Thursday, September 06, 2012

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles


Article XXIII.
Of Ministering in the Congregation

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.  And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

De vocatione Ministrorum

Non licet cuiquam sumere sibi munus publice praedicandi in Ecclesia, nisi prius fuerit ad haec obeunda legitime vocatus et missus.  Atque illos legitime vocatos et missos existimare debemus. Qui per hominess, quibus potestas vocandi Ministros atque mittendi in vineam Domini publice concessa est in Ecclesia, cooptati fuerint et asciti in hoc opus.

Article XXIV. 
Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

De precibus publicis dicendis in lingua vulgari

Lingua populo non intellect publicas in ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacramenta administrare, verbo Dei et primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini plane repugnant.


Fr. Laurence Wells
At first glance, Article 23 sounds extremely Protestant, as that term is commonly understood nowadays.  It does not speak of priesthood but of an “office of public preaching.”  It does not mention bishops, but merely “men to have public authority given unto them,” without specifying exactly how this “public authority” comes to them.  We hear nothing here of the threefold ministry, nor of any sacerdotal power to confect sacraments (although the term “potestas” is used in another context), nor of any “character indelibilis.”  But at the same time there is nothing here that could be labeled as Erastian (the doctrine baffling to Americans, which the mother Church of Anglicanism has been accused of, that the Church is a department of state and subject to the control of the secular state).
            This article reminds us that the Elizabethan Doctors were battling on two fronts.  So far, the Articles are mostly concerned with the various debates between the Reformation and the Church of Rome.  But here the issue was not with Rome but with the radical sectarians at the fringe of the Reformation.
            When a man undertakes to lead public worship, to expound the Scriptures and preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, what is the source of his license for such highly presumptuous acts?  Where there is a prevailing belief in a “priesthood of all believers” the explanation is simple.  The assembly of believers has elected someone to preside and has deputized him or her to take charge at both pulpit and table.  While Lutheranism tended somewhat in that direction, for the record we must say this was never a classical Calvinist, Reformed or Presbyterian concept of doing things “decently and in order.”           
            This article was directed at a number of enthusiastic sects, in which a person of either sex who felt called to preach was free to collect an audience and develop a band of followers.  The opportunities for abuse are still obvious, but in a time when many parishes had absentee clergy and duly ordained clergymen were in short supply the self-anointed exhorters could have a field-day.  The “Protestant” tone of the article, therefore, is due to the fact that it addressed a Reformation problem.  As the mediaeval Church-order had broken down (which had occurred long before Henry the VIII cast his eyes on Anne Boleyn), it had become necessary to assert the importance of order.  We can hear a faint echo here of the struggles between the mendicant friars and the diocesan clergy a couple of centuries before this Article was written.         
            Beyond this polemic against the Enthusiastic Sects, a couple of points deserve to be mentioned.  The concept of legitimate authority here is derived neither from the king nor from the assembly.  What is clearly assumed is the principle of continuity and succession within a Divinely instituted ministry.  The reference to “the Lord’s vineyard” is no mere rhetorical flourish.”   The doctrine of Apostolic Succession is clearly in the background.   The “men who have public authority given unto them” are not identified, but when the logic of it is pressed, we are quickly back to Jesus calling and commissioning the Twelve.
            Secondly, the importance of “public preaching” is prominent in this Article.  This Reformation concern was well grounded in the great tradition of the true Catholic Church.  The mediaeval religious orders specialized in homiletics, as St Dominic recognized that the way to convert heretics was to preach the Gospel to them.  In an earlier period, the Church Fathers were highly competent preachers.  One should take note of how much of the voluminous Patristic literature consists of their sermons.  Where preaching is neglected, heresy thrives, souls starve and Christ is dishonored.   

The other extreme      
            If Article 23 is addressed to an error rampant in the Reformation, Article 24 confronts another error from the opposite quarter.  Keeping the Mass in Latin or translating it into the vernacular had long been a bone of contention between the Western and Eastern branches of the Church.  The sixteenth century was a period when many things other than the liturgy were at issue, as the various European languages began to assert themselves.   Rome itself has caved on this point.   This has unleashed a swarm of problems which people in the sixteenth century did not anticipate.  Is a “tongue understanded of the people” the same as street slang or journalistic English?  If the liturgy (a term not found in the Articles) is to be in the vernacular, what sort of vernacular is it to be?         
            That sort of problem is beyond the scope of this essay.  But we should not fail to mention the blunt and forthright manner in which Article 24 speaks of “the Word of God.”  By that term, the Bible is intended.  In the 16th century, neither Romanist nor Anglican, neither Protestant nor Sectarian, had any hesitation in speaking of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as “the Word of God.”

Fr. Robert Hart
            I have been dragged into many a defense of Anglican catholicity by people who were either Roman Catholic polemicists with missionary zeal, or by people on the opposite extreme who want Anglicanism to be no different from all the other Protestant traditions.  The former refuse to acknowledge our Apostolic validity, and the latter do not believe in Apostolic Succession, or at least they do not believe it matters. What they have in common is reliance on the same arguments.
            They claim to have history on their side. They will discover some Protestant clergyman who sneaked in “under the radar” to minister in the Church of England, either because of carelessness or because of the rule for “Stranger’s Churches.” That rule allowed foreign ecclesiastical ministers to care for the pastoral needs of Continental Protestants, such as German Evangelicals (Lutherans), or members of the Dutch Reformed Church, etc. who resided in England. Stating only part of the truth, enough to make one’s case, and neglecting the rest of the story is common to politics, but most egregious as history or religious apologetics.
            Another tactic is to make reference to the temporary establishment of the Anglican-Lutheran joint bishopric in Jerusalem.  That episode led directly to the conversion of John Henry Newman to Roman Catholicism in 1839, because he wrongly assumed the Church of England would abandon Apostolic Succession or compromise it. The contemporary polemicists/ missionaries fail to read the whole story including the reason why the Church of England and the Lutherans had to abandon the project. The Church of England had entered into the whole arrangement with the intention of accepting Lutheran ministers as bishops only after they would submit to consecration by English bishops with Apostolic Succession. When this proved unacceptable to the Lutherans, the joint bishopric collapsed.
            One key word in Article XXIII is “lawfully,” as also in the Preface to the Ordinal. Why do so many of our detractors assume that the Canon Law of the Church of England, and consequently that of Anglicanism in other countries, has no correlation to Anglican beliefs? Why do they assume that strict practice and Canon Law, along with the written liturgy of the Ordinal and Book of Common Prayer that allows only the bishop to ordain, and bishops to consecrate, that reserves the sacrament of Confirmation to the laying on of the bishop’s hands, that forbids any but the priest to celebrate Holy Communion and say Absolutions, is all meaningless? All this law, all these rubrics, all the words in the actual rites of the Ordinal, just somehow exist without any beliefs and principles behind them. Really? That entire assumption deserves no respect, “historical” anecdotes not withstanding.
           
Not Extra-Biblical
            Another assumption that we may dispense with is that the Apostolic Succession of bishops is not to be found in Scripture. The Bible does not explain Apostolic Succession, but it does model it and demonstrate it as a charismatic reality (II Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5) . And, it does so in the same spirit of Article XXIII, that is, with an emphasis on more than a sacramental relay race, or spiritual genealogy, of who laid hands on whom. For, in itself, that could be nothing more than a “historic episcopate” that even an atheist would have to acknowledge. No. Along with that sacramental line of Succession must be a public ministry that proclaims the true Gospel and that both teaches and defends sound doctrine (II Timothy 2:2). 
Anglicanism in its expressed priorities, including the Ordinal as well as Article XXIII, rightly places equal emphasis on the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments. It was necessary to get away from the Roman perception that the priesthood is almost exclusively about celebrating the Eucharist. Therefore, our Ordinal restored balance with a proper understanding of the office and work of the πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) summed up in the words, “…And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments…” That simple direct phrase says what needs to be said.
Article XXIII, the Ordinal, the Canon Law and the rubrics, all prove that Anglicanism has no room for Lay Administration or any other kind of innovation. The Church has been plagued by innovations from many quarters, including Rome, including Enthusiastic Sects, and in modern times, including the Diocese of Sydney. For order, sacramental validity, pastoral care, proclamation and teaching of God’s word, and defense of sound doctrine, God provides the public ministry that was established by Christ Himself through His Apostles, endowed by every gift of the Holy Spirit.

Understanding
Article XXIV borrows a Biblical principle from an ancient historical context, one with a different emphasis, and a different problem. The Church in Corinth was so enamored with spiritual gifts, almost to the point of Enthusiasm, that they practiced public speaking in unknown tongues that did not serve to edify the people (I Corinthians 14). So too, Latin in the ears of people who could not understand it, might well have edified the priests because of their education; but, the people were left out of the very act of prayer and worship. And they did not hear the word of God, as liturgy ceased to be the people’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and became exclusively the property of priest craft.
The problem was, therefore, very similar to what had long ago been addressed by Saint Paul: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air… Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified (I Corinthians 14:8,9, 16,17).”

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).” The people’s faith must be built up and fanned into flame. Neither uninterrupted tongues, Latin not understood, nor silence, includes the people in worship and prayer, nor permits them to hear the word of God and believe.

45 comments:

Curate said...

Neither article mentions the King as he source of all authority in England. The fact is that the King was the Supreme Governor of the Church in England, so authority to minster would have had to come from him ultimately. We are talking about a functioning monarchy, not a symbolic one.

RC Cola said...

The worst idea to come out of the Reformation is that every person can read the Bible by hImself. The Boble comes from the church an the Church is the arbiter of its meaning, especially the bishops who are charged with being the primary teachers of the faith. That is straight biblical. The Ethiopian was reading a scripture and couldn't understand it, the Apostles clarified the scripture and he came to know Christ. Give a Bible to any person on the street without the Church to guide his reading and you will have more faulty interpretations than letters on the page. Awful, simply awful.
As for the language of the Mass. Latin was understandable to the masses well into the middle ages because Old French, and the other Old romance languages are still "Latiny" enough that when I took medieval Latin in grad school, it was difficult to distinguish what was late vulgar Latin and what was Old French. I reckon the distinction is arbitrary, if not false. The point being that Latin was not a complete mystery tongue even to the peasants who experienced Latin as a living language. It was probably as mysterious and incomprehensible as Elizabethan English is to post-modern English speakers.
My own pre-academic experience with Latin was the Mass. The first time it was a little tough, but after a while of attending regularly it wasn't a detriment. I think the discarding of Latin had more to to with exerting the identity of the emerging nation-states than it has to do with piety. As so much else, states used religion to further its ends.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Curate:

The place of the Monarch was to be the Defender of the Faith. The Formularies we have cited are about the duty of bishops, not the king. Furthermore, the Article is word for word the same in my American BCP. We have never had a monarch; yet, the words apply perfectly for us too.

RC Cola:

I can't agree with saying the Bible comes from the Church. It was given to the Church, and the Church is subject to the authority of that same Lord. But, without the teaching of the most ancient catholic doctors and bishops, of course, the Bible becomes subject to the problem mentioned in II Pet. 3:16: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.'

Anonymous said...

I never could get into the whole division of what comes to versus through the church. In practice no contemporary says, "These 66/73 books have been given to me apart from the Church... for God told me directly which books are in and which are out." The fact is, the Bible didn't drop from the sky and nobody stood around just "recognizing" it as such. Apostolic men penned the NT, and subsequent generations are indebted to the ancients for handing on the tradition of the Text.

Steven Augustine Badal
ACC Layman

Fr. Robert Hart said...

To understand the Bible as given to the Church is not so different from a true understanding of Apostolic ministry in general. That is, Apostolic ministry was not a creation of the Church, but given and appointed by God and sent to the Church. The relation between Apostolic Ministry and Scripture is obvious: God has sent men to the Church and God has sent His word to the Church as recorded in Scripture. What was sent to the Church comes to us through the Church. It is the same in both cases.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, hence the to/through distinction is practically imperceptible since they are inextricably tied together.

I once asked a Reformed Baptist years ago if he would be able to figure out which texts were Scripture and which were not if he were given a huge, mixed pile of clippings with some Bible and some Apocrypha.

His answer was that the Holy Spirit would directly lead him to spot the Scripture. While conceivably possible I suppose, it's the sort of answer he had to give to maintain his doctrine of "mere recognition."

Of course he couldn't give me a compelling reason to accept 2nd Peter apart from his saying, "Well, the Lord said 'My Sheep will hear My voice.'" Obviously I would be ignoring God's direct word on the matter.

Steven Augustine Badal
ACC Layman


Fr. Wells said...

" The fact is, the Bible didn't drop from the sky and nobody stood around just "recognizing" it as such."

No one, not even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist, has ever made such a claim. Please, do not distract the thread by introducing a straw-man.

"Apostolic men penned the NT, and subsequent generations are indebted to the ancients for handing on the tradition of the Text."

That is true, but only partially so. Those apostolic men, like our Lord Himself, believed that Sacred Scripture was given by inspiration. The Scriptures in both Testaments make a serious internal claim to inspiration. If you are more than half-serious about "tradition," then you must take that claim as seriously as the Church Fathers did.

Your question to the Reformed Baptist strikes me as unfair. In accepting the canonical Scriptures as inspired and infallible, we are not required to "reinvent the wheel" by defining the Canon all over again.

Fr. Wells said...

" The fact is, the Bible didn't drop from the sky and nobody stood around just "recognizing" it as such."

No one, not even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist, has ever made such a claim. Please, do not distract the thread by introducing a straw-man.

"Apostolic men penned the NT, and subsequent generations are indebted to the ancients for handing on the tradition of the Text."

That is true, but only partially so. Those apostolic men, like our Lord Himself, believed that Sacred Scripture was given by inspiration. The Scriptures in both Testaments make a serious internal claim to inspiration. If you are more than half-serious about "tradition," then you must take that claim as seriously as the Church Fathers did.

Your question to the Reformed Baptist strikes me as unfair. In accepting the canonical Scriptures as inspired and infallible, we are not required to "reinvent the wheel" by defining the Canon all over again.

Fr. Wells said...

I suppose Google really likes my comment, since it got published twice.

Fr. Wells said...

The old debate "Did the Church create the Bible or did the Bible precede the Church?" is a no-win, catch-22 argument. If one says the Church created the Bible through a process of canonization, he ignores the OT which (no matter which canon he prefers) is chronologically prior to the foundation of the Church. If one says the Bible preceded the Church, he obviously overlooks the fact that both Testaments were written within the matrix of a community of believers.

It seems better to say that the Church was called into existence by the Gospel message, which is the Word of God. That Word or message, which is surely anterior to the Church, was reliably and accurately written under guidance of the Holy Spirit. For that reason we must call the Bible "the Word of God" and acknowledge its infallible authority OVER the Church.

The "Bible vs Church" dilemma would have made no sense to the Church Fathers, but it is a clever way to smuggle a liberal Protestant theological perspective.

Curate said...

Rev. Hart, I was commenting on the article in its original context, which is 16th century England. In that context the church was entirely under the rule of the king, and even today is it actually under Parliament, which speaks for the crown. As such, the authority to minister would have come from the crown first and foremost.

This was the central issue that resulted in the English Reformation - that the king was the lord of the church on earth under God, not a foreign power like the Pope.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Wells,

Please don't distract the thread with your perceived distractions. First of all, you come off a tad rancourous, and secondly it doesn't actually comport with history.

The Protestant claim says no authority of church or man backs the Scripture, but that it is merely "self attesting." All you need to do is read things like the 1689 Baptist Confession:

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
( John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)

Get that? No room for tradition in this. My Reformed Baptist friend was echoing this sentiment when he said he could, by the instruction of the Spirit, recognize and reconstruct the canon, precisely on these grounds. If you reject 2nd Peter, it's because you are rejecting the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. That much is clear. But the early church scene was a little more complicated than this.

You are right there is a catch-22 of sorts. The preached Gospel produced disciples -- this is not Scripture but the Word of Life is, the Kerygma. So yes, both Catholics and Radical Protestants agree the Word is anterior, because in the beginning was the Word (or the Speech, as Calvin was wont to say).

The question of Canon is a bit stickier because we are not dealing with pure Kerygma, but the details of doctrine and disciple that orbit around the central word. In one sense you don't have to pass out the Bible to preach the Word, but if you want to get plugged into the regular life of the Church, you need apostolic authority and proper interpretation. The Church that received the Kerygma and passed it on to stewards of these mysteries had to make judgments. Questions of "majesty," "style," "self-attestation" do not seem to be on the table in the 2nd century. The real questions were: were these books from the hand of the apostles or their associates? Did they see the Lord? If you told a Christian in the 2nd century that Hebrews has such an internal majesty and beauty, and how could it not be apostolic? -- they'd tell you go read Homer and Horace if you are after aesthetics and goosebumps. The internal effect may be evidence but itself is not sufficient.

Jack Miller said...

Fr. Wells,

The "Bible vs Church" dilemma would have made no sense to the Church Fathers, but it is a clever way to smuggle a liberal Protestant theological perspective.

It would seem apparent that it is also a clever way to sneak Papal infallibility (or infallibility of tradition) into the Christian faith.

Also could you comment further on:

for the record we must say this was never a classical Calvinist, Reformed or Presbyterian concept of doing things “decently and in order.”

The Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, from the 16h century up to today, allow only those who are lawfully ordained as pastors to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Granted they don't define Apostolic Succession in any other way than that of succession of the doctrines of Scripture faithfully taught and the sacraments rightly administered. Yet the absence of the episcopate doesn't diminish their emphasis on proper church order regarding the clergy.

blessings...

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Curate:

I wouldn't say that the authority of the crown was the central issue of the English Reformation at all, though it was Henry's main beef. In fact, I believe the best parts of the real English Reformation followed his death. Nonetheless, at all times, ordination depended on the bishops in Apostolic Succession. Without them nothing was lawful, duly authorized, or any of that.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Anonymous:

I believe Fr. Wells was merely saying that even the most way out Fundamentalist sect has to acknowledge the historical fact of how the Bible came to be. Remember, it was someone else who brought up the poetic phrase, "dropped out of the sky." But, I must say the specific Baptist confession you quoted comes a bit too close.

welshmann said...

Frs. Hart and Wells:

I know you folks here at the Continuum have stood firm in support of Apostolic Succession as opposed to its weaker cousin, the historic episcopate. I don't have a problem at all with episcopacy in general; I recognize that it is at the very least a settled matter for the entire church. Even the Reformers who for whatever reason did not retain the episcopate regretted its loss.

With all that being said, I know that there have been sources since ancient times that have said that bishop and presbyter were synonymous in the primitive church, though the three-fold ministry arose at a very early date. You know the sources I mean, so I won't rehearse them here, but I would like to know, are the three-fold ministry and tactile succession apostolic in the strict sense, or are they the codification of a number of underlying practices that are in themselves apostolic?

By way of analogy, I'm thinking about the doctrine of the Trinity, which is clearly and absolutely Biblical and apostolic, versus the standard language that the church has devised over time to express the underlying Biblical teaching. Strictly speaking, the terminology is a man-made thing, but no serious-minded believer would dare tamper with it. It is so closely bound up with our understanding of the Trinity, the two really cannot be separated at this point.

Is the analogy apt, or am I way off?

welshmann

Anonymous said...

Fr. Hart,

First, I forgot to sign my last post. Sorry about that. It's me, Steve Badal (ACC Layman).

Second, I only used hyperbole for effect, not as a strawman. What I meant by that phrase is, practically, Christians outside Catholicism on the whole give no thought to the tradition, even the Authoritative Tradition, of Scripture. I know if you ask any of them about it that there is a tip of the hat to the "handing on" of Scripture, but the most they can honestly say, given their position, is "Well, anyone with the right spiritual wiring can see this is God's Scripture." Tradition really doesn't inform finally, it can only influence their opinion.

You are right, the London Baptist Confession really does come too close to what I am saying, and they were really modelling their confession after the Westminster Confession of Faith.

My point wasn't to say that Protestants are poor stupid dolts (on the contrary, I love the 16th century Reformers even though I disagree radically with them on a lot of points; I wish more people would read Calvin and Luther). My point was to say that there is a tendency by many Protestants to see the Bible as merely a Divine Document, and the Church had nothing authoritative to say about its authority or its content. Liberals and Radical Protestants are notorious for treating the text like a Wax Nose because either the Divine side is diminished or the Human side.

Good topic, keep up the good work, Fathers.

Steven Augustine Badal
(ACC Layman)

welshmann said...

To all:

I was raised in Restorationist and fundamentalist Baptist churches, but I never encountered the "Bible from the sky" theory, whether understood literally or in the more likely sense that we simply receive the Bible by direct, personal discernment. In every fundamentalist church I attended through young adulthood, the pastor had a collection of books describing essentially the same process of canonization that I have since seen in classical Protestant, Roman, and Eastern sources, and this was taught in Sunday School and from the pulpit. The process of review by churchmen over the centuries who discern what is and is not inspired by comparing the text to existing, received tradition is not really in serious dispute by anyone, unless maybe you mean folks who really do claim to receive direct, new revelations. The fundamentalists of my acquaintance abhorred the idea of private revelation. They believed that God can and does guide the individual believer to recognize and understand revealed writings, but they insisted that He does so only within the fellowship of the Christian community.

Our discussion could benefit by unpacking some of the terminology. The "Bible" is a collection of Jewish and Christian literature which was written and assembled by members of the church, so yes, the church created the "Bible". On the other hand, revelation comes from God, who instructs prophets and apostles to write Scripture. They don't get their instructions from the church or any other earthly authority. It is the church's job to recognize, receive, preserve, expound, and obey what God says through His writers.

All groups who claim any kind of apostolic authority discern what is and is not revealed in much the same way, through a combination of prayer and review of historical evidence. The real dispute comes down to our understanding of what the church is, not what she does. Is she the master of Scripture, or its custodian? I believe that the oldest, best traditions, and Scripture itself, say the latter.

welshmann

Fr. Wells said...

Anonymous:

When you wish to critique or refute a theological position on any topic, it is highly unfair to present it in the terms of its weakest representatives. That is what you are doing, by confronting the RB with a rather contrived question and then regaling us with his weak answers.

The quote from the 1689 Baptist Confession is actually from the Westminster Conession of the 1640's. The chapter you quote is simply silent on the issue of Scripture/tradition. It simply states that no matter no matter in how many ways the Bible is praiseworthy, its authority ULTIMATELY is due to its inspiration. You construe silence as denial. Is that fair?

Do you believe the Bible is inspired? From what you write, I cannot be sure.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Wells,

No, Fr. Wells, that's not what the LBC is saying. I don't know how to make you actually read the text, so I guess the conversation is going nowhere fast.

Secondly, casting aspersions on my belief in the inspiration of Scripture (I am an Anglican Catholic, need I remind you? The St. Louis Affirmation says, "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the authentic record of God's revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands -- a revelation valid for all men and all time.") is not only ignorant, it is deeply uncharitable, and frankly your internet discourse is unprincipled especially among your own churchmen.

Thirdly, this Reformed Baptist friend of mine is highly read in Scripture, an encylopaedic memory of the Sacred Text, one of the finest apologists for I Christianity I've ever known, and an amazing intellect to boot (he is a lawyer). His "weak" argument (as you rightly point out) is rooted in his Protestant tradition, not in any defect in his thinking. It is a logical position to take given certain assumptions. I only wanted to point out the consistency of his position, thereby exposing its absurdity given my assumptions.

Steven Augustine Badal
(ACC Layman)

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Let's not get personal about this please.

The question among true believers is never the inspiration of Scripture, but the role of the Church. What we may glean from considering the points of view discussed here is that the Roman Catholic tendency to subordinate the Scriptures to the Church (frankly, to one church, the Church of Rome) becomes the one mouth of two rivers that flow in two separate directions: 1. Requiring false beliefs in the name of Tradition - which really means the whims of one authority, and 2) modern Liberalism.

Welshman:

The general belief is not that the offices of presbyter and episkosis were the same, but that while the Apostles were still alive, the two words referred to the same office, which is now the office of presbyter. After the Apostles were all departed this life, the word episkosis was reserved to the successors of the Apostles. Comparing Acts 20:17&28, as well as looking at the earlier Acts 15:4, seem to give this impression. So too, a comparison of I Timothy chapter three with Titus 1:5f either gives us a list of the three orders, or, more likely, confirms the generally accepted idea that at first the three orders were called Apostle, bishop/presbyter and deacon. Then later the word bishop (episkosis) is reserved for the office of apostle, so as to set apart that first generation of apostles.

Fr. Wells said...

I had hoped that our presentations would trigger a calm discussion of the place of ministry within the Church, which, after all, is the primary point of Article XXIII. It is discouraging to see the discussion hi-jacked into a debate over over the fact that "many Protestants" hold a skewed doctrine of Biblical authority.

That is beyond argument. But perhaps it is not because these folks believe too much about the Bible but too little about the Church. In a Baptistic context, the Church is understood only as a human society, or rather human societies. An exaggerated Biblicism fills this vacuum.

But before you critique the Westminster Confession so severely, please read Chapter I in the context of the Chapters XXV amnd XXVI, "Of the Church" and "Of the Communion of Saints." A high doctrine of Scripture is very different in it comes along with a high doctrine of the Church.

It is offensive to speak in generalizations about "many Protestants" and forget the chasm between classical Protestants and Baptistic sectarians.

Also, take a look at the CCC in its treatment of Scriptural authority, particularly Part One, Section One, Chapter Two, Article Three. Paragraphs I, II and III.
Although the coinherence of Scripture and tradition is better spelled out in the CCC, this modern document is quite clear as to why Sacred Scripture is authoritative. Scripture is authoritative not merely because the Church canonized it but because God inspired it. I will quote only one sentence: "The Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. [Whew!] She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body."

I am puzzled by your indignation over a simple question as to your own belief. If that question were put to me, I would not hesitate to answer, "Yes, I believe the Bible is inspired because God is its Author."

Now, can we discuss Articles XXIII and XXIV?

RC Cola said...

When the PECUSA changed the BCP it used current modern English rather than the 1928's early modern English. Did the ability to understand the language come into the discussion? That is, did the modernizes argue that Elizabethan English violates Articles XXIV because it is allegedly incomprehensible to modern worshippers?
I just wonder if the modernizes tried to co-opt the reformation argument against Latin to eliminate proper liturgical English?

welshmann said...

Fr. Wells:

My apologies for my contribution to the digression from the topic at hand.

Fr. Hart:

Your comments are the first straightforward defense of the three-fold ministry on a strictly Biblical basis that I have seen. I'm sure that is due in part to my limited reading, but so many writers I have encountered treat the apostles as a unique, limited ministry, followed by a two-tier ministry from which the episcopate emerged at a later date. In the future, I'll try to find some sources that are prepared to defend the episcopate from a more rigorous, biblical perspective.

None of this is controversial for me, but I do have some questions.

1) Catholics of every stripe have always maintained that ordination imprints the candidate in a permanent way. What is the Biblical basis for this teaching?

2) Evangelicals really struggle with the idea of priestly absolution. I know that the Lord committed the keys to the apostles, but I admit the idea makes me uneasy as well. Its easy to believe the apostles could forgive sins, because we don't have to talk to them on a daily basis. Believing that your pastor exercises the same kind of authority hits much closer to home. Nevertheless, I can understand absolution in a general way in terms of church discipline. How are we to reconcile a fallen brother unless we can say with assurance that he has been forgiven? Is this the best way to understand absolution, or is there a more direct way to connect it to the ordained ministry?

welshmann

RC Cola said...

I apologize if my original comment started us down an unintentional path.
I live the danger of self-interpretation everyday. My wife's entire clan has been dragged into one of these crazy churches started by a guy with a Bible and the complete inability to read it properly. The lack of humility, the sheer arrogance of ignoring or, worse yet, willful discarding 2000 years of scholarship and spirituality boggles the mind. Oddly, they suggested that I preach at their church someday. I demurred. While they have authorized me to preach, I don't recognize their authority to do so. It has been hard also to muster the humility to beat down my own arrogance that says, "I should preach because I could do a better job than these corn pone dips." ah-- not a good spirit with which to preach. So to protect them from me and me from myself, I refuse.
I have preached twice, when in Africa, as ordered by the Bishop. I didn't like it much. I felt terribly unworthy, but having been told by the bishop to do so, I did. According to all reports I did a bangup job, but I don't remember. I blacked out and just spoke. (He told me just prior To the service; no time to prepare.) the best and safest way to serve the Church is in the way the Church asks, and that comes not from my own Initiative, but from a bishop who has the grace of his office to discern how God and the church can make best use of my warm body.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Welshman:

On one hand we have people who don''t believe in the Apostolic Succession because they think it "too catholic." On the other, we have people who imagine that some canon of the Tradition exists with equal authority to scripture. So, they don't look for the Biblical basis of the three orders or of Apostolic ministry.

The question is a good one: Why do we believe that ordination is an indelible sacrament? I would begin by saying it is strongly implied by St. Paul's warning, "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure (I Tim. 5:22)." But the key defense from scripture, although the context is about the people of Israel, is Romans 11:29: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." The RSV renders it, "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

That Absolution is normally part of ordained ministry comes from John 20:21-23: "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

To argue that my interpretation is standard - even official - Anglican belief, I would need merely to point to the Ordinal, where the words of Jesus are part of the ordination of a priest.

Fr. Wells said...

Most Protestants aka Evangelicals today are uncomfortable with the concept of Absolution. But this was not the classical point of view. The liturgy of the LCMS ((1941 edition) contained the following formula after its prayer of confession:

"Upon this your confession, I, by virtue of my office, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God unto all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Similar formulae can be found in Calvinist liturgies from Strasbourg and Geneva.

The "power of the keys" evidently was regarded as the ministry of the Gospel, generally occurring in the form of preaching, crystallized into a more specific or personal manifestation. If the pronouncement of a formula of absolution seems presumptuous for any human sinner to undertake, the preaching of a sermon is far more presumptuous, as RC Cola has noted. It has been my task to deliver a sermon almost every Sunday for over 30 years. I hope I will never forget how bold and brazen an act this is, "to speak as a dying man to dying men."

Anonymous said...

What, in this context of Article XXIII, is Hooker thought (or known) to mean when he says (LEP Preface ii.4), "This device I see not how the wisest at that time living could have bettered, if we duly consider what the present estate of Geneva did then require"?

And is Baxter speaking to much the same purpose, or going notably further, when he says (Key for Catholicks), "Mr. Eliot in New England may better ordain a pastor over the Indians converted by him than leave them without, or send to Rome or England for a bishop or for orders"?

With respect to the discussion of Article XXIV in the context of 16-17th-c. English, has anyone ever issued a BCP (or service booklets) with parallel text and approved translation, as has been common with the Roman Missal with vernacular tongue next to Latin text for at least the past century?

Semi-Hookerian

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I can answer about Hooker, that his clear rejection of "the Geneva Discipline" was deliberately couched with wisely worded diplomacy. He was as gracious as possible in going about his systematic demolition of their position.

Anonymous said...

Father Hart,

Thank you! My general sense of Hooker's approach was as you describe it.

In the sentence after the one I quoted, he says, "For their bishop and his clergy being departed [...]; to choose in his room any other bishop, had been a thing altogether impossible."

But I wonder if (beyond gracious diplomacy) he considered Calvin's "device" an ecclesiologically valid temporary expedient, e.g., when (Pref. ii.7) he says, "That which Calvin did for establishment of his discipline, seemeth more commendable than that which he taught for the countenancing of it established." "More commendable" does not, of course, say just how commendable the "discipline" is as such.

And, if at all valid (though not optimal or preferable), how protractedly or indefinitely so?

If the best answer is, "See LEP Book VII!" (in which my good start in reading has not yet had a good sequel!), do, please, feel free to say so!

Semi-Hookerian

Fr. Wells said...

Thanks,Semi-Hookerian, for two interesting quotations from Hooker and Baxter. I would take them as evidence that both were somewhat pragmatic about church order. When the continental Protestants are condemned for abolishing "apostolic order" and the threefold ministry, it must be recalled that this order had already disappeared in many places, with vacancies, absenteeism and pluralism. A healthy system was not just suddenly abolished. Rather, a decadent system was replaced as the Reformers did the best they could.

Hooker is admitting that Geneva had done the best thing possible at the time, but arguing that was this no reason to impose Presbyterian order on England where circumstances were very different. Baxter (a Puritan who opted not to leave the Establishment) was using the same logic which John Wesley used a century later--a concept of ordination which had been the minority report since Patristic times.

Bruce said...

Father Wells,
I was also confused by the following: “While Lutheranism tended somewhat in that direction, for the record we must say this was never a classical Calvinist, Reformed or Presbyterian concept of doing things “decently and in order.” I’m probably confused because of my own historical ignorance.
Are you saying the Lutheranism, in this regard, had lower Church tendencies than the Reformed Churches?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Book VII does lay it out, especially in light of what the Church of England practiced and what its own Ordinal and Canon Law required. But, early on, the whole chapter on The Geneva Discipline accepts the fact that something had to be done to meet an emergency. Without harsh criticism of Geneva, he patiently explains why their solution is not Biblical and not terribly flawed.

Fr. Wells said...

To answer the question of Bruce+, the "priesthood of all believers" is more a Lutheran than Presbyterian thing. To our Anglican view of things, the Lutherans are all over the map, since they deny sacerdotal ministry yet in some places retain sacerdotal vestments and a level of ceremonial higher than most Anglicans care for. At the same time, "lay presidency" has always existed amongst them.

I honestly do not know what view obtains among main-line Presbyterians today. Recently a "ruling elder" in a PC(USA) church told me he was "licensed" to "serve communion." It did not seem wise to inquire too deeply as to what this meant.

But historically, Presbyterians described their clergy as "Ministers of Word and Sacrament" and their official documents elaborated this in quasi-priestly terms. This office had an exclusive right to preach, and therefore an exclusive right to preside over the Lord's Supper, and likewise an exclusive right to administer Baptism. The Westminster Directory of Public Worship even prohibited laymen from reading the Scriptures in public worship.

This clericalism was based more on educational qualifications (competence to preach sound doctrine) than on any sacramental ordination (although the laying on of hands by the presbytery was consistently and solemnly administered). But it was the dividing issue between Presbyterian and Congregational Puritans in Cromwell's time. Likewise, the point of dispute in the Cumberland Presbyterian schism in the early 19th century. One historian describes the Presbyterians as the "high catholic wing" of the Puritan movement.

Bruce said...

Fathers,

It seems to me that Luther himself could be all over the place at times. For example, I read that he denied any essential distinction between clergy and laity. Yet he later defended the right of clergy to annul marriage (the particular case was a German prince who hadn’t consummated his recent and mutually loveless marriage). If there’s no distinction between clergy and laity, then why did ministers in particular have the right to annual a marriage?

Jack Miller said...

Fr. Hart,

... confirms the generally accepted idea that at first the three orders were called Apostle, bishop/presbyter and deacon. Then later the word bishop (episkosis) is reserved for the office of apostle, so as to set apart that first generation of apostles.

This seems like an accurate read on the Scriptures mentioned, as well as how the word 'bishop' later became used. What there doesn't seem to be is clear warrant in the Scripture for that later development which separated bishop from presbyter or elder. I'm thinking of Article VI:

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.

I'm not trying to make a case against the three-fold episcopate, as it exists today. I just don't see it proven from the Bible as that which is ordained as the sole polity of the Church. Is there clear scriptural warrant that you could point me to?

Thanks...

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Jack Miller:

Here we are simply facing a fact of history. The Church stopped using the word "presbyter" as synonymous with "bishop." The three offices are still the same. The office of bishop/presbyter did not split into two offices. The bishop is, for all intents and purposes, the one who succeeds the apostles and holds their office.

Fr. Wells said...

I don't think it makes any difference at all how the ministry, so sketchily described in Acts and the Epistles of the NT, emerged by the 3rd century if not earlier in the familiar form of "three orders of ministry." We know two things for sure: (1) Christ Himself commissioned Twelve Apostles who continued His preaching and healing after His Ascension. That is the Divine origin of Christian ministry.
(2) The threefold ministry carried on in the Anglican tradition and other ancient Churches is endowed with a tangible continuity over 2,000 years. Since this ministry is in such true continuity with Christ's own ordinance, it is pointless to ask for some Biblical proof-text. But Paul did write (2 Tim 2. 2) "what you have heard from me, in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." While the "threefold ministry" is not spelled out in any detail in Scripture, neither is any other form of church-order, and there is nothing about it contrary to Scripture. The wisest policy, then, would be to be guided by the total experience of the Church, as incoherent as that may be.

Jack Miller said...

Thanks for the replies, Fr. Hart and Fr. Wells.

Fr. Wells - While the "threefold ministry" is not spelled out in any detail in Scripture, neither is any other form of church-order, and there is nothing about it contrary to Scripture. The wisest policy, then, would be to be guided by the total experience of the Church, as incoherent as that may be.

I agree with the above and that, as a matter of wisdom and tradition, the Anglican Church adheres to the "threefold ministry."

Curate said...

BOQ:Fr. Wells - While the "threefold ministry" is not spelled out in any detail in Scripture, neither is any other form of church-order, and there is nothing about it contrary to Scripture. The wisest policy, then, would be to be guided by the total experience of the Church... EOQ.

This is exactly the position of Hooker. He adds that our fathers before us must be respected according to the fifth commandment, and that godly tradition must be cast off only when absolutely necessary.

However, he does not argue for apostolic succession, but that episcopacy has an ancient pedigree that must be respected, there is no good reason to discard it, and that even the Puritans agree that it is allowed by scripture.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Actually, in Book VII Hooker says the Episcopacy was established directly by Christ Himself through the Apostles. You are correct about his general principle of respecting the wisdom of the Church with her authority; but, in the matter of the episcopacy he was very certain that it goes back to the New Testament, to Christ and the Apostles.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Also, I would say the three-fold ministry is not "spelled out" as in, not explained. But, it is demonstrated. It seems to have become standard by the time St. Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

Curate.wordpress.com said...

Yes, however Hooker never makes an argument for apostolic succession. He never unchurches the Scots, the Dutch, the French, the Germans, or the Swiss. He regards them as brothers. He regards the Puritans as gifted brothers in Christ who are wasting precious time with trivia.

Fr. Wells said...

I must confess that I do not find any incontrovertible evidence for a "threefold ministry" in I or II Timothy or Titus. Paul mentions "episkopoi" and "diakonoi" there, as he does in Philippians. And in Philippians 1:1 we do find "episopoi" but as a group, not quite the monarchical episcopate which we seem to find in Ignatius. And even in Ignatius this episcopate may have been more a parochial than diocesan office. Machts nichts.

There are three rather different questions which must be distinguished.
(1) Is there any tactual/sacramntal continuity with our ministry today and that which Christ established?

(2) What sort of polity, or polities, is consistent with the mainstream of Christian history
(Even where the "threefold ministry is maintained, it has taken on many different shapes--ranging from Renaissance prince-bishops to Celtic "bishops in the basement" to modern missionary bishops.)

(3) And finally (here is the essential difference between us and the Presbyterians), is there anything truly sacerdotal in the ministry Christ intended to establish, with genuine sacramental power?

The blurring of these questions has impeded many an ecumenical discussion.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Curate:

Hooker regarded the Puritans as just plain wrong about "Church government," even on fine points, criticizing e.g. the absurd idea that "lay elders" is consistent with Scripture. And, in the context of the Church of England, Apostolic Succession has to be assumed. Without that, the overall defense of the episcopate in Book VII ultimately would make no sense.