Thoughts of Tillotson at Morning Prayer on Summer Sundays
It is not that I welcome all the suggested revisions of 1689. Some, I think, would have been unwise and de-stabilising for the Church of England and 18th century Anglicanism. Some were unnecessary, not the least of which were the proposed changes to many of the collects. Others, however, were prudent. Admittedly, many of these were rather minor changes.
These minor changes came to mind over summer Sundays in some nearby parish churches, as I enjoyed sitting in the pews on Sundays without duty, with Morning and Evening Prayer Two from BCP 2004 in use. Morning and Evening Prayer Two is a contemporary version of the 1662/1926 orders, also part of BCP 2004 as Order One. Order Two holds the structure of 1662/1926, and offers contemporary language versions of most of the 1662/1926 texts.
Here and there, however, the influence of the 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension can be detected. Take, for example, the Te Deum at Morning Prayer. "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth" is, as 1689 proposed, revised. 1689 had "Lord God of Hosts", while 2004 Order Two (and many other contemporary Anglicans usages) has "God of power and might". In this case, 1689's recognition that the meaning of 'Sabaoth' may not be apparent to worshippers is reflected in 2004 Order Two.
Likewise, 1662/1926's "thine honourable, true, and only Son" in the Te Deum became "Thy True and Thy only begotten Son" in 1689, offering a more explicit expression of the Son's divinity. 2004 Order Two somewhat follows this with "your true and only Son, worthy of all praise". Again, there was the perception in 1689 that "honourable" did not quite convey to worshippers what was intended in terms of the divine nature of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
While not proposed in 1689, 2004 Order Two follows another revision from 'the long 18th century' - that of PECUSA 1789, significantly influenced by 1689 - in altering "thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb" to become "thou didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin". This more straightforwardly conveys the humility of the Incarnation. In Order Two it is followed by use of the phrase "you humbly chose the Virgin's womb".
Another feature of 1689's revision of the canticles is echoed in 2004 Order Two Evening Prayer. As an alternative to the Nunc Dimittis, 1689 proposed Psalm 134. While Order Two does not do this, it does allow Psalm 134 as a first canticle following "Praise the Lord : The Lord's name be praised". In other words, 2004 Order Two follows 1689 in finding a place for the evocative words of Psalm 134 at Evening Prayer.
Perhaps the most significant revision in Order Two occurs in the Apostles' Creed, the descent clause: "he descended to the dead". Again, this was not proposed in 1689 but was an alternative provision in PECUSA 1789. It is, however, partly related to 1689 insofar as two of the leading figures in the Liturgy of Comprehension - Tillotson and Burnet - offered a theological interpretation of the descent clause as "to the dead" rather than "into hell". Tillotson, as Archbishop of Canterbury, published a selection of sermons by Isaac Barrow on the Creed, including one on this clause. Barrow, noting that "This article is of later standing in the Creed, and doth not appear to have had place in any of the most ancient ones", interpreted the descent clause to mean 'the dead':
seeing it is a most certain truth, that our Saviour's soul did immediately go into the place appointed to receive happy souls after their recession from the body, and resignation into God's hands; if we take hell in a general and common sense for the place, or the state of souls departed; and descending for passing thereinto, (by a falling, as it were, from life, or by going away together with the descent of the body; and thence styled descending; what appeareth visibly happening to the body being accommodated to the soul;) if, I say, we do thus interpret our Saviour's descent into hell, for his soul's going into the common receptacle and mansion of souls, we shall so doing be sure not substantially to mistake.
Similarly, Burnet, in his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, points to the absence of this article from "the Fathers in the first Ages, neither Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens, nor Origen, in the short Abstracts that they give us of the Christian Faith". He continues by offering the same interpretation of the clause given by Barrow and endorsed by Tillotson:
So if these words are taken in this large sense, we have in them a clear and literal account of our Saviour's Soul descending into Hell; it imports that he was not only dead in a more common acceptation, as it is usual to say a man is dead when there appear no signs of life in him; and that he was not as in a deep Extasy or Fit that seemed Death, but that he was truly dead; that his Soul was neither in his Body, not hovering about it, ascending and descending upon it, as some of the Jews fancied Souls did for some time after death; but that his Soul was really removed out of his Body, and carried to those unseen Regions of departed Spirits, among whom it continued till his Resurrection ... This is a plain and full account of a good Sense that may be well put on the Words.
The version of the descent clause in the contemporary version of the Apostles' Creed used by many Anglicans is therefore rooted in the theological thought of those engaged in the 1689 revision. A strong case can be made that the contemporary rendering of the descent clause merely makes explicit what has been a long-established and, probably, the most widespread Protestant understanding of "he descended into hell".
A rather more minor 1689 revision occurs in the Lord's Prayer in Order Two. Unlike 1662/1926, Order Two only has the Lord's Prayer after the Creed and before the collects i.e. no Lord's Prayer follows the confession and absolution. At this point, Order Two includes the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. This inclusion of the doxology had been proposed by 1689. It is a wise and sensible provision. Most Anglicans - as is common amongst Protestant Christians - conventionally include the doxology with the Lord's Prayer. There is little reason why the Lord's Prayer at Morning and Evening Prayer should not reflect common practice.
Order Two also alters some of the versicles and responses before the collect. Here, too, the influence of 1689 might be be detected. A particular focus is the response to "Give peace in our time, O Lord". 1662/1926's "because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O Lord" may have been uneasily uttered by Latitudinarians and many others for whom the national and cultural memory of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms produced a healthy suspicion of such language. While Order Two's "and let your glory be over all the earth" is different to 1689's (very appropriate) "That we may serve Thee without fear all the days of our lives", the same intent is present and the same concern evident.
Finally, there are the Third Collects at Morning and Evening Prayer. At Morning Prayer, 1662/1926's "who hast brought us safely to the beginning of this day" can sound slightly odd at 11am on a Sunday morning. 1689's "who hast brought us safely to this day" is echoed in Order Two's "for bringing us safely to this day". It is a revision which reflects the normal experience of Morning Prayer in Anglican Sunday congregations.
Just as "the beginning of this day" may sound odd to a Sunday congregation approaching mid-day, so too can "Lighten our darkness" sound strange during long Summer evenings. 1689 addressed this by altering the beginning of the collect to read "Almighty God who hast hitherto preserved us in safety this day". Order Two (and 1926, retained in Order One) achieves the same purpose by offering an alternative Third Collect, so that "Lighten our darkness" need not be said during the Summer evenings when darkness is many hours away. This, I must confess, is one of those 1689 changes which would have impoverished the Prayer Book. Just as "Lighten our darkness" can seem odd on Summer evenings, it is deeply resonant during the dark months of the year, when Evening Prayer is said as the sun sets on Autumn days or in the darkness of Winter.
1689 was, in Fawcett's words, an "abortive attempt" to revise the Prayer Book. It has not, however, been without influence. PECUSA's 1789 revision and the Church of Ireland 1878 revision were both influenced by the Liturgy of Comprehension. When we turn to Order Two Morning and Evening Prayer in the Church of Ireland's BCP 2004, we can see evidence of further influence. Unsuccessful though 1689 was in its own context, it has become part of the Prayer Book tradition, with a continued influence in contemporary expressions of what we might term Cranmerian Morning and Evening Prayer. (In addition to this, we could point to its influence in other ways: on, for example, the Ordinal, with 1689's "Pour down, O Father of Lights, the Holy Ghost", replacing 1662's "Receive the Holy Ghost", echoed in many contemporary Anglican ordination rites.)
Thus did Tillotson come to mind as I sat in the pews this Summer during Morning and Evening Prayer Two. The gentle, wise, prudent revisions I have mentioned have the character of Tillotson himself, a chief cause of my affection for him. He would, I think, be pleased that the revision for which he unsuccessfully worked in 1689 has become a part of the Prayer Book tradition.
Comments
Post a Comment