Anglicanism in the sixteenth century was consciously not a via media between Rome and Geneva, but between Geneva and Wittenberg. As Alister McGrath has observed, ‘the “middle way” which resulted was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran- but it was certainly Protestant.’ While Calvinists were the dominant theological force throughout the century, they never succeeded in making the worship of the Church of England like the worship of Calvin’s Geneva.

As a student of Reformed liturgy, I was very pleased to hear that Dr Hughes Oliphant Old had published a new volume titled Holy Communion in the Piety of the Reformed Church. Having received my copy, I am still excited by this weighty scholarly work which contains a wealth of useful historical information and easy to understand analysis of attitudes to the Holy Communion in various parts of the Reformed church.

Had I the expertise in Calvin and others, which he very clearly possesses, I would attempt a friendly review of the entire book- all 864 pages! As it is, I am limiting my remarks to what I find to be the least clear part of the book, Chapter 6 ‘Holy Communion in the Reformed Church of England.’

My ongoing PhD studies have dealt substantially with the theology and liturgy of the Church of England from its inception to the present day. I have devoted time and study in particular to the various iterations of the Book of Common Prayer from its first edition in 1549 to the most recent attempted revision in 1928. I therefore feel comfortable making some observations about Dr Old’s treatment of the subject, though I am aware that my own knowledge is far from encyclopedic.

The first thing that must be said about Chapter 6 is that it makes a very good attempt at summarising the theology of the English Reformation without getting bogged down in excessive detail. In treating only Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Jewel, Hooker, and Perkins Old has hit on the highlights in a way that opens the reader to further study and exploration. The corresponding weakness of this sweeping approach is that each thinker receives only a few pages. Fortunately, Old has made a point of referencing Horton Davies’ magisterial study Worship and Theology in England which ran in its original edition to 5 volumes. It is worth reading.

Of the thinkers given individual study, it seems that Old is best acquainted with Bucer and Perkins.  Cranmer’s eucharistic theology has long been a subject of debate and, as with many of his opinions, it is not always clear how much of what he wrote was Cranmer the man and what was Cranmer the Archbishop-politician. Old’s take on Cranmer is not as careful as it might be though it does adequately introduce the man and the issues surrounding the development of his theology.

It is when Old writes about the Book of Common Prayer itself that some significant problems appear. In two sections he treats the Book in detail- ‘King Edward’s Prayer Book’ and ‘Cranmer’s Attempt at a Reformed Canon.’ I would like to have seen Old present a precis of Prayer Book development before attempting to tackle these particular aspects of it. Similarly, there are a few not insignificant details relating to questions of ceremonial and vesture- major issues at the time as the section on Ridley makes apparent- that need restatement. I will attempt to provide some clarification on these subjects in the remainder of this post.

There were three editions of the Book of Common Prayer published in the 16th century- 1549, 1552, and 1559. Of these, 1552 was only in use for about 8 months preceding the decease of King Edward VI; it is likely that some parishes never used it at all. The Book of 1559 is a reworking of 1552 with some alterations, most substantially in the rubrics (ceremonial instructions).

The first Prayer Book of 1549 might be termed a moderately Reformed liturgy. It retains the essential structure of the pre-Reformation Mass. As such, it differs substantially from the Books of 1552/9 in which many of the prayers are removed to different locations in the liturgy thereby changing their meaning, a point which Old does not make sufficiently clear.

In the section titled ‘King Edward’s Prayer Book’ the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of Pardon is discussed first. This would suggest, to anyone not familiar with the Prayer Book, that it came near the beginning of the liturgy. In fact, in the 1549 edition the Confession and Absolution followed the entirety of the Canon and directly preceded the reception of communion. In this way, it copied exactly the ‘Order of Communion’ of 1548 directed by Royal Injunction to be interpolated into the Latin Mass.

In 1552/9 the Confession and Absolution were moved to a point preceding the Prayer of Consecration, thereby making them introductory to the entire act of consecration and communion and preparing the congregation, as a priestly people, to participate in the communion banquet. In this way the sacrificial tinge remaining in the structure of the 1549 Prayer Book was disrupted.

The question of sacrifice in the 1549 Book must be addressed and Old’s presentation of what he refers to as the ‘Pastoral Prayer’ in a separate section to the Canon does justice neither to the actual position of this prayer in the 1549 liturgy nor to its nature as a signifier of sacerdotalism. In the Prayer Book of 1549 the Prayer for the State of the Church is merely the first section of the Canon itself. The Prayer of Consecration follows on from it with no pause whatsoever, as it did in the Sarum Canon on which the prayers of the 1549 Book are modeled. In linking these prayers, the place of the priest as intercessor is retained.

It was not until 1552/9 that the Prayer for the State of the Church was moved to a place following the Offertory and preceding the Confession. A major implication of this change of position in the liturgy was to remind the congregation of their duty to each other. Placing the Confession immediately after it meant they could repent of their misdeeds and be right with God before coming to communion. It ceased to be a series of petitions presented to God by the priest and atoned for by the succeeding eucharistic sacrifice. Also problematic is that Old has reproduced the text of the Prayer for the State of the Church in its 1552/9 form, not that of 1549. Left out are the prayer for the departed and the commemoration of the saints that tilt the 1549 Canon in a distinctly catholic direction.

Moving on to some of the problems with the section titled ‘Cranmer’s Attempt at a Reformed Canon’ the first aspect of the text to note is that, despite the ellipses Old provides, it is not clear that a substantial portion of the 1549 Canon has been removed. The impact of some of this removal of material has been noted already. Additionally, one factor of major importance is the omission of the Prayer of Oblation which in 1549 immediately follows on the Prayer of Consecration without pause. It is this prayer which most clearly permits a sacrificial interpretation of the 1549 liturgy, not primarily because of its content but because of its placement. It is again the structure of the rite that contributes heavily to its meaning.

In 1552/9 the Prayer of Oblation was positioned such that it followed the reception of communion rather than preceding it. This meant that the sacrifice referred to in the phrase ‘accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ could only be the sacrifice of one’s life, the offering up of self to God as a response to His gracious provision in the Supper. Placing the prayer before reception permitted the eucharistic elements themselves to be endowed with sacrificial significance. One additional detail of note is that a reference to angelic intercession present in the 1549 Prayer of Oblation was removed in the Prayer Book of 1552/9.

In all, I find Old’s treatment of the Book of Common Prayer disappointing. His understanding of its 1552/9 form as a legitimate Protestant rite endued with a clearly Reformed theology is correct, but his presentation of the 1549 Book is seriously deficient. In the unnecessary division of Intercession, Consecration, and Oblation his provided texts give a skewed representation of the nature of the first English liturgy and do not adequately present the problems associated with massaging that same liturgy into a sufficiently Reformed structure. Neither does his treatment recognize Cranmer’s consummate skill in adapting the 1549 Book in 1552, utterly transforming its meaning without much altering its content.

Though the central confusion of Chapter 6 revolves around the various editions of the Prayer Book, there are several other points which need revision. For example, Old presents the Elizabethan approach to vestments as central to preserving the appearance of a moderate reform rather than a revolution. He says, ‘It needed to be celebrated in the same buildings and the ministers needed to be dressed in the same traditional vestments.’ This is simply historically inaccurate. Though Elizabeth was often accused of Popery by her more extreme Puritan subjects because of the luxury of the Chapels Royal, the eucharistic vestments were not worn after 1559. As W.H. Griffith Thomas notes, ‘The universal practice of the Church after 1559 was the use of the dress of ministration which had been ordered by the Prayer Book of 1552’, namely the surplice in parish churches and the cope in cathedrals and collegiate churches (this latter garment permitted by royal order in 1566). While copes could be very elaborate, they were not considered an eucharistic vestment. Visually, a radical break with the Mass was upheld during Elizabeth’s reign.

As for Elizabeth’s own religious temper she, like Cranmer, is often difficult to pin down. The liturgy as conducted in her Chapels Royal, in addition to being augmented by gorgeous and expensive vestments and furnishings, was accompanied by beautiful music. To the more austere Reformed sort this would have seemed like whiffs of the old Catholicism. Though Elizabeth publicly supported and enforced clearly Protestant theology and worship, her private life gives one leave to question how much of that support was of political necessity rather than personal taste.

Additionally, Old’s remark that the Book of Common Prayer was intended as a via media between Catholics and the Reformed is questionable. Certainly, the 1552/9 editions were clearly Protestant in structure even when performed in the context of a cathedral or Royal Chapel. However, Anglicanism in the sixteenth century was consciously not a via media between Rome and Geneva, but between Geneva and Wittenberg. As Alister McGrath has observed, ‘the “middle way” which resulted was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran- but it was certainly Protestant.’ While Calvinists were the dominant theological force throughout the century, they never succeeded in making the worship of the Church of England like the worship of Calvin’s Geneva.

The development of theology and liturgy in Reformation England is a complex and sometimes deeply confusing subject. It cannot have been easy for Dr Old to write a concise chapter on it. And while I hope later editions of the book will include the necessary adjustments and corrections, Holy Communion in the Piety of the Reformed Church is a welcome addition to the literature on Reformed worship available today. I hope the Lord chooses to bless this book as He undoubtedly has blessed Dr Old’s other efforts.

Evan McWilliams is a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lakeland, Fla., is an architectural historian, and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of York in the UK. This article appeared in his blog and is used with permission.