Historic episcopate (Anglican views)

According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, The Anglican Communion "retained episcopacy, believing it to be not merely an administrative expedient of contingent historical origin but an essential part of the church as founded by Christ."[6] Its claim to apostolic succession is rooted in the Church of England's evolution as part of the Western Church.[7] When Henry VIII broke away from the jurisdiction of Rome in 1533/4, the English Church retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession inherent in its Catholic past; however, Protestant theology gained a certain foothold [8] and under his successor, Edward VI what had been an administrative schism became a Protestant reformation under the guiding hand of Thomas Cranmer.[9] Although care was taken to maintain the unbroken sequence of episcopal consecrations, particularly in the case of Matthew Parker after Elizabeth I's coming to the throne,[10] apostolic succession was not seen as a major concern: English Reformers such as Richard Hooker rejected the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is divinely commanded or necessary for true Christian ministry.[11] The preface to the Ordinal limits itself to stating historical reasons why episcopal orders are to 'be continued and reverently used in the Church of England'.[12] The "foreign Reformed [Presbyterian] Churches" were genuine ones despite the lack of apostolic succession because they had been abandoned by their bishops at the Reformation.[13]

This view was of the reformed churches was questioned during the earlier part of the seventeenth century and the 1662 Act of Uniformity formally excluded from pastoral office in England any who lacked episcopal ordination but this was a reaction against the abolition of episcopacy in the Commonwealth period.[2]

After 1685 the practices of both James II and William III of England made it plain that the Church of England could no longer count on the 'godly prince' to maintain its identity and traditions, the 'High Church' clergy of the time began to look to the idea of apostolic succession as a basis for the church's life. For William Beveridge (Bp of St Asaph 1704-8) the importance of this lay in the fact that Christ himself is "continually present at such imposition of hands; thereby transferring the same Spirit, which He had first breathed into His Apostles, upon others successively after them",[14] but the doctrine did not really come to the fore until the time of the Tractarians.[15]

Newman laid great stress on apostolic succession: "We must necessarily consider none to be' 'really' 'ordained who has not been thus ordained". After quoting this, Ramsey [16] continues: "With romantic enthusiasm, the Tractarians propagated this doctrine. In doing so they involved themselves in some misunderstandings of history and in some confusion of theology". He goes on to explain that they ascribed to early Anglican authors a far more exclusive version of the doctrine than was the case, they blurred the distinction between succession in office (Irenaeus) and succession in consecration (Augustine); they spoke of apostolic succession as the channel of grace in a way that failed to do justice to His gracious activity within all the dispensations of the New Covenant.[16] Newman, and after him, Charles Gore held that the episcopate was passed down from the apostles through men like Timothy and Titus to single bishops in particular localities (monarchial episcopacy). However, Bp. Lightfoot argued that monarchial episcopacy evolved upwards from a college of presbyters by the elevation of one of their number to be the episcopal president [17] and A. C. Headlam laid great stress on Irenaeus' understanding of succession, which had been lost from sight behind the Augustinian 'pipe-line theory'.[18]

The implications of the apostolic succession for the nature of the episcopate and the Church were spelt out by later Anglo-catholic writers: "There is, and can be no real and true Church apart from the one society which the apostles founded and which has been propagated only in the line of the episcopal succession" and "[a] Church stands or falls by the Apostolic Succession ... There has never been a Church without a bishop, and there never can be".[19]

The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission report expressed broad agreement in the nature of apostolic succession as the ‘effective sign’ of the apostolicity of the whole people of God, living in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles.[20]

The modern debate divides three ways: between those who see the 'Historic Episcopate' to be constitutive of the Church (of the 'esse'); those who hold it is a question of its "well-being" (bene esse); and those who consider that it is necessary for the Church to be fully itself (plene esse).[21] The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral includes the "historic episcopate" as "essential to the visible unity of the church", but allows for its being adapted locally in its working to the varying needs of those who God calls into the unity of the Church.[22] However, this has not meant a general commitment to the idea that in its absence there is no Church.[23]