Drury on English Nonconformity [info in brackets is mine]
From English Church Teaching on Faith, Life and Order, by R. B. Girdlestone, H. C. G. Moule, and T. W. Drury, (London: Charles Murray, 1897).
We have seen that foreign Protestants [Luther, Geneva, etc.] were generally unwilling to surrender the Episcopal succession, but that they had to choose between errors of doctrine [in the Roman Church] and irregularity of order. They chose, and rightly, the latter alternative. Our position towards them seems clear. We hold, as Ussher, Laud, and Cosin held, that they are true parts of the visible Church, though their Orders, judged from our standpoint, are lacking in regularity. But there are no grounds for asserting that such want of regularity impairs validity.
The position of English Nonconformists [Presbyterian and Congregational Puritans] is slightly different. It cannot be said with any truth that they were placed on the same horns of a dilemma as their continental brethren. They have seceded not from the corrupt Church of Rome, but from the reformed and Protestant Church of England. They surrendered the historic succession of Bishops mainly on account of differences in ritual and discipline.
English Nonconformity dates from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. At that time the Bishops and leaders of our Church were in favour of advanced reform, and held what may be termed the views of moderate Calvinism. They had chosen the most reformed of all our Prayer-Books (1552 A.D.) as the basis of their revised book, and the XXXIX Articles and Second Book of Homilies [see our website for the Homilies], together with the works of Jewel and Hooker, are a witness to their purity of doctrine, and adherence to the authority of Holy Scripture.
We do not state this in order to condemn, but, in common candour to point out that the cases of English and Continental Nonconformists are not wholly parallel. That many, if not most of those who seceded in Elizabeth’s reign, did so in the true exercise of conscientious scruples we do not doubt, but it was on matters which were at least infinitely less important than those which drove Continental Protestants to separate from Rome.
The next great secession took place at the restoration of Charles II. The narrow and unhappy influence of Laud, together with the reaction from the subsequent bigotry and intolerance of the Commonwealth, had led to a serious divergence. Neither side was free from blame. The Bishops on one side were unwilling to make generous concessions in their hour of triumph. Baxter and his followers on the other, raised objections, many of which were vexatious, trivial, and absurd. The expulsion of the Puritan ministers on St. Bartholomew’s day was terribly and needlessly severe. To insist on Episcopal ordination for the future was right and necessary. But what for a century had been regarded on at least non-essential might well have been allowed “for the present necessity,” till the old order of things died a natural death.
It was not so to be, and though later attempts were made to remedy the mistake [in 1689], they came too late, and the temper of the times would not allow any further change.
We need not trace the course of secession any further. Enough has been said to show that the question is one of serious difficulty. “Prima facie it is clearly wrong and schismatical,” says Dr. Wace, “for a portion of the members of any Church to separate from its communion: nothing but the corruption of a Church in fundamental points can justify such a course, or relieve it from the charge of schism. It may be, as Canon Gore himself admits, that the Church herself has been in fault, and so far her action should be forebearing. But ministers of such communions are in a very different position from the ministers of foreign communions.” (pp. 197-199)
Later, when discussing the hope of reunion, Drury writes:
Thirdly, it must not be forgotten that a great part of our English Nonconformists have not personally separated themselves from the Church of England, but are adhering to that form of Christianity which they received from their forefathers, and in which many of them have found the truest spiritual blessing. Hereditary descent has to be reckoned with, and the successors of the original Independents, Wesleyans, and Baptists have traditions which they prize very highly, and which we do well not to despise or ignore. (p. 200)
From English Church Teaching on Faith, Life and Order, by R. B. Girdlestone, H. C. G. Moule, and T. W. Drury, (London: Charles Murray, 1897).
We have seen that foreign Protestants [Luther, Geneva, etc.] were generally unwilling to surrender the Episcopal succession, but that they had to choose between errors of doctrine [in the Roman Church] and irregularity of order. They chose, and rightly, the latter alternative. Our position towards them seems clear. We hold, as Ussher, Laud, and Cosin held, that they are true parts of the visible Church, though their Orders, judged from our standpoint, are lacking in regularity. But there are no grounds for asserting that such want of regularity impairs validity.
The position of English Nonconformists [Presbyterian and Congregational Puritans] is slightly different. It cannot be said with any truth that they were placed on the same horns of a dilemma as their continental brethren. They have seceded not from the corrupt Church of Rome, but from the reformed and Protestant Church of England. They surrendered the historic succession of Bishops mainly on account of differences in ritual and discipline.
English Nonconformity dates from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. At that time the Bishops and leaders of our Church were in favour of advanced reform, and held what may be termed the views of moderate Calvinism. They had chosen the most reformed of all our Prayer-Books (1552 A.D.) as the basis of their revised book, and the XXXIX Articles and Second Book of Homilies [see our website for the Homilies], together with the works of Jewel and Hooker, are a witness to their purity of doctrine, and adherence to the authority of Holy Scripture.
We do not state this in order to condemn, but, in common candour to point out that the cases of English and Continental Nonconformists are not wholly parallel. That many, if not most of those who seceded in Elizabeth’s reign, did so in the true exercise of conscientious scruples we do not doubt, but it was on matters which were at least infinitely less important than those which drove Continental Protestants to separate from Rome.
The next great secession took place at the restoration of Charles II. The narrow and unhappy influence of Laud, together with the reaction from the subsequent bigotry and intolerance of the Commonwealth, had led to a serious divergence. Neither side was free from blame. The Bishops on one side were unwilling to make generous concessions in their hour of triumph. Baxter and his followers on the other, raised objections, many of which were vexatious, trivial, and absurd. The expulsion of the Puritan ministers on St. Bartholomew’s day was terribly and needlessly severe. To insist on Episcopal ordination for the future was right and necessary. But what for a century had been regarded on at least non-essential might well have been allowed “for the present necessity,” till the old order of things died a natural death.
It was not so to be, and though later attempts were made to remedy the mistake [in 1689], they came too late, and the temper of the times would not allow any further change.
We need not trace the course of secession any further. Enough has been said to show that the question is one of serious difficulty. “Prima facie it is clearly wrong and schismatical,” says Dr. Wace, “for a portion of the members of any Church to separate from its communion: nothing but the corruption of a Church in fundamental points can justify such a course, or relieve it from the charge of schism. It may be, as Canon Gore himself admits, that the Church herself has been in fault, and so far her action should be forebearing. But ministers of such communions are in a very different position from the ministers of foreign communions.” (pp. 197-199)
Later, when discussing the hope of reunion, Drury writes:
Thirdly, it must not be forgotten that a great part of our English Nonconformists have not personally separated themselves from the Church of England, but are adhering to that form of Christianity which they received from their forefathers, and in which many of them have found the truest spiritual blessing. Hereditary descent has to be reckoned with, and the successors of the original Independents, Wesleyans, and Baptists have traditions which they prize very highly, and which we do well not to despise or ignore. (p. 200)
Comments