Bishop William White of Pennsylvania, who first expressed the idea of a national association of state churches that later became TEC, outlined a plan “for organizing these Church of England congregations.” White was “very sympathetic to the notion that the individual state organizations and dioceses should have the full and open control of their own property and of their own government” (p.27)
Take the time to read through it all (74 page pdf).
You know, I could swear when I was a young lad many years ago, either for Sunday School or for Confirmation we were given a book or books which talked about the government of the Episcopal Church and stressed that we had a Presiding Bishop, rather than an Archbishop, because the Episcopal Church was as association of co-equal dioceses and not a hierarchy where there was a central authority that could dictate to the dioceses what they could or could not do. I remember that sticking in my head because I thought the title of “Presiding Bishop” was somewhat strange. Was that person like the President of the United States, except a religious president because we were Americans now, not English? If so, why not just call him the President? I can even remember what the books looked like. One had a cover that was mostly blue with the seal of the Episcopal Church on the front, and the other one had a mostly green cover. The discussion was in one of the two.
But then again it may just be my imagination. It was long ago.
Hi Jim, I am not sure I know exactly which books you remember. There is a series of books called The Church’s Teaching series published by Seabury Press, NY. They were published in the 1950s and reprinted in the 1960s. I have them in my library thanks to my parents who bought them many years ago. The sixth book in the series is called The Episcopal Church and its work. There are a couple of pages devoted to describing the office and work of the Presiding Bishop. Here is a quote from pg 106.”He [the Presiding Bishop] exercises no direct pastoral oversight of a diocese of his own (direct contrast to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York who are in fact diocesan bishops) nor does he possess visitatorial or juridical powers within in the independent dioceses of the Episcopal Church”. The parenthetical remarks are mine.
One of the interesting comments in the section about the PB is while the authors recognize that other churches in the WWAC have Archbishops, it is made clear through quotes such as this… “few of his canonical duties are those historically associated with the office of Archbishop”. The Presiding bishop may have the dignity of an archbishop but he is *not* an archbishop… at least according to these authors.
Perhaps these are the books you remember?