It was written to be spoken out loud, and it has a rhythm and imagery rarely surpassed in English prose And our ancestors died for the theology which informed it Cranmer himself was burnt at the stake in 1556. But nobody should love the old book uncritically; I don’t.I even have a problem with Cranmer’s eucharistic prayer, the heart of the Communion. So anxious was Cranmer to remove any Roman Catholic notion that the breadand wine could really turn, momentarily, into the actual body and blood of Christ and be sacrificed anew – the so-called Real Presence – that he resorts to a sort of terse lawyer’s language.Cranmer wrote that God gave his only son, Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption and who – here I pick up Cranmer’s phrasing and his brackets – “made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world”.In those 26 words, I find half a dozen separate notions. An oblation; an oblation once offered; a sacrifice; a full sacrifice; a perfect sacrifice; a sufficient sacrifice; a satisfaction and so on. Frankly I doubt if I perceive a tenth of what is meant.Common Worship provides a choice of eight eucharistic prayers. The last of them states simply: “He opened his arms of love upon the cross and made for all the perfect sacrifice for sin.” That is excellent. In fact what Cranmer would most likely have disapproved of was the provision of so many alternatives He wanted to establish a single, unvarying text.

In his preface to the 1549 prayer book, he wrote angrily that there had been “great diversity in saying and singing in churches within this realm: now from henceforth, all the whole realm shall have but one use”.Before I quote a key passage from the old Communion Service which seems to me far superior to anything written since, I do “humbly” confess, “meekly kneeling” on my knees, that my life-long familiarity with the Book of Common Prayer may mean that I am unable to comprehend how alien it appears to some Nonetheless here goes. The passage comes from the prayer of penitence.Cranmer wrote: “We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy divine majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.”I like the magnificent language of this passage – bewail, wickedness, grievously, divine majesty, wrath, indignation Say it aloud and hear that as prose it is perfect. Then compare it with these four variations from Common Worship:”We have sinned against you and against our neighbour in thought, word and deed.”"We confess that we have sinned in thought, word and deed. We have not loved you with our whole heart.”"We have wounded your love, and marred your image of us.”"We have sinned against you, through our own fault, in thought, and word, and deed, and in what we have left undone.”Of course I can say these words, understand them, grow familiar with them, but I doubt if they will ever swing, literally swing, as the 16th-century phrase does.But this is just personal preference Common Worship is an excellent venture. Yet as the 1662 editors put it: “We cannot expect that men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits should be satisfied with any thing that can be done in this kind by any other than themselves.”aws globalnet.co.uk“>aws globalnet.co.uk
More from Andreas Whittam Smith. Today, in honour of the recent festival of Thanksgiving in America, I bring you an uplifting tale of the early days of the fledgling United States. Today, in honour of the recent festival of Thanksgiving in America, I bring you an uplifting tale of the early days of the fledgling United States.

The times were the 1620s, and the weather was very bad indeed. The captain of the tiny ship had intended to land on the sunny shores of Virginia, the new colony named after tobacco, but stormy conditions had driven them hundreds of miles north to a country so bleak and hostile that they called it New England.”Either we land here in painful safety and make the best of it,” said the captain, “or we struggle south again towards the sun and risk destruction.”The passengers, who had all paid for their passage and therefore were deemed to have a voice each, took a vote and found they were split. Another show of hands received the same result.”Just a moment!” said a voice from the back. “I showed my hand too, but as I am so small nobody saw it.”The voice belonged to a diminutive passenger called Earnshaw from Yorkshire, who was a lawyer.”Then let us vote again,” suggested a clergyman.”Not so!” said Earnshaw. “As a lawyer, I must insist that my vote be added to one side and that side be declared the winner!”"And which side do you vote for?” said the chaplain.”Well,” said the lawyer, “may I say, before declaring my intentions, that it is consonant with the demands of justice that the decision we reach today…”But before he could finish his sentence, the storm blew the ship on to the shore and his vote became unnecessary. Luckily, all lives and most of the contents of the ship were saved, and they set up a makeshift camp. They were befriended by well-meaning natives who showed them how to cook a turkey, make peanut butter, dispose of chewing gum hygienically and many other practical things.

In return, the newcomers showed the natives how to use guns, whisky and the Bible.One day the newcomers held a meeting to discuss their future.”My feeling,” said the ship’s captain, whose authority was only slightly diminished by the loss of his ship, “is that we need more land for the cultivation of food, and that having claimed this land for King James we are entitled to more territory.”"Just a moment!” said a stranger, who had been listening from the back. “You have no legal entitlement to any land and nor does your chief, King James. May I argue that before any land dispute, we first settle the legal entitlement of you people to be here at all…”"And who may you be?” asked Earnshaw the lawyer.The young man drew himself up proudly “I am a brave of the tribe that lives here. I have been trained in tribal lore and my name is Running Caveat.”"I submit, sir,” said Earnshaw the lawyer, “that brave Running Caveat may be an honourable gentleman, even if he is dressed somewhat skimpily by our standards, but he has no legal standing in this meeting, which has been called by the British colonists, and should be ejected.”"I counter-submit,” said Running Caveat, “that as the discussion has a direct bearing on the fate of the land which has been held by our forefathers for as long as history holds, our tribe has a right to be represented here.”"May I counter-counter-submit,” said Earnshaw the lawyer, “that my learned colleague, brave Running Caveat, and his tribe have no perpetual right to their land if they cannot look after it.”"Meaning?” said Running Caveat.”That the smoke from your cooking fires, and the fires which you build to send smoke signals, and which blow constantly in our direction, constitute a health hazard in contravention of our natural rights, and that furthermore these emissions will in time poison the atmosphere…”"What right have you Europeans to come over here and tell us indigenous Americans how to order our domestic arrangements?” said Running Caveat.

“I hereby apply for an injunction…”It was at this point that all present, enraged beyond measure, rose up and slew both men, and all other lawyers they could lay their hands on For a short while America was free. But the next boat from England brought a fresh load of lawyers, and history resumed its course.
More from Miles Kington. American insistence on having something for nothing when it comes to reducing US greenhouse gas emissions was the main reason the international talks on countering climate change collapsed so spectacularly in The Hague on Saturday. American insistence on having something for nothing when it comes to reducing US greenhouse gas emissions was the main reason the international talks on countering climate change collapsed so spectacularly in The Hague on Saturday.
The British Government does not see it that way, but many European governments do, and so do nearly all environmentalists who followed the talks.