I posted this portion of Meade's Chapter 4 before I finished editing the rest of the scan. I'll leave it up, though now I've posted the whole chapter as a .pdf (see next post above).
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
WE are commanded to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to tbe saints." That faith is in the sacred Scriptures, and we have shown how our Reformers regarded them as the only rule of faith, drawing all their doctrines and prayers from them. That faith is also briefly set forth in the Creeds, for the preservation of the same, and for purposes of worship. In the Apostles' Creed we have the faith which each baptized adult and child is bound to receive. It is not affirmed that it was actually drawn up by the Apostles, each one furnishing a part, as some have said, but only that it contained the sum and substance of what the ApostIes believed and taught. Wherefore, in the article on the subject, it is said, "which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed." But at the Reformation, articles and confessions of faith became necessary as enlargements of the Creed, just as the Nicene Creed became necessary in early times. The Reformers happily agreed in doctrine, and therefore there is a harmony in their Confessions. The articles of the English Church, drawn up by Cranmer and others, were put forth in the year 1552, in the seventh and last year of the reign of Edward the VI., and declared to be "for the conservation of the pure Gospel in the Church, with one uniform profession, doctrine, and preaching, and for the avoiding of perilous and vain opinions and errors." It is said, "that they were devised and gathered with great study, and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of our bishops of this realm, and sundry other of our clergy."
They appear to have been especially put forth at this time, in consequence of some diversities of opinion among the Protestants themselves, in relation to the virtue of the sacraments, which was not clearly settled in the offices. This appears from a letter of Peter Martyr just before their adoption. He himself thought that "all things were removed from it, (the Prayer-book,) which could nourish superstition," but there were those who held some views as to the virtue of the sacraments, which, though not affirmed, were not positively condemned in the offices, and the king, Cranmer and others, had it much at heart to settle these differences. This was done by means of some of these articles, viz., those relating to the sacraments, to which of course we must look for the exposition of the offices.* But the Articles refer also to the great doctrines of our holy religion, c1earing them of all the corruptions and perversions of the same by the Church of Rome. They cannot indeed be understood: except as protests against the false doctrines of Rome, just as the Nicene Creed could not, except as a correction of the heresies of Arius and others. Repeated subsequent revisions of these articles have established them as the doctrine of the Church of England and America, with very slight variations. For wisdom, moderation, true Christian charity, as well as thorough Protestant orthodoxy, they are, to say the least, not surpassed by any of the various Confessions, which were adopted about the same time throughout Europe. The large volume containing the harmony of all these confessions and articles of faith, is a most triumphant answer to the calumnious charges of the Romanists, who reproached all Protestants with the most utter discord, as to the doctrines of the Gospel, and with the holding of all manner of heresies.
If the doctrine of original sin, strongly stated, of the necessity of a new birth by the power of the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Trinity, of justification by faith, of the necessity of holiness, of the divine obligation of the sacraments, be the constituents of an orthodox system of religion, then have our articles a full claim to that honor. Amongst the objections which, from time to time, have been raised against the Episcopal Church, we never remember to have heard one against her articles. They have ever been acknowledged to be a faithful exhibition of Gospel truth, and fearless protests against Popish errors. Even her rubrics, and some which seem to savor of Romish superstition, when properly understood, will be seen to guard us against the corruptions of Papacy. For instance, some have been offended at the direction given to the minister to see that all the bread and wine of the Eucharist be consumed in the church, as though it was made something like the body and blood of Christ by consecration, and must not be touched by any but the faithful; whereas the design in these rubrics was to condemn the Popish practice of carrying it out into the streets, to be lifted up and worshipped, and to the sick and dying, as having some magical virtue in it. Again, as to confirmation, it is conjoined that "none be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments," etc., etc., which some seem to think a very insufficient preparation for the rite; whereas it was designed as a condemnation of the Roman practice of confirming little children, who could do none of these things. Other rubrics, canons, and documents of the Church show plainly how she held that candidates for confirmation must be well prepared with the knowledge and experience of true religion. Other instances might be added.
In proof of the caution and moderation of the articles as to points in dispute among the learned and pious, I would allude to her treatment of the predestinarian controversy. From the time of Augustine at least, there have ever been diverse opinions on this subject in the Christian Church. Among the schoolmen at and previous to the Reformation, it was warmly debated. Cranmer was certainly of the school of Augustine, though he may not have gone to all the lengths of that Father. The recently published works of Cranmer show the differences between himself and Henry VIII., on the points in dispute between those afterwards called Calvinists and Arminians, the king being very averse to introduce into the books of the Reformation, such expressions as Cranmer would have used.That there were many in the kingdom sympathizing with the king rather than Cranmer on these points, is most probable. It can searce have been that all the Christians of the land were of one school on the disputed topics. We may well imagine, therefore, that in drawing up an article on a subject which has so divided and perplexed philosophers and divines of every age, Cranmer should have held a cautious pen, that he should have contented himself with affirming only what was essential to the subject, and not ventured into the deep waters. That the article stops short of some things to be seen in kindred articles of some of the other Confessions of the Reformation, must be acknowledged. It must also be acknowledged that in the reign of Elizabeth, the bishops and other divines of the Church were more decided, if not in their opinions, yet in the declaration of them, and that in the Lambeth articles, they endeavored to fix the meaning of the seventeenth article at a higher point than it would bear; but the endeavor failed, and the general sentiment and consent of the Church ever since has been to agree to differ on the subject. That the language of the article upon this subject is more doubtful, or more comprehensive of differing opinions than that of the strict followers of Augustine and Calvin, is also evident from the fact that at a subsequent period, when the Westminster Assembly of divines were engaged in drawing up articles of faith, they declined the adoption of this, as too weak and dubious, and used such language that none who will compare the two together can fail to perceive a difference. We regard it as an excellency of our Church, therefore, that ministers and members are allowed to hold diverse opinions on these high and difficult points, and yet be equally esteemed as true sons of the Church. To be bitter or censorious towards each other on account of such differences, is to violate the spirit of our Catholic Church.
Amen to that!
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
WE are commanded to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to tbe saints." That faith is in the sacred Scriptures, and we have shown how our Reformers regarded them as the only rule of faith, drawing all their doctrines and prayers from them. That faith is also briefly set forth in the Creeds, for the preservation of the same, and for purposes of worship. In the Apostles' Creed we have the faith which each baptized adult and child is bound to receive. It is not affirmed that it was actually drawn up by the Apostles, each one furnishing a part, as some have said, but only that it contained the sum and substance of what the ApostIes believed and taught. Wherefore, in the article on the subject, it is said, "which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed." But at the Reformation, articles and confessions of faith became necessary as enlargements of the Creed, just as the Nicene Creed became necessary in early times. The Reformers happily agreed in doctrine, and therefore there is a harmony in their Confessions. The articles of the English Church, drawn up by Cranmer and others, were put forth in the year 1552, in the seventh and last year of the reign of Edward the VI., and declared to be "for the conservation of the pure Gospel in the Church, with one uniform profession, doctrine, and preaching, and for the avoiding of perilous and vain opinions and errors." It is said, "that they were devised and gathered with great study, and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of our bishops of this realm, and sundry other of our clergy."
They appear to have been especially put forth at this time, in consequence of some diversities of opinion among the Protestants themselves, in relation to the virtue of the sacraments, which was not clearly settled in the offices. This appears from a letter of Peter Martyr just before their adoption. He himself thought that "all things were removed from it, (the Prayer-book,) which could nourish superstition," but there were those who held some views as to the virtue of the sacraments, which, though not affirmed, were not positively condemned in the offices, and the king, Cranmer and others, had it much at heart to settle these differences. This was done by means of some of these articles, viz., those relating to the sacraments, to which of course we must look for the exposition of the offices.* But the Articles refer also to the great doctrines of our holy religion, c1earing them of all the corruptions and perversions of the same by the Church of Rome. They cannot indeed be understood: except as protests against the false doctrines of Rome, just as the Nicene Creed could not, except as a correction of the heresies of Arius and others. Repeated subsequent revisions of these articles have established them as the doctrine of the Church of England and America, with very slight variations. For wisdom, moderation, true Christian charity, as well as thorough Protestant orthodoxy, they are, to say the least, not surpassed by any of the various Confessions, which were adopted about the same time throughout Europe. The large volume containing the harmony of all these confessions and articles of faith, is a most triumphant answer to the calumnious charges of the Romanists, who reproached all Protestants with the most utter discord, as to the doctrines of the Gospel, and with the holding of all manner of heresies.
If the doctrine of original sin, strongly stated, of the necessity of a new birth by the power of the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Trinity, of justification by faith, of the necessity of holiness, of the divine obligation of the sacraments, be the constituents of an orthodox system of religion, then have our articles a full claim to that honor. Amongst the objections which, from time to time, have been raised against the Episcopal Church, we never remember to have heard one against her articles. They have ever been acknowledged to be a faithful exhibition of Gospel truth, and fearless protests against Popish errors. Even her rubrics, and some which seem to savor of Romish superstition, when properly understood, will be seen to guard us against the corruptions of Papacy. For instance, some have been offended at the direction given to the minister to see that all the bread and wine of the Eucharist be consumed in the church, as though it was made something like the body and blood of Christ by consecration, and must not be touched by any but the faithful; whereas the design in these rubrics was to condemn the Popish practice of carrying it out into the streets, to be lifted up and worshipped, and to the sick and dying, as having some magical virtue in it. Again, as to confirmation, it is conjoined that "none be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments," etc., etc., which some seem to think a very insufficient preparation for the rite; whereas it was designed as a condemnation of the Roman practice of confirming little children, who could do none of these things. Other rubrics, canons, and documents of the Church show plainly how she held that candidates for confirmation must be well prepared with the knowledge and experience of true religion. Other instances might be added.
In proof of the caution and moderation of the articles as to points in dispute among the learned and pious, I would allude to her treatment of the predestinarian controversy. From the time of Augustine at least, there have ever been diverse opinions on this subject in the Christian Church. Among the schoolmen at and previous to the Reformation, it was warmly debated. Cranmer was certainly of the school of Augustine, though he may not have gone to all the lengths of that Father. The recently published works of Cranmer show the differences between himself and Henry VIII., on the points in dispute between those afterwards called Calvinists and Arminians, the king being very averse to introduce into the books of the Reformation, such expressions as Cranmer would have used.That there were many in the kingdom sympathizing with the king rather than Cranmer on these points, is most probable. It can searce have been that all the Christians of the land were of one school on the disputed topics. We may well imagine, therefore, that in drawing up an article on a subject which has so divided and perplexed philosophers and divines of every age, Cranmer should have held a cautious pen, that he should have contented himself with affirming only what was essential to the subject, and not ventured into the deep waters. That the article stops short of some things to be seen in kindred articles of some of the other Confessions of the Reformation, must be acknowledged. It must also be acknowledged that in the reign of Elizabeth, the bishops and other divines of the Church were more decided, if not in their opinions, yet in the declaration of them, and that in the Lambeth articles, they endeavored to fix the meaning of the seventeenth article at a higher point than it would bear; but the endeavor failed, and the general sentiment and consent of the Church ever since has been to agree to differ on the subject. That the language of the article upon this subject is more doubtful, or more comprehensive of differing opinions than that of the strict followers of Augustine and Calvin, is also evident from the fact that at a subsequent period, when the Westminster Assembly of divines were engaged in drawing up articles of faith, they declined the adoption of this, as too weak and dubious, and used such language that none who will compare the two together can fail to perceive a difference. We regard it as an excellency of our Church, therefore, that ministers and members are allowed to hold diverse opinions on these high and difficult points, and yet be equally esteemed as true sons of the Church. To be bitter or censorious towards each other on account of such differences, is to violate the spirit of our Catholic Church.
Amen to that!
Comments