By Bishops Rent Asunder - Part II

One thing that comes across in reading White's 'Case' is that he maintains the moderate, 18th century, view of Episcopacy, and his thoughts can be summarized under three heads:

1. Bishops were of Apostolic Institution and had developed late in the New Testament period.
2. They were fundamental to a properly ordered church, but in an emergency ordination by Presbyters could be tolerated.
3. He defined their role more in terms of 'supervising presbyters' than 'successors of the Apostles.'

White's views were not quite as Latitudinarian as some others in what might be described as the Low Church party because he goes half way to meeting High Church claims, and does not treat the Episcopate as a civil institution. He treats it rather as an ancient institution which the Church of England and her daughters had received from the first century of the Church's history. It is also quite clear that he does not envision American bishops as being 'Lord bishops' in the English sense. His job description for them is more in the order of a supervising presbyter who keeps and eye on the clergy in his district, ordains, and chairs the local Convention. White, as a son of the colonial Church, does not attach much importance to confirmation. His own practice seems to have changed over his almost fifty years as Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. In the early days, he seems to have confirmed such as came to him for the purpose, and later in his career he did make a tour of Western Pennsylvania, but there is little record of his going out of his way to travel the diocese confirming. This is partly because, like most early bishops, he had a day-job - in his case, being the rector of the joint Parishes of Philadelphia.

The High Church party in the late 18th century did not have the same obsessiveness about bishops that would develop under the Tractarians. George Prettyman-Tomline (1750-1827) who served successively as Bishop of Lincoln, then of Winchester, agreed with White that bishops were of Apostolic origin, and were fundamental to a well-ordered Church, but he put more emphasis on the fact that between the first and the end of the third century, the Canons of the Church increasingly placed the bishop at the centre of the ministerial system. Yet for all that, Tomline does not automatically regard foreign orders as invalid, but rather irregular or incomplete. This notion of Episcopacy carried over into the nineteenth century among the Old High Churchmen, and it was a factor behind their support of the Anglo-Prussia Jerusalem Bishopric. However, as the nineteenth century progressed, extravagant claims on the part of episcopacy were increasingly made by Tractarians, and their Ritualist successors, whilst Evangelicals tended to start talking about the parity of ministers, and that Episcopacy was a purely human institution with dark rumblings that it did not originate in New Testament times. As usual, the High got higher, the Low got lower, and they both made themselves ridiculous in the process!

New Testament Evidence
It has to be said that no complete picture of the Church's ministry appears from the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles starts with the Apostles as the only ministers of the Church in the first few chapters. Then the seven, later described as deacons, are added in Acts 6: 1 - 6. Later in Acts (14:23), Paul and Barnabas are recorded as having 'ordained them elders in every church,' which, when couple to various references to 'elders' [presbyters] and 'deacons' in the Epistles, suggests that a local ministry of deacons and elders, under the supervision of the Apostles had become normative by the mid-40s AD. On occasion, the New Testament text refers to overseers [bishops] but the context demands that on most occasions we accept this as a synonym for presbyter. However, by the 60sAD it is evident that the ministries of presbyter and bishop are beginning to divide as the Church passes into a second and third generation of existence. Paul seems to set his seal of approval on this process in his letters to Timothy and Titus, but I think it is almost as big a mistake to claim that Episcopacy is 'de jure divino' as it is Presbyterianism, or congregationalism, as no modern form of Church government is precisely that of the New Testament, nor, realistically, can it be, as, to fall back on a point made in the Thirty-nine Articles,

"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 diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word."

Tomline's "Elements of Christian Theology" [Volume II, pp. 371 - 405] whilst commentating on the Twenty-Third Article devotes a good deal of time and space to this historical development of the Episcopate as a distinct office - basically between 60AD and 130AD - and its acquisition of an exclusive right to ordain which had occured by the late-200s, at least a generation before the Council of Nicaea. He also gives some attention to local adaptions of episcopacy, but, given the state of historical science c.1800, these are not extensive, however it is quite clear that he understood that there had been a process of historical development.

Unfortunately, the development of Episcopacy in the United States since the 1840s has tended to ignore the cautious approach adopted by Anglicans from the 16th to the early 19th century. Tractarians did not hesitate to make exclusivist claims that unchurched anyone who did not live under an Episcopal system. They took with an unusual degree of literalness Ignatius of Antioch's comment, 'where the bishop is, there is the Church' and in the process began to accumulate many of the trapping of the mediaeval episcopate which earlier generations of Episcopalians had ignored. However, in terms of 'dress sense' the theatrical version of the Episcopate remained confined to the Midwestern Biretta Belt until well into the 20th century, and it is only post-WW2, as the process of the Episcopal Church becoming 'high, wide, and theologically half-an-inch deep' was well underway that anything other than rochet and chimere was seen on the majority of bishops. This caution was well-advised in the American context where there is still a lingering suspicion of monarchy and mediaevalism. However, behind the scenes a subtle shift had occurred in the balance of power between bishops, standing committees, and diocesan conventions.

[Next - Part 3 - The Balance of Power]

By Bishops Rent Asunder... Part I - The Conventions of the Church

A line from a paraody of 'The Church's One Foundation' which I sometimes think describes the dilemma facing Continuing Anglicanism in the early 1980s as it worked out the implications of both separating from the Episcopal Church, and of the Affirmation of St Louis. The United Episcopal Church of North America, of which I have been the Presiding Bishop for almost fifteen years, was an early departure from the Anglican Catholic Church mainly because of tensions over the Affirmation, Churchmanship, and the new Constitution and Canons. By contrast to most other Continuing Anglican bodies, the UECNA, whilst acknowledging the historical value of the Affirmation as a diagnostic of the problems of PECUSA in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, relies on the older formularies - the Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies - to form it theology and practice. This gives us a certain freedom that other Continuing Churches do not have to explore the character of Anglicanism in America

One of the things that I have become intrigued by recently is the position of Episcopacy in the Protestant Episcopal Church during its formative stages from 1782 to 1789. White's Case of "The Episcopal Churches in the United States of America Considered" and the early General Convention Journals see this being worked out in real time. What is very clear about White is that he is a definite Episcopalian who values the institution, but in the emergency situation that existed 1782-87, he could see his way clear to preserve the substance of episcopacy without insisting on the historic succession. It is also clear from White's writings that he saw authority in the American Church as being of the bottom-up variety, noting that in America parishes existed but no dioceses, for example,

"In England, dioceses having been formed before parishes, a church supposes one common flock, subject to a bishop and sundry collegiate presbyters; without the idea of its being necessarily divided into smaller communities connected with their respective parochial clergy; the latter having been introduced some considerable time after the conversion of the nation to the christian faith. One natural consequence of this distinction, will be to retain in each church every power that need not be delegated for the good of the whole. Another, will be an equality of the churches; and not, as in England, the subjection of all parish churches to their respective cathedrals."

This led him to advance the following structure for the Church:

Vestries send their clergy and elected lay delegates to a local convention. White's language in 'The Case' does not delineate these as being State Conventions, but,

"In each smaller district, there should be elected a general vestry or convention, consisting of a convenient number (the minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of each church, or of every two or more churches, according to their respective ability of supporting a minister. They should elect a clergyman their permanent president; who, in conjunction with other clergymen to be also appointed by the body, may exercise such powers as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admitting to the ministry; the presiding clergyman, and others to be liable to be deprived for just causes, by a fair process, and under reasonable laws; meetings to be held as often as occasion may require."

Three or more of these district conventions were to be gathered together into a regional body which,

"The assemblies in the three larger districts may consist of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally composed of clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders promiscuously; the presiding clergyman to be always one, and these bodies to meet once in every year."

This middle tier of Synodical Government did not in the final scheme approved in 1789, and even the modern provinces of TEC do not have a representative Convention in the way intended here. This middle tier of government may have been provided for in the Constitution of the PEC in the Confederates States where it states there shall be 'diocesan, provincial, and general Councils' but at the time this was written (1862) it was an aspiration for the future not a present reality.

Lastly came the General Convention, which seems to have been intended to have only limited powers given the principle of retain authority at the lowest practicable level ennunciated earlier in the document, and reiterated here,

"The continental representative body may consist of a convenient number from each of the larger districts, formed equally of clergy and laity, and among the clergy, formed equally of presiding ministers and others; to meet statedly once in three years. The use of this and the preceding representative bodies is to make such regulations, and receive appeals in such matters only, as shall be judged necessary for their continuing one religious communion."

Taken as a whole, the document conceives of a fully representative form of Church Government, presided over by elected Presidents who will in the end become the bishops of the newly independent Church. Also, in its bottom-up approach to power, it is close in its principles to the Federal Constitution that was drawn up at the same time. However, White's proposal was modified before it became law, as it were. In the various versions of the Constitution that appeared between 1785 and 1789 the following levels of government were instituted,

1. Parishes elected lay representatives and sent their clergy to a State Convention. This body elected one of the clergy as president. There would be two houses - clergy and laity.
2. Each State Convention elected four clergy and four laity to sit in the General Convention, and this body elected one of the clergy to be its President. Likewise there would be two houses, and the concurrance of both is neccessary for legislation and resolutions to pass.

As bishops became a reality, the Constitution was amended so that bishops sat and voted with the clergy, and that one of the Bishops presided. This scheme was adopted by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873/4 in an attempt to calm the rising clericalism of the late 1800s, whilst in the PECUSA it was quickly modified to accommodate the concerns of the New England delegates who were to join the Convention during the second session of 1789. These were lead by Samuel Seabury, who had definite opinions about the role of bishops that were somewhat higher than those of White and a majority of the delegates from the Middle and Southern States. In order to mollify Seabury, the second 1789 version of the Constitution is modified to allow for the creation of a separate House of Bishops,

"The Bishops of this church, when there shall be three or more, shall, whenever general conventions are held, form a house of revision, and when any proposed act shall have passed in the general convention, the same shall be transmitted to the house of revision, for their concurrence. And if the same shall-be sent back to the Convention, with the negative or non-concurrence of the house of revision, it shall be again considered in the General Convention, and if the Convention shall adhere to the said act, by a majority of three-fifths of their body, it shall become a law to all intents and purposes, notwithstanding the non-concurrence of the house of revision; and all acts of the Convention shall be authenticated by both houses. And in all cases, the house of Bishops shall signify to the Convention their approbation or disapprobation, the latter with their reasons in writing, within two days after the proposed act shall have been reported to them for concurrence, and in failure thereof it shall have the operation of a law."

As can be seen, even with the influence of Seabury, the amount of independent power conceded to the bishops was extremely limited, and to all intents and purposes maintained the division of powers so beloved of 18th century American political thinkers.

[Next - Part II - The Episcopal Office]

A Republican Episcopate

An Anglican or rather Episcopalian Episcopate was not established in the American Colonies until the 1780s, and much of the theoretical basis was worked out by the Rev. William White of Philadelphia (1748-1836) who was Rector of the United Parishes there. A supporter of the Patriot Cause, he had served as chaplain to the continental congress at one point, and when hostilities ceased in 1781, he turned his mind to preserving what was left of the Church of England in the newly independent Colonies.

He drew attention to the matter by writing a pamphlet, “The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered” which argued for the continuation of the Episcopal Church in the former colonies and provided an outline scheme for its governance. Later, he joined with others in calling for a General Convention in association with the annual meeting of the Widows and Orphans Fund to discuss the constitutional arrangements for the reorganized Church. The Revolutionary War had left the Church reduced in numbers, with about a third of her ministers having left for Canada or England, and it incurred considerable enmity on basis of it being the Established Church of the former colonial power. If it were not to disappear, swift action was needed, and the first of a series of General Conventions met in 1785 to hash out the discipline and worship of the new Church.

To revert to White’s ‘Case.’ The work makes interesting reading in that he has no qualms about adapting the institutions of the Church to suit the American experience. For example, White recognizes the historical priority of parishes over dioceses in North America, by contrast to the Mother Country were dioceses predated parishes. This caused him to write,

“One natural consequence of this distinction will be to retain in each church (parish – PDR) every power that need not be delegated for the good of the whole. Another, will be an equality of the churches; and not, as in England, the subjection of all parish churches to their respective cathedrals.”

This priority of parish over diocese also suggests that the property of the Church belongs in the first instance with the Parish and its Vestry, and that the fundamental unit of Church administration is the parish, rather than the diocese.

Having established the basics, White then elaborates proposing a three-tier system of government with District, State, and Continental Conventions which is oddly reminiscent of Ussher’s proposals of 1641. At the lowest level, White suggests that each parish, or union of parishes, send equal numbers of lay and clerical representatives to a district convention. The presiding officer of this Convention was to be a minister elected permanently to the post. They in turn were to send equal numbers of lay and clerical representatives to State Conventions, again with a minister as president, to take order for the Church within each State or Commonwealth, or possibly several states together. Finally, these middle level Conventions would send delegates to the Continental Convention which would legislate on those matters in which it is necessary for the Church to have uniformity across the Continent. White, being a good son of the Revolution, conceives that only such matters as cannot be handled at the local, or lower levels, be delegated to the middle- and upper-tier Conventions.

White’s scheme is nowhere near fully worked out, but the barebones of the Protestant Episcopal Church’s constitution can be seen in germ in what the future Bishop proposes. His vision of Church government is very much bottom-up, rather than top-down, and in this is echoes the general sentiments of the newly born Republic with regards to its governmental institutions. When it comes to Bishops, White disposes of many of the common American objections quite briefly,

“In the minds of some, the idea of the episcopacy will be connected with that of immoderate power; to which it may be answered, that power becomes dangerous, not from the precedency of one man, but from his being independent. Had Rome been governed by a presbytery instead of a bishop; and had that presbytery been invested with the independent riches and dominion of the Papal See; it is easy to conceive, of their acquiring as much power over the Christian world, as was ever known in a Gregory or a Paul.

Then of too hard and fast a connection between kings and bishops, he writes,

“It may be further objected, that episcopacy is anti-republican; and therefore, opposed to those ideas which all good citizens ought to promote, for securing the peace and happiness of the community. But this supposed relation between episcopacy and monarchy arises from confounding English episcopacy with the subject at large. In the early ages of the church, it was customary to debate and determine in a general concourse of all Christians in the
same city; among whom the bishop was no more than president.”

He appeals to the history of the Church before the Constantinian Compromise. He also makes short work of objections to the title of bishop suggesting that if such a name be found offensive president, superintendent, or overseer be used instead.

The most radical part of the scheme was what he proposed to do if the historical succession could not be secured. Citing Hooker, Ussher, Burnet, and Hoadly on the admissibility of presbyterial ordinations in emergency, White proposes what is in effect an Episcopate without the historic succession to allow church government to continue in good order. Whether these presiding offices of the Convention would have ordained until such time as the Historic Episcopate can be secured is left unclear. Something similar occurred some 80 years later in the Free Church of England where Benjamin Price exercised oversight as “bishop” without having been consecrated. White concludes that, in the emergency then existing,

“All the obligations of conformity to the divine ordinances, all the arguments which prove the connexion between public worship and the morals of a people, combine to urge the adopting some speedy measures, to provide for the public ministry in these churches; if such as have been above recommended should be adopted, and the episcopal succession afterwards obtained, any supposed imperfections of the intermediate ordinations might, if it were judged proper, be supplied without acknowledging their nullity, by a conditional ordination resembling that of conditional baptism in the liturgy; the above was an expedient proposed by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Patrick, Stillingfleet, and others, at the revolution, and had been actually practised in Ireland by Archbishop Bramhall. [Nicholson’s “Defence of the church of England,” Introduction.]”

White’s scheme is practical and pragmatic, and as providence would grant, the English bishops stirred themselves and secured an Act of Parliament allowing them to consecrate bishops without exacting the oaths to the Crown. As a result, White and Provost were consecrated to be Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania and New York respective, and James Madison (of Augusta Co.) was consecrated as Bishop of Virginia in 1790. The General Convention accepted Samuel Seabury’s Scottish Consecration in 1789 allowing a unified, Episcopal Church to emerge, albeit one without the Methodists. White’s view of the episcopate was decidedly republican – they were elected presiding officers with limited clearly defined power, not imperial prelates. Their material needs were to be provided for by their remaining in the parishes which they already held, and conducted such Episcopal business as came their way alongside their parochial duties.

Over the next few years, a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing occurred in which the Constitution of the General Convention was worked out. Until the 1789 Convention, it was going to be a unicameral body in which the clergy voted as one house, and the laity as the second. The president of the General Convention was to be a Presiding Bishop, and there was no Episcopal veto. To accommodate Seabury, the General Convention of 1789 agreed to the creation of a House of Bishop when three of more were present, and gave them a veto, which could be overturned by a four-fifths vote of the Delegates.

What White proposes is a distinctively American or Republican episcopate shorn of the trappings of the English Establishment focussing solely on its spiritual functions. White clearly sees the bishop of a given area as being the minister of one of the larger parish churches, elected by the lay and clerical members of the local Convention. The bishop presides over that body and other organs of the Church and with performs with the necessary administrative functions of Church whilst retaining his traditional rights to confirm and ordain. This is not a ‘high mitre’ Episcopate, but one focussed on the well-being of the Church as it seeks to re-establish itself in the young Republic.