Episcopacy and Church Unity
Episcopacy and Church Unity
The Free Churches
Throughout this century there have been discussions on several different Church unity schemes between the Church of England and the various Free Churches. These have often foundered over the question of episcopal reordination. Although the Church of England theologians have varied their conclusions as to whether episcopacy was of the esse, the bene esse or the plene esse of the Church they have been in no doubt it is part of the fabric of Anglicanism representing its authority and unity. Hence it has always been insisted upon that episcopal ordination be an intrinsic part of any unity scheme.
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 repeated much of the 1920's Conference Appeal to All Christian People1 calling for the reunion of Christendom, and at the same time reaffirmed the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 including its insistence on the importance of the historic episcopate2 but refused to acknowledge that a theology of episcopacy was necessary,
'When, therefore, we say that we must insist on the Historic Episcopate but not upon any theory or interpretation of it, we are not to be understood as insisting on the office apart from its functions.'3
'But while we thus stand for the Historic Episcopate as a necessary element in any union in which the Anglican Communion can take part... we do not require of the others acceptance of those reasons, or any one particular theory or interpretation of the Episcopate as a condition of union.'4
This demand for upholding episcopacy but refusal to define any doctrine of episcopacy has caused problems for allChurch of England unity schemes. It is difficult for other Churches to understand why the Church of England has demanded the preservation of episcopacy and episcopal ordination without such definition. Though it is widely known that some of her members have had very definite and differing interpretations of such a theology. Without a doctrinal definition there have been difficulties in drawing up a unity scheme with a future episcopal structure and some form of episcopal ratification or reordination of the Free Church clergy involved.
The 1968 Anglican Conference produced a reworded form of the ?Lambeth Quadrilateral which did not mention the historic episcopate at all in its four points necessary for Christian Unity. This drew considerable protests from several Church of England bishops - among them Williams of Leicester, Leonard of Willesden and Tomkins of Bristol. Following this the archbishop of Canterbury suggested that the 1888 wording be added to the report in a footnote, which was done.5
From 1920 onwards there were discussions and an exchange of papers between the Church of England and the various Free Churches. Thoseproduced by the Church of England always having episcopal ordination as an integral part of the scheme. The most important of these was the Outline of a Reunion Scheme of 1938, but this demand had little success among the Free Churches as by implication it would have denied the validity of their orders.6 Archbishop Fisher gave new impetus to the unity movement in 1946 when he preached at Great St.Mary's,Cambridge, suggesting that the Free Churches might consider, 'taking episcopacy into their own systems'.7
The 'establishment of the Church of England and its implications, such as the Crown appointment of bishops, was discussed by the Anglican-Methodist Commissions but did not feature greatly in the final reports8. Individual theologians have commented on the problem that could arise. As early as 1929 Kenneth Mackenzie wrote,
'For apart from the question of Episcopal Ordination, it is probable that the greatest difficulty which some of the Free Churches at home would find in coalesing with the Church of England would be the fear that an established and episcopally governed church cannot really be free9.'
Mackenzie, as Bishop of Brechin, could see this difficulty as maybe English bishops who were part of the Establishment could not, but as a contributor to The Apostolic Ministry he held a high estimation of the episcopate. Yet generally the problem is treated at an 'official' level as non existant or put off to be faced when some unity scheme has the actual approval of the Churches in question.
The Church of South India
The great ecumenical debate of the Fisher years however concerned the Church of South India. An attempt to unite the South India United Church, the South India Provinces of the Wesleyan ?Methodist Church, and the four southern dioceses of the Anglican Church of India, Burma and Ceylon into a new united episcopally based Church. This scheme which had been discussed for many years now was reached fruition, coming into existence in September 1947. The Lambeth Conference of 1948 was unable to give the new Church united acceptance. The majority of its bishops accepted,
'bishops and presbyters consecrated or ordained in the Church of South India as true bishops and presbyters in the Church of Christ, and to recommend that they be accepted as such in every part of the Anglican Communion.'
A substantial minority were unable to accept this position because there was no reordination for the existing non-episcopally ordained clergy although future ordinations were to be episcopal.10
Final acceptance or non-acceptance was left to individual provinces of the Anglican Communion, which meant that some provinces were in full Communion with South India, others had a restricted approach and only accepted those South India ministers who could provide 'episcopal pedigree'.
Hostility to the proposed scheme had been building up for many years among Anglo Catholics in the Church of England. Bishop Kirk of Oxford and Dom Gregory Dix had a long correspondence over the matter in the 1940's. Kirk and Dix helped to mobilize opposition among the Anglican religious communities11 with the support of the Church Union.12 Kirk continued, until his death in 1954, his opposition to the Church of England's recognition of the validity of Orders in the CSI and had been vocal in his opposition at the 1948 Lambeth Conference.
Archbishop William Temple had been firmly in favour of the scheme, so was Archbishop Fisher, but being aware of the rising Anglo Catholic opposition expressed his support in more guarded terms. He was aware that the Lower House of the Canterbury Convocation had voted in 1945 that he should use his influence to get the inauguration of the scheme postponed at least until after the next Lambeth Conference.13
The Church of England formed sub-committees of the two Convocations which eventually reported in 1955. The leading figures behind these committees were Bishop Bell of Chichester and Bishop Michael Ramsey of Durham.14 This concluded that all clergy ordained at or after the inauguration of the CSI should be regarded as validly ordained15 in ?Anglican Churches. Anglo Catholic opposition to this limited acceptance was strong because they claimed that it endangered the validity of the orders of the Church of England itself.16
There was no Preface to the new CSI Ordinal and by this the CSI did not make clear its own doctrine of episcopacy and episcopal ordination. The lack of clarity in its corporate intention led to opposition in whichSalmon, the principal of Wells Theological College, played a large part as did Walter Hannah, an Anglican clergyman whose opposition to the scheme finally led him to become a convert to the Church of Rome. Hannah argued that,
'By recognising South Indian Orders as fully equivalent to our own, and ours as fully equivalent to theirs, we Anglicans today who heretofore have had no doubts must surely admit that our own future episcopal consecrations are of doubtful validity. For we are in effect, admitting that the Preface to the Ordinal does not really matter, does not mean what we have always taken it to mean, and might just as well never have been written.17'
Other Anglo Catholics were not so extreme and followed the line of E.W.Kemp (later Bishop of Chichester) in believing that the future requirement for episcopal ordination showed that the CSI's intention over ordination was entirely orthodox.18 Kemp was supported by E.L.Mascall19 in the acceptance of the Convocations report. Mascall did however feel that such reunion schemes put a considerable strain on the internal unity of the Church of England as they exposed the widely differing views of its members on the subject of episcopacy,
'I believe that those who interpret the recent decisions of Convocation as signifying a virtual abandonment of the Catholic character of the Church of England are profoundly misinformed and mistaken. I am convinced that there is no valid reason for Catholics to secede from the Church of England, but if there should be secessions the blame will not be entirely with the seceders; it will be shared by those who have placed them in the position in which they have, however mistakenly, felt bound to secede. The plain fact is that our involvement in Protestant reunion schemes has led the Church of England perilously near to the point of disruption, and common prudence, apart from more directly religious considerations, demands that we shall call a halt in the urgent task of healing our own inner wounds and divisions.'20
The Constitution of the Church of South India21 stated that the CSI accepted episcopacy but not, 'any particular interpretation of episcopacy'. This was in line with the declaration of the 1930 Lambeth Conference and also with the Church of England's lack of a detailed theology of episcopacy. TheAnglo Catholics alone appear to have disapproved of this lack of defined doctrine. The Anglo Catholics too were more concerned that, although being in Communion with the CSI was to be in Communion with some episcopally ordained clergy, the CSI in turn was in Communion with other Free Churches which had no episcopate. The CSI's refusal to accept a doctrine of episcopacy would suggest that they saw bishops as largely administrative figures whose role was part of long standing Christian tradition, a view shared by much of the Anglican Communion. If the role of bishop is limited to this then there is little room for controversy. The CSI, as well as the whole Anglican Communion, knew a more comprehensive doctrine was impossible to achieve without severe divisions.
In fact comparatively few clergy felt bound to leave the Church of England over the scheme. Many others put printed notices in their churches, however remote,22 to remind any wanderingnon2Depiscopally ordained minister of the CSI that he had no place in their English churches.
In 1972 the General Synod again raised the question of full Communion with the CSI and requested that the matter be further considered by the House of Bishops. The bishops presented their considerations to Synod in 1973 declaring that the CSI was,
'a true part of the Church Universal, holding the Catholic faith and possessed of the apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons',
'this synod resolves to enter into communion with the Church of South India subject to regulations..'23
The regulations being Church of England Canon Law and the Act of Uniformitywhich prevents non-episcopally ordained clergy from celebrating the Eucharist in the Church of England. Synod was reluctant to accept these regulations and would not put this resolution to the vote. So the status quo continued as Synod was not prepared to attempt to persuade Parliament to alter the Act of Uniformity.
The Unity Schemes for Ceylon, North India and Pakistan
The CSI scheme was followed by similar schemes for the Churches in Ceylon, and North India and Pakistan which were nearing completion shortly after the Church of England had debated the report on the CSI. These schemes were different from CSI in that both planned complete unification of ministries and full Intercommunion from the start. Archbishop Fisher referred these schemes to his Advisory Committee on Reunion Matters under the chairmanship of Bishop Rawlinson of Derby. Bishop Bell was a prominent member of this committee. In 1957 they were ready to suggest acceptance of the schemes but the Anglo Catholics were dissatisfied with the proposed formula for unifying the ministries in the North India scheme. It was Bell who drafted the committee's revised report dealing with this problem.24
The Ceylon scheme (the Church of Lanka) was ready in 1955 and as the new Church was composed of about 60% Anglicans it was more careful than CSI to avoid Anglican disapproval. Its new bishops were to receive consecration from Anglican bishops and these bishops would receive all clergy into the new Church by the laying on of hands. They had also been careful to include a Preface to the Ordinal stating their intention to continue the threefold ministry.
There was a Report to the Convocations on this scheme in 1961.25 This was satisfied with the new Ordinal but some members of the Church of England had difficulties with the actual Act of Unification as they were uncertain whether it could be taken as an ordination service26. The scheme managed to command a sufficient degree of assent however for the Convocations to grant the new Church of Lanka recognition in 1963. This difficulty was very similar to those which caused caused so much controversy over the Anglican/Methodist Scheme a few years later.
The unification scheme for the Church of North India and Pakistan was considered by the same joint committee which considered the Church of Lanka scheme. There were several background differences notably that the proportion of Anglicans was considerably less than in the Church of Lanka Scheme and that one of the two Methodist Churches in North India had its own episcopate27. Again the preface to the Ordinal was found to be acceptable in intention28 but the problems arose over the Act of Unification.29
The minority report which opposed the scheme was larger than that for the Church of Lanka and included the bishops of London, Oxford, Exeter and Chester.
The schemes were considered by Convocation in 1961 and again the debate centered around the Rite of Unification as all were participating in this, those previously episcopally ordained and those not, and those not previously episcopally ordained were not asked to deny the reality or their previous ministry. The schemes seemed to involve an ambiguity as to whether or not a valid ordination was involved. York Convocation gave a 'No' to the Scheme and Canterbury Convocation gave a 'Yes' provided that the Rite of Unification was regarded as a valid ordination by those not previously ordained. The Lambeth Conference of 1968 however was able to recommend full Communion with the new Churches.
In May 1972 the Churches of North India and Pakistan were being debated in the General Synod and Archbishop Ramsey had to admit of the Church,
'It is true indeed that the ministers entering the Act of Unification in these Churches regard themselves as already ordained. It is true indeed that the rite is not described as an ordination.'
He did however regard their proceedings as a conditionalordination,
'While this was not declared as ordination or conditional ordination, what happens through prayer, the laying-on of episcopal hands and the Grace of God and the willingness of the recipient to accept whatever God knows needs to be given through that act, contains the essence of what we call conditional ordination.'30
This time Synod voted to enter into full Communion with the Churches with very large majorities.31. Ironically just after this debate Synod rejected the Anglican-Methodist Unity Scheme in England, this had an Act of Reconciliation which was the same in principle. Many Methodists regarded this action with great sadness because of their own unfulfilled hopes.
The Presbyterian Church
Early in his archepiscopate Fisher wrote to Dr. Baillie Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, asking for talks between their Churches to be opened and seeking to involve the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Dr. Baillie's reply was not encouraging, for he made it clear that there was no prospect of his Church accepting or appointing bishops as a means to Intercommunion as there was still too great an antipathy towards the episcopate among its members32. By 1949 however talks were underway between the Church of England and the Presbyterians, although the ?Scottish Episcopal Church only had the role of observers.
Nearer to home a Report was published in 1957 concerning Anglican-Presbyterian relations.33 Among other matters this Report considered the possibilities of some future union scheme which would involve a permanent Bishop-in-Presbytery to take the place of the Moderator who is changed annually and increased lay participation at all levels, parochial, diocesan, provincial, and national through more developed forms of synodical government. The Report was meant for further study not immediate action. In Scotland there was opposition to the restoration of bishops ordained by the laying on of hands, even in this modified form.34 Anglo Catholics opposed to the provisions of the Report concerning the position of clergy in a Church unified in this way as it contradicted their belief that only a bishop could transmit sacramental power, although the followers of Norman Sykes' Old Priest and New Presbyter would have probably accepted this. Over the next few years the Joint Report was debated in all four Churches. The Presbyterians felt the report was too vague in several areas, particularly concerning the authority of bishops, the position of lay elders, and some form of mutual Commissioning. They refused to accept straightforward episcopal ordination as this would have called into question the spiritual effectiveness of their ministerial orders. The Church of England committee favoured a unifying scheme similar to that proposed for the Churches in North India and Ceylon. The Presbyterians felt that Intercommunion would be an important preliminary to any Scheme. The Church of England committee steadfastly opposed this as threatening their whole position that,
'The celebrant of the Eucharist should have been ordained by a bishop standing in the historic succession.'
When the Presbyterians sent in their judgements on the Joint Report in 1958, 39 Presbyteries out of 47 opposed the Bishop-in-Presbytery concept. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1959 accepted a motion that the proposals of the Joint Report,
'were unacceptable, in that they imply a denial of the Catholicity of the Church of Scotland and the validity and regularity of its ministry within the Church Catholic.'
With such a negative Scottish response the Joint Report received little further attention in the Church of England.
The question of the relationship of Church and State in England ?received almost no attention in the Report. It did receive attention in private discussion35 and the Church of England members had to admit that Parliamentary control of the legislation and the State appointment of bishops could be difficult to change even if both Churches approved of the Scheme. Had the Report received more approval from the Presbyterians further discussions would have taken place on the issue of episcopal authority, appointment and freedom over worship and doctrine in a unified Church.
Anglican Methodist Unity
Conversations between the Church of England and Methodists began in earnest in 1948 with a careful exploration of the way in which Methodism might take episcopacy into its system. The negotiating committee published their report in 196336 in which they saw a future unity between the Churches involving the acceptance by the Methodist Church of episcopacy and episcopal ordination of all its clergy in the future, and full integration of the ministries of both Churches. The committee produced a draft Service of Reconciliation which involved both Anglican bishops and Methodist ministers laying hands on each others' clergy receiving them into fellowship and authorising them to exercise the office of a priest in each other's Church. This would not imply for the Methodists that there was any defect in their own ministry. Some of the Methodists could not accept episcopacy and the concept of the Apostolic Succession and this group led by Professor Kingsley Barrett continued to lead the opposition throughout the course of the Scheme. In this they had the support of the 1939 Methodist Conference which had held that the Methodist Church could never accept episcopacy if this implied episcopacy was indispensible to the Church, or that the theory of Apostolic Succession was to be regarded as constituting the true and only guarantee of sacramental grace and right doctrine37.
An interim statement of 1958 outlined clearly the Methodist position on episcopacy38. In this the Methodists accepted the value of episcopacy in the early Church as providing a significant bond of unity in the face of controversy and heresy, and was even prepared to suggest that the acceptance of episcopacy might enrich their own inheritance. However they refused to accept any theory of episcopacy which would deny to Methodism its place within the Catholic Church or, 'reduce her ministry and sacraments to spurious imitations'39. Rather their interpretation of a bishop and his authority was in no sense 'monarchical' but rather 'constitutional', the 'pastor pastorum' maintaining faith and order and representing unity and universality in the Church, working in full cooperation with the presbyterate and the people of the Church. Such an episcopate ?they could accept, as long as the path to this acceptance was not by way or a requirement for the reordination of Methodist ministers which they saw as a disowning of their history and God's previous work within Methodism40.
In Methodism ultimate authority for ordination and the maintenance of accepted doctrine belonged to the Methodist Conference alone. If episcopacy were accepted these functions would need to be removed from the Conference's authority and be placed under episcopal authority, alongside some new form of united General Synod, which would share the responsibility for doctrine with the bishops and Parliament. This would have to prove acceptable to Methodists. Opposition in the Church of England was encouraged by Archbishop Fisher, now retired, who feared the whole scheme would endanger the establishment of the Church of England and its place at the centre of the Anglican Communion. He criticised the Service of Reconciliation as 'open double dealing'41
In 1968 the proposed scheme and Ordinal was published. It made clear that in the laying on of hands on the ministers of both Churches each should receive the Holy Spirit 'according to his need' which,
'was to ensure that every minister taking part should receive whatever he might lack of the gifts and graces bestowed upon the ministers of the other church.'42
Thus it was open for anyone who desired to accept this laying on of hands as an ordination but they were not compelled to do so. Many Anglo Catholics opposed the Scheme because the Service of Reconciliation was ambiguous and did not make clear episcopal ordination. Many Evangelicals opposed the Scheme because it seemed to suggest there was something lacking in the ministry of the Methodist clergy. The Scheme largely failed because it refused to define doctrine for the Church and many of its members felt this ambiguity unsatisfactory and dishonest.43
Archbishop Ramsey was most anxious that improving relations between the Church of England and the Church of Rome should not be jeopardised by the Scheme. He consulted Roman Catholic theologians about the Scheme on several occasions especially the wording of the Ordinal44. He knew too that there was a threat of a breakaway group ?from the Church of England if the Scheme went through and Bishop Leonard was already demanding a share of the Church's endowments for this. The Bishop of Peterborough (Eastaugh) and Ripon (Moorman) were threatening to resign their sees if the Scheme succeeded45.
The Church of England decided a 75% majority would be necessary in the Convocations to pass the Anglican2DMethodist Unity Scheme. In July 1969 the Methodist Conference passed the Scheme by 76% but the Convocation meeting in joint session the same day gave the Scheme only a 69% vote.
In 1970 a combination of Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals produced an alternative Scheme46 which suggested apiecemeal union as parts of each Church were ready for it and no service of reconcilation with the ministers gradually appearing before bishops for,
'recognition and acceptance as a presbyter in the Church of God into the presbyterate of the united Church.'
These ideas received little support among Methodists or in the Church of England. Many regarded them as a potential cause of endless problems, administrative, financial and legal.
The Scheme was brought before the General Synod in 1972 in a second attempt to get it through but received less votes than before with six bishops voting against the Scheme.The Service of Reconciliation was to be an impossible stumbling block and caused Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals to ally against the Scheme. Anglo Catholics refused to see the service as an episcopal ordination even though two Roman Catholic bishops, Alan Clark and Christopher Butler had said that a prayer in the Service of Reconciliation could be read as a conditional ordination. In fact Christopher Butler suggested that a similar rite might be used one day to reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome.47 Those who prepared the 1971 revision had clearly hoped the wording for the Service of Reconciliation was ambiguous enough to be interpreted as conditional ordination by those who felt this essential.
The Scheme had tried to rule out any objections to the service. It had a section entitled 'An Unambiguous Intention'48 pointing out that the Intention was stated in three places in the rite. Yet it had to admit that,
'All will believe that what may conveniently be called an enlargement of Commission is being bestowed. Some will believe that the grace of ordination is given also, others that it is not, and many will perhaps be agnostic on this point. The prayers ?are so worded as to save the determination of that issue in God's hand : we pray that the Holy Spirit may be sent upon 'each according to his need'. But the intention of the rite is not in doubt. It is to secure that every minister taking part shall receive whatever he may lack of the gifts and grace bestowed upon the ministers of the other Church, and that all shall come together as fellow-presbyters according to the pattern and doctrine of the ministry agreed by the two Churches.'
Anglo Catholics could still not accept this declaration of Intention believing it still fell short of episcopal ordination. As Geoffrey Willis commented,
'The Bishop may, or may not, intend to confer priesthood; but it is not very likely that a Methodist minister who is a candidate will intend to receive it. Probably therefore the intention will be defective, and in that case priesthood will not be validly conferred :49'
Moorman, the Bishop of Ripon, said in General Synod that some leading Methodists did not regard the Service as an Ordination and he felt that if,
'The Church of England decides today to give to reconciled Methodist ministers the same authority as in the last 400 years, or the last 12C800 years if you like, has been reserved for those in priest's orders, then our case for the validity of Anglican orders will be greatly weakened.50
Evangelicals believed that the amount of attention focused on the Intention of the service regarding this as totally unnecessary and implying lack of recognition of the status of Methodist clergy. The leading Evangelical who voiced these arguments was R.T.Beckwith who claimed that the whole notion of Intention had been imported from Roman Catholic theology,
'This is regretable in a report supposed to represent Anglican and Methodist teaching, especially as the doctrine of intention is one of the most mischievous products of sacerdotalism and asserts that an unsuitable purpose on the part of the minister, even if completely secret, is sufficient to make of none effect a sacrament which lacks nothing either in its outward form or in the faith of its recipients.51'
In this he was followed by Colin Buchanan who stated that for a Methodist minister to go through the Service of ?Reconciliation was 'unnecessary and unacceptable'52.
The considerable divergences in doctrine of the various groups within the Church of England had made impossible the success of this Unity Scheme. The wide differences in belief concerning the nature of episcopacy and the importance of episcopal ordination as part of the character of the Church were totally irreconcilable. The various ecclesiastical Commissions' refusals to make any definition of episcopacy was regarded by many as dishonest and led to much raising of false hopes for unity on an insecure basis.
There were additional complications over the relationship of Church and State, these figured in the Scheme53 but not very much in public debate. The Scheme contained draft legislation for an Enabling Act, as even if both Churches had accepted the Scheme it would have needed Parliamentary consent. The Scheme planned for the integration of the Churches in two stages. Before complete integration further legislation byParliament would have been necessary to free the Church of England to settle its own forms of doctrine, worship and discipline and to appoint its own bishops without Parliament's consent or that of the prime minister or Sovereign after the manner of the Church of Scotland54. Archbishop Ramsey and others hoped that Anglican-Methodist reconciliation wouldforce Parliament to grant to the Church the freedoms for its bishops and general authority which it had been long denied. With the failure of the Scheme, Ramsey had to settle for the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure, and moves for more consultation on episcopal appointments, far less than he had hoped to achieve had the Scheme been accepted.
Other Episcopal Churches
The Church of England established a Concordat with the Old Catholic Church in 193155 known as the Bonn Agreement and from that time there was Intercommunion between the two Churches. Old Catholic bishops have often taken part in Anglican consecrations since that time bestowing their authority on those consecrated as they recognise the validity of Anglican Orders. This has in turn led to questions concerning the validity of orders of the clergy subsequently ordained by these bishops especially if they later joined the Church of Rome. Although Rome has definitely regarded Anglican Orders as invalid since Apostolicae Curae it regards the Orders of the Old Catholics to be irregular but valid.
What was established between the two Churches was essentially Intercommunion not Communion, mutual recognition did not lead to organic union. However the recognition of the authority and validity of each others' episcopate was such that concelebrations of the Eucharist do occur especially on important occasions, such ?as the Golden Jubilee of the Bonn Agreement when there was such a celebration in which Archbishop Runcie and Archbishop Marinus Kop both participated inWestminster Abbey56. The Old Catholics after due consideration were prepared to accept the validity of the Anglican-Methodist Unity Scheme57.
Relations with the Lutheran Episcopal Churches of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Finland have grown increasingly cordial. By 1958 the Church of England had been participating in the consecration of Finnish bishops for about 20 years58 and the bishops of Durham and Peterborough had participated in a Swedish episcopal consecration as far back as 192059. Members of all these Churches have been admitted to Communion in the Church of England for most of this period.
1) The LambethConference, 1920, (1920), Report, pp.135-6
2) The Lambeth Conference, 1930, (1930), pp.114-115
5) A.M.G.Stephenson, Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conference, (1978), p.249
6) These early suggested schemes are summarised in William Purcell, Fisher of Lambeth, (1969), p.150f.
7) Roger Lloyd, The Church of England 1900-1965, (1966), p.469f
8) I am indebted to Rupert Davies for this information. -in fact I am grateful to him for a much wider understanding of the background of the Anglican-Methodist negotiations
9) K.D.Mackenzie, The Case for Episcopacy, (1929), p.117
10) The Lambeth Conference, 1867-1948, pp.38-48
11) The Unity of the Faith : an Open Letter to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury from the Superiors of Certain Religious Communities, (1943). All the main male communities, except Kelham, sponsored this letter.
12) E.W.Kemp, The Life and letters of Kenneth Escott Kirk, (1957),pp.150-186
13) The Chronicle of Convocation of Canterbury, 1945, pp.128-48
14) The Church of South India : The United Report of the two Joint Committees of the Convocations, (1955)
16) Derek Whitehead, The Doctrine of Intention in Anglican Theology, Unpubl. PhD thesis, Univ. of Lancaster, 1973, p.634f
17) H.W.Hannah in a letter to The Month N.S.14, (1955), p.126
18) The Convocation of Canterbury and the Church of South India, (1955), p.12
19) E.L.Mascall, The Convocations and South India, (1955)
20) Constitution of the Church of South India, p.19
22) I saw two of these still extant in remote Cornish churches in 1989.
23) G.S 134 The Church of South India, a Report of the House of Bishops, January 1973
24) R.C.D.Jasper, George Bell : Bishop of Chichester, (1967), pp.348-352
25) The Church of Lanka. Being the schedule attached to the Reports of the Joint Committees of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, (1961)
26) Whitehead, op.cit. pp.175ff
27) The Episcopal Methodist Church had its origins in the American Methodist Church and withdrew from the scheme late in the proceedings
28) The Churches of North India and Pakistan, being the Schedule attached to the Reports of the Joint Committees of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, (1961), p.27
30) General Synod : Report of Proceedings, (1972), vol.3, no.2.p254
32) Edward Carpenter, Archbishop Fisher, (1991), p.320
33) Relations between Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, being a Joint Report by representatives of the Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The Episcopal Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of England, Edinburgh (1957)
34) Glasgow Speaks, a Reply to the Joint Report on Anglican-Presbyterian Relations, Glasgow (1959)
35) I am indebted to J.P.Hickinbotham, the former secretary of the Committee, for his guidance to an understanding of the positions held by the several Churches.
36) Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, (1963)
37) Quoted in Anglican-Methodist Union in Wales, Church in Wales Publications (1965), p.28
38) Published in Anglican-Methodist Unity : Report of the Joint working Group, 1971, pp.16-17
41) Letter to The Times, 21 January, 1969
42) Anglican Methodist Unity : I. The Ordinal II the Scheme, (1968)
43) Rupert Davies feels strongly that the doctrine objections which were voiced were not the real reasons for the rejection of the Scheme, the reasons being largely social and psychological. Unfortunately the discussion here can only deal with the implications of the Scheme for episcopal authority rather than fully assess the theological opinions and concerns involved in the numerous issues raised.
44) O.Chadwick, Michael Ramsey, (1990), p.337
45) Ibid. p.337
46) C.Buchanan, G.Leonard, E.L.Mascall and J.Packer, Growing into Union, (1970)
47) Bishop Alan Clark in the Catholic Herald 18 Feb. 1972 and Bishop Christopher Butler in The Tablet 9 Jan. 1972
48) Anglican-Methodist Unity : 2 The Scheme, (1968), p.127
49) M.Deanesly and G.Willis, Anglican-Methodist Unity,(1968), p.95
50) General Synod : Report of Proceedings, (1972), Vol 3, No.2, p.261
51) R.T.Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments, (1964) p.48
52) Fellowship in the Gospel : Evangelical Comment on 'Anglican-Methodist Unity' and 'Intercommunion Today', ed. J.I.Packer (1968), p.52
53) Anglican-Methodist Unity Scheme: 2 The Scheme, pp.92-113
55) The terms of the Concordat are given in Acts of the Convocations of Canterbury and York 1921-1970, ed. H.Riley and R.J.Graham (1971), p.170.
56) Old Catholics and Anglicans 1931-1981, ed. Gordon Huelin, Oxford (1983), p.1
58) Lambeth Conference Report, 1958, 2.54.
59) Crockford Prefaces, (1947), p.5