Prince Philip's Funeral: 1928 v. 1662?

It was typical Twitter Milbank: provocative, breezy, and not overly concerned with detail.  The idea that Prince Philip was resurrecting the old debates of the 1928 Book (more of which below) is, to say the least, fanciful.  As George Weigel once stated in First Things, "Elizabeth II is said to be 'low Church' in her Anglican sensibility": in other words, Prayer Book Mattins and decent Laudian ceremonial.  All the evidence would suggest that Prince Philip shared the Supreme Governor's preferences.  

1662

What particularly stands out, however, is Milbank's implication that 1662 should be dismissed as somehow inferior - what he terms in a subsequent tweet "old time religion" - contrasted with the "ecumenically Catholic" 1928 revision.  To term this a 'high church' stance is absurd.  The High Church tradition from the 17th into the 19th century delighted in the Book of Common Prayer as an ecumenically Catholic liturgy precisely because it was an expression of a Reformed Catholicism rooted in patristic faith. 

Thus Anthony Sparrow's A Rationale Upon the Book of Common Prayer - first published in 1655, and republished many times over the next century - began with a declaration that the Prayer Book was "agreeable to primitive usage" and was an expression of "the ancient form".  In the early 18th century High Churchman Daniel Waterland rejoiced that "our excellent liturgy" was "as grave, and solemn, and as judicious, as any other that can be named, be it ancient or modern".  The mid-18th century Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Secker, declared that the "established Liturgy greatly contributes to keep [the Church of England] steadfast, and preserve from noxious Errors". Tract 3 of the Tracts for the Times counselled against alterations to the Book of Common Prayer (including, it should be noted, changing "the Consecration Prayer in the Holy Sacrament to be what it was in King Edward's first book"), saying that the Prayer Book was for congregations the "stay of their faith and devotion". This confident delight in the Prayer Book was also to be found in Saepius Officio (1897), particularly emphasising its patristic roots:

when our Fathers drew up a liturgy at once for the use of the people and the clergy they went back almost to the Roman starting-point.

The High Church tradition, contrary to what Milbank suggests, took an immense pride in 1662, regarding it as a fine "ecumenically Catholic" expression, combining both patristic teaching, the best of the ancient Latin liturgies, and the Reformed Catholicism of the 16th century renewal.

1928

It is against this background that we can understand why 1928 was but a gentle revision of 1662.  To emphasise the differences rather than the continuities means Milbank is, ironically, echoing those in Parliament who regarded themselves as spokesmen for a rather narrow Protestantism.  

The continuities are evident in alternative and revisions provided in 1928.  The alternative Marriage rite was wise and proved to be (and remains) popular.  Some of the material for the daily offices - particularly the shorter exhortation and absolution - have been integrated in many places into the CofE's most popular service, Choral Evensong. The provision for Communion of the Sick from the Reserved Sacrament prohibited any "service or ceremony in connexion with the Sacrament so reserved". It was explicitly stated that the alternative order for the Holy Communion did not "mean ... any change of doctrine".  

In the Prayer of Consecration in the alternative order, while the language of the commemoration and the invocation were particularly controversial in the parliamentary debates, these are now rightly regarded as uncontroversial.  The commemoration avoids any use of 'offer' while the key phrase in the invocation - "that they may be unto us" - brings to mind Cranmer's response to Gardiner:

And therefore, in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and blood of Christ, but that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, that we may so eat them and drink them, that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his blood shed for our redemption.

This understanding was also seen in Laud's classically Reformed defence of the same language in the 1637 Scottish liturgy: "they are said to become the Body and Blood of Christ, nobis, to us that communicate as we ought".

One other aspect of 1928 is worth noting in this regard.  The Prayer for the Church in the alternative order for the Holy Communion, in contrast to 1549, had no specific reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the commemoration of the saints.  Collects are provided for the Nativity and Conception of the Blessed Virgin but both are very modest and robustly Christocentric.  No provision is made for the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin (as found in, for example, the Scottish Prayer Book 1929).  Nor, of course, were any Marian devotions provided or in any way referenced in the Order for Compline. 

All of which is to say that the Proposed Book of 1928 was, yes, Protestant and nothing more than a very cautious revision of 1662.

Prayers for the faithful departed

What, however, of the burial rite and prayers for the faithful departed? This gets to the heart of Milbank's suggestion that there was a rupture between the Protestant 1662 and the "ecumenically Catholic" 1928.  To begin with, the 1928 rite embraces the 1662 rite.  Above all, it retains the essential character of 1662: Scripture, prayer, and commendation of the departed ("as our hope this our brother doth").  1928 makes no provision for the Eucharist at the funeral, an obviously and distinctly Reformed emphasis which Milbank overlooks. 

Prince Philip's funeral used the opening 1662 sentences.  One of the prayers 1928 provides for the bereaved was used, but not that "for those whom we love, but see no longer".  1928 also provides for the refrain 'Rest eternal' to be used in place of the Gloria Patri after the psalm.  This also was not used.  The only 1928 material used at the funeral were the responses and - highlighted by Milbank - the Profiscere (not found in the 1928 funeral rite but in the commendation of the dying).  To begin with the latter, its use can hardly be regarded as controversial.  It merely gives expression to the same hope found in the 1662 committal. 

When it comes to the responses, yes, they do have an explicit petition for the departed:  

Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord. For in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Grant unto him eternal rest. And let light perpetual shine upon him. We believe verily to see the goodness of the Lord. In the land of the living. O Lord, hear our prayer. And let our cry come unto thee.

That said, however, it again ironically sides with the Parliamentary Protestants of 1927/28 to consider these responses as a complete break with 1662, rather a natural and organic development.  Despite the oft-repeated contention that the 1559-1662 burial rite provided no petitions for the departed, this was not how significant 16th and 17th century sources viewed the matter.

The Puritan Admonition to Parliament (1572) objected to the burial rite "whereby prayer for the dead is maintained", specifically highlighting both the collect ('O Merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...') and its preceding prayer ('Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord').  This was not just Puritan hyper-Protestantism.  John Donne in a 1621 sermon, quoting the prayer which preceded the collect in the burial rite, declared "according to the doctrine, and practice of our church, we do pray for the dead". Anthony Sparrow in his very popular and influential commentary on the Prayer Book (first published in 1655), described the collect in the burial rite as "a Prayer for his [i.e. the deceased] and our consummation in Glory, and joyful Absolution at the last day".

It is not surprising, then, to discover echoes of this in popular Anglican piety in the 17th and 18th centuries.  Thus we find Parson Woodforde saying in his diary of one who has died through suicide, "The Lord have mercy on his Soul" (entry for 23rd December 1776). Noting the death of his aunt, he wrote "pray God she may be for ever happy" (13th May 1780).  As we might expect, there is nothing forced or unnatural here in Parson Woodforde's piety.  He was a Protestant, a faithful son of the English Church.  And he naturally offered gentle, modest petitions for the departed.

The inclusion of petitions for the departed in the 1928 burial rite, then, was not a rupture.  It was a natural, organic development of 1662's gentle, cautious provision.  Particularly significant is that 1928 retained that character. There is nothing urgent about the prayers it provided. They are a gentle, loving commendation of the departed:

FATHER of all, we pray to thee for those whom we love, but see no longer. Grant them thy peace; let light perpetual shine upon them; and in thy loving wisdom and almighty power work in them the good purpose of thy perfect will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This gentle character was also particularly evident in the singing of the responses at Prince Philip's funeral.  The setting for the responses emphasised their nature, not as urgent petition but loving commendation.

Milbank's attempt to portray the 1928 prayers for the faithful departed as a rupture with 1662 is anything but High Church.  It entirely overlooks how generations of Anglicans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries prayed the 1662 burial office as a prayerful commendation of the departed, in the hope of the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. 1928's modest provision was a natural development of this. In the words of that well-known advanced Anglo-Catholic N.T. Wright:

Now love does not stop at death ... there is no reason at all why love should discontinue the practice of holding the beloved in prayer before God ... Amen, too, to the peace, consolation and gradual assuaging of grief that comes from thus leaving those we love in the safe and sure mercies of the loving Creator and Redeemer.