To the reader,
The Hackney Hub is pleased to welcome, Consular, a guest contributor to this blog. This will begin a new chapter of the life of the Hackney Hub as a true "hub" of orthodox churchmanship. It also fulfills in desire of this blog to be a representative of North American Anglicanism. Consular will be sharing with us a splendid series on the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and how it compares with the 1662 English Book. He is a Canadian as well so hopefully he will bring a fresh perspective to this blog project.
Sincerely,
-The Hackney Hub
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Thirty-Nine Articles among other Reformed Confessions - The Lord's Supper
This is the first in a series comparing the English Articles of Religion with the other Reformed Confessions of the time, showing the similarities and differences. In this post, I will show that the English Church teaches the doctrine of the Continental Reformed Churches concerning the Supper of the Lord.
Name of the Sacrament
To begin, perhaps obviously, with the name of the Sacrament, all of these confessions share a common terminology for it. The most popular titles being, the Lord's Supper or the Supper of the Lord. This title was revived by the Reformers to emphasize that this is a meal, a sacrament, something for the people of God, not just the priests. The Prayer Book goes on to further add, Holy Communion, to that list, in addition, the Second Helvetic Confession styles it the Lord's Table and Eucharist. The first Prayer Book in 1549 referred to it as the "Masse" but in later editions that was dropped, most likely due to the theology associated with that term.
The Benefits of Receiving
The inevitable question arises when discussing the sacraments is that of what benefit they are to Christians, who receive them. In the Sacrament, Christ "feeds us with his flesh, and give us his blood to drink" (SHC) or, using Scriptural language, "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ" (AOR). In a spiritual means, "he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood" (GC) in some mysterious manner, truly beyond our comprehension. "Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls" (SC). In this matter, I find that the Confessions are in substantial and essential agreement. In the Sacrament, we really receive the true body and blood of Christ. As the Catechism says, the benefits we receive are, "[t]he strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine." This is in line with Scripture and the Fathers, however, asserting such a truth generally leads to misunderstanding. The Reformed Churches offer the following distinctives to differentiate their understanding of the Lord's Supper as to the understanding held by Lutherans or Roman Catholics.
Sign and Thing Signified
Reformed theology distinguishes clearly between "sign" and "thing signified". We'll have to quote a portion of Article 25, as that's where the meat of this distinction is made (as well as in the catechism), but Article 28 says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death." In Article 25, we read, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him." This shows the basis of this distinction a bit but it is better worded in the Catechism, where a Sacrament is defined as, "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." So, such as the Catechism details, the "sign" of the Lord's Supper is the bread and wine, the "thing signified" is the body and blood of Christ. The Second Helvetic Confession explains it like this, "the faithful receive what is given by the ministers of the Lord, and they eat the bread of the Lord and drink of the Lord's cup. At the same time by the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit they also inwardly receive the flesh and blood of the Lord, and are thereby nourished unto life eternal." The Gallic Confession puts it like this, "And thus all who bring a pure faith, like a vessel, to the sacred table of Christ, receive truly that of which it is a sign; for the body and the blood of Jesus Christ give food and drink to the soul, no less than bread and wine nourish the body." This where the Reformed Churches are different from all other branches of Christendom. The Romans and Zwinglians err in similar manners, the former eliminates the sign, the latter eliminates the thing signified. Lutherans mix the two together. Reformed theology maintains them separate, yet does not divorce them, nor confuse them. Both are received though but they are not mixed together. For this reason we see statements such as, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign"(AOR), "Sacraments... be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession" (AOR), and "And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs" (SC), condemning the doctrine of memorialism. Equally condemning are the Confessions' statements of Transubstantiation:
Spiritual Eating
The Confessions are clear that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament. We know this because of Christ's command, "Take, eat, &c." "Take, drink, &c.". The question then arises, in what manner are we to eat and drink Christ's flesh and blood? The Reformed tradition denies the theory of oral manducation, that meaning that Christians partake of Christ's body and blood orally. In other words, the feeding on Christ is something that happens in the soul not the mouth. "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner"(AOR). "[T]he body and blood of the Lord... are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit" (SHC). "Although he be in heaven...we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible power of his Spirit he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood. We hold that this is done spiritually... In short, because it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith." (GC). One of the reasons that the Reformed Churches have denied oral manducation is the firm insistence that Christ's natural flesh and blood are locally present in heaven, at the right hand of God, "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven" (Black Rubric), which stands in contrast to Lutheran and Roman doctrines, which maintain that Christ is somehow locally present in the elements.
The Mean of Faith
In relation to the spiritual feeding of the faithful in the Sacrament, the Reformed Churches maintain that the mean whereby Christ is received is faith. This stands in contrast to Lutheran and Roman theories which hold that the mouth is the means by which we receive Christ. This ties in with the notion that the feeding in the Sacrament is spiritual and heavenly in nature, i.e. it has nothing to do with our digestive systems. "And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith."(AOR) "And as we must by eating receive food into our bodies in order that it may work in us, and prove its efficacy in us--since it profits us nothing when it remains outside us--so it is necessary that we receive Christ by faith, that he may become ours, and he may live in us and we in him." (SHC) "[B]ecause it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith"(GC). "[T]his union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus... is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven, and appears in the presence of his Father for us" (SC).
The Communion of the Wicked
The Reformed Churches hold that, because the Sacrament is meant for the people of God, and that Christ feeds his people in this feast, the wicked do not partake of Christ. The Sacrament is for those who receive worthily which the Wicked cannot do, by virtue of having no faith in Christ. "The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ" (AOR). "[H]e who comes to this sacred Table of the Lord without faith, communicates only in the sacrament and does not receive the substance of the sacrament whence comes life and salvation; and such men unworthily eat of the Lord's Table" (SHC). Not only do the wicked not partake of Christ but they also take the Sacrament to their condemnation. "The Wicked... to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing" (AOR). "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eats and drinks judgment upon himself (I Cor. 11:26-29). For when they do not approach with true faith, they dishonor the death of Christ, and therefore eat and drink condemnation to themselves" (SHC). So much for the notion that Reformed Churches do not take the Sacrament seriously!
Conclusion
This shows briefly that the English Church shared the doctrine of the Lord's Supper of the Reformed Churches. This establishes the English Church among the Reformed Churches in its adherence to this catholic teaching concerning the Supper of the Lord.
[I would like to expand this article -- if there are other Confession I missed from this period, please let me know.]
Articles of Religion (1562/71) (AOR)
XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
XXX. Of both Kinds.The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
WHEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." (Black Rubric)
Second Helvetic Confession (1564) (SHC)
Chapter 21 - Of the Holy Supper of the Lord
The Supper of the Lord. The Supper of the Lord (which is called the Lord's Table, and the Eucharist, that is, a Thanksgiving), is, therefore, usually called a supper, because it was instituted by Christ at his last supper, and still represents it, and because in it the faithful are spiritually fed and given drink.
The Author and Consecrator of the Supper. For the author of the Supper of the Lord is not an angel or any man, but the Son of God himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, who first consecrated it to his Church. And the same consecration or blessing still remains along all those who celebrate no other but that very Supper which the Lord instituted, and at which they repeat the words of the Lord's Supper, and in all things look to the one Christ by a true faith, from whose hands they receive, as it were, what they receive through the ministry of the ministers of the Church.
A memorial of God's Benefits. By this sacred rite the Lord wishes to keep in fresh remembrance that greatest benefit which he showed to mortal men, namely, that by having given his body and shed his blood he has pardoned all our sins, and redeemed us from eternal death and the power of the devil, and now feeds us with his flesh, and give us his blood to drink, which, being received spiritually by true faith, nourish us to eternal life. And this so great a benefit is renewed as often as the Lord's Supper is celebrated. For the Lord said: "Do this in remembrance of me." This holy Supper also seals to us that the very body of Christ was truly given for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins, lest our faith should in any way waver.
The Sign and Thing Signified. And this is visibly represented by this sacrament outwardly through the ministers, and, as it were, presented to our eyes to be seen, which is invisibly wrought by the Holy Spirit inwardly in the soul. Bread is outwardly offered by the minister, and the words of the Lord are heard: "Take, eat; this is my body"; and, "Take and divide among you. Drink of it, all of you; this is my blood." Therefore the faithful receive what is given by the ministers of the Lord, and they eat the bread of the Lord and drink of the Lord's cup. At the same time by the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit they also inwardly receive the flesh and blood of the Lord, and are thereby nourished unto life eternal. For the flesh and blood of Christ is the true food and drink unto life eternal; and Christ himself, since he was given for us and is our Savior, is the principal thing in the Supper, and we do not permit anything else to be substituted in his place.
But in order to understand better and more clearly how the flesh and blood of Christ are the food and drink of the faithful, and are received by the faithful unto eternal life, we would add these few things. There is more than one kind of eating. There is corporeal eating whereby food is taken into the mouth, is chewed with the teeth, and swallowed into the stomach. In times past the Capernaites thought that the flesh of the Lord should be eaten in this way, but they are refuted by him in John, ch. 6. For as the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten corporeally without infamy and savagery, so it is not food for the stomach. All men are forced to admit this. We therefore disapprove of that canon in the Pope's decrees, Ego Berengarius (De Consecrat., Dist. 2). For neither did godly antiquity believe, nor do we believe, that the body of Christ is to be eaten corporeally and essentially with a bodily mouth.
Spiritual Eating of the Lord. There is also a spiritual eating of Christ's body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the Lord's body and blood for us, namely, the remission of sins, deliverance, and eternal life; so that Christ lives in us and we live in him, and he causes us to receive him by true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food and drink, that is, our life.
Christ as Our Food Sustains Us in Life. For even as bodily food and drink not only refresh and strengthen our bodies, but also keeps them alive, so the flesh of Christ delivered for us, and his blood shed for us, not only refresh and strengthen our souls, but also preserve them alive, not in so far as they are corporeally eaten and drunken, but in so far as they are communicated unto us spiritually by the Spirit of God, as the Lord said: "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51), and "the flesh" (namely what is eaten bodily) "is of no avail; it is the spirit that gives life" (v. 63). And: "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
Christ Received by Faith. And as we must by eating receive food into our bodies in order that it may work in us, and prove its efficacy in us--since it profits us nothing when it remains outside us--so it is necessary that we receive Christ by faith, that he may become ours, and he may live in us and we in him. For he says: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35); and also, "He who eats me will live because of me . . . he abides in me, I in him" (vs. 57, 56).
Spiritual Food. From all this it is clear that by spiritual food we do not mean some imaginary food I know not what, but the very body of the Lord given to us, which nevertheless is received by the faithful not corporeally, but spiritually by faith. In this matter we follow the teaching of the Savior himself, Christ the Lord, according to John, ch. 6.
Eating Necessary for Salvation. And this eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the Lord is so necessary for salvation that without it no man can be saved. But this spiritual eating and drinking also occurs apart from the Supper of the Lord, and as often and wherever a man believes in Christ. To which that sentence of St. Augustine's perhaps applies: "Why do you provide for your teeth and your stomach? Believe, and you have eaten."
Sacramental Eating of the Lord. Besides the higher spiritual eating there is also a sacramental eating of the body of the Lord by which not only spiritually and internally the believer truly participates in the true body and blood of the Lord, but also, by coming to the Table of the Lord, outwardly receives the visible sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. To be sure, when the believer believed, he first received the life-giving food, and still enjoys it. But therefore, when he now receives the sacrament, he does not receive nothing. For he progresses in continuing to communicate in the body and blood of the Lord, and so his faith is kindled and grows more and more, and is refreshed by spiritual food. For while we live, faith is continually increased. And he who outwardly receives the sacrament by true faith, not only receives the sign, but also, as we said, enjoys the thing itself. Moreover, he obeys the Lord's institution and commandment, and with a joyful mind gives thanks for his redemption and that of all mankind, and makes a faithful memorial to the Lord's death, and gives a witness before the Church, of whose body he is a member. Assurance is also given to those who receive the sacrament that the body of the Lord was given and his blood shed, not only for men in general, but particularly for every faithful communicant, to whom it is food and drink unto eternal life.
Unbelievers Take the Sacrament to Their Judgment. But he who comes to this sacred Table of the Lord without faith, communicates only in the sacrament and does not receive the substance of the sacrament whence comes life and salvation; and such men unworthily eat of the Lord's Table. Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eats and drinks judgment upon himself (I Cor. 11:26-29). For when they do not approach with true faith, they dishonor the death of Christ, and therefore eat and drink condemnation to themselves.
The Presence of Christ in the Supper. We do not, therefore, so join the body of the Lord and his blood with the bread and wine as to say that the bread itself is the body of Christ except in a sacramental way; or that the body of Christ is hidden corporeally under the bread, so that it ought to be worshipped under the form of bread; or yet that whoever receives the sign, receives also the thing itself. The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father; and therefore our hearts are to be lifted up on high, and not to be fixed on the bread, neither is the Lord to be worshipped in the bread. Yet the Lord is not absent from his Church when she celebrates the Supper. The sun, which is absent from us in the heavens, is notwithstanding effectually present among us. How much more is the Sun of Righteousness, Christ, although in his body he is absent from us in heaven, present with us, nor corporeally, but spiritually, by his vivifying operation, and as he himself explained at his Last Supper that he would be present with us (John, chs. 14; 15; and 16). Whence it follows that we do not have the Supper without Christ, and yet at the same time have an unbloody and mystical Supper, as it was universally called by antiquity...
The Observance of the Supper with Both Bread and Wine. We think that rite, manner, or form of the Supper to be the most simple and excellent which comes nearest to the first institution of the Lord and to the apostles' doctrine. It consists in proclaiming the Word of God, in godly prayers, in the action of the Lord himself, and its repetition, in the eating of the Lord's body and drinking of his blood; in a fitting remembrance of the Lord's death, and a faithful thanksgiving; and in a holy fellowship in the union of the body of the Church.
We therefore disapprove of those who have taken from the faithful one species of the sacrament, namely, the Lord's cup. For these seriously offend against the institution of the Lord who says: "Drink ye all of this"; which he did not so expressly say of the bread.
We are not now discussing what kind of mass once existed among the fathers, whether it is to be tolerated or not. But this we say freely that the mass which is now used throughout the Roman Church has been abolished in our churches for many and very good reasons which, for brevity's sake, we do not now enumerate in detail. We certainly could not approve of making a wholesome action into a vain spectacle and a means of gaining merit, and of celebrating it for a price. Nor could we approve of saying that in it the priest is said to effect the very body of the Lord, and really to offer it for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead, and in addition, for the honor, veneration and remembrance of the saints in heaven, etc.
Gallic Confession (1559) (GC)
XXXVI. We confess that the Lord's Supper, which is the second sacraments, is a witness of the union which we have with Christ, inasmuch as he not only died and rose again for us once, but also feeds and nourishes us truly with his flesh and blood, so that we may be one in him, and that our life may be in common. Although he be in heaven until he come to judge all the earth, still we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible power of his Spirit he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood. We hold that this is done spiritually, not because we put imagination and fancy in the place of fact and truth, but because the greatness of this mystery exceeds the measure of our senses and the laws of nature. In short, because it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith.
XXXVII. We believe, as has been said, that in the Lord's Supper, as well in baptism, God gives us really and in fact that which he there sets forth to us; and that consequently with these signs is given the true possession and enjoyment of that which they present to us. And thus all who bring a pure faith, like a vessel, to the sacred table of Christ, receive truly that of which it is a sign; for the body and the blood of Jesus Christ give food and drink to the soul, no less than bread and wine nourish the body.
Scots Confession (1560) (SC)
Chapter 21Of the Sacraments
As the fathers under the law (besides the verity of the sacrifices) had two chief sacraments to wit, circumcision and the Passover, the despisers and contemners whereof were not reputed for God's people[1] so do we acknowledge and confess that we now, in the time of the evangel, have two sacraments only, instituted by the Lord Jesus, and commanded to be used of all those that will be reputed members of his body: to wit, baptism and the supper, or table of the Lord Jesus, called the communion of his body and blood.[2] And these sacraments (as well of the Old as of the New Testament) were instituted of God, not only to make a visible difference betwixt his people, and those that were without his league; but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of the same sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the elect have with their head, Christ Jesus.
And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted; and also, that in the supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.[3] Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ's natural body, and of wine in his natural blood (as the Papists have perniciously taught and damnably believed); but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus, in the right use of the sacraments, is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven, and appears in the presence of his Father for us.[4] And yet, notwithstanding the far distance of place which is betwixt his body now glorified in the heaven, and us now mortal in this earth, yet we most assuredly believe that the bread that we break is the communion of Christ's body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood.[5] So that we confess, and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus, that he remains in them and they in him: yea, that they are so made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones,[6] that as the Eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus (which of its own condition and nature was mortal and corruptible)[7] life and immortality, so does Christ Jesus' flesh and blood eaten and drunken by us, give to us the same prerogatives. Which, albeit we confess are neither given unto us at that only time, neither yet by the proper power and virtue of the sacrament only; yet we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's table, have such conjunction with Christ Jesus,[8] as the natural man cannot apprehend.
Name of the Sacrament
To begin, perhaps obviously, with the name of the Sacrament, all of these confessions share a common terminology for it. The most popular titles being, the Lord's Supper or the Supper of the Lord. This title was revived by the Reformers to emphasize that this is a meal, a sacrament, something for the people of God, not just the priests. The Prayer Book goes on to further add, Holy Communion, to that list, in addition, the Second Helvetic Confession styles it the Lord's Table and Eucharist. The first Prayer Book in 1549 referred to it as the "Masse" but in later editions that was dropped, most likely due to the theology associated with that term.
The Benefits of Receiving
The inevitable question arises when discussing the sacraments is that of what benefit they are to Christians, who receive them. In the Sacrament, Christ "feeds us with his flesh, and give us his blood to drink" (SHC) or, using Scriptural language, "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ" (AOR). In a spiritual means, "he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood" (GC) in some mysterious manner, truly beyond our comprehension. "Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls" (SC). In this matter, I find that the Confessions are in substantial and essential agreement. In the Sacrament, we really receive the true body and blood of Christ. As the Catechism says, the benefits we receive are, "[t]he strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine." This is in line with Scripture and the Fathers, however, asserting such a truth generally leads to misunderstanding. The Reformed Churches offer the following distinctives to differentiate their understanding of the Lord's Supper as to the understanding held by Lutherans or Roman Catholics.
Sign and Thing Signified
Reformed theology distinguishes clearly between "sign" and "thing signified". We'll have to quote a portion of Article 25, as that's where the meat of this distinction is made (as well as in the catechism), but Article 28 says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death." In Article 25, we read, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him." This shows the basis of this distinction a bit but it is better worded in the Catechism, where a Sacrament is defined as, "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." So, such as the Catechism details, the "sign" of the Lord's Supper is the bread and wine, the "thing signified" is the body and blood of Christ. The Second Helvetic Confession explains it like this, "the faithful receive what is given by the ministers of the Lord, and they eat the bread of the Lord and drink of the Lord's cup. At the same time by the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit they also inwardly receive the flesh and blood of the Lord, and are thereby nourished unto life eternal." The Gallic Confession puts it like this, "And thus all who bring a pure faith, like a vessel, to the sacred table of Christ, receive truly that of which it is a sign; for the body and the blood of Jesus Christ give food and drink to the soul, no less than bread and wine nourish the body." This where the Reformed Churches are different from all other branches of Christendom. The Romans and Zwinglians err in similar manners, the former eliminates the sign, the latter eliminates the thing signified. Lutherans mix the two together. Reformed theology maintains them separate, yet does not divorce them, nor confuse them. Both are received though but they are not mixed together. For this reason we see statements such as, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign"(AOR), "Sacraments... be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession" (AOR), and "And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs" (SC), condemning the doctrine of memorialism. Equally condemning are the Confessions' statements of Transubstantiation:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. (AOR)
These condemnations serve to preserve the distinction, yet union, between the sign and thing signified. The next question that arises is the nature of the eating of Christ's body and blood.
Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ's natural body, and of wine in his natural blood (as the Papists have perniciously taught and damnably believed); but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus, in the right use of the sacraments, is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven, and appears in the presence of his Father for us. (SC)
Spiritual Eating
The Confessions are clear that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament. We know this because of Christ's command, "Take, eat, &c." "Take, drink, &c.". The question then arises, in what manner are we to eat and drink Christ's flesh and blood? The Reformed tradition denies the theory of oral manducation, that meaning that Christians partake of Christ's body and blood orally. In other words, the feeding on Christ is something that happens in the soul not the mouth. "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner"(AOR). "[T]he body and blood of the Lord... are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit" (SHC). "Although he be in heaven...we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible power of his Spirit he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood. We hold that this is done spiritually... In short, because it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith." (GC). One of the reasons that the Reformed Churches have denied oral manducation is the firm insistence that Christ's natural flesh and blood are locally present in heaven, at the right hand of God, "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven" (Black Rubric), which stands in contrast to Lutheran and Roman doctrines, which maintain that Christ is somehow locally present in the elements.
The Mean of Faith
In relation to the spiritual feeding of the faithful in the Sacrament, the Reformed Churches maintain that the mean whereby Christ is received is faith. This stands in contrast to Lutheran and Roman theories which hold that the mouth is the means by which we receive Christ. This ties in with the notion that the feeding in the Sacrament is spiritual and heavenly in nature, i.e. it has nothing to do with our digestive systems. "And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith."(AOR) "And as we must by eating receive food into our bodies in order that it may work in us, and prove its efficacy in us--since it profits us nothing when it remains outside us--so it is necessary that we receive Christ by faith, that he may become ours, and he may live in us and we in him." (SHC) "[B]ecause it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith"(GC). "[T]his union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus... is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven, and appears in the presence of his Father for us" (SC).
The Communion of the Wicked
The Reformed Churches hold that, because the Sacrament is meant for the people of God, and that Christ feeds his people in this feast, the wicked do not partake of Christ. The Sacrament is for those who receive worthily which the Wicked cannot do, by virtue of having no faith in Christ. "The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ" (AOR). "[H]e who comes to this sacred Table of the Lord without faith, communicates only in the sacrament and does not receive the substance of the sacrament whence comes life and salvation; and such men unworthily eat of the Lord's Table" (SHC). Not only do the wicked not partake of Christ but they also take the Sacrament to their condemnation. "The Wicked... to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing" (AOR). "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eats and drinks judgment upon himself (I Cor. 11:26-29). For when they do not approach with true faith, they dishonor the death of Christ, and therefore eat and drink condemnation to themselves" (SHC). So much for the notion that Reformed Churches do not take the Sacrament seriously!
Conclusion
This shows briefly that the English Church shared the doctrine of the Lord's Supper of the Reformed Churches. This establishes the English Church among the Reformed Churches in its adherence to this catholic teaching concerning the Supper of the Lord.
[I would like to expand this article -- if there are other Confession I missed from this period, please let me know.]
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Anglican Myths 6: Seven Sacraments
In this post, I intend to explore the notion of seven sacraments in the Anglican Churches. This is a complex issue and I hesitated including it in the "Myths" series. However, upon researching various commentaries on the Articles (some of which are included below), I found that it was fairly unanimously held that the Church of England accepted two sacraments.
The problem with the "other five" is resolved differently by different authors. The older the author, the less likely they are to apply any sort of sacramental language to these rites. Most of these authors go through each of the rites and explain why they are not considered sacraments. I encourage readers to follow up on these readings and look into each of the author's and other works not listed here.
I think the real danger of claiming seven sacraments is an implication in unreformed theology. It says more about other things than simply the number of sacraments. It says, mostly, a neglect or rejection of the formularies. The reason why I maintain the number at two is to acknowledge that, according to the formularies, that is the number of sacraments we accept, because the definition of a sacrament contained therein can only baptism and the Lord's Supper fulfill.
XXV. Of the Sacraments
SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
Linguistic
I will make a linguistic case against the reading of the Article and portion of the Catechism as supporting the notion of seven sacraments. I think it is linguistically foolish to presume that these documents support the unreformed, sacramental system.
Beginning with the Catechism, there has been some pretty atrocious interpretations of this passage by those who wish the formularies to support seven sacraments. The rhetoric we see is to create an artificial division between "sacraments of the Gospel" and "sacraments of the Church" or "lesser sacraments', etc. especially when reading the Article. However, in the Catechism, the tactic is to create an artificial division between sacraments "generally necessary for salvation" and those (allegedly) not necessary for salvation. I maintain a plain reading of the Catechism concludes that there are two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
Beginning with the question, the matter at hand is simple, "How many sacraments are there?" That is a general question. It doesn't presume any division in different types of sacraments or any such farce. It is asking how many sacraments, in total, the Church recognizes. The answer is, likewise, very simple. "Two only." The problem seems to arise from the failure to recognize the subordinate clause ", as generally necessary to salvation", which is an adjectival clause, describing "Two only." This means that we could remove the clause and the sentence would read just fine, i.e. "Two only, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord," which is fine. The clause was inserted to assert that the sacraments, i.e. baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are generally necessary to salvation, but not absolutely., i.e. like the thief on the Cross.
I will also give my linguistic interpretation of the Article in question as well (a theological interpretation is to follow below -- this portion deals specifically with the language). The sort of, "classic" Newman interpretation of this Article focuses on a supposed distinction between "Sacraments of the Gospel" and "other Sacraments." I don't believe there is sufficient evidence in the actual language of the text to come to a conclusion such as that. The Article, rather, seems to say that for a rite to be a Sacrament, it must be of the Gospel. As in other places, such as the Catechism, a Sacrament is defined in Anglican theology as a rite established by our Lord himself. Also a note about the words "commonly called", there has been commentary saying that this allows for the nomenclature of "Sacrament" with the other rites. There may be some veracity to say that these rites could be called "Sacraments" but that would be a bit of a misnomer. Actually, the language of this Article confirms that viewpoint, i.e. that these rites could be called Sacraments, and in fact have been called that, by the ancients, and even in the formularies ("By like holy promise the Sacrament of Matrimonie knitteth man and wife in perpetuall loue, that they desire not to be separated for any displeasure or aduersity that shall after happen" - Homily on swearing and perjury, published before the Articles of Religion, for consideration). However, the Article indicates that this is probably not the best name for them. It indicates this by the "commonly called" formula, which is used in the Prayer Book to acknowledge a popular term and then to either give a better or name or to explain why this is not such a good term. For instance, the Collect for Christmas says, "The Nativity of our Lord, or the Birth-day of Christ, Commonly called Christmas-Day," indicating that it is popularly called "Christmas" which si not wrong but there is a better way to describe it. A better example is Candlemas, "The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, Commonly Called, The Purification of Saint Mary the Virgin."
Historical
Historically, the interpretation proposed by Mr. Newman and the like of the Catechism makes no sense whatsoever. This portion of the Catechism is not to be found in the 1549, 1552, or 1559 Prayer Books. It was added in 1604 by Puritans to clarify the Church of England's teaching on the Sacraments. Now, one would wonder why on earth the Puritans would draft a statement supporting the Seven Sacraments. I can't think of any good reasons. Now, the statement can be interpreted like Mr. Newman says but to ignore the historical settings of a document is a poor way of interpreting a document.
Theological
I think the Anglican definition of what a sacrament is is clearly outlined in the formularies. It is an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace which was established by our Lord in the New Testament. Using this definition, only Baptism and the Lord's Supper can be counted as sacraments because they alone fulfill these qualifications. The question then arises, what are we to "do" with the other rites: confirmation, penance, orders, marriage, and anointing? The Anglican Churches are unique in their upholding these rites among Reformation Churches to such esteem, especially confirmation, which is retained as an episcopal rite, i.e. performed by Bishops.
From my research, which is limited I admit, I don't many pre-Tractarian writers classifying the rites as sacraments. However, there are a few individuals who did so. For instance, Jeremy Taylor classified confirmation as a sacramental rite. This to say that the consensus is not unanimous but it is striking. However, I think that the rites do have some sacramental quality, meaning that they convey grace in some sense but they do not meet the requirements of sacraments according to the formularies, so I will not refer to them as such. I'm comfortable with the terminology of "sacramental rite" but not "lesser sacrament". Maybe that is a bit nit-picky but I think that the former preserves the integrity of the theology of the formularies while acknowledging with the early church that the definition can be more expansive in some instances.
My conclusion is that saying there are seven sacraments says more about what one believes about the formularies than what one thinks about the five rites. Because the formularies are the defining marks of what Anglicanism is, it is important to maintain that there are two sacraments according to the definitions that our Churches give in the formularies. However, the other five rites are very important in the life of the Church and the Christian and God does work through them but they shouldn't be classified as sacraments because of the reasons enumerated above.
Anglican Witness
In a sort of post-script, I include some of the commentary on this matter from various authors. I only show here the "early" ones, i.e. before the Tracts (except Browne).
The problem with the "other five" is resolved differently by different authors. The older the author, the less likely they are to apply any sort of sacramental language to these rites. Most of these authors go through each of the rites and explain why they are not considered sacraments. I encourage readers to follow up on these readings and look into each of the author's and other works not listed here.
I think the real danger of claiming seven sacraments is an implication in unreformed theology. It says more about other things than simply the number of sacraments. It says, mostly, a neglect or rejection of the formularies. The reason why I maintain the number at two is to acknowledge that, according to the formularies, that is the number of sacraments we accept, because the definition of a sacrament contained therein can only baptism and the Lord's Supper fulfill.
XXV. Of the Sacraments
SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
HOW many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
This latter portion of the Prayer Book Catechism dealing with sacraments was added at the time of the 1604 Prayer Book revision. It was added to appease moderate Puritans staying in the Church. This will become important later, in a point I wish to make.
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
This latter portion of the Prayer Book Catechism dealing with sacraments was added at the time of the 1604 Prayer Book revision. It was added to appease moderate Puritans staying in the Church. This will become important later, in a point I wish to make.
Linguistic
I will make a linguistic case against the reading of the Article and portion of the Catechism as supporting the notion of seven sacraments. I think it is linguistically foolish to presume that these documents support the unreformed, sacramental system.
Beginning with the Catechism, there has been some pretty atrocious interpretations of this passage by those who wish the formularies to support seven sacraments. The rhetoric we see is to create an artificial division between "sacraments of the Gospel" and "sacraments of the Church" or "lesser sacraments', etc. especially when reading the Article. However, in the Catechism, the tactic is to create an artificial division between sacraments "generally necessary for salvation" and those (allegedly) not necessary for salvation. I maintain a plain reading of the Catechism concludes that there are two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
Beginning with the question, the matter at hand is simple, "How many sacraments are there?" That is a general question. It doesn't presume any division in different types of sacraments or any such farce. It is asking how many sacraments, in total, the Church recognizes. The answer is, likewise, very simple. "Two only." The problem seems to arise from the failure to recognize the subordinate clause ", as generally necessary to salvation", which is an adjectival clause, describing "Two only." This means that we could remove the clause and the sentence would read just fine, i.e. "Two only, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord," which is fine. The clause was inserted to assert that the sacraments, i.e. baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are generally necessary to salvation, but not absolutely., i.e. like the thief on the Cross.
I will also give my linguistic interpretation of the Article in question as well (a theological interpretation is to follow below -- this portion deals specifically with the language). The sort of, "classic" Newman interpretation of this Article focuses on a supposed distinction between "Sacraments of the Gospel" and "other Sacraments." I don't believe there is sufficient evidence in the actual language of the text to come to a conclusion such as that. The Article, rather, seems to say that for a rite to be a Sacrament, it must be of the Gospel. As in other places, such as the Catechism, a Sacrament is defined in Anglican theology as a rite established by our Lord himself. Also a note about the words "commonly called", there has been commentary saying that this allows for the nomenclature of "Sacrament" with the other rites. There may be some veracity to say that these rites could be called "Sacraments" but that would be a bit of a misnomer. Actually, the language of this Article confirms that viewpoint, i.e. that these rites could be called Sacraments, and in fact have been called that, by the ancients, and even in the formularies ("By like holy promise the Sacrament of Matrimonie knitteth man and wife in perpetuall loue, that they desire not to be separated for any displeasure or aduersity that shall after happen" - Homily on swearing and perjury, published before the Articles of Religion, for consideration). However, the Article indicates that this is probably not the best name for them. It indicates this by the "commonly called" formula, which is used in the Prayer Book to acknowledge a popular term and then to either give a better or name or to explain why this is not such a good term. For instance, the Collect for Christmas says, "The Nativity of our Lord, or the Birth-day of Christ, Commonly called Christmas-Day," indicating that it is popularly called "Christmas" which si not wrong but there is a better way to describe it. A better example is Candlemas, "The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, Commonly Called, The Purification of Saint Mary the Virgin."
Historical
Historically, the interpretation proposed by Mr. Newman and the like of the Catechism makes no sense whatsoever. This portion of the Catechism is not to be found in the 1549, 1552, or 1559 Prayer Books. It was added in 1604 by Puritans to clarify the Church of England's teaching on the Sacraments. Now, one would wonder why on earth the Puritans would draft a statement supporting the Seven Sacraments. I can't think of any good reasons. Now, the statement can be interpreted like Mr. Newman says but to ignore the historical settings of a document is a poor way of interpreting a document.
Theological
I think the Anglican definition of what a sacrament is is clearly outlined in the formularies. It is an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace which was established by our Lord in the New Testament. Using this definition, only Baptism and the Lord's Supper can be counted as sacraments because they alone fulfill these qualifications. The question then arises, what are we to "do" with the other rites: confirmation, penance, orders, marriage, and anointing? The Anglican Churches are unique in their upholding these rites among Reformation Churches to such esteem, especially confirmation, which is retained as an episcopal rite, i.e. performed by Bishops.
From my research, which is limited I admit, I don't many pre-Tractarian writers classifying the rites as sacraments. However, there are a few individuals who did so. For instance, Jeremy Taylor classified confirmation as a sacramental rite. This to say that the consensus is not unanimous but it is striking. However, I think that the rites do have some sacramental quality, meaning that they convey grace in some sense but they do not meet the requirements of sacraments according to the formularies, so I will not refer to them as such. I'm comfortable with the terminology of "sacramental rite" but not "lesser sacrament". Maybe that is a bit nit-picky but I think that the former preserves the integrity of the theology of the formularies while acknowledging with the early church that the definition can be more expansive in some instances.
My conclusion is that saying there are seven sacraments says more about what one believes about the formularies than what one thinks about the five rites. Because the formularies are the defining marks of what Anglicanism is, it is important to maintain that there are two sacraments according to the definitions that our Churches give in the formularies. However, the other five rites are very important in the life of the Church and the Christian and God does work through them but they shouldn't be classified as sacraments because of the reasons enumerated above.
Anglican Witness
In a sort of post-script, I include some of the commentary on this matter from various authors. I only show here the "early" ones, i.e. before the Tracts (except Browne).
"The rites, therefore, that we understand when we speak of sacraments, are the constant federal rites of Christians, which are accompanied by a divine grace and benediction, being instituted by Christ to unite us to him, and to his church; and of such we own that there are two, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. In Baptism, there is matter, water; there is form, the person dipped or washed, with words, 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:' there is an institution, 'Go preach and baptize;' there is a federal sponsion, 'The answer of a good conscience;' there is a blessing conveyed with it, 'Baptism saves us;' there is 'one baptism, as there is one body and one spirit;' we are all baptized into one body.' So that here all the constituent and necessary parts of a sacrament are found in baptism. In the Lord's Supper, there is bread and wine for the matter. The giving it to be eat and drunk, with the words that our Saviour used in the first supper, are the form: 'Do this in remembrance of me,' is the institution. 'Ye shed forth the Lord's death till he comes again,' is the declaration of the federal act of our part: it is also the 'communion of the body and blood of Christ,' that is, the conveyance of the blessings of our partnership in the effects of the death of Christ. 'And we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread;' this shows the union of the church in this sacrament. Here then we have in these two sacraments, both matter, form, institution, federal acts, blessings conveyed, and the union of the body in them. All the characters which belong to a sacrament agree fully to them.
"In the next place we must, by these characters, examine the other pretended sacraments. It is no wonder if, the word sacrament being of a large extent, there should be some passages in ancient writers, that call other actions so besides Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for in a larger sense every holy rite may be so called" (Burnet 1699:350-351)
"It is plain that Christ instituted only two sacraments, to wit, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; for to these only doth the definition of a sacrament agree…The word sacrament is indeed used by the Fathers to signify almost every sacred rite, or every holy thing: but if that word be taken in a proper sense, for an outward sign of a covenant between God and men, instituted by God Himself, for a pledge of our justification, and a means of our sanctification, which is the ratio formal is, the constituent part of a sacrament, or that without which, properly speaking, it could not possibly be one; then those five must presently be excluded from the number of sacraments" (Welchman 1713:60).
"The sacraments acknowledged by the Church of England are, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; and these are federal acts… Baptism and the Lord's Supper were the only sacraments instituted by our Saviour; and for nearly twelve hundred years the Church sought and desired no others, content that Christ had done all things well. Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century, is the first who reckons seven sacraments, adding to those of Christ's institution five others, viz. confirmation, penance, orders, marriage, and extreme unction. Pope Eugenius the Sixth, about the middle of the fifteenth century, sanctioned this addition. The Council of Trent, in the following century, among its other deviations from the truth, declared these to be sacraments, and of equal obligation with Baptism and the Lord's Supper…." (O'Donnaghue 1816:213,214).
"Lombard saying, that baptism, confirmation, the blessing of bread, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, are sacraments of the New Testament; the papists have thence gathered, and ever since held, that there are seven sacraments instituted by Christ, truly and properly so called: insomuch that, in the council of Trent, they determined, that whosoever said there are more or less should be accursed. Now our church, not much fearing their course, hath here declared, that only two of them, to wit, baptism and the eucharist, are properly sacraments of the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so; not but that, as the word 'sacrament' was anciently used for any sacred sign or ceremony, it may, in some sense, be applied to these also; but, as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord's supper. They may call them sacraments if they please, but they are not such sacraments as baptism and the Lord's supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so called." (Beveridge 1830:461)
"As for the number of the sacraments (as we read in one of our homilies), if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. To these the church, from which we have separated, has added five more, viz. Confirmation, etc." (Pigot 1835:76)
"Are these five now commonly called sacraments?
-Not in the Church of England…
Why are not confirmation, etc. sacraments like Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
-Because they were not ordained by Christ Himself." (Beaven 1850:77)
And, to conclude, the moderate and well-stated, Browne,
"As for the number seven insisted on by the Church of Rome, we cannot find it in the writings of the fathers. Peter Lombard is said to have first devised it in the twelfth century, and from him it was adopted generally by the Schoolmen…The confessions of all the reformed Churches speak of but two Sacraments of the Gospel. {See Luther’s Catechismus Major, Opera, Tom. V. p. 636; Sylloge Confessionum, pp. 75, 127, 277, 349, 376.} In England, the Articles about Religion and the Necessary Doctrine, put forth in Henry VIIIth’s reign, in 1536 and 1543 respectively, retain the notion of seven Sacraments. Even the first book of Homilies, A. D. 1547, speaks of “the Sacrament of matrimony,” and that immediately after speaking of the “Sacrament of baptism”. {First Part of the Sermon of Swearing.} Cranmer’s Catechism speaks of three Sacraments as instituted by Christ, baptism, absolution, the Lord’s Supper. {Cranmer’s Catechism, p. 183. On the effect of Absolution, see p. 202.} But the final judgment of the reformed Church of England appears first in this Article; secondly, in the language of the Catechism where Sacraments are defined as outward signs of inward grace, “ordained by Christ Himself,” and are said to be “two only as generally necessary to salvation”; and thirdly, in the second book of Homilies the words of which are so much to the purpose that we may well refer to them here: “As for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two: namely, baptism and the Supper of the Lord. For, although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin; yet by the express word of the new Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the new Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible signs in baptism and the Lord’s Supper are: and therefore absolution is no such Sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath His visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sins, as all other Sacraments except the two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other Sacrament else, be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in general acceptation the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to anything, whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments; but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two fore-named Sacraments are. Dionysius, Bernard, de Coena Domini, et Ablut. pedum.” {Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments.}
In this passage we see clearly our own Church’s definition of a Sacrament, and the points of difference between ourselves and the Romish divines. The Homily defines a Sacrament of the Gospel to be “a visible sign expressly commended to us in the new Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins and of our holiness and joining in Christ.” This closely corresponds with the words of the Catechism: “An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same” spiritual grace, “and a pledge to assure us thereof.” And again, the definition of this XXVth Article is of similar significance: “Sacraments ordained of Christ be ... certain sure witnesses, and effectual (efficacia) signs of grace and God’s goodwill towards us by the which He doth work invisibly in us.”
Now this definition does not exclude matrimony, confirmation, absolution, and orders, from being in some sense Sacraments; but it excludes them from being “such Sacraments as baptism and the Communion.” No other ordinances but baptism and Communion have an express sign ordained by Christ Himself, and annexed thereto the promise of free forgiveness of sins,” and “of inward and spiritual grace given to us.” Therefore these have clearly a preeminence over all other ordinances, and may therefore κατ εξοχην be called Sacraments of the Gospel ; being also the only ordinances which are “ generally necessary to salvation.”
Sources (thanks to Prydain)
An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Bp. Gilbert Burnet (1699, although this revision by James R. Page is dated 1842)
The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Archdeacon Edward Welchman (1713 or shortly after that, although this reprint is dated 1842)
A Familiar and Practical Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion - the Rev. H.C. O’Donnoghue, A.M. (1816)
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England – William Wilson, B.D. (1821)
An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Bp. William Beveridge (1830)
The Churchman’s Guide in Perilous Times, – the Rev. Thomas Pigot, A.M. (1835)
A Catechism on the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – the Rev. James Beaven, D.D. (1850)
Sources (thanks to Prydain)
An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Bp. Gilbert Burnet (1699, although this revision by James R. Page is dated 1842)
The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Archdeacon Edward Welchman (1713 or shortly after that, although this reprint is dated 1842)
A Familiar and Practical Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion - the Rev. H.C. O’Donnoghue, A.M. (1816)
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England – William Wilson, B.D. (1821)
An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – Bp. William Beveridge (1830)
The Churchman’s Guide in Perilous Times, – the Rev. Thomas Pigot, A.M. (1835)
A Catechism on the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England – the Rev. James Beaven, D.D. (1850)
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Anglo-Catholicism and the Ghettoization of Catholicity in the Anglican Churches
A thought has been in my mind since finishing a book called "The Catholic Movement in the American Episcopal Church" by George DeMille. This book chronicles the "Catholic" Movement in the Protestant Episcopal Church, as per the title. The "Catholic" Movement meaning the theology of the Oxford Movement, or Tractarianism, usually coupled with the ritual of the Cambridge Camden Movement or Ritualism. Readers of this blog will be familiar with both of those movements but for new readers, I attempt to offer a brief summary of each.
The Oxford Movement began in 1833 with John Keble's sermon "National Apostasy". Keble and others were concerned with the state's interference in the life of the Church (in this case by reducing the number of Irish archbishoprics). A group of men, gathered together and began to publish tracts promoting their views. These views were promoted as novel in the life of the Church of England. The ideas they presented were presented in contrast to a certain form of Erastianism which denied the Church any other role than as a sort of spiritual department of the state. The Tractarians, as they were called, sought to "recover" the Catholic nature of the Church of England, which they believed had been destroyed through years of rationalism and latitudinarianism of the the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Oxford Movement promoted doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, and other doctrines.
The Oxford Movement was not originally concerned with ritual or ceremonial, for instance, Newman celebrated in surplice and tippet at the north end until he became a Roman. However, as certain doctrines were adopted, the ceremonial of the English Church did not match the doctrinal views being held by those priests promoting the Tractarian doctrines. The Cambridge Camden Society began to apply the doctrines of the Oxford Movement via rival and ceremonial in 1839 or thereabouts. They reached back to the Middle Ages to find accompanying ceremonial and ritual to accommodate Tractarian theology. It was this movement that brought back the Eucharistic vestments, stone altars, tabernacles, aumbries, lights, incense, and other practices generally associated with Anglicanism nowadays but absent from it until the Ritualistic movement.
These two movements led to Anglo-Catholicism which is referred to in DeMille's book as the "Catholic Movement". Now, here is where my concern lies. The "Catholic" Movement undermines the catholicity of the Anglican Churches, by nature, and, I believe, has worked to destroy it.
First, the Anglo-Catholic movement sought to "recover" the Catholic nature of the Church because of a (faulty) view that it had been lost. (However, readers of this blog will know this to be untrue, see the "Compendium" for posts on various aspects of pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship, which spanned from the Reformation until after the Oxford Movement). By adopting an ideology of recovery, Anglo-Catholicism has changed the understanding of catholicity in the Anglican tradition to make it impossible for "normal" Anglicans to be catholic by default. In other words, Anglicanism had a built in understanding of catholicity, which assumed that all Anglican Churches were reformed Catholic Churches. That is to say that the Church of England is a part of the Catholic Church, that part residing in England. All its parishes are reformed Catholic parishes, in that they are part of that ancient, Catholic Church of England. What Anglo-Catholicism has done is to say that English parishes are not Catholic by nature of being part of the Church of England but that they must meet some other standard of catholicity, be it wearing Eucharistic vestments, adopting a certain theology of bishops, using lights on the altar, etc. I call this the "ghettoization of catholicity" or perhaps more properly a robbery of catholicity. By nature, a "Catholic Church" cannot have a "Catholic party". To make Catholicism a party matter is to trivialize it to the point of identifying it with ceremonial. If you were to ask a Laudian what an "Anglo-Catholic" were (even though the term wasn't used then), I assume their answer would be that it would be a parish that has been reformed from Roman errors and free from Puritan innovations which is part of the reformed Catholic Church of England, adhering to the ancient catholic faith as contained in the Holy Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and formularies of the Church. If you were to ask a modern Englishmen what an "Anglo-Catholic" is, I imagine he would say that it is some place that adheres to Roman theology, has nice vestments or chants a lot of the service, perhaps. To me, this is to trivialize the catholicity of the Church and does nothing to improve the Catholic nature of our Churches.
Second, the Anglo-Catholic definition of catholicity, I believe, clashes with the definition of catholicity as found in the formularies. I believe that Article XIX of the Articles of Religion defines catholicity, according to the Anglican tradition:
The catholicity of the Church is defined by its adherence to the faith of the Fathers, as defined by Scripture, not by adherence to medieval ceremonial or the edicts of the Pope. Any attempt to alter that definition of catholicity is not an attempt to "renew" it but to trivialize it or worse, to destroy it.
The Oxford Movement began in 1833 with John Keble's sermon "National Apostasy". Keble and others were concerned with the state's interference in the life of the Church (in this case by reducing the number of Irish archbishoprics). A group of men, gathered together and began to publish tracts promoting their views. These views were promoted as novel in the life of the Church of England. The ideas they presented were presented in contrast to a certain form of Erastianism which denied the Church any other role than as a sort of spiritual department of the state. The Tractarians, as they were called, sought to "recover" the Catholic nature of the Church of England, which they believed had been destroyed through years of rationalism and latitudinarianism of the the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Oxford Movement promoted doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, and other doctrines.
The Oxford Movement was not originally concerned with ritual or ceremonial, for instance, Newman celebrated in surplice and tippet at the north end until he became a Roman. However, as certain doctrines were adopted, the ceremonial of the English Church did not match the doctrinal views being held by those priests promoting the Tractarian doctrines. The Cambridge Camden Society began to apply the doctrines of the Oxford Movement via rival and ceremonial in 1839 or thereabouts. They reached back to the Middle Ages to find accompanying ceremonial and ritual to accommodate Tractarian theology. It was this movement that brought back the Eucharistic vestments, stone altars, tabernacles, aumbries, lights, incense, and other practices generally associated with Anglicanism nowadays but absent from it until the Ritualistic movement.
These two movements led to Anglo-Catholicism which is referred to in DeMille's book as the "Catholic Movement". Now, here is where my concern lies. The "Catholic" Movement undermines the catholicity of the Anglican Churches, by nature, and, I believe, has worked to destroy it.
First, the Anglo-Catholic movement sought to "recover" the Catholic nature of the Church because of a (faulty) view that it had been lost. (However, readers of this blog will know this to be untrue, see the "Compendium" for posts on various aspects of pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship, which spanned from the Reformation until after the Oxford Movement). By adopting an ideology of recovery, Anglo-Catholicism has changed the understanding of catholicity in the Anglican tradition to make it impossible for "normal" Anglicans to be catholic by default. In other words, Anglicanism had a built in understanding of catholicity, which assumed that all Anglican Churches were reformed Catholic Churches. That is to say that the Church of England is a part of the Catholic Church, that part residing in England. All its parishes are reformed Catholic parishes, in that they are part of that ancient, Catholic Church of England. What Anglo-Catholicism has done is to say that English parishes are not Catholic by nature of being part of the Church of England but that they must meet some other standard of catholicity, be it wearing Eucharistic vestments, adopting a certain theology of bishops, using lights on the altar, etc. I call this the "ghettoization of catholicity" or perhaps more properly a robbery of catholicity. By nature, a "Catholic Church" cannot have a "Catholic party". To make Catholicism a party matter is to trivialize it to the point of identifying it with ceremonial. If you were to ask a Laudian what an "Anglo-Catholic" were (even though the term wasn't used then), I assume their answer would be that it would be a parish that has been reformed from Roman errors and free from Puritan innovations which is part of the reformed Catholic Church of England, adhering to the ancient catholic faith as contained in the Holy Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and formularies of the Church. If you were to ask a modern Englishmen what an "Anglo-Catholic" is, I imagine he would say that it is some place that adheres to Roman theology, has nice vestments or chants a lot of the service, perhaps. To me, this is to trivialize the catholicity of the Church and does nothing to improve the Catholic nature of our Churches.
Second, the Anglo-Catholic definition of catholicity, I believe, clashes with the definition of catholicity as found in the formularies. I believe that Article XIX of the Articles of Religion defines catholicity, according to the Anglican tradition:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.In this system, catholicity is defined in doctrinal terms, meaning that "catholic" refers to adhering to the faith "once delivered to the saints" as contained in Scripture, and by their agreement with the same, the Creeds, Councils, and Formularies of the Church. Therefore, the Church of England is Catholic because of the Reformation not in spite of it. Anglo-Catholicism turns to the Middle Ages to validate its "catholicism" while Anglicanism turns to the Scriptures to validate its catholicity.
The catholicity of the Church is defined by its adherence to the faith of the Fathers, as defined by Scripture, not by adherence to medieval ceremonial or the edicts of the Pope. Any attempt to alter that definition of catholicity is not an attempt to "renew" it but to trivialize it or worse, to destroy it.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Anglican Myths 5: Via Media
This myth constitutes a very popular idea in modern, Anglican "apologetics". If I were a betting man, I would bet that anyone who has converted to the Episcopal Church or realignment Anglican bodies has heard this phrase, probably in the newcomers' class.
The via media theory states that Anglicanism is neither purely Protestant nor purely Catholic (in the Roman sense) but some sort of "middle way" between the two systems. Usually the term is used to state that the Anglican Churches have maintained the best of Protestantism and the best of Romanism. The rhetoric also includes a moderateness whereby Anglicans rejected the extremes of these other systems and instead opted for this middle way. For an example, here's the Wiki entry on Anglicanism:
That's right the via media theory begins with John Henry Newman. The iconic Tractarian and convert to Roman Catholicism. Newman invented this phrase to accommodate his theological views in the Church of England, when the formularies clearly rejected them. He later recanted this idea, stating that it was a dream, and converted to Rome. One wonders why we are continuing to use a theological idea that was created in the 19th century by a man whose loyalty to Anglicanism was questionable at best (during his time in the Church of England) and who later disproved the idea and converted to Rome.
Now, because I am saying that the via media is garbage doesn't mean that I am saying that the Anglican Churches are not Catholic. Let me briefly explain the real meaning of that term. The Church of England and her daughter Churches claim to be Catholic. That is not due to proximity to the doctrines of Rome or Constantinople but because, at the Reformation, the doctrines of the early Church were recovered and the innovations of the Middle Ages were removed from the Church. The Church of England is a Reformed Church and due to that is a Catholic Church. The two terms are synonyms, to be Reformed is to be Catholic, by nature, and vice versa.
The via media theory states that Anglicanism is neither purely Protestant nor purely Catholic (in the Roman sense) but some sort of "middle way" between the two systems. Usually the term is used to state that the Anglican Churches have maintained the best of Protestantism and the best of Romanism. The rhetoric also includes a moderateness whereby Anglicans rejected the extremes of these other systems and instead opted for this middle way. For an example, here's the Wiki entry on Anglicanism:
Now, I'm going to show a few quotes from the Articles of Religion and the reader can decide whether or not the Anglican Reformers wanted anything to do with Romanism.
Anglicanism, in its structures, theology and forms of worship, is commonly understood as a distinct Christian tradition representing a middle ground between what are perceived to be the extremes of the claims of 16th century Roman Catholicism and the Lutheran and Reformed varieties of Protestantism of that era. As such, it is often referred to as being a via media (or "middle way") between these traditions.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.Mind you this is not an exhaustive list, only the explicit mentions of the Roman Church in the Articles of Religion. This strong denunciation of Roman doctrine continued after the Reformation. The Caroline Divines were firmly against Roman innovation in doctrinal matters. Even into the 18th and 19th centuries, Anglican consensus was strongly against Romanism. The real change begins to happen in the Oxford Movement (but also just before with Alexander Knox -- who espouses justification by infusion). The Oxford Movement began as a movement to take seriously the catholic nature of the Church of England but ended up destroying that Church in the short-term and long-term.
That's right the via media theory begins with John Henry Newman. The iconic Tractarian and convert to Roman Catholicism. Newman invented this phrase to accommodate his theological views in the Church of England, when the formularies clearly rejected them. He later recanted this idea, stating that it was a dream, and converted to Rome. One wonders why we are continuing to use a theological idea that was created in the 19th century by a man whose loyalty to Anglicanism was questionable at best (during his time in the Church of England) and who later disproved the idea and converted to Rome.
Now, because I am saying that the via media is garbage doesn't mean that I am saying that the Anglican Churches are not Catholic. Let me briefly explain the real meaning of that term. The Church of England and her daughter Churches claim to be Catholic. That is not due to proximity to the doctrines of Rome or Constantinople but because, at the Reformation, the doctrines of the early Church were recovered and the innovations of the Middle Ages were removed from the Church. The Church of England is a Reformed Church and due to that is a Catholic Church. The two terms are synonyms, to be Reformed is to be Catholic, by nature, and vice versa.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Anglican Myths 4: Calvinism
This will be a shorter post but I wanted to put something out there as I work on more "meatier" myths (pardon the alliteration).
This post seeks to address the myth that Calvinism is somehow antithetical to historic, classical Anglicanism. First, an issue which I think needs to be addressed before diving into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. All of the Reformers (to my knowledge) were firmly in the Augustinian tradition, meaning that they viewed the salvation of man as a divine act caused by his predestination. I'm not going to go much further than that because I'm not a theologian by trade and I haven't' studied other Reformation traditions sufficiently to comment on the peculiarities of their belief. This sets the framework for the discussion, to know that the Reformation tradition is (or was, rather) strongly predestinarian.
Here is the portion of the Articles of Religion which deals with the subject of predestination:
I see here a strong declaration of a predestinarian understanding of God's role in human salvation. Some have argued that this statement is vague and allows both Arminian and Calvinist positions to be held. I don't particularly see that in the statement but due to the long Arminian position in the Church of England, I think both positions are acceptable (but please do not debate this -- the issue is whether or not Calvinism is permissible). The statement is not clear on the issue of single or double predestination in my view.
Having set the stage, so to speak, we must consider the relationship of the Church of England to other Reformed bodies on the Continent, both relationally and theologically.
First, relationally, while I cannot speak to this in great detail, I will comment briefly, perhaps enough to pique your interest. The Church of England had good relationships with the Continental Reformers, both during and after the Reformation (up until a certain point). The Continental Reformers also had a great influence on the English Reformation, especially Bucer, who offered his suggestions on how to revise the 1549 Book, which eventually led to the 1552 (and subsequently the 1662). Peter Martyr was also an influential Reformer who taught in England by invitation from Cranmer. The English Reformers did not attach the episcopacy to the very essence of the Church and never "unchurched" other Reformed Churches. Likewise, even the Laudians, who held to a "higher" understanding of the episcopacy, maintained that the Reformed and Lutheran Churches were valid Churches and their sacraments equally valid. This all to say that the Church of England enjoyed a good and warm relationship with the Reformed Churches of the Continent.
Doctrinally though, they also shared much in common with the Reformed Churches. First, the Church of England shared all the core, Protestant distinctives, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc. The Church of England is also predestinarian in its formularies (although there was a divergence at Dordt -- more below). The Church of England also accepted Reformed, sacramental theology as well. I have written on this subject throughout this blog in various locations so I will not post on that here. Doctrinally, the Church of England is a Reformed Church, in fact, it's an established Reformed Church by law in England. The real difference between the Church of England and the other Reformed Churches has to do with worship and ceremony. The Church of England adopted the normative approach to Scripture, thus allowing things that were not found in Scripture but which were not contrary to it, such as the surplice, wedding ring, sign of the cross at baptism, kneeling to receive Communion, etc. The Reformed Churches follow the regulative principle which requires that worship practices be directly mandated by Scripture, hence they tend to reject these things. It is said that the divide between Puritan and Laudian was ceremony not theology.
I say all of these things not to say that Calvinism is implied by the formularies in the Church -- I think the canons of Dordt go beyond what the Articles require as belief. The point of this myth is to expose another problem with the core identity of the Anglican Churches. The notion that the Anglican Churches are not in some sense Reformed (in the "big R" kind of way) is historically false and to deny that reveals a revisionism. In the latter half of the 19th century, the Protestant nature of the Church was ignored (and I would argue the Catholic nature too -- but I digress) in favor of medieval ceremony and unreformed doctrine. Coupled with this was historical revisionism, which sought to deny the Protestant nature of the Church.
I hope this sparks interest in your mind to embark on your own journey to read and study our history.
This post seeks to address the myth that Calvinism is somehow antithetical to historic, classical Anglicanism. First, an issue which I think needs to be addressed before diving into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. All of the Reformers (to my knowledge) were firmly in the Augustinian tradition, meaning that they viewed the salvation of man as a divine act caused by his predestination. I'm not going to go much further than that because I'm not a theologian by trade and I haven't' studied other Reformation traditions sufficiently to comment on the peculiarities of their belief. This sets the framework for the discussion, to know that the Reformation tradition is (or was, rather) strongly predestinarian.
Here is the portion of the Articles of Religion which deals with the subject of predestination:
XVII. Of Predestination and Election.Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
I see here a strong declaration of a predestinarian understanding of God's role in human salvation. Some have argued that this statement is vague and allows both Arminian and Calvinist positions to be held. I don't particularly see that in the statement but due to the long Arminian position in the Church of England, I think both positions are acceptable (but please do not debate this -- the issue is whether or not Calvinism is permissible). The statement is not clear on the issue of single or double predestination in my view.
Having set the stage, so to speak, we must consider the relationship of the Church of England to other Reformed bodies on the Continent, both relationally and theologically.
First, relationally, while I cannot speak to this in great detail, I will comment briefly, perhaps enough to pique your interest. The Church of England had good relationships with the Continental Reformers, both during and after the Reformation (up until a certain point). The Continental Reformers also had a great influence on the English Reformation, especially Bucer, who offered his suggestions on how to revise the 1549 Book, which eventually led to the 1552 (and subsequently the 1662). Peter Martyr was also an influential Reformer who taught in England by invitation from Cranmer. The English Reformers did not attach the episcopacy to the very essence of the Church and never "unchurched" other Reformed Churches. Likewise, even the Laudians, who held to a "higher" understanding of the episcopacy, maintained that the Reformed and Lutheran Churches were valid Churches and their sacraments equally valid. This all to say that the Church of England enjoyed a good and warm relationship with the Reformed Churches of the Continent.
Doctrinally though, they also shared much in common with the Reformed Churches. First, the Church of England shared all the core, Protestant distinctives, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc. The Church of England is also predestinarian in its formularies (although there was a divergence at Dordt -- more below). The Church of England also accepted Reformed, sacramental theology as well. I have written on this subject throughout this blog in various locations so I will not post on that here. Doctrinally, the Church of England is a Reformed Church, in fact, it's an established Reformed Church by law in England. The real difference between the Church of England and the other Reformed Churches has to do with worship and ceremony. The Church of England adopted the normative approach to Scripture, thus allowing things that were not found in Scripture but which were not contrary to it, such as the surplice, wedding ring, sign of the cross at baptism, kneeling to receive Communion, etc. The Reformed Churches follow the regulative principle which requires that worship practices be directly mandated by Scripture, hence they tend to reject these things. It is said that the divide between Puritan and Laudian was ceremony not theology.
I say all of these things not to say that Calvinism is implied by the formularies in the Church -- I think the canons of Dordt go beyond what the Articles require as belief. The point of this myth is to expose another problem with the core identity of the Anglican Churches. The notion that the Anglican Churches are not in some sense Reformed (in the "big R" kind of way) is historically false and to deny that reveals a revisionism. In the latter half of the 19th century, the Protestant nature of the Church was ignored (and I would argue the Catholic nature too -- but I digress) in favor of medieval ceremony and unreformed doctrine. Coupled with this was historical revisionism, which sought to deny the Protestant nature of the Church.
I hope this sparks interest in your mind to embark on your own journey to read and study our history.
Friday, July 6, 2012
The Episcopal Church is not a Hierarchical Church
The Hackney Hub feels the need to address an issue (which I have written about before) but especially in hearing the news that nine bishops in the Episcopal Church have been charged with misconduct due to their involvement in an amicus curiae motion in a Texas court (the case is a bit more complicated but I am no legal expert), including my diocesan bishop, William Love. Besides the topic of this post, I will briefly comment that it is beyond my understanding how anyone could bring charges against these bishops. They have expressly and openly declared their intent to stay in the Episcopal Church, despite the (now blatantly) obvious prejudice, hatred, and persecution against them. I add a personal note that I don't even think Satan himself could discourage Bill Love in his Christian faith and witness. Having a personal respect and admiration of my godly bishop, I say, shame on these anonymous persons who have brought these Title IV complaints against these bishops, not only will you have to testify against the saintliness of these men but also against the wrath of God Almighty who protects his shepherds against cowards like you.
In regards to the subject matter, it is plainly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church or the English language that the Episcopal Church is purposely not a hierarchical Church, in the sense of a hierarchical Church such as that of our mother Church of England. The Episcopal Church is obviously a "hierarchical" Church in some sense, in contrast to a Congregational Church, for example. The debate is over whether the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical Church in the historic, Western understanding of hierarchical ecclesiology. The Episcopal Church is a Church of dioceses. The Episcopal Church is governed by bishops, as in our title. The Episcopal Church is a voluntary association of dioceses united by a general convention. This is evident in the history, such as the founding of our Church and in our Constitution and Canons. For example, General Convention does not create dioceses, it admits them to union with Convention. Bishops are not appointed to our dioceses, they are elected by our dioceses (only with the consent of the other Bishops and Deputies). In respect to metropolitical authority, our Church has none. Metropolitical authority, or the idea that some bishops have authority over other bishops, was explicitly rejected by the Protestant Episcopal Church by the adoption of a presiding bishop, after the practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which elects a Primus, from the Latin, primes inter pares. The Presiding Bishop has no metropolitical authority in the sense that the Archbishop of Canterbury does. No bishop swears allegiance to him. The purpose of that office is to preside (imagine that!) over the House of Bishops, much as the President presides over the House of Deputies. In addition, the Presiding Bishop has sacramental duties to be the chief consecrator of bishops in the Church and make visitations to the Dioceses. The idea that the Presiding Bishops is some sort of archbishop is clearly against the plain intentions of our founding fathers and against the Constitution and Canons.
This "authority" the Presiding Bishop believes herself to have is paper thin, manufactured out of the evil desires of her own heart and, because of this lack of foundation, will come crashing down. Hopefully, for her sake, in this life, so that she may have a chance to repent of her heresies and persecution of the people of God.
In regards to the subject matter, it is plainly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church or the English language that the Episcopal Church is purposely not a hierarchical Church, in the sense of a hierarchical Church such as that of our mother Church of England. The Episcopal Church is obviously a "hierarchical" Church in some sense, in contrast to a Congregational Church, for example. The debate is over whether the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical Church in the historic, Western understanding of hierarchical ecclesiology. The Episcopal Church is a Church of dioceses. The Episcopal Church is governed by bishops, as in our title. The Episcopal Church is a voluntary association of dioceses united by a general convention. This is evident in the history, such as the founding of our Church and in our Constitution and Canons. For example, General Convention does not create dioceses, it admits them to union with Convention. Bishops are not appointed to our dioceses, they are elected by our dioceses (only with the consent of the other Bishops and Deputies). In respect to metropolitical authority, our Church has none. Metropolitical authority, or the idea that some bishops have authority over other bishops, was explicitly rejected by the Protestant Episcopal Church by the adoption of a presiding bishop, after the practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which elects a Primus, from the Latin, primes inter pares. The Presiding Bishop has no metropolitical authority in the sense that the Archbishop of Canterbury does. No bishop swears allegiance to him. The purpose of that office is to preside (imagine that!) over the House of Bishops, much as the President presides over the House of Deputies. In addition, the Presiding Bishop has sacramental duties to be the chief consecrator of bishops in the Church and make visitations to the Dioceses. The idea that the Presiding Bishops is some sort of archbishop is clearly against the plain intentions of our founding fathers and against the Constitution and Canons.
This "authority" the Presiding Bishop believes herself to have is paper thin, manufactured out of the evil desires of her own heart and, because of this lack of foundation, will come crashing down. Hopefully, for her sake, in this life, so that she may have a chance to repent of her heresies and persecution of the people of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)