The 1874 Book of Common Prayer

December 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments

 

By Robin G. Jordan

 

In 1874 the Reformed Episcopal Church adopted its first Book of Common Prayer. This Prayer Book was a revision of the 1785 Proposed Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Since that time the General Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church authorized three editions of the 1874 Prayer Book.

 

In 1963 the General Council authorized the first revised edition of the REC Prayer Book. In 2005 the General Council authorized a second revised edition of the REC Prayer Book. This edition represented a major revision of the REC Prayer Book. It incorporates material from the Church of England’s 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Protestant Episcopal Church’s 1928 Book of Common Prayer that Bishop George David Cummins and the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church would have certainly found highly objectionable. Indeed they would see in this material the maturing of the principles of sacerdotalism and ritualism that prompted them to secede from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the first place.

 

A comparison of the 1963 revised edition of the REC Prayer Book with the 2005 revised edition reveals that the Reformed Episcopal Church has undergone a tremendous shift in doctrine in the past 40 odd years. It has abandoned the doctrine and principles of Classical Evangelical Anglicanism that formed its distinctive heritage. The conservative evangelical Church Society of the Church of England no longer recognizes the Reformed Episcopal Church as “Reformed.”

 

A number of factors appear to have contributed to this doctrinal shift. Since the 1970s the Reformed Episcopal Church has seen an influx of Episcopalians fleeing the liberalism of the former Protestant Episcopal Church. These Episcopalians brought with them a taste for High Church worship. They also brought Catholic doctrine and principles into the Reformed Episcopal Church. The one tends to piggyback upon the other.

 

A number of Reformed Episcopal clergy have developed a pernicious fascination with the writings of the early Church Fathers and Lancelot Andrews and the Caroline High Churchmen who experienced a similar fascination. This points to another factor. The Caroline High Churchmen lived and wrote in a period in English Church history when the Reformation was no longer fresh in the minds of English churchmen. A distance had already grown between them and the events of the Reformation. Catholicism was less threatening to them as it had been to the English Reformers. The founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church can be thought of as having launched their own reformation. However, that reformation was 135 years ago. What mattered to them no longer appears to matter to a large segment of the Reformed Episcopal Church. As in the case of the Caroline High Churchman the passage of time has created a distance between them and the events that led to the creation of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

 

A number of Reformed Episcopal leaders evidence a desire to be a part of what they consider the “mainstream” of North American Anglicanism. They ignore the fact that North American Anglicanism is not particularly representative of global Anglicanism and has drifted far from its moorings in the Bible and the Reformation.

 

The Reformed Episcopal Church has also become a refuge for those who may have at one time subscribed to Reformed doctrine and principles but found the theological environment of their former denomination too rigorous for them. In the Reformed Episcopal Church they can maintain a pretense of being Reformed without actually putting Reformed doctrine and principles into practice.

 

The extent of this theological shift in the Reformed Episcopal Church is reflected in the posts of members of the Reformed Episcopal Church on the Internet. It is not unusual to read a post in which a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church reinterprets the Declaration of Principles or even denigrates them. It is also not uncommon to read a post in which a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church espouses or defends theological views that are far from Reformed, for example, Baptismal Regeneration, Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Real Presence, and Apostolic Succession. Those who still subscribe to the doctrine and principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s founders are derisively referred to as “Presbyterians.”

 

The Reformed Episcopal Church that once was a faithful witness to Evangelical and Reformed doctrine and principles in Anglicanism has forsaken her first love. Like a wonton the Reformed Episcopal Church has gone in search of new lovers. She plays the harlot and covers herself with shame.

 

Others must take up the banner of Evangelical and Reformed Anglicanism in North America. To this end the Heritage Anglican Network is seeking to publish the text of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s The Book of Common Prayer of 1874 on the Internet. If anyone has a copy of the 1874 Prayer Book, please contact me at heritageanglicannetwork@gmail.com.

 

 

Advertisements

19 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Here is what the original REC’ers faced. The older men were better instructed in the old paths.

    1. Walter Walsh, an Evangelical Anglican, wrote a well-researched expose of the Oxfordian and Ritualist movements of the 19th century One discerns the toxic Romeward-diseases in these fourteen-chapters of The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1900). The book can be freely downloaded as a pdf-file by visiting http://www.books.google.com and doing an author and book search. As outlined, Walsh shows that the Tractarian and Ritualist objectives were global, doctrinal, liturgical, initially secretive, Romanist, divisive, reunionistic with Rome, and anti-Reformational.

    2. Tractarian Objectives. 1. De-Protestantize England by seizing assets, buildings, livings, institutional structures, theology, and by destroying the Protestant face of the Church of England. This included the XXXIX Articles of the Reformation, justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, as revealed in Scriptures alone. Newman’s Tract XC, an effort to stanch increasing secessions to Rome was designed: “…to ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican Creeds, and to make them as few as possible.” One unintended consequence of Tract XC was that many Tractarians could not reconcile Tract XC, the XXXIX Articles and their own required subscription with their integrity. For exampe, Newman attempted to show that Art XXII objects only to the Romish Doctrine when corruptly practiced. Romish doctrine does not mean Tridentine doctrine because the Articles were written before the Council of Trent. In another shellgame, Newman tells us that Roman pardons were the “reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments.” Walsh’s Index One contains a lengthy list of secessionists to Rome. Third, if a large-scale programme of De-Protestantization failed, Newman proposed that many should remain and work towards reunion and submission to the Papacy. “Only through the English Church can you act upon the English nation,” it was affirmed.. Writing to De Lisle, he said: “I perfectly agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over in the country, whatever be the state of Oxford itself; also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the mass…” Fourth. Redefine Protestant Anglicanism to allow for Romanist dogma. Re-establish Apostolic Succession with the sacramental consequences, as Percival encouraged fellow Tractarian, Richard Hurrell Froude, namely, to reassert the doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a rule of practice, i.e. that the participation of the body and blood of Christ is essential to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in the individual and secondly, the body and blood of Christ is conveyed to individual Christians only by the hands of the successors of the Apostles, and their delegates. Re-introduce Prayers for the dead, a “solemn privilege to the mourner.” Re-assert the supremacy of the Roman see, auricular confession, and the reservation of the communication of religious knowledge—as a stealth tactic, inter alia. Sixth. Impugn English and Continental Reformers. Keble said,. “I cannot “understand how poor Cranmer could be reckoned a bona fide Martyr according to the rules of the Primitive Church. Was he not an unwilling sufferer? And did he not in the very final paper of his confession profess to hold points the doctrine of that Answer to Gardiner?” Keble: “Anything which separates the present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a good idea.” Newman was no less denigratory: “Till her members are stirred up to this religious course, let the Church sit still; let her be content to be in bondage; let her work in chains; let her submit to her imperfections as a punishment; let her go on teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies and inconsistent precedents.” As just one exampe, Walsh notes that a continental Dutch pastor, seeking Anglican orders, met with sixteen Tractarians, including Newman. He offered Reformation doctrines and they enjoined: “To go off to the Church of Rome at once, and submit to the Popish Bishop of Antwerp.” “Ultra-Protestants” who “disparage Christian antiquity,” Puritans, Dissenters, prejudiced Protestants provide a few of the terms of opprobium in the arsenal of scoffing.

    3. Individual Tractarian responses give a sense to it. First. The infamous Tractarian, Rev. W.G. Ward, published an article in a Parisian paper (April 13, 1841) speaking of the three centuries of heresy with the hope of reunion with Rome. Rome has “fallen into no formal error in the Council of Trent, that the Invocations of the Saints (the Ora pro nobis, for example), Purgatory, and the Supremacy of the Holy See of Rome, are in no way contrary to the Catholic traditions, or even to our authorised formularies…We experience a burning desire to be reunited to our brethren. We love with an unfeigned affection the Apostolic See, which we acknowledge too be the head of Christendom….We cannot yet bring ourselves to believe that our dear England is in the same position as the heretics who boast in the names of Luther and Calvin…Let us, then, remain quiet for some years, till, by God’s blessing, the ears of Englishmen are accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence…The Protestant prejudices, which for three hundred years have infected our Church, are unhappily too deeply rooted there to be extirpated without a great deal of address. Second. Ambrose DeLisle lauded Newman’s work which “so fearlessly proclaimed in behalf of that holy council of Trent, against which for three centuries such absurd and irrational prejudices had taken root in the minds of our separated brethren.” Third. Ward responds to an anti-Tractarian article on Tract XC and the XXXIX Articles drawn from the Edinburgh Review. Ward writes tuantingly—if not contumaceously—that the Protestant must prove that the Anglican Church is a “Protestant community, that it was founded on the denial of Catholic doctrines; that is seceded from the Ancient English Church which witnessed these doctrines; let him prove this; and, though the articles were as obviously on our side as he considers them overwhelmingly against us, our consciences could not allow us to remain one moment in a communion which had thus forfeited the gifts of grace.” Fourth. Pusey, another Tractarian and advocate of reunion with Rome, defends Tract 90, “Who knows but that He who raises us up, may purify Rome too, and St. Peter be the type of the Church of St. Peter, and her Lord yet cast His gracious look upon her, and she weep bitterly her fall; and she, being ‘converted,’ strengthen her ‘brethren,’ and deserve to be restored to the pre-eminence, which while deserved, she had.” Fifth. Rev. William Palmer, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Magdalen College, wrote A Letter to the Rev. C.P. Golightly. “I utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a heresy…And if the Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a form of Protestantism then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England…In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the principles of Protestantism….especially to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters…” Sixth. Further, Pusey unsuccessfully attempted to hoodwink the Bp. of Oxford, Dr. Wilberforce, on the issues of the invocation of saints, auricular confession, and Purgatory. “I could not deny that such and such things seem to me inadmissible…and the belief to an intermediate state of cleansing, in some cases through pain…The effect has been that I have since been wholly silent about Purgatory (before I used to speak against it). I have not said so much as this except to two or three friends. Some of my nearest friends do not know it.” Seventh. Rev. Dodsworth summarized the effects on the Protestant Reformed Church of England: “I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church. Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual life, &c., we all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and usages are quite current amongst Anglicans….just it not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Anglicans is so far a witness in favour of Rome?” Ninth. The Formation of the Society of the Holy Cross (SSC), the first secret Society of Romanisers, took place on Feb. 28, 1855. This outfit lives to this day as an influential Tractarian movement. The Tractarian publication, Union, captures the SSC-goals: “Our firm conviction is that, until the Sacrifice of the Altar takes its legitimate and appointed place in our Sunday worship, we shall only remain hampered by Puritan traditions, and be hindered in our great work of Catholicizing England. If this were done, the charge about unlighted Altars and un-stoled priests’ would fall to the ground. Those who are led to underrate this revival must seek to accomplish it effectually. Everything should give place to this. The Altar should be duly raised and effectively vested and adorned. Cross, lights, flower vases, pictures, book-rest, chalice, and corporal should all be provided. The Sacred Vestments should be used to distinguish the ordinary office from the Tremendous Sacrifice. Then the shams and empty ceremonies, ‘table prayers,’ Ten Commandments, and the ‘form and ceremony’ of going to the Altar to ‘read the Epistle and Gospel’ would cease to be perpetuate. Then would our flocks learn what true worship is.” Tenth. Vis a vis the Life and Letters of Ambrose Philipps de Lisle, Vol 1, 378, six secret propositions were sent to Pope Pius IX (of infamy for the Immaculate Conception, Syllabus of Errors, Vatican 1). These propositions were revealed forty-two years later in De Lisle’s autobiography (1899). They were: (1) A golden, jewel-bestudded chalice and Australian gold paten shall be sent as a pledge for “the hoped-for Reunion between the English and Roman Churches.” (2) Tractarians will not rest until the English Church is restored to authority of Roman See. (3) It will take years to accomplish. (4) An historical treatise on Anglican orders shall be submitted to Pope Pius IX for his “supreme and authoritative judgment.” (5) They shall gather learned ministers to promote reunion. (6) A prayer society for reunion shall be formed. An indulgence is petitioned.

    4. Individual Anglican responses. First. Bishop Blomfeld of London, an OHC, rebuked the Tractarian Oakley for “flaunting his defiant Popery in the face of her rulers.” Second. Contrary to Newman’s intent, but revealingly,Rev. Lockhard noted, “On us young men Tract XC. had the effect of strengthening greatly our growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church of England wrong.” Third. A learned response was offered on Mar. 8, 1841, by four tutors of Oxford. The signers were: T.T. Churton, Vice-Principal and Tutor of Brasenose College, H.B. Wilson, Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John’s College, John Giffiths, Sub-Warden and Tutor of Wadham College, and A.C. Tait, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. The latter would become the Archbishop of Canterbury. They wrote that Newman was dangerous because he averred that the negative issues about Rome in the XXXIX Articles did not refer to official Roman doctrines but only to those medieval corruptions of the same, to wit: purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration of images and relics, invocation of saints, and the Mass; Newman’s new hermeneutic for the Thirty-nine Articles was dangerous and vitiating. Fourth. A decisive counter-reaction to Tractarianism came in a meeting on March 15, 1841, between the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, the Heads of Houses, and Proctors. They re-iterated that every Oxford student shall be instructed in and subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Concerning Newman’s acrobatic interpretations, they asserted that “the modes of interpretation as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statutes. P. Wynter, Vice-Chancellor.” Fifth. The Bishop of Oxford, in a difficult position with an uproar in his university, directed that further publication of the tracts cease. Tractarians were objected with Newman writing a 47-page pamphlet to the Bishop of date March 29, 11841. Newman noted that “I cannot speak against the Church of Rome, viewed in her formal character, as a true Church, since she is build upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner Stone.” Sixth. In 1845, Rev. Simcox Bricknell, M.A., marshalled an anti-Tractarian salvo by publishing The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology. (199-178. 200-178). Dr. Musgrave, Bp. of Hereford, freely speaks of Tractarian sophistry, evasion, and Jesuitical dishonesty. Dr. Monk, Bp. Of Gloucester and Bristol, not much behind the former, uses terms about the Tractarians such astonishment, concern, ingenuity, sophistry and vanity. Dr. Phllpotts, Bp. of Exeter, speaks of their offensiveness, indecency, absurdity, incongruity, unjustness, sophistry, and variations from the facts of the Reformation and English Reformers. 201-179. Dr. Blomfeld, Bp of London notes the Tridentine colouring to the XXXIX Articles, the Episcopal duties to ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines,’ and duty to guard against further insinuations of false opinions. Bp. Blomfeld insightfully cites from Bishop Stillingfleet. Following the restoration, Stillingfleet quotes a letter of advice given to a Roman agent about the recovery of Papacy in England: “ the third head of which is :– ‘To make it appear, underhand, how near the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Church of England comes to us (of Rome); at how little distance her Common Prayer is from our Mass; and that the wisest and ablest men of that way (the Anglican) are so moderate, that they would willingly come over to us, or at least meet us half way. Hereby the more staid men will become more odious and others will run out of all religion for fear of Popery.” Seventh. The King of Prussia wants security for all Protestant Churchmen living in Palestine. Favourable interactions proceed with Canterbury. German Lutheran pastors, conformable to the English standards and Churchmanship, will oversee the work. While heavily supported by evangelicals, Newman, Pusey, the Chancellor of Salisbury, another prominent Tractarian, and others write declamatory and anti-Reformation letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Eighth. Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Wilberforce, said: “I could not then but say, how very deeply (to go no further back) the letters to which you allude had pained me; and that I cannot feel that the language therein held as to the errors of the Church of Rome is, to my apprehension, to be reconciled with the doctrinal formularies of our own Reformed Church.” Nine. Dr. Hook called Pusey Jesuitical. Dr. Hook on December 19, 1846, “Is this conduct that can be justified by any but a Jesuit? Do not mistake me—I do not think you are a Jesuit; but I believe you are under the influence of Jesuits. Your own representative here says as much; they seem to admit that you were only the puppet while others pulled the strings.” In a further responses by Dr. Hook to Pusey about another Tractarian, Rev. R.G.Macmullen: “To true-hearted members of the Church of England the departure of Mr. Macmullen and his disciples is a satisfaction and relief; we may hope that all Romanisers will follow his example. I have no sympathy with the cant of those who urge us to retain such persons in the Church, by permitting them to revile at will the principles of the English Reformation…I rejoice to think that he is gone.” Dr. Hook observes that Tractarians tactics palliate Roman vices, magnify Anglican deficiencies and sneer at anything Anglican. Tenth. Dr. Wilberforce opposes another highly visibleTractarian, the Rev. Allies.”It is the most undisguised, unblushing preference for Rome I almost ever read….the language concerning the Mass contradicts the explicit teaching of Article XXVIII…the tone was deprecating and even insulting. Allies turns Papist and, ultimately, meets with Pope Pius IX. This famous Pope said of Pusey, “He has done much good; he has opened the door; he has set before his countrymen the principle of authority, which is the first thing in religion; he has prepared the way for Catholicism.” Eleventh. Rev. J. Tucker, B.D., Fellow of Corpus Christi, Oxford, the oldest Vicar in the Oxford diocese, and then Vicar of West Hendred wrote a stunning letter to the Bishop, averring that he writes not from heat, impulse of youth, but from advancing years. “It is my conviction, resting, as I believe, on plain matters of fact, that views are being propagated, and are spreading throughout our Church, subversive of that faith restored by our forefathers, and tending to gradually bring us back into all the corruptions and superstitions of Rome; and under this conviction, I consider myself bound by the most solemn obligations to do what I can in my day, in m y humble and narrow sphere, to expose and resist these encroachments, and to uphold God’s pure truth……Thus you give your countenance to those who promote what our Reformers condemned, and discountenance to those who seek for nothing but what our Protestant fathers upheld. As regards human judgment, let the Church, her Bishops, Clergy, and Laity judge between your lordship and us. Vital truth is at stake; and it concerns not this Diocese only, not the Clergy alone, but the whole Church of England, Clergy and Laity, at home and abroad, to see that the Truth is preserved.” Twelfth. Rev. Golightly stirs the kettle of hot water by attacking diocesan Tractarians in Oxford with an anonymous pamphlet Facts and Documents Shewing the Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford. He copiously quotes from the Tractarian Directorium Anglicanum, inveighing against Auricular Confession, Altar Crosses, Crucifixes, Processions, Processional Crosses and Banners, Stone Altars, Romish Wafer, Mixing Water with the Wine at the Eucharist, Elevation of the Elements, Bowing to the Elements, the Priest Crossing himself, unction of the sick, prayers for the dead, Masses for the Dead, Romish Vestments, Romish Ornaments, and Sisterhoods [capitalizations in the original].

    5. More substantial and vigourous Anglican responses. First. William Goode, a learned and able champion against the Tractarians, wrote a series of un-rebuttable books and pamphlets. He ably rebutted Pusey’s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He wrote Divine Rule of Faith and Practice among other notable works. “The late Lord Chancellor Selborne summed it upt “When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies, some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers which never came.” Second. Liddell v. Westerton. The judicial ruling about Altars and Tables goes to the “different notions of the nature of the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Reformation, and those which were introduced by the Reformers. By the former it was considered as a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Saviour. The Altar was the place on which the Sacrifice was to be made; the elements were to be consecrated, and, being so consecrated, were treated as the actual Body and Blood of the Victim. The Reformers, on the other hand, considered the Holy Communion not as a Sacrifice, but as a Feast, to be celebrated at the Lord’s Table.” This was Bishop Ridley redux.. Third. A devastating series appeared in print (1840-18550 entitled the Parker Society Series. They were successful in rebutting Tractarianism and were supported by the bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester, Lincoln, Rochester, Llandaff, Chester,, Worcester, Ripon, Peterborough, Lichfield, Chichester, Worcester, Sodor and Man. This set remains the best arguments from the Bible, early and Anglican fathers. Fourth. The famous Gorham case was a stunning legal victory for Evangelical Anglicans on the subject of baptismal regeneration. It started in Aug. 1847 when Lord Chancellor Cottenham nominated the Rev. George Cornelius Gorham to a living at Brampford Speke, Exeter. Gorham was a scholar, fellow at Queen’s College, Cambridge, and had served honourably for thirty-six years in holy orders over six dioceses. The High Church Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Phillpotts, thought that Gorham or “any one holding such views had no right to minister in the Church of England.” Puseyites delighted in Gorham’s prosecution. Prolonged inquiry by the Bishop to Gorham in the form of one hundred and forty-nine questions began on Dec.17, 1847 and ended March, 19, 1848. The ruling went against Gorham: “refused to the living of Brampford Speke, on the ground of unsoundness of doctrine, as revealed by him in the examination.” The case was unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Arches and on Aug. 2, 1849, Gorham held views “opposed to that Church of which he professes himself a member and Minister….the Bishop has, by reason of the premises, shown sufficient cause; that consequently he is entitled to be dismissed, and must be dismissed, according to the usual course, with costs.” Upon appeal of the Arches’s decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the lower court rulings were, to wit, that Gorham’s opinions have been entertained by many eminent Anglican divines as well as English Reformers. Ergo, Rev. Gorham was to be installed as the Rector. Fifth. Rev. G.A.Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, an examining Chaplain for Dr. Spencer, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, “imposed” un-Anglican views of baptismal regeneration and the Lord’s Table on a Rev. Fisher, a deacon and postulant for presbyterial orders. The Bishop issued a supportive Protestant response for the postulant which resulted in a literary imbroglio between the two. In church litigation, Denison was deprived and the court ruled in favour of Fisher, the Bishop and—implicitly—Gorham. As of 1899, this was “the unrefuted exposition of the law of the Church of England…” Denison opined later, “The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has done what it could, first in the Gorham case, then in the Bennett case, to ruin the Doctrine of the Sacraments.” Sixth. Lord Russell, the Prime Minister, following the Papal Aggression of 1850 (splitting England into Roman dioceses”) and writing of the Tractarians: “Its votaries, were not merely traitors to the Church, but guilty of ‘shocking profanation.’ They were, consciously or unconsciously, initiating a Movement which was leading to Rome, and they were simultaneously turning a service of remembrance into an offensive spectacle….nothing but the erection of a priestly supremacy over the Crown and people would satisfy the party in the Church who now take the lead in agitation.” Seventh. The Ritualist paper, Church Review, June 21, 1865, conceded that the Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and Confessional Churchmen correctly understood the Tractarians and their objectives. “The Protestant is quite right in recognising the simplest attempt at Ritual as the ‘thin edge of the wedge.’ It is so….It is only the child who is not terrified when the first creeping driblet of water, and the few light bubbles announce the advance of the tide; and the Protestant is but a child who does not recognise the danger of the trifling symptoms which are so slowly and surely contracting the space of ground upon which he stands.”

    6. “We are not of the night, nor of the darkness. Therefore let us no sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (1 Thess. v. 5, 6).

  2. I offer a shorter brief on Walter Walsh than the last. I hope this may encourage our younger men to read, write, learn, and COURAGEOUSLY stand. This the REC fathers were tracking, unlike these neo-compromising REC clerks.
    ———————-
    Walter Walsh, an Evangelical Anglican, exposed the war plans against Protestant Anglicans by the 19th century Tractarian, Oxfordian, and Ritualistic Romanisers (TORR hereafter). The toxicity of battle is exposed in The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864. The book is freely downloadable at http://www.books.google. com with an author-book search.

    TORR had governing, global, national, doctrinal, liturgical, and anti-Reformation objectives. Subordinate the English Church to Rome, seize assets, livings, institutional structures, and obliterate the Protestant face of worldwide Anglicanism. Newman, an instigator, penned Tract XC as an early broadside.

    In Tract XC, Newman sought to obliterate the Protestantantism of the XXXIX Articles with this goal: “… ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican Creeds, and to make them as few as possible.” His opinion of Article XXII’s adverse language (purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration of images and relics) referred only to corrupt Roman practices. Romish doctrine did not mean Tridentine doctrine. Pardons were only “reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments.” Other hot zones emerged: prayers for the dead, supremacy of the Rome, auricular confession, reservation in communicating religious knowledge, pardons, processions, altar crosses, crucifixes, processional crosses, raised stone, mixing water with the wine, elevation of the elements, bowing to the elements, crossings, genuflections, Requiem Masses for the dead, sacerdotal vestments, ornaments, and the establishment of convents.

    Tract XC also sought to stanch secessions to Rome. Rev. Lockhard noted, “On us young men Tract XC had the effect of strengthening greatly our growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church of England wrong.”

    If De-Protestantizatio n failed, some were to fight from behind the lines. Writing to De Lisle, Newman noted: “I perfectly agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over in the country…also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the mass.”

    Derision was frequently used. Keble: “Anything which separates the present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a good idea.” Rev. William Palmer expressed vitriol. “I utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a heresy…And if the Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a form of Protestantism then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England…In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the principles of Protestantism… .especially to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters.”

    Rev. Dodsworth summarized TORR victories. “I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church. Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual life…we all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and usages are quite current amongst Anglicans…just it not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Anglicans is so far a witness in favour of Rome?”

    However, Protestant Churchmen rallied to the battle line. Four learned adversaries opposed the TORR-agenda (March 8, 1841). The Oxford tutors were: T.T. Churton, Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, H.B. Wilson, Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John’s College, John Griffiths, Tutor of Wadham College, and A.C. Tait, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. “Dangerous” was the term for Newman’s subterfuges.

    Stiff resistance came from a meeting (March 15, 1841) between Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Houses, and Proctors. The leadership reaffirmed that that every Oxford student shall be instructed in and subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Further, “the modes of interpretation as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statutes. P. Wynter, Vice-Chancellor.”

    Evangelicals had target-acquisition as the Ritualistic paper, Church Review (Jun. 21, 1865) observed, “The Protestant is quite right in recognising the simplest attempt at Ritual as the ‘thin edge of the wedge.’ It is so….It is only the child who is not terrified when the first creeping driblet of water, and the few light bubbles announce the advance of the tide; and the Protestant is but a child who does not recognise the danger of the trifling symptoms which are so slowly and surely contracting the space of ground upon which he stands.”

    Rev. Simcox Bricknell marshaled a literary salvo with The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology (1845). Bp. Musgrave (Hereford) spoke of sophistry, evasion, and Jesuitical dishonesty. Bp. Monk (Gloucester and Bristol) invoked terms such as astonishment, concern, ingenuity, sophistry and vanity. Bp. Phillpott (Exeter) summoned terms such offensiveness, indecency, absurdity, incongruity, unjustness, sophistry, and variations from the facts of the Reformation and English Reformers. Bp. Blomfeld (London) referred to Tridentine colouring to the XXXIX Articles and the duty of the Episcopal bench to ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines.”

    William Goode, the able champion against Tractarians, wrote The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. The Lord Chancellor Selborne summed it up. “When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies, some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers which never came.”

    An overwhelming broadside appeared with the publication of the 55-volume Parker Society Series (1840-1855), a series from the pens of the English Reformers themselves. Supported widely by Bishops throughout England, these works are still our finest weapons against Romanism.

    Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

  3. Allow me to suggest to all who are interested in getting a copy of the text of the 1874 REC BCP online that, if they live near one, they get themselves to a university library and see what may be found in the stacks. Myself, I’m off to Notre Dame this week to begin the search.

    I also recall my two years at the Univ. of Michigan and the endless grated-floor corridors of the graduate library – complete with two different sets of painted arrows on the floor depending on the direction you wanted to move in. Take the “A” train and all that … 😉

    Yours,
    Jeff

  4. No real presence? Given that the 1662 prayerbook affirms the “spiritual presence” of Christ, whose crucified body and shed blood are received by faith in the Sacrament, the “Real Presence” rejected must be the Romish error of the sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation. The English reformers rejected both. Charles

  5. The BCP doesn’t use the term “real presence” and the term, as far as I have seen, is broadly understood, and claimed by Rome, to mean it in the Roman sense, so it’s ambiguous at best to apply it to Anglican doctrine.
    :
    Note also that the Articles do not use the term you have in quotes, “spiritual presence”. In fact, the word “presence” isn’t even used. Here’s the relevant section, from Article XXVII:
    :
    “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.”
    :
    I’d argue it’s best to stick to the terminology of the BCP and Articles.

  6. Jeff,
    I don’t know how you made out in your search for the 1874 BCP online? I’ve turned up ‘dry’ every time I have tried, but this link may interest you.

    http://www.archive.org/details/commonprayer00unknuoft

    It is the 1785 BCP revised and reprinted by the REC in 1873 for their use while they they were developing the 1874 BCP. I hope the link works. If not search the Internet Archives at the Canadian Library using ‘Book of Common Prayer.’ Do not be fooled by the ‘face’ page. It is not the 1785 BCP, nor is the 1874 BCP as I first thought after I had read a few pages in. Many thanks to Robin for helping me sort out this mystery.

    John

  7. John (and everyone),

    I have contacted Robin recently but have heard nothing back from him. He announced on one of his other blogs – Anglicans Ablaze – he would not be available until tomorrow.

    However, I believe I have located a copy of the 1874 REC BCP at the Univ. of Notre Dame library. They have one copy in the stacks per an online search. I live about a 5 min. drive from the campus, so I will be able to (I suppose) photocopy the volume (ca. 500 pp.) and send them on to Robin.

    So we have a success to report!

    Yours,
    Jeff

  8. Is there nothing online?

    I am developing some online internet sources for Robin, although travelling and caught in bad weather in midwest. Won’t be home (Camp Lejeune, NC) till late this week. Have some online sources in development for Robin and others. Squeezing in online time at local internet cafe. In studying further Tractarian writers, am convinced that the old REC-ers, with a wart or two, were FAR more right and more sophisticated about Pusey-ism than one hears these days.
    Phil

  9. Camp Lejeune, hey?

    Are you a 2/6?

    Yours,
    Jeff

  10. No, was 1/10 and did some time with 2/2. Then with the Base. But knew some fellows from 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6. Are you 2/6?
    Phil

  11. Actually, my brother-in-law was. He was only in for four years. Discharged about a year ago. Two tours of Iraq, one of Afghan. He did embassy duty in Afghan. and I think he hated that more than anything: the bitter cold, the dark, the fact that YOU CAN’T SMOKE because of these crazy new-fangled infra-red guns.

    He was a young guy, just a couple years out of high school. Artillery specialist.

    Small world, sometimes.

    Best wishes (and thank you for your work defending our country),
    Jeff

  12. Jeff, extend regards to your brother-in-law and a Semper Fi from me. Those Marines (and others) did what we asked them to do—many sufferred and still do, especially at the “Wounded Warriors” at Camp Lejeune, a unit attached to the Naval Hospital.

    But to the task before us…reviewing another of Walter Walsh’s works, amidst other callings while travelling. It may be fair to say that the Church of England never recovered after the TORR-blast of arctic winds (TORR= Tractarian, Oxfordan, Ritualistic Romanisers). Some TORR statements are just plain brutish, supremacisitic–like Rome, and full of committment to the destruction of the Reformed, Protestant, Confessional and Anglican witness. Fortunately for the UK, much less so for the US, OHC and evangelical Churchmen mounted stiff resistance.
    Ultimately, the episcopal bench failed to clean house, in an orderly, decent, and military fashion. They should have shut the TORR’s down lie Henry VIII closed the monasteries.

    I still owe Mr. Jordan an internet list of resources on the REC, limited that that is.

    Semper Fi,
    Phil

  13. Phil,

    OHC = “Old(line) High Churchmen”? A la Wesley, say?

    “Anglo-catholic” in many (most?) cases anymore is a misnomer, in my opinion. It is rather more accurate to refer to them as “Anglo-papalists” (the screen name, in fact, of a contributor to Stand Firm … which site I’ve found I’ve lost all interest in as the debacle which is the ACNA unfolds).

    I’ll also let the group know that I did in fact locate the original 1874 REC BCP at the Univ. of Notre Dame library and am in the process of getting a copy to Robin of it. We may in fact now have a working text which (with alterations – ? … we shall have to see) may serve as a starting-point for confessional, low-church, reformed episcopalianism.

    Regards,
    Jeff

  14. Jeff:

    Yes, OHC = Old High Churchmen such as Bishop Christopher Wordsworth or Dean Burgon. You may wish to review Rev. William Bricknell’s The Judgment of the Bishops upon the Tractarian Movement…which included some OHC Bishops resisting the Romewardizing, Ritualising, unabashed Papists. See for free download http://books.google.com/books?id=9lZCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&dq=bricknell+tractarian&lr=&as_brr=1

    Yes, understand that Wesley has been viewed as an OHC.

    I would be excellent to have the 1873-1874 BCP online somehow. The old REC-ers were FAR MORE right than wrong. I have a few difficulties with the book, but am sympathetic with most of it.

    Is there a sign-name, Anglo-Papalist, as a contributor at Stand Firm?

    Working up a slow review of the second of Walter Walsh’s damning expose of the TORR’s and PnA’s (Papal non-Anglicans, sometimes called Anglo-Catholics).

    Also, you can download free volumes from the Parker Society series. Robust, manly, biblical, confessional English Churchmen from the Reformation…pre-Laudians.

    On passive sonar re: Laud and Romery. Rome is a “strumpet of strumpets” as one of the Homilies rightly, if a bit bruskly, puts it.

    Good work with Un. of ND.

    Phil

  15. Interesting blog site and posts. Am seeking ordination as deacon in an REC diocese but on further research am concerned about their present day drift from Cummins et.al. original stance opposed to high church practice. I obtained a 1963 REC BCP (small hand sized) and realized it only had 35 AOR, not 39. I like this 1963 edition better than the new 2005 rendition which, I believe, has absorbed many of the things the original REC rejected. Is the 1963 comparable to the 1874? (excuse my ignorance but I’m new to Anglicanism). Does anyone know where I can find the 1963 editions? Thanks.

    Blessings.
    WF

    • Frater Peregrinus,

      The 1963 REC Prayer Book is not fully comparable with the 1874 Prayer Book. The 1963 REC Prayer Book evidences the influence of the 1928 PECUSA Prayer Book which is even more pronounced in the 2005 REC Prayer Book. For example, Cranmer dropped the salutation “The Lord be with thee” “And with thy spirit” from the 1552 Communion Service because of its associations with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The 1963 REC Prayer Book, influenced by the 1928 PECUSA Prayer Book, restores this salutation.

      We are planning to post the 1874 Prayer Book on this web site in installments. You will be able to compare the two books and see the differences.

      I am presently preparing a contemporary English revision of the 1956 FCE Prayer Book in an a USA edition; I have already prepared an initial draft of a contemporary English revision of the 1956 FCE Prayer Book in a UK edition for the consideration of the Free Church of England – Evangelical Connexion. The 1956 FCE Prayer Book is a conservative revision of the 1662 Prayer Book that incorporates material from the 1874 Prayer Book.

      Robin

  16. Robin,
    Thanks for that insight. I am curious as to why my 1963 BCP only has 35 Articles of Religion as opposed to 39. And also its lack of any reference to baptismal regeneration I find admirable (and Scriptural). Does the 1956 FCE Prayer Book follow this thinking as well? And when will it be possible to purchase one?

    For ordination into the diaconate of the REC it was suggested that I read Bp. Ray Sutton’s (a former Presbyterian)”Signed, Sealed, and Delivered” which was an expose’ of baptismal/water regeneration. Has the REC drifted that far from the Reformation father’s 5 Solas?

    Blessings,
    Wandering Friar

    • Frater Peregrinus,

      The 35 Articles of Religion of the REC is a revision of the 39 and reflects REC emphasizes. The Methodists also revised the Articles as did the Protestant Episcopal Church. I do not believe that the 35 Articles of Religion was actually adopted as a REC confession of faith. When I have an opportunity I will ascertain its status.

      The 1956 FCE Prayer Book is a revision of the 1662 Prayer Book that addresses those parts of the 1662 Prayer Book with which Evangelicals have never been happy such as the regeneration language of the Baptismal Office. The Free Church of England has been hoarding the 1956 FCE Prayer Book, buying up all the copies since the departure of the Free Church of England – Evangelical Connexion to prevent the latter from obtaining them. I obtained a copy from Dominic Stockard, the Presiding Bishop of the Free Church of England – Evangelical Connexion. It was one of the unnumbered copies in his church. I have prepared a conservative contemporary English revision of the 1956 FCE Prayer Book. It is substantially the 1956 Prayer Book with a number of additions. I classify it as a revision because the process of translating a book from Tudor English to contemporary English sometimes requires textual changes. Textual changes are revisions. I would be glad to send you a Word file containing the final draft of this revision if you are interested. I tried to folow the 1956 FCE Prayer Book as closely as I could.

      Based on the new REC Prayer Book I would say that the REC has changed its position on baptismal regeneration. Go to the REC website and look at the Baptismal Office, especially the rubrics. The REC continues to affirm the Decaration of Principles of the REC founders but the Baptismal Office is at odds with those principles, as are other services in the new Prayer Book. The new position of the REC appears to be what is called “ecclesiastical regeneration” if I remember rightly. It was one of the explanations that used to be offered for the regeneration language of the 1789 Prayer Book but Evangelical Episcopalians became increasingly unhappy with that explanation. They would eventually reject it with the other attempts to explain the regeneration language and call for alternative wording or forms in the 1789 Prayer Book. The General Convention, however, would not entertain their proposals. This as you may know was one of the factors behind the successions of the REC founders from the Protestant Episcopal Church.

      Robin

  17. If you want to read a reader’s feedback 🙂 , I rate this article for 4/5. Detailed info, but I just have to go to that damn msn to find the missed parts. Thank you, anyway!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: