Descriptive and Prescriptive Anglicanism

http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/descriptive-and-prescriptive-anglicanism/

Descriptive and Prescriptive Anglicanism

by joelmartin

You may be familiar with the two different approaches to grammar known as descriptive and prescriptive grammar. The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language defines these approaches as follows:

A descriptive grammar is an account of a language that seeks to describe how it is used objectively, accurately, systematically, and comprehensively. A prescriptive grammar is an account of a language that sets out rules (prescriptions) for how it should be used and for what should not be used (proscriptions), based on norms derived from a particular model of grammar. (p 262-63)

A way to illustrate this is that a descriptivist would include “aint” in the dictionary because it is a word that people say, while a prescriptivist would not include it because it is a vulgar word, or a neologism and so should not be included.
I think the same schools of thought can be helpfully applied to the term “Anglicanism” today. Just what does it mean to be Anglican? If we use the descriptivist approach, we come up with an answer so broad as to cease being useful. You can be homosexual, bow to man-made objects, pray to Mary and the saints, be a conservative evangelical, be an Arminian or Calvinist, be charismatic or cessationist, and on and on. Archbishop Orombi attempted a summary a few years ago (here). There really aren’t many boundaries at all, everyone claims a right to the title and most have at least some historical precedent for their position.

If we turn to prescriptivist approach, I think we can fairly establish the parameters by looking at the two foundings of Anglicanism as something unique – the first under Henry VIII and the second under Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. We could look at the formularies of the Church, the substance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Homilies, the writings of the early Bishops and clergy, and so on. Although there will not be complete unity from this body of literature, I believe that there is enough substance to establish a firm baseline for what “Anglicanism” was intended to be.
Unfortunately, as Nietzsche said, the “world is the will to power” and the trajectories of Anglicanism show this in practice. Folks have paid no heed to the genesis of Anglicanism and have made it into a multifarious mess. As a prescriptivist I cannot agree that their interpretations are valid, ultimately they fail the Scriptural test. But from a descriptivist perspective, they can only be called Anglicans because that is what they call themselves.

Here are some sources that can contribute to a better understanding of what Anglicanism was intended to be:

[1] The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, by William Goode.

[2] The Primer: a Book of Private Prayer, edited by Henry Walter.

[3] Eighteen Sermons Preached in Oxford 1640, by Archbishop James Usher.

[4] Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England, Volume I and Volume II, by Edward Cardwell.

[5] The Principal Ecclesiastical Judgments Delivered in the Court of Arches 1867 to 1875, by Sir Robert Phillimore.

[6] Certain Sermons or Homilies: Appointed to be Read in Churches in the Time of the Late Queen Elizabeth, by the Church of England.

[7] Writings of the Rev. Dr. Thomas Cranmer

[8] Lives of the Elizabethan bishops of the Anglican Church, by Francis Overend White.

[9] Lawful Church Ornaments: Being an Historical Examination of the Judgment of Stephen Lushington in the case of Westerton v. Liddell, etc, by Thomas Walter Perry

[10] Formularies of faith put forth by authority during the reign of Henry VIII, ed. Charles Lloyd

[11] The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England, Sir Robert Phillimore

And of course, Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, all the works of Latimer, Cranmer, and Jewel.

Ridley (Among Others): Burned at the Stake

"What do you believe?" one might ask. "Would you die for it?" is rarely asked. "Ah, as long as I can get on with it, all this doctrine-stuff doesn't quite matter." Au contraire for men of principle and integrity. The English Reformers answered with their lives--not just the famous names whom we know and read, but the "no names" that are buried in history. The Saunders' family has one forbear as this article plaintifully evinces. (May we never forget that the Reformation was driven by the people--as much as by the leaders.) Lest we forget.

"Burned at the stake." Leicester Mercury, January 25, 2005., 14, Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed November 7, 2010).

Burned at the Stake

Speaking up for your beliefs was a dangerous thing to do in 16th-century England.

This was a time of great religious turmoil and intolerance that led to the burning in 1555 of such great names in English ecclesiastical history as Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer.

Another clergyman who was martyred for his beliefs was the Rev Lawrence Saunders who, after studying at Eton and Kings College, Cambridge, became a reader in divinity at St Mary and All Saints, Fotheringhay, in Northamptonshire.

After a period of time at Lichfield Cathedral, he became the rector of Church Langton in Leicestershire where he "held a residence, taught diligently, and kept a liberal house".

Saunders then moved to London as vicar of All Hallows, Bread Street, and later preached in Northampton, where he incurred the displeasure of Queen Mary and the Catholic authorities.

He was taken prisoner but was soon released and advised to flee the country. This he would not do and continued to preach and teach until he was imprisoned once more.

On February 4, 1555, the Bishop of London, Bishop Bonner, visited Saunders in prison "to degrade him" and the following day the Sheriff of London "delivered him to certain of the Queen's Guards who were appointed to carry him to the city of Coventry, there to be burnt."

When they arrived at Coventry, a poor shoemaker who used to serve him with shoes, came to him and said: "Oh my good master, God strengthen and comfort you". "Good shoemaker", Mr Saunders replied, "I desire thee to pray for me for I am the most unfit man for this high office that ever was appointed to it, but my gracious God and dear Father is able to make me strong enough." The next day he was led to the place of execution, refusing to recant with the words "The blessed Gospel of Christ is what I hold; that do I believe, that I have taught and will never revoke!"

He was burnt at the stake.

On February 5 this year, it will be the 450th anniversary of the martyrdom of Lawrence Saunders, and Mr Francis Lawrence Saunders Luckock has arranged a commemorative day and a Lawrence Saunders pilgrimage which will visit many of the sites connected with the martyr.

Mr Luckock is looking for "members of the Saunders family who believe they may be descendants of Lawrence Saunders" to get in touch with him on 0115 939 0103.

They are invited to join him for the Coventry Commemoration Day on February 5, which includes the Coventry Martyrs Memorial wreath laying Cathedral service and lecture by Dr Alec Ryrie, and some or all of the three-day Lawrence Saunders Pilgrimage scheduled for 4, 6 and 8 February. This will include visits to Eton College, Cambridge, Fotheringhay, Lichfield Cathedral, Church Langton, York Minster, the site of All Hallows, Bread Street, London, and Southwark Cathedral.

Ridley Aflame: "Heat on for martyr's tale"

Ridley Aflame, the ashes settle to indifferentism, neglect and amnesia. Yet, "Ridley Aflame."

DOIDGE, Fleur. "Heat on for martyr's tale." Sunday Star-Times, August 16, 1998., F5, Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed November 7, 2010).

"I trust this day we shall light a candle as will never be put out." Those were Hugh Latimer's words to Nicholas Ridley in October 1555 as they stood tied at the stake waiting to be burned.

Latimer and Ridley became two of the most famous British Protestant martyrs. Their passion burned so brightly that they refused to renounce their Protestant beliefs.

It is a testament to the power of words that the passion of Latimer and Ridley lives on in the former Anglican settlement of Christchurch, New Zealand. Only this time it is lesser-known Nicholas Ridley who comes to the fore, in local playwright Jeremy Roake's Ridley on Fire. The play was first performed to a packed cathedral one November night in 1997. A revamped version is staged this week.

No ordinary religious play, Ridley on Fire is aimed at modern sensibilities. It is a multi-media production which mixes plainsong and bagpipes with Joan Armatrading, neo-Gothic architecture with projected visuals of zebras and hyenas, and Christianity with karmic law. It is part of Roake's take on history that spirituality is not to be observed from a distance.

Roake's Ridley is a particularly personal interpretation. "He's coming back (from death) and he's not polite or well-rounded. He's pissed off, he's indignant, and he's saying `get into survival mode, everybody'.

"Ridley says, `if you want to build a fire, make sure it's a proper fire." Ridley suffered horrifically at the stake. The fire burned so slowly he remained conscious even after his legs were completely burnt off.

David McPhail, dressed in a burnt cassock, will once again play Ridley. "He's best in his serious roles, I think," says Roake. "He carries the whole thing. He's got such energy."

* Ridley On Fire, Christchurch Cathedral, Aug 21, 23

Lest We Forget: Latimer and Ridley Burned at the Stake

Cavendish, Richard. "Latimer and Ridley Burned at the Stake." History Today 55.10 (2005): 52-53. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.

"Latimer and Ridley Burned at the Stake

October 16th, 1555

ACROSS IN THE ROAD in Oxford's Broad St marks the site of the execution. Workmen had discovered part of a stake and some bits of charred hone there, in what had once been part of the town ditch. Whether, as the flames were kindled, Latimer really said, 'Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out' is uncertain. The remark, if Latimer made it, came ultimately from the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp in the second century given by the historian Eusebius, an author he knew well. It was in the 1583 edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but not in the earlier edition of 1563. John Foxe was unusual among intellectuals at the time in thinking that burning people to death for their opinions was not an altogether commendable idea.

Hugh Latimer was about seventy when he went to the stake. A former Bishop of Worcester, he was later an influential preacher and chaplain in London and at Edward VI's court. Nicholas Ridley, in his early fifties, had been Bishop of London and an outspoken supporter of the attempt to make Lady Jane Grey queen instead of 'Bloody' Mary. After Mary's accession he was arrested for treason. Latimer was warned that his arrest was imminent, and the new regime might have preferred him to flee abroad, but he stood his ground. From early in 1554 he and Ridley shared a cell in the Tower of London with Archbishop Cranmer and the well-known preacher John Bradford.

In March Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were moved to the town prison in Oxford, where they were to debate in public with Roman Catholic theologians. Ridley defended his beliefs with particular brilliance and Latimer dismissed his opponents as 'mass-mongers'. Back in the town gaol, with his faithful servant Augustine Bernher in attendance, Latimer read the New Testament over and over again. No other books were allowed him. Cast down by the mounting defections from Protestant ranks, the prisoners watched anxiously as the heresy trials began in January 1555 and greeted the first burning, of John Rogers at Smithfield in February, as a triumph. Ridley wrote, 'And yet again I bless God in our dear brother and of this time proto-martyr Rogers.'

The arch-conservative Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor, presided over the trial for heresy at the end of September, when Latimer took the opportunity to deliver a blistering attack on the see of Rome as the enemy and persecutor of Christ's true flock. There was never any doubt about the verdict.

Ridley went to the pyre in a smart black gown, but the grey-haired Latimer, who had a gift for publicity, wore a shabby old garment, which he took off to reveal a shroud. Ridley kissed the stake and both men knelt and prayed. After a fifteen-minute sermon urging them to repent, they were chained to the stake and a bag of gunpowder was hung round each man's neck. The pyre was made of gorse branches and faggots of wood. As the fire took hold, Latimer was stifled by the smoke and died without pain, but poor Ridley was not so lucky. The wood was piled up above his head, but he writhed in agony and repeatedly cried out, 'Lord, have mercy upon me' and 'I cannot burn'. Cranmer, who was made to watch, would go to his own death the following year. "

~~~~~~~~

By Richard Cavendish

Nicholas Ridley, "England's Calvin" on the Lord's Supper

Panofré, Charlotte Anne. "From Latimer's Fellow-martyr to the 'English Calvin': Nicholas Ridley's Reputation and the Circulation of A brief declaration of the Lordes Supper, 1555-1570." Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 10.2 (2008): 175-193. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.

A most commendable article. In summary,

Nicholas Ridley, the Edwardian Bishop of London, was executed in October, 1555, during Mary Tudor's reign. An active publicist, he composed in prison a treatise that promoted the Reformed view of Holy Communion. If Latimer was the "Apostle to England," a preacher, Ridley was significantly more erudite, "moderate" and "sharp" of mind. Ridley's work was published in Emden (1555) and in Strasbourg (1556). In 1556, A brief declaracion found its way to Geneva where a community of English exiles had it translated into Latin (Conrad Badius then issued a version in French). Not only did the translation acquire a polemical edge, but certain allusions, scattered in the preface and in the margins of the text, turned Ridley's treatise into a `Calvinist' manifesto with a trans-national readership. This came at a time when Calvin was defending his views against the Lutheran polemicist, Joachim Westphal. Ex-patriate English Reformers driven from their homes and families during the Marian period, Edmund Grindal (Frankfurt) and Whittingham (Geneva), both had access to Ridley's work. The former would be Elizabeth's second Protestant and Reformed Archbishop of Canterbury. The latter would become the influential Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, who would lock horns with Cardinal Bellarmine. Whittingham made Ridley's work known to Jean Calvin. Whittingham would also accuse Westphal of "impanation," a view close to transubstantiation. Meanwhile, Jean Crespin made use of Badius's version in his martyrologies and reprinted Ridley's treatise in his 1570 edition. Whereas in England, Ridley's works began to be perceived as controversial after Mary's death. Crespin and Beza (Icones, 1580) put Ridley in the Reformation pantheon, kept his treatise alive and heralded him as the 'English Calvin' in French Reformed circles. Also, Beza likens Latimer and Ridley, in their martyrdoms, to Polycarp and Igatius. This is not something that John Henry Newman would like hearing, but these are the facts.

Basic Timeline: Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555)

Nicholas Ridley, 1500-1550, English, Reformed, Calvinistic, Protestant martyr.

1534

While a proctor of Cambridge, he signed the decree against the pope's supremacy in England.

1537

He became chaplain to Thomas Cranmer.

1540

Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.

1541

Became a chaplain to Henry VIII and canon of Canterbury.

1547

As bishop of Rochester, Ridley was chosen to strengthen and establish Reformed Theology at Cambridge.

1548
In the reign of Edward VI, he took part in compiling the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. He was assigned as a commissioner in the examination that resulted in the deposition of bishops Stephen Gardiner and Edmund Bonner.

1550

Ridley succeeded Bonner as Bishop of London. He sought to improve the condition of the poor by preaching on social injustices before the king.

1553

Ridley supported Lady Jane Grey's claims to the crown. Shortly after Mary Tudor's accession as the Romanist Queen Mary I, Ridley was imprisoned.

1554

With Cranmer and Hugh Latimer he took part in the Oxford disputations against a group of Catholic theologians and would not recant his Protestant faith. He was burned at the stake with Latimer before Balliol Hall, Oxford.

Latimer's parting words to Ridley are often quoted:

"Be of good courage, brother Ridley, and play the man; for we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND HIS ENGLISH AUDIENCE 1533-54

Ayris, Paul. "THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND HIS ENGLISH AUDIENCE 1533-54." Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 3 (2000): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.

We are pulling citations from Dr. Paul Ayris's scholarly work. Paul is working from Cranmer's correspondence. A most commendable works.

Cranmer and the Prayer Book,

"Of all the letters reproduced below, perhaps the most important is letter K which concerns the use of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. The 1552 text represents a thorough revision of the first edition of 1549 and was necessary when Stephen Gardiner's Explication and Assertion of 1551 demonstrated that the doctrine of the real presence could be found in Cranmer's work. The rite of 1552 dramatically altered the shape of the liturgy in the communion rite. No trace of the mediaeval canon of the mass survived. The emphasis in the 1552 service is on the reception of the bread and wine by the faithful. This represents a radical development on the doctrine and practice of the 1549 rite.(n13)"

Cranmer and Knox on kneeling to receive HM's body and blood at Holy Communion

"The Duke of Northumberland was an enemy of Cranmer, being influenced by the radicalism of John Knox, whom he brought south from Newcastle and Berwick. Knox's views were similar to those of John Laski and, when he arrived in London, Knox picked a quarrel with Cranmer over the issue of kneeling at the communion. Knox denounced this practice in a sermon before the king and the Privy Council. The Council were impressed by Knox's views, and his zeal, and ordered the printer Grafton to stop work until Cranmer explained himself.(n14)"

Cranmer pulls the trump card on the regulative principle of Knox

"Cranmer then turned to specific theological concerns, as though he were disputing a point with an undergraduate at Cambridge. His opponents objected that kneeling was not commanded in Scripture and that what is not commanded in Scripture is unlawful. Cranmer then produced his trump card by identifying this as the doctrine of the Anabaptists, representing a subversion of all order. If this assertion is true, asked Cranmer, why bother to have any prescribed form of service at all? This was a devastating argument and Cranmer drove his attack home by pushing his opponents' arguments to a form of conclusion. The latter maintained that Scripture did not expressly state that Christ ministered the sacraments to his apostles kneeling. Nor, insisted Cranmer, did they find that he ministered it standing or sitting. If the plain word of Scripture were to be followed, those receiving the bread and wine would receive it lying on the ground, as was then the custom and, as Cranmer pointed out, the Tartars and Turks still did."

Cranmer and the Black Rubric (1552) which disappears in the 1559 BCP, but reappears in the 1662 BCP, the benchmark for classical Anglicanism to this day (Tractarians are radical and fundamentalistic Puritans)

"The letter reveals a startling side to Cramer's character, one far removed from the traditional image of a 'doubting Thomas'. On the contrary, here was a man at the height of his career. Both Cranmer and Knox were invited to give further thought to the matter. On 22. October, just two weeks after Cranmer had sent his letter, the Council took the decision to add the Black Rubric to the 1552 Prayer Book. This text justified the practice of kneeling and ruled out any imputation of idolatry by that action, rejecting any notion of the real presence. It is usually taken that the publication of the Black Rubric represents a defeat for Cranmer and a victory for his opponents. Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch has maintained that, on the contrary, the Black Rubric marks Cranmer's victory over his adversaries, since it supports Cranmer's own theological understanding of the sacrament. This revisionism is probably going too far, since it was only the opposition of men like Knox that led to the publication of the Rubric in the first place. Nonetheless, Professor MacCulloch is right to claim that the Black Rubric supports, and does not overturn, the position which Cranmer took in his letter of 7 October. Despite lacking parliamentary sanction, the Rubric defends Cranmer's text in the rite of 1552 and the spirit of the Book presented to parliament.(n15)"

Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer--principal targets for the Marian regime for the purpose of international publicity of their fame as heretics

"In March 1554 Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were all sent to Oxford.(n20) This triumvirate was a principal target for the Marian regime. Between them, they represented the whole span of the English Reformation, starting in the 1520s. The government had decided to put the trio on trial at Oxford. The instrument was to be a delegation of the Canterbury convocation, headed by Hugh Weston, which was to act as a tribunal to investigate the prisoners. This was not a trial, rather a disputation which would display the heresies of the three men, all Cambridge graduates, to the world, thus providing material for a full heresy trial once Roman obedience has been re-established. The disputation lasted from 14 until 20 April.(n21)"

The Reformation in Britain - The Martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer

Theology Network - The Reformation in Britain - The martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer

The martyrdom of Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer by John Foxe

(John Foxe (1517-1587) was a writer and academic, best known for his work Acts and Monuments which is usually called Foxe's Book of Martyrs.)

These reverend prelates suffered October 17, 1555, at Oxford, on the same day Wolsey and Pygot perished at Ely. Pillars of the Church and accomplished ornaments of human nature, they were the admiration of the realm, amiably conspicuous in their lives, and glorious in their deaths.

Dr. Ridley was born in Northumberland, was first tauht grammar at Newcastle, and afterward removed to Cambridge, where his aptitude in education raised him gradually until he came to be the head of Pembroke College, where he received the title of Doctor of Divinity. Having returned from a trip to Paris, he was appointed chaplain by Henry VIII and bishop of Rochester, and was afterwards translated to the see of London in the time of Edward VI.

To his sermons the people resorted, swarming about him like bees, coveting the sweet flowers and wholesome juice of the fruitful doctrine, which he did not only preach, but showed the same by his life, as a glittering lanthorn to the eyes and senses of the blind, in such pure order that his very enemies could not reprove him in any one jot.

His tender treatment of Dr. Heath, who was a prisoner with him during one year, in Edward's reign, evidently proves that he had no Catholic cruelty in his disposition. In person he was erect and well proportioned; in temper forgiving; in self-mortification severe. His first duty in the morning was private prayer: he remained in his study until ten o'clock, and then attended the daily prayer used in his house. Dinner being done, he sat about an hour, conversing pleasantly, or playing at chess. His study next engaged his attention, unless business or visits occurred; about five o'clock prayers followed; and after he would recreate himself at chess for about an hour, then retire to his study until eleven o'clock, and pray on his knees as in the morning. In brief, he was a pattern of godliness and virtue, and such he endeavored to make men wherever he came.

His attentive kindness was displayed particularly to old Mrs. Bonner, mother of Dr. Bonner, the cruel bishop of London. Dr. Ridley, when at his manor at Fulham, always invited her to his house, placed her at the head of his table, and treated her like his own mother; he did the same by Bonner's sister and other relatives; but when Dr. Ridley was under persecution, Bonner pursued a conduct diametrically opposite, and would have sacrificed Dr. Ridley's sister and her husband, Mr. George Shipside, had not Providence delivered him by the means of Dr. Heath, bishop of Worcester.

Dr. Ridley was first in part converted by reading Bertram's book on the Sacrament, and by his conferences with archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr.

Edward VI

When Edward VI was removed from the throne, and the bloody Mary succeeded, Bishop Ridley was immediately marked as an object of slaughter. He was first sent to the Tower, and afterward, at Oxford, was consigned to the common prison of Bocardo, with archbishop Cranmer and Mr. Latimer. Being separated from them, he was placed in the house of one Irish, where he remained until the day of his martyrdom, from 1554, until October 16, 1555.

It will easily be supposed that the conversations of these chiefs of the martyrs were elaborate, learned, and instructive. Such indeed they were, and equally beneficial to all their spiritual comforts. Bishop Ridley's letters to various Christian brethren in bonds in all parts, and his disputations with the mitred enemies of Christ, alike proved the clearness of his head and the integrity of his heart. In a letter to Mr. Grindal, (afterward archbishop of Canterbury,) he mentions with affection those who had preceded him in dying for the faith, and those who were expected to suffer; he regrets that popery is re-established in its full abomination, which he attributes to the wrath of God, made manifest in return for the lukewarmness of the clergy and the people in justly appreciating the blessed light of the Reformation.

This old practiced soldier of Christ, Master Hugh Latimer, was the son of one Hugh Latimer, of Thurkesson in the county of Leicester, a husbandman, of a good and wealthy estimation; where also he was born and brought up until he was four years of age, or thereabout: at which time his parents, having him as then left for their only son, with six daughters, seeing his ready, prompt, and sharp wit, purposed to train him up in erudition, and knowledge of good literature; wherein he so profited in his youth at the common schools of his own country, that at the age of fourteen years, he was sent to the University of Cambridge; where he entered into the study of the school divinity of that day, and was from principle a zealous observer of the Romish superstitions of the time. In his oration when he commenced bachelor of divinity, he inveighed against the reformer Melancthon, and openly declaimed against good Mr. Stafford, divinity lecturer in Cambridge.

Mr. Thomas Bilney, moved by a brotherly pity towards Mr.Latimer, begged to wait upon him in his study, and to explain to him the groundwork of his (Mr. Bilney's) faith. This blessed interview effected his conversion: the persecutor of Christ became his zealous advocate, and before Dr. Stafford died he became reconciled to him.

Once converted, he became eager for the conversion of others, and commenced to be public preacher, and private instructor in the university. His sermons were so pointed against the absurdity of praying in the Latin tongue, and withholding the oracles of salvation from the people who were to be saved by belief in them, that he drew upon himself the pulpit animadversions of several of the resident friars and heads of houses, whom he subsequently silenced by his severe criticisms and eloquent arguments. This was at Christmas, 1529. At length Dr. West preached against Mr. Latimer at Barwell Abbey, and prohibited him from preaching again in the churches of the university, notwithstanding which, he continued during three years to advocate openly the cause of Christ, and even his enemies confessed the power of those talents he possessed. Mr. Bilney remained here some time with Mr. Latimer, and thus the place where they frequently walked together obtained the name of Heretics' Hill.

Mr. Latimer at this time traced out the innocence of a poor woman, accused by her husband of the murder of her child. Having preached before King Henry VIII at Windsor, he obtained the unfortunate mother's pardon. This, with many other benevolent acts, served only to excite the spleen of his adversaries. He was summoned before Cardinal Wolsey for heresy, but being a strenuous supporter of the king's supremacy, in opposition to the pope's, by favor of Lord Cromwell and Dr. Buts, (the king's physician,) he obtained the living of West Kingston, in Wiltshire. For his sermons here against purgatory, the immaculacy of the Virgin, and the worship of images, he was cited to appear before Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, and John, bishop of London. He was required to subscribe certain articles, expressive of his conformity to the accustamed usages; and there is reason to think, after repeated weekly examinations, that he did subscribe, as they did not seem to involve any important article of belief.

Guided by Providence, he escaped the subtle nets of his persecutors, and at length, through the powerful friends before mentioned, became bishop of Worcester, in which function he qualified or explained away most of the papal ceremonies he was for form's sake under the necessity of complying with. He continued in this active and dignified employment some years.

Beginning afresh to set forth his plow he labored in the Lord's harvest most fruitfully, discharging his talent as well in divers places of this realm, as before the king at the court. In the same place of the inward garden, which was before applied to lascivious and courtly pastimes, there he dispensed the fruitful Word of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, preaching there before the king and his whole court, to the edification of many.

He remained a prisoner in the Tower until the coronation of Edward VI, when he was again called to the Lord's harvest in Stamford, and many other places: he also preached at London in the convocation house, and before the young king; indeed he lectured twice every Sunday, regardless of his great age (then above sixty-seven years,) and his weakness through a bruise received from the fall of a tree. Indefatigable in his private studies, he rose to them in winter and in summer at two o'clock in the morning.

By the strength of his own mind, or of some inward light from above, he had a prophetic view of what was to happen to the Church in Mary's reign, asserting that he was doomed to suffer for the truth, and that Winchester, then in the Tower, was preserved for that purpose. Soon after Queen Mary was proclaimed, a messenger was sent to summon Mr. Latimer to town, and there is reason to believe it was wished that he should make his escape.

Thus Master Latimer coming up to London, through Smithfield (where merrily he said that Smithfield had long groaned for him), was brought before the Council, where he patiently bore all the mocks and taunts given him by the scornful papists. He was cast into the Tower, where he, being assisted with the heavenly grace of Christ, sustained imprisonment a long time, notwithstanding the cruel and unmerciful handling of the lordly papists, which thought then their kingdom would never fall; he showed himself not only patient, but also cheerful in and above all that which they could or would work against him. Yea, such a valiant spirit the Lord gave him, that he was able not only to despise the terribleness of prisons and torments, but also to laugh to scorn the doings of his enemies.

Mr. Latimer, after remaining a long time in the Tower, was transported to Oxford, with Cranmer and Ridley, the disputations at which place have been already mentioned in a former part of this work. He remained imprisoned until October, and the principal objects of all his prayers were three-that he might stand faithful to the doctrine he had professed, that God would restore his Gospel to England once again, and preserve the Lady Elizabeth to be queen; all of which happened. When he stood at the stake without the Bocardo gate, Oxford, with Dr. Ridley, and fire was putting to the pile of fagots, he raised his eyes benignantly towards heaven, and said, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able." His body was forcibly penetrated by the fire, and the blood flowed abundantly from the heart; as if to verify his constant desire that his heart's blood might be shed in defence of the Gospel. His polemical and friendly letters are lasting monuments of his integrity and talents. It has been before said, that public disputation took place in April, 1554, new examinations took place in October, 1555, previous to the degradation and condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. We now draw to the conclusion of the lives of the two last.

Dr. Ridley, the night before execution, was very facetious, had himself shaved, and called his supper a marriage feast; he remarked upon seeing Mrs. Irish (the keeper's wife) weep, "Though my breakfast will be somewhat sharp, my supper will be more pleasant and sweet."

The place of death was on the northside of the town, opposite Baliol College. Dr. Ridley was dressed in a black gown furred, and Mr. Latimer had a long shroud on, hanging down to his feet. Dr. Ridley, as he passed Bocardo, looked up to see Dr. Cranmer, but the latter was then engaged in disputation with a friar. When they came to the stake, Mr. Ridley embraced Latimer fervently, and bid him: "Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flame, or else strengthen us to abide it." He then knelt by the stake, and after earnestly praying together, they had a short private conversation. Dr. Smith then preached a short sermon against the martyrs, who would have answered him, but were prevented by Dr. Marshal, the vice-chancellor. Dr. Ridley then took off his gown and tippet, and gave them to his brother-in-law, Mr. Shipside. He gave away also many trifles to his weeping friends, and the populace were anxious to get even a fragment of his garments. Mr. Latimer gave nothing, and from the poverty of his garb, was soon stripped to his shroud, and stood venerable and erect, fearless of death.

Dr. Ridley being unclothed to his shirt, the smith placed an iron chain about their waists, and Dr. Ridley bid him fasten it securely; his brother having tied a bag of gunpowder about his neck, gave some also to Mr. Latimer.

Dr. Ridley then requested of Lord Williams, of Fame, to advocate with the queen the cause of some poor men to whom he had, when bishop, granted leases, but which the present bishop refused to confirm. A lighted fagot was now laid at Dr. Ridley's feet, which caused Mr. Latimer to say: "Be of good cheer, Ridley; and play the man. We shall this day, by God's grace, light up such a candle in England, as I trust, will never be put out."

When Dr. Ridley saw the fire flaming up towards him, he cried with a wonderful loud voice, "Lord, Lord, receive my spirit." Master Latimer, crying as vehemently on the other side, "O Father of heaven, receive my soul!" received the flame as it were embracing of it. After that he had stroked his face with his hands, and as it were, bathed them a little in the fire, he soon died (as it appeareth) with very little pain or none.

Well! dead they are, and the reward of this world they have already. What reward remaineth for them in heaven, the day of the Lord's glory, when he cometh with His saints, shall declare.

In the following month died Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester and lord chancellor of England. This papistical monster was born at Bury, in Suffolk, and partly educated at Cambridge. Ambitious, cruel, and bigoted, he served any cause; he first espoused the king's part in the affair of Anne Boleyn: upon the establishment of the Reformation he declared the supremacy of the pope an execrable tenet; and when Queen Mary came to the crown, he entered into all her papistical bigoted views, and became a second time bishop of Winchester. It is conjectured it was his intention to have moved the sacrifice of Lady Elizabeth, but when he arrived at this point, it pleased God to remove him.

It was on the afternoon of the day when those faithful soldiers of Christ, Ridley and Latimer, perished, that Gardiner sat down with a joyful heart to dinner. Scarcely had he taken a few mouthfuls, when he was seized with illness, and carried to his bed, where he lingered fifteen days in great torment, unable in any wise to evacuate, and burnt with a devouring fever, that terminated in death. Execrated by all good Christians, we pray the Father of mercies, that he may receive that mercy above he never imparted below.

Ridley, the Gospel, and Justification

Will anyone submit a book review on Bishop Nicholas Ridley, London, on the cross, justification and the sacraments? Any takers?

Submit article and book review to reformationtoday@yahoo.com.

We have no confidence in modern Anglican outlets. Aside from the Churchsociety.org in Anglicanism, is there any remembance of Ridley?

We justifiably have doubts.

Here are a few writings of Ridley, martyr for His Majesty's Gospel.

Lest we forget! The modern outlets would have us to forget! We shan't. Virtue, when will you run a review of the English Reformers? Or would that offend your readership?

http://books.google.com/books?id=XR0QAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=nicholas+ridley&hl=en&ei=SBWpTI-yEIGdlgeM0firDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Heart and Soul of Anglicanism: The Martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer « Awakening Grace

The Heart and Soul of Anglicanism: The Martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer « Awakening Grace

The Heart and Soul of Anglicanism: The Martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer

This morning during men’s group I shared the early history of the English Reformation, discussing the Gospel convictions of the early English reformers. As promised, below is an account of the martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer. Note Ridely’s remark at his last meal, that it was a “marriage feast.” That is, Ridley is having a banquet before the bride of Christ meets her husband. Read the whole account of the Marian persecutions here.

Dr. Ridley, the night before execution, was very facetious, had himself shaved, and called his supper a marriage feast; he remarked upon seeing Mrs. Irish (the keeper’s wife) weep, “Though my breakfast will be somewhat sharp, my supper will be more pleasant and sweet.”

The place of death was on the northside of the town, opposite Baliol College. Dr. Ridley was dressed in a black gown furred, and Mr. Latimer had a long shroud on, hanging down to his feet. Dr. Ridley, as he passed Bocardo, looked up to see Dr. Cranmer, but the latter was then engaged in disputation with a friar. When they came to the stake, Mr. Ridley embraced Latimer fervently, and bid him: “Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flame, or else strengthen us to abide it.” He then knelt by the stake, and after earnestly praying together, they had a short private conversation. Dr. Smith then preached a short sermon against the martyrs, who would have answered him, but were prevented by Dr. Marshal, the vice-chancellor. Dr. Ridley then took off his gown and tippet, and gave them to his brother-in-law, Mr. Shipside. He gave away also many trifles to his weeping friends, and the populace were anxious to get even a fragment of his garments. Mr. Latimer gave nothing, and from the poverty of his garb, was soon stripped to his shroud, and stood venerable and erect, fearless of death.

Dr. Ridley being unclothed to his shirt, the smith placed an iron chain about their waists, and Dr. Ridley bid him fasten it securely; his brother having tied a bag of gunpowder about his neck, gave some also to Mr. Latimer.

Dr. Ridley then requested of Lord Williams, of Fame, to advocate with the queen the cause of some poor men to whom he had, when bishop, granted leases, but which the present bishop refused to confirm. A lighted fagot was now laid at Dr. Ridley’s feet, which caused Mr. Latimer to say: “Be of good cheer, Ridley; and play the man. We shall this day, by God’s grace, light up such a candle in England, as I trust, will never be put out.”

When Dr. Ridley saw the fire flaming up towards him, he cried with a wonderful loud voice, “Lord, Lord, receive my spirit.” Master Latimer, crying as vehemently on the other side, “O Father of heaven, receive my soul!” received the flame as it were embracing of it. After that he had stroked his face with his hands, and as it were, bathed them a little in the fire, he soon died (as it appeareth) with very little pain or none.

Well! dead they are, and the reward of this world they have already. What reward remaineth for them in heaven, the day of the Lord’s glory, when he cometh with His saints, shall declare.

Bertram (9th Century) and the English Reformed: Real Presence

Bertram and the English Reformers: The Real Presence by W.F. Taylor

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_003_2_Taylor.pdf

Bertram was a ninth century monk who wrote a famous treatise "On the Body and Blood of the Lord" against the rising tide of "Real Presence" and "Transubstantiation." The latter two doctrines would be pressed forward by 19th and 20th century Anglicans; essentially, it devolves and revolves around "bread worship."

Bertram or Ratramnus flourished around 840 A.D. and his above treatise was written a few years later. Ratramnus was his real name. Beatus was connected to it and abbreviated to Bertram. He was a Presbyter and monk in the monastery of Corbie, France. His learning was wide. He also wrote treatises on "Predestination" and "The Manner of our Lord's Birth." During this period, the image controversy was at its height and, notwithstanding the opposition of many, including kings and councils, it carried the day.

The ninth century was when the forgeries or forged decretals saw the light of day, imposing impostures designed to prop up Popery and supremacism---something we still live with and something we must resist manfully. Upon singing the Psalms, we are reminded repeatedly, "Remove lying lips from me." We must still sing and pray that, seeking to help Romanists to get free from the lies.

Image-worship was spreading and many clerks supported it as aids to worship (they had stupid clerks then too), much like many clerks support CCM, or Contemporary Christian music---devoid of substance. The two aren't all that far apart. Relics and saint worship were becoming extravagant, extensive and "popular aids to worship." Sound familar?

The views of God were aberrant also. Everyone believed that God's would never be propitious to them. People sought varied saints and other intercessors for them. We hear the same tripe from Anglo-Catholics with their small confidence in the adequacy and virility of Christ's Intercessorial ministry. It was evident that St. Paul's Epistles were not being taught to the people. New feast days were created to celebrate saints who might invoke the Almighty for mercy; this still is the core-idea in myriads of Italian cities, villages, and hamlets to this day. Living and travelling through Italy and Greece for three years made this "will worship" evident. Pictures, icons, and statues multipled.

Sound familiar? It's Anglo-Catholicism in doctrine and, often, by the mere "aesthetics by popular demand," "liberal-minded atavisms," and impoverished claims to corrupted practices.

We include a photo of one such corrupted man (to the immediate right), Mr. or Rev. (Bp.) Keith Ackerman of the Anglican Province of North America (ACNA). Keith couldn't and wouldn't endorse the article we are writing. Nor would his frontman, David Virtue. But back to our story.

Against this background, Paschasius Rhadbertus, Abbot of Corbie, propounded the doctrine of "Real Presence" in the virtual sense of "Transubstantiation." Bellarmine admits as much in his review of Rhadbertus' De Sacramento Corporis (c.845 AD). The book was presented to Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne.
Three men opposed Rhadbertus's work: Rabanus Maurus (Archbishop of Mentz), Johannes Erigena Scotus, and Bertram, the subject of our review.

Charles the Bald called upon both men, Scotus and Bertram, to write their reviews that the rising controversy might be allayed and that the true doctrine of the Catholic Church might be established. Scotus' work has not survived, regrettably. He was a skilled theologian and was accomplished in Greek. It's one of those losses from history.

Bertram's work has survived. While Romanism would ultimately issue its ipse dixit and tub-thumping at the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215--a ruling still on the books and to be manfully resisted today--the blessed Reformers would recover Rhadbertus' doctrine on the Table and the true nature of the sacrament.

Berengarius, Canon of Tours, in the eleventh century would openly maintain Rhadbertus' view. He was openly persecuted. He scarcely escaped the flames. Ironically, the iron-willed Bishop of Rome, Hildebrand, provided him the political and ecclesiastical cover...he lived, but to fight another day. A candle was shining in the darkness of popular corruptions. Feel any kinship to Berengarius? As a Confe ssional and Reformed Anglican, living in the darkness and in the Babylonian Captivity?

In the fourteenth century, our beloved Rector of Lutterwork, our beloved John Wycliffe, would fearlessly propound the same doctrine as Berengarius and Bertram. No milquetoast. He declaimed against Rome. Would Dr. James Innes Packer do the same? Or would Dr. John Stott? Or would Bob Duncan on the "Bob Duncan Show?" No, these moderns are no Wycliffes. The moderns tolerate Rome and Anglo-Romanism.

As noted, the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 had already issued its peremptory decrees on Transubstantiation, later affirmed--with anathemas--by Trent. The Tridentine anathemas still obtain. Wycliffe would strenuously deny Transubstantiation and Roman imperialism. (He also believed in sola scriptura, justification by faith alone and in double predestination.)

Wycliffe composed his famous piece, The Wicket. It was a treatise on hoc est corpus meum. The bread, Wycliffe taught, was "the figure or mind of Christ's body in earth; and that therefore Christ said, `As oft as ye do this thing, do it in mind of me.'" Again, "All the sacraments that are left here on earth are but minds of the body of Christ; for a sacrament is no more to say but a sign or mind of a thing passed, or a thing to come; for when Jesus spake of the bread, and said to his disciples, `As oft as ye do this thing, do it in mind of me,' it was set for a mind of good things passed of Christ's body; but when the angel showed to John (Apoc.xvii) the sacraments of the woman and of the beast that bare her, it was set for a mind of evil things to come on the face of the earth and great destroying of the people of God."

This stands against the Lutheran, Anglo-Catholic, Tractarian and Roman views. It stands forequarely in the Reformed tradition---Anglican, Presbyterian and Reformed.

Wycliffe denounced the "real presence" views as heresy. He lived in great danger, but through the powerful patronage of Duke John of Gaunt, he was spared the usual course and fare offered up by Rome--death. He died in peace in 1384 AD. These views were taken up by Jan Huss and Jerome of Prague, who, by orders of the Council of Constance, 1415, were burned at the stake. Behold Rome's love!

These things gave great impetus to Lollardism in England, Wycliffe's beloved disciples, Bible-men, evangelicals, true teachers, and evangelists. Moral corruption, high and low, civil and ecclesiastical, offended the elect of God. (Search our archives on Hardwick's XXXIX Articles or a review of this century.) The Papal Schism, 1378-1431, in which there were two, sometimes three, popes added to the wickednesses and offenses of the day--each senior clerk ordaining his own bishops and each of the three lines abusing and recriminating one another. Behold the humility of Christ in Romanism! Roman strumpets trumpetted their claim over temporal kingdoms as well as their own empire. Reformation winds were definintely in the air for 150 years before Luther. God's elect and kingdom, though in much darkness, did not yield. The devil could not blow out God's candles of light.

By the fifteenth century, Zwingli in Switzerland, Luther in Germany, Calvin in France, and an entire host of men in England (White Horse Inn) would begin the lost process of bringing God's Word, God's Gospel, God's two sacraments, and the attendant messages back to the nations: election, predestination, justification, adoption, perseverance of the saints, assurance of salvation, the necessity of good works and more. Post tenebras, lux. "After the darkness, the light."

The Roman imperialists, Pharisees, and dragoons responded with their anathemas of Trent (1545-1563). The Word of God was not for the people; they were too stupid to read. It was a clique of claques and clowns at the top, in a definite minority, running the religious program and driving the people to ignorance.

Burnet, the historian, says: The design of the Reformation was to restore Christianity to what it was at first, and to purge it of those corruptions with which it was overrun in the later and darker ages.

The emancipation of England was at hand. We deal not with the machinations, motives and policies of Henry VIII...wicked, evil and self-serving as they were.

Rather, God called him, like a small fly at His sovereign beckon, to provide cover for Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley. And thereby, as a little gnat, God used this gnat, Henry VIII, to would provide cover--not so wittingly--until the English Bible, godly Prayer Book, and a modest Reformed Confession (XXXIX Articles) were prepared for the world.

Both Reformers, with the assistance of others such as Bucer, would prune the Prayer Services of Romanism and relics of the Babylonian Captivity--Romanism. Both would embrace the view of the supper propounded by Bertram, the Monk of Corbie, who seven hundred years earlier had, at the command of his Sovereign, stood up for God's simple truths against medieval superstition and bread-worshipping.

We face the same disfigurations and superstitions of bread worship today. It dominates the West and East. It finds expression in the disfigurations of a very corrupted and failed Anglicanism, especially in an equally corrupted Anglo-Catholicism.

We provide a photo to your immediate right of Mr. or Rev. (some call him Bp.) Jack Leo Iker, Ft. Worth, TX, who supports and sponsors SSC-men and Nashotah House, stiff-minded and resolved Anglo-Catholics who resist the Reformation and the XXXIX Articles. He too, Jack, gets cover from his frontman and sponsor, journalist David Virtue. He too loves Romanism. But we return to our story on Bertram and the English Reformation.

In 1545, Nicholas Ridley discovered Bertram's book. He forever abandoned the Imperialists view of "Real Presence." Ridley's view would come to dominate the English Reformation and the Reformed Church of England.

Here is the dispute held at Oxford, 10 years later, when Ridley was on trial for his life (which he lost, trial and life):

"Here, right worshipful masters, prolocutor, and ye, the rest of the commissioners, it may please you to understand that I do not lean to these things only, which I havve written in my former answers and confirmations, but that I have also, for the proof of that I have spoken, whatsoever Bertram, a man learned, of sound and upright judgment, and ever counted a Catholc for these seven hundred years, until this our age hath written. His treatise, whosoever shall read and weigh, consideringthe time of the writer, his learning, godliness of life, the allegations of the ancient fathers, and his manifold and most grounded arguments, I cannot (doubtless) but much marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can, with a good conscience, speak against him in this matter of the sacrament. This Bertram was the first man that ever pulled me by the ear, and that first brought me from the common error of the Romish Church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and other ecclesiastical father in this matter. And this I protest before the face of God, who knoweth I lie not in the things I now speak."

Ridley influenced the Reformed Church of England. His monument at Oxford still commemorates the truth. The monument to the right celebrates the martyrdoms of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. The Anglo-Catholics resent and lampoon this monument and its representative theology. This monument still tells us we have a war with Rome and Anglo-Catholics, as well as their enablers like David Virtue, Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman, a Mr. Schofield and Paul Hewitt, among others.

Cranmer was convinced by his careful perusal of Bertram's work also. He refers to it in his great work, On the Lord's Supper." He uses many of the same arguments and even takes phrases over into his book.

Bertram or Ratramnus was the man who gave foundation to the English Reformed Church. The Scriptures, Christ's words, Paul's words, and the views of Augustine, Ambrose, Isidore, Fulgentius and Jerome put forward the Catholic faith. After Bertram, we have Berengarius, Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, Ridley, Cranmer and other Reformers. God never leaves Himself without witnesses, even when darkness prevails in the land. That applies to those of us in the Anglican wilderness.

We turn now to Bertram, sometimes called Ratram or Ratramnus.

1. Is the body and blood of Christ, taken by the mouth of the faithful, a mystery or reality?

2. Is this the very same body which was born of the Virgin Mary? Often, one reads of the essential or real body and blood of Christ, born of Nazareth. Or, the Christ in His two natures, One Person, on the Table.

Bertram say, "The bread and wine are, figuratively, the body and blood of Chirst, which are received in the church by the mouths of the faithful, are figures according to their visible nature, but according to invisible substance--i.e. the power of the divine word--they are truly the body and blood of Christ." Bertram goes on to maintain the the Old Testament saints fed on Christ when they ate the manna, and drank His blood when they drank of the water that flowed from the rock. In the same way, Christ converted the manna into His flesh and water into Hi blood, fifteen hundred years before He was born. It has spiritual efficacy for the worthy recipient.

Cranmer accepted this argument and presses it with this power:

"They say that the fathers and prophets of the Old Testament did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. We say that they did eat His body and drink His blood, although He was not yet born nor incarnated."

Bertram answers question two above:

"Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered and that which is daily delebrated by the faithful, and taken by the mouth. They differ from each other just as much as a pledge and that one account of which pledge is given; as an image and that of which it is an image; as a resemblance and the reality." (sec. lxxxix)

As to taking His flesh and blood literally (Rome, Lutheran, Tractarians, Anglo-Catholics), "it would be not an act of religion, but a crime" (xxxiv.). This is extremely strong language, the underpinning for the Reformed Church of England.

Bertram held that the Real Presence of Christ is to the soul of the faithful in blessing and grace. Many of the Reformers, especially Roger Becon, the learned chaplain of Thomas Cranmer in his Catechism, held exactly this view.

The doctrine of Bertram and the English Reformers does not--at all--comport with Roman, Lutheran, Tractarian or Anglo-Catholic views.

As to transubstantiation, Bertram say, "According to the substance of the materials, what they were before the consecration, this afterwards they continue to be. They existed as bread and wine before, in which species also, now that they are consecrated, they are seen to remain" (sec.liv).

As to the Lutheran view, consubstantiation--the doctrine that while the bread and wine remain after the consecration, they truly become the real body and blood of Christ, really and essentially, objectively and externally present on the table--Bertram is equally decisive.

"Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered and that body which is daily taken by the mouth of the faithful" (sec.lxix.).

Or again, from Bertram against the transubstantiatists and consubstantiatists, "Things which differ from each other are not one and the same; the body of Christ which died and rose again, now dies no more. But this which is celebrated in the Church is temporal, not eternal; it is corruptible, not incorruptible; it is on earth, not in heaven. They differ, therefore, from each other; wherefore they are not the same" (sec lxxvi.).

It is the body and blood of Christ in signification and efficaceous blessing to the faithful.

Article XXVIII says:

"To such as right such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."

"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith."

This is reflected in other Continental Reformed Confessions such as the Helvetic, Belgic and Heidelberg documents. This is the same view--Article 28---as is expressed in the Westminster Standards, an English document that would migrate north to Scotland---it was essentially Englishmen who crafted it. Of course, the latter Confession, the Westminster, is superior to the Articles due to its greater profundities, competencies and greater courage in public exposition, craftsmanship, and continuuing validity. Let no one forget that English Reformers died for this faith.

Back to Bertram.

In Sec. lxxxviii, he cites the language used by the Presbyter in divine services in France:

"May Thy sacraments, O Lord, effect in us what they contain, so that those tings which now we celebrate in a figure we may receive in the truth of the things themselves." It is evident that the Lord's Table, or the Body and Blood of Christ are signifed, exhibited and applied to believers. The figure and the reality are two different things. No Confessional Anglican, Presbyterian or Reformed Churchman could object--not one whit--to this prayer. As such, we are obligated to oppose Romish, Lutheran and Anglo-Catholic views.

We close with a three lengthy citations from Bertram, the view of the English Reformed Church, sealing our case.

(xcix.) "Let us also add, that the bread and cup which is called the Body and Blood of Christ, represents the memorials of the Lord's passion and death, even as he says in the Gospel: `Do this for a commemoration of Me.' Expounding which the apostle Paul says: `As often as yet eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declared the Lord's death till he come.'"

(c.) "We are thus taught by Saviour, and also by the Apostle Paul, that this bread and this wine which are placed upon the altar, are placed for a figure or memorial of the Lord's death; so that it may recall to the present memory that which was done in the past, and that we may be reminded of his passion; by it also we are made partakers of the divine gift, whereby we are freeed from death. Knowing that when we shall come to the vision of Christ, we shall no more have need of such outward means, by which we may be reminded of that which divine goodness endured for us. For beholding Him face to face, we shall not be influenced by the outward admonition of temporal things; but by the contemplation of the reality itself (ipsuius veritatis) we shall perceive in what way we ought to give thanks to author of our salvation."

(ci.) "Notwithstanding, although we say these things, let it not be thought that, in the mystery of the sacrament, the body and blood of the Lord are not taken by the faithful. Since faith receives, not what the eye beholds, but what itself believes. For it is spiritual food and spiritual drink which spiritually feeds the soul, and bestows on it the life of eternal happiness."

Again, this is the Reformed view of the Real Presence, be it Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Huguenot, or Genevan. There is a great difference between what is signified, exhibited and sealed for us and that which is the reality, the Risen Christ.

For Anglicans of the Reformed Church in the Wilderness, we're not going back to Egypt. Let the whiners and grumblers (and their enthusiasts to stay in the Wilderness, a new TEC called ACNA without gays and without a robust theology) die in their own wilderness. It's TEC-lite. God will raise up Calebs and Joshuas. Let us, like Bertram, like the English Reformers, light a new fire in the darkness.

Semper Fidelis.

Charles Hodge, John Williamson Nevin, and Bishop Ridley on the Lord's Supper

We are preparing a review of Bishop Nicholas Ridley's view of the LORD's Supper (caps intended) and we believe that Calvin and Ridley will be closely allied in a way that American Presbyterianism has missed and a way that Anglo-Romewardizers have missed.

Dr. Hodge is to the left and Dr. Nevin to the lower right.

As an aside, at Princeton Seminary, I might add that Dr. Hodge was a classmate and good friend of Bishops John Johns (Virginia) and Charles McIllvaine (Ohio), evincing a fraternal and Johannine-theology towards them without a compromise of his own perspectives.

A model for our times, Dr. Hodge, aside from his premiere and still-must-read-3-Volume-Systematic Theology for moderns, affords us leadership from the grave.

This also will provide insights for our Confessional Lutheran readers. This will have little interest to Baptists, or worse, the Charisphilic huffer-puffers and enthusiasts.

This issue, the LORD's Supper, was a hill which Bishop Ridley was forced to defend and it was a hill on which he died, in burning flames, 16 October 1555. He did not run into battle like rash enthusiasts and rude hotheads (as we find today). He did not turn a blind eye or deaf ear to the issue like revivalist evangelicals and anti-Reformation and Gnostic Anglicans. Rather, Dr. Ridley went prepared by way of careful biblical exegesis, relentless if not at times humourous logic, wide reading in patristics (an Anglican characteristic), and the refinements that come from extensive debate. It was a fight that did not mar his testimony and, despite his differences with the Antichrist of Rome, he continued to provide food, sustenance, care and abiding respect for "Mother Bonner," the mother of his enemy, Dr. Bonner, Bishop of London who would preside at the trial examinations of Ridley. (Bp. Bonner of London is to the right.) Dr. Ridley insisted that "Mother Bonner" sit at the head of the table, even when members of the House of Lords dined in his quarters.

This doctrine of the LORD's Supper was not and is not an "isolated doctrinal island," but had and has connections to the wider orbit of theology, then as now.

We are thankful for Dr. Matthison's contribution of primary sources on this intra-mural Presbyterian debate.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2009/08/charles-hodge-vs-john-williamson-nevin-on-the-lords-supper.html

Charles Hodge vs. John Williamson Nevin on the Lord's Supper
August 31, 2009 @ 7:50 AM
Posted By: Keith Mathison

In 2002, I published a book entitled Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. On page 136, I made the following statement:

One of the most fascinating theological debates to occur in nineteenth-century antebellum America was the eucharistic debate between John Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge that resulted from the publication of Nevin's book, The Mystical Presence.

Nevin's book was published in 1846. In April 1848, Hodge responded in a review published in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review. In September 1850, Nevin published a 128 page response to Hodge in the Mercersburg Review.

Since all of these documents are now available for free online, I thought it might be helpful to those interested in the debate to provide the links in one location. In order to read this important debate, just click on the links below:

Nevin - The Mystical Presence

Hodge - 1848 Book Review

Nevin - 1850 Response to Hodge Review

It may also be helpful to those interested in the subject to note a similar discussion that took place in the Southern Presbyterian Church. In 1876, the Southern Presbyterian theologian John Adger published an article titled "Calvin Defended Against Drs. Cunningham and Hodge" in the Southern Presbyterian Review. That article is also now available online. The links to Adger's article and to the relevant essays by Cunningham and Hodge to which he is responding are listed below.

Cunningham - 1862 Essay

Hodge - 1871 - 73 Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3)

Adger - 1876 Article [Adger's article is the sixth article in the list]

For a good introduction to Calvin's view in his own words, see his Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper.

Ref21: Dr. Lucas Commends Gordon's Calvin

Dr. Lucas noted: "And throughout, Gordon demonstrates what historian Philip Benedict also observed: namely, that the key dividing line in the Protestant Reformation was between the Swiss Reformed and the German Lutherans and centered on the Lord's Supper. Calvin heroically tried to straddle that dividing line theologically and politically, ultimately with little success."

We think Cranmer, Ridley and Bucer were on the same fence with Calvin on the LORD's Table which resulted in the Elizabethan Compromise, the Canterburian via media between Zurich and Wittenburg, not Canterbury and Romanism.

See Dr. Lucas' high commendation of Gordon's Calvin at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/08/bruce-gordons-calvin.php.

Bruce Gordon's Calvin
Posted by Sean Lucas
ShareThis

In this five-hundredth anniversary of Calvin's birth, booksellers have flooded the marketplace with all things John Calvin. Of all the books published in this anniversary year, the one that stands head-and-shoulders above the rest is Bruce Gordon's Calvin. In fact, it is not too much to claim that what George Marsden did for Jonathan Edwards, Gordon did for Calvin: produce a well-written biography, rich in primary and secondary source material, which actually penetrates to the man himself. This is a high achievement.

Gordon's achievement is manifold. First, as a scholar of Reformation-era Europe, he successfully situates Calvin in the web of relationships that dominated the sixteenth century. For example, we learn that not only that William Farel and Calvin's relationship was important in 1536, but how that relationship developed over time, how it created difficulties for both men, and how loyalties to other players (Bucer, Viret, Bullinger) complicated their long-standing friendship. Likewise, we come to understand how Calvin's developing relationships with Bullinger and Melanchthon, driven by his own sense of a trans-European Reformation, impacted his public theology and pastoral sensibilities.

Next, not only does Gordon describe the relational Reformation, but he also shows how political developments in France created complexities for Calvin. Like the Apostle Paul with his fellow Jews, Calvin longed for the conversion of his fellow Frenchmen. However, the progress of the Gospel, reformed according to God's Word, was tied to the messy political situation within France. Though he attempted to woo French nobility to the Reformed faith, he also was increasingly frustrated with the leadership's willingness to dally with Roman Catholicism and unwillingness to separate and establish a fully Reformed church. What Calvin did not reckon with, and what Gordon wonderfully pictures, were the political complexities within France itself.
Moreover, Gordon probes Calvin's mindset in ways that are both fair to Calvin and realistic. When Calvin became angry or displayed arrogance, Gordon never rationalizes it away. For example, in an exchange with Bullinger, Calvin penned "an angry reply" in which he told Bullinger that to defend Jerome Bolsec "is the extreme of absurdity" (p. 207). While most of us would skip over that comment, Gordon explores how Calvin's passion and anger often would drive him to rhetorical excess. The result is a critically sympathetic portrait that is more real to life than any other Calvin biography in print.

Finally, Gordon helpfully summarizes vast tracts of Calvin's theology. For example, Gordon devotes an entire chapter to a summary of Calvin's commentary on Romans, which provides a pathway for probing his theological development (chapter seven, pp. 103-120). He explores the sacramental controversies with Wittenburg and Zurich as well as the compromises that led to the 1549 Consensus Tigirinus (pp. 161-180). His chapter dealing with Calvin's controversy with Servetus was masterfully done (pp. 217-32), not only for exploring the theological dimensions, but also for outlining the political realities. And throughout, Gordon demonstrates what historian Philip Benedict also observed: namely, that the key dividing line in the Protestant Reformation was between the Swiss Reformed and the German Lutherans and centered on the Lord's Supper. Calvin heroically tried to straddle that dividing line theologically and politically, ultimately with little success.

I hope that this book receives wide notice, not only among Reformation specialists and theological students, but especially among educated laypeople. Many of our people in Reformed and Presbyterian churches are woefully ignorant of Calvin's contribution; the few that know something about him are as likely to idolize him as to understand him. Bruce Gordon's Calvin is a marvelous corrective to both faults: informative, accessible, and realistic, it is the book to give to interested church members. And read with the eyes of faith, Gordon helps us move from seeing Calvin as a hero to seeing the True Hero, Jesus himself, whom Calvin loved and served.

An English Reformer: Eschatologizing Nicholas Ridley and the Churches' Martyrs

http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/ridley.html

Dr. Garry Williams examines the death and doctrine of Nicholas Ridley, with particular regard to his view of the Lord's Supper.

Ridley was a careful theologian who took pains to properly define and distinguish the real questions at issue, studiously examined the Bible to exegete the relevant texts, was aware of the tradition (especially the Church Fathers), and avoided unnecessary over-reactions in what was literally a heated debate. We present and intercalate our comments with Dr. Williams’ most helpful lecture.

The issue before us is not the exaltation of Nicholas Ridley or any other witness or martyr. The photo at the bottom is from Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Let’s put perspective to this.

As the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, 1-10, astutely observes, the greatest divines in the history of the church “witness to,” but are not “authors of” Sacred Scripture. They are subordinate to the sovereign, central and governing role of Scripture.

As a witness, we surely hear Ridley, but it is Christ that we seek to magnify, exalt and present.

In time, we will be talking about Ridley’s view of the Table, the sacrament, his life and his witness. Dr. Williams presents a two-fold approach: Ridley’s view of the Papist Mass and, secondly, the true doctrine of Scripture. The first is negative and the second is positive.

But we offer a minor, but important amplification...a detour from the above.

Ridley was martyred 16 October 1555. As we write 27 August 2009, Ridley is not just a matter of history, but eschatology. We must bring this correction. This scribe never has had this emphasized in past or present treatments. Dr. Williams affords us a reminder and is an exception to this scribe's experience.

Ridley, along with the vast stream of martyrs, are—live—are—live in the Church Triumphant and will receive an ultimate and final answer to their heavenly prayers. Ridley stood for the Word of God as we shall see in subsequent posts.

Ergo, let us not think it all of the past without reference to the present or future. Ridley is immortally alive and is to be numbered with the martyrs of Revelation 6.9-11...martyrs who ever live.

Revelation 6.9-11, When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, `How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood in those who dwell on the earth?’ Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

We include Nicholas Ridley in the number of martyrs for the Word of God.

The revelation of the wrath of God is a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and millennial phenomenon as we write and speak. Romans 1.18 speaks to the issue. The tense of Romans 1.18 is an ever-present and customary situation.

All the mainline faiths have forgotten it; we can't trust them or their leaders, including the TEC-educated leaders leading the ACNA; those TEC-leaders, trained in liberal seminaries, need intensive "recalibration" in "Anglicans Anonymous 12-Step Programs" to be detoxified; it’s mitigated broadly in the West; as justified saints, even we, who are instructed in God’s Word, present this weakly. Yet, we rehearse this that we may walk in the way.

In addition to an historic-present, the revelation of divine wrath is also an eschatological phenomenon (Revelation 19.15). This is not vindictiveness, but is the “response of [God’s] holiness to persistent and impenitent wickedness.”[1] There are two people on earth, (1) people whose citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3.20) and (2) and, “in opposition to them, the rebellious earth-dwellers. (v.15; 8.13; 11.10; 13.3, 8, 12, 14; 17.2, 8).”[2] The latter oppose, conflict with, and--often--have killed Christ's people.

The saints above, perfected in glory, are not imperfectly vindictive and vengeful, but—again perfected—see this as a matter of the Divine Glory, Majesty, love, holiness, justice and truth. God tells them to rest until the number of their fellow brethren is filled up.

“Observe that this incident forms an integral part of the last judgments on earth, for the prayer for vengeance (v.10) is answered and the end thereby hastened; see 8.1-5. For the thought that the coming of the day of God tarries for the last martyr, cf. 2 Esdras 4.33-36.”[3]

Before going further with Ridley, we pause to remember there are but “two peoples” that inhabit the earth: the justified and the unjustified, the elect and the reprobate, the Church Militant and the world and devil.

We will see Ridley again in the future...and not just in these posts, but in the Final Day. This is the eschatologizing of Brother Nicholas whose prayer will receive a final answer.

For now, we rest content with a review of his life and doctrine.

To be continued.

[1] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 163.
[2] The New Geneva Study Bible (Atlanta: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 2016.
[3] The New Bible Commentary, edited by D. Guthrie and J.A. Moyter (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 1289.