FIFTY years ago the Clerical Union for the Maintenance and Defence of Catholic Principles was organized. While its members are presumably acquainted with its principles, many of them know little of its history. And since the Union stands for principles which are of as much concern to laity as to clergy, they may also be interested in learning about this organization to which so many of the priests of the American Church belong. It has seemed useful on the occasion of this jubilee to collect from the records and publications of the Union a brief account of its career.

A rare pamphlet, copies of which are among the valued items in the archives of the Clerical Union for the Maintenance and Defence of Catholic Principles and of its New York Branch, records that the project of the Union originated in a conversation between the Rev. Thomas Richey, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the General Theological Seminary, and the Rev. Arthur Ritchie, Rector of St. Ignatius’ Church, New York, “just after the General Convention of 1886.”

The original purpose of the Union must be seen against the background of the state of the Church at that time. The climax of the ritualistic controversy had been passed twelve years before with the failure of the effort to suppress Catholic ceremonial by canon. It was succeeded by a period in which Anglo-Catholics were treated as a tolerated minority, isolated from the general stream of the Church’s life. In the previous year the profession of Fr. Huntington, the first member of the Order of the Holy Cross, by Bishop H. C. Potter had roused a storm of protest. Rightly or wrongly, the few “Catholic parishes” felt that the Eucharist could only be placed in the center of the program of Sunday worship if the principal, late service were one of Eucharistic worship without general communion of the people. This, and various Catholic practices, were the object of surprisingly violent controversial attacks and demands for discipline. At the same time various developments suggested that some aspects of the Catholic tradition might be put forward, by those who failed to grasp the living unity of that tradition as a whole, as the total of the Church’s teaching. The recent General Convention had propounded as a basis for negotiations for Church unity what was to be adopted in the following year as the Lambeth quadrilateral,—the two creeds, the two chief sacraments, the Bible, the historic episcopate. An important minimum, but not the whole. Meanwhile the nascent Broad Churchmanship was expressing itself in theological speculations on such questions as eternal punishment and the authority of the Scriptures. To those trained in the strict, theology of the Tractarians and the old High Churchmen this seemed to be the beginning of serious attacks on the faith once delivered.

The proposed organization, therefore, which it was at first intended to call “The Catholic Union,” had a variety of purposes. It was to provide the much-needed opportunities for fellowship and conference among Catholic-minded clergy of the American Church. It was to provide an organ to carry on the controversies which seemed necessary in order to put forward Catholicism as the genuine teaching of the Episcopal Church, and to defend that Catholicism against attacks from all sides, Roman, Protestant, or latitudinarian (as we would say today, modernist). It was to promote causes which were tied up with maintenance of Catholic principles,—the removal of the misleading name Protestant Episcopal, and “the giving of due prominence to the idea of Eucharistic worship in the public services of the Church.”

Several informal meetings were held. On January 5, 1887, a group of clergy from New York and Philadelphia adopted the first platform of the Union. In the course of that year the New York and Philadelphia Branches were organized, and on December 8, 1887, the first meeting of the Council of the Union took place at the rectory of St. Mark’s, Philadelphia. Unfortunately the name “Catholic Union” had been objected to, and the present rather cumbersome title was adopted. While suitable in itself, and now established by fifty years of usage, it has encouraged the regrettable habit of referring to the Branches of the Union as “Catholic Clubs.” Although this custom goes back to the founders of the Union, it obscures the unity of the organization as a whole, and the word “Club” suggests that Catholicism is a private fad of the members. It is perhaps just as well that the simple title “Church Union” should have been left until the formation of an organization of laity as well as clergy, and meanwhile perhaps we should be content to be in ordinary speech the “Clerical Union.”

The Council soon took up vigorously the publication of a series of “Catholic papers,” which was the first means of propaganda suggested. These were published anonymously, at first in the “Church Eclectic,” a valuable church monthly of the period, and afterwards in the “Catholic Champion,” the magazine published at St. Ignatius’ under Arthur Ritchie’s editorship. The first was a paper by Fr. Longridge, S.S.J.E., then stationed at Boston, on the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Others followed on the Terminus ad Quem of the Catholic Movement, English and Roman Ideas of Unity, the Proposal to Change the Name of our National Church, the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, and other topics. The first few of the series were reprinted and sent to all the clergy of the Church. Unfortunately, the Council had failed to provide itself with any revenue except voluntary donations. Two years after its foundation it had a deficit in its treasury, and this part of the scheme was therefore dropped. Instead the Rev. Henry R. Percival, of Philadelphia, was appointed to edit a volume of papers, which was published in 1894. Some of these came from the “Catholic Papers” series, others had been read at meetings of the New York and Philadelphia Branches. Three deal with scriptural questions (inspiration, the Apocrypha, and miracles), one with the doctrinal system underlying the Prayer Book, three with matters relating to the Sacraments (fasting communion, the indissolubility of marriage, the anointing of the sick). Bishop Nicholson of Milwaukee, President of the Union, contributed a preface, and the editor an introduction.

Dr. Nicholson had been President of the Union from its foundation, but after his elevation to the episcopate a vice-president was elected each year to perform the active duties of the office. In 1899 the presidency was made a quinquennial office, the vice-president continuing to be elected annually by the Council. While the deficit incurred in the first enthusiasm had apparently discouraged the Council from undertaking any ambitious projects, the growth of the Union was continuous, if gradual. The Maryland Branch first appears in the records in 1897, the Boston Branch in 1898. By 1900 the original handful had grown to a membership of about 250, of whom 100 belonged to the New York Branch. In that year the Vice-President was Dr. Van Allen of Boston, and the annual meeting was held at the Church of the Advent in that city. The promotion of Catholic principles by public meetings, services, and demonstrations had been suggested from time to time, and on several occasions the Union had arranged public conferences during Advent or before Lent at which such speakers as Fr. Huntington were heard. Beginning in 1900 a public character was given to the annual Council meetings by holding public services (High Mass on the day of the meeting, and often Vespers on the day before) in connection with them. In 1900 several papers were presented at the meeting dealing with problems on which the Union might take action,—uniformity in ceremonial, Catholic publications, and the perpetual question of the name of the Church.

The discussion of the first of these led to the appointment of a committee, of the which the Rev. William McGarvey and the Rev. C. P. A. Burnett were the active members. Branches and the Council had several times passed resolutions stressing the desirability of a common standard of ceremonial for the performance of the Prayer Book services in accordance with Catholic tradition. These now found more definite expression in the publication of the work known to most of us as “McGarvey and Burnett,” first in pamphlet form and then with its two parts (on Low Mass and Solemn Mass) combined in one volume in 1905. Fr. Burnett also prepared a volume on the occasional offices. It cannot be doubted that the McGarvey and Burnett standard, although their book has now been in part superseded by other works, in part made inapplicable by the 1928 Prayer Book, has played an important part in the establishment of a dignified and suitable ceremonial usage among us and the repression of fancy ceremonial.

For the full achievement of the Union’s propaganda aims the association of laity as well as clergy in its purposes was essential. Although several local efforts in this direction were made during the decade of the 1900s, none of them achieved permanence. The secession of Fr. Mc-Garvey, whose name was prominently associated with the work of the Union, to Rome occurred in 1908, and seems to have made the organization rather suspect. For whatever reason, after that date the Council became relatively quiescent and several of the Branches reported a decline in activity if not in membership. About 1915 a revival began, and since then both the head and members have gradually increased in strength and vigor. Among the important developments in the life of the Branches since then, perhaps the most significant is the greater prominence which has been given to the religious aspect of their activities. It seems strange that a Union of priests should have been content for so long to hold most of its meetings in restaurants, promoting the central position of Eucharistic worship everywhere except at its own gatherings. It has now become customary for most Branch meetings to be opened with a Mass, and several Branches have arranged quiet days or retreats for their members. The New York Branch, at least, binds us more closely to departed as well as living members of the Union by holding an annual requiem and requesting the members to offer the Holy Sacrifice for each of our brethren who enter into rest. It is through the Branches that the Union took part in the rather complicated procedure which led to the organization of the Catholic Congress, whose successor, the American Church Union, will, we hope, carry out the long-desired project of uniting laity with clergy in the promotion of the Catholic principles for which our Church stands.

The proceedings of the Council in recent years have dealt with a variety of matters. On several controversial issues the Council has either organized or supported representations to the House of Bishops,—in 1915 the Panama missionary conference, in 1919 the interpretation of the rubrics about admission to communion and the Canon allowing unordained “Christian men” to make addresses on special occasions, more recently the “St. Louis incident” of a few years ago. For several years suggested syllabi for discussion were prepared for the use of Branches.

A revision of the Constitution was carried out in 1919-1921. The founders of the Union having been a small group of personal friends, the necessary organizational machinery which any body requires had been left rather vague. Such details as what is a Branch, how often is the Council to meet, what dues are Branches to pay to it, etc., were now filled in. What was most important, however, was the revision of the statement of principles and the fusion of the old “objects” and “credenda” into a new and more inclusive statement of objects. In the former the reference to what is Catholic in doctrine and practice was left, while the statement that the customs prevailing in the second year of Edward VI are lawful in ritual was omitted. It referred to a controversy historically interesting, but no longer a live issue in the American Church in that form. The original credenda had said both too much and too little. Drawn up by Fr. Percival, they referred to what seemed to him important controversies in 1887 and committed the members of the Union to the propriety of Eucharistic adoration, the necessity of the apostolic succession for the valid administration of all the Sacraments except Baptism and Holy Matrimony, the limitation of probation to this life, and the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. The first two said nothing about the more central doctrines of the Incarnation and of the Church and Sacraments in general on which they depend. The last two seemed to tie the Union to the Catholic fundamentalism of the early opponents of Bishop Gore. Most of us now, I believe, affirm the importance of our decisions in this life without wishing to claim detailed knowledge of how God deals with those who die outside of the means of grace, and believe that the authority of revelation shines forth more clearly when it is not associated with mechanical theories of inspiration of the Bible. The revision retains many of the original phrases of the founders of the Union, while turning the combined section into an admirable statement of our common doctrinal and practical aims. The defence of the Incarnation, of the Catholic Church as the body of Christ and of the Churches of the Anglican Communion as part of it, the promotion of Eucharistic worship and of the teaching about and practice of the seven Sacraments, the defence of the Scriptures as inspired for certain Divine purposes,—here at least is an adequate statement of the principles on which Catholic Churchmen stand together. Not, of course, an exhaustive statement of our aims, since in thought, in daily life, and in prayer, the basic principles of Catholicism are not a goal beyond which we do not wish to reach, but the solid beginning from which we press on.

Some mention must be made of the personalities of those who have been prominently associated with the Clerical Union. It has had five presidents and four secretaries. Bishop Nicholson was succeeded by Bishops Weller and Webb, men whose distinction needs no testimony. Since 1927 the more or less honorary episcopal presidents have been followed by more active holders of the office, Frs. Hughson and Williams. The first secretary-treasurer of the Union, the Rev. Arthur Ritchie, held that office from the first organization in 1887 until his retirement in 1917. His persistence in principle and his personal attractiveness made him prominent in the history of the Union and of the New York Branch, as it made his long rectorship of St. Ignatius’ important in the history of the church in New York. Nor was, his connection with the Union without its lighter aspects. It seems that both the Ritchie brothers combined their dislike of Italian theology with an appreciation of Italian cooking and Italian wine; and the older members of the New York and Philadelphia Branches remember the bottles of claret which regularly adorned their respective tables at lunch. Fr. Ritchie was succeeded by the Rev. William H. A. Hall, and he in turn by Fr. Williams and the present incumbent.

Others besides the officers have been connected for considerable periods with the work of the Union. To speak only of those no longer living, Dr. Percival of Philadelphia was one of the early members of the Council, and censor of publications until his death about 1904. His considerable learning, which was more formally displayed in the editing of “The Seven Ecumenical Councils” in the series of the Post-Nicene Fathers, combined with the vigor with which he engaged in controversy, made him prominent among those who endeavoured to advance the faith by argument. Fr. Burnett’s part in the committee on ceremonial of the 1900’s has been mentioned. He was for many years a member of the Council from New York, and in his later years took a careful part in the revision of the constitution in 1920-21 and in the preparation of syllabi some years ago. One whose connection with the Union added lustre to it was Fr. Huntington, O.H.C. He was at several times a member of the Council, and once vice-president. Many will remember how both in the New York Branch and at meetings of the Council his youthful interest in current theology and other contemporary matters was a constant stimulus to us who were far younger in years.

What, we may ask after the narration of its history, is the C.U.M.D.C.P.? Formally, it is a fellowship of priests, now numbering about one-twelfth of the clergy of the American Church. Of the nearly five hundred members, about three hundred belong to New York, and the remainder are divided between the Boston, Philadelphia, Maryland, Ohio-Erie-Pittsburgh, and Central Pennsylvania Branches. It has shown its vitality in that it has developed in a natural manner, and not according to specifications laid down in advance by those who established it. Controversy has not been neglected when necessary, but has bulked rather less large in the Union’s history than was at first anticipated. It has brought priests with a common outlook and common interests together for whatever seemed most valuable for them to do. Social fellowship, occasional mutual assistance, discussion of subjects of common concern, common prayer,—these have been and are the main activities of the Clerical Union.

It may be suggested that there are four directions in which the members of the Clerical Union should be urged to move. The first is towards their books, since there is no point in claiming to be loyal priests of the Catholic Church if we are not students of Catholic theology, as well as of other topics of concern to priests. I find that as early as 1893 the complaint was made that the papers read at Branch meetings no longer were as solid and serious as they used to be; which encourages me with the thought that we have been constantly aware of the need for more serious intellectual exercise. Secondly as a union of priests most of whom are pastors, we commit ourselves to aims which can only be carried out in full through what we and our people do in our respective parishes. The centrality of eucharistic worship and the importance of the sacramental life have been and will remain principal planks in our platform. Thirdly, we may be glad that since 1887 there has been an increasing entrance of Anglo-Catholics into the general life of the Church. We have been allowed to take our proper share in the Church’s missionary work, that supported through the National Council as well as that done by the various religious orders. Such common programs as that of the Forward Movement or the various summer conferences give us a chance to speak among our brethren. It is no longer so much a question of how to defend ourselves against attacks as one of how to occupy our proper position. Finally, we may hope that the increasing importance of the devotional side of the Union’s program is a recognition that fundamental to our movement out into the world in God’s service is our movement towards him in adoration and love. The necessary basis of our whole ministry, and therefore of the work of the Union in particular, is the fact that we are Catholic worshippers.