Bucer, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Puritans

Sam Jer

Puritan Board Sophomore

What were the objections of Bucer that were not addressed in the revision? What were the main diffrences between Bucer's BCP and the 1662?
Are these the parts that the Puritans objected to or did they also dissent from parts Bucer was okay with?

How come the Puritans refused to follow the BCP while Bucer helped write it? What is the big diffrence - in the BCP itself or in the understanding of the RPW?
 
How come the Puritans refused to follow the BCP while Bucer helped write it? What is the big diffrence - in the BCP itself or in the understanding of the RPW?

The biggest problem was the Church of England mandated the BCP. I happen to think the BCP is excellent, but you can't "make" anybody do it.
 
The biggest problem was the Church of England mandated the BCP. I happen to think the BCP is excellent, but you can't "make" anybody do it.

I read somewhere that after Parliament mandated the use of the Directory for the Public Worship of God, the part of the Westminster Standards that corresponded to and replaced the BCP's liturgical and social components, the number of recorded baptisms in England dropped significantly. Many people, including ministers, simply weren't willing to comply and made covert arrangements to still do things the way they wanted. Authorities tried to somewhat forcibly implement the DPWG for a number of years afterward, but they eventually, if tacitly had to abandon its enforcement. That's also one reason why Baptist churches survived the Westminster and Restorationist periods...
 
Last edited:
What were the objections of Bucer that were not addressed in the revision? What were the main diffrences between Bucer's BCP and the 1662?
Are these the parts that the Puritans objected to or did they also dissent from parts Bucer was okay with?
How come the Puritans refused to follow the BCP while Bucer helped write it? What is the big diffrence - in the BCP itself or in the understanding of the RPW?

That's a somewhat complicated issue. Most of Bucer's (and Peter Martyr's) involvement with the BCP had to do with liturgical and ceremonial issues, and while he was Reformed, he would generally be considered a moderate within that tradition - albeit more of a reformer than Cranmer, the main creator of the original BCP. Even the Puritans, broadly speaking, were spread across a spectrum when it came to what they believed an adequate purification of the state church should look like.
 
Last edited:
Big, if true.

“This sign [of the cross] was not only used in the churches in very ancient times: it is still an admirably simple reminder of the cross of Christ.”

Martin Bucer, Censura, found in E. Whitaker’s Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, Alcuin Club Collections no. 55 (London, SPCK, 1974), 90.
 
Big, if true.

“This sign [of the cross] was not only used in the churches in very ancient times: it is still an admirably simple reminder of the cross of Christ.”

Martin Bucer, Censura, found in E. Whitaker’s Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, Alcuin Club Collections no. 55 (London, SPCK, 1974), 90.

Roberts notes that Bucer did not disapprove of using the sign of the cross, provided it was used "religiosè nulla, nec superstitione adjunctâ, nec elementi servitute, nec vulgari consuetudine" [not as a matter of religious sentimentality, neither in a superstitious way, nor in servitude to the elements, nor as the keeping of a mere popular custom.]

It also appears that while, for the reasons given, Bucer approved of it during the administration of baptism, he did not approve of such when it came to the Lord's Supper. (Roberts, 15, 21f.)
 
Last edited:
Bucer seems to be having a very "open" regulative principle, to the point I wonder at the logic behind when he chooses to use it. The puritans, meanwhile, took the regulative principle very far. I guess that answers my question
 
It's helpful to understand the history of why prayer books were instituted in the first Reformation. It was basically a crutch. It was understood that many of the clergy who had until that point been saying mass had no idea how to pray or preach in a biblical way, or administer the sacraments, and yet, somehow, protestant services had to immediately take place throughout whole kingdoms, so they would give them a book of prayers and homilies to help them.

There is some evidence from the period that it was viewed this way. For example, the Scots had a book of common prayers from their sojourn in Geneva, but in the First Book of Discipline (1560), they recommend ministers be able to pray and preach, and the only reference to the common prayers is for readers, which was the office of those preparing for ministry and perhaps not yet able to pray and preach well. It says the following:
"To the Churches where no ministers can be had presently, must be appointed the most apt men that distinctly can read the common prayers and the Scriptures, to exercise both themselves and the Church, till they grow to greater perfection, and in process of time, he that is but a reader, may attain to a farther degree, and by consent of the Church, and discrete ministers, may be permitted to minister the sacraments..."

Now, with the passage of time, the church was able to ordain more qualified, well-educated ministers, who were able to preach and pray without using set forms. And so we can imagine how it would have been taken, in 1637, after almost 80 years of reformation, at a time when all ministers were properly trained for the ministry and experienced in prayer and preaching, that the bishops would order ministers not to pray any prayer but what was found in the prayer book. That, combined with the Scots not recognizing the authority of the bishops to begin with, led to this being viewed as an unprecedented act of ecclesiastical tyranny. Can we imagine, in our churches today, if a foreigner power showed up and told us that the pastor can't pray any more, unless he does so out of the book of prayers they approved? I don't think that would go over well.

The directory for public worship (1645) actually addresses the reasons for doing away with the prayer book in the preface. It says,
"IN the beginning of the blessed Reformation, our wise and pious ancestors took care to set forth an order for redress of many things, which they then, by the word, discovered to be vain erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous, in the publick worship of God. This occasioned many godly and learned men to rejoice much in the Book of Common Prayer, at that time set forth; because the mass, and the rest of the Latin service being removed, the publick worship was celebrated in our own tongue: many of the common people also receive benefit by hearing the scriptures read in their own language, which formerly were unto them as a book that is sealed.

Howbeit, long and sad experience hath made it manifest, that the Liturgy used in the Church of England, (notwithstanding all the pains and religious intentions of the Compilers of it,) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches abroad. For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which very greatly increased the burden of it, the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies contained in it have occasioned much mischief, as well by disquieting the consciences of many godly ministers and people, who could not yield unto them, as by depriving them of the ordinances of God, which they might not enjoy without conforming or subscribing to those ceremonies. Sundry good Christians have been, by means thereof, kept from the Lord’s table; and divers able and faithful ministers debarred from the exercise of their ministry, (to the endangering of many thousand souls, in a time of such scarcity of faithful pastors,) and spoiled of their livelihood, to the undoing of them and their families. Prelates, and their faction, have laboured to raise the estimation of it to such a height, as if there were no other worship, or way of worship of God, amongst us, but only the Service-book; to the great hinderance of the preaching of the word, and (in some places, especially of late) to the justling of it out as unnecessary, or at best, as far inferior to the reading of common prayer; which was made no better than an idol by many ignorant and superstitious people, who, pleasing themselves in their presence at that service, and their lip-labour in bearing a part in it, have thereby hardened themselves in their ignorance and carelessness of saving knowledge and true piety.

In the meantime, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service; and so were not a little confirmed in their superstition and idolatry, expecting rather our return to them, than endeavouring the reformation of themselves: in which expectation they were of late very much encouraged, when, upon the pretended warrantableness of imposing of the former ceremonies, new ones were daily obtruded upon the Church.

Add hereunto, (which was not foreseen, but since have come to pass,) that the Liturgy hath been a great means, as on the one hand to make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry, which contented itself with set forms made to their hands by others, without putting forth themselves to exercise the gift of prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants whom he calls to that office: so, on the other side, it hath been (and ever would be, if continued) a matter of endless strife and contention in the Church, and a snare both to many godly and faithful ministers, who have been persecuted and silenced upon that occasion, and to others of hopeful parts, many of which have been, and more still would be, diverted from all thoughts of the ministry to other studies; especially in these latter times, wherein God vouchsafeth to his people more and better means for the discovery of error and superstition, and for attaining of knowledge in the mysteries of godliness, and gifts in preaching and prayer.

Upon these, and many the like weighty considerations in reference to the whole book in general, and because of divers particulars contained in it; not from any love to novelty, or intention to disparage our first reformers, (of whom we are persuaded, that, were they now alive, they would join with us in this work, and whom we acknowledge as excellent instruments, raised by God, to begin the purging and building of his house, and desire they may be had of us and posterity in everlasting remembrance, with thankfulness and honour,) but that we may in some measure answer the gracious providence of God, which at this time calleth upon us for further reformation, and may satisfy our own consciences, and answer the expectation of other reformed churches, and the desires of many of the godly among ourselves, and withal give some publick testimony of our endeavours for uniformity in divine worship, which we have promised in our Solemn League and Covenant; we have, after earnest and frequent calling upon the name of God, and after much consultation, not with flesh and blood, but with his holy word, resolved to lay aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly used in the worship of God; and have agreed upon this following Directory for all the parts of publick worship, at ordinary and extraordinary times. Wherein our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the word of God; our meaning therein being only, that the general heads, the sense and scope of the prayers, and other parts of publick worship, being known to all, there may be a consent of all the churches in those things that contain the substance of the service and worship of God; and the ministers may be hereby directed, in their administrations, to keep like soundness in doctrine and prayer, and may, if need be, have some help and furniture, and yet so as they become not hereby slothful and negligent in stirring up the gifts of Christ in them; but that each one, by meditation, by taking heed to himself, and the flock of God committed to him, and by wise observing the ways of Divine Providence, may be careful to furnish his heart and tongue with further or other materials of prayer and exhortation, as shall be needful upon all occasions."
 
George Gillespie has a section opposing the sign of the cross (one of the nocent ceremonies imposed by the King at Perth Assembly, 1618) in Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies. After becoming known for EPC in the summer of 1638 he wrote a tract against the service book and opposed read prayers because the the Lord has given gifts to pastors to "exhort, pray and preach, which they ought to stir up and use" among other reasons.
 
George Gillespie has a section opposing the sign of the cross (one of the nocent ceremonies imposed by the King at Perth Assembly, 1618) in Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies. After becoming known for EPC in the summer of 1638 he wrote a tract against the service book and opposed read prayers because the the Lord has given gifts to pastors to "exhort, pray and preach, which they ought to stir up and use" among other reasons.

Roberts makes another useful observation on this.

In a joint letter from Bishops Grindal and Horn to Bullinger and Gualter (dated February, 1567), these prelates express themselves as rather enduring than approving some forms and ceremonials which became afterwards a fruitful source of strife between Puritans and Churchmen. "We receive." they say, "it is true, or rather, tolerate till the Lord shall give us better times, the interrogations of infants, the sign of the cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the Lord's Supper..." (p. 49f.)​
 
We can see what Bucer was apparently OK with in the baptismal service in the 1552 BCP.

Then the Priest shall make a crosse upon the chyld's forehead, sayinge,
We receyve this child into the congregacion of Christes flocke, and doe signe him with the signe of the crosse, in token that hereafter he shal not be ashamed to confesse the fayth of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner agaynst synne, the world, and the devyll, and to continue Christ's faythfull souldiour and servaunt unto his lyves end. Amen.​
 
What was the English attitude to the prayerbook? Did they "tolerate" saint days and the sign of the cross or did they embrace them fully?
 
What was the English attitude to the prayerbook? Did they "tolerate" saint days and the sign of the cross or did they embrace them fully?
I don't know that there was a single "English attitude." There was a long, bitter controversy in England over the matter of ceremonies that pitted the king and bishops on one side against the puritans and parliament on the other, with the ministers and laity of the church falling on both sides of the controversy.
William Ames, Robert Parker, and Thomas Cartwright are three Englishman that wrote against the ceremonies. The ceremonies were defended by Morton, Laud, and Hooker.
 
What was the English attitude to the prayerbook? Did they "tolerate" saint days and the sign of the cross or did they embrace them fully?

From my own perspective, I think gauging something like that is especially hard in cases where there is a dominant state church. The entire populace is expected to support, and the authorities try to enforce whatever official version of religious practice happens to be in effect at a given time. And people either tend to comply, or claim that they do, which is different than "embracing" something.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top