Church of England

[EvangelCatholic]

It would be rather odd, given the national polity we adapted, particularly as a reaction to what we had been experiencing under the Crown, if, having achieved independence, we had decided for an erastian Church, out of habit.

I do wonder, given your closing sentence, how many of the Churches arising as spin-offs from the CoE, in former colonies, did come into being as national Churches.

GKC

This is very similar to the Lutheran experience and the eventual Episcopal bishops also ordained a few north American Lutheran priests from Sweden.

 

[GKC]

This is very similar to the Lutheran experience and the eventual Episcopal bishops also ordained a few north American Lutheran priests from Sweden.

At what point in time was that?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

At what point in time was that?

GKC

There’s a fascinating history between the two Communions during the Colonial Period

1. Church-fellowship with Episcopalians. – In 1710 Pastor Sandel reported as follows on the unionism practised by the Swedes and Episcopalians: “As pastors and teachers we have at all times maintained friendly relations and intimate converse with the English preachers, one always availing himself of the help and advice of the other. At their pastoral conferences we always consulted with them. We have repeatedly preached English in their churches when the English preachers lacked the time because of a journey or a death. If anywhere they laid the corner-stone of a church, we were invited, and attended. When their church in Philadelphia was enlarged, and the Presbyterians had invited them to worship in their church, they declined and asked permission to come out to Wicaco and conduct their services in our church, which I granted. This occurred three Sundays in succession, until their church was finished; and, in order to manifest the unity still more, Swedish hymns were sung during the English services. Also Bishop Swedberg [of Sweden], in his letters, encouraged us in such unity and intimacy with the Anglicans; although there exists some difference between them and us touching the Lord’s Supper, etc., yet he did not want that small difference to rend asunder the bond of peace. We enter upon no discussion of this point; neither do we touch upon such things when preaching in their churches; nor do they seek to win our people to their view in this matter; on the contrary, we live in intimate and brotherly fashion with one another, they also calling us brethren. They have the government in their hands, we are under them; it is enough that they desire to have such friendly intercourse with us; we can do nothing else than render them every service and fraternal intimacy as long as they are so amiable and confiding, and have not sought in the least to draw our people into their churches. As our church is called by them ‘the sister church of the Church of England,’ so we also live fraternally together. God grant that this may long continue!” (G., 118.) Thus from the very beginning the Swedish bishops encouraged and admonished their emissaries to fraternize especially with the Episcopalians. And the satisfaction with this state of affairs on the part of the Episcopalian ministers appears from the following testimonial which they gave to Hesselius and J. A. Lidenius in 1723: “They were ever welcome in our pulpits, as we were also welcome in their pulpits. Such was our mutual agreement in doctrine and divine service, and so regularly did they attend our conferences that, aside from the different languages in which we and they were called to officiate, no difference could be perceived between us.” (131.)
   biblehub.com/library/bente/american_lutheranism/early_history_of_american_lutheranism.htm

 

[GKC]

There’s a fascinating history between the two Communions during the Colonial Period

More data always welcome.

When and where were the Episcopalian ordinations, or participation in same, of Lutheran clergy?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

More data always welcome.

When and where were the Episcopalian ordinations, or participation in same, of Lutheran clergy?

GKC

I don’t know about that, but I do know that quite a few Swedish Lutheran churches in New Jersey became Anglican in the 18th century.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I don’t know about that, but I do know that quite a few Swedish Lutheran churches in New Jersey became Anglican in the 18th century.

Edwin

Vaguely, I knew something of that, but I’ll account it another nugget in the pouch.

Ha! Holmes again. Seven Old Swede churches in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania became Episcopalian.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It would be rather odd, given the national polity we adapted, particularly as a reaction to what we had been experiencing under the Crown, if, having achieved independence, we had decided for an erastian Church, out of habit.

I do wonder, given your closing sentence, how many of the Churches arising as spin-offs from the CoE, in former colonies, did come into being as national Churches.

GKC

Any specific form of ordination for Bishops to ensure succession?

And how much emphasis is placed on succession?

 

[GKC]

Any specific form of ordination for Bishops to ensure succession?

And how much emphasis is placed on succession?

Yes. It was the form of consecration found in the Edwardine Ordinal, as modified, which was what was declared invalid in Apostlicae Curae. That particular defect was cured in the 1662 revision, for reasons unrelated to the assumed defect, as Rome saw it.

justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Bishops_1549.htm

The same emphasis as one finds in the RCC.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

(Yes, I accept that it is a form of Protestantism.)

For a long time I was hesitant to think that the terms “catholic” and “protestant” are not mutually exclusive.

I am a bit frustrated by the tendency of many on these forums to express a kind of admiration for the more confessional or generally conservative forms of Protestantism, while pouring contempt on the more ecumenical and moderate forms.

Not very high on my list of frustrating things.

 

[Indifferently]

The doctrine of the Church of England is Protestant and Reformed. There are a number of revisionistic views on this, but the 1662 Prayer Book and the other named formularies of the Church of England following the Reformation are distinctly Calvinist. The C of E has bishops, yes, as chief overseers of their priests (presbyters) who act as bishop’s representatives (vicars or rectors) in the various parishes.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church.

 

[andrewstx]

Just ten to fifteen years ago their was a Swedish Lutheran deacon(ess) who served in the Episcopal parish I belonged to at the time.

She was not re-ordained since her apostolic succession from the Church of Sweden was reckonised. (sp)

 

[andrewstx]

The doctrine of the Church of England is Protestant and Reformed. There are a number of revisionistic views on this, but the 1662 Prayer Book and the other named formularies of the Church of England following the Reformation are distinctly Calvinist. The C of E has bishops, yes, as chief overseers of their priests (presbyters) who act as bishop’s representatives (vicars or rectors) in the various parishes.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church.

Some may feel that way (and that was why I converted to Orthodoxy). But the American church owes nothing to M. Cauvin.

I also doubt that there are that many Calvinists in the COE. Mr. Indifferently is the only one I have ran into and not in RL, but only on the computer.

That is why I left Anglicanism, they don’t seem to stand for much. How can Anglo-Catholics and Calvinists be in the same ecclesial body? To me it does not make sense.

 

[Contarini]

Some may feel that way (and that was why I converted to Orthodoxy). But the American church owes nothing to M. Cauvin.

I think that’s far too strong, and being “Protestant and Reformed” doesn’t have to mean Calvin anyway. Bucer, Bullinger, etc., had a huge impact in England.

I also doubt that there are that many Calvinists in the COE.

You would be wrong. There are quite a few, though Anglican evangelicals today are perhaps more likely to be charismatics.

There are fewer in the U.S.–one English evangelical scholar (Gerald Bray) once told me that in his view there were “no real low-church Anglicans” in the U.S. But +FitzSimmons Allison, retired bishop of South Carolina, and Rev. Fleming Rutledge+ are both Reformed in their theology, as is Paul Zahl+, former president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (the major evangelical Anglican seminary in the U.S.).

Mr. Indifferently is the only one I have ran into and not in RL, but only on the computer.

That is why I left Anglicanism, they don’t seem to stand for much. How can Anglo-Catholics and Calvinists be in the same ecclesial body? To me it does not make sense.

The Creeds are enough for me, frankly. I have no problem being in the same Church as other creedal Christians. The fact that the Catholic Church has a narrower dogmatic framework than that is an obstacle for me, not an attraction. On the other hand, if Anglicans had been running the Church in the fourth century there would be no Nicene Creed. Newman said he looked in the mirror and was a Monophysite. I looked in the mirro and was a Semi-Arian.

Edwin

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Just ten to fifteen years ago their was a Swedish Lutheran deacon(ess) who served in the Episcopal parish I belonged to at the time.

She was not re-ordained since her apostolic succession from the Church of Sweden was reckonised. (sp)

Interesting how the two churches have maintained close relationships. Did the Sister serve as the deacon at Mass?

 

[andrewstx]

Interesting how the two churches have maintained close relationships. Did the Sister serve as the deacon at Mass?

Yes of course, she read the Gospel and preached sometimes. The duties of Deacons everywhere.

 

[Mystophilus]

Some may feel that way (and that was why I converted to Orthodoxy). But the American church owes nothing to M. Cauvin.

I also doubt that there are that many Calvinists in the COE. Mr. Indifferently is the only one I have ran into and not in RL, but only on the computer.

While they do exist, they are relatively rare. Calvinism was significant in early Anglicanism, but lost importance over the years: by the beginning of the C19th, Calvinism was deemed decidedly unorthodox in the CofE, and was far more strongly associated with the Methodists and the Presbyterians.

That is why I left Anglicanism, they don’t seem to stand for much. How can Anglo-Catholics and Calvinists be in the same ecclesial body? To me it does not make sense.

That sort of broadness really is the point of modern Anglicanism, since at least the Colenso Affair. I worship side by side with people who do not really believe in God at all, people who have spent their lives in service to God without being too fussed about the details of theology, and people who believe very, very firmly that evolution is a lie fabricated by the Devil to draw Christians to Hell.

 

[Darryl_B]

The Church of England is the reformed catholic Church within the country of England (not identical with the UK or GB). The catholic dioceses were reformed during the sixteenth century; one of the reforms was the rejection of the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and the acknowledgement of the Crown’s supremacy both civil and ecclesiastical within the realm of England.

The Anglican Communion is a worldwide communion of churches which are derived from the Church of England. On the whole, they were originally the Church of England’s parishes and dioceses within the British Empire; with secular independence usually came ecclesiastical independence.

Overall authority within the Church of England is vested in the Queen in parliament; in practice, legislative authority is devolved to the General Synod, which functions as a devolved parliament not entirely unlike the Scottish parliament, or the Welsh Assembly. For this reason, the Church of England’s canon law and Measures passed in Synod are technically part of the law of the land. In terms of teaching, preaching and the administration of the sacraments, the Church is run by its bishops, assisted by priests, deacons and laypeople.

All Anglicans have bishops. Some Anglican national churches ordain women, some do not.

Hasn’t Anglicanism morphed quite a bit from its original inception? The reason I ask is Cardinal John Henry Newman identified what he considered a fundamental Anglican teaching that was perhaps not there initially, which had come into being, and which lead to his soul-searching reversion to the Catholic Church.

 

[Vouthon]

I also doubt that there are that many Calvinists in the COE. Mr. Indifferently is the only one I have ran into and not in RL, but only on the computer.

In England, I have never met one either or at least the Anglicans I have known have never expressed adherence to Calvinist theology. I have met low-church evangelical Anglicans, however none of them have even adverted to being Calvinists.

Nevertheless I do know that in the formative years of Anglicanism, Calvinism was prominent. The Thirty Nine Articles show Calvinist influences, although they are more of a compromise between various Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs. In the seventeenth century, the Anglican Church was practically inundated with Calvinist Puritans, especially after Cromwell won the Civil War. Parliament at that time had a majority Presbyterian orientation. “Anglo-Catholics” were nonetheless dominant in aristocratic and royalist centres of power.

After the Restoration of the Stuart Dynasty in 1660, I believe that the Puritans and Presbyterians were “cleansed” (their word not mine!) from the CofE. The Anglican Church in the British Isles became a much more self-confidently “non-Catholic” and “non-Conformist” (Puritan, Presbyterian, Anabaptist etc.) institution at this time. The public at large feared both “popery” (given the history of the Spanish Armada and French absolutism/treatment of Hugenots) and “Puritans”, which became a disdainful term at this period given how unpopular the Puritan attempt during Cromwell’s Protectorate to enforce morality and “godly reform” had been (ie banning taverns, theatres, Christmas, maypoles). While Catholicism was associated with continental Absolute Monarchy and superstition, Puritanism was associated with dour, lifeless misery, trenchant dogmatism and the tyrannical rule of Cromwell’s “Major-Generals” - the only time in British history in which the three kingdoms of England (including Wales), Scotland and Ireland were under a de facto military dictatorship.

As a result, the 18th century Church of England was far less ‘Calvinist’ than its predecessors had been. However it wasn’t “High Church” either as it largely became in the 19th century due to the Oxford Movement.

18th century Anglicanism saw itself neither as Calvinist or as Catholic. It was self-confidently its own position, I think, based upon what I’ve read (although please correct me if I am wrong).

However there were still some prominent Calvinists in the Church during the 1700s, such as George Whitefield, who was the primary inspiration behind “The First Great Awakening” in the British Isles and North America and perhaps is the most famous Anglican preacher in history. He baptized my 7x great grandfather George Smith in 1756 while on a preaching tour in Leeds. My ancestor was named after him and in every family tree I know of in which my Smith ancestors are present (they were an ancient and quite well-known family in Leeds) it is mentioned as a note of pride ie “**he was baptized by the celebrated preacher George Whitefield, hence his Christian name” one says. I always found this detail interesting since George went on to become an early follower of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, in Leeds (even worshipping regularly in Wesley’s own chapel when in London) and his son William co-founded the Methodist Missionary Society in 1813. John Wesley, despite being a close friend of Whitefield from their Oxford days in the “Holy Club”, was a famous anti-Calvinist Arminian.

My ancestors didn’t seem to bother about Whitefield’s Calvinism. They were proud of their connection to him despite being themselves Wesleyan Arminians

 

[GKC]

In England, I have never met one either or at least the Anglicans I have known have never expressed adherence to Calvinist theology. I have met low-church evangelical Anglicans, however none of them have even adverted to being Calvinists.

Nevertheless I do know that in the formative years of Anglicanism, Calvinism was prominent. The Thirty Nine Articles show Calvinist influences, although they are more of a compromise between various Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs. In the seventeenth century, the Anglican Church was practically inundated with Calvinist Puritans, especially after Cromwell won the Civil War. Parliament at that time had a majority Presbyterian orientation. “Anglo-Catholics” were nonetheless dominant in aristocratic and royalist centres of power.

After the Restoration of the Stuart Dynasty in 1660, I believe that the Puritans and Presbyterians were “cleansed” (their word not mine!) from the CofE. The Anglican Church in the British Isles became a much more self-confidently “non-Catholic” and “non-Conformist” (Puritan, Presbyterian, Anabaptist etc.) institution at this time. The public at large feared both “popery” (given the history of the Spanish Armada and French absolutism/treatment of Hugenots) and “Puritans”, which became a disdainful term at this period given how unpopular the Puritan attempt during Cromwell’s Protectorate to enforce morality and “godly reform” had been (ie banning taverns, theatres, Christmas, maypoles). While Catholicism was associated with continental Absolute Monarchy and superstition, Puritanism was associated with dour, lifeless misery, trenchant dogmatism and the tyrannical rule of Cromwell’s “Major-Generals” - the only time in British history in which the three kingdoms of England (including Wales), Scotland and Ireland were under a de facto military dictatorship.

As a result, the 18th century Church of England was far less ‘Calvinist’ than its predecessors had been. However it wasn’t “High Church” either as it largely became in the 19th century due to the Oxford Movement.

18th century Anglicanism saw itself neither as Calvinist or as Catholic. It was self-confidently its own position.

However there were still some prominent Calvinists in the Church during the 1700s, such as George Whitefield, who was the primary inspiration behind “The First Great Awakening” in the British Isles and North America and perhaps is the most famous Anglican preacher in history. He baptized my 7x great grandfather George Smith in 1756 while on a preaching tour in Leeds. My ancestor was named after him and in every family tree I know of in which my Smith ancestors are present (they were an ancient and quite well-known family in Leeds) it is mentioned as a note of pride ie “**he was baptized by the *celebrated ***preacher George Whitefield, hence his Christian name” one says. I always found this detail interesting since George went on to become an early follower of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, in Leeds (even worshipping regularly in Wesley’s own chapel when in London) and his son William co-founded the Methodist Missionary Society in 1813. John Wesley, despite being a close friend of Whitefield from their Oxford days in the “Holy Club”, was a famous anti-Calvinist Arminian.

My ancestors didn’t seem to bother about Whitefield’s Calvinism. They were proud of their connection to him despite being themselves Wesleyan Arminians

Good post.

GKC

 

[shawnbm]

A treatise–and I agree with GKC. As a former Episcopalian, it has been a few years since I read through anything on that part of church’s history.