Reforming the Episcopal Church: "Reformation from Sin, or Improvement in Goodness"

I wanted to begin thinking about church reform in the next few posts.  The issue of reforming the Episcopal Church is one of personal interest to me, since it is the body in which I find myself.  There are two myths often associated with reforming churches, and especially with the Episcopal Church.  The first is that the Episcopal Church has somehow stepped outside of God's "boundaries" and is incapable of reform.  This is obviously false and rather dangerous a theology to hold.  We know from the Scriptures that God has said to us, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee," this includes us as individuals and us in this portion of the Catholic Church in the United States.  I find it a particularly dangerous statement to make and I, for one, am not in the business of limiting the Almighty.  If God can save me from sin into righteousness, the Episcopal Church will be a "piece of cake" so to speak.  The second myth is that other churches, particularly Anglican churches, are not in need of reform.  This is also a dangerous idea because it equates schism with reform.  Leaving the Episcopal Church, or any church, doesn't necessarily solve any problems (it can, obviously, but it is not an automatic response).  For a schism to actually reform the church, it has to correct the problems that the original body did not.

The subject of reforming the Episcopal Church brings certain feelings to some, perhaps who have sought this for many years.  The feeling among some is that they have tarried long and hard in this matter and that because the Church has yet to be fully reformed that it is a sign that God is calling them elsewhere.  While I don't presume to have any answers (or at least any better than others), I think the idea of a "quick fix" to the Episcopal Church's problems results far more from American culture than divine intervention.  If we look just at our own Church's founding in the Church of England, we see a long and slow process of Church reform.  We know that Cranmer was of a reformed mindset long before 1549, yet it took him many years to accomplish his goal, and he had royal support.  We know that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".  We also know that the Episcopal Church has been void of Gospel preaching and solid theological education for over 100 years.  Can we really expect to fix a century-long problem in a few short years?

The beginning of reform is not to be found in the seminaries, nor in the pews.  Reform is not brought about by bishops or councils or commissions.  The General Convention cannot pass a resolution to reform the Church.  No, the reform of the Church starts in the heart.  The hearts of the laity and clergy must be reformed from the inside to the out.  I like the quote from Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Secker, in his ideas on church reform beginning as a "reformation from Sin, or improvement in goodness."  I can't expect to reform myself from sin completely tomorrow, much less in a decade.  I think on my deathbed I will still be struggling to "improve in goodness".  The same is true for the Church, no matter how much work I pour into reforming her, the Church will always be in need of reform, semper reformanda, because the Church is made up of sinful men.  This ideal of having a perfect Church is something that we must learn to let go of if we are to truly work to renew anything.


Perhaps the ideal of reform in the Episcopal Church seems more a dream than anything which could actually happen.  Perhaps so, but it always seems that when the results of something seem the most unlikely, that is where we see the fruits of the Holy Spirit at work.  I'm not saying that the Episcopal Church can be reformed in my lifetime, nor that I am wholly convinced that God is only going to use the Episcopal Church in reviving orthodox Anglicanism, that would be presumptuous and beyond my knowledge as a mere man, but I do know that God is faithful and that he has called me, at least at this time, to work for renewal and reform in this Protestant Episcopal Church.

Are Churchmanship Labels Effective?

I've been busy the last few weeks and unable to write here but I do have a thought for you today.

I'm wondering if our churchmanship labels are effective at describing theology and praxis.  If I tell someone I am a "High Churchman" what images does that conjure up in their mind?  I wonder because when I say that to certain people, there tends to be an expectation of what I believe and prefer ceremonially that doesn't line up with my belief or praxis.  To add another layer of complexity to the issue, most of the times "high" and "low" are associated with ceremonial descriptions, at least in the Episcopal Church, while they originate as theological terms.  Essentially, until the latter part of the 19th century, there was no ceremonial diversity in Anglicanism, almost all parishes followed the same guidelines for worship.  In fact, the only diversity that existed was between parish churches and cathedrals (and collegiate chapels).  The designations of "High" and "Low" started out to create a dichtomy between people who had a high regard for the Established Church and those who preferred lattitude in the Church.  Obviously, those terms have evolved much over the centuries.

When I say that I am High Church, I mean that I have a high regard for the visible church in general and the Anglican Church in particular.  The emphasis lies on the visible means of grace and the continuation of ministry in the three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.  The focus on the visible means of grace follows the historical, Reformational understanding of the Sacraments as means of grace for the Christian, yet denies not that justification is by faith alone.  Neither does an emphasis on the visible church imply that the three-fold ministry is necessary for the existence of the Church.  I hold to Waterland's theory of how baptism and regeneration are related.  I hold to the "dynamic receptionism" of the same, in regards to how the body and blood of Christ are received in Holy Communion.  I prefer a dignified yet ceremonially simple service according to the Usage of the Prayer Book.  This is the position of famous Caroline Divines such as Laud, Taylor, and Cosin, and lesser known figures such as Van Mildert, Hobart, and Hopkins.

I'm not sure that this theology or ceremonial is best summed up with the word "High Church" anymore.  The problem is, I'm not sure what words we can use to describe this type of churchmanship anymore.

Sunday Worship

Below is a possible order for Sunday worship using the 1979 BCP.  The goal was to combine Morning Prayer, the Litany, and Communion into one service as in the old days.  The 1979 BCP provides several rubrics to facilitate this.  However, it does not provide for the combination of all three services (it provides guidelines for combining MP+HC, and Litany + HC but not MP + L + HC).  I have attempted to follow the guidelines and combine all three services.


Sunday Worship 

Morning Prayer

The Officiant begins the service with one or more of these sentences of
Scripture, or with the versicle "O Lord, open thou our lips" on page 42.

Lent

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, God is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.    I John 1:8, 9

Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the
Lord your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to
anger and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
Joel 2:13

I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him,
"Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and
am no more worthy to be called thy son."    Luke 15:18, 19

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses,
though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed
the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he
set before us.    Daniel 9:9, 10

Jesus said, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."    Mark 8:34

Confession of Sin

The Officiant says to the people

Dearly beloved, we have come together in the presence of
Almighty God our heavenly Father, to render thanks for the
great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth
his most worthy praise, to hear this holy Word, and to ask, for
ourselves and on behalf of others, those things that are
necessary for our life and our salvation. And so that we may
prepare ourselves in heart and mind to worship him, let us
kneel in silence, and with penitent and obedient hearts
confess our sins, that we may obtain forgiveness by his
infinite goodness and mercy.

or this

Let us humbly confess our sins unto Almighty God.

Silence may be kept.


Officiant and People together, all kneeling

Almighty and most merciful Father,
we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
we have followed too much the devices and desires of our
   own hearts,
we have offended against thy holy laws,
we have left undone those things which we ought to
   have done,
and we have done those things which we ought not to
   have done.
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us,
spare thou those who confess their faults,
restore thou those who are penitent,
according to thy promises declared unto mankind
in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
to the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Priest alone stands and says

The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you absolution and
remission of all your sins, true repentance, amendment of
life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit. Amen.

A deacon or lay person using the preceding form remains kneeling, and substitutes "us" for "you" and "our" for "your."

The Invitatory and Psalter

All stand

Officiant     O Lord, open thou our lips.
People        And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.

Officiant and People

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as
it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.

Then follows one of the Invitatory Psalms, Venite or Jubilate.


In Lent

The Lord is full of compassion and mercy: O come, let us
adore him.

O come, let us sing unto the Lord; *
    let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation.
Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, *
    and show ourselves glad in him with psalms.

For the Lord is a great God, *
    and a great King above all gods.
In his hand are all the corners of the earth, *
    and the strength of the hills are his also.
The sea is his and he made it, *
    and his hands prepared the dry land.

O come, let us worship and fall down *
    and kneel before the Lord our Maker.
For he is the lord our God, *
    and we are the people of his pasture
    and the sheep of his hand.

Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts *
    as in the provocation,
    and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness;
When your fathers tempted me, *
    proved me, and saw my works.

Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, *
    It is a people that do err in their hearts,
    for they have not known my ways.
Unto whom I sware in my wrath, *
    that they should not enter into my rest.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: *
    as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.

The Psalm or Psalms Appointed

At the end of each Psalm is sung or said

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: *
    as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.

The Lessons

One or two lessons, as appointed, are read, the Reader first saying

A Reading (Lesson) from _______________.

A citation giving chapter and verse may be added.

After each Lesson the Reader may say

Here endeth the Lesson (Reading).

Silence may be kept after each Reading. One of the following Canticles,
or one of those on pages 85-95 (Canticles 8-21), is sung or said after
each Reading. If three Lessons are used, the Lesson from the Gospel is
read after the second Canticle.

7     Te Deum laudamus

We praise thee, O God; we acknoledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud,
the Heavens and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry:
    Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth;
    Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory.
The glorious company of the apostles praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise thee.
The noble army of martyrs praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world
                              doth acknowledge thee,
    the Father, of an infinite majesty,
    thine adorable, true, and only Son,
    also the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

Thou art the King of glory, O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man,
thou didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death,
thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge.
    We therefore pray thee, help thy servants,
    whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
    Make them to be numbered with thy saints,
    in glory everlasting.

The Apostles' Creed

Officiant and People together, all standing

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
    who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, dead, and buried.
    He descended into hell.
   The third day he rose again from the dead.
    He ascended into heaven,
    and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
    From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Prayers

The People stand or kneel

Officiant      The Lord be with you.
People        And also with you.
Officiant      Let us pray.

V.    O Lord, show thy mercy upon us;
R.    And grant us thy salvation.
V.    Endue thy ministers with righteousness;
R.    And make thy chosen people joyful.
V.    Give peace, O Lord, in all the world;
R.    For only in thee can we live in safety.
V.    Lord, keep this nation under thy care;
R.    And guide us in the way of justice and truth.
V.    Let thy way be known upon earth;
R.    Thy saving health among all nations.
V.    Let not the needy, O Lord, be forgotten;
R.    Nor the hope of the poor be taken away.
V.    Create in us clean hearts, O God;
R.    And sustain us with your Holy Spirit.

The Collect of the Day

A Collect for Peace

O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in
knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service
is perfect freedom: Defend us, thy humble servants, in all
assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in thy
defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries; through
the might of Jesus Christ our Lord.     Amen.

A Collect for Grace

O Lord, our heavenly Father, almighty and everlasting God,
who hast safely brought us to the beginning of this day:
Defend us in the same with thy mighty power; and grant that
this day we fall into no sin, neither run into any kind of
danger; but that we, being ordered by thy governance, may
do always what is righteous in thy sight; through Jesus Christ
our Lord.     Amen.

The Great Litany

O God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth,
Have mercy upon us.

O God the Son, Redeemer of the world,
Have mercy upon us.

O God the Holy Spirit, Sanctifier of the faithful,
Have mercy upon us.

O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, one God,
Have mercy upon us.

Remember not, Lord Christ, our offenses, nor the offenses
of our forefathers; neither reward us according to our sins.
Spare us, good Lord, spare thy people, whom thou hast
redeemed with thy most precious blood, and by thy mercy
preserve us, for ever.
Spare us, good Lord.

From all evil and wickedness; from sin; from the crafts
and assaults of the devil; and from everlasting damnation,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory,
and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice; and from all want
of charity,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From all inordinate and sinful affections; and from all the
deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; from hardness
of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From lightning and tempest; from earthquake, fire, and
flood; from plague, pestilence, and famine,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From all oppression, conspiracy, and rebellion; from
violence, battle, and murder; and from dying suddenly and
unprepared,
Good Lord, deliver us.

By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation; by thy holy Nativity
and submission to the Law; by thy Baptism, Fasting, and
Temptation,
Good Lord, deliver us.

By thine Agony and Bloody Sweat; by thy Cross and Passion;
by thy precious Death and Burial; by thy glorious Resurrection
and Ascension; and by the Coming of the Holy Ghost,
Good Lord, deliver us.

In all time of our tribulation; in all time of our prosperity; in
the hour of death, and in the day of judgment,
Good Lord, deliver us.

We sinners do beseech the to hear us, O Lord God; and that
it may please thee to rule and govern thy holy Church
Universal in the right way,
We beesech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to illumine all bishops, priests, and
deacons, with true knowledge and understanding of thy
Word; and that both by their preaching and living, they may
set it forth, and show it accordingly,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to bless and keep all thy people,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to send forth laborers into thy
harvest, and to draw all mankind into thy kingdom,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give to all people increase of grace
to hear and receive thy Word, and to bring forth the fruits of
the Spirit,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth all such
as have erred, and are deceived,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give us a heart to love and fear
thee, and diligently to live after thy commandments,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee so to rule the hearts of thy servants,
the President of the United States (or of this nation), and all
others in authority, that they may do justice, and love mercy,
and walk in the ways of truth,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to make wars to cease in all the world;
to give to all nations unity, peace, and concord; and to
bestow freedom upon all peoples,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to show thy pity upon all prisoners
and captives, the homeless and the hungry, and all who are
desolate and oppressed,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give and preserve to our use the
bountiful fruits of the earth, so that in due time all may enjoy
them,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to inspire us, in our several callings,
to do the work which thou givest us to do with singleness of
heart as thy servants, and for the common good,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to preserve all who are in danger by
reason of their labor or their travel,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to preserve, and provide for, all
women in childbirth, young children and orphans, the
widowed, and all whose homes are broken or torn by strife,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to visit the lonely; to strengthen all
who suffer in mind, body, and spirit; and to comfort with thy
presence those who are failing and infirm,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to support, help, and comfort all who
are in danger, necessity, and tribulation,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to have mercy upon all mankind,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give us true repentance; to forgive
us all our sins, negligences, and ignorances; and to endue
us with the grace of thy Holy Spirit to amend our lives
according to thy holy Word,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to forgive our enemies, persecutors,
and slanderers, and to turn their hearts,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to strengthen such as do stand; to
comfort and help the weak-hearted; to raise up those who
fall; and finally to beat down Satan under our feet,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to grant to all the faithful departed
eternal life and peace,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us.
Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
Have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
Have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
Grant us thy peace.

O Christ, hear us.
O Christ, hear us.

Lord, have mercy upon us;
Christ, have mercy upon us;
Lord, have mercy  upon us.

Holy Communion

The Peace

All stand. The Celebrant says to the people

                The peace of the Lord be always with you.
People        And with thy spirit.

Then the Ministers and People may greet one another in the name of the
Lord.

The Great Thanksgiving

The people remain standing. The Celebrant, whether bishop or priest,
faces them and sings or says

                The Lord be with you.
People        And with thy spirit.
Celebrant    Lift up your hearts.
People        We lift them up unto the Lord.
Celebrant    Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.
People        It is meet and right so to do.

Then, facing the Holy Table, the Celebrant proceeds

It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should
at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord,
holy Father, almighty, everlasting God.

Here a Proper Preface is sung or said on all Sundays, and on other
occasions as appointed.

Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the
company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious
Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,

Celebrant and People

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts:
Heaven and earth are full of thy Glory.
Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High.

The people kneel.

Then the Celebrant continues

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for
that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus
Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who
made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for
the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy
Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that
his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again.

At the following words concerning the bread, the Celebrant is to hold it,
or lay a hand upon it; and at the words concerning the cup, to hold or
place a hand upon the cup and any other vessel containing wine to be
consecrated

For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread;
and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Likewise, after supper, he took the cup; and when he had
given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of this;
for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for
you, and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this, as oft as
ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me."

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the
institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Savior Jesus Christ,
we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before
thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now
offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to
make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious
death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension;
rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable
benefits procured unto us by the same.

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to
hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless
and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts
and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them
according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution,
in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers
of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to
accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most
humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and
death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood,
we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our
sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves,
our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living
sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all
others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may
worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son
Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction,
and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and
we in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins,
to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept
this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits,
but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord;

By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost,
all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world
without end. AMEN.

And now, as our Savior Christ hath taught us, we are bold
to say,

People and Celebrant

Our Father, who art in heaven,
    hallowed be thy Name,
    thy kingdom come,
    thy will be done,
        on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
    for ever and ever. Amen.

The Breaking of the Bread

The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.

A period of silence is kept.

Then may be sung or said

[Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;
Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]

In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except
during Easter Season.

The following or some other suitable anthem may be sung or said here

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
grant us thy peace.

The following prayer may be said. The People may join in saying
this prayer

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful
Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold
and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather
up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord
whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore,
gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him,
and he in us. Amen.

Facing the people, the Celebrant may say the following Invitation

The Gifts of God for the People of God.
and may add   Take them in remembrance that Christ died for
                   you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith,
                   with thanksgiving.

The ministers receive the Sacrament in both kinds, and then immediately
deliver it to the people

The Bread and the Cup are given to the communicants with these words

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat
this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on
him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in
remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be
thankful.

During the ministration of Communion, hymns, psalms, or anthems may
be sung.

When necessary, the Celebrant consecrates additional bread and wine,
using the form on page 408.

After Communion, the Celebrant says

Let us pray.

The People may join in saying this prayer

Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee
for that thou dost feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the
spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy
Son our Savior Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of
thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very
members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the
blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs,
through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom. And we humbly
beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy
grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do
all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the
Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end.
Amen.

The Bishop when present, or the Priest, gives the blessing

The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep
your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God,
and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; and the blessing of
God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be
amongst you, and remain with you always. Amen.

The Deacon, or the Celebrant, may dismiss the people with these words

                 Let us go forth in the name of Christ.
People         Thanks be to God.

Some Useful Episcopal Statistics

Online, Episcopal statistics tend to focus on the declining membership; I don't intend to deny that problem, for it is a grave problem.  I wanted to post some positive statistics though.  A while back, there was quite a bit of (justified) excitement about ACNA's number of adult baptisms for 2010.  I decided to check TEC's statistics and found that it is remarkably much higher than ACNA's but there was no mention of it anywhere.  Any adult baptism is good because it shows a conversion to Christ, we should be giving thanks for these baptisms too.  Here is some comparative stats for TEC and ACNA.


Parishes

PECUSA: 7,283
ACNA: 952 (ACNA and Ministry Partners - only 659 actually resident in ACNA)

Infant/children Baptisms

PECUSA: 31,967
ACNA: 1,647

Youth/Adult Baptisms

PECUSA: 4,692
ACNA: 1,411

Confirmations

PECUSA (including "children" and "adults"): 24,925
ACNA: 2,197

"Conversions" (As listed on ACNA stats, I'm assuming = received?)

PECUSA: 7,602 (received)
ACNA: 714 ("conversions")

Average Sunday Attendance

PECUSA: 697,880
ACNA (projected):  78,151 (actual reported = 49,665)

Total Membership

PECUSA: 2,125,012
ACNA: 100,000 (common number, no actual number to my knowledge)

Additional PECUSA Statistics

Marriages: 11,567
Deaths: 30,891



Sources

PECUSA: http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2010_Table_of_Statistics_of_the_Episcopal_Church.pdf
ACNA: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/2010_ACNA_Statistics.pdf
http://stcharlesanglican.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ACNA-2010-Statistics.pdf

Viewing the Decline in the Episcopal Church in a Positive Light

This week, sad news from the Diocese of Rhode Island has entered into the Anglican "blogosphere."  The Cathedral of St. John will be closing this year, due to financial difficulties in maintaining it as a place of worship (the building will still be open and operated by the Diocese).  This follows last year's news from the Diocese of Delaware,  where the Cathedral of St. John will also close.  There is also the old news from the Diocese of Western Michigan selling the Cathedral of Christ the King a few years ago.  There has also been quite a bit of buzz about Dr. Munday's post "What Will the Episcopal Church Look Like in 2030?".  I attempt not to enter contemporary debate on this blog, focusing, rather on the history of the Church, however, in this instance, I feel the history of the Church, especially the Episcopal Church is of crucial importance for the present Church.

The Episcopal Church is a rather odd expression of episcopal polity, if one compared the various expressions of episcopacy around the globe.  Typically an episcopal Church is founded when a bishop begins a diocese in a new area.  He builds a diocese around him and his see or cathedral.  Eventually, one diocesan bishop acquires control over other diocesan bishops and becomes and archbishop or metropolitan.  The power flows from him down to the diocesan bishops, priests, and the laity.  Not so with the Protestant Episcopal Church!  The Episcopal Church was originally part of the Church of England.  When English colonists arrived in what is now the United  States, they brought their Anglicanism with them.  Parish churches were constructed and clergy were sent to minister to them (usually by the SPG).  Anglicanism was concentrated in Virginia and Maryland, where it was the established Church, as in England.  It was diffused throughout the other colonies but with less privileges as in Virginia and Maryland.  These colonial parishes were under the episcopal authority of the Bishop of London.  Unfortunately, most of the bishops of London did not take their vocation to care for the colonial churches with any seriousness.  Hence, confirmation was rare in the colonial churches and ordained ministers were few because of the costly and dangerous voyage to London.  The Bishop of London appointed commissaries, who had most of the episcopal authority of English bishops, except the sacramental authority to ordain or confirm, to govern the colonial churches on his behalf.

The Church of England in the Colonies had grown significantly due to the work of Thomas Bray and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG).  There were several attempts to secure a bishop for the Colonies.  However, these efforts were cut short through the political conflicts leading up to the Revolution.  After the Colonies separated from the Crown, most other American Protestant churches recovered and even flourished, but the Church of England nearly collapsed.  Many of its clergy and prominent laity left for other Colonies or for England.  In its state of despair, William White emerged with a plan to constitute the Protestant Episcopal Church.  The problem was there were no cathedrals, sees, dioceses, or, more importantly, bishops.  The existing parishes in states would gather together to form voluntary associations, known as conventions, of state churches.  These would then elect a bishop, who would be the president of the state convention.  Samuel Seabury, a Connecticut High Churchman, thought this plan was too "Whiggish" and set sail for England to be consecrated a bishop.  He was denied consecration there but obtained it in Scotland.  Beside episcopal authority, Seabury also acquired a distinctive liturgy and a look into the primitive episcopacy when he was consecrated in Scotland.  The Scottish bishops, long sufferers of oppression from Scottish Presbyterians (and even the Church of England) for their Jacobitism, did not have titular sees or ancient geographical dioceses as the English Church still possessed.  They also had no metropolitans as many of the ancient churches had (because they had no ancient sees).  The bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church elected a Primus or presiding bishop (from the old title for all bishops primus inter pares).  Seabury brought these ideas with him and joined the other Episcopalians in forming the Protestant Episcopal Church.  White (and others) were later consecrated by the English bishops.  The American Church, like the Scottish Church, did not have metropolitans, neither did it have dioceses until the 1820's.  Each state church had its own bishop, who was a rector sans cathedral.  Unlike the Scottish Church, the American Presiding Bishop was not elected but was the senior bishop by date of consecration (until 1926, when the first Presiding Bishop was elected).

This primitive spirit was challenged by the rise of ritualism in the Church in the latter half of the 19th century.  The prelatical model, i.e. that of the Church of England, is not necessarily a bad model  but it is a later development which the Church adopted from the Roman civil government.  The Protestant Episcopal model was an attempt at primitive episcopacy with an American flavor, however, during the latter half of the 19th century, the original state churches (then styled dioceses) were split, as the Church grew.  Thus the Diocese of New York was divided into separate portions, such as the Diocese of Albany, where I currently serve.  The Diocese was constituted in 1869 with Bishop William Doane as the first bishop.  It was organized in the English fashion with a cathedral and titular see.  Throughout the country, Episcopal dioceses began constructing massive, Gothic cathedrals to accompany their new prelates.  All of this accompanied the ritualist movement, which sought to reintroduce medieval ceremonies into the Liturgy of the Church, such as the eucharistic vestments, actions such as the Elevation, ashes, etc.  The building of cathedrals occurred in this spirit.  The first cathedral constructed as such for the Episcopal Church was the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany, New York, finished in 1888.  Throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries, the Episcopal Church went through radical changes and continued on this path to further centralization and "prelaticialization" or the creating of hierarchical structures that were never there in the first place.  The process has taken much time, and really has just reached the final stages in 2012.  The Presiding Bishop was first elected in 1926 and styled "Primate" in the 1960's.  The facilities at 815 Second Avenue date from the latter part of the last century as well.

The past thirty years have seen the increasing liberalization of the national church, with its adoption of a progressive agenda.  The result has been an alarming decrease in membership since the 1960's when the Church had somewhere around 3 million members and now only reporting 1.9 million domestic members.  The Church continually loses about 2-3% of its membership each year.  Many have left for breakaway Anglican churches, some have left for other churches but many are simply giving up on the church altogether.    It is in this scene that we see cathedrals closing and dioceses merging.  Munday examines the diocesan structure and proposes a massive change in the structure of our dioceses, if the Church is to survive.  He notes the proposed mergers of Fond du Lac and Eau Claire as well of Quincy and Chicago.  The diocesan  structure, as it stands now, cannot hold, due to the loss of members and falling revenue.

In this spirit, I propose that the answer to our problems is perhaps to be found in our history.  Although the loss of members is bad for our Church and the progressive agenda of 815 has hindered our mission, I see the decline of the Episcopal Church in a positive light.  Allow me to explain, first, the centralization that began in the latter part of the 19th century and which has continued to this day has proved to be unsustainable by our Church.  The centralization was born in the ritualist movement to essentially create a hierarchical church out of thin air.  The founders of our church eschewed prelacy in favor of a primitive episcopacy.  The paper-thin hierarchy has shown that it does not work and perhaps it is time to cast it aside and return to our primitive roots.  The facilities at 815 Second Avenue are already unsustainable and being rented, why not sell the property altogether?  Our church survived two hundred years without it, we can surely live today without it.  The office of the Presiding Bishop needs to be rethought and perhaps changed to model the original design.  The original idea was that the presiding bishop would be that, a presiding bishop.  Nothing more, nothing less.  He (yes, he) would preside at General Convention and that was it.  He did not visit dioceses nor did he give up his diocese to become presiding bishop.  A note on bishops at this point, bishops did not cease being rectors when consecrated bishops.  Essentially, they had adopted Jerome's theory of episcopacy saying that presbyters and bishops are of the same order but that bishops are presbyters which are elected and consecrated (not ordained) and given a further responsibility, i.e. ordination.  Perhaps the Church should rethink its ideas of episcopacy in accordance with the varying theories of episcopacy held in the early church and within our own church.

The opportunity has arisen to shed the layers of prelacy which have invaded our church through the past century.  While prelacy is certainly not a bad thing, it is not a part of the Episcopal Church and I think we would do well to remember that in the upcoming years as the penalties of the national church's progressive agenda will be felt throughout the dioceses, first as a ripple then as a wave, crashing down our paper-thin hierarchy.

Reforming the Diocese from within

An excellent article written by the Rev. John Richardson.  I hope all Episcopalians read this, especially those in more liberal dioceses and consider starting a Bible Fellowship.

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_123_ReformingDiocese.pdf

The English High Church Tradition (Part I)

(This is a revision of the earlier series on this blog "The Curious Case of the Old High Churchmen" - I will likely be revising it further)

This reflection stems from a personal fascination with Anglican High Churchmanship, partially stemming from my own experience of the Anglican tradition in its High Church form.  My own experience of Anglicanism was heavily influenced by a combination of Anglo-Catholicism and three-streams convergence theology.  My own intellectual fascination with this topic began nearly a year ago when I read Peter Nockle’s, “The Oxford Movement in Context,” a truly fascinating read, obligatory for anyone who is interested in this subject.  In my mind, I began to question the “trinity” of Anglican churchmanship (high, broad, low) discovering older paradigms which challenged our contemporary summation of the complex phenomenon known as Anglican churchmanship.  Another influence on my thought and consequently the hypothesis presented in this work was the article, “High Church Varieties:  Continuity and Discontinuity in Anglican Catholic Thought,” by Mattijs Ploeger.  Ploeger’s work reinforced my previous suspicion of the homogeneity of the High Church tradition in Anglicanism.  Through a variety of primary and secondary sources, I have come to the conclusion that the Anglican High Church tradition is not homogeneous and therefore the particular strand known as “Anglo-Catholicism” should not be the sole proprietor of the label.  I propose that Anglo-Catholicism is only one facet of Anglican High Churchmanship which has come to dominate High Churchmanship but that does not encompass the whole of it.

The necessary question which arises in discussing churchmanship is a simple one, what is High Churchmanship?  The question might seem simple but the proposed answer is anything but simple.  Likewise, the modern association with ceremonial seems entirely inadequate and in disconnect with the original meaning of the terms.  As it has already been mentioned, Anglo-Catholicism is often equated with High Churchmanship; however, I have come to question this assertion.  I also propose a sharp historical contrast between pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship and post-Tractarian High Churchmanship, which primarily manifests itself with the appearance of Anglo-Catholicism and Ritualism.  As I mentioned above, I believe the High Church strand of thought in the Anglican tradition is anything but homogenous and I propose temporal, geographic, and theological substrata within this type of Anglican churchmanship, which I intend to explore in this work.


Historical Summary

The differences between “high” and “low” church were not necessarily evident in the time of the Reformation, but we can see a general trend of development beginning with the reforms under Henry VIII.
Most of us are familiar with Henry VIII and his dilemma with Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon, at least if you've seen the popular series, The Tudors.  Henry's role in the English Reformation is extremely complex and subject to historical interpretation beyond the scope of this work, however, it seems that he was generally in favor of modest reform while maintaining traditional ceremonial.  Many important things happened during his reign which set the stage for the further reforms under Edward VI and later monarchs.  First, Henry appointed Thomas Cranmer to the archbishopric of Canterbury on October 1, 1532, who was quickly recruited to help determine the best way forward in regards to the King’s “great matter”.  After just two years of legislation, 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 manifestations of early reform include the Dissolution of the Monasteries led by Cromwell.  Henry issued several doctrinal statements beginning with the Ten Articles of 1536 and later the Six Articles of 1539.  They were conservative documents but looked to German Lutherans for inspiration.  There wasn’t a concept of “churchmanship” as we know it during Henry’s reign but there were divides between the clergy’s reaction to the reforms.  Eamon Duffy mentions “traditionalists” and “reformists” in his book, The Stripping of the Altars:  Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580.  It is important to note that no modern church party has exclusive claim to the English Reformers, for example, it is erroneous to say that the Reformers were “Evangelicals” in the nineteenth century meaning of the term (they were “evangelical” in the sense that they loved the Gospel).  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.  However, the Elizabethan church, at least in the beginning, can hardly be classified as “Anglican” especially before the finalization of the Articles of Religion in 1571.  Hylson-Smith adds his reflection on this period of the Church, “The 'complex of ideas described by the word "Anglican" did not exist in the Elizabethan church, any more than the word did'.  The early Elizabethan church was 'an enforced coalition of contrary religious traditions and tendencies, crudely distinguishable as very protestant, not-so-protestant and crypto-papist.” (Patrick Collinson, quoted in Hylson-Smith, 3).  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 apparent at the end of Charles I’s reign.  Churchmanship at the time was beginning to develop, Davies offers a summary of the differences forming 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’ (1937:193). 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 a "high" view of the Established Church and would not tolerate deviations from the standard liturgy.  Kenneth Hylson-Smith introduces the concept of High Churchmanship around this point in the history of the Church of England,

"Certainly, prior to the Restoration, 'High Churchmanship' was largely a response to Puritanism on the one hand and Roman Catholicism on the other.  It was, to this extent, a defensive upholding of a via media, a sort of Church of England middle ground consensus, without having such a definite form and content as either Puritanism or Roman Catholicism.  Puritanism to a certain extent, but more especially Roman Catholicism, had very clear beliefs, codes of practice, and systems of authority, structures and organisation.  High Churchmanship lacked all of these marks of a fairly clearly defined tradition and school of thought, and was undoubtedly somewhat imprecise, unstructured and unselfconscious.  It has in fact been asserted that the term 'High Church Party' 'was not used in an ecclesiastical sense until the last years of the seventeenth century, and the party so described was not sufficiently distinguished from the rest of the Church of England to require a name until that time'... Throughout the latter part of the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth century High Churchmen were characerised by their opposition to Latitudinarianism and by their alliance with Toryism against Whig and nonconformist assertions..." (Hylson-Smith, introduction)

  The High Churchmen won and, weary from the Civil War and the Cromwellian period, 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 as a 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 1833, or the beginning of the Oxford Movement.  During this time the Church was battling Enlightenment issues of science and deism.  This age was generally characterized by "cautious and
Latitudinarian Anglicanism,” although this characterization has been questioned by many historians and, for all intents and purposes, it is probably a false description of this rich period of Anglican history.  It was in this climate that the clergyman, John Wesley, lived and preached.  Wesley was originally a 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."
Besides Wesley’s movement, there was a strong High Church tradition in the Church of England in the “long eighteenth century,” which grew and flourished during this period.

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.  The main problem with these terms is that are fluid and do not reflect the beliefs of English churchmen at the time.  Essentially, High Churchmen were often labeled “Arminians” to distinguish them from Calvinist clergy, while their theological system was very different from the continental system.  “English Arminianism” reflected a turn from individualistic piety and a turn to a sacramental and communal religious life.  Hylson-Smith supports this notion,

“The term Arminian has commonly been used to describe this body of anti-Calvinistic opinion, but it does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labeled… In England, although the Arminians asserted the orthodoxy of free will and universal grace, they also stressed the hierarchical nature of both church and state against the incipient egalitarianism of Calvinism… ‘the English Arminian mode, as it emerged during the 1630’s, was that of communal and ritualized worship rather than an individual response to preaching or Bible reading’” (38).

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.”

Many High Churchmen subscribed to Waterland’s thoughts on baptismal regeneration.  Waterland was a prominent theologian in the first half of the 18th century who wrote extensively on many topics including a well known defense of Trinitarianism against Arians and other heretical groups in the Church.  Waterland distinguishes between “regeneration” and “conversion” and defines baptismal regeneration as such,
“Regeneration on the part of the grantor, God Almighty, means admission or adoption into sonship, or spiritual citizenship: and on the part of the grantee, viz. man, it means his birth, or entrance into that state of sonship or citizenship. It is God that adopts or regenerates, like as it is God that justifies. Man does not adopt, regenerate, or justify himself, whatever hand he may otherwise have (but still under grace) in preparing or qualifying himself for it. God makes the grant, and it is entirely his act: man receives only, and is acted upon; though sometimes active in qualifying himself, as in the case of adults, and sometimes entirely passive, as in the case of infants. The thing granted and received is a change from the state natural into the state spiritual; a translation from the curse of Adam into the grace of Christ. This change, translation or adoption carries in it many Christian blessings and priviliges, but all reducible to two, viz. remission of sins, (absolute or conditional,) and a covenant-claim, for the time being, to eternal happiness. Those blessings may all be forfeited, or finally lost, if a person revolts from God...; and then such person is no longer in a regenerate state, or a state of sonship, with respect to any saving effects: but still God’s original grant of adoption or sonship in Baptism stands in full force, to take place as often as any such revolter shall return, and not otherwise: and if he desires to be as before, he will not want to be regenerated again, but renewed, or reformed. Regeneration complete stands in two things, which are, as it were, its two integral parts; the grant made over to the person, and the reception of that grant. The grant once made continues always the same; but the reception may vary, because it depends upon the condition of the recipient.”

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.  Hylson-Smith offers his understanding of the two strands of thought regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist,

“Two principal schools of thought guided the understanding of the Eucharist for eighteenth century High Churchmen.  The first derived from Andrewes, Overall, Heylyn, Thorndike, and Mede… found expression in works such as The Unbloody Sacrifice (1714) by John Johnson of Cranbrook.  This tradition stressed the continuity of the Eucharist with the Old Testament sacrifices, and asserted that Christ was offered in every Eucharist, not hypostatically, as supposed by the Tridentine Church of Rome, but representatively and really, ‘in mystery and effect.’ … The second school of thought was derived from Cranmer, Laud, Taylor and Cudworth and was expounded in Waterland’s Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (1737).” (85).

  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 doctrine 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).  Waterland offers the classically Anglican understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice, “The Eucharist was a commemorative and representative service, which possessed a sacrificial aspect from the remembrance of Christ’s death, and the sacramental Presence was to be understood as the virtue and grace of the Lord’s Body and Blood communicated to the worthy receiver” (quoted in Hylson-Smith, 85).  Hylson-Smith then offers his summary of Old High Church theories of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist,
“Three Eucharistic theories… “The most extreme conceived of the Eucharist as a proper and propitiatory sacrifice, in which the bread and wine were themselves offered to God as symbols of Christ’s oblation, begun not on the cross but when the rite was instituted at the Last Supper… A broader band of High Church opinion affirmed that the Eucharist was a commemorative or memorial sacrifice: one by which, in the word of Prebendary George Berkeley, Christians do not ‘barely commemorate their Saviour’s death’, but also ‘powerfully plead in the court of heaven the merits of his vicarious sufferings’… Thirdly, there were many eighteenth century divines who were anxious to uphold the sacrificial character of the Lord’s Supper, but who took special pains to guard against any suggestion that the Holy Communion service possessed any virtue of its own distinct from the one, sufficient sacrifice once offered on Calvary.  They regarded the Eucharist as a feast upon that sacrifice: a banquet in which the faithful communicant made a covenant with his God by doing symbolically what Jewish and pagan sacrificers had effected literally, namely consuming a portion of the victim slain” (95, 96).


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 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 18th century and early 19th 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.