'As for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you' (I Sam 23:12)

Monday July 14th marks the 175th anniversary of the Assize sermon preached by John Keble in Oxford's university church, St. Mary's, on Sunday July 14th 1833.  It was this sermon that was to act as a catalyst for what was to follow, as John Henry Newman was to remark in his ‘Apologia’;  I  have ever considered and kept the day as the start of the religious movement of 1833.   That  movement  that  we  have  come  to  know  as  the  Oxford  or  Tractarian  movement.   Keble's theme was ‘National Apostasy’, based on a passage from the first book of Samuel, chapter 23 in which Samuel is critical of what he sees as Israel's rejection of Yahweh's kingship in favour of the earthly rule of King Saul - Samuel alerts Israel of the consequences of what he sees as their APOSTASY- their abandonment of their faith, at the same time, for his part, he assures Israel of his continued prayer, an assurance contained in the verse Keble takes as his introductory text.

What had set Keble off to lay such a charge against his own nation? The cause was the new Whig Government's ‘Irish Temporalities Bill’ - essentially a move by the Government to abolish ten Irish bishoprics - a proposal condemned from within the church by those who believed that the government of the day had no right to interfere in the governance of the Church.

Keble's sermon can be seen, in essence, as a vindication of the privileges of the Church of England, a church which seemed to be under threat from the government of the day; a government which in the words of  Dean  Church, ‘was prepared to invade the rights and alter the constitution (and even the public documents) of the Church.’  A degree of high handed liberty taking - this attempt to interfere with that finely tuned relationship which had existed between Church and State from the time of the 16th century Elizabethan settlement.

For Keble; ‘a nation that had for centuries acknowledged as an essential part of its theory of government that it was a Christian nation....part of Christ's church.. bound in all her legislation and policy by the fundamental rules of  that church..’  To act in the way the Government was acting - to cast aside such rules because of ‘a fashionable Liberality’ - could only be considered as nothing short of APOSTASY - was this 'too hard a word' he asks, to describe the ‘temper of the nation?’  For Keble an attack on the Bishoprics was an attack on Church ORDER and where order was attacked, Keble considered that faith was at stake!

Keble saw the government's action as  ‘a direct disavowal of the sovereignty of God ,’ just like Israel in Samuel's day!  It might be the case that the Irish reform was necessary - many people in Ireland were not members of the Church of England, in fact they were Roman Catholics - they didn't give a fig for the C of E's formularies or claims to divine authority - there were just too many Irish bishoprics!

For Keble and other high churchmen this was irrelevant - by divine law and by right of uninterrupted succession the Church of England was the Apostolic Church of Christ in England and Ireland and to be deprived of her worldly goods, the bishoprics, was as Pusey explained ;  ‘an act of sacrilege, not justified by any argument of expediency.’

Looking back 175 years we can see the sermon as a kind of signal, a call to action - what in fact began was to be a revolt against the liberal ethos which had come to dominate not just the state but the Church as well.  This wasn't just the forces of conservatism rallying against a forward looking church, rather one could see what was happening as;  ‘less a conservative force than a reactionary one, an Anglican counter-reformation.’ (William Davage-present librarian - Pusey House)

Certainly Keble and others went about their work with a reforming zeal - fired up with the idea of bringing the church back to an understanding of what the Church was, her true nature, and what the Church believed in. Keble was joined by among others Newman, Pusey, Froude, Rose, Palmer in this new religious movement. The Tracts for the Times were to become the movement's mouthpiece at a time when it was very common to communicate ideas in this way.

‘What was the Church?’ this was the nature of the question Newman asked in the first Tract, published anonymously ( September  9th)  in the form of a letter addressed ‘Ad Clerum'- to the Clergy.’  ‘On what grounds do you stand O presbyter of the Church of England’  The tract was to be the movement's trumpet call to battle - ‘the times are very evil yet no one speaks against them’ - upon what can the Church of England's authority be based once the props of state are removed, asks Newman? For him the answer is simple; ‘the real ground on which our authority is built is our apostolic descent’ ‘We have been born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh...but of God...the Lord Jesus Christ gave his spirit to his apostles, they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them... and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present bishops.’

Then as now this is at the very heart of the matter - the General Synod's deliberations about women bishops brings this matter sharply into focus. Then as now the apostolic ministry is central and essential to any claim the Church of England may have to be part of the ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that we proclaim in the CREED - we tamper with that apostolic ministry to our peril ! Once we interfere with the apostolic ministry, we threaten church order -  interfering with or changing the nature of the apostolic ministry threatens the sacramental life of the Church and so our very salvation which we base on the grace that flows from the sacraments. If we can not guarantee our sacraments where does that leave us? If we so change the nature of the Apostolic ministry by ordaining women as bishops, what of the priests they ordain, will they be priests? What of the sacraments they celebrate, what of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated by such a priest, woman or man?  If the catholicity of the church, if catholic order, means nothing to the proponents of the ordination of women to the episcopacy, then such arguments are, of course, a total irrelevance.  They don't want to listen and would rather go on about discrimination and rights!

Today the heart of the matter is the same as 175 years ago - Is the Church of England part of the Catholic Church or is she something completely different - a mere protestant sect!  This was the question that taxed us when I was an enthusiastic young ordinand at theological college and I suppose continuing to ask the question, even if one can not be quite so sure of the answer, is the lasting legacy of the Oxford movement of which Keble's sermon marked the beginning.  The Oxford Movement was very sure of the answer and its founders called on the Church of England to regain a fully catholic understanding of herself.

If indeed the Church of England was part of the catholic church and wished to be considered as such, then Newman says to the clergy;  ‘we are to take care we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all - and that WE SHALL DO  if  we  follow  UNIVERSALITY,  ANTIQUITY and  CONSENT.’  In other words if we claim to be part of the One holy, catholic and apostolic church we must be bound by the faith of that church and the tradition we have received!

The question of women bishops in the Church of England, and their arrival now seems a foregone conclusion, is a question / decision the Church of England has no right to answer / make on her own. What authority does she claim to make such a change to what we have received as part of an apostolic tradition that forms the very foundation of the Church? The General synod - a body that mimics all the worse elements of parliamentary government.  Synod's claim to have autonomy in such matters, matters of faith and order, is a claim too far - its claim is novel and its decisions can only be self authenticating even if it does claim to make such decisions on behalf of all members of the Church of England. As with the decision to ordain women as priests, it is claiming an authority that had not been claimed elsewhere before. faithful in what are difficult times for the Church of England? Facing up to that whole liberal agenda tackled at the recent Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem held in June; the same agenda that will have to be faced at the Lambeth Conference at the end of July.

Keble draws attention to Samuel's example in his response to the people of Israel's apostasy.  He describes Samuel's response as a  ‘combination of sweetness with firmness, of consideration with energy’, for as Keble points out Samuel  ‘does not forsake their service, he continues discharging all his functions with a true and loyal, though MOST HEAVY HEART.’ Above all Samuel never ceases to pray and Keble urges the Church to do likewise - perhaps this helps us to understand why the 175th anniversary of the assize sermon and the beginning of the Oxford movement is being marked quietly with an international Hour of Prayer uniting anglo-catholics around the world - rather than some big gathering in Oxford or London!

‘No despiteful message,’ he says, ‘no persecution, could warrant her (the church) ceasing to pray.’  Keble is urging the faithful, then as now, NOT TO GIVE UP, NOT TO GIVE IN, however hard that may seem  ‘the constant certainty of final success,’ he says, ‘should be an effective bar when we see oppression and wrong triumph on a large scale.’  ‘The surest way’ insists Keble , ‘to uphold ... our endangered Church, will be for each of her anxious children.. to resign himself (herself) more thoroughly to his God and Saviour in their duties...which are not effected by the emergencies of the moment....... I mean piety, purity, charity and justice.’  'It is in his (our) power, by doing all as a Christian, to credit and advance the cause he has most at heart, and what is more, to draw down God's blessing on it.' For Keble in times of change and ‘excitement’ the chief danger is to neglect our devotional duties. In conclusion says Keble, and this applies equally well to the situation we find ourselves in now; ‘No one can devote himself too entirely to the cause of the Apostolical Church in these realms’ — there may be for such a person, he says, ‘very few who sympathize with him..... he may have to wait long, and very likely pass out of this world before he sees any abatement in the triumph of disorder and irreligion,’ BUT if such a person is consistent he can be 'calmly, soberly, demonstrably sure that sooner or later..... HIS   WILL  BE  THE   WINNING  SIDE  AND  THAT  THE  VICTORY  WILL  BE  COMPLETE, UNIVERSAL, ETERNAL.'