Rev. Iain Campbell on the "Sovereignty of Christ" (Rev.5.5)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1114101743543

Rev. Iain Campbell on the "Sovereignty of Christ" (Rev.5.5)

What is Orthodoxy (In Anglicanism)?

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61009154368

An examination of Canadian Anglicanism and the trials in Vancouver, Canada. A trial that includes the Dr. James Innes Packer.

ANOTHER CALVINISTIC ANGLICAN DIVINE–BP. JOHN DAVENANT (1572-1641), Predestination, Election, Dordt, Calvinism

www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_026_Felce-JohnDavenant.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 1987 No. 26
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is
not altered.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – JOHN DAVENANT (1572-1641)
By Brian Felce

Like most of the theologians of his time, John Davenant had strong Calvinistic leanings and loved the doctrines of grace. In him sound learning and piety were united to a degree rarely excelled: he refused to ride on the Lord’s Day even when commanded to preach at Court.
Members of the Reformed Churches on the Continent held Davenant in high respect. Even the
Roman Catholic theologian, Bellarmine, kept a portrait of Davenant in his study at Rome, because he regarded him so highly.

Davenant was born on 20th May, 1572, in London, and admitted to Queens’ College, Cambridge, in July 1587. His career at Cambridge was a distinguished one. He was ordained about 1597, gained his B.D. in 1601 and became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in 1609. He was elected President of Queens’ College in 1614. He was Rector of Leyke (Leake) in Nottinghamshire and then for a few months Vicar of Hockington (Oakington), Cambridgeshire.
Synod of Dort

In 1618 Davenant was elected by James I with three other theologians to represent the Church of England and assist in the work of the Calvinistic Synod of Dort in Holland. He took a leading part in the deliberations, and the most conspicuous part among the Anglican delegation. For nearly seven months in 1618 and 1619 the Dutch Protestant theologians assembled at Dort. Deputies from England and Scotland, Germany and Switzerland were invited to assist.
Arminius, pastor of the great church of Amsterdam and then Professor of Leyden University, had adopted another system of theology to that prevailing in the Reformed Churches on the continent and in our own Reformed Church of England. Arminius believed that God from all eternity determined to bestow Salvation on those whom He foresaw would persevere to the end their faith in Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ by His death and sufferings made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular.

Five Points

Although Arminius died in 1609, the controversy became sharper between his followers, who were more extreme than Arminius, and the Calvinist, so that the Synod was called to discuss and pronounce upon the theological differences. The Synod pronounced on the five main disputed points, namely, predestination and election, the limited extent of the atonement, the broken power of man’s freewill, the irresistible nature of grace and the final perseverance of the saints, Davenant wrote to Bishop Hall:

I know that no man can embrace Arminianism in the doctrines of predestination and grace, but he must desert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England; nor in the point of perseverance, but he must vary from the received opinions of the best approved doctors in the English Church (p. 18, English Church in Seventeenth Century, C. Sydney Carter, London 1909).

In 1621 Davenant became Bishop of Salisbury until his death on 20th April 1641. His greatest
influence was in his writings. Charles Bridges who wrote The Christian Ministry said of Davenant’s Commentary on Colossians published in 1726, ‘I know no exposition upon a detached portion of Scripture (with, perhaps the single exception of Owen, on the Hebrews) that will compare with it on all points’ (p. 168, Life of Bishop Davenant, Morris Fuller, London 1897).

Justification

In 1631 Davenant wrote his most important book, A Treatise on Justification, which would have been one of our standard theological works, if it had not been composed in Latin. The English translation was not published until 1844-6. At this juncture when the ARCIC II statement on Salvation and the Church is being discussed it is very instructive to read what Davenant wrote about Justification:

We openly affirm that the righteous God justifies no one, that is, absolves him from guilt, declares him just, and accepts him to life eternal, which is the reward of righteousness, unless by the intervention of a true and perfect righteousness, which also becomes truly the righteousness of the justified person himself. . . no one is justified, but he upon whom God has bestowed a righteousness so complete and perfect, that God in beholding him cannot but regard as righteous the person upon whom the same is bestowed (p. 159, Treatise of Justification. London 1844).

Again:

God, from regard to the obedience performed by Christ, even to the death on the cross, has delivered us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the law, by imputing to us the satisfaction of another, as if it had been our own: therefore, from regard to the obedience performed by Christ, even unto the fulfilling of the law, He will bestow upon us those benefits which are promised to observers of the law, namely, by imputing to us this righteousness of another, even as if it were our own . . . we teach, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and that we are dealt with as if we were inherently just: even as also the passion of Christ is imputed to us and in respect of it we are so dealt with, as if we ourselves had paid the penalty due to our sins. (pp. 239-240, op. cit.)

Evangelical Unity

In 1641, Davenant restated his views on predestination in agreement with Article XVII in
Animadversions upon a Treatise entitled: ‘God’s Love to Mankind’. He defended the unconditional decree of election and maintained that reprobation is of necessity involved in election. He also wrote An Exhortation to Brotherly Love with the purpose of uniting Evangelical Churches. He stated the principles of Church unity, and discussed the question of whom we must admit to the communion of Christ’s Church and whom we ought to exclude.

A Dissertation on the Death of Christ was published in 1650 after Davenant’s death. It contains a short history of Pelagianism and shows the agreement of the Church of England on general
redemption, election and predestination with the primitive fathers of the Christian Church and
above all with the Bible.

How much healthier the Church of England would be today if her bishops were faithful, as
Davenant was, to the Reformed Faith of the Bible and The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.

Brian Felce (at the time of publication) was Chairman of the Protestant Reformation Society and formerly Vicar of All Saints, Preston.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – JOHN PEARSON (1613-1686)

www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_023_Watson-JohnPearson.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Winter 1986 No. 23
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – JOHN PEARSON (1613-1686)
By David Watson

In these days of theological confusion, non-commitment, and downright apostasy, it may be some comfort to reflect that a man whose learning eclipsed that of any living Bishop saw no reason to doubt, and every reason to believe, the plain statements of Scripture and the historic doctrines of our faith.

‘The Christian religion has very strong evidences . . . I would recommend to everyone whose faith is unsettled . . . Dr. Pearson.’ Thus Dr. Samuel Johnson in 1763, a century after the publication of John Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed which for 250 years remained a standard text for ordinands in the Church of England. 1986 is the tercentenary of his death. Who was he? What lessons can we learn from him today?

His whimsically-named birthplace, Snoring, conjures up visions of yawning yokels or a sleepy
squire in the pews of a Sunday morning; but in fact the name Snoring is derived from a river . . . the Snare. John was the eldest of nine Rectory children, and in after life ‘he took occasion very often and publicly to bless God that he was born and bred in a family in which God was worshipped daily.’ At the tender age of 10 he was admitted to Eton College as one of the 70 ‘poor scholars’, whose daily regimen might surprise some of us:

5.00 a.m. Get up, dress, repeating prayers. Clean room, wash.
6.00 a.m. Prayers, led by the Lower Master.
7.00 a.m. Study: Latin and Greek.
9.00 a.m. Breakfast.
10.00 a.m. Prayers.
11.00 a.m. Dinner.
12.00 p.m. Study.
5.00 p.m. Supper.
7.00 p.m. Beverages.
8.00 p.m. Bed, saying prayers.

There was ‘play’ before and after supper only on holidays: and on Christmas Day the boys go to
bed immediately after 7 o’clock because in former times they had to rise between 3 and 4 o’clock for morning prayer.’ Apparently John thought eight hours a day insufficient time for study. His contemporaries allege that after others were asleep he would light a candle and continue reading . . . with such diligence that by the age of 18 he had covered most of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church, quite outside the school curriculum. Thus was laid the foundation of that encyclopaedic learning for which he was later famous: ‘among Englishmen of the XVIIth century probably the ablest scholar and systematic theologian.’

Exposition

From Eton to Cambridge (Queens’ and King’s), where he took holy orders, but was soon deprived of his Suffolk rectory because of his attachment to King Charles in the Civil War. Under the Commonwealth he withdrew to London and in 1654 accepted an invitation from the parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, to deliver a weekly sermon. These sermons form the substance of his Exposition (1659) which has been described as ‘the most perfect and complete production of English dogmatic theology.’

With the Restoration, the fortunes of royalist clergy were reversed. Pearson’s genius was recognised and he was appointed, in quick succession, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, professor of theology, and Master of Trinity College. Subsequently he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society; and Bishop of Chester in 1675. (Ironically, this was also the year in which John Bunyan was imprisoned for the second time and began Pilgrim’s Progress, which has outsold every literary production of the XVIIth century . . .except the A.V. including Pearson’s masterpiece).

Pearson was a man of spotless life and of an excellent temper: Richard Baxter admired his
imperturbable equanimity. . . a rare gift in those days of fierce theological controversy.
Unfortunately, he regarded nonconformists as lost sheep needing to be coerced into the one true fold . . . the Church of England! This pride and prejudice were no doubt inherited (his grandfather, too, had been Bishop of Chester); but the same tenacity for tradition was an invaluable asset when it came to expounding the Creed. From his Introduction, ‘To the Parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap: ‘The (first) principles of Christianity are now as freely questioned as the most doubtful and controverted points; the grounds of faith are as safely denied as the most unnecessary superstructions (i.e. secondary matters); that religion has the greatest advantage which appeareth in the newest dress, as if we looked for another faith to be delivered to the saints: whereas in Christianity there can be no important truth which is not ancient; and whatsoever is truly new, is certainly false.”

Creation

He goes on to support the Apostles’ Creed with more than 2,000 quotations from Scripture, and
another 2,000 from 440 ancient authors. His defence of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection is as
relevant today as it was in 1660; and his insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the doctrine of a Young Earth is also of contemporary interest:

1) ‘ . . . there is no single person carries more evidence of his youth, than the World of its novelty.’ He then quotes the Roman atheist philosopher/poet Lucretius:
“If earth and sky had no starting point in time (or if homo sapiens has been around for two million years) why have no poets sung of feats before the Theban war and the tragedy of Troy? Why have so many heroic deeds dropped out of mind and found no shrine in lasting monuments of fame? The answer is, I believe, that this world is newly made: its origin is a recent event, not one of remote antiquity. That is why even now some arts are still being perfected: the process of development is still going on . . .”

2) Pearson examines the claims of Egypt to a great antiquity ‘far beyond the annals of Moses’, and concludes that they are false. ‘Again, for the calculation of eclipses, as it may be made for many thousands of years to come, and be exactly true, and yet the world may end tomorrow . . . so may it also be made for many millions of years past, and all be true, if the World hath been so old; which the calculating doth not prove, but suppose. He then who should see in the Egyptian temples the description of so many eclipses of the sun and moon, could not be assured that they were all taken from real observation . . . . What then are these feigned observations and fabulous descriptions of the World’s antiquity, in respect (compared with) not only the infallible annals of the Spirit of God, but even of the constant testimonies of more sober men, and the real appearances and face of things, which speak them of a far shorter date?’

3) ‘The inventions of all arts and sciences, the letters which we use, and languages which we speak, they all have known originals and may be traced to their first authors . . . whatsoever all the Muses (i.e. poets) could rehearse before those times, is nothing but the creation of the World and the nativity of their gods.’

4) ‘We read without any show of contradiction how this western part of the world hath been
peopled from the east: and all the pretence of Babylonian antiquity is nothing else, but that we all came from thence. Those eight persons saved in the ark, descending from the Gordiaean mountains and multiplying to a large collection in the plain of Sinaar, made their first division at that place; and that dispersion hath peopled all other parts of the world . . . .’

5) ‘. . . it is not probable that any person now alive is more than 130 generations removed from
Adam. And indeed thus admitting the Greek account of less than 5,000 years since the Flood, we may easily bring all sober or probable accounts of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese (sic) to begin since the dispersion at Babel.’

6) Pearson refutes those philosophers who allege frequent destructions of the world by floods and fires. Their theories, he says, ‘serve only for a confirmation of Noah’s flood so many ages past, and the surer expectation of St Peter’s fire, we know not how soon to come.’

Conclusion ‘It remaineth then that we steadfastly believe, not only that the “heavens and earth and all the host of them” were made, and so acknowledge a creation; . . . but also that all things were created by the hand of God in the same manner, and at the same time, which are delivered unto us in the books of Moses by the Spirit of God, and so acknowledge a novity, or no long existence of the creature . . . most certainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years.” (emphasis added)

One final question: why has Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed not been reprinted since the
Cambridge University Press edition in 1899? 1 suggest two possible answers: 1) the decline of
classical studies has put his Greek and Latin footnotes beyond the reach of many clergymen; 2) the general acceptance of Darwinism as gospel truth has led Church committees to regard as obsolete his chapter on ‘Maker of heaven and earth’. If (2) be correct, then it is time for a rehabilitation of Pearson as of William Paley. His arguments for man’s recent creation are as cogent today as Paley’s arguments for Design in nature. Both authors deserve to be remembered, re-printed and re-viewed by the new generation of Christian scholars now emerging from a century of Darwinian darkness.

David C.C. Watson is a former missionary schoolmaster. He was a Senior Scholar of Trinity
College, Cambridge and Winner of the Carus Greek Testament Prize in 1947. He was awarded a
First in the Classical Tripos.

WE ARE ANGLICANS by David Phillips

www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_117_WeAreAnglicans.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Summer 2010 No. 117
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.

WE ARE ANGLICANS
By David Phillips

The title of this article ought to be somewhat longer. One of our former Council members, Frank Knaggs, served for many years as a member of the Council for Christian Unity. Frank had one or two personalised items, in particular a ring and T-shirt, which he sometimes wore to ecumenical meetings. They bear the slogan “No Pope here, we are Anglicans”.

The Pope, or more properly the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome will visit England and Scotland from 17th to 19th September of this year. In recent years political figures and many in the media have fawned all over the Pope. More recently however, there has been growing attacks on Rome by secular humanists and the homosexual lobbyists, together with the media, which is dominated by both. Whilst we do not wish to be sucked into the ungodly agenda of these groups nevertheless it is important to say that this visit is also unwelcome for other reasons.

What does it mean to be Anglican? Though it is not normally where people look for an answer part of the nature of Anglicanism is set out in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688. This Act applies still in England and Wales and its well known wording was used at the Coronation of the present Queen. The existence of this Act, is a denial to the claim of some that the United Kingdom is a secular state. The oath set down in the Act was made by the new monarch as a covenant between her and her people. It includes the famous words:

Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law?

It can be seen that the oath involves a commitment to maintain three things but for the purpose of this article it is the third that I wish to focus on. The words do not refer to the Church of England, but this Church is the embodiment of that phrase. Therefore in answer to the question what does it mean to be Anglican, or what is the Church of England, we can answer that it is protestant, reformed and established.

Protestant

The word Protestant derives from the Protestation at Speyer of 19 April 1529. Martin Luther had been banned from the Holy Roman Empire at the Diet of Worms in 1521. In 1526 the Emperor, Charles V, suspended the Edict of Worms and thus allowed the German states individually to choose to follow the evangelical faith. Three years later the Reichstag (effectively the parliament of the Empire) voted to suspend the suspension, thus outlawing Luther and the evangelicals again. The minority members of the Reichstag drew up a letter of protestation (Instrumentum Appellationis) which the Emperor’s brother, who was presiding, refused to admit. They chose therefore to print the letter and make it public.

It is often asserted that Protestantism is by its nature negative because it has its origins in being against something. There is truth in this, but what the original Protestants were against was an attempt to suppress the truth and persecute true believers. The key elements of protestant are therefore first that it affirms the evangelical faith, that is the authority and supremacy of Scripture and that we are justified by faith and not by any other means. Secondly, it was therefore a rejection of the errors of medieval Catholicism, just as the historic creeds in upholding orthodoxy rejected various errors of their day. Thirdly, it was an affirmation of religious liberty in the face of the tyranny of Rome.

These characteristics are central to what it means to be Anglican and what the Coronation Oath is asserting. Our Articles set out clearly the key evangelical doctrines of justification by faith alone (Article 11), the sufficiency (Article 6) and supremacy of Scripture (Articles 20 & 21), the errors of Rome (sundry articles) and the rejection of the worldly pretensions of the Bishop of Rome (Article 37). What led up to the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 was another attempt to suppress truth and true believers, in the machinations of King James II.

The clause from Article 37 is well known “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.” The papacy has not given up its political aspirations and the status of Vatican City, established by the Lateran Treaty of 1929 is part of the manifestation of that today. The United Nations grants observer status to The Holy See, but this is not the same as the Vatican City. The continuing law prohibiting our monarch from being a Roman Catholic is also a response to these claims to political power.

When the present Queen dies it is quite possible that parliament will rush through a repeal of the Coronation Oath Act and thus a new coronation oath.

Reformed

Some would see ‘reformed’ as simply meaning changed, which is to say that the Church of England has reformed itself so that it is now different to what it was before the Reformation. But Reformed means more than that, and again it is a positive affirmation.

From fairly early on the Protestant churches could be identified as belonging to three broad families – Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist. The Anglican Church, though indebted to Luther, is one of the Reformed Churches.

The distinction with the Anabaptists is most obviously seen in the retention by the Church of
England of infant baptism, but its foundation is deeper. We are a Reformed Catholic church; we
have retained ancient practices where these are not contrary to Scripture, even if some of them are not clearly set out in Scripture. Anabaptists tend more to the view that only those things set out in Scripture are acceptable. Thus we can argue a Biblical case for infant baptism, but must accept that it is not explicitly taught. We can see the roots of a separate episcopate in Scripture, but we do not see it as being required because overseers and presbyters are largely interchangeable terms in Scripture. We got rid of some medieval services and practices but not all. The reason a Church must continue to reform is not because we believe we stopped short of an ideal, but because sin is always with us, old errors can creep back and new errors are always
emerging.

The distinction with Lutheran Churches is historically most obvious in the doctrine of the
sacraments. Luther’s teaching of consubstantiation appears to have been an attempt to reform the doctrine without losing something he was not willing to lose. Anglicans reject the view that the sacraments are just signs or tokens (Article 25). We assert that the sacraments are effectual signs (God does what the sign signifies), but the means by which they are effectual is faith. Thus, at the Lord’s Supper, a believer receives the body and blood of Christ “after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article 28).

Some of the classical statements of Reformed theology, for example, the Synod of Dort (1619)
came later than the formularies of the Church of England. Yet, in most respects the key points such as predestination (Article 17) are to be found in Anglicanism. A possible exception is Covenant Theology, often used to justify infant baptism, which is not immediately obvious in our Articles and Prayer Book, though if anyone can show me otherwise I would grateful to hear.
Established

The Coronation Oath Act refers to the Protestant Reformed religion established by law and we are part of an established church. This is not unique, many countries have established churches
(Finland has two) whilst others have other religions that are favoured in law. The Church of
England is intertwined with the history of our nation. One aspect of establishment that is constantly under attack is the role of Bishops in the House of Lords, yet we should remember that the monarch of England has always had Bishops amongst their advisors, even before the formation of the single English nation, and the British likewise before them. On the other hand, until recently, clergy were not permitted to become MPs. This also reflects part of our establishment, to grant freedom to the Church, whilst restricting the ability of the Church as an institution to interfere in the role of the state. This is a deliberate response to the long years of conflict with the Roman See. The political aspirations of Rome in respect of England were firmly rebuffed by Henry VIII in the 1534 Act of Supremacy and in various other subsequent pieces of legislation. Establishment has been, and remains, part of the means of preserving the Church of England as a Protestant Reformed church.

David Phillips is General Secretary of Church Society

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – JOHN TILLOTSON (1630-1694)

www.churchsociety.org/Crossway/documents/Cway_020_Clifford-JohnTillotson.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Spring 1986 No. 20
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is
not altered.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – JOHN TILLOTSON (1630-1694)
By Alan Clifford

John Tillotson has been described as ‘the wisest and best man that ever sat in the primatial chair of Canterbuy’. More recently, Dr. Edward Carpenter has written that ‘If character in itself qualified for office, no man could have had greater claims to Canterbury than John Tillotson. He was intelligent, liberal and warm hearted.’ Whilst his primacy was brief and uneventful, it may be added that probably no post-Reformation archbishop has ever upheld the Protestant character of the Church of England more than John Tillotson.

Puritan Upbringing

Born at Sowerby, near Halifax in 1630, Tillotson lived through the religious and civil upheavals of the 17th century. His parents being convinced puritans, John embraced decided presbyterian views. He entered Clare Hall, Cambridge in 1647, where he came under the influence of some of the leading puritans of the day. His tutor was the presbyterian David Clarkson. He admired the writings of Dr. William Twisse, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, and Dr. Thomas Goodwin, one of the independent members of the assembly. However, Tillotson was also attracted by the rational outlook of Ralph Cudworth, Master of Clare, and William Chillingworth’s Religion of Protestants also influenced him. Tillotson’s conservative, presbyterian puritanism distanced him from some of the more radical puritans of the day. He became disenchanted with Goodwin and others when, a week after the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, Tillotson heard these divines call God’s providence into question for
allowing the Protector’s death. His views and personal attachments beginning to change, Tillotson received episcopal ordination at the hands of the Bishop of Galloway, Dr. Thomas Sydserf, who was then in London. Notwithstanding these developments, Tillotson was an auditor with the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy Conference in 1661. With the passing of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, Tillotson conformed to the Church of England, thus severing his formal links with the Presbyterians.

Tillotson’s abilities guaranteed his recognition. In 1672, he was made Dean of Canterbury and,
three years later, Prebendary of St. Paul’s. He became Dean of St. Paul’s in 1689 and Archbishop of Canterbuy in 1691. When Tillotson died, after a primacy of only three years, King William declared “I have lost the best friend that I ever had, and the best man I ever knew.”

Comprehension

Tillotson was an able preacher as well as a godly man. In an age weary of religious controversy and beginning to feel the cold wind of secularism, he believed that good preaching and holy living would be powerful influences for good. Richard Baxter and the young Matthew Henry spoke highly of Tillotson’s preaching. Whilst his manner was less dramatic and emotional than many of the Puritans, it was appealingly Scriptural and remarkably lucid. In this respect, Tillotson never forsook his puritanism completely. In 1664, he had married a niece of Oliver Cromwell, and he maintained close friendships with the leading Nonconformists. In 1674, Tillotson joined with Baxter in drafting a Bill to comprehend the more moderate Nonconformists within the Church of England. With the passing of the Act of Toleration in 1689, he urged the King to summon Convocation with a view to making concession to the Dissenters. These included alterations to the Prayer Book of 1662. Alas, such ideas were rejected by the majority ‘high Church’ party. A more Protestant Anglicanism was not to be.
Despite his impeccable orthodoxy, Archbishop Tillotson was unjustly accused of favouring
heretical views of the person of Christ—Socinianism. His timely stress on the need for practical
godliness was construed as moralistic. His willingness to tolerate an Arminian interpretation of the 39 Articles, along the lines of Bishop Gilbert Burnet’s Exposition, made him the focal point of much criticism. In the next century, the Methodists George Whitefield and John Wesley failed to grasp the true significance of Tillotson’s theological contribution, although Wesley eventually published two of the Archbishop’s sermons in his Christian Library. There can be no doubt that Tillotson’s theology was essentially evangelical. His personal stress on the gospel of salvation by grace is clear for all to see. His sermons reveal an equal intolerance of the kind of fatalistic conception of grace popular with some (Hypercalvinism) and the almost humanistic view of salvation espoused by others (Pelagianism).

Protestant Apologist

If Tillotson’s Calvinism was all but smothered by his Latitudinarianism, there was no concealing the Archbishop’s Protestantism. The only formal treatise he ever wrote, The Rule of Faith was a defence of the Protestant doctrine of Holy Scripture against the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition. For this work, Tillotson was created D.D. in 1666. Many of his sermons were directed against the errors of Rome. The Hazard of Being Saved in the Church of Rome, preached at Whitehall in 1672 resulted in the permanent absence of the Duke of York—the future James II, from the Chapel Royal thereafter. Other sermons were preached against transubstantiation and the worship of dead saints. The Protestant Religion Vindicated was preached in 1682, and Christ Jesus the Only Mediator between God and Men in 1691. Following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Tillotson gave warm support to the French Protestant refugees. It is plain that Archbishop Tillotson would never have favoured ecumenical dialogue. Union with Rome was unthinkable. He categorically affirmed ‘They cannot come over to us, because they think they are infallible; and we cannot pass over to them, because we know they are deceived.’ It is equally plain that too many of Archbishop Tillotson’s successors no longer think Rome is deceived, while she continues to think she is infallible. Many Anglicans today have forsaken the theological ground once occupied by Archbishop Tillotson.

If the Archbishop’s views, policies and emphases cannot command universal support, his clear,
Biblical Protestantism will continue to earn a place in the affectionate regard of all true
Evangelicals.

Alan Clifford (at the time of publication) was a Baptist minister at Great Ellingham, Norfolk.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – EDMUND GRINDAL (1519-1583)

www.churchsociety.org/Crossway/documents/Cway_019_Dethridge-EdmundGrindal.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Winter 1985 No. 19
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES – EDMUND GRINDAL (1519-1583)
By David Dethridge

Edmund Grindal, the immediate successor to Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury, was born in 1519 at Hensingham in the parish of St Bees in Cumberland, a district which he himself described as “the ignorantest part of religion, and most oppressed of covetous landlords of any one part of this realm.” He went up to Cambridge and was awarded a fellowship at Pembroke in 1538. He was ordained deacon in 1544.

University and Ordination

His reputation for academic brilliance was noted by Strype in these words: “Before he came to be taken notice of in the Church, he made a figure in the University, as one of the ripest wits and learnedest men in Cambridge.” This was reflected by his selection as a participant in disputations on theological subjects. He was appointed with four others to argue against the doctrine of transubstantiation before a commission of visitors headed by the reformer Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of Rochester.

In 1550 Ridley (Master of Pembroke Hall from 1540) appointed Grindal his chaplain. Ridley
described Grindal as a man “of virtue, honesty, wisdom and learning” reminding us of the need to pray that all called to the ministry of the gospel might be such and that those who select others to bear office in the Church might have the qualifications given to us by the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 3:l-12, Titus 1:6-9) uppermost in their minds.

In August 1551 Grindal was also appointed precentor of St Paul’s Cathedral. His ministry was not, however, confined to the Cathedral but included preaching throughout the province of Canterbury. His widely expected appointment as bishop was prevented by the death of Edward VI.

Exile and Return

On the accession of Mary in 1553 Grindal with many others who held the reformed faith went into exile on the continent. He initially took up residence in Strasbourg where he attended the lectures of Peter Martyr. In order to enable him to exercise his ministry there Grindal learned the German language.

He maintained correspondence with those who adhered to the reformed faith in England. In one letter received by Grindal, Ridley described the wife of his gaoler as “a morose superstitious old woman, who thinks she shall merit by having me closely confined.” Much of the information thus obtained he communicated to John Foxe, the martyrologist.

In the month following the accession of Elizabeth I, Grindal began his journey back to England. He became one of the commissioners appointed to revise the liturgy. He was appointed bishop of London on 26th July 1559 in succession to Bonner and was a preacher both before the Queen and at St Paul’s Cross. It was recorded that at St Paul’s Cross on 3rd March 1560 “there was a mighty audience, for the people were greedy to hear the gospel.”

In 1562 he took a prominent part in the proceedings of convocation which revised the Articles of Religion. During his tenure of the see of London he wrote to Bullinger on the occasion of the adoption of the Helvetic Confession in 1566 to give expression to the doctrinal agreement which prevailed among the reformed churches: “down to this very day, we do perfectly agree with your churches, and with your confession of faith lately set forth.”

Archbishop

On 11th April 1570 he was translated to the archbishopric of York, Edwin Sandys becoming bishop of London. The next month he began to undertake a visitation of the province and effect was given to instructions (called “advertisements”) in order to ensure that the furnishings of churches would be appropriate to the faith proclaimed in them. Crosses, candlesticks and altar stones were to be removed and destroyed, the latter being replaced by “a decent table standing on a frame for the Communion Table.”

In 1575 the Queen on Cecil’s advice appointed Grindal to the see of Canterbury following Parker’s death. Trouble soon followed his appointment over what were called prophesyings, the term being taken from 1 Corinthians 14:31. These were meetings, often held weekly or fortnightly, in which clergy expounded and discussed the Scriptures and prayed. Laymen were usually in attendance but did not take part in the discussions. At such meetings in one diocese (Peterborough) offenders against morality were censured, although the assemblies did not of course have any official standing.

Elizabeth was adamant that these meetings should be suppressed and rejected a compromise
whereby only officially approved speakers would be permitted to address the meetings. On 7th May 1577 she issued an order prohibiting the meetings. Grindal was directed to report those who refused to desist to the Privy Council for punishment. Grindal was too aware of the usefulness of the exposition of the Scriptures to comply and his remonstrance to the Queen (in which he pointed out that scriptural teaching and preaching made men and women better subjects) was unheeded. He was led to describe the Queen’s intervention as no better than the anti-Christian voice of the Pope.”

Suspended

For his refusal to comply he was suspended from his office and confined to his house. He had
himself intervened in 1567 to save separatists from punishment, but also encouraged such to
conform. A petition by convocation in 1581 for Grindal’s reinstatement was rejected by the Queen. His removal from office was, however, deemed impolitic.

He was reinstated in 1582 but by this time his health and particularly his eyesight were declining. He resigned his bishopric, and he returned to his house in Croydon where he died on 6th July 1583. He was commemorated by an effigy in the church in Croydon where he was buried, by his bequests, and in Spenser’s “Shepherd’s Calendar” where he is thinly disguised as “the shepherd Algrind”.

May God raise up many such faithful undershepherds for the reformation and revival of His
Church.

The late David Dethridge was a member of Church Society Council in the 1980s.

John MacArthur "Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass, #1 & #2"

John MacArthur "Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass, #1"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1117101711406

John MacArthur "Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass, #2"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1117101713478

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES - JOHN JEWEL (1522-1572)

www.churchsociety.org/Crossway/documents/Cway_018_Scales-Jewel.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 1985 No. 18
(C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.

GREAT ANGLICAN DIVINES - JOHN JEWEL (1522-1572)
By Derek Scales

The sixteenth century love of puns makes it unsurprising that Jewel’s epitaph referred to him as ‘a jewel of jewels’ and Archbishop Edmund Grindal called him ‘the jewel and singular ornament of the Church’: but these were no empty ascriptions, for Jewel was one of the outstanding servants of Christ and his Gospel in England in the sixteenth century.

Life

John Jewel was born in Bude in 1522. He showed great diligence in study while a boy, and went up to Oxford in 1535, where his tutor was John Parkhurst (later the Elizabethan bishop of Norwich). A young man of exceptional ability and labour, and of blameless life, he worked so hard that he injured his health.

With the accession of Queen Mary, Jewel was unmolested for some time. Suddenly, however, in 1554 he was required to subscribe some compromising Romanising articles, and with the threat of possible death, he capitulated. Jewel fled abroad to Frankfurt, where he publicly acknowledged his fault: ‘I have confessed it openly, and unrequired. in the midst of the congregation’. He arrived in Zurich in 1556, where the English exiles spent their time together very profitably and happily.

On his return to England in 1559, it was clear that Jewel was destined for high office: he disputed at Westminster, he preached at Paul’s Cross (where he issued his famous challenge to the Romanists that none of their disputed points had either the authority of Scripture or the support of any reputable Church Father of the first six centuries), and he was elected bishop of Salisbury. He spent the rest of his life in that office, engaged chiefly in preaching, writing and study, and died. Burned out at an early age, in 1572.

The ‘Apology’

His classic. An Apology, or answer, in Defence of the Church of England, was published in 1562. In the first of the six main sections, Jewel records the slanders and persecutions which Protestants had to undergo, and challenges his opponents to submit to Scripture. He then expounds the doctrine taught by the Church of England, both the beliefs set forth in the Creeds, and the teachings in the light of subsequent controversies. Jewel thirdly asserts that it is the Reformed Church of England which is in true apostolic succession: ‘We have learned these things of Christ, of the apostles, of the devout fathers’. In the fourth section Jewel points out the moral and doctrinal corruption of Rome, and that error has been found within the institutional church since Old Testament times. Jewel then examines the Roman claim that they had the support of the Church Fathers: this area of learning was Jewel’s speciality, and he showed conclusively that the early church testified against the practices of Rome.

Finally, Jewel dealt with the Roman contention that the Protestants should submit to the decisions of the General Council at Trent. ‘Neither do we eschew concord and peace, but to have peace with man we will not be at war with God.’ This article will have done great good if it induces the reader to seek out a copy of Jewel’s Apology and study it.

Lessons for Today

Jewel presents some important lessons to the twentieth-century Church of England. Jewel makes it plain that the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome are theological differences. There may have been some change in Rome’s posturing and public relations, but we are not concerned with this superficial realm: in theology Rome has not changed (except for the worse) since Jewel’s time. New ‘common ground’ is an ambiguous and false synthesis: the Church of England was reformed for valid reasons, and those reasons remain. The Reformation was not a mistake, and the Reformed Church which sprung from it was not an unfortunate anomaly. It does not therefore exist to lose itself in another church (pace the Archbishop of Canterbury), but to bear testimony to the Scriptural and Apostolic Faith in this land. Jewel emphasises our duty to maintain it.

The second point is related to the first. For the last one hundred and fifty years, some people have canvassed the via media concept, that the Church of England is a sort of halfway house between Rome and Reformation. This concept is foolish (for on the points of dispute there is no halfway position – the two opposing systems are the logical outworking of their presuppositions) and false: Jewel demonstrates that the Church of England is Reformed according to Scripture.

A third lesson from Jewel relates to leadership. Jewel’s grievous denial of the faith (like Cranmer’s) reminds us of the fallibility of all human leaders. As Protestants we deny the infallibility of the pope; yet too easily within the evangelical movement people are followers of names rather than Biblical principles. We must exercise that right judgement which measures all things by Scripture, and not put leaders in a false position.

There is also a lesson for leaders. If leaders realise they have taken the wrong path, let them
publicly say so. Otherwise some become disillusioned with them, and others are confused and
misled. During the evangelical downgrade of the last twenty years, many evangelical leaders have done amazing things; claims that they have not changed and that all their actions are consistent have only increased dismay. Bishop Jewel Jewel demonstrated the right course. He lived for 18 years after he ‘confessed his fault’: on only one occasion in that period was he taunted with his weakness – by his bitterest Roman opponent. Our respect for leaders who acknowledge their mistakes is increased.

Finally, Jewel reminds us of true characteristics of ministry generally and episcopacy in particular. When Jewel went to Salisbury in 1560 he was faced with an immense task and had few competent helpers. We find him an assiduous preacher: the lack of ministerial help only increased his efforts. He was a vigorous Reformer: he went about his diocese endeavouring to correct what was amiss. He was a faithful student: he set aside time for the study each morning when he was in Salisbury, preparing for the pulpit and his writings. Here are vital and practicable priorities for today.

Jewel reminds us of the true character of our Church, and challenges us to pray and work to reform what is amiss in it today.

Derek Scales was a Vice-Chairman of Church Society Council, and Senior Classics Master at St
Lawrence College, Ramsgate.

Psalm 150 CV Stanford

Bampton - Anglican Church: Psalm 150 - "O Praise God In His Holiness"

Bristol - Abbey (Protestant Church) - Psalm 148: "O Praise The Lord of H...

Lincoln - Anglican Cathedral - Psalm 24: "The Earth is the Lord´s"

Psalm 123, The Lord is my Shepherd (Keith Green)

"The Lord is my Shepherd" (John Rutter)

PSALM 122: (Choir of King's College, Cambridge) "I Was Glad when they said unto me," by Sir Charles Hubert Hastings Parry

Psalm 122

The Choir of King's College, Cambridge, sings the famous Coronation anthem, 'I Was Glad when they said unto me', by Sir Charles Hubert Hastings Parry.

Advent at hand, 28 Nov: King`s College Choir, Cambridge - "Once in Royal David's City"

Lo He Comes With Clouds Decending - All Saints Church Oystermouth Swansea

Advent draws near 28 Nov 2010: Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending (Lichfield Cathedral Choir)

Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favoured sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

The dear tokens of His passion
Still His dazzling body bears;
Cause of endless exultation
To His ransomed worshippers;
With what rapture, with what rapture
Gaze we on those glorious scars!

Yea, amen; let all adore thee,
High on thine eternal throne;
Saviour, take the power and glory;
Claim the kingdoms for thine own:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Thou shalt reign, and thou alone.

Advent at hand 28 Nov 2010: Come, thou long expected Jesus (St John's College Choir, Cambridge)

A.M Toplady (Vol.5, 118-132), C of E, Calvinism, Arminianism, Justification, Total Depravity

A.M Toplady (Vol.5, 118-132), C of E, Calvinism, Arminianism, Justification, Total Depravity. All the stuff you will not hear, read, see or be exposed to at other Anglican centres of review and advertisement.

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
For pages 1-42 and comments, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-c-of-e-calvinism.html

For pages 43-82 and comments, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-from-augustus-toplady-c-of-e.html

For pages 83-96 and comments, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-vol5-pg82-97-c-of-e.html

P.118, Toplady on justification

Lastly, we come to the doctrine of justification by faith. On this important subject, you deliver your judgment as follows; page 123, "We all hold, that we are justified freely by God's grace : that there is no merit in good works : that we are not to place our dependance, or rest our plea, on any works that we have done or can do ; but only on the mercy of God, and the merits of our Redeemer." And again, page 124, " We hold, as well as you, that justification is the act of God alone, conferred on us freely, by his grace : that our own good works have no proper efficiency in the act of our justification ; have no worth or merit in them: that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and can be justified and laved only by faith," which faith you immediately define to be, "a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ."

P.118, Toplady deals with his Arminian interlocutor who adds works as another condition to justification. “How!” Toplady exclaims.

After giving us such a confession of your faith, who could have imagined that you would, almost in the same breath, blow down the whole fabric? by saying, page 123, "On the other hand, I should hope, that all, who believe the gospel, would agree, that good works are the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation." How! justified and saved only by faith, and yet, good works the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation! which soever of these two propositions is right, one of them must be wrong; because two contradictory assertions cannot be both true. If faith be, as you say it is, neither more nor less than a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ, and we are justified and saved by faith only; it follows, that good works cannot possibly be the necessary condition of our justification and salvation.

P.118, Toplady, the Church of England, and justification. It is classical Protestant theology.

To tell you plainly, sir, the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of our Church, is: that justification itself consists in God's esteeming and counting us righteous: that he thus esteems and counts us righteous, neither for our faith, nor for our works, nor for both . of them together; but solely and entirely on account of Christ's sacrifice and obedience imputed to us freely and fully : that the sacrifice and obedience of Christ, as the alone matter of our justification are to be received, embraced, and rested upon by faith only, which faith is the gift of God : and, that this faith, thus divinely given and wrought in the foul by the Holy Ghost, is lively, active and purifying ; having its fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.—Sanctification, then, and good works, are not conditions of, but consequences resulting from, interest in Christ and acceptance with God : not antecedent requisites, a p-iori, in order to our being justified; but subsequent evidences, a posteriori, of our being so. Hence, our excellent Church puts justification before good works, and makes good works follow justification. In her nth article, she treats of justification; and then, in the 12th, considers good works.

P.120, TOPLADY AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE

ARTICLE XI. Of the justification of man.
"We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification."

If works, if all works of our own, of every sort, and in every point of view, are not, here, totally excluded from having anything to do with justification, a parie ante; there is no such thing as meaning in language. Yet our reformers, in the next article, speak, if possible, clearer still: and, as if they thought it not enough, simply to exclude works from having the least hand in any part of our justification ; goon to acquaint us, that, until men actually are justified, they cannot so much as do a good work : good works being the effect and fruits, of which justification, previously received, is itself the source and cause. And, if justification itself is the cause of good works, then good works cannot possibly be either the cause or condition of justification; because causes and conditions necessarily precede that, which they ar« the causes and conditions of.

P.122, Toplady, the Protestant Church of England, and good works. There is no room for Anglo-Catholics, Romanists, the Orthodox or the ecumenists of varied shades.

Good works, therefore, being the effects of justification,-cannot be the cause of it: anymore than the volubility of a wheel is the cause of its rotundity. A wheel rolls, not in order to be made round, but in consequence of being already so ; in like manner, men do good works, not in order to be justified ; but in consequence of being justified already. On this grand, fundamental Church of England principle, the doctrine of conditional justification is the grossest of contradictions. For (suffer me to repeat the important remark) if no good works whatever can be done, before justification, it is absolutely impossible that justification should be at all suspended on good works: for then justification would be suspended on a non-entity. How, sir, can those good works be the condition of my justification, not one of which can have any existence until I am justified! Your assertion therefore, page 124. "That good works, though imperfect and worthless, are yet required by God as necessary terms, qualifications, and conditions, both of our justification and salvation," is flatly giving the lie, not only to Scripture, but to every article and homiiy of our Church upon the subject.

P.126, Toplady, Arminians are “ungrateful,” perfidious,” and “false to the cause” while wearing the uniform of the Church and drawing a paycheck from her—stern stuff.

I have now, so sar as the Church of England is properly concerned, touched on the most material parts of your pamphlet: and am of opinion, for my own part, that your design is not very happily executed, nor your objections very solidly founded. I really think, upon a review of the whole, that you have no great reason to sing Te Deum, for your imaginary triumph over the doctrines of the reformation. Yet is it matter of lamentation, that you should even have attempted to subvert them; and that the Church should receive any blow, how slight soever, from so respectable an hand. You have been sighting against those very truths, which, when you received ordination, you, on your knees, was solemnly commissioned to defend; and which, previous to that solemnity, you had ratified as your own belief, by the deliberate subscription of your name. Form to yourself, the idea of an English officer, who, false to the cause and service of his Britannic Majesty, should, ungratefully and perfidiously, endeavour to promote the interest of the French king, at the very time that he wears the regimentals, and receives the pay, of his own lawful sovereign. Very pertinent to the present argument, is that expostulation of the great Dr. South: "To be impugned from without, and betrayed from within, is, certainly, the worst condition, that either Church or state can fall into : and the best of Churches, the Church of England, has had experience of both. It had been to be wished, one would think, might very reasonably have been expected, that, when Providence had took the work of destroying the Church of England, out of the Papists hands, some would have been contented with her preferments, without either attempting to give up her rites and liturgy, or deserting her doctrine: but it has proved much otherwise." It has, indeed. How much farther God will suffer us to fall, is best known to him that knows all things. I only wish, that we may not part with one thing after another, till we have nothing left." How wide a difference there is, between the doctrine of the Church, and that of some churchmen (as Dr. South well distinguishes), will appear yet plainer, by the following extracts from a book, which, I fear, is subscribed by too many who have never read it: I mean, the homilies of our established Church. Let these decide, whether Calvinists or Arminians best deserve the name of churchmen.

P.132, Toplady and total depravity.

III. Man's exceeding depravation by nature, and total inability as to spiritual good, are largely and strongly asserted in our homilies. "The Holy Ghost, in writing the holy Scriptures, is in nothing more diligent, than to pull down man's vain glory and pride; which of all vices, is most universally grafted in all mankind, even from the first infection of our first father Adam. “First homily on the misery of man, p. 6. "St. Paul, in many places, painteth us out in our colours, calling us the children of the wrath of God when we be born: saying also, that we cannot think a good thought, of ourselves; much less can we say well, or do well, ourselves." Ibid. p. 8. "We be, of ourselves, of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, brambles, briars, cockles, and darnel. Our fruits be declared in the 5th chapter to the Galatians. We have neither saith, charity, hope, patience, chastity, nor anything else that good is, but of God; and therefore these virtues be called there, the fruits of the Holy Ghost, and not the fruits of man." Second homily on ditto, p. 9. "Of ourselves, and by ourselves, we have no goodness, help, nor salvation: but, contrariwise, sin, damnation, and death everlasting. Which, if we deeply weigh and consider, we shall the better understand the great mercy of God, and how our salvation cometh only by Christ ; for, in ourselves (as of ourselves), we find nothing whereby we may be delivered from this miserable captivity, into the which we were cast, through the envy of the Devil, by breaking of God's commandment in our frst parent Adam. We are all become unclean, but we all are not able to cleanse ourselves, nor to make one another of us clean. We are by nature the children of God's wrath, but we are not able to make ourselves the children and inheritors of God's glory. We are sheep that run astray…

Interfview with Dr. Ligon Ducan, Derek Thomas and Phiip Johnsn

Interview with Ligon Duncan Re: Lausanne 2010

Should We Forgive the Impenitent--Phillip Jensen

#When:06:12:07Z

Audio and Video from the Heidelberg Conference on Reformed Theology « Heidelblog

Audio and Video from the Heidelberg Conference on Reformed Theology « Heidelblog

Boultbee (i-pg.12): Thirty-nine Articles

An introduction to the theology of the Church of England, in an exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England by Thomas Pownall Boultbee (London: Longmans, Green & Co., n.d.)

For part one, i-xix, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/boultbee-i-xix-protestand-reformed.html

Part two follows.

Pg .1, no wonder the Orthodox, Romanists and Anglo-Romewardizers would not not read Boultbee.

Part IV. (Arts. XIX.-XXXIV.) We now come to the Church which holds these doctrines. It is defined as consisting of an assembly of faithful men, possessing the pure word of God and the sacraments complete in all essentials. But the most famous individual churches have not been exempt from serious error. The Church may appoint rites, and can judge in controversy, subject to the supreme authority of Scripture. But even General Councils, being composed of fallible men, have no collective infallibility, and are subject to the authority of Scripture. In particular, purgatory, indulgences, saint and image worship, are errors which have prevailed, contrary to the Word of God.

The ministers of the Church ought to be lawfully appointed, and the services performed in the vulgar tongue.

The nature and number of the sacraments of Christ are next set forth; the five Romish sacraments are repudiated; and the exhibition, as distinguished from the use, of the sacraments is rejected. Evil ministers cannot annul that grace which Christ bestows on the faithful in the use of His ordinances. Yet such ministers should receive due ecclesiastical discipline.
The efficacy of Baptism follows, and the privilege of infants to receive it. The nature of the communion of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper is described; and all participation of Christ by those who have not! living faith is denied. To partake of the Cup as well as the Bread is the right of the laity. Christ cannot be offered again in the Eucharist, for His sacrifice is complete and, sufficient. The clergy have full liberty to marry. Excommunicated persons ought to be avoided. Rites and ceremonies may vary according to the convenience of national Churches. But private persons ought not to disobey them.

Pg. 2, standard material, but not very enlightening, not very deep, not very challenging and quite substandard the Westminster Confession of Faith.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE I.

Comparing the Latin with the English text, we may notice the following expressions:—
Without body : Latin, incorporeus. Without parts : Latin impartibilis, i.e. insusceptible of division into parts. Without passions : Latin, impassibilis, i.e. incapable of suffering. Infinite : Latin, immense, immeasurable.

This Article remains as it was in the original formula of 1552.

It has been chiefly derived from Art. I. of the Augsburg -Confession, as may be seen from the following quotation from that document:—

Pg. 12, amidst the other rather banal and un-developed observations by Boultbee, an historical note on Trinitarianism:

The Trinitarian controversy in the Church of England belonged chiefly to the commencement of the eighteenth century. In 1685 the celebrated work of Bishop Bull appeared, the Defensio Fidei Niceni. It is a learned investigation of the opinions of the fathers of the first three centuries on the doctrine of the Trinity. It remains the standard work on that part of the subject. Bishop Bull died in 1709, and the controversy took another form, mainly in consequence of the publications of Dr. Samuel Clarke, which were considered to be a revival of Arian opinions. This led to the valuable treatises of Waterland on the Trinity; they appeared in succession for some years, and remain as a copious storehouse of theology on the various points of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Boultbee (i-xix): Protestant-Reformed Theology of the Church of England

An introduction to the theology of the Church of England, in an Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England by Thomas Pownall Boultbee (London: Longmans, Green & Co., n.d.)

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
P.x, Boultbee refers to “our great Reformation divines,” language that will not be heard in American Anglicanism or Episcopalianism. ACNA, Reformation divines? C o E divines, Reformation divines? David Virtue at http://www.virtueonline.org/, the Voice of Orthodox Anglicans (small chance)?

It is impossible, without a thoughtful study of their theological phraseology and general system, to understand rightly the true position of those ancient writers. Even our own Hooker may be, and has often been, misunderstood on some important points from want of this. Much more must this be the case when medieval or modern theological glossaries are used to interpret the meaning of the earliest Christian writers. The Author has no misgivings as to the general result of that meaning. Our great Reformation divines were not mere men of indices and cyclopedias. They wrought out their systems by painful and laborious study of the Scriptures and the early authors. The mind and intent of primitive writers were familiar to them, and their appeal to antiquity was unwavering and decisive. Modern criticism has produced very little change in the general position as they left it. An excrescence, an inaccuracy, a spurious document, may have been lopped off here or there ; but, substantially, the patristic bearing of the main controversies remains where our Reformers believed it to lie.

Pg. xiv, the Thirty-nine Articles are initially rooted in Lutheranism, a nasty little fact that is brute and ugly to Anglo-Catholics, Orthodox ecumenists, American ecumenists, and modern day Latitudinarians.

The earliest doctrinal formulary of a Reformed Church is that known as ' the Confession of Augsburg.' It was the work of Melanchthon, revised by Luther and other divines, and was presented to the Diet at Augsburg in 1530. To a great extent this suggested the several Confessions of Faith published by different Reformed National Churches in that century. But in the case of the English Church it had a more direct influence. Our Articles have borrowed from it some considerable portion of their theological statements. It may be found at length, together with other similar documents, in the ' Sylloge Confessionum,' published at Oxford.
We may notice here the Wurtemberg Confession, which belongs to the same school, and was consulted in the formation of our Articles. It was intended for presentation to the Council of Trent in 1552, by the ambassadors of Wurtemberg, but the Council refused to hear them.

Pg. 16, Cranmer envisions a “Reformed” and Protestant vision, another brute fact for revisionists. Cranmer was consulting with Mr. Jean Calvin about this. Cranmer solicited Calvin's involvement for a pan-Reformation council.

The death of Henry in 1547 introduces us to another stage of the Reformation. Cranmer still adhered to his long cherished plan of a scheme of doctrine which should embrace the whole of the Reformed Church. But from various causes his efforts failed. Perhaps, among other reasons, the fact that the Archbishop abandoned the idea of the corporal presence, whether under the transubstantiation or consubstantiation theory, proved a serious impediment to union with Lutheran divines in such a formulary. There appears to have been a collection of Articles of Religion drawn up by Cranmer as early as 1549. What this may have been is unknown, but it may probably have served as the basis of the Forty-two Articles. In 1551 the Archbishop was directed by the Privy Council to frame a book of Articles of Religion, for the preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in this Church, that being finished they might be set forth by public authority. This was done, and the Articles were sent for inspection to some other bishops, and to other eminent persons. The Articles, forty-two in number, were finally issued under the authority of a royal mandate in 1553. This document is accordingly referred to by Hardwick as the Articles of 1553.

Pg. xix, the Articles arranged. Note the Reformed and Protestant character. This bilges the amorphous answers afoot in the ACNA. It's almost as if this is a "family secret," or, an old Uncle Toby to be kept in the closet. Take note of the Protestant character here.

Part I. (Arts. I.-V.) treats of the nature of the Deity in this order. The essential attributes of God, and His mode of existence in three Persons. The Deity, incarnation, sufferings, and death of Christ for sin. The descent of Christ into hell; His resurrection, and ascension, and the future judgment. The Deity and Personality of the Holy Ghost.

Part II. (Arts. VI.-VIII.) treats of the rule of faith thus. The sole authority of Holy Scripture in matters of faith is asserted. The relation of the Old Testament to the New, and the degree of obligation of the Mosaic law, are set forth. The three Creeds are accepted, but are denied any authority independent of Holy Scripture.

Part III. (Arts. IX.-XVIII.) The basis of doctrinal authority having been laid down, the main doctrines of man's salvation are next defined in this order. The lost condition of man by nature is described, and it is denied that he is able to turn to God without preventing grace, or to do what is pleasing to God without co-operating grace. It is then declared that man can only be accounted righteous before God for the merits of Christ, and that faith only is the grace regarded by God in thus justifying the sinner; for which purpose God is pleased to isolate it from other graces present with it simultaneously. Thenceforward the good works of the justified sinner surely follow, and are pleasing to God in Christ, although themselves imperfect. But works, although in themselves good, done before justification, are not regarded in Christ, and therefore of necessity retain the sinful taint of the nature from which they come.
Further, however pleasing in God's sight the gracious works of His children in Christ may be, none can render to God by the utmost self-sacrifice more than He has invited us to give. No human being, save the Son of God in His human nature, has escaped the universal corruption. The baptised, on falling into sin, have the way to God still open to them through repentance ; nor can a sinless state be attained on this side the grave.

Next, the original ground of calling, justifying, and sanctifying sinners, is traced in the gracious purpose and predestinating love of God. This ought to call forth in them warm spiritual affections, 'but the opposite doctrine of reprobation is regarded as one calculated to harden the sinner.

Finally, salvation can be obtained through Christ only. There is no other way to God.

J I Packer’s preface to Griffith Thomas’ Principles of Theology : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

The unread book in Anglicanism at large.


J I Packer’s preface to Griffith Thomas’ Principles of Theology : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

In 1977, Dr J I Packer wrote the Preface to an edition of W.H. Griffith Thomas’ The Principles of Theology.

“As in general terms Calvin’s 1559 Institutes rounded off the forty-year Reformation era in European theology, so in general terms The Principles of Theology may be said to have rounded off a four-hundred year era of Protestant Anglicanism, and in particular to have summed up a century of vigilant scholarship which, in face of what looked like Rome’s Trojan horse in the Church of England, had sought to vindicate historic Protestantism as authentically Anglican and as the only position with more than squatter’s rights within the Establishment.

This was the scholarship of such men as William Goode, George Cornelius Gorham, T. P. Boultbee, T. S. L. Vogan, Nathaniel Dimock, E. A. Litton, Henry Wace, Handley C. G. Moule, J. T. Tomlinson, W. Prescott Upton and Charles Sydney Carter – giants in the land in their own day, however little remembered now.”

Augustus Toplady (Vol.5, 98-118), C of E, Calvinism, 39 Arts, Election, Baptism, Justification by Faith Alone

For pages 1-42, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-c-of-e-calvinism.html

For pages 43-82, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-from-augustus-toplady-c-of-e.html

For pages 83-96, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-vol5-pg82-97-c-of-e.html

We return to our review of Toplady's review of English, Calvinistic, Anglican, Confessional, Reformational Prayer Book Churchmanship...something to please the antiquarians, but not the Western (U.S., UK, Canadian) Anglicans. Quite a stench to the ecclesiastical politicians.

Pg. 98, Toplady and the BCP, “Make thy chosen people joyful…”

You tell us, p. 107, that some infer the doctrine of election, from that petition in our liturgy, "make thy chosen people joyful." They do: and. not only, directly, the doctrine of election; but, indirectly, that of assurance likewise. The petition evidently proceeds on this datum, that God really had a chosen people; and, agreeably to such a belief, beseeches him to make his chosen people joyful: i. e. to rejoice them with the comfortable sense and persuasion of their belonging to that chosen number. But you object (ibid.) that, "The word chosen, or elect, signifies, in Scripture, either all Christians in general, or such Christians as walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called."

Pg. 100, Toplady uses rough-handed language for his Arminian antagonist.

Your slashing treatment of Scripture-phrases and Scripture-doctrines, which you hack and mangle so unmercifully, when they happen to militate with your own preconceived opinions; unhappily realizes but too well that remark of Dr. Middleton ; " We may observe," says this able writer, "how impossible it is, for men, even of the greatest learning and piety, to interpret Scripture with success, when they come to it, prepossessed with systems…”

P.102, Toplady gets colourful about Arminianism, an effort to “fumigate the catechism.” A jarring and cheering rejoinder to the Arminian, Home Depot-styled self-improvement program, the ever-present effort to elude the fiat and dicta of Romans 3.9-20 on original sin and its extensive disablements, total disablements, e.g. Art. 9-11. I cannot imagine a single ACNA (American Anglican, e.g. Ray Sutton) Bishop speaking with this directness—theology by ecclesiastical political correctness rather than biblical exegesis such as the English Reformers. Toplady says smartly and tartly, “…fumigate our catechism:”

Still, sir, you harp on the fame beloved string; and would fain fumigate our catechism, among the rest.

Pg. 103, Toplady on “election,” the Roman breviary, Romanism, predestination, and Article 17.

Her rituals, rituals, as well as we:—so that if the use of this word will prove the compilers of our liturgy predestinarians; it will prove the Church of Rome so too, and that in this respect it is as orthodox as Calvinism itself." Not quite so fast, sir. Let us weigh premises, before we jump to conclusions. The sense of the word elect, as it stands in a reformed liturgy, is not to be determined by the sense affixed to it in a Romanistic breviary. Such an insinuation comes with a very ill grace from the pen of a Protestant divine. It would at least have saved appearances, had you referred us, for the sense in which the Church of England uses the word elect, to her own 17th article, which professedly treats of election; instead of sending us back again into Egypt, to consult mass-books and breviaries. The spouse of Christ is not to learn the meaning of her husband's language from the mother of abominations. The amount of your observation is this, if I understand it right; " By the word elect, when used by Papists, they do not mean God's predestinated children, but all good Catholics: ergo, the fame word, when used by Protestants, is to be understood as denoting all good Christians. I deny the consequence. Because Papists are perverters of language, Scripture, common sense and everything that is good, it does not follow that Protestants should be so too. Neither does it follow, that the Church of Rome are predestinarians because the word elect occurs by chance in their public offices. Popish priests, when they mutter out the word elect, are (like ladies on some occasions) to be understood by contraries: in which too many professing Protestants, who ought to know better, are not to imitate those locusts of the bottomless pit.

Pg. 108, Toplady, the sacrament of baptism, and regeneration (exactly like the Westminster Confession of Faith with its evangelical cautions, something that Diarmaid MacCullough notes about Cranmer on predestination and baptism, 1550, the date of Cranmer’s decision on the matter). These are not things you will hear in the modern, Western centres of advertisement or publicity.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they, that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church, &c." I conclude from hence, that, in the judgment of the Church of England, baptism and internal regeneration (the former being, simply considered in itself, only a sign or symbol of the latter) are two distinct things; which, though they sometimes go together (when the Holy Spirit pleases to make baptism the channel of his gracious influences), yet do not necessarily nor constantly accompany each other : and, therefore, the subsequent apostasy of some baptized persons does not in the least (as Bishop Burnet would infer, and you from him) shake the doctrine either of immutable predestination on God's part, or of infallible perseverance on the part of the truly regenerate. But, you observe, page 109, that, " With regard to infants, the rubric declares, it is certain by God's word, that children, which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." I firmly believe the same. Nay, I believe more. I am convinced, that the souls of all departed infants whatever, whether baptized or unbaptized, are with God in glory.”

Pg. 118, Toplayd, his interlocutor and Arminian antagonist, and justification by faith alone by Christ alone. Whether Arminian or Calvinist, Romanism and Orthodoxy, gets no hearing…at all! For “the obvious,” to use Toplady’s phrase, Arminianism collapses into semi-Pelagian Rome and Constantinople.

Lastly, we come to the doctrine of justification by faith. On this important subject, you deliver your judgment as follows; page 123, "We all hold, that we are justified freely by God's grace : that there is no merit in good works : that we are not to place our dependance, or rest our plea, on any works that we have done or can do ; but only on the mercy of God, and the merits of our Redeemer." And again, page 124, " We hold, as well as you, that justification is the act of God alone, conferred on us freely, by his grace : that our own good works have no proper efficiency in the act of our justification ; have no worth or merit in them : that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and can be justified and laved only by faith," which faith you immediately define to be, " a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ." After giving us such a confession of your faith, who could have imagined that you would, almost in the same breath, blow down the whole fabric? by saying, page 123, " On the other hand, I should hope, that all, who believe the gospel, would agree, that good works are the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation." How! Justified and saved only by faith, and yet, good works the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation ! whichsoever of these two propositions is right, one of them must be wrong; because two contradictory assertions cannot be both true. If faith be, as you fay it is, neither more nor less than a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ, and we are justified and saved by faith only; it follows, that good works cannot possibly be the necessary condition of our justification and salvation. To tell you plainly, sir, the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of our Church, is: that justification itself consists in God's esteeming and counting us righteous : that he thus esteems and counts us righteous, neither for our faith, nor for our works, nor for both . of them together; but solely and entirely on account of Christ's sacrifice and obedience imputed to us freely and fully : that the sacrifice and obedience of Christ, as the alone matter of ourjustification are to be received, embraced, and rested upon by faith only, which faith is the gift of God : and, that this faith, thus divinely given and wrought in the foul by the Holy Ghost, is lively, active and purifying ; having its fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.—Sanctification, then, and good works, are not conditions of, but consequences resulting from, interest in Christ and acceptance with God : not antecedent requisites, a p-iori, in order to our being justified; but subsequent evidences, a posteriori, of our being so. Hence, our excellent Church puts justification before good works, and makes good works follow justification. In her nth article, she treats of justification; and then, in the 12th...

Augustus Toplady (Vol.5, 82-97), C of E, Calvinism, 39 Arts, Te Deum, Absolution

For pages 1-42, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-c-of-e-calvinism.html

For pages 43-82, see:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-from-augustus-toplady-c-of-e.html

We resume our thread on "the obvious," to use Toplady's phrase, about the "Calvinistic consensus" in the Church of England during the Elizabethan and Jacobean period. For a moment of relief and reverie, there really was a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury was a Calvinist. Jarring, but true...for almost 80 years.

Pg. 82, Toplady’s rejoinder that Puritans were the troublers of the Church of England with substantive inattention to Charles 1’s Romewardizing dalliances by way of his Queen, Laud and sidekick, Buckingham. The same polemic is urged in our time by tired, non-reading Anglo-Catholics and latitudinarians.

“When arguments fall short, it is too common with controversial writers to call names, and fling dirt; in hopes of casting an odium, on what they find themselves unable to confute. I could wish, sir, that you had not stooped to this illiberal recourse, your following expostulation had then been spared; page 93. " Consider what faction it was, which then in the time of Charles I.] ** prevailed towards the overthrow of the Church. Was it not that of the Puritans ? And were not the doctrines of Calvinism their leading principles?" Permit me, sir, to ask, Were all the disturbers of those times Calvinists? Were Charles, and his French Queen; were Laud and Buckingham, Calvinists? These were the primary disturbers, whose evil counsels, and whose arbitrary measures, laid the sad foundation of those disturbances, which issued in the overthrow of the Church. The conclusions of that unhappy reign, and the miseries that followed, are to be radically charged, upon on those who repressed the haughty strides of despotism ; but on the despots themselves, whose violent proceedings rendered that opposition absolutely necessary. Matters, at last, were wound up to that fatal height, that both sides found themselves reduced to the dismal necessity of going to much greater lengths, than either of them foresaw at first setting out. On one hand, there was a court equally despotic and corrupt, and (as the event proved) no less feeble, than proud and unyielding. On the other there was patriotic zeal, gradually enflamed into party-rage, by a long series of repeated insults and unrelenting oppressions. No wonder, therefore, that, under the confluence of such circumstances, the constitution received that eventual subversion, which you, either through forgetfulness of history, or by disingenuous misrepresentations, would, untruly, and ridiculously, charge on the Calvinism of that age.”

P.83, Toplady judiciously weighs the differences between Churchmen and Dissenters—which were ecclesiological and liturgical, not theological (proper), anthropological, Christological, or soteriological. Revisionists, generally Anglo-Catholics, trot the term “Puritan” outwards with un-nuanced or historical basis.

What concern, for instance, had the doctrines of efficacious grace, and final perseverance, in the just opposition that was made to ship-money, star-chamber prosecutions, and ten thousand other intolerable grievances? Let me request you, sir, as you tender your own credit, to think before you write, and weigh matters with some degree of care. Had you done this lately, you had not attempted to palm such absurdities on the public.—I must add, That the history of Charles's and the two preceding reigns, makes it undeniable, that those of-the Puritans, who were non-conformists, did not dissent from our Church in doctrinal matters, but, solely, in the matter of rites and ceremonies. And what had this partial dissent to do with the doctrine of predestination, in which the main body, both of conformist and non-conformists, were reciprocally agreed?

Pg.83, the first 100 years of Reformation Anglicanism was Calvinistic…until Laud, called a “corruptor” and “destroyer” by Toplady. Will Western Anglicans use this language? REC Bishops, including Mr. Sutton, won't.

If a Calvinist, and a non-conformist, were!... as you would unjustly insinuate, convertible names; it would follow, that we must un-church our own Church, for the first hundred years after the Reformation, and date its genuine commencement from the introduction of Arminianism under archbishop Laud. That innovating, hot-headed prelate, if your premises are admitted, is to be considered as the father and founder of the Church of England whereas he was, in reality, its corruptor, and its eventual destroyer : for he drove so rapidly towards Rome, that he overset the Church, Of which he unhappily held the reins; and was not a little accessary to the concomitant fall of the state likewise, which, rushing precipitant, entombed both his sovereign and himself in its ruins. I will only observe farther, that, even in the present century, we have had some Calvinistic bishops. Bishop Beveridge, and Bishop Hopkins, for instance. And will you call these truly bright ornaments of our Church, Sectarists, Puritans, and Methodists, because they were professed Calvinists?”

Pg. 83, footnote. Toplady concedes that some Puritans were at odds with the Church of England, but not about Calvinism per se, but about church government and liturgy.

Albeit the Puritans disquieted our Church, about their conceived discipline, yet they never moved any quarrel against the doctrine of our Church. Which is well to be observed: for, if they had embraced any doctrine which the Church of England denial, they would assuredly have quarrelled about that, as well as they did about the discipline.

Pg. 83, footnote, an “obvious remark,” to wit, that Church of England divines were Calvinist (until Laud).

Upon which passage, quoted from Bishop Carleton's Examination of Montague's Appeal, Dr. Edwards makes this obvious remark : “This is a full confutation of that idle conceit, taken up by so many in our age, that the Anti-Arminian doctrines were not the doctrines of our Church, of our bishops, and of the rest of our clergy, but only of a few disciplinarians and non-conformists." Veiitas Redux, p. 548.

Pg. 93, Toplady observes the force of Article 17 of the Thirty-nine Articles.

Speaking of the doctrines of election and reprobation, you justly observe, that you are "pressed with the authority of the 17th Article," p. 103. Indeed you are, and pressed hard too: else you would never have added, as you do in the next page, "The article speaks of a predestination, decreed by God's counsel, secret to us; and to be discerned only by the working of the spirit of Christ mortifying the works of the flesh: and directs us to receive Cod's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in the holy Scripture. " Is it possible that these truly Calvinistic sentences should drop from the pen of a Dr. Nouwell? What a concession is here . You have granted as much as any Calvinistic writer could have granted, or a Calvinistic reader can desire. You are got into the very midst of Geneva, before you are aware: a place where I no more expected to have met you, than the Normans did, at one time, think of seeing the great lord Clarendon at Roan.

Pg. 96, Toplady and the Absolution or Declaration of the Remission of Sins in Morning and Evening Prayer, 1662 BCP.

Surely you will never offer to father such horrid doctrine upon the Church of England! Did all sinners truly repent and unfeignedly believe, they would come under the opposite denomination of saints. The plain meaning, then, of this declarative absolution, is, that, until repentance and faith (the two grand constituents of regeneration) are wrought in us, and (shew forth themselves by the peaceable fruits of righteousness, we have no right to look upon ourselves as pardoned and absolved : but that, when these are wrought in us, we have in the judgment of our Church, a safe and Scriptural warrant to conclude that we are in a pardoned state. Our reconciliation unto God by the death of his Son, being to be inferred from and proved by (though in no sense founded upon), the grace he hath given us, and the good works he enables us to do. And, that the faith and repentance, which the absolution mentions, were, in the intention of the compilers, considered as the effects of God's free grace, and not of man's free-will, appears, incontestably, from a subsequent part of the absolution itself; which runs thus: "Wherefore Let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and his holy Spirit; that those things may please him, which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy." But, upon your principles, in vain we do pray for these blessings; since, if your hypothesis be right, we had them in our own power before. Were Arminian free-willers to act consistently with their darling tenet, they would never pray at all. Our Church, in the Te Deum, asserts, That Christ, By his incarnation and death, opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers: But the whole of mankind are not believers: Ergo, our Church, in the Te Deum, does not assert, that Christ opened the kingdom of heaven to the whole of mankind.

Pg. 97, Toplady, Te Deum Laudamus, and the suffrages.

Nay, I will go a step further. The Church, in this place, does evidently limit redemption, to only a part of mankind. For, by saying that Christ opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers ; she virtually declares, that he opened heaven to believers only: so that, in the judgment of the Church, they alone were intentionally redeemed by Christ, who should finally believe. And what is this but the very essence of that innocent, yet much dreaded thing, called Calvinism ? in running away from which, you plainly run away from the Church. ha fugis, ut praeter casam. Still your ammunition is not exhausted; for, in the fame page, you hurl another thunderbolt at John Calvin's head : "The suffrages, offered up, by the priest, and all the congregation alternately, are quite inconsistent with the notion of absolute predestination and indefectible assurance :—' Grant us thy salvation'—' Take not thy holy spirit from us.’ The suffrages themselves are most excellent; but your inference from them is a mere tehtm imbelle sine ict.ii. As if prayer (which is one of the very means, by which the end is decreed to be come at)—as if prayer, on man's part, was incompatible with predestination on God's! So far is this from being true, that the belief of his immutable purposes is the very thing which excites, and warrants, effectual fervent prayer, and puts life and confidence into our approaches to the throne of grace. I shall give two remarkable instances of this; one from Scripture, the other from our Liturgy, i. From Scripture. David having received some gracious intimations of what good things God had decreed to bestow on his family after him, instead of sitting down idle, and restraining prayer before God, as if human duty was superfluous, on the supposition of divine decrees, the holy monarch breaks for into supplication for the very mercies which had been so peremptorily promised :—Thou, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee, 2 Sam. vii. 27. It is equally plain, that the compilers of our admirable liturgy considered matters in the same view. Those evangelical divines well knew, that God hath determined the times before appointed (Acts xvii. 26.) ; and that the day of Christ's second coming is, in particular, fore-ordained and fixed, in God's determinate counsel and foreknowledge (Acts xvii. 31.). " Surely, then," might an Arminian say, "those compilers have not directed "us to pray for the coming of this predestined period."