The 1662 Book of Common Prayer: A Brief History of a Love-Hate Relationship

The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 has something of a chequered history. It is a history of which Americans who are discovering the book for the first time usually are not aware. They may acquire a romantic view of the book which it really does not deserve. In this article I am going to look at the love-hate relationship that Anglicans have had with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer over the past 350 odd years.

Two years after the death of Oliver Cromwell on May 1, 1660 the Convention Parliament invited Charles II to become the King of England. The period which followed Charles II’s ascension to the English throne is known as the Restoration. Episcopacy was restored to the Church of England in the same year. New bishops were consecrated to fill the vacancies on the episcopal bench.

The old Prayer Book that had served the Church of England for more than eight decades had been abolished in 1645 and its use made punishable by fine and imprisonment. One of the first tasks of the Restoration bishops was the drafting of a new Prayer Book.

While Charles II was still in France, a delegation of Presbyterians had petitioned him not to restore the Prayer Book or the surplice. Charles promised them a conference to consider their objections.

At the Savoy Conference held in 1661, the Presbyterians and the Puritans presented a laundry list of “exceptions” to the Prayer Book and proposed an alternative liturgy. The bishops, however, were willing to make only a few concessions such as the use of the King James Bible for the Epistles and Gospels of the Communion Service and the use of the Manual Acts during the Words of Institution.

The use of the new Book was mandated by the Act of Uniformity adopted by Parliament in 1662. Clergy who refused to use the Book were ejected from their livings.

The 1662 revision of The Book of Common Prayer is often described in the literature as having not made any changes of great significance in the English Prayer Book, but this description of the 1662 revision is not an accurate one. The Restoration bishops made 600 changes in the English Prayer Book, and a number of these changes did have notable implications for future generations of Anglicans.

The 1662 revision shows the influence of the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book, which the Scottish bishops drew up at the instigation of Charles I and Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud. While Laud himself did not have a hand in its preparation, the book is sometimes referred to as the “Laudian Liturgy.” The book provoked a furious reaction from the Scots who preferred the more reformed Book of Common Order, caused a war, and led to the abolition of Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer was used in the British North American colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. In the newly formed United States of America, it was soon replaced by the 1789 Prayer Book. In Canada it was replaced more than a century later by the 1918 Prayer Book. While the 1662 Prayer Book is the official Prayer Book in the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia and some other Anglican provinces it has been supplemented or replaced by newer service books in all Anglican provinces.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is recognized by some Anglican provinces as a historic Anglican formulary—providing with the Articles of Religion of 1581 and the Ordinal of 1661 a standard of doctrine and worship for these provinces with the same provinces reserving the right to depart from the doctrinal and worship principles of these formularies where they do not agree with the doctrine and practices of the particular Anglican province. It does not enjoy this standing in all Anglican provinces.

The Articles of Religion, commonly called the Thirty-Nine Articles, were adopted by the Church of England in their final form as its confession of faith in 1571. They were approved by Parliament and received Elizabeth I’s royal assent. Among their purposes is to set the standard, second only to the Holy Scriptures, by which the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer and other rites and services used in Church of England are interpreted. Their acceptance as historic Anglicanism’s confession of faith is what sets “confessional Anglicans” apart from “non-confessional Anglicans,” not the acceptance of the three creeds or the use of a particular service book or ordinal. Confessional Anglicans are free to use any service book or ordinal, which conforms to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles of Religion. The Articles affirm all three creeds.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal, which is appended to it, largely became historic Anglican formularies by happenstance. The 1689 Proposed Book of Common Prayer would have replaced the 1662 Prayer Book if the Glorious Revolution had not put William and Mary on the English throne. The religious settlement that followed the ascension of William and Mary eliminated the need for a service book that comprehended the Non-Conformists and established the Protestant, Reformed religion as the official faith of the realm and of the Church of England.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer has been translated into numerous languages and has been used in various parts of the world where Anglican missionaries have planted Anglican churches. In the places in which the book has been used, local clergy have adapted the book to local circumstances. They have shortened its rites and services and made additions, alterations, and omissions to the rites and services. While in some places the book may have been used as it was authorized in 1662, in most places that has not been the case. One of the earliest abbreviations of the 1662 Prayer Book for use in North America was John Wesley’s The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America: with Other Occasional Services, published in 1784.

Dissatisfaction with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer can be traced as far back as its adoption. The Non-Conformists refused to use the book in their churches and consequently lost their livings. Under the provisions of the Coventicles Acts of 1664 and 1670, they were banned from holding gatherings of their own.

After the Glorious Revolution in 1689 a body of Anglicans refused to swear allegiance to the new monarch, William of Orange, on the grounds they could not in good conscience abjure the oath of allegiance that they had made to his predecessor, James II, who had fled to France. This body of Anglicans was known as the Non-Jurors and had members not only in England but also in Scotland.

The Non-Jurors would divide into two parties—the Usagers and the Non-Usagers, so-called due to their opposing positions on what the Usagers regard as four ancient “usages”. These usages included the mixed chalice of wine and water, the invocation of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the consecrated elements, a prayer of oblation of the consecrated elements, and prayers for the dead. The Usager party claimed that a celebration of the Holy Communion in which these usages were omitted was invalid. The Usagers also believed that Christ, offered himself for the sins of the world, not on the cross but at the Last Supper, and only died on the cross. 

While the Non-Usagers were content to use the 1662 Prayer Book, the Usagers developed their own liturgies. The Scottish Usager Non-Juror Communion Office of 1764 would influence the Communion Service of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer.

Dissatisfaction with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was not confined to the seventeenth and eighteenth century or to the fringes of the Anglican Church. In the third decade of the nineteenth century the Oxford Movement brought the drawbacks of the 1662 Prayer Book in sharp focus. On one hand, the Tractarians put the 1662 Prayer Book on a pedestal and caused what might be described as a Prayer Book revival. On the other hand, they systematically went through the 1662 Prayer Book and reinterpreted everything that they could in a Catholic sense. This sparked an intense debate over the doctrine and liturgical practices of the 1662 Prayer Book with Evangelicals and Protestant High Churchmen on one side and the Tractarians on the other.

The Tractarians would appropriate the label of “High Church” for themselves, maintaining that they were the true High Churchmen in the Church of England. They also claimed that they were the true Churchmen, those who genuinely represented the faith of the Prayer Book.

One of the consequences of the debate was that it prompted some Church of England Evangelicals to question the Protestantism of the doctrine and liturgical practices of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer themselves. Like their counterparts in the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, they saw a need for Prayer Book revision. In the PECUSA Evangelical Episcopalians were questioning the doctrine and liturgical practices of the 1789 Prayer Book. 

Among the consequences of these developments was the formation of the Free Church of England in the United Kingdom and the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States. Both bodies would adopt revised liturgies. The REC would launch a mission in the United Kingdom and this mission and the FCE would eventually unite to form what is the modern-day FCE. The FCE would produce the 1956 FCE Prayer Book, a revision of the 1662 Prayer Book which moves that book in a more Evangelical direction.

In 1861 the Committee of the Liturgical Amendment Society (Ireland) With the Assistance of a Number of the Clergy and Laity in England and Ireland drew up proposed amendments to The Book of Common Prayer, which, if they had been adopted, would have moved the 1662 Prayer Book in a more Protestant direction. Among the changes that they proposed was the option of reading the Summary of the Law in place of the Ten Commandment. They did not, however, consider to be appropriate the 1789 American Prayer Book’s option of reading the Summary of the Law in addition to the Ten Commandments. They also sought to restore the original 1552 language of the Declaration on Kneeling.

The Evangelical wing of the Church of England was not the only wing of that Church dissatisfied with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the nineteenth century. The Catholic Revival that the Oxford Movement initiated would result in a desire for reconciliation and reunification with the Church of Rome in some quarters of the Church of England. The “Romanists” as their contemporaries called them sought to Romanize the English Church in doctrine and practice to the point where the Pope would welcome the Church back into the Roman fold. They made numerous unauthorized changes in the 1662 Prayer Book and used English translations of the Post-Tridentian Roman Missal. Their hopes were dashed when Pope Leo XIII  refused to recognize Anglican Orders in 1896.

It must be noted that while the Romanists were ritualists, ritualism was not confined to the Romanists and therefore we should not assume that all nineteenth century ritualists were Romanists. Some were Romanists; others had no desire to reenter the Roman orbit.

Dissatisfaction with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was not confined to these two wings of the Church of England. We see a growing interest in other quarters of the English Church for the revision of the Prayer Book. 

Parliament would authorize two significant changes to the Prayer Book in the nineteenth century. It authorized changes to the Tables of Lessons and the separation of Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion. 

In 1907 a commission was formed to consider proposals for the revision of the Prayer Book. This commission would eventually produce the ill-fated 1926 and 1928 Proposed English Prayer Books, both of which were rejected by Parliament. Although the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book was rejected by Parliament, it did see use in the Church of England. Several bishops permitted its use in their dioceses on the basis that the book had been approved by Convocation. A number of the proposals for the 1928 Alternative Order for Communion would be adopted in the 1929 South African Communion Office.

The rejection of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book did not bring Prayer Book revision to an end in the Church of England. Rather those seeking to revise the Prayer Book would take a different approach. In 1980 an alternative service book was authorized to supplement the rites and services of the 1662 Prayer Book and in 2000 the Common Worship service book was authorized—again as supplement to the rites and services of the 1662 Prayer Book. 

This approach spared the Church of England the kind of conflict that Episcopal Church experienced when that body replaced the 1928 American Prayer Book with the 1979 American Prayer Book. With the authorization of these two service books the use of the 1662 Prayer Book has fallen into desuetude.

There have been various attempts to revive interest in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. They have seen limited success in parishes where parishioners prefer the older Prayer Book to the newer service books.

One of the major drawbacks of the 1662 Prayer Book is its archaic and unfamiliar language. It no longer conforms to an important principle of Anglican worship, which is articulated in the book itself, and is found in Scripture. This principle is that the rites and services of the Church should be conducted in the vernacular, “the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region.” 

Prayer Book English, however, has fallen into desuetude in the country of its origin and is not used widely in English speaking-countries. It is limited to a very tiny segment of the population. The younger generations show little interest in learning it. This drawback has prompted a number of schemes for its translation into the vernacular. Only a few of them have seen the light of day and what is presented as a translation often proved to be a revision.

One of the temptations of translating a liturgy into the vernacular is the temptation to correct its shortcomings. What may be eloquent in Prayer Book English may not sound eloquent in the vernacular. To make a text more eloquent often requires departing from the original wording, phrasing, and structure of the text.

By contemporary standards the texts of the 1662 Prayer Book are often unnecessarily prolix. They contain too many words and are tediously lengthy. They reflect the way of speaking of a bygone age.

The archaicness and unfamiliarity of its language and the prolixity of its texts render the 1662 Prayer Book as unsuitable for the North American mission field. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States does not have pockets of Anglicans who are still loyal to the 1662 Prayer Book and who contribute to the illusion that there is a place for the book on twenty-first century mission field. There is a place for the book but it is not the place that those championing its use believe.

Interest in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has waxed and waned in the United States. When the late Peter Toon became the president and CEO of the Prayer Book Society of the USA he was a strong advocate for traditionalist Anglicans’ use of the 1662 Book of Common Book. His championing of the 1662 Prayer Book received a lukewarm reception at best from traditionalist Anglicans in the United States, who were largely wed to the former Protestant Episcopal Church USA’s 1928 Book of Common Prayer. 

In the period leading up to his untimely death and the formation of the second Anglican Church in North America Toon did call for a moratorium on the continued use of the various Prayer Books that the various groups which formed the ACNA were using and urged them to use the 1662 Prayer Book in their place. He believed that these disparate groups’ use of the 1662 Prayer Book would help unite the groups and bring them closer to the central Anglican theological tradition in their beliefs and practices. This proposal met with a largely unenthusiastic response. 

Toon also played a role in the preparation of two service books for the then Anglican Mission in Americas (AMiA)—Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) Both service books were based in part on Toon’s earlier translation of the 1928 Prayer Book into contemporary English. An Anglican Prayer Book contained an American rite and a Canadian rite as well as an English rite in recognition that the earlier book had shown interest in a contemporary language version of the 1662 Prayer Book, while present, was not strong in the AMiA.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer continues to attract interest in some quarters of the North American Anglican Church. This interest has prompted me to take a close look at the 1662 Communion Service. My own Prayer Book studies suggest that the 1662 Communion Service is a flawed rite, which is ill-suited for use on the North American mission field. This is not to say that the 1662 Communion Service does not have any redeeming features but rather that its shortcomings outweigh its positive characteristics. In upcoming articles in this series, I am going to examine each component of the 1662 Communion Service and draw attention to its strengths and weaknesses.