Chapter II. The "Catholic" Party

(i) THE " HISTORIC HIGH CHURCH " PARTY.

I. IN the previous chapter it has been noted that what is known as the " High Church party " has a real right (generally considered), though not exclusive, to its interpretation of the formularies of the Church of Eng land. For not only are those formularies for the most part patient of this interpretation, but there has been a practically continuous traditional succession of divines that has so interpreted them. Such men as Bishop Andrewes of Winchester, Dean Cosin, and Archbishop Laud are instances of this tradition and can quite properly be appealed to by their spiritual descendants of to-day. (It is necessary to use such phrases as " generally considered " and " for the most part " in discussing this question, since there are, as will be seen presently, certain recent developments of Ritualism which can claim no such authority.)

The " historic High Church party " therefore was far from being the invention of Dr. Pusey and his friends. In a book recently brought to light, for ex ample, published in 1677, entitled " Officium Eucharisticum," and bearing an imprimatur from Lambeth, such doctrines as that of the Real Presence, of Penance, of Prayers for the Dead, and even of some kind of Eucharistic Sacrifice are plainly set forth. This is but one instance out of many, showing that within the pale of the Established Church there still remained a strong "Catholic" tradition on many points for more than a hundred years after the "Elizabethan Settlement". The Oxford Movement did no more than reassert a legitimate interpretation of the Anglican formularies, which had for the most part been lost to view in the immediately preceding years of spiritual lethargy and latitudinarianism.

2. It is difficult to sum up precisely the contents of the creed held by this school of thought, since there are divergences within even those narrow borders. Briefly the following points may be noted.

The fundamental articles of the Christian Faith as stated in the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds are held in their natural sense, as they stand. On such points as those disputed to-day among other Anglican divines — as the corporal Resurrection and the Virgin Birth of our Lord — this school is rigidly orthodox. It was in fact largely owing to the zeal of this party, as represented by such men as Canon Liddon and Dr. Pusey, that the attack, in the last century, on the Athanasian Creed, was beaten off. The party stands as a symbol of the old solid school of piety and learning, disliking Puritan narrowness, latitudinarian laxity and " Popish innovations ": they appeal to the " Primitive Church " as the touchstone of truth.

It is in this appeal to " Primitive Christianity "

that their significance really lies. To their eyes a shadow (to use the mildest language) fell upon Christendom as the centuries went by. There came about, they claim, chiefly through the arrogance of Rome, and largely through the entry of the world into the Church, a flood of developments and additions that had no true place in the Church of Christ. The Bishop of Rome, partly through the Roman genius for government, partly through the secular importance of the city of Rome, became " Lord over Christ's heritage" to an unwarranted degree. There might be allowed to him a certain primacy of honour, but no primacy of degree. He was, by rights, an eminent bishop among bishops, but in no sense a Bishop of bishops or a Pater Patrum. So was it also, in their view, with regard to certain doctrines. The entrance of a half-converted paganism into the Church swept in with it what were practically heathen doctrines: the cultus of the Saints as practised by Rome, to take one example, was an instance of this over-development of the genuine truth of the Communion of Saints. The learning of the schools again, and the passion for Greek philosophy, brought about an over-definition of true doctrines. The " Real Presence " they say, was un doubtedly revealed by Christ and believed in the Primitive Church; but Transubstantiation is no more than an exaggerated attempt to express the inexpressible in metaphysical language.

This fear of definition beyond that employed by the " Primitive Church " is characteristic of their whole position. They believe, as has been implied, in the

Objective Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated elements, but the contents of such words as Transubstantiation and Concomitance seem to them unwarranted interpretations of Christ's sayings. With regard to the latter point indeed they are usually explicit, and state outright that the "denial of the Cup to the laity" signifies a real loss of grace to the communicant. They believe also in some kind of Eucharistic Sacrifice, but shrink from any attempt to define in what that sacrifice consists. It is perhaps as a memorial sacrifice merely that they generally conceive of it.1

With regard to the Sacraments generally — with the exception of Holy Baptism, in which they are for the most part entirely orthodox 2 — there is the same note of hesitation. Penance, for instance, is undoubtedly a means of grace instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin, yet it is not sufficiently necessary for salvation to be urged upon all alike. A clergy man, they would say, would be justified in keeping silence — or very nearly so — upon the subject, if he were ministering to an old-fashioned congregation who would be seriously offended by the doctrine. Neither indeed need any person, however deep his sin, necessarily seek forgiveness in this way; it is a helpful practice to those who feel the want of it; it is neg-

1 Bishop Andrewes stated that if " Transubstantiation " were " taken away " there would be no quarrel with regard to the Sacrifice between himself and Rome.

2 A few, however, have curious views as to the relations of Baptism and Confiimation, and the almost suspended effect of the first rite until the reception of the second.

ligible by those who do not. On Holy Matrimony the " historic High Church " party is, usually, orthodox, with exceptions that will be noticed presently; though many of them would shrink from calling it a Sacrament outright. Perhaps the hesitating and confused tone of the twenty-fifth Article best expresses their attitude towards this and the Sacraments generally. "Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacra ments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God...."

Finally, it must be noticed that this party under discussion would welcome as cordially as any Ritualist the restoration of Extreme Unction — that "lost star of the Anglican firmament " — though they wax very severe upon the supposed practice among Catholics of postponing its administration until imminent danger of death.

3. The attitude then of the "historic High Church" party is best gauged by the examples given above. Its members believe resolutely in the essential continuity of the Church of England with the Church in England before the Reformation — they believe, that is to say, that the changes which took place in the sixteenth century concerned unessential matters, and did not vitally affect the Church's life. They point to the Preface of the Ordination Service in the Book of Common Prayer as an evident sign that continuity was intended and effected; they believe in the priest hood of their ministers, in the objective reality of the Sacraments; and they hold that such matters as were dropped altogether at the period of crisis — such as the Primacy of Peter — were innovations upon the original truth as held by the Primitive Church and there fore best removed. Their indefiniteness — at once their weakness and their strength — on such matters, for example, as the state of the faithful departed, the relations of the Saints with men — and kindred things — rests of course upon the extreme difficulty in ascer taining precisely (since they reject the living continuous tradition that alone can interpret " Primitive Christianity ") what it was that " Primitive Christianity " actually did teach upon such points.

It will be seen then from these examples that the "historic High Church" party, so far as it is faithful to itself, is worthy of real respect and reverence in these days of latitudinarianism. " So far as it is faithful to itself" — for there are signs on all sides that it is begin ning to break up at last. It is giving birth, little by little, to a series of subdivisions, one or two of which must be considered separately. Yet in itself, as origin ally re-conceived in the Oxford Movement, it is refreshingly orthodox on many fundamental matters; it is scholarly and it is modest. These points constitute, as has been said, its weakness and its strength. It contains elements of strength, since it relies upon its scholarship, its devotion to the Fathers, the Holy

Scriptures, its knowledge of history. Most of the considerable Anglican commentaries upon the Scriptures, of the editions of the Fathers, and of volumes of nineteenth century Church history, are the work of its members. It has been in the past, at least, resolute in the face of adversity, and now in the presence of unpopularity and ridicule. It is because of its labours and sufferings that the Church of England stands where it does to-day.

Yet its weaknesses are no less obvious. Plainly, with its reluctance to define, its attempt to clothe present-day religion in the garb of a thousand years ago, it is a form of faith singularly unfitted to meet the needs or attract the devotion of the poor and un educated. It was not until Ritualism met and trans formed it — or rather developed out of it — that it began to lay hold upon the slums. To this day it means but little in country districts. Its self-denying and devoted representatives win the affection of their flocks; but its system still smacks of the study and the Oxford common-room.

4. Its ceremonial is as difficult to define as its precise creed. For, while this party professes to follow the Book of Common Prayer strictly and loyally, the same doubt prevails as to the ceremonial (as to the doctrine) exactly intended by the Prayer Book. It would be useless to discuss the controversy in all its elaborations; but briefly it may be summed up by saying that the actual words of the " Ornaments Rubric " seem to en join the Eucharistic vestments and the usual accessories of Catholic worship, but that the whole history of practically the first three centuries of the Church of England's existence seem to show that such an interpretation of the Rubric was never intended or tolerated by the authorities.1 It is possible then for all parties in the Church of England to claim solid reasons for their own points of view — to use a chasuble, or a surplice, lighted candles, unlighted candles, or no candles at all. Neither is the appeal to the " Primitive Church " of much use; since while it may be true that something resembling the defined ceremonial and vesting of to-day was then employed, it is also quite easy — if the living continuous tradition be set aside — to make out a case for the statement that the accessories of worship in those days had not the same defined significance that they have now. The ceremonial, then, employed by the "historic High Church" party, as distinguished from the Ritualists, is marked by soberness and reverence rather than by any particular principles. Vest ments, often of linen, may sometimes be used, as also candles and the " Eastward position " of the celebrant at the Holy Table. Generally speaking, however, the type of worship employed in Anglican cathedrals — which are, very largely, the strongholds to-day of the party in question — may be taken as characteristic of the party as a whole. Careful and sometimes beautiful music, excellent and reverent reading and be haviour, a certain kind of quiet recollectedness and dignity — these are, perhaps, as much as anything can

1 The explicit directions in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI to the celebrant to wear a " vestment or a cope " at the altar, disappeared in the second Prayer Book of 1552 and were never restored.

be said to be, significant of the rather undefined piety and learning that distinguish these divines.

5. The party, however, as has been said, has under gone a good deal of development since the days of the Oxford Movement. It is a matter of lamentation sometimes among its followers, that so few are left of the original type. This is largely true. It has given birth to Ritualism on the one hand (which requires a separate chapter for its treatment) and to what is called with some tinge of contempt " Moderate High Churchism " on the other. It may be as well in this place to discuss this second type.

" Moderate High Churchism " is largely degenerate from its parent. It retains indeed the quietness, the hesitation, and the refinement; but it has lost to a large extent the fine rigidity, the asceticism, the stern " orthodoxy," as well as the profound learning of the Oxford divines. Its loss of " orthodoxy " is shown to a great extent in its attitude towards the State. The Oxford men held almost as one of the " marks of the Church " that it should be at enmity with the world: Moderate High Churchmen tend to hold that friend ship with the State, with the " great heart of the people," — conformity with public opinion as voiced by Parliamentary authority— are signs of the sweet reasonableness of true religion. An Established National Church, they say (and with considerable sense), must give and take; it must end eavour to avoid conflict: it should represent so far as possible the religious instincts ot the nation as a whole. We see therefore at the present time an immense body of Anglican opinion to the effect that when the State legislates concerning marriage, for example, the Established Church must accept that legislation so far as possible — and how far is possible has not yet been decided. Divorced persons have been occasionally re-married with the blessing of the Church of England in the lifetime of their partners: the " innocent party " in a divorce is frequently so re-married. The Church of England declared plainly enough in her " Table of Prohibited Degrees " her opinion that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was contrary to the Law of God — an opinion which she alone holds in Christendom — yet she, as represented by the Moderate High Churchism that prevails to-day, seems to be acquiescing without any very great difficulty in the altered circumstances brought about by the recent legislation on the part of the State.

For there is no doubt that "Moderate High Churchism " is at present the average of Anglicanism —that is, its centre of gravity. Its characteristic is that its principles are almost impossible to define. Its phraseology, its ceremonial, its deportment generally — these are easy enough of statement It speaks a good deal of the " dear old Church of England," it claims continuity with P re-reformation days when "Church Defence" is in question; it repudiates continuity in matters of unpopular doctrine; its ceremonial is refined, elegant and reverent: but is not significant of anything in particular. It disre gards Corpus Christi; it celebrates Harvest Festivals with a wealth of pomp and pumpkins; it does not elevate the Host; but it elevates the almsdish. It is very clerical; but not at all sacerdotal.

Its principles then are impossible of definition. They consist rather of the least common multiple of Catholicism and Protestantism properly so called. Its members confess the Real Presence in words, but not in action; they prefer a hymn to a genuflection; they defend the Sacrament of Penance, but do not at tempt to frequent it; they confess their belief in an altar and a priesthood, but not an altar of sacrifice nor a sacrificing priesthood.

This summary of "Moderate High Churchism" is not, I think, too severe. It is not nearly so severe as that which would be given of it by the ordinary Ritualist who is in full communion with its members. For the Moderate High Churchman is the despair of all other parties in the Establishment who have definite principles. In the education question, the defence of the Athanasian Creed, or of the marriage laws, his support is never to be depended upon. His tendency is to consider the essence of Christianity to be a spirit and a temper of mind rather than a body of truth or of precepts, still less a kingdom in any intelligible sense. He professes to appeal to the Prayer Book and to the general sense of Christendom as a whole— especially (following the "historic High Church" party) primitive Christendom— yet he does not usually abstain on Friday, not fast before Communion: he may do so, out of personal devotion, but he will not attempt seriously to urge such things upon his parishioners. These are, indeed, comparatively very small points, but they illustrate admirably his re lations with that historic party from whom he claims his descent.

6. In treating of the method with which the priest can best deal with members of the High Church party as described so far, it is first necessary to insist very strongly upon the deep cleavage— psychological rather than dogmatic— already mentioned, between the "historic High Church" party and their « Moderate" successors. Externally the two schools of thought appear very similar. There is an absence of ostentation and of extreme ritual in both alike; there is a quietness, a refinement and a dignity in the details of worship, and there is a great deal of common phrase ology in use. Both describe themselves as "loyal Anglicans," as " strong Churchmen," as " Prayer Book Christians ".

Yet there is a deep gulf separating them. The "historic High Church " party possess very clear principles indeed. They have perhaps as good an acquaintance with "Primitive Christianity" as it is possible for anyone to have who does not live in the continuous and vital tradition which flows from it in the Catholic Church; and, so far as they can verify the principles that prevailed in those days— interpre ting them, of course, sincerely enough, though mistakenly, in Anglican terms— they seek to live by them. They bow, in reality, to an authority conceived of as outside of themselves, and will correct themselves by it. Such men as these seek sacramental absolution, will abstain on Fridays, will punctiliously recite daily the morning and evening offices of the Book of Common Prayer, and usually fast before Communion; and they are genuinely and sincerely shocked by what they conceive to be Roman innovations on the purity and simplicity of the Gospel as it was held in the first four or five or six cen turies of the Christian era.

It is as well, then, to remember these things clearly. The "historic High Church party" is not simply Protestant in the ordinary sense. Its representatives do not for one moment claim to interpret the Scriptures, each man for himself. Their common phrase is " The Church to teach and the Bible to prove". Certainly they maintain all Church teaching must be continually checked and tested by the Holy Scriptures, but it is by the Scriptures as interpreted by the Early Fathers, rather than taken baldly by each man separately.

The weakness of the position lies of course in three or four obvious points that may be suggested with ad vantage to persons of his manner of thinking.

(a) Teaching of this kind implies that the truth as committed by Christ to His Church was so far pre vailed against by the gates of hell as to disappear practically underground for about one thousand years. Certainly it still lived, assert the High Churchmen of this party, in sufficient strength to emerge again at the Reformation; yet it was distorted and disfigured almost beyond recognition by the usurpations of Rome. This position is surely a confession of the fail ure of Christ's mission to a very appalling degree.

(ft) Another weak point is the extreme arbitrariness of fixing four or five or six centuries as the period of purity. Besides who, it may very properly be asked (assuming this theory), is to fix that period with any degree of certainty? For it is exceedingly difficult to extract from Anglicans of this school any statement as to which Councils are ecumenical, as to in what ecumenicity consists; or to draw from them any principles by which the Council of Ephesus or Nicaea may be identified as ecumenical, and the Council of the Lateran or of Trent as merely sectarian.1

(f) A third difficulty is in that conception of the nature of Revelation to which the theory gives rise. When the Catholic remarks that an infallible Revelation ceases to have even certitude unless there be an infallible living authority to certify it: or when he points out that the Council of Nicaea in employing the word homoousios did not add to, but merely made explicit, the original Faith of the Church never before so defined, and argues thence that the same thing is true of every ecumenical Council up to the end of time — the " historic High Churchman " has no adequate answer. All that he can do is to reassume that which needs to be proved — viz., that at a certain point in time the Holy Spirit ceased to safeguard the Catholic Church as a whole from dogmatic error; and fails to adduce any proof of this beyond his own private interpretation of the Patristic writings.

The method then which should appear most useful in dealing with persons trained in this school, seems to consist in bringing before their minds some glimpse

1 The real reason for this selection of centuries is, no doubt, that by that selection a tolerable case can be made out for Anglicanism.

of that continuous unbroken stream of living tradition, that constant claim to, and exercise of, supreme and infallible authority, that holy audacity in settling con troversies with the word of power, and in adding, as time and the developments of the world's thought de mand it, new phraseology and new definitions to make explicit the one unchangeable truth delivered to the Saints — in short, all that true self-consciousness of power that is found alone in the occupants of Peter's chair. " He spake as one having authority," runs the Protestant version of St. Matthew, " and not as the scribes." " It was said by them of old time, but / say unto you" — this is the characteristic phrase on the lips of Incarnate Wisdom. It is not so much by arguing out point by point with these men that victory will lie on the Catholic side — so much as by directing attention to the living authority to-day that, by a confessedly unbroken succession, reigns and speaks in the Roman Pontiff. These men love the truth and follow it as it is discerned by them, in point after point; they are well accustomed to submission to the remote past. The best hope of meeting them is to acknowledge those virtues, to welcome their orthodoxy on so many vital matters, and to seek to set before them evidently an authority and a Presence that is promised to the Church " all the days " — not merely a selection of them — until the consummation of the world.

(ii) THE " MODERATE HIGH CHURCH " PARTY. As regards the " Moderate High Churchmen " there is no one course more likely than another to be of service in dealing with them — unless it be to compel them to think and to state what principles they really have — to drive them from words to thoughts, from vocabularies to things. Their religion consists so largely of emotion and sentiment — often beautiful and refined sentiment — of associations and artistic perceptions, as to defy logical analysis. They have never learnt theology in any recognized sense; they can expound, often admirably, the moral teachings of Scriptures and can defend from Scripture any doc trines which they happen truly to have assimilated; but they have never thought down to the roots of things, never defined even to themselves the grounds of faith, or the founts of truth. Their quotations are chiefly second-hand; they have not, like the "historic High Church party " thought or read much for themselves, or proposed to themselves any final authority whether in the past or the present for the interpretation of that Scripture which they usually maintain in conversation to be the only repository of Christ's original Revelation. They are the despair of their adversaries — and of their friends as well.