How the Old High tradition continued
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 the mediaeval Church which developed the Papacy, to the undivided Church, and with the undivided Church to Scripture, as limiting for ever the articles of faith to the original creed.
This was also related to the rejection of a range of doctrines and practices which were not part of, to use an old High Church term, the 'Primitive Faith' (as seen, for example, in Horne and Horsley, and in Hobart):
A whole body of mediaeval or modern Roman doctrine is thereby ruled out of the articles of the necessary faith. Purgatory may be, as I think, in some sense an irresistible doctrine, but there is no doctrine of a purgatory for the souls of the dead in Christ in the New Testament or in Scripture. Again, invocation, if it is to be a rational practice, must involve in some sense the doctrine that the dead can hear our petitions, and this again can plead no scriptural basis. So of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin ... I will draw the practical conclusion, that as the public services of the Church should be such as all can use, so, for instance, the invocation of saints, cannot be, with us any more than with the ancient Church, a feature of our public worship. I would also draw the conclusion that we can never allow any devotional practice to occupy a large place in our prayers unless it rests upon the certainty of revelation.
Finally, in another expression of continuity with the High Church tradition, Gore emphasised the significance of adherence to the "the Prayer Book order", as against those in the "Catholic movement" employing Roman liturgical texts:
I am quite sure that there is great necessity in many places that we should revise our ideas and practices in the light of this strict requirement. And I wish to say to the clergy who desire to let the worship of the Church have its maximum, rather than its minimum of ceremonial, that besides having due regard to the conscience of their people, they should resolve in all respects to exhibit and render, without obscuring, the Prayer Book order, which they are bound to accept not as an ideal but as sufficient, and which alone they are solemnly pledged to use.
The continuities between the older High Church tradition and Prayer Book Catholicism are, therefore, significant. Gore's description of "the Catholicism of the Anglican Church as scriptural or liberal" - "liberal" insofar as it appealed to Scripture and the "Primitive Church" against "the constant tendency to exaggerate ecclesiastical authority and to accumulate dogma" - echoed long-standing High Church apologetic claims and self-understanding.
The Old High tradition, therefore, did not die in the mid-19th century, as a consequence of the successes of Tractarianism and the demise of the Anglican constitutional order. The doctrinal continuities between the older High Church and Prayer Book Catholic traditions are demonstrated in Gore's critique of the "Catholic movement" and the alternative he outlines. It is also worth noting that Gore repeated a significant aspect of the Old High understanding of the formularies (particularly evident in the Gorham controversy), that the Articles do not stand alone but are "one of three formularies, the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal"*.
What, however, of the apparent disappearance of the Old High critique of Ritualism? Here there was development, as evident in Gore's comment that "Dr. Frere and Dr. Percy Dearmer, and those who have worked on their lines, have rendered the greatest service by letting us understand how to make the best of the Prayer Book". In other words, the High Church tradition was not frozen in time, and did show itself open to embracing moderate ritual. An 1875 survey of ritual in the Diocese of Lincoln is certainly suggestive of this (more of which in a forthcoming post), indicating a broad swathe of support for modest and moderate ritual (eastward position, vestments) which points to a continuing, evolving High Church tradition in terms of ceremonial.
We might note that there was precedent for this in the Laudian and High Church tradition. Cosin had said of the Ornaments Rubric:
according to this rubric, are we all still bound to wear albs and vestments, as have been so long time worn in the Church of God, howsoever it is neglected.
According to Nockles, there was significant evidence in pre-1833 High Churchmanship of a willingness to promote renewed ritual and ceremonial approaches. George Croft's 1786 Bampton Lectures, Nockles states, "called for the reintroduction of a richer ceremonial into Church of England worship". In 1825, High Churchman Johnson Grant urged greater use of iconography. Also noteworthy was the 1837 publication by Richard Mant, then Bishop of Down and Connor, of hymns from the Roman Breviary for devotional use. We might argue that later 19th century liturgical and ceremonial developments owed as much - if not more - to this tradition as to a Tractarianism which, Nockles reminds us, was rather unconcerned with ritual and ceremonial matters.
The Old High tradition did not die in the 19th century. Its doctrinal concerns and commitments continued to find expression, while it embraced a moderate revision of ceremony and ritual (the result of which, by the way, made the Church of England look more like those other episcopal and liturgical churches of the Reformation in the northern Lutheran kingdoms). The Old High tradition continued in the Prayer Book Catholic tradition and became a defining feature of 20th century Anglicanism.
---
*The Declarations required of clergy in the Church of Ireland adopt this Old High-Prayer Book Catholic understanding that the Articles do no stand alone as formulary: "I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the Church of Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God".
(The photograph is of the celebration of the holy Eucharist in St Ignatius of Antioch Episcopal Church, New York City.)
I can understand the desire to emphasise the continuities of the Old High Church and Liberal Catholic traditions, but I have great reservations. For example, Gore's Prayer Book emphasis is in many ways more Tractarian than Old High Church; it is more a return to the beginnings of the Tractarian movement than a return to the 18th Century. A classic example is in his The Body of Christ, in which he criticises Waterland's eucharistic doctrine as 'cold', whilst praising Newman's earlier eucharistic doctrine. Another example is Gore's ambivalence to the term 'Protestant' - something which mainstream Old High Church would have no issues with.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, though Prayer Book Catholicism has continuities with the Old High Church, it has too many discontinuities for it to be considered a mere 'development' of Laudian principles. When one considers the famous stir which the Swedish chaplain made when presiding in a stole in late 18th Century London (see Yates, 'Eighteenth Century Britain' - I can't find the reference at the moment!), the normalisation of the stole by those such as Dearmer is quite a jump. Neither Dearmer nor Gore were particularly keen to emphasise their parallels with Northern Lutheranism - much like the early Ritualists were reticent. Why? As Yates states in his book on 19th Century Anglican ritual, it was because they were not emphasising their Protestantism, but their Catholicism. Indeed, they were to distance themselves from the Northern Lutheran neighbours as much as they reasonably could. Once again, this is more a Tractarian than Old High Church emphasis.
Yes, there were always stirrings and yearnings for a richer ritual in the 18th Century, but it was always with great modesty. When the Bishop of Asaph was consecrated in the 18th Century, they still brought his Medieval mitre on a pillow in front of the bishop (a tradition which John V. Taylor tried - but failed! - to revive). Though somewhat eccentric, this is more in keeping with Old High Church understandings of the relationship between episcopacy and the Holy Spirit than the outwardly Tractarian tradition of wearing a mitre.
After all, if we are to emphasise the continuity of Old High Church and Liberal Catholicism, one could make an equal claim to early 20th Century Evangelicalism - northward facing, surplice tippet and hood, strict emphasis on Prayer Book rubrics, dynamic receptionist understanding of the Eucharist, preacher dressed in gown rather than surplice. But once again, discontinuities reign. For example, whereas the Liberal Catholics drastically modified the OHC doctrine of the Eucharist, the Evangelicals likewise with baptism; whereas Liberal Catholics broke from the emphasis on the Reformation, Evangelicals broke from the OHC on the Fathers (perhaps Faber and a few others excepted).
I would argue that it is better to say that Liberal Catholicism developed out of the OHC, but is nevertheless a different tradition.
Joshua, many thanks for your comment and excellent points. Let me offer some responses:
Delete1. I am not claiming a complete identity between between the Old High tradition and the Prayer Book Catholic tradition. I am saying that Old High doctrinal concerns and commitments continued to find expression in the Prayer Book Catholic tradition. Are there differences? Indeed there are. But the continuities are, I think, greater - both in importance and number.
2. Gore's preference for Newman over Waterland is not, I think, a matter of doctrine. Newman's eucharistic teaching in Parochial and Plain Sermons was standard, orthodox High Church teaching. It was, however, given different spiritual and emotional expression by Newman than by Waterland (hence Gore's 'cold'). And while we might regard earlier High Church eucharistic teaching as dynamic receptionism, this is not how the High Church tradition regarded it: it was merely 'Church of England teaching', and consistently contrasted with the 'Calvinists' (by which was meant the memorialism that had taken root in the Reformed tradition). If we transplanted an Old High Churchman from the late 18th/early 19th century to the later 19th century, my instinct is that as they surveyed the landscape of Anglican eucharistic theology, they would have settled on Prayer Book Catholic teaching and practice as best securing their key conviction - a true and real partaking of Christ in the Sacrament.
3. Yes, a coldness towards the descriptive term 'Protestant' is part of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition, in a manner which would have surprised Old High Churchmen. There are two things worth considering here, however. The first is the Old High critique of other Protestant traditions (and, indeed, of how the Reformation was conducted in other jurisdictions - this was evident even amongst the Laudians). The second is the changing character of Protestantism in the 19th century. Even within Anglicanism, the difference between Simeon and Ryle is rather pronounced. This being so, an increasing caution regarding the term 'Protestant' may not have been a bridge too far for the Old High tradition.
My point about the CofE appearing to be more Lutheran - after the fashion of the northern kingdoms - is not, necessarily, that leading Prayer Book Catholics would have accepted this definition, but, rather, that it was the outcome. And Porvoo (and its antecedents) does rather suggest this.
4. On the matter of ritual, we might turn to the experience of Barchester: fictional, yes, but insightful. This is Trollope on Archdeacon Grantly's response to Mr'. Slope's sermon:
Delete"But now the archdeacon began to meditate on some strong measures of absolute opposition. Dr. Proudie and his crew were of the lowest possible order of Church of England clergymen, and therefore it behoved him, Dr. Grantly, to be of the very highest. Dr. Proudie would abolish all forms and ceremonies, and therefore Dr. Grantly felt the sudden necessity of multiplying them. Dr. Proudie would consent to deprive the church of all collective authority and rule, and therefore Dr. Grantly would stand up for the full power of convocation and the renewal of all its ancient privileges.
It was true that he could not himself intone the service, but he could procure the co-operation of any number of gentlemanlike curates well trained in the mystery of doing so. He would not willingly alter his own fashion of dress, but he could people Barchester with young clergymen dressed in the longest frocks and in the highest-breasted silk waistcoats. He certainly was not prepared to cross himself, or to advocate the real presence, but without going this length there were various observances, by adopting which he could plainly show his antipathy to such men as Dr. Proudie and Mr. Slope".
The later 19th century evidenced a greater evangelical and low-church presence in the CofE than had the earlier 19th century. In such a context, it would not be surprising for the Old High tradition to adopt ritual and ceremony which it would not have considered in the earlier part of the century. This, as I suggested, had antecedents in the Old High tradition (to which we might add, for example, Horsley and others preferring the 1549 rite).
Aside from this, however, it does seem to be the case that the widespread adoption of, in particular, the eastward position, stole, and altar lights is very suggestive of a willingness by the Old High tradition - clergy and parishes - to embrace such moderate ritual. Put simply, there were not enough Tractarian or Ritualist 'boots on the ground' to ensure such widespread acceptance.
While, yes, the north end was Old High (and early Tractarian) practice in the first half of the 19th century, it quite quickly came to be accepted that the eastward position cohered with tradition Old High views on consecration, priestly ministry, and eucharistic sacrifice. We might also note that it was traditional Old High bishops (Blomfield, Phillpotts, Mant) who promoted preaching in surplice rather than gown - even though this was taken by critics to be a sign of Tractarian sympathies.
5. Finally, how do we describe the relationship between the Old High and Prayer Book Catholic traditions? I have stressed continuity. You have suggested that the Prayer Book Catholic tradition "developed out" the Old High tradition. Perhaps there is not much difference between these two descriptions. Alasdair Macintyre's definition that "a tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined" seems to me to capture the Old High-Prayer Book Catholic relationship. Differences, yes, but the same conversation, the same fundamental agreements.
Brian.
Thank you for your thorough, thoughtful, and excellent reply! I can see your case, though I still have a few qualms (which I'm struggling to articulate). Give me five years of pondering and I will reply! I think my main question is whether what we saw in the late 19th and early 20th Century was a breakdown of the OHC rather than a development, with the majority of OHC clergy developing into Liberal Catholicism, and a minority developing a High Church (and later on, Liberal) Evangelicalism (continuing the trend that began in the 1830s). I say this because Evangelicalism was still divided between the Recordists and the Christian Guardianists - a division that still exists in some ways even today, but was especially exasperated in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Was this not because of a division in the High Church between those who emphasised Protestantism and those who did not? Into the 20th Century, a Vernon Storr, Max Warren or a John V. Taylor are more in conversation with the OHC than, say, a Michael Ramsey, or an Austin Farrer (even though there is certainly continuity from Horsley to Farrer). Is it not better to talk about diverging developments of traditions, with mergers and syntheses with other traditions?
DeleteIt is an interesting suggestion but I do not think I am convinced, for two main reasons. Firstly, my reading of mid- and late-19th century High Church sources does not suggest any awareness of a tradition dying or splintering. Secondly, I think a case could be made for describing the diversities amongst evangelical Anglicans as Simeon v Ryle, and their rather contrasting accounts of e.g. Baptism and the Eucharist.
DeleteSomething that I need to read more about are cultural perceptions of Protestantism in 19th century Britain. I have a feeling that whereas 'Protestant' in, say, 1810, meant 'Protestant Episcopalian and Prayer Book sacraments' but by the later part of the century was equated with pan-denominational revivalism. This could have had a significant impact on High Church interpretation of 'Protestantism', leading to a much more cautious use of the term.
I've heard someone say that "Central" churchmanship is the continuation of the Old High Church tradition. What would the main differences be between Central Churchmanship and Prayer Book Catholicism?
ReplyDeleteMuch depends on what is meant by 'Central Churchmanship'. It if means 'eucharist, vestments, and a liberal approach to creedal doctrine', then the answer is definitely 'no'. Central Churchmanship is too often a caricature of Anglicanism - woolly, hesitant about fundamental dogmas of the Faith, and lacking the creedal, sacramental confidence that needs to be present in the Church's life.
DeleteHi, thanks for the reply! By Central churchmanship I am not referring to Broad churchmanship or latitudinarianism, rather Central churchmanship seems to be the Old High church remnant that decided to distance themselves from the Tractarians and Ritualists when referring to “high church”.
DeleteI’m definitely interested in Prayer Book Catholicism for its continuity with the Old High Church movement with a little bit of moderate Tractarian influence on English Sarum liturgy, would St Thomas Fifth Avenue be Prayer Book Catholic? Or is that more Anglo-Catholic?
From one past visit to St Thomas Fifth Avenue, viewing online, and reading the comments of friends in the States, yes, I think it would be an example of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.
DeletePart of the problem with 'Central Churchmanship' is that it often lacks the 'catholic, creedal seriousness' which marked the Old High tradition. It is this which makes me entirely unconvinced about seeing it as the continuation of the Old High.
Thanks, what are some of the theological distinctives of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition? Is their position on the Eucharist more of a classical Calvinist view or a more corporeal view? What is their stance on the authority of the 39 Articles?
DeleteGood questions!
DeleteOn the Eucharist, the Old High tradition was Reformed in the Hookerian sense, and regularly affirmed much of Calvin's teaching on the Sacrament, with a warm sacramental devotion and piety. The Prayer Book Catholic tradition considered itself as breaking with this. This, however, could be creatively interpreted: the Prayer Book Catholic tradition rejected transubstantiation and Eucharistic adoration. A case *might* be made that this stands in much greater continuity with the Old High/Reformed understanding than is usually recognised.
Regarding the Articles of Religion, Bicknell's commentary represents a Prayer Book Catholic approach of taking the Articles seriously. Now, we might indeed challenge aspects of his interpretation of the Articles. But Bicknell does, nevertheless, approach them with a seriousness not usually found amongst other types of Anglo-Catholics.
On both issues, Eucharist and Articles, there is no doubt that the Old High position is preferable but the Prayer Book Catholic positions offer at least some continuity.
Could you say more about what you think the distinctive Prayer Book Catholic position on the Eucharistic presence is if it deviates from the OHC understanding and yet continues to reject Transubstantiation and Eucharistic adoration?
ReplyDeleteA good question. While rather simplistic, I think I would summarise the OHC position as spiritually receiving Christ's Body and Blood 'with the bread and wine' whereas the PBC position would be 'in the bread and wine'. As such, it did represent a move beyond Hooker, albeit with a great reverence for his affirmations of a true partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood in the eucharist. That said, I think a good case can be made that the development was organic rather than a complete rupture. If we take Bicknell's commentary on the Articles as an expression of the PBC view, there is little which which an OHC perspective would not agree. Added to this, Anglican evangelical eucharistic teaching became considerably 'lower' in the 19th century, both as a response to Tractarianism and influenced by non-denominational Protestant movements. Placed alongside the emergence of Benediction and associated devotions in more advanced Anglo-catholic circles, it does illustrate how the PBC position was closest to that held by OHC.
DeleteThank you for this! You're references to Bicknell brought him to my attention and helped me to articulate my own theology more clearly
ReplyDeleteA pleasure! Bicknell, albeit somewhat dated, does have a lot to recommend him.
Delete