By The Rev. Tobias A. Karlowicz, Ph.D., ‘08

Edward Bouverie Pusey, for all his notoriety as a leader of the Oxford Movement, has been considered throughout much of the past century as a figure of little interest to contemporary theology. This reputation, however, deserves to be challenged, as there are in fact several aspects of his thought which are deeply compelling. One such is his theory of “formularism”—the decay of renewal movements through partisan emphasis on their own distinctives. This short article will sketch the origins of Pusey’s theory and its role in shaping his thought, before pointing towards its ongoing relevance in the life of the church.

Formularism—Defining a Theory

Pusey’s first book was an “enquiry” into the historical development of German theology. This was written in response to a series of lectures delivered at Cambridge by the high church theologian Hugh James Rose. In them, Rose warned against the tendency (exemplified, he thought, by German theology) to give reason such prominence in theology that it undermined the supernatural aspects of the faith. He therefore urged the importance of the Church of England’s Articles of Religion and episcopal governance as a defense against theological error. The published form of Rose’s lectures arrived in Germany in the spring of 1826, where they caused considerable offense, even among those who were theologically orthodox. Pusey arrived shortly thereafter, intending to study Hebrew; Rose’s book was much discussed among his German friends; and a few months after his return to England in 1827, he set to work on a response.

Pusey argued, in contrast to Rose, that episcopacy and articles, necessary though they might be, were not in themselves sufficient to safeguard the faith. In fact, he argued, eighteenth-century German Protestantism had fallen into error, not for lack of defenses, but through the subversion of its defenders. Christian apologists, in choosing grounds for their defense of the faith, unwittingly gave ground until the faith was reduced to merely a system of rational morality. The heart of his narrative, however, was an account of the way in which movements for the reform and renewal of the church repeatedly collapsed into hollowed-out forms, devoid of the spiritual life they were meant to impart. Luther (in Pusey’s account) had championed the necessity of living faith; but his followers, in their zeal, transformed his teachings into a narrow and lifeless dogmatic system. Pietism sought to recover the vitality of the faith by emphasizing devout practice, but this in turn became an anti-intellectual (and anti-doctrinal) moralism. The defense of Christianity, Pusey maintained, depends upon a whole and living orthodoxy: the German apologists of the previous century, sheltering among the hollow ruins of these two great revivals, had no bulwark from which to make their defense: their retreat had been inevitable from the outset. 

Pusey’s book stirred considerable controversy in England. His convoluted prose misled many readers as to his arguments, and (then as now) criticizing a well-known defender of orthodoxy inevitably provoked charges of heterodoxy. Pusey therefore wrote a second volume to clarify his argument. Helpfully, he coined a term for the phenomenon described in the first book: “formularism” describes how the very things meant for the revival of the church are drained of life and become mere badges of identity—dead formulae of party membership.

Formularism in Pusey’s Theology

This book is the only place where Pusey uses the term “formularism.” Despite the term’s disappearance, however, the concern it articulated remains evident throughout his life. In his later life, he frequently sought to check the (often partisan) enthusiasm of younger Anglo-Catholics in matters of ritual and devotion. Likewise, though he was among the most prominent advocates for the revival of private confession, he cautioned against a mechanical reliance on sacramental absolution to the neglect of real repentance. What is ultimately at stake in Christian devotion is not the outward forms (no matter how valuable), but the spiritual fruit that might grow from it—and our use of them should be oriented accordingly.

The most important influence of formularism in Pusey’s more developed thought, however, can be seen in his sacramental theology. Since the emergence of evangelicalism in the eighteenth century, baptismal regeneration had been a point of increasing tension between evangelicals and high churchmen. But Pusey’s point in publishing his “tracts” (loosely so-called, at over 200 pages!) on baptism was not to score points in an area of controversy—it was to promote holiness of life. Likewise, his famous eucharistic sermon of 1843 did not define a doctrine of the real presence but simply assumed Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a source of grace to the communicant. Both instances suggest a hopeful naivete regarding the way his teaching would be received (and he did, eventually, define his eucharistic beliefs more clearly). Nonetheless, these instances show that his intent was not to stake out a position—which risked becoming a formula—but to point beyond formulae and definitions to the reality of God’s grace.

Formularism and the Church

Formularism, however, is in itself worth unpacking a bit further. Earlier, I described it as the result of revival or renewal hollowed out by partisan emphasis on its own distinctives; it might be even more accurate to describe it as revival turned in on itself—incurvatus in se— either by enthusiasm or opposition (not infrequently both). This, of course, points to the state of human nature in original sin, and, by extension, to sin itself. Evil is not so much the opposite, but the corruption of what is good: it is precisely by turning what is good, and the desire for it, in on itself, that sin does its work. Formularism thus points to the pervasiveness of sin (a major theme of Pusey’s theology), and the way in which even the very elements of Christian faith and life can be turned in on themselves, so that they become, not means to the ultimate end (life in Christ), but ends in themselves. Formularism, therefore, not only presents an interesting historical theory but (more importantly) articulates a deeper principle about the effects of sin within the life of the church.

This is a point where traditions which have emphasized examination of conscience—not only the various catholic traditions, but also the historic forms of evangelicalism—have an advantage, provided that the same principles be applied not only individually, but corporately, to renewal movements, ecclesiastical parties, and even whole denominations. As an Anglo-Catholic, however, I will reflect here on my own tradition, and leave others to reflect on theirs.

Pusey’s own attempt at renewal focused on recovering the role of the sacraments in the Christian life. This provoked fierce controversies, in the midst of which “high” sacramental doctrine, and the ritual and devotional practices that grew up around it, became the clearest identity markers of the emerging Anglo-Catholic party. Insofar as this limited the spiritual renewal Pusey sought to accomplish, it is regrettable—though not necessarily (in itself) culpable. But identity markers, in order to distinguish the group they identify, also function in much more problematic ways. And so, among Anglo-Catholics, sacramental doctrine and devotional or liturgical practice can become standards of party purity or grounds for snide jokes and dismissiveness towards other traditions—or even simply those “less catholic.” Moderation in speech and consumption and charitable forbearance towards one’s theological or political adversaries (for Pusey, disciplines which manifest the holiness conveyed by the sacraments) are rather less widespread than Anglo-Catholic devotional practice or sacramental doctrines. But if outward doctrines and practices are present without the fruit they are supposed to bear, it is worth probing whether the commitment to them is grounded more in partisan identity or personal enthusiasm or in a steady determination to seek God above all else.

This is just one case in which Pusey’s theory of formularism can be applied. Others, across the history of the church, are readily available: the theory’s broad applicability is precisely what makes it so deeply compelling. But it is just as deeply disturbing because it not only critiques our past and present practices: it also questions the futures we seek to build in the church. We pray, of course, for God’s blessing on our efforts; but, even when they bear fruit, formularism should remind us how fallible they are and turn us back to deeper repentance.

The Rev. Tobias A. Karlowicz, Ph.D., ‘08, is Canon Theologian of the Diocese of Quincy and assisting priest at St Michael and All Angels Church in Peoria. He is the author of a forthcoming book on Pusey’s theology.