The Prayer Book tradition, the liberties of national churches, and oikophilia

I noticed a recent discussion on Anglican 'X' between a 1662 appreciator in the United States and a priest of the Reformed Episcopal Church who uses the PECUSA 1928 BCP. The 1662 appreciator pointed to BCP 1662 as "the standard for global Anglicanism". The Reformed Episcopal priest responded by saying that Anglicanism is "primarily expressed locally" rather than "globally" and that this therefore entails a nationally authorised liturgy, as opposed to any universal claim for 1662.

As readers of laudable Practice will be aware, I have a great love of 1662. I had, however, no hesitation in agreeing with the "primarily expressed locally" view. Perhaps it is the Burkean in me, deeply sceptical of abstract claims for universal human authorities, removed from particular circumstances and polities. And then there is the voice of Jewel, affirming the rights and liberties of a national church:

Yet truly, we do not despise councils, assemblies, and conference of bishops and learned men; neither have we done that we have done altogether without bishops or without a council. The matter hath been treated in open Parliament with long consultation, and before a notable synod and convocation. 

Excessive claims for 1662, not least a claim that it has some form of inherent authority over all Anglicans, strike me as contrary to the spirit of 1662. Saunderson's great Preface to the 1662 revision is marked by a wise moderation. Perhaps above all, there is no hint of a claim that 1662 should be a universal liturgy. Rather, it was expressly a liturgy for the realm of England, reflecting Charles II's desire that "all his subjects of what persuasion soever" should be reconciled to the national Church. It was a liturgy for "all sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England". 

The title page of the 1662 embodies this:

The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England ...

'Church of England' is a term which speaks of a particular form and pattern of the Christian life in a particular place. Sir Roger Scruton indicated something of this when he spoke of the Church of England's "peaceful and creative presence in our national life". John Hughes rather overstated matters when he said that the Church of England was "not a Church defined by a confession or a founder, but by geography and culture"; the description, while it ignores how the Articles of Religion did function as a Confession (and, relevant to the discussion below, how they formed a basis for communion with the Church of Ireland and PECUSA), does capture something of a Hookerian sense of the history and experience of the Church of England and its place in English society and the polity.

Intertwined with this, the 'Cum Privilegio' refers to the privilege granted by the Crown to Cambridge University Press to publish the Book of Common Prayer 1662, reflecting the role of the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Both 'according to the use of the Church of England' and 'Cum Privilegio' emphasise the local, disavow universal claims, and point to the liberties of a national Church.

The title page is, therefore, no minor feature of a Book of Common Prayer, to be ignored as we dig into the important doctrine found in the rest of the Book. No; the title page defines the purpose of 1662, where it is to be prayed, and with what authority it is to be used. These are no minor matters: instead, they form a fundamental aspect of the Prayer Book tradition.

This, I think, forms an important and, I will suggest, attractive part of the Prayer Book tradition, that is, of that family of Books of Common Prayer which came to be the authorised liturgies of the various Protestant Episcopal churches in communion with the Church of England.  

Let me begin with the Church of Ireland's Book of Common Prayer, revised in 1878. This revision was very lightly amended in 1926, and incorporated as 'Order One' in the 2004 revision. The title page states that it is the liturgy "according to the use of the Church of Ireland". The term 'Church of Ireland' immediately evokes for those of us who are Church of Ireland a sense of who we are, our characteristics as a church, what it is to be an Irish Anglican, what our parish churches look like, how episcopacy is exercised amongst us, how Prayer Book Holy Communion is conducted . All of this would be distinctly 'low' compared to the contemporary experience of say, Scottish Episcopalians or Welsh Anglicans. But it is who we are. To use the title of Scruton's book, this is 'Our Church'.

We are not 'Church of England': we are, in the words of the Declaration of 1870, "the Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church of Ireland". The Archbishop of Canterbury 'hath no jurisdiction' over or in 'Our Church'. Likewise, the liturgy of the Church of England has no standing in 'Our Church'.

It is true that the Declaration of 1870 stated that the Church of Ireland "doth receive and approve" the BCP 1662. Note, however, the authority for this:

as approved and adopted by the Synod holden in Dublin, A.D. 1662.

BCP 1662's use in the Church of Ireland, from 1662 until 1878, was on the basis of a national synod. What is more, additional rites and observances were added - by the authority of that synod - to BCP 1662 for use in the Church of Ireland.

The title page also includes the authority for the use of BCP 1878, 1926, and 2004, carried on the title page of each: 

By the authority of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland.

Here is the only authority for any liturgy to be used in the Church of Ireland. To again quote the declaration of 1870:

The Church of Ireland, deriving its authority from Christ, Who is the Head over all things to the Church, doth declare that a General Synod of the Church of Ireland, consisting of the archbishops and bishops, and of representatives of the clergy and laity, shall have chief legislative power therein, and such administrative power as may be necessary for the Church, and consistent with its episcopal constitution.

It was on this basis that the revision of 1878 significantly altered aspects of BCP 1662: the rubric directing use of the Athanasian Creed was removed, the absolution from the Holy Communion replaced the special form in the Visitation of the Sick, and lections from the canonical Scriptures replaced readings from the Apocrypha in the 1662 lectionary. A certain stream of opinion in the Church of England protested loudly about such changes: such protest, however, was of no significance. This was a Prayer Book for use in the Church of Ireland, authorised by the General Synod. 

It was also a Prayer Book for use in a Church which was a minority, alongside a Roman Catholic majority and a large Presbyterian minority: a context profoundly different to that known by the Church of England. It was the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, not English authorities or voices, who were best placed to determine what liturgy was appropriate in this context.

Now let us consider PECUSA's BCP 1789. The title page states that it is the liturgy "according to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America". 'Protestant Episcopal Church' (a term unfortunately not found on the title page of BCP 1979) reflects an older, more venerable usage than 'Anglican'. It was, for example, how the United Church of England and Ireland was described in the Act of Union: "The churches of England and Ireland to be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church". Its use as the term for that communion, in the newly-independent United Sates, which had been the Church of England in the colonies of British North America also avoided any notion that it was under the authority or jurisdiction of the Ecclesia Anglicana.

The second part of the term, 'in the United States of America', is no less significant. It locates this national Church in a republic, with its own political, social, cultural, and religious history and experience. It also evokes what it was to be an Episcopalian in Virginia, the Carolinas, New England, or New York city: a context radically different to that of the Church of England. 

To give an example of how this radically different context, in which Episcopalians were a minority, shaped the 1789 revision, we can turn to its The Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants. This permitted the minister to omit the signing with the cross:

If those who present the Infant shall desire the sign of the Cross to be omitted, although the Church knows no worthy cause of scruple concerning the same, yet, in that case the Minister may omit that part of the above which follows the Immersion or the pouring of Water on the Infant. 

This practice was not without precedent in the colonial era. We know from early 18th century correspondence between colonial clergy and English bishops, that clergy in both Long Island and South Carolina omitted the signing with the cross. This probably reflected circumstances in which Anglicans had married Dissenters, or in which there was a large Dissenting presence in a local community. Domestic and communal harmony was then regarded as more important than a ceremony which, as the Canon of 1604 stated, "is no Part of the Substance of that Sacrament".

In the post-Revolutionary War conversations between the English Archbishops and the PECUSA General Convention, to facilitate episcopal consecration from English bishops, the Archbishops did express concern regarding the proposed changes to the BCP. Such concern, however, was very limited. Its focus was the restoration of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and of the descent clause in the Apostles' Creed, all omitted from the 1786 proposal. In their communication with the General Convention, the Archbishops did hint at their discomfort with other changes:

not to mention a variety of verbal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means satisfied.

That said, no reference at any stage was made by the Archbishops to the rubric regarding the signing with the cross, despite the obvious historic connotations for the Church of England. In other words, the PECUSA decision on this matter was recognised as no barrier to the episcopal consecrations.

It was the creedal issues alone which had such significance. Even here, the Archbishops showed considerable flexibility: the consecrations did, of course, occur, but the Athanasian Creed was not restored. While the restoration of the descent clause had clear majority support amongst the General Convention delegates, all 5 state delegations (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and South Carolina) had unanimity or majority opposition to the Athanasian Creed being restored to the revision.

On both points - the rubric which allowed the signing with the cross to be omitted and the decision not to reinstate the Athanasian Creed - it was the General Convention which was best placed to determine what aided and served the ministry and witness of PECUSA in the context of the new republic. The fact that the English episcopate then provided episcopal consecration for PECUSA was an explicit recognition of this.

While the title pages of PECUSA BCP 1789, 1928, and 1979 do not include reference to the authority for the liturgy, such authority is carried in a separate page, 'The Ratification of the Book of Common Prayer':

By the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, this Sixteenth Day of October, in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. 

THIS Convention having, in their present Session, set forth A Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, do hereby establish the said Book: And they declare it to be the Liturgy of this Church: And require that it be received as such by all the members of the same: And this Book shall be in use from and after the First Day of October, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety. 

As with 'By the authority of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland', it is a declaration that ecclesial authority is exercised at the particular level, not universally, and that the relevant liturgies, as with 1662, have no universal pretensions. (I also cannot let this pass without noting that in 'The Ratification', BCP 1979 recognises the title Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.)

England 1662, PECUSA 1789, Ireland 1878: the Prayer Book tradition is "primarily expressed locally". There is a profound wisdom in this, rejecting the notion of an abstract, universal authority, whether of one Book of Common Prayer produced for a particular national and ecclesial context, or one ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It thus also gives expression to what we might term the 'Jewel vision': that national churches, with their rights and liberties, and their synods and councils, are best placed to order their affairs.  This serves the mission of Protestant Episcopal national churches in their particular context and circumstances. Finally, I think the attractiveness of this understanding, that the Prayer Book tradition is "primarily expressed locally", can be expressed in Scruton's term: oikophilia ("Human beings, in their settled condition, are animated by an attitude of oikophilia: the love of the oikos, which means not only the home but the people contained in it"). To have a Book of Common Prayer for this place, is a means of gathering up this place - its communal and national norms, rhythms, memories, circumstances, patterns of life, polity, duties - in prayer and thanksgiving unto the Triune God. A Book of Common Prayer for this place, for our church, this is the Prayer Book tradition.