The liturgical provision for...

Archbishop Cranmer complained:

the manifold changings of the Service [in the pre-Reformation liturgies], was the cause, that to turn the Book only was so hard and intricate a matter, that many times there was more business to find out what should be read, than to read it when it was found out.

The Book of Common Prayer, Concerning the service of the church, page ix

It took more time or trouble to work out what you were supposed to be reading than to read it!

A bad argument

(1) Some Roman Catholics are bad or wicked or dangerous or wrong in some ways or something like that

(2) Some Roman Catolics use incense

(3) Therefore we must not use incense

Now, leave aside what you think about (1) for a moment. Just note that if were to grant this it would also prove:

(2a) Some Roman Catholics preach sermons using Bible texts

(3a) Therefore we must not preach (sermons using Bible texts).

As I said, a bad argument.

REAL

Classically the Church of England is Reformed and Evangelical. The historical formularies of the C of E unmistakably take such a position. But there is great (and not so great!) variety within Anglicanism today and much confusion about what it means to be an Anglican - not to mention what it means to be Reformed or Evangelical!

For these and other reasons, The Church Society's new Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library, edited by Rev'd Lee Gatiss is to be welcomed. They've kicked off with some Whitefield and I look forward to seeing what the subsequent publications will be.

The miracle of assurance

Although I reckon he was mistaken, I was interested to learn that William Cunningham thought that the Reformers' assurance of salvation was a special grace given to them to witness for Christ in a specially difficult situation and not normative for Christians.

William Cunningham, 'The Reformers and the Doctrine of Assurance' in The Reformers and the Reformation (Banner of Truth, 1862, repr. 1967) p113 cited in Maclean, Lord's Supper, p163

Lay Presidency

A friend sent me this interesting article: ‘Lay Administration’ and the Sixteenth Century
Churchman 113/4 1999 by Robert C Doyle

News to me: Luther does seem to countenance the minister devolving the right to celebrate the mass to others, doesn't he? (pp2-3)

The sure mark by which the Christian congregation can be recognized is that the pure
gospel is preached there. For just as the banner of an army is the sure sign by which one
can know what kind of lord and army have taken to the field, so, too, the gospel is the
sure sign by which one knows where Christ and his army are encamped. We have the
sure promise of this from God in Isaiah 55 [vv 10-1 II, ‘My word’ (God says) ‘that goes
forth from my mouth shall not return to me; rather, as the rain falls, from heaven to earth,
making it fruitful, so shall my word also accomplish everything for which I sent it.’ ...2 in
this matter of judging teachings and appointing or dismissing teachers or pastors, one
should not care at all about human statutes, law, old precedent, usage, custom, etc even if
they were instituted by pope or emperor, prince or bishop, if one half of the whole world
accepted them, or if they lasted one year or a thousand years. For the soul of man is
something eternal, and more important than every temporal thing. That is why it must be
ruled and seized only by the eternal word; for ... Human words and teaching instituted and decreed that only bishops,
scholars, and councils should he allowed to judge doctrine.... The ordinary Christian is supposed
to await their judgment and obey it ... Christ institutes the very opposite. He takes both the right
and power to judge teaching from the bishops, scholars, and councils and gives them to everyone
and to all Christians equally when he says, John 10 [v 10], ‘My sheep know my voice’. Again,
‘My sheep do not follow strangers, but flee from them, for they do not know the voice of
strangers’.

...

Therefore, whoever has the office of preaching imposed on him has the highest office in
Christendom imposed on them. Afterward he may also baptize, celebrate mass, and
exercise all pastoral care; or, if he does not wish to do so, he may confine himself to
preaching and leave baptizing and other lower offices to others - as Christ and all his
apostles did, Acts 4 [6:4].

Nevertheless, Luther is still talking about people being appointed to offices.... I'd like to read more of him on the subject.

The Tyndale quote later on is interesting too (p8).

‘They will haply demand where it is written, that women should baptize? Verily, in this commandment, “Love thy neighbour as
thyself”, it is written
that they may and ought to minister not only baptism, but all other sacraments also in time of
need, if they be so necessary as they preach them.’

I haven't read the whole article in detail and I fear he might be over egging the pudding when he says that "the evangelical Reformers were not unsupportive of lay people administering the sacraments". But I think the basic point that for the Reformed the question is not whether it is possible for a lay person to celebrate the Lord's Supper but whether it is appropriate is important.

I can see that lay presidency might be practically helpful and might de-spookify Communion helpfully but I'm not inclined to advocate for it because:

(1) I think it tends to undermine the connection between the authorised ministry of the Word and Sacrament
(2) It weakens the possibility of church discipline which is connected to excommunication
(3) It undermines the special role and office of the Presbyter which in any case is in a bad way in our circles
(4) It is a departure from the mainline practice of the catholic church and might harm church unity when there are more important battles to fight
(5) Limiting presidency to the ordained is a way of preserving good order

However, I grant that one could imagine ways of off-setting some of these issues and finding helpful orderly ways of regulating lay presidency.

Maybe helpful alternatives would be fewer small and declining congregations or more Presbyters?

Top 33 Preaching Topics

I wonder how our preaching priorities compare to the topics covered in the sermon in The Books of Homilies?

This nicked from Wikipedia:

The 'Former Book' of homilies contains twelve sermons and was mainly written by Cranmer. They focus strongly upon the character of God and Justification by Faith and were fully published by 1547.

The homilies are:

I. A Fruitful exhortation to the reading of holy Scripture.

II. Of the misery of all mankind.

III. Of the salvation of all mankind.

IV. Of the true and lively faith.

V. Of good works.

VI. Of Christian love and charity.

VII. Against swearing and perjury.

VIII. Of the declining from GOD.

IX. An exhortation against the fear of death.

X. An exhortation to obedience.

XI. Against whoredom and adultery.

XII. Against strife and contention.

The 'Second Book' contains twenty-one sermons and was mainly written by Bishop John Jewel. It was fully published by 1571. These are more practical in their application and focus more on living the Christian life.

This volume includes:

I. Of the right use of the Church.

II. Against peril of Idolatry.

III. For repairing and keeping clean the Church.

IIII. Of good works. And first of Fasting.

V. Against gluttony and drunkenness.

VI. Against excess of apparel.

VII. An homily of Prayer.

VIII. Of the place and time of Prayer.

IX. Of Common Prayer and Sacraments

X. An information of them which take offence at certain places of holy Scripture.

XI. Of alms deeds.

XII. Of the Nativity.

XIII. Of the Passion for good Friday.

XIIII. Of the Resurrection for Easter day.

XV. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament.

XVI. An Homily concerning the coming down of the holy Ghost, for Whitsunday.

XVII. An Homily for Rogation week.

XVIII. Of the state of Matrimony.

XIX. Against Idleness.

XX. Of Repentance and true Reconciliation unto God.

XXI. An Homily against disobedience and wilful rebellion.

A flavour of Nevin on anti-sacramental rationalism

I’ve been reading Mathison’s account of Nevin’s attacks on what Nevin calls “the modern Puritan theory of the sacraments” (which he associates with Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins, Joseph Bellamy, Timothy Dwight), in contrast to the traditional Reformed Doctrine. Nevin links this new view to the rationalistic sacramental views of the Socinains, the Arminians and the German rationalists. I’m not quite sure what all this is on about, to be honest, but I thought it rang bells!

Nevin argues the rationalistic tendency has worked itself out in sectarianism and schism. There may be religious pretention, an emphasis on the personal and experimental, the spiritual, excitement and action. It may be fanatical and wild in opposing outward forms and the existing order of the church. Rationalism is subjective, opposed to the idea of the Church and the authority of history exalting independent private judgement. The objective is rejected in favour of the supposedly inward. Ritual and forms are despised for the sake of spirit. The sacraments are mere outward rites. Their necessity is not clear. The soul is abstracted from the body. There is a defection from the doctrine of the Reformation.

See Nevin, Mystical Presence, esp. ch 2, pp107 ish – 153 and Mathison, Given for You, pp143-145

Most discussed subject in Reformation

Keith Mathison, Given For You (P&R, 2002):

One of the most interesting phenomena that one encounters when comparing the writings of the sixteenth-century with the writings of their twentieth-century heirs is the different amount of attention devoted to the Lord’s Supper. The Reformers devoted volumes of books, letters, tracts, and sermons to the subject. The sixteenth century was a time of heated controversy over such crucial doctrines as the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone, yet the doctrine that was discussed more often than any other was that of the Lord’s Supper. In our own day, however, the Lord’s Supper is rarely the subject of books or sermons. (p.xv)

Zwingli’s own strictly memorialist view was generally disowned by the Reformed churches and confessions of the sixteenth century. However, from the seventeenth century onward, it has gradually become the dominant view in the Reformed church. (p.xvi)

The New Perspective on Paul

Some of the comments I made below regarding the so-called Federal Vision (FV) could equally be made about the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP) with which FV has sometimes been associated.

We must distinguish between E. P. Sanders, Jimmy Dunn, Tom Wright and others, and them and FVers.

I hold firmly to, preach and regularly defend the Reformation and post-Reformation "sola"s of salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone and to sola Scriptura, but I think there are things to learn from NPP, not least a more corporate understanding of salvation.

Go for the corporate and you get the individual thrown in. Stick with the individual and you may never get the corporate.

We may also distinguish:

(1) What Paul meant

(2) What Luther said

And debate whether or not (2) necessarily follows from (1). I think it does! But Luther was not Paul.

There is some value in trying the read Paul as a Jew against the background of Second Temple Judaism with reference to Inter-testamental and 1st Century literarture. But in so doing, no one need sell out on the Reformation, go over to Rome or give up on the gospel.

Solo Scriptura

I saw this soundbite on a comment on Daniel Newman's blog by rjs1 and rather liked it:

"Sola Sriptura not solo scriptura".

I've no idea how it mangles the Latin tongue but I think it makes a good point.

It reminds me of an article by Prof Tony Lane in which he points out that even "sola scriptura" is a post-reformation slogan.

The reformers believed in the supreme final authority and unique infalibility of Scripture. They did not believe in hyper-strict version of "Scripture Alone". They accepted other lesser sources of "authority" (such as reason, tradition etc.) in addition to the Bible and knew that Scripture could never be understood strictly "alone" for example, apart from the illuminating work of the Spirit or an understanding of the language in which Holy Writ is writ.

Anglican & Reformed RP

(With a nod in the direction of John Frame's excellent article...)

The common perception is that there is a stark and unbridgeable difference between Anglicanism and Calvinism with regard to the Regulative Principle of Public Worship, but this need not be so. This shows how some Puritans could for a time continue to operate within the Church of England. Anglicans are generally thought to hold that “what is not forbidden is permitted” in public worship whereas the Reformed tend to think that “what is not required is forbidden”. This thesis argues along with John Frame that a form of the Regulative Principle can be retained and (going further than Frame) that it is compatible with Anglicanism, once it is realized how God regulates public worship, and indeed the whole of life. Once one is committed to the sufficiency of Scripture and sees the whole Bible as regulating by examples and patterns rather than just by New Testament commands, one has moved significantly from some strict and narrow Reformed understandings of the Regulative Principle. If there is no neutrality, the Bible, rightly understood, must tell us how to make all decisions, including those about public worship and sometimes using sources and instruments other than Scripture itself (such as tradition, reason and experience). Calvin was willing to appeal to “natural reason”, for example, in arguing that prayers should be in a language people can understand. This is consistent with the Reformation principle of the supreme final authority of Scripture which should not be absolutised into a crude form of sola scriptura, as if nothing else need be considered. If Scripture gives examples of men rightly inventing festivals (such as the Feast of Purim in Esther 9) and encourages the making of wise decisions, one has embraced both a form of the Regulative Principle and of the Anglican principle.

'The Necessity of Reforming the Church'

I’ve spent my day with John Calvin’s treatise of this name, which would make good reading for Anglicans today and especially for (would-be) ministers. Its available in the Library of Christian Classics series in Calvin’s Theological Treatises. Here’s the subtitle:

A Humble Exhortation to the most invincible Emperor Charles V, and the most illustrious Prince and other Orders, now holding a Diet of the Empire at Spires that they seriously undertake the task of restoring the Church presented in the name of all those who wish Christ to reign by Dr John Calvin (p184)

You have got to love his analysis. So clear. Good distinctions. Learned. And passionate. Get’s practical and talks about what really matters. Pastoral. Concerned for God’s glory and his people’s good. Yet so pungent. The rhetoric is turned up and its strong meat. You wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of Calvin’s polemic. A serrated edge, indeed. And he tells off Luther for putting it all to rudely and harshly!

They don’t make ‘em like they used to!

Prayers for Reformation Sunday

As Reformation Sunday is only a lesser whatnot in the C of E, there is no Collect for it. Some of these 15 collect-length prayers look pretty good to me. Set prayers and special days are not entirely against the spirit or letter of the Protestant Reformation, of course, though some seem to think they are and it is true that some of the hotter sort of Protestants might have fumed against this sort of thing, perhasp with more heat than light.

Why The Reformation?

I'm very excited. God willing, on the Lord's Day morning Rev'd John Cheeseman will preach at Holy Trinity, Eastbourne on "Why The Reformation?" from Galatians 1:1-9.

I assume that's the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, but I don't know. Maybe John will speak about the "reformation" in Judaism with the coming of Christ or the need for another Reformation today, especially in our own church and nation, or all three.

But really I bet John has in mind the events which, more than anything else, where sparked by Rev'd Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg on 31st October 1517. The theses mainly protested against the Roman Catholic practices of penance and indulgences on the basis of Luther's growing understanding that the Word of God clearly states that believers are justified (declared in the right) before God in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and not be works (doing good things, or the mediation of priests though the Mass or penance).

An English translation of Luther's Theses can be found at:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/theses/theses_e.asc

By the way, why not arrange a Reformation Day Party as an alternative to Halloween this year? Maybe its something we should do as a church, for the adults and the kids?