Some Thoughts On The Church’s Mandate - In Covid Season And Out

A difficult and confusing time for the Church these last 10 months. How to navigate all things Covid-19... What with legitimate health concerns regarding risk for certain demographics, guidelines either recommended or mandated by State authorities, competing views among church members as to risks and what the church should and shouldn’t do. Central to this is: what does Scripture have to say to guide Church leaders in their decisions? Here are some considerations I’m presently thinking through.

It seems to me that many pastors and elders have assumed that it is their responsibility to not only encourage their church members follow these State Covid mandates at worship, but to enforce them. I want to challenge that assumption. But first things first: What kingdom does the Church belong to - 1) the kingdom of this world, 2) the kingdom of heaven, or 3) both? The working answer tends to be #3 based mostly on the Romans 13 passage on obedience to the civil magistrates. I’ll address that in a later paragraph. With the previous question as context another question follows: what is the Church’s duty in relation to the State?

Scripture’s answer as to what kingdom the Church belongs is #2 - the kingdom of heaven. Just like the law is not of faith (Gal 3:12), the Church is not of this world (John 17:14). Though Christians individually are citizens of both kingdoms the Church is not, even as Jesus Christ is not (John 18:36). The Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth. She is the sovereign embassy in this world of a heavenly kingdom under the dominion of Christ Jesus her Lord. She has one allegiance, one charter. From that flows her mandate and calling. And that mandate is to proclaim the gospel message (calling sinners out of sin and death), confess one Lord, one faith, one heavenly birth. And the sole duties of that calling are summed up as the ministry of word and sacrament (the means of grace). These are the ordained or mandated tasks given by Christ to pastors and elders, ambassadors of His local embassies in the world.

On the other hand, believers are citizens of both the civil earthly kingdom and the heavenly spiritual kingdom. The Church is not. She is Christ’s kingdom on earth and as such is not of this world (John 18:36; Heb 12:22, Gal 4:26).

He declared that his kingdom was not of this world. It is not of the same kind with worldly kingdoms; it has different ends to accomplish, and different means for the attainment of those ends. It is spiritual, that is, concerned with the religious or spiritual, as distinguished from the secular interests of men. It moves, therefore, in a different sphere from the State, and the two need never come into collision. (Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge)

The Church in this world is of the heavenly King. Her officers are His envoys. Her expertise is not in the disciplines or politics of this world but in the gospel means of grace, i.e. solely in the the things from above. Further, she is not a citizen nor agent of the State, the civil kingdom. She is an agent of Christ and her charter is to represent Him by preaching the gospel, calling sinners out of this world to salvation in Christ through faith, and to nurture and maintain believers in that faith. When a church loses sight of that unique heavenly calling she is inevitably tempted to wander into areas where angels fear to tread.

Like Augustine, Luther and Calvin defended in theory a two-kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in practice. More clearly than Augustine, Luther and Calvin articulated the distinction between the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. The former proceeds by the Word alone, not by the secular sword, they insisted... Because Christ inaugurated his kingdom and poured out his Spirit as a harbinger of the last days, this reign is partially realized and becomes visible through the gospel ministry. (The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way by Michael Horton, Chapter 28)

As pastors and elders wade into the murky marshes of State mandates they might soon find themselves enforcing those mandates with a sword. No mask? You’re not loving your brother! Sorry, you must leave the worship service. This is the implicit warning put out by church leaders. As a result, many believers are staying home on Sunday. Discouraged by it all they self exile. Discipline according to the State, not discipline according to Scripture.

So what about Romans 13? Well, I don’t think this passage is referring to the Church as an organization visa-vis the State. In Paul’s day the Church had no officially recognized civil standing. Individual Christians did. They were subjects of the State and obliged to submit to civil authority. The Church as a civil organization didn’t exist and thus wasn’t a legally recognized entity in the Roman Empire. Paul was addressing believers. So likewise, shepherds in the church should indeed admonish the saints to submit to civil authorities because, though citizens of heaven, they are also members of the civil kingdom. But it gets murky. The supreme “magistrate” of our day in the U.S. is the written law of the Constitution not a caesar or provincial governor. Not to mention in many locales the guidelines are optional and subject to interpretation. Yet church leaders often decide to make them mandatory. Murkier still. I would argue it is not the place of pastors and elders to require compliance/obedience to State guidelines as a condition of entrance to the worship service.

As a result, many Christians, because of enforced State guidelines have stopped coming to church altogether. It’s a situation that becomes more and more untenable as the weeks and months pass. Sheep are wandering from the fold. Virtual services on computer screens in individual homes fall way short of nourishing the saints before the heavenly throne of grace. Yet the State protocols stay in place! What to do?

Some church members believe it essential for all to wear masks and social distance. Others think it is unnecessary for all demographics. Some think that masks are necessary for all. Some think masks are ineffectual for the asymptomatic and preventing spread of the virus. Both can marshal supporting evidence from authoritative sources. I don’t think church leaders are called to sort out the “science.” What to do? Perhaps allow two or more services? One with masks/social distancing and one that is optional in order that none feel compelled to offend their consciences? The overall mission is: Tend the sheep. Feed the sheep. Caring for the souls of the saints should be the preeminent concern and duty of the church.

But what about those States mandating that churches should enforce the Covid guidelines? Well, what if next the State announces that all churches must worship only online for a period of two years due to the growing number of cases? [Cases - what does that even mean? But that’s for another time] Elders need to consider whether or not they want to be an enforcement arm of the State or ambassadors of the heavenly kingdom. Not an easy path forward given the authoritarian impulses of the State. And that path is all the more difficult because churches by and large have chosen to legally organize under the State as non-profit corporate citizens [501(c)(3)] under existing Federal IRS law. A very modern development.

Prior to 1954, there was no such thing as a 501(c)(3) church. All donations, contributions, gifts, etc. given to churches were automatically tax‑deductible under the old English common law, known as the "Law of Charities." Then in 1954, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D‑Texas) sponsored legislation which brought churches under the new 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue code. As a part of this legislation, churches would incorporate, and having that status, they could not be sued in a legal action. (History Of 501c3 Government Licensing Of Churches by David J. Stewart)

The result is that most churches now exist as civil corporate citizens, subject in some sense to the State, if you would. So there could be real negative judicial and financial consequences for any church organized under State law that deviates from State orders. This is another reason why it is essential for elders and leaders to consider the Church’s heavenly calling so that they may chart a faithful course in the face of encroaching Statism. No easy answers. But we look heavenward…

“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

The Apostolic Church

"The church is apostolic not because we can identify living apostles today but because it proclaims the apostolic doctrine in the power of the Spirit."

- Dr. Michael Horton

Seeing Christ Through The Law - Gospel Lens...

The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism

4. Christ is the substance and ground of the entire Scriptures. But the doctrine contained in the law and gospel is necessary to lead us to a knowledge of Christ and his benefits: for the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, constraining us to fly to him, and showing us what that righteousness is, which he has wrought out, and now offers unto us. But the gospel, professedly, treats of the person, office, and benefits of Christ. Therefore we have, in the law and gospel, the whole of the Scriptures, comprehending the doctrine revealed from heaven for our salvation. 

The principal differences between these two parts of the doctrine of the church, consists in these three things: 

1. In the subject, or general character of the doctrine, peculiar to each. The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ. 

2. In the manner of the revelation peculiar to each. The law is known from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed. 

3. In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience. Hereafter, however, more will be said upon this subject in the proper place.

Marks of a True Anglican Church

The question isn't so much whether episcopal polity is or isn't valid. The Reformers didn't consider it a deal-breaker when considering what constitutes a true church. In the last half of the 16th century the Church of England had an episcopal church government and was considered a true church by the Continental Reformers. Calvin recognized the Church of Poland, a reformed church with an episcopal polity. I think where things get murky is when episcopal polity is equated with a historical physical succession of bishops and as such a necessary component of the marks of a true church.

John Jewell, a bishop in the Church of England said it up well in one of the Homilies, part of the Anglican confessional standards:

The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people, "built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone." [Eph. 2:20] And it hath always three notes or marks, whereby it is known; pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith.

Now one can argue the meaning of those three marks, but conspicuously missing in Jewell's definition is any necessity of a physical succession of bishops or even an episcopal polity.

Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints...

Jude 1:3b.

The following quote was put forth by a commenter at Old Life as a defense of the Roman Catholic Church, and as an indictment of the Reformed churches that parted ways with Rome in the 16th century.

"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.” 

- Rev. James I. McCord, Presbyterian leader in the ecumenical movement and longtime president of Princeton Theological Seminary

Then logically on that basis, a completely heretical church is preferable to a doctrinally pure schism?? Please... And this is not said to defend schisms.

The schism condemned in the Bible is that which begins with a departure from the doctrine of faith handed down by the apostles as recorded in the Scriptures, not merely a break away from some outward organizational structure of the church. A fixed departure from truth into heresy or error would ultimately result in outward schism. So the concern of the apostles was the preservation of pure doctrine. Those that did depart from the apostolic faith as recorded in God's Word were those who were judged as schismatic. Thus the verdict of the reformers during the 16th century Reformation was that Rome, at the Council of Trent in 1563, departed from the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. In officially separating herself from pure doctrine, Rome separated herself from the true church. In effect, Trent was a schismatic document.

As set forth in Scripture the unity of Christ's church, which is his body, is not measured by something solely outward, nor is that unity maintained apart from holding fast to Christ’s true faith. To argue for Rome’s claim as the one true church on the basis of organizational history or succession of bishops sadly ignores the centrality of the gospel of Christ. And it was that gospel that Rome rejected at Trent (see Canons). The gospel declares that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It is the power of  God unto salvation for the lost (Rom. 1:16). And that gospel message is the means by which God establishes the church of Christ and the ground upon which He nourishes and maintains it. Without the true apostolic faith there is no church.

Is Rome a True Church?

I was asked this question, via email, in the context of what Anglicans believe.  To answer that I think it is helpful to look initially at the Church of England's own doctrinal and confession statements. Otherwise, we are left to any number of positions by various Anglicans that may or may not agree with their own standards.

More precisely, the question put to me was: Is Rome part of the visible church? The Church of England's own standard's, at a minimum, make the case that the Church of Rome has erred in doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there aren't any true Christians in the RCC and not that vestiges of the gospel cannot be found there. Rather, Rome since the Council of Trent has officially established herself in opposition to the gospel and specifically the doctrine of justification by faith only and not by any works, grace assisted or not.

Rome claims justification is initially begun by baptism and kept and grown by faith and grace assisted works of righteousness thus conflating justification and sanctification. Their teaching, in a nutshell, says we are saved by the combination of Christ's finished work and our continuing works.

 Article XI of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion reads:

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

At Trent Rome anathematized the teaching of this article, a doctrine succinctly expressed in any number of places in the Old and New Testament such as Rom 4:5; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16-21. As to the question of whether Rome has erred as a church or not let's look again at the 39 Articles:

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

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

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

So according Anglicanism's own confession of doctrine and faith, Rome as a church has erred in matters of doctrinal faith and administration of the Lord's Supper, teaching and requiring things not in accord with the Word of God. Finally John Jewell, in the Homily for Whit-Sunday (Book Of Homilies - part of the CoE's confessional standards) teaches what the Church of England believes to be the necessary  characteristics of a true church. These three marks are consistent with the other reformed churches of Europe of that time, and agree with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession of Faith written 80 years later:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

A fair conclusion based on the Church of England's own doctrinal standards would be that Rome does indeed fall short of the measure of a true visible church.

The Papal paper trail...

The following are various extracts from the Church of Rome Canon Law that Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop, the Church of England 1533-1553) collected possibly as early as 1530.  How does the modern Papacy reconcile itself to these rather colorful decrees and doctrines of Rome from an earlier age?

As far as I know, these have never been repudiated by the Vatican.  It's obvious by the time Trent rolled around that the road to the denial of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone had already been well traveled by Rome.  Question:  if these "infallible proclamations" are no longer operative, i.e. they are fallible, then how don't these edicts undermine Rome's apostolic succession in that they undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility?  And since the true ground of the church (in Rome's view) is the succession of the infallible seat of Peter, how doesn't this undermine the claim that Rome is the one true church?

A Collection of Extracts from the Canon Law, 

showing the extravagant pretensions of the Church of Rome[a].  

The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, collected and arranged by H. Jenkyns.

He that knowledgeth not himself to be under the bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome is ordained by God to have primacy over all the world, is an heretic, and cannot be saved, nor is not of the flock of Christ.

 All the decrees of the bishop of Rome ought to be kept perpetually of every man, without any repugnance, as God's word spoken by the mouth of Peter; and whosoever doth not receive them, neither availeth them the catholic faith, nor the four evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and shall have no forgiveness.

All kings, bishops, and noblemen, that believe or suffer the bishop of Rome's decrees in any thing to be violate, be accursed, and for ever culpable before God, as transgressors of the catholic faith.

The bishop of Rome hath authority to judge all men, and specially to discern the articles of the faith, and that without any council, and may assoil them that the council hath damned; but no man hath authority to judge him, nor to meddle with any thing that he hath judged, neither emperor, king, people, nor the clergy: and it is not lawful for any man to dispute of his power.

The bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, depose them from their states, and assoil their subjects from their oath and obedience to them, and so constrain them to rebellion.

The bishop of Rome may be judged of none but of God only; for although he neither regard his own salvation, nor no man's else, but draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps unto hell; yet may no mortal man in this world presume to reprehend him : forsomuch as he is called God, he may be judged of no man; for God may be judged of no man.

The bishop of Rome may open and shut heaven unto men.

He that maketh a lye to the bishop of Rome committeth sacrilege. 

The bishop of Rome is judge in temporal things, and hath two swords, spiritual and temporal.

The bishop of Rome may give authority to arrest men, and imprison them in manacles and fetters.

All manner of causes, whatsoever they be, spiritual or temporal, ought to be determined and judged by the clergy. 

And the bishop of Rome may compel by an oath, all rulers and other people, to observe, and cause to be observed, whatsoever the see of Rome shall ordain concerning heresy, and the fautors thereof; and who will not obey, he may deprive them of their dignities.

We obtain remission of sin, by observing of certain feasts, and certain pilgrimages in the jubilee and other prescribed times, by virtue of the bishop of Rome's pardons. 

He is no man-slayer that slayeth a man which is excommunicate.

A penitent person can have no remission of his sin, but by supplication of the priests

Another point of view from an English reformer, John Jewell's Reply Unto M. Harding:

"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]

"... This is [Rome's] holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]

"... if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]

"... The faith of Christ... goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]

"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

Two interesting footnotes from different portions of Jenkyns' text:
a [Burnet inserts these extracts under the year 1544, connecting them with an act then passed for the examination of canon laws. They are placed here on the authority of the following passage from Strype : "One of the first things wherein the archbishop shewed his good service to the church, was done in the parliament in the latter end of this year, 1533. When the supremacy came under debate, mid the usurped power of the bishop of Rome was propounded, then "the old collections of the new archbishop did him good service; for the chief, and in a manner the whole burden of this weighty cause was laid upon his shoulders." Strype, Cranmer, p. 32. These "old collections" are probably those which are still preserved at Lambeth under the title of Archbishop Cranmer's Collection of Laws. They were formed, perhaps, while he resided at Cambridge, and consist of a large number of passages, extracted at length from the canon law, and followed by that short summary of some of its most remarkable doctrines which is here printed. They were doubtless of great use in the discussions alluded to by Strype; but that was not the only nor the first occasion, in which they supplied the archbishop with arguments. He must have already availed himself of them, when in stating to the king his unwillingness to accept the see of Canterbury, he "disclosed therewithal the intolerable usurpation of the pope of Rome." See his Examination before Brokes. And he frequently recurs to them in his subsequent writings, particularly in the Ansner to the Devonshire Rebels, l.,49, and in his long Letter to queen Mary, in September, 1555.]

c [There is much ingenuity in the manner in which Innocent III. pressed this text into his service. According to him, as God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, so he made two great powers, the papal and the royal; " sed ilia quae pra-est diebus, id est, spiritualibus, " majorest; quaevero eamalibus, minori : ut quanta est inter so/em et/u- " nam, tanta mter pontifices et reges differentia cognoscatur." The precise difference, as calculated by the commentator, may be stated in the words of Jewel : "And how much the emperor is less, the gloss declareth by mathematical computation, saying, that the earth is seven times greater than the moon, and the sun eight times greater than the earth: so followeth it, that the pope's dignity is six and fifty times greater than the dignity of the emperor." Jewell, Sermon at Paul's Cross, and Reply to Harding's Answer, p. 29, and 215.]

Apostolic Succession Pt. 3 - A Cranmer postscript

As an addendum to Part 1 and Part 2, I would like to add some research from the award winning biography on Thomas Cranmer by the scholar Diarmaid MacColluch.  As already presented, I've seen no direct evidence in the historical record that the English reformers held to a doctrine of divinely instituted Apostolic Succession, as either an essential mark of a true church or necessary for the validity of the Sacraments.

John Jewell echoes other reformers such as Calvin, Vermigli, Bucer, and Bullinger in his Homily (part of the the CoE's formularies) when defining the three necessary marks or notes of a true church:  sound doctrine, the sacraments rightly administered, and the right exercise of ecclesiastical discipline.  Conspicuously missing is any mention of Apostolic Succession.


Similarly in Article XIX. Of the Church from the Thirty-Nine Articles, we find the first two marks:
The Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Likewise Hooker writes, “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.”

But are there clues or bits of insight in the historical record that would give us a window into Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's personal view concerning Apostolic Succession?  Here are some excerpts from the chapter Salvaging the Cause (pp. 276-279) in MacCulloch' biography concerning events of 1541:

... he [Cranmer] was otherwise engaged, mainly in presiding over the contentious work of the doctrinal commission set up by the King at the beginning of April... The doctrinal committee seems to have worked within a framework formed by seventeen set questions on doctrine... - The other notable feature is their [i.e. the surviving documents] collection of marginalia from King Henry in truculently reformist mood, questioning the scriptural origins of confirmation, unction and chrism, challenging the exclusive right of bishops to ordain clergy, and wanting proof for the origins of their office...

Cranmers' most extensive answers were made in relation to the definition of royal power in the Church... which now occupied six of the seventeen questions...

Even King Henry had questions concerning the origins of the office of ordination held by bishops.  MacCulloch continues as he describes Cranmer's peculiar and antiquated One Kingdom view of Christendom and that of royal power as pertains to the appointing of bishops.  Cranmer tackled the following question before the committee:


"Whether the apostles lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian king among them, made bishops by that necessity, or by authority given them by God?"  In this, he revealed a breathtaking skepticism about any independent character for the church.  His starting point was the basic character of a Christian polity, royal supremacy in its purest form:  God had delivered to 'all Christian princes... the whole cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things political and civil governance'.  Ministers within this commonwealth were divided between those whose functions were 'civil' and those 'of Gods' word'.  And 'comely ceremonies and solemnities' by which they were admitted (in other words, ordination and consecration in the case of clergy) were 'only for a good order and seemly fashion', without any special conferring of grace by the 'promise of God'.  The basic assumption had an important consequence for Cranmer's view of the course of Church history; it was a journey towards the righting of a wrong, the lack of proper authority in the apostolic Church, which had only been remedied when the first Christian rulers appeared, in the third-century Armenia and the Roman Empire under Constantine the Great.  The apostles of the first century AD had lacked 'remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointing of ministers' and had to make do with 'the consent of christian multitude among themselves'...

MacCulloch summarizes Cranmers' understanding:

Far from holding any doctrine of apostolic succession in 1540, therefore, Cranmer saw the first Christians casting round to create makeshift structures of authority:  'they were constrained of necessity to take such curates and priests as either they knew themselves to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the Spirit of God... that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them'.  Sometimes the apostles sent ministers to the people, sometimes the people chose their own.  Hence he had no difficulty in assenting to the idea Christian rulers could start the ministry off anew, creating bishops and priests, if they had no alternative... Cranmer affirmed that 'princes and governors' had as much right as bishops to make a priest, or even, as he had to admit on the analogy of the early Church, 'the people also by their election [i.e. choice].

In the above we may even see some seeds that contribute to the articles concerning ordination of ministers and ceremonies in the Church:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.  It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgement 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 other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
    Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

XXXVI.   Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.  The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered.

My main contention in these three posts on Apostolic Succession is that if an Anglican wants to hold a divinely instituted Apostolic Succession as necessary for a true church and for valid sacraments, he will not find its warrant in the 16th century English reformers, nor in the writings of early church fathers such as Jerome... let alone the New Testament.  So where is one to go to find direct support?  The only place I know of is either the medieval Roman church period or to the more recent Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century with its revisionist take on the English reformation.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 2 - Hooker and Jerome

As presented in Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 , the physical succession of bishops, as contended by Jewell, does not rise to that of a mark or note of a true church.  In addition, any evidence of physical succession from the first century is not proof of its role as a necessary esse of the church.  As it is said, correlation is not proof of causality.  Jewell was not arguing, nor am I, against proper church ordination of ministers. Rather, that a physical line of apostolic succession going back (supposedly) to the Apostles is not a mark of a true church.  This is evident from many of the writings and letters of the English reformers including Hooker.  Those reformers, in fact, recognized the reformed churches of the Continent with their presbyterian polity as true churches.  Inasmuch as one of the marks of a true church was the right administration of the Sacraments, they were thus by extension validating the Baptism and the Lord's Supper of those Continental churches.  Though they argued for the episcopal form of church government as the more scriptural polity, they did not insist on it as a necessary mark of a true church.  But they did insist on the succession of apostolic teaching as opposed to "mere succession of sees."  I am aware of nothing written by the 16th English reformers that would elevate or recognize physical succession from the time of the Apostles as a necessary mark of a true church nor equating such succession with episcopal polity.  And evidently that is why it is not mentioned even as an aside in the 39 Articles of Religion, Jewell's homily for Whit-Sunday, or even Hooker's defense of the episcopacy in his Laws.  And it seems any discovery of  physical succession in the penumbra of those writings would simply be a concession of the historic record of the above.

C. Sydney Carter writes:
Jewel, in treating of the unity of the Visible Church, had stressed the importance of an orderly episcopal ministry, although he declared that “God's grace is promised to one who feareth God and not to sees or successions.”  Keble in his Preface to Hooker's Works states that the Elizabethan bishops and divines were content “to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops was ancient and allowable: they never ventured to urge its exclusive claim or to connect it with the validity of the Holy Sacraments."   In confirmation of this statement we find that Hooker's patron, Archbishop Whitgift, clearly asserts that “no certain manner or form of electing ministers is prescribed in Scripture and that every Church may do therein as it shall seem most expedient.”  Hooker fully concurred in this opinion, since he declares that the unity of the Church consists in three essentials, the possession of “the one Lord, the one Faith, and the one Baptism.” Although he insisted that “without the work of the Ministry religion by no means can possibly continue,” he asserts clearly that “the complete form of Church polity . . . is not taught in Scripture,” while “much that it hath taught may become unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometime because we cannot.” And in this latter category he placed the Reformed non-episcopal Churches, including the Scottish and French, who, he declares, “have been driven without any fault of their own by the necessity of the present times” to practise a presbyterian form of government... But in spite of his later “higher” view of episcopacy, which was probably occasioned by the increasing insistence of the extreme Puritans on the exclusive necessity of a Presbyterian polity, Hooker was still prepared to admit, as he did in commenting on the case of Theodore Beza's ordination by Calvin, that “there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination without a bishop.”... Again, in cases where it is not possible to secure a bishop for ordination, Hooker admits that the ordinary institution of God must be waived. And so he adds: “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.” Professor Sisson is therefore surely correct when he affirms that “there is nothing in Hooker to serve as a foundation for an episcopacy by Apostolic Succession and divine institution...

But some may object and claim that apostolic succession is divinely instituted from the first century. Yet here we have the early church father, Jerome, weighing in:

"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563)

"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

Lastly and by way of observation, it seems that the more a church body adheres to so-called "divinely instituted apostolic succession", the less one finds in that body the preaching of and adherence to the pure gospel of salvation of sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - which is the crucial core of sound doctrine as found in Holy Scripture. The church is born of a message about something God alone has done, the gospel of Jesus Christ; that gospel's very origins being in the counsel of God before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:3-6). She is nourished and maintained by that glorious gospel as administered by those called and ordained. And it is that gospel which will be the at the center of sound doctrine, the administration of the Sacraments, and proper ecclesiastical discipline - the marks of a true church.

Update: A related article/worthwhile read by Robin Jordon can be found at: Anglicans Ablaze

Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 - John Jewell

A question that hangs out there in Anglican circles is as follows: Is the church born of the gospel, i.e. the Word of God rightly preached, and thus legitimized by sound apostolic doctrine or is a true church established through the official/physical succession of bishops? It is one or the other. It can't be both. The one option raises right doctrine as taught in Scripture as the primary and necessary mark of a true church. The other puts forth the continuation of a physical lineage of ministerial successors from the Apostles as the esse of the church.

John Jewell was a disciple of Peter Martyr Vermigli. He was also a Marian exile and later Bishop of Salisbury, the author of The Apology of the Church of England, as well as the chief author of the Homilies Book II. Richard Hooker spoke of him as the "worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for some hundreds of years." In his Apology Jewell touches upon the above question. But it remained to be more directly addressed in his Reply Unto M. Hardings Answer. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell states the confessional position of the Church of England regarding the marks of a true church. Needless to say, while Jewell clearly embraced episcopal polity and proper ordination of clergy, he steered clear of any strict interpretation of apostolic authority residing in bishops or presbyters due to physical succession (via laying on of hands) from the Apostles on down. Rather, he argues and teaches that what ensures the validity of the visible church before God is the retention and communication of sound Apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered.

Some excerpts from Jewell's Reply:
"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]
"... But Christ's love passeth not by inheritance of succession of sees." [pg. 283]
"... But Christ saith: By order of succession, the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair..." [pg. 322]
"... This is M. Harding's holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]
"... Now, M. Harding, if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]
"... The faith of Christ, M. Harding, goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]
"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

Now the above quotes aren't intended as any kind of definitive case by Jewell. But his deemphasis and outright dismissal of physical succession as that which validates the ministry is evident. Likewise, he elevates sound doctrine as the key trait of a true minister of God. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell, in defining a true church and noting the marks which do validate such a church, avoids any mention of so-called Apostolic Succession. Instead he writes:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

Restoration and the Word...

The question, “what is necessary for reforming or restoring the Anglican faith and practice?”, has take up a number of posts here, as well as my commenting on other blogs discussing the same issue.  It is very much on the minds of Christians who have an affinity or identification with the church of Cranmer.  There are a number of blogs/organizations that are dedicated to getting back to first principles as taught and understood by the English reformers of the 1500’ and 1600’s.  Yet that task runs into the problem of how to agree on “divining” the positives and negatives of the various English Divines' teachings.  The result of that difficulty is a seemingly endless ‘back and forth’ between various camps, be they Anglo-Catholic, Reformed/Puritan, Evangelical, high church, low church, etc... I have no idea how to navigate these discussions with others except to continue to put out my own thoughts and listen and learn where I can.  As I have written earlier, I'm pessimistic about any meaningful restoration of Anglicanism that (in my understanding of things) reflects the theological intent of the early reformers (English and non-English) and some of those who followed.  

The list I would draw up of those to be consulted in order for us to lay hold of the theological development of the English reformation would include some who would be accepted by most... and some not.  But here are several:  Cranmer, Luther, Hooper, Bucer, Knox, Calvin, Jewell, Grindal, Bullinger, Whitgift, Hooker, Ussher, Davenant.  I include some non-English, as their theology had a more or less significant impact on that of the English church.  I leave out those following the 1500’s because the above reformers were more diligent and equipped than most today in understanding and weighing the teachings of those that went before.  This list comprises men who would by and large support a Protestant/Reformed position, as I think that is a fair reading of the direction of the English Reformation.  Some might ask, why not include Queen Elizabeth?  She was protestant, and as monarch played a significant role in the reintroduction of the Book of Common Prayer and the establishing the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.  Yet I see her impact as mixed, given the differing priorities that flowed from her position as both head of the civil realm and the “Supreme Governor” of the Church.  

A final thought... on what I see as maybe the greatest lack in today’s Anglican churches.  That is an under-valuing of Scripture, God’s Word, as our ultimate guide in doctrine.  Everything in faith and practice ultimately flows from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as God’s sovereign and gracious redemption of sinful man.  All doctrine has to do with this glorious Word whose story is revealed in Scripture through the Holy Spirit.  Jesus himself drew the attention of his disciples to this very thing after his resurrection.  And that is why various churches have instituted confessions - to clearly put forth the essential doctrines of this great salvation.  And to the degree they agree with Scripture they are dependable guides for the ministry of the Word and the life of the church.  

Some words of Martin Luther from his “Treatise Concerning Christian Liberty”:

“Christ was sent for no other office than that of the word; and the order of the Apostles, that of bishops, and that of the whole body of the clergy, have been called and instituted for no object but the ministry of the word...
“But you will ask, What is this word, and by what means is it to be used, since there are so many words of God? I answer, The Apostle Paul (Rom. i.) explains what it is, namely the Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and glorified, through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching. For faith alone and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation.”

This Word is the message, the doctrine, the gospel... the teaching of Christ’s church.  And as Luther wrote, it is the food of the soul unto justification and sanctification.  The food of this Word is ministered through preaching and received as eternal life by hearing with faith.  The food of this Word is ministered through the sacraments and received as grace unto salvation by faith.  The food of this Word is ministered through the shepherding of the flock and received as guidance for the soul through faith.  Everything in the church flows from this Word, Christ crucified and risen, given to his people. And for this spiritual food to benefit the Lord's people it must be faithfully and regularly communicated and fed to them by those called and ordained by the church as ministers of the Word.




XIX. Of the Church.HE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

"Reckoning ourselves to be..." in the church

An encouragement to find and join a church where the Word of God is rightly preached and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are rightly administered:

Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Finally after setting forth all the bad news of man's sinful condition deserving of God's wrath and the wonderful good news of God's grace in Christ, Paul addresses the believers with the indicative of Romans 6:11. "So consider yourselves... reckon yourselves..." We are to consider, reckon, recall, remember, fix our minds, i.e. believe on that which has been accomplished for us by God through Christ's death and resurrection.

Paul has spent the first five and a half chapters of Romans declaring what is true concerning God's moral and written Law, about man's sinful condition and utter lack of righteousness. He has made that case that both Jews and Gentiles are shut up before the Law and are under the sentence of death (2:12, 3:19). For "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (3:20) And starting with 3:21 Paul trumpets the good news of justification by faith in Christ:

21-But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22-even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24-being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Paul extends his discourse of righteousness by faith into chapters 4 and 5, showing that our justification and salvation are by grace alone in Christ alone. "'Tis mercy all, immense and free." (And Can It Be That I Should Gain - by Charles Wesley)

John Stott writes in his Romans commentary concerning this new "reign of grace":

“Grace forgives sins through the cross, and bestows on the sinner both righteousness and eternal life. Grace satisfies the thirsty soul and fills the hungry with good things. Grace sanctifies sinners, shaping them into the image of Christ. Grace perseveres even with the recalcitrant, determining to complete what it has begun. And one day grace will destroy death and consummate the kingdom. So when we are convinced that grace reigns’, we will remember that God’s throne is a ‘throne of grace’, and will come to it boldly to receive mercy and to find grace for every need.”

As we are brought to the beginning of chapter 6 Paul once again addresses the charge that hounded his ministry, that his gospel of grace encourages not only a lax attitude to godly living but actually encourages believers to sin in order that grace would abound even more.

2-May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3-Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?...
7-for he who has died is freed [justified] from sin.

Chapter 6 teaches that sin no longer has claim upon us, for we died and rose in Him. His death to sin is effectual for us (in the likeness of His death). And His resurrection is effectual for us unto our justification before God. His perfect obedience is accounted to us (in the likeness of His resurrection) and we are now justified through faith in Him and His finished work on our behalf. United with Christ through baptism we come to share in the benefits of His death, burial, and resurrection. "In the likeness of His death.... shall also in the likeness of His resurrection." No longer under the reign of sin which leads to death, we are under grace, creating in us a repentant gratitude which leads to righteousness. So much for the charges leveled by Paul's critics.

So now back to the verse at the start of this post, "even so consider (reckon, recall, remember, bring to mind) yourselves..." Paul is emphatically stating that it is inconceivable, having died to sin i.e. to it's dominion and penalty, that we should return and again submit ourselves as slaves to unrighteousness. And as I ponder this admonition it becomes obvious that this remembering and reckoning of ourselves in light of Christ's cross is the very heart of the work of the church. Together we are to so reckon ourselves through the reminding of each other, the encouraging each other, recalling to each other that which is true. And this, I really think is why there can be no such thing as a lone Christian.

Daily we battle against our sinful-self inclinations, all too often willingly embracing them. We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us, to quote Pogo. So by ourselves we too easily succumb to discouragement and even despair, often losing sight of why the good news is really good... "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." And if not discouragement, we can lapse into the false security of self-righteousness by adhering to a select performance of outward measures, as if those acts could atone for our sin and save us. No we need something more for this life.

We need the preaching and teaching of His Word in Spirit and in truth, which creates and strengthens the eyes of faith beholding Christ. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). We need nourishment for our hearts and souls by partaking of His body and blood in the Lord's Supper as we remember and recall His death on the cross for our sins. And we need edification, confession, forgiveness through the worship and prayers of the church... singing to one another with "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." God gives all this to His people through the visible, locatable church, the communion of saints.

Hebrews 10:
23-Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24-and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25-not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

We are comforted and strengthened, growing into His likeness during this sojourn on earth by these very God instituted ordinary means of grace, Word and Sacrament. And as His people assembling together in the church, we find that that which we indeed deserve, the wages of our sin which is death, we do not receive. Rather we are given what we do not deserve, the free gift of God - eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sources:
Romans Commentary by John Stott
NASB
King James Bible