Summary
Bishop Charles E. Cheney served as the second Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).
In this chapter, the author argues that the theological position regarding the employment of an episcopal governance in the REC is practical in nature. However, the historical acceptance of episcopacy cannot be disputed either. The view he argues for is that the episcopacy is not essential to the church, but due to its early adoption and longstanding effectiveness, should be maintained and promoted.
Overview
Theological Tradition of the Author:
Reformed Episcopalian
Topics:
The Office of Bishop; Apostolic Succession; Historic Episcopate; Episcopacy
Links:
[Source]
An alternate copy of this can be found here. This copy is in sermon form and appears slightly expanded.
Quotes
All quotes provided are from the primary source listed above.
“…on the basis of it [the claim of apostolic succession], we are told that outside of this genealogical line there can be no valid transmission of ecclesiastical authority. How monstrous such a doctrine is can be more fully realized when we remember that it makes invalid and a mockery all the work which since the Reformation God has wrought by the non-episcopal Churches. On this theory, they are no churches. At the same time that this theory remands all non-episcopal Churches to the category of unauthorized ‘sects,’ it makes the corrupt and idolatrous Roman Church to be a true Church of Christ, because the claim of ‘Apostolic Succession’ has been preserved in the consecration of its bishops.” pp. 59-60
“The Church of Christ has ever taught that the entrance to its ministry cannot be too carefully and jealously guarded. The Reformed Episcopalian holds that in no way can the worthless and the ignorant, the unsound in doctrine and the unholy in living, be so effectively barred from entering the sacred ministry, as by holding one officer of the Church responsible for ordination to the work of gospel preaching.” p. 61
“The New Testament does not say that Timothy and Titus were Apostles. It does not assert that they, or either of them, ever succeeded the Apostles in their peculiar office. But it does make it reasonably evident that even in the Apostles’ days, some presbyters were appointed to oversight of the Church.” p. 65
“How perfectly natural it would be that as martyrdom, or a more peaceful death took the Apostles from their earthly work, the model suggested by their appointment of Timothy and Titus, and perhaps others, as presiding presbyters, should lead the Church to make such an office a permanent feature of its polity. And what was so natural actually took place. As early as the period A. D. 107-116, Ignatius testifies that the episcopal polity was universal in the Church.” p. 65
“It is unnecessary to cite the long category of Christian writers whose testimony makes it clear that from the time of Ignatius, onward for 1500 years, bishops presided over all the ever spreading activities of the Christian Church . We may justly reject many of the opinions of these writers. We may treat their doctrinal views precisely as we do those of any other uninspired men. The Bible is the supreme test to which they must be subjected even as the preaching and writing of teachers in our day. But their religious opinions are one thing. Their historic testimony is another. They are competent witnesses as to what took place in their own age, and their evidence is absolutely like that of one man. Beyond all question, they prove that the universal polity of the Church from within a hundred years of the death of Christ onward, was an episcopal polity.” p. 65
“…while endless controversies arose regarding Christian doctrine and government, there is no record of any question concerning the settled polity of the Church being a government by bishops. Orthodox and heretics were perfectly agreed on that point.” p. 66
episcopi ecclesiarum protestantium 