On the 1789 American Edition of the Book of Common Prayer
Lex orandi, lex credendi—the law of prayer is the law of belief. Run around in Anglican circles long enough, and you will hear some version of this statement. It communicates the truth that what we pray both states and forms what we believe. That is the case for our Trinitarianism, our soteriology, our sacramentology, and our ecclesiology. It also is true, of course, for our political theology.
We find the prayers of the Anglican tradition predominately in its various editions of the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, any understanding of this tradition’s political theology must look to its relevant petitions. In America, this point matters for more than those current adherents to the tradition. This was the faith of George Washington, John Jay, John Marshall, and many other Founders. In understanding their prayed political theology, we gain more insight into the principles of American political thought. This insight matters all-the-more now as our country considers its next president and elections for other offices as well. How have we prayed for our leaders in the past and how then should we in the present and the future?
To consider this prayed political theology, we will examine the first American Prayer Book—the 1789. In addition to the reasons given above, this month also marks an important anniversary for it. Two-hundred thirty-five years ago, in October of 1789, the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church approved this Book of Common Prayer for its worship. This new Prayer Book came about as part of a response to the pressing question: what was the Church of England in America to do after the Revolution? In the 1780s, this dilemma confronted the battered, divided, and distrusted elements of the English church in the United States. To survive in this new environment, its stateside remains had to rebrand as authentically, convincingly American.
These clergy and laymen formed themselves into the Protestant Episcopal Church. The new Prayer Book arose from the development of this new ecclesiastical body. After a failed attempt at a new version in 1785, the 1789 took. Therefore, when President George Washington would attend services at New York’s St. Paul’s Chapel or Trinity Church in 1790, he might have worshiped according to this just-released Prayer Book. Certainly from 1790-1797, when the national government moved to Philadelphia, our first president worshiped at St. Peter’s or Christchurch in Philadelphia according to the 1789 BCP. It would go on to serve the Protestant Episcopal Church for more than a century until its replacement with the revision of 1892. This time span makes it the longest-lasting American Prayer Book, longer than the 1892, the 1928 or, so far, the 1979 of the Episcopal Church and ACNA’s 2019 edition.
In its Preface, the 1789 Prayer Book laid down the marker for the political prayers contained in it. This opening section noted its historical context, that “when in the course of divine providence, these American States became independence with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included.” In particular, this independence involved the need for liturgical reforms in the political prayers for rulers, given the 1662’s specific petitions for the British Monarch.
The Preface then spoke of, “what ought to be the proper end of all such prayers.” That proper purpose consisted of seeking that “rulers may have grace, wisdom and understanding to execute justice, and to maintain truth; and that the people may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty.”
This Preface first articulated what magistrates needed in order to rule well. They needed understanding regarding those matters pertaining to governance as well as the wisdom to apply that understanding. In this statement, the Prayer Book recognized that the political art involved the combination of the theoretical and the practical forms of knowledge. At the same time, the Preface began with the need for grace. The wisdom and understanding that magistrates possess itself comes from God. All they and we have is a gracious gift. Thus, the prayers that follow in the Prayer Book should call upon God to give the grace to rulers that includes the wisdom and understanding proper to their task.
The Preface continues by declaring that the magistrates’ use their graciously-given wisdom and understanding “to execute justice, and to maintain truth.” These objectives presuppose that justice and truth exist. Moreover, they presume that these exist in forms that laws can articulate, and law enforcement can support. Politics, then, cannot be merely procedural. It necessarily involves the pursuit of what is right and the maintaining of what is true.
Finally, what these rulers do regarding justice and truth serves further purposes, purposes the Preface takes from Paul’s first letter to Timothy—“that the people may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty.” Today, many take this Scripture passage in a more libertarian sense, meaning that we should petition for government to leave us alone to believe and worship as we please. But it has traditionally been understood differently. We get to live quiet and peaceable lives because the magistrate helps to protect and promote godliness and honesty. In fact, many commentators took “godliness and honesty” as the summary of the two tables of the Decalogue—our duties toward God and neighbor. Debates may have existed on exactly how far the state could and should go here. But the role of the magistrate as protector and promoter was considered clear.
With this foundation set, the 1789 included several prayers focused on political rulers. Perhaps the fullest teaching on this matter comes in the prayer for the “Church Militant” found in the “Holy Communion” liturgy:
“We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.”
This prayer was basically unchanged from the 1662 BCP. We should notice that the prayer does not first petition God in relation to rulers’ actions. Instead, it asks for God to direct and dispose, which seems to combine specific and general elements of God’s providence. God’s direction seems to involve sovereign ordering of actions toward His good purposes. “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). The ruler will not think or act contrary to God’s ordained plan. Meanwhile, disposing appears more general, inclining the ruler’s thoughts toward right principles. This part asks God to give the ruler a general posture toward good.
The prayer next centers the purpose of government in the duty to “administer justice.” This point follows the Preface’s line about “executing justice.” In administering justice, government does not define, much less create, what is good. God already has done, as justice is a reflection of His own character and will. Instead, administering justice involves carrying out or realizing that existing standard. It means understanding what God has revealed in nature and in Scripture that give us both principles of justice as well as good and bad administrations of it.
We see that standard elaborated upon in what follows. The prayer teaches that administering justice consists both of restraint and of encouragement. First comes the restraint in “the punishment of wickedness and vice.” The Prayer Book assumes evil exists, that humans tend toward it, and that government’s role includes punishes those who do it. In this statement, we see a rejection of the line that laws should not “legislate morality.” The truer question concerns what morality government enforces, including by what standard we judge the good. The Prayer Book clearly understands that to be God’s justice. “Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son!” (Psalm 72:1).
Next follows what government should encourage. That encouragement is two-fold, “the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.” Notice that those in political authority should not merely maintain religion in some generic sense. They should maintain “thy true religion.” This assumes, it should go without saying, that Christianity is the true faith, containing the actual revelation of God and the real Gospel by which we must be saved. Again, debates took place then and now as to exactly how to maintain this true religion. At the least, back then it involved public encouragement of Christianity in proclamations, speeches, and other forms of persuasion. It also involved an ordering of time, with restrictions on certain activities on Sundays to give ample space for worship. In some states, it also included financial support, with the last state disestablishing only in 1833.
The 1789 BCP pairs this obligation to maintain true religion with “virtue.” Before, we saw that laws and their enforcement should not seek merely to stop wickedness and vice. Now, we see they should look to actively encourage the good. Moral legislation regarding how people conducted themselves in public was normal at the time and for many generations thereafter. This prayer calls upon the people to demand and the state to provide legal encouragement toward doing what is right for ourselves and in our relations to others.
The Prayer Book here distinguishes true religion and virtue. But that does not mean it separates the two. Instead, they are placed in conjunction because of the role religion had in defining virtue. Yes, educated people at this time gained insight from classical sources about the nature of courage, temperance, justice, and prudence. But they also learned these from Scripture. John Adams, though far from orthodox, proclaimed that, ““The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy that ever was conceived upon earth.” Moreover, the common man’s main source of learning about these virtues came from the consistent, careful reading and exposition of the Bible they experienced day after day, week after week, in private devotions and in public worship.
Perhaps George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, who together composed Washington’s Farewell Address, had this prayer in mind when writing that famous work. For that address (really letter) stated that, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports” and that, “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Washington’s warning aligned with the prayers he prayed.
Beyond this petition, the 1789 added in prayers concerning the newly-created offices of our national government. Twice a day, for Morning Prayer and for Evening Prayer, parishes would hear a petition to God for the President of the United States and others in authority.
This prayer began by addressing God in His capacity as a ruler without parallel in creation, calling Him, “the high and mighty Ruler of the universe.” It makes sure to place the respect we should have for the president and other officials in submission to our higher allegiance to our Heavenly King. Politics is important for the Prayer Book, being an ordinance of God established by Him for our good. But it never becomes ultimate, which itself would constitute a form of idolatry.
The prayer then calls for a blessing on the president, whom the prayer designates as “thy [God’s] servant.” This phrasing continues the line of teaching with which the prayer began. As a popular government, the sovereign power resides in the people, humanly speaking. This form certainly creates obligations for the president and other elected officials toward citizens. But this prayer reinforces that God is the ultimate sovereign. He creates and sustains or topples rulers. All magistrates ultimately serve Him in how they perform in political office. Even the sovereign people of the United States are called to submit to His will.
The prayer then combines elements of the Preface and the Prayer for the Church Militant, saying, “so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way.” Again, our rulers cannot do the task God has given them without also graciously giving them the ability to do it. Again, we pray that God would dispose the will of the president and others in authority to follow His will as the highest law. Finally, again, the prayer petitions that this graciously-ordered will might then lead these officeholders to “walk in thy way.” For those regularly hearing and saying these prayers, what that way involves should not be a mystery. God’s way for the political ruler entails maintaining truth, religion, and virtue. It means punishing wickedness and vice.
It is telling, too, that the prayer concludes with the petition for the Chief Executive’s salvation. After praying for the president’s physical health, it asks God that our chief executive may, “after this life…attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Remembering our leaders as persons with both bodies and souls, those like us in need of saving faith in Jesus Christ, is a point especially needed during hotly contested election seasons.
The 1789 BCP also gives a prayer for Congress, intended for use while our national legislative chamber is in session. This prayer continues the logic of the other petitions. It seeks that the House and Senate’s “consultations” would lead to, “to the advancement of thy Glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of thy people.” It adds the petition that, “peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.” This prayer matters especially in light of the role of Congress as our legislative body. In a regime based on the rule of law, those making the law hold a special task to set up the rules by which these purposes are pursued by the rest of the government. The executive and judicial branches, by the nature of their power, carry out a combination of what the Constitution demands and what Congress creates as law. The prayer continues to reinforce the purposes of government in protecting and maintaining truth, justice, and true religion. And it adds a particular reference to Christ’s Church, further explaining that God established government in part to protect His people from harm by her enemies. It further points to the Church as one means of instilling “religion and piety,” goods in themselves and facilitators of “peace and happiness” for all. This prayer thus puts a final point on the political theology of this Prayer Book, bringing together the various teachings found throughout.
On its 235th anniversary, we should give thanks for the political influence of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer. It taught generations of American citizens and statesmen a political theology of God’s purposes for politics. It ordered many petitions to our God, by its citizens, on behalf of this country. We have moved far from its wise thoughts in many of our policies, calling evil good and good evil. Woe to us for that. In this election season and beyond, we would do well to recapture the teaching of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer and utter its words, daily, to our ultimate ruler, to our highest King.
Image Credit: Unsplash
Good topic for an essay. It cries out for links, though. Here’s one to the 1789 Book, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1789/BCP_1789.htm
I thought you were going to talk about hte Articles, which remained at 39 I see: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Articles.htm
I saw the note below. Did they ever get around to revising the Homilies?
“[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Book of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circum-stances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]”