The Attitude of the Church of England towards the Ministry of Non-episcopal Churches - Church Association Tract 424

At the dawn of the Reformation in England, when tentative efforts were made to introduce the use of services in the Mother tongue, written questions were put to the divines as to how far the various usages and beliefs then current rested on the warranty of Holy Scripture. This is seen in the preliminary enquiries to which written answers were elicited before the drafting of “The Institution of any Christian Man” (A.D. 1537) and “The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition” of 1543. In the former of these the conclusion reached was—“The truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops. Nor is there any word spoken of any other ceremony used in the conferring of this sacrament; but only of prayer, and the imposition of the bishop’s hands” (Formularies of Faith, p. 105). The reactionary book of 1543 said, “And of these two orders only, that is to say, priests and deacons, scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred of the apostles by prayer and imposition of their hands” (p. 281). The received belief among the “schoolmen;” who were the builders-up of Latin theology, was that the distinction of bishops from presbyters was not one of “Order,” but simply of dignity and function, a distinction which had originated in natural selection and local convenience.

Mr. Dimock, in his valuable pamphlet on “Christian Unity “ (p. 20, note), observes that “in the Church of Rome” (meaning by that phrase, the local church at Rome), “perhaps by reason of its faithful adherence to the truth, the development of Episcopacy was exceptionally tardy,” and he quotes Bp. Lightfoot, who says, “The episcopate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome, had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same sharp and well-defined monarchical character with which we are confronted in the eastern churches.” Canon Robertson, the historian, when speaking of church government in general, says, “We do not refuse to acknowledge that the organisation of the Church was gradual; we are only concerned to maintain that it was directed by the apostles . . . and that in all essential points it was completed before their departure” (Hist. I.,12). It is only in that sense that the Preface to our Ordinal asserts that “from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” That statement does not allege that these orders are of divine obligation, or that any one of them is essential to the very being, or to the definition of a “church,” though it does, by inference, lay claim at least negatively to apostolic sanction. Read more