The Thirty-Nine Articles, Episcopacy, and Anglican Identity

By Robin G. Jordan

This article began as my further contribution to a discussion of the Thirty-Nine Articles, episcopacy, and Anglican identity prompted by my article, “Episcopacy—the Mark of Anglican Identity…Right?” It grew and grew as my responses to comments are apt to do so I decided to post it as a separate article.

Over a century ago Edgar C. S. Gibson in The Thirty-Nine Articles draws attention to the silence of the Articles on episcopacy:

“Certainly all that the actual terms of the Article [Article XXXVI] now under consideration bind us to this: that Episcopacy is not in itself superstitious or ungodly. This amounts to no more saying that it is an allowable form of Church government, and leaves the question open whether it is the only one. This question is not decided for us elsewhere in the Articles; for even where we might have reasonably expected some light to be thrown upon it we are met with remarkable silence….The Articles, then, leave us without any guidance on the question whether Episcopacy is to be regarded as necessary (p. 744).

The Thirty-Nine Articles contain only three references to bishops—one in Article XXXII, one in Article XXXVI, and one in Article XXXVII. The first relates to the marriage of bishops; the third relates to the “Bishop of Rome”. The second reference relating to the consecration of bishops and ministers is what concerns us. It is a reference to the Ordinal of Edward IV, and prompted the assertion that the mention of the Edwardian Ordinal in the Articles is proof that the Articles hold that episcopacy is essential to Anglican identity. Is this a claim to which we can give much weight?

Like the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Edwardian Ordinal must be understood in historical context of what the English Reformers themselves taught. English conservatism and practicality lies behind their retention of bishops.. In the town of Bungay in Norfolk, England the mayor is called the tunreeve and the municipal council the tunmot, the Anglo-Saxon names for these institutions. English conservatism and traditionalism keep the town of Bungay from changing the names of these institutions. It is an example of retaining what is old where it may be well used.

We also must take in to consideration of the original intent of the English Reformers in retaining bishops. They did not retain bishops to deliberately set the Church of England apart from the continental Reformed Churches. They retained bishops in the English Church because they were “ancient and allowable” and, unlike in the continental Reformed Churches, conditions permitted and even encouraged their retention.

In his essay, "Of Ceremonies, Why Some Be Abolished and Some Retained," Archbishop Thomas Cranmer articulates the following principle: "And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: For we think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition; and that they should put away other things, which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men's ordinances it often chanceth diversely in divers countries."

Article XXXIV articulates the same principle: “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. It goes on to state: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The English Reformers not only applied this principle to traditions and ceremonies, they also applied it to the organization and governance of the Reformed Churches, including the Church of England. Seventeenth century Archbishop of Amargh John Bramhall who had a high view of episcopacy sums up this position: “For my part I am apt to believe that God looks upon his people in mercy, with all their prejudices; and that there is a great latitude left to particular churches in the constitution of their ecclesiastical regiment”

In the seventeenth century Episcopalians and Presbyterians had heated disputes over church government. At issue was which form of church government was divinely instituted. Episcopalians were pressed to claim that the government of bishops was a divine institution in response to Presbyterian claims that the government of presbyters was a divine institution. The debate was not over which form of church government was indispensable to Church of England identity. Both the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians departed from classical Anglican position that God had not instituted any particular form of church government.

Even in the seventeenth century Church of England identity was not tied to episcopacy. Seventeenth century Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud viewed the Puritans in New England as a part of the Church of England even though they had no bishop and practiced a congregational form of church government. The New England Puritans also saw themselves as a part of that Church: they were not separatists. They advocated reform of the Church, not separatism. During the 20 years of the Interregnum the Church of England did not cease to exist because Parliament abolished bishops and the Prayer Book.

In the eighteenth century the Colonial Church in North America had no bishops of its own yet it was regarded a part of the Church of England. After the War for Independence we see the emergence of three parties in the Colonial Church. The two parties that are relevant to our discussion are Samuel Seabury and High Churchmen and William White and the Evangelicals. Seabury was a Tory and wanted to establish a post-Constantine prelatical episcopacy in North America; White was a Patriot and would have easily dispensed with the episcopate altogether. What he proposed was the organization of the churches in each of the former Colonies into voluntary associations of parishes, each with its own convention of clergy and lay delegates and a presiding-presbyter. The conventions in a particular region would elect delegates to a regional convention and the regional delegates would elect delegates to a general convention. The regional conventions and the general convention, like the lower conventions, would elect a presiding-presbyter. It was White’s proposed form of church government that the fledgling Protestant Episcopal Church adopted.

What we see here is the emergence in the newly established United States of America of two schools of thought in regards to episcopacy. The thinking of these two schools was not particularly new. The Oxford Movement in the nineteenth century would intensify this division both in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church, insisting that bishops were of the esse of the church and the sacraments. In the nineteenth century we begin encountering the claim that episcopacy is not only essential to church life but is also indispensable to Anglican identity. As both Burkill and Holloway note in their discussion papers, what was really a secondary matter was elevated to a matter of primary importance. This was largely due to the Anglo-Catholic notion that the episcopate is a conduit of grace, a view not shared by classical Anglicanism or conservative Anglican evangelicalism.

If we examine the Edwardian Ordinal, we discover in the Preface that forms for consecrating a bishop, ordaining a priest, and making a deacon are required only when the candidate is not already ordained.

“Ad therfore to the entent these orders shoulde bee continued, and reverentlye used, and estemed in this Church of England, it is requysite, that no man ( beynge at thys presente Bisshop, Priest, nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them, excepte he be called, tryed, examined, and admitted, accordynge to the forme hereafter folowinge.”

It does not specify that he must be episcopally ordained. In the time of Elizabeth I and James I a number of clergy who had Presbyterian ordination were admitted to livings in the Church of England.

We also discover that the Preface makes no reference to a distinct order of bishops as superior to presbyters. It is entirely silent as to the crucial point of the method of consecrating bishops. Archbishop Cranmer who authored the first sentence and almost all of the entire paragraph of the Preface took the position that presbyters and bishops were originally identical, and that the development that made them distinct and gave bishops rule over presbyters was of human origin

The Litany contains these supplications:

“That it may please thee, to illuminate al Bisshops, Pastours, and Ministers of the Churche, wyth true knowledge, and understanding of thy worde, and that both by theyr preachynge and lyving, they may sette it forth and shewe it accordingly.”

In the case of the consecration of a bishop:

“That it maye please thee to blesse this our brother elected, and to sende thy grace upon him, they he may duely execute the office wherunto he is called, to the edifying of thy Churche, and to the honour, prayse and glory of thy name.”

In the case of the ordination of a priest or the making of a deacon

That it may please thee, to blesse these men, and send thy grace upon them, that they maye duelye execute the offyce nowe to bee commytted unto them, to the edifyinge of thy Churche, and to thy honoure, prayse, and glorye.

In his treatise De ordinatione legitima, or “Of Legitimate Ordination,” Martin Bucer argued that what is essential to ordination is “the laying on of hands in the context of word and prayer in a solemn gathering of the church.” Cranmer, in the Preface to the Edwardian Ordinal, takes a similar view:

“…no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto…”

Since in “The Fourme and Maner of Orderinge of Deacons” the only prayer that precedes the imposition of hands is the Litany, Cranmer appears to have considered the essential “publique prayer” to be the Litany.

The formulas “Take the holy gost &.” or “Receive the holy goste & c.” must be interpreted in the light of the foregoing.

Harold Browne in his Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles notes that the formula “Receive the holy goste & c.” contains a repetition of our Lord’s commission in John 20:22-23 and should be considered a prayer.

“The difference between such ordination and our Lord’s ordaining of His first ministers recorded in St, John, xx. Is this. In the latter case, Christ Himself, to whom the Spirit is given without measure, gave of the Spirit authoritatively to His disciples; and so in giving, He breathed on them, as showing the Spirit proceeded from Him. But, in the other case, our bishops presume not to breathe, nor did the Apostles before them; for they know that ordaining grace comes not from them, but from Christ, whose ministers they are; and so they simply, according to all Scriptural authority, use the outward rite of laying on of hands, in use of which they believe a blessing will assuredly come from above.” (p. 784)

Gilbert Burnett in On the Thirty-Nine Articles also draws the same conclusion.

“These words, receive the Holy Ghost, may be understood to be of the nature of a wish and prayer; as if it were said, may thou receive the Holy Ghost; and so it will better agree with what follows, and be thou a faithful dispenser of word and sacraments. Or it may be observed, that in those sacred missions, the Church and Churchmen consider themselves as acting in the name and person of Christ.” (p.456)

W. H. Griffith Thomas in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles makes a very important point.

“It is also noteworthy to recall once again that these words are not found in any Ordinal earlier than the thirteenth century. So in any case the words are not essential to the conferring of ministry. It will also help to clear thought if it is remembered that Ordination gives ministerial authority, the right to exercise ministry, not spiritual power, or the capability to do spiritual work. The latter naturally comes from prayer. Thus, the laying on of hands gives commission, and prayer is intended to suggest spiritual qualification. Further, the words ‘Whosoever sins,’ etc., are clearly to be interpreted by the words which immediately follow: ‘And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments.’” (pp.456-457)

Marion J. Hatchett in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book further draws to our attention that an imperative formula in the rites from the thirteenth century accompanied the additional laying on of hands in these rites. The first phrases used in the formulas associated with the imposition of hands in the ordination of a priest and the consecration of a bishop in the Edwardian Ordinal have their precedents in late medieval Pontificals. These formulas were modeled on forms that accompanied the giving of instruments in these late medieval rites. (pp. 524-525)

Let us take a brief look at the formula used in the consecration of a bishop in the Edwardian Ordinal.

“Take the holy gost, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of god, whiche is in thee, by imposicion of handes: for god hath not geven us the spirite of feare, but of power, and love, and of sobernesse.” [my emphasis]

“And remember & c.” is a repetition of 2 Timothy 1:6-7. Note that the Edwardian Ordinal does not identifies “ imposicion of handes” with the laying on of episcopal hands as does the Restoration Ordinal, nor does it assert that God’s grace is “given” by such hand-laying as does the Restoration Ordinal. It retains the exact language of 2 Timothy 1:16, without Paul’s reference to himself: “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” The changes in the Restoration Ordinal were primarily introduced to prevent Presbyterian interpretations of the rites.

In the Edwardian Ordinal 1 Timothy 3:1-17 is read at the ordination of priests as well as the consecration of bishops. Acts 20:17-35 , Matthew 28:18-20, and John 20:19-23, which in the Restoration Ordinal are read at the consecration of bishops, is read at the ordination of priests. This points to classical Anglican understanding that bishops and priests, while they perform different offices, are of the same order. The questions addressed to priests and bishops are also similar. They differ only where the office differs.

We cannot read back into the Edwardian Ordinal or the Thirty-Nine Articles the preoccupation with episcopacy and Anglican identity that began in the nineteenth century and reached obsessive proportions in the first half of the twentieth century. The use of the term “Anglican” and the idea of Anglican identity do not predate the nineteenth century. The shrinking of the world in the nineteenth century and the spread of the Church of England outside of the British Isles prompted this preoccupation.

At most we can say in regards to the Thirty-Nine Articles, episcopacy and Anglican identity even today is as follows:

[1] The Church of England retained bishops when the other Reformed Churches did not. The primary reasons were conservatism and practicality.

[2] The Church of England’s daughter churches have emulated this practice.

[3] Classical Anglicanism finds no support for any particular form of church government in Scripture. It view bishops and presbyters as being of the same order but exercising different offices. It recognizes non-episcopal forms of church government and the orders and sacraments of non-episcopally ordained clergy.

[4]The Thirty-Nine Articles are silent on episcopacy.

[5] Anglicans have been divided into two schools of thought over the place of bishops in the church and their relationship to Anglican identity since the nineteenth century. The views of these two schools of thought are not complimentary but contradictory. Each school of thought believes that its view is right and the opposing view is wrong. Each school of thought interprets the Restoration Ordinal differently. The Anglo-Catholic school of thought has since the nineteenth century sought to influence the language and doctrine of all subsequent revisions of the Ordinal in the direction of their view of episcopacy.

[6] In the 1950s a third school of thought emerged. This school of thought tried to work around the disparity between the other two schools of thought. It was unsuccessful.

Due to the influence of Anglo-Catholicism and Convergence thought the Anglican Church in North America has aligned itself with Oxford Movement’s position, rather than taking a strictly neutral position on the issue of episcopacy as a truly comprehensive church would do. The latter would permit a latitude of thought on this matter, which after all is a secondary matter, and not mandate any particular view.