Book of Common Prayer (1928, England)

Part of a series on the
History of the Church of England
Westminster Abbey (1749) by Canaletto
Middle Ages (597–1500) Anglo-Saxon Christianity Religion in Medieval England Convocations of Canterbury and York Development of dioceses
Reformation (1509–1559) Reformation Parliament Dissolution of the Monasteries Thomas Cranmer Book of Common Prayer (1549) Edwardine Ordinals Book of Common Prayer (1552) Forty-two Articles Martyrs Marian exiles
Elizabethan Church (1558–1603) Book of Common Prayer (1559) Thirty-nine Articles Convocation of 1563 The Books of Homilies History of the Puritans under Elizabeth I Vestments controversy Richard Hooker Foxe's Book of Martyrs
Jacobean period (1603–1625) James I and religious issues History of the Puritans under King James I Millenary Petition Hampton Court Conference Book of Common Prayer (1604) King James Version
Caroline period (1625–1649) Arminianism in the Church of England Caroline Divines Laudianism History of the Puritans under King Charles I
1649–1688 History of the Puritans from 1649 Westminster Assembly Savoy Conference Book of Common Prayer (1662) Great Ejection Nonjuring schism
1700–1950 Evangelical Revival Oxford Movement Disestablishmentarianism Prayer Book Crisis History of the Anglican Communion

Early Oxford Movement Tractarians of the Church of England had interpreted the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a catholic liturgy with rubrics that should be closely followed. This view was challenged by "second-generation" Tractarians and members of the Cambridge Movement, who found the 1662 prayer book too liturgically Protestant. Instead, this latter faction advocated the adoption of ceremonial and some liturgical practices from the Catholic Church, such as celebrating Communion facing eastward, placing candles and a cross on the altar, and vestments. These "usages" were justified by ritualsts pointing to the prayer book's Ornaments Rubric, contending that it mandated such practices.[3]^: 239 It was these Anglo-Catholic and similar movements that would ultimately spur the prayer book revision movement in England.[5]^: 150

Among some clergy, adoption of medieval Sarum and modern Catholic Latin liturgies was contemporaneous with the proliferation of Anglo-Catholic devotional literature in the 1870s and 1880s. The Tractarian John Henry Newman's conversion to the Catholic Church elicited praise but also raised concerns regarding his peers' degree of conformity to the Church of England.[6]^: xlvi The Protestant-leaning evangelical party of Anglicans advocated for measures that removed "ambiguity" regarding the prayer book's Protestant qualities. The resulting Royal Commission on Ritual—formed in 1867—and its four reports resulted in the 1872 Act of Uniformity Amendment Act and 1874 Public Worship Regulation Act, the latter of which established a secular court to which bishops could send insubordinate ritualist priests. After several priests were imprisoned, public opinion grew hostile towards these courts and ultimately bishops would refrain from bringing priests before them.[3]^: 239[note 1]

Opposition to ritualist practice led in the 1890's by John Kensit and his Protestant Truth Society further challenged Anglo-Catholics, who were represented by the English Church Union and Viscount Halifax.[3]^: 239 While Archbishop of Canterbury Frederick Temple had officially approved several Anglo-Catholic practices, politician William Harcourt met with the church's archbishops in 1900 to promote the prosecution of ritualists. This meeting resulted in a statement that prohibited the reserved sacrament and use of incense in worship.[3]^{: 239–240}

Despite this, ritualists continued researching further into the past in search of patristic continuity. The Alcuin Club, founded in 1897 to research the history and use of the prayer book, often pulled from medieval pre-Reformation period and sometimes the first centuries of Christian history.[8]^: 716 Liturgical scholars would soon lean on this research in their criticisms of the 1662 prayer book, preferring a "primitive" liturgy.[9]^: 126 Prayer book historian Brian Cummings credited their research with doing more to "unearth the original manuscripts of the liturgical traditions", though critiqued their ardent defense of the Victorian era "Anglo-Catholic myth" that the 1549 prayer book was very close to the medieval Sarum Use.[6]^: l–li

Charles Wood, 2nd Viscount Halifax, was a prominent Anglo-Catholic who led the English Church Union in support of ritualist practice.

The 19th century saw several Anglican liturgical revision efforts outside England: the United States Episcopal Church made a series of minor changes between 1808 and 1868 before approving a comprehensive but conservative prayer book revision in 1892, Church of Ireland evangelicals guided the creation of an 1877 prayer book, and Canadian Anglicans were considering their own revisions from an Anglo-Catholic direction.[note 2] In England, Anglo-Catholics scholarship and the 1662 prayer book's increasingly dated language both challenged prior idealization of the 1662 liturgies.[5]^{: 150–151} The linguistic issues within the prayer book, many of which were derived from Thomas Cranmer's translation of Latin, left pastors many "trip-wires" with theological and ministerial implications that could not be easily explained. With no way to stop the mechanisms behind this and other complications, Church of England clergy increasingly supported revision.[5]^{: 152–154}

Shortly after assuming the archiepiscopate at Canterbury in 1903, Randall Davidson told parliament that he would rein in the ritualists. In March the next year, Davidson and Prime Minister Arthur Balfour authorized a review of the state of church discipline to address the debate between Anglo-Catholics and their opponents.[3]^: 240[5]^: 154 The Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline—chaired by Michael Hicks Beach—interviewed 164 witnesses to produce a four-volume report in 1906.[3]^: 240[10]^: 29 This report asserted "the law of public worship is too narrow for the religious life of the present generation", particularly with regard to the desire for ceremony and historic continuity as violations of policies including the Ornaments Rubric were widespread. The commission also reported the means of enforcing teaching and practice in the church were ineffective.[5]^: 154 The report included ten recommendations primarily compiled by Davidson. Among the recommendations was to begin revising the vestiture rubrics, formally initiating the process for a new prayer book authorized by a Parliamentary Act of Uniformity.[3]^: 240

Anglican chaplains, such as this priest likely assigned to the South African Native Labour Corps, were charged with the pastoral duties of wartime. Many felt the 1662 prayer book was inadequate for these purposes.

The initial period of revision, between 1906 and 1914, primarily focused on the 1662 prayer book's Ornaments Rubric and its role in justifying Anglo-Catholic ceremonial practice. John Wordsworth chaired a group of five bishops who issued a report on the rubric in 1908 with the assistance of leading moderate Anglo-Catholic liturgist Walter Frere.[3]^: 240[10]^: 28 The report's assertion that chasubles were legal elicited protest; the upper house of the Convocations of Canterbury and York passed a resolution that was less supportive of this view. In his 1911 Some Principles of Liturgical Reform, Frere requested for a committee to examine liturgical affairs; Davidson established such a body in May that year. Attempting to create a balanced committee, the evangelical bishop Thomas Drury was appointed alongside Arthur James Mason, Frere, Frank Edward Brightman, and, from 1912 onward, Percy Dearmer and Percival Jackson.[3]^: 240

Many Anglican scholars in this period published extensive histories on liturgical practice, largely in association with the Alcuin Club. Among them were E. G. Cuthbert F. Atchley's History of the Use of Incense in Divine Worship (1909), F. E. Warren's The Sarum Missal in English (1913), Brightman's The English Rite (1915), and Frere's research on medieval pontificals and early sacramentaries.[8]^{: 716–717} Another influential work came in the anonymously written A Prayer-Book Revised (1913) prefaced by Charles Gore.[11]^: 160 It was understood that these scholars were to "safeguard" the "both catholic and reformed" Anglican identity in a manner akin to the earlier Non-jurors.[8]^: 717[note 3]

In February 1914, the convocation's upper house report was published and committees established to oversee the work. Davidson revealed his disinterest in revision in private correspondence, considering it a distraction from church administration.[3]^: 240 Soon, World War I hampered the work and saw discussion of approval delayed until after the war so that the laity could engage. Gregory Dix characterized the general attitude among the revisers pre-war with a quote from Bishop George Forrest Browne, who said "that there should be a minimum of change" and "that there should be no change that in any sort of way could honestly be said to touch doctrine at all" (a view similar to Davidson's[10]^: 30); Dix compared this with what he found to be a similar attitude in the 1662 prayer book's revision process. This moderate stance towards revision emphasized making a prayer book more easily enforced by law.[12]^: 697 During the war, Convocation continued reviewing potential changes. Among these was a proposal emulate the 1549 English and 1637 Scottish prayer books' Holy Communion offices and move the Prayer of Oblation to after the Consecration. Viscount Halifax went further, requesting that the 1549 Communion service be approved.[3]^: 240

The war proved a proximate cause in the more significant revision which followed.[5]^: 155 Reservation of the sacrament became more popular during the war, as the convenience convinced chaplains who may have avoided this "Romish" practice in peacetime.[5]^: 159 From 1911, a convocational drafted rubric that had been intended to prevent "extra-liturgical devotions" by authorizing reservation exclusively for communing the sick served as the standard for diocesan permissions.[10][note 4] Though generally popular, the increased permissions for reservation during the war were met with strong evangelical disapproval and suspicion.[3]^: 240 Linguistically, the 16th-century diction were not comforting to the many illiterate and barely literate soldiers most in ministerial need.[5]^: 158 The 1662 prayer book's monotony similarly came under scrutiny during the war, with its repetitiveness felt "mindless" by those attending its liturgies. Alec Vidler described the "conventional worship of the Church of England" as "too dull and cold and reserved" for those living on the social margins. It was among the slums that Tractarians and ritualists had entrenched their ministries, with great success.[5]^{: 157–159} These factors meant that the moderate rubrical adjustments advocated in the 1906 report were felt insufficient by the war's end.[5]^: 160

Postwar

Percy Dearmer (pictured c. 1890) was among the liberal Anglo-Catholics who produced the Grey Book proposal.

While chaplains returning from the war and those ministering to the working class had identified the needs for "a simplified, linguistically modernized, and theologically less intimidating" liturgy in their mounting support for a significantly revised prayer book, these pastoral concerns were generally dismissed once the more substantial work began.[5]^: 160[3]^: 241 Instead, scholastic and party lines became the dominant forces in this renewed process. The role of revision fell not to chaplains, but rather academics more focused on relitigating the evangelical-versus-traditionalist debate that had run since Cranmer's era. Further, the perceived "timeless sanctity" of both the 1662 prayer book and the King James Version of the Bible saw many defend the dated language of both texts as essential for worship.[5]^: 160 General modernization of the liturgical language would not be accomplished until the 1960s.[5]^: 161

By 1918, according to Dix, the concern with statutory matters had given way to revision from the "point of view of liturgy not law."[12]^{: 697–698} The lower house of Canterbury voted that year in support of altering the Communion service and in 1920 a special conference favoured adopting an "Eastern" modification to the service.[10]^: 32 The revision process became complicated by Parliament passing the Enabling Act in December 1919, establishing the National Assembly of the Church of England with an upper and lower house of clergy and a house of laity was established. The National Assembly first met in 1920, setting up a committee on prayer book revision in the autumn. That committee's report was published in June 1922 as NA 60. The House of Bishops passed the Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure that accepted these recommendations—including reservation of the sacrament[10]^: 32—without modification in October that year,[10]^: 32 publishing the liturgy with suggested changes as NA 84.[3]^: 241 The proposed lectionary changes were detached and submitted to parliament, which passed it in 1922 and accepted its use alongside the 1871 revised lectionary.[7]^{: 217–218}

NA 84's publication saw three major external efforts to influence the final proposed prayer book. The resulting three proposals were known by the colour of their covers: the English Church Union's "Green Book", the Life and Liberty Movement's "Grey Book", and the Alcuin Club's "Orange Book".[3]^: 241[7]^: 218[note 5]

As with the other external proposals, Walter Frere and the Alcuin Club's 1923-4 "Orange Book" was known by its cover's colour.

Frere pictured at his 1923 consecration[note 6]

The Green Book, published in October 1922, took a scholarly and Anglo-Catholic view particularly visible in its support for commemorations of Saint Joseph and the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Life and Liberty Movement, which had pushed for the National Assembly's creation, took a Liberal Anglo-Catholic stance in their 1923 Grey Book. The Grey Book, prefaced by Bishop of Manchester William Temple and "largely the work of Revd Percy Dearmer, F.R. Barry, and R.G. Parsons", reflected what prayer book historian G. J. Cuming called "a remarkable combination of sound liturgical craftsmanship, modernist theology, and high-flown liberal sentiment."[7]^: 218 The Orange Book (sometimes also known as the "Yellow Book") mostly produced by Frere and published by the Alcuin Club in 1923-4 took a more moderate Anglo-Catholic stance,[3]^: 241 attempting to "harmonize" the two other external proposals with NA 84.[7]^: 218 Each proposal included permission for the reserved sacrament.[3]^: 241

Evangelical opposition to the revision process persisted through this period.[3]^: 241 Instead of organizing their own proposed revisions many preferred to simply retain the 1662 prayer book, reckoning that suggesting improvements would weaken their stance.[7]^: 218 Especially controversial were the repositioned Prayer of Oblation, insertion of an Epiclesis, and permission to reserve the sacrament. Bishops Ernest Barnes, Lord William Cecil, Ernest Pearce, and Bertram Pollock opposed each proposal.[3]^: 241

The National Assembly's House of Clergy and House of Laity completed their revisions in March and July 1925 respectively. The House of Clergy dropped the earlier proposed Communion canon and offered two of their own. The House of Clergy also widened the permitted forms of reservation and sought to remove the role of regulating the practice from individual bishops. The House of Laity decided on the 1662 Communion service with one alternative form, with reservation exclusively permitted for communing the sick.[7]^{: 218–219} In October 1925, the bishops began what would eventually be 47 full days of revision. Archbishop Davidson received 800 memorials regarding the revision, including one from nine diocesan bishops that opposed any revision to the Communion service's celebration after the Nicene Creed and rejected the creation of an alternative form. A proposal to separate Communion office revisions from the other changes was defeated.[7]^: 219[note 7]

The bishops' revision, which featured some original additions as well as borrowings from the unofficial proposals, was sent to convocation in February 1927. Here, some changes were again made and the rubrics on reservation were separated by the upper house. In July 1927, this version was approved by the National Assembly by a vote of 517 to 133. Soon, the matter garnered popular attention with the most partisan Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals opposing the proposed text for polar reasons:[7]^{: 219–220} the former on the basis that it was too Protestant and the latter on the ground it contained new and old forms of "popery".[5]^: 163

Archbishop of Canterbury Randall Davidson (left) and Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks (right) opposed one another during the 1927-8 Prayer Book Crisis.

In 1927, the change in liturgy became a question of national identity. Anglicans understood the Church of England as "inextricably bound up" with "English character",[19]^: 75 particularly among the many bishops who took a "Centre-High" view.[19]^: 77 Davidson considered the matter of revision in Arnoldian national terms, saying

"We want to use for the better of English life every ounce of strength which by God's benediction is ours. We want that strength so consecrated and so united that it shall be irresistible for what we desire to effect our country's life."[19]^: 81

Anglo-Catholics framed their practices as in line with English norms, arguing that the popular masonic rituals were more complicated than Catholic ones and comparing vestments to Forester regalia.[19]^: 79 However, others concerned themselves with maintaining England's Protestant character against encroachments by the Catholic Church. In 1927, Dearmer suggested Anglo-Catholic opposition to the revised prayer book was a "determined attempted to destroy the Church of England" coordinated by the papacy.[19]^: 83 Evangelicals understood Protestantism as underpinning the relationship between the monarchy, Parliament, and the established church, pointing to the anti-papist language in the coronation oath as a contract to preserve English and British religious identity. The evangelical bishop E. A. Knox feared in 1926 that the Catholic Mass might become the coronation rite of a "Roman Catholic king";[19]^: 92–93 similarly disposed churchmen would lean on rhetoric from the Reformation in their opposition to the proposed text.[19]^: 97[note 8]

The Church of England's status as the established church would soon stymie the revised prayer book's adoption. Unlike the Church of Scotland—also an established church subject to Parliamentary authority—the Church of England lacked latitude in self-governance. Further frustrations arose as Anglican dominance of Parliament became increasingly diminished, particularly in the House of Commons. Since the end of the 19th century, Catholics, agnostics and atheists, non-Christians, and nonconformist Protestants made up a growing proportion of those admitted as ministers in the House of Commons and peers in the House of Lords.[2]^: 131

To gain final approval, the proposed text was next deposited before Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee—a procedure which lent the revision one of its popular names, the Deposited Book—and considered by this group through the late summer and autumn of 1927. The committee's 24 November report found "no change of constitutional importance is involved" and declared the revision as keeping with the coronation oath's promise "to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law". Davidson opened debate on the Prayer Book Measure in the House of Lords on 12 December, hoping it would pass there before going before the king for his royal approval.[20]^{: 456–457}[4] The three-day debate in the House of Lords saw emphasis on the theological implications of the revision, with several evangelical speeches against the measure. Viscount Halifax also opposed the measure, but from an Anglo-Catholic perspective. His speech on the measure, which questioned whether the Deposited Book could effectively regulate reservation, may have been an attempt to elicit further evangelical opposition to the measure. The House of Lords voted for the measure, 241 approving and 88 against.[20]^: 457[21]^: 37

It was anticipated that the House of Commons would pass the measure more easily. But, instead, evangelical opponents had been planning their resistance before the measure had reached parliament. At a 30 November inter-party meeting led by Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks and attended by around 100 members, four whips and an executive committee of six including the home secretary was created.[20]^: 457 Joynson-Hicks, popularly known as "Jix", had previously voiced his dissent towards the revision following its passage by the National Assembly in July and his 15 December speech proved influential on the other members.[20]^{: 451–452} Here, Jix lambasted the alternative Communion service as "mediaeval" and declared that reservation necessarily led to adoration of the sacrament. Rosslyn Mitchell of the United Free Church of Scotland gave a similarly stirring and crucial speech,[4]^: 1 drawing upon the English Reformation and accusing the Deposited Book of promoting the doctrine of transubstantiation.[20]^: 458 Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and some nonconformists spoke in favour, but their appeals failed.[3]^: 242 After the seven-hour debate,[20]^: 457 the outcome of the House of Common's vote was announced at just before midnight to much jubilation among the members.[4]^: 1 The outcome—238 votes against the measure to 205[21]^: 37[5]^: 163—left Archbishop Davidson "inconsolable" at the damage done his church's spiritual authority.[4]^: 1 Vidler would later comment that "in a single hectic night the House of Commons had apparently destroyed the work of more than twenty years."[5]^: 163

A plaque giving thanks for the defeat of the Prayer Book Measures, placed by then-Viscount Joynson-Hicks

Though he was generally indifferent to the changes and had long considered the revision process a poor use of the church's time, Davidson and others became certain that a new prayer book measure could pass by making some Protestant-leaning changes and better educating the members. Some of the Anglo-Catholic changes such as not mandating the Prayers for the Sovereign were undone.[5]^: 164 This second measure saw a marked decrease in support and a minor increase in opposition during its April 1928 National Assembly votes. After a spate of new pro- and anti-revision literature, the latter including The Prayer Book Crisis by Joynson-Hicks,[22]^: 125 the new measure failed on 14 June in the House of Commons with a larger majority of 266 to 220.[21]^: 38[6]^: xlvii Joynson-Hicks commented in the two-day June debate that the "question of Reservation was the crux of the whole matter" for both measures.[20]^: 461

The Church of England adopted the Alternative Service Book in 1974, which was so-named to avoid the parliamentary involvement required for a new Book of Common Prayer.

The process and fallout from the failed prayer book measures saw new calls for disestablishment both within and outside of Church of England.[9]^: 126[20]^{: 454, 460–461} After the December 1927 votes, there was consideration that the National Assembly should raise the matter of disestablishment; the bishops' optimism that the second measure would succeed won out then.[20]^: 460 However, the second measure's failure saw a newly minted disestablishmentarian: a former proponent of establishment, the Bishop of Hereford Hensley Henson. While Henson became a longterm advocate for disestablishment, his efforts failed to gain further traction. As the Prayer Book Crisis had not been one specifically church and state, there was reduced incentive to further separate the two.[20]^{: 461–462} Winston Churchill had expressed an antidisestablishmentarian view in the House of Commons and the supposedly disestablishment-disposed Labour Party lacked interest in the matter. Revision opponent Bishop Pollock opposed disestablishment as "utter folly" immediately following the measures' failures, leaving Henson the only evangelical to taken the disestablishment line.[25]

Following the parliamentary rejection, use of liturgies unauthorized by parliament became widespread.[9]^: 126 In 1929, the bishops permitted the Deposited Book's use by clergy "during the present emergency."[3]^: 242 The Shorter Prayer Book, containing the most popular elements from the 1928 proposal and approved by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1947, came into popular use.[26][27][3]^: 243 Ultimately, the bishops came to consider the Deposited Book's prayers and practices as lawful and formally approved its use in 1958.[28]^: 107 By 1959, many English clergymen used considerable elements of the 1928 prayer book. The belated episcopal approval for printing of and worshipping according to the 1928 prayer book was contingent on the "goodwill" of the congregations through their representation in the parochial church councils. By failing to perform this approval earlier, the Church of England might have lost an opportunity for their proposals to be respected and supported by all but the strongest partisans and failed to establish a basis upon further revision could be accomplished.[21]^: 38–39

Among the more widely adopted 1928 forms were the reserved sacrament, the revised forms of baptism, marriage, and burial, Compline, and the supplementary collects.[21]^: 38[22]^: 127 In particular, clergy preferred performing the marriage office without the 1662 prayer book's referencing of "men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding", though Cummings reported that some couples enjoyed retaining the older form and the discomfort it brought their relatives.[6]^: xlvii

The proposed text also proved influential on other Anglican liturgies, though other 20th century Anglican liturgies also resembled the 1928 English prayer book due to sharing many of the same influences rather than as a result of direct influence by the Deposited Book.[29]^: 62 William Perry attributed much of the Scottish Episcopalian 1929 Scottish Prayer Book to the Deposited Book, particularly the occasional offices.[30] In the Church of Nigeria, a Hausa-language prayer book combining elements from the 1662 and proposed 1928 prayer books was used. The Nigerian church's 1996 prayer book adapted the 1928 revision's Administration to the Sick.[31] The U.S. Episcopal Church's Standing Liturgical Commission, in its 1953 Prayer Book Studies IV, lamented that the American church had adopted its own 1928 Book of Common Prayer before having the opportunity to examine the English 1928 revision and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.[32]

The 1958 Lambeth Conference and the Liturgical Movement applied renewed pressure for new liturgical developments within Anglicanism. In 1960, the notion of "permissive alternatives" was debated before Convocation. The "permissive alternatives" approach grew more popular, though concerns of starting a debate like those over the Deposited Book remained.[22]^{: 226–227} Many services from the 1928 book were compiled in the Church of England's 1966 First Series of Alternative Services. The Series One marriage office remains authorized.[33] Following the 1970 formation of the General Synod, the church acquired the authority to reform its liturgy.[9]^: 124 In 1974, the church adopted the Worship and Doctrine Measure which led to the 1980 Alternative Service Book, so entitled to not bring parliament's involvement as required for a prayer book. As such, the 1662 prayer book—only slightly altered from its original form—remains the sole Book of Common Prayer approved by the Church of England.[5]^{: 164, 179} The Alternative Service Book was initially adopted for a period of ten years which was renewed for a further ten before replacement by the currently authorized Common Worship.[33]

According to Cuming, the preface to the proposed prayer book was likely written by Davidson.[7]^: 223 As with the 1662 prayer book, the Psalter is the translation found within the 1540 Great Bible rather than the 1611 King James Bible.[21]^: 51

The matter of reservation of the sacrament and its permission by rubrics within the Deposited Book proved controversial. The 1927 revision provided three rubrics that governed reservation. These rubrics only permitted reservation for the sake of communing sick persons unable to otherwise receive it—and were phrased explicitly as to prevent other uses—and established that reservation was to only occur with episcopal approval. The practice of non-liturgical adoration utilizing the reserved sacrament was illegal under the rubrics of the Deposited Book.[34]^: 82–87 The new vestment rubric, derived from NA 84, also attracted controversy. Bishop Arthur Headlam noted in his 1927 The New Prayer Book that the new rubric was introduced for the purpose of "peace" and "order", as prohibiting Eucharistic vestments was "impossible". The authorized vestments included the chasuble (which Headlam noted was contemporaneously used within the Church of Sweden), cope, and surplice.[34]^: 55–57

• Bishops' Wars – Conflict partially spurred by a prayer book revision
• Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) – Several prior private revisions of the 1662 prayer book
• Jenny Geddes – 17th-century opponent to prayer book rites
• Prayer Book Rebellion – Conflict started by the 1549 prayer book's introduction

• "Prayer Book Measure, 1927. (Hansard, 15 December 1927)". UK Parliament. Retrieved 29 March 2023. Parliamentary record on the first Prayer Book Measure.
• "Prayer Book Measure, 1928. (Hansard, 14 June 1928)". UK Parliament. Retrieved 29 March 2023. Parliamentary record on the second Prayer Book Measure.
• Cruickshank, Dan D. (2019). The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9783030271299. Includes coverage to the church-state conflict and lay administrative involvement.
• Joynson-Hicks, William, The Prayer Book Crisis. London: Putnam, 1928. Anti-revision monograph written between votes on the measures.