Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Apostolic Church

The Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed says, "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Because of a printer's error the word "Holy" has not appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, but "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" is said at least twice a day in the Daily Morning and Evening Prayer; so we profess all four of these facts about the Church. In this essay I want to focus on what it means to believe the Apostolic Church.

Before I undertake to write this, my recent interest in writing an apologetic for the polity that has always been Continued by us as the only polity known to orthodox Anglicanism, and the only kind consistent with all Canon Law of Anglican churches throughout history, and with the Church of England since its inception, is due to confusion regarding the origin of the episcopacy and the needless question of presbyteral ordinations. I say needless because only episcopal ordinations have been recognized in Anglicanism as conferring the authority to act as a member of the three orders of ministry mentioned in the Preface to the Ordinal. This leaves us only with ecumenical considerations about how far we may go in relations with Protestant churches such as the Presbyterians. That Anglicans have any other reason for asking such a question is contrary to all evidence from Canon Law, The idea of it as a pressing issue within our churches is a false issue. 

It may be that some of the readers of this will want to provide quotations from famous Anglicans who were willing to admit to the possibility of such ordinations among other churches. To that I say three things. Even if there has been varied opinion among Anglicans it does not change the rules, practice and even doctrine of Anglicanism. The Ordinal gives no room to any but episcopal ordinations. Second, any such quotations ought to be examined only in context and considered in limitation to the immediate reason for what was stated. Third, Anglicans have always understood that a line is to be drawn between validity and efficacy in this regard: We must act according to what is certainly valid, but for ecumanical relationships have no interest in declaring, as Rome does, other ministries to be "absolutely null and utterly void." God is free to work His grace without everything that we are bound to do, as He may will. But, at no time has any Anglican Canon allowed for violating the rule of recognizing, for us, only ministers with episcopal ordination in our churches. To presume that this is unrelated to theology makes no logical sense. 

The Greek word Apostolos (ἀπόστολος) is a very strong word, meaning that one is sent by a person in authority to act, where he is sent, with the authority of the sender himself. This is very important, and has everything to do with the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles. The Apostolic Jurisdiction is the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). Among those who denounce our polity are voices that say, "there is no direct command from the Lord that gives the episcopal office its historic role and authority." In fact, this is an argument from silence. But, as we shall find from historical fact, we cannot say that the Lord is not the Author of the episcopal office with its specific authority and charisms. Bearing in mind the amount of authority in men called apostles of any ruler, especially Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act with the Lord's own authority in a worldwide jurisdiction, remember the following words.

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matthew 10:40)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent (apostellō, ποστλλωme, even so send I you." (John 20:21)



(The second of those verses will be of great significance when we get to the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch.) For those who question when and where the Lord Himself has spoken, and for noble Bereans who require biblical evidence, I proceed by building on those words of Christ from the Gospels.  

The questions of essence, bene esse, juro divino, etc. should all be answered by the historical evidence concerning what the Apostles did. The Church, instead of asking all sorts of academic questions about what is possible within the limitless sphere of God's direct working, ought to consider that whatever the Apostles taught, however they ordered, and whatever they ruled in their judgment, has been given to the Church as coming from Jesus Christ. We may be sure they were directed by the Holy Spirit. Passing judgment on others or trying to determine if they may have some validity in a wide sphere of unknowable possibilities, and without Roman arrogance and presumption of labeling ministries "absolutely null and utterly void" of God's grace, especially simply because "he followeth not with us," is not our burden to bear. But neither is it legitimate for us to disregard the clear teaching and practice that we trace to the ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Here I will use a phrase that no Anglican has business disputing, but that some have presumed to dispute, Apostolic Succession.

Ironically, the term is quite likely used for the first time in a famous letter by St. Jerome, writing of all bishops the following:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." (Jerome's Letter to Evangelus)

Ironically, some have taken this letter to be an apologetic for Presbyterianism, and a careless reading with a few lines taken out of the context of the whole, can indeed give that false impression. The preceding sentence is what they quote.

"For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"

Because this paragraph deals with the origin of the episcopate, they argue that it was a creation of presbyters themselves, and they presume contrary to all the historical evidence about ecclesiastical praxis, that this election process was sufficient without any consecration from any bishop. But the quotation never even implies that an election held by the presbytery takes the place of consecration, and the hypothetical question, "For what function, etc.?" proves that Jerome meant to imply no such thing, as is quite obvious. Knowing the practice of the ancient Church, as recorded too many times to dismiss, we must conclude that the presbytery did not presume the power to themselves consecrate their fellow to the office of bishop simply by having elected him. We know from other sources that episcopal elections were quite normal throughout antiquity, but that a bishop elect could not act as a bishop prior to the laying on of hands by at least one other bishop, in time the norm being by three bishops. All the sentence speaks of is the election process itself, and why the office of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos) was separated at that time in history from the office of Presbyter  (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros). 

More importantly, when was this decided? To begin with, the sentence, so often abused and dragged out of context, is not even speaking of the Church beyond Alexandria. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that St. Mark, who, as we see in the Book of Acts, had been a companion of Paul and Barnabas, later with Barnabas and praised by Paul writing to Timothy, the author of the Gospel that bears his name, was alive and well, and present in Alexandria. And in the sentence that follows, Jerome says that all bishops are "successors of the Apostles." For anyone to drag this letter out, and dust it off, as some argument against the historic fact of Apostolic Succession, is indeed ironic and self-defeating.

The logical conclusion is that the Church catholic has gotten it right all along. Though in the earliest days, as is quite evident in the New Testament, the office of presbyter was one and the same as the office called, at the time, bishop (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5,7),  which is something no one has ever denied, it was after a while the Apostles themselves who separated the office of presbyter from that of the episcopate. It became the rule in their time, and could not have been decided by any others. Indeed, it was the presbyterian office that developed rather than the episcopal office. To the episcopal office alone belongs the power to ordain, and the bishop has authority to command obedience from the presbyters and deacons. 

We come now to a very important figure in history, the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of the Church where disciples were first called Christians, that is Antioch in Syria. On his way to Rome to be martyred in an arena, he wrote several epistles that are included in a collection called The Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, like Polycarp, learned directly from the Apostles themselves, having learned firsthand from no less of an authoritative source than those whom Christ sent as He Himself had been sent by the Father, the men to whom Jesus had said that they would be guided by the Spirit of Truth into all truth (John 16:13), those in whose doctrine we must remain steadfast. It is of no small significance, therefore, the several things Ignatius wrote in those epistles concerning the office of bishop.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapters 8 and 9)

The words "so that everything that is done may be secure and valid" give Anglicanism its logical basis for insisting on episcopacy, and having always done so as the only Anglican polity ever or anywhere. Recently someone retorted to the very mention of the name of Ignatius, with some quotation by an obscure "scholar," to the effect that Ignatius never said anywhere that the episcopate was established by the Lord. In light of the above quotation (and others like it), and in light of the fact that Jesus sent His Apostles as the Father had sent Him, and in light of the very definition of Apostolos, I cannot take such a "scholarly" objection at all seriously, and neither should you. It is utterly meaningless at best.

I could call further witnesses, such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and later Irenaeus. Frankly, I could call as witness the whole Church catholic in antiquity and the most ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Recognition of presbyteral ordinations for our churches is neither secure nor valid, as it is done without the bishop. So taught the disciple of the Apostles. The Apostolic Succession of bishops, is unquestionable and indisputable.

Finally, it is not sufficient to speak of these things strictly in terms of laws and authority as men understand it. In recent years I see that apostate "churches," especially in America the Episcopal Church, have come to prefer the term "Historic Episcopate" to Apostolic Succession. I believe that this is clearly because the latter carries with it a weight of doctrine that they transgress shamelessly (Acts 2:42, II Timothy 2:2), and also the charismatic power that they have forfeited. They hold a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. From such turn away (II Timothy 3:5). For true believers, understand that we must believe the Apostolic Church, and in saying that realize that God uses the Bishop, when strange doctrines are banished and the truth is taught, and by his charism as bishop, in making the whole Church Apostolic.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

If presbyter and bishop are the same in the New Testament, and only distinguished extra-Biblically, even if it was the Apostles who distinguished them, doesn't that still make the episcopate an Anglican adiaphoron? It may be a key part of our church order, but I don't know how our Articles of Religion would let us require it of other churches as an article of faith.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I think I addressed that: We don't have any burden to judge what they do. But Anglican polity is line with what St. Ignatius wrote, "...that all things may be secure and valid."

Anonymous said...

There seems to me to be (in fact, if not in conscious intention) a sort of implicit discussion going on here with things like the 'Appeal to All Christian People' issued by the 1920 Lambeth Conference, and various aspects of the legacy of 'Kikuyu', and the formation of the Church of South India in 1947 and the responses to that (as, by the continuing Anglican Church of India in 1950 and the English Convocation in 1955).

Would you consider addressing such matters explicitly (or indicating some place(s) where you, or others, have already conveniently done so)?

With thanks for this latest post, in any case!

Semi-Hookerian

Megan said...

I have an honest to question to ask, in light of the above quote about submitting to the bishop. I've been struggling with this for a while, especially since I've finally hit volume 7 of historian Philip Schaff's church history series. When Luther did his split, he pretty much did away with the episcopacy. Sure, Rome had its own wrongs committed, but Luther went pretty far. What right did he have to replace bishops with earthly magistrates?

As Anglicans, our hands look much cleaner, and yet we revere these early Reformers as heroes. Had Edward VI lived longer, and by extension Thomas Cranmer with him, it appears Cranmer might have himself succeeded in turning the Church of England into Presbyterians with Prayer Books. This mix of Reformed and Catholic makes Anglicanism look like one of Sid's Frankenstein toys in Toy Story. It's kind of both charming and weird to me, all at the same time.

How do we justify venerating people as heroes who ended up disregarding so much of historical Christianity, and who refused to submit to any bishop? I realize the Reformers thought the Pope was Antichrist back then. Luther even thought the world would end in 100 years. Obviously, it didn't. Doesn't that make him not only a schismatic, but a false prophet? In which case, I'm not so sure his actions (especially his polemics) are so justified anymore.

Please forgive me my questioning and searching. I'm new to being Anglican, and reading history books has both enlightened and confused me. How does Anglicanism work these issues out?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Luther didn't do anything to abolish episcopacy, but Calvin effectively did. Luther's courage in standing against Tetzel's outrageous indulgence was courage to the death, as he didn't expect to survive it. His stand on justification and on translating scripture into the venacular are areas where we agree. To this day Lutherans maintain episcopacy as they understand it, and Cranmer, wherever he might have been headed, represents no effort to abolish episcopacy, and he was the Archbishop.

You may find answers to many of your questions by going theough our Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-nine Articles. The link is on this page up on the right hand side.

Megan said...

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate it! I've been slowly reading through your guides and articles. They've been a great help so far.

Lutherans--particularly those in Germany and immigrants from there--pretty much seem to have lost their apostolic succession, with a few exceptions. There weren't really any bishops on Luther's side in Germany itself, so it's understandable that they did what was necessary. I was reading that Melanchthon definitely wished they could have bishops instead of the magistrates determining doctrine and church discipline. The problem is that these German Lutheran churches never thought to get their apostolic succession back, and largely due to Luther's overemphasis on the priesthood of believers. I'm sure English bishops would have been happy to ordain some Lutheran ministers properly as soon as the Reformation settled down, right? Based on the above patristic quotes, does this mean those Lutheran synods that lack apostolic succession have shut themselves outside the church Catholic?

As for Calvin, this kind of goes back to why we revere these people. I know plenty of Anglicans who admire Calvin and consider themselves Calvinists. Why? Didn't the Puritans get all their nutty ideas from him? And again, if he threw the episcopacy out, then what is the point of considering Calvin a hero if he's rejected the church Catholic? (I guess I need to hurry up and read volume 8 of Schaff's work to find out more.)

By the way, can you recommend a good history book on the English reformation that gets into the nitty gritty details? Schaff kind of stops at his own homeland. The English Reformation is a mere side note here and there.

Thanks for putting up with my dumb questions!

Fr. Robert Hart said...

An attempt to share ministry with Lutherans in the Holy Land, in the 19th century, fell apart because the Anglicans assumed that the Lutherans would be willing to undergo episcopal ordination; which they weren't willing to do. The attempt was John Henry Newman's reason for leaving the Church of England, which indicates to me that he didn't seem to notice how it finally turned out (or the Lambeth Quadrilateral). As for Calvinism among some Anglicans, it is limited to certain theological matters that they embrace, but must exclude the Geneva Discipline. Anglicanism, however, is not a Calvinist body. The English reformation took on its own character.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting is Hooker's analysis of Geneva in his "Preface to them that seek (as they term it) the Reformation of the Laws and Orders Ecclesiastical in the Church of England", where, for instance, he says, of Calvin's device of a "standing ecclesiastical court" with "perpetual judges in that court to be their ministers", "This device I see not how the wisest at that time living could have bettered, if we consider what the present estate of Geneva did then require. For their bishop and his clergy being [...] departed; to choose in his room any other bishop had been a thing impossible" (II.4), but also says further (II.7), "But wise men are men, and the truth is truth. That which Calvin did for the establishment of his discipline, seemeth more commendable than that which he taught for the countenancing of it established." This seems to suggest an indefinitely protracted temporary solution, inadequately commended and defended and 'theoretized'.

Stephen Neill writes of "the consecration of three 'superintendent moderators' as bishops for Scotland" in 1610, that "Archbishop Bancroft decided that, though these three men had previously had only presbyterian ordination, they need not first be ordained presbyters according to the Anglican rite. This consecration per saltum served as one of the precedents for what was done at the inauguration of the Church of South India in 1947" (Anglicanism (1958), ch. 6 [p. 150]). This seems to suggest how versions of that 'indefinitely protracted temporary solution' by Calvin could be wisely resolved at any time after 1541.

A book I would recommend is, Arthur Geoffrey Dickens' The English Reformation (1964). Neill's Anglicanism is another, for both the English Reformation and its Anglican sequel (with lots of indications for interesting further reading and reference in its footnotes and bibliography - many of which useful works are scanned in the Internet Archive).

Semi-Hookerian

Megan said...

Thanks, Fr. Hart and Semi-Hookerian! This is all very interesting stuff. I did not know that about the Anglicans trying to share ministry with Lutherans in the Holy Land.

I'll definitely add those books to my reading list.

Thanks again!