Episcopacy as Essential to the Church – A Phantasmic Position [Commentary on Browne: Article XXIII (1)]

In articulating what it means for ministers to be “lawfully called,” Article XXIII makes no mention at all of bishops: “The latter portion of the Article is somewhat vaguely worded…. It is but generally asserted, that lawful calling can only be given by those, ‘who have public authority in the Church to send labourers into the Vineyard.’”^[1] The reason Browne gives for this studied generality is that “the original draught of the Article was agreed on in a conference between the Anglican and Lutheran divines. It would have been painful to the latter, if a strong assertion of the need of episcopal ordination had been inserted, when they were debarred from episcopal regimen.” Browne singles out Lutherans here, but other commentators have observed that the Article was likely framed so “as not to condemn the Continental Churches” more broadly.^[2]

That said, Browne emphasizes that while Article XXIII does not mention bishops, “the authority of the English Ordinal is expressly made the subject of Article XXXVI.; and to see the force of the latter on our present Article, we must have recourse to the Ordinal, as expressing the mind of the reformers on this subject.” As he observes, the Ordinal explicitly states that ordination is to be performed by bishops:

The Ordinal is expressly sanctioned and authorized, not only as part of the Book of Common Prayer, but by the XXXVIth Article; and we may observe, that, not only is episcopal ordination enjoined by it, but in its present form it forbids that any shall hereafter be “accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the United Church of England or Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordination.”^[3]

Hence, Browne closes with a strong affirmation of episcopacy: “We must conclude then with Hooker, ‘If anything in the Church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from Heaven, even of God.’ And with Bp. Hall, ‘What inevitable necessity may do, we now dispute not,’ yet ‘for the main substance,’ episcopacy ‘is utterly indispensable, and must so continue to the world’s end.’”

Concerning Browne’s assessment of non-episcopal churches, he writes in his commentary on Article XIX that part of what it means for the sacraments to be “duly ministered” is that those ministering them be “rightly ordained.” He then goes on to say, “It is…quite certain that those to whom [Christ] gave authority to baptize, and those whom He commanded to bless the cup and break the bread in the Communion, were His commissioned and ordained Apostles.” Moreover, the church’s apostolic character, in its sacraments and otherwise, “results from its being built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, continuing in the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, holding the faith of the Apostles, governed and ministered to by a clergy deriving their succession from the Apostles.” Thus, in so many words, Browne affirms apostolic succession as crucial to the maintenance of the present-day church’s continuity with the early church. As for those churches lacking this succession, he does not venture a clear statement on their status:

The formularies of our Church have expressed no judgment as to how far the very being of a Church may be imperilled by a defect in this particular note of the Church; as by mutilation of the Sacraments, imperfect ordination, or defective exercise of the power of the Keys. At the present time, these questions force themselves on us. But the English Church has been content to give her decision as to the right mode of ordaining, ministering Sacraments, and exercising discipline, without expressing an opinion on the degree of defectiveness in such matters which would cause other communions to cease from being Churches of Christ.

Browne’s stance is mildly aloof compared to that of other English divines. To be sure, some are comparably noncommittal,^[4] but many others have been quick to affirm non-episcopal bodies as true churches of Christ:

The attitude of the Church of England as a whole towards non-episcopal Churches has varied considerably under conflicting circumstances, but the general trend is clear. In its formularies, while it carefully expresses its belief in apostolic sanction of episcopacy, cf. Preface to Ordinal, it as carefully avoids any definition of Church which might ‘unchurch’ the non-episcopal reformed communions on the Continent and in Scotland, cf. Article XIX.^[5] With this conservative yet inclusive position agree the acts and words of authoritative exponents of the teaching of the Church of England.^[6]

The traditional justification for accepting non-episcopal bodies as true churches (those on the European continent, at least) is that, historically, they were compelled to reject episcopal authority in the face of intractable bishops who opposed the Reformation.^[7] Browne mentions this rationale in connection with both Lutherans and continental Calvinists: “The Lutherans earnestly protested, that they much wished to retain episcopacy, but that the bishops forced them to reject sound doctrine, and therefore they were unable to preserve their allegiance to them; and they ‘openly testified to the world, that they would willingly continue the canonical government, if only the bishops would cease to exercise cruelty upon the Churches.’” As for the Calvinists, they, “though in like manner rejecting their bishops, who would have bound them to Rome, declared themselves ready to submit to a lawful hierarchy. Calvin said that those who would not submit themselves to such, were deserving of any anathema.”^[8] However, other Anglican divines have wondered whether the circumstances on the Continent were truly so compelling. Archbishop Laud, for example, is quoted as speculating “whether an inevitable necessity be cast upon them or they pluck a kind of necessity upon themselves.”^[9] Setting aside the Reformers’ circumstances, it is difficult to argue that non-episcopal churches are under any such compulsion at present. How, then, should Anglicans regard these churches today?

If the extenuating circumstance of inescapable necessity can no longer be pleaded, it could be argued Anglicans should re-assert that “the Episcopate is of the esse [essence] of the universal Church.”^[10] On this view, “There cannot be the Church without the bishop”:

Without the bishop there cannot be the ministry of the Church; and without the ministry there cannot be the Church’s central rite, the Eucharist. That there is no Church and no priest and no Eucharist if there is no bishop is as true now as when it was said in the third century.^[11]

Those who profess this viewpoint concurrently uphold the necessity of apostolic succession, as Browne does when he says the church’s apostolicity is founded in part on its being “governed and ministered to by a clergy deriving their succession from the Apostles.”^[12] If statements such as this and the above block quote are taken at face value, it appears as though adherents to the “episcopacy as esse” view logically must hold that non-episcopal churches—without proper ministers and, therefore, without proper sacraments—exist outside the bounds of salvation.

In reality, even avowed proponents of the “episcopacy as esse” view and apostolic succession are generally unwilling to take this step—whatever their high-church credentials, they retain some tender feeling for non-episcopal churches. Pre-Romish Newman exemplifies this attitude:

You say that my doctrine of the one Catholic Church in effect excludes Dissenters, nay, Presbyterians, from salvation. Far from it. Do not think of me as of one who makes theories for himself in his closet, who governs himself by book-maxims, and who, as being secluded from the world, has no temptation to let his sympathies for individuals rise against his abstract positions, and can afford to be hard-hearted, and to condemn by wholesale the multitudes in various sects and parties whom he never saw.^[13]

At worst, it is maintained that non-episcopal churches, having separated themselves from truly apostolic ministry, are in an irregular or impaired state, standing on shaky ground in relation to God’s covenanted means of grace. As one author characterizes this outlook, those who hold it “condemn all outside the lines of episcopal succession, if not to the outer darkness, at least to the dimly lighted region of the uncovenanted mercies of God.”^[14] Yet they also grant that non-episcopal churches are not devoid of grace. Darwell Stone follows up his own declaration of “no bishop, no Church” (quoted above) with this mitigating comment: “This does not mean that there are no gifts of God’s grace outside the visible Church. It may well be that the goodness of God outflows its appointed channels. It may well be that He has much to bestow wherever there are any who look to Him for His blessings.”^[15] The impaired order of non-episcopal churches is therefore affirmed simultaneously with the reality of God’s grace apparent among them. E. J. Bicknell expresses the tension well:

How, then, does the Church of England regard Nonconformist ministrations? Stress should be laid on the positive rather than on the negative side. We are bound to hold fast to our ministry to secure the validity of our own ministrations. But the true antithesis to ‘valid’ in such cases is not ‘invalid’ but rather ‘precarious’. We are convinced that Nonconformist rites are irregular: they have not on them the stamp of approval of the whole Church. But we have no wish to dogmatize on their position in the sight of God or to deny that He employs them as means of grace. God is not limited to His ordinances, but we are. We believe that the maintenance of the succession is God’s will for us and a real means towards the reunion of Christendom. Those who repudiate it we leave to God’s judgment. There is abundant evidence that here as elsewhere God uses what is not wholly in accordance with His will. We do not deny or wish others to deny any spiritual experience that they have gained. But we believe that to loosen our hold on the historical ministry in the hope of attaining a rapid and partial unity would be to postpone any hope of a complete and lasting unity. Apostolic succession represents the intellectual justification of a practical necessity.^[16]

To summarize, insofar as the “episcopacy as esse” viewpoint is taken strictly to mean that churches without bishops are only dubiously (at best) Christian, this position is largely a chimera.^[17] Far more prevalent is the view that episcopacy constitutes the fullness of the church rather than its essence:

Although the historic episcopate is not essential to the church, in the sense that the church could not exist without it, there are solid reasons for retaining and extending the historic episcopate. Without it the church cannot achieve its full stature. To speak thus of the fullness of the church is to use biblical categories.^[18]

In seeking to uphold the institution of episcopacy, then, Anglicans can rest assured that this does not require the “un-churching” of non-episcopal bodies in the sense of declaring them totally un-Christian, and that such a drastic verdict is generally not laid down even by episcopacy’s most fervent advocates. In the words of Gerald McDermott, “While we hold to the episcopate as integral to the fullness of faith, and prize our place in the apostolic succession, we do not un-church those who disagree or judge their sacraments. Rome says that we Anglicans are no longer in the true Church and so our sacraments are invalid. We do not say the same of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Nor do we say that other Protestant churches (who hold to orthodoxy) are not real churches, or that they do not enjoy the presence of Christ.”^[19]

Notes

1. See also Thomas Pigot, The Churchman’s Guide in Perilous Times (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1835), 69; Gilbert Burnet, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, ed. James R. Page (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1842), 336, 339‒40; George Tomline, Elements of Christian Theology, 14^th ed., vol. II (London: T. Cadell, 1843), 329; T. P. Boultbee, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871), 195‒96; Edgar C. S. Gibson, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 2^nd ed. (London: Methuen and Co., 1898), 574, 578‒79; B. J. Kidd, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their History and Explanation (London: Rivington’s, 1899), 203; E. Tyrrell Green, The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation, 2^nd ed. (London: Wells, Gardner, Darton & Co., 1912), 167n1; Arthur C. Headlam, The Doctrine of the Church and Christian Reunion (London: John Murray, 1920), 255n1; E. J. Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 2^nd ed. (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1925), 404; W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, 4^th ed. (London: Church Book Room Press, 1951), 313, 328; and Richard A. Norris, “Episcopacy,” in The Study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes and John Booty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988), 300. ↑
2. John Macbeth, Notes on the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1894), 126. See also Thomas Waite, Sermons, Explanatory and Practical, on the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1826), 337; Burnet, Exposition, 336, 339; William Goode, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England (New York: A. D. F. Randolph, 1853), 25‒26; Gibson, Thirty-Nine Articles, 574; Kidd, Thirty-Nine Articles, 203; Bicknell, Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, 404; and E. R. Fairweather and R. F. Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1953), 96. ↑
3. While the Ordinal makes episcopal ordination a requirement for Anglican ministry, it should not necessarily be inferred that it thereby condemns or “un-churches” non-episcopal bodies. See Goode, Vindication, 27; Headlam, Doctrine of the Church, 255; Beatrice M. Hamilton Thompson, “The Post-Reformation Episcopate in England: From the Reformation to the Restoration,” in The Apostolic Ministry: Essays on the History and the Doctrine of Episcopacy, ed. Kenneth E. Kirk (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1957), 403‒404; and H. W. Montefiore, “The Historic Episcopate,” in Carey, The Historic Episcopate, 2nd ed., ed. Kenneth M. Carey (London: Dacre Press, 1960), 109. ↑
4. See Edward Welchman, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (London: SPCK, 1842), 56; Boultbee, Exposition, 197‒98; and Gibson, Thirty-Nine Articles, 746. ↑
5. See also Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 83. ↑
6. Charles Neil and J. M. Willoughby, eds., The Tutorial Prayer Book (London: The Harrison Trust, 1913), 503. See also H. C. O’Donnoghue, A Familiar and Practical Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (London: Taylor and Hessey, 1816), 198; Burnet, Exposition, 338‒39; Tomline, Elements, 346‒48; Goode, Vindication, iv; Robert Louis Cloquet, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1885), 408; F. E. Middleton, Lambeth and Trent: A Brief Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Chas. J. Thynne, 1900), 137‒39; Headlam, Doctrine of the Church, ix; Oliver Chase Quick, The Christian Sacraments, 4^th ed. (London: Nisbet & Co., 1941), 146; G. K. A. Bell, Christian Unity: The Anglican Position (London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1948), 23‒28; A. E. J. Rawlinson, Problems of Reunion (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1950), 58; Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 84‒87; Thompson, “Post-Reformation Episcopate,” 404; B. D. Till, “Episcopacy in the Works of the Elizabethan and Caroline Divines,” in Carey, Historic Episcopate, 80‒81; and Norris, “Episcopacy,” 304. ↑
7. On necessity as a rationale for lacking episcopacy, see O’Donnoghue, Exposition, 204‒205; John Keble, “Adherence to the Apostolical Succession the safest Course” [Tract 4], in Tracts for the Times, vol. I (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1838), 6; Burnet, Exposition, 336, 338; William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. I, 3^rd ed. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1842), 144; Joseph Hall, Episcopacy by Divine Right, in Works, vol. IX, ed. Philip Wynter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1863), 150, 254; A. J. Mason, The Church of England and Episcopacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 450; Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 58, 90; Till, “Episcopacy,” 77‒78; Paul F. Bradshaw, “Ordinals,” in Sykes and Booty, Study of Anglicanism, 151; Norris, “Episcopacy,” 304; and Peter B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760‒1857 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 156. ↑
8. On the Lutheran and Calvinist acceptance of episcopacy, see Book of Concord, “Defense of the Augsburg Confession,” Article XIV, “Of Ecclesiastical Order,” https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-ecclesiastical-order/; John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, trans. Henry Beveridge (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843), 147; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion IV.10.6, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 783; William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. II, 2^nd ed. (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1841), 365; Hall, Episcopacy, 151, 153; Macbeth, Notes, 126; Green, Thirty-Nine Articles, 168n1; and K. D. MacKenzie, “Sidelights from the Non-episcopal Communions,” in Kirk, Apostolic Ministry, 469‒70. ↑
9. Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 58. See also Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 59; A. P. Forbes, An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 2^nd ed. (Oxford and London: James Parker and Co., 1871), 429‒30; Mason, Church of England and Episcopacy, 450‒51, 524‒25; and Till, “Episcopacy,” 78. ↑
10. Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 72. ↑
11. Darwell Stone, “Episcopacy and Reunion,” in Episcopacy, Ancient and Modern, ed. Claude Jenkins and K. D. MacKenzie (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930), 381. See also Christopher Wordsworth, Theophilus Anglicanus, 6^th ed. (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1850), 104, and Gerald McDermott, Deep Anglicanism: A Brief Guide, 2^nd ed. (Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Press, 2024), 241. ↑
12. See also John Henry Newman, “Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission, respectfully addressed to the Clergy” [Tract 1], in Tracts for the Times, 3; Keble, “Apostolical Succession,” 2; Palmer, Treatise, vol. I, 143; William Baker, A Plain Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Rivington’s, 1883), 135; Darwell Stone, Outlines of Christian Dogma, 3^rd ed. (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), 117; Henry C. Sheldon, Sacerdotalism in the Nineteenth Century: A Critical History (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1909), 347; and Ramsey, Gospel and Catholic Church, 71. ↑
13. John Henry Newman, “The Visible Church. Letter IV” [Tract 47], in Tracts for the Times, vol. II (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1840), 2. ↑
14. Sheldon, Sacerdotalism, 414. See also Sheldon, Sacerdotalism, 351; Newman, “Visible Church,” 2; Burnet, Exposition, 338‒39; Goode, Vindication, iv, 31; Forbes, Explanation, 430; Headlam, Doctrine of the Church, 301‒302; Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 38, 86‒87, 89‒90; and Till, “Episcopacy,” 80‒81. ↑
15. Stone, “Episcopacy and Reunion,” 381. ↑
16. Bicknell, Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, 423. See also Bicknell, Theological Introduction, 416; Keble, “Apostolical Succession,” 6; Quick, Christian Sacraments, 146; Bell, Christian Unity, 22; Rawlinson, Problems of Reunion, 60, 68; Thomas, Principles of Theology, 335; Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 2, 24‒25, 38, 40, 89‒90; A. B. Webster, “Church Order and Reunion in the Nineteenth Century,” in Carey, Historic Episcopate, 92, 99‒100; Montefiore, “Historic Episcopate,” 105; Norris, “Episcopacy,” 304‒305; Ramsey, Gospel and Catholic Church, 72, 168, 171; and Francis J. Hall, Anglican Dogmatics: Francis J. Hall’s Dogmatic Theology, ed. John A. Porter, vol. 2, Bk. VIII, The Church & the Sacramental System (Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Press, 2021), 342‒43. ↑
17. No doubt some people really do take such an extreme view. It has been claimed of Charles Daubeny, for example, that he believed “Free Church baptism was invalid and even doubted whether children baptized by Free Church ministers might be buried in a churchyard” (Webster, “Church Order,” 89). In general, however, this sort of hardline stance appears to be scarce. ↑
18. Montefiore, “Historic Episcopate,” 115. See also Montefiore, “Historic Episcopate,” 107, 109, 125; Newman, “Visible Church,” 3‒4; Stone, Outlines, 121‒22; Fairweather and Hettlinger, Episcopacy and Reunion, 2; and Norris, “Episcopacy,” 307. ↑
19. McDermott, Deep Anglicanism, 241. ↑