As I’ve been studying the development of the Prayer Book tradition, following the lines of what changes and what stays the same, I stumble on quite the fun little surprise every now and again. My latest observation is the famous “Committal Speech”, spoken by the priest as earth is being cast upon the casket. Here are six versions of it from eight different Prayer Books, with unique phrases or terms marked in bold.

1549	1559 & 1662	1789 & 1892	1928	1962	2019
	Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother, here departed,	Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God, in his wise Providence, to take out of this world the soul of our deceased brother,		Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to receive unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed:	Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother, here departed,
I commend thy soul to God the Father Almighty,			Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our brother departed,
and thy body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,	we therefore commit his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,	we therefore commit his Body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;	and we commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;	we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;	we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ,	in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ,	looking for the general resurrection in the last Day, and the life of the World to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ;	in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;	in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;	in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;
		at whose second coming in glorious Majesty to judge the Word, the Earth and the Sea shall give up their Dead;	at whose coming in glorious majesty to judge the world, the earth and the sea shall give up their dead;
who shall change our vile body, that it may be like to his glorious body,	who shall change our vile body that it may be like to his glorious body,	and the corruptible Bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his own glorious Body;	and the corruptible bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his own glorious body;	who shall change our mortal body, that it may be like unto his glorious body,	who shall change our perishable body, that it may be like his own glorious body,
according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.	according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.	according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.	according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.	according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.	according to the mighty working of his Spirit, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

I wanted to explore those fiddly little differences in order now.

The first divergence is the challenging language of God “taking to himself” the soul of the departed. Without biblical and pastoral guidance, this phrase can make God sound a little bit capricious, paving the way for that awful and cruel saying “God needed another angel in heaven.” This misunderstanding has been addressed in two different ways. First there was the early American solution: it is in God’s “wise Providence” that he is pleased to take unto himself the departed soul. This denies an arbitrary and heartless picture of God, and assures us that there is a purpose behind his will. It’s also worth noting that appeals to divine providence was a common feature of early American discourse, both in the New England Puritan context as well as in the growing Deist heretical movement that colored much the country’s founding documents.

In 1962, the Canadian solution was to switch from speaking of God “taking” to God “receiving” the departed soul. Again, God is clearly innocent of any divine malpractice, though this language may fall afoul of the opposite problem: suggesting divine helplessness, or at least haplessness.

On the other hand, the 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books side-step that problem altogether by not using that phrase at all, and beginning the Committal Speech immediately with the commendation. In both of these cases, the soul is commended to God and the body is committed to the ground. It’s interesting to observe the slightly more sacerdotal approach in 1549, with the priest himself saying “I commend thy soul…” which gives way to the communal emphasis of “we” ever thereafter.

The next part of the Speech contrasts the mortal and the immortal states. The language of our “vile” body in England switches to “corruptible” in the USA, “mortal” in Canada, and “perishable” in the ACNA.

Finally, the ACNA’s 2019 Prayer Book adds one more prepositional phrase near the very end of the Committal Speech. Christ’s “mighty working” of subduing all things to himself is clarified to be accomplished through “his Spirit”, filling out a more overtly trinitarian theology of the inseparable operations of the three Persons of the one Godhead.

It’s in tracking little changes like these that really helps illustrate why there is no such as thing as any one “perfect” Prayer Book. There are always things that can be improved, and cultural context plays a large role in that. Some doctrines may need to be highlighted more carefully at certain times; various problems and misunderstandings and heresies plague the Church in different places and times; what one cultural setting may feel is too long a prayer another may find too short, and vice versa. And so it is both good and necessary to make these little edits from time to time, in order that the one faith is most clearly communicated in each generation. Thus this principle also rules out the opposite tendency: to make changes quickly on a whim, without weighing the pastoral and doctrinal gains and losses.