The deprecations in are found on pages 54 & 55 in the 1928 American Prayer Book, spanning between the first suffrage , “Remember not, Lord, our offenses” to the last type, “From all sedition, privy conspiracy, etc.” [generally accompanied by the response, “Good Lord, deliver us”]. The Rev. Brownwell views deprecations as elaborations of the Lord’s Prayer well-known petition “Deliver us from evil”. I also appreciate Brownwell’s explanation of psychology in prayer. He writes,

A few other historical comments shall be given here, mainly how the American petitions differ from the English. The version adopted in 1789 differed almost no respect from the older colonial book despite alterations proposed in 1689. The 1689 commission, mentioned in the American preface (both 1785/89), added two supplications. These likely were chiefmost concerns for 18th-century moral Reformation societies in London and thereabouts, compelling the following addition:

The revision 1785/89 apparently replaced the 1662 BCP’s “fornication and all other deadly sin” for the more generic “all inordinate and sinful affections“. But it may as well comprehend the vices mentioned in the 1689 revision notes, namely popular ills of liquor and cursing, as well as, at least, evils attending ‘fornication’ as well as related ‘deceits of the flesh’. Those jealous of patriotism might want to compare the first prayer, “Remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the offences of our forefathers” to its probably counterpart, outside the deprecations and toward the conclusion of the liturgy, on page 58, “O God, we have heard with our ears, and our fathers have declared unto us, the noble works that thou didst in their days”.

The final difference with the English, in this section, is the insertion of “earthquake, fire and flood”. Massey Shepherd attributes the addition to the example of the Canadian Book’s 1922 revision. Armitage’s history of this review explains the prudential rational for adding ‘fire’. Knowing much about California, our sympathy easily lends itself to New Brunswick. Indeed, California has lost much natural as well as native settler heritage to recent fires. But California has also been notorious for earthquakes. The mention of ‘fire’ in recent days have made the litany far more imminent for us even on the Pacific Coast. Anyway, Armitage explains,

Clearing these particulars, Shepherd goes on to admit the genius of design within the deprecations. The first group evidently deals with “those spiritual forces of evil in the invisible world (cf. Eph. 6.12), whose warfare against us and against God’s purposes for us is unremitting“. From petition to petition, we go on from foul tempers, induced by manifold invisible temptations, that give way to grosser, scandalous transgression. The second part, them moves onto the judgments or punishments spurred by such evil inner-workings. More simply, Rev. Sparrow divides the deprecations “we must pray against sin, then against punishment” (p. 61, A Rational Illustration). Another twist might be the first part dealing with torments of the inward soul while second belongs to pains that are merely bodily and outward. Bishop Nicholls admirably describes such, “Nor do we only pray against spiritual evils, by which our souls may be offended, but we likewise beseech thee to deliver us from temporal ones, which may prove prejudicial to our bodies: therefore, by the dreadful consequences by which storms and tempests are followed… From the tumultuous distractions of faction and sedition”.

Regarding natural peril, as found in the fifth deprecation, not only is fire an obvious danger (given the extent of its devastation in my own state of California with its numerous evacuations and abandonment of property), but the unexpected stroke of sudden death might also pounce, with great tragedy and eternal lamentation, the unprepared Christian. Wheatly seems to deal with this question best, reminding we may ‘have no time to fit our souls for our great account‘. But, even worst (at least in the collective sense), according to Wheatly (page 170), are those that ‘portend to ruin the church‘, namely, hardened atheism which ‘neither private nor public calamities will reform’. He says,

While both the first and second parts of the deprecation strike me as astonishingly prescient given current fires, common sickness, and civil unrest in California, if not the nation, a certain take away for me is that Christians may plea bodily preservation midst larger judgement. Not everything is heavenly, or otherworldly, with Christians. Especially for the latter-day eschatology would have a heaven descending upon the earth. In times of pressing danger, the Christian has a right to keep bodies apart from harm, or even a ‘right of flight’. And, as someone who leans to the pacifist side of things, this is most attractive whether before ravages of fire or rising tyranny. Christianity is not the same as Greek Philosophy– an escape from Creation. Rather, heaven is merely an intermediate state, readily at hand, with wider implications by both the incarnation and resurrection of Messiah. Perhaps our mandate for bodily & temporal preservation is found here, in the fifth and sixth deprecations. Also, the Prayer In Time of War and Tumults, found on page 41 in the American book, which says “Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; that we, being armed with thy defense, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee” Curiously, the same sentiment is found in the second-to-last collect, concluding the Litany, page 58, see below:

Fini.

***

(1) The English rubric plainly directs, for frequency, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. The Rev. Charles Wheatly adds the following advice, “The word Litany, as it is explained by our present liturgy, signifies a general supplication, and so ‘it is used by the most ancient heathens, viz’ for an earnest ‘supplication to the gods made in time of adverse fortune;  and in the same sense it is used in the christian church, viz. for a supplication and common intercession to God, when his wrath lies heavy upon us”. (p. 166, A Rational Illustration, 5th ed)

Prayer Book Cross, 1892

I regret posting this after the passing of John the Baptist Day, but this essay has more to do with it’s octave– or, roughly the time between June 24th to July 1st– close to our Independence Day (July 4th). However, the inspiration for this article really comes from the Canadian BCP which provides a special collect and reading for roughly the same time period, in this case, commemorating John Cabot’s landing. However, we in the United States, or at least on the Pacific Coast, may ritualize a similar event given Drake’s landing ironically falls upon the same famous date of June 24th. Let’s consider how an American, or at least a Pacific Coast, commemoration might be done after a review of Drake’s voyage, and his claim for England in that western part of North America once called ‘New Albion’.

I have two wonderful histories on Sir Francis Drake’s landing in California and the prayer book service given on June 24th, 1579 (about 80 yrs after Cabot’s wayfaring on Newfoundland). Such is especially fitting given recent desecration and removal of historical monuments, even recent removal of George Washington’s bust from Christ Chapel VA. We might ask what can loyal yet solitary Episcopalian do to preserve this precious past, even if it only be our homes or families?

My first source is from Percy Dearmer’s Everyman’s History of the Prayer Book, and the other comes from California’s second missionary Bishop, William F. Nichols, who wrote in Harper’s Weekly an article entitled ‘A Bit of Elizabethan California’. First, Dearmer’s chapter for the Prayer Book in North America reads,

“Curiously enough, however, the first use of the Prayer Book on what is now American soil was not on the Atlantic but on the Pacific coast. Sir Francis Drake, before serving as vice-admiral in the memorable defeat of the Spanish Armada, set out upon his hardly less memorable cruise around the world. In 1579 his ship’s party spent six weeks on shore in what is now California, and it is known that the services of the English Church were there conducted by the chaplain, the Rev. Francis (or Martin) Fletcher. The site of the first service, as near as it can be determined, is now marked by the huge ‘Prayer Book Cross’, erected in the year 1892 and dedicated on July 26th of that year by the present Bishop– then Assistant Bishop– of California, Dr. W. F. Nichols. A year earlier than this Californian service Frobisher’s party had explored the Hudson’s Bay country, now a part of Canada, and his chaplain, ‘one Maister Wolfall,’ had held services and celebrated Holy Communion.” p. 139-141

While a number of other Prayer Book services in the course of British navigation soon followed along the Atlantic coast after Frobisher & Drake’s respective expeditions, I was truly surprised to learn both Drake and Cabot are remembered on June 24th, St John’s Day. In Canada, June 24 is also known as ‘Discovery Day’– the date when Cabot found St. Edwards Isle, naming it St. John’s– obviously after the liturgical date of the landing. The town of St. John’s in Newfoundland retains the older name of the Island. Meanwhile, the date for Drake’s first Prayer Book service is given in an 1894 article written by the Rt. Rev. William Ford Nichols, of California, published in Harper’s Weekly. Nichols designed the famous Prayer Book Cross which stands in San Francisco CA, partly overlooking the site of Drake’s anchorage. The massive Cross displays the inscription below:

“Front side: A MEMORIAL OF THE SERVICE HELD ON THE SHORE OF DRAKE’S BAY, ABOUT ST. JOHN BAPTIST’S DAY, JUNE 24 AD 1579, BY FRANCIS FLETCHER, PRIEST OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, CHAPLAIN OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE, CHRONICLER OF THE SERVICE.

On the reverse: FIRST CHRISTIAN SERVICE IN THE ENGLISH TONGUE ON OUR COAST, FIRST USE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER IN OUR COUNTRY, ONE OF THE FIRST RECORDED MISSIONARY PRAYERS ON OUR CONTINENT. SOLI DEO SIT SEMPER GLORIA.”

Notice the relief on the front side says ‘about St. John Baptist Day’. However, Drake anchored on the coast from June 17th to July 23rd– a bit over a month. The coincidence of this date with Cabot’s landing is likely twofold. First, summer offered the best times for long voyages by sail. Combined with the precedence of Nativity of St. John in the Anglican Calendar– not only being an important quarter day but the only major holy day during the said time period– there is little doubt the crew observed this solemn occasion midst repairs. The monument’s reverse side, which enumerates the significance of Drake’s anchorage, was composed by Bishop Perry, where Perry recounts the importance of Drake’s visit, in his History of the American Episcopal Church.

Of course, Drake’s circumnavigation left its mark by naming northern California “New Albion” on nearly all European maps produced from the 17th into the 19th century. Not until Cpt. John C. Fremont disprove the existence of a Great River of the West was ‘New Albion’ removed from navigation charts (along with that legendary river) and replaced with ‘Alta California’. In some old maps Drake’s Estuary is ironically called ‘St. Francis Drake’ Bay or Point, foreshadowing the 1771 Spanish mission Dolores & consequent name, “St. Francis’ or San Francisco Bay.

Other artifacts stemming from Drake’s voyage include a reported brass Medal left behind, inland from the Estuary as well as a chair made from the timbers of Drake’s Golden Hinde. This chair was later presented to Charles II upon the Restoration. The silver medal had mappings of the known world (c. 1580) etched on either face. Together, such artifacts evidence English claims upon the continent, even its Pacific coast, anticipating later Anglo settlement and extension of the same civilization.

hedging bets on New Albion’s location– small print around 42 degrees on coast, large print over majority of inland Spanish north America.

How Cabot’s voyage is memorialized by the Canadian Prayer Book 1962 provides an example for locally celebrating  Drake. It’s not totally off the mark to employ this example since the 1962 Canadian Book is authorized in many continuing Anglican churches, including the UECNA. And, while only a small number of continuers are indeed Canadian, the 1962 might be treated as a secondary source for select prayers or forms (given Ordinary approval)– or merely a model for other occasional services, like National feasts and fasts. Many already use the Canadian 1962 for its Compline service. Anyway, the rubric in the 1962, p. 281, provides following collect, epistle, and gospel for the octave of St. John the Baptist. It says,

rubric and collect for the week between John’s & Dominion Days

Given the rubric also permits an alternative reading from the ‘Collect for Canada’ (page 278), we’re not stuck with a state prayer but may use a more national one, as seen below. It reads:

How would this all translate to a celebration for Drake’s Anchorage?  First, the dates are roughly approximate. For ‘Dominion week’, it stretches from June 24th, or the Nativity St. John, to July 1st, or Dominion Day itself. In America (or Pacific states) it would be very similar– from June 24th to Independence Day, or July 4th. What might be the liturgical content? Limiting ourselves to the contents of the 1928 BCP, the closest counterpart to the 1962 national rubric is either our own ‘state prayer’ (there’s a number of familiar types– for the President [p. 17-18, 32], Congress, or Judges) or the 1928 BCP’s ‘Prayer for Country’, on page 36,. These could just be repeated along with the collects of the daily office from June 24th to July 4th.

Indeed, in a perfect world, it might be a happy event to insert a rubric in the American book to this effect, recommending the ‘Prayer for Country’, repeating on the dates June 24th to July 4th (with equivalent mention of both Drake’s anchorage and coming Independence Day). The span is a bit longer than a single Octave as in Canada, but Christmastide and Easter season aren’t strictly eight days duration either. Furthermore, given these times of monument desecration, we might add the ‘Prayer In Time of Tumult’, p. 41. It was not uncommon in the 18th century for rectors and curates to write their own prayers, especially for private use. Yet, sometimes these same private prayers would find themselves in public worship (likely assuming Ordinary approval).

Lastly, we have ‘Concerning Services in the Church’, p vii,  generous guidelines regarding the above. This section was added in 1943/45 to the American BCP, enabling greater flexibility with the book. It allows the Minister, under direction of the Bishop, to appropriate “other devotions taken from this book or set forth by lawful authority within this Church” for special occasions. Happily, the 1962 Canadian Book is already set forth ‘by lawful authority’ in the UECNA, as said in of our C&C. Anyway, the 1943 directive reads:

see red margin marks

Regarding the select readings for the Daily Office or Holy Communion, the epistle and gospel given in the 1962 are solid. These are 1St.Pe. 2.11 & St. Matt. 22.16. Frankly, I recommend replacing the readings on Independence Day for these. Otherwise, the rubric in the daily office after the three collects which reads, e.g., “The minister may here end the Evening Prayer with such prayer, or Prayers, taken out of this Book, as he shall think fit” (p. 31), is sufficient warrant to add the Prayer for Country.

Conclusion: The 1962 gives us a model for a service commemorating Drake’s expedition, the first Prayer Book service (and likely Holy Communion) in these United States, as well later settlement, in that region called New Albion (now known as Oregon & California), even fulfilling the Rev. William Smith’s vision for a Christian Protestant empire on the North American continent. In the midst of tearing down the old boundary stones of our once benevolent Empire, scattered Anglicans can recall God’s past favor with Anglo-Israel, reverencing to our heroes, as Providence elected them, in our homes as well as in remnant parishes. Indeed, as we approach July 4th, Anglicans have much to ponder as we find ourselves in a new era, or perhaps interregnum, suffering exile from institutions.

Note: In 2017 the UECNA condemned the desecration and removal of monuments. You may read the General Convention’s resolution here.

Sweating Fever c. 1551

Usually, I am a bold defender of the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, namely, because its proximity to historical liturgy as well as relevance to American identity. That said, there are times I find its denuding of God’s occasional wrath lack-luster. Indeed, there are times when individuals, as well as nations, ought to sense due wrath– at least for humility’s sake. Do we believe today’s God incapable of chastisement? Do we take our own sins so light-heartedly they are beyond rebuke? Here, the sanitation the 1662 Prayer against Common Plague in the 1928 BCP is rather disappointing. However, this is not so with the American book(s) in general, and the 1789 (as well as 1892) version kept the best of all concerns.

First, let’s compare the 1662 Prayer to the 1928 American book. Our family has been lately (around the time of the COVID-19 outbreak) been using the 1928’s form, seen below:

When compared to the 1662 prayer, this form is obviously watered-down. Both the 1662 and 1928 title the prayer “In the Time…”. But the ’28 book replaces “Common Plague” for slightly softer terminology of “Great Sickness”. However, deprecation is more evident with the beginning of the petition where a comforting rather than wrathful God is recalled.

Below is the 1662 petition. Pay particular attention to the examples of God punishing his  people which the 1928 wholly omits. There is also a theology of atonement that hints of penal substitution as well as an ‘Angel of destruction‘. Indeed, there’s hardly an iota of guilt (“miserable sinners”) besides the vague notion we’re ‘frail’ and are yet to obtain ‘heavenly wisdom’–  implying a lack of something rather than an extensive or essential condition, say, original sin. Anyway, the difference is fairly apparent. The 1662 reads:

Of course, for historical Protestants, there’s much to admire with the 1662 intercession. There is to admit regarding our constant backsliding and fallen condition. But the American is not altogether terrible. Yes, the 1928 rendition suggest a high view of man with, say, great confidence in his novel crafts of medicine. Yet, it also recognizes God as the font of ”strength and skill” for doctors, etc.. Massey Shepherd explains the ’28 revision is based upon the form in the 1789 book, which in turn looks back upon, “the consequence of the dread experience in England in 1551 of the Sweating Sickness“. However, the 28 version is still a far leap from both the English and early American reading.

In looking back to the 1789 (and 1892), we find much admirable, evidencing good merit with the American text (at least until recently). The older American reading follows:

The 1789 (also through the 1892 version) prayer, in my mind, appears a happy middle. The punishment of ‘great sickness and mortality’ or wrathful visitation ‘for our sins’ remains. There’s enough taken from the 1662, either by tone or word, making the supplication historically recognizable , e.g., “Have pity upon us miserable sinners”. Massey explains the final clause, which is original to the 1789 type, is taken from Psalm 90:12, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts to wisdom” (p. 454, 1928 BCP). The concept of Almighty God judging a people, however, lacks Old Testament examples. But, in a way, it feels more flexible with respect to both time, place, and degree of affliction. Indeed, the variance with ‘degree of affliction’ is my final argument respecting Revision discrepancies. Overall, the 1789 prayer is my single favorite between the three.

Conclusions: I’d like to quote Rev’d Brownell’s Commentary on the Prayer Book (1846) regarding American ambivalence with occurrences of Plague:

“[it] is a deprecation of the Plague, properly so called. The malignant fevers which sometimes devastate our cities, are little less to be dreaded than the Plague, and this form of Prayer might with great propriety be used at such times.” (p. 140, the Family Prayer Book)

Shall we take Brownell’s advice, weighing the merit of these Prayers according to their propriety? Where each has its own degree of applicability, let them be used wisely. Our home is currently using the 1928 form simply because it’s in the Book with our other prayers. In the case of the current viral outbreak (e.g., COVID, etc.), its beginnings have been relatively mild. Nonetheless, if conditions alter, we won’t shy from using stronger penitential versions– either 1892/1789– or the older English. Pandemics indeed have diminished since rise of antiseptics, but our global age may differ. A terrible virus, close to the 1928 revision, was the Spanish Flu. But, even here we wonder why the committee and later generations were unimpressed despite a potent, and fairly recent, outbreak? The cultural significance of prayers where repentance is weak, especially at times of great calamity, has been discussed here.  Obviously, an especially hardened people have little fear of God– likely deciding ‘good and evil’ by their own hearts, avoiding condemnation midst pressing crisis. Rev. Brownell adds, “The evils of war are inflicted by the hands of men, and famine often follows often follows in its train, but pestilence seems to be sent more immediately from God“. It’s ironic today we are blind to sin when mass sickness strikes.

Anyway, the 1928 might be awkwardly excused as a single form fitting a less than dire occasion. But the saving grace ultimately might be the 1928’s generosity ‘Concerning Services in the Church’. The 1945 directions say:

Here is a permission we often forget, especially among those of us very critical of the American book, “the minister… may use other devotions… set forth by lawful authority within this Church”.  Problems of church fragmentation may leave “other lawful devotions” very up-ended, meaning many different things according to various so-called Anglican jurisdictions. But where older versions of the American book are duly recognized, or the 1662 English BCP for that matter (as a deposit of liturgy owned by the Church), more penitential prayers may be retrieved? Of course, private devotions at home or in closet have no such restriction, and may be borrowed by perceived need. Again, each has its own propriety, and this probably is the best defense for the 1928 BCP– further noting the permission above as it’s applicable. Finally, I believe the neglect of these prayers miss great opportunity for the cure of souls as we ought to look to God for deliverance at strange times. Again, Psalm 90.12 (from the Coverdale) reads as follow (but also notice verses 11, ‘who regardeth the power of thy wrath’?). Do we fear His holy indignation today?

The Rev. Thomas Scott. Holy Bible .

Last Sunday our Morning Lessons, as found in the 1943 Lectionary, were Isa. 61.1-3 cf. Luke 4:16-32. Normally, I try to restrain articles about Holy Days of certain Precedent rather than Ordinary Sabbaths. However, this specific lesson stood out because Christ reads to the Jewish Synagogue that portion of Isaiah which declares our Glad Tidings. Of course, ears should perk up whenever scripture sets forth the promises of the Gospel. But, unusual was the Lord’s omission from the scroll of the Prophet his “day of vengeance” (v.2). For me, the Messiah’s manner of reading and preaching left a few questions, especially why dire warning or judgement was absent? As usual, I gleamed what I could from one of my principle 18th-century commentators, mainly the Reverend Scott, late Rector of Aston. 

The lesson for Sunday Morning prayer began with Isaiah 61:1-3. Here, certain particulars of our Glad Tidings are made known. After declaring the objects of Jehovah’s Mercy, Isaiah then gives something of the immanency and hope of it. The Authorized Version reads,

Please notice Isaiah’s verse 2 which declares the “acceptable year of the Lord” simultaneously mentioning “the day of vengeance of our God”. We know Law and Gospel work together, and those who reject the Gospel will be sadly condemned. In times of mercy (especially as illustrated with the above visit to Nazareth) the Law prepares the way, wonderfully joined to the joy and reception of the Gospel. So, it would be pretty normal for the two Articles to accompany and magnify each other. However, when addressing the congregation of Nazarene Jews, our Lord strangely stops with the reading of the Jubilee year. See the discrepancy in verse 19 of Luke (below) in comparison to our aforementioned verse 2 of Isaiah.

Interestingly, the silence of God’s “day of vengeance” raises opinions among our British commentators. The Rev. Scott compiles other 18th-century contemporaries (early), like Daniel Whitby and Simon Patrick. Evidently, there’s gentleness which Jesus addresses the congregation at his home of Nazareth. Scott believes such charity owes itself to a kind of affection for kinsmen, a characteristic we often ignore with the Incarnate Son, i.e., verily Man. See Scott’s Bible observation for this notion at the bottom:

Remember, Nazareth was our Savior’s town of birth. Here, the Jews knew him perhaps as a  lowly or mean son of Joseph. Nonetheless, they were Galileans as himself, maybe explaining Jesus’s forbearing while illustrating a measured concern and duty to close relations (“He came unto his own” J 1.11– being tried without sin and giving obedience where commanded by Gracious Father). Yet, God finally shows no favor. Scott is keen to indicate this is only Christ’s ‘first address’ to such, and indeed the account is unfinished without adding the condemnation of those who reject him (or chase him off a cliff). The Rt. Rev. Simon Patrick (who Scott quotes) reminds readers,

“it was not, indeed, the business of Christ’s first coming, to take vengeance of his enemies, and for that reason he might not mention it at his first entrance into his office; though we find in several of his discourses, he threatened the Jews with destruction for their rejecting him; and he calls the destruction of Jerusalem the days of vengeance, the very expression of the text; which does most properly relate to his second coming, when he will not only reward his servants, but justify their innocence, by the terrible judgments he will inflict upon his and their enemies”.

Also, there’s a certain implicit rebuke against these enraged brethren when Christ says,  “No prophet is accepted in his own country”. He later miraculously passes through their mob, leaving Nazareth to its own while returning to Gentile-Capernaum– doing healings, etc., there. Going on to Luke 4:19 (per our 1943 Lectionary), Scott says,

We cannot accuse Christ of being a man-pleasing or diminishing the truth of any matter, yet doesn’t Jesus exemplify for us how to preach to family and abode? In my own teaching at home I’ve tended to be fast to correct and slow to forgive– strong on Law yet weak on Glad Tidings. Perhaps this order deserves reversing!– instead emphasizing the graciousness of God before reminding the hearer how stingy are we. It also sometimes explains why others are blessed (the Gentiles in Capernaum) before ourselves (the Jews in Nazareth). Scott elsewhere says of this episode:

This description provokes another question of right, or due, order in public worship. Jesus was neither a lineal-Levite nor Scribe, but Scott indicates sufficiently regarded laymen might be granted a privilege to read in the synagogue. Indeed, Christ did more, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Nonetheless, I wonder what extent the Puritan practice of prophecy was based on this impression– inviting known laics to read and/or exposit Holy Writ– e.g., a usage thats gradually formalized itself into the office of lay-eldership among Presyberians.

The accompanying Psalm to the Morning Lessons on the Fourth Sunday After Epiphany is Ps.66 which near the conclusion declares, “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will desclare what he hath done for my soul” (KJV).  Isn’t this to very point of preaching? While the sobriety of man (knowing our wormy state) indeed magnifies the Kindness of Jehovah, the hearer needs to also know what we’ve fallen or alienated ourselves from. It would be good in my private ministry at home and the family circle to emphasize the great Promises we’ve been given in Christ, reminding the dearest and least our Glad Tidings in the Lord. Bishop George Horne (another frequent reference and contemporary for Scott) says this about Ps. 66.16,

Finally, this selection of scripture shows Christ in his/our Epiphany, revealing who he is to both kinsman and stranger– in this case a visit to Nazareth and then departing for Capernaum.

Destruction of Ninevah

A couple months ago, our class leader urged me to build a habit of reading scripture daily. So, being a good churchman, I went to straight to the lectionary for my regular course of bible reading. Not surprisingly, I was referencing the 1943 lectionary which is inserted in American 1928 Prayer Books after the same date (see the certificate given after title page). Interestingly enough, for the Eleventh Sunday in Trinity, the Book of Nahum was assigned for the Evening Lesson(s). What shocked me was the wrathful, even imprecatory, language of Nahum’s prose. The selection alarmed me given the usual ridicule of the 1928 American BCP being ‘liberal’. That charge might be better pressed against the 1940 hymnal, yet in continuing Angilcan churches both books are normally found tucked together behind pew benches. But, I’d like to debunk the earlier objection, namely, the American 1928 BCP as a ‘liberal’ book, starting with Nahum’s presence in the lectionary and how penitentialism restored in our devotions by secondary texts, if necessary.   

Lectionaries in the 1928 BCP:
When I read from the lectionary, I use the American Revision of the Bible (1901 ASV), approved by UECNA. The book of Nahum is covered in the course of three evenings– Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The ASV subtitles Nahum, describing it as the overthrow of Nineveh under the ‘severity of Jehovah”. The tone of national judgement, or expired mercy, composes all three chapters. Indeed, the first three verses of Nahum basically sum the entire book,

“Jehovah is a jealous God and avengeth: Jehovah avengeth and is full of wrath; Jehovah taketh vengeance on his adversaries and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty”

A speck of mercy is reserved to the Jews, “For Jehovah restoreth the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel” (Na. 2:2). The punishment of Israel’s persecutors and the consequent deliverance of Jacob’s posterity resonates with the lectionary’s selected Psalms for the 11th week in Trinity (Ps. 77, 78, 79), recollecting Jehovah as Covenant God. New Testament lessons (from Romans) inform the essential condition of a true Israelite, “But, if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). In such case, a person would be subject to Nineveh, and if sensible of this impertinence, should indeed fear God.

There is almost no way to skip, or chop, Nahum to avoid the biblical dread and wrath of Jehovah without omitting the entire book from canon. I was surprised the ’43 lectionary did not do such. Indeed, the lectionary, especially with its psalms, doesn’t appear to avoid penitential scripture as an ordinary rule, but appears to be driven by a greater concern for brevity. Often times, if the Old Testament lesson happens to be abridged (or diced up a bit), it’s usually for the sake of sparing the reader or hearer with less important historical detail, or Jewish minutiae, perhaps avoiding unnecessary kin or tribal relations, especially those not relevant to the House of David’s King. So, we can say, at least with the ’43 lectionary, there’s no great prejudice against penitentialsim. Rather, we see a desire to convey a more compact or incisive lesson to the reader/ hearer.

Indeed, I have yet to be disappointed with the 1943 lectionary, keeping in mind the aim of American 1920’s compilers was probably more thematic, or seasonal, with lessons than keeping a lectio continua, say, from Genesis to Revelations. Regardless, the UECNA allows members to swap-out the ’43 lectionary with older versions. In fact, the UE Presiding Bishop’s favorite alternative is the 1871 English ‘Table of Psalms and Lessons’. Nevertheless, there have been times when I fell back to earlier kinds, namely the original 1922 Table, without departing from American  Lectionaries. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the semi-continuous, or more seasonal, approach of the 1943 but on occasion, if pinched, have used the 1922.

Another problem with estimating the conservatism of the 1928 BCP is underplaying the rubrics which cover the Psalms and Lessons at beginning of the book, some of which allow,

• “That on other days, the Minister shall use the Psalms appointed in the Tables; or at his discretion he may use one or more of those assigned in the Psalter to the day of the month [pp. 345-525] , or from the Table of Selections of Psalms [p.ix]. And Note further, That in the case of a Psalm which is divided into sections, the Minister may use a section or sections of such Psalm.”
• Any set of Psalms and Lessons appointed for the evening of any day may be read at the morning service, and any set of morning Psalms and Lessons may be read in the evening.
• Upon any weekday, other than a Holy Day, the Psalms and Lessons appointed for any day in the same week may be read instead of those appointed for the day.
• Upon special occasions the Minister may select such Psalms and Lessons as he may think suitable.
• Any Lesson may be lengthened or shortened at the Minister’s discretion. “

Notice, the last rubric basically removes the chief-most criticism regarding the lectionary or how Lessons are unfortunately divided into segments. The rubrics also give enough flexibility that a wide choice of Psalms may used upon any given day, even permitting consecutive reading in the psalter, by using the monthly order. Combined with the discretion of an Ordinary (like Bp. Robinson allowing older lectionaries), there’s hardly a time when the Table is problematic.

Problems with the 1940 Hymnal:
The second-half of this post is more pertinent (regarding orthodoxy) probably because the question of an ‘classical’ hymnal apart from the 1940 version has surfaced recently with the REC’s new song book. I probably reserve more negative comments for the 1940 hymnal rather than the 1928 BCP (or its lectionary) mainly because supplementary materials (like hymn books, ceremonial directories, vestments, and benedictine hours, etc.) has tended to undermine or weaken the Protestant moorings over the last century. Consequently, my foremost compliant with the 1940 Hymnal is it continued a decisive break with metered Psalmody (and other Evangelical songs, namely, from Dr. Watts) that Hymns Ancient and Modern inaugurated– further removing Anglicans from what was previously an important element in a common Protestant culture.

A way to correct this cultural dissolution is to revive the use of the older, Protestant church hymnals. We use those books known by Episcopalians before the Tractarian inroad. Measured Psalters were typically bound with the 1789 Prayer Book until the mid-1870’s. These Psalters were approved of by PECUSA General Convention and were generally composed from the New Version Psalms as received from England during the colonial period. Americans interestingly embellished these Psalters usually by adding the Hymns of Isaac Watts– initially as a appendix to the New Version but later as an official part of the PECUSA Hymn Book. At Littlewood proChapel we use any combination of the above in order to restore Protestant worship, with its attachment to metered Psalmody, whether at home or in public worship.

While skimming through an Americanized New Version, I ran into this scriptural hymn for the Book of Nahum by Dr. Watts. I thought to share it below to illustrate the content and mindframe of the older Protestant culture which Episcopalians belonged. For Anglicans who choose to use the old measured Psalter as we do, I thought songs like Hymn XLI might exemplify wider penitentialism, even imprecatory quality, in worship. Let the pious fear God. I suppose it reasonable to say if supplementary material indeed weakened Protestantism, then the same can be revived through texts intended to strengthen the Protestant church. Anyhow, here is Watts on Nahum, chp. 1-3:

Conclusion: My stumbling upon Nahum is an example of how accusations of weak penitentialism can be handled with respect to both prayer book and hymnal. My contention is the 1928 BCP, even its lectionary, is sufficiently Protestant. Where it appears weak on man’s depravity or the wrath of God, often this is solved by flexibility granted through rarely read rubrics. However, a bigger problem are supplementary works that have undermined Protestant ethos.

The 1940 Hymnal may serve a case in point. While the 1940 contains many wonderful songs, overall, it represents a departure, if not rejection, of the metered Psalmodry which preceded it. In this case, there might be less to retrieve aside from going to older PECUSA hymn books. We prefer adding songs to our prayers from either the New Version (Tate & Brady) or directly from Evangelical composers like Dr. Watts or Mr. Wesley. Of course, these authors were once commonly bound together with the American Protestant Episcopal BCP. Regardless, we often forget the treasure trove of Reformation helps Anglicans had at their disposal, and, in worst case scenarios, we can return to them.

Nahum lessons remain a bane to liberals (btw. not found in the lectionary in the 1979 BCP), testifying something of the 1928’s continuity with orthodoxy. Together with well-chosen and historically informed secondary materials, there is much sobriety awaiting with older American Episcopal worship.