What is truth?

Senator Rob Portman (R) has announced that after years of opposing the state's legalization of gay marriage he is now in favor of it. The reason? He explained to reporters "that he changed his position after his son Will told him and his wife, Jane, that he is gay."

Mollie Hemingway's salient observation:

One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It's the Oprahfication of political philosophy.

This, unfortunately, very much describes the broad and not so-broad evangelical church today.  Books abound that advocate methods for living the Christian life, not by faith in the objective truth of Jesus Christ's finished work of redemption, but in the subjective - hearing Jesus speak, finding his immediate will, living in the spirit through inward impressions.  This approach essentially lays out one's personal experience as the royal road to true Christian living.  Jesus speaks to me... the Spirit revealed to me... I sensed his presence... These have become some of the subjective sign posts, the experiences by which Christians determine truth in order to live their Christian life.  The objective truth of Scripture gets filtered by and colored through personal experience to such an extent that the result which emerges is a subjective Rosetta Stone interpreting God's Word into my way, my truth, and my life.

Certainly we can't divorce ourselves from our own experiences or personal biases when coming to Scripture. But for that very reason we should be wary of - rather avoid - verifying what God's Word teaches and what it means to live the Christian life by any final reliance on personal experience, which sad to say, has become the status quo in today's American non-confessional Christianity.  It also has become default path for many believers in Reformed confessional churches.

Dr. R.S. Clark on the Papacy Myths II...

Dr. Clark has posted part 2 of The Myth of the Papacy.  Nothing like the bright light of history to evaporate the mist that surrounds that institution.

Gleanings Part 2: The Regulative Principle of Worship and the Book of Common Prayer

A common misunderstanding is that the use of the Book of Common Prayer was rejected by Presbyterians and Puritans due to its content.  While it can be argued that certain sections were in need of further reform, this was not where the objections focused.  They stood on the principle that no church authority could bind the Christian conscience except by doctrine taught in Scripture, based on the principle of sola scriputra.  This regulative principle of worship was, then, the believer's protection from Church imposition of practices lacking Scriptural authority.  This especially grew in importance during the years under the regime of Archbishop Laud.  Regarding the Regulative Principle of Worship and Christian Liberty (WCF 20), Robert Letham, in his book The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context, writes that the...

WCF 20.1 provides the basis for Christian liberty.  This has been purchased for us by Christ under the gospel.  This pertains not only to freedom from sin and its consequences but also to the liberty won by Christ that brings "deliverance from bondage to man... He alone is Lord of our conscience.  We are thus freed from anything that is contrary to his Word in matters of faith and worship, we are also freed from the obligation to follow commands that are additional to what he has revealed in his Word.  In the context of the Laudian repression, this was a powerfully liberating statement.  Indeed, Christians are prohibited from yielding their consciences to the whims of man.... Samuel Rutherford summed it up pithily in his comment:  'It is in our power to vow, but not in the church's power to command us to vow'. (pp. 300-301)

The imposition of liturgical demands by the Church/State authority in England had moved many of the best clergy in England to more fully embrace the regulative principle of worship as found in embryonic form in  the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.  A case can certainly be made that the RPW grows out of Article VI:

Holy Scriptures 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.

Yet some will certainly argue that even under the reformer Thomas Cranmer the Book of Common Prayer was imposed by force of law.  One need only look to the ordination of Bishop John Hooper as an example.  But rather than a proof for the imposition of the BCP, this is an example of the Erasmain mindset the early reformers were born into, a hangover from the years of Christendom under the Holy Roman Empire.  The reforming of doctrine always precedes the reforming of practice, which comes about more slowly.

Robert Letham continues, explaining why the Westminster Divines thus rejected the set liturgy of the Church of England:

When we reflect on the drastic imposition of the Book of Common Prayer by the Elizabethan settlement and its aftermath [the Laudian repressions], we see why the Assembly produced a directory of worship giving freedom to individual ministers to conduct worship services within the boundaries of the regulative principle of Scripture.  It was the binding legal requirement, imposed by the crown, with penalties attached, that was the real nub of the problem with the liturgy for Puritan minds.  While opposing the legal imposition of set liturgies, the Assembly was not abandoning liturgies as such.  The Directory for Publick Worship of God contains a range of model prayers to be used in the regular service, at the start, before the sermon, after the sermon, before and after baptism, during and after communion, at the solemnization of marriage, in visiting the sick, and at public solemn fasting.  Even John Owen, a few years too young to have been appointed to the Assembly, when writing on liturgies, stressed that he was not opposed to them or to the Book of Common Prayer. but to their imposition by law, with the forbidding of the slightest deviation from the set words.  The standard practice of the Reformed churches had been to have a liturgy with set prayers; the problem for the divines was the rigid impositions and the repressive, punitive [state] sanctions for failure to comply. (pp.303-304)

In A Discourse on Liturgies and Their Imposition John Owen elaborates concerning his objections to the BCP liturgy and its use:

They who are willing to take it upon their consciences that the best way to serve God in the church, or the best ability that they have for the discharge of their duty therein, consists in the reading of such a book (for I suppose they will grant that they ought to serve God with the best they have), shall not by me be opposed in their way and practice. It is only about its imposition, and the necessity of its observance by virtue of that imposition, that we discourse. Now, the present command is, that such a liturgy be always used in the public worship of God, and that without the use or reading of it the ordinances of the gospel be not administered at any time, nor in any place, with strong pleas for the obligation arising from that command, making the omission of its observance to be sinful. (chapter 7)

John Owen highlights that one objection to the use of the BCP was its imposition by force of law.  It was this imposition, repressive due to the penalties attached and its lack of Scriptural warrant, that ran afoul of the Christians's liberty of conscience in Christ.  And particularly onerous, regarding these laws under Archbishop Laud, was the restriction limiting sermons and thus the preaching of the gospel.  Robert Letham adds more insight to Owen's thinking in a footnote found on page 304:

25.  John Owen, "A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Imposition" (1662), in Works of John Owen, 15:33, where he states, " I do not in especial intend the liturgy now in use in England, any further than to make it an instance of such imposed liturgies, whereof we treat."  He adds, "Nor, secondly, do I oppose the directive part of this liturgy as to the reading of Scripture... nor the composition of forms of prayer suitable to the nature of the institutions to which they relate, so they be not imposed on the administrators of them to be read precisely as prescribed.  But, thirdly, this is that alone which I shall speak unto,--the composing of forms of prayer in the worship of God... to be used by the ministers of the churches, in all public assemblies, by a precise reading of the words prescribed unto them, with commands for the reading of other things, which they are not to omit, upon the penalty contained in the sanction of the whole service and the several parts of it."  The problem for Owen and his friends, he explains, was that this imposition was accompanied by a restriction on preaching.  Later he refers to "the prescription of the liturgy, to be used as prescribed: (15:47), and to "the precise reading and pronouncing of the words set down therein, without alteration, diminution, or addition" (15:49).  Kelly is wrong when he writes that Owen was "against all set liturgies" ("Puritan Regulative Principle," 2:74)

Law and Gospel: The Two Words of Scripture

Are the two words of Scripture, that being Law and Gospel, some modern unorthodox teaching that is corrupting Presbyterian and Reformed churches??

William Tyndale (from his prologue to his English translation of the Bible, approx. 1525):

Nevertheless, seeing that it hath pleased God to send unto our Englishmen…the scripture in their mother tongue, considering that there be in every place false teachers and blind leaders; that ye should be deceived of no man, I supposed it very necessary to prepare this Pathway into the scripture for you, that ye might walk surely, and ever know the true from the false: and, above all, to put you in remembrance of certain points, which are, that ye well understand what these words mean; the Old Testament; the New Testament; the law, the gospel; Moses, Christ; nature, grace; working and believing; deeds and faith; lest we ascribe to the one that which belongeth to the other, and make of Christ Moses; of the gospel, the law; despise grace, and rob faith.

Ursinus (from the Introduction to his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism):

I. What Is The Doctrine Of The Church?

 The doctrine of the church is the entire and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and gospel concerning the true God, together with his will, works, and worship; divinely revealed, and comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and confirmed by many miracles and divine testimonies; through which the Holy Spirit works effectually in the hearts of the elect, and gathers from the whole human race an everlasting church, in which God is glorified, both in this, and in the life to come… 

What Are the Parts Of The Doctrine Of The Church, And In WHAT DO THEY DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER? 

The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures. The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins, through faith. This division of the doctrine of the church is established by these plain and forcible arguments. 1. The whole doctrine comprised in the sacred writings, is either concerning the nature of God, his will, his works, or sin, which is the proper work of men and devils. But all these subjects are fully set forth and taught, either in the law, or in the gospel, or in both. Therefore, the law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein.

Excerpts from  The Law and The Gospel by Michael Horton:

At the heart of the reformation’s hermeneutics was the distinction between “Law” and “Gospel.” For the Reformers, this was not equivalent to “Old Testament” and “New Testament;” rather, it meant, in the words of Theodore Beza, “We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings.” The Law “is written by nature in our hearts,” while “What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13).” The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own “righteousness.” “Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel,” Beza wrote, “is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity… 

... The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the Gospel was simply an easier “law” than that of the Old Testament. Instead of following a lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin replied, “As if we could think of anything more difficult than to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength! Compared with this law, everything could be considered easy…[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God’s judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him… 

... Calvin defended this evangelical distinction between Law and Gospel: 

All this will readily be understood by describing the Law and describing the Gospel and then comparing them. Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father…to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ.

Worthy to receive the Lord's Supper?

What does it mean to examine your heart before eating of the bread and drinking of the cup and, in so doing, what do you find? Is it a morbid introspection?  Are we to look for evidences of moral improvement and faithfulness which recommend us to the table?  Do we hope to find some assurance within that we are worthy to receive his food?  John Calvin writes:

By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself; and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ; whether, after his example, he is prepared to give himself to his brethren, and to hold himself in common with those with whom he has Christ in common; whether, as He himself is regarded by Christ, he in his turn regards all his brethren as members of his body, or, like his members, desires to cherish, defend, and assist them, not that the duties of faith and charity can now be perfected in us, but because it behooves us to contend and seek, with all our heart, daily to increase our faith. [Calvin's Institutes, Book 4:17:40]

He continues by reminding us of that bottom line which should never be forgotten, i.e. the good news of this feast:

Let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, and bounty to the poor; while to the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found, it would be of no value. For while Christ is therein given us for food, we perceive that without him we fail, pine, and waste away just as hunger destroys the vigor of the body. Next, as he is given for life, we perceive that without him we are certainly dead. Wherefore, the best and only worthiness which we can bring to God, is to offer him our own vileness, and, if I may so speak, unworthiness, that his mercy may make us worthy; to despond in ourselves, that we may he consoled in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be elevated by him; to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; to aspire, moreover, to the unity which he recommends in the Supper; and, as he makes us all one in himself to desire to have all one soul, one heart, one tongue. If we ponder and meditate on these things, we may be shaken, but will never be overwhelmed by such considerations as these, how shall we, who are devoid of all good, polluted by the defilements of sin, and half dead, worthily eat the body of the Lord? We shall rather consider that we, who are poor, are coming to a benevolent giver, sick to a physician, sinful to the author of righteousness, in fine, dead to him who gives life... [Calvin's Institutes, Book 4:17:42]

Gleanings: Puritanism and the Book of Common Prayer, Part 1

The book, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context by Robert Letham, is well worth the time to read.  Among other things, it's helped give me a better understanding of  the social, political, and religious influences in England that led to Puritanism and eventually the Westminster Assembly.  What's interesting to take into account are those particularly oppressive influences that affected the returning Marian exiles in the late 1550s going forward and how those influences and actions of the State/Church authority led to a Puritanism that gradually moved away from an episcopal polity toward presbyterianism and the regulative principle of worship; ultimately rejecting a state enforced liturgy as was the case with the Book of Common Prayer.  Following are some of my thoughts and gleanings from Letham's book:

Soon after Elizabeth took the throne the Protestant church was reestablished.  Yet those religious refugees recently returned from Europe found that what was taking place was far from a continuation of reforms started in Cranmer's church under Edward VI.  New legislation set in law the use of the new prayer book and other prescriptions and requirements.  In fact, "The Act of Settlement (1559) ... laid down savage penalties for departing from the prescribed liturgy."  And though they made efforts to moderate these developments, he returning Marian exiles "failed to secure any concessions to placate them" (Letham, p. 14). Initially, "draconian penalties were prescribed for any who diverged from the Prayer Book although these were rarely, if ever, enforced."  This soon changed.  "Only from around 1564 was rigid uniformity required..." (p. 15).

Letham continues,

"When tighter control was implemented by the establishment, a nascent Presbyterian movement emerged in the 1570s and 1580s... Indeed, it was estimated by some, and reported by Mitchell, that at one point up to one-third of the clergy of England were under suspension, with attendant destitution and penury, while their congregations were as a result deprived of the ministry of the Word and sacraments." (p. 15)

These men were clergy of the Church of England and not some strain of radical Puritanism.

Indeed, as Mitchell observes, '"the points of difference between the Puritans and those who fail to be distinguished from them in the Reformed Church of England seem at first to be few in number, and of minor importance" (p. 16) ... the only expression at variance with the principle of Puritanism in the Articles of the Church was the first clause of the XXth Article, asserting the power of the Church to decree rites and ceremonies.  This clause was not present in the corresponding article as framed in the time of Edward, VI; and the Puritans strenuously contended it had been foisted in, somewhat inconsiderately, in the time of Queen Elizabeth (p.17).

The battle lines had been drawn by Queen Elizabeth's new Settlement and the principle at stake was whether worship and polity were to be under the authority of the State or under the authority of Scripture.

The chief point at issue for the Puritans was whether the church has the right to bind consciences with anything other than the declarations of the Bible.  Mithchell puts the matter well when he says that the Puritans "claimed to restrict the authority of the church within narrower limits than their opponents, and to reclaim for liberty a larger province than they [their opponents] were disposed to allow her."  For the Pritans, worship and church polity--as well as matters of salvation--were to be drawn from the teaching of Scripture, wither expressed or implicit (p. 18).

Despite this contentious issue the doctrines of the church were solidly as what can be described as Calvinism.  This reformed theology held sway in the church through the years up until the time of Charles I and Bishop Laud.

Spinks, in his evaluation of Perkins and Hooker, finds that both "stand firmly within a broad-based Reformed theology."  Hooker "never departs from a Reformed position."  Both Hooker and Perkins are legitimate interpreters of the Thirty-Nine Articles, while "Hooker finds his theology expressed n the 1559 Book of Common Prayer; Perkins gave no hint that his theology was contradicted by it" (p. 53).

Yet under Bishop Laud, Reformed doctrines and preaching were being rooted out while older medieval church practices returned.

It was a sea change in the theological balance of power, effected within three hears of Charles's accession... This change was clearly against the doctrine of the Church of England as expounded expounded by the Thirty-Nine Articles, as presented in Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer(p. 21)... [Archbishop] Laud required absolute submission to the king, extending to acceptance of every detail of church ritual.  He introduced genuflecting, called the communion table an altar, and banned all publications that called the pope the Antichrist (p.23).

From a 21st century American point of view it's difficult to grasp the brutal and oppressive nature of the authoritative hand of the State in the church's worship.  Politics and religion were inexorably intertwined.  
"Not only were the political and the religious so inextricably intertwined that 'secular' was a meaningless category, but the religious issues alone had the strength to generate the passion needed for armed uprising against the king" (p. 26).  The changes brought on by Laud contradicted the clear teaching of the Book of Common Prayer as in the case of the drastic restrictions on the preaching of sermons.

This antipathy to preaching did emerge before the Civil War, under the direction of Laud, and was pursued with vigor in some dioceses...  Yet such policies were contrary to the form for "The ordering of Priests" in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer: (p. 51).

The following are excerpts from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for the ordination of priests.  The Bishop's words to the prospective priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

... And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments...

... TAKE thou Authority to preach the Word of God...

 The Book of Common Prayer became, in a way, the leading edge of a legislative sword used by the English episcopal authority against those who, at one time, had been in the mainstream of the church. I think it and the oppressive Church/State authority were of the same cloth in the minds of Puritans suffering under Laud's regime and thus they wanted to throw them both off. They wanted a church reformed solely according the God's Word and not one imposed by Parliament. One result of this history is a common misunderstanding held today that the Presbyterians/Puritans of that era were therefore against any set liturgies whatsoever. This was not the case at all.

Cranmer: Continental reformer - an addendum...

Question to Anglicans - Who's church is it?

From his book, The Westminster Assembly - Reading Its Theology in Historical Context, Robert Letham (an OPC ordained minister, graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, adjunct professor of systematic theology at WTS, and visiting professor at Reformed Theological Seminary) lays out the history surrounding the Assembly and, in part, the history connecting the Westminster Standards to the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles. He offers this bit of insight into the much misunderstood Thomas Cranmer:

In his magisterial and widely acclaimed critical biography of the great English reformer, Thomas Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch demonstrates that Cranmer, throughout his career, was much in contact with continental Reformed churches and theologians...  

Thereafter [i.e. his marriage to Osianders’s niece], his career was a tortuous but persistent attempt to bring the Church of England into line with the Reformed churches on the continent, a trajectory that accelerated with the accession of Edward VI in 1547... In MacCulloch’s words, “The thread running through [his career]... is his fierce determination to promote the evangelical reform of the Church.”  Cranmer’s “middle way” was not a midpoint between the Reformation and Rome, but “between Wittenberg and Zurich,” the path trod by Bucer and Calvin.  He was “a Reformed Catholic” who sought to rebuild the Catholic Church on the basis of the Bible, the creeds, and the great councils of the early church. (p. 52)

Credentialed in Mercy

What are your credentials in the world?  What is it that commends you or gives you confidence in the eyes of others?  What accomplishments... awards... recognition of excellence?  For the vast majority of humankind the answer is silence and a shrug of the shoulder.  Nothing really of note. Sometimes just the opposite.  For most of us it's just, more or less, getting up in the morning and facing whatever life presents.  Trying to earn enough to provide food and shelter... taking care of the basics, and often not as well as we would like.  Working the fields, as it were, to bring forth a yield.  Struggling under that ever-present curse of our father Adam:  cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you... (Gen.3:17b-18a).

How about your Christian pedigree?  What can you point to in your Christian life that's left a lasting mark?  I know, not really a question Christians should be asking of ourselves, let alone listing our so-called good works for God!  But, being the fallen creatures we are, too often we do list those things somewhere in the inner inventory of our self-image. Alternatively establishing self-validation or not.  Are you a pastor of a growing church?   A Christian scholar who is not only published but read?  A missionary who has left the comforts of home and brought souls to Christ?  A faithful elder who has helped guide the sheep of Christ through many dangers over the years?  Again, the larger percentage of the people of God have no church ministry or Phd. in theology.  And even those that do still, to a large degree, find more thorns and thistles in their labors than not.

OK then...  Where am I heading?  Simply that accomplishments in this life are ephemeral.  To glory in them, if you have them, is pouring water into broken cisterns.  And to lament the lack of them is just the flip side of that coin.  "If only this... then my Christian life would be worthwhile."  It's these thoughts that came to my mind this morning as I read the familiar verses in Philippians 3.  And what so struck me was the apostle Paul's words at the close of the letter.  He first lists his credentials according to the flesh, he states that he counts them but rubbish for Christ's sake.  Nothing to see here... just move along.  He then states why - that he may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of [his] own (accomplishments to glory in)... but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith... to apprehend that for which Christ apprehended Paul.  Glorious and inspiring words.

But it was Paul's closing admonition that so caught my attention.  After all the high and purposeful words of pressing on to the upward call, etc (and who among us lives up to those words?)... he writes - But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  Of great or small accomplishment... of many works or few... a Christian of Christians or just one of the bruised reeds struggling and plodding along.  The only credential under heaven recognized by God is the one that levels mankind, declaring all need saving.  In this life we don't graduate from that status.  Sinners we are, every day, and that alone qualifies us for the Savior.  The very best credential anyone can have is that of God's unmerited grace and mercy toward sinners.  And thus, through faith, we wait with a sure hope for the fullness of our salvation... for our Savior to appear, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Cranmer, Continental Reformer?

I think it was Anglican in the wilderness, Hudson Barton (though I may be mistaken), who posed the question of whether Thomas Cranmer would have identified more with the theology and practice of the Marian exiles and Puritans or that of Queen Elizabeth and her Church as constituted and guided under the Settlement during her forty-some year reign.  If the former is true then it lends credible support to the case that upon Elizabeth's accession the reformation of the Church of England came to an unexpected end.  It's the view of many that, though the battle for further biblical reforms continued within and without the official Church, institutionally the Church had become essentially molded as an uncomfortable composite of the Henrician and Edwardian periods.

Ashley Null, arguably the foremost scholar on the theology of Thomas Cranmer, adds some of his insights to the question in a talk given at St Antholin, the text of which can be found at the Church Society:

In such a venerable lecture series, founded to be the wellspring of nonconformity in England, what could be a more unexpected topic than the man Thomas Cranmer. Who, more than he, was the public face of both Edwardian Erastianism and Edwardian Liturgy. Is not Cranmer reported to have said at the coronation of the boy-king Edward, ʻYour majesty is Godʼs vice-gerent and Christʼs vicar within your own dominions, and to see, with your predecessor Josiah, God truly worshippedʼ?  Has not liturgical scholarship proved right that memorable jibe of John Field, the London field marshall of Elizabethan Puritan agitation, that Cranmerʼs prayer books were ʻculled and picked out of that popish dunghill, the mass bookʼ?  Although Foxe did his best to enlist Cranmer as the true ʻSt Thomas of Canterburyʼ because of his death under Mary, the polity and liturgy he bequeathed represented to Puritans all that was not blessed in the Church of England, all that still needed changing. What does he and the founders of our lectureship have to do with one another?

 Much, for they were all adherents of Reformed theology. While this has not been the conventional portrait of Cranmer for over a century, recent studies have confirmed Cranmerʼs basic agreement with that Southern strain of continental Protestantism that became known as Reformed, at least as it was emerging during his lifetime. The theological stream which ran so fast through St Antholinʼs did not spring up in England only upon the return of the Marian exiles, but in Cranmerʼs day and by Cranmerʼs encouragement. The movement grew and adapted—so much so that subsequent generations of Churchman historians have failed to recognise Cranmer as one of their soteriological progenitors. Yet the blessed personal change sought by Puritans for their family, friends and flock Cranmer also desired for the elect of England of his era. Conversion from sin to communion with God was a favourite Puritan theme, and nothing was closer to Cranmerʼs own heart; consequently, he enshrined his Reformed understanding of the process in the formularies he bequeathed to the Church of England. Those wishing to find Anglican legitimacy for the Puritan approach to the cure of the English soul need look no further than the pioneering work of Thomas Cranmer himself.

In his introduction to the Memoir of the Life and Writings of Thomas Cartwright, Rev. B. Brook writes concerning the early stages of the English Reformation and the trajectory of Thomas Cranmer visa-vis the Continental reformers:

By the introduction of printing, the circulation of the Bible in English, and other important occurrences in the reign of King Henry VIII., better principles obtained access to the minds of the people, and the light of the glorious gospel spread in every direction. This, however, was not the time of completing the Reformation. Henry was as much the pope of England, as the pontiff was of Rome; and popery, under another head, still triumphed in its most obnoxious forms. Though Henry's conduct was tragically oppressive and severe, yet, at the suggestion of Archbishop Cranmer, one of his last acts was to reform certain papistical observances.  In the reign of King Edward VI., the Reformation began to shine with additional splendour; and Christianity, which had been so long obscured, was expected to appear in its native brightness, and spread its benign influence over all the land...   

In the reign of King Edward VI., the Reformation began to shine with additional splendour; and Christianity, which had been so long obscured, was expected to appear in its native brightness, and spread its benign influence over all the land...  

Archbishop Cranmer, denominated a "great Scripturist," cherished deep commiseration for the people, maintained that the holy Scriptures constituted the only standard of Reformation, treating the decrees of councils, and the traditions of men, with comparative inattention. "From the word of God," said Cranmer," princes may learn how to govern their subjects, and subjects learn how to obey their princes; and all persons may learn that faith and worship which God requires of them."  The venerable primate, adopting this scriptural policy, was anxious to see the church entirely freed from the remnants of popery; and addressing the convocation, "he exhorted the clergy to give themselves to the study of the Scriptures, and to consider seriously what things were in the church that needed reformation; that so they might throw out all the popish trash that was not yet cast out." 

Cranmer and the Archbishop of York, with other bishops and divines, declared that, in the apostolic churches, the office of bishop and pastor was the same; and that in those times the members of the churches usually elected their own officers. Thirteen bishops and numerous other dignitaries subscribed that, in the New Testament, there was no distinction of degrees, except only those of bishops or pastors and deacons. The English Reformers recognised the foreign churches, though far from being episcopalian, as true churches of Jesus Christ, and invited a number of continental protestants to assist the Reformation in this country; who were instantly employed in ministerial functions, without the least regard to episcopal ordination, or the popish doctrine of apostolical succession. 

The last highlighted part of the quote regarding the equivalency of bishop and pastor in the apostolic churches is the same understanding that can be found in many of the writings of the early church fathers such as Augustine.

Christ as the living food, the gospel in the Supper

John Calvin, from his Institutes of Religion: 4.17.4-5

4. Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever — I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality, he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption. 

5. It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ would not have not been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to he crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates.