Thursday, June 22, 2006



Next     Previous     



The word 'Magisterium' is rarely used in a Church of England context, however bishops have traditionally seen as part of their authority and their episcope theright and duty of the defence and exposition of the Faith. The Prayer Book service for the Consecration of Bishops calls on the new bishop to, 'instruct the people committed to your charge', and the rite in the 1980 Alternative Service Book calls on bishops to, 'teach... interpreting the Gospel of Christ.' As the Canons express it,

'it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine,and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions'1.

The teaching task of bishops was reaffirmed in 1971 in the report of the Ministry Committee of the General Synod, Bishops and Dioceses where it is stated,

'The bishop must take his teaching office seriously and be concerned that the faith is properly preserved, made relevant to the situation in his diocese and handed on ... He carries final responsibility for the teaching given through the preaching of his clergy. In synod and through writing and other means, he will need to help the clergy give sound teaching.'2

Anglo Catholic theologians in particular believe that the bishops have an inherent authority to teach on behalf of the Church by virtue of their Apostolic Succession. As Eric Mascall expressed it,

'the Anglican Church does presumably believe that the Church has an authority to teach, a Magisterium, and it appears that, in common with the Church in the early centuries, she locates it primarily in the bishops, who corporately form the earthly manifestation of the Apostolic body, and each of whom in his own diocese is severally vicarius Christi ... the function of the bishop as teacher... is the proclamation of the Faith of the Church and the world and its defence against strange and erroneous teachings3'

Mascall here was expressing Magisterium in its traditional Roman interpretation and only a comparatively few Anglican theologians would have fully endorsed these words by 1981, although probably a ?higher proportion would have done so in 1928. By 1981the divisions between Anglo Catholics and other sections of the Church had become less rigid and many who would refer to themselves as Anglo Catholic often held a more liberal attitude to Scripture and doctrine and looked for a similar approach from bishops.

The understanding of the Magisterium of bishops in the RomanCatholic Church and by more Catholic Anglicans was that theywere recognised as successors of the Apostles and in this capacity leaders and teachers of the Church from the second century as exponents of the genuine apostolic tradition. This teaching was reiterated at the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium,

'In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul'4

Their teaching would be based on the official dogmas of the Church. When there was need for major new definitions in the field of faith and morals these were to be the work of an ecumenical council of bishops whose definitions, 'must be adhered to with the submission of faith' by the Universal Church5. This again reflected the traditional proclamations of ecumenical councils including those of the early Church and middle ages preceeding the Reformation.6 The concept that the bishops were the Ecclesia docens and that the clergy and laity were the Ecclesia discens has never formed part of Anglican teaching.

The Church of England has never, from the time of its breach with Rome, been able to exercise this kind of Magisterium. Although bishops wereretained, the Pope was replaced as head of the Church by the Monarch, who often contributed to the decision making concerning which of the dogmas inherited from an undivided Catholic Church were to be retained, and which were to be declared against the teaching of the Church of England, or at least non-essential. Cranmer's Prayer Books were never submitted to a Convocation of the Church but went directly to Parliament, likewise the Thirty Nine Articles, at all stages of their revision, were never subjected to the scrutiny of the assembled bishops of the Church, but to the examination of a Parliament heavily dominated by the Monarch.

When conflicts on the interpretation of doctrine arose in the ?nineteenth century the matters often passed to the judgement of ecclesiastical courts, but there was an appeal from these to a secular court, that of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This higher court frequently reversed the verdict of the ecclesiastical courts and thus took upon itself the interpretation of doctrine. As we have seen even Convocational debate was not revived until the mid nineteenth century. Bishops met bishops largely in the House of Lords.

Having long lost this traditional Magisterium it became impossible to revive it in any absolute sense in the days of Church Assemblies and General Synods, especially as by this time the Church was already divided into 'parties' of Anglo Catholics, Evangelicals, Modernists or Liberals and many in between variations.

It is interesting to compare attitudes towards an Anglican sense of Magisterium and the Roman Catholic understanding. Emmanuel de Mendieta was a former Roman Catholic priest and Benedictine monkwho became an Anglican in 1956, and held office as a priest in the Church of England for many years. He emphasised the freedom of the individual in the Church of England and how little of the 'you must' attitudewas to be found,

'As a result no priest in all Christendom is as free as an Anglican priest. His spiritual freedom is nearly absolute; it is safeguarded at every turn and point, and, even today he is more free from interference than a member of any other profession in the modern world.7'

E.C.Rich was a canon in the Church of England who found the spiritual authority of his Church an increasing problem, this led him to become a Roman Catholic in 1956. As an Anglican he felt that the whole difference between the two Churches was bound up with,

'their respective attitude towards the place and function of the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church. All else is secondary to that. There can be no agreement between the Churches so long as Rome insists on submission to the Apostolic See and Anglicanism claims the right to the exercise of reason and historical criticism in an appeal to history.8'

His studies led him to believe that because of this the Church of England was a Protestant Church and had broken with the Catholic tradition it claimed.9'

To exercise Magisterium in the way it is understood in the Roman Catholic Church the bishops must have a basis of doctrine and scriptural belief which they can state firmly is the Church's teaching and which they can use as a ?standard against, 'strange and erroneous teachings.' Furthermore they must be able to exercise their authority against the perpetrators of 'strange and erroneous teachings' within the Church by restricting their ability to preach or teach on behalf of the Church. During this period neither of these conditions has been fulfilled. The Church's theology and scriptural interpretation has exhibited an increasing divergence as is seen in the work of the archbishops' own Doctrine Commissions, and the Thirty Nine Articles have lost their role as a statement of Anglican orthodoxy. The disciplinary role of the bishops in taking sanctions against clergy and even bishops who have diverted from traditional doctrinal norms has been limited to written refutations or occasionally public censure by the archbishop of Canterbury, usually within Convocation. It has been clearly understood that no proceedings for heresy would be undertaken in an ecclesiastical court nor attempts made to bring about the resignation or suspension of the offending cleric or bishop except a very limited and ineffectual moral pressure.

The end of an agreed list of theological facts in which the faithful were supposed to believe was not regarded as a disaster by bishops and theologians in the Church of England but rather as a healthy attitude. Rawlinson, who became Bishop of Derby, wrote in 1924,

'The Church's authority is essentially the authority, not of the letter, but of the eternal Spirit of all truth. It has been hardened into the ecclesiastical doctrine of an intellectual finality in the formulation of dogma, but this is the result of a false legislation of spiritual authority. The Church formulates dogma in terms of the current intellectual outlook of the period in which the dogma is formulated; she has not the right to claim absolute intellectual finality for any formula or formulation.10'

This attitude was not confined to the middle groupings in the Church but was shared by many Anglo Catholics such as Wilfred Knox (son of the Evangelical bishop of Manchester) and Alec Vidler whose The Gospel of God and the Authority of the Church (1937) set out to show that the truth of the Catholic faith as a whole did not depend on rigidly upholding every single one of its formularies as infallible or irreformable even if they were clauses in the Creed.11 Geoffrey Fisher, speaking as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1951, declared,

'we have no doctrine of our own - we only possess the Catholic Doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we held without addition or diminution.12'

Fisher knew as he made this pronouncement 'addition or diminution' did not exclude reinterpretation according to contemporary understanding as widely practised among Anglican theologians. A Liberal Evangelical like Geoffrey Lampe could write,

'The authority of doctrinal formulations does not rest upon any imposed Magisterium but upon the free consensus of the Church's membership as a whole. This means that the process of interpreting the data of revelation and their implications is dialectical. It is a matter of hammering out an agreed understanding by the slow process of argument and discussion; of testing various interpretations by reference to the purport of the biblical witness to God's revelation,to the accumulated experience of the Christian society, and to such new insights as God is continuing to give us. It is a process which must always remain incomplete in this life. always partial, unfinished, and subject to correction, revision, and supplementation.'13

Although Lampe wrote this in the context of the Thirty Nine Articles he clearly implied that it could refer to any doctrinal formulation indicating that none was static. This quotation could well summarise Church of England theological attitudes since 1938.

These theologians exhibited the same attitude of the rest of the Anglican Communion. The 1930 Lambeth Conference defined the doctrines of the Anglican Church as those of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the,

'sacraments of the Gospel and the rites of the Primitive Church as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer with the various local adaptations; and safeguarded by the historic threefold Order of the Ministry.14'

The majority of the Anglican Communion was already in the process of dropping the Thirty-Nine Articles as a basis of belief and they are not referred to in this statement. While other Churches felt they were part of English controversies of the sixteenth century and such matters were not relevant to their own situations. The Church of England had come to terms with them as they were an intrinsic part of their heritage and attached to the Prayer Book by Act of Parliament.

Michael Ramsey tried to explain what Anglican theology was in 1945, before he was promoted to the exalted bishoprics of Durham, York and Canterbury, but the views he then expressed did not change throughout the rest of his ministry. He wrote,

'There is such a thing as Anglican theology and it is sorely needed at the present day. But because it is neither a system not ?a confession (the idea of Anglican 'confessionalism' suggests something that never has been and never can be) but a method, a use and a direction, it cannot be defined or even perceived as a 'thing in itself', and it may elude the eyes of those who ask 'What is it?' and 'Where is it?' It has been proved, and will be proved again, by its fruit and its works.15'

To express the concept of an episcopal teaching authority in this framework would suggest a common purpose in the setting forth of the Gospel but a diversity of means in expressing the truths of the Gospel, and a willingness to use many variant interpretations if these are meaningful in helping its members to attain to this.

The Church of England has always recognised several sources of authority, the Scriptures, the Early Councils, the Creeds, the Tradition of the Church (although this has been always more emphasized by the Anglo Catholics), reason and conscience. The Scriptures, the Early Councils, the Creeds and Tradition have formed in the past the basis of episcopal teaching authority. Tradition however, has been sometimes a two-edged weapon. It has been used frequently by Anglo Catholics to support ritualism and many Catholic beliefs which had not been generally upheld in the Church since the Reformation. Conscience and reason have not always helped the bishops to uphold doctrines as accepted in the past. Reason has led to broad interpretations of the Scriptures and the Creeds. It has also led some Anglican theologians to dispute the doctrines of the Early Councils and much of Tradition. A.E.J.Rawlinson, later Bishop of Derby, contributed a chapter to Essays Catholic and Critical in which he stressed the importance of testing Christian doctrine by both Scripture and reason. This was to become the norm for Church of England teaching.16

The bishops have come to interpret their 'Magisterium', their teaching authority, in a different manner to that understood in the Roman Catholic Church. A brief survey of the various attempts to state what doctrine is in the Church of England by the various Archbishops' Doctrinal Commissions and a glance at some of her more controversial bishops will illustrate the episcopate's difficulties with its teaching role and its inability to put forward a united doctrinal basis.

The '1922' Commission on Doctrine

The archbishops have established several Doctrinal Commissions composed of bishops, theologians and other clergy. Their brief has generally been to investigate the understanding of doctrine in the Church of England and hopefully to produce some kind of agreed statement. Although their Reports have been submitted to the Church Assembly and General Synod they have no status as the official doctrine of the Church. These Reports have generally ?endorsed many of the variations of doctrine in the Church leaving all its members, from archbishops to laity, to decide for themselves what they wish to believe over many major matters of doctrine even where their beliefs are in direct contradiction to those of many other members of the same Church. Bishops have sometimes been influenced in their teaching by the 'party' in the Church to which they adhere theologically. The Report Doctrine in the Church of England was published in1938. This was the work of a Doctrinal Commission established in 1922. The Anglo Catholic Congress of 1920 had demanded from the Church a defined statement of belief, hopefully intending to bring it more in line with traditional Catholic teaching, as they were concerned that traditional belief was threatened by Modernists. Archbishop Davidson eventually agreed and the Commission was established in 1922 and consisted of twenty five theologians from all groups within the Church17. Randall Davidson established the Commission with reluctance as he did not see the need for a united approach in doctrine. He wrote to Bishop Burge of Oxford,

'Can the task really be entrusted formally, and with the prayers of the whole Church, to a group of men, however fresh in spirit and power and learning, who are to be asked to speak directly orindirectly ex cathedra? Dare we give them, whoever they be, such a trust? And would not their utterance really be lacking in the sort of claim to authority which was given rightly or wrongly to Conciliar utterances?18'

The resultant Report was not designed to be an authoritative guide to the belief of the Church of England, but rather an indication of the state of current theological understanding. It was thoroughly condemned by the Evangelical wing of the Church,

'The impression left by it is one of sorry confusion, and the readiness to abandon much of the reformed teaching which the Articles so clearly proclaim and which all Evangelicals had hitherto regarded as their chief theological mission to uphold.19'

It was felt by many to have fallen short of its own terms of reference which were to demonstrate, 'the extent of agreement within the Church of England,' and to investigate, 'how far it is possible to remove or diminish existing difference20'. The Report in many places simply lists the varying positions held and suggests that some are not mutually incompatible. Hence its title was rightly 'Doctrine in', not 'Doctrine of', the ?Church of England. The clergy of the Church were generally more conservative in their beliefs, particularly in their rejection at the time of Modernist interpretations of the Creed concerning the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, and nearly half the clergy, about 8000 in number, signed a petition against the acceptance of the Report. From the commencement of the Commission's work it had been made clear that the report they produced was not to be regarded as an 'authoritative statement' of Church of England beliefs21. William Temple, the chairman of the Commission and Archbishop of York when the report was produced, insisted on this. The Report says of the teaching authority of the episcopate that, 'it has remained a function of the Episcopate to guard the Church against erroneous teaching'22. Yet by giving such wide interpretations of doctrine the Report made it very difficult forbishops to say what was erroneous.23 The House of Bishops of the York Convocation under Temple's guidance answered the clergy protest by the resolution,

'The history of the Church supplies much evidence of the unwisdom of any attempt to limit interpretation by authoritative declaration: we are convinced that the wise course is not to prescribe the interpretation in addition to the standard24 itself.25'

Crockford's next preface also insisted,

'It is not a Summa Theologiae Anglicanae - if such a thing could or ought to exist. It does not even represent the final judgement of the authors as to what the doctrine of the Church of England ought to be. It was not designed to furnish the clergy with an enchiridion, or the episcopate with a disciplinary weapon.26'

The advent of the Second World War ended the debate and no further Doctrinal Commission report was issued for some years.

After the war was over Archbishop Fisher attempted to stimulate theological debate by calling for three reports, The Fulness of Christ27 the product of Liberal Evangelicals, Catholicity28 the work of a distinguished group of Anglo Catholics, and The Catholicity of Protestantism which was produced by Free Church theologians. Their brief was similar to that of the 1922 Commission, to try to reconcile the divergent theological trends in the Church of England. These reports could well serve as appendices to the 1938 Commission Report.

The Assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles

A new Archbishop's Commission on Christian Doctrine was eventually established in 1967. Again it attempted to be a balance of Evangelicals, Anglo Catholics and Radicals and was chaired by Ian Ramsey, Bishop of Durham. Archbishop Ramsey listed among their tasks that they should consider the problem of the apparant lack of theological cohesion in the Church and the role of the Thirty Nine Articles. It was only the Thirty Nine Articles which received their full attention, and they produced the report Subscription and Assent to the Thirty Nine Articles in 1968.

The Thirty Nine Articles had to be affirmed by the clergy at several stages in their career from their ordination by the bishop, after their institution to a living by a bishop, and by their consecration as a bishop if they rose to this rank. Their meaning had often been the subject of controversy. In the time of Charles I the English Franciscan Christopher Davenport had published a work stating that they were not in contradiction to Roman Catholic doctrine29. In this he had been followed by Newman in Tract XC, and later by the Anglican Mirfield Father H.Edward Symonds in The Council of Trent and Anglican Formularies, (1933). Evangelical members of the Church of England continued to interpret them in a firmly Protestant sense. Hence they had long ceased to be a standard of Church of England doctrine which could be used by a bishop to test the orthodoxy of his ordinands or clergy. The formula for assent to them had been simplified as early as 1865 under the Clerical Subscription Act and by the twentieth century even many Evangelical clergy had reservations about some aspects of the Articles which had been framed to deal with sixteenth century areas of theological conflict. Hensley Henson, Bishop of Durham, wrote in 1939 of the subscription to the Articles made by the clergy,

'Subscription of creeds and formularies has a twofold object. It is intended to attest the othodoxy of the individual clergyman, and to secure the Church against false teaching. Can it be fairly maintained that experience has demonstrated the value of subscription in either respect? Has it been found effective as evidence of individual orthodoxy? Has it protected the Church against the scandal and weakness of teaching which is both Commissioned and heretical?30'

He believed rather that strict adherence to the Thirty Nine Articles meant that the clergy approached all contemporary theological issues with closed minds which would be harmful to their ministry and should never be required of them. Henson stated his belief in 1939 that,

'The Church of England, at the present time exhibits a doctrinal incoherence ?which has no parallel in any other Church claiming to be traditionally orthodox.'

from which subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles had not saved it, he held this to be a good thing as,

'It reflects the reluctance of considering and responsible English churchmen to thrust the rough hand of authority into the sphere of religious opinion.31'

He championed the latitudinarianism of the English Church and as a bishop of one the senior sees in the Church of England never seemed to have exercised his Magisterium to coerce or condemn any of his clergy whose theology differed from his own.

Other bishops were a little more detailed in their approach and generally indicated that subscription meant an acceptance of the Church of England as opposed to Roman or Puritan beliefs, as Bishop Rawlinson of Derby (1960),

'The assent to the Articles is now understood to commit the clergy only to a generally Anglican theology, neither Roman Catholic on the one hand nor exclusively "Protestant" on the other.32'

Archbishop Garbett of York, writing in 1947 had said something very similar, except being more conservative he included a 'belief in the supernatural', as well as a reflection, 'that neither the Romans or the Puritans were right in their controversies with our Church'.33

The 1968 Archbishops' Commission advised against an attempted revision of the Articles34 partly because they were an historic document and partly because,

'the custom of theologising by article is held by some to be obsolete', and, 'ecumenical developments and cultural shifts take place so rapidly that any revised form of the Articles might become out of date soon after it was made.35'

It was felt that it would be impossible to revise the Articles in a form that would receive widespread acceptance within the Church, better to leave them to their Anglo Catholic or Evangelical interpretations or to those who regarded them purely as an historical document which could be assented to as such by ?those who felt it to be irrelevant for contempory theological needs. So consciences might not be further compromised the Commission suggested a more general assent to the Articles be given by ordinands and clergy. The members of the Commission were also aware that any revision of the Thirty Nine Articles would have to be accepted by Parliament, usually rather conservative over matters of doctrine, and this would be difficult if the Church itself was divided on the issue. This was put into practice by a Canon of 1975, and the new formula was a declaration of belief ,

'in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scripture and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness.'

This position was endorsed by the 1968 Lambeth Conference which accepted the report and recommended that ordinands be no longer required to assent to the Thirty Nine Articles and that when Subscription to the Articles was required it should only be in,

'the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historic context.36'

It is quite clear that a considerable number of bishops were accepting Subscription to the Articles as a very general assent long before the official changes of 1975 and the report of 1968 was acceptable to all except the more conservative Evangelicals. Bishops welcomed this move, as did most clergy, because it ended the hypocritical situation which had long existed for many of them.

Stephen Sykes pointed out that the formula for assent was ambiguous. Belief was declared in the faith 'revealed in' Holy Scripture and set forth in the Catholic Creeds, not in the theological propositions of Holy Scripture or the Creeds, hence a very liberal interpretation was acceptable. In fact he suggested that following the 1975 Declaration of Assent and the 1976 Report on Christian Believing,

'The Church of England corporately professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, but will find no difficulty in ordaining and Commissioning persons who have serious reservations about credal beliefs or who regard them as mistaken, provided they can make the declaration of assent.37'

With such wide interpretation of belief permissible now by the Church's own formula of assent, based on the work of a Commission established by the archbishops, the exercise of any form of Magisterium by the ?episcopate, which might seek to present a united doctrinalposition, would becomeincreasingly difficult, definitions of the faith it was their duty to defend having become so broad.

Doctrinal Revision in the 1960's

Canon Law revision, which had been started by Archbishop Fisher in the 1940's was nearing completion and became law in 1969. Canon A.5 defined the doctrine of the Church of England in very broad terms as,

'The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.38'

Although Evangelical scholars have held that this statement upholds traditional Bible teaching and Protestant theology, it is difficult to uphold this argument 39 be maintained as the breadth of interpretation of Holy Scriptures accepted within the Church is so large, as can be seen from the various doctrinal Commissions. Hence the Canon has little value as a test of orthodoxy.

The next Doctrine Commission was chaired by Maurice Wiles. Its brief from the Archbishops was to produce a work on, 'the nature of Christian faith and its expression in Holy Scripture and the Creeds.' Yet its Report Christian Believing (1968) made clear from the outset that there was a considerable degree of divergence within the Commission shown in its joint report of 42 pages which was followed by eight essays , in total 113 pages, by individual members of the Commission. Some of these advanced the comprehensiveness of the Church of England far further than the 1938 Report. Stephen Sykes was to attack this by saying,

'The Anglican Church has progressively shed its distinctive confessional commitment, relatively broad though that always was.40'

and that subsequent to this Report the Church of England,

'will find no difficulty in ordaining or Commissioning persons who have serious reservations about credal beliefs or who regard them as mistaken.41'

Bishop Hugh Montefiore pointed to the Report's statement ?regarding the four attitudes to the Creeds displayed in the Report, 42 declaring that such a variant approach would cause difficulties in ecumenical discussions,

'With such diversity of views over Creeds, the Roman Catholic Church might well ask whether there are any limits to the comprehensiveness of the Church of England!43'

Wiles followed his chairmanship of the Commission by the publication of The Myth of God Incarnate (1977), a collection of essays by Wiles and other Radical theologians, which upset many clergy and lay members of the Church and made them very much question the wisdom of the archbishops in appointing Wiles to be chairman of such a Commission.

Christian Believing showed even in its Joint Report that widely divergent views were acceptable in the Church of England, for example over the Creeds44. Such comprehensiveness would mean that bishops could only teach the views they themselves held, and call for understanding and toleration of the views of others, a considerable departure from former concepts of Magisterium.

This Report was so unpopular that it was not even given a hearing in General Synod and resulting protests almost certainly resulted in the retirement of all but one of the members of the Commission. The decision not to submit the Report to General Synod was made by Archbishop Coggan who realised in advance how divisive it would be especially as Wiles' section questioned the relevance for today of all the formularies declared essential doctrine by the early Church.

Paul Avis contrasted the section in the Report by Geoffrey Lampe on our understanding of revelation where he stated that the traditional credal statements,

'are not timeless expressions of truth communicated from heaven, but human attempts to analyse and describe inferences drawn from men's experience of encounter with God'

with Mysterium Ecclesiae which rejected the idea that dogmas were human constructions and asserted that all dogmas were divinely revealed.45 Obviously the fact Doctrinal Commissions appointed by archbishops produce such statements, even though these are not declared the accepted doctrine of the whole Church, must have serious implications for ecumenical dialogue.

The next Doctrinal Commission Report was produced under the chairmanship of John Taylor, Bishop of Winchester in 1981, Believing in the Church. Its authors agreed that it was wrong to attempt to exact definitions of doctrine. Taylor himself stated,

'...beliefs that are expressed only by implication are less exposed to incredulity or correction and, on the contrary, so outlast the changes that take place at the level of argument and knowledge...By allowing a measure of ambiguity, they embrace a greater diversity of consent.46'

This concept was reinforced by John McManners who believed generally that doctrinal definitions were unhelpful to Christians,

'the definition of doctrine by an act of 'authority' for the whole of the Church concerned should be an event so rare as to be almost unthinkable... this sort of mental consolation, sometimes called 'certainty', is yearned for, is it really calculated to help us to progress in our Christian living and Christian thinking? And we must not forget that the drawing of that consoling boundary must, by definition, leave other people outside it, people who would have wished to remain within.47...But the decisive reason why doctrinal definition of the formal kind should take place only in extreme and desperate circumstances is because the natural state of the Christian individual ought to be freedom.48'

Indeed McManners linked the established state of the Church to his belief that doctrine should not be closely defined, nor should bishops excommunicate or deprive for heresy those at doctrinal variance. It was the national duty of an established Church to, 'express its beliefs more by implication than byexplicit confessional formularies49'. Such a viewpoint would remove Magisterium completely from episcopal authority and discipline.

Hence instead of having any common statement of belief the book consisted of a collection of essays on the corporate nature of faith composed by the members of the Archbishops' Commission.

Once again large sections of the Church found this unsatisfactory and the House of Bishops of the General Synod finally put forward a statement of their position and understanding entitled The Nature of Christian Belief in 1986. This was also partly a result of protests against the new Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins's, public refusal to accept the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection as a literal fact.

Although this appeared to be a much more conservative document than the statements of the Archbishops' Commissions, most of the statements are heavily qualified. There was also an interesting section entitled, 'The Individual and Collegial Responsibility of Bishops for the Faith of the Church50'. This expounds the bishops' responsibility for the expression of the Church's doctrine both as a collegiate body and in their role in the ?General Synod as the current form of the Church's government. It acknowledged that,

'A major part of the bishop's responsibility is to point with authority to the truths and principles to be observed in arriving at the mind of the Church in any particular matter.'

Yet they are also to be,

'apostolic pioneers, guardians of the process of exploration as well as of received truths with the duty of presenting the treasures of the faith in a contemporary way51.'

Although bishops, 'may properly enter into questionings on matters of belief', in all he says he must take care not to present variant beliefs as if they were the faith of the Church52. They reasserted Canon A5 on the beliefs of the Church of England being firmly based in Scripture and suggested that it is not worded 'strongly enough' but rather because the Church of England is a credal Church it also accepts,

'as normative on specific points only that interpretative selection of teachings agreeable to Scripture which the Creeds authorise.53

All such statements of the bishops' intentions to uphold these standards of faith were somewhat negated by the declaration that the Church of England does not take proceedings or any sanctions against any of its clergy who do not accept these beliefs be they bishops or ordinary clergy, based on the, 'conviction born of experience that such proceedings do more harm than good.'54. No doubt they had in mind the cases of Gorham and Colenso in the nineteenth century, or the many episcopal attempts to halt Anglo Catholic beliefs and practices where the secular courts had overridden the judgements of ecclesiastical courts or where the use of Parliamentary laws to enforce Church discipline had made martyrs of figures like King, the Bishop of Lincoln.

Some Bishops who have caused Doctrinal Controversy

Over the period of this study there have been some bishops whose radical approach to the Scriptures and the Sacraments has been regarded by a significant number of their fellow bishops and others within the Church as out of order with Church of England doctrine. The first of these figures was Herbert Hensley Henson, who became first Bishop of Hereford in 1917 and then Bishop of Durham in 1920 a position he held for many years. His appointment as Bishop of Hereford was opposed by both Anglo Catholics, led by Bishop Gore of Oxford, and by Evangelicals led by Dean Wace of Canterbury. Lloyd George ?had chosen Henson as bishop largely because of his skill as a popular preacher during the First World War. Archbishop Davidson of Canterbury was concerned about Lloyd George's choice as he feared Henson's consecration could split the Church because Gore, who was very popular, threatened to resign over the issue. The cause for concern was that Henson had expressed considerable doubts over such matters as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection55. Davidson finally persuaded Henson to avoid conflict for the Church by making a 'profession of faith' by which he declared he had no wish to alter the words of the Creed on these matters.

Owen Chadwick, Henson's biographer56, detailed the debate at length, and stated of Henson's profession of faith that it was a play on words which made Henson appear far more orthodox than he was,

'To profess a belief in the creed is not to profess belief in a particular interpretation of all its clauses. To say that you have no desire to alter the historic wording of a clause is not to say that you believe that clause as your father believed.57'

Henson's translation to the see of Durham, one of the most senior sees in the Church of England, caused yet more controversy. Again the wishes of Lloyd George prevailed over Davidson, and over Archbishop Lang of York who declared the appointment would cause 'disappointment, division and friction58.'

Henson's years at Durham showed him a man of wide tolerance, although he personally did not have much sympathy for Anglo Catholic practices he never tried to supress them if the parish concerned approved of them. Likewise he was prepared to ordain men whose theological views were radical for their time especially on their interpretions of Scriptures. He preferred to exercise his episcopal authority in an administrative and pastoral capacity, and after the failure of the 1928 Prayer Book to use it in his campaign for the disestablishment of the Church, although he always acknowledged that he would never have become a bishop had the choice been left to the Church rather than to the prime minister59.

Yet in his later years Henson himself entered into controversy over the views of his fellow bishops. In 1947 he criticised Bishop Kirk of Oxford's book The Apostolic Ministry for its 'Roman'theology, and Bishop Barnes of Birmingham's book, The Rise of Christianity for expressing non Christian theology,

'how long can that kind of comprehension be maintained or rightly defended? I do not think it possible that any Church can cohere ?when such radical divergence on essentials is acquiesced in. 60

Henson embodied in himself the tensions that Anglicancomprehensiveness in doctrine engendered. He called for acceptance and toleration of his own views, which were certainly radical when expressed by a bishop in the 1920's. Yet he believed that to give similar tolerance to doctrinal divergence in a Romeward direction or in the further erosion of doctrines once considered fundamental to Christian belief, as in the case of Bishop Barnes, would lead to the destruction of the Church of England. Possibly his years in the episcopate and his long campaign for the Church's disestablishment had led him to realise that the Church needed some kind of doctrinal coherence, a form of Magisterium, maybe broad but with limits, to keep it together especially if the framework of State intervention was removed.

Bishop Barnes of Birmingham's appointment in 1924 was another instance of a choice of bishop by a prime minister, in this case the Presbyterian Ramsey Macdonald, against the wishes of many other bishops. Barnes had long been known for his Radical views and sympathy with Major and the Modernist movement. The Anglo Catholic Church Times decried his appointment with the words,

'His modernism is notorious... Is the work of the Lord to be threatened by a Bishop from whom nothing can be expected but criticism and misunderstanding?61'

The English Churchman, an Evangelical paper said similarly,

'He has won a name for himself not by his affirmations, but by his denials, of the great God-given verities of our faith.62'

Barnes attacked the 1928 Prayer Book as,

'An unsuccessful compromise, doctrinally invertebrate.63.'

and asserted that these compromises led to false doctrines and a strongly Romeward move by the Church of England.64 His own interpretation of Church of England doctrine caused considerable controversy. He publicly repudiated the belief that there was even a 'spiritual' change in the elements at the Consecration65. For this he was condemnedby his fellow bishops of London and Southwark for his open contempt of the beliefs of many clergy and laity in the Church. In 1928 he was publicly attacked for his Eucharistic theology by Canon Bullock-Webster, rector of a City of London church, in St. ?Paul's Cathedral where he had been invited to preach66. Controversy and calls for his trial for heresy by incensed Anglo Catholic clergy followed. Barnes then wrote an open letter to the archbishop of Canterbury denouncing the Anglo Catholic doctrines of the Eucharist67. This led to further protests from a large number of bishops, even Hensley Henson68. Archbishop Lang tried to persuade Barnes to show a wider tolerance of the views of others. Soon after in public letters Lang claimed that the Thirty Nine Articles and the Prayer Book allowed the possibility of the Real Presence in the consecrated elements so completely rejected by Barnes69

Lang's action against Barnes stopped with the plea for tolerance and the assertion that the views condemned by Barnes were permissible within the traditional framework of Anglican teaching. By the late 1920's and 1930's it was clear that the bishops themselves had widely differing views over doctrine and tolerance was essential. Trials for heresy of bishops especiallywould never again be contemplated - never again would there be the scandal of a trial like that of Bishop King of Lincoln, and the risk of appeal to the secular court of the Privy Council.

Barnes engendered more controversy in the late 1940's with the publication of The Rise of Christianity in 1947 in which he repudiated utterly any miraculous element in the Gospels including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and described the early Christians as Socialist, Pacifist and Internationalist70. The widespread condemnation of the work by much of the Church did lead the archbishops to take some action. Garbett of York felt strongly that they must dissociate themselves from Barnes' views in a public manner or, 'we shall be looked upon as failing to do our duty'71. Fisher of Canterbury wrote privately to Barnes telling him, 'You make fundamental departures from the doctrines held by the communion to which you belong', and,

'the holding of your opinions an theholding of your office are incompatible, and for myself I believe that you ought in conscience to feel the same72.'

Barnes refused to repudiate his views or accept that they were incompatible with Church of England doctrine.

Fisher would have liked to draw as little attention to the book as possible but he was encouraged by Garbett to take action and he knew that motions hostile to the book could be brought forward by others in Convocation or the Church Assembly. Fisher consulted the other bishops and many leading churchmen and theologians on the best course of action. Their replies were far from unanimous, but the general consensus was that resort to law would not be in the Church's best interest as this would inevitably involve appeal to the Privy Council if the verdict of lower Church courts ?went against Barnes73. Eventually he was forced to make a public condemnation of the book in the Joint Session of the Canterbury Convocation in October 1947 in which he stated,

'The Bishop arrives at, or hints at, conclusions which are so much less than the faith of the Church as to be seriously inconsistent with its creeds and forms of worship...If his views were mine, I should not feel that I could still hold episcopal office in the Church.74'

Barnes was allowed to reply in the House of Bishops of the Convocation. He refused to accept the condemnations or change any part of what he had written and said rather that,

'we must come to terms with science and scholarship or face disaster,' and, 'I believe the conclusions reached in my book to be true and I hold them to be entirely compatible with my position as a Bishop of the Church of England'75

He did not contemplate resignation and was to remain as Bishop of Birmingham for several more years. In November 1947 Barnes published a series of popular articles on his beliefs in the Sunday Pictorial. Fisher again felt forced to take action and persuaded the Sunday Pictorial to publish another series of articles by Bishop Alfred Blunt of Bradford stating a more traditional line. Blunt attacked Barnes publicly saying,

'Dr. Barnes believes himself to be a preacher of the new truths. But he is only a resurrection man of dead theories.76'

Here the matter rested. No further public moves were made to condemn Barnes and no further pressure could be brought against him to resign. The powerlessness of the archbishops and bishops of the Church to act against one of their number over a doctrinal dispute was clearly manifested, their only sanctions were moral, legalism was long dead. In theory there were old statutes that could be invoked but this was never seriously considered. A Church that had long tolerated many divergent and contradictory doctrines would not institute trial for heresy in the 1940's. Fisher might say he should resign but no-one in the Church had the power to bring this about.

The 1960's were a period of controversies in the Church of England when doctrines were under challenge and even the Church itself. Various books such as Soundings (1962)77 and Objections to Christian Belief (1963)78. ?were produced by a group of Anglican theologians at Cambridge University of which Alec Vidler was a most prominent member. Henry Chadwick said this desire to reject, or at least reinterpret beliefs, was due to, 'the general climate of uncertainty about past tradition that characterises the mood of our age79.' There were responses from individual theologians in the Church, but little official reaction.

Another controversial figure in this period was John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, whose book Honest to God caused a sensation in 1963. The book gave a fairly radical account of Christian theology but contained little that was new. The sensation was caused by the book appearing as an inexpensive paperback alongside an article by Robinson in the Observer entitled, 'Our Image of God must go'. Robinson was attacked in both the secular and religious press, the Church Times stated,

'it is not every day that a bishop goes on public record as apparently denying almost every Christian doctrine of the Church in which he holds office.80'

Archbishop Michael Ramsey took note of the protests and addressed the Convocation of Canterbury on the matter expressing his disapproval of the way Robinson had attracted popular attention to the book and stating of its teaching that he doubted whether,

'any argument could show that the doctrine which so far emerges is the same as the doctrine of the Church.81'

Ramsey went further by publishing Image Old and New in 1963 and Beyond Religion in 1964 which were answers in more conventional theological terms to the issues raised by Robinson.

Archbishop Ramsey, being among the most considerable theologian bishops this century in the Church of England, continued to address the radical movements of his time which, although not Anglican in origin, were not without repercussions in England. His God, Christ and the World (1969) examined the theology of Van Buren, Harvey Cox, Rudolph Bultmann, T.J.J.Altizer and William Hamilton and the nature of transcendence for contemporary society.

It is hardly surprising that a few bishops encountered opposition for controversial theologial interpretations. Over this period the Church of England produced a number of bishops who were theologians of some stature within the Church, and who would have regarded their writings both of academic theology and their more popular works as part of their teaching office. Apart from Michael Ramsey Canterbury was also held by William Temple whose books, ?particularly those on Christianity and social issues, had a large readership. Temple's Readings in St John's Gospel (1945) became a classic and remained in print for many years after his death. Garbett, Archbishop of York produced several works on the Church of England - its claims, its history, and its current relevance. Bishop Wand of London contributed a number of books, some on a similar theme to Garbett. A complete list of books written by bishops during the time they actually held their sees would be quite impressive covering a vast range of topics including Biblical studies, social issues, ethics, ecumenical relations, Church history, philosophy of religion, sacramental theology, doctrinal issues and apologetics. Not all these were aimed at an academic readership, many were popular works for the education of a large number of Church members. Generally their writings tended to be more conservative than those of Anglican academic theologians or of the Archbishops' Doctrinal Commissions. With few exceptions they regarded their episcopal duty of writing and public speaking as one of gently educating the faithful in new ideas without causing distress by a very radical approach. Hence any bishop who exceeded these self-imposed limits brought upon himself accusations of heresy and demands that he should resign his episcopal office. This in itself could cause criticism. H.A.Williams, then a Cambridge theologian and later a Mirfield father, wrote in The Times in 1963,

'One cannot but admire the sense of responsibility shown by the episcopal bench as a whole. It is so profound that it has prevented them from saying anything of theologial importance for at least the past two decades.82'

Williams' criticism might be regarded as rather sweeping but doctrinal debate certainly took a low place in the list of episcopal writings until Archbishop Ramsey produced his series of apologetics initially in in response to Robinson. Other bishops did little to address the controversial issues raised by Anglican academic theologians in such works as Soundings (1962), Objections to Christian Belief (1963) and The Myth of God Incarnate, (1977). Unlike their predecessors in the nineteenth century who vigorously attacked Essays and Reviews (1860). Maybe they still remembered the results of that attack when two contributors Wilson and Williams were brought before the Court of Arches on a charge of heresy and following a sentence of guilty were deprived for a year, only for the verdict to be reversed by an appeal to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. The replies to The Myth of God Incarnate, the most radical of the three works, was a book entitled The Truth of God Incarnate (1977) which included essays by Bishop Stephen Neill, who had spent most of his life working outside England, and Bishop Christopher Butler, then Roman Catholic auxiliary bishop in Westminster archdiocese.

The Problems of the Exercise of Magisterium in the1970's and onwards

The 1971 Report on Bishops and Dioceses did reassert the bishop's role of Magisterium and his duty in a time of doctrinal controversy,

'He carries final responsibility for the teachings given through the preaching of his clergy. In synod and through writing and other means, he will need to help the clergy give sound teaching. At the present time there is an especial urgency in this, for apart from the necessary reinterpretation of the faith which is taking place, some of the clergy have a crisis of faith and the bishop is called upon to sustain the convictions and nourish the faith of his clergy who may undergo difficulties in matters of faith and doctrine.'83

On moral issues also the bishops have offered only limited authoritative guidance. Ethical issues are frequently passed to the General Synod's Board of Social Responsibility or in the further past to the Church Assembly. Their findings after publication are debated by those bodies. These are sometimes accepted but sometimes considered with no definite recommendation such as the 1979 Report on homosexuality84. Graham Leonard, the chairman of the Board and then Bishop of Truro, refused to accept that the Church (and the bishops as its spokesmen) had abdicated responsibility by not coming to a decision,

'I think that we have got to have the patience to wait until the ?Church resolves the matter, and I think that we have made it clear in the debate today that in waiting and listening and debating we are not abdicating our responsibility for speaking in the name of the Lord on moral issues to our nation...85.

The Church of England's position over abortion showed a desire to keep a balance between over permissiveness and refusal to permit abortion under any circumstances, leaving the decision ultimately to the mother's own judgement86. A similar ambiguous attitude to sterilisation, suggesting that it might not be wrong in certain circumstances, again did not lay down adequate guidelines to suggest that there was a Church of England position on the matter.87. The Church's attitude to divorce is equally ambiguous, Canon B30 states that marriage is 'a union permanent and life-long'. Church of England Canon Law cannot forbid or condemn divorce as it is permitted by the law of England and legally Canon Law is not permitted to contradict any other Statute Law. Although remarriage in church was forbidden by Convocation regulation such a prohibition was not included in the Canons as this was permitted by the law of England, hence the clergy frequently exercised their own discretion in the matter.

These examples demonstrate that the bishops were unable to exercise any directional Magisterium over many major moral issues. Divided opinion within the Church meant that at best they could only offer their consideredopinion on the current course of action,

Such ambiguity causes difficulties in ecumenical debate with the Roman Catholic Church which issues encyclical letters on ethical matters that are regarded as authoritative pronouncements. Furthermore Rome declares that, 'the interpretation of the natural moral law is part of the competance of the Church's Magisterium', alongside the law of the Gospel because, 'the natural law declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation.88' In contrast the Church of England offers little in ethical directions that must be obeyed, rather offering documents for consideration and discussion.

Over the last seventy years the various groups within the Church have drifted further apart in some respects, rendering the situation increasingly complicated89. The Evangelicals often find that they have more in common with members of some of the Free Churches and see themselves as Anglicans second. Even many Evangelicals only adhere to the Prayer Book and Thirty Nine Articles as symbols of the Church's Protestantism, rather than accepting them in detail. The 'middle of the road' groups, the Modernists, Radicals and Liberals are often more concerned with social issues or in ?sharing theological debate with like minded scholars in Europe and in America who usually belong to other Protestant denominations. The more extreme Anglo Catholics consistently thought of themselves as Catholics first and then as Anglicans, and looked to Rome for doctrine and practice,although many of them exhibited a certain selectivity in their adoptions from Roman usage, It has been partly the legal structure of the Church which has kept the groups in the same body offering security of Parson's Freehold to incumbents combined with an uncertainty of legal interpretion of doctrinal positions, and partlyextreme tolerance in teaching authority.

Any form of the traditional role of Magisterium and episcope in matters of doctrine has become impossible for the bishops to exercise. Theythemselves have been more and more reluctant to exercise it, regarding such a protectionist attitude to doctrine as too repressive - hence the growing reluctance to accuse anyone of heresy except by the more conservative Anglo Catholics or Evangelicals, wider protests occuring only when a bishop himself proposes radical theology.

John Macquarrie, one of the Church of England's most distinguished theologians, writing in a book of articles preparatory to the 1978 Lambeth Conference, clearly expressed this episcopal dilemma and suggested that the bishop's role in Magisterium should in fact be as an enabler of the process of theological exploration,

'Traditionally, the role of the bishop as been seen in conservative terms. His duty has been understood as that of maintaining the faith received from the apostles, of safeguarding it against errors, and of driving away strange doctrine. It must be confessed that this picture seems somewhat repressive in modern times! If indeed theology is in process of change and development, and if the bishop has a special responsibility in this area, can he discharge that responsibility simply by conserving a supposed deposit of truth? Should he not himself be a leader in theological exploration?... But they themselves should be cautious of embracing startling innovations. They have a pastoral responsibility to all their people, and they must try to carry all their people with them.90'

Not all bishops have felt so happy about the state of doctrinal teaching in the Church. Stephen Sykes, now Bishop of Ely, writing in the early 1980's commented,

'If one compares the present situation with the pre-Oxford Movement Church of England , it is patent that within the last 150 years there has taken place the most profound process of deconfessionalisation to fall upon any European denomination ... Anglicanism seems to be in a strange twilight zone between a confessing past and a future of some unspecific kind.'91

By 1981 most bishops in practice accepted Macquarrie's definition of their teaching office, but David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham, was soon to take up the mantle of Henson, Barnes and Robinson as a prelate who went beyond the cautiously progressive role of their fellow bishops and could still bring accusations of heresy and abuse of episcopal authority from Evangelical and Anglo Catholic colleagues and other clerics and laity of the Church.

Archbishop Runcie, in the early 1980's articulated clearly the dilemma felt in the Church of England, in the wake of the debate following the Reports of the Doctrinal Commissions, when he lamented,

'I hear many of the laity saying that the doctrine of the Church of England on matters of current theological and moral significance is not discernable enough even to be rejected.92'

Next     Previous     

1) Canon C.18

2) Bishops and Dioceses, p.12

3) E.L.Mascall,Christ, the Christian and the Church, (1946) pp.243-4

4) LG.25, See also LG.20,21,22,24.

5) LG.25

6) For a pre-Vatican II andtraditionalist interpretation of Magisterium see Francis Sullivan Magisterium, Dublin, (1983). Although other less conservative writers such as Hans K81ng in Infallible ? An Inquiry, (1971), and Edmund Hill, Ministry and Authority in the Catholic Church, (1988), hoped to put a more liberal interperpretation on Lumen Gentium, they failed to do so. Hill admitted the considerable difficulties involved, and K81ng's points were replied to by Sullivan.

7) E.A. de Mendieta, Anglican Vision, (1971),p.63-64.

8) E.C.Rich, Spiritual Authority in the Church of England, (1955), p.205

9) E.C.Rich 'Authority and Catholic Truth, The Tablet, May 26th, 1956

10) A.E.J.Rawlinson, Authority and Freedom, (1924),pp.24-5

11) Ibid, see especially p.90ff

12) Speech delivered in Central Hall, Westminster, cited in Anselm Hughes, The Rivers of the Flood, (1961), p.50

13) H.E.W.Turneret al.The Articles of the Church of England, (1964), p.107

14) The Lambeth Conferences, 1867-1930, (1930), p.246

15) 'What is Anglican Theology?', in Theology, vol.48,(1945),p.2

16) E.G.Selwyn ed. Essays Catholic and Critical, (1929), 3rd edn. (1931) p.83ff

17) A list of the members with notes of their positions may be found in The Church of England, 1815-1948 : A Documentary History, ed.R.P.Flindall, London, (1972), p370.ff.

18) Randall Davidson,p.1138

19) G.R.Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party of the Church of England, new edn. (1951) with appendix by G.W.Bromiley on the period 1900-1950, p.263

20) Doctrine in the Church of England, p.19

21) Report, p.19

22) Report, p.122

23) The 1938 Report was reprinted in 1983 with a lengthy introduction by G.W.H.Lampe which detailed the controversy when the Report was produced. Doctrine in the Church of England, (1938) with a new introduction by G.W.H.Lampe

24) Here referring to the Creeds

25) York Journal of Convocation, (18) 19 January 1939 p.10

26) Crockford's Prefaces, (1947), p.214

27) The Fulness of Christ. Being a report presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1950)

28) Catholicity. A study in the Conflict of Christian traditions in the West. Being a Report presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1947)

29) Deus, Natura, Gratia, (1634), see John Dockery, Christopher Davenport, (1960), p.62ff, p.146ff

30) Herbert Hensley Henson, The Church of England ,CUP (1938) p.92

31) Ibid.p.108

32) A.E.J.Rawlinson, The Anglican Communion in Christendom, (1960), p.7

33) C.F.Garbett, The Claims of the Church of England, (1947), p.35

34) Subscription and Assent to the Thirty Nine Articles, (1968), p.41ff

35) Ibid. p.42

36) Lambeth Conference Report, (1968), p.41

37) S.Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism, (1978), p.37-38

38) The Canons of the Church of England, 4th edn. (1986)

39) e.g. David Holloway, The Church of England : Where is it Going?, Eastbourne (1985), p.122

40) The Integrity of Anglicanism, (1978), p.43

41) Ibid.p.37

42) ChristianBelieving, pp.35-8

43) Hugh Montefiore, So Near and Yet so Far, (1986), p.28

44) Christian Believing, pp.35-8

45) Paul Avis, Ecumenical Theology, (1986), pp.33-4

46) Believing in the Church,p.144.

47) Ibid.p.213

48) Ibid.p.214

49) Ibid.p.148

50) The Nature of Christian Belief,p.34ff

51) Ibid.p.35

52) Ibid.p.36

53) Ibid. pp.6-7

54) Ibid. pp.37-8

55) An excellent account of the controversy Hensley Henson had caused is to be found in K.W.Clements, Lovers of Discord, (1988),p.75ff

56) Owen Chadwick, Hensley Henson, (1983), espec. p136ff

57) Ibid.p.141

58) Ibid.p.156

59) Ibid.pp.146-7

60) E.F.Bradley, ed. Letters of Herbert Henson, (1951), p.204

61) John Barnes, Ahead of his Age :Bishop Barnes of Birmingham, (1979), p.147

62) Ibid.p.148

63) Ibid.pp.193-4

64) Ibid p.86ff, p.191

65) Ibid.p.193ff

66) Ibid.p.195

67) For details of the correspondence see G.K.A.Bell, Randall Davidson, (1935), p.1319ff.

68) Barnes, op.cit.p.197ff

69) Ibid.p.236ff

70) Barnes,Ahead of His Age,p.396ff

71) Ibid.p.405

72) Ibid.p.405

73) Edward Carpenter, Archbishop Fisher,(1991), p.296ff

74) Canterbury Chronicle of Convocation, Oct.1947, p.187ff

75) Ibid.p.173ff.

76) W.Purcell, Fisher of Lambeth, (1969),p.166ff

77) Soundings : Essays Concerning Christian Understanding, ed. A.R.Vidler, Cambridge (1962)

78) Objections to Christian Belief, ed. A.R.Vidler (1963)

79) Theology, LXV (November 1962), p.446

80) Church Times, 'Summary of the News', 22 March, 1963

81) Chronicle of Convocation, May 1963

82) The Times, May 6, 1963

83) Bishops and Dioceses : The Report of the Ministry Committee working party on the Episcopate, (1971), p.12

84) Homosexual Relations : A Contribution to Discussion, (1979)

85) Report of Proceedings, General Synod, vol.12,no.1. February 1981, p.433

86) Report of the Proceedings, Church Assembly, vol 46, no 1, Spring 1966, p.116

87) See Sterilisation : An Ethical Enquiry, (1962), p.25. The committee was chaired by R.C.Mortimer, Bishop of Exeter

88) Humanae Vitae, (1968), paragraph 4.

89) Although the Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics have united in opposition to Anglo-Methodist Unity and the ordination of women their motivation was different.

90) Today's Church and Today's World, (1977), p.252

91) Quoted in ?Richard Harries, The Authority of Divine Love, Oxford (1983), p.98

92) Quoted in Martin Dudley, 'Waiting on the common mind : Authority in Anglicanism' in One in Christ Vol.20, no.1,(1984) p.75