Reformed Churchmen

We are Protestant, Calvinistic and Reformed Prayer Book Churchmen and Churchwomen. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; in 2012, we also remembered the 450th anniversary of Mr. (Bp., Salisbury) John Jewel's sober, scholarly, Protestant, and Reformed defense An Apology of the Church of England. In 2013, we remember the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. You will not hear these things in modern outlets for Anglican advertisement. Confessional Churchmen keep the "lights burning in the darkness." Although Post-Anglicans with sorrow (and contempt for many, especially the leaders), we maintain learning, faith, hope and reading. Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) James Packer quipped and applied this specific song for muddler-Manglicans: Our book of the month, July 2014 is the Rev. Dr. Wayne Pearce's "John Spottiswoode: Jacobean Archbishop and Statesman" at: Also, our book of the month for Aug 2014 is Mr. Underhile's "The Church's Favorite Flower: A Patristic Study of the Doctrines of Grace," a handy little volume at: We're still Prayer Book Churchmen, but we have "articles of faith" paid for by blood.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

29 July 1579 A.D. Lutheran Niels Hemmingsen—Stripped of Position at Copenhagen University for Reformed Views of the Table

29 July 1579 A.D.  Lutheran Niels Hemmingsen—Stripped of Position at Copenhagen University for Reformed Views of the Table

Hutchinson, E.J. “July 29, 1579.”  Calvinistic International.  29 Jul 2014.  Accessed 29 Jul 2014.

July 29, 1579

Today is an important day in the history of the Church.

Ok, I suppose that’s not entirely accurate; but it’s important to me, so I’m going to post about it anyway.

July 29 is the anniversary of the day on which the Lutheran Niels Hemmingsen, at the time Denmark’s most famous intellectual and academic and held in high esteem by King Frederick II, was stripped of his position at the University of Copenhagen for espousing increasingly “Calvinist” views of the Lord’s Supper in a couple of theological works. Hemmingsen probably would not have had a problem if it had not been for the complaints of German agitators in Saxony, which happened to be governed by Frederick’s brother-in-law Augustus, Elector of Saxony.

Trygve Skarsten explains what happened:

It is clear…that in 1571 Hemmingsen attacked the Gnesio-Lutherans and the doctrine of ubiquity in his Demonstratio indubitatae veritatis de Domino Jesu. The following year an extended visit from some Saxon crypto-Calvinist teachers laid the groundwork for the impending crisis. In 1574, in a large dogmatic work entitled Syntagma institutionum Christianarum, Hemmingsen openly hailed the Calvinist doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

So strong was his support and following in Denmark that nothing would have come of all this had it not been for complaints from abroad. About this time the ardent Lutheran Elector Augustus of Saxony (brother-in-law of King Frederick of Denmark) was seeking to rid his territory of crypto-Calvinism only to have the Wittenberg Philippist theologians invoke the writings of Hemmingsen. A plot to import Calvinism into Saxony was also uncovered by the elector. When the defendants were questioned, they cited the views of Hemmingsen, whom they had recently visited in Copenhagen. A complaint was immediately lodged with Frederick II who called upon Hemmingsen to renounce his position on the Lord’s Supper. Although it was very difficult for Hemmingsen, he finally conceded in 1576 so that the Danish Church could be free of any suspicion of false teaching. It was clear that he still held to the Variata Augustana, the altered Augsburg Confession as modified by Melanchthon in 1540 and 1542. Continued accusations came from Germany regarding Hemmingsen’s ongoing teaching career. Finally on July 29, 1579, the king dismissed him from his position as professor, and recommended that he leave Copenhagen and take up residence in Roskilde.

But that wasn’t quite the end of the story; Hemmingsen neither burned out nor faded away:

Far from fading away, Hemmingsen’s works continued to come off the printing presses, and his fame only increased, especially in Calvinist sections of Europe where he was looked upon as a kind of martyr. The king continued to seek him out for counsel and guidance on difficult questions. (Trygve R. Skarsten, “The Reaction in Scandinavia,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord, ed. Lewis W. Spitz and Wenzel Lohff [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 139-40).

29 July 1975 A.D. Ascension Presbytery (PCA) Officially Formed

29 July 1975 A.D.  Ascension Presbytery (PCA) Officially Formed

Archivist. “July 29: Ascension Presbytery (PCA).”  This Day in Presbyterian History.  29 Jul 2014.  Accessed 29 Jul 2014.

July 29: Ascension Presbytery (PCA)

Historical Prologue

Ascension Presbytery was chronologically the 19th presbytery formed within the PCA, being officially organized on 29 July 1975. Originally its encompassed a larger territory, but those borders were diminished with the formation of Pittsburgh Presbytery on 1 January 1993, and later on 1 January 2010, Ascension contributed churches to the formation of Ohio Presbytery. Presently its borders include all of Pennsylvania north and west of and including the counties of McLean, Elk, Clearfield, Jefferson, Armstrong, Butler, and Beaver counties. The following brief history of the Ascension Presbytery was composed by the Rev. Richard E. Knodel, Jr.:—

The Presbytery of the Ascension of the Presbyterian Church in America did not spring forth de novo. Among reasons for its formation were many that were not of the moment. The constituents of the Presbytery of the Ascension were almost exclusively members, in one way or another, of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (hereafter cited as the UPCUSA). In broadest terms, it could be shown that the continual turning of the majority of the UPCUSA toward a crass latitudinarianism was placing a greater and greater torque on firm evangelicals with that body. The attrition which had surfaced during the earlier portion of this century had, in many cases, reached an undesirable maturation of unbelief and corruption. No matter which field might be investigated, be it doctrine, missions, education, management, social concern or evangelism, the seeds of corruption could be seen reproducing themselves at an unnatural rate.

Yet while there were such cyclical crises, problems which for the Evangelical seemed to resurface with a foreboding rapidity, there was, for the most part, an inverse reaction of silence from the evangelical camp. Most evangelicals were hesitant to take precipitous action though they were in the midst of a self-admitted crisis. The proverbial “carrot”, representing possible changes and hope, was seen to be continually dangling before the conservative’s watch. Whether it was a humility which was deeply conscious of its own fallibility, or whether it was a hesitancy to become embroiled in an open hostility, the posture of most evangelicals was inert. And this was a position which was open and vulnerable to the disease of the greater portion of the body. Furthermore, it presented the evangelical involved, with the problem of “what degree” of liberalism there must be, before it would be morally advisable to either attempt discipline within the church, or to exercise reverse discipline by separating oneself from the church.x

But for the vast majority of the members of this new presbytery, such agonizing decisions were made unnecessary, by the direct action taken by the UPCUSA. Most felt that they were asked to leave their church, and that the most honorable way that this might be accomplished was to “peacefully withdraw.” This action was precipitated by the popularly known “Kenyon Case” which began in the late Spring and ended in the late Fall of 1974. The watershed of this case had taken, and is taking place in 1975, even as this account is presently being penned.

Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon was an honors graduate of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. in his trials for ordination, Mr. Kenyon, upon being asked his position on the ordination of women, stated that he could not in good conscience participate in the ordination of a woman. He said that it was his understanding of Scripture that prevented such involvement, but went on to say that he would not stand in the way of such an ordination, if such was the desire of a church which he would happen to serve. Immediately there arose much dissent, and such dissent grew until the overwhelming majority of the church endorsed the judicial verdict which banned Kenyon and all future Kenyons from the pulpits of the UPCUSA. Furthermore, there was both explicit and implicit action which was taken against those men already ordained.

The Rev. Arthur C. Broadwick (and the Union UPCUSA of Pittsburgh) and the Rev. Carl W. Bogue, Jr. (and the Allenside UPCUSA of Akron) were already involved in litigations which involved this issue. And, in an even more pervasive way, the Stated Clerk of the UPCUSA (Mr. William P. Thompson), acting as the official interpreter of th Constitution of the UPCUA, ruled that as one’s answering the ordination/installation questions affirmatively was involved in the final decision in the Kenyon Case, any presently ordained pastor or ruling elder who held to the Kenyon views, could likewise never be placed in another pulpit or office unless he changed his views. The constitution of the UPCUSA clearly stated that men should exercise “forebearance in love” in situations where non-essentials of the presbyterian system of doctrine and polity were at stake. when the Permanent Judicial Commission of th UPCUSA ruled that Mr. Kenyon could not be ordained (i.e., granted exception on this matter of conscience) it effectively elevated this doctrine concerning social relationships to the place of being a major doctrine of the church. Furthermore, by application, it appeared that this new essential would eclipse all others and become the sine qua non of “orthodoxy” test questions.

Such action by the Permanent Judicial Commission led to a crisis for all of those pastors and elders who held to the traditional views on this question and who were now considered heretics. Accordingly, to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church, most of the men who made up the membership of the charter presbytery peaceably withdrew from the UPCUSA.

These decisions and their subsequent effects were aided by many informal gatherings of like-minded individuals, beginning with the Kenyon Case and continuing through 1975 to the official organization of the Presbytery of the Ascension on July 29, 1975. The three meetings immediately preceeding the organization were unofficially recorded under the title of “Pre-Presbytery Meeting” and shall be spread upon the minutes of the present presbytery as an appendix to this historical program.

A fitting conclusion to this description of the genesis of the Presbytery of the Ascension is the mention of the Presbytery’s new affiliation, the Presbyterian Church in America. In the Fall of 1974, men who were affected by the drift of the Kenyon Case, sent four representatives, from an informal committee which was considering alternatives to the UPCUSA (i.e., in case that body should make a ruling against Mr. Kenyon which would affect the church as a whole), to the second General Assembly of the National Presbyterian Church (which became the Presbyterian Church in America). These four pastors (cf. the Rev. A.C. Broadwick, the Rev. K.E. Perrin, the Rev. R.E. Knodel, Jr., and the Rev. W.L. Thompson) were, on behalf of the larger concerned group, seeking a historically Reformed body which was also evangelical and mission minded. While this small entourage went to Macon, Georgia with many suspicions and questions, they returned overjoyed that there was an option such as the Presbyterian Church in America. When the Permanent Judicial Commission of the UPCUSA ruled as was feared, men who felt compelled to leave her bounds renounced the jurisdiction of that church and very happily were welcomed into a body of like mind. In the most concise manner possible, it would be said that it was the fervent balance of orthodoxy and spirit which led this group to finally align themselves with the Presbyterian Church in America. We pray that all of our actions might work to the praise and glory of our Sovereign God, our Victorious Christ, and The Spirit who continually sustains us.”

Respectfully and Humbly submitted,
/s/ Richard E. Knodel, Jr.

Dr. Wynn Kenyon went on to serve an illustrious career spanning thirty-one years as Professor of Philosophy and Biblical Studies at Belhaven University, and was also a founding member and ruling elder at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi. He passed away quite unexpectedly on February 13, 2012, at the age of 64.

29 July 1974 A.D. 11 Episcopal Feminists Revolt & Demand Ordination

29 July 1974 A.D.  11 Episcopal Feminists Revolt & Demand Ordination

Graves, Dan. “Feminine Revolt: 11 Demand Ordination.”  Apr 2007.  Accessed 14 May 2014.

Eleven women, with the connivance of four bishops, determined to smash the barriers of "sexism" in the Episcopal church on this day July 29, 1974. Fifteen hundred people crowded the sanctuary of the Episcopal Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia to witness this confrontation with church rules and authority. A banner shouted Paul's words: "In Christ there is neither male nor female."

Bishop Corrigan asked if there was any known impediment to ordination of the eleven. "Yes," shouted several. Five priests stepped forward to take the microphones. What was about to be done was illegal and divisive they said.

They could not state all the reasons for their view. For much of church history, women were barred from ordination. The reasons were many. Women held chattel-like status throughout much of history. Their parental and nurturing roles often made it impractical for them to be active as leaders. Many men were (and are) reluctant to accept instruction from women.

Under Old Testament Passover laws, only males had to be redeemed and only male animals could redeem them. Only males were allowed to serve as priests offering the sacrifice. Christ, both priest and sacrifice, came as a man. He is the very masculine bridegroom of the church. He selected only men as apostles. Paul taught that women were not to teach men in a public church setting. Women are subordinate to men in the same way that the church is subordinate to Christ, he wrote. He argued that Eve had disobeyed first and brought Adam into disobedience. Peter taught that wives were to be subject to their husbands as Sarah had been to Abraham.

On the other hand, Christ had not spurned women. They were the first bearers of the news that he was raised from the dead. Indeed, he may be seen as the one who more than any other in history raised the status of women. With the Reformation and with the emancipation of women that followed, roles began to change. Sects increasingly gave women new responsibility. Some, while refusing to allow women to preach in formal services, thought it fine if, like the women who rushed from the tomb to tell Peter the Lord was risen, they were allowed to informally convey the gospel. Ordination remained largely taboo to women until small Protestant denominations began to grant it. Technological and medical changes also made it easier for women to assume such roles.

The Episcopalian ordination ceremony proceeded despite opposition. The eleven women became priests and offered the cup and bread. But soon afterward the procedure was annulled by higher authorities. Too many rules had been broken. Three of the bishops were retired men and not permitted to ordain without express approval. The other bishop was out of his jurisdiction. Furthermore, none of the women had been approved by their local bishops as is required by Episcopal law. Today a number of Christian denominations still refuse to ordain women. Chief among them is the Roman Catholic church. The subject remains one of the most controversial in some church bodies both at the local and national levels.


1.      Newsweek, August 12, 1974.

2.      Gross, Ernie. This Day in Religion. New York, New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 1990.

3.      Time August 12, 1974.

Last updated April, 2007.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

28 July 1881 A.D. Birth of Prof. J.Gresham Machen—“Old School” Princetonian and Founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

28 July 1881 A.D.  Birth of Prof. J.Gresham Machen—“Old School” Princetonian and Founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Graves, Dan. “Fundamentalist Leader John Gresham Machen.”  Accessed 14 May 2014.

J Gresham Machen was born into southern aristocracy in Baltimore, Maryland on this day, July 28, 1881. Through inheritances, he became wealthy as a young man. At one time and another, his grandfather on his mother's side and his own father each left him $50,000 in a day when a family could live well on $3,000 a year. His financial circumstances freed him to study in Europe and later to support Christian publications and Christian work.

But his family left him more than money. They gave him an inheritance of Southern views, social connections and solid achievement. His cultured mother was from Macon, Georgia and published a book titled The Bible in Browning when J. Gresham was 22. His father was a successful lawyer from Baltimore. Woodrow Wilson was a friend of the family.

J. Gresham was reared Presbyterian. Schooled in the Westminster Confession and the Bible, he would later say that at twelve he had a better understanding of the Scripture than many older students entering seminary.

Although he is known as a conservative champion of traditional Calvinism against modernism, under the influence of German liberals he almost became a liberal himself. In the end, his conviction that the Bible was true and his assurance that Christ lives today, made him an ally of the fundamentalists, a group who held to certain "fundamental" truths. He was ordained in 1914, after discovering that Christ "keeps a firmer hold on us than we keep on him."

J. Gresham's battles against modernism were mostly waged at Princeton Seminary. He insisted that Modernist Christianity and Bible Christianity were two different religions. As the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. began to adopt Modernist ideas he fought the drift. Typical Modernists doubted the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, forsook the Virgin Birth, and were skeptical of miracles and of the Bible's accuracy. On the other side, J. Gresham defended all these things.

His most famous book was The Virgin Birth of Christ. In it he answered objection after objection. He began by showing that the doctrine was very old and that differences in Matthew and Luke could be reconciled. He argued that the virgin birth was a crucial element of the whole story of Jesus: "Remove the part and the whole becomes harder not easier to accept; the New Testament account of Jesus is most convincing when it is taken as a whole."

Eventually J. Gresham Machen felt that to be consistent, he had to leave Princeton. He founded Westminster Seminary to reclaim truths that he saw being thrown away. Next he formed the Independent Board for Presbyterian Missions because some Presbyterian missionaries (such as Pearl S. Buck) made statements that watered down faith in Christ. He was suspended from the ministry for creating this schism. So he founded the Presbyterian Church of America, known today as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

He died of overwork in 1936, preaching and traveling right up to the day before he died.


1.      Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930.

2.      Piper, John. "J. Gresham Machen's Response to Modernism." biographies/93machen.html

3.      Russell, C. Allyn. Voices of American Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

Last updated July, 2007

28 July 1881 A.D. Birth of Prof. J.Gresham Machen—“Old School” Princetonian and Founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

28 July 1881 A.D.  Birth of Prof. J.Gresham Machen—“Old School” Princetonian and Founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Hart, D.G. “Machen and the OPC.”  The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. N.d.  Accessed 14 May 2014.

Machen and the OPC

D. G. Hart

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was the principal figure in the founding of the OPC if for no other reason than that the Presbyterian controversy in which he played a crucial role provided the backdrop for the denomination begun in 1936. A distinguished New Testament scholar at Princeton Seminary from 1906 to 1929, Machen defended the historical reliability of the Bible in such works as The Origin of Paul's Religion (1921) and The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930). He emerged as the chief spokesman for Presbyterian conservatives by issuing a devastating critique of Protestant modernism in the popular books Christianity and Liberalism (1923) and What is Faith? (1925). When the northern Presbyterian church (PCUSA) rejected his arguments during the mid-1920s and decided to reorganize Princeton Seminary to create a moderate school, Machen took the lead in founding Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia (1929) where he taught New Testament until his death. His continued opposition during the 1930s to liberalism in his denomination's foreign missions agencies led to the creation of a new organization, The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (1933). The trial, conviction and suspension from the ministry of Independent Board members, including Machen, in 1935 and 1936 provided the rationale for the formation in 1936 of the OPC. Only six months after the new denomination's beginning, Machen died in Bismarck, North Dakota while trying to rally support for the OPC. He was arguably the most important conservative Protestant thinker of the first half of the twentieth century and the guiding light for the first generation of Orthodox Presbyterians.

Resources on Machen

  1. J. Gresham Machen, "Constraining Love"
  2. J. Gresham Machen, "Mountains and Why We Love Them"
  3. J. Gresham Machen, "What Is Orthodoxy?"
  4. John P. Galbraith, "J. Gresham Machen, Man of God"
  5. D. G. Hart and John R. Meuther, "J. Gresham Machen and the Regulative Principle"
  6. D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, "Why Machen Hired Van Til"
  7. D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, "Turning Points in American Presbyterian History" (series of articles in New Horizons)
  8. William M. Hobbs, "The Church and Economic Recovery" (analysis of Machen's Nov. 11, 1932 speech before the American Academy of Political and Social Science)
  9. McKendree R. Langley, "Machen Challenges Experience Theology"
  10. Stephen J. Nichols, J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Work (reviewed by John R. Muether)
  11. G. I. Williamson, review of D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America

28 July 1804 A.D. Atheistic Non-Theologian & Eternal Reprobate, Ludwig.A. Feuerbach, Born

28 July 1804 A.D. Atheistic Non-Theologian & Eternal Reprobate, Ludwig.A. Feuerbach, Born

Graves, Dan. “Feuerbach a Theologian Who Wasn’t.” Apr 2007.  Accessed 14 May 2014.

The story of Christianity is also the story of attacks on Christianity. On this day July 28, 1804 Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach was born. His father was a well-known jurist who exerted tremendous influence in the field of German law. He was also a petty, moralizing tyrant at home who betrayed Feuerbach's mother for another man's wife. It has sometimes been remarked that the ranks of atheists are most often joined by men who hate their fathers. Feuerbach, who had much reason to dislike his father, attacked Christianity mercilessly. Like his follower Marx, he adopted materialist presuppositions and therefore considered his critique of the faith scientific.

As a youth Feuerbach became deeply interested in religion and pored over Hebrew. He studied theology at Heidelberg and then won permission to transfer to Berlin. Because of his involvement in a student club he came under the suspicion of the police and was held up from becoming a professor. He was able to show he was involved in no secret organization. On this day July 28, 1824, his 20th birthday, he was admitted to the theology faculty. He had, however, already become a follower of Hegel. He would never teach theology.

His first move was to transfer to the philosophy department. Financial difficulties led him to relocate to Erlanger where he lectured on philosophy for many years as a private lecturer. His first lecture attacked Christianity. By 1830 he had issued anonymously a book titled Thoughts on Death and Immortality. He wrote mockingly that religion was "merely a kind of insurance company." His authorship became known and it barred him from advancement. Feuerbach's father was appalled. Believe such things privately, but do not ruin your career by openly flaunting public opinion, he advised.

Feuerbach's response was to issue his Essence of Christianity. In this and his other works he declared religion a fantasy--an attempt at wish-fulfillment. "The more empty life is, the more concrete is God...Only the poor man has a rich God." He argued that man wants to be a god with godlike powers; because he cannot have these powers, he dreams up a god who does. Practical men, however, turn to science and technology which can satisfy real needs.

What would Feuerbach have thought of the life of his fellow-German George Müller, who proved the practicality of faith, scientifically recording every prayer and its answer? Feuerbach saw religion emerging from the feeling of dependence. Müller learned to come to God in Christ's name for every need.

Feuerbach's idea prospered for a decade. The Essence of Christianity went through eleven printings. After the failed revolution of 1848 it faded into virtual oblivion, though not without influencing Wagner and Nietzsche. George Eliot translated his work into English. Ernest Renan, who himself tried to "demythologize" the life of Christ, described Feuerbach as antichrist.


1.      Kamenka, Eugene. The Philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach. New York: Praeger, 1970.

2.      "Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.

3.      Vitz, Paul C. Faith of the Fatherless; the psychology of atheism. Dallas: Spence Publishing, 1999.

4.      Various encyclopedia articles.

Last updated April, 2007.

28 July 1794 A.D. Charles Thomas Longley born—92nd of 105 Archbishops of Canterbury; Anti-Tractarian & Anti-TFO Leader

28 July 1794 A.D.  Charles Thomas Longley born—92nd of 105 Archbishops of Canterbury;  Anti-Tractarian & Anti-TFO Leader

“I now find it impossible to evade the conviction that among those who are joining the present movement for the restoration of Eucharistic vestments, the use of incense and candles in the day time, the offering of the Holy Sacrament as a propitiatory sacrifixe, and the elevation of the consecrated elements for the worship of the people, there are many resolved, if possible, to obliterate in the formularies and worship of our Church every trace of the Reformation…Sixteen years ago I had to contend with an attempt of somewhat the same character, at St. Saviour’s, Leeds, where among other innovations the practice of confession after the Roman usage was introduced, and as soon as I proceeded to reprove it by the exercise of discipline, some of the Clergy of that Church shewed themselves in their true colours by seceding to the Church of Rome.”

Charles Longley (1794-1868), Archbishop of Canterbury

 “I now find it impossible to evade the conviction that among those who are joining in the present movement for the restoration of Eucharistic vestments, the use of incense and candles in the day time, the offering of the Holy Sacrament as a propitiatory sacrifice, and the elevation of the consecrated elements for the worship of the people, there are many who are resolved, if possible, to obliterate in the formularies and worship of our Church every trace of the Reformation. …Sixteen years ago I had to contend with an attempt of somewhat the same character, at St. Saviour’s, Leeds, where among other innovations the practice of confession after the Roman usage was introduced, and as soon as I proceeded to reprove it by the exercise of discipline, some of the Clergy of that Church shewed themselves in their true colours by seceding to the Church of Rome.”

Charles Longley (1794-1868), Archbishop of Canterbury

Charles Thomas Longley (28 July 1794 – 27 October 1868[2]) was a bishop in the Church of England. He served as Bishop of Ripon, Bishop of Durham, Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1862 until his death.



He was born at Rochester, the fifth son of the late John Longley, Recorder of Rochester,[3] and educated at Westminster School and the University of Oxford. He was ordained in 1818, and was appointed vicar of Cowley, Oxford, in 1823. In 1827, he received the rectory of West Tytherley, Hampshire, and two years later he was elected headmaster of Harrow School. He held this office until 1836, when he was consecrated bishop of the new see of Ripon. In 1856 he became Bishop of Durham, and in 1860 he became Archbishop of York.

In 1862, he succeeded John Sumner as Archbishop of Canterbury. Soon afterwards the questions connected with the deposition of Bishop John William Colenso were referred to Longley but, while regarding Colenso's opinions as heretical and his deposition as justifiable, he refused to pronounce upon the legal difficulties of the case.

The chief event of his primacy was the meeting at Lambeth, in 1867, of the first Pan-Anglican conference of British, colonial and foreign bishops. His published works included numerous sermons and addresses. He died at Addington Park, near Croydon.

Like Sumner, he was a member of the Canterbury Association from 27 March 1848.[4]


A photograph of Charles Thomas Longley by Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll).

As Headmaster of Harrow School, he married 15 December 1831 Caroline Sophia Parnell, whose brother Hon and Rev George Damer Parnell MA was the curate of Ash 1859–1861. Miss Parnell was the daughter of Sir Henry Brooke Parnell 4th Baronet, cr. (1841) first Baron Congleton by his wife Lady Caroline Elizabeth Dawson, the eldest daughter of John, first Earl of Portarlington.[5] They had several children, three sons and three daughters,[6] of whom

1. Sir Henry Longley, KCB (28 November 1833 – 25 December 1899), served as Chief Charity Commissioner for the British government.[7] He married 17 September 1861 Diana Eliza Davenport (fl. 1905), daughter of John Davenport of Foxley, Herefordshire.[8] 1.1. John Augustine Longley, served as assistant private secretary to the Lord Privy Seal and married 26 May 1898 Lady Louisa Katherine Scott, daughter of the 3rd Earl of Eldon. There was no issue listed for the marriage, nor a birthdate for John Augustine Longley.

Two younger sons died apparently unmarried.

4. Mary Henrietta Longley married 9 December 1858 the Hon. Rev. George Winfield Bourke (d. 9 October 1903), Honorary Chaplain to the Monarch, and son of Robert Bourke, 5th Earl of Mayo. Their only child Walter Longley Bourke (b. 28 November 1859; d. 1939) became the 8th Earl of Mayo); from 1891 to 1903, he was a Trustee of the Bridgewater Estates. He had married in 1887, and had issue, four sons and two daughters, by 1905.[9] The second son Ulick Henry Bourke (1890–1962) became 9th Earl of Mayo, and third son Hon Bryan Longley Bourke (1897–1961) was father of the 10th Earl of Mayo (1929–2006), father of the present Earl.

5. Caroline Georgina Longley (d. 30 October 1867) married 6 November 1862[10] (as his 1st wife) Major Edward Levett (18 December 1832 – 28 December 1899), 10th Royal Hussars, of Wychnor Park and Packington Hall, Staffordshire, third son of John Levett and his wife Sophia Kennedy, granddaughter of Archibald Kennedy, 11th Earl of Cassilis. They had issue 2 daughters, both of whom married and had issue[11]

Charles Thomas Longley, by George Richmond, c. 1862

6. Rosamond Esther Harriett Longley (d. 1936) married 1870 Hon. Cecil Thomas Parker (1845–1931), 2nd son of the 6th Earl of Macclesfield by his 2nd wife Lady Mary Frances Grosvenor, a sister of the 1st Duke of Westminster, and had issue 4 sons and 2 daus. Their elder daughter Caroline Beatrix Parker, later Viscountess Bridgeman DBE (1875–1861) married 1895 William Clive Bridgeman, who became The Rt. Hon. 1st Viscount Bridgeman, of Leigh, Shropshire in 1929, PC (1864–1935), only child of Rev. Hon. John Orlando Bridgeman, Rector of Weston-under-Lizard (himself 3rd and youngest son of George Bridgeman, 2nd Earl of Bradford) by his wife Marianne Caroline Clive, daughter of Ven. William Clive, and left issue, including the present Viscount.[12] The fourth and youngest son Wilfrid Parker (1883–1966) became the Rt.Rev. Hon. Bishop of Pretoria, South Africa. A granddaughter (by the 3rd son Geoffrey) Isolda Rosamond Parker (1918–?) married 1940 David Bertram Pollock, 2nd Viscount Hanworth (1916–1996) and is mother of the present peer.[13]


4.      Jump up ^ Blain, Rev. Michael (2007). The Canterbury Association (1848-1852): A Study of Its Members’ Connections. Christchurch: Project Canterbury. pp. 51–52. Retrieved 23 March 2013. 

5.      Jump up ^ Leslie Morgan. "A Victorian Curate of Ash and his Brother-in-law's Letter" St Peter and St Paul, Ash Church Website. Portarlington is misspelled Porterlington. Retrieved 3 December 2008

6.      Jump up ^ Marquis of Ruvigny & Raineval The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal: The Clarence Volume, Containing the Descendants of George, Duke of Clarence p. 287. Published by Genealogical Publishing Com, 1994 ISBN 0-8063-1432-X, 9780806314327. Originally published: London : T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1905. All details below are from this source, unless cited otherwise.

7.      Jump up ^ Memorial wall tablet in the church of St Mary the Blessed Virgin Mary, Addington, Surrey

9.      Jump up ^ Ibid

11. Jump up ^ Marquis de Ruvigny, Raineval Staff The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal: The Clarence Volume and Clarence Volume, p. 287, reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Company, 1994. Retrieved 3 December 2008. The date of Caroline Georgina's marriage is not given by Ruvigny, nor is her birthdate.

12. Jump up ^ Clarence Volume, p. 287, reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Company, 1994. Retrieved 3 December 2008. Also see Conqueror – William 165 and Conqueror – William 176. Retrieved 3 December 2008

13. Jump up ^ Conqueror – William 50 to 52. Retrieved 3 December 2008


This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainChisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press 

External links