Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875)

IN tonight’s second reading (1 Cor 3), Paul remonstrates with the Christians of the Greek city of Corinth, for forming factions.

FOR ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

Such words are only too timely for the Church of England today. For all those who want to see the Church of England restored to her proper place in English society, the most urgent need is for us to agree to be Anglicans.

Too often, Anglicans will state “I am of Calvin”, or “I am of Rome”. The present crisis is sometimes seen, indeed, as something of an opportunity to introduce teachings or practices not previously established in the English Church. Yet as Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875) wrote, this would be totally out of step with the Reformers.

NO view can be more erroneous than that which would regard the English Reformers as men, who, having devised a peculiar system of theology, were determined to supplant the established system that they might put their own in its place. Their object was simple, intelligible, and practical; it was to correct abuses in the existing Catholic Church, which had come down to them from their ancestors, and of which they were themselves the bishops and spiritual pastors.

What is desperately needed is the self-discipline to water the seed of the 1662 Prayer Book (with the Thirty-Nine Articles and Ordinal), a seed planted by the Bishops of the Restoration, so that God alone might give us the increase.

MUCH confusion has been caused in the minds of men by their supposing that the religionists of England are to be divided, so far as principles are concerned, into two classes only, whereas, in point of fact, we are divided into three; the Churchman, who may, from his avoiding the errors of the two opposite extremes, be called both a Protestant and a Catholic; the Romish Dissenter or Papist; the Protestant Dissenter or Ultra-Protestant. And union among these can never be expected, by wise and practical men, until, as distinct classes, two of them become extinct by merging into the third; that is, until their distinct and distinguishing principles cease to exist.

The Church And Its Ordinances. Vol I. Sermon IV, “A Call To Union On The Principles Of The English Reformation”.

More extracts from Walter Farquhar Hook here.

OUR Psalms include the beautiful Psalm 50 Deus Deorum (see video, left), which celebrates the majesty of God visible in his creation, and which reminds Israel that there is nothing she can give God which he does not already possess.

God does not need sacrifice. He already owns the whole earth “and all that therein is” (Ps 24:1). Sacrifice is appointed to us for our sake, not his. It is a sign of the Covenant which God initiated and made with us, and which demands our commitment and constant repentance.

As Richard Baxter (1615-1691) put it, as a commemorative sacrifice the Holy Communion is a sign of the marriage covenant between God and his people sealed on the cross of Christ, by which in the words of our Psalm, we call upon God in our time of trouble, and he hears us.

THE marriage covenant betwixt God incarnate and his espoused ones, is there publicly sealed, celebrated, and solemnized. There we are entertained by God as friends, and not as servants only, and that at the most precious costly feast.

If ever a believer may on earth expect his kindest entertainment, and near access, and a humble intimacy with his Lord, it is in the participation of this sacrifice feast, which is called The Communion, because it is appointed as well for our special communion with Christ as with one another.

It is here that we have the fullest intimation, expression, and communication of the wondrous love of God; and therefore it is here that we have the loudest call, and best assistance, to make a large return of love: and where there is the most of this love between God and man, there is most communion, and most of heaven, that can be had on earth.

The Divine Life. Part II “Of Walking With God”, Chapter I.

The Revd Dr John Wesley (1703-1791)

CONSERVATIVE Party leader David Cameron has consistently distanced himself from Mrs Thatcher’s famous “there is no such thing as society” outburst.

IF children have a problem, [people say] it is “society” that is at fault. There is no such thing as “society”. There is [a] living tapestry of men and women and people, and the beauty of that tapestry, and the quality of our lives, will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves, and each of us prepared to turn round and help, by our own efforts, those who are unfortunate.

Today, John Redwood MP intriguingly sets out to show that Margaret Thatcher’s legacy has been misrepresented, and to stress the good things of her time as Prime Minister (here).

To these, I would add that the Union leaders which she faced down in the early 1980s have since been shown to have been working hand-in-glove with no less than the Kremlin, and attempting to spark an outright communist revolution (Spectator, summarised in the Daily Mail).

John Wesley (1703-1791) echoed Mrs Thatcher’s sentiments when he wrote that the transformation of our world does not come “top down” from political authorities, but spreads upwards from ordinary private individuals.

BUT in general, it seems, the kingdom of God will not “come with observation;” but will silently increase, wherever it is set up, and spread from heart to heart, from house to house, from town to town, from one kingdom to another. …

And in every nation under heaven, we may reasonably believe, God will observe the same order which he hath done from the beginning of Christianity. “They shall all know me, saith the Lord;” not from the greatest to the least (this is that wisdom of the world which is foolishness with God;) but “from the least to the greatest” (Jer 31:34, Heb 8:11); that the praise may not be of men, but of God.

IN tonight’s second reading (1 Cor 1:26-2:16), St Paul is unequivocal that without grace, we will find the gospel of Jesus unconvincing.

THE natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) notes that the word “natural” here is ψυχικός, meaning “animal”. As our Psalm tonight says, we tend to forget this, thinking that we are somehow superior to mere animals because we have honour and material wealth.

Psalm 49:11-12

But to have God’s Spirit within us is essential for being a complete Christian person. Body and even soul are not enough to realise what God wants for us. This is what makes adoption in the Spirit a new birth, a regeneration, this is what makes Baptism so vital. Taylor wrote:

FOR “animality,” which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation, is a state privatively opposed to the “Spirit;” and a man in that state cannot be saved, because he wants a vital part, he wants the Spirit, which is a part of the constitution of a Christian in that capacity, who consists of body, and soul, and Spirit; and therefore “anima without Spiritus,” “the soul without the Spirit,” is not sufficient.

For as the soul is a sufficient principle of all the actions of life, in order to our natural end and perfection, but it can bear us no further; so there must be another principle in order to a supernatural end, and that is the spirit; called by St. Paul, νέα κτίσις, “the new creation;” by St. Peter, “divine nature;” and by this we become renewed in the inner man: the infusion of this new nature into us is called regeneration; and it is the great principle of godliness, called, grace or the Spirit, σπέρμα του Θεού, “the seed of God,” and by it we are begotten by God, and brought forth by the church to the hopes and beginnings of a new life, and a supernatural end.

Works, Vol IX. Of Original Sin, Section II.53.

John Ruskin (1819-1900)

POPE Benedict XVI has followed up his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est with a re-statement of its central tenet, that the Christian obligations of charity cannot be discharged by the State (LifeSiteNews).

At the same time, he urged bishops in Uganda to help priests and laity “to resist the seduction of a materialistic culture of individualism which has taken root in so many countries.”

Some may find it strange to put these together. Isn’t socialism designed to combat the individualism of capitalist societies, by employing the State to discharge our duties of charity collectively?

But the Pope understands that collectivism is curiously selfish. First, by telling them that the State has everything under control, people are invited to suppose they may think now only of themselves. Second, charity is reduced to material goods, when what is often needed is spontaneous neighbourly friendship.

I think Pope Benedict would have got on well with art critic and Tory social reformer John Ruskin (1819-1900). First, Ruskin placed the responsibility for the betterment of England firmly on families, not government.

ALL effectual advancement towards this true felicity of the human race must be by individual, not public effort. Certain general measures may aid, certain revised laws guide, such advancement; but the measure and law which have first to be determined are those of each man’s home.

Second, he too saw the dangers of materialism, and pleaded with these families to pursue contentedness, not ever more material gain and self-indulgence.

WHAT is chiefly needed in England at the present day is to show the quantity of pleasure that may be obtained by a consistent, well-administered competence, modest, confessed, and laborious. We need examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for them selves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek— not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions, self-possession; and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace.

The Revd Dr John Wesley (1703-1791)

THIS morning’s reading (Mk 9:2-29), about the epileptic boy, and his father who cried “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief!”, is very nicely explained by Archbishop John Bird Sumner (1780-1862).

Since I quoted from him only yesterday, though, I thought I would simply upload a couple of extracts (on applying our belief in Jesus to ourselves, and on fasting and self-denial), along with a nice prayer by Bishop Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) for the grace and strengths of faith.

Meanwhile, one of the chief purposes of this blog is to set the record straight about classical Anglicanism, and the charge – or claim, depending where you stand – that it was no longer the old-fashioned, disciplined Christian spirituality of previous centuries, which it most certainly was.

An example is fasting, which our reading recommends together with prayer as something of great spiritual potency. John Wesley (1703-1791) was a great advocate of the discipline, composing a sermon to respond to the usual objections.

“BUT is it not better (as it has, secondly, been objected) to abstain from pride and vanity, from foolish and hurtful desires, from peevishness, and anger, and discontent, than from food?” Without question it is.

But here again we have need to remind you of our Lord’s words, “these things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” And, indeed, the latter is only in order to the former; it is a mean to that great end. We abstain from food with this view, that, by the grace of God, conveyed into our souls, through this outward mean, in conjunction with all the other channels of his grace which he hath appointed, we may be enabled to abstain from every passion and temper, which is not pleasing in his sight. We refrain from the one, that, being endued with power from on high, we may be able to refrain from the other.

So that your argument proves just the contrary to what you designed. It proves, that we ought to fast. For, if we ought to abstain from evil tempers and desires, then we ought thus to abstain from food: since these little instances of self-denial, are the ways God hath chosen, wherein to bestow that great salvation.

Sermons Vol I. Sermon XXIX: On the Sermon On The Mount, Discourse VII.

John Bird Sumner (1780-1862)

OUR second reading at Mattins (Mk 8:10-9:2) records how Jesus grew exasperated with the Pharisees, who had asked for and received many wonderful signs of Christ’s divine authority, but had rejected them only to ask for yet more.

John Bird Sumner (1780-1862), from 1848 the Archbishop of Canterbury, was quick to point out that Jesus was not saying that he gives no miraculous signs at all, or that it is wrong to want them.

Our New Testament is full of signs and wonders, indeed signs are still given to every soul of man. Yet Jesus will not allow us to dictate to him what they should be.

OUR Lord constantly referred to such signs in proof of his divinity; saying, “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin.” “The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.” (Jn 15:24; 10:25, 37.) “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

But to these signs the scribes and Pharisees had long been blind… And now they came forth, with no honest intention, but seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. He knew their thoughts. He sighed deeply in his spirit, “being grieved for the hardness of their hearts;” and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given to this generation.

No other sign, no further sign. St. Matthew adds, “There shall no sign be given it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas” (Mt 12:39). The next sign which they see, shall be that of my resurrection. Yet even this will not satisfy them, unless they have “the understanding heart” (cf. Pr 8:5). “If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though one rose from the dead” (Lk 16:31).

Doubtless it will appear, at last, that sufficient evidence of the truths which are needful for his soul is given to every man, if he will honestly seek and use it, instead of neglecting or resisting it. “If any man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God” (Jn 7:17). The Spirit perceives “afar off” (cf. Lk 15:20) the “willing mind” (2 Cor 8:12); enlightens, teaches it, and guides it “into all truth” (Jn 16:13). “He that is of God, heareth God’s words” (Jn 8:47). Too many “hear them not, because they are not of God”.

A Practical Exposition &c., Vol II. Sermon XCI: Four Thousand Miraculously Fed.

The Lindisfarne Gospels

JEREMY Taylor (1613-1667), whose sermons and other writings are densely populated with references to the Church Fathers, nonetheless warned us against misusing the Patristic tradition.

THERE are some that think they can determine all questions in the world by two or three sayings of the fathers, or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent testimony: but this consideration will soon be at an end.

Too many books attributed to the Fathers have corrupted texts, or are even wholly pseudepigraphal; and too often, one Father has been raised above the others because it suited one or another party in the Church.

THE doctrine of S. Austin alone brought in the festival and veneration of the assumption of the blessed Virgin; and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized infants, and the Dominican opinion concerning pre-determination, derived from him alone as from their original.

Taylor’s Discourse Of The Liberty Of Prophesying was prompted by the Interregnum, and the appeal to Scripture and disproportionately to St Augustine in support of the Puritans’ position – a misuse which, he was letting it be known, made them no different to their hated Roman enemies.

Our Christian gospel has to be more than a blind faith in arbitrary authorities or convenient proof texts, he says. It must involve the exercise of our human reason, a balanced and informed analysis, a breadth of reading and research.

But this does not lead Taylor to the attitude of many leading Anglicans today, that Scripture, the Fathers and the General Councils are just some of the sources alongside modern theological trends and current ethical speculation. Our human Reason is a tool for exploring our inheritance, not for adding to it.

AND all these disputes concerning tradition, councils, fathers, &c, are not arguments against or besides reason, but contestations and pretences to the best arguments, and the most certain satisfaction of our reason. But then all these coming into question submit themselves to reason, that is, to be judged by human understanding upon the best grounds and information it can receive.

So that scripture, tradition, councils, and fathers, are the evidence in a question, but reason is the judge: that is, we being the persons that are to be persuaded, we must see that we be persuaded reasonably: and it is unreasonable to assent to a lesser evidence, when a greater and clearer is propounded.

In determining what we believe, we work with “scripture, [primitive] tradition, councils, and fathers”, in that order. These things are, by definition, the best evidence we can possibly possess for the true Apostolic gospel.

Where we have testimony from them, it is downright irrational to bring in anything new against them. In all the talk today about Anglicanism as ever a culture founded on Scripture and Reason, this seems to have been overlooked.

Isaac Barrow (1630-1677)

THE Epistle today (Ephesians 5:1-14) discourages “nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient”.

Isaac Barrow (who was Sir Isaac Newton’s tutor) was keen to emphasise that this does not mean that Christians should be disagreeably sour, or tiresomely earnest.

He drew our attention to Paul’s qualification, “which is not convenient”. Sometimes, light humour is a positive good.

IF it may raise our drooping spirits, to allay our irksome cares, to whet our blunted industry, to recreate our minds being tired and cloyed with graver occupations; if it may breed alacrity, or maintain good humour among us; if it may conduce to sweeten conversation and endear society; then is it not inconvenient or unprofitable.

But sometimes such talk really is bad, if it cheapens the mysteries of love or the reputation of others.

I PASS by, that it is very culpable to be facetious in obscene and smutty matters. Such things are not to be discoursed on either in jest or in earnest; they must not, as St. Paul saith, be so much as named among Christians: to meddle with them is not to disport, but to defile oneself and others. There is indeed no more certain sign of a mind utterly debauched from piety and virtue, than affecting such talk. …

ALL injurious, abusive, scurrilous jesting, which causelessly or needlessly tendeth to the disgrace, damage, vexation, or prejudice in any kind of our neighbour, (provoking his displeasure, grating on his modesty, stirring passion in him,) is also prohibited. When men, to raise an admiration of their wit, to please themselves, or gratify the humour of other men, do expose their neighbour to scorn and contempt, making ignominious reflections upon his person or his actions, taunting his real imperfections, or fastening imaginary ones upon him, they transgress their duty, and abuse their wits; it is not urbanity, or genuine facetiousness, but uncivil rudeness, or vile malignity. …

TO conclude, as we need not be demure, so must we not be impudent; as we should not be sour, so ought we not to be fond; as we may be free, so we should not be vain; as we may well stoop to friendly complaisance, so we should take heed of falling into contemptible levity.

Theological Works, Vol I. Sermon XIV: Against Foolish Talking And Jesting.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691)

THE first reading at Evensong tonight (Num 14:1-25) is an example of how God’s wrath is sometimes turned away by the pleading of his servants.

Angered by Israel’s constant complaining, God threatens to cut them off and make a nation from Moses’s family alone. But Moses himself pleads with God not to take such drastic action. It will look to the Egyptians, he warns, as if God was not powerful enough to bring the people he so publicly took from Egypt into the land he promised them.

Just as Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33), Moses functions here as a type of Jesus Christ, who pleads everlasting for us before our Father (Heb 7:25).

This idea may not be easy to understand, though I have found Bishop Thomas Vowler Short (1790-1872) helpful on this (here). And sometimes, it is better not to try to tease it out, but just to offer the sacrifice of remembrance on the altar of the heart.

DRAW near, and behold him. Dost thou not hear his voice? He that bade Thomas come near, and see the print of the nails, and put his finger into his wounds; He it is that calls to thee, “Come near, and view the Lord thy Saviour, and be not faithless, but believing; Peace be unto thee, fear not, it is I.”

Look Well upon him. Dost thou not know him? It is he that brought thee up from the pit of hell, reversed the sentence of thy damnation, bore the curse which thou shouldst have borne, restored thee to the blessing thou hadst forfeited, and purchased the advancement which thou must inherit for ever. And dost thou not yet know him? His hands were pierced, his head, his side, his heart were pierced, that by these marks thou mightest always know him. Dost thou not remember when he found thee lying in thy blood, and took pity on thee, and dressed thy wounds, and brought thee home, and said unto thee, Live?

Hast thou forgotten since he wounded himself to cure thy wounds, and let out his own blood to stop thy bleeding? If thou knowest him not by the face, the voice, the hands, thou mayest know him by that heart: that soul-pitying heart is his; it can be none but his: love and compassion are its certain signatures: this is he, who chose thy life before his own; who pleads his blood before his Father, and makes continual intercession for thee. If he had not suffered, what hadst thou suffered? There was but a step between thee and hell, when he stepped in, and bore the stroke.

Richard Baxter. The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, Chapter XIV.