From: Jacobites and Nonjurors: Complexity and Contention.
It was by no means clear that either party in the usager controversy actually desired the pretender to intervene. Yet, from the Jacobite perspective, preference for the non-usagers was both an easy and a natural decision (14). First and most practically, the Bishops of the non-usager persuasion were much more ardent Jacobite’s than were the usagers. Second, those in the South Carolina settlement worried that the usagers would drift too far away from the national church, thereby making it more difficult to bring the clergy of South Carolina into the nonjuring fold. Finally, James hoped to rule over England and England's church, which meant defending its rites. Thus, James wrote a letter to the Nonjurors on the Controversy over Usages. In this document, James makes it abundantly clear that his preference was for both the English and North American churches to avoid any alterations to the 1662... James' letter was received warmly by Bedford, Leslie and the other non-usagers, who used it as an argument in support of their position. Unsurprisingly, Collier had a different view...
From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.
Jeremy Collier had, by 1719, essentially lost all interest in a Jacobite restoration. And so he cavalierly dismissed James' argument as "the opinion of one papist layman living in France, and with no authority over our church". The non-usagers pounced on this declaration, accusing Collier of abandoning the very monarchs on whose behalf the nonjurors had left the Church of England in the first place. Yet the greatest impact of the king's pronouncement came in South Carolina, where the second settlement's clergy, led by Bishop Ralph Taylor, followed their king's desire and declared themselves to be non-usagers. From the perspective of the English party, this substantially weakened Collier's argument. For, while the thirty-nine articles did make provision for the church in every land to adopt its own liturgies as it deemed best—an argument Collier deployed in support of his North American prayer book—the nonjurors of England counter-claimed that Collier's party could no longer claim the support of their full communion in North America...
From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.
Collier would fire back against the South Carolina nonjurors in what would prove his most polemical work. To distinguish his Pennsylvania church from that of South Carolina, he impugned the second settlement as "a den of slavers and men whose principles are more Jacobite than nonjuror". Drawing heavily on Ken's homily against slavery, as well as the writings of Leslie and the recent pamphlet Natural Man and Unnatural Society, he made several clear demarcations in principle between what he described as "two provinces entirely distinct in outlook". In so doing, Collier criticized "the implicit subordinationism" of both natural slavery and natural divine right as constructed by these authors, and reasserted the vision of church, state and society he had argued against Hoadley (15)...
From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.
While the usager controversy divided the nonjurors, they had sent a proposal for concordat with the Eastern Orthodox, an effort directed by Bishop Campbell. Among their proposals was the adoption of the 1549 communion liturgy. Now, however, Campbell worried that the non-usagers would put this concordat in jeopardy, at a time when they were still awaiting a response. Campbell seems to have written to Collier around this time, inviting the North American usagers to continue the correspondence, alongside Campbell himself, and John Gadderer, another Scottish usager Bishop. Collier responded favorably but cautiously, affirming his interest in "all ventures that might lead to the reunion of God's church" (16). Through some means, a copy of this letter came into the hands of Leslie, and on this basis, he made the argument that Collier was attempting to set up a schismatic body in Great Britain, in conjunction with "a few wild Scots and on the hope of protection from the bigoted Greeks". Combined with the non-usager position in South Carolina, this led Bedford to move to a more uncompromising position. In a letter dated February 1719, he informed Collier that any attempt to move forward with the new prayer book would place the Pennsylvanians out of communion with the rest of their nonjuring fellows... To the Pennsylvanians, and even those abroad, such as Wagstaffe, this was seen as high-handed in the extreme, particularly given Collier's "clear seniority to Bishop Bedford, both in his episcopal consecration and the length of his primacy"...
From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.
Collier called yet another clergy gathering, this one to be held at Glastonbury. At this historic gathering, he found that feeling was very much in favor of proceeding with the prayer book, and against the high-handed actions of their English compatriots. In the words of Thomas Deacon: "It is not right that the restoration of wholesome practices from the primitive church should be prevented by a church beholden to a Catholic king, and ever accommodating to a noxious puritanical spirit." Letters of support were also read from Thomas Wagstaffe, Ambrose Bonwicke the younger, Archibald Campbell, and John Gadderer. Bishop Talbot, and some of the clergy from lower Delaware, objected, not only because of their desire to maintain communion with their English comrades, but also because many of their congregants owned slaves, and so rejected many of Collier's assertions regarding their congregation (17). In the end, these southern Delaware nonjurors left Glastonbury, refusing to sign on to the new prayer book. Nevertheless, more than nine tenths of the clergy, representing all but five congregations of the Pennsylvania nonjurors, supported Collier's intent to introduce the new prayer book in 1720...
From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.
Talbot approached James Blair, Bishop of Virginia, late in 1719, about the possibility of realigning the southern Delaware congregations he had planted under the latter's authority. Blair readily agreed, and Talbot's ordination and episcopal consecration were provisionally recognized. In 1720, the convocation would vote to uphold Blair's actions, thereby acknowledging the validity of nonjuror orders de facto. In the fullness of time, this decision, based on the exigencies of the colonial shortage of Bishops and clergy, would have a dramatic impact on the English nonjurors... at the same time, receiving Collier's letter declaring his intent to proceed with the new prayer book, co-signed by most of his Bishops and clergy, Bedford and his own usager Bishops formally voted to excommunicate the Pennsylvanians, along with Campbell, Gadderer and Wagstaffe. Yet, some of the English and Scottish nonjurors, particularly some of the younger members of that community, found themselves in sympathy with the non-usagers, and so they followed Campbell and Gadderer out of the non-usager nonjuring communion. Among these was the Scotsman John Griffin, who sailed to Pennsylvania late in 1720. Griffin's task was both to obtain copies of the new prayer book, and to be ordained a Bishop, so that the non-usagers would have the canonical three Bishops in Britain...
From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.
The first prayer book, known ever after as the 1720 book or simply the 1720 in Primitive Catholic circles, was the most similar to the 1662 of all their efforts. The changes in this first prayer book essentially consisted of a restoration of the usager language directly from the 1549 liturgy. Many of its liturgical reforms would be expanded and, in the view of the church, perfected by the somewhat better known 1727 prayer book, which would incorporate the liturgical and archaeological-historical discoveries of Wagstaffe, and his extended mission to the east... Still, there were some significant changes in the 39 articles of religion. Article 21, on the authority of councils, was replaced entirely, with the new text reading:
"The Holy Ghost assisteth the Church in judging rightly concerning matters of faith, whereupon both general and particular orthodox councils, convened after the example of the first council of Jerusalem, may reasonably expect that assistance in their resolutions. Nevertheless, we allow them not the same authority as is due to the sacred text of scripture, and where they have added doctrines and practices not plainly supported by apostolic teaching, they may be dispensed with by the governors of the Church where charity or necessity require." (18).
Likewise, Article 37, on the authority of civil magistrates, was reformed to address "the relations of powers temporal and spiritual" as follows:
"Christ alone is the head of the Church, which title ought not therefore to be assumed by any one, much less by any secular power, how great soever, and that Bishops under him have a vicarious headship, as his proper representatives and vicegerents, being thence subject in spirituals to no temporal power on earth. The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted. Yet this civil authority hath not the right of control over Christ's church. Therefore, the independency of the Church in spirituals upon all lay powers is recognized, and consequently, all lay deprivations, of Bishops in particular, are abhorrent to the right ordering of the church as handed down from the Apostles." (19).
Finally, article 28, on the Eucharist, was removed and replaced with:
"The Holy Eucharist is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a perfect mystery, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, upon the elements, whereby the faithful do verily and indeed receive the body and blood of Christ, they believe it yet to be after a manner, which flesh and blood cannot conceive; and there being no sufficient ground from Scripture or tradition to determine the manner of it, but only Christ's sure and efficacious promise that his body and blood are really and truly present therein, the manner of this presence shall be left indefinite and undetermined: so that everyone may freely, according to Christ's own institution and meaning, receive the same in faith, and also worship Christ in spirit, as verily and indeed present, without being obliged to worship the Sacred symbols of his presence." (20).
All of these revisions to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion would be upheld in the 1727, along with the removal of the article on use of the homilies (21). Yet, for many, the most important contribution of the 1720 came in none of these fine-grained distinctions of liturgy and theology, but rather in the book's official title: "The prayer book of the Primitive Catholic Church in North America". It was from this prayer book, then, that the name by which the church would forever after be known was taken...
From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of the five churches.
No sooner did Griffin return from North America with the new prayer book, than a response to the initial concordate proposal from the Eastern Orthodox was received along with the person of Thomas Wagstaffe, its courier. Though Campbell attempted to put a good face on it, Collier, when he received it, was "almost entirely despondent", according to a letter he wrote to Cook and Fothergill, his two episcopal colleagues. The nonjurors' proposal had been quite detailed and specific, both in terms of points they were willing to yield and points on which there were substantive disagreements. Doubtless, they hoped for some spirit of compromise among the eastern patriarchs, particularly on the issue of images and trans-substantiation. Yet, they were to be disappointed, for the response of the East was essentially an inflexible restatement of their own positions (22). Collier was initially inclined not to respond further, and "rather to focus on the needs of our communion here" (23). Yet, at Campbell's urging, he determined to send men to England to work with the three Scottish Bishops on a response. Thomas Brett, after being consecrated by Collier, Cook and Fothergill, was dispatched to England. There, he was instructed to meet with the Swedish embassy and, if he was willing, with Wagstaffe; to assist the Scots in consecrating the latter a Bishop; and to perhaps entreat the three younger men to travel to Russia, along with their response, in the hope of stirring the Tsar to a more direct aid for their cause. Thus dispatched, Brett would arrive in England late in 1720, whereupon he, Campbell and Gadderer participated in the consecration of Wagstaffe the younger...
From: Jerusalem's Role in the English Protestant Imagination: From Puritans to Primitive Catholics. By Isaac Harris. Review of Church History vol. 92, issue 8, summer 2006.
The initial concordate proposal from the nonjurors accorded the primacy to Jerusalem, out of all the ancient thrones of the patriarchs, though this primacy was considered a primacy of honor only (24). This was entirely consistent with the Anglo-Protestant emphasis on scripture, with the legend of an ancient mission from the Jerusalem church to the druids of Glastonbury, and with the fact that the Bishop of Thebais, Arsenius, was under the authority of that patriarch... the nonjurors certainly seem to have under-estimated the degree to which the order of the patriarchal thrones established among the Eastern Orthodox was seen as fix and immutable (25). Thus, Campbell, Gadderer and Griffin were disposed to drop this section of the concordate proposal entirely. Yet, the American Bishops were less certain. Leading the charge, in this respect, was Fothergill, the antiquarian, who wrote a brief but instructive pamphlet entitled Beginning From Jerusalem: Or, The Primacy of the Church of the Holy City Defended. Fothergill's argument draws heavily from Acts and the Pauline epistles, as well as the history of Eusebius and other early church authorities, to argue for the primacy of the Jerusalem church in earliest times; its early adoption of the monarchical office of Bishop (26); that, if Jerusalem was not considered the first church, because of the destruction of the Jewish church during Bar-Kochba's rebellion, then the next eldest church was clearly Antioch, which also had a long tradition of monarchical Bishops (27); and that patriarchates like Moscow and Constantinople were given equal footing with the truly ancient sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria only by courtesy and due to political exigency (28). Beginning From Jerusalem was not officially adopted as doctrine by Collier, yet it would play a formative role in the ecclesiology of the Primitive Catholic Church, and the special place Jerusalem still holds in its life and thought...
Notes:
14. Such an easy decision, in fact, that he made the same one IOTL, with even less necessity for it. In fact, one of the best arguments that the nonjurors were more than Jacobite’s in clerical garb is just how many of them went against the pretender's non-usager preference IOTL. For more on this, see Overton.
15. Associating the naturalist argument for slavery and divine right with subordinationism, a Christology that places the son in an eternally subordinate position to the father and leads to Arianism, is definitely fighting words, but is also not totally unjustified. Indeed, some of the later nonjurors, who also became ardent Jacobite’s, produced a liturgy that was quite subordinationist. Ironically, the man behind that new liturgy, IOTL, was Thomas Deacon. In any case, the notion that arian-subordinationist Christology and naturalism go hand and hand is one that bodes for later developments ITTL.
16. IOTL, Collier, Campbell, Brett and Gadderer continued the correspondence with the East, though of course, all of them were in Britain.
17. Of course, there's no particular reason why the usager controversy has anything to do with slavery, but by this point, the issues have gotten so bound up with one another ITTL that division along these lines seems natural to everyone.
18. This language is taken from the concordate proposal the nonjurors made to the Eastern Orthodox. For the full text, see Lathbury. The original text of Article 21 is considerably less deferential to councils, and argues that they can only be called by the authority of a secular Prince, which is a complete non-starter for the Primitive Catholics. Interestingly, the first Episcopal prayer book in the U.S. removes this article, basically arguing that the "councils can err" component is covered elsewhere, while the "only a prince can call a council" part is rejected because, well, they don't have a prince.
19. Here, I stole from two sources: the concordate proposal again, and the revision to the article found in the first Episcopal prayer book.
20. There's a bit of the original Article 28 here, but most of this language is taken from the concordate proposal again.
21. The removal of the homilies came in the first Episcopal prayer book, and as a non-established church, the Primitive Catholics are doing it for many of the same reasons.
22. This is exactly as per OTL.
23. Basically, Collier's got a much bigger church with more responsibility ITTL than IOTL, and if the Eastern Orthodox aren't going to come their way at least a little, he's not inclined to pursue what he views as a waste of time.
24. This is IOTL. The text reads as follows: "That the Church of Jerusalem be acknowledged as the true mother Church and principal of ecclesiastical unity, whence all the other Churches have been derived, and to which, therefore, they owe a peculiar regard; That a principality of Order be in consequence hereof allowed to the Bishop of Jerusalem above all other Christian Bishops; That the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, with the Bishops thereof, his colleagues, be recognized as to all their ancient canonical rites, privileges, and pre-eminences; That to the Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople in particular an equality of honour with that of the Bishop of Rome be given, and that the very same powers and privileges be acknowledged to reside in them both alike; That the Catholic remnant of the British Churches, acknowledging that they first received their Christianity from such as came forth from the Church of Jerusalem, before they were subject to the Bishop of Rome and that Church, and professing the same holy Catholic faith, delivered by the Apostles, and explained in the councils of Nice, and Constantinople, be reciprocally acknowledged as part of the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostles, with the holy fathers of these councils, and with their successors."
25. The alternate historian here is being... generous... to the nonjurors; basically, the response of the eastern patriarchs amounts to a very long, very flowery way of saying "what are you guys smoking out there on your little island?"
26. Most church historians now think Antioch was first, but Simeon, who led the Jerusalem community after the destruction of the Temple, was referred to as a Bishop, and the Jerusalem church, headed by James, was seen as having the authority to tell Antioch what they could and could not do in the Council of Jerusalem, as chronicled in Acts 15. Of course, the Primitive Catholics also have the advantage of not exactly having a Bishop in any of these places and, hence, having no dog in the fight.
27. Ignatius of Antioch was talking about monarchical Bishops when, as far as we can tell, the concept was still unknown in the Roman Church; today, this isn't particularly controversial, but it would have been a shot at the papacy in the eighteenth-century context.
28. Basically true, but a very impolitic thing for Fothergill to say given that you could probably say the same thing about Canterbury.