No Babylonian captivity: Anglicanism, establishment, and the vocation of a national Church

... the supremacy of the crown must not (according to our constitution in Church and State) be considered as an arbitrary and unlimited supremacy. Everything in England is limited by law: and nothing more than the power of the sovereign. In matters of State, the power of the crown is limited by the two houses of Parliament; in the affairs of the Church, it is limited also by the two houses of Convocation. Legally and constitutionally, the sovereign, or the sovereign's government, can do nothing concerning the state of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting the clergy in Convocation, and the laity in Parliament; so that, when we acknowledge the supremacy of the crown, we do not put our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the sovereign or the ministry; for we know that legally nothing can be imposed upon us, but what has received the consent of our clergy and laity, as represented respectively.

E.H. Browne's An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (1854), in discussion of Article XXXVII, provided a classic High Church summary of the Royal Supremacy, not least with its emphasis on the role of Convocation as a representative body.  The Elizabeth Settlement, in other words, was no Erastian affair.

It was also a necessary check and balance to clerical authority:

It has been reasonably thought, that the supremacy of the Pope, which was suffered before the Reformation, was (to use a term growing into use) the extreme expression for the superiority of the clergy and their dominance over the laity; whereas the supremacy of the crown was the counter expression for the independence and power of the laity.

And it reflected historic norms which protected the Church's unity in the realm:

Up to the time of the Reformation, the whole nation was of one faith, and united as one Church. The Reformation did not introduce a new faith, but restored purity to the old, and removed the abuses which time had permitted. It was the work of prince, prelates, and people; and the Church, which had from the beginning been protected by the State, was protected by it still.

Browne, then, provides an apologia for the Royal Supremacy, an Old High Church account of the rationale for and coherence of an ordering of the ecclesia Anglicana which shaped and defined its historic experience.  With more than a few contemporary Anglicans embarrassed by the Royal Supremacy - we might describe this as part of "pathological reticence to take our own history seriously as a spring for inspiration" - Browne's account is a useful rebuttal of Whiggish notions that the role of the Crown and establishment was a form of 'Babylonian captivity' for Anglicanism.  

In fact, as Browne emphasises, the Royal Supremacy gave expression to and protected the rights of the national Church, balanced the rights of the clergy with the rights of the laity, and served the unity of the ecclesia Anglicana.  It was, in other words, the sine qua non for Anglicanism.

Browne does go on, however, to acknowledge the consequences of 1827-32, the undoing of the Anglican state:

We cannot question, that the relation between Church and State is now widely different from that which once existed, and that it is fraught with new dangers.

In itself this is an important admission from within the Old High Church tradition of a radically changed context.  What is particularly interesting, however, is Browne's subsequent warning.  He sees the obvious danger to the Church's witness posed by an Erastianism not intended or foreseen by the Elizabethan Settlement.  But this is not the only danger of which he warns:

Our real danger is, lest the lukewarmness of the Church lead to Erastian indifference, or her zeal degenerate into impatience, faction, or intemperance.

Here is a significant warning from the Old High Church tradition that Erastian bland liberalism was not the only danger posed by the undoing of the Anglican state. If Erastianism is Scylla, Charibdis is the embrace of sectarianism, abandoning the vocation of being a national Church.  As Nockles notes, the High Church tradition had robustly put this point in the face of a growing Tractarian mythology regarding the supposed primitive purity of Scotch and US Episcopalianism and, indeed, the Non-jurors.  It had been the Hackney Phalanx which had warned that this would "induce a sectarian spirit" and lead to marginalisation.

This is another reason to challenge a Whig interpretation approach to Royal Supremacy and establishment.  Retreat from the ethos and habits of a national Church - which had traditionally marked Anglicans even in those jurisdictions in which establishment had long ceased to be the legal order - has coincided with a rather dramatic Anglican decline in many such jurisdictions.  Even in England, where the legal order remains, a sense of embarrassment regarding establishment appears to be de rigueur, alongside the absence of any compelling theological understanding of what it is to be a national Church.

Ceasing to be national churches, abandoning the ethos and habits of national churches (for example, pastoral offices characterised by hospitality and welcome, and celebrating the sanctity and vocation of civic life), or frowning upon these habits and practices where they persist, sectarian options have been preferred, whether evangelical congregationalism, catholic sacerdotalism, or a self-proclaimed liberal prophetic role, in all of which marginalisation can be perversely welcomed as a sign of authenticity. 

Zeal has degenerated into impatience, faction, intemperance.

By contrast, the ethos, habits, and practices of a national Church are fundamental characteristics of Anglicanism, enabling it to meaningfully engage with the culture and live out the Church's mission.  As the Old High Church tradition warned, abandoning this for an ideology of anti-establishmentism has resulted in a sectarian vision of the Church, antithetical to historic Anglicanism's theology and practice, thus contributing to a marginalisation which undermines the Church's mission.