1928 Book of Common Prayer

Contents

1928 Book of Common Prayer is an authorized revision of the Book of Common Prayer produced principally within the Church of England and proposed for liturgical use in 1928. It emerged from debates within the Anglican Communion, involving bishops, theologians, and liturgists associated with institutions such as Westminster Abbey, Christ Church, Oxford, and the University of Cambridge. The work engaged figures connected to the Oxford Movement, Anglo-Catholicism, and the Broad Church tradition while intersecting with political institutions like the British Parliament and ecclesiastical bodies including the Convocations of Canterbury and York.

History and Development

The revision process reflected interactions among the Convocation of Canterbury, the Convocation of York, the Ecumenical Movement, and churches in the Dominions of the British Empire such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Committees drew on scholarship from the Cambridge Camden Society, liturgical studies influenced by the Liturgical Movement and comparative work tracing antecedents to the Sarum Use, Book of Common Prayer (1549), and the Book of Common Prayer (1662). Prominent clerics and academics associated with St Paul's Cathedral, Eton College, King's College London, Trinity College Dublin, Durham University, Lambeth Palace, Westcott House, Cambridge, Ripon College Cuddesdon, and St John's College, Cambridge contributed to debates. The revision engaged contemporary public figures in debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and was shaped by legal frameworks such as the Act of Uniformity 1662 and consultations with the Canterbury Convocation.

The 1928 work proposed revisions to Holy Communion rites, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, the collects, the baptismal service, the catechism, and services for matrimony and burial, drawing on patristic sources like Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, and Thomas Cranmer. It incorporated alternative lectionary options influenced by scholarship from Westminster Abbey, Oxford University Press publications, and the liturgical scholarship associated with Dom Gregory Dix and Percy Dearmer. The revisions included language options reflecting usage in dioceses such as London, York, Durham, Gloucester, and Carlisle, and adaptations relevant to colonial sees including Calcutta, Hong Kong, Nairobi, and Melbourne. Musical and choral implications affected cathedral establishments such as York Minster, Canterbury Cathedral, St Paul's Cathedral, and collegiate chapels like King's College, Cambridge and Trinity College, Cambridge, linking to composers and choirmasters connected with institutions such as the Royal College of Music and the Royal School of Church Music.

Although proposed by church authorities, the 1928 changes required parliamentary approval for full legal authorization, engaging the British Parliament and institutions like the Privy Council. The debates involved political figures from parties such as the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Party, and drew commentary from legal scholars at King's College London and Oxford University. Some dioceses implemented the new rites by episcopal license and practical use in parish churches across England, Scotland, Wales, and overseas provinces like the Church in Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church (United States), and the Church of Ireland, each with varying degrees of formal adoption. Cathedrals, parish churches, chaplaincies in institutions such as Eton College, Harrow School, and Westminster School experimented with the rites under licenses from bishops of sees like Canterbury, York, London, and Winchester.

Reception was contested among clergy and laity associated with movements including Evangelicalism, Anglo-Catholicism, and the Broad Church. Critics invoked precedents such as the Book of Common Prayer (1552), theological writings of Richard Hooker, and parliamentary history extending to the English Reformation and the Glorious Revolution. Opponents organized within groups connected to church associations, diocesan synods, and civic bodies, prompting debates in periodicals distributed by publishers including Oxford University Press and newspapers like The Times and The Guardian. Ecclesiastical courts and canonical lawyers from institutions such as Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn weighed in, while influential bishops and theologians from Lambeth Palace and universities such as Cambridge and Oxford offered defenses or critiques.

Though parliamentary rejection limited its legal status, the 1928 revision influenced subsequent liturgical experimentation in provinces across the Anglican Communion, including rites later observed in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. Its theological and textual proposals informed later official books and alternative services produced by bodies such as the General Synod of the Church of England, the Standing Liturgical Commission, the Church of England Liturgical Commission, and provincial synods in Canada and Australia. The revision's impact extended to hymnody and choral practice at institutions like St Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and the Royal College of Music, and to ecumenical dialogues with Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Methodist Church, and Lutheran Church representatives. Scholars at King's College London, Durham University, and Cambridge University Press have continued to assess its legacy in relation to twentieth-century liturgical renewal and Anglican identity.