The article deals with some projects of liturgical reform in England created in 1828-1833. It analyzes goals, proposals and arguments of the "reformers". The authors of the projects aimed to join dissenters to the state Church and to diminish popular anticlericalism. They believed it necessary to make liturgy less weary, more intelligible, instructive and edifying, as well as politically neutral. The pamphleteers actively appealed to history, e.g. to the history of the Reformation, "the Liturgy of Comprehension" (1689), and the Episcopal Church in the USA. They thought that the contemporary "Age of Reform" was quite appropriate for making changes in the Church.

Key words: Anglicanism, Church of England, Book of Common Prayer, liturgy, church reform, liturgical reform.

The LITURGICAL reform is one of the most topical topics of English journalism in 1828-1833. In the Church of England (as opposed to the Orthodox Church), "liturgy" means not only the divine service during which the Eucharist is celebrated, but also any other church services, as well as the texts according to which they are performed.1 Therefore, the term "liturgical reform" meant a revision of the entire content of the" Book of Common Prayer " - a collection,

1. Hefing, Ch., Shattuck, C. (eds) (2006) The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, p. 581. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Petrova T. [Projects of the Liturgical Reform in English Journalism in 1828-1833]. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2016. N 4. pp. 174-193.

Petrova, Tatiana (2016) "Liturgical Reform in English Pamphlets and Tracts, 1828-1833", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 34(4): 174-193.

page 174
which included all the liturgical texts of the Church of England. The "Book of Common Prayers", along with the"39 Articles "2 and the"Ordinal" 3, is the main source of official doctrine, so the issue of revising the liturgy was closely linked to the revision of the general doctrine of the Church of England.

When creating this article, we were tasked with identifying the goals, main proposals, and arguments of the reform's proponents. Our main sources were those containing draft changes to the" Book of Common Prayers " written by the lawyer William Winstanley Hull, 4 Archdeacon Edward Behrens, 5 priests of the State confession George Henry Stoddart, 6 Robert Cox, 7 and Charles Charles Wadhouse, 8 in 1828-1833.

Criticism of official worship had deep historical roots. In fact, the" Book of Common Prayers " has been criticized since its creation, and from the very beginning, the liturgy was not perceived as something inviolable. The first two editions of the Book were officially approved in 1549 and 1552 under Edward VI. Queen Mary banned the Book in an effort to bring the Latin Mass back to English churches. Elizabeth I turned the country back to Protestantism and initiated the return of the "Book of Common Prayers" in a new compromise edition of 1559, combining Catholic and Protestant features.

From the mid-sixteenth century, a Puritanical critical tradition developed, denouncing the English liturgy as "remnants of papism",

2. The main doctrinal provisions of the Church of England, adopted by Parliament in 1571.

3. The Ordinal-the law of ordination to deacon, priest and bishop, first approved by Parliament in 1550 and edited together with the"Book of Common Prayers". Proponents of the liturgical reform also included a revision of the Ordinal in their projects.

4. Hull, W.W. (1828) An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience of Proposing and Making Any Changes in the Canons, Articles, or Liturgy, or in Any of the Laws Afecting the Interests of the Church of England. Oxford: Y. Parker.

5. [Berens, E.] (1828) Church Reform by a Churchman. London: J.Murray.

6. Stoddart, G.H. (1833) Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform. London: W.H. Dalton.

7. Cox, R. (1832) The Liturgy Revised; or the Importance and Benefcial Efects of an Authorized Abridgement and Careful Revision of the Various Services of the Established Church. London: J.Hatchard and Son.

8. Wodehouse, C.N. (1832) A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations. London: Longman.

page 175
mostly related to the ritual side of services. The "survivals" included, for example, the order to kneel before communion and make the sign of the cross over the person being baptized. The Puritans pinned their hopes for a reformation of the services on the new King James I. In January 1604. he allowed them to voice their grievances at the Hampton Court Conference. But after it, the king made only minor concessions, which were taken into account in the new edition of the "Book of Common Prayers" in 1604. During the revolution, the Puritans who came to power banned the Book. In 1645, the Long Parliament approved the Puritan "Manual of Worship"in its place.

The "Book of Common Prayers" returned to churches during the Restoration period. The Puritans insisted on changing it. Charles II allowed moderate Puritans to speak at the Savoy Conference in 1661. The new version of 1662, although it contained 600 changes related to the inclusion of new prayers, improved translation, and explanation of existing wording, practically did not take into account their requirements.9 This version went down in history as the "classic" "Book of Common Prayers"10, and it was this version that proponents of the "liturgical reform" sought to revise.

In 1689, the "Act of Toleration" was issued, which allowed dissenters 11 to practice their faith relatively freely. The act had long-term consequences: the most rapid and large-scale growth of dissenter communities occurred at the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX century. It was then that the Church of England realized that it was losing its former influence.

Against this background, the so-called Latitudinarian theological trend developed within the Church of England at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries. Its adherents believed that a state confession could bring back dissenters, setting aside ceremonial and doctrinal differences that were unimportant for salvation. The projects for changing the liturgy of 1828-1833 are a continuation of Latitudinarian ideas. But this period can be described as a new stage in the development of the existing tradition, associated with a specific political situation.

9. For a brief history of the editions of the Book of Common Prayer, see Procter, F., Frere, W. H. (1910) New History of the Book of Common Prayer. London: Macmillan and Co. [http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Procter&Frere/, accessed on 17.06.2015].

10.An edited version of the Ordinal was also printed under the same cover.

11. Protestants who do not belong to the state church.

page 176
The liturgical reform was presented to contemporaries as part of a large-scale church reform. Since the second half of the 18th century, the term "reform" has been strongly associated with the idea of rational organization of state institutions, increasing their efficiency, and saving money. Institutions requiring intervention included the church 12. It is important to note that the Church of England was dependent on secular power, so usually publicists put the responsibility for future reform on Parliament. Since 1717, the practice of discussing ecclesiastical matters in the Canterbury Convocation was discontinued.13 Thus, the parliament was transformed into a "secular synod" - it was there that the main issues of the church structure were resolved. 14
During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the reluctance to repeat the French scenario caused a rise in conservative sentiment in British society. Discussions of any reforms have become wary. But after 1815, the struggle for change began to gain momentum again, culminating in the early 1830s. The same period is also associated with a real boom in the discussion of "church reform" 15.

Publications on this topic can be divided into two groups. The first category includes anti-clerical works. The pamphlets of this group particularly harshly criticize the abuse of the clergy: careerism of bishops, nepotism, absenteeism 16 and pluralism 17. It is proposed to abolish tithes and fees for the maintenance of churches, which were mandatory not only for Anglicans, but also for all citizens. One of the most famous anti-clerical journalists, John Wade, in the famous "Black Book" proposed to turn the clergy into moderately paid clergy.-

12. Burns, A. (2003) "English ‘Church Reform' Revisited, 1780-1840", in A. Burns, J. Inns (eds) Rethinking the Age of Reform: Britain 1780-1850, pp. 144-145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Собор духовенства.

14. Stetskevich M. S. Tserkva Anglii i angliyskoe obshchestvo v sredne XVIII - pervoi treti XIX v. [The Church of England and English Society in the middle of the 18th-first third of the 19th century]. Series 6. 2009. Issue 1. P. 16.

15. See: Mathieson, W. L. (1923) English Church Reform, 1815-1840, pp. 62-72. London: Longman; Petrova, T. V. Projects of Church reform in English pamphlets and treatises of 1828-1832. 2016. N 2(50). pp. 283-295.

16. Absenteeism refers to priests who do not live in their parishes. It was believed that such a priest was cut off from his flock.

17. Pluralists - priests who received income from two or more parishes. It was believed that they could not fully serve in each of them.

page 177
publicist Robert Mackenzie Beverley understood the necessary "reform" to mean the destruction of the union of church and state, the deprivation of official clergy of all lands and tithes 19.

The second group should include publications of "friends of the church". Their authors were mainly priests of the state confession. They also criticized the existing order, but in order to prevent anti - clerical "reforms" and turn public opinion in favor of the church, they proposed moderate changes related to the legislative restriction of the most discussed abuses-pluralism and absenteeism, with stricter discipline and redistribution of income of rich clergy. The latter measure was intended either to help poor pastors and encourage them to work actively, 20 or to free up funds for building churches in overcrowded cities.21
What was the reason for the particularly active discussion of church problems in the early 1830s? First, when Catholics were officially admitted to Parliament in 1829, it became clear that the state had seriously deviated from the policy of protecting the privileges of the state Church22. Under such conditions, it became possible to implement the anti-clerical scenario. Secondly, in 1830, the agitation for parliamentary reform began with renewed vigor, associated with the hope that the House of Commons, elected under new, more just rules, would immediately begin to correct outdated state institutions, including the church. The struggle for the electoral reform Bill and its adoption in the summer of 1832 became a new incentive for reflection on the fate of the state confession. Moreover, the bishops ' opposition in the House of Lords to the passage of the bill in 1831 spurred anti-clerical propaganda.23 Thus, by-

18. [Wade, J.] (1831) The Extraordinary Black Book; or, Public Abuses Unveiled. London: E. Wilson.

19. Beverley, R.M. (1831) A Letter to His Grace the Archbishop of York, on the Present Corrupt State of the Church of England. London: W.B. Johnson.

20. Burton, E. (1831) Thoughts upon the Demand for Church Reform. Oxford: W. Baxter.

21. The British Critic (January, 1832) Vol. XI: 230.

22. Solov'eva T. S. Religious policy of Liberal Tories in England (20s of the XIX century). Moscow: MSU, 2000.

23. Stetskevich M. S. Church of England and English Society. p. 22.

page 178
the liturgical events of 1829-1832, on the one hand, contributed to the emergence of anti-clerical projects of radical reform, and on the other, showed the vulnerability of the church in modern society and the need to strengthen it through moderate reforms (including liturgical ones)24.

Unfortunately, historians have paid little attention to the question of revising the liturgy. There is only one short monograph devoted entirely to the controversy surrounding the liturgical reform in the nineteenth century. It quite concisely analyzes the main ideas of the most famous pamphlets 25.

The paucity of historiography may give the false impression that the issues of the liturgy were of little concern to English society. Indeed, the "church reform" was primarily associated with organizational changes and the redistribution of income. However, the discussion about revising the Book of Common Prayers should not be played down. Many publicists who wrote about institutional reform gave a special place to the issues of the liturgy in their works. These authors included both the Friends of the Church (whose writings have become our main sources) and the famous anti-clerical Wade. The issue of" liturgical reform " was discussed in Parliament. The controversy surrounding it was one of the main reasons for the emergence of the brightest phenomenon in church history - the Oxford theological Movement26. Thus, the topic of this article deserves a more in-depth study.

Sources show that the "reformers" 27 believed that the modern era was quite suitable for the implementation of their projects, despite the fact that the church was experiencing difficulties.

24. Behrens ' and Hull's pamphlets were called "trial balloons": written in 1828, even before Catholics were allowed to enter parliament, they were the harbingers of a future wave of pamphlets on the subject of liturgical reform: The British Critic. (October, 1829) Vol. VI: 305.

25. Jasper, R.C.D. (1954) Prayer Book Revision in England, 1800-1900. London: S.P.C.K.

26. Barmann, L. F. (1968)" The Liturgical Dimension of the Oxford Tracts, 1833-1841", Journal of British Studies 7 (2): 92-113; Stetskevich M. S. Basic ideas of the Oxford Movement // Religious studies. 2010. N4. pp. 49-55.

27. It should be noted that the authors of not all the texts we studied used the term "reform"to refer to their plans. Nevertheless, magazine reviews of their works were published under the headings "church reform" and" liturgical reform", regardless of the choice of authors (See respectively: The British Critic (October, 1829) VI: 267-313; The Quarterly Review (January, 1834) Vol. L: 508- 561). This proves that in society, the draft amendments to the "Book of Common Prayers" were perceived as part of the social movement for political rights.,

page 179
Thus, Wadhouse wrote that" in quiet and safe times " there is no one to make people "move" and that reforms should be carried out when public opinion is ready for them. 28 Cox echoed him: "Undoubtedly," now is the time to wake up from sleep", shake off the spirit of lethargy, abandon the stubborn adherence to customs, valuable only for its antiquity... never before has there been a period when a dispassionate but thorough revision of the liturgy was so insistently demanded. " 29
Who, in the opinion of the "reformers", should have made specific decisions? There was a point of view that the liturgical reform, by analogy with the expected institutional church reform, should be carried out by the Parliament. It was followed by Wadhouse, who addressed the House of Lords in his pamphlet.30 Hull believed that a special commission should work out the final draft of the liturgical reform, which will submit it to Parliament for approval. He openly opposed the revival of the old practice of discussing liturgical changes in the Canterbury Convocation. [31] Cox, Behrens, and Stoddart, on the other hand, believed that the correction of the "Book of Common Prayers" might require the convocation of a council. At the same time, only Cox proposed to abandon the final approval of the liturgical reform in Parliament. He considered that the convocation (council) should be given the right to make ecclesiastical laws independently, which was a reasonable requirement after Catholics were admitted to the legislature.32 According to Behrens, some of the changes to the Book of Common Prayers could have been approved by the official head of the church-the king-with the help of "decrees in the council" (orders in council), bypassing both conciliar and parliamentary discussion 33.

экономические и иные реформы. Мы имеем все основания объединить всех памфлетистов словом "реформаторы".

28. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, pp. 18-21.

29. Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, р. 16.

30. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, р. 21.

31. Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, p. 18-20, 48, 246.

32. Berens, E. (1834) A Letter to the Editor of the Quarterly Review. Oxford: W. Baxter Pp. 8-9; Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, pp. VII-VIII; Stoddart, G.H Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, pp. 66, 83-84.

33. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 13.

page 180
What were the goals of the "reformers"? One of their main goals was to realize the Latitudinarian dream-to unite the state church and other Protestant denominations in the country. This was consistent with the desire to mitigate internal church dissatisfaction with the services in order to prevent the growth of dissent. Another important goal of the "reformers" was to protect the Church of England from attacks by anti-clerics.

Wadhouse stood out from the crowd, openly declaring that his main goal was deeply personal. In his work, he combined the desire for the "common good" and "the relief of his own conscience."34 When he was about to become a priest, he was tormented by doubts about the scriptural conformity of certain fragments of the liturgy. After receiving the parish, these doubts only strengthened. The torment of his conscience was aggravated by the fact that, according to the "Act of Uniformity" of 1662, every priest had to confirm his consent to the "Book of Common Prayers"before being ordained and appointed to the parish. Thus, a person who continued his ministry, but did not consider the English liturgy correct, could be considered a perjurer. Wadhouse foresaw that society, having learned about the contradiction between his personal views and a statement made at one time, might demand that he give up his "profession, occupation and income." 35 The priest believed that before doing this, it was necessary to find out the opinion of the authorities: perhaps they would start a liturgical reform, and doubts would be resolved by themselves. As early as 1824, Wadhouse wrote a petition to the House of Lords, asking for relief from his conscience and help establish "harmony among Christians." 36 In 1832, he published it along with broader proposals. In 1833, the petition was finally presented in Parliament, although it did not lead to any real reforms.37
It wasn't just Wadhouse who predicted the public's condemnation, writing, "I may go to my grave branded with epithets I don't deserve."38 Other clerical writers also predicted the public's condemnation.

34. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, pр. 9, 20.

35. Ibid., p. 42.

36. Ibid., p. 12.

37. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Third Series. Vol. 20, col. 308. (05.08.1833).

38. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, р. 22.

page 181
they were aware that they might be accused of perjury. The "reformers" were well aware that they would be accused of attempting to distort the divine service and of aggravating anti-clerical attacks. Anticipating such consequences, the authors defended their position as best they could.

It was important for all authors, without exception, to justify their "reformist" attitude to the "Book of Common Prayers" with the help of historical examples. First, many of them referred to the Reformation period. Its compromise nature was well known, and it allowed publicists to speak of the "unfinished Reformation." 39
Secondly, the authors paid attention to the history of the XVII century. However, the fact that the" Book of Common Prayers " was edited in 1603-1604 and 1661-1662 was practically not used by the authors as an argument in their defense. The seventeenth-century editions could not serve as an example, probably because there were too few major changes, too few concessions to the Puritans - the bishops in those years sought not to appease the Puritans, but to resist their attacks. Only Hull emphasized that "the Book of Common Prayers has been changed many times." 40
At the end of the seventeenth century, there was another official attempt to revise the Book of Common Prayers, which, although it did not lead to a new edition, inspired the pamphleteers of the nineteenth century more than any other. We are talking about the work of the commission of 1689, which met in the Jerusalem hall of Westminster Abbey. It was composed of bishops and prominent theologians of the Church of England, and was convened with the sanction of King William III in order to fulfill the historic task of uniting the church with the dissenters. This was due to a favorable political moment: during the Glorious Revolution (1688), all Protestants in the country rallied against the Catholic-sympathized deposed King James II and welcomed the new Protestant rulers: Mary and her Calvinist husband William. The union was to be consolidated by a new "Book of Common Prayers", which took into account the old Puritan claims. A significant part of the bishops and theologians at that time were on the Latitudinarian position and therefore managed to develop a project of the so-called "Orthodox Church".-

39. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, pр. 4-7; Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, pр. 4-5.

40. Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, p. 183.

page 182
my " comprehensive Liturgy "(the"Liturgy of Comprehension"). But the changes were opposed by ordinary clergy. The "comprehensive Liturgy" has remained on paper. It was not published, and it was known only from the testimonies of the participants. However, it was an important precedent. The authors of all the pamphlets in question mentioned the commission of 1689. Hull even wanted the new official discussion of the liturgy to take place in the Jerusalem Hall, because of the "genius of the place" 41.

A third source of argument was the history of the Episcopal Church in the United States. It separated from the Church of England after the War of Independence of the American colonies (1775-1783), because American priests who adhered to the Anglican faith could no longer recognize the king as the head of the church. After the declaration of independence of the United States in 1776, priests spontaneously excluded prayers for the king, the royal family and the English Parliament from worship. In September and October 1785, the first General Convention of the Clergy and Laity met and established a special commission to amend the Book of Common Prayers. The Commission did not stop at political issues and made serious amendments in the Latitudinarian spirit. As a result, the American "Book of Common Prayers" was approved by the General Convention in 1789 and published in 1790.In 1792, a new "Ordinal"was approved. 42
Brothers in America 43 set an example that was readily cited. Moreover, the overseas version of the liturgy, in contrast to the secret English draft of 1689, was available in its entirety, as well as the journals of church Conventions, which made it possible to analyze these texts in detail. 44 The fact that the English prelates agreed to ordain bishops for the new rite church, and did not oppose most of the amendments, was another trump card in the hands of the"reformers" .45
What did the publicists suggest, armed with such serious historical arguments? First group of offers

41. Ibid., p. 241.

42. См. подробно: McGarvey, W. (1907) Liturgiae Americanae or, The Book of Common Prayer as Used in the United States of America, Compared with the Proposed Book of 1786, and with the Prayer Book of the Church of England, And an Historical Account and Documents. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Church Publishing Co.

43. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, p. 41.

44. Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, pp. 188-239.

45. Ibid., pp. 194-201.

page 183
applies to the Sunday morning (or holiday) service. The second group is devoted to requirements: baptism, confirmation, churching of women on the 40th day after childbirth, visiting the sick, and burial. In the same group, the "reformers" themselves sometimes included comments on the "Ordinary", the so-called political services and the "ash Wednesday" penitential service (commination service).46
Let's consider the main provisions of the projects concerning the Sunday morning service. First, all the "reformers" suggested reducing it 47. You might think that the desire to pray to God as quickly as possible arose only in the XIX century-the century of railway speeds. But the request to reduce the service was already present in the Puritan "Thousandth Petition" of 1603, as Berens reminded 48. The shortening of the service was intended not only to make life easier for the faithful, but also to make church visits more attractive.49 It was also desirable to "diversify" the service 50.

Some publicists believed that the priest himself should determine and vary the length of the Sunday or weekday service. The same principle was the basis for the proposal to allow the priest to compose some prayers himself.51
The second widely discussed issue was the issue of the Symbols of Faith included in Church of England worship: Apostolic, Nicaea-Constantinople and Athanasius. The most controversial of these was the Athanasian symbol, which was prescribed to be read 13 times a year. Its text is a formula for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which has been attacked by anti-Trinitarians in England since the seventeenth century. The rise of anti-trinitarianism created an atmosphere of discord around the symbol, which was reinforced by the fact that

46. The first Wednesday of Great Lent.

47. On average, according to the Quarterly Review, an ordinary Sunday service (without the sacrament of the Eucharist) lasted 1.5 hours: The Quarterly Review (January, 1834) Vol. L: 527. But where long sermons were practiced, they could last up to 3 hours, see: Gregory, J. (2006) "The Prayer Book and the Parish Church: from the Restoration to the Oxford Movement", in Ch. Hefing and C. Shattuck (eds) The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, pp. 95-97.

48. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 137.

49. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, p. 48.

50. Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 81.

51. Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, p. 184; Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, p. 23; .Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 68, 78.

page 184
there are rather harsh passages in it ("cursing articles" 52) that are unpleasant not only for unitarians, but also for some of those who agreed with the rest of the text. In an atmosphere of politically encouraged religious tolerance, society developed an aversion to the idea that people who hold other religious views can be declared doomed to eternal death during their lifetime. The "reformers" suggested defusing the situation.

It was known that the Athanasian symbol was discussed by the commission of 1689. Latitudinarians of the XVIII century, who believed that rigid dogmatic formulas prevented the unification of Christians, proposed to exclude it from worship. The Americans did just that. But of the publicists we studied, only Cox held an extreme position. In his opinion, it was not necessary to read out symbols in churches at all. It would be possible to remind about the basics of faith only on holidays, using a composition from selected fragments of the "39 articles". At the same time, the texts of symbols should be printed in the "Book of Common Prayers" as documents valuable for their antiquity.53
Wadhouse and Behrens were moderate. They offered to abandon only the "cursing articles". It should be noted that it was the "cursing articles" that became the first cause of O. Wadhouse's moral suffering. He adhered to the doctrines set forth in the symbol, but the "cursing articles", in his opinion, did not correspond to Scripture (although theologians defended them by quoting Mark 16:16:"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned" 54). Wadhouse found support in cases of demarches: "... many people listen to the Athanasian symbol sitting down, some do not go to church, knowing that it will be read. Even the priests don't like him. It gives food for conversation to those who want to justify attacks on our country-

52." Cursing "included art. 2, 28, 29, 42: (2)" But if anyone does not keep it [the universal faith] sound and blameless, then, without any doubt, he will perish forever"; (28-29) " Therefore, whoever wants to be saved, so let him understand about the Holy One." Trinity. But for eternal salvation it is necessary to firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ"; (42) " This is the universal faith. Whoever does not faithfully and firmly maintain this faith will not be able to be saved. " See: English text with article numbering on the website of the Anglican Church of Canada [http://www.anglican.ca/about/beliefs/athanasian-creed/, accessed on 06.09.2015], translated into Russian in the electronic version of the Orthodox Encyclopedia: [http://www.pravenc.ru/text/76822.html, accessed from 06.09.2015].

53. Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, pp. 54-55;

54. See, for example, The Quarterly Review (January 1834) Vol. L: 545.

page 185
turgius. Why is everything like this? Mainly because of these articles"55. In his opinion, the rejection of them could lead to a more willing acceptance of the doctrines set out in the symbol. The same opinion was expressed by Behrens, who believed that it would be enough to abandon only the most stringent articles - 2nd and 42nd 56.

Hull was a supporter of the rejection of the Athanasian symbol, but was ready to compromise options.57 Stoddart saw several solutions to the problem. He proposed either to abandon the Apostolic and Athanasian symbols, including their theological formulas in the "39 articles", or to remove the "cursing articles", replacing them with a mild warning, or directly in the "Book of Common Prayers" to explain what they say about those who consciously (and not out of ignorance) deny the truth, revealed in scripture 58.

Interestingly, those who criticized the curses against heretics might agree with the curses against sinners that were heard at the Ash Wednesday service, preceding the penitential prayers. For example: "Cursed be the merciless, the fornicators and adulterers, the covetous, the idolaters, the revilers, the drunkards, the extortioners." 59 In the US, they were abandoned. Cox and Stoddart wanted the same thing. According to Cox, the penitential service could be shorter and "kinder", which would help to correct human vices more "effectively" .60 But Hull and Wadhouse defended the existing option. Wadhouse even wanted it to be read more than once a year. The author of the Quarterly Review attributed this inconsistent attitude to curses to the fact that the "reformers" who opposed them actually wanted to get rid of the trinitarian doctrine, and they did not care about curses that were not related to it.61 In reality, apparently, everything was simpler: some "reformers" sought to make the text of the service both more tolerant and more instructive (useful for public morals). Therefore, they refused to curse people with other religious views, but were ready to intimidate those who indulged in vices.

55. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, pp. 28-29.

56. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 129.

57. Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, pp. 49, 246.

58. Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 73.

59. The Book of Common Prayer (1831), p. 207. Oxford: University Press.

60. Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, p. 82.

61. The Quarterly Review (January 1834) Vol. L: 545-546.

page 186
The third issue of concern for the "reformers" was the question of the texts of the Old Testament that were read at the service. They, like the Puritans of the "Thousandth Petition" era, proposed to exclude non-canonical 62 Old Testament books 63 from the calendar of readings approved in the "Book of Common Prayers". The most interesting suggestions concerned the rejection of obscure texts and fragments that did not correspond to "modern sophisticated feelings" 64.

The fourth question for the Sunday service was related to the epithet "most religious king", used in the prayer for parliament, which was read in churches during parliamentary sessions. The "reformers" suggested removing it. The prayer for Parliament first appeared in the edition of 1662. Thus, for the first time, this epithet was applied to the vicious Charles II, which could already cause confusion. The contemporaries of the "reformers", George IV and William IV, were also not distinguished by piety. Behrens noted that it was clear to an educated person that the epithet was a tribute to the royal title and service, and not to the real qualities of a particular person, but ordinary parishioners perceived it as "flattery and obsequiousness." 65 "Reformers" recalled historical anecdotes to support their position. So, it was said that Charles II, who knew everything about himself, laughed with the courtiers when this prayer was heard. And George III deleted these words from his personal copy of the Book of Common Prayers, replacing "the most pious king" with "a miserable sinner." 66
Cox and Stoddart opposed the so-called "political services" that were included in the Book of Common Prayers in 1605 and 1662. by special royal decrees extended at the beginning of each new reign. We are talking about services on November 5 (in memory of the "gunpowder plot"), January 30 (in memory of the execution of Charles I), May 29 (in memory of the Restoration of the monarchy). Cox thought it was" ridiculous " to keep holding services in honor of events that had long since passed,

62. The division of the Old Testament into canonical (which is the source of the doctrine of faith) and non-canonical (which is not the source of the doctrine of faith, but is recommended as edifying) books is fixed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles.

63. Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, p. 50; Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, p. 47.

64. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 133.

65. Ibid., p. 130.

66. Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 31; Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, р. 59.

page 187
and in honor of the representatives of the Stuart dynasty, which has not ruled for a long time. Nevertheless, he not only did not object to the service on the day of the current monarch's accession to the throne, 67 but also proposed to make a new service for performing on the day of his birth.

Let's move on to the provisions related to the requirements and services of the "Ordinary". Of all the claims, the greatest number of claims since the Puritans have traditionally been made to the ranks of baptism, marriage, visiting the sick and burial. In the rite of baptism, many inconveniences were caused by the need to find three godparents for the child. People were put off by the promises that the adoptive parents were required to make on behalf of the child: to "obediently observe God's will and commandments"all their lives68. As dissenters grew, finding godparents became increasingly difficult. Wadhouse noted that some people had no religious friends at all who were willing to become godparents.69 Therefore, "reformers", like the Puritans, sought permission for parents to become the adoptive parents of their children.70 Stoddart believed that godparents ' promises should be replaced with something "less categorical"71. Wadhouse suggested that the custom of seeking adoptive parents should be abandoned altogether, and in order to join the Baptist church, which recognized only adult baptism, he reminded that the Church of England does not insist on infant baptism even without liturgical reforms.72
The sacrament of baptism, according to the letter of the "Book of Common Prayers", was to be performed during a Sunday or holiday service with a congregation. This was meant to symbolize the entry of a new member into the community of believers and remind each parishioner of their own baptismal vows. But Cox reasonably noted that the sacrament "is hardly considered an interesting event by anyone other than the parents", and therefore suggested that it should be shortened 73. Behrens believed that it should be allowed to be held outside of the service, emphasizing that a large number of children should be allowed to attend it.

67. The service appeared under Elizabeth I. Just like other "political services", it had to be approved by each new monarch.

68. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 172.

69. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, pp. 51-52.

70. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 154; Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, р. 53.

71. Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 75.

72. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, pp. 53-55.

73. Cox, R. The Liturgy Revised, pр. 72-73.

page 188
the priests (perhaps even the majority) did not adhere to this precept. Behrens reminded them that violating the rules of the Book of Common Prayers is a violation of the law of the land. It is important to note that Behrens believes that in this case, as in some other cases, it is necessary to prevent violations of the law by bringing the rules in line with existing practice. It is necessary either to allow priests to decide for themselves at what time to perform the rite, or to allow bishops to exempt priests from observing the established order.74 Thus, one of the secondary goals of the reform was to bring the book liturgy closer to the real one.

A serious theological controversy was caused by the phrase that the priest pronounced after the baptismal formulas: "This child is reborn "(regenerate). Some dissenters and church members denied regeneration through baptism. Thus, the Calvinists saw in the sacrament only a sign of entry into the church, and the rebirth was made dependent on the Predestination of the church. In the projects under consideration, the authors did not seek to criticize this term from a theological point of view: they suggested either rejecting it as "bold"76, or briefly explaining it in the "Book of Common Prayers"77.

In the rite of burial, objections were raised to the phrase: "We commit this body to the ground... in the firm hope of a resurrection to eternal life. " 78 It was feared that ordinary parishioners interpreted it as declaring all the dead saved. Agreeing with this view, Behrens noted that it can encourage sinners to continue to sin. The "reformers" believed that it was necessary either to change the text (as the Americans did), or not to read the controversial fragments in the case of burials of people known for their unrighteous lives.79
The rite of consecration of marriage, according to publicists, should have been significantly reduced. Behrens noted that many are sacred.-

74. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 145-147, 152.

75. For details on the theological controversy, see Nockles, P. B. (1994) The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760-1857. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 229-235.

76. Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 75.

77. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 153.

78. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 204.

79. See, for example, [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, pp. 156-159.

page 189
80 The "Reformers" believed that much of what the priest was supposed to say was incomprehensible to ordinary, uneducated people and gave food for misinterpretation. It was, for example, about the priest's phrase that indicated that marriage should not be concluded "for the satisfaction of carnal lusts and appetites"81. This phrase seemed too rude and could cause unnecessary associations 82. Behrens, from the standpoint of Malthusianism, criticized the prayer for the gift of offspring, recalling that a large family turns a poor person into a beggar.83
The services of the "Ordinal" and the order of visiting the sick, which were the second cause of Wadhouse's suffering and the object of the sarcastic ridicule of the anti-clerical Wade, were criticized on more serious grounds. According to their text, the priest was presented as a bearer of special grace, and Latitudinarian theology recognized him as an ordinary person who did not possess special gifts.84 Controversial was the formula pronounced by a bishop when ordaining a presbyter: "Receive the Holy Spirit... To whom you forgive your sins, they will be forgiven; to whom you leave them, they will remain. " 85 With these words, Christ admonished the apostles (Jn 20: 21-23), but from the point of view of rational theology, an ordinary person could not repeat them to an ordinary person, so the formula of ordination was recognized as "bold" 86. Wadhouse and Hull proposed to focus on the American version of the "Ordinal" 87, in which when ordaining a controversial formula, it was possible to apply it to an ordinary person. If you want to replace it with another one: "Accept the authority to perform the service of a priest of the Church of God" 88.

80. Ibid., p. 149.

81. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 189.

82. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 154; Cox R. The Liturgy Revised, p. 79.

83. [Berens, E.] Church Reform by a Churchman, p. 155.

84. Jasper, R.C.D. Prayer Book Revision, p. 7.

85. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 342.

86. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, p. 41; Stoddart, G.H. Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform, p. 77.

87. Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations, p. 33; Hull, W.W. An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience, p. 187.

88. McGarvey, W. Liturgiae Americanae, p. 433.

page 190
Thus, it was possible to exclude from the rite the mention of the supernatural abilities of pastors 89.

In connection with the denial of the special grace given to the priest at ordination, the rite of visiting the sick was criticized. The problem was the formula that the priest pronounced after the patient had confirmed his repentance for his sins or (if desired) confessed in person: "By the authority given to me, I absolve all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 90 There was no mention of confession or absolution in the American rank. But it was difficult to follow this example. This was recognized even by the extremely rationalistic attitude of J. R. R. Tolkien to religion. Wade 91. The reason is psychological. Some critics of the liturgy have acknowledged that it is natural for a sick person to want to hear that their sins are forgiven. Therefore, it was proposed to replace the existing formula of the rite of visitation of the sick person with the formula used in the morning and evening services.: "Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... who gave authority and commandment to his servants to proclaim remission and forgiveness of sins to penitents. He forgives and remits the sins of all who truly repent and truly believe in his Holy Gospel. " 92 This formula, firstly, did not use the first person, and, secondly, implied that only God could know whether the remission of sins was accomplished or not.

Let's sum up the results. In the course of our research, we found that it was important for the authors of the "liturgical reform" projects to show that their proposals were not innovative. They sought to connect themselves with figures of the past, especially with the members of the commission of 1689 and the theologians who prepared the American Book of Common Prayers. At the same time, they argued that the current era was favorable for the long-awaited reforms. The main goal of the "reformers" was to make the liturgy more acceptable to dissenters and less vulnerable to attacks from anti-clerics. Other tasks were also set: to make the Liturgy less tedious, more understandable and instructive, and to improve the quality of the service.-

89. Однако при рукоположении американских епископов сохранялась старая формула, которая говорила о принятии Святого Духа, но не о возможности отпускать грехи.

90. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 197.

91. [Wade, J.] The Extraordinary Black Book, p. 78.

92. The Book of Common Prayer, p. 34; Wodehouse, C.N. A Petition to the House of Lords, р. 33; [Wade, J.] The Extraordinary Black Book, pp. 77-78.

page 191
tically neutral. The "reformers" appealed not only to Scripture and church history, but also to existing practice and the feelings of believers. Opponents of the reforms feared that the changes could completely change the Church of England's teaching. But the theological attack was mainly directed in one direction: it was proposed to abandon the formulas that implied the special grace of the priest and his right to absolve sins.

In conclusion, we note that the authorities were in no hurry to implement the plans of publicists. The first major change to the Book of Common Prayers did not take place until 1859, when Queen Victoria, at the request of Parliament, removed "political services" from the collection. In 1872, a law was passed that allowed priests to reduce their services.93 Further liturgical reforms dating back to the twentieth century were generated by other religious and political circumstances.

Bibliography / References

Petrova T. V. Proekty tserkovnoy reformy v angliiskikh pamfletakh i trektatakh 1828-1832 godov [Projects of Church reform in English Pamphlets and treatises of 1828-1832]. Nauchny dialog, 2016, No. 2 (50), pp. 283-295.

Solov'eva T. S. Religious policy of Liberal Tories in England (20s of the XIX century). Moscow: MSU, 2000.

Stetskevich M. S. Osnovnye idei Oxffordskogo dvizheniya [Basic ideas of the Oxford movement]. 2010. N 4. pp. 49-55.

Stetskevich M. S. Tserkva Anglii i angliyskoe obshchestvo v sredne XVIII - pervoi treti XIX v. [The Church of England and English Society in the middle of the 18th-first third of the 19th century]. Series 6. 2009. Issue 1. pp. 16-25.

Barmann, L.F. (1968) "The Liturgical Dimension of the Oxford Tracts, 1833-1841", Journal of British Studies 7 (2): 92-113

[Berens, E.] (1828) Church Reform by a Churchman. London: J.Murray.

Berens, E. (1834) A Letter to the Editor of the Quarterly Review. Oxford: W. Baxter.

Beverley, R.M. (1831) A Letter to His Grace the Archbishop of York, on the Present Corrupt State of the Church of England. London: W.B. Johnson.

The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches; and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons (1831). Oxford: University Press.

The British Critic (October, 1829) Vol. VI.

The British Critic (January, 1832) Vol. XI.

93. Jasper, R.C.D. Prayer Book Revision, p. 63, 116.

page 192
Burns, A. and Inns, J. (eds.) (2003) Rethinking the Age of Reform: Britain 1780-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burton, E. (1831) Thoughts upon the Demand for Church Reform. Oxford: W. Baxter.

Cox, R. (1832) The Liturgy Revised; or the Importance and Benefcial Efects of an Authorized Abridgement and Careful Revision of the Various Services of the Established Church. London: J.Hatchard and Son.

Jasper, R.C.D. (1954) Prayer Book Revision in England, 1800-1900. London: S.P.C.K.

Hefing, Ch., Shattuck, C. (eds) (2006) The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hull, W.W. (1828) An Inquiry Concerning the Means and Expedience of Proposing and Making Any Changes in the Canons, Articles, or Liturgy, or in Any of the Laws Afecting the Interests of the Church of England. Oxford: Y. Parker.

Mathieson, W.L. (1923) English Church Reform, 1815-1840. London: Longman.

McGarvey, W. (1907) Liturgiae Americanae or, The Book of Common Prayer as Used in the United States of America, Compared with the Proposed Book of 1786, and with the Prayer Book of the Church of England, And an Historical Account and Documents. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Church Publishing Co.

Nockles, P.B. (1994) The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760-1857. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Petrova, T.V. (2016) "Proekty tserkovnoi reformy v angliiskikh pamfetakh i traktatakh 1828-1832 godov" [Church Reform Projects in English Pamphlets and Tracts of 1828-1832], Nauchnyi dialog 2(50): 283-295.

Procter, F., Frere, W.H. (1910) New History of the Book of Common Prayer. London: Macmillan and Co. [http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Procter&Frere/ accessed on 17.06.2015].

The Quarterly Review (January, 1834) Vol. L.

Solov'eva, T.S. (2000) Religioznaia politika liberal'nykh tori v Anglii (20-e gg. XIX v.) [Religion Policy of Liberal Tories in England (1820s)]. Мoscow: MGU.

Stetskevich, M.S. (2010) "Osnovnye idei Oksfordskogo dvizheniia" [The Main Ideas of the Oxford Movement ], Religiovedenie 4: 49-55.

Stetskevich, M.S. (2009) "Tserkov' Anglii i angliiskoe obshchestvo v seredine XVIII - pervoi treti XIX v." [The Church of England and the English Society (second half of the 18th - frst third of the 19th century)], Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriia 6 1: 16-25.

Stoddart, G.H. (1833) Evidence of the Necessity of Church Reform. London: W.H. Dalton.

[Wade, J.] (1831) The Extraordinary Black Book; or, Public Abuses Unveiled. London: E.Wilson.

Wodehouse, C.N. (1832) A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements, with Explanations. London: Longman.

page 193

Permanent link to this publication: