and the Ordinal or the 1926 Irish Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal should be used in place of the 1928 BCP. The 1926 Irish BCP and Ordinal are substantially the 1662 BCP and the annexed Ordinal. The 1926 Irish Prayer Book and Ordinal were prepared for use in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They include "A Prayer for The President and all in authority" and "A Prayer for the Parliaments in Ireland" and supplications in the Litany for use in the Republic of Ireland. These prayers and supplications can easily be adapted for use in the United States.

For services in contemporary English confessional Anglican pastors and other confessional Anglican worship planners have a number of options from which they may choose. Among the service books that adhere to the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal and contain services in contemporary English or that contain services in contemporary English, which stick to this doctrine are the Anglican Church of Australia’s An Australian Prayer Book (1978), the Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1992), the Church Society’s An English Prayer Book (1994), the Anglican Church of Australia’s A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), the Church of England’s Common Worship (2000), the Anglican Diocese of Sydney’s Sunday Services (2001), and the Church of Ireland’s The Book of Common Prayer (2003). The use of language in these service books varies widely in eloquence and effectiveness. An Australian Prayer Book (1978), A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), Common Worship (2000), and the 2003 Irish Book of Common Prayer also include prayers and other liturgical material and services, which are defective in doctrine. With the exception of the Irish Prayer Book all these service books contain services of Holy Communion in contemporary English, which follow the shape and theology the 1662 Communion Service: The Holy Communion, First Order, An Australian Prayer Book (1978); Holy Communion, First Form, Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1992); Holy Communion, First Order, An English Prayer Book (1994); The Holy Communion, First Order, A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), and The Lord’s Supper Form 1, Sunday Services (2001). The Holy Communion, Order Two, of Common Worship (2000) has the shape and structure of the Holy Communion service in the 1662 BCP but contains optional liturgical elements (the Kyries, the Benedictus, and the Agnus Dei) that were omitted from the 1662 Prayer Book due to their long association with the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Prayer of Consecration is that of the 1662 Prayer Book with its emphasis on the atonement and distinctly Reformed theology.

The Holy Communion, Third Order, of A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) and The Lord’s Supper, Forms 2A and 2B, of Sunday Services (2001), while following the modern ecumenical shape, express a theology of the Eucharist, which from a confessional Anglican perspective is not inconsistent with the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 BCP. Like the 1662 Prayer Book, they contain no sacrificial language in the Prayer of Consecration and emphasize "receiving" and "partaking" or "sharing" and a Reformed theology. They seek to maintain the focus of New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Supper and its significance for us and to retain the simplicity of the classical Anglican Prayer Book.

Prayer Book of the Church of England in South Africa (1992) has three forms for Morning and Evening Prayer. These forms are essentially abridged versions of Morning and Evening Prayer. An English Prayer Book (1994) simplifies the orders for Morning and Evening Prayer and provides an order for Family Worship. An Australian Prayer Book (1978) and A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) contain alternative orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, as well as contemporary English revisions of the 1662 orders for Morning and Evening Prayer. A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) and Sunday Services (2001) contain forms for A Service of Praise, Proclamation, and Prayer, a pattern of worship that is new to North American Anglicans but which is really not new: it is the same pattern as that of Morning and Evening Prayer. The Word segment of the revised contemporary English order for Morning and Evening Prayer in the 2003 Irish BCP parallels that for the Holy Communion with three Scripture readings and a psalm after the first reading. Common Worship (2000) and the 2003 Irish Prayer Book contain forms for a Service of the Word, a worship pattern also new to North American Anglicans. It meets a need for an alternative to the traditional services of Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy Communion for family services, preaching missions, and school chapel services, especially on those occasions when a large part of the congregation is unbaptized and has no prior experience of the Christian community at prayer. In Common Worship (2000) a Service of the Word may be used in place of the ministry of the Word at Holy Communion. The rubrics of Common Worship (2000) also permit the use of the ministry of the Word as a service when there is no communion.

In the churches in which they are members, confessional Anglicans need to educate their fellow church members concerning the vital importance of a liturgy that is consistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies. They need to lobby the senior pastor and other leaders of the church for the use of a liturgy in the church, which meets these requirements. They need to staunchly oppose the continued use or introduction of a liturgy that does not. They need to get involved as much as they can in the selection of the senior pastor and other church leaders to ensure that the church leadership is wholeheartedly committed to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as the church’ standard of doctrine and worship and to the use of a liturgy consistent with the Bible and these formularies. In the event their church is not open to using a liturgy consistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies and to choosing leaders committed to these formularies and the use of such a liturgy, they must be prepared to plant and pioneer new churches in which such a liturgy is used and to call pastors who are strong advocates of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal as the church’s doctrinal and worship standard and of the use of a liturgy consistent with the Bible and these formularies.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer should not be completely withdrawn from use in the churches of the Common Cause Partnership and the new province. Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics are deeply attached to the 1928 BCP. The Episcopal Church’s decision to retire the 1928 Prayer Book figured greatly in the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic exodus from that church in the 1970s. However, the Common Cause Partners should adopt a statement in which they affirm the Thirty Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal as the standard of doctrine and worship of the Common Cause Partnership and in which they agree that no doctrine or practice may be construed or based upon the services of the 1928 BCP, apart from those authorized by the Thirty-Nine Articles and/or the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal. In this statement the Common Cause Partners should further stipulate that they have agreed to permit the continued use of the 1928 Prayer Book for pastoral reasons and in doing so, it is not their intention that should be recognized officially or unofficially as a standard of doctrine or worship of the Common Cause Partnership or the new province. This statement would not prevent a church using the 1928 BCP from viewing the 1928 Prayer Book as its own local standard of doctrine and worship but the Book would enjoy no status as a doctrinal and worship standard of the individual Common Cause Partners, the Common Cause Partnership, or the new province. This pastoral provision should be incorporated into the constitution of the new province, in which it would permit limited continued use of the 1928 BCP but would not recognize the 1928 Prayer Book as an authoritative doctrinal or worship standard and would require its interpretation by the doctrinal standards of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the doctrinal and worship standards of the 1662 BCP and the 1661 Ordinal.

The continued use of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), on the other hand, is unwarranted. The doctrinal flaws of the 1979 BCP have been well documented by others. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is also doctrinally flawed. Its doctrines of the Eucharist, Baptism, and Confirmation do not adhere to those of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 BCP. Both service books should be withdrawn from use as soon as may be feasible.

One of the most difficult challenges facing the Common Cause Partners and the new province is the development of a common liturgy that, while adhering to the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal, will satisfy the different theological streams represented in these bodies. In the twenty-first century one liturgy for the use of all North American Anglican churches may not be realistic. While a common liturgy may be desirable, it may not be practicable. The differences between the three major theological streams are greater than some are willing to admit.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 BCP and the 1661 Ordinal provide us with a starting point. They are the historical Anglican standard of doctrine and worship. They provide us with a direction and a measuring tool. They set the parameters within which we must work.

The following proposals are based on an analysis of the mistakes of a number of previous attempts to develop a liturgy that both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals can in good conscience use. These attempts include the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), Common Worship (2000) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).

1. A section containing general directions for public worship. It would consist of notes indicating the directions to stand, kneel, or sit are suggestions only; the singing of hymns and worship songs with the services otherwise than where provision is made for them is permitted; the use of the words for which a musical setting was composed, where a part of the service is sung to this setting, is also permitted; the use of the terminology, "the sermon," in the rubrics does not rule out a variety of ways of proclaiming the message of gospel, including drama, interviews, and other techniques; and other notes for the conduct of services.

2. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order for Morning and Evening Prayer with provision for the substitution of other versions and forms of the psalms and canticles for those printed in the service or elsewhere in the book and the substitution of hymns or worship songs for the canticles. Consideration should be given to authorizing the use of the Jubilate (Psalm 100) as an alternative to the Venite (Psalm 95) and the Eastern Anthems as the Invitatory Psalm and replacing the Jubilate after the Second Lesson at Morning Prayer with suitable New Testament canticle or Gloria in Excelsis.

3. An alternative order for Morning and Evening Prayer like the alternative orders in An Australian Prayer Book (1978) and A Prayer Book for Australia (1995).

4. A selection of additional canticles.

5. A contemporary English order for Compline or a late evening service.

6. A form for A Service of the Word like the forms in Common Worship (2000) and The Book of Common Prayer (2003) of The Church of Ireland.

7. Provision to substitute A Service of the Word for the ministry of the Word in the four orders for the Holy Communion.

8. Several forms for A Service of Praise, Proclamation, and Prayer like the forms in A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) and Sunday Services (2001).

9. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 Litany.

10. Provision for the substitution of the Litany for the Prayers in the order for Morning and Evening Prayer.

11. Provision for the substitution of the Litany for everything before the Collect of the Day in the four orders for the Holy Communion and the omission of the Intercession (or Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church).

12. A selection of alternative Prayers of Preparation and General Confessions and Absolutions in addition to Occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings.

13. A selection of alternative forms for the Intercession (or Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church).

14. The Holy Communion, First Order—a conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order for the Holy Communion like The Holy Communion, First Order in An Australian Prayer Book (1978) The Holy Communion, First Order, in A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), and The Lord’s Supper, Form 1 in Sunday Services (2001) with provision to substitute Our Lord’s Summary of the Law in place of the Ten Commandments and the Apostle’s Creed in place of the Nicene Creed, to add a Old Testament Lesson and a Psalm to the Scripture readings, to preach the sermon before or after the Creed, to substitute an alternative form for the Intercession in place of the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church, to substitute another suitable hymn of praise for the Gloria in Excelsis, and to insert a suitable collect (e.g. a Prayer for Missions) after the Collect of the Day or before the Blessing as in the 1926 Irish and 1954 South African orders for Holy Communion.

15. The Holy Communion, Second Order—an alternative order for the Holy Communion following the shape and structure of the 1662 order for Holy Communion with, in addition to the foregoing, provision to sing or say the Kyries and/or the Trisagion in addition to or in place of the Ten Commandments or Our Lord’s Summary of the Lord, the Benedictus in addition to the Sanctus, and the Agnes Dei after the Lord’s Prayer before the distribution of Communion. In this order the 1662 Prayer of Consecration would be replaced by a contemporary English adaptation of the 1549 Canon containing an epiclesis petitioning God to bless and sanctify the bread and wine with his Holy Spirit and Word before the Words of Institution, following by an anamnesis of Christ’s mighty works after the Words of Institution, in turn, followed by a petition requesting that God accept "our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," the offering of "our selves, our souls, and bodies," and a petition for worthy reception and union with Christ, in that order. The Intercession and the Penitential Preparation would precede the Canon and the Prayer of Humble Access would conclude the Penitential Preparation. The Lord’s Prayer would follow the Canon. The 1549 Words of Distribution might be substituted for the 1559 Words of Distribution. As in the 1549 order for the Holy Communion no provision would be made for the offering of the bread and wine at the Offertory or during the Canon. The rubrics would prohibit the elevation of the paten or chalice beyond what is necessary for taking the same into the hands of the minister.
16. The Holy Communion, Third Order—an alternative order for the Holy Communion that is based on The Holy Communion, Third Order, in A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) and The Lord’s Supper, Forms 2A and 2B, in Sunday Services (2001) and which, while following the modern ecumenical shape of the Eucharist, has a Reformed theology close to if not identical with that of the 1662 BCP. The rubrics would permit the substitution of another suitable hymn of praise for the Gloria in Excelsis, the preaching of the sermon before the Creed or after it and the use of the Lord’s Prayer after the Intercession, the Eucharistic Prayer, or the distribution of the Communion.

17. The Holy Communion, Fourth Order, an alternative order for the Holy Communion that follows the modern ecumenical shape and uses Eucharistic Prayer 2 from the 2003 Irish BCP, a Eucharistic Prayer that originally appeared in slightly different form in An Australian Prayer Book (1978). Those using this order would also have the option of substituting the Eucharistic Prayer from Order Two. A third Eucharistic Prayer might be desirable, one that like Eucharistic Prayer 2 contains thanksgiving for God’s work in creation and an anamnesis of Christ’s might works but no sacrificial language beyond reference to Christ’s death on the cross for our redemption. The rubrics would permit the use of the Penitential Preparation before the Gloria in Excelsis or before the Intercession or after it. They would make provision for the use of the Ten Commandments or Our Lord’s Summary of the Law as an introduction to the Penitential Preparation and the use of the Prayer of Humble Access as a conclusion to the Penitential Preparation when the Penitential Preparation was used after the Intercession. The rubrics would also permit the substitution of another suitable hymn of praise for the Gloria in Excelsis, the preaching of the sermon before the Creed or after it, and the use of the Lord’s Prayer after the Intercession, after the Eucharistic Prayer, or after the distribution of the Communion.

18. Provision to use the ministry of the Word from all four orders for the Holy Communion as a separate service when there is no communion.

19. Conservative English language revisions for the 1662 orders for the Public Baptism of Infants, the Private Baptism of Infants, and the Public Baptism of Those of Riper Years with provision to substitute for the 1662 version of "Almighty ever-living God, whose most dearly beloved son…," the 1559 version of this prayer, which with the Flood Prayer emphasizes God’s sanctifying of all waters for the purpose of baptism, or the revised version of the same prayer from the alternative orders for Baptism in the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, which emphasizes the priest’s blessing of the water in the font, and to substitute for "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren…" and "We yield thee hearty thanks…" an alternative invitation to give thanks and an alternative thanksgiving, from which are omitted any reference to the newly baptized being regenerate. Baptismal regeneration is an issue upon which two different points of view exist among Anglicans. These optional provisions in the baptismal rites would make room for both viewpoints.

20. A conservative contemporary language revision of the 1662 form for receiving privately baptized children into the church.

21. A contemporary English translation of the 1662 Catechism.

22. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order for confirmation patterned after that in the 1926 Irish Book of Common Prayer. It permits the omission of the 1662 Preface if the confirmands are adults and makes provision for an optional address by the bishop in which he can explain confirmation to those present. Anglicans are sharply divided over the nature of confirmation. Some view it as a catechetical rite; others view it as a sacramental rite. Rather than emphasizing a particular interpretation of the rite in an expanded Preface, as in the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), and in the selection of Scripture readings, the interpretation of the rite to the confirmands and the congregation is left to the discretion of the bishop.

23. Provision for an abbreviated order for confirmation for use with the order for the Public Baptism of Those of Riper Years.

24. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 form for the solemnization of matrimony.

25. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 form for the thanksgiving of women after childbirth.

26. A contemporary English revision of the 1662 form for the visitation of the sick along the lines of that in An Australian Prayer Book (1978) with provision for the biblical practices of laying on of hands upon the sick and anointing them with oil.

27. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order for the communion of the sick.

28. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order for the burial of the dead with provision for cremations and internment of ashes.

29. A contemporary English order for the burial of a child along the lines of that in the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, also with provision for cremations and internment of ashes.

30. A contemporary English adaptation of the Penitential Service (A Commination) from the 1926 Irish Prayer Book for use on the first day of Lent and other occasions.

31. A conservative contemporary English revision of the 1661 Ordinal.

32. A contemporary English version of the Thirty-Nine Articles such as Philip Edgcumbe Hughes’ "A Restatement of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion".

These proposals seek to make room for theological differences between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals but stay within the boundaries of the "evangelical comprehensiveness" of the Thirty-Nine Articles. While they depart in a number of instances from the forms of the 1662 BCP, they try to preserve and perpetuate its Reformed theology. They also expand the number of service options available to churches and give them greater flexibility to tailor their worship to a particular ministry target group that they are seeking to reach. At the same time they retain the core services of the 1662 BCP. They form together a service book with which I believe that both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals could learn to live. They accommodate the desire of Anglo-Catholics for a Eucharistic Prayer with a more fully developed epiclesis and anamnesis and a more realist view of the eucharistic presence. However, they pull back from the doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice given liturgical expression in the 1928 BCP, the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, the 1979 BCP, and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008). They return to the position of the 1549 BCP and the German Church Orders in the Second Order for the Holy Communion. In the First and Third Orders they do not move beyond the position of the 1552 BCP, which is also the position of the 1662 BCP. The Fourth Order seeks to accommodate those who desire a Eucharistic Prayer that gives thanks for God’s work in creation as well as salvation, recalls Christ’s mighty works, and presents a more realist view of the eucharistic presence.

This service book would be used together with the 1662 BCP and the 1661 Ordinal, both with appropriate alterations for use in the United States, and with the 1928 BCP. The continued use of the 1928 BCP would be subject to the limitations proposed earlier in this article.

While traditionalists will want to organize the new province along geographical lines into dioceses, an organizational structure that would better accommodate the theological differences among North American Anglicans, as well as the realities of the North American mission field, is to organize the new province into non-geographical affinity-based networks of churches like those of the AMiA or a combination of geographically-based dioceses and non-geographical affinity-based networks of churches. No geographically based diocese or non-geographical affinity-based network of churches would have exclusive jurisdiction in any particular region. Rather a number of dioceses with overlapping geographic boundaries and a number of networks of churches without any geographical boundaries would be the norm in each region, each diocese and each network of churches with its own bishop, its own theological distinctives, and its own mission priorities. The presence of one or more existing dioceses or networks of churches in a particular region would not restrict the formation of new dioceses or networks of churches in the region or the planting of new churches in the region by a diocese or a network of churches in another region.

No region of North American should go unevangelized because evangelizing the region is not an actual priority of the diocese or network of churches first established in the region. Christ’s mission of seeking and saving the lost should be the guiding principle for organizing the new province. Evangelism should be its topmost priority. The organizational structure of the new province should embody the Great Commission—"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations (or people groups), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you…". (Matthew 28:19 ASV) It should recognize that North America is a vast mission field. This field does not belong to any one church or parachurch group. It belongs to the Lord of the harvest. The way the new province is organized should be the most effective for carrying out the Church’s main task of making disciples of all people groups in North America and throughout the world. It should not be organized a particular way because "that’s the way we always done things".

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles say that only one church in a particular locality may evangelize the population of that locality, much less only one diocese or one network of churches may evangelize a region’s population. We find no scriptural warrant for the organization of a cluster of churches in a particular region into a diocese. Bishops in the New Testament typically oversee individual churches, not clusters of churches. The diocese was originally a civil administrative unit of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman and Gallican Churches, which sprung up within the geographic boundaries of the Roman Empire organized themselves into dioceses. But the Celtic Church that sprung up outside of the Roman Empire in Ireland did not. It organized itself around the Celtic monasteries, which were not the enclosed monasteries of later Medieval Europe but communities of Christians living together in an otherwise pagan land. This organization reflected its particular situation. The new province needs to learn from the Celtic Church and organize itself on the basis of its own situation.

The establishment of non-geographic affinity-based networks of churches instead of geographically based dioceses or within a system of geographically based dioceses would provide "space" for each theological stream in a particular region. In the geographically-based diocesan system of the Episcopal Church one theological stream will tend to dominate the diocese and in turn the contiguous geographic territory that comprises the diocese. In the past 40 years this theological stream has increasingly been liberal Anglo-Catholic or Broad Church liberal in a large number of dioceses across the United States. These two theological streams have become so much alike that some people have difficulty telling them apart. Liberal Anglo-Catholics, however, retain a number of Anglo-Catholic doctrinal beliefs (not just worship practices) and an Anglo-Catholic self-identity. In a diocese in which one theological stream has the ascendancy, other theological streams become marginalized. A particular theological stream may continue to hold sway in a small number of parishes. But its days are numbered.

Geographically based dioceses foster a system in which a large number of small churches are dependent upon subsidies from the diocese. A large measure of local autonomy, including the selection of the church’s pastor, is surrendered to the diocese in exchange for these subsidies. The members of the church have no real say in what theological stream will have influence over their church.

Here in the Diocese of Kentucky traditionalist Anglo-Catholicism dominated the diocese from the early 1830s to the 1950s. However, from the 1960s on it was displaced by liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which is now ascendant in the diocese. Neither traditionalist Anglo-Catholicism nor liberal Anglo-Catholicism is well matched with the non-Episcopalian population of the diocese, which forms roughly 97% of the diocese’s population. The latter is predominantly conservative Protestant or has a conservative Protestant background. The diocese is also largely rural. The Episcopal Church has tended to confine itself to large towns and urban areas because it does not do well in small towns and rural areas. The churches of the diocese are almost uniformly High Church in worship. The worship preferences of the non-Episcopalian population run to charismatic or Low Church. The growth of the Episcopal Church in the diocese for most of its history has been very slow. The church is now declining.

Charismatic or Low Church evangelicals might have been more successful in reaching the non-Episcopalian population of the diocese. However, the past dominance of traditionalist Anglo-Catholicism and the present dominance of liberal Anglo-Catholicism have effectually excluded them from the diocese. The only other theological stream beside liberal Anglo-Catholicism tolerated in the diocese is Broad Church liberalism.

If a new Anglican diocese is formed in the same geographic territory as the Diocese of Kentucky with the establishment of the new province and the dominant theological stream in this diocese is traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, it is likely to experience slow growth as the Diocese of Kentucky experienced in the past and as the Continuing Anglican churches in the diocese are experiencing now. Non-geographic affinity-based networks of churches would make room for other theological streams in the new diocese. Some Anglo-Catholics might prefer to a new diocese in which traditionalist Anglo-Catholicism is the dominant theological stream. But the price for this dominance is a very high one—thousands of souls lost for all eternity because other Anglicans who might reach them with the gospel would be excluded from the new diocese. Non-geographic affinity-based networks of churches would also make room for traditionalist Anglo-Catholicism in a new diocese in which another theological stream is the dominant ecclesiastical tradition.

The formation of non-geographical affinity-based networks of churches might be a solution to the thorny issue of women’s ordination. The establishment of parallel ecclesiastical structures in the new province or a new diocese might enable those who accept women’s ordination and those who do not to coexist in the new province or the new diocese. An all-male episcopate would be essential to the success of such a scheme as well as rock-solid guarantees that the consciences of clergy and congregations who do not accept women deacons and priests would be respected and male clergy who for reasons of conscience were not able to minister with women clergy would not be forced to do so and women clergy would not be imposed upon congregations who also for reasons of conscience were not able to accept their ministry. However, the new province or a new diocese should not be organized into non-geographical affinity-based networks of churches solely on the basis of the position of a clergyperson or congregation on this issue. To do so might throw together clergy and congregations who otherwise have no affinity with each other, for example, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics with conservative evangelicals, and result in networks of churches that are tension-ridden and unworkable.

However the new province is organized, dioceses, networks of churches, and even individual churches that discover that the common liturgy of the new province does not meet their needs should be able to develop their own supplemental liturgies. The common liturgy should not be allowed to become an obstacle to proclaiming the gospel to a particular group of people in a particular region or locality and to evangelizing them. With the degree of flexibility afforded by a service book incorporating the foregoing proposals, however, the development of supplemental liturgies at the diocesan, network, or local level should not be a very common occurrence. Whenever such liturgies are developed, they should be consistent with the Bible and the Anglican formularies. They should not be used to perpetuate and preserve doctrinal beliefs and practices that are antithetical to the biblical-Reformation theology of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal.

Recognition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal as the new province’s standard of doctrine and worship not just on paper but in practice should be a condition of admission to the new province. This would ensure that the jurisdictions and individual churches that are admitted into the new province would be on the same page from the outset. There needs to be a common vision of the direction in which the new province will be going. If the new province is to be genuinely Anglican, the three Anglican formularies need to be an integral part of that vision. They should be adopted into the new province’s constitution as its official standard of doctrine and worship and some form of subscription to the doctrine of the Articles should be required of clergy and licensed Readers. Adherence to the doctrine of the Prayer Book and the Ordinal should also be demanded of them. With a common liturgy these important Anglican formularies would provide a definite focus of unity for the new province.

This insistence upon greater theological uniformity and in particular doctrinal adherence to the Anglican formularies may be objectionable to traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and others who have little regarded the doctrine of these formularies. Anglo-Catholics and liberals have historically agitated for wider latitude in doctrine in order to secure room for their doctrinal beliefs. The result in the Episcopal Church has been a church that was unwilling to discipline a bishop for ordaining non-celibate homosexuals because it had no official doctrine that the bishop could be found guilty of failing to conform with. The result has also been a church that refused to remove another bishop for heretical opinions, that failed to affirm core doctrines of the Christian faith, that declined to consider a measure affirming the uniqueness of Christ, and elected a Presiding Bishop who believes that Christianity is just one of a number of equally valid ways to God.

The Common Cause Theological Statement, the foundation upon which the new province is supposed to be built, with the token place that it gives to the Anglican formularies, does not inspire much confidence in confessional Anglicans like myself that what has happened in the Episcopal Church will not happen in the new province. Watching the Common Cause Partnership putting together the structure for the new province is like watching a team of amateur shipwrights construct a ship using the design of the Arc Royal. Anyone who has any knowledge of maritime history knows what will happen when the ship is launched. The Arc Royal was very poorly designed. As soon as it was launched, it sank. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Endnotes:
[1] Philip Jensen, "Why Anglican?" unpublished article on the Internet at http://www.cathedral.sydney.anglican.asn.au/pages/posts/why-anglican219.php
[2] Gillis J. Harp, "Recovering Confessional Anglicanism," Churchman Issue 2002 116/3, article on the Internet at http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_116_3_Harp.pdf
[3] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today (London: Latimer Trust, 2006), 60-66.
[4] Gillis J. Harp, "Recovering Confessional Anglicanism," ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993), 8.
[7] Henry Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, "Appendix II Non Juror Doctrine and Ceremonies" (Cambridge 1928), 1, appendix on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf
[8] Broxap, 1-2.
[9] Edward Craig, On the Important Discrepancy between the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Community Showing the Schismatical Character of a Subscription by English Clerics to the Scottish Communion of 1765 (Edinburgh: The Edinburgh Printing and Publishing Company, 1842) 19-20, electronic edition on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/scotland/craig_discrepancy1842.html
[10] Broxap, 3.
[11] Craig, 21-22.
[12] Craig, 23-24.
[13] Craig, 20-21.
[14] Craig, 23-24
[15] S. Gregory Jones, Baxter to Cummins: The Debate Over The Language of Baptismal Regeneration In The Book of Common Prayer, 1662 – 1873, 62-64, unpublished thesis on the Internet at http://anglicanhistory.org/essays/jones.pdf
[16] E. Clowes Chorley, "Chapter II: Blazing the Trail," The New American Prayer Book: Its History and Contents (New York: McMillan Company, 1929), no pagination, electronic edition on the Internet at http://anglicanhistory.org/bcp/chorley1929/01.html
[17] E. Clowes Chorley, "Chapter III: The ‘Proposed Book’ of 1785," The New American Prayer Book: Its History and Contents, ibid.