Skip to main content

"The strange spirit of Erastianism": Perceval on the English Church amidst revolution

When Tract Number 1 invoked "our apostolical descent" as the source of the Church of England's authority, rather than parliamentary establishment, and challenged its readers to "choose your side" between these, it was no new teaching and no new rallying cry.  As previously indicated, John Hume Spry's 1817 Bampton Lectures had set forth the Church of England as a "divinely constituted society", with the episcopacy as "confessedly of apostolic origin".  

Another example of Tract Number 1 reflecting common place Old High Church thinking is seen in Arthur Philip Perceval's 1831 Letter on the Subject of Church Reform, a response to a fellow cleric's Whiggish proposals amidst the upheavals of the 'constitutional revolution' of 1828-32.  Perceval here robustly rejects an Erastian understanding of the establishment, pointing to the apostolic authority of the Church of England and the rights of Convocation:

I will proceed, however, to consider the most objectionable feature in your letter. This, as was before observed, is the strange spirit of Erastianism which pervades it, the (apparently) utter oblivion of that apostolical authority in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, which the Church has received, not from earthly statesmen, but from the Lord himself.

It is, indeed, most remarkable. You propose that alterations should be made, not only in the resources of the Church, - which would merely affect the right she possesses, - in common with every other member of the State, to order and regulate them as shall seem best to her; but in her ecclesiastical laws her Liturgy, and her discipline. 

And by whom do you propose that these important alterations are to be made? By the Church? No. The alterations are to be decreed by ''his Majesty in council, or the parliament, as the case may require:" and the voice of the Church is not to be heard in any stage of the proceedings. For the voice of the Church is known only by the decrees of her councils: and the constitution of the Church of England recognises no other council of the Church than that assembled in convocation.

... But the Erastian proposition in your Letter affects the spiritual existence of the Church of England, as a true and apostolic branch of the Church of Christ. It does not so much call into question, it passes over as totally groundless, the idea of her having received any apostolical authority to regulate and set in order her ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs. But that apostolical authority the Church of England either does, or does not possess. If she does not, then is she no true branch of the Church of Christ, and salvation must be sought in some other. If she does possess it, then, as she did not receive it from the State, so neither can she delegate it to the State. 

Against this background, Tract Number 1 - rather than being a radically new statement of apostolic authority and catholic principles, overturning a supposedly Erastian High and Dry stance - can be seen merely as another expression of a well-established, conventional High Church discourse. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...
2 comments
Read more