Modern Puritans & Reformed Catholics

(with a Proposal)

One of the major divisions in the Church of England in the late 16th and early 17th century was between those [Reformed Catholics/Anglicans] who were committed to the ordered form of Common Prayer as the basis and content of Public Worship and those [Puritans] who were committed to the centrality of the sermon and the extempore prayer of the preacher with a minimum of required forms for Public Worship. On the one side there is Reformed Catholicism and on the other is Genevan Presbyterianism.

Each side claimed that its method was best suited, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, to engage the congregation in the true, spiritual worship of God the Father through Jesus Christ the Mediator. After 1660 the two sides were represented in what was called Protestant Nonconformity and the national Church of England.

The most eloquent and sustained commendation in prose of Common Prayer came from Richard Hooker in his "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" (Book V) and in poetry from George Herbert in his "The Temple." The Presbyterian position is found in such works as "An Admonition to Parliament" and the "Marprelate Tracts."

Today, we have in modern Episcopalianism/Anglicanism something analogous, but without the great learning, intensity & fervour, evident in the period of English Reformation. I refer to the minimal commitment of modern charismatic Evangelicals to Common Prayer on the one side in contrast to the full commitment to Common Prayer of the modern classical Anglican [Reformed Catholic] on the other. And, today, since the liturgical minimalists are in the majority and are much more activist and vocal, their position is often taken as the norm, with that of the classical Anglicans often being perceived as being dead traditionalism or the like. Of course, perception is not always the same as reality!

The liturgical minimalists place great emphasis upon simplicity, creativity, accessibility, intelligibility, moving the affections/emotions, repetition, and even on dumbing-down so as to include everyone. Common Prayer is basically seen to be a structure in which are a few permanent elements (such as the Lord's Prayer and a Creed) and in which there is great space for local initiative in terms of content and style. The belief is that the Holy Spirit touches people to turn them to the Lord Jesus if their individualism and basic experientialism are respected and id all is conducted in the accessible language of the ordinary person. Thus there is little difference between the services of a charismatic Episcopal Church and those of other denominations which are also charismatic in basic orientation.

The Reformed Catholic or classical Anglican liturgical maximalists place great emphasis (whether they be high or low in churchmanship) upon the efficacy of the Common Prayer as a whole and undiluted (and said/sing reverently) to be the means whereby true religion enters the mind and from there drops into the heart and thus energises and directs the will to do the works of God. Thus here there is a desire to avoid idiosyncrasies, emotionalism, individualism and excessive didacticism and to allow the excellence of the words of common prayer to have their effect through the prevenient grace of God upon those in attendance. Here there is no quick-fix but a commitment to the long term effects of the excellence of the liturgy, along with godly pastoral work and sound teaching, to form a people in the image of Christ Jesus. And the language used is the traditional English idiom of public prayer according to the general rule, "We say 'Thou/Thee' to God and 'you' to man."

Even as it was difficult to bring these sides together between 1570 & 1660 so it is difficult now. All we can expect in the short term is charitable appreciation of the basic position of each side. Such does not exclude debate if conducted in a kindly spirit.

[In order to represent the position of the Reformed Catholics/Anglicans the better, I would like to prepare a careful paraphrase of the Contents of Book V of Ecclesiastical Polity of Hooker for modern people to read and ponder. I say a paraphrase for it would be written by me (as a paperback book of say 128 pages) as an attempt to put into modern standard English and in somewhat shorter form the arguments put forward by Hooker for the superiority of fixed Common Prayer over alternatives. Those with scholarly ability can of course read the original but I fear that for many of us the original may be perceived as too difficult. If any wish to write to me about this project with suggestions or financial help I would be glad to hear from them - Peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk )


The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America