I was chatting with a priest-friend about the 1662: International Edition of the Book of Common Prayer, and he playfully remarked to me that I must be the only Anglo-Catholic priest in America that likes the 1662IE. He classified it as having mostly a Reformed-Calvinist following. I don’t think this is necessarily the case, but it occurred to me that I should write out some of my reasons for supporting it—or more broadly the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The International Edition was commissioned by the Prayer Book Society USA to be a book to succeed the 1928 BCP,1 since both ACNA and TEC have not retained key elements of the classical Prayer Book tradition. While the former’s 2019 is a conservative revision of the 1979 book, the 1979 was the starting text from which revisions were made, not the classical 1928/1662 tradition. Indeed, neither ACNA nor TEC retain many classical Anglican elements in their prayer books, regardless of Traditional or modern language. Most prominently, this is found in the 1979-influenced collects and the modern 3-year lectionary brought about by 20th Century Liturgical Movement.

The 1928 BCP, used by (tens of) thousands worldwide in the Continuing Movement; and the 1662, used by millions worldwide in the Anglican Communion/Gafcon, are among the few “uses” preserving the ancient lections of the Western Tradition.

The 1662:IE makes adjustments for those not in the commonwealth, as well an appendix allowing for pointers as to how the book has been used over the centuries. It includes a glossary and an abundance of additional prayers that exceed those of 1928 and harmonize with 2019. With these, I have found it exceeds the practical usefulness of the American 1928 BCP. That said, the 1928 has a greater variety of Canticles and a more Lancelot Andrewes-infused Holy Communion service order.2

But the larger question: Why the 1662? Personally, it is not because of stylistic or aesthetic preference; rather, it is a book that for me solved a question of Anglican Identity amidst the cacophony of “Anglicanisms”3

In the ACNA, some dioceses are not universally conferring valid sacraments,4 nor do dioceses exist in full communion with one another,5 because of very real differences over these first-order issues. The question looms whether 20th century changes to the church are those which are catholic: if the authority of the church is rendered doubtful over heresy,6 then how should one feel about Anglican identity, prayer book liturgy, worship, doctrine, of the recent past?

How can one be faithfully Catholic within the Anglican Tradition insofar as prayer, liturgy, and spiritual formation, without diverting to provincialism?

Why the 1662 Book of Common Prayer?

Before I was Anglican, I was mentored by a godly priest in the Eastern Orthodox church. What I saw among fellow inquirers was a desire for confidence (i.e., validity) in apostolic sacraments, worshipping in historic consistency (stability), alongside and in a like manner to an expanse of fellow Christians, past and present (global). In other words, to be within the broadly Catholic tradition (cf., Vincentian Canon ‘by all, always, everywhere’). The 1662BCP represents well the English use of the same.

It is Catholic in Sacrament.

While the 1662 in America seems to have following of those who would be more Reformed-Calvinist, or what the continuum has called “Canonical Century,”7 there is no reason for Anglo-Catholics to avoid the 1662’s ancient catholicity because of divergent theology of other proponents. That their fight for the 1662 is rooted in a historical narrative hostile to Anglo-Catholics is not the book’s fault.

The 1662 is largely the same book that the Caroline Divines used, who being Reformed, were nevertheless not “Presbyterians with Prayer Books.” This is also so with the Tractarians and 19th Century Ritualists that produced the Anglo-Catholic movement. The Prayer Book used by Pusey, Neale, Keble, was the 1662. So too with Maurice, Lowder, Dearmer. When a Tractarian, Newman even wrote a case for keeping the 1662 as it is.8

There are likely few American Anglo-Catholics who use 1662, but it may be of interest as an alternative to 2019 TLE or the 1928, following the example of the Prayer Book Society UK, and the Diocese of Oswestry, Bishop Paul Thomas, SSC to celebrate the 1662 BCP as a fully Catholic liturgy.9

The 1662 may have some deficiencies, but as many have noted, such may be supplemented with additional devotions, as SSC has supported10 and SSJE’s Palmer and Hawkes outline.11

The 1662 represents a providential aspect of Anglicanism: it is the distilled minimum liturgy, following the spirit of the Reformation. While one should be wary to remove material from a minimum, it may be right to augment—restore—prayers, ceremonies, and devotions which may not carry the same “Romish” connotations now. This is especially helpful in recovering ancient traditions of the church, largely purged from consciousness during the canonical century, dimly remembered in some quarters in succeeding years, but rejected in few quarters today, thanks the Oxford Movement and those spiritual children the movement birthed. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Ordinariate issued a Commonwealth Daily Office Breviary that is more or less the 1662 with additional devotions, including the same 1961 Lectionary the International Edition includes.

It is stable in history.

It is important to note that the 1662:IE is popular especially to those outside the Anglican world, proving its own inherent appeal to those interested in prayer and spiritual formation within the Anglican tradition. This interest is not what was written as revolution in 1979, or reaction to the same in 2019, but a tradition approaching 400 years of use. While few would say it is a perfect book,12 it has proven the test of time, much as the King James Version of the Bible has.

The 1662 remains a foundation for most of Anglicanism, both in the history of the Anglican tradition and in millions of adherents today.

The late Fr Peter Toon (Prayer Book Society USA president) noted in 2007:

Read it all in New High Church