King James Authorized

1568 Bishop's Bible

Do Anglicans have an ‘official’ bible for family, pew, and pulpit use? This was a question posed a while ago with no quick answer.  The term “Authorized” involves a number of particulars. First, ‘authorized’ refers to the 1604 Hampton Court Conference whereupon King James wished there be a CofE text to rival the Geneva Bible. The Geneva bible could be obtained cheaply and was portable, having both footnotes and cross references which promoted presbyterian doctrine, bound together with Calvin’s catechism. It thus found its way quickly into English households. The intent of King James, so to speak, was to purge England of such non-Anglican domestic ’study bibles’ (including the 1582 Douay-Rheims). King James also recognized the incompleteness of the Elizabeth’s translation under AB Parker.

Secondly, ‘authorized’ indicates liberty to print. The  King reserved a monopoly on publishing, the seal of England allowing privileged material to be legally printed and circulated. Eventually, the KJV supplanted earlier pulpit use translations,  namely the Bishop’s Bible, because universities ceased publication of the older black letter books.

The KJV is based upon the 1568 Bishop’s Bible. The Bishop’s Bible, in turn, is a kind of compilation of the 1560 Geneva and 1538 Great Bibles. The Geneva Bible was the design of Marian exiles in Switzerland (Wittingham and Gilby with Coverdale helping) while the Great Bible was borne from collated work of William Tyndale. Tyndale wrote a vernacular of the New and Old Testament in English (and was burnt for it). Coverdale then inserted a Psalter while smoothing over differences Tyndayle vs. the Vulgate, thereby somewhat securing a continuity of text between medieval Catholicism to reformed Anglicanism.

Otherwise known as “the Chained Bible”, the Great Bible, not unlike other reformation bibles of the time, was bound with the 1536 Ten Articles and a Preface written by Cranmer. The Great Bible is the first of a series of ‘authorized’ bibles appointed for pulpit readings. The Henrican Injunctions required the Book to be accessible in a  ’convenient place within the church’, i.e., outside the chancel, for the people.  Articles were included inside and read periodically during worship. When Elizabeth commissioned the 1568 Bishop’s book, the Ten Articles briefly continued but then was soon replaced by the Queen’s Eleven. In 1563 the Act of Uniformity finally incorporated the Thirty-Nine.  Inclusions of Articles into the appointed Bibles of both Henry and Elizabeth served to catechize England, and was not unlike Geneva or Wittenburg types which included confessions and/or catechisms. Also interesting was the BCP calendar published at the beginning of the KJ, demonstrating the interlocking nature of the Bible, Prayer Book, and Articles.

Curiously enough, until the restoration, the only bible version officially appointed in public worship was the Bishop’s Bible. The 1604 Convocation regularized the Bishop’s Book as sole translation not only for pulpit readings and lectern display but BCP text as well. Meanwhile, through all BCP revisions, the Coverdale’s Psalter persisted (as  it was well-suited for chanting). Upon the Restoration, the 1662 Act of Uniformity replaced the Bishop’s Book with the 1611 KJV by way of legalizing the BCP, and King James has remained the official text for church-use ever since. Meanwhile, the Bishop’s Bible, a.k.a. the “the voluminous book” as called by Laudian disciplinarians, gradually fell to disuse given cessation of publishing prevented replacement.  Geneva declined as well– in part to the KJV’s excellency of prose, scholarly foundations, as well as example in church usage– the KJV becoming the domestic book of English-speaking Christians.

Over the last four-hundred years several KJV revisions (the safest and most sound being the 1769) have come and gone, leaving the notion of an  ’authorized’ text more a set of criteria than a single, absolute manuscript.  The ‘rules’ or guidelines defining what is potentially  ’authorized’ were established by King James and are posted below:

The Rules to Be Observed in the Translation of the Bible

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The conservatism of KJ is apparent. Extracting from the rule above, the foundation of all ‘authorized’ translations is, first, the Bishop’s Bible; #1, “as little altered as the Truth of the original permit”. Added to this intrinsic conservatism, the KJ translation was done with catholic sensibility, favoring episcopacy; #3 (“the old ecclesiastical words to be kept’) and the consensus fidelum; #4. King James assigned forty-seven most learned ministers (the high churchman, Bp. Andrewes, amongst), enlisting collegiate work from all quarters of the Realm, sic., the King, Deans, and Bishops; #8-#13. The KJV is an example of Erastian polity at its best.

Do modern versions, i.e., the ESV, NIV, NJB, or N/RSV, fall within this same criteria as Canterbury claims? Sadly, the translations of the last hundred years (or so) have proven footholds for Marxist-modernist ideology, introducing not only goofy democratic worldviews (by pronoun and dubious textual revisions) but muting the manner we engage in formal discourse. When bible revisions are proposed, often more is at stake than fidelity to style. A friend recently noted how liturgy shapes both public and ecclesisal thought:

“If we want to be orthodox Christians, it’s not enough that we have the right ideas about the harder concepts of Christianity (the Trinity, Incarnation).  We have to talk about them in the right way.  We see this more clearly in our political debates (“pro-life” v. “anti-choice”), but it’s true in our ecclesiology as well.  This is largely a matter of obedience to our spiritual masters and teachers.  They’ve wrestled long and hard to develop our Christian terminology.  Who are we to blot it out and remake it to fit our convenience or unformed intellects?  There’s a practical aspect to this, too.  Because the old terms have been wrestled with for so long, their meanings in the theological context are very rich.  Day-to-day we don’t think much, for example, about any difference between “distinction” and “difference,” but the difference in formal theology is between sublime truth and damnable error.”

For churchmen who miss a stronger Anglican identity, 2011 shall be the four-hundreth celebration of the 1611 KJV. Cambridge will celebrate the KJV’s quatrocentenary April 27th.

Crossing the Thames

Blog not in vain! A recent website has been launched by a friendly circle of English Use/BCP churchmen (both from the Continuum and Communion proper). The site, Thames River Beach Party (TRBP), aims to add an extra voice to the choir for the preservation and articulation of classical Anglicanism. For those contemplating a swim across a foreign river,  either the Tiber or Bosporus, TRBP asks you first try a dip in the Thames.  Brrr! The TRBP’s tentative preamble says:

“We want our readers to learn about the Anglican tradition; the history, the devotion , the beauty of liturgy and worship found in the prayer book(s), the wisdom of the Anglican Divines and other great thinkers of the English church and her offspring.

Our hope is that a return to tradition will bring an Anglican revival, that will lead to an Anglican reconciliation, which will bring about the restoration of the Christian faith as the main societal element of the English speaking people (Anglosphere).”

Anglican Rose has eagerly joined the said venture. We are also asking a priest and bishop to join the endeavor, advising and mentoring us. Rather than adopt a confession of belief, we decided to forward a ’sensibility’, quoting the very divines who’ve stood on this same Beach long before us. May the following words prosper you!

historic

“We and our people — thanks be to God — follow no novel and strange religion, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers.”

— Queen Elizabeth I

evangelical

“I believe there is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid scriptural rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant in the highest degree.”

— John Wesley

reformed

“The Preachers chiefly shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old Testament and the New, and that which the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that Doctrine.”

— The Elizabethan Canons

orthodox

“As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West, more particularly in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.”

— Thomas Ken

catholic

“One Canon of Scripture which we refer to God, two Testaments, three Creeds, the first four Councils, five centuries and the succession of the Fathers in these centuries, three centuries before Constantine, two centuries after Constantine, draw the rule of our religion.”

— Lancelot Andrewes

thoughtful

“We do not suffer any man ‘to reject’ the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England ‘at his pleasure’; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or ‘legacies of Christ and of His Apostles’; but in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of Unity. Neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.”

— John Bramhall

We will see where this riparian study takes us? For now it is an open discussion. Welcome all, and pray some fireworks fly!

Reception of General Councils

At Covenant-Communion, Mr. Sam Keyes, an Anglo-Catholic seminary student, posted an insightful piece on Anglican receptionism and General Councils. We know from Article 21, General Councils “may err and sometimes have erred”. The rulings of General Councils and the Church must also not be repugnant nor contrary to scripture. Yet on what basis is an ecumenical council properly received, true, and catholic? This was a question I struggled with on a cumbersome post regarding Original Intent , i.e., the concilar/catholic basis within Magisterial Protestantism. Mr. Keyes gives a succinct list of criterion based on Anglicanism’s eucharistic ecclesiology (equality of bishops) which is distinctly patristic. As always receptionist theories tend to be elusive, but I think the one below is fairly solid:

What makes a Council Catholic?

1.  No council can presume to follow the model of the ecumenical councils without first accepting the infallible decrees of the ecumenical councils.

2.  The conciliar model is not an abstraction but presumes the communion of the Catholic Church.  Though the councils are a means of common discernment they are not merely functional but flow out of the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit.

3.  To describe the ecumenical councils as “infallible” is a tautology.  A council can only be “ecumenical” when it is accepted by the whole Church (through her bishops) as infallible.

4.  To accept an ecumenical council “insofar as it is in accord with Holy Scripture” is tautological in a negative sense:  were a Council not in accord with Holy Scripture, it would not be truly ecumenical.  Such statements thus forge an artificial wedge between Scripture and Tradition when the foundational assumption of the conciliar tradition is that they are inseparable.  (Further, any council that cannot bother itself to engage theologically with previous councils—saying “it’s up to Scripture” is avoiding the question—calls into question its own theological competence.)

5.  Discernment in council happens through an unhurried and unconstrained commitment to find a common mind in accordance with dogmatic tradition (e.g. solutions which deny the Chalcedonic statements on the unity of Christ’s person are off the table).

6.  Fidelity to dogmatic tradition does not constrain the Church; it frees the Church to be herself.  Attempts to create (or re-create) “pure” dogma in discontinuity from the historical life of the Church make the Incarnation an abstraction.

7.  The discernment of a common mind does not happen independent of common worship.  Theological questions are always liturgical questions and vice versa.

8.  The validity, viability and wisdom of councils can only be known in retrospect.  Presumably all councils can say, internally, “It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit,” but saying this at the time does not make it so.  Claims to the movement of the Spirit in contemporary ecclesial life must always be tested not only by the Scriptures but also by the dogmatic tradition of the Church preserved through her hierarchy.

9.  A “conciliar” model put in opposition to a “papal” model is a distortion of both conciliarism and papalism:  “It is this faith, the faith of all the baptised in communion, and this only, that each bishop utters with the body of bishops in council. It is this faith which the Bishop of Rome in certain circumstances has a duty to discern and make explicit. This form of authoritative teaching has no stronger guarantee from the Spirit than have the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils. The reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.” (Par. 47, “The Gift of Authority,” ARCIC)

10.  Conciliar clarifications of dogma are always apophatic safeguards against being too easily satisfied by human limitations on theology.  They do not exhaust articulation of the faith but rather ensure its continuity.

11.  To say that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit is—unless we wish to rely on constant and incontrovertible private revelation—to say that the Church is guided by holy tradition.

12.  Not all traditions come from the Spirit, yet there is no part of ecclesial life that is not traditioned.  Attempts to separate discernment from tradition (whether by pure reason or pure readings of Scripture) inevitably produce further human traditions.

13.  Christian discipleship demands not that we have assurance of our correctness but that we remain faithful to what we have received.

14.  The perseverance of the Church (her indefectibility) does not rely on our faithfulness but on Christ’s.

15. The ecumenical councils are a demonstration of God’s faithfulness.

I believe the above list further specifies what makes a biblical exegesis most ‘catholic’. While perhaps we may disagree with particulars which Mr. Keyes categorizes,  it certainly gives something tangible that we might chew on.  Perhaps a post is in order regarding the number of ecumenical councils received by the Church of England– four, six, or seven? For an excellent understanding of catholicity, read St. Vincent’s Commonitory.

Institution of Ministers

The 1928 Office of Institution concisely spells our standards of faith. We might call these standards, “the Books of the Church”. Together they sum Anglican Faith, Order, and Worship. Prayer Book 1928 churches might want to re-examine the same Institution Office.

First, it gives curious a description of parish government where laity elects their local priest while the bishop consecrates. The role of lay people (vestry) in appointing their own Rector is both a Reformation and Republican principle. When the Protestant Episcopal Church constituted itself, founders like Bp. William White and Samuel Provost drafted its government akin to the American Congress, where a House of Deputies (laymen and curates) voted. The influence of Parliament and Puritanism in England, not to mention the intercession of the Crown against Papacy, provided a bedrock for laypeople sharing the government of the Church.

Also, interestingly, the Office of Institution in the Prayer Book is the only rite which assigns a ceremonial role to the Warden. The senior Warden hands the keys of the Church (access to grounds, facilities, and property) to the charge of the Priest, “In the name and behalf of N. Parish I do receive and acknowledge you, the Rev. AB, as Priest and Rector of the same; and in token thereof give into your hands the keys of this Church” (p. 570 1928 pew book). If one desired to reconstruct a theology of Kingship from the PB, the Warden might give insight (suggesting control over the annates, alms, and goods of the Church in general).

Second, the Institution emphasizes the duty of the Priest as a sacerdotal, not just teaching.  In a three-fold prayer for blessing (p. 572), the received minister (Bishop or Institutor) petitions, “Be graciously pleased to bless the ministry and service of him who is now appointed to offer the sacrifices of prayer and praise to thee in this house, and the meditation of his heart, be always acceptable” .  The ’sacrifices of prayer’ might be referenced to Holy Communion which says, “with these holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee” etc., (p. 80). The Office also gives provides a kind of ‘certificate’ whereupon the the rector’s Cure is called a “sacerdotal relation” (p. 569). The sacerdotal relation is the ’serving at the altar’.  ”O Lord my God, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; yet thou hast honored thy servant with appointing him to stand in thy House, and to serve at thy holy Altar” (p. 573).

But, by far the most fascinating portion, is when the Bishops hands the “Books of the Church” to the Incumbent. The Books of the Church are a special interest for BCP catholics, providing a summary of our standards–

“Then shall the Institutor receive the Incumbent within the rails of the Altar, and present him the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, and Books of Canons of the General and Diocesan Convention, saying as follows.

Receive these Books; and let them be the rule of thy conduct in dispensing the divine Word, in leading the Devotions of the People, and in exercising the Discipline of the Church; and be thou in all things a pattern to the flock of thy care. ” (p. 571)

When Anglicans speak of the “bible”, we are often pointing to either the Authorized version (those versions following a proper textual method as outlined in the 1611 edition) or the “largest volume”. The ‘largest volume’ would the vernacular translation required by canon law to be displayed in churches, i.e, the bishop’s bible, which included the King’s articles of religion (both Henry’s 10 Articles– an adaptation of the Augsburg Confession– and later Elizabeth’s). Therefore, between both ‘method’ and ‘articles’,  the Church provides a rule for dispensing the Word.  More about Anglicana’s Bible can be read here (Cranmer on Necessary Doctrine).

Obviously the book of common prayer refers to the 1928 version (or at least those of like ancestry, coming from the 1559 Elizabethan template). An interesting article on the PB as ‘magisterium’ here.

And, finally, the book of canons. Anglican canon law varies widely from province to province. Dr. Norman Doe has brilliantly albeit laborously distilled their commonalities, the backbone of which are the Supremacy Acts. Our interest in Monarchy is how the Crown (as supreme ‘Godparent’ and ‘Warden’ of the church) determined her discipline, especially in areas of ritual. The Injunctions, visitations, advertisements, and other canons from the Reformation (and before) bud from Supremacy.

The King’s Allegiance

guy fawkes

When Anglican standards were traded for indiscriminate ecumenicalism (a long process), the Reformation suffered a tremendous blow. On one side, it allowed more Anabaptist and Presbyterian ideas to seep into Anglicana’s Evangelical wing. On the other, Anglo-Papism eventually replaced BCP English Catholicism. The twentieth century victory of Anglo-Papism/Romanism prepared the way for today’s Personal Ordinariates, which threatens chewing off a good number of Anglo-Catholics from the conservative rump.

Yet, our problem remains the same, “What is Anglicanism”? Earlier blog entries (here and here) dealt with the King’s relation to His body (his subjects and estates within), but this post shall explore the King’s relation (as England’s primary Warden) to other national churches. Supremacy treated the Pope as a provincial bishop (bishop of rome) while it restored ancient prerogative of the Prince. In the face of Roman absorption, let’s recall the 1553 Supremacy Oath:

“From Henceforth I shall utterly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake the Bishop of Rome, and his authority, power, and jurisdiction. And I shall never consent nor agree, that the Bishop of Rome shall practice, exercise, or have any manner of authority, jurisdiction, or power within this realm, or any other the King has dominion, but shall resist  the same at all times, to the uttermost of my power”

Content of Jurisdiction:

Beginning in 1533, Supremacy Oaths kept the jurisdiction of Rome outside England, with few exceptions, banning Rome’s bishops and cardinals from her shores. A Roman bishop was not restored until Catholic Emancipation in 1829.  Supremacy was a return to England’s ancient custom, the 1533 Parliament confessing, “we do not intend to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ’s Church in any things concerning the very articles of the Catholic faith of Christendom, or in any other things declared by Holy Scripture necessary for salvation.”  According to Rev. Patterson,

“Henry was returning in essentials to the custom that had been observed in England during the twelfth century. The form of concurrent appointment to a bishopric by papal bull was an innovation of the later middle ages. But when the king forbade the Archbishop to receive the pall from Rome, he was returning to a custom more ancient than that of the English church; for though the pall was in origin merely complimentary, all Archbishops since St. Augustine had received it as a symbol of their metropolitan authority.” (p. 224, History of England)

Over the course of six Henrican parliaments, meeting in conjunction with Bishops, supremacy was defined. The first session was summoned 3 Nov.1529 and the last prorogued 4 Feb. 1534. This period is known as belonging to the “Reformation Parliament”. It declared the King’s Title as well as his Jurisdiction within the English Church. In 1531, after Papal absentees were deprived of rents, the Convocation declared King Henry “Supreme Head”, with proposed qualification, “as far as the law of Christ allows”. In 1534 Parliament finally resolved upon the phrase, “Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England”. This becameHenry’s official Dignity in 1535– the malicious slandering of which, either by “ writing or word”, was treasonous (preamunire).

Henry’s jurisdiction supplanted the Papacy, and within it were many ‘vague and undefined’ administrative powers which the Pope had either usurped or otherwise claimed. Jurisdiction was formerly affirmed by Parliament by four important Acts, and these forming the cornerstone of the King’s ecclesial Headship:

1. Appellate Restraint: The final court of appeal transferred from Rome to the Archbishop of Canterbury under the Crown, aka. The Court of Arches. All appeals– in cases of marriage, wills, tithes, etc– do not go outside the realm.
2. Annates: Forbid the Pope’s importable tithe (i.e, Peter’s pence). Instead, the annates (1/10 of church incomes) are annexed to the King’s Majesty.
3. Succession: Clarifying Henry’s divorce from Catherine (of Spain) and remarriage to Anne Boylen and the line of succession thereof.  Any who deny the legitimacy of the divorce, deny the Word of God (Lev. 18) and King’s rightful and lawful heir.
4. Submission: Henry affirmed right to elect and approve bishops, call convocations, confirm and write canon, visit clergy and otherwise enforce ecclesial discipline. This Act rendered Papal bulls null and void (i.e., no dispensations from Rome), and Romish Palls were henceforth pointless, all clergy swearing lealty to the Crown’s authority, power, and jurisdiction.

In 1534, 16 lay and 16 clerical divines were convoked to revise church canon, abrogating those innovations that conflicted with King’s headship and Law of God. What did not transgress was assumed to carry over. Jurisdiction thus amounted to Supremacy in court affairs, nomination and election of clergy, convoking the church, and matters enforcing discipline.

A Confessional Statement?

In time, the King’s jurisdiction deepened in scope. By reason of pramaire, all Englishmen were bound to recognize, not deprive, the King of his Title. The Oath of Supremacy initially required only deacons, priests, and Bishops to give public vow. But after the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth, recognizing only the spouse of Mary I, i.e., Spain’s Phillip II, as rightful ruler of England, the Supremacy Oath was generalized to denounce all foreign powers, both secular and ecclesial, the Papacy which was one of several enemies. As further threats emerged against England’s “most perfect and reformed” Church, the Oath gained comprehensiveness, denouncing not only Catholic assassins (Jesuits & gunpowder plot) but also Presbyterian rebels (Presbyterians & Solemn Leaguers).

While not all Englishmen were forced to give the Oath (only those holding office, and in 1563 this included the Commons), Supremacy Acts were periodically heard in church, required by canon law, to follow the sermon at least four times a year (along with other Injunctions). It was also summarized within the Articles of Religion, and these were read twice a year from the pulpit. As a further witness to the King’s Erastian system, the Articles were published as part of the Bishop’s Book, and this was required for public display, the only lawful vernacular translation of the bible used parish churches. Regarding England’s freedom from Papacy, no man could hide recusancy, wardens monitored attendance on Holy Communion days. Furthermore, all printed (BCP and Authorized Bible) materials, especially ecclesial documents, carried the Monarch’s seal, often ending with an epigram, “God Save the King”.

BCP liturgists might now understand why the Articles of Religion are bound together with the Prayer Book since both Articles (like other creeds) were evoked at particular frequencies during the year at Public Worship. The inclusion of Articles began as early as 1559 (not Cranmer’s 42 Articles but a set made by Elizabeth summing her Injunctions), and these were published inside the Bishop’s Book, displayed in every parish. Article IV of the Bishop’s Book said,

“Moreover, touching the bishop of Rome, I do acknowledge and confess, that by the scriptures and word of God he hath no more authority than other bishops have in their provinces and diocese; and therefore the power, which he now challengeth, that is, to be the supreme head of the universal church of Christ, and to be above all emperors, kings, and princes, is an usurped power, contrary to the scriptures and word of God, and contrary to the example of the primitive church, and therefore is for the most just causes taken away and abolished in this realm”

By 1606, Supremacy, otherwise known as the Act of Allegiance, all churchmen, even those secular, e.g., wardens, schoolmasters, deans, and later military, etc, (as said above, elected and appointed officials), required the King’s Supremacy. Let no one say otherwise– the Church of England was indeed a confessional church–in the strictest sense! It would make no sense to separate the political from the religious for seventeenth-century oaths, and these Oaths regarding right/ancient jurisdiction in spiritual and temporal estates marked the beginning of what later would be known as ‘Test Acts’. (An interesting aside:  USA pledge of allegiance descends from Supremacy, explicit religious or theonomic sentiment exchanged for Republicanism)

By the end of James II 3-year reign, Supremacy would incorporate very ‘Protestant’ (more 39 ‘Article-ish’) tones, not only denying the dogma of Papacy, in favor of Henrican belief, but also Transubstantiation. There is also a strong statement of passive resistance (Jewel’s homily on obedience) and divine right (from Bp. Gardiner to Laud).  The Oath becoming a distinctly ‘Protestant’ confession was anticipated by Sir Edward Coke’s 1621 petition against an English betrothal to the Spanish (roman catholic) infantata, instead demanding a Protestant marriage and succession.  This would consummate in the Orange Institution and 1700 Settlement Act . The 1691 Oath read thusly:

“I, A.B. do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, So help me God.

(Oath of Abhorrence)                                                                                                                                 I, A.B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest , and abjure as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other person  whatsoever, and I do declare, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

(Declaration Against Transubstantiation)                                                                                        I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous.”

The King’s Oath (1691) is thus one of many interlocking statements in Anglicana regarding the Eucharist. It, along with the Black Rubric(s) (1552 v. 1662 versions), the Catechism, Cranmer’s Communion, and the Articles, together give an accurate picture of Anglican understanding . The Declaration against Transubstantiation, of course, is a stark rejection, like the 39 Articles, of the Council of Trent, and other dogmas that later followed from the Papacy (including Rome’s exaggerated Mariology), “as they are now used in the Church of Rome”.

Erosion of Jurisdiction:

The irony regarding Supremacy was the Crown’s inherent conservatism. Elizabeth preserved continuity with Henry’s worship policy– rescuing rails, candles, organs, surplices, copes, choirs, and crucifixes—especially in the Royal Chapels and Cathedrals. The authority given to visitations and injunctions not only help save Catholic past but could provide sources for counter-reformation. Charles I’s wife, the Roman Catholic Queen Henrietta, promoted and protected recusancy.

The Caroline period is often portrayed as Catholic revival, but as with a good part of the later Oxford movement, it was mostly a return to pre-Calvinist ceremonial injunctions/canons. High Churchmen pursued a two-fold strategy– persecution and comprehension– against English Roman Catholics, which Puritans called ‘soft’. But, Pope Urban II, knowing full-well Romanists would be ultimately absorbed, forbade English Roman Catholics both a titular hierarchy and permission to swear Allegiance to the Crown. Roman Catholics, alongside Puritan agitators, remained a danger to Anglicana’s settlement. In the late 1630’s the Crown’s jurisdiction had suffered by the national covenant in Scotland and Romish intrigues in Northwest England plus revolt in Ireland.

Laud passed the 1640 Constitutions and Canons through Synod which suppressed both Romanists and Presbyterians. And while Rome subverted due obedience, heretics in England could not own or inherit property, serve in the military, or hold office by reason of existing outside the Sovereign’s ‘household’. Of course, any toleration of such Christian autonomy-plurality would have deprecated the King’s Jurisdiction as conceived at the outbreak of England’s Reformation. The Oath against Papacy precedes that of Supremacy, highlighting specific problems of Rome’s violence against Kings and abetting feigned oaths.:

“I, AB, Do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my Conscience before God and the World, That our Sovereign Lord King Charles is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries: And that the Pope, neither of himself, nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any Power or Authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions, or to authorize any Foreign Prince to invade or annex him or his Countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty, or to give license or leave up any of them to bear Arms, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person, State of Government, or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions.

Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any Declaration or sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors, or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See, against the said King, his Heirs or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will bare faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons, their Crown and Dignity, by reason or color of any such Sentence or Declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavor to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of, to be against him or any of them.

And I do further swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable Doctrine and Position, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever.

And I do believe, in Conscience and resolved, That neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve one of this Oath, or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully administered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever: And I do make this Recognition and acknowledgment heartily, willingly and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God, etc.

While Roman plots certainly endangered the king’s reformation and peace, the consequences following civil war and the lack of comprehension for Puritans ultimately invoked a range of toleration that Papists eventually exploited. Nor did a century of latitudinarianism help. By the early 19th century radical Jacobinism/socialism seized and levered the Commons against Church & Crown, emancipating Papists by reason of ‘equality’, thus, dealing Supremacy a lethal blow. In 1850 Rome finally restored her Latin hierarchy in England, bringing bishops and cardinals to the realm. Emancipation was given to Romanists earlier in Quebec and other colonial dominions, no less shrinking Anglicana’s ancient headship.  Supremacy set both the basis and preserved England’s reformation, but decolonialization and democracy has severed the Monarchy as a penultimate, covenanted expression of a baptized, churched people (a- covenant isle, Bret-land).

Today, not only has the prayer book jettisoned Supremacy Oaths, but the Laudian incorporating a titular Romanism to absorb catholics into the CofE has entirely reversed itself against Anglicana. Pope Benedict XVI’s Personal Ordinariates would ultimately absorb Anglican clergy in their own land, submitting Anglicans to Roman catholic doctrines and jurisdiction.

Alongside the problem of ‘formulary surrender’ is public memory. While liturgical commemorations of Charles I’s martyrdom underline historical differences between Anglicans and ‘dissenters’, public celebrations like Bonfire Night (Nov. 5) remind the dangers of Rome. However, like Charles I’s martyrdom, King James’ “Thanksgiving” (Bonfire Night) has been removed from Church Kalendars. As forgetfulness ensues, we cannot restore memory without the pain of going back to the many interlocking Anglican documents and apologies.

Oath of the King’s Supremacy

Bp. Gardiner

The Ordinal, published in 1553, was not included in the Act of Uniformity until 1571. Inside, amongst the many prayers and collects of the Ordinal, are the Litany and the King’s Oath, giving insight into Cranmer’s theology of Royal Supremacy. The Oath and Litany illuminate England’s Erastian system– its multiple centers of authority as covenanted nation and the depth of power claimed by the King.

Regarding Supremacy doctrine, Cranmer was not Henry’s sole architect. Between Henry VIII and Edward VI, several reputable divines argued for the King’s prerogatives in the Church. Bp. Stephen Gardiner in 1535 published On True Obedience, “He is the prince of his whole people, not of a part of it, and he governs them in things, not in some only; and as the people constitute the Church in England, so he must needs be the supreme head of the Church as he is the supreme head of the people”.  Likewise, in writing Henry’s Visitation Articles, Thomas Crumwell described the Crown’s ecclesiastical powers, “to exercise, provide, and exert all and all manner of jurisdiction, authority, or power ecclesiastical, which belongs to him as supreme head”.  William Tyndale’s Obedience of a Christian Man forms another opus elaborating Erastian power in order to extirpate the Pope. Sir Edward Coke, England’s legendary 17th century jurist, charted the Crown’s historical claims for supreme rule in the Church from William I to Henry II.

The King extending his authority into Ecclesiastic matters was a consequence of a Sovereign ruling all bodies or “estates” within the realm. It is really a return to patristic opinion, distinguishing between body and soul, not state and church. Where the body dwelt the King had authority. Article 37 alludes to this sovereignty over the body by the King’s sovereignty over all estates, “The King’s Majesty hath chief power in this Realm of England and in all other dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction”. In England, royal Supremacy was the first cry of Reform given it repudiated the Pope from England, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England” (Art. 37). The conservative nature of England’s Reformation, replacing Pope with Crown, is very clear in her doctrine of Supremacy whereby England preserved ‘monarchical’ ecclesiastical principles unlike the continent.

The Great Litany: Getting back to Cranmer’s liturgy, the Litany in a fashion delineates England’s peculiar Erastian structure. Originally written in 1544, before the Ordinal, for theological reasons, mostly iconoclastic, the litany replaced the medieval  Suffrage of Saints. But like the Suffrage, one might speculate a similar descent from ‘greater to lesser’ principalities or sovereignties, implying a notion of a  ’mediated and hierarchic kingdom’ (highlighting again England’s conservatism).

The Litany begins with blessing the rule of Christ, then follows the King, next the Bishops, his Nobility, Magistrates, and finally the people. Cranmer’s Litany starts by asking Jehovah to  ”rule and govern thy Holy Church”. Afterwards comes the King in ‘holy hierarchy’. The King is called the  ’governor’ as well as “defender and keeper” of Christ’s Church– a title given to Henry VIII  first by Leo X (ironic) and later conferred by Parliament. The litany then raises prayer for the ministers of Christ’s Church, her Bishops and clerics, that they be illuminated with “true knowledge” and “duly execute their office committed to them”. This is followed by a prayer for the Lords of Council and Nobility, granting them ‘wisdom and understanding’. Throughout the reformation period, especially during Edward VI’s reign, the Lord’s Council (aka Privy Council), stood between King and Parliament, implying both a federal system alongside a special capacity to advise and legislate.  Next, the Litany gives intercession for England’s magistrates or judges. And, finally, for the remainder of the nation, “that it may please thee to bless and keep all thy people”.

Behind the Litany is not just “fond thoughts” for England’s civil officers but a particular outworking covenanted nation or realm where all ‘bodies’ or men governed the church,  ”you are a chosen nation, a royal priesthood”, 1 Pe. 2:9. A national covenant is surmised in the Prayer Book by virtue of baptism, the Cure of Souls, and confessional standards governing each. The Uniformity Acts instituted these standards, and Archbishop Whitgift systematized them by his Three Articles requiring subscription to Supremacy, the Articles, and Prayer Book. In 1552 the former were implied by the Ordinal which required both Supremacy Oath and acceptance the Authorized Scripture, i.e, Bishop’s Bible. In the Bishop’s bible were the Articles (at the time the 10 Articles of Religion). By 1571 these were expanded to 39 Articles, and in 1628 Laud wrote His Majesty’s Declaration, requiring plain reading of England’s confessional statements.

By reason of baptism even the King paid duty to God. Confirmation spells these duties, and for the King this meant not only men love their neighbor but love God. Given Kingly power over bodies, the bodies of men could be compelled to attend, pray, and support the Church. In this sense, the King was the “Godparent” of all his subjects. This is interesting because Puritans wanted to strike out the term ‘godparent’ from baptism, but by doing so the scope of household, even realm, would be narrowed to a private sphere. (For the duties of Godparents and requirments for worship, see pp. & 291, pew-size 1928 BCP)

The King’s Oath: The King was also England’s “Senior Warden”. From medieval times the patron of a chapel was like the ’senior warden’– electing the rector, provisioning the building, and sharing in discipline over both lay and ordained. Secular corruption led monasteries to seek Papal refuge.  The Reformation restored secular patronage and even elevated the role of laymen, the King of England being first amongst all. The depth of Kingly power and patronage is outlined by Supremacy Acts or Oaths.  In Cranmer’s 1553 Ordinal, the Oath follows the Litany with a collect between, requiring Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to swore:

“From Henceforth I shall utterly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake the Bishop of Rome, and his authority, power, and jurisdiction. And I shall never consent nor agree, that the Bishop of Rome shall practice, exercise, or have any manner of authority, jurisdiction, or power within this realm, or any other the King has dominion, but shall resist  the same at all times, to the uttermost of my power. And I pledge and henceforth will accept, repute, and take the King, his Masjesty, to be the only Supreme head in the earth, of the Church of England: And to my cunning, wit, and uttermost of my power, without guile, fraud, or other undue mean, I will observe, keep, maintain and defend, the whole effects and contents of all and singular acts and Statutes made, and to be made within this realm, in derogation, extirpation, and extinguishment of the Bishop of Rome and his authority, and all other Acts and Statutes, made or to be made, in confirmation and corroboration of the King’s power, of the supreme head in earth, of the Church of England, and this I will do against all manner of persons, of what estate, dignity or degree, or condition they be, and in no wise do not attempt, nor to my power suffer to be done or attempted, directly or indirectly, any thing or things, privily or apertly, to the let, hinderance, damage, or derogation thereof, or any part thereof, by any manner of means, or for any manner of pretence. And in case any oath be made, or hath been made by me to any person or persons, in maintenance, defence, or favour of the Bishop of Rome, or his authority, jurisdiction, or power, I repute the same, as vain and annihilate, so help me God through Jesus Christ.”

More on Supremacy from Cranmer’s mind may be found in the 1547  homily on Good Order. In 1559 the Supremacy Oath, along with the Act was ’sanitized’, omitting that phrase, “the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome” and “Supreme Head” from both the Litany and Oath. But Anglican ecclesiasal doctrine is certain: the Pope has no power or discipline in England or her dominions. The 1559 version carried into the 1662 BCP, and it was only recently rescinded by Elizabeth II. That 1662 Oath read:

“I, AB, do utterly testify, and declare in my conscience, That the King’s Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highnesses dominions, and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastial things, or causes, as temporal: And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have any Jurisdiction, power, Superiority preeminence or authority ecclesiastical, or spiritual within this Realm. and therefore I do utterly renounce, and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions, Powers, superiorities, and Authorities; and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the King’s Highness heirs, and successors; or united, and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and the Contents of this Book.”

Acts/Oaths of Supremacy, regardless of period, share the King’s “preeminance and authority in ecclesiastical” (1571) or “all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes” (1552). This was noting other than a return to ancient custom, the sum of supremacy claims made since William I, from England’s Norman Conquest into her late medieval church. But what did this practically amount to? The 1534 Supremacy Act designates royal powers as:

“..full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God,for the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm”

Crumwell’s Visitation Articles (1535) were more specific, giving the King positive powers over church property, elections, discipline, and canon. The Visitation Article said:

“to make inquiry concerning the same, both in spirituals and temporals, the life, manners, and conversation of their presidents and prelates, of whatever name and dignity, even if it be archiepiscopal or episcopal; to correct, punish and restrain those whom they shall find culpable, and, if necessary. to remove them altogether from their benefices, or to suspend them; to sequestrate the revenues of the church or palace, and keep them in safe ward; to make statutes, ordinances, and injunctions for the government of religious houses; to call synods, chapters, and convocations for any cause which may appear to them necessary; to hold courts, and summon before them any of the King’s subjects; receive resignations and cessions of churches, and deal in any way with property; preside at and direct elections of prelates, confirm those rightly made, and annul the contrary’ institute and induct possession of churches”

Was England’s Supremacy doctrine thus ‘absolutist’? First, Supremacy was patristic (see section Erastian Before Elizabeth?), even Byzantine, in thought. While the King’s authority extended to all estates Anglicana, whether things temporal or spiritual, the ‘chancel’ still refused the King, who according to the 39 Articles could neither preside over the eucarhist rite nor wield the spiritual sword (Christ’s keys). The 37th Article says, “we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s Word or Sacraments”.  The Bishops dispensed sacraments, preached the Word. The Prayer Book asserts the bishoprics’ prerogative to confirm catechists; make, order, and consecrate clergy. Rev. Patterson said in his book, the History of the Church of England, p. 224,

“Henry never claimed to be the source of purely spiritual powers, i.e. ‘the powers given by God to the clergy according to Holy Scripture.’ Henry never claimed for himself the power to ordain or administer the sacraments. His was not a jus ordinis, but a jus potestatis. He claimed not that he was the source of spiritual power– the spiritual authority came to the clergy through the Apostles from Christ Himself– but that he was the source of jurisdiction.”

Second, England’s Erastian system was far from monistic but contained other centers of authority listed in the Litany (and the bidding prayers), borne from England’s political covenants and course of history. Parliament authored and legitimized the 1535 and 1559 Acts of Supremacy.  Also, given the Crown’s flirtations with Roman Catholicism (i.e, the Stewart’s later marriages to France and Spain ), even Supremacy itself was not ‘absolute’. It was capable of reversing or humiliating itself, returning England to the fold of the notorious Roman Pall. Behind this notion of self-restriction is also a doctrine of extraordinary action where the Crown could break or reverse its own oaths, constitutions, and declarations, in extremis, later known as evangelical necessity. This was a power all Christians possessed within their callings. In A History of the British Church, G. Perry admits Henry’s claim for overweening powers, but these were mostly theoretical– reserved in terrorem– where and when English bishops failed reform. According to Perry, the Crown never applied in terrorem powers, so English practice knows little regarding regular absolutism. In fact, it would be antithetical to her normal order.

More Thoughts: While the Supremacy Oath, based on ancient custom, rendered Henry ‘Senior Warden’ and ‘Godparent’ of England, how it otherwise was applied occasions controversy particularly in ‘heirs and lawful successors’ (as the 1559 Oath said). From the light of Crown, the Stewarts were proper heirs, but they were Roman Catholic (see non-jurors). From light of Parliament and Nation, the Hanoverans were legitimates.  There are also implications for dominions once “united or annexed to the Imperial Crown”, like the New England and Virginian colonies, which separated, surrendering royal protection from Romanism? The lack of Supremacy has been a factor in confessional decomposition. Down the road I hope to explore Hooker’s church/state as both custom and divine right, bringing catholic and evangelical camps by way of a ‘double covenanted’ view, bringing Stewart monarchism into a  ’constitutionalist’ or Orange fold.

The Saxon Visitation

Chancellor Crell

The Saxon Visitation Articles were published in 1593 to counter the influence of receptionism amongst Lutheran Churches in Saxony. They define an effectual, localized, spiritual presence in the bread. While Thomas Cranmer had died a convinced ‘receptionist’, under Elizabeth, Archbishop Parker added article XXIX , modifying Cranmer’s earlier spiritualization of sacrament so that an objective and local presence might be confessed in the bread,

“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”

The XXIXth Article permitted a distinctly  literal (verba) interpretation of sacrament. In so far as the Article persisted after the Restoration, the 1662 Black Rubric ought to be read as ‘consubstantiationist’. Hence, the Restoration, like Elizabethan settlement, technically lent Anglicanism to a more German-catholic view.

How secondary elements (like ornaments) relate to Article 29 is another story. Generally speaking, Elizabeth, James I, and Caroline monarchs favored late Henrican worship (1538 Injunctions) and also wished to restore the 1549 against more ‘puritan’ elements of the 1552 BCP. A discrepency persisted between Parker’s 39 Articles with Cranmer’s Eucharist theology as carried forward into the 1559 BCP. While Elizabeth restored the older words of administration, the prayer of consecration continued to locate the oblation with worshippers (the real presence vaguely located in the sacramental rite or congregation– i.e., receptionist) rather than in the elements. Thus, between articles and prayer book, by 1571, the CofE contained both Calvinistic and Lutheran views of sacrament. This would leave her, confessionally speaking, somewhere near the Wittenberg Concord (1836) and Varita (1542) on the continent. These along with Bucer’s writings deserve re-examination if we are to speak of a “classicaly Anglican”  eucharist.

The image above is Chancellor Nicholas Crell’s head. Crell was executed for “acts of treachery” against the Duke in Wittenburg , 1601. Amongst these ‘acts’ were virtualist views. Frederick William I with Rev. Aegidius Hunnius reversed Calvinist gains by the Visitation. Below is the Saxon Visitation Article’s position on Holy Supper which sums the genuine Lutheran position.

Article 1. Holy Supper

The pure and true doctrine of our churches concerning the Holy Supper:

I. The words of Christ, “Take, eat, this is My body; drink, this is My blood” are to be understood simply and according to the letter, as they read.

II. In the Sacrament there ae two things that are given and received with  each other: one earthly, which is bread and wine; and one heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ.

III. This giving and receiving occurs here on earth, and not above in heaven.

IV. It is the true natural body of Christ that hung on the cross, and the true natural blood that flowed from the side of Christ.

V. The body and blood of Christ are received not only by faith spiritually, which can also occur outside of the Supper, but here with the bread and wine orally. Yet this happens in an unexplainable and supernatural way, as a pledge of assurance of the resurrection of our bodies from the dead.

VI. The oral partaking of the body and blood of Christ is done not only by the worthy, but alos by the unworthy, who approach without repentance and true faith. Nevertheless, this leads to a different result: by the worthy for salvation, by the unworthy for judgment.

1559 Injunctions

The Queen's Chapel

The Ornament Rubric (which permitted a Henrican church aesthetic as per the second year of Edward VI) should be understood in light of the 1559 Prayer Book, where it is first found, alongside the Articles of same era. The Swiss influence on Cranmer’s 1552 liturgy was moderated by Elizabeth’s ‘catholic affections’, and while the 1559 Supremacy Act repealed Marian codes (sic., Romanism), the Queen requested the Prayer Book commission restore early Edwardian ceremony (G.G. Perry, p. 260).

Early Edwardian ceremony would keep England in the Protestant fold yet by forbidding destruction of medieval roods and altars, she would keep her catholic aesthetic. Early Edwardian-Henrican ceremony was not Romanism carte blanche. They were restricted by 1547 and 1538 codes as well as Henry’s Ten Articles (Lutheran inspired). It should be noted Elizabeth’s own chapel was illustrative of the conservative standard she pursued, and Puritans were distraught by her use of crucifix, vestments, and candles. The 1559 Act of Supremacy restored early Edwardian standards, and Elizabeth would strengthen the early Tudor sensibility by adding her own twenty-five items to it.

Elizabethan Injunctions are important because they informed English ceremonial law for nearly two centuries. We must remember Elizabeth was not a Puritan nor were the Carolines Romanists. The English settlement forbade both Radicalism and Romanism. More important than the Ornaments which constitute Anglican aesthetic (e.g., crucifixes, patens, rails, pyxs, candlesticks, garlands, etc.) is the context of their liturgical use. The Injunctions tell how ornaments conform to Articles and Prayer Book. Ornaments continued where they did not transgress key reforms of the CofE—namely the pruning devotions to the saints; regulationg real presence as expressed in communion; and the exhibiting of Holy Orders, particularly bishops, in the church. Such issues were controverted in lights, the position of the table, vestments, and musical instruments.

Lighting.  Unlike the Swiss Reformation, Anglicans refrained from abolishing commemorations of saints yet opposed their cultic abuse. Veneration of saints were consequently regulated, and various codes aimed to end their misuse—i.e., “pilgrimages, relics, or images, lighting of candles, kissing, kneeling, decking the same, or any such superstition” [Art. 2, 3, 23, 35 below]. The 1538/47 Injunction(s) regarding veneration both read, “admonishing their parishioners, that images serve for no other purpose but to be a remembrance, whereby men may be admonished of the holy lives and conversation of them that the said images do represent: which images if they do abuse for any other intent, they commit idolatry in the same” (item 3). The 1549 liturgy similarly provides the praise and example of saints yet avoids direct prayer, “…whose examples, O Lord, and steadfastness in thy faith, and keeping thy holy commandments, grant us to follow”. While this does not abolish saints (their fast/feast days, commemorations, and images are kept), how honor given to which saints was reworked. For example, Thomas Becket’s feast day was banned, and veneration given to saints was clearly set apart from worship.

This implicated use of ornaments, particularly candles. The Injunctions limit candles within the church banning candles before images of saints (such as St. Mary Lady chapels which frequently had four) while allowing only two on the altar. Two altar candles were the minimum subscribed by S. Osmundi, designating Low Mass while four or more candles indicate High. Two candles became canon law under Henry VIII (Item 7, 1538 Injunctions), and in generally limited the number of candles throughout the church, “only the light that commonly goeth across the church by the rood loft, the light before the Sacrament of the altar, and the light about the sepulcher, which for the adorning of the church and divine service shall remain” (ditto). The 1559 Injunctions continued this restriction, saying:

II. Besides this, to the intent that all superstition and hypocrisy crept into divers men’s hearts may vanish away, they shall not set forth or extol the dignity of any images, relics, or miracles; but, declaring the abuse of the same, they shall teach that all goodness, health, and grace ought to be both asked and looked for only of God, as of the very Author and Giver of the same, and of none other.

III. [carried from 1538 Injunction] …and that the works devised by man’s fantasies, besides Scripture (as wandering of pilgrimages, setting up of candles, praying upon beads, or such like superstition), have not only no promise of reward in Scripture for doing of them, but contrariwise great threatenings and maledictions of God, for that they being things tending to idolatry and superstition, which of all other offences God Almighty doth most detest and abhor, for that the same most diminish His honor and glory.

XXIII. Also, that they shall take away, utterly extinct, and destroy all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindals, and rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere within their churches and houses; preserving nevertheless, or repairing both the walls and glass windows; and they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses.

XXXV. Item: that no persons keep in their houses any abused images, tables, pictures, paintings, and other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition.

Musical Instruments. The English Reformation made the liturgy a ‘work of the people’, bringing the entire Church into the call and response not just the clergy. Consequently, vernacular translations of the Mass appeared, and prayer was to be audible. The Injunction ordered liturgy/song to be “plainly understood and perceived”.  Loud instruments like bells and organs that might drown out the voice of the congregation were scrutinized and regulated.

Bells also had implications beyond noise. Typically bells had been used during the consecration rite and were thus connected to the elevation and visual adoration of the elements. Lutherans defended this practice (WA, 54, 122) as necessary to fence off receptionist opinions. Anglicanism however simultaeneously integrated both receptionism and sacramental union (e.g., consubstantation) into her rite. Elizabeth restricted bells to a single chime before the call to worship, the sermon, and the Eucharist prayer. The English Prayer Book from 1552 onwards directs:

…the curate that ministers in every Parish Church or Chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably letted, shall say [Morning and Evening Prayer] in the Parish Church or Chapel where he ministers, and shall toll a bell thereto, a convenient time before he began, that such as be disposed may come to hear God’s Word, and to pray with him.

In England that often means that the bell is rung for five minutes one half-hour before public service adn then again for five minutes immediately before. (Anglican Catholic, p. 95)

Said chant impacted processions as well. The banning of processions was partly due to dubious litanies which invoked saints or transubstantivist observances like Corpus Christi that ‘parade the sacrament about’. But also processions were considered disorderly by nature where “wanderings about” was deemed disorderly and interruptive to public liturgy.  Remaining in pews allowed better audibility and edification. Outside Rogation Sunday (and the beginning/end of service) processions were generally forbidden.  From the Injunctions:

XVIII. Also, to avoid all contention and strife, which heretofore hath risen among the queen’s majesty’s subjects in sundry places of her realms and dominions, by reason of fond courtesy, and challenging of places in procession; and also that they may the more quietly hear that which is said or sung to their edifying, they shall not from henceforth in any parish church at any time use any procession about the church or churchyard, or other place; but immediately before the time of communion of the Sacrament, the priests with other of the quire shall kneel in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany, which is set forth in English, with all the suffrages following, to the intent the people may hear and answer; and none other procession or litany to be had or used, but the said Litany in English, adding nothing thereto, but as it is now appointed. And in cathedral or collegiate churches the same shall be done in such places…and all ringing and knolling of bells shall be utterly forborne at that time, except one bell at convenient time to be rung or knolled before the sermon. But yet for retaining of the perambulation of the circuits of parishes, they shall once in the year at the time accustomed, with the curate and substantial men of the parish, walk about their parishes, as they were accustomed, and at their return to the church, make their common prayers.

XLIX. Item, because in divers collegiate and also some parish churches heretofore there have been livings appointed for the maintenance of men and children to use singing in the church, by means whereof the laudable science of music has been had in estimation, and preserved in knowledge; the queen’s majesty neither meaning in any wise the decay of anything that might conveniently tend to the use and continuance of the said science, neither to have the same in any part so abused in the church, that thereby the common prayer should be the worse understanded of the hearers, wills and commands, that first no alterations be made of such assignments of living, as heretofore has been appointed to the use of singing or music in the church, but that the same so remain. And that there be a modest and distinct song so used in all parts of the common prayers in the church, that the same may be as plainly understanded, as if it were read without singing; and yet nevertheless for the comforting of such that delight in music, it may be permitted, that in the beginning, or in the end of common prayers, either at morning or evening, there may be sung an hymn, or suchlike song to the praise of Almighty God, in the best sort of melody and music that may be conveniently devised, having respect that the sentence of the hymn may be understanded and perceived.

Altars.   Puritans returning from exile reimposed the 1550 Edwardian ordinance that replaced wood tables for altars.  By 1557 an ornamental chaos emerged. Some churches had altars, others tables; some located their tables in sanctuaries, others in the choir or the naïve; some celebrated to the east, others northward, etc..  A table might be anywhere short of the market. Relocation of altars often accompanied removal of rails and roods.

Upon Elizabeth’s ascension altar desecration was prohibited without approval of wardens and curates who were allowed to install wood tables, yet these tables were to be, “decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood”. Returning tables behind the rail restored the greater sacerdotal and holy sense of communion. It also restored ecclesial hierarchy and clerical Holy Orders.

Vestments. The puritan bid to flatten clerical into lay authority made vestments no less controversial than altars in the chancel. The 1559 injunction prescribes vestments, “as were most commonly and orderly received in the latter year of the reign of King Edward VI.”  Edward’s “latter year” means the 1552 Prayer Book which put forth the following words at he beginning of the morning service, “The priest shall wear neither alb, vestment, nor cope—but he shall have and wear surplice only”.  However, Elizabeth continued the wearing of a cope in the Queen’s chapel, and Archbishops of Canterbury during the Tudor reign did the same. The Canons of 1604 confirm this usage allowing the wearing of copes in cathedrals. Copes were thus proper garb for Bishops.  The princely significance of the cope required its holding by one or two acolytes to free the wearer’s arms during manual gestures of consecration and to keep it clear while mounting the steps during the approach to the sanctuary. Eighteenth and nineteenth century debates over vestments were waged over the black, Geneva gown vs. continuation of surplice-only. Not until the Oxford movement would vestments find their way back. Queen Elizabeth’s preference for Henrican style is better revealed in retention of ecclesial garb for deans and academics. Likewise, the 1563 introduction of a Latin BCP for use in university chapels aimed to counter and restrain puritan influence (RPW) amongst seminarians.

XXX. Item, her majesty being desirous to have the prelacy and clergy of this realm to be had as well in outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, and thinking it necessary to have them known to the people in all places and assemblies, both in the church and without, and thereby to receive the honour and estima-tion due to the special messengers and ministers of Almighty God, wills and commands that all archbishops and bishops, and all other that be called or admitted to preaching or ministry of the sacraments, or that be admitted into any vocation ecclesiastical, or into any society of learning in either of the universities, or elsewhere, shall use and wear such seemly habits, garments, and such square caps, as were most commonly and orderly received in the latter year of the reign of King Edward VI; not thereby meaning to attribute any holiness or special worthiness to the said garments, but as St. Paul writeth: Omnia decenter et secundum ordinem fiant.

Summary: The Injunctions establish important qualifications for the Ornament rubric which does not simply translate to Sarum ceremony carte blanche. Dearmer’s lists of ornaments do not necessarily indicate contraband. Thus, we must look to the Injunctions. Important differences are: a local option for wood tables or altars but each remaining in their place as determined by medieval custom; vestments specified as surplice and cope; single bell tolls at the beginning and end of worship, the eucharist, and the sermon only; two candles on or above the altar/table (a permanent low mass); no candles or censing for saints (plus a separating of black from red-letter saints); restricting processions to the beginning & end of service as well as once-a-year on Rogation Day (marching the parish bounds); a preference for congregational plain and said chant vs. song, organs, and choirs; the placement of vernacular bibles in the churches for public prayer; and installation of Latin prayer books in some academic and private chapels. The chapel and to some extent cathedral observances would remain reservoirs of catholic ceremony. Parish churches more generally were ‘purified’.

I hope to next study Caroline injunctions, then the low church 18th and 19th centuries, considering how each impacted ritualism, distilling what is common.

Article X. On Adiaphora

An often misunderstood and abused, adiaphora was a  crucial apologetic, used to reform the Church against  Rome while preserving England from Puritanism. Against    radicals who demanded a precise biblical prescription for  all worship, Anglican divines (particularly Hooker)  defended the validity of the  Prayer  Book by adiaphora  argument; quoting Article XXXIV:

“It is not  necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places    one, or utterly like…Every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the church ordained only by man’s authority”.

Adiaphora’s implications were bigger than canonical ceremony.  In so far as ritual conveyed “grace”, rites might be ranked by importance. Ceremony was divided between rites which forgave sin (divinely instituted worship) from ritual that was man’s response to justifying grace (Melanchthon calls this “Eucharistic worship”). What has been established by custom for the purpose of praise, edification, and memory, the church has liberty to change or modify when necessary. But what God has instituted which is not part of ‘tradition’ but divine command, no alteration may occur. Such differentation sets apart God’s grace  from man’s love, and this is the fundamental distinction between ‘justification by faith’ and merit, i.e., man’s work/response does not remit sin but comes from the promise and efficacy thereof.

When properly understood in the context of the early reformation debates, adiaphora not only seperates God’s decree from man’s response/works but also distinguishes the Church apart from the world. Reformers believed the visible marks of the Church– sacraments and preaching– made her unique from civil institutions. Without such divine signs (Word and Sacrament) the Church might as well be a political party or social welfare program. This is an important apology. Melanchthon says,

“The true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, fervent prayer, and the like. Candles, golden vessels, and similar adornments are fitting, but they are not the specifically unique adornment belonging to the Church. If the adversaries (Rome) make these things the focus of worship, and not the preaching of the gospel, in faith, they are to be numbered among those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their god with gold and silver (Dan. 11:38)”.  (Apology, XXIV.51)

No “License”:

While ‘adiaphora’ translates ‘indifferent things’ (sic., sub-title of Article X), it does not mean ‘unimportant’.  Adiaphora issues are no less important than charity, mortification/penance, catechism, or even prayer. They constitute our works or response to sin forgiven. We should use the term strictly, meaning rites which do not “justify” or ‘remit’. The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, in Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice, also distinguishes between essential and non-essential matters, “Other beliefs may be true, and important or even necessary for salvation. Anglican also have historically and strongly distinguished dogmas or essential doctrines (which are few and clearly established in scripture) from pious opinions and inessential truths” (p. 3)

Adiaphora thus draws a sharp line between divine grace and man’s response, lending itself to a strong Augustinaian, high-grace teaching (said above). While we may say non-justifying rites are mutable, this does not automatically mean reducing rites to a bare minimum or breaking from a long established tradition is wise. But in extremis, where custom confuses or undermines the Word and Sacraments, tradition calls for reform.

Sadly, adiaphora is wrongly conceived as “license”. Perhaps this is more likely amongst Baptists (and those who have no historical exegete but are congregationalist and radical in polity), yet it is not the case with the Thirty-Nine Articles where the Crown and Bishops were conservative weights . The CofE principally restrained private liberty according to over-arching but real Christian obligations— e.g, obedience to the civil authority, consideration of the weaker brother, mutual submission between churches, and the antiquity of fathers. These restraining principles were summed by Hooker and the BCP Preface. In contrasting such with RPW, we might call them the Canonical Principle of Worship (CPW). The Thirty-Nine Articles say:

“Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren” (Article XXXIV).

Article X

Where Articles matter-of-factly apply adiaphora (e.g., Article 34, above), Lutheran confessions are much more definitive in their method, expounding in what sense such rites are indeed ‘indifferent’. Anglican reference to Lutheran confessions is not altogether wrong given the Thirty-Nine Articles are rather abbreviated yet inspired by continental debates (sic., the Ten, Thirteen, and Forty-Two Articles), but also from confessions borne at the 1530 Augsburg Diet where Rome, Strasburg, and Wittenberg disputed. Lutheran influence during the formative period of the BCP authorship and Anglican Articles justifies treating German concords as virtual tertiary formulas.

The Formula of Concord succinctly defines adiaphora as:

“Some ceremonies and Church practices are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but are introduced into the Church with good intention, for the sake of good order and proper custom, or otherwise to maintain Christian discipline” (Article X, Formula Concordia)

Ceremonies which in principal are contrary to God’s Word are not ‘indifferent’ or ‘free’ but “must be avoided as things prohibited by God”. Ceremonies which are perhaps venerable and owe respect yet not divinely given for the remission of sin may be changed (as the Thirty-Nine Articles say “not all rites being the same”) in a way most useful and edifying for the churches of God. “Nevertheless, all frivolity and offense should be avoided in this matter. Special care should be taken to exercise patience toward the weak in faith…We believe, teach, and confess also that no church should condemn another because one has less or more outward ceremonies…This is true as long as they have unity with one another in the doctrine and all its articles and in the right use of the holy sacraments. This practice follows the well-known saying ‘disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith’ (X.5, 7; Formula).  Should the ban on frivolity be akin to the ‘newfangledness’ warned of by the 1550 BCP? [see Preface]

Conclusion:

What stands out between Lutheran and Anglican Formulas, especially between late 16^th century divines, is Anglicanism’s conservative character. While early Lutherans, like Philip Melanchthon, revered the fathers (Article XXI.1, Augsburg) and regarded old ceremony (Article XV. 44, Apology), later men like Martin Chemnitz bore no adiaphora with Rome as if any discussion with Papacy was instantly compromising. Non-adiaphora Lutherans reasoned that in times of persecution, Christians best “confess every aspect of religion…In this case, even in adiaphora, they must not yield to the adversaries or permit these adiaphora to be forced on them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning” (X.10, Formula).  Thus a prejudice against catholic custom grew though  not characteristic of Lutherans until after 1545. It was nonetheless less extreme than Geneva.

And, while Anglicanism had its own Puritan party, the Puritan expectation that all external worship have divinely command was resisted by Parker and Whitgift. Anglican adiaphora therefore allowed older church rites to survive. The Queen’s chapel, which Puritans disparaged frequently, was a deposit of conservativism which weighted the settlement. The Anglican treatment of lawful custom is thus found not only in her Prayer Book (which despite various revisions, changed very little following 1559) but the Royal Injunctions which interpreted the Ornament Rubric and England’s catholic continuity. We cannot further define the Ornament Rubric without exploring these very important Royal Injunctions the bulk of which is reiterative (1559, 1566, 1604, 1629, etc..).

Ordering of Priests & NPW

The boundaries of liberty given in normativist  worship have so far been probed (well-summed  by the BCP Preface and Hooker’s Four Precepts).  However, normativism has yet to answer this quesiton, “Besides general principles of  restraint, what elements of worship is  specifically required by God; thus, what has no  liberty?”   I found a ready answer in the 1928 BCP rite for “the Form and Ordering of Priests”:

Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.

What God Instituted Be clear. Both Anglicans and Lutherans provide distinction between divinely instituted and man-made worship. Both belong in their own category and are treated differently. Ceremony instituted by God must be performed while those belonging to tradition are conditionally approved. Unlike Presbyterians, Anglicans retained man-made rites that did not diminish the gospel but were good for common peace, order, deference to precedence, and edification of the Church. The very nature of the episcopate compelled both uniformity and continuity in ceremony that other Protestants neglected.

Nonetheless, because certain worship is man-made Article XXXIV says, “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike…Every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done edifying.  The Lutherans (whom Anglicans consulted in the course of our Articles) likewise retained a good amount of catholic ritual given such edifies. The line, however, is drawn where rites and custom pretend to merit grace and forgive sin, elevating ‘custom’ to the status of dominical sacraments. While antique and venerable, they do not have such power.  Melanchthon says in the Augsburg Apology:

“We should not add to God’s covenant, for God promises that He will be merciful to us for Christ’s sake…Why do we need a long discussion? No tradition was set up by the Holy Fathers for the purpose of meriting forgiveness of sins, or righteousness. Rather they were instituted for the sake of good order in the Church and for the sake of peace” (Apology, p. 190)

Man cannot change or alter the terms of God’s covenant. The visible marks of covenant principally remit sin. After all what would be the church be without this power? Consequently, the Church is known wherever the forgiveness of sin is administered, “For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments” (AC, Article VII). The Prayer Book tells us the episcopate possesses the Keys which “forgive and retain sin”, and by the laying of hands from Christ, to His episcopate, to their priesthood, these Keys are thereby delegated and used. The 1928 BCP  rite, “Ordering and Form of Priesthood”, summarizes the necessary rites of God (hence, His Keys) :

RECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

A: What’s instituted, commanded, required by God, suffering no alteration, are the “retention and forgiveness” of man’s sin. God appointed His Word and Sacrament for this expressed purpose (mission), without which the church is mere political society, no different than, say, the Elks or Moose lodge.

How many Sacraments? It is readily apparent the Presbytery is charged not only with the instruction, peace, and otherwise canonical obligations (discipline) of the Church but particularly that which Christ appointed, Word and Sacrament. But what are the Sacraments? The St. Louis Affirmation says there are seven, and each is “His covenanted means for conveying His grace”. The Affirmation does not detail the “kinds” of grace conveyed (sanctifying or justifying), but a distinction is nonetheless acknowledged, differentiating Baptism and the Holy Eucharist from the other seven by calling such “necessary”. The Thirty-nine Articles also seperates the rank and dignity of Baptism and the Supper from the lesser, particular rites:

“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” (Art. XXV)

The Elizabethan “Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments” (Art. 35) likewise distinguishes Two from Seven:

“But in a generall acception, the mane of a Sacrament may be attributed to any thing 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 yeres taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments: but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oyle, washing of feete, and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are” (Homily on Common Prayer, p. 4)

By “corrupt following” perhaps the Articles implicate traditions that have befallen ‘confused usage’? An interesting study would be how the “Mass” is an “uber-liturgy’, broadened by the inclusion of various offeretory elements other than money, bread, and wine. Depending upon occasion, rites like Matrimony and Orders join the presentation alms and bread at the altar, given for God’s blessing.  Perhaps the “uber-liturgy’ of Mass (one rite ecnompassing a number of others) is the origin of the confusion? If so, it’s a beautiful one, but confused where the location of confection is mistaken– i.e.,  A married couple are not Bread and Wine for ‘eating’ . Perhaps I speculate.

Discussing the mystery and mode of sacraments is truly elusive. The Reformation seperated the Supper and Baptism from other rites according to their unique power to “remit or bind” sin. Can we say marriage ‘remits sin’ like Baptism? How about birthday blessings? Obviously palm leaves, paschal candles, and advent wrethes are man-made, albeit revered rites, and as a consequence cannot forgive sin. There must be a criteria, otherwise we become like the Eastern Orthodox who confuse custom with sacraments rendering even style of liturgy ‘essence’. Melanchthon highlights the problem:

“But if marriage has the name ‘sacrament’ because it has God’s command, other states or offices also, which have God’s command, may be called Sacraments, as, for example, the government. Finally, if among the Sacraments everything should be numbered that has God’s command, and to which promises have been added, why do we not add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For it has both God’s command and very many promises. If numbered along the Sacraments, although in a more prominent plaace, it would encourage people to pray. Alms could alaso be counted here…But let us leave out these things. For no levelheaded person will labor greatly about the number or the term, if only those things are still kept that have God’s commands and promises” (Apology, p. 185-6)

The problem with numbering sacraments is mistaking historical symbols (like crucifixes) and gestures (like the sign of the cross) that perhaps stir and excite faith with covenanted signs instituted by God to forgive sin. Tradition has an allegorical or memorialist signifcance, perhaps preparing us for the greater benefits of Christ, and thus indirectly assist our salvation, but God’s sacraments convey directly divine righteousness. It is not just a matter of ’scope’, i.e., the universality or general application of the sacraments, but a specific grace which they grant,  i.e., justifying grace. Ultimately at stake is the uniqueness and mission of the Church, “Can man institute rites (seperate from Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the Preaching of the Word) which bind and loose”? If so, then what is wrong with the blood of goats and bulls? Or Rome?

A matter of Adoration?                                                                                           Reformers revealed their medieval-scholastic colors by their systematic division of faith and love. Perhaps they were guilty of over-definition, but how else are abuses like indulgences addressed except through theology? Behind debates over justification and sanctification is the very nature of grace, “Is grace conditioned upon man’s civil righteousness?”  Rome based her economy of merit on pelagian and semi-pelagian concepts. The Reformation attacked Roman soteriology through rather rigid Augustinian categories. In fact, Anglicanism was the most true to Augustinian thought. What Anglican (Tudor) Reformers said about ‘justification’ (how sin is remitted) also pertains to dominical sacraments, i.e., their ex opera operato justifying power, wholly outside man.  From the Elizabethan Homily,

“First, you shall understand, that in our justification by Christ, it is not all one thing, the office of GOD unto man, and the office of man unto GOD. Justification is not the office of man, but of GOD” (Homily on Justification, p. 5)

“That we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GODS hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of our selves, and the might and power of GOD, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Savior Christ” (ditto, p. 9)

Hall is rather final on the subject, the matter having resonance with Donatism,

“St. Augustine met this difficulty by enunicating the catholic doctrine that the true minister in every sacrament is Jesus Christ, and that it is because of HIs agency that when the external requirements are rightly and seriously performed the promised operation of the Spirit is pledged. It is the Savior’s institution and promise, rather than the earthly minister’s faith and worthiness, that makes the sacrament valid. This teaching has been determinative, ever since, of catholic thought on the subject” (Hall, Vol. IX, p. 5).

Answering the question against NPW, “What does God command?”.  One response might be, “whatever ceremony deserves our adoration”. God commands the cure of souls not by man-made rites (no matter how ancient or edifying) but by the very “hands of God”, which the Homily (above) calls “God’s Office”. Luther says the Gospel (promise of remitted sin) comes by four offices– spoken Word, baptsim, supper, and Absolution (aka. keys). The importance of Justification is to understand there is nothing we add to reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins. We must look outside ourselves for divine righteousness and approval, our eyes fixed upon the peculiar signs God has appointed for His Word to give comfort. Word and Sacrament alone reconcile and ‘prevent’ men from sin and to God. The Ordering of Priests beautifully encapsulates this truth when the Bishop hands the candidate a Bible and/or Chalice whereupon fidelity to “Word and Sacrament” is sworn. Normativism gives no liberty with God’s offices, “The chief point is God’s Word and ordinance or command. For the Sacrament has not been invented nor introduced by any man. Without counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ” (Large Cathechism, Part 5.4), and so this is an answer to Regulativists who believe NPW leaves nothing to obey/duly administer.

I am finally drawing closure in my rants against RPW. NPW differs with Regulativism by insisting some (but not all) worship requires the express command of God. Man has a liberty in our response to grace, but none where sin is forgiven. Puritanical RPW lipsyncs Eastern Orthodoxy (and even Rome) when it raises all worship to the dignity and efficacy of sacrament. This is an abuse and gross error. Down the road I’d like explore the “lesser sacraments”, their correlation to the greater, and their essential relation to good works– i.e., responsive and preparatory to divine grace.