Mr. (Fr.) Robert Barron: Real Presence in the Eucharist

Ligonier: Meet Arnaldo (& God's Grace)

Article 11: Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer & Justification

Article 11 of the Thirty-nine Articles: "Of Justification." An amplification from the "Homily on Salvation." At least one writer (name eludes me now, regrettably) claims that Cranmer was called to Henry VIII's bedside as death was imminent and as Henry was in and out of consciousness. Reportedly, Cranmer rehearsed this doctrine, counseling the Tudor king to rest alone in Christ's righteousness. Unable to speak, Cranmer, allegedly, asked Henry to squeeze his hand in the affirmative. Allegedly, Henry squeezed Tom's hand. But, did Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, go forward and tell the story of his bedtime counsels? Did some attendant to Henry hear Canterbury's counsels and later report the story? We're not confident in the report. (If anyone one has a scholarly footnote or credible reasons to counter our suspicions of the story, please advise. We'll take it for review and investigation.) Romanticization of history? It reminds me of a few historians who attempt to put Cranmer inside the Whitehorse Inn, for which there is no documentary evidence. Inferential, perhaps. But, definitive history with an established factual pattern? No. It happens. Having said all that, we can say this. This is Cranmer's view on justification by faith alone by Christ alone and justification by God alone by grace alone and mercy alone. This is not Rome nor Trent. It's Wittenberg and Geneva. It's not "via media" between Rome and Geneva. It's Wittenberg and Geneva, unified on this point. Or, and rightly, put another way, it is 180 degrees the opposite of Trent and Rome's 1994 Catechism, which reaffirmed Trent.  Cranmer is implacably and irretrievably against Trent.  Or, in more modern parlance, "let's just drop it, shall we?"  Our response, "Go ahead, drop it, but we can't, thanks to the Biblical Canon. Cheers."  Here's Mr. Cranmer.

"Justification

"Justification is not the office of man, but of God: for man cannot justify himself by his own good works, neither in part, nor in whole ... So the true understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our own faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us ... but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity ... we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues....and good deeds which we either have done, shall do, or can do ... and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross... (Homily of Salvation)"


This is the unity of Canterbury, Geneva and Wittenberg on this point. This is unity with the Lowlands Countries, the Swiss, the Gallican and the Scots Reformers. 180 degrees out and opposite to the Romanists. Entirely opposed to the Council of Trent, the 1994 Romanist Catechism (about 1000 pages), and all the recent Anti-Gospellers in the 100-acre outfit called the Vatican (reduced to 100 acres by annoyed Italians). No via media here. No purgatory here. No saints' invocations here. No merit-mongering by works of supererogation, pilgrimages, relics, or works of any kind, at any time, under any condition, by anyone, of any station. Everyone has nothing but brings wickedness, damnation and judgment to the table of divine justice. The believer receives free forgiveness, free justification, free blessings, a free future and the other related promises. Free to us, but not free to Christ. He earned our salvation.


John Calvin echoes Cranmer in the Antidote: "There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. But that which the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God performed by his own Son, by expiating our sins through the sacrifice of his death, so that his righteousness is fulfilled in us."

Roman, Greek, Tractarian & Arminian Edits of Rom.3.21-31

Here's what the Messieurs, men of adiaphora, in the ACNA, refuse to address. They self-identify as Anglican, but have--to be polite--a "low" theology.

 

In fact, their silence on these matters is complicity with Rome, Constantinople and Arminian soteriological centres.

 

Ergo, we bring you the following: "Roman, Greek, Semi-Pelagian and Arminian Edits to St. Paul."

These sober and deliberative editors thought St. Paul needed their editorial and theological insights.  This is reflected in the Council of Trent, subsequent theologians, and documents.

 

We bring these much-needed corrections to the canonical text to you, that is, Romans 3.21-31... corrected, amended and taught world-wide. This will aid St. Paul "above" (if he had enough good works) and those of us "below."

(God’s Righteousness Through Faith and Works)

 21 But now the righteousness of God including the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ as well as all your meritorious good works, pieties and deeds, to all and on all who believe in Jesus and work hard as well. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified at a contributory cost (among other contributory causes) by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus including the treasury of the saints (whom you should invoke for help, especially Mary), 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith but also your good works as meritorious instruments, to demonstrate His and your righteousness (it’s cooperative), because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His and your righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus and who has meritorious works too. Never forget this; those Lutheran, Reformed and old school Anglican Protestants are screwballs.

 (Boasting Included)

27 Where is boasting then? It’s right here. It is included. By what law? Of works? Why of course! Yes, boasting is by the law of faith and the law of good works, including “tweets-for-reductions in purgo-time.” So, go ahead, boast and exalt yourself and other saints too.  "You deserve some of the credit, after all." Ask Joel Osteen, he's got it about right. 28 Therefore we conclude, again, we conclude definitively that a man is justified by faith and the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? No, but He is also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. One is justified by "faith in Christ and his or her works." So, get’a’ crackin.’

Charles Hodge's Bracing and Confessional Letter to Pope Pius IX on Behalf of Presbyterians Declining Attendance at Vatican 1

http://darbygray.blogspot.com/2011/12/hodge-to-pope.html 

Hodge to the Pope

This masterful letter appears in the current Banner and here. One wonders if anyone today is capable of writng such a letter with such lucidity and theological acumen.

Professor Charles Hodge of
Princeton Seminary.  Born: 1797.
Died 1878

The text of a letter written by Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, explaining why the Pope's invitation to Protestants to send delegates to the first Vatican Council of 1869-70 was being declined.

To Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome,



Pope Pius IX.  Born 1792.
Died 1878.

By your encyclical letter dated 1869 you invite Protestants to send delegates to the Council called to meet at Rome during the month of December of the current year. That letter has been brought to the attention of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

Those Assemblies represent about five thousand ministers and a still larger number of Christian congregations.
Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.

It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles' Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD 321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD 381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD 451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner's justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.

We receive all those doctrines concerning sin, grace and predestination, known as Augustinian, which doctrines received the sanction not only of the Council of Carthage and of other provincial Synods, but of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus AD 431, and of Zosimus, bishop of Rome.
We therefore cannot be pronounced heretics without involving in the same condemnation the whole ancient church.

Neither are we schismatics. We cordially recognize as members of Christ's visible Church on earth, all those who profess the true religion together with their children. We are not only willing but earnest to hold Christian communion with them, provided they do not require, as conditions of such communion, that we profess doctrines which the Word of God condemns, or that we should do what the Word forbids. If in any case any Church prescribes such unscriptural terms of fellowship, the error and the fault is with that church and not with us.

But although we do not decline your invitation because we are either heretics or schismatics, we are nevertheless debarred from accepting it, because we still hold with ever increasing confidence those principles for which our fathers were excommunicated and pronounced accursed by the Council of Trent, which represented, and still represents, the Church over which you preside.

The most important of those principles are: First, that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Council of Trent, however, pronounces Anathema on all who do not receive the teachings of tradition pari pietatis affectu (with equal pious affection) as the Scriptures themselves. This we cannot do without incurring the condemnation which our Lord pronounced on the Pharisees, who made void the Word of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:6).

Secondly, the right of private judgement. When we open the Scriptures, we find that they are addressed to the people. They speak to us. We are commanded to search them (John 5:39), to believe what they teach. We are held personally responsible for our faith. The apostle commands us to pronounce accursed an apostle or an angel from heaven who should teach anything contrary to the divinely authenticated Word of God (Gal. 1:8). He made us the judges, and has placed the rule of judgement into our hands, and holds us responsible for our judgements.

Moreover, we find that the teaching of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ not to the clergy only, much less to any one order of the clergy exclusively, but to all believers. It is written, 'Ye shall all be taught of God.' The Apostle John says to believers: 'Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things . . . but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:20,27). This teaching of the Spirit authenticates itself, as this same apostle teaches us, when he says, 'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (1 John 5:10). 'I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth' (1 John 2:21). Private judgement, therefore, is not only a right, but a duty, from which no man can absolve himself, or be absolved by others.

Thirdly, we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers, that is, that all believers have through Christ access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18); that we may come with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16); 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:19-22). To admit, therefore, the priesthood of the clergy, whose intervention is necessary to secure for us the remission of sin and other benefits of the redemption of Christ, is to renounce the priesthood of our Lord, or its sufficiency to secure reconciliation with God.
Fourthly, we deny the perpetuity of apostleship. As no man can be an apostle without the Spirit of prophecy, so no man can be an apostle without the gifts of an apostle. Those gifts, as we learn from Scripture, were plenary knowledge of the truth derived from Christ by immediate revelation (Gal.s 1:12), and personal infallibility as teachers and rulers. What the seals of apostleship were Paul teaches us, when he says to the Corinthians, 'Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' (2 Cor. 12:12). As for prelates who claim to be apostles, and who demand the same confidence in their teaching, and the same submission to their authority, as that which is due to the inspired messengers of Christ, without pretending to possess either the gifts or signs of the apostleship, we cannot submit to their claims. This would be rendering to erring men the subjection due to God alone or to his divinely authenticated and infallible messengers.

Much less can we recognize the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth, clothed with the authority over the Church and the world which was exercised by our Lord while here in the flesh. It is plain that no one can be the vicar of Christ who has not the attributes of Christ. To recognize the Bishop of Rome as Christ's vicar is therefore virtually to recognize him as divine.

We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. We cannot forfeit our salvation by putting man in the place of God, giving one of like passions with ourselves the control of our inward and outward life which is due only to him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.

Other and equally cogent reasons might be assigned why we cannot with a good conscience be represented in the proposed Council. But as the Council of Trent, whose canons are still in force, pronounces all accursed who hold the principles above enumerated, nothing further is necessary to show that our declining your invitation is a matter of necessity.

Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, 'Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (Rev. 1:6).

Signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the US of America
Charles Hodge

Pope-on-a-Rope--Who was the Worst Pope in History? Pope Paul IV – The Papal Library

Pope-on-a-Rope.

Was this the worse Pope in history? He ruthlessly oppressed and extirpated Neapolitan Reformation men. He was called by Pope Paul 111 (1534-1549) from Naples to Rome to handle the "Luther problem," filling the Office of Holy Inquisition. We are mindful of Cranmer's meritorious prayer, in essence and to wit, "Good Lord, spare us the detestable enormities and tyrannies of Rome..." That actually was used for almost a decade in the Royal Court. It needs to be reinstated in the weekly and daily liturgies of classical Anglicanism--I, for one, have done that. So good to be free of that smiling, but deceiving and anti-christian man.

Anyone have another "Pope on a Rope" whom you think worse than this Pope?

Biography – Pope Paul IV – The Papal Library

Paul IV
1555-1559

Gian Pietro Carafa born 1476

The reform spirit continued to prevail after the sudden death of Marcellus II. The cardinals chose the seventy-nine year old reformer, Cardinal Carafa. The new pope had founded an order, the Theatines, who provided a recruiting ground for excellent bishops. He himself had been Archbishop of Naples and, since his elevation as cardinal by Paul III, the leading representative of the reforming spirit at Rome. He was a very different man from his predecessors. Rigidly orthodox, austere in life, he had a high view of the superiority of the clerical over the secular order. In particular his experience at Trent had convinced him–unjustly–; that the emperor, Charles V, really favored the Protestants in Germany. He was very authoritarian in manner and would brook no opposition. In spite of this he was still enough of a renaissance pope for one of his first acts to be to make his quite unsuitable nephew a cardinal. This young man had shown no sign of a clerical vocation until his uncle became pope. He immediately underwent a very dubious conversion and, having gained his cardinal's hat, soon became the pope's principal adviser in political matters. Pope Paul had no taste for politics and was ready to leave these affairs to his nephew so that he could devote himself to the reform of the Church.

The result of this was that Paul found himself involved in a series of dangerous political intrigues. The unworthy Cardinal Carafa realized that his uncle could not live long and that he must make his fortune quickly. He accepted a pension from the French and worked on the pope's hatred of Charles V to persuade him to make an alliance with the French. In fact he committed the pope much more deeply than he allowed him to know. The Emperor Charles V, worn out with a lifetime of constant care, abdicated in 1555. His domains were split. His son, Philip, became king of Spain, and was soon embroiled with the French. The pope found himself at war with the Spanish. The war was disastrous and in August 1587 the Duke of Alba surrounded Rome at the head of a Spanish army. Cardinal Carafa made a volte-face and made a truce with the Spanish, who fortunately had no wish to quarrel with the pope.

Paul now decided to devote himself exclusively to a root and branch reform of the Church. He was prepared to do what previous popes had in the last resort fought shy of: he was ready to purge episcopate and Curia of their venality. He was in particular determined to make no more cardinals for political reasons. The vast majority of his creations, and they were numerous, were "unknown" men appointed for their spiritual and religious qualifications. He put in hand a vast reform of the papal administration and set himself to stamp out the trafficking of the principal places in the Curia. He was patron of the Jesuits, though by imposing choir duties on them he seems to have misunderstood their distinct vocation.

Perhaps the most striking illustration of the effect of the new broom in the Vatican is the fall of Cardinal Carafa. The pope's confidence in this wretch survived the debacle of his political plans. The cardinal lived a scandalous and luxurious life which was eventually revealed to the pope. Without hesitation the pope ruined him and condemned him in the most public fashion. Although Paul was at fault for making him cardinal in the first place - and had given other members of his family high office - his nepotism was a very different thing from that of the Borgia or Medici popes. Henceforth nepotism was found in papal affairs only in comparatively trivial offices.

The pope's stern attitude towards his cardinals extended to some, Morone and Pole, who were, extremely unfairly, treated as heretics and even imprisoned. But at least this pontificate saw the beginnings of reform in Rome itself without which even the decrees of councils might remain dead letters. At the very end of his life he set out to end the scandal of non-resident bishops. He found, as was customary, flocks of bishops living in Rome on pretext of business. From 113 in 1556 he reduced their number to less than a dozen by 1559. He maintained his austere life and fasted regularly even in his last illness. He died on 18 August, 1559.

A.M. Toplady (Vol.5, 153-157). Church of England is Protestant and Calvinistic. The Church of England and the Church of Rome?

The Works of Augustus Montague Toplady, Vol. 5 at:
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA11&dq=augustus%20toplady%20calvinism%20church%20of%20england&ei=CHbgTILcHIWglAeBiq2YAw&ct=result&id=ybYOAAAAIAAJ&output=text

A.M. Toplady (Vol.5, 153-157). Church of England is Protestant and Calvinistic. What the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome? Toplady deals with election, original sin, and justification to which—against which—the Council of Trent hurled thunderbolts and anathemas. We cite a few classics from Toplady which are found below. (1) “Arminianism is the forerunner which prepares the way for Romanism, and, if not discarded in time, will, one day, open the door to it.” (2) Concerning subscription to the Articles, a public event at ordination and upon installment or rotation of clerics to churches, denial of these matters by Anglican clerics is dishonest. “I fear, such a clergyman, if such a clergyman is to be found, may take home those awful words to himself, Thou hast not only lied unto men, but unto God.” What measure of dishonesty is it with GAFCON clerics of the ACNA? Or, the Church of England clerics? Honesty compels that observation of Anglican "triple-speak." We believe this practice of public subscription to the Articles, in its intended sense of personal belief and aderence, has been diluted to something like this: "Yes, we believe these Articles were once foundational and formative, to wit, we acknowledge them to be a part of history." Toplady would roll over in his grave if he saw what happens today. (3) Of interest is Toplady’s observation that after the “happy” Restoration, clerics were so offended by the radicalism of “Puritans,” that there was a counter-reaction away from the Articles. While the Restoration was positive, “they out-ran the Thirty-nine Articles, and lost sight of the Church itself.” One can understand. Who can abide the “Everlasting Arguers” which some Reformed Churchmen become (not all, by any stretch, but some, e.g. theonomists)? Yet, on principle, following Toplady’s logic, one does not toss the national Articles and theology. OTOH, are we dealing with "Everlasting Capitulators?" I know one English Bishop who summarizes Anglicanism this way: "Weak." He includes the Rev. Dr. Prof. James Innes Packer in that group. Or "weak" until you call them "weak" and then they get in a huff. We share that view of "weakness." But, back to Toplady. It is interesting to see this Calvinistic Anglican speaking well of the Restoration while observing a century of “moral therapeutic deism,” (Rick Warren might be a modern counter-point in our times yet Rick and his ilk--pretty laughably--without an august Prayer Book and without Psalm-singing which characterized even the 18th century Anglican parish). (4) Free will is a myth.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME.

[In the original, Toplady as two columns for comparison, the Thirty-nine Articles versus the Council of Trent. Here, we lay it out sequentially.]

I. The godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons. ART. XVII.

II. The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. ART. X.

III. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works, or deservings. ART. XI.

IV. That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. ART. XI.

[Editor. Toplady speaks of the Council of Trent]

I. No man, so long as he liveth in this mortal life, ought so far to presume concerning the hidden mystery of divine predestination, as positively to conclude that he is actually in the number of the predestinate. Council of Trent. Session. 6. Canon xii.

II. If any person shall say, that since the fall of Adam, man's free will is lost and extinct, &c. Let him be accursed. Council of Trent. Session. 6. Canon v.

III. If any person shall say, that men are justified, either by the alone righteousness of Christ, or by a bare forgiveness of sins. Let him be accursed. Council of Trent. Session.Canon ix.

Even from this slight survey, must not a man be blind, not to discern that Calvinism is the religion of England, and that Arminianism is the heresy of Rome; yet far be it from me to think, that all, among us, who espouse the Arminian tenets, are intentional Papists, or have any affection for Popery, as such. But this I cannot help believing, that Arminianism is the forerunner which prepares the way for Romanism, and, if not discarded in time, will, one day, open the door to it.

To close all, our doctrines are the precious depositum, committed, in a particular manner, to the guardianship of us, who have the honour to minister in holy things. How those, who make no scruple to betray this inestimable trust, which they have so solemnly and repeatedly engaged to preserve, can answer it in conscience, must be submitted to God and themselves. For a clergyman to subscribe to our articles in the presence of his bishop, and after his admission to a benefice to read over those articles in his Church, deliberately, and word by word ; and there, in the presence of God, and in the hearing of his own parishioners, publicly to testify his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything therein contained ; while he disbelieves, and it may be, the fame day, contradicts, in the pulpit, what he had so lately assented to from the desk; is, I believe, a species of guilt, unknown to any Protestant nation but these. I fear, such a clergyman, if such a clergyman is to be found, may take home those awful words to himself, Thou hast not only lied unto men, but unto God.

We have had long experience of the sad effects, that have attended that mere ethical way of preaching which has been in fashion ever since the restoration. When that happy event took place, the generality of the clergy ran so fast and so far from puritanism, that they out-ran the Thirty-nine Articles, and lost sight of the Church itself. "Good works, good works," was the cry of that age, and is the cry of the present. I heartily wish, good works abounded more among us, than they do: but I am certain they never will, until they are enforced on Christian principles; even the doctrines of grace. Under a pretense of magnifying good works, we have almost kicked faith out of doors: whereas they will always stand or fall together. There can be no good works which do not flow from faith; and no true faith but what is productive of good Works. I appeal to demonstration, the life of argument. Faith is banished, and good works are posting after it as fast as they can. Contempt of gospel doctrines, and neglect of gospel-morals, are inseparable. That morality, which does not result from faith, is, (as Luther fays of free-will) no more than myth.

Augustus Toplady, C of E, Calvinism, Reformation, Thirty-nine Articles
For pages 1-42 and comments, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-c-of-e-calvinism.html

Augustus Toplady, C of E, Calvinism, Reformation, Thirty-nine Articles
For pages 43-82 and comments, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-from-augustus-toplady-c-of-e.html

Augustus Toplady (Vol.5, 82-97), C of E, Calvinism, 39 Arts, Te Deum, Absolution
For pages 82-97
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-vol5-pg82-97-c-of-e.html

Augustus Toplady (Vol.5, 98-118), C of E, Calvinism, 39 Arts, Election, Baptism, Justification by Faith Alone
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-vol5-82-97-c-of-e.html

A.M Toplady (Vol.5, 118-132), C of E, Calvinism, Arminianism, Justification, Total Depravity
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-vol5-pg1-83-c-of-e.html

A.M. Toplady (Vol.5, 133-152), Church of England is Protestant and Calvinistic
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/12/church-is-england-is-protestant.html

The Church of England is Protestant, Reformed & Calvinistic (Boultbee, 47-54, Article VI

The Church of England is Protestant, Reformed & Calvinistic. This is not a heavy-weight systematic, but would be a suitable undergraduate text-book or a text-book for an adult-group study. Regarding Article VI and the Articles in general, Boultbee summarizes: "They may also decide whether Protestantism is a bare negation or the assertion of a living principle, the absolute supremacy of the Word of God, and the right of all men to search that Word. Other Articles protest against individual Roman errors. This Article is the fundamental one which stamps the Church of England as essentially PROTESTANT." As Anglicans, we are Anglo-Reformed.

Thomas Pownal Boultbee’s Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England: Thirty-nine Articles book is free and downloadable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1tECAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=boultbee&hl=en&ei=PV3jTLT6GIP88Aavu-mEDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 47-51, Article VI and the Sufficiency, Authority and Inspiration of Canonical Scriptures. A few classics from Boultbee, pp.52-54, “It is unnecessary to refer to the Confessions of other Protestant Churches, as they are notoriously one with the English Church on this head…Other Articles protest against individual Roman errors. This Article is the fundamental one which stamps the Church of England as essentially PROTESTANT.

But the Church of the first three centuries never pronounced, or had an opportunity of pronouncing, its judgment on the subject. Hence the historical demonstration of the Canon of Scripture consists, in point of fact, of a collection of the testimony of individual divines and Churches to the reception of the several books from the first age of Christianity downwards. The hesitation of some as to a few of the books has been always justly thought to give the greater value to the final and all but general consent of the whole body. So that the less learned reader may rest satisfied with the result briefly, and somewhat boldly, expressed in our Article, that there has been unanimity from the first as to the authority of every portion of Holy Scripture. Not that every book came at once into the possession of every individual Church with full evidence as to its origin. But that after due communication of the several Churches which possessed the original apostolic writings, the whole Church came to a complete and early agreement; and the hesitation which lingered here or there was very partial, arose out of imperfect information, and before long merged in the general consent. Paley remarks upon this: “When that diversity of opinion which prevailed, and prevails among Christians in other points, is considered, their concurrence in the Canon of Scripture is remarkable, and of great weight, especially as it seems to have been the result of private and free enquiry.”
This subject may be illustrated by the following precept of Augustine:—“In Canonical Scriptures you must follow the judgment of the majority of Churches. You will prefer those received by all Catholic Churches to those which are not received by some; but in those which are not universally received, you will prefer those which the major and graver part receive to those which are received by fewer Churches” De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 8.

The inspiration of Holy Scripture might have naturally found a place among the statements of this Article. But there was no controversy on this head at the time of the Reformation, and thus all reference to it was omitted. It is, however, necessarily implied and assumed throughout the Articles. In particular, the expression “God's word written” (Art. XX.) may be noted.

This Article has been considerably altered from the Fifth Article of 1552, which asserted the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation, but did not enumerate or define the Canonical books. The clause which defines the Canonical books was derived from the Wurtemburg Confession in 1563.

1. Texts which imply or assert the Inspiration of Scripture such as these:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. iii. 16).

“Which He promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. i. 2).

“The oracles of God” (Rom. iii. 2).

“One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. v. 18).

“The Scripture cannot be broken “ (John x. 35).

“In the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. ii. 13).

“The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii. 2).

“Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Jer. i. 9).

“Which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before” (Acts i. 16).

“If any man shall add .... and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,' &c. (Rev. xxii. 18,19).

'No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (2 Pet. i. 20, 21).

2. Texts appealing to the Scripture as authoritative; for example:

“What things soever the law saith” (Rom. iii. 19).

“What saith the Scripture?” (Rom. iv. 3).

“The Scripture saith” (Rom. ix. 17).

“The Scripture foreseeing” (Gal. iii. 8).

“ That the Scripture might be fulfilled”' (John xix. 28, 36).

“ As the Scripture hath said” (John vii. 38).

'This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before" (Acts i. 16)

"Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith" (Heb. iii. 7).

"David himself said by the Holy Ghost" (Mark xii. 36).

3. Forms perpetually recurring, such as these:

"Thus saith the Lord;" "The Lord hath spoken;" "The voice of the Lord;" "The word of the Lord by the mouth of;"&c.

4. Duties which we owe to the Scripture. Search the Scriptures (John v. 39). Meditation therein (Ps. cxix. 15). Love (Ps. cxix. 97). Obedience (Rom. xvi. 26). They must be taught (Deut vi. 7). They must be used against our spiritual enemies (Eph.vi. 17).

5. Effects of Scripture on the Believer. It makes wise unto salvation (2 Tim. iii. 15). It perfects, thoroughly furnishing unto all good works (2 Tim. iii. 17).

It converts the soul (1 Pet. i. 23).

It causes growth in grace (1 Pet. ii. 2).

It sanctifies (John xvii. 17).

P.52, the Roman Sect on Council of Trent, Session 4

The doctrine of the Roman Church on the authority of Scripture is laid down in the decree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. The following extracts contain those portions which bear most closely on the present subject.

The Council declared that “the truth and discipline” given by Christ and His Apostles “are contained in books written and in unwritten traditions, which having been received from the mouth of Christ Himself by the Apostles, or at the dictation of the Holy Ghost from the Apostles themselves, and transmitted as it were by hand, have come down to us.” That the Council, therefore, “following the example of the Orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious affection the books both of the Old and New Testament, and the traditions themselves, whether pertaining to faith or manners, as having been orally dictated by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by continuous succession in the Church Catholic.” [Ed. Emphasis added. A boatload of accretions, contradictions, confusions and chaos in doctrine, worship and piety have been imported.]

With respect to the use of the Bible by private persons, the Council decreed (De libris prohibitis) that "he who shall presume to read or to have a Bible without a license, may not receive absolution until he has surrendered the Bible." Much stronger expressions have been used by individual popes or divines, but the above is sufficient as setting forth the unquestionable law of the Roman Church. [Ed. Emhasis added. This Papist restraint--yeah, chokehold--was lifted in the late 20th century. In this scribe’s time, however, I well recall the Papist stronghold on some friends re: Bibles. As a lad, about age seven, I crossed the street after church, went into a Papist synagogue with my Bible in hand to meet my friend, George. The Papist priest took it from me. As a lad, it scared me. My father went and reconfiscated it from the Vicar of Satan, the Priest.]

Page 53-54, The English Church. Boultbee avoids, with Hooker, the “precisionism” of some Puritan RPW-types that appear to “regulate” circumstances and inessentials. A few classics from Boultbee, found below. “It is unnecessary to refer to the Confessions of other Protestant Churches, as they are notoriously one with the English Church on this head…Other Articles protest against individual Roman errors. This Article is the fundamental one which stamps the Church of England as essentially PROTESTANT.

This Article draws a great distinction between things necessary for salvation, and things practically beneficial, but not essential. This distinction is the main subject of the second book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. He defends it against some extreme Puritans, who demanded Scripture authority for every act of life and for all the minutest matters of Church order. The concluding paragraph of that book draws the distinguishing line with admirable clearness:—“Two opinions there are concerning sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The schools of Rome teach Scripture to be insufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not contain all revealed and supernatural truth, which absolutely is necessary for the children of men in this life to know, that they may in the next be saved. Others, justly condemning this opinion, grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply, and in such sort, that to do anything according to any other law were not only unnecessary, but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful, and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God, or things appertaining to God, otherwise than the truth is, though it seem an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation; so we must likewise take great heed, lest, in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed.”

The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation (as taught in this Article) was a universal article of faith in the first four centuries. This has been abundantly demonstrated by overwhelming collections of quotations from all the primitive writers. The citations in Paley's Evidences, chap. ix. §§ 1, 9, are naturally those which first come before the attention of the student. And these will give him a fair impression as to the usual manner in which the authority and use of the Holy Scripture are handled by the Fathers. But a complete and masterly investigation of this subject will be found in the tenth chapter of the Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, by the late Dean Goode. The general result of that investigation may be summed up in the following well-known quotation from Augustine:—“If it is established by the clear authority of the divine Scriptures, those I mean that are called Canonical in the Church, it is to be believed without any doubt. But other witnesses or testimonies which are used to persuade you to believe anything, you may believe or not, just as you shall see that they have or have not any weight giving them a just claim to your confidence.” Ad Paulin Ep. 147.

For a further declaration of the mind of the Church of England on this subject the First Homily may be consulted. It is in entire harmony with this Article, as may be inferred from the following citation :—“Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books of the Old and New Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of men's traditions, devised by men's imaginations for our justification and salvation.”

It is unnecessary to refer to the Confessions of other Protestant Churches, as they are notoriously one with the English Church on this head. Much obloquy has been thrown on the word Protestant of late, as if it were a mere negation implying no positive truth. It may, therefore, be useful as well as interesting to quote the following passage from the original Protest presented to the diet at Spires, 1529, by the Lutheran princes of Germany, from which the name Protestant was derived :—“Seeing that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine; that each text of the Holy Scripture ought to be explained by other and clearer texts; and that this holy book is, in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness; we are resolved, by the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive teaching of His only Word, such as it is contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God [emphasis added].

“For these reasons we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we PROTEST by these presents before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to His Holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires.” [This decree had given liberty of worship to each German State.]

Those who read this noble Protest and compare the doctrines of the Church of England and the Church of Rome on the rule of faith, as given above, can say whether the Church of England is Protestant or no. They may also decide whether Protestantism is a bare negation or the assertion of a living principle, the absolute supremacy of the Word of God, and the right of all men to search that Word. Other Articles protest against individual Roman errors. This Article is the fundamental one which stamps the Church of England as essentially PROTESTANT [emphasis added].

For others, see:
Boultbee (i-xix): Thirty-nine Articles
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/boultbee-i-xix-protestand-reformed.html

Boultbee (i-pg.12): Thirty-nine Articles
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/boultbee-i-pg12-thirty-nine-articles.html

Boultbee (12-51): Thirty-nine Articles
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/boultbee-12-51-reformed-theology-of.html

Paschasius (6th cent.): Sufficiency of Scriptures

Paschasius of Dumium (6th century A.D.):

Some brothers went to Abbot Antony and asked to hear from him words by which they might be saved. He said to them: “You have heard the Scriptures, and you know what is sufficient to you from Christ.”
- Paschasius of Dumium, FC, Vol. 62, Paschasius of Dumium, Questions and Answers of the Greek Fathers, Chapter 6, §2 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1969), p. 127.

William Goode's "Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," (3.78-80): Tractarians like Trent

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. Chapter Three: "View of the Tractators." pp. 78-80. Valuable comments here with respect to "Patristal and Ecclesiastical Tradition" and "Scriptures", the latter being the sole rule of faith and practice. It will be important to keep this distinction in mind as reading Goode.

Goode is building his case that the Tractators view tradition in the same way as Trent. This will go to the heart of "authority" for doctrine, worship and piety.

This is a most thorough refutation of the Roman notion that the Bible cannot stand as the sufficient source of saving truth. The massive case is developed from the early church fathers down to the romanizing Oxford Movement of Goode’s own day.

We believe this work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.

Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered. This fact too was noted by Tractarians themselves, as well as many Reformed Churchmen in the Church of England. Again, a little known fact.

Semper Fidelis.

Volume One is free and downloadable at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt

-----------------------
CHAPTER III.

COMPARISON OP THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OP PATRISTICAL TRADITION WITH THAT OP THE ROMISH CHURCH.

After the explicit declaration of Dr. Pusey quoted in the preceding chapter that our controversy with Rome on this subject is not a doctrinal but a “purely historical" controversy, i.e. relating only to the validity of some particular traditions, and also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,such as that “we agree with the Romanist in appealing to antiquity as our great teacher" (p. 47,) it may seem almost superfluous to attempt to prove the identity of the doctrine maintained by the writers whose views we have been considering, with that of the Romanists. As, however, in other places they speak as if there was some not inconsiderable difference between their views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as such an impression is likely to be entertained almost involuntarily by their readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two parties are precisely the
same.

The reader will bear in mind that I am not now speaking of the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine on the subject of tradition.

The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under the reader will recollect that this chapter was written before Mr. Newman’s secession to the Church of Borne, and refers to the statements made by him as the princpal leader of the Tractarian party.

The consideration may be summed up as we have already observed, in the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chapter; (pp. 36, 37 ;) and these propositions represent precisely the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim.

I. That consentient patristical tradition, or “catholic consent,” is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures.

"We assert,” says Bellarmine, "that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly (expressly) in the Scriptures ; and that consequently "beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten “word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions. ”They [i.e. the Protestants] think, that if there were any apostolical traditions, they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition……We, on the contrary, assert, that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested. ... If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering anything unwritten equivalent to the written word.” [Which last observation is of course very true, and its truth is admitted by all, and therefore it answers no purpose except that of leading the reader to misapprehend the views of the Protestants; but I notice it to show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of the Romanists on this subject.] (De Verb. Dei,lib. iv. c. 3.)

The Council of Trent says, — "The most holy synod seeing that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained in the written books and those unwritten traditions which were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or, emanating from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and delivered down from hand to hand, have descended to us, following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with a like feeling of piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Tesament since one God is the author of both, as also traditions themselves, as well those relating to faith as those relating to manners, as either uttered by Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the catholic Church by an uninterrupted succession/' (Conc.. Trid. Sess. 4.) And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such traditions are delivered by him thus; — "The first rule is, When the whole Church embraces anything as an article of faith which is not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, that that is derived from the tradition of the apostles…The second rule is. When the whole Church observes anything which none but God could ordain, which nevertheless is nowhere found written, it must be admitted that it was delivered (traditum) by Christ himself and his apostles. The third rule is...That which has been observed in the whole Church, and in all past times, is justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the Church. The fourth rule is. When all the doctors of the Church declare with one consent that anything descends from apostolical tradition, either when assembled in a general council, or writing individually in their works, that is to be considered to be an apostolical tradition. . . . The fifth rule is. That is to be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradition which is considered to be such in those churches where there is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles."

It is hardly necessary to say, that he adds the limitation, — We admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture…we never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture.”

The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition, are in effect the same as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth accords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned. And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks of the universal Church holding this or that, he means not merely the present Churchy but the Church as including the Fathers; and both he and I believe I might say all the best writers of the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers in their writings is necessary for the establishment of anything as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The examples given by Bellarmine on this rule show this, being the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and the number of the canonical books, for a proof of both which they would send us to the Fathers. And he says, "That is called unwritten doctrine, not such as is nowhere written, but that which is not written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of infants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apostolical book, although it is written in the books of almost all the ancient Fathers.” And again, “Those rites only we receive as apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testimonies of the ancients." And one of his notes of the true Church is, “agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church.”