No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
The Prayer Book revision controversy was among the most significant events in the Church of England during the twentieth century. The proposals to revise the 1662 Book of Common Prayer provoked considerable opposition from both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, and culminated with the House of Commons rejecting a revised book in 1927 and a re-revised version in 1928. This paper will argue that two issues, ecclesiastical authority and Anglican identity, were central to the controversy. It will then suggest that the aims and policy of the bishops’ revision led to the failure of the book. In taking this angle, it will analyse the controversy from a new perspective, as previous studies have focused on liturgical developments, Church parties and disestablishment. The controversy is bound up with the broader and ongoing problem of maintaining discipline and diversity within the Anglican Communion. The Anglo-Catholic -Evangelical tensions of the 1920s were a precursor to Liberal – Evangelical conflicts on issues such as the ordination of women and sexuality. Therefore, by examining the revision controversy from the angle of discipline and comprehensiveness, a longer perspective is given to later Anglican difficulties.
I am grateful to the Anglo-Catholic History Society for providing a bursary to present this paper at the Ecclesiastical History Society Summer Meeting, 2005. The Darwell Stone Papers were consulted with permission of the Principal and Chapter of Pusey House, Oxford.
1 For other perspectives on the revision controversy, see Jasper, R. C. D., The Development of Anglican Liturgy (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Wellings, M., Evangelicals Embattled: Responses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism, 1890–1930 (Carlisle, 2003)Google Scholar; Grimley, M., Citizenship, Community, and the Church of England Liberal: Anglican Theories of State between the Wars (Oxford, 2004), ch. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 On Anglican identity, see Avis, P., Anglicanism and the Christian Church (Edinburgh, 1989)Google Scholar; MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘The Myth of the English Reformation’, Journal of British Studies 30: 1 (1991), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Quoted in the Church Times, 22 April 1927, 463.
4 For a detailed study of the Act, see Bentley, J., Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain: the Attempt to Legislate for Belief (Oxford, 1978), 128–42.Google Scholar
5 Yates, N., Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain, 1830–1910 (Oxford, 1999), 8.Google Scholar
6 The Times, 19 February 1927, 19.
7 Jasper, Anglican Liturgy, 77–8.
8 See Bell, G.K. Randall Davidson: Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1938), 1328–38.Google Scholar
9 See, for example, the response of Charles Gore, Church Times, 1 April 1927, 375.
10 London, Lambeth Palace Library, Papers of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, MSS 2898, fol. 49.
11 Lambeth Palace Library, MS Headlam 2624, fol. 151.
12 Bell, Randall Davidson, 795.
13 See Hastings, A., A History of English Christianity, 1920–1990 (London, 1986), 195 Google Scholar; Pickering, W.S.F., Anglo-Catholicism: a Study in Religious Ambiguity (London, 1991), 48 Google Scholar; Vidler, A., Scenes From a Clerical Life (London, 1977), 45.Google Scholar
14 Jasper, Anglican Liturgy, 81.
15 Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism, 56.
16 Carpenter, S. C., Winnington-Ingram: the Biography of Arthur Foley Winnington-Ingram, Bishop of London 1901–1939 (London, 1949), 201.Google Scholar
17 The Guardian, 1 April 1927, 249.
18 Ibid.
19 Lambeth Palace, Davidson Private Papers, vol. 16, fol. 91; Temple, W., The Prayer Book Crisis (London, 1928), 27–8 Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., 28.
21 Woods, T., The Prayer Book Revised (London, 1927), 75.Google Scholar
22 Ibid.
23 The Guardian, 11 February 1927, 105.
24 Church Times, 1 April 1927, 377.
25 Low, Lewis, Reservation and the Book of Common Prayer an Enquiry (London, 1928)Google Scholar.
26 See address by Darwell Stone, Lambeth Palace Library, Papers of Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, MSS 2898, 67.
27 Green Quarterly, Summer 1928, vol. 4, no. 3, 132.
28 Woods, Prayer Book Revised, 93; Jasper, R. C. D.,Arthur Catey Headlam (Leighton Buzzard, 1960), 183 Google Scholar; Temple, Prayer Book Crisis, 21–6; Burrows, W. O., An Address in Explanation of the Prayer Book Measure (London, 1927), 32.Google Scholar
29 Temple discusses the views of various English reformers in Prayer Book Crisis, 18–25.
30 Lambeth Palace Library, Davidson Papers, vol. 452, fols 243–4; Henson, H., The Book and the Vote (London, 1928), 65–6.Google Scholar
31 Woods, Prayer Book Revised, 14.
32 Wilkinson, A., The Community of the Resurrection: a Centenary History (London, 1992), 185–6.Google Scholar
33 Carpenter, Winnington-Ingram, 199–201.
34 The Guardian, 4 November 1927, 821.
35 Lambeth Palace Library, Davidson Papers, vol. 453, 106–7.
36 A term used by the Bishops of Southwark and Winchester, see The Guardian, 20 May 1927, 390; Woods, Prayer Book Revised, 17.
37 The Guardian, 8 July 1927, 517.
38 Papers of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, MSS. 2898, fol. 60; Oxford, Pusey House Library, Darwell Stone Papers, Box D5.
39 Church Union Gazette, April 1928, 78.
40 Church Times, I April 1927, 429; also C. Lindley, Viscount Halifax, 1885–1934, 2 vols (Glasgow, 1936), 2:345-7.
41 Green Quarterly, Spring 1928, vol. 5, no. 2, 103.
42 Pollock, B., Prayer Book Revision: an Alternative Policy (London, 1927), 7.Google Scholar
43 Oxford, Pusey House Library, Darwell Stone Papers, Box G12.
44 Neill, S., Anglicanism (3rd edn, London, 1928), 426.Google Scholar