An Invitation to Roman Catholics

I would like to take the time to invite my Roman Catholic friends and countrymen to “swim the Tiber” out of Rome and to the green pastures of historic Protestantism.

To leave the Roman church is not to leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. The Reformers did not found a new church during the Protestant Reformation. They worked to reform the church of Jesus Christ, which already existed. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, and this reformation extended to much of the existing church. John Calvin put it this way: “we have had no other end in view than to ameliorate in some degree the very miserable condition of the Church” (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1543).

The church is not built upon the bishop of Rome, but upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the cornerstone (Ephesians 2). We have the word of the apostles and prophets in Scripture, the only rule of faith and obedience now given by God to his church. It does not say that Peter appointed the bishop of Rome to bear his apostolic authority, but that Peter and the apostles faithfully delivered the message of Christ once to the saints - a message that is recorded in Scripture - ordaining all ministers to faithfully preach and teach it.

To leave the Roman church is also not to discard as useless the history of the church up to 1517. We confess the Nicene Creed every Sunday at our church. The two authors that John Calvin quoted the most outside of the Bible in his Institutes of the Christian Religion were Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux. As Calvin wrote to Cardinal Sadoleto, “The fact is now too notorious for you to gain anything by denying it, viz., but in all these points, the ancient church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do.” The Reformation was sparked by a "return to the sources" that extended not only to Scripture, but also to the early church fathers.

To leave the Roman church is also not to abandon apostolic succession, a valid ministry, and the Eucharist. Apostolic succession is to be measured by faithfulness to apostolic doctrine, which is found in Scripture. At the same time, we do not forsake the practice of the ordination of pastors by other pastors, although many Protestants do reject the distinction between bishops and priests, seeing that the Bible uses the terms "bishop/overseer," "pastor/shepherd," and "elder/presbyter" interchangeably (e.g. Acts 20:17, 28). As J.A. Alexander, put it “Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank, which we have claimed for Presbyters, is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession; partly because it is not absolutely necessary, partly because we are as really possessed of it as any other ministry or church whatever.” Protestant ministers do administer the Eucharist (whether they use that term or "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper"), following Christ's example by setting apart the elements to their sacramental use by the words of institution and prayers of thanksgiving and blessing.

The Roman church falsely claims to be the whole church while it obscures the gospel by its errors, its distinctive doctrines and practices which have no warrant in God's word, but are invented by man. I have given one example recently here: Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome. The Protestant doctrine of justification for Christ's sake alone, received by faith alone (although not by a faith that is alone, but is ever accompanied by other graces), is good news, to be joyfully received and spread abroad. Remember the promise sealed by your baptism, the promise of forgiveness and cleansing through the blood of Jesus Christ, a promise to be received by faith - its efficacy and use continues throughout your life. The only perfect righteousness that satisfies the demands of God’s law and gains for us a righteous verdict before him is the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to us. Faith justifies, not by the good works which it does produce, but by receiving Jesus and his righteousness. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

If you live locally, my church website can be found here: Covenant Family Church (OPC). For those who are further away, you can begin by checking out these: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and United Reformed Churches in North America. 

Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome

In Paul's letter to the Galatians, we are told that when the apostle Peter came to Syrian Antioch, he ate with the Gentiles, as God had taught him in Acts 10. But when men of the circumcision party in Jerusalem came to Antioch, Peter drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles through fear of them. Other Jewish believers, even Barnabas, followed Peter’s example.

Paul saw correctly that this was hypocrisy, since Peter was not acting on his beliefs but was acting through fear of these visitors. Paul also saw the dangerous impact of this action on the Gentiles converts, since by withdrawing, Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews, to be circumcised and return to the laws of ritual purity. And so Paul opposed Peter and told him publicly, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

It is a little unclear where the quotation of what Paul said to Peter stops. The ESV ends the quotation at the end of verse 14, and that might be correct. But Paul goes on to explain his basic point in Galatians 2:15-16.

"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15–16) 

“We ourselves” is speaking of Jewish believers like Peter and Paul. They were Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, and yet even they had sought their justification through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works of the law. They put no confidence in the flesh and did not rely on works of the law, but relied on Jesus Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles were condemned by the law and were justified by God through faith in Jesus Christ.

To insist on the observance of the old covenant ceremonies was to count the Gentile believers as unclean, despite their faith in Christ and possession of the Spirit. Those who insisted on circumcision were teaching people to rely on works of the law, to put confidence in the flesh.

Paul goes on to show that these “Judaizers” were misusing the old covenant, which was meant to lead us to Christ, and which had become obsolete with the coming of Christ. But the point of our passage is that no person is justified by works of the law; a person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ. This is why both Jews and Gentiles have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. It is not that we have believed in Christ in order to receive the ability to keep God's commands and thereby be justified. In that case Paul could have said we are justified by the works of the law through faith in Jesus Christ. But no, Paul contrasts two different ways of seeking justification, by works or by faith.

1. The Doctrine of Justification

A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

What is “justification”?

It is a declaration of a person’s righteousness. It is the opposite of condemnation. In the Bible, it is a judicial word, a pronouncement and sentence, not the work of making someone righteous. For example, in Romans 3:4, God is said to be “justified” in his words and to prevail when he is judged. And in Romans 8:33-34, to justify is set against to condemn, "It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?”

What are the “works of the law”? Are they only the observance of the ceremonial law?

They are not only the ceremonial law. Paul's point is that justification is not by our obedience to the law of God, whether ceremonial or moral. Those who rely on old covenant ceremonies in themselves for justification (not putting them aside and looking to the Christ they fore-signified) are relying on their perfect obedience to the whole law for their righteousness (Gal. 3:10-14). Paul goes on in Galatians 3:10-14 to speak of how Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. Paul also writes about this in his letter to the Romans, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28), and there it is especially clear that the “law” in question is one that is convicts all of us of sin and demands perfect obedience. Romans 3:20, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

By what kind of faith are we justified?

We are not justified by any faith, but "by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16). The object of faith is important. And it is not a mere knowledge of the gospel or an assent to its truth, but a reliance upon Jesus Christ, a receiving and resting upon him for salvation.

What function does faith serve?

Faith is unique among all the virtues in that it receives Christ. The function of faith is to receive Christ, that we might be united to him. Faith is not the food, but the way we eat the food; not the treasure, but the way we receive the treasure; not the glorious robe, but the way we put it on. 

On what basis are we justified?

Believers are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us. We are justified “by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:24-25). 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to us. That is the only perfect righteousness that will satisfy the demands of God’s law and gain for us a righteous verdict.

This doctrine is not only biblical and Protestant, but also finds a precedent in the early and medieval church, although it was not always well formulated or clearly taught.

On justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness:

John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians, on 2 Corinthians 5:21, AD c. 400) - “For he said not ‘made’ [Christ] a sinner, but ‘sin;’ … that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away.”

Bernard of Clarivaux (Letter LX, AD 1140) - “For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of himself to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him … Why should not righteousness come to me from another when guilt came upon me from another? … It is not fitting for the son to bear the iniquity of the father, and yet to have no share in the righteousness of his brother. … I attain to one and to the other in the same way: to the one by the flesh, to the other by faith.”

On justification by faith alone:

Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32.4, AD 95) - “And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Colossians, AD c. 400) - “For, all of a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery…”

The right use of this true doctrine?

As Paul teaches in Galatians 2:19-20, being justified by faith in Christ, we now live in Christ and for Christ, for the one who loved us and gave himself for us. We give ourselves back to him in gratitude. Being set free from the condemnation of the law, we now live our new life to God. Being justified because we are in Christ, we are also sanctified because Christ is in us. “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

2. Roman Errors that Obscure the Doctrine

Peter once obscured the truth by his actions, and Paul rebuked him. So those who claim to succeed Peter obscure the truth, not only by their actions, but by their teachings. The Roman church will say some things we can agree with, but they teach various errors that obscure the truth and lead people astray.

1. Their doctrine of justification.

For example, they accept the satisfaction of Christ for their satisfaction, but not their righteousness before God. They include sanctification as part of justification, teaching that justification is by the forgiveness of sins and by the renewal of the inner man, on which basis a person is declared to be righteous. They reject justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. The Council of Trent proclaimed: 

“If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.” (Session 6, Canon 11)

The Council of Trent still asserted the necessity of grace and faith for justification. They asserted that we were unjust in Adam and only justified by being “born again in Christ” (Session 6, Chapter 3). Yet, they denied that justification is only the remission of sins, but argued that it is “also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts…” (Chapter 7). The council taught that God does not merely reckon us to be just, but properly calls us just because we are just, each according to our measure. It taught that our justification is not dependent upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, but rather upon our righteousness which we are enabled to exercise because of the grace of Christ given to us. Thus they give faith a different function, to prepare a person for justification and by working love in them, on account of which they are justified.

By making our righteousness before God depended upon our virtue and deeds, it diverts the Christian from looking to Christ toward looking at his own character and works. We agree that Christ does work righteousness and love in us, but we deny that these graces serve as the basis of our justification. The law of God demands perfection, and it is Christ’s own perfect righteousness that covers believers and is reckoned to them by grace. 

2. Their doctrine of concupiscence.

They deny concupiscence to be sin. This view of sin makes it easier for people to believe that they are righteous before God in their own right. But we believe that this original corruption is sin and is still present in the believer, so that if we were judged by the law on the basis of our virtue and works, we would be condemned. Even Paul found sin at work in him; seeing the desire for sin as sin, something to be confessed and mortified (Rom. 7-8). Thus, Christians need the imputed righteousness of Christ to be declared righteous before God. 

3. Their doctrine of penance.

Their doctrine of penance is wrong and misleading. They distinguish between venial and mortal sins in the life of the believer. They teach that mortal sins cause a person to lose his justification and utterly fall from the state of grace. But justification may be renewed. While they affirm that “only God forgives sins” and that “Christ alone expiated our sins once for all,” they also teach that justification may only be renewed by the sacrament of penance. This not only requires contrition and a confession of the sins to a priest, who absolves the sinner, but in their definition of repentance they include the making of satisfaction to God by your deeds to expiate the sin, a satisfaction accepted by God through Christ (CCC, p. 407-408). Again, this redirects people from faith in Christ’s work to their own works.

It is true that we must repent. Repentance is primarily an internal turning from sin to God. With grief and hatred toward sin, we turn from it to God, with full purpose of and endeavor after new obedience. True repentance will include a new resolve to obey God, resulting in deeds in keeping with our repentance (Acts 26:20). But this new obedience is not a satisfaction made to God. We rest on the satisfaction made by Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins and the one who intercedes for us. A true turning from sin to God will include the making of restitution to our fellow man for sins against him and a faith in Christ and his redemptive work for the satisfying of divine justice.

4. Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin.

Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin is also wrong and misleading. They will say that even when the guilt and punishment of sin is forgiven, that temporal penalties due for that sin remain. From this doctrine come belief in indulgences, purgatory, and the use of the merits and intercessions of the saints. They teach that if a believer dies before suffering all the temporal punishments for their sins, they must be further purified by suffering in purgatory. They no longer sell indulgences, but still affirm their use to relieve a person of these temporal punishments. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. … The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.”

Again, this redirects attention away from Christ’s work, neglects the fullness of his work, and substitutes beliefs and practices of man’s invention.

When we are forgiven, both guilt and punishment is removed. We are not liable for a debt that has been canceled (Col. 2:14). We no longer need to make satisfaction for sin. Christ has satisfied divine justice by his single sacrifice, offered once for all, and he is the propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:24-25, Heb. 9:14, 25-28, 10:10-14). It is true that believers are sanctified through trials, sometimes sent as consequences for our sins, but this suffering is not a satisfaction for sin, but a fatherly discipline for our training in this mortal world. Those who die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors (Rev. 14:13). As Jesus told the believing criminal on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). When believers die, their souls are made perfect in holiness and immediately pass into glory, being blessed in Christ for his sake. There they await the resurrection from the dead on the last day.

5. The sacrifice of the Eucharist.

They also teach that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a reparation for the sins of the living and the dead that obtains spiritual or temporal benefits from God. They teach that the love inspired by this communion wipes away venial sins. They teach it can be offered for the dead, to relieve them of some of their temporal penalties.

The word “Eucharist” is not bad. It comes from the Greek word for “thanksgiving.” A sacrifice of thanksgiving is made in this sacrament, but not a propitiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Christ offered himself once as a sacrifice for sins on the cross (Heb. 9-10), and now the benefits of that sacrifice are given to believers. The Eucharist is a sacrament that represents, seals, and applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to us, to be received with faith, thanksgiving, and renewed consecration; not a sacrifice that man offers to God to obtain benefits from him. The letter to the Hebrews could not be more clear on the contrast between the repeated offering of sacrifices in the old covenant and the single sacrifice of Christ once offered to God by Christ, our priest.

What are to we to make of the Roman church and its members?

On the one hand, it is a huge institution with more diversity than they like to admit. The beliefs of its members are supposed to be whatever the church teaches, but this is often not the case. Their beliefs can be worse than the official dogma, but sometimes they are better, especially when they have been influenced by Protestants. If you are interacting with individuals in the Roman church, it is important to not jump to conclusions. See what they themselves actually believe. Not only will that make your conversations more productive, but it can also open a door to share what you believe and to clear up misconceptions they may have about Protestants.

As for the Roman church in general, a good analogy that was used by the Reformers was that of the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom professed the true God and its members were marked by the sign of the covenant and there was a remnant of faithful believers in it; yet that kingdom had departed from ordinances God had appointed in Jerusalem, they had substituted for them the idolatrous and corrupt worship of the true God using golden calves, and was led by kings that made the people to sin in unfaithfulness to their covenant God. Calls were given to the northern kingdom and its members to turn to their Lord and to worship him in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 30:1-12).

We should continue to seek the purity and unity of the visible church, encouraging members of the Roman church to be true to their baptism by resting upon Christ alone for their salvation if they don’t already, and by forsaking the false teaching and corrupt worship of the Roman church. Even though it is possible to be saved in it, it is a spiritually dangerous place to be, all the more because of the weight that is given in that church to the authority of the church hierarchy and tradition.

May we call the hierarchy of that church to repent and reform. In the meantime, may we have compassion on our Roman neighbors and share the truth of the gospel that is obscured by the doctrines and practices of their church. Encourage them to come out to the refreshing waters and green pastures of historic Protestantism. 27% of St. Charles County belongs to the Roman church, and 21% of the St. Louis metro area, so this is a very practical issue.

Let them know that to leave the Roman church is not to leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. The Reformers did not found a new church during the Protestant Reformation. They worked to reform the church of Jesus Christ, which already existed. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, upon which his church is founded (the word of the prophets and apostles). The work of reform is not yet done - may all the baptized be taught the joyful tidings of the gospel and organized in local and regional churches that faithfully proclaim the word of God and rightly administer the sacraments.

Justification by faith alone for Christ’s sake alone is good news, to be spread abroad and joyfully received. May you receive it yourself and live now by faith in the Son of God, who loved you and gave himself for you. May we not abuse this doctrine and bring it into disgrace, but confess it faithfully along with the whole counsel of God, adorning the faith with good works of grateful love.

We have joyful tidings of salvation in Christ. We who have believed in Jesus Christ, to be justified by faith in him, can take comfort and rejoice that there is “now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). We can rejoice that, “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of, the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1–2). You can come with confidence to the throne of grace, seeking help in times of need, resting upon the meditation and perfect sacrifice of your merciful high priest.

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:33–34)

Congregationalist

In this series on denominational traditions (part 1, part 2), we come next to the Congregationalists. Congregationalism was a branch of English Puritanism, Reformed in doctrine and worship but holding to some unique positions on the doctrine of the church:

1. Membership on the basis of conversion.

The basis for church membership (communicant church membership) is faith and repentance, or more precisely, a profession of faith that is not only believable, but that compels belief. At least in New England, they generally required prospective members to give testimonies of their conversions. They did retain infant baptism, although the status of such children before their profession was debated (the Savoy Declaration did not count baptized infants as members of the visible church, but the versions of Savoy and the Westminster Confession accepted by New England Congregationalists did count them as such). 

2. Gathered churches formed by church covenants.

Rather than the universal visible church being formed into particular churches, churches are formed by believers covenanting together.

3. No greater church than a congregation, with all authority at the congregational level.

Their churches are independent, more or less, although there is a place for associations and synods (especially useful with respect to ordination), although associations beyond the local church lack church-power. 

4. Government by the congregation, led by officers.

Members vote on receiving, dismissing, and disciplining members, as well as calling men to office or removing them from office. Churches are led and taught by these officers. Originally Congregationalist churches had ministers, ruling elders, and deacons, but ruling elders gradually disappeared, leaving only ministers/elders and deacons. 

History

Notable English Congregationalists include William Ames, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, and Isaac Watts. Notable American Congregationalists include the Pilgrims and New England Puritans, John Cotton, John Eliot, Thomas Hooker, the Mathers, Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight, Nathaniel Taylor, D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, and Harold John Ockenga.

1620 - The Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth.

1640s - Westminster Assembly, a mostly Presbyterian assembly that included some Congregationalists like Goodwin.

1648 - The Cambridge Platform adopted in Massachusetts, which affirmed the Westminster Confession of Faith except as dealt with church government and discipline.

1658 - The Savoy Declaration, a modified version of the Westminster Confession, was produced by English Congregationalists. 

1662 - The Half-Way Covenant was adopted in many churches of New England.

1680 - The Reforming Synod (MA), which approved the Savoy Declaration with a few minor edits.

1708 - The Saybrook Platform (CT), which included the confession of 1680 (the slightly altered Savoy Declaration).

1730s - The Great Awakening began (e.g. Jonathan Edwards, Old Light / New Light split). 

1766 - American Presbyterians and CT Congregationalists form an association with a regular convention for better communication between them and for a united stand for the gospel and religious liberty and against the imposition of a bishop.

Late 1700s - The “New Divinity” develops among New Light Congregationalists

1801 - The Plan of Union with Presbyterians for westward expansion (until 1837 and 1852)

1800-1825 - Unitarian controversy; about 100 churches, mostly near Boston, break away.

1807 - Andover Seminary was founded in response to a Unitarian divinity professor at Harvard.

1810 - American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was founded (one of many voluntary societies created in that era).

1817 - Timothy Dwight, grandson of Edwards, minister, Yale president, dies.

1818-1819 - Churches disestablished in CT and NH.

1822 - Nathaniel Taylor became professor of divinity at Yale, promoting “New Haven Theology.”

1833 - Churches disestablished in MA.

1853 - The American Congregational Union formed.

1865 - The Burial Hill Declaration of Faith (preparation for the denomination that formed in 1871).

Late 1800s - D.L. Moody and C.I. Scofield active.

1871 - National Council of Congregational Churches of the United States.

1913 - The Kansas City Statement (watered down, no Calvinism, a more liberal position).

1931 - CCC (Congregational Christian Churches) was formed through a merger of the national (predominately northern) denomination with the General Convention of the Christian Church (predominately a southern denomination).

1948 - CCCC (Conservative Congregational Christian Conference) was formed due to theological concerns with the Congregational Christian Churches.

1955 - NACCC (National Association of Congregational Christian Churches) was formed out of opposition to the merger that created the UCC.

1957/1961 - UCC (United Church of Christ) was formed through a merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church (a denomination of German heritage).

What We Have in Common

With liberal Congregationalists, not much. Historically, with traditional Congregationalists, we have a great deal in common (e.g. doctrines of God’s sovereignty, covenant theology, Reformed worship), which is why Presbyterians and Congregationalists often worked together from at least the late 1600s through the mid-1800s.

Positive Traits We Can Appreciate

• They had all the positives of Puritanism: practical and zealous, with Reformed doctrine.
• Their emphasis on godly community, reform of church and society according to God‘s word, election sermons, missions, and an educated ministry.
• Their ability to achieve these things in New England.
• The importance of settled, churchly, Sabbatarian habits.
• Seeking both a godly commonwealth and a pure and zealous church (resisting, for a time, sectarian and broad church tendencies)

Where We Differ

While they hold to church membership of those who sufficiently prove themselves to be regenerate, we hold to church membership of those who profess faith and their children.

While they conceive of churches organized only as gathered local churches by church covenants, we conceive of the visible church as universal and particular, regional and local, united by profession of faith. 

While they hold churches to be basically independent, we hold the visible church to be local and regional, with local and regional governments.

While they hold to government and discipline that is congregational, based on and limited by their church-covenants, we hold to government and discipline that is by elders (teaching and ruling) called by the people.

Other differences result from the fact that congregational church government is not as effective at securing doctrinal unity, and so congregationalism general has more doctrinal diversity (despite its confessions and statements).

"As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty: and as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things…"
- Jonathan Edwards (Letter from him to John Erskine, July 5, 1750)

"Had New England, with her compact and homogenous population, and all her other advantages, enjoyed the benefit of a regular Presbyterian government in the church, it would, in all human probability, have been the noblest ecclesiastical community in the world." 
- Charles Hodge

Anglican and Episcopalian

This is part two in a series on denominational traditions. You can find the first part here: Reformed and Presbyterian. In this post, I will look at the Anglican and Episcopalian denominational tradition.

While this denomination is no longer as strong, visible, and united as it once was in the USA, it is rather important historically. Its ways are often a default in English-speaking countries, either directly or with modification. The word "Anglican" refers to what is English, and in particular the Church of England and other churches with the same formularies for doctrine, worship, and government. The word "Episcopal" refers to their church government by bishops and was used by the church in America after independence from Great Britain.

The historic formularies of the Anglican tradition are:

• The 39 Articles (1571). This is a basic Reformed confession of faith, based on the 42 Articles by Thomas Cranmer.
• The Book of Common Prayer (1662). The 1662 edition is the classic version, based on earlier versions by Cranmer, and later editions have been produced. 
• The Ordinal (1662). This is the form for ordinations.
• The Two Books of Homilies (1547, 1563, 1571). This is a collection of sermons by Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, and John Jewel. There are 12 sermons in the first book and 21 sermons in the second book. 

Some would also include Nowell’s Catechism. There is a little version included in the Book of Common Prayer and a longer version outside it. 

Notable figures include Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, William Perkins, George Herbert, Alexander Whitaker, James Ussher, George Whitefield, John Newton, J.C. Ryle, J.I. Packer, lay authors like Jane Austen, T.S. Eliot, and C.S. Lewis, and many political leaders like George Washington. Many hymn writers have been Anglican, such as Reginald Heber, a pastor in England and a missionary bishop in India who wrote hymns like "The Son of God Goes Forth to War," "Holy, Holy, Holy," "From Greenland's Icy Mountains," and "Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning." 

Timeline

600s - The Church of England is founded with the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons through Celtic and Roman missionaries (although it could arguably be dated earlier since Christianity had become established among the Britons during the time of the Roman Empire). 

1530s - Church of England becomes independent of Rome during the reign of Henry VIII. 

1549 - The first Book of Common Prayer, published in English during the reign of Edward VI. 

1550s - Mary Tudor attempts to bring England back to Rome, executing leading Protestants like bishops Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer.

1558 - Protestantism reestablished under Queen Elizabeth.

1607 - Church of England established in North America at Jamestown, although without a bishop in America until the 1780s. 

1611 - The King James Version of the Bible is published.

1633 - William Laud becomes Archbishop of Canterbury, hostile toward Puritanism, and a trend away from Reformed doctrine is underway.

1640s - Government by bishops is abolished, Laud is executed, and the Westminster Assembly attempts a further reform of the Church of England, bringing it into greater unity with the Church of Scotland.

1662 - Government by bishops is restored and the classic version of the Book of Common Prayer is published following the restoration of the monarchy. The Act of Uniformity forces out many of the most Puritan-minded ministers from their pulpits. The Reformed presence becomes diluted in the church.

1730s-1770s - The Great Awakening and the ministry of Anglican ministers George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Charles Wesley. 

1700s - In America, Anglicanism was different in the southern colonies than it was in the northern colonies. In the south, it was more “low church” in worship and government and patriot-sympathizing during the War of Independence. In the north, in reaction to the Congregationalists, it was more “high church” in worship and government, pressing for an American bishop, and more loyalist during the war.

1784-1789 - Following disestablishment, much of the Anglican church in the USA is reorganized as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (some of it breaks away as the Methodist Episcopal Church). The Protestant Episcopal Church adopted its own version of the BCP in 1789, with other editions in 1928 and 1979. A modified version of the 39 Articles was adopted in 1801.

1800s - The Anglican Church spreads throughout the world as missionaries are sent out, especially to lands where the British empire extends. Three camps emerge in the church: low church (evangelical), broad church (latitudinarian), and high church (stressing ritual and episcopacy).

1833 - The "Tractarian" or Oxford Movement begins with the publishing of the first "Tracts for the Times." This movement by high church members of the Church of England stressed continuity with the medieval English church in beliefs and practices, reinterpreted the 39 Articles, and developed into Anglo-Catholicism. Some of its leaders, like John Henry Newman, later joined the Roman Catholic Church.

1867 - The Anglican Communion is established as a communion of national churches in the Anglican tradition (today it has 85 -110 million members), with their bishops meeting every ten years at Lambeth Conferences (advisory rather than legislative).

1873 - The Reformed Episcopal Church forms in the USA in response to the growing influence of the Oxford Movement in the Episcopal Church.

1976 - The Episcopal Church in the USA approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate and moved toward adopting a new BCP (1979). This prompted the creation of several small breakaway denominations.

2008 - GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) is founded as a coalition of conservative Anglican churches at its first conference in Jerusalem in response to growing liberalism, and especially the acceptance of same-sex unions, in some parts of the Anglican Communion. A majority of the Anglican Communion also belonged to GAFCON, and GAFCON also came to include a few churches not recognized as part of the Anglican Communion, such as the ACNA. 

2009 - The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) forms in response to moves in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA toward blessing same-sex unions. The Reformed Episcopal Church was a founding member of the ACNA and its four dioceses are dioceses of the ACNA. In both the ACNA and GAFCON, there is a commitment to Christian sexual ethics and creedal orthodoxy in the Anglican tradition, but there is diversity on things like women's ordination, with some jurisdictions opposing it and others practicing it.

2025 - [Update:] On October 16th (the day after I posted this blog post), GAFCON announced a reordering of the Anglican Communion based on the Bible, rejecting the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting as instruments of communion, since they had failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion. It re-ordered it by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, so that GAFCON is now the Global Anglican Communion. This is a new development and its implications are still unfolding. 

Original Distinctives:

• Reformed in doctrine. 
• Episcopal in government. 
• Uniform in worship according to the BCP (moderately Reformed in content). 
• National churches independent of Rome.

Current Distinctives:

• “Three streams” of protestant/evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, and holiness/charismatic.
• Emphasis on the creeds, tradition, and catholicity, but also hard to pin down and somewhat conflicted about its identity.
• Liberalism in the The Episcopal Church and much of the Church of England, but more conservative in the ACNA and the global south (e.g. Nigeria).
• Episcopal in government, with women’s ordination practiced in some jurisdictions but not others.
• Traditional worship in the BCP tradition (along a spectrum from low to high to Anglo-Catholic).

Church Government by Bishops

Some of them hold government by bishops to be essential and by divine right, while others hold it to simply be a good way to do church government. In their system, there are three orders of ministry: deacons, priests, and bishops. 

Deacons are ordained to preach and to assist in worship as well as to help look out for the sick and poor. Ordination as a deacon is required for ordination to the priesthood.  

Priests (presbyters) are ministers of the word and sacraments. Most priests are pastors of churches and might have a specific title such as rector, vicar, or curate. A rector is a pastor in charge of a parish. Historically, if the parish had more than one congregation, he might have vicars to pastor the other congregations. He might also have curates to assist him in his congregation. Another way the distinction is made is that the rector is the pastor of a self-supporting church, while a vicar is the pastor of a supported mission. 

Bishops have the authority to ordain ministers and to oversee the churches and ministers in their regional diocese. An archbishop is a bishop who oversees multiple dioceses and their bishops. Some denominations like the ACNA also have councils, composed of both clergy and laity.

Additionally, there are lay officers called vestrymen, some of whom are churchwardens. The vestrymen function somewhat like ruling elders and deacons in the Presbyterian system.

What We Have in Common

Francis Makemie, known as the father of American Presbyterianism, wrote to Anglicans in Barbados in 1697, “And first, I shall inform you, what they [Presbyterians] believe and do, in Unity with the Church of England, whereby every serious and intelligent Reader, may readily perceive two things 1. That we are Protestant Brethren, and in Unity with them in the main, great and Substantial points of the Christian and Protestant Religion; and therefore deserve not to be treated, as many ignorantly do, and particularly in this island. 2. That of all Protestants that differ from them, we differ in the least and smallest matters.”

At least with confessional Anglicans, we have in common the reception of Scripture as the word of God and the complete rule of faith and life; the creeds, Ten Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer; the historic Protestant doctrines and a basically Reformed perspective, such as on the sacraments (including infant baptism); and the sabbath. 

Where We Differ

Francis Makemie wrote to Anglicans in Barbados in 1697 that Presbyterians differed from the Church of England in “1. In Common Prayer and Ceremonies. 2. In your Canons. 3. In Your Government or Prelacy. 4. In your Discipline and Censures.”

With confessional and evangelical Anglicans, our differences are mostly details in liturgy and the form of church government. While we are not oppose to all use of written forms, we object to being tied to written forms and we want ministers to be able to use their gifts in prayer and preaching and to have some ability to adapt to the circumstances. Unlike Anglicans, we do not read Apocryphal books in worship (although we both agree that they are not canonical Scripture). We object to their additional ceremonies in baptism like the sign of the cross and to kneeling at the Lord’s Supper. We have parents present their children for baptism rather than godparents. Episcopal church government by bishops is not warranted by Scripture and destroys ministerial parity and can give rise to other evils, such as mixing of church and state.

But with other Episcopalians and Anglicans, we have more differences. Some are Arminian, some are charismatic, some practice paedocommunion, some are Anglo-Catholic, some are liberal, and some practice women’s ordination. 

Thomas Gataker on Seeking a Good Wife

Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) was a Puritan minister in the Church of England and a member of the Westminster Assembly. In 1623, he published two wedding sermons, one of which was entitled, "A Wife In Deed" and based on Proverbs 18:22, "He that findeth a Wife, findeth Good; and obtaineth Favour of God." You can read the sermon at this link. In contains many quotable portions. For example, he wrote,

There is much want of comfort then in Solitude; much Comfort in Society. But there is no Society more near, more entire, more needful, more kindly, more delightful, more comfortable, more constant, more continual, than the Society of Man and Wife; the main Root, Source and Original of all other Societies: Which of all others therefore Man is naturally most inclined unto…

He said that a good wife is 

The best Companion in Wealth;
The fittest and readiest Assistant in Work;
The greatest Comfort in Crosses and griefs;
The only warrantable and comfortable Means of Issue and posterity;
A singular and sovereign Remedy ordained by God against Incontinency;
And the greatest Grace and Honour, that can be, to him that hath her.

The portion I particularly want to share in this post is what he said about seeking a good wife. (In all of these quotes I modernize the spelling, but keep original capitalization and italics. I am also not including the marginal references, which you can find in the original.) He wrote, 

But how may a man come by such a Wife, as is here spoken of? may some say: such a one as shall be a means of so much good to him that hath her?

She must be sought; saith Solomon. For finding implieth seeking. And He that seeketh, findeth; saith our Saviour. We must not think, because Solomon elsewhere saith, that Houses and inheritance are of the Fathers, but a good Wife is of God; that therefore no industry is to be used on our part, but that men should lie still, or sit them down, expecting that God should drop Wives down out of the clouds for them, as Towns were said to come into Timotheus his toils, while he slept. No; unless we seek, we are not like to find. And if by seeking we may find, if after much search made, we may light on such an one, we are well.

Such a Wife then must be sought.

And so sent Abraham his Servant to seek a Wife for his Son Isaac. So Naomi telleth Ruth her Daughter in Law, that she will seek out some fit match for her.

There is good Reason to seek such an one in two Respects:

First in regard of the Rarity, the Difficulty. Because such are not easily found. Where may we find such a Man? saith Pharaoh of Joseph, implying that such an other as he could very hardly be found. And, Where may a Man find such a Woman? saith Solomon. As he saith elsewhere of a faithful Friend; Many men will boast, each one of his honesty; but where shall a man find a Friend truly Faithful; one that indeed deserveth that name? So many Women may promise great matters of themselves, or others undertake for them: But it is no easy matter, for all that, to find out a good Wife, one that answereth the Name she beareth. Many Priests, and yet Few Priests too; saith one of the Ancients: many in Name, but few in effect. So many Women, and few Wives, may one well say; few such, among many, as Solomon here entreateth of. Good Wives are rare Creatures, as well as trusty Friends are. And though I dare not say of them, as Elihu of an able Pastor, Solomon of a Wise Man, and some other of a true Friend; One such of a thousand. Yet may I well and safely say, that as well here as else-where, The greater Part exceedeth the better: there is more drossy matter than pure metal; more pebbles than pearls. As the Cynic sometime sought for a Man in a multitude of Men: so may such a Wife as Solomon here speaketh of, be sought, yea and scarce found sometime, among a multitude of Women.

Secondly, In regard of the worth and dignity. It is well worth a man's labour. He need not think much of his search, if he have good success in it. As the difficulty of finding requireth it; so the dignity of the thing sought requiteth it. It is no wisdom indeed to seek after toys and trifles, matters of no moment, that will not recompense a man's pains, when without much difficulty they cannot be had. But a worthy Woman is a matter of worth. She is well worthy the seeking. She is a greater blessing than either House or Inheritance: and her price is above Pearls. And if there be so much seeking generally on all hands after the one, much more may there justly be as much after the other.

But how must she be sought then?

I answer: First by due and diligent consideration of, and careful search and inquiry into the nature, quality, and disposition, and into the life, courses and conversation, of the party motioned or affected for Marriage: whether she be so qualified as a Wife ought to be, and as is fit for one to be that should be thy Wife. For fitness in special, as well as goodness in general, is one main ground of the good and benefit that a Wife is to bring to him, whom she is matched unto.

Secondly, by using the help and taking the advice of Friends. A course especially to be embraced and entertained of those that are themselves unexperienced, or that are yet under the power of others. So did Jacob herein follow his Father Isaac's advice; contrary to the practice of his Brother Esau. And Ruth was content to be ruled by her Mother in Law Naomi, though having not the power over her of a natural Parent.

Thirdly, by seeking unto those that are the Parents or Governors of such as they affect or desire, being yet under the power of such. So did Abraham's Servant deal with the Friends of Rebekah. And Shechem (though he had been before indeed too forward) with the Brethren of Dinah, and with her Father Jacob, by his Father Hamor; the very light of Nature leading and directing them thereunto.

Fourthly and principally by Prayer to God. As did Abraham's Servant, when he was sent to seek a Wife for his young Master: And as Isaac did when he dismissed his Son Jacob with Instructions and charge what course to take concerning a Wife.

For (and so pass we to the next Point) God is the principal Donor here. He that will find a Wife, saith Solomon, must obtain her of God. And, House and inheritance are of the Fathers; but a prudent Wife is of God. From God therefore it is that a Good Wife must be had.