Divided We Stand

I would like to recommend Divided We Stand:  A History of the Continuing Anglican Movement, by Douglas Bess, to all those interested in Continuing Anglicanism.  Having done some ad hoc research into the history of Continuing Anglicanism myself over the years, which has included in-depth conversations with several of the key participants in such landmark events as the St. Louis Congress, the Denver Consecrations, and the Dallas Synod, I can say with some confidence that Bess has done an decent job of making a reasonably accurate record of the Movement's key events.  Moreover, let me also say that this record is of crucial importance for anyone who wishes to understand the state of Continuing Anglicanism today.

My recent rereading of Divided We Stand left me with the firm impression that the Continuing Anglican Movement is fundamentally divided between two, discrete visions of Anglicanism.  First, there are those that hold an exclusively catholic-minded vision of Anglicanism, most of whom, but are not all, are distinguished by their distinctively Tridentine outlook regarding doctrine and practise.  Secondly, there are those that adhere to a comprehensive, but conservative and traditional, vision of Anglicanism centered on the traditional editions of the Book of Common Prayer, the traditional Ordinal, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, but that are otherwise tolerant of quite a bit of theological and liturgical latitude.  Today, in the United States, the predominant "catholic" jurisdictions are the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK), while the larger "comprehensive" jurisdictions are the Anglican Church in America (ACA) and the Anglican Province in America (APA).

Having stated that Divide We Stand, as its title suggests, leads the reader to a dichotomous view of the Continuing Anglican Movement, I must give Bess credit for not painting this division in overly stark terms.  Indeed, as Bess correctly points out, the catholic jurisdictions, such as the ACC and APCK do, in fact, have parishes that do not use the Missals, and steer clear of Tridentine teaching and piety.  On the other hand, Bess notes that the comprehensive jurisdictions are hardly the exclusive province of low-church parishes, but instead contain many fully Anglo-Catholic parishes.  Thus, on the surface of things, the distinction between the two competing visions of Continuing Anglicanism probably should be viewed as involving differing centers of gravity regarding views of acceptable churchmanship, and Bess does not dispel this possibility in his text.

Thus, I would not fault a reader of Divided We Stand for coming away with the impression that the difference between the catholic jurisdictions and the comprehensive jurisdictions is one of emphasis rather than substance--at least not enough substantive difference to justify the divisions amongst them.  But, this conclusion would be, in my opinion, incorrect.  In the first place, as Bess's narrative demonstrates,  and experience has shown, that the catholic and comprehensive camps have generally been suspicious of, and adversarial toward, each other throughout the history of the Continuing Movement.  Indeed, the conflict between the two visions of Continuing Anglicanism and the resulting political machinations that have occurred within the Movement even before the St. Louis Congress, is the very drama that drives the main plot line of Divided We Stand.  Thus, I cannot help but conclude that something more fundamental must keeping the division between the competing visions of Continuing Anglicanism alive.  And, what that something is, I believe, is, in a word, Calvinism.

Indeed, in the comprehensive vision of Continuing Anglicanism, Calvinists have been recognized as having a legitimate place at the Anglican table since the Glorious Revolution.  Thus, for the comprehensives, Evangelical Churchmanship, often denominated as "low churchmanship" in contemporary parlance, which is perhaps most seminally expressed in W. H. Griffith Thomas or D.B. Knox's expositions of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, deserves its share in the Continuing Anglican Movement.  In contrast, for the ardently catholic-minded Anglicans, the Evangelical Party has always been a bridge too far.  Indeed, for the catholic-minded Anglican, Missal Anglo-Catholics, Prayerbook Catholics, philOrthodox, Old High Churchman, and perhaps even Conservative Central Churchman can be tolerated under one big tent, but the "low" churchmanship of the Evangelicals  cannot.

Thus, in my view, the real reason that the predominantly Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions such as the ACC and APCK will not seriously entertain union with a conservative, comprehensive jurisdictions like the APA or the ACA, is that comprehensive formulations of Anglicanism are simply too tolerant of Calvinism or Reformed principles.  Indeed, the existence of Evangelical expositions of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is one of the reasons that catholic jurisdictions have shied away from giving the Articles any sort of constitutional, as opposed to merely historical, status.  Moreover, it is also my opinion that, despite the prevalence of Tridentinism in the catholic jurisdictions, they do have a valid point.  Whereas the differences in the exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles evinced by decidedly non-Tridentine works of such catholic-minded men as W. Beveridge, E.H. Browne, or E. J. Bicknell can theologically co-exist along side the Tridentine-friendly expositions of A. P. Forbes and Newman (Tract XC), on the ground that each merely express differing theological opinions about secondary aspects of the same underlying faith, once the Evangelical point of view is introduced, fundamentally inconsistent understandings of the very faith itself are being asked to cohere, which is logically intolerable.  Indeed, atonement is either limited or it is not; grace is either irresistible or its is not; some men are unconditionally predestined to eternal damnation (the doctrine of reprobation) or they are not.

In sum, while much of Divide We Stand, gives me hope that a greater consolidation of the jurisdictions presently comprising Continuing Anglicanism is possible in the near future, the overall import of the book leads me to believe that, for the foreseeable future, the irreducible minimum number of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions is two.  And, my own experiences in the Continuum, lead me to believe that it is likely the true, minimum number of jurisdictions is three:  Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Evangelical.  Once the old, institutional structures of Anglican unity have been breached, as they have been since St. Louis, then the unity of inconsistent theological and liturgical parties in a single jurisdiction will not hold.

Anglican Eucharistic Thought

Once again, I am guilty of pinching a post from anther website.  I decided to re-post this article until I receive a cease and desist letter from the owner's lawyers because I think it is very interesting and worthy of consideration.

* * * * * * * 

CLASSICAL ANGLICANISM AND THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION

by Rev. Victor E. Novak

Special to Virtueonline

www.virtueonline.org

September 15, 2009

There is a great deal of confusion among Anglicans today regarding the Anglican teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Some believe in the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation or something very similar; while others are almost Zwinglian, holding a view that differs little from the Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians. There is a lot of talk today about "Real Presence," "Receptionism" and "Calvinism," without much understanding of what these terms really mean. Many who think they are orthodox Anglicans are unfamiliar with their own Anglican formularies: the historic Book of Common Prayer and its Ordinal and Catechism, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the two books of Homilies, and what they teach.

On July 29, 2007, I was received as a priest into the Reformed Episcopal Church. Previous to my reception, I had been a priest in the Anglican Province of Christ the King where I served as Ecumenical Officer and editor of The Province, the official publication of the APCK, as well as a pastor. I was a classical Anglican while serving in the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and I believe, teach and confess the same classical Anglicanism in the Reformed Episcopal Church. I joined the Reformed Episcopal Church because it is neither high nor low church today, but is a classical Anglican Church, and is perhaps the only truly classical Anglican jurisdiction in North America. The REC not only professes belief in the historic Anglican formularies, but studies, uses and teaches them as well.

After the Reformed Episcopal Church became a founding jurisdiction of the newly gathered Anglican Church in North America, I found myself having discussions with Anglican colleagues outside of the REC regarding ACNA, and whether or not continuing Anglicans should work with it or remain outside. Many of these colleagues knew me while I was Ecumenical Officer of the APCK, and were genuinely interested in ACNA, but some seemed somewhat puzzled that my parish and I had entered the Reformed Episcopal Church. A few have even said to me, "But the REC doesnʼt believe in the Real Presence." Comments like that have led me to write this paper in an effort to clear the air.

THE REAL PRESENCE AND THE REC DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

In the Declaration of Principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church, adopted on December 2, 1873, the same day that the Thirty-nine Articles were reaffirmed without alteration, under "erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to Godʼs Word", the REC condemns the notion "That the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine." It is from this principle that some of my colleagues have assumed that "the REC doesnʼt believe in the Real Presence." However, nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is that this Principle does not address either the medieval, scholastic doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Biblical and patristic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, but something altogether different.

Transubstantiation is already rejected in Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion: "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 Reformed Episcopal Church does not condemn "the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper," - rather it affirms it. What it does condemn is the teaching "That the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine." It is not the doctrine of the "Real Presence" that is being condemned, but an error that is centuries old and goes back at least as far as John of Paris (d. 1306), and perhaps as far as the disciples of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. It had already been officially condemned by Rome, and by both the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the 16th century; and had become popularized again in the 19th century. In fact, the Vatican condemned a Roman Catholic theologian, Bayma, in 1875, for teaching it; and some High Church Anglicans caused serious controversy in the United Kingdom and the United States by teaching what sounded very much like it in an effort to profess something close to Transubstantiation without technically violating Article XXVIII. Theologians call this error "Impanation."

Impanation is a theological term used for the teaching that the Body and Blood of Christ are mingled with the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Impanation: "An heretical doctrine according to which Christ in the Eucharist through His human body substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus...The doctrine of impanation agrees with the doctrine of consubstantiation [a term rejected by Lutherans] as it was taught by Luther, in these two essential points: it denies on the one hand the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and on the other professes nevertheless the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yet the doctrines differ essentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Body of Christ penetrated the unchanged substance of the bread but denied a hypostatic union. Orthodox Lutheranism expressed this so-called sacramental union between the Body of Christ and the substance of bread in the wellknown formula: The Body of Christ is ʻin, with and under the breadʼ - in, cum et sub pane..."

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 says, "The doctrine of impanation...is also against reason, since a hypostatic union between the Word of God Incarnate, or the God-man Christ, and the dead substances of bread and wine is inconceivable" (Vol. 7, p. 695). Impanation has been condemned by Rome, the Lutheran Church in the Formula of Concord, and by the Reformed Episcopal Church in its Declaration of Principles, but all three of these Churches believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

THE CLASSICAL ANGLICAN TEACHING

Anglicanism rejected transubstantiation for three reasons: 1). it "cannot be proven by Holy Writ," 2). it "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament," and 3). it "hath given occasion to many superstitions." Transubstantiation clearly is not provable by Holy Writ, and "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." It is really a medieval, scholastic explanation without Scriptural or patristic support; and no impartial student of history can doubt that it "hath given occasion to many superstitions."

How does it overthrow the nature of a sacrament? A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. A sacrament consists of both the outward sign and the thing signified. In transubstantiation the outward sign is eliminated because the whole substance of the bread and wine are said to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the accidents, the appearance of the bread and wine, remain. This overthrows the nature of a sacrament.

Zwingli erred in that he separated the sign, the consecrated Bread and Wine, from what it signified, the Body and Blood of Christ; while transubstantiation made the same mistake in the theologically opposite direction. It can be said that Zwingli taught the "real absence" of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion. According to Zwingli, communicants receive only bread and wine as a memorial of Christʼs sacrifice. Transubstantiation teaches that communicants receive only the Body and Blood of Christ as the whole substance of the Bread and Wine have been transubstantiated into the Body and blood of Christ, leaving only the appearance, the accidents, of Bread and Wine. But Anglicanism has always taught with the Scriptures and the Fathers that the Sacrament of Holy Communion consists of both the outward and visible sign, the consecrated Bread and Wine, and the inward and spiritual grace, the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Catechism makes clear.

In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer we read: What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.

Why was the Sacrament of the Lordʼs Supper ordained? For the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, and of the benefits we receive thereby. What is the outward part or sign of the Lordʼs Supper? Bread and Wine which the Lord commanded to be received.

What is the inward part, or thing signified? The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine (italics added).

If our bodies are strengthened and refreshed by the Bread and Wine, the substance of the Bread and Wine must remain. This is classical Anglican Sacramental Theology. The Holy Scriptures teach that communicants receive the Body and Blood of Christ and Bread and Wine in the Sacrament (I Cor. 10:16; & 11:23-29), and so does Anglican theology.

The Body and Blood of Christ is not mingled with the Bread and Wine and there is no hypostatic union (Impanation), but are Really and Truly Present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion; and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, like all Sacraments, consists of both an outward and visible sign, the Bread and Wine, and an inward spiritual grace - the thing signified - the Body and Blood of Christ. Article XXVIII says, "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."

The kneeling rubric at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that Anglican theology rejects the scholastic notion that the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The rubric says, "the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances..." And should anyone doubt the Catholicity of the 1662 Prayer Book, let me remind the reader that it was adopted after the Restoration and the final defeat of puritanism in England, is the product of the triumph of Caroline divinity, and marks the completion of the English Reformation that was begun in 1534.

No less an Anglican authority than the great Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., writes, "The assertion, that the consecrated elements have become the body and blood of Christ, is so frequently made by the ancients that it may be reckoned as a patristic commonplace. But...they perhaps represent nothing more than rhetorical emphasis upon the doctrine that the elements become the body and blood of Christ... There may be set against such language a number of clear assertions that the bread and wine continue in their proper nature after they have become the body and blood of Christ; and this appears to have been the ordinary patristic view.

"But the middle ages saw a widespread shifting of emphasis from the mystery of identification to that of conversion... In the West this development terminated in the scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. IX, originally published 1921, pp. 129-130).

Hall continues, "If the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, can they rightly be said to retain their former nature and still be bread and wine?...the ancients clearly took for granted an affirmative answer; and with a few exceptions they held, without being conscious of inconsistency, the doctrine that the consecrated elements are and have become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be real bread and wine. There were giants in those days, and we are not justified in explaining their position as either careless or stupid. They were, however, more alive to the supernatural aspects of the mystery than are the majority of those who deny that such things can be...We are taught that the divine logos became flesh; but that in becoming what He was not, He remained what He was, truly divine, is also taught in Scripture, and constitutes a stereotyped formula of catholic theology" (ibid, Hall, pp. 134-135).

"The Eucharistic sacrament is said to consist of two parts; but the phrase ought not to be taken as meaning that the inward res is separate or separable from the outward elements. A distinction of aspects and relations is involved, rather than a demarkation between mutually discrete substances. The sacrament is one and indivisible, although substantially representative of two worlds. From the standpoint of this world, it is natural bread and wine to which an extraordinary thing has happened, insusceptible of verification by our senses. From the standpoint of the spiritual world, the self-same thing is the body and blood of Christ, marvelously accommodated to, and identified with, the forms and figures of bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 136).

In his classic work, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, E. J. Bicknell, D.D., writes, "The Real Presence. On this view we hold that we receive through the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ, because in answer to the prayers of His Church and in fulfillment of His own promise, He has brought the elements into a mysterious union with Himself. He has, at it were, taken them up into the fulness of His ascended life and made them the vehicle of imparting that life to His members. Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated elements. Of the manner of this union we affirm nothing. The Presence is spiritual, not material.

"This in some form, is the teaching of the Roman and Eastern Churches, of Luther, of the Fathers and early liturgies... It would appear to be the most consistent with Scripture and the tradition of the Church, and also to be a safeguard of certain great Christian principles" (p. 492, first published 1919, quoted from the 1936 edition). Bicknell continues, "Again, if we turn to the Church as the interpreter of Scripture, the main stream of Christian teaching is quite clear. We find a singular absence of theological controversy about the Eucharist, but the general line of thought may be exemplified by these words of Irenaeus, ʻThe bread which is of the earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common bread but Eucharist, made up of two things, an earthly and a heavenlyʼ" (Bicknell, ibid, p. 493).

The Protestant Reformation of which classical Anglicanism is an heir, was a movement to reform the Church and to return it to its primitive Catholic faith and practice. Dr. Martin Luther described the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament "in, with and under" the consecrated Bread and Wine as a "Sacramental union" (Latin: unio sacramentalis). John Calvin, who did not believe in the "real absence" of Christ like Zwingli or in receptionism like Bullinger, said the Body and Blood of Christ was "conjoined" with the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

In his 1528, Confession Concerning Christʼs Supper, Martin Luther said, "Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, ʻThis is my body,ʼ even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word ʻthisʼ indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a ʻsacramental union,ʼ because Christʼs body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament."

According to the Formula of Concord, the Consecration brings about this sacramental union whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. "Thus it is not our word or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that, from the beginning of the first Communion until the end of the world, make the bread the body and the wine the blood that are daily distributed through our ministry and office. Again, [Luther says] ʻHere, too, if I were to to say over all the bread there is, "This is the body of Christ," nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lordʼs Supper and say, "This is my body," then it is his body; not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking.ʼ"

In his mature doctrinal view, John Calvin also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because few contemporary Anglicans are really familiar with John Calvin or have studied his works, most Anglicans are completely unaware that much of what is called "Calvinist" sacramental theology by them is, in fact, Zwingliʼs sacramental theology rather than Calvinʼs. Indeed, much of what is called "Reformed" or "Calvinist" theology today really comes from Calvinʼs successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, and from the Synod of Dort and the Westminister Assembly later still. The truth is that the mature John Calvin did not teach the "real absence" of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion like Zwingli, or receptionism like Bullinger.

Leanne Van Dyk, Academic Dean and Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, writes, "He [Calvin] engaged in vigorous conversation with both Lutheran and Reformed leaders over the Lordʼs Supper, and in these polemical exchanges he developed his mature doctrine. There is discernible development in Calvinʼs understanding of the Lordʼs Supper from early to late in his ministry. One Calvin scholar [Thomas J. Davis] summarizes, ʻWe will see Calvin move from denying the Eucharist as an instrument of grace to affirming it as such. We will see Calvin develop a notion of substantial partaking of the true body and blood of Christ over his career; an emphasis that is practically absent, even denied, in his earliest teachingʼ" (The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, edited by Gordon T. Smith, c. 2008, Intervarsity Press, pp. 74-75).

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes [T]he Lordʼs Table should have been spread at least once a week for the Assembly of Christians,... All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast."

And what is that "bounteous repast"? In his 1540, Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, Calvin writes, "It is a spiritual mystery which can neither be seen by the eye nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore figured to us by visible signs, according as our weakness requires, in such manner, nevertheless, that it is not a bare figure but is combined with the reality and substance. It is with good reason then that the bread is called the body, since it not only represents it but also presents it to us. Hence we indeed infer that the name of the body of Jesus Christ is transferred to the bread, inasmuch as it is the sacrament and figure of it. But we likewise add, that the sacraments of the Lord should not and cannot be at all separated from their reality and substance. To distinguish, in order to guard against confounding them, is not only good and reasonable, but altogether necessary; but to divide them, so as to make them exist without the other, is absurd" (italics added).

In the same treatise Calvin continues, "We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gave us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all blessings" (italics added).

Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession in 1539, and "Luther himself appreciated his theology even on his jealously guarded theory of the Sacrament of the Holy Supper" (A History of the Reformation, by Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., LL.D.; Charles Scribnerʼs Sons; 1914; p. 112).

There was, of course, disagreements among the great Reformers regarding the Eucharist, but the disagreements were primarily over how the bread and the wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Luther emphasized ubiquity; Calvin, basing his views on the sanctus in the liturgy and the so-called "ascending epiclesis" at the end of the canon in the Roman Rite, believed that we were caught up into heaven with Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy. Others believed that the consecration was effected by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on the elements; or by the authority and power of Christʼs Words and command in the Words of Institution. All of these theories are helpful but not fully provable by Scripture, and should not divide Christians. Regarding the Anglican view, Bicknell has written, "Of the manner of this union we [Anglicans] affirm nothing." Had the leaders of the Reformation from across Europe been able to freely meet in synod to discuss these issues, as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had hoped, unity and a unified teaching may have resulted, but because of the political turmoil and Roman Catholic persecution of the time, no such synod could be held. Unfortunately, as Anglican bishop Michael Marshall has said, while Luther won the battle against Zwingli at Marburg, Zwingliism went on to win the war. The Rev. John R. Stephenson, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catherines, Ontario, laments, "As painful though it is to concede this point, beginning in the seventeenth century, Luther increasingly lost the war for the real presence even in the Communion named after him" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 46).

Today, the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches do not hold Calvinist views regarding the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Like the Baptists, Methodists and other modern evangelicals, they have become completely Zwinglian in their approach, and believe that the Lordʼs Supper is a mere memorial of Christʼs sacrificial death. As Anglicans we must be careful not to describe these Zwinglian views as "Calvinism," which thy are not. Professor Van Dyk writes, "There is little doubt that the approach to the Lordʼs Supper expressed by Ulrich Zwingli was taken up in large part by the subsequent Reformed tradition. Many generations of Reformed believers have assumed that the Lordʼs Supper is a memorial act, a way to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an encouragement to gratitude and service" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 72).

In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican theology rejects both the errors of Transubstantiation and Zwinglian mere memorialism. Zwingliʼs ideas are rejected in Article XXV, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian menʼs profession, but rather they be certain sure witness, and effectual signs of grace (italics added). And Article XXVIII says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign but rather it is a Sacrament...a partaking of the Body of Christ" (italics added). The Articles of Religion also reject the notion of "receptionism." Like "Calvinism" which is often confused with Zwingliism, receptionism is often misunderstood. The doctrine of receptionism comes not from John Calvin, but from Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger was Zwingliʼs successor in Zurich, and served there for forty-four years, from 1531 to 1575. Bullingerʼs sacramental views matured over time, leaving behind Zwingliʼs teaching, but stopping short of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. 

For Bullinger, like his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine, are not connected to the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Heinrich Bullinger taught a sort of parallelism. The sacramental signs are not merely signs, but rather are analogies of Godʼs gracious actions. They do not confer grace. The sacramental action and the divine action are separate, but parallel. As the believer receives the bread and wine with his mouth, he receives Christ in his heart by faith. This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added). Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans. This is for three reasons. First, many have mistakenly believed that Richard Hooker, one of Anglicanism's greatest theologians, believed in it. Second, because Anglicanism teaches that the Body and Blood of Christ are received "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII). And finally, because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper.

Richard Hooker is sometimes described as a receptionist because he wrote in his famous Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, "The real presence of Christ is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." But Hooker was only echoing the important point made in Article XXV, "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon,...but we should duly use them" (italics added). The sacraments are not an end in themselves to be lifted up, carried about, and gazed upon, but a means to an end: the union of the believer with Christ, that as the Apostle Peter says, we may be partakers of the divine nature. Elsewhere, Hooker makes it very clear that he sees the sacraments as means, or vehicles, of grace. Hooker writes, "This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold"; and "The power of the ministry of God...by blessing visible elements...maketh them invisible grace." Likewise, some have misunderstood the words "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. "Spiritual" does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. This language is taken from John 6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." 

The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things. In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer the question is asked, "What is the inward part, or thing signified [in the Sacrament of Holy Communion]?" And answers, "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper." Where it says "spiritually taken and received" in the 1928 Prayer Book, it says "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily [truly] and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper" in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. "Spiritually taken and received" and "verily [truly] taken and received" mean the same thing. It should also be noted that the words "taken and received" echo Article XXVIII, "The Body of Christ is "given [by the priest], taken [by the communicant], and eaten [by the communicant]", thus ruling out Bullingerʼs receptionism.

Finally, some Anglicans have been influenced historically by receptionism because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper. Receptionism teaches that unbelievers receive only bread and wine, but not its parallel, the Body and Blood of Christ, which are only received into the heart by faith; and that Christ is present at the Table rather than on the Table. But that is not what the Article is teaching. Bicknell writes, "This Article does not in any way deny the ʻreal presence,ʼ it only rules out any carnal view of it. To give an illustration: when our Lord was on earth He possessed healing power quite independently of the faith of men: but only those who possessed faith could get into touch with it. Many touched His garments, but only the woman who had faith was healed (Mk. 5:30). The healing power was there: the touch of faith did not create it, but faith as it were, opened the channel to the appropriate blessing. So in the Eucharist, Christ in all His saving power is present. The wicked are only capable of receiving the visible and material signs of His presence. But those who approach with faith can receive the inward grace and become partakers of Christ by feeding on His Body and Blood" (ibid, Bicknell, p. 503).

Unfortunately, in the middle to late 19th century, many Anglicans were driven toward receptionism in reaction to the excesses of the so-called Ritualists that had grown out of, and separated from, the Oxford Movement led by Pusey and Keble, and had increasingly adopted Roman ceremonial, doctrine and devotions. But the Tractarians of the Oxford Movement were loyal churchmen devoted to the Catholic faith according to the Anglican tradition. They were classical Anglicans. Regarding the Eucharist, they held to classical Anglican theology as found in the Book of Common Prayer. The Rev. Francis J. Hall writes, "Even the Tractarians of Oxford, while seeking to take our Lordʼs words literally, usually contended themselves with the affirmation of a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with and under the consecrated bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 112).

The influence of receptionism seems to be a thing of the past in Anglicanism as there are no well known theologians or schools of thought within the Church that teach it today. The same cannot be said of Transubstantiation and Impanation. Those under the influence of Tridentine Roman Catholicism still hold to these unscriptural teachings or to something like them, despite the fact that Rome has been moving in the direction of Anglican Sacramental Theology in recent years. In his book, God Is Near Us (Ignatius Press, 2003), in his chapter entitled "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament", Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) writes, "Whenever the Body of Christ, that is the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different" (Italics added).

In the opposite extreme there are some Anglican neo-evangelicals, late of the Episcopal Church, that have been heavily influenced by contemporary "evangelicalism" and the church growth movement, and who hold to a memorialism hardly distinguishable from that of Zwingli and of todays Baptists and Assemblies of God.

God raised up Anglicanism for a purpose, has used it powerfully, and has preserved it through a generation of heresy and apostasy. Anglicanism is the one branch of the historic Church that is both thoroughly Evangelical and fully Catholic. Anglicanism confesses, as our forefathers use to say, "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order." Anglicanism is not three parallel but increasingly divergent "streams" - Catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic - flowing from the same original source; but a Church that is thoroughly Evangelical, fully Catholic and called to minister in the power of Pentecost. Anglicanism has so much to offer to the wider Church and to a lost and hurting world. It is to this classical and confessional Anglicanism that we must return if we are to be what God has called us to be; and to do what He has called us to do - raise up authentic disciples of Christ; reform, restore and renew the Anglican Communion; and effectively advance the work of the Great Commission. 

C. 2009, by Rev. Victor E. Novak 

---The Reverend Victor E. Novak is a priest of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church, a jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in North America, and the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Omaha, Nebraska. His parish website can be found at www.holycrossomaha.net He can be e-mailed at venovak@hughes.net or telephoned at (402) 687-9458.

Canon Arthur Middleton

Arthur Middleton who spent 10 years in Sunderland and 24 years as Rector of Boldon is an Emeritus Canon of Durham. He was a Tutor at St Chad's College, and served on the College Council being Acting Principal in 1996-97. He is an Honorary Fellow of St Chad's, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a Patron of the Society of King Charles the Martyr. He is on the Church Union Council Standing Committee and Publications Committee. As a prolific writer of books and articles, he has completed three lecture tours in Canada and Australia. Married to Jennifer, they have two grown-up sons.


Here is the link to an excellent essay by of Canon Middleton:  http://www.anglicanassociation.co.uk/article01.html 

The Role Of The Church Fathers In Anglicanism

Cosin, John (1594-1672)

THERE remain to us, by God's grace, many good and wholesome writings of the Holy Fathers who hold consent on the mysteries of the Faith.

These we highly esteem and respect at once, for the lofty erudition of the authors, and for the grace of the Holy Spirit, which all men allow to have been more abundantly shed upon them, and also for their piety and truth, which is testified to us, not only by paper and ink, but in many cases by their blood.

For the nearer they were to the Apostolic days, the better must they have understood the truth, and the more correctly, as we believe, have they explained it. This is especially the case where they are unanimous and consentient in matters of faith. They all bear witness to the origin and authority of the Canonical Scriptures, and many of them have written valuable commentaries upon the holy Books.

Some crushed the heresies of the day, some have written the history of the Church of God, and stir up a love of piety by the tone of their works. And for these reasons we urge our clergy and students to read them again and again; but, of course, discretion should be used in determining what treatises to read.

And further, that the whole Christian world might be sure that the religion which we encourage in England, and the faith which we profess, is none other than the true Catholic Faith, received in common by the ancient Fathers, and confirmed out of the Holy Scriptures, the following golden canon concerning Preachers has been made in our Church, and was published with our Articles of Religion in 1571.

"They are to take special care not to teach any thing ... to be religiously held or believed by the people, unless it be agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and the Bishops of the ancient Church have actually gathered from that doctrine."

For we are so minded as to desire that nothing should be believed but what can certainly be found in the sacred Word of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, and proved by the consent of Apostolical and Primitive Antiquity.

It is in this way that we combine Holy Scripture and tradition, making tradition always subordinate and agreeable to Scripture. When the Apostles had preached by word of mouth, they handed down the doctrine which they had thus preached to those that came after them in writing, which is naturally the surest way to preserve both doctrine and facts.

Again Apostolical men and Bishops of the ancient Church constantly inculcated what had been thus handed down to them in their conversation and sermons, and showed it forth in their lives, and thus Christianity was delivered to those that came after them unadulterated in doctrine, or rites, or morals.

But we do not regard any traditions as legitimate which have not the witness of the Apostles, or Bishops appointed by the Apostles, or their next successors; and we do not regard anything Apostolical or Catholic of which they were ignorant, and which they did not teach.

The consent of Antiquity is chiefly exhibited in the Creeds and Confessions which the ancient Church agreed to put forth in Councils, and which a later age accepted throughout the Christian world. We regard a thing as an undoubted and settled truth if it was openly, frequently, and perseveringly held and taught, not by one or two teachers only, but unanimously.

But if anything is maintained by an individual, though he were a saint, or a learned man, a bishop, confessor, or martyr, without the authority of Holy Scripture and the consent of the Church, and he has handed this down to those who came after him, without having himself received it from the Fathers, and Christ's Apostles, that must be put aside as a private opinion, unauthorized by the common, public, and Catholic or universal sentiment; but we think that no one can refuse to submit to this sentiment when it is thus universal without being guilty of great arrogance and temerity.

Religion, Discipline And Rites Of The Church Of England. Chapter V.

Hold Fast To The Traditional Gospel And Avoid Novelties In Doctrine

Beveridge, William (1637-1708)

WE must be sure to observe this apostolical rule, to hold fast the form of sound words: which his Apostle judged so necessary, that he minds Timothy of it, not only here, but likewise in his former Epistle to him, saying, 1 Tim. vi. 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy charge; that is, the fides depositum, as St. Jerome expounds it, that sound faith which is committed to thee: and then he adds, avoiding τας βεβήλους κενοφωνίας, profane and vain babblings, as contrary to the sound words before spoken of: or, as the Latin Fathers generally render it, devitaris profanas vocum novitates; reading, I suppose, καινωφωνία instead of κενοφωνία; but the sense is much the same.

For all new ways of speaking in divinity, especially in our age, is at the best but vain babbling, and commonly profane, possessing men's minds with such notions and conceptions of things, as will infallibly lead them into error and heresy.

Read but the wild extravagant opinions of the first heretics and schismatics, that disturbed the Church; and afterwards take a view of those which after-ages have produced, together with such as have been either revived or invented in our days; and you will find them all made up of new words, strange phrases, and odd expressions, which please the ears, and then debauch the minds of them which hearken to them.

We need not go far for instances; every sect amongst us will supply us with too many, insomuch that they may be all known from one another merely by their words, and new modes of speaking; whereby they would seem to interpret, when indeed they pervert the Scriptures, and wrest them to their own destruction.  Hence therefore it will be our interest and wisdom, as it is our duty, to avoid those new words and phrases, which have been lately started in the Church, as well as the opinions which are couched under them; and to look upon them at the best but superfluous and unnecessary, upon that very account, because they are new. For nothing certainly can be necessary to be believed or spoken in our days, which hath not been so all along.

Especially it concerns us, who are to instruct others in the way to bliss, to use none but sound words, such as are consonant to the Scriptures, as interpreted by the catholic Church in all ages. I speak not this of myself; it is the express command of our Church, in the Canons she put forth in the year 1571, where she hath these words; Imprimis vero videbunt concionatores, ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrina Veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina catholici patres et veteres episcopi collegerint.  [The official English translation reads: "The Preachers chiefly shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old Testament and the New, and that which the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that Doctrine."]

Doctrinal Principles

Andrewes Hall is a Theological College affiliated with the Reformed Episcopal Church.  I stumble across its website yesterday and was taken with the College's statement of doctrinal standards.  Personally, I found the statement to be an excellent summary of the classical Anglican point of view.  This should not surprise anyone, however, given that I am very devoted to Lancelot Andrewes and consider among a handful of the most important Anglican divines.   In any event, I thought I would share the principles for discussion.

* * * * * * *

Perhaps the best shorthand statement of our doctrinal position as a seminary is the famous formula set forth by Lancelot Andrewes’ in defining the boundaries of faith and practice for the Church of England:

One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, fourgeneral councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.

“One Canon”

We affirm that the Canon of Holy Scripture is central to our Rule of Faith, standing as the ultimate norm of belief and practice. We affirm the Bible to be the infallible and revealed Word of God. Hence we test all things by God’s Word written.

“Two Testaments”

We affirm the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament to be the limits of biblical inspiration. The received books of the Deuterocanon or “Apocrypha”, while being an important subdivision of the greater biblical corpus, are in no way afforded the same status as the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments. The Church may read them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” yet they are not used or applied to establish binding doctrine (cf. Article VI of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England).

We also affirm Two Sacraments as ordained by Christ Himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him (cf. Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888).

“Three Creeds”

We affirm (1) the Apostles’ Creed, as our Baptismal symbol; (2) the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; and (3) the creed known in the West as the “Creed of Saint Athanasius”, as affirming the mysteries of the Triune God and the Personal union of two Natures in our Divine Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

“Four Councils”

We affirm the dogmatic definitions of the first four ecumenical councils of the undivided Church – (1) Nicaea, A.D. 325, (2) Constantinople, A.D. 381, (3) Ephesus, A.D. 431, and (4) Chalcedon, A.D. 451 – as representing the true mind of the Church Catholic in the face of heresy and controversy, and the consensus of the faithful as led by the Spirit of God into all truth. The later ecumenical councils (i.e., the fifth, sixth, and seventh) are affirmed as orthodox to the degree that they are consistent with, while adding nothing to, the substance of dogma defined by the first four.

“Five Centuries”

We affirm the witness of the Spirit of God during the formative period of the Church, otherwise known as the Patristic era, contained primarily in the writings and testimonies of the great Fathers of the first five centuries (roughly from the Apostles to Gregory the Great). This witness continues to inform our faith and practice, especially in the areas of polity, worship, and evangelical mission.

One further note…

Andrewes Hall finds its identity in the Reformed character of the historic Protestant Church of England and the greater Anglican tradition. Thus we cherish and honor the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion contained therein. Nevertheless, we also remain open to fellowship, dialogue and interaction with Christians of all branches of Christ’s Church in the spirit and heritage of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888.

On The Appeal To The Church Fathers In The Interpretation Of Scripture

White, William (1748-1836)

William White was the first Bishop of Pennsylvania, USA. More at Wikipedia.

THERE ought to be clearly understood the purpose, for which reference is made to an authority extraneous to holy scripture: especially as there are some, who criminate every appeal to the fathers; as if it were a removing of the cause from before the tribunal of the paramount authority of the law and the testimony.

It is accordingly here declared, that no idea is entertained of going beyond the limits of the canon, for the establishing of any opinion, not found in the books of which it is composed.

But it is conceived, that the sense of the times immediately following the apostles must, as a fact, be a strong testimony on the question of what was the faith, which the apostles handed to them; and, in that point of view, may give considerable aid in the interpreting of scripture.

This is no more than what is attributed to them, by the admission of their testimony, in regard to what books are to be received as the writings of the apostles. The argument, as applying to any leading doctrine or institution of Christianity, in proof of its having been held at the time in question, appears to the writer of this equally cogent, as when applied to the genuineness of the book, in which the doctrine or the institution is supposed to be found.

But the argument appears to him even to increase in weight, when applied in the negative form; or, when it is pleaded that a certain doctrine could not have been delivered by the apostles, because not found in the remains of early times; and especially, those of them written with the professed view of declaring their faith before the world.