The Anatomy of a Flawed Rite: The Holy Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

By Robin G. Jordan

When we study Prayer Books and their rites and services and liturgies and liturgical forms in general, we often approach them with a set of assumptions—preconceived ideas about their nature and function—and evaluate a particular liturgy or liturgical form in the light of these assumptions. We may not consider the possibility that our assumptions may be wrong and that we are looking at that liturgy or liturgical form from the wrong angle. We may have inherited these assumptions from others—Prayer Book scholars and liturologists whose opinions we respect or have been taught are authoritative and may have never bothered to question them. It is rather like interpreting the Bible, using church tradition. We rely on church tradition to provide us with a ready-made interpretation of the meaning of the passage rather than undertaking the hard work of figuring out the passage’s meaning for ourselves. Why fix a meal from scratch when you grab a frozen dinner from the freezer and heat it in the microwave?

The problem with this approach, however, is that we end up perpetuating mistaken ideas about a particular liturgy or liturgical form. They may fit with our assumptions, but they are not an accurate description of the nature and function of that liturgy or liturgical form.

Later revisers of a liturgy may make changes to the liturgy and its components, which are based upon their own assumptions and which may in turn influence not only how we see the liturgy and its components but also our own assumptions about the liturgy and its components. A case in point is the Holy Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, as we are about to see.

In reformed liturgies we run across a category of prayers that we do not find in pre-Reformation Medieval liturgies and which we do not find in later rites. They are what I call “Prayers at the Table,” prayers that precede the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and which petition God on behalf of those who are about to receive the sacrament. They fall into the broader category of “eucharistic prayers” because they are prayers of the eucharist. But unlike what we have come to associate with eucharistic prayers, they are not consecratory prayers. They are prayers for the communicants. Archbishop Cranmer’s 1552 eucharistic prayer is such a prayer.

The 1552 Prayer at the Table has a parallel prayer in the Prayer at the Font in the 1552 baptismal rites. Like the 1552 Prayer at the Table, the prayer precedes the administration of a sacrament, in this particular case, the sacrament of Baptism, and petitions God on the behalf of those who are about to receive the sacrament. Like the 1552 Prayer at the Table, it is not a consecratory prayer. It does not set apart the water in the font for sacramental use. Earlier on in the rite, from reading the Ark Prayer, we learn that God has, by the baptism of his Son, already sanctified the River Jordan and all water for “the mystical washing away of sin.”

The thinking behind these two prayers is that we do not need to ask God to do anything to the matter of the sacrament--bread and wine in the case of the Lord’s Supper, and water in the case of Baptism, before we use them in the administration of the sacrament. Jesus, when he instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, set apart bread and wine for the sacramental purpose of the Lord’s Supper and, with his own baptism, water for the sacramental purpose of Baptism. Our own prayers will not make these sacraments any more efficacious than our Lord intended that they should be. This knowledge does not preclude us from praying that those who are about to receive the sacrament receive it in a rightful manner and consequently benefit from receiving the sacrament.

I can see the little wheels in the reader’s brain spinning around and then returning to their default position. For most of us this way of seeing the sacraments is not the way that we have learned to see them. While we may deny that the elements of the Lord’s Supper have undergone any kind of change except in use, we nonetheless treat them as if they have undergone a change. This can be traced to the alterations and additions that the Restoration bishops made to the reformed 1552 Communion Service.

In the Restoration bishops’ 1662 revision of the English Prayer Book we see the work of English clergy who had a different set of assumptions about the nature and function of these two prayers—the Prayer at the Table and the Prayer at the Font—than the archbishop who composed them. Cranmer saw the two prayers as prayers for those who were about to receive the outward sign of the sacrament. The Restoration bishops, on the other hand, had been influenced by the 1549 prayers and the 1637 Scottish prayers. They saw the two prayers as consecratory prayers, an entirely different category of prayers. The changes that they made to the two prayers, while they may appear minor to those who share their assumptions, are consequential. These changes represent a different theology of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism from Cranmer’s. They represent a significant move away from the reformed theology of the 1552 Prayer Book.

How does this theology differ from Cranmer’s? First, it pins the grace of the sacrament to the matter of the sacrament. Second, it views the priest or other minister of the sacrament in a role that goes beyond administering the sacrament. In the role that it envisions the priest or other minister of sacrament shares the consecration of the sacramental matter with God. These two differences are significant. They pave the way for the revival of pre-Reformation Medieval sacramental theology in the Church of England and the larger Anglican Church.

The additions and alterations that the Restoration bishops made in these two prayers are not the only changes that they made in the English Prayer Book that moved the book away from the reformed theology of the 1552 Prayer Book and paved the way for the Catholic Revival. I am not claiming that the Restoration bishops were early Anglo-Catholics, a theory that was floated in the nineteen century and which was thoroughly debunked. What I am saying is that the theology of the Restoration bishops was significantly different from reformed theology of the 1552 Prayer Book. While they may have preserved texts, forms, and orders of service from the 1552 Prayer Book, they did not preserve its reformed theology. They overlaid and obscured the theology of the 1552 Prayer Book with their own theology, a theology which opened a Pandora’s Box whose occupants have beguiled and beset Anglicans to this day. In this article I am going to examine several key components of the 1662 Communion Service in which the Restoration bishops laid the groundwork for much wider departures from the 1552 Communion Service’s reformed theology than their own.

The first key component of the Communion Service in which the Restoration bishops made significant changes was the component to which their new rubrics gave the title, “the Offertory.” This title and the accompanying changes can be traced to the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book, the so-called "Laudian Liturgy," which shows the strong influence of the barely reformed 1549 English Prayer Book. The rubric direct the priest to read one or more sentence of Scripture. The deacons, churchwardens, and “other fit persons appointed for that purpose” are directed to collect the alms and other devotions of the people, in “a decent basin…;” and reverently bring it to the priest, who shall “humbly present and place it upon the holy Table.” These represent important changes from the 1552 Communion Service where the reference to this component of the service as “the Offertory” was dropped lest it should be construed in any way as upholding the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. For the same reason, the people’s gifts were not brought to the table nor did the priest present, in other words, offer the gifts. The 1552 rubrics directed the churchwardens to gather the people’s devotions and place them in “the poor man’s box.”

The only reference to the “offertorie” we find in the 1552 Communion Prayer Book is in a rubric that precedes the Collects that follow the Blessing in the Communion Service. This reference does not carry the weight that the rubrical change the Restoration bishops made. It is made after the Blessing which concludes the Communion Service and therefore is outside of the service itself. Its location may explain why Cranmer was less reluctant to use the term than he would have been within the service. Cranmer also had no alternative terms from which he could choose.

The changes the Restoration bishops made in this component of the Communion Service represents a shift away from the reformed doctrine of the 1552 Communion Service in the direction of the barely reformed doctrine of the 1549 Communion Service. These changes paved the way for restoration of the Minor Oblation, the offering of the bread and wine that follows the offering of the people’s gifts in the 1928 Communion Service. The Minor Oblation has strong associations with the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. The Restoration bishops permitted the camel to poke his nose into the tent as the saying goes.

The Minor Oblation is one of the ceremonies of the 1637 Scottish Communion Office at what its rubrics call the “offertory.” I have substituted modern spelling for the original spelling.

And when all have offered, he shall reverently bring the said basin with the oblations therein, and deliver it to the Presbyter, who shall humbly present it before the Lord, and set it upon the holy Table. And the Presbyter shall then offer up and place the bread and wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table, that it may be ready for that service.

In the 1662 Communion Service the Restoration bishops pushed the envelope wherever they could. While they may have liked to have moved the English Communion Service more in the direction of the 1637 Scottish Communion Office, they held back, realizing the temper of the times did not permit moving too far in that direction. The result is a rite that in some ways preserves the better features of the reformed 1552 Communion Service, but in other ways moves the Church of England away from its Protestant Reformed heritage. Later generations, however, would not face such constraints.

The second key component to which the Restoration bishops made significant changes was the Prayer for the Church Militant. In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer moved the Prayer for the Church Militant from the Canon to a position that coincided by happenstance with the position that it had occupied in the early Church—after the sermon. The Church Militant prayer was one of the elements of the 1549 Canon that could be construed as supporting the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer sought to expunge form the service anything that could be interpreted as upholding that doctrine. In his critique of the 1549 Communion Service Bishop Stephen Gardiner who was a staunch Roman Catholic had drawn to Cranmer’s attention that the placement of the Intercession within the Canon supported the doctrine.

The Restoration bishops made two additions to the Church Militant prayer. They added “and oblations” to prayer. This phrase refers to the people’s offerings for all other purposes beside charitable ones. It, however, has been misconstrued to refer to the elements and has been used to justify the reintroduction of the Minor Oblation. The Restoration bishops also added a commemoration of the departed.

Restoration bishops did nothing to rectify several defects of the Prayer for the Church Militant. It contains only prayer for Christian rulers. The apostle Paul urges Christians, however, to pray for all rulers so that may live quiet and peaceful lives. It also contains no prayers for the conversion of non-believers or the advance of the gospel. For these two reasons among others the Church Militant prayer is entirely unsuited for the twenty-first century mission field, not just in North America but also in other countries. It reflects a seventeenth century view of the world, which is not actually a Biblical one.

The third key component of the Communion Service to which the Restoration bishops made changes which have been regarded as minor but have proven to be consequential were to the Exhortations to Holy Communion. They made what was the Second Exhortation in 1552 Communion Service the First Exhortation in the 1662 Communion Service and altered its wording. They downplayed the minister’s use of Scripture and spiritual counsel in the easing of the conscience and placed greater emphasis on the minister’s use of what could be interpreted as priestly absolution. The Tractarians would conclude from the altered wording that the 1662 Communion Service countenanced the practice of auricular confession. Anglo-Catholics would make the same claim for the remainder of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century. In the twenty-first century the Anglican Church in North America’ Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force would go a step further. They revised the Second Exhortation so that it clearly does affirm the practice of auricular confession.

A fourth key component of the Communion Service to which the Restoration bishops made significant changes is the Penitential Preparation. This rite consists of an Invitation, a General Confession, a prayer for God’s forgiveness, and Scriptural assurance of God’ s pardon.

In the 1552 Communion Service one of the communicants, a minister, or the priest reads the General Confession on the behalf of those who are about to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. One of the two changes that the Restoration bishops made in this rite and which is one of the few laudable change that they made is that all who are about to receive the sacrament say the General Confession.

The other change that they made in the rite was to give the prayer for God’s forgiveness the title “the Absolution” In the rubrics. Cranmer did not give that title to the prayer in the 1552 Communion Service and it was not an oversight on his part.

Cranmer took the prayer from the response of the ministers to the priest’s confession of sin in the pre-Reformation Medieval Sarum Mass. His use of the prayer is an example of the application of the principle of using the old where it may be well-used. The prayer is not the priestly absolution in the Sarum Mass. The priestly absolution follows the clerks’ confession to the priest.

Cranmer added “who of his great mercy” after “Almighty God, our heavenly Father….” In the added phrase Cranmer refers God’s promise of forgiveness to those who are truly repentant.

The prayer is precatory. The priest expresses the wish or desire that God will have mercy upon those who have confessed their sins. He does not declare that the sins of the repentant sinner have been absolved.

The thought of the prayer is consistent with the reformed belief that God alone forgives sins. He does not delegate to the priest the power to forgive sin.

Giving the title “the Absolution” to the prayer in the rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service changes the way that we see the prayer. We begin to think in a different set of categories, a set of categories in which the Restoration bishops thought but not Cranmer. This change in the way that we think amounts to a shift in doctrine. One phrase can make that difference. With two words the Reformed bishops move the Communion Service away from the reformed doctrine of the 1552 Communion Service and closer to a Lutheran sacramental view of absolution. Some Anglicans were not comfortable with this change and dropped the 1662 rubric when they revised the Prayer Book. The 1789 American Prayer Book is an example. On the other hand, Tractarians and the Anglo-Catholics who followed them latched onto these two words and other references to absolution in the 1662 Communion Service to claim that the rite affirmed the practice of priestly absolution. Writers fell into the habit of referring to this prayer as an absolution and reinforced this view. Their writings have influenced our thinking and the assumptions with which we approach our study of the office.

If anyone present has any lingering doubts about God’s forgiving of their sins, the purpose of the Comfortable Words in the 1552 Communion Service is to allay their doubts. They are drawn from the Scriptures and emphasize God’s mercifulness. However, they are extraneous if a priest can absolve sins, as the 1662 title of the prayer that precedes the Comfortable Words infers.

The changes that the Restoration bishops made in the English Prayer Book were not inconsequential as we may read in the literature. In some instances, they came dangerously close to running afoul of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the principles of the Article of Religion. For example, in moving the Communion Service closer to a Lutheran sacramental view of absolution, the 1662 revision sets itself at odds with Article XXV. This particular view of absolution is derived from the Medieval doctrine of the sacrament of penance.

The fifth key component of the Communion Service to which the Restoration bishops made significant changes were the Communion Rite. In the 1552 Communion Service the Communion Rite consists of the Prayer at the Table and the distribution of the Sacramental bread and wine

In their 1662 revision of the Communion Rite the Restoration bishops changed the rubrics and form of the Prayer at the Table. They gave the title of “the Prayer of Consecration” in the rubrics to the section, “Almighty God, our Heavenly Father…,” reinserted the Manual Acts into the Words of Institution, amplified them with detailed instruction on how they should be performed, and added a congregational Amen at the conclusion of the prayer.

In the 1662 Communion Service we find a number of references to consecration in addition to this reference. Among these references are references to the priest consecrating more bread and wine and the priest and one more communicants consuming any leftover consecrated bread and wine. They also include references to the blessing of the bread and the blessing of the cup. Such references are notably absent from the 1552 Communion Service. The Restoration bishops’ addition of these references reflects their view of the function of the Prayer at the Table and represents a shift away from the reformed doctrine of the 1552 Communion Service in which that prayer is a prayer for those who are about to receive the Sacramental bread and wine.

Cranmer had dropped the Manual Acts from the Words of Institution in 1552. At the Savoy Conference in 1661, the Presbyterians and the Puritans had called for the restoration of the Manual Acts, a concession that the Restoration bishops were happy to make. “It is particular to this celebration” Bishop John Cosin wrote, “that the death of our Lord is commemorated therein, not by bare words, as in other prayers, but by certain sacred symbols, signs, and Sacraments, which are, according to Saint Austin, a sort of ‘visible words.’”

The changes that Restoration bishops made to the prayer were influenced by the 1549 Prayer Book and 1637 Scottish Prayer Book. They represent a retrograde movement toward a view of the prayer’s function for which Cranmer and the Continental Reformers found no support in the Bible. In the early Reformed rites, which include Cranmer’s 1552 rite, the prayer that preceded the distribution of the Sacramental bread and wine was a prayer for those who were about to receive the elements. As Peter Martyr said, “the words belong rather to men than either to bread or wine.” The Restoration bishops transformed the prayer into a consecratory prayer.

During the Elizabethan period the English Church appears to have begun to see the prayer as having a consecratory function. In The Tutorial Prayer Book Charles Neil and J. M. Willoughby cite a case where a priest in 1572 was prosecuted for distributing the bread and wine without first saying the prayer when more was needed. Neil and Willoughby do not provide the details of the case so it is not outside the realm of possibility that the priest in question was prosecuted for not praying for the communicants who received the bread and wine. We have become so accustomed of thinking of the prayer’s function as consecratory that it influences our interpretation of historic events.

The Restoration bishops retained the Words of Administration from the 1559 Communion Service. The Words of Administration combine the Words of Administration from the 1549 Communion Service with those from the 1552 Communion Service. They would become the cause of controversy in the nineteenth century which the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians interpreted them as teaching the real, substantive presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements. An Evangelical rebuttal of this view may be found in Dyson Hague’s The Protestantism of the Prayer Book. According to Hague, the first part of the Words of Administration is a prayer for the communicant that he should. receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice—Christ’s body broken and his blood shed on the cross. The reference to Christ’s Body and Blood is not to the elements but to the Christ’s offering of himself for our sins. The second part of the Words of Institution are a form of instruction to the communicant on how he should receive the Sacramental bread and wine.

The Restoration bishops added two rubrics after the distribution of the elements, The first rubric states, “If the consecrated Bread or Wine be all spent before all have communicated, the Priest is to consecrate more according to the Form before prescribed: Beginning at [Our Saviour Christ in the same night, &c.] for the blessing of the Bread: and at [Likewise after Supper, &c.] for the blessing of the Cup.” This rubric further reinforced the view that the prayer’s function was consecratory.

In the nineteenth century this rubric led to the criticism that in revising the canon Cranmer had moved the consecration of the elements in a more Roman direction but this criticism was based upon a misunderstanding of the prayer’s function in the 1552 rite and the Restoration bishops’ rubric in the 1662 rite. This criticism provided further impetus to the movement in some quarters of the Anglican Church to adopt an Eastern style epiclesis, invoking the Holy Spirit to bless and sanctify the elements, a practice which has no basis in Scripture and is contrary to Scriptural practice.

While the 1662 “Prayer of Consecration” does not contain an Eastern style epiclesis, it paves the way for the use of that type of epiclesis in the Anglican Church. Bishop John Cosin did propose an Eastern style epiclesis but Gilbert Sheldon, then Bishop of London, rejected the proposal. Sheldon who would become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1663 exercised considerable influence over what became the content of the new Prayer Book.

The second rubric states:

When all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth.

This rubric provides us valuable insights into how the Restoration bishops viewed the Sacramental bread and wine and how their view of the Sacramental bread and wine differed from the reformed view. According to the rubric, the unconsumed bread and wine must be treated with reverence. The inference is that the unconsumed bread and wine is more than ordinary bread and wine—more than symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. While Christ’s Body and Blood may not be present in or under forms of bread and wine, the virtue of Christ’s Body and Blood which the elements conveyed may linger with the elements in some way and therefore the elements must be handled reverently. They must also be veiled from profane eyes. The veiling of the unconsumed elements is a pre-Reformation Medieval practice associated with the belief in the real, substantive presence of Christ in the elements. This represent a shift from the reformed view that Christ’s presence is not tied to the Sacramental bread and wine. It hints at a change in the Sacramental bread and wine, which goes beyond change in use. From anthropological point of view, it points to the belief that the elements have become charged with supernatural force or power and like all objects charged with such force or power must be treated in the way that custom and ritual demands. The treatment of the unconsumed elements in this manner is a step toward the belief that Christ is substantively present in them. It can be interpreted as teaching the real, substantive presence of Christ in the elements.

The final rubrics make a distinction between unconsecrated bread and wine and consecrated bread and wine that the reformed 1552 Communion Service does not make. They also prohibit the removal of any unconsumed consecrated bread and wine from the church or its reservation for later use. The final rubrics direct that the priest with the assistance of one or more communicants reverently consume the unconsumed consecrated elements.

And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.

These changes to the final rubrics of the Communion Service are not minor or inconsequential. They represent an entirely different view of the Sacramental bread and wine. In the 1552 Communion Service the Sacramental bread and wine is ordinary bread and wine except during the distribution where it differs from ordinary bread and wine in its sacramental use. Its sacramental use ends when the distribution ends. It reverts to being ordinary bread and wine. Only for a brief moment was it different from ordinary bread and wine and that difference was solely one of use. The curate may consume any unconsumed bread and wine at his leisure, at the dinner table.

The final rubrics of the 1662 Communion Service restore the Declaration on Kneeling but with a significant alteration to the language of that declaration.

Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; ( for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

The 1552 Declaration on Kneeling states:

Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: And yet because brotherly charity willeth, that so much as conveniently may be, offences should be taken away: therefore we willing to do the same. Whereas it is ordained in the book of common prayer, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants kneeling should receive the holy Communion. which thing being well meant, for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder, which about the holy Communion might else ensue: Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places then in one, at one time.

The change from “real and essence presence” to “corporal presence,” while excluding the doctrine of transubstantiation, does not rule out a localized presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Sacramental bread and wine. This is a departure from the reformed doctrine of the 1552 Communion Service, which grants that Christ is present at the Lord’s Supper but does not localize Christ’s presence in the Sacramental bread and wine. Christ’s presence is real, that is, his presence is not imagined, but his presence is a spiritual one. The Holy Spirit indwells the soul of the believer and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and unites the believer to Christ.

In his Preface to the Fourth Edition of The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion Restated as a Guide at the Present Time (1908) Frederick Meyrick sums up what may be described as the pre-Restoration historical Anglican position on Christ’s presence at the Lord's Supper, quoting the benchmark sixteenth century theologian Richard Hooker, “The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. ... I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is His Body or the cup His Blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him that receiveth them….”

In The Book of Common Prayer: Its History, Language, and Content (1901) Evan Daniel cites Bishop Lancelot Andrewes’ response to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, “We believe the Presence, no less than you, to be a true Presence, but we define nothing rashly concerning the mode of the Presence.” In the 1662 Communion Service the Restoration bishops went a step further than Cranmer in defining the mode of Christ’s presence.

In The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (1957) Claude Beaufort Moss argues that the altered language does not preclude the presence of Christ’s “glorified” body and blood in the eucharistic elements. Moss further argues that this interpretation of the declaration’s wording is agreeable to Article XXVIII. His interpretation of the language of the 1662 Declaration on Kneeling and 1571 Articles of Religion are not unique. They represent how Catholic-leaning Anglicans have interpreted the language of the Prayer Book and the Articles.

As we have seen, by the time the Restoration bishops got finished with the Communion Service, the camel had entered the tent, had knelt down, and was taking her ease in its shade.

For Anglicans who are committed to the teaching of the Bible, the principles of the Articles of Religion, and the doctrines and practices of the English Reformation, the 1662 Communion Service does not embody what these Anglicans stand for--or at least what I would hope that they stand for. I do not see the point of promoting a service that does not embody what one believes but which can be used to teach and reinforce contrary beliefs.

Unity does not require uniformity. We do not have to worship the same way in every place on Sundays. Unity does require a common theology and a liturgy that gives expression to that theology.

One of the lessons that we should have learned in the past 350 odd years is that the churchwide use of the same Prayer Book does not foster unity. Different clergy have interpreted and used the same Prayer Book differently. The result has been the formation of different schools of churchmanship, each with its own interpretation of the Prayer Book and its own practices. The same prayers may have been read in every church on Sundays, creating an illusion of unity, but different congregations heard and understood them differently.

The last 350 odd years has demonstrated the futility of one Prayer Book for the whole church. The principle of lex orendi, lex credendi—praying shapes believing—fell by the wayside or was trampled underfoot. The Restoration bishops set us on the road where texts no longer have the meaning and use that the one who composed them intended but whatever meaning and use that we assign to them.

The liturgy that we use should not only embody what we believe but also it should be usable in the twenty-first century—not as museum piece to demonstrate how Anglicans worshiped as one time but a living liturgy that can engage a new generation. The twenty-first century demands a much more flexible rite, a nimbler rite, one that can be readily adapted to local circumstances. The twenty-first century also demands a rite that is more congregational and participatory.

The theology that we share should reflect what the apostle Paul taught. When the church gathers, all have a contribution to make. This means giving a far larger role to the people of God than does the 1662 Communion Service

We are not living in the seventeenth century when illiteracy was widespread and consequently God’s people had a more circumscribed role in the liturgy. The priest and parish clerk duet of the seventeenth century is not going to engage today’s young people.

Among the “exceptions” to The Book of Common Prayer that the Restoration bishops rejected was the Presbyterian and Puritan notion that “the people's part in public prayer” should “be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close, by saying Amen.” Among the changes that the Restoration bishops made in the Communion Service was to make the General Confession a confession of sin in which all the communicants joined. In these two instances the Restoration bishops stood for what is best in Anglican worship, worship in which all the people of God take an active part.

One lesson that we should have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the decline in church attendance is not going away. It is accelerating. The typical church in the twenty-first century is likely to be small, to not have a building of its own, and to have a co-vocational pastor if it has a pastor at all. The twenty-first century in the West is going to see more micro-churches, meeting in apartments, houses, and other non-traditional settings, micro-churches in which the members of the congregation do the teaching and preaching and the administering of the sacraments. Right now, we are in a period of transition.

The Anglican Church is not going to benefit as greatly from this development as will other traditions. Why? It limits the administration of the sacraments to ordained clergy. This development nonetheless points to the need for liturgies that may be tailored to a wide range of circumstances, and which will engage an increasingly diverse population.

Retreating to the past, while it may be comforting to those who are overwhelmed by our rapidly changing world, is not the way forward. Whatever we do must serve the gospel in the twenty-first century. It must serve the Great Commission. It must serve Jesus Christ. Our preferences must take the backseat.