THE REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF THE SCHEME.

THE The final reason for the Greek refusal to approve Overbeck’s scheme is not clear. Douglas and Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos (1868-1938) were of the opinion that it was because the Greek Church did not desire to "sanction the setting up of a proselytizing Orthodox Church in England." (86) But the problem hardly seems this simple. If this were the case why was Overbeck received so hospitably in Constantinople, authorized to preach, and his scheme approved by the Patriarchal committee and the Patriarchate itself? That the Greeks were not averse to proselytizing among Anglicans is shown by the reception and even ordination of two Anglicans just as Overbeck was putting his scheme into motion.

The first of these, James Chrystal (1832-1908), was a priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church who, on the eve of Theophany, 5 January 1869 (O.S.), was received into the Orthodox Church at the Cathedral of Hermopolis through (re-) Baptism and Chrismation. Archbishop Alexander Lycurgos of Syra and Tenos, who received him, soon after ordained him to the priesthood and in a short time Chrystal was made an Archimandrite and a "Great Catechist" of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. (87)

In 1870 Archbishop Lycurgos visited England to consecrate a Greek church in Liverpool and his ordination of Chrystal was well known there. He was nevertheless wined and dined by the Anglicans and behaved in such an intimate manner with them that Overbeck and his friends were somewhat distressed. Some of the latter felt that the English Church could not possibly be schismatic and heretical if Lycurgos was so friendly with its leaders and visited its churches. On the other hand, in a long discussion with Overbeck, Lycurgos "praised out Petition as unexceptionably Orthodox." (88) As a result of the Archbishop’s seeming inconsistency, some of Overbeck’s petitioners withdrew their names. A correspondent of the Berlin newspaper National-Zeitung, writing 11 April 1870, reported speeches given at a banquet in honor of Lycurgos. Among other things, A.P. Stanley (1815-81), the Broad Church Dean of Westminster Abbey, spoke of the need for Anglican-Orthodox recognition and of mutually refraining from recruiting proselytes from each other. The Bishop of London, John Jackson, speaking after Stanley, decried the type of unity proposed by Overbeck. (89) No matter how Lycurgos behaved overtly, he still was able to praise Overbeck’s work in private. The same could be true of the hierarchs in the East. (90)

Another figure prominent in Orthodox circles in Great Britain was Stephen Georgeson Hatherly (1827-1905). An Anglican layman, he was received into Orthodoxy in London in 1856 by (re-) Baptism. In 1871 he was ordained to the priesthood at Constantinople by Metropolitan Basil of Anchialos. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell Tait (1811-82) is said to have denounced his missionary zeal to the Constantinopolitan Patriarch who prohibited him "to proselytize a single member of the Anglican Church." (91) Despite the prohibition, however, in a letter from Patriarch Joachim II to Metropolitan Basil written in 1874, the Patriarch showed his pleasure at Hatherly’s work and bestowed his blessing upon him. (92) The following year Hatherly was honored by elevation to the dignity of Archpriest. Thus, despite prohibitions to the contrary, Hatherly, whose very raison d’être was to proselytize Anglicans, was honored and blessed by the highest prelates of the Church.

Hatherly, who worked for similar goals as Overbeck but using different means, was not a collaborator of Overbeck and is said to have had a controversy with him. Hatherly was not interested in Western Orthodoxy and simply desired Eastern services in English with a native clergy. It had not been possible to uncover any definite evidence of contention between Hatherly and Overbeck, and Hatherly’s name never once figured in any of the literature issued by Overbeck available to this writer. Only once, at the very beginning of his work, did Overbeck allude to a "few single voices" Britain who advocated privately that converts simply join the Eastern Church, adopting her Church formularies in an English translation. He conceded that this would be the simplest way of establishing an Orthodox Church in England but insisted it would not be the right or most profitable way. (93)

The reasons for the Greek refusal to approve Overbeck’s scheme still are not clarified. To say that Overbeck had opponents in Britain would be an understatement at the least. His work was resented by various high-placed members of the Establishment, but more particularly by those in favor of intercommunion with the Orthodox Church. Dr. Frazier, Chairman of the Intercommunion Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury, condemned Overbeck’s scheme as "a schismatic proceeding, and a mere copying of the uncatholic and uncanonical aggression of the Church of Rome." (94) Overbeck was accused of trying to establish a "new Church" in order to proselytize "within the jurisdiction of the Anglican Episcopate." Dr. E.B. Pusey (1800-82), the well-known Tractarian leader, took notice of Overbeck and called him "the blind leader of the blind." (95) The intercommunionist Bishop Henry Cotterill of Edinburgh, writing in the Autumn of 1872 to Madame Olga Novikoff, described Overbeck as having a "cast-iron Christianity" and of being "a very low type indeed." Madame Novikoff, who moved in such circles as that of the British statesman W.E. Gladstone, was a friend of Overbeck. She corresponded with him for thirty years or more, and was greatly interested in his scheme. She defended him before his foes. In Bishop Cotterill’s opinion, Overbeck "had brought over to the Orthodox Church the intolerance of the Roman Communion" and was a bête noire to the majority of Anglicans. "The self-complacent Pharisaism of the man would be amusing if it were not sad to think that an un-Christian spirit like this animates so many." (96) Since Overbeck was so intensely disliked, it is not difficult to imagine that some concrete action in the form of protests to Orthodox authorities was taken by his Anglican enemies.

Overbeck was not one to be frightened by his adversaries. To those Anglicans who misrepresented his scheme as a concentrated attack upon the Established Church and an attempt to establish another English Church alongside the Establishment, he answered that he doubted whether the Establishment could even be termed a Church. Moreover, his aim was much broader: to restore the entire Orthodox Catholic Church throughout the West. To those who denounced his work as an attempt to add to the number of schismatic churches, he said that the Anglicans who closed their eyes on their own schism had always admitted that the Orthodox Church was not schismatical. How, then, could he and his friends who were in communion with the Orthodox Church possibly be schismatics? (97) Overbeck seemed almost pleased with the fact that his group was attacked by those in high places: "We are reviled and insulted; and even in the meetings of Heterodox Bishops voices are heard against the establishment of our ‘schismatic’ (!!!) Church." Despite the numerical insignificance of his group, the Anglicans busied themselves with them as it they were a great army. Did the English Church feel itself so weak that it feared a handful of people who had neither riches nor influence? (98)

Despite the antagonism of Anglican bishops and higher churchmen towards Overbeck and his scheme, there were, indubitably, those Anglicans who were interested in it. T.W. Mossman, who, along with F.G. Lee and J.T. Seccombe, is reputed to have had a hand in the founding of The Order of Corporate Reunion in the 1870’s in order to provide the Church of England with a valid episcopate, wrote in 1877 to Lee evincing interest in Overbeck’s work. He asked to be "put… into communication with the promoters of the Autocephalous English Church in communion with the Churches of the East." He inquired: "Is not Mr. John Baxter of Dorlaston, and a Mr. Hathaway [sic!] of Wolverhampton, or somewhere in that neighborhood, among them?" Mossman was of the opinion that if "an orthodox and Catholic chair" were to establish in some city it would signal "the beginning of a second Pentecost" in England and he said he would feel "very much disposed" to join such a movement if it were to begin in the neighborhood of Lincoln. (99)

Despite the fact that Overbeck stressed that his scheme was more comprehensive, the Anglicans considered it as aimed directly at them and at the winning of the Anglo-Saxon world to his Western Orthodox Church by individual conversion. This was distasteful to them for more than one reason. Those among the Anglicans who believed in the Branch-Theory of the Church, i.e., that the Church Catholic was made up of three separate branches: Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Catholic, desired intercommunion, a sort of mutual recognition and fellowship, between the "branches" of the Church. The intercommunionists stressed the need for a study of each other’s position with an aim toward closer friendship. This would result eventually in the recognition of Anglican Orders on the part of the East and right of individuals to communicate in each other’s churches. The intercommunionists were not particularly interested in doctrinal unity but only desired recognition of the status quo. Feeling that the Church of England was the branch of the Catholic Church in those parts, Anglo-Catholics were resentful of the mere presence of any other branch of the Catholic Church in England working, without leave, within the jurisdiction of the Anglican episcopate. And for such another branch boldly to receive converts from the Anglican branch was most unbearable because such actions proved that the Church of England’s claims to catholicity were not recognized. The Anglicans felt that most Orthodox theologians were ignorant of true Anglicanism, and the presence "on the spot" of such men as Overbeck, with his warped opinion of Anglicanism, only "reinforced their Orthodox authorities prejudices…" Instead of the day for eventual intercommunion between the Eastern Church and the Church of England drawing closer, Overbeck and his friends exerted every effort "to prevent anything which might bring the two churches nearer…" (100)

Once the Archbishop of Canterbury protested to the Phanar against Fr. Hatherly’s activities, there is no reason to doubt that the Anglican authorities would exert pressure on the Greeks because of Overbeck’s scheme, especially since the latter was potentially much more threatening to them. The English were not backward about making their opinions known in the Middle East, and British policies played a larger role in the destinies of the dying Ottoman Empire. Overbeck stated that there was a period when "Anglican influence was paramount (not to say, omnipotent) at Constantinople." (101) In 1840 the Sultan deposed Patriarch Gregory VI upon directions of the English ambassador Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. As for the protest from the Synod of the Church of Greece (independent of Constantinople since 1833) which, it is asserted, halted Overbeck’s scheme at the Phanar – this, too, could very well have been British-inspired. It has been said that when one collates the "pronouncements issued by Greek ecclesiastics with the political events and pressures which paralleled their appearance, one soon discovers an obvious relation between their interpretation of Orthodox Canon law and faith and the political tensions to which they were subjected." (102) In the days Overbeck was seeking approval of his plan at Constantinople, Greece was almost completely under the thumb of England. King George I received his Greek throne in 1863 by nomination and approval of the British Government, just as had King Otho before him. Greece also was heavily in debt to Great Britain which took advantage of the situation by interfering in the internal affairs of that country. It is, therefore, not inconceivable that Queen Victoria, the "legal head of the protestant religion established by law in England," upon the advice of one of her political appointees, e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury, exerted pressure upon the Greek Synod through the Greek Government to block Overbeck’s scheme already approved at Constantinople.

The British may well have been apprehensive of Overbeck’s scheme which, if successful, could have wrecked havoc with the Establishment. The time was particularly ripe for such a movement as Overbeck’s. There was much unrest within the ranks of the Ritualists. This was the period in which British secular and ecclesiastical leaders were doing their utmost to stifle the Anglo-Catholic movement within the Church of England. The oppression of Ritualists reached its highest point in the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874 (drafted by the same Archbishop Tait who had protested Hatherly) which was passed to suppress the growth of ritualism in the Established Church. In the period from 1877 to 1882 several leading High Churchmen were prosecuted and even imprisoned for their ritual practices. Some Ritualists expected momentarily to be expelled from the Establishment. There was a continuous flow of converts to Rome and each blow against the High Churchmen or their Catholic principles have the Romeward flow more impetus. Overbeck’s proposed non-Roman Catholic Church which, conceivably, might have not only diverted this stream into Orthodoxy but taken with it a greater number hesitant to go Romeward, was a potential danger to the Establishment. Dr. Overbeck’s scheme could have hastened the crumbling of the Establishment and caused all sorts of problems for both Church and State. There were undoubtedly some Anglican churchmen, even of the Ritualist camp, who did not wish the Establishment to fall simply because of the "loaves and the fishes," i.e., because many livings were involved. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to see the possibility of British pressure on the Patriarchate and Greek Synod.

J.A. Douglas, translator of Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos’ book on Anglican Orders, in a long four-page footnote devoted to Overbeck’s scheme which exhibited something of the intercommunionist animosity described above, interestingly enough did not even mention the Greeks in connection with the failure of the scheme. In his view Overbeck’s failure was bound to Russian foreign policy. Great Britain had been the chief obstacle in the fulfillment of Russian aspirations in the Balkans and the Levant. If matters had stood differently Constantinople would be within grasp of the Russian Empire. The men most active in the Oxford Movement in the 1870’s and 1880’s had yearnings for union with the Orthodox Church. Such a frame of mind made them ripe for propaganda about Turkish oppression of Christian subjects. Under Gladstone’s leadership the High Churchmen waged a campaign which in the 1870’s brought a drastic change in English foreign policy. The Russian Government was, therefore, quite interested in the ecclesiastical affairs of Britain. Few Russian officials were willing to risk Anglo-Catholic sympathy for an improbably and perhaps only visionary conversion of any large number of Anglicans to Orthodoxy. It was the Tsarist statesman, therefore, who saw to it that the setting up of a Western Orthodox Church in England was thwarted. (103)

"N.O.", probably the inverted initials of Olga Novikoff, also blamed Russia for the failure of Overbeck’s scheme, but not because of any deliberate planning by Russian policy makers. The reason was simple inertia. Just as in state politics the Russians were unprepared for questions of the day to come, so in religious policies the Russians did not know how to make the best use of opportunities falling into their laps. All of Overbeck’s energies were wasted and not put to use in that most brilliant period of his activity, the first two-thirds of the 1870’s. The viewpoint, thus, is the opposite of that expressed by Douglas. The Russians allowed Overbeck’s scheme to go by default, to fail because of the lack of a definite policy. As far as the Greeks were concerned, they simply were not enough interested in the affair to try it out. (104)

Whatever the reasons for Overbeck’s failure, his work and writings, at the very least, awoke some Orthodox churchmen to a realization that their Church had a mission outside of its Eastern confines. Russian scholars were stimulated to study more carefully the Western traditions, and numerous monographs of Western liturgical usages appeared. The Old Catholic and Anglican theological positions were scrutinized closely by theologians. Through Overbeck several capable people were led into the Orthodox Church while many others learned of her existence and her theological position through his writings. Several important Orthodox theological works found their way into English by way of his journal. Dr. G. Florovsky said of Overbeck’s scheme:

There was an obvious utopian element in the scheme, and it failed to attract any appreciable number of adherents. And yet it was not just a fantastic dream. The question raised by Overbeck was pertinent, even if his own answer to it was confusedly conceived. And probably the vision of Overbeck was greater than his personal interpretation. (105)

Through Overbeck several capable people were led into the Orthodox Church while many others learned of her existence and her theological position through his writings. Overbeck’s lack of success with his scheme was, ironically, reflected in his own home. "N.O.," who has been cited before, asserted that even Overbeck’s family did not become Orthodox. It is known, however, that they did become Orthodox, that his whole family was received into the Church by Fr. Popoff. Overbeck’s fears concerning the loss of the faith by the English Orthodox, and particularly the youth, because of the lack of instruction and regular Church life, could well have been based upon observations within his own home. His family had so strayed from the faith that it was thought not even Orthodox! Dr. Overbeck’s death, on 3 November 1905 at the age of eighty-four, was barely noticed. There was only a small item in The London Daily News to the effect that he was an extraordinary linguist, who knew more than two dozen languages and spoke fluently in fourteen of them. He was buried by clergy of the Russian Embassy church on 7 November. (106)

(86) Papadopoulos, Validity of Anglican Ordinations, p. 34n.

(87) The Church Weekly, I (1870), 158, 163. The erratic Chrystal soon repudiated his ties with the Orthodox Church and, upon his return to America, formed his own Baptist-type sect.

(88) OCR, III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 48. Italics are Overbeck’s.

(89) Reported in Litovakija Eparkhial’nyja Vedomosti, VIII, No. 7 (15 April 1870), 258.

(90) For a description of Lycurgos’ visit to England see: G. Williams, A Collection of Documents relating chiefly to the Visit of Alexander, Archbishop of Syros and Tenos, to England in 1870 (London, 1876). For two letters relative to the dealings of Chrystal with Archbishop Lycurgos see The Record, 21 February 1870.

(91) Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenism," 33.

(92) S.G. Hatherly (trans.), The Office for the Lord’s Day (London, [1880]), pp. vii-viii.

(93) OCR, I, No. 6-9 (June-September, 1867), 194.

(94) Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenism," Ibid.

(95) In his preface to F.G. Lee (ed.), Essays on the Re-union of Christendom (London, 1867); Cf. OCR, Ibid., 143-44.

(96) W.T. Stead (ed.), The M.P. for Russia: Reminiscences and Correspondence of Madame Olga Novikoff (London, 1909), Vol. I, p. 144.

(97) OCR, III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 47.

(98) OCR, V, No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 285. Italics are Overbeck’s.

(99) Henry R.T. Brandreth, Dr. Lee of Lambeth: A Chapter in Parenthesis in the History of the Oxford Movement (London, 1951), pp. 119-20. The Hathaway mentioned is without a doubt Hatherly, while the John Baxter is probably John Allen Baxter, an English Orthodox who died 3 May 1879 at the age of 27 at Ludlow. He was the first of Overbeck’s followers to die (without last rites). Overbeck said of Baxter that he was not learned. Overbeck felt the difficulty of inviting friends to join his group for he could not promise them the consolation of priestly ministrations in their last hours (OCR, VIII (1879), 209-210). As for T.W. Mossman, Overbeck reviewed his book A History of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ from the Death of St. John to the Middle of the Second Century (London, 1873) in the OCR, VII (Part II, 1878), 170-8, where he mentioned that Mossman was said to have been one of three bishops of The Order of Corporate Reunion, the principles of which he found to be inconsistent with sound logic. He made no allusion to Seccombe. Overbeck was surprised to find Mossman a Presbyterian in his views on the Apostolic ministry and latitudinarian in many of his theological views. There is no evidence that Mossman ever contacted Overbeck.

(100) Douglas in a footnote in Papadopoulos, The Validity of Anglican Ordinations, p. 3n.

(101) OCR, VII (Part I, 1878), 77.

(102) Kyrill A.W. Johnson, "The Prestige of the Oecumenical Patriarchate," The Orthodox American, [No. 35], October 1944-February 1945, p. 9.

(103) Papadopoulos, Validity of Anglican Ordinations, pp. 33-34n.

(104) "Korrespondentsia iz Londona," cols., 1585-86.

(105) Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenism," 32-33.

(106) "Korrespondentsia iz Londona," cols., 1587-87.