Hello, Jim My folio Prayer Book is dated 1669, and - apart from spellings such as "Munday", I find either the services are more or less identical to much more recent ones, or in a few cases, not now present at all. Much of what I learnt as a child of this and the Catechism, I'm afraid was incoherent to me at the time. Like Noel Street, who wrote that he thought for many years that God's real name was 'Harold Wishart' (from having to gabble "Our Father Wishart in Heaven, Harold be Thy name"). Cranmer's 39 Articles, which every vicar has to affirm (but few really accept) require Anglicans to believe in heaven and hell, but to reject belief in purgatory. Combined with belief in the immortality of the soul and a non-eternal hell, and the question whether Resurrection Day and Judgement Day are personal or mass events, this leads to considerable confusion regarding how we are to spend eternity. It seems to me there is little point either in restoring or revising, until some degree of elucidation is faced up to. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: j halsey To: John Barton Cc: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates Hello John, You wrote "Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or earlier Prayerbook" As I understand it, regardless of the revisions of 1928, which had little effect on the three main orders of service and which are those parts of the Book most evident to and best known by churchgoers, the 1662 prayer book continued to be used in many parishes, and may indeed still be used to this day, although in a rapidly reducing number. .So I am puzzled by the "restoration" you mention. The tide of revision has been so strong in the last 40 years that the BCP, of whatever edition, has struggled to survive against it. It seems to me that whatever Convocation may decide about 1662 (I am astonoshed to hear that it is even being discussed) any return to the old language will be rejected or simply ignored.by the great majority of priests, who are now often, if not generally, ignorant of its forms. Jim Halsey