Part  III – The Catholic Faith and Current Questions

Introduction

      Hitherto we have been occupied with the subject of the Christian life in the Church of England, what it is, and what it involves.  The positive teaching of our Church shows clearly what Churchmanship means, and what is the teaching of the Church of England on the vital themes of Christianity.  We cannot forget, however, that membership in the Church of England involves and requires an attitude towards other views and organizations claiming Christian names.  There are conflicting and even opposing ideas current in Christian circles, and it is necessary to show how the Church stands in relation to these movements outside her pale.  It is, of course, impossible in our space to deal with all the varied and varying currents of thought and life, but an attempt must be made to show what is implied in membership in the English Church in relation, and it may be in opposition, to other tendencies of modern thought.  The Churchman who has a clear, strong grasp of his own position ought to be and will be able to explain and justify it.  Amid the many surrounding forces of the present day he will not only be able to say why he is a Churchman, but also why, because he is a Churchman, he is not anything else.

Chapter  I – Authority in Religion

      At the foundation of all questions of religion lies the great subject of Authority.  “By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority?” (Matt. 21:23).  All matters of difference between Christian people resolve themselves at last in this question of Authority, and if only we could come to an agreement on the supreme and final authority of the Christian religion, it would not be difficult to settle our differences and solve our problems.  It is essential, therefore, that we as Churchmen should be quite clear on the important subject of the final and supreme authority in the Christian religion.

      1.  The Need of Authority. – Man, even as man, needs a guide, an authoritative guide in things spiritual, some guide above, outside, greater than himself; a guide supernatural, superhuman, Divine.

      Still more, man as a sinner needs an authoritative guide.  Amid the sins and sorrows, the fears and difficulties, the trials and problems of life man needs an authoritative guide concerning the way of salvation, holiness, eternal life and glory.  Looking away from himself, and from his fellows who are in the same position, man seeks and longs for assurance on these great matters.  There is one cry welling up from the heart of every man who is concerned about the meaning of life: “What is Truth?  Where can it be found?”  Man assuredly needs an authority in matters of religion.  This leads us to consider

      2.  The Source of Authority. – Where can this necessary authority be found?  It is found in the Revelation of God to the world, in His presence here and His action on man.  Divine Revelation is thus the only Source and Basis of Authority.  God has not left the world to itself.  He who made the world and still upholds and overrules all things by His Providence, has also revealed Himself to man in things spiritual, and this Revelation is the foundation of man’s life.

      God’s revelation is a personal one, personal both in source and destination.  It is the revelation of a Person to a person, the Person of God in Christ to the person of man.  This personal revelation is intended to affect with transforming influence every part of our natural and earthly life.

      But here comes the important question, Where is this personal Revelation embodied?  How may it become available for me?  Since God is invisible, how may the personal Revelation of God influence my life?  This leads to our third topic—

      3.  The Seat of Authority. – Is God’s Revelation discoverable by us?  If God has revealed Himself to man in Christ, it ought to be possible to find and use this revelation.  There are, perhaps, only three possible answers to the question, Where is the Seat of Authority in Religion?

      (a) Some say it is embodied in Human Reason.  Reason is very valuable and necessary as one of the means of testing the claims of Authority and as the recipient of the truth of revelation.  But can it be itself the seat of authority?  It is, after all, only one of several human faculties, and Revelation concerns them all.  Still more, reason has been affected by sin, and has become biased, darkened and often distorted.  It surely would not be reliable as the seat of authority in religion.

      (b) Others say the Church is the seat of authority.  We ask at once, What Church?  Where is it to be found?  The Church of England does not claim it for herself or allow it of any other Church.  The Greek Church does not claim it.  The Protestant Churches of Europe and America do not claim it.  The Church of Rome alone claims to be the seat and embodiment of authority, but her claims are easily disproved when subjected to the two tests of historic fact and personal experience.  Her career in history is far too dark and checkered to permit of her being regarded as the Seat of Divine Authority.  And, on the other hand, her influence on human life, liberty, and progress is one of the strongest disproofs of her claim.

      Besides, the Church of Christ, in the fullest and truest meaning of the term, “the blessed company of all faithful people,” is itself the product of Divine Revelation.  The Church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost by accepting God’s Word as preached by St. Peter.  Since the Church is thus the result, the product of Divine revelation, and all subsequent additions to the Church are instances of the same great principle, the Church cannot itself be the seat of the Authority.  The Church cannot embody its Creator.

      (c) The only other answer to the question before us is that given by the Church of England.  The seat of Authority is to be found in the Word of God as recorded in the Bible.  The Bible is for us the seat and embodiment of Divine Revelation in Christ.

      What are our reasons for this position ?

      (a) The Scriptures preserve for us the revelation of Christ in its purest form.  Christianity has a historic basis in the Person of Christ, and what we need is the clearest form of that revelation.  The books of the New Testament, being the product of the Apostolic age, give us the purest form of revelation and guarantee it.  At a later date this would have been impossible, because there was no unique inspiration after the days of the Apostles, and because, moreover, oral transmission is not trustworthy.  What we ask is that the vehicle of transmission shall be certain and assuring.  It matters not whether the vehicle is a book, or a man, or an institution, so long as we can be sure of its faithfulness as conveying God’s revelation.  We cannot be sure of this in human reason or in any ecclesiastical institution.  But we are sure of it in the books of the New Testament because—

      (b) The New Testament came to us from Apostolic men, men who were authorized to be the exponents of the Divine will.  We accept the books, not merely as old, or as helpful, nor even as true, but because with these, and beneath these, they come from men who were uniquely qualified to reveal God’s will to man.

      And when we have made this position of the Church of England clear, we proceed to consider—

      4.  The Nature of this Authority. – It is a spiritual authority.  Article VI, that sheet-anchor of our Church,* says, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.”  The Bible is not a handbook of literature, though it is full of literature.  It is not a guide to science, though it is full of scientific facts.  It is not a record of history, though it is full of historical matter.  It is a spiritual authority, a guide to man’s life in things moral and spiritual.  It declares the way of Salvation.

            [*“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.  In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”]

      5.  The Scope of this Authority. – It is our supreme Authority.

      (1) The Bible as the ultimate and final voice in religion is supreme over reason.  Reason is human, but Scripture, though human in form, has Divine elements guaranteed by inspiration.  Scripture is the light of reason, the informant of the mind, and the guide of all religious thought.

      (2) The Bible is supreme over the Church in the same way.  The Holy Scriptures are the title deeds of the Church, the law of the Church’s life, the test of its purity, the source of its strength, the spring of its progress.

      But it may be said, How can this be when the Church existed twenty-five years before a line of the New Testament was written?  This is historically true, but what is the question intended to convey?  Are we to argue from it the supremacy of the Church over the Bible?  Let us examine the argument.  It is assumed by this that the Church had no Bible in the Apostolic age, and that the Bible came historically after the Church and was given and authorized by the Church.  In the first place, the Church had a Bible from the very outset, the Old Testament Scriptures, and such was their power that St. Paul could say that with the single but significant addition of “faith in Christ Jesus” these Old Testament Scriptures were “able to make wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15).

      But leaving this aside, the argument contains a fallacy which needs to be exposed.  It is perfectly true that the Church existed before the written Word of the New Testament, but we must remember that there was first of all the spoken word of God through inspired Apostles.  On the Day of Pentecost the word of God was spoken, the revelation of God in Christ was proclaimed, and on the acceptance of that Word the Church came into existence: The Word was proclaimed and accepted and the Church was thus formed on the Word of God.  And as long as the Apostles were at hand the spoken Word sufficed; but as time went on and the Apostles travelled, and afterwards died, there sprang up the need for a permanent embodiment of the Revelation, and this was gradually given in the written Word.  From that time forward, in all ages, the written Word has been the equivalent of the original spoken Word.  The Church was created by the Word of God received through faith.  The Word created the Church, not the Church the Word.

      “In the history of the world the unwritten Word of God must of course be before the Church.  For what is a Church (in the wider sense of the word) but a group of believers in God’s Word?  And before the Word is spoken, how can there be believers in it?  ‘Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.’  Therefore the Word of God must be before faith.  It is only of the Bible, or written volume of God’s oracles, assuredly not of God’s spoken Word, that we assert it to have been brought into existence later than the Church.” [Goulburn’s Holy Catholic Church, p. 244.]

      The original process is illustrated constantly in the modern Mission Field.  There was, for example, a Church in Uganda through the spoken Word long before the written Word could be given to them.  But now the written Word is at once the foundation and guarantee of that Church’s continued existence and progress.

      The Apostles may be regarded as representatives of Christ or as members of the Church.  It is in the former aspect that they conveyed first the spoken and then the written Word of God, which has ever been the source of all Christian life.

      The function of a Rule of Faith is the conveyance of the Divine Authority to men.  The Bible as a rule of faith existed in the minds of Christ and the Apostles long before it existed as a written work.  Accordingly it precedes and conditions the existence and organization of the Church.  The Church is to the Word a witness and a keeper (Article XX).  The Church bears testimony to what Scripture is, and at the same time preserves Scripture among Christian people from age to age.  But though the Church is a witness and a keeper, she is not the maker of Scripture.

      The function of the Christian Church as the “witness and keeper of Holy Writ” is exactly parallel to that of the Jewish Church in relation to the Old Testament.  The prophets who were raised up from time to time as the messengers and mouthpieces of Divine Revelation delivered their writings of the Old Testament to the Jews, who thereupon preserved them, and thenceforward bore their constant testimony to the reality and authority of the Divine Revelation embodied in the books.

      The Church of Christ, whether regarded in her corporate capacity or in connection with individual members, is not the author of Holy Scripture.  The Church, as we have seen, received the Scriptures from the Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles and Prophets, and now the function of the Church is to witness to the fact that these are the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets which she has received and of which she is also the keeper, their preserver through the ages for use by the people of God.  Article XX is perfectly clear as to the relation of the Bible and the Church.

      We must hold fast to this position, for there is no more specious fallacy in existence than that just considered, and none doing greater harm to those who do not think out their own position.

      (3) The Bible is supreme over Church Tradition.  The Church of Rome puts Church tradition, i.e. Church customs, usages, beliefs, on a level with Scripture as a rule of faith.  But the Church of England, while valuing such testimony in its proper place, refuses to coordinate the two, and puts the Bible high above all else as our Authority in things essential.

      Article XX tells us that the Church has “power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith.”  The word “power” (Latin, jus) implies full legal right to appoint and order any ceremonies or methods of worship that may be regarded as fitting and appropriate, so long as nothing is ordained contrary to Holy Scripture.  In Controversies of Faith, however, it is to be noticed that the Church has not this full legal right, but “authority” (Latin, auctoritas), which means moral authority arising out of the testimony of the Church as a whole throughout the ages.  The ultimate court of appeal must of necessity be the spiritually enlightened judgment of the individual Christian with reference to any and every matter of truth and conscience.  This is the inalienable right of the individual, whether like the Churchman he exercises it continually and directly from the Bible, or whether like the Roman Catholic he exercises it once for all in deciding to submit himself to an external organization which he believes to be an infallible guide.  But the individual judgment of a believer must continually be checked and safeguarded by the continuous consensus of Christian opinion and practice, and it is part of our Christian discipline to combine properly the spiritual right of the individual believer and the moral authority of the Christian community.  For all practical purposes very little difficulty will be found in this connection.

      (a) This position of the supreme authority of the Bible over Tradition is the assertion of the historic basis of Christianity.  There is of course a true Church life and growth, but it must be growth and development from Apostolic germs.  Many of the characteristic positions of the Church of Rome are not true developments from Apostolic germs, but alien growths from other germs of later date than the Apostolic age.  This is quite another thing from legitimate development, and its tendency is to destroy the original germs and to transform true Christianity into the admixture of truth and error found in the Church of Rome.  Adherence to the Bible and the constant shaping of Church customs and usages thereby will safeguard us against any such departure from the truth of God.

      (b) This position is the charter of spiritual freedom.  Tradition is vague and arbitrary, and means the acceptance of the dicta of fallible men.  Besides, Church tradition must be embodied somewhere.  Some say it is in the Pope.  Others say in a General Council.  Others say in the Pope and Council combined, and these differences show the utter impossibility of arriving at a true conclusion.  The great authority of the first four General Councils is acknowledged by all, and their doctrinal standards are our heritage today.  Yet even their decisions were accepted because they immediately and readily commended themselves to the judgment of the whole Church as in accordance with Divine revelation.  This, too, is the principle on which the Church of England accepts the authority of General Councils (see Article XXI).

      General Councils, however, have expressed themselves on a few matters only, and do not offer any help on the many pressing problems of life as to which the soul needs guidance and authority.  Consequently, the final decision must be made by the spiritually illuminated Christian consciousness guided by the Word of God and advised by means of every possible channel of knowledge available.  When this is clearly realized it removes all objections to what is often scornfully described as “private judgment.”  It is this, but it is very much more.  Private judgment does not mean private fancy, but a deliberate decision based on Scripture.  It is the decision of the judgment, the conscience, and the will of the man who desires to know and follow the truth, and who finds the source and embodiment of truth in the Scripture, and bows in submission to it.  He does not separate himself from or set himself above the corporate Christian consciousness of his own and previous ages, so far as he can determine what that corporate consciousness teaches, but while welcoming and weighing truth from all sides, he feels that Scripture is the supreme and final authority for his life.

      This position is abundantly justified on several grounds.  It comes to us with the example of our Lord Who constantly appealed to the Scriptures as the touchstone of truth.  It is that which is the most consonant with the nature of our personality and its responsibility to God.  It is the assertion of our indefeasible right to be in direct personal relation to God, while welcoming all possible light from every available quarter as helping us to decide for ourselves under the guidance of God’s Word and Spirit.  This position has also ever been productive of the finest characters, and the noblest and truest examples of individual and corporate Christian life.  We have only to compare such countries as South America and Spain, where the opposite principle of Church authority and supremacy has had undisputed sway for centuries, to see the truth of this statement.

      Once again let it be said that we do wisely and well in giving to the universal voice and testimony of the Church (wherever and in so far as it can be discovered) the utmost possible weight, for no individual will lightly set aside such united and universal belief; but the last and final authority must be the Word of God illuminating, influencing, and controlling the human conscience and reason through the presence and power of the Spirit of God.

      6.  The Sufficiency of this Authority. – The Bible is our sufficient authority.

      (a) It is sufficient because it is full.  There is nothing required for the spiritual life of all men at all times and in all places which is not found there.

      (b) It is sufficient because it is clear.  When all is said about its obscurity in certain parts, the fact remains that there is still left more than enough to guide every honest soul from time to eternity.

      (c) It is sufficient because it is definite.  There is no doubt about its meaning.  It says what it means and means what it says.  What must I do to be saved?  How may I be holy?  How can I live aright?  How shall I live hereafter?  To every necessary question the Bible has a definite and unmistakable answer.

      (d) It is sufficient because it is accessible.  Here is a little book, easily obtained, quickly read, and adequate to every conceivable circumstance.

      (e) It is sufficient because it is satisfying.  To the soul that receives it, it affords its own blessed and satisfying proofs.  That soul needs nothing that is not derived thence for spiritual life and power.

      This great truth of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture may be summed up in the words of the Apostle Paul, who, speaking of the Old Testament (though the words are still truer of the New Testament books), says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (lit. God-breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16 f.).  The Divine inspiration carries the Divine authority, and with it the profitableness of the Scriptures.  And the profitableness is of so full, varied, and thorough a nature that the man of God finds in it, as we have seen above, a complete equipment for his whole life.

      We say, therefore, that the Bible is sufficient as a spiritual authority, that it is neither insufficient nor obscure, and that it is not necessary to go to the early Church to clear it of obscurity or supplement its inadequacy.  It is not to be supplanted by Church or Council, or Pope, and not to be supplemented by tradition, whether primitive or current.

      This is the Church of England position on the question of authority in Religion: the Scriptures, supreme and sufficient.  Taking our stand on Article VI, we ask concerning everything offered to us as vital and essential, What saith the Scriptures?  We test everything by Scripture.  To this end we must study it.  We must “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the Scriptures if we would be on our guard against attack, or attack error ourselves.  There is no Churchmanship worthy the name which is not based on a personal, experimental, intellectual, practical knowledge of the Scriptures.

Chapter  II – The Authority of Holy Scripture

      In view of the insistence on the supremacy of Scripture which we find so clearly brought before us in the Articles, it is necessary to inquire on what precise grounds our Church accepts Holy Scripture as the Supreme Authority.

      1.  The Canon of Scripture. – Article VI tells us that “a Canonical Book,” [The word “Canon” means a measure (κανών), and was originally used of a reed or rod which was first measured and then used as a standard of measurement.  As applied to Holy Scripture a “Canonical book” is a book which has been first “measured” by the Christian consciousness of the Church and is now used as a standard of measurement for all other claimants to the position of authority.] that is, a book regarded as part of the Word of God, is one “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”  This statement cannot apply strictly and literally to all the books of the New Testament, and the Reformers well knew of the early doubts which attached for a time to some books.  It is probable that as the doubts were entirely dead by the sixteenth century the reference is to the Church as a whole as distinct from individual Churches.  The acceptance of the books of the New Testament was originally settled mainly by the public reading and use of the various books in the services and life of the Christian congregations.  The first three centuries of the Christian Church never pronounced as a whole on the books of the New Testament except by the testimony of individual writers.  No corporate testimony was either possible or necessary, but when the call for this came there was no doubt about our present books.  The Council of Carthage, 397, first bore witness to the existing beliefs of the Churches represented there as to the books acknowledged as the New Testament.  Neither this nor any Council decided the question by enactment.  They only witnessed to what the Churches already believed on the matter.

      That the Churches gave their careful attention to the subject is evident from the fact that there were certain exclusions as well as inclusions in regard to both parts of Scripture.  The Old Testament Apocryphal Books were never included in the Old Testament by the Jews, were never quoted by our Lord and His Apostles in the New Testament, and the distinction between them and the Old Testament was clearly understood by those who knew Hebrew.  And the early Christians, while valuing certain books, like the Epistle of Clement of Rome, deliberately avoided accepting them as part of the New Testament Scriptures.

      As we have already seen, the fundamental reason for accepting certain books as the Word of God of the New Covenant, was the conviction in the early Church that these books came from men who were uniquely inspired to reveal the will of God, commissioned by our Lord, and authorized to be the exponents of His mind.  All other tests of books, as for example their age, their truth, their helpfulness, are subsidiary and confirmatory.  The final ground of Canonicity was the Apostolicity of the books, they came from Apostles, or Apostolic men who were companions of the Apostles.

      2.  One weighty reason for regarding Scripture as our supreme authority is the claim of Scripture itself.  The Old Testament obviously could not claim finality for itself as a whole because of its gradual growth from separate authors, but we can see certain elements in the process when we read that the Prophets made Scripture (Deut. 18:15–20), and claimed Divine inspiration (2 Sam. 23:2, Isa. 9:8, Jer. 2:1, Ezek. 1:3).  The New Testament certainly sets its seal retrospectively on the finality of the Old Testament.  Our Lord and His Apostles speak with no uncertain voice as to the supremacy and finality of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant (Luke 2:4, 27–44; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21).

      For a similar reason the New Testament could not claim finality for itself owing to its gradual growth, but we are able to see certain features which point in this direction.  Our Lord laid great emphasis on His own words (John 17:12, 18:9, 37).  St. Paul laid claim to inspiration (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 4:2–8).  There is also a mutual attestation of authors within the New Testament (Acts 1:1, Luke 1:1–4, 2 Pet. 3:15, 16).  The same thing is evident from St. Jude’s remarkable phrase, “the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (verse 3).  All these seem to involve an implicit claim to finality on the part of the New Testament, and indeed it is implied in the whole matter and manner of the writings.  The tone of authority and command is unmistakable, and is much more striking than any verbal assertions to this effect, as we may see from the opening of the Pauline Epistles, especially Galatians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, as well as St. Peter and St. John’s writings.

      3.  We also hold the finality and supremacy of the New Testament, because of the clear testimony of Church history.  The following points summarize this and deserve special attention.

      (1) The general tenor of the writings of the Fathers is undoubted and pronounced in this direction.

      (2) At the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Gospels occupied a prominent position in the middle of the assemblage.  This was a silent but significant testimony to the supreme authority of Scripture in all disputes on doctrine.

      (3) Every heresy, too, claimed to be based on Scripture, and this showed the importance placed thereon.

      (4) Certain books, which were revered in the early Church, like the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, were soon set aside and clearly distinguished from the Canonical books.

      (5) The ancient liturgies of the Church were also saturated with Holy Scripture.

      (6) The most severe attacks on Christianity have in every age been directed against the Word of God.

      4.  The Divine power and authority of Scripture can also be seen in a very simple and convincing way.  The dates of the New Testament books clearly show the limited period of the activity of the Spirit of inspiration.  About fifty years after the Ascension, just, as soon as the facts of redemption were thoroughly announced, the work of transcription began (A.D. 50–l00), and then comes a change abrupt and abysmal.  It has been said that there is no transition so radical and sudden, and yet so silent, as the transition from the New Testament books to the early Christian writings of the second century.  One of the most beautiful and interesting of the latter is the Epistle to Diognetus, a vindication of the superiority of Christianity over heathenism, and yet when compared with the New Testament everyone is at once conscious of the remarkable gulf between them.  The dates of the New Testament books are therefore evidences of a special activity of the Holy Spirit and of the limitation of this special activity to those dates.  The Holy Spirit, though active subsequent to this, was not active in the same way, and we may therefore define inspiration as the peculiar and unique activity of the Holy Spirit.  We thus distinguish between His unique and special inspiration, and His ordinary and general illumination.

      5.  We also argue for the supremacy of Scripture from the nature of the case.  The Person of Christ is the basis of Christianity, and what we need is the earliest and purest historical embodiment of that revelation.  This was not possible after the first century.  Tradition is weaker and less reliable than written documents and ever tends to deteriorate.  We see what tradition did for Judaism (Mark 7:1–13).  It is also at least noteworthy that all the great systems of religion have their sacred books, as though a book were absolutely necessary to religion.

      In all the foregoing it must be borne in mind that we have been concerned with the fundamental grounds on which we accept the New Testament as the supreme authority of God for our life.  The particular reasons and detailed arguments for considering these grounds satisfying can hardly be dealt with here, for they are properly part of the subject of Christian evidences.  All that we are now concerned with is the primary basis of our Church’s acceptance of the books of the New Testament as the Word of God.

      Each book originally had its separate and Divine authority, and this authority would have remained even if all the books had not been collected and made one volume, so that Canonicity really implies the existence of the authority of the separate books, which, by being collected together, are, as it were, codified.  The Revelation did not come to exist because of the Canonicity, but the Canonicity because of the Revelation, and the Bible is God’s revelation because it embodies the historic revelation of our Lord as the Redeemer.

      6.  The Inspiration of Scripture. – The Church of England has never promulgated any particular theory of inspiration, though it is worthwhile noticing the reference in Article XX to “God’s Word written.”  The Church accepts the plenary and supreme authority of Holy Scripture, and when once the question of its authority is settled the particular method of the Divine inspiration is really only secondary.  The main question is, Are the vital things affirmed in the Bible true?  If they are, they are authoritative for us whatever may be the method whereby God delivered them to the Prophets and Apostles.  When, however, we consider the meaning of inspiration we are to understand a special influence of the Holy Spirit differing not only in degree but in kind from His ordinary spiritual illumination.

      The word “inspiration” is variously applied.  It is used (1) Of the communication of knowledge to the natural man (Job 32:8); (2) Of the ordinary work of the Holy Spirit on the heart (cf. First Collect in the Holy Communion Service, and the Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Easter).  But by the inspiration of Holy Scripture we mean the communication of Divine truth in a way which is unique both in degree and kind.  It is best to confine the use of the word “inspiration” to the act of writing and the methods of composition, and the word “revelation” to the truth written.  The Apostles were evidently inspired to teach orally, and the New Testament is clear as to their position as founders of the Church.  With regard to their oral teaching they certainly had full authority and plenary inspiration, and yet of the eight writers of the New Testament five were Apostles, whose inspiration could hardly have left them when they began to write, while the other books were written by men in special relation to the Apostles.

      Revelation is a record of the thoughts of God for the life of man, and if His will is to be handed down it must be put into words.  We cannot be sure of the thoughts if we are not sure of the words, and authority and inspiration must therefore in some way or other extend to the language.  St. Peter tells us that the men (2 Pet. 1:21), and St. Paul that their writings were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16).  This view of inspiration is justified by a number of considerations.  The authority of “God’s word written” has always been regarded of the greatest possible weight by the Church.  We see this in—

      (a) The detailed and constant use of the Bible today in the life and work of the Churches.

      (b) The scholarly and minute exegesis of Holy Scripture in all ages, especially today.

      (c) The appeal to the words of the Bible in all matters of controversy.

      (d) The Belief on this point in the Apostolic Churches (see Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, appendix i.).

      (e) The use of the Old Testament by New Testament writers, with several hundreds of quotations (one writer says 600), often depending on verbal points, and the phrases, “It is written”, “The Scripture”, and “Scriptures”.

      It is evident from all this that the authority of Scripture must be based on the meaning of its language.

      The following distinctions in our use of the word “inspiration” are to be noted.  Inspiration is a general term including several methods of procedure in the composition of Scripture.

      (a) There is the inspiration involved in a direct communication from God (1 Thess. 4:15).

      (b) There is the inspiration involved in the selection of material whereby the writers were guided to choose out of a larger mass of material that which was needed for their particular purpose (Luke 1:1–4, John 20:30 f.).

      (c) There is the inspiration which guarantees an accurate record; for example, the speeches of Job’s friends, the sins of God’s people are recorded, but they are not justified by God simply because they find a place in Scripture.  Inspiration here guarantees not the truth of the utterances but the accuracy of the accounts as recorded.

      (d) There is the inspiration connected with what is known as progressive revelation.  It is obvious from our point of view that not every part of the Scripture is of equal importance, though everything is necessary in its own place and for its own purpose.  Revelation is progressive, it was perfect at each stage for that stage, but not necessarily beyond it.  The morality of each period must be judged from the standpoint of the particular stage, and not from the clear light of the New Testament teaching.  We only accept Old Testament counsels and commands if they are justified from the New Testament level of knowledge.

      We can easily see from all this the need of careful discrimination in our use of Holy Scripture.  What we call the Bible contains the record of men’s words of falsehood as well as God’s word of truth, as, for instance, the speeches of Job’s friends, the words of Satan, and the utterances of false prophets.  When, therefore, we read that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” we are not to regard every word contained in Scripture as conveying the Divine message, true in itself, but we must inquire whether the particular part is declared to be true or false, what it means (not merely what it says) and whether it is suitable for our use.

      It will help us in our understanding of Holy Scripture to notice the analogy between the Incarnate Word and the Written Word.  They are both Divine and both human, though it is impossible to say in either case where the Divine ends and the human begins.  The human and the Divine elements of Holy Scripture are inseparable and carry their own message of light, life and power to all who are willing to know the truth and follow it.

Chapter  III – The Old Testament

      One of the most pressing and vital questions of modern days is the place and power of the Old Testament in the Christian Church.  The position of the Church of England on this subject is, however, clear and undoubted.

      1.  The Canon of the Old Testament. – Article VI gives a list of the Old Testament Books as we have them today and speaks of them as “canonical,” that is, as part of Holy Scripture.  In accordance with this statement Lessons from the Old Testament are used in the Daily Services throughout the year.  At the same time, as we have already noticed, the Church carefully distinguishes between the other books which are generally spoken of as the Old Testament Apocrypha.  Selections from these are appointed to be read from time to time in the daily lessons, but they are not used to establish any doctrine.  In this view of the Old Testament Canon our Church is in strict accordance, not only with modern Jewish belief on the subject, but also with the views of the Jewish Church throughout the centuries.  The modern Hebrew Bible of the Jews is exactly the same as our Old Testament.  The Jewish Commentaries known as the Talmud and the Targums, hold the same position, while the greatest scholars of the early ages of the Christian Church, such as Jerome in the fourth century, Origen in the third century, and Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the second century, all bear witness to the distinction between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.  The Jewish testimony of Josephus in the first century is identical with all the foregoing, and this would seem true of Philo also, though in his case the evidence is not so precise.  Above all, there is the most assured warrant for believing that the Bible of our Lord and His Apostles was the same as our Old Testament.  No doctrine is made to depend on passages from the Apocrypha, and thus we are on firm ground when we use our Old Testament today in the same way as our Lord and His Apostles used theirs.

      2.  The Permanent Value of the Old Testament. – Article VII gives us the Church teaching on this subject.

            “The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, Who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.  Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.  Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”

      The teaching of this article may thus be summarized—

            (a) The essential oneness of both parts of Scripture.

            (b) The ground of this oneness: our Lord Jesus Christ.

            (c) The essential spirituality of the Old Testament.

            (d) The temporary nature of the Ceremonial Law.

            (e) The permanence of the Moral Law.

      (a) The essential unity of the Old and New Testaments is due to the fact that in both of them the subject is Christ, the Messiah and Mediator; and the Author of both is the Holy Spirit.  When we carefully study the Old Testament we find there are three lines of teaching running through it from Genesis to Malachi.  It is a Book (1) of unfulfilled prophecies; (2) of unexplained ceremonies; (3) of unsatisfied longings, and it closes, therefore, as an incomplete book, for at the time when prophecy became silent after the death of Malachi the predictions were still unfulfilled, the ceremonial ritual was in great measure unexplained, and the earnest spiritual desires of the people of Israel unrealized.

      (b) When we turn to the New Testament we find the explanation of the incompleteness of the Old Testament.  Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Messiah, completely realizes what was foretold, expected, and desired in Old Testament times.  As the Prophet of God, as the Priest and Sacrifice, and as the King, He fulfills the prophecies of the Old Covenant, explains the ceremonies, and satisfies the longings, and thus, according to the well-known phrase of Augustine, “in the Old Testament the New is concealed and in the New the Old is revealed.”  The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that the Old Testament with the simple but all-essential requirement of faith in Christ Jesus is “able to make wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15).  Our Lord after His Resurrection expounded unto His disciples “in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25–27), and in like manner the Apostle Paul, in his missionary work in the Synagogues, constantly showed the fulfillment of Old Testament prediction in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:32–39; 26:22, 23; 28:23).

      (c) The Article rightly urges that the Patriarchs and Prophets looked for more than transitory promises.  They anticipated the spiritual blessings of the Messianic days.  Everlasting life in the Old Testament is implied as included in the Divine Covenant, rather than definitely proclaimed.  The Old Testament necessarily emphasizes the present rather than the future, because the purposes of God for Israel were specifically concerned with national life and the bearing of Israel’s relationship to this world.  We are not therefore surprised to find comparatively little about the future life in the Old Testament, though it is clearly found there, and indeed, is involved in the very relation of the believing Jew to God.  Union with God necessarily implies an everlasting relationship, and in this the future life is obviously included.  “Thou wilt show me the path of life; in Thy presence is fullness of joy; at Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:11).  Our Lord’s words, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32) show at once the fact of the future life in Old Testament times and also the comparative obscurity of the Old Testament revelation (see also John 8:56, Heb. 11:10, 13, 16).  The true relation between the Old and New Covenants on this subject is clearly stated by St. Paul when he says, “The appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... hath illuminated life and immortality through the Gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10, Greek).

      (d) The temporary elements of the Old Testament are obvious to all.  Among these are such matters as the theocracy, or the direct government of God; the union of the Jewish Church and State; the human sacrificing priesthood and visible sacrifices; and the general legal spirit underlying the Mosaic economy.

      (e) The permanent elements of the Old Testament include its doctrine of the Godhead; its experience of holy and humble men of heart; its typical teaching, pointing forward to the Messiah; the moral lessons derivable from the history of the Jews; and above all, the essential principles of the moral law which appeal to human consciences at all times.  The moral law in relation to Christians today is of course not the means of their justification or judicial standing before God, but is part of that life of righteousness which is the outcome and fruit of their union with God in Christ.  It is thus that the Apostle Paul uses the Commandments in such passages as Ephesians 6:1, 2.

      3.  The True View of the Old Testament. – The Christian attitude towards the Old Testament will be guided and ruled by three great considerations.

      (a) It will be in keeping with the general position of the Old Testament among the Jews in all ages.  The Old Testament, as we possess it, represents and embodies Jewish national life and history for many centuries.  The Book and the people grew up together, and the Book was at once the record and the standard of the national life of the people.  This is the great outstanding fact that no literary or subjective considerations can touch, and the Church of England position in relation to the Old Testament is exactly in keeping with all that we know of the Jewish origin and history of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant.

      (b) The Christian experience of the centuries of the Church is a great factor in determining the true attitude of the individual Christian to the Old Testament.  All through the ages the Old Testament has been the instruction and nourishment of the spiritual life of millions of God’s people.  Great intellects, as well as holy characters, have been influenced and guided by it, and we follow their example in adhering closely to the Old Testament.

      (c) Above all, our Old Testament was the Bible of our Blessed Lord, and His testimony to it and use of it are the determining factors of our attitude to it.  He quotes from most of the books; He uses it as of Divine authority, urging “it is written” against those who would go contrary to its mind and spirit.  His references to the history of Old Testament times are clear and undoubted, and on these grounds our Lord’s authority with regard to the Old Testament is final for all Christian people.

      These are the three great and important principles which should determine our view of the Old Testament, and they should be constantly applied to all modern writings which treat of the Old Testament.  There are certain destructive views of the Old Testament which are generally associated with what is called the “Higher Criticism,” though the term ought not to be identified solely with novel and erroneous views of Holy Scripture.  Biblical criticism is usually described by the terms “lower” or “higher” criticism.  The former concerns itself with the true Biblical text, its preservation and transmission, while the latter is occupied with the literary and historical questions arising out of the text before us.  It is obvious, therefore, that what is called “higher” criticism is not only a legitimate but a necessary method for all Christians, and by its use we are able to discover very much about the facts and form of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.  It is the wrong use of this method against which we should be on our guard, and it is here that the three fundamental principles stated above will be found of the greatest possible service.  They will prevent us from being influenced by mere subjective and personal considerations, and will help us to keep before our minds the great outstanding facts of history and Christian experience which are the foundation of the true view of the Old Testament.  It is the simple truth that much of present-day discussion of the Old Testament is concerned with linguistic questions and theories, and also with philosophic and historical problems which tend to ignore, if not to set aside, the supernatural elements of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  Holy Scripture warrants and welcomes all possible examination, but it is necessary to remember that arguments based on differences of language are not conclusive in themselves and require to be tested and safeguarded by the great facts of history.  It is well known, too, that archaeological discoveries in Babylonia, Egypt, and Palestine during the past half century have done much to confirm the truth of the Old Testament on those very points on which doubts have been cast by the inadequate and one-sided treatment of certain schools of critics. [Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology.]  Not only so, but not a single feature distinctive of Modern Criticism is supported by archaeology.

      We must never lose sight of the fact that the Bible is at once a human and a Divine book.  In some respects it is like other books and is to be examined and tested accordingly, but in other respects it is unlike all other books and the superhuman and supernatural elements must never be overlooked in our endeavour to arrive at the truth.

      Two great principles may, in conclusion, be emphasized as summing up the truth on this important subject.  The first is that from the very nature of the case God’s revelation must be a revelation of truth, and we believe that the Old Testament, like the New, came from Him Who is the Spirit of Truth, and Whose actions are therefore guided and limited by this essential attribute.  The second principle is that for a proper understanding of the Word of God, whether in the Old or in the New Testament, spiritual perception and experience is as essential as intellectual ability and historical knowledge, and it is only when all requirements are blended and utilized that truth will really be discovered.  By all means let us have all possible expert knowledge; but since Biblical questions are often complex and far-reaching, involving a number of considerations, we need expert knowledge of several kinds, of archaeology, history, theology, philology, and not least of all we need spiritual experience.  Every available factor must be taken into account, for the questions cannot be decided by intellectual criticism alone.  Scripture makes its weightiest appeal to conscience, heart, and will.  “The meek will He guide in judgment” (Ps. 25:9).  “He that willeth to do His will shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17).  When Christian character and experience are allowed to take their proper share in the decision of Old Testament problems the answer will be given with unmistakable clearness in confirmation of those great realities which have ever been the joy and power of the Church of Christ.

      In our use of the Old Testament there is constant need of avoiding two errors; one, that of treating the Old Testament as though it were the New, forgetful of the progressiveness and incompleteness of its revelation, and the other, that of ignoring the Old Testament altogether, as though it were of no present value except as a record of ancient history.  The true view will avoid these extremes and find in the Old Testament what the Lord and His Apostles found; instruction for mind and heart, inspiration for conscience and soul, and some of the most essential elements towards a proper understanding of the complete revelation of God in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chapter  IV – Catholicity (1)

[The substance of this and the following chapter was read as

a paper and afterwards published in pamphlet form.]

      The Church of England of course distinguishes between particular Churches and the whole Church of Christ.  In the Preface there is a reference to “established Doctrine, or laudable Practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholick Church of Christ,” and in Article XIX reference is made to particular Churches such as those of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome.  The title of the Book of Common Prayer is also worthy of note in this connection.  It is described as “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England.”  It is therefore necessary and important to have a clear conception of what the Church of England regards as essential Christianity and of the grounds on which she justifies her position as an integral part of the “whole Catholick Church of Christ”.  We are thus brought face to face with the question known as that of Catholicity and the application of the idea to the Church of England.

      1.  The Meaning of the Catholicity of the Church of England.

      (a) The original idea of the word “Catholic” was that of geographical extension and diffusion.  The meaning was simply that of “universality,” as, for instance, in the phrase “Thy Holy Church Universal”.  It pointed to Christianity as a religion capable of universal diffusion, with all men eligible for membership, and all men equal in that membership.  This is undoubtedly the meaning of the word as first used by Ignatius and Polycarp. [Bishop Lightfoot’s Commentary on Ignatius (Epistle to Smyrna, chap. viii., note).]  The word is thus essentially indicative of the supreme purpose of Christianity, and may be said to form a strong plea for worldwide evangelization.

      (b) Then followed the thought of doctrinal purity and fullness as a mark of true Christian Catholicity.  By purity and completeness of doctrine is to be understood the doctrine which most closely adhered to the Christianity of our Lord and His Apostles.  This extension of the meaning of the word may have been directed against Judaism, as it certainly was against heresy.  Bishop Lightfoot points out that the original meaning of the word is “universal” as opposed to “particular,” and then it comes to mean “orthodoxy” as opposed to “heresy”.  “The truth was the same everywhere, the heresies were partial, scattered, localized, isolated.” [Quoted in Strong’s Manual of Theology, 1st edition, p. 360, note.]  This transference of idea from geographical extension to doctrinal fullness can be seen in the term “the Catholic faith”.  Acceptance of and adherence to the truth of Christianity in its purity and fullness constituted this secondary idea of Catholicity, though we can easily see that the word in this application tends to exclusion, while in the former case the emphasis was on the idea of inclusion.

      (c) This geographical expansion and doctrinal purity found their expression in Church unity and fellowship.  Originally this fellowship was necessarily congregational in type; then it became enlarged to include associations of particular congregations within a town or country.  Then came the era of the great patriarchates; later came the great schism of Eastern and Western Christianity, each having its own ideas of Catholicity.  In the East, Catholicity took the form of orthodox belief, combined with the autonomy of several Churches.  In the West, Catholicity took the form of ecclesiastical unity under the Papacy.  At the Reformation the Church of England adopted a position practically identical with that of Eastern Christendom in insisting upon the right of separate Churches, whether national or otherwise, to be autonomous, while preserving the essentials of the Catholic faith of Christendom.

      These three associated ideas of geographical diffusion, doctrinal purity, and ecclesiastical fellowship are all illustrated in the Prayer Book by the phrases, “the Catholic Faith,” “the good estate of the Catholic Church,” “all who profess and call themselves Christians,” “all them that do confess Thy Holy Name,” “Thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Thy Son,” “the holy Catholic Church”.  The words of the Bidding Prayer are also noteworthy: “Ye shall pray for Christ’s whole Catholic Church; that is, for the whole congregation of Christ’s people dispersed throughout the world.” [Canons of 1604.  No. 55.]

      For our present purpose it will be unnecessary to refer further to the original idea of universality which we naturally take for granted in any consideration of Christian Catholicity.  We concentrate our attention on—

      2.  The Marks of the Catholicity of the Church of England.

      (a) At the foundation of Catholicity is the Christian doctrine of the Godhead as laid down in the three Creeds, and as theologically stated in Articles I to V.  This includes the doctrine of God as Creator and Father, as transcendent and immanent; of the Holy Trinity; of the Incarnation of our Lord; of the Atonement; of the Resurrection and Ascension; of the Deity of the Holy Ghost.  About these fundamental truths there can be no question; they constitute “the Catholic Faith”.

      (b) Arising out of this doctrine come the special applications and implications emphasized at the time of the Reformation.  It is not unnecessary to repeat that our Prayer Book, as it stands, is primarily and essentially a product of the sixteenth century, and of that movement known as the Protestant Reformation.  Our Church formularies can only be rightly understood when viewed in connection with the circumstances which led to their compilation and composition.  At that time certain distinctive principles were emphasized by the Church of England, and these principles must be thoroughly understood if we would arrive at an accurate knowledge of true Anglican Catholicity.  What, then, was distinctive about the English Reformation?

      (1) The first distinctive principle was the insistence on true spiritual authority. – Holy Scripture, as we have seen, was declared to be supreme in all necessary matters of faith and practice; and whatsoever was not read therein, nor could be proved thereby, was not to be required of any man as an article of faith or as necessary to salvation (Art. VI).  The three Creeds were to be received, not because of their usefulness or their antiquity or their universality, but because they could be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture (Art. VIII).  The Church cannot ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, nor ought it to decree anything against the same, or enforce anything besides the same as necessary to salvation (Art. XX).  General Councils have neither strength nor authority in things necessary to salvation unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture (Art. XXI).  Doctrines concerning the Sacraments, ministry, and discipline are also deliberately subjected to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture (Arts. XXII–XXXIV).

      (2) The next distinctive principle of the Reformation was the true spiritual access of the soul to God as indicated by the phrase “justification by faith”.  The repentant sinner is accepted with God through faith in Christ, apart from all personal merit and work, and this acceptance carries with it access to God’s presence at all times without the help of any intermediary, and guarantees constant, free, and full fellowship between the soul and God.

      (3) The third distinctive principle of the Reformation was its insistence on the true spiritual meaning of the Sacraments.  The keynote of English Reformation and Prayer Book teaching on the Sacraments is the necessity of right and worthy reception; the efficacy of these ordinances is conditional on faithful use.  They do not “contain” grace apart from worthy dispositions in the recipients.  No opus operatum, i.e. the administration of rite alone, apart from spiritual conditions, can guarantee the bestowal of grace.  Faith is the correlative of grace; the Sacraments are visible signs to which are annexed promises. [Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments, The Homilies.]  They appeal to faith, and only through faith are efficacious.

      These three distinctive principles are as clear today in our Prayer Book as they were in 1552, for the simple reason that they have never been altered in any essential respect, and all true English Church Catholicity must include and give prominence to these significant and unmistakable aspects of truth.  In these three particulars, above all others, the Church of England in the sixteenth century protested against the current and predominant views of that day, and in so doing was not adopting any merely negative position, but one that was essentially positive and Catholic.  As the Bishop of Bristol (Dr. G. F. Browne) said at the Church Congress of 1903—

      “Protest and Protestant are positive words, not negative, and connote a public declaration of positive testimony.  The translators of the Bible knew what the word meant in their day when they made Paul say, ‘I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.’”

      And Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, of Lincoln, wrote—

      “The Church of England became Protestant at the Reformation in order that she might be more truly and purely Catholic.” [Theophilus Anglicanus, p. 177.]

      (c) The general Christian doctrine, together with the special Reformation applications, was expressed and fostered by Church fellowship and ministry as laid down in our Prayer Book, Articles and Ordinal.

      (1) The fact of Church fellowship is seen in the definition of the visible Church (Art. XIX) with its two “notes” of the Word of God preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered.

      (2) The fact of Ministry is seen in the insistence on due order and appointment of all lawful ministry (Art. XXIII).

      (3) The form of the Church and ministry was what we now know as episcopal, a result rendered possible by the special characteristics of the English as contrasted with the Continental Reformation.  On the Continent spiritual reformation came first as a protest against the intervention of the Church; in England political reformation came first, as a protest against the interference of the Pope; and it was mainly this particular state of affairs which enabled us in England to preserve continuity so far as organization and ministry were concerned.

      (4) But while there was this continuity of title, name, and visible organization, the foundation facts and meanings of the Church and ministry underwent very serious and significant modifications and alterations.  In the Ordinal everything associated with sacerdotal doctrine and symbolism was deliberately removed.  Articles XIX and XXIII, on the Church and ministry, are couched in the most general terms, and, as is well known, the former Article is almost verbally identical with the Confession of Augsburg, and was intended as the basis of a concordat between Cranmer and the German non-episcopal Reformers.  Even the reference to the Ordinal of those days (Art. XXXVI) only states that it had not “anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly,” and simply declares those who were ordained and consecrated by means of it, “rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered”.  The preface to the Ordinal, drawn up, be it ever remembered, with the exception of one phrase, by the men who composed the above Articles, consistently speaks of the three orders of ministry as having existed from Apostolic times, and therefore to be “held in reverend estimation”.  As Bishop Gibson, in his work on the Articles, rightly says—

      “Certainly all that the actual terms of the Article now under consideration bind us to is this; that episcopacy is not in itself superstitious or ungodly.  This amounts to no more than saying that it is an allowable form of Church government, and leaves the question open whether it is the only one.  This question is not decided for us elsewhere in the Articles; for even where we might have reasonably expected some light to be thrown upon it, we are met with a remarkable silence. ... The Articles, then, leave us without any real guidance on the question whether episcopacy is to be regarded as necessary.” [Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 74.]  (Italics are the author’s.)

      Even when the Church of England requires for her own ministers episcopal ordination, as she has done since 1662, the reference is inclusive, not exclusive.  To quote Dr. Gibson again—

      “It is interesting to notice how she treats the subject entirely from a practical point of view, pronouncing on it, not as an abstract theological question, but only as it concerns herself.  She is not called upon to judge others.” [Ibid., p. 746.]

      From the considerations stated above we can see the true teaching of the Church of England on the subject of Catholicity.  Our Reformers well knew that they were not losing any essential feature of the Catholic position by the action that they were compelled to take in severing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Papacy.  Subordination to Rome was never required as a condition of Catholicity.  The history and decisions of the General Councils clearly prove this.

Chapter  V – Catholicity (2)

      At the foundation of the position of the Church of England as stated in the former chapter there are certain principles which form the justification and warrant of our true Catholicity.  To a consideration of these principles we have now to turn our attention, as well as to some pressing practical matters arising out of the whole subject.

      1.  The Tests of Catholicity of the Church of England.

      (a) The supreme test of all true Catholicity lies in Apostolicity – that is in essential agreement with the New Testament.  “To the law and to the testimony.”  The New Testament embodies the revelation of God in Christ in its purest form.  It is the record of that revelation given by men who were uniquely qualified to be the exponents of the Divine will to man.  Just as, in the formation of the New Testament, Apostolicity was the one test of Canonicity, so, in everything connected with the life and progress of the Church, the Apostolic authority of the New Testament is supreme and final.  This is the cardinal feature of the Church of England position as laid down at the Reformation and as it abides in our Prayer Book today.

      (b) Subject to this supreme test of Apostolicity the Church of England allows and urges a corroborative test – that of antiquity.  In the Prayer Book and Articles – that is, in the only formularies that have full and undoubted legal authority over the members of the Church of England – Scripture, and Scripture alone, is stated to be the sole and supreme authority; but there are clear indications in other documents of admitted weight and influence which show that the compilers of our Prayer Book did not hesitate to make an appeal to Christian antiquity in support and corroboration of their Scriptural position.  The Canons of 1571, although they never had legal sanction and therefore are not legally binding today, are valuable as indicating a line taken by leading divines in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.  They charge the clergy not to teach anything “except it be agreeable to the doctrines of the Old or New Testaments, and whatever the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected out of that very doctrine”; and the Canons of 1604 consistently claim for the Church of England Liturgy and forms of worship that they are in agreement with true Catholic and Apostolic Christianity. [See also “Homily for Whitsunday.”]  Bishop Jewel’s historic appeal is entirely in line with this position.  In his great sermon at St. Paul’s Cross he boldly flung down a challenge to the Roman Church to prove any of her distinctive doctrines as having been held within the first six centuries.  Jewel’s position has, of course, often been misunderstood to mean that he accepted everything within the first six centuries as necessarily Catholic; but this is an entirely erroneous interpretation.  The Bishop was on the defensive, meeting charges against the Church of England of having introduced changes and novelties, and this was his way of refuting these charges.  He does not for an instant mean that everything found within those centuries is necessarily Catholic.  What he does mean and say is that nothing which is not found within those centuries can be in any true sense Catholic.

      This appeal to antiquity is a position of great importance and real value, and can be illustrated from nearly all the great writers of the Church of England during the last three hundred years.  From Cranmer, Ridley, and Rogers the martyrs, right through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, English Church theologians constantly appealed to antiquity in corroboration of the Apostolic position and purity of the Church of England.

      Yet this use of antiquity is ever to be safeguarded by a constant appeal to Holy Scripture as the ultimate and supreme authority.  As the Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Robertson) well said at the Church Congress of 1903 at Bristol, “The decisions of the early Church in the undisputed General Councils bind us ultimately, because they make no addition to what is taught in Scripture.  They interpret, but do not deign to add.”  “The English Church teaches but one religion, the religion of our Lord’s Apostles recorded in Holy Scripture, and guarded in essentials by the decisions of the ancient Catholic Church.  To the voice of antiquity she listens with deference on points not so decided, but subject always to the immovable truth of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture.”

      Another safeguard of this appeal to antiquity is the necessary distinction between things essential and non-essential.  There are many points in connection with Church life and ritual which have never been formally settled by the whole Church.  Such questions must inevitably arise from time to time, as they have always arisen through the centuries, and variations in rites and ceremonies are inevitable and to be welcomed.  The danger to be continually guarded against is of transforming nonessentials into essentials, and insisting upon certain matters as of Divine obligation which have neither warrant in Scripture nor in the records of the primitive Church.  The well-known formula of Vincent of Lerins, [A presbyter of Gaul in fifth century.  Author of a work against Heretics, entitled Commonitorium.  See article in Dictionary of Christian Biography.] Quod semper, quod ubique, et quod ab omnibus (“That which (has been believed) always, everywhere, and by all”), is often used as though it covered almost every doctrine and practice found in one section of the Christian world of today.  The Vincentian position deserves the greatest possible weight if only it is properly interpreted.  Let anything be shown to have the testimony of universality, antiquity, and consent, and few Christians would be found to deny its great authority; but the semper must be literally semper, the ubique really ubique and the ab omnibus truly ab omnibus.  We must not limit these requirements to a favourite section or a particular age of the Church.  If the Vincentian rule had been applied literally during the fourth century it would have gone very far towards the justification of Arianism, when nearly the whole Christian world went astray.  Let us apply it rigidly, fairly, and fully, so as to include in our “always,” “everywhere,” and “by all,” the Church of the New Testament and the Apostolic age, and we shall soon be able to see how far the rule is applicable and of real validity.

      It is well known that one sentence found in St. Augustine made a deep impression on John Henry Newman, and led to his submission to the Roman Church.  Securus judicat orbis terrarum (“The judgment of the whole world must be right.”) [Dr. Sanday renders this phrase: “The whole world cannot go wrong.” – Oracles of God, p. 79.]  But unfortunately, with a strange lack of logic, Newman’s orbis terrarum was only a mere segment of the world, the segment known as the Roman Church; and on such a principle a man might be led to accept anything that is put before him.  If only we could discover what in reality has been decided by the real orbis terrarum of the Christian Church, it would carry with it very great weight for all who profess and call themselves Christians; yet even so it would not be necessarily infallible, and would need the constant and searching test of the Divine Scriptures of the New Covenant.

      (c) With the New Testament as our supreme authority, and antiquity corroborating and supporting each appeal to Holy Scripture, we have the adequate and complete tests of all Catholicity; and it is therefore necessary at this point to call attention to one position which has been urged, and is being urged, as a necessary test of Catholicity – namely, what is termed Apostolic Succession, but which really means to those who use the phrase, Episcopal Succession.  The Church of England has never committed herself to this untenable position either in her formularies or in the writings of her best and most representative men.  Unbroken episcopal or indeed any other ministerial succession is no necessary guarantee of Catholicity. [Life of Archbishop Benson, vol. ii, p. 683: “If the Church is Apostolic, it must be so not merely by hereditary connection, but by Spiritual Conformity.”]  We can see this in the entire absence of any reference to episcopacy in the Articles – a silence which, as we have noticed, is significantly admitted by Dr. Gibson in his important work on the XXXIX Articles.  The fact of Cranmer’s well-known attempts to form a concordat between the Continental and the English Reformers shows conclusively what was his mind as one of the chief compilers of the Prayer Book.  Another testimony in the same direction is the fact of Presbyterian ministers being accepted and appointed to livings in the Church of England between 1552 and 1662 without re-ordination.  Archbishop Leighton and all the other Scottish Bishops of his day (except one) never required re-ordination of Presbyterian ministers on entrance into the Scottish Episcopal Church. [Butler’s Life and Letters of Archbishop Leighton, pp. 364, 428.]  This, too, was the position taken up by the Church authorities in the reign of Elizabeth, as Keble’s well-known words clearly show—

            “It might have been expected that the defenders of the English hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground and challenge for the Bishops the same unreserved submission on the same plea of exclusive Apostolical prerogative, which their adversaries feared not to insist on for their elders and deacons.  It is notorious, however, that such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper, and others, to whom the management of that controversy was entrusted during the early part of Elizabeth’s reign. ... It is enough with them to show that the government by archbishops and bishops is ancient and allowable; they never venture to urge its exclusive claims, or to connect the succession with the validity of the holy Sacraments.” [Preface to Hooker’s Works, op. 59.]

      In the classic work Of the Church, by Dean Field, published early in the seventeenth century, that great theologian speaks in no uncertain language about the impossibility of succession of Bishops and pastors being a necessary note of the Church—

            “Let us see whether succession of Bishops and pastors may truly be said to be a note of the Church.  Absolutely and without limitation, doubtless it is not.  For there may be a continued succession of Bishops where there is no true Church.”

            “Thus still we see that truth of doctrine is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and discerned, and not ministry and succession, or anything else without it.”

            “In the meanwhile it sufficeth that not bare and naked succession, but true and lawful, wherein no new or strange doctrine is brought into the Church, but the ancient religiously preserved, is a mark, note, or character of the new Church.” [Field, Of the Church, vol. i, pp. 83, 84.  See also Pearson on the Creed, and Dean Jackson on the word “Catholic,” quoted in Archdeacon Sinclair’s Second Charge, 1892, p. 23; Philpot’s Works, Parker Society, p. 37.]

      Even the well-known Tractarian writer, Palmer, in his treatise on the Church, is compelled to allow that non-Episcopal Churches on the Continent at the time of the Reformation did not lose their Catholicity by losing their episcopal organization.  He admits that they were neither heretical nor schismatic, that through no fault of their own they had no episcopal ministry, and that the want of it was excusable and unavoidable. [A Treatise on the Church of Christ, i, pp. 292 ff.  See also the admission by Bishop Mackenzie in The Apostolic Ministry (ed. K. E. Kirk), p. 466: “It may turn out that the effects of the abolition of episcopacy ... were not in all cases entirely mischievous.” – J. S. W.]

      There is no trace in Scripture of any covenanted connection between grace and episcopacy, or indeed between grace and any one particular form of government or polity.  The two “notes,” essential and adequate, of the true Church are the Word and the Sacraments.  It is the fact, and not any particular form of Church fellowship, that is thus emphasized.  If the compilers of the Prayer Book had held the view that grace was associated solely with episcopacy, it is impossible that they could have been silent on the matter.  Catholicity must be proved first and foremost by adherence to the Catholic Faith, and not by adherence to any one form of organization.  The only warrant for regarding succession as a necessary test of Catholicity is the belief that such succession is the only guarantee of grace.  This position has never been endorsed or maintained by the Church of England in her formularies or by her truest exponents, and no one who does not make the essence of the Church rest in its visibility would dream of adopting a position so entirely untenable from the standpoint of Scripture, primitive antiquity, and modern experience.  Truth, not organization, is the essence of Catholicity.

      Since these are the true tests of Catholicity, our next question is as to—

      2.  The Maintenance of the Catholicity of the Church of England.

      How are the great principles enshrined in our Prayer Book to be maintained and furthered?

      (a) By steadfast adherence to the fundamental doctrinal position of the Creeds and Articles I to V.  The Christian doctrine of the Godhead, with all that it implies, must ever remain the foundation of all Catholicity.  The doctrine of an essential and eternal Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God, involving a clear belief and honest confession that the words “Born of the Virgin Mary” mean what they say; a wholehearted belief in the atoning Death and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour; a belief in the Godhead and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit; these are the great foundation realities of all Catholicity.

      (b) By determined adherence to the distinctive position of the Church of England laid down at the Reformation.  The supremacy of Holy Scripture must at all costs be insisted on.  It is the assertion of the historic basis of Christianity free from all later accretions.  It is the charter of our spiritual freedom, and the only guarantee of vital and essential truth.  Bishop Gore, referring to the way in which the Western Church of the Middle Ages allowed tradition to usurp the place of the Bible, very truly and aptly says—

            “The specific appeal to the scriptures of the New Testament to verify or correct current tendencies is gone.  The scriptures, so far as they are referred to, are merged in a miscellaneous mass of authorities.” [The Body of Christ, p. 223.]

      The Church of England at the Reformation refused – and still refuses – to merge the Scriptures in a miscellaneous mass of authorities, and herein is our chief safeguard against error.

      The Reformation position on Justification must also be maintained at all costs.  It is the secret of spiritual peace, spiritual liberty, spiritual power, and spiritual service.  Nothing is so potent in opposition to all Sacerdotal claims as the insistence upon the direct access of the soul to God based on the acceptance of the righteousness which is of God by faith.

      The Reformation principle of the conditional efficacy of the Sacraments must also be maintained; It is our safeguard against materialistic use of those Divine and blessed ordinances.  It prevents them from degenerating into fetishes and charms, by associating with them the word of promise to which our faith may cling.

      It may, perhaps, be urged that circumstances have changed, and that there is no longer need for a predominance and spiritual perspective today identical with that put forth at the Reformation; but, apart from the fact that human nature has the same needs and risks, Rome today boasts her changelessness; and so long as her claims to exclusiveness in our country are put forth with the same power and pertinacity with which they are now being urged, it will be the wisdom – to say nothing of the necessity – of the Church of England to emphasize with all possible clearness the distinctiveness of the Reformation position as a guarantee of true Catholicity.  Professor Sewell, a High Churchman, rightly said—

            “It is our glory and happiness to be Christians; it is our safeguard and our consolation to be Catholics; our sad and melancholy duty – a duty we can never abandon till Rome has ceased to work among us – to be Protestants.”

      3.  By careful adherence to the true grounds of ecclesiastical fellowship and unity.  It is necessary to emphasize the true grounds because it is only too possible to insist upon grounds of Church fellowship which are untrue, and therefore untenable.  Let it at once be said that true Churchmen will not for an instant wish lightly to alter or set aside anything that has come down to them as Scriptural, primitive, or useful.  With all our hearts we subscribe to the doctrine of Article XXXIV that—

            “Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.”

      But while this is so, we must be particularly careful that we base our position on the only safe and clear ground of truth.  Although we hold firmly to our own form of government we must ever distinguish between historical fact and Divine law, and must guard against the error and danger of transforming points of Church order into obligations of Divine authority.  We will retain what has been handed down to us, and will not depart therefrom without grave and valid reasons; but if we raise to the position of Divine sanction and order what is only to be found as a matter of Church order and practical utility, we are doing violence to the best interests of true Catholicity.  Any one with any pretence to knowledge of the first three centuries well knows that the precise forms of ministry were not directly ordained of God, but developed out of circumstances in the Church.  Only by evolution did episcopacy come into being.  Not revelation, but evolution, explains it.  Episcopacy arose by evolution from below (i.e. from the presbyterate), not by devolution from above (i.e. from the Apostolate); in this is the true ground of our maintenance of it, and herein, therefore, is one of the secrets of our maintenance of true Catholicity.  To hold the exclusive validity of episcopacy is no longer possible for anyone who believes in the New Testament, and has any true idea of what occurred in the first two centuries.  English Churchmen rightly believe in and value a succession which is a simple matter of historical fact, and which forms one of the links of connection with the early ages of the Church, but mere succession through the centuries, whether we call it Episcopalian or Presbyterian, has no power to confer grace or to guarantee the existence of true Christianity.  Christianity needs something very much different from this if it is to be preserved in its purity, fullness, and freedom; and for this reason alone, it is absolutely necessary to urge the consideration of the only true and possible grounds upon which to uphold the episcopalian or any other form of Church government.  Ministry of some kind is, of course, essential to the Church; but its precise and sole forms and the exact methods of its perpetuation are nowhere taught in Holy Scripture.

      The question of true Catholicity had a very practical bearing on the relation of the Church of England to other Communions, and this may perhaps be called,

      3.  The Message of the Catholicity of the Church of England.

      (a) It has a message for Roman Catholicism.  It is not “invincible ignorance” that prevents English Churchmen from submitting to the claims of the Roman Church.  We are bold enough to believe that it is due to invincible knowledge.  The Church of England believes in Catholicity, but not in Catholicism in the modern sense, whether Roman or Eastern or Anglican.  Catholicity is true, necessary, Christian.  Catholicism is often false, unnecessary, and unchristian.  Catholicity is the development of Apostolic Christianity as represented in and safeguarded by the New Testament.  Catholicism is an accretion, a parasitic growth, which tends to obliterate the distinctive principles of New Testament Christianity.  Catholicity implies organic unity – the unity of Christ’s mystical body in living connection with the Head – a unity that is spiritual, internal, vital, and essential.  Catholicism is not, and never has been, an organic unity, but only an organized, which frequently means a galvanized, unity – a unity that is external, imposed from without, and for the most part useless and dangerous.  The position of the Church of England, with its appeal to the final authority of Scripture and the corroborative testimony of antiquity, is an impregnable position, and affords the best guarantee that the revelation of Jesus Christ to this world can be faithfully preserved, consistently perpetuated, and practically applied to the needs of mankind.

      (b) It has a message for other Communions.  No one can think that the present divisions of Christendom are pleasing to God or in accordance with His will as revealed in Scripture.  The unity of the people of God should therefore occupy a prominent place in the thoughts and prayers of all Christians.  Towards the realization of this happy consummation we cannot doubt that the Church of England has an important part to play.  By its great principle of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the final Court of Appeal, it emphasizes that which tends to keep the Church pure and true to God.  In its emphasis on antiquity and primitive order as the corroborative tests of truth, our Church conserves all that is good and essential in early Christianity and preserves the true bonds of union and connection with the Church of the past centuries.  The position taken up, as we have seen, by our Reformers in relation to the Continental Churches and the liberal, large-hearted attitude which has been characteristic of the truest Churchmen since that time make our Church, when properly understood and interpreted, a true via media for the reconciliation of diverging theories of Christianity.  In this will be found, as it has been well said, not compromise for the sake of peace but comprehensiveness for the sake of truth and love.  This is the true Catholicity for which the Church of England stands and in the realization of which will be found at once its chief glory and greatest blessing.

Chapter  VI – Nonconformity

      At the time of the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, the Church of England was nominally coterminous with the English people, and for a time any differences of attitude and view were not incompatible with unity inside the Church.  But extremes soon begat extremes, and the terrible experiences of the reign of Queen Mary led to a section of Protestants becoming determined to go as far as possible in opposition to Rome, a determination intensified by their contact with Continental Protestantism during their exile in Mary’s reign.

      Queen Elizabeth and the authorities of the Church thus found themselves met by a strong band of earnest men, who, while desirous of continuing members of the Church of England, wished for further movement in the direction of extreme Protestantism.  This desire was, unfortunately, met by a non possumus attitude, confirmed by threats of persecution in default of conformity.  It was doubtless true that the seriousness of the times needed a bold and united national front against Roman Catholic designs, and it is also equally true that many of the Puritan objections were trivial and frivolous.  At the same time, the policy of Elizabeth and Archbishop Whitgift was neither wise nor true, as the words of so weighty an authority as the late Bishop Creighton amply testify.  Speaking of the Eizabethan Church, the Bishop says [Lectures and Addresses.] —

            “It tended to lose the appearance of a free and self-governing body, and seemed to be an instrument of the policy of the State.  Its pleadings and its arguments lost half their weight because they were backed by coercive authority.  The dangerous formula ‘Obey the law’ was introduced into the settlement of questions which concerned the relations of the individual conscience and God.”

      The tone and temper of both sides can easily be deplored at this distance of time, the Puritans on the one hand objecting to certain matters of Church discipline which were really of no moment, and on the other hand, their great antagonist, Hooker, seeming to set himself to justify every detail found in the Prayer Book, without any possible modification or exception.

      This unyielding spirit on both sides was intensified and deepened in the reigns of James I and Charles I, with the inevitable result that when the Puritan party obtained the upper hand they made short work of the convictions even of moderate Churchmen.  The action in particular of James, Charles, and Archbishop Laud led to Episcopacy being confounded with “prelacy,” and the result was that by means of the solemn League and Covenant of 1643 a Presbyterian tyranny was attempted, which was as intolerable in England as the Laudian tyranny had been in Scotland  If only the counsels of men like Leighton and Archbishop Ussher had prevailed later history would have been very different.  As it was “the Presbyterians had now succeeded the Laudians, and their intolerance was as great as that of those whom they had supplanted.” [Butler’s Life and Letters of Archbishop Leighton, p. 192.]

      The inevitable reaction followed when Charles II came to the Throne, and the history of the Savoy Conference, and the circumstances attending the publication of the Revised Prayer Book of 1662 are sad reading for Church-people.  The Act of Uniformity demanded subscription to the Prayer Book before it was available to all the clergy, and the result was what has been rightly called “Black Bartholomew’s Day” of 1662, when thousands of men like Baxter, Calamy and Manton were driven out of the Church of England, and Nonconformity within the Church became transformed into Dissent outside the Church.  Then with still more cruel persecution and legal oppression, [One Act punished with fines and imprisonments all persons who attended conventicles.  Another Act prohibited ministers from residing within five miles of the village or town where they preached, thus cruelly keeping them from the help of friends.] the gulf between the two parties became absolutely impassable.

      Later efforts at reconciliation failed, and then the Church settled into the comparative torpor of the eighteenth century, when even the great Bishop Butler seems to have despaired of Christianity.  But God raised up His chosen witnesses, and by means of Wesley, Whitefield, and the leaders of the Evangelical Church Revival, the pure Gospel was brought back to the nation.  The attitude and action of the Church and State authorities at that time resulted in yet another separation from the Church, and Methodism became a fact in the ecclesiastical life of our land.

      In the early part of the nineteenth century a movement sprang up, at first mainly connected with the Church of England, with a desire for greater spirituality and simplicity of life and worship.  Owing to the strength of these gatherings, which were held in the West of England, the adherents became known as Plymouth Brethren, and it was not long before they separated from the English Church and formed congregations of their own.  The “Brethren” have undoubtedly exercised a great influence in connection with certain aspects of thought and life, especially in relation to Bible study and the Coming of the Lord, but unfortunately their testimony has been largely neutralized by what seems to be an inherent tendency to separation one from another, until now there are so many divisions and sections that it is beyond the power of outsiders, or perhaps indeed themselves, to explain the reasons of these separations.

      It is impossible to recount even in summary form the history of the various denominations which are found among us.  Suffice it to say that we have the spectacle of a large number of different, and often differing, communions.  Of these the most important are—

      (1) The Congregationalists, dating from 1580, who hold that each congregation of Christians is independent of the rest so far as government and discipline are concerned.

      (2) The Presbyterians, who scarcely differ from the Church of England on any essential doctrine, while in Church government the difference is in the matter of episcopacy.

      (3) The Baptists, who, together with a congregational or independent Church polity, usually limit membership to believers baptized by immersion.

      (4) The Methodists, whose organization is somewhat akin to that of Presbyterianism, and whose doctrine, with one or two serious exceptions, is not much different from that of the Church of England.

      (5) The Brethren, who are divided into two main sections, the Open and the Exclusive, the latter with various coteries each excommunicating all the rest.

      (6) The Salvation Army, an organization which was the creation of one man, and which is virtually under a dictatorship.  The doctrines are allied to those of the Methodist Churches.

      (7) The Quakers, or Society of Friends, founded by George Fox in 1650, as a protest against the formalism and deadness of the Church of that day, but who in the inevitable rebound have gone to the extreme of denying the sacraments and ministry clearly taught in the New Testament.  They are active in humanitarian schemes, and are strongly pacifist.

      What are we to say to all this from the standpoint of the Church of England?  In the first place, we of the English Church should be very careful in the light of past history about charging all Dissenters with being in schism.  Our brief review of Anglican Church history since the Reformation surely teaches us that we cannot look back without deep feelings of sorrow and regret at the action of Church authorities from time to time.  It is only common fairness to say that a great deal of the Nonconformity and Dissent of the past two hundred and fifty years had been through no fault of their own, and was for the most part excusable and unavoidable.  Our truer attitude would be to follow the advice of Bishop Stubbs when he says—

            “The initial question is, How and why are they Nonconformists, how and why are they competing communities?  The answer, Simply because they, as communities, hold some points so important as to outweigh the advantages of communion with the Church.” [Bishop Stubbs’ Visitation Charges, p. 28.]

      We shall do well to inform ourselves on the points which Nonconformists consider essential to their position, for there is no better way of arriving at a true conclusion than by endeavouring to understand the opinions of those who differ from us.

      We must also bear in mind that a ministry may be historically irregular without being spiritually invalid.  This historical and primitive irregularity is undoubtedly true of much Nonconformist ministry, but when we remember how much of Nonconformity is due to past failures of our Church, we shall be wronging the deepest principles of Christianity if we refuse to admit the spiritual validity, efficacy and blessing of their ministrations.  We owe to Nonconformity some of our choicest saints and profoundest theologians, and no one who realizes what the Spirit of Christ is can doubt for an instant the spiritual power and blessing to be found in the Nonconformist Churches.

      It has been rightly pointed out that Puritan theology is noteworthy for its high and glorious conception of the Church as the body in which the Redeemer lives and rules.  It is only when we come to the Roman and so-called Anglo-Catholic conception of the Church that we find a lower ideal and a narrow and ignoble conception of the Body of Christ.  What shall we say to the following questions and answers, which come from a Free Church Catechism—

            Q.  What is the Holy Catholic Church?

            A.  It is that holy society of believers in Christ Jesus which He founded, of which He is the only Head, and in which He dwells by His spirit; so that though made up of many communions, organized in various modes, and scattered throughout the world, it is yet One in Him.

            Q.  What is the essential mark of a true branch of the Catholic Church?

            A.  The essential mark of a true branch of the Catholic Church is the presence of Christ, through His indwelling Spirit, manifested in holy life and fellowship.

Surely we have here the elements from which may come, in the good providence of God, a mutual understanding and the way to unity.

      The Church of England has the power and opportunity to include and emphasize all the essential features for which the various Nonconformist denominations now stand: the presbyterial power of the Presbyterians, the true spiritual congregational independence (without the often accompanying separateness and exclusiveness) of the Congregationalists, the insistence on definite personal relation to God as urged by the Baptists, the fervour of the Methodists, and the love of the Word of God and the earnest expectation of the Lord’s Coming, which characterize the true “Brethren”.

      From all this will rightly come an endeavour to bring about reunion, however far off that consummation may appear at the present moment.  No one can help being grieved at “our unhappy divisions,” and those who have at heart the best interests of our country and Empire, as well as the higher interests of Christianity, will not rest content with the present state of affairs without doing something to heal the breaches.  What this action will be must of necessity be a matter for careful consideration of all the facts and factors involved.  All that we can emphasize now is the importance and absolute necessity of praying and working for true Christian reunion.

      At the same time, we of the Church of England have a right to ask the various Nonconformist Churches to consider their part in this matter.  Truth is not found on one side only, and reunion will never come by absorption or capitulation on either side.  The whole truth is not with one side alone.  No one can doubt that the present divisions of Christendom are a stumbling block to non-Christians, and no one who reads the New Testament teaching on unity can help deploring the tendency to continual division and separation among certain sections of the Protestant world.  Sectarianism has been well defined as individualism run mad, and it would be well for Nonconformity if it could realize more than it does of the corporate side of Christianity and the Christian life.  The formation and growth of the National Free Church Council and other movements, which need not be here particularized, show that the Nonconformist Churches are becoming alive to this great necessity.

      Meanwhile; all true Churchmen will welcome every opportunity of joint action by means of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and other interdenominational (not undenominational) organizations, while every method of united social and temperance work is also to be earnestly utilized.  The true and statesmanlike policy of the Church of England will be to keep open the door as wide as possible for reunion with the various Nonconformist Evangelical Churches.  They are found side by side with us in various parts of the Mission Field; they represent the vast majority of English-speaking Christian people in the United States of America, where, of course, the term “Nonconformist” does not exist.  They are to be found side by side with us in our Dominions, and it may be said that everything that makes for the expansion of the British Empire and the ever-widening influence of the Anglo-Saxon race makes at the same time for the reunion of the various Protestant communities into one great and united Church.  Meantime, we should all, and always, remember our Lord’s prayer for unity, “That they all may be one ... that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (John 17:21), and pray the beautiful prayer of our Accession Service—

            “O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions.  Take away all hatred, and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly Union and Concord; that, as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

Chapter  VII – Church Parties

      Those who held Reformed views in the sixteenth century, while thoroughly agreed in substance, did not all view the truth in the same way, nor was their emphasis on particular aspects of truth exactly the same.  These views, though diverse, were not really divergent, and men like Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Rogers, Jewel, Bacon, Philpot, Parker, Hooker, and Whitgift, were essentially one in attitude while individually different in temperament and mental outlook.  This diversity of view continued in the seventeenth century, and additional types were represented by such men as Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, Reynolds, and Cosin.  Later on still we find men of yet another type, like Barrow, Stillingfleet, and Tillotson.  The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries continued this remarkable and welcome variety of Church life and thought.  These tendencies are sometimes described as Schools of Thought; but since Thought necessarily influences life, perhaps the best way of regarding them is to think of them as each emphasizing certain aspects of man’s relation to God.  Sometimes this relation is viewed mainly from the corporate side, the Church being emphasized as the expression of God’s revelation in Christ; at other times the individual and personal aspect of the believer’s relation to God is emphasized with its message of personal accountability and personal liberty; while yet again, by others the relation of the Church to national life and social progress is brought into view.  These Schools of Thought, or, if we will, these Church Parties have thus existed from the time when the Church of England took its present form and colour at the Reformation, and they will undoubtedly continue to exist until the end of time.  There is no reason whatever why this should not be, for there can be Parties in the Church of England without party spirit, even though we naturally have our preference in one direction or another.

      One question, however, emerges out of all these differences of thought and party, and that is as to the limitations of difference within the Church of England.  These varieties of view must of necessity be compatible with loyalty to the general position of the Church of England, and such was undoubtedly the case until the rise of what is known as the Tractarian Movement in the early part of the nineteenth century under Newman, R. H. Froude, and others.  This Movement was nothing less than an effort to make out that the Church of England was after all not essentially different from the Church of Rome.  Newman’s Tract XC marks the most prominent attempt in this direction.  He endeavoured to explain the XXXIX Articles in such a way as to make them virtually identical with the teaching of the Church of Rome.  But facts were too stubborn for him, and this non-natural, or rather un-natural, interpretation did not satisfy him or any one else, and it was not long before Newman and others saw the impossibility of their position, and went over to the Church of Rome.  Unfortunately, however, there has remained in the Church of England to the present day a large party who hold essential Roman doctrines, and are observing Roman practices in English Churches.  This party is in no sense to be regarded as the lineal successors of the High Churchmen of the seventeenth century, and they are also to be distinguished from those High Churchmen of the nineteenth century who were absolutely opposed to Roman Catholic doctrines and ritual.

      The differences between loyal members of the Church of England up to the time of the Tractarian Movement were differences of tint or shade, but not differences of colour, and no one would dream of desiring to make the Church of England narrower than the limits of the Prayer Book and Articles, with their true and adequate notes of Catholicity.  It was this generous and broad position that was set up by our Reformers, and the same breadth must at all costs be maintained by their descendants.  But it is quite another thing when doctrines and practices are introduced into the Church of England which were cast out by our Reformers, and errors taught and practiced in our Holy Communion in opposition to which the Reformers laid down their lives.  Such a state of affairs calls for the union of all “sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England,” summons them to rally round the standard of true Catholicity, and to do everything that is possible to maintain unimpaired the genuine Anglican tradition in its purity and power.

      In the Life of Mr. Gladstone [Morley’s Life of Gladstone, vol. i, p. 309 f.] we have the record of a remarkable conversation with one of the early Tractarian leaders, who, with the utmost frankness, declared that “the ulterior object of the Tractarian Movement was reunion with the Church of Rome as the See of Peter,” and meanwhile that “the end was to be reached through Catholicizing the minds of the members of the Church of England.”

      It is essential that the true position of the Church of England should be borne in mind, and the errors of the Tractarian and modern Ritualistic Movement kept in view.  This Movement does not represent a legitimate development of anything to be found in the Church of England since the sixteenth century, it rather represents an alien growth from germs that have been placed in the Church of England from the time of the rise of John Henry Newman and his School.

      It is well known that there are six Ceremonies that the Ritualistic party insist on as of the essence of their position.  These are Pre-Reformation Vestments, Eastward Position at Holy Communion, Incense, Altar Lights, Ceremonial mixing of Water with the Wine, and Wafer Bread.  There are three simple facts about all these which can be tested and verified by everyone: (1) Not one of them can be found in the New Testament, our supreme authority (Articles VI and XX).  (2) Not one of them can be found used in the Church of the first five centuries.  (3) Not one of them can be found ordered or warranted by the Prayer Book, Articles, and Canons of the English Church.  In view of these simple facts the position of the Church of England is clear and unquestionable, and the duty of her true sons patent to all men.  There is such a thing as a definite, general Anglican tradition, which amid all differences has been maintained ever since the Reformation.  Every true Churchman who loves his Church, and longs to see her an ever-increasing power in the land, must grieve over the existence of so much that is entirely foreign to her genius: the use of unauthorized ceremonial, services, prayers, and manuals by men who have solemnly promised to use the Prayer Book, “and none other,” in the public Services; the deliberate and frankly confessed rejection of the Thirty-nine Articles; and the unconcealed teaching of doctrines essentially one with those of the Roman Church.

      These circumstances are a clear call to unity among all loyal members of the Church of England, and it is essential that those Churchmen who are content with and rejoice in the Anglican traditions and in the Prayer Book as it is, should emphasize their essential unity, and should unite boldly on the basis of a liberal and historical Protestantism, combined with a loyal, Scriptural, and Anglican Catholicity.  It ought to be possible, and we believe it is possible, for all truly Moderate Churchmen to unite on the basis of the Prayer Book and Articles; and in this union will be found our protection against the inroads of views which are as opposed to the true position of the Church of England as darkness is to sunlight.

Chapter  VIII – Ministry and Priesthood

[The substance of this chapter was delivered as an address and afterwards published in pamphlet form.]

      Correct views on the Christian Ministry are vital to a proper conception of the Gospel of Christ as well as to a true view of the position of the Church of England.  We have already considered the positive teaching of our Church on this subject, but in view of certain modern controversies it is of the utmost importance that we should be perfectly clear as to the essential character of the Christian Ministry, more particularly in its relation to Priesthood.

      In the Old Testament, and also in the New, the fact of a “ministry” is clearly recorded.  In the former the ministry consists chiefly of two orders or classes of men – the priests and the prophets, each with its own sphere more or less clearly defined, and with a work of great importance and absolute necessity, because of divine appointment.

      The essence of the priesthood was the representation of man to God (Heb. 5:1); the essence of the prophetic office was the representation of God to man.  Anything else done by priest or prophet was accidental and additional, and not a necessary part of his office.  The essential work of the priest was expressed in sacrifice and intercession, and may be summed up in the word “mediator”.  The essential work of the prophet was expressed in revelation and instruction, and may be summed up in the word “ambassador”.  The priesthood meant propitiation; the prophetic office revelation.  The priest was concerned with the way of man to God; the prophet with the will of God to man.  The two offices were thus complementary and, together, fulfilled all the requirements of the relationship between God and man.

      The ministry of the New Testament is equally clear and undoubted, but with certain great and notable differences.  As we have already observed, there is absolutely nothing about a special order or class of men called priests.  The only priesthood, apart from our Lord’s, is the spiritual priesthood of all believers.  There is, however, much that answers to the essential ministry of the Old Testament prophet, though with this difference, that ministry in the New Testament is not confined to any one class of believers: it is the privilege and duty of all.  Diversities of gifts in that ministry there are, but ministry generally and of some kind is for all.  Indeed the various gifts are for the express purpose of “equipping the saints for their work of ministering” (Eph. 4:12, Greek and R.V.).

      Whether we think of the ministry of the priest or of the prophet, it is clear from the New Testament that there is no class of believers to whom spiritual functions exclusively belong as of absolute and divine appointment.  What is required for “decency and order” is quite another question, and though important and essential, is assuredly secondary to the above-named fundamental principle of the New Testament.

      From these differences between the Old and New Testaments the subject of this chapter emerges, viz.: “The Silence of the New Testament as to any Special Order of Priests, and its Insistence on the Ministry of the Word.”

      1.  The Silence of the New Testament as to any Special Order of Priests.

      (a) This silence is a simple fact.  There are twenty-seven books, and not a single reference can be found to a special human priesthood.  But this conveys only a slight idea of the strength of the evidence.  The New Testament is not so much a volume as a library, and its evidence consists of several independent parts, and has a cumulative force.  Let us examine seven of these representative and distinctive parts and notice the result.  (1) There are the instructions of our Lord to His disciples and apostles in the four Gospels, but not a word about a special priesthood.  (2) There is the first book of general Church history, the Acts of the Apostles, but not a hint of such a priesthood.  (3) There is the first detailed picture of one particular Apostolic Church in the Epistles to the Corinthians, but not a sign of any such priesthood.  (4) There are the two great doctrinal Epistles for Gentile Christians, Romans and Ephesians, but no instruction whatever as to such a priesthood.  (5) There is the great doctrinal Epistle for Jewish Christians, Hebrews, but nothing in it except our Lord’s priesthood.  (6) There are the three Epistles of pastoral and ecclesiastical instructions, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, but not a word of any special priesthood.  (7) There are the mature writings of the two great Apostles of the Circumcision, St. Peter and St. John, but no trace whatever of this priesthood.  This evidence taken separately in its parts is striking, but taken as a whole it is cumulative and absolutely overwhelming.

      This silence is a striking fact.  There are twenty-seven books, covering a period of at least forty to fifty years, referring to the foundation and early history of the Church amid differences of place, country, race, capacity, and conditions of life.  Yet there is no provision for a special order of priesthood.  It is also a striking silence, because (with one possible exception) all the writers were Jews, and, as such, steeped in sacerdotal ideas, language, and associations from their earliest childhood.  The Apostles used sacrificial and sacerdotal language on several occasions to describe certain elements and aspects of the Gospel, notably St. Paul in Rom. 15:16, where he speaks of his preaching as his sacred and sacrificial service, and his Gentile converts as his sacrificial offering.  But this, as the whole context shows, is manifestly spiritual and symbolical in meaning, and is at once descriptive and illustrative of his work as a “prophet” or preacher of the Gospel.  Not one of the New Testament writers ever used the word ιερεύς, a sacrificing priest, to distinguish a Christian minister from a layman.  How can we account for the avoidance of this familiar term?

      Bishop Westcott is recorded to have observed in some of his lectures at Cambridge that this avoidance was the nearest approach he knew to verbal inspiration.  Some of us would venture to go a step further, and claim it as an unmistakable example of the superintending control of the Holy Ghost in the composition of the Scriptures.  Humanly speaking, the chances against avoiding the use of ιερεύς in this connection were as ten thousand to one.  Indeed, we may almost say that to refuse to explain this avoidance by the guiding of the Holy Ghost is to require for its explanation what is virtually a miracle of human thought, foresight, and mutual prearrangement among several writers.

      If it be said that the question is one not of words but of things, we reply with Bishop Lightfoot, “This is undeniable; but words express things, and the silence of the Apostles still requires an explanation.” [Lightfoot’s Philippians; Essays, p. 264.]  Neither the word nor the thing can be discovered in the New Testament.

      This silence is a significant fact.  It is what Bishop Lightfoot calls “the eloquent silence of the apostolic writings.” [Ibid., p. 182.]  There is no mention because there is no place for it and no need of it in the New Testament.  In the Jewish economy a mediatorial priesthood was necessary because of alienation from God, because sin was not put away, because the way to God was not open.  But now sin has been put away, the way into the holiest is manifest, and for this Christ, our Divine Priest, is all and in all.  This is the burden of the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews; the one and only priesthood, inviolable, undelegated (απαράβατον, Heb. 7:24), of our Lord.  Christ’s priesthood is unique, perfect, and permanent, and as long as He is priest there is no room for and no need of any other mediator.

#    This silence, as to a special human priesthood, shows that such a priesthood is irreconcilable with the letter and spirit of Apostolic Christianity.  In this respect “Christianity stands apart from all the other religions.”  It is the “characteristic distinction of Christianity,” [Lightfoot’s Philippians; Essays, p. 182.] to have no such provision.  Where there is no repeated offering there is no need of an altar; where there is no altar there is no sacrifice; where there is no sacrifice there is, there can be, no priest.  The benefits of the sacrifice once for all offered are now being continually bestowed by Christ and appropriated by the penitent believer without any human mediator because “the kingdom of Christ ... has no sacerdotal system.” [Ibid., p. 181.]

      Of late, however, the argument has been frequently used that ministerial priesthood, or the priesthood of the ministry, is only the universal priesthood of believers expressed through their representatives, that as the human body acts through its members, so the Church as the body of Christ acts through the ministry as its instruments, and that, consequently, when the “priest” is exercising his ministerial functions it is really the Church acting through him.

      To this line of argument the answer seems clear: (1) There is an entire silence in the New Testament as to this special, and, as it were, localized priesthood.  Surely, if the ministry had been regarded as exercising a priesthood distinguishable from the priesthood of all believers, or regarded as the priesthood of the Church specialized, it would have been necessary to show that this ministerial priesthood existed in the Christian Church.  Yet there are no priestly functions associated with the Christian ministry as such in the New Testament.  The priesthood of all believers is inherent in their relation to Christ.  This is the Divine warrant for it, and there is no such warrant for any narrower or modified form of it.

      (2) Is it not at least unsafe, even if not perilous, to base such a novel and far-reaching claim on a metaphor, the figure of the human body?

      (3) The Scriptural use of this metaphor never differentiates between the spiritual body and its instruments, but only between members and members.

      (4) The modern use of the metaphor now in question proves too much, for while in the natural body certain members alone can act and “minister” in certain ways, as the hand does in one way and the foot in another, in the Scripture idea of the body of Christ each member has real “priestly” functions.  “That which every joint supplieth” (Eph. 4:16).  These differences of function are only of degree, not of kind, and do not constitute the ministry a special and localized priesthood, a position which would involve a difference of kind.

      (5) This idea of a ministerial priesthood, as expressive of the universal priesthood, is a novel and significant departure from the older and still generally accepted view of those who hold the sacerdotalism of the Christian ministry.  It represents an almost entire shifting of the ground.  The prevalent conception of the priesthood of the ministry has been that of an order of men in direct touch with Christ, and, as such, acting on the body rather than for it.  But the new use of the metaphor really implies that the instruments act for the body and through the body, in the sense of not being immediately in contact with the Head.  The older sacerdotalism maintains that the priesthood receives and represents “an attribute of grace distinct from” that received by the Church, “by virtue of which grace, men are brought into such relationship with God that through this instrumentality they obtain the promised blessings of the covenant under which they live.” [Canon T. T. Carter, On the Priesthood, p. 99.]  But this view involves much more than a concentration of the priesthood of the whole of the Church in a part of it.  It represents another line of grace different from the general one in kind as well as in degree.  Yet Scripture knows nothing of two separate lines of grace, one from the Head direct to the Church and the other from the Head to the ministry.

      The older and newer views of the priestly character of the ministry are therefore incompatible, and sacerdotalists cannot have both.  It is impossible on any true analogy to distinguish between the spiritual body and its ministerial organs in such a way as to make the organs the instruments of the body, according to the new view, and yet in authority over it, according to the old view.  Upholders of ministerial priesthood must choose between these positions, though for neither of them is there any warrant or authority in the Word of God.

      (6) The functions of the Christian ministry, as such, and considered in themselves, are those of a personal medium, not of a priestly mediator; they are prophetic, not priestly, they are exercised on behalf of Christ rather than on behalf of the Church, and represent the Head rather than the body.  And even so far as they may be said in certain aspects to represent the Church, the functions are “representative and not vicarial.” [Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 267.]  In short, the essential idea of the ministry is διακονία not ιεράτευμα, service not sacerdotalism, and it can never be too frequently asserted that the fundamental conception of the Christian ministry is that it represents God to the Church rather than the Church to God, that it is prophetic and not priestly.  The phrase “ministerial priesthood” is really a contradiction of the essential character of the New Testament ministry.  If we take away “priesthood” from the sacerdotal idea of ministry, the very foundation of sacerdotalism vanishes.  On the other hand, if we add the idea of “priesthood” to the New Testament conception of the ministry, the very essence of the Christian ministry becomes transformed.

      (7) It is scarcely too much to say that this new idea or application of “ministerial priesthood” is the refuge of men who have been driven from the older position by the logic of Scripture truth concerning the priesthood of all believers, the uniqueness of our Lord’s priesthood, and the entire absence of any essentially sacerdotal functions (such as offering sacrifice) from the New Testament conception of the Christian minister.  In so far, therefore, as the new view implies a modification of, or rather a departure from the older sacerdotal view, it may be welcomed as at least a significant change, but it cannot be accepted as a means of bringing back and preserving the old view.  As already stated, the two positions are incompatible, and if the new be true the old was false.  But, in fact, neither the new nor the old view is Scriptural, and it may be stated fearlessly that there is no function or office of the Christian priesthood which cannot be exercised by any and every individual believer in Christ of either sex.

      The truth is best expressed by saying that Christianity is (not has) a priesthood.  Differences of function in the Christian ministry there are, but in the Christian priesthood there are not.  So we return to our point and call renewed attention to the simple, striking, and significant silence of the New Testament as to any new and special order of priests.

      Side by side with this silence as to any new order of priests, we find—

      2.  The Insistence of the New Testament on the Ministry of the Word.

      (a) The New Testament emphasizes the nature of the ministry.  The ministry of the New Testament is twofold, for evangelization and edification; the ministry to the sinner and to the saint.  There are at least seven series of titles associated with the ministry which show the character and necessity of it in the Church.  The minister is a herald (κήρυζ and cognates), a messenger of good news (ευαγγελιστής and cognates), a witness (μάρτυς and cognates), an ambassador (πρεσβεύω), a servant (διάκονος and cognates), a shepherd (ποιμήν), a steward (οικονόμος and cognates), and a teacher (διδάσκαλος and cognates).  The variety and fullness of reference plainly show the paramount importance placed on the ministry of the Word.

      The New Testament emphasizes the message of the ministry.  There are two phrases that sum up this message, one referring chiefly to its relation to God and the other to its relation to man.  “The Word” is the message as it expresses the mind of God.  “The Gospel” is the message as it describes its destination for and acceptableness to man.  Associated with “the Word” we find at least seven series of titles of the message: the Word of God, the Word of Christ, the Word of the Lord; the Word of reconciliation, the Word of salvation, the Word of grace, the Word of righteousness, the Word of truth, the Word of life.  There are also seven series connected with “the Gospel”: the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of the grace of God, the Gospel of salvation, the Gospel of peace, the Gospel of the kingdom, the Gospel of the glory of God.

      These various aspects, so clear, so full, so important, may all be summed up in three well-known passages: “It is I”; “It is finished”; “It is written.”  The Person of Christ, the Work of Christ, the Word of Christ.  Salvation provided, wrought, and assured.  This is essentially the complete yet remarkably varied message of the ministry of Christianity.

      The New Testament emphasizes the purpose of the ministry.  The ministry of the Word is intended to bring God and man face to face – God revealing, man responding.  It claims to do for man all that he needs or can need.  Regeneration, sanctification, edification, glorification, are all associated with the Word of God, and at every step of the Christian life the ministry of that Word finds its place and power.

      This purpose becomes realized in the response of man through faith.  The Word of God and faith are correlatives, and faith is emphasized in the New Testament because it is the only, as it is the adequate, response to the revelation of God.  Faith brings the soul into direct contact with God, and the result is “righteousness through faith”.  The Gospel is the power of God to salvation, because in it is revealed God’s righteousness from faith to faith, having faith as its correlative and channel from first to last (Rom. 1:16, 17).  Faith responds to God’s Word and appropriates Christ as God’s righteousness “for us” for justification, and God’s righteousness “in us” for sanctification.

      This is the New Testament “ministry of the Word,” and it is ministerial and instrumental, not mediatorial and vicarious.  Who are we “but ministers” through whom men “believe”?

      And this ministry is a permanent element.  “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel.”  Among St. Paul’s concluding exhortations was, “Preach the Word.”  St. Peter’s last teaching emphasizes the Word of God.  St. John’s closing writings exhort to “abiding in the Truth”.  And our Church indicates its meaning by speaking of Ministers of the Word and Sacraments.

      The permanent ministry of the Word is a threefold guarantee to the Church—

      (1) It is a guarantee of the purity of the Church.  Whenever it has been neglected, the course of the Church has been deflected; and whenever, as at the Reformation, this has been predominant, her purity has been restored.  This is the explanation of every backsliding, the means of every recovery.  There must ever be in this sense “a reversion to type”.

      (2) It is a guarantee of the progress of the Church.  Whenever it has been honoured there has been extension; whenever it has been neglected, stagnation.  Missionary work at home and abroad finds its definite trend and full impetus by the ministry of the Word.

      (3) It is a guarantee of the power of the Church.  As a protection against all foes and for the good of all friends, let us honour the ministry of the Word.  There is no weapon Rome fears more than the Word of God.  It was with a sure spiritual perception that Luther emphasized justification by faith as the articulus aut stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae, “the article of a standing or falling Church,” and it is with an equally sure instinct from another standpoint that Rome sees in this doctrine her most powerful enemy, and assails it with the most virulent opposition.  Not because of the supposed danger to morality through “Solifidianism” (salvation by faith only), but because it cuts at the root of all her priestly power, Rome wages warfare against justification by faith.  This truth brings the soul into direct, conscious, blessed, satisfying contact and union with Christ, and thereby dispenses at once and for ever with a human mediator.  Christ is thereby present and no longer merely represented.

      The ministry of the Word, too, is our great power against all erroneous views of the Christian ministry which exist within the professed membership of our own Church.  In proportion as the sacerdotal element is emphasized, the ministry of the Word is ignored.  Exalt the priest and you depose the teacher, for the inherent tendency of sacerdotalism is directly opposed to that of the preaching and teaching ministry of the Word of God.  Let Church people be saturated with the truth of Holy Scripture, and they will find in it their power against all Sacerdotalism.

      The ministry of the Word is also the true power against all worldliness in the Church and congregation.  If the standard of the Word be uplifted and pressed on heart and conscience, all worldly devices and elements in Church life will fall away and die.  The message of the Word for holiness of heart and life will soon settle questionable methods of Church finance, Church life, and Church work.  And all this will be so because of its power to “edify” the believer.  More and better Bible classes, more expository teaching in sermons, more individual meditation, study and teaching of the Word will soon have its blessed effects in the individual and congregational life.

Chapter  IX –  Confession and Absolution

      The words “Confession” and “Absolution” are often upon our lips, and, properly understood, they are of great importance and, of course, essentially Christian.  But they are liable to great misunderstanding and misconstruction, and there is constant and pressing need of careful consideration.  The only true consideration is that which is conducted in the clear light, and under the constant guidance of Holy Scripture.  “What saith the Lord?” is the supreme question.

      1.  The Teaching of Scripture. – There is a threefold Confession and Absolution in Scripture.

      (a) Personal Confession to God.  This is an essential point in the Christian life.  It is a confession that must be habitual, thorough, compulsory.  The Absolution for this comes direct from God through His Word, applied by His Spirit.

      (b) Public Confession before the Church.  Sin often relates to others and affects them.  Such was the sin of Achan ( Joshua 7), of the Corinthian Christian (1 Cor. 5), and that referred to in Matt. 18:15–17.  We see this illustrated in the Mission Field today, when suspension and public confession are often found necessary and valuable.  We do not now possess this discipline in the Church of England, and its absence is regretted in the Commination Service.  The Absolution following this form of Confession is given by the Christian body acting through the representative minister when receiving back the penitent.

      (c) Reciprocal Confession among Christians.  We find this in Jas. 5:16: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”  This is a matter of Christian fellowship and friendship.  It is beautifully simple, has nothing official in it, but is part of Christian intercourse.  It is also wonderfully helpful, whether for relief in consciousness of sin or reparation to a brother wronged.  The Absolution here comes through prayer to God.

      There is no trace of any other aspects of Confession but these in Scripture.

      (1) What then is the meaning of Matt. 16:19, 18:18?  We should notice that the reference is to things, not persons: “Whatsoever.”  It refers therefore to Church discipline, not to the absolution of persons.  “Binding and loosing” was a well-known Jewish form for “prohibiting” and “permitting,” and the passage refers to the power of the Church or Christian body to draw up its own rules of discipline. [See Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Art. “Power of the Keys”.]

      (2) Does not John 20:22 f. refer to Confession?  On this we note—

      (a) The words were spoken to the whole body of Christians (cf. Luke 24:33), and not to the Apostles alone.  We must remember that the two from Emmaus (who were not Apostles) were of the company, so that whatever the passage means, “Ye” includes all and applies to all.

      (b) A comparison of the other Gospels will show that the words are part of the general commission to the whole Church as there represented, to declare the Gospel, and the terms on which the Gospel could be received.  By a familiar figure of speech, “remitting” and “retaining” are put for declaring remitted or retained.

      (c) The word rendered “remit” is the usual word for “forgive,” and is always so rendered except in this place.  Yet no Christian literally forgave sins.  They declared God’s forgiveness.

      (d) And this is the use made of it in the Acts.  For “remitting” sins they preached God’s Gospel; for “retaining” sins they warned of God’s punishment, as in the case of Simon Magus in Acts 8.  No auricular confession is to be found there, but simply the declaration of God’s terms.  As to Church discipline, it is committed to the Church and not to the ministry, and in all matters of Church discipline ministers are but the mouthpieces and representatives of the whole Church.  To support the modern view of priestly absolution, there ought to be added to this passage some words limiting the power to ministers, and also words transmitting the power on and on.  Even if we were to grant all that some understand the passage to mean, we should still need to show that the persons had authority or power to say the words to anyone else with the same result.

      (3) Is there anything in 2 Cor. 2:10?  “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.”  But this has no reference to the point before us.

      (a) It refers to sins against the Church and against St. Paul.

      (b) If the Church’s “priests” at Corinth had power to absolve and did absolve, there could have been nothing left for St. Paul to absolve.

      (c) And the word “forgive” (χαρίζομαι) shows that the offences were against the Church and St. Paul.  Sin against God does not need the forgiveness of man, but of God.

      We return therefore to our position and say that the three forms of Confession mentioned above are the only ones found in Holy Scripture.

      2.  The Teaching of the Church of England. – It is necessary to remember the great principle laid down in Article VI about the warrant of Holy Scripture for essential doctrine.  The Church of England must herself stand this test.

      (a) There are Confession and Absolution in the ordinary Services—

      (1) At Morning and Evening Prayer there is the General Confession, with an Absolution in terms of a Declaration.

      (2) There is the Confession in the Holy Communion Service, of a deeper and fuller character, with an Absolution in the form of a Prayer.  It is noteworthy that Absolution as a prayer is the oldest form.

      (b) There are Confession and Absolution in special cases—

      (1) In the first address at Holy Communion, after explaining the meaning and stating the conditions of Holy Communion, we read these words—

            “therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God’s holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution.”

      This is clearly an exceptional case, and not to be the rule.  We should note the description: “Discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word” (not Priest).  Further, he is to “open his grief,” i.e. the particular need that troubles him – not all his sins; and then “by the ministry of God’s Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution,” i.e. by the application of Scripture to the special need.  In this sense every true minister frequently gives absolution; indeed, we may say, that every true Christian in touch with souls does the same.  And to show that this is the true and only meaning of the Prayer Book, we have only to compare the partially Reformed Prayer Book of 1549 to see the difference.  Auricular Confession and Absolution were therein prescribed with a form of Absolution.  All this was swept away in 1552 and never restored.

      (2) In the Office for Visitation of the Sick—

            “Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences.  And by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.”

      On this we note— (a) It is special and exceptional, “if ... if”.  (b) “Power to His Church,” i.e. not to the Ministry only.  Where do we find this “power left”?  Only in Matt. 18:18 and John 20:22 f., and these, we have seen, refer to Church discipline and the Gospel.  The reference must be to these, and their already-ascertained meaning in the New Testament necessarily determines their meaning in the Prayer Book.  (c) After the words of Absolution there is actually a prayer for forgiveness: “Impute not unto him his former sins.”  Yet if they are already absolved, this is unnecessary.  (d) The form is optional; the minister need not use it at all.  It is the only form in the Prayer Book which is optional. [Canon 67.]  It is clear, therefore, that we have here a combination of the teaching of Matt. 18:18 and John 20:22, 23.  The declaration refers to sins against the Church (Matt. 18).  The prayer before and after refers to sins against God (John 20).  As against God, pardon is asked for even though the penitent has been absolved.  As against the Church, the restoration to Church membership is referred to as an accomplished fact.  This latter fact, and this only, is what Absolution has bestowed, and so the prayer is not to restore “this sick member to the unity of the Church,” but “preserve and continue” him in that to which by the ministerial act he has already been restored.  (e) It is very remarkable that this whole passage was left in by the very men who struck out Auricular Confession and Absolution in the Holy Communion Office.

      The true interpretation, therefore, is that it represents an extreme and special case of sins in relation to God and the Church.  It is the exercise at once of the commission to preach the Gospel and also of Church discipline by its representative minister.

      (f) What is even more remarkable is that while this provision was retained in the Prayer Book of 1552, the Rubric was significantly altered.  In 1549 it ran—

            “The priest shall absolve him after this form, and the same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions.”

In 1552 the italicized words were removed.  This shows clearly that the Church of England abolished the system of Auricular Confession.  At the same time it shows what the retention of this provision really means.

      (c) There is the Ordination Service.

      On this we note – (1) The word “Priest” means here as elsewhere “Presbyter” or “Elder.”  (2) The use of John 20:22 f. is clearly equivalent to its meaning in the New Testament, neither more nor less.  It is a particular application of the General Commission to the one about to be ordained.  The Church fulfils the Commission mainly through her officers, according to our Lord’s words.  (3) And it should be borne in mind that no Levitical priest ever had the work of Absolution as part of his necessary duty.  The priest represented man to God.  It was the prophet who represented God to man, and as absolution is God’s message to man, it is the work of a prophet, and the Christian prophet is the preacher who declares the Gospel of Christ.  (4) This form was never used in Ordinations earlier than the twelfth century.

      That this is the meaning can be proved from the writings of those Reformers who drew up the Service. [On the whole subject, see Confession and Absolution, by Bishop Drury.]

      We may therefore sum up by remarking – (1) No Auricular Confession and Absolution can be found in the Prayer Book or any of the formularies of the Church of England.  The Prayer Book of 1549 arranged for it, but the Reformed Book of 1552 purposely omitted it, and it has never been restored.  Again we see that omission is prohibition.  (2) The Church throws the responsibility on the individual in relation to God.  This was one characteristic of the Reformation.  This is the meaning of Confession and Absolution being prefixed in Daily Service, and of the special emphasis laid on personal preparation for Holy Communion in that Service.  (3) Let us be careful with the Prayer Book and read it in the light of two great principles: the supremacy of Scripture and the well-known views of the compilers.  We have to derive our doctrine from Scripture, not to make up our mind first and then go to Scripture for Confirmation.

      3.  Why the Scripture and Prayer Book Methods of Confession and Absolution are sufficient.

      Anything more, or otherwise would be utterly erroneous.

      There is no special class called priests to interpose between God and man.  The practice of Auricular Confession is not found in the early Church for several centuries.  It is part of the penitential system of Rome, which is of a much later growth.  Secret and Auricular Confession was not imposed as an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome until A.D. 1215, at the Fourth Council of Lateran.

      Anything more would be positively dangerous.

      (1) It is dangerous to the one confessing.  It tends to keep the soul a spiritual invalid, debilitating the mind, weakening the moral fiber, giving crutches where there should be a Christian walk in newness and vigour of life.  In moral fiber, spiritual strength, nobility of character, the Scriptural system produces men and women infinitely superior to the system of Rome.

      (2) It is dangerous to the one receiving confession.  He is brought into positions which are neither safe nor healthy for his spiritual life.  And the system interposes an influence in the home which is unnatural, un-Christian, and perilous.

      Anything more would be absolutely unnecessary.

      There are three doctrines of Christianity that meet, and more than meet, the supposed need of Auricular Confession and priestly Absolution.

      (1) Justification by Faith.  This gives us our perfect standing before God.  We are “accepted in the Beloved”: we can go to God at all times, with no one between us; we can tell Him everything, and receive perfect and immediate Absolution.

            “The kingdom of Christ has no sacerdotal system.  It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man, by whose intervention alone God is reconciled and man forgiven.  Each individual member holds personal communion with the Divine Head.  To Him immediately he is responsible, and from him directly he obtains pardon and draws strength.” [Lightfoot, Essay on the Christian Ministry, Commentary on Philippians, p. 181.]

      (2) The Indwelling of Christ.  This gives us our fellowship with God, and in that is abiding peace, blessed rest, and glorious communion.

      (3) Assurance, or Knowledge of Eternal Life.  This gives us our confidence in God, and in this we rest and trust and go on our way rejoicing.  These three make us right with God and keep us right.  If we sin, we can get right with God at once by confession and trust, and the presence of God gives peace and power and perfect satisfaction.

“Then all is peace and light,

            My soul within.

Then shall I walk with Thee,

            The loved Unseen.

Leaning on Thee, my God,

Guided along the road,

            Nothing between.”

Chapter  X – Infant Baptism

      The general position on the subject of the Baptism of children has already been considered from the positive point of view, but owing to the prevalence of controversy it is necessary to consider the subject still further, and to seek more particularly for the reasons why our Church says, “the Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ” (Article XXVII).  This language, at once clear and yet reserved, indicates the true way of looking at the subject, as one “most agreeable with the institution of Christ”.

      We have already seen that the meaning of Baptism is God’s designation or consecration of the one baptized for the purpose of entering into union with Him in a life of discipleship.  The great commission of our Lord was, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ... teaching them,” and as the term “disciple” means a “learner,” it is obvious that children are rightly included under this description.

      Before proceeding to give reasons for this position, it is necessary to remove one misconception which prevails very widely about the question of Baptism.  It is urged by some that Baptism is the Divinely appointed opportunity of confessing Christ and of making profession of faith in Him.  It is necessary to meet this assertion with the utmost plainness, and to say that not a single passage in the New Testament connects Baptism with the confession of Christ.  When it is remembered that Baptism is brought before us in the New Testament from the Divine side, and that it symbolizes a Divine act, not a human, it is obvious that any association of it with confession of Christ is quite out of the question.  Confession of Christ rightly covers the whole life and is not to be limited, even in its initial aspect, to one particular rite.  If, then, any sensitive conscience has been troubled with a sense of unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Christ because it has not confessed Him in Baptism, such an one ought to be reassured at once by the fact that challenges contradiction, that no single passage of Scripture associates Baptism with the confession of Christ, so as to make confession an essential part of the rite.  If in any circumstances, especially in the Mission Field, the profession of faith arises out of the act of Baptism, it is to be regarded as accidental or due to local conditions.  Certainly it is no part of the original purpose and meaning of the Divine Ordinance.

      We now proceed to give reasons why the children of Christian parents should be baptized, and their Baptism considered as “most agreeable with the institution of Christ”.

      1.  There is a very much deeper question than, Should Infants be baptized?  It is as to the precise relation of unconscious childhood to the Atonement of Christ.  Let us suppose the birth of twins, and that one child dies shortly after birth; we feel no doubt whatever about the spiritual position of that infant in relation to our Lord.  But what about the moral and spiritual status of the other child who happens to live?  Is his relation to Christ any less assured?  Does the fact of dying alter the spiritual or moral state of a child?  Surely the truth is that both these children and all children are included in the great atoning Sacrifice, and really belong to the Lord Jesus Christ until they deliberately and consciously refuse to have Him as their personal Saviour and King.  This great spiritual fact is at the root of the practice of Infant Baptism.  It is our testimony to the blessed and glorious fact that childhood belongs to Christ and has its share in the great redemption.  The fundamental truth is that we baptize the child, not in order to make it Christ’s, but because it already belongs to Him by the purchase of His Sacrifice on Calvary.  “It is evident that children are brought to Baptism not in the first instance to make God gracious to them, but because He is gracious to them.” [Tiffany, The Prayer Book and the Christian Life, p. 116.]  It would be very remarkable if our Lord in His plan of mercy and love for the human race (half of which dies in infancy) had made no place for unconscious children, and had ignored them entirely until they are no longer children but adults, with, it may be, experience of sin and wandering before experiencing His love and grace.

      2.  In keeping with this, we find the relation of God as the Father of unconscious childhood declared as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 17:7).  There God pledged Himself to be the God of Abraham and his seed, and this attitude of Divine Fatherhood thus revealed has never yet been altered or modified throughout the ages.  Those who object to Infant Baptism may be asked to show any proof from Scripture that God has ever modified or altered His attitude to little children.

      3.  As a proof of this Divine attitude the ordinance of Circumcision was given by God to Abraham as a pledge and seal of the Divine word.  It should be remembered that circumcision was observed ages before the time of Moses; it was associated with the covenant of God to Abraham, which was not a covenant of works, but of faith.  Our Lord Himself tells us that circumcision was not “of Moses, but of the fathers” (John 7:22).  Circumcision was first of all used of adults in the person of Abraham, and its meaning is given to us by St. Paul.  “He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11).  Circumcision was also used for unconscious childhood, as to which it could not be the seal of an already existing faith.  Thus the meaning of circumcision was naturally modified when applied to children, though in both cases circumcision was associated with the Covenant of Grace.  It is therefore entirely inadequate to limit the rite of circumcision to the Mosaic Covenant, and to speak of it as merely the mark of Israelitish nationality and fleshly descent.  In the case of Abraham and his household it is distinctly spoken of in connection with the Covenant of Grace.  Abraham’s own faith was thereby sealed, and in the case of Isaac, circumcision was the pledge and promise of God’s Word which, by his real unity with Abraham his father, should in due course become true to the son.  In like manner Baptism to an adult Christian is the seal of an already existing faith, but to the little children of such an adult it is the pledge and seal of Covenant blessings which are assured to the believer and his seed.  The analogy is therefore exact and complete, and the necessary modification of meaning and application in the case of children as compared with adults is closely parallel.  The seal of faith in the parent is applied to the child because the child is looked at as in the parent and is counted, presumptively, one with the parent in the possession of spiritual blessing.

      4.  In keeping with the foregoing we find children entering into covenant with God during the time of the Jewish nation (Num. 3:28, Deut. 29:10–12).  This shows with convincing clearness the possibility of child life having a true relation to God.

      5.  The attitude of our Lord to little children confirms all that has been said.  It is evident from His words and action (Mark 10:13–16) that little children are capable of spiritual blessing, and that those who were brought to our Lord actually received blessing from Him.  His Divine words are the great charter of childhood in relation to God, “Of such is the Kingdom of God,” that is, of such little children, not, as some would interpret the words, “of such childlike natures,” for this is the truth taught to the adults present in the next verse (v. 15).  Our Lord first tells those around Him what and where children are in relation to things spiritual, and then warns those adults that they, too, must become like little children if they would enter the heavenly kingdom.  “Children are not to be converted and become as men, but men are to be converted to become as little children.” [Tiffany, The Prayer Book and the Christian Life, p. 122.]

      6.  The existence of households in the record of the early Church suggests at least the possibility that young children and young people were included (Acts 16:15, 32, 34).  This reference to the baptism of households is very prominent in the Acts and Pauline Epistles, and shows clearly what was the primitive practice.  A household usually contains children, and so general and inclusive a term could hardly have been used if the reference had been only to the baptism of the adult individuals composing the household.  At any rate, we may safely say that if we should read nowadays of households being baptized in the Mission Field we should almost certainly infer that children were included.  We question whether any one who objects to Infant Baptism would use the term “household” in relation to Baptism without some qualification or explanation.  A careful study of the original language of these verses teaches us that there is a real unity and solidarity between the head of the household and the members of it; and in the case of the Philippian jailer, we are only told of his own personal faith (verse 34, Greek), though all his house were immediately baptized.  Further, these references are in complete accord with the words of St. Peter on the Day of Pentecost.  “The promise is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39).  This statement of the Apostle clearly shows that the same genuine unity of the family which had been characteristic of the Jewish Church was to be continued in the Christian dispensation.  The children were still to be one with their parents in God’s covenant blessings and promises.

      7.  The references to children in the Epistles are all in the same line of thought.  St. Paul teaches plainly (1 Cor. 7:14) that the children of Christian parents are in some way hallowed and consecrated to God by reason of their parents’ faith in Christ.  “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”  A careful consideration of the context shows that there is no possibility of reference here to anything but the precious fact of the father or mother’s faith hallowing and separating the little child as belonging to God.  St. Paul’s counsels to children (Eph. 6:1, 4; Col. 3:20) all take for granted the existence of children in the membership of the Apostolic Church, and as included in the “saints” and “faithful” to whom the Epistles are addressed.

      The above seven considerations surely carry their definite message about the relation of childhood to God, and it is on these grounds that the Church of England finds her warrant for retaining the practice of Infant Baptism as one which is “most agreeable with the institution of Christ” and with the true spirit and genius of Christianity.

      In the light of these positive considerations we can readily see the futility of any argument against Infant Baptism urged on the ground that we have no command to administer Baptism to infants.  This objection would apply equally well and forcibly to several other important and vital questions, such as the admission of women to the Lord’s Supper, for which we certainly have no command, though, as with Infant Baptism, we have undoubted inferences which warrant the practice.  In the same way, the objection that repentance and faith are required for Baptism does not in the least touch the question of childhood.  Repentance and faith are required for adult salvation, but no one would think of applying these conditions to unconscious childhood.  Those who insist upon faith as a prerequisite for baptism, and tie faith to baptism in so absolute a way, reveal a strange inconsistency in the case of adults who profess faith when they are baptized and who are afterwards seen to have had no real trust in God.  These are not baptized over again when the real faith shows itself, and consequently even with adults it is possible to baptize without actual faith in God.  In the case here contemplated the man would now be taught to enter spiritually into what his baptism was intended to mean.  But this is exactly similar in principle to the position contended for in the case of children who are baptized in infancy and then taught the spiritual meaning and purpose of the Ordinance.

      We conclude, therefore, that the practice of admitting infants into the visible Church of Christ, with a view to their becoming possessed of all the spiritual privileges and blessings of the Christian religion, is in entire accordance with the Word of God, and with the revelation of His will concerning children and Christian discipleship. To the Christian parent and his children the fact of Baptism remains as God’s solemn pledge and assurance of grace and blessing, and as a reminder to the child when he grows up of God’s gracious designation of him for all the blessings contained in Christian discipleship. The Kingdom of Christ is essentially a Kingdom of promise, and every child introduced into the communion of the Church of England is introduced in virtue of the promise of God made to the children of believers. Everything connected with the child is, from first to last, associated with the Divine promise of grace ; and in the full realization, through faith in Christ, of all the blessings of the Christian Covenant will be found one of the best and most powerful means of extending the Kingdom of God in this world.

Chapter  XI – The Mode of Baptism

      In the Rubric immediately preceding the administration of Baptism, our Church orders Baptism by immersion if it is certified that the infant “may well endure it; but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.”  In the Baptism of such as are of riper years there is the same alternative of immersion or affusion as the method of Baptism.  It is well known, however, that many people insist upon the method of immersion as the only true form of Baptism, and under these circumstances it is necessary for us to consider with great care whether this assertion is true.

      1.  The word “Baptism” alone does not even suggest the element with which, or into which, Baptism is to be administered.  We know from our Lord’s words, “I have a baptism to be baptized with,” that the term was associated with other things beside the element of water.  Under these circumstances the usage of the word must fix the significance of its meaning.

      2.  In our Lord’s commission, when He instituted Christian Baptism (Matt. 28:19, 20), He made use of four separate commands: Go, Make Disciples, Baptize, Teach.  Three of these four commands are stated in the most general and universal terms, suited exactly to the worldwide commission then given to the disciples.  The Lord did not say how they were to go, or with what methods they should make disciples and teach; all that He insisted on was obedience to these general commands.  It is at least a fair presumption that the fourth of these commands, Baptize, is equally general and applicable to all circumstances in which the disciples might find themselves.  As the other three commands did not express any particular method we may fairly assume, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the fourth term only calls attention to the fact, without insisting upon any particular method of fulfilling the Lord’s Word.

      3.  The Greek word “to dip” is bapto (βάπτω), with which the word “baptize” is undoubtedly associated, but it is very significant that the word “bapto” is never used for the Ordinance of Baptism, which is always baptizo (βαπτίζω).

      4.  The word “Baptism” is applied to the ritual purifications of the Old Testament religion (“divers baptisms,” Heb. 9:10), and yet no trace can be found of the method of immersion in any of the purifications and ceremonial of the Jewish religion.  This is a simple fact which warrants the closest attention.

      5.  The word “baptize” was used from time to time without any idea of immersion, but simply indicating the application of water without expressing any one particular mode.  This usage is found in the Old Testament Apocrypha.  In Ecclesiasticus 24:25 we read: “He that is purified from a dead body and touches it again, what does his cleansing profit him?”  The phrase “purified from” is literally “baptized from,” and the ritual purification thus referred to is that mentioned in Num. 19:13, 16, 19; the ritual to be observed on touching a dead body.  Yet a consideration of the passage in Numbers shows that the method was not immersion, but sprinkling, just as we have the phrase, “hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience” (Heb. 9:13, 10:22).  It is evident, therefore, that the word “baptize” cannot possibly be limited to the one mode of immersion.

      6.  We now turn to the usage of the New Testament.  It may be said that even if the term meant immersion outside the New Testament it would not be necessarily conclusive, for words frequently change their meaning, as we can see from the Septuagint and New Testament usages of the word “ecclesia” and other similar instances.  But we will submit the matter to a careful consideration of the New Testament passages in order to arrive at the truth on this subject.

      (a) A comparison of Acts 1:5, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” and Acts 2:33, “He hath shed forth this,” clearly indicates that what is understood of the “Baptism of the Spirit” was associated in St. Peter’s mind with the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.  In like manner we read that “the Holy Ghost fell” on the household of Cornelius, and that when this took place Peter remembered our Lord’s words about being “baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:15, 16).  Whatever, then, is true of the baptism of water, it is evident that Baptism as associated with the Holy Ghost is not to be limited to immersion, but is expressed by the “pouring out” or the “falling” of the Holy Ghost.  When once this is granted the whole position is clear, and we see at once that whether we regard the Holy Spirit or water, the term “Baptism” cannot be limited to one particular mode.

      (b) The Baptism of our Lord.  When it is said that He went up out of the water, the term would be just as natural if it described our Lord as standing in the river with the water only up to His ankles.  The preposition translated “out of” need mean no more than “from,” and certainly does not necessarily imply immersion.

      (c) The Baptism of the Eunuch.  Let us consider the circumstances here.  He was on his journey homewards, and continued his journey immediately after the Baptism.  Can we imagine that immersion was at all likely or even possible under the circumstances?  The language implies nothing more than entrance into water, together with the Jewish method of pouring or sprinkling which was so well known in connection with ritual ceremonial.  “Into the water” (Acts 8:38) is certainly not conclusive of immersion. [It is said that Philip also went into the water.  If the baptism was by pouring or sprinkling it would be natural for both to stand in the water. – J. S. W.]

      (d) The Baptism of Paul (Acts 9:18) gives no countenance to the view of immersion.

      (e) The Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33) was baptized in the middle of the night in his own house, all the circumstances indicating the improbability, if not impossibility, of immersion.

      (f) The three thousand on the Day of Pentecost.  Are we to suppose that there were facilities in Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand, both men and women, in one day?  The Kidron was a shallow brook, and there was no other water save drinking fountains and tanks.  It was essential to a Jew that the water should be “living,” i.e. in motion, as when poured.

      (g) 1 Cor. 10:2.  “Baptized unto Moses.”  What possibility is there of immersion in connection with the story of Israel at the Red Sea?

      These passages represent all the important instances where Christian Baptism is referred to in the New Testament, and they tell their own story of the impossibility of limiting our Lord’s command to one particular mode.

      7.  It may, however, be said that “Buried with Him by baptism” (Rom. 6:4) must refer to immersion.  Let us give careful attention to this passage.  The Apostle is teaching that Christ died in order to put an end to the dominion of sin in the believer’s life, and that our union with Him is a union with all that His Death meant as a spiritual power.  It is to be carefully noted that the reference to Death in this passage is figurative, as also the reference to Crucifixion and Resurrection, yet all arguments for immersion depend upon the idea of a literal burial in water.  Why should the burial be regarded as literal when every other part of the passage is spiritual and figurative?  Surely the passage means that we were united with Christ spiritually in His Death, in His Burial, and in His Resurrection.  If the words are taken literally of Baptism, “Buried with Him by Baptism,” then the Apostle cannot be acquitted of teaching Baptismal regeneration, for in this view it is “by baptism,” and by baptism only, that we are buried; yet to mention this is to show how utterly impossible is such a view of the Apostolic teaching.  Further, “Baptism unto death,” if interpreted of water baptism, involves the incongruity of burial with a view to death!  The fact is that the passage, properly understood, does not refer to the ordinance of Baptism, but to the spiritual meaning and power of our Lord’s Sufferings, Death, Burial, and Resurrection.  “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it is accomplished.”  We ought to read it, “buried with Him by the (or His) baptism unto death” i.e. His death of suffering, with which we are spiritually united.  Introduce the idea of water baptism into this passage, and the exegesis becomes confused and impossible; but everything is consistent if we regard the passage as suggesting the spiritual meaning of our Lord’s work on our behalf, and of our consecration to Him for the purpose of becoming partakers of all that His Death, Burial, and Resurrection involved.  It is this spiritual blessing that St. Paul refers to when he says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13), and in the parallel passage (Col. 2:11, 12), we have the same spiritual teaching of the believer’s union with His Lord in Death, Burial, and Resurrection.  When our Lord died we died in Him; When He was buried we were buried; when He rose we were raised; when He ascended we ascended; and now that He is at God’s right hand we are seated with Him in heavenly places.

      8.  A further confirmation of the impossibility of Baptism being limited to immersion, or even meaning immersion in many instances, is found in Luke 11:38, where the word “washed” is literally “baptized”.  So also Mark 7:4, “the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.”  There is no thought of immersion here – at any rate, not in every case.

      9.  If it be said that we have the preposition “in” associated with Baptism, “baptized in,” we must remember that this preposition very frequently expresses the instrument with which the thing is done and not the element in which it is.  We can see this in such passages as Luke 22:49, “with the sword”; 1 Cor. 4:21, “with a rod”; 1 Cor. 5:8, “with old leaven”.  To translate such passages with “in” is manifestly impossible.

      We have now shown clearly that on every fair interpretation the word “baptized” cannot possibly be limited to immersion, and that in many of the cases immersion could not have been the method used.  This is also the testimony of Christian antiquity, as a recent scholarly and able work has clearly proved. [C. F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian Archeology.]  The author shows that the remains of earliest Christian art and sculpture all point to affusion and not immersion as the ordinary and almost invariable mode of Baptism in the primitive Church.

      Following the Church of England rule, we simply ask for liberty.  The matter is one for individual choice or preference, but to insist upon one particular method as that which is alone according to the Divine will is not only unwarranted by the usage of the word, but is plainly against the very genius of Christian liberty, and tends to bring us back to that bondage of form and ceremony from which Christianity was delivered by the Apostle Paul.  Wherever the Divine will has been clearly expressed, it is the privilege and duty of every follower of Christ to carry out God’s commands to the fullest extent, but in the absence of any such direction we must resist all attempts to put upon us a yoke that no true spiritual religion can possibly bear.  To insist upon immersion at all costs, at all times, and under all circumstances is to insist upon that which is plainly impossible in many parts of the world for a great time of the year.  This impossibility of carrying out the Divine commission on this interpretation conveys its own message, and in the light of what we have adduced as the usage of the word, it is manifest that the position taken up by the Church of England is the only one that is warranted by historical fact, common sense, practical convenience, and, above all, by the true spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ.

Chapter  XII – Controversies About Holy Communion

      It is surely one of the saddest and most deplorable facts in connection with Christianity that an Ordinance which was intended by our Lord to express Christian love and fellowship should have become the occasion of most acute differences of opinion between those who profess and call themselves Christians.  The explanation of this serious fact is that there has been a departure from New Testament simplicity and purity with reference to the Lord’s Supper, and it is only by means of a constant appeal to the primary sources of our information, as recorded in the Apostolic writings, that we shall ever arrive at a true idea of the nature and purpose of this holy Ordinance.  We have already considered as fully as possible what the New Testament teaches, and how that spiritual teaching is exemplified and elaborated in our Prayer Book.  It would be entirely satisfactory if the matter could remain at this point, but unfortunately it is necessary to state afresh the Church of England position in relation to opposing views held at the time of the Reformation, and seen in particular sections of Christian life today.

      1.  For a true understanding of the Church of England position it is necessary to keep in view the obvious fact that our Prayer Book as it now is, with its statement of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, dates from the Reformation, and among other things, expresses the mind of the compilers as they stood in direct opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine on this subject.  It is perfectly clear to all readers of the history of the sixteenth century that Cranmer and Ridley, who, above all others, are responsible for our present formularies and their teaching on Holy Communion, were burnt at the stake for denying the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.  It is also equally clear that our Prayer Book and Articles were drawn up for the definite purpose of expressing the doctrines of the Reformers as they stood opposed to the Church of Rome, and no language could well be clearer than that of our Articles on two characteristic and fundamental aspects of Roman Catholic teaching.

            “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. (Article xxviii)

            “The Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” (Article xxxi)

      In view of the well-known facts associated with the promulgation of the above Articles, their opposition to Roman Catholic teaching is evident to all, and any attempt at reconciling the views of the English and Roman Catholic Churches on the subject of the Lord’s Supper must remain impracticable and impossible as long as these statements continue in our Articles.  Certainly no Roman Catholic would for an instant accept the statements of our Prayer Book as equivalent to the doctrines of his Church, and no glosses, or explanation, or eirenicon can span the gulf that separates us from the Church of Rome.  It were a vain attempt to invalidate the historical basis on which the statements of our Prayer Book and Articles rest.  Both historically and theologically there is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome on this subject a great gulf fixed.

      2.  The doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion in relation to the foreign Protestantism of the sixteenth century is equally clear in the light of certain well-known facts of history.

      Although it is remarkable how wonderfully, wisely, and successfully our Church has avoided committing herself to any names, however great, yet there are certain historical facts that cannot be questioned.  The influence of Lutheran Reformers on our Prayer Book and Articles is undoubted, and all possible weight must be given to it.  But equally undoubted is the influence of the Swiss Reformers, and on the particular question of the Lord’s Supper it is a simple fact that no trace of Consubstantiation can be found in our Prayer Book, while the general agreement with the doctrine of the Swiss Reformers is unmistakable.  If language is to express and not to conceal thought, it is certain that the doctrine of the Church of England on the Lord’s Supper is substantially that of Calvin and those who thought with him.  Nor have any changes made during the reign of Elizabeth and up to 1662 affected this fundamental standpoint.  A striking testimony to this can be seen by a comparison of the Westminster Confession and our Articles.

      There is therefore no question as to where Prayer Book doctrine stands in the light of Prayer Book history.

      3.  A further proof of the real position of our Church on the subject of the Lord’s Supper is seen in the significant and fundamental changes made in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1552) as contrasted with the Prayer Book of 1549.  Among other changes the following are perhaps the most important and most worthy of notice for our present purpose: –

      (a) The term “Altar” was struck out and no longer used of the Holy Table.

      (b) The officiating clergyman was to stand “at the North side” of the Table instead of “afore the midst of the altar”.

      (c) The invocation of the Holy Spirit on the Elements was omitted.

      (d) The distinctive sacrificial vestments for use at the Communion were forbidden.

      (e) The structure of the Communion Office was deliberately altered in order to avoid possible misconception of the meaning of certain prayers; for example, the long prayer of Oblation was separated from the Consecration Prayer and made one of the Post-Communion Collects.

      (f) All prayer for the dead was omitted, and the words “ militant here in Earth “ were added before the long prayer for the Church of Christ.

      These alterations tell their own story of the way in which the Church of England removed from her formularies everything that savoured of distinctive Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Communion, and it is to be remembered that when Queen Elizabeth revived the use of the Prayer Book, the second Book of 1552 was taken as the basis of the revision, and this Book has remained in all its essential features unaltered to this day.  It can be proved by most certain warrants of historic fact that the addition made to the Church Catechism in 1604, and the reinsertion, with a verbal alteration, of the Black Rubric in 1662, made no essential alteration in the doctrinal teaching of our Church on this subject.

      4.  We have insisted upon a consideration of these historical facts at some length, because they are being questioned in the present day, and the Church of England is being made to hold doctrine which is virtually, if not essentially, identical with the teaching of the Church of Rome.  This attempt to reconcile the teaching of our Church with that of Rome is associated with what is known as the Oxford or Tractarian Movement which arose in the Church of England some seventy years ago.  The leaders of this school, especially John Henry, afterwards Cardinal, Newman, attempted to show that there was essential agreement between the two Churches on the doctrine of the Holy Communion, but Newman, with others, very soon discovered the untenableness of this position and went over to the Church of Rome.  Many others, however, since his day have adopted his earlier position, until at length we have a writer expressing himself as follows—

            “At the present time, whatever differences in detail and in inference may exist, and however differently certain terms may be defined, there is agreement among Eastern Christians, Roman Catholics, and the successors of the Tractarians in the Church of England, as to that central part of the doctrine of the Eucharist, the expression of which by the English Church Union in 1900 may be cited as a convenient illustration.  It was there declared ‘that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, become, verily and indeed the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ our Lord, present in the same Most Holy Sacrament of the altar under the form of bread and wine, is to be worshipped and adored.’” [The Holy Communion, by Darwell Stone, p. 186. – Note, however, the striking admission by Dom Gregory Dix in chap. xvi of The Shape of the Liturgy. – J. S. W.]

It is this claim to identify the teaching of our Church with that of Rome that compels true Churchmen to stand up in defense of the true doctrine of Scripture and the Prayer Book and Articles on this subject.

      (A) One of these questions of controversy is concerned with the doctrine of the Real Presence.  That is, a real objective Presence of Christ’s glorified Body in or under the elements after consecration, apart from any presence in the faithful recipient.

      The Church of England nowhere teaches this.  The phrase “Real Presence” is not found in any of our Formularies, and is ambiguous and most misleading.  All presence of Christ must be real, and a spiritual presence is not less real because it is spiritual.  The usual meaning and application refer to Christ in His glorified human nature, which is said to be present in or under the elements by virtue of consecration.  Nowhere is this taught in Scripture or Prayer Book, and the Church doctrine which is really Bible truth is found along the following lines:

      (1) The tendency of those who uphold the doctrine of an objective Presence in the elements is to take the four words only, “This is My Body,” and on the strength of these alone to argue for a real objective presence of our Lord’s glorified Body.  But our Lord said more than this, and we must have His full statement.  “This is My Body which is given for you”; “This is My Blood of the new covenant which is shed for you.”  It was, therefore, to the Body as given and the Blood as shed that our Lord referred.  He said not a word about the glorified Body.  Neither does St. Paul, whose references to the Holy Communion are to the “Body and Blood”.  How could the allusion to “blood shed” have any reference to the glorified Body?

      (2) The gift of our Lord at the original institution was no different from that bestowed by Him at our celebrations today.  What He gave then He gives now, and any view that maintains a difference between the first and succeeding Eucharists is utterly unwarranted by Scripture.  The gift is the same in fact, meaning, and blessing.  Our Lord said these words when His Body was not yet given on the Cross and His Blood not yet shed; when He was Himself before them, and there could not be any objective presence in the elements.  Yet we believe they received a gift, a grace, a blessing.  This was His Body as given and Blood as shed, in their spiritual force and efficacy; a gift offered to and received by faith alone.  And the same gift is offered and received now in exactly the same way, the only difference being that their faith appropriated the gift in expectation and anticipation of Calvary, while our faith appropriates it in remembrance and realization of it.  There is nothing in our Formularies to give any foundation for the doctrine of a presence in or under the elements or for the idea of a difference of gift or reception now as compared with the original institution.  In the Communion Service, but still more in the more precise language of the Article, we find that the Body of Christ is not only taken and eaten, but first of all “given” “after a heavenly and spiritual manner”.

      (3) The Prayer Book speaks of the Body given “for” us and not “to” us, and the words of administration in our service speak of the Body “which was given for,” not “which is given to,” us.  The two parts of the Sacrament emphasize the constituent elements of our Lord’s sacrifice in a body broken and blood shed.  The separation in the ordinance of these two parts is its own silent testimony to the fact of death, and death only.

      We maintain that the Tractarian doctrine, while it demands the literal interpretation of our Lord’s words, does not really adhere to them, but takes only a portion, and thereby puts an entirely novel and erroneous gloss on them.  We refuse to import into the simplicity and clearness of Scripture what is not found there.

      (4) Moreover, if there be a real objective Presence in the elements, what becomes of that Presence in the case of unworthy recipients?  If the Communion is administered to three persons and the second is void of faith, what on this theory is given and received different from the case of the other two?  If Christ be present independently of the use and reception, it surely follows that all who receive the elements receive Christ.  “Yes,” says this novel modern teaching, “receive Christ but not the benefits of Christ.”  But is such a position conceivable?  Can a man really receive Christ without His benefits?  What, too, are we to make of the plain teaching of Article XXIX with its “in no wise are they partakers of Christ”?  “In no wise” (nullo modo) could hardly be stronger.

      The fact is there is no distinction in kind between Christ’s presence at the Eucharist and His presence elsewhere.  The bread and wine point to “flesh” and “blood,” and the flesh and blood to the personality of Christ in His atoning work; and this is made ours in force and grace, by the power of the Holy Ghost through faith.  We receive in the Holy Communion the spiritual efficacy of the Atoning Sacrifice through faith.

      (B) Connected with the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence is that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

      This phrase is intended to mean some sacrifice associated exclusively with the Eucharist.  A representative of this new teaching, A. J. Mason, thus defines it (Faith of the Gospel, p. 327): “The continual offering up to God of the Person of Jesus Christ, in His Body and His Blood.  Christ empowered and commanded His Apostles to do this when He made the Eucharist His own memorial.”  “We display to Him that precious body and blood in which all our hopes are centered.  Such an act is most truly a sacrifice” (p. 328).  To this we reply:

      (1) There is no warrant in Scripture for such an idea of sacrifice connected with the Eucharist or with anything else.  The essential feature of a sacrifice, according to this writer, is “the presentation to God of that which is precious to us and acceptable to Him.”  Even if we grant this, what do we “present” in and at the Eucharist except ourselves, our substance, and our praises?  Pleading a sacrifice is not offering a sacrifice.  Even representation is not representation.  We do not “display” the Body and Blood; we plead the merits and appropriate the grace of the Body broken and the Blood shed.  But what is there of sacrifice in this?

      (2) This doctrine utterly fails to realize the nature of our Lord’s life in heaven.  He is not offering Himself; He is seated on the throne, having already offered Himself once for all (εφάπαζ, Heb. 7:27, 9:12, 10:10).  In the book already quoted, written as a book of popular instruction for members of the English Church, occur these words (Faith of the Gospel, p. 330 f.) – “He allows us at the altar to do with Him what He Himself does in heaven ... In this sense ... we may say that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice.”  The simple and sufficient answer to all this is to be found in the above-named chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

      (3) The Prayer Book will be searched in vain for any such doctrine of an Eucharistic sacrifice.  The only sacrifices other than that of Calvary known to our Church Formularies are the sacrifices of ourselves, our substance, and our praises.  As we have already seen (Part Second, Ch. VI. 6) there is not even an oblation of the unconsecrated elements, as a comparison of the rubrics concerning these and the alms significantly shows.

      (4) The truth is that, strictly and accurately, the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a sacrament.  It has sacrificial aspects and relations because it is so closely associated in thought and purpose with the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and because it is the standing testimony to the world and to ourselves of our constant need of and perpetual dependence on that sacrifice in all our approach to God.  But the ordinance in itself and alone cannot with accuracy be called a sacrifice.  It is a sacrament of a sacrifice, “the Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death” (Article XXIX).  It is a feast on that sacrifice.  The essential distinction between a sacrifice and a sacrament is that in the former God is the Receiver (or the terminus ad quem), while in the latter God is the Giver (or the terminus a quo).  In a sacrifice we give, we yield up; in a sacrament we receive, we appropriate.  The only acts in the Lord’s Supper, according to the institution, are “take,” “eat,” “drink,” “this do,” and these are not sacrificial.  The ideas of a sacrifice and a sacrament are so distinct and different that the Lord’s Supper, unless Scripture warrants it, cannot be both at the same time.  The Passover was both sacrificial and sacramental; but the proper antitype to that is not the Lord’s Supper, but the Lord Himself, who is at once our sacrifice and our Feast.  Christ “our Passover, was sacrificed (ετύθη) for us; therefore let us keep continual festival (εορτάζωμεν)” (1 Cor. 5:7).  The Lord’s Supper is not strictly and fully the antitype of the Passover, it is the rite of our life and worship which is analogous to it in the sacramental but not in the sacrificial aspect.

      Exegesis of New Testament teaching is fatal to this doctrine of an Eucharistic sacrifice, as it is always consistently opposed to the characteristic Roman and extreme Anglican claims.  Neither ποιειτε (“do this,”) nor ανάμνησις (“remembrance”) has anything sacrificial in it in these passages, because there is nothing in the context to warrant it, while the object of the verb καταγγέλλετε (“ye do shew”), (1 Cor. 11:26), which means “to proclaim verbally glad tidings,” can be only man and not God.  In the Lord’s Supper Christ is neither offered “to” God, nor “for” man; He is offered “to” man as Saviour and sustenance to be welcomed by faith.  It will be well, therefore, to get rid of ambiguous and misleading terms.  The Lord’s Supper is not a commemorative sacrifice; it is the commemoration of a sacrifice; and, if the words Eucharistic sacrifice mean some sacrifice which is offered only at and in the Lord’s Supper, then we assert that no such idea occurs in Bible or Prayer Book.

      The cardinal error of the Church of Rome and those who think with her on this subject, is that the Sacraments “contain” grace, that by the consecration the elements contain the grace they signify, and that by the reception of the elements grace is conveyed in them.  But in answer to this we ask two questions – (1) How can the spiritual reside in the material?  Regeneration means God’s own life!  How can that reside in water?  The Atonement means the spiritual efficacy of Calvary.  How can that reside in bread and wine?  (2) How can the application to the body necessarily convey grace to the soul?

      The whole position is un-Scriptural, un-Anglican, un-historical, unreal, untrue.  It ministers to superstition, tends to materialism, and is perilous to the soul in relation to God and Christ.

      3.  Several other important questions emerge out of modern Controversies on the Lord’s Supper.

      (a) The Time of Communion.  The Church of England has not laid down any rule on this subject, but certain facts in the arrangement of her services suggest very clearly that Holy Communion is contemplated as coming after, not before, Morning Prayer.  We see this from the arrangement of the Second Lesson of each day in the week before Easter which precedes the Gospel for the day, and so affords a sequence of teaching on the Passion of our Lord.  A similar arrangement of lessons is seen on other occasions, thus indicating clearly that the custom in the sixteenth century was for Morning Prayer to precede Holy Communion.  The needs of modern life, however, have called for more frequent opportunities, and so we have, on the one hand, early Morning Communion, and on the other Evening Communion, both of which are in strict accordance with the spirit of the Prayer Book, and its provision of a weekly Communion intended for all possible communicants.  The question of the time of Communion would naturally be decided according to the needs of the parish; it is a matter as to which the deciding factor will rightly be the convenience of the greater number of communicants.  Evening Communion is, of course, in perfect keeping with our Lord’s institution of the Supper in the evening, and also in strict accordance with the rule of the primitive Church. [See Lightfoot, Epistles of Ignatius (ad. Smyrn., chap. viii, note).  Also The Protestant Dictionary, Art. “ Communion, Evening”.]  The change in the second century from evening to morning was probably due in measure to the edict of the Emperor Trajan against the meetings of clubs and other social organizations.  The question of time is thus of very small moment and every parish will naturally make its arrangements to suit all classes by having Holy Communion at various times from early morning till the evening.  Here, if anywhere, the well-known formula applies, “the greatest good of the greatest number.”

      (b) Fasting Communion.  The Church has made no rule whatever on this subject, though the fact of Morning Prayer being arranged to precede the Holy Communion would seem to be somewhat against Fasting Communion as a custom of the sixteenth century.  The matter is one of individual preference and not of Church obligation.  Our Lord instituted the Holy Communion immediately after a meal, and the evening Communions of the first century and a half, already referred to, show that Fasting Communion was not the primitive custom.  It is to be feared that Fasting Communion in the present day is associated with materialistic views of the Holy Communion, as though the Lord were in the elements, and therefore must be received before other food.  If this were true it might be regarded as necessary to do still more than this, to abstain from food after Communion until the elements had become digested, for there is surely no essential difference between receiving the Communion after food and receiving food immediately after the Communion.  Receiving the Communion fasting is no necessary spiritual qualification for participation in that Holy Feast.  The requirements laid down by our Church of Repentance, Faith, and Love are the only essential qualifications for true Communion, and when these are observed we have everything that is necessary.  The great principle of Christian liberty enters here as elsewhere.  “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”  That this question of fasting Communion should be made a matter of obligation is strongly to be deprecated, especially in the face of the fact that our Church has never laid down any such rule.

      (c) The Dress of the Minister.  Our Church makes no distinction between the dress of the minister at Morning and Evening Prayer and at Holy Communion.  The Ornaments Rubric (see Ch. XV below) speaks of the dress of the ministers “at all times of their ministrations,” and this rule has been accordingly observed.  For nearly three hundred years universal custom has settled the question for all true Churchmen that the surplice is the proper dress or vestment for the Holy Communion as well as at all other times of ministration.

      (d) Mixing water with the Wine.  In the Prayer Book of 1549 there was a Rubric ordering this, but it was omitted in 1552, and never restored, so that now no provision whatever can be found for this in the Prayer Book.  This fact seems conclusive as to the mind of the Church of England.

      (e) Reservation of the Elements.  In the Prayer Book of 1549 provision was made for the Reservation of the Elements after Public Communion for the purpose of the Visitation of the Sick, but in 1552 this rule was omitted, and in 1662 clear orders were given that all consecrated Elements remaining after the Communion should be consumed in the Church and not carried out of the Church.  This order still obtains in the Sixth Rubric at the close of the Communion Office, and in keeping with it we have the teaching of Article XXV, which tells us that “the Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.”  Facts like these carry their own meaning as to the mind of our Church.

      Such, then, is the true Church doctrine as to the object, purpose, and administration of the Lord’s Supper.  From the examination of the Prayer Book in the light of Scripture and of its own history, there can be no serious doubt as to its true meaning.  And one great proof of this is that we, as Churchmen, are content with our own Communion Service as it stands.  We have no wish to add to it from other service books, Roman or Sarum; nor have we any desire to return to the partially reformed book of 1549, even though that was greatly in advance of pre-Reformation books.  We take our stand on the Prayer Book Service, and find in it complete expression and justification of our position.

      The practical application of all this is that we must not exaggerate the position of the Lord’s Supper.  This is only too possible, and is done in very much of the teaching of today.  The Holy Communion is emphasized out of all proportion as the “one thing needful” in the Christian life and service, and the result of the exaggeration is a positive distortion of the truth concerning it, and a positive peril to the people who receive the teaching.  Experience teaches us to watch carefully and scrutinize rigidly every phrase used in certain quarters about the Sacraments, especially that of the Lord’s Supper.  When we hear of “Sacramental Grace” we should at once ask what it means.  If it means that grace is received in the due reception of the Sacrament, well and good; but if it means grace received there and nowhere else, it is absolutely wrong.

      When we hear or read of “Eucharistic worship” we must inquire what it is intended to convey.  If it means worship offered to our Lord at the time when we receive the Holy Communion, well and good; but if it means a special kind of worship, or a special kind of worship limited to the Lord’s Supper, then it is unwarranted by Scripture and Prayer Book.

      Again, when we hear that the Holy Communion is “the highest act of Christian worship,” we must ask for the true meaning.  If it means “the central act of Christian worship,” well and good; but if it means an act of worship higher in degree and kind from that offered elsewhere, it is wrong.  Worship consists of at least seven acts – Prayer, Praise, Thanksgiving, Confession, Adoration, Surrender, Hearing God’s Word, and it is impossible to speak of any one act as the highest when all are needed to complete the one idea of worship.

Chapter  XIII – “The Principal Service”

      By a number of Church people during recent years the service of Holy Communion has been called “the Principal Service,” and on this account it has been urged that, in the words of a resolution of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, “no arrangements for worship should be regarded as satisfactory which do not provide for a celebration of Holy Communion as the principal Sunday service at a time when the greatest number can be expected to communicate.”  To the same effect the Holy Communion has been called “the Lord’s Own Service,” and for this reason it is maintained that it ought to have precedence of all other services.  These contentions involve so much that is important in regard to doctrine that they call for the most careful consideration by all “sober and conscientious sons of the Church of England”.

      It is known that in the early Church, at least from the middle of the second century, the Lord’s Supper was the chief public service of the Church, though it must never be forgotten that the ancient Liturgies which give various forms of this service cannot be dated earlier than the fifth century.  Our Prayer Book similarly shows the prominence and importance of the Holy Communion service in the worship of the Church, and no one wishes to set aside the Holy Communion or relegate it to a place which is not warranted by the Prayer Book.

      It would seem that at the Reformation Morning Prayer was originally separated from Holy Communion by an interval, but it was not long before the service of Morning Prayer, Litany and Holy Communion were said together, and this became the almost universal rule until modern days.  The difficulty was that, while naturally providing for every aspect of worship, this blending of three separate offices made the service unduly long, and the result has been an increasing tendency to have the service of Holy Communion alone at an earlier hour, and then to have Morning Prayer, with the Holy Communion service at midday on certain Sundays.  The proposal to have the Lord’s Supper at an hour when the greatest number can be expected to communicate is apparently intended to refer to the time at which Morning Prayer has hitherto been taken, namely, at eleven o’clock.  But there are some real difficulties in the way and one or two quite serious objections.  The result would be, in many cases, the virtual omission, if not the suppression, of Morning Prayer, and thereby the large majority of people would cease to have some of the most vital elements of worship brought before them.  It would mean the omission of the Psalms and also of the Lessons, especially from the Old Testament, for no one could say that the portions of Scripture appointed for “Epistles and Gospels” would be an adequate substitute for the Lessons read at Morning Prayer.  Not only would the Old Testament be omitted altogether, except in one solitary instance, but there would be no consecutive teaching week by week.

      There is a much more serious objection to the proposal which desires the Holy Communion service to be held at the time at which Morning Prayer is now taken.  It would bring about and perhaps necessitate the attendance of many people at the Holy Communion without communicating.  This practice would be entirely opposed to one of the fundamental principles of the Reformation as set forth in our Prayer Book.  Attendance without communicating is clearly opposed to Scripture, where every instance of the Lord’s Supper includes participation.  The same is true of the Church of England practice, for it can be shown beyond all question that our Church has always discountenanced attendance without communicating.  Up to 1662 the people were exhorted to avoid remaining without participation, and the omission of this exhortation in the last revision of the Prayer Book is known to be due to the fact that the practice had died out, for the revisers of that Prayer Book spoke very definitely against any one staying without communicating.  In addition to this, leading authorities at the Universities and elsewhere have shown that the practice is not only against Scripture, but is not warranted by the practice of the primitive Church, still less by anything in the Church of England.  Similar views have been expressed by some of the most representative Churchmen of what may be called the High Church school during the last half-century. [See discussions in English Church Teaching, p. 141; Communion of the Laity (Scudamore); Two Studies in the Book of Common Prayer (Bishop Drury); The Principal Service (Streatfield); Non-communicating Attendance (Lias) in the Prayer Book Dictionary; and The Protestant Dictionary, Art. “Non-communicating Attendance” (Meyrick).]

      It has often been pointed out that one of the purposes of the Reformation was to “turn the Mass into a Communion,” but if the proposal now discussed were to become law, it would have the precisely contrary effect of turning the Communion into the Mass, and, as such, would be against the plainest teachings of the Prayer Book and the whole history of the Church of England for nearly three hundred years.  It is clear from the Rubrics in the Prayer Book service that non-communicants are to withdraw before the actual celebration; and the natural place for this is at the close of the Church Militant Prayer.

      In regard to the description of the Holy Communion as “the Lord’s Own Service,” it has often been pointed out that, while the Lord’s Supper is a Divine Institution, the service itself is no more so than any other service, because it is a matter of ecclesiastical arrangement.  Thus the Epistles and Gospels are in no sense more sacred than the Lessons from Scripture at Morning Prayer, and the Hymns of Praise in the Communion Office are in no sense different from those in the Morning and Evening Prayer.  It is, therefore, fallacious to speak of the Holy Communion as “the Lord’s Own Service,” because this tends to make a distinction which is unauthorized by Holy Scripture.  General services of prayer and praise, the preaching and hearing of the Word, are enjoined in many parts of the Bible as the ordinary means of grace by which we may approach God at all times.  But this appeal for prayer, thanksgiving, and attention to the Word of God is emphasized without any mention of the Holy Communion.

      And so, whether we speak of the Holy Communion as “the Principal Service” or as “the Lord’s Own Service,” there is a danger of inaccuracy and misconception.  The Holy Communion can be rightly regarded as the main public service of our Church for those who are spiritually qualified; but it is this, whatever the precise time of observance, or whether the communicants are few or many.  The supreme requirement is spiritual preparation as laid down by our Catechism and Ante-Communion Service, and the question of large attendance ought never to be allowed to enter in.  Even a few communicants properly prepared along the lines of repentance, faith and love, as required in our Prayer Book, would be far truer to Scripture and to the essential meaning of the Holy Communion as taught by our Church then the largest congregations of people who, for one reason or another, do not participate.  Our Church is specially careful to emphasize the true Scriptural use of Holy Communion, and those who, following the Prayer Book, desire to adhere to its Scriptural teaching will have no difficulty in observing our Lord’s command regularly, earnestly and heartily, whatever may be the time fixed for the Communion, or however many or few may be present to communicate.

Chapter  XIV – The Athanasian Creed

      Thirteen times in the course of the Christian Year “the Creed, commonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius,” is ordered to be used instead of the Apostles’ Creed.  Included in these thirteen occasions are the great Festivals of Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whit Sunday, and Trinity Sunday.  This particular method of using this Creed instead of the Apostles’ Creed is peculiar to the Church of England, and was probably ordered by the Reformers because of the emphasis which, as we have so often noticed, they placed on instruction and on the need of an intelligent, clear, full Faith.  Up to the sixteenth century this Creed had been used as a Canticle at Morning Service ; now it was to be employed definitely as a Confession of Faith.

      During the last fifty years there has been a great deal of discussion as to the advantage of the Church of England use of the Creed, and in order that we may be prepared to consider the question all round it is essential that we should be made acquainted with certain facts connected with this exposition of the Christian Faith.

      1.  The Origin of the Creed. – It dates probably from about the fifth century, and almost certainly it arose in the Church of the South of France.  It does not seem to have been originally intended as a Creed, but as an explanation and amplification of the Nicene Creed for the use of the ill-instructed clergy of that time.  It is more than probable that the circumstances of the Reformation, with the dense ignorance of God’s truth then prevalent, led to its present use in the Public Service at Morning Prayer.

      2.  The Purpose of the Creed. – It is intended for those who already possess the Christian Faith.  In verse 1 “hold the Catholick Faith” means to retain what we have, and not to obtain what we have not.  No one can hold that which he does not possess.  It is incorrect, therefore, to say that this Creed is intended for the heathen, and for those outside the Church.  It does not touch these in the least, but is for Church members, to safeguard them against error and to prevent them from letting go what they have.  History points with sad clearness to a tendency to deflect from the true standard of Christian doctrine, and the Creed is intended as a test and a safeguard like the plumb line or the spirit level.

      The Creed does not pass any judgment on men or individuals, but simply declares the whole counsel of God on the matters concerned.  The proper translation of the word “will” in verse 1 is “wishes,” that is, “  Whosoever wills to be saved,” and in verse 29 “rightly” means “faithfully,” referring not merely to intellectual correctness, but to moral and spiritual integrity.

      3. The Substance of the Creed.

      (a) Part 1.  The Christian Doctrine of God; the Holy Trinity.  The prevailing thought of this section is Revelation.

      (b) Part 2.  The Christian Doctrine of the Person of Christ; the Incarnation.  The prevailing thought here is Redemption.

      4.  The Message of the Creed. – The essential meaning of this document is that we must have right thoughts of God and Christ.  It is in Christianity alone that God is a reality and power in human life.  Mohammedanism separates God completely from man.  Buddhism loses God entirely in the world.  Unitarianism has the same essential tendency as Mohammedanism in relation to God.  Paganism of every sort has no contact of God with man, no mediation, no salvation, no grace, no love, no hope.  We can see from all this how important and essential it is for us to have true ideas of the one true God.

      A careful study of the Creed will show that it is by no means true to speak of it as teaching salvation through correct opinion only.  The Creed itself refers to our giving account for our own works. [“At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works.”]  At the same time, it must never be forgotten that opinion undoubtedly influences conduct.

      Our Church only receives the Creed because it is believed to be warranted from Holy Scripture (Article VIII).  This we can readily test for ourselves.  The minatory or condemnatory clauses are not in themselves any stronger than such passages as Mark 16:16, John 3:36, 12:48.

      5.  The Value of the Creed. – It is one of the fundamental facts of experience that thought influences life.  “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.”  What we think of God occupies our mind, fills our heart, and necessarily influences our character.  Conduct may be “three-fourths” of life, but the other “fourth” is the spring, source, and foundation of all the rest.  As electricity is small compared with its effects, so are thought and motive to the conduct.  The Apostle Paul was insistent upon the necessity of healthful teaching, or “sound doctrine”.  “Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1).  The supreme question, therefore, is what we think of God, for if God is the light of the mind He will soon become the life of the soul, His law will possess the conscience, His love will fill the heart, and the practical outcome will be loyalty to Him in our will, and likeness to Him in our character.

      6.  The Use of the Creed. – A great deal of the controversy associated with the Athanasian Creed refers, not to the truth of the doctrine contained in it, but to the wisdom of using it as a Creed in public service.  It is felt by very many that to put metaphysical and theological language dealing with such profound and mysterious realities into the mouths of average congregations, uninstructed in theological distinctions, is at once unnecessary and unwise.  It is also urged that the intellectual elaboration of the truths which are only found implicitly in and germ in the New Testament tends to disproportion and false emphasis, and a too great concentration on the intellectual rather than on the spiritual and practical aspects of the Christian life.  There is a great deal to be said for these objections, and certainly there is by no means the same necessity for its use as a Creed at Morning Prayer as our Reformers considered there was at the Reformation.  The question might well be reopened by the authorities of the Church with a view to some relaxation or modification of the present rule.  The simplest and easiest change would perhaps be to alter the Rubric from “shall” to “may,” making the use of the Creed on the thirteen occasions above-mentioned optional instead of obligatory.  This would at any rate have the advantage of retaining the use of it in those congregations where there is no desire for change, and at the same time giving freedom to those who wish some relaxation.  At the same time optional uses have their own dangers and difficulties, and it might be better still to follow the example of the Church of Ireland.  In that Church the Creed is no longer used in the Public Service, though it still retains its place in the Prayer Book as one of the great Documents of antiquity expressive of the Catholic Faith.  The Creed is not found at all in the Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, and yet there has been no deflection from the true Faith by reason of this omission.  In Canada its use has been made optional.  It should also be pointed out that the essential elements of its value and importance, as stated above, would be completely retained if the usage of the Irish Church were followed, or if the Rubric were made optional.  Amidst all the difference of opinion about the wisdom of its use as a Creed, there is very little difference among Churchmen as to the truth of its statements concerning the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord.

Chapter  XV – The Ornaments Rubric

      Since the middle of the nineteenth century there has been a great deal of controversy connected with what is generally known as the “Ornaments Rubric,” the direction which is found just before the Order for Morning Prayer.

            “And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.”

It is urged by some that the wording of this Rubric orders certain vestments of the minister and certain ornaments of the Church which were either found in the Prayer Book of 1549, or required by the English Communion Office of 1548, the difference turning on what is meant by “the authority of Parliament in the Second Year of King Edward the Sixth.”

      Very serious consequences, however, are involved in this difference of opinion as to the meaning of the second Year of King Edward the Sixth’s reign.  If the phrase refers to the first Prayer Book of 1549, the use of the Alb and Chasuble, or the use of the Alb and Cope was enjoined in that book.  Thus the Rubric, though compulsory and not merely permissive, does not compel the minister at Holy Communion to wear the Chasuble if he prefers the Cope.  If, however, the reference in the Rubric to the “second year” of King Edward the Sixth applies to the English Order of Holy Communion of 1548 the case is very different.  It is therein explicitly provided that this Order, which is a little pamphlet in English and arranges for the restoration of the Cup to the Laity, is to be inserted in the middle of the Latin Mass, immediately after the Communion of the Priest himself, and it is expressly provided that there shall be no other varying of any rite or ceremony pertaining to the Mass.

      It can readily be seen that the question thus raised is a very serious one ; indeed the real character of the Church of England may be said to turn on it. If we are compelled to accept either of the above alternatives as the true interpretation the issue is one of the greatest gravity. In the case of the Order of Holy Communion of 1548 the application of the Rubric to this would mean the revival of the whole of the ceremonial and dress of the Roman Mass, and, by direct inference, with the ceremonial would come the doctrine symbolized thereby If, on the other hand, the reference in the Rubric is to the Prayer Book of 1549 the Chasuble would be legal and possible in the Church of England, and this vestment, together with the Alb, has long been inextricably associated with Roman Catholic and Mediaeval sacerdotal teaching on the Holy Communion. It is therefore necessary on every ground that we should have before us all the facts of the case in order to arrive at a right decision.

      1.  It is well known that at the time of the Reformation certain clearly defined stages marked the issue of the formularies of the Reformed Church.  In 1548 the Communion Office referred to above was put forth in English for the instruction and convenience of worshippers.  This document marked the last stages of the unreformed religion, though it showed also some slight indications of the Reform movement.  It was, however, of a temporary character only, and was soon set aside by the complete Prayer Book of 1549, known as the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.  This Book may be defined as of a partially reformed type, that is, while it was decidedly opposed to the Church of Rome on general grounds, it continued some of the mediaeval doctrines and ceremonies.  Its order as to vestments is referred to above, and is one of the indications of the partially reformed position of the book.

      2.  The year 1552 saw the next stage of the Reformation movement, and this was marked by the issue of the second Prayer Book of Edward VI.  The distinctively Protestant character of this book was undoubted, and all doctrines, vestments, and practices associated with definitely Roman and mediaeval teaching and ceremonial were eliminated.  The Rubric of this Prayer Book as to vestments read as follows—

            “And here is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but being Archbishop or Bishop he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.”

      3.  In 1559, when the Reformed religion was restored under Queen Elizabeth, it was the Prayer Book of 1552, not that of 1549, which was taken as the basis of the settlement.  There were only three slight alterations made in the 1559 book compared with that of 1552, none of which was concerned with the question of vestments and ornaments. [These alterations are listed in the Act of Uniformity (Primo Elizabethae) printed at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer. – J. S. W.]  This restoration of the Prayer Book of 1552 is a vital factor in the situation, because it shows clearly the doctrinal standpoint of the restoration of 1559, and doctrine is always the ruling principle of ceremonial.  Ceremonial is only intended to be the expression of doctrine, and it is obvious that ceremonial must be in agreement with the doctrine it is intended to represent and symbolize.

      4.  Yet notwithstanding this statutory restoration of the Prayer Book of 1552, an injunction, similar to that which we now call the “Ornaments Rubric,” was found in the printed Prayer Book of 1559.  It read as follows—

            “And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Holy Communion, and at all other times in his ministration shall use such Ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, according to the Act of Parliament set forth in the beginning of this book.”

It is the apparent contradiction between the wording of this Rubric and the doctrinal position of the rest of the Prayer Book which has made and still makes the subject one of pressing controversy.  There are two explanations of this somewhat complicated matter which call for attention.  They both arrive at the same conclusion, though they reach it by different routes.

      (a) One explanation is that the Ornaments Rubric which was found in Elizabeth’s printed Prayer Book was lacking in statutory authority, i.e. it never received the sanction of Parliament.  This seems to have undoubtedly been the case.  It was possibly inserted by the Queen on her personal responsibility.  The following clause appeared at the end of Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559—

            “Provided always, and be it enacted, That such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in this church of England by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, until other Order shall therein be taken by the Authority of the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm.”

The above clause, on this interpretation, was intended as a safeguard against the embezzlement of the property of the Church before the administrative Officers of the Crown could give due instructions for the disposal of it.  There is contemporary evidence that one meaning of “be in use” was “be in trust,” i.e. not appropriated to private benefit.  These instructions of the Crown as to the disposal of the vestments followed immediately on the issue of the new Prayer Book in the course of a few months after the Act of 1559.  The importance of these instructions of the Crown may be seen from the fact that they were given in the course of a Royal Visitation, which dealt with the whole country simultaneously for a space of about six months, by a Commission, in which was, for the time being, incorporated the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the country.

      (b) The other explanation is that the Rubric was first inserted (though by what precise authority is not known) in the Elizabethan Prayer Book in accordance with the above-named clause of the Act of Uniformity of 1559, which, as we have seen, ordered the retention of the two classes of ornaments, viz. of the Church and of the Minister used “by authority of Parliament” in the second year of Edward VI (the Prayer Book of 1549), until other order should be taken by the Queen and her advisers.  And it is also held that in 1566 the Queen took this “other order” by the issue of what are known as the “Advertisements,” in which directions were given that the surplice only should be used in Parish Churches, with the addition of the cope in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches.  The then existing Rubric was virtually annulled by this “other order,” though it continued to be found in the Prayer Book with the same wording as before.  Thus the test of legality on this interpretation is simply what ornaments were retained and in use by authority dating from the second year of Edward VI, and not abolished entirely, or else altered by the Advertisements of 1566.

      These are the two lines of explanation of this Rubric.  The latter is that which was given in the Courts of Law in what are known as the Purchas and Ridsdale Judgments.  The former is, however, the more probable one, in view of recent historical light thrown on the subject.

      5.  At the same time, there is no question whatever as to actual fact and custom from 1559.  The universal practice of the Church after 1559 was the use of the dress of ministration which had been ordered by the Prayer Book of 1552, quoted above.  The Bishops’ Visitations show this very clearly.  They inquired in every case as to the use of surplice and hood.  The Royal Advertisements of 1566, already referred to, point in the same direction.  It is obvious that such inquiries and orders on the part of the very Authorities in Church and State who were responsible for the Prayer Book and Act of 1559 prove conclusively that no departure from the Prayer Book of 1552 was intended.  And whatever may be the explanation of the insertion of the Ornaments Rubric, it is certain that the Authorities responsible for the observance of the 1559 Book entirely ignored that Rubric.  Inasmuch as the Rubric of 1552, as to the dress of the clergy, was not among the alterations specified in 1559, it should have been printed with the rest of the Prayer Book instead of being in some non-legal way omitted, and the Elizabethan Rubric substituted for it.  But universal practice was entirely in accordance with the Rubric of 1552, and the dress of ministration ordered by the first Prayer Book of 1549 was never adopted from 1559 onwards.  The Canon of 1604 is in exact agreement with the above historical facts, for it orders the dress of the clergy to be the surplice.

      6.  In 1662, at the last revision of the Prayer Book, Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity was incorporated into and made a part of the newly enacted Book, and the wording of the Ornaments Rubric was altered to its present form to bring it into conformity with the Act.  Owing to the confusions of the Commonwealth period very little was then known of the earlier Prayer Book; but it was known that under the Elizabethan settlement the surplice, hood, and scarf had been the sole dress of ministration, with occasionally the cope in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches; it was known, moreover, that “Certayne Notes” at the end of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI mentioned only the surplice for Parish Churches, which notes were erroneously believed to govern the entire book, and as the authorities both in the Church and State wished to revert to the practice in force during the reign of Elizabeth, they altered her non-statutory Rubric so as to bring it into conformity with the Act of 1559.

      It should be carefully borne in mind that the Act of 1662 did not repeal, but enforced and strengthened the Elizabethan Act.  Whatever the twenty-fifth Section of Elizabeth’s Act meant, the Revision of 1662 certainly intended to confirm and continue, so that “be in use” as meaning “be in trust” was intended to be the true interpretation of the Section of the Act.

      That the foregoing explanation of what took place in 1662 is the true one is proved by the following matter of simple fact.

      7.  There is no trace whatever that the Authorities of Church and State intended to make any alteration in the existing customs which had been uniform and universal since 1559.  The Bishops, including those who had been the foremost Revisers in 1662, issued Visitation inquiries after the Act of 1662 had become law as to the surplice, i.e. of the vestment laid down in the Prayer Book of 1552.  It will suffice to quote the inquiries of one of these Bishops, that of Bishop Cosin of Durham, himself one of the Revisers—

      “Have you a large and decent surplice (one or more) for the minister to wear at all times of his public ministration in the Church?”

      “Have you a hood or tippet for the minister to wear over his surplice if he be a graduate ?”

      “Doth he always at the reading or celebrating any Divine office in your church or chapel constantly wear the surplice and other his ecclesiastical habit according to his degree?  And doth he never omit it?”

It should be borne in mind that, as with the earlier Visitation inquiries, this action was taken by those who were responsible for the revision of 1662, and for the carrying out of the Act of 1662. This is another of the vital and decisive facts of the situation.

      8.  From 1662 onwards for at least two hundred years the uniform practice of the Church was according to the Prayer Book of 1552.  In 1689 Commissioners were appointed to revise the Prayer Book, and their view of the law can be seen by their own words.  “Whereas the surplice is appointed to be used by all ministers in performing Divine Offices.”  Thenceforward the practice continued uniform and consistent through the Church until the rise of the Tractarian Movement, when the question was raised, and an interpretation put upon the Ornaments Rubric which is opposed to everything known and observed in the Church of England for nearly three centuries.  The words of the Rubric are certainly ambiguous, the circumstances of its insertion in 1559 are hardly known, and it was assuredly lacking in legal authority; but the practice of the Church since 1559 has been, to quote the words of the Ridsdale case, “uniform, open, continuous, and under authoritative sanction.”  No ambiguity of wording can be set against nearly three centuries of unequivocal, uniform, and universal usage.

      9.  It must be obvious to every careful student of the foregoing facts and of the general history of the Reformation in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth that it would have been an utter impossibility to prescribe vestments associated with Roman doctrine (as the chasuble and alb are) while ordering the Prayer Book (of 1552) which contained no teaching which could be expressed by such vestments.  To interpret the Rubric as restoring the ceremonial of the Prayer Book of 1549 is to ignore and set aside entirely the drastic Revision of 1552, which expunged all mediaeval doctrines and ceremonial from the Prayer Book.  And, as we have already seen, that Revision of 1552 was the basis of the Restored Prayer Book of 1559, and is still in all essential doctrines and practices our Prayer Book today.

      To interpret the Rubric as referring to the Order of Holy Communion of 1548 would have still more astonishing results in the light of the subsequent stages of the Reformation and of the three centuries of English Church history since then.  The Order of 1548 expressly prescribed that, with two exceptions, the ceremonial of the mediaeval Mass was to be continued.  Is it at all conceivable that this can be the law of our Church today?  To wear the chasuble and alb which are connected with the Mass, and yet to find within the covers of the same Prayer Book an Article which calls sacrifices of Mass “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,” would surely involve an incongruity that hardly needs to be mentioned.  Yet this is the absurd and impossible position involved in the novel Tractarian interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric.

      10.  It should ever be remembered, moreover, that the Ornaments Rubric as it stands is compulsory in form.  It orders, and does not simply permit.  There is no idea of a maximum or minimum ritual, [Except, of course, if the reference be to the Prayer Book of 1549, when there would be the alternatives of chasuble or cope.] as though in some Churches we might legally have the sacerdotal vestments associated with the Mass, and in others the surplice only.  One of the great principles of the Reformation was uniformity of usage and the entire cessation of various “uses” in different Churches and Dioceses.  If, therefore, the modern interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric be correct, then the use of the surplice at Holy Communion is absolutely illegal, and has been since 1559.  Then, too, the Bishops of 1560 and 1662 were entirely wrong when in their Visitations they insisted on the use of the surplice.  To mention this is to show by contrast what the simple truth is.

      11.  To conclude: it will be seen from the above considerations that the question is one of historical fact rather than of verbal interpretation.  If we are in doubt as to what is meant by a legal enactment, we must inquire what was done under that particular enactment.  “Contemporary explanation is the most conclusive in law.”  Practice clears up ambiguities, and shows how an act was understood at the time.  The testimony of the Royal Visitation in 1559, the Royal Advertisements of 1566, the Canon of 1604, and the Episcopal Visitations of 1662–3 show with unerring conclusiveness what was done in the Church from 1559 to 1662, and the custom and usage of three centuries only go to confirm the truth of the position.

Chapter  XVI – Prayers for the Dead

      The question of prayers for those who have departed this life was one of great prominence at the time of the Reformation, and it has obtained a good deal of attention of recent years.  It is, therefore, a matter of real importance to discover what Holy Scripture and the Church of England teach on the subject.

      At the time of the death of Archbishop Benson, the papers called special attention to a large violet pall that covered the bier, and on the pall in large letters an inscription had been worked, “Requiescat in Pace”.  We wonder whether those who placed it there quite realized what was involved in the phrase.  Did it imply that the Archbishop was not at peace?  If this was so, was it not a reflection on his Christian character and service?  For “being justified by faith we have peace with God.”  The words thus at once raise a question that ought to be faced.  What is the meaning of Prayers for the Dead?

      1.  The Meaning of Prayers for the Dead.

      (a) Are they prayers for the unconverted dead?  This is not the case in the Church of Rome.  That Church holds as firmly as we do the finality of this life as an opportunity for accepting or rejecting Christ.  Nor is it so, generally, in the case of Anglicans who pray for the dead.  They, too, realize the force of the Appeal to “now” and “today” as the accepted and only time of salvation.  Prayer for the dead could be understood if we believed in another probation; in another opportunity after this life, but this is not the teaching of the Romish Church or of the majority of the extreme Anglicans, though a number of “liberal” Anglicans do take this view.

      (b) The prayers must, therefore, be for the Christian dead.  This is the meaning of the practice in the Roman Church, and in the case of most of those in the Anglican Church who adopt the custom.  They both pray for the converted dead and say, “May they rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine on them.”

      But why should we pray for the Christian dead?  They are “with Christ” (Phil. 1:23) in conscious fellowship.  They are “present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).  They are “with Him in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).  They are blessed, for “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord” (Rev. 14:13).  The New Testament outlook concerning the blessed dead is one of joy, peace, hope, and expectation; we are to remember their past life, imitate their faith, and praise God for them.  It seems to be at once unnecessary and cruel to pray, “May they rest in peace,” for it reflects on their present peace, joy and satisfaction in the immediate presence of Christ our Lord.

      This leads at once to the heart of our subject—

      2.  The Foundation of Prayers for the Dead.

      (a) Prayer must be based on God’s Revelation.  Prayer finds its warrant in Promise.  We can only pray definitely or satisfactorily in so far as we have the Divine warrant for praying.  This practice must therefore be based not on sentiment but on Scripture.  Some one had been praying for her dead father on the ground of “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father,” and the question was asked whether the “whatsoever” could include this.  Attention was thereupon called to the qualification of the word “whatsoever” by the phrase, “In His Name”.  The “Name” means the revealed character and will of God, all that we know of Him, and this must of necessity be the limit of our prayers.  And inasmuch as God has not revealed Himself on this matter, it was urged that this text could not possibly be used to cover prayer for the dead.  Prayer, therefore, must be based on Revelation.

      (b) Revelation is clearly for this life.  God’s Word is almost silent as to the details of the future life, and absolutely silent as to any relation of prayer to that life.  As to the unconverted, the present life is decisive and final in relation to opportunity, and as to the converted, while there is doubtless growth in the Kingdom of God in the state after death, as there must be to all eternity, yet not one syllable is to be found in God’s Word to tell us that our prayers can either effect or affect that growth.  Prayer for others is bounded by this life, and after this prayer is swallowed up in praise.

      Prayer for the Dead is perfectly intelligible on the Roman Catholic theory of Purgatory.  If souls pass from here imperfect and need purification for eternal glory it is easy to understand how, according to Roman principles, prayer can be made for them.  But with the rejection of this idea of Purgatory, the practice of Prayers for the Dead falls to the ground.  And those who associate Prayers for the Dead with the Communion of Saints are compelled to limit their prayers to the most general terms, and thereby entirely alter the idea of prayer from the definite petitions and intercessions which we use on earth.  The only justification for Prayers for the Dead would be to pray for them as definitely and pointedly as when they were here.  But this would be to deny the whole of the New Testament concerning their joy and blessedness in the presence of Christ.

      The only passage in the New Testament that can be adduced as a possible warrant is 2 Tim. 1:18.  It is urged that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul wrote.  The elements of the interpretation of this passage are somewhat as follows—

      (1) It is entirely uncertain whether Onesiphorus was alive or dead.  No one can possibly decide one way or the other.  This is not a very hopeful way of deriving an important doctrine from the passage.

      (2) Even supposing Onesiphorus was dead, it would be possible to express a wish like this for a friend without in the least admitting the principles on which prayer for the dead can be taken seriously.

      (3) The assumption that he was dead is entirely gratuitous.  In Cor. 1:16, and 16:15, compared with Rom. 16, we can see that households can be referred to without the head of the house being dead.

      (4) Then the view that Onesiphorus was dead probably runs foreign to the context.  If we compare verse 15, we see that some had forsaken St. Paul, but that Onesiphorus had not been ashamed of the prisoner and his chain (verses 16–18); then Timothy is urged to the same boldness (cf. 2:1, “therefore”).  There is nothing here to warrant the idea of the death of Onesiphorus.

      To build such a momentous practice on this text is surely to build a pyramid on its apex and not on its base, and architecture of this kind, whether material or moral, is likely to prove dangerous and disastrous.

      From Scripture, therefore, the one Fount of essential truth, we have no warrant, no foundation for Prayers for the Dead, but everything that looks in the opposite direction.  We have next to consider:

      3.  The Early History of Prayers for the Dead.

      (a) It is generally thought that the Jews prayed for the dead, and that a passage in 2 Maccabees 12 points in that direction.  Some Jewish liturgies of the present day certainly have them.  But it has been pointed out [The Intermediate State, by C. H. H. Wright, pp. 28–43.] that the passage in Maccabees does not necessarily involve Prayers for the Dead, nor is it at all certain that the present Jewish liturgies are of pre-Christian date.  In any case, however, we have no record of our Lord and His Apostles observing such a custom, and it would be very precarious to base a Christian practice of such moment on merely Jewish grounds even if we were sure of them.

      (b) In the Christian Church it is to be carefully noted that the earliest form of the phrase indicated by R.I.P. was not “requiescat,” but “requiescit,” which states the fact, “he rests in peace.”  The earliest inscriptions of the Catacombs, too, are “in pace,” “in Christo,” etc., without any prayer.  All early history points to the remarkable joy associated with Christian funerals, the thought of the beloved one being with the Lord overshadowing all else.

      When Prayers for the Dead actually began in the Christian Church they were very simple and marked by a true reserve because of our ignorance.  They were merely prayers for the soul’s rest, and that it might be placed at God’s Right Hand.  But the mind of man is impatient of restraint and so something more definite was wanted to pray for.  The order of thought and feeling seems to have been somewhat on this line, though of course not always definitely and consciously, nor all at once, but extending through several centuries.  (1) Prayer implies need.  (2) Need suggests imperfection.  (3) Imperfection involves progress.  (4) Progress indicates purification.  (5) Purification demands suffering, and from this came the fully developed mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory which means purification based on the fact that the full penal consequences of sin are not all remitted in this life.

      It is unnecessary to stay to controvert this in detail, but this much may be said: (1) We can readily see how far all this is from New Testament simplicity; and (2) Suffering is not necessarily remedial and purifying; it often hardens.  Joy is on the whole quite as purgative as suffering, and, some would say, much more so.

      This was the state of the case before the Reformation, and we are at once brought to

      4.  The Teaching of the Church of England.

      This calls for our most careful attention and study, and we have to note the following stages of the history.

      (a) In 1549 came the first Reformed Prayer Book, and in it were prayers for the dead, distinct and definite.  The Prayer now called the Prayer for the Church Militant was then headed “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church,” and a petition for the departed included in the prayer.  There were also prayers for the dead in the Burial Service.

      (b) In 1552, came the second Reformed Prayer Book.  From this prayers for the dead were deliberately omitted, and the words “militant here in earth” added to the heading of the prayer.  The Burial Service was altered in accordance with this so as to express the present joy of the holy dead, “with whom souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.”  One of the Homilies speaks in unmistakable plainness of the needlessness of prayers for the dead. [Seventh Homily, Second Book.  On Prayer.]  This was published within ten years of the Prayer Book of 1552.

      (c) At the time of the revision of 1662 a proposal was made to omit the words “militant here in earth” but it was rejected, and there they stand to this day, a thanksgiving for the departed alone being added.

      This is the Church of England history on the subject, clear and definite, and surely capable of only one meaning.

      It is said, however, that there are two passages where we pray for the dead.

      (1) In the Post-Communion Collect.  “That we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.”  But surely the Church above has obtained “remission”.  It is almost impossible to be patient with an argument of this kind.  It shows the sore straits to which those who use it are put.  These words were the work of men who deliberately omitted Prayers for the Dead in 1552.

      (2) “That with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom.”  But this is a statement about them, and a prayer for ourselves.  It is in the prayer for the Church Militant, and that phrase covers the whole prayer.  We thank God for the departed.  We do not pray for them, for they do not need our prayer.

      Such is the Church of England history and doctrine.  And if it be said, as it has been sometimes, that Prayers for the Dead have never been forbidden in the Church of England, we reply that this is true in word but false in fact.  What is the meaning of the changes made in 1552?  Either they mean something or they do not.  If they do not, or did not, why were they made?  Indeed, we may ask what any of the Reformation changes meant?  In the beginning of our Prayer Book we have, “Of Ceremonies, why some be Abolished, and some Retained.”  The prayer for the dead was one of those things that were abolished.  Omission, therefore, clearly means prohibition.  To say simply that a thing is “not forbidden” would justify almost anything that an individual clergyman might choose to adopt.

      The question has naturally obtained renewed attention through the war, and certain statements of representative men compel a fresh consideration of the position of the Bible on the subject.  Some who before the war had expressed themselves strongly in opposition to the practice have since modified their views, at least to the extent of permitting the private use of intercession for the departed.  But the enquiry is at once raised whether these prayers are for the Christian or for the non-Christian dead.  If for the Christian, what are we to ask on their behalf?  The New Testament is, as we have seen, quite clear as to the absence of sin, sorrow, suffering, and temptation in the future life of the redeemed, and to pray for one who has passed away believing in Christ surely reflects on his position and satisfaction in the immediate presence of his Master.  For this reason there does not seem any call for prayer, but only for that thankful commemoration of the departed, about which there is no question.

      But another enquiry at once arises.  Is it possible in such circumstances as those of war to limit our prayers to the faithful departed?  Is there not an equally instinctive desire, indeed a greater longing, to pray for those of whose salvation we are not certain?  But if so, we are at once faced with the solemn and serious idea of a second probation, “the Larger Hope,” and again we are compelled to ask: Is this according to Scripture?  If so, it is impossible to limit it to soldiers, for it must necessarily be extended to all who in any way yield their lives for a particular cause.  And if a second probation is thought to be true, why not a third and a fourth and, indeed, many more, since there does not seem to be any valid reason for limiting the “chance” to a single opportunity.

      It is essential to remember that Scripture, not feeling, is our guide and guard in all vital matters.  We are not to imagine just what we wish and then regard that as necessarily right, for, if our desires and Scripture should clash, one or other must give way.  Surely Scripture is intended to correct and even transform our feelings and desires.

      May we not also ask whether the war with all its strain and stress, great as they are, can really make such a change as is involved in praying for the departed?  If the practice was wrong before, it must still be wrong, while if it is right now, it must have been right before.  Such a revolution as is here implied cannot be justified even by the war.  And, further, it cannot be limited to those who were killed in the war.

      And so we conclude that the supreme requirement for this practice is authority, and as no man has returned from the grave to tell us anything of the future life, it is obvious that the one Authority available is that of God.  We know that Scripture is silent, that the earliest Church is equally silent, and that only natural feeling and affection can be adduced for the practice.  But this, as we have seen, is obviously insufficient in the face of ignorance of the conditions of the future life.

      We must not fail to notice how the New Testament meets the supposed demand for Prayers for the Dead.

      5.  The Safeguard against Prayers for the Dead.

      (a) The New Testament generally is our best safeguard.

      The burden there is on “now”.  The whole stress is on the present.  We are to pray for others now, work for them now, endeavour to save them now.  We intercede for them now because of their need.  There is no revelation of need then, but just the opposite.

      (b) The doctrine of Justification specifically is our perfect safeguard.

      The root of Prayers for the Dead is failure to realize what Justification means.  We are “accounted righteous before God” from the very moment we accept Christ.  This Justification settles at once and for ever our position before God.  Our spiritual standing is unchanged through life, and our title to Heaven is at once and for ever given.  Justification is not repeated, it is permanent, and this settles the question of Heaven and God’s presence once for all.  We must ever remember that the Romish doctrine of Purgatory is not connected with Sanctification but with Justification.  It is not part of a process for making Christians holier, but a supplementary process rendered necessary because all the penal consequences are not remitted in this life.  Purgatory is required because the debt is not fully discharged here.  But what saith the Scripture?  “There is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1).  If only we teach, preach, live, and enjoy that blessed truth, we shall never use Prayers for the Dead.  We can now say with all our hearts and with full assurance—

“Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness

My beauty are, my glorious dress,

’Midst flaming worlds in these array’d,

With joy shall I lift up my head “

Chapter  XVII – Conclusion

      Although we have been concerned in this part with matters of difference between Christian people, this book must not close with controversy.  It is often a cause of deep sadness and sorrow to realize the differences between Christian men in the face of all the great needs of the world which is yet so largely without Christ, without God, without hope.  The need is as imperative as it was in the days of old, for men who have “understanding of the times” and of what the Church of God ought to do.  In this chapter we desire to call special attention to three great realities which are at the very foundation of Christianity and of all true life and Churchmanship.  A careful consideration of these fundamental facts should go far to enable us to resolve our differences with our fellow Christians, and to realize the purpose for which our Master sent the Church into the world.

      1.  There is a Work to be done by us. – Just before our Lord’s Ascension, He said to His disciples, “Ye shall be My witnesses ... to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).  How very partially and incompletely this work of witnessing to the world has been done is evident to all who know anything of the state of the world at the present time.  At home there are millions of our fellow countrymen outside the pale of every Church of whatever name.  Probably 90 percent of the people attend no place of worship on Sundays.  There are also unsolved problems of our social life crying out for solution by Christian men.  Only as the great principles of the Christian religion are brought to bear upon them will they be healed.

      In the Dominions Overseas the call to the Christian Church is loud and clear.  The possibilities of Christian progress in Canada, Australia, Africa, and elsewhere are almost endless, and the twofold work of evangelization and edification waits to be done by loving and loyal hearts who are filled with earnestness and enthusiasm for God.

      And what are we to say of the great world outside our own Empire, the vast heathen world with its millions yet unevangelized?  Some fields are not accessible; others are accessible, but not yet occupied; and yet again, there are other fields which are nominally occupied, but only in part.  Our Master’s call and command is clear: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).

      This great duty of the evangelization of the world is the truest criterion of the spiritual life and power of the Church.  It has been so in all ages.  The Church has flourished in exact proportion to her missionary spirit, and declined as the spirit of evangelization has been lost or neglected.  Whenever the Church has “lengthened her cords” she has thereby, by a remarkable law of the spiritual world, “strengthened her stakes.”  This “forward movement” keeps the Church strong and pure, and enables her to see the true perspective and maintain the right proportion of things.  The Christian Gospel is preeminently a message to pass on, to proclaim, to share, and in doing this we not only fulfill our Master’s command, but we assure our faith and strengthen our own life in the realities of the Gospel.

      In this great work it is the barest truth to say that the British Empire has one of the most splendid opportunities given to it by God, and as the greatest Church organization within the British Empire the Church of England has an almost unique opportunity.  The true spirit and purpose of Empire will never be realized apart from Christianity, and only as the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour goes forward side by side with the extension and consolidation of the Empire can we for an instant expect to have the blessing of God upon our race.  The following words of the Marquis of Salisbury (then Lord Cranborne), which were uttered at the Centenary Meeting of the Church Missionary Society in 1889, are still true today.

            “It is only because we know that in the train of the British Government comes the preaching of the Church of Christ, that we are able to defend the Empire of which we are so proud. ... I do not care in what quarter of the globe it may be, I do not care what may be the political exigencies of the moment, I do not care what colleges of secular instruction you may establish; but unless, sooner or later, in due and proper time, you carry with those institutions the definite teaching of Christianity, you have done nothing at all.” [Quoted in Stock’s Short Handbook of Missions, p. 169.]

      2.  There is a Power assured to us. – In view of the overwhelming calls and responsibilities involved in what has now been said we are apt to become depressed and despairing as to the result.  When we consider, moreover, what the Church of Christ ought to be, and how deeply she has failed in carrying out her Lord’s commission, we are inclined to give up all hope until we remember that there is a power within the Church which is more than sufficient for all emergencies and possibilities.  To us comes the word given to the people of old, “My Spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not” (Hag. 2:5).  In the Acts of the Apostles we are told not only of the work of witnessing to be done, but the Divine power with which it was to be accomplished.  “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you” (1:8), and if only we are willing to receive and obey that Divine gracious power, we shall quickly see what results will accrue to our simple unquestioning faith and obedience.  “I believe in the Holy Ghost” is our word of Confession in the public Services, and if these words express our real faith we shall find that the ability to do the will of God is assured to all His people.  It has been calculated that there are at least ten million communicants in the various Churches of Christ, and if only one half of these were filled with the Spirit of Christ and became possessed with the thought of responsibility to their Master for the evangelization of the world, it would not be very long before the whole human race were made aware of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

      3.  There is a Hope to sustain us. – Amid all the difficulties of modern life, the differences among Christian people, and the pressing problems awaiting solution, the one expectation of the Church is the Coming of the Lord.  While we strain every nerve to evangelize the world in this generation, our eyes must ever be fixed on “that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).  This is at once the expectation, the inspiration, and the joy of the Church, and even this will be but the first stage in a series of great events which shall usher in the completion of the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of our Lord, the final triumph of good, and the fulfillment of God’s eternal purposes for the world.  With all these glorious certainties awaiting us in the future we must continue in prayer, in effort, in earnestness and holiness of life, “looking for and halting unto the coming of the day of God,” that great and glorious time when “the last enemy” shall have been destroyed, when Christ shall have put “all things under His feet,” and when “God shall be all in all.”

Appendix – A Short Bibliography

      The following list of books is suggested as likely to prove useful in the further study of particular questions discussed in the preceding pages.  The list makes no claim to completeness and is offered primarily as a guide to students and younger readers.  It is regretted that many of the books mentioned are out of print and only available second hand.

BAILLIE, D. M.  God Was in Christ. (Faber.)

BALLEINE, G. R.  The Layman’s History of the Church of England. (C.B.R. Press.)

—A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England. (C.B.R. Press.)

BARNES-LAWRENCE, A. E.  A Churchman and His Church. (C.B.R. Press.)

—The Holy Communion. (C.B.R. Press.)

—Infant Baptism. (Marshall.)

BRUNNER, E.  The Mediator. (Lutterworth.)

—Our Faith. (S.C.M. Press.)

CARTER, C. S.  The English Church and the Reformation. (Longmans.)

CULLMANN, O.  Baptism in the New Testament. (S.C.M. Press.)

DALE, R. W.  The Atonement. (Independent Press.)

—Christian Doctrine. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

DENNEY, J.  The Death of Christ. (Tyndale Press.)

—Jesus and the Gospel. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

DIMMOCK, N.  The Doctrine of the Sacraments. (Longmans.)

—The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. (Longmans.)

DRURY, T. W.  How We Got Our Prayer Book. (Nisbet.)

FLEMINGTON, W. F.  The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism. (S.P.C.K.)

FORSYTH, P. T.  The Person and Place of Jesus Christ. (Independent Press.)

—The Work of Christ. (Independent Press.)

—The Church and the Sacraments. (Independent Press.)

GILBERT, T. W.  Confirming and Being Confirmed. (C.B.R. Press.)

GORE, C.  Roman Catholic Claims. (Longmans.)

—Belief in God. (Murray.)

GUILLEBAUD, H. E.  Why The Cross? (I.V.F.)

HABERSHON, A. W.  The Catechism of the Church of England. (C.B.R. Press.)

HAGUE, DYSON.  The Story of the English Prayer Book. (C.B.R. Press.)

—Through the Prayer Book. (C.B.R. Press.)

—The Holy Communion of the Church of England. (C.B.R. Press.)

HAMMOND, T. C.  In Understanding Be Men. (I.V.F.)

—Reasoning Faith. (I.V.F.).

HARRISON, D. E. W.  The Book of Common Prayer. (Canterbury.)

HERKLOTS, H. G. G.  These Denominations. (S.C.M. Press.)

HITCHCOCK, F. R. M.  Transubstantiation. (C.B.R. Press.)

HORT, F. J. A.  The Christian Ecclesia. (Macmillan.)

KERR, W. S.  A Handbook on the Papacy. (Marshall, Morgan & Scott.)

Knox, E. A.  The Tractarian Movement, 1833–1845. (Putnam.)

LIDDON, H. P.  The Divinity of Our Lord. (Longmans.)

LIGHTFOOT, J. B.  The Christian Ministry (Essay in Commentary on Philippians).  (Macmillan.)

LITTON, A. E.  An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology.

MACHEN, J.  The Christian Faith in the Modern World. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

MAXWELL, W. D.  An Outline of Christian Worship. (O.U.P.)

MEYRICK, F.  Scriptural and Catholic Truth and Worship.  (Skeffingtons.)

MITCHELL, A.  This Service.  (C.B.R. Press.)

MOULE, H. C. G.  Outlines of Christian Doctrine. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

MOULE, H. C. G.; DRURY, T. W.; GIRDLESTONE, R. B.  English Church Teaching. (Longmans.)

NEILL, STEPHEN.  Foundation Beliefs. (S.P.C.K.)

ORR, JAMES.  The Faith of a Modern Christian. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

—The Christian View of God and the World. (Elliot.)

—The Virgin Birth of Christ. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

—The Resurrection of Jesus. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

QUICK, O. C.  The Christian Sacraments. (Nisbet.)

RAMSEY, A. M.  The Resurrection of Christ. (Bles.)

RICHARDSON, ALAN.  Christian Apologetics. (S.C.M. Press.)

RYLE, J. C.  Knots Untied. (Thynne.)

SALMON, G.  The Infallibility of the Church. (John Murray.)

SIMPSON, P. C.  The Fact of Christ. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

STEWART, A.  Roman Dogma and Scripture Truth. (I.V.F.)

STIBBS, A. M.  The Church: Universal and Local. (C.B.R. Press.)

TAYLOR, F. J.  The Church of God. (Canterbury Press.)

—Into Thy Courts. (C.B.R. Press.)

TEMPLE, W.  Citizen and Churchman. (Eyre & Spottiswoode.)

—Christus Veritas. (Macmillan.)

THOMAS, W. H. GRIFFITH.  The Principles of Theology. (C.B.R. Press.)

—Christianity is Christ. (C.B.R. Press.)

—A Sacrament of Our Redemption. (C.B.R. Press.)

—The Holy Spirit of God. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

WARFIELD, B. B.  The Person and Work of Christ. (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing CO.)

WHALE, J. S.  Christian Doctrine. (C.U.P.)

Use Back button to return to Contents Page