Bray, Gerald. The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. London: Latimer Press, 2009.
Articles 19-22. Bibliography in the next day or two. A bit dreary, actually.
This very meek and impoverished 229-page volume is very meekly serviceable to get oriented, briefly, to the Thirty-nine Articles. The volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Confess-Exposition-Thirty-Nine/dp/0946307849/ref=pd_sim_b_2
"XIX. Of the Church.
"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
We get a few pages! Wow! Amazing!
“Congregation” is a problem. The second paragraph precludes a “Congregationalist” approach. This refers to a national church. Hint, hint, Church of England, just as Cranmer envisioned. One national Church under Henry. Cranmer did not know how to think otherwise.
Monophysites, after Chalcedon, were a majority report. The Greeks sent bishops to replace Monophysitic bishops. Latin “patriarchs” were sent East to shore up the Greeks. They still insist on their Latin piety and doctrine in the East.
Rome, like the Greeks, have erred. But, the Article is not explicit here. Where? How? On our view, Cranmer screwed up here. Article 23 may offer some clues.
Errors not only included rites and ceremonies, but also doctrine. Go back to Articles 9-11 for an amplification. Where's the beef here?
Rome believed it was “indefectible” before 1870 and Vatican 1.
Congregatio = national church. There are no grounds for separating from a national church with orthodox standards (e.g. C o E). The Church of England, notwithstanding her clerics, still has the three forms of orthodox doctrine: the 1662 BCP, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal.
Prof. Bray dallies around on women’s ordination and the sodomy issues. On our view, both are clearly foreclosed on Biblical grounds. Hit much harder, Prof. Bray. We’re dealing with Crap-faces (Mal. 2.3) and jackasses (Jer. 2.24).
Old Prof. Bray raises the Episcopal term, “integrities.” Or, we disagree while retaining “integrity.” This is a polite, even rather English, way of saying, “We disagree while being polite.” It's crap. Tell it to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, John the Baptist and Jesus too.
This much, Article 6 norms the General Synods, end of discussion.
"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."
Article 20 should be read with Article 19.
The NT does not describe nor prescribe a certain pattern, content, or time of worship.
Quite remarkably, Prof. Bray does not address the “Reformed Anglicans” and their jeremiads to “prescribed” forms of worship. To wit, the “prescriptions” of the Vestmentarian controversies, e.g. Parker’s sovereign decrees of 1566. The national church has no power to prescribe thing contrary or negated by Scriptures. The Church of England screwed up here. Prof. Bray never mentions this, not a whit.
Prof. Bray tells us (drearily and unhelpfully):
• Nothing contrary to Scripture
• One place of Scripture cannot be negated by another Scripture
• Nothing can be enjoined beyond Scripture
Of course, we are aware of the prescriptions—as a matter of church and state law—that were prescribed.
Well, Prof. Bray, please answer the mail on Elizabethan and Stuartian repressions. We get nothing here from Prof. Bray.
Dreary (again) and weak. We love the old BCP, but we are not yielding the WCF to your oversights, Mr. Bray, thank you (of which you appear to know nothing).
"XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.
"[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
We get 3 pages. Whala!
There were long-running battles between Rome and secular rulers. Even Cranmer was amidst the battle between Rome and Empire—Pope Pius (1534-1549) and Charles V agreeing on place, location and time for the Council of Trent. Charles won the larger debate, while Rome staffed the Council—under the noses of many Reformers.
Notably, Prof. Bray offers this. Between 1377-1520, there were 86 provincial councils without the Royal warrant. (We would add, 1401, 1407 and 1409, the reprobatish councils of darkness and profound depravity.) York was even more free according to Prof. Bray—79 councils without royal warrant.
Oddly, Prof. Bray notes that 6 councils have been accepted by the Church of England (contrary to Dr. Peter Toon’s note of 4 councils). According to Prof. Bray, they are: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus 1 (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (553), and Constantinople (680). Nicaea of 757 is rejected.
An odd claim by Prof. Bray. Toon would disagree.
Celibacy of 1123 was rejected. The double procession of the Council of Florence, 1439, is accepted.
Of interest, the bibliography, the only redeeming virtue of this tiny handbook.
"XXII. Of Purgatory.
"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
The merit-system of the Reformers was rejected. Purgatory and pardons was rejected. Romish priests advocated this “rehab” system. Forgiveness was “for sale.” These “sales” were offered for “relatives.” Every Protestant Church—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican—rejected this.
Veneration of saints and relics. This merit-mongerer system developed with Mariolatry. The calendar developed with the likes of Ethedrea, Serbigna, Wergerga, Ebla, Hilda and others. A big deal was made of shrines, like Romanists and like Greeks. Lourdes and Fatima, post-Reformational developments, arose.
Prayer to saints is, on Prof. Bray’s view, “justifiably repudiated” in the Church of England.
We would add, tell that to the TFOs in the ACNA. Like Bob, Jack, Keith and Ray.
Articles 19-22. Bibliography in the next day or two. A bit dreary, actually.
This very meek and impoverished 229-page volume is very meekly serviceable to get oriented, briefly, to the Thirty-nine Articles. The volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Confess-Exposition-Thirty-Nine/dp/0946307849/ref=pd_sim_b_2
"XIX. Of the Church.
"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
We get a few pages! Wow! Amazing!
“Congregation” is a problem. The second paragraph precludes a “Congregationalist” approach. This refers to a national church. Hint, hint, Church of England, just as Cranmer envisioned. One national Church under Henry. Cranmer did not know how to think otherwise.
Monophysites, after Chalcedon, were a majority report. The Greeks sent bishops to replace Monophysitic bishops. Latin “patriarchs” were sent East to shore up the Greeks. They still insist on their Latin piety and doctrine in the East.
Rome, like the Greeks, have erred. But, the Article is not explicit here. Where? How? On our view, Cranmer screwed up here. Article 23 may offer some clues.
Errors not only included rites and ceremonies, but also doctrine. Go back to Articles 9-11 for an amplification. Where's the beef here?
Rome believed it was “indefectible” before 1870 and Vatican 1.
Congregatio = national church. There are no grounds for separating from a national church with orthodox standards (e.g. C o E). The Church of England, notwithstanding her clerics, still has the three forms of orthodox doctrine: the 1662 BCP, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal.
Prof. Bray dallies around on women’s ordination and the sodomy issues. On our view, both are clearly foreclosed on Biblical grounds. Hit much harder, Prof. Bray. We’re dealing with Crap-faces (Mal. 2.3) and jackasses (Jer. 2.24).
Old Prof. Bray raises the Episcopal term, “integrities.” Or, we disagree while retaining “integrity.” This is a polite, even rather English, way of saying, “We disagree while being polite.” It's crap. Tell it to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, John the Baptist and Jesus too.
This much, Article 6 norms the General Synods, end of discussion.
"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."
Article 20 should be read with Article 19.
The NT does not describe nor prescribe a certain pattern, content, or time of worship.
Quite remarkably, Prof. Bray does not address the “Reformed Anglicans” and their jeremiads to “prescribed” forms of worship. To wit, the “prescriptions” of the Vestmentarian controversies, e.g. Parker’s sovereign decrees of 1566. The national church has no power to prescribe thing contrary or negated by Scriptures. The Church of England screwed up here. Prof. Bray never mentions this, not a whit.
Prof. Bray tells us (drearily and unhelpfully):
• Nothing contrary to Scripture
• One place of Scripture cannot be negated by another Scripture
• Nothing can be enjoined beyond Scripture
Of course, we are aware of the prescriptions—as a matter of church and state law—that were prescribed.
Well, Prof. Bray, please answer the mail on Elizabethan and Stuartian repressions. We get nothing here from Prof. Bray.
Dreary (again) and weak. We love the old BCP, but we are not yielding the WCF to your oversights, Mr. Bray, thank you (of which you appear to know nothing).
"XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.
"[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
We get 3 pages. Whala!
There were long-running battles between Rome and secular rulers. Even Cranmer was amidst the battle between Rome and Empire—Pope Pius (1534-1549) and Charles V agreeing on place, location and time for the Council of Trent. Charles won the larger debate, while Rome staffed the Council—under the noses of many Reformers.
Notably, Prof. Bray offers this. Between 1377-1520, there were 86 provincial councils without the Royal warrant. (We would add, 1401, 1407 and 1409, the reprobatish councils of darkness and profound depravity.) York was even more free according to Prof. Bray—79 councils without royal warrant.
Oddly, Prof. Bray notes that 6 councils have been accepted by the Church of England (contrary to Dr. Peter Toon’s note of 4 councils). According to Prof. Bray, they are: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus 1 (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (553), and Constantinople (680). Nicaea of 757 is rejected.
An odd claim by Prof. Bray. Toon would disagree.
Celibacy of 1123 was rejected. The double procession of the Council of Florence, 1439, is accepted.
Of interest, the bibliography, the only redeeming virtue of this tiny handbook.
"XXII. Of Purgatory.
"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
The merit-system of the Reformers was rejected. Purgatory and pardons was rejected. Romish priests advocated this “rehab” system. Forgiveness was “for sale.” These “sales” were offered for “relatives.” Every Protestant Church—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican—rejected this.
Veneration of saints and relics. This merit-mongerer system developed with Mariolatry. The calendar developed with the likes of Ethedrea, Serbigna, Wergerga, Ebla, Hilda and others. A big deal was made of shrines, like Romanists and like Greeks. Lourdes and Fatima, post-Reformational developments, arose.
Prayer to saints is, on Prof. Bray’s view, “justifiably repudiated” in the Church of England.
We would add, tell that to the TFOs in the ACNA. Like Bob, Jack, Keith and Ray.
No comments:
Post a Comment