In this case study various liturgies, other than The Book of Common Prayer, written for English congregations, will be considered. 

John Knox and The Form of Prayers, 1556.

John Knox

c. 1513-1572

Scottish Reformer

John Knox's liturgy entitled The Form of Prayers was written in Geneva in 1556, but later used in both England and Scotland.  Knox had fled England when Mary I became Queen in 1553, and together with some 200 exiles took refuge in the city of Frankfort-on-Main (Thompson, 1988: 287).  Various divisions arose among the exiles, including what type of liturgy they should use, some favouring the 1552 BCP while others favoured the Genevan rite of John Calvin (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 250).  John Knox, who from June 1554 was minister to this divided congregation, formed the opinion that The Book of Common Prayer (1552) contained “things superstitious, impure, unclean and unperfect” (Thompson, 1988: 288) although he had previously expressed a favourable view concerning this prayer book.  Knox produced an independent liturgy, called The Form of Prayers, but it was never used by the congregation in Frankfort-on-Main.  The conflict resulted in Knox leaving Frankfort-on-Main and going to Geneva with some of the exiles.  This small English congregation at Geneva drew up The Form of Prayers on the basis of Knox’s earlier work and began to use in 1556.  When the exiles began to return to England in 1559, following Elizabeth I's accession to the throne, they brought The Form of Prayers with them and it was soon used by English people with Puritan leanings (Thompson, 1988: 289).  Knox did not stay long in England but returned to Scotland to carry on the work of reforming the Church there.  This he did with a preference for all things Genevan.  He pronounced Anglican worship as a ‘mingle mangle’ and described the prayer book as a ‘diabolical invention’ (Thompson, 1988: 289). 

The Form of Prayers had a definite Reformed and Calvinist character about it, but with some elements reflecting the 1552 BCP.  It was not a fixed rite like the BCP and the minister could use his discretion about what he included, as long as he honoured the intent of the liturgy (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 250).  It contained an extended Exhortation and was compiled according to Christ's word and warrant, in the vernacular and without traditional symbols, vestments and ceremonial.  The exposition of the word was given the prominent place and the celebration of the Eucharist was only occasional.  The first rubric suggested a monthly celebration, but it seems that quarterly became the pattern (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 251).  There was no prayer of consecration, but a recitation of the institution narrative in the presence of bread and wine.  As Bard Thompson comments:

“The Form of Prayers made no provision for a consecration of the elements.  The Word, which supplied validity and reality to the sacrament, was not addressed to the bread and wine, as if to change them; it was addressed to the people, so (said the appendix) that 'Christ might witness unto our faith, as it were, with his own mouth', promising us the communion of his body and blood.  Thus, the essential point was the lively preaching of the promises of Christ, which underlay the Lord's Supper; and such preaching, whether it be the sermon or the Words of Institution, was addressed to those who proposed to communicate.” (Thompson, 1988: 292).

He then goes on to describe the manner of celebrating the Eucharist, saying:

“At the end of the Exhortation, the minister left the pulpit and took his place at 'the holy table'.  The communicants likewise came forward and sat down at the table, which was ample in size and usually arranged in a U or T shape in the chancel or on the floor of the nave.  Such was the setting for the fourfold action.  The minister took bread. He gave thanks, using an original prayer that was truly Eucharistic in its scope; it included adoration, thanksgiving for creation and redemption, a brief anamnesis, and a doxology.  Some ministers, who found the liturgy deficient in the matter of the Consecration, supplied an epiclesis at this time.  Then the minister broke the bread, taking care to make the Fraction a distinct feature of the action.  Finally, having partaken himself, he delivered the bread to the people, who 'divided' the same among themselves.  The manner of delivery, …, was conceived to be at Christ's command; and it obviated kneeling at the reception, which was so abhorrent to Knox.  It also implied that the Lord's table was appointed for the whole family of God.  By sitting down together and by serving the elements to one another, the people were able to realize their fellowship and mutual priesthood in the Body of Christ.” (Thompson, 1988: 293-294).

Some analysis of the eucharistic doctrine contained in The Form of Prayers will now be undertaken.

The institution narrative from 1 Corinthians 11 was read by the minister as the warrant for the Eucharist.  Worthy eating and drinking was emphasised and the dangers of unworthy eating and drinking were pointed out.  The minister then read an exhortation, the first half of which was from Cranmer (1552 BCP) and the second from Calvin (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 251).  The exhortation again mentioned worthy eating and drinking but went on to argue that the eating and drinking was spiritual, saying:

“ … we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, we be one with Christ, and Christ with us.” (Knox, The Form of Prayers, edn. Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 253).

The potential communicants were exhorted to consider:

“ … that this sacrament is a singular medicine for all poor sick creatures, a comfortable help to weak souls, and that our Lord requireth no other worthiness on our part, but that we unfeignedly acknowledge our naughtiness and imperfection.  Then, to the end that we may be worthy partakers of his merits and most comfortable benefits, which is the true eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, let us not suffer our minds to wander about the consideration of these earthly and corruptible things, which we see present to our eyes and feel with our hands, to seek Christ bodily present in them, as if he were enclosed in the bread and wine, or if these elements were turned and changed into the substance of his flesh and blood.” (Knox, The Form of Prayers, edn. Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 255).

This passage of the exhortation clearly indicated that the merits and benefits of Christ are available to the communicant as a medicine and help through partaking in the sacrament.  At the same time any immoderate notion of realism is denied.  Christ was not seen to be present in them, nor was there any way in which the elements were turned into or changed into the body and blood of Christ.  While immoderate realism is clearly excluded, there is some doubt about whether this exhortation is suggesting moderate realism in relation to the bread and wine.  The presence of Christ is distanced from the elements in that the potential communicants are advised not to consider the earthly elements as the source of spiritual nourishment.  The exhortation goes on to explain that:

“ … the only way to dispose our souls to receive nourishment, relief and quickening of his substance, is to lift up our minds by faith above all things worldly and sensible, and thereby to enter into heaven, that there we may find Christ, where he dwelleth undoubtedly very God and very Man, in the incomprehensible glory of his Father …” (Knox, The Form of Prayers, edn. Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 255).

Moderate realism seems unlikely.  There appears to be no instantiation of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Christ in heaven is separated from the elements on earth.  It seems that The Form of Prayers is expressing a nominalist theology of the Eucharist, where Christ’s body and blood and the bread and wine of the Eucharist are separate self-enclosed entities. 

At the table the minister prays, principally giving thanks for the work of Christ.  There is no actual consecration in this prayer, the previously read warrant of Scripture being sufficient for the actions taking place.  The rubric at the end of the prayer states that the bread and wine is broken and distributed to the people who then share it amongst themselves.  The rubric specifically distances the spiritual nourishment from the elements by saying:

“During the which time, [i.e. the eating and the drinking] some place of scriptures is read, which doth lively set forth the death of Christ, to the intent that our eyes and senses may not only be occupied in these outward signs of bread and wine, which are called the visible word: but that our hearts and minds also may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the Lord’s death which is by this holy Sacrament represented.” (Knox, The Form of Prayers, edn. Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 256-257).

There seems to be no linkage between sign and signified other than that of representation and in fact it seems to be argued that any concentration on the bread and wine will distract from the meaning of the Eucharist.  Instantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, in the manner of moderate realism, seems to be specifically excluded.  It is concluded therefore that Knox’s The Form of Prayers expresses a nominalist theology of the Eucharist.

The Middleburg Liturgy of the English Puritans, 1586

In the latter part of Elizabeth I’s reign, after 1570, the focus of Puritan activity shifted in England, attempting to change the Church of England’s polity, discipline and worship (Thompson, 1988: 311).  In June 1572 the first Admonition to Parliament appeared setting out a platform of church reform.  The Puritans objected to the dependence of the clergy on the BCP and what they described as their ‘popish attire’, and their ignorance and covetousness.  “The Anglican liturgy, with its dregs of antichrist, was shamefully compared to the simple, sufficient worship of the Puritans” (Thompson, 1988: 312).  The Puritans argued that scriptural warrant was the only basis for liturgy and church government.  By the end of 1573 the bishops, in response, had begun to enforce the Act of Uniformity and many of the Puritans were silenced, while other fled to the Continent.  Despite this, by the 1580’s the Puritans were proposing a new form of liturgy for the church based on Knox’s The Form of Prayers.  The use and printing of the new liturgy was restricted in England and so, many of the Puritans went to the Continent taking their liturgy with them.  Some went to Middleburg, an English trading community, where they began to use the liturgy more freely.  From this beginning the liturgy became known as The Middleburg Liturgy of the English Puritans (edn. Thompson, 1988: 322-341).

The Middleburg Liturgy was very similar to Knox’s The Form of Prayers, but it had some notable differences.  In the eucharistic part of this liturgy, words of delivery for the bread and wine were added, to be used while the previous practice of sitting at the table to receive the elements was continued.  The words of delivery were:

“Take and eat, this bread is the body of Christ that was broken for us, Do this in remembrance of him. … Drink ye all of this: This Cup is the new Testament in the blood of Christ, which was shed for the sins of many: Do this in remembrance of him.” (Words of Delivery, The Middleburg Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 338).

It seems that the theology of the Eucharist, indicated by the words of The Middleburg Liturgy, was in general the same as that in Knox’s The Form of Prayers, that is, nominalist.  The words of delivery however, associate the bread and wine (cup) with the body and blood of Christ, indicating a more realist view than was present in Knox’s liturgy.  In view of the prevailing nominalist theology in the other prayers, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that no realist theology was intended by the words of delivery, and that the bread and wine were merely reminders of Christ's presence and sacrifice.

The Westminster Directory For The Public Worship of God, 1644.

An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, passed on 12 June, 1643 (edn. Leishman, 1901: 155-160), spoke of the need for “the purity of our religion” and to address “many things in the Liturgy, Discipline, and Government of the Church, which do necessarily require a further and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained” (An Ordinance, edn. Leishman, 1901: 155).  This process was to proceed in a form which was to be “most agreeable to God’s holy word, … and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad” (An Ordinance, edn. Leishman, 1901: 156).  In order to accomplish this aim the Westminster Assembly convened on 1 July, 1643, comprising 150 Englishmen, for the most part Presbyterians, but also including some independents and 8 Scottish representatives.  Everyone agreed to abolish the Prayer Book, but they were not unanimous about what should replace it.  The Presbyterians wanted a liturgy in the style of Geneva, but the independents wanted something containing greater ministerial freedom (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 265).  The resulting compromise was The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God (edn. Leishman, 1901: 15-78).  This work was a set of directions and suggestions for the conduct of worship, mainly without set texts.  In the directions and suggestions for the Eucharist (known as the Lord’s Supper) (edn. Leishman, 1901: 46-53) the only set texts were the words of delivery at communion (Leishman, 1901: 52).  The Directory was authorised by Parliament and became the sole official liturgy of England in January, 1645, and in Scotland in February, 1645 (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 265).

The theology of the eucharistic liturgy will be considered as part of this case study. 

The Eucharist was to be celebrated “frequently” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 46) although it is believed that this direction was widely ignored (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 265) with the Eucharist being celebrated less frequently.  The Eucharist was introduced by an exhortation which spoke of “the inestimable benefit we have by this Sacrament, … setting forth the great necessity of having our comforts and strengths renewed thereby … with hungering and thirsting souls after Christ and His benefits” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 47-48).  The communicants were encouraged to come to “the Lord’s Table” as a way in which they could “reach out unto a greater progress in grace than yet they can attain unto” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 48).  The Eucharist therefore seems to be seen as a means of grace, whereby those who received communion, received the benefits of Christ.

The table was to be covered and the communicants were instructed to “orderly sit about it, or at it” and then the minister was “to begin the Action with sanctifying and blessing the Elements of Bread and Wine set before him” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 49).  The minister was also instructed to show by his words “that those Elements, otherwise common, are now set apart and sanctified to this holy use, by the words of Institution and Prayer” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 49).  The prayer, thanksgiving or blessing directed the minister:

“Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of all mercies, and God of consolation, to vouchsafe His gracious presence, and the effectual working of His Spirit in us; and so to sanctify these Elements both of Bread and Wine, and to bless His own Ordinance, that we may receive by faith the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so to feed upon Him, that He may be one with us, and we with Him; that He may live in us, and we in Him, and to Him who hath loved us, and given Himself for us.” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 50-51).

The use of the words ‘sanctifying’ and ‘blessing’ in relation to the elements, served the purpose of showing that they were ‘set apart’, ‘sanctified’ and no longer ‘common’.  The sanctifying and blessing was achieved by means of the words and institution and the prayer of the minister, which invoked the Holy Spirit to sanctify the communicants and the elements.  The result was that the bread and wine were no longer ‘common’ and the communicants received the body and blood of Christ by faith, although the wording suggests that this was not specifically associated with the bread and wine.  It was the sanctifying and the blessing, together with the work of the Holy Spirit that enabled the receiving of the body and blood of Christ by faith.  This seems to lessen any notion of realism where the signs are associated with the signified.  Clearly any immoderate realism is denied since there is no suggestion that the physical body and blood of Christ is present or the sacrifice of Calvary is re-iterated, but moderate realism does not seem to be strongly affirmed.  At the same time the directions for the Eucharist pray that the benefits of Christ’s grace and the body and blood of Christ are received by the communicants by faith.  Moderate realism at this point seems in doubt.

This doubt seems to continue in the words suggested following the prayer of sanctifying, thanksgiving and blessing.  Here the minister is directed to use words like: “According to the holy institution, command, and example of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, I take this Bread, and, having given thanks, break it, and give it unto you.” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 51).  The essential aspect here seems to be a following of the scriptural warrant of Christ’s actions without any interpretation.  The purpose of the fraction (breaking) seems to be part of this warrant, rather than specifically associating the bread with the broken body of Christ on the cross.  Moderate realism again seems in doubt.

Any connection between the sign and the signified in the form of moderate realism is strengthened however, by the words of delivery, which say:

“Take ye, eat ye; This is the body of Christ which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of Him.”

and

“This cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of the sins of many; Drink ye all of it.” (The Westminster Directory, edn. Leishman, 1901: 52)

Here the signs (the bread and wine or cup) are clearly associated with the signified, the body and blood of Christ, and as such are suggestive of moderate realism.  There seems to be some doubt about whether the theology of the Eucharist in The Westminster Directory is realist or nominalist.  While the sign and signified are distanced from each other in the prayer before the communion with the emphasis on the reception of Christ’s body and blood without specific linking to the bread and wine, the words of delivery seem to associate the signs and the signified more clearly with one another.

The Reformation of the Liturgy or The Savoy Liturgy, 1661.

Richard Baxter

1615-1691

Puritan Divine

Richard Baxter was one of the 12 Presbyterians invited to the Savoy Conference, along with 12 bishops, as part of the commission appointed by Charles II to review and propose alterations to the liturgy.  Following the restoration of the monarchy The Westminster Directory was now no longer to be used and so the commission was called to consider what liturgy should be used in England.  The Savoy Conference first met in March, 1661.  The Presbyterians, following a request from the bishops, were invited to submit their criticisms of the liturgy and their proposals for its reform.  This they did in two documents: The Exceptions and The Reformation of the Liturgy.  The Exceptions contained the criticisms.  Another document compiled by Richard Baxter and entitled The Reformation of the Liturgy, was also submitted for consideration.  The liturgy in this document contained a combination of Anglican and Genevan elements.  Baxter’s plan was that the Prayer Book, even though he saw fault with it, be reintroduced, but that another alternative liturgy also be used.  The Reformation of the Liturgy or The Savoy Liturgy as it is sometimes known, was this alternative liturgy.  Baxter wrote the liturgy in a fortnight using only the Bible, a concordance, The Westminster Directory and The Book of Common Prayer as source material (Thompson, 1988: 380).  Baxter’s aim was to write a liturgy which had a distinct scriptural warrant (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 270).

Baxter’s liturgy was intended to be used at the conclusion of the normal Sunday worship (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 270) and was headed in the realist sounding way as, ‘The Order of Celebrating the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ’ (Thompson, 1988: 393).  It began with an optional Explication which explained the nature, use and benefits of the sacrament.  In the suggested words Baxter begins by reciting the work of Christ on earth and on the cross and then goes to speak of the Eucharist, saying:

“ … He did institute this Sacrament of his body and blood at his last supper, to be a continual representation and remembrance of his death, and therein of his own and his Father’s love, until his coming: appointing his ministers, by the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of these sacraments, to be his agents without, and his Spirit within effectually to communicate his grace.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 394).

The Eucharist for Baxter, not only remembers Christ’s death, but also represents it.  Sacraments are the agent in an outward sense of God’s grace and the Spirit is effective within the sacrament.  Clearly there is an outward and inward part of the Eucharist, and it is through the sacrament in the power of the Spirit that the grace of God is communicated.

Baxter goes on to explain the Eucharist more fully, saying:

“The Lord’s Supper, then, is an holy Sacrament, instituted by Christ: wherein bread and wine, being first by consecration made sacramentally, or representatively, the body and blood of Christ, are used by breaking and pouring out to represent and commemorate the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood upon the cross once offered up to God for sin; and are given in the name of Christ unto the Church, to signify and solemnize the renewal of his holy covenant with them, and the giving of himself unto them, to expiate their sins by his sacrifice, and sanctify them further by his Spirit, and confirm their right to everlasting life.  And they are received, eaten and drunk by the Church, to profess that they willingly receive Christ himself to the ends aforesaid, (their justification, sanctification, and glorification) and to signify and solemnize the renewal of their covenant with him, and their holy communion with him and with one another.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 394-395).

Here Baxter clearly associates the sign (bread and wine) with the signified (the body and blood of Christ) and describes the bread and wine as being ‘made sacramentally or representatively, the body and blood of Christ’.  The use of the words ‘sacramentally and representatively’ imply that any notion of immoderate realism is denied, but at the same time they affirm a moderate realism regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Baxter also affirms a moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice, using ‘breaking and pouring out’ of the bread and wine to represent and commemorate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.  Once again he does this in a moderate realist fashion, since he says that the bread and wine, so broken and poured out, represents and commemorates only.  The relationship which the Church and its members have with Christ is not only signified by the breaking and pouring, but solemnised, as the covenant between Christ and his people is renewed in the Eucharist.  This is anamnesis or memorial remembrance.  The Eucharist for Baxter is the renewal of a mutual covenant between God and people and it is here that “we commemorate Christ’s sacrifice, and receive him and his saving benefits” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 394-395).  The notion of offering is however, limited to “ourselves, as his redeemed, sanctified people, to be a living acceptable sacrifice, thankfully and obediently to live unto his praise” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 394-395).  The idea of offering the bread and wine, or the Eucharist as whole, is seemingly absent from Baxter’s liturgy and his eucharistic theology.

An Exhortation follows in which the Eucharist is described as “a feast of the body and blood of Christ” and “the salvation that is now revealed and tendered to you” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 396).  The congregation is told in very realist sounding words:

“See here Christ dying in this holy representation!  Behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world!  It is his will to be thus frequently crucified before our eyes. … See here his broken body and his blood. … Receive now a crucified Christ here represented.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 396-397).

Baxter here uses very realist sounding language, especially in relation to Christ being frequently crucified before the eyes of those who come to the Eucharist.  The manner of this dying and crucifixion needs to be interpreted in relation to his other statements, concerning representation and commemoration.  Despite the immoderate realist sounding language, it seems that Baxter’s theological position in relation to the Eucharist is that of moderate realism.

In the prayer following the Exhortation the minister expresses sorrow for sin and in the course of the prayer asks that in the sacrament Christ’s “flesh and blood be to us meat and drink” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 398-399).  The rubrics then direct that bread and wine be brought to the minister and set upon the table.  This being done, the rubric further directs that the minister “bless them” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 399).  The suggested form of words for the blessing say in part, that Christ:

“ … hath instituted this holy Sacrament to be celebrated in remembrance of him till his coming.  Sanctify these thy creatures of bread and wine, which, according to thy institution and command, we set apart to this holy use, that they may be sacramentally the body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 399-400).

Moderate realism is again expressed here.  The bread and wine is associated with the body and blood of Christ, being sanctified and set apart so ‘that they may be’ Christ’s body and blood sacramentally.  The implication is that the bread and wine are now no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Christ’s body and blood in a sacramental manner.  There is no suggestion of immoderate realism here, since following the recitation of the institution narrative from the witness of Paul, the words ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ continue to be used.  Clearly following the sanctifying, the setting apart, the praying ‘that they may be’ Christ’s body and blood and the recitation of the institution narrative, Baxter sees the elements as remaining bread and wine.  They have not changed in substance, but they are nonetheless, Christ’s body and blood, sacramentally.  He says this in the following declaration to the congregation:

“This bread and wine, being set apart, and consecrated to this holy use by God’s appointment, are now no common bread and wine, but sacramentally the body and blood of Christ.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 400).

For Baxter, the meaning of ‘sacramentally’ emerges at this point.  The bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood sacramentally in their use, that is, in the context of the Eucharist.  This is emphasised in the words of fraction for the bread which are said as the minister breaks the bread in the sight of the people.  The minister says:

“The body of Christ was broken for us, and offered once for all to sanctify us: behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 400).

This is also emphasised in the words of libation for the wine which are said as the minister pours out the wine in the sight of the congregation.  The minister says:

“We were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 400).

Clearly the bread and the wine are associated with the body and blood of Christ, but not in any immoderate fashion.  Note that the words of fraction for the bread state that Christ was ‘offered once’ and the words of libation for the wine say that ‘we were redeemed’.  There is no sense in which the action of the cross is said to occur again in the Eucharist in Baxter’s liturgy.  The act of redemption is in the past, but its effects are clearly available in the present in the Eucharist as memorial remembrance or anamnesis.  This conclusion is supported by definite statements of moderate realism, e.g. ‘behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world’.  The words of administration also operate in a moderate realist fashion, saying “Take ye, eat ye; this is the body of Christ, which is broken for you” and “This cup is the New Testament in Christ’s blood” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 401).

The sacrifice of Christ is also part of what Baxter sees as happening in the Eucharist, since the prayer before the fraction prays asking Christ that:

“ … by thine intercession with the Father, through the sacrifice of thy body and blood, give us the pardon of our sins, and thy quickening Spirit” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 400).

Christ is seen to plead his death before the Father, and for Baxter, the Eucharist is the place where this is recounted.  It is by the intercession of Christ and through the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, that the sins of people are pardoned.  All this is contextualised in the eucharistic sacrifice as moderate realism.  It is the effect of his once and for all sacrifice that Christ pleads before the Father, and this becomes the substance of the prayer, just before the fraction and libation: the sacramental actions of Christ’s passion.  Clearly the passion and the sacrifice are associated closely with the eucharistic action in the manner of moderate realism.

The liturgy ends with another exhortation which says in part:

“Dear brethren, we have been here feasted with the Son of God at his table, upon his flesh and blood. …. You have seen here represented what sin deserveth, what Christ suffered, what wonderful love the God of infinite goodness hath expressed to us.” (The Savoy Liturgy, edn. Thompson, 1988: 403-404).

Moderate realism is again expressed in this final exhortation, both in relation to the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.  Those who have received communion, have received the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally, and Christ’s sacrifice has been represented in the Eucharist.

Baxter’s achievement in this liturgy is the combining of elements of the liturgy of Geneva with that of The Book of Common Prayer.  At the same time he uses some of the more ancient liturgical material, such as the echoing of the Agnus Dei in the fraction.  The Savoy Liturgy has been described as being “nearer to the historic Western tradition than the conception which Cranmer embodied in the Communion Service of the Prayer book of 1552” (Ratcliff, 1962: 123).  Despite all this The Savoy Liturgy had little impact on the conference to which it was submitted and equally little impact on the revision of the Prayer Book which resulted in the 1662 BCP.  The Savoy Liturgy in spite of its rejection displayed a mood of adoration, sometimes missing in other Reformed liturgies, more noted for sombre attention to human sinfulness.  It was also scriptural and incited the faithful to holiness of life.  It blended Reformed and traditional material in a creative manner.  Its efforts and qualities were however, to no avail (Thompson, 1988: 383).  Perhaps as Jasper and Cuming suggest, it was too far ahead of its time (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 272).