Article XXXVI
Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
De Episcoporum et Ministrorum Consecratione.
Libellus de Consecratione Archiepiscoporum et Episcoporum, et de Ordinatione Presbyterorum et Diaconorum, editus nuper temporibus Edwardi VI, et auctoritate Parliamenti illis ipsis temporibus confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecrationem et ordinationem necessaria continet; et nihil habet, quod ex se sit aut superstitiosum aut impium. Itaque quicunque juxta ritus illius Libri consecrati aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo praedicti regis Edwardi usque ad hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur aut ordinabuntur, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse et fore consecratos et ordinatos.
Important Equivalents
Book = libellus
Set forth = editus
To be = esse et fore
Rightly, orderly, and lawfully = rite,*
atque ordine, atque legitime
[Rite = correctly (in respect of form and manner).
In Article XXV, rite is rendered “duly”.]
As Article XXIII gives the general teaching of our Church on the Ministry, so the present Article adds the specific instruction in regard to our form of the Ministry, consisting of the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The corresponding Article, XXXV of 1553, was more general, and included a reference to the Prayer Book as well as to the Ordinal, both of which were stated to be scriptural, and therefore to be received. The title and exact wording are as follows:–
Of the Book of Prayers and Ceremonies of the Church of England.
“The Book which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the King’s authority and the Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying, and ministering the Sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also the book of Ordering Ministers of the Church, set forth by the aforesaid authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little; and, therefore, of all faithful members of the Church of England, and chiefly of the ministers of the word, they ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind, and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the people of God.”
The Article was entirely recast when it appeared in its present form.
I – The History of the Ordinal
It is important to note what happened at each stage of the history in the sixteenth century.
1. No change was made in the Roman Catholic ritual of Ordination during the reign of Henry VIII, except the omission of the declaration of obedience to Rome.
2. But in 1549 the Pontifical was abandoned and a new form of Ordination was issued with the First Prayer Book, by which six men were consecrated Bishops. Although the Prayer Book and Ordinal are now one book, yet the fact that even to the present day the Ordinal has a separate title page and preface shows that originally they were two distinct books. The First Prayer Book contained no Ordination Services, but these were provided later by the issue of what is generally called the First English Ordinal.
3. Both Prayer Book and Ordinal were revised in 1552 and superseded by the Second Prayer Book, and what is known as the Second Ordinal. These two books were connected with the Act of Uniformity, and although the Ordinal was in the Prayer Book it had its own title page, and thus was strictly distinguished from the actual “Book of Common Prayer”; and the Act of Uniformity, 1552, distinguishes between the two. It was doubtless for this reason that Article XXXV of 1553 mentioned both the Book “Of Praying,” and also the Book “Of Ordering”.
4. These two books were, of course, suppressed by Mary, who repealed Edward’s Acts of Uniformity, and reestablished everything as it had been before the last year of Henry VIII. It has often been pointed out that this is a striking proof of the essential Roman Catholicism of Henry VIII, and altogether sets aside the popular Roman Catholic view that he is the founder of the English Church.
5. On Elizabeth’s accession, 1558, Mary’s Act was repealed, and the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI restored as the basis of revision. The Elizabethan Act speaks of the uniform order of Service at the death of Edward, which had been repealed by Queen Mary “to the great decay of the due honour and discomfort of the professors of the truth of Christ’s religion.” Then the Act of Mary was repealed “only concerning the said book,” thereby leaving in strict legal force Mary’s repeal of the rest of Edward’s Protestant action. This at once raises the question as to the meaning of “the said book,” because there was some doubt as to whether the Ordinal was included and intended. The authorities evidently considered the Ordinal of 1552 restored, because it was used at Parker’s Consecration, and there is no record of any Consecration or Ordination being performed with any other form than that of 1552. But criticism was raised in regard to this point, that Elizabeth’s Act did not expressly mention the Ordinal, and as a result those who were favourable to the Church of Rome maintained that the Ordinations and Consecrations were invalid, because they held that the Ordinal of 1552 was still repealed by the Statute of Mary. This controversy was regarded as so important that it was felt necessary to make quite sure by the passing of an Act in 1566 to declare the validity of the Consecrations under the Ordinal of 1552, and to determine the use of it for the future. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 131, and Note 1.]
6. But, meanwhile, on the revision of the Articles in 1563, the present statement was put forth vindicating the validity of all Ordinations “since the second year of Edward VI,” thereby including both the First and Second Ordinals. This made everything quite clear, and the validity of Protestant Ordinations was thus settled both in regard to the Second and also to the First Ordinal, under the latter of which two of Parker’s consecrators had been consecrated in 1550.
7. The whole question was reviewed in 1662, when this Article received its last authorization, and it is interesting that no change should have been made in the wording of the Article at that time even after the lapse of over a century. The only change made in 1662 was the requirement of Episcopal Ordination for the ministry, as seen in the preface, and one or two slight, but not fundamental, changes were made in the Ordinal itself.
II – The Character of the Ordinal
The Ordinal is first described as that “lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by the authority of Parliament.” There is, of course, no doubt that it refers to the present Ordinal, which, with the exception of the addition to the preface, and the slight changes already referred to, is exactly the same as it was at that time.
2. The Ordinal is described as sufficient. “Doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering.” This is evidently directed against the Church of Rome, which has all along denied the sufficiency and therefore the validity of our Ordination. There are three main grounds taken by the Church of Rome.
(1) It is said that our Ordinal has no chrism and no delivery of the sacramental instrumenta. In accordance with this Queen Mary and Bonner made up what they regarded as deficiencies in those ordained under the Edwardian Ordinal by anointing their hands, and Pole similarly arranged for the delivery of the vessels and the use of the words referring to the offering of the sacrifice. To this we reply that there is no proof of these being required in Scripture for Ordination, and no indication that they were ever used in the early Church. Not only so, we go further, and point out that of the seven particulars included and made prominent in the mediaeval Ordinal only one has been retained by our Church, and we alone of the Reformed Churches have done this. This one item being the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost, etc.,” and the fact that these come from Scripture make their retention and the omission of the other six all the more significant. [Dimock, Article, “Ordinal,” Protestant Dictionary, p. 474. The seven are: “(1) Prefatory address, with statement of sacerdotal functions. (a) Delivery of casula (i.e. the chasuble which is the mass vestment) with a benediction containing the doctrines of Real Presence and of Transubstantiation. (3) Unction. (4) Traditio instrumentorum, with power to offer sacrifice and celebrate Masses. (5) The words (following the second imposition of hands), ‘Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,’ etc. (6) Unfolding the casula. (7) The final Blessing with the words, ‘ut ... offeratis placabiles hostias pro peccatis’” (ut supra, p. 474, Note 2).]
(2) It is said that the Ordinal of 1553 had no words to distinguish Bishop from Priest. This is verbally true, the words “For the office of a Priest (or Bishop) in the Church of God,” being inserted in 1662. But apart from this, the entire Service should be consulted, when there would be no doubt at all as to the precise purpose of the action. Even the Roman Ordinal itself is quite general.
(3) It is said that the Ordinal lacks Intention. The charge of invalidity, based on the history of the Elizabethan Ordinations, is now not mentioned by Roman Catholic authorities. It is evidently regarded as no longer a tenable position. The result is that everything is concentrated on the lack of Intention. Now public Intention must be judged by the Service itself, and this in turn must be tested by Scripture. It will, thereby, be seen what ministry our Church intends, and the decision will be in accordance therewith. We have obviously no right to think of any mere private Intention or any opinion of the Scriptural Intentions as essential. When this is clearly understood it will be seen at once that everything turns upon the character of the ministry. If the New Testament ministry means what the Church of Rome understands by it, namely a sacerdotal priesthood, then it is clear that our Orders are void in the eyes of Rome, but if, on the other hand, as we hold, the New Testament ministry is that of an evangelistic and pastoral Presbyterate, then our Ordinal is ample for the purpose. The various references to “sacrifice” in the Holy Communion Office clearly refer either to Calvary or to our spiritual sacrifices as believers; never once to the Lord’s Supper itself.
It would be well if all controversy were concentrated on this point; viz., What is the true character of the primitive Christian ministry? When this is settled all questions of Intention are at once resolved. It has been well said that Rome might find no difficulty in recognizing our Orders if she held that the ministry was the episcopal Presbyterate of the New Testament. But as long as she requires Ordination for the purpose of exercising sacerdotal functions it is impossible for her to regard our ministers as equivalent to her priests. [“Rome’s doctrine of Orders involves the doctrine of her Real Presence, and of her Real Propitiatory oblation of Christ (really present on the altar) for the living and the dead. And this doctrine we hold and profess to belong to the class of ‘blasphema figmenta, et perniciosae imposture’. How, then, can our Orders be valid in her view? And how can we consistently desire that it should be otherwise?” (Dimock, Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium, p. 133).] It is, therefore, futile, and a waste of time to discuss questions of Intention in view of the fundamental difference between what is understood as ministry, for as long as this difference exists there cannot possibly be agreement between the two Churches. [“It comes, then, simply to this: Can we surrender the principles for which the Anglican Church has steadily contended for the last 350 years? Or can we hold the doctrines of our Church, and, with a due regard for the ordinary and rational rules by which historical documents are interpreted, can we reconcile the sense of our historical and authoritative standards of doctrine with the authoritative doctrine of the Church of Rome? The only answer to each question is, It is impossible” (Bishop of Edinburgh, Address to Diocesan Synod, 1895, p. 9).]
The Ordinal is stated to be Scriptural. “Neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly.” This is intended to meet an objection from the opposite quarter, the extreme Protestant party, who were subsequently called Puritans. The assumption of superstition and ungodliness is pretty certainly due to the presence in the Ordinal of the words of St. John 20:22, 23: “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It should be, however, remembered that the difficulty is not a Prayer Book, but a Bible one, for, as we have already seen, [See on Article XXIII.] there is no reference in the words to the pronouncement of absolution in the Services, but to the proclamation of the Gospel of Forgiveness and its alternative. The words are thus a definite personal application to the one individual of the general authority given by our Lord to the whole Church, as represented in the Upper Room. Nor can the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” come under this charge of ungodliness, since the words are merely the repetition of our Lord’s commission and are most properly regarded as a prayer.* It is also noteworthy to recall once again that these words are not found in any Ordinal earlier than the thirteenth century. [Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Vol. II, p. 1513.] So that in any case the words are not essential to the conferring of ministry. It will also help to clear thought if it is remembered that Ordination gives ministerial authority, the right to exercise ministry, not spiritual power, or the capability to do spiritual work. The latter naturally comes from prayer. Thus, the laying on of hands gives commission, and prayer is intended to suggest spiritual qualification. Further, the words “Whosesoever sins,” etc., are clearly to be interpreted by the words which immediately follow: “And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His holy Sacraments.” This, in general, is the Anglican reply to those who were, or are, tempted to speak of this part of the Ordinal as “manifest blasphemy.” [Hardwick, ut supra, p. 210.]
[*For Hooker’s defence of this form see Eccl. Pol., Bk. V, Ch. LXXVII. “The difference between such ordination and our Lord’s ordaining of His first ministers recorded in St. John, 20 is this. In the latter case, Christ Himself, to whom the Spirit is given without measure, gave of that Spirit authoritatively to His disciples; and so, in giving, He breathed on them, as showing that the Spirit proceeded from Him. But, in the other case, our bishops presume not to breathe, nor did the Apostles before them; for they know that ordaining grace comes not from them, but from Christ, whose ministers they are; and so they simply, according to all Scriptural authority, use the outward rite of laying on of hands, in use of which they believe a blessing will assuredly come down from above” (Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 784). “These words, receive the Holy Ghost, may be understood to be of the nature of a wish and prayer; as if it were said, may thou receive the Holy Ghost; and so it will better agree with what follows, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word and sacraments. Or it may be observed, that in those sacred missions, the Church and Churchmen consider themselves as acting in the name and person of Christ” (Burnet, On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 456).]
4. The Ordinal is declared to be valid. All who are consecrated and ordered according to this Book, whether past or future, are decreed to be “rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.” The Latin equivalent for “rightly” is rite, that is, in due form and manner. This is the Church of England claim, and it stands today as it has stood for over three centuries, maintaining that all Bishops consecrated and all clergy ordained under the Ordinals from 1549 onwards have been properly qualified to exercise their ministry. They were ordained “by public prayer, with imposition of hands,” and thereby were “approved and admitted by lawful authority”. Thus, these Orders have been “continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England.”
The subject of the validity of Anglican Orders was raised in 1896 by the effort of Lord Halifax and others, who desired to obtain a Declaration of the validity of Anglican Orders from the Pope of Rome. But the effort proved vain, and, instead, the Pope pronounced in unqualified terms the invalidity of our Orders. This was based on the usual Roman Catholic argument of lack of form, because there is no reference to the power to offer sacrifice, and lack of Intention, because our Ordinal is alleged to intend another than the Church idea of ministry. But this only raises again the question already considered, as to the character of the ministry. It is perfectly true that our ministry is intended to be something quite different from the idea of ministry which obtains in the Church of Rome, and as long as there is this fundamental cleavage any further discussion seems to be vain. We maintain that our ministry is scriptural and primitive, and, as such, fulfills all the requirements of scriptural lawfulness and spiritual validity. The action taken by our Church in the sixteenth century to remove from the Ordinal the various mediaeval accretions clearly shows the significance of “these radical rejections by a Church professing such conservative principles.” [Dimock, Article, “Ordinal,” Protestant Dictionary, p. 477.] And this leads to only one conclusion, that as long as we possess a true scriptural ministry and a true primitive idea of the functions of the New Testament Presbyterate, our Ordinal must stand condemned in the eyes of Rome, and so also must the Ordinations of the early Church. And so we conclude that: – “It is impossible to study fairly the history of our Ordinal without seeing that there is a doctrinal gulf between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.” [Dimock, ut supra, p. 480. It is sometimes said that the Article asserts that there was “nothing superstitious or ungodly” in the Ordinal of 1550, and that as that Ordination Service was inserted in the Communion Service of the Prayer Book of 1549 we are compelled to believe that “there was nothing superstitious or ungodly” in that Book as well. It might have sufficed to refer to the history of the Article to show that any such definite approval of the First Prayer Book and First Ordinal was not intended by the revisers of 1563. Such an argument, if argument it can be called, overlooks the facts connected with the revision of by which we are now bound, for the last Act of Uniformity provides that subscription to this Article shall be understood to apply to the present Ordinal, just as before that time it had applied to the two Ordinals of Edward VI. And as to those who lived between the First Ordinal and the Ordinal of 1662, it may be pointed out that the greater number of Ordinations took place under the Second Ordinal, and the purpose of the Article is to vindicate the Ordinations under both Ordinals. As to the First Ordinal, the only possible application of the Article is that that Book contained nothing which was “of itself superstitious or ungodly”. And this is literally true. Perhaps the greatest proof that no weight is to be attributed to this contention is the fact that it is not discussed in any representative modern books on the Articles, and is only found in those works which endeavour to discover some basis for the views which were altogether unknown in the Church of England before 1833. There can be no doubt that the question stands at present in the light of the Act of 1662, and points us to the belief that our present Ordinal “contains nothing superstitious and ungodly”. (A full discussion of this point will be found in Tomlinson, The Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies, Ch. XXII, p. 269).]
IV – The Household of Faith – continued – Corporate Religion
E. Church And State (Articles XXXVII–XXXIX)
37. The Civil Magistrates.
38. Christian Men’s Goods, Which Are Not Common.
39. A Christian Man’s Oath.
Article XXXVII
Of the Civil Magistrates.
The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself: that is, that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
De Civilibus Magistratibus.
Regia Majestas in hoc Angliae regno, ac cateris ejus dominiis, summam habet potestatem, ad quam omnium statuum hujus regni, sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive Civiles, in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externae jurisdictioni est subjecta, nec esse debet.
Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi, non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei, aut Sacramentorum administrationem; quod etiam Injunctiones, ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper editae apertissime testantur; sed eam tantum praerogativam, quam in Sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso omnibus piis Principibus videmus semper fuisse attributam: hoc est, ut omnes status atque ordines fidei suae a Deo commissos, sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive Civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaces ac delinquentes gladio civili coerceant.
Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliae.
Leges Regni possunt Christianos, propter capitalia et gravia crimina, morte punire.
Christianis licet, ex mandato Magistratus, arma portare, et justa bella administrare.
Important Equivalents
King’s Majesty = Regia Majestas
Lately set forth = nuper editae
To their charge = fidei suae
Bishop of Rome = Romanus Pontifex
The laws may punish = leges possunt punire
Heinous offences = capitalia crimina
To serve in the wars [The English of the XLII had “lawful wars”.]
= justa bella administrare
So important were the changes made in this Article in 1563 that it may almost be said to have been reconstructed. Its present form is certainly a great improvement on the original. The first two paragraphs of the present Article date from 1563, and were substituted for a simple but strong assertion of the Royal Supremacy in the corresponding Article of 1553, which read as follows: Rex Angliae est supremum caput in terris, post Christum, Ecclesiae Anglicanae, et Hibernicae. “The King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland.” The third clause, referring to the Bishop of Rome, remained unaltered. Then followed in 1553 a statement which was omitted in 1563: Magistratus civilis est a Deo ordinatus atque probatus: quamobrem illi non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter conscientiam obediendum est. “The civil magistrate is ordained and allowed of God: wherefore we must obey him, not only for fear of punishment, but also for conscience’ sake.” The remainder of the Article in its present form has been unaltered, except for the very slight verbal alteration in 1571 of “the laws of the Realm,” “Leges Regni” instead of “the Civil Laws,” “Leges civiles”.
The object of the Article seems to have been threefold, dealing with the Royal Supremacy, the Papal Supremacy, and certain current objections to the right of the State to call upon Christian subjects to enter upon military service.
In view of the important questions arising out of the Article it seems well to look first of all at the Article itself in the way of a brief analysis, before considering its various points in detail.
I – The Statements of the Article
1. The Claim of the Royal Supremacy. – This is the teaching of the first clause, and it is put in two forms. (a) It extends to all estates of the realm, ecclesiastical and civil; (b) it excludes all foreign jurisdiction.
2. The Meaning of the Royal Supremacy. – This is stated in the second section, and was due to “the minds of some slanderous folks”. Both Roman Catholics and Puritans, from different standpoints, took exception to the chief government attributed to the Crown. (a) First, the meaning instated negatively. It is not to be understood as giving to the Crown the ministry either of the Word or the Sacraments; (b) Then it is stated positively. All that is to be understood is “that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself.” This reference to the Old Testament and the duty of Princes to rule all estates committed to their charge is, of course, to be understood in the light of the sixteenth century, when Church and State were regarded in a way as identical though from different standpoints.
3. The Denial of the Papal Supremacy. – The Latin equivalent of “Bishop” is Pontifex, and there seems to be no doubt that the denial is due to what has preceded in regard to the Royal Supremacy. The statement that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction means that he has no right to it, because it would imply usurpation of the authority of the Crown. [It is significant that Bishop Forbes in his discussion of this sentence distinguishes between realm and Church. “Not in this Church of England, but in this realm,” arguing that the question is civil only and not spiritual (Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 773). This is a curious way of ignoring the statements of the Article which include ecclesiastical as well as civil causes.]
4. Illustrations of Royal Supremacy. – Two matters are specifically mentioned in the Article as illustrating and expressing the extent to which the Royal Supremacy may be rightly understood to act: (a) the right of capital punishment; (b) the right of military service.
II – The Royal Supremacy
For the first three hundred years of the history of the Church, Christianity had necessarily no relation to earthly kings. When Constantine assumed authority people thought that all was well, and that the results would be advantageous to the Church. The fact was either forgotten or else ignored that he was not a Christian, and that his interposition carried with it serious consequences to the purity and liberty of the Church. But after the period of persecution the relief was so great that it was hardly surprising that Constantine’s efforts were approved and welcomed. Added to this, it would seem as though the Church had forgotten the teaching of the New Testament concerning the Coming of the Lord, and had imbibed the idea that the Church was to penetrate and permeate with spiritual influence the whole world. All these things led to the acceptance of Constantine’s interference, which, in the light of history, can hardly be regarded as otherwise than disastrous. Certainly tyranny was very often used, and for several centuries good and evil resulting from the relations of Church and State were only too evident. To this day in the East the State dominates the Church to such an extent that in Russia the State may be regarded as supreme.
In the West further complications arose through the growth of the Papacy of Rome, for what might have been regarded as a natural and legitimate primacy soon became a supremacy which resulted in tyranny. Temporal as well as spiritual power was claimed by the Pope, and it is not surprising that both Kings and Bishops felt the grievances of the position. The Reformation was essentially a reaction against this by the definite abjuring of the Roman Supremacy.
At this point, however, a difficulty naturally arose as to the transfer of power. Limiting ourselves to England, it is seen that the transfer of authority from the Pope to the King began about 1531, and Convocation was quite ready to accept this, regarding the King as Protector and Supreme Head, though with the qualifying clause “as far as the law of Christ permits.” [“Ecclesiae, et cleri Anglicani, cujus singularem protectorem unicum et supremum dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam supremum caput ipsius majestatem recognoscimus” (Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 762, Note 1).]
Following this date Parliament began to pass Acts restraining Papal jurisdiction and leading to an assertion of the Supremacy of the Crown, and in 1534 both clergy and Parliament accepted the position of the King as “Supreme Head”. But the term “Head” was open to obvious objections, and was really only used by Henry to indicate the supersession of the authority of the Papacy. It was continued by Edward and Mary, but dropped by Mary on her marriage in 1554. When supremacy was restored by Elizabeth the term “Head” was altered to “Governor,” and was explained by the Injunctions of 1559 as “Under God to have rule over all persons whether civil or ecclesiastical.” [Cardwell, Documentary Annals, Vol. I, p. 232. See also Index, s. v., Supremacy of Crown.] In this sense, therefore, there was a very definite alteration in the idea of the Royal Supremacy, and in the light of the Queen’s action in regard to the first paragraph of Article XX, it is evident that while she insisted with characteristic firmness on governing the Church, yet she was equally strong about it being the Church and not the Crown which had “power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.” But the wise avoidance of the term “Head” by Elizabeth and the substitution of “Governor,” while admirable in itself and particularly valuable for the prevention of ambiguity and confusion, [“The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either by word of mouth or in writing, as the head of the Church of England. For she seriously maintains that this honour is due to Christ alone, and cannot belong to any human being soever” (Jewel to Bullinger, Zurich Letters, Vol. I, p. 33).] did not in the least affect the determination of Elizabeth to dominate everything, whether ecclesiastical or civil.
This power of the Crown was very ill-defined, and no one can doubt that it was arbitrarily used both by Elizabeth and the Stuarts, even although the Canons of 1603–4 say that Royal authority meant only such as had been given to Christian Princes in Scripture and the early Church. It was only ascertained and limited by the revolution of 1688. [Boultbee, The Theology of the Church of England, p. 286.]
The connection between the Crown and the Church is naturally closer with an Establishment than with those who are free from it, for the civil power has more control over an Established Church. Thus the appeal today in England to Parliament tends to suggest a civil control rather than what Parliament was originally, the representation of the laity of the Church, and the confusion in the present day is due to the fact that Parliament no longer represents lay Churchmen only, and because the powers of the Crown have passed to Parliament. While, therefore, it is true that “in the present day the Royal Supremacy signifies little more than the supremacy of the civil law and courts over ecclesiastical legislation and jurisdiction,” [Boultbee, ut supra, p. 286.] yet it must never be forgotten that the essence of the Royal authority was the assertion of the supremacy of the lay power and not the interference of the State as such. Just as, before the Reformation, the supremacy of the Pope was regarded as the expression of the superiority of the clergy over the laity, so that supremacy of the Crown was intended in the opposite direction, to assert the independence and power of the laity. And this was actually the case as long as Parliament represented only the laity of the Church. [Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 802.]
It may be well, therefore, to state afresh the position of the Church of England. In theory the Monarch is the source of justice to all his subjects, and the supreme ruler of all classes of people, so that if anyone feels an injustice in any ecclesiastical or civil Court, he has freedom to appeal to the Sovereign for redress.
The question has become acute in recent times in regard to what have been called “Spiritual Courts,” by which is meant Courts representing the clergy only. Those who advocate this position are opposed to the Royal Supremacy as implying an undue encroachment of the civil on the ecclesiastical sphere because its decisions are made by a Court which is not ecclesiastical. It is, therefore, necessary to state briefly what has actually been the case since the time of the Reformation. During the reigns of Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I, jurisdiction was exercised by the Court of High Commission, consisting of Bishops and ecclesiastical lawyers. This Court was abolished just before the time of the Commonwealth and was never restored, its functions being transferred to a Court of Delegates appointed by the Sovereign. This was brought to an end in 1832, and a Committee of the Privy Council was appointed to exercise jurisdiction in all cases in which appeals apply to the Crown. The chief Judges of the Court are members of this Board, and for ecclesiastical purposes one Bishop at least must be included. The Court is called the “Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” and its function is judicial, not legislative. It has been rightly described as the Canon Law of the Church, and the position of the Church of England as an Established Church necessarily puts her under a restriction in regard to alteration of doctrine or ritual, no such alteration being possible without the consent of the State. It will be seen, therefore, that the difference in the Courts during the last three centuries has not involved any matter of essential principle, the difference being one of form.
At the foundation of the objection to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council lies the old idea that the laity have no right to legislate on questions of doctrine and worship, which, it is urged, ought to be limited to the clergy. Added to this, there is the persistence of the unfortunate idea that the laity are somehow or other not the “Church,” forgetful of the fact that the New Testament term from which we get the word “clergy” includes all the people of God (1 Per. 5:3). It is, therefore, essential to insist upon the right and full meaning of the term “Church,” as including both clergy and laity. To speak of a student entering the “Church” when the “Ministry” is meant, shows the fallacy of this position. The clergy were already members of the Church when laymen, and no one can doubt that in Holy Scripture the government of the Church, as we have seen, is vested in the entire Christian community.
It must also never be overlooked that the English Reformation was pre-eminently a movement of the laity, as expressed by Parliament. The action and influence of individual clergymen like Cranmer, Latimer, and others, is, of course, undoubted, but speaking generally, it was not Convocation, but Parliament that took the lead in all matters connected with the Reformation. It is significant that Parliament, not Convocation., first gave the title of “ Supreme Head “ to the King in opposition to the Papacy. [In 1534.] The First Prayer Book of 1549 was prepared and authorized by the Crown and Parliament before being sanctioned by Convocation, and the First Ordinal was authorized, and these two books revised in the same way. Even Queen Mary reestablished the pre-Reformation position by Parliament. When Elizabeth succeeded to the throne it was again Parliament that took the lead in the Reformation movement, and even the Prayer Book of 1604 was prepared and authorized by the Crown without the assent of either Parliament or Convocation. All these facts tend to show that the laity all along have taken a very definite part in the Reformation settlement.
It is, therefore, incorrect to say that “the constitutional character of the supremacy of the Crown ... does not differ in principle from that exercised by William I or Edward I, being in its essence the right of supervision over the administration of the Church, vested in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order that the religious welfare of its subjects may be duly provided for.” [Wakeman, Introduction to the History of the Church of England, p. 321.]
In reality there is a great difference in principle, because since the Reformation there has been no real question of the Crown championing the Church for the purpose of providing for the religious welfare of its subjects. On the contrary, the action of the Crown has been very largely exercised on behalf of the laity against the clergy. Then, too, the general question has been affected by the rejection of the Pope, and the claim that the Royal Supremacy affects all causes, both ecclesiastical and civil. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Royal Supremacy, as exercised in the sixteenth century, was decidedly a “new thing,” [“The supremacy itself was no new thing” (Gibson, ut supra, p. 771).] and was directed mainly against the supremacy of the Pope and for the purpose of insisting upon the liberty of England, both clergy and laity together, in regard to matters ecclesiastical.
Some illustrations from recent years may help to distinguish the issues more clearly and to state the truth of the position of the Church of England. In 1850 a circular was issued by three clergymen, [Archdeacon Manning, Archdeacon Wilberforce (both of whom went over to the Church of Rome), and Dr. Mill of Cambridge.] advocating certain changes in the meaning of the Royal Supremacy in matters ecclesiastical. These clergymen appealed for signatures to a document, stating that the meaning was not the supremacy of the Sovereign in all spiritual things or causes, but only “over the temporal accidents of spiritual things,” whatever that might mean. The argument was that there was a distinction to be drawn between the Royal Supremacy as interpreted by the Articles and Canons of the Church, and as defined and established by Canon Law, the latter being said to give the Crown a power which was opposed to “the Divine office of the Universal Church as prescribed by the law of Christ.” In reply to this appeal it was pointed out that there was no ground for this distinction, and the Statute Law gave the Crown supreme authority “as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal,” and that these very words were inserted in Canon 36 of 1603–4. It was also shown that even Convocation must obtain the sanction of the Crown to put forth any declaration, and that the Articles were first published under the authority of the Crown, while even the Book of Common Prayer was not brought before Convocation till the last revision of 1662, but was drawn up by Royal authority and enforced by the legislature. This has certainly been the acknowledged doctrine of our Church from the accession of Queen Elizabeth. [See Jewel’s Apology.] An additional proof of this position is seen when reference is made to the former practice of appealing to the Pope. It is said that the establishment of the Royal Supremacy was intended only to exclude foreign jurisdiction, but it is sometimes overlooked that the jurisdiction of the Crown was actually substituted for this foreign jurisdiction, thereby not merely abolishing the Papal Supremacy, but establishing the Royal Supremacy in its place. All appeals, therefore, which had formerly been made to the Pope were henceforward to be made to the Crown.
This position can be amply vindicated both from history and from the nature of the case. It is well known that in the fourth century the prevalence of Arianism among the clergy seriously endangered vital Christianity, and at that time if the Church and the clergy had been regarded as identical the consequences would have been very serious. Then, too, as there is no question whatever of the State making laws for the Church, but only interpreting the laws as they stand, it might seasonably be supposed that the supreme civil Governor was in every way fitted to mediate and moderate in matters of dispute. All that the Crown claims is the power of preventing the Church from being compelled to accept anything that a majority of the clergy might sanction, and also to prevent the laity being compelled to accept an interpretation being put upon the formularies of the Church, which is regarded as untrue to the doctrinal and national position of the Church. The idea that clerical legislation and interpretation necessarily carries truthfulness and accuracy is contradicted by much that has happened during the centuries. It was, therefore, not difficult to show that those who appealed for a change were really insisting upon something quite novel in the way of interpretation, something that was neither Anglican nor Roman Catholic, and to which the names of “Catholic truth” and “Church principles” had been inaccurately and really unfairly given. [The story of this Declaration and its criticism is taken in substance from the pamphlet by the late Dean Goode, Reply to the Letter and Declaration Respecting the Royal Supremacy.]
More recent events show the impossibility of accepting the position of those who insist upon what they call a “Spiritual Court”. It is well known that the Court of Arches, which is under the personal jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a Spiritual Court. It will be remembered that the Lincoln Judgment by Archbishop Benson also came under the same category, and still later, Archbishops Temple and Maclagan issued certain opinions against Reservation and Incense. All these might well be called Spiritual Courts, and yet the decisions were in each case refused and opposed. Not only so, but on one occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury deprived a clergyman for heresy, an appeal was made by those who supported him to the Privy Council, and the appeal was successful. Under these circumstances it would seem as though the plea for “Spiritual Courts” is as unreal in character as it certainly is untrue to all that we know of the history and genius of the Church of England. So long, therefore, as the Church of England is established it is essential for due freedom that a final appeal should be made to the King, and that all coercive jurisdiction should be regarded as coming from the State alone, that all men, clergy and laity, must remain subject to the law as it has been stated by various Acts of Parliament, and that in all ecclesiastical causes as well as civil every Churchman must be able to appeal to the “King as Supreme”. If, and when, the time comes for Disestablishment, as it has come in Ireland and elsewhere, there is no doubt that the government of the Church will be vested in Synods as representative of the whole Church, and in this way the difficulty which some feel in regard to civil interference, and which others feel in regard to undue clerical interference, will find their proper solution. [This general subject can be studied in Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church of England; Tomlinson, Lay Judges; Figgis, Churches in the Modern State; A. L. Smith, Church and State in the Middle Ages; Two Articles on “Canon Law,” Protestant Dictionary.]
A brief consideration is necessary to the objection taken to the Article with special reference to the relation of Church and State. It is, of course, true that the Jewish Church was national, and the Christian Church is catholic in the sense of universal, and, as such, it is not necessarily bound up with an Establishment. The peculiar position of the Jewish Church in relation to the State, and in the light of God’s purposes of redemption for the whole world, make it impossible to use Jewish Princes as illustrations of Christian Princes in the way that the Article does, a view that was adopted by Churchmen and Puritans alike. A far better interpretation of the right position between Church and State is found in such passages as Rom. 13; 1 Peter 2:13–17. Then, too, the Jewish Church was theocratic in a way that the Christian Church never has been, or can be. It is, of course, easy to say that the influence of the State on the Church is injurious, and many Churchmen would be ready to admit this. But, on the other hand, Establishment is cherished by many because of its essential value as a national testimony to God. It must never be forgotten that Church and State are equally Divine in their proper places, though the distinction between them is vital and fundamental. As the State is based upon the law of compulsion involving outward adherence only, and the Church is based upon the law of love expressive of an inward willingness, it can easily be seen that with weapons so different the two can never be formally one. Indeed, they never have been, and whether we believe in Establishment or not, the precise spiritual relations of Church and State are quite clearly laid down in Holy Scripture. Many Churchmen make a great distinction between the Establishment of a Church de novo and the rejection of an existing Establishment. The former would probably not be accepted by anyone; the latter is thought by many to involve a serious rejection of God. The matter is one involving grave differences of view, and whatever may be the precise relation in the future between the English Church and the State there can be no doubt that, as in Scotland, there will be a definite and determined insistence upon the two great principles that the State shall not control the Church and that the clergy shall not control the laity.
III – The Papal Supremacy
The Article is quite clear that “the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England,” and this at once raises the question of the Papal Supremacy considered in relation to the past and also to the present. Roman Catholics themselves are not all agreed as to the precise power of the Papacy. The Gallican theory is that a General Council is supreme, the Pope being its mouthpiece. The Ultramontane view is that the Pope is supreme as the personal Head of the Church. Since 1870 the latter theory, known as Ultramontanism, has come more and more to the front, the tendency being to concentrate all authority in the Pope speaking ex cathedra. [For an outline of Barrow’s great argument from his Treatise of the Popes Supremacy, see Boultbee, The Theology of the Church of England, pp. 289–301.] The Roman arguments are mainly two in number.
1. The argument from Scripture. – First of all attention is called to the prominence of St. Peter in the Gospels, and this is easily and readily admitted, but prominence is not necessary for primacy, and the latter does not inevitably follow from the former. The words addressed to St. Peter in regard to authority in matters of Church discipline (Matt. 16:19) were afterwards addressed to the other disciples as well (Matt. 18:18) so that there was no monopoly of “binding” and “loosing”. In view of other Scripture passages referring to the Apostle Peter it is difficult to see how the primacy can be fairly argued. Thus, he is sent by the other Apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14); he is compelled to explain his action in regard to Cornelius (Acts 11); he does not occupy any leading or predominant position in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–35); and he is actually withstood at Antioch by St. Paul (Galatians 2). These facts, together with St. Paul’s claim to Apostolic equality (2 Cor. 12:11), and St. Peter’s own references to himself in his addresses and epistles, do not support the theory of primacy.
But the most important passage from Scripture is the well-known “ Rock “ passage : “ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church “ (Matt. xvi. 18). It is not at all certain that the reference is to Peter in person, especially if any distinction may be drawn between the two Greek words Petros and Petra. Perhaps the best exegetical suggestion is that the reference is neither to Peter only nor to his confession only, but to the man confessing, thereby including both the person and what he said. [Lindsay, The Church and Ministry, p. 25 f.] This is in harmony with other references in Scripture to our Lord in relation to the Church (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:1–5). It would almost seem as though the latter passage were the Apostle’s own commentary on his Master’s words. Then, too, no early Father interpreted the passage in the Roman Catholic way, and not a single Greek Father connected the position of the Bishop of Rome with the prominence given to St. Peter. [“It is a marvelous thing that upon these words the Bishop of Rome should found his supremacy; for whether it be super petram or Petrum, all is one matter; it maketh nothing at all for the purpose to make a foundation of any such supremacy. For otherwise when Peter spake carnally to Christ (as in the same chapter a little following) Satan was his name, where Christ said, ‘Go after me, Satan’; so that the name of Peter is no foundation for the supremacy, but as it is said in Scripture, Fundati estis super fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum, that is, by participation (for godly participation giveth name of things,) he might be called the head of the Church, as the head of the river is called the head, because he was the first who made this confession of Christ, which is not an argument for dignity, but for the quality that was in the man” (Gardiner, Sermon, in 1548. Quoted in Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 398).]
There is no doubt that the authority and infallibility of the Pope are made to depend solely on this text, and practically all apologists for the Church of Rome make it prominent. If therefore, in the words of a modern writer, [Rev. Arthur Galton, who himself went over to Rome and returned under the influence of this text.] this foundation is mined, the Church resting upon it is shown to be the weakest of ecclesiastical structures. Now it is well known that at his ordination every Roman priest has to take a solemn oath of allegiance to the Creed of Pope Pius IV, and in this Creed these words appear concerning the Scriptures: “Neither will I take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” This “unanimous consent of the Fathers” fails entirely when applied to the text in question. This difference of opinion was forcibly shown at the Vatican Council of 1870 by the late Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, U.S.A. He was not permitted to deliver his speech, but it was afterwards printed at Naples, and he pointed out that the ancient Fathers gave no fewer than five interpretations of the word “rock”. (1) The first declared that the Church was built on Peter, an interpretation endorsed by seventeen Fathers. (2) The second understood the words as referring to all the Apostles, Peter being simply the Primate. This was the opinion of eight Fathers. (3) The third interpretation asserted that the words applied to the faith which Peter professed, a view held by no less than forty-four Fathers, including some of the most important and representative. (4) The fourth interpretation declared that the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the Church being built on Him. This was the view of sixteen writers. (5) The fifth interpretation understood the term “rock” to apply to the faithful themselves, who, by believing on Christ, were made living stones in the temple of His body. This, however, was the opinion of very few. It is, therefore, clear that there is no such thing as “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” in regard to the interpretation of this text, and Archbishop Kenrick concluded his speech by saying that “if we are bound to follow the majority of the Fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the ‘rock’ should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” It is also noteworthy that no fewer than forty-four witnesses from among the Fathers are adduced by the Roman Catholic divine, Launay, to prove that by the “rock” is to be understood not Peter himself, but the faith which he professed. [Included in these are Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, and even Pope Gregory the Great, who in his Commentary on the Psalms says plainly: “The Son of God is the Rock from which Peter derived his name and on which He said He would build His Church.”] It is also impossible to overlook the fact that in the Roman Missal itself the Collect for the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day reads thus: “Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that Thou wouldest not suffer us, whom Thou established on the Rock of the Apostolic Confession, to be shaken by any disturbances.”
It is doubtless true, as Hort points out, that “the most obvious interpretation of this famous phrase is the true one,” that St. Peter himself, as the spokesman, interpreter, and leader of the rest, was the rock which Jesus Christ had in view. [Christian Ecclesia, p. 16.] But even if this were proved beyond all question it would still be necessary to require proof of authority to transmit the power, and this is, of course, wholly lacking. There is not the slightest hint given that Peter could transmit the authority to anyone, and, in particular, there is no suggestion whatever that any of the Bishops of Rome are to be considered as the “successors” of the Apostles. It is hardly without point, in view of present controversies, that though ample reference is made to Christians in Rome, and even to “Bishops” in other places, nothing is said of any “Bishop” as then existing in the Church at Rome. This assumption that Peter’s authority can be transmitted depends upon another assumption, namely, that Bishops are “successors of the Apostles”. But, as we have seen in our study of the Christian ministry, this is impossible. Apostleship required certain conditions (Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 15:7–9), and the moment such conditions were impossible Apostleship, as such, ceased to be. As already observed, we gladly recognize and emphasize continuity with Apostolic doctrine and life, but this is altogether different from what is understood as Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate. Ministerial continuity by means of the commission of Ordination is one thing, but continuity in the sense of Apostolic authority transmitted only by a particular line is quite another, and for the latter there is no Scriptural warrant at all. This being the case the great passage, on any interpretation, is to be limited to St. Peter, giving him that natural and rightful authority which we observe he used in the Acts of the Apostles, but not referring to anything beyond his personal and individual qualifications for the special work to which he had been called. The privileges are personal rather than official, and are necessarily limited to him, and are not capable of transmission to any “successor”. The other passages which are sometimes adduced in support of this contention of St. Peter’s primacy really do not touch the question at all, for St. Luke 22:31, 32 was at once a warning and an encouragement in view of the awful sin of denying his Master, and St. John 21:15–17 may be regarded as the complementary passage to the former, including a threefold reminder of the denial and a threefold restoration to his former position. Altogether, therefore, we may say without any hesitation that Scripture gives no warrant for identifying St. Peter’s prominence with his primacy.
2. The argument from History. – Two points are involved here, and though they are distinct they may perhaps be considered together: (a) St. Peter’s primacy; (b) St. Peter’s Roman episcopacy. We may set aside as unnecessary to be discussed the question whether St. Peter was ever in Rome. There is nothing in the New Testament to warrant it and much that seems to be opposed to it, but tradition outside the New Testament seems to favour it, and it matters little whether we accept it or not. [In the Bampton Lectures for 1913, The Church of Rome in the First Century, the Rev. G. Edmundson favours the view that St. Peter did go to Rome.] It is, of course, perfectly clear that the Church of Rome was not founded by St. Peter; or, indeed, by any other Apostle, as the Epistle to the Romans clearly implies and teaches. With regard to the question whether St. Peter was ever in any sense of the word Bishop of Rome, history is quite clear that he was not. The idea curiously appears first in the second century heretical document, called the Clementine Homilies, which claim that Clement was the immediate successor of Peter, but Irenaeus says that the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, and he gives Linus as the first Bishop. To the same effect is the testimony of Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitutions. [Irenaeus, adv. Haer., Ch. III, p. 3; Tertullian, de Praescript, Ch. XXXII; Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VII, Section 46.] Later writers, like Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, agree with this position. While, then, it is quite likely that the Apostle Peter reached Rome and was there put to death by martyrdom according to tradition, [Bishop Lightfoot holds that St. Peter reached Rome in A.D. 64, and was soon afterwards put to death in the Neronian Persecution (Apostolic Fathers, Part I, Vol. II, pp. 497, 498).] there is no proof whatever that he remained, according to the Roman Catholic theory, twenty-five years as bishop, a position which is absolutely impossible according to chronology and historical grounds.
The view that St. Peter being Bishop of Rome was the natural and necessary Primate of that and of all other Churches is not only without support in Church history, but there is much against it. The well-known action and attitude of Polycarp against Anicetus in regard to the observance of Easter; the action of Irenaeus against Victor; the opposition of Cyprian to Stephen; and the protest of Augustine against Celestinus, all show with unmistakable clearness the position of the Church of Rome among the other Churches. Not least of all is the protest of Gregory the Great against the use of the title of Universal Bishop for the chief pastor of the Roman Church, and he actually said that whoever should assume it should be regarded as the forerunner of Antichrist. [Maclear and Williams, Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England, pp. 416–418.]
Then, too, this primacy, and therefore supremacy, was never acknowledged in the Eastern Church; indeed, it could not have been admitted. The history of the early General Councils afford positive proof of this contention, since the Pope was not only not President, but until the Fourth Council was not at all influential in any of the decisions. The first step in the direction of the Roman supremacy seems to have been associated with the Council of Sardica, 347, when Athanasius naturally appealed to the Church of Rome to adjudicate, and the Canons of Sardica appointed the Pope as judge. But this was all new, and the Council was not a General Council. The idea, however, was fruitful, and developed into very much more by the time of Innocent III. Later on the political change from Rome to Constantinople gradually helped the Papacy. The Emperor had been called Pontifex Maximus in connection with the Pagan relation to Church and State, and when the Empire was transferred to Constantinople it was natural that the Bishop of Rome, as the chief person remaining in the city, should have transferred to him the Imperial title of Pontifex Maximus. But such a stupendous claim as is involved in the Roman supremacy ought to have an unquestioned historical basis, and it literally has none. The decretals in the Middle Ages which were used to support the Roman position are now admitted on all hands to have been forged.
Coming to our own country, it is sometimes said that England was in the Patriarchate of Rome. The very idea of a Patriarchate arose almost certainly from civil usage. A Bishop was regarded as presiding over παροικία (our “parish”); a Metropolitan over επαρχία (our “province”); and a Patriarch over διοίκησις (our “diocese”). There were seven civil divisions in the East and seven in the West, and ecclesiastically there were one hundred and eighteen provinces with Patriarchates in their cities: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. All the others were primacies. But Rome had no power even over Milan, much less over Britain. There was a British Church before the coming of Augustine of Canterbury, and his mission did not and could not give jurisdiction to Rome. But gradually, especially through the action of Wilfrid and the results of the Norman Conquest, England became an integral part of the Roman Church until the Reformation. There were protests from time to time, but they were all civil, never ecclesiastical and spiritual. [“Here again the Church of England, so far as represented by its Synods, acknowledged its identity with the Church of Rome; just as did the ‘Determination’ of 1413 above mentioned. When most independent of the civil power, the hierarchy of England owned itself bound by the laws of the Church of Rome and declared its authority derived from the Popes. This was near the eve of the Reformation. Thus we see the Church of England on its clerical side more and more separated from the civil power from the Conquest to the Reformation; more and more identifying itself with the Church of Rome from Henry I to the Reformation. The Crown had its share in encouraging Papal domination, from its being continually in need of the influence of the hierarchy; but Parliament, so far as its direct enactments went, resisted Papal usurpations, and was the only body in the Constitution that maintained a consistent attitude of independence in regard to the See of Rome” (Hole, A Manual of Church History, p. 115; see also pp. 28, 52, 72, 82).]
As the topstone of an ecclesiastical edifice the Papacy could be regarded as a natural evolution, and, as such, not essentially antichristian. It is only when the demand is made that this must be so and nothing else is right that it becomes impossible and intolerable on all grounds. Even the Reformers were at first ready to acknowledge the primacy of Rome, but only jure humano. But Rome would not be content with this, and transformed ecclesiastical development into Divine laws. Then, too, the question of primacy has not only developed into that of supremacy, but into the much more serious claim to infallibility, Rome insisting that the Pope is infallible when defining any question of faith or morals. [“Pastors and faithful of whatsoever right and dignity, as well individually as all together, are bound by the obligation of the hierarchical subordination, and of true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and regimen of the Church diffused throughout the entire world. ... This is a doctrine of Catholic Truth, from which no one can deviate, and yet reserve faith and salvation. ... Also we teach and declare the Pope to be the Supreme Judge of the Faithful, and that all causes relating to the ecclesiastical consideration may be referred to his judgment; the judicial sentence of the Apostolic See (than whose authority there is not a greater) may be revised by no one. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge his judgment” (Vatican Council, Session IV, Ch. III).]
In the doctrine of the Papacy we have the most signal example of the principle on which a spurious Catholicism proceeds, namely, the transformation of a natural ecclesiastical development into essential Divine laws of Christianity by means of a legal system. Two main ideas are at the root of this transformation. (1) The sacerdotal idea of the ministry, involving mediation; (2) the visibility of the Church as essential, with the consequent need of a topstone. It has often been pointed out that Cyprian’s view of the episcopate necessarily required the Papacy as the culminating point of the ecclesiastical pyramid. [On these subjects see Fairbairn, Catholicism, Roman and Anglican, pp. 167–189; Moyes, London Eucharistic Congress, p. 37 f.; Litton, The Church of Christ.]
And it is important to point out that it is futile to spend time on disproving the doctrine of Roman supremacy and infallibility if we leave untouched the roots from which it sprang, for it would produce something essentially like it if this form were abolished. If any sacerdotal view of the Church is held to be jure divino, it is impossible to take up a distinguishable position against Rome. The idea of a Catholicism which is not Roman is doomed to futility and destruction by the severe logic of facts. The only adequate safeguard against Roman supremacy is the assertion of the great verities emphasized at the Reformation and embodied in our Articles. [Proof of this can be seen by a comparison of Bishop Gore’s Roman Catholic Claims with Dom Chapman’s Bishop Gore and Roman Catholic Claims. It must be frankly confessed that the latter is easily victorious on almost every point. Another illustration is found in Littledale’s Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome, in which the plainest of all reasons is significantly omitted. So also with Brinckman’s Notes on the Papal Claims. For valuable books on the Roman Controversy see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined; Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vols. I and II; Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church; and The Papal Council, by Janus.]
IV – Illustrations of the Royal Supremacy
The Article adduces two cases in which it is claimed that the Royal Supremacy may be asserted over individual Christian lives.
1. The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment. – The inclusion of this seems to be due to the fact that such a position was questioned in the sixteenth century. It is a recognition of authority, and is in harmony with the primitive teaching of Gen. 9:6. It should be noted that the question is stated as permissible, and does not touch the larger question whether capital punishment is or is not advisable.
2. The Lawfulness of Military Service. – A distinction is to be drawn here between defense and defiance. The Article teaches that the exercise of force is sometimes necessary, and that it is therefore lawful for Christian men under proper authority to engage in military duties. While, then, the Article rightly opposes anything like anarchy on the part of Christian men, it is impossible to question the well-known but rough words of the American General, Sherman, that “War is hell.” [On the subject of Christianity and War see Mozley, University Sermons, V; Paget, The Hallowing of War; Maclear and Williams, ut supra, p. 497; Martensen, Christian Ethics, Section 2, pp. 233, 234; Hobhouse, The Church and the World in Idea and in History, p. 13 f., 23. The Attitude of the Church towards War, by Bishop H. E. Ryle (Liverpool Lectures, No. 12), a brief but valuable summary of the history and true position.] Here, again, there seems to be no doubt that the teaching of the Article is directed against extremists in the sixteenth century who defied all civil authority and opposed the lawfulness of war. [“Quin et Anabaptistarum profligandus est agrestis stupor, qui negant licere Christianis magistratum gerere, quasi propterea Christus in terras descenderit, ut rerum publicarum administrationem aboleret. Imo vero Spiritus Sanctus statuit principes et magistratus esse Dei ministros, ut benefactis favorem suum impartiant, et maleficia suppliciis constringant; quae duo si rebus humanis abessent, maxima sequeretur omnium rerum confusio” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 13).]
The question of Christianity and War has naturally received special attention through recent events, and the truth of the Article has been seriously questioned. But the distinction between wars of aggression and defense remains valid, and the teaching of the Article, especially with its Latin reading, justa bella, is undoubtedly in accord with the New Testament principles of the Christian’s relation and duty to the State. Christianity does not remove us from interest in national life. When it is said that Christians are “not of this world” it does not mean “not of this nation,” for “world” and “nation” are not interchangeable terms. As Christians we share in national blessings and privileges, and are as much part of the nation as are non-Christians. Grace does not destroy or set aside natural relationships, whether of the family or of the State. On the contrary, it sanctifies and uplifts them. So that being “under grace” is compatible with being “under government,” and God is as much the Ruler of nations as He ever was. When St. Paul showed patriotism in relation to Israel (Rom. 9:14, 10:1) and claimed the rights of Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37, 22:25–28), he was not thereby disloyal to his Heavenly citizenship.
The War has helped us to understand certain aspects of New Testament teaching as never before. Thus, while the law of the Sermon on the Mount is clear in regard to individuals, it is not to be similarly applied to personal responsibilities for others. The law is plain that envy, hatred, and malice are as absolutely wrong in nations as they are in individuals, and so is revenge. Not only so, but the very existence of war is a clear proof that the law of God has somehow been broken, for if it had been perfectly obeyed, it would have made war impossible. But when violence, aggression, and tyrannical cruelty are seen, the question at once arises as to what Christianity requires of Christians. As long as the individual’s own life is concerned, the matter is plain, but the problem becomes acute when he is responsible for others. The difficulty in some minds is due to a confusion between retaliation and resistance. The former is unchristian; the latter is not. Resistance of evil may be and often is a positive duty, for if a man or woman were to yield to pressure in the face of certain aspects of evil, it would imply a weak and sinful compliance. There is also no essential distinction between police force and military force, because in both instances force is exercised to resist evil. The kind and degree of resistance, or of the force required to overcome it, are quite irrelevant to the issue, and if when a burglar resists he gets maimed or killed, the householder or the policeman is not regarded as guilty of murder any more than the soldier is considered guilty on the battlefield. The contention that “Thou shalt not kill” is a prohibition of war is impossible, because the Jewish nation to which this command was given “had a strict military organization constituted by the very authority from which the commandment came” (Dale).
When Christ said, “Resist not evil,” He was stating in pithy, proverbial form the general principle of individual life. But to deduce from it a doctrine of universal non-resistance is to pervert the true meaning. If this verse is taken literally, why may not others be similarly interpreted? (See St. Matt. 5:42, 6:19.) As long as the wrongs inflicted are personal, the Christian’s attitude is that of meekness, but when the wrong is done to others, resistance becomes a duty. The whole idea of St. Matt. 5:39 is personal and has no reference to war, or to civic affairs. So that in any world where men are not what they ought to be, some form of force will be necessary, and the Christian attitude to those who are aggressively brutal and unjust must be one of opposition and resistance in the highest interests of the community. Whenever, therefore, compulsory military service is the law of the land, it is impossible to doubt that Christians are justified in responding to the claim of the Government to take up arms in defense of the country. Government is still as much as ever the Divine method of maintaining order and putting down evil (Rom. 13).
It is sometimes said in opposition to this line that “all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword,” and it is interpreted with literalness, as though it means that everyone who fights must necessarily be killed. But this is obviously not true, as history abundantly proves. Yet the principle of the words remains as our Lord intended it to be understood, and if the emphasis is placed on the word “take” the true idea will be seen. The words are directed against that spirit of militarism which aims at aggression merely for conquest.
We conclude, therefore, that it is not and cannot be a sin to be a soldier, for not only do we find today many of the most earnest Christians in the ranks, but the Bible nowhere condemns a soldier’s life. Indeed, God Himself appeared before Joshua in military form (Josh. 5:21–23). Although it would be certainly wrong to say that the Bible approves of all wars, there are many aspects of war, and many different kinds of war. So that in regard to a Christian man voluntarily becoming a soldier, each must judge for himself according to his conscience in the light of Holy Scripture.
We may sum up the matter by pointing out that under certain conditions a Christian ought to be ready to draw and use the sword. He should do so when the rights of man are invaded, since no man lives to himself, but is part of a social order for which we are all responsible. A Christian man is justified in fighting when the righteousness of the cause is clear, for tyranny in its attempt to override liberty is manifestly wrong in the sight of God. Then, too, war by Christians is justifiable when the resources of peace are really exhausted and the enemy still refuses to lay aside his tyranny and hatred. Once again, a Christian can legitimately enter into war when his individual conscience is clear. Our Lord always respected the rights of conscience, and when conscience is illuminated by the fundamental and essential truth of Holy Scripture, the matter must necessarily be left to the sincerity of the believer.
One other text has been much discussed during the recent War, namely, “Love your enemies,” and again the need must be urged of distinguishing between personal and social attitudes; between individual life and corporate responsibility. No one questions for a moment that the command is absolutely binding on the individual, not, of course, as including pleasurable affection, but certainly as excluding all personal animosity and wish for evil. But the case is altogether different when the word is applied to an organized community, for other elements then enter into the problem which prevent us from using the precept to avoid hostility against national wrongdoing. The following words of the late Bishop of Durham in a letter to the Spectator make this distinction between the individual and the State clear and convincing:–
“There is no approach to a complete analogy between an organized community and a person, however much we may ‘personify’ the community. The State is not at all a personality: it is a great complex of personalities. It is such a complex that its organization largely exists on purpose that the community may safeguard its personal components in their several interests and liberties, particularly its weaker components. From this point of view the State is morally right, is morally bound, to take indignant and resolute action when its members’ lawful interests, of peace, security, liberty, are violated or forcibly threatened by another State. We are nowhere commanded by our Lord to love other people’s enemies as such. Where others are concerned, as victims of wrong, a wholly new element enters the scene. We see a ruffian maltreat a woman, or a child. The aggressor, as such, is in no respect an object for our goodwill. He is an evil to be, by all possible means, quelled and also punished. And the State, when its member suffers violence and wrong, is called to act thus, as the third party interposing to protect and avenge another party.”
It has been suggested that the attitude of the Pacifist is really due to the fallacy of believing that physical force is in itself an evil. This is certainly the weakness of several religious and philosophic systems, and is essentially the same as the old Gnostic position, that matter is evil and that only spiritual weapons are lawful. And yet, if matter and its force were created by God, it is impossible to say that these are evil per se, or that power, whether physical or intellectual or volitional, is inherently evil. As a matter of fact, this is often the only weapon that man can use to further his purpose. And so it may be concluded that the moral significance of force lies only in its use, and it is the unnecessary or cruel employment alone that is wrong. Force has to be used to slay an animal for food, and no one can say that this is wrong in itself, so long as our employment is humane. The same is obviously true in social, civic and national affairs. For this reason, it is contended that a war of defense for the sake of righteousness and liberty is unquestionably justified, and, as it has been well said, the true conclusion is not “peace at any price,” but righteousness at any cost. [“Ought Followers of the Galilean to be Pacifists?” by H. W. Magoun, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. LXXIII, p. 55 (January 1916). “We are Christians, servants of a religion of love which expresses itself equally by gentleness and by force, never by supineness, never by hate. Is a Christian less loving when he seizes the bridle of a runaway horse, to save innocent bystanders from being trampled under its hoofs? He gives all for love, force, and reason freely flung into the service of the right. Has one forgotten Christ when one risks his life to restrain a maniac crazed with disease and near to throttling an innocent neighbour? Could one’s love, one’s Christianity, be other than hypocrisy if one was not faithful unto death, withholding no service called for? Force directed to noble ends is not base. Tiny forces that wag tongue or pen in reasoning and persuasion are no more Christian than the brute elemental force that launches a lifeboat. Our religion may call for any power we possess. He who holds back any service in the hour of need does but lip service to his God” (“America’s Duty,” by R. C. Cabot, Outlook, New York, 4th April 1917).]
Article XXXVIII
Of Christian Men’s Goods, which are not common.
The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
De illicita bonorum Communicatione.
Facultates et bona Christianorum non sunt communia, quoad jus et possessionem, ut quidam Anabaptistae falso jactant. Debet tamen quisque de his quae possidet, pro facultatum ratione, pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distribuere.
Important Equivalents
Of Christian men’s goods, which are not common
= de illicita bonorum communicatione.
Riches = facultates.
As touching the right, title, and possession
= quoad jus et possessionem.
In 1553 and 1563 the title was Christianorum bona non sent communia, “Christian men’s goods are not common.” The present titles date from 1571. The Latin is somewhat difficult to interpret. Dr. Hey suggests that it should be rendered, “Of the Unlawfulness of Acting as if all Goods were common.” The Article is undoubtedly directed against certain extremists in the sixteenth century. The Reformers were obviously anxious to give the Church of Rome no handle for associating them with fanatical sects which arose in the age of the Reformation.
I – The Teaching of the Article
1. The possessions of Christian men are not public property in regard to right, title, and possession. – This was the error of “certain Anabaptists” who were prevalent in England and on the Continent. The error is indicated in the Reformatio Legum, [“Excludatur etiam ab eisdem Anabaptistis inducta bonorum et possessionum communitas, quam tantopere urgent, ut nemini quicquam relinquant proprium et suum. In quo mirabiliter loquuntur, cum furta prohiberi divina Scriptura cernant, et eleemosynas in utroque Testamento laudari videant, quas ex propriis facultatibus nostris elargimur; quorum sane neutrum consistere posset, nisi Christianis proprietas bonorum et possessionum suarum relinqueretur” (De Haeresibus, c. 14).] and is also dealt with in more than one Confession of the Reformed Churches. In addition to the rejection of Infant Baptism the Anabaptists went to the extreme of abolishing all law and proclaiming the absolute equality of all Christian people. The outcome was fanaticism and Antinomianism, which led to terrible results. At the same time these extremes must not blind us to the fact that Anabaptism contained in it certain truths which found emphasis in opposition to the errors of Rome, and in spite of the deplorable excesses of certain forms of Anabaptism it is impossible to overlook the underlying truths of their position. [For a full and discriminating discussion of Anabaptism, see Lindsay, The History of the Reformation, Vol. II, pp. 430–463; Forsyth, Faith, Freedom, and the Future, passim.]
2. The obligation of Christian giving proportionately to possession. – The word “alms” is singular, from the French, “elmes,” based on the Greek, ελεημοσύνη.
II – The Principles Involved
Property as the fruit of industry is involved in the very notion of society as it exists by natural law, and if Christians have nothing of their own there can be no place for bounty and no necessity for liberality. It is important to bear in mind this essential and vital principle of the rightfulness of property when duly and legally obtained. [For a careful study of this subject, see Clow, Christ in the Social Order; Flint, Socialism, Ch. XI.] There is no proof that the action of the early Christians (Acts 2:44, 4:32) was anything more than a temporary expression of Christian fellowship, and certainly there is no proof of it ever being required as of Divine or permanent obligation. It is obvious that everything was purely voluntary and not compulsory (Acts 5:4). How can a man steal or covet his own? What is the meaning of such phrases as “rich in this world” (1 Tim. 6:17), and “this world’s good” (1 John 3:17)?
The early Church after the time in the Acts, as seen in Justin Martyr and Tertullian, clearly shows that no such community of goods was in existence, and Clement of Alexandria wrote his Treatise, Quis Dives Salvetur, to show that there was no need for a Christian man to give up his possessions.
The insistence of the Article on almsgiving is, of course, one of the clearest Christian duties, and is found almost everywhere in the New Testament in precept and practice (Rom. 12:13, 1 Tim. 6:17–19, Heb. 13:16). [The Eleventh Homily in the Second Book is on “Almsdoing.”]
The New Testament has three great principles of giving, and these call for careful attention and constant emphasis on the part of all who are required to teach. (a) A man is to give according as God hath prospered him (1 Cor. 16:2); (b) he is to give according to his ability (Acts 11:29); (c) he is to give according to his heart’s purpose (2 Cor. 9:7). It is suggestive and significant of the true Christian life that in the last passage the word rendered “cheerful” is that from which we obtain the English word “hilarious”. All the principles and methods of Christian giving may be carefully studied from St. Paul’s two chapters, 2 Cor. 8; 9. It will thus be seen that giving is to be “according to” (κατα) not “out of” (εκ). A man may easily give a very small amount “out of” his abundance, but this will not be Christian giving. He must give “according to” his abundance, or whatever he has. The New Testament is thus true to its genius in avoiding all reference to a specific proportion like the Old Testament rule of the tithe. In harmony with the essential feature of Christianity as a religion of principle, not of rule, it lays the burden upon the enlightened spiritual mind to give “according to” what is possessed, pointing out that giving is one of the most definite and searching proofs of the reality of the Christian life John 4:20, 21; 3:17, 18).
Article XXXIX
Of a Christian Man’s Oath.
As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle; so we judge that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done, according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.
De jure jurando.
Quemadmodum juramentum vanum et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo et Apostolo ejus Jacobo, Christianis hominibus interdictum esse fatemur; ita Christianorum religionem minime prohibere censemus, quin jubente magistratu, in causa fidei et charitatis jurare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophetae doctrinam, in justitia, in judicio, et veritate.
IMPORTANT EQUIVALENTS.
Of a Christian man’s oath = de jure jurando
Christian religion = Christianorum religionem
The prophet’s teaching = Prophetae doctrinam
Like the last Article, this dates from 1553, though with a different title. Originally it was: Licet Christianis jurare, “Christian men may take an oath.” This also is directed against the Anabaptists, who had imbibed the view that oath-taking, even in Courts of Justice, was wrong. The condemnation of this is also seen in the Reformatio Legum. [“Praeterea nec juramentorum Anabaptistae legitimum relinquunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam Apostoli, imo Christi, imo Dei Patris procedunt; quorum juramenta saepe sunt in sacris literis repetita” (De Haeresibus, c. 15).]
I – The Prohibition
The Article frankly acknowledges that “vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men.” The word “oath” comes from the Anglo- Saxon “ath,” and means a solemn affirmation with appeal to God as to the truth of the declaration. This appeal implies at once the renunciation of the Divine favour and the imprecation of the Divine justice if the statements are proved to be false. Oaths are of two kinds: one asserts, simply stating something to be true; the other promises, pledging the word in regard to truth. The latter would include such promises as what are known as the oath of allegiance, the oath of office, the oath of witnesses in Courts. The “vain and rash swearing” referred to in the Article doubtless has in view such passages as St. Matt. 5:33–37; St. James 5:12, and the vanity and rashness are clearly regarded as profane and irreverent, and therefore rightly forbidden because opposed to the true idea of the Gospel.
II – The Permission
The oath-taking that is claimed to be allowable is the solemn affirmation when required, and the Article rightly states that Christianity does not forbid such solemn statements when required by authority “in a cause of faith and charity”. This kind of oath or solemn assertion is seen to be allowed and even ordered in Scripture (Deut. 6:13). Our Lord Himself submitted to such without any question or objection (Matt. 26:63). St. Paul often used it in connection with affirmations of the Gospel and of his own personal attitude (Rom. 9:1, 2 Cor. 1:23, Gal. 1:20). It is also even recognized as associated with God Himself (Heb. 6:16–18). It is evident, therefore, that such passages at once qualify, and in particular those in St. Matthew and St. James, and abundantly vindicate the practice of oath-taking in Courts of Justice, by solemnly appealing to the presence of God in support of statements made. The reference at the end of the Article lays down the principle of such taking of oaths. It must be done “according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.” The allusion is to the words of Jeremiah (4:2). Granted these conditions, an oath is perfectly legitimate. It is no doubt correct that if men were always strictly truthful oaths would not be required, but in view of the presence of evil in the world the necessity of some solemn attestation seems inevitable, and for this purpose it is to be regarded as quite lawful and right for a Christian. [The Seventh Homily in the First Book is on the subject of “Swearing and Purgatory,” where the passage from Jeremiah is quoted and explained.]
Conclusion
In the light of the history and substance of the Articles several important questions remain for consideration.
Relation of the Articles to the Prayer Book
It is sometimes argued that the Prayer Book and Articles are contradictory, and Pitt’s words are often quoted, that the Church of England has a Popish Liturgy, an Arminian clergy and Calvinistic Articles. But notwithstanding its cleverness the statement is not only incorrect, but really reveals the ignorance of its author. There is no essential difference between the Prayer Book and the Articles, as the following facts show:
1. There was a distinct and considerable difference between Cranmer and some of the extreme Protestants of the sixteenth century, and he should not be identified with them. [Hardwick, ut supra, p. 32.] Indeed, Cranmer’s learning and balance of judgment are more evident today than ever. [“Of the men, who were raised up to guide their country through the perils of that stormy crisis, and who finally succeeded in rebuilding for us what has proved itself a sanctuary not only from the malice of the Romanist, but also from a flood of Puritanical innovations, none was so illustrious and untiring as the primate of all England. After granting that the life of Cranmer was disfigured here and there by human blemishes; after granting that the caution and timidity of his nature had degenerated, on some rare occasions, into weakness and irresolution, he is still, if we regard him fairly as a whole, among the brightest worthies of his age: to him we are indebted, under God, for much of the sobriety of tone that marks the English Reformation, or in other words, for the accordance of our present system with the Apostolic models” (Hardwick, ut supra, p. 67 f.; see also pp. 68–70).] And it is to Cranmer that we owe almost entirely both the Prayer Book and the Articles.
2. Archbishop Parker is known to have been a disciple and admirer of Cranmer, [Hardwick, ut supra, p. 118.] and Parker’s action in connection with Article XXIX shows the essential nature of his doctrine on the Holy Communion.
3. The essentially Protestant attitude of Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, and final Editor of the Articles and a collaborator with Parker is well known.
4. The addition on the Sacraments made to the Catechism in 1604 did not involve any difference of doctrine, because the very wording of the questions and answers can be traced to Nowell’s Little Catechism, a well-known Reformation document. [Dimock, Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, pp. 289–429; Nowell’s Catechism has been reprinted by Grove.]
5. In 1662 no change whatever was made in the Articles, and it is well known that the reinsertion with a change of wording of the Black Rubric did not involve any change of doctrine on the Holy Communion; indeed, the proposal emanated from the Puritan party. [Dimock, ut supra, pp. 465–476. See also Perry, English Church, History.]
These facts are sufficient to show that there is no difference whatever between the Prayer Book and the Articles on points of doctrine, though there is naturally an obvious difference between the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles when they are considered in relation to their character and purpose. Thus the Act of Uniformity expressly restricts the clergy to “the use of the Book of Common Prayer,” and this view is endorsed by the Act 23 of George II. And this use of the Prayer Book is based on the belief and affirmation that it does not contain anything “contrary to the Word of God”. But with reference to the Articles the case is decidedly different, for these were drawn up as a test of doctrinal soundness for the clergy, and naturally the law requires an acknowledgement that they are “agreeable to the Word of God” and a declaration of “unfeigned assent” to them, while the original Act declared against the maintenance of “any doctrine contrary to them”. Thus we see at once the natural difference between the assent required to the Book of Common Prayer and to the Articles. In the former case we are concerned with Formularies of devotion; in the latter with a standard of belief. But it would be impossible to regard Formularies of devotion as providing an exact standard of faith such as we have in the Articles, and so all that is required concerning the Prayer Book is a declaration of belief that there is nothing in the Book contrary to Holy Scripture, while in regard to the Articles a declaration is required which shows that they were intended to be the standard of faith and test of orthodoxy. Not only, therefore, is there no contradiction between the two, as seen by their history, but, further, the essential difference of character and purpose is seen by the very different requirements from the clergy with respect to them. The Prayer Book is rightly regarded as an incomparable book of devotion, and as such it is to be valued and used, but the Articles, and not the Prayer Book, are the Church’s confession of faith and the true test of essential Anglican doctrine on the matters included within their scope.
Relation of the Articles to Rome
That the Articles were not intended to be merely pacificatory, but also a plain statement of the Anglican position against the Church of Rome ought to be clear from the Articles themselves. In addition to the original declarations in the Forty-two Articles of 1553, we have seen that a further anti-Roman sharpening was given to them in 1563. But it will be worth while to call attention in detail to the reference to Rome contained in the Articles.
1. In Article XIX the Church of Rome is said to have erred not only in regard to Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
2. In Articles VI, XX, XXI, XXII, there is an appeal to Holy Scripture as the sole and supreme standard of truth.
3. In Article XIV there is a plain reference to the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Works of Supererogation”.
4. In Article XXII reference is made to the Romish doctrines of Purgatory, Indulgence, Veneration of Images and Relics, and Invocation of Saints.
5. Article XXIV teaches that public prayers are to be in the vernacular tongue.
6. Article XXV opposes the Roman Catholic view of the seven Sacraments and Processions of the Host.
7. Article XXVIII speaks definitely against Transubstantiation, Reservation, Elevation, Adoration of the Sacrament.
8. Article XXX refers to the Roman practice of withholding the cup from the laity.
9.Article XXXI speaks in the strongest terms against the “sacrifices of Masses” as derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ.
10. Article XXXII takes the opposite view of the Roman practice of the compulsory celibacy of the clergy.
11. Article XXXVI insists upon the validity of our Orders in opposition to Rome.
12. Article XXXV II states that the Bishop of Rome “hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”.
13. Article XV in speaking of Christ alone as without sin is in opposition to the Immaculate Conception and sinlessness of the Virgin Mary.
14. Article XXIX involves opposition to the Roman doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, in insisting that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Christ when they receive the elements.
Is it possible to avoid drawing the plain inference from all these statements that the Articles condemn in a very unmistakable way the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome?
It might have been thought that this would have been more than sufficient to indicate the mind of the Anglican Church, but, strange to say, several attempts have been made to explain away this very obvious anti-Roman position by saying that the Articles had no intention of denouncing Roman official doctrine, but only certain extreme tenets of certain men in the mediaeval Church of Rome. This means that when we read so often of Rome and “Romish” in the Articles we are to understand some extremists of the Middle Ages, though their very existence is quite mythical. The first of these attempts dates from the time of Charles I, when a Dominican monk, named Davenport, who wrote under the title of Franciscus ŕ Sancta Clara, endeavoured to prove that the Articles could be interpreted so as to avoid the condemnation of Rome. His book is a curious illustration of intellectual ingenuity. The next attempt was made in the celebrated Tract XC of Dr. Newman, who took similar ground, especially in Articles XXII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXXI. He seems to have been inspired by Davenport’s attempt, and endeavoured to distinguish between Roman and Catholic, urging that the Articles only denounced the former and not the latter. Such efforts justify the language of Archbishop Whately, who said: – “To bring the Articles to bear such a sense as what Mr. Newman thought Catholic tradition required, was a task of no little difficulty. Indeed, he set such an example of hairsplitting and wiredrawing – of shuffling equivocation and dishonest garbling of quotations – as made the English people thoroughly ashamed that any man calling himself an Englishman, a gentleman, and a clergyman, should insult their understandings and consciences with such mean sophistry.” [Cautions for the Times, p. 231.]
It is not surprising that the Tract led to its condemnation by the Heads of Houses at Oxford, for “Evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract.”
But in spite of Newman giving permission twenty years afterwards to republish the Tract, still later on in 1883 Newman came to see that his interpretation was impossible, and he frankly confessed it. [See on Article XXXI.] Since his day similar efforts have been made, but with little or no success in the light of the history of the sixteenth century which gave the Articles birth. [By writers like Bishop Forbes, Rev. Vernon Staley, Dr. B. J. Kidd, Dr. Darwell Stone, Rev. T. A. Lacey, Rev. F. W. Puller, Rev. E. Tyrrell Green, and to some extent Bishop Gibson. As an illustration, the words of Bishop Forbes may be mentioned, which speak of Article XXXVII as referring to the absence of Papal jurisdiction in the “Realm” not in the “Church” of England, as if this distinction between Church and Realm could stand in the light of the well-known circumstances of the sixteenth century. But it is significant that most of the points emphasized by Newman in Tract XC find no allusion in Gibson’s and Green’s works, though they do elsewhere.] The words of Prebendary Meyrick are assuredly true that “we have the Thirty-nine Articles to serve as a permanent breakwater against the inrush of Mediaevalism and Popery.” [A Protestant Dictionary, p. 44. The view of a scholar who is outside our Church may also be cited: “Against the abuses and the errors of Rome there is no weakening or wavering of the Anglican protest. With all their halting between two opinions, their want of theological originality, their intentional incompleteness, they have been a noble bulwark of Protestant conviction, and possess a simple dignity and Catholicity of their own. Against their measured testimony, spoken with the formula of Trent as clearly in view as those of Lutheranism and Calvinism, even the interpretative casuistry and antiquarian imagination of the Oxford Movement urged their forces in vain. Their intention, their spirit, and their language are unquestionably Protestant” (Curtis, History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, p. 182). The facts connected with the Council of Trent, adduced above, point in the same direction.]
The Character of the Articles
Objection is sometimes raised to the Articles because it is said they are “in no sense a Creed”. It is, of course, perfectly true that the Articles are not a Creed in the sense that the three Creeds mentioned in Article VIII are. But in view of the position of the English Church in relation to Rome, as expressed in the sixteenth century, the Articles have been set forth by our Church as a statement of Faith on the particular points with which they deal, and, as such, they are undoubtedly binding on clergy of the Church as expressive of Church of England doctrine. As already indicated, the various Reformed Churches in the sixteenth century were compelled to set out their own beliefs in opposition to Rome, and the Articles embodied the positive teaching of the Anglican Church on a number of vital and important points. A careful consideration of the statements of the Articles in connection with such subjects as the Nature of God, the Person and Work of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection, the Nature of Sin, the Truth of Justification, the Necessity and Power of Good Works, and other similar doctrines, will show beyond all question what the Church of England holds and teaches on these fundamental questions, and it is impossible to charge the Articles with any vagueness or hesitation on these topics. Then, too, as it has been well pointed out, the Articles are studiously careful, balanced, and moderate in regard to many matters about which there have been differences of opinion among Christian people. If the language of the Articles on such subjects as Predestination, the Church, and the Ministry be examined it will be seen how cautious and wise are the statements, while rightly requiring for its own members certain general lines of truth. Further, it is impossible to overlook the remarkable balance and clearness in regard to the Sacraments. While insisting upon their Divine authority, the greatest possible care is taken to insist upon their value as means of grace, and at the same time the impossibility of regarding them as channels of blessing apart from definite faith in the promises of God. Nothing could be more definite than the teaching of the Articles concerning what is often called sacramental grace, that is, grace received in the due Scriptural use of these Divine ordinances. [Prebendary Meyrick in the Protestant Dictionary, p. 42; and Bishop J. C. Ryle’s Knots Untied, p. 63 ff.] From all this it is quite clear that the Articles are characterized by features that make them an admirable compendium of doctrine on the particular subjects treated.
The Permanent Value of the Articles
[Literature. – Curtis, History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, Chs. XXIII, XXIV (very important); Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, last chapter.]
The question is often raised whether Creeds and Confessions should be permitted to exist any longer, whether they have not had their day and ceased to be of service; whether, indeed, they are not hindrances to intellectual progress and checks on spiritual liberty. But it may be questioned whether this view possesses anything of real value to warrant it. The testimony derivable from Communions without Creeds and Confessions is not encouraging. [“The religious bodies which proclaim their freedom from dogma have not been overwhelmed by applications for admission to their membership” (Curtis, ut supra, p. 429).] That a Church should know where it stands and that its teachers should have a clear idea of what they are to teach seem pretty evident propositions. Assuming, as we must, a settled, clear, and definite faith in God and truth, is it not natural to express it? Belief in God, in Christ, in the Holy Spirit – what is this but a Creed? Not only so, but it involves, however inchoately, an interpretation. Thought is inevitable and expression of thought equally so. Could anything be more dogmatic than modern science and modern rationalism? Even the agnostic must have a Creed. “No rational being can be Creedless,” says Flint, and Herbert Spencer’s words are well worth quoting again: – “Religious creeds, which in one way or other occupy the sphere that rational interpretation seeks to occupy and fails, and fails the more the more it seeks, I have come to regard with a sympathy based on community of need: feeling that dissent from them results from inability to accept the solutions offered, joined with the wish that solutions could be found.” [Autobiography. See Curtis, ut supra, p. 430.]
Creeds and Confessions can be shown to have had a necessary place in the circumstances of the times in which they arose, and they bear testimony to the reality, force, and persistence of Christian truth and life. [“It is in truth unthinkable that the vast aggregate of doctrinal symbols, evolved by the Church in all lands during nineteen centuries of intense activity, should have proceeded from any but a profoundly natural and honourable instinct in the soul of faith” (Curtis, ut supra, p. 432).]
But it is, of course, essential that Creeds and Confessions should be continually made subject to the light of Scripture interpreted by growing Christian experience. John Robinson’s words are true that “The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His Holy Word,” and there is no reason why the Church should not revise her Formularies and adapt them to new needs. They are confessedly subordinate to Scripture, the supreme Rule of Faith, and fuller knowledge of the latter will naturally result in newer expressions of the former. The boast of semper eadem is a confession of spiritual sterility and stationariness. It may doubtless be wise and necessary to revise rarely and cautiously, but the principle of revision must be granted by all who know the genius of Christianity. As Creeds are based on Scripture, it is only natural that extension of the knowledge of the Bible should influence confessional expressions. The position that Creeds are sacrosanct and exempt from criticism is impossible, though at the same time the fact that Creeds come to us with the weight of authority will naturally make us pause long before either summarily rejecting or submitting them to serious modification. The problem on every side is difficult, but it exists and has to be faced. [“How to change without loss of continuity, how to grow without loss of identity, bow to be free in doctrine while clinging to a sacred past, how to meet the protean spirit of the times without bowing down to it, yet without alienating its rightful instincts and flouting its proper needs – these are the practical difficulties to the mind of a Church which would be true to the past, honest with the present, and helpful to the future” (Curtis, ut supra, p. 441).] We, therefore, rejoice and glory in a Creed and Confession as a guide, standard, and protection of the truth, while we claim a perfect right to revise its statements whenever necessary for spiritual light, life, and progress. [“Theology is a living science. The immense progress made in other departments of thought in the nineteenth century could not fail to show itself also in Theology. Biblical Criticism and Natural Science have thrown new light upon the problems of Theology. Men think in new categories, and it is inevitable that the definitions and propositions of the sixteenth century should be inadequate to express the best theological thought of our own day. But it is one thing to recognize the need for restatement and quite another to put forth any restatement which would command universal assent. This may be possible some day. When that day comes, let the task be taken in hand in humble dependence upon the guidance of the Spirit of God” (J. B. Harford, Article, “Articles of Religion,” The Prayer Book Dictionary, p. 52).]
Ethics of Subscriptions
[Literature. – Curtis, ut supra, Ch. XXV.]
The question of subscription to Creeds and Articles is fraught with great and grave difficulties, and it was the consciousness of this that led to the endeavour made in 1865 to loosen the bonds and provide relief in a general rather than a detailed endorsement. What, then, are we to understand by assent to our Formularies? Let us state it in the words of a modern writer: – “Assent to a historic Creed or Group of Articles, under whatever formula, involves a reference, not merely to what is fondly termed the plain meaning of its sentences, but also to its historical meaning, purpose, background, and spirit.” [Curtis, ut supra, p. 455.]
When this view is taken there need be no insuperable difficulty in arriving at the mind of the Church. The same view may be presented in the words of a Churchman: – “A careful study of the Articles and the Prayer Book reveals the fact that Anglican Theology moves along certain definite and distinctive lines (see especially Articles VI, XI, XIX, XX, XXIII, XXV, XXIX, XXXI, XXXVI). These lines of doctrine distinguish it from Romanism on the one hand and from the extreme forms of Protestantism on the other. Subscription to the Articles should imply loyalty to these distinctive principles. It is not compatible with adherence to those opposing principles and practices which are distinctive of Rome on the one hand or of Anabaptism on the other. But within its own lines there is scope for a genuine evolution of Anglican Theology in the light of present day knowledge.” [J. B. Harford, ut supra, p. 52.]
In the Gorham Judgment of 1850 the Court said that: – “In all cases in which the Thirty-nine Articles, considered as a test, admit of different interpretations, it must be held that any sense of which the words fairly admit may be allowed, if that sense be not contradictory to something which the Church has elsewhere allowed or required.”
Two recent incidents help to illustrate this. In October 1913, Bishop Gore wrote to The Times protesting against a statement of the President of the Baptist Union, in which the latter referred to the differences in the Church of England in spite of the fact that Churchmen used the same Prayer Book “and have signed the same Articles”. The Bishop thereupon called attention to the fact that, as in 1865 the form of subscription was changed, it is now impossible to say that the clergy “sign the Articles”. What they now do is to give a general assent to the doctrine contained in the three Formularies of the Articles, Prayer Book, and Ordinal. So that according to Bishop Gore it is impossible to describe this as “signing the Articles”. On this, the then Bishop of Manchester, Dr. Knox, wrote, calling attention to the exact wording of the declaration made by ordinands and clergy about to be licensed or beneficed. The declaration refers not to doctrine in general, but to “the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth.” Dr. Knox held that this distinction is important, because otherwise it might easily permit of some signing the declaration while holding ex animo all the doctrines of the Church of Rome, which doctrines they believe to be contained within the Anglican Formularies. Dr. Knox then added: – “The very solemn questions put to ordinands imply that this Church and Realm has received and holds its own doctrine, and sacraments, and discipline, the said doctrine being ‘set forth,’ that is, honestly and definitely expounded in the Prayer Book and Articles. It is to this doctrine that assent is required, not to any form of doctrine loosely ‘contained’ in those Formularies twisted to suit each man’s taste as to what he chooses to believe.”
All this illustrates and confirms the principle set forth above that assent involves a historical spirit. Bishops Knox and Henson are correct in emphasizing the essential and characteristic features of Church of England doctrine as that to which the clergy are pledged, and as to the meaning of this there is no reasonable doubt. Whatever may have been the intention of those responsible for the change in 1865 as to the relaxation of subscription, it may be still questioned what precisely it does mean. The assertion that the doctrine is “agreeable to the Word of God” seems to leave the position practically very much as it was before. The doctrine of the Church of England can only be found in its Formularies, and these are fundamentally the same as they were three centuries ago, and on the general subject it is impossible not to agree with the opinion that those who are called upon to preach the doctrines of the Church should be ready to proclaim them positively and heartily. [“In an irreligious and latitudinarian age, an opinion was started that the Articles were only Articles of peace, that is, that those who signed them only engaged not to contradict their assertions. This appears to me to be no better than a transparent fallacy by which persons, whose worldly interest as tutors or incumbents, required their conformity to this standard of doctrine, endeavoured to pacify their consciences. Such when they preach must at best be silent on tenets, on which they dissent from the judgment of the Church to which they profess to adhere; but what society would be satisfied with neutrality? Surely Churchmen have a right to demand, that the doctrines of their Church should not merely be not opposed, but that they should be explained and enforced” (Macbride, Lectures on the Articles, p. 36 f.).] Nor does the Act of 1865 fundamentally alter the truth of our Church historian when he says: – “Subscription to the Articles has been exacted with the hope of securing uniformity of doctrine in those churchmen who deliberately assume the office of public teachers. It accordingly involves their own appropriation of the Articles as the exponent of their individual opinions – so far, at least, as such opinions bear on subjects which have been determined by authority in that code of doctrine; and, while pledging every clergyman to full and positive faith, subscription is the act by which he also formally renounces errors and corruptions which are there repudiated or proscribed.” [Hardwick, ut supra, p. 222. See also Article, “Subscription to Articles,” Protestant Dictionary, p. 716 f.; The Declaration of Assent, by the late Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Gibson).]
Creeds in the past have been either normative or apologetic. Apologetic Creeds will be needed to the end of time in order that Christianity may be stated in terms of current thought. Normative Creeds are mainly for the use of teachers, describing the limits in which they may and should move, and if they are regarded as landmarks, not as goals, they will always be useful, if not essential. One concluding caution may be given: – “If the Creeds represent Catholic Doctrine, the Catechism contains elementary and the Articles more advanced Anglican Doctrine, and with these last may be grouped the incidental statements in the Prayer Book. It would be well if preachers and teachers avoided such expressions as ‘The Church,’ or ‘The whole Church teaches ...’ when enunciating Doctrine not covered by these. What they affirm may be some truth contained in Scripture, or taught by the Primitive Church, but which has not found place in our Formularies; but it may be some doubtful interpretation, or later tradition. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to cite the Mediaeval Church, or St. Thomas Aquinas, on points of Doctrine, but it is not legitimate to give forth dicta carrying no higher authority as if they had the endorsement of the whole Catholic Church, or the ratification of our own branch of it. Much prejudice against ‘Church teaching’ would be avoided if those who speak for the Church would with more uniform care distinguish: (a) what all Christians agree to find in the New Testament; (b) what the Catholic Church has enshrined in her Creeds; (c) those elementary truths which have always been taught, and underlie the common worship, rites, and sacraments of the Church; (d) that wider range of truth which the English Church has soberly and with restraint defined in her Articles and incidentally in the Prayer Book; (e) such further truths drawn from Scripture as are agreeable to the foregoing; (f) such alleged truths as at least appear to be at variance with Catholic or Anglican formularies, though a court of law would not necessarily regard them as excluded; (g) Doctrines admitted to contravene both the letter and spirit of the formularies.” [G. Harford, Article, “Doctrine,” The Prayer Book Dictionary, p. 290.]
Article I – The Personality of God
One of the most important questions, perhaps the most important, in modern theology is the Divine Personality, and that God is personal is, as already seen, the only possible position for theists. Modern investigation into the meaning of Personality should help in understanding and stating the theistic position more accurately and effectively. One line of thought tends to show that the old idea of isolation in personality is not correct, but that, on the contrary, personality can only be fully realized in association with other personalities. If this is correct, if human personality involves and implies fellowship, then it must be as true of the highest personality as of the lowest, and therefore of God as well as of man. How this may be can be studied in some valuable material now available. As an introduction an article should be read which appeared in the London Quarterly Review for April 1911 (Vol. I, Fifth Series, p. 280), entitled, “The Personality of God,” by the Rev. A. T. Burbridge. In addition to the works referred to in this article reference should be made to the article on “The Trinity,” by the Archbishop of Armagh in Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. See also The Philosophy of Religion, by Dr. Galloway. The subject may also be studied in the author’s The Holy Spirit of God (chap. xviii).
Article II.—The Fatherhood of God
The question of the Atonement raises the problem of the relation of our Lord’s sacrifice to the biblical doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. How are the two to be reconciled? Is there not something incongruous in the thought of the attitude of fatherhood and that of a propitiatory sacrifice? The solution of the problem will be found in a careful consideration of the true doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood.
I – The Bible Teaching on the Divine Fatherhood
The terms Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man are used freely in the present time, but often without due thought and care. It is, therefore, well to ask ourselves how far they contain truth and wherein they suggest what is untrue. The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God is not a truth of natural religion. We see the Divine power, providence, and glory in nature, but not Fatherhood. While love, goodness, truth, and providence are necessarily elements of Fatherhood, they do not belong solely thereto. For this reason men could hardly have imagined the Fatherhood of God, and as a fact they never did do so, for universal Fatherhood necessarily implies universal brotherhood, and such an idea was utterly alien from ancient thought.
In the Old Testament the Divine Fatherhood is found in connection with Israel only, and although it is seen quite clearly there, it is involved in and limited to the Divine covenant with the Hebrews (Exod. 4:22 f., Deut. 14:1, Psa. 89:26). The reference in Psa. 103:13 is to similarity alone and not to relationship, and even so it is associated with pity and fear, not with love and fellowship. A nearer approach to the doctrine of universal Fatherhood may be seen in such passages as Isa. 63:16 and 64:8, but even there the thought is associated with the Divine Creatorship.
When we turn to the New Testament the doctrine of a Divine Fatherhood is absolutely clear. “The doctrine of the New Testament assumed such different proportions as almost to amount to a new revelation.” [Sanday, Article, “God,” Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, p. 208.] No longer is God regarded merely as calling forth awe and majesty, but also, and chiefly, is revealed in His nearness, fellowship, and love. God is seen to love man as a perfect Father loves His children (Rom. 8:15, 16; 1 John 3:1).
II – The Meaning of the Divine Fatherhood
It can only be understood properly in the light of human relationship, for to us all other senses than this must be derivative and metaphorical. It is true that the Divine Fatherhood is not exactly the same as human, and yet the applications of the Divine must be so related to the human as to give a true conception of God. Now the essence of Fatherhood is its relation to sonship, and vice versa. They are correlatives, and it is only in this mutual relationship that the terms have any intelligibility. This necessary relationship is always asserted in the New Testament in the various uses of the term “Father,” and it is true universally, whatever may be the precise meaning of Fatherhood and sonship. If, for example, we speak of God’s universal Fatherhood in creation, we at once think of its correlative in the universal sonship of humanity by creation. If we think of God’s spiritual Fatherhood as potential we at once conceive of spiritual sonship as potential. And if we refer to the actual spiritual Fatherhood of God to believers we at once associate with this the actual sonship of believers. Thus there is a strict parallelism between Fatherhood and sonship at all points and in every sense. The idea that God is the Father of all men but that all are not sons is unthinkable.
There are three uses of Fatherhood in the New Testament. (a) God is described as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This relationship between God the Father and God the Son is unique and exclusive, for in this Sonship no creature has a part. No one is “Son” as Christ is, and for this reason He never associates us with Himself by speaking of “Our Father”. He always distinguishes between His Sonship and ourselves, as when He speaks of the Father of Me and the Father of you (John 20:17). (b) God is also spoken of as the Father of the regenerate in Christ. All who believe in Christ as Saviour and Lord have the right to say, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” for their sonship is inseparable from the love wherewith the Father loves Christ (John 1:12, Rom. 8:15, Gal. 3:26). (c) He may be called the Father of man in general by reason of universal creation and benevolence. This must be the meaning of St. Paul’s teaching at Athens, “Made of one [blood]; we are also His offspring” (Acts 17:26, 28). In the first of these three instances the love of the Father for the Son is ineffable and infinite. In the second the love of God is peculiar to the saints as “in Christ”. In the third the love of God extends to all mankind, “God so loved the world.”
There is no real difference as to the first and second of these instances; only as to the third, and yet even here the difference is not so much as to Fatherhood as to sonship. The question is whether all are sons in the same sense as God is Father. If this is so, are we to understand the sonship literally or figuratively? In a word, is it possible to think of Fatherhood without sonship? Now, to be sons there must be some resemblance to the father, and this can only be physical, or mental, or moral. Children are not created such, for creation by itself is not necessarily paternity. A creator is not a father simply because he has created, and in Scripture the sonship of creation is associated with the term “God,” not with “Father”. This may be seen in regard to angels (Job 38:7), and to Adam (Luke 3:38).
It follows, therefore, that the true bond between son and father must be ethical, and since there is no such ethical bond between all men and God, the inevitable result is that sonship can only be a capacity or a possibility. Yet capacity is not sonship. The fundamental element is the experienced relation of children to a Heavenly Father. This is the truth which Jesus Christ lived, and it is only those who live in a similar manner as the children of the Father in heaven in whom this foundation is laid. This Christian character does not depend merely on the belief of the doctrine that God is the Father of us, but on the loving acceptance of that truth as the practical and controlling principle of our lives.
III – The New Testament Revelation of the Divine Fatherhood
When we study the teaching of the New Testament on the Divine Fatherhood we must look first at the Gospels and then at the Epistles.
Omitting all references to Christ, there are only a few places in the Gospels where the term “The Father” is not limited to our Lord. Thus, in John 4:21–23, it may be questioned whether the reference is to all men or to worshippers alone. For this reason we must decide by general New Testament usage. A careful consideration of the Sermon on the Mount will show that the application is to a specific body, the disciples, and not to all men (Matt. 5:1), and it may be said without question that in the Gospels there is no unequivocal statement of Universal Fatherhood. When we turn to the Epistles the nearest approach to Universal Fatherhood is found in Eph. 3:14, 15; 4:6; Heb. 12:9. In the former two passages the context seems to indicate a reference clearly to the spiritual relationship of believers, while in the latter the antithesis between human and Divine Fatherhood is clear. In any case, it is noteworthy that the clearest teaching on this subject is found in St. Paul, not in Christ. It must surely be regarded as strange that our Lord’s teaching is not clear on a point on which so many modern writers lay stress.
Similarly, in regard to sonship we must study both Gospels and Epistles. The Sermon on the Mount is quite clear about the necessity of ethical faithfulness in order to Divine sonship (Matt. 5:9, 45), while the teaching of the Fourth Gospel points beyond all question to a limited sonship (John 1:12). The only reference to universal sonship in the Gospels is found in connection with Adam (Luke 3:38), and even this is associated with “God” not “Father”. Outside the Gospels the nearest approach to universal sonship is found in the words of St. Paul in Acts 17:28, 29, but even here it is significant that the terms refer to kinship rather than to childhood, and to God not to the Father. Bishop Westcott remarks that “there is as far as it appears no case where a fellowman, as man, is called a brother in the New Testament.” [The Epistles of St. John, p. 55.] Thus what is understood as the brotherhood of humanity is not a New Testament idea, which is only concerned with a spiritual brotherhood in Christ.
The parable of the Prodigal Son is sometimes urged in support of the doctrine of universal Divine Fatherhood, and, indeed, it may be said to be almost the only warrant for it. It may be questioned, however, whether Christ was likely to contradict in the parable the rest of His clear teaching. Should not the teaching interpret the parable, not the parable the teaching? The parable is one of three indicative of God’s attitude to men, or, rather, of Christ’s vindication of Himself in opposition to the murmurings of the Pharisees (Luke 15:1, 2). The three parables must be taken together if they are to be properly understood, but we do not think of God as a real shepherd in the first parable, or a real woman in the second. Indeed, the same lesson would have been taught in the third parable if the relationship of man and wife had been given. Then, too, the literalness defeats itself, for if the prodigal represents all men, who are to be understood by the elder brother and the citizens? The fact is that the parable turns on one point only, the attitude and action of Christ’s pity and grace, and the omissions prove nothing, since there are other fundamental doctrines equally lacking, like Propitiation, Resurrection, the Holy Spirit, and the New Life. And thus, while the parable is evidently appropriate for its purpose, it is only a figure of speech and cannot be fairly used as the foundation of a metaphysical relation of God to man. To deduce a dogma from a figure of speech is perilous, for it is clear that the parable was not intended as a complete account of the principles and method of reconciliation. Thus the Father was not seeking the son, but only waiting for him, and the son, although a son by creation, had to repent and return as a lost sinner. His natural sonship did not suffice without these. If Christ intended Himself in all three by the figures of the Shepherd, the Woman, and the Father, the Fatherhood of God is entirely out of the question. But, on the other hand, if God the Father is intended, then there is no mention of Christ at all. Thus the argument is precarious, and it is quite impossible to infer that what is omitted is needless and what is inserted is complete.
It is, therefore, plain that while we may regard God as in one sense the Father of all men (by creation), in another and eternally vital sense we cannot, because His complete Fatherhood is only possible through Jesus Christ. The entrance of sin into the world severed the spiritual relationship between God and men as Father and children, and this fact is not usually taken into account by those who think of God as equally the Father of all. It is impossible to overlook our Lord’s teaching about those who are “the children of the devil” (John 8:41–44), thereby indicating a very definite limitation of Fatherhood. Besides, Fatherhood is not the sole idea of Godhead, as a careful consideration of the Bible as a whole clearly teaches. The judicial and kingly aspects must find their place, and, as already seen, Fatherhood and sonship are strictly correlative in every sense, for a Fatherhood without a sonship is unintelligible. It is also significant that Fatherhood in the New Testament is associated with holiness and fear (1 Pet. 1:17), and the only epithets ever used by our Lord in speaking of the Father were “holy” and “righteous” (John 17:11, 25). It is only possible to teach the universal Fatherhood of God by ignoring or rejecting the redemption of Christ, for men know the Father only through the work of the Son. “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” “If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also.” Universal Fatherhood and sonship tend to cut the cord of evangelistic work and make redemptive effort perilous. It suggests that there is no need of Atonement, for it tends to dispense with it, regarding sin as a trifle and God as good-natured and sentimental.
It is, therefore, essential to state that creation does not constitute men sons in the spiritual sense, for New Testament sonship is based on redemption and regeneration, while the doctrine of universal sonship rests either on a denial of the Fall, or on the assumption of universal regeneration, both of which are unwarranted by Scripture and experience. If the universal Fatherhood of God and the universal sonship of man are assumed, how is it that there is not a single clear instance of either truth in the New Testament? Surely the truth of our adoption clearly shows that there is some state from which, and another state into which, men are taken. The very fact of “adoption” both socially and spiritually argues against the idea of an universal Fatherhood. By limiting the Fatherhood of God we secure its full meaning and value, for there is no solace or inspiration in telling a sinner that he is a child of God unless we mean that he is potentially one, and needs redemption and regeneration in order to become one in actual fact. Thus the Fatherhood of God has a place in the lives of those who have accepted Him in Christ, which it cannot possibly have in the life of humanity in general, and what is known as the “Brotherhood of Man” is in reality only a physical relationship, for men are brothers in spirit only when Christ is their life and God is their spiritual Father. When these truths are understood we see at once the true relationship and spiritual bearing of the Atonement of Christ on the New Testament doctrine of the Fatherhood of God.
Article VI – Bible Difficulties
This question often affects our view of the authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture, and while it is impossible to deal with the subject in detail in the present work a few general suggestions may be offered. When once we have become convinced on adequate evidence that the Bible is the Word of God, every difficulty found should be judged in the light of this antecedent conviction. In particular, the question should be considered whether difficulties are not inherent in the very fact of revelation. If the New Testament is the historic record of contemporary writers who were competent to testify to facts which they knew, their evidence ought to have full weight, as assuring us of the truth of the facts, and, as it has often been pointed out, since there was no secrecy, but full publicity by the circulation of these records among people who knew the facts, the Christians of the first century are really witnesses who corroborate the truth of the New Testament, a testimony often sealed by persecution and even death.
The supreme question for ordinary life is whether the Bible is trustworthy, for if so, the facts must be true, and if the historic proof is regarded as adequate, then no subsequent considerations ought to be allowed to counterbalance that proof, since no antecedent probability or improbability can affect this in the face of the evidence, so that the true position to be adopted is that difficulties are to be judged in the light of the evidence, and, as a great textual critic, Tregelles, says, “No difficulty connected with a proved fact can invalidate the fact itself.” It is well known that if a scientist finds certain phenomena in nature involving variation from a great general law, he does not thereupon abandon his general conclusion. Nor does a theist give up belief in a Creator because of the difficulties he observes in creation and nature. Since there are difficulties in nature and providence, and since revelation is presumably from the same source there may be difficulties there also. This is the great and convincing principle of Butler’s Analogy. If the difficulties are not such as would invalidate the truthfulness of other writers they should have no more weight than in those cases. Further, the question continually arises whether the discrepancies are real or apparent, whether there is absolutely no explanation, or whether we only are unable to solve the problem. The words of Dean Farrar are noteworthy: “The widest learning and the acutest ingenuity of skepticism have never pointed to one complete and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the Old or New Testament.” [Article, “Inspiration,” Cassell’s Biblical Educator, Vol. I, p. 207.]
Thus it is correct to say that a Bible without difficulties would be itself the greatest difficulty of all, for such a work, presenting no problems and creating no perplexities, would impose a great strain on faith and really provide a weapon for skepticism. The difficulties of the Bible are usually divided into three classes: alleged discrepancies (a) with science; (b) with history; and (c) with ethics. In regard to the first, it will often be found that the discrepancy lies between some interpretation of Scripture and some theory of science, either or both of which may be incorrect, for the general harmony between the Bible and Science is as true as it is remarkable. The question of historical difficulties may be tested at many points in connection with Archaeology, and both in regard to the Old and the New Testament, researches during the last fifty years have done much to confirm the truth of the statements of Scripture. The works of one writer, Sir William Ramsay, will suffice to indicate the truth of this contention. The ethical difficulties are chiefly concerned with the Old Testament and are largely due to the failure to recognize the progress of the revelation therein embodied.
Almost every difficulty can be solved by the consideration of the manifest advance of the Old Testament from the elementary to the complex, from the imperfect to the more perfect. Further considerations on this last point will be found in the author’s Methods of Bible Study. It may also fairly be said that we are not called upon to answer every conceivable objection. It ought to be sufficient to prove the truth of Christianity, and this is very different from meeting all possible difficulties.
Article IX – Infant Salvation
It is unfortunate that the problem of sinfulness has been closely and almost solely connected with children instead of adults. This complicates the situation when the question of guilt is considered. Most theories turn on this point, but it is unwise to shift the emphasis from adults to children, of whom the Bible says so little. Like Baptism, sinfulness should be considered first in the adult, as referring to the normal condition, and only afterwards in children, as to whom the question of personal guilt in the common sense of the term cannot apply. The difficulty lies in the fact that children are sinners, involved in the sin of the race through the headship of Adam, while they are personally guiltless until they in conscious and willful transgression make themselves personally responsible and liable.
The question of Infant Salvation has, therefore, naturally been prominent in discussions since the time of Augustine. To Augustine, infants dying after Baptism were saved, but if dying unbaptized they were lost, though incurring only the lighter punishment. [“This is the dark side of his soteriology. But it should be remembered that it was not his theology of grace, but the universal and traditional belief in the necessity of baptism for remission of sins, which he inherited in common with all of his time, that forced it upon him. The theology of grace was destined in the hands of his successors, who have rejoiced to confess that they were taught by him, to remove this stumbling block also from Christian teaching; and if not to Augustine, it is to Augustine’s theology that the Christian world owes its liberation from so terrible a tenet” (Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine, p. 137).] The explanation of this view is that Augustine is occupied with two lines of thought which he never reconciled: his doctrine of Grace and his doctrine of the Church. [“Augustine’s doctrine of the means of grace, i.e. of the channels and circumstances of the conference of grace upon men, is the meeting point of two very dissimilar streams of thought – his doctrine of grace and his doctrine of the Church. Profound thinker as he was, within whose active mind was born an incredible multitude of the richest conceptions, he was not primarily a systematizer, and these divergent streams of thought rather conditioned each the purity of the other’s development at this point than were thoroughly harmonized” (Warfield, ut supra, p. 135).] One of these lines issued in the Reformation doctrine of Grace and the other found its development in the Roman Catholic theology of the Church. [“Despite the strong churchly element within the theology of Augustine, the development of which has produced the ecclesiasticism of Romish thought, it must be admitted that, on the side that is presented in the controversy against Pelagianism, it is in its essence distinctly anti-ecclesiastical. Its central thought was the immediate dependence of the individual on the grace of God in Jesus Christ” (Warfield, ut supra, p. 138).]
To the earliest of the Fathers salvation was by grace, and this included infants, but later the doctrine of grace became obscure, and the death of infants was regarded as an insoluble problem. As the Church and Kingdom tended to become identified in one visible organization, the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation was more and more emphasized, and thus infants who were not baptized could not be saved. [Warfield, ut supra, p. 148.] It was this view of the Church that Augustine inherited, and it led to his doctrine that no infant dying unbaptized could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Pelagianism, with its denial of original sin and of punishment, nevertheless held that infants were outside the Kingdom of God, though obtaining eternal life. But the fundamental idea up to the time of Augustine was that as saving grace could only come through baptism no unbaptized infant could be saved.
In the Middle Ages an endeavour was made to soften this severe doctrine under the influence of Semi-Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century Roman Catholic writers advocated several opinions, though the general Roman Catholic view is that of the Council of Trent, which made Baptism necessary to salvation without any qualification. [“The Council of Trent thus made it renewed de fide that infants dying unbaptized incur damnation, though it left the way open for discussion as to the kind and amount of their punishment” (Warfield, ut supra, p. 155).] This may be regarded as the usual Roman Catholic position today, though efforts have been made from time to time to mitigate it by the doctrine of Baptism by intention.
Luther’s view was naturally affected by the general doctrine of grace and of the Church associated with the Reformation. [“Men are not constituted members of Christ through the Church, but members of the Church through Christ: they are not made the members of Christ by baptism which the Church gives, but by faith, the gift of God; and baptism is the Church’s recognition of this inner fact” (Warfield, ut supra, p. 166).] But this was connected with a doctrine of Baptism which emphasized its necessity for salvation, apart, of course, from special cases. Luther also emphasized a Baptism of intention. Yet Lutheran theologians have from the first differed considerably, and the idea suggested seems to be that of an unwillingness to speak definitely on the subject, [“This cautious agnostic position has the best right to be called the historical Lutheran attitude on the subject. It is even the highest position thoroughly consistent with the genius of the Lutheran system and the stress which it lays on the means of grace. The drift in more modern times has, however, been decidedly in the direction of affirming the salvation of all that die in infancy, on grounds identical with those pleaded by this party from the beginning – the infinite mercy of God, the universality of the atonement, the inability of infants to resist grace, their guiltlessness of despising the ordinance, and the like” (Warfield, ut supra, p. 172).] though without doing more than entertain a hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.
The Anglican position needs careful attention because of the stages of growth among those who had to deal with the subject. In 1536 the Ten Articles explicitly taught that only baptized infants could be saved. “Infants and children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not.” [For the full text see Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion, p. 242.]
This statement about the loss of all unbaptized infants is also found in what is known as the “Bishops’ Book” of 1537. But in the “King’s Book” of 1543 the final words, “and else not” are omitted. In the First Prayer Book of 1549, among the rubrics which precede the Order of Confirmation is the following: – “And that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation: he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God’s Word, that children being baptized (if they depart out of this life in their infancy) are undoubtedly saved.”
In the Second Prayer Book of 1552 there was an alteration so as to make the latter portion read – “That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.”
No further alteration was made in the Prayer Book of 1559, but in the Prayer Book of 1662 the rubric was transferred to the end of the Order for the Public Baptism of Infants in the following form, which exists today: – “It is certain by God’s Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.”
It is noteworthy that the statement is not found in the Prayer Book used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. There does not seem to be any reason for supposing that the transference of the rubric from the Confirmation Service to that of Baptism in 1662 was intended to be reactionary. In the Reformatio Legum reference was made to the “scrupulous superstition” of the Roman Church in regard to the fate of infants dying unbaptized. [“Illorum etiam impia videri debet scrupulosa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacramentorum elementis colligant, ut plane affirment, nullum Christianorum infantem aeternam salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit occupatus, quam ad Baptismum adduci potuerit; quod longe secus habere judicamus” (Reformatio Legum, De Baptismo).] It is interesting and significant that this code of laws was, as we have seen, drawn up by a Commission presided over by Cranmer. In view of the Reformation doctrine that Baptism introduced the subject to a new sphere, it was natural to refer to infants as within that sphere, and it is never to be forgotten that extreme Reformers and the earliest Puritans raised no objection to the Prayer Book doctrine of regeneration, since, as already seen, it referred to the introduction into a new state or condition, not to the bestowal of a germ of life or a moral renovation in the modern sense. It should be noted that in the revision of 1552 the opening prayer in the Baptismal Office was brought practically into its present form, with the omission of the words, “And so save from perishing,” and also a recasting of the entire tendency of the prayer. It is, therefore, not accurate to say that the Church of England expresses no hope for the salvation of infants who die unbaptized. It means that our formularies are limited to the simple statement about those who have presumably been brought within the covenant. The Reformatio Legum was issued by Archbishop Parker in 1571, and Becon, one of Cranmer’s Chaplains, wrote very definitely and repeatedly on the subject of infant salvation in harmony with the statement of the Reformatio Legum. There seems to be no proof whatever that Cranmer ever changed his opinion.
The “Reformed” (or Swiss) view of this question was based on the general doctrine of Divine grace, and was not limited by any idea of means of grace: – “It is probable that Zwingli stood alone among the Reformers in his extension of salvation to all infants dying in infancy.” [Warfield, ut supra, p. 199.]
But the question was involved in the doctrine of election and varied with different classes of Reformers. A few held Zwingli’s view that death in infancy was one of the marks of election, and it is thought that Bishop Hooper was one of the earliest to adopt this position. At the very opposite extreme some few theologians, holding that the only sure mark of election was faith, taught that there was no real ground of conviction concerning the fate of infants. This position was subsequently condemned at the Synod of Dort. A third section held that all believers and their children are certainly saved, though the children of unbelievers, dying such, are certainly lost. Yet again, many held that not only was the salvation of the children of believers certain, but there was good reason for holding that as election and reprobation have no place in the unknown sphere of children, some infants of unbelievers were saved and some lost. But most adherents of the Reformed Churches held that the matter must be entirely left to the judgment of God, which would be just and holy. This view is found in conjunction with both hope and the absence of hope. [This sketch of Reformed views is summarized from Warfield’s article, ut supra, pp. 203–211, to which this entire Note is deeply indebted.] From all this it will be seen that the Reformed Churches have adopted practically the same position as that of the Church of England, apart from the question of baptism.
“The Reformed Confessions with characteristic caution refrain from all definition upon the negative side of this great question, and thus confine themselves to emphasizing the gracious doctrine common to the whole body of Reformed thought.” [Warfield, ut supra, p. 213.]
It will be seen, however, that, as mentioned above, the doctrine of infant salvation was involved in the doctrine of election, and the Reformed Churches held that the children of believers dying in infancy were saved, while declining to pronounce on the subject of the children of unbelievers. Later theologians, representing the Reformed Churches, seem to be united in the view that all who die in infancy are the children of God, not because of the absence of original sin, or freedom from guilt, but simply because God has chosen them in Christ.
But it may be pointed out that this view does not really solve the problem, and the best foundation for believing in the salvation of all infants is pretty certainly to be seen in the universality of the Atonement of Christ. No question of election should be allowed to enter. Infants come into this world with the results of Adam’s sin in them, and they are involved in the inherent sin of the race through the headship of our first parents. Whatever may be the meaning of St. Paul’s word, “By the offence of one judgment was upon all men to condemnation,” infants are assuredly included, but, on the other hand, they go out of this world equally associated with the work of the last Adam, the Lord from heaven. So that we can say of infants, “By the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men to justification by Him.” We must not forget that infants come into a world of grace as well as of sin, and the two parallel lines can never be overlooked. While there is, of course, no definite declaration in regard to the salvation of infants dying in infancy, all that we can infer from Scripture supports the view that they are saved on the ground of the Atonement of Christ, and this because although they were born in sin they were not actual transgressors of the Divine law. [This important subject can be studied in the valuable article by Warfield, already mentioned, and also in The Buried Nations of the Infant Dead, by Pratt (published by The Pratt Co., Hackensack, New Jersey, U.S.A.).]
Article XIX – The Word “Catholic”
The Church of England, of course, distinguishes between particular Churches and the entire Church of Christ. The preface to the Prayer Book speaks of “the Church of England” and “the Catholick Church of Christ”. The title of the Book of Common Prayer is to the same effect, and in Article XIX reference is made to particular Churches. The Preface to the Ordinal also has this important distinction. It is, therefore, essential to understand what is meant by the term “Catholic,” as used in the Prayer Book.
Although the word is not found in Scripture, it is so familiar in phrases like “Catholic Church” and “Catholic Faith” that it calls for special notice, more particularly as it is often misunderstood. It comes from καθ’ ολος, “throughout the whole,” and its fundamental conception is universality; but this idea has been variously applied in the use of the word “Catholic Church”. The original idea was that of geographical diffusion. The meaning was simply that of universality as in the phrase, “Thy Holy Church universal”. It indicated that Christianity was a religion intended for universal diffusion, that all men were eligible for membership. This is the meaning of the word when first used by Ignatius at the beginning of the second century, “Where Jesus Christ may be, there is the Catholic Church.” [Bishop Lightfoot, Commentary on Ignatius (Epistle to Smyrna, Ch. VIII, Note); Swete, The Holy Catholic Church, pp. 33–41.] The word as thus used is essentially expressive of the supreme purpose of Christianity as a worldwide religion. The same idea is conveyed by the word when it appears next in the letter of the Church of Smyrna on the occasion of the martyrdom of Polycarp, addressed “To all the congregation of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place.” [Bishop Lightfoot, ut supra.]
This idea of universality was subsequently followed by the thought of doctrinal purity and completeness as a mark of Catholicity. By accurate and complete doctrine was understood that which most clearly adhered to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. This extension of the meaning of the word was directed probably against Judaism, and certainly against heresy. The rise of heresies and schisms seemed to demand this application of the word to describe those who held fast to the complete truth of New Testament Christianity. As Lightfoot points out, the original meaning of the word was “universal” as opposed to “particular,” and then later “orthodox” as opposed to “heretical”. “The truth was the same everywhere, the heresies were partial, scattered, localized, isolated.” We see this secondary meaning of the term as applied to doctrinal correctness and completeness in the phrase “the Catholic Faith”. [Swete, ut supra, p. 35.]
Still later came a third application of the term. Geographical explanation and doctrinal purity became expressed in Church unity and fellowship. At the outset fellowship was necessarily congregational; then it was widened to include associations of congregations in a town or district. Later came the idea of diocesan fellowship, and still later the fellowship connected with associations of dioceses called patriarchates. Last of all came the great divisions of Eastern and Western Christianity, each with its own view of Catholicity. The word “Catholic,” as Greek by derivation, naturally came into use first in the East, [Swete, ut supra, p. 38.] and did not appear in a Western Creed until nearly the end of the fifth century. Dr. Swete points out that the Church of Rome was long indifferent to the word, perhaps because she did not feel the need of support from the idea of Christian solidarity. There was a narrowness about its use by Rome, and it came to mean only those parts of Christendom that accepted the Roman supremacy. This was probably influenced by the idea of a State or Imperial Church as distinct from the sects which were not authorized by the Roman Government. In the East, Catholicity took the form of orthodox belief combined with the autonomy of certain Churches, while in the West it took the form of ecclesiastical unity in the Papacy. The Reformed Churches of the sixteenth century naturally adopted a position practically identical with that of Eastern Christendom in insisting upon the independence of particular Churches while preserving all the essentials of the Catholic Faith of Christendom. [Field, Of the Church, Vol. I, pp. 89, 90. See also, Life of Archbishop Benson, Vol. II. p. 624.]
These three associated ideas of geographical diffusion, doctrinal purity, and ecclesiastical fellowship are all illustrated in the Prayer Book by the phrases, “the Catholic Faith,” “the good estate of the Catholic Church,” “all who profess and call themselves Christians,” “all them that do confess Thy Holy Name,” “Thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Thy Son,” “the Holy Catholic Church”.
It will thus be seen that it involves a false antithesis to speak of Christians as either “Catholic” or “Protestant.” The word “Protestant” is not opposed to what is Catholic, but to what is distinctively Roman Catholic, that is, to the perversion of Catholic truth and departure from true Catholicity. The various Evangelical Reformed Churches, in accepting those fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith which are found in the New Testament, rightly claim the true title of “Catholic”; and it is noteworthy that in the Bidding Prayer these words occur, “Ye shall pray for Christ’s whole Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christ’s people dispersed throughout the world.” [Canons of 1604, No. 55.]
So that we now have the interesting and significant feature of Evangelical Churches all over the world today returning to the original idea of the word “Catholic” as expressed in Ignatius, “Where Jesus Christ may be, there is the Catholic Church.” [“For its theological content the locus classicus is the edict of the three Emperors – Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius, A.D. 380; ‘we will that those who embrace this (the Trinitarian) Creed be called Catholic Christians’; and in this sense the great Churches of the Reformation, the Church of England among them, are Catholic” (Review of Dr. Swete’s book, ut supra, Nation, 11th December 1915).] The word is, therefore, most appropriate as testifying to the worldwide extension of the Gospel in the purpose of God. As Christianity is intended for all men, so all Christians form the Catholic Church. The sole use of the term “Catholic” by any one body of Christians is obviously a contradiction in terms. The Church Catholic is the Church universal, not any one Church, however large or well known. In its Catholicity all differences and distinctions, whether of race or position or capacity, are unified and utilized in the one fellowship of the saints in Christ Jesus. [For a fuller description of the word and its bearing on several modern questions, reference may be made to the author’s Catholic Faith, pp. 340–360.]
Article XXII – Prayers for the Dead
It seems impossible to consider Purgatory without giving some attention to Prayers for the Dead. The statement is sometimes made that as the Article in its original draft contained condemnation of Prayers for the Dead, which was omitted before the Articles were published, “the Church of England deliberately abstained from seeming to express any condemnation of the practice of praying for the departed.” [Gibson. The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 538.] But whatever may have been the cause of the omission, it may be questioned whether this inference is warranted in view of the facts to be adduced. The subject was one of great prominence at the time of the Reformation, and it has obtained a good deal of attention in recent years. It is, therefore, a matter of real importance to discover what Holy Scripture and the Church of England teach on the subject.
I – The Meaning of Prayers for the Dead
Are they prayers for the unconverted dead? This is not the case in the Church of Rome. That Church holds as firmly as we do the finality of this life as an opportunity for accepting or rejecting Christ. Nor is it so, generally, in the case of Anglicans who pray for the dead. They, too, realize the force of the appeal to “now” and “today” as the accepted and only time of salvation. Prayer for the dead could be understood if we believed in another probation, in another opportunity after this life, but this is not the teaching of the Romish Church or of the majority of the extreme Anglicans. It should never be overlooked that prayer for the dead does not necessarily involve belief in Purgatory. Such prayer was offered ages before the doctrine of Purgatory arose, and is practiced today in the Greek Church, which rejects Purgatory as Roman. Prayer for the dead implies belief in benefit accruing in some way without any belief in mitigation of Purgatorial suffering.
The prayers must, therefore, be for the Christian dead. This is the meaning of the practice in the Roman Church, and in the case of those in the Anglican Church who adopt the custom. They both pray for the converted dead and say, “May they rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine on them.”
But why should we pray for the Christian dead? They are “with Christ” (Phil. 1:23) in conscious fellowship. They are “present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). They are “with Him in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). They are blessed, for “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord” (Rev. 14:13). The New Testament outlook concerning the blessed dead is one of joy, peace and expectation; we are to remember their past life, imitate their faith, and praise God for them. It seems to be unnecessary and even cruel to pray, “May they rest in peace,” for it reflects on their present peace, joy, and satisfaction in the immediate presence of Christ our Lord.
II – The Foundation of Prayers for the Dead
Prayer must be based on God’s Revelation. Prayer finds its warrant in promise. It is evident that prayer, if it is to be real and definite, must be based upon the Word of God as its warrant and encouragement. The Bible is accordingly full of teaching on prayer. There are examples of prayer, encouragements to prayer, models of prayer, and records of answers to prayer. The Bible is the embodiment of God’s revelation in Christ, and as such it is at once the foundation and guide of our prayers.
God’s revelation is thus the source and spring of our human response, and prayer is based on God’s promises as revealed in His Word. At the same time Holy Scripture is the safeguard and limitation of all prayer, for it is obvious that we cannot pray for everything that might conceivably come into our minds, but only for those things that are included in the revealed will of God. Thus, when our. Lord said, “Whatsoever Ye shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it you” (John 14:23), the “whatsoever” is limited by the phrase “in My Name,” which teaches us that it is only as we ask in union with God’s revealed will that we can really pray and be assured of answers. We can only pray definitely or satisfactorily in so far as we have the Divine warrant for praying. This practice must therefore be based, not on sentiment, but on Scripture. In a matter of this kind it ought to be clear that our desires are not a reliable guide. God, who is love, must understand our yearnings, and we may be sure He would not keep back anything profitable to us. And yet, as we shall see, there is not a single command or promise or example in Scripture. May we not argue fairly on this point from the silence of the Bible? As God has not revealed Himself in regard to this matter it is impossible to pray with assurance, because prayer must be based on Revelation.
Revelation is clearly for this life. God’s Word is almost silent as to the details of the future life, and absolutely silent as to any relation of prayer to that life. As to the unconverted, the present life is decisive and final in relation to opportunity; and as to the converted, while there is doubtless growth in the Kingdom of God in the state after death, as there must be to all eternity, yet no one syllable is to be found in God’s Word to tell us that our prayers can either effect or affect that growth. If they see the face of Christ, they surely do not need our prayers. And our knowledge of that life is so small that prayer cannot be intelligent, only sentimental, uninformed. “Thy Kingdom come” is not prayer for the dead, because we say, “on earth as in Heaven”. Prayer for others is bounded by this life, and after this, prayer is swallowed up in praise.
Prayer for the dead is, of course, quite intelligible on the Roman Catholic theory of Purgatory, though, as already seen, it is not inevitably bound up with it. If souls pass from here imperfect and need purification for eternal glory it is easy to understand how, according to Roman principles, prayer can be made for them. But with the rejection of the idea of a Purgatory, the practice of prayers for the dead tends to fall to the ground. But whether connected or not, the practice is not warranted by Scripture or our Church. Even those who associate prayers for the dead with the Communion of Saints are compelled to limit their prayers to the most general terms, and thereby entirely to alter the idea of prayer from the definite petitions and intercessions which we use on earth. The only justification of prayers for the dead would be to pray for them as definitely and pointedly as when they were here. But this would be to deny the teaching of the New Testament concerning their joy and blessedness in the presence of Christ.
The question then arises, Is there anything in the Bible which includes the Christian dead in our prayers? Can we discover anything in Holy Scripture from which we may infer that prayer for the dead comes within the scope of the promise – “Whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name”?
Can we find any instance of prayer for the dead in the Old Testament? Not one.
Is there any example or precept as to prayer for the dead in the Gospels and in the life and works of our Lord? Not one.
Can we discover any example or encouragement in the life of the early Church as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles? Not one.
Is there to be found any clear testimony to prayer for the dead in the Apostolic Epistles? Not one.
Is there any instance of prayer for the dead in the Revelation? Not one.
The following passages are sometimes used to justify the practice:–
“Everyone shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt (Mark 9:49). But what is here on the subject before us? The text is clearly a symbolical statement concerning spiritual discipline in this life.
“The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is” Cor. 3:13). But the whole passage clearly refers to the testing of Christian faithfulness at the judgment seat of Christ; there is not a hint of prayer for the dead.
“Baptized for the dead” Cor. 15:29). But whatever be the true interpretation, there is no reference to prayer.
“He went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:19). This passage, whatever it means, has no reference to the Christian dead, but to certain spirits “which sometime were disobedient.”
“The Gospel was preached also to them that are dead” (1 Pet. 4:6). Whatever interpretation we give to this passage, there is no reference to prayer for the Christian dead.
The only passage in the New Testament that can be adduced as a possible warrant is 2 Tim. 1:18. It is urged that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul wrote. The elements of the interpretation of this passage are somewhat as follows:–
(1) It is entirely uncertain whether Onesiphorus was alive or dead. No one can possibly decide one way or the other. This is not a very hopeful way of deriving an important doctrine from the passage.
(2) The assumption that he was dead is, therefore, entirely gratuitous. In 1 Cor. 1:16 and 16:15, compared with Romans 16:10, 11, we see that households can be referred to without the head of the house being dead.
(3) Then the view that Onesiphorus was dead probably runs foreign to the context. If we compare verse 15, we see that some had forsaken St. Paul, but that Onesiphorus had not been ashamed of the prisoner and his chain (vv. 16–18); then Timothy is urged to the same boldness (cf. chap. 2:1, “Therefore”). There is nothing here to warrant the idea of the death of Onesiphorus.
(4) Even supposing Onesiphorus was dead, it might be possible to express a wish like this for a friend without in the least admitting the principles on which prayer for the dead can be taken seriously. Dr. Swete, believing that Onesiphorus was dead, points out that, even so, the prayer is “for his acceptance in the day of Christ and not for his wellbeing in the intermediate life.” [Swete, The Holy Catholic Church.]
Looking over the entire revelation of God we cannot help observing two things: (a) In the Levitical code, there are minute instructions as to all sorts of sacrifices, and yet, with sacrifices for the dead familiar all around in heathen religions, not a hint is given about them in the Mosaic law. (b) The New Testament, while so emphatic on the efficacy of prayer under all circumstances of life, never once extends the practice to the next world, even though often alluding to the dead and the future life.
From Scripture, therefore, the one fount of essential truth, we have no warrant, no foundation for Prayers for the Dead, but everything that looks in the opposite direction.
We have next to consider:—
III – The Early History of Prayers for the Dead
It is generally thought that the Jews prayed for the dead, and that a passage in 2 Macc. 12 points in that direction. Jewish liturgies of the present day certainly have them. But it has been pointed out [C. H. H. Wright, The Intermediate State, pp. 18–43. See also an article in The Expositor for April 1915, by the Rev. J. W. Hunkin, which arrives independently at the same conclusion.] that the passage in Maccabees does not necessarily involve Prayers for the Dead, nor is it certain that the present Jewish liturgies are of pre-Christian date. In any case, however, we have no record of our Lord and His Apostles observing such a custom, and it would be very precarious to base a Christian practice of such moment on merely Jewish grounds even if we were sure of them. Nor are we justified in arguing in support of the practice from Christ’s silence.
In the Christian Church it is to be carefully noted that the earliest form of the phrase indicated by R.I.P. was not “requiescat,” but “requiescit,” which states the fact, “he rests in peace.” The earliest inscriptions of the Catacombs, too, are “in pace,” “in Christo,” etc., without any prayer. [De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christiana urbis Roma septimo saeculo antiquiores, Vol. I; B. Scott, The Contents and Teachings of the Catacombs, p. 159.] All primitive history points to the remarkable joy and definite certainty associated with Christian funerals, the thought of the beloved one being with the Lord overpowering all else. The future had no shadows, and praise, not prayer, was the attitude of these believers.
Dr. H. B. Swete, himself in favour of prayers for the dead, writes as follows: –
1. The first century has scarcely any evidence to offer. ... The New Testament contains but one passage which can fairly be construed as a prayer for the dead. Early post-canonical writers are equally reticent. The letter of Clement contains petitions of all sorts ... but makes no reference of any sort to the Christian dead.
2. This lack of evidence continues until past the middle of the second century. ... It is certainly remarkable that nothing of the [same] kind occurs among the numerous inscriptions on Christian tombs in Phrygia, collected by Sir W. M. Ramsay.
3. It is at Carthage that prayers for the dead ... are first seen. ... Yet other Churches do not seem to have followed suit, and Origen’s silence is “most remarkable”.
4. The conclusion is that there is nothing to show communion for the departed during the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic periods. [Journal of Theological Studies, July 1907, p. 500.]
Surely this absolute silence to the end of the second century is impressive and significant. When prayers for the dead actually began in the Christian Church they were very simple and marked by a true reserve, because of our ignorance. They were merely prayers for the soul’s rest, and that it might be placed at God’s Right Hand. But the mind of man is impatient of restraint, and so something more definite was wanted to pray for. The order of thought and feeling seems to have been somewhat on this line, though, of course, not always definitely and consciously, nor all at once, but extending through several centuries: (1) Prayer implies need. (2) Need suggests imperfection. (3) Imperfection involves progress. (4) Progress indicates purification. (5) Purification demands suffering, and from this came the fully developed mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory which, as we have seen, means purification based on the fact that the full penal consequences of sin are not all remitted in this life.
It is unnecessary to stay to discuss all this in detail, but this much may be said: (1) We can readily see how far it all is from New Testament simplicity; and (2) Suffering is not necessarily remedial and purifying; it often hardens. Joy is on the whole quite as purgative as suffering, and some would say that it is much more so.
This was the state of the case before the Reformation, and we are at once brought to:—
IV – The Teaching of the Church of England
This calls for our most careful attention and study, and we have to note the following stages of the history.
(a) In 1549 came the first Reformed Prayer Book, and in it were prayers for the dead, distinct and definite. The prayer now called the Prayer for the Church Militant was then headed, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church,” and a petition for the departed was included in the prayer. There were also prayers for the dead in the Burial Service. But the Visitation Articles of 1549 which enforced this Prayer Book ordered “that no man maintain Purgatory ... or any other such abuses and superstitions.” So that our Reformers prohibited the doctrine of Purgatory while continuing to pray for the dead. This is proof that prayers for the dead are not necessarily connected with the Roman doctrine of Purgatory.
(b) In 1552, came the second Reformed Prayer Book. From this prayers for the dead were deliberately omitted, and the word “militant here in earth” added to the heading of the prayer. The Burial Service was altered in accordance with this so as to express the present joy of the holy dead, “with whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.” This change from 1549 deserves careful notice.
Bishop Drury [Dr. Drury, Churchman, January 1909, p. 21.] correctly calls this “the absence of direct and unambiguous prayer for the departed.” But it is something more, for “what is quite certain is that direct and unequivocal utterances of prayer for the faithful departed were then removed and have never been restored.”
One of the Homilies speaks in unmistakable plainness of the needlessness of prayers for the dead.
“Now, to entreat of that question, whether we ought to pray for them that are departed out of this world, or no? Wherein, if we cleave only unto the Word of God, then must we needs grant that we have no commandment so to do. ... Therefore, let us not deceive ourselves, thinking that either we may help other, or other may help us by their good and charitable prayers in time to come. ... Neither let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our prayers: but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of man, passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to Heaven, or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, and the other is without redemption. The only purgatory wherein we must trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Christ, which if we apprehend with a true and stedfast faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins, even as well as if He were now hanging upon the cross. ... If this kind of purgation will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other men’s prayers, though they should continue therein unto the world’s end. ... Let us not, therefore, dream either of purgatory, or of prayer for the souls of them that be dead; but let us earnestly and diligently pray for them which are expressly commanded in Holy Scripture, namely, for kings and rulers; for ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments; for the saints of this world, otherwise called the faithful; to be short, for all men living, be they never so great enemies to God and His people.” [The Homilies, pp. 337–340.]
This was published within about twenty years of the Prayer Book of 1552. It will be noticed that the condemnation is of the practice per se, and not merely when associated with Purgatory. Bishop Drury says this shows the view that was taken by leading Elizabethan divines, and throws at least an important side-light on the facts already adduced. [Churchman, ut supra, p. 28.]
(c) In 1559 one of the reasons in Geste’s letter to Cecil against the restoration of the Prayer Book of 1549 was that it contained prayers for the dead. [Cardwell, Conferences, p. 52.]
(d) At the time of the revision of 1662 a proposal was made to omit the words “militant here in earth,” and at one stage a prayer for the dead was actually inserted by some of the Revisers, but rejected by Convocation, and there the matter stands to this day, a thanksgiving for the departed alone being added.
This is the Church of England history on the subject, clear and definite, and surely capable of only one meaning.
In support of this position it can be shown that the Reformers and their immediate successors, men like Cranmer, Jewel, and Whitgift, all rejected prayer for the dead. [Blakeney, Book of Common Prayer, its History and Interpretation, p. 457–458, edited 1866.]
It is said, however, that there are two passages where we pray for the dead.
(1) In the Post-Communion Collect. – “That we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.” But surely the Church above has obtained “remission”. These words were drawn up by the men who deliberately omitted prayers for the dead in 1552.
(2) “That with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom.” But this is a statement about them, and a prayer for ourselves. It is in the prayer for the Church Militant, and that phrase covers the whole prayer. We thank God for the departed; we do not pray for them.
Such is the Church of England history and doctrine. And if it be said, as it has been sometimes, that prayers for the dead have never been forbidden in the Church of England, we reply that this is true in word, but false in fact. What is the meaning of the changes made in 1552? Either they mean something or they do not. If they do not, or did not, why were they made? Indeed, we may ask what any of the Reformation changes meant? In the beginning of our Prayer Book we have, “Of Ceremonies, why some be Abolished, and some Retained.” Prayer for the dead was one of those things that were abolished. Omission, therefore, clearly means prohibition. To say simply that a thing is “not forbidden” would justify almost anything that an individual clergyman might choose to adopt.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Davidson) distinguishes between private and public prayers for the dead, and says that the Church has deliberately excluded such from her Services. [Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, Vol. II, p. 408.] Thus Bishop Andrewes had them in his private devotions, but cut them out of the public Service for the Consecration of Graveyards. [See Dr. Drury, Churchman, ut supra, p. 28.]
In the course of a review of a book advocating prayers for the dead, the Guardian frankly admitted that the practice was only justifiable on the assumption that the condition of the departed is not fixed at the time of death. When the wording of the prayer at the Burial Service is remembered, “With whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity,” it is not difficult to see the position of the Church about the state of the faithful at and after death. There is no doubt that the Prayer Book in its final form excluded all explicit prayers for the departed from the public Services. All Souls’ Day has not been recognized by the Prayer Book, and was omitted at the Reformation from the Table of Feasts and the Calendar. [Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, Vol. IV, pp. 45–48; 1024.] All this gives force to Bishop Drury’s conclusion that “the statement that such prayers are nowhere forbidden (except in the Homilies) is not complete or fair unless the above fact {about the rejection of the practice proposed in 1662} is placed side by side with it.”
We must not fail to notice how the New Testament meets the supposed demand for prayers for the dead.
V – The Safeguard Against Prayers for the Dead
(a) The New Testament generally is our best safeguard.
The burden there is on “now”. The whole stress is on the present. We are to pray for others now, work for them now, endeavour to save them now. We intercede for them now because of their need. There is no revelation of need then, but just the opposite.
(b) The doctrine of Justification specifically is our perfect safeguard.
The root of prayers for the dead is failure to realize what Justification means. We are “accounted righteous before God” from the very moment we accept Christ. This Justification settles at once and for ever our position before God. Our spiritual standing is unchanged through life, and our title to heaven is at once and for ever given. Justification is not repeated, it is permanent; and this settles the question of heaven and God’s presence once for all. We must ever remember that the Romish doctrine of Purgatory is not connected with Sanctification, but with Justification. It is not part of a process for making Christians holier, but a supplementary process rendered necessary because all the penal consequences are not remitted in this life. Purgatory is required because the debt is not fully discharged here. But what saith the Scripture? “There is, therefore, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). If only we teach, preach, live, and enjoy that blessed truth we shall never use prayers for the dead.
VI – Recent Discussions
The question has naturally obtained renewed attention through the War, and certain statements of representative Churchmen compel a fresh consideration of the position of the Bible and the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury in a sermon on 2nd November 1914, and in his Diocesan Gazette, seems to have modified the view expressed in his evidence before the Royal Commission already quoted. While, on the one hand, he is strong against the danger of abuses, such as we find in the sixteenth century and continued in certain quarters to this day, yet on the other he is of opinion that there must be no discouragement of the “devout soul in prayer for the loved one out of sight”. These words state the Archbishop’s position from both standpoints:–
“My earnest wish is to be helpful, in this time of anxiety, strain and sorrow, to those who, in perfect loyalty to Church of England teaching, feel, and, I think, rightly feel, that they need not cease from reverent and trustful prayer on behalf of husband, son, or brother who has passed from the life we know and see into the larger life beyond.
“The subject of prayers definitely offered on behalf of those whose life on earth is ended is shrouded in so much mystery as to call for the utmost care and reserve on our part in handling it. ‘God is in heaven and we upon earth; therefore let our words be few.’ The Church of England, it is hardly necessary to say, has nowhere declared it to be unlawful or erroneous to believe in the propriety and efficacy of such petitions. But as a consequence of exaggerated and superstitious teaching, and of grave misuse, our Church reverently, yet rigidly, excluded from prayers prescribed by authority for public and general use phrases which convey a definite prayer for the departed as distinguished from, or separated from, those now upon earth. For example, the words in our Order of the Holy Communion ‘that we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins,’ were regarded by high contemporary authority as including the faithful who are beyond the grave, but it cannot be said that in their context they necessarily have that meaning. I desire loyally to maintain the distinction, markedly drawn by Bishop Andrewes and other great Anglican divines, between those beliefs, based upon definite Scriptural proof, the teaching of which is incorporated in our public formularies, and on the other hand opinions and beliefs which fall short of such definite proof. If the distinction be borne in mind, I have no doubt at all that prayers for the dead are permissible to loyal sons and daughters of our Church so long as they do not imply a condition of the departed which our Article XXII (‘Of Purgatory’) has definitely condemned.”
In the same direction are the words of the late Bishop of Durham (Dr. Moule) in his Christus Consolator (pp. 96–98), thereby marking a definite change from his Outlines of Christian Doctrine (p. 97), where, speaking of the arguments used in favour of prayer for the dead in the early Church, as against “frequent criticism,” he says: “These defenses are inadequate, against the total silence of Scripture.” The recent utterances of the Bishop are as follows:–
“Upon the grave and tender problem of prayer for the departed, the Bible, so I venture to think, after long reflection, is absolutely reserved. I cannot think, therefore, that the warrant for such prayer is a fact of revelation. Christians who so pray should have a reverent regard, when there is any occasion for such a feeling, for the misgivings of others, in whom, very probably, the thought of spiritual communion with their vanished ones is just as strong and warm as in themselves, and who continually greet them in the Lord, reaching them in Him through the veil. Only, they do not see the warrant for intercessory prayer for them.
“They do think, perhaps, and most justly, that at least the too easy use of such prayer may tend to muffle the divine appeals to man to seek salvation today.
“Misgivings about prayer for the dead are wholly justified, if the prayer in question means necessarily prayer for deliverance from gloom and pain, rather than a breath of loving aspiration sent after the spirit into its abode of light, asking, as a certainty may be asked for, for the perpetual growth in the emancipated being of the graces and the bliss of the heavenly rest, and its holy progress and education in the knowledge of its Lord. It is undoubted that such prayer for the departed is found in the fragmentary remains of very early Christian literature, certainly within half a century of the last apostles. Never there, nor ever in the inscriptions of the Roman catacombs, I think, does it suggest a purgatorial belief. It might almost be said to be, as regards its spirit, as much salutation and aspiration as petition. But in form it is prayer. And I for one cannot condemn such exercises of the soul, where reverent thought invites to it, in the private devotions of a Christian.” [1 Thess. 4:14 (Footnote by Bishop Moule): “Its introduction into public worship is, in view of differing beliefs, another matter, on which I do not speak here.”]
These are significant utterances and indicate a desire (due to the circumstances of the War) to modify the Church of England rule about limiting prayer to that which can be definitely proved from Holy Scripture. Now while it is natural to feel intense sympathy with those who have lost loved ones in battle, the question must still be faced in the light of Holy Scripture, for it is part of the purpose of the Bible as the Word of God to guide, guard and control our natural desires and cravings. The following considerations must, therefore, be kept dearly and constantly in view.
1. When the Royal. Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline issued its Report in 1906 a chapter was devoted to the subject. The Commissioners stated that the Church of England had never formally condemned prayers for the dead, as distinguished from their public use in her services. Representative Divines of the Church, it was pointed out, have again and again protested against the necessity of a connection, such as is by Roman Catholic writers constantly assumed to exist, between the doctrine of Purgatory and prayers for the departed. The Commissioners at the same time made it clear that they dissociated themselves from all public services and prayers for the dead, concerning which evidence was given, according to their opinion, “significant of teaching which is entirely inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England.”
2. It is obvious on the Archbishop’s admission in his sermon that “no explicit prayers for the departed at all were admitted into the public language of the Church, and people were taught to rely in these public offices upon that alone which can be definitely proved by Holy Scripture.”
3. Then comes the enquiry whether the prayer recommended by the Archbishop is for the Christian or for the non-Christian dead. His words suggest the former, and, if so, the entire problem is raised of the relation of the Christian soul to God. If the soul has passed away as a believer, then its title to Heaven through Justification is assured, and prayer in such a case cannot be for anything else than growth in grace. But have we any warrant from Scripture for such a prayer? To ask the question is to answer it. And is it logical to pray for anyone who is confessedly at peace in the presence of Christ? It is generally admitted by advocates of the practice that it implies some need of purification.
4. But another question at once arises. – Is it possible in such circumstances as those of war to limit our prayers for the faithful departed? Is there not an equally instinctive desire, indeed, a greater longing, to pray for those of whose salvation we are not certain? But, if so, we are at once faced with the solemn and serious idea of a second probation, “the larger hope,” and again the enquiry comes: Is this according to Scripture? There is no doubt that prayers for the dead do imply a belief in some state of imperfection which needs to be removed, and it becomes a serious question whether the traditional limitation of prayers for the faithful departed can be maintained. As already seen, prayers for the dead did not arise out of Purgatory, but they have always been associated with that doctrine, and if once prayer is extended beyond the Christian dead, some form of Purgatory will assuredly be demanded.
Even the words of the Archbishop are not quite clear when he speaks of the one who has passed away still growing “in truer purity and in deepened reverence and love”. This thought of a “truer purity” seems to imply that something in the Intermediate State can minister to a spiritual condition “truer” than that experienced below. But is not such an idea really a confusion between the soul’s title to Heaven and its place there? No one can question that prayer for the dead is associated in most minds with the thought of discipline after death. And in view of the fact that we know nothing about the condition of the departed, is it not fair to urge that we cannot pray for them with anything like the definiteness and assurance we enjoy in intercessory prayer for them while on earth? If our prayers are to be at once satisfying to ourselves and pleasing to God, they ought to be strictly limited to the Divine revelation in Holy Scripture. The great danger is that by the practice of prayer we shall imply that there is some change of spiritual condition between death and resurrection which we can effect by our intercession. [Dr. Wace, the late Dean of Canterbury, interprets the Archbishop’s language in the same way, for, after deprecating the introduction of “petitions which imply suppositions respecting the condition of the soul in the Intermediate State, of which Scripture tells us nothing,” he says: “Even the Archbishop’s language might give some encouragement to such suppositions, when he speaks of praying ‘for him ... who still lives and, as we may surely believe, still grows from strength to strength in truer purity and in deepened reverence and love.’ Then,” Dr. Wace adds, “whoever believes that does so without warrant of Scripture, and prayer based on such a belief has no authority in revelation. The hope of the Christian is not that his soul will be gradually purified after death, but that, in the words of the commendatory prayer in the Service of the Visitation of the Sick, it may, in death itself, be washed in the blood of that immaculate Lamb, and presented, when it leaves the body, ‘pure and without spot’ unto God. Prayers, in short, which have any tinge of a purgatorial view are unauthorized by Scripture, and inconsistent with a most blessed element of Evangelical hope and faith.” These words are all the more weighty, because Dr. Wace favours prayer to the extent of commendation of the departed to God and that the fulfillment of the Divine promises for the Judgment Day may be realized (The War and the Gospel, p. 225 f.).]
Under all these circumstances, we would, therefore, again urge the following considerations:–
(1) The importance and significance of the silence of the New Testament. – Nothing can be more remarkable than the way in which our Lord and His Apostles never refer to prayer for the dead. “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord” (Rev. 11:13). Observe Bishop Moule’s significant words: – “The Bible ... is absolutely reserved. I cannot think, therefore, that the warrant for such prayer is a fact of revelation.”
(2) The Witness of the Early Church. – Bishop Moule claims for the practice a time “within half a century of the last Apostles”. But this, as we have seen, is not supported by Dr. Swete. A practice for which there is no real proof earlier than the end of the second century, the time of Tertullian, can hardly be called primitive, and, as Dr. Swete has shown, prayer for the dead is certainly by no means prominent, indeed scarcely noticeable at all, in the earliest Church.
(3) The history of the Church of England. – The changes in 1552 and 1662 tell their own story, and though there are a few who, like Cosin, have intended prayer for the dead in some of the phrases of the Prayer Book, no one can doubt that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly on the other side.
It is frequently urged that we pray for the dead when we ask in the Church Militant Prayer, “That with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly Kingdom,” and also in the words in the Burial Service, “That we with all those who are departed in the true faith of Thy Holy Name may have our perfect consummation and bliss.” But it may be asked: (a) How could this be the purpose of the Reformers when such vital changes were made by these very men between 1549 and 1552? (b) Is this the real meaning of the words? Surely “we with them” is different from “they with us”. Their position is clear, for they are “departed in the faith and fear of God,” but “we” are still here. Further, if the Church Militant Prayer is to have this interpretation, it will imply that participation in the Kingdom of Heaven by the faithful departed is, somehow or other, dependent on our lives; “give us grace ... that (they) may be partakers.” The absurdity of such an idea hardly needs to be mentioned. But if the statement is properly interpreted to be equivalent to “like them we,” there is a perfect balance of thought and expression. And if, as it has been well said, we wish to go with a person, it implies that the person is assuredly going.
(4) Our ignorance of the future state and, therefore, the impossibility of intelligent prayer. – What do we really know of the future life? Practically nothing; and at the same time absolutely nothing in regard to any bearing of our prayers thereon. How, then, can we be of service to the dead by prayers for them? Either our prayers benefit them or they do not. To limit prayer for the departed to “a breath of loving aspiration sent after the spirit into its abode of light” is hardly likely to be adequate and satisfying to those who are accustomed to the practice.
(5) May we not also enquire whether the War, with all its strain and stress, great as they are, can really make such a change as is involved in praying for the departed? If the practice was wrong before, it must still be wrong, while if it is right now, it must have been right before. Such a revolution as is here implied cannot be justified even by the War.
For further study, see The Intermediate State, by Dr. C. H. H. Wright; The Blessed Dead: Do They Need Our Prayers? by H. Falloon; Prayers for the Dead, by Bishop Drury.
Article XXVII – The Mode of Baptism
Although the Article is not concerned with the method of baptism it is impossible to avoid a reference to it in view of modern controversies. The rubric in the Baptismal Office places immersion first, but allows pouring as an alternative. “If they shall certify him that the child may well endure it he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily. ... But if they certify that the child is weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it.”
And yet it is clear that the use of the word “dip” does not necessarily mean what is usually understood as immersion, for in the case of the baptism of those of riper years the person to be baptized is to stand by the font, and then the clergyman “shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him.” From this it is clear that “dipping” may mean partial or total, and, strictly, partial dipping is described as immersion, and total dipping by submersion. It is the latter, submersion, that is held by Baptists to be the only right mode, and it is this that calls for special consideration.
The word used for “Baptism” is βαπτιζω, not βαπτω, and as the latter means “to dip,” but is never used for the ordinance of baptism, it is clear that we must derive the significance of the former word from the usage. The word βαπτω is used three times only in the New Testament: (1) The dipping of the tip of the finger of Lazarus in water (Luke 16:24); (2) Our Lord’s dipping of the sop which He gave to Judas (John 13:26); (3) The Lord’s vesture dipped in blood (Rev. 19:13). But it is noteworthy that there is a difference of reading in this last passage, and the Revised Version favours the reading “sprinkled” instead of “dipped”.
The various arguments drawn from the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, Classical Greek, and the New Testament can be studied in the author’s The Catholic Faith (p. 402 ff.).
Christian History and Archaeology afford no evidence that the early Christians thought they could not be baptized except by immersion. The only evidence we possess on the point is found in a well-known passage in the Didache (chap. vii) which runs thus: – “Now concerning Baptism, thus baptize ye; having first uttered all these things, baptize unto the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou hast not living water baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm; but if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice unto the Name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
This passage shows that dipping in running water rather than in a baptistery was the method preferred by early Christians, but it shows with equal clearness that dipping was a question of preference and not of necessity. Surely this expresses the true Apostolic spirit, and to insist upon one precise method as necessary to baptism is not only untrue to all that we know of usage, but also out of all harmony with the true conception of the Christian religion.
Article XXVIII – The History of Anglican Doctrine on the Holy Communion
It is sometimes urged that the Prayer Book and Articles are not in harmony on the doctrine of the Holy Communion, and this makes it imperative to give special attention to the history associated with the various Revisions of the Prayer Book and Articles. There are eight periods to be studied. The First Prayer Book of 1549; the Second Prayer Book of 1552; the Forty-two Articles of 1553; the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559; the Thirty-eight Articles of 1563; the Thirty-nine Articles of 1571; the Additions to the Catechism in 1604; and the last Revision of the Prayer Book in 1662.
The fundamental changes between the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 are universally recognized, and it is also admitted that in 1559 the Prayer Book of 1552, not that of 1549, was adopted as the basis. The question is whether at and since 1559 any of the changes made essentially altered the Anglican doctrine. Bishop Gibson thinks this has happened. [The Thirty-nine Articles, pp. 643–647.] But other authorities are equally clear that fundamental doctrine has been uniform throughout. [Simpson, The Thing Signified (Second Edition); Griffith Thomas, A Sacrament of our Redemption, pp. 53–79.] If any such changes have taken place their character must be clearly stated. The vital problem is whether there is any doctrine which can be called “Catholic” without being Roman, which is essentially identical with the Reformed doctrine of Calvin, which Hooker believed and accepted. This is the question which has to be faced.
I – The Prayer Book of 1559
While adopting the Second Prayer Book of 1552 as the basis of the Elizabethan Revision, the “Black Rubric” was omitted. By some this is regarded as a mere technicality, by others as due to a deliberate effort on the part of Queen Elizabeth to win the Lutherans. In connection with this the difficulty about the Ornaments Rubric and the blending of the words of administration found respectively in the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 must be considered. It is now generally recognized that in the action of the Queen and her advisers in 1559 the Roman Catholics were not really in view, but only the desire and determination of the Queen to plant herself more firmly on the Throne by uniting all Protestants, and therefore removing from the Prayer Book anything which might seem to oppose the distinctive Lutheran view.
II – The Articles of 1563
As already noticed above, the third paragraph of Article XXVIII was changed, and Article XXIX, while accepted by Archbishop Parker at Convocation, was refused by the Queen. But this Royal action did not involve any essential change, since Parker was a disciple of Cranmer and held strongly the Reformed (or Swiss), not the Lutheran doctrine. [Griffith Thomas, ut supra, pp. 64–70.] Once again, there is no proof of an endeavour to conciliate Rome, because several significant alterations were made in the Articles at this time which resulted in their becoming more anti-Roman than even in 1552.
III – The Articles of 1571
In 1563 Bishop Guest claimed to be the author of the new paragraph of Article XXVIII, though, as we have seen, these very words are found in Archbishop Parker’s own draft. Guest desired to make it possible for Lutherans, like Bishop Cheney, to accept the Articles. Bishop Gibson lays great stress on Guest’s claim to this authorship, but the Judges in the Bennett Judgment practically set it aside as either impossible or unworthy of notice. But in 1571 Archbishop Parker obtained the reinsertion of Article XXIX, which was accepted by the Queen, and thereupon Guest admitted that Lutheranism was henceforward impossible. Somehow or other he brought himself to sign the Articles, but Bishop Cheney did not do so. In 1577 the Lutheran Church definitely denounced the doctrine taught in Article XXIX, and almost used our very words in so doing.
IV – The Catechism of 1604
In the sacramental addition to the Catechism Bishop Gibson sees a further endeavour to return to a more “Catholic” doctrine on the Holy Communion. [The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 647.] And this contention is alleged by other writers of the same school. But it is overlooked that these Questions and Answers come almost verbally from Nowell’s Catechism, which is known to be a thoroughly Protestant document of the Reformed, not Lutheran, type. [Dimock, Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 306.] And several modern writers urge strongly that no fundamental change was made by these additions. [Simpson, The Thing Signified.]
V – The Prayer Book of 1662
The only point to be considered here is the re-insertion of the “ Black Rubric “ with the verbal change from “ real “ to “ corporal.” It is sometimes argued that this involves a significant and vital change of doctrine. The question is solely one of evidence. It was the Puritans who requested the re-insertion of the Rubric, and there is no evidence of any change of doctrine being intended by those who replaced it in the Prayer Book. The change of terminology was necessary, because the word “ real “ in the sixteenth century meant the same as the word “ corporal “ in the seventeenth. [Dean Aldrich.] To have inserted the Rubric with the word “ real “ would have led to misunderstanding, since men like Jeremy Taylor used it to express the presence of a definite Protestant and anti- Roman type. [Bishop Moule, Pledges of His Love, p. 143; Tomlinson, Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies, p. 264; Soames, The Real Presence, pp. 9, 12 f.; Griffith Thomas, ut supra, pp. 75–78.] The Rubric really turns on the statement that our Lord’s Body is in heaven, not here, and this remained unchanged.
In view of these facts, and it is admitted that they represent in summary the whole of what was done at various times, it is clear that no change of Anglican doctrine was made from 1552 onwards, but that it has remained uniform throughout.
Special Note On Eschatology
It is well known that in 1553 there were four Articles dealing with questions connected with “The Last Things,” and while the Church of England is not now committed to any of the statements contained in those Articles, reference may be made to them as included in the Forty-two Articles of 1553 as indicating what was then believed concerning eschatological problems. The subject of “The Last Things,” although not included in the doctrinal statements of the Anglican formularies, has naturally occupied very great attention during the last century, but all that can be done here is to indicate in general the views that are held and to refer to some of the more important works upon the subject.
There is, perhaps, no topic on which it is more necessary to keep strictly to the exact words and meaning of Holy Scripture without attempting to draw inferences beyond those which strict exegesis allows. We must carefully examine first the language and then the teaching of Scripture before drawing any conclusions. It is important to study first of all the various words and phrases connected with the future; indeed, it is only by means of the widest possible induction of Scripture passages that we can expect to arrive at a clear idea of its meaning.
1. The great hope set forth in the New Testament is the Coming of the Lord. “From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” Two works for study are Ecce Venit, by A. J. Gordon, and Jesus is Coming, by W. E. Blackstone. The precise interpretation of the Apocalypse in regard to the future will be found according to the Historical School in Daniel and the Revelation, by Tanner, and according to the Futurist School in Lectures on the Apocalypse, by Seiss.
2. The question of future punishment is associated with three general lines of interpretation: – (a) Universalism, implying the hope of universal restitution. For this reference can be made to Salvator Mundi, by Cox; Restitution of All Things, by Jukes; and Eternal Hope, by Farrar. (b) Annihilation, teaching that the wicked will be destroyed and only those who are in Christ will have eternal life. For this the books are Life in Christ, by Edward White; Our Growing Creed, by W. D. Maclaren. (c) Everlasting Punishment. This is regarded as the orthodox view according to the New Testament. The best work on this, as indeed on the general subject, is The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, by Salmond. (d) Another view which endeavours to harmonize the idea of everlasting punishment with the non-eternity of sin will be found stated and discussed in The Eternal Saviour-Judge, by R. L. Clarke; Reason and Revelation (chap. xii), by Illingworth; Sin, a Problem of Today (the last pages), by Orr; World Without End, and Veins of Silver, by Garratt; and The Victory of Love, by T. R. Birks. Two small and little known, but weighty discussions will be found in The Gospel in Hades, and Hades, or Heaven? by R. W. Harden (Combridge & Co., Dublin). Valuable criticisms of the various modern theories will be found in Human Destiny, by Sir Robert Anderson, and Immortality, by Dr. H. R. Mackintosh. There are also several articles on the different topics included in Eschatology in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia.
A Brief Selection of Books for Further Study
{Note. The book list which appeared under this heading in earlier editions of The Principles of Theology fell into five sections, thus: Holy Communion (31 items), The Church and Ministry (29 items), Baptism (9 items), The Resurrection (i.e. of Jesus: 7 items), and General (31 items). The selection was almost wholly Anglican; it contained occasional and archaic items; it covered too few topics; and, inevitably, it took no account of writing since 1924. So this new book list has been prepared, containing items ancient and modern which, read in conjunction with Thomas’ text, should enlighten and stimulate, if not always convince, the evangelical student who wishes to go further. Dates of original publication (normally in English, in the case of translated works) are given, for the sake of historical perspective; lack of space precludes bibliographical detail or information on reprints.}
1. CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CATECHISMS
Cochrane, A.C., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (1966). Texts.
Routley, E., Creeds and Confessions (1962). Summaries.
Schaff, P., The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols., 1876). Volume III contains Evangelical Creeds.
Torrance, T. F., The School of Faith (1959). Catechisms, including Calvin’s (1541), the Heidelberg (1563), and Westminster’s (1648).
Walker, W., The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (1893)
The Westminster Confession, Catechisms and Directory are available in one volume.
2. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES
Primary expositors: Rogers, T. (1607); Burnet, G. (1699); Beveridge, W. (1716); Browne, H. (1850); Boultbee, T. P. (1871); Gibson, E. C. S. (1896); Kidd, B. J. (1911); Bicknell, E. J. (1919).
Hardwick. C., A History of the Articles (2nd. ed., 1859).
Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine, Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles (1968).
3. HISTORIES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Berkhof, L., The History of Christian Doctrines (1937).
Cunningham, W., Historical Theology (2 vols., 1862).
Harnack, A., History of Dogma (7 vols., 1894–99); Outlines of the History of Dogma (1893). Tendentious but epoch-making.
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (1958).
Orr, J., The Progress of Dogma (1901).
Nicholls, W., Systematic and Philosophical Theology (Pelican Guide to Modern Theology, I, 1969). The Protestant twentieth century.
4. SURVEYS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Barth, K., Dogmatics in Outline (1949); Church Dogmatics (12 vols., 1936–69).
Bavinck, H., Our Reasonable Faith (1909, Dutch; E. T., 1956).
Beardslee, J. W., Reformed Dogmatics (1965). J. Wollebius’ Compendium Theologiae Christianae (1626) in translation, with additions from G. Voetius and F. Turretin.
Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology (1937).
Berkouwer, G. C., Studies in Dogmatics (14 vols: 1952–).
Boettner, L., Studies in Theology (1947). Inspiration; Christian Supernaturalism; Trinity; Person of Christ; Atonement.
Calvin, J., Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559, Latin; E. T. by Beveridge 1845, by Battles 1960); Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church, int. by T. F. Torrance (3 vols. 1959).
Denney, J., Studies in Theology (1894).
Heppe, H., Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources (1950).
Hodge, C., Systematic Theology (3 vols., 1872–74). Presbyterian.
Litton, E. A., Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (2 parts, 1882, 1892).
Moule, H. C. G., Outlines of Christian Doctrine (1889).
Quick, O. C., Doctrines of the Creed (1938).
Pearson, J., The Creed (1659).
Strong, A. H., Systematic Theology (1907). Baptist.
Torrance, T. F., Theology in Reconstruction (1965); Theology in Reconciliation (1975).
Warfield, B. B., Biblical and Theological Studies (1952).
Harvey, Van A., A Handbook of Theological Terms (1964).
Richardson, A., ed., A Dictionary of Christian Theology (1969).
5. ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Berkouwer, G. C., The Conflict with Rome (1958).
Carson, H. M., Dawn or Twilight? (1976).
Rahner, K., ed., Encyclopaedia of Theology (1975).
Subilia, V., The Problem of Catholicism (1964).
The Church Teaches: E. T. (1955) of selections from ed. H. Denzinger-C. Bannwart-J.B. Umberg-K. Rahner, Enchiridion Symbolorum (Latin: 31st. ed., 1957).
Vatican Council II, 1962–65: Documents (1966, 1976).
Wells, D. F., Revolution in Rome (1973).
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission: Agreement on the Eucharist (1971), the Doctrine of the Ministry (1973), Authority (1977).
6. REVELATION AND THE BIBLE
Berkouwer, G. C., General Revelation (1955); Holy Scripture (1975).
Farrer, A., The Glass of Vision (1948). Aspects of inspiration.
Forsyth, P. T., The Principle of Authority (1913).
Henry, C. F. H., ed., Revelation and the Bible (1958).
Kuyper, A., Principles of Sacred Theology (1954; – Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, 1899).
Moran, G., Theology of Revelation (1966). Roman Catholic.
Packer, J. I., ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (1958).
The Bible Speaks Again: a Guide from Holland (1969).
Warfield, B. B., The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1948; Revelation and Inspiration, 1927).
Wenham, J. W., Christ and the Bible (1972).
7. GOD: THREE-IN-ONE, CREATOR, KING
Bavinck, H., The Doctrine of God (1951).
Berkouwer, G. C., The Providence of God (1952).
Farrer, A., Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited (1962).
Forsyth, P.T., The Justification of God (1916).
Franks, R.S., The Doctrine of the Trinity (1953).
Gilkey, L., Maker of Heaven and Earth (1959).
Hodgson, L., The Doctrine of the Trinity (1943).
Lewis, C. S., The Problem of Pain (1940); Miracles (1947).
Lewis, H. D., Our Experience of God (1959).
Mascall, E. L., Christian Theology and Natural Science (1956).
Orr, J., The Christian View of God and the World (1893).
Packer, J. I. Knowing God (1973).
Schaeffer, F. A., The God who is There (1968); He is There and He is not Silent (1972).
Temple, W., Nature, Man and God (1934).
Wenham, J. W., The Goodness of God (1974).
8. MAN: CREATED AND FALLEN
Berkouwer, G. C., Man: The Image of God (1962); Sin (1971).
Cairns, D., The Image of God in Man (1973).
Jenkins, D., What is Man? (1970).
Niebuhr, R., The Nature and Destiny of Man (2 vols., 1941, 1943).
9. JESUS CHRIST: SAVIOUR, LORD, GOD
Baillie, D. M., God was in Christ (1947).
Berkouwer, G. C., The Person of Christ (1954); The Work of Christ (1965).
Crawford, T. J., The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement (1871).
Denney, J., The Death of Christ (1902); The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (1917).
Dillistone, F. W., The Christian Understanding of Atonement (1968).
Dimock, N., The Doctrine of the Death of Christ (1891).
Forsyth, P. T., The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909); The Cruciality of the Cross (1909); The Work of Christ (1910).
Künneth, W., The Theology of the Resurrection (1965).
Ladd, G. E., I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (1975).
Machen, J. G., The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930).
Mackintosh, H. R., The Person of Jesus Christ (1912).
Marshall, I. H., I Believe in the Historical Jesus (1977).
Morris, L., The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (1955); The Cross in the New Testament (1965); The Lord from Heaven (1958).
Mozley, J. K., The Doctrine of the Atonement (1915).
Murray, J., Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955).
Orr, J., The Virgin Birth of Christ (1907); The Resurrection of Jesus (1909).
Owen, J., The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1648: Works, ed. W. Goold, X).
Pannenberg, W., Jesus – God and Man (1968).
Quick, O. C., The Gospel of the New World (1944).
Ramsey, A. M., The Resurrection of Christ (1945).
Temple, W., Christus Veritas (1924).
Torrance, T. F., Space, Time and Incarnation Resurrection (1977).
Turner, H. E. W., Jesus the Christ (1976).
Warfield, B. B., The Lord of Glory (1907); The Person and Work of Christ (1950).
10. THE HOLY SPIRIT
Green, M., I Believe in the Holy Spirit (1975).
Kuyper, A., The Work of the Holy Spirit (1900).
Owen, J., Pneumatologia and other discourses on the Holy Spirit (1674–92: Works, III, IV).
Smeaton, G., The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882).
Thomas, W. H. Griffith, The Holy Spirit of God (1913).
11. GRACE AND SALVATION
Berkouwer, G. C., Divine Election (1960); Faith and Justification (1954); Faith and Sanctification (1952); Faith and Perseverance (1958).
Buchanan, J. The Doctrine of Justification (1867).
Flew, R. N., The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology (1934).
Hammond, T. C., The New Creation (1953).
Kung, H., Justification (1964). An important Roman Catholic book.
Nygren, A., Agape and Eros (1953).
Owen, J., The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (1677); Indwelling Sin in Believers (1668); Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers (1656); Of Temptation (1658); in Works V and VI.
Warfield, B.B., The Plan of Salvation (1915); Perfectionism (1958).
12. CHURCH, MINISTRY, SACRAMENTS
Baillie, D. M., The Theology of the Sacraments (1957).
Berkouwer, G. C., The Sacraments (1969).
Forsyth, P. T., The Church and the Sacraments (1917).
Quick, O. C., The Christian Sacraments (1927).
(a) Church.
Aulen, G., Reformation and Catholicity (1961).
Brunner, E., The Misunderstanding of the Church (1952).
Bannerman, J., The Church of Christ (2 vols., 1869).
Hooker, R., Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1594–97).
Hort, F. J. A., The Christian Ecclesia (1897).
Kung, H., The Church (1968).
Litton, E. A., The Church of Christ (2nd. ed., 1898).
Neill, S. C. The Church and Christian Union (1968).
Nelson, J. R., The Realm of Redemption (1951).
Newbigin, L., The Household of God (1957).
Packer, J. I., ed., All in Each Place: Towards Reunion in England (1965).
Salmon, G., The Infallibility of the Church: abridged edn. by H. F. Woodhouse (1952).
(b) Ministry.
Green, M., Called to Serve (1964).
Manson, T. W., The Church’s Ministry (1948); Ministry and Priesthood, Christ’s and Ours (1958).
Modern Ecumenical Documents on the Ministry (1971). Four statements involving Roman Catholics.
Morris, L., Ministers of God (1964).
(c) Baptism.
Bromiley, G. W., Baptism and the Anglican Reformers (1953).
Goode, W., The Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants (1849).
Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit (1951).
Marcel, P. Ch., The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism (1953).
Murray, J., Christian Baptism (1952). Presbyterian; paedobaptist.
Warns, J., Baptism: its History and Significance (1958). Urges believer’s baptism.
(d) Holy Communion.
Archbishop’s Commission on Christian Doctrine, Thinking about the Eucharist (1972).
Brilioth, Y., Eucharistic Faith and Practice Evangelical and Catholic (1930).
Clark, F., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (1960).
Cranmer, T., A Defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament (1550).
Dimock, N., The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (1910); Papers on the Eucharistic Presence (2 vols., 1911).
Modern Eucharistic Agreement (1973). Four ecumenical statements involving Roman Catholics.
Vogan, T. S. L., The True Doctrine of the Eucharist (1871).
Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (1736).
13. LAST THINGS
Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine, Prayer and the Departed (1971).
Berkouwer, G. C., The Return of Christ (1972).
Forsyth, P. T., This Life and the Next (1918).
Grier, W. J., The Momentous Event (1945).
Leckie, J. H., The World to Come and Final Destiny (1918).
Pache, R., The Future Life (1962).
Rahner, K., On the Theology of Death (1969).
Salmond, S. F. D., The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (1895).