Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:42:38.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Episcopal Lineage: A Theological Reflection on Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Christopher Hill
Affiliation:
Bishop of Stafford
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Mathew's varied ecclesiastical progress presents a fascinating case study of an episcopate detached from a main-stream Christian community and alerts us to the danger of solely considering ‘episcopal lineage‘ as the litmus test for apostolicity. Mathew was born in France in 1852 and baptised a Roman Catholic; due to his mother's scruples he was soon re-baptised in the Anglican Church. He studied for the ministry in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, but sought baptism again in the Church of Rome, into which he was ordained as a priest in Glasgow in 1877. He became a Dominican in 1878, but only persevered a year, moving around a number of Catholic dioceses: Newcastle, Plymouth, Nottingham and Clifton. Here he came across immorality, and became a Unitarian. He next turned to the Church of England and the Diocese of London, but was soon in trouble for officiating without a licence. In 1890 he put forward his claim to Garter King of Arms for the title of 4th Earl of Llandaff of Thomastown, Co. Tipperary. He renounced the Church of England in 1899 because of vice. After founding a zoo in Brighton, which went bankrupt, he appeared in court in connection with a charge of embezzlement. He then became a Roman Catholic again, now as a layman.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2004

References

1 For a full account of Mathew's history see Anson, Peter F, Bishops at Large: Some autocephalous Churches of the past Hundred Years and their Founders (Faber & Faber, London, 1964).Google Scholar

2 See Hill, M, ‘Judicial Approaches to Religious Disputes’ in O'Dair, and Lewis, (eds), Law and Religion: Current Legal Issues 4 (Oxford, 2001), 409420, which was cited by Gray J in his judgment.Google Scholar