Tracts for the Times, defending the Reformation
The English Church did not revolt from those who in that day had authority by succession from the Apostles. On the contrary, it is certain that the Bishops and Clergy in England and Ireland remained the same as before the separation, and that it was these, with the aid of the civil power, who delivered the Church of those kingdoms from the yoke of Papal tyranny and usurpation ... The people of England, then, in casting off the Pope, but obeyed and concurred in the acts of their own spiritual Superiors, and committed no schism. Queen Mary, it is true, drove out after many years the orthodox Bishops, and reduced our Church again under the Bishop of Rome, but this submission was only exacted by force, and in itself null and void; and, moreover, in matter of fact it lasted but a little while, for on the succession of Queen Elizabeth, the true Successors of the Apostles in the English Church were reinstated in their ancient rights. So, I repeat, there was no revolt, in any part of these transactions, against those who had a commission from God; for it was the Bishops and Clergy themselves, who maintained the just rights of their Church.
But, it seems, the Pope has ever said, that our Bishops were bound by the laws of GOD and the Church to obey him; that they were subject to him; and that they had no right to separate from him, and were guilty in doing so, and that accordingly they have involved the people of England in their guilt; and, at all events, that they cannot complain of their flock disobeying and deserting them, when they have revolted from the Pope. Let us consider this point.
Now that there is not a word in Scripture about our duty to obey the Pope, is quite clear.
And, what is a more, the Tract also articulated a traditional High Church view of the continental Reformers, lamenting the absence of the historic episcopate in their churches, but affirming that they maintained "the true religion ... against the Romish party":
It may be said, that we throw blame on Luther, and others of the foreign Reformers, who did act without the authority of their Bishops. But we reply, that it has been always agreeable to the principles of the Church, that, if a bishop taught and up held what was contrary to the orthodox faith, the Clergy and people were not bound to submit, but were obliged to maintain the true religion; and if excommunicated by such Bishops, they were never accounted to be cut off from the Church. Luther and his associates upheld in the main the true doctrine; and though it is not necessary to defend every act of fallible men like them, yet we are fully justified in maintaining, that the conduct of those who defended the truth against the Romish party, even in opposition to their spiritual rulers, was worthy of great praise. At the same time it is impossible not to lament, that they did not take the first opportunity to place themselves under orthodox Bishops of the Apostolical Succession. Nothing, as far as we can judge, was more likely to have preserved them from that great decline of religion, which has taken place on the Continent.
M. F. Sadler makes a similar point in Church Doctrine; Bible Truth, although he broadens it by including the Christian year, the Propers, discrete offices for the 5 "commonly called" sacraments, etc.. It can be convincingly argued, though, that having Apostolic bishops has not prevented the Church from sliding into apostasy. (This is as evident for Rome as it is for Anglicanism.)
ReplyDeleteBut Tract 15 drives home the important historical fact that Anglicanism is a Reformation tradition sharing much in common with Lutherans and the Reformed. They are our most natural interlocutors; more so certainly than Rome or Orthodoxy.
Yes, I think that latter point is key and has probably been reflected in contemporary Anglican ecumenical dialogues bearing most fruit with Lutheran and Methodist partners, and in the examples offered by the Churches of South India, North India, and Pakistan.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI have recently read your post on Laud’s praise for German superintendency, and I’m also aware that the Restoration establishment reintroduced bishops in the Church of Scotland, but didn’t require the re-ordination of ministers (I read somewhere that not even all the bishops were required to be re-ordained, just some), so, I’ve been thinking… what was the Laudian/Old High Church view of physical succession?
When we claim that by the Restoration the Church of England had coalesced under a neo-Laudian Reformed conformity (with “Reformed” referring not to a strict predestinatarian stance but to a Reformational ethos), we should remember that even if high churchmen embraced jure divino claims of episcopacy, tying the divine institution of this [truly catholic] government with an unbroken lineage of episcopal-only ordination with an indelible character that imparts special grace to bishops is what Anglo-Catholics often do, and is what, in my view, is a sacerdotalist approach to succession that is not emphasised by—if not entirely foreign to—old high churchmen. Please, do correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m not—then how exactly did high churchmen lament the absence of the historic episcopate in the churches of the reformation and yet seemed willing to recognise the fullness of apostolic practice in the Reformed churches that had superintendents/bishops outside of the historic episcopate? I always thought that they did so not merely because those churches held true doctrine DESPITE not having physical succession, but because they already had the fullness of catholicity by retaining bishops (whether those bishops were on the historic episcopate or not). The very fact that they didn’t reject episcopal government but preserved it validated their succession—which is nothing but a sign that your pastors and seniors can be traced back to the apostles.
My understanding was that high churchmen emphasised episcopal government not because of a necessary link to the apostles (which, in my mind, they affirmed as a sign of apostolicity rather than a guarantee of it—a sign that was present in all churches of the reformation, not because presbyters can eternally retain succession, but because preserving apostolic doctrine justifies the remedial role of presbyters in preserving physical succession—physical succession being just a sign of a successive line of pastors that can be traced back to apostles), but because episcopacy, for them, was the perfect and most catholic form of ecclesiastical polity (and they were broadly divided between affirming a Hookerian view and affirming a more Laudian view). So I thought that, for them, retaining episcopacy was about retaining the fullness of doctrinal succession (i.e. preserving bishops/superintendents), which justifies a remedial, temporary presbyterial succession.
Sorry for my poor writing skills
— Daniel, a devout reader of Laudable Practice
Daniel, many thanks for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. I am working through a backlog of comments.
DeleteI think it is fair to say that with the exception of a very few advanced Laudians, most Laudian-inclined divines took care not to deny the orders of non-episcopal Continental Reformed churches. Even Taylor, who - on this matter - was an advanced Laudian, has quite nuanced views, accepting, for example, that a CofE person could receive the Sacrament in non-episcopal Continental churches.
Post-1660 and throughout the 'long 18th century', there was a broad acceptance of the Hookerian 'case from necessity', always taking care to note that this did not apply within England. This was alongside a robust affirmation of episcopal order as the scriptural and patristic order that should be followed.
Preserving apostolic doctrine was, of course, the fundamental issue. Laud affirmed this, as did Bramhall. It should be given expression in an episcopally ordered church, but the absence of this - while deeply regrettable - did not remove such churches from church catholic.
What would have been alien to such thought, however, was the explicit language of "presbyterial succession", as this would have come too close to accepting that presbyters had a right and power to ordain.
Brian.