Additional insert from Fr. Wells

TRINITY XI

The key word in today's Gospel is the word justified, but we will come back to that. If you or I had written this parable, it would surely have had a different conclusion from the one our Lord gave to it.

We would possibly have said that the Pharisee was justified and the Publican was rejected. The Pharisee was a thoroughly decent man. He was truly an asset to his community, the sort of man who would be welcome anywhere. We would surely be happy to have him in our church--a man who is there every time the doors are open and, most importantly a man who tithes.

Or we might have said, "there is room for both kinds in our temple." It is an important detail that these two men, who represent two diametrically opposite perspectives, two irreconcilable religions, were praying at the same time and in same place, supposedly to the same god. We are charmed by the notions of tolerance, inclusiveness, getting along and living together in one big tent. So we are tempted to say to the Pharisee, "Try to be more tolerant of the Publican," and then to the Publican, "Try to imitate the Pharisee." We like "both/and" thinking and get nervous with the Gospel's "either/or."

Or we might have said, "We like the Pharisee as he is, and will give the Publican a chance to reform himself." In other words, we would accept him

conditionally and put him on probation. The condition would be something like, "We will accept you for the time being, but you must reform yourself before you are truly welcome."

But the Lord who told this parable brought it to a radically different conclusion. The virtuous Pharisee, who had exalted himself, was abased in ways not divulged to us. The despicable Publican, who cried out in his despair, was exalted in his justification.

Now what does that word justification mean? St Paul devoted much of his writing and preaching to unpacking this truly difficult term. As much as we would like to turn this word into some sort of rehabilitation process, it is a legal term, simply the opposite of condemnation. The publican did not go down to his house to be justified later on. Then and there, he was pardoned, acquitted, vindicated, accepted as righteous in God's sight.

It is rightly said "God loves us enough to accept us as we are, but loves us too much not to leave us as we are." There are the two sides of the Gospel, Justification and Sanctification. But it can only happen when the sinner, in the temple, throws himself on the mercy of God and cries out, "God be merciful to me a sinner." LKW

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

ST MARY THE VIRGIN

Although August 15 is not a Prayer Book holy day, it seems hardly credible that we have no feast in honor of the gentle and lovely woman most intimately involved in the Incarnation. From early times, August 15 has been celebrated as her day. It has been marked by various names. The most ancient and universal title for this feast is the Dormition of Our Lady. That is an unfamiliar word which means "falling asleep." It emphasizes that St Mary was not a martyr, as were most of the saints whose feasts are kept in the Prayer Book kalendar.

In more modern times, this day has come to be called the Feast of the Assumption, celebrating a post-Biblical legend that after her death Mary's body did not decompose but was miraculously transported to the heavens. Before we reject this pious opinion too quickly, we must acknowledge that the New Testament gives some tantalizing hints of such a belief. St Paul wrote (I Thess. 4:17) of those who will be "caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air," and St John penned a majestic description (Rev. 12) of the "woman clothed by the sun." So rather than giving undue honor to the Mother of God, the picture of Mary already in glory shows the ultimate destiny of every Christian. "Be ye faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" is Christ's promise to her and to us as well.

Even if Scripture is silent concerning the end of Mary's earthly life, the Church has given her the title "Mother of God." That appellation still offends many, just as it offended the heretic Nestorius. He was willing to call her "Mother of Christ," but not "Mother of God." "Mother of God" seems to imply something false, that Mary is the mother of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as if Mary herself were a Goddess from eternity. Such a notion would be beyond heresy, a leap into sheer paganism.

When we say, as we must say, that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, we are saying quite emphatically that the One to whom she gave birth was none other than God in the flesh. Her Son Jesus Christ was and is Deity Incarnate. So the title "Mother of God" at bottom line is not a statement about Mary herself but a statement about the One to whom she was Mother.

From the moment she surrendered herself to the Archangels's message ("Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word") until the day of Pentecost when she was occupying an honored place amongi the apostles, we see Mary as the most faithful and obedient disciple, the model for all Christians. Concerning her we sing, "O higher than the cherubim, more glorious than the seraphim, lead their praises; thou bearer of the eternal Word, most gracious, magnify the Lord." LKW

TRINITY XI

Today we read from one of the greatest and most powerful chapters of the NT, 1 Corinthians 15, the “Resurrection chapter.” This chapter is the first selection appointed for reading in the Burial Office (BCP p. 328) and is also the source for the final portion of the Easter canticle (p. 163).

It seems truly strange that even in St. Paul's lifetime, before the NT was completely written, the resurrection of our Saviour was already a matter of dispute. “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (verse 12). Paul does not say “some among them” (the unbelievers) but rather “some among you,” professing Christians and members of the Church. The Christian Church has always had the problem of unbelief within its own ranks.

In Jesus' lifetime, the major difference between the two principal sects of Judaism, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, was belief in the resurrection at the last day. Even before Christ, the Pharisees affirmed it and the Sadducees denied it. (While the Pharisees disputed with Him, it was the Sadducees who were most eager to see Him crucified.) And of course the pagan Gentiles did not believe in a resurrection either, looking for no more than “passing away into a better place.”

This Sadducee attitude, combined with the vague notions of the Gentiles regarding immortality, had somehow penetrated the Christian community. There were those willing to say “Jesus is Lord” who had not fully come to terms with His empty tomb.

The Christian message is not one of vague wistful hopes of intangible immortality. Our Gospel is one of complete victory, over sin, death, and hell. The victory over sin was established at the cross. The victory over death and hell was established at the empty tomb. This resurrection is no mere doctrine, but a fact of space-time history, guaranteed by numerous eye-witnesses.

What difference does it all make? St Paul expresses that bluntly in the opening verse of the chapter: “the gospel which I preach unto you ... by which ye are saved...” If our dear Lord had not left that tomb, but only continued to exist in some flimsy half-life, then we would be truly wretched creatures, still lost, defeated, imprisoned in our sins. “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” LKW

Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

The message for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity is always relevant to the needs of every individual. I had planned to compose a new sermon, but have felt that I am supposed to repeat this from my personal archives.

I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you

1 Cor. 15: 1-11
Luke 18:9-14

It is very fitting that St. Paul is the Apostle who wrote the Epistle from which we have heard this day, because of what we read this same day from the Gospel of Luke. St. Paul was, in his lifetime, both of the men in this parable. He was both the Pharisee who believed his own self-righteous delusion, and then, by God's grace, he became as the Publican who repented, confessed his sin, and was justified. Paul was, in his youth, just like the Pharisee about whom we read, thinking himself righteous and despising others. But, when coming close to Damascus in order to persecute those who were Jesus' disciples and believers, he saw the Risen Lord Jesus Christ, and at once came to see himself, Saul the Pharisee, as not only a sinner, but the chief of sinners. Instead of self-confidence before God, he acquired humility; instead of boasting he learned to confess. He confesses his sin with all humility in this very same Epistle text, as we heard:

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

I have no patience with many modern commenters who belittle Paul as if he continued to have the Pharisaical attitude all his life long, and who are deluded and arrogant enough to suppose that they see it in his Epistles. Any excuse will do, not to learn from the Apostle, any excuse to treat him as less than the holy martyr that he is, to speak of him as less than Jesus Christ's appointed messenger to bring the Gospel to the nations, Apostle to the Gentiles and writer of most of the New Testament. We have the witness of St. Peter that the Epistles of Paul were so revered that, even in his lifetime, the Church began regarding them as γραφή (i.e. Scriptures. See II Pet. 3:15,16).

Paul was joyful and grateful, even through all of his suffering and the persecution he endured for the rest of his earthly life. He had been set free from the worst kind of self-deception and delusion. He came to see that no man can make himself righteous, and that only by God's grace can we be forgiven and justified, and that only by the grace of God active in one's life, by the Holy Spirit who is given to us, can we become holy. The true heart of St. Paul comes across more clearly than ever a couple of chapters later, when writing about charity, the perfect and perfecting love of God for us, and within us by the Holy Spirit.

Comparing his old unconverted life to the new creation in Christ that he had become (II Cor. 5:17), the Apostle wrote us this autobiographical sketch:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”- Phil. 3: 5-9

When the Lord appeared to Saul, and made him an eyewitness of the resurrection, many things changed in his understanding. His righteous act of persecuting the Church was revealed to have been the sin of persecuting the Messiah himself, his own self-attained righteousness was shown to be a delusion, and the curse that was evident in the manner of Jesus’ death was revealed to be atonement paid by the Righteous One for the many, the sinners, thus taking away the curse from those who deserved it (Gal. 3:13). Right away, at his conversion, Paul was granted the revelation that would become his bold teaching about faith in Jesus Christ and the grace that he gives, that Jesus Christ is himself our only Salvation.

Understand what Paul always means when he speaks of our salvation by grace through faith (and remember that phrase exactly, by grace through faith). He never speaks of "faith" simply as an attribute or attitude. He means faith in a very specific way: that is, specifically, faith in Jesus Christ. If we discuss faith and works, let us be clear: Faith means this faith in Jesus. Furthermore, as he would warn these same Corinthian Christians in a later Epistle (II Cor. 11:1f), there are other gospels and there is another Jesus, indeed, gospels and christs as varied as the human imagination with demonic influence may create.

The Gospel defined
And, it matters because in this text from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, we see the details listed for us so that we may know what to present if we are to preach the Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον, Euaggelion). The true Gospel of the real Lord Jesus Christ is never complete, and is never really preached, without these four facts that are brought out in today's Epistle. As there are four books we call Gospels, there is one message of the Gospel that has four facts, the facts we have already heard this day. Someone in the blogosphere wanted to argue with me that there is only one Gospel, because I referred in passing to the four Gospels. In a sense he was right: There is only one message we call the Gospel. The four books we call the Gospels all preach this message, for in each of the four Gospel books we have these four facts, which are the Gospel. In sermons of either St. Peter or St. Paul, in the Book of Acts, you will find these four same four facts.

1. Christ died for our sins as the scriptures foretold.
2. He was buried.
3. He rose the third day as the scriptures foretold.
4. He appeared to witnesses.

We need to get this right, for our own salvation and for the purpose of communicating the message. Paul wrote of the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit that is present by proclaiming this simple message. He wrote, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Rom.1:16) The word translated "power" is a special word that is used for the work of the Holy Spirit, a word that always means miraculous power. The word is δύναμις (dunamis), from which we get words like dynamic, and dynamite. So, Paul was saying that the Gospel is the miraculous and supernatural power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; that the Holy Spirit is the One who gives the message this power to work the miracle of salvation in each believer (if you will receive it, this makes true evangelism genuinely sacramental). God places within this message the same power that has healed the blind, and that raises the dead.

So, let us be diligent to get it right.

First of all, we must be clear who we mean when we say Christ. We do not mean simply a good man or great religious leader. We do not mean simply a prophet. We do not mean simply a man who died for a cause, or who was unjustly condemned. We mean, as Paul calls him later in this same chapter, "the Lord from heaven." (v.47) We mean the One who is himself with God, and is God, and is also with God in the unity of the Trinity, the Word made flesh (John 1:14). We mean the one who was born of a virgin, as St. Matthew and St. Luke teach clearly in their Gospels. So, this Person we call Jesus Christ is exactly who we have professed him to be in saying the Creed:

"God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end."

John warns that any spirit that will not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is that spirit of Antichrist, also called the spirit of error (I John 4:1f) That is, it refuses to confess the Incarnation, either by denying that he is God, One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or by denying that he has taken complete human nature into his uncreated and Divine Person.

So, again.Paul writes:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

1. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

Here, as in the Creed, the phrase “according to the scriptures” means “in fulfillment of the scriptures.” Look at the 22nd Psalm. Look at the Suffering Servant passage from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah (if you do not know this entire passage, then read it and learn it at home: Isaiah 52:13-53:12):

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”

Drawing from the Epistle to the Hebrews, our service of Holy Communion puts it this way:

"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."

2. He was buried.

That is, He died, really and truly in fact, He was dead. The one Man who ever lived and did not deserve the wages of sin, death, (Rom. 6:23) was dead and buried just like everyone else.

3. He rose the third day according to (again, in fulfillment of) the scriptures.

Throughout the book of Acts the most commonly used passage of the Old Testament for this is in the 16th Psalm:

“Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

This is a real and material fact, that he rose in his body of flesh and bone, transforming it into a body that cannot die.

4. He appeared to witnesses.

This fourth fact is essential to the Gospel. Without these eyewitnesses, the resurrection of Christ would be a mere story. But, the resurrection of Christ is a fact of history, recorded with the blood of martyrs, men who saw Him alive again after His resurrection. While Saint Paul was writing this Epistle, many of these witnesses were yet alive, giving the Church that assurance and confidence that it needed to survive the earliest days of persecution. The Greek word translated "witness" throughout the New Testament is μάρτυς (martus). It became our English word martyr. Originally, it meant a witness, one who testifies. Eventually, this witness or martyrdom, testimony of seeing the risen Christ, cost the eyewitnesses their lives in this world; but having seen the resurrected Christ, they despised death; they feared the grave no longer.

Months from now, in the winter on January 25th, we will celebrate the Conversion of Saint Paul. On that day, we clergy wear white, and the altar is decorated with white. If the feast is about Saint Paul, then surely we ought to wear red, should we not? Red is the color of martyrs. But, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul is not about Paul; it is about the last Easter appearance recorded in Scripture, a part of Easter “out of due time,” just as Saint Paul was called by seeing the Risen Christ “as one born out of due time.” His conversion came from being a witness of the resurrection of Christ, at which point he learned all of these things we meditate upon today. He learned that he was a sinner. He learned that he was forgiven. He learned that this forgiveness was given by the sacrifice of Christ on his behalf.

St. Paul has told us what the message is that we call the Gospel. There is no substitute for it, unless we choose to turn away from God, and preach an entirely false message. Then we have a great many choices to pick from, but all of them end in death. Some of those messages are nice, warm and fuzzy, or inspirational. They enable people to avoid the cross, loving their own christ and hating the cross of the real Christ (Phil. 3:17-20). They avoid the bloody business about Christ's sacrifice, his offering up of himself for our sins. They avoid that crude material stuff about rising again in a body of flesh and bone, and teach a purely heavenly and spiritual salvation that has nothing to do with real life, and makes no demands. They have no Incarnation, no cross, and no resurrection. They require no repentance and offer no forgiveness. Turn away from these false gospels. Reject them in favor of the true Gospel that consists always of these four facts, these four facts that you must keep in your heart and have ready on your tongue:

1. Christ died for our sins as the scriptures foretold.
2. He was buried.
3. He rose the third day as the scriptures foretold.
4. He appeared to witnesses.

Contrast

Whereas a House of Bishops must teach with authority, it is the accepted Anglican custom never to treat as dogma anything less than what has been received and passed on as certain and necessary. This is not the practice of most churches, even those that aim for the same standard. Somewhere, in practice, others elevate their own magisterium to a level that allows them to speak beyond the limits of the combination of belief in revelation and right reason. It is that combination that creates humility which guards against venturing to require, as articles of faith, the teaching of men. Even the best teaching of men does not equal revelation. The faculty of reason teaches us that the human mind is limited, that eternal truth does not arise from mere logic left to itself, and that the Church can teach with authority only the Faith as it has been received.

The Fundamentalist magisterium is no less prone to require faith in the teaching of men than is the Roman Magisterium. It is no less obvious that Orthodoxy has its own weaknesses, areas where custom has been confused with the Tradition that has passed on the revelation, the Faith once delivered to the saints. For these reasons we stand where we stand, rejoicing in the common ground we have with the rest of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but standing specifically as Anglicans as long as it remains necessary.

The result of our freedom of thought, is that the true lines that must not be crossed stand out as clear and obvious. Far from making room for heresy, this approach is the best safeguard against it, and the surest defense of genuine orthodox catholic Faith.

On the subject of freedom and orthodoxy, let me quote from two recent posts on this blog that display a real contrast between two approaches. One allows honest questions that require true and persuasive answers; the other stifles thought and banishes the basic honesty that dares to demand truth.

First, on Monday Aug. 2, I wrote this:

"Not a party line

It may have come as a surprise to some readers that clergy of the Anglican Catholic Church have expressed a range of opinion on this blog. Some may have noticed that on particular matters even some opinions of the Metropolitan himself may be subjected to academic discussion, which does not bother him at all (as everyone who knows Archbishop Haverland will testify). Intellectual and academic freedom within the bounds of orthodoxy is a hallmark of Anglicanism, and always has been. I say, within the bounds of orthodoxy because such freedom is not absolute, and, therefore, established doctrine and practices in accordance with that doctrine must set limits. Nonetheless, where some people may see academic discussion and variety of positions in non-essentials as a sign of weakness, I see it as evidence of strength, stability, and true priorities. It is further indication that I have arrived at a solid destination with a deep and strong foundation."

One week later, I posted an essay by Fr. David Marriott that included this ending:

"The approach made by the TAC to Rome represented to many a way forward and a means to achieve greater unity, in joint communion: this was the original concept of the ARCIC discussions of which this was to be the successor. The concept has changed, when the leaders, those of ‘higher rank’ those with ‘better knowledge’, moved the process beyond simple intercommunion to the concept of ordinariate. In this, they neglected their own rules, of consultation and dialogue, and established a proposal for the future of the church. That serious problems have arisen should not be a surprise, in that just as the people in Jerusalem on that very first Palm Sunday heard Jesus teaching on the duties and the abuses of the leaders, of the Pharisees and scribes, so too the people of this day have looked for good counsel from their pastors, for a clear and precise explanation of the proposal. Instead they have been greeted with generalities and empty reassurances: ‘trust your bishops!’

"But for those who have had the gall to question the actions taken by those same bishops, there has been an absence of that very caritas that is the key to our primary obedience: obedience to God, that is the key to our future salvation, in that we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. There has been rejection, not acceptance. There has been harsh action, and little love. There has been hurt, where there should have been balm for the soul, ointment for the wounded, for the troubled and weary traveler, beaten and robbed by the side of the road: ignored by bishop and priest, succored by the Samaritan......and to the point that one of the bishops has stated in his cathedral, that those who do not accept the terms of the Apostolic Constitution have effectively excommunicated themselves!"

There you have a very real contrast. The ACC does not allow heresy, and enforces its own Canon Law (a copy of which may be read by anyone, by buying the book or reading it online at the ACC website). Within that very open and publicly declared position, we have the freedom demonstrated on this blog. Here you see opinions put forth by laity and clergy that have included resepctful and friendly debate within the ACC, including opinions that vary from some of those held by the Metropolitan himself, as I pointed out (above). None of us lives in fear of retribution for daring to say what we think. As long as we remain within the bounds of orthodoxy, we have nothing to fear. Indeed, we have confidence in the bishops and in the Archbishop as the chief pastors of our church.

Contrasted to that, we see the harsh treatment dished out to clergy of the TAC who have dared to question the party line. Furthermore, what they have questioned is, indeed, highly questionable: They have questioned the absurd proposal that one may be a true Anglican and a true Roman Catholic at the same time under the conditions that exist in the real world at this time in history. They have spoken honestly, and asked for genuine and persuasive answers to real and urgent questions. But, for their efforts they have been maligned, disciplined and fired from their positions. It has become, as Fr. Marriott pointed out, so bad "that one of the [TAC] bishops has stated in his cathedral, that those who do not accept the terms of the Apostolic Constitution have effectively excommunicated themselves!"

People who tell the truth and teach the truth, who present it honestly and with authority will not stray from the limits of revelation. They have no reason to be heavy-handed. They have no need to fear that their position is so weak that harsh treatment must be dished out in place of patient answers to honest inquiry. Such pastors of God's Church never treat their people as enemies for the crime of asking the wrong questions.

A fine piece by the late Father Palmer (author of 'Sing of Mary, Pure and Lowly')....

---- The Rev. Roland F. Palmer, SSJE wrote and published this as a tract in 1946 while he was still a priest of the Church of England in Canada (which would become the Anglican Church of Canada in 1955). Because the letter belongs to its own era, it is right to point out that the Continuing Church bodies (ACC, UECNA, APCK) have a true claim to the heritage of Anglicanism, and so we hold now the good things Canterbury, the C of E, the Episcopal Church, etc., possessed back then.

The ACCC (i.e. TAC, not ACC-OP) website says the following about the author:

"Father Palmer built churches and rescued ailing parishes all over the North American Continent. He taught at Nashotah House Seminary, was Superior of S.S.J.E. in San Francisco and Rector of the Church of the Advent there. He began S.S.J.E. in Bracebridge Ontario, building what he called the largest tar paper monastery in the world, from which centre the S.S.J.E. served many small backwoods communities, and the brethren increased to as many as thirty. He was much loved there especially. He preached missions and retreats in every province in Canada and every state in the U.S.A. except Alaska and Hawaii. He was instrumental in helping the Coptic Orthodox Church to get established in Toronto, and translated their liturgy from Coptic into English. He was a linguist, having competence in at least twelve languages, a liturgist, a theologian, a poet, the author of a dozen or more books and many, many booklets and articles. "

They claim to revere him; they need to listen to what he wrote.

DEAR Friend: You ask me to put in writing what I said to you in person when you told me of your feeling that you might have to submit to the Roman Church.

I told you why I myself do not go to Rome. First of all I find myself in the Anglican Communion, (the Episcopal Church.) That is where God seems to have placed me. I was baptized and brought up in that Communion. To leave it would require on my part an act of private judgment. Such an act might possibly be my duty, but it is obviously one of grave responsibility.

If I persevere in living the Christian life where I find myself, then at the Judgment I may well claim the mercy of God if I made a mistake as to which was the true Church, for I should have tried to be faithful where He seemed to have placed me. If I make a change of Communion and go to Rome, then I run the risk of being asked at the Judgment Day "Why did you not remain where I placed you?" Of course if I am convinced that in the Anglican Communion I am deprived of some means of grace necessary to salvation, then I should have to make a change Let us consider whether this seems to be the case.

Salvation means victory. To be saved means to have the victory over sin and death. Jesus is the One who has won this victory for us and we receive it as a free gift from Him. To take that gift faith is the first requisite. Does the Anglican Communion teach me the truth about God so that I can have that saving faith?

Next, if I am to live the victorious life, I must have the means of grace from God. Have I in the Anglican Communion access to those means?

Finally I need to be in communion and fellowship with the rest of the saved. Salvation in isolation is impossible for the Christian. Have I in the Anglican Communion effective fellowship with the Saints departed and with the Church militant here in earth? Has the Anglican Communion secure and valid orders and sacraments that bind me to Christ and His other members in a living union?

If these essentials are lacking, then I should have to seek for them elsewhere.

WHAT is the Faith accepted and taught in the Anglican Communion? Our Communion has always taught the orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God, which has been held by the Church from the first. She has always taught the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation of Our Lord, that He is true God and true Man who was born of the Virgin, lived and suffered and died for us on the Cross, rose again and ascended into Heaven, there to intercede for us and to come again to judge the living and the dead. She has always taught that Jesus founded the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, wherein, through the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the Holy Spirit applies to us the merits of Christ, for our forgiveness, sanctification and final blessedness in eternal life.

These are the great truths which were carefully defined by the ecumenical Councils of the ancient undivided Church, all of which Councils the Anglican Communion accepts.

The Anglican Communion has been very careful to make it clear that she will never accept as part of the faith necessary to salvation any teaching that cannot be read in the Holy Scriptures or proved thereby. Such doctrines may in some cases be held as pious private opinions, if they are not repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture, but may never be required of any Christian person as necessary to communion with the Church.

The Anglican Communion accepts as Scripture all those books of the Old Testament that were accepted by the Hebrew Church as their rule or canon of faith, and also all those books of the New Testament which have been accepted as canonical by the Christian Church. She believes that the Holy Spirit has guided both the Hebrew and the Christian Church in the selection of these books. The Anglican Communion accepts the three ancient Creeds of Christendom as summaries of the true faith taught in Scripture.

In what way does the Roman Church differ from this as to the faith?

Only on one or two points, all except one of which seem very unimportant. At the time of the Reformation, when the Church of England was reforming herself, the Church of Rome was also reforming herself in many matters. The results of this Roman reform are found in the definitions of the Council of Trent.

Nothing in the Anglican Prayer Book or Articles can be held to be directly in opposition to Trent, for the definitions of Trent on all points of controversy did not appear until after the Prayer Book and Articles. Roman teaching mentioned in the Articles is therefore the common teaching of pre-Reformat-ion Rome, and not necessarily the considered judgments of the reforming Council of Trent, which are for the most part scriptural and reasonable. But there is one difference created by the Council of Trent. At that time the philosophy of the ancient Greek pre-Christian thinker Aristotle had come into popular vogue with Christian scholars.

By way of Arabic translations his works came into Spain with the Moors. Christians took up the study to their great advantage. St Thomas Aquinas worked out his wonderful Summa of all Christian teaching based on this Aristotelian philosophy. At Trent the same philosophy formed the background of much of the work of reform and restatement of Christian Doctrine. The Anglican Communion at the Reformation went back to a renewed study of the ancient Fathers of the Greek and Latin Churches. These early Christian teachers based their thinking more on the philosophy of Plato than on that of Aristotle.

As a result the Anglican Divines, whose thinking was guided by the ancient Fathers, tended to put their restatements of Christian Doctrine, and to base their reformation on a Platonic view of life. In fact they were much less self-consciously trying to restate Christian Doctrine in a logical way than were the Fathers of the Council of Trent. They left room for the light that might come from other systems of philosophy. They refrained from putting Christian teaching into any particular philosophical strait-jacket.

In the middle ages there had been great liberty of thought in the Catholic Church. There were very definite foundations on which the Faith rested, and these could not be altered, but the conclusions built on those foundations were not too narrowly defined. At the Reformation Rome took fright, and tried to define everything about religion in a clear-cut way according to the current philosophy of that day.

England on the other hand tried to retain the liberty of thought on secondary matters, while keeping carefully all the fundamental teachings of the undivided Church. The result has been that Rome has emphasized authority, and Canterbury has emphasized liberty, and one has become too rigid and the other too lax. To change from the one to the other might well be to go from the frying-pan into the fire.

What each needs is to learn from the other, and there are signs that this is being done. Both may draw together as time goes on, and the old separation be healed. I feel more content with the Anglican Communion where I am free to adopt Aristotelian Philosophy or Platonic or any other that is not contrary to Christian principles, than I should be in the Roman Communion where I should be bound to one philosophy.

I cannot believe that there was something final about the thinking of Aristotle, especially as he was not himself blessed with the revelation of the true God in Jesus Christ. Had Rome been content to leave the definition of the Faith where it was at Trent, there an agreement between Rome and England might have been possible after prejudices had died down, but unfortunately in the last hundred years Rome has started issuing further definitions and putting out further dogmas as necessary to salvation. In 1854 the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared an article of the Faith.

A great Doctor of the Church, St Bernard, had denied that teaching in years gone by, and multitudes of holy persons had died who did not hold it. Yet with the definition of it, all these became as it were posthumous heretics. Now I have no objection at all to the teaching that the Blessed Mother Mary was freed from all stain of sin at the moment of her conception in the womb of her Mother, that God did for her at her conception what He does for us at our Baptism. That is congruous. It is also congruous that God should require not only bodily purity of His Mother, taut also purity of soul.

The difficulty is that while the Virgin Birth has always been taught in the Church from earliest times, and is witnessed to in the Scripture, there is not one word in Scripture to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. The subject is not mentioned, and it never was mentioned for hundreds of years in the Church. It was a pious opinion that grew up in the middle ages, and was popularized by the Franciscan Friars and denounced by the Dominican Friars.

That the Church of England has no prejudice against it is witnessed by the inclusion of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a black-letter day in her Calendar. You do not commemorate sinful conceptions, but only holy ones. But the Church of England never required anyone to hold this doctrine, because it cannot be proved from Holy Scripture. In fact some would maintain that it is repugnant to Scripture because all are included under sin, and in Adam all die. To erect such a dubious doctrine, rejected by many of the Saints of the Roman Church, into an article of faith is a real obstacle to accepting Roman claims on other points.

The other article of faith put out by Rome is a real stumbling-block to Catholics of other Communions. This is the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. This was put forth in the year 1870, after heated arguments in the Roman Church. It had, like that of the Immaculate Conception, been rejected by many faithful Romans ever since it had first been suggested. The Penny Catechism, for long the chief catechism used by Irish Roman Catholics contained for years a definite denial of the doctrine. As soon as it was made an article of faith, Dr Döllinger, one of the greatest and most saintly scholars of the Roman Church, went into lay communion, and finally with a considerable band of Catholics left the Roman Church. Others stayed, but were never happy about the new dogma.

If the dogma had practical value it would have more to commend it, but so carefully has the Roman Church had to hedge it about because of its obvious weaknesses, that it ends up by proving of little use. According to this teaching the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter. St Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built. Therefore, because of Christ's special promises to St Peter about the keys of the Kingdom, the Bishop of Rome cannot err in defining any matter of faith or morals, when he is speaking from his chair as successor of St Peter. When you ask how often he has so spoken, you are surprised to find that most theologians of the Roman Church limit the occasions to two or three: once when he declared himself infallible, once when he defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and perhaps long ago when St Leo sent out his famous Tome on the Incarnation, though all do not agree as to this last occasion.

Wars have raged, heresies arisen, and the infallible voice has been silent when the souls of men hung in the balance. Only to pronounce a teaching with little or no practical effect on the lives or souls of men, the Immaculate Conception, is the voice heard. Both these two new articles of Faith seem to be set forth more to flatter the Blessed Virgin in one case, and the Bishop of Rome in the other, than for any glory they might give to God or edification to His people.

Our Lady needs no flattery. She, the humble and meek, inherits the earth without flattery. All generations call her blessed. The Bishop of Rome, needs no flattery either. He sits in that ancient apostolic See of the West, and is the successor to a multitude of worthy Bishops, some of them very great Saints; and to a very few great sinners. St Peter himself is the best judge of what Christ's promises to him meant. He never claims Infallibility--far from it. He who was nicknamed "the Rock" by his beloved Master loves to think of that Rock; and with him, that Rock is always Christ Himself. St Peter refers to it more than once--"Jesus of Nazareth . . . this is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other." (Acts iv, 11.) And "Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." (i Pet. ii, 6.) St Paul also bears witness to the Rock when he writes Ephesians, chapter two, verses nineteen to twenty-two.

The Church of England has kept the old faith that can never alter, "the faith once delivered to the saints," but she leaves room for the new philosophies of life by which men come to appreciate the many-coloured wisdom, the innumerable facets of God's truth which shine forth from the once-delivered Faith.

Rome seems to us to have tied herself down too tightly to one very wonderful and satisfying philosophy, but after all not the only possible philosophy for Christians.

HOW does life in grace differ in the Communions of Rome and Canterbury'? In both the same ideals of sanctity are held up. Both hold up our Lord Jesus as the perfect example of obedience to the Father. Both make the will the seat of true religion. Both pray for and try to cultivate the four cardinal and the three theological virtues which are perfectly shown forth in the life of our Lord, and each in his own measure, in the lives of the Saints. Both provide calendars with Saints' Days. In both the same persons and types of persons are remembered and held forth as examples--Apostles and Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, Abbots, Matrons and so forth. Both provide the same means of grace, the Word and the Sacraments, and the discipline of Christ's Church to build up souls to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

Both teach the same ways of prayer, fasting and almsdeeds. Rome teaches more carefully and leaves less to the individual to learn by personal experience. She uses exhortation and persuasion less, and the Sacraments with greater system and regularity. She wields a stricter rod of discipline. The Anglican Communion uses teaching less methodically, and the Sacraments less regularly. She tries to use discipline lightly, hoping to develop the will and lead to real self-oblation. Both have changed their emphases in these matters before, and are even now changing them.

There is really no essential difference here, but only an accidental one. Rome orders church attendance every Sunday, confession and communion once a year at least. She gives very definite rules for fasting which differ from nation to nation. Her marriage laws are strict. Her tendency is to be legal, and that leads to the setting of a minimum known to all, and beyond which the majority do not progress. Her yoke in some matters sounds like a heavy one, but actually she lightens it by the use of dispensations.

The Anglican Communion urges frequent church attendance, even so frequent as twice every day. She calls for communion at least three times a year and urges it more frequently. She leaves confession optional, but strongly urges it in certain cases. Her marriage laws are as strict as those of Rome. She holds up a high ideal of fasting, but does not enforce it. Her tendency for several centuries has been to set the high ideal, to set forth maxims rather than rules. She has let her machinery for enforcing discipline fall largely into disuse. She has almost no provision for dispensations. She sets forth maxims rather than laws, providing a maximum to aim at rather than a minimum to be enforced.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Each can learn from the other. To change from one to the other would be of little help, if that were the only reason for change.

BOTH Communions set up Baptism and Holy Communion as the chief Sacraments, and both commit them to the same ministers, and use the same essential form--"I baptize thee in the Name" etc., "This is my Body" etc. Both require the same Dispositions for effectual reception, that is to say repentance and faith. Rome has defined the Sacraments in terms of Aristotelian philosophy, "accidents" and "substance." She has also withdrawn the Cup from the laity out of what seems to us an excessive idea of reverence. Canterbury has defined the Sacraments in more popular terms such as all can understand--"outward part," "inward part," "benefits received." She has restored the Cup to the laity believing that reverence for the institution of Christ himself must come before reverence to the consecrated species. Obedience to "drink ye all" is better than morbid fear that people will not be careful in receiving from the Cup.

Both teach that in Baptism the person is born again into God's Family, washed from sin, and set in the way of salvation. Both teach that the use of repentance and faith is necessary if a person is to benefit from the gifts of Baptism.

Both treat Holy Communion as the chief service of the Church, and put the Holy Table in the centre of their buildings as the focus of worship. Both teach that in the Holy Communion the faithful receive the Body and Blood of Christ really and truly--"verily and indeed." Both teach that the Body of Christ is given in a heavenly and spiritual manner so that there is an objective gift to be received from outside the communicant. Both teach that faith is the necessary means by which he receives and eats the same to the benefit of his soul.

The Church of Rome commonly surrounds the Sacrament with greater splendour and more dramatic acts of adoration. The Church of England has gone back to the stark simplicity of the old Roman services of earlier times. There is a classic beauty about her rites. For a long time Rome divorced the communion of the people from the offering of the Sacrifice. Communion was commonly given, and in many places is still given, before or after Mass, from the reserved sacrament. Now there is a movement back to communion at its proper place in the Mass as the climax of the Mass itself. In the same way communion among Anglicans tended for years to be separated from the regular worship of the Church. The bulk of the congregation --even now in many churches--left after the sermon and offertory, and a devout minority stayed for the Communion, which became a separate service. There is now a movement back again by which Worship and Communion are kept together, and the service is not broken up by the exodus of a large part of the congregation after the Prayer for the Church. Rome for many years has let low Mass become the normal worship of her people. Even where High Mass was celebrated on a Sunday, it was not always as well attended because of its length. The reform of the Music of the Church has shortened High Mass, and now there is a movement to make the solemn offering of the Sacrifice of Praise the chief act of worship on Sundays and Holy Days. The Anglican Communion has also for many years used Morning Prayer as the chief service of worship. The Eucharist has in many places been confined to an early service for the devout, or as an occasional service in addition to Morning Prayer. Anglicans are now being led back to the Lord's own service, and in many places a Parish or Family Communion at 9.30 is becoming the chief service of the day. Both Communions are working back to the true position. To change from one to the other for no better reason than a dissatisfaction with the emphasis on communion or the other parts of sacramental practice would be unreasonable.

Both communions speak of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice. A quotation from the Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Bull of Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders will make this clear.

'We make provision with the greatest reverence for the consecration of the holy Eucharist and commit it only to properly ordained ministers of the Church. Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be 'a nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,' an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made from that Council. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist,--while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,--to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins, according to his precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.

'Further, since the Pope reminds us somewhat severely of "the necessary connection between faith and worship, between the law of believing and the law of praying," it seems fair to call closer attention, both on your part and ours, to the Roman Liturgy. And when we look carefully into the "Canon of the Mass," what do we see clearly exhibited there as to the idea of sacrifice? It agrees sufficiently with our Eucharistic formularies, but scarcely or not at all with the determinations of the Council of Trent. Or rather it should be said that two methods of explaining the sacrifice are put forth at the same time by that Council, one which agrees with liturgical science and Christian wisdom, the other which is under the influence of dangerous popular theology on the subject of Eucharistic propitiation. Now in the Canon of the Mass the sacrifice which is offered is described in four ways. Firstly it is a "sacrifice of praise," which idea runs through the whole action and so to say supports it and makes it all of a piece. Secondly it is the offering made by God's servants and His whole family, about which offering request is made that it may "become to us the Body and Blood" of His Son our Lord. Thirdly it is an offering to His Majesty of His "own gifts and boons" (that is, as Innocent IIIrd rightly explains it, of the fruit of the fields and trees, although the words of the Lord have, already been said over them by the Priest), which are called the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation. Fourthly and lastly (in the prayer Supra quas propitio) the sacrifice already offered in three ways, and according to Roman opinion now fully consecrated, is compared with the sacrifices of the patriarchs Abel and Abraham, and with that offered by Melchisedec. This last, being called "holy sacrifice, unblemished victim," shows that the comparison is not only in respect to the offerer, but also to the things offered. Then the Church prays that they may be carried up by the hands of the holy Angel to the altar of God on high. Lastly, after the second series of names of Saints, there occurs the piece of a prayer (per quem haec omnia) which appears rather suitable to a benediction of fruits of the earth, than to the Eucharistic sacrifice.'

These are the considered words not of some party in the Anglican Communion but of the two Archbishops of England who were moderate churchmen. They published their Answer on March 29th, 1897.

From this quotation it is clear that the Anglican Communion holds the Eucharist to be the Christian Sacrifice, as indeed she has always implied when she prayed "We entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion."

Here we offer not "praise," but "this our sacrifice of praise." "This" is a pointing word, and it points to the whole action on which we are engaged, that is the taking of bread and wine, the blessing of them with thanksgiving, the breaking of the Bread and the receiving of the holy gifts as the Body and Blood of Christ. This whole action or series of actions is "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." Thereby we plead the merits (that is the holy life) and precious death of our Lord and ask that on that account and through faith in his Blood, not only we who are present, but "all thy whole Church" may receive "remission of sins and all other benefits of his passion." "All thy whole Church" is a very comprehensive term and reminds us that the greater part of the Church has departed this life.

I have no reason then to leave the Anglican Communion for the Roman simply on the ground that one teaches the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the other does not, for both plainly teach it.

If I went to Rome I should miss very much the unspeakable blessing of receiving in both kinds. The separate consecration of the Bread and Cup to be the Body and Blood of the Lord is a symbol of the separation of his soul and body in death. The reception in both kinds is a symbol of his resurrection. As the sacrament is united in the communicant who receives in both kinds, so Christ's soul and body were re-united in the glorious resurrection. To me every communion is a wonderful pledge of the resurrection of the body. The form of words used in the delivery of the Sacrament in the Anglican Communion is "The Body of our Lord .... preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." This reference to the resurrection is absent from the Roman form.

"The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Amen." Perhaps more than anything else the blessing of receiving in both kinds would hold me to the Anglican Communion if I were ever tempted to go to Rome.

THE other Sacraments are held in both Communions to accomplish the same results. Rome calls them Sacraments. Canterbury hesitates about the term because she has adopted a very strict, exclusive definition of the word. She tends to confine the use of the word "Sacrament" to the two great Sacraments which have form and matter clearly ordained by Christ in the Gospel, and which are held necessary to salvation for everyone where they may be had. She speaks of the other five as "commonly called sacraments." Matrimony is plainly called a "mystery," which is the Greek equivalent of "Sacrament." But after all it is not a matter of words but of facts. Both hold Confirmation to effect the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Canterbury adheres to the Apostolic form of laying on of hands with prayer. Rome uses stretching out of the hands over the candidates in general and unction. Both consider Matrimony an indissoluble union of one man and one woman. Both consider the man and the woman to be the ministers of the rite, but Rome tends to add a new requirement, the presence of the priest. Both administer penance with the same form of words, "I absolve thee in the Name" etc. The Anglican Communion has given up unction in the visitation of the sick, but it is being gradually restored. Rome has made this into the rite for the dying. There is need of practical reform in both Rome and Canterbury.

Ordination presents a graver problem. The two chief divisions between us and Rome are the denial of the validity of our Orders by Rome and the insistance by Rome on the infallibility of the Pope as an article of faith necessary to salvation. At the Reformation the Churches of England and Ireland made it perfectly clear that they intended to continue the old Orders of ministers, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. This is what they said and what has appeared ever since as a preface to the Ordinal:

"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church: Bishops, Priests and Deacons."

In England and Ireland care was taken to make sure that the Bishops after the breach with Rome were always consecrated by at least three Bishops of the old line. In Ireland no question was ever made of this. Archbishop Curwen of Dublin, with the assistance of other Bishops, consecrated the new Bishops as the Sees fell vacant by death. He himself had been consecrated in Queen Mary's reign by the old pontifical. In England on the accession of Elizabeth half the Sees were vacant by death. The See of Canterbury was vacant. Matthew Parker was elected Archbishop and was consecrated in Lambeth Chapel on December 17th, 1559 by four Bishops, Barlow of Bath and Wells and Hodgkin of Bedford (both of whom had been consecrated by the old pontifical in Henry VIII's time); and Scory of Chichester and Coverdale of Exeter consecrated in Edward VI's time by the Prayer Book Ordinal at the hands of Bishops of the old line. A story was hatched up by Roman controversialists eighty years afterwards to the effect that Parker was never consecrated, but only consecrated in fun in the Nag's Head Tavern, This story was refuted by the carefully kept records at Lambeth and by a number of references to the consecration in private letters and diaries of the period. Roman controversialists now accept the historical fact of this consecration. Later on Rome shifted her objection to Anglican Orders to the form used. She complained that at the Reformation when our formularies were translated from Latin to English, such changes were made in the Ordinal as rendered it no longer capable of conveying valid Orders. It is true that, in the form for ordaining priests, considerable changes were made in the direction of simplification. This was inevitable in translating the old rite. If anyone will take the trouble to examine the Roman Pontifical, he will see how difficult and complicated is the service for ordaining a priest. In the process of time, the Roman rite has taken over the forms from the Gallican rites which it superseded, so that it now contains, telescoped together, two or three forms for making a priest, any one of which would be quite sufficient. In fact, it is impossible to say at what moment in the service a man ceases to be a deacon and becomes a priest. Very early in the service there is a laying on of hands in silence accompanied by no prayer or any other form. This is the old Roman rite. Yet this does not seem to make a man a priest, for later on he is treated still as though not yet ordained to that office. Then there is an anointing which also seems to make him a priest, but does not do so for at a still later point he has delivered to him the holy vessels with authority to offer sacrifice. Besides this he has been vested with the priestly robes. By this time he seems to be a priest for he says the rest of the Mass with the Bishop as a sort of concelebrant, yet in spite of this it is not until after the communion that he is completely vested as a priest, and receives another laying on of hands with the familiar words "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins thou dost forgive" etc.

This final laying on of hands is the most solemn one, and that accompanied by the most suitable form of words, (even the words used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles.) In some mediaeval rites this final laying on of hands is missing. It seems to have been a later importation. The place for ordaining priests is traditionally after the Gospel, not after the communion. The Eastern Churches have entirely different rites. The only thing all rites have in common is prayer by the Bishop over the ordinand, and the laying on of his hands with those of the presbyters. The prayer or form used in laying on of hands is such as to indicate the office given. Was it any wonder that in translating the rite at the Reformation our Fathers should have tried to make it simple and direct, and to return to the apostolic method of prayer and laying on of hands at the appropriate part of the service? Deacons are made before the Gospel which one of them reads, because the reading of the Gospel is their characteristic function. Priests are ordained after the Gospel and before the Offertory, because their characteristic function is to preach and to offer up the prayers and offerings of the people and consecrate the Eucharist. These functions follow the Gospel, Accordingly the reformers concentrated the prayers for the candidates at this point, and brought together the two layings on of hands into one. They kept the scriptural form "Receive the Holy Ghost.... Whosesoever sins" etc. All through the office it is clear that it is for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God that the man is ordained. It is mentioned again and again in title, rubrics and prayers. If laying on of hands and that form of words makes priests in the Roman Church it is difficult to see why it does not do so in the Church of England if the line of Bishops is unbroken. In translating the form for consecrating a Bishop fewer changes had to be made, for that service is much clearer and more direct in the Pontifical. Here again it is made clear in title, prayers and rubrics that the candidate is being consecrated to the episcopate. The form of words in the Roman rite at the laying on of hands is very brief. "Receive the Holy Ghost." Only the rubrics and prayers indicate the office conferred. Our reformers retained the same form. Three Bishops lay on hands with the Archbishop saying the form "Receive the Holy Ghost." To it we have added a scriptural passage from the pastoral epistles. All these quotations are from the earliest form of our Ordinal before the defining words "for the office" etc. were added to the form for the laying on of hands. The simpler form is obviously sufficient, since it was the only form used by Rome for hundreds of years, and is still the form used. The additions we have made are for edification, not because we thought the simpler form insufficient.

For many years Rome taught that the priesthood was conferred by the delivery of the chalice and paten with the words "Take authority" etc. Scholars discovered that this form was a very late one and that for over a thousand years no such form was used in the Church but only prayer and the laying on of hands. As a result Rome has shifted her ground and no longer claims this as the form, nor our failure to use it as the reason for rejecting our Orders.

Rome's new position in respect to us is that while our rite might possibly be valid if used by a Church in communion with herself, it is invalid because we do not, and never did intend to make priests or Bishops in the Catholic sense. Our answer to that is that we have always said in our Ordinal, in words as plain as it is possible to make them, that we did so intend. We use the very word "intent"--"to the intent that these orders be continued" etc.

To that Rome replied that we treat the Eucharist as a nude commemoration of the Cross, and not as the Christian Sacrifice, so that our priests do not perform the characteristic function of the priesthood when they celebrate the Holy Eucharist. Our reply to this has been given in the words of the English Archbishops. If I went to Rome therefore I should have to deny my Orders. I should have to say that I was not a priest, and had never performed any priestly function. You as a layperson would have to say that you were not confirmed. You would have to deny the gift of the Holy Ghost. You would have to say that you had never received sacramental communion: that the Bread and Cup you received were not the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but only plain bread and wine, untouched by the hand of Christ, incapable of conveying to you any blessing or help. To deny these things would seem to come close to blasphemy. Have you ever read the words with which you would have to abjure your former faith? Here they are.

"I, N.N., having before my eyes the holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand, and knowing that no one can be saved without the faith which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church holds, believes, and teaches; against which I grieve that I have greatly erred, inasmuch as, having been born outside that Church, I have held and believed doctrines opposed to her teaching; I now, enlightened by the grace of God, profess that I believe the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the one true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ, to which I submit myself with my whole heart. I firmly believe all the articles which she proposes for my belief; I reject and condemn all that she rejects and condemns, and I am ready to observe all that she commands me.. .. With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and abjure every error, heresy, and sect opposed to the said Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand."

It might be possible to go to Rome if their attitude to us was like ours to them. We recognize Roman Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. If a Roman wishes to come into our Communion he simply comes to communion. For the sake of discipline some Bishops require a form of admission, but that is not the old way. For hundreds of years Roman recusants in England could always come into our Communion by giving notice like other communicants, and then presenting themselves at the rail. But you cannot go to Rome like that. You cannot just quietly stop going to the Anglican Church and begin to go to a Roman one and then one day go to confession and tell the Priest you wish to make your communion, and so go to the Altar rail at the next Mass. No, you will be treated as a heretic and schismatic, and all rites you have received, and all spiritual experiences you have enjoyed will be treated with grave doubt and in some cases as utterly void and meaningless.

Distant fields often look green, but when you get there they may be a shade too green. After this alarming form of abjuration you will be welcomed into the Roman Communion with a good deal of fanfare. Rome makes the most of her converts. Romans join our Communion in considerable numbers. In a ministry of nine years in the States I received over a hundred. They were people who came without being sought or urged in any way. We make no fanfare over our conversions.

When the fanfare is over you would find yourself one of the converts, always marked out as such by traditional Roman Catholics. You would then begin to see the seamier side of the Roman Communion, the scale of payments for Masses for the Departed, the system of indulgences, the exaggerated devotions to our Lady and the Saints. You would find that just as there are special Anglican sins, so there are special Roman ones just as unpleasant. You might have felt with us that the Thirty Nine Articles were rather hard on the Saints, and on the attractive extra-liturgical devotions to our Lord in the Sacrament Reserved. You might have thought the Anglican Communion was a bit cool towards the faithful departed. You would find many Roman devotions altogether too sweet, and too hot, for habitual use, and you might then wish yourself back in the airier atmosphere of the Anglican Communion.

No formulary of our Church has been so misjudged as those same Thirty Nine Articles. They are meant for the clergy, not for the laity, and they are most carefully worded. For their time, they are a wonderfully moderate statement of reformed Catholicism. The partisans of Rome and Geneva were trying to pull the Church of England this way or that. How carefully these articles lay down the true Catholic Faith of the Trinity and the Incarnation, of the sufficiency of Scripture as a safeguard against additions to the Faith, of the way of salvation. How carefully they reject the errors of Calvin on predestination and the total depravity of man. How carefully the Articles teach us of the objective gift in the Blessed Sacrament--"the Body is given"--while making it clear that it is in no materialistic way. How carefully Romish doctrine is condemned, but not Catholic doctrine or even official Roman doctrine. It is against popular errors that we protest. For the time, the Articles were a triumph of good churchmanship and brevity. Compare the length of the decrees of Trent or the Westminster Confession. If we were drawing up a set of Articles today, we should use different words and treat of some different subjects. At the time they were written, the traffic in masses for the dead and indulgences was very close, and had been experienced by all older people. The riotous pilgrimages, and the feigned miracles and relics were a real menace to them. An ignorant population, most of whom could not read, were a fair prey for superstition. Nowadays it is not too much reverence or superstitious use that we have to contend with but irreverence and neglect.

THINK well before you submit to Rome. If you think you would be more contented so, remember we are not here to be contented. The Church is not a cosy corner for the Saints. It is an army on campaign. Ask yourself too if there is not some other subtle reason for wanting to make the change, a reason with little if any connection with religion. So often people have gone to Rome supposedly because of doubts about the Anglican position, but really as a means of getting out of some difficult position or of dodging some unpleasant duty, and doing so for supposed higher motives.

The Anglican Communion is far from perfect. The Roman has another kind of imperfection. The Eastern Orthodox has another kind yet, the Evangelical bodies their own imperfections. The Church is not perfectly holy, Catholic, Apostolic or even one in any of its separated parts. Perhaps when we are all more holy the Church will be One. Perhaps when we are all one, then we shall see a Church free from the imperfections which we cannot ignore in any of its parts. To move from one part to another will be no help. It is like a fly feeling safer after he has crossed a crack in the plaster that seems to divide the wall, but is really only surface deep.

In communion with Canterbury, you are in the Great Church. Roman Catholics recognize only their own Communion. A Roman Catholic tips his hat to his own Church, but not to the Anglican Church on the corner nor to the Orthodox Church in the next block. An Anglican recognizes all three and is also good friends with a large part of the Evangelical bodies. We do not unchurch others. We recognize as a brother every person who is baptized in the Name of the Trinity and who accepts our Lord as God and Saviour, and tries to follow Him. We belong to the old concern, the one true Church of which Rome is a part. We belong to the Great Church of the ages. Our Faith is exactly that of St Paul, St Augustine and all the Saints and Doctors of the old undivided Church, none of whom ever heard of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility. Don't leave the Great Church for a part that pretends to be the whole.

R.F. Palmer, SSJE
1946
______
Thanks to VirtueOnline for finding this.

ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION

by Fr. David Marriott

One of the reasons that I am happy to support and encourage the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen, the group that organised the Congress of St. Louis, where the founding document of the Continuum – the Affirmation of St. Louis - was developed, is the understanding of the ‘other’ in the continuing church movement, the mutual respect of one for the other, the worship we hold as a group. This it is which replicates the aims of the originators of that Affirmation: that we might be united in the desire to see the continuation of Classical Anglican worship and polity across north America, and later, around the world.

The guiding principle at work is that of acceptance: an acceptance which in itself reflects the teaching of Christ. Recall His response to the Pharisees, when they challenged His disciples, ‘Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?' He answered, ‘They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick’ and continued that ‘I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance’. (Matt. 9.11-13) Jesus Christ accepted the sinners, the wrongdoers and the poor and downtrodden, to bring them out from their sin, and into His light, whose brightness we are charged to keep shining into all the dark corners of our world, that sinners, for whose sins He died, might be brought to redemption, and that all who will might repent of sin, and have the joy of eternal salvation.

The ‘great commission’ spoken by Jesus Christ to the company of the Apostles exemplifies this teaching: ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’ (Mark 16.15-16).

This teaching was the fulfilment of the words spoken by the Old Testament prophets and teachers, which we recite daily in the Benedictus: ‘To keep the promise which he made to our forefather Abraham, that He would grant us, that we, being delivered from our enemies, might serve Him in joy and gladness all the days of our life.’ (Luke 1.73-75) To keep this promise means that we, cleansed from sin ourselves through Baptism, might demonstrate God’s love for man by our acceptance, sometimes even of those with whom we might in at times disagree. And that, by our worship and prayer together, we might come to develop and grow our own personal faith, the faith of our parishes, and the faith of the church, so that all who enter in might become aware that it is in His Church that they find acceptance. In His Church there is genuine acceptance of the repentant sinner, of the poor, of the disinherited, of the lonely, of the needy, of all who might present themselves as willing to admit past fault, past error, who now come in to know and experience the divine love and care promised by the teaching of Jesus, and through His Incarnation.

If Jesus accepts sinners, who, if any, does he reject? And what can we learn from this example, what might help us to understand the proper role for rejection, if there is such a thing? The clue is in the second great commandment: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’.

To achieve this, you must first know what you are, so that you can truly acknowledge all of your own sins and weaknesses, that you can confess these before God, and ask His continued grace to make the necessary improvements that are our duty before God. Once we see the truth of what we are, we become equipped to love our neighbour, with the clear understanding that, as we are weak and disabled in so many ways, so too is our neighbour. We can accept his weaknesses as we accept our own frailty. Note that this does not require us to like our neighbour, just that we are to love our neighbour. And the meaning of love in this case is more clearly expressed by the word caritas, that we care deeply about each of our fellow men: and that this deep caring might also mean that as a father may have to apply discipline to his son in order to teach the right way for him to follow, so too we may have to apply this same discipline to our relationship with that very neighbour we are trying to love. For example, if your neighbours have a very noisy party in the wee hours of the morning, you are quite in order to remonstrate in a caring manner, but it should be done with understanding and forgiveness.

It is in this same spirit that we see Jesus Christ illustrate his displeasure with those who transgress, those who leave the right path, those who succumb to temptation to deviate from the truth. But he reserves his greatest displeasure for those who have authority and misuse it: those who are in some position of power and influence, and abuse that power and influence. For example, what about the Pharisee who shows his pride even in prayer, and feels superior to the quiet publican in the corner? (Matt. 6) ‘The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but so not ye after their works: for they say and do not’. (Matt. 23) It is here that Jesus refers to this group of scribes and Pharisees as: ‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?’ (Matt 23.33)

What is the common factor in this need or correction: is it not a lack of humility, a lack of the care for the needs of the other, for the good of the other? And how is this any different from the chastisement and mistreatment of the prophets, mistreatment by those in power to Elijah, to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel and so on to the close of the Old Testament? One reason why this lack of humility is strongly condemned is that it represents the arrogance of superiority, where Jesus calls us to servanthood. Whenever this pride is manifested it is to be condemned. It carries with it the very opposite of acceptance; indeed, it is rejection of the other, rejection of the neighbour, rejection of the very people who are dependent on us, the Church, for their succour and support.

The approach made by the TAC to Rome represented to many a way forward and a means to achieve greater unity, in joint communion: this was the original concept of the ARCIC discussions of which this was to be the successor. The concept has changed, when the leaders, those of ‘higher rank’ those with ‘better knowledge’, moved the process beyond simple intercommunion to the concept of ordinariate. In this, they neglected their own rules, of consultation and dialogue, and established a proposal for the future of the church. That serious problems have arisen should not be a surprise, in that just as the people in Jerusalem on that very first Palm Sunday heard Jesus teaching on the duties and the abuses of the leaders, of the Pharisees and scribes, so too the people of this day have looked for good counsel from their pastors, for a clear and precise explanation of the proposal. Instead they have been greeted with generalities and empty reassurances: ‘trust your bishops!’

But for those who have had the gall to question the actions taken by those same bishops, there has been an absence of that very caritas that is the key to our primary obedience: obedience to God, that is the key to our future salvation, in that we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. There has been rejection, not acceptance. There has been harsh action, and little love. There has been hurt, where there should have been balm for the soul, ointment for the wounded, for the troubled and weary traveller, beaten and robbed by the side of the road: ignored by bishop and priest, succoured by the Samaritan......and to the point that one of the bishops has stated in his cathedral, that those who do not accept the terms of the Apostolic Constitution have effectively excommunicated themselves!

DRM+

The Rev David Marriott currently serves under the Patrimony of Archbishop Haverland (ACC-OP). He is working to establish a new ACC parish in Pitt Meadows, close to Vancouver.

Trinity 10 Sermon Notes

Epistle: 1 Corinthians 12: 1-11. Gospel: Luke 19: 41-47a.

“Concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant”. +

What are the common misconceptions or “ignorances”, to use a word from the litany, about spiritual gifts? What do St Paul, the rest of Scripture, and the Church teach that would correct such errors?

There are a number of errors that have been held, with different kinds of people making different mistakes. The first error is ignorance of the spiritual gifts' existence and extent in the Church. The second error is to ignore one's obligation as a Christian to use one's gift. The third error is the misconception that these gifts allow specially gifted individuals to challenge and change what the Church has always taught, bringing it a new “improved” gospel, and trumping orthodox teaching. The fourth error is needless ignorance of what the range of gifts includes. The fifth error is assuming that to be filled with and gifted with the Spirit one must operate in spectacular, obviously miraculous gifts. The sixth error is to consider the gifts to be threatening, foolish or frightening. The seventh error is to say a number of the gifts have ceased. The eighth error is to value the gifts higher than the fruits of the Spirit.

I will deal with the first two together. There are still Christians around the world who hardly know the gifts exist or are unaware that every Christian is “gifted”. But St Paul makes clear in today's Epistle (and elsewhere in the NT) that the gifts are important to know about and that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the common good”. So, every Christian should not only know about the gifts in a general way, they should understand that they have a responsibility to receive and activate their own gift or gifts, and so play their own part in building up the Church. This means they need to know how to do this as well, since a related form of ignorance is not knowing how to receive or seek one's own gifts. The means for receiving and seeking the gifts are baptism and the laying on of hands (which we call confirmation) and prayer (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:13, Acts 19:5-6, Luke 11:13).

The answer to the question, about how I know which are my gifts, is not so easy to come by. That’s because it is so personal. It’s about you as an individual. One way we find our gift is simply to be available to God and see what role in the Church he leads us into. Another way we find our gift is listening to others. They can often see things in us we can’t see. But we must also pay attention to our own heart. But all of this can only happen if we believe it can happen and if we want it to happen.

In other words we have come to the answer to the next natural question: How do I make my gifts actually work? By faith and desire is the short answer. We must believe in Jesus, and that he has given us gifts. And we must desire God; seek him, love him and worship him; and desire to use the gifts. (St Paul said in 1 Co. 14.1,12, “desire spiritual gifts, seek that you may excel in building up the Church”.) St Paul also told Timothy, his protégé, to “stir up” his gifts. We cannot do this without faith and desire. It takes spiritual effort. And thus it takes prayer, ... Jesus said “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” So, to play our part in the Church, we need to be filled with the Holy Spirit and his gifts to us. And that means we need to pray for this, with faith and desire. And we also need to be ready to listen to God and serve him, as he speaks to us through circumstances, fellow-Christians, and our own hearts.

The third error I mentioned before would make prophets the opponents of the Church and the Faith itself. But, while the prophetic voice must often rebuke certain practices and people in the Church, even in the hierarchy at times, it is never authorised to innovate doctrine. On the contrary, if we look to the OT prophets we see that they were always calling the people of God back to the ancient, revealed Faith, back to what they officially or outwardly professed to believe, yet denied with their actions. That is why St Paul begins today's passage by noting that, no matter what a person claims, they are not inspired by God if they curse Jesus or deny his Lordship. He also goes on to remind us of the doctrine of the Trinity, when he refers the gifts back to the Father (“God”), the Son (“the … Lord) and the Spirit. Therefore, we can say that anybody claiming to be a wise man or prophet who leads people away from the fundamental truths of the Creeds is deceiving himself and others.

Now to the fourth and fifth misconceptions. Few people realise just how many and varied the gifts are. There is no one complete list of them in the Bible. There are, instead, a number of partial lists, none of them identical to any of the others (e.g., Ro. 12.6-8; 1 Co. 12.8-10, 28; 1 Peter 4.11). Here are some of the gifts: practically serving the Church, giving practical aid to those in need, contributing generously financially, administration, encouraging people, communicating special knowledge and wisdom, creating beautiful art, architecture, music and literature for the Church (Ex. 31.3f, 1 Chr. 25.1, 28.12, 1 Ki. 4.29-34, the whole book of Psalms, Da. 1.17 cf. v.4), celibacy (1 Co. 7.7), teaching, pastoring, evangelising, prophesying and healings. Some gifts are obviously miraculous, some look less amazing, but all are necessary for the healthy running of the Church. How we categorise or define gifts does not seem particularly important, since, as St Paul said, the Spirit distributes the gifts to each as he wills (1 Co. 12). Jesus also taught that the Holy Spirit does what he likes, as it were (Jn 3.8). A number of the gifts overlap. What is important, as I noted before, is that we earnestly seek and find what God wants each of us to do for the Church through prayer, and through faith that he has bestowed grace upon us through our baptism and confirmation. By such active faith and by the worship of God for his own glorious sake, we will be filled with the Spirit, whether that involves obvious miracles or not. And we will be able to fulfil our ministry.

However, on the other side there are those who, rather than claiming the extraordinary (especially the gift of tongues) is all that counts, claim that the extraordinary or obviously miraculous gifts must have ceased, or at least are deeply sceptical or frightened of any modern manifestation of them. These are the sixth and seventh errors I listed. But St Paul warns Christians against quenching the Spirit or despising prophecy (1 Thes. 5:19-20) at the same time he tells them to test prophecy (1 Thes. 5:21). Some Evangelical Protestants claim that 1 Co. 13, verses 8 to 12 implies that prophecy and tongues ceased when the “perfection” of the completion of the New Testament came to be. The passage does speak of prophecy failing and tongues ceasing when that which is perfect has come. But both the context itself -- “now we see … dimly, but then face to face” -- and the normal Patristic exegesis shows that the “perfection” which will replace these gifts is that on the other side of Death and Judgement, the Beatific Vision, when we see the Lord face to face. While St John Chrysostom taught that some gifts had been impermanent and had ceased, his was not the generally agreed position. St Augustine assumed cessation originally, but changed his mind in the light of further experience and observation. St Symeon the New Theologian insists on the continuing reality of the Charismata and our need for them and defends the practice of spiritually gifted, unordained monks giving absolution to penitents! Many Fathers attested to miracles or treated the Pauline lists of gifts as having contemporaneous authority, e.g., St Gregory of Nazianzus. So, there is a constant stream of witnesses to the miraculous and “renewal” in the life of the Catholic Church. We need not be afraid of any of the gifts, or of seeking them or of using them. And we must not treat any of them with contempt, lest we insult the Spirit of God.

The final error is to value and concentrate on the gifts more than on the fruits of the Spirit. This is the error St Paul warns against in the same letter to the Corinthians in the famous chapter 13. Verse 2 says, “though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” What, then, is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, gentleness and self-control according to Gal. 5:22-23. Though this sounds like quite a list, all these virtues rest on love or charity, listed first for good reason. No matter how gifted a Christian, if they do not use their gifts and live their lives bearing such fruit, their work is futile. Yet, if we lovingly and patiently use our gifts, serving the Lord with a quiet joy, we can do great things for God, by his grace.

The challenge for the ACC and all the churches of God is to encourage and allow the laity, and not just the clergy, to actualise and use their gifts. In many places this has included using certain openings in even the traditional liturgy to provide opportunities for people to operate in the word-gifts such as prophecy, a gift St Paul particularly encouraged. I have myself argued that the Canadian BCP liturgical rubrics may be interpreted to allow this just before the Sermon. (The fact that the Sermon would follow all of this means that the Pastor of the congregation would be able to supplement, confirm or correct what has been previously said, insofar as this may be necessary, and so maintain doctrinal and moral soundness.) But most of the gifts I listed before do not find their only or natural home in the liturgy. We must understand that the Church's ministry, your ministry, does not begin and end when the Mass does! The Eucharist is essential, but it is not sufficient. We have work to do beyond these walls.

The challenge for each one of us as individuals is to dispel the ignorance and misconceptions and walk in the truth of the Spirit, serving the Church by his power. +