"The established communion": Le Mesurier's Bampton Lectures on the modest but serious claims of the Church of England

Last week's extract from Thomas Le Mesurier's 1807 Bampton Lectures, On the Nature and Guilt of Schism, addressed the challenges to the 18th century Church of England national from both Enthusiasm and radical Latitudinarianism. Today's extract shows how Le Mesurier introduced a modest but serious case for the claims of the national church. It centres around denying that the Reformation's rejection of papal claims can justify schism from the national church.

He firstly points to the fundamental difference between the Reformation as a controversy over vital articles of the Faith, and breaking communion with the national church over secondary matters (Dissent in 1662, Methodism) or because of entirely rejecting subscription to Articles and Creeds (the radical Latitudinarian aspiration):

And, because it has been a favourite topic with dissenters of all sorts to insist upon our separation from the church of Rome as if it precluded us from objecting to their, or any other separation from our church, I shall pretty much at large shew the difference of the two cases; and prove that not only our church was fully justified in what she then did, but that the reformation can be a precedent only in cases where to have remained in communion with those from whom the separation is made would be sinful. That this therefore can never justify those men, who can allege no actual sinfulness in the terms of our communion; and still less those whose cause of complaint against us consists only in this, that we will not so enlarge the platform of our establishment as to comprehend all possible denominations of Christians whatever their tenets may be.

Secondly, the "first and great feature of the reformation in England" was to restore the rights and liberties of a national church.  No comparison at all can be made with movements rejecting the just authority of this national church in pursuit of their own commitments. Indeed, such claims are a refusal to accept that "first and great feature" of the English Reformation, the rights of a national church:

I shall moreover corroborate my position by shewing most strongly the difference of the two cases in another point of view; and protesting that the assertion and vindication of the independence of our national church, which is the first and great feature of the reformation in England, has, and can have nothing to do with justifying individuals in their separation from the established communion within whose limits or pale they have their abode, and of which they properly form a part.

Note that Le Mesurier makes no exalted ecclesiastical claims for the Church of England. Instead, he roots his understanding of the rightful authority in the generous orthodoxy of the national church: "no actual sinfulness in terms of our communion". A faithful Christian can remain in the communion of the Church of England knowing that its creedal orthodoxy, and rejection of late medieval Latin errors in faith and practice, ensures that one belongs to a faithful portion of the Church catholic. No greater claim is made than this. 

What is more, secondary matters provide no basis whatsoever for abandoning this communion precisely because secondary matters do not determine whether a church is in error, professing beliefs contrary to Scripture. When it comes to the radical Latitudinarian rejection of subscription, this actually confirms Le Mesurier's stance, for the radical Latitudinarian desire to abolish subscription was an expression of anti-Trinitarian and anti-Nicene theologies i.e. a rejection of basic Christian orthodoxy.

This is Le Mesurier's modest but serious claim for the Church of England, again demonstrating how he reflects Kirk's description of Anglicanism as "combining the principle of authority with that of freedom". The principle of authority is asserted, but without exalted claims binding the soul beyond the basic New Testament call "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". The principle of freedom is likewise asserted, but in a manner which recognises the duty and obligation of communion.