When push comes to shove, either the Affirmation or Articles have to give way. A couple scenarios unfold regarding the Continuum’s future based on how the Affirmation is treated. If the Affirmation is read a nominal way, then the ACC will harden and isolate itself against this trend. However, APA or UEC might be able to take the lead, leaving a better possibility for a classical reading of the 39 Articles as well as eventual dialog with larger Anglicanism. If a strict reading of the Affirmation prevails, then the ACC will remain the center of a the Continuing movement, enforcing a rather rigid policy of ‘non-involvement’ or ecclesiastical embargo with lesser continuing churches against Lambeth related churches. This will resign the continuum to relative isolation and irrelevance.

In other words, a strict reading of the Affirmation cannot coexist with the grammatical one of the 39 Articles. This is why ACC lacks might be considered an orthodox Solemn Declaration. AB Haverland has said, again and again, the 39 articles have no normative authority in the ACC.

Robinson 2 Hardwick:
A couple years ago I contacted Bishop Robinson inquiring about UECNA standards, wanting to know their relative ranking. AB Robinson’s answer was surprising. Without hesitation he placed the 39 articles on top, then prayer book, and last Andrewes’ formula. I recall in between these major items Robinson provided other known documents like Homilies, canons, etc. However, the order of the first and last shocked me because it was not what I was accustomed within the Continuing church, namely, modern catholicism trumpeting particular formulae.

Furthermore, when it comes to embracing Anglican particulars, modern Anglicans usually prefer the Prayer Book over the Articles. This is likely a prejudice stemming from late-19th century liberal Catholicism which “dispersed” authority away from the confessional statements of the Settlement toward less definitive liturgical forms of Creed and Eucharist.

“A second commonly mentioned stylistic characteristic of Anglican identity is the fact that authority in Anglicanism is a dispersed authority.  As delineated by a statement of bishops to the 1948 Lambeth Conference, authority is dispersed or distributed among Scripture, tradition, creeds, the ministry of the word and sacraments, the witness of the saints, and the consensus fidelium, liturgy being the crucible in which these elements of authority are unified.  This notion of dispersed authority is important because depending on how highly these authorities are valued and how they are valued relative to one another, Anglicanism might be described in very different terms; this is especially true if Scripture is seen as only one among many dispersed authorities of equal importance and its normative authority thereby diminished.”

Liberal Catholicism tends to radicalize the ‘incarnation‘ by equating  knowledge to mystical experience, sacramental union, and real presence. The trade off is when confronted by more systematic counter-reformation or certain tridentine dogma, Anglicanism has almost no rejoinder aside from a lipid and rearguard ‘comprehension’. It tends to buckle because it refuses to sort out its own contradictions. The Reverend Charles Erlandson explains,

“Stylistic definitions by their very nature also tend to be vague.  For example, when the idea of comprehension is enlarged from meaning a comprehension of both Catholic and Protestant principles (a generally useful stylistic definition) to meaning the kind of comprehension or toleration in which contradictory ideas are all seen as true, then a common, clear identity becomes difficult to maintain, and clear norms are undermined.”

Worst, unbridled Incarnationalism opens-wide unbridled ‘experience’ as a dynamic source of doctrine, justifying “charismatic reception” or the ‘holy spirit’ acting often very differently from scripture or tradition. We might wonder if Christ’s incarnation wasn’t circumscribed by forms of humiliation, destined to the Cross, suffering under the law, etc.. Normally, incarnation is constrained by the moral law which dictates blood for sin. Consequently, revelation is likewise constrained by logos. Anyway, Robinson’s strong conviction in the articles even above BCP was refreshing because it didn’t strum to catholic mysticism.

If the Articles are given the kind of priority Robinson suggests, how should they be interpreted? I recently came across some advice that reminded me of this conversation while reading Hardwick’s History of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, 2nd ed. (1863). First of all, Hardwick is not suggesting the Articles are a substitute for Catholic faith or in anyway pits the two against each other. Hardwick begins his book by assuring the intent of reformers was to restore primitive doctrine,

“They [reformers] did not wish to break away in a schismatic temper from the rest of Christendom, but only to extinguish the unlawful jurisdiction of the proud and bold usurper, and, by following in the footsteps of the primitive church, to rescue for their nation many a pure and evangelic element of faith, of feeling, and of ritual” (p. 10)

However, the articles of a national synod do not make them any less catholic:

“Nor in asserting this great principle of national independence did our legislators overstep the powers which had been claimed and exercised by the domestic synods of the best and purest ages. Till the founding and consolidation of the papal monarchy such bodies had been always held not only competent but morally responsible for the correction of all heresies and errors which sprang up in a particular Church.” p.4

The Articles provide a map through the enormities of the Roman church as well as the Radical reformation. They also rule out certain Swiss teachings more typical of Zwingli.  However, the problem has been reading doctrine into the articles that is basically absent. Anglo-catholic critics have blamed ambiguities on the Articles’ comprehension on politics. This is a very fallacious accusation not usually challenged  by reasoned systematic of the Settlement. However, Hardwick  is aware of pitfalls. The Articles cannot be read in isolation. Hardwick suggests the following historical method of interpretation, and we should especially consider this if the Articles are to be given a priority:

“First, to weigh the history of Reformation movement in the midst of which the Articles had been produced.

Secondly, to read them in this light, approximating as far as possible to the particular point of view which had been occupied by all the leading compilers.

Thirdly, to interpret the language of the formulary in its plain and grammatical sense (i.e., the sense which it had borne in the Edwardine and Elizabethan periods of the church), bestowing on it ‘the just and favorable construction, which ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority.

Fourthly, where the language of the Articles is vague, or where (as might have been expected of their history) we meet with a comparative silence in respect of any theological topic, to ascertain the fuller doctrine of the Church of England on that point, by reference to here other symbolic writings– the Prayer, Book, the Ordinal, the Homilies, and the Canons.

Fifthly, where these sources have been tried without arriving at explicit knowledge as to the intention of any article, to acquiesce in the deductions which the ‘the catholic doctors and ancient bishops’ have expressly gathered on that point from Holy Scripture; in accordance with the recommendation of the Canon of 1571, in which subscription to the present Articles had been enjoined upon the clergy.” p. 221

Comments:
An amazing feature of Hardwick’s canon is the regard for the Reformation period. It’s pure fiction to distance the protestantism of Anglican divines by treating them aloof from events on the continent. Hardwick does fairly well documenting the official conferences between held by Henry’s delegates with Lutherans. This occurred at an  early phase of Article development and therefore left an indelible mark. The Henrician church sustained a special interest in Saxony:

“No one can deny that the compilers of the Forty-Two articles in the reign of Edward VI drew largely from the Lutheran formulary  probable that such derivation, instead of being direct, took place entirely through the medium of the Anglo-German channel.” (p. 61)

Ironically, a study of Reformation churches provides the most powerful argument against calvinist influence since the bulk of the Articles predate the rise of Geneva. Thus, the late-Henrician and early-Edwardine become a reservoir for conservatism that Elizabeth and Stuarts  would draw upon. Few traditional Anglicans take advantage of these histories because their assumption is Cranmer or the Tudors squarely appeased the ‘puritan’.

The 1625 Declaration warned Anglicans to read the Articles in their “plain and grammatical sense”. The grammatical approach, in addition to the intertextual comparison with other confessions, was another hedge against puritanism, “when they [supports of the Declaration] urged that ‘calvinism’ is not accordant with the letter of the articles, and cannot be deduced from them by any of the rules which judges commonly apply to the interpretation of a legal document” (p. 206).

The convenience of royal seal is usually lost upon Anglicans who are accustom to ‘free church’ where the faith of the Christian prince is suspect of flimflam or ‘compromise’. Hardwick recommends writings “especially such as are set forth by authority” deserve special attention. In the case of the Reformation church of England, being ‘set forth’ meant a document had royal approval. Authoritative texts are therefore easily recognized by royal warrant, the foremost being (in the order of their genesis) 39 Articles, canons, bible, ordinal, prayer book, and two books of homilies. Against our own prosperity, we flippantly disregard what nursing parents of old worked to establish in our church, namely, articles of belief for the sake of concord and quiet.

The last two points generally follow Frere’s Rule of Analogy. The prayer book is never taken alone but measured by both explicit and implicit texts. Explicit includes the faire mentioned above but also less recognized texts such as the homilies and canons. The homilies are really the next best thing to a national catechism, containing much practical and hortative material. Injunctions likewise shed light on certain theological points. Both the 1604 and 1640 canons provide surprisingly long rationale for bowing at the Name, reverencing altars, and crossings. It was often the case when prayer book revision was politically unfeasible corrections were made to rubric through canons. Many of the changes in the 1662 were put into the 1559 acts. A good example being the ornament’s rubric.

It is curious this St. Vincent’s rule or the allusion to  the 1571 canon comes at the end as our final security when other means are less perceptible. The Affirmation also invokes the Vincentian canon. But the ACC understands this to include a wide swath of post-patristic tradition. Anglican divinity appears a bit more skeptical, limiting ‘reliable centuries‘ to undisputed ecumenical councils with little confidence beyond the seventh century. Later Anglo-catholics attempt to extend reliability well into the medieval period which tends to open questionable doors that undermine the very reason for the Articles. Consequently, the reformation applies the test of six centuries keeping whatever is  ”consonant” with that period in the Western Church. For this reason Andrewes’ formula is usually more clear than St. Vincent’s.

Conclusion:
I’ve found this  historical method to be fairly accurate. It is certainly is better than the ‘incarnation’ or ‘apostolic’ kind that liberal catholics prefer. This latter sorts is quick to discard the Settlement as peculiar, adopting minimalist ‘experiental’ Creedal approach that leaves huge gaps in Anglican theology against the counter-reformation, or is some cases radicalism, that is typically filled in by neo-marxism or Roman Catholicism.

Finally, the Affirmation vs. Solemn Declarations will eventually come to a head. Either the Affirmation’s take on sacraments will be read nominally or the 39 articles will become Tract 90.  Historical method instructs us how the Book of Articles are read in order to preclude both Newman’s error and Puritan embellishment. Confidence in the Settlement is the gateway by which the rest of the Continuing movement might unfetter itself from intransigent aspects of St. Louis and thereby influence and inspire larger North American Anglicanism in a leaven-like fashion.

APA's New Logo

* AR usually avoids news items, but this event will likely have consequences in North American Anglicanism that will last for some time.

The World Consultation of Continuing Anglican Churches, held Nov. 3-5th 2011, recently provided a showcase of ‘lesser’ St. Louis jurisdictions in North America. In attendance were ACA, APA, and DHC. Surprisingly, two of the ‘big three’ churches (PCK, UEC) were absent. Mark Haverland, as the Archbishop of the ACC, represented the mainline of the  St. Louis Congress. The Consultation itself was hosted by the Anglican Church in America (ACA) which recently declined membership in the Roman Ordinariate allowing ACA’s anglo-papist wing to go their own way.

The Consultation wasn’t unique. Back in 1999, the same “lesser” St. Louis churches were represented at Bartonville where unity in the continuing movement was likewise considered. The first Bartonville gathering occured with the witness of REC. Bartonville would eventually loose momentum, later gaining a second wind in FACA. But FACA’s  involvement in ACNA has caused some to move away from REC toward the St. Louis’ “big three” (1), changing their point of unity from a revised 1893 Solemn Declaration to the St. Louis Affirmation. This signals a new direction for Bartonville churches but not without painful withdrawals from FACA-style ecumenicism.

Bartonville’s Helm:
The genealogy of Continuing jurisdictions is complex. Rather than get entangled in their long history of in-and-out turf wars, the “lesser” St. Louis jurisdictions basically stem from parishes that left TEC between 1963-1974, mainly under the auspices of clergy like James P. Dees, Anthony Clavier, and  James George. These bodies kept to a more ‘protestant’  identity than ACC, openly admitting the 39 articles into their standards while placing little emphasis on the St. Louis Affirmation. Through a series of splits and mergers, many of these pre-St. Louis churches eventually found their way into the 1977  Congress bodies. A fairly decent example of extant pre-St. Louis churchmanship might be read in the 1999 Articles of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (click link, scroll down) signed at Bartonville. Readers also might notice the commonality of these articles with Solemn Declarations frequently used in North America. To avoid any insinuation of insult, this essay hence forth shall refer to “lesser” St. Louis churches as the Bartonville Convocation(2).

In 1990 at Deerfield Beach Bp. Anthony Clavier (AEC), along with Louis Falk (ACC), merged the pre-St. Louis (AEC) and Affirmation churches (ACC) together forming the ACA. After a coterie of bishops led by Falk seized control of the newly formed ACA, Clavier’s ‘low church’ diocese was expelled (3). Clavier’s suffragan, Bishop Grundorf, turned this diocese into the APA. Meanwhile, the ACA bishops slowly marched toward Rome, taken what they could from the merged ACC and AEC parishes, planning to enlarge the Pope’s 1980 pastoral provision. Since the Provision’s evolution into Anglican Coetibus, three-quarters of the ACA reversed course, leaving the papist clergy to fend for themselves at the door of Cardinal Wuerl.

Among the handful of bishops who refused to cross the Tiber, the rev. Brian Marsh  led the retreat. Marsh has described the Ordinariate a catalyst for the ACA’s return to the continuing movement. An immediate result of this return has been restoring ties with APA. At this year’s Reaffirmation Congress Marsh said,

“We might have gone on our merry way. Except that a year and a half ago, we received something called Anglicanorum Coetibusor the Apostolic Constitution. It has been called a great gift. And it Is! It is a great gift to the Anglican world because it has asked us to look at ourselves and to decide, with God’s help, whether we are truly Anglican or not. Anglicanorum Coetibus has demanded that we consider whether the Anglican world is worth preserving—or whether it might better be folded into the welcoming arms of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The ACA’s  intercommunion pact with APA is likely the biggest event to hit the Continuing movement since Deerfield Beach. It poses to place ACA-APA back at the helm of traditional Anglicanism. With that prestige, ACA-APA might eventually pull ahead the ACC as the Continuum’s flagship. This could take traditional Anglicanism in a different direction other than the “non-involvement” policy ACC would have against non-Affirmation churches. Given the history of APA, there might even be a consideration to move toward ACNA. However, this would require breaking ranks from the St. Louis churches since ACC has maintained a strict policy of shunning groups that depart from the Affirmation, particularly with bishops who are in communion with WO.  In order to appreciate the difference between ACA-APA and ACC, an overview of ACC policy is in order.

ACC Policy of Shunning:
Based on numerous statements by ACC, + Haverland has articulated a rather steady excommunication policy rooted in two principles.
1) Unity with ACC is unconditional, based on the Affirmation as normally interpreted by ACC C&C. There can be no nominal or qualified acceptance. At the Consultation Haverland said,

” It is not enough for us to ask for a positive statement of faith from each other under current circumstances. We may accept the Affirmation of Saint Louis nominally while undermining its substance by treating some of its vital points as inessential…The ACC is quite clear on this point. While we are happy to talk with anyone, full communion with our interlocutors will require acceptance of a hard-line similar to the one we have adopted, lest bad theology drive out the good that we have embraced. That is what I mean by theological integrity on the basis of the Affirmation of Saint Louis. For us this issue will quickly come forward in all of our ecumenical conversations ”

But, the Affirmation deals with a lot more than disavowing Women’s Ordination. The Affirmation opens a rather wide door for ‘holy’ Tradition. According to Haverland, accepting ‘central tradition’ means Anglicans acquiesce to certain dogmas now shared between post-patristic  Orthodoxy and Romanism. The consequences of appropriating medieval Tradition past seven centuries Haverland seems somewhat indifferent, “In the long run this principle will impel Anglican Catholics towards the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches, and that is entirely appropriate” (p. 6, Keynote Address 1006)

Particular suspicion might be given to the Affirmation’s statement on seven sacraments and councils,  ”If asserting ‘seven and seven’ is in some sense an Anglican novelty, we are, again, not concerned” (Address June 2 2011). Several problems derive from ‘seven and seven’ . The language of the Affirmation, especially with respect to the enumeration of sacraments, is largely unnecessary and provocative. Terms like ‘effacious’ and  ’objective’ are used to ascribe natures akin to the Supper and Baptism to church rite like marriage and confirmation. By enshrining these idiosyncrasies the Affirmation forces a wedge with classical formulas. Haverland insists,

“Anglicanism can only continue in a form that is clearly both Catholic and Orthodox and which submits Anglican formularies and all that is peculiarly Anglican to the higher authority of the consensus of the central Catholic Tradition…How many sacraments are there? Anglican formularies suggest that there are ‘two only’. Many Anglican theologians say, ‘There are two only that are generally necessary for salvation, but there are five others.’ But Rome and the Orthodox and the Affirmation of St. Louis all say clearly and unambiguously, ‘seven’. So seven is the answer. So too with the number of ecumenical councils. So too with the real, objective presence of our Lord in the Eucharistic elements quite apart form the subjectivity of the recipients of the sacrament. So too with the invocation of the prayers of our Lady and of all saints. ” (p. 5, Keynote Address 2006).

Taking ‘Central Tradition’ as  Orthodoxy with Romes’ post-patristic consensus basically eviscerates justification-in-worship as understood by historic Anglican  standards, leaving the 39 articles contradicted and prayer book incoherent. The ACC is able to reconcile Settlement standards to medieval doctrine by giving ‘supplementary texts’, namely, the Missal, Affirmation, and their C&C.  Among the “big three”,  the ACC drives theology, and anyone who wants a part of St. Louis must unambiguously accept ACC formula.

2.) the ACC requires possible jurisdictions in communion with St. Louis churches to maintain strict shunning (excommunication) against ‘non-apostolic’ organizations like ACNA. Haverland explains this second article:

“For the ACC full communio in sacris requires adherence to the Affirmation, and that in turn means no communion with either the ordainers of women or with those who are in communion with the ordainers of women… the bad theology that it [WO] implies was not definitively rejected by the majority [Lambeth or ACNA] through the explicit breaking of communion with the innovators and by the explicit breaking of communion with those who tolerated the innovation.”

There is no third position. There’s no pro-active to way to tackle ‘bad theology’ through secondary mediations like ministry partnership or speaking at mutual synods. No other choice but complete banishment.Shunning prevents work for greater reformation inside sick communions . There is no middle state between spiritual death and life. The Bishops of Quincy, Diocese of Fort Worth, and REC are all anathema.

Even more shocking, the ACC has basically excommunicated every Anglican that’s not from the Chamber’s line. The Athen’s statement  for all apparent purposes drives ACC ecumenicalism:

“We repeat that the Anglican Catholic Church is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, and with its two related jurisdictions remains, in its claims to the loyalty of orthodox Anglicans, the sole legitimate successor to the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church in the USA and certain other apostate Churches of the “Anglican Communion.” It is not a congregationalist sect and still less an ad hoc “movement” or part of such a movement. Accordingly, we must say in all humility that no matter how sincere their founders, that the multiplicity of other bodies claiming to be “Continuing Anglican Churches” established apart from the Anglican Catholic Church has arisen in grave violation of those canons of the ancient Church which declare it a sin to to establish an altar in rivalry to that of one’s legitimate bishop and entirely without the benefit of the Catholic doctrine of economy. The onus is upon them to prove otherwise.”

This theoretically leaves Haverland as the sole patriarch of worldwide Anglicanism. Additionally, if canonical territories are taken seriously, as done with Eastern churches, the ACC would have first bids by inheritance through the Church of England, leaving all catholicism in North America properly under ACC. Anyway, the implications are fantastic.

Bartonville Frustrates:
However, the ACC finds itself in a tenuous position where it must diplomatically enforce an embargo among Bartonville churches that have a greater imprint from Clavier’s dynamic brinkmanship rather than Haverland’s strict “non-involvement”. The Bartonville keynote speakers must have put the Archbishop on edge, reminding ACC that FACA’s shadow persists. Especially painful must have been Bishop Hewett’s (DHC) repeated praise of ACNA affiliated groups during the Consultation’s plenary address,

“ Today I bring you greetings from Bp. Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith, North America. He would very much like to be with us, but sends his regrets. We just had several days together in London at the Forward in Faith Assembly. He will convey my regrets to next week’s Forward in Faith Council Meeting, and so you see how we are covering for each other now. Dr. Wallace Spalding, President of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen (FCC), also sends his best wishes and regrets.”

Bishop Ackerman is the Ordinary an ACNA diocese in Illinois while Dr. Wallace Spaulding also wrote a rather scathing report in 2009 about the Continuum’s isolation. Hewett went on dropping more unspeakable names; most blasphemous was likely +Ray Sutton,

“The ACNA’s Ecumenical Relations Task Force, under the brilliant leadership of Bp. Ray Sutton of the REC, has brought us into partnership with the LCMS, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), Roman Catholics, evangelical protestants and Messianic Jews.”

It sounds like  the ACNA’s Ecumenical Task Force has managed to keep FACA alive, or, at least, DHC is very involved. After acclaiming the work of the Task Force,  Hewett commended the chief realignment organization GAFCON,

“What Rome is asking of the bulk of us is first, to get our act together in the great re-alignment. This convergence has been accelerating since the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in 2008. First, we get our act together. Secondly, we clean up our act. Anglican dioceses that ordain women have to stop and reform and get it right on holy orders. The Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, comprised of six continuing bodies, is working to magnify the biblical office of deaconess. As the priestess door closes, the deaconess door opens. We can magnify women’s ministries based on Scripture and Tradition: deaconesses, catechists, nuns, Church Army officers, lay canonesses, and above all, wives and mothers. And we have to get it right on holy matrimony.”

This language is the exact opposite Haverland wanted to disseminate among Continuers, especially since Haverland’s speech was directed mostly to APA who publicly remains a ministry partner with ACNA-REC. Though not as giddy, AB Grundorf likewise dropped the FACA name at the Consultation,

“At the present time, this Body is a con-federation rather than a Province and it remains to be seen what it may development into. Some of us who are members of the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA) are in a “ministry partnership” with the ACNA.”

ACC has some troubles. It must maintain rank discipline and enforce an anathema among churches usually considered outside the “big three’s” immediate scope of influence. This is not going to be easy given the habit of ecumenicalism pre-St. Louis churches indulged upon. Indeed, section V of the unaltered-Affirmation permits relations with “faithful parts” of Canterbury’s communion, and, as Bishop Boyce commented in his letter 2009, ‘there are many back doors of entry between continuing and lambeth churches’.

Furthermore, ACC is trying to raise the Affirmation as the sole banner of subscription between churches that are closer to ‘Bartonville’ than St. Louis. The Bartonville churches treat the 39 articles in very broad ways. This ‘broadness’ is a two-way street for ACC since it applies to the Affirmation as much as the 39. The ACC claims the Affirmation can comprehend a tract 90-style accounting of the 39, yet it warns more protestant-minded churchmen the 39 possess no authority apart from the Affirmation. Can pre-St. Louis churches give more than nominal assent to the Affirmation, and, if not, what can persuade them to consistently shun ACNA?

Spirit of St. Louis:   Whether Bishop Brian Marsh decides to recognize ACC’s boycott and keep rank will decide if the remainder of Bartonville churches will cooperate with ACC’s strict terms. If ACA surged toward ACNA, the rest of Bartonville would likely follow. This in turn would likely bring more than a few evangelical parishes out from the St. Louis churches. Another big determinant will be if Fifna and REC together can achieve a partial roll-back of WO and 1979 BCP. At the Victoria conference earlier this year Marsh shared his opinion on Anglican orthodoxy:

“ As Continuing Anglicans, we also have the Affirmation of St. Louis. And, whether we accept them with enthusiasm, mild interest or disdain, we do have the Articles of Religion. While we could add more documents, such as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which attempted to define (however broadly) the essence of Anglicanism, these several documents point us on our way. Anglicanism cannot be pinned down with Scholastic particularity. It is elusive. It is a little like jazz. I happen to be a fan of jazz. And I am quite sure God is, too… This evening, I do not ask anyone here to sign great charters or to effect grand mergers or to come together under the leadership of some great uber Anglican primate. Let’s face it; that’s not Anglican. We couldn’t tolerate that. “

Is Marsh describing a more or less broad or open churchmanship? And is this something Haverland can rely upon? Much of this boils down to a single question: Should the Continuing movement define itself by the Affirmation, as read through the ACC’s C&C, or by a Solemn Declaration that somehow affirms 39 articles with a nominal understanding of St. Louis. At the Consultation, Marsh said,

“We need to take the 39 Articles seriously and Newman’s Tract 90 the purpose of which was to establish the contention that the fundamental ecclesiological identity of the Church of England was Catholic rather than Protestant. He has given us a way to talk to one another.”

The ACC  solved this dilemma by scuttling the authority of the 39 articles in favor of an Anglicanized old catholicism.  APA-ACA resolved tension by proclaiming both 39 and Affirmation in their SD’s while nominalizing either one or the other. The APA seems to favor the 39 articles since its SD reads, “And We are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain… the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1801; and in the spirit of the Affirmation of St. Louis of 1977; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity”. Notice, “the spirit of”.

Conclusion:
Bartonville and FACA still cast a shadow on the Continuum being led by the ‘big three’, and if the rally point should be by Solemn Declaration or Affirmation(4). If Solemn Declarations structured along the 1893 archetype prevail, then broadness will follow unless reference to the Affirmation is either completely dropped or left so weak that it becomes negligible. Or, the Affirmation itself will be amended to read different from Tract 90 (see my asterisk proposal).

Though APA/ACA are fairly broad in churchmanship, on the whole they are also very conservative and would keep the 1928 BCP and exclusive male orders in the last instance. If historic Solemn Declarations become the normal way to define traditional Anglicanism, then what barrier is there with churches inside ACNA like Fifna or REC? As Wallace Spaulding indicated in his 2009 Anglican Scholar Report, the participation of Continuing churches like APA and/or ACA inside ACNA would have completely tipped the scale against WO priestesses in ACNA’s early days. Furthermore, ACNA is much more a federation than something canonically united, and this allows new members to find several ways to relate, often by flying dioceses. Either way, these questions are coming to a head between the respective Bartonville and St. Louis churches, and how the Affirmation is dealt with will determine what role Bartonville Anglicans will play in ACNA.

Notes:
(1.) the ‘big three’ refer to those Episcopates created in 1977 by retired PEC bishop Albert Chambers. These would be PCK, ACC, and UEC. UEC left ACC in 1981 over romanized C&C, and today it remains fairly evangelical, probably closer to APA in churchmanship than ACC. In 2006 UEC Bishop Reber signed an intercommunion pact with ACC recognizing the Affirmation while placing ng UEC on ‘rapid merger’. This pact somewhat kept UEC tied to the mast of the ACC flagship despite AB Peter Robinson’s recent backing out’ instead, proposing a federation between St. Louis Churches . Robinson is a proponent in a nominal understanding of the Affirmation saying, “The United Episcopal Church of North America came into being to represent the “minimalist” interpretation of the Affirmation. In short, the new Continuing Church was the old Protestant Episcopal Church without the heresy and goofiness. To this end, the UECNA adopted, with very little adaption, the 1958 PECUSA Constitution and Canons as its administrative standard, and required a specific undertaking to abide by the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion from its clergy.” (News from UECNA, 6/1o)
(2.) Bess described churches of the same ‘low church’ brand as the Bartonville Convocation as the “Southern Phalanx”. Peter Robinson characterizes the mid-fifties and sixties episcopalians who eventually left TEC as mostly central churchmen. I am trying to obtain a copy of AEC’s 1968 Solemn Declaration which precedes St. Louis and ACA/APA.  Dee’s 1964 AOC SD would be gold.
(3) I stand corrected on this point. From a friend:
“A little correction on the split within ACA.  DEUS was not formally expelled from the ACA.  They did leave because Falk tried to hijack the election of Grundorf as Clavier’s successor.  Some of this has to do with Falk usurping responsibility over the eastern province of the new ACA.  Yes, originally, the ACA was a two-province Church.  After the fall of Clavier, the senior bishop was Chamberlain of DNE.  Falk usurped, as I said.  DEUS refused to allow this and found it wiser to leave. 
Other parishes transferred allegiance to DEUS, which then erected the APA and later hived off the non-DEUS parishes into another diocese or two. Now, Hanlon was the other former AEC bishop; he went over to APA with Grundorf.  I lost track of him shortly thereafter. 
Once the main factions involved here (ACA and APA in particular) get sorted out over the Affirmation, then some of the others (EMC, UEC, etc), including the splinters, can see their way more clearly to work out some sense of inter-communion.  They all have so much in common, really.”
(4) The ACC has a solemn declaration, but it’s composition is alien to the 1893 archetype. For all intents and purposes, it’s more accurate to call the ACC SD an affirmation of the Affirmation. It adds very strong apostolic succession language pointing to the Athens Statement.

Archbishop Matthew Parker

The 1571 canon is frequently quoted without reference to the context of the Book of Discipline wherein it’s found. Introduced by Parker, and perhaps inscribed by Elizabeth herself, the canons passed the southern convocation of Canterbury and the Bishops of York added their signatures. However, it never gained ratification  from the Queen, or the entire realm, who preferred leaving normal church matters to the Archbishops. Consequently, the legal history of the canon is similar to the Book of Advertisements; mostly, they are diocesan and regional Articles, adopted by Canterbury and London with less impact elsewhere. But the canons provide the earliest terms of subscription prior to Whitgift’s three-articles.

Unfortunately, the 1571 canon was somewhat embellished by 19th-century Tractarians to loosen the terms of subscription vis-a-vis the Thirty-Nine Articles. However, when the canon’s actual paragraph is read, it’s hard to disentangle the catholic fathers from maintaining the Articles.  The frequently invoked mandate to keep England’s doctrine catholic, well-known by traditionalists, is first given:

“But cheifly they shall take heed, that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe, and believe, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old Testament, and the new, and that which the catholic fathers, and ancient bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.” (The Canons of 1571, p. 76)

This is where reference to the 1571 canon often stops, but the paragraph immediately continues by praising the points of Settlement:

“And because those articles of Christian religion, agreed upon by the Bishops in lawful, and godly convocation, and by their commandment, and authority of our noble princess Elizabeth assembled and holden, undoubtedly are gathered out of the holy books of the old, and new Testament, and in all points agree with the heavenly doctrine contained in them: because also the book of common prayers, and the book of the consecration of Archbishops, Bishops, Ministers and Deacons, contain nothing repugnant to the same doctrine, whosoever shall be sent to teach the people, shall not only in their preaching, but also by subscription confirm the authority, and truth of those articles. He that doth otherwise, or troubleth the people with contrary doctrine, shall be excommunicated.” (p. 76-78)

These two quotes are probably best understood as a single directive, namely, the articles and other formulae provide a reliable and authoritative witness to catholic faith, and nothing contrary to them can be instructed.  ”Pray behold and see”, says Parker, on addressing the ejected Marian bishops in 1560, “how we of the Church of England, reformed by our late king Edward and his clergy, and now by her Majesty and hers reviving the same, have but imitated and followed the example of the ancient and worthy fathers.” (Hardwick, p. 116) Meanwhile, the “articles” spoken are likely the 1562. But “articles” might also be understood in a wider sense as the sum of standards approved by Crown and convocation between 1559-1562 as terms of subscription; in other words, the Ordinal, Book of Articles, and Prayer Book. The 1571 canon is the first to require clerical subscription. However, the idea of binding clergy to doctrinal standards began at the start of Tudor reformation which tended to be more severe than what was expected after 1571, requiring clergy to read Articles (this would have been the Ten or Eleven if before 1562) twice a year in place of a sermon (Hardwick, p. 118).  Subscription was slightly more gentle, giving ministerial licence upon signature. In the 1580′s, the canon would be better known as the ‘three-articles’  introduced by Whigtgift, but not until 1605 would it be formally adopted in the Northern Convocation of York,  given in the 36th canon ecclesiastical. Nevertheless, the 1571 book gives a vital context by which the three-articles (both Canterbury’s 1584 and later the realm of England in 1604) required understanding, soundly basing England in the doctrine and practice of the primitive church.

Chained Version:
Though Elizabeth initially left the 1571 untouched to be voluntarily approved by dioceses and provinces, the canon eventually acquired an arguable yet indirect form of royal assent through terms of subscription mentioned above, in 1584 and then 1604.  Another avenue of approval for the 1571 comes through the preface of Jewel’s Works (which included the Apology and Defense) written by Richard Bancroft. Bancroft had this to say about England’s profession,

“this is and hath been the open profession of the Church of England, to defend and maintain no other Church, Faith, and Religion, than that which is truly Catholic and Apostolic, and for such warranted, not only by the written word of God, but also by the testimony and consent of the ancient and godly Fathers.” 

This edition of the Works was commanded to be set or “chained” in the churches alongside the Bishop’s Bible, suggesting its relative importance as a standard. Combined with Jewel’s greater manuscript, the 1571 canon therefore explains our standard methodology, this being the witness of the first few centuries.  This latter exhortation is a reference to what would be known as Andrewes’ formula rather than the Vincentian canon (which often fails to discriminate late-antique and medieval centuries).  Anyway, the 1571 canon compelled subscription because the points of Settlement precisely agreed with the Word of God as well as the ancient Fathers. However, the 1571 book at no point alienates the protestant Settlement from the catholic faith– something missed by anglo-catholics when invoking Elizabeth’s canon.

Miscellaneous Items:
The 1571 canons are overwhelmingly preoccupied with  subscription formulae and scrutinizing clergy for proper letters. There are some curiosities within the 1571 aside from issues with conformity to articles. The following misc. canon are also from William E. Collins’ The Canons of 1571 in English and Latin , London (1899). These quotes are interesting as snap shots for England’s former strictness and intensity with faith.

• An ordinance testifying that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was likewise an important, probably tertiary standard, for the church:

p.  30 “Every Archbishop and bishop shall have in his house, the Holy Bible in the largest volume, as it was lately printed at London, and also that full and perfect history, which is entitled Monuments of Martyrs, and other such like books, fit for the sitting forth of religion” .

• p. 56-58, An ordinance demonstrating 16th century moral instruction in preparation for Holy Communion:

“They shall admonish the people to come often to ye holy Communion, and that before, they prepare themselves with a perfect mind, as it is fit. And that all may understand, what duty they owe to God, what duty to the prince, whom they ought to love and reverence as the vicar of God, what they owe to the laws, what to magistrates, what to their brethern, what to the people of God: they shall be ready in the churches straight afternoon, every Sunday and Holy Day, and there at the least they shall read two hours, and teach the Catechism, and therein shall instruct, all their flock of what age or degree soever, not only maidens and children, but also the elder, if need be.  But especially they shall warn young folks, not only men, but also women, that it is provided by the laws, that none of them may either receive the holy Communion, or be married, or undertake for a child in baptism, except before they have learned the principles of Christian religion, and can not fitly and aptly answer to all parts of the Catechism.”

• p. 66-68,  A description of the Warden’s policing power, and how it cooperated between local and dioscesan authorities . In this instance, the ordinance speaks against drunks who miss preaching or communion services. It then covers other types of scandals:

“If any do contrary, upon contempt or stubborness, they shall present both him, and them whom he received, personally in the next visitation. If any offend their brethern, either by manifest adultery, or whoredom, or incest, or drunkenness, or much swearing, or bawdry, or usury, or any other uncleanness and wickedness of life, let the churchwardens warn them brotherly and friendly, to amend. Which except they do, they shall personally show them to the parson, vicar, or curate, that they may be warned more sharply and vehemently of them:  and if they continue so still, let them be driven from the holy Communion, till they be reformed. And that all which live unchastly and loosely, be punished by the severity of the laws, according to their deserts. The same churchwardens shall present those adulterers, whoremongers, incestuous, drunkards, swearers, bawds, and usurers in the Bishops and Archdeacons’ visitations.”

• p. 72, The Warden could charge and present bawdy priests to Bishops for trial. Even more amazing was the level of scrutiny English Bishops kept over their clerics, recording and dating sermons in the cathedral, etc.:

 ”But if the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, behave himself otherwise in his ministry, or that he read ill, darkly, and confusedly, or that he live more losely, and licentiously then is fit for a man of that calling, and thereby great offence be taken: the churchwardens shall speedly present him to the Bishop, that by and by he may be punished, and amendment of his fault may follow. And the Bishop shall understand, what sermons are made in every church of his diocese: the churchwardens shall see, that the names of all preachers, which come to them from any other place, be noted in a book, which they shall have ready for that purpose, and that every preacher subscribe his name in that book, and the name of the bishop, of whom he had licence to preach”

• p. 92-94, A Form of Sentence for Excommunication, somewhat clarifying article 33, “Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided”.  The example is of an absconded adulterer:

” for that cause he is cited to the bishops consistory, that his notorious disorder may some way be punished. And because the foresaid A.B. through guiltiness of his wickedness, hath refused to appear at the day lawfully named, and stubbornly hath withdrawn himself from Justice, and by his example hath harted others to the like stubbornness, therefore, this I further warn you, that our bishop, by the name and authority of the most might God, hath excommunicated him from all company of the church of God, and hath cut him off as a dead member, from the body of Christ: In this state, and in so great danger of his soul is he at this time. S. Paul being taught by the inspiration of the holy ghost, commandeth that we eschew the fellowship, and company of such men, lest we be partakers of the same wickedness. Yet, as Christian charity warneth us, because he will not prayer for himself, neither understandeth his danger, let us all in his name pray unto God, that once he may acknowledge his misery and filthiness of life, and may repent, and turn unto God. For our God is merciful, and can call them from death, that were fallen.”

Some Thoughts:
Unfortunately, the 1571 canon is often misused. Contrary to popular application, it immediately invokes Settlement articles in the same breath it speaks of catholic faith. More so, the entire book of discipline 1571 was really a prescription compelling clergy to assent to the Articles, Ordinal, and Prayer Book– what would be later known as the 36th canon of the Church of England. The 1571 is often used in contexts other than what Parker intended, and for this reason the full text was posted.

A last thought and worthy recollection is the 1571 might can be read as a prologue to primary English standards. In this respect, it resembles modern Solemn Declarations (SD) where a statement on Catholic belief (the Quadrilateral) precedes, or gives context, the provincial confession (the BCP, Ordinal, 39).  Another way to say it is modern Solemn Declarations usually combined the 1571 and 1584 canons in succinct and convenient ways. Perhaps this hints the historicity of SD’s?

Of the St. Louis Congress, Archbishop Peter Robinson said, “Really all that needed to be done in 1977 was to reaffirm the Traditional High Church POV [point of view]. Simply stated…”

“1. This Church affirms that Holy Orders of deacon, priest and bishop are, according to Scripture, to be conferred only on suitably qualified men.

2. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are to be interpreted in accordance with the first six Ecumenical Councils of the Church.

3. This Church accepts as its standard of worship only those editions of the Prayer Book conformable to the Book of Common Prayer, 1662.

4. This accepts the traditional moral teaching of the Church affirming in particular the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; and the sanctity and indissoluability of the marriage vows between one man and one woman.”

Using Bishop Robinson’s four points, I composed an XYZ solemn declaration integrating +Peter’s comments with the SD’s of other traditional Anglican churches, mostly, APA, ACC, and UK-TAC.  A preamble is always a nice addition, but it’s really icing on the cake. I am sympathetic with something that asserts England’s ancient origins along lines found in the TAC Concordant, “Established in our particular identity of history, character and purpose within the constant tradition of the Church from its arrival in the British Isles in the earliest Christian centuries”. I would probably finish the preamble by including this statement on British origins with the two bullets from the Affirmation’s preface regarding salvation by Jesus Christ alone and St. Vincent of Lerins, but replacing the Vincentian canon with Andrewes’ Formula to keep doctrine safely in the primitive era.

However, the more knitty-gritty  is the body of the Declaration itself, and this was  mostly lifted from the original 1893 SD with as little alteration as possible.  I’ll likely play around with this fictitious SD for a bit. Notice the bold portions which mark clarifications to the 1893 original:

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

WE, the Bishops, together with the Depuites from the Clergy and Laity of the XYZ, assembled in Provincial Synod, make the following Solemn Declaration:

WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue in full communion with all Traditional Anglicans throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds, known as the Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and Apostles’ Creed, as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments , through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; including Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be conferred only on suitably qualified men; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word*, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and only those editions of the Prayer Book conformable to it; and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562 interpreted in accordance with the first six Ecumenical Councils of the Church; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

*This accepts the traditional moral teaching of the Church affirming in particular the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; and the sanctity and indissoluability of the marriage vows between one man and one woman.“

Some comments on the bold above.  Though most belong to Lord Peter, I took liberty to add some modifications based upon previous TAC SD’s. The term “traditional Anglicans” replaced the original “church of england throughout the world”. Though I don’t wish to give a wink to the ACC’s altered St. Louis version, and I personally believe these terms are synonymous (traditional Anglicans would know themselves as the church of england abroad), I changed the phrase to dismiss any misconception that communion with radical liberals in Canterbury or elsewhere was necessary to being ‘orthodox’. When in doubt, I went with the bulk of Continuing SD’s.

Haverland has discussed what terms mean.  What does ‘traditional’ mean in the Anglican context? What does “orthodox”? I thought the question was interesting, so I pulled some explanations from the St. Louis churches. (of course they would point to the Affirmation).  The TAC concordant gives a two-part definition, incorporating the non-jurors’ relation to the East and the patristic father St. John Damascus:

1.2. The term ‘Traditional’ as used in this context refers to that living witness of the Spirit within the Church by which her continuity is assured from age to age. It is described in a letter of 1718 AD from the Eastern Patriarchs to the English Non-Jurors: “We preserve the Doctrine of the Lord uncorrupted, and firmly adhere to the Faith He delivered to us, and keep it free from blemish and diminution, as a Royal Treasure, and a monument of great price, neither adding any thing, nor taking any thing from it;” and by St. John of Damascus: “We do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set, but we keep the Tradition, just as we received it.“

TAC’s Preamble also provides a few reference points to better flesh out ‘Tradition’ which suggest not only the Apostolic and Patristic foundations of the Church but a possible consensus today:

DETERMINED to maintain the unbroken continuity of our tradition within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ from its inception to the present day, especially as expressed in the precepts of the Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church;

ESTABLISHED in our particular identity of history, character and purpose within the constant tradition of the Church from its arrival in the British Isles in the earliest Christian centuries, and as expressed in its traditional formularies; and

REMAINING in Communion with all such Churches, Provinces and Dioceses throughout the world which have been established in and are faithful to the same constant tradition, to which the historic Chair of St. Augustine at Canterbury is called to bear witness:

Evidently, ‘traditional’ has something to do with the churchmanship of the non-jurors and its attempted rapprochment with Greeks. There is also a tendency among ‘traditionalists’ to make the 1549 rather than the 1662 BCP as the basis for interpreting later revisions. This would be acceptable given Traditionalists actually stayed within the framework of the theology presented in the 1549, considering especially the canons at force during Edward’s second year. Unfortunately, too many self-professed ‘traditionalist’ abuse the 1549 as a spring board into the Anglican Missal and Roman ritual; including intercessions of saints, reverences to icons, and altar relics, etc.. That said, I believe the 1549 has been an ongoing and necessary reference point for old high churchmanship, and I see nothing wrong with this statement given it’s taken with sobriety.

I named the three creeds just to be consistent with other continuing SD’s , but this was probably the least wanted modification since ‘creeds’ should be plainly understood.  Lord Peter mentions the 1662, and this should be enough to clarify possible discrepancies with American use.

The rest is self-explanatory. Archbishop Robinson’s rationale for qualifying the 39 articles with  a specific number of general councils can be read here. I had most trouble finding a place to insert Robinson’s moral principles on marriage. These are found in the third section of the St. Louis Affirmation. There is no existing SD that bothers to clarify moral principles, leaving such re-assertions for subsidiary documents.  Most continuing SD’s handle this by making reference to the St. Louis Affirmation. Instead, I used an asterisk and just let it ‘hang’ at the end. This is something that deserves more thought, and I’d be inclined to add other moral transgressions that are pervasive since the 1950′s, better summing the ‘central error of 1977′, not stopping with either divorce or WO.

Orthodoxy is a term much batted around these days. Haverland suggested its often vacuous meaning. I’m always fond of rigorous definitions. One way to define it would be by the first use of the term to denote a kind of churchmanship. Perhaps “orthodoxy’s” archetype would be found in a figure like  Bishop Laud who  scribbled “o” before the  names of non-puritan divines in the 17th century.  This would probably require some reference to period canons with subscription formula since Laud was known to have made use as such, often with the unpleasant appellation of  ’disciplinarian’.

Another route to demystify “orthodoxy” would be to weigh and distill a common denominator from the several extant  Solemn Declarations presently used in North America. In this case, it would be pretty close to Laud’s canons–BCP, 39 Articles, Ordinal–combined with the more recent Quadrilateral. Solemn Declarations are the modern link to the 1571 and 1584  canon. Understood this way, the 1584 articles roughly correspond to  the BCP plus Articles as usually mentioned in the SD. Meanwhile, the 1571 canon would be like the main points of the Quadrilateral. Therefore, SD’s already are brief statements of orthodoxy, closely related to historic Anglican doctrine. I’d say they provide a fairly suitable definition.

Solemn Declarations are unique to North American Anglicanism. They conveniently locate a church within the history of Anglican faith and order. If North American Anglicanism is ever going to ‘regather’, various Solemn Declarations may slowly converge upon plain and clear terminology rather than, as some do, mollify theological differences with ambiguous language. For the most part, the 1893 Declaration is standard with the best SD’s sticking close to it. But, even the 1893 can benefit by clarifying the necessity of male clergy or specifying the 1662 against the 1979, etc..  Questions regarding the standard prayer book and nature of holy orders seem to be Anglicanism’s two biggest controversies, recurring time and time again, impairing communion and sparking splits. Certainly, any modern SD needs to tackle them. Bishop Peter Robinson’s summation does well in this regard.

Lastly, this scrapped together Solemn Declaration shows how simple they are to compose, especially when their contemporary history is at least skimmed and compared.

Prayers at Sea (1717 engraving)

The Forms of Prayer given at the back of the 1662 BCP contain an echo of Anglican polity before Lambeth. They belong a time where the Kingdom of Great Britain had spread her branches far across the globe by merchant and colonial enterprise. With Navy crews and Company plantations naturally followed the rites of the English Church, which the Diocese of London regulated, keeping common order and uniting prayers of scattered communities. The Prayers for Use at Sea  hearken back to this era, evidencing the old jurisdiction before revolution.

On Oct. 1st 1633, Englishmen in Holland were placed under the beginnings of a missionary district supervised by the Bishop of London for British emigres. This system started through the auspices of Bishops Laud and Juxon in the London Orindary(1), and, though it briefly suffered vacancy during the Commonwealth,  it continued roughly until the American Revolution.  During this hundred-and-fifty year period, Anglicans outside England were appointed the doctrine and order as decided by the province of Canterbury through the London bishopric. This relation was  first proposed by Archbishop Laud to Charles I who then charged the royal privy council to square the details. Arthur Cross quotes Peter Heylyn,  describing London’s authority over British abroad:

“Laud (at this time  Bishop of London) not thinking that he had done enough for the peace and uniformity of the church at home, sets out to look after it abroad.’ And after detailing the steps by which that prelate succeeded in obtaining his desired authority [raised to the Archbishopric], our author concludes as follows: ‘And now, at least, we have the face of an English church in Holland, responsible to the bishops of London for the time being as a part of their diocese, directly and immediately subject to their jurisdiction. The like course was also prescribed for our factories in Hamborough and those farther off; that is to say, in Turkey, in the Mogul’s dominions, the Indian Islands, the plantations in Virginia, the Barbadoes, and all other places where the English have any standing in the way of trade.’” (p. 234, Schemes)

What’s interesting is the mutual supervision of the British navy and English commerce coincides with maintenance of church order overseas. The 1662 BCP’s Prayer for Sea are a relic of an earlier polity where the altar belonged to an ecclesiastical center.

Unfortunately, by Laud’s time the American colonies had become notorious harbors for dissent. The Life and Times of Archbishop William Laud records troubles related to migration and radicalism in 1637:

“Eight ships were stationed in the Thames, to convey a host of zealots across the Atlantic, but they were stopped by an order of Council; and as many of the Puritan ministers, regardless of the amor patriae, resolved to gratify that extravagance which they could not indulge in their own country, and were ready to follow that which they termed “the gospel” into New England. An order of Council also prohibited “all ministers unconformable to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; and that no clergyman should be suffered to pass to the foreign plantations without the approbation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London.” (p. 141-142)

Frere says the 1661 revision adopted sea prayers from the presbyterians  and ‘Anglicized’ them for the Navy.  Sea prayers first appeared in the Puritan Directory of Public Worship, introduced by the Long Parliament, with the intent to replace use of the Prayer Book in the British Fleet (p. 651, The Annotated). The use of ‘forms’ rather than fixed prayers for mariners tells something about the situation abroad, namely, that dissent was more common the further removed from ecclesiastical authority(2). This was compounded by the lack of educated chaplains.

Often, what happened on shipboard was likewise true in colonies. The growth of non-conformity in the colonies was a common complaint, pictured by this 1716 letter sent from Pennsylvania to London:

“For want of an Episcopacy being established among us, and that there has never been any bishop sent to visit us, our churches remain unconcecrated, our children are grown up and can not be confirmed…But more especially for want of that holy power which is inherent to your apostolic office the vacancies which daily happen in our ministry can not be supplied for a considerable time from England, whereby many congregations are not only become desolate, and the light of the gospel thereby extinguished, but great encouragement is given to sectaries of all sorts which abound and increase amongst us; and some of them pretending to what they call the power of ordination, the country is filled with fanatic teachers debauching the inclinations of many poor souls who are left destitute of any instruction or ministry.” (p. 237,Schemes)

Complaints of this sort were typical of ‘fronteir Anglicanism’ , and the weight of the blame fell on London Ordinaries during the mid-18th century with scholarly divines like Dr. Robert Lowth who repeatedly rebuffed Wesley’s plea for the supply american priests (3). Nonetheless, the growth of the British territories outpaced meager support London provided.  Much involved the necessary education of colonial priests, namely, their having competence in ecclesiastical language(s). Royal bible societies like SPCK assisted London by funding oversea church buildings, book materials, as well as circuit clergy for colonial congregations. Resources were endemically short.

In 1784 two developments powerfully shook the old high church foundations between England and America:  First, John Wesley’s  appointment of Thomas Coke for superintendent of American Methodism; and, second, the episcopal ordering of the Samuel Seabury by non-Juring Bishops in Scotland. Both events posed the very real possibility of a church independent from England, particularly the government of the church under Supremacy.  Even Dr. White and Smith would consider their own irregular episcopacy, eventually forcing London to lift terms of full-subscription for oversea churchmen. In 1787, two bishops for the United States and one for Nova Scotia were consecrated in London with only the Nova Scotia one tendering the royal oath of allegiance.

Of course, the 1789 American prayer book omitted those parts of Oversea Prayers pertaining to the Crown of which older BCP’s (like the 1717) said, “that we may be a safeguard unto our most gracious Sovereign Lord, King George and his kingdoms, and a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions; that the inhabitants of our Island may in peace and quietness serve thee our God and that we may return in safety to enjoy the blessings of the land”. The 1789 kept much of the above but removed “Island” for “land” and replaced ‘King’ with the phrase, “that we may be a safeguard unto the United States of America”. The last collect inserted “our country” rather than “our Soveriegn” as these alterations were wanted to better account for ‘american circumstances’ made by the Revolution.

Frere notes that the BCP’s seafaring prayers were not intended to “form a service in themselves, but are merely supplemental devotions, to be used as occasion requires.” (p. 644, New History).  Nonetheless, the incorporation of ‘forms of prayer’ into the BCP started as late as 1662. By 1790, when the American BCP was compiled, further forms made there way into common prayer, namely, those for prisoners, families, and public thanksgivings. This mild comprehension demonstrates how the Church of England  found ways to rope in dissent, usually by giving greater flexibility in liturgy. Given the Puritanical culture of early America, PECUSA would naturally add further forms, vindicating perhaps Smith’s BCP revision principles.

Thoughts: A common analogy holds between the Prayers at sea and Bishop Machray’s ordering of ‘Rupert’s Land’. Both were high church campaigns to tame certain ecclesiastical wilderness(es). Perhaps modern Anglicans face similar challenges in the reform of our own church? Not that a literal wilderness requires taming, but that many jurisdictions have wandered from the Anglican Settlement chose their own standards. Originally, the throne of Canterbury-London was part of an ordered Kingdom where royal prerogative passed fro the Crown through under-ministers in dominions elsewhere.

In contrast, Lambeth was founded in 1886 upon the autonomy of nation-states rather than earlier ‘kingdom’ model. However, this is a revolutionary arrangement compared to the the 1662 prayer book’s record of the older polity– found in the order of petition in the litany, state prayers in mattins and evensong, whole church prayers, and the biddings before the sermon. Thus, Sea Prayers add another testimony for the older polity, reminding churchmen of how throne and altar once projected itself from the church of Great Britain into distant parts.

The original hymn was written by William Whiting of Winchester, England, in 1860. It was originally intended as a poem for a student of his, who was about to travel to the United States. In 1861, John B. Dykes, an Anglican clergyman, composed the tune “Melita” for this hymn. “Melita” is an archaic term for Malta, an ancient seafaring nation and the site of a shipwreck involving the Apostle Paul mentioned in Acts of the Apostles. Eternal Father is the Royal Navy’s hymn. 

(1) Bishop William Juxon curiously simultaneously held three offices crucial to early colonial church policy: the Lord Admiral, London Bishopric, and Lord Treasurer. If there is an ‘Anglican’ form of economic policy, it is mercantilism shaped by the English Church, Royal Navy, and Company Charter. Juxon was ciritical to this development and seems to have coordinated all three for the Common Weal. Thomas Mun’s Treasure by Foreign Trade (1664) seems a seminal work.

(2) In his footnotes, Frere demonstrates the importance of conformity upon ships, quoting the Navy’s Articles of War, “Officers are to cause Public Worship, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, to be solemnly performed in their ships, and take care that prayers and preaching by the chaplains be performed diligently, and that the Lord’s day be observed” (p. 645, New History). Incidentally, Puritans ’forms’ were very long and their tendency was to use extemporaneous prayer to propagandize against the Crown’s prerogative and authority of Bishops in the church.  

(3) Blame for the lack of Anglican clergy in the colonies has frequently been charged.  To England’s credit vis-a-vis revivalism, priests were expected to have a scholarly background.  John Bramhall described England’s order: ‎”This hath always been the doctrine and practice of our English Church. First, it is so far from admitting laymen to be directive interpreters of Holy Scripture, that it allows not this liberty to clergymen so much as to ‘gloss upon the text’, until ‘they be licensed to become preachers.’ Secondly, for judgement of discretion only, it gives it not to private persons above their talents, or ‘beyond their last.’ It disallows all fantastical and enthusiastical presumptions of incompetent and unqualified expositors. It admits no man into Holy Orders, that is, to be capable of being made a directive interpreter of Scripture, howsoever otherwise qualified, ‘unless he be able to give a good account of his Faith in the Latin tongue’. so as to be able to frame all his expositions according to the analogy thereof. It forbids the licensed preachers to ‘teach the people any doctrine as necessary to be religiously held and believed, which the Catholic Fathers, and old Bishops of the Primitive Church, have not collected out of the Scriptures.’ It ascribes a judgment of jurisdiction over preachers to Bishops, in all manner of ecclesiastical duties, as appears by the whole body of our canons; and especially where any difference or public opposition hath been between preachers, about any point or doctrine deduced out of Scripture. It gives a power of determining all emergent controversies of Faith above Bishops to the Church, as to the ‘witness and keeper of Sacred Oracles’, and to a ‘lawful Synod’, as the ‘representative Church.’”

• Blunt, John Henry. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. London (1866)
• Class, Arthur Lyon. Schemes for Episcopal Control of the Colonies. Harvard  (1862)
• Frere, Walter and Procter, Francis. A New History of the Book of Common Prayer.  MacMillan (1908)
•  Lawson, John Parker. George  Life and Times of William Laud D.D. Archbishop of Canterbury, V. II  London (1894)

King Henry VIII and Emperor Maximilian

The English Crown’s title, “King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, &c.”, somewhat summed Anglican polity before the rise of the Quadrilateral and Lambeth Communion. Lambeth was a devolutionary answer to the crisis of Empire that resulted in creating a number of equally independent churches. Before Lambeth, Anglican churches weren’t based on popular sovereignty but royal Supremacy. This resulted in a communion with degrees and hierarchies– some nearer, some further– in the Church of England. And, because Anglican colonial government likewise centered on establishment, the style marked proximity to an ecclesiastical center. When Lambeth formed in 1887, it’s national character rejected the original regiment based on supremacy (1).

An English Empire:
During the early Tudor period, England considered herself an Empire. This had fairly serious ramifications during the course of the Reformation. For instance, the 1536 Articles purposefully side-stepped the Augusta because Henry refused to condescend England’s Majesty to the lower dignity of the Dukes and Marques who led the (Lutheran) Schmalkaldic League. Instead, Henry opted for his own Settlement, distinguishing the English from German church(es) by adopting rather conservative ceremonial, pushing an upper boundary of the Augsburg in expectation the German nobility would fall behind his Imperial majesty.
Henry’s greater dignity was something the Elector of Saxony was wary from the start, and it was perhaps a reason why English delegates were preoccupied with rehabilitating Henry’s divorce(s) rather than more pertinent theological points with Germans. In other words, religious compacts bore implica-tions upon dynastic relations, and, foremost was England’s duty to secure a worthy equity so that both Henry and his Church might be receive honors complimentary of a Christian Emperor rather than vassal or lesser prince. Another implication was England as a final court of appeal among Protestant countries. This latter role of the British Crown being counter-part to the Holy Roman Emperor as an answer to concilarism is covered in more detail in W.B. Patterson’s book, James I and IV: the Reunion of Christendom.

Histories like John Dee’s General and Rare Memorials (1576) owed the English Imperium to ancient times, combining Arthurian with Israelite legend. More popular was Geoffrey Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) crediting unity of the Isle to Brutus’ three sons– two of whom ruled Scotland and Ireland while the eldest received homage in England. This primordial fealty explained the Tudors’ repulsion of the French while Scotland was ruled by the House of Guise, 1543-1558.

More solid accounts for English Empire date back to Norman rule. Henry II joined several titles– the Duke of Normandy along with a number of other French possessions– with the English Name.  In 1296 Edward I captured the Stone of Scone, bringing it to London; thereafter, English kings would be crowned upon it. By 1337, Edward III claimed France entirely. Meanwhile, Anglo-Normans steadily increased gains in Wales and Ireland by Crusade, subordinating the remnant of the celtic church to Rome by Plantagenet ”Lordship”.

The core of the English Empire was built during the 12-13th centuries, and, although England materially lost France during the 1450′s (with the exception of Calais), the royal style continued as in earlier centuries. Upon Henry’s religious Settlement the style read, “the King of England and of France, defender of the faith, Lord of Ireland, and in earth supreme head of the Church of England”. This was typical of the period, and, with the exception of ‘Defensor’, was the old medieval title carried forward. The 1533 Act in Restraint further admits England has having a status of Empire,

Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same. 

The next year the First Act of Supremacy (1534) explicitly tied the head of church to the imperial crown:

The only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm. 

This was standard for the period 1532-36. Henry VIII was excommunicated twice by the Papacy (in 1533 and 1538), so the title in Ireland was strengthened to highlight not only England’s Lordship but to be clear about the removal of the Papal jurisdiction, and in 1542 Dublin affirmed Henry VIII as both Lord and King. The style thus became , “the King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and in earth under Christ, of the Church of England and of Ireland the Supreme Head”.

The style’s incorporation of Ireland was officially received in England in 1544. What’s interesting about Henry’s style is the idea two  Kingdoms (England and Ireland) were under the same external authority not only in civil but ecclesiastical manners. The bidding prayers given in 1549 BCP reference both ‘the church of England and Ireland’. The Presbyterian Kirk, however, is curiously absent from such forms given in the prayer book.  Nonetheless, as a Reformed province, England had no interest in unchurching the any part of the Reformation(2). Upon James I’s coronation, the 1604 canons ordered English clergy to pray for the Church in Scotland. Presbyterian orders were received throughout these periods until the Restoration era whereupon a resurgent Anglicanism with little opposition emerged.

However, there is a privileging or ranking of relationship between the three Kingdoms.  Ireland appeared to have greater affinity, frequently named together with England in canon as well as in official common prayer, aka. “The Church of England and Ireland”. This is not incidental because the reforms that England introduced under the Stuart kings were rather successfully adopted by the CofI whereas with Scotland they were passionately resisted. Ireland also acknowledged the Tudors’ supremacy in both church and state at a comparatively earlier date than Scotland– this being in 1542. Between 1543-46 Henry VIII battled to enforce the Treaty of Greenwich which secured Edward VI’s marriage to Mary of Scotland. Henry published A Declaration Considering the Just Causes (1543), quoting precedent for English Lordship in Hibernia, “The Kings of Scots have always acknowledged the Kings of England superior lords of the realm of Scotland, and have done homage and fealty for the same” (p. 2, Mary Stuart)

‘England’ was a term that normally was understood to cover Wales. The annexation of Wales was more factual after Henry legally converted the Welsh marches into English shires 1534-42. By the end of Henry’s reign, English law had fully enfranchised Welsh. The 1547 injunctions are one of the few manuscripts making mention of the Welsh marches, giving Edward VI duties in both “the Marches and Calais”. Thereafter, it is assumed. The Marches were the newly made shires while Calais was the last stronghold of English control in France. Anyway, ‘Calais and the Marches’ are typically understood wherever “England” is spoken of, and early Edwardian injunctions describe their dominions as part of a single English law, each belonging to “one and uniform rite and order in such common prayer”.

The United Kingdom, “&c”:
Elizabeth’s  version of Supremacy is sometimes considered more ‘civilized’ or ‘modern’ than Henry’s, namely, by replacing ‘head’ with ‘governor’. However, ‘governor’ might have been used in deference or modesty to the normal male character of Kingship. In either case, the Queen certainly did not surrender the ancient rights repossessed by Henry (e.g., 1529-1534), and in 1558 she inserted  ”& c.”, anticipating the re-institution of the Supremacy Act(s). The “&c.” remained part of the royal style until George III dropped it to sooth fears about Hanover.

The edict upon Elizabeth’s deathbed declared this crown, “the Imperial Crown of these Realms aforesaid are now absolutely, wholly, and solely come to the High and Mighty Prince, James the sixth King of Scotland, who is lineally and lawfully descended from the body of Margaret, daughter to the High and Renowned Prince, Henry the seventh King of England” (p. 8, King James).  James anticipated this union while sitting on the Scottish throne, advising his son,  Prince Henry IX, to gradually harmonize these people into ‘one Isle of Britain”.

“And since my trust is, that God hath ordained you for more Kingdoms than this (as I have often already said) press by the outward behavior as well of your own person, as of your court, in all indifferent things, to allure piece and piece, the rest of your kingdoms, to follow the fashions of that kingdom of yours, that ye find most civil, easiest to be ruled, and most obedient to the laws: for these outward and indifferent things will serve greatly for allurements [manners and habits of the King] to the people, to embrace and follow virtue. But beware of thrawing or constraining them thereto; letting it be brought on with time, and at leisure; specially by so mixing through alliance and daily conversation, the inhabitants of every kingdom with other, as may with time make them to grow and weld all in one: Which may easily be done betwixt two nations, being both but one Isle of Britaine, and already joined in unity of Religion and language. So that even as in the times of our ancestors, the long wars and many bloody battles betwixt these two countries, bread a natural and hereditary hatred in every of them, against the other: the uniting and welding of them hereafter in one, by all sort of friendship, commerce, and alliance, will by the contrary produce and maintain a natural and inseparable unity of love amongst them. As we have already (praise be to God) a great experience of the good beginning hereof, and of the quenching of the old hate in the hearts of both the people; procured by the means of this long and happy amity, between the Queen my dearest sister and me; which during the whole time of both our Reigns, hath ever been inviolably observed. ” (p. 51, Basilikon Doron)

But Stuart succession raised questions of “primacy” (precedence) between Scotland and England. Was James VI & I a Scottish King who happened to rule an English realm or vice-versa? The King’s tutelage under Presbyterian ministers emboldened English Puritans at Hampton Court. To the chagrin of Puritans, James preferred the English over Scottish form(s) of government. Upon the opening of the Hamptom conference, James contrasted the two regiments:

“For blessed be God’s gracious goodness, who hath brought me into the promised Land, where religion is purely professed, where I sit amongst grave, learned and reverend men, not as before, elsewhere, a king without a state, without honour, without order, where beardless boys would brave us to the face.” (p. 18, King James)

The epistle dedicatory to the Authorized Version begins with the royal name, “The Most High and Might Prince James, by the grace of God,  King of Great Brittaine, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.”, and this is where we begin to see differentiation among realms with some more or less legally close to the Crown. When James renamed the two realms as  ”The Kingdom of Great Britain”,  ecclesiastical  union between was also expected. But this created questions of polity since England possessed bishops and Scotland did not.  The implications of personal union were such that,

“Either the Kirk would remain sovereign over itself, or it would be comprehended by the jurisdiction of Canterbury…In answering the charge that the Church of England had no sovereignty over the Kirk, English conformists spoke of the Church of “Great Britain”, a phrase that erased the Kirk’s claim to national distinction.” (p. 205,Defining the Jacobean).

The Kirk’s claims of ancient origin butted heads with the apostolic origin of England’s church. Dr. Prior describes the dilemma,

“It is to be remembered that James was King of Scotland before he became King of England, and so when he arrived in London in 1603 he also assumed jurisdiction over the Church of England, while retaining jurisdiction over the Kirk. The problem was an extremely complex one, and has yet to receive the attention it deserves. One perspective that may prove useful for our understanding of the complexity of British ecclesiology is that of doctrinal dispute. For as we have seen at some length, the church of England proclaimed itself the one ‘true’ church, both ancient and reformed. However, an examination of the polemical debates reveals that the Kirk also claimed to exemplify the ‘best reformed’ church and, crucially, a national [and therefore independent] church. In fact, the Union of the Crowns meant the English episcopate would seek to extend its jurisdiction, and English doctrine, over the Scottish Kirk. This policy would be resisted on both political and theological grounds” (p. 204-5).

Wishful Thinking:
Protestants abroad hoped Great Britain to be that model for union among Reformed churches. However, unity was predicated upon a single doctrine which England and Scotland did not truly share. The difference was over England’s Settlement which curiously belonged to an earlier period of Reformed theology. It was not the Genevan sort but owed more to Wittenberg and Strasbourg which stood as centers of Reformation in the 1540′s. The late reign of Henry VIII was the most formative for this part of the Anglican Settlement, etching the main features of England’s doctrine amid evangelical negotiations with Germany. These dialogues continued less formally into the first half of Edward’s reign, mostly between Cranmer and Bucer while the latter held a professorship at Cambridge.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Kirk received its fundamental doctrine from the later theology of Bullinger and Calvin. In the 1560′s Germany had faded from the forefront of Protestancy, allowing an upswing in Calvinist views that were widely adopted in Switzerland upon the 2nd Helvetic Confession. This “late-Swiss’ theology was reactionary toward the earlier Wittenberg Concord, especially after Germans struck peace with the Roman Emperor. What stands out between the two periods is the dropping of adiaphoral points in the 2nd Helvetic Confession; instead, a strict iconoclasm is adopted. This would prove as divisive in Germany as it would in England upon James I’s ascension.

Nonetheless, great hope was vested in the union of crowns. In order to better unify churches, high churchmen implemented a policy of ‘tactical broadness’ or gradually conformity that sought to move the Kirk closer to the procession of a princely order (p. 23, Basilikon), namely, in lines with England thereby accepting the 39 articles, Acts of Supremacy, and Prayer Book. Bishop Spottiswood listed several reforms that the new King wanted in Scotland, in addition to a fixed liturgy, including “A public confession of faith must be formed, agreeing, so near as can be, with the confession of the English Church” (p. xv, Sprott).

The high church policy of union contained many of the elements later found in Laud’s ‘disciplinarianism’. When introduced to Scotland, Presbyterians repeatedly refused the reforms sought by Jacobean bishops. These rebuffs occurred at Aberdeen and Perth (1618 & 1621 respectively), signalling the extreme difficulty conformity had in Scotland. After James abandoned his campaign, his successors, King Charles and Archbishop Laud, unwisely accelerated the earlier program, sparking the Great Rebellion upon an imposition of the 1637 Prayer Book. Though the ‘unionist’ policy in Scotland proved a dismal failure, William III was willing to continue some of its elements, offering the privilege of establishment to the Scottish bishops before turning to the Presbyterian or popular party.

Orthodox Broadness: Though Ireland’s Settlement had a tenuous existence among a large Roman Catholic population, it concluded with greater affinity to the English church. The Church of Ireland’s institution began with the pacifying of rebellion by Henry VIII who then introduced plantations in Dublin and Ulster based upon the model of Welsh marches. Elizabeth would follow this policy, and James VI would implement something akin in the highlands. Speaking to his Son, James, as a genuine crusader, said of the highland folk,

“As for the highlands, I shortly comprehend them all in two sorts of people: the one, that dwelleth in our main land that are barbarous for the most part, and yet mixed with some shew of civility: the other, the dwelleth in the isles, and are utterly barbarous, without any sort or shew of civility. For the first sort, put straightly to execution the laws made already by me against their overlords, and the chiefs of the clans, and it will be no difficult to danton them. As for the other sort, follow forth the course that I have intended, in planting Colonies among them of answerable inlands subjects, that within short time may reform and civilize the best inclined among them; rooting out or transporting the barbarous and stubborn sort, and planting civility in their rooms.” (p. 22,Basilikon Doron)

Planting the civility of estates among the answerable subjects was not limited to Scotland. In 1634, Thomas Wentworth and John Bramhall led the push for Irish conformity. Prior to this date, the Irish church perhaps was closer in doctrine to the Scottish. High Churchmen tolerated a certain broadness among late-reformed churches before tightening conformity. Bray’s Records of Convocation describes the change in policy that came about upon Laud’s elevation.

“Unusually for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Laud did not restrict his sights to his own province, or even to England. He was soon embroiled in the internal religious affairs of both Ireland and Scotland, despite the fact he had no knowledge of either country and no authority to act there other than what the King had delegated him. The 1634 Irish convocation was the first public occasion on which the new direction in ecclesiastical affairs became apparent. Arch-bishop Laud was determined to reduce the Church of Ireland to “conformity” with the Church of England which in this case meant that it would have to adopt the 39 Articles and the 1604 English canons as its standard of faith and discipline” (p. 64, Records).

The Dublin convocation managed to avoid absolute conformity to England.  The 1615 Articles subsisted as a subordinate standard. Meanwhile, the injunctions pressed by Wentworth ending up becoming more like the 1566 Advertisements. But unlike Scotland, Ireland conformed. By 1640 the Irish provincial church was using the same prayer book as in England; it broadly agreed with the 1571 Articles; and Ireland continued episcopacy.  This remained true even after the misfortunes of civil war, and, by 1801, when Ireland finally became part of the United Kingdom (UK), the 39 Articles had been fully received, distinct from Ussher’s 1615.  Ireland proved better stomping grounds for high church policy than Scotland.

1717 BCP cover page. The bottom title says, "Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lueneburg, Arch-Treasurer and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire". Other versions say, "England and Scotland, France, Ireland, and Hanover"

If the UK parliament was any indicator, the rank between kingdoms would have been tallied by number of seated Lords ( those peers not in the realm of England proper) : 1) the principality of Wales; 2)  Ireland; 3) Scotland.  This ranking is akin to the Continental “immediacy of right“. Off-the-chart would’ve been France and Hanover since these Kingdoms had no ministerial representation [one was catholic, the other Lutheran] despite their inclusion in the royal title. Though it was suggested for George III to proclaim himself the Emperor of the British Isles, the Hanoverians instead elected a friendlier appellation, “the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, &c”.(3)

The realms pertaining to the United Kingdom had degrees of self-rule, and, generally speaking, the more liberty each possessed in internal affairs, the less representation they had in the King’s parliament. This rather inverted political relationship also described Anglican-protestant unionism. Otherwise, the principle of Supremacy from which the United Kingdom sprung was the plumb line among Anglican churches prior to the Quadrilateral and Lambeth.

A remaining question is the status of overseas colonies that often found themselves lacking provincial bishops, dependent on the diocese of London, and often patiently waiting for the favor of the Crown or privy council.  The dominions were frequently charted to corporations or private persons. When charters expired, the lands might then reverted to the Crown’s original sovereignty. This is what happened in New England at the end of Charles II’s reign when the Puritan colonies  found themselves restored to royal governorship.

This period, 1683-1689, in known as the Dominion of New England. During the Dominion’s short-life, Charles II and James II attempted to superimpose an Anglican establishment over the Puritan.  The Emancipation Acts, which precipitated the 1689 parliamentarian revolution, terminated the convesion of New England into an Anglican establishment. Nonetheless, the Dominion exemplified the older high-church policy of imposing conformity through gradual campaigns of moderation– executed first in Scotland (with wretched results) but somewhat more successfully in Ireland (and Acadia). Unfortunately, Republican intrigue carried the day, and the American colonies left the Crown(3). In hopes of a similar results, Ireland followed suit in 1798. Thus, the late 18th-century saw the start of unionism’s dashing and, with it, the Royal center. By 1948 decolonializaiton and devolution was neigh complete.

Problems of Devolution: Before the modern revolutionary era, colonial churches were simply called the “Church of England” in such-and-such a place (e.g., the Church of England in British North America). However, because common externals were determined by Supremacy, Anglican unity was increasingly defined in democratic terms.  In other words, sovereignty was transferred from the person(ages) of the British household– starting with the King, his royal progeny, to the Bishops,  then other Lords, etc. (see the litany). — to the sovereignty of the individual. Geroge Meriton instructed upon England’s hierarchical mode of governance to the Glasgow Assembly in 1610:

“so it must be in the Church of God, where some are eyes, some are ears, some head, some feet, some must be high, some low, some rule, some obey. This comliness of order is the beauty of God’s Church, for beauty is the daughter of order, the more seen the more admired; and order is the well-spring of disposing of equal and unequal parts.” 

Unfortunately, the ‘individual’ was not actual sort but abstract, rooted in categories of inalienable rights without the context of custom or family. Allegedly, there was nothing between the private mind and liberty, so the sacramental economy of graded grace together with graded freedoms unraveled. What was left was the sovereignty of the equal parts without concrete unity other than laissez-faire choice. Thus, the establish church devolved into a voluntary society functioning upon laissez-faire principles rather practices of lealty. Royal prerogative, whether spiritual or temporal, arose from the earlier model of paterfamilias which came to an end.

By the mid-19th century, whatever was left of the Restoration was at its tail-end. I don’t wish to be mistaken for extremes, proposing absolutism against constitutionalism, tyranny in exchange for common law, etc. . But at some point between the 18th-19th centuries, Free Monarchy was replaced with a Republican domination as supremacy shifted away from the King to Commons. This flattened the sacred hierarchy which doctors like Cranmer said existed a priori. More important, it reshaped the idea of “broad church” as a measurable distance from the King’s regiment to multiple yet falsely equivalent sovereignties. The 1907 Colonial Conference was the manifest end of Anglican Supremacy, confirming in the civil sphere what Lambeth accomplished twenty-years earlier in the religious.

In this modern system, “broadness” becomes an “end in itself”. While, in the older view, it was a means, or tactic, for gradual conformity toward the King’s orthodoxy– be it the royal chapel, his body of english injunctions, the archbishopric’s cathedral, the Crown’s university, etc..  Such broadness is not to be mistaken with the licentious broadness too often given in the articles. Instead, it is something wider, occurring when jurisdictions neither exactly conform to 39 articles or prayer book; yet, nonetheless, “Anglican” churches share a common genesis. A “broadness within a broadness” was how discrepancies were handled by high churchmen in the past, keeping the center of the church lawful while dealing with more serious error pastorally. King James’ invitation to the scottish Melvilles to listen to Andrewes’ lecture at St. Paul’s on the importance of an episcopate is an example this ‘pastoral patience’. Unfortunately, orthodox broadness is no longer found in the center Anglican latitude. It has been displaced, and, at best, it is one among many inchoate sovereignties .

Today, AB  Rowan Williams’ Covenant Proposal sees something of a re-emergence of a tiered Anglican communion. Unfortunately, the covenant proposal has few teeth, rightly described as a dead letter by critics. However, the way back would most likely involve some sort of return to tiered or parallel jurisdictions. ACNA is absolutely rife with these graded networks but institutionalized on an informal level. Another informal extension of the King-in-church might be through an incubation of ‘royal culture’ or ‘ethos of lordship’. A royal culture might aim to create something akin the Crown’s Regalia  suited for church synods rather than the parliaments. For Anglicans “on the right”, the restoration of certain liturgical or sacramental observances associated with the monarchy, or any similar episcopal prelacy, might fair better. Such might include feasts and votive services for English kings or famous prince-Bishops,’ &c’. For Anglicans more”on the left” of churchmanship, reasserting the weight of royal seal on the 39 articles as having  normative authority in North American through the adoption of Solemn Declarations might be more persuasive.

More can be read about royal names through the history of the British Guineas.

1. Dr. Kevin F. Donlon seems to give defense to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican covenant which sought stronger juridical bonds between churches. His criticism of Lambeth touches the problem of sovereignty as said in reply to Dr. Poon, “However, if the Primates continue a nation-state theological autonomy as their filter for the leadership they offer, further Anglican fragmentation will occur, and such a model will make it impossible for this or any Archbishop of Canterbury to lead.” (p. 133, The North American Anglican V.III)

2. “Further, if one reads the Articles and the Ordinal together then one will not be able to say on the basis of them (or by direct deduction from the New Testament) that the historic Episcopate is necessary for the full being of the Church. This statement is an Anglo-Catholic doctrine and belongs, I think, to the distinctions between the Episcopate seen as the bene esse (of the well being) or the plene esse (of the fullness of being) or the esse (of the necessary being). Anglicans have held varied doctrines of the relation of the Episcopate to the Church and it is not clear what is being claimed by the English expression, “full being” here. Whatever is claimed it excludes the majority of Anglicans since 1549 who have recognized other Churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian etc) as genuine churches with genuine presbyters, even if lacking the good thing of the Episcopate.”– Dr. Peter Toon, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1667517/posts

3. After the Revolution, the American church would maintain its ties with the Church of England in a cultural or ‘voluntaristic’ way. The Convention of 1814 — in a resolution that long time Presiding Bishop William White thought significant enough to call attention to in his Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church (1880) — wrote that “‘the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America’ is the same body heretofore known in these states by the name of ‘the Church of England’; the change of name, though not of religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of England, supposing the independence of Christian Churches, under the different sovereignties, to which, respectively, their allegiances in civil concerns belongs. But that when the severance alluded to took place, and ever since, this Church conceives of herself, as professing and acting on the principles of the Church of England, is evident from the organization of our conventions, and from their subsequent proceedings, as recorded on the journals; to which, accordingly, this convention refers for satisfaction in the premises.” The convoluted syntax of the resolution suggests that the usually verbose Bishop White was the author of the resolution.

• Prior, Charles. Defining the Jacobean Church. Cambridge (2005) 
•  Sprott, George  Scottish Liturgies of the Reign of James VI & I. Cambrigde (1846)
• Stevenson, Joseph Mary Stuart: A Narrative. Edinburg (1886)
• Stuart, King James Basilikon Doron. Harvard (1918)
• Vance, Laurence  King James, His Bible, and its Translators. Vance Publications. (2006)

Solemn Declarations (SD) appear to be peculiar to North America. They are not only found within the 1962 BCP, but also in the Constitution and Canons (C&C) of numerous Anglican churches. Most of these Declarations have been modified to answer certain modernist heresies, expanding upon the original 1893, and they are basically ready hallmarks of conservative churchmanship. Without getting mired in any particular interpretation of ACC canon, the collation of Solemn Declarations  in North America is useful since their adoption has been frequented to counter century-long harm caused by latitudinarian policies.

Usually more liberal Anglicans dislike Declarations forth right, believing public vows antithetical to the”broadness” normally considered essential for “catholic” Anglicanism. But is it “catholic” for churches to treat historic doctrine and worship as local options?  For North American provinces that adopted Declarations, the SD’s are usually found in their C&C, often in modified form.  In addition to the SD found in the 1962 BCP, the largest conservative jurisdiction in North America– the Anglican Church– has modeled their statement of faith on the 1893 archetype. Thus, SD’s have a wide-range of frequency among Realignment and Continuing churches.

The Archetype: The 1893 Solemn Declaration began with the Most Reverend Machray’s proposal for a Canadian provincial church. In 1890 Machray assured Canadian Anglicans their jurisdiction would not abandon the distinctive tenets of the Mother Church in England. He also made clear Canada’s desire to be part of the Lambeth Communion. Consequently, the 1893 Declaration was composed in two parts. The first portion was a summary of Anglicanism’s catholic nature, namely, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The second half dealt with historic formulae more peculiar to Reformation in England– e.g., the 39 Articles, BCP, and Ordinal. If we take the Quadrilateral as a sufficient statement of catholicity while the historic formulae speaks of the Settlement’s distinct Protestant basis, then Solemn Declarations invoke catholic and national principles.The words of the 1893 SD followed:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

We, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders, and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons;” and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

Usually Anglicans have no problem affirming the Quadrilateral. However, the second half is more testy, especially with the last two clauses. The first clause begins at the last paragraph, saying, “to hold and maintain”. This ends with the second clause, “to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity”. Otherwise straightforward, most Solemn Declarations following 1893 would omit or weaken these two critical phrases. So, keeping an eye out for the original terminology– e.g., ‘tansmit unimpaired to our posterity’ or ‘hold and maintain’– is therefore important.

Realignment Churches: ACNA is a case in point of some watered down terminology. The Fundamental Principles of the new ACNA are fashioned according to the 1893 Declaration. Points #1-5 are basically from the Quadrilateral, and the last two points are those ‘distinct tenets’ belonging to historical Anglicanism. The term “receive” for the 39 Articles and BCP denotes their lower status to Scripture, Creed, Ecumencial Councils, etc.. yet, “to hold and maintain” does appear at the end of the last paragraph. Nonetheless, the 39 articles are described as “expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time”, raising the relevant question if this means such issues are no longer controverted today? Also recall ACNA Principles omit the earlier posterity clause, making the solemn vow less serious. ACNA’s Principles are seven:

“We believe and confess Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no one comes to the Father but by Him. Therefore, the Anglican Church in North America identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:

1. We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2. We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
3. We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
4. We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5. Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

In all these things, the Anglican Church in North America is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain as the Anglican Way has received them the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ.”

Compared to GAFCON’s prolix Jerusalem Declaration, the SD format of ACNA’s Fundamental Principles make it better organized and clean. Though it contains the points belonging to the Quadrilateral and Anglican formulae, the GAFCON statement is more a laundry-list of disagreement mostly against modernist methods of interpretation, stressing the literalness of scripture and the Creed.

The ACNA’s statement reads in a succession of similar North American Declarations. But, its weak language is really an appeal to broad church rather than a reaffirmation of historical Anglican identity. However, it leaves partners within ACNA (such as REC, FiFna, or other non-geographic dioceses) to tighten the Declaration as they see fit. This would include AMiA who withdrew late-2010 but upheld stronger language with the 39 Articles despite charismatic recidivism.  FiFna lacks a full solemn declaration, limiting mutual profession to the Quadrilateral in their Declaration of Common Faith.  This distancing from a full SD was a reason the ACNA’s SD

Though the REC’s Fundamental Declaration was written twenty years before Machray’s Solemn Declaration(SD), Cummin’s declaration contains the same elements and basic structure as later SD’s. In fact, the REC’s principles may have been what Machray was looking at to alleviate evangelical concerns with Lambeth. Although the Declaration’s approval of the 1785 BCP plus a categorically calvinist view of sacraments represents a specific narrowing of Anglican theology as found in 39 Articles, the 1873 is typical of the genre. We might consider the fourth section an elaboration on the first three points which would be the Solemn Declaration proper:

“1. The Reformed Episcopal Church, holding “the faith once delivered unto the saints,” declares its belief in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God, as the sole rule of Faith and Practice; in the Creed “commonly called the Apostles’ Creed;” in the Divine institution of the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and in the doctrines of grace substantially as they are set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

2. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity.

3. This Church, retaining a liturgy which shall not be imperative or repressive of freedom in prayer, accepts The Book of Common Prayer, as it was revised, proposed, and recommended for use by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, A.D. 1785, reserving full liberty to alter, abridge, enlarge, and amend the same, as may seem most conducive to the edification of the people, “provided that the substance of the faith be kept entire.”

4. This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God’s Word: First, that the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity: Second, that Christian Ministers are “priests” in another sense than that in which all believers are a “royal priesthood:” Third, that the Lord’s Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father: Fourth, that the Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine: Fifth, that regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.”  

Since 2001, the REC has began a process of clarifying point four (above) to a more catholic understanding of the 39 Articles. This was leveraged through APA ecumenical statements  (Anglican Province of America– see below), especially their Joint Affirmation. In 2005, the REC and APA then launched a process for relation with Lambeth through the global south, making a bridge between realignment and continuing churhes as explained in the REC-APA’s statement on Anglican unity:

“The Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America are part of the new alignment. It has taken initial shape for us by means of the Church of Nigeria of the Anglican Communion… FACA therefore also helps form a subordinate structure to the Common Cause Partners promoting greater bilateral union among the fragments of continuing Anglicanism. We ask for your prayers and supports of FACA. It offers a way forward between the REC and the APA as well as among many other Anglican jurisdictions. By the grace of God, it will play a role in the larger realignment of Anglicanism.” (p. 2, 14, ’True Unity’).

Continuing Churches: As suggested elsewhere– not only by Fr. Hart but by an earlier post on the St. Louis Affirmation– Solemn Declarations provide a way for Continuing churches to clarify sometimes tense relations with historic formulae. At the 2011 Reaffirmation Congress held recently in Victoria, Canada a little known church– a self-professed adherent to the St. Louis Affirmation–, the Christian Episcopal Church (XnEC), headed by Bp. Redmile, called for visible unity between St. Louis jurisdictions. The XnEC is a rather small continuing jurisdiciton, but at their website a version of the old Solemn Declaration can be found. This SD was introduced by their first Bishop, Donald Davies, in 2003. XnEC calls it “The Fort Worth Declaration” which reads:

“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. We, the Most Reverend Archibald Donald Davies, and those Bishops who have hereunto subscribed their names, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration: We declare ourselves to be in communion one with another, as members of the One Body of Christ, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, holding the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Oecumenical Councils: receiving the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teaching the same Word of God; partaking of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders, and worshipping One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662; and the Articles of Religion of 1562; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.”

This is a rare example of an SD that Continuing and Realignment Anglicans might both agree. Most curiously, it makes no mention of the Lambeth Communion, though it has a very clear-cut statement on Anglican formulae with very little alteration from the original 1893. Apparently, whatever was judged disagreeable simply was removed, and so we have something that’s basically identical to the original.

Among St. Louis churches, the largest is the ACC which is now its virtual flagship. The ACC preceded both XnEC and TAC (see below) having primarily drafted the St. Louis as well as a founding member of the Deerfield Beach congress whereupon TAC was borne. When ACC split over the formation of TAC, the ACC adopted the following epigram, “–original province”, to differentiate itself from those ACC bishops who merged with the Anglican Episcopal Church (AEC). The ACC nonetheless has its own Solemn Declaration which supersedes the one found in the 1962 BCP. It’s perhaps the most modified version in existence, being carefully worded to amplify primacy of the St. Louis. There’s no mention of the 39 articles in this modification. Male orders are specified, the bishopric is elaborated as “divinely instituted”, and the numeration of sacraments and ecumenical councils are enshrined as ‘seven’. This SD gives a real stress on the authority of the Bishop. The intention to remain in communion with other Anglicans is probably wisely qualified as those who remain “faithful to Apostolic Order”. Following a brief preamble regarding the necessity to ‘re-order godly discipline’ in America, the ACC’s SD begins:

“We declare this church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with all Anglicans throughout the world who remain faithful to Apostolic Order (including the male Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate), as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided Primitive Catholic Church in the Seven Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments through the Ministry of the same Divinely instituted  Apostolic Orders; and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, the Seven Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord has commanded in His Holy Word and as this Church hath received and set forth the same in the Book of Common Prayer; to maintain the Scriptural and Apostolical Form of Episcopal Church Government; and to transmit the same sacred trust unimpaired to our posterity.”

Another example of a St. Louis church using solemn declarations is the UK province of TAC (TTAC). It’s SD is interesting for wide use of the 39 articles. As a member of TAC, the UK province is free to “adopt its own Fundamental or Solemn Declarations consistent with the Affirmation of St. Louis” (Concordant cc. 3.4). The UK Province consequently adopted a Fundamental Declaration much like the 1893, consisting of four consecutive parts– the councils, creeds, bible, and settlement formulae:

FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS. 2.1 The Traditional Anglican Church, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church and embodied in the Creeds known as the Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed.

2.2 This Church receives all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as defined in Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary to salvation.

2.3 This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the sacred ministry, which orders in accordance with the example of Christ and the Apostles shall ever be reserved to adult males.

2.4 This Church retains and affirms the traditional orthodox doctrine and principles of the Church of England as embodied in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) together with the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles as being agreeable to the Word of God.

The UK-TTAC Declaration is one of the few that uses the 39 articles as a framework for the rest of the Constitution, proof-texting various C&C points by the Articles. This probably caters to unsuspect evangelicals in the CoE. Note also 2.3 which inserts a special clause for male orders– a feature that Realignment churches might benefit from Continuing SD’s in the future. Despite the high prominence of the 39 articles, TTAC nevertheless signed the Papist Ordinariate. Consequently, Declarations aren’t fool-proof solutions by-themselves but are measured with the rest of their C&C. In this instance,  TTAC’s departure from Settlement theology might be blamed upon the related 1990 TAC Concordant and the various prerogatives the college of bishops were given to set doctrine therein.

My favorite Continuing Solemn Declaration is the Anglican Province of America’s (APA). The APA version is also fairly close to the 1893 but includes the St. Louis Affirmation. Adhering to the ‘spirit’ of St. Louis is a curious phrase since the St. Louis has been known for problematic vocabulary, namely, the seven-seven formula for sacraments and councils. What is meant by “spirit of” could mean many things, but given the APA’s early continuity with low-church AEC, it’s probably a safe bet that early APA intended (at most) a modest Anglo-catholicism or ‘central church’ route. Questions about problematic language in the Affirmation could be easily solved by adding asterisks to clarify certain muddy points as the ACC has already done with Section V. Otherwise, the Affirmation is a good document that logically appeals to catholic tradition to preserve male orders. Detractors might point out the APA became anglo-catholic despite its Fundamental Declaration. However, this is not due to any weakness with the solemn declaration itself. As with UK-TTAC, and other high church bodies that wish to narrow the Settlement, contending standards found their way inside C&C (e.g., Anglican Missals  mentioned in section X). Anyway, the APA’s Declaration reads:

“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. We, the Bishops, together with the Depuites from the Clergy and Laity of the Anglican Province of America, assembled in Provincial Synod, make the following Solemn Declaration:

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue in full communion with all traditional Anglicans throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testametns, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments , through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And We are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the traditional Anglican movement hath received and set forth the same in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung, or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1801; and in the spirit of the Affirmation of St. Louis of 1977; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.”

The APA left the Anglican Church in America (ACA) in 1995, and in 1996 it began talks with REC through FACA. The ACA possessed the older Solemn Declaration which differs from the APA’s by directly asserting the authority of the St. Louis along with the 1990 TAC Concordant. The later is probably the real culprit for paving the way toward ACA’s flirt with Anglo-papalism.

In 2010 the APA Diocese of the West refused to cut ties with Common Cause churches, and, as a consequence, DoW went forward as the lone segment of  APA to join the ACNA through REC.  Though a diocese of REC,  DoW has retained it’s APA C&C making it a very unique jurisdiction. Evidently, the 2001 Joint Affirmation was judged a sufficient test for REC communion, so the SD road through.

Remaining under APA standards, DoW curiously is not bound by the REC’s 1873 Declaration.  This means the REC strangely contains a brand of churchmanship limited to the DoW Bishopric that can ignore the 1873 SD on both the ben esse of episcopacy and non-locality of presence, opening the door for a non-juror, early tractarian line of church doctrine. DoW is also the only St. Louis Affirming church in ACNA, giving other continuers an idea of what ACNA affiliation might provide.

Some Thoughts: Both Continuing and Realignment jurisdictions have Solemn Declarations (SD) some closer to the original 1893 than others. Where they’ve been adapted to address modern innovations like women’s ordination, the  St. Louis is sometimes added or the divine intent for male orders simply inserted into the SD.  Of the latter, the UK-TAC ‘ s does this. Meanwhile, APA’s DoW  stitches together both the St. Louis and 39 articles through the REC’s Joint Affirmation, demonstrating how Continuing churches might best restore a old high church position. Sadly, WO and 39 articles will remain divisive issues, likely impairing relations not only in ACNA but ACC/ACA. An grounding of Tradition in 39 articles may well remain a touchy spot for the Continuing movement. Nonetheless, Solemn Declarations, especially those belonging to UK-TAC and APA, remain excellent examples by which St. Louis and recent TEC churchmen may re-embrace classical Anglicanism. At least SD has provided worthwhile markers for conservative churchmanship in the Anglican sphere. As Bp. Paul Hewett (Diocese of the Holy Cross) noted in his 2007 report to Fifna:

“The three major jurisdictions that are not in FACA are the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the United Episcopal Church. They are  moving toward an informal federation which is actually quite dynamically linked through back doors with ours. I believe that this grouping and the FACA are on converging paths, and there are many who labor to make this so.”

an oxford "cell"

In Principles of Religious Ceremonial, the Rt. Rev. Walter H. Frere outlines several maxims regarding the application of right ritual. The Principles of Religious Ceremonial is actually an English Use manual for worship much like Dearmer’s Parson’s Guide. It is largely a study on Sarum ritual as well as the Ornaments Rubric, but  it is also a criticism of anglo-papism. Frere’s work might be viewed as a reigning in of advance ritualism rather than a further extension of catholic revival. Regarding the treatment of Principles for greater ceremonial restraint, Frere comments on Anglo-catholic practices:

“At the present moment we are in the midst of a period of experiment and expansion. The result of all this is a great diversity in matters of ceremonial.  There are signs, however, that the limits of this diversity have been reached; and there are hopes that the moment is coming for the attainment of a far greater measure of unity than has been possible at least during the last fifty years. If this is to be the case, the unity can only be secured through a testing of the customs in use by the standard of ceremonial principles.” (Principles, p. 140)

 The call for ritual consolidation certainly pertains today as much as it did over one-hundred years ago when Frere’s Principles were first published in 1907. Most of the principle to be tested is in relation to the Ornaments Rubric and continuity with certain Sarum customs. But Frere also admits two other factors– the rule of faith as well as reasonable bishopric discretion. In discussing the role of faith there is a maxim which many Anglicans too frequently ignore, namely, ceremony informs doctrine. Of course, the reverse is also true. Regarding the regulation of ritual by Anglican doctrine, Frere says:

“A valuable method of exercising discrimination will be to test ceremonial by analogy. Is it in a right analogy with doctrine, or with the rite to which it is annexed? Ceremonial has constantly been the expression of the less educated and superstitious mind, instead of being the expression of the better educated and more reverent conscience of the Church. Ceremonial acts must therefore be continually tested, to see how far they are according to the analogy of the faith. To genuflect in honor of our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament is an act which accords duly with the reverent belief in the real presence; but such a belief does not necessitate the precision with which some on returning from communion ostentatiously direct their genuflexion towards the exact point where one or other priest happens to be administering.” (p. 139)

Frere goes on describing a number of examples where ceremony indeed conflicts with doctrine. In the description quote above, however, Frere criticizes genuflexuion that is directed toward the localized host rather than the sacramental act . This reasoning seems due to the common silence that Anglican articles often treat the mode of real presence. Hence, Frere is asking something analogous in our bodily gestures. Frere provides further commentary against frequent genuflexion by historical argument, noting the limited use of geneflexion even in the Sarum where these prostrations were reserved for a few penitential occasionals as well as at high festivals when the high altar was censed (p. 152).  Regardless, Frere’s methodology is aimed against diversities (or lawlessness) in catholic revival which has become a virtually permanent feature of contemporary Anglicanism.

Bound Together: Too frequently Anglicans define their faith in terms of mere ‘practice’, as if Anglicanism has no doctrine but is simply sacramental or the mystery of prayer, rejecting anything that smacks of a logical system or summa for doctrine.  Everything is consequently reduced to a ‘sacramental encounter’ and rather than talking theology, Anglicans seem to talk in a low contextual, primitive, and cultish sign language. The danger with this sort of mysticism is is that other liturgical practices that are dynamically informed by rational systems of theology inevitably find their way into Anglican belief, speaking where Anglicans no longer know how to speak. Therefore, if we refuse to uphold the standards of the Anglican Settlement as too “western”, “protestant”, or “reformed”, other confessions from places antithetical to reformed catholicism, such as Rome,  Constantinople, or Edinburgh, tend to fill the gap.

It is often heard that Anglicans never had a single standard like the WCF, and consequently Anglicans can ignore the 39 Articles if not all formulae. This is a non-sequitur since no historic protestant or catholic church has ever adopted only ‘one’ symbol. Though the Anglicans took a more conservative position than continentals with respect to the Reformation and catholic past, the Settlement itself had an organization similar to Magisterial Protestant countries elsewhere. Typically they adopted multiple standards that were expected to work together, e.g., a book of worhsip, confession, longer catechism, canons, etc..

For example, the Lutherans gathered together several doctrinal formulae into their Book of Concord which consisted of at least a half-dozen ‘confessions’. They also started their reformation with hundreds of local church-orders for worship, and so diversity was much more a mark of Lutheranism than it was in Anglicanism. German and Swiss Reformed also upheld a number of symbols in the process of their disputations about catholic theology . The Dutch settled on ‘Three Forms of Unity” while German-Swiss started with the Augsburg and its Apology, adding later either the Heidelberg Cathechism or Wittenberg if not the First Helvetic Concords. As Calvin’s catechism was exported abroad in the late 1540′s, across the channel it was found bound in a single book with the Geneva bible and confession.  It’s a surpise the Institutes were not included!

In England, various bindings of Anglican standards were also common, published together from time to time illustrating the interdependence of formulae. Henry VIII published the Ten Articles bound with the 1537 catechism. Elizabeth did the same with Nowell’s catechism, Jewel’s Apology and the 39 articles. The KJV at one time likewise bound the BCP calendar with lectionary, demonstrating their complementary nature. The Two Book of Homilies also contained the 39 Articles and sometimes canons. And, today the Book of Common Prayer normally includes the 1563/1801 Articles despite the technical fact neither the 39 Articles nor the Coverdale Psalter are formal parts of the Prayer Book.  The compilation of these standards, especially from a catholic perspective, is justified by the fact scripture is indeed mediated by the Church. The 39 articles admit there is no such thing as solo scriptura, “the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ”. So,  standards are nothing less than the witness of due ecclesiastical authority against private acts.

An Incarnational Perspective: A more anglo-catholic dislike of confessional symbols might argue mystical union against “logical” summas.  But this is often a prejudice against Western scholasticism, pretending the East has none while splitting the law of prayer against the rule of faith. Perhaps a more authentic catholic answer is that the separation of symbol from liturgy is really artificial, and their division is as wrong as dividing word from sacrament. This is especially true when discussing documents that emerge from the college of bishops and ecclesiastical synod which are predicated upon submission. In this case, they are certainly born from the life and communion of the church– Christ himself– having a prophetic quality. However, without common authority, the church becomes congregationalist and the role of the bishopric as vicar effectively disappears.

An interesting argument made by the Rev. Dr. Barbaugh (19th century German Reformed Church) regarding the working together of the prophetic with priestly office was that such cooperation was the consequence of Christ’s incarnation, and that since Christ holds these Crowns, the Church ought as well by proxy. Barbaugh said,

“As in Christ, so in His Church, prophet, priest, and king are not three separate offices, but one office in a threefold form. They are all embodied in one and the same Christian minister. Their functions unite in his ministrations in very complete divine service. He is a prophet in his pulpit teaching, a priest in the altar service, and a king in the exercise of the power of the keys… Thus the church must ever embrace in its remedial activities the threefold interest of Creed, Ritual, and Government, as these find expression in Confession or Catechism, Liturgy, and Code of Laws. Hence, Church History is made up of doctrine, worship, and government; and these three, live the divine offices of prophet, priest, and king which underlie them, are one. They compliment and energize one another. They must be consistent with each other. There must ever be an inward harmony between them. As one is honored, all are honored; as one suffers, all suffers with it.” (Tercentenary Monument, p. 231)

Is the denial of discipline in the church is also a denial of the person of Christ? Unfortunately, modern Protestantism’s tendency has been to go to the other route, reducing the priestly office for sake of the prophetic, and so there is an equal danger to go the other extreme as Dr. Bardaugh remarks,

“Previous to the Reformation the prophetic office had not its full, free honor and exercise; when, as a consequence, the priestly office grew arrogant, adn the kingly tyrannical. Since the Reformation, in the Protestant Church the tendency has been the other way. The prophetic office has been plied beyond its proportion, while the priestly and kingly have suffered corresonding undervaluation, neglect, and tacit dishonor” (p. 232)

Anglicans have perhaps more standards than any other reformation or catholic church. Not only is there the 39 articles, Prayer Book, and 1604 canons but also the Homilies, Jewel’s Apology, a 1578 primer, two English bibles (1568 and 1611), and two catechisms (1571 and 1543) to guide faith and teach clergy. These were appointed to help sum faith and restore worship in England. We also seem to have the oldest set of standards amongst Protestant churches, largely unaltered since 1571. This places us in a unique relation to the earliest phase of the Reformation when divines still had one foot firmly inside the intellectual mindset and the soul of the best catholicism of the medieval church. There is much the standards offer, but when ignored or passed over the ability to regulate worship is indeed inhibited since the doctrinal basis originally attached is lost, making the curtailment of present-day abuses extremely challenging if not impossible to judge.

I normally try to write my own articles, but the following essay by M’ Lord Peter Robinson, Presiding Bishop of UECNA,  is an excellent summary of high church principles. Old High Church– or what best approximates it– today exists in few quarters. The only dioceses which appear to promote such tenets are the UECNA’s Western one (Bp. Robinson), the Reformed Episcopal Church’s Diocese of Mid-America (DMA), and Petite Riviere/New Dublin (of the late-Rev. Dr. Crouse) in Canada.  Classical High Church has a potential to create a center Anglicanism in North America, strongly based on 39 articles and prayer book, where disparent evangelicals and anglo-catholics might find coherence. Moreover, old High Church was really the King’s religion and is therefore most representative of the Settlement contra Puritan and Recusant adaptations. However, any revival of classical Anglicanism will require a resuscitation of these High Church tenets, so Robinson’s essays indeed are worth their time in study. The article below somewhat reads together with his second one: broad and central.  

Though Anglican Rose is enthusiastic about Old High Church, I disagree with an ethos where dioceses exercise a broad tolerance within themselves.  Anglican discipline, the ardent kind once leveled against Puritanism, needs to be reasserted.  I also would qualify the point on ‘mild arminianism’, referencing instead the Jacobean rather than Carolinian divines in this regard, hence, making a stronger tie with the late-Elizabethan era of churchmanship. Furthermore, I somewhat question the degree old high church might be identified with modern day middle-of-the-road.  Perhaps some of these points could be discussed elsewhere?

by the Most Rev. Peter Robinson

Thoughts on Central Churchmanship: Theology for Central Churchmen is very much a continuation of the old High Church, or as some folks called it, orthodox, tradition. We begin first and foremost with the idea that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation and it corrolary – that orthodox Creedal Christianity can be proved from the Bible. Therefore it is not necessary to waste much time here discussing the Being and nature of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, Atonement, etc., as Central Churchmen are all in full accord with the traditional teaching on these matters. When it comes to what makes Anglicans different, Central Churchmen basically follow the line of development that begins with Jewel, the wanders its way through Hooker to the Caroline Divines, and then on to eighteenth and nineteenth century High Churchmen like Daniel Waterland, William Van Mildert, Harold Browne, Christopher Wordsworth, etc.. Central Churchmen tend to be mildly Arminian in outlook, believe that baptism confers regeneration, and believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. They also hold with a mild form of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Though today the prayer desk has replaced the faldstool, nevertheless, in the Parson’s Handbook the Rev. Dearmer explains the Litany is to be be given in the old position of the fladstool, namely,  in the midst of the church. According to Dearmer, the Litany should be recited regularly, normally Wednesdays and Fridays as well as between morning prayer and ante-communion on Sundays. But it is especially said upon penitential seasons.

However, these many details likely escape the majority of parishioners who rarely recite the Litany, and, perhaps they never do unless it be at Lent. Infrequent exposure to the Litany probably leaves more specifically Anglican features to pass unnoticed. The prayer book Litany differs from the Latin in a number of places. But perhaps the most conspicuous difference is the absence of heavenly saints of whom Romans and Eastern Orthodox commonly invoke. Instead, the Anglican emphasis is upon an earthy kingdom, or church militant. This ought to be an interesting point for Anglicans since our suffrages beg the Church of England instead of the heavenly hosts. The 1559 version of the litany lists the estates of the church [in bold] which are thus mentioned:

“We synners do beseche the to heare us (O Lord God,) and that it may please the to rule and governe thy holy Churche universally, in the right way…That it may please the, to kepe and strengthen in the true worshipping of the in righteousnes and holynes of lyfe, thy servaunt James our most gracious Kyng and governour…That it may please the, to rule his harte in thy faith, feare, and love, that he may evermore have affiaunce in the, and ever seke thy honoure and glory. That it may please the, to be his defender and keper, geving him the victory over al his enemyes. That it may please thee to bless and preserve our gracious Queen Anne, Prince Henry, and the rest of the King and Queen’s Royal issue… That it may please the to illuminate all Byshoppes, Pastours, and ministers of the Church, with true knowledge, and understanding of thy words, and that both by their preaching and livinge, they may sette it furth and shewe it accordingly…That it maye please thee to endue the Lordes of the Counsayle, and all the nobilitie, with grace, wisedom, and understanding…That it may please thee to blesse and kepe the Magistrates, geving them grace to execute justice, and to maynteyne truthe… That it may please the to blesse, and kepe al thy people.”

From the litany we can list the estates pertaining to England’s church militant. After the church universal, measured from greatest to least, these might be:  1. the Gracious King, 2. the royal issue, 3.  the Bishops and ministers, 4. the Lords in council, 5. the lesser magistrates (governors and parliament), and 6. all thy people. Anthony Sparrow, commissioner to the 1662 BCP, while speaking of the litany’s deprecations and petitions, divided the petitions into two parts:

“The like good Order is observed in our Petitions for Good. First, we pray for the Church Catholick, the common Mother of all Christians; then for our own Church, to which next the Church Catholick, we owe the greatest Observance and Duty. And therein in the first Place for the principal Members of it, in whole Welfare the Church’s Peace chiefly consists. After this we pray particularly for those Sorts of Men that most especially need our Prayers, such amongst others, as those whom the Law calls miserable Persons.” (p. 61, A Rationale)

Thus, the litany immediately divides between catholic and national parts. Keeping in mind the part is never greater than the whole,  the petition for the church cahtolik naturally comes first.  But after the prayer for our universal body, the 1559 litany moves to the provincial or national domain. The national church, of course, begins with England’s supreme head, the Crown. Descending from there, the suffrage  pleas for his seed, often both those nearest in birth and marriage to the throne. The litany then continues downward to the Bishops, likewise greater nobility, who were next to adjure for the church. Alongside them were then the  Lords of Council who could likewise be regents or protectorates to the King either his absence or by immaturity. Then came the magistrates (judges, commons), and, last, the faithful.

However, this order of estates did not belong to the older Sarum which gave priority to the church before the state. Frere comments upon the  transposition from ecclesiastical to royal offices in the Anglican litany of 1544:

“After the suffrage for the Church, [in the Sarum] those for the ecclesiastical orders usually came first, and were followed by those for the prince and for Christian people. Yet the intercessions for rulers of the Church and of the State were occasional-ly transposed, and in 1544 the series of petitions for the King was set next after that for the Church [catholik]: and this order remains”  (p. 416, A New History)

England’s Church militant: The litany’s emphasis on the terrestrial Church, and its structure is especially interesting from the stand point of authority. In England, the ‘church’ not only was composed of clerics but also included privileged rankings of secular society. In his 1547 Homily ‘Concerning Good Order’, Cranmer gives an enlightening comparison of the celestial to earthy hierarchies that all men must obey:

“Almighty God hath created and appointed all things in heaven, earth, and waters, in a most excellent and perfect order. In heaven he hat appointed distinct and several orders and states of Archangels and Angels. In earth  he hath assigned and appointed Kings, Princes, with other Governors under them, in all good and necessary order… Every degree of people in their vocation, calling, and office, hath appointed to them their duty and order: some are in high degree, some in low; some Kings and Princes, some Inferiors and Subjects; Priests and Laymen, Masters and Servants, Fathers and Children, Husbands and Wives, Rich and Poor: and every one hath need of the other: so that in all things to be lauded and praised the goodly order of God; without the which no house, no city, no commonwealth, can continue and endure, or last.” (p. 72, Sermons or Homilies)

I believe the homily gives some insight toward Cranmer’s alteration of the Sarum litany. For Cranmer, and especially the Anglican divinity of the 17th century, the church doesn’t absolutely stand apart from the commonwealth but is a peculiar estate within. Yet, all estates are ruled by the Prince, “The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil (Article #37).

Likewise, Hooker describes the church as “society”, assigning features of order normally associated with earthy kingdoms. It might be noted this description was contrary to the Puritan one which treated the church as a heavenly or invisible “mob”,

“By the Church…we understand no other than only the visible Church. For preservation of Christianity there is not any thing more needful, than that such as are of the visible Church have mutual fellowship and society one with another. In which consideration, as the main body of the sea being one, yet into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself. In this sense the Church is always a visible society of men; not an assembly, but a Society. For although the name of the Church be given unto Christian assemblies, although the name of the Church be given unto Christian assemblies, although any multitude of Christian men congregated may be termed by the name of a Church, yet assemblies properly are rather things that belong a to a Church. Men are assembled for performance of public actions; which actions being ended, the assembly dissolveth itself and is no longer in being, whereas the Church which was assembled doth no less continue afterwards than before.” (Book III, i, s. 14, Laws)

Thus, Anglican divines give a conservative order that more or less meshes laity and clergy together in a single yet ordered politic. While this sort of provincial structure for the church is not immutable or absolutely commanded either by the Apostles or God, Hooker and Cranmer both credit an ordering by the Christian king’s supremacy. Cranmer conveys the historical raison d’etre for a Christian king’s authority in the church:

“For it is out of all doubt that the priests and bishops never had any authority by the gospel to punish any man by corporal violence; and therefore they were oftentimes moved of necessity to require Christian princes to interpone their authority, and by the same to constrain and reduce inobedient persons unto the obedience and good order of the church: which the Christian princes, as God’s ministers in that part, and for the zeal they had to establishing of Christ’s religion, not only did gladly execute, but did also give unto priests and bishops further power and jurisdiction in certain other temporal and civil matters…” (p. 113, Sermons or Homilies)

Hence, the duties of Crown are not just for the material good but also the the cure and salvation of subjects. We might note the faldstool concept in Cranmer’s history. The bishops delegated powers to the Crown. Hence the Crown claims its own kind of faldstool– if not directly, then through appointed ministers. Cranmer continues describing the grand ministry of the Prince,

“And unto them of right, and by God’s commandment, belongeth, not only to prohibit unlawful violence, to correct offenders by corporal death or other punishment..to procure the public weal, and the common peace and tranquility in outward and earthly things; but specifically and principally to defend the faith of Christ and his religion, to conserve and maintain the true doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true preachers and setters forth thereof, and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers, and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be occasioners of the same; and finally to oversee and cause that the said priests and bishops do execute their said power, office, and jurisdiction truly, faithfully, and according in all points as it was given and committed to them unto Christ and his apostles” (p. 121)

Revolution and Apostasy: The American revolution changed the English transposition of church-state.  The prayer book blames the absence of royal Supremacy upon  American ‘circumstances’ (p. vi, The Book of Common Prayer). Episcopalians properly attended these ‘circumstances’ by omitting those prayers touching Crown and nobility. However, the American bcp revision of 1928 went further than baring mention of royalty from the book. Instead, the U.S. Presidency was inserted and curiously placed in the old rank of the Crown. This is wrong for a couple reasons.

In so far as we might view the suffrages of the church militant to be an outline a consecrated order for the English church, the American 1928 revision seems to wrongly conflate the estate of Christian king with that of a constitutional President. In other words, the U.S. revision makes the quality of these two estates indifferent, suggesting no substantive gap between a republican system (where the public head officially rejects a role in religion) vs. a christian monarch (where the king actively and sometimes aggressively intervenes and defends the faith). In the American system, the order is really reversed because the true sovereign is not a king but the people of each respective state who establish the pact of Union. Compare this to the litany which organizes authority in a descending where the people are the last voice in consultation. It also ignores the ancient nature of the English Crown as an anointed, quasi-sacramental office. The U.S. Presidency is more like a prime minister over a federal ‘parliament’ than an anointed king. If the 1928 was more consistent with the English 1662 litany (or even the earlier 1892 bcp), the U.S. Presidency would remain underneath the bishops, at the petition for wise magistrates.  A more correct rendition would either be:

1. re-use the1789 or 1892 versions.
2. simply re-edit the American 1928 suffrages by moving the Presidency back to its original place with common magistrates as found in the 1662 (or older bcp’s). In effect, this would make the American more ‘ catholic’ returning more or less to the same order (minus the Pope) as the Sarum where the state is below the church rather than the other way around.

Consequently, a revised 1928 might read:

“O Lord God; and that it may please thee to rule and govern thy holy Church universal in the right way…That it may please thee to illuminate our 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… That it may please thee so to rule the heart of thy servant, The President of the United States, that he may above all things seek thy honour and glory…That it may please thee to bless and preserve Christian Rulers and Magistrates, giving them grace to execute justice, and to maintain truth…That it may please thee to bless and keep all thy people“.

While AR has no overwhelming interest in using the state prayers for monarchy,  the idea of regency within Supremacy needs to be preserved.  There is no question among conservative Anglicans today that the English Crown has become irresponsible in church responsibilities. It is also very apparent the the Primates and Archbishoprics follow a similar path.  Nonetheless, the litany’s faldstool (as a symbol of authority within the church) shows that Anglicans have a chain of command, and when the stool is abducted, their is a proper order by which a lower estate ought to function as regent or “defender of faith” until a better day.

Perhaps continuing Anglicanism have a certain excuse in their departure for the sake of a  ’free church’.  Response to apostasy can only go down the Erastian ladder. John Keble outlines this ‘ladder’ in terms similar to the litany,

“It is very possible that I may overlook something which materially affects this question, and which may be plain enough to other persons; but it does seem to me that in the case supposed (of a public censure, and dispensation, refused), loyalty to the Church, her Creed or her Order both, could only be maintained by one of the two following courses: either we should continue in our ministry, respect, fully stating our case, and making appeal to the Metropolitan, or as Archbishop Cranmer did, to the Synod, and that publicly–which course one should be slow to adopt except in a matter which concerned the very principles of Faith and of Church Communion;–or else we should tender to our superiors our relinquishment of the post which we held under them in the Church, and retire either into some other diocese, or, if all our Bishops were agreed into lay communion. The objections in point of scandal to these two courses would be, that the former might sound under present circumstances more as a way of talking than anything else: the latter, unless the case were very amply and openly explained, would appear as if one conceded the notion of the Articles being incapable of a Catholic sense…We might be excommunicated, but we could neither join ourselves to any of the uncatholic communities around us, nor form a new communion for ourselves. We could not be driven into schism against our will. We could only wait patiently at the Church door, wishing and praying that our bonds might be taken off, and pleading our cause as we best might from reason and Scripture and Church precedents.” (The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”)

Obviously, Keble isn’t despairing prelacy in the Church but the danger catholicism faced after by two democratizing events: 1) parliamentary supremacy after 1700 which always threatened the church; and 2) electoral emancipation in 1833 allowing non-Anglicans to sit in parliament.

Some thoughts: Anglicanism today is likely in worst straits than at Keble’s time. The question of authority whether in the Lambeth Communion or amongst Continuing Churches is endemic. Continuing clergy over the last forty years have manage to secure (sometimes irregular) bishoprics  so laity might roost in relatively safe dioceses. Meanwhile, Canterbury-aligned churches are breaking traditional diocese boundaries by forming parallel dioceses on the basis of theological affinity rather than territory. Though we are not at the point of needing a lay communion, the Litany instructs where Anglicans might go after estates successively fail. We might also consider the rare and in extremis powers an estate may employ in lieu of another’s abduction. Thus we have a chain of command, and it might be traveled either downward or upward according to contingency. The crisis of authority is not so much that Anglicanism can’t work, but what respective estate will step-in vis-a-vis Anglicanism’s historic ‘chain of command” now that the Archbishops and Crown have created a vacuum of authority, ruling in their stead? We might call this ‘regent theory’.

the Rt. Rev. Machray Primate of Canada

Although Canada claims the earliest North American prayer book service held at Frobisher Bay in 1578, the Canadian church itself was late in coming, not formed on a national basis until 1893. In between these dates, Canadian Anglicans struggled in the back-woods as a wilderness church. When Bishop Robert Machray arrived from London in 1865 at Rupert’s Land,  he confronted the problem of ordering Hudson Bay colonial churches in such a way to best “secure the ground for the Church of England”. Bishop Machray’s reforms began at the Red River camp where a model for greater British North America developed. Church order increasingly gained ground, and by 1890 the Winnipeg Conference proposed a structure for Canada. Crucial to this proposed national church was Machray’s Solemn Declaration of 1893. The Declaration would be the capstone of Machray’s work, and from its institution Anglican who face a similar tundra of vacuous faith and order today may learn many practical points.

Ordering a Wilderness:  Robert Machray was born in Aberdeen, Scotland. While studying at Cambridge, Machray’s dislike of free church presbyterianism in the 1840′s convinced him to leave protestant dissent altogether and formally confirm his faith as Anglican in 1853. Machray entered Holy Orders in 1855, and served as a curate at Ely Cathedral. First promoted to chapter Dean, by 1865 Machray was called to the Bishopric. His consecration at Queen Victoria’s Palace Chapel symbolized a life-long identity with the English Crown that not only gave him a high regard toward Prayer Book standards, but it would later lead him to the distinguished title of royal Prelate for the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Machray’s immediate pastoral charge was the ordering along English formulae of British colonials settled in Rupert’s Land. Along the Red River settlement, Canadian Anglicans were accustom to Presbyterian forms of worship. Machray’s passion for the Prayer Book and episcopal establishment informed a number of reforms. Machray’s successor, Archbishop Matheson, would say this about his attachment to the Book of Common Prayer:

“I rarely ever met anyone who loved and valued our Book of Common Prayer as he did. To him it was the vital vehicle which carried the worship of the heart to a holy God in temperate, stately and beautiful language.”

Beginning with worship, Red River was required to follow the prayer book rather than Methodist or Presbyterian patterns of devotion. They were required to have Holy Communion at least once per month with the offertory returned to the usual place. The Calendar was restored for normal liturgical use and its associated holy days observed.  Other Sundays, evening and morning prayer were to be conducted,  accompanied by regular catechism, and surplice with gown worn by ministers for services. For better organization of the diocese, Machray then set up vestries with wardens elected solely by the men of the same parishes. Constitution and canons were adopted, archdeacons appointed, and soon a cathedral w/ college emerged. Tithes were regularly collected allowing parishes to gradually become self-supporting. From these humble beginnings the Manitoba diocese was sufficiently ordered to not only be an active mission center for the northern territory, but it also proved an example for doctrine and worship in the nation generally.

The Solemn Declaration: By 1890 canadian provinces began moving toward a national church. While Eastern and Maritime provinces feared a loss of relative autonomy, Machray calmed these doubts by explaining how the national principle– embodied in ‘general synods’ and archbishoprics– has existed in alongside the normal unit of the diocese throughout history. According to Machray, British Americans needn’t fear a loss of local authority since in both England and America archbishoprics existed without compromising the basic unit of diocesan government. As chairman and primate of the 1890 synod, Machray proposed three resolutions promising both a federal and constitutional structure for Canada’s national church, otherwise known as the Winnipeg Scheme:

1) A Solemn Declaration that the Church of England in Canada desired to continue an integral part of the Anglican Communion, adhering to and upholding all the distinctive tenets and features of the Mother Church.2) The General Synod, when formed, did not intend to, and should not, take away from or interfere with any existing rights, powers, or jurisdiction of any Diocesan Synod within its own territorial limits.

3) The Constitution of a General Synod involved no change in the existing system of Provincial Synods, but the retention or abolition of the Provincial Synods was left to be dealt with according to the requirements of the various Provinces as to the Provinces and the Dioceses within such Provinces seemed proper.

The last two points were surities giving a tiered structure  for provincial and diocesan co-existance. But the scheme’s first point is most relevant, “A Solemn Declaration that the Church of England in Canada desired to continue as an integral part of the Anglican Communion, adhering to and upholding all the distinctive tenets and features of the Mother Church“. On the first point, Bishop Machray wrote much like American New England high-churchman, Samuel Seabury, assigning a rather ‘high’ status to England as an example for doctrine and discipline, departing in minimal ways. This in itself was a refutation of low church pan-protestantism more common to Red River before Machray’s arrival and, unfortunately, salient in southerly American colonies like Virginia. However, unlike Americans, the Canadian church was not incumbent to equivocate the name of their church for dissenting opinion. Even up to the 1890′s  Canadian Anglicans could call their sacred assembly,  ”the Church of England in the dominion of Canada”.

The Solemn Declaration of 1893 was approved by Toronto’s first general synod. It would be the linchpin to a distinctly Anglican identity proving a cornerstone not only with liturgy but doctrine as well.  Its first half is a reiteration of the same criteria given in the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilaterial, passed eight years before the Winnipeg Conference, designed especially for catholic ecumenicalism rather than full articles of faith between Anglican churches. It covered the Church of England in Canada as being 1) creedal; 2) ruled by scripture; 3) sacramental; and, 4) of apostolic ordering. This portion of the Declaration read as follows:

WE, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:

WE declare this Church to he, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as contain mg all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One Cod and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

The second half of the Declaration was more specific, proclaiming the historical faith of England, credited to Machray himself. Following the terms of subscription set by Whitgift in 1584, the declaration affirmed those same three formularies definitive of the famous Tudoran Settlement, namely, “prayer book, ordinal, and 39 articles”. Here, the Solemn Declaration vowed to “hold and maintain the doctrine, sacraments, and Discipline of Christ” as ‘set forth and received’ by the same three formularies. Noted also was the perpetual nature of this public vow, “and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity”. The last half of the Declaration read thusly:

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in the “Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;” and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

Anglican Realignment: It would be nice to see a realignment toward Reformation standards rather than ‘convergencism’ or ‘three-streams’ Anglicanism. Given the 1890 Winnipeg Scheme was borne of the same spirit as the 1865 Red River reforms, we see the basis of Anglican government as not merely a ‘recognition’ or passive reception of historical formulas– “bcp, 39 articles, and ordinal”– but a holy oath to “maintain and uphold” England’s reformed catholic faith and discipline. The language of the Declaration might be contrasted to the ACNA’s statement of faith which is apparently less confident about the relation between apostolic faith and Anglicanism, using weak language like “we receive” while sparing stronger terminology– “affirm” and “confess”– for points normally reserved for the Quadrilateral. In contrast, the 1893  Declaration employs the same consistent wording throughout the entire document, namely, “maintain” and “hold” between both halves. Perhaps older Anglicanism exuded with a certain confidence regarding the relation of Settlement standards to apostolic faith that modern convergence churches like ACNA lack or otherwise hesitate upon?

On the other end of the spectrum is the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), flagship of the Continuing or St. Louis church movement which left TEC in 1976. The ACC’s C&C  officially rejects the Settlement as normative for reliable for Anglican doctrine. While the ACC bishops generally have looked toward the Tiber or across the Bosporous in squaring questions of faith and worship, many of the lower clergy identify with a more Protestant ethos or middle-of-the-road episcopalian church tradition, evidence by the ACC’s 1979 synodal resolution that recognized the substantial presence of low churchmen under the wing of anglo-catholic priests who led them out of TEC.

At the Continuum Blog, Fr. Hart and Fr. Wells have cleverly argued a canonical status for 39 articles through the ACC’s apparent endorsement of the 1962 Canadian BCP which inside contains the same 1893 Solemn Declaration. Thus, the Solemn Declaration seems to have a growing influence not only for orthodox jurisdictions in Canada like Petite Riviere but perhaps the United States as well. In the future the Declaration might be used as an instrument not only to “beef-up” the language of ACNA statements, but ultimately it might prove a scheme for correcting Romanizing doctrine too often found in  St. Louis Churches, particularly the ACC/ACA.  The established nature of the Solemn Declaration in Canada (and its present appeal in the ACC) gives it some precedence as a common North American document uniting traditional Anglicanism. It should be pursued as such.

A more detailed story of Bp. Machray’s life and history of the Declaration might be read at the Canadian PBS: The Legacy of AB R. Machray: a case history all Anglicans should know.

"Fighting Bishop" of Cologne, Waldek

The Christian Institution of Man, published in 1537 by His Majesty, King Henry VIII, is a fantastic read. The chapter on “the Sacrament of Orders” is highly recommended, offering a gem on the lawful powers of bishopric– amongst which is found the moderate application of church discipline, historic creation of minor orders, and the use of OT temple ordinances as a model for NT canon law. But especially noteworthy is the larger treatment on the usurpation of Rome against temporal Princes, and how the Pope’s  claim to universal power departed from the original limits and nature of the Bishopric itself.   The bishopric’s liberties have been treated in an earlier essay, Reversing Desuestude.  What follows here is a continuation of Bishop’s right to decide common order in the church.

Jurisdiction in Common Order: The Thirty-nine articles attribute common order to both convocation and crown. However, according to the catechism the power to make canon belonged to bishops before christian princes who later took upon the external ordering of the church for the sake of better quiet. The reverse of Princely intervention might happen when bishops assume roles of secular princes, e.g., taxing and fining subjects. However, according to the catechism, once spiritual and temporal jurisdictions were confused between gospel command and external ordering, the invention of a Papacy with extra-ordinary powers began. Nonetheless, both Prince and bishop have rights to define common order but within limits set by scripture, and herein begins the “third part” of jurisdiction.

The catechism divides bishopric jurisdiction into three parts. The first two deal with powers given by God, namely, the spiritual keys of Christ where episcopacy may either loosen (e.g., excommunicate) or admit (e.g., lay hands). It’s made quite clear that Kings couldn’t interfere in these two jurisdictions, “we may not think it doth appertain unto the office of kings and princes to preach and teach, to administer the sacraments, to absolve, to excommunicate, and such other things belonging to the office and administration of bishops and priests” (Formularies, p. 121). Yet, the third part deals with matters of ecclesiastical law where the bishopric orders common prayer with an authority older than the King:

“The third point, wherein consisteth the jurisdiction committed unto priests and bishops by the authority of God’s law, is to make and ordain certain rules or canons concerning holy days, fasting days, the manner and ceremonies to be used in the ministration of the sacraments, the manner of singing the psalms and spiritual hymns, the diversity of degrees among the ministers, the form and manner of their ornaments, and finally concerning such other rites, ceremonies, and other observances as do tend and conduce to the preservation of quietness and decent order to be had and used among the people when they shall be assembled together in the temple.” (Formularies, p. 110)

The catechism then explains certain justifications for canons, namely, the for suppressing great trouble and restraining threats to common order often posed by private opinion if not heresy. Thus, order and the proper teaching of doctrine– often called ‘edification’–  have a tight and natural relation:

“And forasmuch also as great trouble, unqueitness, and tumult might arise among the multitude so assembled, in cases there were no certain rules, ordinances, and ceremonies prescribed unto them, whereby they should be contained in quietness, and not suffered to do every man after his own fashion or appetite; it belongeth unto the jurisdiction of priests or bishops to make certain rules or canons concenrning all these things, and for the casuse safroresaid.” (p. 110).

We might reference the Ten Articles which began, “being very desirous to eschew not only the dangers of souls, but also the outward inquietness which by occasion of the said diversity in opinions might have perchance ensued” (p. 4). Again, canonical rules were introduced for ‘quietness’.

Although scripture generally informs the whole bishopric,  express or necessary command isn’t always ready concerning particulars.  Thus, “before princes were christened”, minsters of the church, with the consent of the people, made positive laws and ordinances “upon great and urgent considerations” (p.111-112). The institution of Sundays, Easter-day, Lent, and even certain “painted histories” (icons, images) are examples of such “necessary introduction or learning expedient”.  It should be kept in mind the regulation of liturgy is important because prayer itself has a definite teaching function. Thus, canon not only assures a climate of order where teaching can prosper, but by excluding strange rites dangerous or heretical ideas are also avoided. The catechism frequently repeats this reason– i.e.,  ceremonies and rules secure a necessary order so men can benefit from stable instruction, increasing Christ’s religion.  Thus, common order is the natural precondition to true religion, and this should give a lesson to Evangelicals today.

The Rise of Prince-Bishops: Next, the catechism explains the emergence of Papacy from abuses that grew out of early medieval Prince-Bishoprics. The Prince-Bishop was a medieval phenomena which somewhat reversed the relation of sovereign over church. Allegedly, in order to secure a peace for the church, bishops and priests begged Christian princes to ‘interpone their authority’ against men who stirred unnecessary controversy. What followed seems to be a classical description of ‘erastianism’ by the catechism. The church is described as only having spiritual authority, namely, condemning error and rebuking sin. It does not have a right commanded by the gospel to execute corporal punishment. The plea by antique presbyters to civil authority most likely alludes to Constantine’s Nicene orthodoxy. 

“Insofar that kings and princes, after they had once received the faith of Christ, and were baptized, considering the same to tend to the furtherance of Christ’s religion, did not only approve the said canons, then made by the church, but did also enact and make their own, concerning good order of the church, and furthermore did also constrain their subjects, by corporal pain and punishment, to observe the same.” (p. 113)

The history of Kingly intervention thus occurs at a time of necessity when crisis, such as Arianism, griped the church and the added civil authority restored order. This is perfectly fine as long as limits of adiaphora are recognized and the king doesn’t invade the vicarage of justification, meaning, he doesn’t wield the keys, but limits himself to externals. However, as the system developed, responsibilities between the spiritual and earthly kingdoms not only meshed but their rationale was sorely confused. As Christened kings properly punished wickedness (e.g., Rom. 13), they eventually delegated back to Bishops not only portions of their assumed canonical duties but also wider areas of secular administration to favored ministers of the church:

“For it is out of all doubt that the priests and bishops enver had any authority by the gospel to pushin any man by corporal violence; and theefore they wer often times moved of necessity to require Christian princes to interponse their authoirty, and by the same to constrain tand reduce inobedient perisons unto the obedience and good order of the church: which the Christian princes, as God’s ministers in that part, and for thezewal they ahd to the establishing of Christ’s religion, not only did gladly execute, but did also give unto priest and bishops further power and jurisdiction in certain other emporal and civl matters, like as by the laws, statutes, immunities, privleges, and grants of princes made in that behalf, and by the uses also and customs of sundry realms and regions, it doth mainfstly appear.” p.113-114

Civil powers historically given to the church weren’t normally extravagant. Usually they involved rather mundane secular functions like collecting rents, leveling taxes, or materially provisioning food and work to the poor. But occasionally the Prince legislated “fighting bishops” who administered civil courts, set fines, punished and jailed criminals, and even supplied troops if not fielded private armies . An example of an English “fighting bishop”  was Durham.

Durham, as part of the Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, survived the Norman conquest by agreeing to defend England from hostile Scots. William I created Durham’s office of earl-bishopric for William Walcher, and this ultimately awarded Northumbria  relative autonomy of the basis of military defense. On the continent a number of arch-bishoprics existed as Prince-Electors within the Holy Roman Empire. The Archbishop of Cologne, Franz von Waldeck, was one such “fighting bishop”, renowned in his time for the ready suppression of Munster’s anabaptist uprising in 1535, thereby enforcing the Edict of Worms.

Despite the often provocative  history of Europe’s medieval prince-bishops, Henry’s catechism is careful not to credit episcopal temporal powers as inherent to the priesthood but incidental and contingent upon the prerogative of the Sovereign. This would be the classical Anglican “right use” argument. The catechism is careful to explain the limit of secular power delegated to bishops while those powers belonging properly to the office of a Prince are ultimately reserved and unalienable from Ceasar. Therefore, such  is subject to recall from the Bishop at any time upon King’s discretion,

“And therefore it was and shall be always lawful unto the said kings and princes, and their successors, with the consent of their parliaments to revoke and call again into their own hands, or otherwise to restrain all the power and jurisdiction which was given and assigned unto priest and bishops by the licence, consent, and authority of the said kings and princes, and not by the authority of God and his gospel, whensoever they shall have such grounds and causes so to do, as shall be necessary, wholesome, and expedient for the weal of their realms” (p.114).

Of course the above is also a sly theological defense of Henry VIII’s 1541-47 dissolution of monastic benefices. Contrary to Roman propaganda, Henry’s revocation of church temporalities did not pillage the Italian See but returned the very land and wealth that had always belonged to the English Crown. When the Papacy claimed it’s land stolen, this was under the assumption the Pope, by reason of Christ, owned every principality and government upon earth. Instead, the bishop of Rome had impugned England’s sovereignty, and what power the Italian bishop did possess was by human convention, namely, the ancient councils, not the gospel.  The Papacy as a divine institution is thus refuted. The catechism  sketches this same history,

“As for the bishop of Rome, it was many hundred years after Christ before he could acquire or get any primacy or governance above any other bishops, out of his province in Italy. Sith the which time he hath ever usurped more and more. And though some part of his power was given unto him by the consent of the emperors, kings, adn princes, and by the consent of the clergy in general councils assembled; yet surely he attained the most part thereof by marvelous subtlety and craft, and specially by colluding with great kings and princes; sometime training them into his devotion by pretense and colour of holiness and sanctimony, and sometime constraining them by force and tyranny: whereby the said bishops of Rome aspired and arose at length unto such greatness in strength and authority, that they presumed and took upon them to be heads, and to put laws by their own authority, not only unto all other bishps within Christendom, but also unto the emperors, kings, and other the princes and lords of the world, and that under the repentance of the authority committed unto them by the gospel” (p. 117)

The Christian Institution of Man ends this section “of Orders” clearing the essential difference of ecclesiastical to civil authority. Typically, Anglican thought corrects Romish claims not by denying all points but returning primitive balance to catholic doctrine. The catechism’s follow this methodology, claiming civil and ecclesiastical powers may indeed cooperate and share external functions, but this is predicated upon a correct understanding of power, and what belongs to positive law vs. what is commanded by Christ. The chapter on Sacrament of Orders applies the usual Anglican answer to adiaphora, granting the King final say in matters indifferent. If the office of Prince-Bishop is to continue, this is ultimately a consideration of the King himself not a required mark of the Episcopate. In this case, the Crown provides the authority for the bishop– be it through the issuance of canon or– less commonly– public statutes.  Therefore, the cooperation of temporal and spiritual is not abhorred by any means but contained and managed by distinguishing between God’s command and man’s convenience:

“And for the better confirmation of this part, we think it also convenient, that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people committed unto their spiritual charge, that Christ did by express words prohibit that none of his apostles, or any of their successors, should, under the pretence of the authority given unto them by Christ, take upon them the authority of the sword; that is to say, the authority of kings, or of any other civil power in this world; yea or any authority to make laws or ordinances, in causes appertaining unto civil powers. Truth it is, that priests and bishops may execute all such temporal power and jurisdiction as is committed unto them by the ordinance and authority of kings, or other civil powers, and by the consent of the people, (as officers and ministers under the said kings and powers,) so long as it shall please the said kings and people to permit and suffer them so to use and execute the same. Notwithstanding, if any bishop, of what estate or dignity soever he be, be he bishop of Rome, or of any other city, province, or diocese, do presume, or take upon him authority or jurisdiction, in causes or matters which appertain unto kings and the civil powers, and their courts, and will maintain or think that he may so do by the authority of Christ and his gospel, although the kings and princes would not permit and suffer him so to do; no doubt that bishop is not worthy to be called a bishop, but rather a tyrant, and an usurper of other men’s rights, contrary to the laws of God, and is worthy to be reputed one otherwise than he that goeth about to subvert the kingdom of Christ. For the kingdom of Christ in his church is a spiritual, and not a carnal kingdom of the world; that is to say, the very kingdom that Christ, by himself for by his apostles and disciples, sought here in this world, was to bring all nations from the carnal kingdom of the prince of darkness unto the light of his spiritual kingdom; and so to reign himself in the hearts of people by grace, faith, hope, and charity.”  (p. 119-120).

Some Thoughts: There may be future benefit in developing a political theory of prince-bishops vis-a-vis today’s pagan culture and ubiquitous sectarianism. But note, sovereignty comes by divine right, and where lesser magistrates– described earlier in the catechism also as “founders and patrons, or others persons, according to the laws and ordinances of men provided for the same” (p. 109) [or, as the  prayer book says, "thy servants the President of the United States, the Governor of this State, and all others in authority"]– have authority it is derivative of the King’s prior jurisdiction. In the case of the American revolution, the King never explicitly abducted his States until the Treaty of Paris which wasn’t fulfilled until the peace of 1814. Meantime, the crown had deferred sovereignty to loyalists in the Northwest territory and Indian lands. This is an interesting period of U.S. history. Today we might know the U.S. constitution certainly bans inherited title– and therefore a civil nobility. But the first amendment also inadvertently gives shelter to noble title for those churches where a continued succession of Bishops exist.   It may very well happen a “reduced” prince-bishopric (meaning one that acts in lesser civil functions such as welfare) is not beyond the scope of the U.S. constitution, even in today’s rabidly post-christian society?

• Various, Formularies of Faith put forth during the Reign of Henry VIII, Oxford 1825.

Henry VIII: Head of the Church Militant in England

This began as FB discussion on how Anglicans identify other standards that are not included in the Prayer Book proper. But soon the disagreement broaden into a defense of the Henrician settlement as a necessary contextual linchpin to the remainder of the English Reformation. While the dispute is very long, the ideas therein are thematic with respect to Anglican Rose. I hope to develop these concepts further, i.e, the English Church as the head of Northern Catholicism and how Henry is the key by which this is unlocked. I am increasingly convinced that Anglicana’s eventual restoration hinges not only upon a high view of polity but a vigorous defense of Henry’s Settlement.  My debate with Peter Smart begins with an explanation why royal injunctions or canon should be considered with 39 articles as formulae.

Of course, Peter Smart is a pseudo-name for an actual antagonist, but the historic Smart was actually a zealous Anglican prebend at Durham who attempted to dislodge John Cosin from the cathedral Deanery for illegal ritual. Upon the Presbyterian Long Parliament Smart signed the Solemn League and Covenant prior to testifying against his former Archbishop, William Laud, thus sealing Laud’s execution. I have taken liberty shortening portions of my debate with Mr. Smart for sake of reading. The case for what sections constitute the Prayer Book proper is found in Walter Frere’s Principles of Religious Ceremony, p. 308.

Charles Bartlett: Walter Frere was a turn-of-the-century liberal catholic Bishop in the CofE. His argument is academic, yet it goes to show why clarifications [with formulas] are sometimes useful. Because the Ordinal and Articles are not “in” the Prayer Book proper, it thus makes sense to specify.

I agree these documents basically define Anglicanism [BCP, 39 Articles, Ordinal]. The notion of subscribing to three standards was set by Whitgift’s three articles 1584, but these were BCP (Ordinal included), Supremacy, and Articles. Supremacy historically had two adjuncts– uniformity and clerical submission. Thus, implicit are the injunctions and visitation powers of the crown to determine ceremony as (re)stated in the 1559 act.

Lastly, canon is often a mixed sort of law as it applies doctrine to worship, aka. the ‘right use’ of ritual following the calculus, “the law of prayer is the law of faith”. So, canon is important and often proves a window to Anglican faith. Of course many disagreements arise even between the three standards you mention, and this is why we ought to first consider all texts that posses royal seal, aka. appointed or official texts given the churches before others.

There’s about a handful of appointed texts, and they include the Two Books of Homilies, Jewell’s Works, and Nowell’s Catechism to name a few. Another source of clarification is reference to earlier expressions of the same standards, and this is frequently the approach scholars use with the prayer books, considering continuity where possible.

In my opinion, our differences over Anglo-Reformed vs. -Papist would be solved if people took seriously the direction that royal seal conveniently gives in controverted points. This means treating the head of the church of england like a genuine Godparent and father of faith.

Mr. Peter Smart:Charles, you can argue the Anglo-Catholic side from here to eternity but it wouldn’t change a thing. I’ve not heard anything about Nowell. But have read extensively in the English Reformation and the continental Reformation. The idea of submitting Scripture to the opinions of the Archbishop would be ridiculous since the 39 Articles say that we are not bound to believe the Archbishop or even the church unless what is said can be proved by the “most certain warrant of Holy Scripture.” That’s Article 6.

The problem between the Anglo-Catholics and the Protestant and Reformed side of the Anglican communion will never be solved unless one side or the other wins the cultural and theological war against the other. The Protestants have the true and “catholic” faith handed down from the apostles in Holy Scripture and in fallible traditions. The Anglo-Catholics on the other hand are Papists who preach another gospel. If they were consistent they would all become Roman Catholics.

I do not consider Anglo-Catholics and liberals to be saved or Christians. They are lost and in need of conversion to Christ.

Charles Bartlett: You should read Nowell’s catechism. I assure you, it’s better than WSC. Meanwhile, what’s the use of subscription unless you recognize the implicit jurisdiction that accompanies it, namely,the bishop and crown as having expressed power to settle controversies? This is why men are required to subscribe, and in doing so they submit to the prelacy which enforces the same. However, if the 39 articles, BCP, and Supremacy Acts (as w/ other appointed standards) are against scripture, then you should avoid that jurisdiction entirely– perhaps finding home among the ranks of pseudo-protestant dissent.

Mr. Peter Smart: Pseudo Protestant? You betray yourself as a papist, Charles. The English Church is Protestant. If it isn’t you should defect to Rome:)

Furthermore, the English Reformation is part of the Reformation as a whole. Wittenberg, Geneva, Zurich and the whole of the civilized world of the time was revolutionized by the propagation of the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the magisterial Reformers by way of the printing press.

What you should do is read more of the articles in The Churchman and at Church Society. Try Samuel Leuenberger’s book, Archbishop Cranmer’s Immortal Bequest or Diarmaid McCullough’s biograph on Cranmer. Ashley Null’s book on Cranmer’s theology of repentance is another worthwhile read.

I subscribe to the plain meaning of the 39 Articles. Even a child can read them and plainly see that they do no support Anglo-Catholic doctrine. Rather the Articles refute their ideology. That’s why ACs and liberals are happy to relegate the Articles to the fine print in the very back of their revised and alternative services book.

I know. I know. You’ll never change. I don’t expect you to change. Your very dissimulation is evidence of God’s hardening of your heart.

I have been reading the Bible since I was 8 years old. Knowing the Bible is what keeps me rooted and grounded, not hearing some wolf in sheep’s clothing spout off his opinions. Sola Fide! Sola Gratia! Solus Christus! Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!

Charles Bartlett: First, Protestantism is best defined by the Protestants themselves. I would start with the very event where the word’s etymology derives– the Protest at Spire. The Protest breaks down into four parts: 1. mutual suppression with catholics of anabaptists, 2. replacing the papist with evangelical mass, 3. the supremacy of the prince in matters of faith and order, and 4. the working toward a free general council. A strict interpretation would behoove you to these four points. I challenge you to study the Protest itself.

Secondly, if you further examine the textual genealogy of the 39 articles you’ll find their composition owes to the Wittenberg Articles 1536 via the Ten Articles of the same date. The Henrician period, 1534-47, is a formative time when the doctrine of the church of England is basically established. While Puritans would attempt further reformation, the Crown repeatedly intervened, blocking changes not only to doctrine (the nixing of Lambeth is an excellent example) but also changes in ceremony and liturgy, evident during the Parliamentary struggles in the 1580′s under Elizabeth as well as James I’s difficulties at Aberdeen and Perth with the Scottish Kirk, 1616-18. The differences between these parties (the royal vs. puritan) can be attributed to the legacy of the Henrician which is indeed protestant, a pedigree acquired by way of dialogue with the Augsburg under Henry, but not ‘Reformed’ in the strict sense.

Now, Mr. Smart, you can throw around palliative terms like anglo-papist, etc. but until you properly account for discontinuities which caused Puritans to reject the basics of the Elizabethan Settlement (BCP, Supremacy, and Articles), I’m not going to jump on board the pan-Reformed band wagon. That road has been trodden before, and it ended rather tragically. Moreover, it led to a rejection of not only prelacy in general (and crown) but fixed prayer as found in the BCP.
The opening shot, so to speak, of what would later become regicide was the controversy between Rev. Cox v. Knox in Frankfurt. The arguments of Knox against the fixed prayer of even the Zwinglian 1552 BCP went unchanged thereafter.

My concern is you (properly so) remind others of the 39 articles, but you don’t really treat the 39 in a confessional way. Rather, you mix confessions between different pedigrees of Reformation indiscriminately. This 1) shows you understand the differences between confessions very little, 2) have a weak grasp of history, 3) don’t really cling to those royal and approved standards that would otherwise authoritatively define Anglicanism. So, I see little consistency with you, Mr. Smart, as you tend to play fast and lose with what you believe, and, consequently, how you behave

Mr. Peter Smart: Charles, the last time I checked the Wittenberg Articles are Lutheran. The Lutherans stood on the doctrine of justification by faith alone as THE doctrine by which a true church stands or falls. By that judgment alone you and your Anglo-Catholic friends are all lost. The Bible teaches that our standing before God is by faith and faith alone, apart from works. Works evidence true conversion. Nothing more.

As for your rejection of the English Reformation, anyone reading the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies can likewise conclude that the Tractarian revisionists are dissimulators who wish to hijack the English Reformation back in the Romeward direction.

I could also point you to McCollough’s biography of Cranmer. Clearly Cranmer was working closely with many Puritans, including John Hooper, and that Cranmer’s theology of the Lord’s Supper was a Reformed view, not Lutheran and most certainly not Anglo-Papist.

It does not take a genius to figure these things out. All it takes is an honest reading of the primary documents and the historical outworking of the Reformation itself. Up until the Tractarian controversy the English Church was never in doubt about its status as a Protestant church.

Your feeble attempt to misdirect the discussion by some Papist description of the Protest is a bit silly. The Reformation was not confined to England. It spread all over the world and the Reformers were all working together.

Mr. Peter Smart: It’s odd that you try to vilify the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity as “Anabaptist” documents. That false connection is so silly as to cause me to chuckle. No credible church historian I know of would dare to confuse the Radical Reformation with the Magisterial Reformation.

Zwingli himself was not an Anabaptist and wrote extensively against the “Catabaptists”. One has to wonder why Geneva would have tried and convicted the infamous Anabaptist, Michael Servetus, if in fact Geneva was “Anabaptist”.

Your position is untenable by even secular historical accounts of the Protestant Reformation. Simply because we live under a separation of church and state today does not mean that the Reformed view is no longer Reformed:) It’s simply a change of circumstances, not doctrinal content.

I guess you would rather go to hell with the Papists than to follow the Scriptures and the Reformed theology expressed in the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The Westminster Standards are drawn from the Irish Articles and the Lambeth Articles and the 39 Articles. That in and of itself ought to say something. And let’s not forget the Puritans did control the church during the Revolution:)

Mr. Peter Smart: By the way, the word “Anabaptist” means “rebaptized”. The magisterial reformers and even the Puritans did not practice credobaptism but paedobaptism. You really should read more widely, Charles. It would behoove you to find out what the Radical Reformation was about rather than simply jumping off the deep end:)

I’m not an Anabaptist and neither is anyone else in the Reformed tradition. There is no such thing as a “Reformed” Baptist. There are “calvinistic” Baptists but that is all.

Charles Bartlett: Did I say anything about Tractarianism?  Have you read the Wittenberg? I doubt you would agree with their take on faith and works, especially since it argues a Philipist synergism with respect to Justification. If the High church Anglicans were papists, then I’d hate to know what you think of the Lutherans who confessed a corporeal presence under the bread and retained roman ceremony in various books of church order in Germany. Lutheranism in many ways were far more medieval in faith than royalist Anglicans. It was for this reason Reformed and Lutherans failed to make greater accord in areas like Saxony and the north. After the Peace of Augsburg the Lutherans generally treated cavlinists much the same as anabaptists, even executing those who denied a substantial presence, severing Chancellor Nicholas Crell’s head as a result.

That said, Anabaptism has more defining it than ‘rebaptism’. It had common positions on the role of the magistrate, church polity, and iconoclasm shared by the extreme wing of Puritanism. You miss this point, and the tragic thing was Puritanism hardened its positions against Anglican ecclesiology and ceremony by opposing prelacy in general as well as pushing RPW in every quarter.

The Puritans main grievance in the 16th century not primarily soteriology but ‘unreformed’ ceremonies found the book of common prayer. The 1662 BCP was written by high churchmen not Puritans who had very little say on its editing. The Puritans would have preferred the Geneva Order or, for those more moderate sorts, something akin to Baxter’s liturgy. But if you study these prayer books, they are very different from both the 1559 and 1662. To reduce Puritanism to soteriology misses the vast and consistent field of complaints lodged by radical protestants starting with Knox and ending with the Short Parliament. That’s an easy hundred years of vain clamor against crossing, kneeling, bowing, organs, marriage rings, vestments, and even fixed liturgy!

Furthermore, you can’t use sola scritpura or semper reformanda (article 6) against Supremacy (articles 20 and 35) without ceasing to be a magisterial Protestant. Where Puritanism departs from the magisterial project is with an incessant attack on prelatic authority and ceremonies that support such. Given genuine-Protestantism is defined by the faith of the Prince, this puts later Puritanism outside the realm of magisterialism proper since neither the army nor parliament constitute a crown.

Charles Bartlett: ‎”…supplemented by the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity, the Irish Articles and the Lambeth Articles.” The problem with this was the English 39 articles belong to another pedigree of Protestantism, namely, the Augsburg. Three forms and WCF don’t reconcile with Augsburg family texts since 39 are not RPW. Furthermore, the Augsburg are not inclined to calvinist soteriology. Thus, you have the problem of the British delegation at Dort who wrote their own somewhat confusing version of Amyraldism upon their return to England. You also have a problem with Article 16 and Cranmer’s Homily on Declining God that doesn’t jive well. These difficulties are not reconciled by going to foreign texts but actually studying the genesis of the 39. That ultimately means accounting for the Henrician which is what both the Elizabethan and Jacobean reigns kept as a touchstone, and this, in turn, reveals substantial dialogue with the Lutheran, enshrined confessionally.

Now, I will admit a similar dialogue with Swiss, but the Swiss missed the boat, so to speak, because before King Henry’s death the Anglican Settlement was already substantially laid by virtue of the Ten Articles, two catechisms, 1538 injunctions, various letters, and first book of homilies. Cramner in few instances would stray from this, and Elizabeth worked to return to it. Now if this is “papism” or “Anglo-catholic”, et al., all I have to say is you don’t understand Henry’s reforms very well and have likely swallowed that poison pill forged by Romans and Puritans alike against Anglican royalism. In each case the Crown is made to look tyrannical or scandalous. In each case the doctrine of that same period is made corrupt or partial. Rather, the truth is the Henrician proved the English church the only ‘third reformation’ in Europe– neither Calvinist nor Roman. Not even technically Lutheran (if we define Lutheranism by the Formula of Concord) but that ‘lost’ Philipist church. This is the only tolerable and way to place England in the larger context of Reformation, if we do so at all. Again, going you won’t catch this unless you read back through the genesis of the English articles.

Mr. Peter Smart: The problem you’re having is you’re insisting the English Church was Lutheran. I never was and never will be. If it were, then we would all be kissing up to Luther. Cranmer was Reformed in his view of the sacraments and many other issues. The Reformation is not necessarily based on one person, John Calvin. But that is not to say that Cranmer didn’t agree with Calvin. He most certainly did.  You need to go back and do your homework, junior:)

Mr. Peter Smart:The authority of Scripture trumps the church. It also trumps any secular ruler who interferes in ecclesiastical matters. We are no longer under any divine right of kings or any other such nonsense.

Mr. Peter Smart: You can’t make any direct connection to the Wittenberg Articles. They were essentially a political compromise and it didn’t work. See the Lutheran article I linked above.

Charles Bartlett I am not claiming it was Lutheran. I am claiming it was essentially Philipist, or it had its strongest relation to Philipist documents such as the Augsburg through the Henrician. The reason there is no “kissing” relationship with Lutherans is because after the 1550′s the Philipists were ejected from the Lutheran church. They constituted a third reformation that has sadly been forgotten. However, the documents which Melanchthon penned survive more than anywhere else in the English standards which are far from gnesio-Lutheran. A story most historians ignore. I suggest John Schofield’s book on the English Reformation and Philip Melancthon. But don’t read that; read the primary texts of the Henrician and Wittenberg, and then line them up to the 39.

The most significant ‘calvinist’ contribution came through Bucer, but Bucer’s position on the sacrament was already set before his emigration to England while in south germany with Melanchthon. Furthermore, it was moderated by Elizabeth and Parker on Articles 28 adn 29. The Crown also pushed back the Privy Council’s reforms (1552-1554) by removal of the black rubric, restoring the 1549 Word of Administration, etc. in the BCP. Some of this was inspired by Wurttemberg Articles which Parker was in possession, and these were rather conservative by Lutheran standards, prepared by Germans for Trent. So, Bucer’s contribution is really redundant, and it ignores the rather conservative modifications of Elizabeth. Bucer is overly identified with the Gallic when the life of his writings owes more to the Philipist-German colliqueies which he sided with repeatedly. I would not fret calling Bucer a Philipist, or Melanchthon a Bucerist. They wrote along the same ‘axis’ of reform.

Mr. Peter Smart: The 39 Articles are not as fully “reformed” as say the Westminster Confession. But the Lambeth Articles and the Irish Articles are clearly not Puritan documents. They were proposed for the Church of England. The Irish Articles are part of the Anglican tradition whether you want to admit it or not.

The Westminster Confession is simply a more fully developed version of the Irish Articles but with the Presbyterian spin on the polity issues. In other words, there is continuity. And as Richard Muller has argued, the term “Reformed” is not owned by Calvin. The Reformation had a consensus among many scholars of that era. Calvin was not the only Reformer who taught double predestination. The Swiss Reformers also taught that. And I would argue that Cranmer adopted that view in Article 18.

The idea that Amyraldianism is endorsed or allowed in the Articles is not acceptable either. Obviously simply because that issue is not spelled out does not mean that it is an allowable position. The Synod of Dort clearly refutes Amyraldianism along with Arminianism.

Charles Bartlett We are discussing so many issues and accusations at once, I find it very difficult to treat each one fully. I want to get back to the chase of the argument. But meanwhile I also want to say something about the Anglican standards as distinct from those normally considered ‘Reformed’.

Anglicanism cannot be understood without the seal of the Crown. That has to be your starting point. The fact is the Crown, be it Elizabeth or James, obstructed the ‘calvinizing’ of the church in England. While there were numerous reasons for such, one cause was a very conscious effort on the part of royals to be identified with the reforms of Henry VIII, maintaining not only a certain continuity with him but also the prestige invested by founding the Settlement itself. Roman and Genevan scholars will belittle not only Henry but Elizabeth and James by calling the Settlement ‘political’. When people go this route, they really debase the integrity of the standards. Either the standards are mistaken breeches from Romanism, or they are still-birth attempts at Calvinism. Either way, Anglicanism is treated as something incomplete or lacking.

For this reason I consider Anglo-Reformed and Anglo-catholic two sides of the same coin. In many ways they are simply reactionary to each other, and what is lost in the course of these inane disputes is the actual ‘center’ of protestantism– something I would expect an uber-protestant as yourself would cherish. When Luther died, a tectonic shift occurred in the protestant movement, and Cavlinism mostly filled the void. What was lost was a Protestant-center,yet Calvinism proved too volatile to grant this and the concilarism of the 1530-1550′s came to a grinding halt.

Meanwhile, the Lutherans reacted to the French-Swiss by hardening their confessional lines, at the same time ejecting the Philipists, and going to some extremes in ceremony. This occurred second half of the 16th century. It’s during this period of “gnesio-Lutheran formation” that Lutherans would actually approve the elevation of sacrament, wearing vestments, bells during the recital of the WofI, etc.– simply to distinguish and isolate themselves from joint Reformed and Philipist ‘errors’.

Concurrently, Puritans in England tried pushing the (mostly Philipist) standards received from the Henrician in the calvinist direction. However, this failed due to timely interventions of the Crown. Where the Germans confronted Calvinism with ramping up confessionalism, the English countered by stricter adhesion to canon. This proved the more cautious response of the two, allowing the core Henrician doctrine to basically pass through unaltered, escaping unnecessary elaborations on both sacrament and soteriology. Thus, the English represents the older and more center Protestantism before 1550′s, and the English end up basically inheriting the mantle which Bucer-Philip occupied, and therefore were most suited to fulfill the terms of the 1526 Protest. But then a little nasty thing happened in Scotland when the Kirk rejected something we know as the BCP…

We should keep in mind disagreements on ceremony– whether they be too puritan or catholic– in the Anglican system really are questions of canon, are subject to some change, controlled by the Crown as per Uniformity Acts, and not private opinion. Where rites seemingly do not violate canon or doctrine, and therefore appear to have a cause to ‘right use’, the Ordinary has final discretion. Therefore, Charlie, if you have something specific to accuse me other than blank palliatives, you ought to calm down and intelligently list them here. We can then actually discuss how these things line up by analogy to the three articles 1584 as well as 1604 canons, etc.

Look forward to your actual charges and, consequently, a more rigorous definition of Anglo-catholic.

Mr. Peter Smart:What you are ignoring is that the Anglo-Catholics are the real extremists. The Puritans separated from the C of E but only because they were persecuted and forced to leave.

The fact is the C of E was a Protestant Church and the Protestant faith shares certain common doctrines. There really is only four branches of the Reformation. Lutheran, English, Swiss, and Genevan. Of those the English, Swiss and Genevan branches are all within the “Reformed” camp and broadly speaking all of them shared a common view of predestination, election, reprobation and a common view of the sacraments which is exemplified in the Consensus of Tigerinus.

The Lutherans went off on their own but Lutherans would be offended at your insinuation that they are not a major part of the magisterial Reformation.

Your problem, as I pointed out earlier, is you want to be buddies with the papists. Obviously you didn’t read the article in the Concordia Journal. It was almost to the letter the same presentation given by Broughton Knox and others except the author was lamenting the fact that the English church is Reformed. Why would even the Lutherans recognize that fact and call the Anglo-Catholics mixed up if it were not true.

Furthermore the very existence of the Lambeth Articles 1595 and the Irish Articles of 1615 blows your spin on the issues out of the water. It is obvious to all that the Calvinist view did exist during the English Reformation and well after that point.

As for the Elizabethan settlement, that was not the settlement that counts. The form of the 39 Articles approved in 1571 is what counts not the 1562 edition since the 1571 version is what is approved by the Crown as you like to harp upon. So your own words convict you of grievous error. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer should be the standard prayer book but is it? That book isn’t even looked at despite the fact that it is mentioned in passing in the Theological Statement of the ACNA. It’s merely lip service.

As Dix said, Cranmer’s genius was in teaching the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the liturgy of his prayer book of 1552.

It would do you well to stop reading the disingenuous secondary materials of the Anglo-Papists and read some Lutheran and Reformed materials. The article I cited from Concordia said pretty much what I’ve been saying for several years: Hooker was a solid Reformed person on the sacraments. He most certainly did not teach any idea of real presence or virtual reception as the high churchmen contend.

Charles Bartlett Thank you Mr. Smart for a fairly succinct response. I’m sure the Lutherans would be incensed by my claim they ceased holding the Protestant center after the 1550′s. However, I never said they were not part of the magisterial Reformation. Indeed they were (and are) very important parts, and I recognize them as a true confessional-protestant churches in the best sense. I also esteem their foundational documents like the Augsburg as well as their history with the English Crown.

However,the Lutherans were not a homogeneous entity as their early church orders and the fate of the Philipists demonstrate prior to ‘confessional orthodoxy’ as spelled by the Formula of Concord. Hence, my thesis is that the Philipists basically articulated and shaped that old protestant center, and, while Lutherans later rejected Philipism, the English church preserved it by reason of royal intransigence. In fact, the Lutherans not only expelled the Philipists but (wrongly) lumped them together with the Reformed. This is why your Concordia authority would naturally view the English church being “Reformed”, especially since the Philipists generally agreed with the Genevans on sacrament.

That said, the Genevans and Swiss are also correct to view the CofE as only a “partially reformed” church. The reason being, if you study the geneaology of the English Articles (not cutting off Henrician standards as somehow irrelevant or abnormal to the Elizabethan and Jacobean Settlements), they were never intended to be fully “reformed”. And here is where you have the early influence of the Phillipist documents– namely, the Augsburg, Wittenberg, and Wurttemburg– during the formative period when English doctrine was actually being etched into something akin to standards, 1535-1548. The Edwardian would have definitely stretched and extended that time period, but Elizabeth significantly recast it back to her father rather than Edward’s Protectorate. This was not total, but enough to derail the Calvinist agenda.

Now your point that the Consensus of Tigerinus is the common root of all Protestantcy is a bit overstated, in my opinion. For one, the Lutherans, even the Philipists, never signed on for the very reason they disagreed on the WofI. So, that’s not really accurate. However, I will concede the importance of the Tigerinus, and therefore suggest magesterial Protestants fall into either one of two families– the Augsburg (and variatas) v. Tiguerinus (if not Gallic). I hope you can agree to that, noting the doctrinal differences which prevented Zwingli to agree with Luther at Marburg. This same impasse was later encountered with Bullinger, his successor. And it did not get better with time! Nonetheless, the question ought to be, or at at least the one I wish to find an answer, which ‘tree’ does the English belong? The Anglo-catholic will not admit either because they believe the English church was never protestant.

However, the answer is found, as I’ve repeatedly said, in the Henrician formulas because here you have a unique dialogue with the Germans that not only exchanged national delegations and letters between sovereigns, but a dialogue that actually made it to ‘press’ , so to speak, in the form of two catechisms and articles received by convocation and royal seal. So, while I can fairly say the English were part of the Augsburg, I also have to consider where the Augsburg is located in terms of Lutheran confessional development/episode, and this is where 39 articles will not stand with Formula of Concord. In other words, the 39 are basically a variata Augsburg, but Lutherans have rejected all variatas since 1580.

I doubt the Lutheran scholar was aware of these points, and this is one problem in referencing theologians unfamiliar with Anglican history. However, I have found some Lutherans who also correctly identify the genealogy of the 39 with German variatas, Schofield being one such author. So, you can’t just go by a few opinions, and there are even things Schofield says which I question. In the end the best way is to verify by reading the primary texts and chronoligically sorting through confessions and articles themselves.

But we are only talking about the CofE in a legal sense. On a popular level, or at least the university one, I do not disagree that full blown calvinist views, even RPW, were substantially present in the CofE from the 1540′s, lasting, to one degree or another, even until the mid-19th. However, the popular, diocesan, and university views of the Reformed, unfortunately, never made it to appointed text status. So, a situation emerges, and this is where you get into deeper questions of English polity. How are matters of faith and ceremony settled? Yes, by rule of scripture, but also by due order and convocation. Thus, we have various opinions on many matters, some more legit than others, but in the final analysis, if it does not have royal seal it’s basically non-binding. Thus, as laudable as you believe lambeth and irish articles, these either belong to non-English provinicial churches or, if Anglican, they simply lack royal seal. End of argument. And this is the same argument that should raised against Anglo-catholics.

Finally, you have accused me of trucking with Anglo-catholics. This has very little to do with what was discussed above and is entirely another matter. Anglicanism since the Oxford movement is now even worst than that. It is entrenched liberal catholic. This has been a huge disaster for Settlement Anglicans because it represents a shift away from subscriptionism toward this very diluted notion of ‘koinonia’ which means ‘eucharistic fellowship’. It is a watering down of provinicial specifics, melting the english church into an amorphous catholicism. There are some great insights liberal catholics provided, especially on the incarnation and creeds, but where they broke from the Articles and Protestantism (northern catholicism), it has been a disaster.

Now, there is no way out of this unless you are willing to ‘pass through it’. Passing through it means 1) understanding it theologically; 2) accepting and incorporating those parts that agree with the Settlement; 3) using more orthodox liberal catholics against modernist catholics. An example of the latter might be: Gore vs. Temple. or Alcuin Club vs. SSPeter and Paul; the classical high churchmen against the Anglo-catholics, etc.. Now that’s the constructive way, in my opinion. It’s also more charitable. The bottom line is Anglo-catholicism is not going to disappear. Consquently, Settlement Anglicans must find ways to engage it, persuade, and cooperate. Most ACNA are not ‘heretics’. But if they are going to subscribe to 1662 and 39 articles, they do need to be held accountable. And, if you leave them, then what cause do they have to listen or put up with you? In fact, you’ve made their day an easier one. But these are differences over strategy not doctrine I hope.

Charles Bartlett finally, there are still many areas where liberal catholics do recognize something resembling the settlement. I have found the Crown to be one such area. Even the 1928 is a starting point. But this is something that you have to work with to find those sorts of overlaps and nooks, and it takes a patient and constructive mindset. With anglo-reformed, I would have been more supportive but the mean-spiritedness of proponents turned me off– that’s the kind of craziness I left OPC over and not wanting to go back to it. Nor anything WCF friendly. It’s just crazy radicalism all over again.

I failed to finish a point above and that was the salience of the Wittenberg if not Augsburg. When all is said and done, the calvinist movement missed the boat in England. The Crown obstructed their attempts to establish calvin’s doctrine as a national standard. This is not true of the Philipist which was received at a formative point, through the Henrician church and then restored under Elizabeth and especially James and Charles. So, you’re barking up the ‘wrong tree’ so to speak. And, like the Anglo-catholic, I would say, yes, Laud was an arminian but where is arminianism in the Articles? For that matter where is 5pt calvinism? It isn’t, so either the Articles have to be accepted at face value or not. That’s Majesty’s Declaration 1628. But let’s not compound the problem by doing what the Tractarians did, doing a ‘tract 90′ and turning 39 into WCF like AC do w/ Trent. Or for that matter replacing appointed texts for less authoritative sermosn or pet divines. That’s just hermeneutically wrong. We’re going to have to live with Anglicanism as Anglicanism, staying within expressed boundaries and gravities, refraining from reaction along the way.

Mr. Peter Smart: Charles said, “I doubt the Lutheran scholar was aware of these points, and this is one problem in referencing theologians unfamiliar with Anglican history.”

Right. And you are familiar with Anglican history? Please. The author demonstrated a more than adequate knowledge of history. Simply because you’ve been reading the mixed up historical revisionism of the Anglo-Catholics does not mean everyone else has no knowledge of history.

The author states clearly a view that has been put forward by the Sydney Anglicans for some time now.

Also, why would you ignore that the author doesn’t trust the ACs despite their agreement on the doctrine of real presence? The end of the article clearly says that liberalism is a consideration as well.

I would point out that the issue of justification by faith alone and the bondage of the will enters the discussion as well. The Wittenberg Articles clearly uphold the doctrine of justification by faith alone, something Anglo-Papists vehemently dispute. If you doubt this, read Diarmaid McCullough’s biography of Cranmer.

The fact is the Anglo-Catholic theology is not only not compatible with the “Reformed” view it is incompatible with the Lutheran view. It is incompatible with the Protestant faith, which is the true “catholic” faith. The Puritans are in fact part of the “catholic” faith while your beloved ACs are out and out heretics.

The ACs reject outright the doctrine by which the Lutherans said that the church stands or falls: Justification by faith ALONE.

Your point about the division between the Reformed and the Lutherans over the Consensus of Tigerinus pales in comparison to the Anglo-Catholic emphasis on the five so-called sacraments, their rejection of Scripture as the final authority, their rejection of the soteriology of the Reformation including justification by faith “only”, and other departures that are devastating to their position.

The short answer is that the Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura. Anglo-Papists do not. Lutherans believe in salvation by Christ alone. Anglo-Papists do not. Lutherans believe in salvation by grace alone. Anglo-Papists do not. I could go on. But the fact is you can argue from here to eternity about the Phillipists being cast out by the Lutherans but even the Phillipists did not reject Sola Fide or Sola Gratia.

No, your Papists friends should go back to Rome. They have no place in the Anglican church. None.

Mr. Peter Smart: It is really irrelevant whether or not the Reformed side is have been fully spelled out in the Formularies. The point is the Anglo-Catholics are heretics. The Puritans are not. The Puritans remain within the Protestant and “catholic” faith. The Church of England after Henry the VIII was never Papist. It was Protestant. Of that much we can be sure. Anglo-Papists are not Protestant and revel in that fact. They have no place in the C of E. What is more you forget that the Puritans were in control after the Revolution and were the official religion for at least a short time. The same cannot be said of the Anglo-Papists. Their agenda was and is to reverse the English Reformation. Combine that with the Anglo-Papist propensity to spin and you have the perfect formula for postmodernist revisionism. The logical conclusion of AC theology is pan sexuality, atheism, and liberalism. AC theology produced the current crisis in the Anglican Communion. It’s about time the Evangelicals rose up and took back what the devil has stolen.

Mr. Peter Smart: I missed this remark: “With anglo-reformed, I would have been more supportive but the mean-spiritedness of proponents turned me off– that’s the kind of craziness I left OPC over and not wanting to go back to it. Nor anything WCF friendly. It’s just crazy radicalism all over again.”

Well, the OPC is legalist precisely because of theonomy! They have sold out the Gospel to Law. Anglo-Catholics have done the same thing. In fact their view is pelagianism rehashed and is even more legalistic and problematic than the confused OPC. OPC and PCA are at the moment both going in the Federal Visionist direction in some quarters.

I might add that you seem to be ignorant of history youself. The Anglo-Catholics place all authority in their view of the historical episcopate. In other words, what is right because they say it is right and they get to tell you what Scripture says. This leads to the sort of thinking where social justice trumps Scripture. So if the liberal Anglo-Catholics decide to give the imprimatur to homosexuality and pansexuality then who can disagree? They have apostolic succession!

The silliness of it all is glaringly obvious to anyone willing to see it. You also seem to forget that the Anglo-Catholics forced Evangelicals out of The Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873. The same thing is going on today. Those who dare to question Anglo-Catholic theology are out on their ear. You complain about judgmentalism but the theonomic views of Anglo-Catholics is just as bad if not worse. I myself was forced to resign from the Reformed Episcopal Church because I’m Reformed in my theology while the REC has gone full blown Anglo-Catholic.

The ACNA seems conservative. But there are many liberals in that denomination. They are at present against homosexuality. But it is only a matter of time before their inherent liberalism and pelagianism comes full circle once again.

You think the answer to legalism is more legalism and Pharisaism. I think the answer is more grace, more Gospel!

I will admit that I’m often reactionary and argumentative. But that’s because I do not think playing nice gets the message across.

The Gospel is to be contended for. Salvation is all of grace and all of faith plus nothing. Your background in the OPC has in fact set you up for your current state of apostasy precisely because the OPC is itelf apostate in many cases. The idea that keeping the moral law is what makes us right with God leads straight back to Rome.

It truly is a pity that you have fallen victim to another group of Judaizers and Pharisees, Charles. Grace is free. Salvation is free. There is no need for all this superspirituality and mysticism. In the end it is an empty idol of man’s creation.

Mr. Peter Smart: Charles, you’re still not getting it. Whether you like it or not the WCF is a product of the English Reformation. While you might not like Presbyterians because of the legalism of the theonomy thing in the OPC, Presbyterians in general are Christians. The Anglo-Catholic and the Papist and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned outright by the 39 Articles. You can continue to deny the obvious all you like but the bottomline is the Anglo-Papist is in need of conversion while the orthodox Presbyterian is not.

BTW, I’m the only one arguing for the inclusion of the other Reformed confessions as secondary documents and I do so for good reason. It is as I said before, the Reformed and “catholic” faith is not centered in one tradition but many. Simply because the English Articles do not deal with Arminianism or Amyraldianism does not mean that it follows that we ought to allow for such compromises in theology. The final authority is Scripture. As I recall that might mean revising the Articles. It seems to me that the Irish Articles stand as a good illustration of what that revision would look like.

As yourself admit, the tradition you’re clinging to in Lutheranism, i.e. Phillipist, doesn’t exist anymore. So what’s your point?

Charles Bartlett Mr. Smart, At this point you’re basically trying to convince me the anglo-catholic is worst than the anglo-reformed. I actually don’t care about either. What I do care about is if a church has expressed standards, that church indeed sticks and lives by those standards. It really irks me when these standards are ignored or abused. By ‘abused’ I mean interpreting them in ways that are dishonest–, doing a ‘tract 90′ for instance. I have no respect for that. Likewise, I also dislike Anglo-reformed who do pretty much the same by calling WCF a secondary standard that ‘explains’ 39. That’s like saying Solemn League ought to be a standard to explain the Prayer Book. I find that insane.

Now, I have tried to point out to you why this is damaging. Historically it is because the differences between Reformed and Phillipist led to civil war in England. It also ignores fairly serious differences that occured during the sorting out of orthodoxy in Germany. Confessionally it is damaging because the 39 belongs to another family tree, namely the Augsburg, contra from the Gallic or, if you will, Tiguerinus.

That said, I am willing to agree with the Anglo-Reformed on two conditions: 1. they admit the geneaology of the 39 is largely Philipist. 2. they drop the WSC and all Tiguerinus-RPW related props from their ‘resource’ page. Perhaps replacing such with Luther’s shorter catechism which is perfectly good, or, even better, resorting to English sources like Nowell’s catechism. You will find Nowell very satisfactory. Until this happens, all the anglo-reformed are doing, whether intentional or not, is making a few disgruntled and alienated Anglicans into good presbyterians… and not even presbyterians of the magisterial stripe but the R2K or, as my friend says, PC2K kind. yuck.

In sum, while I dislike Anglo-catholicism, and perhaps the Anglo-reformed are the lesser evil, I have a number of reasons not to get partisan. First, I have no reason to go back to either PCA or OPC. I left that because Presbyterians were simply wrong in Charles I’s Long Parliament. Secondly, it’s a dead end. It’s not authentic Anglcian confessionalism but another hybrid that will simply lead people out of ACNA. In that sense it differs very little from the anglo-catholics who are effectively bridge churches for Rome or EO. All are dead ends confessionally speaking from the strict view of Anglican formulas.

Last, you have accused me on relying on secondary sources, particularly AC ones. Not at all. I have actually read very little secondary sources, and the ones of late have been exclusively Lutheran. Rather, my views have been very much shaped by reading the primary texts. Let’s be honest. The Wittenberg and Wurttemburg articles are just not published or extremely difficult to find online. You won’t find them in the book of concord. They take some digging up, etc.. But reading and comparing them to the Henrician facsimiles is far better, far more rewarding, than any secondary text. I’ve learned way more and really have been able to trod fresh ground this way, feeling very solid on the primary texts above mentioned.

Why aren’t the above “lutheran” texts so scarce? Precisely because Lutherans don’t recognize them as “lutheran”. They are variatas texts, and, as I tried telling you before, the Philipist writings, aside from those directly pertaining to Formula of Concord, were basically burnt to a crisp during the sacramentarian controversy. So, just resuscitating these texts is a major achievement and why I started the archives. It also brings to light an area of history usually goes neglected, namely, the fate of the Philipist church. What happened to it? It’s almost like a missing airplane that flew over the Bermuda triangle. The amazing find is the Philipist church survived by way of the Ten Articles. If it’s ‘revisionist’ history, so be it. But it’s pretty much my own ‘revisionist’ history, and I got it from the primary texts– thank God for them! Primary texts, at least, freed me from the ‘historians’, and that’s why I don’t really care what various experts say so long as others sit down and take time to read the texts themselves. But first people need to easily access to them.

Secondly, the study of primary texts frees us from some enduring myths that have caused much damaged to the Anglican. This biggest myth being the character of Henry and his Reformation. You only hear negatives. Henry VIII was not a Roman catholic but a vera-Protestant. He also effected a successful Settlement of Religion, more so than Edward, that would prove long lasting and very foundational to the Elizabethan which was basically an extension of the former. Henry VIII is often disparaged for his divorces. While there is no excuse for his marital abuses, you can’t allow this to overshadow his achievement in the church which was not ‘half baked’ or merely ‘political’. All these are accusations which both Reformed and Romans hurl at the first Supreme head of the Anglican church, and when we buy into it, perpetuate and spread it, etc..,, we loose a critical link to the larger reformation and a vital contextual basis to understand our own. We indeed loose the ‘head’ of our church, so to speak, and our ‘head’.

And, this has been the problem. Anglicans don’t have a head. We don’t have an identity. We are constantly running to foreign jurisdictions, disparaging and negating our own history, etc.. And I cannot support these endeavors. I don’t care if it’s the Anglo-reformed or Anglo-catholic. They both need to be corrected. But I don’t find getting angry the answer either. Hopefully intelligence will win the day. I just wish I didn’t have writer’s block, but these ideas have to break through the revisionism on both the left and right of Anglicanism, and I’m convicted to try my best.

Finally, once we know who we are confessionally, then a drive against liberal catholicism needs to occur. But this is actually the easiest part. Liberal catholicism is simply creedalism. You can absorb that easy enough, and then argue the standards are extensions of the same creed. Basically ‘judo-move Lux Mundi’.

I hope you find some of this persuasive, and in time I hope to transcribe the Philipist documents above to the Archives. They are actually pretty long, and I only type a little every day. But soon.

Charles Bartlett no. charlie, the WCF is not a telos from the 39. It actually represents a break from the 39 and a foreign jurisdiction in the Church of England, namely, the Geneva rancor.

Look, I personally don’t understand why there’s a need to understand the 39 by adding the Irish Anglican church or Scottish kirk when there exists a plethora of English appointed texts to build the necessary context to clarify controversy. In fact, we have more official texts at our disposal than the Presbyterians. However, we don’t use them, and quickly go elsewhere. Is it the exotic that fascinates? I don’t know, but it’s unnecessary. The secondary texts should be Jewel’s works (includes apology), Nowell’s catechism, Supremacy acts, and 1604 canons. That’s the basis. The older standards that were eclipsed should then be used as cross reference where they don’t conflict with the revisions. So, why go hybrid?

Charles Bartlett Actually, the Philipist is not dead. It’s right in front of you– 39, bcp, canons, homilies, et al. That’s my point. It’s center-Protestantism. But when you ignore that we loose our privilege with respect to 1529 Protest, namely, the head of protestantcy itself.

Mr. Peter Smart: The extra documents you are fascinated with are not part of the Formularies. Tell me what the Homilies say or the Articles or the 1662 BCP. All other nonsense is just nonsense. What the English Reformers said is way more important than what some high church Laudian had to say. What the other Reformed confessions say is way more biblical than any political document you can pull up.

Charles Bartlett dude, I said secondary. they support and undergird the BCP, articles, and homilies. Look, you keep mentiong WSC, etc., and I’m saying use Nowell before you rush to the Kirk for help. Why would I even say this? Because the Anglican system works through the crown as well as the church. Nowell has the royal seal. WSC/WCF does not. In fact, they set the stage to cut the Anglican head off. Why repeat history?

Mr. Peter Smart:Nowell isn’t an authority. The church is an authority. Last I checked the Irish Church is a church and so are the Presbyterians. So you can quote an individual opinion. That does even rise to the level of a secondary authority.

Mr. Peter Smart: Let me see. Are you the author of the Anglican Rose site?

Charles Bartlett:Anglican rose, yep.

Mr. Peter Smart: The bottom line is belonging to a church only makes you a member of a secular organization. The question is have you been born again? Are you a member of the invisible communion of the saints and God’s elect? That’s the question.

Charles Bartlett The church administers sacraments and preaches the Word. It’s not merely secular. Do invisible people do this? Do sinners preach the Word and adminster sacraments or only holy, purely righteous men? Yes, I am saved by God’s grace and heartily thankful. Lord don’t leave me, don’t give up on me, a sinner!

Charles BartlettThere’s something I want to clear up about Philipism and the English Church. While I believe it accounts for a lot of the way the theology is conveyed and grounded, I think the English negotiated their relationship to it rather independently. In other words, despite the celebrity of Melanchthon in the Henrician court, it wasn’t a slavish reception. For instance, we know both Henry and Cromwell felt the Germans ought to make the greater concessions to English ritual. This demonstrates prior commitments particularly to Catholic tradition, examples, including a belief in confection, a higher view of authority, as well as kingship itself. Nonetheless, there were wide areas of agreement and even in Henry’s theology experienced a modest shift through Cranmer. I believe Henry was a monarch very similar to Charles V– an Erasmusian Catholic at heart– and while open to the New Learning was also cautious about radical breaks.

I might also add the slow realignment toward the Henrician that began in the mid-1580′s until it sort of combusted in 1640. Here, you have a stronger defense of the sacrament, episcopacy, and we mustn’t forget the monarchy. All these were distinctions from Phillipism in the main, and curiously we find a refutation of the King’s divine status as early as the Christmas Articles 1535. In the later portion of the Settlement, men like Andrewes, even Jewel toward the end of his life, could be attributed to this second Henrician revival (the first being in the opening years of Elizabeth)l. So, there was a predisposition to conservatism which seems an enduring mark of the King’s Protestantism, and I believe this lasted until the rise of parliament and republicanism which was the real ailment behind the break down of discipline in the church. In so many ways, the Anglican system was indeed based on divine right of Kings, and when the Tory party ebbed from dominance, so did the Church. Of course, this was also a reciprocating relation, and latitudinarianism might be considered concessions to republicanism from the side of the church. Very unfortunate.

Also, something more about the old ‘Protestant-center’ should be said or restated. From the beginning Melancthon was the chief intellectual architect of what might be called Germany’s ‘northern catholic’ concilarism. From 1526 to 1555 (or so) Philipism held the intellectual and theological center generally driving concilar talks in the north. However, when Philipism met its demise at the hands of Lutheran partisans, the center also melted, giving way to centrifugal forces typically blamed upon confessionalism. But Philipism’s real, or perhaps ‘secret’, legacy was its variatas, such as the Wittenberg and Ten Articles, of which England was benefited. Thus, Anglicana stood to inherit the German’s (i.e., very early reformation’s) charge. In other words, it was theologically conditioned to conclude what the Protest 1529 and Augsburg 1530 began. This really picked up momentum under James I, but English Philipism suffered set backs and numerous troubles while trying to strengthen ties with the Scottish kirk and presbyterian counterparts in England. This proved very disruptive, and Anglicans today should take to task the lesson those ties provide.

Nonetheless, center-Protestantism, even during its hard-pressed moments, was kept afire by the Crown. It was really the Crown’s policy with respect to the church, namely, steering the bulk of the Henrician settlement through the storms of recusancy/conventicles, foreign jurisdictions of Rome and Geneva. It is otherwise known as the King’s high church party. And, so this ‘catholic’ or ‘high-philipist-catholic’ party– true to 39 articles (plain reading), BCP, and Supremacy– has gone by several names. Namely it’s the old high churchmen, who I contend might sign on to the articles of Wittenberg, Wurtemburg, and Ratisbon as soon as the 39. We’ve also called them central churchmen, but they are also central Protestant or, what I call, vera-protestant. So long as this party existed, alongside a healthy tory party, the CofE was able to move Protestantism forward into a northern catholic direction. And, this came closest to accomplishing the goals stated in Spire in 1841 with the Prussian Union and Anglican Jerusalem Bishopric.What ended it? Pretty much the Tractarian movement which rolled back and split the original high church party.

I know this is quite a bit. There are areas that need refining. But it’s an outline of a very broad view of history, for the most part a history lost, he victim to unnecessary contention and antagonism within the protestant camp, compounded by Roman and Jacobinite pressures. etc. Nonetheless, it’s the thesis I hope to develop, and I pray others pick up. Again, what Anglicans must do is revive the center-protestant or old high church tradition. That’s the only way continuing Anglicanism is going to survive and glue together larger communions.

Thoughts? I probably should post this at Anglican Rose.

The Henrician Formularies, with the exception of the 1547 First Book of Homilies, can be read or downloaded here. They are a must read for all Settlement Anglicans.

Bp. Walter H. Frere 1907

Whenever deviancies from 39 Articles or Prayer Book are pressed, “desuetude” is plea invoked by liberal catholics to justify breaches against royal and ecclesiastical authority known during the Settlement, 1536-1662. In the past year, this argument has been heard from several quarters, and, whether TEC or ACC, it amounts to the same–i.e., the Settlement represents nothing binding.

Often those who appeal to ‘desuetude’ aren’t terribly specific about which ceremonies or doctrines have fallen to the wayside. Thus, the appeal to desuetude can generate substantial ambiguity. Last year, the term was used by Archbishop Haverland to beg the English Mass as celebrated in 1543 without answering questions on the theology pertaining to current Missal-use. More recently, the Reverend Fr. Wells propounded desuetude with respect to the 39 Articles, saying, “for the sake of the argument, I will yield the point and concede that the Articles are legally a dead issue among us, their canonical authority having fallen into desuetude.”

While Arch-bishop Haverland and Fr. Wells are doing everything in their power to preserve orthodox Anglicanism, it goes without saying this plea of desuetude is quite disturbing. Yet Haverland and Wells both speak a certain truth. A person might further wonder if there’s any part of Anglicanism–aside from Creed and eucharist– that hasn’t given way to some degree of disuse and obsolescence? Especially in parishes where the 1979 Prayer Book is used (i.e., Rite 2) there is really very little original Anglicanism left. A concerned churchman might wonder what grounds remain for change?

Principles of Authority: It is certainly ironic that the history of the Oxford Movement demonstrates the best chance of restoring an authority that otherwise teeters upon oblivion. The rise of ritualism under the rationale of restoring ‘catholic order’ through the Ornament Rubric is actually very much an example of what ought be done. Bishop Frere in his short but informative book, The Principles of Religious Ceremonial (1907), analyzes the means by which desuetude can be reversed. Frere’s book is not only a study on the general lawfulness of external ceremonies, but it’s also a guide for restoring faith and order potentially left in the dustbin.

The challenge for ritualists in at the turn of the century was restoring ceremony that was not mentioned in the prayer book. The Principles of Religious Ceremonial therefore outlines several sources of authority beyond the strict-reading of the Prayer Book and church canons which had legal power to renew customs forgotten. Frere’s analysis begins with the most basic governing unit of the church– the episcopal ordinary– and the limits in freedom a single bishop normally possesses in making rites,

“The ultimate ecclesiastical authority for ceremonial directions is not far to seek. Ceremonies, like the rites which they accompany, are regulated by episcopal authority; and the ceremonial laws and customs of the Church form part of the general system of ecclesiastical discipline, of which the bishop is the normal source and safeguard. The bishop is the ordinary of his diocese, not only as ordinary judge, but also as ordinary promulgator of rules and regulations for the conduct of divine worship. The same limitations, however, of episcopal authority are observable here as in other parts of the sphere of discipline. The individual bishop is bound to some extent by custom, to a large degree by the actions of his predecessors; he is bound by the best precedents to carry with him either synodically or more informally the general assent of his clergy and the concurrence of the laity. Again, he is restricted by the action of his comprovincials, or by the former action taken by the province; and restricted also to some extent by action that has been taken in other provinces.” p. 94

Where greater, provincial enforcement is silent, the local bishop has a practical dispensing power. According to Frere, it may very well happen neither bishop or synod desire regular conformity to a particular ceremony; in which case, the practice indeed risks desuetude. However, the descent into  desuetude cuts both ways. In the absence of active discipline, or an otherwise reigning atmosphere of indifference, the Bishop still has a right to restore or create new canon.  Where a single bishop remains indifferent about reform, they are still accountable to synod which may intervene in lieu of the Ordinary. In other words, the very means by which desuetude normally occurs also gives the same opportunities for its to end. Namely, the bishop and/or synod might always exert authority where previously none was present, and, if it wasn’t for this fact, ritualism would have never succeeded.  Frere describes this two-edged sword surrounding the episcopate:

“There may be cases wehre the State may wish to intervene and enforce conformity, even though the bishop might have preferred to let well alone… The same would also be the case if it was the province that called for the enforcement of conformity where an individual bishop had not pressed for it. This power of forcing the hand of an unwilling bishop is the necessary result of the limitation of the simple episcopal powers that has come about through the aciton of the synod on the one hand and of the parliament of the other. But there may well be also cases where all parties concerned are quite content not to press for conformity; and in these the bishop will practically have a dispensing power, at any rate for the time being; though the toleration will be liable to cease in the future, if either he or his successor on the one part, or on the other part either the synod or the parliament, enter upon the opposite policy and enforce conformity. It is still more clear that if a single bishop can be allowed in certain circumstances what is practically a dispensing power, a fortiori it will belong to the synod in similar circumstances where the State is quiescent, though it will always be more difficult to take synodical action than individual.” pp. 99-100

Normal versus Special: Therefore the appeal to ‘desuetude’ by certain folks is just another way of saying they agree with prevailing circumstances. In many ways, Frere’s Principles is a study in canon law or ‘true adiaphora’. Where Frere falls short, in my opinion, is neglecting the latent powers of the Crown, but Frere was also writing at a time when the center of conflict was between parliament and catholic bishops. Nonetheless, by appealing to the discretion of the Orindary, Frere was trying to alleviate matters of wrongly interpreted law. This is where jurisdictions that claim 39 articles or 1662 prayer book have authority ought to have their feet held to the fire. But, as we know, very few bishops are enforcing what their own constitutions say. Unlike today’s Anglicans, Frere is careful not characterize this situation as ‘normal’ but uncommon occurrences, “such cases would not be breaches of the general rule but exceptions to it” (p. 99).

Modern Anglicans have entirely reversed this, making the special exception “normal” while even leaving areas of doctrine to ‘local options’.  When challenged as to which Articles or rubrics have perhaps survived desuetude, most critics will refrain from speaking because (other than the Creed and Words of Institution) no one really knows.  Nonetheless, clergy have made certain vows, and they ought to consider oaths tendered at ordination.  Frere talks about these ‘general rules’ which even clergy must submit. But if canon or article requires challenge, like Keble exhorted churchmen in 1841 , Frere calls Anglicans to consider this dilemma in an “orderly way”–  i.e., the appeal to bishopric discretion and/or synodical review:

“Now it may be said in general that, in order to effect a change of practice in such matters as these, there is required an authority equal to that which prescribed the original practice. One bishop of Sarum was (and is) as good as another; and any one of them could alter regulations that rested merely on the authority of one of his predecessors. Similarly, a council could alter the rules laid down by a council of equal or inferior dignity. All this is evident. But if a bishop on his own authority were to supersede the rules laid down by a synod of his province, or a small synod to override a larger one, the action would require some special justification.” (p. 99)

What justification do Anglicans have ignoring the letter of the prayer book or 39 Articles found therein? Is it the catholicity supposedly expressed by Rome? Eastern Orthodoxy’s peculiar interpretation of the Fathers? Anglican books appointed for use by Crown and Convocation weren’t given to decorate altars or for their poetic language. They were written to contain and instruct a lively and catholic faith for all times.  Often forgotten is how Anglican standards indeed sum and properly define antiquity. But the general principle remains, “what was done by greater authority cannot be undone by a lesser”. It is even more mind-boggling when a person considers the Settlement was forged by sacred monarchy, and that Anglicans today reject that seal! Regardless, if certain waves of lawlessness (be it methodism or ritualism) have indeed left Reformation standards in desuetude, desuetude in no way excludes its own reversal.

Conclusion: Desuetude is not written in stone, and reversals (along with new additions) surely remain the prerogative of the bishop, if not synod, given the leeway of existing canons. This is where a constitutional approach has validity. If a jurisdiction has certain expressed standards, much like the Ornament Rubric did for 19th century ritualists, a basis exists to restore discipline. Where no expressed standard stands, then churchmen have the more difficult task to insert (or live without) them, keeping in mind Frere’s warning, “it will always be more difficult to take synodical action than individual”. For this reason, it’s wisest to be in bodies that still retain constitutions that profess historic Settlement standards. It’s always better for churchmen to work with due authority rather than pitted against. Nor has Anglican Rose left these standards to question.  An almost complete list of appointed Settlement standards is found at the right-hand side of this blog. The ACNA has adopted the most based on the Jerusalem Declaration (articles #5-7) with the REC spearheading orthodoxy. Amongst St. Louis churches only the UEC explicitly ‘continued’ from PEC’s C&C . Others claim a more implicit approval, but no matter the jurisdiction application varies wildly parish to parish. Settlement Anglicans therefore face an uphill battle regardless. It is amazing how Anglicans will skirt around these healthy standards, pouring on ambiguities. Too often peripheral problems (like WO) are focused upon while excusing the role of liberal catholicism in instituting such. But, again, this is a crisis of adiaphora which Frere addresses rather comprehensively in the same legacy of churchmen in the past against the similar disorders (e.g., Ridley and Hooker).

Rt. Rev. DD. Nicholas Heath, second legate at Wittenberg

The ‘Christmas Day’ Articles were authored by Philip Melancthon advising terms which German Princes (the Elector of Saxony and Landgrave of Hesse) were to approach Henry VIII as the leader of the Smalkaldic League. The Fourteen points contained therein outlined necessary rules of engagement that would led to the Wittenberg Concord by which the Henrician Ten Articles (1536) were then framed. While the Wittenberg Concord detailed points of agreement between Anglican and Lutheran doctors, areas of impasse left it an insufficient basis for cooperation, aka. the six articles. The outcome was an indeterminate prorogue of discussion, remaining true even after Edward VI’s more sacramentarian reforms. Yet the Ten Articles, if not Wittenberg, go unrecognized as one of many 16-th century altered Augsburg Confessions, setting a model for Protestant media via amongst royal houses in Northern Europe. Likewise neglected is Henry’s overture as the supreme head of Protestantcy, providing an example that James I and Hanoverian-Palatinate Crowns later tried to emulate, offering the British throne as a last court of appeal for Northern Catholics.

The Christmas Day Articles:
Written December 25, 1535, the Christmas Day Articles set terms for Henry on conditions for Anglo-Lutheran unity. The Christmas Day articles was a fantastic example of northern catholic concilarism, though biased on the German side. Its points may be summed in three– 1) the Augsburg Confession as symbol of peace; 2) restrictions on general councils with Rome and non-League churches; 3) logistics of military procurement. For this study the third section is least relevant while the second simply forbade independent engagements with non-Lutherans. But the first section– subscribing the Augsburg– is most pertinent.

In rather bold language the first section showed no deference to Henry VIII’s greater status as “Emperor in England, Wales, and France” vis-a-vis the Hanseatic Elector and Landgrave. Nor Henry’s renowned theological literacy. A letter from Crumwell declares, “The King, knowing himself to be the learnedest prince in Europe, thought it became not him to submit to them, but them to submit to him” (Jacobs, p. 67). For similar reasons and during later negotiations Henry felt the burden of compromise ought to be on the Germans, ”something first, in your [the Lutheran] Confession and Apology be modified by private conferences and friendly discussions between learned men” (p. 72). Neither Henry nor Cromwell felt the Augsburg that privileged enough to warrant the esteemed place Melanchthon’s   Christmas Articles would place it. Articles I, II, and VIII disfavored England’s Supremacy, reading:

“I. That the Most Serene King promote the Gospel of Christ, and the pure doctrine of faith according to the mode in which the Princes and confederated states confessed it in the diet of Augsburg, and defended it according to the published apology, unless perhaps some things meanwhile justly seem to require change or correction from the Word of God by the common consent of the Most Serene King, and the princes themselves.

II. Also, that the Most Serene King, together with the Princes and States confederated, defend and maintain the doctrine of the gospel mentioned, and ceremonies harmonizing with the gospel in future council.

…
VIII. Also, that neither the aforesaid Most Serene King, nor the aforesaid Most Illustrious Princes or States confederated, ever will recognize, maintain or defend that the primacy or monarch be held today or ever hereafter as de jure divino…” ( p.63-66).

The Ten Articles vs. Wittenberg:
A disputation and conference was arranged in Wittenberg for the end of Jan. 1536.  The conference’s main aim was to unite southern with northern Germans, sealing differences over sacrament. English delegates were also in attendance seeking similar accord. While Anglican and Lutherans arrived with fixed theological positions,  alteration of the Augsburg was on the table, possible either through private conference or a regional council. The disputations in Wittenberg carried until late-March. Disagreements revolved around Henry’s divorce with Catherine, alleged abuses in the English Mass, clerical celibacy, and, the right of the King to continue other ceremonies (namely, reverencing images, purgatory, and invoking saints). When the English legates returned four months later with the Wittenberg Concord and Lutheran Repititio (an elaboration on the former),  Henry and convocation commissioned the  Ten Articles as a formal reply from Canterbury to Saxony.

The Articles, like Henry’s longer Catechisms, were divided into two parts– one portion belonging to doctrine, the other to ceremony. That pertaining to faith generally followed the Wittenberg and Augsburg Apology but with a Henrician emphasis on faith enlivened by good works . Agreeing with the Augsburg (and old faith), penance is counted as a third sacrament that remits actual sin committed after baptism. However, unlike Henry’s vocal defense of seven sacraments in 1522, the Ten Articles were intentionally silent upon the efficacy of the lesser sacraments. This restraint on enumeration continued into the 1540′s until Cranmer fully adopted Bucer/Melanchthon’s view of two sacraments instituted by Christ. Veneration of images and saints, however, were outright banned as early as 1538. But the private mass and concomitance of elements were defended, and for this reason the Lutherans found the Ten Articles, at that particular time, ‘unsatisfactory’. Nonetheless, it was tacitly agreed that remaining differences would be ironed out in in the near future.

Although John Frederick the Elector was anxious to receive the Ten Articles in the summer of 1536, they did not arrive in Germany until late-November. Henry was distracted suppressing a monk revolt in Yorkshire. Once the Articles arrived, of them Melanchthon unflatteringly said, “[they]were put together with the greatest confusion”.  But a decade later, Melanchthon would write the Leipzig Interim that was arguably more Roman than the Ten Articles.  Aside from the use of the Mass, the Ten Articles doctrinally agreed with the Wittenberg.  At this point, Anglo-Lutheran disagreements stemmed over what constituted adiaphoric ceremony. The ceremonies which the 10 articles retained were partly explained in the Preface as continued for ‘charitable concord’,

“…have not only in our own person many times taken great pain, study labour and travails, but also have caused our bishops, and other the most discreet and best learned men of our clergy of this our whole realm, to be assembled in our convocation, for the full debatement and quiet deliberation and disputations, had of and upon the premises, finally they have concluded and greed upon the said matters, as well those which be commanded of God, and necessary for our salvation, as also the other touching honest ceremonies, and good and politic order, as is aforesaid; which their determination, debatement, and agreement, forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good, right, and true judgment, an to be agreeable to the laws and ordinances of God, and much profitable for the establishment of that charitable concord and unity in our church of England” (p. 4, Oxford).

Despite differences on retention of catholic ritual, Wittenburg provided vital doctrinal ground-work for the 10 if not later 42 Articles.  On this point two things might be added. First, the Ten Articles were formed through official dialogue with Henry to the Augsburg, mostly affirming the earlier Wittenberg conferences. This critical dialogue was not abandoned but continued into the 1540′s against the backdrop of what would become Trent. Gibson is wrong to dismiss the influence of Tridentine sessions. The Diet of Ratisbon and related Leipzig Interim (1541 and 1548 respectively) were both convened and closed before Henry’s last catechism and prior to Cranmer’s 42 articles.

Second, the result of this discourse was a middle-way not between Rome and Lutheranism (Henry officially rejected both) but, more narrowly speaking, between Vienna (Erasmus) and Wittenberg (Melanchthon). The synthesis of reformed-minded Roman Catholics and moderate Lutherans constituted the Reformation’s ‘third way’, embodied in works like the Regensberg Book, Leipzig Interim, Ten Articles,  and Witzel’s Reforms. Historians often overlook this period which  Henrician standards belong.

The Six Articles: Between the dialectic of Henrician Bishops– Foxe (Lutheran) and Gardiner(RC/EO)– the Rev. Nicholas Heath’s churchmaship shewed itself the better representative of the period, 1535-1545. In 1535 Dr. Nicholas Heath was the king’s chaplain. Sent to Saxony with the “New Learning” Reverends, Edward Foxe and Robert Barnes, Nicholas was effective in putting brakes on Barnes and Foxe’s concord with Lutheran criticisms against certain English rites. This ultimately resulted in a half-way or altered agreement on the Augsburg.  Thus, the Ten Articles agreed largely with Melanchthon’s Apology and 1535 Loci, but met only part way on ceremony. This was not an unusual rebuff for Wittenberg theologians. Similar retentions of ‘old faith’ ceremony occurred with German Princes in Bradenburg and Brunswick.

England’s further reforms of minor rites gradually ensued.  Between the 1537 Bishop’s Book and Cromwell’s 1538 injunctions, Cranmer was able to draw Henry closer to the Elector. These later reforms, for instance, extirpated the use candles and incense before images. Purgatory was also utterly refuted. And, by 1539, the largest monasteries were finally dissolved. But in April of 1539 Henry published the six articles. This was Henry’s definitive reply to Lutherans on worship. The six articles answered alleged abuses charged by Lutherans going back to 1536. They were rather strong statements outlining where England would go no further– i.e., keeping concomitance, clerical celibacy,  the private mass, and vows for laity.

Henry surely had a number reasons for publishing them. The early 1540′s represent a realignment in the catholic direction not only for England but Germany too. Both were preparing for a European-wide Diet at Ratisbon and then an upcoming general council in Trent.  Also, by the early 1540′s Swiss  sacramentarian views were making headway in the realm. These often accompanied iconoclasm. Much like later Stuart monarchs, Henry implicitly identified iconoclasm with opposition to authority. Henry consequently promoted high-ritual views  to both expose and counter such ‘leveling’ tendencies . Furthermore, Henry saw no abuse by the promulgation of the six articles but either justified his positions by scripture or custom. In some cases he went too far, calling celibacy, and, by implication, other evangelical counsels, a ‘law of God’. But terms like ‘substantial’ were also commonly used by Germans to describe the real presence. Thus, the six articles not only were a reply to Lutheran charges of ‘abuse’, but they advertised the emerging conservatism of England’s church that would be the Settlement’s hallmark.

However, the six articles had more bark than bite. Of the 28 subjects executed during its enforcement, 1539-1544, only four were Lutheran, three Romanist, and the remaining 21 were Radicals. By 1544 the optimism regarding Charles V’s Diet and council passed. With the death of Dr. Martin in 1545 the Lutheran movement lost steam. By the mid-1550′s it would be consumed with enshrining more corporal views of the sacrament. This left the English Church to engage reform alone, following what the Ten Articles laid.

For the English church a great amount of old ceremony continued from the medieval, thanks to Heath who avoided commitments with Lutherans at Wittenberg. Holy Week, Creeping the Cross, Candlemas, Ash Wednesday, the Easter Sepulchre, and other laudable rites gained longevity due to Heath’s “right use” arguments, perhaps contributing to the fullness of the Ornament’s Rubric.  In 1537 Thomas Cranmer noted the right use of many such ceremonies indifferent,

“If men will indifferently read these late declarations, they shall well perceive that purgatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, holy bread, holy water, holy days, merits, works, ceremony, and such other, be not restored to their late accustomed abuses; but shall evidently perceive that the word of God hath gotten the upper hand of them all, and hath set them in their right use and estimation”. (p. 178, Tjernagel)

Conclusion: More can be said about the Lutheran negotiations, 1535-41. But please note: Lutheranism was rejected, and the Anglican position was the Augsburg be treated through the Ten or what later would amount to the 39 articles. Reproachment with Germans was both privileged and restrained, favoring the English King who understood himself as Supreme head on earth of the English church militant, if not all Northern Catholicism. The differences expressed between Anglicans vs. Lutherans slowly closed by the end of the 1540′s, and were not always doctrinal but dealt with the right use certain medieval rubrics and utensils according to good order and peace. The result was a media via between Ratisbon and Wittenberg, demonstrating the old English mind for conservatism and reluctance to break from past forms.

Anglicans ought to be encouraged to study the Henrician Formularies, 1536-1543, as foundational to Edward and Elizabeth’s “fine-tuning” of the Settlement. A hardcopy can be purchased at Amazon through the same Henry VIII link.

Jacobs, Henry Eyster. The Lutheran Movement in England During the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Philedelphia, 1890.
Various. Formularies of Faith put Forth by Authority During the Reigns of Henry VIII. Oxford, 1825.
Tjernagel, Neelak Serawlook. Henry VIII and the Lutherans. Concordia, 1965.

Statement of the Rev. James P. Dees on His Withdrawal
Why I am leaving the Protestant Episcopal Church to work with others who desire to recapture the faith of our fathers and the witness of the historic Church.

I am a clergyman of the Episcopal Church. I have been in the ministry now here in North Carolina for more than fourteen years. I have served as priest in charge of one mission and as a rector of two parishes. In times past it has been my privilege to serve my church i many responsible positions. I was for several years a member of the Executive Council of the Diocese in which I was located, and was Secretary of the Diocesan Convention, Chairman of the Department of Youth, a member of the Department of Camps and Conferences, to mention some of the positions I have held.

But the time has come when I can no longer support the Protestant Episcopal Church and what it stands for, and I am now coming out of it. To say that I am leaving my Church is not quite the whole truth, for I feel that the Protestant Episcopal Church, for reasons to be enumerated, has already left me. I am separating myself from what the Church has become. I am getting out of the Church that I feel has departed from what I consider to have been its intellectual, spiritual, and doctrinal heritage. I have had all that I can stand of its social, economic, and political program of socialism; of its pseudo-brotherhood; of its appeasement of the Communists; of its so-called civil rights; and of its rejection of much that I consider to be fundamental to the Biblical faith.

An Episcopalian Heritage:
Let me preface what I have to say further by saying I am an Episcopalian of many generations. Episcopal clergy are among my forebears. I loved the Church of my childhood and the Church that I felt was handed down to me as “the Church of our Fathers”. I loved the comforting faith and gracious manners manifested in the lives of my early spiritual mentors, whose lives and teachings revealed that they were indwelt by the Spirit of our Savior, whom they taught as the bible plainly reveals. I still love its ancient liturgy and its ancient vestments, and I love the creeds and the heritage of its architecture, its hymns, and many things besides.

But the Church has changed; or, at least, the Church seems to be no longer as it used to appear. The spiritual and intellectual climate is no longer as in days gone by, and I feel that it has changed for the worse, and the faith of the clergy has been sorely watered down with liberal doctrine.

The root of my unrest is found, I believe, in the fact that the bent of my nature is primarily toward the Divine Revelation recorded for us in the Bible, which, I believe, has been imparted by the grace of the Holy Spirit. As I interpret the situation, my faith is basically Biblical faith; and I think that the faith of the Church also should be Biblical faith; and that its worship and practices should conform plainly to God’s Word which is found in His Holy Book.

Years of Reflection:
After years of long and considered reflection over observations gleaned from many sources, I have come to the conclusion, however, that there is a wide discrepancy between what the Bible teaches and what many of the clergy, both of the priesthood and of the episcopate, believe. There are many who do not believe that the Virgin Birth of Christ was an historic fact. They call it a myth. It is my conviction that there are many wo do not believe that the tomb in which our Lord was buried on Good Friday was empty on Easter morning and that He had risen from the dead in a transformed, quickened, glorified body. They say this also is only myth. It is my personal observation that there are many in the Church who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, in its historic relevance and significance. One bishop says that it is out of date. There are many who do not believe in the plain Bible statements that salvation is offered through Christ alone, through His atoning sacrifice, to be appropriated through faith in him.

Churchmen Reject the Bible:
As samples of current thinking, let me give you a few quotes from certain leaders of the Anglican Communion. Here are some attributed to His Grace, the most Rev. Arthur Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, who is recognized generally as the titular head of the worldwide Anglican communion. It is reported that in the London Daily Mail of October 2, 1961, he said, “Heaven is also not a place to which we humans go in our present bodily state, nor is it a place for Christians only. Those who have led a good life on earth but found themselves unable to believe in God will not be debarred from heaven. I expect to meet some present-day atheists there.” He reportedly is quoted in the Oakland Tribune of February 3, 1956 in an AP dispatch from Durham, England, as follows: “The theology of ‘Christ bore your punishment; believe and be saved,’ when accompanied by the fundamentalist cliche ‘The Bible says’ is a very distorted view of the apostolic gospel.” Further questionable theology of the Archbishop is reported in the same dispatch, where the Archbishop is said to have “attacked the Protestant movement which insists upon the infallibility of the scriptures and such biblical miracles as the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ.” Of Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the “Red Dean” of Canterbury, it reportedly is stated in a UPI dispatch of January 26, 1959: He “was quoted as saying he believes Stalin is in heaven…’Stalin was a rough and stern man. He had to be because he had a very dirty job to do. But God’s eye is a big eye and sees everything, good and bad. To know all is to forgive all, so I think that from heaven’s point of view, Stalin is safe’.” These statements speak for themselves and are hardly deserving of comment among people who believe plain statements of Scripture.

The Rt. Rev. Richard S. M. Emrich of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan is quoted in the Detroit News of December 30, 1961 as saying: “You see, God knows His own, and the one thing He wants is love. That is why a good Moslem, who loves God and his neighbor, has a better chance at heaven than a lazy, selfish Christian.” I wonder what prompted the to engage in this sophistry. I wonder also, does he consider the doctrine of the third chapter of the Gospel of St John to be false doctrine? Apparently, he does.

It is my conviction that a Church that tolerates such views as these is to that extent apostate. It is my conviction that such views in the Church are growing, and I feel that to the extent that I am supporting a Church that permits such beliefs, I am supporting apostasy; I am willfully participating in the betrayal of my Lord. God forbid! I feel that the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church has failed in one of its basic obligations, namely, that of attempting to proclaim the historic Faith and to keep the Faith of the Church as free of heresy as possible. In at least one particularly obvious instance, namely, concerning the observations of Bishop Pike, the House of Bishops has failed to take a stand and clearly delineates its position. The House of Bishops has failed in its duty to the people of the Church in this regard.

Churchmen are Sacerdotalist
Besides this thinking, to which I take exception, I must confess to a lack of sympathy with certain practices among our High Church brethren, among them being the practice of invoking the blessings of the Virgin Mary. This, to my way of thinking, is a product of medieval and premedieval superstition and there is no warrant whatsoever for it in Scripture. It tends to deprive our Lord of veneration due to Him alone. I feel that anything that does this is of the Antichrist. Another practice with which I have little sympathy is that of reserving the Sacrament and of tending to place the physical elements of the Holy Communion, the bread and the wine, on a level where they are held in adoration. I feel that the reserving of the elements and the tendency toward the adoration of the elements in certain worship services hint strongly of idolatry. The elements, the bread and the wine, in effect, as I interpret the situation, become considered practically to approximate the actual physical presence of the body and the blood of the Son of God; the practice smacks mightily of the doctrine of transubstantiation; and, to the extent that this is true, I consider it to be idolatry. I find it difficult to support a Church that indulges in such practices.

One gets the impression that one can belong to the Protestant Episcopal Church and believe anything or everything or nothing at all, except, that is, in regard to certain social and political issues.

Churchmen are Leftist
Apart form this issue of the basic doctrines of the Faith, I find myself sorely tired by our Church’s participation in worldly matters that I consider to be of the anti-Christ. The Protestant Episcopal Church is a member of the National Council of Churches. I did not vote to get into it, and I cannot vote to get out of it, and I have no way of making my will or views of any effect in regard to it. I am advised that among many of the things that the National Council of Churches advocates are disarmament, co-existence with Russia, the abolition of loyalty security laws, recognition of Red China, forced racial integration, to mention but a few. One stud of the National Council of Churches by a congregation of the Protestant Episcopal Church states that the Council has “exceeded its rightful role in speaking out, as the official voice of Protestantism in America, n such controversial issues as federal aid to education, the right-to-work laws, the ethical considerations of the steel dispute, the seating of Red China in the United Nations, etc.,” and that it, “as presently constituted and operated, is a harmful and highly dangerous institution” (St .Mark’s Vestry Committee Report on the NCC). I am advised that in 1960 the Episcopal Church gave the NCC “over $500,000″ which “does not include private gifts, but is represented in the general budget of the Episcopal Church, pp. 47-51″ (The National Council of Churches of Christ– Activities Revealed, published by the State Rights Council of Georgia). When I support the Protestant Episcopal Church, my financial contributions and my moral and spiritual support are funneled in part into the support of the National Council of Churches. There is no way that I can avoid this happening so long as I am supporting the Protestant Episcopal Church in any way whatsoever, whether it be in givin gtoward local needs, toward building funds, or anything else. I am opposed to my supporting, even indirectly, an organization that is aligned with forces that are destroying America. It sorely tries my spirit.

Someone has sent me a copy of the “Belief and Declaration of Purpose” of the Committee of Christian Laymen, Inc., Box 285, Woodland Hills, California. The Statement to which I heartily subscribe reads a follows:

1. We believe in an unchanging God “the same yesterday, today, and forever,” hence the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than the Social Gospel, should be preached from the pulpit.
2. We believe that as individuals we are fully capable of making our own political decisions. So we oppose the political activities of the National Council of Churches in seeking, as an organization, to influence legislation in the name of Protestantism.
3. We oppose the One World, One Church idea where by this nation surrenders its sovereignty to the United Nations as promoted by our Church leaders.
4. We support the American Free Enterprise System and our Constitutional Republican form of government as a necessary adjunct to the survival of Christianity.
5. We seek to inform lay people of influence in our Seminaries and Churches which downgrade the Bible and picture of Jesus Christ as just another man. These influences have now reached into Church publications including Church school literature for our young people.

So ends the “Belief and Declaration of Purpose” of th Committee of Christian Laymen.

It is obvious, it seems to me, that much of the programs of the National Council of Churches and of the International Communist conspiracy are being promoted within the framework of the Episcopal Church. A new clergyman in the diocese some time ago quoted a bishop as indicating to him that “the plums”– that is, preferred positions– in the Diocese went to the men who promoted the program of the National Council of Churches. It seems obvious. The Church, in my opinion, is so oriented toward a program of political and social action, that it practically has lost its true mission. We have committees in the Church that tell us how the Church can be effective in getting legislation passed, such legislation as the abolition of capital punishment, civil rights (so-called), etc. When I support the Church, I am supporting agencies of the Church doing  these kinds of things. I find that I cannot endure it any longer. It appears that the Church has degenerated into the role of a political and social action committee trying to remake the world, by the use of force and persuasion, into the image that the people in authority in it think it ought to be made into, rather than, through preaching the Gospel, letting the Holy Spirit of God move men to do His will freely.

I feel that in th Protestant Episcopal Church I am supporting a political and social action program committed to things that I disagree with and that are displacing the Church’s primary function of proclaiming the saving grace offered to sinners through faith in the Divine Savior. I am afraid that I have had about all that I can stand.

First Concern in the Faith:
These times are times of grave concern. My first concern is for the historic Christian Faith. Christianity is founded on God the Father’s revelation of Himself to the world through HIs divinely appointed Son, knowledge of whom has been committed truthfully to us through the scriptures and through the Holy Spirit and through a faithful ministry. My second concern is for my country, which is based on the Federal Constitution as it is plainly worded and plainly intended by its authors and based on the basic economic factor of private property, and on concern for the preservation of our national sovereignty and individual freedom. Thirdly in order comes my concern for the Episcopal Church. I cannot accommodate myself to rationally and willfully serving both good and evil. When the Episcopal Church serves causes that I consider to be evil and contrary to the best interests of the Biblical faith and of my country, then something has to give somewhere, and my personal integrity under God is more important to me than my remaining a priest of the Episcopal Church.

I feel therefore that the Church and I must separate. I have felt for a long time that I should stay with the Church and I must separate. I have felt for a long time that I should stay with the Church and fight for what I believe in, from within the Church, and I have done so. But I think now that the time has come when I may be able to give a more adequate witness to God’s Truth outside the Episcopal Church.

I wish to let it be clearly known that I stand unequivocally for certain elements of the orthodox faith that I consider basic and particularly relevant at this time, these elements being:

• the Virgin Birth of our Lord as historical fact,
• the Divinity of our Lord,
• the Atoning Sacrifice of the Cross,
• the Resurrection of our Lord from the grave, leaving the tomb empty on Easter morn,
• the Second Coming of Jesus, and
• salvation by Grace through Faith alone

To sum up now, from the negative side, let me say that I sense deeply the fact that the Episcopal Church is participating in the general dissipation of the historic, Biblical faith; it is actively engaged in working against the best interests of our country; and it is actively working to destroy race, peace, and American culture by advocating the use of force by the Federal Government which would take away ultimately all of our freedom and liberties.

I know there is much true faith in the Church. I know well of many great sacrifices now being made by churchmen in the name of our Savior. It is a bad situation that does not have some good mixed with the bad, but the evils I have pointed out exist on too great a scale for me to live with here any longer. If the House of Bishops will not give us a clear statement of its attitude on certain heretical sounding pronouncements, and if others in high places in the Church can deny our Lord as the one Way, Truth, and Life, then the theological and spiritual climate is not for me.

The Demand of Holy Scripture
The fourteenth through the eighteenth verses of the Sixth chapter of the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, I feel, speaks to me profoundly in this hour.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what cncord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not th eunclean thing: and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

And so I come out. I have found that there are other people who have suffered the same trials of their faith and the same mental anguish that I have suffered, and they plan to come out with me. We plan to set up a new Episcopal Church patterned after the historic Anglican faith and tradition. We believe that God will bless our efforts. We believe that there are many who believe as we believe and who are looking for a wholesome spiritual home. We believe that there are many who are weary of contributing their money toward Church programs that are opposed to the welfare of our country and Biblical religion, and who would welcome the opportunity of being able to make a contribution to what we are trying to do. If you are one of these people, then we extend to you a most profound and prayerful invitation to come along and help build an Episcopal Church based on the Scriptures and on the orthodox liturgy and traditions, and one that seeks humbly by God’s grace to strip itself of unbelief, apostasy, and pagan superstitions, to witness to God Almighty in the name of His divinely appointed Son, in His Spirit, to whom alone we give all the praise and honor and glory.

If you are interested further in our plans , we hope to hear from you.   Rev. James P. Dees