£o .•y>b/e-, i i G
— The- t^T»cco«.\i<

A3>v/ 40^^

\i<W5

J / l

Ijmcojmialians

For copies address

FATHERS RUMBLE & CARTY
Radio Replies Press

Saint Paul 1, Minn., U. S. A.

1 r



IMPRIMATUR

Joannes Gregorius Murray

Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli

Paulopoli die 9a Octobris 1950

COPYRIGHT 1950
by the

RADIO REPLIES PRESS
Printed in U.S.A.



15he

EPISCOPALIANS

By The Convert From Anglicanism

Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, m.s.c.

The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States

of America was the name chosen for their Church by those

American Colonists who, before the Declaration of Inde-

pendence in 1776, had belonged to the Church of England.

An understanding of the Episcopalian Church, therefore,

requires a knowledge of Anglicanism—a religion which,
of all forms of professing Christianity, is the, most difficult

and complex to describe. However, it may be defined in

general as the religion of the Established Church of

England and of those affiliated Churches throughout the

world which declare allegiance to Anglican doctrines,

organization, and worship.

The importance of the Anglican Communion can be esti-

mated from the fact that at the Lambeth Conference of

1948 there were assembled 326 Bishops of various national-

ities, representing between 30 and 40 million adherents

belonging to many different countries. Most of these ad-

herents are, of course, Anglo-Saxons; for most of them

live in England, or belong to overseas Churches which

have been established wherever British influence is to be

found. But small communities exist in China and Japan,

which sent their own Chinese and Japanese Bishops to

represent them at Lambeth.

Yet its expansion is not the most impressive feature of

the Anglican Church in the eyes of the English people. In

England itself they appreciate its historic grandeur, taking

for granted the ancient Cathedrals and Parish Churches

which have come down to them from the past, and quoting

a venerable list of 'Archbishops of Canterbury with no

advertence to any break in ecclesiastical realities. More-

1

Acidified



over they are justly proud of Anglican scholarship in such

men as Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Gore, Kirk, and many

others whether living or dead—men whose contented ac-
ceptance of Anglicanism not unreasonably confirms them

in their own loyalty to the Church of England.

John Henry Newman, even as a Catholic, could write in

his “Apologia”, “I recognize in the Anglican Church a

time-honored institution of noble historical memories, a

monument of ancient wisdom, a momentous arm of politi-

cal strength, a -great national organ, a source of vast

popular advantage, to a certain point, a witness and

teacher of religious truth.” But having paid that tribute,

he felt compelled to add, “But that it is something sacred;

that it is an oracle of revealed doctrine, that it can claim

a share in St. Ignatius or St. Cyprian, that it can take the

rank, contest the teaching and stop the path of the Church

of St. Peter, that it can call itself the “Bride of the Lamb”,

this is the view of it which simply disappeared from my
mind on my conversion.”

The grounds for that change of outlook he found in

the history of Anglicanism itself, to which we will have to

give some attention in this present booklet.

THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

Before commencing a closer study of the Anglican Com-

munion, it is well to note that in no sense can it be called

one united visible Church in the New Testament sense of
the word.

In England the Anglican Church is a constitutionally

State-Established religious society subject to the Crown

which nominates its Bishops, and to a Parliament without

whose consent no ecclesiastical measures on the part of the

Convocations of Clergy and of the House of Laity have

any official authority. How real is the control of Parlia-
ment in England was manifested in 1928 by its rejection of

the Revised Prayer Book proposed by the Church Assembly.

Outside England however, Anglican missionaries aimed

at establishing independent Churches modelled along the

lines of the Church of England, but on a self-governing

2



basis. These Churches, although professing to be within

the fellowship of the Anglican Communion, have their own

constitutions, are ruled by their own Synods of Clergy and

Laity, and are autonomous in matters of belief, organiza-

tion and worship. This makes the Anglican Communion,

not one visible Church, but a voluntary association of con-

stitutionally independent Churches after the fashion of a

“League of Nations”. The Lambeth Conference of world

Bishops, therefore, has no real authority over the whole

Anglican Communion. It cannot legislate for that Com-

munion as if it were one Church. At most it is a consulta-

tive body, able to make recommendations which each in-

dependent self-governing Church may accept or reject at

its discretion.

How little this system conforms to New Testament teach-
ing is brought out by one of its own theologians, the Rev.

Dr. H. L. Goudge, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.

In his book, “The Church of England and Reunion”,

p. 168, he writes, “In the New Testament believers in
Christ not members of the one visible Apostolic Church

are nowhere to be found. We hear, indeed, of “the
Churches” as well as of the Church, but these Churches

are very different from “the Churches” of which we hear

today. The Churches of Galatia or of Macedonia are the

Christian communities, all alike under St. Paul’s authority,

in the Galatian and Macedonian cities . . . The relation

of the Churches to the Church is like the relation of our

local post-offices to the G.P.O. in London. There is only

one Post Office, private enterprise not being here per-

mitted. But the G.P.O. has its local representatives in the

towns and villages, and in dealing with them we are deal-

ing with the Department itself. Everywhere in the New
Testament the Church is one, and only one.”

That description fits perfectly the one Catholic Church

throughout the world, subject to the authority of the

Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter; but it cannot
be reconciled with an association of independent self-

governing Churches such as the “Anglican Communion”

represents! But of that we shall see more later.

3



POST-REFORMATION ORIGIN

It is customary for Anglican writers to commence their

history of the Church of England with an account of the

earliest preaching of Christianity in that country. They

tell us of old traditions about visits of St. Paul or of Joseph

of Arimathea to England, or about Pope Eleutherius, in the

2nd century A.D., sending missionaries at the request of

King Lucius. They point with certainty to the fact that,

by the middle of the 2nd century, the Christian Church

had definitely been established in England, and that in

314 A.D. British Bishops were present at the Council of

Arles, a city in Gaul. And they go on from there, taking

it for granted that they are describing the history of the

Church of England.

But whilst we can say that the history of the Christian

religion in England begins with the conversion of the early

British people, we cannot say that the history of the

“Church of England” begins there. For all the early mis-

sionaries were in communion with Rome. When St. Au-

gustine was sent by Pope Gregory I, in 596 A.D., to be

the first Archbishop of Canterbury, he preached the only

religion he knew—papal Catholicism. It was the religion
all Christians then in England acknowledged; and, indeed,

St. Augustine had come with jurisdiction from the Pope

over all the British Bishops in the land.

Anglican writers are also fond of quoting the clause from

“Magna Charta”, of 1215 A.D., “Ecclesia Anglicana sit

libera”, as though that meant that their Anglican Church

was to be free from Papal jurisdiction. But it meant

nothing of the kind. The expression “Ecclesia Anglicana”

meant, not the “Church of England”, but the Catholic

Church in England, just as the expression “Ecclesia Galli-

cana” meant the Catholic Church in Gaul, or “Ecclesia

Hispanica” the Catholic Church in Spain. Nor did

“Magna Charta” contain the slightest reference to any

independence of the Church from the Pope. It was King

John who was compelled to sign “Magna Charta”. It was

he who was making the concessions; and he had to promise

4



that the Church in England would be free from royal inter-

ference. Thirty years later, in 1245, Pope Innocent IV

wrote to the English Abbots that the “Ecclesia Anglicana”

is “a special member of the Most Holy Church of Rome.”

The truth is that, before the advent of Henry VIII, there

was no difference between the religion of Englishmen and

that of the rest of Catholic Christendom. The first point

of severance from the Catholic Church of the centuries

came with Henry’s “Act of the Royal Supremacy” in 1534

A.D.—a flagrant violation of “Magna Charta”! It is true
that, from time to time, disputes had arisen between Popes

and Kings of England, and that there were outbreaks of

anti-Papal feeling against what was felt to be undue claims

of the Papacy in temporal affairs. But the Anglican Arch-

bishop Garbett, of York, writes in his recent book (1950)

“Church and State in England”, p. 40, “The true nature

of these controversies is often misunderstood ... as the

attempt of an indignant Church and patriotic nation to

escape from thraldom to Rome. However much we might

wish this had been so, the actual facts give no support to

a theory so congenial to later-day Protestantism. Both

Church and State accepted the spiritual supremacy of the

Pope . . . Only those who were in faithful communion with

him could hope for salvation. To die excommunicate

meant the loss of eternal life. Papal authority and jurisdic-

tion were accepted in England as in the rest of Western

Christendom; the controversies arose only over the extent

and limits of their exercise.”

WORK OF HENRY VIII

In 1534 A.D. Henry VIII, despairing of persuading

Pope Clement VII to grant him a divorce from Catherine

of Aragon so that he might marry Anne Boleyn, repudiated

the authority of Rome altogether and proclaimed himself
head of the Church in England by the “Act of Royal

Supremacy”.

This rejection of the jurisdiction of the hitherto acknowl-

edged Holy See resulted in the creation of a new and in-

5



dependent Church, separated from the Papacy and from

the Catholic Church on the Continent, every bit as much
as the rejection of the jurisdiction of the British Throne

by the American Colonies with the “Declaration of Inde-

pendence” in 1776 A.D. resulted in the new and inde-

pendent nation in the civil order known as the United

States of America.

Anglican writers deny that Henry’s break with Rome
and rejection of the Pope’s authority resulted in a new

Church, and declare that the “Church of England” re-

mained the same institution as the Church in England

before that event. But such a contention will not bear

historical scrutiny.

As a prelude to the “Act of Rpyal Supremacy” Henry

had enacted a “Statute of Appeals”, in the preamble to

which he sought to justify his actions. Commenting on this

subject, in his “History of English Law” (1931), Sir W. S.

Holdsworth, Professor of English Law at Oxford Univer-

sity, says, “The preamble to this Statute of Appeals is re-

markable, partly because it manufactures history on an

unprecedented scale, but chiefly because it has operated

from that day to this as a powerful incentive to its manu-

facture by others on similar lines. Nor is the reason for

this phenomenon difficult to discover. The Tudor settle-

ment was a characteristically skillful instance of the Tudor

genius for creating a modern institution with a mediaeval

form. But in order to create the illusion that the new

Anglican Church was indeed the same institution as the

mediaeval Church, it was necessary to prove the historical

continuity of these two very different institutions ... It

was not till an historian arose who, besides being the great-

est historian of his century, was both a consummate lawyer

and a dissenter from the Anglican as well as from the

other Churches (i.e., F. W. Maitland LL.D., D.C.L., late

Downing Professor of Law at Cambridge) that the histori-

cal worthlessness of Henry’s theory was finally demon-

strated.”

6



TRIUMPH OF PROTESTANTISM

Henry VIII, having rejected the supremacy of the Pope

over the Church in England in order to substitute his own,

had no wish to make any changes in other Catholic beliefs

and practices.

As soon, however, as Edward VI had ascended the

Throne in 1547, the boy-king’s Council set to work to

Protestantize the Church of England. The Mass and the

obligation of celibacy for the clergy were abolished. Serv-

ices were to be said in English instead of in Latin. In

1549 Cranmer produced a first “Book of Common Prayer”;

but it followed the Latin Missal too closely to satisfy those

bent on a truly Protestant reformation; in 1552, therefore,

Cranmer issued a second “Prayer Book” which reflected in

a far more pronounced way both Lutheran and Calvinist

influences, sweeping away all references to a sacrificial

priesthood and any traces of belief in the Real Presence

of Christ in the Eucharist. And at the instigation of John

Knox, the Calvinist, what is known as the “Black Rubric”

was inserted, declaring it idolatry to offer adoration of any

kind to any imagined Sacramental Presence of Christ in

the consecrated elements of bread and wine.

Cranmer thus made sure that the Church of England as

by law established would rank as one of the Protestant

Reformed Churches.

On Edward’s death in 1553 A.D., however, Mary, the
daughter of Henry VIII and his true wife Catherine of

Aragon, succeeded to the Throne. A practicing Catholic
like her mother, she at once proceeded to undo the work

set on foot by Henry and Edward, repealing the ecclesiasti-

cal laws they had made, restoring the Latin Mass, and ar-

ranging for the reconciliation of England with Rome. But

her short reign of only five years was not long enough to

ensure her lasting success, and Elizabeth’s accession in

1558, to reign for forty-five years, meant the revival of an

independent “Church of England” according to the Protes-

tant form it had taken in the time of Edward VI.

7



ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT

In 1559 A.D. Elizabeth renewed the “Act of Royal

Supremacy”, taking the ittle “Supreme Governor” instead

of “Supreme Head of the Church”; and by the “Act of

Uniformity in Religion” she restored the Second Prayer

Book of Edward VI. The change of title from “Supreme

Head” to “Supreme Governor” was of nominal significance

only. Bishops had to be appointed by the Crown, and the

Crown was to be the source of all their jurisdiction.

When the Catholic Bishops refused to take the Oath of
Elizabeth’s supremacy all were deposed and imprisoned

except Bishop Kitchin of Llandaff who conformed to the

new law. Elizabeth thereupon appointed a new hierarchy,

beginning with Matthew Parker who was consecrated to

be Archbishop of Canterbury according to the Rites of the

1552 Prayer Book; and, therefore, according to Catholic

requirements, quite invalidly.

But the main thing was to have an episcopate subject

to the Crown. Bishop Cooper wrote, in his answer to the

Marprelate Tracts, that no form of Church government

was divinely ordained, but that episcopacy was suitable to

England’s monarchical constitution! To this day Anglican

Bishops in England have to do homage to the King, say-

ing on their knees before him, “I do hereby declare that

Your Majesty is the only supreme Governor of this Your

realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical things, as well as in

temporal . . . and I acknowledge that I hold the said

bishopric, as well the spiritualities as the temporalities

thereof, only of Your Majesty.”

When therefore the Bishops sanctioned the use of the

Revised Prayer Book of 1928, after its rejection by Parlia-

ment, Sir Lewis Dibdin, Secretary of the Church Assembly,

declared it shocking that they should disregard the de-

cision of the House of Commons. He pointed out that,

when the Enabling Act of 1919 was brought in, the Bishops

emphatically declared “that the power of Parliament was

intended to remain unaltered and absolute.”

But besides asserting her supremacy, in 1563 Elizabeth

8



sanctioned the “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”, Articles

which reflected very greatly both Lutheran and Calvinistic

teachings, as a doctrinal standard for the Church of

England.

From all this it is evident that the Elizabethan Settle-

ment gave England a religion which could not be mistaken

for the “old religion”. On her accession England was a
Catholic country, in full communion with the See of Peter.

At the end of her reign Catholicism was a forbidden re-

ligion in England, to say Mass was a capital offense, and

to profess belief in the supremacy of the Pope was a crime.

Was it any wonder that, in 1570, the Pope excommuni-

cated Elizabeth and forbade Catholics any longer to wor-

ship in the Parish Churches!

But besides dealing with Catholic recusants, Elizabeth

found that she had to contend with Protestant exiles who

returned from the Continent after the death of Mary, and

who thought that the reformation in England had not gone

nearly far enough. These began to exert all possible influ-

ence to “purify” the Anglican Church in a Protestant di-

rection, protesting even against the retention of an episco-

pal form of ecclesiastical organization. These “Puritans”,

as they were called, wanted a Presbyterian or Congrega-

tional type of Church, and many of them ended by leaving

the Church of England to become members of Non-

conformist sects. Those who remained in the State Church

gained recognition as a legitimate Low Church Party with-
in it at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, a year

after the accession of James I. The struggle at once com-

menced between Low Church and High Church factions
within Anglicanism for the control of the Church of

England.

INTERNAL CONFLICT

During the reign of Charles I (1625-1649) High Church

Anglican theologians began to work out a theory of their

Church as an ancient Catholic Church true to Scripture

and the primitive traditions of Christianity, cleansed only

from mediaeval “Romish accretions and superstitions”.

9



But the powerful Puritan forces had no sympathy with pre-

tensions to an ancient Catholic inheritance, and Arch-

bishop Laud of Canterbury was put to death in 1645, King

Charles I himself sharing the same fate in 1649.

The Puritan Commonwealth under the Cromwells fol-

lowed, and lasted for eleven years, Presbyterianism being

substituted for Anglicanism as the official religion of

England, and the use of the Book of Common Prayer for-
bidden.

However, on the Restoration in 1660, when Charles II

returned to the Throne, the Church of England was given

the place of honor once more. A revised Prayer Book
was imposed by an “Act of Uniformity” in 1662, based on

the Second Prayer Book of 1552 but with some changes in

the direction of the First Prayer Book of 1548 to satisfy

the High Church Party, the “Black Rubric” (which had

been omitted in Elizabeth’s 1559 Book) being restored to

placate the Puritans.

4
The advent of William of Orange in 1688 brought with

it a further swing to Protestantism which degenerated

into a lethargy and indifference which seemed to threaten

the very existence of religion in England. The “Evangeli-

cal Revival” set on foot by John Wesley, strongly Lutheran

and Calvinist in outlook, awakened a temporary en-

thusiasm for religion, but ended in the creation of a new

and independent Methodist denomination, and the Church

of England lapsed back into its contented laxity once more.

Then, in 1833, came John Keble’s famous sermon on

“National Apostasy”, and Newman commenced publica-

tion of his “Tracts for the Times” in which he tried to up-

hold the Catholic and Apostolic character of the Anglican

Church. Thus commenced the “Oxford Movement” which

at least definitely awakened the Church of England from

its lethargy both by enkindling enthusiasm for High

Church principles and by stirring adherents of the Low

Church Party to violent hostility.

In 1845 Newman and many of his followers left the

Church of England to enter the Catholic Church. But

Keble, Pusey and others remained to foster a “Catholic

10



Revival” amongst Anglicans, creating a ritualistic “Anglo-

Catholic Party” which is the most progressive aspect of

Anglicanism today.

In the same 19th century however there arose another

Party, the members of which were infected with Modern-

ism and who advocated lax doctrinal standards and a com-

promise with rationalism. So we have “High”, “Low”,

and “Broad” Church Anglicanism leading to almost end-

less internal disputes.

So much, then, for our brief survey of Anglican history.

Our attention must now be given to the teachings of the

Church of England.

NO DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY

Writing in the “Sunday Express”, of September 14th,

1947, Archbishop Fisher of Canterbury complained, “It is

sometimes said that nobody can tell what the Church of

England believes. I hope I have shown that the accusation

is untrue.” But his hope was not realized. For although

his article was entitled “The Beliefs of the Church of En-

gland”, at most he can be said to have set forth his own

beliefs, beliefs which others who equally claim to be Angli-

cans reject to a very great extent. One can state the beliefs

of this or that Anglican, not the definite doctrines of the

Church of England as -such. That 'Church has no teaching

authority to which members feel obliged to submit.

At the time of the Reformation the idea of Cranmer

and his assistants was to substitute Convocation of the

Clergy with the King at its head for the hitherto acknowl-

edged Papal authority. The King was to give the Royal

Assent to the spiritual decisions of Convocation for the

Church as to the political decisions of Parliament for the

State. But, since Stuart times, Parliament and the Privy

Council have usurped the place of Royal authority; and,

as we have seen, Parliament in 1928 rejected the Revised
Prayer Book presented by the National Assembly, thus

showing its power to decide even matters of doctrine and

worship for Anglicans in England.

Anglican writers say that such may unfortunately seem

11



true in practice, but that on principle the Church alone

has authority to decide for itself in doctrinal matters. But

if there is one thing on which all Anglicans are agreed it is

in the rejection of any idea of an infallible Church. Deny-

ing Roman claims to infallibility, they can hardly claim the

same prerogative for their own Church. At the same time

difficulties arise from the admission that the Bible only, as

privately interpreted, is an infallible source of doctrine

—

for the Nonconformists fell back on that principle to justify

their rejection of Anglicanism.

High Church Anglicans thought to solve the problem

by saying that the only reliable source of teaching consists

of the Bible as interpreted by the Fathers of the primitive

Church and as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
Yet the weakness of that appeal is evident. Were the

Bishops of the primitive Church infallible? If so, why not

the Bishops of today? Yet Anglican Bishops are notorious

for their conflict on vital doctrines. Again, were the com-

pilers of the Prayer Book infallible?

To escape these difficulties, Archbishop Fisher, in the

article already mentioned, says, “Of course every Church

must ask itself this question—Where is the final authority
to which we look for the faith we hold? The Church of

England believes that the Holy Spirit of God, the only

final authority, speaks to us in Holy Scripture, in the tra-

dition of the Church, and in the living thought and experi-

ence of today. Thus there is a three-fold cord, each single

strand of which unrelated to the others leads astray.”

The idea apparently is that the Holy Ghost speaks

through the Bible, the tradition of the Church, and the

collective consciousness of Christians; and that the testi-

mony of each of these three must be checked by the other

two. But this reduces the Anglican position to one of pri-

vate judgment only. Each individual still has to decide for

himself what the Bible means, the sense of traditional doc-

trines, and on what the collective consciousness of Chris-

tians agrees. No living voice speaks to him. And it is surely

demanding too much of anyone to ask him to believe the

Holy Ghost to be responsible for the bewildering confusion

12



of beliefs prevalent in the Anglican Communion!

The truth is that Anglicanism acknowledges no divinely

guaranteed authority in this world to define anything, not

Parliament, nor the Privy Council, nor Bishops, nor Con-

vocations of Clergy, nor Synods of Clergy and Laity. The

most loyal attitude for an Anglican seems to be, “Think

what you like, but refrain from positive assertions or

denials.”

As a result, multitudes remain traditionally Anglican

without any very definite convictions, and acknowledge

no doctrinal authority in the Church of England which can

bind them in conscience.

TYPICAL BELIEFS

Despite this lack of certainty as to what they mean, how-

ever, the average instructed Anglican, if asked to state the

beliefs of Anglicans, would unhesitatingly subscribe to the

following propositions:

( 1 )
The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation,

so that nothing can be required of anyone that can-

not be proved from Scripture.

(2) There is a visible Church recognizable as a congre-

gation of faithful people in which the pure Word of

God is preached, and the Sacraments administered

according to Christ’s ordinance.

(3) In this Church there is a hierarchical ministry of

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

(4) The Anglican Communion claims to be a reformed

part of the Catholic Church of Christ, and it retains

a valid three-fold ministry as above, derived by un-

interrupted succession from the Apostles.

(5) Whilst the Bible is the remote source of doctrine,

the Book of Common Prayer together with the three
Creeds, the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Atha-

nasian, contained therein, is to be accepted as the

practical rule of belief and worship.

(6) There are two Sacraments to be regarded as gen-

erally necessary for salvation, Baptism and the Eu-

charist.

13



It is to be noted that the “Thirty-Nine Articles of Re-

ligion” contained in the Book of Common Prayer are not
today regarded as binding in conscience. An Anglican
writer, the Rev. C. B. Moss, in his book “The Divisions of

Christendom”, p. 46, says, that Elizabeth had no intention

of imposing a scheme of doctrine resembling the Tridentine

Decrees or the Protestant Confessions. He declares the

Articles to have been “Articles of Peace”
—

“an ambiguous

statement designed to prevent clergy from being too defi-

nite on doubtful points.” In 1865 a legal decision was

given that the clergy were not obliged to literal subscrip-

tion to the Articles, but only to a “general assent”. The

laity are not bound to accept them at all.

ANGLICAN ORDERS

Protestant Churches dispute amongst themselves about

the nature of the Christian ministry described in the New
Testament. But there were no disputes about the matter

in the primitive Church. There was an ordination to the

priesthood by the laying on of hands, those thus conse-

crated having as their main duties the offering of the Eu-

charistic Sacrifice to God, the administering of the Sacra-

ments, and the preaching of the Word of God. And their

authority or commission was derived, not from the mem-

bers of the Church tQ whom they ministered, but by trans-
mission from the Apostles who had themselves received it

from Christ, the Divine Founder of the Church.

The form of government prevailing in the Church is not

so clearly described in the New Testament and in the
earliest Christian documents; but certainly only one form

was known by the second century, each Church having

its own Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, all the Bishops link-

ed as a united body and able to meet at times to define

doctrines and legislate for the whole Church.

When, therefore, Cranmer published his new Ordinal

in 1550, during the reign of Edward VI, he introduced it

with the prefatory statement, “It is evident to all men

diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors,

that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders

14



of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and

Deacons.” And he added that his new Ordinal was “to

the intent these Orders should be continued, and reverent-

ly used and esteemed in this Church of England.”

Yet despite this declaration of his intentions, although

he preserved episcopacy as an external form, he did not

succeed in preserving a valid Christian priesthood for the

new Church of England. The Anglican Bishop of Derby,

Dr. Rawlinson, says in his book, “The Genius of the

Church of England” (1949) p. 11, “Continuity of Bishops

was retained, not for any reasons connected with the idea

of Apostolic Succession, but for reasons of statecraft. The

Crown held that the clergy needed control, and that to that

end Bishops were requisite; and, accordingly, Bishops there

were.”

In fact, many Anglican writers today deny the necessity

of the three-fold ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

They declare that it is a good and useful system, beneficial

but not essential. The Church of England has never given

any official judgment insisting on the doctrine of

“Apostolic Succession”, nor has it ever officially condemn-

ed the non-episcopal ministries of Nonconformist Churches.

The truth is that Cranmer, having adopted many of the

teachings of the Reformers on the Continent, had lost all

belief in the Mass and in a sacrificial priesthood. He had
no intention of continuing those. Moreover, in the forms

for his new Ordinal of 1550 he deliberately omitted to

specify to what priestly or episcopal power the candidate

was being ordained. Not until 112 years later, in 1662,

were the words added, in the one case “for the office and

work of a priest in the Church of God”; in the other “for

the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God.”

It follows that even if the forms were put right then, a

century’s use of the old forms had left no one validly con-

secrated to transmit priestly powers to others.

When, therefore, in 1896, Pope Leo XIII gave a judg-

ment requested of him concerning the validity of Anglican

Orders, he declared them null and void from the viewpoint

of Catholic requirements through defect of intention and

15



defect of form, adding later that his verdict was perma-

nently binding and irrevocable.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York at that time

promptly voiced their protests and published their official

Reply, trying to maintain the validity of their Orders, yet

showing in that very Reply that they had not a right idea

of the Christian priesthood at all.

Writing on this subject in the “National Review”, of

September 1925, p. 73, the Anglican Bishop Knox, of Man-

chester, said, “The Pope refused absolutely to recognize

our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does

not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In

spite of the attempts made by our Archbishops to conceal

this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unques-

tionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church

of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not

ordained by the Church with the intention that they should

offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the

Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure.

The Prayer Book and the Ordinal are simply uncatholic,

since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of

all Catholic functions.”

The son of Bishop Knox, Monsignor Ronald Knox, said

in his Essay, “Why I am a Catholic”, written after he had
abandoned the Church of England, that even were Angli-

can Orders valid in themselves (which he had ceased to

believe) there was still a complete lack of commission for

their exercise derived from the Apostles. And he said that

he was not content “to exercise a jurisdiction which pro-

ceeded, in the last resort, from no more respectable a

source than a Tudor queen.”

LOW CHURCH PARTY
It is necessary now to turn to the consideration of the

very different and conflicting Parties within the Anglican

Communion, if we are to get a right idea of it. And we

begin with the Low Church Party which, historically at

least, is the most authentic exponent of the Anglican re-

ligion as it was originally intended to be by the compilers

16



of the Book of Common Prayer.
Henry VIII, of course, had wanted a Catholic Church

in England, independent of the Pope and subject to him-

self. But his death in 1547, and the accession of Edward

VI, made the way clear for Cranmer to introduce Protes-

tantism. Cranmer, therefore, at once set to work to abolish

the Mass, the doctrines of Transubstantiation and of Pur-

gatory, together with many Catholic practices such as the

celibacy of the clergy, the observances of Candlemas, Ash

Wednesday, and Palm Sunday, Holy Water, Prayers to the

Virgin Mary and to the Saints, as well as Prayers for the

Dead.

Let us recall once more the historical sequence of

events

:

In 1549 Cranmer produced his First Book of Common
Prayer in the vernacular.

In 1550 he provided a new Ordinal which excluded all

mention of the sacrificial office of the priesthood.

In 1551 an Order in Council required altars to be de-

stroyed and movable tables to be substituted for them,

in order to impress on the people the change from

“the old superstition of the Mass to the right use of

the Lord’s Supper.” The latter was to be regarded

as a sacramental meal, not as a sacrifice; and to stress

this, Communion was to be given under both kinds, as

food and drink.

In 1552, since the 1549 Book was declared not sufficient-

ly Protestant, a Second Prayer Book was published,

altering the order of the Eucharistic Rite, and abolish-

ing or changing all expressions which could even re-

motely suggest a sacrificial action.

In 1553 Bishops and Priests were required to subscribe

to “Forty-Two Articles”, markedly Lutheran in char-

acter.

In that same year of 1553, however, Edward VI died;

and with the accession of the Catholic Mary and England’s

reconciliation with Rome, it looked as if the whole of

Cranmer’s work would be undone. But Mary herself died

within a brief five years, and in 1558 Elizabeth became

17



Queen, to reign for forty-five years. Elizabeth at once

proceeded to restore the National Protestant Church as it

had been under Edward VI. In 1559 she issued a new

Book of Common Prayer based on the Book of 1552, but
modified in a Calvinistic direction. Royal injunctions were

issued once more that altars were to be removed and tables

substituted; and an “Act of Uniformity” demanded ac-

ceptance of the renewed change of religion. Archbishop

Parker, an avowed Protestant, was (invalidly) consecrated

for Canterbury, and men of Calvinist sympathies appoint-

ed to other bishoprics to replace the deposed Catholic

Bishops who had refused the Oath of Supremacy.

There can be no doubt whatever that the Church of

England under Elizabeth, with its doctrines and worship

derived to a great extent from Luther and Calvin, became

part of the Protestant Reformation Movement. Even Dr.

W. H. Frere, one of the modern exponents of Anglo-

Catholicism and one-time Bishop of Truro, admitted that

“the service books at this epoch, as at the Edwardian,

symbolized a real doctrinal change.” “English Church in

the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I”, p. 26. He admits

that the people themselves in Elizabeth’s days thought of

it as a “change of religion”, and that they spoke of the

Catholic Faith as the “old religion”. Hence, whilst the

word “Protestant” is not found in the Prayer Book, it is

in the Coronation Oath in which the King has to profess

himself to be a “faithful Protestant” and promise to main-

tain the Protestant religion in his realm. Nor is it with-

out significance that, after the Declaration of Inde-

pendence in 1776, Anglicans in America chose as the title

for their Church “The Protestant Episcopal Church of the

United States of America”.

The members of the Low Church Party, then, or Evan-

gelicals as they are sometimes called, are truer to Angli-

canism as Elizabeth intended it to be than are the High

Churchmen. For Low Churchmen, the Church of England

is simply “Established Protestantism”. For them, Rome is

not one of the “branches of the true Church”, or an “erring

sister”, but an apostate Church and an abomination. They

18



believe in salvation by faith alone, hating ritualism and

sacramentalism. They acknowledge no sacrifice except

that of the Cross on Calvary. They deny any priesthood

in the Church beyond a ministry of preaching. If they ac-

cept episcopacy, it is not because they think it necessary,

but only because it is useful for law and order. Inter-

communion with Nonconformists, whose ministers are

just as much ministers of the Gospel as are the Anglican

clergy, is quite permissible. Above all, Anglicans should

ever be ready to join forces with Nonconformists in resist-

ing the influence and growth of the Roman Church.

Such is one form of religion which has as much right to

call itself Anglican as any other form.

HIGH CHURCH PARTY
The Protestant Reformers, preaching that religion is a

personal and individual matter between the soul and

Christ, left no room for any doctrine of a visible Church.

For them the Church was necessarily invisible, consisting

of those only who, by interior faith and repentance, had

accepted Christ as their Saviour. It did not matter to what
1 Church such people belonged, provided they did not ad-

here to the “apostate” Roman Church. Naturally, they

saw no sense in asking “Which is the True Church?” They

took very low views of the Church as an integral part of

the Christian religion, and had little regard for external

sacramental practices.

As contrasted with these, there have always been in the

Anglican Church others holding much higher views of the

position of the Church as a divinely-instituted organiza-

tion necessary for the sacramental dispensation of grace

and for the mediation of salvation to men. For them, to

be a member of Christ supposes membership of the Church

of Christ; and it is essential that one must be a member of

the True Church of Christ, not merely of any man-made

substitute for it.

With these convictions, High Church Anglicans feel

compelled to justify their Church as still a part of the One

Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to work for the

restoration of Catholic teachings and practices within the

19



Anglican Communion. Low Churchmen have always de-
nounced these High Churchmen as “Romanizers”, not al-

lowing for the basis in Anglican history to which High

Churchmen appeal.

It must be remembered that Elizabeth wanted a com-

prehensive Church and that, in order to compromise be-

tween warring factions, Anglican formularies were made

as ambiguous as possible, retaining Catholic elements to

placate Catholic-minded Englishmen, and incorporating

Protestant elements to appease supporters of Lutheran and

Calvinist doctrines.

In Stuart times, therefore, High Churchmen such as

Laud and his followers tried to ignore the Protestant ele-

ments, and stressed the Catholic elements, though with the

reservations necessary to remain in the Church of England.

They insisted on the continuity of their Church with the

pre-reformation Church, and declared that it was a “re-

formed part” of the Catholic Church. At the Reforma-

tion, according to them, the Church of England had mere-

ly “washed its face”, making no essential changes even

though it had gravely compromised itself by making dis-

tressing concessions to Protestantism. They claimed, there-

fore, that they repudiated both Roman accretions and

Protestant innovations. They allowed the Pope a primacy

of honor, but not of jurisdiction. 'They taught the Real

Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not by transubstan-

tiation. They believed in auricular confession, but not that

it was of obligation.

After the death of William Laud in 1645, and during

the Commonwealth Period, these views of the Caroline

High Churchmen were thrust out of sight, and the Protes-

tant Party secured the dominant position. But the Laudian

school was revived by the Oxford Movement of 1833, when

the Tractarians tried once more to maintain the “Catholic”

position of the Church of England. In obviously forced

and unhistorical ways they endeavored to read a Catholic

interpretation into the Prayer Book and into the “Articles

of Religion.” And they began a campaign for the restora-

tion of Catholic Ritual.

20



ANGLO-CATHOLICS"

Twelve years after he had published the first of his

“Tracts” intended to make the Church of England con-

scious of its Catholic heritage, John Henry Newman

realized the impossibility of such claims, saw the need of a

living voice in a teaching Church which was not to be

found in Anglicanism, and in 1845 submitted to Rome.

Many followed him, but those who remained formed the

nucleus of an “Anglo-Catholic Party” which grew steadily

in influence and numbers until today it includes, in varying

degrees, at least a third of practicing Anglicans throughout

the world.

Anglo-Catholics speak contemptuously of the Church

of England as it exists at present, with its toleration of

Protestantism; but they insist that she has preserved from

the Reformation disaster at least the bare essentials of a

true branch of the Catholic Church. And they conceive

it to be their duty to remain in the Anglican Church,

appropriating and propagating Catholic practices until it

has been purged of all vestiges of Protestant heresy. Their

progress has been in defiance of their Bishops, but they

hold that no authority in the Church of England can over-

ride things authorized by “Catholic consent” of the three

great branches of the Church Catholic, “Rome, Constanti-

nople, and Canterbury”! Pope Leo XIIPs condemnation

of Anglican Orders was a great disappointment to them,

but they continue on their way, gaining popular support

by the zeal and self-sacrifice of their clergy, and hoping

against hope for the ultimate reunion of the Church of

England with Rome under modified Papal claims.
The difficulties of the Anglo-Catholic position are enor-

mous, and efforts to evade them prove futile.

If asked, “Why did you Anglicans secede from Rome
in the first place by a guilty act of schism?”, they reply,

“We never did anything of the kind. The Pope went into
schism from us by unjustly excommunicating Elizabeth in

1570 A.D.” Reference to Elizabeth’s repudiation of the

Pope by the Acts of 1559 seems to make no impression on

21



them at all!

When challenged with the Protestant character of the

Book of Common Prayer they reply that the 1552 corrup-
tion of the 1549 Book was unlawfully imposed on the

Church of England by Parliament, but was never author-

ized by Convocation. But they overlook the fact that the

1662 Book, in use for nearly three hundred years, was

based on the 1552 Book and not on the 1549 Book.

They are committed to a claim to “continuity” refuted

by history in thousands of documents, and to a “branch-

theory” rejected by the other supposed “branches”, both

Roman and Orthodox.

Their principles give rise to the absurdity that a Conti-

nental Catholic who acknowledges Papal supremacy be-

comes a schismatic, with no change whatever in his views

or allegiance, by crossing the channel and setting foot in

England, yet is free from schism the moment he leaves

England’s shores!

They have no solution of the problem of an infallible

revelation with no infallible living voice to interpret that

revelation.

Despite these difficulties, they see in the revival of sacra-

mental life and of the Religious Orders in the Church of

England evidences of God’s presence and power; and they

feel that they cannot give the lie to their Orders. But they

will not admit the force of these arguments when Non-

conformists point to examples of holiness in their own

ranks, and speak of their non-episcopal ministries as blessed

by God.

If Catholics find the position of Anglo-Catholics be-

wildering, they can at least be grateful to them for honor-

ing Catholic ideals, and for acting as a leaven in the

Church of England to preserve it from drifting to complete

unbelief on the one hand, or to a violent anti-Catholicism

on the other. Meantime, Anglo-Catholicism is a fruitful

source of many individual conversions to Rome and to
genuine Catholicism.

22



BROAD CHURCH PARTY

It is not surprising that, in a Church tolerating both

advocates of Protestantism and advocates of Catholicism,

there should arise amongst some members an impatience

with both extremes and a consequent driftage to religious

indifferentism.

As far back in Anglican history as the Commonwealth

Period, therefore, we meet the “Latitudinarians” who

would espouse neither the cause of extreme Protestantism

nor that of Catholicism, but who wanted a comprehensive

Church indifferent to the beliefs and practices of its mem-

bers. Refusing to throw in their lot with either Low

Church or High Church Parties, and denouncing all en-

thusiasm, they took refuge in indifferentism and scepti-

cism. And their school of thought has persisted in the

Church of England.

About 1850 their successors became known as “Broad

Churchmen”, and still later as “Modernists”. For them,

theology is merely the philosophy of any particular age. No

dogmas can be perpetually binding. As religious experi-

ence varies, so Christianity must be continually re-stated.

The appeal to the supernatural is indistinguishable from

an appeal to superstitution. The Church of England is

simply the nation on its religious side, and in matters of

belief and worship and discipline it is for the law of the

land to decide what good order requires.

In 1918, when the Modernist Dr. Hensley Henson was

appointed by the Crown as Bishop of Hereford, Bishop

Kinsman, of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America,

wrote, “Henson has denied the authority of episcopate and

priesthood, the sacramental principle generally; and he

defends, if he does not make, denials of certain Articles in

the Creeds . . . But the Archbishop, as conscientious ad-

ministrator of the system of the Establishment, has to con-

secrate him, since that system comprises all “schools of

thought”, is especially tender toward all sceptics, and only

severe toward those who take its profession of loyalty to

the ancient Church seriously . . . There is no getting away

23



from Henry VIII and Cranmer, lay-domination and cring-

ing concession to disbelief in the supernatural. It is all

nonsense to set up King Charles and Laud as typical Angli-

cans.” “Salve Mater”, pp. 89-90.

Two years later Bishop Henson himself wrote, when he
was promoted to Durham, “It is difficult to imagine a

more complete demonstration of Anglican confusion than

the fact that an Anglican clergyman inhibited in 1909 and

disregarding the inhibition, is himself raised to the episco-

pate in spite of a mighty clamour of protest in 1918, and is

preferred to one of the greatest positions in the hierarchy

in 1920! There is no doubt that the Church of England

is so incoherent and divided as really neither to think nor

to act as one bodv.” “Retrospect of an Unimportant Life”,

Vol. I, p. 326.

But even in 1949 utterances by the Modernist Bishop

Barnes of Birmingham made the Archbishop of Canterbury

declare publicly that if he himself held such views he would

not be able in conscience to remain a Bishop of the Church

of England, though he did not contemplate any practical

measures to discipline Bishop Barnes.

A comprehensive Church must ever be prepared to com-
promise, and allow whatever lattitude the Broad Church-

man sees fit to demand.

ENDLESS CONTRADICTIONS

“It is to the Elizabethan Settlement”, wrote Bishop

Kinsman, whilst still an Episcopalian Bishop, “that the

Anglican Communion owes a characteristic quality, some-

times regarded as an excellence, but more justly as a weak-

ness. This is its habitual ambiguity. It aimed at compre-

hension; and it ended in compromise.” “Salve Mater”,

p. 116. For the truth is that Anglican theologians borrow-

ed ideas wholesale from other and conflicting sources, Lu-

theran, Calvinist, Catholic, and even from unbelieving

rationalists. And these troublesome people were subject

to no authority.

The Anglican Bishop of Derby, Dr. Rawlinson, admits

quite candidly, “The Act of Uniformity is still on the

24



Statute Book; but it is, in effect, a dead letter.” He de-

clares that a candidate for ordination has to promise

with all solemnity that he will use the Prayer Book of 1662

“and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by law-

ful authority.” His own practice is to ask each ordinand

what meaning he attaches to the promises, but “I have al-

most universally found that, when this question is put to

them, men have no answer to give. They have not clearly

thought out or considered the matter . . . There is clearly

a question of conscience involved, and men ought not to

be put in the position of having to make solemn promises

of which they have not considered the meaning.” And he

adds, “There is, I suppose, little or no doubt that originally

‘lawful authority’ meant either the King in Parliament or

the King in Council.” “The Genius of the Church of

England”, pp. 19-20.

Earlier in the same book Dr. Rawlinson had written,

“Italianizing Anglo-Catholics, self-styled “Modernists”,

and Kensitite Protestants are all (with varying degrees of

discomfort) tolerated in the Church of England, but no

one of these various extremist groups has the least chance

of ever capturing the Church as a whole . . . Those Chris-

tians who can never be happy without unanimity on all

points of doctrine or of practice, or who demand clear-cut

definitions, will never find the Church of England a com-

fortable Church to inhabit.” p. 17.

With so much tolerated and so little authorized, one can

only conclude that the Church of England has no fixed

teachings on most points. In a word, you do not tell any

man’s religious beliefs by saying that he is an Anglican.

Different schools of thought have predominated at differ-

ent times. Theological Colleges range in their teaching

from non-Papal Catholicism to anti-Papal Calvinism,

Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals vying with one another

in subscriptions to ordination funds to make sure of their

proportionate quota in the ranks of the clergy.

The High Church “Society for the Propagation of the

Gospel” sends out missionaries to foreign countries teach-

ing Anglo-Catholicism, whilst the Low Church “Church

25



Missionary Society” co-operates with the “British and For-

eign Bible Society” to send advocates of Protestantism

—

to the bewilderment of natives who do not know what to

make of diametrically opposed religions taught in the name

of one and the same Church of England!

The Anglo-Catholic, the Rev. Vernon Staley, published

a book entitled “The Catholic Religion”. In reply, the

Evangelical Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, published a book

similar in size and style, entitled “The Catholic Faith”,

setting forth the Protestant interpretation of Anglicanism.

In opposition to both we have “My Faith” by the Broad
Churchman the Rev. Vernon Storr; and the prediction of

a new religion for future Anglicans by the Modernist Dr.

J.
W. Hunkin, Bishop of Truro, in a Penguin Special en-

titled “The Gospel for Tomorrow”.

Is it any wonder that “The Commission on Christian

Doctrine”, appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury

and York, entitled their Report, “Doctrine in the Church

of England” and not “Doctrine of the Church of England”,

to the delight of Modernists and the despair of Anglo-

Catholics?

ANGLICAN UNITY

It has been said that, despite all these different and com-

peting religions, the Anglican Communion nevertheless re-

tains its unity. But what is it that holds all Anglicans to-

gether? It must be something deeper than “Establish-

ment”, for that exists in England only, and the Bishops

assembled at Lambeth came not only from independent

Anglican Churches of the British Dominions, but also from

the United States and even from China and Japan.

The American Episcopalian, Dr. Leicester C. Lewis,

writing in the “Holy Cross Magazine”, tried to answer the

question. According to him, the bond uniting Anglicans

is certainly not the “Prayer Book”, since there is no unified

fidelity to it; nor the Creeds, which many professing Angli-

cans do not believe and which may be denied with im-

punity; nor “liturgical worship”, since there is the utmost

diversity of practice.

26



What, then, can it be? Dr. Lewis replies that it lies in

the fact that the formularies of Anglicanism are Catholic,

but that they are not enforced in practice. Catholic-mind-

ed members of the Anglican Communion have the formu-

laries on their side, and are quite free to live up to them.

Protestants and others take refuge in the fact that these

formularies are widely disregarded, and as the denial of

them in practice is tolerated they also may feel quite at

home in the Anglican Communion. “Anglican unity”, he

writes, “has persisted and is real today because of the firm

adherence to Catholic order on the one hand, together

with a refusal to enforce this order on the other.”

Dr. Lewis writes as a “Catholic-minded” Episcopalian.

The “Protestant-minded” Episcopalian would declare

Anglican formularies Protestant, and say that Dr. Lewis

and those who think with him may feel at home in the

Anglican Communion only because their denial of the

formularies is tolerated by Protestants! Meantime, a unity

which is based on the toleration of a lack of unity is a para-

dox which will prove too much for most people, as will the

concept of a “firm adherence” to Catholic order simul-

taneously with a complete indifference to a very uncatholic

disorder!

In reality, the supposed unity amongst Anglicans is no

more than nominal, bearing no resemblance to that one-

ness in belief, worship, and discipline essential to a divinely-

instituted Church.

AMERICAN EPISCOPALIANS

A survey of the Anglican Communion would not be
complete without a brief glance at its position in the

United States of America.

Almost twenty years before the “Mayflower” pilgrims

landed at Plymouth, U.S.A., on December 20th, 1620, the

Church of England was already existing in Virginia, its

clergy subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London.

In 1630, however, many Puritan Anglicans, dissatisfied

with the High Church policy of Charles I and of Arch-

bishop Laud of Canterbury, emigrated to the American

27



Colonies and settled in Massachusetts. These Anglican

settlers, however, together with the clergy who came with

them, practically abandoned Anglicanism in favor of Con-

gregationalism, shipping back to England those who pro-

tested. The Virginian Anglicans, fearful of similar Puritan

corruption in their own Colony, made a law in 1643 re-

quiring conformity to the Church of England, fining, im-

prisoning and expelling Nonconformists from that Colony.

After the American Revolution and the Declaration of

Independence in 1776, the “Church of England” in Amer-

ica had to find a new name, and chose that of “The

Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of

America”.

The first problem of this new Protestant Episcopal

Church was to secure Bishops. Anglicans in the Colonies

had never wanted Bishops whom the British Government
might use as a means of an ecclesiastical control from

which so many of them had fled. They had been content

to acknowledge the far-distant Bishop of London as their

nominal diocesan authority, sending candidates for the

Ministry home to England to be ordained there. The

Declaration of Independence, therefore, found them with-

out a Bishop.

William White, Rector of Philadelphia, a man of ex-

tremely Low Church views, suggested the appointment of
a “Moderator” without consecration, along Presbyterian

lines. But in 1784 the Rev. Samuel Seabury, a moderately

High Churchman of Connecticut, was consecrated an

Anglican Bishop in Scotland, English Bishops having re-

fused to consecrate him because of his refusal to take the

Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. William White, there-

fore, with Samuel Provoost, of New York, went to England
and, having overcome the difficulties about the Oath, were

consecrated at Lambeth in 1787.

Naturally, these Protestant Episcopal ordinations, from

the Catholic point of view, were as defective as the Angli-

can Orders from which they were derived, and could not

provide the new Church with a valid Catholic priesthood.

But that would not have worried William White at least.

28



for he had no belief in any Catholic priesthood. At a Con-

vention in 1789, when a Constitution for the new Church

was agreed upon, he fought against opposition by Bishop

Seabury for doctrinal and liturgical changes in a Protes-

tant direction, as a result of which elements were intro-

duced into the American Prayer Book from the Scottish

Rite, the word “minister” being substituted in many places

for the word “priest”, and the form of absolution of sins

being left out of the prescriptions for the Visitation of the

Sick.

It was Bishop Hobart of New York, however, (1811-

1830) who did more than any other to build up the Protes-

tant Episcopal Church of the United States. He was strict-

ly “Episcopalian”, refusing to acknowledge the validity of

any but episcopal Orders.

After his death, the Oxford Movement in England, and

the subsequent rise of Anglo-Catholicism, gave rise to High

Church tendencies in the American Church which led to

strenuous opposition from Low Churchmen and charges

of “Romanizing” there as in England. And, as in England

also, the conflict between the two Parties resulted in a

Liberal or Broad Church Party which pressed for more

and more doctrinal and liturgical freedom.

In 1873, a “Reformed Episcopal Church” broke away

from the “Protestant Episcopal Church” on the grounds

that the latter was not Protestant enough in its outlook;

though the latter was, and is, a definitely Protestant

Church, despite the claims of the High Church Party be-

longing to it.

The American High Churchmen have never, of course,

described themselves as “Anglo-Catholics”. The word

“Anglo” would be meaningless in America, and no equiva-

lent term such as “Americo-Catholic” has ever suggested

itself. In America “Catholic” means “Papal”, and Ameri-

cans know nothing of a Catholicism without the Pope. So

they call themselves simply “Episcopalians”, regretting the

addition of “Protestant” to “Episcopal” in the title origi-

nally chosen for their Church.

The Protestant Episcopal Churches have an influence in

29



America far greater than their numerical strength would

suggest; for they are well down on the statistical list. Com-

pared with some 30 million Catholics, 13 million Baptists,

and 10 million Methodists, the Protestant Episcopal

Church has but 2,155,514 members, and the Reformed

Episcopal Church only 8,000.

But the progress of Episcopalianism in America was

greatly handicapped firstly by the fact that most of the

original emigrants from England were people seeking to

escape the necessity of conforming to the Anglican

Church—which scarcely disposed them favorably towards
Anglicanism in the land of their adoption; and secondly

by the “Declaration of Independence”, with the almost

inevitable reaction of the American people against not only

England, but also against England’s national Church.

REUNION MOVEMENT

The Anglo-Catholic Revival amongst Anglicans has

been one of the chief causes of the Reunion Movement of

which we hear so much today. For, as opposed to a low

doctrine denying any real necessity of the Church as a

visible institution, Anglo-Catholics have brought into

prominence amongst Protestants the New Testament
teaching that Christ does indeed will one visible and un-

divided Church such as He Himself established in the first

place. More and more books, therefore, are coming from

Protestant pens, and not only from those of Anglicans,

deploring the scandal of the multitudinous divisions

amongst Christi&ns.

But Anglo-Catholics are foremost in their constant in-

sistence on the necessity of Reunion. Regarding themselves

as Catholics, they speak of three living branches of the

Catholic Church, Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican, which

are unfortunately, they say, in a state of schism in relation

to one another. Until these three living branches are

united once more, there cannot be that single Holy

Catholic Apostolic Church for the unity of which Christ

prayed. That will come, they hope, in God’s good time.

30



As one of them has said, “I believe in the Holy Catholic

Church, and regret that it does not exist!”

Rome, of course, rejects that explanation absolutely. She

declares that, in essential matters affecting its very con-

stitution, there can be no divisions “in” the Church of

Christ, but only divisions “from” that Church; and that

she is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Undivided

Church. And she declares it to be the duty of all not in

communion with her to return to the Church their fore-

fathers should never have left.

Anglo-Catholics, however, refuse to see this. They in-

sist that the Anglican Communion is still a living branch

together with the Roman and Orthodox Churches, even

though wrongly, through human malice or frailty, all three

are at variance. They hold that Anglicanism, despite the

diversity in its own ranks, at least retains sufficient of the

means of grace to sanctify its members. Its state of sep-

aration from Rome and from the Eastern Orthodox

Churches has been permitted by God; but this is only a

temporary makeshift until the schism is healed. And in the

healing of that schism, they say, it is God’s plan that the

“Anglican Communion” should be the “Bridge-Church”

between Rome on the one hand, and the Orthodox and

Protestant Churches on the other. They do all they can,

therefore, to discourage individual conversions of Angli-

cans to Rome as being a hindrance to ultimate corporate

Reunion.

Whilst they recognize the sincerity and zeal of Anglo-

Catholics in their efforts towards corporate Reunion,

Catholics have to declare the hopelessness and impossibility

of such a dream. For its realization would require that all

non-Catholics would first become religiously one amongst

themselves as are the members of the Catholic Church with

which they would unite; and only a principle of divine au-

thority, which all non-Catholic Churches reject, could

bring that about.

Each individual has the responsibility of following his

own conscience as it is at any given time; and if God, in

His goodness, gives any man the light to see the truth of

31



the claims of the Catholic Church, no considerations of
expediency can justify his remaining in some other Church
whose separate existence is based on opposition to those
claims.

But granted the gift of Faith in the Catholic Church as
the one true Church of Christ, no one would fail to per-
ceive this duty. Those who sincerely think of other alterna-
tives have not yet attained to that degree of knowledge
or of faith which every convert to the Catholic Church has
discovered to be one of the most precious gifts of God.
Surely every non-Catholic reader of this booklet should

pray that, if such indeed be the case, he might be granted
a similar grace.

32



PAMPHLETS ON THE MAJOR

PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS

THE BAPTISTS 15c

THE METHODISTS 15c

THE EPISCOPALIANS 15c

THE PRESBYTERIANS 15c

THE MORMONS 15c

THE ADVENTISTS 15c

THE ROSICRUCIANS 15c

THE CONGREGATIONALISTS 15c

THE LUTHERANS 15c

THE UNITARIANS 10c

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS 15c

THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES 15c

WHY ANGLICAN ORDERS ARE INVALID 15c

CATHOLICS AND FREEMASONRY 15c

QUIZZES ON SECRET SOCIETIES 15c

For Copies Address

FATHERS RUMBLE AND CARTY
Radio Replies Press

ST. PAUL I, MINN., U. S. A.