¹ See Ombres, R, ‘Why then the law?’ [1974] New Blackfriars 296 at 302.Google ScholarSee also Doe, N, ‘Towards a critique of the role of theology in English ecclesiastical and canon law’ (1992) 2 Ecc LJ 328;Google ScholarHill, M, ‘Gospel and order’ (1997) 4 Ecc LJ 659;Google Scholar and Hope, D, ‘The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life’ (1997) 4 Ecc LJ 694.Google Scholar

² ECUSA, Book of Common Prayer, p. 855.Google Scholar

³ Best, Thomas F, Gassman, Günter (eds.), On the Way to Fuller Koinonia, World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1994, p 105.Google Scholar

⁴ Canon IV of the Council of Nicaea.Google Scholar

⁵ Lambeth Conference 1930, resolution 49.Google Scholar

⁶ Augsburg Confession VII.Google Scholar

⁷ Generally the Church extended into areas where the British Empire (or the US economic power) ruled. There were some interesting exceptions: Madagascar passed from British to French possession at the end of the 19th century, but Archbishop Benson refused to withdraw Anglican bishops and clergy at the transition, suggesting that the Church of England had a right to be in places beyond where the British Empire reigned. There was, however, a general reluctance to initiate mission work where other branches of the Church were established. This meant, for instance, that there was little mission work undertaken in Latin America, except where the Church of Rome had made few inroads, such as among the Mapuche of Southern Chile who had never been conquered by the Spanish conquistadores. It was after the Anglican Congress of 1963, and a subsequent meeting of Anglicans in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 1967 which determined that Latin America was “baptised but not evangelised”.Google Scholar

⁸ Strange things occurred at that time, due to the colonial mentality. For instance, in 1841Google Scholar, Selwyn, George Augustus, the first bishop of New Zealand, was given jurisdiction by an Act of the British parliament—in the South Pacific.Google Scholar

⁹ The offending man was John Colenso. He held two beliefs which caused a stir: Colenso did not believe that Zulus who failed to become Christians were subject to eternal damnation. He also questioned whether the Bible was the Word of God (he was a mathematician, and by examining the mathematical figures in some parts of the Old Testament, he saw that the numbers were impossible, and concluded that the whole of the Bible could not be true in all its parts). Another missionary bishop, Robert Gray led a movement to depose Colenso, basically for teaching heresy.Google Scholar

¹⁰ “The Virginia Report” in The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, Harrisburg PA: Morehouse, 1999, p 61.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid. p 62.

¹² Lambeth Conference 1988 resolution 52; Lambeth Conference 1998 resolution III. 6(d).Google Scholar

¹³ Lambeth Conference 1930 resolution 49.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Statement agreed between representatives of the Old Catholic Churches and the Churches of the Anglican Communion at a Conference held at Bonn, 2 July 1931.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The report has been completed and is to be presented to the authorities of both Communions by the end of 2002.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The fact that the ACC has both a “president” and a “chairman” makes little sense in many languages (such as Romance languages) which would translate chairman and president with the same word. I doubt it would be possible to consider holding a meeting of the ACC under a chairman, with the Archbishop of Canterbury not present.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Lambeth Conference 1998, resolution IV.2Google Scholar

¹⁸ A Communiqué from the Primates of the Anglican Communion, 28 March 2000, http://www. anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2075/acns2094.htmlGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Prestige, G L, the Patristics scholar, in his work Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1948) asserts that ‘The Fathers… recognised in the Bible itself something which the Church had instituted… it is wholly to their credit that they also recognised the need for comparing its witness with that of the other great formative contributions of the apostolic and subapostolic Church to spiritual order and discipline—that is, in particular, the sacraments, the creeds, and the episcopate.’Google Scholar

²⁰ Abbot, E S, et al. , Catholicity: A Study of the Conflict of Christian Traditions in the West (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1947) p 55.Google Scholar

²¹ Synodality, as used in recent ecumenical statements, refers to the faithful, in each local church, walking together in Christ. It is derived from the Greek syn-hodos meaning ‘common way’. It indicates the manner in which believers and churches are held together in communion as they live, work and journey together in Christ who is the Way.Google Scholar

²² ARCIC, , The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church III, Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1999, §57.Google Scholar

²³ ‘This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one …so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)?’ Ut unum sint §96.Google Scholar

²⁴ ‘We envisage a primacy that will even now help to uphold the legitimate diversity of traditions, strengthening and safeguarding them in fidelity to the Gospel. It will encourage the churches in their mission. This sort of primacy will already assist the Church on earth to be the authentic catholic koinonia in which unity does not curtail diversity, and diversity does not endanger but enhances unity. It will be an effective sign for all Christians as to how this gift of God builds up that unity for which Christ prayed’. The Gift of Authority §60.Google Scholar

²⁵ ‘Is there a need for a universal primacy exercised collegially and respecting the role of the laity in decision-making within the Church?’ The Virginia Report, p 42.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Dialogue, Anglican-Orthodox, The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 (London: SPCK, 1985) §20.Google Scholar

²⁷ Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution IV.3.Google Scholar

²⁸ Howe, John, Anglicanism and the Universal Church (Anglican Book Centre, Toronto 1990) p 79.Google Scholar

²⁹ The Lambeth Conference 1948. The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops; together with Resolutions and Reports (London, SPCK, 1948) pp 84–85.Google Scholar

³⁰ The Virginia Report, p 54.Google Scholar