Skip to main content

'These reformed churches do not at all scruple communion with us': Reformation Day and an 18th century high church Tory bishop

To mark Reformation Day, words from a sermon - 'Objections against the Ceremonies used in our Church answered' - by George Smalridge, Bishop of Bristol 1714-19, in which he points to how such ceremonies did not separate the Church of England from "other reformed churches". The fact that Smalridge was a Tory with Jacobite allegiances, and a close friend of Francis Atterbury, emphasises that this was no Whiggish, low church declaration serving partisan Hanoverian purposes: rather, this was a sermon by a bishop who, unlike his low church colleagues, was pronounced in his criticisms of Dissent and supported Tory legislation against the Dissenting interest. This, in other words, was a thoroughly high church statement of the 18th century Church of England's care and affection for, and communion with, the other Churches of the Reformation, Lutheran and Reformed.

I proceed now to consider another objection urged against them [i.e. ceremonies] in order to render them odious and unpopular, which is this; that as by the practice of them we show too much resemblance with the Romish, so at the same time we show too little correspondence with the reformed churches abroad ...

But we have no reason to complain of other reformed churches upon this article; for they do not bring these accusations against us, but are grieved to find their names made use of to our disparagement. We can safely appeal to their public confessions, and to the suffrages of their most eminent divines; they are very large in the praises of our establishment, and their judgments concerning the rites and ceremonies prescribed and practised in our church are very different from the opinions of those among ourselves who dissent from us ...

Those who are acquainted with the practices and opinions of foreign churches know very well that the Lutheran churches, those which made the first and earliest protestations against the corruption of Rome, and to whom therefore upon that account a great respect is due from such as are their younger brethren, do use the very same ceremonies with those that are practised by us; that they have retained all that we have, and many that we have dropped; that their aversion to popery, though as strong and as deeply rooted as that of any the greatest abhorrers of it, hath never carried them so far as to make them look upon every rite used in that church as an accursed and abominable thing; that they neither look upon the surplice as an anti-christian garment, nor upon the cross in baptism, or kneeling at the sacrament, as badges and symbols of idolatry, but do observe these usages in the worship of God without any fear of contracting any defilement therefrom, or of offending God, or of scandalizing good Christians thereby; that those churches which are emphatically called the reformed, though they have not retained the same ceremonies, yet neither do they condemn those that have; that these never scruple to communicate with the others on account of such ceremonies; that when they have sometimes held

communion with each other, the Calvinist with the Lutheran, they have each alternately conformed to the rites of the other; that when they have refused to communicate together, they have never assigned this difference of rites as the ground of such refusal, but have declared, that if other obstacles were removed, this disagreement would be no hinderance of their mutual communion; that these reformed churches properly so called, having not the same objections against us as they have against the Lutherans, do not at all scruple communion with us, or refuse compliance with our ceremonies; that both their people and their pastors join with us in our public worship, and in the observance of such rites; that it is their avowed doctrine, as well as ours, that every national church hath power to make laws for herself in indifferent things. 

(The first illustration depicts the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism in the Georgian Church of England; the second, in an early 18th century French Reformed church.)

Comments

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 ...

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...

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 ...