Anglicanism; an introduction to its history and philosophy

Contents

PAGE

I. The Outlook I

Anglicanism as a world influence, in the reunion of Christendom, in the interpretation of Anglo-Saxonism, Anglo-Saxon traditionalism, its Anglican expression.

Chapter i

THE OUTLOOK tae is becoming a factor of importance in Christendom. It is emerging from its seclusion and acquiring some measure of world significance. It can no longer be regarded merely as a detached Gut the creation, of ‘an “island* race}: so dominated by their peculiarities of temperament and thought and usage as to be illadapted to the religious requirements of other races. Two centuries ago this criticism would have been appropriate, not merely to the Anglican Church but to other characteristic English institutions. Voltaire’s gibe that the English people seemed to assume that God Almighty had made a special revelation of Himself for their benefit, was not altogether irrelevant to the circumstances of the times in which he wrote. But since those times the Anglo-Saxon race has ceased to be purely insular. It has established itself in every quarter of the earth and embodied

I itself in powerful and progressive communities, whose mutual reactions and external relationships have produced situations of wide-reaching import and importance. In some of these the Anglican Church may be called to play a prominent part, and much may depend upon the extent to which it proves responsive to that call.

Take two examples from several which suggest themselves. An active movement, largely of Anglo-Saxon origin, is in being at the present time, which has for its aim the reunion of Christendom, and more especially the healing of the divisions which took place in the sixteenth century, and have maintained themselves ever since. To the promotion of this movement Anglicanism may render no small service. Guizot, the great French historian, declared that if Christendom is ever reunited it will be through the agency of the Anglican Church. What he had in mind was the fact that that Church, while sensitive to the influences of the Protestant Reformation, maintained its institutional continuity through the Reformation period, and along with it many of the usages and traditad

THE OUTLOOK tions and points of view of pre-Reformation Catholicism. It has succeeded, not without difficulty, in retaining within its organised system teachings and practices derived from both these sources, and in establishing between them some measure of mutual accommodation. A Church in which Catholicism and Protestantism can thus combine as complementary rather than as contradictory forces, provides an encouraging example to those who are attempting to achieve the same result on a wider scale. If, under the conditions established by Anglicanism, Catholics and Protestants can co-operate with each other, and enhance each other’s usefulness and enrich each other’s thought by doing so, the hope is strengthened that similar co-operation is possible over the length and breadth of Western Christendom, and some luminous guidance is forthcoming as to the lines along which men can work for its achievement. A second example is less directly ecclesiastical. There can be no doubi as to the emergence and rapid development of what may be called an Anglo-Saxon consciousness, of the growing recognition on the part of men of Anglo-Saxon stock of the determining part which their race is called to play in the oncoming period of the world’s history, of the fact that to them has been assigned a leading place, perhaps the leading place, in the march of civilised progress, and that it is their responsibility to meet the claims which this position involves. This recognition is the inspiring motive of British Imperialism in its nobler aspects. It explains also the energetic efforts which are being made, on both sides of the Atlantic, to establish cordial and fruitful relations between the two chief commonwealths of Anglo-Saxon lineage and tradition. If the movement thus inaugurated is to achieve its true possibilities, if it is to find its sequel in something more than enhanced material power and prosperity, if it is to take its place in the world’s history as an important episode in the upward struggle of the human race, it must be invested with religious sanctions and rendered capable of religious expression. To say this is not merely to repeat a catch-word of conventional pietism. The persistence of such a movement depends upon the extent

THE OUTLOOK to which it is consciously related with, and receives its conscious inspiration from, those ultimate beliefs and ideals which constitute the religion of its adherents. These are its staying elements; it will be permanent and powerful so far as it is founded upon and fed by them.

Here again the Anglican Church may prove capable of rendering invaluable service. Many other religious organisations are in existence in Anglo-Saxon countries, some of them including largenumbersof adherents. But nearly all of these are of comparatively recent origin, and embody partial movements of thought and feeling, which to a large extent dominate and determine their outlook and activities. The Anglican Church is not equally subject to these limitations. During the earlier and more formative period of its history its life was conterminous and closely intertwined with that of the English people. The intimate association thus formed has to a large extent been maintained, and has profoundly and permanently affected its inner and outer development, its temper and spirit and intellectual and practical attitudes. Presenty)

day Anglicanism reflects and reproduces the Anglo-Saxon mentality in many of its most distinctive qualities and characteristics—in its common sense, in its predilection for compromise, in its distrust of emotionalism, in its tepid regard for logical consistency, in its tendency to reserve in statement and demeanour, in its capacity for adapting old institutions to new requirements. The position of the Anglican Church is in these respects unique. No other religious organisation has behind it the same informing antecedents, nor has passed through the same illuminating experiences. No other religious organisation can essay with equal advantage the task of interpreting and voicing the religious consciousness of the Anglo-Saxon race. Its possibilities from this point of view are far-reaching, and its responsibilities are correspondingly great. The effectiveness of its service will depend upon the extent to which its members respond to these responsibilities, and this in turn will depend upon their intelligent appreciation of its historical antecedents and its social and spiritual significance.

These are important topics, and what has

THE OUTLOOK just been said suggests an appropriate starting-point for their consideration. Anglicanism is a creation, not a construction. It is the outcome of a growth which has all along been closely identified with that of the English people, and it must be studied in this context if we are to understand it. Now we English are of very mixed racial origin. In our veins flows blood derived from several different sources—British and Roman and Nordic and Gallic and Flemish. But these successive infusions did not for long retain their separate identities. They quickly intermingled and issued in a joint product with strongly marked characteristics: 1n a very distinctive type of manhood, whose distinctiveness has been accentuated rather than diminished with the passage of time. For many centuries we have lived our own life in our own way, protected from foreign invasion, and largely segregated from foreign influences, by our insular position, self-contained and _ selfsufficient, working out our own problems and developing our own customs and institutions with little conscious regard to happenings elsewhere. Not unaffected by them, indeed,

7 B for no civilised people can isolate itself from the civilised order to which it belongs. But our response to external influences has generally been unconscious, and nearly always slow and cautious and critical. We have from time to time adapted them to our requirements and absorbed them into the texture of our life, but in no instance have they seriously affected its inner structure and character or changed the main direction of its development. This has maintained itself continuously and without serious break. We cannot hope to understand any fundamental English institution, the Monarchy, the Legislature, or the Church, if we neglect or underestimate this fact. Some church historians have failed to take it sufficiently into account, and as a result have described Anglicanism in terms which are inadequate and often misleading. They have laid stress on the influence exercised by this or that prominent churchman, or this or that powerful movement. But they have overlooked, or set insufficient store by, the cohesive body of traditional acceptance and practice with which such influence has always found itself con- 8

LHE OUTLOOK fronted, instinctive and often inarticulate, but persistent and pervasive, capable of opposing effective resistance to subversive projects and policies, and of reasserting its power when they had lost theirs. The English people have never shown themselves averse from embarking on new enterprises, or engaging in new experiments. But they have always insisted on accommodating them to their normal rate of growth, and have in the long run always found means of making their insistence good.

Institutional continuity on its outer side, intense traditionalism on its inner—these are master features of English life in all its chief aspects and activities. It is on the latter that chief stress must be laid; the former is its outcome and expression. The Anglican Church has maintained its institutional continuity by virtue of its strong traditionalism, by virtue of the instinctive reverence with which its members have all along been disposed to regard the teachings of past experience. They have entrenched that reverence in habits and customs and ways of thought and feeling which have maintained themselves through periods of superficial convulsion, and have emerged from them modified, it may be, in form, and enriched in content, but unaltered in essential character and direction.

Approached from this point of view it is possible to give an account of Anglicanism which, if not exhaustive, can claim to be illuminating and not inaccurate. It is possible to describe it in the terms of a tenacious traditionalism, which has at the same time been sufficiently vital and flexible and receptive to admit of the assimilating of materials derived from external sources: to describe it as the outcome of a process of continuous development stimulated and nourished by the experiences of a long and eventful history. In the course of this history it has been subjected to a series of spiritual and intellectual invasions, some of which seriously threatened its integrity. It succeeded in repelling each of these in turn, but it was affected by them, in some cases deeply affected. Incorporated in its essential texture are many elements thus derived, which it has adapted to its purposes, and made

THE OUTLOOK amenable to its requirements, and invested with its own peculiar quality. Thus enriched and enhanced it has pursued its distinctive course and has now acquired a volume and momentum which, wisely directed, render it capable of notable achievements. But wise direction is necessary, and this is conditional on the extent to which intelligent Anglicans appreciate the nature of the heritage which has descended to them, and the responsibilities which it involves: whence it came and how it should be administered. It is with the former question that the following pages are chiefly concerned: with the development of Anglican traditionalism from its first beginnings up to the present time. The subject is of wide range and can only be dealt with here in broadest outline. But this outline will serve a good purpose if it is sufficiently comprehensive and clearly drawn to meet the requirements of more detailed study, and thus to promote the formation of informed opinion, issuing in loyal and _ purposeful action.

If

Chapter II ROMAN INTERNATIONALISM

A i English are an island race which, because of their segregation from Continental Europe, tended from the first to develop along the lines of independent nationalism. But with the coming of Christianity this tendency was met by a counterbalancing force, which increased in volume and intensity as time went on. For one of the main sources from which England received Christianity was the Roman Church, and that Church, the successor of the Roman Empire and deeply imbued with its tradition, has always, and with increasing persistency, endeavoured to establish throughout Christendom a system of ecclesiastical internationalism, highly centralised and carefully organised, just as the Roman Empire was. The mutual reactions of these two forces of nationalism and internationalism, their conflicts and adjustments, form one of the main themes of the opening chapters of the history of Anglicanism,

L2

Augustine, on his arrival in England, did not find the island wholly heathen. Its original British inhabitants, dispossessed by their Saxon invaders, and driven into the fastnesses of the west, retained the Christian beliefs of their forefathers. He quickly got into communication with their bishops, and tried to persuade them to accept the supremacy, and conform to the customs, of the Roman See. His efforts were, however, unavailing. Traditional feeling, intensified by racial antipathy and the bitter memories of recent wrongs, interposed an insurmountable obstacle to successful negotiation. Henceforth he and his immediate successors devoted themselves to the difficult and dangerous task of subduing the fierce Saxons of the Southern Kingdoms to the allegiance of Christ.

Meanwhile a Christian current had entered northern England from a different source. The monks of Iona, the spiritual offspring of the ancient and distinguished Irish Church, zealous, devoted, and often learned men, carried the Gospel message into Northumbria and the surrounding regions, and made numerous converts there. These rendered formal

T3 deference to the Roman See, but did not recognise its authority in any effective manner. Moreover, their ecclesiastical system differed materially from that of the southern Christians, being organised on monastic rather than diocesan lines. Soon the two currents met and began to intermingle, and the question became an acute one which should absorb the other. This was finally settled at the Council of Whitby, in favour of the Roman Christians.

The ostensible reasons for this decision may seem to us trivial and even irrelevant, but there can be no doubt that the decision itself was in the direction of progress. Unity and organisation were necessary conditions of the success of the Christian propaganda, and in these respects the Roman system was much superior to that of the Scotch. The way was thus opened for a complete overhauling of the whole ecclesiastical apparatus, and this task, a little later on, was undertaken by Archbishop Theodore, and carried through by him with notable success. By securing the effective recognition of the Primacy of Canterbury, by the subdivision of the existing dioceses into sees of manageable size, by the institution of synodical action, by the correction of abuses and the establishment of active centres of education, he reorganised the Church on a permanent and workable basis.

He thus rendered an invaluable service to the English people as a whole. They were at the time broken up into a number of independent kingdoms, whose _ internecine jealousies and quarrels stayed the advance of civilised progress. It was a great step forward when those of them who were Christian, and gradually all of them were Christianised, became connected with each other in the membership of an organisation which overstepped provincial boundaries, and was to some extent independent of provincial jealousies and claims. The example thus given proved fruitful. It is not too much to say that it provided one of the most powerful influences which made for the welding of the English people into a single commonwealth. The English Church can claim to be the parent of the English State. Ecclesiastical unity showed the way to national unity.

I5

Ecclesiastical organisation provided useful guidance in the process of political organisation.

It is to be noticed that though Theodore received his original commission from Rome, his work of reorganisation and reform depended little upon external support. He carried it through by the force of his own powerful personality, and very largely through the instrumentality of native-born agents. Its inception and original inspiration came from the outside, but it was in itself of native growth. The Church of England, which came into being under his auspices, owed something to international influences, but it was in essential texture a national Church, intertwined with the life of the people to whom it ministered, sharing their outlook, imbued with their traditions, embarrassed by their faults, chiefly preoccupied with their affairs. So it remained during the Saxon period: loyal to the Roman allegiance, but only slightly affected by Roman influence. Intercourse with Rome was difficult, intermittent, and seldom intimate. Recorded instances of direct interference from Rome with its internal affairs are few and far between. The national aspect of its life seems to have been predominant during this period, the international aspect comparatively subordinate.

The coming of the Normans wrought a considerable change in this respect. The Norman ecclesiastics who took charge of the different dioceses had been brought up in the atmosphere of Continental Catholicism, and were deeply imbued with its spirit. Many of them were men of great devotion and energy and ability and learning, under whose auspices notable reforms were effected and notable _ improvements made, in organisation and discipline. The old somewhat sluggish, and not always reputable, Anglo-Saxon ways were replaced by activities of a far more cultured and comprehensive character. These, to a Jarge extent, emanated from Rome, and tended to strengthen the Roman connection and influence. The Papacy thus became a much more important factor in the life of the English than it had hitherto been, and a factor which on the whole made for intellectual and spiritual progress. But it never, even ny then, became a dominating factor. The old spirit of nationalism survived, and soon found new and powerful means of expression. The Norman Kings, almost at once, found themselves confronted by an external authority which challenged their own, and which, if acknowledged, would seriously limit their prerogatives and power. Hence ensued a struggle which maintained itself for nearly five centuries. Broadly speaking, the fortunes in this struggle varied with the respective personalities of Pope and King. A strong Pope, dealing with a weak or embarrassed King, could enforce his authority effectively, and invest his agents with no small measure of administrative and disciplinary power. A strong King, dealing with a weak or embarrassed Pope, could assert and maintain a position of virtual independence, could prevent Papal emissaries from entering the country, could veto Papal appointments, could forbid appeals to the Papal courts, could refuse to allow the customary fees and tributes to be paid into the Papal treasury.

It is important to notice that in acting thus the English Kings regarded themselves, and were regarded by their subjects, as exercising legitimate rights. This is sufficiently proved by the fact that their repudiations of Papal authority were on a number of occasions invested with the sanction of statutory authority. Thus we find, in 27 Edward III, the King described as “ ordinarius supremus,”’ and a later Act of the same reign declares that ‘‘ Kings anointed with the holy oil are capable of spiritual jurisdiction.’”? An Act of 2 Henry IV lays down that the Archbishops and Bishops are ‘“ Regis judices spirituales ’’—“‘ the King’s spiritual judges,” and that Papal collectors have no jurisdiction in England. In 2 Richard III it is affirmed that the excommunications and judgments of the Roman pontiff have no force in England. Or, once again, in 10 Henry VII fol. 18 we find a striking statement of the same principle —‘“ Rex est persona mixta cum sacerdote, quia tam ecclesiasticam quam temporalem habet jurisdictionem.”’ The contention that the doctrine of the Royal Supremacy was invented by Henry VIII will not bear historical investigation. His manner of applying that doctrine was in some _ respects unprecedented, but the main principle involved in it had been asserted and applied by several of his predecessors.

Popular sentiment sometimes favoured one side, sometimes the other. Sometimes it supported the King in his opposition to Papal ageression and the abuses which often accompanied it. Sometimes it supported the Pope, or his representatives, as protagonists in the battle against Royal tyranny and oppression. But, as time went on, the body of opinion favourable to the King tended to strengthen itself, at the expense of that favourable to the Pope. For, as time went on, racial distinctions gradually disappeared. Normans and Saxons and Celts intermixed and intermarried, and from their unions emerged a people which, notwithstanding their varied ancestry, or perhaps partly because of it, became more and more conscious of their national distinctiveness, more and more proud of it, and more and more disposed to resent any foreign influence which interfered with its maintenance, or impeded the freedom of its development.

It was thus that the English people, as history has since known them, came into being. A proud, self-contained, selfconfident, self-reliant people, destined to play a leading and forceful part in the world’s drama. The Medieval Papacy made valuable contributions to their early nurture and training. It broadened their outlook, it enriched their thought, it stimulated their intellectual and artistic interests, it brought home to them the importance of ordered discipline and authoritative law, it established channels of intercourse between them and the chief centres of Continental culture. By the very opposition which it aroused it enhanced their love of liberty and their determination to maintain it. But as the medizeval period neared its close they began to be aware that they had outgrown its tutelage, and to resent with increasing vehemence the assertion of its authority, all the more vehemently because of the gross and sordid dealings which this authority not seldom cloaked.

This tendency, as it gathered strength, made for an open breach with Rome, when circumstances became favourable and fitting opportunity occurred. Both these conditions were fulfilled in the reign of Henry VIII. On the one hand the Papacy had to a large extent lost its hold on the imagination and veneration of educated Europeans. This was due partly to its own lethargy and corruption, still more, perhaps, to the pagan revival which accompanied the Renaissance movement,’ and tended seriously to weaken the foundations of Christian faith and practice. On the other hand the English monarchy had acquired a status and power greater than it had previously possessed. The practical annihilation of the old nobility in the Wars of the Roses had eliminated its most formidable rival. The new nobles were mere creatures and agents of the King, while the country gentlemen and freeholders, later on destined to make their power felt in decisive fashion, were as yet unorganised and largely inarticulate. So it came that Henry found himself in a position which enabled him to assert his personal will without serious let or hindrance from at home or abroad. His earlier attitude towards the Papacy was complacent and even cordial.

He had no sympathy with the new movement of Protestantism. He wrote against it, and was publicly thanked by the Pope for doing so. But his support of the Papacy was subject to the condition of reciprocal support, and when, in the case of his application for a divorce from his Spanish Queen, this condition was not fulfilled, he repudiated his allegiance and declared himself and his Kingdom exempt from all Papal jurisdiction and authority.

There are two aspects of this momentous event which should not pass unnoticed. In the first place it is very doubtful whether Henry himself recognised its full import, or foresaw the far-reaching consequences which were to flow from it. The evidence which is forthcoming seems to point to the conclusion that he regarded it as little more than a repetition of similar action taken again and again by his royal predecessors—the reassertion in a systematised and emphatic manner of rights and prerogatives which they had always claimed and on occasion enforced. Nor did he seem to have regarded the step he had taken as final and irrevocable. His

Zo o ancestors again and again had quarrelled with Rome, and had maintained their quarrels for considerable periods of time, but later on had resumed peaceful relationships. It is possible, or even probable, that this was the sequel to which he looked forward—a reconciliation on terms consistent with a large measure of national autonomy and _ safeguarded against invasion of these terms. Then, secondly, it is important to notice that though Henry acted on his own initiative and for his own personal ends, he apparently had the bulk of the nation behind him. The monastic orders, whose connection with Rome had always been more intimate than that of the secular clergy, were, generally speaking, opposed to his action, and, as the Pilgrimage of Grace showed, were able to command a powerful body of popular support. But, taken as a whole, both ecclesiastical and lay Opinion seems to have acquiesced in the new departure. It is significant that most of the bishops agreed with it, and that some of them took an active share in bringing it into effect. Nor can it be fairly said that their agreement was due merely to fear, or to promptings of self-interest. When, later on, it became evident that the Royal power was being used to widen the breach with Rome into one with Catholic tradition and practice, bishops like Gardiner and Tunstall, who in Henry’s reign had ranged themselves on his side, transferred their allegiance to the Papal side, and at the cost of deprivation and imprisonment opposed the ecclesiastical policy of his successor.

Before proceeding to discuss this policy it is important that we should appreciate clearly the deeper significance of Henry’s quarrel with Rome. Its ostensible occasion was not of a very creditable kind on either side. Henry may have had conscientious qualms with regard to the legitimacy of his first marriage, but they were in unholy alliance with the urgings of his sensual appetites. The Pope may have recognised his responsibility as the authoritative guardian of the Catholic marriage law, but it is more than doubtful whether he would have refused Henry’s demands had it not been for the pressure brought to bear on him by the Imperial Court.

But only a superficial student will describe the rupture which ensued in terms such as these. Much deeper forces had led up to it, much deeper issues were involved in it. It was, as has already been said, the consummation of a long continued struggle between the forces of nationalism and internationalism. Thus regarded it might seem that, from the Christian point of view, the victory of nationalism was a retrograde step. For internationalism belongs to the essential texture of the Christian movement. Some of Christ’s statements, indeed, have a nationalistic flavour, but the main trend of His teaching is profoundly international, and St. Paul, the most active and influential of His early disciples, emphasised this quality in unreserved terms. ‘‘ In Christ Jesus,” he declares, “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free.”’ There can be no doubt that his ecclesiastical ideal was that of a world society, whose membership is open to all men on equal terms, and whose claims to allegiance transcend those of race loyalty or national patriotism.

Papalism includes this ideal, and so far can claim to be in accordance with Christ’s will and design. But it has to be borne in mind that it includes also powerful and determining elements of non-Christian origin. It may be described as the offspring of a union between Roman Imperialism and Christian Catholicism, deriving from the former many of its institutions and methods, and along with them no small share of its distinctive spirit and aim. This came about by an almost inevitable process. The early Roman bishops stepped into the place left vacant by the disappearance of the Roman Emperors, and inherited what survived of their traditional prestige. Faced with a momentous task, it was natural that they should take full advantage of the status thus acquired, and that in doing so they should to some extent follow the lines, and imbibe the spirit, of their pagan predecessors. This is What actually occurred. Their organisation of the Western Church reproduced that of the Roman Empire. The Pope was before long acclaimed by the Imperial title of Pontifex Maximus, the Council of Cardinals took the place of the Senate, the Metropolitans that

2/ of the Propreetors and Proconsuls, the diocesan bishops corresponded to the Governors of subordinate provinces. The host of civil and military officials who had administered the Imperial system found their successors in the secular clergy and the members of the Monastic Orders. The status of Roman citizenship was replaced by that of Church membership, carrying with it valuable rights and privi- Jeges, but involving the obligation of unques tioning obedience to those by whom it had been conferred. The same influence can be traced at a deeper level. It affected the main trend of the Church’s life and contributed to the formation of her leading aims and customary methods. Papalism took over from Roman Imperialism its dream of world dominance, to be attained and maintained by the enforcement of authoritative law and the application of rigid and wunbending discipline.

The ecclesiastical system thus established and elaborated was of valuable advantage to the peoples who came under its sway. The reverence with which it was regarded, the zeal and ability with which it was served, its closely knit and far-flung organisation, placed it in a position from which it was able to bring powerful influence to bear in every department of life, and this influence on the whole made for peace and justice and orderly progress. Apart from the Papacy and its centralised and pervasive authority, it is difficult to see how the turbulent races of Western Europe could have emerged from the chaos and confusion which followed the break up of the Roman Empire. It was their chief bulwark against the forces of disruption and disintegration. It impressed upon them, with stringent sanctions, the fundamental lessons of respect for spiritual authority and obedience to spiritual law. So long as it served these purposes its maintenance was instinctively recognised as of indispensable importance, and was accorded the support of reverent regard.