Percy Dearmer
Percy Dearmer’s Loyalty to the Prayer Book is truly a manifesto for today’s Anglicanism. Loyalty can be read at Project Canterbury, but here I will share some highlights from Dearmer’s original tract. The select quotes are extremely relevant to both Anglican ecumenicalism and identity today as we encounter various external and internal pressures– e.g., the allure of Rome’s Apostolic Constitutions, or, perhaps contemporary “charismatic” practices that seem to further erode Anglican foundations.
Dearmer describes a problem facing turn-of-the-century England which sounds very true today– namely, an unchurched population grown ignorant to true religion. Dearmer’s typical brilliance is not apologizing for contemporary culture but fighting for catholic past. Dearmer points a ‘simple way out’. Rather than look far afield to foreign churches or embrace the dissonant forces of ‘postmodernism’, Dearmer asks anxious churchmen to take a gander at what lies under their nose– the Prayer Book. Percy’s message is straightforward. Revival is found in conformity to English church standards as laid by Anglican fathers. The intimacy of this fact is what makes our predicament so tragic,
We do not realize the extent of our failure. With everything human in our favour–learning, position, wealth, lofty traditions, the possession of the church buildings, the schools, the universities–we have gradually let our people slip away from us. Goodly was our heritage: if we had but kept what our forefathers had won for us, the whole Anglo-Saxon race would to-day be united in one Church, devotedly attached to it, and most diligent in worship as our ancestors were 1,000 years ago, as they were 400 years ago, as, indeed, a great majority still were, in spite of many losses, 200 years ago.
For Dearmer, England’s crisis is a simple failure of discipline. Without this benefit, England lost her familiarity and love for religion. Dearmer reminds the reader how the daily lectionary, regular clerical visitation of homes, catechism on sunday and holy days, plus weekly (frequent) communion are all expected by BCP conformity, giving the very instrumentation and means to deliver a people from apostasy. Dearmer seems to peg decline and waywardness from Prayer book discipline upon Hanoverian policy. Latitudinal laxity bred ignorance, but Dearmer’s anamesis is simply doing what the prayer book requires rather than ‘validating orders’ through Roman palliums, etc. (discussed further below):
The curse both of our religious and our secular life is that we do not worship Almighty God, that we are so largely hearers and not doers of the word,–hearers of sermons, hearers of ornate music; and consequently sluggish, without initiative, without devotion, without the fire of intimate love. It is, I venture to think, obvious that, to restore the genius of worship (once an instinct of our people), we must stick to the Bible and the Prayer Book, and thus restore the Eucharist–the great Evangelical Service–to its lawful place.
The prayer book says ‘the chancels shall remain as in times past’– a clarion call for England’s historical continuity. The ornament rubric indeed has a ‘sticky’ interpretive aspect. Dearmer is indeed wary of both Prayer Book fundamentalism and liturgical anarchy. Yet he realizes in order to avoid such unsavory tendencies Anglicanism itself needs definition, keeping true to her historic and unique development. Dearmer thus comprehensively defines England’s catholicism in a way most relevant and meaty for RTBP readers. Notice the inclusion of Settlment standards as properly articulating English catholicity:
The English Church happens to base herself in a special manner upon history–she appeals to the Scriptures and primitive antiquity for her theology, [* Articles VI., VIII., etc.] to the ancient Fathers for her ritual, [* The Preface Concerning the Service of the Church, Article XXIV., etc.] to Catholic tradition for her ceremonial; [* The Preface Of Ceremonies, Canon 30 (1603), Canon & (1640), etc.] she refers us to the second year of Edward VI for her ornaments, [* The Ornaments Rubric] and to the later middle ages for the arrangement of her chancels. [* “And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past.” (First inserted in 1552.)] [24/25] Her formularies, therefore, cannot be understood without a good deal of historical knowledge. Some people may object to this, and may ask–Why should they be bound by documents that are two or three hundred years old? But the fact remains that they are so bound, whether they like it or not; and that the whole intention of the Reformers, as shown from end to end of the Prayer Book, Articles, and Canons, was to bind them to principles that are nearer two thousand than two hundred years of age. Nor will they be released from this bondage to historic continuity till the same authority that imposed it shall have removed it,–which will not be for a long time to come. The attempts that have been hitherto made at throwing off this light yoke have not been so conspicuously successful in their results as to encourage us to proceed. Therefore I ask Churchmen to renounce those futile experiments of private judgment, and to throw themselves into the task of realising in its entirety that sound Catholic ideal which the defenders of the English Church preserved for us through the most troublous period of her history.
The answer for modern-day Anglicanism is the same as it was at the turn of the century. The Prayer Book provides all the means necessary to rescue ‘this Church’. Without transparent standards backed by ecclesiastic authority, Anglicanism is like a wave on the sea, going this way and that. Indeed, the road to ‘autocephalousy’ and mutual recognition between sister churches is not conversion of our priests and people to a foreign church, but conversion to our own past (which is orthodox). Dearmer cogently outlines England’s predicament which is reminiscent of today’s trouble,
If English Priests had stuck to their formularies as Romans and Easterns have to theirs, then the English Church would to-day be as marked as the Roman or the Eastern Churches are by such practices as frequent Services, fasting, the supremacy of the Eucharist, and the use of distinctive vestments for the Sacraments. Those who still fancy that obedience is insular would do well to consider seriously what alternative they have to propose. They will find that the only alternative is anarchy, under which each parson may set up his own ideas of Church order and worship; and these ideas have persistently differed, not in details only, but in essentials, from the principles of the Church Catholic. By this system; or want of system, you may have a pseudo-Romanism in one parish, a pseudo-Puritanism in another, and a decorated worldliness in another, but in few will you have Catholic worship and order. Nor will you gain the respect or trust of the rest of the Church or of the world at large… But loyalty to the Prayer Book disarms the enemies of the Church, at the same time as it restores the effectiveness of her friends. And if we set–as we should–the fortunes of the Church Universal above those of our own communion, we shall still do well to remember that the weakening of Anglicanism would remove the greatest agency which God in His providence has left in the world for the reunion of Christendom.
I am inclined to agree with Dearmer. Our best way toward a restorative Christendom is through Anglicana’s own Mother Church. This seems to be Dearmer’s thesis– conformity to the BCP as the starting point for rejuvenation?
Thank you for these selections, I have not read Dearmer’s “Loyalty” (though I suppose I should). Perhaps he addresses this, but my first question is how uniform this conformity should be? Is it to be Provincial (England, South Africa, South India, etc.) with each conformed to their own Prayer Books? Or, is there a vision of re-conforming all Anglicans under the English BCP? Or, is there a third option? He may not address it at all since he wrote from the context of England itself, but what would you say?
I chose the three provinces of England, South Africa, and South India because one is the mother church, South Africa’s most recent book has clear Vatican II RC influences while maintaining the canonical existence of the English 1662 and the South African Prayer Book 1954 as well, and South India is a ‘United’ church with Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, and even Pentecostal constituent members in addition to the Anglican.
Looks as though I’m all questions today.
Gosh, I really don’t know. It’s an interesting question, Eric. I imagine Dearmer was concerned primarily with England. However, Canterbury was more than a throne to a ‘national church’, having a certain kind of influence with Anglican communions elsewhere. For instance, why would America feel compelled to follow England’s ornament rubric?
Most likely we have no necessary argument. Rites and ceremonies are mostly treated as ‘indifferent’, each national church having liberty to determine their own. Yet the PEC’s BCP preface it says two things,
“the main body and essential parts.. have been continued firm and unshaken”… “this church is far from intending to depart from the CofE in any essential point of doctrine, worship, or discipline; or further than local circumstance should require”.
When prayer books are revised, I imagine there may be a further principle of catholicity, and I think by minimizing differences between liturgies, the American convention acknowledged the catholic ideal. My only guess is Anglican communions not linked geographical or juridicially to England at least share a common reception of faith and worship acknowledged by their founding standards. I think the very nature of an episcopate discourages innovation, and perhaps this would have been Dearmer’s attitude? Even today Canterbury remains a (weak) instrument of communion and influence, and this is, partially speaking, an acknowledgement of patrimony and mission between all Lambeth members. After all, our church sprung from a particular vine, and I think most Anglicans, even today, feel a certain ‘indebtedness’ to that church of their “first foundation”? Beyond this catholic ethos, I don’t see anything absolutely binding (with respect to ceremony) upon communions outside England proper (aka. Oversea Bishops). Read what the 1928 Preface says, “departing no further than circumstance”. That being said, the recent innovations of America deny catholicity and history altogether if not apostolic and biblical truth. Major breaches in worship and doctrine tend to scandalize the eucharistic unity of the church? So, I believe there are many compelling reasons to avoid substantive revisions despite difference in polity.
Drearmer–along with the 39 Articles–acknowledges the authority of faithful, national Churches, in the sense of the Greek “ethnos,” to adjudicate matters of ceremonial. This conception is problematic today, as it is far from certain the the Church of England constitutes faithful, national Church anymore.
I strongly suspect, that Dearmer would advise us to stand by the English Religious Settlement, which includes the Ornaments Rubric and the Book of Common Prayer. Moreover, I believe he would further specify the use of the last traditional edition of the BCP from each locality. Hence, the 1928 U.S., the 1928 English, the 1962 Canadian, etc.
Yes, Death, I agree. How else to we avoid private judgment aside from turning to custom and patrimony? When questions arise regarding those things not explicit in the Prayer Book, we have a number of places to look (not exhaustive):
1. prior canons. Despite juridical differences, a common law of canon has emerged even amongst Anglicans. It is good to keep it as coherent as possible, following catholic principle. Canon or Crown supremacy (oath) were once one of three articles all public ministers subscribed until recent times. In the 1928 PEC-USA’s Offices of Institution the “Bible, Books of Canons, and Prayer Book” are especially mentioned whereupon the priest receives them as his “rule of conduct” for faith, order, and worship in the church or chapel.
2. a basic hermeneutic– unless prohibited or expressly altered, we assume the practice carries forward. However, the crime of advance ritualists was using the Ornament Rubrik to overthrow both established Canon and Articles. This is simply dishonest, and liturgical practices ought to measure up to other formulas– not undermine or destablize.
3. Canons, Articles, and Prayer Book were intended to work together in an interlocking fashion to mutual define boundaries of praxis and confession. We have spent two centuries eking out and exploiting ‘ambiguities’ rather than understanding and assisting their intended harmony. Perhaps someday a new effort will arise to understand the three in cooperation rather than at odds. The tragedy of party factions were pitting standards against each other– and for liberals pitting scripture against catholicity.
When communions stray from these standards and methods, one might ask, “why”? Dearmer suggest a link in the liturgical chain was snapped, and the way to restore it is not to “cut corners” but maintain honesty and obedience to commonly agreed upon standards and therefore transparency.
At the time of the English Religious Settlement, we must recall that a large portion of the laity were calvinistic Puritans and, therefore, received the Settlement conditionally, partially, or not at all. After a series of events, marking high points in the struggle between the Churchmen and Puritans the Restoration seemed to mark a real and finally reception of the Settlement. But, alas, the pot was further stirred by the so-called Glorious Revolution.
Following the Glorious Revolution, the English had grown weary of political and religious strife, and therefore fell into a de facto, modified view of the Settlement–one in which moderate Puritans would be fully and completely comprehended. But, this precedent of de facto comprehension made attempts to juridically prohibit the innovations of the Victorian Anglo-Catholics and the 20th-century Liberal party utterly impracticable. Hence, due to the incremental weakening of the Settlement in deference to the principle of inclusivism, the Settlement and its formularies have fallen into desuetude and remain only as historical vestiges lacking any juridical force.
In sum, this is why, in my humble opinion, an Anglican Preservation Society is so necessary. Those who are willing to tolerate other forms of Christianity outside Anglican, but not within it, need to witness to the coherence of the English Religious Settlement. Indeed, an injection of self-confidence into formulary Anglicanism could become a beacon of authenticity that could be the rallying point for revival of Anglicanism along the lines of church principles.
I believe that the portion of the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer dating from 1789 should clarify what is required in terms of both ornaments and ritual in the American Church. Unless something in the Book of Common Prayer is specifically changed to distance us from what is found in the English book of 1662, we are required – as the prayer book was part of the Constitution of the Church – to conform to the rubrics of that book and the canons which lay behind it. This was the belief of Seabury when he provided himself with a mitre and provided one for Claggert at his consecration. It was also the rationale of that early bishop of New York who traveled with a suitcase full of surplices which he dispenced to the priests and deacons of his diocese.
It was the bishops of the American Church and their effort to provide a rationale for who and what they were and believed in a country who had become fairly strongly anti-British as a result of the Revolution and the War of 1812. The method was the writing of Tracts which they took back with them to England in their trips to raise money to train clergy. Their method was adopted by Keble, Pusey and their friends to reacquaint the English with what the Bible and the prayer book actually taught about the faith of Christians.
On the other hand, I disagree with Death about the faith of the majority of the English or even a large portion of them were Calvinist or Puritans. I think no such case can be made. When Elizabeth came to the throne large portions of the kingdom had never seen either the first or second prayer books. Calvinism was largely confined to those who came back from Zurich and Geneva and the rising merchantile class in London and other cities. They had seen how the government and the aristocrats had looted the Church under Henry and more so under Edward VI and they wanted what they probably considered as their share. They are the ones who funded the Puritan preachers who contended with foks like Jewel and later with Hooker as well as hid the secret press which produced the Marprelate tracts.
But our problem is learn what the prayer book requires and then to do it while pressing the same on our fellow churchmen. This means knowing Dearmer but even more so the works of the scholars whose work made up the publications of the Alcuin Club up through the early sixties. In particular we need to know and be ready to use the Alcuin Club’s Directory of Ceremonial, Palmer’s Saurm Psalter, Briggs and Frere’s Plainchant Psalter and the best Anglican chant psalters that we can find. The vestments we design and use should be such as match those made and used in the Western Church until the innovations made in the churches of the Roman obedience for the purpose of their innovations under the missal of Pius V and the edicts of Trent.
I stand duly admonished by the good Bishop for perhaps numerically overstating the Calvinist camp. But, the point nevertheless stands that the Puritan/Calvinist position was one of the three prevailing ecclesial parties at the time of Elizabeth I’s coronation–the other two being the Romanists and the “moderates,” which was later to become the Church or Anglican party, who simply want to go behind medieval abuses of doctrine and worship. In sum, as Settlement Anglicanism has ‘merely’ been one position in the C of E orbit–albeit the juridically and morally official one–whose stature continued to be challenged and diluted following the Restoration due to the Glorious Revolution. Thus, given de-facto English religious diversity, it is easy to understand how English Church history became subject to ideological distortion.
Dear Bishop Lee,
Are you suggesting the 1940 Hymnal is a breach of the Prayer Book? I’ve always preferred psalm-singing in public worship. What is your studied opinion on metric psalters, suitable for congregational singing, like Brady and Tate? It’s not the same as plain-chant.
My personal preference as the books in my library would show, that the daily portion of the psalter be sung and that the introits, graduals, alleluias, tracts, offretories and communions as done by Palmer also be used as they were in the Sarum use. That being said, I think that it is also important to use the best of hymns available which carry the message of the scriptural readings. Here I think I stand with St. Ambrose who would not let the heretics have the best tunes or the best songs.
We in the Continuum need to make sure we have the best of possible music because anything we hear sung we remember better than things which are merely said.
Going back to Eric’s question, it is answered by the prayer book tradition itself which says that there should be “one use.” Of course the ceremonial is going to be different by degree based upon the type of service. The fact that Cranmer immediately provided music in “The Prayer Book Noted” so that the services could be sung from the very beginning along with the rubric in Elizabeth’s book about the singing of the epistle and gospel as well as the lessons at the offices should tell us what was intended in the cathedrals, collegiate and royal chapels, and major parish churches. The real authority for Anglican services is the Alcuin Club’s Directory of Ceremonial. Certainly, the liturgical colours suggested there are probably the most important thing which should immediately be changed in most parish churches. After that, it should be remember that the Ornaments Rubric is time bound and nothing that was not in use in England in the year before the first prayer book should ever be seen on an Anglican or in one of our churches. No soutanes, birettas, fiddlebacks, cottas or lace!
Your Grace,
What, then, is best for hymnody? Congregational singing is provided for in the Henrician and Elizabethan canons. If a hymn is to be sung, wouldn’t the metered Psalter be superior to Isaac Watts or Charles Wesley? The latter are folk favorites–understood– but the former (metered psalter) is closer to the Salisbury plainchants?
Issac Watts and Charles Wesley are mostly as Orthodox as the hymns of Ambrose or the greatest of the office hymns and sequences of the middle ages. 1940 is one of the best of Hymnals but both Ancient and Modern and the English Hymnal are very good. We should preserve and use the best of them. They are certainly better than most of what is being produced currently.
Look at the hymns in the Sarum and Monastic Diurnals. Sung to their ancient plainsong tunes they are magnificent.
Incidentally, the ancient form of address for bishops is “My Lord” or “Your Lordship.” Archbishops are addressed as “Your Grace.” Both the churches of the Roman obedience and the ancient churches of the East have some greater ones, but “MY Lord” is always correct. That may seem very strange to Americans, but the Church is older than the Republic and its sense of manners more conservative.
+Lee
Death,
Are you familiar with Ussher’s The Reconstruction of the Church? It is the story of how Elizabeth and Whitgift chased down the writers and the printers of the Marprelate Tracts. It is a first rate detective story and brilliantly written.
Your Grace Lee,
I am not familiar with that custom. In the Eastern Church there are differences between the Russian and Greek titles, but in the OCA it is proper to address Bishops as “Your Grace” and Archbishops as “Your Eminence” Metropolitans are addressed as “Your Beautitude” since the OCA has no Patriarch I am not sure what his title would be. But if memory serves me well – I have never addressed a Patriarch ever – “Your Holiness” or in teh case of the Ecumenical Patriarch “Your All-holiness.”
Would you prefer the English title from henceforth?
Fr. Gregory Wassen +
Bishop Poteet,
I shall endeavor to obtain a copy of the “Marplete Mysteries.” Sounds interesting.
Father Gregory,
Having been baptized and received the chrism of the Russian Church thanks to my grandmother and only discovering Anglicanism in my middle teens, I am not quite impressed with any of it. Call me Lee for these purposes.
Death,
Reading the Marprelate Tracts is like reading Communist or Nazi propaganda, but do it if you like. To me the most interesting thing about the Puritans and their Congregationalist friends is the violence which they put into it. They really did believe that it was their destiny to force their beliefs on everyone else in a manner only much to like todays Muslim jihadists – from whom most of their ideas about Christianity are really derived. Ussher would be much more fun – if you can find copies as it is a two volume work.
Incidentally, have you ever been to England and visited any of the historical churches, particularly those associated with the early Celtic and Anglo-Saxon saints. Tomorrow is a double feast for me. First is the martyrdom of King Charles who could have saved his throne if he had been willing to become Presbyterian. And then it is also the feast of Saint Bathild who like Patrick was kidnapped and sold into slavery, but in her case her beauty and charm won her the hand of Clovis II to whom she gave three sons, all of whom became kings. When her husband died when the oldest boy was five, she became regent until he reached his majority. She halted the slave trade in Gaul, gave generosly to the poor and endowed monasteries, one of which she was consigned to as the result of a plot led by a corrupt bishop.
Dear Eric,
Here is an approved answer from the 1637 BCP regarding differences in rites between Scotland and England. Most likely the same argument belongs to South Africa, Canada, USA, etc.. This selection is from the 1637 BCP Preface,
“
Awesome, thanks for posting that.