"JOHN WESLEY'S PRAYER BOOK REVISION: THE TEXT IN CONTEXT

Transcription

1 Methodist History, 34:4 (Juy 1996) "JOHN WESLEY'S PRAYER BOOK REVSON: THE TEXT N CONTEXT KAREN B. WESTERFELD TUCKER When, in 1784, Richard Whatcoat, Thomas Vasey, and Dr. Thomas Coke set sai for America, they were accompanied by John Wesey's iturgica egacy, a revision of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer entited The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, which was transported in oose-eaf form so as to avoid the duty for bound books. Mr. Wesey is virtuay sient about the process by which he prepared this iturgica book for the Methodist peope. Athough it is possibe that his active engagement with the revision of the Prayer Book was COJ}fined to the year 1784, it is cear that his iturgica work was anticipated by a ifetime of pastora experience, of studying ancient writers and the ritua texts of antiquity then avaiabe, of scrutinizing the iturgy of the Church of Engand which he beieved was unsurpassed in "soid, scriptura, rationa Piety,'' 1 and of engagement with the iturgica issues and debates of his own day. The construction of the Sunday Service is best understood by pacing it within a doube framework. The first context is the Methodist movement itsef, wherein we find the approva but aso a critique of the Prayer Book voiced by John Wesey and other Methodists. The second is the broader iturgica cimate of Engand during the 17th and 18th centuries. Controversies that had surrounded the Prayer Book since its creation by Thomas Cranmer in 1549 persisted in Wesey's day and new iturgica questions arose in conjunction with the theoogica debates that ensued from the Enightenment. Both of these contexts wi be examined in order to ocate Wesey's Prayer Book revision propery within the iturgica ferment of the ate 18th century and to anayze the content and substance of the iturgica text itsef. Evidence of John Wesey's predisposition toward editing the Book of Common Prayer is first found in a diary entry for March 5, 1736, 1 Dated Bristo, September 9, 17 84, Wesey's statement about the Church of Engand's iturgy is found as a preface in most extant origina copies of the Sunday Service, and is incuded in contemporary reprints of that work. See The Works of the Rev. John Wesey, A.M., vo. 14, ed. Thomas Jackson (London: Weseyan Methodist Book Room, 1872; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984),

2 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 231 written during the period when Wesey was beginning service as a priest of the Church of Engand in Savannah, Georgia. Here, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., are twice recorded the unexpicated words that he ''revised Common Prayer." 2 Athough Wesey revered the Prayer Book and enforced the contents of its rubrics upon the citizenry of Georgia, 3 ceary, even in his eary ministry, he did not regard the Prayer Book as so sacrosanct as to be above improvement. Fifteen years ater, when the Methodists met in Conference at Leeds to discuss the egaity and expediency of forming a separate denomination, Wesey presented the essay "Ought We to Separate from the Church of Engand?" which incuded remarks about Methodist worship within the framework of the Church of Engand and criticisms of specific items within the Book of Common Prayer. Among the items of the Prayer Book that Wesey "did not undertake to defend" were the ans wers of the sponsors in baptism, the entire office of confirmation,. the absoution in the visitation of the sick, and the thanksgiving in the buria offi.ce. Portions of the Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vut) were aso suspect, particuary the so-caed "damnatory causes" in which it was stated that persons coud not be saved who did not adhere unwaveringy to the doctrine espoused in the creed. These bemishes, nevertheess, were to Wesey's mind insufficient cause to separate from the Church of Engand. 4 Chares Wesey, concerned est the Methodists depart from Mother Church, sought to reativize the importance of iturgica controversies even whie isting some of the debated matters. He did this in a versified tract dated May 25, 1755 that was addressed to his brother John: Nor woud e'er disgrace the Church's Cause By pena Edicts, and compusive Laws; (Shoud wicked Powers, as formery, prevai T'excude her choicest Chidren from her Pae) Or force my Brethren in her Forms to join, As every Rite and Rubric were divine, As a her Orders on the Mount were given, And copied from the Hierarchy of Heaven. Let Others for the Shape and Coour fight Of Garments short or ong, or back or white; Or fairy match'd, in furious Batte join For and against the Sponsors and the Sign; Copes, Hoods, and Surpices the Church misca, And fiercey run their heads against the Wa; \ 2 Diary, March 5, 1736, The Works of John Wesey, vo. 18, eds. W. Reginad Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashvie: Abingdon, 1988), Wesey stricty administered such rubrics as the requirements of banns or icense before matrimony, the announcement of intention prior to the reception of the eucharist, and the expectation of baptism by an episcopay ordained priest before buria. 4 "0ught We to Separate from the Church of Engand?" The Works of John Wesey, vo. 9, ed. Rupert E. Davies (Nashvie: Abingdon, 1989),

3 -r..} t.. r 232 Methodist History Far different Care is mine; o'er Earth to see Diffuse'd her true essentia Piety, To see her ift again her anguid Head, Her ovey Face from ev'ry Wrinke freed, Cad irt the simpe, pure, primeva Dress, And beauteous with interna Hoiness, Wash'd by the Spirit and the Word from Sin, Fair without Spot, and gorious a within. 5 Herein is a foreshadowing of some of the concerns that John Wesey woud ater address through his 1784 revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The question of a Methodist revision of the Book of Common Prayer was raised prior to the 1775 Conference (again hed at Leeds), first through a proposa for ordination submitted to Wesey by Joseph Benson and then by a revision of Benson's proposa from the pen of John Fetcher. 6 Urging reformation of the Church of Engand through separation of the Methodists "into a genera society-a daughter church of our hoy mother," Fetcher pressed for the modification of the iturgy, the homiies and the artices, recommending:! i!..,. ( '. t That a pamphet be pubished containing the 39 artices of the Church of Engand rectified according to the purity of the gospe, together with some needfu aterations in the iturgy and homiies-such as the expunging the damnatory causes of the A thanasian creed, &c... That the most spiritua part of the Common Prayer sha be extracted and pubished with the 39 rectified artices, and the minutes of the conferences (or the Methodist canons) which (together with such reguations as may be made at the time of this estabishment) sha be, next to the Bibe, the vade mecum ofthe Methodist preachers. 7 Fetcher's iturgica suggestions conformed, at east in part, to Wesey's concerns about the content of the Prayer Book as documented in When in 1784 Wesey produced the Sunday Service, he did not impusivey ater the Prayer Book but drew upon and incorporated the issues and concerns which he himsef and the Methodists had raised earier. Wesey aso, in his revision, sought to address the American Methodist situation as it was interpreted through etter and direct conversation. n many ways, the circumstances in America were simiar to those which had aready confronted him in Engand, namey, the necessity of marking out a midde ground between Dissent and dominant "estabished" Church. Wesey's attention to compromise is evident from a etter sent to Francis Asbury from Norwich, dated October 31, 1784:! j. i 5 "An Episte to the Reverend John Wesey, by Chares Wesey, Presbyter of the Church of Engand," Chares Wesey: A Reader, ed. John R. Tyson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), "The Benson-Fetcher Correspondence," The Journa of the Rev. John Wesey, A.M., ed. Nehemiah Currtock, 8 vos. (London: Chares H. Key, ) [hereafter cited as Journa (Standard ed.)], 8: Letter of John Fetcher to John Wesey, August 1, 1775, Journa (Standard ed.), 8:

4 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 233 You are aware of the danger on either hand: And scarce know which is the greater? One or the other, so far as it takes pace wi overturn Methodism from the foundation: Either our traveing Preachers turning ndependents, & gathering Congregations each for himsef: Or procuring Ordination in a reguar way, & accepting Parochia Cures. f you can find means of guarding against both evis the work of God wi prosper more than ever. 8 Since Wesey was a man attuned to the thought and condition of his time, his efforts to construct a iturgica midde way were shaped not ony by the American context, but aso by a matrix of 17th and 18th-century Engish theoogy, iturgica innovation, and cutura transitions. From Wesey's attempt to synthesize and comprehend these perspectives, the Methodist Sunday Service was born. Wesey's 1784 revision was not an anomay of iturgica experimentation. Rather, in the age of Enightenment it stood in a ong ine of efforts to amend, suppement, or suppant the Book of Common Prayer. Various theoogica and poitica perspectives of the 17th and 18th centuries within Engand often sought articuation and codification in iturgica texts. A number of revisions and proposed revisions during this period-some of which were indeed used for worship- were aimed at the comprehension of those who were situated on the fringes of the Estabished Church (e.g., the Puritans, who wanted to take the Prayer Book further in a Reformed direction) and those who fuy supported the Church but sought enrichment of the approved iturgy (e.g., the Laudians, who advocated the restoration of particuar pre-reformation practices). Advocates of comprehension stressed the need for a iturgica synthesis which integrated diverse positions and thereby produced a unified iturgica service book. Comprehension was greaty preferabe to mere toeration. Other revisions refected the tenets of bossoming new theoogica and eccesiastica movements, such as Unitarianism. Certain of these revisions drew upon the Book of Common Prayer for inspiration whie others dismissed it en"" tirey. Some of the proposed revisions incorporated recent iturgica discoveries geaned from ancient texts. Newy-created materia was occasionay incorporated into the framework of the Book of Common Prayer though sometimes it was set into entirey new orders of service ~ These revisions or proposas were not produced as isoated, independent entities, for they were subject to the cross-currents operationa at the time of their production. The history of Book of Common Prayer revision has been recorded in numerous studies and the production of variant iturgies has been 8 Cited in Wesey F. Swift, "Five Wesey Letters," Proceedings of the Wesey Historica Society 33 (March 1961): 11.

5 234 Methodist History chroniced, particuary through the work of Aexander Eiott Peaston. 9 n Wesey studies, however, ess attention has been given to the questions of if and how Wesey utiized for his own worship book the content of historic appeas for revision and the materias which emerged from the cimate of iturgica revision of his day. Certainy he was famiiar with many appeas and concrete proposas, for he periodicay referred to them, noting, for exampe, that current Methodist concerns often corresponded with past agendas. Thus, in a etter to Samue Waker, he wrote: Those ministers who truy feared God near an hundred years ago had undoubtedy much the same objections to the iturgy which some (who never read their works) have now. And mysef so far aow the force of severa of those objections that shoud not dare to decare my assent and consent to that book in the terms prescribed. 10 The revisionists and schoos of revision that Wesey expicity acknowedged in his journa and etters wi constitute the basis for this inquiry into possibe textua infuences upon or paraes with Wesey's 1784 revision. These incude the Puritan schoo, and then such varied figures as Richard Baxter, Wiiam Whiston, Thomas Deacon, John Jones, and Samue Carke (as presented and revised bytheophius Lindsey). t is not surprising that Wesey was acquainted with these revisionists and their work, for the revisions they produced or encouraged were among the best known and most infuentia of his day. Undoubtedy Wesey aso was aware of the process by which the 1662 Book of Common Prayer took shape and was famiiar with the so-caed iturgies of comprehension formuated in 1688 and 1689 which were known primariy through the second edition of Edmund Caamy's An Abridgment of Mr. Baxter's History of His Life and Times (1713) which Wesey read in 1754; 11 these wi be examined as we. The Engish Puritans of the mid-sixteenth century received many of their standards for iturgica evauation from the continenta reformers whose perspectives were articuated by the Marian exies returning to 9 See in particuar G. J. Cuming, A History of Angican Liturgy, 2d ed. (London: The Macmian Press, 1982), ; Horton Davies, Worship and Theoogy in Engand, 3 vos. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961, 1970, 1975), 2: and 3:79-93; W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Angican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Acuin Cub Coections, no. 40 (London: SPCK, 1958): Marion J. Hatchett, The Making of the First American Book of Common Prayer, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1982), 7-36; and A. Eiott Peaston, The Prayer Book Reform Movement in the 18th Century (Oxford: Basi Backwe, 1940). 10 Letter to Samue Waker, November 20, 1755, The Works of John Wesey, vo. 26, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford: Carendon, 1982), Journa, Apri/3, 1754, The Works of John Wesey, vo1. 20, eds. W. Reginad Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashvie: Abingdon, 1991), '

6 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 235 Engand from Protestant centers such as Geneva, Strassbourg, and Zurich. 12 Generay the concern of the Puritans was not to abandon set forms, but rather to eradicate what were perceived as Romish remnants and non-scriptura forms and theoogies in the Book of Common Prayer. During the reign of Eizabeth, these compaints were articuated in an "Admonition to the Pariament," pubished in 1572 by two Puritan cergy, Thomas Wicox and John Fied. The "Admonition" formed a foundation for ater Puritan critique whie providing fodder for an increasingy bitter debate between supporters of the Prayer Book and the Puritans. Among the matters criticized in the ''unperfecte booke, cued & picked out of that popishe dunghi" were the use of the designa:tion "priest," supersti" tions in baptism (e.g., signation and the use of godparents), private communion, purifications (i.e., the churching of women), hoy days, the reading of services in ieu of preaching, and antiphona recitation of the psams. 13 Receiving no satisfaction for their grievances, the Puritans prepared their own service books and revised copies of the Book of Common Prayer, an exampe of which is the Wadegrave Prayer Book of 1584 used in conjunction with the Geneva Bibe ("Breeches Bibe," 1560) rather than the Great Bibe. 14 Puritan Prayer Book revision prior to 1588 evidenty proceeded without censure, perhaps on account of a genera attitude of toeration and the fact that the iturgica aterations were quite modest. 15 The "Mienary Petition" of Apri1603, a statement reputed to have had one thousand cerica signatories, recapituated the earier Puritan "Admonition." Objections were made to the use of the Apocrypha, the ength of services, priesty absoutions, the interrogatories administered to infants at baptism, the office of confirmation, and the use of the ring in marriage. The petitioners aso requested the estabishment of a conference to discuss their concerns. 16 The recipient of the petition, James, convened a conference at Hampton Court in January 1604, but ony after he had decared (on October 24, 1603) that the Constitution and doctrine of the Church 12 The term "Puritan," whie having a variety of meanings, here refers to persons in sixteenth through eighteenth.century Engand who sought the purification and renewa of Christian faith and ife through the primary guidance of the Scriptures. A variety of theoogica positions, poitica attachments, and eccesiastica poities were advocated within t}e framework of the Puritan movement; Puritanism at times incuded those oya to the Church of Engand, as we as Separatists, Presbyterians, and ndependents. 13 ''An Admonition to the Pariament," in Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Origin of the Puritan Revot, ed. W. H. Frere and C. E. Dougas (London: SPCK, 1954), Peter Ha, ed., A Booke of the Forme of Common Prayers, in Fragment a Liturgica, vo. 1: The Wadegrave Prayer-Book (Bath: Printed by Binns and Goodwin, 1848). 15 A. Eiott Peaston, The Prayer Book Tradition in the Free Churches (London: James Carke & Co., 1964), "The Mienary Petition," in Documents ustrative of Engish Church History, ed. Henry Gee and Wiiam John Hardy (London: Macmian and Co., 1910; repr., New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1972),

7 236 Methodist History of Engand conformed to scripture and the primitive church. Few concessions were gained by the four Puritan deegates at the Conference who faced seventeen advocates of the Prayer Book, its rites and rubrics. The proposed reformation of the service book was imited to words of carification, athough were apocrypha readings were deemed repugnant to canonica scripture, it was conceded that they shoud not be read. 17 n fact, the Conference resuted in decreased toeration for dissent, as heavy penaties came to be inficted upon those who absented themseves from the Church of Engand's worship. The ascendancy of the Laudians during this period particuary irritated the iturgica sensitivities of the Puritans. n March 1641, with civi war ooming on the horizon, the House of Lords appointed a committee representing the predominant poitica, theoogica-and iturgica-opinions to achieve a settement of reigious disputes. The "Proceedings" that resuted incuded comments on innovations in doctrine and considerations upon the Prayer Book which incorporated severa of the Puritan criticisms. 18 The Puritan agenda took officia form by the authorization in 1644 of A Directory for the Pub/ike Worship of God, a coection of iturgica directions and suggestions, produced to guide the worship of Engand during the interregnum when the Book of Common Prayer was iega. Even though the government appied sanctions against the empoyment of the Book of Common Prayer for worship, there was sti candestine usage. Some Angican cergy, incuding Jeremy Tayor (whose works Wesey strongy approved), improvised by adapting or constructing iturgies. Tayor produced in 1658 a coection of offices and prayers, many of which departed from the texts of the Book of Common Prayer. Among his iturgica materias were provided eeven services or prayers under the heading, "Devotions and Proper Offices for Women" which incuded prayers for women abused by their husbands. 19 Wesey, in his preserved 17 "A Letter from Patrick Gaoway to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, Concerning the Conference," in A History of Conferences and other Proceedings Connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer from the Year 1558 to the Year 1690, 3d ed., ed. Edward Cardwe (Oxford: Unviersity Press, 1849; repr., Ridgewood, N.J.: The Gregg Press, 1966), "A Copy of the Proceedings of Some Worthy and Learned Divines touching nnovations in the Doctrine and Discipine of the Church of Engand; together with considerations upon the Common Prayer Book," in A History of Conferences, G. J. Cuming describes the "Proceedings" as "an interesting compendium of unpopuar Laudian practices and midy Puritan criticisms of the Prayer Book" (A History of Angican Liturgy, 110) eremy Tayor, Coection of Offices or Forms of Prayer, in The Whoe Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Tayor, D.D., vo..8, rev. and corr. Chares Page Eden (London: Longman, Green, et a., 1865), A genera introduction to the Coection is found in Horton Davies, Worship and Theoogy in Engand, 2: ; and Grisbrooke, Angican Liturgies, 19-24; cf. Raymond A. Peterson, "Jeremy Tayor's Theoogy of Worship," Angican Theoogica!Review 46(Arpi1964): 204-8; and Harry Boone Porter, Jeremy Tayor, Liturgist (London: Acuin Cub/SPCK, 1979), 90-91,

8 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 237, writings, made no specific comment about Tayor's iturgica offices, but given the breadth of Wesey's knowedge of Tayor's works, one can surmise that he probaby was famiiar with them. The Restoration brought with it a desire on the part of the Presbyterians, who had become the dominant Puritan party, to accept a new church settement and with it a book of set forms of prayer accommodated to'their iturgica and theoogica positions. Comprehension, and not simpy toeration, was their theoogica and iturgica goa. But movement toward fu comprehension may not have been the preference of the new king, Chares. Regarding the Book of Com.!Jon Prayer, Chares stated: And though we do esteem the iturgy of the Church of Engand, contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and by aw estabished, to be the best we have seen; and we beieve that we have seen a that are extant and used in this part of the wohd, and we know what reverence most of the reformed churches, or ateast the most earned men in those churches have for it; yet since we find some exceptions made against severa things there, we wi appoint an equa number of earned divines of both persuasions, to review the same, and to make such aterations as sha be thought most necessary. 20 At a conference convened at Savoy on the Strand on Apri5, 1661 to hammer out a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, the tweve bishops in attendance stated that they had no disagreement with the extant Prayer Book, so proposas for revision had to be prepared by their tweve Presbyterian counterparts. Criticisms came in two forms: the first, a isting of "Exceptions against the Book of Common Prayer''; and the second, a concrete iturgica text composed by Richard Baxter and set forward as a ega aternative to the Prayer Book. 21. The "Exceptions" reiterated much of what had been condemned in the "Admonition" and the "Mienary Petition'' and commended in the "Proceedings." The bishops' repy to the "Exceptions" dismissed the majority of the Presbyterian caims. ndeed, some of the repies from th~ bishops mocked the Presbyterian proposas. For exampe, in response to the suggestion that cergy be aowed, at their own discretion, to perform 20 "His Majesty's Decaration to a his Loving Subjects of his Kingdom of 'En&and and Dominion of Waes concerning Eccesiastica Affairs," in A History of Conferences, Athough Baxter ceary preferred comprehension to toeration, he reaized that ony by an aternate iturgy which conformed to the "aw of nature and Hoy Scripture" coud accommodation be attained. These matters Baxter articuated in a "Draft of a Decaration on Reigion in a etter to Thomas Bampfied, Apri4, 1660" (quoted in Richard Schatter, Richard Baxter and Puritan Poitics [NewBrunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press, 1957], 144). For additiona information on Baxter and the Savoy conference see aso: E. C. Ratciff, "Puritan Aternatives to the Prayer Book: The Directory and Richard Baxter's Reformed Liturgy," in The Engish Prayer Book, , ed. Michae Ramsey and others (London: SPCK, 1963}, 56-81; and Geoffrey Nutta and Owen Chadwick, eds., From Uniformity to Unity, (London: SPCK, 1962),

9 238 Methodist History the buria service inside the church in cases of incement weather (rather than at the graveside), the bishops responded that the cergy woud be "heped by a cap better than a rubric." 22 Aso rejected was Baxter's The Reformed Liturgy (often identified as the ''Savoy Liturgy") which for severa of the rites was itte more than a set form of the Directory with an expansion and formaization of the rubrics. 23 The revision of the Book of Common Prayer and the subsequent Act of Uniformity {which ater stirred the ire of John Wesey) effectivey thrust the Presbyterians and other Dissenters out of the Church of Engand. Nevertheess, those on the margins continued to rai against the estabished iturgy through theoogica writings (such as those by Richard Baxter 24 ) and through the chronicers of Puritan histories (e.g., Edmund Caamy, whose Abridgment contained an account of the proceedings of the Savoy Conference). Sympathy toward and interest in the Puritan cause was refected in Wesey's concern for reigious toeration and by the compatibiity of aspects of Puritan theoogy with his own. Of a the Puritan authors that John Wesey read, it was Richard Baxter who had the strongest continuing infuence on him, chaenging him to refect on the pace of Scripture and Christian piety in "practica divinity," eccesiastica poity, and theoogica discourse. His appreciation for Baxter ("The Saints' Everasting Rest") and other Puritan authors is evident in the incusion of a vast.array of Puritan writings, often abridged (as was Wesey~s custom), in A Christian Library. That Wesey (and the M-ethodists) borrowed directy from Puritan authors for modes of spiritua and iturgica praxis is ceary evident in the Methodist custom of renewing one's covenant with God which was inspired from the works of Joseph and Richard Aeine. V Attempts by some Angicans to comprehend Dissenters occurred soon after the authorization of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, spurred on by fear of the Roman Cathoic attachments ofthe new king. Most Dissenters were wiing to accept a prescribed iturgy- even a Book of Common Prayer- so ong as materia judged to be theoogicay offensive was expunged from it. n 1688, meetings were hed to propose revisions :.,1 _ [ 22 "The Answer of the Bishops to the Exceptions of the Ministers," in A History of Conferences, The Reformed Liturgy, appended to Edmund Caamy, An Abridgment of Mr. Baxter's History of His Life and Times with an Account of many of those Worthy Ministers who were Ejected, after the Restoration of King Chares the Second (London: Printed for John Lawrence, 1713). 24 For exampe., Richard Baxter, The Engish Nonconformist as under King Chares and King James truy Stated and Argued (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1689).

10 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 239! ~. ' (which were recorded in an undated foio Prayer Book), but progress was interrupted by the poitics surrounding the arriva of Wiiam of Orange. Revisionary work resumed in October 1689 with an eye to accommodating the famiiar iturgica criticisms of many Dissenters as we as those of the recenty suspended Non-Jurors. A fu revision was produced of the Prayer Book (again in a foio Prayer Book), athough it was never discussed (or, a fortiori, approved) by Convocation. 25 The Prayer Book which contained the 1689 revision was kept under ock and key, athough there were attempts in the 18th century to make its contents pubic. Ony in the 19th century were editions of the revised text pubishe~. Unti then, persons had to.rey on secondary accounts, such as that recorded by Edmund Caamy. v The rejection of an "officia" comprehensive iturgy, the passage of the Toeration Act (1689), and the prorogation of Convocation from 1717 onwards each contributed to the impetus for the production of more than fifty unofficia iturgies by persons within the Church of Engand and those on the fringe. 26 These iturgica constructions coud compromise fu service books or a few seected services. Morning and evening prayer and the communion service were by far the most frequent objects of revision. Books, tracts, and treatises continuing programs for revision (without providing concrete iturgica texts) aso fourished during this period. The underying motivation for numerous iturgica reformuations and proposas was the comprehension of moderate Dissenters. Nevertheess, other factors increasingy were invoved, such as the incorporation of primitive Christian iturgica modes, the omission of theoogicay questionabe materia, the eimination of what were deemed "archaisms" especiay in anguage, 27 and the espression of newy articuated doctrina principes, particuary those that questioned the doctrine of the Trinity. For exampe, a 1768 proposa by Samue Roe of Bedfordshire encouraged emendation of the Book of Common Prayer by purging the "corrupt Errors and extravagant Notions of the Hoy Spirit" to avoid "adding Fue to 25 For a thorough study of the deveopment of the 1688 and 1689iturgies and the controversy surrounding them, see Timothy 1. Fawcett, The Liturgy of Comprehension, 1689 (Southendon-Sea: Mayhew-McCrimmon, 1973), An anonymous etter on the subject of the 1689 revisionary work deineates many of the desired iturgica changes ("Letter to Dr. Tiotson, bearing date October 5, 1689," A History of Conferences, 453). 26 Peaston notes that approximatey fifty-four iturgies were pubished from 1713 to 1854 (The Prayer Book Reform Movement, 34). Wesey's revision, amazingy, is not addressed by Peaston. 27 For exampe, The Book of Common Prayer Revis'd of 1734 sought to address the probems of outmoded anguage. See E. Vincent, "An Eighteenth-Century Attempt at Revision" Theoogy 14 (1927):

11 240 Methodist History the Fames of Enthusiasm" manifest among ''vain Bigots and Sceptic Methodists. " 28 John Wesey, at east from his time at Oxford, was famiiar with the iturgica work of Wiiam Whiston and the Non-Juror Thomas Deacon. n February and again in December 1734, Wesey met with Whiston and, as the manuscript diary indicates, they taked about "stations" and "feasting."29 Whiston himsef records in the second edition of his Memoirs that he assisted Wesey in the atter's writing "for the observation of the od Wednesday and Friday stations," and that he hoped one day Wesey woud "eave off his athanasian foies, and come intirey [sic] into od christianity."30 Wesey's connection with Thomas Deacon came through one of the Oxford Methodists, John Cayton, and Wesey had subsequenty read many of Deacon's works and had traveed to Manchester to meet with him. Deacon even incuded a portion of Wesey's "Essay upon the Stationary Fasts," which apparenty had been written under Whiston's guidance, in the appendix of his A Compeat Coection of Devotions (1734). 31 n their iturgica revisions, both Whiston and Deacon reied upon that which was deemed ''primitive" in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and upon the so-caed Apostoic Constitutions and Canons of the fourth and fifth centuries as foundations for their iturgica revisions. 32 The editio princeps of Apostoic Constitutions had been estabished in 1563 by Francisco Torres in Venice, and the first Engish transation was pubished by Whiston in Primitive Christianity Reviv'd ( ). Apostoic Constitutions was the odest ancient church order generay known in Wesey's day and was widey accepted as an apostoic work. n spite of the fact that his father, Samue, questioned the authenticity of the Apostoic Constitutions/3 Wesey, eary in his ministry, beieved them to be genuine. 28 Samue Roe, Another Pertinent and Curious Letter Humby offered to the Pubic in Favour of a Revisa, and the Amendment, of our Liturgy (Cambridge: Printed by Fetcher and Hodson, 1768), am gratefu to Richard P. Heitzenrater for making avaiabe this information from the sti unpubished manuscript diaries. 30 Wiiam Whiston, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Mr. Wiiam Whiston, 2d ed., corr. (London: Printed for J. Whiston and B. White, 1753), Thomas Deacon, "Appendix," A Compeat Coection ofdevotions (London: Printed for the Author, 1734), Grisbrooke comments that the iturgy of Whiston (and aso that of John Heney) tends toward excusive preoccupation with the primitive materias whie the iturgies of the Non Jurors (e.g., Deacon) are more baanced with "traditiona" materias (Angican Liturgies, 56-67). 33 "The Constitutions woud be worth god, as showing us much of the face, discipine, and ritua of the ancient church, coud we separate the dross from them. But as they are, they stink so viey of Arian interpoations, (as does the bastard gnatius,) from end to end, that doubt we must despair of ever finding them sweet and cean again" ("Advice to a Young Cergyman," in The Life ofthe Rev. Chares Wesey, 2 vos., ed. Thomas Jackson [London: John Mason, 1841], 2:514). j [ \' : -,. ' ~

12 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision ~ j Wesey's ater skepticism about the Apostoic Constitutions may then have infuenced his opinion about Whiston's and Deacon's iturgica texts. U n fortunatey he is sient on this matter. One can at east assume that he took issue with parts of the Constitutions on account of their anti Trinitarian sentiment. 34 Wiiam Whiston's The Liturgy of the Church of Engand, Reduc'd Nearer to the Primitive Standard (1713), 35 was an attempt to return the worship of Engand to "a much better Liturgy." n the note "To the Reader," Whiston acknowedged that his iturgy, the "first Liturgy... of our Reformed Church of Engand," was devise~)o conform, though imperfecty, to the "origina Liturgies of Christianity." To that ertd, Whiston's iturgy did not incude a marriage rite since there was none provided in Apostoic Constitutions; however, he incuded a brief rubric which aowed for marriages to be soemnized by the "ordinary form.''-\vhiston's iturgica agenda ceary was not devised primariy to address comprehension of Dissenters. ndeed, Whiston restored the previousy objectionabe ritua action of chrismation foowing baptism and aso prayers for the faithfu departed. Most of the iturgy was revised to address ony the first person of the Trinity or, when the three persons were named together, to aow a subordinationist understanding (e.g., "Gory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Hoy Ghost"). Nevertheess, a few of his modifications did echo the ong-standing compaints, such as the omission (as might be expected) of the Athanasian Creed, the expunction of the office for the churching women, and the provision for a singe recita of the Lord's Prayer by the assemby at the ceebration of Hoy Communion. A was done that the "Liturgy might be more truy Primitive, and Christian, and Compeat." Deacon's A Compeat Coection of Devotions, in which Whiston's iturgy was used as a source, accompanied Wesey on his journey to Georgia as did four other books by Non-Jurors, incuding Robert Neson's Companion for the Festivas and Fasts of the Church of Engand. 36 The engthy fu tite of Deacon's service book provides a suitabe summary of this vouminous work: A Compeat Coection of Devotions, both Pubick and Private: Taken from the Apostoica Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies, and the Common Prayer Book of the Church of Engand. n Two Parts. Part. Comprehending the PuiJie~ Offices of the Church. Humby offered to the Consideration of the present Churches of 34 Frank Baker, John Wesey and the Church of Engand (London: Epworth, 1970); Nashvie: Abindgon, 1970), Wiiam Whiston, The Liturgy of the Church of Engand, Reduc'd nearer to the Primitive Standard (London: Printed for the Author, 1713), no pagination. 36 Robert Neson, A Companion for the Festivas and Fasts of the Church of Engand; with Coects and Prayers for each Soemnity, 2d ed. (London: Printed by W. Bowyer for A. and J. Churchi, 1704).

13 242 Methodist History Christendom, Greek, Roman, Engish, and a others. Part. Being a Primitive Method of Daiy Private Prayer, Containing Devotions for the Morning and Evening, and for the Ancient Hours of Prayer, Nine, Tweve, and Three; together with Hymns and Thanksgivings for the Lord's Day and Sabbath, and Prayers for Fasting Days, as aso, Devotions for the Atar, and Graces before and after Meat: A taken from the Apostoica Constitutions and the Ancient Liturgies, with some Additions; And Recommended to the Practice of a Private Christians of Every Communion. To which is added, An Appendix in Justification of this Undertaking, Consisting of Extracts and Observations, taken from the Writings of every eminent and earned Divines of different Communions. And to a is subjoin'd, in a Suppement, An Essay to procure Cathoick Communion upon Cathoick Principes. Two guiding principes were operative for the coection: that "modern hypotheses, customs, and private opinions" were to be aid aside in favor of the "doctrines, practices, worship and discipine" of the "Ancient and Universa church of Christ, from the beginning to the end of the Fourth century"; and that the "Liturgy in the Apostoica Constitutions is the most Ancient Christian Liturgy... [and] ought to be received, submitted to, and aowed its due authority." 37 The stated purpose of the iturgy was aso twofod. First, to provide the odest (and therefore the best) iturgica text avaiabe. Second, by returning to the eary church, to produce a mutuay agreeabe text that woud provide "a truy Cathoick union'' among a the churches. 38 Deacon's iturgica book is generay characterized by addition to the 1662 Prayer Book rather than omission. The book incudes, for exampe, engthy new prayers in the communion office, and aso ritua texts for the admission of the penitent to penance, for the entrance of persons to the catechumenate, and for the consecration of mik and honey to be given to the newy baptized. Again the Athanasian Creed has disappeared, and inserted in its pace is an adaptation of the baptisma creed from Book 7 of Apostoic Constitutions. Open debate on the matter of iturgica revision was furthered by the pubication in 1749 of the controversia Free and Candid Disquisitions 39 an anonymous coection of essays primariy associated with John Jones, vicar of Aconbury. The intent of the work was to address the increasing desire on the part of many that Convocation dea with matters of iturgica revision for the sake of the advancement of Christianity according to the principes of reason and the Gospe. 40 Revision was warranted, the essayists beieved, because: the reformation of the church was incompete; the 1 i. f! \ t f,! j ~ 37 Deacon, A Compeat Coection ofdevotions, iii-iv. 38 n 1734, Deacon decared this revision to be the officia iturgy and prayer book for the "Cathoic Church in Engand." A covering tite page inserted in some copies of A Compeat Coection of Devotions states that the service book is for the use of the "Orthodox British Church." See Grisbrooke, Angican Liturgies, Free and Candid Disquisitions Reating to the Church of Engand and the Means of advancing Reigion therein. Addressed to the Governing Powers in Church and State; and more immediatey directed to the Two Houses of Convocation (London: Printed for A. Miar, 1749}. 4 Free and Candid Disquisitions, xviii-xix, 8-12.

14 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 243 the church constitutionay was abe to make revisions; and the stress on absoute uniformity in matters of ceremonies was unjustified. 41 Since Convocation had faied to act on its own (and had in fact ony been meeting to dea with forma matters), the recommendation was made that it shoud give its bessing to revisions produced by private individuas. 42 Through a series of "queries and observations" supported by documentation in the appendix (with evidence dating from 1604 to 1748), Free and Candid Disquisitions expressed concrete suggestions regarding revision, 43 incuding the excision of psams not suitabe to Christian sensibiities, the incusion of more hymnody in servi ~S of worship, the eimination of the prescription for the use of the wedding ring, and theprovision of restrictions to prevent the use of Christian buria for unbeievers. 44 Reactions to Free and Candid Disquisitions were mixed, some fearing revision woud open the door to heterodoxy, other's regarding the document as an exempary mode, and sti others using the document as a batte cry for more drastic revisions. 45 John Wesey, who began his reading of the book on August 15, 1750, regarded the work as we written but probematic, stating that "about one objection in ten appears to have weight, and one in five has pausibiity." The book prompted Wesey's practica concern for what indiscriminate revision might mean for the destiny of the Book of Common Prayer: And even aowing a the bemishes to be rea which he has so carefuy and 8kifuy coected and recited, what ground have we to hope that if we gave up this we shoud profit by the exchange? Who woud suppy us with a Liturgy ess exceptionabe than that which we had before? 46 Utimatey no officia action was taken in regard to the content of Free and Candid Disquisitions, athough there was an increasing openness to the use of topica prayers which the work had suggested Free and Candid Disquisitions, A verse in the Gentemen's Magazine expressed the tenor of the times: A iturgy needs mending; are free thinkers The ony coppersmiths-the ony tinkers? Where are the cergy? Doth not reformation Purey reigious, need a Convocation? Quoted in Peaston, The Prayer Book Reform Movement, Peaston caims that theoogica and practica comprehension were the primary motives for the pubication of the document (The Prayer Book Reform Movement, 40-42). n fact, prior to the pubication of Free and Candid, John Jones had advocated the pubic viewing of the withhed comprehensive iturgy of 1689 (Fawcett, The Liturgy of Comprehension, 46). 44 Free and Candid Disquisitions, 64-73, , 192, 234, , Chares J. Abbey and John H. Overton, The Engish Church in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vos. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878), 1: Journa, August 15, 1750, The Works of John Wesey, 20: Cuming, A History of Angican Liturgy,

15 244 Methodist History Free and Candid Disquisitions sparked the production of a weath of strategies for revision, 48 among them a recamation by Theophius Lindsey of a 1724 Prayer Book revision by the Convocation-censured Unitarian Samue Carke. n turn, Lindsey's work of 1774, The Book of Common Prayer Reformed According to the Pan of the Late Dr. Samue Carke 49 (which went through many editions), prompted other revisions that often further articuated a Unitarian position. 50 Lindsey was son-inaw to Francis Backburne, Archdeacon of Ceveand and promoter of the ibera (and faied) "Feathers Tavern Petition.'' Athough Wesey did not specify that he had read Lindsey's iturgy, he was famiiar with Lindsey through the Feathers Tavern Association. 51 As in the case for Lindsey's revision, the 1784 Sunday Service omits the rite of confirmation. V The Puritan agenda for reforming the rites of the Book of Common Prayer stood in stark contrast to the iturgica and theoogica opinions of the Prayer Book supporters during the 16th and eary 17th centuries. By the ate 17th century an attitude favorabe to comprehension had arisen among some within the Church of Engand who did not simpy concede Puritan concerns but agree on matters probematic or "indifferent'' for the sak~ of the unity of the Church. Whie the 1689 iturgy marked the ast "officia" attempt at comprehension, additiona efforts were made in the 18th century to sove the Angican iturgica controversy, many of which were based in the 1689 proposa. What previousy had been identified as the Dissenting agenda became, in a sense, part of the genera matrix informing both "orthodox" and "heterodox" revision. Comprehending and ibera revisions of the Book of Common Prayer aike addressed such matters as obsoete anguage, the terms empoyed to identify cergy, the use of the Athanasian Creed, references to the ring in marriage, and the anguage of "sure and certain hope of the resurrection" for a in the buria office. The origina Dissenting agenda, possiby no onger specificay identified as such, had become generay acceptabe concerns for those dissatisfied with the Prayer Book or with portions of it. The "prooftexting" of evidence from the 17th and 18th centuries in Free and Candid Disquisitions shows how widespread were some opinions hed. 48 Peaston, The Prayer Book Reform Movement, The Book ofcomnwn Prayer Reformed According to the Pan of the Late Dr. Samue Carke: Together with the Psater or Psams of David, 2d ed. (London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1774). 50 Peaston, The Prayer Book Reform Movement, Hatchett contends that Lindsey's iturgy was avaiabe to the men who revised the Prayer Book for American use in the Protestant Episcopa Church (The Making of the First American Prayerbook, 34-35). 51 Letter of John Fetcher to John Wesey, August, 1775, Journa (Standard ed.), 8:331. '. j. 1 i!1

16 John Wesey's Prayer Book Revision 245 Wesey himsef (see note 10 above) appeared surprised to find how cose contemporary opinions were to those two generations before. John Wesey approached the 1784 revision with an awareness of the mutipicity of 17th and 18th century schemes of revision and with sympathy for those who sought aboition of subscription to the Prayer Book. 52 Whereas others had faied to produce a revision suitabe for officia adoption, it had been hoped by some, as eary as 1775, that a Methodist revision using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a foundation coud quaify for serious consideration. John Fetcher proposed to Wesey: What if with bod modesty you took a farther step towards the reformation of the Church of Engand? The admirers of the Confessiona, and the gentemen who have petitioned the Pariament from the Feathers' Tavern, cry aoud that our church stands in need of being reformed; but do not they want to corrupt her in some things, whie they tak of reforming her in others? Now sir, God has given you that ight~ that infuence, and that intrepidity which many of those gentemen have not. You can reform, so far as your infuence goes, without perverting; and, indeed, you have done it aready. But have you done it professedy enough? Have you ever expicity borne your testimony against a the defects of our Church? Might you not do this without departing from your professed attachment to her? Nay, might you not, by this means, do her the greatest of services?... ove the Church of Engand, hope, as much as you do. But do not ove her so as to take her bemishes for ornaments. You know, sir, that she is amost totay deficient in disipine, and she pubicy owns it hersef every Ash W ednesday. What are her spiritua courts in genera, but a catch-penny? As for her doctrine, athough it is pure upon the whoe, you know that some specks of Peagian, Cavinian, and Popish dirt ceave to her artices, homiies, iturgy and rubricks. These specks coud with care be taken off, and doing it in the circe of your infuence might, sooner or ater, provoke our superiors to gody jeaousy and a compete reformation. 53 Such optimism was unreaistic given the widespread suspicion toward enthusiasm in genera and Methodism in particuar. Wesey's aterations of the Prayer Book texts corresponded to a wide range of revisionary schemes that coaesced on particuar matters. Many of the iturgica materias probematic for different revisers that have aready been noted were removed from the worship book for the Metho-. dists in North America. Gone are the Athanasian Creed, Psams and parts of Psams deemed ''highy improper for the mouths of Christian Congregation," the sanctora (cyce of saints' days) as "at present answering no vauabe end," and readings from the Apocrypha save for one: two verses from Tobit (4:8-9) are used as one of the offertory sentences in the.iturgy for the Lord~s Supper. 54 The iturgica officiant is designated as "minister," "eder," or "deacon," and not "priest." Sung iturgica texts, private baptism, baptisma sponsors, priesty absoutions, the wedding ring, 52 Baker, John Wesey and the Church of Engand, Letter of John Fetcher to John Wesey, August 1, 1775, Journa (Standard ed.), 8: Wesey makes ony a few comments justifying and expaining his rationae for revision. See, for exampe, his preface to the Sunday Service dated September 9, 1784 (see above, note 1).

17 246 Methodist History anguage of resurrection certainty in the buria rite- a of these are omitted. Absent too is the Nicene Creed from the communion rite since the Apostes' Creed woud have aready been recited in the preceding order for Morning Prayer. The anguage of the prayers is occasionay "modernized," as exempified by the change in the Lord's Prayer from "which art in heaven" to "who art in heaven." The ist coud continue: Wesey's revision was characterized primariy by omission; ony a few additions were made to the origina Prayer Book text, such as the rubrics permitting ex tempore prayer. Surprisingy, none of Wesey's rubrics mention the singing of hymns. n some cases, Wesey's revision appears to be unique in its iturgica adjustments, such as the remova of the giving away of the bride from the marriage rite. The tendency to isoate Puritan infuences upon Wesey's revision has been quite strong. Some schoars, foowing Frederick Hunter, have concuded that Wesey had the Savoy ''Exceptions" before him as recorded in Caamy's Abridgment, Chapter 10, whie he worked through the Prayer Book. 5 5 Yet it is cear that the environment in which Wesey worked had aready embraced many of those concerns as part of a genera iturgica agenda, not necessariy identified with the Dissenting cause. Besides, as even a cursory examination of the texts within the Sunday Service wi indicate, Wesey did not fuy foow the iturgica proposas of the 17th century Puritans, nor did he incorporate into his revision a of the "Exceptions." However, Wesey did address many of the genera concerns repeatedy articuated in the revisions which he acknowedged he had read. Parts of Wesey's revision may simpy refect the genera tenor and trends extant in Engand in the ate 18th century. As with many of the revisions of his day, the Book of Common Prayer served as the foundation and source for Wesey's revision. 56 And ike many of the revisers of his day, Wesey intended that his revision be used by persons who remained within the framework of the Church of Engand. That such was Wesey's origina intent may be cear from the wording in the ordination certificate of Richard Whatcoat: do hereby recommend him to a whom it may concern, as a fit person to feed the fock of Christ, and to administer baptism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the Church of Engand. 57 Even so, Wesey's revision was an offense to many, incuding his brother Chares, who penned: 55 Frederick Hunter, "Sources of Wesey's Revision of the Prayer Book in ," Proceedings of the Wesey Historica Society 23 ( ): The extreme nature of Hunter's hypothesis has been questioned by J. E. Rattenbury, F. Baker, A. R. George, and others. 56 Baker suggests that Wesey foowed his norma method of abridgment-deeting or adding materia to a copy of the Prayer Book (John Wesey and the Church of Engand, ). 57 Quoted in P. P. Sandford, Memoirs of Mr. Wesey's Missionaries to America (New York: G. Lane and P. P. Sandford, 1843), 363.