Late to the Party: In More Ways Than One

Of all the folks here at the River Thames Beach Party, I feel the least qualified to be writing here. I have absolutely no real theological education, and am more confident writing about how to build a sheep feeder or offering my thoughts on firearms and shooting craft.  My prolonged silence at the Beach Party has been in part because I have gotten so much out of reading what my brothers have written. After reading everyone else I feel like an intellectual pauper. 

 The Anglican way was in part the way of my family. Two of my grandparents (paternal grandma and maternal grandpa) were both confirmed communicants of the Episcopal Church. In general, the country folk in my family attended Presbyterian churches, and the town kin attended Episcopal churches. This was not unusual, as the part of the upper Ohio Valley I grew up in is also known as the “Presbyterian Valley”.  I was baptized into a Presbyterian denomination that no longer exists; the body having been absorbed into the PCUSA. 

 My Anglican family members on my mother’s side impressed me at an early age with their inherent dignity and charity, especially my grandfather and his siblings. While not wealthy, (children of an English coal miner) they had a great deal of self respect in their bearing. They also practiced kindness and charity in a way that was not showy, and lacked some of the more narrow and judgmental attitude of the pietistic influenced Presbyterianism.

 My earliest attraction to Anglicanism was the timeless beauty of the hymns and liturgy. However, I must also confess that I never really internalized the Gospel until I passed nearly 50 years on this earth.  I have attended a number of churches or various stripes. I served as a vestryman and token conservative in a pretty liberal Episcopal Church. My wife is Eastern Orthodox, and I genuinely tried for years to fit into her church tradition (The results of this was pretty miserable for me). I also was never really secure in my relationship with God. If there is any thing odd about my journey it is how someone could spent so much time in church and never really “get” the Gospel.  I finally had l a “Martin Luther moment”, and came to several conclusions:

 While the World is a beautiful place, I have seen enough of it to believe there is something very very wrong. As I grow older and better understand myself, I also realized that I am no better than the World around me.

 In a world of radical evil in every direction, the only thing that can expunge that evil is blood atonement provided by an innocent.

 We are fortunate in that God has chosen to expunge that evil by his own blood, in a horrible humiliating death upon the Cross. 

 Without the centrality of this Gospel, all Christianity is pietistic, and the pietist can pick his poison. The pietist can:

 -buy an indulgence, attend a Latin daily Mass, and shop for every trinket Mother Angelica sells

-sell your car, cut off the electric, and grow a beard

-move to the desert, learn the Jesus prayer, and fast on raw vegetables

-Stop drinking and smoking, quit dancing, comb your hair like a helmet, and litter the countryside with  Bible tracts thrown from your car window

-Focus on earthly justice for any of the oppressed nations or classes  du jour

 None of these practices are bad things, dependent upon ones individual circumstance (Except perhaps the littering). While I personally did not try them all, I always looked for something to do. However, none of these things will ever save us. Before my thick head finally got the Gospel, my experience with Christianity was a seesaw from enthusiasm/Pharisaic to depression/despair. Perhaps ironically, I first heard the Gospel in a way I could understand it from Lutherans; not Anglicans (Thank you Todd  Wilken and Issues, etc. You changed my life forever)

 However, at the same time as I came to this understanding, a miracle happened. God saw fit to raise up a new Anglican Church in my hometown. Part of the mission of this church was to use the historic prayer book as a means to “focus on the redeeming work of the crucified and risen Christ, and boldly, without compromise, proclaim the unconditional Gospel of God’s Grace through word and Sacrament”. The historic Prayer Book and the 39 Articles do this work wonderfully, without some of the over-defining and infighting of certain other Reformed bodies. While I have come late to the party, there is still a richness of comfort. If I can help spread anything about the richness of the Anglican way, it is that genuine comfort for a World that needs it.

I do not like to talk about it, but I have battled depression my whole adult life. While I was slow to get it, I take great solace from the Gospel. When I am really low, I turn to two things: The “comfortable words” from the communion service in my prayer book, and a picture of the Weimar altar piece that I keep on my office wall. It is my prayer that these might comfort others as well.

Anglicanism Proper

Although today the term “Anglican” is most commonly employed in a generic or institutional sense to refer to the official communion of the Church of England, such usage is relatively new.  Indeed, “Anglicanism,” in its more traditional sense, more narrowly refers to a particular point of view within the Established Church and its progeny that “wished to see neither servility to Rome nor subservience to Geneva but a Church of England truly catholic in all essentials and yet cleansed and reformed from the abuses which and gathered round it during the Middle Ages.” As such, Anglicanism proper owes it origin firstly to the work of John Jewel and Richard Hooker, who defended the English Religious Settlement against both Roman and Puritan criticism, and secondly, to their “successors in the seventeenth century [who] did much, by their lives as well as by their [writings,] to give quality and strength to the Church of England and earned for the English clergy the title of stupor mundi, ‘the wonder of the world.’  Among the most distinguished of these successors, apart from [Archbishop] Laud, was a group of Cambridge scholars including such famous names as Lancelot Andrewes, Richard Montague, John Cosin, Thomas Fuller, Jeremy Taylor, George Herbert, and Nicholas Ferrar.”

“The point of view of [Anglicanism proper] may be summed up in the dying words of Thomas Ken, who had inherited the great tradition laid down by the Caroline Divines.  ’I die,’ he said, ‘in the Holy Catholic and Apostolick Faith, professed by the whole Church before disunion of the East and West.  More particularly, I dye in the Communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan Innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.’  These words indicated the basis of the work of the Caroline Divines.”  The Anglican party, then, adhered the express intent of Elizbeth I, who famously said, “We and our people — thanks be to God — follow no novel and strange religion, but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers.”  Indeed, “theirs was an attempt to get back to the early Church before the accretions of the Middle Ages [that] the reformers were so anxious to get rid of.”

“The Anglicans, [then,] stood between two great religious systems.  On one side was Rome, active and aggressive under the impetus of the Counter-Reformation, trying to rebuild a Christendom shattered by the cataclysms of the sixteenth century.  But to the Anglicans, there could be no return to Rome since the faith which she taught was, in their eyes, impure–corrupted by the ‘innovations’ which were no part of the ‘Holy Catholic and Apostolick Fatih’ as taught by the Primitive Church.”  On the other side were the Calvinists and Lutherans, who had separated from catholic tradition and had magnified certain doctrines out of all proportion.  The Anglicans were equally clear that they could not fall into line with them since they had abandoned things which the Early Church thought essential.” Consequently, the Anglicans, who both received and sought to maintain and to perfect the English Religious Settlement “aimed at a Via Media between two extremes; but the Via Media which they sought was not a compromise or a ‘lowest common denominator;’ rather it was a real attempt to recover the simplicity and purity of primitive Christianity.”

In sum, it is the vision of Anglicanism proper that is worthy of preservation today and which must be the basis of hope for the future of the Anglican Communion as an institution.  Indeed, the later is hardly worth saving but for the former, as institutional Anglicanism void of the substance of Anglicanism proper cannot hope to continue as a discreet entity, as it would be nothing more than a duplicate of one or more preexisting deviations from the authentic and pure Christianity that abound today.  Indeed, those in the Established Communion that would like to see “Anglicanism” merge into the Liberalism of Mainstream Protestantism, or be absorbed into a somewhat conservative pan-Evangelical Movement, or even to once again submit to the Rome yoke, simply are not worthy of the appellation.  Moreover, either by intent or ignorance, they are engaged in a sort intellectual dishonesty when they hold themselves out as Anglicans–for they are but hollow Anglicans whose only claim to the title is by the thinest of formalistic claims.  Yeah, now is the time for those loyal to the Elizabethan Settlement and its patristic method to reassert themselves as the true heirs and successors of the mantle of Anglicanism.

For quotations and authority, see, J H R Moorman, A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND (3d ed., Moorehouse, 1980) pp. 200, 212-16, 225-226, 233-235

Loyalty to the Prayer Book

Percy Dearmer

Percy Dearmer’s Loyalty to the Prayer Book is truly a manifesto for today’s Anglicanism. Loyalty can be read at Project Canterbury, but here I will share some highlights from Dearmer’s original tract. The select quotes are extremely relevant to both Anglican ecumenicalism and identity today as we encounter various external and internal pressures– e.g., the allure of Rome’s Apostolic Constitutions, or, perhaps contemporary “charismatic” practices that seem to further erode Anglican foundations.

Dearmer describes a problem facing turn-of-the-century England which sounds very true today– namely, an unchurched population grown ignorant to true religion.  Dearmer’s typical brilliance is not apologizing for contemporary culture but fighting for catholic past. Dearmer points a ’simple way out’. Rather than look far afield to foreign churches or embrace the dissonant forces of ‘postmodernism’, Dearmer asks anxious churchmen to take a gander at what lies under their nose– the Prayer Book. Percy’s message is straightforward. Revival is found in conformity to English church standards as laid by Anglican fathers. The intimacy of this fact is what makes our predicament so tragic,

We do not realize the extent of our failure. With everything human in our favour–learning, position, wealth, lofty traditions, the possession of the church buildings, the schools, the universities–we have gradually let our people slip away from us. Goodly was our heritage: if we had but kept what our forefathers had won for us, the whole Anglo-Saxon race would to-day be united in one Church, devotedly attached to it, and most diligent in worship as our ancestors were 1,000 years ago, as they were 400 years ago, as, indeed, a great majority still were, in spite of many losses, 200 years ago.

For Dearmer, England’s crisis is a simple failure of discipline. Without this benefit, England lost her familiarity and love for religion. Dearmer reminds the reader how the daily lectionary, regular clerical visitation of homes, catechism on sunday and holy days, plus weekly (frequent) communion are all expected by BCP conformity, giving the very instrumentation and means to deliver a people from apostasy. Dearmer seems to peg decline and waywardness from Prayer book discipline upon Hanoverian policy. Latitudinal laxity bred ignorance, but Dearmer’s anamesis is simply doing what the prayer book requires rather than ‘validating orders’ through Roman palliums, etc. (discussed further below):

The curse both of our religious and our secular life is that we do not worship Almighty God, that we are so largely hearers and not doers of the word,–hearers of sermons, hearers of ornate music; and consequently sluggish, without initiative, without devotion, without the fire of intimate love. It is, I venture to think, obvious that, to restore the genius of worship (once an instinct of our people), we must stick to the Bible and the Prayer Book, and thus restore the Eucharist–the great Evangelical Service–to its lawful place.

The prayer book says ‘the chancels shall remain as in times past’– a clarion call for England’s historical continuity. The ornament rubric indeed has a ’sticky’ interpretive aspect. Dearmer is indeed wary of both Prayer Book fundamentalism and liturgical anarchy. Yet he realizes in order to avoid such unsavory tendencies Anglicanism itself needs definition, keeping true to her historic and unique development. Dearmer thus comprehensively defines England’s catholicism in a way most relevant and meaty for RTBP readers. Notice the inclusion of Settlment standards as properly articulating English catholicity:

The English Church happens to base herself in a special manner upon history–she appeals to the Scriptures and primitive antiquity for her theology, [* Articles VI., VIII., etc.] to the ancient Fathers for her ritual, [* The Preface Concerning the Service of the Church, Article XXIV., etc.] to Catholic tradition for her ceremonial; [* The Preface Of Ceremonies, Canon 30 (1603), Canon & (1640), etc.] she refers us to the second year of Edward VI for her ornaments, [* The Ornaments Rubric] and to the later middle ages for the arrangement of her chancels. [* "And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past." (First inserted in 1552.)] [24/25] Her formularies, therefore, cannot be understood without a good deal of historical knowledge. Some people may object to this, and may ask–Why should they be bound by documents that are two or three hundred years old? But the fact remains that they are so bound, whether they like it or not; and that the whole intention of the Reformers, as shown from end to end of the Prayer Book, Articles, and Canons, was to bind them to principles that are nearer two thousand than two hundred years of age. Nor will they be released from this bondage to historic continuity till the same authority that imposed it shall have removed it,–which will not be for a long time to come. The attempts that have been hitherto made at throwing off this light yoke have not been so conspicuously successful in their results as to encourage us to proceed. Therefore I ask Churchmen to renounce those futile experiments of private judgment, and to throw themselves into the task of realising in its entirety that sound Catholic ideal which the defenders of the English Church preserved for us through the most troublous period of her history.

The answer for modern-day Anglicanism is the same as it was at the turn of the century. The Prayer Book provides all the means necessary to rescue ‘this Church’. Without transparent standards backed by ecclesiastic authority, Anglicanism is like a wave on the sea, going this way and that. Indeed, the road to ‘autocephalousy’ and mutual recognition between sister churches is not conversion of our priests and people to a foreign church, but conversion to our own past (which is orthodox). Dearmer cogently outlines England’s predicament which is reminiscent of today’s trouble,

If English Priests had stuck to their formularies as Romans and Easterns have to theirs, then the English Church would to-day be as marked as the Roman or the Eastern Churches are by such practices as frequent Services, fasting, the supremacy of the Eucharist, and the use of distinctive vestments for the Sacraments. Those who still fancy that obedience is insular would do well to consider seriously what alternative they have to propose. They will find that the only alternative is anarchy, under which each parson may set up his own ideas of Church order and worship; and these ideas have persistently differed, not in details only, but in essentials, from the principles of the Church Catholic. By this system; or want of system, you may have a pseudo-Romanism in one parish, a pseudo-Puritanism in another, and a decorated worldliness in another, but in few will you have Catholic worship and order. Nor will you gain the respect or trust of the rest of the Church or of the world at large… But loyalty to the Prayer Book disarms the enemies of the Church, at the same time as it restores the effectiveness of her friends. And if we set–as we should–the fortunes of the Church Universal above those of our own communion, we shall still do well to remember that the weakening of Anglicanism would remove the greatest agency which God in His providence has left in the world for the reunion of Christendom.

I am inclined to agree with Dearmer. Our best way toward a restorative Christendom is through Anglicana’s own Mother Church.  This seems to be Dearmer’s thesis– conformity to the BCP as the starting point for rejuvenation?

Newman on the Church and its prayers

John Henry Newman (1801-1890) is off to a good start in the process of becoming a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.  For Anglicans to then dismiss him as a convert and to let Roman Catholicism entirely appropriate his legacy would be a mistake, in my mind.  Similarly, it would be regretful if the only Anglicans who held the torch for Newman were of the High Church, Anglo-Catholic, and Anglo-Papalist varieties.  Newman is representative of the unique tension of Anglicanism, the tension created by the pull toward purity (doctrinal or otherwise) that exists in all churches on the one hand and the pull toward breadth.  Allow me to illustrate this by referring to a particular post and comment on my personal blog (O God, come to my assistance).  In discussing the Divine Office, the paradox of the Prayer Book office when compared to other liturgies such as The Anglican Breviary, is that it is broad-minded precisely because it is exclusive (restrictive) in content.  Or, for another example, this very group blog is representative of the kind of diversity that exists within Anglicanism; the Book of Common Prayer is at the center of all our spiritualities, yet our spiritual/theological leanings are not identical.  In fact, it is a testament to the liberal (generous) spirit of Anglicanism that the River Thames Beach Party is home to Anglicans on both sides of the Atlantic as well as in the Anglican Communion and Continuum.  If you haven’t already, I encourage our readers to take a glance at the authors’ pages.  You will see that Charles describes his blog, Anglican Rose as “a quest for magesterial Protestantism within the context of antique orthodoxy and medieval Catholicism,” Kevin describes himself on Ohio Anglican as a “Broad-Church Orthodox Anglican,” and Nicholas at Comfortable Words invites us into the world of the 1662 English Prayer Book.  The truth of the group’s commitment to the Anglican spirit may perhaps be best exhibited by my own inclusion here as I am the only Episcopalian ‘79 BCP using contributor.

All of these examples, I hope, make the Anglican tension between purity and breadth come to life in a real way.  This tension not only exists in Newman’s writings, but I believe fueled the fires of his devotion to the faith of the Church.  This can be seen as early as 1834 when Volume I of his Parochial and Plain Sermons was compiled.  In these sermons he displays an incredible fidelity to the prayers of the Church.  In Sermon 11, “Profession without Hypocrisy,” he describes the regression in the prayer life of one who fails to maintain their duty in saying the prayers:

Accordingly, such persons in their own case first give up the Church prayers, and take to others which they think will suit them better. Next, when these disappoint them, they have recourse to what is called extempore prayer; and afterwards perhaps, discontented in turn with this mode of addressing Almighty God, and as unable to fix their thoughts as they were before, they come to the conclusion that they ought not to pray, except when specially moved to prayer by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Extemporaneous prayers do have a place in the lives of the faithful, but Newman warns against substituting these prayers for the common prayers of the Church.  In sermon 12, “Profession without Ostentation,” Newman moves to address the question of professing Christ as an individual vs. as a body.  He warns against a man “standing on his own ground” because he is “grieving and disturbing the calm spirit given us by God.”  He writes:

Men are to be seen adopting all kinds of strange ways of giving glory (as they think) to God. If they would but follow the Church; come together in prayer on Sundays and Saints’ days, nay, every day; honour the rubric by keeping to it obediently, and conforming their families to the spirit of the Prayer Book, I say that on the whole they would practically do vastly more good than by trying new religious plans, founding new religious societies, or striking out new religious views.

Here Newman prescribes something profoundly simple, the most efficient way we profess Christ as individuals is by conforming our lives to the spirit of the Church’s prayers and pattern.  Describing the model of the Liturgy in Sermon 14, “Religious Emotion,” he reminds us that the Church’s prayers come from the lessons and examples of Christ himself:

Now let me remind you how diligently we are taught the same by our own Church. Christ gave us a prayer to guide us in praying to the Father; and upon this model our own Liturgy is strictly formed. You will look in vain in the Prayer Book for long or vehement Prayers; for it is only upon occasions that agitation of mind is right, but there is ever a call upon us for seriousness, gravity, simplicity, deliberate trust, deep-seated humility. Many persons, doubtless, think the Church prayers, for this very reason, cold and formal. They do not discern their high perfection, and they think they could easily write better prayers. When such opinions are advanced, it is quite sufficient to turn our thoughts to our Saviour’s precept and example. It cannot be denied that those who thus speak, ought to consider our Lord’s prayer defective; and sometimes they are profane enough to think so, and to confess they think so. But I pass this by. Granting for argument’s sake His precepts were intentionally defective, as delivered before the Holy Ghost descended, yet what will they say to His example? Can even the fullest light of the Gospel revealed after His resurrection, bring us His followers into the remotest resemblance to our Blessed Lord’s holiness? yet how calm was He, who was perfect man, in His own obedience!

By way of a final selection of his words, I would like to direct us to his warnings in Sermon 19 “Times of Private Prayer” where he is unwavering in his insistence in keeping the daily prayers of the Church.  He reminds us that “Nothing is more difficult than to be disciplined and regular in our religion” along with the assurance:

Be sure, my brethren, whoever of you is persuaded to disuse his morning and evening prayers, is giving up the armour which is to secure him against the wiles of the Devil.  If you have left off the observance of them, you may fall any day; – and you will fall without notice.

Newman demands nothing less than a conforming of our individual lives to the life of the Church.  He does not demand this out of mere civic or ecclesiastical obeisance, but for the very best and holy of reasons: it is the way of conforming our lives to that of Christ himself, the most efficacious way of preaching the Gospel in the world, and the most secure way to resist evil.  He is also profoundly aware of the inclinations of human nature, “if we leave religion as a subject of thought for all hours of the day equally, it will be thought of in none” (Sermon 19, “Times of Private Prayer).  This vision of the Church is nothing less than that of Paul’s vision of one body with Christ as the head and each of us as different members.  We need not all be the same.  The Anglican tradition is one that embraces both purity and breadth fed by the prayers taught by Christ’s very word and example.

Walter Farquhar Hook on the principles of the English Reformers

Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875), Dean Of Chichester

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. (Is 51:1)

It can be tempting to reach outside Anglicanism in the search for authority.

And of course for the dominant party of our own times, it is the political ideologies and theological speculations de jour to which they look.

But the Revd Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875) questioned this.

WE all of us hold, on the one hand, “That holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation,” and we all of us hold, on the other hand, that in all cases of difficulty or doubt we are to take for our guide the Ritual, Liturgy, Articles and Formularies of the Church of England.

But here we are met by those who impugn our principle of interpretation, the Dissenters, whether Romish or Protestant, who very fairly demand why more deference should be paid to the English Church than to any of their own sects; to the English than to the foreign reformers; to Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, than to Zuinglius, Calvin, or Beza; to this objection other answers may be given, but I only know of one which is of any weight, and which has always been adduced ever since the Reformation by all the divines who have adhered to the principles of the English Reformers.

Looking to the principles upon which the Reformation of the Church of England  was conducted, to the strict regard our reformers paid to the voice of antiquity, to their avowed determination to adhere to the unquestioned and unquestionable tradition of doctrine universally received, they contend, and affirm their readiness to prove, that in our Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and Formularies, is embodied all that is essential of the traditional doctrine of the Universal Church; and that, therefore, in deferring to them, we defer not to the decision of a few individuals, but to the tradition universally received in those early ages, when, on all subjects relating to doctrine or to discipline a strict correspondence was kept up between
all the branches of the Church Universal.

The Church And Its Ordinances (1876) Vol I Ch. 4, pp. 78-79.

In other words, we look (or should look) to our own, because from the beginning the English Reformers and Divines tried, admittedly with varying degrees of success but with indomitable zeal, to “look to the rock from which we are hewn”.

One might think that this means Thomas Cranmer, or the Church of England under Edward VI, but that is clearly not Hook’s intention when he speaks of “the tradition universally received in those early ages”. And indeed, the Church of England has never been the Edwardian or Cranmerian Church.

For Hook, the rock whence we are hewn is the Church Fathers of the first six centuries, and so to those same Apostolic and Scriptural traditions which had come to Britain even before St Augustine in 597, and are now embodied in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. As I understand it, this, and not any new doctrine, order or politics – even in the 16th century – is what makes the Church of England ‘Anglican’.

Sola Scriptura, the Anglican Way

There is one aspect of Anglican tradition and identity that seems to get lost faster than any other: the primacy and uniqueness of Scripture, or in the more popular term, Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Anglicanism is rooted in Scripture and viewed through a patristic lens like the continental reformers, but with a catholic eye and being free from Roman distortion, Protestant bias or Byzantine apathy. Somehow in our time, the average Anglican is unaware of how Scriptural supremacy is the bedrock of Anglican Christianity.

The majority of the Prayer Book’s content, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the writings of the Anglican Fathers were based on the inerrant nature of Scripture. It was so important to the Anglican reformers, that it was the first homily for the instruction of the churches in England to enlighten both laity and clergy. This was a statement of Biblical orthodoxy, and a departure from medieval error and Roman dominion.

With these changes, the English reformers preserved Church tradition, as long as the traditions are rooted in or affirmed by scripture. Here we have a path between Romanism/Orthodoxy, which gave equal weight to tradition and episcopacy with that of Scripture on one side, and the radical reformers that trashed tradition and authority in spite of Biblical proofs, on the other.

Luther wrote in the Smalcald articles “The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.” Here is where the English Reformers shine; they spell out the role of scripture as the establishment and buttress of the Church and tradition, leaving no doubt Sola Scriptura is an anchor point of Anglicanism. In the 39 Articles, there are several articles that detail the role of scripture as the establishment and basis of faith, and of the English church.

Article VI – Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Article VII – Of the Old Testament.

THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Article VIII – Of the Three Creeds.

THE three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

Article XX – Of the Authority of the Church.

THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Thomas Cranmer

To a lesser extent, all of the articles hold warrant of Scripture as their base or foundation, most notably XVII, XVIII, XXI and XXII. This tells us that the Anglican Fathers used their own thinking on Sola Scriptura to establish the Church and faith of England–not Calvin’s or anyone else’s. We see this brought out even further in the first homily written by Thomas Cranmer in the Former (or First Book of) Homilies, entitled: “A Fruitful exhortation to the reading of Holy Scripture.” In this homily, Cranmer clearly and simply states the need of Scripture as the foundation and measure of the English Reformation, and at the same time, cites the Bible and the Early Fathers as confirmation for this direction, marking this path to reform as not only Biblical, but also catholic.

Cranmer also relies mostly on the teachings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustin of Hippo to affirm that his position on the primacy of Scripture is that of the Early Fathers, and not his own. We can plainly see that Sola Scriptura is an Anglican principle of it’s own tradition, and not one that has been imported or grafted from others.

Patris Sapientia

Monks in Quire

The following poem is an excerpt from an 1876 edition of The Day Hours of the Church of England. The Day Hours was the first english translation of the Sarum Breviary, corrected for BCP-use. Included by the editor, the poem outlines our Lord’s humiliation and obedience which the Hours remind us. A similar outline of the Hours by the Benedictine Fellowship of St. Lawerence (WRO) for use with their Monastic Diurnal (taken from the Roman Breviary) may be downloaded. However, the 1876 Day Hours better suit Anglican practice, taking the same cues as John Cosin’s Devotions. A Sarum-based  Prime and Compline can be found in England’s Proposed 1928 BCP (see chp. 42 & 43) as well as the 1913 proposed by Dearmer.  These are great additions to Morning and Evening prayer.

Circled by His enemies,  By His own forsaken, God made Man, at time of LAUDS, For our sakes was taken: Very Wisdom, Very Light, Monarch long expected, In the garden by the Jews Bought, betrayed, afflicted.

See them, at the hour of PRIME, Unto Pilate leading Him, ‘gainst Whom with lying tongues Witnesses are pleading; There with spitting and with shame Ill for good they render, Marring of That Face which gives Heaven Eternal splendour.

“Crucify Him!”for His love Is their bitter payment, When they lead Him forth at TERCE, Clad in purple raiment; And a Crown of woven thorns On his Head He weareth, And the Cross to Calvary On His Shoulders beareth.

He upon the Cross at SEXT for man’s sake was mounted, By the passers-by reviled, With transgressors counted: Mocking, vinegar, and gall To His thirst they proffer: To the Holy Lamb of God Such taunts they offer.

At the hour of NONE the strife Long and sharp was ended, Gently to His Father’s Hands He his soul commended: And a soldier pierced His Side With a spear unbidden, While earth quaked exceedingly, And the sun was hidden.

When it came to VESPER-time, From the Cross they take Him, Whose great Love t bear such woes For our sakes could make Him: Such a death He underwent, Our alone Physician, That of everlasting Life We might have fruition.

At the holy COMPLINE-tide, Holy hands array Him In the garments of the grave, Where the mourners lay Him: Myrrh and spices have they brought,– Scripture is completed; And by the death, the Prince of Life, Death and hell defeated.

Therefore these Canonical Hours my tongue shall ever In thy praise, O Christ, recite With my heart’s endeavour: That the Love, Which for my sake Bore such tribulation, In mine own Death-agony May be my Salvation.

Stupendous Height Of Heavenly Love

Durham Cathedral In The Snow

STUPENDOUS height of heavenly love,
Of pitying tenderness divine;
It brought the Saviour from above,
It caused the springing day to shine;
The Sun of Righteousness to appear,
And gild our gloomy hemisphere.

This is the first verse of a magnificent Christmas hymn by Charles Wesley (1707-1788).

Love indeed it was that brought the Son of God from heaven. “God so loved the world” says St John “that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16).

And healing was his purpose. “But unto you that fear my name” promises Malachi in God’s name “shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall” (Mal 4:2).

God did in Christ himself reveal,
To chase our darkness by his light,
Our sin and ignorance dispel,
Direct our wandering feet aright;
And bring our souls, with pardon blest,
To realms of everlasting rest.

So again St John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (Jn 1:1-4).

With this light of grace, we can see more clearly the way in which he wants us to go. The Psalmist says, “He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake… Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever” (Ps 23:6).

Come then, O Lord, thy light impart,
The faith that bids our terrors cease;
Into thy love direct my heart,
Into thy way of perfect peace;
And cheer my soul, of death afraid,
And guide me through the dreadful shade.

This is the very essence of the New Covenant, written on our hearts and sealed in the blood of our Saviour. “After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:33).

And assured of this, the Psalmist also writes: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Ps 23:3-4).

Answer thy mercy’s whole design,
My God incarnated for me;
My spirit make thy radiant shrine,
My light and full salvation be;
And through the darkened vale unknown
Conduct me to thy dazzling throne.

Wesley sees two purposes for the Incarnation here. One is that I should become the living Temple of the Lord, by the presence of his Spirit. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor 6:19).

And the second design of the Son of God in taking flesh is that I will be with him forever in heaven. “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev 21:1-4).

Therefore, dearly beloved, let us not forget this exceeding love of our Lord and Saviour, let us not show ourselves unmindful or unthankful toward him; but let us love him, fear him, obey him, and serve him. Let us confess him with our mouths, praise him with our tongues, believe on him with our hearts, and glorify him with our good works. Christ is the light, let us receive the light. Christ is the truth, let us believe the truth. Christ is the way, let us follow the way. And because he is our only Master, our only Teacher, our only Shepherd and chief Captain, therefore let us become his servants, his scholars, his sheep, and his soldiers. …

Therefore let us be strong, steadfast, and unmovable, abounding always in the works of the Lord. Let us receive Christ not for a time, but forever; let us believe his word not for a time, but forever; let us become his servants not for a time, but forever in consideration that he hath redeemed and saved us not for a time, but forever and will receive us into his heavenly kingdom, there to reign with him not for a time, but forever; to him therefore with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour, praise, and glory, forever and ever. Amen.
(Second Book Of Homilies, 1571)

Happy Christmas to everyone.

The Anglican Via Media: affable manners, with untainted virtue

Higher Sharpnose Point, Morwenstow, Cornwall. ©Philip Halling, used under Creative Commons licence.

The Anglican “via media” (middle way) has been much mocked. It has been accused of being indistinguishable from latitudinarianism. It has been seen, sometimes approvingly, as a clever synthesis of Romanism and Calvinism, and even a compromise with fashionable secular thinking. But I don’t think it is any of these things.

The first issue is latitudinarianism. Bishop Van Mildert (1765-1836) described it like this:

Thus a new species of catholic unity is introduced. No longer is the universal Church to be distinguished by uniformity of faith and worship, of doctrine or of discipline; but is to admit every diversity of opinion, and to be amalgamated in one common mass with every device that human imagination can engraft upon the word of God.

John Wesley (1703-1791) expresses his opinion of this policy in a manner which surely no one could mistake:

A catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions: this is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought, this being “driven to and fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine,” is a great curse, not a blessing, an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism.

Bishop Van Mildert reminded us that what we see as a kindness is in fact far from it. We have been given a Covenant of grace by God, and we cannot change its terms.

But while we are solicitous to enlarge to the utmost the boundaries of our Lord’s kingdom, and “without respect of persons,” would bid to the marriage feast as many as will come in; still must we remember that it is not in our power to alter the tenor of that covenant, by which all who obtain admission are necessarily bound. Over that we have no control. “As many as walk after that rule, peace be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

So I don’t think an “all views welcome” latitudinarianism is a very Anglican understanding of the “via media”.

Then there is the idea that Anglicanism is a kind of creative harmony between Swiss Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. To show the inadequacy of this, the Will of Bishop Thomas Ken (1637-1711) may be quoted:

As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West, more particularly in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.

Current Roman and Swiss doctrines weren’t to be fused into a novel teaching. They were two kinds of novel teaching to be resisted with truly ancient tradition. The vast majority of Divines I have read echo this sentiment. Insofar as some writers occasionally speak of a “middle way” between them, they are speaking of a treading a path between (in their eyes) two sheer drops into fanatical innovation, heading instead for the safer ground of the Patristic age.

We and our people — thanks be to God — follow no novel and strange religion” said Queen Elizabeth I in similar vein, “but that very religion which is ordained by Christ, sanctioned by the primitive and Catholic Church and approved by the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers.

So a fusion of Swiss and Roman teachings doesn’t seem to be the Anglican “middle way” either.

Maybe we will have more luck with a sort of gentlemanly compromise with secular fashions, a religion that obliges us to move with the times, but not too much? Hugh Blair (1718-1800), however, would have none of this.

With regard to religious principle in general, it may perhaps be expected, that I should warn you of the danger of being, on one hand, too rigid in adhering to it, and on the other hand, too easy in relaxing it. But the distinction between these supposed extremes, I conceive to have no foundation. No man can be too strict in his adherence to a principle of duty. Here, there is no extreme. All relaxation of principle is criminal.

The “middle way”, for him, is not about doctrine or morals, but about evangelism. It is about the decencies of debate, not our arguments, which must ever remain the same. This, he admits, is far from easy.

One of the greatest trials both of wisdom and virtue is, to preserve a just medium between that harshness of austerity, which disgusts and alienates mankind, and that weakness of good nature, which opens the door to sinful excess. The one separates us too much from the world. The other connects us too closely with it; and seduces us to follow the multitude in doing evil.

This is the path “neither to the left nor to the right” (Is 30:21) that we are asked to tread. In Isaiah’s terms, the Fathers echo God’s voice behind us, saying “This is the way: walk in it”. For our part, we must also walk it honestly, to win the respect of outsiders (1 Thess 4:12), neither in severity nor compromise. “True religion” Blair concludes “enjoins us to stand at an equal distance from both; and to pursue the difficult, but honourable aim, of uniting good nature with fixed religious principle; affable manners, with untainted virtue.” To me, this is the “via media”.

The Godly And Decent Order of The Ancient Fathers

Hereford Cathedral from Church Street

This might not seem like the obvious time to come back to the Church of England.

And to be strictly accurate, that’s not what I find myself doing. After drifting away from the Church of England many years ago, what is drawing me now is not the Church of England, but the historic Anglican tradition.

Many people will say, of course, that there is no such thing. Newman famously declared that he could no longer see anything of the Church of the Fathers in the Church of England. Yet spend a few hours with Bishop Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) in his Holy Living And Dying, or Bishop Thomas Ken (1637-1711) in his Practice Of Divine Love, and you find it on every page.

Amongst these Anglicans there really is tradition, a searching for “the godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers”; there is mystery, fellowship “at the throne of the heavenly grace”; there is honesty, confession of man’s “devices and desires”; there is commonsense, the wisdom of “things as necessary for the body as the soul”; and there is peace, “peace which the world cannot give”.

There is even new light cast on those three little words, Catholic, Reformed, and Evangelical. “Reformed”, as they use the word, turns out to mean nothing more than re-formed, put right, and above all put back, put back to how it was here in England when our beautiful country was young. This reformation did not happen overnight, nor was it the achievement of one man. Others constantly sought to interfere, and many mistakes were made. But never was the intention anything other than to restore the English Church to the Catholic faith.

And “Catholic” means, as it did for Vincent of Lérins, whatever has been believed by all classes of people (e.g. laity and clergy), at all times (Apostolic to the present), and in all places (East and West). It means the faith and practice that in our different ways we all shared in common across the churches, before the unhappy divisions began.

“Evangelical” simply means, that “we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard”. It means the irrepressible desire to share with others this catholic faith of the Apostles and the earliest Fathers, reformed to match their consensus once more. After all, why should we even want to be evangelical about anything else but the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic faith?

As for the English difference, it means the pride we take in those English men and women, and those English literary, cultural and political institutions, that  with evangelical fervour reformed our Church to the pattern of the earliest witnesses, when they might have surrendered to the spirit of the age.

We have our own heroes – Lancelot Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, Thomas Ken, John Wesley, and many more. We have our own contributions to civilisation – not least the birth of free-market democracy, and the industrial revolution. And we have our own truly priceless literary gems – none greater than the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible.

There is more than enough to be proud of here, Reformed, Catholic and Evangelical, without stepping one inch outside the Orthodox and Apostolic faith of the Undivided Church; more than enough to be proud of, and, I think, far too much to lose.

In addition to my blog Comfortable Words, I also have a website where you can find extracts from Sermons by these and many other classical Anglican writers, as well as hymns and anthems, the chief services of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and traditional language prayers for all occasions, including preparation for Holy Communion.