An event of some note in the contemporary religious history of Great Britain has been the recent publication of the Report on the Relations between Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. This Report is the outcome of “Conversations” held between representatives of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of England. Of the many interesting features of this Report, the signatories to which claim to have made “no more than an exploratory survey,” not the least remarkable is that it is unanimous. Those taking part in these conversations accepted as a presupposition “the conviction that our Lord’s will for his Church is full unity, and that such unity must involve in the end not only agreement as to the truth in Christ, but also a ministry or ministries universally recognized, freedom to interchange ministries, and fulness of sacramental communion throughout Christendom”. This we regard as wholly admirable.
Unity is seen not as a contingent feature of the church’s life, but as “of the essence of it”; whereas disunity is deplored as “a deeply damaging contradiction between message and life”. Further, the Report says that it was common ground among the delegates “that every step towards unity would be a step also towards a more powerful and persuasive evangelism.”
The Church of South India is held up as an example which shows that “unity between Episcopalians and Presbyterians is a practical possibility and not merely a dream of theorists”. But is envisaged that “modifications in the two church systems” are likely to be necessary if unity is to become a reality. Also, in moving forward to “the church that is to be”, mistakes and conflicts of the past must be forgotten.
The perusal of this Report leaves no doubt in the mind that the crucial question around which the conversations revolved was that of Episcopacy. Thus we are informed that “from the Anglican side it was clear that full intercommunion and unity could not be realized apart from Episcopacy”. Despite divergencies in the concept of what constitutes an episcopate, however, “the question of Episcopacy did not prove (as it had sometimes done in the past) an obstacle to discussion but rather a means of its movement along fresh lines”. These “fresh lines” led to the concept of presiding “Bishops-in-presbytery”, who would initially be consecrated by prayer with the laying on of hands both by Anglican bishops and by the Presbytery acting through appointed representatives. In this way, it is maintained, there would be an acceptance of the “historic episcopate” by the Presbyterian Churches and the continuity of the “Apostolic succession” would be safeguarded. The presbytery, it is declared, would still retain “its full and essential place” in the life and government of Presbyterianism, “except that a permanent Bishop-in-Presbytery would take the place of the changing Moderator” and that decisions on doctrinal and constitutional matters “might well have to require” the consent of Presbyterian bishops. In the Episcopalian Churches, on the other hand, lay persons would be solemnly “set apart” to form “an office akin to the Presbyterian eldership,” and lay people would be given “appropriate participation in the government of the church at all levels.”
What it all boils down to is this, that in return for the acceptance by Presbyterianism of Episcopacy, without which full communion would be impossible, “even if”—and this should be carefully noted—“even if otherwise agreement had been reached as to doctrine and practice,” Anglicanism would give the laity more of a say in the affairs of the church. This may be regarded by some as a rather poor quid pro quo, even when it is realized that the healing of a breach may mean one side making greater concessions than the other. The issue of unity, in a word, has been permitted to become, in the first place, an issue of order reflecting the narrow view of Episcopacy as the essential apostolic ministry which is characteristic of Anglo-Catholicism.
It must be emphasized, however, that this is not the view of historic Anglicanism, in which faith, agreement on doctrine, has always been given precedence over considerations of order. Thus, though the Church of England is an episcopal Church believing fully that the threefold ministry is agreeable to Holy Scripture, its Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion do not so much as mention Episcopacy as a necessary mark of church and ministry. The Lord’s Table was always open to members of other reformed churches. And, what is more, in the past considerable numbers of ministers with no more than Presbyterian orders were admitted to full ministry in the Church of England without being required to submit to episcopal re-ordination. The rise of Anglo-Catholicism has unfortunately obscured these facts and set up barriers between the Church of England and other Churches which had been unknown since the Reformation.
One of the most commendable aspects of the Report is that it does not fall into the trap of equating unity with uniformity. The end in view is not one single “Church of Great Britain,” but rather a “Church of England” and a “Church of Scotland,” each enjoying its own freedom of life and worship and both participating in “fullness of sacramental communion” which would involve “fully authorized interchange of communicants and mutual recognition of ministries.”
If this goal is achieved it will be a very great and notable gain. But, we must repeat, it is the truth that sets free and removes barriers, not a particular form of order which is in fact a form of uniformity. On turning to the New Testament one cannot escape the conviction that there is a simpler and better way than that proposed in this Report. If it is true, as the Report says, that the validity of Presbyterian orders is not brought into question and that theirs is a “ministry of the Word and Sacrament which has been used and blessed by the Spirit of God,” then the way is even now open for the practice of full intercommunion and mutual recognition of ministries.
It is surely time that Angelicanism returned to its historic position and “fenced” the Lord’s Table (not the Anglo-Catholic altar) against the unbeliever and the notorious evil liver, as has been the practice of historic Presbyterianism, instead of “fencing” it against nonepiscopalians. This can be done now, and not only with reference to Presbyterianism. The effect of such action would bring untold blessing to the Church, simply because it would at last be possible for those who are Christ’s, irrespective of their denominational associations, to unite at the one place where above all there should be love, faith and gratitude, and at the same time it would be a witness such that the onlooking world could not gainsay.
