Your thoughts on Augustus Toplady?

The ordering of the Decalogue in the 1662 BCP communion service does not follow Luther's order or the Roman Catholic order, both of which drop the prohibition of images. That alone shows the Protestant nature of the Decalogue in the 1662 BCP communion service. Secondly, Cranmer utilized the liturgy of the early church to show that the Protestant faith is catholic with a little c. His purpose was not to affirm anything that would imply the revisionism of Tractarianism, high church Arminianism, or even the high church Carolines. Cranmer's influences were the Lutherans and the Puritans/Calvinists/Zwinglians. So you can repeat your mantra about the Sarum til the cows come home. It will not, however, make the 1662 BCP Anglo-Catholic. The 1552 BCP has some omissions that were later put back in the 1662, including the portions at the giving of the bread and wine where the elements are called the body and blood of Christ:

1552 BCP:

Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving.​

And the Minister that delyvereth the cup, shal saye,​

Drinke this in remembraunce that Christ's bloude was shed for thee, and be thankefull. ​

​

1552 Communion Service.​

​

Compare that to the 1662 BCP:

​

one, he shall say, ​

HE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.​

And the Minister that delivereth the Cup to any one shall say,​

HE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.​

1662 BCP Communion Service.​

​

The Sydney Anglicans would prefer the 1552 BCP. I have no problem with the 1662 BCP. After having read the Puritan alternative, I think the 1662 BCP is superior: 1661 BCP as Amended by the Westminster Divines.

The only reservations I have are the false revisionism you're reading into the 1662 BCP. When you say that Calvinism is not Cranmer's intention I say that is obviously an extremely prejudicial point of view, especially in light of what Ashley Null and Diarmaid MacCullough had to say about Cranmer's theology.

And of course, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and the other Protestant Reformers equally condemned the radical reformation and the Catabaptists/Anabaptists.

I should add that I do object to the 1928 BCP because of prayers for the dead, prayers of oblation, and other problems. The 1662 BCP has none of that.

Charlie

 

The liturgies in this prayer book had a special attraction for me because of a certain​

discovery: I noticed that legitimate elements from the Early Church have been integrated with​

their aesthetic qualities intact without neglecting the most important factor: the liturgies,​

particularly Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion (the chief services)4 are​

permeated through and through with a genuine reformed theology having revivalistic​

elements. It was because I came to a living faith through the witness of evangelical circles in​

the Anglo-Saxon world, that the importance of a revivalistically-oriented liturgy was so​

relevant to me. It is often the case that liturgy and ceremony are rejected by evangelically minded​

churches. This fact became for me a challenge to show through the Book of Common​

Prayer that liturgy and revivalistic theology can go along together without contradicting one​

another. It became a concern to me to present the Book of Common Prayer authorized in​

1662 as one of the most precious gems among Christian liturgies.​

​

Samuel Leuenberger, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's Immortal Bequest, The Churchman 106/1, 1992. Page 1.​

​

"b) Holy Communion
The Decalogue stands almost at the beginning of the eucharistic liturgy and probably owes
that position to John Hooper. They are intended to convict the hearer of his sinfulness." (Ibid., p. 6).​

 

Evening Prayer: 1662 Book of Common Prayer with the 1662 Lectionary readings.

 

See the part I bolded. Not only is that false, it is insulting. I guess it is common around here to insult and denigrate those responsible for religious liberty.

 

Well, since the original Puritans incorporated many of the elements of Cranmer's liturgy and most "modern" Puritans have services that lack a confession and absolution, the reading of the Decalogue, the Psalter, the OT reading, and Gospel/NT reading I think the charge is justified. The modern church growth movement (i.e. Pentecostalism and pragmatics over against doctrinal teaching) has dumbed down the teaching of the Scriptures and dogmatic doctrine in favor of an empty emotionalism and pop songs.

Even the high church people are not that far gone.

 

I have worshiped in Baptist and Quaker churches where the service was beautiful, dignified, and deeply moving. I am not talking about Pentecostals and "modern" Puritans.

 

I've never been to a Quaker service but they are part of the Anabaptist tradition. Their de-emphasis on Scripture and preaching is problematic, imo. Baptists have a bland service that teaches nothing in the liturgy. The purpose of a good liturgy is to recall and recite important doctrine so that it is memorized by oral repetition. Scripture can be memorized this way as well.

Everyone should be able to say the Apostles Creed, the Decalogue, and the Lord's Prayer. That's even in the Catechism.

 

AMEN!

 

Looks like the "catholic" church is the invisible church
Charlie Ray!
The Catholic Church, which we all profess to believe in as an Article of Faith and have it inserted in all our Creeds, is by our
Canons defined as 'The whole Congregation of Christian People, dispersed throughout the whole world. In which Definition our Church speaks no other than the sense of the Scriptures and the whole primitive Church, which have taught that the Catholic and Universal Church is a society or Corporation of men collected out of all Nations and united to each other by such bands as are proper to a society of men to make them a Body Corporate. This is plain from the scriptures , where the Church is called and set forth by such names as are commonly used to denote a Society or Corporation of men. Thus in the Gospels it is usually called the Kingdom of Heaven.
Thomas Brett, Anglican Bishop & Primus.


So much for your Church invisible!

 

[/quote] "There were Anglican representatives at the synod who upheld the Dutch condemnation of Arminianism.[/quote]

What does this mean in real terms, they were sent to Dort at the order of the King, James I. They did not represent the mind of the Church! Calvinist quarrels had no place in Anglican theology! Anglican theology depended solely , at that time, on Christ's Revelation & Councils.
It's also interesting that most of the Anglican bishops who were interested in Calvinism repented and changed their minds when the horror of Calvinism became understood.

 

I don't recall saying that it was.

You may be pleased to know that the Decalogue is now also part of the Roman Liturgy in The Anglican Use and the Ordinariates.

That's something we can agree on. Apart from the Psalms, I don't need a Prayer Book in my hands to follow Mattins, Evensong or Holy Communion.

 

During the Civil War, the calvinist element split, the gentry remained presbyterian , and the others became , i.e. Congregationalists, Baptists and possibly others. The Independants, who were free church, as it were, gained control of the army and these peace loving people took part in massacres both in England and in Ireland. They murdered both Welsh women at Naseby and Irish women in Ireland as well as men.
If you'r going to comment study at least!

 

The purpose of the Decalogue being in the liturgy, by the way, is to show the contrast between law and gospel. The Decalogue was put there by the influence of John Hooper. In the Reformation the Lutheran view and the Calvinist view recognized that God is so holy that no one can meet the moral demands of God's law. (Matthew 5:17-20, 48; Psalm 14; Romans 3:10-23). Therefore, the only hope for anyone is the substitutionary atonement and the sinless life of Christ. He alone fulfills the law for the believer. (Romans 10:1-4; Philippians 3:9). The purpose of the atonement is not expiation but propitiation. Only the active and passive obedience of Christ applied forensically and vicariously to undeserving sinners can make anyone just or right before God in the courtroom of God's moral law.

By that standard, then, anyone who trusts in their own merits, works, achievements, or anything else they do is therefore yet under the wrath of God. (Romans 5:1-11; John 3:16-36; Romans 10:1-17).

Basically, semi-pelagianism is a false religion.

The only way of salvation is an Augustinian emphasis on salvation as a completely sovereign grace of God. The golden chain of salvation begins with unconditional election. (Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; Romans 9:11-13).

 

"There were Anglican representatives at the synod who upheld the Dutch condemnation of Arminianism.[/quote]

What does this mean in real terms, they were sent to Dort at the order of the King, James I. They did not represent the mind of the Church! Calvinist quarrels had no place in Anglican theology! Anglican theology depended solely , at that time, on Christ's Revelation & Councils.
It's also interesting that most of the Anglican bishops who were interested in Calvinism repented and changed their minds when the horror of Calvinism became understood.[/quote]

Anglo-Catholicism does not represent either the mind of the universal church or the Anglican Church since it is unfaithful to the Anglican Formularies and out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople. So what's you're point? Basically your Anglo-popery is sectarian on all fronts. While you might have a majority in the CoE at the moment, it does not logically follow that you have any legitimate claim to being faithful to what the Anglican Formularies define as "Anglican." The Puritans, as bad as they are, have more in common with Anglicanism than Tractarianism does. The point of all my posts thus far is that Calvinism is the legitimate heir of the English Reformation. That's substantiated by the Anglican Formularies, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, the Homilies, and even the Synod of Dort.

The "catholic" faith is Protestant. True Anglicans have more in common with the Puritans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians than with Tractarianism, popery, or eastern semi-pelagianism.

As we say in the Bible belt: "Dem's fightin' words."

Please don't draw any more lines in the sand because I can assure you that I have Scripture, the Formularies, and history on my side. And you should note that even before the Reformation Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the Lollards were around. The Reformation didn't come from nowhere.

The "mind" of the church is Scripture and Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura!

Charlie

 

I'd appreciate it if people would stop using inaccurate polemical terms like "Anglo-popery." Anglo-Catholics are supposed to be welcome at this forum. We seem to take a lot of undeserved heat here.

 

When the same courtesy is extended to Evangelicals and Calvinists here you might have a point. It's obvious that the Anglo-Catholics have a false sense of authority. The only authority I submit to is Scripture primarily and the Anglican Formularies secondarily. The only traditions that are permitted are those that are not repugnant to Holy Scripture.

I might add that Anglo-Catholics violate the black rubric and the prohibitions against lifting up and adoring the creatures of bread and wine on a continual basis. I cannot in good conscience participate in an Anglo-Catholic service any more than I could partake of a Roman Catholic mass. I can, however, participate in a Reformed Anglican service and many other Evangelical communion services with no problem. I took communion with the Lutherans on Easter in fact. Even the Lutherans believe that faith is part of the communion service.

The hocus pocus view is forbidden by the 39 Articles and the black rubric, so the accusation that ACs are not genuinely Anglican is a legitimate criticism. Given those facts, it seems to me that any "heat" ACs take is well deserved. Revisionism is inexcusable and flatly a matter of dissimulation, imo.

Sincerely,

Charlie

 

Unfortunately, the bishop is not an infallible interpreter of the Anglican Formularies Simply because you can quote an Anglo-Catholic bishop dissimulating on the plain text of the Articles does not make it a legitimate expression of what the 39 Articles plainly teach. Article 19 nowhere mentions a worldwide communion. A "congregation" is obviously a localized one, a "parish" so to speak. Therefore, the visible church is wherever the body of Christ gathers together for worship on Sunday mornings and where the Gospel of sovereign grace is rightly preached and the two sacraments are rightly administered. Anglo-Catholicism is no more a legitimate expression of Anglicanism since the English Reformation than gay marriage is a legitimate form of marriage.

"The authority and character of the Church was one of the principle areas of disagreement at the time of the Reformation. We have already seen that the Thirty-Nine Articles very distinctly subordinate the authority of the Church to the authority of Scripture. Of the character of the Church not much is said, but what is said is of great significance. . . . The nineteenth Article defines the church, not by reference to the ministers, but in terms of the congregation." -- Rev. Dr. D. Broughton Knox, Sydney Anglicans.​

​

From: Part IX: Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith: The Doctrine of the Church and the Denominations​

​

Knox also said:

The visible church is the congregation worshipping according to the Word of God, and there are as many visible churches as there are true congregations.The Articles do not speak specifically of the 'invisible Church' but have only passing references. It is a mistake to think that the Articles deny the concept of the invisible or mystical Church, or to misread Article 19 as though it began 'The Church of Christ is a visible congregation', as is frequently done.ii Nor is there any ground for the assertion of the Vicar of All Saints', Margaret Street, London, that 'The Church of Engand repudiates any notion of an invisible church.'iii The concept of the invisible Church was uniformly held by the Reformers and was affirmed as early as the Bishop's Book of 1537 and the Thirteen Articles of 1538. It would be very unlikely, and in fact is not the case, that the Thirty-Nine Articles repudiated the concept of the invisible or mystical Church of Christ, or fell into the mistake of which Hooker castigated when he wrote: 'For lack of diligent observing the difference between the church of God mystical and visible, the oversights are neither few nor light that have been committed'.iv
Article 19 is concerned with the church in its visible aspect -- the visible congregation. But the opening clause of Article 26 which also speaks of the 'visible Church' implies a contrast with the Church in its invisible aspect round the throne of God, where the evil is not mingled with the good. The word 'Church' appears to be used of the 'invisible' Church in Article 27, which states that 'they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church', the mystical body of Christ; for all without exception who outwardly receive baptism are admitted to the visible church. But right reception (Latin recte), that is with a believing heart, is the requisite for being engrafted into Christ and into the assembly gathered around Him in heaven. (Ibid.)
As you can see, Knox asserts that the "invisible" church is taught in the Bishop's Book of 1537 and the Thirteen Articles of 1538.
Would anyone else care to dispute the historical facts?
Charlie

 

What does this mean in real terms, they were sent to Dort at the order of the King, James I. They did not represent the mind of the Church! Calvinist quarrels had no place in Anglican theology! Anglican theology depended solely , at that time, on Christ's Revelation & Councils.
It's also interesting that most of the Anglican bishops who were interested in Calvinism repented and changed their minds when the horror of Calvinism became understood.[/quote]

Anglo-Catholicism does not represent either the mind of the universal church or the Anglican Church since it is unfaithful to the Anglican Formularies and out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople. So what's you're point? Basically your Anglo-popery is sectarian on all fronts. While you might have a majority in the CoE at the moment, it does not logically follow that you have any legitimate claim to being faithful to what the Anglican Formularies define as "Anglican." The Puritans, as bad as they are, have more in common with Anglicanism than Tractarianism does. The point of all my posts thus far is that Calvinism is the legitimate heir of the English Reformation. That's substantiated by the Anglican Formularies, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, the Homilies, and even the Synod of Dort.

You'r very free with labels, you fixate on Anglo Catholicism, yet I'm not an Anglo Catholic and never have been,though I would accept their version of things than yours. I accept the Councils from antiquity and accept the teaching of the English Reformation, through the English fathers of the Later reformation, i.e. the Laudian and restoration bishops and scholars. The 18th, Century blowhards, you support, who have abandoned their faith are the source of much destruction and hardship.

Anglicanism, is the distillation of two thousand years Catholicity, or so I was always taught and nothing that you have written, tells me any thing different! Your use of the term,"Anglican Formularies is interesting, around the North of England , most if not all the Anglican Churches I saw had cards in the Church Porch, bearing the legend, 'Christ's Revelation, enclosed in Scripture and Interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council! Seven Ecumenical Councils! It is this that makes Anglican Tradition and its inheritance over two millenia!

The "catholic" faith is Protestant. True Anglicans have more in common with the Puritans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians than with Tractarianism, popery, or eastern semi-pelagianians.
As we say in the Bible belt: "Dem's fightin' words."
Please don't draw any more lines in the sand because I can assure you that I have Scripture, the Formularies, and history on my side. And you should note that even before the Reformation Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the Lollards were around. The Reformation didn't come from nowhere..
The "mind" of the church is Scripture and Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura!

The Catholic faith is that revealed by Christ and entered in Scripture, the doctrine stems from Northern Europe in the 16th, Century and has been taught by the Church in England from antiquity. It has nothing added, nor has anything been omitted! The Anglican Church is a Western orthodox Church, or in its own words, A Community of Catholic Believers; Puritans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians are purveyors of false ideas, who have left the original faith and dwell amongst false teaching!
We hold firmly to Scripture, that's not our problem, our problem is to stop the sectaries from distorting the Word, through their own arrogance.

 

Anglo-Catholicism does not represent either the mind of the universal church or the Anglican Church since it is unfaithful to the Anglican Formularies and out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople. So what's you're point? Basically your Anglo-popery is sectarian on all fronts. While you might have a majority in the CoE at the moment, it does not logically follow that you have any legitimate claim to being faithful to what the Anglican Formularies define as "Anglican." The Puritans, as bad as they are, have more in common with Anglicanism than Tractarianism does. The point of all my posts thus far is that Calvinism is the legitimate heir of the English Reformation. That's substantiated by the Anglican Formularies, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, the Homilies, and even the Synod of Dort.

You'r very free with labels, you fixate on Anglo Catholicism, yet I'm not an Anglo Catholic and never have been,though I would accept their version of things than yours. I accept the Councils from antiquity and accept the teaching of the English Reformation, through the English fathers of the Later reformation, i.e. the Laudian and restoration bishops and scholars. The 18th, Century blowhards, you support, who have abandoned their faith are the source of much destruction and hardship.

Anglicanism, is the distillation of two thousand years Catholicity, or so I was always taught and nothing that you have written, tells me any thing different! Your use of the term,"Anglican Formularies is interesting, around the North of England , most if not all the Anglican Churches I saw had cards in the Church Porch, bearing the legend, 'Christ's Revelation, enclosed in Scripture and Interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council! Seven Ecumenical Councils! It is this that makes Anglican Tradition and its inheritance over two millenia!

The "catholic" faith is Protestant. True Anglicans have more in common with the Puritans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians than with Tractarianism, popery, or eastern semi-pelagianians.
As we say in the Bible belt: "Dem's fightin' words."
Please don't draw any more lines in the sand because I can assure you that I have Scripture, the Formularies, and history on my side. And you should note that even before the Reformation Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the Lollards were around. The Reformation didn't come from nowhere..
The "mind" of the church is Scripture and Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura!

The Catholic faith is that revealed by Christ and entered in Scripture, the doctrine stems from Northern Europe in the 16th, Century and has been taught by the Church in England from antiquity. It has nothing added, nor has anything been omitted! The Anglican Church is a Western orthodox Church, or in its own words, A Community of Catholic Believers; Puritans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians are purveyors of false ideas, who have left the original faith and dwell amongst false teaching!
We hold firmly to Scripture, that's not our problem, our problem is to stop the sectaries from distorting the Word, through their own arrogance.[/quote]
Anglicanism is represented by the English Reformation and the Anglican Formularies. Everything else is not legitimate Anglicanism but a dissimulation of it.