'We must be high churchmen or we cannot be churchmen at all': Horsley on apostolical authority

In a 1790 Charge to his clergy, Horsley addressed the need to respond theologically to the challenges posed by Dissent and Methodism.   He noted that some clergy abstained from doing so "from a fear, as I conceive, of acquiring the name and reputation of high churchmen".  This led him to address the meaning of the term:

To be a high churchman, in the only sense which the word can be allowed to bear, as applicable to any in the present day, - God forbid that this should ever cease to be my public pretension, my pride, my glory! To be a high churchman in the true import of the word in the English language, - God forbid that ever I should deserve the imputation! 

A high-churchman, in the true sense of the word, is one that is a bigot to the secular rights of the priesthood, one who claims for the hierarchy, upon pretence of a right inherent in the sacred office, all those powers, honours, and emoluments, which they enjoy under an establishment; which are held indeed by no other tenure than at the will of the prince or by the law of the land. To the prince or to the law we acknowledge ourselves indebted for all our secular possessions for the rank and dignity annexed to the superior order of the clergy - for our secular authority - for the jurisdiction of our courts, and for every civil effect which follows the exercise of our spiritual authority. All these rights and honours, with which the priesthood is adorned by the piety of the civil magistrate, are quite distinct from the spiritual commission which we bear for the administration of our Lord's proper kingdom. They have no necessary connexion with it: They stand merely on the ground of human law; and vary, like the rights of other citizens, as the laws which create them, vary; and in every church connected like our church with the state by an establishment, even the spiritual authority cannot be conferred without the consent of the supreme civil magistrate. 

But in the language of our modern sectaries, every one is a high churchman who is not unwilling to recognize so much as the spiritual authority of the priesthood, - every one who, denying what we ourselves disclaim, anything of a divine right to temporalities, acknowledges, however, in the sacred character, somewhat more divine than may belong to the mere hired servants of the state or of the laity; and regards the service which we are thought to perform for our pay as something more than a part to be gravely played in the drama of human politics. 

My reverend brethren, we must be content to be high churchmen according to this usage of the word, or we cannot be churchmen at all; for he who thinks of God's ministers as the mere servants of the state, is out of the church - severed from it by a kind of self-excommunication.

Horsley's definition of 'high church', with its rejection of both 'bigoted' accounts of "the secular rights of the priesthood" and any understanding of clergy "as the mere servants of the state", suggests that Tract One's characterization of the pre-1833 High Church tradition is seriously flawed.  Tract One would say of the clergy of the Established Church, "Hitherto you have been upheld by your birth, your education, your wealth, your connexions".  Such "secular advantages" raised the question "on what are we to rest our authority, when the State deserts us?".

Tract One, however, was posing a false dilemma, as Horsley's words from 1790 indicate.  The High Church tradition had no notion of the Church's authority in general, and the authority of those in Orders in particular, resting upon on "secular advantages" and "temporal distinctions".  When the Tract declared, "this ... has, perhaps, been too much our own", it was not reflecting High Church thought, which had a robust account of what Horsley termed "a ministry of divine institution".  Horsley continues:

I would advise that you make the writings that remain of the apostolical fathers, more especially of St Clement and St Ignatius, your constant study.

Thus, when Tract One declared "I fear we have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built,— OUR APOSTOLICAL DESCENT", it was invoking no new principle which had not been present in Horsley's 1790 Charge.  To put it another way, 1833 was not required for Anglicanism to 'recover' a sense of catholic and apostolic order.

... for he who thinks of God's ministers as the mere servants of the state, is out of the church.