Some Vindications of the Book of Common Prayer appearing in Unexpected Quarters

(Taken from http://anglicanhistory.org/liturgy/legg_unexpected.html) An interesting take on the Prayer Book liturgy.

Some Vindications of the Book of Common Prayer appearing in Unexpected Quarters
Gathered by Dr. J. Wickham Legg.
London: SPCK, 1916.

It will hardly be denied that of late years the Book of Common Prayer has met with much criticism on all sides. It has fallen from the estate that it filled in men's minds in the eighteenth century. Speaking of it, most likely after a service, Dr. Johnson says, "We have been listening to the sublimest truths, conveyed in the most chaste and exalted language throughout a liturgy which must be regarded as the genuine language of piety impregnated by wisdom." In the twentieth century, on the contrary, every kind of fault has been found with the Book of Common Prayer, not merely from the Latitudinarian and Evangelical side, but from those who have considered themselves descendants of the old Tractarians. Some of these latter have done so far as to adopt the policy of Revision, and to ask for an amended Book, which is apparently to be brought nearer to the modern Roman Rite.

But there is a reverse of the shield to be seen. Let is surprise us as much as it may, there have appeared within the last few years, or even within the limits of the present century, researches by eminent Roman Catholic students of liturgy, which tend to justify some of those parts of the Book of Common Prayer against which exception had been taken by some of the more ardent minds among us. Doubtless this result, to lend countenance to the Book of Common Prayer, was no part whatever of the intention o these Roman Catholic scholars, and was wholly unforeseen by them. But to the Churchman it is not the less welcome because unintended by the authors.

I. The So-Called Dislocation of the Canon.
One feature in the Eucharistic Service of the Book of Common Prayer which has caused the loudest lamentations [1/2] is what is called the dislocation of the Canon. The Roman Prayer of Consecration, as it appears in the oldest manuscripts that have come down to us, is a long, unbroken prayer indeed, but its confused arrangement certainly gives rise to the suspicion that it now shows a very different structure from that which it first had when it came from the pen of the Scholasticus who is said to have written it. In certain quarters this document is looked upon as the formula which we should copy. But the formula which we are told we should imitate is itself in a high state of dislocation, so that any attempt to rearrange the English Communion Service after its pattern would be retrogression, not advancement. The Great Intercession, a feature common to Eastern and Western Liturgies, is broken up; the intercession for the living comes near the beginning of the Canon, while the intercession for the dead is towards the end. Roman Catholic writers declare the construction in other parts also to be crabbed and inconsequent. So that numerous attempts have been made in our time by Roman Catholic scholars to piece together the various sections of the Canon, and they have produced curious results in mosaic work in the hope of lighting upon a rearrangement that may command universal assent. [See the article "The Roman Liturgy and its Roman Critics," in the Church Quarterly Review, January, 1916, p. 308.] But until a manuscript shall have been found with the Canon in a new order, personally I venture to think that sober persons may be allowed to suspend judgment. But this does not make it the less interesting to Church of England people to observe that one of these new distributions of the Canon is wonderfully like the order, in which in the Prayer Book, the Offertory, Prayer for the Church Militant, Preface, Sanctus, and Prayer of Consecration follow one another. Dom Paul Cagin's new distribution of the paragraphs of the Canon seems to have met with an unusual amount of support in his own communion, and so cannot be put aside as a wild hypothesis favoured only by Protestants.

In this re-arrangement certain paragraphs of the Canon, which may be named by the incipit, are ejected from the Canon altogether, and placed immediately after the Offertory: they are Te igitur, first Memento (for the living), [2/3] Communicantes, second Memento (for the faithful departed) and perhaps Nobis quoque. It will be seen at once how like this arrangement is in contents and position to the prayer for the Church militant which comes immediately after the Offertory in the Book of Common Prayer. [Dom Paul Cagin, L'Eucharistia, Canon primitif de la Messe, Desclée, 1912, p. 8, and Antiphonarium Ambrosianum in Paléographie Musicale, Solesmes, 1896, t. v. p. 77.]
Te igitur asks that "haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata," may be accepted and blessed, just as the Prayer Book asks that "our alms and oblations" may be accepted. The Roman Canon then proceeds to pray for the Church, the Pope, and King, and, in Memento for the living, for rest for the faithful; just as the prayer for the Church militant prays for the Church, Kings, Magistrates, Bishops, and Clergy, and all the faithful people. Communicantes is not represented in the Prayer Book; but the analogue of the second Memento, that for the faithful departed, appears in the paragraph beginning "And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed," etc.

In this reconstruction of the Roman rite, the prayers after the Offertory are followed immediately by Sursum Corda, Preface, Sanctus, and Consecration, which is not unlike the order in which these portions of the service follow in the Book of Common Prayer. In the Roman Liber Sacerdotalis of 1537 it may, perhaps, be noted that the confession and absolution followed the Offertory; but there appears no evidence at present that this precedent influenced the English reformers in placing the confession and absolution in the place in the Prayer Book which they now occupy.

The resemblance between this outcome of a free manipulation of the Roman Canon by Roman Catholic scholars, and the place of the prayer for the Church militant in relation to the preface and consecration in the Book of Common Prayer is striking. In this respect may be remembered the likeness, long noticed by liturgical scholars, of the order of the Communion Service of the Prayer Book to the Old-Gallican or Mozarabic Liturgy, which so many Roman Catholic scholars of ability now hold to be almost identical with the Roman Rite before the fourth century.

From the well-founded, if severe criticism which the Roman Canon now in use has undergone at the hands of these Roman Catholic students, one point, however, becomes clear: namely, that a reform of it was much needed; the reconstruction supposed to have taken place [3/4] before the sixth century must have been entrusted to most incapable hands, and the result is that the Canon, treated for so many hundred years with the greatest respect, and considered so sacred that it was almost sacrilege to criticise it, is really in a state of chaos. Roman Catholics can no longer claim such great antiquity for their liturgy. The Canon needs to be put together again on lines which follow the unanimous example set by other liturgies, and the "harsh" and inconsequent phrases and other discordant passages should be made smooth and less awkward. Thus those who attempted a reform of the Liturgy in the sixteenth century in England were not altogether so blameworthy. Certainly they do not deserve the hard words given them by some writers among ourselves.

II. The New Distribution of the Psalter in the Roman Breviary as Authorised by Pius the Tenth
In the estimation of the devout Roman Catholic, the Canon of the Mass and the distribution of the Psalter in the Breviary were almost on the same footing as regards the impossibility of either being changed, amended, or re-arranged. They were the sacred ark of the Liturgy which no man might touch. [See Dom Bede Plaine, Revue Anglo-Romaine, Paris, 1896. t. iii. p. 645.] The Canon of the Mass has not yet passed under the revision of the Curia, its hands being quite full with the work on the Breviary which it has within the last few years undertaken. In this reform it has already accomplished what can only be described as an astounding liturgical revolution, a thorough-going redistribution of the Psalter, in place of an old distribution, which can claim the most venerable antiquity; which Benedict the Fourteenth and his consultors in their proposed reformed of the Breviary had not dared to touch, for they could not find that the Church of Rome had ever used any other. Yet this most ancient Psalter, and, be it remembered, the Psalter is the backbone of the Breviary, disappeared fro those who use the Roman Rite only a few years ago, in 1911. Who, then, can accuse the English reformers in the sixteenth century of a lack of reverence for antiquity in changing the distribution of the Psalter, when the Holy See itself has accomplished the like overthrow, only [4/5] lagging behind in the time of its execution? In fact the Roman claim of antiquity for the Breviary is gone; their new Breviary is a thing of yesterday. And Pius the Tenth in the Bull Divino Afflatu, which authorised the new book, promised yet further changes.

III. Antiquity and Universality of "Table Prayers"
Of no practice directed by the Prayer Book has stronger language been used than of what have been contemptuously called "Table Prayers," that is, the reading of some part of the Liturgy, but without Offertory, Consecration, or Communion, a rite called by the Latins missa sicca. The English practice has been styled "a sham rite, unfortunately peculiar to the modern Church of England": "a shocking abuse;" and like expressions of condemnation have been freely employed.

But this language may possibly be found somewhat exaggerated. Abbot Cabrol, the head of the Community of Benedictins settled by the Empress Eugénie at Farnborough, published some years ago a research in which he pointed out that the primitive Christian assemblies showed two distinct kinds of service. [Fernand Cabrol, Revue du Clergé Français, 1900, août, p. 561 and sept., p. 5. Cf. p. 25.] Very often, he holds, the one preceded the other, but not always; but later on in history the two became fused, and the Christian Mysteries invariably followed the first office, which Dom Fernand Cabrol is inclined to believe was of the nature of a choir office. Be this as it may, it is held by competent judges that he has made out that originally the missa catechumenorum was divided from the missa fidelium by a distinct interval. Many instances were found in the early Church of the celebration of the missa catechumenorum without any Offertory, Consecration, or Communion.

This Missa Sicca was also universal in the later Church until the time of the Reformation. In the East it continues, and is widely practiced. In the West the Council of Trent refused to condemn it, but in fact rather approved it. [Vera Concilii Tridentini Historia, pars iii. Sfortia Pallavicino et J.B. Giattino, Antverp. 1670, lib. 18, cap. 6 and 18 ad A.D. 1562, p. 143.] But after this period in the West, it became less and less [5/6] frequently practiced, and now it may still be found indeed, but only in out-of-the-way places.

It thus becomes apparent that instead of "Table Prayers" being a sham rite peculiar to the modern Church of England it has, on the contrary, about as high liturgical authority as there can be.

The history of the rite is more fully set out in Three Chapters in Recent Liturgical Research, published by this Society in 1903, where references, too, are given.

Nor is this matter without some practical importance. We have been told by no less an authority than the Rev. Father Waggett that in Holy Week the chief exercise in devotion should be the reading of the Gospels of the Passion. "There must be, in the first place, always the great work of memory, the work of reading, and hearing, and knowing the sacred record of the Lord's death." [P.N. Waggett, The Heart of Jesus, first edition, S.P.C.K., 1902, p. 12] Now there are many parishes which are served by only one priest; in Holy Week he celebrates early in the morning, and towards midday his people come, by an old tradition, in existence long before the Tractarian Movement, to hear the reading of one of the Gospels of the Passion. This is satisfied if we have "Table Prayers," but not if "Table Prayers" be under a ban, for thus we lay aside an exercise of great value and importance. Some will say: we will read the Gospel alone; but the reading of a single Gospel by itself is said by opponents to show the worst and most decadent form of missa sicca, even as we see it in the Second Gospel, In Principio, added to the end of the Mass by Pius the Fifth.

Besides, it is quite unhistorical to condemn "Table Prayers." They go back almost as far as we can trace anything; they are still universal in the East, and were universal in the West until after the Council of Trent.

IV. Supposed Absence of Epiclesis.
The critics of the Prayer Book do not often complain that in the Prayer of Consecration there is no epiclesis after the Recital of the Institution. That was left to the liturgical scholars who followed Dr. Neale in looking to the East as the quarter from which we should seek guidance. These were inclined to look upon the absence of an epiclesis [6/7] after the recital of the Institution as a decided defect, for no Oriental Liturgy known to us was without an epiclesis. It must be owned that the defect was felt to be a serious one, to which some could be reconciled only by the thought that the Roman Canon had no epiclesis after the Recital of the Institution. But this comfort was taken away when the publication of Monseigneur Duchesne's Origines du Culte chrétien made it more widely known than before that it was claimed for the Roman rite that an epiclesis existed in the paragraph of the Canon beginning with the words Supplices te rogamus. Thus some anxiety was felt in certain quarters where the authority of the Eastern rite was held to be most imperative, lest the consecration of the Eucharist should be hardly valid when performed with Anglican rites. They might have consoled themselves with the teaching that a valid consecration is not tied to any particular formula; it is sufficient that the Church has the Eucharistic thanksgiving. They might have remembered the clause in the prayer of consecration which begins, Hear us, O merciful Father, and which is a prayer for a valid Eucharist. But, happily, at this moment a fragment of a Greek liturgy, of the seventh or eighth century, was found in Egypt, and it was given to the world by Dom Pierre de Puniet, a Benedictin of Solesmes. [Dom Pierre de Puniet, Frafments inédits d'une liturgie égyptienne in the Report of the Nineteenth Eucharistic Congress, held at Westminster from 9th to 13th September, 1908. London: Sands, 1909, p. 367.] In this fragment the epiclesis, that is a prayer which asks that the Holy Ghost may descend upon the gifts lying on the altar, and make the gifts the Body and Blood of our Lord, and the faithful worthy communicants, is found immediately after the Sanctus and before the Recital of the Institution; that is, much in the same place, at all events, before the Recital of the Institution, which the prayer for a valid Eucharist holds in the Book of Common Prayer. Now it is remembered that the clause Quam oblationem in the Roman Canon stands in the like place with the epiclesis in the liturgical papyrus; and this Roman form is claimed as a true epiclesis.

The critics of the Canon often say that this clause Quam oblationem should be joined on to the clause Supplices te rogamus from which it has been separated in early times. [7/8] The Roman Canon would then have a complete epiclesis. It is not for me to discuss these opinion, for they are occupying at this moment far more learned heads than mine: and final judgments need not be expressed until the matter has been very thoroughly threshed out, and, as far as human knowledge can ever go, all the facts of the case have become known to us.

V. Before St. Gregory the Great the Lord's Prayer was not Said before Communion.
Another fault has been found with the Prayer Book: that the Lord's Prayer is not said as part of the Consecration Prayer, before Communion, as it is in so many liturgies, always excepting that of the Apostolical Constitutions; but that in the Prayer Book it is said after Communion. Dr. Adrian Fortescue, however, points it out as "clear" that at Rome, before the time of St. Gregory, the Lord's Prayer was not said before, but after Communion. [Adrian Fortescue, The Mass, Longmans, 1912, Ch. ix. § I, p. 363.] He finds that St. Gregory moved the Lord's Prayer to the place it now has, at the end of the Canon, where it is commonly thought to be an immediate preparation for Communion. Thus Dr. Fortescue holds that before the time of St. Gregory the Lord's Prayer was not said over the Blessed Sacrament, and thus it could not be part of the Consecration.

If this view of the ancient place of the Lord's Prayer be accepted, it becomes an important precedent for the moment at which it is now said in the Communion Service of the Prayer Book.

VI. Only Two Sacraments Universally Necessary to Salvation.
Much sarcasm or petulance is expended on the teaching of the English Catechism that there are only two Sacraments generally, that is universally, necessary to salvation: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; while the rest of Christendom taught that there were seven, neither more nor less. At the present moment we need not dilate upon the undetermined number of the Sacraments in ancient times, whether twelve or twenty-four or the like, for they [8/9] were only limited by the schoolmen to the mystical number of seven; but we may remember the teaching of Hugo of St. Victor, which is singularly like that of the Catechism, when he speaks of the two Sacraments, Baptism by water, and of the receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, as those in which salvation mainly consists, and by which it is received; while he speaks of numerous other sacraments not necessary to salvation, but which convey grace. [Hugo de S. Victore, de Sacramentiis, lib. i. pars ix. cap. vii.]

In like manner Monseigneur Battifol opens his paper on the Eucharist by pointing out that wherever the Gospel has been preached, two ritual observances have accompanied it: one is Baptism, the other is the Eucharist. [Pierre Battifol, L'Eucharistie dan le Nouveau Testament, in Etudes d'histoire, 2e Ed. 2e Serie (Paris: Lecoffre, 1905), p. 1.] And in some pages lower down he sums up the doctrine of St. Paul as asserting that Baptism and the Eucharist are equal in their importance (affirme avec une égale solennité le Baptême et l'Eucharistie). There is thus a pre-eminence given to these two Sacraments beyond the other Christian institutions which justifies the expression Sacraments of the Gospel, above all others, because the others, as Hugo of St. Victor says, are means of grace, but not necessary to salvation.

VII. Disuse of Chrisma in Confirmation.
There is one omission in the Book of Common Prayer which has been unfavourably commented upon by people who are sober and knowing; and this is the disuse of cream (Chrisma) in Confirmation. Cream is at the present moment universally employed in administering Confirmation in all Churches in communion with Rome and Constantinople. Impatient persons have been prepared to cry out that the laying-on of hands by the Bishop ought to be supplemented by the use of cream in Confirmation, if we are to be consistent with our appeal to antiquity.

But are we so sure of the ancient and universal use of cream in Confirmation? In 1915 the Rev. Michael O'Dwyer, of Maynooth, published a considerable study of the history of Confirmaion and a careful examination of the custom followed, as to the matter used in Confirmation [9/10] from the time of the Apostles. He has formed the opinion that in the first ages the matter of Confirmation was only the laying-on of hands, and that the use of chrism comes in later. In his preface he gives the results of his inquiry thus:

"The history of this sacramental rite is of exceptional interest; and the writer has found it none the less interesting because it has forced him, against his wishes almost, to the conclusion that Christ determined the matter and form of the Sacrament merely to make specific changes in the sacred rite." [Michael O'Dwyer. Confirmation: A Study in the Development of Sacramental Theology. Dublin: Gill, 1915, preface, p. vi.]

A reviewer in the Dublin remarks of Father O'Dwyer's book:

"He believes that consignation has been substituted for the Apostolic imposition. This is not a view with which every theologian will agree. But the author's learned and skilful argument demands serious attention, and his conclusion will perhaps be more readily accepted, in spite of its difficulties, by historical students." [Dublin Review, January, 1916, p. 196.]

Then, again, a member of the Company of Jesus, Father Galtier, published in 1912 an elaborate study of the question whether the use of cream formed part of the sacrament of Confirmation in the first ages in the West.

In reply, he is able to assert that cream was in all churches employed in a ceremony supplementary to the administration of Baptism. But, on the other hand, he cannot find at Milan, or in Spain, or in Gaul, any trace of the use of cream in the rite which conveys the gift of the Holy Ghost. He concludes that the laying-on of hands, with prayer, is the only necessary constituent of the rite that imparts to us, after Baptism, the Sacrum Septenarium. Father Galtier finds that in the West this use of cream in Confirmation appeared first in Rome in the fourth century, and thence it spread over the Latin Community, until it has become there the universal custom that it is now. [R.P. Galtier, La Consignation dans les Eglises d'Occident, in Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, Louvain, 1912. Année 13, p. 301.]

This origin at Rome may be noticed as contrary to the usual law that governed the progress of ceremonial customs in the Middle Ages; Rome did not begin them; they were [10/11] adopted from without. For example, at the Mattins and Lauds of the last three days of Holy Week there is now the custom of putting out a candle at the end of each Psalm, whence, from the darkness caused thereby, the two offices are called Tenebrae. Amalarius in Gaul, writing to an Archdeacon in Rome, asks if they have thus custom there. The Roman Archdeacon writes back and says: Nothing of the kind is done at St. John Lateran (the Cathedral Church of Rome) or at the Holy Cross in Jerusalem (which is not far from the Lateran). The customs at both these churches are arranged according to reason: a polite way of saying they had nothing half so silly. [Amalarius, de ordine antiphonarum, cap. 44]

So with the Paschal candle; the origin of that is traced from beyond the Alps, most likely from Gaul, and some even fancy that it began in the North of Ireland, in the neighbourhood of Belfast. It is the same with a large number of ceremonies which Rome only adopted long after they had come into use elsewhere. An important rite, even, the saying of the Nicene Creed in the Mass, was only adopted in Rome in the eleventh century, at the bidding of the Emperor. [Berno Augiensis apud M. Hittorp, de divinis Catholicae Ecclesiae Officiis, Parisiis, 1610, col. 700. Cf. Henry Marriott Bannister, Monumenti Vaticani di Paleografia Musicale Latine, Lipsia Ottone Harrassowitz, 1913, p. 29]

VIII. Supposed Erastianism
Another feature in the Book of Common Prayer misliked even now as savouring of Erastianism are the supplications for the Sovereign, who is prayed for twice in the Communion Service as well as in other parts of the Prayer Book. An unpleasant sort of jest was made: the King was prayed for so much because he so very greatly needed it. No attempt was made to examine the Christian tradition and find out if the Prayer Book had only conformed to this, but it was condemned because these prayers for the King were thought to be the work of the Reformation and to be tainted with the notions brought in by Henry the Eighth. The mention twice of the King by name--once in the collect and once in the prayer for the Church militant--is by some thought superfluous, but it has its precedents in the Russian Liturgy as well as in the [11/12] earlier mediaeval missals, where a collect for the King is said after the collect for the day, and he is also prayed for by name (El rege nostro N.) in the Canon immediately after the Pope.

But with a little trouble, frequent prayers for the sovereign may be found to go back farther than Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth. There is a distinguished ritualist named Pelliccia, who flourished in the eighteenth century, and of whose work so much was thought when it was even a hundred years old, that his chief book was translated into English, and it appeared in 1883 with many recommendations from the advanced High Churchmen of the time. Pelliccia also brought out a smaller book at Naples in 1778 with the title: De Christianae ecclesiae tum publica, tum private prece pro principibus: on the private and public prayer which the Christian Church offers for Princes. In this work he reviews the Christian practice in the Liturgies, Eastern and Western, from the earliest times down to the age in which he was writing, and finds that all the Liturgies contain prayer for the sovereign and that such prayers are recommended by the Fathers. In England he notices an early Liturgy, written before the Norman Conquest, in which the King and Bishop, clergy and people of England are prayed for. In the Mass, Pelliccia notes that the Pope, king, and Bishop are universally prayed for, toto orbe terrarium, he says. Since Pelliccia's time liturgical research has done much to strengthen his position. It may be remembered that Pelliccia was not a Protestant or an Erastian, but a Neapolitan Roman Catholic of great learning and orthodoxy.

IX. The Bull Apostolicae Curae Opposed to the Sacramentary of Serapion.
The publication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae was shortly followed by the discovery of the Sacramentary of Serapion, and it was said that the Fathers were coming out of their graves to refute the dicta contained in that Bull. It is interesting to contrast the requirements for a valid ordination demanded by the Bill with the forms in the Sacramentary of Serapion.

In the Bull we are told that the grace and power of the Order of Priesthood are chiefly the power of consecrating [12/13] and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, and that this must be expressed in the form of Ordination to make it valid. Serapion, who lived in the fourth century, and who was the friend of St. Athanasius, expresses himself otherwise in his form for the ordination of a priest. There is no mention whatever in his form of any of the Sacraments or of the office of a priest, but the gift of the Holy Ghost is that chiefly asked for. Who is likely to be the safer guide, Pope Leo the Thirteenth in the nineteenth, or a Primitive Bishop of the fourth, century?

X. The Essential Element in the Consecration of Churches.
It is not apparent if any Anglican writer consider the burial of relics in the altar as of the essence or substance of the consecration of a church. Such burial is not to be found in any of the English orders for the consecration of churches since the sixteenth century. But Mon signor Giovanni Mercati, when working in the Chapter Library at Lucca, found there an Ambrosian Order for consecrating churches, in a manuscript of the eleventh century, which contained no directions for the inclusion of relics in an altar about to be consecrated. [The whole of this Ordo Ambrosianus ad consecrandam ecclesiam et altaria is edited by Monsignor Giovanni Mercati in his Antiche reliquie Liturgiche, Roma, tipografia Vaticana, 1901, p. 21.] This is, of course, an unusual thing, for the Second Council of Nicæa, towards the end of the eighth century, had forbidden the consecration of altars without relics. Yet the examination of mediæval canons and pontificals shows that the consecration of churches and altars without relics was no rare matter, for we see the directions given to meet those cases where relics could not be had. Such directions are to be found not only in England, but in Germany, France, and Italy; and in a liturgical tracts called Indutus planeta, which may be found in many prae-Pian Mass books, the allusion to the relics when first approaching the altar is to be omitted if there be no relics enclosed in that altar. [See Tracts on the Mass, Henry Bradshaw Society, 1904, p. 181.]

Thus in the Middle Ages substantial permanent dispensations were made with the rule that relics are necessary [13/14] for the consecration of altars. Quite recently, too, Roman Catholic writers have welcomed the idea that relics are not essential for consecration. Abbé Paul Lejay looks upon it as a decided advantage in the early Ambrosian rite that it did not include the burial of relics in its form for the consecration of altars. In Germany, also, Dr. Franz Wieland holds that the idea of making the altar the tomb of the martyr was alien to the thoughts of the days before Constantine. [See English Orders for Consecrating Churches, Henry Bradshaw Society, 1911. Introduction, p. xx. note.]

The English Bishops, when they began to consecrate churches early in the seventeenth century, also seem to have had no thought of restoring the inclusion of relics as part of the dedication. But they did what was much wiser. They turned to the practice of celebration of the Eucharist as the main feature of the consecration of churches. They remembered the old Christian opinion that a building is consecrated to be a church when the Bishop celebrates the Eucharist in that building as part of the consecration of it, and that this celebration is the essence of the rite of consecration.

XI. Turning to the East at the Creed not Peculiarly Anglican.
The custom of turning to the East at the Creed has come down to us in England from the seventeenth century at least. Yet about five-and-twenty years ago some began to give up this harmless ceremony. They could find no authority for it in the Roman books. The practice has also been frowned upon by Dr. Frere. [W. H. Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Macmillans, 1901, p. 391.] But Mr. Beresford Cooke has pointed out that turning to the East at the Creed was practised in France in the seventeenth century. Raymond Bonal, who is the witness to this custom and who founded an order of the Priests of St. Mary, was the author of a course of moral theology which went through at least twelve editions, or thirteen, if we count a Latin one. He published also in 1672 a volume with this title: Explication litterale et mystique des rubriques et ceremonies du [14/15] Breviare et du Missel. Instruction is given by way of question and answer, and in the thirty-third lesson on the Breviary the question is put: Why do we turn to the altar when we say the Creed? The answer, being a mystical one, does not interest us. The point is the mention of the turning to the East.

Thus the custom is not so particular to England, not so purely Anglican, as some would have us think.

Those who discontinued the saying of the Creed while turning to the East, also bid their people not to bow their heads at the sacred Name. The reason for making this reverence given in the old English seventeenth and eighteenth century books is this: that we thereby show our belief in the divinity of our Lord; but why in the twentieth century, when the belief in the divinity of our Lord is so much attacked, should the moment be chosen to discontinue the practice of bowing because it is Anglican? The direction to bow at the sacred Name persists in the Roman Missal of Leo the Thirteenth, and may be found in almost every book of Roman ceremonial. Yet because the uninstructed Roman layman no longer practises it, we are told that the custom must be given up by our people.

From the foregoing items there is one lesson which lies on the surface, and this is that the greatest caution and circumspection are needed in the making of liturgical changes. We may otherwise incautiously fall into the very errors and blunders from which those around us are endeavouring to escape.

Secondly, that we should not look upon the Roman ritual books as masterpieces of excellence. Contentment with the Book of Common Prayer may be more of a virtue than is sometimes thought. The revolution which has taken place in the Breviary in our days is a sharp criticism of it at the hands of those who know the Breviary best. And the storm which has burst upon the Canon of the Mass may be the herald of more revolutionary changes again. Antiquity and immutability are ceasing to be the notes of the Roman liturgy.

Thirdly, some years ago the late Dean Church bade us Anglicans remember the proverb: "Spartam nactus es; hanc adorna." Sparta is your portion, do your best for Sparta. It might be a good thing nowadays to bear this advice in mind.

The Curious Case of the Old High Churchmen (Part II, 1833-1856)

This is the second post in this series about the Old High Churchmen, it will deal with the Oxford Movement and all things related to that. The post was getting too long so I didn’t get into ritualism in this post.

Evangelicals and Low Churchmen
One of the results of the Oxford Movement was the popular association of evangelicalism with low churchmanship. However, before that point, evangelicals and low churchmen were not mutually exclusive terms. I find it important to give more background on the evangelicals than in the last post, because they become very important in the years of the Oxford Movement.

First, evangelicals were a relatively new movement at the beginning of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England. The Evangelical Movement had begun earlier in t he 18th century with Wesley and others preaching the necessity of individual conversion and an evident change of life after conversion. Evangelicals shared with the later Tractarians, a concern with the inner, spiritual life of the average churchman. This was not found in low churchmanship or in old high churchmanship. This deficit has been one of the reasons why the Old High Churchmen are no longer an organized element of modern Anglicanism. “I venture to suggest one possible solution to this. In my younger days, the theological battle waxed sore over the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The High Churchmen made it the basis of every sermon, just as the old Evangelicals did the atonement. With the High Churchmen baptismal regeneration was the core and apparent consummation of the Gospel system. It led many to this: that they practically omitted the need of conversion. They largely rejected the necessity of being convicted of sin, and the work of the Spirit, and of salvation by Christ's cross and passion, and of a conscious acceptance by Him. Indeed, in cases, they rejected it as Methodism. I remember being taken to task for preaching it. But baptism, without a vitalized union with Christ, could not save men. Consequently their own spiritual life and perceptions declined. In the developments that succeeded, they easily fell under the influence of the new rationalizing, easy-going, and popular Broad Church system.” The author presents a compelling argument for the downfall of the High Churchmen in my book.

Evangelicals loathed the “dryness” of the low churchmen. However, the term “evangelical” did not designate a separate church party as we think of it today, per se, but rather a designation of theological emphasis which could be adapted to either of the “established” church parties. “In the early part of the nineteenth century, some Evangelical clergy were high Churchmen and some even so proclaimed themselves. The terms ‘Evangelical’ and ‘high-Church’ were not mutually exclusive, as were ‘Evangelical’ and ‘low Church’.” In this aspect, the Evangelicals actually shared a core conviction with the nascent Tractarians, that being, the concern for the inner, spiritual life. At first, evangelicals and Tractarians were often allies such as their opposition to the non-orthodox Regius Professor at Oxford. One author argues that evangelicals and Tractarians were, at the beginning, only divided in emphasis. The evangelicals were focused on justification and the Tractarians on sanctification.

However, as history has proven, this alliance between Evangelicals and Tractarians did not last long. The Tractarians continued in their pursuit of catholicity by studying the patristic authors and eventually began to look to Rome. Evangelicals had already begun to suspect Romanizing tendencies in the nascent movement, but their suspicions were confirmed in 1840 with the publication of the infamous, Tract 90, by Newman, which sought to harmonize Tridentine teaching with the Articles of Religion. You can imagine the effect of Newman’s conversion to Rome in 1845 which formally connected Tractarianism with Romanizing tendencies in the minds of the common churchman.

The Hackney Phalanx and High Churchmanship in the early 19th Century
The Tractarians loved to characterize the “long eighteenth century” as a period of more than an hundred years of spiritual dryness with the Church plagued by deism and enlightenment philosophy. While every rumor has a nugget of truth to it, these claims were not entirely accurate in describing the spiritual life of the 18th century in the Church o f England. For one, there was the immensely spiritual, Evangelical Movement affecting both dissenters and churchmen. Beyond that, there were several high church movements which affected both the established Church and the disestablished Church in Scotland. The Non-jurors, for example, flourished during this time in Scotland. They were not well received by churchmen in the established Church but they found a home in the Episcopal Church of Scotland. The established Church was not without an high church influence during these years, however compelling the case for it is made by Tractarians.

There was a renaissance of high churchmanship during the latter part of the 18th century, due to the fact that the Non-juror schism was beginning to wane, as their causes for schism disappeared. Jacobitism (the political side of the Non-juror schism) largely ended in 1788 when Charles Edward Stuart died in exile. His brother was not recognized as a valid heir because he was a cardinal in the Roman Church. The Scottish Episcopal Church recognized the claims of the House of Hanover and George III as the rightful King of England. Most Non-jurors followed suit and many reconciled with the established Church of England. The healing of the Non-juror schism made it more fashionable to be an High Churchman again, as it had lost its association with Jacobitism, which was not popular with establishment churchmen. This influx of Non-juror doctrine, especially that of the Usagers, might have had an influence on the downfall of the High Churchmen, according to my hypothesis, which I will present in further detail later.

At this point, I want to explore an aspect of high churchmanship which I haven’t so far. For research in this post, I’ve been reading a book online, The development of English theology in the nineteenth century, 1800-1860, written by Vernon Faithfull Storr. As we have explored and confirmed, during this period of time in the Church of England, there was not the three-party system we have today of high, broad, and low, but rather, a two-party system of low and high, with evangelicals as a new movement which affected both parties. Storr describes a further division within the High Church party, which, in accordance with Nockles in The Oxford Movement in Context, the High Churchmen preferred to be titled “Orthodox,” and from this point, I will use that term to refer to them, partially to honor their desire to be called such, and partially to provide a distinction between later Tractarians, who call themselves high churchmen as well.

Within the Orthodox party, there two subdivisions which Storr describes (Nockles also follows this distinction). There were “Church and State” Orthodox churchmen who praised the Establishment and the Settlement. This group emphasized the good in the established Church and the benefits that flowed from it. The other group of churchmen did not despise the tie with the State but viewed the Church as an entirely spiritual organization, independent from the State in matters of doctrine or spiritual authority. This again is a matter of emphasis, High Churchmen agreed on the essentials of the faith and their distinctive against Evangelicals and Latitutdinarians. These two groups stood in continuity with the Caroline Divines and the Non-jurors (to an extent) in that they were, “content with the Prayer Book as affording a middle position between Romanism on the one side and continental Protestantism on the other” (Storr, 80). Unlike the Caroline Divines, who had maintained a strong friendship with the Reformed churches of the Continent, the 18th century Orthodox emphasized the episcopacy more, essentially adopting the view that the episcopacy was of the esse of the Church rather than the bene esse. However, like earlier High Churchmen, they were not concerned with ritual as the later Ritualists would be and their sacramentalism was, “on the whole, sober and restrained” (Storr).

The Orthodox churchmen before the eve of the Oxford Movement were highly dependent on the State (which might have been another reason for their downfall). The separatist, Non-juror, movement is well documented in history, while the establishment Orthodox movements do not get much attention. There were two main movements before the Oxford Movement. The least known were the Hutchinsonians, who followed the anti-Newtonian scientific philosophy of John Hutchinson, thereby meriting their name. The other was an informal group of clergy and laity known as the Hackney Phalanx, geographically centered in the village of Hackney (now a suburb of London) and the larger metropolis of London. The most well known bishops who supported the cause were Van Mildert of Durham, Herbert Marsh of Peterborough, and the retired Horsley of Rochester, in addition to these bishops, there were many priests and laymen who were supportive of the aims of the Phalanx. The Phalanx was a group of churchmen who sought to promote a revival of Church discipline and the construction of new parish churches, in addition to promoting High Church values in Universities, the wider Church, and Parliament in England. They succeeded in getting the Million Act passed in Parliament. This act allotted one million pounds to the construction of new parish churches throughout the nation. The Hackney Phalanx was the last non-Tractarian manifestation of Orthodox churchmanship which blended well the two subdivisions of the party, that being “Church and State” enthusiasts and those who valued more the spiritual dimension of the Church. The Hackney Phalanx was unique in that it emphasized the spiritual dimension of the Church over the political aspects of the Church/State relationship. It was probably this emphasis which influenced the Oxford fathers most. In fact, one of the Hackney Phalanx, Charles Lloyd, was the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Some of his most notable students included, John Henry Newman; Edward Pusey; and Hurrell Froude, which we know as the leaders of the Oxford Movement. After reading a post from The Continuum blog, Lloyd would be an important influence on the young Tractarians, teaching them things such as, “was but a reflection of mediaeval and primitive devotion, still embodied in its Latin form in the Roman service books,” he also held the position that prayers for the departed were not contrary to Scripture. Lloyd combined many ideas from the Non-jurors and Caroline Divines and acts as a direct link between the Phalanx and the Tractarians.

At this point, I am going to spend some time detailing the views of an important man in the transition from old High churchmanship to Tractarianism. He is important for his views on justification and the Eucharist as well as his self-designation as holding a different view from the “Tory churchmen.” Alexander Knox, an Irish cleric who lived from 1757-1831, is our primary link between the Orthodox and Oxford Movement. He is most notable for his views on justification and the Church of Rome; Knox was supportive of the emancipation of Catholics. Knox’s views on justification were not accepted by the Evangelicals at all, in fact, many Evangelical writes would equate Knox’s teaching with that of Trent. Later on, during the heat of the Oxford Movement, Evangelical writers would accuse the Oxford fathers of teaching Knox’s doctrine of justification, which would equate them with Tridentine Catholicism. Knox writes of justification, saying, “In St Paul’s sense, to be justified is not simply to be accounted righteous; but also and in the first instance to be made righteous by the implantation of a radical principle of righteousness” (Toon, 152). In addition to these controversial writings on justification, Knox also wrote on baptism, the Eucharist, and even a collection of letters, “Letters on the Re-Union of the Churches of England and Rome.” In addition to his attack on forensic justification, Alexander Knox also distinguished himself from “Tory churchmen,” saying, “I am a churchman in grain – not a Tory churchman, for that is a disease in the church, not its constitutional turn” (Nockles, 102). He also began to leave the earlier receptionist/virtualist views of the eucharist and espouse something between them and the later sacramental union theories of the Tractarians. He was willing to say that the elements are, “permanent representatives of His incarnate Person” (Storr, 89). Furthermore, Knox adds, “But the express designation of the Holy Eucharist by our Lord Himself as His own virtual body and blood, and St Paul’s appeal to the receive belief of the Church that the blessed cup was the communion of the blood of Christ, and that the broken bread was the communion of the body of Christ, established beyond question that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is to serve as the external and visible medium through which the disciples of Christ in all ages are to expect, through the co-operation of the Eternal Spirit, the divinely vivifying influences of His incarnate Person, and the ineffable virtues of His crucifixion and death.” In addition to these unique views on justification and the eucharist, he also shared earlier Orthodox emphasis on apostolic succession, invalidity of the sacraments from non-episcopal ministers, the desire for Church unity, and the loathing of private interpretation. Knox really is the “missing link” between the Orthodox and Tractarians.

Historical Causes of the Oxford Movement
After that brief tangent on evangelicalism in the Church of England, it is now time to review the causes of the Oxford Movement and its course in English history.

For a long time the Church of England had enjoyed a special relationship with the Parliament, maybe even viewing it as a lay synod of the Church. However, in the early 19th century, Parliament passed and repealed some laws which jeopardized the Church of England’s monopoly on Parliament. In 1828, Parliament repealed the Test and Corporation Acts. The Corporation Act, “excluded from membership of town corporations all those who were not prepared to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England,” and the Test Act, “imposed the same test upon holders of civil or military office.” Therefore, with the repeal of these acts, Parliament was thus open to dissenters and not just churchmen. Likewise, the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, opened Parliament to Roman Catholics.

However, the final straw for the fathers of the Oxford Movement was the 1832 Reform Act, which sought to reduce the number of bishoprics in the Church of Ireland by ten. This prompted the infamous, John Keble’s Assize sermon, “National Apostasy,” in 1833. The Church Society summarizes the main points of the Movement as such: 1) Apostolic succession by the laying on of hands; 2) That it was sacrilege for non-Church bodies to lay hands on the Church; 3) The assertion that the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church and entirely separate from the state; 4) A strong opposition to the emerging liberalism; 5) A focus on personal holiness. As you can see, these are not new or original themes in the life of the Church of England but were specifically related to the controversies of the 19th century. The movement was centered at Oxford, giving it one of its more popular names. However, it came to be known as Tractarianism. In September of 1833, the Oxford divines began publishing a series of tracts to further their aims throughout the Church, which merited them the name “Tractarianism.”

During the early years of the movement, the Tractarians did not openly express any detachment from the Reformation. However, one of the “Oxford four,” Hurrell Froude died and his “theological remains” were published in 1838. These remains clearly showed his antipathy to the Reformers and his affinity for medieval Catholicism. This revelation triggered a rebuttal from Evangelicals which began a long (and present) conflict between Evangelicals and Tractarians. The tip of the iceberg was the publication of Tract 90 in 1841, which sought to reconcile the Articles of Religion with the teachings of the Council of Trent, simply anathema to Evangelicals. The response from Evangelicals is predictable and to be expected, however, the question we ask seeks to discover how the Orthodox responded. The Church Society article, “The Oxford Movement” provides a concise statement about the reaction of the Orthodox:

“At the time ‘High Church’ referred to those who had a high regard for the Church and its ways including establishment and its Protestantism. Thus High Churchmen were split in their response to the new movement. Some warmed to what was said about the nature and dignity of the Church whilst others saw that it would lead to disestablishment and indeed to some Roman practices at least. The impact of the movement was such that the old distinction of ‘high church’ was largely lost and the term came to be associated with the Tractarians. The authorities in Oxford also distanced themselves from the Tracts and from any association of the name with the university.”

Tractarian and Orthodox Views

At this point, it is important to accentuate the differences between Orthodox churchmen and the nascent Tractarians. We have already seen where they had essential agreement, that being in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession and an esse view of the episcopacy, and their distrust of private interpretation. However, beyond this, the differences accumulate faster than any similarities. First, the Orthodox were firmly Protestant. The earlier churchmen identified even more with the Reformed churches in Europe, Richard Hooker offering a good summary of Anglican feeling towards non-episcopal churches:

“Although I see that certain reformed churches, the Scottish especially and French, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture, I mean government that is by Bishops, inasmuch as both those churches are fallen under a different kind of regiment; which to remedy it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present affliction and trouble: this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such case than exagitate,considering that men oftentimes without any fault of their own may be driven to want that kind of polity or regiment which is best, and to content themselves with that, which either the irremediable error of former times, or the necessity of the present hath cast upon them.”

The Caroline Divine, John Cosin, saying, ““I never refused to join with the Protestants either here or anywhere else, in all things wherein they join with the Church of England.” John Sharp, an 18th century High Churchman said of a churchman, ““if he were abroad, he would willingly communicate with the Protestant churches where he should happen to be.” Likewise Archbishop Ussher, “which I do love and honour as true members of the Church Universal, I do profess that with like affection I should receive the Blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers if I were in Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Charenton.” All of this to prove that all churchmen before the Oxford Movement viewed themselves as Protestants, whether they were High Churchmen, Low Churchmen or Evangelicals, they were Protestant. This is one of the key differences between the Orthodox and Tractarians. It is also important to note that the Orthodox saw no contradiction in terms when they referred to themselves as Protestants and catholics. At the time, they understood that the Roman Church did not have a valid claim to catholicity and that Protestantism was not opposite to catholicism. Nockles sums up the core tenets of Orthodox churchmanship, they, “upheld in some form the doctrine of apostolical succession as a manifestation of [their] strong attachment to the Church's catholicity and apostolicity as a branch of the universal church catholic, … . [They] believed in the supremacy of Holy Scripture and set varying degrees of value on the testimony of authorised standards such as the Creeds, the Prayer Book and the Catechism. [They] valued the writings of the early Fathers, but more especially as witnesses and expositors of scriptural truth when a 'catholic consent' of them could be established. [They] upheld in a qualified way the primacy of dogma and laid emphasis on the doctrine of sacramental grace, both in the eucharist and in baptism, … . [They] tended to cultivate a practical spirituality based on good works nourished by sacramental grace and exemplified in acts of self-denial and charity rather than on any subjective conversion experienced or unruly pretended manifestations of the Holy Spirit.” How did the Tractarians differ in substance from the Orthodox? “High Churchmen took as their standard of catholicity the Anglican formularies supported by scripture and antiquity; Tractarians used the appeal to antiquity to correct and supplement the Anglican formularies.”

One of the most important distinctions in theology from the Orthodox and the Tractarians is in the doctrine of the eucharist. The Orthodox held to one of two theories concerning Christ’s presence in the sacrament, either that of receptionism (Calvin’s doctrine) or virtualism (that of the Non-jurors, see The Unbloody Sacrifice). The key similarity in these two viewpoints and what clearly distinguishes them from Tractarian ideas is that both of these doctrines deny that Christ is present in the elements. Both follow a Reformed Christology saying that since Christ has ascended to heaven and that is where his natural body is. Both theories offer a solution to the problem of Christ being in heaven but present in the sacrament. Receptionism says that the Spirit ascends our hearts to heaven and feeds us with the body and blood of Christ through faith. Virtualism says the power and effect of Christ’s body and blood, but not the body and blood descend to the elements. The Tractarians take this another step and are willing to say that the spiritual body and blood of Christ are present in the elements. Pusey states, “In the communion there is a true, real, actual, though spiritual (or rather the more real because spiritual), communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements; that there is a true, real, spiritual presence of Christ at the Holy Supper, more real than if we could with Thomas feel Him with our hands, or thrust our hands into His side; that this is bestowed upon faith, and received by faith, as is every other spiritual gift, but that our faith is but a receiver of God’s real, mysterious, precious gift; that faith opens our eyes to see what is really there, and our hearts to receive it; but that it is there independently of our faith.” (Pusey, 1839: 128, in Stone, 1909: II, 534). In contrast, William Goode provides a good summary of the dominant receptionist position, “The doctrine … maintained in the formularies of the Church of England and, speaking generally, by all her great divines … is that, though the act of consecration makes the bread and wine sacred symbols or Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, in the participation of which by the faithful there is vouchsafed a real spiritual presence to the soul of the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed received and spiritually eaten and drunk to the soul’s health, yet that the presence of the body and blood of Christ is not communicated to (though in the case of the faithful connected with the participation of) the bread and wine, and His body and blood are not given to, or partaken of by, the faithless. In short, it is a real presence to the receiver and not to the elements.” (Goode, 1856: I, 29-30). Willilam Beveridge, Bishop of St. Asaph agrees with Goode, ““Scripture and fathers holding forth so clearly that whosoever worthily receives the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper doth certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 470). At the same time he denies that, “the bread and wine which is used in the Sacrament is the very body that was crucified on the cross and that the wine after consecration the very blood that gushed out of His pierced side.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 470). John Johnson, author of the Non-juror and virtualist work, The Unblood Sacrifice, states of the Eucharistic presence, “Though the Eucharistical elements are not the substantial Body and Blood; nay, they are the figurative and representative symbols of them; yet they are somewhat more too; they are the mysterious Body and Blood of our ever-blessed Redeemer. By the mysterious Body and Blood … I mean neither substantial nor yet merely figurative, but the middle between these extreme, viz. the Bread and Wine made the Body and Blood of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit; and apprehended to be so, not by our senses, but by our faith, directed and influenced by the same Holy Spirit; and made the Body and Blood in such a manner as human reason cannot perfectly comprehend.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 323).

However, the Tractarian movement was not the end of the upheaval of the 19th century in the Church of England, for in its earliest stage it was only a theological movement which did not affect the average churchman. However, the Church would soon face the destructive power of the Cambridge Camden Society (renamed the Ecclesiological Society in 1845) which was founded in 1839 and intended to revive medieval ceremonial and ritual in the Church of England.






New Sources
“Beyond Port and Prejudice – The High Church Revival Before the Tractarians” http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2010/02/beyond-port-and-prejudice-high-church.html

The development of English theology in the nineteenth century, 1800-1860 – Vernon Faithfull Storr
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=Rm1BAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA84

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_062_2_Hunkin.pdf

“The Tractarians” http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_117_TheTractarians.pdf

“The Oxford Movement” http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_110_TheOxfordMovement.pdf

William Hodge Mill, Cambridge Divine, http://131.111.227.198/CRFoxYoung.htm

“The Origin of Churchmanship Differences” http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Evangelicals_Etcetera_Ch1.pdf

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/2/23_Edward_Bouverie_Pusey1800-1882Tractarian.html

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/3/12_William_Goode1801-1868Dean_of_Ripon.html

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/4/15_William_Beveridge1637-1708Bishop_of_St_Asaph.html

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/4/7_John_Johnson1662-1725Anglican_Theologian.html

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/3/7_Alexander_Knox1757-1831Anglican_Lay_Theological_Writer.html

The Curious Case of the Old High Churchmen (Part I 1533-1833)

I've recently been on a bit of an historical quest during my free time to discover more about the elusive Old High Church party. Today, it is common in Anglican circles to discuss churchmanship with roughly three categories: high, broad, and low (sometimes you run across the term 'central' too). These are terms that nowadays usually refer to ceremonial practices whereas in ages past they were more theological terms referring to the churchman's position in regards to the Established Church. We know of Evangelicals and Liberals too, who have passed from former times up until the current scene. Generally speaking, evangelicals are labelled as low churchmen today, liberals are broad churchmen, and catholics are high churchmen. However, this was not always the case with Anglican churchmanship. The nomenclature here is betrayinig to what these terms meant historically. Much of this confusion came after the ceremonial and ritual revivial of the Oxford Movement. This movement started in 1833 and introduced a number of changes to the Anglican churches. The scope of this movement is not the purpose of this post but it does interrelate at certain points. What interests me is the disappearance of the old High Churchmen from the scene after the Oxford Movement. They were influential before the movement but are completely dissipated after the movement.

This post seeks to begin a series of discussions about this group of churchmen and to try to give an accurate portrayal of their beliefs and practices. I've recently been reading the book, The Last of the Prince Bishops: William Van Mildert and the High Church Movement of the Early Nineteenth Century written by E.A. Varley, which documents the life of the last prince bishop of Durham. William Van Mildert lived from 1765-1836) and held the bishopric of Durham from 1826-1836. He is an excellent symbol of Old High Churchmanship and also ironically a good symbol of their demise as he died during the midst of the Oxford Movement.

Historical Summary

It is necessary at this point to provide a brief summary of the history of the Reformation in England and a brief history of the Church of England up until the point of the beginning of the Oxford Movement.

Most of us are familiar with Henry VIII and his dilemma with Anne Boelyn and Catherine of Aragon, at least if you've seen the popular series, The Tudors. Henry's role in the English Reformation is practically nonexistent, except for the fact that he provided for the political autonomy to further carry on the Reformation after his death. However, many important things happened during his reign which allowed for the Reformation later. First, the appointment of Thomas Cranmer to the archbishopric of Canterbury on October 1, 1532. After several years of legislature, the break with Rome was finalized in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy which declared Henry, "supreme head in earth of the Church of England." This act did not start a theological reformation but it did provide the base from which that would come. Later the Dissolution of the Monasteries commenced under Cromwell. Henrician reforms are hard to categorize by later standards. He issued several doctrinal statements beginning with the Ten Articles of 1536 and later the Six Articles of 1539. They tended to agree with Lutherans on some points such as the number of sacraments. The main difference was Henry’s insistence on celibacy as divinely instituted. A note on churchmanship during his reign, technically there was none. Churchmanship really describes one’s reaction to the Settlement of 1559 or 1662 later. However, there was division among the clergy about the reforms taking place. Eamon Duffy talks of “traditionalists” and “reformists” in his book, The Stripping of the Altars. Also, the English Reformers would not fall into any of the later churchmanship categories as some modern churchmen claim. They preceded the settlement and therefore churchmanship. They were reformists, obviously, but were also the foundation of all later churchmen because up to the Oxford Movement, no churchman had a negative view of them. Henry's reign produced the English Litany (1544), English Bible (1537), standardization of the Salisbury or Sarum Use as the national use, and the introduction of many of the cast of characters for Edward's Reform.

Liturgical reform commenced almost immediately after Henry's death with the first Prayer Book in 1549 and revised in 1552. Cranmer released his 42 Articles of Religion in 1553, only to be revoked by Queen Mary after ascending to the throne in the same year. Elizabeth followed her as queen and reinstated Protestantism with the Act of Uniformity and the 1559 Prayer Book. Cranmer's 42 Articles were revised to 38 in 1563 and then the current 39 Articles of Religion were agreed by Convocation in 1571. This was the beginning of Anglicanism as we know it. Tensions were building up during Elizabeth's reign but because of her policy of toleration, there was no conflict. During James' reign, churchmanship differences became more pronounced and eventually full-blown conflict became apparetn at the end of Charles I reign. Churchmanship at this time was related to church polity, mostly. A brief summary of churchmanship at the time, "On the right stood the recusants, those who still remained faithful to the Church of Rome. Next came ‘those who in a later age have been called high churchmen, but were then more generally known as Arminians’. Next came the episcopalian Calvinists, those who were content with the episcopal nature of the Church of the Elizabethan settlement. Next came the Calvinists who still looked for their model of a reformed Church to the European models of presbyterian and congregational churches. Still further to the left came the sectaries, separatists or independents: ‘whereas the upper-middle-class man tended to adopt an Erastian form of presbyterianism, the lower-middle-class man often became a separatist’ (Davies, 1937, p.193). Finally came ‘the lunatic fringe – the Fifth Monarchy men, the Seekers, the Levellers, and so forth’"

The presbyterians won for a time under the leadership of Cromwell and the Protectorate. The prayer book was abolished and bishops replaced by presbyteries. This came to an end in 1661, when Charles II ascended the throne and reinstated the Prayer Book in 1662 and bishops. This narrowed the theological comprehensiveness of the Church to exclude presbyterians and congregationalists and those who were not in favor of the prescribed liturgy. This led to the expulsion of over 2,000 ministers from the Church. There was a debate at the time as to what to do with Puritans and Dissenting Christians. This debate led to the first codification of churchmanship terms. There was a group of churchmen who wanted to revise the prayer book to allow for more diversity of opinion and eventually graft these groups back into the national church. They presented a revised prayer book in 1689, called the Liturgy of Comprehension. Another group of churchmen were opposed to these efforts of comprehension and stated that the puritans and dissenting Christians must use the authorized liturgy of the Church (1662 BCP). Those who favored comprehension were called latitudinarians or "low churchmen" because they had a "low" view of the Established Church which allowed them to vision compromises to include more in the Church. Those who opposed were called "high churchmen" because they had an "high" view of the Established Church and would not tolerate deviations from the standard liturgy. The High Churchmen won and there was no effort at comprehension.

The reigning monarch at that time was James II. A Dutch Prince, named William, invaded England and James II fled to France. (This is a very simplified explanation of the situation!). He was held captive by William but later released and fled. William convened a parliament and many Englishmen supported him as the new king because they believed that James had abdicated the throne by fleeing. William was eventually proclaimed king, however, many High Churchmen could not, in conscience, swear loyalty to him because they did not believe that their oath to James had expired. Thus a large number of high church bishops and priests seceded from the Church, they became known as the Non-Jurors. The Non-Jurors went on to have a life of their own in their schismatic sect apart from the national church. While the national church fell into the power of the Latitudinarians, the High Church Non-Jurors were divided amongst themselves about the question of Prayer Book revision. The pro-revision group or Usagers, wanted to revise the English liturgy along the lines of the 1549 rite and introduce four alleged apostolic usages to the liturgy. The four usages included: he mixed chalice, the prayers of epiklesis and invocation and prayers for the dead. The opposing group, called the Non-usagers,wanted no change to the English liturgy.

Meanwhile, in the national church, the "long eighteenth century" began. This is a term used by historians to refer to the period of time from Toleration Act of 1689 until the 1830s. During this time the Church was battling Enlightenment issues of science and deism. This age was generally characterized by "cautious and

latitudinarian Anglicanism." It was in this climate that the clergyman, John Wesley, lived and preached. Wesley was originally an high churchman, who started the society of Methodists who met for regular Bible study and encouraged fasting and regular Communion. After a conversion experience, Wesley became one of the forerunners of the Evangelical Movement which stressed individual conversion in response to the Holy Spirit. Wesley's Methodist Society was meant to be a renewal movement within the Church of England but after being denied a bishop for his American followers, Wesley provoked a schism by consecrating his own bishops. Some Evangelicals left the national church for other dissenting bodies or the new Methodists. It is important to remember that many of these evangelicals stayed within the Church of England because, "on the whole they rejected Wesley’s concept of a travelling ministry, regarding the parish as the place where the Lord’s work was primarily to be carried on." Another feature characteristic was that, "Anglican Evangelicals were generally Calvinists, whereas Methodists were generally Arminians." So, at this point, we have the churchmanship terms, High Church, Low Church or Latitudinarian, and Evangelical.

Theological Portrait of the English Old High Churchmen

At this point, I want to provide a basic theological portrait of the English Old High Churchmen to provide some context in the historical section of this post. I believe it is important at this point to clarify what the Old High Churchmen believed on certain points which will later diverge from Tractarian teaching on the same subjects. I also have concluded that there was enough theological and ceremonial divergence from the Non-Jurors to separate them from the English High Churchmen. I also find it important to note the theological harmony that existed between High Churchmen and Evangelicals before the turmoil of the Oxford Movement. Later on, Anglo-Catholics would seek to accentuate the differences between the groups, however, at this point they were very much similar. Nockes offers a concise summary of an Old High Churchman,

“A High Churchman in the Church of England tended to uphold in some form the doctrine of apostolical succession as a manifestation of his strong commitment to the Church’s catholicity and apostolicity as a branch of the universal church catholic, within which he did not include those reformed bodies which had abandoned episcopacy without any plea of necessity. He believed in the supremacy of Holy Scripture and set varying degrees of value on the testimony of authorised standards such as the Creeds, the Prayer Book and the Catechism. He valued t he writings of the early Fathers, but more especially as witnesses and expositors of scriptural truth when a “catholic consent” of them could be established. He upheld in a qualified way the primacy of dogma a nd laid emphasis on the doctrine of sacramental grace, both in the eucharist and in baptism, while normally eschewing the Roman Catholic principle of ex opere operato. He tended to cultivate a practical spirituality based on good works nourished by sacramental grace and exemplified in acts of self-denial and charity rather than on any subjective conversion experience or unruly pretended manifestations of the Holy Spirit. He stressed the divine rather than popular basis of political allegiance and obligation. His political principles might be classed as invariably Tory though by no means always in a narrowly political party sense, and were characterised by a high view of kingship and monarchical authority. He upheld the importance of a religious establishment but insisted also on the duty of the state as a divinely-ordained rather than merely secular entity, to protect and promote the interests of the church” (Nockles, 25-26).

Predestination

The Article on predestination is not very clear and early on there was debate over whether or not the article taught double predestination or just single predestination. Generally speaking, Evangelicals tended to be Calvinists, meaning they espoused double predestination, and Old high Churchmen were Arminians. The key here is that English Arminianism tended to diverge from Dutch Arminianism because it still held to a concept of single predestination. Archbishop Robinson expands, “Theologians such as Lancelot Andrewes objected not to the idea of Predestination as such, but to the doctrine of double Predestination promoted by some Calvinists… they saw double predestination as inconsistent with a loving and merciful God. They also regarded Predestination as preached by some of the Puritans as being anti-sacramental, and the Caroline Divines seem to have held with the idea that Christians exist in a state where we are both saved and being saved. This notion also explains the strong sacramentalism of the Caroline High Churchmen, and of their modern successor of the Central stripe.” For the Old High Churchmen, to be justified by faith alone through Christ implied a call to a holy life, they often emphasized this in their sermons and this emphasis was perceived as moralism by some outsiders.

Baptism

High Churchmen had strong views of the relation between regeneration and baptism, this was one of the marked differences between Evangelical churchmen and High Churchmen. Evangelicals had as many as four distinct views regarding baptism and regeneration, which are documented in this quote from Peter Toon’s book, Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856 : A Response to Tractarianism,

“"First of all there were those who, following the Augustinian footsteps of Archbishop Ussher, affirmed that all who are regenerated are regenerated in or at baptism.38 Baptism was thus seen as the ‘instrument’ of regeneration, as taught in Article XXVII (‘.... as by an instrument, they that receive baptism are grafted into the Church’)... Regeneration is here understood in terms of the implantation by the Holy Spirit of the principle of new life in the soul. This approach, a modification of that found in the Lutheran formularies, connects regeneration with both divine election and with baptism so that all who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God are regenerated in baptism, being born ‘of water and of the Spirit’

Secondly, there were those who, influenced by Henry Budd, and including Edward Bickersteth and Hugh McNeile, also closely connected baptism with both regeneration and eternal electíon.39 They claimed that on the analogy of the baptism of adult believers regeneration (again understood as the implantation of eternal life and incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ) occurred prior to baptism in response to the prayer of God’s people (the prayer beginning ‘Almighty, everliving God ... ) in order that baptism could be a full sign of an inward spiritual change and a seal of God’s gracious promises towards the child.

Thirdly, there were those who understood regeneration as being synonymous with conversion and as being impossible without being accompanied by repentance towards God, saving faith in Jesus Christ and the visible fruit of the Spirit in the life. Biddulph, Wilson and M’Ilvaine, with perhaps the majority of Evangelicals held one or other form of this approach.40 They could not allow that divine life implanted in infancy at baptism could take ten, fifteen or twenty years to manifest itself in a conversion experience. For them regeneration had to be a visible change of character and attitude. The baptism of infants was approached through a simple covenant theology; the promises of salvation were declared and a sign and seal of them given because of the belief in the faithfulness of God to honour his covenant-promise which is ‘to you and to your children’ (Acts 2.39). Thus baptism involved no immediate, inward change but the confirmation of God’s covenant promise that he would, when the child reached an age of discretion, work salvation in the life.

Fourthly, there were those who made a distinction between ecclesiastical (or sacramental) and spiritual regeneration. Henry Ryder, the first Evangelical bishop, felt obliged to do this and wrote of ecclesiastical regeneration: ‘I would… wish to generally restrict the temr to the baptismal privileges and considering them as comprehending, not only external admission into the visible church – not only a covenanted title to the pardon and peace of the Gospel but even a degree of spiritual aid vouchsafed and ready to offer itself to our acceptance or rejection, at the dawn of reason.’"

High Churchmen would stand in agreement with the first position outlined above as espoused by Archbishop Ussher. I have provided the full quote to emphasize that Evangelicals valued baptism as much as High Churchmen but in a different fashion. Likewise, one would not find the concept of “believer’s baptism” in Evangelical literature then. Likewise, Archbishop Robinson adds some clarity to misconceptions about the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,

“in the absence of any positive will to the contrary on the part of the minister or of the person being baptised, Baptism confers regeneration; the child or person receiving baptism is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, and is made a child of Christ. If they continue in the profession and practice of the Christian Faith they will be saved. It is the duty of parents and godparents (and by extension of the whole Church) to ensure that the child or person baptized is brought up in the Faith. The one thing we have to be quite clear about though, is that Baptismal Regeneration is not some “hocus-pocus” that works independently of the faith of the Church and the faith of the individual, but part of the economy of salvation left to us by Christ Himself.”

Holy Communion

There were three generally recognized theories about the real presence: receptionism, virtualism, and memorialism (or Zwinglianism). The first was the theory of Calvin, Bullinger, and Bucer, it teaches that, although there is no change in the elements, when the faithful partake of the bread and the wine they receive Christ's body and blood by faith, this was held by a majority of Evangelicals and High Churchmen. Virtualism was the belief of the Non-Jurors and it maintained that although the bread and the wine were not changed into the body and blood of Christ, they were changed to be the power or benefit of Christ is present, as if Christ were present. This allowed for the Non-juror theories of eucharistic sacrifice in addition it, “protects the notion that Christ is really present, but avoids the murky waters of mediaeval philosophy and the concept that the Eucharistic bread and wine, undergoing some sort of change of substance” (Robinson). The memorialist or Zwinglian view was also accepted by some Evangelicals and many Low Churchmen but not by High Churchmen. High Churchmen rejected the idea of ex opera operato and the whole sacramental system of the Romans, maintaining that Christ established two sacraments only. Likewise, they rejected the errors of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They held that the Eucharist was a commemoration of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, once made, as the only relation of sacrifice with the Eucharist. Likewise, the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and an oblation of, “ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee” (BCP).

Apostolic Succession and Catholicity

There have been two approaches to the episcopacy in Anglican history, the first called the bene esse view has been the most held view by both High Churchmen and Evangelicals alike. The other view is the esse view which was held by the Non-jurors and some High Churchmen. The first view maintains with the Ordinal that, “it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church,” it holds that bishops are good, ancient, and desirable for the church but not essential for the existence of the Church. Within the Church of England, ministers are required to be ordained by their diocesan bishop and bishops are to be consecrated by at least three other bishops, however, the bene esse view maintained that other reformed churches still held valid orders even though they had departed from the historic episcopacy; the fact that they held to the catholic faith was enough to make their church’s orders valid. The other view, the esse, view affirms that bishops are necessary for the existence of the Church, obviously looking to St. Ignatius as a guide here, “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans). The esse view would look at reformed ministers with suspicion of their validity. Another important element in High Church rhetoric about orders was the distinction between national reformed churches and dissenting bodies. They were willing to grant validity to national reformed churches such as the Church in Geneva or Holland and the Lutheran churches but not to dissenting bodies in England such as English Presbyterians and Baptists. The thought was that the foreign reformed churches had to depart from the episcopacy to maintain the catholic faith and thus had just cause. The dissenting bodies had separated themselves from the reformed Church of England with no warrant. Laud even held that the superintendent in the Lutheran church was the bishopric in substance but not in name.

Obviously the Tractarians adopted the latter position; however, they did so with a twist which separated them from the earlier High Churchmen. First, they adopted essentially the Roman position which maintained that through the apostolic succession, priests who were ordained gained an ontological change within themselves to have the priestly power to consecrate the elements into the body and blood of Christ. This departed from High Church teaching in a number of ways, first, High Churchmen did not accept a sacerdotal priesthood and therefore rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass and the local presence of Christ in the elements. They denied an ontological change of the priest at ordination but rather thought of apostolic succession as the link with the apostolic church. Secondly, Newman began to equate the problem with foreign churches not as the lack of episcopacy but as being Protestant, which he believed was opposed to the Church of England and catholicity. The High Churchmen rejected such claims and were very comfortable with being Protestant and accepted the general teachings of the Reformation. In 1841, there was a controversial idea presented to Parliament, involving a shared bishopric in Jersualem. This controversy was a manifestation of the theological issues involved between Old High Churchmen and the Tractarians. The idea of the bishopric was that it was to be a shared see between the Church of England and the united Evangelical Church of Prussia which was Lutheran. The candidate for the bishopric was to alternate between the respective churches. In general, Old High Churchmen favored the scheme as an opportunity to provide the episcopate for the Lutheran churches. Tractarians opposed it on two grounds. First, it was an “unequal yoke” with Protestantism which Newman was denouncing as heretical now. Secondly, the Tractarians viewed the bishopric as an insult to the Eastern Orthodox Christians there.

Anglican High Churchmen differed with the Roman Catholic Church over the understanding of what the catholic church really is. The Roman Catholic Church necessitates a dogmatic center from which catholicity flows. High Churchmen, following the Caroline Divines, did not view catholicity in this manner; rather, they viewed the catholic church as a federation of separate, national churches each upholding the fundamentals of catholic faith and apostolic order. Therefore, the Anglican Church was not “The Catholic Church,” but rather a part of it. The High Church concept of catholicity did not imply a necessary intercommunion in between the separate national churches. Neither does one jurisdiction of the universal church have seniority over another.

Political Theory

Many times, Old High Churchmen are described as “Erastians” in their political outlook. This is at best a gross oversimplification of their political views and at worst a blatant misrepresentation of their ideas of the relation between Church and State. Erastianism is named after Thomas Erastus, a Swiss theologian, who believed that the State was superior to the Church. While, it is true that the relation between the Church and the State in England could sometimes be characterized by Erastian principles. I cannot effectively summarize Old High Church principles here in any sense adequate that is deserved. I recommend heartily Peter Nockles’s book, “The Oxford Movement in Context,” which will give a rich and thorough study of the matter. In short, though, this quote from, “The Last of the Prince-Bishops,” gives a good summary of High Church attitude towards the Settlement,

"He [Van Mildert] dreamed the Church of England as the soul of the State, as the servant of every citizen, the custodian of true learning and wisdom, as an act of loving homage offered to God in the consciousness of unworthiness but with a confidence founded on Divine Grace. Never blind to the disparities between the Church as he dreamed and as he knew her, he spent his time, energy and (when he had any) money trying to bring her into closer comformity with his vision of her true nature and mission; but he never lost the passionate love for the Church of England, her liturgy, her history, her faithful membership both lay and clerical, which first drew him into her ordained ministry."

The Church as the “soul of the State,” is something entirely different from simple Erastianism. Likewise, High Churchmen viewed the monarchy as being a sacral, quasi-sacramental, office, provided by God to nurture the Church.

Ceremonial and Liturgy

Before the Cambridge Camden Society, most Church of England parishes looked alike and used the same ceremonial, that provided specifically by the Prayer Book. The decorations and ritual were scant. The minister stood at the north end of the Table in surplice and scarf and read the Communion service from there, using only the manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration. Mattins and Evensong were read from the desk. There was an attempt in the later 18^th century and early 19^th to revive some aspects of Laudian ceremonial which had fallen into disuse likewise there was a resurgence of “Prayer Book loyalty” meaning the strict following of the rubrics and holy days. The Laudian idea of the “beauty of holiness” allowed some ceremonial which was not expressed in the Prayer Book. Old High Churchmen were keen to follow the 1604 canon which required reverence at the name of Jesus:

“[In the] time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised” (Canon 18, Canons of the Church of England, 1604).

A High Churchman, “bows at going into the Chapell, and at the name of Jesus” (Every, 1). To an Old High Churchman a good church which represented the “beauty of holiness” contained, “a decent chancel, altar hangings, and communion rails,” (Nockles, 210). There was some escalation of this as the 1800’s approached where in Bath, a cross was put over the altar and pulpit in Daubeney’s church (Nockles), likewise, Old High Churchmen complained about the Evangelical attitude towards images and crosses. However, old High Churchmen did not support the aims of the Ritualists and viewed their suggestions as a breach of common prayer just as they had criticized Evangelicals earlier of departing common prayer. The Old High Church attitude to the Book of Common Prayer was generally positive, although privately some High Churchmen did express an affinity for the 1549. However, most High Churchmen viewed the 1662 as having sufficiently corrected abuses in the 1552 and a faithful witness to the catholic and apostolic faith of the Church of England.

It is also important to remember that the Tractarians were not concerned with ritual at first and generally did not follow the path of the Ritualists, at least first generation Tractarians. Pusey is known to have rejected the Ritualist movement and continued to minister in surplice and scarf during his ministry.

Sources

The Last of the Prince Bishops: William Van Mildert and the High Church Movement of the Early Nineteenth Century

Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856 : A Response to Tractarianism

The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760-1857

http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Evangelicals_Etcetera_Ch1.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=p2mUxxxGt_sC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=virtualism+eucharist&source=bl&ots=y689O2Vhv4&sig=Y0yns79SdS2UX1ogITc-b8FWfGg&hl=en&ei=ILvuTc-ZCIu2tweVr728CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=virtualism%20eucharist&f=false

http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v7/234.html